Male Birth Control

[A Shieldmaiden]

Is it fair or even wise to relegate totally the duty/reliance on women to be responsible for all aspects of birth control.

Leaving it exclusively to women normalizes a culture of male dissociation from the intimacy and intricacies of sexual relationships, which in turn can perpetuate a power dynamic that claims women as objects of sexual gratification. Designating the burden of all associated risks, primarily pregnancy, to the female partner seems to me to be grossly outdated. Should it not be the goal of both men and women to share the responsibility of the burdens and the pleasures associated with sexual relationships. How many women have been told by men " you 'think too much", look what happens when you don't, you are left holding the baby and the reality of this can be at worst an exhausting and debilitating ordeal.

[Mr Reasonable]

You can get plan B from amazon for like 11 bucks. Free shipping with prime. So I do the pull out method, and if that doesn't work then I always have some plan B in the nightstand. Just trying to do my part here.

https://www.amazon.com/Emergency-Contra ... 55011&th=1

Price goes up and down a little but right now if you get 3 then they're only 12 bucks each. A lot cheaper than having to pick them up locally. They're some off brand but hey they work so it's all good.

[A Shieldmaiden]

For withdrawal to work as well as possible, you must do it right every single time. Always.

an after thought. You don't have any protection from any possible STD's that might be lurking?

[MagsJ]

The female condom, the femdom, has been around for a coupla decades now, but you don't hear much about it.

Edited to add: I mean femidom.. please don't search for femdom.

[Mr Reasonable]

For withdrawal to work as well as possible, you must do it right every single time. Always.

an after thought. You don't have any protection from any possible STD's that might be lurking?

If I don't know them too well I might throw on a condom here or there.

A joke I told someone the other day...maybe not a funny one, but a joke nonetheless....

What if you just caught all the stds and sneaky like gave them to everyone around you and let them spread so that you didn't have to wear condoms anymore? Like hey if everyone had aids then there'd be no need to protect against aids and we could all bang without condoms all the time.

[Fixed Cross]

Its not unusual for man to own some condoms which he will put on his own initiative. This is male birth control.
But the woman is one who gets pregnant, so it would be insulting to argue that the greater responsibility doesn't lie with her.
Absent rape, the woman gets to decide whether she will (try to) get pregnant or not and this should be a matter of pride, not victimhood.

[Silhouette]

This isn't a moral question, it's an inevitable emergence of sexual selection.

Put simply - what happens when the male has so much less to lose physiologically than the female? Whether we like it or not, the male doesn't have to care which and how many females he impregnates - the physiological cost of doing so is negligible. Men who do so carry on their genetic pre-disposition to act in the same way when exposed to likely similar enough environments (behaviours) so much more successfully. The men who don't, they get progressively outnumbered until they are pushed out. Why should they care about birth control beyond their own capacity to feel guilt, love for their offspring, and social mores? This is why stud = good (and why females that are attracted to that type are so prevalent).

What does a female have to lose physiologically when she is impregnated? Even if it doesn't last there is significant physiological cost to her, which only increases further into pregnancy, through giving birth and even more so into investing in bringing up the child. It is absolutely necessary for her to care and take control of her birth control. The ones who don't are much more likely to end up with lower quality genetic material going into their child, and they are much less likely to keep the male around to help bring up the child, making the child less likely to carry on the mother's genetic pre-disposition to act in the same way when exposed to likely similar enough environments (behaviours). This is why slut = bad (and why most males are not attracted to that type).

The physiological consolation is that women pass on more genetic material to their offspring than males, and they are more socially prized as they are less expendable when it comes to the continuation of the society. Societies that don't prize women risk this and get outnumbered until they are pushed out. A modern day psychological consolation is that you get to be in control of birth control now we have it. So despite the above, it's really not a bad lot to be a woman.

