Comment Re:Define "success" (Score 1) 286
Yup! Internet dating... where the odds are good, but the goods are odd :-)
You clearly haven't tried to hire Node.js developers recently... they all seem to want to get paid!
He said programmers, not wannabe hipsters.
Google disagrees with you - just type "definition contraceptive" and here's what you get:
If we're going to use google as a definitive sources, then type "examples of contraceptives" and note that none of your examples show up in the first three pages (I got tired of looking after that). If you want to claim that certain "infertility measures" is the same as "contraceptive" then you are going to have to find at least one trustworthy place that agrees with your claim that STD's are contraceptives.
Birth control, also known as contraception and fertility control, are methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy. Planning, provision and use of birth control is called family planning. Birth control methods have been used since ancient times, but effective and safe methods only became available in the 20th century.
That's why coitus interruptus and the rhythm method are both classified as (very poor) contraceptive methods. Same way as anal and oral sex are methods methods to prevent pregnancy.
And yet, you cannot find anyone other than yourself who will call STD's contraceptives.
STDs can cause permanent scarring of the fallopian tubes, resulting in infertility even when the underlying infection is cured. I thought everyone knew that.
We do - unfortunately for your argument, not everything that prevents fertilisation is called a contraceptive.
BTW, certain anti-prostate-cancer drugs can also render you infertile temporarily, with the caveat that if you take them for too long, it's going to be more or less permanent.
I don't doubt their existence, but can you find anyone who refers to them in any way as a contraceptive?
And yet, any agreement that is going to be approved by the court is not going to be "rubber-stamped" - it has to conform to the rules.
That website said very clearly that those aren't "rules", they're guidelines.
Provinces, including the one I am in, have exercised their right to add additional conditions.
Firstly, this is not what you originally claimed. You claimed that a court will intervene in a civil agreement between parents of a child concerning maintenance. This they will not do; they've more than made it clear in the website you linked to!
Secondly, while a judge can modify an order before the court, it's meaningless if both parties are opposed. Courts have never, in my experience in court and out of court, forced two parties in a civil matter to agree to terms when they already have agreement in a different set of terms that violates no law.
Thirdly, and this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, judges routinely rubberstamp amicable agreements. They can get into serious trouble if they don't (there's a whole lotta laws around this one).
Fourthly, (and this also varies a lot) income from maintenance payments are not taxed - they have already been taxed when the paying parent received it, and as they are not tax-deductible on their way out, they are not tax-attracting on their way in to the receiver parent. When you use part of your income to provide income to an employee, you pay no tax on what you pay the employee (they pay their own taxes). As far as I am aware, this legislation went into effect in Canada on May 1, 1997.
Go before a judge with a child support agreement,
I've done so, and do so routinely.
expect it to be scrutinized. It's public policy here nowadays.
It is scrutinized. Unfortunately the court cannot intervene in a civil matter unless one or both of the parties ask the court to do so. So they scrutinise the document, look me in the eye and ask "Is the plaintiff/respondent fully aware of the implications" and I say "Yes, m'lud". The court can use its discretion to refuse to approve the agreement as a judgement, but luckily in Canada and other places a judgement is not needed for maintenance, only a written agreement.
Judges will automatically suspect that any amount less than the guidelines is being used to dodge taxes in return for getting a smaller payment "under the table."
See above
On top of that, things like getting an order to garnish wages, seizing income tax refunds, don't even require a subsequent court hearing - just go to the Percepteur des pensions alimentare with the agreement, and the seizure goes through automatically. No hearing or other proof required. To get it lifted, the person has to go to court and prove the seizure is in error.
Sounds like a real hellhole - seizure of assets without proof of debt. Luckily it isn't true for Canada (Seriously, who have you been talking to? Maybe you should engage a lawyer at some point to get some of your misconceptions corrected?).
They can also suspend your driver's license, passport, and other permits.
