"Contraception Begins at Erection Act" - new Bill submitted by Senator

[IwantToRetire]

Mississippi state Sen. Bradford Blackmon, a Democrat, introduced a bill this week that would seemingly ban men from masturbating or engaging in other sexual acts when they have no "intent to fertilize an embryo."

The bill, titled the "Contraception Begins at Erection Act," would make it unlawful for "a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo." It includes exceptions for sperm donation and using contraception to prevent fertilization.

The bill, introduced Monday, would impose fines of $1,000 for a first offense, $5,000 for a second offense and $10,000 for any subsequent offenses.

... "All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation," he wrote. "This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me." ...

Full report https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mississippi-lawmaker-introduces-contraception-begins-erection-act-rcna188938

Oooh. So in an alternative universe where this did actually pass, would there be any unintended consequences?

• Rise in violent crime because of heightened rage and blue balls
• All rape allegations with DNA evidence of sexual activity would get at least a hefty fine, if not a rape conviction
• Probably a rise in domestic violence similar to what happens after big teams play football etc
• Reduced coerced/pressured abortion, because that could be an inadvertent admission you didn't intend to fertilise an embryo?

Anything else?

Senator Blackman needs some sex ed. Is he truly telling the world he's never had a wank? I call BS.

Very clever. A sarcastic bill to highlight the ridiculousness of the bills and laws affecting woman's reproductive rights. Although I think he should have gone with "life begins at emission", has a better ring to it.

I confess I laughed. I expect like @FruitFlyPie it's an attempt to point out the ridiculous nature of laws governing women's bodies. But it makes me laugh to think maybe men might now sit up in horror and think 'hang on- .... '

He's read the famous "irresponsible ejaculators" thread from twitter! Genius!

Reminds me of that Legally Blonde quote:

“And for that matter all masturbatory emissions where his sperm was clearly not seeking an egg could be determined as reckless abandonment.”

Brilliant! 😂

Genius.

"a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo."

The wording is clunky and needs a better legal mind on it, but I categorically agree that in order to pevent any unwanted pregnancies, men need to control their sperm and where it ends up.

With the advances in DNA testing, men who cause pregnancies that result in abortion could be tracked and they really should be the ones jailed, especially when rape and sexual minor abuse has been comitted against the women or girls.

Excellent. Hope it makes some people think!

Well Monty Python did teach us that Every Sperm Is Sacred 🎼

Well.. what's good for the goose it's good for the gander.

Men don't like being told what to do with their bodies? Well (blue) bollocks to that!

I think you're missing the point

It includes exceptions for sperm donation and using contraception to prevent fertilization.

I assume if he used a condom while wznking he would be excluded from prosecution. I bet Durex shares will go through the roof!

My thoughts exactly!

Yes! I was hoping someone had commented with this 😂😂

Have I missed something, or does the proposed wording also include every woman having a period? Surely that is also a discharge of genetic material?

. . . would make it unlawful for "a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo." It includes exceptions for sperm donation and using contraception to prevent fertilization.

I never studies biology at school but I am fairly sure periods are not the benetic material that fertilizes an embryo.

Or do they?

No, but they include the released egg, unless it's been fertilised and implanted.

Exactly which is why I posted the quote I did.

To repeat:

would make it unlawful for "a person to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo." It includes exceptions for sperm donation and using contraception to prevent fertilization.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. My interpretation of the wording is that since an embryo is the product of both a sperm and an egg, a woman discharging an egg without the intent to fertilise it could also fall under the definition given in the proposed legislation.

I am puzzled by so many taking this at face value and nit picking.

As I bothered to quote in the OP:

"All across the country, especially here in Mississippi, the vast majority of bills relating to contraception and/or abortion focus on the woman’s role when men are fifty percent of the equation," he wrote. "This bill highlights that fact and brings the man’s role into the conversation. People can get up in arms and call it absurd but I can’t say that bothers me."

The fact that anyone, and in this case a man, has gone to the bother of doing this to try and illustrate the underlying issue seems to have passed some people by.

Would be great if some of the people with as much money as the "tech bros"did some sort of advertising campaign.

Its a though the US has accepted the Trumpian view of the world as the only view there and they all need to just keep their heads down.

This makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that if you empty a condom onto a used sanitary pad then an egg will be fertilised?

Do you also think that if you buy eggs from a supermarket they will eventually hatch?

No, of course not. I was merely agreeing with @AlisonDonut that the wording is extremely clunky and badly thought out. The intent is laudable, the writing, less so.

It's designed to wind up men by highlighting the current double standard, rather than actually intending it to pass in law. Being pedantic about specific wording for a bill that will never ever proceed beyond tomorrow is entirely missing the point.