Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Brave New World (Score 1) 126

It's hard to have a smug sense of superiority over an automatic elevator.

One of the themes of the book was that people already had too much free time - kids were deliberately brainwashed into being more wasteful so that other people had a purpose. And what would efficiency gain you? Money?

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

I just don't think I would feel aroused while being attacked, even by someone I was attracted to. I think I would probably feel frightened and humiliated.

And that's the point, you would feel frightened, you would feel humiliated, you would not feel aroused - but you can still be made to have an erection. Physical stimulation alone (and no, not just through the back door), without any 'enjoyment' on your part, is enough.

I have been verbally abused by my partner though, and received (comparatively minor, and more veiled) threats. And though I am physically attracted to my partner, I certainly haven't been aroused in these situations.

But I'm presuming that she didn't have her hand down your pants in an effort to get you hard.

That said, I guess the whole rape aspect is perhaps kind of besides the point, and lying about contraception may be a more common way of achieving the same goal.

Yep, but everything else we've pretty much aligned on. So, whether you reply or not, thanks for the conversation.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

Since you've been so kind as to offer so much free advice, here's some from me to you:

You've got to do a better job trolling. This is so pathetically obvious that it's depressing to watch you struggle. I understand that life can be very lonely, but you have to find a healthier way to fill the void. :(

Best of luck,

Your only friend,

Yndrd

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

It is just as common as men raping women.

I do realize that with saner definitions that almost all the 'gendered' crimes turn out to be surprisingly even-handed or tend to victimize men. But even with that, worrying that a given woman will suddenly 'turn on you' is just as silly as assuming that men or blacks are out to get you.

Basically, I was worried that listing things like that makes it seem like I won't even speak to women lest they call the cops on me.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 2) 266

Partly, I suspect that being attacked would ruin the mood for me, thus rendering the exercise futile.

Except that penises don't work that way. One of the main reason that men who are raped by men don't report is because they're confused or embarrassed because they got an erection or even ejaculated. I mean, if you could just turn it off with willpower, why would premature ejaculation ever be a thing? Why would teenagers have to carry things in front of themselves on occasion?

But okay, just because I find it difficult to imagine doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And we're better off with people who disagree but have open minds and are willing to listen than with people who all mindlessly agree. I tip my hat to you, sir.

if she's attractive, why does she feel the need to force anyone to have sex with her

You girlfriend wants to get pregnant and you're not ready yet, your ex wants to get back at you, she's mad at your girlfriend, she's mad that you turned her down - sexual assault it isn't usually just about sex, it's sex and power.

bigger and stronger than me enough that she could overpower me

What if you're sick or injured or drunk or high?

Or what if she threatens you? She'll divorce you and say you molested the kids. She can call the cops and say you tried to rape her (and even if the case if thrown out quickly, it can still be devastating). And if you physically resist, that's great - until she get injured (even slightly), then the story will be that you attacked her.

I'm not saying that this is very common, or that men need to get all paranoid. But just because someone's half your size doesn't mean they can't get leverage over you.

In general, I think there's often biased language where there's disagreement. Not that this isn't a problem, but I don't think it's a problem unique to this situation.

Maybe I'm overemphasizing language, but you do have to push people to even realize that there's even a debate to be had. His girlfriend lied to get pregnant and wants to keep it, who cares, he had better upend his life - end of story. Even when there's an awareness of how much that sucks there no 'maybe it doesn't have to be that way' spark of inspiration.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

Honestly, I still have some trouble imagining a man having sex with a woman against his will. I generally don't get an erection unless I actually want sex.

First, wanting to have sex isn't the same as consent. Men really do turn down women for sex, even when they're turned on - you don't have to be a slave to your emotions, even if that's what's expected of you.

Second, erections are reflexive - hormones, vibration, or just falling asleep can cause erections. If nothing else, there's pressure on the prostate... I guess what I'm saying is that if boys in an African war zone can get erections when forced to have sex with their own mothers in front of the psychos that just butchered their dad, I'm pretty sure there are less extreme examples.

I can well imagine some women might lie about birth control, but what would you do if the man claims this? Simply accept his word? This isn't (or at least certainly shouldn't be) enough to condemn a man for rape, and I don't think it should be enough to condemn a woman for deceit either.

We shouldn't ever just take someone's word, but if a man gets his girlfriend on tape admitting that she stopped taking birth control without telling him in order to get pregnant and make him marry her, I think that should play some role in how responsibility is meted out.

Legally, I do think men should be required to contribute to supporting their children, unless they have a good reason not to.

And I'm pointing out that in our legal system almost nothing is a 'good enough' reason: In some US states there are men paying child support because the mother chose them at random and the man missed the single mailed summons. The court says they're the father by default, and the first they hear about it is when their wages get garnished.

So even if our lists of what's 'good enough' don't align exactly we should still be able to agree that something should be on it.

The rest was just an attempt to point out our biases - ones that run so deep that our entire vocabulary changes when we stop talking about what she should do and start talking about what he should do. If we can't admit to those, how are we going to come to a fair and just conclusion?

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

Truly, you should be allowed to take a fruit just because you have a penis.

Maybe 'allowed to take a fruit' is a common phrase where you're from with a non-obvious interpretation, but I've never heard of it. So I'll respond as best I can.

Although this is a rather minor issue, your response is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to point out. Men have a specific set of extra duties in sexual relationships, and just pointing out that it exists upsets people, even though violating those unspoken rules upsets them even more. If a man has sex without 'paying for it' they feel he's acting entitled - even though this is explicitly more egalitarian than most relationships, and expecting the man to pay really is entitlement - for the woman.

And I think that kind of stuff is nonsense - everyone should be allowed to take any freely-given 'fruit' they like. You don't own women, and you don't get to tell them with whom they're allowed to share their sexuality, or under what circumstances.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

I'll stick with one subsection of this incoherent/trolling wall of text:

Doesn't matter how you claim it.

Claim what?

you should have stuck with leaving the child in foster care

The convicted statutory rapist still has custody, if you put the child in foster care that's kidnapping.

And even then, people will end up being taxed. Somebody ends up paying for it.

And the most appropriate person to do that is the adult who took criminal advantage of a child.

Sorry, but a lot of things aren't free, just try to have a dog, a house or a car.

"Being the victim of a sex crime isn't free"?

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

Admit it would be unfair if the man was raped? Yes, although I doubt that's a very common occurrence.

Jumping out of the bushes and raping him is probably quite rare, though I should mention that that situation is rather rare for women as well. But sex while too drunk or high to consent, or passed out - that might be a bit more common.

But we're getting off the track of the main conversation, this was meant to be a bellwether for our expectations of men. If even the most extreme situations (being too young to legally participate, or even not committing any voluntary act at all) aren't enough to mitigate responsibility, then it's pretty clear that we're not giving men in other situations (lied to about birth control, not told about other possible paternity) a fair hearing.

Or admit it's unfair that women have wombs and men don't? Yes, but only in so far as it's unfair that some people are born smarter, stronger, and more attractive than others. The world isn't fair.

Sure nature is unfair, but that doesn't mean we have to be. Nature sticks women with kids after sex, but lets men walk away, and also give us instincts to try to counteract that imbalance. So we invented induced abortion and birth control, fought to make them legal, and then to make the free. And we also make men pay for dates, pressure them to marry pregnant partners, and now hunt them down after one night stands and even after they're victims of sex crimes. At some point our one-sided re-balancing of the scales will start to make things unfair in the opposite direction, and I think we've passed that.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

men can make women pregnant

No, if we're staying legal here, men can only offer to have sex with women. He can't make her have sex, he can't make her stop taking birth control, he can't prevent her from getting an abortion.

women can't make men pregnant

But they can make men pay child support, even if he never wanted kids, even if he never consented to sex. Can you at least admit that that isn't fair?

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

Actually, you will find out that underage fathers are not required to pay child support unless they want custody. Then they will be paying after they hi their majority.

So you're correcting me, but then say "they will be paying", which is exactly what I said, so ... you agree? What? Or are you saying that if they don't want custody they don't pay (which is completely incorrect)?

