Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun News Network)   Poking holes in your girlfriend's condoms? That's a jailin   (sunnewsnetwork.ca ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, black holes, Nova Scotia, girlfriend  
•       •       •

20705 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 8:07 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-03 08:10:30 PM  
If she consented to sex, she consented to all the dangers. Condoms aren't 100%...
 
2013-01-03 08:10:33 PM  
Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.
 
2013-01-03 08:11:50 PM  
And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'
 
2013-01-03 08:13:04 PM  
JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.


Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.
 
2013-01-03 08:14:22 PM  
sexual assault

What the eff yoo see kay?
 
2013-01-03 08:14:37 PM  
If your girlfriend is wearing the condom, holes are the least of your concerns.
 
2013-01-03 08:16:35 PM  
"A Nova Scotia man who pricked holes in his girlfriend's condoms..."

well, duh...
 
2013-01-03 08:18:39 PM  

taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'


Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.
 
2013-01-03 08:21:02 PM  
thats putting butter on the salmon.
 
2013-01-03 08:21:38 PM  
How about girls that "forget" to take the pill so that they can lock down the guy? Where's justice for them?
 
2013-01-03 08:21:45 PM  

sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.


Pretty much this.
 
2013-01-03 08:22:43 PM  

Chabash: If she consented to sex, she consented to all the dangers. Condoms aren't 100%...


That's what, 3 or 4 kilopalins on the stupid scale?
 
2013-01-03 08:23:32 PM  
www.rottenecards.com
 
2013-01-03 08:24:59 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Chabash: If she consented to sex, she consented to all the dangers. Condoms aren't 100%...

That's what, 3 or 4 kilopalins on the stupid scale?


Reason would say yes, but find any child support thread where somebody stopped taking the pill, etc, and you'll find this argument posted in all seriousness.
 
2013-01-03 08:25:44 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Chabash: If she consented to sex, she consented to all the dangers. Condoms aren't 100%...

That's what, 3 or 4 kilopalins on the stupid scale?


I think you're a few orders of magnitude off. Maybe decapalin bordering on a hectopalin, but if there were ever a kilopalin event, none of us would be here anymore.
 
2013-01-03 08:26:06 PM  
No, no I can't pick a side here, I dislike them both.
 
2013-01-03 08:27:46 PM  
ll-media.tmz.com

/Poke what?
 
2013-01-03 08:28:02 PM  

ultraholland: JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.

Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.


I've heard of guys say they'd knock up a chick to trap them, like they're some kind of perfect catch.  Ahhhh, now that's some high caliber dumb right there.
 
2013-01-03 08:28:12 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: No, no I can't pick a side here, I dislike them both.


This.
 
2013-01-03 08:28:39 PM  

pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.


That's why I make them sign my penis EULA, which forbids "generation or addition of dependents or beneficiaries."
 
2013-01-03 08:28:48 PM  
Daddy sells condoms to sailors
Momma pokes holes with a pin
Sister performs the abortions
Good Lord how the money rolls in!
 
2013-01-03 08:29:19 PM  
Good idea until you catch the clap...

/Been down so long....
 
2013-01-03 08:29:33 PM  

LeroyBourne: ultraholland: JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.

Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.

I've heard of guys say they'd knock up a chick to trap them, like they're some kind of perfect catch.  Ahhhh, now that's some high caliber dumb right there.


The whole abortion thing kind of makes that only work when the woman does it to the man.
 
2013-01-03 08:29:38 PM  
So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.
 
2013-01-03 08:29:49 PM  

taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'


nailed it in 3
 
2013-01-03 08:32:06 PM  
this guy really has a hankering for a cream pie
 
2013-01-03 08:32:45 PM  

Bisu: LeroyBourne: ultraholland: JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.

Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.

I've heard of guys say they'd knock up a chick to trap them, like they're some kind of perfect catch.  Ahhhh, now that's some high caliber dumb right there.

The whole abortion thing kind of makes that only work when the woman does it to the man.


Fun fact: some women do not realize they are pregnant until the baby is actually coming out. There are (claimed) cases where a woman has given birth during sleep.

I'll leave it to you to imagine the type to not readily show/recognize the signs of pregnancy.
 
2013-01-03 08:36:31 PM  
Why even admit to it? He wanted a kid and the condom broke. Convenient, but definitely plausible.

That said, it's a terrible idea to get a girlfriend pregnant if the relationship was already rocky. That's just asking for eighteen years of child support and not much else.
 
2013-01-03 08:36:41 PM  

taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'


Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.
 
2013-01-03 08:37:44 PM  

Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.


I still wouldn't trust it 100%. You may have forgotten to replace it when it expires. Or gotten it confused with a nicotine patch. Most women I date are too stupid to tell the difference.

Nope, the best birth control is anal sex. No chance of her saving it under her toungue and freezing it for later you get with oral, and tighter than pussy usually. Best of both worlds.
 
2013-01-03 08:37:59 PM  
What about women who poke holes in condoms? I personally know someone who this happened to, she admitted it, after she was pregnant, of course. Then they got married shortly after. No idea if they still are, this happened around 2000.
 
2013-01-03 08:39:21 PM  

UsikFark: Bisu: LeroyBourne: ultraholland: JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.

Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.

I've heard of guys say they'd knock up a chick to trap them, like they're some kind of perfect catch.  Ahhhh, now that's some high caliber dumb right there.

The whole abortion thing kind of makes that only work when the woman does it to the man.

Fun fact: some women do not realize they are pregnant until the baby is actually coming out. There are (claimed) cases where a woman has given birth during sleep.

I'll leave it to you to imagine the type to not readily show/recognize the signs of pregnancy.


I personally don't think that type of woman would fit into the "perfect catch" category he was talking about.

/or into a size 16 for that matter
 
2013-01-03 08:41:00 PM  

UsikFark: Bisu: LeroyBourne: ultraholland: JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.

Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.

I've heard of guys say they'd knock up a chick to trap them, like they're some kind of perfect catch.  Ahhhh, now that's some high caliber dumb right there.

The whole abortion thing kind of makes that only work when the woman does it to the man.

Fun fact: some women do not realize they are pregnant until the baby is actually coming out. There are (claimed) cases where a woman has given birth during sleep.

I'll leave it to you to imagine the type to not readily show/recognize the signs of pregnancy.


I'm guessing those guys were in the wrong fold.
 
2013-01-03 08:42:03 PM  

UsikFark: pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.

That's why I make them sign my penis EULA, which forbids "generation or addition of dependents or beneficiaries."


"By inserting this, you hereby agree to the following terms..."

/...GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN AS A PARTY OR CLASS MEMBER ALL DISPUTES IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE OR JURY.
 
2013-01-03 08:42:20 PM  

topcon: What about women who poke holes in condoms? I personally know someone who this happened to, she admitted it, after she was pregnant, of course. Then they got married shortly after. No idea if they still are, this happened around 2000.


I think that would probably give you carte blanche to cheat on her and treat her like shiat, and she'd just have take it. Sounds pretty sweet actually.
 
2013-01-03 08:43:18 PM  
Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.
 
2013-01-03 08:44:24 PM  

Cymbal: Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.

I still wouldn't trust it 100%. You may have forgotten to replace it when it expires. Or gotten it confused with a nicotine patch. Most women I date are too stupid to tell the difference.

Nope, the best birth control is anal sex. No chance of her saving it under her toungue and freezing it for later you get with oral, and tighter than pussy usually. Best of both worlds.


That is weird and you should feel weird.
 
2013-01-03 08:45:12 PM  

UsikFark: Bisu: LeroyBourne: ultraholland: JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.

Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.

I've heard of guys say they'd knock up a chick to trap them, like they're some kind of perfect catch.  Ahhhh, now that's some high caliber dumb right there.

