Well which ones do you agree with, if any?

> One moment please- I just have to go and fetch a bucket.....

Do I detect a hint of hostility to men's desire to have sex with many and young women there?

> Sorry, your version of monogamy still doesn't make sense to me at all.

Do I detect a blank uncomprehenstion of the concept of requiring the guy's consent to hand over his income and equity?

> [primitive domestic scene etc.].... and yes, provide mutual pleasure in the form of sex.

Is there a problem with that?

If both parties agree, no issue arises. The issue, is what happens in they don't?

Peter H. <" It was in the woman’s interest to seek a longer-term relationship, since otherwise she would have to obtain the consent and contribution of multiple men...."

> I am assuming by 'consent' you mean agreeing to have sex with the man?

I mean his consent to contribute to the offspring that she had borne.

Unless the deal is to be that he will undertake to contribute all his income and equity, but she won't undertake to have sex; then it is safe to assume it means agreeing to sex.

Notice how this idea is coming with incredible difficulty to the women in this thread?

> Aren't you making monogamy sound a bit one-sided here?

Aren't you? The woman's consent should be required, but not the man's?

I can't improve on PH on all this I'm afraid, he cuts through the crap just as well as his namesake (David Hume) did; I'm all admiration, Sir!

Pelican,
apologies for not having responded sooner; I've been very busy.

Pelican:
<It is really 'nobody's way' if the child is unwanted. Different if of course both participants in the sexual act agree to raise the child even if living apart.

Both partners don't get it 'their way' as both have financial and practical responsibilities for the raising of the child.>

The obvious reply is; if the man has no say in the matter, why should he pay? The woman still holds all the cards. She was just as dissolute as he was--indeed she waived the condom. So what's wrong with a morning-after pill or an abortion? If she decides, the morning after a random bonk, "Oh, I think I'll have it. And he can pay!", when the night before it was just, "F--- me!", How is that fair?
If it's casual, consensual sex, and the woman decides to go ahead with the unexpected pregnancy, then he's absolved of all responsibility! After all, the man gets no say whatsoever, whereas the woman does as she pleases.
The sad thing about feminism is, it's seething with resentment rather than idealism. The conclusion that women are the ultimate conservatives is compelling.

Dear Squeers,

So, in other words,
it's all the reasonable child can expect is -
if its dad is present at the conception?

And, I take it then that
Australian men think feminism means treating
women as sequels...

Foxy,
sorry for dragging you back; I know you've been trying to quit this thread for a while.
I love kids; I have the most adorable one year old twins, and four other kids, and a wife I adore, and a monogamous relationship. But I'm not blind to injustices, on either side of the gender divide.
In my specific scenario it's simply not fair for the woman to make all the decisions on the father's behalf. If no long-term commitment was agreed to, was even ruled out, and is still, why should the man be subject to the woman's whim or change of heart? If the woman decides on an abortion, the man equally has no say. So far as I'm concerned, if the woman is intent upon enforcing her privilege (it is after all her body), regardless of his wishes, she takes full responsibility. Don't forget there are men who would love to form a monogamous relationship and rear the child with her in these circumstances, but he is subject utterly to her will. Is monogamy only a celebrated institution then when it suits the lady's passing fancy? Monogamy is more like expediency, in that case, than how it's been idyllically portrayed by its defenders in this thread.
There are plenty of mothers, also, who were merely there for the conception!
As for feminism, the only sort I have any respect for (and I have infinite respect for 'it') is that which is intent upon radical reform, and not simply securing a larger portion of the greedy pie. It seems to me that the puerile feminists we're currently stuck with are just men in drag!

*So, in other words,
it's all the reasonable child can expect is -
if its dad is present at the conception?*

Foxy, there are a number of women who have turned
to the baster, to inseminate themselves. How fair
is that on the child? Its not illegal.

PH and Squeers do in fact make some valid points.
IMHO from an ethical point of view, both men and
women should stick to whatever they agreed to in
the first place, whatever that be. But legally women
have indeed won out, they get the choices, men pay
the bills. Clearly women have outmanouvered men on
this one and society accepts it as gospel.

Yes, pairbonding and serial monogomy evolved, but
so did polygamy, for very good reasons, which I don't
think have yet been mentioned.

If we examine various tribal cultures, certainly
amongst the Arab tribes and others, there was
usually a surplus of women, due to men spending
alot of time fighting with other tribes, so widows
were common. There was no pension and no Centrelink,
single women had it tough without a partner who had
died in battle.

So those men who survived taking multiple partners,
indeed had evolutionary benefits. For women there
were benefits too. They had constant female company,
even if they had a "headache", it was not an issue
and they had no threat of desertion by the husband.

So would you share your husband with your best friend,
or let her starve ? Its an interesting question