Texas did it before Utah...but turnabout is fair play.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/04/texas-bill-prohibiting-male-masturbation-moves-closer-becoming-law

A proposed bill in Texas that would impose a $100 fine for male masturbation — aimed at mocking abortion-blocking laws — is making its way through the state's legislature.

The proposed law has been moved to the Texas State Affairs Committee.

State Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) introduced the bill — called the "Men's Right to Know Act" — in response to past legislation targeting women who get an abortion.

The law, introduced last month and forwarded to the committee Tuesday, calls for "civil penalty for unregulated masturbatory emissions" that are "outside of a woman's vagina (or) medical facility."

Any man who does so faces a $100 fine because the act is "considered an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life."

The money will be used to cover children under the care of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, according to the bill.

Good luck Texas trying to enforce it if it passes. I swear this Earth needs a massive meteor strike like soon.

Angry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good luck Texas trying to enforce it if it passes.
> I swear this Earth needs a massive meteor strike
> like soon.


For being the supposed highest of all species, some of our species , well it gives a motive for whoever wrote the story of Noah and the ark, ya know?

Homo sapiens.....

...$100.00 fine? No way...won't work! We must use the Saudi model. Amputation of the offending parts...............

Of course no one has the intention of it being enforced. It's to make a point. The anti-choice brigade wants you to believe that a fertilized egg is way more important than already-born children living with abuse, poverty, absence of medical care, hunger, homelessness. They don't give a crap about the already born, but godforbid, an embryo or fetus not being given the right to become a viable human being is so awful. Because it has the POSSIBILITY of becoming a human life. Well, so does a sperm. An embryo can't even begin to grow unless it implants in the uterus, but, you know, there's that possibility if circumstances are right. Well, a sperm has a possibility of developing into a human life if circumstances are right and it meets up with the correct cellular structure. So who is to say when you can start protecting "human life."

Point is, don't tell men what to do with their bodies and that they don't have a right to jack off. But if their little swimmer meets another microscopic organism and bonds with it, then men need to make sure that women have no say in what happens with their own bodies.

Crazy stupid.

And this is enforceable how?

good question! Perhaps the 'bill' is more about making a satirical point than seeking to criminalise wanking in Texas.

SPERM IS SACRED!!

Remember, after a man becomes a ghawd, his sperm has wings, and no spermatoza ever dies. It always accomplishes its mission no matter how long it takes, which is a silly notion because, you know, Eternity!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SPERM IS SACRED!!
>
> Remember, after a man becomes a ghawd, his sperm
> has wings, and no spermatoza ever dies. It always
> accomplishes its mission no matter how long it
> takes, which is a silly notion because, you know,
> Eternity!


LOL

elderolddog, you always make my smile with your sense of humor. Thank you for making this place a fun one with your wit. :)

“It always accomplishes its mission no matter how long it takes, which is a silly notion because, you know, Eternity!”

The angels sleep with one eye open.

And their legs crossed...?

Alexa, please report any groans you hear to the state of Texas.

thjis is a response bill to a conservative bill that targeted women.

This reminds me of an episode of Mayberry Rfd. The sheriff left town and put Barney Fife in charge while he was gone. When the Sheriff returned, Barney had locked up so many people for various small infractions that the jail cell was completely full of the town residents. It looks like Texas has some Barney Fife legislators. Their tax dollars hard at work. Legislators aren"t tasked with trying to show how stupid some laws are. They get paid to pass and repeal laws.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2019 12:31PM by azsteve.

Don't worry. For the first offense you'll cop a slap on the wrist.

But think what they'd do to your chickens!

Knock at the door.

Yes, Hello, Mr / Mrs Robinson. I'm officer Smith and my partner and I are following up on a report that you masturbated at your house. $100 fine and failure to report to court could add additional fines.

You are doing it all wrong if you are looking into getting more action. You need to come up with a better system to seduce hot booty into your bed with a religious ceremony that means nothing to you but sell it like it does mean something other than a notch on your wood pole.

It's really fun being chased on of this great country of the U.S.