The whole abortion thing kind of makes that only work when the woman does it to the man.

Fun fact: some women do not realize they are pregnant until the baby is actually coming out. There are (claimed) cases where a woman has given birth during sleep.

I'll leave it to you to imagine the type to not readily show/recognize the signs of pregnancy.


decentcommunity.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-03 08:45:16 PM  

taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.


Aren't you worried that all that sperm will buildup over time and become a super volcanoe like the one under Yellowstone?

This is the stuff that keeps me up at night.
 
2013-01-03 08:45:41 PM  

Cymbal: topcon: What about women who poke holes in condoms? I personally know someone who this happened to, she admitted it, after she was pregnant, of course. Then they got married shortly after. No idea if they still are, this happened around 2000.

I think that would probably give you carte blanche to cheat on her and treat her like shiat, and she'd just have take it. Sounds pretty sweet actually.


They were both insufferable people to some extent. Both came from families of divorce, she lost her virginity at like 13, he was probably like 10th in line at 20 or 21 years old when they got married. I used to be friends with both of them, moved away. They would both tell me shiat in private then I'd have to pretend like I didn't hear it when I was alone with either of them. Really annoying people. I actually looked them up once to see if they were still married but I couldn't find them on any kind of social networking site or anything despite the fact they have an unusual last name.
 
2013-01-03 08:45:54 PM  

taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.


*brofist*
 
2013-01-03 08:46:09 PM  

Cymbal: taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.

Aren't you worried that all that sperm will buildup over time and become a super volcanoe like the one under Yellowstone?

This is the stuff that keeps me up at night.


I LOLd
 
2013-01-03 08:47:11 PM  

taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.


How old were you when you got it? A guy I work with, his nephew wanted to get one at like 22 with no kids. He had a lot of trouble finding a doctor who would agree to do it but finally did. Weird how they're so "ethical" about such a thing.
 
2013-01-03 08:48:13 PM  

Cymbal: taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.

Aren't you worried that all that sperm will buildup over time and become a super volcanoe like the one under Yellowstone?

This is the stuff that keeps me up at night
.


Giggity
 
2013-01-03 08:48:48 PM  

Bathysphere: Cymbal: Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.

I still wouldn't trust it 100%. You may have forgotten to replace it when it expires. Or gotten it confused with a nicotine patch. Most women I date are too stupid to tell the difference.

Nope, the best birth control is anal sex. No chance of her saving it under her toungue and freezing it for later you get with oral, and tighter than pussy usually. Best of both worlds.

That is weird and you should feel weird.


That's cool, I get off on feeling weird. But I got to say, anal with a girl doesn't make me feel weird. Feels pretty damn good actually.
 
2013-01-03 08:49:11 PM  

topcon: taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.

How old were you when you got it? A guy I work with, his nephew wanted to get one at like 22 with no kids. He had a lot of trouble finding a doctor who would agree to do it but finally did. Weird how they're so "ethical" about such a thing.


It's even worse for women; they get a patronizing "you'll change your mind" lecture.

I got it done at 29 and have had it sooner had it occurred to me that my insurance would pay for it. $25 included the procedure, meds, and the follow-up. And after 3 years, it's more than paid for itself.
 
2013-01-03 08:50:17 PM  

topcon: taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.

How old were you when you got it? A guy I work with, his nephew wanted to get one at like 22 with no kids. He had a lot of trouble finding a doctor who would agree to do it but finally did. Weird how they're so "ethical" about such a thing.


Excuse me, done at 33.
 
2013-01-03 08:51:49 PM  

SnarfVader: If your girlfriend is wearing the condom, holes are the least of your concerns.


I can think of one hole that would be.
 
2013-01-03 08:52:40 PM  

Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.


That's the one where you hold it between your knees, right?
 
2013-01-03 08:54:03 PM  

inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.


That has happened.  The women grabbed the used condom out of the trashcan and impregnated herself with the contents.  Yes, the guy ended up paying child support.
 
2013-01-03 08:58:00 PM  
The pussy should really be the third favorite hole. So much less pregnancy risk with the other two.

Quite frankly I'd rather deal with a few teeth marks and a little poopy dick from time to time than a screaming baby, abortion payments or child support, but that's just me.
 
2013-01-03 08:58:17 PM  

Tornado of Zoo Animals: How about girls that "forget" to take the pill so that they can lock down the guy? Where's justice for them?


Women control the sex. Sorry, that is the way it is. Just accept your third class status in the whole "propagation of the species" game.

//fourth class, if you also have a dog
 
2013-01-03 08:59:33 PM  

topcon: taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.

How old were you when you got it? A guy I work with, his nephew wanted to get one at like 22 with no kids. He had a lot of trouble finding a doctor who would agree to do it but finally did. Weird how they're so "ethical" about such a thing.


28. Got it right after I got home from a deployment. I had no problem finding someone to do it around the Detroit area.
 
2013-01-03 09:01:22 PM  

MemeSlave: UsikFark: Bisu: LeroyBourne: ultraholland: JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.

Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.

I've heard of guys say they'd knock up a chick to trap them, like they're some kind of perfect catch.  Ahhhh, now that's some high caliber dumb right there.

The whole abortion thing kind of makes that only work when the woman does it to the man.

Fun fact: some women do not realize they are pregnant until the baby is actually coming out. There are (claimed) cases where a woman has given birth during sleep.

I'll leave it to you to imagine the type to not readily show/recognize the signs of pregnancy.

[decentcommunity.files.wordpress.com image 208x300]


that should be a 15 yd unsportsmanlike conduct flag, in fact go take a seat
 
2013-01-03 09:02:01 PM  
Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?
 
2013-01-03 09:02:20 PM  

Cymbal: Bathysphere: Cymbal: Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.

I still wouldn't trust it 100%. You may have forgotten to replace it when it expires. Or gotten it confused with a nicotine patch. Most women I date are too stupid to tell the difference.

Nope, the best birth control is anal sex. No chance of her saving it under her toungue and freezing it for later you get with oral, and tighter than pussy usually. Best of both worlds.

That is weird and you should feel weird.

That's cool, I get off on feeling weird. But I got to say, anal with a girl doesn't make me feel weird. Feels pretty damn good actually.


How can you tell it's a girl? What if you're doing it, and that girl you think your reaming turns loose of her bag, and your nuts bang together like two porcelain cups?
 
2013-01-03 09:02:22 PM  
Add me to the "shoots blanks" crowd.  At 24.  There was a waiting period, much like buying a gun, except I was trying to return the ammo.
 
2013-01-03 09:02:34 PM  

topcon: Cymbal: topcon: What about women who poke holes in condoms? I personally know someone who this happened to, she admitted it, after she was pregnant, of course. Then they got married shortly after. No idea if they still are, this happened around 2000.

I think that would probably give you carte blanche to cheat on her and treat her like shiat, and she'd just have take it. Sounds pretty sweet actually.

They were both insufferable people to some extent. Both came from families of divorce, she lost her virginity at like 13, he was probably like 10th in line at 20 or 21 years old when they got married. I used to be friends with both of them, moved away. They would both tell me shiat in private then I'd have to pretend like I didn't hear it when I was alone with either of them. Really annoying people. I actually looked them up once to see if they were still married but I couldn't find them on any kind of social networking site or anything despite the fact they have an unusual last name.


You should probably just stay away. Sounds like a Phil Hartman situation and we all know how well that ended.
 
2013-01-03 09:03:11 PM  

MemeSlave: UsikFark: Bisu: LeroyBourne: ultraholland: JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.

Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.

I've heard of guys say they'd knock up a chick to trap them, like they're some kind of perfect catch.  Ahhhh, now that's some high caliber dumb right there.

The whole abortion thing kind of makes that only work when the woman does it to the man.

Fun fact: some women do not realize they are pregnant until the baby is actually coming out. There are (claimed) cases where a woman has given birth during sleep.

I'll leave it to you to imagine the type to not readily show/recognize the signs of pregnancy.


Yeah, cover up her face. I'll never recognize Jabba the Hutt Rollin down the street in her amigo.
 
2013-01-03 09:04:28 PM  

moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?


Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10
 
2013-01-03 09:06:08 PM  

taurusowner: Cymbal: taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.

Aren't you worried that all that sperm will buildup over time and become a super volcanoe like the one under Yellowstone?

This is the stuff that keeps me up at night.

I LOLd


you laugh, but the D.S.B can be deadly
 
2013-01-03 09:07:10 PM  

Tumunga: Cymbal: Bathysphere: Cymbal: Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.

I still wouldn't trust it 100%. You may have forgotten to replace it when it expires. Or gotten it confused with a nicotine patch. Most women I date are too stupid to tell the difference.

Nope, the best birth control is anal sex. No chance of her saving it under her toungue and freezing it for later you get with oral, and tighter than pussy usually. Best of both worlds.

That is weird and you should feel weird.

That's cool, I get off on feeling weird. But I got to say, anal with a girl doesn't make me feel weird. Feels pretty damn good actually.

How can you tell it's a girl? What if you're doing it, and that girl you think your reaming turns loose of her bag, and your nuts bang together like two porcelain cups?


I've never had a problem spotting a transformer. So I should be fine. But if by chance it occurs, I'd prob just GTFO, like Begbie in Trainspotting.
 
2013-01-03 09:07:48 PM  

pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10


If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).
 
2013-01-03 09:08:32 PM  
i.imgur.com
/I only pick up good christian girls with promise rings.
 
2013-01-03 09:09:26 PM  

moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?


Do you think no woman in history has ever poked holes in her boyfriend's condoms to get pregnant?

When was the last time you heard of a woman getting prosecuted for sexual assault for doing it?
 
2013-01-03 09:09:27 PM  

OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).


That's pretty ridiculous. What if its from a sperm bank? Don't they have non-disclosure agreements?
 
2013-01-03 09:12:18 PM  

Tumunga: Cymbal: Bathysphere: Cymbal: Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.

I still wouldn't trust it 100%. You may have forgotten to replace it when it expires. Or gotten it confused with a nicotine patch. Most women I date are too stupid to tell the difference.

Nope, the best birth control is anal sex. No chance of her saving it under her toungue and freezing it for later you get with oral, and tighter than pussy usually. Best of both worlds.

That is weird and you should feel weird.

That's cool, I get off on feeling weird. But I got to say, anal with a girl doesn't make me feel weird. Feels pretty damn good actually.

How can you tell it's a girl? What if you're doing it, and that girl you think your reaming turns loose of her bag, and your nuts bang together like two porcelain cups?


Then we turn to the wisdom of the internet.

static.someecards.com
/I haven't used this old meme in many an internet year.
 
2013-01-03 09:12:30 PM  

mittromneysdog: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Do you think no woman in history has ever poked holes in her boyfriend's condoms to get pregnant?

When was the last time you heard of a woman getting prosecuted for sexual assault for doing it?


When was the last time you heard of a woman sending a text message confessing to it?
 
2013-01-03 09:13:47 PM  
Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?
 
2013-01-03 09:16:25 PM  

Cymbal: OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).

That's pretty ridiculous. What if its from a sperm bank? Don't they have non-disclosure agreements?


The mistake made was they did not use a sperm bank.  It was handled privately.
 
2013-01-03 09:17:44 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain:

i.imgur.com



It would be an asshole baby?
 
2013-01-03 09:18:12 PM  

OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite an unforceable written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).


FTFY.
 
2013-01-03 09:19:55 PM  
scrapetv.com
 
2013-01-03 09:21:23 PM  

desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?


I'd say go ahead and get yourself a new sports car afterwards. Preferably one that looks most like a penis.
 
2013-01-03 09:22:26 PM  

Chabash: If she consented to sex, she consented to all the dangers. Condoms aren't 100%...


He made it far more risky than she consented to. The court was right.
 
2013-01-03 09:23:57 PM  

Tumunga: The Irresponsible Captain:

It would be an asshole baby?


LOL. You stupid or something? The other hole is the vagina.

Default is the ass, always.
 
2013-01-03 09:23:58 PM  

OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).


Yup. I had a friend of mine that had asked me if I would supply the batter for their in-vitro child. I didn't know her partner, so I declined.
 
2013-01-03 09:24:59 PM  

desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?


It's more likely that the kids will wind up looking like Drew.
 
2013-01-03 09:26:35 PM  

desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?


Get an "athletic supporter", shave your sack the morning of, and have someone to drive you to and from. Keep the ice on it, take the pills for pain as needed.

Wait until it heals.

After that, going bareback without the fear of pregnancy. It is every bit as awesome as you think it would be.
 
2013-01-03 09:27:03 PM  

pxlboy: OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).

Yup. I had a friend of mine that had asked me if I would supply the batter for their in-vitro child. I didn't know her partner, so I declined.


I'd say yes, but only if I got to have sex with both of the lesbians, and then watched them. They'd have to be hot too. No bull dykes. A man must have standards these days. Lot of good eatin fish out there, don't have to be smacking down on carp anymore.
 
2013-01-03 09:29:28 PM  

Cymbal: The pussy should really be the third favorite hole. So much less pregnancy risk with the other two.


If you only think there's three viable holes you're really missing out...
 
2013-01-03 09:29:39 PM  

Cymbal: pxlboy: OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).

Yup. I had a friend of mine that had asked me if I would supply the batter for their in-vitro child. I didn't know her partner, so I declined.

I'd say yes, but only if I got to have sex with both of the lesbians, and then watched them. They'd have to be hot too. No bull dykes. A man must have standards these days. Lot of good eatin fish out there, don't have to be smacking down on carp anymore.


and many lulz were had
 
2013-01-03 09:31:23 PM  

pxlboy: desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?

Get an "athletic supporter", shave your sack the morning of, and have someone to drive you to and from. Keep the ice on it, take the pills for pain as needed.

Wait until it heals.

After that, going bareback without the fear of pregnancy. It is every bit as awesome as you think it would be.


It's been years since I've gone bareback despite having the vasectomy because pregnancy isn't the worse thing that can happen these days.

What's it like?
 
2013-01-03 09:31:59 PM  

Cymbal: pxlboy: OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).

Yup. I had a friend of mine that had asked me if I would supply the batter for their in-vitro child. I didn't know her partner, so I declined.

I'd say yes, but only if I got to have sex with both of the lesbians, and then watched them. They'd have to be hot too. No bull dykes. A man must have standards these days. Lot of good eatin fish out there, don't have to be smacking down on carp anymore.


Not the "bull-dykes" as you mentioned, but not exactly lipstick lesbians, either. Besides, the "kit" would include a condom to wear while banging whomever and a cold pack for storage.

My friend I could trust, but I have never met her partner. And since it was her partner that was to carry the baby, I knew it could end badly for me if their relationship went south. Incidentally, they got the turkey baster and had a baby boy. AFAIK, things are working out between them.
 
2013-01-03 09:32:52 PM  

OgreMagi: pxlboy: desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?

Get an "athletic supporter", shave your sack the morning of, and have someone to drive you to and from. Keep the ice on it, take the pills for pain as needed.

Wait until it heals.

After that, going bareback without the fear of pregnancy. It is every bit as awesome as you think it would be.

It's been years since I've gone bareback despite having the vasectomy because pregnancy isn't the worse thing that can happen these days.

