Can we stop talking about men being trapped?

[ForRealCat]

Just from another few threads; we talk about women getting pregnant either intentionally, or accidently and carrying on against the mans wishes and how it "traps" the man. I can see how decades ago this may have been the case, women would get pregnant and any 'decent' man would be expected to step up and marry her. Thus securing a husband and a degree of financial security.

Nowadays I can see why a woman may get pregnant intentionally against her partners wishes, (maybe she wants more kids, feels like se is missing her chance etc), but can we stop talking about "trapping" a man. Very few men nowadays will wed a girl just because she is pregnant, and the financial support he is obliged to provide is to support the child and not the mother.

Very few women find themselves financially better off getting pregnant and claiming child maintenance. So AIBU to think the 'trapped' narrative has had its day.

This. No one should be trapping anyone but keeping it real with rape too and the fact that men can more easily walk away it is misogyny and internalised misogyny that the focus on mostly on men being trapped.

I think it's wrong to trick your man into getting you pregnant. But maybe we should all be 100% careful about who we're getting in bed with, men and women.

He's not trapped though is he?

Firstly he was willingly in a longterm relationship, he could have left her if he didn't want to be with her. If she hadn't trapped him would he have kept stringing her along?
Secondly he had condomless sex.

Thirdly he could split. Babies have never stopped men leaving

To imply he's trapped essentially means he was in a long term relationship with a woman, having sex with her but didn't want longterm commitment, so kept stringing her along

The poster said you should not have sex unless you want a baby

Well people shouldn't be having sex unless they accept pregnancy is a possible outcome...because it is.

Unfortunately for men, their ability to control the situation starts and ends with sex, because pregnancy isn't something that happens to them. All they can control is the time before pregnancy occurs. For women, there is an available medical procedure which recognises the fact that pregnancy is a physical thing that happens to her body with extreme physical consequences.

Get rid of abortion and you have a lot of dead and injured women, dead babies, traumatised children being left in the care system, children left with mothers in poverty, and more in between. Whereas the "consequence" for men is that they...may have to pay a paltry child maintenance sum?

Sure, let's encourage men to have sex with zero consequence and just leave it all on the mother. Sounds sensible.

Lying about contraception is immoral, but men have the agency to decide to "double up" and use a condom, or to not have sex. Maybe they should campaign harder for decent male contraceptive options and broaden their choices.

As an aside, how often is it genuinely "she promised she was on the pill and lied to me and didn't take it/took off the condom" as opposed to "i thought she was on the pill but didn't actually ask because I thought she'd tell me/I didn't really care in the moment because it felt better without a condom..."trapped" indeed.

It's virtually impossible to trap a man with pregnancy, just use a condom if children are not wanted under any circumstances.

Everyone knows that the pill can not be effective when ill or if forgotten.

When, oh when, will men take responsibility and stop blaming women for everything.

I think the men who let themselves be "trapped" are not necessarily the ones who need "trapping". The arseholes who don't give a shit, won't give a shit.

It should be on either partner to respect their partner’s wishes if they say they don’t want a baby.

He did want long term commitment. He did not want to have a baby at that time, he was still a student. He's a wonderful father, a far better parent than his ex was able to be. He's never said he was trapped, I know it because his ex told me, my mum and my sister.

Abortion is hugely traumatic. No woman should be forced to have an abortion on a mans say-so. That's fucking barbaric

If he's not trapped, what's the relevance?

1 Don't want a baby? - Don't have sex.

2 Want sex with no chance of fathering a baby? - Get a vasectomy.

3 Don't like condoms? - The pill can fail - or be 'forgotten.' See 1 and 2.

And so on.

The presence of a baby is no guarantee he'll stick around. If he wants to naff off he will. And it's not guaranteed he'll pay child support. And if you're not married you have no rights.

There's no such thing as trapping a man into becoming a father. Men are responsible for their own actions. If they don't want to risk a pregnancy they should abstain or have a vasectomy.

I'm utterly sick of women being held accountable for men.

It's almost as though people have forgotten condoms exist.....

Have you been lied to?
Do you know men who've been lied to?
You may want to start public service broadcasts for all the unwitting men...
Abstain or get the snip, because women are out here lying and trapping. You can never be too trusting, because you'll get trapped 🤦🏾‍♀️.

He didn't want a baby and his long term partner was 'on the pill'. He wasn't involved in the decision to become a father, she made the decision for them both.

Thread is about the narrative of women trapping men in relationships that they don't want to be in by getting pregnant. He was in a long term relationship and has the choice to leave at any point, but chooses to stay therefore he isn't trapped.

