TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Male freedom of choice?
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T if you truly believe so, you have a very shallow perception of reality.

It's all that can be required legally.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's all that can be required legally.

so? law is man made, it has no absolute (and very little general) need to conform to either logic or practicality.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T so? law is man made, it has no absolute (and very little general) need to conform to either logic or practicality.

Exactly right. Which is why the law can only require people to pay support in monetary means that are dispersed and valid only within that nation's legal tendering structure rather than require people to love or care for their children. People should love their kids, but that isn't something that can be mandated by the government - only monetary support is something that can and should be required. No, this doesn't solve all the problems, but the purpose of a government is not to fix everything - just to provide a basis of civilized enforcement and, to a lesser extent, moral requisition.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Exactly right. Which is why the law can only require people to pay support in monetary means that are dispersed and valid only within that nation's legal tendering structure rather than require people to love or care for their children. People should love their kids, but that isn't something that can be mandated by the government - only monetary support is something that can and should be required. No, this doesn't solve all the problems, but the purpose of a government is not to fix everything - just to provide a basis of civilized enforcement and, to a lesser extent, moral requisition.

the law can only require X because it has no need to conform to logic or practicality? strange, i'd have figured the law can require absolutely anything due to that same fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T the law can only require X because it has no need to conform to logic or practicality? strange, i'd have figured the law can require absolutely anything due to that same fact.

Technically, the law can require whatever lawmakers and policy-makers pass, but I am saying that no legal system out there can require people to have emotions. Currently, the law can require people to participate in a presentable manner as it sees fit or else people face the consequences, but it cannot force people to love one another.

Money is a conceptual form of exchange under jurisdiction of the very law which manipulates its value, therefore it is a tender that can be required by law, but no governing structure has a monopoly over peoples feelings for one another. A parent can legally hate their child as long as there is no abuse, but they had better support it financially.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Technically, the law can require whatever lawmakers and policy-makers pass, but I am saying that no legal system out there can require people to have emotions. Currently, the law can require people to participate in a presentable manner as it sees fit or else people face the consequences, but it cannot force people to love one another. Money is a conceptual form of exchange under jurisdiction of the very law which manipulates its value, therefore it is a tender that can be required by law, but no governing structure has a monopoly over peoples feelings for one another. A parent can legally hate their child as long as there is no abuse, but they had better support it financially.

you seem to be misreading me.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Everything has its price though. The entire universe is action and reaction - attempting to remove any consequence is just trading one set of problems for another.

i argued that removal of the relevant responsibilities does not affect the universal law of action-reaction; that in fact, there is no such thing as removal of consequence. i didn't argue anything directly about emotions: when i said shallow perception of reality, i wasn't referring to emotions, i was referring to any and all interactions preceeding and proceeding pregnancy.




when i deposit semen in a woman as a side effect to the sexual pleasure we both share i don't tend to hand her a contract of any sort giving her exclusive rights to that semen, nor to my responsibilities in regards to the evolution of that semen.

but let's postulate for a minute that i'm perfectly fine with her using the semen as she deems fit, why do i suddenly have responsibilities towards it upon me if i'm not interested in fatherhood? because i gained some physical pleasure from the act?

if that's the case, then all sperm donors must henceforth be obligated to pay for their children, seeing as they all received physical pleasure from a similiar act leading to the same result (they even get paid for it!).

(if this seems to be off our previous topic that's because it is)

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you seem to be misreading me.

Well it doesn't help that we're both jumping from topic to topic.

quote:

i argued that removal of the relevant responsibilities does not affect the universal law of action-reaction; that in fact, there is no such thing as removal of consequence. i didn't argue anything directly about emotions: when i said shallow perception of reality, i wasn't referring to emotions, i was referring to any and all interactions preceeding and proceeding pregnancy. when i deposit semen in a woman as a side effect to the sexual pleasure we both share i don't tend to hand her a contract of any sort giving her exclusive rights to that semen, nor to my responsibilities in regards to the evolution of that semen. but let's postulate for a minute that i'm perfectly fine with her using the semen as she deems fit, why do i suddenly have responsibilities towards it upon me if i'm not interested in fatherhood? because i gained some physical pleasure from the act? if that's the case, then all sperm donors must henceforth be obligated to pay for their children, seeing as they all received physical pleasure from a similiar act leading to the same result (they even get paid for it!). (if this seems to be off our previous topic that's because it is)

I do see the logic in what you are saying. The reason why I am arguing against it is because it would be so easily exploited by people who do, indeed, owe responsibility to their partner as well as their child. I am not against two people having an arrangement or an agreement (it doesn't even have to be written) where the man has no responsibility if/when a child is made - that is a personal matter that should be kept personal - but when it becomes a legal matter to fight for child support which affects the well-being of the child, I think that is when it becomes a significant issue. And I do not think that the government throwing more money at the issue is good for the situation, either - children need a father, and it takes quite some time for many men to become accustomed to fatherhood - unlike women, we aren't born with significant biological mechanisms that ensure us as providers of specific children - well, not as significant as the bond between mother and child anyways. I'd say that fatherhood is mostly a social contract as well as construction, and though all contracts should be questioned at times, I think that is is important for children to have 2 parental figures present. Perhaps nothing in this world is guaranteed to people - perhaps we become stronger when we are deprived of those social norms "ensured" to us, but that doesn't mean that we should break down our society into pardoning traditional responsibilities in the home environment just because "it's sexually discriminatory to men". If anything, society will be much better off if more people took that responsibility unto themselves rather than finding ways to legally absolve them of any ties to their decisions.

I mean, really, how do you regulate the lies that people tell? How easy would it be for men to just skip out on their families whenever they wanted to without any sort of legal consequence? Would it be ok to allow people to do this in other elements of our civilization? Other legal agreements? Contracts? Written or unwritten?

Of course there are consequences to everything - the matter is whether they will be exacted on a legal level or whether it will become a societal/personal issue. As much as I would like to see it stay personal, people are not responsible enough on their own to make decisions which benefit the people who actually matter - young and future generations. Global warming and its relationship with pollution is a good example of what happens when you absolve institutions and agreements of responsibility without immediate legal consequence. And guess who suffers from that one as well - our children.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Well it doesn't help that we're both jumping from topic to topic. I do see the logic in what you are saying. The reason why I am arguing against it is because it would be so easily exploited by people who do, indeed, owe responsibility to their partner as well as their child. I am not against two people having an arrangement or an agreement (it doesn't even have to be written) where the man has no responsibility if/when a child is made - that is a personal matter that should be kept personal - but when it becomes a legal matter to fight for child support which affects the well-being of the child, I think that is when it becomes a significant issue. And I do not think that the government throwing more money at the issue is good for the situation, either - children need a father, and it takes quite some time for many men to become accustomed to fatherhood - unlike women, we aren't born with significant biological mechanisms that ensure us as providers of specific children - well, not as significant as the bond between mother and child anyways. I'd say that fatherhood is mostly a social contract as well as construction, and though all contracts should be questioned at times, I think that is is important for children to have 2 parental figures present. Perhaps nothing in this world is guaranteed to people - perhaps we become stronger when we are deprived of those social norms "ensured" to us, but that doesn't mean that we should break down our society into pardoning traditional responsibilities in the home environment just because "it's sexually discriminatory to men". If anything, society will be much better off if more people took that responsibility unto themselves rather than finding ways to legally absolve them of any ties to their decisions. I mean, really, how do you regulate the lies that people tell? How easy would it be for men to just skip out on their families whenever they wanted to without any sort of legal consequence? Would it be ok to allow people to do this in other elements of our civilization? Other legal agreements? Contracts? Written or unwritten? Of course there are consequences to everything - the matter is whether they will be exacted on a legal level or whether it will become a societal/personal issue. As much as I would like to see it stay personal, people are not responsible enough on their own to make decisions which benefit the people who actually matter - young and future generations. Global warming and its relationship with pollution is a good example of what happens when you absolve institutions and agreements of responsibility without immediate legal consequence. And guess who suffers from that one as well - our children.

you're thinking about this from the point of view where it's default for childbirth to occur and for both parties involved to take responsibility for it, just try changing the default and you'll have far less problems.
require some bureaocracy for planned pregnancy rather than for casual sex (and i don't mean only for the females either - if a male is interested in fathering a potential offspring from a random sexual encounter, then he must fill such a form too, and notify his potential partners, whereupon they either agree via signing it, or disagree via declining him as a sexual partner).

(from a rather limited review of this proposition i see only benefits, i.e. less custody battles, less poverty, less tax dollars thrown on these problems, and obviously, more freedom and independence for both sexes, however, you are welcome to point out any direct 'negative' results (preferably not fringe ones).)

how many women out there looking for some sexual fun are hoping to be impregnated as a result? not many, i'd say - yet if it happens despite whatever precautions are taken, how many of them are going to want to carry the child to term? enough for it to become seriously problematic. what responsibility should they take in such a case? staying true to their original intentions? or carrying it to term? the current default assumption is (imo) unfortunately the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Poor argument and not logical. We're talking two very different things here. What you suggest is taking away a person's right to control their own body.

