Personally, I think that adherence to the "if it's not on, it's not on" rule would sort out those men who wish to engage in casual sex without any responsibility for the consequences. It would also deal with the STDs and STIs that tend to also be unwanted consequences of promiscuous sex.

Whatever happened to 'safe sex'?

Pelican:"You mention personal responsibility but put the onus solely on women."

Don't be silly. Peter H has already shown why the responsibility is clearly the woman's unless the man has expressly "opted in" or has somehow compelled her. Your attitude is a hangover from the days when the woman was unable to meaningfully control her fertility or even to understand when she was fertile and when she was not. Women are not always fertile and most women are aware of their cycle. Many women become especially horny around ovulation. Men are unable to detect a woman's cycle (except on the grossest level), especially when perfumes and makeup enter the picture, so they are unable to make an informed decision not to participate on that basis. Women are.

Does that mean that men should "just say no" on the off chance that she's fertile tonight, or does it mean that if she's fertile and doesn't tell them that the men are somewhat absolved of responsibility? Peter H has expressed it well as you know.

Putting things in perspective on the subject of motherhood, the Courier-Mail yesterday published this http://tinyurl.com/26rvygt from the Save the Children mob. It claims: "AUSTRALIA is the second best country in the world to be a mum but it's a different story for children, a new report has revealed.

On the eve of Mother's Day celebrations, the annual Save the Children report places Australian mothers second only to Norway on key economic, education and health scores.

With an average life expectancy of 84 years and an expected average 21 years of formal schooling, it says Australian women are well placed to give their children the best chance of survival, at least by international standards."

No wonder you lot are so keen to defend your "special", protected, responsibility-exempt status...

When is PH publishing his book on the origins of fatherhood? lol
I thought Peter's summary of the sustainability of marriage was a good one - but beyond that, now , I think he's getting carried away ! After all, most of us live in cities - not caves and centrelink free zones.
Are we all in this family of bloggers committed to deterministic gene programming here ? not me! I think its a bit limiting to see physiological pressures as " without a choice component". Lots of Testoterone can do lots of things other than drive a little bit of fun - boys will be boys, but they can be men too --if you remind them of how to be so ! (http://knowlove.blogspot.com ). Adrenalin and anger , the same.
Moving on - The problem we really share,I think, is that we haven't got a easy socially acceptable way to promote marriage anymore . ( monogamy as i said before. was not early civilized mans' focus, family was - still is the proper focus )
I Pity the poor kids in this country who have only "experiment" as the best bet on offer . Tell me, if you have children, if you think thats OK . This careless subscientific talk doesn't even get past first base ( not objective ,too many variables - like this discussion ) If we can learn much from nature, Yabby, spit it out clearly! I am not against observing and learning , but the Animal instint Analogies used over these 33 pages are to my mind too superficial and artificially connected to animals I have little identification with!
If you use all the new and old pressures of environment and sexual diffentiation and diversion, you still end up with too many variables to make "the experiment" or "the speculation" worthwhile.
The result- most experimentation is out of control and leads to one big headache when you try to think about it .
Take a leap and prove the statistical best bet can work.... by working with it. Your children might appreciate it .

Pelican
It *is* an interesting re-write of history, because the history was writ wrong.

Feminist authors in criticising patriarchy have wrongly assumed as without question that under the new liberated dispensation, men would continue to be obliged to provide for their offspring. It never occurred to them that this was the keystone of the arch they were intent on pulling down.

Firstly let’s clear away all the women’s misrepresentations that I am arguing:
• men are only interested in copulation,
• men bonk
• men aren’t interested in relationships, intimacy, family life, marriage, or children;
• women have no interest in sex but for financial gain
• ‘deterministic’, ‘no choice’ etc. The boot is on the other foot.

Please stop arguing by these repeated misrepresentations; and try to address the issue.

Are men equally liable to the consequences of pregnancy?

As a matter of fact, no. If they were, there would be no issue.

The question is, should they be as a matter of morality?

Given that it is not a fact, those who assert the moral value that men should be, need to show reasons. But so far they haven’t done that; they’ve just endlessly argued in a circle that the facts necessitate the values. They don’t, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But if they do, then the same argument is equally available to men.

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose a man’s consent was required. Well, what’s wrong with that? Why should that not be the rule?

What would be the downside if men’s consent was required? Well firstly if a woman wants a man’s contribution she would have to give fair value for it. So? What’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t she have to?

It may be said that the child might be worse off without his contribution. No doubt that’s true, but that is to argue that the value of the man’s contribution is *higher*, not lower; and should be more respected, not less.

No-one is saying women should be solely responsible for looking after children. I am saying that those who want to, those who voluntarily undertake the obligations and the pleasures, have every right to do so - but not a “right” to threaten others for involuntary contributions. The mother doesn’t have to look after the child herself. To say the child would be worse off is to re-affirm the value of men, who should be honoured, not despised therefore.

If the mother has decided to look after the child she can make the living herself; and get help in other ways for example from the grandparents.

But even with all the restrictive occupational licensing these days, there is always one well-paid occupation with flexible hours that needs no licence - a highly valuable service in which women have a peculiar advantage. Why should not the woman earn the money by her own abilities?

It never seems to have occurred to feminist authors that, without the dreaded patriarchy, a woman might placed be in the position she was in *before* patriarchy and its premise of paternal responsibility.

But why not? What’s wrong with that? Aren’t the women in here coyly assuming that men should be forced to pay money, so as to save the women from having to earn the money by providing sexual services to other, more numerous, men? Well what’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t they?

A woman can *consent* to have sex she doesn’t *want*; just as a man can *consent* to do work that he doesn’t *want* to do. The argument of some feminist authors that unwanted sex is rape, is wrong. Unwanted sex that a woman consents to, is no more rape, than men’s ordinary employment is slavery.

No doubt most women thought that, if they were going to providing unwanted but consensual sexual services for supplementary provision, they would be better off doing it for one man, than for many.

The Taoists maintain that “monogamy is mutually injurious”; and *near* monogamy is the human norm. It is bad enough for a man to have to forego the sexual favours of all other possible women, for the familiarity and monotony of one, without being unsure even of that one!

It is not an equal compensation to him, as it is to her, to know that the child is provided for because he, but not she,
a) can beget other children where she can’t, and
b) has a greater interest in casual sex than she does.

Thus men for their part, took care to stipulate for “obey” in the woman’s vows – meaning, have sex when he wants. But this is not because the women is being wronged or oppressed by her agreeing to such an undertaking. It is because, without it, he is!

Thus I maintain that patriarchy was the first feminist revolution.

Feminist authors have mistakenly argued that prostitution was morally despised under patriarchy, because men are so beastly and women so oppressed etc. I maintain that explanation is facile and wrong. Men actually like, and tend to be favourably disposed to women who favour them with their charms. It’s women who most despise and vilify prostitutes, and castigate them as sluts, because under patriarchy the prostitute represents scab labour as against the women’s cartel for driving up the price of sexual services, namely, marriage. That is why prostitutes are called ‘cheap’, even though they earn more than most other women.

Pynchme
> My rationale is just as viable as yours.

Thank you for conceding the general issue. There is no more justification for forcing men to submit to being treated as money objects, than there is to force women to submit to being treated as sex objects.

And I’m not arguing in favour patriarchy mind you. Nor am I arguing that people should be forced to do anything, as the conservatives and as the feminists are. People should be free to do what they want, so long as they are not aggressing against others. What’s wrong with that?