Men and reproductive freedom

I find it strange that in 21st century half of the population of the Western countries still doesn't have any semi-decent reliable birth-control options. Even more strange is that very few people seem to care.

There are basically four things that men have for birth control: sterilization, condoms, withdrawal and a woman's word. Male sterilization is a fine birth control, very reliable, but for the obvious reasons it is limited to men who are quite sure they don't want to have any children in the future. Condoms are fairly unreliable; a woman's word is even more so. No offence to the vast majority of womankind who do keep their word, but very few men have sufficient mind-reading abilities to figure out in advance whether or not you are will keep your word. People who use withdrawal for birth control are generally called "Mommy" and "Daddy".

Apparently hormonal birth control for men is more difficult to develop than for women. I am not trying to blame anyone for it. But what is society doing with the rest of it? We have half of the population having the right to be heterosexually active without running high risk of having an unwanted child. It is my impression that there is a consensus that this it a good thing. Why is there no effort at all to extend this right to the other half of the population?

Let's see: sterilization. One would think that with no other reliable birth control available the society would be eager to present this option to men, so that at least the ones who are sure they don't want children would have reliable birth control. But no, no such luck. The minimal age for sterilization for men, like for women, is 30, allegedly to protect them from rash and irreversible decisions. Nobody seems to be interested in protecting them from the effects of not having reliable birth control, which tend to be just as irreversible. The ironic thing is that if a woman turned out to be unable to use any hormonal birth control or IUDs she would probably get a sterilization at a younger age on the grounds of being unable to use other birth control. The state seems to be in no hurry to implement other options, either, such as offering sterilization to men under 30 but storing their sperm until they are 30.

As for the matter of the woman's word, the consensus in our society seems to be "if he can't find a reliable woman it's his own damn fault". At least that seems to be the consensus among women, men who are sterilized and men who have already found a woman they believe to be reliable. The men who are currently looking for a woman are suddenly a lot less sure.

The pool of actual reliable women is fairly large, but the pool of the women a man knows to be reliable is pretty damn small. You can pretty much trust good friends and known long-term childhaters. That's about it. A nice woman whom you meet in a bar or on the net might have her own agenda. Most likely she doesn't, but should people really be expected to bet 18 years of child support on this?

Besides, not taking a woman's word for it or even suggesting that a woman might be lying is considered to be a major social faux pas in some circles. With some birth control methods, such as IUD, you don't have to take a woman's word for it, you can actually check it. Yet somehow I have never seen anywhere any public information for men "how to check of your partner really has a IUD". Maybe I should write one. It's not rocket science.

The weirdest thing is that if a woman promises not to give birth to any children and take full responsibility if she does, she is not allowed to put it on the paper. Or rather, she is, but it is not enforceable. This is usually explained by the child's right to his/her father, which is this context means child's right to getting child support from the father. Every time somebody raises the question, the response is "the mother cannot sign away the child's right to his/her father and the father's money".

This is so obviously untrue. Women can withold information on who the father is. Women can give birth without even knowing who the father is. Finally, a woman who promised not to ask for child support does not have to ask for child support. Women can in fact waive a child's right to his/her father for as long as they want, at least if the father also cooperates. A woman can raise a child without asking the father for money. What a woman cannot do is to commit to such course of action. Why?

If a woman has sex with a man, promises not to ask for child support, and does not ask for child support, then everything is fine and the child's right to the father's income does not interest anyone in the world. If a woman has sex with a man, promises not to ask for child support, and then changes her mind, and a man produces a paper with the woman's signature, then there suddenly exists a child's right to the father's income that a woman cannot sign away.

OK, I am not even starting on the parental obligations of victims of rape and child molestation. This is a matter for a whole another post.