Birth Control reduces accidents to a degree, which is a huge empowerment for women: it enables women to get more experience with identifying who is compatible with them for child rearing (along with the ability to try out less "long term" experiences). But this is actually worse for lower quality men, who don't get to pass on their genetics by accident or through ignorance of other available choices, and way better for higher quality men who get to have way more no strings attached sex whilst still being selected for childbearing if they woman so chooses to come off Birth Control, and still passing on their genetics when the less common accidents do happen.

The social consequences of things worsening for lower quality men are bad for everyone though - but at least overall it's a net gain.

[WendyDarling]

This is why slut = bad (and why most males are not attracted to that type).

Males are attracted to sluts enough to sex them up, that's how they become sluts. Males want to marry the girl next door or a beauty queen, but they like their sluts too so they don't need to pay for prostitutes.

Males and females should be fitted for long term birth control, like the 5 years + kind at 11 or 12 years old, all children should have birth control implanted by a physician before their teens until they become an adult at 18 or 21. And parenting classes should be taught to seniors in high school. The governments should pay for this birth control, to regulate it and nip future costs for unplanned pregnancies and welfare children in the bud.

[Silhouette]

Males are attracted to sluts enough to sex them up, that's how they become sluts.

Yeah they'll often take the free evolutionary advantage that falls on their lap, balanced by their fear of their future endeavours being compromised by cooties...

But attracted? Nah.

Males want to marry the girl next door

Marriage is for the girl next door. Beauty Queen is for temporary ego boost, trophy wife prestige, or I suppose the beauty kings - a rare, shallow or fleeting pursuit in most cases though. Exceptionally good looking women are very rarely worth long term investment.

but they like their sluts too so they don't need to pay for prostitutes.

Funnily enough where prostitution is legal it's often safer than sluts and probably even worth the monetary expense.

Males and females should be fitted for long term birth control, like the 5 years + kind at 11 or 12 years old, all children should have birth control implanted by a physician before their teens until they become an adult at 18 or 21. And parenting classes should be taught to seniors in high school. The governments should pay for this birth control, to regulate it and nip future costs for unplanned pregnancies and welfare children in the bud.

If ever there is a place for authoritarian oppression, it's upon those who aren't adults... but I would at least expect voluntary tests to occur first, and for any subsequent adherence to be voluntary (and paid for through taxes though). It would no doubt pay off in both social and economic cost... - particularly in poorer areas.

[WendyDarling]

If ever there is a place for authoritarian oppression, it's upon those who aren't adults... but I would at least expect voluntary tests to occur first, and for any subsequent adherence to be voluntary (and paid for through taxes though). It would no doubt pay off in both social and economic cost... - particularly in poorer areas.

Okay voluntary on the condition that if the parents or child refuse the treatment for any reason other than a medical justification, the parents and the child will no longer be eligible for state or federal aid which includes all aspects of government provided social welfare programs from education grants, food, housing, medical, utilities, phone service, transportation, etc. until the parents and child are deceased. I ain't messing around, we have too many babies raising babies poorly. The parent or parents (if your lucky) are a hot mess who haven't the brains, patience, or funds to embark on such a taxing endeavor so they raise (a generous use of the term) misfits who perpetuate the cycle of the lowest common denominator.

[Meno_]

A hotly debated form of male birth control has been opined to be the long held back secret of lifting repression and psychiatric criteria for homosexuality.

If, homosexuality , as viable as it claimed in terms of the long assumed agenda for various kinds of visual propaganda, then it would be not much a jump from the low Kinsey percentages (5-10) to 10-20, as it stands today.

Part of the 'strategy', may be the likewise perceptual dereliction. by appeals to new norms, based on confusing criteria, such as advocating
pure homosexual behavior with mixed ones: such as bi, curious, as well as conflated differention between tops being more hetero then bottoms.

How politically motivated has social science become, is prima facea proof of the power of propaganda generally, and I'm arguing for the reverse, that giving public support for repression is just as viable.

Be as it may, homosexuality may be the most effective venture to curb population, as a methodology of redefining norms.

The big issue whether heredity plays the biggest part, may be as inaccurate
as denying the psyche the challenge in transforming the object's relations
to which ever sex.