I don't get it. How is masturbation at all equivalent to ending a fetus' life?

A sperm is half of a future fetus. It's all a matter of who gets to draw the line.

God kills zygotes all the time and even kills people who he wants (think flood). How come anti-abortion folks aren't outraged at God? Because this is really about controlling women as vessels. If it were really about protecting future children, they would actually care about children.

+1.0x10^12

"Half a future fetus."

That's like saying grass is part future milk. In other words, not milk.

I don't believe in god. That's a red herring.

Also, trying to say that people who are against abortion don't care about people doesn't make sense. Where are you getting your information?

I'm pro-choice, and none of what you're saying is making sense.

There is not as much concern from the anti-abortion supporters for aid to starving children, education, health care, immigrant children, etc. Once the child is here, they don't seem to be nearly as interested in helping them. This is apparent from how the majority of them vote and prioritize what they are willing to pay for. The priority is doing anything to remove options for women and prioritizing the fetus over the woman or children who are already here.

They could end the need for abortion with free birth control, early public sex education and counseling but no, they are making it as hard as possible for women to get planned parenthood access.

THAT'S what I'm talking about. I probably won't say more because this could cross political lines.

Ok... or people could just take responsibility for themselves and not have unprotected sex. Right?

Agree this could get political, so probably best to cut it off. I just think you're painting with a broad brush here. It's like throwing out "what about rape?" as a meaningful excuse when statistically rape accounts for <1% of abortions.

Disingenuous is what I think that is. I'm pro-choice but I don't want to pay for people's birth control, and I especially don't want to pay for abortion as a means of birth control.

honklermaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok... or people could just take responsibility for
> themselves and not have unprotected sex. Right?

Teenagers and mentally challenged people could?

> Disingenuous is what I think that is. I'm
> pro-choice but I don't want to pay for people's
> birth control, and I especially don't want to pay
> for abortion as a means of birth control.

You are prochoice?

Countries that spend more on education have lower crime rates -- but you don't get to feel superior to the "others."

It's sad that some people are willing to pay a premium for perceived social dominance.

I don't like paying for it either, but I'd rather pay for birth control and education because I would rather help prevent women needing abortions as birth control.

Sure, it would be great if people were more responsible and birth control always worked.

I guess I'm not as optimistic as you that people can or will take responsibility for themselves, be it having children or doing everything they should to have good health, or saving for their retirement. Things happen. Humans as a rule of thumb don't seem to do anything until they have to.

Heck, I don't like paying for all kinds of things I don't agree with. However, I agree that we all have different priorities and we don't get to dictate how others manage their sex lives.

I don't like the idea of women in back alleys with hangers, destitute poor people who didn't have enough savings, or people needing Go Fund Me for medical care. So I will pay for things I hope I wouldn't need myself.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I will pay for things I hope I
> wouldn't need myself.

Like paying for other people's kid's education when yours are all grown.

I've never understood how myopic some people can be. I don't think you are.

Also "paying" is a misnomer in my opinion. People can do things in their aggregate that individuals feel personally. It is a fallacy of scale.

I don't mind "paying" for birth control. The alternative is neuter the poor.

Thanks for this reply. I feel like it helped me open my mind some more on the topic.

And to Elder Berry: Yeah, I'm pro-choice. I can simultaneously believe unborn babies are life and support a woman's right to choose.

This topic is highly nuanced. It's not as cut and dried and people like to make it out to be.

"unborn babies" is also a misnomer in my opinion.

I think it wrong to kill an unborn child who at the time is actually "killed" as in it could have survived outside the womb.

Babies are human beings I can interact with. Developing humans aren't babies to me.

As a species we require so much nurturing after leaving the womb. And our baby stage is very long. If you go back far enough that a baby needs a womb, we are in a Brave New World.

Yeah, you're repeating talking points that sound good but fall apart when you get specific.

For example:

1. At how many weeks exactly would you consider the baby to be able to survive outside the womb?

2. Do you or do you not support a woman's right to have an abortion past that point?

honklermaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, you're repeating talking points that sound
> good but fall apart when you get specific.

