Reconsidered: California SB 967 consent Law could be an awesome opportunity

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3726]

I don’t mean to interlope on the great thread started by Prefer Peace to Piece, but I think we may be missing an awesome opportunity here.

If this law passes, it may become reasonable and commonplace to actually get written consent, just to be sure. IT could be framed as being respectful of womens rights by “taking that extra step.” Whatever.

Here’s the thing: If we make written consent the standard, then we can include language that states explicitly that should a pregancy occur and result in childbirth, the father shall be granted sole custody of the child, or pay absolute minimal child support at his option.

To anyone who objects, we can simply respond that “hey, you wanted to turn this into a legal action, so be it.”

Oh, and we can add mandatory DNA testing in there too. What else can we add?

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[Soldier-MedicParticipant 2566]

Grant permission of video tape the entire encounter so that a legal record of her not withdrawing consent can be kept.

Should she file charges and you produce documentation of her consent and the continued consent (video and audio) she has to pay $1,000 for every day you are jailed or incarcerated, she is required to reimburse you for all legal fees. She is to also publish a public statement of apology. Should she not make a public apology, the daily cost of incarceration goes up to $5,000 for each day you are in the custody of the police/law enforcement/prison.

"I asked you a question. I didn't ask you to repeat what the voices in you head are telling you" ~ Me. ........Yes I'm still angry.

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3726]

Love the idea SM, but good luck getting paid. 😉

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[Swen AugustParticipant 373]

Definitely needs a non pregnancy clause.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Here’s the thing: If we make written consent the standard, then we can include language that states explicitly that should a pregancy occur and result in childbirth, the father shall be granted sole custody of the child, or pay absolute minimal child support at his option.

All of which would be instantly thrown out by the first judge to see it. Because “mommy knows best”.

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3726]

Damn you’re probably right about that. Here’s hoping the Vasalgel trials in 2016 go well!

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Here’s the thing: If we make written consent the standard, then we can include language that states explicitly that should a pregancy occur and result in childbirth, the father shall be granted sole custody of the child, or pay absolute minimal child support at his option.

BiggvsDickvs-
Brilliant suggestion. Women have been mauling us for years with the current laws which are without a doubt biased and prejudiced against men. This BS won’t stop until we have laws that take into consideration the needs of men. Until then, no man in his right mind should ever consider marriage or any long term relationship
(don’t forget the Marvin laws).
I first thought I was paranoid when I installed audio/video in my domicile, but now I think it might protect my backside against Princess Psycho and her Sociopathic Sisters.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Damn you’re probably right about that. Here’s hoping the Vasalgel trials in 2016 go well!

I understand vasalgel has been a thing since at least 2000. It’s been ready for prime time for nearly a decade at this point. The only reason it’s not an option right now is thanks to the truly unbelievable political pressure from the usual suspects trying to block it. And why are they desperate to block it? Because they know effective, reversible, covert contraception controlled by males is a complete game changer for irresponsible gold digging women. Hell, look at how they do everything they can to prevent potential big gold digger payout younger males from getting vasectomies. There’s not way in hell they are letting something like vasalgel onto the market without a huge fight.

This is why the best use for s~~~ like SB 967 is to throw it right back into their faces. When a woman asks you to buy her a drink, hand her an two inch thick stack of consent forms to be signed and witnessed in triplicate, then posted for public view down at the courthouse for four weeks before you even consider giving her so much as a shot of paint stripper. The look on her face as you drop the paperwork on the bar in front of her will be much more satisfying than the sex would have been.

[ScandinavianParticipant 590]

I don’t think golddigging women is the main reason they put a lid on male contraception but rather the falling birth rates; these are becoming a problem already without the above mentioned, imagine what it would do with them…

Follow the money, i.e. the new taxpayers that will never be born.

[OneforfreedomParticipant 930]

sidecar wrote:

When a woman asks you to buy her a drink, hand her an two inch thick stack of consent forms to be signed and witnessed in triplicate, then

Unfortunately, I believe that her response will be to shrug it off and take the next blue-piller that walks in the door. And believe me, there are PLENTY of them.

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Oneforfreedom wrote:

Unfortunately, I believe that her response will be to shrug it off and take the next blue-piller that walks in the door. And believe me, there are PLENTY of them.

Oh she’ll try to laugh it off the first time it happens, but not so much the third, fourth, fifth time. Sure there are plenty of blue-pill men out there, but how many of them have the high SMV women demand? Remember women aren’t complaining: “where are all the men?” They are complaining: “Where are all the GOOD men.” And by “good’ they of course mean the lucrative, high earning, high SMV men who have the most to lose under “yes means yes” and are therefore the most likely to throw it right back into their faces.

This is related to the reason why there’s so much spite and bile and sour grapes towards MGTOW. If MGTOW were all the low SMV shlubs women like to pretend they are then women wouldn’t give a f~~~ about them walking away. But MGTOW are usually high potential, high SMV men, and women know it.

[SkeptiskParticipant 3679]

sidecar wrote:

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Damn you’re probably right about that. Here’s hoping the Vasalgel trials in 2016 go well!

I understand vasalgel has been a thing since at least 2000. It’s been ready for prime time for nearly a decade at this point. The only reason it’s not an option right now is thanks to the truly unbelievable political pressure from the usual suspects trying to block it. And why are they desperate to block it? Because they know effective, reversible, covert contraception controlled by males is a complete game changer for irresponsible gold digging women. Hell, look at how they do everything they can to prevent potential big gold digger payout younger males from getting vasectomies. There’s not way in hell they are letting something like vasalgel onto the market without a huge fight.
This is why the best use for s~~~ like SB 967 is to throw it right back into their faces. When a woman asks you to buy her a drink, hand her an two inch thick stack of consent forms to be signed and witnessed in triplicate, then posted for public view down at the courthouse for four weeks before you even consider giving her so much as a shot of paint stripper. The look on her face as you drop the paperwork on the bar in front of her will be much more satisfying than the sex would have been.

I would love to see a video uploaded on Youtube of that, Sidecar.

"Expecting to find a decent woman on a dating site is like dumpster diving and expecting to come out with a gourmet meal." Won'tGetFooledAgain

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

Scandinavian wrote:

I don’t think golddigging women is the main reason they put a lid on male contraception

Feminists have fought tooth and nail for decades against any form of “male pill”. Why? Because in their own words they believe the sole right to choose if a woman doesn’t have a child or DOES should rest with the woman.

According to Angela Philips over at the Guardian, the male pill is women’s loss. According to that selfish c~~~: ” “the biggest issue behind the development of a contraceptive pill for men is that women risk losing control of conception”.

So they have straight up said they don’t want men to have any choice at all, but men should only be forced to pay the bill in the form of 216+ monthly payments for something they have no choice about.

Feminism is NEVER about equality.

So yes, the fight against male contraception IS all about keeping the child support gravy train rolling for gold digging baby mommas. The state goes along with it because the state gets a handsome cut out of those 216 monthly payments. As always, follow the money.

Skeptisk wrote:

I would love to see a video uploaded on Youtube of that, Sidecar.

I’m sure there’s something already there. Google “Elsimar Coutinho” (I hope I spelled that correctly).

[KingOfTheSeaParticipant 1270]

sidecar wrote:

Feminism is NEVER about equality.
So yes, the fight against male contraception IS all about keeping the child support gravy train rolling for gold digging baby mommas. The state goes along with it because the state gets a handsome cut out of those 216 monthly payments. As always, follow the money.

Exactly.

Sidecar’s right on the money, per usual. I’ve said it on here and I’ll say it again: Feminists don’t care about women. They care about their own lives and how they can benefit themselves. Male contraceptives could help women who don’t want to have a baby as well as men, but feminists don’t care because they want to control conception. Same thing happened when rumors of getting close to the artificial womb emerged: Even though it could save thousands of mothers and babies from birthing complications, feminists lose their s~~~ because it means that a man who wants a kid doesn’t need a woman anymore.

Conception is the final battleground for the genders and both feminists and women who don’t consider themselves feminists will fight to the death to keep it because they know it’s the last foothold they have. It’s also why they fight so hard to get abortion rights.

Woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want a baby? Abortion
Man gets woman pregnant and doesn’t want a baby? “Keep it in your pants next time.” Has to pay child support. Goes MGHOW and keeps it in his pants, gets ridiculed and called gay, immature, etc.

It’s a no-win scenario.

[Anonymous 29]

As funny and ridiculous as it may seem, maybe this will be the way to go.
F~~~ing funny clip.
I
I
V

[NioZenParticipant 856]

“Hi big boy, buy me a drink?”

“Sure, if you could just enter your name, address and date of birth, sign here here and here and submit a photocopy of an up to date form of identification with a photo, and a separate proof of address such as a bank statement or utility bill (unfortunately I’m unable to accept mobile phone bills). This drink does not assume any further contractual obligation for either party, you will require the signature of a witness to confirm that our interaction did not take place under duress. Here are the details of my lawyer, if you have any questions or complaints, please contact him at your earliest convenience.
So what’ll it be?”

We only dream this bondage. Wake up and let it go. - Vivekananda

[DrAK74Participant 77]

I would love to have the form come into being………It would NEVER have my signature on it. I’m leaving the field and refuse to play their stupid games anymore……they are finally going to reap what they have sown since the 1960’s and I will be standing by laughing watching it all burn down.

[RockmaninoffParticipant 1641]

I don’t think it’d work. Were I a gambling man, I’d wager every court would throw out the contract, saying “neither parent has the ability to sign away their responsibility to the child who is entitled to the care of each.”

". . . elle, suivant l’usage des femmes et des chats qui ne viennent pas quand on les appelle et qui viennent quand on ne les appelle pas, s’arrêta devant moi et m’adressa la parole"—Prosper Mérimée

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

sidecar wrote:

Feminism is NEVER about equality

Sidecar- right as usual

[sidecarParticipant 35862]

KingOfTheSea wrote:

Woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want a baby? Abortion
Man gets woman pregnant and doesn’t want a baby? “Keep it in your pants next time.” Has to pay child support. Goes MGHOW and keeps it in his pants, gets ridiculed and called gay, immature, etc.

It’s a no-win scenario.

I don’t know about that.

Man Goes His Own Way. He works just enough to support his own needs and desires and spends the rest of his newly abundant free time doing things he enjoys, no f~~~s given to what anyone else thinks.

That sounds like winning to me.

Meanwhile society loses out on the surplus productivity and tax revenues the man would have generated had he had a family to support. and Woman loses out on free drinks, attention, and support. Any children she has end up a shackle to her, not a boon, and a huge drain on society’s collapsing resources. That sounds like losing to me.

Man meanwhile continues to give no f~~~s. More winning.

[Author]

Posts