are u suggesting people will have their 'one night stand' or 'fling' DNA tested before having sex with them?
Of course they should especially for 'casual sex' encounters.
Should women be imprisoned.............
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
are u suggesting people will have their 'one night stand' or 'fling' DNA tested before having sex with them?
Of course they should especially for 'casual sex' encounters.
My thread post was a question, it DID NOT express an opinion.
My opinion however is thus:
I am a cautious person, I support precautions.
If men are 100% certain they do not desire children they should 'protect themselves' by taking 'precautionary measures'
they can do this by
wearing a condom with spremicide (though they can fail) so for 100% foolproof method of avoiding impregnation
not having sex
vasectomy
I know you guys in the majority dislike condoms and would dislike NOT having sex or having a vasectomy even more
BUT, if you are vulnerable and determined to avoid the possible 'side effects' of 'sex' you should take the necc precautions. Just as women are expected to do.
The matter of married women deceiving husbands is an issue of trust which has been broken. The man 'trusts' his wife to do as she states she is doing, BUT if he is THAT anti children he should take responsibility for this himself and not rely on the female. Vasectomy would be the best course of action in that situation.
Afterall, condoms are unreliable and why should the woman be on medication to protect the man?
Finally back to the point,
'women who go to bars for the sole purpose of becoming impregnated'
the majority view (mine included) is that men should take precautiuons to protect themselves.
Interesting double standard don't ya think? Given some of the views expressed in other threads regarding womens rights to behave as they wish without any regard to personal safety.
I agree women have this right, but still I am a cautious person.
Do men not have the right to NOT be used for 'sperm'?
They have this right, as women have the right, BUT rights don't protect you.
Thus guys, I reccomend you take 'precautions'. They may not result in complete success but may reduce the risk.
My opinion however is thus:
I am a cautious person, I support precautions.
If men are 100% certain they do not desire children they should 'protect themselves' by taking 'precautionary measures'
they can do this by
wearing a condom with spremicide (though they can fail) so for 100% foolproof method of avoiding impregnation
not having sex
vasectomy
I know you guys in the majority dislike condoms and would dislike NOT having sex or having a vasectomy even more
BUT, if you are vulnerable and determined to avoid the possible 'side effects' of 'sex' you should take the necc precautions. Just as women are expected to do.
The matter of married women deceiving husbands is an issue of trust which has been broken. The man 'trusts' his wife to do as she states she is doing, BUT if he is THAT anti children he should take responsibility for this himself and not rely on the female. Vasectomy would be the best course of action in that situation.
Afterall, condoms are unreliable and why should the woman be on medication to protect the man?
Finally back to the point,
'women who go to bars for the sole purpose of becoming impregnated'
the majority view (mine included) is that men should take precautiuons to protect themselves.
Interesting double standard don't ya think? Given some of the views expressed in other threads regarding womens rights to behave as they wish without any regard to personal safety.
I agree women have this right, but still I am a cautious person.
Do men not have the right to NOT be used for 'sperm'?
They have this right, as women have the right, BUT rights don't protect you.
Thus guys, I reccomend you take 'precautions'. They may not result in complete success but may reduce the risk.
Last edited:
male pill? Is that effective at all?
It's still in development as far as I know but in trials it has reduced the male sperm count to zero, with this returning to normal when it's use is stopped. 3 problems:
1. It's useless in preventing the transmission of STDs.
2. We don't know if there are any adverse long-term effects.
3. And finally... would you trust a man who says he's taken it?
1. It's useless in preventing the transmission of STDs.
2. We don't know if there are any adverse long-term effects.
3. And finally... would you trust a man who says he's taken it?
1. Female pill also does not reduce STD transmission
2. Female pill DOES HAVE long term side effects and health risks
3. I take responsibility for myself as should everyone.
Bells
Staff member
Regardless of how effective it proves itself to be, you should still use a condom as well as taking the pill. The pill, or the female pill at least, is not 100% effective.
As to trusting a man who says he's taken it.. would you trust a woman in the same light? Thing is, if you're sleeping with someone you don't really know, or even someone you do know actually, it doesn't hurt to take precautions against not just pregnancy but STD's. I mean if you think about it, a pregnancy can be construed as being a bad thing for some people, but AIDS or hepatitis could be even worse.
The pill is just one method, you should always back up that method with a condom. Reduces the risk of pregnancy as well as catching something. It's not 100% effective, but every little bit helps. And dispose of it yourself.. don't just throw it in the bin with the contents still sitting inside. If you wish to avoid possible sperm theft, rinse it out first..
Apparently, according to several studies, we aren't that much different anymore.
The studies were commenced in the 50's and the results recently published - men with a wife or lifelong partner live longer than those who don't by 2-3 years, on average.
Single men tend to live a different lifestyle to those who are married, though, so I'm of the opinion that the results mean very little.
On the whole, I would tend to agree with the Baron. Most men, however, don't notice the cage they confine themselves in to gain a bit of security and comfort.
The studies were commenced in the 50's and the results recently published - men with a wife or lifelong partner live longer than those who don't by 2-3 years, on average.
Single men tend to live a different lifestyle to those who are married, though, so I'm of the opinion that the results mean very little.
On the whole, I would tend to agree with the Baron. Most men, however, don't notice the cage they confine themselves in to gain a bit of security and comfort.
Life's a bitch
And then you die!
As individuals we are responsible on the whole for what happens in between the bitching and the dying. No contraceptive is 100% effective.
If you make a decision not to have kids have an operation to back up that decision or be prepared for the worst case scenario. Like Murphy's law if it can go wrong most likely it will.
And then you die!
As individuals we are responsible on the whole for what happens in between the bitching and the dying. No contraceptive is 100% effective.
If you make a decision not to have kids have an operation to back up that decision or be prepared for the worst case scenario. Like Murphy's law if it can go wrong most likely it will.
Why not?
I believe she is speaking of situations in which the female leads the male to believe she is on the pill when she really isn't. Your suggestions stink. Sex without a condom is way better than with one. And a vasectomy is potentially irreversible. Or,,,,, the woman can take a little pill that's ninety-nine percent effective, or at least be honest about not taking one.
ToR:
Many men tend to be reluctant to have a vasectomy because it is generally irreversible (it is VERY painful and expensive to reverse). Even if you don't want kids at one particular point in time, does not mean that you won't want them in the future.
So a vasectomy isn't really an option for a young male. Unless he is 100% sure that he will never want kids. Which is rare.
Many men tend to be reluctant to have a vasectomy because it is generally irreversible (it is VERY painful and expensive to reverse). Even if you don't want kids at one particular point in time, does not mean that you won't want them in the future.
So a vasectomy isn't really an option for a young male. Unless he is 100% sure that he will never want kids. Which is rare.
Bells
Staff member
Do you think that "sex without a condom is way better than with one" alongside an STD? Because compared to an STD or AIDS, a pregnancy would be the least of the two evils you could have to face for having that "better" sex.
That one little pill she said she is taking will not protect you against an STD, so your point is fairly idiotic. Let me guess, you actually believe them when they tell you they're 'clean'? If you don't want her to get pregnant, and she's meant to use the pill, use a condom anyway just to be sure. Up to 99% effectiveness still leaves margin for a pregnancy to occur, so you'd really rather take the risk of that one little pill or wouldn't it be better to also protect yourself as well?
I find the whole "she said she was on the pill" whinge and whinning to be moronic and frankly weak. If she gets pregnant when she said she was on the pill and she was not or the pill did not protect her regardless, you also share the blame as you also had unprotected sex. 5 seconds to roll on a condom can save you a lot of grief, both becoming a daddy wise and protection against STD wise.
Either that or you can go a la Baron and have sex with some goats or sheep.
Or you can not be a moron and take the responsibility of protecting yourself. After all, her taking the pill is to protect herself, not you. If the pill fails, it's still your fault for not using a condom. And if she's a deceptive bitch, it's still your own stupid fault for not using a condom. Your choice. Protect yourself or expect others to do everything for you like a good little spoilt brat who cant do anything for himself and expects everything to be done for him.
This is not news.
Genesis Chapter Three explained the manipulation.
The spare rib blames it all on the serpent and Lord God the prude is silly enough to be taken in by the ploy and bans the victim instead of the bitch.
The only good answer of course is to imprison them all for their own good, to keep them away from the serpent.
They're never so happy to be let loose anyway.
Huh?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Of course. It will be automatic. Your palm pilot (which will actually be one of many nanochips embedded in your body, many of them voluntarily and most of them with your knowledge) will automatically scan the DNA of everyone in your company. Except the people whose palm nanopilots are more sophisticated and can block yours of course. You'll get a readout on your retina--or perhaps a voice in your inner ear--telling you all about any person you appear to be interested in. You'll also get a readout on the DNA of all the bacteria, viruses and other parasites in their body so you'll know which diseases they carry. Your nanopilot may be able to release custom antibodies into your bloodstream. Of course so will theirs so most of the diseases of today will be extinct.
Sure many of you may think this is presposterous. That's what I would have said when I was your age if somebody had suggested that one day my car would broadcast a constant signal to the police, the AAA, and the car manufacturer, telling them all precisely where I am.
Bells:
From what I last read, condoms have a success rate of 50% when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
So quite simply, the only 'safe' method is abstinence. Ergo. A man/woman who never wants kids can never have sex. Well, I guess you could have anal/oral (if you classify that as 'sex') or resort to a prostitute, but that's opening up another can of worms.
I've ignored most of your misandry, and instead chosen to address that little snippet.
From what I last read, condoms have a success rate of 50% when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
So quite simply, the only 'safe' method is abstinence. Ergo. A man/woman who never wants kids can never have sex. Well, I guess you could have anal/oral (if you classify that as 'sex') or resort to a prostitute, but that's opening up another can of worms.
Haha do you even know how condoms work or how to use them?
I think they prevent a few more pregnancies than 50% provided they fit properly, used properly, lube etc.
No, I'm pretty sure that I read that condoms cut the chance of impregnating a woman by half.