Same with unconscious. That's called rape, you know.

If he's wasn't penetrated it's not rape in the US, nor in the UK. And paternity is strict liability - even if the woman was convicted of sexual assault that wouldn't be good enough. So it might be technically possible to avoid liability, but I haven't come across a case like that, ever, while on the other hand there have been several cases of men held liable for child support after the woman admitted that he never woke up the entire time, so...

You really should stop trying to justify the punishment of the many by false appeals to the victimization of a few when the actual legal details are different.

Who am I trying to punish?

Same problem when the scofflaw deadbeats bemoan the costs, it is a lie, done only for sympathy, not even true. Your credulous endorsement discredits you.

So all men who gripe about child support are lying, child support is always cheap? And repeating facts from actual court cases discredits me?

It's like the people who bewail how a lesbian couple could have a bunch of kids, but one partner not made to pay child support. Not a one of them was willing to admit the lack of samesex marriage was the issue. No, no, they just wanted the man to be persecuted.

Hunh? If a man donates sperm to ANYBODY (gay or straight, married or single-but-in-a-relationship or single-completely-by-themselves) if the messy legal process to avoid legal parenthood isn't followed he still can be held liable. And I don't think we persecute men, we just don't care that much if they get hurt in our rush to support women and children.

Please change your dosage - I'm not qualified to tell if you need more drugs or less - but you've lost contact with the real world.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 1) 266

Kindly point out where I was defending it.

Without some clear distancing language (e.g. the legislature thought that...) one can't tell the difference between a mere statement of fact and an endorsement - English is funny that way. That's why I kept saying 'you seem to be suggesting' - I want you to make your position clearer.

I stated how it came about, to the best of my knowledge.

And I'm trying to point out that men leaving their wives and children on a whim was never a large fraction of divorces, but it did make a good boogyman. Or to use your terminology, there are probably more sluts than dicks (or maybe roughly the same number), but for some reason legally we not only favor sluts but are also willing to disfavor all men for the actions of the dicks.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 3, Informative) 266

This occurred because the men were suddenly free from the expenses of the family, whereas the women were forced to take on the financial burden of raising the children.

Exactly, this is after men no longer had default custody of the children after a divorce and people were trying to put financial responsibility back on his shoulders. I'm sorry if my extremely brief overview missed some of the twists and turns between the old common-law system and the one we have today.

But how is this a defense of ' "real fathers" were only too willing to abandon their families'? The fact you quoted was true no matter who initiated the divorce or for what reason.

And again, you seem to be suggesting that the bad behavior of those men justified the unfairness to all men. I'm suggesting that the number of 'dad abandons family on a whim' phenomena was blown out of proportion by the unfortunate victims of those cases, bigots, and people who saw a political advantage to be gained, and that even if it was true it wouldn't justify a wholesale shift in legal responsibility.

the father almost always profited and the mother almost always became impoverished

And the mother almost always got to raise the children and the father did not. I agree that both were unfair, but at least they weren't both unfair in the same direction, as they are tending toward now.

Comment Re: Lots of children have the wrong DNA. (Score 4, Interesting) 266

The legal system for child support came about because plenty of "real fathers" were only too willing to abandon their families when the going got rough or a more winsome piece of ass drifted on by.

What revisionist twaddle. Child support after a divorce came about because originally fathers kept the children and got both the benefits of custody and the responsibility to support them. Then we decided that children belong with their mothers, but financial responsibility should stay with the fathers.

The 'deadbeat dad' narrative came about as a way to defend this clearly unfair system, and the fact the fathers (quite reasonably) feel more responsible for children that they are allowed to be the fathers of, rather than kids they aren't allowed to see.

The problem the GP describes, with cuckolds paying child support for kids that aren't theirs, stems from the same sexist urge. In most cases a DNA test can only give a man responsibility (even if they were underage and she wasn't, even if he was unconscious) but not remove it (he was married to her at the time and waited until the child was six months old, he 'acted like a father').

And as a side note, it's incredibly crass of you to try to justify the ill treatment of some men by pointing out the bad behavior of other men.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember: use logout to logout.

Working...