Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 8/11/2022 6:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2022 10:23 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>>> Micky's usual annoying practice of piggybacking in followup on one
>>>>> person's article to address another person Micky pretends to have kill
>>>>> filed
>>>
>>>>>> Make contraception covered by all insurance plans regardless of employer
>>>>>> or any other circumstance, and that would go a long way towards helping
>>>>>> this along. But there's more to it than that.
>>>
>>>>>> The high incarceration rate of young black males significantly lowers
>>>>>> the male-to-female ratio in some black neighborhoods, which gives a
>>>>>> disproportionate amount of power to dictate the terms of sexual
>>>>>> engagement to the males who are left. Is it really a wise social
>>>>>> situation to give older teen to younger twenty-something males an
>>>>>> outsized say in the use of condoms?
>>>
>>>>> Oh for fuck's sake (appropriate given what we are discussing). Use of
>>>>> contraception is ALWAYS up to the woman! She's the one who might get
>>>>> pregnant, not him!
>>>
>>>>> He refuses to wear a condom? No sex.
>>>
>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>>>> This is based on a survey in _Jet_ magazine or something?
>>>
>>>>>> Half of all unintended pregnancies occur when some form of contraception
>>>>>> was being used.
>>>
>>>>> Not when the condom is used CORRECTLY, like throw out the really really
>>>>> old ones. It's actually a successful form of birth control.
>>>
>>>>> Seriously. If the two would-be lovers are too stupid to operate a condom
>>>>> correctly, don't have sex.
>>>
>>>>> Did you read the article? It actually says this:
>>>
>>>>> There are many reasons that getting pregnant on birth control is
>>>>> possible. The main reason is user error.
>>>
>>>>> Like anything else, birth control must be used correctly to be
>>>>> effective.
>>>
>>>>>> Would the number go down if the other half were using
>>>>>> contraception as well? Sure, but the idea that the total number would
>>>>>> be "negligible" if everyone were using contraception during sex is just
>>>>>> based on some misconception about what's really going on.
>>>
>>>>> The article doesn't state failure rate of properly-used birth
>>>>> control but it sure as hell isn't half.
>>>
>>>>>> https://www.verywellhealth.com/did-my-birth-control-fail-906653
>>>
>>>> I read a forum post from a women who had 3 children. One by using a
>>>> condom, one by using the pill, and one by using an IUD. Finally, she
>>>> either got her tubes tied or her husband got a vasectomy. Sometimes it's
>>>> not just user error.
>>>
>>> I'm not buying the woman's claims, suzeeq. Was it a reasonably fresh
>>
>> She's a reputable regular poster.
>
> She's one of anim's ex's.

Ha ha, but see below.

>
>>> condom, the right size for him, and was he wearing it correctly? Was
>>> she taking the Pill as directed? A woman actually has to take it on a
>>> precise schedule based o the cycle of her periods for it to be effective,
>>> and she still has to wait several weeks after starting the Pill to have
>>> sex so that the medicine stablizes her hormones. An IUD can slip out. It
>>> has to be in place to function.
>>>
>>> Three unintended pregnancies? Three? All with birth control methods that
>>> were used as directed? Unbelieveable.
>>> It does happen.

A girl I went out with (once) in high school, got married in her mid-20s
and pregnant four times by guys other than her husband. She had four
abortions. The last one, she needed a ride home from the clinic, and she
called her mother-in-law. Who mentioned something about it to her son. He
got mad. She was so incensed that he got mad about her getting pregnant by
four different guys during the couple of years she was married to him, she
filed for divorce. He was so incensed that she got mad about him getting
mad about her getting pregnant by four different guys during the couple of
years she was married to him, that he had his dick chopped off and changed
his name to Michele.

I wish I had made up any part of that.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:59:05 +0000 (UTC),
> MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>> That's why I think it's partly misdirection for people to get all
>> stirred up about blaming women and girls for getting pregnant when
>> they could have used contraception. The same people behind the
>> abortion bans are coming for contraception and sex education too.
>
> Perhaps - though I've said before that better contraception education
> could go a long way to reducing the rate.

