Who Looses? Nerds Do!

March 16, 2006 1:46 PM

Ever thought about the economics of nerd sex? If this guy's "men's rights" lawsuit succeeds will the real losers be "risk-loving, sex-crazed nerds who like to sleep with strange women and are willing to chance paternity". Why date a nerd in the first place? Ask Craigslist, of course.
posted by Jos Bleau (30 comments total)

Double, mostly
posted by elquien at 1:50 PM on March 16, 2006

....goddamnit why didn't you send me this link 2 years ago!?
NOW i know what my bitch ex was trying to get from me!!! at least i got out safely!

haha seriously though, entertaining article.
posted by Doorstop at 1:52 PM on March 16, 2006

Atricle one: [Dubay,] who claims he and his ex-girlfriend did not use birth control because of her assurances that she could not get pregnant due to a medical condition.

Article 2: He also says she was on birth control. Ultimately he would like to see the law change for men. He says they have no rights when it comes to unwanted or unintended pregnancies.

Which is true? Is he claiming she was or wasn't using birthcontrol? I think that one fact changes a lot. I don't know what to think about it, but dubbing it "Roe vs. Wade for Men" really rubs me the wrong way.
posted by piratebowling at 1:56 PM on March 16, 2006

I worried about that & should have linked to prior FPP, but the lawsuit is really only important as the trigger for the nerds x sex x economics discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
posted by Jos Bleau at 2:00 PM on March 16, 2006

Hey... maybe we can forge a compromise to bring us closer to a Randian dream-world of perfect choice. What if people could choose which scheme they want to use for their sex acts. Men who want to use the new scheme could have a symbol embossed on their forehead & women who had sex with them would know what they were getting into. Everyone else can stick to the old scheme. (Personally I have enough trouble getting laid without identifying myself as a juvenile self-centered misogynistic troglodyte, but I'm sure there are those for whom this would be no problem.)
posted by Wood at 2:06 PM on March 16, 2006

How's this for a plan:
1. Put a little man-juice on ice, in a sperm bank -- not to share/sell, but for future use. (How much does this cost?)
2. Get yourself snipped. I believe this is free from most insurance companies, as they really don't want the expenses of childbirth, etc.
3. Have lots and lots of pregnancy-free sex. (STDs are still a risk, of course.) If/when you decide to procreate, thaw out your boy batter and plant your seed.

Alternatively, vasectomies are usually (90%+) reversable, so you could just take your chances with that.
posted by LordSludge at 2:53 PM on March 16, 2006

"all that time thinking about sex, imagining sex, dreaming about sex, (they are male after all) coupled with a desire to make you happy?"

I believe this line of reasoning was first committed to cinema in the Revenge of the Nerds fair scene, where a nerdy Carradine brother has sex with a cheerleader while wearing a Darth Vader helmet.
posted by klangklangston at 3:37 PM on March 16, 2006

Regarding freezing sperm: Wasn't there a case where someone was forced to pay child support for a child resulting from the sperm bank deposit?
posted by kafziel at 4:01 PM on March 16, 2006

I don't think there are many nerds who want to fuck girls while risking paternity.

The real losers are nerds with vasectomies.
posted by delmoi at 4:14 PM on March 16, 2006

what exactly happens to your jizz have a vasectomy? I don't quite get it and I find that also a little worrysome.

Also, what if you want to star in porn movies?
posted by delmoi at 4:16 PM on March 16, 2006

Real oversexed nerds use protection, birth control, safe or safer sex, detailed communication, and if need be, abstinence.

Did I mention that I can tie a cherry stem into a Mobius strip with my tongue?
posted by loquacious at 4:31 PM on March 16, 2006

delmoi, did you pay attention in sex ed? The only thing that changes is that you shoot blanks. How on earth do you think a vasectomy affects you? Sperm is still manufactured (and no, you won't explode after a while) it just gets reabsorbed. So keep those porn star dreams!
posted by annieb at 4:40 PM on March 16, 2006

Are religious leaders proclaiming that male reproductive rights will encourage men to have too much sinful out-of-wedlock not-for-procreation sex? If not, they look super hypocritical.
posted by breath at 4:53 PM on March 16, 2006

OK, so my last comment was a bit of a derail. I made it, though, because I didn't understand the nerd economics link at all. Is it just saying that a significant amount of nerd sex comes from women who are trying to dupe them into paying child support? Or is it actually less dumb?
posted by breath at 5:02 PM on March 16, 2006

I only have one thing to say, and this is as a father with kids that I wanted and want and loved and love and adored and adore: you can't call it an "unintentional pregnancy" if ONE of the two people intended it. If you lie to someone and say "I can't get pregnant", but that isn't actually true, then you intended to get pregnant, pure and simple.

