"Turning Casual Sex Into Cash Flow Sex"
That's what I called it, in the column I'll be discussing tonight (at 5pm, PST) on Glenn Sacks radio show about choice for men: whether men should have some reproductive rights. At the moment, a guy who gets drunk and has sex with some stranger in a bar is likely to go right to the "Do not pass Go, do pay through the nose in court-ordered child support." Here's an excerpt from this column -- my response to a guy who had sex with a woman who told him she lied about being on The Pill because she wanted a baby:
In no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked. While you don't mention being forced at gunpoint to have sex without a condom, potentially getting socked with two decades of hefty fines for being a careless idiot seems a bit like being sentenced to 100 years hard labor for stealing a muffin. The law is not on men's side. Matt Welch reported in Reason magazine (2/04) that welfare reform legislation forces some men to pay child support for kids who aren't theirs -- sometimes, kids of women they've never even met -- unless they protest, in writing, within 30 days, that they're victims of a daddy-scam.While the law allows women to turn casual sex into cash flow sex, Penelope Leach, in her book Children First, poses an essential question: "Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?" A child shouldn't have to survive on peanut butter sandwiches sans peanut butter because he was conceived by two selfish, irresponsible jerks. Still, there's a lot more to being a father than forking over sperm and child support, yet the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood.
This isn't 1522. If a woman really doesn't want a kid, she can take advantage of modern advances in birth control like Depo-Provera or the IUD, combine them with backup methods (as recommended by her doctor), add an ovulation detection kit, plus insist that doofuses like you latex up. Since it's the woman who gets a belly full of baby, maybe a woman who has casual sex and is unprepared, emotionally, financially, and logistically, to raise a child on her own, should be prepared to avail herself of the unpleasant alternatives. It's one thing if two partners in a relationship agree to make moppets, but should a guy really get hit up for daddy fees when he's, say, one of two drunk strangers who has sex after meeting in a bar? Yes, he is biologically responsible. But, is it really "in the child's best interest" to be the product of a broken home before there's even a home to break up?
I'll be debating a guy Glenn called "a male feminist" named Hugo Schwyzer. On his blog, he calls himself
a progressive, consistent-life ethic Anabaptist/Episcopalian Democrat (but with a sense of humor), a community college history and gender studies professor, an avid marathoner, aspiring ultra-runner, die-hard political junkie, and proud father of a small chinchilla.
I'm all for the running and the chinchilla. Here's what he says about the Choice For Men movement on his blog.
The "Choice for Men" movement seeks to give unmarried fathers the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption.Feminist Gender Studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer, Ph.D calls Choice for Men "profoundly offensive," noting that it "seeks to give men the right to evade responsibility for the children they help to conceive."
I've been very clear on this issue, especially in this post during last summer's Amy Richards controversy. I said then, and still believe now, the following:
Every man who ejaculates inside a woman, whether or not contraception is used, is signalling his willingness to become a father. If men are not ready and willing to raise a child conceived through an act of sex, they are morally responsible for refraining from sex...
I'm not familiar with Alkon. I've been reading through the material on her site today, and she seems like a fairly standard "libertarian feminist". I can't say we'll disagree on everything, but on this issue, we will. This will mean that in some very real sense, I may be taking her on from the right, at least in my insistence that the only real choice that a man deserves in this situation is whether or not to have sex in the first place. After that decision has been made, I am adamant that he, jointly with the woman with whom he briefly partnered -- is morally (and financially) responsible for any and all outcomes from that initial decision. Even if those outcomes last a lifetime.
Here's what Glenn Sacks writes about the Choice For Men movement:
The "Choice for Men" movement seeks to give fathers the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption. These men would be obligated to provide legitimate financial compensation to cover pregnancy-related medical expenses and the mother's loss of income during pregnancy. The right would only apply to pregnancies which occurred outside of marriage, and women would still be free to exercise all of the reproductive choices they now have.Advocates of Choice for Men note that over 1.5 million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by either adoption, abortion, or abandonment, and demand that men, like women, be given reproductive options. They point out that, unlike women, men have no reliable contraception available to them, since the failure rate of condoms is substantial, and vasectomies are impractical for young men who plan on becoming fathers later in life.
Since there are long backlogs of stable, two-parent families looking for babies to adopt, there is no reason why any child born out of wedlock to unwilling parents would be without a good home. In addition, if women knew that they could not compel men to pay to support children they do not want, the number of unwed births (and the social problems associated with them) would be reduced.