The link above says that the evidence and claim of non-payment is from an enforcement agency not the receiving parent. So, no - the woman cannot simply go and get all assets seized automatically with nothing more than a signed agreement and her word.
When you can show a bunch of people who have gotten pregnant through oral or anal sex, then you'll have a point. Until then, they are forms of sex, and they don't result in pregnancy.
It's been known for decades that anabolic steroids can render the man sterile. Untreated STDs can do the same thing. So can too much weed. So can cancers that require the ablation of the testicles. So can radiation treatments.
Unfortunately for your argument, "not result in pregnancy" is not the same as "contraceptive". I know you want it to be, but sorry - there isn't a single source that agrees with you.
- none of your "contraceptive options" above are listed as contraceptives.
Okay, how about a more authoritative source - whoops, your "options" aren't listed there either.
Okay, how about this - you find a source for your claim that STD's are a contraceptive option for men? I've done enough to correct your general misinformation about the jurisdiction you live in - you don't even know the laws you live under so I'm not really surprised that you hurl insults at those are are aware of your laws.
Here in Canada (and this is not the only country to do this) there are rules for fixing the amount each parent pays in child support.
The judge is obliged by federal law to see that these rules are enforced to the benefit of the child. Each agreement is reviewed for compliance by the court to these rules before the decision is rendered. No rubber stamps here. The final amount can be modified by the court if either party has a change in situation, or the child's needs change (schooling, medical, etc).
So now you've heard of 13 jurisdictions (each of the 10 provinces and 3 territories has additional rules in addition to this). Look around and you'll find more.
That page you linked to does not support your claim that a judge is obliged to get involved. Actually, if you had even bothered to read the "About Child Support Page" on the very website you linked to you would see this (not paraphrasing, actual quote from the page) being the official view of the Canadian Justice System:
Sometimes, one parent will decide that he or she does not want child support from the other parent.
And, also from the Canadian Justice System, same link as above:
You and the other parent may set up your own child support agreement out of court. Or you can ask a judge to determine an amount. It will likely be best if you can reach an agreement out of court.
Further, also from the Canadian Justice System... on this page over here:
If you are applying for a divorce under the Divorce Act and will pay or receive child support, the child support amount can be set by:
agreement, or
court order, which can be made by consent, if you and the other parent agree on the amount. If you and the other parent cannot agree, a judge will decide.
This is precisely what I said above. A couple may agree to no maintenance. Your district apparently says the same thing. I know this won't change your mind (you've tied your ego to your argument, so you won't be able to process the fact that your argument is wrong), but at least anyone reading this far down can see conclusive evidence that, for the Canadian Justice System at least, the system makes it explicit it more than one document that a court won't step in unless there is disagreement!
To get the most out of your laws, I highly recommend that you read them. I'm tired of educating you so probably won't reply again unless you post factually incorrect information like you did in this thread. I'm even going to ignore your attempt to redefine "contraceptive" - most people aren't so stupid as to believe that STD's are contraceptives just because they may block fertilisation.
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
Guess you never had sex ed in school.
For men 1. Use a condom 2. Bring along some spermicide - "no sex unless we use this"
Spermicide isn't a contraceptive - it's roughly a 2 in 3 chance of actually working. It's only recommended use is with condoms.
3. Vasectomy
Great - you've got two! One is permanent and rarely reversible, but at least you have two.
4. Oral sex
Not listed as a contraceptive... well, just about anywhere.
5. Anal sex
Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.
6. Anabolic steroids
Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.
7. Untreated STDs
Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.
8. Too much weed (deformed sperm)
Also not listed as a contraceptive anywhere.
9. to (at least) 99 . See original "Joy of Sex."
Lovely - a citation. But I don't see a listing of 'contraceptive' anywhere near this book, or in relation to it, nor
Look on the bright side - you made it to at least two contraceptives for men, nevermind the fact that one is permanent. You still ignore the fact that if the pregnancy is a mistake the women has the option to reverse that mistake. The man doesn't get that option.
And ultimately that is what a male pill comes down to - it gives the man one more option to have sex without consequences. I find it hard to imagine that that sort of freedom won't fundamentally change how couples interact, and the change will, I fear, be for the worse for women.
You've proven you're an idiot, and you don't have a clue.
Please, no insults. Besides, I've displayed more clue than you - I didn't respond to a statement about existing situations (Women can revert this mistake) with a hypothetical (what if men were pregnant?). I note that you've let that one go - wise choice indeed.
Why? Because you make blanket statements that are not true. Courts do not rubber-stamp divorce agreements when there are children involved, and additionally a woman cannot unilaterally specify no access to the kids and no child support.
I didn't say a women could. I said a couple could agree to it. And courts will not get involved if both parents agree to something.
So when you say
Most men would sign that. All courts would sanction it and issue a decree of divorce as a result. The power to "jump at that chance" as you put it, is already in women's hands - why don't they do that?
... either provide proof that most men would sign that (custody and access battles in court say otherwise), and that courts would in fact "rubber-stamp" such agreements, or put a condom on it, mkay.
Actually, a divorce contract is the same as any other - the courts only get involved when they are approached to provide relief and/or remedies. You are claiming that a court will get involved in a civil matter even when it has not been approached to do so. I'm sorry but I've not heard of a single jurisdiction in which a court will look at an agreement between two parties and then refuse to stamp it.
Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.
That's completely irrelevant to the fact that sex is much more than penetration and that a condom ceases to be of any use if you perform play involving bodily fluids and/or sexual contact.
If you do that knowingly, you have absolutely no right to whine about the consequences. You did the deed. You chose to take that risk in pursuit of hedonism. Your attitude the the same as a crackhead who complains that it's affecting their health, or someone base jumping and then getting arrested. Actions have predictable consequences.
The fact that you've twice mischaracterised my positions as "guy doesn't want to man up and take all responsibility for accidental pregnancy"
Never said that. I said each party has to be responsible for the stupidity that results in an unwanted pregnancy. You could have avoided the whole question by wearing a condom. The fact that you both want to play around exchanging body fluids is on both of you.
But only one party has a chance to revert that mistake before it becomes permanent. Notwithstanding that one party should have worn a rubber, or the other party should have used any of the numerous options available.
If you really want to go down that route, why not acknowledge that because women have more options and more opportunities to prevent accidental children, they should have more responsibility?
Condoms are still necessary to prevent transmission of STDs, especially when even in "trusted" relationships like marriage, cheating is statistically likely at some point. That's the reality, and a birth control pill, for men OR women, doesn't change that.
They may be necessary for some relationships. You're extrapolating that everyone should where a condom for each sex act because some couples have untrustworthy partners. The reality is that you aren't going to change human nature when it comes to sex - people want what people want. No amount of puritan hand-waving is going to change the fact that most couples in a long-term relationship aren't going to use a condom. A pill for men makes some of the important issues go away: I do not claim that the ones that remain are unimportant.
A pill that gives men the same ability to prevent accidental children that women currently enjoy (though not all of the same opportunities and options) is something that could change how couples interact.
Never said it wouldn't.
Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. A pill for men will remove much of that power.
No true. Both parties have various contraceptive options.
I can name five options for women, seven if you include after the fact options. Name two for men.
But I find it interesting that you continually frame this as a "power" issue. Your options:
The women gets to decide if and when she gets pregnant regardless of the mans opinion. I'm not framing it as a power issue, that's just the way it is. A pill for men would indeed prevent women from unilaterally deciding to have a child without discussing it with their partner first. That is indeed, no matter how you "frame" it, a reduction of power for women, as long as a non-zero number of women ever decided to have children without their partners consent.
Regardless, the women has the option of saying, after the fact, "I don't want this child therefore I won't have this child." The man has no such option.
