Article: Shouldn't Men have a choice too?
- Thread starter Jvesti
- Start date
penkitten
Master Don Juan
i am not complaining that i have kids and i want my kids.Originally posted by RaWBLooD
I cant tell you how to raise your kids, but they shouldn;t dare yell at you, and hey no one prevented you from giving up for adoption.
i was just saying its not fair that their father gets a slap on the wrists when he feels like he has to be behind on support.
im not allowed to be behind on dinner.
the point i was getting to is that women are punished too.
Dude...you need to step back from the anti-feminism for a minute and look at this rationally.
First of all...how often does a single guy who doesn't want a child in the first place try to get custody? He doesn't. Yes, in the case of a divorce it is usually the woman who gets custody of the kids. That's not because there is some feminist plot against men...it's because more often than not the mother is the one who mainly provided the actual care for the child. It's in the best interest of the child to have them stay in the care they've become accustomed to most. Divorce is tough on kids and the worst thing you can do to them is rip them away from the parent who has cared for them most on top of everything else.
I went through the ugly, bitter divorce with the whole custody battle thing. My ex husband behaved like an idiot. He STILL behaves like an idiot. He's still bitter that I left him over 11 years ago. He ranted and raved about how he wasn't going to pay child support because I would spend the money on myself. Puhlease. He quit his job and went on unemployment to avoid paying his share of supporting our kids. He was ordered to pay all of $50 a month for 3 kids...$50 total. He wouldn't even pay that. He moved to another state and made more in a week than he was ordered to pay in a year. He STILL paid nothing. He didn't even send birthday or christmas gifts to the kids. He chose to hate me more than he loved his children.
In the grand scheme of things...it doesn't matter whether the custodial parent uses the child support specifically to pay for the expenses of providing for the kids as long as she's paying them. She has to rent a bigger place to accomodate the kids...so if she uses the child support for rent...it's being used for the benefit of the kids. If she uses it to pay the utility bills and car payment...it's benefiting the kids. As long as the kids' needs are being provided for it's just plain stupid to ask for or expect an itemized list of exactly where the child support goes. Insisting on that is about control and the man's attempt to use the kids to control his ex. That's not acceptable. Now...if the kids' needs aren't being met...THEN it's okay for the guy to quesiton where the child support is going. But if they ARE being met...it's just an excuse to be a dink.
I've seen my ex singlehandedly destroy his relationship with each of our children because of this bitter attitude.
I have a 5 year old daughter with another man. He doesn't behave anything at all like my ex husband does. Know what....we have never had even one problem or disagreement as parents. There is none of this insane hurting our child in some lame attempt at gaining control or hurting each other. That sh*t is stupid and counterproductive.
From what I have seen in divorce court...the court is almost always in favor of shared custody between parents. That's what the original goal was back in 1994 when I got divorced. However, my ex husband shot himself in the foot by behaving like an idiot. His behavior led the court to give sole custody to me. If a man did not go into divorce court and try to use the children as a weapon to hurt their ex so damn often they would fare much, much better.
penkitten
Master Don Juan
abortion and adoption would be cruel punishment for me . i couldnt murder or give my child to a stranger.
On top of that...weren't you MARRIED to their father? I'm guessing that he wanted your children too.
You shouldn't waste your time arguing with this moron. He almost never posts to the guys on here. He's constantly trying to start stupid ass arguments with me, though. I think he's desperate for female attention. I put him on ignore because he's more annoying than a pack of squealing 12 year old girls at a Hanson concert.
penkitten
Master Don Juan
yes i was married to their father and he did want his kids. we were not in poverty when these children came into the world.
and the fact is, he is a good father except for not paying support in the last six months, so we suffer.
and to be honest, hes behind on everything and not making his ends meet, but that isnt my kids fault and their support shouldnt be late.
this man is always early for visits and calls the kids at least every other day, is involved with little league coaching and has even taken my baby for a weekend here and there to help me out when i have had to go on work conferences. ( i just deduct what i would pay a sitter out of what support he owes on the occasion i have to ask him for help because she isnt his child and i honestly trust him and his new wife more than i would any old sitter.)
