You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] mystic_chihuahua 0 points 43 points (+43|-0) ago 

I think there definitely needs to be a male contraceptive for a couple of the reasons it mentioned.

I wish excess fat was a reliable contraceptive for both sexes.


[–] shart_in_a_fat_roll 8 points 19 points (+27|-8) ago 

This is the first time I've given the issue any serious thought, because quite honestly I don't care very much.

But in the interest of fairness, shouldn't the male be allowed to "abort" his parental responsibility during the same period of time the woman can? By abort, I mean formally declare that he can't support the child and give up custodial rights.

Then, the woman can choose if she wants to abort the child, or raise it on her own. After signing the document, the man would have absolutely no legal responsibilities or rights with respect to the child at all, any more than any other random dude.


[–] PM_ME_UR_NOODZ 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

This is the first time i've given the issue an serious thought

It shows. You're trying to think about it logically. In the real world, fair or not, the interests of the child, the state, and the mother are all placed higher than the interests of the biological father.


[–] Swole_is_life 1 point 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

It's more that the law prioritizes the welfare of the baby. If she chooses to abort there is no baby and no issue, but if she doesn't then there is another human who needs care.

The simple answer is that everyone needs to stop viewing consequence free sex as a basic human right. It's not and never has been. Don't fuck someone unless you don't mind raising a kid with them.

I have precisely zero sympathy for a dude who is stuck paying child support because he banged some skank. You CAN survive without sex.

Note: this is far from advocating abstinence only, just saying that it's stupid to act like you can have all the sex you want with all the people you want and not deal with consequences. It's not unlike food.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 



[–] ourgalfriday 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You're absolutely right - but I cringe every time I see somebody who looks like Comic Book Guy shilling for legal paternal surrender. Good message, repugnant messenger.


[–] dildonkers 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It all makes sense! FA is the feminists' way of removing the natural male contraceptive; fat.


[–] Banterbury 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

There is actually a backlash against producing one and now Pharma companies don't want to put much stock into it because of it. A lot of women bitch about how they wouldn't trust a man to be honest about being on it in the first place, so already that indicates less money as it's assumed men wouldn't take it. Also there would be a projected increase in STIs and all that because less men would be interested in using condoms if they were actually on the pill. And finally one of the biggest complaints has actually been women losing "control" over the situation where men now dictate if they want children or not, no longer just the woman having control over if a child has any chance of occurring. So basically there would be bad press and loss in profits because you'd have whiny people screaming and protesting. Basically despite some people asking for it in the UK, U.S, Canada, aus etc, it really isn't economically friendly so companies don't want to touch it


[–] shart_in_a_fat_roll 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

A lot of women bitch about how they wouldn't trust a man to be honest about being on it in the first place

Source? Sounds like a strawman. Even without the pill, you can sabotage a condom. Also, who has ever said men like to go around tricking women into pregnancy? That's like the reversal of the common trope.

no longer just the woman having control over if a child has any chance of occurring.

Ditto. Also sounds like a strawman. How can anyone reasonably argue that only the woman should be able to decide if a child is conceived. That's an indefensible argument.