Google "Fake pregnancy tester" and see what women do for laughs... or, to get that overdue raise.

We're reaching a point where young men need to be drilled with the notion that keeping their precious bodily fluids to themselves should be a way of life.

guess "trust but verify" really isn't so useful here...

cynically I'd tell boyo to just MOA 'till he finds a person who shares his point of view on having kids.

"•Many? MANY? Right, we're all baby-hungry immoral, unethical hopeful breeders"

well, it's really more about the interesting mental hopscotch that people do to rationalize their own choices. given the number of pregnancies that aren't planned... well we don't know how many are apurpose, or at least "it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world"...

but the truth is that there is an event horizon at which point decisions are no longer in your hands, they are in the hands of the girlfriend. That point is when the self test has the little line on it, indicating she's with child. You canna take it back at that point, and it may be weeks down the road from when you were behaving like monkeys in heat.

Is it possible that THIS woman in THIS situation will have made sure that nothing will happen? Sure, but how can you know?

IFF she is constantly complaining while you put on your raincoat, and saying "but I'm on the pill and I don't like that thing, it kills the mood" or somesuch, be VERY, VERY careful. There is a possibility that she thinks that having a kid will bond you more closely forever, and she can't imagine not having a child with your genes... and "oh, he'll come around, he'd make a GREAT father."

It will be assumed that this is being done for your own good... somehow.

Rinse the swimmers out of your own condom, "to make sure it didn't break..." and be scrupulous.

this isn't to impugn her motives, it is to realize that people don't always tell you what they are. nature/god/ or the flying spaghetti monster of chaos have equipped our species with a powerful motivation and mechanism for continuing our life forms - do not under estimate it.

If you are always acting the same way, without whining and complaining, and being an upstanding guy, this should just be part of who you are. Protecting everyone, including yourself.

It's a red flag if EITHER of you is begging the other to "leave it up to" them. There is a reason they want to control you. Personally, all the requests seemed so reasonable, I didn't notice they were red flags, and the kid is now 20. So.

"a momentary lapse of reason, that binds a life to a life..."

It CAN be worse, especially if she just wants the genes and NOT you... cuz it'll make years of your life pretty bitter, and hard.

If you don't trust your girlfriend she shouldn't be your girlfriend. If you really want to make sure that you aren't a father before you are ready. Take control of the situation. Ask her to sign legal documentation that absolves you from responsibility in case of pregnancy. If she really only wants a child then she should be prepared to raise it herself if she knows her partner doesn't want one. If she refuses then ask her to take her BC in front of you every time. If she refuses wear a condom and when your done remove it wash it out with bleach and dispose of it. In the end you have to decide if you really trust her and if you don't what your willing to do. In the end you can't make her do anything. The choice of your future is yours.

> Ask her to sign legal documentation that absolves
> you from responsibility in case of pregnancy

There are not legally binding.

Oddly, they had the reading skills to get to the point where they ignored what they had just read.

For shame, girls. Now straighten out your petticoats and get dinner on the table for your man.

I'm pregnant with an unplanned IUD baby right now. My husband was mad at first (we'd planned to wait a few years before more kids) and thought I'd somehow managed to mess up and it resulted in me getting pregnant. When I had my ultrasound at 6 weeks my IUD was still in place and appeared to be where it supposed to be (you can't really tell if it's moved or not when pregnant). My doctor speculates it may have shifted a bit as I had it placed days postpartum in the hospital before discharge. I opted to leave the IUD in place for the pregnancy, although it did somehow work its way out around 18 weeks on its own. Despite this birth control failure, of which the rate is supposed to be less than 1%, we are going to try an IUD again after this baby but wait until 6-8 weeks postpartum before insertion where it's less likely to move in case that's what went wrong this time.

I do know several women who have tricked men into pregnancy for various reasons by claiming to be on birth control, sabotaging condoms, or stealing sperm out of condoms in the trash. While absolutely horrible for plumbing, I know several men who say they flush condoms immediately after sex stating they have friends tricked into babies they didn't want.

