Update to: OP and FWB sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. In a shocking twist, not-girlfriend is going to become definitely-babymama (self.SubredditDrama)
SubredditDrama
192 ups - 0 downs = 192 votes
When we last left OP, he was coming to terms with the fact that he was probably the father of his not-girlfriend's baby, despite his solid proof otherwise, namely that he had secretly been sleeping with other people and that they had only had unprotected sex about twice recently. Or maybe more, he can't remember, he was drunk. Man, he has the WORST luck! He wasn't sweating though, because he had solid proof that she would get an abortion, namely that he wants one and also she's pro-choice.
In our new post, OP discovers that he's expected to actually be there emotionally for the woman who he impregnated, which he finds super icky, and is also shocked to learn that being pro-choice does not mean being okay with getting an abortion yourself. He buckles down, reads up about persuasion online (...lol) and tries to talk her into it to the point where she asks him to stop talking to her about it.
Let's check out some threads!
Also, due to some discussion below, I want to point out that OP finally admits that maybe there are some eensy weeny reasons she might have possibly thought she could rely on him emotionally and that he saw her as more than a fleshlight with a pulse:
>Part of why this ended up being messy is I've done that sorta thing a few times before. I'll be way too nice to her and do things that are caring and sweet and kind, and I'm certain it led to this situation. I wasn't detached enough. And the fucked up thing is I actually like being nice, but it doesn't really work. If I was just strictly hooking up, I don't think I'd be in this spot.
Sadly, the mods locked the thread and so we did not get as much drama as last time. C'est la vie!
283 comments submitted at 14:15:40 on Jun 18, 2014 by wilst
At the risk of downvotes and starting a war...what can a man do? We cant abort and we cant walk away. Why is such a huge part of our life completely at the whim of another person? I can kind of understand OP and the guy up there. Personally it would have been the opposite for me, if my wife (gf at the time) had aborted my child i would have went crazy. Thats my child as much as hers and to have it taken from me against my will would have been monstrous and hurt me more than anything in this world could. Yet everyone goes on about how its completely the womans choice. In OP and other dude's case its their money, time, and freedom being taken away against their will and i am guessing it means a lot to them. What could be done in these situations? Does the man just have to suck it up and lose their child or freedom?
*I'm not sure why everyone thinks birth control is the magic answer. In case you didnt know...it fails. Yea it may be pretty rare but rare means it still happens.
http://imgur.com/VmPKEVF
Because those are 100% effective
Problem is OP even admits to not using condoms every time. No form of birth control is 100% effective but using birth control is a lot more effective then not doing so and then wondering how your girlfriend got pregnant.
I completely agree. However there are still plenty of people alive today that are here despite their parents being on BC (even multiple kinds) or being told they were infertile.
Void of how the pregnancy happened, the law puts all the deciding power in the female half of the situation.
The OP in question started out saying he used a condom every time, then admitted that they had gone without a condom a few times, and now is saying there were up to five times in the same week where they had drunk sex and he can't remember if they used a condom.
I'm going to have to be the devil's advocate and point out that the woman involved also had sex without a condom. She failed to protect herself just as much as he did.
I see joint culpability here.
I completely agree. However there are still plenty of people alive today that are here despite their parents being on BC (even multiple kinds) or being told they were infertile.
Void of how the pregnancy happened, the law puts all the deciding power in the female half of the situation.
Not the law, but biology.
Biology puts the agency and the burden of pregnancy on the female, you mean.
Then don't have sex at all. Then you can't ever get anyone pregnant.
That's a reasonable solution to a shitty law.
So what would your proposal be that wouldn't be a severe disadvantage for the child who was born?
What's the "shitty law" in question? That you can't force someone to abort?
>...what can a man do?
Take responsibility. I get the whole "consenting to sex isn't consenting to fatherhood" angle, but at a certain point, that's just the way biology works. You can't force a woman to have an abortion, you can't screw over the child by walking away (well you can, but this makes you a deadbeat). It's not "fair," but too bad. That's life. Do everything you can to prevent pregnancy. Only have sex with people you trust and share values with. Take responsibility if things don't go the way you planned.
>Personally it would have been the opposite for me, if my wife (gf at the time) had aborted my child i would have went crazy. Thats my child as much as hers
It wasn't a child at the time, it was a foetus, and until it is born I'd argue it IS more hers than it is yours because it is inside of and entirely dependant on her.
Consenting to sex is actually consenting to potential fatherhood. Every time you have sex and there's a vagina involved a pregnancy can result. We've really fucked our young men up if we haven't told them this simple truth.
I read a post the other day and multiple women commented that it's weird and creepy when men ask if they're on birth control before they have sex. I was completely confused. I don't really like the idea of relying solely on a condom, so I always bring it up before sex, and I've never offended anyone. If having a conversation about prevention is going to ruin the mood enough that they aren't interested in sex anymore, it's for the best. I can't understand why people would find that behavior creepy. I hope not too many kids read posts like that and think birth control options are a taboo topic.
If I had a boy I would tell him very simply "every time you have intercourse generally there is a chance for pregnancy. Be choosey. Not b/c it's immoral not to, you can do whatever you want and you only have yourself to face, but b/c it's the practical thing to do. You can't control what the woman does with the pregnancy you have helped create. The only choice you have, and it's a powerful one, is to choose beforehand someone that is already the same as you with regard to morals, plans for the future, etc. That's all you've got. If you decide not to take that power seriously then you have no one to blame but yourself."
I replied to your above comment before reading this. As a mother to a boy, I agree with what you said you would say to a young man.
Could you link to that post? You may have misunderstood, because the things that are creepy are:
(a) If a guy asks a girl to go on birth control too early in the relationship, it can come across as creepy.
(b) If a guy asks if a girl is on birth control a significantly long period of time before they have sex, it can come across as creepy.
I think it was one of those shitty "Men/Women of reddit...?" /r/AskReddit posts. I'm not seeing it in my history, sorry. The top comment (of the conversation, not the whole post) was that asking if she's on any birth control is weird, and the majority of the reasoning given in replies was that men who ask about it are wanting to go bareback, and some women can't go on the pill for medical reasons so it's rude to bring up female birth control. I know it can be brought up in a creepy manner, but the heavily upvoted comments were just blanket statements that it's bad.
Well, AskReddit always turns stuff into a Gender War (TM), so I wouldn't take that too seriously.
The "gender wars" on reddit, in my limited experience, seem to go something like this.
But it's not consenting to potential motherhood? Should our young women have any responsibility in this?
Yes.
[deleted]
There isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for women (I am assuming you mean abortions). Like you get out of the pregnancy, but it's not free (there is the actual cost unless you live somewhere with covered healthcare, as well as the toll it can take on your mind and body - it's not a walk in the park), and there's social stigma. Many young women are afraid of getting pregnant.
Sex should never be considered responsibility-free. Pregnancy aside, there are STIs, condoms aren't always 100% against them.
[deleted]
Suicidal? Maybe you should look into a vasectomy.
It's less a "get of jail free" card and more a "get out of jail for around $600 + transportation costs + lost income during the multiple days you have to take off work to comply with mandatory waiting periods + judgement from strangers" card.
It's more accurate to say that consenting to sex is consenting to the potential consequences of sex, one of which may be having an abortion if you're female, or having no control over the decisions your pregnant partner makes about her own bodily autonomy if you're male.
Painting abortion as a responsibility-free option is such a shit move, man. An abortion isn't just some routine medical procedure like going to the dentist.
Have some fucking sympathy for others if you're gonna whine about how you as man have the power to impregnate.
>they have a get-out-of-jail-free card
This sentence makes me think you've never been anywhere near someone who considered/got an abortion.
I agree. Its an entirely different ballgame when you are staring at it becoming a reality rather than a hypothetical. Although he did clarify his point before the mass downvotes made him delete.
The thing is, this is kinda exactly the same thing we were telling women 40 years ago. Basically, if you dont want kids, dont have sex. It was shitty then and its shitty now. The problem is that there isnt a good solution when the man and woman have differing views. If the guy wants it and she doesnt, you cant force her to keep it.
I actually have no idea how you ciuld make it better. It sucks all around.
I think this is exactly it. If you decide to have sex, you're also deciding to deal with the consequences if they come up.
Although it seems that this argument is one that doesn't swing both ways. I've argued this as a position against abortion except in cases of rape or possibly injury to the mother but the woman has exclusive rights to choose in the eyes of ~~most people~~ the law.
>it seems that the woman has exclusive rights to choose in the eyes of most people.
She does. Again, it's not "fair," but too bad.
Yeah it's not really an issue of being fair or not, it's the law. It's an interesting thought though. The end of your previous comment is the important bit, that it's more "hers" than "his" because it's part of her body and the law does not recognize a fetus as a human. I'm not the type to pick sides on this issue, I believe it's up to the individual, but it's sad to me that I would get no say if my girlfriend or wife decided to get an abortion.
I mean, on the flip side, men get to decide to have children without the whole pregnancy thing, so assuming they are healthy and fertile, they can have one or five children without worrying about age or pregnancy's side effects, and sociologically speaking, often without as much affect to their career. Biology fucks over both genders at some point or another.
Good point. I honestly have never thought of that angle.
