Who is responsible for pregnancies? (Derail from: Policies that will reduce abortions)

[Metaphor]

Defending myself from falsehoods is not 'pedantry'.

No one said it was. You are allowed to use pedantry and straw men to "defend" yourself. You are allowed to make false accusations to defend yourself. The issue is not defense but your methods.

It is not 'pedantic' to call out your falsehoods, like your falsehood that merely acknowledging that 'voluntary events by both actors can lead to pregnancy' is the same as 'consenting' to pregnancy.

No one said it was. Once again, it is the method not the defense. While I am no longer surprised by your unwillingness or inability to grasp such a distinction, it is a bit dismaying and predictably boring.

You know perfectly well this line of discussion began with your claim that
"Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. " Using your reasoning, voluntary consenting to getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting hit by a drunk driver". Which clearly illustrates the unreasonableness of your use of the term "consent". to any reasonably literate coherent and intellectually honest discussant.

Yes, getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting into a car accident.

If you think that means I said or implied that that means you 'consented' to a car accident, your literacy and reasoning is extremely poor.

Defending myself from falsehoods is not 'pedantry'.

No one said it was. You are allowed to use pedantry and straw men to "defend" yourself. You are allowed to make false accusations to defend yourself. The issue is not defense but your methods.

It is not 'pedantic' to call out your falsehoods, like your falsehood that merely acknowledging that 'voluntary events by both actors can lead to pregnancy' is the same as 'consenting' to pregnancy.

No one said it was. Once again, it is the method not the defense. While I am no longer surprised by your unwillingness or inability to grasp such a distinction, it is a bit dismaying and predictably boring.

You know perfectly well this line of discussion began with your claim that
"Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. " Using your reasoning, voluntary consenting to getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting hit by a drunk driver". Which clearly illustrates the unreasonableness of your use of the term "consent". to any reasonably literate coherent and intellectually honest discussant.

Yes, getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting into a car accident.

I didn't write getting into a car accident.

You said getting hit by a drunk driver, or some other ridiculous distinction without a difference.

Getting into a car and driving means you run the risk of getting hit by a drunk driver. That is not a ridiculous statement to make.

Your analogy, however, is ridiculous.

It seems once again, your literacy and reasoning is extremely poor.

But returning to your "reasoning", I give you credit - you are consistent in your ridiculousness.

Yes, for laughing dog, it is ridiculous to acknowledge events that have a connection to previous events.

 

[Bomb#20]

... I’ve stated a simple fact of biology: every single pregnancy begins with a man ejaculating. That is what causes pregnancy.

Men are losing their minds over some woman having the unmitigated gall to state that simple fact of biology. ...

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." - Lewis Carroll

Toni, you keep saying that over and over. And IIRC you said you're a scientist. So you should know better than to make unscientific claims like that one and try to cloak them in the authority of science. What you are doing here is no different from what Christians are doing when they claim it's a simple fact of biology that a human life begins at conception. Life is a cycle. It goes in a circle. A circle has no beginning and no end. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for picking one event in the life cycle and claiming that that's where the cycle starts. Such claims are metaphysics. They're religion.

If you disagree, show your work. By all means, please explain to the board how your claim "every single pregnancy begins with a man ejaculating" is falsifiable. If that's a "fact of biology", then what biological experiment could we possibly do that would falsify your claim if it were to come out a certain way? If Metaphor says a pregnancy begins with an ovulation and you say it begins with an ejaculation and Tom says it begins with a fertilization and Emily says it begins with an implantation, what distinguishable predictions of observable events are implied by all your distinct claims about what every single pregnancy begins with?

How is the statement: ‘Every pregnancy begins with some man ejaculating’ false, from a biological standpoint?

I didn't say it was false! False would be a step up for it. From a biological standpoint, your statement is "not even wrong". It is an unfalsifiable metaphysical claim. Whether it is true or false has no effect on any observable phenomenon. From a biological standpoint it is not a statement about biology. It's catechism, exactly like "life begins at conception."

I made no claim that ejaculation was sufficient; merely that it is necessary.

But the circumstance of it being necessary does not provide any support for your contentions against Loren, Metaphor, etc. A lot of steps are necessary for a pregnancy. There's a reason you've been singling out that one event and claiming pregnancy "begins" with it and not saying pregnancy "begins" with any of those other steps. Your rhetoric relies on its uniqueness.

A woman can ovulate every month for 40 years or longer and never become pregnant without a man ejaculating. This is true even if her eggs are harvested. It’s true whether or not she consents to any sexual contact. Ever.

And? A male non-rapist can ejaculate every few days for 40 years or longer and never make a woman pregnant without a woman inviting him to insert his semen into her. So by what logic do you draw an inference from the premise of ejaculation being a necessary step to the conclusion that there's some asymmetry between male and female responsibility for any non-rape-induced pregnancy?

Sperm production is equivalent to ovulation in terms of producing gametes.

Ejaculating is necessary to release sperm to fertilize the ova. Ejaculation is voluntary under most circumstances as is the choice of where to ejaculate. A woman can be impregnated whether or not she chooses to have a penis inserted into her vagina and whether or not she agrees to have a man ejaculate inside or near her vagina.

Yes, women can block ovulation by taking the pill, assuming that they are medically able to do so safely, have the finances to pay for the medical visit and prescription, and is willing to tolerate whatever side effects that may result from taking the pill. These side effects can range from beneficial to mild to extremely disruptive.

A man can use a condom, which is inexpensive, available without a prescription and immediately restores his ability to impregnate a woman simply by not using one. Or he can ejaculate not inside or near her vagina.

All of those statements are absolutely factual.

Which of those allegedly absolutely factual statements is supposed to imply an asymmetry in responsibility for non-rape-induced pregnancies?

 

[Bomb#20]

Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.

Well, technically, it happens quite frequently. Lots of men have sperm in their pre-ejaculate fluid. It's one of the reasons withdrawal as a birth control method has such a high failure rate. But perhaps you use "ejaculation" to refer to everything after penetration.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

... I’ve stated a simple fact of biology: every single pregnancy begins with a man ejaculating. That is what causes pregnancy.

Men are losing their minds over some woman having the unmitigated gall to state that simple fact of biology. ...

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." - Lewis Carroll

Toni, you keep saying that over and over. And IIRC you said you're a scientist. So you should know better than to make unscientific claims like that one and try to cloak them in the authority of science. What you are doing here is no different from what Christians are doing when they claim it's a simple fact of biology that a human life begins at conception. Life is a cycle. It goes in a circle. A circle has no beginning and no end. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for picking one event in the life cycle and claiming that that's where the cycle starts. Such claims are metaphysics. They're religion.

If you disagree, show your work. By all means, please explain to the board how your claim "every single pregnancy begins with a man ejaculating" is falsifiable. If that's a "fact of biology", then what biological experiment could we possibly do that would falsify your claim if it were to come out a certain way? If Metaphor says a pregnancy begins with an ovulation and you say it begins with an ejaculation and Tom says it begins with a fertilization and Emily says it begins with an implantation, what distinguishable predictions of observable events are implied by all your distinct claims about what every single pregnancy begins with?

How is the statement: ‘Every pregnancy begins with some man ejaculating’ false, from a biological standpoint?

I didn't say it was false! False would be a step up for it. From a biological standpoint, your statement is "not even wrong". It is an unfalsifiable metaphysical claim. Whether it is true or false has no effect on any observable phenomenon. From a biological standpoint it is not a statement about biology. It's catechism, exactly like "life begins at conception."

I made no claim that ejaculation was sufficient; merely that it is necessary.

But the circumstance of it being necessary does not provide any support for your contentions against Loren, Metaphor, etc. A lot of steps are necessary for a pregnancy.

And the one that is the most arbitrary part is within the guy's control.

So much has been made about consent (which actually makes it not rape), but in the end, if the guy doesn't want to get the woman pregnant, he has the most control of that destiny. No amount of consent counts as pregnancy risk mitigation. If the guy doesn't want her to get pregnant, he can partake in a few different actions to greatly reduce the risk.

The guy is the final firewall on pregnancy risk. The woman can consent all she wants, but it is the guy that lights the fuse.

If there is consent, there is culpability amount both partners for a pregnancy. But that doesn't make any of the above not true.

 

[laughing dog]

You said getting hit by a drunk driver, or some other ridiculous distinction without a difference.

Stop making excuses for your false accusation.

Getting into a car and driving means you run the risk of getting hit by a drunk driver. That is not a ridiculous statement to make.

No, it is not. But that is not what you wrote. Do you even pay attention to the content of posts to which you write or respond? I ask, because the prevalence of these straw men makes me wonder if you pay attention to the content of posts to which you write or respond?

Your analogy, however, is ridiculous.

It is a direct application of your reasoning. As any intellectually honest reader knows, if it is ridiculous then so is your claim. You cannot have it both ways - which was my point.

Yes, for laughing dog, it is ridiculous to acknowledge events that have a connection to previous events.

Wow, you just cannot stop with the straw men,

 

[Toni]

Explain to me how a pregnancy can occur without ejaculation.

Well, technically, it happens quite frequently. Lots of men have sperm in their pre-ejaculate fluid. It's one of the reasons withdrawal as a birth control method has such a high failure rate. But perhaps you use "ejaculation" to refer to everything after penetration.

Absolutely, the statement: “every unwanted pregnancy begins with some man’s ejaculation” is simplistic as well as factual. As acknowledged elsewhere, ejaculation* is necessary but not sufficient for pregnancy to occur. My intention was never to go into a huge discourse about conception, pregnancy, the mechanics of sex, the physiological processes that need to occur to support a pregnancy, much less oogenesis, spermatogenesis, etc. I assume everyone is familiar with how pregnancy occurs at a basic high school level.

*You are correct: pregnancy can and does occur because there is sperm present in the pre-ejaculatory fluid on the tip of the penis as a part of male arousal. Any penis/vagina contact can result in pregnancy. I didn’t mention that as separate from ejaculation in the original statement because, honestly, it was a statement made to bring attention to the fact that men are not merely passive victims in unwanted pregnancies. They play an absolutely essential, generative role without which pregnancy does not occur.

This is also not about blame or fault. I’m tired of mostly ( but not only) men engaging in slut shaming and hand waving surrounding pregnancy—‘She should have kept her knees together’ and ‘Just have an abortion/ give the baby up for adoption’ —it sure ain’t MY problem! as though pregnancy were some conspiracy to rope men into commitments they do not want to make and causes no medical, physical, emotional, relationship, educational, social or economic consequences—life long consequences! for women. While men can and do just…walk away. Disappear. Throw a package of diapers on the door step and call it good. Call her a slut and bad mother and low life, etc. Sure, she might drag him to court for child support but I’ve seen how that does not work out in real life—including two marriages which failed because the wife refused to terminate a(nother) pregnancy and one ‘father’ who quit his job, moved out of state and took a job managing a property where most of his income was in form of room and board so that he could avoid paying any child support for his children on the brink of adolescence.

Don’t worry: I know some pretty shitty mothers as well. Some men who raised children on or mostly on their own, including ones not biologically theirs. And I know some adoptees who had wonderful childhoods and some who always felt a piece was missing.

Given the current make up of the US Supreme Court and the insanity of some state legislatures, not only are abortion rights being threatened but so are some forms of birth control. Perhaps all birth control.

There needs to be a genuine shift in thinking about how pregnancy begins, a stronger more solid recognition of the role men play reflected in how we treat sex, pregnancy, childbirth, child rearing.

More men are active participants in the lives of their children compared with 50 or even 30 years ago. Social institutions and workplaces have been much slower to adapt to any family model that does not center around a two heterosexual parent + child(ren)/one stay at home or mostly stay at home parent family unit. As though families were assembled in units and not comprised of living breathing human beings.

Much like this thread, this response has gone on far too long.

 

[Emily Lake]

Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. This should not be hard.

Be specific: Which party is accepting the possibility of conception and pregnancy? If conception and pregnancy occurs, who bears that cost?

 

[Emily Lake]

So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.

Man--consented to ejaculating in her vagina.
Woman--consented to having her vagina ejaculated into.

Equal.

I assume that you are intelligent and honest enough to acknowledge that a man has the ability to ejaculate into a woman's vagina even if she hasn't consented to it? That a woman can consent to sex WITHOUT the guy ejaculating in her vagina... and the man can ejaculate in her vagina anyway and she has no way to actually stop it from happening?

NOT equal.

 

[Emily Lake]

Of course there is no possibility of the man falling pregnant. So what? That does not make him somehow more responsible for the woman's pregnancy than he already was or wasn't.

Let's be real here. Right now the man's portion of responsibility for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is zero, zilch, nada, nothing. That's the entire fucking point. It takes two to create a pregnancy, but right now ONLY ONE IS CONSIDERED RESPONSIBLE FOR AVOIDING PREGNANCY.

 

[Emily Lake]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut". All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

 

[Emily Lake]

Can a pregnancy occur without a man committing the voluntary act that is ejaculating?

Yes, of course it can. Ejaculations do not have to be voluntary and they do not have to be in connection with sexual activity.

But, when a man voluntary ejaculates into a woman's vagina, and she has voluntarily consented to that ejaculate, they both played an equal and necessary role in any resulting conception.