I had a GF sabotaging condemns turn up pregnant, turns out she was also cheating.

I said she could get an abortion or raise it herself. She "couldnt do that"

Two of her friends let me know about her other lover and the scam. Didnt really believe it until I tested a few of them myself in the sink.

I told her I knew about the cheating, and while she was denying that, showed her medical records of a cousin with the same(ish) name showing a vasectomy and asked her what she had to say.

After the usual litany of excuse I said well its obviously not mine so get out.

Turns out she could do that with the other guys baby.

I'm still not sure if the kid was mine or not, but I got my own vasectomy later that month

Of course, the single worst form of birth control is trusting that a woman -- especially a woman longing for a baby -- is actually taking or using hers.
_____________________________________

Well, saying "of course" regarding something that would be very hard to prove scientifically DOES kinda sound over-the-top, so it's not too surprising women would call that a sexist remark. (Especially if they can't imagine any single women they know doing such a thing. BTW, that old study mentioned in the first link, from the British mag "That's Life!," is hardly reliable - the magazine looks like one of the worst tabloids ever.)

Last I heard, the worst form of BC is actually withdrawal. Even more so than the rhythm method. (But with withdrawal, I'd guess he already knows she isn't using anything, because why else would he be using it?) FYI, foam and condoms and rhythm altogether cut the risk to 0.5%, I think.

BTW, why not grab the opportunity to talk about better male birth control, since there are at least 8 methods being worked on, not counting Pro-Vas?
________________________________

-- before you find yourself reading "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" aloud for the 300th time in a week, as it's the only way to keep your toddler from screaming like a goat being slaughtered.
________________________________

Trivial point, but I suspect one reason some parents don't like reading aloud is that they have the mistaken idea that the only way to get little kids to love books - or to avoid tantrums - is to read ONLY what the toddler demands. Not so. You can always pick five books in advance (ones that YOU like, such as Aesop's Fables) and say: "Here. Pick one or two of these." Also, there is no need to buy books for toddlers if you'd prefer to get them from the library so you can return them - and have a wide VARIETY. As Amy Dacyczyn pointed out, the odds are very much against your exhausting your local library's children's room's supply by the time a kid goes off to kindergarten.

I once dated a lady who had a baby and gave it up for adoption. The father didn't want any involvement in it.

So when I was dating her she made it a point to take her BC in front of me at night if I was there. That way I knew she was using it.

Maybe he can make the same sort of deal with her.

So apparently you guys are all serious about all planet is peopled by foaming, blithering, insensate idiots.

If "Worried" doesn't think he'll change his mind about having a kid any time soon, he should break up with his girlfriend for her own good. She only has so many childbearing years, and the more she spends with him, the fewer she has to find someone who shares her dream.

I speak from experience. I never wanted kids, but my first wife got baby rabies at age 29. Instead of divorcing then and there, she spent 6 years trying fruitlessly to change my mind. (During those years I used a condom, every time.) Then we did split up, but by the time she remarried she was over 40. As far as I know (we don't keep in touch), she never did have a child.

Snoopy is correct that an agreement absolving the sperm donor of responsibility isn't binding. Worse, if she ever gets public assistance for the kid, the agreement isn't valid even if she wants it to be. The state will come after him for support.

What if a man uses condoms, but then flushes them down the toilet afterwards? That's what I'd do.

This has been brought up on various forums, but once a woman's biological clock starts ringing, she can very easily have a baby, accidentally on purpose.

So be very careful about flushing the condom, or break up, depending on your level of paranoia, and don't assume "it won't/can't happen to you." Remember, being a "father", in quotes because it might well not be your choice, will take the next 18 years of your life; 26 if college is involved.

Also, google paternity fraud. You can be declared the "father" if you have been having sex, even if you are not the father (originally established in common law as Lord Mansfield's Rule).

-- Steve

I'm not sure why everyone is so mortified about Amy's statement that trusting a woman to take her birth control is the guy's single worst option in making sure he doesn't become a daddy. Placing the responsibility on someone else entirely, especially when you've got so much personal stake involved, is always a terrible idea. If it's that important to a guy not to become a dad, then it only makes sense that he at least share the responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen.