What's it like?


secondnaturearomatics.com
 
2013-01-03 09:33:38 PM  

pxlboy: OgreMagi: pxlboy: desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?

Get an "athletic supporter", shave your sack the morning of, and have someone to drive you to and from. Keep the ice on it, take the pills for pain as needed.

Wait until it heals.

After that, going bareback without the fear of pregnancy. It is every bit as awesome as you think it would be.

It's been years since I've gone bareback despite having the vasectomy because pregnancy isn't the worse thing that can happen these days.

What's it like?

[secondnaturearomatics.com image 600x411]


*snerk*

You bastard.
 
2013-01-03 09:34:35 PM  

OgreMagi: pxlboy: desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?

Get an "athletic supporter", shave your sack the morning of, and have someone to drive you to and from. Keep the ice on it, take the pills for pain as needed.

Wait until it heals.

After that, going bareback without the fear of pregnancy. It is every bit as awesome as you think it would be.

It's been years since I've gone bareback despite having the vasectomy because pregnancy isn't the worse thing that can happen these days.

What's it like?


Also, my girlfriend is, as far as we know, unable to have kids. Between that, getting snipped, and not having kids -- spontaneous sexy times ahoy!
 
2013-01-03 09:35:25 PM  

Bisu: Cymbal: The pussy should really be the third favorite hole. So much less pregnancy risk with the other two.

If you only think there's three viable holes you're really missing out...


Well I'm strictly speaking as someone who has a larger than average penis. Maybe if I had a smaller one I'd feel more comfortable about venturing into these other holes you speak of, and inquiring about their whereabouts.
 
2013-01-03 09:35:47 PM  

OgreMagi: pxlboy: OgreMagi: pxlboy: desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?

Get an "athletic supporter", shave your sack the morning of, and have someone to drive you to and from. Keep the ice on it, take the pills for pain as needed.

Wait until it heals.

After that, going bareback without the fear of pregnancy. It is every bit as awesome as you think it would be.

It's been years since I've gone bareback despite having the vasectomy because pregnancy isn't the worse thing that can happen these days.

What's it like?

[secondnaturearomatics.com image 600x411]

*snerk*

You bastard.


I wasn't sure if you were snarking or not. At this point, though, I've gone without condoms for so long that wearing one is a total bonerkill.
 
2013-01-03 09:38:30 PM  

pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.


this
 
2013-01-03 09:38:53 PM  

pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10


You bit for a fat bull dyke/cat lady, I think that warrants a 3/10
 
2013-01-03 09:39:39 PM  

duffblue: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

You bit for a fat bull dyke/cat lady, I think that warrants a 3/10


HAHAHA
 
2013-01-03 09:40:52 PM  

inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.


Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.
 
2013-01-03 09:44:13 PM  

pxlboy: Cymbal: pxlboy: OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).

Yup. I had a friend of mine that had asked me if I would supply the batter for their in-vitro child. I didn't know her partner, so I declined.

I'd say yes, but only if I got to have sex with both of the lesbians, and then watched them. They'd have to be hot too. No bull dykes. A man must have standards these days. Lot of good eatin fish out there, don't have to be smacking down on carp anymore.

Not the "bull-dykes" as you mentioned, but not exactly lipstick lesbians, either. Besides, the "kit" would include a condom to wear while banging whomever and a cold pack for storage.

My friend I could trust, but I have never met her partner. And since it was her partner that was to carry the baby, I knew it could end badly for me if their relationship went south. Incidentally, they got the turkey baster and had a baby boy. AFAIK, things are working out between them.


I still say you are better off banging the partner. Even if she's not a lipstick lesbian, you could bag her face and do her from behind. Plus that would make for a much better story to tell the grand kids. You could tell them you once farked a lesbian who was in a committed relationship. That may not rank up there with curing cancer, but its got to be pretty close right?
 
2013-01-03 09:45:14 PM  

RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.


It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)
 
2013-01-03 09:46:59 PM  

pxlboy: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)


In some states, if you don't dispute your name being on the birth certificate as the father at the time it is issued, you have ZERO recourse.  So if a few years later you find out your loving wife was banging the UPS guy and fathered your supposed child, you are still on the hook for child support.
 
2013-01-03 09:47:43 PM  

Cymbal: pxlboy: Cymbal: pxlboy: OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).

Yup. I had a friend of mine that had asked me if I would supply the batter for their in-vitro child. I didn't know her partner, so I declined.

I'd say yes, but only if I got to have sex with both of the lesbians, and then watched them. They'd have to be hot too. No bull dykes. A man must have standards these days. Lot of good eatin fish out there, don't have to be smacking down on carp anymore.

Not the "bull-dykes" as you mentioned, but not exactly lipstick lesbians, either. Besides, the "kit" would include a condom to wear while banging whomever and a cold pack for storage.

My friend I could trust, but I have never met her partner. And since it was her partner that was to carry the baby, I knew it could end badly for me if their relationship went south. Incidentally, they got the turkey baster and had a baby boy. AFAIK, things are working out between them.

I still say you are better off banging the partner. Even if she's not a lipstick lesbian, you could bag her face and do her from behind. Plus that would make for a much better story to tell the grand kids. You could tell them you once farked a lesbian who was in a committed relationship. That may not rank up there with curing cancer, but its got to be pretty close right?


Well, I wasn't going to f*ck either of them.

CSB

I used to have a FWB with a live-in girlfriend. She would ring me up when she was in town and we'd "hang out". She later convinced an ex of mine that we should get a hotel room.

/CSB
 
2013-01-03 09:47:54 PM  

pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.


I agree with this.
 
2013-01-03 09:48:31 PM  

OgreMagi: pxlboy: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)

In some states, if you don't dispute your name being on the birth certificate as the father at the time it is issued, you have ZERO recourse.  So if a few years later you find out your loving wife was banging the UPS guy and fathered your supposed child, you are still on the hook for child support.


Even with a paternity test? How? What's the reasoning?
 
2013-01-03 09:51:52 PM  

Cymbal: OgreMagi: pxlboy: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)

In some states, if you don't dispute your name being on the birth certificate as the father at the time it is issued, you have ZERO recourse.  So if a few years later you find out your loving wife was banging the UPS guy and fathered your supposed child, you are still on the hook for child support.

Even with a paternity test? How? What's the reasoning?


Yep.  If the paternity test proves you are not the father, you still pay child support because you did not dispute the birth certificate.  It's stupid, but it's also the law in some states.

Paternity tests should be required by law before the birth certificate is issued.
 
2013-01-03 09:52:01 PM  

Cymbal: OgreMagi: pxlboy: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)

In some states, if you don't dispute your name being on the birth certificate as the father at the time it is issued, you have ZERO recourse.  So if a few years later you find out your loving wife was banging the UPS guy and fathered your supposed child, you are still on the hook for child support.

Even with a paternity test? How? What's the reasoning?


Something along lines of already supporting and raising the child as your own. My girlfriend's stepdad had a co-worker that this happened to. It wasn't until the kid was about 9 that he found out. At that point, there was nothing he could do. He was conflicted because while he loved his son, knowing that the kid is physical evidence of his wife's infidelity probably f*cked him up pretty good.

The only upside to that could be the child learning the truth and telling his mother to f*ck off. Who knows.
 
2013-01-03 09:54:35 PM  

OgreMagi: Cymbal: OgreMagi: pxlboy: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)

In some states, if you don't dispute your name being on the birth certificate as the father at the time it is issued, you have ZERO recourse.  So if a few years later you find out your loving wife was banging the UPS guy and fathered your supposed child, you are still on the hook for child support.

Even with a paternity test? How? What's the reasoning?