But it may very well be , that the numbers will be effected significantly, and vice versa.

Is this an unpopular notion?
Not at all, if its true, since it plays a part in the grotesque numbers into almost uninhabitable effects of global overpopulation. It transforms it into a commemdible strategy.

China has overturned its long-standing venture of 1 child per family, and that is the nation with the largest of any populations in the world.

As far as homosexuality is concerned it is the moral and ethical
maps which have retained resistance.

[A Shieldmaiden]

by Silhouette

and way better for higher quality men who get to have way more no strings attached sex whilst still being selected for childbearing if they woman so chooses to come off Birth Control, and still passing on their genetics when the less common accidents do happen.

That makes no sense at all.

All this relates to the sexual act only and underlines what I wrote initially, that women are seen only as sex objects by the male. Impregnating is only the beginning of a lifetime commitment and fatherhood has to be wanted also by the so called 'selected' male. It is not an exercise purely for creating a master race. It involves deep love, heartache, hard work, sacrifice and quite a bit of money.

The act of conception is just the beginning and whether you like it not, the man has to contribute not just his sperm, (that is if he is an honourable man).

[wtf]

The act of conception is just the beginning and whether you like it not, the man has to contribute not just his sperm, (that is if he is an honourable man).

There are many counterexamples. Men often contribute sperm to lesbian couples. It's a fairly common practice. Sometimes they intend to involve him in bringing up the kid, and other times they all agree that he'll have no contact with the kid or any kind of ongoing relationship with them, he's just a sperm donor.

In such a case the man is acting perfectly honorably (I'm an ignorant Yank who can barely speak English, though I speak American quite well) if he masturbates into a cup and never sees the woman or women again.

You are deciding that anything other than one particular social and legal arrangement is "honourable," but clearly this is a value judgment on your part. Other people could legitimately have different values and different opinions about what constitutes honor in a sperm donor.

[Karpel Tunnel]

This is why slut = bad (and why most males are not attracted to that type).

1) you can't be a slut unless a lot of males have sex with you. You could be slutty, but not a slut. Not that I am accepting the category, just working with it here. 2) LOL. Men are obviously attracted to sluts. The videos they make, how the vast majority of women are told to behave in porn - and it's not loving monogamous sexual partner style - made and watched by men. If you find out whatever the definition of 'dressing slutty' is and dress a woman like that, she will get much more sexual attention and interest and arousal by the same men who treated her with less interest the day before. Certainly there is madonna whore stuff in male psyche's here. They are not thinking long term relations. But attracted they sure are.

And what is hidden in all this?

Male self'hatred. Men have always wanted pristine women for romance because then the mirror they get to look at is clean. They cannot fucking stand their own lust, so they demand proper mirrors.

We go all evolutionary psychology to explain/justify what is only partially true.

Men are cut off from themselves, it is not some genetic difference, though of course there are genetic differences. It's not who gets to bear the child.

It is what we teach men cool, male, and what not to feel.

We 'fag' them into a box where they think they don't care about all sorts of shit.

[A Shieldmaiden]

wtf wrote:

There are many counterexamples. Men often contribute sperm to lesbian couples. It's a fairly common practice. Sometimes they intend to involve him in bringing up the kid, and other times they all agree that he'll have no contact with the kid or any kind of ongoing relationship with them, he's just a sperm donor.

In such a case the man is acting perfectly honorably (I'm an ignorant Yank who can barely speak English, though I speak American quite well) if he masturbates into a cup and never sees the woman or women again.

Yes, there are counterexamples of which I was not referring to in the post you quote, but fear not, I also can speak English very well and in my country as a starting principle, a child has a right to be cared for and maintained by their parents. This includes the right to be financially supported. I don't know if you are aware but it is an internationally-held principle that a child has a right to know their social and biological origins and identity. It is for this reason that in "Australia, it is no longer possible to make an anonymous sperm donation and informal written agreements are not binding the way Court Orders are. As such, an informal written agreement absolving a sperm donor from the obligation to pay maintenance for a child, or absolving a sperm donor from any other aspect of parental responsibility, is not watertight and may not be enforceable".

