Doody-Bound
You printed a letter from a guy who doesn't want to be a father and wanted to know how to be sure his girlfriend is on birth control. You said, "The single worst form of birth control is trusting that a woman ... longing for a baby" is taking hers (with whether she's ethical being a "mitigating factor"). But you forgot to tell him the magic word -- abstinence! In addition to preventing pregnancy, it also guarantees that you won't get STDs or suffer the physically or psychologically damaging effects of premarital sex. Also, where'd you get the idea that women are conniving to get a bun in the oven without informing their partner? Right, we're all baby-hungry, unethical hopeful breeders.
--Saved Myself
I like to offer "Don't have sex!" as a form of practical advice -- usually just as I'm getting into my flying car.
Yes, abstaining from sex will help a person avoid producing offspring, getting STDs, or breaking a leg after somebody cheaps out on the home dungeon installation. But there's a reason they call it a sex drive, not a sex parked in the garage. Also, the advice "Just don't have sex!" is especially impractical for guys in their hornitoadinous early 20s like the guy who wrote that letter. Sure, he'll just sit his 800-pound libido down for a little chat and then politely decline any opportunity to have sex as if he'd just been offered some questionable hors d'oeuvre.
As for where I got the idea about (some) women "conniving to get a bun in the oven without informing their partner," well, in email I've received from dismayed men paying child support to these women and from research by therapist Dr. Melinda Spohn. Spohn found that more than a third of the 400 women she surveyed at two community colleges had risked pregnancy -- surreptitiously going without birth control or sporadically using it when they had sex with men with desirable qualities (like an apparent willingness to commit and good financial prospects).
On a positive note, it isn't only men who are appalled by this behavior. A female reader who wanted a second child but whose husband wasn't up for it wrote, "I can't even remember how many people heard this and said 'well, accidents happen,' followed by a *wink wink.* Seriously, it's disgusting! Even our family doctor said this! I've always been sure to make those people feel about two inches tall by saying that I would NEVER do that to my husband (and honestly, who wants a child this way?!)."
This woman's ethics are the single best guarantee a man has that birth control will be used instead of dropped behind the bed. Meanwhile, many people will tell you they value ethics and then just cross their fingers and hope their partner has them. The thing to do is to make ethics a requirement, meaning looking for a partner to be OMG ethical!!! the way you look for them to be OMG hot!!! In other words, yes, a man who doesn't want a child should practice abstinence -- the practical, doable kind: abstaining from getting into bed with any woman until he's observed that he has reason to trust her. (If he wants something loud, sticky, and expensive in his life, he can buy a Ferrari and drive it over chewed gum.)
If it's any consolation, Amy, I can definitely sympathize; you're not the only person who experiences the "assumed generalization."
What I mean is, the way you talk about women who lie about taking their birth control in order to trap a man into becoming an unwilling father. Then you get outraged responses, such as the one you posted, which are basically saying, "Snort, snarl, how dare you suggest that all women are unethical, desperate breeders who would entrap hapless men into becoming our baby daddies.
Of course, you never said nor implied that all women do this. But that didn't stop this clueless, abstinence-only advocate from inferring you did. You're assumed to have generalized, when you did no such thing.
Lujlp and Radwaste are notorious for this tactic, which is why I refuse to give either one of them the time of day. I could be talking about men who beat their wives, and they'll harrumph indignantly about the men in this world who are gentle, compassionate souls who would never harm a hair upon their wives' heads. Nothing I said could reasonably be construed to suggest that all men beat their wives, but it's a handy tactic for those who could otherwise score no points in debate.
It's a very lazy and dishonest strategy. We all know that generalizing individuals is wrong and if this person could honestly accuse you of generalizing and being -- gasp! -- prejudiced against women (or at least, women who would like to one day reproduce), she's effectively stigmatized you and placed you on the defensive without having to address your actual points.
Your parenthetical "some" effectively points out that you made no generalizations about women. It won't change LW's mind. But it does expose her dishonesty.
Patrick at October 8, 2014 8:54 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2014/10/you-printed-a-l.html#comment-5208015">comment from PatrickThanks, Patrick!
Amy Alkon at October 8, 2014 9:29 AM
Also, the advice "Just don't have sex!" is especially impractical for guys in their hornitoadinous early 20s like the guy who wrote that letter. Sure, he'll just sit his 800-pound libido
There's nothing impractical about it. They'd just rather not be bothered. The median age at first marriage for men varied between 25 and 26.5 during the years running from 1890 to 1940. People put up with rough physical labor, dental pain, and bland food as well, because there were reasons to do so. The mores you're promoting have given us the ruin we have in relations between men and women. There are reasons not to acquire the habits which make for that ruin.
Art Deco at October 8, 2014 3:54 PM
Golly! The anti-sex brigade has joined the wimmin-hating MRA types on the list of "why on earth are you over here reading Amy's column when it goes against all the stuff you believe in what with her being all rational and evidence-based" crowd. Welcome, have a seat, please try not to annoy the natives toooooo much . . .
Anathema at October 8, 2014 4:03 PM
Lujlp and Radwaste are notorious for this tactic, which is why I refuse to give either one of them the time of day.
One, its lujlp. Lower case even when used at the start of a sentence.
Two, for not giving either one of us the time of day you sure do mention us a lot.
Three, your allegations are baseless as neither one of us generalized shit about you. We accused you point blank of statism in support of the TSA fondling children and adults in the name of "safety", but only after you repeated (I'd guess at least 100 separate instances) refusals to our queries as to whether or not you thought such actions wrong in spite of their legality.
Have some fucking integrity man, if you are going to whine like a bitch, whine about shit that actually happened.
lujlp at October 8, 2014 9:36 PM
I know three men who have had children with women who lied about birth control. I WILL say that in each of those cases, there were absolutely clues that the guy should have picked up on before the women got pregant.
ahw at October 9, 2014 8:06 AM
I know three men who have had children with women who lied about birth control. I WILL say that in each of those cases, there were absolutely clues that the guy should have picked up on before the women got pregant.
Almost happened to me once. Made damn sure it never would again.
lujlp at October 9, 2014 8:41 AM
Sorry, luj...but your preference to be addressed in the lower-case (which I consider fitting) does not override the rules of grammar. Whether a proper noun or not, the first word in a sentence is capitalized.
You don't like it? Boo-freaking-hoo. The rules of capitalization existed before you were born and will be here after you die and are forgotten.
Ordinarily I would give you the attention you deserve, which is to say, none. But unfortunately, you've resorted to lying, you pathetic, effeminate little pansy.
You did accuse me of generalizing, because I "failed" (which I put in quotes because not using a qualifier is not a "failure") to use the qualifier "some" and concluded (in violation of the rules of grammar) that not using "some" implies "all."
It does no such thing. You run from this accusation like the cowardly little wuss you are, because now Amy has done the same thing. And rather than do the principled thing, like sticking to your guns (however erroneous they are), you're going to equivocate and deny you ever said such a thing.
You're a liar. As if you didn't have enough shortcomings, you've decided to add to them.
With that said, I can resume ignoring you as I've always done. I have no use for you or anyone like you. It would suit me just fine if you and everyone like you fell off the face of the earth. I'd shed no tears, I promise.
I regard Crid with contempt, but I can't even muster up that much feeling for you. You define "beneath contempt."
You can milk my telephone pole, you pathetic, lying bitch.
Patrick at October 9, 2014 12:39 PM
Sfortz!
Make me spray my soda, why don't you?
lujlp: Almost happened to me once. Made damn sure it never would again.
I believe a woman wanted to have your child like I believe Michael Jackson didn't molest little boys.
Patrick at October 9, 2014 12:41 PM
Amy? Can you make them play nice?
Lori at October 9, 2014 1:46 PM
I'm confused, first off I thought you were ignoring me. I mean after all you say it at least three times a week for no apparent reason, other than to remind everyone, constantly, that you never think about me.
Second, as you already were accusing me of lying about you, how does my (according to you) lying about you in a slightly different manner add to my shortcomings? Wouldnt it be the exact same shortcoming? If you were to favor the use of a screwdriver to kill people, and you used a screwdriver to kill one more person no one would say you added to bag of tricks for using the exact same trick. I realize it SOUNDS good, but its hardly accurate.
But then that is your specialty isnt it? Implying something without ever quite verifying thats what you really meant to say.
Third, again I'll ask how did I generalize anything about you when I was quite clear in my accusation, again only made after scores of refusals on your part to answer one simple question.
Fourth, given I call you out like the liar you are EVERY SINGLE TIME you mention the fact that you never think about me and why, how exactly am I the one running away from this argument?
You are the one who brings it up ad nauseam and hardly ever bothers to reply when I point out the self aggrandizing, narcissistic, paranoid, delusional nature of my 'persecution' of you.