What would you think the situation would be if men got pregnant? Wouldn't you be complaining about being forced to carry a kid to term as an infringement on your rights?
You are seriously responding to an actual fact (women have an option that men don't) with a hypothetical? How about this - no man has ever complained about carrying a child to term. Logically you cannot argue that X is a problem if X has never happened before. Therefore since your "what if men were pregnant they'd be just as bad if not worse" assertion has never been observed you'd be wise to withdraw it as a component of your argument. Seriously, we have more evidence of KT extinction than of men complaining about carrying a child to term, and that former one happened some 65 million years ago!
Realistically, such after-the-fact complaining just shows that you don't want to be held responsible for your part in not taking precautions. You know the old saying, "Trust, but verify." There are men going around claiming to have a vasectomy
Such after the fact complaining only come from men because women don't have to complain, they can revert the mistake.
What do you think will happen if men had the option of not paying maintenance in exchange for not seeing the child?
Hey, there are plenty of women who would jump at the opportunity because their ex is an ex for a reason.
They currently have that opportunity. A simple divorce contract includes maintenance and parental contact. There is no reason that a women cannot specify $0 and no contact in the divorce contract. Most men would sign that. All courts would sanction it and issue a decree of divorce as a result. The power to "jump at that chance" as you put it, is already in women's hands - why don't they do that?
However, the courts are focused (rightly) first on what's best for the child - and that means that both parents are going to have to contribute time and resources.
The courts only intervene if the parents cannot agree to an arrangement. If neither parent approaches the court for relief of some sort, then the court rubberstamps the out-of-court settlement and issues the decree of divorce. Courts will not get involved until someone approaches the court.
Another guy who whines about having to use a condom and then complains if the woman gets pregnant. BTW, you completely forgot STDs, many of which are becoming drug resistant, and also the silent killer - HIV/AIDS, which now infects more straight people than gay people.
That's completely irrelevant to the fact that sex is much more than penetration and that a condom ceases to be of any use if you perform play involving bodily fluids and/or sexual contact. The fact that you've twice mischaracterised my positions as "guy doesn't want to man up and take all responsibility for accidental pregnancy" more than displays your own position.
If you really want to go down that route, why not acknowledge that because women have more options and more opportunities to prevent accidental children, they should have more responsibility? A pill that gives men the same ability to prevent accidental children that women currently enjoy (though not all of the same opportunities and options) is something that could change how couples interact.
Currently the woman in a relationship has all the power w.r.t. if and when to have children. A pill for men will remove much of that power.
Both sides should cover more than their asses. Right now, the woman can by taking the pill. The man, unfortunately, usually whines about having to use a condom. "It doesn't feel the same." "It's like taking a shower with a rain coat on." "It ruins the spontaneity of the moment."
Regardless, the women has the option of saying, after the fact, "I don't want this child therefore I won't have this child." The man has no such option. What do you think will happen if men had the option of not paying maintenance in exchange for not seeing the child? This is a nice thought-experiment that is actually feasible to follow through on.
Really, all there are are limitations on your side. You want/need simple, go program BASIC, not some tool you are not equipped to handle.
Python *is* being sold as the simpler option, and indeed it is becoming more popular with the non-programmer programmer (weekend crowd) than it is with the professional developer.
Yeah, it's weird how the dudes here are complaining about having more options. Like...? This is obviously a good development.
For men certainly. I'm not sure about it being a good development for women (I'm open to being convinced). Regardless, it is certainly a nice topic to speculate on - effective and invisible birth control for men.
She got her hands all up in there while having sex? Kudos to her, she's obviously very talented.
Happened three times with me - sex is not all missionary position, in the dark, with your eyes closed, you know. In just about any rear entry position the women can easily wait for the point of no return and then slip it out, yank off the condom and slip it back in. We're talking literally less than 2 seconds when you're 3 seconds away from blowing your load. Seriously, because it's happened to me with three different women I thought it was pretty common.
If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.
