homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Hell   » Stealthing: Some People are Just Shit (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Stealthing: Some People are Just Shit
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Women have other choices, too, like the morning after pill taken during the sober light of day.

The man who has been lied to may not even know it until the day the baby is born and some do care very much about a child of theirs being brought into the world over whom he will have no control but lots of financial obligations.

I knew a married couple who had two children. He worked as a store manager and she was a SAHM. She wanted a third child, he definitely did not because he thought they couldn't afford it. She deliberately went off the pill without telling him and had a third child. They stayed married, but barely spoke to each other for almost a year. ( I worked in the store and saw the big freeze going on.) The children suffered, particularly the new baby.

I think it's always a rotten thing to do to lie about this sort of thing.

Posts: 6502 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know about that, John Holding. I think the same arguments that say this is not rape would say this is not assault. An assault is a physical attack. Lying about the conditions of the sex act (saying you are not married when you are, saying you're on the pill when you aren't, stealthing) all break the verbal contract. It seems more like a form of fraud to me.

Fraud definition:wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

I find it fascinating how much effort you're putting into being an amateur lawyer while ignoring what at least one actual lawyer said before you started.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 17845 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know you're a lawyer, Orfeo. That's it. I don't know who any of the other lawyers on the ship are.

As soon as Doc Tor came along with a legal definition of "assault," I said it was interesting information and admitted I had only been using the dictionary definition.

I didn't know a law degree was required here. I thought we were all just sharing our opinions and anecdotes related to the OP. But then I thought it was okay to yank Mr. Cheesy's chain a little bit, this being Hell. Clearly I was wrong on both counts.

I'll just bow out now.

Posts: 6502 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
If it helps, in Canada the legal codes have not for a good long while recognized "rape". More appropriately, there is a crime called "sexual assault" (or maybe just "assault"). Most of what this thread is arguing about is whether certain acts are "rape" or not, and then about how one defines rape. In Canada, at least, that's a meaningless and pointless discussion. The act in question (and most of the other acts mentioned) is clearly "assault", which is all the courts really need to know.

John

Strictly speaking, that's the case in NSW, although I can't speak for the other states. The relevant division of the Crimes Act is now entitled "Division 10 Offences in the nature of rape, offences relating to other acts of sexual assault etc" but the actual offences are sexual assault with a suitably wide definition of what constitutes sexual intercourse - it's not just penis in vagina. Judges sentence on the basis of what constituted the particular assault though. Generally speaking, an offence where the penetration was digital alone will received a lower penalty than cunnilingus. In turn, forced fellatio will receive a higher penalty still, with the highest for penile penetration. That's just a general guide, individual cases will obviously differ.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6116 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I thought we were all just sharing our opinions and anecdotes related to the OP.

Well, that's certainly not what you were doing. You were busy telling everyone else how to define rape and assault.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 17845 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The above definition of assault is not exclusive. It's inclusive. Answering Twilight, assault does not need a physical element in order to be assault. If there is a physical element, it's treated similarly but differently.


Very interesting. We were just discussing this on a "PreviouslyTV" forum for "Better Call Saul." Jimmy broke into his brother's house and shouted at him for awhile. His brother is charging him with breaking and entering and assault and none of us could understand where the assault part came in. My dictionary just defines it as, "a physical attack," but obviously the law is different.
It's a distinction made in common law:

Assault - an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Battery - an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.

Posts: 1918 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That distinction is what I was taught in Law School all those decade ago, but it's not always observed as much these days, particularly in criminal law.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6116 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I were a female who wanted to enjoy an active, varied sex life with various different guys, I would take precautions against unwanted pregnancy other than trusting the guy to --
a) fit the condom properly in the first place
b) do something peculiar mid way through intercourse, as in discarding it [Confused]

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 2865 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And if I had an expensive road bike I'd not trust the garage door lock, but someone breaking in and nicking it would still be a thief.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17191 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yep, ain't excusing it Karl.

Like the female judge said recently, (something a male could not have said without being heavily criticised), -- you have to weigh up the risks before getting into situations where this kind of crap can happen.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 2865 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If I were a female who wanted to enjoy an active, varied sex life with various different guys, I would take precautions against unwanted pregnancy other than trusting the guy to --
a) fit the condom properly in the first place
b) do something peculiar mid way through intercourse, as in discarding it [Confused]

Absolutely - but this is not just about contraception, is it?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12175 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The above definition of assault is not exclusive. It's inclusive. Answering Twilight, assault does not need a physical element in order to be assault. If there is a physical element, it's treated similarly but differently.

In the case of an unconscious person, they haven't consented to being touched.

(edited because I misunderstood the question)

But the definition was being used in such a way as to need to be exclusive to make the argument work.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 61997 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, it's about lying -- fraud. You would think that the man involved would also consider the burdens of child support, but people like this do not seem to use the Big Brain for thinking. (You have heard the theory that all men have a Big Brain and a Little Brain.)

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer

Posts: 4608 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
...do we want to be saying 'all men' any more than we might wish to be saying 'all women'? Just asking...

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1376 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
...do we want to be saying 'all men' any more than we might wish to be saying 'all women'? Just asking...

And the woman's "little brain" is even smaller than the man's "little brain." <GD&R>

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 61997 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not my notion. It was the late great Robin Williams who pronounced this theory. He made it very funny, as you can imagine -- you can probably google it up on YouTube.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer

Posts: 4608 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If I were a female who wanted to enjoy an active, varied sex life with various different guys, I would take precautions against unwanted pregnancy other than trusting the guy to --
a) fit the condom properly in the first place
b) do something peculiar mid way through intercourse, as in discarding it [Confused]

Absolutely - but this is not just about contraception, is it?
If it is also about avoiding STI's then he is putting himself at risk as well as her by being careless or reckless with said condom. But yeah, if he deliberately infects her then it is covered by the law, (or is that just for HIV? ).

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 2865 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
If it is also about avoiding STI's then he is putting himself at risk as well as her by being careless or reckless with said condom. But yeah, if he deliberately infects her then it is covered by the law, (or is that just for HIV? ).

That's hardly a consolation though is it? "Well yeah he gave me HIV/Herpes/the clap, but at least he went to jail for it."

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 61997 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I think it's always a rotten thing to do to lie about this sort of thing.

Any bad thing is, well, bad.
Stealthing is more like rape because it is about control. At least that appears to be the main motive when reading about these pieces of shit.
I really hate when an issue like this is raised and the cries of "But what about the men?" appear.
Any individual act is just as bad as similar individual act. But the phenomena are not equal.
Where is the culture of women getting pregnant against their partner's wishes? The reddit threads, the how-to manuals, etc.? This is another tactic, intentional and not, to reduce women achieving the power that men enjoy.
It is the exact same thing that is used when racism is discussed.
Counter examples =/= a systemic problem in the reverse direction or an equality of experience.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 15483 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I think it's always a rotten thing to do to lie about this sort of thing.

Any bad thing is, well, bad.
Stealthing is more like rape because it is about control. At least that appears to be the main motive when reading about these pieces of shit.
I really hate when an issue like this is raised and the cries of "But what about the men?" appear.
Any individual act is just as bad as similar individual act. But the phenomena are not equal.
Where is the culture of women getting pregnant against their partner's wishes? The reddit threads, the how-to manuals, etc.? This is another tactic, intentional and not, to reduce women achieving the power that men enjoy.
It is the exact same thing that is used when racism is discussed.
Counter examples =/= a systemic problem in the reverse direction or an equality of experience.

I agree that the line you quoted was silly, but as conversations like this go along I feel I have to tack such obvious things on the post to keep from ending up the way Rolyn just did, with lots of people asking him questions that force him to have to come back and state the obvious, like yes the thief is still a thief or being asked questions about things he hadn't mentioned at all, as though that's the perfect zinger to his position.

Control? Maybe, or maybe it's just a selfish, drunk guy wanting maximum comfort in the moment.

I don't agree that men always have the most control in interpersonal relations. I think the person who controls the best forms of birth control, and in the case of a single woman, the decision about abortion, the decision about adoption, and whether or not to name the man as the father also has a lot of control.

I do think you have hit on why we disagree so much about issues like this. My main concern is usually equality; equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, equal treatment under the law, etc. That's why I bring up similar crimes with the female as the protagonists, not because I'm concerned about the poor man as you imply, but because it helps me try to figure out what we should call this and what I think the punishment should be. (Yes, yes I know, some lawyers have already figured it all out for me and I should just think what they tell me to think, but I like to pretend I can have opinions of my own, even if they are meaningless in the great halls of justice.)

On the other hand, I think you want something other than equality and I'm not sure what it is. Greater punishment of the traditional oppressor as a means of compensating for the past? Greater punishment of men because they have the most obnoxious websites?

I really don't understand a position that seems to want to punish one gender or race more than another. Not just because it seems unfair to me, but because it seems unfair to thousands of other people and that just generates more hate and anger.

[ 30. April 2017, 19:31: Message edited by: Twilight ]

Posts: 6502 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's hardly a consolation though is it? "Well yeah he gave me HIV/Herpes/the clap, but at least he went to jail for it."

Consolation is a large part of what the penal system is about isn't it? It can't undo what's been done.

As Twilight says regarding stating the obvious. The obvious, although given modern day freedoms not popular, solution to this latest phenomenon is not to sleep around.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 2865 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not the only one who wants everything to be fair.
Simple brains like mine.

Posts: 6502 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is some false equivalence going on here.
Lying to a man about using the pill is not the same as stealthing.
Stealthing can transmit disease and cause pregnancy to the victim. Physical and long-lasting effects to a woman's body and finances.
Lying about the using the pill only has only consequences to a man's wallet. Yes, a man might care more, but he is not obligated to.

Whether sex without consent is rape has absolutely nothing to do with the specific consequences of the specific act. A completely disease-free man who wears a condom while having unconsensual sex is still a rapist.

Rape is not about consequences, it's about consent - or more accurately, the lack thereof.

So the next question is whether consent can be conditional. I think it can. And that said, if a woman can consent to sex only on the condition that a condom is worn - which again, I think she can - then why can't a man consent to sex only if it is non-procreational?

So if consent to sex can be conditional, then it doesn't matter what the consequences of that condition not being met are, all that matters is that the conditions for consent were not present. So therefore consent was not present. So therefore the sex, being without consent, was rape.

If there's an error in my logic do please feel free to point it out. But note that "if a woman does it its fine but if a man does it its evil, because history and oppression and yadda yadda" isn't a logical error. Not in my logic, anyway.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29666 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's hardly a consolation though is it? "Well yeah he gave me HIV/Herpes/the clap, but at least he went to jail for it."

Consolation is a large part of what the penal system is about isn't it? It can't undo what's been done.
I thought it was justice. If it's just consolation then it doesn't matter whom you find guilty and kill, as long as the victim or the victim's family feels consoled. But as I said, it ISN'T a consolation to get AIDS but have the person who gave you AIDS go to jail. How in the hell would that console you? It's a category error.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 61997 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Lying to a man about using the pill is not the same as stealthing.
Stealthing can transmit disease and cause pregnancy to the victim. Physical and long-lasting effects to a woman's body and finances.
Lying about the using the pill only has only consequences to a man's wallet. Yes, a man might care more, but he is not obligated to.

Rape isn't a crime because it might cause pregnancy. I'm sure if you try hard, you can imagine some (far-fetched, admittedly) ways of impregnating someone without any kind of sexual contact being involved. That's not rape.
Posts: 4251 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


So the next question is whether consent can be conditional. I think it can. And that said, if a woman can consent to sex only on the condition that a condom is worn - which again, I think she can - then why can't a man consent to sex only if it is non-procreational?

So if consent to sex can be conditional, then it doesn't matter what the consequences of that condition not being met are, all that matters is that the conditions for consent were not present. So therefore consent was not present. So therefore the sex, being without consent, was rape.

If there's an error in my logic do please feel free to point it out. But note that "if a woman does it its fine but if a man does it its evil, because history and oppression and yadda yadda" isn't a logical error. Not in my logic, anyway.

I suppose the problem here is that one cannot guarantee that vaginal sex is non-procreative.

As an analogue, I might say that I am consenting to be driven in your car as long as you are not drunk. If you have actually drunk alcohol but have been able to hide it, then you're deceiving me and impairing my decision about whether to drive with you.

But I can't very easily say that I'm not consenting to get in the car with you if we are involved in an accident on the basis that I later say indignantly "well, I didn't consent to being in an accident!" Being in an accident is part and parcel of the risk of driving.

I agree that there it is a different case of the woman is intending to get pregnant but the partner does not want it - but human bodies are not simple machines and one doesn't just get pregnant because one wants to. She might have been able to tip the odds in favour of pregnancy in one way or the other, but at the end of the day pregnancy is almost always going to be a risk of sex unless other factors are in play which reduce the risk.

On the other hand, I suppose there is a difference if the woman says she is on the pill. I'm not sure how to deal with that eventuality in the above.

[ 01. May 2017, 06:14: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8349 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As an analogue, I might say that I am consenting to be driven in your car as long as you are not drunk. If you have actually drunk alcohol but have been able to hide it, then you're deceiving me and impairing my decision about whether to drive with you.

But I can't very easily say that I'm not consenting to get in the car with you if we are involved in an accident on the basis that I later say indignantly "well, I didn't consent to being in an accident!" Being in an accident is part and parcel of the risk of driving.

That analogy is actually good support for my argument, if one considers only wanting to be driven by someone sober as analogous to only wanting sex if the woman is on the pill, and an accident as analogous to pregnancy.

Pregnancy/accident isn't guaranteed if the person is lying about being on the pill/sober, but it is made considerably more likely. To the point where consent to participate would be seriously compromised, even if no pregnancy/accident occurs.

Similarly, there's no absolute guarantee that pregnancy/accident won't happen even if the person is telling the truth. But they are sufficiently unlikely that the consent would remain valid even if they happen.

Of course, since we're talking about informed consent it doesn't actually matter if accident/pregnancy occurs or not. The fact remains that one person has conned the other into participating by lying about a key requirement of the other person's consent to participate. And that's not ok.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29666 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I thought it was justice. If it's just consolation then it doesn't matter whom you find guilty and kill, as long as the victim or the victim's family feels consoled. But as I said, it ISN'T a consolation to get AIDS but have the person who gave you AIDS go to jail. How in the hell would that console you? It's a category error.

Afraid I have to confess to not knowing what the fuck you are on about.

The Law is there to protect people the best it can as a deterrent, it cannot stop people being fuckwits in the first place. OK, if there is some new legal definition is needed for jerks de-jonnying mid intercourse then create one.

No one is suggesting locking up every Tom, Dick an Harry willy nilly (pun intended)

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 2865 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


Of course, since we're talking about informed consent it doesn't actually matter if accident/pregnancy occurs or not. The fact remains that one person has conned the other into participating by lying about a key requirement of the other person's consent to participate. And that's not ok.

It may well not be ok, but I don't think it is the same scenario as the one being discussed in the OP.

For one thing, a prophylactic isn't just used to prevent pregnancy, it is also about reducing the spread of STDs. So a man who removes it is exposing the woman to a risk of disease that they hadn't consented to.

A random woman who picks up a random man to have sex with them in order to get pregnant is indeed lying, but I'm not sure there is a legal consequence in terms of the man's responsibility for his resulting progeny. The burden of the pregnancy and bringing up the child is very largely going to fall on the woman.

It is more complex if this happens within a marriage or long-term relationship, and I can imagine that the man would have to take some kind of legal responsibility for any resulting children - but that still seems to me to be a different thing.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8349 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:



A random woman who picks up a random man to have sex with them in order to get pregnant is indeed lying, but I'm not sure there is a legal consequence in terms of the man's responsibility for his resulting progeny. The burden of the pregnancy and bringing up the child is very largely going to fall on the woman.


In America, in most such cases the majority of the financial burden is placed on the government. As part of the government's effort to reduce costs to the taxpayer, the woman is asked to name the father if she can.

He is then given a DNA test and if he does prove to be the father he is responsible for child support and heath care expenses for the next 18 years.

An order to pay child support is enforceable by contempt and failure to pay can mean jail time.

Posts: 6502 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What an odd place the USA must be, that women aren't allowed jobs and earn their own money to support their family, and must be reliant on the state for their every need.

--------------------
Lost in Space

Posts: 8221 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They are allowed to get jobs and earn their own money but childcare is very expensive and often takes almost all that the minimum wage mother earns. Leaving little or no money left over for rent or food.

That's why many unwed mothers find they are better off if they don't get a job and instead let the government subsidize their housing, provide food stamps and medical care that is only available to the low wage or no wage person.

This can often be best for the child since he has his mother at home during those first three years that the childcare experts thinks are most important.

Posts: 6502 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Geez, Twilight, you're making so many unwarranted assumptions here, I'm surprised the weight of them hasn't dragged you inside the event horizon.

--------------------
Lost in Space

Posts: 8221 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Name a few.
Posts: 6502 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:


That's why many unwed mothers find they are better off if they don't get a job and instead let the government subsidize their housing, provide food stamps and medical care that is only available to the low wage or no wage person.

I wonder how many people this paragraph actually applies to; how many mothers have actually sat down and determined that they'd be better off financially by having a child because the state would pay for it.*

I suspect despite the shit that conservatives like to believe, it is actually at or near none.

Yes, there are some who are reckless and there are some who think their lives would be better by having children. But it is very hard to believe there are armies these women, who apparently have insufficient education to enable them to get work to support themselves, somehow magically are able to crunch the numbers to determine that there is a financial benefit in having a child because the state will pay.

Bullshit.

* I don't believe there is any mother anywhere in the USA or UK who is actually better off having a child because they can claim extra benefits unless they're committing fraud. The whole point of the benefits is that it is meant to support the child not the mother.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8349 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Drifting Star

Drifting against the wind
# 12799

 - Posted      Profile for Drifting Star   Email Drifting Star   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:


That's why many unwed mothers find they are better off if they don't get a job and instead let the government subsidize their housing, provide food stamps and medical care that is only available to the low wage or no wage person.

I wonder how many people this paragraph actually applies to; how many mothers have actually sat down and determined that they'd be better off financially by having a child because the state would pay for it.*

That isn't what that paragraph says. It's talking about a calculation AFTER the fact of the pregnancy.

--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus

Posts: 3123 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Even if you argue that -some- women are grifters, this cannot permit treating -all- women that way. Some men are murderers, but we cannot jail them all.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer

Posts: 4608 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

If there's an error in my logic do please feel free to point it out. But note that "if a woman does it its fine but if a man does it its evil, because history and oppression and yadda yadda" isn't a logical error. Not in my logic, anyway.

Solid logic =/= solid conclusion. Making a logical case only ,means you are consistent within the parameters used. Your problem here is one you typically have and that is isolation.
Consent is the condition upon which we judge whether something is rape or not, but rape is about []power[/i].
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Control? Maybe, or maybe it's just a selfish, drunk guy wanting maximum comfort in the moment.

And forcible rape is just about horny men?
quote:

I don't agree that men always have the most control in interpersonal relations.

This isn't about relationships, this is about a behaviour.

quote:

I do think you have hit on why we disagree so much about issues like this. My main concern is usually equality; equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, equal treatment under the law, etc.

As am I. This is why I highlight the massive inequities, not the occasional exceptions.


quote:

On the other hand, I think you want something other than equality and I'm not sure what it is. Greater punishment of the traditional oppressor as a means of compensating for the past? Greater punishment of men because they have the most obnoxious websites?

I really don't understand a position that seems to want to punish one gender or race more than another. Not just because it seems unfair to me, but because it seems unfair to thousands of other people and that just generates more hate and anger.

Wow. Despite our disagreements I have defended you as being of good intention. This statement angers me. Rather than berate you, I will attempt to educate you.
As I have said, I wish for everyone to be on the same playing field. This is not a simple thing. There are massive imbalances and they are systemic.
In order to address this imbalance, one must call attention to it. Politely hoping it will pass will never change things.
You can pick out exceptions, but they do not contradict the overall dynamic.
If you honestly think that all things are equal, then there is no discussion.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 15483 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To my mind, the point here is that ownership influences, and in the case of capitalism destroys, the fairness of the system. If you have all the cards stacked in your favour, it doesn't matter which comes up. The same is true if you have them all stacked against you. The fairness of the card draw is immaterial, and that is what capitalists will not see.

The same is, of course, true of other social systems, such as gender relations, but there is nearly always a clear line between those other systems and economic power.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 1930 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
mark_in_manchester

not waving, but...
# 15978

 - Posted      Profile for mark_in_manchester   Email mark_in_manchester   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
My main concern is usually equality; equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, equal treatment under the law, etc. That's why I bring up similar crimes with the female as the protagonists, not because I'm concerned about the poor man as you imply, but because it helps me try to figure out what we should call this and what I think the punishment should be. (Yes, yes I know, some lawyers have already figured it all out for me and I should just think what they tell me to think, but I like to pretend I can have opinions of my own, even if they are meaningless in the great halls of justice.)