[Fixed Cross]

Aristocratic girls here are often quite slutty in their teens and early twenties but marry very well.

As we are all controlling births, all the other people's in the world grow explosively. Birth control may be a good thing in preserving a careless lifestyle but it is already the cause of much depravity on the whole.

Obviously chemically neutering children "temporarily" would further cut off the biologic vitality of our race, and go well beyond 1984 into the hell of government interference.

For a woman to treat pregnancy as an inconvenient affliction of her gender signifies, as a distaste for life-giving powers, that the oven is damaged or some such. To want this for the whole race is downright genocidal.

[wtf]

but fear not, I also can speak English very well ...

I think you missed my little joke. You spelled the word "honourably," and in American English it's spelled honorably.

[Silhouette]

the man has to contribute not just his sperm, (that is if he is an honourable man).

That's a moral statement, and as I stated at the very beginning of my post, my point relates to what's going on aside from morality.

That's probably why you don't think what I said made any sense, when in fact it's where contemporary objective behavioural science/ethology is at - just ask Robert Sapolsky amongst others. It's not their personal opinion, morality nor wish - nor is it mine.

All this relates to the sexual act only and underlines what I wrote initially, that women are seen only as sex objects by the male.

I'm not saying that males should view females as sexual objects, nor even that they do, I'm just saying that with the sexual dymorphism of mammals such as humans, and due to the different roles of each sex in the reproductive process being as they are, sexual selection necessarily tends towards what I was explaining. For better or worse.

Obviously for a female, the male tendency (n.b. not the rule) is worse. Since the cost of impregnation for the female is far more, the more they get back from others after incurring such costs the better. For them, it's far better for the man to see impregnation as only the beginning of a lifetime commitment - to want fatherhood and for it to involve deep love, heartache, hard work, sacrifice and quite a bit of money - as you say. But for the male I'm afraid this simply isn't necessarily the case.

Sure it's better for both parents to invest in their kid to give them the best chance of carrying it all on - those who want/do this are going to be the ones that emerge more numerous. But a male with offspring by only 1 woman won't necessarily be getting the best value for his efforts if he puts all his eggs in one basket (so to speak). Due to diminishing returns, min-maxing for the most desirable males means they can spread their efforts - preferably with more than 1 woman in case the one they would have otherwise remained faithful to wasn't as desirable as another female with whom could also invest their time, money and energy. They can't spread themselves too thinly, obviously, but in some cases it can even pay off to impregnate and leave the female for another altogether - rolling the dice that the abandoned offspring will be desirable enough in spite of their shitty hand that they were dealt. Also, the then single mother can potentially win over another male to invest in the child - perhaps even starting their own family with each other and adopting the fatherless child into it.

Also, it makes sense for the male to only invest for a limited amount of time. It's no coincidence that relationships seem to have a time limit, after which both parties want to move on. Sure the time limit can be denied through force of will etc. - easier if you were brought up in a time when social norms were to force this. In some cases there might be no time limit, or a longer one at least so it's genuinely preferable to stay together for the long long term, but this is by no means the rule. However, there are advantages to both grandparents being around to help with their offspring's offspring - so there is at least some demand for it.

For the female, all this lifelong monogamy and loyalty is highly desirable: the returns don't diminish as quickly as they do for the male, but the female situation isn't the only side of the equation. The societal value of monogamy can be an indication of how much power females have, although it can be that the males are benefiting in other ways as a trade-off. It might even be a farce that is undermined only secretly - and there might be a denial but an underlying knowledge by everyone that it happens, and that one ought to tolerate but allow it implicitly.

In short, it's a complex game with many stable solutions that may not even be constant over time. To moralise over it seems to be ignoring of the nuance inherent in the system.

[Silhouette]

This is why slut = bad (and why most males are not attracted to that type).

1) you can't be a slut unless a lot of males have sex with you. You could be slutty, but not a slut. Not that I am accepting the category, just working with it here.