Anyway, this is the gist of what I've decided to teach my son when he's old enough:

At some point, you're going to start sleeping with women, unless you prefer sleeping with men. If you're sleeping with women, there is always a possibility that you will conceive a child together. So, if the woman you are about to sleep with tells you that protection (at least a condom, preferrably more) is not necessary, they will fall into one of the following categories:

1. Ignorant. Perhaps they didn't receive decent sex education, perhaps their friends convinced them you can't get pregnant "the first time", or something along those lines. Rest assured, they are wrong. Therefore, it is your responsibility and duty to use your knowledge of the subject, knowledge I am giving you right now, to realize that protection is indeed necessary at all times -- and act accordingly.

2. Secretly wants to get pregnant. They certainly won't admit it, they'll likely fiercely deny it, and they may not even admit it to themselves, but there are people out there who want to have a child, and are willing to lie or take advantage of people so that it will happen. Therefore, it is your responsibility to take any and all steps necessary to ensure that a baby will not be conceived.

3. Using bad judgement. All of the knowledge in the world won't stop some people -- including you -- from making a bad decision in the heat of the moment. Hormones are very powerful things, and nature has had hundreds of thousands of years to work out mechanisms to convince her and you that unprotected sex is what you want more than anything in the world right now. Therefore, it is your responsibility to plan ahead and know how you're going to handle it if she starts trying to convince you in the heat of the moment -- because, believe me, you won't need a lot of convincing.

4. Wrong. Her doctor may have told her she's sterile, and she may, with complete sincerity, believe it. Perhaps she's had years of unprotected sex (in which case you shouldn't be sleeping with her anyway) and never got pregnant, so truly thinks she can't get pregnant. However, she might be wrong. Therefore, you should probably assume she is and use protection anyway.

5. Openly wanting to conceive. For some people, it is a significant turn-on to think and talk about having a child during sex, and she may be completely honest with you and tell you she does in fact want a child. In this situation, it is your responsibility to understand that fathering a child happens in an instant, but takes a lifetime of commitment that is harder than anything else you will ever do -- and may or may not be equally rewarding. For me it has been, but for you it might not be, and if you're not sure, don't do it.

There. Not a bad trial run. Now I have several years to perfect it. Heh.
posted by davejay at 6:49 PM on March 16, 2006

Regarding vasectomies.

Delmoi, you still produce semen, but the sperm doesn't make it into the semen, as the vas deferens has been cut, cauterized, and tied. The sperm gets re-absorbed by the body, which tends to get better at sperm absorption over time, hence...

LordSludge, vasectomies are only 90% reversible in the first few years. Over time they become less reversible, and I would tell people who are getting a vasectomy to not consider it to be a reversible procedure.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:06 PM on March 16, 2006

Jos, did you mean *loses*?
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:07 PM on March 16, 2006

Wow. Too bad there isn't a relatively cheap way to not impregnate women. One possibly available in every drugstore, gas station, and supermarket.
posted by snickerdoodle at 9:56 PM on March 16, 2006

Sex without a condom > sex with condom, with someone you trust.

It's just a shame that you can't really trust anyone or anything.

I guess these are the same people who reckon dental dams are good for oral sex too?
posted by Jelreyn at 12:00 AM on March 17, 2006

Why would any smart nerd be upset that they won't be hit upon by manipulative women who want to use them for a free meal ticket?

Nerds that truely can't get laid aren't generally going to be hit upon by such women anyway, as the pool of available nerds makes that level of bottomfeeding unnecessary.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:51 AM on March 17, 2006

Too bad there isn't a relatively cheap way to not impregnate women.

Not 100% effective - I know this from personal experience.

Luckily, we did not disagree about how to proceed.

I know it's not a popular position here, but I support this law. Give women control over their bodies, and give men control over their money.
posted by bashos_frog at 3:15 AM on March 17, 2006

Sex without a condom > sex with condom, with someone you trust.

Someone you trust = someone who's willing to handle all the birth control responsibilities herself.
posted by transona5 at 6:26 AM on March 17, 2006

Sounds pretty good, davejay.
posted by raedyn at 7:22 AM on March 17, 2006

From the "lawsuit" link:

"We're actually asking a question of women," said Feit. "Is your stand on choice a principled stand, or does it work only when applied to you? As a progressive pro-choice man I am willing to support a woman's right to choose, but not if she's unwilling to reciprocate. I understand she's got to make the ultimate choice. But there is a disparity here that gives her complete control. So maybe there is a way to take advantage of this timing coincidence and say to pro-choice women: Are we in this thing together?"

But how is it possible to behave as if we're in this thing together when, after 10 years of looking for a fill-in-the-blank plaintiff, Feit and company picked now to suck all the oxygen out of the news coverage of actual abortion bans around the country? "But why can't you look at it in different way?" Feit responded. "That it will bring men into the movement and strengthen the choice position. Honestly, I don't see it as men versus women. It's about broadening what choice means."

I think he makes a good arguement for considering the notion of choice for both potential parents. It's a good question, something worthy of considering. I don't know if what they're fighting for here is the right answer or not, though. But I think it's a disscussion worth having. Because the "Men can choose if they have sex or not, if they use birth control or not" arguement, while true, has always seemed a little weak to me. But I'm adamant and absolutely convinced that no man (or woman) should be able to decide for me what I do with my body and my health choices be able to force to to have or not have an abortion. So what is the possible middle ground? Is there such a thing? To me, it seems a complicated moral or ethical question.
posted by raedyn at 7:37 AM on March 17, 2006

Raedyn— The difference is that it's no longer a man's body that's the crux of the decision after he comes. So the decision falls to the woman. Then, while the man can no doubt provide input, if a child is born the man pays child support in the interest of the child, something that these "men's rights" jackasses seem to have forgotten.
It is an inherently unequal situation, both biologically and legally. But the primary interest in whether or not to deliver a child must be the woman's, and then the primary interest in financial support must be the child's. The option that men have is a) to only have sex with avowedly pro-choice women and b) to use a form (perhaps even several forms) of birth control.
Considering the number of deadbeat dads in this country, I find it hilarious that we're trying to codify another way for them to shirk their responsibilities.
posted by klangklangston at 7:45 AM on March 17, 2006

So the decision falls to the woman.

But why? I mean it hardly seems to follow from first principles? Why is the childs intrest more important then the mans' intrest? They are both people, although one is younger then the other.
posted by delmoi at 8:39 AM on March 17, 2006

Delmoi— The child can't support itself or enforce its rights. You'll note that parental responsibility (legally) ends at the age of majority.
posted by klangklangston at 9:03 AM on March 17, 2006

As for why the woman's body as locus of pregnancy gives her primary rights in deciding whether or not to terminate that pregnancy, well, it seems pretty self-explanitory to me. If a man has a fetus implanted in his abdominal wall, he's free to terminate it at any point he chooses.
posted by klangklangston at 9:05 AM on March 17, 2006

As for why the woman's body as locus of pregnancy gives her primary rights in deciding whether or not to terminate that pregnancy, well, it seems pretty self-explanitory to me. - klangklangston

And to me. I do not question that part of it. But I think it's worthy of considering what other rights a potential father could/should be extended outside of deciding to terminate the pregnancy or not. I'm still thinking on this.
posted by raedyn at 9:32 AM on March 17, 2006

I guess I've already made clear what I think of these jackasses. However, Raedyn's comment that she's still thinking made me want to suggest another idea. Here's a "right" that men could have that would seem completely appropriate to me: first dibs on adoption. Like, if a woman wants to give up a baby for adoption the dad gets rights of first refusal (that sounds terrible.) Anyway, maybe that's already the case... seems straightforward enough.

My earlier suggestion about the stamp on the head wasn't serious. Anyone with a more nuanced social philosophy than a 15-year-old who's just read the Fountainhead would look at the result: more children raised with fewer resources-- albeit by their mother's informed decision-- and say that it's just not worth it. Actually you can do this now, when a woman uses a friend as a sperm donor for example, but that's not really the same. For one thing it requires planning.
posted by Wood at 10:06 AM on March 17, 2006