I do not suggest that; anti-choicers do. I was making a point about being consistent with arguments. On the other hand, most everybody in the thread is arguing that the man's right to control his possessions or his body should be violated: namely, that his money should be forcibly taken from him or he should be thrown in prison against his will.

The only thing that differs is the particular violation being advocated.

This is where MARRIAGE comes in

Then you really wouldn't have a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton This is where MARRIAGE comes in Then you really wouldn't have a problem.

are you... serious?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Because all it would take is for a father to say "I never approved of a child" and he would be resolved of all responsibility. Even if it were a complete lie, how would you ever verify it either way? The same also applies to women in the current situation. All it takes is a single lie. How can you choose one side over the other unless you are sexist?

Why would the father ever say he approved of a child if he really didn't? Just to get in her panties? Seems like a stretch.

Right now, the system is very sexist. It leaves everything up to the woman, and the man in a situation where he is by default required by law to support the child. Maybe there should be some form of contract where the man consents to having his baby carried to term (if that's truly what it takes to make this work). If written permission isn't given, the woman would be committing a crime, and lose all rights to child support. That would imply equal choice and responsibility on both parties.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Everything has its price though. The entire universe is action and reaction - attempting to remove any consequence is just trading one set of problems for another.

That's like saying one should never bother to attempt to fix a problem, and let society fall into anarchy. My solution certainly has less problems attached to it than the current system which leaves the decision to the woman (who is most probably highly emotional and biologically fucked up at that point in time, meaning the best possible choice will not be made).

quote:

Originally posted by distant Why would the father ever say he approved of a child if he really didn't? Just to get in her panties? Seems like a stretch.

What? That's not a stretch. Not in the least.

quote:

Right now, the system is very sexist.

Yes. That is what I have said before. But to allow the man to absolve himself of all responsibility is sexist as well. Perhaps women can be absolved of all responsibility, too? they can give their children to the men to take care of. Hey, complete equality for everybody, right? That will sure make things better.

quote:

It leaves everything up to the woman, and the man in a situation where he is by default required by law to support the child. Maybe there should be some form of contract where the man consents to having his baby carried to term (if that's truly what it takes to make this work). If written permission isn't given, the woman would be committing a crime, and lose all rights to child support. That would imply equal choice and responsibility on both parties.

I think this is the only way to feasibly enact something like this, but it's been brought up as a point of ridicule by many other people in this thread.

quote:

That's like saying one should never bother to attempt to fix a problem, and let society fall into anarchy. My solution certainly has less problems attached to it than the current system which leaves the decision to the woman

No, it's like saying that no matter what we do, regardless of what idiot decisions parents make, their kids will always be the ones who suffer in the end because people can't get their shit straight. Even in a totally 'equal' society.

quote:

(who is most probably highly emotional and biologically fucked up at that point in time, meaning the best possible choice will not be made).

See, sexism isn't so bad, is it?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T are you... serious?

In most cases no, because your married... It's much easier to have a kid when you are married than it is to have one when you aren't.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Yes. That is what I have said before. But to allow the man to absolve himself of all responsibility is sexist as well. Perhaps women can be absolved of all responsibility, too? they can give their children to the men to take care of. Hey, complete equality for everybody, right? That will sure make things better.

Yes, except the woman won't be giving the child to the man, since she made the decision to keep it, and thus is responsible for raising it. What I'm saying is, both parties make their choices, and then the level of responsibility is determined.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On No, it's like saying that no matter what we do, regardless of what idiot decisions parents make, their kids will always be the ones who suffer in the end because people can't get their shit straight. Even in a totally 'equal' society.

But with a law for these things, there will be less children suffering from due to the relationship of their parents. People will be more attentive to their partner's intentions before the decision of having a child is made, and will know the exact consequences of raising a child on your own. There will be no stressful legal battles regarding child support, and most children will be better off as a result.

To make sure the child has the best upbringing possible, there's always the question of "parental tests", but that's a completely different discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton In most cases no, because your married... It's much easier to have a kid when you are married than it is to have one when you aren't.

1. Penis
2. Vagina
3. Wedding ring?
4. ...
5. Profit!

quote:

Originally posted by distant Yes, except the woman won't be giving the child to the man, since she made the decision to keep it, and thus is responsible for raising it. What I'm saying is, both parties make their choices, and then the level of responsibility is determined.

What is she says that the man actually wanted it, not her? Then she can just dump the kid of with the guy and walk away, right? Since we're seeking equality for everybody through what they claim to be the truth?

Contracts are a nice idea, but good luck getting people to sign them.

quote:

But with a law for these things, there will be less children suffering from due to the relationship of their parents. People will be more attentive to their partner's intentions before the decision of having a child is made, and will know the exact consequences of raising a child on your own. There will be no stressful legal battles regarding child support, and most children will be better off as a result.

