|Ted, let's look at some of what you wrote and I'll let these rational folks decide what your sense of life about sex is:|
"What I see as most important is not the supposed freedom of the gamete donors to knock boots at random"Goodness me! How could I ever have thought you had an anti-male or anti-sex bias? Such emotion-laden and argumentative never should suggest such...my bad./sarcasm
"I shouldn't have to face the consequences of my random squirting"
"wanton sluts and lone-wolf scoundrels"
Also, I thought you were arguing with my ideas when you wrote this:
Again, for the man to object that the woman could abort, so he should have no responsibility is to say that he should not have to face the consequences for his casual ejaculations. To me, this sounds more like the evasion of responsibility for one's actions than a call for freedom. If you don't want to serve the time, don't commit the crime. (emphasis added to show argumentation)Look, M. Keer, my argument is that the man has no responsibility for what a woman does with her body. If she chooses to engage in conduct that's going to get her pregnant, that's her responsibility. Again, it's her body, her choice, her responsibility. I am not arguing for evasion of responsibility! I am arguing that the "responsibility" doesn't exist! Or, the short version M. Funk put forth:
[R]ights and responsibilities are tied together, and that you cannot force responsibility onto fathers with no rights, nor can you claim rights for mothers who claim no responsibility. You should not be able to hold a man responsible for a child when he has no say Sanctioned for not missing the point and putting a counterintuitive point so simply.
A few things that made me chortle, though:
I have remained friends with all my exes, have mostly all straight (and non-Objectivist) friends, and have been out to friends and family as bi and atheist since the tenth grade.Uh, and? This shows your anti-male bias doesn't exist how again? Great, you're bisexual, that's phenomenal. You're friends with your exes: again, wonderful for you. That really doesn't prove anything in my mind...just because you're sexually attracted to men doesn't mean you're not anti-male; you're frothing about "random squiritings" proves that you have some kind of problem with casual sex. Nobody rational argues against your lifestyle, and frankly, I'd think someone with a minority lifestyle such as yours might not be so quick to declare those who have casual sex such horrible people.
As for claiming that orthodox Objectivists have no sense of responsibility...I'll let others hopefully take you to task for that crack. It was pretty unwarranted and lacking in evidence. It's just really, well, ridiculous.
Yeah, I do tend to have a bias; Peikoff endorsed the Democrat, you know. I don't truck with either party, but I call a spade a spade, and I call Christian theocrats and nanny-staters what they are, and that's what so-called Red States have a tendency to be.