Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Enthusiastic Consent

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sigma
    replied
    It also keeps men hardworking and compliant.

    Leave a comment:


  • cam9999
    replied
    Angry Harry has an article on this on his UK web site and it is an interesting take on the whole thing. Go over and have a read.

    But my take on your comment is this............ when applied to unmarried people and those not in defacto relationships.....

    1. You both decide to do it and you both know the consequences of playing around if the usual precautions are not taken or they fail. She will get pregnant and if born, the baby when born is the responsibilty of both parties - the parents.

    And she is as much at fault as you are for this even though the Government , the media and the various womans' and other interest groups want to blame the male entirely for every baby born out of wedlock. Woman are never seen as responsible. They were just innocent parties who played no real part in it apparently. It is all those bad men again and now they should pay for their deeds perpetrated on these innocent females. At least this is how all these men are painted. It is almost as if she was not even present at conception.

    2. But then she decides if she will keep the unborn baby. Not you. You do not exist now.

    The law says you have no say over that as it is her unborn baby to do with as she wants until it is born or at least beyond the abortion stage. If you say - but I do not want the financial and other responsibilities of a baby and I want an abortion - the law says you still have no say over this even though it will be as much your baby as hers once it can no longer be legally aborted. She can elect to abort but you cannot.

    3. If she decides to abort the child the law says ok and, further, you have absolutely no right to stop her from doing so. She can kill your own child over your vehement objections and the law says, yeah we are fine with that, go right ahead we do not care what the father thinks. He has no rights here.
    So you have no right to require an abortion of her (nor should this be possible in practice)and no right to stop her from having an abortion. Seems then you have no rights over your own child at all pre-birth - and you do not.

    4. If she decides to have the child over your objections (you wanted her to abort because as an equal party you did not want to bear the responsibilities of children - the same responsibilities she could elect to avoid by choosing to abort ) the law says too bad. The baby you expressly did not want and which could have been aborted legally is now your responsibilty, at least financially. She is not bound to marry you - just to get paid by you for 18 years through child support laws and a court can decide how often you can see that child if you do not come to some agreement yourselves.

    5. The same can apply if you decide you both want the baby, ie. she is not bound to marry you - just to get paid by you for 18 years through child support laws and a court can decide how often you can see that child if you do not come to some agreement on sharing yourselves.

    She has all the rights and choices - not you - even though you are affected both financially and otherwise by her "yes or no" decisions. Why then if you have no say should you be responsible for the costs of a baby that she had the legal right to abort if you had an expressed desire not to have the baby.

    Clearly we should never ever force an abortion on anyone. But then you have no right to stop an abortion of your child either because the law effectively says, at that stage, it is really only her baby. The law wants it both ways. If unborn it effectively says it is not yours and you have no rights but if born you then have all the responsibilities of a parent whether you wanted the baby or not.

    What it comes down to is this. If a potential father says to a family court prior to birth, by formal submission or some other efficient means, that he wanted his baby legally aborted but the mother has decided to keep it which should of course be her clear right, the financial responsibility at that stage should then flow entirely to her unless the father agrees otherwise.

    Do you really think there would be so many single mothers around, some of them with 2, 3 and and even 4 different fathers all out of wedlock(no exaggeration here at all) if the fathers could opt out financially as outline above? There no doubt would not but then these same woman would simply not tell the fathers of the pregnancy until it became very obvious or, perhaps, not until the child was born in many cases.

    It does not matter what we as men think about any of this because it will never change except to even further favour the female.

    The Government does NOT want to bear the full financial burden of unmarried mothers who choose to have children in those circumstances when it can force the fathers to pay for it and thus reduce the costs to the taxpayers - whether the dads wanted these kids or not. Nor does the Government want to be seen to be depriving children one way or another of the funds needed to support the kids. From the Government's point of view, the more cash it can get from the fathers the less it will need to hand over in social security benefits to the mothers, if any benefits. Hence we see some very unfair child support financial formulas put in place. In many cases these place undue financial hardship on men when compared with the burden on the female who should have equal responsibility, financial and otherwise.

    If you want to screw around then you must protect yourself otherwise you may well end up paying for that quickie for the next 18 years and you can guarantee that will not change in your lifetime.
    Last edited by cam9999; 08-13-2014, 04:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jack H.
    replied
    I could get behind that except the entire "enthusiastic consent" thing is rather silly and I can't endorse something that clueless about reality or human nature.
    but for that the concept is sound, no man gave consent to being financially raped for 18 years (or in some places life because child support only ends if/when the 'child' gets married.) even if they consented to raising the child themselves or with the help of the mother.
    in the case of a separation custody should logically go to the parent who can support the child on their own without aid financial or otherwise from the partner.

    Leave a comment:


  • cpb
    started a topic Enthusiastic Consent

    Enthusiastic Consent

    Ok, I have this concept floating around in my head but I can't fully form it. Maybe someone else can pick it up and run with it.

    Enthusiastic consent, as a concept, refers to whether 'yes means yes'.

    Can the same yardstick be applied to reproductive rights? The fact that I fucked you doesn't mean I give permission for you to get fertilised, I.e. It is not acceptable to lie about your contraceptive status. You are assuming that when I fucked you I was ok with that possible consequence, but did you get my "clear unambiguous enthusiastic consent' to provide you with child support for 18 years?

    Thoughts?
Working...
X