How can you accuse me of them falling apart?

> 1. At how many weeks exactly would you consider
> the baby to be able to survive outside the womb?

Without technical assistance? Did you get The Brave New World part?

> 2. Do you or do you not support a woman's right to
> have an abortion past that point?

I support a woman's right to an abortion.

"I think it wrong to kill an unborn child who at the time is actually "killed" as in it could have survived outside the womb." - on its own.

Just because I think something is wrong doesn't mean I don't support the individual doing it. Take my entire family going to church.

No baby can survive outside the womb on its own. That's a red herring.

Since you chose not to answer my questions in good faith, I'll just leave it at that.

honklermaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No baby can survive outside the womb on its own.
> That's a red herring.

I've met lots of babies outside their wombs.

And if you didn't get my inference - "on its own" - didn't mean able to survive without other humans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 05:07PM by Elder Berry.

I'll say it again, "I support a woman's right to an abortion."

So maybe you can now feel free to split other people's hairs, er, herrings.

What could "on its own" mean otherwise?

I'm more concerned with minimizing babies being split apart, not hairs or herrings.

honklermaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm more concerned with minimizing babies being
> split apart, not hairs or herrings.


Why?

but you should pretend that it is anyway or else.

Maybe this will push more people outside of themselves and into Texas strip clubs? Is that what they are going for? If you are going to lose $100 in Texas...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2019 01:36PM by Elder Berry.

Both females and males can masturbate.

Sperm is produced and lost/wasted with or without masturbation.

Correspondingly, unfertilized eggs are eventually flushed out and lost/wasted. Nobody calls that an abortion.

The parallel between abortion and sperm lost through masturbation doesn't really exist.

Have you no respect for the authority of Monty Python?

I believe every sperm is sacred. Now eggs are only sacred after their anointing...

form of entertainment in heaven--especially among the Godhead and the Archangels.

One of the benefits of having total omniscience (in the case of the Godhead) and near total omniscience (in the case of the Archangels) is hyper-advanced multi-tasking functionality that allows them to spend eons of time engaging in purely recreational and entertainment pursuits, while simultaneously managing all of their more serious duties.

One form of entertainment they have developed is betting on copulation-venue spermatozoa races in the same manner as horse races, but much more fun due to the number of participants in the race.

They even give each spermatozoon a name like unto that of a race horse and the Holy Ghost does the audio-only, real-time race announcing for the entertainment of everyone in the CK Penthouse.

Here's a clip of the Holy Ghost's announcing in a recent race:

"And 'Little Engine That Could' takes the lead on the turn, followed by 'Bad DNA' and 'Sturdy Tail'. Now 'Sneaky Night Rider' is making a bid to pass both 'Sturdy Tail' and 'Bad DNA' on the next turn, but 'Not A Tadpole' is blocking his path.... It's still 'Little Engine That Could' in the lead. Meanwhile 'Chromosomal Damage' continues to lag behind the pack..."

I don't see it as a bill equating male masturbation to abortion, but rather the same thing as telling a woman what she can do with her body--except this time, it's legislating what men can do with theirs.

I don't have strong feelings on the issue of abortion (good or bad) one way or the other, except I've come to the conclusion that it's a woman's choice. I'm glad this bill was introduced to perhaps make men think twice about what is being proposed for them.

TX_Rancher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm glad this bill was introduced
> to perhaps make men think twice about what is
> being proposed for them.

Got Milk?

that was unplanned by either of the recreational conjugators in question and the female conjugator at her sole discretion decides that she would like to give birth and raise the child, without any consultation with the male conjugator, would she later have the right to file a paternity suit against the male conjugator to require him to pay child support for the next 21 years or more? Or would everything related to the consequences of her decision be entirely her choice and sole responsibility? Would the male conjugator have "opt-in" and "opt-out" choices with regard to any and all responsibility for the child?

This is hysterical! Only in Texas (or bible belt states).

Until I see this as an official document produced by Texas government, I'm not believing this story.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB04260I.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2019 09:01AM by anybody.

Note that the original story is dated 2017.