Hey, I'm all for it, but not as an either/or approach.

> Don't get me wrong - nothing's foolproof but after we had our 3 kids I
> did the deed and never subsequently used a condom. But at that point
> we both were sure that having had 3 kids we weren't contemplating 4.

Also responsible (although on rare occasions, vasectomies can
spontaneously reverse themselves). But the objection is to throwing it
out there as an either/or proposition: that no one should need an
abortion because they should be able to use contraception with a degree
of human error lower than NASA's.

And once again, the same people who came for abortion are coming for all
forms of contraception except abstinence.

-Micky

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:25:36 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:

>> How exactly does that work, DuPree?
>>
>> She tells him he has to use a condom if he wants to have sex with her
>> and he says no, I don't wanna, and she just shrugs and says, well, I
>> tried and goes ahead and does it with him anyway?

There's a problem when it comes to a couple where the woman or girl
thinks she's in a committed relationship, and figures that if a pregancy
comes, it will either be welcomed by both parties, or else they will
seek an abortion together (however difficult that may be). Now, of
course, that can be for any number of reasons, including the female's
delusion about the extent of the male's commitment, or the female's
desire to entrap the male, or bad faith or misdirection on the part of
the male, and/or just plain crossing their fingers and hoping there
will be no pregnancy on the part of both/either party (which at least
anecdotally, seems to top the list).

There are also abusive relationships where the guy says he doesn't want
to use a condom, and the gal thinks that means he's O.K. with a
pregnancy, then he beats her or leaves her when she does get pregnant.
Anouncing a pregnancy/being pregnant is associated with a higher risk of
homicide, and that's before abortion was made illegal in much of the
U.S. From a pro-life source:

"Study: Pregnant women more likely to die by homicide than by
maternal illness"

<https://www.liveaction.org/news/pregnant-women-die-homicide/>

But just accepting or ignoring the risks outright should implicate any
party that does so in the minds of those who seek to morally stigmatize
an abortion that might result. If you know what you're doing might lead
to an abortion, but you do something to make it more likely anyway, how
could you possibly be absolved of being an accessory before the fact?
The most vehement anti-abortion people seem to be trying to stigmatize
unwed pregnancy, at least for white women, a la the 1950s, but not for
the men who knocked them up.

> Or there's the Canadian legal case where the guy knowing how she felt
> about condoms got out a fine needle and sabotaged them.....

How did they manage to prove it? These things, while I'm sure they
happen, can only be incredibly difficult to prosecute.

> I'm not sure about the recent Canadian legal decision that would allow
> separate permissions or non-permissions for sex depending on birth
> control method since if she insists on a condom and it comes off (she
> says "accidentally on purpose" he says "accidentally") the new
> decision would allow a plea of non-consensual sex.
>
> I mean how the heck do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether the
> condom came off accidentally or otherwise? Since there are only two
> witnesses (usually) you quickly get into "he said she said"

My point with the above case. The one way I can think of is that the
guy brags that he did it someplace where there's a record of it
(audio/video recording, or maybe social media). If he keeps his mouth
shut, he's unlikely to suffer legal consequences apart from possible
child support, but if the condom comes off more than once, he runs into
the possibility that his partner will stop relying on that method (and
on him). I guess this is the kind of guy who will try to hop from one
woman to the next.

-Micky

On Aug 23, 2022 at 10:19:02 PM PDT, "Micky DuPree" <Micky DuPree> wrote:

> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:25:36 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>>> How exactly does that work, DuPree?
>>>
>>> She tells him he has to use a condom if he wants to have sex with her
>>> and he says no, I don't wanna, and she just shrugs and says, well, I
>>> tried and goes ahead and does it with him anyway?
>
> There's a problem when it comes to a couple where the woman or girl
> thinks she's in a committed relationship, and figures that if a pregancy
> comes, it will either be welcomed by both parties, or else they will
> seek an abortion together (however difficult that may be).

