Morganzola
"One reason for men to use contraception is when women refuse to have sex with them unless they do."

In that case there is no issue - literally.

However if they do agree then there is no issue that, in suzieonline's words, they have more to lose which is only stating the obvious. In fact they have *much* more to lose - in proportion as a baby is more than a sperm.

By agreeing to unprotected sex, a woman agrees to the risk of pregnancy. She doesn't have to carry the child to term if she doesn't want, and if she does, she doesn't have to care for it herself, and if she does, she doesn't have hold the child to ransom for her unwillingness to obtain support by providing services that she doesn't feel like providing, but if she does, she doesn't have to rely on help from the father, and if she does, she doesn't have to refuse to provide adequate consideration for his support.

If having passed through all those decision gates she decides to keep the child, but cannot provide adequate care for it, then the ordinary law of child protection from neglect applies.

By agreeing to unprotected sex, and therefore to the risk of the *the woman* getting pregnant, a man does not thereby agree to pay anyone for anything - any more than you agree to pay anyone for anything if he has unprotected sex!

Women are not "damned if they do, damned if they don't". I'm all in favour of women spreading their legs. Their reward is in the pleasure they receive; it does not convert into a general meal ticket o risible notion!

Legitimacy of children is a necessary device to protect the human rights of men by requiring their consent, just as the law against rape is necessary to protect the human rights of women by requiring their consent.

The feminists are just arguing for a double standard, as usual, by which women have the advantages of patriarchy and the advantages of feminism, and men have the disadvantages of both.

Surely when two people have sex both parties are aware of the risk of pregnancy? The fact women get pregnant has nothing to do with the pregnancy awareness level of the two parties going into a consensual arrangement.

For the man's part the risk might be exacerbated if the woman lies about contraception and he goes ahead believing it is safe. Also if the contraception fails who is responsible?

I can see why men might feel trapped by accidental pregnancy but so do women but they just get on and do what has to be done. Having a child is afterall a joyous moment but hard work. Some women don't see abortion or adoption as an option and the fact is there is a child to be raised in the best possible surrounds as is achievable under the circumstances.

Personally I would rather raise a child alone than have a deadbeat dad around or one that has no interest in the welfare of their progeny, but that is not the popular view. And what about the rights of the child to know about their heritage and their father?

Yabby your argument about women and money is wearing a bit thin (like some of those cheaply made condoms). Women and men both seek security in their relationships both monetarily and psychologically.

Women who marry just for money and those men who desire a trophy wife get what they deserve for the most part, and maybe for some it works.

That is not for the majority of women I am acquainted with who prefer substance over feathers and flummery anyday.

All the money in the world could not induce me to sleep with Donald Trump and his like. Give me a solid man with principles anyday. Principles and substance are the greatest lubricant around.

*That is not for the majority of women I am acquainted with*

Ah Pelican, you make that crucial mistake of perception, which so
many do. Has it ever occured to you that your friends are your
friends, because they think much as you do? Suddenly you want
to extrapolate that onto billions of women. Sorry, it won't wash,
look at the reality around the globe.

Especially in countries where poverty is an issue, money remains
the number 1 driver, when it comes to marriage.

An interesting comment that I heard about this royal wedding.
When the palace decided on which university that William would
attend, apparently the intake of female students increased by
40%.

You Pelican, speak for Pelican, not for women in general.

The evidence from around the globe is clear

WHY ARE THERE SO FEW UNMARRIED MOTHERS IN JAPAN?

>>Yoshiko found she was pregnant and talked to her live-in lover about what they should do. His attitude was not exactly out of the PC book of ‘The Right Things To Say When Your Girlfriend Says She Is Pregnant’.

He said he was prepared to marry her as long as she accepted that she would have to carry on with her full-time job; she must also care for the child and, for good measure, do all the housework. Just to make it crystal clear, he added, ‘I won’t help’ and ‘I like my life as it is.’ It is worth mentioning, too, that the man only had a part-time job and they lived on the higher earnings of Yoshiko.

In Britain, you can imagine this chap would get a rocket-fuelled response. Yoshiko would have found it easier to manage on her own than to marry this bum. But what was her reaction? She jumped at the chance of marrying him. Why?

Because, like most young Japanese women, she really and truly wanted to avoid becoming an unmarried mother. It is a complete no-no. All around the ‘advanced’ world, births outside marriage have grown astonishingly in the past 40 years. But not in Japan. Here in Britain, 46 per cent of all births are outside marriage. In America it is 41 per cent and in France 54 per cent. In Japan, the figure barely scrapes above 2 per cent.>>

See: Legitimate question:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/6827388/legitimate-question.thtml

AN UNMARRIED MOTHER IN BRITAIN

This case is not comparable with the situation in China and Japan. Essma Marjam was married at the time she conceived her children. Still the piece does raise some interesting question:

>>A single mother-of-six is getting more than £80,000 a year from the taxpayer to live in a £2million mansion in an exclusive London suburb.

Essma Marjam, 34, is given almost £7,000 a month in housing benefits to pay the rent on the five-bedroom villa just yards from Sir Paul McCartney's house and Lord's cricket ground.

She also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, such as child benefit, to help look after her children, aged from five months to 14.

[…]

Miss Marjam said: 'I moved here at the beginning of the month as I'm ENTITLED to a five-bedroom house.

[…]

'I'm separated from my husband. He's a solicitor in Derby, but I don't know if he's working at the moment. HE DOESN'T PAY ANYTHING TOWARDS THE KIDS. Things are quite difficult between us>>

(capitalisations added)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250993/Single-mum-finds-mansion-net-gets-YOU-pay-7-000-month-rent.html#ixzz0fd7d7B54

For me two points stand out:

--ENTITLED to a five-bedroom house?

--HE DOESN'T PAY ANYTHING TOWARDS THE KIDS? (Remember, they were married. This was presumably no "accident")

Would Essma Marjam be able to afford this lifestyle if she was not separated from her husband?

An interesting article in the Spectator, Steven. It highlights
that Asians are far more pragmatic when it comes to abortion,
then is the case in our society.

What it also shows is that evolution theory is alive and well.
Females need resources to provide for their offspring and if
marriage won't provide it, then being married to the Govt is
an acceptable option in our society, so people take it.

I once saw a documentary about the world's largest familes. One
was a Catholic family living in Spain, with 17 kids. The Govt
was largely picking up the tab. Another was an old bloke with one
leg in Bahrain, IIRC, who claimed fathership to 86 children, spread
amongst many women. Petrodollars were paying the bill.

This all goes back to why pairbonding evolved in the first place.