Running Away And Being Selfish....

[TingTawng]

Pudgi-lemon, you really do whine on for a supposedly happy man in a committed relationship. If other people are making mistakes that you clearly do not.....why are you getting upset about it? I can't be bothered to argue with you point for point, because you've lost all perspective. I normally hate people who say what I'm about to say, but anyway: chill out. Take a break man. We get you. We have got your point loud and clear. You're whipping yourself up into a froth. The zero-atmosphere vacuum world in which you inhabit is a different planet to mine. Your last comments on women owning their own bodies comes straight out of some Women's Studies texts which leads me to believe you may not be the person you're describing youeself as in this thread.

[Pudgimelon]

Your last comments on women owning their own bodies comes straight out of some Women's Studies texts which leads me to believe you may not be the person you're describing youeself as in this thread.

You're right, I should have been more clear on that. HUMAN BEINGS have a right to own their own bodies. Male or female, we should be the ultimate judges on what's best for ourselves when it comes to medical procedures and medications.

Of course, someone who is mentally ill should be prevented from committing suicide until they can think clearly again. But if someone is of sound mind, they should have the right to make important medical decisions.

If this happens to negatively impact some guy who happened to stick his dick in the wrong girl at the wrong time of the month, oh well, tough s--t. He shouldn't be making reproductive decisions so frivilously.

[Nemesis]

Your last comments on women owning their own bodies comes straight out of some Women's Studies texts ......

HUMAN BEINGS have a right to own their own bodies.

He shouldn't be making reproductive decisions so frivilously.

she knew I'm not up for the kids thing yet she stopped taking the pill, unbeknownst to me.

The guy made it clear he didn't want kids. The woman was a Western girl, not some lesser educated third worlder who might not know better.

She had control of her body. Period. She had several ways to prevent pregancy.

1. The pill

2. Other contraceptive measures

3. An aspirin held fimly between the legs at the approriate time of the month, i.e. abstinence.

If she was in control of her own body - the feminist rant for over four decades - why is the guy now responsible for getting her pregnant?

If he wanted a child and she didn't, she could get an abortion over his wishes, because it's her "body." (Nevermind, she would be aborting a separate human life which has a right to not be aborted) But if it's her body when she's deciding to have or not have an abortion, why is it not her decision and responsiblity when she decides to have sex that ends up in a pregnancy? Women want it both ways.

As for the guy who didn't keep his blood in the big head, being shes a UK woman, you're most likely looking at an 18 year annuity payment made out to your "fling' partner. That's reality in the Maternal society you're from dude. You have a penis, you pay.

[sbk]

Women want it both ways.

My my, what a broad generalization. ALL women are like this?? Really??? I could come up with some very broad generalizations about men that aren't very flattering either but wouldn't necessarily be true. Think about what you say and what it means before posting.

As for women who choose to try and trap men into relationships by getting pregnant, it happens the world over. Personally, I find it very wrong and bound to fail. But then men who choose to be in a committed relationship, have kids and then shirk their responsibilities are also wrong. All we have is his side of the story. Perhaps she was being sneaky and tried to trap him, in that case, by all means, she made her choices she should pay the cost. But, perhaps there is another side to the story, one that does not make him appear so much the victim?? Who knows? Certainly not us.

My opinion then? Do what you think is right, not what you think is best for yourself.

[Pudgimelon]

She had control of her body. Period. She had several ways to prevent pregancy.

Yes she did, and nothing I have said contradicts this statement (except to point out that those prevention methods aren't 100% effective).

You seem to think I'm saying the male is SOLELY responsible. I'm not. I'm just pointing out the fact many of you seem to miss: he does SHARE responsibility.

1. The pill

Not 100% effective and as I've pointed out, with some serious potential side effects. Would you risk permanent sterility just to temporarily avoid pregnancy? Maybe in your case, sterility would be a boon to mankind, but I think a lot of people worry about the potential health problems. You don't have too, because you're not taking the pill....

2. Other contraceptive measures

Equally available to the guy. Just because she's on the pill doesn't mean he can "safely" ejaculate in her without a condom on.

Like I said, he made a REPRODUCTIVE decision to stick his dick in and ejaculate. So after a conception occurs is a little late to whine about the "unfairness" of it.

In case you flunked BIOLOGY, that's what happens when people have reproductive sex. Pill or no pill, condom or no condom, that's what happens. He knew this going in. So just because she increased the odds without telling him, doesn't mean the odds were non-existent beforehand.

He's putting his sperm in the only place that'll produce a baby. Why do you think he's not EQUALLY responsible for the outcome?

3.  An aspirin held fimly between the legs at the approriate time of the month, i.e. abstinence. 

Abstinence is also an option available to the male. He could have waited until he was "ready" or they were married, but he didn't.

Also, if you think "timing it" is a valid method of contraception, you're a frigg'n moron. Where'd you get that idea? A high school bathroom conversation with your "knowledgeable" buddies?? Idiot.

