Vasectomy?

[Tuthmosis]

I see nothing wrong with sneaking the morning after pill into a woman's breakfast. It's unethical for a woman to force a man into parenthood. It's totally inconsiderate for his wishes as well as the wellbeing of the child.

Dude, don't get me wrong: I agree 1000% with this. I have no ethnic/moral qualms or hang-ups about taking care of my interests. Conveniently, men are held to a much higher moral standard when it comes to these matters. Most bitches will take advantage of the station afforded them by pregnancy in our society to wring the life out of you with no mercy, given the chance.

I was merely laughing at the diabolical genius of these ideas.

I doubt you are more paranoid about being a father than me brotha. I'd fucking die of a heart attack if a woman merely tells me she is a few days "late"....I got way too much to lose, and my freedom is priceless.

I'd probably give you a good run for your money. I've stopped short of fucking half-naked girls on my bed merely because they were "looking too fertile" or I had "a vision" of them with my kid. I avoided a string of ghetto-lyte chicks--that basically fell into my lap--because I figured they had nothing to lose (and, in fact, would gain a tremendous amount) by having me knock them up. With some chicks, one thin latex film isn't enough insurance. I've since eased up a little on this paranoia.

Incidentally, one of those ghetto-lyte girls (who was also a semi-friend of mine) got knocked up by the very next dude after me! Right after I started avoiding her to "let things cool off"--having stopped just short of fucking her because I got "a bad feeling"--she got knocked up by some poor, beta-looking dude. She swelled up into a chubster, keeping the baby weight along with the baby. Yikes!

I dodged that bullet.

 

[Gmac]

Now the dirty vagina movement, that's questionable. But Mixx's approach, brilliant. Should charge 9.95 per head for that tidbit.

I'm not saying that your wrong, but let me play devil's advocate here for a minute.

First, we're talking about two different sub-optimal situations that are being effected to the end of preventing pregnancy. Neither is good, as far as she is concerned.

1. A bacterial infection of the urinary tract

2. A pill-induced hormonal upheaval that aborts the pregnancy.

Neither is good. However, i would submit that the common UTI is less invasive than the hormonal manipulation. The UTI won't effect her body beyond that area. The hormonal change effects everything, including every organ, if only briefly.

Also, how much research has been done on the long term consequences of the morning after pill? And we're talking about administering it without consent. Lets say she were to 1. Get a UTI, which will never, ever be pinned on you. And it's more of an annoyance than anything. But let's say she finds out that you gave it to her 2. Get a blood test for some reason and the morning after pill were to be found in her system. If this were to go to a fictional court, and the judge were to be presented with both situations, which would he take a dimmer view of? Given that a UTI could ever be pinned on you, which it couldn't unless you were to admit to it. I would think that the pharmaceutical dosing would be much worse in the eyes of a judge and probably her. Girls get UTI's very commonly, and its actually just a risk with sexual interaction in general.

I'm not making a judgment or advocating either method, but just putting that perspective out there for the sake of argument.

She could never prove it unless she had more of what she ate/drank laying around.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I think I'll take my chance at an unplanned pregnancy rather than forgo baby making for life. As bad as it sounds, I don't care if I give a girl a UTI or some other infection, that's a risk she takes too. I wrap it up 99% of the time except with certain LTRs.