And you and crid are fairly similar, you both hate it when anyone dares point out the flaws in your reasoning.
Difference is crid isnt a whiney bitch who goes off the deep end and promises to ignore (and them ignores them by mentioning them by name several times a month) those who call him on his shit. He throws out insults and moves on.
Why the fuck cant you.
Lots of people dont give a shit about the TSA harassing and fondling people, tens of millions if not hundreds. Hell your practically in the majority.
Why the fuck do you have such a bug up your ass that I think it makes you an asshole?
Why the fuck do you care this god damn much that it vociferously disagreed with you on one subject?
Seriously dude, grow the fuck up already.
Also, I'm not into dudes, so no hanks on the offer to jerk you off, given your semi masochist love hate feeling for me though I'll send you a dick pic of me if you'd like. I'm more than twice the national average.
I only offer because most of the size queens I've known are kind hysterical and high strung like you, I dont know if the same is true for gay men though.
lujlp at October 9, 2014 3:04 PM
Amy? Can you make them play nice?
Mom, Dad, please stop fighting.
But back to the question: No one should wholly trust ANYONE with their fertility. When my first marriage was melting down, my husband admitted he'd considered poking holes in the condoms. That's when I went on the pill. I got lucky.
People, even normally decent people, can be crazy when it comes to reproduction.
MonicaP at October 9, 2014 4:46 PM
Sorry, LW, but I've got five -- count them, FIVE -- sisters-in-law and one sister who all pulled the "Oops, I'm pregnant and now we have to get married" trick. Heck, they tried the trick even when they weren't pregnant because there was enough doubt in the situation to warrant them thinking that she might be pregnant.
Does this mean that *all* women play that game? No, but not all women are honest about their feelings or motivations, either. I'm teaching my son that the ONLY way he can make sure he doesn't get that trick pulled on him is if he's either a) abstinent or b) in complete control of those condoms at all times because one of those SiLs actually poked holes in my BiL's condom!
EvilEmpryss at October 9, 2014 6:17 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2014/10/you-printed-a-l.html#comment-5216102">comment from MonicaPProbably impossible, Monica!
Amy Alkon at October 9, 2014 7:51 PM
I tried to slog though your post, but quickly got bored so I skimmed it, luj.
I think it's disgusting that you actually have such pictures. And seriously, you're bragging about your size? Grow the fuck up already! You're even more uncouth than I gave you credit for. And obviously (although nothing is ever obvious to you), I don't want them.
Whatever else you had to say, I either didn't read it or didn't think it was worth responding to. Now kindly leave me in peace. And I'll go back to ignoring you.
Patrick at October 10, 2014 7:20 AM
And I'll go back to ignoring you.
By mentioning me thrice a week I presume?
lujlp at October 10, 2014 8:22 AM
Amy: Probably impossible, Monica!
Not really. You could ban one or both of us.
Patrick at October 10, 2014 1:45 PM
Oh, why can't there be peace in the valley?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 10, 2014 2:40 PM
How would banning one or both of us cause us to get along?
Especially as you are the only one with the problem? I know of no one else who has threatened to ignore nearly a half dozen people who dared to disagree with you, often over a single solitary subject.
lujlp at October 10, 2014 2:56 PM
Why did Amy's advice not include using a condom?
That way he does not need to abstain and is taking control of the situation.
Ellen at October 10, 2014 5:18 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2014/10/you-printed-a-l.html#comment-5223064">comment from EllenAmy knows condoms have a high failure rate and can be fucked with by an unscrupulous woman. Again, the best protection against becoming a dad by "accident" is an ethical partner.
Amy Alkon at October 10, 2014 7:34 PM
Why us no one mentioned banking sperm, followed by a vasectomy? Bnking sperm is comparable in price to hormonal birth control, and vasectomy is proof against machination. He can still become a father if/when he so chooses. I think it should become standard practice. No more oopsie babies,
ever.
Dana at October 10, 2014 11:07 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2014/10/you-printed-a-l.html#comment-5225393">comment from DanaVasectomies, like all drugs or medical interventions, can have really unfortunate side-effects. We tend not to think of those (and men considering them who are presented with them as a risk factor tend to shrug them off because humans tend to optimistically biased: we think the possible bad side-effect won't happen to us).
Also, the guy may decide to have children at some point, and many doctors tend to refuse to perform vasectomies or hysterectomies on young men or women. Again, I go to the point I made in the column, that an ethical woman is a man's best protection against unwanted pregnancy -- as well as against a good deal of other awful behaviors.
