'Men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies'

[Glasstree]

Hello, this is my first post in feminism (I've NC so I can join this board but am a long-standing lurker, occasional poster, but I really want to stop passively lurking and join the conversation).

I came across this twitter thread and it made me stop and think about how the abortion debate is framed, particularly her take on why men don't use condoms and putting the responsibility for unwanted pregnancies firmly on men's shoulders.

twitter.com/i/moments/1040468130433097728

I know this is probably not a new way to conceptualise this for lots of feminists, but it feels like a bit of a lightbulb moment for me and I wanted to share and discuss some of her ideas. Personally, I think there should be less emphasis on PIV sex and more education for everyone on other methods of contraception like the rhythm method etc. Also for sex education to include discussions which recognise boys and men are responsible for their ejaculations and their consequences. Perfectly happy to be told I've got this all wrong, I'm sure there's lots I haven't considered, but it's really important to me as a parent to think about how I'm educating my children around sex and relationships.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?