Sounds like he's just going through a rough spot...which is a far sight better than just being a dink like my ex husband. Luckily my daughter's father isn't a psycho. Dealing with him is so much easier because he's not a bitter old pr*ck. He's behind on his child support right now too, but he'll catch up when he is able to. I'm just thankful he's sane. Consider yourself lucky that your ex isn't one of those bitter old pr*cks. I'd forego child support in a second in exchange for my ex actually giving a sh*t about the kids he wanted back when we had them.
penkitten
Master Don Juan
see thats why i didnt want the support from the babys dad because if hes paying he doesnt have to sign over any rights, however he wont come see her either. thats not fair to her to have a father who doesnt want her.
Oh, my ex wants to see our kids...but all he wants to do is spend his time with them complaining about how horrible I am for leaving him over 11 years ago. When they tell him to knock it off he calls them names, insults them and treats them like crap. It would make life so much simpler for me and for the kids if he just disappeared. He has alienated them so bad that they genuinely hate him now. But he still wants to have contact with them. They are 19, 17 and almost 15 now and they all flat out refuse to have anything to do with their father at all. Instead of recognizing that he is screwing up with them and changing his behavior he chooses to file a bunch of motions in court trying to force contact. He even physically assaulted our youngest son and landed his ass in jail for a few days and has a domestic assault charge hanging over his head. He STILL is trying to force the son he assaulted to see him, too. And he wonders why they hate him so damn bad. Of course, he blames it all on me "brainwashing" them against him. It couldn't be because he's an ass to them, though...of course not.
The Problem...
The Problem with this is...that it begins in the beginning.
A child being brought into this world, once birthed, SHOULD have every right, entitlement, and opportunity to have love, care, and life afforded to him/her. It's not their fault, and the parents shouldn't bicker about it at birth.
I have a friend who was set to marry a girl and they were going for a pregnancy. Two miscarriages later, nothing. At about that time, they were losing interest and looking to part ways. Finally, on their last legs, they had a baby, of whom my friend offers financial support, but little fatherly support. The fatherly role model is more important than the dollars here, and that's the real damage.
In a way, rulings of law that force a man to pay have been written to control actions of society. If a man gets a girl pregnant, he pays 30-50% of his gross income to her. This should prevent any men from engaging in stupid sex with stupid ****s. But it doesn't...
There's always the guys who has a ONS, or the guy who wants to use no condoms and pull out, or the accident, and when that happens, WHOOPS, now I don't want it.
-----------------------------------------
I'm not sure where I place on this disagreement, but I can tell you this...
You can take something 'serious' like sex and reproduction, and try to market and package it like some -extracurricular- activity for the youth of America, as they are now. Look at Cosmos. Look at MAXIMS. Look at all the condoms. And bars. And porn. And strip clubs. And langerie. Sex has been wittled to be OK as an activity, and it is, in a monogamous relationship. Outside of that, deal with the penalties.
Free sex was never a right of the people, or of men, or women. Nor was women's entitlement to half our assets should we get a girl pregnant. But guess what? Someone has to pay for the kid...and though people say 'let the state do it,' the state is ONLY us. You and me, we're only deflecting the paying responsibilities on each other.
This is a social/moral epidemic, not one in which we can right a law against or hope to change women's behavior. How can we?
--------------------------------------------
I don't think it's right when a woman acts maliciously to trap a man, or gets 'accidently' pregnant. BUT, alot of the headaches can be avoided if....
-you buy your own condoms and keep control of them, that way if she buys crappy ones or pokes holes in them , you're safe.
-you actually USE your condoms.
-you realize the worst case scenario, and DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH ANY GIRL YOU COULD NOT RAISE A KID WITH.
Guys, you have to take control of this in your own hands, because girls won't and never will. They assume if we are banging them, that we in fact care for them and will take care of them. While some guys here know that isn't true, if you value your life, your future, and your family, you'll pay heed and stop sticking your prick in every hole.
---------------------------------------
It isn't 'right' that we pay half, and we -should- have a say in our own progeny, but it's also not right to have a woman violate her own morals (though I'd question that if she's engaging in premarital sex anyways) for the sake of our morals.
Wrap it up and there's no problems. The rest is semantics. We can bicker about what a woman should do, and how unfair it is that we pay, and how sh!tty it is that women would trap us...but...
-if a girl is THAT bad to be, why did you fvck her to begin with?
-why didn't you wrap it up or double wrap it?
A-Unit
The Problem with this is...that it begins in the beginning.
A child being brought into this world, once birthed, SHOULD have every right, entitlement, and opportunity to have love, care, and life afforded to him/her. It's not their fault, and the parents shouldn't bicker about it at birth.
I have a friend who was set to marry a girl and they were going for a pregnancy. Two miscarriages later, nothing. At about that time, they were losing interest and looking to part ways. Finally, on their last legs, they had a baby, of whom my friend offers financial support, but little fatherly support. The fatherly role model is more important than the dollars here, and that's the real damage.
In a way, rulings of law that force a man to pay have been written to control actions of society. If a man gets a girl pregnant, he pays 30-50% of his gross income to her. This should prevent any men from engaging in stupid sex with stupid ****s. But it doesn't...
There's always the guys who has a ONS, or the guy who wants to use no condoms and pull out, or the accident, and when that happens, WHOOPS, now I don't want it.
-----------------------------------------
I'm not sure where I place on this disagreement, but I can tell you this...
You can take something 'serious' like sex and reproduction, and try to market and package it like some -extracurricular- activity for the youth of America, as they are now. Look at Cosmos. Look at MAXIMS. Look at all the condoms. And bars. And porn. And strip clubs. And langerie. Sex has been wittled to be OK as an activity, and it is, in a monogamous relationship. Outside of that, deal with the penalties.
Free sex was never a right of the people, or of men, or women. Nor was women's entitlement to half our assets should we get a girl pregnant. But guess what? Someone has to pay for the kid...and though people say 'let the state do it,' the state is ONLY us. You and me, we're only deflecting the paying responsibilities on each other.
This is a social/moral epidemic, not one in which we can right a law against or hope to change women's behavior. How can we?
--------------------------------------------
I don't think it's right when a woman acts maliciously to trap a man, or gets 'accidently' pregnant. BUT, alot of the headaches can be avoided if....
-you buy your own condoms and keep control of them, that way if she buys crappy ones or pokes holes in them , you're safe.
-you actually USE your condoms.
-you realize the worst case scenario, and DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH ANY GIRL YOU COULD NOT RAISE A KID WITH.
Guys, you have to take control of this in your own hands, because girls won't and never will. They assume if we are banging them, that we in fact care for them and will take care of them. While some guys here know that isn't true, if you value your life, your future, and your family, you'll pay heed and stop sticking your prick in every hole.
---------------------------------------
It isn't 'right' that we pay half, and we -should- have a say in our own progeny, but it's also not right to have a woman violate her own morals (though I'd question that if she's engaging in premarital sex anyways) for the sake of our morals.
Wrap it up and there's no problems. The rest is semantics. We can bicker about what a woman should do, and how unfair it is that we pay, and how sh!tty it is that women would trap us...but...
-if a girl is THAT bad to be, why did you fvck her to begin with?
-why didn't you wrap it up or double wrap it?
A-Unit
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
We've repeated this mantra enough times now: "Wear a Condom!", but this discussion (based on the article) isn't about birth control. It's easy for both sexes to find fault in the other in this context - "The golddigging wellfare momma used me as a sperm donor and now I have to finance her life for the next 18 years" or "That no-good dead beat sunuvab!tch wont live up to his responsibilities" - but what it comes down to is after the fact. Neither used birth control and now 3 lives (Parents and Baby) are in the balance. As it stands today, of these 3 people (or potential person) only the female has the power to decide the futures of ALL 3. Passions run high and our natural defaults are to personalize the situation to our own experiences or perceptions, but the fact remains, men only have a 'choice' prior to the act and 0% of control thereafter. Women have a 'choice' prior to conception AND 100% control thereafter. The context isn't whether or not either or both is blameless or at fault for a pregnancy, it is the degree of influence one sex has after the fact.
Abortion is bad, check. Guy's should wear a condom, check. Women should be responsible with their own contraception, check. It's sex ed 101, this is basic stuff, what's not basic is the control after the act. Women have 100% control and the only thing that will change this is a male form of hormonal contraception or vasectomy.
PENKITTEN made a valid point that I hadn't thought of in that unwanted/unplanned pregnancy is also an industry now. If laws were changed to give men even a marginal opt out of financial responsibilities this would only result in the costs of child bearing and rearing to be transffered to increased social burden in the form of taxation or otherwise. Far better that the responsible parties assume the financial burden than the common wealth. Considering the high statistics of unplanned pregnancy it would certainly swamp whatever programs (AFDC) that presently exist.
However, I think it does still beg the question of whether limiting a man's financial liabilities would be an effective deterent for women seeking to be 'professional mothers' by fraud. If public financial aid were difficult to get and a man was less liable for monetary compensation, I'd think women might be less inclined to allow themselves to become pregnant.
Abortion is bad, check. Guy's should wear a condom, check. Women should be responsible with their own contraception, check. It's sex ed 101, this is basic stuff, what's not basic is the control after the act. Women have 100% control and the only thing that will change this is a male form of hormonal contraception or vasectomy.
PENKITTEN made a valid point that I hadn't thought of in that unwanted/unplanned pregnancy is also an industry now. If laws were changed to give men even a marginal opt out of financial responsibilities this would only result in the costs of child bearing and rearing to be transffered to increased social burden in the form of taxation or otherwise. Far better that the responsible parties assume the financial burden than the common wealth. Considering the high statistics of unplanned pregnancy it would certainly swamp whatever programs (AFDC) that presently exist.
However, I think it does still beg the question of whether limiting a man's financial liabilities would be an effective deterent for women seeking to be 'professional mothers' by fraud. If public financial aid were difficult to get and a man was less liable for monetary compensation, I'd think women might be less inclined to allow themselves to become pregnant.
Rollo...let's be 100% realistic and honest here. You and I both know how many divorced men there are out there who would like nothing better than to shirk their financial responsibilities for the children THEY WANTED. My ex husband is a perfect example of this. I know countless women who were married to men who were perfectly happy being a father while they were married who after divorce go to great lengths to avoid paying their share in raising those children. This isn't mostly about single guys who accidentally got some girl pregnant (yeah, she helped get pregnant, too). It typically takes TWO people to ruin a marriage...and even in a case like mine, where I didn't cause any of the marital problems...at the very least it takes one making a sh*tty choice in partners.
If the laws are altered to protect a bunch of single guys who COULD have worn a damn condom or taken better care in who they had sex with...there will be hundreds of thousands of divorced men who use those laws to weasel out of helping support the children THEY WANTED and often PLANNED.
When push comes to shove...this is about the rights of those children...and the fact that they need to be taken care of. Either the two people who had that child can be made to support them or you, me and everyone else can take care of them via taxes. If you don't force the fathers of those children to be financially responsible for their carelessness then there will be even more careless horny men spreading their seed all over the place. That makes for a bigger burden on taxpayers and society.
As for why women get more control...that's pretty simple...women are the ones with the burden of carrying that child in her body for 9 months. It's not sexist or a bias against men. If it were men who were created with a uterus it would be them who had that extra control. Now...if men had no control whatsoever...then there would be a justifiable reason to complain about it. However...men DO have choices. They can take better care in who they sleep with and use condoms. Like I pointed out before...they are FREE at any Planned Parenthood Clinic. There just is absolutely NO excuse not to use them.
The good news for men is that there are two new male birth control products in the works right now There is the male pill and there is also a IUD type device being studied. The device would work like a vasectomy but would not be permanent. Honestly, though...I don't foresee men utilizing either of these future methods to the level some might believe they would. With how readily accessible condoms are...they still aren't being used consistently. Pills and birth control devices require visits to the doctor, health monitoring and in the case of the device...invasive procedures. They aren't free and require more effort than I think a lot of guys are going to be willing to put forth.
As I mentioned before...
You insure your car in case you have an accident to protect your financial interests.
You insure your home in case of accidental fire, flooding, etc to protect your financial interests.
Why the hell would you NOT wear condoms to protect yourself from accidental pregnancy or STDs? This is NO different from protecting your financial interests in other ways. It SHOULD be common sense, really.
penkitten
Master Don Juan
rollo, i agree.
i knew not to ever sign up for afdc because i knew they would make me go after him in court, so the government could collect the debt owed. (afdc is a replacement for child support, if you are not recieving it in case any one doesnt know.)
when my insurance only paid 80% and i needed help on the other 20% i assumed that it was totally based on my income and signed up for the medicaid help. they had me sign all kinds of paperwork and i did not have time to read it, however there was a clause that i would willingly work with the agencies to turn over the absent parent who would be responsible in paying his share back. i assumed that since i paid my insurance ,( every week out of my paycheck and copays when i went to the dr) that it would not be very hard for him to pay the 20% left on the bill.
i had no idea that they would supeona me into a court room with this man and set child support up.
i have spoken to a friend who is an attorney secretary and there is something fishy going on around here. apparently the child support division gets a bunch of money for their department if they take all these absent parents in and set child support. she said they honestly dont even care if the fathers really pay the support or not, just the fact that they get X amount of people paying support thru their offices makes some sort of money come into their office.
had i have known all this, i would have just made payments to the hospital to pay the 20% myself at the time of her birth OR
when they hauled me in to ask who he was, i would have told them to start deducting whatever they wanted paid back from my own paycheck to get it paid and leave him out of it.
Desdinova
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 11,640
- Reaction score
- 4,717
I'm gonna throw another curve ball in here that I've experienced a few times. After having sex with a woman for a lengthy period of time, they will want you to quit using the condom. They start using their emotions to manipulate the man. If the man refuses to quit using the condom, the following happens:
1) He doesn't get laid that night
2) She says "I feel like you don't trust me"
3) The man either fvcks her without a condom, or stands up for himself (usually the condom goes).
4) She gets pregnant
It's manipulative, and it's disgusting.
1) He doesn't get laid that night
2) She says "I feel like you don't trust me"
3) The man either fvcks her without a condom, or stands up for himself (usually the condom goes).
4) She gets pregnant
It's manipulative, and it's disgusting.
Vermont is totally messed up regarding the state and child support.
I was owed almost $10k in back child support, which I would get some of everytime my ex filed federal taxes. His refunds would come to me.
I was in a major bind for one month and had no income. I had to go to the state to get help for that one month. They gave me about $600 total. The state, by law, STOLE the rights to that $10k in back child support just because they gave me a measly $600 one time. Mind you, my 5 year old's father paid over $600 right after the state gave me that temporary help. They took that child support AND the 10K of my kid's child support. I couldn't believe they were allowed to do that. Now I don't even get any of the IRS refunds from my ex because the state gets paid towards the back child support they freaking STOLE from my kids first.
How f*cked up is that? Greedy b@stards.
I was owed almost $10k in back child support, which I would get some of everytime my ex filed federal taxes. His refunds would come to me.
I was in a major bind for one month and had no income. I had to go to the state to get help for that one month. They gave me about $600 total. The state, by law, STOLE the rights to that $10k in back child support just because they gave me a measly $600 one time. Mind you, my 5 year old's father paid over $600 right after the state gave me that temporary help. They took that child support AND the 10K of my kid's child support. I couldn't believe they were allowed to do that. Now I don't even get any of the IRS refunds from my ex because the state gets paid towards the back child support they freaking STOLE from my kids first.
How f*cked up is that? Greedy b@stards.