If she was in control of her own body - the feminist rant for over four decades - why is the guy now responsible for getting her pregnant?

Um.... because--you moron--HE EJACULATED IN HER VAGINA!!!

Did you flunk biology, retard??

Nobody put a gun to his head and forced his dick into her pussy. He did it of his own free will and he ejaculated in her pussy.

On that single point, her "on the pill" status and her deception are IRRELEVENT. Because without his sperm, a pregnancy CANNOT occur, so as the saying goes: "It takes two to tango"....

He is NOT solely responsible, however, he is also NOT absolved from responsibility simply because she deceived him.

Nothing feminist about that. Simple common decency says he should clean up after himself and take ownership of his own mistakes.

If he wanted a child and she didn't, she could get an abortion over his wishes, because it's her "body."

Yes, that's true.

You think it's unfair? Too bad. Come back in your next life with a vagina if you want to have the lion's share of reproductive "power". But biological facts necessitate that women have more of a say in this matter than men. It's just the way nature intended it, get over it.

(Nevermind, she would be aborting a separate human life which has a right to not be aborted)

Children do not have the right to make medical decisions about their bodies even after they are born, so in a legal sense, fetuses do NOT have a right to veto a mother's wishes.

Personally, though, I'd never condone an abortion (except in the case of a health threat to the mother's life). But that's just my personal belief and I don't expect everyone to agree with me on that.

But if it's her body when she's deciding to have or not have an abortion, why is it not her decision and responsiblity when she decides to have sex that ends up in a pregnancy?

When did I EVER say that it was not her responsibility too??

She engaged in reproductive sex, she's responsible too.

I don't understand why you think she "wants it both ways". It's pretty obvious that this woman consciously decided to get pregnant, and therefore she should be responsible for the outcome. Likewise, this man consciously decided to ejaculate in the one place that raises the possibility of pregnancy, so he is ALSO responsible for his part in the conception. Just because he didn't "want" it to happen, and just because he felt "decieved", doesn't magically take away the FACT that he stuck is dick in and put sperm in the one place that would result in exactly the thing he didn't want.

Talk about playing Russian Roulette.

As for the guy who didn't keep his blood in the big head, being shes a UK woman, you're most likely looking at an 18 year annuity payment made out to your "fling' partner. That's reality in the Maternal society you're from dude. You have a penis, you pay.

Yep. You're absolutely right on this count.

Therefore, you'd agree with me that anyone who knowingly has reproductive sex with a stranger (or with someone they don't want to have a baby with) in a country with such "maternal laws", is STUPID.

[OOLEEBER]

Jezzus Dude!

Someone once said this thread has gone out to sea. That's so true and you're the one to blame.

Have you forgotten the initial point? She stopped taking the pill and did not tell him because she wanted a child by him without his consent. Get the point here mate!!

TingTawn is spot on here. You're working yourself up into a froth. In fact it seems to me that that is your whole point. To switch on the PC and vent.... and see everything anyone says as a challenge to your intelect.

C'mon dude. We can all see from your posts that you are an intelegent person and well educated. Just drop the anger mate. Do some work on your 'buttons'. You have far too many and every post you submit is simply a reaction to a button that you percieve has been pressed. Do your self a favour and take a break.

sbk, Your words are so perfect I think I love you.

[TingTawng]

She stopped taking the pill and did not tell him because she wanted a child by him without his consent.

The crux of the issue - consent.

I don't believe abortion should be used in lieu of contraception, but I do believe it should be used if the male partner absolutely did not consent to the female partner becoming pregnant. Consent for me is having sex bereft of contraception. A couple not wishing to become parents obviously use contraception; they are not consenting to becoming parents. To deceive a partner by pretending to use contraception when you aren't means that only one person is consenting to parenthood. Remember, rights and responsibilties. Your forfeit rights when you neglect your responsibilities.

[Nemesis]

Women want it both ways.

My my, what a broad generalization. ALL women are like this?? Really???

As for women who choose to try and trap men into relationships by getting pregnant, it happens the world over.

But then men who choose to be in a committed relationship, have kids and then shirk their responsibilities are also wrong.

she made her choices she should pay the cost. But, perhaps there is another side to the story, one that does not make him appear so much the victim??

In one sentence you call the statement a broad (no pun intended I'm sure) generalization, and then the next sentence say women trapping men happens the world over. And has been I might add.

Like I say, women, in general, like to have it both ways. In the Western Matriarchal world, they generally do. Want to go to work, but want to have a baby. Want the man to share in parenting, but when they divorce, keep the kids and get the 18 year annuity.

We aren't taking about a 'committed relationship" here. Are you a bimbo?

Absolutely. She made her choice to spread her legs and should pay the cost. But she will look to the UK government to make the man who didn't want children. thought she was taking precautions, pay support or be labeled a deadbeat dad.

Nevermind the woman was a kohok.

[Nemesis]

3.  An aspirin held fimly between the legs at the approriate time of the month, i.e. abstinence. 

Abstinence is also an option available to the male.

