Feminists agree, at least in theory, that women MUST face the consequences of deciding to have sex. No abortion, no adoption, no safe havens. And if you don’t like it, then close your legs, you whores!

15 Jun

First up, apologies to real, actual whores, who are experts in preventing pregnancies and STDs.  If, after reading this post, you lads decide to never get within ten feet of a reproductively capable woman, always keep in mind that professional ladies are there, and they are fair!  They know what they are doing, in every way that counts.  Pleasure? Check.  Pregnancy? Er, nope.  STDs?  Not likely.  You’ll need to hit up a group of middle aged swingers if you want one of those.


College girls will also deliver for you on the oozing dick front.



Do NOT be afraid to trust your average escort, gentlemen.  Know why? Because they’re PROFESSIONALS, that’s why. Screw this Alpha – Beta shit.  Be a John.  Paying a fine beats 18 years of child support, no? I’m being a bit facetious, I know.  The consequences can be much more severe, but it’s worth checking just what they are in your particular jurisdiction and weigh those against the consequences of an unintended pregnancy with your local herd of ladies.


Let’s start with a definition:




The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.


We’ll keep that definition in mind as we go along.

In the New York Times this past week, Professor Laurie Schrage wants to know if forced fatherhood is a philosophically defensible position, given that reproductive autonomy and equality are such touchstone issues for feminism.  Is it fair to force men to become fathers of children they do not want and did not intend when culturally, we have agreed, that it is unacceptable to force women into such a position?

If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.


The responses at the NYT to Schrage’s question fall into three main camps:


1.  We don’t have complete and utter reproductive freedom for women, so none of this applies!  Ladies are still not allowed to waltz into clinics and abort the day before they’re due, so none of this applies anyways, lalalalalalala I can’t hear you.


Don’t think this issue can adequately be approached until all women have the right to end their pregnancy in a safe manner at a respectable facility. Until then discussing men’s rights confuses the issue.


2.  If you don’t want babies, don’t have sex, you man-whores!


Men have the ultimate control over pregnancy and fatherhood. They’ve always had it. Keep your sperm out of women’s vaginas. Period. End of story. Historically, men have always been able to walk away from parental responsibility. Now they can’t. Tough noogies. It’s not forced anything. They just have to choose to be responsible a little earlier.


3.  If you consent to sex, you consent to all the possible outcomes of sex.

CherylLake County, IL

“In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent, just as in consenting to any activity, one does not consent to yield to all the accidental outcomes that might flow from that activity.”

I beg to disagree. That is EXACTLY what consenting to sex means.

You don’t get on an airplane expecting it to crash, but you are giving implied consent to that possibility by stepping on the plane. It implies you are willing to accept the risk of undertaking that action. If you can’t accept that risk, or the consequences are too great, you don’t fly.

When you have sex, you know that a pregnancy is a possible outcome, even with birth control. If you don’t want to take that risk, you don’t have sex! If you ignore that possibility, have sex and it results in a pregnancy, that’s the chance you took.

Pretty much the exact arguments come up at Jezebel:


DuchessOfDorkUMeher Ahmad671L




Thank you


Let’s take all this at face value.  Okay, we agree 100%.  If you have sex, you are required to face the consequences, no matter what your personal preferences.

Let’s start with reproductive freedom.  Women don’t have unlimited, completely untrammeled rights to destroy the child within their body at whim.  There are some very good reasons for that, but leaving all that aside, let’s take a look at what opportunities men have to control the reproductive tissues of their own bodies.

In other words, male birth control.  Men have basically two choices:




With proper knowledge and application technique—and use at every act of intercourse—women whose partners use male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate with perfect use and a 15% per-year pregnancy rate with typical use


Look at that statement carefully.  Even when we discuss men’s birth control, men’s bodies, men protecting themselves against the consequences of pregnancy, the whole argument is framed in terms of women.  WTF?  How fucking hard is it to write MEN using condoms  have female partners  who experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate with perfect use and a 15% per-year pregnancy rate with typical use.


