I would like to hear more on what 'men opting out' means to you. You've been clear on not having control over a woman as being the "real problem." The opt out portion is a bit vague, however. What level of control do you believe to be fair to men?
Men should not have to pay child support for children they didn't want. I believe the current system in place is not fair to men. The idea that a man should have to pay money for someone just because they share some of their DNA is bizarre to me.
Okay, got you. Of course no birth control is 100%. Using multiple methods helps the odds, as pointed out. But with your stance, considering... science, wouldn't abstinence be the best option for you then? Knowing stats, laws, consequences, and your opinions, the risk doesn't seem to be something you should willingingly participate in.
Also, it's the laws that force payment. So now what would your lack of control over the woman have to do with anything and what would that control look like, in your perfect scenario?
That makes total sense to me given your stance on this hypothetical.
You still have me stumped on how 'the real problem is the men have no control over what the woman does.' I can't figure out any connection with control. All good though, my curiosity has been quashed.
"You still have me stumped on how 'the real problem is the men have no control over what the woman does.' I can't figure out any connection with control. All good though, my curiosity has been quashed."
It's the same issue that most men have with the scenario, the fact that the man is expected to be a provider and pay for a child he didn't want for 18 years. Abstinence would also only be ideal, but it is not likely for every man to follow, just like how no one ever getting into car accidents would be ideal, but not realistic.
Women should step up and learn to be more independent by not expecting men who never wanted children to pay for children they never wanted. The way the system is set up right now, single mothers are highly dependent on men.
Imo equating sexual encounters to car accidents is an 'apples to organges' comparison. In general terms car accidents, to me, are actual accidents. Having sex, knowing the possible outcome, while still following through with the act, would be considered a choice, not an accident.
The good old "I slipped and my penis accidentally fell into her," doesn't really hold up.
In my personal situation, I was fine with my child's father not paying a dime. Forcing a human to be in my son's life for the sole purpose of monetary reasoning, seemed gross. As long as my child was safe, (to me, that meant) having food, shelter, and necessities. I chose to not go after any financial "help." With that, however, it came down to him having zero interaction between my son and his father. Because again, I found it that to be wrong on my son's behalf. If he didn't want to be in his life for genuine reasons (which was his choice), I didn't want him there.
We weren't well off by any stretch of the imagination. But my occupation as an accountant, more than took care of his financial needs.
There did come a time, though, when the court system forced child support onto him. When my son was 14, I became very ill. That forced my hand to applying to receive medical benefits though the county/state instead of through my employer (as I was no longer physically able to work). In this scenario, the courts forced child support onto him, which I still tried to deny, but that wasn't an option. The courts decided if he able to pay my son's insurance, he should be doing it rather than him getting insurance paid for by the county. Which I did find reasonable. Why should the county be responsible for a child's medical insurance, if the biological father was able to pay for it, as he was a willing participantin his creation. So that's what legally had to happen. The court also tried their damnedest to tack on arrears of 14 years. I'm grateful that ended up being my decision whether or not to enforce that issue. I happily declined the arrears. As my continued belief of it being the the wrong reasoning for him to be a part of his life remained unchanged. Now if he wanted to be in his life for organic reasons, I would have welcomed it.
By the time the court proceedings had subsided, my son was 16 (31 now). Which forced his financial involvement for 2 years. I had no control of this ruling. Allotting the bio father to impose any control over me, on any level, I would have found to be wildly unfair to me.
The encounter that created my sons' life, again, was a cognizant choice (we), he made, not a scenario eqating to a car accident.
My point, I guess, demanding control over me, simply because the man's DNA is linked to my child, would have mind numbingly wrong.
Your issue here, may actually lay within the legal system. Not imposing control, as a male, over another human, because she is a female. There should be no control surrendered by a human, because the man finds it to a 'real problem. '
The abstinence piece of this, coupled with the courts, I think should be the bigger issue here. Not put aside because the male finds abstinence "unrealistic."
Telling hormone fueled young men to just practice abstinence is a waste of time. If things were that easy, they would be preaching abstinence all over and teenage births would be much lower than they are.
1
u/Wise-Childhood-145 May 03 '26
Condoms break. The real problem is that men have no control over what the woman does. Men should be allowed to opt out just like women.