Once she agrees to accept a peen into her body, she MUST comply with & accept whatever decisions a man makes for her after that.
Well you may have heard that but I said nothing of the sort. Not even a little bit. At all. And that isn’t what the article was about. The article was specific that, as you say, “once a woman accepts a peen into her body”, and agrees to do this without protection, then any resulting pregnancy is the mans fault and responsiblity.
If he wants her to be a host body for his hideous fetus, God damn it, it’s his right as a peen-holder to force her to do so. Because she *consented*.”
Absolutely none of this can be derived from anything I have written. You are describing rape, not consent.
You think consent means: “I tell women what to do, and they consent to it.”
I have no idea how you come to this conclusion from any of the words I have said. Consent means that both parties agree to something, in this case, unprotected sex. You are confusing consent with rape (which I suspect the original author did too, I can not explain how you get from one to another). I do not support any interaction that results in one party not having consented.
And you’ve never questioned that assumption, have you, Robert? Never once in your adult life have you considered you may be wrong.
Well considering it’s the exact opposite of what I have been talking about, I think I have certainly considered it, and yes, violating consent is wrong.
You’re a real charmer, rico suave. Bet the ladies are falling all over themselves to be your baby mama.
Well, I don’t know about “the ladies”, but my wife and I have two kids.
I think what you are trying to get at, and of course feel free to correct me if I am wrong, is that a resultant unwanted pregnancy somehow results in a situation where the woman must listen to the man about how to proceed. This is almost the opposite of what I have been saying. To me, this is 100% the woman’s choice, and 50% the man’s responsibility. That’s doesn’t mean the man can’t be consulted about the path forward, but in the end, it’s the woman’s body whether the man likes it or not.
That doesn’t make the resulting pregancy 100% the man’s fault (and this 100% his responsilbity), like the original article claims. This is what I am pointing out is a fundamental failure of understanding rights and responsiblities.
Think of it this way: You and I go drinking. We drink about the same amount, but I am stuck with a painful hangover the next day and you are not. Is my hangover your fault? Is my physical condition that resulted from an act I consented to somehow not my fault? You didn’t force me to drink, we drank the same stuff, I voluntarily put your alcohol in my body and ended up with a mind splitting headache. Do I blame you because you bought the booze?
After a consensual bout of unprotected sex, is the physical condition of the woman somehow the fault of the man? That is what the article suggests. This is wrong, not just from a rights perspective, but from two other perspectives.
- The article is attempting to remove agency from the woman by removing her responsiblity in the situation. This is the opposite of what you want if you want to endow women with equal rights in a society. Women should have the same agency as men. If you want to remove agency from a woman, and appoint men 100% of the responsiblity, then yeah, the result is as you suggest, the woman must comply to the man’s whims. That is the result that the article come to. I am promoting the exact opposite of this. There is no condition where one party maintains full agency with no responsibility.
- The article endorses mandatory surgical modifications for all men. This would be the same thing as requiring mandatory clitorectomies, or mandatory circumcision, or mandatory boob jobs. You get the drift. When governments have engaged in mass sterilizations, we look at this history and say “that is wrong”. I can’t imagine how the author somehow thinks it become right if you change who the mandatory sterilization is imposed upon. It is another example of the author not understanding individual rights.