Use a condom and bleach the wigglies to death, or flush it.

Also, Rex Little made the very astute comment that if he doesn't forsee himself wanting a kid in the near future while she's determined to have one, then perhaps he should break up with her and allow her to find someone who shares her dreams of fulfilling the ultimate expression of narcissism, otherwise known as parenting.

@Rex Little " he should break up with his girlfriend for her own good. She only has so many childbearing years, and the more she spends with him, the fewer she has to find someone who shares her dream"

Ditto this.

Or -- You could get to know her, and move slowly otherwise.

Just sayin'.

Surprised nobody else thought to say it.

Commenters, help me: As you move through the world, do you look other people in the eye, or use other techniques to asses enthusiasms and motives?

Here... Let me put in graceful, less-aggressive terms. We're all friends here! Safe place!

Fond Reader, reflect with me momentarily on a short passage of text, won't you please? It's from the next item presently posted on this blog, another piece of advice for young lovers:

In the future, when you meet a woman, instead of just taking stock of all the reasons you'd work as a couple, look for reasons you wouldn't....

It describes making a connection of trust with another human being, and charting the outcomes.

Sometimes people just wanna get laid… I know about that. (Well, I've heard about it. I saw it in a book once, or maybe it was a movie, or maybe it was a thick, fold-y magazine. This was a long time ago.)

But this talk about Shanghai'd condoms and savage treachery and vicious deceit from mundane encounters seems really paranoid. I mean, you were taught how to make friends with people, right?

If you're that afraid of sex, what must you think of cars?




Or are you all putting me on?

Yeah, there SHOULD be forms of BC for men besides condoms and vasectomies, but for now there are not. So use condoms.

If she really wants kids and you know you don't ever want to, you need to not be together.

Jeez, you guys need better friends. I've never heard of anyone sabotaging a condom in real life (as opposed to forums like this one).

I'm with Crid and NK

I think a lot of these guys that get tricked into babies were just as equally responsible as the broads. I hold equal suspicion to both parties. I'm gonna side eye your ass if having a baby was unplanned.

It's what out genital organs do.

My ex best friend tricked a guy into a kid by giving him the old I can't get pregnant line the doctors told me so. The dude fucked her condomless style. Suddenly he is telling everyone he was tricked. Please.

Every jump off that tricked a man into a baby that I have ever known was damn near loca from the get go. They talked about babies in one form or another.

Plus I've had sexual partners that treat birth control with omission aka not discussed. One ex-boyfriend didn't wear a condom after my request and I was too stupid and young to keep pestering him for it. I didn't get pregnant but we were fools damn near acting like that was our goal.

Summary: why fuck baby obsessed women as is the case is the LW and then get mad when they pursue their goal at your expense?

It's like giving me 70,000 and telling me that I can't buy an M3.
(Someone plz give me the money)

Did I grow up on an alternate plane or something?! No one I knew wanted a child out of wedlock! No one wanted to not use condoms... pregnancy aside, did you all and your friends not get AIDS education in High School???

I mean, WTF? We had a clear order of events... High School, College, possibly have a few wild years (which did not include anything permanent like babies, more like getting involved in weird art scenes or the back-then equivalent of occupying places) Grad School, get on a career track and get married, THEN get pregnant.

How do so many of you know.. not just one but -lots- of women who want to trick men into fathering out of wedlock kids? I think I know one woman who got a sperm donor when she was 40 or so... but she went the bank route, not the trick some poor schmo route.

Is this just a testament to the great sex ed programs of suburban Boston?

We learned to put condoms on bananas in 9th grade... first, don't store your condoms in your glove compartment or anywhere else where they can get too hot, as this can destroy the latex. Then, check the package to make sure its not expired, and hold it to the light to make sure there are no rips and holes**. Gently open the packet with your fingertips, NOT your nails. Pinch the tip and gently roll it over the head and the shaft, don't use your nails. Pinching the tip prevents air from getting in, which could be a problem if there's air during ejaculation because there wouldn't be enough room and it could break. Don't use 2 condoms because the friction could break the condoms.

If you needed a condom, you could go to the school nurse and get one for free.

OK, I came of age in the 90s and it was AIDs all the time... how retroviruses work in bio class, special assemblies for putting condoms on bananas, learning about SIDA in French class, reading essays on AIDs in English class, doing plays about dying of AIDs in drama class, singing songs from Rent in music class...

Did I grow up in some crazy cultural bubble or something? I mean... pregnancy aside... AIDS!!!! (Seems the AIDs education sunk in.)

** Seems to be an important one if the board is any indication

"We had a clear order of events... High School, College, possibly have a few wild years (which did not include anything permanent like babies, more like getting involved in weird art scenes or the back-then equivalent of occupying places) Grad School,"

Uh well you're describing a very narrow section of the population, a section that has unheard of out of wedlock birth rates. Girls with that kinda future get abortions if they have unplanned pregnancies.

Condom classes weren't allowed in my school. AIDS isn't really a big topic nowadays unless you're a gay guy.

This was probably a behind the tree topic for neanderthals that did not want to settle down.

I think the only thing new is that sex seems to have become pretty casual thus the "WTF" surprise.

Agree w/Crid but that attitude was not that common after the '60s in my circles of society and was laughed at by my few black friends back in the '70s so who knows.

Amy's advice is an absolute truth and the guy should have enough decency to let the girl go so she can find a mate that does want kids.

@NicoleK
I have mentioned it here before, condom sabotage is why I have a cousin now. Yes it happens in real life, not just movies.

Sex shouldn't be held hostage by women, it can be a cheap and fun thing to do. Shock I know.

"Condom classes weren't allowed in my school."

That is terrible.

And AIDs still exists! Not to mention Herpes (which condoms are not as effective against), Syphilis, etc. etc.

I dunno, the sex ed stuff really got drilled into our heads.

"If you're that afraid of sex, what must you think of cars?"

Cars don't intentionally screw you. Except Lotuses.

From the sperm theft article...

Research shows that men are often deceived into paternity. A recent poll of 5,000 women conducted for That’s Life! magazine in the United Kingdom found that 42% of women say they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners.

I barely got any sex education and we never learned how to put on a condom. I graduated in 1996 and it is worse now.

What part of the country are you from, Nakki? I graduated in '95.

Not an Elise!

"A recent poll of 5,000 women conducted for That’s Life! magazine in the United Kingdom found that 42% of women say they would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, regardless of the wishes of their partners."

That's Life! is the equivalent of a mommy-gossip Enquirer. One of the headlines right now is "My brother raped me in labour!"

I find it highly suspect that anyone would use their poll.

Just a few thoughts on this one:
1. Perhaps the "Three Date Rule" is not a good idea. Are you so starved for sex that you need to be intimate, and yes that is what sex is, with someone you barely know who has goals you know nothing about just to get off for for a few seconds? For you "gentlemen" who live by this rule be prepared for what you get because you deserve it. You know what they say, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

2. What is wrong with waiting to be with someone until you can at least know their character and priorities and if you are with someone you don't like enough to marry why continue to date the exclusively? In my mid twenties I knew I wanted to be married and when I dated guys who I didn't click with, I moved on. Just because the sex is readily available, don't string some chick on, just move on down the road. Oh, that's right because she won't have sex with you if don't let her believe there is a "possibility" you will move to the next level. Again, you are probably lying to her just as much as she is lying to you. General rule of thumb guys... most women want to get married.

3. Finally, just like your momma told you all those years ago, "if you play with fire you might get burned." That is why you are not supposed to have loads of anonymous sex. The best way to avoid this trouble is to stop having sex with any woman who will let you.... it is called being a human being and not a dog. If you are with someone and you have to wash condoms, see them take their pill, hook them to lie a detector or any other crazy thing DON'T HAVE SEX with that person! Get out! Why would you waste you precious time on Earth with such a person?!