Alright, I'm genuinely curious what sort of non-sexual involuntary ejaculation can result in a pregnancy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your analogy is ridiculous, but I'll correct IT. Mutual consent to sexual activity that involves small motile gametes and large sessile gametes meeting can have pregnancy as a result, and both parties were necessary to that pregnancy. It's like a couple drinking all day, then deciding to go joyriding while they are drunk, and then you explaining they did not consent to the accident they get into. They didn't consent to it but their voluntary actions increased the likelihood.

Where do you land when two people go out drinking, and one person believes they're going to take a cab home, but ends up passed out in the passenger seat while the other drunk drives home?

Or perhaps when two people go out with the prior agreement that one is going to be the driver and won't be drinking... but is unaware that the driver has gotten drunk without their knowledge?

 

[Emily Lake]

Surely the obvious point is that there are a lot of necessary parts, and there is no reason to pick out just one of them from the set and say the process "begins" with that one unless speaker means to ascribe uniqueness to it.

You're not wrong... but I think there's a bit more involved here. There are a whole lot of necessary elements for a pregnancy to occur. Just like with a car engine. Needs to have a central chamber, pistons, spark plugs, etc. Lots and lots of bits need to be there, all doing their part. That said... without gasoline, the engine cannot work. The gas is the catalyst injected into a system that makes it happen. If other parts of the system are lacking, sure, the engine won't work either. But the gas is still the catalyst.

Same concept here. There are a lot of elements - inside a woman's body - that have to be there for a pregnancy to occur. If there's not an egg, not a uterine lining, etc. there won't be a pregnancy. But the sperm is the catalyst.

And just like someone has to exert agency to put the gas in the tank to make the engine work... the sperm-injector is a voluntary actor that has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside or not.

A woman can say "No, I don't want to have sex.". She can say "No, I won't have sex without a condom" or "No, you cannot cum inside me". But at the end of the day, the woman cannot actually control whether or not the sperm gets there. No more so than the engine can reject the gasoline.

 

[No Robots]

Of course there is no possibility of the man falling pregnant. So what? That does not make him somehow more responsible for the woman's pregnancy than he already was or wasn't.

Let's be real here. Right now the man's portion of responsibility for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is zero, zilch, nada, nothing. That's the entire fucking point. It takes two to create a pregnancy, but right now ONLY ONE IS CONSIDERED RESPONSIBLE FOR AVOIDING PREGNANCY.

And only one is considered responsible for dealing with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said getting hit by a drunk driver, or some other ridiculous distinction without a difference.

Getting into a car and driving means you run the risk of getting hit by a drunk driver. That is not a ridiculous statement to make.

Which is why we wear seat belts even if we are good drivers.

By the time I realized the woman was going out of turn there was nothing I could do to prevent the accident--I only had a split-second of awareness that she was rolling when she should be standing and then I got a pretty good approximation of being on the receiving end of a PIT maneuver. Without my belt I'm sure I would have gotten a lot more than a pulled muscle. I still can't imagine how my glasses ended up underneath my seat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.

Man--consented to ejaculating in her vagina.
Woman--consented to having her vagina ejaculated into.

Equal.

I assume that you are intelligent and honest enough to acknowledge that a man has the ability to ejaculate into a woman's vagina even if she hasn't consented to it? That a woman can consent to sex WITHOUT the guy ejaculating in her vagina... and the man can ejaculate in her vagina anyway and she has no way to actually stop it from happening?

NOT equal.

While rape is an issue it's not the issue we are talking about.

 

[TSwizzle]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

 

[Toni]

So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.

Man--consented to ejaculating in her vagina.
Woman--consented to having her vagina ejaculated into.

Equal.

I assume that you are intelligent and honest enough to acknowledge that a man has the ability to ejaculate into a woman's vagina even if she hasn't consented to it? That a woman can consent to sex WITHOUT the guy ejaculating in her vagina... and the man can ejaculate in her vagina anyway and she has no way to actually stop it from happening?

NOT equal.

While rape is an issue it's not the issue we are talking about.

Do you think that, in the context of otherwise mutually consensual sex, if the man ejaculates inside the woman’s vagina despite her stating she did not want him to ejaculate inside her vagina, that he has committed rape?

Is this age dependent? For example, the case of an 18 year old male virgin who has agreed to pull out before ejaculating but is unable to pull out in time: Did he just commit rape?

 

[Toni]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

 

[TSwizzle]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

 

[Toni]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

 

[TSwizzle]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up rape for derail purposes.

 

[Toni]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up for derail purposes again.