I think it would actually create more legal problems, if anything. The child support argument would be brought before a court each and every time either party claims that they did not want the child, after-the-fact. With the lure of not having to pay child support, I think a lot of people would hop on that opportunity - and a lot of those people would be male. Biologically and socially, I think it's far more likely for a man to abandon a child than it is for a woman. I guess I don't have data to support this, but since we're all in the business of sharing what we think to be "logical", there it is.

quote:

To make sure the child has the best upbringing possible, there's always the question of "parental tests", but that's a completely different discussion.

Yeah, I kind of brought this up earlier, but didn't want to get into a discussion on eugenics.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Contracts are a nice idea, but good luck getting people to sign them. I think it would actually create more legal problems, if anything. The child support argument would be brought before a court each and every time either party claims that they did not want the child, after-the-fact.

...

this thread blew up like hiroshima!


alright here's my 2 cents - Even tho I whored myself pretty well senior year HS all the way through college, I've always mantained that if a child were to ever pop out (p.i. ... aka pun intented - i do this alot) anyway if a child were to ever come i would take care of it 100% and do whatever it takes to make sure it got the life i never got - my real dad left when i was 3.

regardless of personal reasons. we have a very special gift of creating life, and to go on not taking care of something you're created is just a low motherfucking thing to do. how can you have a baby and even think about leaving it? ... i could go on forever about this, but the point is if it happens to me i am going to be a fucking man and own up.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T ...

Thank you for emphasizing my point. Good luck getting people to sign them because then it would bind them to an agreement where they would legally have to uphold lest they face the consequences. Therefore, they would have to abstain sexual pleasure with one another. That is not going to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Aristronica this thread blew up like hiroshima! alright here's my 2 cents - Even tho I whored myself pretty well senior year HS all the way through college, I've always mantained that if a child were to ever pop out (p.i. ... aka pun intented - i do this alot) anyway if a child were to ever come i would take care of it 100% and do whatever it takes to make sure it got the life i never got - my real dad left when i was 3. regardless of personal reasons. we have a very special gift of creating life, and to go on not taking care of something you're created is just a low motherfucking thing to do. how can you have a baby and even think about leaving it? ... i could go on forever about this, but the point is if it happens to me i am going to be a fucking man and own up.

People think they can get out of a lot of things in life if they argue through it with "logic" and "reason". All it takes for a good person to turn into a stupid one is justification that what one is doing is not "immoral".

Here is another way to explain the asymmetry:

Before the woman gets pregnant, both the man and the woman have a choice about whether to have sex.

After the woman gets pregnant, many people are arguing, only the woman should have a choice as to (a) whether the child gets carried to term and (b) whether the man has to be a paying father. The argument people are making is that once the woman gets pregnant, the man no longer has any rights at all either to his own bodily autonomy, for he can be thrown in prison, or to his finances, for he can have as much of them taken away as governmental authorities deem appropriate; the woman retains all of the power and all of her rights.

This is inconsistent, sexist, and unjust, and there is no way around that.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Thank you for emphasizing my point. Good luck getting people to sign them because then it would bind them to an agreement where they would legally have to uphold lest they face the consequences. Therefore, they would have to abstain sexual pleasure with one another. That is not going to happen.

are you even reading what we're writing?
as long as sex for pleasure is all you want, you don't have to sign anything.

edit: just to be clear, what i was attempting to point out in the "..." post is a contradiction between the two seperate underscored sentences.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T you're thinking about this from the point of view where it's default for childbirth to occur and for both parties involved to take responsibility for it, just try changing the default and you'll have far less problems. require some bureaocracy for planned pregnancy rather than for casual sex (and i don't mean only for the females either - if a male is interested in fathering a potential offspring from a random sexual encounter, then he must fill such a form too, and notify his potential partners, whereupon they either agree via signing it, or disagree via declining him as a sexual partner). (from a rather limited review of this proposition i see only benefits, i.e. less custody battles, less poverty, less tax dollars thrown on these problems, and obviously, more freedom and independence for both sexes, however, you are welcome to point out any direct 'negative' results (preferably not fringe ones).) how many women out there looking for some sexual fun are hoping to be impregnated as a result? not many, i'd say - yet if it happens despite whatever precautions are taken, how many of them are going to want to carry the child to term? enough for it to become seriously problematic. what responsibility should they take in such a case? staying true to their original intentions? or carrying it to term? the current default assumption is (imo) unfortunately the latter.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T as long as sex for pleasure is all you want, you don't have to sign anything.

Indeed. My idea was that the only contract you sign, is when you actually want a baby. Not for every time you have sex.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.