That is an interesting way of looking at it. It's true that holds up on sociologically but it definitely ignores the emotional side. It really comes down to whether you value a woman's body more or a potential child's life, and even that distinction is fuzzy with Plan B and other post-fertilization contraception. It's true that pregnancy changes a woman's life completely and could potentially cause her health problems or even death in some situations, but is that more important than giving a child a chance to live?
That's why I only ask these questions and don't answer them because I've got no freakin clue. That's also why I'd never try to legislate it one way or the other, I can't say what the laws should be when I don't even know what to think about the situation morally.
> but is that more important than giving a child a chance to live?
It's a fetus at that point, not a child. It's entirely reliant on the mother to become a child.
That strikes me as a subjective definition. Some people view a fetus as a living thing or see it as important because it has the potential for life, with others see it as just a bundle of cells with no value until it is fully formed. Can you say with full confidence when life begins? Is it when the child start to resemble a human, when it starts to have sensation, or is it as soon as the egg is fertilized? I know some people feel they are completely right when they state a fetus isn't alive but it doesn't seem that clear cut to me. And does the potential for life have no value at all?
Another way to look it at this is, is it ever okay to demand one person to sacrifice their bodily autonomy to preserve the life of another? Should organ and blood donations be compulsory? Should people have the right to determine what happens to their organs after they die, even if that means that perfectly good organs may go to waste when they could save people's lives? None of these are easy questions.
This is why you need to have a serious talk about children before having the kind of relationship where you have unprotected sex.
Babies are a consequence of having sex. If you are having sex with someone there is a chance it could result in pregnancy. If you, as a man, do not want to be faced with this kind of choice then don't have sex. You don't get to have sex and then cherry pick the consequences you deal with.
That is pretty much what i am getting at. It seems to be very one sided on one of the most important topics in anyones life. Why does the guy have to either suck it up or not play ball? The woman doesn't have such limited options.
What? Women absolutely face the same issues. It's not easier for anyone in a situation like that. The same rules apply for women, if you absolutely don't want a baby then don't have sex. If you are going to have sex then be prepared for the possibility of becoming pregnant.
You can't have your cake and eat it too dude.
For the record i am a 31 year old married man with 2 kids and a vasectomy. You keep addressing things to me personally when i am about as disconnected from this problem as you can get. I am just trying to foster some discussion to see where people stand on the issue, think of things from multiple angles, and maybe someone will say something i haven't thought of. I would also encourage you to read everything in its entirety. Rehashing already addressed points 4 comments deep is pointless.
You're the one who started with what you thought personally. I'm addressing all men but if you want to take it personally I can't stop you. Again with the cherry picking, just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't mean I'm having a "bad argument". So cheers.
I haven't said a word about what i personally think other than that i would be hurt if someone aborted my child...
Yes terminating a pregnancy is a very difficult choice for both parties, but the physical consequences fall 100% on the woman. Because of this I feel complete justified in saying that the person who carries the child gets the last say in what happens to their body.
So the best you can do is be as responsible a partner as possible. Not like OP who goes through life in willful ignorance of his actions. Don't have sex with sketchy people, talk about birth control, talk about the possibility of pregnancy and what you would do.
Your response bothers me because you are, naturally because you are one, focusing just on the mans experience here. Again you have no idea how physically and emotionally difficult pregnancy is and same with a termination. BOTH parties have the same emotional and financial stakes but the woman will always shoulder the physical burden.
We could also go into how pregnancy affects a woman's ability to find work and support herself but that is another conversation.
I have a pretty good idea what it all entails having been directly involved in the process twice. Your response bothers me because you seem to insinuate all a guy does is tells her to get on with it and let me know when you're done. I assure you it was a daily challenge for both of us.
You may be surprised but i actually agree with most of the things you have said. That doesn't mean that it is something that shouldn't be discussed nor does it mean you should talk down to or be aggressive with someone for bringing it up. As you said i am focusing on the mans experience because that was the discussion i wanted to have. Even if there is no good solution just being aware of everything involved in the accepted solution is a good thing.
I'm not insinuating anything, I'm saying that you will never understand the physical and emotional difficulties of termination and pregnancy because you won't be able to experience either first hand.
I'm not saying men just hang out, you're reading too much into what I am saying, which is simply women will always shoulder the physical burden in addition to what the man will deal with.
So it is ultimately the woman's decision.
You ask what men can do and I've said it a few times already.
You're 100% in control of your own reproductive potential.
[deleted]
>get a vasectomy
That was my choice. But even that option sucks. Something like 30% of men have chronic pain after a vasectomy. I was one of them, every now and then it feels like someone kicked me in the balls for about a day, rarely 2.
[deleted]
And there are never any medical complications with abortions, right?
Who in the world ever said anything like that?
