bluesmama wrote:
> Mark Sobolewski wrote:
> > In article ,
> >  "bluesmama"  wrote:
> >
> > > rdubose{at}pdq.net wrote:
> > > > bluesmama wrote:
> > > > > mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > bluesmama wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > A man who does not take responsibility
for his own seed,
> and
> > > > leaves
> > > > > > > that responsibility to someone else,
when he does not
want
> to
> > > > > father
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > child, is stupid. Trust, or lack of
trust, has nothing to
> do
> > > with
> > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But that's what trust _IS_.  It's about
believing someone's
> elses
> > > > > > word that they won't betray you.  It's about
believing in
> their
> > > > > > morality and their abilities.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I'm saying is that responsibility is one thing, and
> "trusting"
> > > > > someone else to take over your own responsibility
and make it
> > > theirs,
> > > > > is something else entirely.
> > > >
> > > >    Let me put it this way. If a person tells another person
that
> they
> > > > can be trusted in a matter ie, "I cannot get pregnant, fire
away"
> she
> > > > certainly has taken on a responsibility for the truth of it.
She
> > > could
> > > > always say "maybe" or "I am not
sure," etc. if that is truer.
She
> > > > chooses in this case to say certain misleading things to get
what
> she
> > > > wants. She is not forced to give false reassurances to the guy.
> > > >    The guy here would not have skirked a responsibility. He
> merely
> > > > would have believed what his "lover" told him.
> > > >    All criminal fraud has these elements. One could, I suppose
> toss
> > > all
> > > > of these laws out because "people should know better than to
> trust
> > > > anybody with anything".     A feminist paradise.
> > > >     Of course, without a good quality video tape it will always
> be
> > > > possible to deny such conversations. But that is a dfferent
> question.
> > >
> > >
> > > Put it whatever way you want. Unless the guy knows for sure that
HE
> is
> > > shooting blanks, he is responsible for his semen and its possible
> > > impregnating effects. The guy here "would not have shirked his
> > > responsibility"? Bullshit. It's his seminal fluid, not hers.
> > >
> > > Should he be able to trust the woman he's sleeping with? Well,
that
> all
> > > depends on the situation. If she's a one night stand he picks up
at
> the
> > > bar, he can probably trust her as much as she trusts him - so
when
> he
> > > says "Hey, I'll call you" as he wipes himself off
and saunters
out
> her
> > > front door, his claim to call is probably just as trustworthy as
> her
> > > claims that "It's okay, I can't get pregnant, don't worry."
> > >
> > > If he does know her and they're in a romantic partnership of some
> kind,
> > > legally recognized or not, then you would hope he could trust
her.
> But,
> > > sadly, people fall in love and sleep with untrustworthy people
> every
> > > day, and most of them don't know it until it's too late.
> > >
> > > You trust someone, you take a risk on your reading of their
> > > trustworthiness. Some people have bad built-in bullshit
detectors.
> > > They're the ones sending their bank information off in e-mails. I
> take
> > > a risk trusting my husband because I believe in him, and I
believe
> in
> > > him because he's proven his trustworthiness to me. I believe that
> he's
> > > worthy of my trust, but then again, I think he's worth more than
> all
> > > the men I've met in my life, except for my father, of course.
> > >
> > > I'm not saying that anyone who trusts is stupid.
> >
> > But that's precisely what you're saying.  Now it's time for
> > you to back out of it:
> >
> > > I AM saying that
> > > Person A who trusts Person B to take care of something that is
> Person
> > > A's responsibility is taking a risk, and has to be responsible
for
> the
> > > choice he or she has made.
> >
> > Unless she dumps off the child legally or uses her to collect
> > welfare.
> >
> > regards,
> > Mark Sobolewski
>
> Do mothers abandon their children as often as men do? I know of more
> absentee Dads than I do absentee Moms.
>
> And as far as welfare goes, the "payoff" isn't all that much compared
> to the effort required in raising a child.
>
> The trust/responsibility thing: we obviously will not see eye to eye
on
> this, so we might as well consider the subject closed, and each
> continue to believe we're right.

   You, hyerdl and other feminists have gone a long way towards
convincing the male readers of this newsgroup that modern women simply
cannot be dealt with on terms on conversation and appeals to reason and
fairness. You guys respond only to brute force and a train load of that
is arriving on the side of the guys in the form of commonplace DNA
paternity testing and effective male BC. Soon enough, women will be
required to negotiate a pregnancy, in advance, with a guy holding an
equal set of cards in his hand.
  In option to  be self supporting will become, for most of them, a
starkly unavoidable fate.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/1/05 5:34:38 PM ---