Vasectomy, which is a surgical procedure involving a scalpel applied to men’s bodies (which birth control method for women involves a scalpel, again?), and which is only reversible at significant expense, still has a failure rate of 1 in 100!



So if a man doesn’t care to have children with YOU, he should get sterilized and never have any children ever?  Oh, right.  That seems fair.  How about we cut women’s fallopian tubes? Perfectly reasonable measure, no?

The reality is that no matter how careful, no matter how responsible, no matter how diligent and conscientious a man is about birth control, failure is possible.  If we are waiting for conditions to be absolutely perfect before we discuss a particular topic, we will wait forever.

And isn’t that the point of argument one?  I refuse to deal with this issue.  No way.  Not talking. I can’t tackle the actual argument, so I’m just going to pretend you aren’t here.


Preposterous.  Fraught conversations still need to take place.  Welcome to being a grown-up.

Argument number two is actually completely hilarious, and it stuns me that anyone, but feminists in particular, would give it a spin.

If you don’t want a child, don’t have sex?


Okie-dokie, whores.  Turnabout is fair play.  If men are REQUIRED by law to face the music, then so are you.  And the argument that women’s bodies are sacrosanct and pregnancy is asymmetrical is nothing more than sophistry.  Turning over a significant portion of your income to a woman who may or may not use that income to provide for a child you did not intend and do not want has a dramatic impact on the well-being of the man required to make remittance, particularly when that man is already poor!


Indeed, Scrage quotes another Professor, Elizabeth Brake, who has precisely that point to make, and she chimed in at the NYT with the following comment:


Elizabeth BrakeTempe, AZNYT Pick

My article, which Prof. Shrage cites, doesn’t argue against legal child support but against one reason often given for it. The political point is that “a just law of child support … must be responsive to the economic situation of individual fathers.”

Women who are pregnant unintentionally have a few choices to mitigate against the consequences of bearing a child:  abortion, adoption, legal surrender.  Women are permitted to end the potential child’s life, and from 1973 to 2008, more than 50 million potential children were destroyed in the United States.


Unsurprisingly, the rate of adoption declined dramatically once abortion became a viable option.  Nevertheless, in 2000, the US Census found that more than 2 million children were identified as “adopted”.



Safe haven laws, which allow WOMEN to legally surrender all parental rights with no obligations and no subsequent responsibilities are in effect in all 50 states.


If we are going to have EQUAL reproductive rights for men and women, then all these options are EITHER available to BOTH men and women, or to NEITHER.  How would that work, in practical application?

Men can’t physically be pregnant.  Are we going to allow men to force women to abort children on the basis of genetic relationship?  That seems like a pretty scary proposition, although from a philosophical point of view, why not?  If you are going to be held  legally responsible for any humans containing your DNA, why should you not be able to force an abortion?  It’s your DNA.  You own it.  The Supreme Court recently ruled that human DNA cannot be patented. It belongs to the individual person, and if you do NOT consent to that DNA being deployed in the creation of another human, you should have the right to have the person terminated, within the limitations of the law, no?



Unfortunately, the potential human on the butcher’s block is a combination of DNA, and there is an unavoidable King Solomon’s dilemma.  In the name of equality, neither the mother nor the father can unilaterally decide if the child lives or dies.  That takes abortion as an option off the table, unless both DNA contributors consent.

So men cannot force women to abort, but neither can women abort a child the father wishes to keep.  Fair is fair.  If he can’t force you to bear his biological offspring when you do not wish to, then you cannot destroy offspring for whom he is prepared to accept full responsibility.

Father Cradling Newborn Baby In Hospital

Oh dear.  That kind of equality sucks, now doesn’t it.  But remember ladies, if you don’t want to have a baby, don’t have sex, you sluts!

The same must be true for adoption:  you cannot surrender a child for adoption without the father’s consent.  That is already technically true, but there is a way around that for women: don’t identify the father.


In some cases, the women genuinely does NOT know the identity of the father.  This is particularly true in cases of rape.  But there is little point in making an exception for rape, since all that will happen is that women will claim they were raped.  Unverifiable.  A child cannot be aborted or adopted without the consent of the biological father, no matter what the circumstances of conception.  Full stop.

Oh, boo hoo!  This reproductive equality thing is looking worse and worse.

Needless to say, safe haven laws must apply equally to both men and women, as well.  If a woman cannot identify the father, or does not have the consent of the father to surrender the baby, she is guilty of criminal abandonment and should face the full legal consequences of her actions.

Now here is where the argument gets interesting:  safe haven laws are designed to keep women from strangling their newborns and tossing them in the trash.

Supporters of safe-haven laws claim that the laws save lives by encouraging parents to surrender infants safely instead of aborting, killing, or discarding them.


Cute that Wikipedia uses the word “parents”, when they really mean “mothers”.


Women who have a an actual, physical, living, breathing completely separate human being who DO NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY of caring for that human being are entitled to surrender all legal obligations towards that human and simply walk away.

Accidents happen. Mistakes occur.  Unintended consequences turn into little tiny people who are entitled to love and care and attention and life itself.  And if women can’t, or won’t or don’t want to meet the needs of this new little person THEY CREATED, they can walk away and never look back.  Their biological ties to that person are irrelevant.

Men deserve the same right.  Biology is irrelevant.  Just as any pregnant woman has the right to terminate her legal responsibility for that child, men should have the right to terminate their own legal responsibility.  The practical reality is not even that hard to envision.  Any woman who finds herself pregnant needs to know that the father of the child has the right to disavow paternity in a legal context.

Do you accept responsibility for this child?

A woman must make her decision about whether or not to have the child based on the knowledge that her decision is hers, and ONLY hers.  She does not have the right to unilaterally impose her will on any other adult, no matter what the biological relationship.  The fact that she is pregnant does not make her special, and should not give her any special rights to inflict potentially ruinous consequences on a man who made the mistake of having sex with her.  Not unless she’d care to face the same consequences.

Being a parent should be a choice.  It’s either compulsory for both, or elective for both.

Equal or special.  Pick one.

Lots of love,


45 Responses to “Feminists agree, at least in theory, that women MUST face the consequences of deciding to have sex. No abortion, no adoption, no safe havens. And if you don’t like it, then close your legs, you whores!”

  1. Wilson June 15, 2013 at 17:46 #

    The choice is clear….extra-special.


  2. Xayadvara June 15, 2013 at 18:27 #

    Nah, as far as the feminists are concerned …. the male part of the deal is default “patriarchal privilege” which can walk back the door it came in.

    And with a “Please shut the door quietly, Thank You” thrown in


  3. korhomme June 15, 2013 at 19:15 #

    There are several different techniques for doing a vasectomy; more typical failure rates are between 1:1000 and 1:1,000,000. One in a hundred is far too high. The failure rate for tubal ligation is higher than for a competently performed vasectomy.


  4. David Sutton June 15, 2013 at 19:16 #

    Brava! Equal rights and equal responsibilities; not responsibilities for one and license for the other.


  5. judgybitch June 15, 2013 at 19:17 #

    I went with webMD.

    No matter how you slice it, vasectomies CAN fail.


  6. earl June 15, 2013 at 19:23 #

    Women should also stop dressing immodestly too. Ladies you are not dressing like that to impress your girlfriends…you are looking for dick.


  7. Josh Buechel June 15, 2013 at 19:43 #

    Has anyone considered a Change.org petition for this? Perhaps federal laws can be enacted to create equal rights for men and women surrounding paternity.


  8. wtfwtf13 June 15, 2013 at 19:53 #



  9. judgybitch June 15, 2013 at 19:54 #

    Methinks we would see a massive decline in the numbers of celebrities, athletes and billionaires who father children out of wedlock.

    Those men get hunted, and the incredible amount of child support the baby mamas are awarded ensures they will continue to get hunted.


    Hell, just an averagely successful man can fall prey to a child support hunter.


  10. John June 15, 2013 at 20:03 #

    No matter how you slice it? Not the best choice of words. But all the paragraphs above are chock full of excellent choices. Thank you for pointing out the boilerplate NYT reader responses. They were making smoke come off my brain.