What do you think? Let me know below, or call in to Glenn's radio show tonight. His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR 620 AM in New York City, KTIE 590 AM in E. Los Angeles/Inland Empire, and WWZN 1510 AM in Boston, 5 PM PST/8 PM EST. For those who are outside of these radio stations' coverage ranges, you can listen to the show live via Glenn's station's Internet stream at Listen Live.
First of all, know this: You can pick up a chinchilla by the tail, and they're cool with it. They're built that way. In Mrs. Burt's 3rd grade home room in Indiana, Ziggy the chinchilla was our class pet. Little grey fucker.
Secondly, review the discussion posted last week.
The "cash flow" generated by making babies with guys in bars is never going to be enough to raise a kid in style. And of course, the emotional lives of our most defenseless members are being savaged as well. The notion of fatherhood demonstrated in these cases (by the women, the men, and the courts) is as horrific a perversion of human relations as was abject slavery. Each of the three parties has to be contributing their worst in order for things to get this bad. None acting alone could have made things as ugly as they are for so very many children.
Crid at March 20, 2005 9:37 AM
Amy, "gene burglar" is a neat phrase, but "grifter" might be better, because it speaks to the fundamental truth about running a con: The mark has to want to be taken, and has to be convinced that he's getting something cheap.
Crid at March 20, 2005 10:10 AM
I hate this subject because it is the result of people's insane irresponsibilities and the most innocent victims of that irresponsibility suffer the most.
Women are the ones who get pregnant. That's a huge responsibility, not an inconvenience. I think the mentality surrounding casual sex needs to be re-tooled.. uh, as it were...and women in particular need to be the most concerned with the outcome (sorry) of casual sex.
One the other side of the coin, I remember something my late 2nd husband said was the best advice from his own father: never dip your wick in a lamp you don't want to buy.
Reproductive rights for men equals the right to give up responibility within 30 days of finding out? That's it? I've always hated the idea of the sperm donor getting socked with child support payments for a kid he never had any interest in, but usually no one has a gun to the fellow's head to make him get it on. The word "responsibility" comes to mind again (sorry).
What happens to the children? Loser, low-life, idiot women wantonly getting pregnant. Force her to give the kid up? Our foster care "system" has too many revolting problems.
The reason I hate this topic is that there seems to be no decent way to fix any part of it. People will continue to behave badly and unfortunate kids will be born and suffer as a result.
Deirdre at March 20, 2005 11:20 AM
Abortion! Have it scraped out as soon as possible. It's cells, not a person. Sure, there's potential to be a person - an entirely different thing. If we had smarter, more realistic sex education policies, we'd be obsessed with birth control, not abstinence, and then it wouldn't get to the D&C point as often as it does.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2005 12:13 PM
Amen, sister. Birth control should be in the forefront of the mind of any "active" person...not on a back burner. Abortion is the pits, but it certainly is an option.
Another thing that burns my ass is the unending selfishness of the women who know they had no desire for a child, and have no business raising a child, but feel entitlied to since they withstood the pregnancy.
FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING COWS.
Deirdre B. at March 20, 2005 1:58 PM
Maybe, in the discussion, a huge difference in single-parent homes will surface: the children of single fathers (with custody) are orders of magnitude less likely to engage in crimes of all kinds than the children of single mothers.
If everybody can be honest about this, perhaps the discussion will turn to single mothers who have more kids while on welfare.
I hope so.
Radwaste at March 20, 2005 2:28 PM
> Abortion!
Two points.
A), the market for abortions is not really that tight nowadays. There are a lot safe and competent abortionists who could use the business. Women are having these babies because they WANT them... Not only for the financial support, but because most women feel the urge. And in today's rockin' social scene, it's rude to point out to them that they're being irresponsibly egotistical by becoming single mothers.
B), a woman who clips a toenail is removing "cells." Abortion has infinitely greater moral consqeuence. By characterizing this as a minor grooming chore, lefties have done more damage to feminism than Schlafly ever did.
Crid at March 20, 2005 2:44 PM
"There are a lot safe and competent abortionists who could use the business."
Cridster -- That statement covers A LOT of ground: number of abortionists ("a lot"), quality of care ("safe and competent"), availability and/or competition ("could use the business"). I'm not necessarily challenging the truthfulness of your statement, but I'm curious about how you know all these things.
Also, what's an "abortionist"? An obstetrician/gynecologist who provides abortions, yes?
Uterus-Free Lena! at March 20, 2005 3:37 PM
Schwyzer says:
Actually, every man who ejaculates inside a woman is signalling that his carnal desires have been satisfied. The idea that somehow ejaculating inside a woman is sending a message of his willingness or ability to support a child is nonsense. I suppose every horny 15-year-old who gets laid has visions of paternity.
Idiocy. Ejaculation signals only the climax of sexual stimulation. There's no profound or far reaching design behind it.
