Sure. As soon as they accept my leg hair. Because I sure as hell am not going to be accepting and gracious to someone who refuses to afford me the same respect.

I completely agree rehabilitation is always better than punishment - always. Prevention too.

That's a very interesting perspective on it. I'd never thought about it like that.

The MRA goal, with all issues they trot out their talking points about, is only one: undermine feminism in the hopes that it would catch with the wider population, you'd manage to turn the tide and send women back to the kitchen so you can enjoy proper male privilege like your father and grandfather did.

I feel like a big problem is that parents don't talk to their children about sex, or talk restrictively. Sex isn't just the mechanics, it has social and personal implications and they're different for boys and girls (talking about hetero sex here). Children have easy access to dramatised sexual encounters in porn and…

Because he's still responsible for making the child. She chose to not terminate, but he chose to not withhold his sperm. Women's and men's abilities to prevent a birth correspond to their respective role in reproduction - as is only natural. The final result, though, is as child - and s/he needs to eat and to have a…

But if abortion is allowed and the woman decided to have the kid, and the kid comes into existence, then the man should be held responsible for his/her support, IMO. The child is there. S/he needs to eat and I think it makes sense for both people that brought her/him into the world to make sure s/he has the basics.

I agree that's a good point. In my defence I can only say I'm an ESL. I honestly was thinking of "shaving" as an umbrella term for hair removal in this context (because the idea of the discussion was where this particular beauty standard started, if I understood it correctly).

If were not interested in having an argument, you wouldn't have replied. I dismissed your reply because of the misogynistic ad hominem. But I'm the nasty one? Great job making yourself look credible.

Can someone explain to me how banning surrogacy means government control of women's bodies? Because MarmaladeTeardrops claimed it was and when I asked how, she threw a bunch of ad hominems at me and refused to explain. And since I think it was petty of her to try and make me feel stupid for not divining her thoughts…

If it's not the responsibility of the person who brought the child into the world, then how the hell is it the responsibility of everyone else? Because the sate being responsible = taxpayers being responsible. Now I am all for using taxpayer money to help disadvantaged children, obviously - but I don't see the logic…

Removing hair is traditional in most Muslim cultures. That's from the ones existing today. It was also the norm in Ancient Egypt and Rome, if you're looking for older.

And people saying banning surrogacy is the government controlling your body...

Did you dismiss my comments or is Kinja being awful again? If you did though... can't say I'm surprised. I feel stupid having wasted time replying to you because I swear, I really thought you did have a position and an explanation until the end. Seems you don't and you don't want other people to see you embarrassed…

Well that's exactly what I'm saying - none of those are the government controlling your body. That's been my point from the start, that just because the government won't allow you to make a certain choice about your body, it doesn't automatically mean it's exercising control over your body. Perhaps the comparison was…

Whether it's creepy or not is a matter of perception though, while exploitation is fairly clear-cut.

Wait, weren't we talking about government control over bodies? The biological difference between a uterus and a kidney, and the difference between sale and rent here are irrelevant, because the point of the discussion is bodily autonomy and government control. Both choosing to sell my kidney and to rent my uterus are…

You're acting as though we're discussing searchable facts instead of opinions here. I believe banning the sale of your organs and the rent of your uterus is the same thing as far as government controlling your body goes and I explained why; you believe they're not and I asked you to explain why you believe that.…

I guess I'm resisting your very logical and convincing arguments because I have a fundamental problem with surrogacy, not just extreme-power-asymmetry surrogacy: it's commodification of female bodies and that bothers me very deeply but I can't explain exactly why.

Explain how it isn't. These are two things the government does not allow me to do with my body; why one is control over it and one isn't.