AIBU to think how men have got away with this for far to long

[Alex50]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53064741

Why don’t they pay for their children and think it’s ok?

As said, the only way men can fully protect themselves is to not have sex until he knows he wants a child, but a bit tough to know you want to have a committed relationship and family with someone without finding out if you are sexually compatible first.

If a man takes care of his own contraception, it’s a very small risk to take.

If the small risk of financially providing for another human being that they’ve brought into the world is unacceptable, then yes they should forgo sex until marriage.

Sex isn’t a right.

And that's my point. At the moment, the woman has no responsibility because she has full reins to decide on behalf on her sex partner. She has the freedom and all the options.

Of course she has the responsibility. She has to decide whether to have an invasive medical procedure or to carry a child to term, with all the health risks involved. The only time she has one extra option is during the time where she is carrying the child inside her own body - and apparently that's unfair for the bloke?!

As said, the only way men can fully protect themselves is to not have sex until he knows he wants a child, but a bit tough to know you want to have a committed relationship and family with someone without finding out if you are sexually compatible first.

Boo fucking hoo. If you would try to avoid supporting an unexpected pregnancy then you shouldn't be going anywhere near a woman.

Wow. Misogyny well and truly lives.

There are women actually arguing that men shouldn’t have to face the consequences of having sex. Arguing that abortion is some kind of simple procedure without any long lasting consequences. Arguing that women who receive no maintenance deserve that because their crystal ball was faulty and they didn’t realise they would be left holding the baby with a father who has disappeared. Arguing women should take responsibility for men’s actions - or inactions and not complain.

Meanwhile, thousands of children living in poverty and going without anything over and above the basics. Thousands of mothers trying to fit in full time work around school and childcare to keep a roof over their children’s heads with those same children in childcare up to 11 hours a day. Thousands of children who live the stigma of coming from a single mum household with the added stigma of the non-exsitent single mum benefits.

The while thing needs a rethink and taking the Government to court for their failures is long overdue. But most of all, some women need to recognise this can happen to anyone at all.

Should people who are not wanting a child at a particular time accept to never sex? Because condoms fail too. Should we go back to marriage before sex?

Nobody is saying that. Rational people are saying "don't rely on anyone for contraception except yourself" and "no contraception is 100% effective so you must accept that there may be consequences".

It is a real kicker if you use contraception and it fails - but the chances of that if you use it correctly are tiny.

The issue is one is expected to fork out his full responsibility for a decision he had no choice over (to keep the baby) but there is no such responsibity on the other party, ie. mum has no expectation to be financially responsible for the child and made to work to support them

Tell me, how many mums do you know that take no financial responsibility for their children following the breakdown of a relationship? Because the statistics show that by far the majority of single parents work.

A decision to have sex is to understand that there may be unintended consequences to that act. You consent to that implicitly, understanding that an abortion may not be an option and that you will pay for that consequence for the rest of your life. If those consequences are not something you can cope with, you simply don’t have sex. Not rocket science, is it?

And tell me, what of men who have children in long relationships and marriages who then decide it’s not for them. What of those men? Do they also get the right to walk away because they changed their mind?

What about mums who play the controlling card?

This thread is not about mums who play the controlling card.

What is a deadbeat dad? Ive read on here people complaining that they only getting the minimum from CMS and these fathers are also deadbeat as children cost more forgetting that the dad has to pay for another home as well but mothers on here would rather see them homeless.

The mothers are also paying for a home as well as covering most if not all the funds to raise a child. Childcare alone is expensive and be as costly as a rent or a mortgage. My youngest is in nursery for two full days a week and that is over £500. Imagine the cost for a single working parent working 5 days a week.

These fathers should be paying 50% not the bare minimum. Perhaps if they were made to pay the 50% and the money was taken straight from their salary, they would be more mindful not to have unprotected sex and make sure they themselves are protected and not just relying on it to be the sole responsibility of women.

*over £500 pounds a month

Perhaps if they were made to pay the 50% and the money was taken straight from their salary, they would be more mindful not to have unprotected sex and make sure they themselves are protected and not just relying on it to be the sole responsibility of women.

Exactly

@phoenixrosehere, 50% of what? his wage per month, childcare? this is where it becomes difficult?

Presumably 50% of what it costs to raise the child.

That is unfeasible and unachievable though in the real world though isn;t it as the money has to spread between 2 houses

That is unfeasible and unachievable though in the real world though isn;t it as the money has to spread between 2 houses

Because it’s ‘unfeasible and unachievable’ then the mother pays the lions share? What about what’s ‘unfeasible and unachievable’ for her?

Both need to cover housing. The child related expenses should be shared. Some allowance made for the RP needing bigger premises.