Abstinence is 100% effective.

The woman has "control" over her body and it's her body that gets pregnant, not his. If she doesn't want a baby, don't have sex. Simple as that.

The woman carries the baby not the man. If she doesn't want to have a baby outside of a committed relationship, she shouldn't have sex. Simple as that.

Why should the man SHARE responsiblity when the unmarried woman has so many options available to her to not get pregnant? She has control.

Most of the rest of you post was off point and mostly blather.

[OOLEEBER]

Exactly TingTawng & Nemesis,

Puji-whatever, rants on about stupid sex but that is so far off the point here.

For example: conventional methods of contraception are not 100% effective. What the fkuk has this to do with this thread. Get the point or join another forum dude. Just type catholic responsibilities into Google and go from there.

Roo boy was right. 'your <deleted> boring Pudgy. nick off!

[kat]

No, apparently, this is not obvious to men who consistently lump all women or feminists into the same pile.

kat, I was agreeing with you. And "men who consistantly lump all women or feminists into the same pile" DO find this obvious too - that making up an accusation of rape is a seriously awful thing to do that should be punished to the same extent as rape itself. This is obvious because an innocent man can be put behind bars for 15 years or more for something he didn't do - in my mind, this is far worse than rape because at least a rape victim can get therapy and has the chance to move on with her life - not so the man falsely convicted of rape.

I don't think anyone gets away lightly in the West for erroneously accusing someone of rape.

Erroneously? That's a very loaded word. I would tend to use the word "deliberately" myself. It's not rocket science. If you consented to sex, it's not rape. If you didn't consent but were forced to have sex, that's rape. Saying "stop!!" at the moment the guy is climaxing doesn't count by the way! If anyone knows a more nuanced version of the law, by all means let me know.

So, what's happening to the woman who accused Kobe of rape? Is she being prosecuted? No. She got off extremely lightly. The evidence was so flimsy, the case collapsed. Notice the accused has no anonymity but the accuser does. Only when her name was known did the prosecution start to have doubts over the strength of her case. Lo-and-behold, she has a reputation for this kind of trick.

Correct, there is a difference between a woman,

1-

who takes the pill regularly for contraception and nevertheless is getting pregnant -

2-

or a woman, who deliverately stops to take the pill, but continues to have sex with the man, without informing him

in case 1- it is just unlucky, but the woman did nothing wrong....

in case 2- she is deceiving the man.

If it happens, beside ABORTION, another solution might be ADOPTION.

Seems that both, man and woman are now not happy about the child, but the woman feels bad to accept abortion.

Yohan, I agree entirely with this. When women accept responsibility for their actions completely, only then can their rights be observed. It is totally impossible to have any rights if you renege on your responsibilities. Some women have played the victim card all their lives and now people are jaded by it.

The problem with consent is that it is very difficult to prove - i.e. the Kobe Bryant Case. There have also been different interpretations of when consent begins or doesn't begin, and again, the Kobe Bryant Case would make a fine example.

In this particular case, I tend to sympathise with your viewpoint about the accuser, but I think your statement about consent in rape is oversimplified.

What about the so-called grey areas, which are most likely to be the case in an unsettled rape charge?

Does a woman who accompanies a man to a hotel room but doesn't wan't sex "consenting"?

How about a woman who consents to fool around but draws the line at intercourse?

If saying no can also be part of an erotic charge, how do you know when no acutally means no? (sorry to sound like the women's manuel you all dread so much, but it is relevant in this case).

Anyway, it is these kinds of murky issues that actually come up in a rape case, and what I suspect is part of the "deal" that is being hammered out between Kobe and his accuser. In this particular case, I do think Kobe was unfairly accused, but the woman gets off and possibly with a settlement award because of the nebulous area of consent.

[mrchips377]

It's pretty simple isn't it.

We're in modern times right where there is the "pill", so affluent men & women should theoretically be able to <deleted> each other without having to worry about pregnancy, apart from accidents and mistakes. In this case, seems the gf decided to go ahead without laddies consent.

It's extremely irresponsible & dishonest of either party to decide to have a child without the consent of the other party. This is irrespective of the laws of the land. So if the gf wants to have the baby and laddie's doesnt want, then she's on her own, xcept for what financial support she can screw out of him using the law, or wheedle out him appealing to his conscience or using her charms (if she's got any ?).

This relationship's already broken down before the child is born, so what's the point to pretend anything else. If the gf goes ahead, i'm truly sorry for the child. But single parent familiies seems to be the norm nowadays!

So i agree with tutsiwarrior ! D... the b...

[TingTawng]

Does a woman who accompanies a man to a hotel room but doesn't wan't sex "consenting"?

OK, not to confuse the thread but this is a mini-discussion on rape.

