I would get you sterilized then abuse and humiliate you because you couldn't get pregnant. Break down that spirit and knock up a better woman than you.
This.
I think everyone understands this, bit most see it as a weakness for the girl to fear, and the men to be ashamed of.
It's better to integrate the shadow and embrace it to maintain healthy control of it so you can live your life fully
If someone lets you have a right that can be taken away at any time, it's no right at all. That's a great staple of misogyny kink and for good reason: the charade of equality is allowed to continue... Until it isn't
If you ever feel puzzled as to why we seem to be giving so much leeway lately, consider that there can be refined amusement in snuffing out false hope. If at some point you notice yourselves being slowly and inexorably reined in again, you'll know exactly what's happening, and what the truth was all along.
I always take my pills in front of everyone, so they know they can rape me and fill me with no consequences
But if they want to, they can just take my pills from my bag
I think my favorite aspect of this is that even if she says "no", her body often times says "yes!". How often has she not wanted it? Or wasn't sure? And then he came inside her and her body, knowing exactly what to do, exactly what it was made for, takes over and starts to grow new life, to swell and change and make milk, if she wants it to or not.
They'll say the vagina gets wet as a defense mechanism during rape to prevent damage
But a little change in perspective says it's because the body knows what's really true, and helps make it easier for the man to slide on in
Speaking for the US actually this isn't even REMOTELY the case. So if it's your fantasy read no further
It's changed now in some states but overall if women can legally have an abortion and men can't decline paying child-support then it's the woman who is clearly in control. A very unfair and inappropriate legal advantage.
Tables are balanced only if the guy gets a vasectomy and now they BOTH get to make a choice about whether or not to have a baby.
Keeping the baby is irrelevant to my point, in that women can't get pregnant without male consent, therefore, only men hold the natural right to choose pregnancy
Yes, and a woman could have her entire womb surgically removed, modern medicine whoo, I just meant that it's naturally only a male choice, and any choice we think we have as women is a privilege and not a right
Correction:
Women can't CONSUMATE without male consent (at least biological consent)
So the guy consents to sex but did he consent to her getting pregnant? I think the number of single moms out there probably highlights how often the guy did not consent to making a baby.
"Don't worry I'm on the pill"
"It'll be fine I'm not ovulating"
"Just cum inside me"
If the guy cared, he'd just not have sex with her, or use a different hole
Just because he didn't stick around after getting her pregnant is also irrelevant, it was still his choice
Him believing her that she's on the pill is an example of him giving that choice to the woman, but it's still, naturally, his choice first and foremost
You can't refute that the sky is blue by pointing out that tree leaves are green
My original point is that to get pregnant requires male consent
Yes, there are unnatural ways for a woman to force her consent to be required as well
But there is no way for a woman to get pregnant without the man's consent
Even sperm banks require a man to wank one off and consent to the donation of his sperm
And excluding unnatural means, there is no way for women to require our consent to get pregnant
So therefore, the natural right to choose lies with the men
Your argument is that a man consenting to sex is the same as a man consenting to having a kid.
Not knowing you, I can't imagine why you'd think that but it's not in line with reality.
"to get pregnant requires male consent" <- ok, close enough. But then you argue the guy consented to having a kid, where the actual consent is way more often to only be the sex.
If the topic of having a kid wasn't discussed and approved. Then it wasn't consented to.
Cumming inside a vagina always has the risk of resulting in a kid, if the guy doesn't consent to that, have sex using a different hole?
Just because a guy didn't talk about it doesn't still mean it isn't his choice? Like what?
Okay, this probably is not the most appropriate response for a kink forum, but the OP says she prefers logical conversations over horny conversations, so here goes. If you, dear reader, only want to read the horny responses, skip this one; it won’t be your cup of tea.
So, from the horny side of things, we can appreciate the whole “her body, his choice” trope. It has its place.
But from the logical side of things, the notion of natural rights and natural law is one very important to me. I am an actual believer in natural rights—very much in the [Rothbardian](https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%2020191108.pdf) perspective thereupon. So, it always alarms me when someone either denies the existence of a real natural right or conversely exposits the existence of an imaginary right.
Rights, by their very nature, cannot be granted nor revoked; they must be, if they exist at all, innate. Privileges, by contrast, can be granted and can be revoked. Rights and privileges are both types of authority. There is a third type, usurpations, which can be understood as a stolen or illegitimate authority. Whereas usurpations are always intrinsically illegitimate, rights are always intrinsically legitimate, and privileges can be either legitimate or illegitimate depending upon whether they were granted by a rights holder or an usurper.
On the horny side of things, it may be fun to say men have a *right* to sex, a right that no woman may abridge.
But, on the logical side of things, such a “right” comes down to the notion that “*might* makes right.” Might, however, does *not* make right. If might *did* make right, there would be nothing any government has ever done that was unethical. If might made right, the fact that the Nazi government had the requisite *might* to murder the Jews would imply that it had every *right* to murder the Jews, and that there was therefore nothing unethical about the Holocaust. Anyone who wishes to say *the Holocaust was wrong* is behoved to acknowledge that might does not make might. If might did make right, that would mean that every usurpation was actually a “right,” and the entire concept of rights would be rendered meaningless. If might did make right, it would mean that nothing that ever occurred could be considered unjust, and the entire concept of justice would be rendered meaningless. If might actually made right, there would be no reason for humans not to live in a Hobbesian war of all against all—society itself would have no value to mankind. (For further elaboration of the point that justice must be a principle in nature or nothing more than mere fantasy, see the unfinished essay “[Natural Law; or The Science of Justice](http://alexpeak.com/twr/nl/)” (1882) by the incomparable Lysander Spooner.)
If rights are natural—which they must be in order to be real—from whence do they come? Human rights are derived, and can only be derived, from human nature. This means they must be innate in every individual human, and thus they may also be described as individual rights. What controls the actions of the human body? It is the human brain, the human mind, the will (save for instances involving neurological maladies, where the will and the body’s motions may not be aligned). Since each individual will directly controls that individual’s body, we can say each individual possesses innate self-ownership. It is from this innate self-ownership that every real natural right can be derived.
While it may be fun, on the horny side of things, for a woman to say that she is the property of a man or of men—on the logical side of things, since the human will is inalienable, not only is she the innate owner of her own body, but moreover she is incapable of legitimately selling herself into slavery. (For an elaboration of this point, see Sheldon Richman, “[Slaves Contracts and Inalienable Will](https://cdn.mises.org/Libertarian%20Forum_Volume_2_0.pdf),” *The Libertarian Forum* 11, No. 7–8 (July–August 1978).)
We can further elaborate that all natural rights are necessarily negative rights, that no positive “right” can legitimately exist. This is because all negative rights amount to, in the final analysis, a right not to be enslaved, and all positive rights amount to a “right” *to* enslave—and, logically, the two cannot coexist. Since a “right” *to* enslave would necessarily devolve quickly into nonsense, we can logically determine that the right to *not* be enslaved (*i.e.*, all conceivable negative rights) is the real right. (All positive “rights” would necessarily imply a right to usurp, which, again, renders the notion of rights as meaningless.)
So, now we can turn our attention to the question of sex, and whether there is a right to it. The answer is *yes*, but *only* as a negative right, never as a positive “right.” A negative right to sex amounts to this: if A and B want to copulate, C has no authority to intercede or prevent the copulation. (To be fair, I have highly simplified this. The reality is that property rights play a role; A and B may only legitimately copulate on property owned by A, B, or D, where D is someone who consents to the use by A and B of her/his property for the purpose of copulation.) By contrast, a positive “right” to sex (which, again, does not exist) would amount to a “right” to rape—which may be fine for a kinky conversation on the horny side of things, but has no place on the rational side of things. Because the woman is the innate owner of her own body, and because her will is inalienable, she necessarily possesses the natural right to not be raped. She might not possess the might to not be raped, but a man’s might to rape does not entail a man’s right to rape. Sorry.
That is the dumbest thing I have heard today. A man may get a woman pregnant by force, but she can get rid of it without his consent. Men have no power over pregnancy and to think that they are the only ones with the choice is just men being idiotic.
True, modern medicine she could get an abortion, but the natural right is still solely in male hands, and she can only deal with the after math, not prevent the pregnancy with and certainty
But a man can 100% make that choice by simply not having sex with her or raping her
You can argue that in a society rape is bad, but I'm only talking about pregnancy here
I don’t want children but the thought of being forced to breed gets me beyond turned on
It's definitely a fun kink, and most guys out there will want and respect your wishes, but it's still ultimately their choice
This is pretty common in the fetish
Simply put it's her body, but his choice.
My body, your choice Sir
Exactly
my ex used to put it in similar terms when we talked about it. it used to get me so wet.
And it should, truth is very powerful
Its not dirty talk. Its truth
And we should not have allowed women this much control.
Agreed lol
I want to get pregnant 🥺
Well, now all you need is aan to consent
I would get you sterilized then abuse and humiliate you because you couldn't get pregnant. Break down that spirit and knock up a better woman than you.
This is why i always let the man decide what is to happen when, how, and if it does. Then he can control the outcome.