'Unfeasible and unachievable'
Or in other words...
inconvenient for men and easy for them to wriggle out of so tough luck women you get the shitty end of the stick because we we don't want to do our share and you can't make us

She has to decide whether to have an invasive medical procedure or to carry a child to term, with all the health risks involved. The only time she has one extra option is during the time where she is carrying the child inside her own body - and apparently that's unfair for the bloke?!

Like the small risk of getting pregnant using a condom, the risk of complication having a medical abortion is also extremely low. Her responsibity should be at that stage. Don't go ahead with a pregnancy that you know is not wanted at all my your sex partner. That's being responsible once the accident happens.

Boo fucking hoo. If you would try to avoid supporting an unexpected pregnancy then you shouldn't be going anywhere near a woman
Yeah boo fucking hoo. If you are going to trick a guy into having baby he doesn't want, don't come crying that you get no money from him for the child. You shouldn't have sex with a man who doesn't say he would be happy if you fall pregnant. It goes both ways.

Just to be clear, this is only when the man has made it clear he didn't want the pregnancy in the first place. Any men not paying for a wanted child is a disgrace.

If you are going to trick a guy into having baby he doesn't want, don't come crying that you get no money from him for the child.

The chances of men being ‘tricked’ if they take responsibility for their own contraception is absolutely minimal.

No, children shouldn’t suffer because men won’t wear condoms. What an utterly selfish POV.

@dontdisturbmenow

Let him focus on the decision he has full choice over - having sex As does she. It doesn't put women in a more vulnerable position but one of control.

Should people who are not wanting a child at a particular time accept to never sex? Because condoms fail too. Should we go back to marriage before sex?

A woman should take responsibility too and maybe accept that if she falls pregnant by accident or purposely when her sex partner doesn't want a child, she might need to resort to an abortion even if it's not what she fully wants or to take full financial responsibity.

People shouldn't be choosing to have PIV sex if they can't deal with the consequences, no. For a woman these consequences are the experience of pregnancy and then having to undergo birth, abortion or miscarriage and for a man this is a child being carried to term or aborted against his wishes. These things might happen regardless of the wishes and intentions of either party, because that's the nature of PIV.

The difference is that women generally know that once they're pregnant they're going to have a baby, a miscarriage or an abortion and there's shit all anyone can do about that because Mother Nature is uninterested in your feelings, whereas it's at least theoretically possible to have laws and policies that partially mitigate men's consequences, so some of them try and push for that.

What threads like this really show is that there is this enduring male belief that they are entitled to consequence-free sex

This is why women have to deal with so much bullshit. Pumping ourselves full of hormones to prevent contraception, having abortions we may not want, raising kids completely alone.

Men can opt out of all of this with no consequences and the government effectively says that's not a problem.

Making fathers pay for their kids is the right thing to do morally and economically, there is no reason for the government not to do it except to preserve the consequence-free shag for men.

Honestly? Because I think it is because it is an issue that disproportionately affects women and children, and of those, disproportionately affects lower income women and children, and so Government/society isn't that interested in it (and not dealing with it disproportionately advantages men) .

@TheBusDriver

50% of the cost to raise a child. That is more than feasible. Perhaps, you don’t see it that way since these single mothers are expected to be happy with these boys paying the bare minimum because they are at least getting something. These boys may have to pay for themselves but they still get to go out and do what they like whenever they like without having to consider anyone but themselves. They don’t have to worry about looking for childcare, being awaken at night, taking care of a sick child, having to rearrange their schedule to fit their childs’ needs, teaching the child the basics, etc.. yet they moan about having to spend the smallest amount of money on their own child.

@phoenixrosehere - here is the fallacy - who decides how much a child costs?

What threads like this really show is that there is this enduring male belief that they are entitled to consequence-free sex

Essentially. And there isn't a female equivalent because women pretty much all know that if they get pregnant, their only choices are to have a baby, a miscarriage or an abortion, unless they die first I guess. But there isn't a way for a woman who gets pregnant to not then experience any consequences of that.

How can a woman trick a man into having a baby?
in order to do that she would have to obtain his sperm without him knowing, if he has willingly given his sperm cells to her then he cannot claim that he was tricked

@TheBusDriver

If the government can track the cost of childcare, how much funding schools need, the average income of different postcodes/counties, as well as say th average of basic items, why can’t they do the same with the cost of a child.

Reports from last year:

cpag.org.uk/policy-and-campaigns/report/cost-child-2019

www.lv.com/life-insurance/cost-of-raising-a-child-2019

As soon as you put your sperm in someone else's body, you lose the right to tell them what becomes of any resulting pregnancy.

And no, I dont believe in an opt-out child maintenance thing either, how bloody ridiculous. The kids need paying for. All an "opt out" system would do is tell men they dont need to be responsible for the kids they create and put even further strain on the system by more mums needing benefits or it's just another way of exerting control over women's bodies, this time using money.
Nope. Pay for your kids, wear condoms, get a vasectomy if you're so against having kids.