Personally I think feminism has made rape a vague area. It used to be simple. For example, when a woman walks into a hotel room with a man, she's simply consenting to walking into a hotel room with a man. End of story. Consenting to sex means not resisting when a man sticks his penis into your vagina (often it's encouraged!). If you resist physically and/or verbally, yet he continues, and continues, and continues, that would constitute as rape. Now rape, in some feminist's eyes, can occur retrospectively. What they mean is, rape can be "realised" later from a victim even though she consented at the time. For example, I've heard accusers of rape saying "Yes, even though I consented, I did so only because I was drunk at the time. If I was sober, I would never have consented, therefore I feel violated and sickened by what happened and wish to press rape charges". That kind of behaviour is damaging to everybody, and undermines genuine rape cases.

Right sorry to go off topic there....

[RooBoy]

First, your rebuttal contains a lot of "might haves".  We can all speculate endlessly about what "might have" happened, but if you're going to contradict my SPECIFIC statements about the difference between "quantity" and "quality", then you're going to have to lay off the speculation and stick to the facts.

Fact is, the attending bulls--t that accompanies stranger-sex just doesn't make it worthwhile, IN MY OPINION.

If your opinion is different, good for you.

Your specific statements as you say are your opinion, which appear to be your opinion alone in this thread, or have you forgotten to take your blinkers off and read everyone elses posts??

I don't see why you get so bent out of shape when I "spout off my nonsense".  I'm entitled to an opinion and I speak it with conviction.  I don't intend to convince you that I'm right, and quite frankly, I couldn't give a flying rat's ass what you think. If you disagree with me, fine, that's just wonderful.  I'll think you're a frigg'n idiot, but I won't pretend to CARE about whether or not you spend your remain days in ignorance, because I don't care. 

If you think I am bent out of shape then you dont get out much do you?? Either that or you are such an anally retentive bore that noone in your immediate vicinity has ever bothered to tell you just how utterly boring you truly are.

In your second paragraph here you show your true colours and inability to keep it together, while my posts have easily recognised sarcasm thrown in, one would not take yours that way. If someone disagrees with you ten they are a <deleted> idiot?? How droll pudgy boy...

You, on the other hand, seem to be getting quite upset about the things I'm saying.  Is it because your feeble brain detects some truth in what I'm saying and it threatens your precious "carefree" lifestyle??  Or is it because you feel threatened whenever someone disagrees with you because your precious world-view cannot tolerate the existence of alternate viewpoints??

Either way, I recommend that you stop reading my posts as they seem to be needlessly upsetting you and you don't want to have to go back on your meds, right?  (Lithium is your friend, buddy).

Read above, you could not upset me in a million years, you dont have the capacity. Carefree lifestyle?? Try 5 years with the same woman you loser. Precious world view?? oh that is such a laugh, and so hypocritical isnt it! YOU are the one who cannot see other viewpoints, you just told us if we disagree with you we are relegated to the moron pile.. You are a joke.

Oh, and by the way, your last example there was particularly feeble.  You obviously have never met a QUALITY woman in your entire life, so I guess you have a hard time imagining what they are like.  But Quality women don't "show their true colors"  after a few months.  If a woman "shows her true color" then it goes without saying that she was NOT a quality woman, and therefore your entire example is horsesh-t.

Let me guess, your idea of a good way to find a quality woman is to spin the wheel and hope some random girl you bring home from a bar will turn out to be "The One", and you'll live happily ever after.

We'll, let me clue you in on something: that's a STUPID idea.

You really do love to twist things around so as to fit your lost arguement dont you. Do I have to repeat myself so the reading impaired can understand?? I dont believe you are THAT THICK. does "he might have thought he was with a quality woman" ring any bells?? You are the one who chose to use QUALITY with everything, and if the woman he was dating did show her true colours later in the relationship it would not have made any difference to whether HE THOUGHT she was QUALITY in the beginning!!

I think that was even mentioned by the original poster of this thread.  The woman he was with had a lot of problems with her ovaries, and there was a risk that an abortion might prevent her from ever having children.  That's a pretty heavy deal, and certainly not something that can easily be dismissed.  Even if the situation is all her fault, that's still not an easy thing to ask a woman to risk.  So while the man may not want the baby and the woman may have been wrong to "force" him into fatherhood, asking her to risk permanent sterility as a "punishment" is a bit much.

She knew the risks, she knew she had only 1 ovary left, she made a concious decision to get pregnant to a man who DID NOT KNOW. Do you understand the concept of consensual?? You BIGOT.

It might have been her body BEFORE she opened her legs and asked a man to have sex with her, but it became THEIR body when she chose to get pregnant. Usually this is a time of joy for a couple (not that you would know <deleted> about this) but in many cases its purely an entrapment, and you are saying the man has no rights. Your a <deleted> woman arent you?? some big pudgy bird who would need a barge pole to get any pleasure...

The rest of your post is just so much garbage its not worth replying to. I am not telling anyone what to do with their body, YOU ARE! dikhead, <deleted> me you are such a dumarse arent you. Have you actually read any of the other posts?? Like someone else said, you are just typing in here to vent your sexual frustrations, take it elsewhere, noone agrees with you, your last sentence shows your age and mentality, give it up!