A persons desire to have a child, will never trump another persons desire to not have a child.
That you can "see why" some women intentionally get pregnant against their partners wishes is shocking and disgusting. Wanting another child or not wanting to miss her chance to be a mother, does not make it in any way acceptable to get pregnant by deception. She ALWAYS has the option of leaving the man who does not want a(nother) child, and finding a partner who does, or going the sperm donor option alone.
Wanting more children but wanting them to have the same father when he doesn't want more kids, or loving the man she is with and wanting the baby to be his hoping he'll stay after she "accidentally" gets pregnant when he desires to be childfree, or not wanting a donor father because then there's nobody to go after for financial support, are all 100% trapping the man.

Can't you see the emotional effect having an unwanted baby has on any person, regardless of their Gender? Quite rightly women should have the legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but men don't get the right to choose to end a pregnancy that they don't want, as it isn't happening inside their body. "He can just walk away" is bullshit, he will be forever mentally affected by the fact he has created a life, and theres the massive social stigma of abandoning your child if you don't want to be a parent. It's also a financial commitment he never wanted to have, that hes in for 18 years and affects every aspect of his life. It's not about the money supporting the child not the mother, it's about how that commitment then has a knock on effect and reduces what money he has to sustain the lifestyle he wants, which for some people who choose to be child free, is travel, which quickly becomes unaffordable when theres a child to provide for. Nobody should be allowed to effectively force someone into that position, hence "trapping" being a perfectly fitting term.

Imo in the case of accidental pregnancy, if a woman wants to proceed but the man does not, and the woman decides to continue knowing this, then it should be on the terms that the man is absolved of the legal commitment financially, as the woman is continuing the pregnancy knowing the man doesn't wish to have the child, and has the option to terminate if those conditions do not suit.

If she's intentionally gotten pregnant by lying about being on contraception, how is that any different to a man "stealthing" by taking a condom off mid sex? Stealthing is legally considered rape, because the consent was only given for protected sex. So, a woman lying about being on contraception to obtain unprotected sex by deception makes it sexual assault (since rape specifically requires the perpatrator to use a penis) making the women that do it abhorrent sex offenders.

How can you possibly "see why" someone intentionally commits sexual assault and think it's in any way understandable?!

A lot of men won't marry their pregnant partners. And I agree that it takes two to make a baby.

But a lot of men will stay in a relationship they're not happy in, so that they can see their kids as much as possible. The same with lots of women who are in effect 'trapped' in relationships they'd otherwise leave, because of children, or finances related to having children. Some families can't afford to split and maintain two households. 'Trapped' doesn't always asign blame

I think also the pill fails for any number or reasons, sickness for example. Unless a woman has expressly come out and said to her partner "I wanted a baby, you said no so I stopped taking it" it is worth giving the benefit of the doubt in most cases and believing that the pill failed.

Has she really said to your brother "I was on the pill but stopped taking it" and he reiterated that to the whole family? I bet that makes for an interesting Christmas dinner dynamic. Or is this just a conclusion you came to?

I didn't say it was understandable. What I meant by see why- was that I acknowledge there are a number of reasons why a woman may get pregnant without her partners knowledge or consent. I am not saying it is acceptable, but on a thread where I wanted to discuss the idea that women get pregnant to secure financial support, rather than all the reasons why it may or may not happen.

Often when a woman gets pregnant we fall back on the idea that she does it to trap a man into financially supporting her, whereas in reality I don't feel that has been the reality for decades. I think we should challenge that particular stereotype.

If I hadn't acknowledged there are other reasons why a woman might do this it bogs down the argument. It doesnt mean I condone it

There's no contraception other than condoms which doesn't have health impacts, and condoms fail, so that's not even possible.

That's how I always envisioned it too. So many couples end up having a child (intentionally or not) in a hope that it would "fix" the marriage just to end up making it far far worse.

Every man I have ever known has known that with unprotected sex there is a risk of pregnancy, so yes agree

If only someone would invented something so that men could control if they have a child or not.....

If you mean 'trapped' as in society at large will expect him to 'do the right thing', then yes it's a pretty much an antiquated idea. Unless there are family, cultural, or religious pressures then no he's not 'trapped'. Even then he can still walk away, it's just that he'll pay a price for it in being alienated by his family, church, or cultural 'group'.

I think the only 'trapped' other than that is what the man may feel himself, if he does feel anything. A man in a bad marriage may feel trapped at walking out on his wife and/or other children. A man with a conscience may feel trapped because he does feel some sense of responsibility for a child he's 'created'. But those men will also realize that it's at least partly of their own making by failure to use contraception.

And no, I don't feel that walking away but having to pay child maintenance is 'being trapped'. That's just the 'price' you pay for having sex.

But from time immemorial men have walked out on unwanted children without a backward glance, it's nothing new. And it was pretty rare that that man was completely 'ostracized' forever, they've always been able to get away with it after a period of finger pointing and tut-tutting. I'm from the generation of 'shotgun marriages' and it was always the girl/woman who paid the price in the end. The man or boy was forgiven after a bit because 'She must be no better than she should be. A nice girl/decent woman would have said NO in the first place'.