Yep.  If the paternity test proves you are not the father, you still pay child support because you did not dispute the birth certificate.  It's stupid, but it's also the law in some states.

Paternity tests should be required by law before the birth certificate is issued.


Agreed. I had argued the point that the father should always ask for a paternity test before signing the birth certificate. It was counter-argued that if you don't trust the mother to be faithful, why have a child with her at all?

Having it as a state-mandated test would relieve the man of having to ask for one and risk looking distrustful. Also, it could save him 18 years of child support if she was farking around.
 
2013-01-03 09:56:21 PM  

topcon: Cymbal: topcon: What about women who poke holes in condoms? I personally know someone who this happened to, she admitted it, after she was pregnant, of course. Then they got married shortly after. No idea if they still are, this happened around 2000.

I think that would probably give you carte blanche to cheat on her and treat her like shiat, and she'd just have take it. Sounds pretty sweet actually.

They were both insufferable people to some extent. Both came from families of divorce, she lost her virginity at like 13, he was probably like 10th in line at 20 or 21 years old when they got married. I used to be friends with both of them, moved away. They would both tell me shiat in private then I'd have to pretend like I didn't hear it when I was alone with either of them. Really annoying people. I actually looked them up once to see if they were still married but I couldn't find them on any kind of social networking site or anything despite the fact they have an unusual last name.


They killed each other man, forget it there dead.
 
2013-01-03 09:56:39 PM  

Bisu: Cymbal: The pussy should really be the third favorite hole. So much less pregnancy risk with the other two.

If you only think there's three viable holes you're really missing out...

Monkey ran up my arm & stuck his dick in my ear. Felt like a wet Q-Tip

- Richard Pryor
 
2013-01-03 10:04:52 PM  

pxlboy: OgreMagi: Cymbal: OgreMagi: pxlboy: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)

In some states, if you don't dispute your name being on the birth certificate as the father at the time it is issued, you have ZERO recourse.  So if a few years later you find out your loving wife was banging the UPS guy and fathered your supposed child, you are still on the hook for child support.

Even with a paternity test? How? What's the reasoning?

Yep.  If the paternity test proves you are not the father, you still pay child support because you did not dispute the birth certificate.  It's stupid, but it's also the law in some states.

Paternity tests should be required by law before the birth certificate is issued.

Agreed. I had argued the point that the father should always ask for a paternity test before signing the birth certificate. It was counter-argued that if you don't trust the mother to be faithful, why have a child with her at all?

Having it as a state-mandated test would relieve the man of having to ask for one and risk looking distrustful. Also, it could save him 18 years of child support if she was farking around.


If you're legally married to the woman even if you have not lived with her for 5 years or slept with her in 5 years and she has a baby guess what sucker??? Yep that's right daddy! Does not mater if you have a test that proves you are not the dad you are legally it and get to pay for the next 18 years unless the boyfriend signs the birth record then you "may" get off the hook.
 
2013-01-03 10:05:13 PM  

Cymbal: Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.

I still wouldn't trust it 100%. You may have forgotten to replace it when it expires. Or gotten it confused with a nicotine patch. Most women I date are too stupid to tell the difference.

Nope, the best birth control is anal sex. No chance of her saving it under her toungue and freezing it for later you get with oral, and tighter than pussy usually. Best of both worlds.


In case you were serious-

You shag her anal doggie style, all that frothy sperm laden fluid is going to eventually head south and could enter the gai-gai so your risk of pregnancy still exists. Sorry to ruin the myth that anal was the only effective method that was 100% effective.
 
2013-01-03 10:05:30 PM  

RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.


And all because the state doesn't want to have to pay anything for the kid. It's basically slavery.
 
2013-01-03 10:05:53 PM  

KimNorth: pxlboy: OgreMagi: Cymbal: OgreMagi: pxlboy: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)

In some states, if you don't dispute your name being on the birth certificate as the father at the time it is issued, you have ZERO recourse.  So if a few years later you find out your loving wife was banging the UPS guy and fathered your supposed child, you are still on the hook for child support.

Even with a paternity test? How? What's the reasoning?

Yep.  If the paternity test proves you are not the father, you still pay child support because you did not dispute the birth certificate.  It's stupid, but it's also the law in some states.

Paternity tests should be required by law before the birth certificate is issued.

Agreed. I had argued the point that the father should always ask for a paternity test before signing the birth certificate. It was counter-argued that if you don't trust the mother to be faithful, why have a child with her at all?

Having it as a state-mandated test would relieve the man of having to ask for one and risk looking distrustful. Also, it could save him 18 years of child support if she was farking around.

If you're legally married to the woman even if you have not lived with her for 5 years or slept with her in 5 years and she has a baby guess what sucker??? Yep that's right daddy! Does not mater if you have a test that proves you are not the dad you are legally it and get to pay for the next 18 years unless the boyfriend signs the birth record then you "may" get off the hook.


Even if a paternity test proves it's not yours?
 
2013-01-03 10:10:18 PM  

media.philly.com



You shag her anal doggie style, all that frothy sperm laden fluid is going to eventually head south and could enter the gai-gai so your risk of pregnancy still exists. Sorry to ruin the myth that anal was the only effective method that was 100% effective.

-Mark Twain

 
2013-01-03 10:11:16 PM  

clowncar on fire: Cymbal: Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.

I still wouldn't trust it 100%. You may have forgotten to replace it when it expires. Or gotten it confused with a nicotine patch. Most women I date are too stupid to tell the difference.

Nope, the best birth control is anal sex. No chance of her saving it under her toungue and freezing it for later you get with oral, and tighter than pussy usually. Best of both worlds.

In case you were serious-

You shag her anal doggie style, all that frothy sperm laden fluid Santorum is going to eventually head south and could enter the gai-gai so your risk of pregnancy still exists. Sorry to ruin the myth that anal was the only effective method that was 100% effective.


C'mon man, you had a perfect opportunity to use that word in every day conversation and you botched it. Get your head in the game.

\Would have voted for Santorum
\\Still thinks it's funny
 
2013-01-03 10:12:05 PM  

moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?


No, this is the thread where white American males talk about their preference for anal while typing one-handed as they clutch their Real Dolls tightly to their heaving man-boobs, take a quick diversion into their bull-dyke lesbian fantasies and only then do they give way to their disenfranchisement and persecution complexes.

In other words, every day on Fark.
 
2013-01-03 10:12:57 PM  

UsikFark: Fun fact: some women do not realize they are pregnant until the baby is actually coming out. There are (claimed) cases where a woman has given birth during sleep.

I'll leave it to you to imagine the type to not readily show/recognize the signs of pregnancy.


........and someone would choose to knock up one of THAT kind of woman, just to make sure he could stay with her?


I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
 
2013-01-03 10:13:03 PM  

steerforth: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

No, this is the thread where white American males talk about their preference for anal while typing one-handed as they clutch their Real Dolls tightly to their heaving man-boobs, take a quick diversion into their bull-dyke lesbian fantasies and only then do they give way to their disenfranchisement and persecution complexes.

In other words, every day on Fark.


You sound lonely
 
2013-01-03 10:15:24 PM  
Yep, unless you have already filed the paperwork for a legal seperation then you can still be married but have that on file with the court and still have years go by not legally getting a divorce. This "can" make you okay with the court.
 
2013-01-03 10:15:37 PM  

pxlboy: steerforth: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

No, this is the thread where white American males talk about their preference for anal while typing one-handed as they clutch their Real Dolls tightly to their heaving man-boobs, take a quick diversion into their bull-dyke lesbian fantasies and only then do they give way to their disenfranchisement and persecution complexes.

In other words, every day on Fark.

You sound lonely


You sound incarcerated.
 
