'Men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies'

Ok I could buy the logic of her argument, as long as she and others like her are willing to accept the corollary that women are 100% responsible for children born that a man doesn't consent to raise.

Men cannot consent to bringing children into the world, sure they are an integral step in the process, but women and women alone are the ones who choose wether to carry any pregnancy they have to term.

Seeing as a man can never be responsible for that choice, they shouldn't therefore be held responsible if they do not consent to be. Any woman who does not wish to become a mother can and is able to terminate, abort, or hold up for adoption any fetus/child at any point with zero negative reprecussions (financial or otherwise) it's hardly surprising there are way more deadbeat dads in the world than deadbeat moms, given that woman have every freedom to avoid that outcome whereas men do not.

Is that fair? Thought not. Shall we go back to the sensible position that men and women are collectively responsible for the children born into this world and any abortions also?

Since women have the most to lose in the case of an unwanted pregnacy, then IT FOLLOWS that women should protect themselves with contraception. Why would you take a man's word for it if he said he had taken a pill? No sensible woman should!

Definitely!

In the distant past sone feminists were adamant that men should take responsibility for contraception.
I am, and was then, a feminist but I want to take responsibility for myself including my contraception. I don't want to leave it to someone else.

The whole argument makes little sense.

Since women have the most to lose in the case of an unwanted pregnacy, then IT FOLLOWS that women should protect themselves with contraception. Why would you take a man's word for it if he said he had taken a pill? No sensible woman should!

Nonetheless, I do agree that if the onus was on men, contraception could be a heck of a lot simpler. I am imagining men could have a little plastic twist-valve inside the scrutum - then, if they said sperm was turned off that day, you could have a little rummage yourself to double-check before agreeing to sex.

"Biology dictates this. It can't be denied. If men don't want to get their partner pregnant then men can desist in sexual relations. Simple."

Biology dictates this. It can't be denied. If women don't want to get pregnant by their partner then women can desist in sexual relations. Simple.

Lass
"I think it is infantilising nonsense to say men are 100% responsible."

Yes, that describes it well what I was thinking reading the thread. Also, not surprised you would think this.

Funky

How many unwanted pregnancies could men create if there were no women?

Zero.

Therefore women ARE responsible for 100% of unwanted pregnancies.

Your logic sums up the logic of that Twitter thread. It's godawful logic.

I lost a lot of respect for some Twitter users for retweeting that ridiculous thread (whatever you think about the topic, there are so many logical flaws in her arguments, it's terrible). In summary her point is "a man can impregnate lots of women all the time, but women only once and only during a few short days a cycle". What a ridiculous notion (not to mention if the statement would actually be true, then the blame is 100% on the women, as all they would have to do is not have sex during these "few short days".

I know I will get flack for saying this, but this kind of nonsense is exactly the thing that gives MRAs (and people who don't have a position) ammunition.

Also, I can't put words to it, but the entire thread sounded like men are the shot callers and women have no say, are incapable of having responsibility.

There's still condoms and vasectomies, men don't have to spray their swimmers all over their partner's cervices.

And some women can't tolerate condoms a PP on this thread can't, some are allergic to them, or many other reasons.

A vasectomy should always be considered permanent.

So in a long term relationship or marriage, if a woman is allergic to condoms the only option, as gar as you are concerned, is for the man to have a vasectomy, even if in the future the woman wants to have children, or for them to not have sex until they want to have a baby (even though that will be the man's fault for playing russian poker)?

Wow.

So a man and a a woman decide that they want to have a baby.

They have unprotected sex because that's the only way that you can get pregnant.

The woman gets pregnant and then decides that she doesn't want the baby.

Are yiu saying that this is the man's fault because he shouldn't have played russian poker with her no matter how much she begged?

If I were a man reading this I think I'd just say stuff the lot of you and refuse to have sex ever protected or not.

How does what you are saying make any sense?

You're basically saying that a woman can never consent to sex if we follow the analogy of russian poker, or even of being in a car.

There's still condoms and vasectomies, men don't have to spray their swimmers all over their partner's cervices.

I agree entirely. There's also IUDs and tube ligation. I'm not arguing that men bear no responsibility, I just particularly objected to the portrayal of pulling out as an effective method as well as one that is compatible with emotionally positive sex and generally object to the idea that either party is entirely responsible.

The penis has fewer nerve endings over a wider area compared to the clitoris. The sensation is less intense.

Nerves adjust their frequency of signalling in line with increased prior stimulation. It's rather hard to directly compare subjective experience between two organs which no one has ever possessed sequentially or in tandem (even a rare true hermaphrodite wouldn't have both because they originate from the same common precursor tissue).

I do apologise, I meant Russian Poker. Russian Poker is the variant where you spin the chamber and point the barrel at someone else.

You learn something new every day, I'd never heard of Russian Poker. I would argue that, if we're comparing ejaculate to a bullet during consensual sex where female contraceptives fail it would be more like a death during the (rather aggressive) testing of a bulletproof vest. There would be some culpability on the part of the shooter but the intent wasn't to cause death (i.e. pregnancy).

merely that enjoyable sex (for both parties) especially when there's a healthy emotional component is rather less than compatible with that level of control. Yes, that's a legitimate point. There's still condoms and vasectomies, men don't have to spray their swimmers all over their partner's cervices.

If I agree to play russian poker with you and I shoot you dead, I am a murderer. The fact that you agreed to russian poker makes you stupid, but not a murderer. If you begged me to play russian poker, I am still a murderer, not you.

Porn actors have to control orgasm rigidly, it's a skill of the trade.

Sorry, I'm not intimately familiar with pornography but, based on your description, I wouldn't characterise its production as an example of enjoyable sex (hence why the participants are being paid). I never argued that control is impossible, merely that enjoyable sex (for both parties) especially when there's a healthy emotional component is rather less than compatible with that level of control.

If you're shooting someone else dead then you're either not playing Russian Roulette properly

I do apologise, I meant Russian Poker. Russian Poker is the variant where you spin the chamber and point the barrel at someone else.

the differences between the sexes are far greater than I'm aware

On that front, they are. The penis has fewer nerve endings over a wider area compared to the clitoris. The sensation is less intense.

If I agree to play russian roulette with you and I shoot you dead, I am a murderer.

If you're shooting someone else dead then you're either not playing Russian Roulette properly or you're unlikely to be in a state to be tried for their death because you've shot yourself in the head. Even if you do somehow survive a bullet to the head, it would likely be treated as manslaughter since a prosecutor would have a difficult time proving intent if you're in custody with 2 more holes in your head than is normal.

Gronky the point sailed past you. Porn actors have to control orgasm rigidly, it's a skill of the trade. This isn't how sex is portrayed on film, this is what men having sex raping actresses on set have to do as part of the trade. And whilst the circumstances under which they do so are very very questionable, that they do so proves that men can control when they ejaculate.

With reference to the twitter post a man could ejaculate 10 times a day - without a woman present no pregnancy will occur so

Correct: his responsible ejaculations without a woman present cannot cause a pregnancy. His irresponsible ejaculations into a woman's body can cause a pregnancy and he is, by ejaculating irresponsibly into her, 100% responsible for her then becoming pregnant. If her birth control works, lucky her, but if it fails, the pregnancy is his fault. He didn't have to have sex with her, even if she asked him too.

If I agree to play russian roulette with you and I shoot you dead, I am a murderer. The fact that you agreed to russian roulette makes you stupid, but not a murderer. If you begged me to play russian roulette, I am still a murderer, not you.

General principle: if persons A and B consent to A committing some act X that puts B at risk of an adverse outcome, and B suffers as a consequence of act X, then A is to blame for B's suffering. It applies to surgery when you can sue for malpractice when your doctor screws up, it applies to being the passenger in a car if the driver crashes and injures you, you get compensation off the driver's insurance even if you consented to being in the car. It is a startling omission that when it comes to sex and pregnancy, people think that this principle does not apply. I believe that the explanation is a single word starting with m, ending with y, and is the greek for "woman-hatred".

Men do it all the time in porn flicks.

I'm not an avid porn viewer so I'll defer to your expertise on the matter. Would you characterise the intercourse depicted in porn as a good example of how sex should be?

Expecting a man to act mechanically with perfect timing and precision during a very close, intimate moment (unless the differences between the sexes are far greater than I'm aware) seems very unrealistic

Men do it all the time in porn flicks.

Thanks Batteries, I very much enjoyed your comments particularly on this thread - and the original tweet - it was almost like a holiday to see males being held to account for a change.

As for the comments lamenting how this automatically translated into 'passive women vessels' - I guess you also believe in 'reverse sexism' too? No, don't answer. I suspect I already know.

But that was what I said - saying he's just being a man sounds like excusing poor or abusive behaviour.

An abusive man isn't going to take any sort of responsibility for a women's health or for preventing pregnancy is he?

Can't imagine a rapist pausing to put on a condom so that he doesn't pass on STI or to prevent a pregnancy. (maybe to conceal his DNA but that's just for his own good)

Why do all of these discussions have to descend into snidey insults? Why can't people discuss different points of view?

If you were a man dismissing a woman with comments like fluffy worlds and unicorns you'd be branded misogynistic.

I’ll be honest I’m off anyway. This isn’t progressing.

If you’ve never heard a woman say ‘he’s just being a man’ when you would definitely describe what you just heard her say as abuse, we live not just in different worlds but different universes.

Yours sounds much fluffier than mine. Perhaps it has unicorns too.

And where is the line between ‘hes just a being a man’ and ‘he’s abusive’ because I know plenty of women who say ‘that’s just how men are’.

Not sure that there is a line between "he's just being a man" and "he's abusive" tbh.

He's just being a man sounds like it's an excuse for poor behaviour of some kind.

How does a man behave? I known plenty of men. Can't say there's behaviour in common other than what is also in common with other people that I know so some people are bossy, some laid back, some have a good sense of humour, some are untidy... Genuinely cannot say that I know how men behave or how women behave.

If you love and care for the person you are having sex with and you are 100% fertile 100% all of the time then you are the keyholder to safe sex. End. Of.

Well we shall have to agree to differ. I am not a child and so i shall assume be the key holder for my own safety with regards to sex, thanks all the same.