[boris]

First, your rebuttal contains a lot of "might haves".  We can all speculate endlessly about what "might have" happened, but if you're going to contradict my SPECIFIC statements about the difference between "quantity" and "quality", then you're going to have to lay off the speculation and stick to the facts.

Fact is, the attending bulls--t that accompanies stranger-sex just doesn't make it worthwhile, IN MY OPINION.

If your opinion is different, good for you.

Your specific statements as you say are your opinion, which appear to be your opinion alone in this thread, or have you forgotten to take your blinkers off and read everyone elses posts??

I don't see why you get so bent out of shape when I "spout off my nonsense".  I'm entitled to an opinion and I speak it with conviction.  I don't intend to convince you that I'm right, and quite frankly, I couldn't give a flying rat's ass what you think. If you disagree with me, fine, that's just wonderful.  I'll think you're a frigg'n idiot, but I won't pretend to CARE about whether or not you spend your remain days in ignorance, because I don't care. 

If you think I am bent out of shape then you dont get out much do you?? Either that or you are such an anally retentive bore that noone in your immediate vicinity has ever bothered to tell you just how utterly boring you truly are.

In your second paragraph here you show your true colours and inability to keep it together, while my posts have easily recognised sarcasm thrown in, one would not take yours that way. If someone disagrees with you ten they are a <deleted> idiot?? How droll pudgy boy...

You, on the other hand, seem to be getting quite upset about the things I'm saying.  Is it because your feeble brain detects some truth in what I'm saying and it threatens your precious "carefree" lifestyle??  Or is it because you feel threatened whenever someone disagrees with you because your precious world-view cannot tolerate the existence of alternate viewpoints??

Either way, I recommend that you stop reading my posts as they seem to be needlessly upsetting you and you don't want to have to go back on your meds, right?  (Lithium is your friend, buddy).

Read above, you could not upset me in a million years, you dont have the capacity. Carefree lifestyle?? Try 5 years with the same woman you loser. Precious world view?? oh that is such a laugh, and so hypocritical isnt it! YOU are the one who cannot see other viewpoints, you just told us if we disagree with you we are relegated to the moron pile.. You are a joke.

Oh, and by the way, your last example there was particularly feeble.  You obviously have never met a QUALITY woman in your entire life, so I guess you have a hard time imagining what they are like.  But Quality women don't "show their true colors"  after a few months.  If a woman "shows her true color" then it goes without saying that she was NOT a quality woman, and therefore your entire example is horsesh-t.

Let me guess, your idea of a good way to find a quality woman is to spin the wheel and hope some random girl you bring home from a bar will turn out to be "The One", and you'll live happily ever after.

We'll, let me clue you in on something: that's a STUPID idea.

You really do love to twist things around so as to fit your lost arguement dont you. Do I have to repeat myself so the reading impaired can understand?? I dont believe you are THAT THICK. does "he might have thought he was with a quality woman" ring any bells?? You are the one who chose to use QUALITY with everything, and if the woman he was dating did show her true colours later in the relationship it would not have made any difference to whether HE THOUGHT she was QUALITY in the beginning!!

I think that was even mentioned by the original poster of this thread.  The woman he was with had a lot of problems with her ovaries, and there was a risk that an abortion might prevent her from ever having children.   That's a pretty heavy deal, and certainly not something that can easily be dismissed.  Even if the situation is all her fault, that's still not an easy thing to ask a woman to risk.  So while the man may not want the baby and the woman may have been wrong to "force" him into fatherhood, asking her to risk permanent sterility as a "punishment" is a bit much.

She knew the risks, she knew she had only 1 ovary left, she made a concious decision to get pregnant to a man who DID NOT KNOW. Do you understand the concept of consensual?? You BIGOT.

It might have been her body BEFORE she opened her legs and asked a man to have sex with her, but it became THEIR body when she chose to get pregnant. Usually this is a time of joy for a couple (not that you would know <deleted> about this) but in many cases its purely an entrapment, and you are saying the man has no rights. Your a <deleted> woman arent you?? some big pudgy bird who would need a barge pole to get any pleasure...

The rest of your post is just so much garbage its not worth replying to. I am not telling anyone what to do with their body, YOU ARE! dikhead, <deleted> me you are such a dumarse arent you. Have you actually read any of the other posts?? Like someone else said, you are just typing in here to vent your sexual frustrations, take it elsewhere, noone agrees with you, your last sentence shows your age and mentality, give it up!

Without taking sides on the issue at hand (for reasons dealt with earlier) a brief comment on the quality of argument.Pudgimelon outlines his position with clarity and intelligence.This ludicrous posting by Rooboy is just frothing at the mouth and with the yah boo invective of the playground.Game set and match to Pudgimelon if this is the standard of disagreement with him..The strange thing is that I suspect there is a decent case to be made against the Pudgimelon argument, but the likes of Rooboy don't appear to have the intellectial capability to marshall their side very effectively.

