From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Male Choice Revi (1)
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:23:57 GMT

In article <1ej28kINNi66@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <BxzHMB.LvI@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1ebu7hINNchd@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Nov17.180422.14301@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>>>>>In article <1eb9ucINNjb0@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>
>>>>>>People lie.  We all know this.  We *all* know this.  Therefore, relying
>>>>>>upon the word of another person is AUTOMATICALLY stupid.  That's where
>>>>>>the whole growth of the legal industry sprang from.
>>>>>>Now, if you want to be a disingenuous idiot, go ahead.
>>>>>
>>>>>Life is full of hard choices, isn't it?  But, you know, if the choice
>>>>>really was that hard, then yes, I'd rather be a disingenuous idiot,
>>>>>than live my life in the manner implied by the above posting.
>>>
>>>What is so hard about donning a condom to protect yourself?

What is so hard for women to stop lying about their fertility or their
birth control? Why should men submit to a blatantly sexist standard of
prevention?

>>Perhaps here's the problem:  in the last couple of posts I've seen,
>>only the women seem to believe that condoms are highly reliable.
>>That's an interesting comment in itself.
>
>
>don, you are having a hard time getting you own reasoning straight.
>
>IF the woman WANTs a child enough to entrap a man, she isn't about to use
>a birth control method, is she?  She isn't about to be thinking that condoms
>are 100% reliable, is she?  No.  THAT woman will support completely his
>choice NOT to use a condom.
>
>IF the woman DOESN'T want to become pregnant, she very well may use her own
>method of birth control -- and will probably tell him so, if he were curious
>enough to ask.  And he may trust her birth control to be 'enough', or he
>may ACTUALLY engage the gray matter between his ears and figure that ADDITIONAL
>birth control is in his best interests, TOO! 
>
>Now, if you are the random man, and you don't know the woman very well,
>you are going to have a hard time telling the difference between woman
>#1 who says, "Don't worry, honey, I've taken care of it" and woman #2 
>who says, "Don't worry, honey, I've taken care of it."
>
>But the result of sexual congress with these two women is likely to be
>different in some significant fraction of the cases, right?
>
>So, what is a fellow to do?  A THINKING fellow uses birth control HIMSELF.

I would venture to say that, in a significant percentage of the cases under
discussion, for the man to insist on wearing a condom, when the woman has
already assured him that birth control is "taken care of", there will be
no sex at all, regardless of whether the woman is a #1 or a #2. So, for
those cases at least, your "advice" amounts to a choice between abstinence
or risk. Since we've already discarded abstinence as a workable solution
in the case of eliminating the need for abortions, that leaves us with
risk. Now, why not assign more responsibility to the party most able to 
control the risk and/or the consequences? Is this not sound social policy? 
Is not the most fruitful ground for accountability the party who is most
able to control the outcome?

>It's not foolproof (maybe that's your problem (-:), true.  But it's a 
>damned sight better than nothing.

Would you still impose the same punishment on a man who DID use a condom,
and STILL ended up becoming an involuntary father, then?

>Or, and this is the important part: he can go off on an unrelated tangent,
>an essentially punitive tangent that defeats his own purposes, and get
>precisely no where.

Male choice is not "an unrelated tangent". It is the issue at hand. And
one which apparently you're not willing to face. 

								- Kevin