>               KEEP YOUR PANTS ON! (ON ALL DAY, ON ALL NIGHT)

>                             (C) 1994-1995,2001

> There are times when, as a man, I just have to hang my head between my
> knees
>   and weep with joy when I contemplate my reproductive rights. We have no
> recourse or remedy in cases of accidental pregnancy, if we're lied to
> about
>       contraception, or even if we're raped. I'm not making this up.

> While women's reproductive rights have been recognized since Roe v. Wade
> in
> 1973, it has come to my attention that a certain other gender has never
> had
>   the right to "choice", despite the fact that sexism has been shown, by
>                   scientific laboratory tests, to be bad.

> Since 1973, millions(1) of women whose birth control failed, or who didn't
>  use birth control, or whatever, have had abortions. How many men have had
> abortions? None! Why? (Besides the obvious I mean). Because the laws don't
>   give men a reproductive choice. As you know if you follow world events,
>  what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Yet our lawmakers, who
>  apparently haven't read newspapers or the Constitution yet, believe women
>                  should have a choice and men should not.

>  It gets worse. Take the famous "Frank S." case(2) for example. The court
> ordered Frank to pay child support even though Pam lied to him about using
>  birth control. Men can't use fraud as a defense. I'm not making this up.
>  This demonstrates the "No" means "No" principle. When a man says "No" to
>  parenthood, he really means 'Ignore me, I have "No" reproductive rights'.

>  And it's not just Frank. Ask Shane Seyer(3). Despite the fact that he was
> just twelve years old and too young to legally consent to sex, he was
> forced
>   into parenthood by his baby sitter, and a court is making him pay child
>       support. The February 12th 1995 issue of the St. Louis Missouri
>  Post-Dispatch had article about another babysitter who forced a boy into
>  fatherhood. This brings up the burning issue: did the boys' parents raise
>                   their allowances to pay child support?

> And it's not just Frank and Shane. Lots of men are forced into parenthood.
> Although Frank and Shane's cases are worse than most, you can bet that
> other
> guys want a choice too. How many? According to our own federal government,
>  when its not busy deciding which picture to put on the Elvis stamp, over
> 500,000(4) paternities are established each year. "Paternities
> established"
>  is a secret code known only to the government, which can be translated as
>   "dragged into court and forced to be a father". 500,000 is about one a
> minute, or the number of people living in Austin Texas. But this isn't the
> whole picture. Paternities are only established for unwed mothers.
> Husbands
>    can dispense with the courtroom formality, proceed directly to forced
> parenthood, do not pass go and don't collect $200. Other government
> figures
> show that one out of four children are born to unwed mothers and
> preliminary
> data indicates that 33%(5) of the four million(6) U.S. births each year
> may
>                          be unintended by fathers.

> At this point many reasonable readers might think that the best way to
> avoid
>  parenthood would be for men to "keep their pants on". On all day, on all
>  night, and on in the shower. Case law knows this as "the pants defense".
> Some men would probably be willing to wear two, three or even four pairs
> of
> pants, whatever it takes, if it worked. Armed with this advance
> information,
>    the determined men and women responsible for men's (current lack of)
> reproductive rights have found more ways to force men into parenthood, and
> a
>           way that doesn't even require the "father" to have sex!

> I'm not making this up either. Ask Rodney Darnell(7). Officials in Iowa
> have
>  begun garnishing his paycheck on behalf of a child with a different last
>    name. A DNA test proving that he is not the child's father was ruled
> "irrelevant", as was the statement by the child's mother that he's not the
>                                   father.

> Ultimately, there's the taxpayer, paying for children on welfare that he's
> never even met. He stares off into space, thinking that this is yet
> another
>   case of our government serving him in a way he'd never have thought of
>                  without the aid of a big bottle of booze.

> Child support isn't cheap. Count on about 1/4 of take home pay for
> eighteen
>  years. Maybe guys should plea bargain to spend all of only four years in
> jail and let it go at that. That's the kind of men we are. Don't even
> think
>  about the guys who are forced to pay for twins. I've decided to withhold
>              their names pending notification of next of kin.

>  So our laws are letting fraud, mistaken identity, and non consensual sex
> force men into parenthood. Actually, I'm exaggerating. It turns out that
> our
> laws DO give men a reproductive choice. men can always choose between
> paying
>  and going to jail. If you think men are being treated as scapegoats, I'm
>   sorry, you obviously have a bad attitude, and will most likely never be
>    satisfied with the real choice that men have now. It's called "Men's
>    Choice", and it's a hair color from Clairol. I'm not making this up.

> It's not just men who want to change the law. So does a former president
> of
>   the National Organization of Women (NOW), Karen DeCrow. She was Frank's
>    attorney and said "Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a
>  unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father
> does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for
> 21
> years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent
> decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their
> choice."

> And it's not just men and Karen. My own survey found that more women want
> to
> give men a choice than do men!(8) That's right. I, myself, asked 102
> people
> if men should have a choice, and more women said yes. Maybe women know
> just
>   how important choice is, and want their brothers and sons to have it.

> And it's not just men and women. Its our environment. Too many births
> means
>                overpopulation, pollution and deforestation.

> And it's not just humanity and the environment. This is also the opinion
> of
> Men's Rights Inc. and the National Center for Men, which want to reform
> our
>                              paternity laws.

> So if Frank gets deceived again, he would have some recourse or remedy and
>  Pam can do what she wants, which may well involve a career robbing banks.
>                               Or, Pam could:

>                             1. have an abortion.

>                      2. put the child up for adoption.

>    3. raise the child on her own, without any involvement or interference
>                                 from the father.

>   Unfortunately, at this point in time, people are treating reproductive
>    rights as a matter of personal taste. Person A may think reproductive
> freedom is a fundamental right, as women have enjoyed since 1973, yet
> person
>    B might think all men are philandering scum who should be forced into
> parenthood, and, if necessary, sell that extra kidney to pay child
> support.
> But does this mean person B is wrong? Of course not. It simply means
> person
> B is half-witted and should not be permitted to operate machinery. Of
> course
>         I'm kidding, machinery will never be THAT easy to operate.

> My survey also showed that only about a third of us think men shouldn't
> have
> a choice. Sheesh, what's this country coming to? Emancipation in the
> 1800's,
>  suffrage and choice for women in the 1900's, the next thing you know, men
> might get a reproductive choice too. Of course we may all be flying around
>            in the Jetson's space ships by the time that happens.

>  On the other hand, if you don't want to wait that long, join a free email
>          based list server dedicated to legalizing Choice for Men.

>                                 References

>          1. Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, (212) 248-1111

>     2. 5/3/83 L. Pamela P. v Frank S., Court of Appeals of New York: 462
>                           N.Y.S.2d 819 (Ct.App. 1983)

>  3. STATE of Kansas, ex rel., Colleen HERMESMANN, Appellee, v. Shane
> SEYER,
>      a minor, and Dan and Mary Seyer, his parents, Appellants. No. 67,978.
>                     Supreme Court of Kansas. March 5, 1993.

>  4. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, 1992 Congressional Report

>      5. DRAFT Unintended Births: Women's Attitudes vis-a-vis their Male
>      Partners' Attitudes: 1982-1990, Joyce C. Abma and Linda J. Piccinino,
>         NCHS, 6525 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (301) 436-8731

>          6. Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, (212) 248-1111

>     7. Des Moines Register, Jan94 and News of the Weird, March 11, 1994

>     8. Survey conducted by Kingsley G. Morse Jr., October 1992, National
>       Center for Men, P.O. Box 555 Old Bethpage, NY 11804 (516) 942-2020.Y