Crid is right, there is a certain weird fatalism running through this thread that is disturbing to see. Male and female relationships don't have be this complicated if everyone would treat each other with respect. If you can't respect the person you are with, you should be asking yourself why you have settled for less than you deserve.

> One of the headlines right now is "My
> brother raped me in labour!"

She meant the political party.

Har!

Brits are lunatic.

No, really. This morning I read this.

Last night I watched this laugh-a-minute video in which Kagan talks about how surprised Truman America was when, after WWII, Britain essentially "retired" from the world stage.

Remember, the Japan Imperial Navy is now four times as large as the British Royal Navy.

Ask her to sign legal documentation that absolves you from responsibility in case of pregnancy.

Ha.

Ha ha.

Ha ha ha. Free clue: that and US$5 can buy a really fancy coffee at Starbucks. Hint: a third party can not sign away another person's legal rights. Specifically, a woman can not sign away her child's legal claim on their father.

But thanks for the laugh.

Other thoughts:

Wrap that bad boy, and flush the results down the toilet. It's positive control only when you know what happens from start to finish.

Rosy Palm and her five sisters are absolutely reliable. Never has a headache, and is always in the mood. And won't get upset if the other Rosy takes you for a spin.

A little darker: buy a stash of morning after pills and replace one of her vitamins with them.

Even darker: just spike her morning juice with a morning after pill.

Japan Imperial Navy

You mis-spelled Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force. And Britannica isn't 550 miles away from an aggressive neighbor, currently.

That may change, especially if Britannica becomes an Islamic Republic of one sort or another. But then, they'd be the aggressor.

Posted this on the 'next' post but Sheep Mom (and Pirate Jo) are waking up some brain cells.

"Pirate Jo prompted a thought (damn that hurt).

Is casual sex promoting a disincentive to "moving on" when a relationship is not hitting all the right buttons?

From a guy's POV, if I'm not living with/not putting up with/ her 'faults' BUT am getting sex, then what's "wrong" w/the 'relationship'.

Of course if I'm looking for a mate then like a job interview time does matter and I need to be realistic and call it quits at some point."

My post above IS NOT a critic of relationships where the couples do not live together.

Just wondering how many 'relationships' are really about casual sex rather than finding a mate.

I tell women I'm dating I have no interest in having kids, ever.

To those who keep pushing I tell them I've had a vasectomy

To those who keep pushing the idea after that I say if they ever get pregnant "accidentally" or otherwise I'll quit my job and work for minimum wage after a weekend in Vegas where I'll blow all my savings and then I'll sue for custody and child support

Sheep Mom @8:29,
I agree with you that the man is responsible if he has a casual fling. But the article here implies a guy in a long term relationship who is wondering if his girlfriend is trying to have a baby.

-----------
A man in a long term relationship can discover his girlfriend just got a case of baby rabies. and having gotten the baby rabies, she now has an "Oops, I'm pregnant" revelation (see my post above).

The man isn't involved in the decision, and may well be against having a baby. However, his decision isn't considered, and "He'll come around once the baby is here". Or worse, he'll provide child support, but be otherwise excluded from the child's life.

This can destroy a man's life, as his life course is being unilaterally changed, without his input (follow my links).

-----------
That said, I also agree with Amy that it isn't fair to a woman who wants a baby, and the couple would be better breaking up, so she can have a partner who wants a baby as much as she does.

-- Steve

> And Britannica isn't 550 miles away
> from an aggressive neighbor, currently.

Well, they're eleven hundred miles from Russia, which is as scary a neighbor as the Summer of 2014 has to offer.

The point was that we'd thought, and certainly OUGHT to have thought, that being the un-sun-settable global power for nearly a century would have taught them some things about backbone and the flow of events.

And minorities.

But apparent not.

The point was that we'd thought, and certainly OUGHT to have thought, that being the un-sun-settable global power for nearly a century would have taught them some things about backbone and the flow of events.

They're too busy cashing their welfare checks to worry about such. Some lessons come at a great cost the first time, and greater cost the second. After Chamberlain this might actually be the third.

Besides, they don't want to appear racist and keep the Asians out. And being a global power is an awful lot like work.

That's one of the points that Kagan makes. Nobody in the world even dreams of doing the work to challenge American dominance... Not for the whole chessboard, and very rarely for even a slice of it.

Everyone, everyone on the planet simply wants to manipulate the United States and bitch and moan and suggest that their mere presence on the planet has somehow earned them a voice at our table and a vote on our conduct.

That is CERTAINLY what we've seen in this forum.

The bossy authoritarians are displeased with you. The heavily funded group justice/group guilt propaganda folks have names ready to call you. Unless you reform and obey the commissars you will be called out for using reason and logic and for having character. Get ready for the "white privilege" slur.

There are so few perks of being gay, but this is one of them. A gay man cannot be lassoed into paternity. There is no way a gay couple could become parents without both of them wanting it.

> There is no way a gay couple could
> become parents without both of them
> wanting it.

Six words too many, and deluded besides.

And pathetic, but we'll cover that another day.

When the man sabotages condoms, he gets charged and convicted with sexual assault and sent to prison.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/condom-piercer-loses-supreme-court-appeal-1.2563227

The reasoning behind ruling it as sexual assault specifically, SHOULD, as I read it, apply equally to both genders:

"In Friday's 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Hutchinson deprived the woman of her ability to consent to sex.

"The accused's condom sabotage constituted fraud … the result that no consent was obtained," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote on behalf of the court.

"A person consents to how she will be touched, and she is entitled to decide what sexual activity she agrees to engage in for whatever reason she wishes."

So men should use this precedent to try charge women who sabotage condoms - though of course it would be very difficult to prove in most cases.

@"So men should use this precedent to try charge women who sabotage condoms"

Oh, duh, this was a Canadian case. I'm not sure if that just means no precedent yet in US case law (i.e. untested), or if it's specifically legal or not.

If LW is sure he never wants to have kids why doesn't he get a vasectomy?

And for NicoleK's life plan, who's birth parents are still together in this day and age?

Over 50% of children in the US don't live with their birth parents. And this has been true since the 90s.

Excellent summary, Amy!

Men are slowly wising up about how common and dangerous paternity entrapment is... just like male college students are starting to figure out every female student is walking around with her twitchy, entitled finger on the trigger of the university's sexual assault complaint machine.

A BC pill for men can't get here soon enough. When it does, the impact will rip through the feminist life plan like a bulldozer.

Ppen @ 8:12am,
You may discount That’s Life! as not being a credible source, but what about evidence from blood banks? Although the DNA evidence won't save a man because, as I referenced above - Lord Mansfield's Rule, now legally defined as presumption of paternity means that even if HotRockBandDrummer did the deed, the man is on hook as the "father".

NOTE FROM AMY: This comment went to my spam folder multiple times because it has more than one link in it. Please, only one link per comment. Post more comments to post more links. That's fine. Just wait 30 seconds between submitting comments.

"When it does, the impact will rip through the feminist life plan like a bulldozer"

Naw men will continue to be as irresponsible as the women.

What Ppen said.

Our problems are almost never with things... Drugs and policy.

Our problems are almost always about weak character, and thers no pill for that..

Yup I know plenty of men who don't want no more motherfucking kids and refuse to get vasectomies. Then what happens? They get more motherfucking kids and still don't snip snip.

Something about their manhood and some such nonsense.

If a birth control man pill comes along this baby shit is still gonna happen.

Maybe they'll start accusing women of messing with their man pills and flushing them down the toilet, replacing them with smarties and sucking on them used condoms or something.

I wish there were more women like you, Amy.

I personally know a guy that kept a small bottle of hot sauce with him(he got the idea for some radio guy). He suspected that the woman wanted to get pregnant.
He added some hot sauce in the used condom and wrapped it in toilet paper and put it in garage can.