Yea. Its not quite debilitating but there are some days where i just don't want to move. It does suck pretty bad.
Yeah, 100% in control and there are other options than what you've listed.
So abstinence is the answer? No birth control but that is 100%.
Yes, that's an option. Not one I would choose b/c I'm horny. A better option is to choose your partners carefully and although you're not planning for a child to consciously be aware that this is possible when mate choosing. Wanna have a one night stand? You get what you get. You're 100% in control.
To be perfectly fair, that's one reason why I didn't bother pursuing sex until after I'd set my life up (gone to college, started the career). I saw a lot of people end up basically stuck in a bad situation for a very long time because suddenly baby.
As long as it's voluntary (ie. you're not being forced into abstinence by authorities or anything) and the other options are still available, abstinence shouldn't be a dirty word.
Also, you can do oral sex, mutual masturbation, etc. There are many options. Men think they want sex, they just want an orgasm.
I'd dispute any generalization about what people want out of sex. There are a number of different things people get out of it, from the physical, to the emotional, to the social, to the cultural. I know at least one man on anti-depressants who cannot orgasm who nonetheless wants sex for his own reasons.
But oral sex, mutual masturbation, cuddling, and other forms of physical affection are still out there.
Sure, so do hearty handshakes.
I hate to break it to you, but sometimes the universe is unfair in ways that we can't fix. Childbearing is much more intimately tied to the woman and so women (ought to) have a greater degree of control over it (they have to, ya know, actually carry the fetus for 40 weeks and push it out through their crotch so there is that).
There's always this newfangled invention called "condoms". You know, that stop this from happening.
[deleted]
Much better rate of success than using nothing.
[deleted]
Are you saying there's no point in using anything that isn't 100% effective, so may as well use nothing? If so, it's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
[deleted]
Using your own words; apparently you aren't doing very well at articulating your position. You say it isn't a 'cure-all'; I'm just pointing out that it's still better than taking no steps at all, with which you appear to disagree.
[deleted]
Again, maybe you aren't doing the best job of presenting your argument.
More Comments - Click Here
Yeah I got 2 extra thanks to Depo shots that failed. There was a study I can't remember who but it turns out birth control in all forms has a "real world" failure rate closer to 10-15%. Clinically yes its 99% effective but there's a difference.
This isn't for you but to people reading this and thinking, "10-15%? What the fuck?"
You can find out both the clinical and real-world success rates of any birth control at bedsider.org. The problem is that people get the Depo at the wrong time, or miss the window in which they were supposed to take their pill, or leave air in the condom and it breaks. It's hard to practice perfect safer sex, but it's possible to get close.
For people with vaginas reading this: the IUD is more effective than sterilization. It has the highest success rate + the highest satisfaction rate. If you're ever wondering which BC to try next, try that.
For people with penises reading this: if you're sexually active and haven't done this in about a month or so, read the instructions that come with the condom box. They give the best directions to using a condom.
The clinical rate is with perfect use which practically nobody does.
It's not a question of parental rights. It's a question of body autonomy.
In this case the kid didn't wrap it up, so you know...you play, you pay.
As the gif before me has noted: condoms.
How is this not common sense? If you don't want a child, don't go around having unprotected sex on a regular basis. If you want at least some part in your child's life, then make sure you have a good relationship with the mother that involves communication.
This whole responsibility thing isn't too complicated.
I think you're getting a lot of shit for this question when it's a very valid one. The real situation here (in my eyes) is time and financial impact. If a man does not want a child, and the woman does, then the man should have the ability to legally give up all claim to that child (visitation rights, etc.). It's obviously a woman's choice to have, or not to have, the baby, but it should be a man's choice whether to financially contribute.
This is a real focal point in the growing "men's rights movement" along with equal prison sentencing, equal custody representation in court (a man should have equal claim to children custody as his partner), and a slew of other issues. I will note that the MRM is not intended to undermine Feminism and some leading Feminist activists are also Men's rights supporters. I know I support many policies of both groups.
I support both as well and this is a great example of small minded people hampering societal progress just played out on a smaller stage. All i did was ask questions and it didn't even take an hour for me to be downvoted below the threshold and silenced. This kind of behavior is what creates radicals.
>small minded people hampering societal progress just played out on a smaller stage.
It's all well and good to be high-minded about this, but I rarely see debates on the subject where the best interest of the child is considered. What about the kid who winds up being the "financial abortion" (aka, abandoned by a dad who didn't want to deal with him or her)?
An abortion doesn't have a living product. A "paper abortion" or "paternal surrender" or whatever you call it leaves a human being who has been abandoned by his or her father.
In case it isn't clear i am calling the attempt to silence discussion small minded, not anyone's position or beliefs. I was mainly addressing the first sentence and last paragraph.