|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 6, 2018 2:31:22 GMT
Goz, you have literally said it is the blokes responsibility, thus you are absolving the woman of responsibility. No, it is his responsibility to wear a condom. She then has the choice whether to have sex or not dependant on that. Only in that sense is she taking responsibility, her body her choice once the condom is on. And if she allows him to not wear it? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 6, 2018 3:35:35 GMT
This is comedy gold right here.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 6, 2018 6:27:58 GMT
No, it is his responsibility to wear a condom. She then has the choice whether to have sex or not dependant on that. Only in that sense is she taking responsibility, her body her choice once the condom is on. And if she allows him to not wear it? If he keeps his condom free dick out of her vagina, there is no problem. Otherwise, he has a very real chance of becoming a father. What a dick! |
|
|
|
Post by islandmur on Nov 6, 2018 11:20:56 GMT
And if she allows him to not wear it? If he keeps his condom free dick out of her vagina, there is no problem. Otherwise, he has a very real chance of becoming a father. What a dick! I'm starting to think you don't believe half the things you say and you are only doing this to bug posters. Because I refuse to believe that you really think this way as it makes no sense what so ever. It's impossible for you to think that if a man doesn't wear condom during sex he is therefor solely responsible if the woman gets pregnant. Unless it's a case of rape, the woman does have to open her legs and let the man in her vagina, knowing full well he is not wearing a condom and that she has not protected herself any other way against getting pregnant. |
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Nov 6, 2018 11:25:14 GMT
Meh... I don't think it's fabulous. It's silly. If two people have unprotected sex that results in pregnancy, both are responsible. Why? It only takes one to wear protection and it won't happen (not into a discussion about the sexism of types of protection though it is totally relevant because the male wearing a condom is cheap, safe, non-invasive and accessible and reasonably effective) Because unless both people are completely ignorant, they know that one of possible consequences of having unprotected sex, is pregnancy. So if a guy wants to have unprotected sex with a woman, and that woman doesn't want too risk it she is in her right to say no. There: pregnancy avoided. Now if a woman risks having unprotected sex with a man, she will be partly responsible for getting pregnant. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Nov 6, 2018 12:00:50 GMT
If he keeps his condom free dick out of her vagina, there is no problem. Otherwise, he has a very real chance of becoming a father. What a dick! I'm starting to think you don't believe half the things you say and you are only doing this to bug posters. Because I refuse to believe that you really think this way as it makes no sense what so ever. It's impossible for you to think that if a man doesn't wear condom during sex he is therefor solely responsible if the woman gets pregnant. Unless it's a case of rape, the woman does have to open her legs and let the man in her vagina, knowing full well he is not wearing a condom and that she has not protected herself any other way against getting pregnant. I cannot believe you lot have been arguing with her this whole time on this. Y’all some patient people. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 6, 2018 18:40:28 GMT
As long as you're not opposed to higher rates of homosexuality and paedophilia. I'm okay with the former, but I don't we should be promoting circumstances apt to lead to an uptick in the latter. What you think you know and what you actually know are very different things. It is not more likely that Catholic clergy will commit sexual abuse. It is just that they make more news when they do. Since you are not able to figure things out on your own I will explain. Many people including Catholics themselves feel terrible about the sacrifices Catholic clergy impose on themselves and in efforts to get them to be more lenient make use reports of abuse as an argument. That can mean the number of reports is higher than would otherwise be the case, and yet it is still not exceptionally high. The vast majority of people are driven more by emotion than actual numbers. I see you're an apologist for clerical abuse, and quite likely to concur with those who agree with the Church's longstanding policy of moving and otherwise sheltering priests guilty of it.
I'm quite able to figure things out on my own, Arlon (unlike the clergy-bewitched such as yourself). What sweats your type is that those outside of the Catholic Church's shadow can't be browbeaten by the rhetoric of believers like yourself who are quite good at manipulating the thinking of those within the Church, but losing considerable ground these days in manipulating opinion outside of it.
Many people including Catholics themselves feel terrible about the sacrifices Catholic clergy impose on themselves and in efforts to get them to be more lenient make use reports of abuse as an argument.