  11. wtfwtf13 June 15, 2013 at 20:06 #

    LMFAO! They pretend not to ! Anyway didn’t you know ” No means no!”
    So when they say they are not looking for dick that’s what it is! Please don’t mansplain and spoil their fun.
    Besides, various flavours of insanity have now been normalized in the west so somehow or the other you will end up being judgmental!
    Now that’s not cool!

    {Psssst! All this bizarre ‘progressiveness’ is a blessing in disguise as the tipping point will be reached much faster .}


  12. LostSailor June 15, 2013 at 21:57 #

    Silly JB, one of the foundational pillars of feminism is that women have rights and men have responsibilities. They are simply incapable of recognizing the cognitive dissonance of arguing that if men don’t want the responsibilities of fathering a child, they simply shouldn’t have sex, but women should have unlimited choice in evading the consequences of sex.

    Manjaw Mandy wrote about this, with her usual snarky dismissive tone. Her solution would be to allow men to reject their responsibilities of fatherhood so long as they never have any contact with the child, no matter how minimal, ever. And she explicitly means that if a man has any sort of contact with, say, a 30- or 40-year-old child of his, he would be instantly liable for 18 years of child support. Yeah, I can’t see women trying to take advantage of that, can you?

    But you also have to keep in mind the ultimate end-game feminism has in mind. This was what the Angry Redhead Toronto Feminist was ranting about a while back. Remember her argument–and I’ve seen it elsewhere–that feminists actually don’t want men to have to pay alimony or child support because those things are a result of patriarchy and if men join feminists in dismantling patriarchy, then they won’t have to be liable for alimony or child support!

    Now, this might seem on it’s face an outrageous baldfaced lie, but it’s really not. They mean it. But what they don’t say is that in the aftermath of patriarchy, they envision that the state will simply appropriate most or all of a men’s income to either fund programs that support women and children or just hand over the cash. Presto! No alimony or child support.

    The end-game of feminism is women will have all the rights and men will have all the responsibility.

    Feminism: The Long, Long Con ®


  13. korhomme June 15, 2013 at 22:35 #

    Sure, that’s well recognised, and why we always had to warn the people about that risk — and to cover ourselves financially if it did fail. But a 1% failure — meaning recanalisation — is still far too high.


  14. thehumanscorch June 16, 2013 at 01:07 #

    Yes. I have said all of this for years now.
    If you can’t force a woman to be a mom, why should you be able to force a man to be a dad?
    But oh well. Feminism, as all have said, will continue to eat away at this country until women have all the rights, men have all the responsibilities, and every woman is crying, “where have all the REAL men gone?”


  15. Ter June 16, 2013 at 03:20 #

    A recent development in Australia is that abortion pills will now funded by the public health care system – almost 100%. The woman will need to contribute approximately $12 and the tax payer will pay the remaining $350 – $700 (according to what she’ll actually need). Incidentally, we do have a feminist Prime Minister (Julia Gillard) and Health Minister (Tanya Pilbersek) – maybe that has something to do with it. Pilbersek has said that these drugs are “essential to women’s health” (yes, she really did say that).

    Ironically, the government has simultaneously introduced a new levy (tax) to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme because, you know, there’s a lack of funds.


  16. thehumanscorch June 16, 2013 at 04:20 #

    Also, for the record:
    when they allow the Feminists to pass Forced Androgyny laws, I’ll be moving to Canada.


  17. Spaniard June 16, 2013 at 07:41 #

    I am a commited john and very happy! Thanks for your support, JB!
    If you guys want to see what kind of women I sleep with regularly just google “Madrid photoescorts”. Check the tariffs. I think paying 150 euro for a long hour with one of that beauties really worth it. And you are right, JB: prostitutes never get pregnant. It is very rare if they do. They take ACTUAL care.
    When you go with flowers to a “normal” woman, she pukes and she laughs at you. When you go with flowers to an escort she stays one more hour with you for free.

    Prostitution is legal defacto in Spain. And is very popular. Spanish feminazis want to ban it desperately because “moral reasons” and “fighting explotation of women”.
    “Moral reasons and fighting explotation of women” my ass!
    It is just a tremendous competency. You get the fantastic pussy avoiding TONES of crap.


