Well, since we've all heard by now...
Here's something I posted on June 9th (only part of the thread).
MAYBE young men in the U.S. will start taking birth control more seriously if/when Roe falls, but we can't count on that. (Right now, it can be hard enough just to get men to pay for the condoms half the time.)
So here's my suggestion.
When young men complain that they don't like condoms, that they're sick and tired of using them, or that a woman who's on the Pill doesn't need an additional contraceptive (which is FALSE; the Pill has a real-life failure rate of 5%), women need to start saying "there's no way I'm getting pregnant unless I want to, 1,000 percent. Therefore, we have to use at least two contraceptives every single time until then. So, either we can keep using condoms - I'll even pay for them - OR you and I can go to my doctor and we can figure out which two contraceptives to use, but YOU will pay for half the total cost. Which do you want?"
Granted, some men would rather break up the relationship than make such a choice - but those men were going to leave eventually anyway, right?
Btw, all this came to mind when I happened to see this:
"Why do so many people have kids when it’s SOOOO easy to just not?"
Thankfully, as many commentators pointed out, for most women in the world, it's NOT easy to avoid having babies. Even if you're a celibate adult, you may well be shunned for refusing to follow the script. And even in the U.S., getting access to good, safe birth control isn't always easy either.
> Of course that would piss off the anti-choicers because
> they are less about pro-life than about female
I kind of doubt that.
(Mind you, I REALLY hate to say that.)
The reason I'm saying it is that, again, in highly conservative/religious communities, young men and women alike who refuse to find mates AND refuse to become religious or conservative missionaries, tend to get treated very badly even if they don't HAVE sex lives. (Unfortunately, liberals aren't too kind to heterosexual men who refuse to get married either. Liberals tend to forget that if women have the right to stay single and childfree, so do men.)
What's more, if a man and a woman are both over 60 and having a premarital (not adulterous) affair, unless they're well-known as pillars of their church, are the conservative church leaders really likely to "out" them as sinners?
Most of the time, I suspect, the leaders don't really care about those couples. What they ARE opposed to is young people taking control of their own futures by not having babies, whether through abortion, birth control or celibacy.
Childfree singles often have more money - and they vote. Many people see childfree WOMEN, with their political power, as more terrifying than childfree men - but who knows why. Both have the power to change society greatly, as the childfree Ralph Nader did. (As anyone knows, he's had no shortage of enemies in Big Business.)
...many alleged academics who fight for men's rights talk, online, as though men in long-term relationships shouldn't have to think about birth control at all - that it's "women's work." Even when the man doesn't want a baby and the woman does.
...It's interesting that there wasn't any real, political pro-male-contraception literature that I know of (other than feminist demands) before the mid-1990s.
Why did the change happen then?
Very likely, it's because that's when child-support laws started to grow real teeth.
So, time and again (especially on the site "A Voice for Men"), there was a good deal of chatter from 1998 to 2015 or so about "legal paternal surrender," plus how "the patriarchy will rise again once men everywhere are using the 'male pill'!"
But, those who said they couldn't wait for the new BC methods to be available in the U.S. seldom or never said THEY would use them - they just wanted hordes of OTHER men to use them, so as to put women into a panic. Fat chance.
At any rate, as I implied, men's rights activists haven't been talking much about those subjects in the last few years - likely because they came to realize that most Americans believe that fathers, not unrelated taxpayers, should be paying the bulk of child support, whether the couple is married or not. Plus, they likely realized that most men are not that interested in male birth control either. But, as I said, that may well change, once 26 states ban abortion and men wake up to the fact that child-support laws are not going away.
...Whether you're male or female, if you're old enough to understand the words "long-term consequences," and YOU'RE the one who doesn't want a pregnancy, it's YOUR job to make sure two or three contraceptives are being used, every time. As I said, child-support laws aren't going anywhere - and very few single women who give birth give up the baby for adoption anymore.
And here's an extra tip for men. If the new methods become available, by all means use them, but don't TELL anyone you're using them unless you're forced to. That way, you can't be accused of lying about using them. Of course, that means you'll still have to use condoms until SHE wants to use a different method - but you won't have to worry about breakage or sabotage.
(For more than one reason, I'm sure doctors will not want to have their teenage male patients using those new methods. Therefore, fathers of teen girls will be able to say to their daughters: "If he's a teen and he says he's using something invisible, he's lying. Here's how I know.")
...At any rate, what people need to realize is that regardless of which side you're on, if Roe falls, it won't be just women who will suffer in red states, what with those states' frequent aversion to birth control. It also won't be just couples under 50 who will suffer - or even just people in red states. Why?
Because we've all heard of grandparents who have been forced into raising their grandchildren (sometimes one grandchild after another) when the parents are negligent or otherwise unfit. Think of how those numbers are likely to rise - and plenty of those grandparents live in different states. (Not that it's always a grandparent who feels the moral urge to take custody, if unwillingly - but you get the idea.)
Speak of the devil...
Yes, it's Reddit, but it's plausible enough.