New York Declaration for Men and Boys1

Reproductive Rights End at Ejaculation: How Men Lost Control Over Parenthood

It’s one of the most unspoken truths in modern life: once conception occurs, men have no reproductive rights. A woman can choose to keep a pregnancy or end it. She can decide to raise the child or place it for adoption. A man, on the other hand, is bound—socially, legally, and financially—to whatever decision she makes.

That imbalance is so normalized that few even notice it. When the topic arises, most people reflexively defend the status quo. “Well, it’s her body.” Of course it is. But what’s rarely considered is that while women have control over their bodies, men have no control over their futures.

“The man’s genetic material, his emotional capacity, his finances, and his lifelong identity as a father or a stranger—all of it hangs on someone else’s choice. A woman’s responsibility is conditional; a man’s is absolute.”

And this asymmetry is defended not as a moral dilemma to be resolved, but as a settled truth.

The Silent Consent Trap

We’ve been taught to think that when a man consents to sex, he consents to everything that might follow. But when a woman consents to sex, she still retains the right to decide afterward whether to become a mother.

This moral sleight of hand is stunning once you notice it. One person’s consent is treated as final and binding; the other’s is treated as provisional and revocable.

And yet this assumption—so old it feels invisible—forms the bedrock of modern reproductive law.

If a pregnancy occurs and the man doesn’t want to be a father, the system tells him, “Too bad. You should have thought of that earlier.” If the woman doesn’t want to be a mother, society says, “She has a right to choose.”

Both positions can’t be reconciled under any serious notion of equality.

The Price of Powerlessness

For many men, the consequence isn’t only financial—it’s existential.

Imagine discovering that someone chose to bring a child into the world with your DNA, against your will, and that you’ll now spend 18 years paying for the decision you didn’t make. Imagine learning that a partner deceived you about contraception, or tampered with protection, and you’re told by the court that none of that matters.

Your body, your consent, your word—irrelevant.

The state considers you responsible for what someone else decided to do with your biology.

The irony is brutal: men are lectured about “taking responsibility,” but responsibility without consent is not morality—it’s servitude.

And while precise numbers are impossible to know, the scale of this problem is enormous. Countless men quietly accept pregnancies they would have preferred to avoid—not because they chose fatherhood, but because the law left them no voice in the matter. For every man who speaks out, many more simply submit to a fate decided by someone else. And this imbalance cuts both ways. Just as some men are forced into fatherhood they didn’t choose, others are denied fatherhood they deeply want. Many have stood by helplessly as a pregnancy they hoped to cherish was ended—not because they were careless or uncommitted, but because the law gave them no voice. For them, “her choice” becomes their grief, and that grief is treated as if it doesn’t exist.

And beneath that larger injustice lies an even starker reality: a measurable percentage of pregnancies begin with deliberate deception. Studies conservatively estimate that 1–3% of fathers are unknowingly raising children who are not biologically theirs. Men who uncover the truth and challenge paternity are often ordered to keep paying anyway, because “it’s in the best interest of the child.”

In other words, the legal system tells men that even being lied to about fatherhood doesn’t matter—your wallet still belongs to the child, and by extension, to the mother who deceived you. It’s her body, her choice—and your wallet, her choice too.

Moral Courage and the Empathy Gap

Why is there so little outrage about this? Because when men suffer, empathy tends to vanish.

We can see this in how society responds to female pain—mobilizing instantly, funding shelters, rewriting laws—and how it responds to male pain—with indifference, mockery, or moral lectures.

A man who feels trapped by fatherhood he didn’t choose is told he’s irresponsible or immature. A woman who feels trapped by motherhood she didn’t choose is seen as courageous for seeking control. And when a man feels trapped by abortion—when he longs to protect the life of his own child but is powerless to stop its ending—his pain is dismissed as interference in someone else’s right.

This empathy gap runs so deep that even discussing male reproductive rights feels taboo. People worry it undermines women’s freedom, as if equality for one sex must come at the other’s expense.

But fairness isn’t a zero-sum game. Equality doesn’t mean less compassion for women—it means more honesty for everyone.

The “Financial Abortion” Idea

One idea, sometimes called “paper abortion” or “financial abortion,” proposes that men should be able to relinquish legal parenthood within a set time early in pregnancy—mirroring a woman’s right to choose abortion or adoption.

Critics say it lets men “walk away from their responsibilities.” But this criticism misses the point: responsibility must follow consent. You can’t demand moral or financial duty from someone who had no voice in the decision that created it.

If women can legally choose parenthood, men should at least be able to choose not to be one.

Otherwise, what we call equality is really a kind of gendered servitude—freedom for one sex, obligation for the other.

Consent and Control

At its heart, the issue of reproductive rights for men isn’t about sex. It’s about consent, autonomy, and the meaning of equality.

In every other area of life, consent without control is invalid.
If someone borrows your car without permission, you don’t owe them gas money because “the trip already happened.” If a doctor performs a surgery you didn’t consent to, it’s malpractice—even if they believed it would help.

Yet when it comes to reproduction, we abandon that principle completely.

Men’s consent ends at ejaculation. From that moment on, everything that follows—the pregnancy, the birth, the lifelong obligation—is out of their hands.

And society calls this justice.

The Deeper Consequence

When men feel they have no control over one of life’s most defining events—whether or not they become a father—it fuels a quiet kind of despair. It teaches them that their choices don’t matter, that their voices are disposable, that their role in reproduction is purely mechanical.

It also weakens trust between men and women. True partnership depends on mutual agency and mutual accountability. When one side holds all the power, resentment grows.

This isn’t just a legal problem; it’s a relational one. Many young men today fear relationships precisely because they sense this imbalance—because they know that in the eyes of the law and culture, they have no reproductive rights, only responsibilities.

A Culture That Values Both Sexes

Reproductive fairness shouldn’t be controversial. If we truly believe in equality, then both sexes deserve the same moral and legal respect for their choices.

That means we need to have the courage to ask hard questions:

• Should men have the right to decline fatherhood when women can decline motherhood?

• Should paternity testing be standard, to protect both fathers and children from deception?

• Should reproductive coercion—like lying about birth control—be treated as seriously as forcing a woman into pregnancy?

Equality isn’t about punishing women or freeing men from moral duty. It’s about aligning rights with responsibilities, and recognizing that both sexes have an equal stake in the creation of life.

Until that happens, we’ll keep pretending that justice exists where it doesn’t—and men will keep paying the price for choices they didn’t make.

Because in our culture, reproductive rights still end at ejaculation.

 

The Engineered Isolation of Men

For decades, society has been dismantling the three foundations that once anchored men: work, identity, and family. What we call a “men’s crisis” isn’t just about depression or suicide—it’s about systematic disconnection. When a man loses his place to contribute, his right to belong, and the respect that once gave him pride, he doesn’t merely suffer; he disappears.

1. The First Cut: Economic Displacement

For most men, work is more than a paycheck—it’s proof of worth. Through skill, labor, and persistence, men find identity and belonging. But modern economies have quietly stripped that away. Factories closed, trades devalued, and risk-taking jobs replaced by automation or overseas labor.

Men were told to “adapt,” but few noticed what they were adapting to: a world that no longer needs them in the ways that once gave them purpose. Unemployment doesn’t just steal income—it steals function. And when function vanishes, meaning follows close behind.

History bears this out. During the Great Depression, when millions of men were cut off from productive work, suicide rates climbed to record highs. A man’s worth had been tied to his usefulness, and when society no longer needed that usefulness, despair filled the vacuum. Yet during the world wars, when men were again called upon to serve, build, and defend, suicide rates fell sharply—even in the face of danger and loss. The difference wasn’t comfort, but purpose.

Research confirms what common sense already knows: long-term unemployment raises men’s suicide risk several-fold. Not because men are fragile, but because usefulness was the thread holding their lives together. When that thread breaks, they fall—not from weakness, but from the weight of purposelessness.

A culture that robs men of purpose is a culture engineering their isolation.

2. The Second Cut: Moral Displacement Through Shame

Even men who keep their jobs often lose something deeper—the right to feel proud of being men.

The term toxic masculinity didn’t just critique bad behavior; it redefined maleness itself as suspect. Strength, stoicism, leadership, and competitiveness—traits once considered virtues—became moral liabilities. Men were told that their instincts were dangerous, their achievements oppressive, their nature defective.

This isn’t self-improvement; it’s cultural shaming.
When a man is told his strength makes him unsafe, he hides it. When he’s told his logic makes him cold, he doubts it. Over time, he disconnects—not only from others but from his own nature.

And shame is the most isolating emotion of all. It tells a person, you don’t belong anymore.
A shamed man withdraws, not because he doesn’t care, but because every gesture of care risks being misinterpreted. His silence isn’t indifference—it’s self-protection in a culture that punishes his voice.

3. The Third Cut: The Forced Separation of Divorce

Then there is the wound that goes straight to the heart: divorce.

In countless cases, it’s not just a separation of spouses—it’s the erasure of fatherhood. Courts presume maternal virtue and paternal suspicion. Even loving, stable fathers are reduced to “visitors,” permitted only fragments of the lives they helped create.

For a man whose identity revolves around providing, protecting, and mentoring, losing daily contact with his children is devastating. It is grief without a funeral—a living bereavement he’s expected to endure without complaint.

The statistics are grim: divorced men have some of the highest suicide rates of any demographic. Not because they’ve failed as fathers, but because the system has forbidden them to succeed. When the law itself enforces separation, the message is unmistakable: you’re no longer needed.

4. The Result: A Culture of Quiet Exile

Take these three together—economic displacement, moral shaming, and family loss—and you get the blueprint for male disconnection.
Each cut severs a man from one of the three bonds that make life meaningful:

• Work (purpose)

• Identity (dignity)

• Family (love)

A man without purpose feels restless.
A man without dignity feels ashamed.
A man without love feels invisible.
And when all three disappear at once, the result isn’t just sadness—it’s annihilation.

5. What the Culture Gets Wrong

Modern culture mistakes this for fragility: “Men just need to talk more.”
But talking doesn’t rebuild meaning.
What men need isn’t therapy in isolation—it’s reconnection to the structures that once made their lives coherent.

A man can’t talk his way out of being unnecessary.
He can only live his way back into usefulness, belonging, and respect.

That requires social systems that recognize men as contributors, not relics; as protectors, not problems.

6. The Way Back

The solution isn’t to “save” men—it’s to restore their place in the human story:

• Rebuild economic paths that value masculine work.

• Reclaim cultural respect for masculine virtues.

• Reform family law so fatherhood is a right, not a privilege.

• Speak openly about the moral injury of being labeled toxic for existing.

Men don’t need saving — they need a place to stand again.
Give them that, and they’ll rebuild everything else.

Men Are Good.

I’d like to introduce FatherX, a man who has turned hard-earned experience in the family court system into practical guidance for fathers. He teaches the fundamentals that most men are never told — how custody works, how to navigate the courtroom, how to read case law, and how to keep your emotional balance through it all. His work equips dads not only with knowledge but with strategy and calm confidence in one of the most painful arenas a man can face. Tom Golden

 

Good Morning! I’m Father X, the creator of the Youtube series “Father X - How Fathers Can Win Child Custody” at YouTube.com/@FatherX2022.

My video series should be required viewing for every dad going through family court. I often get comments like this from dads:

“I can’t possibly express enough gratitude to you, Father X! Thank God I found your video series. I followed all of your steps and took all of your advice and it SAVED ME AND MY CHILD!”

During my 3 years in family court, I learned the system isn’t designed to determine the actual best interests of the child. Instead, their process is designed to produce a standard factory output: the mother must get custody, and the dad must pay child support. I managed to get primary custody of our son, but it took superhuman effort to break the family court machine.

