Nothing says male privilege like demanding that we ignore biology so you get to fuck unwrapped




What the hell is wrong with alternet? They give a counterpoint to Glenn Sacks, of all people, the twinkly anti-feminist MRA apologist who never met a male whine he didn't like. Just when things had gotten sensible with the rejection of that whining sperm squirter's suit to avoid birth control and child support, alternet grants Sacks an opportunity to compare decidely unlike things and muddy up the waters. Namely, that a man's right to fuck casually is somehow inviolate compared with a woman's right to decide to waht to do with the contents of her body. I expect the next round will include men demanding that their contribution to her body be returned forthwith, no matter the expense, inconveniance, or indeed, impossibility.

I've seen studies that show male birth control useage is at 20%. (I haven't been able to find live links but I'm still looking.) When men go to prostitutes, one of the most common things they request is sex without condoms. In the Third World, this is so common as to be unremarkable and has led to the spread of AIDS in astonishing numbers. Rather than agitate as a group for more male birth control, or utilize other sexual acts which do not offer any chance of pregnancy, there's a lot of men who continue to wihne that 'she said she was on the pill!' as if it excused their own lack of precaution. It doesn't.

In the case of Choice For Men, the choices the guys want are the ones their daddies had back in the good old days, when a guy could fuck a girl without a rubber and abandon her without so much as a backward glance if she 'got' pregnant. No matter what lies or coercion he used, she was always the sucker for falling for them, and he was never judged for being a lying or manipulative bastard. She was a slut; he was just a guy, doing what guys do, and she should have kept her legs crossed. There were no 100% accurate ways of identifying paternity, so the guys got off scott free. Children were a hindrance then, so you didn't often see men doing much except abandoning them wehn the going got tough, or even slightly inconveniant. With men not doing their share, women were left to do everything---raise the kid in sexist times without access to really good jobs or daycare, while men added insult to injury and criticized their sexual morals in being trusting or loving enough to believe a guy when he said he loved them. The standard response to this chain of events is criticism that just brushes off both male responsibility and judgement of same: "Oh, that's what men are like. Why did you believe him?" Because if you don't believe him, you get called a fat and ugly bitch, repressed, a cocktease, or a lesbian? Those were and are your choices to this day, in some segments of the population. The man--and his buddies---who wield such terms have never been subject to analysys or criticism---till now.

Basically, what Matt Dubai wants is the ability to fuck without a thought, with his partner being the one to shoulder all the worry and responsibility of sex and possible pregnancy. With all the accusations of deadly female entrapment going on, it's interesting that nobody buttonholed Dubai or Sacks and asked them one crucial question: "So, hey, do you regularly inform women that you don't want kids and that you hate birth control and that you just want to fuck them and forget them and if they get pregnant you'll demand that the laws of nature and physics get ignored so you can pull up your pants and go off and fuck somebody else? Do you tell your lucky Cinderella that you can only for yourself and that you'll prove it by giving her a disease if not a baby, and then your only thought will be for yourself? So, how about it, Sparky? Were you upfront and honest about this?"

Glenn Sacks has a twinkly demeanor but ultimately his viewpoints are just more of the same MRA/FRA crap. If a man is convenianced by a woman, anywhere at any time, he's a victim, and it doesn't matter if it's biology that he refuses to acknowledge, the laws must ignore reality and focus soley on what's good for the man. It doesn't matter what kind of damage he does, women and children must be left behind for the good of the man, thereby shoving women once again into the role MRAs are most comfortable with: housecleaners, housekeepers, endlessly cleaning up men's messes and sperm deposits, and doing so silently lest they be called gold digging bitches who should have kept their legs crossed. The fact that the men in question are busily trying to uncross those legs with lies or coercion is never used aginst them, while the fact t hat their birth control useage is dismal. In a way it's like arguing with MRAs over battered men. They want to whine about something instead of actually doing something about it. More importantly, they want women to fix their problems. They don't want to get off their asses, they just want to complain about women. And then they expect us to fuck them. Talk about being a sore winner. You get what you want, and then you bitch at the woman who fucked you. Makes one wonder what you're projecting.

Reality is, men don't get to have the same choices as women do because biology doesn't care what men whine. Men have to make a decision before their pants come off, and contrary to what C4M say, that choice isn't just keep your pants on. It includes, using a rubber, having a vasectomy, having various kinds of sex which have no possibility of pregnancy. This has been repeatedly oversimplified by opponents into saying that us feminists are advocating that men have to choose between abstinence or celibacy. Either they're stupid or they're dishonest, and they have a fixation on the one sex act that offers the opportunity for impregnation----and on men having that one sex act on their terms and their terms only----that they're not being honest about.

Ultimately, the C4M argument isn't about men's rights, it's about what their wants, and what anyone who espouses this idea wants is a happy-go-lucky existance without condoms or responsibilities, wihch are shoved off on women. The choices they want are all of them, and the only way these are realistically possibly is if someone else is deprived of their choices by the irresponsibility and selfishness of the other party. C4M proponents act as if conception were some deep dark secret that has been cunningly hidden by women from men for millenia, as if the chance of pregnancy is something they never heard of. With that premise dismissed, they have excuse.

Use BC of some type, no matter what, or pick a sex act that doesn't cause pregnancy if the thought of fatherhood realy makes you twitch. Even so, you have to deal with this simple concept: accidents happen. Some people look for meaning and plan when an accident happens, because it makes them feel better. It's the same reason people blame the rape victim, because if she can be blamed, then they can ignore the fact that it was the guy next door who raped her, not the Bushy-Haired Stranger in the non existant alley. If men are allowed to continue to blame their exes with deliberate and sly methods to entrap them, their own behavior will not be exposed for the charade it is----it's on a par with those pharmacists, who wish to impose their own 'morals' on women who use birth control, but they also want to keep their jobs even while they refuse to perform them. There are consequences to acts. A pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication should logically be fired, but the typical response of these pharmacists to that is to demand, in fact, that they be allowed to keep the job and perform only those aspects of it that they deem acceptable! Meanwhile, at least one pregnancy has resulted from a pharmacist's refusal to do his job, and the idea that he could be liable for that birth of that child appears to have occurred to no one. The desire of the C4M guys and the pharmacists are exactly the same: they wish to use and project upon womens' bodies their wants and desires, and leave those women with the consequences. If you're against abortion, how illogical is it to be against birth control, the one thing which has some chance of preventing unintended pregnancies? If you're against sudden fatherhood, why are so many men reluctant to inconveniance themselves slightly in order to avoid a huge obligation later?

They both want different things that they state as their aims. As always, observe the outcome. The anti-BC people arean't against BC, per se; they're against sex without consequencesfor women. The C4m guys don't want the consequences and they don't want the onerous duty of prevention, either. The two groups have far more in common that anyone's admitting. One group wishes to force women into pregnancy or celibacy, while the other merely wants to use passivity as a defense and frankly is indifferent to the harm they do: "I didn't want to be a father!" is a wish unless accompanied by steps taken toward putting preventative measures in place. Even then, when the accident occurs, the C4M group tries to bend fate to their advantage. If men do not have the advantage, so used to it are they that its absense is felt as an active theft, a threat to their well-being. This is the mindset, also, that ones sees whenever girls---who do, after all, make up more of the population than boys-----achieve some sort of numeral superiority in something that is good rather than bad-----poverty, for example, remains female-and-child dominated, yet no one complains about that.

All these things are interlinked and related. I propose a frontal attack. If these C4m twits won't be honest for fear of not getting laid---not taht there's anything wrong with that------then embarrassing questions should be asked, preferably at high volume. If nothing else, this approach---which I have used---tends to separate the men from the boys in terms of courage and ability to take it while dishing it out.

What do you think?