Every feminist who cares about single mothers should want her to be tarred, feathered, hung, cremated and have her ashes shot out into space for pushing these policies. There is **nothing** I can think of that would make men more hostile to taking responsibility than knowing that the system is designed to shaft them on this level.

Personally, I think people like her do a service to the rest of us by reminding the public of how sick most feminists in power and academia are.

This has nothing to do with feminism. This is about using the system to screw people over, which, though vile, has been going on since the beginning of civilization and is not part of a social movement.

That said, if I were roped into paying support for a kid that wasn't mine, I think I'd make it my duty to be a pain in the ass for 18 years. Maybe sue for joint custody.

But, one of my problems with what feminism has become is the notion that injustice in the service of "justice" is okay. The way I see it, either you're for equal rights and fairness for all, or you're just using the pretense of it to get special rights and special treatment for your particular group.

Amy,
In theory, I'm totally with you.

But there's nothing like dinners with wealthy lawyers in their fifties (nice enough chaps, many of them) bitching their socks off that their sons can't claim their 'legacy' places at ivy league colleges - or jobs in the best firms- because of women, women, women (and minorities!)everywhere these days.

I deplore these criminal paternity shakedowns you highlight. The injustice makes me feel sick.

When the system used to tick along supposedly as a self-correcting meritocracy of sorts - it was with injustice built into the engine.

Men often did not deal out fair shakes when they were the ones with power in society and academia.

@Jody Tresidder
Right Jody, injustice in the pursuit of "justice." Punish those fat-cats by picking guys out of the phone book and hauling them into court.
So where does it end? When someone gets screwed over by the system, they consider it only fair to screw someone else over.

It seems like feminists would be in the front row demanding fairness in family courts regardless of gender. Not many are.

But, one of my problems with what feminism has become is the notion that injustice in the service of "justice" is okay. The way I see it, either you're for equal rights and fairness for all, or you're just using the pretense of it to get special rights and special treatment for your particular group.

Exactly. This is why I say that libertarianism already contains all of the positives of feminism, but none of the weaknesses of feminism. Feminism focuses on women, which is why it devolved into the sort of vile hatefest that it has become today in its institutional incarnations. The civil rights movement went through the same thing. The moment you focus on your group, rather than bringing liberty to the entire society, you set yourself onto a course of us-versus-them which invariably dehumanizes the other.

There is nothing wrong with focusing on your group, it gives you a sense of community which the whole of society does not provide. It's very important to belong to a group but not be stifled by an individual’s rigid philosophy that a group might adopt. This whole paternity crap stems from a time when birth control wasnt cheap and available for women. I have alot of sympathy for the guy in this article, but I do not have sympathy for most of the people that get into this sort of financial mess. When a guy sticks his dick in a girl, he is as much responsible for birth control as she is. How can you trust anybody but yourself with this kind of thing? And dont take this to mean that I do not want the law changed.

When a guy sticks his dick in a girl, he is as much responsible for birth control as she is.

Actually, I disagree. By that logic, a baker who sells a diabetic a cake is as responsible as the diabetic who knowingly eats it and goes into shock.

Women's bodies get pregnant. If you have a kid with a guy you're in a relationship with, who expresses a desire to have a kid, that's one thing. I'm opposed to allowing women to do what I call "turning casual sex into cash-flow sex." If you take some guy you just met home from a bar, since it's your body that gets pregnant, you should either be prepared to have an abortion or raise any resulting kids on your own.

"When someone gets screwed over by the system, they consider it only fair to screw someone else over."

Martin,

..and I would deserved to be keelhauled here had I even implicitly supported any payback of that nature.

I don't.

I loathe state senator Sheila Kuehl's argument (as described in Amy's post) and can see only justified fury and hatred resulting. Kuehl's stillborn logic doesn't represent my feminism at all.

MikeT wrote:

The moment you focus on your group, rather than bringing liberty to the entire society, you set yourself onto a course of us-versus-them which invariably dehumanizes the other.

Historically, this hasn't always been so easy.

The early American feminists (then mainly suffragists) got hammered for trying to campaign jointly for black suffrage as well, then got well and truly shafted at state level when they were persuaded to campaign only for women - then all but disappeared from the early 20th century political scene in tatters as a result.

