Sunday, November 4, 2007

Roe Versus Wade for Men Revisited

Like the Duke LaCrosse case, many MRAs are aware of Dubay's struggle, although the latter did not receive the same spotlight and media treatment. His main thrust was to prove fraud with his partner, Lauren Wells, and promote, perhaps, what could be considered a groundbreaking precedent with men; that men should have the same equivalent rights as women do in reproductive choice. It stems from a couple of things.

When Matt Dubay got sexually involved with Lauren Wells, he was open about the fact he didn't desire to be a father at the time. Wells made it clear that she was incapable of getting pregnant, although she claimed she was used contraceptives to reassure him. Neither, apparently, was true and she got knocked up. When discovered, they had both considered adoption, but later Wells changed her mind; Dubay didn't want to raise children---eventually however, she was adamant about him providing child support.

While critics believe Dubay wanted to bail from paying CS, but Dubay's attorney, Jeffrey Cojocar, was of a different mind; the contention is that Michigan's Paternity Act gave exceptions to women eschewing supporting children and abandoning them if they didn't want to fulfill motherhood, and fathers did not have the same option---which violates the Equal Protection Clause. The judge could have cared less in this case. Supposedly, Dubay did not provide evidence to prove fraud on Well's behalf, until he maintains his stance from then up to the present. The case is being appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as of this writing, so keep that in mind.

Now, I realize that some women, in particular, may believe Dubay is lying. I still find this difficult to entertain, simply because this has gone beyond the same court in which he protested this situation, and he has always maintained he did not want to be a father. Wells targeted Dubay for the inverse of why women go for bad boys---he was potentially a good provider, and a good catch. Not to mention, in a "he said, she said" situation, the court is honoring her by default, not him, because he's the dad biologically. So the ruling from the first court didn't allow Dubay to bow out of unplanned conception, and because of the interests of the child and the fact she filed for CS, it was mandated.

It's clear from all of the following what's going on. Women, at least in this State, have the choice of sexual congress, whether or not they are using contraceptives, can resort to giving up on motherhood at any time, through abortion, adoption, dropping the child off at a hospital. The Paternity Act gives reproductive license to women---and when men are subject to a woman's desire for CS, men cannot make the same choices to refuse to be involved. Hence, the inequality That Roe Versus Wade for Men addresses.

But it gets worse---there is a mounting amount of evidence that women are using deceptive means to get pregnant. One story had a thirty-something woman, convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy, had been required to pay CS from their illegal coupling. Talk about outrageous. Another had a young male roughly the same age---not at adulthood, to start paying CS even though she was also older. There's been more than one insistence of women having oral sex with a partner and inserting the semen into her vagina to promote impregnation. And so on, and so forth.

The feminist party line is always to support a woman' s choice regardless of outcome. So much for equality. What I find troubling is that more women are getting caught red-handed lying to their partners about conception, or sabotaging it. Of course, when in doubt, if a men trusts a women to ensure usage of conception and it fails or she's lying, it's may be his fault for being naive. If he doesn't trust her and uses it, he's a wary asshole.

Is this "blame the men" game still prevalent, or what? Granted, I realize some men engage in risky sex, but an enormous amount of women do exactly the same in hasty drunken nights of debauchery and stoned-drenched clubbing, and although you'll hear from that men will state condoms are unromantic, there are women who will openly risk pregnancy and STDs before being sexually responsible.

Hopefully, male contraceptives such as reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG), which in phrase III of human testing, and vas-occlusive contraception, which involves temporary plugs in the vas deferens, will hit the marketplace as affordable products with easy access. Obviously, the condoms and vasectomies are the norm, but it isn't helping things with the former isn't flawless, and the latter has troubles with vasovasostom if a patient ever wants it reversed, which can be costly. We have to educate and stress to men, young men in particular, if our culture is still going to promulgate inequalities towards men when it comes to reproductive choices; if the push is to force men to be more responsible, we'll respond in kind, but if we are to have that responsibility, we have to have choices, too.

And a final thought for now, but isn't it funny how feminists get pissed when men don't take responsibility for contraception and risk taking in sex (and some online have stated how much of drudgery it is on their own account), but when men do use them responsibly, they are blasted for having more personal and sexual power? Maybe we should, as some women have suggested, "keep it in our pants," put when we do that, suddenly we're trolls and losers opting out of the game that "can't get laid" even if women are attracted to us, and upset that we don't jump into the fire automatically. If anything, it's another cautionary tale for men to be cautious about dating, marriage, and raising children, and the more it's told, the more men are questioning the very foundation of women the were ingrained by society to trust, with that trust shattering into fractures and fissures that might not mend again.

UPDATE: A recent press release states as follows:

A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit nicknamed "Roe v. Wade for Men" filed by a men's rights group on behalf of a man who said he shouldn't have to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.

It's not surprising to the jaded ones, I suppose. That includes yours truly.


Anonymous said...

How ironic. Here's Matthew Dubay, suing under the Equal Protection theory whebn he couldn't be bothered to equally protect himself from the known risks of his own choices.

Sociopathic Revelation said...

Anon, I'll let that stand for now, even though that's a common charge that isn't completely the whole picture.

Think of it in on the flip side; if a woman had trusted a man to be sterile, and got pregnant and the man forced her to keep the child and support it, would you have been sympathetic to her being naive and called him a controlling bastard, or given her the same criticism? If you were critical of a woman doing the same, well, at least you are consistent.

Besides, the argument of Equal Protection is clearly unequal in the fact Lauren could have given up being a mother at any time from the moment of conception and he could not if enforced by the state. Nothing vague about that injustice there. It's pretty black and white, in that aspect, anon.

But back to that protection/conception dealie: we often hear about that men should "keep it in her pants," but when men are sexually responsible, they are even treated with scorn. How dare men reign in their personal and sexual power for themselves, eh? And BTW Women are just as guilty as being sexually irresponsible, too, risking STDs and pregnancy in drunken trysts.

Perhaps Dubay shouldn't have trusted her, but what relationship can stand without a modicum of trust? Solely blaming him misses the point she probably planned this, and clearly deceived him at the beginning. BTW, he WANTED to use a condom---and did---when they first started being sexually active.

Matt Dubay was targeted by Wells because she saw him as a provider she could ensnare. If you have any evidence otherwise, prove it.