|
|
|
|
|
|
by scott_s
3898 days ago
|
|
|
I completely understand the upside. I am, however, assuming a situation where both parties do not want to have a child, right then. The original scenario was, implicitly, casual sex. (Original scenario: "her: do you have protection? him: um, sure. I'm taking that, uh, that pill thing.") We can be more charitable and assume that scenario could play out a few months into dating. In such situations, not wanting a pregnancy is generally taken as a given. The entire discussion - birth control - even assumes that pregnancy, at the moment, is not wanted. So I'm confused why you're bring up the value of having children (which I do not deny) in a discussion about the incentives for men and women in avoiding unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps your confusion is that I stated "There is no incentive for man to impregnate a woman", and you interpreted that as a universal statement. It was not. It was a direct response to the question for a man's motives in the given scenario, which assumes unwanted pregnancy. |
|
|
The point I'm trying to make it that the cost is not the only part of the equation and that we must also account for reward and control.
Cost/reward When the female birth control pill became available the cost/value was weighted very heavily against the woman and female control was much more essential. However today the cost/value is more evenly weighted. Back then a man could deny everything and move on leaving the woman with the baby and a ruined life. Now the man can't deny everything and as a minimum will be committed to child maintenance but he may still be denied access to the child. So the situation now is: woman high cost coupled with high reward; man moderate cost and potential reward controlled by the woman.
Control Let's assume that both parties decide for themselves based on their own cost/reward situation. Let's assume that they don't always inform the other of the their decision honestly. Neither is perfect judge of character.
Current situation Scenario 1: Man wants child. Woman does not. Woman controls outcome. No child. Scenario 2: Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Woman controls outcome. Child. Scenario 3: Both want child. Child. Scenario 4: Neither want child. No child.
Situation with male birth control Scenario 1: Man wants child. Woman does not. Woman controls outcome. No child. Scenario 2: Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man controls outcome. No child. Scenario 3: Both want child. Child. Scenario 4: Neither want child. No child.
P.S. Personally I think that the pill was one of the greatest drivers of women starting to have rights on a par with men (I'm not saying that 2015s western world is perfect gender equality wise but it is a lot better than the 1950s western world was).
P.P.S. I just think that men should if possible have the option to control their reproductive function and that it does not matter whether woman trusts the man -- the man's control does not affect the woman's control (except in the scenario that the woman is a deceptive actor - NB that the inverse situation where the man is a deceptive actor is already under the woman's control).