Sir (you
must be a sir),
I am a man. I agree with the general spirit of what your suggesting, and I'll commend you on the rather, ahh, "spirited" debate you've started. However, I disagree with your implementation. Bearing this in mind, I will try to step back and look at the whole picture objectively, play "devil's advocate" as it were.
Let's start by breaking down your first point: Should a woman give birth without the consent of the father? No, because a child needs the support of
both parents. The last thing a child needs is to be forced into the situation of having a choice of favorites
demanded of him/her, which would most likely result from such an act. However, should a woman be required by law to sign a contract restricting her from birthing this child? No, because this is not something that should be judged by a court or senator or what have you. Frankly, there are too many insipidly specific laws that should have never seen print as it is. (I admit this is a personal bias. Disregard as you see fit.) So in short, while it should not expressly be illegal to have a man's child without his consent, by all means it should be frowned upon. This is not something a loving, considerate person does, period.
As a sort of intermission, in regards to your "Christians" line; I have yet to meet a Christian that says what you said they say. If anything, they fully admit that people are having sex solely for pleasure, if only because they disapprove of it and want it stopped.
Next point: Double standards. You are free to dislike it all you want, I certainly do, but double standards will never go away. The table is tilted, boyo, the game is rigged, and it was rigged by house and players alike. These double standards are born of basic discrimination, so basic that they are ingrained into the very genetics of humanity; Women are always going to be "weak, delicate victims" that need "protecting", and likewise because men are always going to be "stronger" and "wiser", they are obligated to "protect" the "lesser sex". Double standards are a double-edged sword, however, because both men and women suffer as a result. What if a man in a relationship is being abused, physically, mentally or even sexually? "Don't be absurd, women can't hurt men, they're too weak and dainty. He's probably just making the whole thing up to cover up his own domestic abuse, so let's go ahead and arrest him to be on the safe side." Let's flip it around; What if a man is a loving father and househusband, and genuinely enjoys fillings both roles? "What nonsense is this? A man acting as a woman's slave? You should be out there, bringing home the bacon, like a real man. Good we were here to show you the error of your ways." These are very limited and polar examples, but hopefully I've made my point here. Forcing arbitrary virtues on an entire gender or sex is just as damaging as forcing any other sort of restriction on them. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Unfortunately, there's no real way to litigate that without allowing for the possibility of loophole abuse. This is something that is up to the individual to enforce. "Be the change you want to see" and all that. (Again, this is a personal bias, and I'll understand if it's taken with a grain of salt.)
And dispensing with the spectre of neutrality, I patently disagree with your stance on marriage contracts. They are still very affective, so much so that when the destined 50% of the married populous decides to end it in divorce, the resulting financial fallout fairly destroys the man in the equation, and any steps to defend the poor sod are met with cries of misogyny. Divorce courts will usually side in favor of the woman, the woman will receive alimony payments from the man whether she needs them or not. And if there was a kid by the marriage? Hoo boy. Now the man has to pay child support, may only get to see the kid on the weekends, and remember how I said the child itself is often pressured into taking a side? I'm not just making this up, either; I come from a broken home, and I was made very familiar with the workings of divorce and child custody, whether I wanted it or not. Bringing up children does, however, loop me back around to my next topic, one brought up by those who have replied already, personal responsibility.
To start off, yes, abstinence is in fact the only 100% foolproof method of birth control, so yes, it is an option. However, telling a man to abstain from sex due to personal responsibility, while at the same time telling a woman that she is free to explore and celebrate her sexuality in any manner she sees fit does not strike me as breaking down the lopsided sexual moors of old so much as simply reversing them so that a different sex is being oppressed. The solution? Take personal responsibility, men. Take it and use it to enjoy yourself safely. Choose your partners
carefully; if you don't want to see this woman and yourself dealing with all the child-related drama previously mentioned, choose again. And assuming you do find someone, and the two of you are both mature consenting blah blah blah, buy your own damn protection. Be a little paranoid; If you can't afford a kid, you can't afford to be completely trusting with this woman. If you use condoms, buy them
that night and check the expiration date to make sure that they won't break or that the spermicide is still effective. Granted "condoms break" is like saying "sharks attack," but you wouldn't go snorkeling in a wetsuit made out of ham, so you shouldn't take any chances with your end of the birth control.
And if the woman tells you that she's on the pill, or it's an "off day", (whatever the hell those are) or that there's no way she could get pregnant, so why don't you trust her? HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN WHAT I SAID ABOUT BEING PARANOID?! Word of advice from my dad; "Accidents cause people." Buy the damn condoms. If you don't wanna because you "won't feel anything", imagine if you'll feel the financial burden of supporting another human being for 18+ years, coupled with the very real possibility of slogging it out in courts with that malignant harpy of a baby momma you've stuck yourself with, because I guarantee you'll feel
that. Now, is the onus of responsibility solely the domain of men? Of course not. However, that does not exclude men from taking charge of their own health and financial well-being, and in case somebody's thinking it, I didn't even touch on the possibility that one of you fine breeders might have a disease, or some other gift that keeps on giving. Having common sense is the obligation of any person that dares call themselves an adult, but not being alone in that obligation is no excuse to shuck it off entirely.
Ah yes, one final bit of opinionated natter to round out this horrid wall of text I've inadvertently summoned from the hateful bowels of Hell. Vasectomies. I consider this to be the other end of the birth-control spectrum, just as extreme as abstinence. (Again, my opinion.) And like abstinence, it is an option, one that a comedian named Doug Stanhope has apparently taken and had some success with. Having it demanded of a man that they are required to get one is frankly just as drastic and unfair as telling a woman that she
has to get an abortion.
...
*reads post*
GODDAMN WHY DID I WRITE ALL THAT
Okay, to balance that offensively serious diatribe out a bit, how about I give you a picture I found of some frolicking kitties?
Here you go, friends: