# Conception by deception



## Big Don (Feb 15, 2011)

[FONT=times, times new roman][SIZE=+2]Conception[/SIZE]  [SIZE=+2]by [/SIZE][SIZE=+2]deception[/SIZE]   
[SIZE=-2]WHY DO WOMEN GET AWAY WITH  "ACCIDENTALLY" GETTING PREGNANT -- WHEN IF A MAN TRIED TO PULL THE SAME  MANIPULATIVE STUNT, HE'D BE BOBBITTED?   [/SIZE]  [/FONT][FONT=times, times new roman][SIZE=-1]BY TRACY QUAN[/SIZE]  [/FONT][FONT=times, times new roman][SIZE=-2]*SALON | Sept. 23, 1998*[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=times, times new roman] | *EXCERPT:*[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]*"I*n  a relationship, you reach a point where the woman's going to get  pregnant on you, unless you stop seeing her, and that's what was  happening with Kim."  [/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]David, a programmer in  his 30s, is a year younger than me, and we've known each other since  infancy. But as I listen, I momentarily have to remind myself that we  grew up in the same era. Throughout my sex life, aware that previous  generations of women had almost no control over their fertility, I have  taken comfort in the way technology protects me from the whims of  nature. Yet David seems to think his sex partners are as untrustworthy  as nature itself. [/FONT]
 [FONT=times, times new roman](Names and other personal information about sources in this story have been changed.)  [/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]David's assertion that  sooner or later his girlfriend would "get pregnant on" him makes him  sound like a throwback to the Eisenhower era. In some circles, the  fashionable view is that _males_ are responsible for unwanted  pregnancies. A public service ad aimed at young women features a  manipulative teenage boy pressuring his girlfriend to prove her love by  having risky sex, but there are no Planned Parenthood posters warning  young males about girls who say they're on the Pill when they're not.   [/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]These days, when a man  blames a woman for getting pregnant, he is likely to be dismissed as a Deadbeat Dad. There's some reason for this:  Prominent among the men who accuse women of "tricking" them into  fatherhood are athletes and other celebrities who ignore their own kids  while seeking to discredit the mothers who raise them.  [/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]But public health ads  and tawdry headlines don't always capture the emotional nuances, the  many things left unsaid, in people's relationships. These familiar  stereotypes of low-life Lotharios and scheming gold-diggers don't always  explain how males can become fathers accidentally by design -- woman's  design.  [/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]When I was in my early  20s, a boyfriend informed me that his buddy -- a devoted father and  husband, as far as I could tell -- had been "screwed": Apparently, he  had become a father because his wife had lied about using her diaphragm.  I was never sure what to make of this: If the woman had really done  this, why did she ever admit the ruse to her husband? Was she an Amoral  Supermom -- so determined to exercise her "fertility rights" that her partner's wishes barely registered? Did she ever feel guilty?  These weren't questions I could ask her on our next double date. 
[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]<<<SNIP>>>[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]The prevailing assumption in the '90s has been that risky sex is imposed on women by men. But condoms can present a special etiquette problem for males, if they hope to keep getting laid. Frequently, men are discouraged from using condoms by the women in their lives -- a problem that most public health campaigns simply don't acknowledge. Andrew, now in his 40s, remembers telling the woman he lived with during his 30s that he would never want children. "Janet basically _did not like_ condoms," he says, when I suggest that he was remiss not to use them. "She had tried the Pill and had to stop for health reasons. After a pregnancy scare, I went out and bought two or three different kinds of condoms along with some water-soluble lube, but she didn't want to use them." They relied on a diaphragm, which she may or may not have been wearing when she became pregnant during the third year of their relationship. After an abortion -- "the worst possible outcome, in Janet's mind, because she hoped I would come around to wanting a child" -- the relationship couldn't continue.  [/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]Should Andrew have insisted on condoms? Could he be expected to, when Janet objected? And how many reasonable men would impose a particular device on a woman? Telling a woman that you don't trust her to use birth control is not, in most people's minds, an option. More than once, I've been asked by a man how to deal with a girlfriend who urges him to stop using condoms for sentimental or erotic reasons. And David points out that, after dating for a while, "a lot of women are slightly insulted if you keep using condoms." 
[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]END EXCERPT[/FONT]
[FONT=times, times new roman]Very interesting article. Having had an ex-wife who faked a pregnancy and miscarriage, and several ex-girlfriends who refused to use condoms, I've seen a lot of this. What are your thoughts?
[/FONT]


----------



## granfire (Feb 15, 2011)

let me see:

There are choices.

And if a man never wants children...he could have his tubes tied if the 'Chapot Anglaise' is not accepted....


----------



## crushing (Feb 15, 2011)

Big Don said:


> [FONT=times, times new roman]Very interesting article. Having had an ex-wife who faked a pregnancy and miscarriage, and several ex-girlfriends who refused to use condoms, I've seen a lot of this. What are your thoughts?[/FONT]


 
This is one of those areas where there doesn't seem to be a link between rights and responsibilities, or, if there is one they are inversely proportional for the male with a heavy tilt towards responsibilities.

If the sex results in a pregnancy, the pregnancy can be terminated with the man not having a legal say.  Or, the woman could choose to have the child and the man would be on the hook for child support, without having a legal say.  Until there are reproductive equal rights, a man has got to bag it until he reaches a point in his life where he wants children or snip it if he is sure he never wants to have children.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 15, 2011)

crushing said:


> If the sex results in a pregnancy, the pregnancy can be terminated with the man not having a legal say.  Or, the woman could choose to have the child and the man would be on the hook for child support, without having a legal say.  Until there are reproductive equal rights...



There never will be and never can be "equal reproductive rights" in this sense.  Not unless men can figure out how to get themselves pregnant, anyways.  In a society that values freedom and the right of bodily integrity, as well as responsibility for one's children, this is always the way it has to be.  Complain to God if you like.

Men have control over their own bodies, as women do.  So they must take responsibility for their own fertility.  If the women they are with cannot or will not understand that, then those men should probably be with someone who respects their control over their own body as those women take for granted for themselves.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 15, 2011)

empty hands said:


> there never will be and never can be "equal reproductive rights" in this sense.  Not unless men can figure out how to get themselves pregnant, anyways.  In a society that values freedom and the right of bodily integrity, as well as responsibility for one's children, this is always the way it has to be.  Complain to god if you like.
> 
> Men have control over their own bodies, as women do.  So they must take responsibility for their own fertility.  If the women they are with cannot or will not understand that, then those men should probably be with someone who respects their control over their own body as those women take for granted for themselves.



+1


----------



## crushing (Feb 15, 2011)

I also doubt there will ever be reproductive equality.  And yes, of course people should have control over their own bodies.  That does not disagree with my comments.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 15, 2011)

In many circumstances where deception is practiced, the person who is deceived is not held liable for the consequences of their actions.  However, the frequent end result of a pregnancy is a human being who is guilty of no deception and has two biological parents, both of whom are responsible in the eyes of the law for the care of that child until the age of majority is reached.

Therefore, if one is hoodwinked in a contract, one can seek redress in the courts and be released from the terms of the contract.  If one is hoodwinked and a live human birth results, that new human being has needs that the law says must be provided by both biological parents, regardless of who was zooming whom.  The alternative is that the child, who is the only blameless party, is the one cheated.


----------



## cdunn (Feb 15, 2011)

I didn't want children. I used condoms until I was in a permanent relationship where we both agreed we didn't want children, then I got sterilized.

If you won't get sterilized and you won't use condoms, then you take the risk of trusting your partner to handle the birth control... or you practice abstinence.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Feb 15, 2011)

Bottom line: It takes two to tango...


