|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 06, @12:05PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Why Tony did not wear a condom is beyond me. Obviously, a demented person such as Laura had probably been around the block a few times so there is no telling what little critters she was culturing. Accept some personal responsibility and protect yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well now, and that's an excellent argument for abolishing abortion, isn't it?
Hey, if we can tell men who were duped into fatherhood that they should have capped it or kept it in their pants, then we can say the same thing to women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant, can't we?
Oh, I forgot. The "accept some personal responsibility" line applies only to men. Silly me.
What bugs me about stuff like this is the double standard. I mean, one can take the "understanding and forgiveness" approach: he/she made a mistake, they didn't think about what they were doing, they shouldn't have to bear the consequences; or one can take the "personal responsibility" approach: you made your bed, you lie in it. The problem, as I see it, is that we apply the first approach to women (You got yourself pregnant. Oops. Oh well, you didn't mean to, so your mistake shouldn't ruin your life.) and the second approach to men. (You fooled around, you pay the price. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.)
So long as we allow women to choose abortion whenever they want for whatever reason they deem sufficient, then I don't see how we can deny men the right to cut off financial support for a child for whatever reason they deem sufficient. Why does one person get choices, love, and hugs, while the other person gets only responsibility and an admonishment to "take some personal responsibility"?
On the other hand, we could abolish abortion except for cases of rape and incest, and so tell women what we tell men: You fooled around, now you live with the consequences.
Either way, but not one way for men and another for women, please!
-------------------------------------
More directly on the subject of Tony's situation, I can understand why he did what he did.
Some men feel a deep need to protect and care for women. I know because I'm one of them (although you wouldn't know it by reading my posts here :-). Crazy, nut-case women know this and play the damsel-in-distress card in order to hook men like Tony. I've had my share of crazies, bitches, and drama queens. Some men seem immune from these women; they seem to spot them from a mile away... lucky them. Tony is probably the type who feels more attracted to a woman the more crazy she is, because she needs help and support and he enjoys providing that.
Before the amatuer psychologists in the crowd pipe up with their prescriptions for perfect living, I'd like to point out that I very, very rarely come across a person who has it all together and has a great relationship. In particular I've met a lot of divorced psychologists and psychiatrists. Tony may be attracted to the wrong kind of woman, but then again probably so are you. It's just so much easier to see from the outside, and in hindsight.
If you want any "proof" of this, consider this: if Tony had really "had it together" he would have tossed this bitch when she started going on and on about being raped and abused by all and sundry. A "well adjusted" man (are there any?) would have immediately seen the signs of a nutbar and dumped her. However, whoever did such a thing would have to suffer the condemnation of everyone else in their lives: "How could you dump such a poor, suffering, vulnerable woman? How could you leave her in her time of need?" He would have had to endure phone calls in which she threatened suicide or even claimed that she had attempted it. It would have been a nightmare. I know: I've been through it all, although she wasn't as crazy as Tony's woman, she was crazy enough to last a lifetime, thanks.
So yeah, he was stupid, but he differs from me and you by less than you might think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 06, @03:51PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Buster. . .that "accept some personal responsibiity" applies to everyone.
When entering into a sexual relationship, you must accept 100% of the responsibility for taking care of yourself. And the woman must accept 100% of the responsbility also. . .but if she does not, then at least your ass is covered.
Of course Tony was not going to dump this woman. . .she supplied SEX--one of the more powerful remedies to a very strong instinct. And I am sure that the SEX offset any abhorrence to her crazy nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't just have to be sex. Just the opportunity to take care of someone can be powerful enough to keep a man around, with or without the sex. Again, I know, and I that think most other men know it too. Many people think that men are motivated only by sex, or most strongly by sex; people who think this are either women, or men who are indeed motivated only by sex (and there are fewer of them than you might think).
In reality, men's reasons for staying with crazy women are as varied and complex as women's reasons for staying with crazy men.
As for taking 100% responsibility for taking care of yourself... well, that's all very nice in theory, and it sounds so mature and responsible, but when the rubber hits the road and something goes wrong, women still cry for the "right" to mitigate the consequences of their actions. Yes, it is wise to always use a condom, or take advantage of one of the newer (experimental) birth control options for men. However, why do we on the one hand tell men to take responsibility for their own wellbeing and on the other hand offer abortions to women so that they can sidestep the mess they (in most cases) got themselves into? It doesn't wash to admonish Tony for not taking precautions and then stay silent when the subjects of abortion/harassment/child support come up. All of these things exist primarily to protect women from suffering consequences when they screw up or the world deals them a bad turn. I don't see how one can accept that there is all of this support for women who make mistakes and then say to men, "You should have avoided that." (I'm not necessarily applying that to you... I don't know your opinions on these topics... it's just a general observation.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you tell men that ultimately, any sexual contact with a woman may result in pregnancy, along with the possibility of having some substantial and often punitive proportion of their paychecks garnished to support children they may never see, then perhaps in the present situation we should be telling men not to have any sexual relations with women if they don't want to have to support children under those circumstances.
Perhaps we have to assume that, under the present circumstances, trust between men and women is virtully impossible, or else occurs with a vanishingly small probability.
If you tell men that if you play you pay, you're saying in effect that men have to protect themselves from women.
You are not saying the same thing in this particular case to women (if we stick to the issue of who controls reproduction and not introduce all the other evils that competitive feminists say ought to compete for our attention).
However, let's set aside our feelings of injustice we might have about any inequity that abortion has introduced, and instead think about what we are going to do, given that the world is the way it is.
It appears that any man who risks physical intimacy with a fertile woman risks havingto support her child should she conceive, and not necessarily as a father to that child.
I'm not so sure I'd be too thrilled about having sex with a woman who would decide unilaterally whether to have a child, who would be unwilling to discuss the matter with me, and who would take the moral high ground as the mother of a child against me as a potential dead beat dad. Why get involved at all?
Can someone give me a reason why a man should risk physical intimacy with a fertile woman if he is not ready to support her child should she conceive? If there is no reason, then shouldn't we be telling men to protect themselves from women? Aren't we telling men that women cannot be trusted if we tell men that if they play, they pay, when we don't say the same thing to women?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I would like to point out is the need for quantifying the risks of risky behavior, given the distribution of rights and responsibilities.
It is reasonable to ask just what men and women are risking when they engage in sexual behavior. It is reasonable to ask how and why the risks, rights and responsibilities are assigned to each of the involved parties.
Such nuances are completely absent if one leaves the matter at "everyone must accept 100% responsibility for their actions." Well of course! That adds nothing substantive to the discussion. We want to know who risks what, what recourse do they have, and precisely what the responsibilities are what they are, and why they are what they are.
For example, is it unreasonable to question whether the courts assignment of 60% of Tony's income to child support is equitable?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