About an half hour later she started screaming and went to emergency room. Another ER doctor told me there were a few cases like that in the LA area.

Our problems are almost always about weak character, and thers no pill for that.. - Crid

Sure there is. But people tend to get twitchy about murder and suicide

I can tell you-all why guys don't want to get the snip-snip. It experiance like the following: There is a group of guys that I get together with fairly regularly - on this day there was about 10 of us (so almost all). The then de facto leader starts talking about his cancer...I think it is prostate cancer but have not straight up heard. One of his concerns is whether he "still be able to meet the ladies' needs" One of the guys pipes up...his cousin was fine...but he just got the snip snip after his divorce and only occasionally get it part way up...but can usually get enough with viagara...but luckly is second wife is not into sex. Two others then volunteered that they two had it done and both of them were non-functional but life was still good. THey didn't need sex for a happy life.

After hearing that do you think I am going to consider it? If I do, the literature the doc gives you (yep...I have gone that far before) will brink this all up again.

the thoughts and bsessions of people who would claim to be adults as exposed on this blog are a continual source of amazement..

God damn, people.

"If a birth control man pill comes along this baby shit is still gonna happen."

I'll tell you how it goes down. Responsible men use it; lowlifes and incorrigibles don't. The result is that, in another generation, nearly all children have a scumbag playa for a father, or no father at all (sperm bank). Now what?

It doesn't have to end up that way Cousin Dave. Many responsible men want to have kids. But no one wants to be tricked or involuntarily forced.

I personally think that a male pill would result in substantial legal change. It would no longer be possible for a woman to involuntarily have a child with a 'high value' male. Women would also have a harder time having a child with one man and passing it off as another's. So there could be a push to reduce the 'cost' of a child in order to encourage 'high value' men to have one.

And yes, there will be birth control tampering. There are men who tamper with women's birth control, so this is an equal gender risk. But there is a much lower risk of someone tampering with your birth control than someone tampering with their birth control.

In support of Former Banker's post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy#Complications

My Dad had short-term complications, to the point of a few days recovering in the hospital. That was attributed to the surgeon encountering scar tissue from when he was kicked by a mule 20-some years before, and AFAIK there were no long term effects.

But 3-10% have a long-term effect known as "Post-vasectomy pain syndrome." I'd rather not know any more...

And there is a possible link to dementia.

Ppen @ 8:12am,
You may discount That's Life! as not being a credible source, but what about evidence from blood banks? Although the DNA evidence won't save you because, as I referenced above - Lord Mansfield's Rule, now legally defined as presumption of paternity means that even if HotRockBandDrummer did the deed, the man is on hook as the "father".

You need to provide a much better link than that, Steve.

However, one source I spotted claimed that one in ten "fathers" are not fathers. If true, that's nasty, but it's still a far cry from the 28%(?) figure so often thrown around. What those who use that figure won't mention is that that's apparently the rate found, not when blood types are randomly compared, but when paternity DNA tests are done. I.e., the latter tests are only done when there's a DOUBT as to paternity. So it would be close to accurate to say that if you have sex with a woman and she claims you're the father and you don't believe it and demand a DNA test, 72% of the time, you WILL turn out to be the father.

Lastango: What makes you think that any self-described feminist believes that duping men and "living on" child support payments - or picking up rock stars or athletes and having their babies is a dignified, acceptable, or even profitable "life plan"? Name one who believes that.

Also, as I've predicted before: When the foolproof contraceptives arrive, such as Vasalgel and Pro-Vas (pills are too easy to forget), it will take at least two years before we see any major changes in the American battle of the sexes - and it could take much longer. Why? Because men in long-term relationships (LTRs) will continue to trust the women they're with - usually for good reason - and men who are not in LTRs and refuse to use condoms will likely not use any method that's more intrusive. (Given how stupid and reckless you have to be to refuse condom use with near-strangers in the first place, why is that surprising to anyone?) Rich male celebs might use them - but they probably already know enough not to leave their condom boxes alone with pin-wielding groupies, so it may not make much difference to the groupies.