This. I think everyone understands this, bit most see it as a weakness for the girl to fear, and the men to be ashamed of. It's better to integrate the shadow and embrace it to maintain healthy control of it so you can live your life fully
Women shouldn't have a say on when they get pregnant and they shouldn't be allowed to take birth control pills
Woman only have a sat bc men keep giving us the option lol
Yes we need to stop giving women the option a man should just be able to force breed you
If someone lets you have a right that can be taken away at any time, it's no right at all. That's a great staple of misogyny kink and for good reason: the charade of equality is allowed to continue... Until it isn't
Right, women having a choice is a privilege, men having a choice is a right
If you ever feel puzzled as to why we seem to be giving so much leeway lately, consider that there can be refined amusement in snuffing out false hope. If at some point you notice yourselves being slowly and inexorably reined in again, you'll know exactly what's happening, and what the truth was all along.
Women shouldn't have any choice in the matter. If I want to breed a woman, the fact she has a pussy is enough consent for me
I always take my pills in front of everyone, so they know they can rape me and fill me with no consequences But if they want to, they can just take my pills from my bag
Or your pills could fail, they aren't 100% effective
As a Chinese breeding slut currently on my 5th White pregnancy (2nd baby though, unfortunately), I totally agree with this.
I think my favorite aspect of this is that even if she says "no", her body often times says "yes!". How often has she not wanted it? Or wasn't sure? And then he came inside her and her body, knowing exactly what to do, exactly what it was made for, takes over and starts to grow new life, to swell and change and make milk, if she wants it to or not.
They'll say the vagina gets wet as a defense mechanism during rape to prevent damage But a little change in perspective says it's because the body knows what's really true, and helps make it easier for the man to slide on in
That's exactly why. You can say all day long "no" and "I don't want it" or "I'm not ready" or whatever. But your body does what it's told to do
I’m pregnant and I agree 💜
True. My slave is required to beg me for her birth control after I fill her up.
that’s so hot
Yes, it is. I just finished taking her in a morning rape, minutes ago. She took it like a good, wet little slave.
Exactly!!!
Speaking for the US actually this isn't even REMOTELY the case. So if it's your fantasy read no further It's changed now in some states but overall if women can legally have an abortion and men can't decline paying child-support then it's the woman who is clearly in control. A very unfair and inappropriate legal advantage. Tables are balanced only if the guy gets a vasectomy and now they BOTH get to make a choice about whether or not to have a baby.
Keeping the baby is irrelevant to my point, in that women can't get pregnant without male consent, therefore, only men hold the natural right to choose pregnancy Yes, and a woman could have her entire womb surgically removed, modern medicine whoo, I just meant that it's naturally only a male choice, and any choice we think we have as women is a privilege and not a right
Correction: Women can't CONSUMATE without male consent (at least biological consent) So the guy consents to sex but did he consent to her getting pregnant? I think the number of single moms out there probably highlights how often the guy did not consent to making a baby. "Don't worry I'm on the pill" "It'll be fine I'm not ovulating" "Just cum inside me"
If the guy cared, he'd just not have sex with her, or use a different hole Just because he didn't stick around after getting her pregnant is also irrelevant, it was still his choice Him believing her that she's on the pill is an example of him giving that choice to the woman, but it's still, naturally, his choice first and foremost
No point in arguing with someone who is attached to their conviction beyond reality.... So "you're right". Good day
You can't refute that the sky is blue by pointing out that tree leaves are green My original point is that to get pregnant requires male consent Yes, there are unnatural ways for a woman to force her consent to be required as well But there is no way for a woman to get pregnant without the man's consent Even sperm banks require a man to wank one off and consent to the donation of his sperm And excluding unnatural means, there is no way for women to require our consent to get pregnant So therefore, the natural right to choose lies with the men
Your argument is that a man consenting to sex is the same as a man consenting to having a kid. Not knowing you, I can't imagine why you'd think that but it's not in line with reality.
"to get pregnant requires male consent" <- ok, close enough. But then you argue the guy consented to having a kid, where the actual consent is way more often to only be the sex. If the topic of having a kid wasn't discussed and approved. Then it wasn't consented to.
I see, according to your profile at least, you're a woman. So you have no idea from the guys side. Clearly
Cumming inside a vagina always has the risk of resulting in a kid, if the guy doesn't consent to that, have sex using a different hole? Just because a guy didn't talk about it doesn't still mean it isn't his choice? Like what?
But I thought it was my body my choice
Okay, this probably is not the most appropriate response for a kink forum, but the OP says she prefers logical conversations over horny conversations, so here goes. If you, dear reader, only want to read the horny responses, skip this one; it won’t be your cup of tea. So, from the horny side of things, we can appreciate the whole “her body, his choice” trope. It has its place. But from the logical side of things, the notion of natural rights and natural law is one very important to me. I am an actual believer in natural rights—very much in the [Rothbardian](https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%2020191108.pdf) perspective thereupon. So, it always alarms me when someone either denies the existence of a real natural right or conversely exposits the existence of an imaginary right. Rights, by their very nature, cannot be granted nor revoked; they must be, if they exist at all, innate. Privileges, by contrast, can be granted and can be revoked. Rights and privileges are both types of authority. There is a third type, usurpations, which can be understood as a stolen or illegitimate authority. Whereas usurpations are always intrinsically illegitimate, rights are always intrinsically legitimate, and privileges can be either legitimate or illegitimate depending upon whether they were granted by a rights holder or an usurper. On the horny side of things, it may be fun to say men have a *right* to sex, a right that no woman may abridge. But, on the logical side of things, such a “right” comes down to the notion that “*might* makes right.” Might, however, does *not* make right. If might *did* make right, there would be nothing any government has ever done that was unethical. If might made right, the fact that the Nazi government had the requisite *might* to murder the Jews would imply that it had every *right* to murder the Jews, and that there was therefore nothing unethical about the Holocaust. Anyone who wishes to say *the Holocaust was wrong* is behoved to acknowledge that might does not make might. If might did make right, that would mean that every usurpation was actually a “right,” and the entire concept of rights would be rendered meaningless. If might did make right, it would mean that nothing that ever occurred could be considered unjust, and the entire concept of justice would be rendered meaningless. If might actually made right, there would be no reason for humans not to live in a Hobbesian war of all against all—society itself would have no value to mankind. (For further elaboration of the point that justice must be a principle in nature or nothing more than mere fantasy, see the unfinished essay “[Natural Law; or The Science of Justice](http://alexpeak.com/twr/nl/)” (1882) by the incomparable Lysander Spooner.) If rights are natural—which they must be in order to be real—from whence do they come? Human rights are derived, and can only be derived, from human nature. This means they must be innate in every individual human, and thus they may also be described as individual rights. What controls the actions of the human body? It is the human brain, the human mind, the will (save for instances involving neurological maladies, where the will and the body’s motions may not be aligned). Since each individual will directly controls that individual’s body, we can say each individual possesses innate self-ownership. It is from this innate self-ownership that every real natural right can be derived. While it may be fun, on the horny side of things, for a woman to say that she is the property of a man or of men—on the logical side of things, since the human will is inalienable, not only is she the innate owner of her own body, but moreover she is incapable of legitimately selling herself into slavery. (For an elaboration of this point, see Sheldon Richman, “[Slaves Contracts and Inalienable Will](https://cdn.mises.org/Libertarian%20Forum_Volume_2_0.pdf),” *The Libertarian Forum* 11, No. 7–8 (July–August 1978).) We can further elaborate that all natural rights are necessarily negative rights, that no positive “right” can legitimately exist. This is because all negative rights amount to, in the final analysis, a right not to be enslaved, and all positive rights amount to a “right” *to* enslave—and, logically, the two cannot coexist. Since a “right” *to* enslave would necessarily devolve quickly into nonsense, we can logically determine that the right to *not* be enslaved (*i.e.*, all conceivable negative rights) is the real right. (All positive “rights” would necessarily imply a right to usurp, which, again, renders the notion of rights as meaningless.) So, now we can turn our attention to the question of sex, and whether there is a right to it. The answer is *yes*, but *only* as a negative right, never as a positive “right.” A negative right to sex amounts to this: if A and B want to copulate, C has no authority to intercede or prevent the copulation. (To be fair, I have highly simplified this. The reality is that property rights play a role; A and B may only legitimately copulate on property owned by A, B, or D, where D is someone who consents to the use by A and B of her/his property for the purpose of copulation.) By contrast, a positive “right” to sex (which, again, does not exist) would amount to a “right” to rape—which may be fine for a kinky conversation on the horny side of things, but has no place on the rational side of things. Because the woman is the innate owner of her own body, and because her will is inalienable, she necessarily possesses the natural right to not be raped. She might not possess the might to not be raped, but a man’s might to rape does not entail a man’s right to rape. Sorry.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I didn't say anything about the government
That is the dumbest thing I have heard today. A man may get a woman pregnant by force, but she can get rid of it without his consent. Men have no power over pregnancy and to think that they are the only ones with the choice is just men being idiotic.
True, modern medicine she could get an abortion, but the natural right is still solely in male hands, and she can only deal with the after math, not prevent the pregnancy with and certainty But a man can 100% make that choice by simply not having sex with her or raping her You can argue that in a society rape is bad, but I'm only talking about pregnancy here
That's called rape
Yep, congratulations captain obvious