penkitten
Master Don Juan
that was a good one .
perhaps you could give advise to the guys on how to handle that type of situation and still come out on top...
Article: Shouldn't Men have a choice too?
- Thread starter Jvesti
- Start date
perhaps you could give advise to the guys on how to handle that type of situation and still come out on top...
The guy should dump any woman who would refuse to let him wear a condom. I would dump any guy who refused to use one. I can't take the pill because it makes me sick. I don't want to get any STDs and I sure as hell don't want to get pregnant. No condom, no sex.
If a woman refuses you sex for not wearing a condom then the man should say, "Fine...then I'll just go find a girlfriend who respects me enough to accept that I want to use condoms. Goodbye."
Jvesti
Master Don Juan
AGAIN we are talking about NOT conception. Nor even the carrying of the child.
But responsibilities OUTSIDE the womb.
There are 2 options
1. Keep child
2. Give up for adoption
In this scenario
Giving up for adoption makes both parents exempt from responsibility from the child. This is a clear example of exempting parents. Any argument that "you had em, you're responsible" is mute unless you think adoption laws should be changed.
I personally believe no one should be obligated to the child. But its human nature for someone in that community to survive it always. I'm not worried about babies just becoming dust.
So we've clearly established the choice that will EXEMPT the parents from support of the child.
The problem lies when one parents wants the child while they other doesn't. This scenario is usually created by one malicious party who cares not for the well being of the other. Generally unmarried, revengeful, gold digging, irresponsible sexual partner choice.
Anyways, even if the father wants to put the child up for adoption he has no choice in the matter. The mother can keep it and make the father a slave to the child against his will. The fact being that what counts is fatherhood not half a mans assets
This here is the problem. By backing out gov't support AND allowing a father to be optional on support. Will hit the wall of responsibility hard. Women will not see a payday at the end of the pregnancy tunnel, they'll be more careful whom they choose to sleep unprotected and when.
Why do you think there's essentially a marriage protest? Why are less men marrying? population declining? This is one of the aspects that is extremely unfair to men.
But responsibilities OUTSIDE the womb.
There are 2 options
1. Keep child
2. Give up for adoption
In this scenario
Giving up for adoption makes both parents exempt from responsibility from the child. This is a clear example of exempting parents. Any argument that "you had em, you're responsible" is mute unless you think adoption laws should be changed.
I personally believe no one should be obligated to the child. But its human nature for someone in that community to survive it always. I'm not worried about babies just becoming dust.
So we've clearly established the choice that will EXEMPT the parents from support of the child.
The problem lies when one parents wants the child while they other doesn't. This scenario is usually created by one malicious party who cares not for the well being of the other. Generally unmarried, revengeful, gold digging, irresponsible sexual partner choice.
Anyways, even if the father wants to put the child up for adoption he has no choice in the matter. The mother can keep it and make the father a slave to the child against his will. The fact being that what counts is fatherhood not half a mans assets
This here is the problem. By backing out gov't support AND allowing a father to be optional on support. Will hit the wall of responsibility hard. Women will not see a payday at the end of the pregnancy tunnel, they'll be more careful whom they choose to sleep unprotected and when.
Why do you think there's essentially a marriage protest? Why are less men marrying? population declining? This is one of the aspects that is extremely unfair to men.
Jvesti
Master Don Juan
Nope, believe it or not in reality there is both parties are trying to expect something for nothing. The gov't dont owe you anything, never and should never. In fact when the kids 18 the integrity thing would be to pay the gov't back for how much you suckered off it because of your choices. You made a highly irresponsible choice and probably knew there would be a gov't and daddy right there to give you support.
Nor was the adoption route even pressured because of 2 things like this so the child could be given a home that is financially solvent and fully stable mom/dad in it.
I have a female friend who gave a child up for adoption because she knew she didn't have a responsible family setting or the financial capabilities. It was tough for her, but definitely in the child's best interest.
NO ACCOUNTABILITY
This is why the laws need to change
If one parent wants the child their right to their child trumps the rights of the one who doesn't want the child.
If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, she has every right to have it and the child has every right to the financial support of BOTH parents.
If the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, he has every right to have it and the child has every right to the financial support of BOTH parents.
If a man does not want to support the child he helped create that the mother wants to keep TOO BAD. He did NOT have to have sex, unprotected or otherwise with a woman he did not want to have a child with.
Men don't have ANY control once the woman is pregnant. That is not going to change. The only way it could be changed would result in a violation of the basic human rights of the woman carrying his child. A person's HUMAN RIGHTS and RIGHTS to their child will forever be more important than someone's desire to not take responsibility for a child they KNEW could result from having sex.
If you go deer hunting and shoot at something moving in the bushes and it turns out to be a person you are not going to get off the hook by saying "Well, I didn't want to shoot a person. I was just hunting deer. How was I supposed to know there might be a person in the bushes?" This sounds very much like "Well, I didn't want to be a father. I was just having sex. How was I supposed to know she might get pregnant?" The judge isn't going to CARE if you didn't want to do what you did...you still did it and you KNEW the risks involved when you did it. End of story.
If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, she has every right to have it and the child has every right to the financial support of BOTH parents.
If the father wants the child and the mother doesn't, he has every right to have it and the child has every right to the financial support of BOTH parents.
If a man does not want to support the child he helped create that the mother wants to keep TOO BAD. He did NOT have to have sex, unprotected or otherwise with a woman he did not want to have a child with.
Men don't have ANY control once the woman is pregnant. That is not going to change. The only way it could be changed would result in a violation of the basic human rights of the woman carrying his child. A person's HUMAN RIGHTS and RIGHTS to their child will forever be more important than someone's desire to not take responsibility for a child they KNEW could result from having sex.
If you go deer hunting and shoot at something moving in the bushes and it turns out to be a person you are not going to get off the hook by saying "Well, I didn't want to shoot a person. I was just hunting deer. How was I supposed to know there might be a person in the bushes?" This sounds very much like "Well, I didn't want to be a father. I was just having sex. How was I supposed to know she might get pregnant?" The judge isn't going to CARE if you didn't want to do what you did...you still did it and you KNEW the risks involved when you did it. End of story.
Desdinova
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 11,640
- Reaction score
- 4,717
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Compare that to the real world. Men are hell bent on trying to keep their woman happy 100% of the time. The poor little girl wants to feel trusted. Then trusted she shall be! The condom comes off and she feels better.
I wonder if this falls under the category of "The Condom Broke".
I was f*cking MARRIED to their father you retard. And aside from that $600 I NEVER "sucked" anything off the government. I have supported my family on my own with virtually NO help from their deadbeat a$$hole father OR the government, thank you VERY f*cking much. I pay taxes to the state and federal govt every week as well. My God, but you are a presumptuous little f*cktard, aren't you?
The kids in question were te result of a 10 year MARRIAGE. They were PLANNED by BOTH their father AND their mother. Jesus H. Christ...buy yourself a goddamned clue.
Excuse me...but when you have children within a marriage and have raised them for ten years you don't just ship them off for adoption simply because you get divorced. Pay the hell attention when you respond to a post why don't you.
No, the laws are fine AS THEY ARE...and men who don't want kids can just wear a goddamned CONDOM.
No...we have the laws to protect the interests of the CHILDREN...who are completely innocent in it all and who have needs and rights. Because those children are unable to care for themselves and had no say in their birth...the parties responsible for creating that innocent life is legally and financially responsible for them. If they were not made responsible for them then YOU would have to be. How fair is that to the rest of society? I don't know about you, but I would much rather only be financially responsible for the kids I brought into the world, not any kids you or the rest of this site bring into it.Originally posted by Desdinova
And this is why we have those laws. Because men are apparently too goddam dumb and allow themselves to be manipulated by the intelligent woman.
"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."
I'd bet that he'd have the same thing to say about you! And judging by how argumentative you are here, there's no wonder that you’re single and all alone.
But, I'm going to pray for you tonight, because I really believe that you have some sort of mental problem.
Tell me, what kind of woman posts on a man's site all day long like you do?
Something’s not right in Denmark! Please get some medical attention fast, for the sake of your children and your own sanity!
I don't care if the mod's delete this, cuz I'm actually trying to help her, and...
Never mind!
Sayno'
I'd bet that he'd have the same thing to say about you! And judging by how argumentative you are here, there's no wonder that you’re single and all alone.
But, I'm going to pray for you tonight, because I really believe that you have some sort of mental problem.
Tell me, what kind of woman posts on a man's site all day long like you do?
Something’s not right in Denmark! Please get some medical attention fast, for the sake of your children and your own sanity!
I don't care if the mod's delete this, cuz I'm actually trying to help her, and...
Never mind!
Sayno'
Last edited:
Desdinova
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 11,640
- Reaction score
- 4,717
Okay, we'll throw the kids into the mix. Here's another angle....
WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST
Would you agree that this is how the law leans? It's an age old saying that was used because women and children are the helpless ones, but the man can survive on his own.
Now, if the woman, according to women's rights activists doesn't need a man to take care of her and lord over her, shouldn't this be changed to:
CHILDREN FIRST
?
But, if women are completely independant of men according to society, shouldn't they pay for the kids staying in their house? (the same goes for men). If they can't afford it, shouldn't the children be moved into a foster home?
This is of course if shared custody can't be agreed on.
Well, Gayblo...if he said the same about me he'd be lying. I'm single, but hardly "all alone". I'm quite happy with my relationship status, thanks.
If you were wise you'd pray for yourself...you need it far more than I do.
Um...one who WANTS to. Frankly, I'd much rather be here for the reason I'm here than for the reason you are. But this has nothing to do with the topic at hand...nor does ANY of your post, for that matter.Tell me, what kind of woman posts on a man's site all day long like you do?
I'm perfectly sane, thanks...perhaps you should take your own advice. Your cranium seems to be firmly lodged into your rectum...which might be why you never see things for what they are.
No you're not...you're looking for any opportunity to insult and attack me, per usual.
You're not fooling anyone.
Oh yeah...and go f*ck yourself...with how miserable you are, it'd probably be the ONLY action you ever get.
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
WYLD: You are personalizing this entire debate as I stated in my last post. Statistically your case is exceptional and pregnancy (intended or otherwise) doesn't occur in a vaccuum - there are a lot of other, and I daresay more common, variables that make your unfortunate, but self-made decisions an exception to the rule. You may well have been blameless in any wrong doing in your previous marriage and regretably you and your children are suffering from this past situation, but there were at least 3 decision in which you cannot claim a lack of responsibility and that is 'choosing' to have 3 children with the monster you consistently post about in virtually every thread that even brushes the surface of suggesting that men may be getting a raw deal when it comes to paternity.
That's not a flame, I respect your opinions, but your tendency to personalize in this way is hardly the most objective way to debate. However, I would be happy to discuss your personal situations in a PM or even an open thread - maybe that's the best thing for you?
That's not a flame, I respect your opinions, but your tendency to personalize in this way is hardly the most objective way to debate. However, I would be happy to discuss your personal situations in a PM or even an open thread - maybe that's the best thing for you?
Basically, that's the way society goes, yes. However, the order in which it goes is Children first, Disabled second, Elderly third, Women fourth, Men fifth. That's going on the MOST vulnerable first and so on.
It is children first...and women aren't second on the list, they are 4th.
This is apparent just based on what we saw when New Orleans was evacuated. However, the elderly and disabled got on those buses before most children did. Women didn't get on those buses before the elderly and disabled...and some didn't even get on WITH their children...that's how so many kids got separated from their families.
I'm not a feminist and I don't think men and women are the same or ever will be. In most cases we can all do the same jobs and what not...but we're very different.
This is NOT about the man or the woman...it is about the CHILDREN. It's in the best interest of the child to be with family. The child has that right and the child has the right to be provided for by BOTH of it's parents. Des, regardless of how you want to look at it, approach it or present it...it will always come back to the child...because their rights and best interests will FOREVER trump all else.
Jvesti
Master Don Juan
Guys Glenn Sacks the author of this article produces a newsletter via his website at www.glennsacks.com.
The Amber Frey story is actually very pertinent to this discussion. Whilst being looked at as a heroine by the media. In other events has ruined a man's life claiming paternity to a child that's not even his. The man has no right to reclaim his money nor go after Frey for frauding him.
This is from the newsletter.
The Amber Frey story is actually very pertinent to this discussion. Whilst being looked at as a heroine by the media. In other events has ruined a man's life claiming paternity to a child that's not even his. The man has no right to reclaim his money nor go after Frey for frauding him.
This is from the newsletter.
Rollo...it's a tad bit difficult to discuss something that is SO close to home without making it a bit personal. I also debate issues based on what I know from personal experience. That's why I tend to make things personal. That's really all there is to it.
I have repeatedly openly admitted that I made a VERY poor choice when I married my ex husband. Most 18 year olds tend to do that when they marry so young. I was naive and stupid and I own that 100%...always have.
I'm not speaking only about myself when I bring up the issue of ex husbands who won't pay child support. This is not just single guys who didn't want a kid. There are a hell of a lot of men who were married to the mothers of their children who refuse to support their kids. I know SO MANY divorced mothers who get no child support whose ex's have fled to avoid paying. It's pretty disgusting for a father or a mother to abandon a child or children they wanted and loved. And we wonder why so many kids are so screwed up.
http://www.delinquentdad.com/index.htm
As you, A-Unit and I all pointed out...it's very easy for a guy to insure himself against an unwanted pregnancy. It's crazy for a guy NOT to. I don't disagree with it being wrong for a woman to trap a guy or that the woman has more rights. That's just the nature of things. We all know this. We all know how babies are made. We all know the risks of sex, especially unprotected sex. We all know it's not a good idea to place blind faith in others where our wallets are concerned.
If single men are allowed an easy out and aren't made to take responsibility for their poor choices and irresponsibility, it will just make it easier for men who DID want their kids at one time to shirk their responsibilities after getting divorced.
There would be NO NEED for a single guy to even complain about this if they would just stop by the Planned Parenthood office once a month and pick up some FREE condoms and use the damn things.
Amber Frey's ex should get visitation if he wants and should be reimbursed for the child support he paid by the child's real father. The child was entitled to the support, but in this case it came from the wrong person. The man who is the child's father should be made to pay it back to the guy who did pay it.
Amber Frey is clearly WRONG for not being honest that there was a second man who could have been the child's father. There should be an extension of any statute of limitation so that the guy who was wronged can file a civil suit once the child is able to support herself. As long as the child doesn't end up having to pay for what her mother did (by going without so the mother can pay a fine), I'm all for a steep fine or civil suit. Just don't punish the child...it wasn't her fault.
Amber Frey is clearly WRONG for not being honest that there was a second man who could have been the child's father. There should be an extension of any statute of limitation so that the guy who was wronged can file a civil suit once the child is able to support herself. As long as the child doesn't end up having to pay for what her mother did (by going without so the mother can pay a fine), I'm all for a steep fine or civil suit. Just don't punish the child...it wasn't her fault.
penkitten
Master Don Juan
didnt this lady get into any trouble?
Jvesti
Master Don Juan
wyldfire there is clearly a hole in your logic.
What if the mother is a scam artist? Should she not go to jail because she "has a kid"? What if she is a murderer, or scams people out of half their money??
The child IS suffering because its with Amber Frey, and will be raised by this con artist that's let be one.
The fact is, trash like her should NOT be raising children. This is a suitable parent?
Andrea Yates was probably a great mother too accept for her criminal behavior, the ... killing n all.