The Catholics themselves, however, don't feel so terrible about abuse as to actually eliminate the absurd priestly celibacy requirements, which were not even imposed by the early Church. Anything to perpetuate superstitious drivel and its heinous consequences, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 6, 2018 20:46:29 GMT
If he keeps his condom free dick out of her vagina, there is no problem. Otherwise, he has a very real chance of becoming a father. What a dick! I'm starting to think you don't believe half the things you say and you are only doing this to bug posters. Because I refuse to believe that you really think this way as it makes no sense what so ever. It's impossible for you to think that if a man doesn't wear condom during sex he is therefor solely responsible if the woman gets pregnant. Unless it's a case of rape, the woman does have to open her legs and let the man in her vagina, knowing full well he is not wearing a condom and that she has not protected herself any other way against getting pregnant. One of my favourite things on here is other posters telling what I think and whether it is possible or not! Well, the thread title is facetious, and there is a degree of playing Devil's Advocate, however the point still remains. ...she would be foolish to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 7, 2018 0:27:13 GMT
And if she allows him to not wear it? If he keeps his condom free dick out of her vagina, there is no problem. Otherwise, he has a very real chance of becoming a father. What a dick! And there is nothing the woman can say or do about it? She is completely at his mercy? If she LETS him stick his condom free dick in her vagina, she accepts the risk just as much as he does. Why are you unable to accept this? Nobody denies that. But the same can be said for the man. Why the different standards? Man does not wear a condom: he is 100% responsible. Woman fucks a man without a condom: she is merely "foolish", but is still not accountable, because reasons. Women are autonomous beings, same as men. They need to take responsibility for their own choices, same as men. Unprotected sex is a choice BOTH make. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 7, 2018 1:01:52 GMT
If he keeps his condom free dick out of her vagina, there is no problem. Otherwise, he has a very real chance of becoming a father. What a dick! And there is nothing the woman can say or do about it? She is completely at his mercy? If she LETS him stick his condom free dick in her vagina, she accepts the risk just as much as he does. Why are you unable to accept this? Nobody denies that. But the same can be said for the man. Why the different standards? Man does not wear a condom: he is 100% responsible. Woman fucks a man without a condom: she is merely "foolish", but is still not accountable, because reasons. Women are autonomous beings, same as men. They need to take responsibility for their own choices, same as men. Unprotected sex is a choice BOTH make. No. NO. no no no no no nooooooooooooooooooo! What are you NOT understanding about the concept that contraception does NOT need both partners to alter their physiology, and cause a pregnancy. One is enough. The male as the active partner with the 'bullet's is the obvious one. Exactly. If a woman allows an un-condomed man to enter her she is 'foolish' and must suffer the consequences, whereas HE is ultimately responsible as it is HIS penis entering her and HIS sperm, that is infiltrating her previously undisturbed egg. Without that happening... SHE CANNOT get pregnant. It is really quite simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Nov 7, 2018 7:23:27 GMT
And there is nothing the woman can say or do about it? She is completely at his mercy? If she LETS him stick his condom free dick in her vagina, she accepts the risk just as much as he does. Why are you unable to accept this? Nobody denies that. But the same can be said for the man. Why the different standards? Man does not wear a condom: he is 100% responsible. Woman fucks a man without a condom: she is merely "foolish", but is still not accountable, because reasons. Women are autonomous beings, same as men. They need to take responsibility for their own choices, same as men. Unprotected sex is a choice BOTH make. No. NO. no no no no no nooooooooooooooooooo! What are you NOT understanding about the concept that contraception does NOT need both partners to alter their physiology, and cause a pregnancy. One is enough. The male as the active partner with the 'bullet's is the obvious one. Yes, but they must BOTH agree. It doesn't matter who uses the contraceptive, unsafe sex is a CHOICE. And if anything it's actually more HER choice than HIS, because there are so many more contraceptive options available to women than to men. But she can choose otherwise, whether the man wants to use a condom or not. She controls the supply, meaning she controls the market. And that's not RELEVANT. She can say NO. If she consents to unsafe sex, she consents to the risks. You are literally the only person here who thinks otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 7, 2018 10:47:17 GMT
I would remind you that I did go to school for these things. It is one thing for people who understand what they are doing when they manipulate the news. It is quite another for people to be so stupid they believe their own propaganda. Planet Arlon. I believe you went to school. That it was a long time ago and I wont hold that against you. HOWEVER I am not understanding the rest of your post, if you are implying that the crimes of priests in the Catholic Church which went unreported and untried for centuries, is either manipulation of news or worse propaganda. Do you see what the problem with that is? |
|
|
|
Post by islandmur on Nov 7, 2018 11:56:47 GMT
And there is nothing the woman can say or do about it? She is completely at his mercy? If she LETS him stick his condom free dick in her vagina, she accepts the risk just as much as he does. Why are you unable to accept this? Nobody denies that. But the same can be said for the man. Why the different standards? Man does not wear a condom: he is 100% responsible. Woman fucks a man without a condom: she is merely "foolish", but is still not accountable, because reasons. Women are autonomous beings, same as men. They need to take responsibility for their own choices, same as men. Unprotected sex is a choice BOTH make. No. NO. no no no no no nooooooooooooooooooo! What are you NOT understanding about the concept that contraception does NOT need both partners to alter their physiology, and cause a pregnancy. One is enough. The male as the active partner with the 'bullet's is the obvious one. Exactly. If a woman allows an un-condomed man to enter her she is 'foolish' and must suffer the consequences, whereas HE is ultimately responsible as it is HIS penis entering her and HIS sperm, that is infiltrating her previously undisturbed egg. Without that happening... SHE CANNOT get pregnant. It is really quite simple. Ok let's run with this ridiculous scenario of yours. The Egg Travels to the Fallopian Tube After the egg is released, it moves into the fallopian tube. It stays there for about 24 hours, waiting for a single sperm to fertilize it. All this happens, on average, about 2 weeks after your last period.
If the Egg Isn't Fertilized
If no sperm is around to fertilize the egg, it moves through the uterus and disintegrates. Your hormone levels go back to normal. Your body sheds the thick lining of the uterus, and your period starts.See your eggs are not undisturbed, they are actively on the prowl, they left the house they ran away looking for a sperm... you provided the sperm by letting an uncovered penis in your vagina and releasing not one but millions of sperms to seek out your wandering egg. |
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Nov 7, 2018 17:37:46 GMT
Karl AkselAlso women get pregnant. Also it is easy for men to pass infection to women than vice versa.
|
|