Then the woman needs to put on her big girl pants and stop assuming things
like that and have an adult discussion with the guy before choosing to have
unprotected sex with him.

And I'll note yet again that you're responding to me despite having claimed to
have killfiled me.

On 8/24/2022 12:53 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2022 at 10:19:02 PM PDT, "Micky DuPree" <Micky DuPree> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:25:36 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> How exactly does that work, DuPree?
>>>>
>>>> She tells him he has to use a condom if he wants to have sex with her
>>>> and he says no, I don't wanna, and she just shrugs and says, well, I
>>>> tried and goes ahead and does it with him anyway?
>>
>> There's a problem when it comes to a couple where the woman or girl
>> thinks she's in a committed relationship, and figures that if a pregancy
>> comes, it will either be welcomed by both parties, or else they will
>> seek an abortion together (however difficult that may be).
>
> Then the woman needs to put on her big girl pants and stop assuming things
> like that and have an adult discussion with the guy before choosing to have
> unprotected sex with him.
>
> And I'll note yet again that you're responding to me despite having claimed to
> have killfiled me.

Wow, that is damning. Is your way better then? Act like a eunuch 99%
of the time and then the other 1% put on your "big boy pants" without
shatting yourself and respond to me? How the motherfuck is anyone
supposed to take you seriously?

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 04:22:51 +0000 (UTC),
MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>Also responsible (although on rare occasions, vasectomies can
>spontaneously reverse themselves). But the objection is to throwing it
>out there as an either/or proposition: that no one should need an
>abortion because they should be able to use contraception with a degree
>of human error lower than NASA's.
>
>And once again, the same people who came for abortion are coming for all
>forms of contraception except abstinence.

All I'm saying is 'use your brain before you use your privates'.

Before I was married I was briefly involved with someone and we were
D***ED lucky we didn't end up in an 18 year relationship given the
stupid chances we took. By the time I married milady and I were much
more clued and had the kids we wanted then took steps.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 05:53:34 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Aug 23, 2022 at 10:19:02 PM PDT, "Micky DuPree" <Micky DuPree> wrote:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:25:36 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> How exactly does that work, DuPree?
>>>>
>>>> She tells him he has to use a condom if he wants to have sex with her
>>>> and he says no, I don't wanna, and she just shrugs and says, well, I
>>>> tried and goes ahead and does it with him anyway?
>>
>> There's a problem when it comes to a couple where the woman or girl
>> thinks she's in a committed relationship, and figures that if a pregancy
>> comes, it will either be welcomed by both parties, or else they will
>> seek an abortion together (however difficult that may be).
>
>Then the woman needs to put on her big girl pants and stop assuming things
>like that and have an adult discussion with the guy before choosing to have
>unprotected sex with him.
>
>And I'll note yet again that you're responding to me despite having claimed to
>have killfiled me.
>
What I'm concerned about are a couple of recent Canadian court cases
where courts have differentiated sexual consent and imputing rape as a
result.

Because in cases of consent there are only two witnesses (usually) and
while some cases are crystal clear, the chances of fuzziness where "I
agreed to A but not to B" is claimed makes the chances of an unjust
imprisonment much higher.

In the case where the guy sabotaged the condom that was easier since
police found 20-30 holes in it - but if the flaw in the condom is
argued where one says it's sabotage the other accidental where does
the judge rule when the errors are either an unjust acquittal or an
unjust imprisonment of 10 or more years?

On Aug 24, 2022 at 8:53:17 AM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 05:53:34 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 23, 2022 at 10:19:02 PM PDT, "Micky DuPree" <Micky DuPree> wrote:
>>
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:25:36 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How exactly does that work, DuPree?
>>>>>
>>>>> She tells him he has to use a condom if he wants to have sex with her
>>>>> and he says no, I don't wanna, and she just shrugs and says, well, I
>>>>> tried and goes ahead and does it with him anyway?
>>>
>>> There's a problem when it comes to a couple where the woman or girl
>>> thinks she's in a committed relationship, and figures that if a pregancy
>>> comes, it will either be welcomed by both parties, or else they will
>>> seek an abortion together (however difficult that may be).
>>
>> Then the woman needs to put on her big girl pants and stop assuming things
>> like that and have an adult discussion with the guy before choosing to have
>> unprotected sex with him.
>>
>> And I'll note yet again that you're responding to me despite having claimed
>> to
>> have killfiled me.
>>
> What I'm concerned about are a couple of recent Canadian court cases
> where courts have differentiated sexual consent and imputing rape as a
> result.
>
> Because in cases of consent there are only two witnesses (usually) and
> while some cases are crystal clear, the chances of fuzziness where "I
> agreed to A but not to B" is claimed makes the chances of an unjust
> imprisonment much higher.
>
> In the case where the guy sabotaged the condom that was easier since
> police found 20-30 holes in it

I'm trying to imagine how this happened. Did she stop in the middle of sex and
start inspecting the condom, then called the cops, who arrived and took the
condom into custody for inspection?

Otherwise, it seems like the condom and all the evidence of tampering would
just be flushed down the commode minutes after the sex was over.

On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:40:27 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>I'm trying to imagine how this happened. Did she stop in the middle of sex and
>start inspecting the condom, then called the cops, who arrived and took the
>condom into custody for inspection?
>
>Otherwise, it seems like the condom and all the evidence of tampering would
>just be flushed down the commode minutes after the sex was over.

Not knowing the lady in question I have no idea what triggered her
suspicion or for that matter what happened to the condom after the
fact.

Not having been with a wide variety of partners I don't really know
the typical way of how people handle them after the fact or how wide a
range of options go with these things as it were.

It's not a conversation one has comparing notes over coffee at the
office that's for sure!

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> writes:

> On 8/10/2022 10:23 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>> Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:

>> Micky's usual annoying practice of piggybacking in followup on one
>> person's article to address another person Micky pretends to have
>> kill filed

"whine whine whine, surely everyone is as obsessed with me and the
newsgroup as I am with them."

>> Oh for fuck's sake (appropriate given what we are discussing). Use of
>> contraception is ALWAYS up to the woman! She's the one who might get
>> pregnant, not him!
>>
>> He refuses to wear a condom? No sex.

There are lots of reasons that I went into elsewhere why a woman might
feel either comfortable with the idea of getting pregnant with a partner
until he surprises her by balking at a pregnancy, or else fearful at
telling him no to sex.

And there are all sorts of men who seem to feel just fine about morally
condemning women for having premarital sex or unprotected sex because it
could lead to abortions, but don't feel at all like condemning men for
having unprotected sex themselves. Don't want to help start the process
that could lead to an abortion (or even to the death of your partner)?
Don't have unprotected sex.

>> Did you read the article?

Sure.

>> It actually says this:
>>
>> There are many reasons that getting pregnant on birth control
>> is possible. The main reason is user error.
>>
>> Like anything else, birth control must be used correctly to be
>> effective.

Of course. And I'm all for both more and better sex education that
emphasizes using contraception correctly and consistently. But I also
know that anything that involves humans is going to have human error
either in the short run or the long run. NASA has triple redundancy in
its systems because shit happens, but I don't expect that we're going to
get humans to use three forms of contraception at once.

There are just a lot of misconceptions going on, both out and about in
the real world (some of the Republican legislators have come up with
some real doozies), and right here on this newsgroup.

> I read a forum post from a women who had 3 children. One by using a
> condom, one by using the pill, and one by using an IUD. Finally, she
> either got her tubes tied or her husband got a vasectomy. Sometimes
> it's not just user error.

I knew two medical doctors who were married to each other, and who were
believers in zero population growth. They didn't believe in abortion,
and two out of their three eventual children were due to contraception
failure. He finally got a vasectomy.

But even when it is user error, that's no reason why a woman shouldn't
be able to get an abortion. I'm all for more and better sex education,
and more and cheaper contraception. But at the end of the day,
providing those things leads only to fewer abortions, not to *zero*
abortions. And I'm not in favor of lecturing women and girls about
whether or not they met some third party's criteria for trying hard
enough or correctly enough not to get pregnant to begin with. Some
European countries are miles ahead of us on this. Wagging fingers in
females' faces about using contraception better or even at all misses
the political point that the anti-abortionists at the forefront of the
movement are also anti-contraception and in favor of abstinence-only sex
ed. Any heterosexual men who aren't in favor of abstinence only should
get on board with making sex less stressful for women, not more.

-Micky

Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:
>>On 8/10/2022 10:23 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Micky DuPree <MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply> wrote:

>>>Micky's usual annoying practice of piggybacking in followup on one
>>>person's article to address another person Micky pretends to have
>>>kill filed

>"whine whine whine, surely everyone is as obsessed with me and the
>newsgroup as I am with them."

I'm addressing Micky. I know she's reading what I write despite
pretending to have kill filed me.

Your followup was to Rhino and not to me, but nice try at a clever put
down.

>>>Oh for fuck's sake (appropriate given what we are discussing). Use of
>>>contraception is ALWAYS up to the woman! She's the one who might get
>>>pregnant, not him!

>>>He refuses to wear a condom? No sex.

>There are lots of reasons that I went into elsewhere why a woman might
>feel either comfortable with the idea of getting pregnant with a partner
>until he surprises her by balking at a pregnancy, or else fearful at
>telling him no to sex.

"Reasons"

Those are two different scenarios but both involve failure to communicate.
With regard to child bearing and nursing, biology discriminates against
the woman. She can get pregnant; he can't. It's up to her, therefore, to
make sure both of them use birth control to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

In your objection,

1) A man and woman have sex. Both know the other isn't using any form of
protection. Because REASONS, she won't discuss with him the possibility
that a pregnancy will result. She may want a child with him but she has
no idea if he wants a child with her.

But let's get drunk and have sex.

2) She's afraid of him and won't talk to him honestly. He's NOT boyfriend
material and would NOT make a good husband. She may feel trapped but
short of being physically restrained, she's not actually trapped. She's
an adult and can therefore act in her own interest.

As she hasn't yet become pregnant by him, she's in a far better position
to leave than if she does becomes pregnant.

But she stays, knowing it's the wrong thing to do, and becomes pregnant.
Her choice.

>And there are all sorts of men who seem to feel just fine about morally
>condemning women for having premarital sex or unprotected sex because it
>could lead to abortions, but don't feel at all like condemning men for
>having unprotected sex themselves. Don't want to help start the process
>that could lead to an abortion (or even to the death of your partner)?
>Don't have unprotected sex.

Ok. There are no shortage of WOMEN who condemn other women for having
had premarital sex as well. Women absolutely do not have the higher moral
ground here. The church lady stereotype, after all, is a highly judgmental
woman who doesn't follow Christian values herself given that she condemns
those whom she accuses of moral failings.

>>>Did you read the article?

>Sure.

>>>It actually says this:

>>> There are many reasons that getting pregnant on birth control
>>> is possible. The main reason is user error.

>>>Like anything else, birth control must be used correctly to be
>>>effective.

>Of course. And I'm all for both more and better sex education that
>emphasizes using contraception correctly and consistently. But I also
>know that anything that involves humans is going to have human error
>either in the short run or the long run. NASA has triple redundancy in
>its systems because shit happens, but I don't expect that we're going to
>get humans to use three forms of contraception at once.

Ok.

>There are just a lot of misconceptions going on,

Hahahahahahahaha

>both out and about in the real world (some of the Republican legislators
>have come up with some real doozies), and right here on this newsgroup.

>>. . .