Falling pregnant is 90% a woman's fault

[Gingerandhibiscus]

Women CAN'T win!!!

REading through a thread on mn here where a single pregnant poster was pasted, interrogated judged and made answer for herself - I feel something like despair. (I don't know how she must feel).

Women don't 'put out' they're prudes and frigid or they have boundaries up around them. Or they're too fussy or too picky, or they're up themselves, or they're ugly, or they're spinsters. or feminists. What criticism are there for men who aren't in a sexual relationship.

if they have unprotected sex they are judged for 1) having had unprotected sex, and 2) if they get pregnant they're judged for not taking the MAP, and not having an abortion.

of course, if they had had an abortion they'd be judged for that too.

The original poster on the thread that has ME slackjawed works so she can't be attacked for seeking benefits. But some posters told her she shouldn't seek maintenance because it's not right given that the father wanted her to have an abortion. others told her she had a duty to seek maintenance on behalf of her child.

another poster told her that his taxes are propping up the running of the CSA. He seemed angry that the law and the state support a single woman in her unplanned pregnancy.

women can't win no matter what they do and what they choose. Unless they get married at about 27-33 to a nice man they'll be judged at some point. You literally can't move as a woman without being judged. ANd not just by men, but by women ... and that upsets me... :-(

you literally said 'i think women should take responsibility for contraception' - a full sentence. people copy and paste what you said because you deny what you said or pretend that somehow a statement that is clear as day and stands alone is being twisted by not including everything else you've said since.

whatever. people with multiple accounts arouse suspicion everywhere. saying you've been banned before obviously confirms those suspicions in people's minds. MN has a really lenient moderation policy and it is incredibly rare that they ban people. having said that thinking you're banned and therefore creating another two accounts to get back in and one for back up in case of being banned again presumably seems like the behaviour of someone with a history of being banned from places therefore having a strategy itms.

not to mention that joining mn with a name chosen like, "the enemy" and then going onto argue with mothers about responsiblity for contraception and the fairness of women getting to choose what to do with their own bodies really is a telling pattern of behaviour in itself.

How many names does theenemy, tenemy, enemythe have?!!!

Theenema, anathema?

Snort

theenema would work.

what was deleted?

as tenemy he has only posted on this thread. theenemy had a bit more of a posting history but not a great deal. any other names?

Didn't see what was deleted.

Odd post by mnet normally it says deleted for breaking guidelines or at posters request etc.

I didn't see what was deleted - I think maybe he just typed "message deleted by Mumsnet."

A statement?

bless him. that's a whole weekend he's had idling away on mumsnet as a child free man. clearly we're here too but hey i'm a single mum at the tail end of the easter holidays whose only adult contact this weekend other than here has been sunday dinner at my infuriating mothers.

i'd like to think if i hadn't had a child i'd have better things to do.

no offence mn'etters.

Hello

Twas us who deleted it - it's just that when we edit the deletion message it doesn't display in the normal way.

Thanks rowan can you clarify why it was deleted?

Interesting that a debate about something so simple and straight forward can run to 7 pages.

We all know how to make a baby. We all know how to use contraception. We all know that contraception sometimes fails.

Unplanned pregnancies happen. Both parties involved are equally responsible.

What, really, is there to not understand about that?

I would like to pitch in on the effect of the Sexual Revolution starting in the 1960s (though apparently there was a First Sexual revolution starting in the 17th century).

I think prior to that, it was probably seen as more 50:50. If a girl got pregnant outside marriage the man often had to marry her, or leave the village in disgrace. In a way both were responsible.

However, I think contraception has changed that beyond all recognition. The pill, the coil, effective condoms, the morning-after-pill, and finally abortion. The availability of abortion has meant that women do have the final choice, as OP says 90% choice.

So, you could argue, that women now have full control over their fertility and they don't have to have any children they do not choose to have. Which is great.

However, the downside perhaps is that women are seen as more disposable sexually and I think they are less valued by men. Men take less responsibility for their actions, and are not expected to take responsibility (except financially in some cases). You could argue that men do now seem to want sex without any consequences, physical or emotional.

Anyway its a complex subject. I am torn between SGB's more radical perspective and the other reality.

And also with Ginger's original OP that women can't win - unless they get married at about 27-33 to a nice man, they'll be judged at some point

contraception is the responsibility of both parties, and condoms are sensible anyway due to the sti risk
If a child is created through unprotected or protected sex then it is both parents responsibility to financially support that child if the pregnancy is successful

I don't understand the marrying at 27-33 thing. If anywhere outside that age bracket is it horrific or something?

Re. age, I think OP was just alluding to doing it all conventionally i.e marrying nice, stable, appropriate man (which is not a bad thing if you can manage it, but obviously many of us don't for varying reasons ).

oh conventional
over rated in my opinion

So obviously I don't want to make any sweeping stereotypes or anything, but surely each case is different. If a pair of consenting adults have sex using a condom which fails (for whatever reason) or the pill doesn't work, then of course the man should take equal responsibility. They're grown ups and should know what they're getting into.

However, there are cases on MN and one I know of in RL where the woman has told her boyfriend firstly that she couldn't conceive naturally, and secondly she was on the pill anyway. So he didn't need to use the condom he was apparently going to use.

Now in that case, when it turned out she'd told a friend she was going to try for a baby with this guy because neither of those facts were true, isn't the man justified in not wanting anything to do with her anymore? And having less than 50% responsibility for the children he unintentionally fathered?

I would not say he unintentionally fathered a child if he took no precautions. And no it's not reasonable to dismiss his responsibility to the child he fathered if he simply left the responsibility up to someone he clearly didn't know very well. Not too dissimilar to my ex - would I be justified in dumping my DD on my ex because he told me he couldn't have kids? I didn't know him long enough to know for certain he couldn't have kids i.e. we didn't go through fertility tests to determine that as a fact but I still didn't just take a chance, we used a condom which split and then the MAP failed. We both took responsibility. I wouldn't have it any other way, my DD was clearly determined to get here But, having sex can result in a pregnancy despite trying not to create one. What happens afterwards, as I've already said, says a lot about the person. Anyone who walks away claiming they were tricked into parenthood is pretty thick on the one hand, and an immature coward on the other IMO.

exactly. I have already explained to my 12 year old that he must always take responsibility for his own fertility and use condoms, apart from anything else it protects his own health

I was brought up during the AIDs adverts though. It petrifies me how people risk their own sexual health with people they hardly know

But if someone is lied to about it by someone they thought they could trust, because they wanted to get pregnant?

If you take your car to the garage to fix the brakes. The mechanic says he has fixed them. You then get in the car and drive down the street, the brakes fail and you crash, as it turns out the mechanic lied. Is that your responsibility or the person who lied about fixing the brakes?

Any decent bloke who fathers children, whether intentional or not, should contribute money for their upkeep. However, intentionally removing the choice from someone by deceiving them I think also removes their responsibility.

Yes they still had sex and should, in hindsight, have worn a condom, had a vasectomy (although that's a bit permanent) whatever - but if she's said she physically is incapable of getting pregnant in order to deceive him - that's not a 'whoops we made a mistake' moment - that's something much more malicious

It is morally and ethically wrong of a woman to do that but it still doesn't take the responsibility away from her male partner

Surely it takes some of the responsibility away? Or even if he's been tricked and lied to? Basically, he's been stolen from intentionally.

Not a mutual accident, not a mistake on the womans part but an intentional plan to deceive and make him responsible for something he was convinced could not happen?

Not really fair on him, is it?