Ok, feel free to replace my use of the word slut with slutty.

2) LOL. Men are obviously attracted to sluts. The videos they make, how the vast majority of women are told to behave in porn - and it's not loving monogamous sexual partner style - made and watched by men. If you find out whatever the definition of 'dressing slutty' is and dress a woman like that, she will get much more sexual attention and interest and arousal by the same men who treated her with less interest the day before.

Sure, I failed to specify that by "attraction" I meant as a person with whom to have a long term relationship.

The "attraction" of a free opportunity to pass on your genetics with no strings attached is hard to turn down, for sure. But it's not what you want as a mother to your child unless you leave her for someone who isn't slutty.

I heard a convincing argument that men don't want a madonna who is also a whore, they want a madonna as a wife AND a whore or more on the side. There's difficulty in reconciling these for sure, so having both in one is "a" solution, but that doesn't mean it's the optimal one for the male.

We 'fag' them into a box where they think they don't care about all sorts of shit.

Yep.

[Fixed Cross]

What is your judgment of men with children with multiple women?

Such a man doesn't really need sluts, he can work with a few high quality women and take care of all of them and their children.
A slut here and there can be a reminder of how good the real thing is. Sex with sluts is just not that great, which is why it is so easy. The slut is the one who gets what she wants, the guy is the one who is being used.

Sex in marriage is no doubt horrendous in many cases, but it wouldn't be if you have several long term commitments, the woman would always feel compelled to prove her sexual merits. I think that is what you want. Otherwise there is always going to be a lot of frustration, as no degree of quality of love can or should force a sexually powerful male to suffer his potency as a curse.

Maybe I'Il change my mind. But I just did, into this frame. I like it here.

[Fixed Cross]

I dont believe in the core family, as Ive seen its failings first hand and all around me, but I do believe in the necessity of a strong father.
A father who is unrestrained and also respected is the strongest father there can be.

There is no right way to raise a child, there is only the fortune of the kid getting it right. It can only be inspired, not compelled. Which is why a violent father will inspire a violent son and not compel a servile one.

[Fixed Cross]

I guess the household without the fear of god is just too small for both man and woman to be free.
God served only the purpose of elevating the roof. Wherever he failed to do that he was never even born.

Anyway carry on.
Good, self-reliant and learned men finding ways to restrain their fertility, because thats what the world needs.

[wtf]

Good, self-reliant and learned men finding ways to restrain their fertility, because thats what the world needs.

It's a good heuristic principle that whatever everyone thinks is probably wrong. The developed countries have a terrible underpopulation problem. They aren't making enough babies to offset their death rate. They're headed for extinction unless they make more people

Not only that, but the western welfare states (US, Europe) are going to blow up financially as there aren't enough young workers to support the retirees; who, thanks to modern medicine, are living far longer than the actuaries predicted when these old age programs were set up.

You can Google around. It's underpopulation, not overpopulation, that keeps the government planners up at night.

So bottom line what YOU want is to reduce population among the poor and downtrodden, the "wretched of the earth." Scratch a population reductionist and you'll find an elitist who's got his and doesn't want anyone else to get theirs.

[A Shieldmaiden]

wtf wrote:

A Shieldmaiden wrote:
but fear not, I also can speak English very well ...


I think you missed my little joke. You spelled the word "honourably," and in American English it's spelled honorably.

HA! You know when I wrote that reply I made the mistake of typing counterexamples as two words. I changed that tout de suite. WTF!

[A Shieldmaiden]

A Shieldmaiden wrote:
the man has to contribute not just his sperm, (that is if he is an honourable man).
Silhouette wrote:
That's a moral statement, and as I stated at the very beginning of my post, my point relates to what's going on aside from morality.

The way you are perceiving my meaning of 'honourable' is misunderstood.

I did not intend to insert the notion of morality at all in my meaning. To be more concise I put forward Immanuel Kant's example of morality which is based on notions such as duty, obligation and principles of conduct. The Aristotelian approach is based more on your perception of what you thought I meant, which generally avoids the separation of 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations.