Messages By: lieven

Exactly correct. If women want to tell men who have NO post-coital choices to get snipped, then whats good for the gander is good for the goose, too. 

Plus, this tale ignores that *any* woman in such a situation HAS post coital choices, from abortion, to legal abandon laws and legally adopting out laws, that allow her to do what NO man is legally allowed to do, namely, void her parental status and obligations. 

Any woman who tries to claim " I didn't know he did me ! ", and who then *refuses* to use her legal 

choices, is clear that having the baby is HER CHOICE. Such a person has AbZero basis for later 

complaints.  

Yes, and a 50+% divorce rate ( Over 70% of which are due to women bailing; See Sanford Braver's " Divorced Dads; Shattering The Myths "  ) shows that *they don't work* !

Further, if you hear an S/O use the word " soulmate "... RUN !

Because she has no understanding of men, because she has no commitment to a man, and

because she has AbZero ability to learn from her MS-takes.

Women like her, with their Sex & The City boatload of pathologies and deliberate ignorances,

are why marriages in California dropped 24% between '02 and '04. For more on this, google

" marriage strike ". Men are wising up, and dumping loons like Darcy.

Darc: Do all men a great favour; stay *single*.

As are many loony women like Dacry, like bitterfrau Maureen Dowd ( Whose man hating book

" Are Men Necessary " proves why no man would want a nutter like her ! ), who cannot shut up

about how awful men of money who won't marry her are.

Loons like Darcy ( Who is actually 51 now, and well past her best by date ) are Father Nature's

way to make sure that the pathologically unmarryable don't pass on their busted ass genes.

Now, its not an issue of wanting to " admit " what anyone has done in their lives. Having seven

unconsummated engagements in one's life, whether or not one " admits " to them is the real

pathology. You're quite right that Darcy has NO idea what a loving and committed relationship

is, and clearly she will never learn. Best for all that she stays single, and its good that shes

past childbearing ages. One shudders at such a pathological female passing on her pathology

to progeny.

Forget about " ultimatuming " a guy into marriage. If both of you want to marry, then get married.

If one of you doesn't want to be married, then neither of you should be.

You need to talk with him about what he sees as the reasons he doesn't want to marry you,

and you have to make it utterly safe for him to be honest with you, and you need to NOT argue

his view of the relationship. Its his view, and arguing whether or not hes entitled to his view

will only prove to him that he should not ever marry a person who would deny him his right

to his perspectives.

Far too many modern women penalise men for speaking their honest views. Such women

should never get married. Ever. Period.

This is a perfect example of man hating sexism. Lets consider adding one key point to women's slogan regards abortion: 

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility* ! " 

In an age where women have MANY means to void legal parenthood, POST coitally, it is nothing more and nothing less than man hating sexism to DENY men any such legal rights. 

Lets remember that abortion ISN'T a natural thing, that Legal Abandon Laws ( In 40+ states now ) 

AREN'T natural things, and so on.  

Either men should get legal post coital choices or women should have such post-coital choices 

as men get right now: NONE. 

Anything else is pure misandrous sexism. Ptui. 

Oh, one more point to the sow who posted this sexism: Men do the lion's share of the work that keeps society running. When women are ready to do *as much and as well*, then maybe equal 

rights at work might be tolerated. Hows you like that ? 

Whats really best for a baby ? How about TWO willing parents ? When a single woman " oopsies " a man, her action is *already* going against whats best for the child, so at that point, NO such woman has any standing to pimp out the child for money from someone who never got their own choice to say " No ". 

But, the quoted person's argument is *exactly* the same argument for the banning of abortion. 

Funny how flushing fetuses down drains is OK, but not paying a woman who had the ONLY choice 

to bear a child is evil ? Talk about Double Standards ! 

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility* ". 

If woman demand the right to not suffer any consequences, POST-coitally, including by means that are neither biological nor medical ( See " Legal Abandon Laws ", and " Adopting Out Laws " ), 

then its anti men sexism to deny men the same kinds of legal choice by which to say " no ". 

If " sex is a two way street ", how come the consequences of sex are held ONLY against men ?  

And, how about asking *women* to live up to their responsibilities, too ?  

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility* ". 

You're exactly right. Its sexist to claim that women should only get choices and men only get consequences. That view, in fact, infantalises women, so its really the ultimate not just in 

misandry, but in misogyny, too. 

Granted, men and women cannot be fuly equal in this area, that is, if a man wants a child, he does need to procure a willing woman who wnats to do that with him. That should be the standard for both men and for women, even though women can, biologically speaking, go it alone, after they 

get some sperm. But, as with many other htings, that we can do a thing, does not mean that we should do it. The data on the harms to children of being made deliberately fatherless is massive, 

and unrefutable. If some man hating women say " we don't need men ", then I say back, " fine, 

do so without our sperm and money, too. Thats... consistant ".