No, you made an absolute statement: All women have to do to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. This is obviously untrue. Women (and girls after the onset of menarche) can refuse sex, be raped and become pregnant from the rape. Boys and men can also be raped but they do not become pregnant.

 

[TSwizzle]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up for derail purposes again.

No, you made an absolute statement: All women have to do to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. This is obviously untrue. Women (and girls after the onset of menarche) can refuse sex, be raped and become pregnant from the rape. Boys and men can also be raped but they do not become pregnant.

No, the context is clear, it's in red and large font. Do not take my comments out of context, I am not talking about pregnancies that happen with incidents of rape.

 

[Toni]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up for derail purposes again.

No, you made an absolute statement: All women have to do to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. This is obviously untrue. Women (and girls after the onset of menarche) can refuse sex, be raped and become pregnant from the rape. Boys and men can also be raped but they do not become pregnant.

No, the context is clear, it's in red and large font. Do not take my comments out of context, I am not talking about pregnancies that happen with incidents of rape.

You can play all the word games you like.

I’m not obligated to play along.

 

[laughing dog]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up for derail purposes again.

No, you made an absolute statement: All women have to do to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. This is obviously untrue. Women (and girls after the onset of menarche) can refuse sex, be raped and become pregnant from the rape. Boys and men can also be raped but they do not become pregnant.

The advice "all women have to do to avoid getting pregnant is to avoid sex" is as insightful and useful as "to avoid getting hit by car, don't go outside" or "all obese people have to do to lose weight is to stop eating so much" or any other advice that ignores human nature.

 

[Metaphor]

Stop making excuses for your false accusation.

It was not an accusation nor was it false. It was a statement of fact.

No, it is not. But that is not what you wrote.

No: I wrote that receiving ejaculate into your vagina means you are taking on the risk of becoming pregnant.

You came up with a ridiculous analogy claiming my position implies it amounts to consent to pregnancy.

It is a direct application of your reasoning. As any intellectually honest reader knows, if it is ridiculous then so is your claim. You cannot have it both ways - which was my point.

Non. It is not. A 'direct' application of my reasoning would be that getting into a car and going on the road means you accept the possibility that you will be hit by a drunk driver. Which, of course, is true.

 

[Metaphor]

Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. This should not be hard.

Be specific: Which party is accepting the possibility of conception and pregnancy? If conception and pregnancy occurs, who bears that cost?

If both parties have a rudimentary understanding of human biology, both parties must accept the possibility of conception and pregnancy. I'm not sure I even understand the question?

If conception and pregnancy occur, the woman bears the biological burden of gestation.

 

[Metaphor]

So, involuntary process on the part of woman > voluntary action on part of man.

Got it.

Man--consented to ejaculating in her vagina.
Woman--consented to having her vagina ejaculated into.

Equal.

I assume that you are intelligent and honest enough to acknowledge that a man has the ability to ejaculate into a woman's vagina even if she hasn't consented to it? That a woman can consent to sex WITHOUT the guy ejaculating in her vagina... and the man can ejaculate in her vagina anyway and she has no way to actually stop it from happening?

NOT equal.

We've been talking about consensual sex (well, most of us have). The 'fault' and 'responsibility' of non-consensual sex does not have a bearing on the 'fault' and 'responsibility' of consensual sex.

 

[TSwizzle]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up for derail purposes again.

No, you made an absolute statement: All women have to do to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. This is obviously untrue. Women (and girls after the onset of menarche) can refuse sex, be raped and become pregnant from the rape. Boys and men can also be raped but they do not become pregnant.

No, the context is clear, it's in red and large font. Do not take my comments out of context, I am not talking about pregnancies that happen with incidents of rape.

You can play all the word games you like.

No word games from me. Just your predictable bait and switch derail.

I’m not obligated to play along.

You must be as there is no reason for you to respond with a derail.

 

[Metaphor]

Surely the obvious point is that there are a lot of necessary parts, and there is no reason to pick out just one of them from the set and say the process "begins" with that one unless speaker means to ascribe uniqueness to it.

You're not wrong... but I think there's a bit more involved here. There are a whole lot of necessary elements for a pregnancy to occur. Just like with a car engine. Needs to have a central chamber, pistons, spark plugs, etc. Lots and lots of bits need to be there, all doing their part. That said... without gasoline, the engine cannot work. The gas is the catalyst injected into a system that makes it happen. If other parts of the system are lacking, sure, the engine won't work either. But the gas is still the catalyst.

Same concept here. There are a lot of elements - inside a woman's body - that have to be there for a pregnancy to occur. If there's not an egg, not a uterine lining, etc. there won't be a pregnancy. But the sperm is the catalyst.

And just like someone has to exert agency to put the gas in the tank to make the engine work... the sperm-injector is a voluntary actor that has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside or not.

A woman can say "No, I don't want to have sex.". She can say "No, I won't have sex without a condom" or "No, you cannot cum inside me". But at the end of the day, the woman cannot actually control whether or not the sperm gets there. No more so than the engine can reject the gasoline.

Emily, this sounds like you think men have more responsibility than women for conception. Is that what you actually think?

 

[TSwizzle]

Edited*

There are a whole lot of necessary elements for a pregnancy to occur. Just like with a car engine. Needs to have a central chamber, pistons, spark plugs, etc. Lots and lots of bits need to be there, all doing their part. That said... without gasoline, the engine cannot work. The gas is the catalyst injected into a system that makes it happen. If other parts of the system are lacking, sure, the engine won't work either. But the gas is still the catalyst.

And just like someone has to exert agency to put the gas in the tank to make the engine work... the sperm-injector is a voluntary actor that has complete control over whether the sperm gets inside or not.

A woman can say "No, I don't want to have sex.". She can say "No, I won't have sex without a condom" or "No, you cannot cum inside me". But at the end of the day, the woman cannot actually control whether or not the sperm gets there. No more so than the engine can reject the gasoline.

You know that when women gas up their cars they put the nozzle in the gas tank themselves and pump the gas themselves, yeah?

Sometimes women are so horny they do the same with men’s cocks. Grab the cock, put it in the vagina and start pumping, consequences be damned.

 

[Bomb#20]

Absolutely, the statement: “every unwanted pregnancy begins with some man’s ejaculation” is simplistic as well as factual. ...
Given the current make up of the US Supreme Court and the insanity of some state legislatures, not only are abortion rights being threatened but so are some forms of birth control. Perhaps all birth control. ...

This brings up a corollary. The conventional definition of "pregnancy" has it beginning with implantation. Under that definition, a birth control method like an IUD that prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum doesn't cause an abortion, since there was never a pregnancy for it to end. But if somebody argues that fertilization begins a pregnancy then he'll classify an IUD as an abortifacient. This is an important practical distinction in a country that's heading for increasing legal obstacles to abortion.

Point being, you might want to think long and hard before you throw around your rhetoric about how pregnancy begins with ejaculation with wild abandon. If that becomes the prevalent point of view, then the pro-forced-birth lobby is going to run with it, and declare spermicide to be a method of abortion instead of a method of contraception. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Men can greatly increase the risks of not getting women pregnant by not releasing a bunch of preg-bots in the woman. They don't need to move to a monastery.

 

[Toni]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up for derail purposes again.

No, you made an absolute statement: All women have to do to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. This is obviously untrue. Women (and girls after the onset of menarche) can refuse sex, be raped and become pregnant from the rape. Boys and men can also be raped but they do not become pregnant.

No, the context is clear, it's in red and large font. Do not take my comments out of context, I am not talking about pregnancies that happen with incidents of rape.

You can play all the word games you like.

No word games from me. Just your predictable bait and switch derail.

I’m not obligated to play along.

You must be as there is no reason for you to respond with a derail.

Hey, this entire thread is MY derail.

You want to narrow down sex to only completely consensual sex between adults (I'm presuming the last part but maybe that's not what you meant).

Some of us refuse to discount lack of consent as a factor in pregnancy.

 

[laughing dog]

Point being, you might want to think long and hard before you throw around your rhetoric about how pregnancy begins with ejaculation with wild abandon. If that becomes the prevalent point of view, then the pro-forced-birth lobby is going to run with it, and declare spermicide to be a method of abortion instead of a method of contraception. Be careful what you wish for.

You are behind the times. Long ago, there were those who advocated bannning spermicide - some because they are thought it contraception and some thought it abortion. Now, I think those who thought it abortion were wrong, but my point is that there are always those who will promote lies and misinformation to further their goals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, now the good news is, if you live in one of 26 states, both people will either have to become parents or put the child up for adoption. Time for the woman to do her 9.

 

[TSwizzle]

It beggars belief that this is still being debated. When a woman consents to penis-in-vagina sex she is as responsible for any resulting conception as the man who ejaculated sperm into her.

And we've come right back around to "If a chick doesn't want to get herself preggers, she should just keep her legs shut".

That is a very effective way of not getting pregnant.

All of the responsibility for avoiding a pregnancy is being placed on the woman.