[boris]

The strange thing is that I suspect there is a decent case to be made against the Pudgimelon argument, but the likes of Rooboy don't appear to have the intellectial capability to marshall their side very effectively.

And obviously neither do I, spelling "intellectial" that way when, as any fule knos, it should be "interllektual".

[Nemesis]

Personally I think feminism has made rape a vague area. It used to be simple.

Actually, not too far off topic IMO. Feminism has indeed manipulated rape to their complete advantage. Woman can allege rape now and ruin a man's life even when she consents to intercourse, is in the throes of the most intense act known to exist between a man and a woman and, if she decides she wants coitus interruptus and the man continues, it is legally rape.

The man not only ends up with blue balls but a rape allegation to boot. Some women I know would entice a man for just such a result. Just like they will go off contraception to get pregnant to get an 18 year annuity.

[Pudgimelon]

Have you forgotten the initial point? She stopped taking the pill and did not tell him because she wanted a child by him without his consent. Get the point here mate!!

I have NOT forgotten the initial point, but it is you who is failing to "get the point".

You are absolutely right, consent is the crux of the whole issue.

However, you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG if you think she had this conception without his consent.

BIOLOGICALLY, when he ejaculates in her vagina, he is giving his consent to a pregnancy.

Whatever his "feelings" are at the time are irrelevent. Whatever contraception is being used (or not used) at the time, is also IRRELEVENT.

There is a PHYSICAL ACT OF CONSENT that you seem to be forgetting.

If he didn't "want" a baby, then why did he put his sperm in the one place that would make a baby???? Why did he say to his sperm, "Here you go boys! Swim upsteam and make me a baby!"

His sperm isn't going to be aware of any "unreadiness" on his part. His sperm isn't going to be aware of any contraception or deception in play. His sperm aren't going to be aware of the financial, personal, and ethical consequences of their mission.

They are just going to do the job to the best of their ability.

And if you don't want them to do that, DON'T ASK THEM TO. Don't put them in the one place where they can get that job done. Period.

So go on and whine and moan about my posting style, you STILL haven't come up with an actual rebuttal of that single point. His PHYSICAL ACT of consent obligates him to take responsibility for the consequences.

Whether or not he wanted the conception, in a biological sense, HE ASKED FOR IT.

[TingTawng]

Pudgmelon, what if your committed girlfriend has a one-night stand and gets pregnant? Of course, she will keep this secret from you so you will think it's your child - now this happens a lot!!. Knowing what I know about you, you will say to her "darling, I triple-bagged it and you're on the pill, but I do know that I am consenting to being a father by the act of sex alone, and no contraception is 100% effective, so let's look forward to parenthood". You start to grow doubts and take a DNA test soon after the child is born. You find out you are not the father. Guess what? The law sees YOU as the father. The real biological father cannot be traced, but you were the partner while she was pregnant, gave birth etc. She would be quick to acknowledge you as the father too (to get the financial responsibility from you). You would have tied yourself in knots because you would be telling her over and over how you're responsible for the child (given your philosophy) and cemented the idea that you are the father. In this situation, you did not actually consent to being a father (because you took precautions against pregnancy). If she didn't have a one-night stand, she wouldn't have fallen pregnant. Her responsibility but you carry the can. Your philosophy demands you carry the can here.

Now......

.....do you see what's coming next??

OK.....given that story above.....if she didn't have the one night stand, she would not have fallen pregnant.... (but you choose to take responsibility because you think your condoms broke and her pill was ineffective)

.....it's the same for damnaam because he was also deceived, but in a different circumstance to the one I mentioned above.

[Pudgimelon]

now this happens a lot!!

Maybe it happens a lot with the types of girls YOU date, but like I said, there is a difference between Quantity and Quality.

So infidelity is one of the prices you pay for dating women who aren't morally well-grounded.

In this situation, you did not actually consent to being a father (because you took precautions against pregnancy).

Again, you are flat-out WRONG. If you're having reproductive sex, you are PHYSICALLY CONSENTING to fatherhood. Period.

OK.....given that story above.....if she didn't have the one night stand, she would not have fallen pregnant.... (but you choose to take responsibility because you think your condoms broke and her pill was ineffective)

You and I live in different worlds and we interact with different types of people, that much is certainly obvious.

I just don't meet these manipulative, "trapping" women you fear so much. So I really can't relate to your troubles with them.

However, I'm certainly willing to acknowledge that human nature is imperfect, and even a "Quality" woman can have a lapse of judgment.

So in a hypothetical situation like that, what would I do?? Well, first off, I'd certainly be pissed as H.E.L.L., and I'd certainly take a long, long, long time to reconsider the relationship and whether or not it was a healthy situation for me.

But hypothetically speaking, let's just say that me and this hypothetical woman did make a long, ardous journey back to trust and mutual respect and somehow managed to put such a horrible betrayal behind us. If that were the case, and I decided to remain in a relationship with that person, then that would, OF COURSE, mean that I'd decided to FORGIVE them for their lapse in judgment.

What about the child that came about as a result of her indiscretion? Well, of course I would raise it as my own. Why wouldn't I?? Lots of people are involved in second marriages with people who already have children, and they quite often adopt those kids and treat them as their own children. So I don't see how this would be any different. If I loved this woman, then I would, of course, love her child, even if it wasn't mine. That's just part of the deal.

I don't expect you to understand that, and I'm pretty sure you'll just call me a fool, but try to understand that we were raised with different value systems. I was taught to love, honor and respect, for better AND for worse. And I was taught to forgive and not to punish innocents (children) for the mistakes of their parents. You were obviously raised with different values and/or had life experiences that caused to become a bitter, hateful individual who reduces all human interactions into: "What's in it for me?" and "How do I get the most out of someone while giving them the least?"

Frankly, I pity you.

[TingTawng]

OK Pudgimelon, I understand you see yourself far above everyone else in terms of morality. So too are the people who have the privilege of keeping your company (those "QUALITY" women you speak of).

However, I don't quite understand why you lose your temper so often. You've done it several times on this thread in very unsubtle ways. You seem to be harbouring some anger here that you can't quite control at times. When I try to reconcile your shaky temperament with the morally fibrous advice you give to us here, I see a clear contradiction between the style (aggressive, rude) of your posts and the substance (selfless, caring ideals) of your posts. Somebody who is truly following the wonderful, kind, respectful ideals you espouse wouldn't have such close proximity to the angry feelings you are transparently conveying in this thread.

[Ijustwannateach]

Jezzus Dude!

Someone once said this thread has gone out to sea. That's so true and you're the one to blame.

Have you forgotten the initial point? She stopped taking the pill and did not tell him because she wanted a child by him without his consent. Get the point here mate!!

TingTawn is spot on here. You're working yourself up into a froth. In fact it seems to me that that is your whole point. To switch on the PC and vent.... and see everything anyone says as a challenge to your intelect.

You've got Pudgi pinned and wriggling on a board- this is HIM, perfectly! If he couldn't froth, condemn, pontificate, or condescend (preferably on the subject of alcohol and whores) there wouldn't be a point.

....and Nem, too! How much pointless ranting can one thread take!

"Steven"

[Ijustwannateach]

Personally I think feminism has made rape a vague area. It used to be simple.

Actually, not too far off topic IMO. Feminism has indeed manipulated rape to their complete advantage. Woman can allege rape now and ruin a man's life even when she consents to intercourse, is in the throes of the most intense act known to exist between a man and a woman and, if she decides she wants coitus interruptus and the man continues, it is legally rape.

The man not only ends up with blue balls but a rape allegation to boot. Some women I know would entice a man for just such a result. Just like they will go off contraception to get pregnant to get an 18 year annuity.

Nem, could these ideas of yours conceivably be more of an explanation than your salary is for why you find yourself less attractive to bargirls (as per your thread over in General topics)?

"Steven"

[RooBoy]

The strange thing is that I suspect there is a decent case to be made against the Pudgimelon argument, but the likes of Rooboy don't appear to have the intellectial capability to marshall their side very effectively.

And obviously neither do I, spelling "intellectial" that way when, as any fule knos, it should be "interllektual".

You surely do not Boooris, dragging your knuckles all over the place and messing up the carpet.

Fact is I really could not be bothered to sit here for hours replying in a succinct and classy manner, because he is not worth it. He is a Bigot of the 9th degree, and he wont be happy until everyone gets down on their knees and worships his insane anal views of the world.

Pudgy

BIOLOGICALLY, when he ejaculates in her vagina, he is giving his consent to a pregnancy

where do you come up with this?? did you just decide this is how the world must be? You didnt school in Thailand did you?? the old parrot learning syndrome..

Your play with words is truly fascinating, phsychiatrists could learn alot from someone like you. YOU KNOW we are not talking about Biological facts, we are talking about A WOMAN WHO CAME OFF THE PILL IN SECRET IN ORDER TO DECIEVE THE MAN SHE WAS WILLINGLY SLEEPING WITH INTO IMPREGNATING HER WITHOUT HIS CONSENT.

Could it be any more clear? Your arguement has nothing to do with this guy or his predicament, and your borish aggressive nature is only going to continue to recieve flames, because with your myopic view, you are unlikely to recieve anything more..

[Pudgimelon]

YOU KNOW we are not talking about Biological facts, we are talking about A WOMAN WHO CAME OFF THE PILL IN SECRET IN ORDER TO DECIEVE THE MAN SHE WAS WILLINGLY SLEEPING WITH INTO IMPREGNATING HER WITHOUT HIS CONSENT

But she did have his consent.

He donated sperm to the conception. Yes or no?

Nature doesn't give a s--t about "deception" or "contraception". Nature says you put sperm in a vagina, and you're ASKING for pregnancy. Period.