  18. Spaniard June 16, 2013 at 07:43 #

    On former topic…
    JB I love too that towns in the middle of nowwhere. We have some of them in Spain like Toledo.


  19. Spaniard June 16, 2013 at 07:51 #

    Women say that a woman who sleeps around a lot is a “free woman”, she is so cool. She is an example, an alpha female, a winner.
    But men who are johns are a lowest form of life, pigs, creeps, losers, etc etc.


  20. Exfernal June 16, 2013 at 09:17 #

    Notice the future goal of feminism in Gloria Allred’s video linked earlier – emotional equality. Good luck with that utopian endeavor, short of recreating human nature from the scratch.

    Deluded or conniving?


  21. HateFeminists June 16, 2013 at 15:27 #

    Spanish women, and asian women are beautiful and still look like women. Here in the U.S. they are fat, lazy hefers that enjoy raping other people’s eye sight with a case of cottage cheese ass hanging out of shorts that are far too short. Fat shaming, yes I am! It is a SHAME american women are so FAT they have to be rolled in flour to look for a wet spot! Fuck you Lindy the hut and Amanda Marcotte you damn jar jar binks of the feminist universe!


  22. Marlo Rocci June 16, 2013 at 15:29 #


    There I said it.

    Somebody had to.


  23. yes June 16, 2013 at 15:57 #

    Standing Ovulation!


  24. Feminism Is A Lie June 16, 2013 at 16:04 #

    Ter, Gillard has EVERYTHING to do with it. How did she even make abortion into an important matter in this election campaign? Feminist derailing, manipulation and scare-tactics, that’s all it is. She needs the votes, the power…once feminists taste power they cannot allow themselves to let go of it until they’ve sufficiently destroyed society. Crazy bitches.


  25. LostSailor June 16, 2013 at 19:00 #

    Why not both?


  26. Athan Nyx June 17, 2013 at 01:27 #

    Canada will be the second place hit with them unfortunately. We are heavily influenced by Britain and the US.


  27. Athan Nyx June 17, 2013 at 01:27 #

    *would be. Sorry… Thought the edit button still worked.


  28. Master Beta June 17, 2013 at 09:15 #


    Damn straight!


  29. freetofish June 17, 2013 at 19:59 #

    Feminists love to play “Oppression Olympics”. While they still perceive there is so much oppression of Women, there is no room for anyone else (Men) to have valid problems. Hence there is no way they see the issue of Men’s reproductive rights to have any merit.

    Feminists love to say they problems they advocate against are for the betterment of Women and Men. That they are the ones who do more to champion Men’s rights than actual men’s rights activists. All of Men’s issues can be taken care of under the umbrella of Feminism’s fight against the “patriarchy”.

    Of course it is total and utter bullshit, as this issue so shows. As long as every woman doesn’t have an abortion clinic withing walking distance, Men should just “suck it up”. The hypocrisy of course being them saying if men don’t want the potential responsibility of child support, they should not have sex, while screeching the acceptance of the “sluts” fucking anyone they want to.

    The fact remains, if these men don’t support their children, then we all have too via taxation to support unwed mothers and their bastard children. In a more sane world, Men would be held responsible for any offspring they produce.Of course this would hopefully go hand in hand with the sanity that used to make being an un-wed mother socially shamed and frowned upon. The reintroduction of the old “shotgun” wedding or the 9 month “visit” to the out of state Aunt and subsequent child put up for adoption.

    Seeing though as we don’t live in a sane world, the choice to “financially abort” should be an option when an unplanned pregnancy happens and the woman wants the child and the man does not. The woman still has the right to “choose” she would just do so with the understanding that there will be no monthly check coming from the “baby daddy”. Of course in my world, if the woman made this choice and couldn’t support her bastard without government money, the kid would be put of for adoption to people who care afford to raise it.