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

In this scenario: He took responsibility for preventing a pregnancy and good for him!

I always enjoy a good fairy tale.

It's not a fairy tale.

The one about all a woman has to do is keep her knees together? That’s not a fairy tale but a despicable falsehood.

It's absolutely true. Woman can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex. Men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

Unfortunately deciding not to have sex does not prevent rape or any resulting pregnancy.

Well of course it doesn't, I wasn't talking about rape. It's only you that brings up for derail purposes again.

No, you made an absolute statement: All women have to do to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex. This is obviously untrue. Women (and girls after the onset of menarche) can refuse sex, be raped and become pregnant from the rape. Boys and men can also be raped but they do not become pregnant.

No, the context is clear, it's in red and large font. Do not take my comments out of context, I am not talking about pregnancies that happen with incidents of rape.

You can play all the word games you like.

No word games from me. Just your predictable bait and switch derail.

I’m not obligated to play along.

You must be as there is no reason for you to respond with a derail.

Hey, this entire thread is MY derail.

You're not obligated to play along with the game but you still do.

You want to narrow down sex to only completely consensual sex between adults (I'm presuming the last part but maybe that's not what you meant).

Yes and also point out that you took my comments out of context.

Some of us refuse to discount lack of consent as a factor in pregnancy.

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.

 

[Toni]

.

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.

Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken. Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

 

[laughing dog]

Stop making excuses for your false accusation.

It was not an accusation nor was it false. It was a statement of fact.

No, it was not. A fact is something that is true., not something you wish to think it true. Your "Yes, getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting into a car accident. " is not a fact since I never wrote such a statement.

No, it is not. But that is not what you wrote.

No: I wrote that receiving ejaculate into your vagina means you are taking on the risk of becoming pregnant.

No, you did not.

It is a direct application of your reasoning. As any intellectually honest reader knows, if it is ridiculous then so is your claim. You cannot have it both ways - which was my point.

Non. It is not. A 'direct' application of my reasoning would be that getting into a car and going on the road means you accept the possibility that you will be hit by a drunk driver. Which, of course, is true.

In post 312, I wrote

Moreover, saying voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex meanss accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy is is like saying getting into a car is accepting the possibility of getting killed by a drunk driver.

And in post 347, I wrote

You know perfectly well this line of discussion began with your claim that
"Voluntary consent to penis-in-vagina sex means accepting the possibility of a conception and pregnancy. " Using your reasoning, voluntary consenting to getting into a car means accepting the possibility of getting hit by a drunk driver".

The italicized bold-faced parts are to make it clear that you simply disagreeing over absolutely nothing,

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.
Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken. Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

It seems silly to remind people, but the whole process of ejaculation doesn't occur during the entire process of sex. Nor is the man obligated by law to do so inside the woman, despite her consent.

 

[No Robots]

Roe v. Wade overturned.

 

[Toni]

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.
Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken. Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

It seems silly to remind people, but the whole process of ejaculation doesn't occur during the entire process of sex. Nor is the man obligated by law to do so inside the woman, despite her consent.

Yeah, this was an entire plot in Season 1 of Bridgerton.

 

[TSwizzle]

.

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.

Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

I see, so really this derail isn't about how reproduction works but a rant about rapists getting women pregnant which we can't do much about. We could maybe encourage rapists to use condoms when they go raping but I don't think it is an effective strategy because condoms are not 100% effective. Some victims of rape are too young to get pregnant so that's not a problem, other than the rape of course.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken.

Hmmm, yeah, I think you might be on to something here. Maybe one day a scientists will come up with a way to stop the pregnancy happening. In the meantime, in order to avoid pregnancy the most effective strategy is to not have unprotected sex. Got it.

Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

Good to know

 

[Toni]

.

Well sure, rape victims can and do get pregnant. But that doesn't change how fertilization works, the biology is the same whether the sex was consensual or not. In consensual sex there are steps can be taken to avoid pregnancy, rape, not so much.

Exactly. The first way to avoid causing a pregnancy (for a rapist) is not to rape anyone. Happy faces all around.

I see, so really this derail isn't about how reproduction works but a rant about rapists getting women pregnant which we can't do much about. We could maybe encourage rapists to use condoms when they go raping but I don't think it is an effective strategy because condoms are not 100% effective. Some victims of rape are too young to get pregnant so that's not a problem, other than the rape of course.