[OOLEEBER]

Right on,

Jeez I gotta stop reading this topic and if it weren't for pudy-boy it would have dissapeared ages ago.

Pudgi. Why do you think I have not put up an argument to your points?

Simple. They're <deleted> and way off base. That's obvious to everyone. Like I said before. You're an inelligent guy but your argument here is so way out of sync with the point. Take your frustration elsewhere, if you can find somewhere it will be appreciated.

You've said what you've said 100 times already. So either we are all wrong and you are the only one who is right or..... your opinion differs to the rest of the posters in this forum. Your anger is not a vehicle that I for one am willing to accept as a series of realistic and believable points. Its just vent spleening.

I'd hate to get on the wrong side of you when you have a valid point because you are articulate and are well able to present a point. The problem here is your point is wrong (in my eyes). Thats the only flaw in your posts. Well, that and your angry stance.

I'm never right all the time and when I ralise I'm wrong I'll put up my hands and smile and say sorry. It's a shame you're either incapable of doing that or incapable of actually seeing the blinding truth in the point of this thread.

[RooBoy]

You're just winding us up arent you, you cannot seriously be this thick...

SHE did NOT have his consent, if she was on the pill then they had obviously come to an agreement that they did not want to concieve, get it?? Oh god please tell us you get it!

IE, she was well aware that he would be depositing inside her, and since they both agreed they did not want to concieve, she chose to take the pill.

Nature has nothing to do with this!! Nature is the end result of her DECEPTION. He was having sexual intercourse with a woman who he belived was taking the pill. Now the very tiny % chance of her getting pregnant is irrelevant if she decides to stop taking it altogether in order to get pregnant without his knowledge or consent! I am sure she didnt come up to him and ask him if he minds knocking her up, as we can surmise his answer with 100% accuracy from his initial post!

[ThaiPauly]

YOU KNOW we are not talking about Biological facts, we are talking about A WOMAN WHO CAME OFF THE PILL IN SECRET IN ORDER TO DECIEVE THE MAN SHE WAS WILLINGLY SLEEPING WITH INTO IMPREGNATING HER WITHOUT HIS CONSENT

But she did have his consent.

He donated sperm to the conception. Yes or no?

Nature doesn't give a s--t about "deception" or "contraception". Nature says you put sperm in a vagina, and you're ASKING for pregnancy. Period.

What a load of crap, I'm with Roo boy on this one (sorry for calling you a tosser in a previous post Roo-sling anther shrimp on the barbie). If SHE knew SHE was not taking contraception and led him to beleive (without saying as much) that she was -then it is a cut and dried case of deception, I want to exhume, Hanging Judge Jefferies, he would take care of the scheming little vixen. (For non Brits, he sentanced more people to death in the UK than any other judge, lucky for you Roo it was before we started shipping all our undesirables to Ozz)

[OOLEEBER]

But she did have his consent.

He donated sperm to the conception. Yes or no?

Nature doesn't give a s--t about "deception" or "contraception". Nature says you put sperm in a vagina, and you're ASKING for pregnancy. Period.

No that is absoloutely not the case. Maybe 100 years ago but we live in a world now where a man and a woman can enjoy each other without the worry of an unwanted child at the particular stage of their relationship. Not like the old catholic ways where the poor woman had to bear 10 children before she died at 48 just because some religous guy told her she could't wear a condom. Baloney!!!

I've had many long term relationships where many forms of contraception were always used. The understanding we both had at the time of making love was that we were both consenting to give our bodies to one another for the point of sexual satisfaction and the feeling of comming together and enjoying each other in the most intimate way. Thats what it was about. Sure there was always a SMALL risk of conception but whether it was discussed beforehand, or not, is not the point. Anyone with a brain knows that it could ACCIDENTLY happen and if that occured we would have dealt with the situation accordingly.

It really irks me to have to say AGAIN. She tricked him. That is not the same as agreeing to have intimate sexual relations for the purpose of pleasure with the use of contraception. When the time came that the couple both decided to make a baby then both would stop all contraceptive methods and I would hope the love making would be even more intense and special because they both want to create a child that they have both agreed is what they want.

Do you even have children pudji? Do you even know what it feels like to make love with intent of bringing children into this world? I do. I have twins. And when they are old enough I hope they enjoy making love in the same way I have. Either 99% free of concern regarding offsping or 100% commital to creating more.

This is the wonderful world we live in today. We have 99% of the best of both worlds.

I don't expect you to accept my argument. In fact I expect you to take parts and quote them and twist them, such is your nature. That's up to you but I can promise you this. I may read this topic again but I'll never ever respond directly to you. You are a wate of my time and I think it's safe to say everyone else's here. If you can't get the point then you are so stuick in your perception of the world that there's no point in even participating in a forum. Just start your own website and talk to yourself.

[OOLEEBER]

I'm tempted to think that Pudji is simply a troll with a lot of time on his hands.

Or maybe I'm wrong and someone could really be like him. Almost impossible to CONCIEVE of but possible all the same.