  30. Jerry S June 18, 2013 at 15:49 #


  31. Taylor February 24, 2014 at 17:10 #

    Decisions about women’s bodies should ALWAYS be theirs and theirs alone. That includes abortion. No man should ever have the right to force or prevent an abortion, adoption, or safe surrender. Ever. However, I agree with you completely that a man should also never be forced into parenthood unwillingly and thrown in jail if he doesn’t comply. There should absolutely be options for him to “opt out” of parenthood he did not want, just like there is for women.


  32. caprizchka February 25, 2014 at 22:34 #

    In theory, I agree except that if the father cannot be forced to support the child then all fathers–the majority of taxpayers–become that child’s father. There needs to be consequences for unbridled reproduction and at some point, there needs to be a limit to how many new mouths can be produced as wards of the state. My view: http://caprizchka.wordpress.com/category/population-control/


  33. LostSailor February 26, 2014 at 01:10 #

    then all fathers–the majority of taxpayers–become that child’s father.

    Well, we could decide to not use taxpayer dollars to fund single-motherhood. We could decide that if women ultimately have reproductive choice they should also ultimately have responsibility for that choice. But that would require making women responsible for their choices and decisions.

    here needs to be consequences for unbridled reproduction

    The question really is why those consequences should fall on men when they have no “choice” in the matter. Shouldn’t the consequences of choice fall on the ones who are doing the choosing?


  34. caprizchka February 26, 2014 at 02:26 #

    Personally, I’m all for spaying and neutering rabbits. How many poor hungry children are actually needed for our post-Industrial society? I mean, unless the poor children in underdeveloped nations want to keep them as pets or something. It gets worse but I’m trying not to be a mean old witch. It isn’t easy.


  35. Az May 5, 2014 at 17:37 #

    You are such an angel of a woman. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for standing up for men. Bless your soul.


  36. Sheogorath August 2, 2014 at 11:15 #

    @ earl: It doesn’t matter what she’s wearing if you can’t keep it in your pants.


  37. Ark Itekton September 29, 2014 at 20:57 #

    Anyone interested in the long form of this might be interested in Karen Straughan’s four videos on Legal Paternity Surrender, available on youtube.
    One thing Janet doesn’t get to is how forcing men to co-parent with casual sex partners and pay for the resulting child for 21 years often deprives those men of the ability to form families of their form,. with women they love.

    Not only are we incentivizing the birth of children into single mother households, where those children are more prone to being abused and eventually to themselves engage in criminal behavior, we’re reducing the number of children born into two parent households. I’d be interested in the Utilitarian calculations for society wide Legal Paternity Surrender.



  1. Facing the consequences of having sex | - June 15, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/06/15/feminists-agree-at-least-in-theory-that-women-must-face-the-consequ… […]


  2. Facing the consequences of having sex | Fighting Feminism - June 15, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/06/15/feminists-agree-at-least-in-theory-that-women-must-face-the-consequ… […]


  3. Feminists agree that women MUST face the consequences of deciding to have sex... | Viva La Manosphere! - June 15, 2013

    […] judgybitch.com […]


  4. Child support judgments traumatize famous athletes, hamper NBA teams | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception - June 17, 2013

    […] Feminists agree, at least in theory, that women MUST face the consequences of deciding to have sex. …  | JudgyBitch […]


  5. Feministisk hyckleri | Yasers hörna - June 17, 2013

    […] [Feminists agree, at least in theory, that women MUST face the consequences of deciding to have sex.… […]


  6. Are you having sex with a fertile woman? Would you like to avoid a little bundle of puking joy? Are you trusting her with birth control? Well I’m sorry, but you sir, are an idiot. | judgybitch - July 8, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/06/15/feminists-agree-at-least-in-theory-that-women-must-face-the-consequ… […]


  7. Legal Parental Surrender is NOT morally equivalent to an abortion and no amount of bitchy sarcasm will make it so. Yeah, Amanda Marcotte, I’m talking to you. | judgybitch - July 10, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/06/15/feminists-agree-at-least-in-theory-that-women-must-face-the-consequ… […]


  8. Fuck you, Amanda Marcotte | A Voice for Men - July 16, 2013

    […] http://judgybitch.com/2013/06/15/feminists-agree-at-least-in-theory-that-women-must-face-the-consequ… […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: