I once read that surgeons can implant tiny faucets to achieve this. The term "better" in that context is a bit vague. To give up your reproductive ability will never happen until humans as a species are just shy of cannibalism and extinction. Not before. And under these circumstances it is too late to turn the world into something "better".
Definitely disagree, for a few reasons. 1. it's sexist and unfair, why shouldn't women have some form of mandatory birth control too until they can prove the same? plenty of mothers are shitty to their kids. 2. it shouldn't depend so much on whether they're a good husband/partner but on whether they'd be a good father. and even then, there's nothing necessarily wrong with single women raising children. 3. 'upstanding'? according to society's standards? that's very judgmental and full of cultural artifact. for example, being too introverted to be social, not having a decent-paying job, having very unpopular opinions, etc. could all make you not an 'upstanding' person but don't necessarily imply a bad character. 4. either way the whole idea is just authoritarian. 5. it's necessarily extremely subjective to judge who's 'upstanding' or a 'suitable' husband/partner, so there's gonna be a lot of unfairness, 6. if you're going to practice eugenics at least do it right. don't give anyone the right to procreate unless they meet certain genetic qualifications, for example, no genetic weaknesses or diseases, an iq of at least 120, a pretty face, little body hair, etc. etc.
Disagree. Sounds a bit dystopian. It shouldn't be too difficult for men to just not be violent - granted, testosterone and all that.
I'd probably just ask all men to watch the Quantum Leap episode, 'What Price, Gloria?'. Its my favourite.
Retrospring uses Markdown for formatting
*italic text* for italic text
**bold text** for bold text
[link](https://example.com) for link
