Thread: If it's good for the gander, it's good for the goose

I like the law suit, but thats what you get for trusting a female!!!

I think it is a wonderful way to encourage legislatures to enact laws regulating the male's ability to have sex. . .perhaps an ejaculation permit will be in the offing and men will have to apply for one at the same time they apply for a marriage license. No more deadbeat dads, sperm murders, and the gander gets to live with his decision to demand the state control his body just as he expects the state to control his wife.

This will also go a long way to accepting the state's right to arbitrarily dissolve marriages at will, just like the Right demanded in the Schiavo case. If a woman has an abortion, the murder charges will get to include the husband, too.

Wow. Go off the deep end much?

I think it may positively redefine rights for the father. If he's 100% forced to support the outcome of a pregnancy, then he should have a say in whether the baby can come to term or not.

What do you care about "sperm murders?" You're gay. Your sexual encounters simply become another high protein meal.

"There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Nice quote you stupid butch, that isn't the issue. The issue is, when it all comes down to it, the woman has final say and a means to a nice income via absolutely no work of her own. Who wouldn't spit out a baby for $500 a month and a nice fat welfare check. They make it too easy not to work in this country.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

"There's nothing equivalent for men. They have the same ability as women to use contraception, to get sterilized."

Nice quote you stupid butch, that isn't the issue.

I was thinking the same. That is dealing with the 'before'.
Did not address the 'after'.
Ok...now that she IS pregnant...I think the man shoud have say so.

Originally Posted by Burner02

I was thinking the same. That is dealing with the 'before'.
Did not address the 'after'.
Ok...now that she IS pregnant...I think the man shoud have say so.

I know, she just has to pay for that shit herself if she wants it. I see the problem, the dad says he wants nothing to do with it then backtracks 5 years later.

nothing like a binding legal document...
Even go to court? Testify in front of a judge: I do not want the child. I absolve all responsibility for the pregnancy.
I see it being a HUGE legal quagmire...

I hope this case will end in our favor...

Originally Posted by myCATpowerlifts

I hope this case will end in our favor...

You and me both. Too often it's the guy that gets shit on.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Wow. Go off the deep end much?

I think it may positively redefine rights for the father. If he's 100% forced to support the outcome of a pregnancy, then he should have a say in whether the baby can come to term or not.

It's typical for a rightwinger to want special rights without personal responsibility. Unfortunately, you overlook cases where women are imprisoned if negligent in pre-natal care. One case in South Carolina involves a women convicted because the child was stillborn - she apparently had a crack problem Medical examiners determined the death was caused to an infection.
Since the Right hasn't publicly stated the criminal punishment for a woman who has an abortion, for example, against the law (after all, it IS murder) one can assume that if she feels compelled due to the wishes of the father, he'll be held criminally responsible as well.

That should add impetus to a movement to legislate abstinence, a favorite part of the Right's social agenda, which can then certainly lead to restriction of ejaculation rights outside of marriage. Where the hell do you think the old "you'll go blind if you masturbate" stuff come from in the first place?

When the Right contends that the state can assert power over anyone's body, it ain't far behind before, in order to enforce abstinence, the state issues permits to men only when they have been approved for a marriage license. What better way to discourage any possibility of unwanted pregnancies?

The man has a say the moment he unzips his pants - and since his contribution is nothing more than the swimmers, limiting their discharge is in society's best interests.

What do you care about "sperm murders?" You're gay. Your sexual encounters simply become another high protein meal.

Yawn. I realize how comfortable you are in defining everyone else's lives, but that doesn't mean you have a clue about what you are writing about. Does this come from being too busy projecting your fears on others as a control mechanism? You might look into the historical tradition of the religious view of sperm treated as sanctity...but then, that might actually require that you learn something about your own life. Control your own seed and you might stop obsessing about imagining what others do with theirs.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Yawn. I realize how comfortable you are in defining everyone else's lives, but that doesn't mean you have a clue about what you are writing about. Does this come from being too busy projecting your fears on others as a control mechanism? You might look into the historical tradition of the religious view of sperm treated as sanctity...but then, that might actually require that you learn something about your own life. Control your own seed and you might stop obsessing about imagining what others do with theirs.

The "push for abstinence" only exists in your mind. The vast majority of people, right or left, like having sex and simply would not pass such an outlandish law. I'm sure that being a "victim" feels good to you, but just because something exists in your paranoia doesn't mean that it exists in the real world.

Oh, and nice rambling. "projecting your fears"?

I agree with DOMS 100%

I cant believe I just said that!

Neither can I.

