![[Mad_Murdock]](/data/avatars/s/9/9417.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
I'm with Murph on this one. I am just not willing to take that kind of risk to my career and family life if there are means of eliminating said risk. Especially in this day and age.
Upvote
0
dammit girls are taking away our freedom!!
- Thread starter Blockbot
- Start date
You lost me on your train of thought. I don't understand what unjust burden is put upon women. Last time I checked, "it took two to tango."Put an unjust burden on women again and repress their sexuality? Have both men and women suffer dire consequences that in no way befit the committed "offense" no matter how "old school" you are? Consequences that don't even have to be brought on by the oh so dreaded promiscuity! For what grand purpose again, exactly? Morals, lol?
No thanks.
Thank the almighty IS2 for contraception and protection, even if 120mm front armor is overdoing it.
(A vasectomy is always an option as well.)There are a lot more than morals involved in promiscuity.
But don't get me wrong. I'm not against birth control. My problem is with "casual sex" per se. Call it morals, call it old fashioned, call it whatever you like. Doesn't change my core values. You don't have to like or approve of them. Just as I don't have to like or approve of others.
The fact of the matter is, contraception or no, engage in intercourse and one may have an offspring. Rhetorically, who's responsible when the contraception fails? The company making the device/pill?.....I think not.
Upvote
0
Floyd, it might decrease casual sex a bit if there were less contraception, but the increase in fatherless illegitimate children would be far greater.
Upvote
0
if a brake line fails on your new car, is it the manufacturer's fault? or yours for taking it for a spin?
Upvote
0
(not an attack on you or your morals at all, just an explanation of what I mean with the unjust burden, since you askedYou lost me on your train of thought. I don't understand what unjust burden is put upon women. Last time I checked, "it took two to tango."
The so-called morals (not saying they are yours) that dictate women to be creatures without a sexuality of their own (nonsense - but pretty much still science at the time of Freud!) and the idea that they had to be wooed and coerced into it is a direct result from women (rightfully!) fearing sex because it could wreck their lives for years!
Women used to spend all their adult lives, from 14 up, locked in a permanent state of pregnancy - and no, not just the ****s! No freedom, full dependency, no education... - unless they gave up sex, either became nuns or ostracized as man-ish and broken, or learned to strategically fall down stairs if you catch my drift, which is its own kind of horror I don't wish on anyone.
Don't get me wrong, these "morals" about women fearing sex and only reluctantly playing along for the benefit of their husband who had to invest in them in return had their place! As an observation of what constituted the norm as well as a protection for women!
We have comfortably reliable methods of contraception now though, especially if you combine a few, so largely detaching sex from getting pregnant is finally possible! Awesome for everyone involved. It liberated women and allowed them to blossom not only in their sexuality! A sexuality of their own, which they suddenly have, interestingly enough.
To still shame sexually active women as ****s today and to hold them to "moral" standards that simply have no place in our lives anymore is disgusting and backwards, to be frank.
Even completely ignoring how I directly benefit from contraception: it helped make the kind of woman I want in my life a LOT more common!
Contraception and feminism rule.
Don't get me wrong either, Floyd! I get nothing out of casual sex personally. Casual meaning to me, with someone I don't deeply love (and have so for a while). Not the kind of guy I am.
If and how we judge may be different but I don't think we differ a lot in what we value.
I wasn't attacking your morals above, but simply the idea of taking contraception away to force everyone to take sex more seriously and to make it a more private thing between two people who love each other, because that idea seems oppressive and dangerous to me, with all due respect, as much as I may personally get where you're coming from with this.
Upvote
0
Pretty sure no contraception is a guarantee, even a vasectomy can fail to "take".
Where as the car manufacturer has a duty of care with their product you trust with your life...
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
interesting. just like condoms, huh?
cause i can garauntee you, life changes on a major scale if they fail. if you have children , you know what i mean. if you don't, you cannot know untill you do.
Upvote
0
The OP article is nothing. What about this one: No men OR women needed: Scientists create sperm and eggs from stem cells?
This article has got it wrong in one serious point, namely that no men or women may be needed to grow eggs or sperm, but a human womb is still needed to produce at baby from those.
So basically women can reproduce without the need of men, as artificial sperm created from the stem cells of other women inserted in the womb of a woman is enough for them to procreate. Thus females can keep the human race alive all on their own! Us males are no longer needed.
This article has got it wrong in one serious point, namely that no men or women may be needed to grow eggs or sperm, but a human womb is still needed to produce at baby from those.
So basically women can reproduce without the need of men, as artificial sperm created from the stem cells of other women inserted in the womb of a woman is enough for them to procreate. Thus females can keep the human race alive all on their own! Us males are no longer needed.
Upvote
0