On the other hand, I think you want something other than equality and I'm not sure what it is. Greater punishment of the traditional oppressor as a means of compensating for the past? Greater punishment of men because they have the most obnoxious websites?

I really don't understand a position that seems to want to punish one gender or race more than another. Not just because it seems unfair to me, but because it seems unfair to thousands of other people and that just generates more hate and anger.

I thought this excerpt to be very useful to this discussion, and since it has gone unremarked, I thought I'd remark on it.

Twilight's point about single mothers finding the job market / childcare options sufficiently hostile such that a low-income, low-personal-choice, low-status existence on benefits looks comparatively attractive, also struck me as uncontentious. Last time I looked I wasn't a 'Mail' reader - maybe I need to check again just in case.

--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)

Posts: 1376 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:


That's why many unwed mothers find they are better off if they don't get a job and instead let the government subsidize their housing, provide food stamps and medical care that is only available to the low wage or no wage person.

I wonder how many people this paragraph actually applies to; how many mothers have actually sat down and determined that they'd be better off financially by having a child because the state would pay for it.*

I suspect despite the shit that conservatives like to believe, it is actually at or near none.



As already pointed out Mr. Cheesy my paragraph above was about women who had already had a child, nothing pre-planned about it.

It's odd to me that some of you think such a person doesn't exist. I know many such women and I am very sympathetic to their plight.

Here's how it goes. They get pregnant, they have a baby. They find a daycare which will care for infants (not easy) and they continue with whatever job they've been working all along. Soon they find they can no longer afford to pay the rent because after paying the daycare's weekly cost and buying food, there simply isn't enough left. So out of sheer necessity they have to apply for welfare and quit their job. At no point did they need to sit down and crunch numbers. The empty refrigerator and apartment eviction notice said it for them.

You and some others may live in an ivory tower and never encounter such things but I've worked minimum wage jobs most of my life and watched as many friends and coworkers had to quit working after getting pregnant for just those reasons.

I was married when my son was pre-school age but still only worked part time evening jobs, after my husband was home to care for the child, because I could never have afforded to pay for daycare out of my wages.

I'm not talking about 35 year-old single bank managers with live in help who decide to have babies, I'm talking about the thousands of poor women with only high-school educations who find themselves pregnant and having to make these choices every year. As I said above I approve their choice to live on welfare for their children's pre-school years. America doesn't offer the automatic free health care and free daycare for everyone so this is just our way of getting it when it's needed.

I know lots of women living this way, my husband just finished doing taxes for over a thousand low or no income people as part of his volunteer work at the local food pantry. This is the way many mothers are living in the 21st century and I don't see anything bad about it. At a big Chinese Buffet in town we often see lots of these mothers with their friends and their babies. They are wonderful mothers. Un-stressed by trying to make ends meet on minimum wage, exhausting jobs, they are relaxed, patient and very loving with their children and I think that's the important thing.

I will always think it's best for the child and for the society at large, to get married before having children, but that's just my opinion of the ideal and like most ideals it's not always easy to reach and keep. I didn't manage it. I ended up a single mother myself after getting divorced and had to support myself and my son on my minimum wage bank teller job. I was able to do it without going on welfare, but only because my son was school age by then and we were lucky enough not to get sick.

Posts: 6502 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As already pointed out Mr. Cheesy my paragraph above was about women who had already had a child, nothing pre-planned about it.

But that's not how the conversation went.

mr C.
quote:
A random woman who picks up a random man to have sex with them in order to get pregnant is indeed lying, but I'm not sure there is a legal consequence in terms of the man's responsibility for his resulting progeny.
The woman is deliberately becoming pregnant.

Twilight
quote:
In America, in most such cases the majority of the financial burden is placed on the government.
DocTor
quote:
What an odd place the USA must be, that women aren't allowed jobs and earn their own money to support their family, and must be reliant on the state for their every need.
So, no. I didn't misunderstand you, and neither did mr C. If that's *not* what you meant, then thank you for the clarification. But we were explicitly discussing 'women who deliberately get pregnant' and you jump in with 'they're going to let the state support them'.

Also, in the real world, women do have education, and some of them even have well-paid jobs so that they can support both themselves and their child. And sometimes a husband too, the feckless shirker.

--------------------
Lost in Space

Posts: 8221 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, I'm really losing the plot as to what we're talking about now. I thought I was responding to the point about how/why a woman-who-has-sex-to-have-a-child over the wishes of the man was/wasn't the same as a man who takes off a condom.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8349 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Solid logic =/= solid conclusion. Making a logical case only ,means you are consistent within the parameters used. Your problem here is one you typically have and that is isolation.
Consent is the condition upon which we judge whether something is rape or not, but rape is about power.

So you think there are circumstances where someone can have unconsensual sex with someone else without it being rape?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29666 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You are an idiot

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 15483 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So you think there are circumstances where someone can have unconsensual sex with someone else without it being rape?

Brother and sister, both get very drunk and end up having sex.

If neither have given consent, have they raped each other?

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 8349 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are an idiot

You're the one bringing factors other than consent into the discussion. Surely it's the case that if there needs to be something as well as the absence of consent for an act to be rape then it's possible for an act that only features the absence of consent to not be rape.

Stand by what you said or don't, but don't call me an idiot for pointing out what you're actually saying.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29666 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are an idiot

You're the one bringing factors other than consent into the discussion. Surely it's the case that if there needs to be something as well as the absence of consent for an act to be rape then it's possible for an act that only features the absence of consent to not be rape.

Stand by what you said or don't, but don't call me an idiot for pointing out what you're actually saying.

You are not pointing out what I was saying, you are attempting to reframe the issue.
You truly seem to have comprehension problems. If they are congenital, then I apologise for abusing you for them.
I will lay it out in simple terms, possibly after I decide whether to castigate you or feel compassion for your condition.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 15483 | From: out of the corner of your eye | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As already pointed out Mr. Cheesy my paragraph above was about women who had already had a child, nothing pre-planned about it.

But that's not how the conversation went.

mr C.
quote:
A random woman who picks up a random man to have sex with them in order to get pregnant is indeed lying, but I'm not sure there is a legal consequence in terms of the man's responsibility for his resulting progeny.
The woman is deliberately becoming pregnant.

Twilight
quote:
In America, in most such cases the majority of the financial burden is placed on the government.
DocTor
quote:
What an odd place the USA must be, that women aren't allowed jobs and earn their own money to support their family, and must be reliant on the state for their every need.
So, no. I didn't misunderstand you, and neither did mr C. If that's *not* what you meant, then thank you for the clarification. But we were explicitly discussing 'women who deliberately get pregnant' and you jump in with 'they're going to let the state support them'.

Also, in the real world, women do have education, and some of them even have well-paid jobs so that they can support both themselves and their child. And sometimes a husband too, the feckless shirker.

Wow. Way to take things out of context and making it look like I'm answering one question when an entire other one has been inserted. At first I was only talking about Mr. C's hypothetical woman who deliberately tricked men into getting pregnant and that was who I suggested was probably using the government to raise her children. Then we went on to more general subjects (you and Cheesy weren't the only ones talking) but I did make a point of saying I was not talking about college educated bank managers,but poor ones who needed assistance. What part of that did you not catch that you felt the need to tell me some women had college educations?

What always amazes me in these situations is how eager people like you and Cheesy are to paint me as a conservative. What is that all about? Do I accidentally use some key word that you once read in your so hated Daily Mail? I'm sorry,I read the Dayton Daily News, I'm not responsible for the Mail.

I've been a staunch liberal all my life. I've voted Democrat in every election since 1968. I was a charter member of my local NOW chapter. I've taken part in civil rights marches and anti war marches since 1966. I heard Martin Luther King speak in person. Just because I don't knee jerk left to every single subject that comes up according to the group think doesn't make me a conservative and maybe if you would keep that in mind you wouldn't read every word I say through those prissy Margaret Thatcher detection glasses of yours.

Posts: 6502 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've no intention of painting you as a conservative. Just someone who takes a sudden turn when straight on will do just fine, and leaves the rest of us with whiplash.

--------------------
Lost in Space

Posts: 8221 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools