The rule should be that all exchanges and transactions must be voluntary. There should be no payments without consent, just as there should be no sex without consent. This would answer the legitimate interests of men and women in equality and liberty, without trespassing on the valid rights of either.

If this were the rule, the result would be that women would tend, before agreeing to sex, either
a) to make sure that they had evidence of the man’s agreeing to contribute to the cost of any offspring, or
b) to obtain sufficient consideration.

But if a woman chooses to have sex without doing that, that’s entirely her right, I don’t morally condemn her for it, and on the contrary, I hope I meet more women like that.

There is not the slightest reason of morality or public policy why anyone should be forced to pay contributions to the support of a child, which a woman has had as a result of agreeing to have sex without the most obvious prudential consideration. All politicians have created two classes, those who do not take responsibility for their own reproductive behaviour, and live by parasiting those who do and are forced to pay for them.

Women have everything they need to get child support, and it’s right between their legs. The idea that they should not have to resort to this method of raising the funds, is entirely a product of the patriarchy which western women have hotly decried, abolishing its legal obligations on women, while re-doubling the enforcement of its legal obligations against men.

Pelican, I don't know who has been feeding you rubbish on biology, but it is rubbish, even if it is the common wisdom.

I have breed stud horses, & cattle. This requires the males & females to be kept seperate, & only be brought to gether for the breading.

I have never had a stalion, or bull break out to get to the mares or cows. I have had numerous instances of the horny [excuse the pun] female, moving heaven & earth to get to the male.

When you introduce a mare & a stalion together, a little too early. A mare, who is not ready will sometimes be quite viscous. It can be quite funny to see the look on a stalions face, when the mare, who was trying to kick his head off yesterday, is all over him, like a rash, today. He wants to oblige her, but he's not quite game.

He had better learn damn quick, that once she has what she wanted, & is in foal, it's head kicking time again, as I don't think there is anything more vulnerable than a stalion mounting a mare.

Then look at the bird world, where the male has to build mounds, bowers a & other such things, then display like a loon, just to get a lady to so much as look at him.

So Pelican, what ever they have been telling you is a load of old bull, & it's not much different in our world in my experience. Just look at the number of blokes who thought they were happily married, & can't believe it, when she suddenly ups & leaves. It can be with the boy friend he knew nothing about, or simply because she prefers his money & space, to his company.

Hasbeen
You begin by telling me that biology is rubbish then go on to defend that stance by talking about the biology of horses and birds.

Animal species all have unique characteristics - I would not say human beings match up with your examples. For example, it is usually the women that get made up with eye make up and colours (like the male of a bird species) to attract a mate.

I just dispute your view that it is women who are predominantly unfaithful. That is all.

Gender wars aside the best adage is as Foxy said "Don't argue about what a good partner is. Be One!"

Peter Hume - Every time that two people have sex they know that a baby may result.

Even when birth control methods are used a pregnancy is still possible.

An unwanted result already has greater burden for the female in the 9 month pregnancy, pain of birth, risk of death or deformity and disruptions to earning capacity and future relationships. She shouldn't have to manage the financial burden alone as well, though many do.

Therefore any intelligent and morally responsible male should proceed as if the act might result in many years of shared responsibility for a child's welfare. A male's responsibility involves more than operating his zipper. He can help avoid an unwanted outcome by using a condom or (unthinkable I know) not having sex in the first place or being very selective about the women with whom he chooses to have sex.

You can help alleviate what you perceive as the victimization of males who are merely captives of their hormones, by promoting the further development of male contraceptives:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/

You might also question why Viagra has attracted billions in funding as a priority to the development of male contraception. My guess is that there is a market for old blokes wanting boners, over any one even considering additional ways that men can avoid contributing to unwanted pregnancies.

You might also question why, in the US at least, health insurance covers Viagra but not female contraception.

Here's a laugh, especially in the comments section:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBm3FMDM8aE&NR=1

CJ is right.
There is an obesity of literature from the time before written history.
Unreconstructed archaeological anachronisms have unearthed the veritable libraries of the patriarch Pissedoffanes himself.
These substantiate men’s anxiety over paternity since before man evolved.
Ethnographic legerdemain has revealed these cultural tropisms, for those who can be bothered consulting their psychics.

Well put Pynchme. All transactions should be voluntary but there should be shared responsibility.