Patrick, The Goddess Fan at March 20, 2005 4:12 PM
I think it isn't emphasized often enough taht both partners should use birth control. A lot of women think they don't need to be on the pill if the guy has a condom.
Similarly, but unrelated, a large number of people seem to think unprotected oral sex is safe. It won't get you pregnant, but it ain't safe. Even male-on-female.
LYT at March 20, 2005 4:59 PM
> That statement covers A
> LOT of ground....
Not really, it just works to refute Amy's suggestion that abortion is a "decent" fix to a problem that Deirdre righteously hates. Have you ever known anyone who couldn't find an abortion when she wanted one? Anyone in the last ten or twenty years? Me neither. I trust if you've heard of problems with anybody that you'll notify the proper authorities.
Crid at March 20, 2005 5:56 PM
"Not really, it just works to refute Amy's suggestion [...]"
Actually, it works to refute absolutely nothing if the number, quality, or availability of "abortionists" in this country is less than adequate. And the burden of proof is, as always, on the person making the claim (ie, you).
Penis-Free Lena at March 20, 2005 6:27 PM
"Have you ever known anyone who couldn't find an abortion when she wanted one?"
There are two shaky assumptions implicit in your question, Cridster. The first is that the women whom I (or you, for that matter) know are somehow representative of women in the U.S. who want abortions. (Otherwise, why would you think that my -- or your -- answer to the question might settle this national policy issue?) The second assumption is that I actually know whether my female friends/colleagues have had abortions. That kind of stuff just ain't my business!
Lena Cuisina and the Donut Holes at March 20, 2005 7:15 PM
>Have you ever known anyone who couldn't find an abortion when she wanted one? Anyone in the last ten or twenty years?
I had a girlfriend a few years back who told me she was pregnant and that she was looking for an abortion doctor because she wanted to kill my kid and get away with it. She had Borderline Personality Disorder and so I told her she was lying, which she admitted about a half-hour later.
As a hetero male, I can't recall any other acquaintance discussing an impending abortion with me, and I doubt it's the kind of thing that one discusses with anyone other than the 1-5 guys (5 if she's on Maury) and the closest girlfriend. That an individual like you or me has never heard of someone being unable to find an abortion doctor proves nothing. That someone like you or me has never heard of a woman acquaintance finding an abortion doctor doesn't prove that it hasn't happened either.
In other news, I think that since women have ultimate judiciary power in whether or not consensual sex occurs on any given night, they do need to take on more responsibility than the man in the equation. How much responsibility or how it's divided, I leave to people wiser than me.
Little ted at March 20, 2005 11:40 PM
Seekers! Am I being kidded?
Do people here truly believe that single motherhood of the "cash flow" variety is happening because abortion is too difficult to find?
Crid at March 20, 2005 11:54 PM
Crid, don't be silly. Nobody's saying that. That said, abortion might be less sought after if the neo-Puritans in this country made the morning after pill widely available, and without a pregnancy test, like it is in France. We're obsessed with abstinence when we should be obsessed with birth control. That's how you prevent abortions.
Amy Alkon at March 20, 2005 11:58 PM
Ass-fucking is also a great way to prevent abortion. I can't understand why the pro-lifers haven't caught on to that yet.
Lena at March 21, 2005 12:35 AM
While I feel for sperm donors who get stuck with a child-support bill, as a taxpayer I don't want a so-called solution that translates roughly to "okay, we'll let the father decline personal responsibility and just give mom welfare rights instead."
Jen at March 21, 2005 3:42 AM
"In other news, I think that since women have ultimate judiciary power in whether or not consensual sex occurs on any given night, they do need to take on more responsibility than the man in the equation. "
Ted, I think you have the horse before the cart here - both partners have an equal (yes or no) say on whether sex happens. It just seems like women are the "ultimate judiciary power" because women have to bear the ultimate consequenses of (unprotected) sex, by turning into human incubators for several months.
That makes it very compelling for any woman with three working braincells to either a: decline sex or b:make darn sure they didn't forget their pill.
Arin at March 21, 2005 4:54 AM
Jen, I think welfare, despite the propaganda about the apparent BAZILLIONS of people on it, isn't such an attractive thing to most women...like latching onto some guy's paycheck is.
Amy Alkon at March 21, 2005 6:07 AM
"welfare [...] isn't such an attractive thing to most women...like latching onto some guy's paycheck is"
Because even if the guy can express nothing but disdain for her, his paycheck is still embued with TRUE LOVE!
Lena-doodle-doo at March 21, 2005 7:20 AM
"Ass-fucking is also a great way to prevent abortion. I can't understand why the pro-lifers haven't caught on to that yet."
They have- check this out:
http://i-newswire.com/pr11330.html
This page is a condensed version of the report I read last week. So many abstinence pledgers don't count oral and anal sex as "sex", STD rates among the group are growing higher than the national average. I will try to find the full report if anyone is interested.
eric at March 21, 2005 8:47 AM
I actually wanted to find their language to define "abstinent," since it was criticized by a god-squadder.
Amy Alkon at March 21, 2005 9:03 AM
Amy, it's PRECISELY what you said... Your first, exclaimed word in reponse to Deidre's lament was "Abortion!"
It's funny how lefties, so eager to be PRE-EMPTIVELY compassionate (with their abortions and the euthanasia), come across like a death cult.
I so don't care about the Shialvo case. Some woman here made the point last week that we should all be reminded to get our living wills in order. (Email from my mother this morning repeated one of her big themes: "No feeding tubes!")
Nonetheless, Peggy Noonan is a fuckwit about this, too.
Cridland at March 21, 2005 9:21 AM
I didn't make the connection between cash-flow parenting and a supposed unavailability of abortion, as you contended. I was simply saying "scrape it out" (or give it up, if you so desire) as an alternative to using the man as a financial means to an end.
Amy Alkon at March 21, 2005 9:45 AM
Fuckwit or no fuckwit, Republican or whatever, Noonan was a brilliant speechwriter.
Lena at March 21, 2005 9:54 AM
Noonan is completely tenderheaded on this:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006442
"She looks like one of those coma cases that wind up in the news because the patient, for no clear reason, snaps to and returns to life and says, "Is it 1983? Is there still McDonald's? Can I have a burger?"
Peggy clearly has gotten a real good look at Schiavo's CAT scans.
Amy Alkon at March 21, 2005 10:00 AM
> I didn't make the connection...
Amy, Amy, AMY! Those two sentences don't go together. You have a short circuit.
The faults in the WSJ piece begin in the headline, where we're told Shiavo will be "killed" instead of being permitted to die. The column goes downhill from there. Let's not forget that Peggy got some Enron money, too, just like Krugman. Noonan has her moments, but when she falls into the poignant/short paragraph mode, as in this piece...
"It doesn't seem a lot."
...She reminds me of seemingly illiterate Platchke of the LAT Times sports page.
His paragraphs are arrhythmic.
And really short.
As if he was being profound.
Crid at March 21, 2005 10:28 AM
>Ted, I think you have the horse before the cart here - both partners have an equal (yes or no) say on whether sex happens
When it comes to sexual partners who just met that night that is absolutely not true. The default answer for men is 'yeah,' and it's up to the woman to decide whether the guy's spongeworthy or not, giving her veto power. If men had equal say we would have 7 or more sexual partners per week (to split the difference). Any man who has declined a one night stand for one reason or another knows that he is about to be the recipient of incredulity and that the woman isn't going to take him seriously the first ten times he tells her to get the f away from him.
Little ted at March 21, 2005 10:38 AM
Spongeworthy! Mmmmmm......... yum!
Sopping it up with Lena at March 21, 2005 12:32 PM
You can order them from Canada! Use the "search" just to the left, and look for "sponge." I blogged about it a while ago.
Amy Alkon, birth control freak at March 21, 2005 12:41 PM
Ted: Just because the man chooses to say "yes" as a default doesn't make him any less responsible for his consent. So if I tell a man I just met at a bar that he and I are having sex tonight, he doesn't get a choice in the matter? I've been turned down often enough to know that in practice, that is not the case. (He is also responsible for caving into peer pressure/incredulity or for getting too drunk to exercise his better judgment.)
Deidre's second father in law was correct: never dip your wick in a lamp you don't want to buy.
I wrote more comments on this topic at www.redneckfeminist.blogspot.com .
Karen at March 21, 2005 1:45 PM
Eric -- I finally checked out that summary of the Journal of Adolescent Health article. Who knew that getting fucked in the ass was one way to remain a virgin! So, I guess I'm as pure as the freshly... plowed... snow...
Lena at March 21, 2005 2:16 PM
Lena: unsullied as an April day....
I'm so old I remember when "regular" sex was easier to get than "French" or "Greek".
eric at March 21, 2005 2:58 PM
Amy -- I just read the Noonan piece in the WSJ. Never mind Schiavo. It's time to pull the feeding tube on Peggy the Brain-Dead. Leen
Lena at March 21, 2005 3:27 PM
>I've been turned down often enough to know that in practice, that is not the case.
I have a hard time believing this unless you have a thing for honest guys in committed relationships.
Little ted at March 22, 2005 10:13 AM
Leave a comment