In mutually consensual sex (which assumes all parties are adults, consenting and not under undue influence of any sort of intoxicants or otherwise mentally impaired), biology still works the same way: if the man does not ejaculate in or near a vagina, no pregnancy will result. At least not without additional steps being taken.

Hmmm, yeah, I think you might be on to something here. Maybe one day a scientists will come up with a way to stop the pregnancy happening. In the meantime, in order to avoid pregnancy the most effective strategy is to not have unprotected sex. Got it.

Note: Without express consent from all parties, I am vehemently opposed to using ejaculate to impregnate anyone.

Good to know

No, I wrote what I wrote in a different thread, mods split it off because somehow a bunch of people thought what I wrote was a) controversial and b) about blaming men and lost their fucking minds because it’s much much much easier to assign blame —and here, I do mean blame—to women for being impregnated. Just like it’s much easier to assign them the full responsibility of raising any resulting child unless dear old dad decides to be generous and throw a couple of bucks her way. Oh, and blame women for sabotaging their careers and education. Ladies keep your knees together! Not: Keep it zipped, guys.

 

[TSwizzle]

No, I wrote what I wrote in a different thread, mods split it off because somehow a bunch of people thought what I wrote was a) controversial

I don't see any controversy from anyone on how fertilization works.

and b) about blaming men and lost their fucking minds because it’s much much much easier to assign blame —and here, I do mean blame—to women for being impregnated.

Only you have lost their fucking mind. And it very much is about you blaming men and absolving women. You have been consistent with that despite your obvious attempts to disguise it with waffle.

Just like it’s much easier to assign them the full responsibility of raising any resulting child unless dear old dad decides to be generous and throw a couple of bucks her way. Oh, and blame women for sabotaging their careers and education.

And here you slide in another lot of crap about post pregnancy problems and that isn't what people are discussing. That's just you talking with the voices in your head and posting it.

Ladies keep your knees together! Not: Keep it zipped, guys.

Agreed, women can avoid getting pregnant by not having sex and men can avoid getting women pregnant by not having sex with women.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not necessarily. A woman may say, let's have sex, the man may ask are you using some form of birth control, the woman says no, don't worry about it and the man says no thanks I am not having sex with you. There, the man took responsibility.

Now you're getting it! I want THAT to be the EXPECTED behavior of men.

 

[Emily Lake]

No: I wrote that receiving ejaculate into your vagina means you are taking on the risk of becoming pregnant.

There are a LOT of situations where a woman may end up having ejaculate in her vagina without having consented to it. They run tha gamut from forcible rape to "oops I lost control and didn't pull out in time".

Why is it so much to ask that we alter the narrative on this? Why is it such a burden to consider reframing that as "depositing ejaculate into a woman's vagina means you're taking on the risk of getting her pregnant"?

Why on earth does it get so much pushback and argument to suggest that men should be expected to take a greater role in the prevention of pregnancy than they do now?

I'm actually a bit baffled on your position on this, Met, seeing as you don't stick your dick in vijayjays in the first place, so exactly zero of this has any impact on you. This seems like it runs into the area where you pretty much just hold a pretty negative view of women overall.

 

[Emily Lake]

We've been talking about consensual sex (well, most of us have). The 'fault' and 'responsibility' of non-consensual sex does not have a bearing on the 'fault' and 'responsibility' of consensual sex.

Let's be realistic instead of philosophical here. Women have a hard time getting convictions of rape for cases where a complete stranger accosts her and assaults her. We have an even harder time getting convictions for date rape or marital rape, we're frequently dismissed as "having led him on" or in some fashion having "tacitly" consented even when we absolutely did not.

It's all well and good for you to philosophically decide that a guy not using a condom when he said he would, or not pulling out when he said he would count as rape... But that decision on your part has no bearing on the real world at all. You can say it's rape all day every day, but there will never be a conviction for it. So where does that leave us? It leaves us exactly where we already are: women end up being held responsible for ensuring that they don't get pregnant; men are asked politely to not get women pregnant, but if they decide they don't want to there are no consequences for their lack of responsibility. Men are NOT expected to be responsible for preventing an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily, this sounds like you think men have more responsibility than women for conception. Is that what you actually think?

I think men have more CONTROL over conception than women do. I also think that men are not expected to exert that control in order to prevent a pregnancy.

Just step back and consider the framing in this thread. How many times has someone essentially said "if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex"? That message has been repeated many times.

How often in this thread have people said "if a man doesn't want to cause a pregnancy, he shouldn't have sex"? A couple of us have said it as a way to highlight the uneven nature of the discussion. But it hasn't been said in absolute seriousness.

Why not?