How did all this come to pass? It started in real life, before family court got involved, when I lived with my ex-girlfriend for over a year. We moved in together when she became pregnant and I immediately became a male victim of her domestic violence. The second time she assaulted me, I called the police, who told me it didn’t matter what I said because they only believe the woman. They told me they could just have me arrested based on her word alone, and I should just leave our home for the night...even though I was the one who called 911! Obviously, that’s not a competent process.

When I tried to file a police report a couple of weeks later, a police lady told me I wasn’t allowed to file a report because the mother had already filed one. Days later, I learned this police officer lied to me. I had a lawyer call the police station to tell them I was coming to file a police report against my ex-girlfriend, and only then was I able to do so. You can see the barriers created for men.

I also called the domestic violence hotline, who confirmed the police would always just arrest the man, maybe unless he was bleeding from the skull. I learned the police and domestic violence hotline only exist to help women, whether the woman is guilty or innocent.

In addition, I considered leaving my son’s mother. When I researched family court, I learned that mothers get primary custody about 85% of the time. But I wanted to raise our son, and I had no interest in leaving him in the hands of a violent and abusive mother. Thus, I had to stay in that abusive relationship if I wanted to continue raising our son. The legal system, end to end, provided no relief for a male victim of domestic violence and his child.

The day I finally moved out of our home, because it was too dangerous for me to live with my son’s mom, she went to court and got a restraining order based on false allegations against me. And a couple of hours later, she went to the police to file a false report, and the police started the process of having me arrested. For her, it was as easy as ordering a Big Mac at McDonald’s. And then the Dominoe’s fell into place...starting the standard process where the government agencies all avoid learning the facts, so they can rubber stamp everything the mother wants and enable and reward her false allegations.

To see the incompetence of the government agencies starting on Day 1, you have to know that after 3 years in family court, after a full trial, after I testified 14 times for a total of 28 hours, after I “politely forced reality down my judge’s throat”, the court decided it was in the best interests of our son for me to have primary custody. And I proved the allegations of domestic violence that I made in my petitions on Day 1. The mother’s restraining order against me was cancelled. And my restraining order against her was extended for 2 years because she was found guilty of assaulting me.

So, knowing that end result, the questions are, starting on Day 1, how does family court handle this scenario, where the father is a better parent, and the mother is an abusive, unfit parent? And does the court have a competent process for figuring out the correct answer when it comes to domestic violence allegations and child custody disputes?

With every new government agency involved, the starting point is “supposed” to be neutral. But there was an obvious pattern that each new government actor started by giving the mother whatever she asked for. And these government actors never started by conducting intelligent analysis to figure out the truth. I had to force the truth upon them, one at a time.

When the mother filed her false police report and restraining order, this started the feeding frenzy where these government actors took their shots at me one at a time and I was fighting a war on multiple fronts.

Police and District Attorney: The police arrested me based on the mother’s allegation alone. They never asked for my side of the story to see if I had evidence to contradict her. The district attorney told the police to arrest me even though the DA didn’t investigate either - because any investigation would have involved me. That’s not a competent process.

Bail Judge: After I was arrested, I appeared in front of a bail judge. He was complaining to me about how terrible it was for an infant child to see his father assaulting his mother. It never occurred to the bail judge that the mother was lying in order to get custody. Or that she was the one punching me in front of our child. That judge was just using stereotypes, disconnected from reality. Another incompetent actor in this game.

Custody Judge: Next, we appeared in front of a custody judge. I already submitted my own petitions for custody and an order of protection, where I stated the mother assaulted me multiple times, I showed police reports against her, and I shared that she had anger management problems and was suicidal. But this judge never bothered to read my petition. So, she started off by giving the mother temporary primary custody, only because the mother was unemployed and available to parent, but I had a job. The judge ignored all the other best interest factors that the appellate courts required to be addressed. That’s not a legitimate process.

