Friday, April 6, 2012

About That Sperm-Stealing Reddit Thread

In regards to the reddit thread where a man complained about a woman trying to steal the used condom after they had sex, and where she told him that she was going to impregnate herself against his will, and how he had to actually punch her once to get it back, Rebecca Watson writes:
To you, me, and every non-paranoid normal person on the planet, that is an obviously made-up story. Women aren’t hysterical shrews driven to birth children regardless of where the sperm comes from. We’re not Loki, planning great Rube Goldbergian machinations to enslave men into becoming hapless fathers who will pay us a grand sum each month for the rest of our lives. That obviously is not a common occurrence.

Why is it "obviously" not a common occurrence? I think she knows full well it happens at least sometimes. I remember back in my younger years, hearing acquaintances at school talking about wanting to have a baby with this or that guy. Some of them outright treated it like job security. Until the upcoming kid was finished school, she'd at least get living money for raising it. Some were less centred on any specific man, but instead wanted to get preggers to qualify for family welfare (much more money than single person welfare).

Some felt romantic about the man and hoped that getting 'accidently on purpose' preggers would cement things. They still had a backup plan though for just in case, which was that the forced father would probably still have to support her financially. And if his job sucked too much to get much via the courts from him, or if he took off, there was always family welfare.

So, which is worse? Forcing parenthood on someone who does not want it, along with about 18 years of demands of large sums of money on a regular basis (or threat of jail for nonpayment in some places),......or..... punching someone in the stomach once as self defence in order to prevent that parenthood from being forced on them?

They are saying that the original poster was just a poe, faking it for the reaction. But one fake doesn't change the fact that it DOES happen, even if it's infrequent. On one hand, I would like to know why Watson believes that it's not a common occurance, but on the other hand, even if uncommon, it's not 'never'. Once in a while, it even makes the news.

If the poster's story had been true, as much as I'm against physical violence, I think this one would have been justified as self defence if he had no other way to grab the condom back from her.

But, that gets to the core of this whole feminism thing, doesn't it? It's all one-sided. Pretend that men have no issues in the western world regarding equal rights (like the right to not be forced into parenthood), and switch around a self defence punch into an offensive, offending punch, pointing it out as a horribly sexist physical assault, rather than the defensive move it actually would be.

An egalitarian, or a basic humanist, would not demand that a situation of who is harming who, be dependent on what gender the people are. Is it fine and dandy for a woman to do both a financial fraud and an intrusion on a man's body autonomy? Sure, we don't consider that bad since she's a woman. Magical thinking, ain't it wonderful? She's ALWAYS the victim, never the offender. Is a self defence punch done by the above man to prevent being forced into parenthood fine and dandy? Never. It is not allowed if towards a woman, NO MATTER WHAT HARM SHE IS THREATENING HIM WITH.

What's wrong with that picture?

Imagine if the reverse happened. Imagine if a woman found out that a man she was seeing put pin holes in the condoms in hopes of knocking her up and getting her to agree to marry him. And to keep it equivalent to the original scenario, let's also say she is not able to get, or is not allowed, an abortion. In other words, parenthood is going to be forced on her. Let's also say, that instead of the money demands that happen to fathers, the demand on her is the extra domestic child care work she'll be doing IN ADDITION to any day job that she does for money (if she has one).

And to keep up the reversed roles here, let's also say that Pinholes-in-the-Condom Man tells her of his intentions and what he's done, just as they were about to make love. Wouldn't we all agree that she should stop him somehow, yell, squirm away from him, maybe even give him a punch, as long as it means she can get away and avoid the forced parenthood?


  1. I think the family allowance they used to go for back then was called "mother's allowance" or something similar, and it was especially for single women with kid(s). I don't know if single male parents were allowed to collect it too or not.

  2. you're completely right. regardless of whether or not this specific tale is true, stuff like this happens a lot. when watson says it "obviously" doesn't happen, is this any different from a man saying that woman who claim to have been raped are "obviously" making it up? when someone says that something is obviously true, it's evidence of their own biases and assumptions rather than anything true in reality. if it were so evident that no woman ever traps men in this way, or if women faking rape were so common, it would be no consequence at all to present evidence for this, yet this kind of reality denier never does. their bias is enough for them.

  3. They are hesitant to charge any women with sex crimes, whether it's rape, or being found to have made a false rape claim.

    The usual reason given for not criminally charging false rape accusers, is that they think it'll discourage real rape victims from calling the police. That line's been fed to the public by feminists with no proof. Isn't it in fact more logical, to assume the opposite? That it would discourage the FAKE accusers from calling the police?

    1. so, they're willing to let horrible things happen to innocent men, including rape (there are some who don't want women to be able to be charged with it), because holding women accountable *might*(!) lead to false accusations! it's almost as if false accusations and rape only matter to them when it's women who are at stake. Oh, WAIT.

    2. They claim punishing women who admit that they lied will put off real cases from reporting it, but that doesn't make sense. I think it would only put off the crazy vengeful types who lie about it for a while and then fess up later on.

      Also, a result of a false rape charge is often that the accused man really does get raped in prison. They say sexual offenders get raped in there even more than everyone else.

  4. "But one fake doesn't change the fact that it DOES happen, even if it's infrequent."

    Oops? Shades of Dillahunty here?

    1. I dont see how MKG.. the embedded links in the original article takes you to documented evidence of such events.

    2. Hmm, I should have said:
      "But one fake setup by feminists in a bait and switch doesn't change the fact that it DOES happen, even if it's infrequent." And yeah, it does have some shades of Dillahunty to it, I suppose. Some differences though too. Um, I hope. :)

      The point of the original fake story, was twofold: After saying both the theft and the punch happened, the faker(s) came back saying ha ha fooled you, and then twits like Watson start claiming that sperm theft never (or almost never) really happens, but look, look! They want you to notice how all these MRAs thought a punch was ok, Oh my goddess! Since women NEVER steal sperm, he's just a violent menz who just wants to punch. See sisters, this punch is the patriarchy, or whateverthefuck.

      You know what I really wouldn't be surprised to find out? That Watson was in on posting the original fake story, or something like that. Bait her enemy menz with a frequent MRA complaint/fear, sneak a defensive punch into the story, then yank away the bait (say it never really happens) while leaving in the switched punch (now offensive, not defensive). Followed by rhetoric of see how violent menz, and especially MRAs are, sisters? Etc. Ad nauseum.

  5. I forgot to mention, that whenever I see a guy just toss a used condom into the garbage, the poor guy gets a little lecture from me to not be so trusting when he has sex, and to always rinse the condom out under the water tap before throwing it out. I warn them that some women use those to get 'accidently on purpose' pregnant.

    Also, it's just a bit cleaner. If you're like me and don't take the garbage out from the bathroom very often, then a few used condoms buried in among the other garbage can take on a bit of an 'off' odour. My bathroom once had that happen, and I narrowed down the stink to old condoms that were around a couple weeks old. Once I took out the garbage, the room was instantly fine again. So, that's another good reason to rinse them out before throwing them out.

  6. I noticed how she's using sweeping generalisations like "women are" and "women don't". who is she to decide how every woman on earth acts? how does she know the thought processes of every woman? what happened to judging women individually, and not relying on stereotypes?

    1. She does that a lot, acts as though she speaks on the behalf of most, if not all, women. She also presents other false shit as though it were factual. Like her claim of "obviously". It has nothing obvious about it.

      She presents guesses and assumptions as starting 'facts', and bases everything after it on those starting 'facts', so her entire attempts at arguing things is tainted from the start.

  7. Haha, over at the Skepchicklet's nest, in the comments, some of them are laughing at how impossible it is to get pregnant from wiping sperm on the outside of their crotches.

    Even a very stupid woman, would know to push the semen up inside her. A condom that can be pushed up inside, inside-out with a finger (so that it empties while up inside) could easily and quickly get the semen into the danger zone.

    I guess that the skepchickies aren't as smart as my above example of "even a very stupid woman...", cuz yeah, even a fucking retard would know to put the semen UP INSIDE. I guess that's a strawman for them to shoot down, pretending it's impossible to get pregnant from a used condom. As long as it's very fresh, and she has 15 or 20 seconds alone with it in the bathroom, that sperm can be right up her vagina around Cervix City in no time at all.

    So, guys, please rinse out your condoms with water before discarding, or at least buy brands that have some back-up spermicidal jelly on the inside for in case of breakage (cuz it fucks up theft too).

    Don't though, do what one guy did. He suspected a woman of doing this, so he poured a little bleach into the used condom. She suffered burns to herself. He got charged, even though he was trying to protect himself from her. She was attempting something that should be illegal.

    Also, if worried about "accidentally/on purpose" pregnancies, bring your own condoms. Pin-holing a condom can be done by EITHER party trying to entrap the other into parenthood. And you should almost never trust "I'm on the pill". Some women say that, and then later say that they must be that whatever low percent failure rate, cuz ooops, we're pregnant!

    1. on top of that, they must have some piss-poor sex education, because there have been cases where women have gotten pregnant after a guy came on the outside of their underwear. it's extremely rare, but it is physically possible.

    2. True. It can happen. So, even if they were right that most women are as dumb as they themselves are (and would smear it on the outside), it would still once in a blue moon cause a pregnancy.

      Also, the ovulation-time natural lube from the inside makes it easier for the sperms to swim whatever extra distance to the cervix from wherever inside they've been deposited. Sometimes that ovulation-time lube can be copious enough to escape to the outside, which I guess is what could make such an extra big swim sometimes possible. I think horniness-caused lube is also conducive to the sperm swimming to the right place, too, from what I read somewhere. Not absolutely sure though.