BTW, I found a long thread on male birth control - not sure of the date and it's way too repetitive, but there were a few good quotes:

dr e: "Warren Farrell calls the male bc pill one of the two most important events for men in the next twenty years."

Gerard Velthuis (MRA from the Netherlands): "Funny, so do feminists. Somebody will draw the shortest straw.

"You all think like women in the '60s or '70s

"AND you all think with your masulistic mind. The average 'bloke' doesn't think like you all do, when do you realise this?? The average bloke will see it as another burden shifted to men at the benefit of women."

The Gonzman: "It's an apples and oranges comparison - it's like saying 'People will never use a computer in the house' forty years ago.

"They never had that option before.

"Men have never had an option for birth control that was THEIR OWN DAMN BUSINESS before..."

And elsewhere:

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-36608-post-794879.html

It's the second page of a thread - there are other comments by the same man in the first page. He goes by "Basil Ransom."

Excerpts:

"You and others are just spouting baseless paranoia.

"Educated single white feminists don't want kids. They really don't. Anything that reduces their odds of getting kids, they are more or less behind. Many also don't like that they have to take birth control to avoid getting pregnant, due to the effort, expense and side effects incurred. Giving the chore of birth control to a man is desirable to them - insofar as they trust him. These 32 year old spinsters entrapping men with their wombs are more or less figments of your imagination. They don't get pregnant that easily to begin with.

"Who loses from male birth control? The women who are looking to get pregnant from single men. Who is currently getting pregnant outside of marriage? It's not educated white girls, or their Asian peers. It's black women and Hispanic women. It's white and Asian women without a 4 year college degree. Some of these women who had bastards would probably preferred not to have a baby, while some wanted the baby, marriage be damned. And surely some of the fathers wanted the baby too, while others were indifferent or merely irresponsible.

"There's another group that loses from male birth control, but I see them as pretty small - married women who want a kid but their husband doesn't."

While the human genome project was around year ten I recall an article claim the researchers had discovered a paternity fraud rate of about 15%

BTW, when I said "duping men," I wasn't including paternity fraud. But even crazies like Gloria Allred - who has no sympathy for such male victims - don't, to my knowledge, encourage paternity fraud even before the woman gets pregnant as a way for her to make a living.

Sperm thieves!!

See, the living Hell of sperm theft is something that's very difficult to explain to children!

As a consequence, many young men come roaring into adolescence with the naive confidence that they'll be equipped to deal with the opposite sec in a straightforward, mutually respectful manner.

Suddenly, just at the cusp of lives of trusting, noble dignity, they realize that they can trust no one... NO ONE!

Those guys are so screwed... Because SPERM THIEVES!!

So let me get this straight. Women will search them trash bins for crusty condoms, get a turkey baster and fill it with old jizz, dildo themselves while apparently fucking another man and passing it off as your baby?

Man I'm confused.

Yes, Ppen! That is a THING THAT HAPPENS!!

Women are that dangerous.

It happens. Amy says it happens.

Men need to be aware!

Since we all know you're one of the smartest people here, Ppen, I'm sure you weren't that confused. But anyway...

I hope we can all agree that paternity fraud is wrong and needs to stop. After all, the woman always knows that there's a CHANCE it's the other man's baby and she has to be honest about that.

However,some people call a woman's failure to avoid getting pregnant "contraceptive fraud," whether she actually avoided taking her pills or simply made a mistake.

As Katha Pollitt said in 1998: "If this is fraud, then should we call a man’s insincere promise to 'put it in for just a minute' assault?"

(Well, maybe some would, but Pollitt apparently didn't sympathize with such women who cry assault. I agree with her.)

And regarding condoms in the trash: As Pollitt also pointed out, any man could lie and claim a woman tricked him in that way or another when she didn't.

> However,some people call a woman's failure
> to avoid getting pregnant "contraceptive
> fraud," whether she actually avoided taking
> her pills or simply made a mistake.

So much danger... So many nuances... Viciousness everywhere...

HOW CAN HUMANITY SURVIVE?????