This judge also denied me an order of protection, even though I talked about how the mother assaulted me. My lawyer started yelling at this judge because my allegations against the mother were greater than her allegations against me...and the mother was getting an order of protection! Only then did the judge read my petitions and gave me a temporary order of protection against the mother. Then I told the judge that since she hadn’t read my petitions, she needed to reassess her custody order because she was giving primary custody to a violent, suicidal mother. This judge denied my request, ignored the issues, and kept the mother as the primary custodial parent...without stating why that was an intelligent decision.

I saw how courts make temporary custody and restraining orders based on whatever reason they need to rubber stamp the mother. And remember that I ultimately got primary custody and a final restraining order. They could have made a correct custody decision on Day 1, but they chose to ignore everything the man said.

It’s possible the judge was thinking I was arrested, therefore I must be guilty, so it must be safer to give the mother custody. But we know the police arrested me without any actual intelligent thought – that’s their standard “process”. But the judge wasn’t questioning the validity of the police work. So now you have one incompetent agency feeding another agency...and incompetent decisions are building on incompetent actions. That’s a central pillar of the family court culture.

Child Protective Services: Next, we had Child Protective Services investigate us. The CPS worker wrote a report where she stated she had no idea which of us committed domestic violence. However, we had couple’s therapists, while we lived together, who all knew the mother had anger management problems and the mother was the violent one. The CPS worker spoke to them, and this information was at her fingertips. But because she was incompetent and/or biased, she didn’t provide the judge with a view of reality. So, we had another layer of incompetence building on incompetence.

Child Support: Next, the child support agency ordered me to pay about $16,000 per year of support to the mother, even though the actual cost of raising our infant son was $4,000 a year. The mother was making a profit from child support. This made my net income negative, and I was bleeding cash every month. I had to pay my criminal defense lawyer, my custody lawyer, and the forensic evaluator. I ended up with over $100,000 of debt and no assets. So even though the priority question is figuring out who committed domestic violence and who should have custody of the child, the child support agency makes it extremely difficult for any man to proceed with a trial to figure out the truth to these questions. And if you quit because you can’t afford a trial, then the mother wins automatically…because she was given temporary custody to start, without any fact finding, without any intelligent analysis.

With all these agencies taking their turn siding with the mother, without any intelligent thought, you can see how demoralizing it is for any man to face all of this. And, too often, dads have to settle for whatever the mother or the courts offer them. It’s emotionally and financially draining. Many men quit and many others kill themselves.

And this is all standard operating procedure in family court. This is how you get the end result where about 85% of moms get primary custody.

Ultimately, I was able to overcome the gender bias and incompetence of family court. It took superhuman effort for me to overcome family court and get primary custody of our son. I quickly recognized that most fathers can’t do this and are destined to be railroaded by the system. I promised myself that I would do something to expose this system. As a result, I now create educational videos on YouTube, teaching dads the flaws of family court and how to overcome those flaws. I teach dads everything that I learned the hard way, over 3 years.

I teach the basics of primary custody, sole custody, restraining orders, and legal custody. We discuss whether you need a lawyer and how to interview lawyers by asking the hard questions. I teach strategic behaviors in the courtroom. I teach how to handle your first day in family court, as well as the overall family court process. I teach how judges make bad decisions…so you can anticipate where they’ll go wrong and how you can counter maneuver. I teach dads how to read case law to learn the real laws. I teach dads how to correctly analyze the best interests of the child so you can present the best possible case for your kid. We discuss how to handle the enormous emotional burden on fathers. And for those parents that can mediate, I teach you exactly what a fair parenting plan looks like.

It’s important to recognize that nobody is coming to save you or your kids. You must be your own advocate. I teach you how. Find me on YouTube or get my family court guides at FatherX.LemonSqueezy.com…before it’s too late.

https://www.youtube.com/@FatherX2022

https://x.com/FatherX2022

https://fatherx.lemonsqueezy.com/

___________________________________________________________