This thread reminds me of something Chris Rock said:

Who tells more lies, men or women? Men tell more lies and women tell bigger lies. A man's lie is like "I was over at Kenny's". A woman's lie is like "He's your child. Look, he even has your hat."

Originally Posted by DOMS

Neither can I.

This thread reminds me of something Chris Rock said:

Who tells more lies, men or women? Men tell more lies and women tell bigger lies. A man's lie is like "I was over at Kenny's". A woman's lie is like "He's your child. Look, he even has your hat."

Originally Posted by DOMS

The "push for abstinence" only exists in your mind. The vast majority of people, right or left, like having sex and simply would not pass such an outlandish law. I'm sure that being a "victim" feels good to you, but just because something exists in your paranoia doesn't mean that it exists in the real world.

You obviously haven't been paying much attention to the current Administration, the tax dollars being poured into abstinence advocacy groups, nor the continuous preachings of those televised barnyard revivals rightwingers call "men of God." It ain't that hard to put two-and-two together, is it?

Oh, and nice rambling. "projecting your fears"?

Thanks. You do enjoy that projecting. But then it's always much better than looking in the mirror.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

You obviously haven't been paying much attention to the current Administration, the tax dollars being poured into abstinence advocacy groups, nor the continuous preachings of those televised barnyard revivals rightwingers call "men of God." It ain't that hard to put two-and-two together, is it?

And how far has it gotten them? How much have they accomplished? It's amazing how quickly you mentally surrender.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Thanks. You do enjoy that projecting. But then it's always much better than looking in the mirror.

I'm projecting your rambling??? I'm sure this makes sense to you...

Originally Posted by DOMS

And how far has it gotten them? How much have they accomplished? It's amazing how quickly you mentally surrender.

It's gaining steam, and supported by every major right wing religious organization as well. And it makes perfect sense. If we can get the courts to recognize more rights to choose for the man, the state can in turn insist on regulating the man's behavior and holding him also responsible for breaking that law when he doesn't want the child. You surely didn't actually believe that rightwingers would be happy just asserting control over women and those pesky gays.

With the churches lined up against you and the women ticked off about the abortion laws, there's an ejaculation permit or compulsory vasectomy in someone 's future. After all, the state has a right to overrule individual rights when they have staked out a moral position - and adultery, sex before marriage and masturbation are considered moral sins. Every sperm is sacred, and God smites those who let a single drop land on the ground.

I'm projecting your rambling??? I'm sure this makes sense to you...

Try to focus.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

It's gaining steam, and supported by every major right wing religious organization as well. And it makes perfect sense. If we can get the courts to recognize more rights to choose for the man, the state can in turn insist on regulating the man's behavior and holding him also responsible for breaking that law when he doesn't want the child...blah, blah, blah.

"breaking that law when he doesn't want the child?" So, let me get this straight: Men don't currently have any say in whether or not a woman comes to term. So, the "religious organization" wants to give him that right so that they can arrest him for breaking the law when he exercises his newly granted right to say that a woman should bare his child? Even though abortions aren't illegal and the government just gave him the right to say that the woman carrying his child should have one.

They're going to give him a privilege and then arrest him for using it???



You are seriously fucked up.

Originally Posted by DOMS

"breaking that law when he doesn't want the child?" So, let me get this straight: Men don't currently have any say in whether or not a woman comes to term. So, the "religious organization" wants to give him that right so that they can arrest him for breaking the law when he exercises his newly granted right to say that a woman should bare his child? Even though abortions aren't illegal and the government just gave him the right to say that the woman carrying his child should have one.

They're going to give him a privilege and then arrest him for using it???



You are seriously fucked up.

Uh no. . .but you can't claim that an abortion is murder, then grant men the right to make a decision about keeping the child or aborting it or putting it up for adoption and not expect to be held responsible for criminal intent if your choice causes the woman to break a law. Rights come with responsibilities. "Conservative" churches don't sanction any sexual activity of any kind before marriage - you do the dirty, the girl gets pregnant - you tell her you don't want it, won't go out with her again because you are a playa and don't want to hang with a preggo, so she aborts and you contributed your half of the deal, you are responsible. They don't approve of masturbation either and most question allowing the availability of contraceptives. Do you think condoms were always such a universally available product?

The same state which claims that a woman cannot make these decisions on her own is certainly not going to consider a man any more capable - unless you think that the magic peepee somehow puts powers of moral balance into the typical man's mind that renders his decisions more trustworthy by the state than a woman's. . .so regulation of male behavior would be both justified and easier to establish, since precedent in restricting a woman's rights would be decided and the man's participation in those decisions would have already been included... thus asserting the state's right to intervene to protect the culture of "life."

The conflicts over extending special rights to men will also inevitably lead to regulation of male activities. If the man's argument prevails too often, legislation would be necessary to curtail male activities which produce pregnancies outside of marriage. After all, it ain't just men who pay taxes, and opting out of taking care of your child means the rest of us have to - so logically it's much more efficient to criminalize unzipping your pants for the wrong reason. There are already ideas being discussed, from compulsory vasectomies until marriage to ejaculation regulations, especially if men don't get the message they are supposed to remain virgins until marriage.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Uh no. . .but you can't claim that an abortion is murder, then grant men the right to make a decision about keeping the child or aborting it or putting it up for adoption and not expect to be held responsible for criminal intent if your choice causes the woman to break a law. Rights come with responsibilities. "Conservative" churches don't sanction any sexual activity of any kind before marriage - you do the dirty, the girl gets pregnant - you tell her you don't want it, won't go out with her again because you are a playa and don't want to hang with a preggo, so she aborts and you contributed your half of the deal, you are responsible. They don't approve of masturbation either and most question allowing the availability of contraceptives. Do you think condoms were always such a universally available product?

The same state which claims that a woman cannot make these decisions on her own is certainly not going to consider a man any more capable - unless you think that the magic peepee somehow puts powers of moral balance into the typical man's mind that renders his decisions more trustworthy by the state than a woman's. . .so regulation of male behavior would be both justified and easier to establish, since precedent in restricting a woman's rights would be decided and the man's participation in those decisions would have already been included... thus asserting the state's right to intervene to protect the culture of "life."

The conflicts over extending special rights to men will also inevitably lead to regulation of male activities. If the man's argument prevails too often, legislation would be necessary to curtail male activities which produce pregnancies outside of marriage. After all, it ain't just men who pay taxes, and opting out of taking care of your child means the rest of us have to - so logically it's much more efficient to criminalize unzipping your pants for the wrong reason. There are already ideas being discussed, from compulsory vasectomies until marriage to ejaculation regulations, especially if men don't get the message they are supposed to remain virgins until marriage.

Originally Posted by MyK

Yeah, I know. I try to read his posts but...

Originally Posted by DOMS

Yeah, I know. I try to read his posts but...

Thats a guy!!!!!!??????????????

Yep. He posts on several gay sites and the democraticunderground.org.

You need to do better research than that, dude. Heck, you don't even know much about the history of your own sexuality, let alone figure anything out about anyone else.

Originally Posted by MyK

Yeah...you'll need a permit for that....

Originally Posted by kbm8795

You need to do better research than that, dude. Heck, you don't even know much about the history of your own sexuality, let alone figure anything out about anyone else.

It started when I was 13 years old with a girl named Tanya and has gotten better and more enjoyable over the years. What am I missing?

As for the final part of your post, based on some of the places that you post, and the content of those posts, you're either gay or bisexual. So, are you saying that that is incorrect?

Originally Posted by DOMS

It started when I was 13 years old with a girl named Tanya and has gotten better and more enjoyable over the years. What am I missing?

The history of social and legal regulation of sexual activity didn't begin when you turned 13. As a rightwinger, you should certainly understand the moral underpinnings of your own actions.

As for the final part of your post, based on some of the places that you post, and the content of those posts, you're either gay or bisexual. So, are you saying that that is incorrect?

One shouldn't have to remind you that this is the Internet.

Ahh...from the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader discussion forums. . .real Republican values at work:

South Dakota State Sexual Act Reporting Form

*this form must be submitted within 30 days of any sexual act, including any fines, to the State office of Moral Purity in Pierre.

Date of Encounter: _________________________________

Was this with your spouse Yes____ No____
*if you answered no please remit $75 to the state with your return.

If no, was this person of the opposite gender? Yes___ No___
* if you answered no, both parties must return their sex permits to the state office and surrender themselves for retraining at the Pukwana moral reconditioning facility within 10 working days.

What position was used _________________
*if any position other than missionary was used, please remit $125 to the state with your return.

Did you break a smile Yes ___ No___
*if you answered yes, please remit $25 to the state with your return.

Was contraception used Yes ___ No ___
*if you answered yes, please remit $50 to the state with your return.
Please note that repeated use of contraception can result in the revocation of your sex permit, severe fines and jail time.

Did the act result in pregnancy Yes ___ No___ Pending___
* repeated forms turned in with answers other than yes can be grounds for a revocation of your sex permit.

Please have all parties sign and submit a copy to the state, one to Roger Hunt and a third to Leslie Unruh.