----------



## David43515 (Feb 15, 2011)

Unfortunately there`s a reverse side to this coin as well. I`ve known cases where the woman wanted to marry a man who wanted children, and while they were dating she was all for having his children, even going so far as to encourage him to move the wedding up expressly for the pupose of starting a family sooner. After they were married he found out she was secretly using birth control for the first 2 years of thier marriage.

It`s easy to say "Don`t get into a relationship with someone you don`t trust completely". And most of us never would. But we`re dges of character that we assumed we were when we fell in love.


----------



## granfire (Feb 15, 2011)

David43515 said:


> Unfortunately there`s a reverse side to this coin as well. I`ve known cases where the woman wanted to marry a man who wanted children, and while they were dating she was all for having his children, even going so far as to encourage him to move the wedding up expressly for the pupose of starting a family sooner. After they were married he found out she was secretly using birth control for the first 2 years of thier marriage.
> 
> It`s easy to say "Don`t get into a relationship with someone you don`t trust completely". And most of us never would. But we`re dges of character that we assumed we were when we fell in love.



Sucks seriously but it's not irreversable.

However, the 'getting knocked up' has been a 'popular' technique to 'land' the right man.

I suppose when you are only out for the meal ticket...<shudder>


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 15, 2011)

You're right. It's completely unfair, and there are other examples.

I have a friend who was recently on trial for rape because he slept with a woman who was too drunk to consent under the law in his state. When he mentioned that he was also shitface drunk, the prosecutor told him that being drunk doesn't mean he's not responsible for his actions.

On one hand, it pisses me off. On the other, the pendulum is swinging. Wasn't too long ago (I mean less than 40 years) that it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife. Women are enjoying a  period of being the ones favored by law.

It will swing back soon enough, and hopefully each swing will be less extreme.


----------



## granfire (Feb 15, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> You're right. It's completely unfair, and there are other examples.
> 
> I have a friend who was recently on trial for rape because he slept with a woman who was too drunk to consent under the law in his state. When he mentioned that he was also shitface drunk, the prosecutor told him that being drunk doesn't mean he's not responsible for his actions.


gawd, I hate this type of crap.




> On one hand, it pisses me off. On the other, the pendulum is swinging. Wasn't too long ago (I mean less than 40 years) that it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife. Women are enjoying a  period of being the ones favored by law.
> 
> It will swing back soon enough, and hopefully each swing will be less extreme.



Hopefully.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 15, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> You're right. It's completely unfair, and there are other examples.
> 
> I have a friend who was recently on trial for rape because he slept with a woman who was too drunk to consent under the law in his state. When he mentioned that he was also shitface drunk, the prosecutor told him that being drunk doesn't mean he's not responsible for his actions.
> 
> ...


 
Swing back will be just as problematic. How about we let it stop in the middle, and give everyone rights and responsibilies?


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 15, 2011)

It is indeed a very interesting article, Don.  I have a few emotional and intellectual responses to the core topic but they've largely been covered by the posters above.  I'm too tired to think of an insightful rephrasing of what has been said so far so I'll wait until the morrow and see if inspiration strikes.


----------



## Carol (Feb 15, 2011)

Big Don said:


> [FONT=times, times new roman]Very interesting article. Having had an ex-wife who faked a pregnancy and miscarriage,[/FONT]


[FONT=times, times new roman]

That's...just...horrible.  I can't wrap my  head around it.  That's not to say I don't believe it exists, it is  just not something that I can fathom.  At least for me, the delights of  intimacy are strongly rooted in trust and respect.   Doing something  like that just obliterates trust.

[/FONT]





Big Don said:


> [FONT=times, times new roman] and several ex-girlfriends who refused to use condoms, I've seen a lot of this. What are your thoughts?
> [/FONT]



Never had an issue with condoms long-term.  :idunno:   

I'll go out on a limb and address the "F" word. No, not THAT "F" word   the other one: Finances. 

Except for the college boyfriend I had 20+  years ago, I haven't lived with anyone outside of marriage.   Perhaps  that makes me the odd one out...but if/when a long term relationship  starts to fall apart, it seems a helluva lot less "complicated" if both  people have their own place and have maintained a means of supporting  themselves.  

I'm assuming its also less complicated when kids are involved.   Can't speak from experience, though.  But that gets back to the condom usage, eh?  :angel:


----------



## Flea (Feb 16, 2011)

I had a friend many years ago who was entrapped by a girlfriend who tried to force a marriage by stopping her contraception.  He tried to walk away completely, but she got him on child support.  On one level I think that's appropriate, but ... he was always extremely clear with her about not wanting children.  Pregnancy was a deliberate and unilateral decision.

Last I heard he was doing his best with home visits, but the mother's dysfunctional family dynamic made it very difficult for him to get too involved.  Ultimately the real loser in the situation is the child, who grew up with a mother like that, and a drop-in dad.  I haven't heard from him in a long time, so I don't know how it turned out. 

The lesson I took away from that is that if you're serious about not wanting children, take the initiative yourself.  No apologies.  And if your partner refuses to negotiate methods of BC, maybe they're not the greatest lover material in the first place.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 16, 2011)

My dad has two kids from his first marriage, they are 10 and 12 years older than me. When he was first married to my mom, they discussed kids, and she agreed waiting a few years was the thing to do. My mom unilaterally decided not to wait sometime later and I was conceived. My dad said, upon hearing she was pregnant, "That's great, but, I thought we were going to wait?" Fast forward 15 years to their divorce>>> 
I pitched a fit because my mom had asked my dad to move out without telling me or my sister. I said I wasn't going to school until I talked to my dad, (Long before cell phones were common) and I didn't. She got pissed at me and said, "Your dad never wanted you." Something she denies saying, to this day. I asked my dad about it as soon as I saw him and he told me the truth.
Even when couples stay together for years, a unilateral decision by the wife to get pregnant is a rotten thing to do.


----------



## Nomad (Feb 16, 2011)

It's amazing how many people see this fundamental breach of trust as acceptable to get what they want (kind of similar to having extramarital affairs, I guess).

In the end, the only person you can trust for prophylactics is you.  If you don't want kids (ever), have a vasectomy.  If you do, just not now, then wear a condom.  If she's not cool with that, too bad.  

If you are trusting her to take care of birth control, you have to accept the possibility of genuine accidents or of "accidents" like those posted above.


----------



## Carol (Feb 16, 2011)

Not only that, a woman can only get pregnant 1 or 2 days out of 28.  However, she can get (or give) an STD 28 days out of 28.

Some STDs have an uncomfortably long incubation period, do they not?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 16, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> You're right. It's completely unfair, and there are other examples.
> 
> I have a friend who was recently on trial for rape because he slept with a woman who was too drunk to consent under the law in his state. When he mentioned that he was also shitface drunk, the prosecutor told him that being drunk doesn't mean he's not responsible for his actions.
> 
> ...


Laws such as this diminish women to second class citizens that aren't capable of making adult decisions. Women should be the first in line to get rid of this law.
Sean


----------



## granfire (Feb 16, 2011)

Carol said:


> Not only that, a woman can only get pregnant 1 or 2 days out of 28.  However, she can get (or give) an STD 28 days out of 28.
> 
> Some STDs have an uncomfortably long incubation period, do they not?



Ah, the gift that keeps on giving...

Not sure how the pathology of those are...but some just don't go away....


----------



## Kacey (Feb 16, 2011)

Carol said:


> [FONT=times, times new roman]
> 
> That's...just...horrible.  I can't wrap my  head around it.  That's not to say I don't believe it exists, it is  just not something that I can fathom.  At least for me, the delights of  intimacy are strongly rooted in trust and respect.   Doing something  like that just obliterates trust.
> 
> ...



I'm assuming (hoping!) you mean less complicated when kids are *NOT* involved - otherwise I agree completely.


----------



## Carol (Feb 16, 2011)

Kacey said:


> I'm assuming (hoping!) you mean less complicated when kids are *NOT* involved - otherwise I agree completely.



Aye, you're right.   Less complicated when kids are NOT involved. Dang typos.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 16, 2011)

It shouldnt matter if you're a man or a woman. No one should force or trick anybody into reproducing. Thats one reason I'm pro choice.

My ex didnt want to use a condom and obviously he wouldnt get sterilized and he said he wouldnt be upset if i got pregnant. Left all the responsibility of the BC on me. I had an appointment to get an IUD then I got fed up with it and cancelled. Why should i be the one responsible. He should have been too! But he was a selfish controlling mofo anyways. so i dumped his sorry ***.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 17, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> It shouldnt matter if you're a man or a woman. No one should force or trick anybody into reproducing. Thats one reason I'm pro choice.


 
As others have previously noted, this approach is all well and good when you're talking about an agreement to paint a house, or a contract to buy furniture.  In those cases, if fraud's used, void the agreement.  However, we're talking about conception by deception, which means there's a child involved.  The only way to reverse the deception is to a) force the would-be mother to abort, or b) hold the innocent father-to-be unaccountable for the child.  Obviously, neither is an option.




> My ex didnt want to use a condom and obviously he wouldnt get sterilized and he said he wouldnt be upset if i got pregnant. Left all the responsibility of the BC on me. I had an appointment to get an IUD then I got fed up with it and cancelled. Why should i be the one responsible. He should have been too! But he was a selfish controlling mofo anyways. so i dumped his sorry ***.


 
Cheers to that.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 17, 2011)

the fact we are having this conversation at all is pathetic in my mind.
If you dont want to have a kid you control it, noone else. You can not claim this conception by deception bullcrap.
If you really truely do not want a kid there are plenty of options, for men and women.
You control your own body, you dont have to have sex, and if you do you have 100% options. Choose one of the three.... no sex... Vasectomy...or get your damn tubes tied.
everything else is not 100%.
take some responsibility in your lives and the argument becomes moot.. it shouldn't become my problem because someone is too ignorant or too selfish to do the right thing and ends up springing another unwanted, unsupported kid into my tax dollar lap.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 17, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> the fact we are having this conversation at all is pathetic in my mind.
> If you dont want to have a kid you control it, noone else. You can not claim this conception by deception bullcrap.
> If you really truely do not want a kid there are plenty of options, for men and women.
> You control your own body, you dont have to have sex, and if you do you have 100% options. Choose one of the three.... no sex... Vasectomy...or get your damn tubes tied.
> ...


But yet, it is.
Sean


----------



## Nomad (Feb 18, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> the fact we are having this conversation at all is pathetic in my mind.
> If you dont want to have a kid you control it, noone else. You can not claim this conception by deception bullcrap.
> If you really truely do not want a kid there are plenty of options, for men and women.
> You control your own body, you dont have to have sex, and if you do you have 100% options. Choose one of the three.... no sex... Vasectomy...or get your damn tubes tied.
> ...



Two of the three options you mentioned are permanent (or at least semi-permanent) solutions (yes, it's possible to reverse a vasectomy, but it's hardly a decision to take lightly).  

I think the implication here is not that many of these people don't necessarily want to *never* have children, but rather don't want children now, or quite possibly don't want children with their current partner (or aren't ready for that level of commitment yet).  In which case, other methods of birth control are often used (though it should definitely be understood that none are completely foolproof other than abstinence of course).

If either partner deliberately sabotages the agreed-upon birth control methods (and yes, I've heard of both guys and girls deliberately putting needle-holes in condoms, for instance), then it is nothing less than a massive betrayal of trust.  Unfortunately, it's a massive betrayal of trust that's impossible to just walk away from without large and lasting consequences...


----------