I take your general point, however.

But it's disingenuous to insist the alleged absence of outraged feminist voices is ruining all chances of preventing perverted deadbeat dad legislation.

Where is this all-powerful feminist cabal when it comes to the current erosion of pro-choice laws?

Either "the feminists" have their evil paws on the law - or they don't. You can't have both.

"I'm opposed to allowing women to do what I call "turning casual sex into cash-flow sex." If you take some guy you just met home from a bar, since it's your body that gets pregnant, you should either be prepared to have an abortion or raise any resulting kids on your own."

Unfortunately, a woman can't get preg on her own (unless it's a shark). A woman's body "has" the baby but it's fifty percent HIS DNA. He also made a conscious decision to have sex and if he is equally as concerned with preventing a pregnancy he should take proper precautions. This can be as simple as, when in a relationship and not using condoms, ensuring the woman is on the pill.

Amy, just to be clear, do you feel that a woman should be solely responsible for raising a child which is the result of an unexpected pregnancy? That doesn't make sense since he had just as much a hand in the pregnancy as she did...unless he was raped.

Further, could someone explain to me why DNA disproving paternity is not enough, in the eye of the law, to abscond a man from child support responsibilities? That seems insane!

...also, no every woman who accidentally gets pregnant is a malicious man-hater. Shit happens. Sometimes you are as careful as you can be and you still get pregnant. This "cash-flow" isn't intended to allow the woman to live in the lap of luxury. Do you have any idea how expensive children are? The bottom line is that he had sex, just like the mother, and it resulted in a child. It doesn't seem logical to think a person could walk away from that responsibility.

...p.s I am rethinking my use of the word "abscond" above. I'm not liking it.

If I'm a dude and I dont want kids and I'm with a random girl, obviously I'm gonna need some protection. Whether or not the law is fair (which it isnt) I'll still suffer the consequences. That's what I mean when the dude is as much responsible for birth control as the chick. My personal view on how the law should be does not matter if I'm sticking my dick in a girl. I know what could happen. In the same manner my personal views on drugs does not matter if I'm caught snorting coke.

Further, could someone explain to me why DNA disproving paternity is not enough, in the eye of the law, to abscond a man from child support responsibilities? That seems insane!

I find it unspeakable, too Gretchen.

And it is so obviously an insane application, it damages women by implication. (Less so, of course, than the poor bastards made to pay - I'm not equating the suffering!).

No decent feminist of ANY stripe should support it (and most feminist websites I read do not.)

I'm not a malicious man-hater, but I still have always thought it is my responsibility to deal with any pregnancy that results from casual sex. And I, in general, take personal responsibility in all areas of my life. It's generally not good for children to be brought into the world as a result of casual sex, where daddy is likely to be nothing but a name on a check.

And the fact that men are gamed into paying for children that aren't even theirs is appalling, and anybody truly for equal rights and fairness, man or woman, would be against it. Sheila Kuehl and anyone else who is for this sort of thing is a thief, and has no business in government or anywhere their twisted thinking can touch anyone else's life.

"He also made a conscious decision to have sex and if he is equally as concerned with preventing a pregnancy he should take proper precautions."

I had one experience which made me have very little sympathy for alot of men and women. I was dating a guy and I was not on birth control. He didnt want to use condoms. Neither one of us wanted to have a baby, and we werent bf/gf. Each time before we had sex I would say "I dont want to get pregnant", his reply was silence. But we never used birth control. Come on, if I had gotten pregnant neither one of us would deserve any sympathy for all the shit that would happen afterwards. I think alot of people have kids this way.

"And the fact that men are gamed into paying for children that aren't even theirs is appalling..."

Absolutely!

But my issue was with the comment that a man shouldn't pay when the kid IS his. This person is beyond twisted - taking advantage of the law is one thing but she intentionally attempted to destroy the financial health, reputation and possibly the relationship of an innocent person! This isn't arguable.

But I was saying that just because a woman is the one whose body develops the fetus doesn't vindicate the dude from responsibility. If he doesn't want a kid, he needs to do everything to prevent it. If there's an "uh-oh" 9 months later then he has to pay up because 1) it's half his 2) he was there to make it 3) who else is going to care for all these children...it's expensive and in many cases it takes duel incomes to raise a child. I'm not paying for other peoples' choices through my ass being taxed when the woman can't afford it and goes on government support.

If either party can't deal with the outcome of a pregnancy then maybe they shouldn't have sex. I think PurplePen is very reasonable and realistic in the anecdote she gave!

Yay for PurplePen! (Truly).

Amy,

You are clearly NOT a beserk man-hater or a woman-hater.

Unfortunately the definition of "casual sex" may differ after the act is completed, and often depends on the outcome.

Wow, the guy in the NYT story was so lucky to:
- have read the letter on time
- have enough resources to hire a lawyer and be able to take a day or two off and take care of this
- be totally gay.

Our friend Tony could underline a big similarity in his case: he was required to produce documentation and hire a lawyer while the woman didn't even have to show up!!! She skipped many appointments for a DNA test for her kid, if I remember well and this dragged on forever, all the while Tony was paying "child support". The guys in these situations are totally at the woman's mercy.

I'm not saying that these women are malicious or cunning etc. From what I understand, they are pressured to give social services the names of the guy(s) with whom they've had sex around the time of conception. These women give approximative names (misspelled etc.) or whatever detail they remember and the state jumps to its own conclusions.

This is an absolute scandal.

I wasn't implying that Amy hated either sex.

I WAS implying that child support is necessary and many women collect child support but their intention isn't to cause financial harm to the man, but rather, to help raise a child both of them made. Thus: such a woman is not doing collecting money to live the high life and stick it to men (and Amy seemed to feel that no woman should be able to collect child support b/c 1) it's only the woman's problem 2) she should get an abortion if she can't raise it alone)

Right, Emmanuelle...and I linked to Matt's Reason piece in which he starts off with the bit about Tony. This is the only area in our legal system where you're considered guilty until you spend megabucks to prove yourself innocent. Please, everybody put the word out -- to men not to ignore the documents if they're one of the unfortunate ones who gets them -- and pressure lawmakers to change this travesty. There are men out there paying 18 years of child support simply because they were fighting in Iraq when the letter came and didn't mount a defense in time.

"If there's an "uh-oh" 9 months later then he has to pay up because 1) it's half his"

If you wait 9+ months to even tell him, then the decision to keep it wasn't half his.

The mother made all these assertions under oath, didn't she?

If so, at the very least she should be nailed (no pun intended) for perjury, and--given that her claim was conclusively proven bogus--extortion.

The thing is...the reason we're hearing about this particular case is because the accusation was SO ridiculous in this case. How many similar cases do we *not* hear about because there is perceived to be some doubt prior to the DNA test? I understand the desire of the state to ensure that both biological parents are paying to support a child, but fingering the *wrong* guy for child support lets another guy off the hook...probably to go father another child somewhere else that he'll abandon. It's in no one's best interest for the wrong guy to be fingered in these types of situations.

As for the issue of responsibility for birth control et al...leaving aside the issue of whether or not men should have a say once women get pregnant, the fact is that right now, the state demands that you support a child that you father, whatever you claim the situation to be. (I say "claim" because many people - men and women - say one thing when a pregnancy is an abstract concept, and another when a baby becomes an imminent reality.) Given that, men who view birth control as "women's responsibility" are utter fools (much like the guy described in a recent letter to Amy who was balking at helping his near-penniless girlfriend pay for the patch). Men who *know* they don't want children ever should get a vasectomy. Men who are sure they don't want children at a given time should be willing to use condoms - they may choose to forego those and have their partners take care of birth control instead, but they should be willing to use them. And men who agree with their partners that they don't want more (or any) children but who are unwilling to get a vasectomy are, to be uncharitable, insane.

Do I want to see guys insisting, say, that their girlfriends use hormonal birth control if said hormonal birth control causes serious side effects in said girlfriends? No. (Among other things, one of the most common side effects is decreased libido.) But many, if not most, heterosexual men I know have only hazy knowledge at best of what's being done to prevent them from becoming fathers, despite the fact that, if these methods fail (deliberately or accidentally), they suddenly become the parties with the least autonomy in the situation. And many of them are perfectly happy to never spare a thought for birth control...but man, are they furious when the stick turns blue.

My ultimate message? Paternity fraud sucks, but men should take charge of their own fertility rather than leaving the matter up to chance. Stock up on condoms, offer to volunteer to test a male birth control pill prototype, and talk with your partner frankly about birth control, kids and other such matters.

By the way, was the mother's name ever revealed, like Mr. Shaieb's was?

If not...why not?

Disclosing her identity will make it more difficult for her to try it again. She almost got away with it this time. Remaining anonymous is all the incentive she needs.

Unfortunately, Doobie, these women are not prosecuted for fraud, and I don't think they need any incentive to try to turn a man (and a total stranger) into a paycheck.

Just an answer to Doobie her name was not posted because it could identify the child, which in theory could open the infant to harm: baby-snatchers, child-molesters etc.

I like the male birth control pill idea. Not sure how much longer it will be in development but the tech behind the two front runners in the feild look promising

When it does come out I would suggest ALL MEN take it - but dont tell your girlfreinds.

It should be interesting to see how many "accidental" pregnancies there are when a woman doesnt know her lover is incapable of having children.

I use condoms always, and had I known what a witch this woman was I never would have slept with her, after a few months she said she was pregnant, I asked how given I always used condoms(even when she said 'Dont worry I'm on the pill')
She said one of the must have broke, needless to say I am freaking out and she wont get an abortion cause its morally wrong - but apperently sex before marriage wasnt

One of her "friends" told me my girlfreind had confessed to her that she had been punching holes in my condoms with a needle, and she had been cheating on me as well.

Thankfully my cousin, who has the same name as me had a vesectomy a few years before, and agreed to give me a copy of his medical records. So I shoved those records in her face, claimed the only reason I wore condoms was for STD's and to test her loyalty.

She broke down crying and begged me to forgive her for cheating on her - we broke up, and apperently who ever else she was sleeping with wanst good marrige/daddy material because she suddenly lost her moral objections to abortion.

I'll never know if the child was mine or not, I would have had to wait until it as born to do a DNA test - but as you can see Gretchen sometimes a man has no responsibility what so ever in making a child.

One point that I think no one has raised: one of the articles referenced by Amy points out that the vast majority of men fingered in these scams make less than minimum wage - many of them have annual incomes of less that $10,000!

What does that say about the people most involved in this mess? It says that these are the poorest, least educated people in the country. Many if not most on welfare.

Amongst chronically unemployed males, promiscuous sex is often a status symbol. Birth-control is not even on the radar-screen for most of the women, and condoms are an insult to masculinity.

One dreams of a solution whereby one would have to choose to become pregnant. Want welfare? Contraceptive implant required. Having a child would require a deliberate decision, not to mention a job providing a steady income.

I can hear the howls of protest from liberals already...

Just one problem, lujlp.

Your story ironically explains WHY these crazy cases go to court.

You snowed your girlfiend with bogus medical documents - to "prove" you couldn't be the father, when it's possible you were.

So you wouldn't have been a surreally innocent party out of pocket if your girlfriend had filed a claim against you - as in Amy's appalling examples.

(I take the point regarding the hearsay about the two-timing of the "witch" you were with. It's true, condoms don't protect against terrible relationship choices.)

And Jody's right. The first line of defense is choosing wisely in who you have sex with...let alone a relationship.

It's amazing how many guys figure out that the woman they are having sex with is a 'witch', but only after months and months of spending all kinds of time with her. Does she suddenly turn into another person at some point? Wasn't she always a horrible person, but you chose to ignore all the red flags because you were so desperate to get laid? At least this way you can act like a victim, which absolves you of taking any personal responsibility for your choices.

"The first line of defense is choosing wisely in who you have sex with...let alone a relationship."

Yep. The biggest issue I have with the men's movement is that so many members (rightly) condemn male-bashing...and then turn around and engage in women-bashing based on their own experiences with a few women. Guess what? Women who are "bashing" men generally have experienced a few awful examples of the gender, too. Bashing either gender is a cop-out by people who don't want to admit that their own bad judgment is at least partially responsible for a negative relationship. Mature adults learn and grow from their bad relationships, and use that knowledge to choose more wisely the next time around.

"When (the male birth control pill) does come out I would suggest ALL MEN take it - but dont tell your girlfreinds."

Actually, I think telling your SO that you're going to take a male birth control pill would be an excellent way of weeding out the good partners from the not-so-good ones. Assuming your method of revealing this isn't along the lines of, "You worthless bitch, I'm now going to take birth control pills because I think you're too stupid or too unethical to control your fertility, HAH HAH HAH!", then the response of your SO should range from, "Okay, that's cool," to, "Wait, you mean that if I have to go on antibiotics, we no longer have to mess with condoms or other more cumbersome form of birth control? You PRINCE." Women who freak out are likely immature and bad romantic choices. Yes, yes, I'm sure there are some exceptions here, as there always are, and I'd advise following the 48-hour rule - i.e. giving your girlfriend 48 hours to come back and say, "You know what? I acted like an idiot about the birth control thing, and I'm sorry. I think the reason is that past boyfriends haven't trusted me/I actually would like to have kids sooner than I thought/etc." But in general, announcing that one is on a male birth control in a situation where both partners are theoretically supposed to be avoiding conception seems an excellent way to separate the wheat from the chaff. That is, assuming you want a romantic relationship based on trust, rather than on overwhelming mutual self-protection.

What Marion and Chrissy said.

There was a long string with some troll on one of my recently posted columns and it's something I say over and over: You chose her. People don't go psycho overnight. As the therapist Nathaniel Branden once told me (paraphrasing from memory) "People will tell you what they're all about, you just have to be willing to listen."

Go in blindfolded, fine, that's your choice -- but don't tell us you were screwed because all women are evil.

Gretchen, I think I understand your viewpoint, but not sure I am totally in line with it. BECAUSE it is the woman's body that gets pregnant, she alone gets to make the decision whether or not to abort. This is as it should be. If the man wants her to have an abortion, she doesn't have to. If the man wants her to give birth to the kid, she doesn't have to. See where I'm going with this? He has no say. Why should be forced into the financial obligation? Let's say they were both equally negligent with regard to birth control. Or, worse, she lied about being on birth control. Why should she have all the say in the matter and then stick him with the bill? I agree that it's her body and the choice to have an abortion should be hers alone, but I also think men should have opt-out rights.

I agree that it's her body and the choice to have an abortion should be hers alone, but I also think men should have opt-out rights.

Pirate Jo,
I don't think I'd be able to argue you away from your position - which I understand.

You know as well as I do that - the guy can't opt in to sharing the abortion or the birth.

I expect you might also agree - possibly grudgingly - the Mr Horrified Daddy-to-be is likely to swear blind he never agreed to a child - even implicitly - when the shit hits the fan.

I've two sons in their late teens. In my heart - I'd be screaming bloody extortion/bloody women etc etc if either got miserably "caught".

I'd view it as pretty much a disaster right now.

Nevertheless, I don't share your opinion about opt out.

"I expect you might also agree - possibly grudgingly - the Mr Horrified Daddy-to-be is likely to swear blind he never agreed to a child - even implicitly - when the shit hits the fan."

Quite possibly. I think the guy should have 30 days from the time of notification to make his decision. And then, if he severs all rights and responsibilities (a "male abortion," if you will) the woman should prepare to be on her own and choose from her available options accordingly.

"but I also think men should have opt-out rights."

Right - it's called not having sex in the first place if you aren't willing to "foot the bill" if the result is a child...even if the child was unwanted by the man.

I like your argument but I am having trouble getting over that hurdle - just because he doesn't have a say in whether or not the child is carried/kept/adopted/aborted doesn't negate the fact that he participated willingly in the sex and with consideration of the potential of a pregnancy.

Currently, men and women don't have the same say over what happens regarding a pregnancy for which they're both genetically responsible. Does that seem unfair? Yes. But it's not because someone is out to screw men - it's because male and female biology are fundamentally different when it comes to reproduction. The flip side of this is that men can become biological parents without running any sort of physical risk to themselves. Men have zero chance of dying in childbirth (something that still happens occasionally even in the First World), getting stretch marks, getting painful tears, what have you, in the course of perpetuating their genes. Now, obviously this advantage is less apparent to guys who don't want to have kids, ever - but I point out that the vasectomy option is always there for those guys.

The idea behind the law right now (I am aware that the practice often differs) is that, until the kid is born, the mother's autonomy over her own body is the guiding factor in its fate; then, once the kid is born, its best wishes - including its need for diapers and onesies - move to the top of the chart. Does this sometimes suck for men? Yes, yes it does, just as historically it sucked for women who announced their pregnancies and were abandoned by partners who skipped town the next day. (I've known a few people raised by mothers like this.) My biggest problem with the laws intended to change this is that, all too often, they don't do a thing to keep the *real* pop from skipping out of support, as long as someone else can be found to hit with a court order. But I'll agree with Jody's point - many people are a lot more excited about the abstract prospect of a thing than they are the reality. There are women who trick men - but there are also men who encourage women to get pregnant, then change their minds later.

Nevertheless, I go back to my main point: Given that the laws as they exist tend to err on the side of compelling support from biological fathers or those presumed to be that, and given that these laws are unlikely to change significantly, men need to take charge of their fertility - just as women do all the time - and of their relationship choices. The optimum scenario is not to be able to opt out of supporting a child you did not want to have conceived - the optimum scenario is never conceiving an unwanted child in the first place, and making wiser relationship choices as one goes on throughout life. One reason why jerky people of both genders tend to get so much tail is that many people look past good potential partners in favor of ones who seem "cooler" on the surface. And remember, pregnancy isn't the worst thing that can happen if you don't use a condom - just ask Magic Johnson.

Do I want changes in the current law? Yes. I want some real penalties for paternity fraud - set things up so that a woman can tell the system that some guy MIGHT be the father, but discharge him from the case if a DNA test and a backup test show that he's not the pop (sometimes women genuinely aren't sure, after all), but put penalties in place for cases where women swear that men they've never met are the father, 100% sure! And I'd also call for men who can proved that they were tricked into pregnancy - especially ones tricked through exotic means such as a woman stealing sperm from a used condom - to have automatic preference in terms of child custody.

For now, though, I'd say that most men are in basically the same situation I am when it comes to unplanned pregnancies. I am fully in support of abortion being legal, and I will go hold someone's hand if they want to have one, but I can't see having one *myself* except in very extreme circumstances (i.e. I'm two months pregnant and it's about to kill me, or the fetus is so massively disabled that it will never have any sort of life, etc.). For me, an unwanted pregnancy would be a *disaster*. I make my life choices about relationships, birth control, etc. with that in mind. And yes, I tell men for whom it might be relevant about my feelings in this regard. So far, no disasters. It can be done.

I will admit I made a huge mistake in having a relationship with that woman, and while I did indeed 'snow job' her with fake medical records I feel no remorse for doing so, she was cheating on me and had destroyed the integrety of all of my condoms.

And while I knew I would be judged for my poor decisions, accuretly and deservedly, by Amy and others Gretchen missed the point of my story

I took every resonable precaution I could think of and she either got pregnant thru some other guy or by destroying my birth control measures which means even if the child was mine I had no resonsibility in its creation

I can't tell, lujlp, what a pleasure it is that you're rational and personally responsible in your response -- unlike a certain troll we experienced recently in the comments on one of my columns!

lujlp, dude, why was she handling your condoms in private? Or were you relying on her buying the condoms? Punching holes in 'em is wrong, wrong, wrong, and I personally think she's guilty of attempted fraud, but...

And I think Amy's larger point applies: These things don't happen in a vacuum. It's great that you're taking charge of your fertility - your next step is to figure which warning signs that you missed, and to know how to avoid them in the future. Sorry you got suckered this time by a faithless wench, but chalk it up as a learning experience. The next woman willing to punch holes in condoms may not be cheating, and could call your "vasectomy" bluff by saying, "Well, I've heard that sometimes those fail. Let's go to the DNA test and see what it says." Presto! 18 years of child support.

"Right - it's called not having sex in the first place if you aren't willing to "foot the bill" if the result is a child..."

Would you also say the same thing to a woman? I mean, my idea is pretty much the equivalent of giving the man the right to have an abortion. There are a lot of people who don't want women to have the right to an abortion, and they say the exact same thing you said above.

lujlp: That really friggen sucks that she was such a POS. Don't think I missed the point.

First, props for taking charge of birth control. You'd be surprised how many guys assume that they must be shooting blanks and don't care about STD's. But I stand firmly: if in fact the child was yours you DID have a role. You tried damned hard to prevent it and unfortunately you were dating a sneaky and dishonest person. It was clear you did not want a child.

...but you still had sex and sex is inherently risky. No amount of caution guarantees the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy. As humans we're lucky to get to experience a pleasurable and intimate experience with another person. However, the ultimate purpose of sex is procreation and it's easy to forget that.

She may have gotten pregnant through deceptive practices... But.....you did the deed and YOUR sperm (possibly) impregnated a (pathetic) woman. The "responsibility" starts and ends with the decision to have sex and assumption of the inherent risks of sex. You can hedge against pregnancy all you want but you took that step and had sex. So that's the "control over your procreation" part. The risks include not knowing that your girlfriend was an asshole.

That said, I really do feel for you - that's a shitty ass position to be in. If my boyfriend somehow managed to mess w/ my pills and caused me to get preg I have no idea how I'd handle that but I do know he wouldn't be my boyfriend anymore!!

All this talk about unplanned pregnancy is making me awfully un-horny...and on a Friday night, too!

Would you also say the same thing to a woman?

I think the woman gets a bill either way, Pirate Jo.

Abortion isn't a joke.

And one thing that consistently gets lost somehow is the raising of the child.

It is easier to have your male wages garnished as an uninvolved father than it is to bring up a kid you never intended to have.

The woman pays for a long time - with her freedom curtailed in all sorts of ways that the garnished dad does not.

"However, the ultimate purpose of sex is procreation and it's easy to forget that."

As decided by whom? Who decides what the "ultimate purpose" of sex is? When I have sex, the only purpose at all is pleasure, intimacy, and maybe exercise (haw). I've had my tubes tied because pregnancy is the equivalent of a disease to me. To me, viewing the purpose of sex as procreation is the same thing as saying the purpose of driving is to get into car accidents. Granted, you wouldn't get in a car accident without driving a car in the first place, but no one thinks we should all give up driving just because accidents occasionally happen. And if you DID get in an accident and, let's say, broke your leg, you'd go have a medical procedure to get it fixed.

All "male abortion" debate aside, Marion's absolutely right that it amounts to worrying about what to do after the horse is out of the barn. Best bet is to keep the horse in the barn to begin wth.

"I've had my tubes tied because pregnancy is the equivalent of a disease to me."

Pirate Jo: Good for you! No, seriously. You've made a rational choice about your fertility and taken charge of it. No, one doesn't have to have one's tubes tied to do that, but congratulations for backing up your belief that sex for you should be unrelated to procreation by taking active advance steps to stop that procreation. I would highly advise ANY guy who is sure that he doesn't want kids - any kids, or any more kids - to undergo permanent sterilization, as you've done. Yes, surgery sucks. And yes, sometimes people change their minds - but there are workarounds for that (reversals, sperm extraction, adoption) and the right woman will be willing to explore those if that situation occurs. Now, I will say that you should NOT undergo permanent sterilization with the expectation that it will be any less than, well, permanent, but if you're a guy and thus more limited in terms of birth control options and want to approach sex as being totally divorced from procreation for the rest of your life, please, please go have a chat with a urologist about your options.

That having been said, I'll say that people who approach sex without being very careful about birth control - whether through permanent means or just careful practice of temporary birth control - are EFFECTIVELY leaving procreation open as an option even if they aren't thinking about sex in terms of procreation. I agree with Jody's larger point - our society often presents sex as being completely separate from procreation, but our technology and behavior haven't quite made that possible. You may not be thinking about procreation when the hot babe at the bar invites you back to her place, but you may be forcibly reminded of the biological purpose of sex nine months later if you aren't careful. I'd say that women think about this a lot more than men, given the whole monthly cycle/fear of getting pregnant thing, but women are perfectly capable of making stupid decisions in the heat of the moment, too.

Until we have the technology/behavior to create a society like Beta Colony in Lois McMaster Bujold's books - women get a permanent contraceptive implant upon menstruation that can only be de-activated by passing tests and finding a co-partner of whatever gender, and most babies are conceived in a lab and gestated in an uterine replicator - procreation will still be a much bigger element of sex than, say, the average porn magazine would have you believe.

You know, marion, I often think the world would be a better place if the default for people was infertility, and you had to take a pill to GET pregnant. Think of the dent that would make in poverty.