Amy Alkon at October 11, 2014 5:20 AM
"In addition to preventing pregnancy, it also guarantees that you won't get STDs or suffer the physically or psychologically damaging effects of premarital sex."
Yes, and if we don't eat, we'll never get food poisoning or have to poop. And think of all the money we'd save!
I think what one gets out of life is as important if not more important than how much pain we went through.
LG at October 11, 2014 10:48 AM
the advice "Just don't have sex!" is especially impractical for guys in their hornitoadinous early 20s
The problem isn't so much that they're horny; there are ways to deal with that which don't risk pregnancy or STDs. The problem is that their egos are tied to their sex drive, so that not getting laid is felt, on a deep-down primal level, as a mark of failure.
I don't know how many men ever manage to break the ego-sex link, but I can tell you that life is much easier if you do. I did, but I couldn't really tell you how.
Rex Little at October 11, 2014 4:15 PM
Short of a genetic short cut like an autism disorder, or a psychological condition resulting in blunted affect, the next quickest way is losing your grip on sanity for a short while
lujlp at October 11, 2014 5:18 PM
Thanks to Amy for NOT censoring the posts. These comments are the best entertainment I've had all week. We're all adults here. Open discussion with REAL people making REAL comments. Not a bunch of politically correct B.S.
P.S. Never date a massage therapist who gives men 'private' sessions at home. ;)
I-dated-a-whore at October 11, 2014 8:13 PM
By the way, I thought for sure this topic was going to involve anal sex when I first saw the title. LOL
I-dated-a-whore at October 11, 2014 8:30 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2014/10/you-printed-a-l.html#comment-5229583">comment from I-dated-a-whoreHah, I-dated-a-whore. And you're welcome. Free speech is the most interesting, the most society-advancing, and the most fun.
P.S. Wisdom from my past: A "free" massage from someone who claims to be "training" may turn out to be an icky session with a foot fetishist.
Amy Alkon at October 11, 2014 10:59 PM
My advice is Know Who You Fuck. It can seriously lower such problems. And I mean know their ethics, not just their name.
LauraGr at October 12, 2014 1:54 PM
I know of at least two buds who are married to women they wouldn't have chosen because of "ooops."
Sneer quotes intended.
I have another bud who, in the twilight of his second marriage got told he was going to be a dad and said, "Well then, if the paternity test is positive, we'll sue my urologist. Because I had a vasectomy during my first marriage."
Apparently, the subject had never come up. He said she went white as a sheet when he told her. He moved out that afternoon. She claimed it was his until after the divorce decree, in spite of the failed paternity test.
Lamont Cranston at October 13, 2014 7:55 AM
@LC:
It can depend on the state's law. In all states the law presumes that a child born during the marriage (or within 9 months of divorce) was fathered by the husband. This common law doctrine pre-dates DNA testing by a long time. In some states, to prevent the child from having no legally obligated source of support, and so end up on welfare, the presumption is not rebuttable. However, the DNA test results are proof of adultery (which can be grounds to deny alimony in some states). So, the second wife's denial that the husband was not the father was to avoid a judicial admission that could waive alimony and child support. Litigation isn't about finding the truth. It's about getting the best result an attorney can for his/her client.
Wfjag at October 14, 2014 9:33 AM
"Lujlp and Radwaste are notorious for this tactic, which is why I refuse to give either one of them the time of day."
1) It would be wrong if you did. 2) I wish the search engine would let me show which post it was, in which you simply refused to state whether your posting a citation meant you agreed with it, by inference. That's all it was. The outrage was all yours, Patrick. Somehow, it's my fault for not only refusing to divine what you mean in contradiction to that posted link, AND it's offensive for me to ask.
If somebody can find that conversation, I'd be glad to post a link to it on Amy's blog when links are requested.
On topic: I have never suggested Patrick is the product of feminine deceit, and I never will, although it is possible to argue that the practice is followed by training one's offspring to believe things which are not true.
Radwaste at October 15, 2014 4:54 AM
>>Again, the best protection against becoming a dad by "accident" is an ethical partner.
A woman in heat and ethics are incompatible as per Mother Nature's design.
Mere Mortal at October 17, 2014 9:10 AM
straight out. if you have sex, any 'oopsies' are on you - man or woman. end of story.
loooly at March 23, 2015 9:54 AM
Leave a comment