Alyssa Milano's Strike

twoton

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
7,865
Media
1
Likes
8,301
Points
268
Location
Mid Atlantic
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't know where to put this. It's not really a Women's Issue, it's not really Politics, or Relationships.

I think Alyssa Milano's idea of a sex strike is based on a couple huge misconceptions (ha ha....pun).

1. That men, being denied sex, will dedicate themselves to the cause simply to have sex again. The unfortunate truth is, guys are pretty well capable of handling the situation when necessary. And as we know from the Ask a Straight Man forum, all men will turn gay in the absence of female sexuality.

2. There are a lot of women who enjoy sex. The denial is going to hit them, too. Especially after hackers release the malware that's going to disable Hitachi Magic Wands on a worldwide scale.

Frankly, I think it's a strike that's not going to get very far. Probably not even as far as Occupy Wall Street did.
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,361
Media
2
Likes
10,359
Points
158
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Abortion. It's politics. More effective than denying sex to men would be to leave newborn babies which are result of these ridiculous heartbeat laws in their carriers on the steps of the state capitols or governor's mansions responsible.

If the government forces women to have babies the government owns those babies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8gatsby

ronin001

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Cammer
Joined
May 16, 2009
Posts
10,295
Media
54
Likes
47,046
Points
618
Location
New York (United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,779
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Abortion. It's politics. More effective than denying sex to men would be to leave newborn babies which are result of these ridiculous heartbeat laws in their carriers on the steps of the state capitols or governor's mansions responsible.

If the government forces women to have babies the government owns those babies.
The only women who'll be forced to have babies will be those who won't have the means or MONEY to get around the laws - like the wealthy and WELL TO DO have ALWAYS DONE... Trump INCLUDED.

The latter will STILL manage to take care of their little "secrets" behind closed doors and with well paid "family doctors" forever at their beck and call... all "wink wink, nod nod, say no more" like.


 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted15807

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,497
Media
0
Likes
14,970
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't know where to put this. It's not really a Women's Issue, it's not really Politics, or Relationships.

I think Alyssa Milano's idea of a sex strike is based on a couple huge misconceptions (ha ha....pun).

1. That men, being denied sex, will dedicate themselves to the cause simply to have sex again. The unfortunate truth is, guys are pretty well capable of handling the situation when necessary. And as we know from the Ask a Straight Man forum, all men will turn gay in the absence of female sexuality.

2. There are a lot of women who enjoy sex. The denial is going to hit them, too. Especially after hackers release the malware that's going to disable Hitachi Magic Wands on a worldwide scale.

Frankly, I think it's a strike that's not going to get very far. Probably not even as far as Occupy Wall Street did.

You could've posted something about the abortion bill, but Alyssa Milano's sex strike is what you found newsworthy?
 

cuckboy

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Posts
281
Media
0
Likes
243
Points
78
Abortion. It's politics. More effective than denying sex to men would be to leave newborn babies which are result of these ridiculous heartbeat laws in their carriers on the steps of the state capitols or governor's mansions responsible.

If the government forces women to have babies the government owns those babies.
It will likely be a taxpayers problem. Just like all the welfare babies we all support.
 

twoton

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
7,865
Media
1
Likes
8,301
Points
268
Location
Mid Atlantic
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
You could've posted something about the abortion bill, but Alyssa Milano's sex strike is what you found newsworthy?

Yes. If I had meant to post about the abortion bill, I would've posted about the abortion bill. There are already several threads about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DiomedesXVI

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think the word strike is wrong...

At the end she demands more or less the same as the church: don't have sex. - in her case "if you can't be sure about your relation" in case of the church "before marriage"

And she is right, more or less. I would say "make sure you don't get pregnant". This should count independent from laws about abortion.


I think the arguement "it's my body and my freedom to desire about my reproduction cycle" only counts partly.
Reproduction includes two people and depending on the argumentation even a third party.

While I agree no one can force a woman to do an abortion and agree with the right for abortion, I disagree with the argument it's the woman's desition only. While the ultimate desition should be with the woman, there still should be consequences.

It definitely is a complex topic.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
My questions are...

1. If a woman wants the abortion, but the man doesn't. Should it be legal to deny an abortion? - doesn't the man has the same right to demand the birth of the child just as the woman?
The problem would be that the woman would have to take care for the child for at least 9 month.

2. If the man doesn't want the child but the woman does, should it be common an that the man has to pay less for the child? - it's been the failure of both that's why the costs and care should be shared. But if one party denies a legal option, why does the other party still has to carry the full 50%?
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,361
Media
2
Likes
10,359
Points
158
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
1. If a woman wants the abortion, but the man doesn't. Should it be legal to deny an abortion? - doesn't the man has the same right to demand the birth of the child just as the woman?
The problem would be that the woman would have to take care for the child for at least 9 month.

No the father doesn't have the right because it's not his body doing the gestating.

2. If the man doesn't want the child but the woman does, should it be common an that the man has to pay less for the child? - it's been the failure of both that's why the costs and care should be shared. But if one party denies a legal option, why does the other party still has to carry the full 50%?

If the father doesn't want the child he should be allowed to sign away all parental rights and responsibilities but only if he and the mother are not married and not a couple. (I knew a few guys who did this long ago when they got casual sex partners pregnant who decided to keep their babies. Legally the fathers could not have any contact with the child unless the mother allowed it.)

If you're a couple and you get your woman pregnant you're on the hook if she wants to keep the child. No court in the land is going to oversee the household budget to make sure a married father and mother pay equally to raise their children based on who wanted them and who didn't.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So since there is no exception for rape I assume the government will foot the bill for the care of the child until the age of 18? Why should a woman be expected to pay for the care of a child she never wanted to make and was forced to have?
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
No the father doesn't have the right because it's not his body doing the gestating.
while I agree, you may notice the discrepancy as, don't you?

It needs two to make a baby, but the desitions about it are with the mother only, the first 9 month.

In total it's more difficult than many want to make it look like.
[/quote]

If the father doesn't want the child he should be allowed to sign away all parental rights and responsibilities but only if he and the mother are not married and not a couple. (I knew a few guys who did this long ago when they got casual sex partners pregnant who decided to keep their babies. Legally the fathers could not have any contact with the child unless the mother allowed it.)
Maybe it should be the way, but it isn't.

Same counts for parental rights for the biological father.

In most nations the father has less rights than the mother.
If you're a couple and you get your woman pregnant you're on the hook if she wants to keep the child. No court in the land is going to oversee the household budget to make sure a married father and mother pay equally to raise their children based on who wanted them and who didn't.[/QUOTE]
Why?
If the husband doesn't want a child, maybe even had a vasectomy, but they get pregnant and the mother keeps the child... what if they divorce, does he has to pay for this child as well?
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,361
Media
2
Likes
10,359
Points
158
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
while I agree, you may notice the discrepancy as, don't you?

It needs two to make a baby, but the desitions about it are with the mother only, the first 9 month.

In total it's more difficult than many want to make it look like.

It's not difficult at all. It takes two to procreate but only one gestates and that sex has the right to decide to carry the pregnancy to term or not because it's her body not his. Not yours. Not mine. Not another woman's.

In many jurisdictions where abortion is legal a woman does not have full choice for all nine months. Here in the US under Roe v Wade the fetus begins to get civil rights at 28 weeks when more than 90% of fetuses survive outside the uterus.

Read Fetal viability - Wikipedia

Why?
If the husband doesn't want a child, maybe even had a vasectomy, but they get pregnant and the mother keeps the child... what if they divorce, does he has to pay for this child as well?

Yes he does if it's his child the court orders it. Child support is family law.

The only form of birth control which is 100% effective is abstinence. Men who want zero risk should not have sex with women.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It's not difficult at all. It takes two to procreate but only one gestates and that sex has the right to decide to carry the pregnancy to term or not because it's her body not his. Not yours. Not mine. Not another woman's.

Yes, it's her body... and she desires about an abortion.
But it still remains complicated because it includes two parties. No matter what.
In many jurisdictions where abortion is legal a woman does not have full choice for all nine months. Here in the US under Roe v Wade the fetus begins to get civil rights at 28 weeks when more than 90% of fetuses survive outside the uterus.

Read Fetal viability - Wikipedia
the reason are health issues and the moral question of "killing" an 8 month old baby ;)
Yes he does if it's his child the court orders it. Child support is family law.
And this creates a problem...
The husband doesn't want a child, the woman refuse to do an abortion.
Why should he care for the child?
The only form of birth control which is 100% effective is abstinence. Men who want zero risk should not have sex with women.
Why?
It's the woman's body.. if they have full control over it, shouldn't they carry the full burden of protection?



If I own a car and refuse to lock it up, it's me who has to pay the costs if it gets stolen...



That's what I think makes it complicated.

If you argue a woman has full control of her body and abortion is legal, you can't argue men have to carry 50% of the consequences.
Sure, it's logical that you can't force a woman to do, or not to do an abortion, but it doesn't has to mean man have to accept it without "compensation".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gj816