2013-01-03 10:16:26 PM  

steerforth: pxlboy: steerforth: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

No, this is the thread where white American males talk about their preference for anal while typing one-handed as they clutch their Real Dolls tightly to their heaving man-boobs, take a quick diversion into their bull-dyke lesbian fantasies and only then do they give way to their disenfranchisement and persecution complexes.

In other words, every day on Fark.

You sound lonely

You sound incarcerated.


LOLWUT
 
2013-01-03 10:17:01 PM  

pxlboy: KimNorth: pxlboy: OgreMagi: Cymbal: OgreMagi: pxlboy: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)

In some states, if you don't dispute your name being on the birth certificate as the father at the time it is issued, you have ZERO recourse.  So if a few years later you find out your loving wife was banging the UPS guy and fathered your supposed child, you are still on the hook for child support.

Even with a paternity test? How? What's the reasoning?

Yep.  If the paternity test proves you are not the father, you still pay child support because you did not dispute the birth certificate.  It's stupid, but it's also the law in some states.

Paternity tests should be required by law before the birth certificate is issued.

Agreed. I had argued the point that the father should always ask for a paternity test before signing the birth certificate. It was counter-argued that if you don't trust the mother to be faithful, why have a child with her at all?

Having it as a state-mandated test would relieve the man of having to ask for one and risk looking distrustful. Also, it could save him 18 years of child support if she was farking around.

If you're legally married to the woman even if you have not lived with her for 5 years or slept with her in 5 years and she has a baby guess what sucker??? Yep that's right daddy! Does not mater if you have a test that proves you are not the dad you are legally it and get to pay for the next 18 years unless the boyfriend sign ...


Yep, unless you have already filed the paperwork for a legal seperation then you can still be married but have that on file with the court and still have years go by not legally getting a divorce. This "can" make you okay with the court.
 
2013-01-03 10:17:49 PM  
 
2013-01-03 10:21:34 PM  

OgreMagi: pxlboy: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

Nice try. Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court. As it was mentioned up-thread, if a woman does it, he's on the hook. When men a does it, he's still on the hook.

1/10

If a man doesn't do it, but supplies the sperm so lesbians can have a baby, he's still on the hook, despite a written agreement saying otherwise (see previous thread on this subject for details).


There are some exceptions, but it's thin enough ground that that is probably a safe assumption in the US. However in the UK a lesbian couple can release the donor and it's binding. I'm considering a directed donation to such a couple before I get mine snipped. Give the US a couple decades of gay marriage and the law will probably end up the same here but for now it's too risky unless you're independently wealthy.
 
2013-01-03 10:28:50 PM  
"He thought having a child together would be the best way to save their relationship." Anyone and everyone who thinks that should be sterilized immediately.
 
2013-01-03 10:33:16 PM  
I believe there have been cases where a sperm donor (not to an individual, but to a bank) has been found to be liable for child support.

You can get farked either way. You're nice enough to help out a pair of lesbians and can end up on the hook. It can not even be your kid and you can be on the hook.
 
2013-01-03 10:35:30 PM  

Chabash: If she consented to sex, she consented to all the dangers. Condoms aren't 100%...


DUMBASS says chabash?
 
2013-01-03 10:40:42 PM  

topcon: taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.

How old were you when you got it? A guy I work with, his nephew wanted to get one at like 22 with no kids. He had a lot of trouble finding a doctor who would agree to do it but finally did. Weird how they're so "ethical" about such a thing.


I went to get one 2 years ago, at 47.
She talked me out of it. Clearly I wasnt certain that I didnt want kids. FML
They try to turn away 20 somethings.
They see way too many people who want to reverse it a few years later.

Plus, the whole, still not 100% and auto reverses itself sometimes? WTF
 
2013-01-03 10:41:31 PM  

pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.


Sorry, no court in the world lets the child suffer because daddy was stupid. That's the general basis for child-support laws. The general thinking is that regardless of whether the parents were careless, mommy was a sneak, or dad was thoughtless, the result was a baby who deserves to be taken care of. Daddy could have kept it in his pants. If mommy poked a hole in the condom, well....daddy could have kept it in his pants.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this, but that's where the child-support laws are coming from.
 
2013-01-03 10:42:08 PM  

steerforth: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

No, this is the thread where white American males talk about their preference for anal while typing one-handed as they clutch their Real Dolls tightly to their heaving man-boobs, take a quick diversion into their bull-dyke lesbian fantasies and only then do they give way to their disenfranchisement and persecution complexes.

In other words, every day on Fark.


You just jealous because you are late to the party and all the good shiat has been riffed on already. You are frustrated because you will get no LOLs, lulz, or snicker-doodles from this thread no matter how hard you try. It might as well be dead to you. I pity you really. But take heart, there will always be other threads you can go and try and be the first to talk about how much you secretly love anal. Just keep refreshing that homepage.
 
2013-01-03 10:45:20 PM  

OgreMagi: Paternity tests should be required by law before the birth certificate is issued.


THIS WOULD BE SO AWESOME.
And while we are at it, DNA test everyone. period.
TADA
close all those open cases where there is DNA evidence sitting around and resolve all the current children by a different father questions which are still out there.

bwhahah haahahahaahaha hahahahaa
/cracks me up when people use the "the government might use that to frame me" argument
 
2013-01-03 10:45:51 PM  

Gyrfalcon: pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.

Sorry, no court in the world lets the child suffer because daddy was stupid. That's the general basis for child-support laws. The general thinking is that regardless of whether the parents were careless, mommy was a sneak, or dad was thoughtless, the result was a baby who deserves to be taken care of. Daddy could have kept it in his pants. If mommy poked a hole in the condom, well....daddy could have kept it in his pants.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this, but that's where the child-support laws are coming from.


The problem is a man has absolutely no say in the matter, even if the woman poked the holes in the condom.  The woman can choose to abort or not.  A man can pay child support, or he can pay child support.  I'm not suggesting we start forcing women to have abortions.  However, if she committed fraud (pin holes in the condom or fetched the condom out of the trash), I might consider an exception.
 
2013-01-03 10:49:02 PM  

OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.

Sorry, no court in the world lets the child suffer because daddy was stupid. That's the general basis for child-support laws. The general thinking is that regardless of whether the parents were careless, mommy was a sneak, or dad was thoughtless, the result was a baby who deserves to be taken care of. Daddy could have kept it in his pants. If mommy poked a hole in the condom, well....daddy could have kept it in his pants.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this, but that's where the child-support laws are coming from.

The problem is a man has absolutely no say in the matter, even if the woman poked the holes in the condom.  The woman can choose to abort or not.  A man can pay child support, or he can pay child support.  I'm not suggesting we start forcing women to have abortions.  However, if she committed fraud (pin holes in the condom or fetched the condom out of the trash), I might consider an exception.


Got no problem with mandatory abortions in that case. How awesome a person you think that kid is going to grow up to be if his parents are forced to care for someone they don't want?
 
2013-01-03 10:51:30 PM  

Cymbal: Got no problem with mandatory abortions in that case. How awesome a person you think that kid is going to grow up to be if his parents are forced to care for someone they don't want?


and forced sterilization of the crazy biatch
on the other hand, crazy biatches have been pulling this crap and would just find another way ....
going on the pill and just not taking it ...
and so on
 
2013-01-03 10:52:40 PM  

Tornado of Zoo Animals: How about girls that "forget" to take the pill so that they can lock down the guy? Where's justice for them?


If they admit it in a recorded, verifiable manner they'd likely be pretty farked legally as well. As it's apparently considered sexual assault in that jurisdiction.
 
2013-01-03 11:01:45 PM  

robodog: There are some exceptions, but it's thin enough ground that that is probably a safe assumption in the US. However in the UK a lesbian couple can release the donor and it's binding. I'm considering a directed donation to such a couple before I get mine snipped. Give the US a couple decades of gay marriage and the law will probably end up the same here but for now it's too risky unless you're independently wealthy.


In that case, it was kinda farked up, even the lesbians didn't want child support, but the state was forcing the issue. (Link)

He provided sperm for them in 2009, they did it independently without medical assistance, and used a syringe apparently to perform the insemination.

That state's laws only provided legal protection for the sperm donor if a Physician performed the procedure and signed off on the donation as bona-fide (to prevent a lover from claiming he was a sperm donor to avoid paying child support apparently).

They apparently didn't know this, and indeed signed a contract where he waived all parental rights to the child and the couple waived all child support from him. Despite both parties wanting to enforce that, the state of Kansas is suing to legally break that contract.

Then 3 years later, the lesbian couple seeks state assistance due to hard times from the economic downturn, including . Apparently the caseworker inquired as to the parentage of the child in question, and found out it was a donor. The caseworker insisted upon seeing the documentation from the sperm bank, and was provided with the contract.

The state decided to sue the donor for child support to be paid to the couple, over objections of both parties. The state's reasoning is that before they'll pay any social welfare benefits to a child, they must pursue all legal child support options first. Since they technically didn't meet the states legal requirements for a donation since it was not performed by an M.D., even though both parties didn't want it, they couldn't legally waive child support and parental rights and the state is forcing the matter.
So yeah, in family courts, your Y chromosome is proof of guilt.
 
2013-01-03 11:07:14 PM  

pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.


I'd love to "this" this, but I can't. Why? Because he was dumb enough to fess up to it, and that makes it his fault he got caught.
 
2013-01-03 11:25:35 PM  

OgreMagi: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

That has happened.  The women grabbed the used condom out of the trashcan and impregnated herself with the contents.  Yes, the guy ended up paying child support.


There was even a case were a woman gave a man a blow job and saved the semen to later impregnate herself and he was ordered to pay support.
 
2013-01-03 11:25:42 PM  

Silverstaff: robodog: There are some exceptions, but it's thin enough ground that that is probably a safe assumption in the US. However in the UK a lesbian couple can release the donor and it's binding. I'm considering a directed donation to such a couple before I get mine snipped. Give the US a couple decades of gay marriage and the law will probably end up the same here but for now it's too risky unless you're independently wealthy.

In that case, it was kinda farked up, even the lesbians didn't want child support, but the state was forcing the issue. (Link)

He provided sperm for them in 2009, they did it independently without medical assistance, and used a syringe apparently to perform the insemination.

That state's laws only provided legal protection for the sperm donor if a Physician performed the procedure and signed off on the donation as bona-fide (to prevent a lover from claiming he was a sperm donor to avoid paying child support apparently).

They apparently didn't know this, and indeed signed a contract where he waived all parental rights to the child and the couple waived all child support from him. Despite both parties wanting to enforce that, the state of Kansas is suing to legally break that contract.

Then 3 years later, the lesbian couple seeks state assistance due to hard times from the economic downturn, including . Apparently the caseworker inquired as to the parentage of the child in question, and found out it was a donor. The caseworker insisted upon seeing the documentation from the sperm bank, and was provided with the contract.

The state decided to sue the donor for child support to be paid to the couple, over objections of both parties. The state's reasoning is that before they'll pay any social welfare benefits to a child, they must pursue all legal child support options first. Since they technically didn't meet the states legal requirements for a donation since it was not performed by an M.D., even though both parties didn't want it, they cou ...


Yep, and in the US there are 50+ sets of paternity laws plus plenty of contradictory case law. Throw in gay marriage and divorce and it becomes way too opaque for my middle class self to afford the risk. That's why I'm looking to the UK, the law there is black and white and the case law is settled. The only real question was if it would be closed or open donation, the wife said she'd be cool with my offspring tracking me down some day to say hi so open it was =)
 
2013-01-03 11:26:54 PM  
Hmm.

So chicks who lie about being on the pill, or who promise and then fail to get abortions are guilty of "sexual assault" now. Of course this would relieve all men so victimized free of any and all liability.

Hmm.


/At least in Nova Scotia
//If the courts are just
///If


////Fourth slashie (stealth)
 
2013-01-03 11:28:14 PM  

Cymbal: steerforth: moonage daydream: Is this the thread where white American males act so disenfranchised and persecuted?

No, this is the thread where white American males talk about their preference for anal while typing one-handed as they clutch their Real Dolls tightly to their heaving man-boobs, take a quick diversion into their bull-dyke lesbian fantasies and only then do they give way to their disenfranchisement and persecution complexes.

In other words, every day on Fark.

You just jealous because you are late to the party and all the good shiat has been riffed on already. You are frustrated because you will get no LOLs, lulz, or snicker-doodles from this thread no matter how hard you try. It might as well be dead to you. I pity you really. But take heart, there will always be other threads you can go and try and be the first to talk about how much you secretly love anal. Just keep refreshing that homepage.


Yes, dear. You've been trolling this thread pretty hard and only managed to lasso in a couple of the usual retarded suspects. Well done to you!
 
2013-01-03 11:29:59 PM  

ultraholland: JasonOfOrillia: Mistake #1: committing the crime.
Mistake #2: admitting to the crime in a verifiable manner.

Mistake #3: Being so farking unstable that any of this seemed like a good idea.



He needs a good rudderin'!
 
2013-01-03 11:30:44 PM  

OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.

Sorry, no court in the world lets the child suffer because daddy was stupid. That's the general basis for child-support laws. The general thinking is that regardless of whether the parents were careless, mommy was a sneak, or dad was thoughtless, the result was a baby who deserves to be taken care of. Daddy could have kept it in his pants. If mommy poked a hole in the condom, well....daddy could have kept it in his pants.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this, but that's where the child-support laws are coming from.

The problem is a man has absolutely no say in the matter, even if the woman poked the holes in the condom.  The woman can choose to abort or not.  A man can pay child support, or he can pay child support.  I'm not suggesting we start forcing women to have abortions.  However, if she committed fraud (pin holes in the condom or fetched the condom out of the trash), I might consider an exception.


Well, that's why I don't always agree with the laws. If he was entrapped into the situation, there's no reason he should be paying for  his child; unless, you know, he WANTED to because he's a decent person. But in that case, he should get custody and mom shouldn't be able to contest it. If HE commits fraud, like in this case, then mom should get 100% support and he never gets a chance at custody because obviously he's a rat. Or something similar. But just making the guy pay willy-nilly without considering all the circumstances is often not fair.
 
2013-01-03 11:36:52 PM  

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.

Sorry, no court in the world lets the child suffer because daddy was stupid. That's the general basis for child-support laws. The general thinking is that regardless of whether the parents were careless, mommy was a sneak, or dad was thoughtless, the result was a baby who deserves to be taken care of. Daddy could have kept it in his pants. If mommy poked a hole in the condom, well....daddy could have kept it in his pants.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this, but that's where the child-support laws are coming from.

The problem is a man has absolutely no say in the matter, even if the woman poked the holes in the condom.  The woman can choose to abort or not.  A man can pay child support, or he can pay child support.  I'm not suggesting we start forcing women to have abortions.  However, if she committed fraud (pin holes in the condom or fetched the condom out of the trash), I might consider an exception.

Well, that's why I don't always agree with the laws. If he was entrapped into the situation, there's no reason he should be paying for  his child; unless, you know, he WANTED to because he's a decent person. But in that case, he should get custody and mom shouldn't be able to contest it. If HE commits fraud, like in this case, then mom should get 100% support and he never gets a chance at custody because obviously he's a rat. Or something similar. But just making the guy pay willy-nilly without considering all the circumstances is often not fair.


Agreed. A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.  As it currently stands, a woman has nothing to lose by using fraud to get pregnant and everything to gain.  I am so glad I got a vasectomy.
 
2013-01-03 11:38:26 PM  

Gyrfalcon: there's no reason he should be paying for  his child


... except, you know, the child.
 
2013-01-03 11:39:01 PM  

OgreMagi: A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.


Should an innocent party be harmed by someone else's fraud?
 
2013-01-03 11:42:21 PM  

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.

Should an innocent party be harmed by someone else's fraud?


Forcing some young guy to pay 20 years of child support has the potential to ruin his life.  Is it acceptable to do that based on the excuse that another innocent might be harmed otherwise?  What about the woman who is committing the fraud? She is still getting away with it.
 
2013-01-03 11:45:29 PM  
I've thought for a while that if I ended up getting pegged with a BS child support order, I'd go for custody of the child.
In the meanest , at-her-throat style possible.
Why? I like kids, and I wouldn't want to fund some piece of shiat woman raising some farked up fatherless kid. If I have to pay for a kid, I'm going to make sure they turn out right. Best way to do that is to coldly cut psychos out of the picture.
Of course, this is all Internet tough guy talk, because I'm the faithful, married father of two kids, so this scenario is unlikely.
I've just read enough of these threads to have that idea.
 
2013-01-03 11:50:27 PM  

OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.

Should an innocent party be harmed by someone else's fraud?

Forcing some young guy to pay 20 years of child support has the potential to ruin his life.


Forcing some young child to go 20 years with half the support of the parents he's entitled to has the potential to ruin his life.

If the state is going to choose between "potentially ruining the life of an adult" and "potentially ruining the life of a child", the adult is going to lose every time.
 
2013-01-03 11:51:28 PM  

dfenstrate: I've thought for a while that if I ended up getting pegged with a BS child support order, I'd go for custody of the child.
In the meanest , at-her-throat style possible.
...I'm going to make sure they turn out right.


As a mean bastard who goes at the throat of anyone who he feels wrongs him?
 
2013-01-03 11:59:31 PM  

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.

Should an innocent party be harmed by someone else's fraud?

Forcing some young guy to pay 20 years of child support has the potential to ruin his life.

Forcing some young child to go 20 years with half the support of the parents he's entitled to has the potential to ruin his life.

If the state is going to choose between "potentially ruining the life of an adult" and "potentially ruining the life of a child", the adult is going to lose every time.


Yeah, it would be nice if it worked that way. It rarely does though.
The state CS agencies are filled with automatons that only care about extracting their pound of flesh from somebody. I personally spent two years in and out of hearings to have them stop garnishing my wages for child support on a kid that the mother left with me. THEY DID NOT GIVE A shiat, I had a order to pay, and damn it, I was going to pay.

The best part was, the mother went to another state, claimed TANF there as though she had the kid, and claimed she was getting no support. I'm still fighting with that state over whether I owe them for the TANF she got. School records didn't seem to be enough to convince them, or the fact that my wages were still being garnished for child support, they say I owe 'em $2000, so that's the way it is. Don't like it? We'll schedule a hearing for a year from now that will be judged by an attorney that is on the payroll of the CS office. That sure sounds like it will be a fair hearing of the facts, doesn't it?

I'm not saying child support should exist. I am saying that the current system is horribly broken, and people every day are getting their lives farked over badly because of the way the cases are handled.
 
2013-01-04 12:11:16 AM  

Cymbal: Bathysphere: So glad I use the Patch. Verifiable proof of birth control.

I still wouldn't trust it 100%. You may have forgotten to replace it when it expires. Or gotten it confused with a nicotine patch. Most women I date are too stupid to tell the difference.

Nope, the best birth control is anal sex. No chance of her saving it under her toungue and freezing it for later you get with oral, and tighter than pussy usually. Best of both worlds.


.
Oh really? Just where do you think little baby assholes come from?
 
2013-01-04 12:17:34 AM  
50 bucks says this couple is from Dartmouth
 
2013-01-04 12:19:59 AM  

OgreMagi: pxlboy: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

It's a sad state of affairs that a man's genetic material can be used to extort almost two decades' worth of money out of him (if it's true)

In some states, if you don't dispute your name being on the birth certificate as the father at the time it is issued, you have ZERO recourse.  So if a few years later you find out your loving wife was banging the UPS guy and fathered your supposed child, you are still on the hook for child support.


Case in point
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/moberly-mo/TFLDPJC75IU9FQA7N
 
2013-01-04 12:20:58 AM  

OgreMagi: Agreed. A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.  As it currently stands, a woman has nothing to lose by using fraud to get pregnant and everything to gain.  I am so glad I got a vasectomy.


It wouldn't surprise if a lawyer could get around this somehow.
 
2013-01-04 12:22:50 AM  
Looks like she got the last laugh when she aborted the pregnancy anyway.
 
2013-01-04 01:18:47 AM  

Cymbal: Even with a paternity test? How? What's the reasoning?


Because screw the guy's rights, wimmenz is vulnerable and can't provide for themselves.

Our family court system is still predicated on the assumption that women are nearly always better parents and men are the only ones with earning power. It's built to protect the interests and vulnerabilities of 50's stereotypes. In that context, it actually makes sense. Women had dramatically less earning power than men, and women were expected to stay home and raise the kids. If the dad forgoes a stable relationship, the mom still needs enough money to raise the kid. That comes from the person the court recognizes as the father, regardless of circumstance, since without that money, mom and the kid are going to live a pretty hard life. In many cases, it still makes sense. But it can certainly be abused, certainly has been, and more modern recognition of gender equality makes some of the assumptions in the system much more suspect. I've seen a male farker or two pop up in threads like these relating stories of trying to get custody of their kids in a bad divorce- it is insanely difficult for a father to get custody, even if he wants it and is a demonstrably far better parent than the mother. It often takes proof of straight up abuse to get that to happen.

Anyway, it's a mess, but fixing parts of it carries a huge risk of nasty unforeseen consequences. Right now, it's the devil we know being better than the one we don't
 
2013-01-04 01:24:43 AM  

TheVeryDeadIanMartin: OgreMagi: Agreed. A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.  As it currently stands, a woman has nothing to lose by using fraud to get pregnant and everything to gain.  I am so glad I got a vasectomy.

It wouldn't surprise if a lawyer could get around this somehow.


Sadly, you are correct.  A woman could put me down as the father of her child, even though it is impossible, wait two years, and WHAM, I can't get out of paying child support because I did not contest it.  It doesn't matter that I was never told I was listed as the father.  I'm supposed to have super magical powers to know this.

/results vary by state
//not to be used as a suppository
///may cause drowsiness
 
2013-01-04 01:24:45 AM  

Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: there's no reason he should be paying for  his child

... except, you know, the child.


Ianal, but I seem to recall that the legal reasoning for what we are considering draconian in this thread re:child support is that the state has determined that an innocent child deserves to be protected, no matter what.
 
2013-01-04 01:38:32 AM  

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.

Should an innocent party be harmed by someone else's fraud?

Forcing some young guy to pay 20 years of child support has the potential to ruin his life.

Forcing some young child to go 20 years with half the support of the parents he's entitled to has the potential to ruin his life.

If the state is going to choose between "potentially ruining the life of an adult" and "potentially ruining the life of a child", the adult is going to lose every time.


Why is that support not provided by the state? Forcing the suspected (male) parent to provide it is punitive, and therefore questioning the accuracy of the charge is certainly in order.
 
2013-01-04 01:39:09 AM  

Fano: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: there's no reason he should be paying for  his child

... except, you know, the child.

Ianal, but I seem to recall that the legal reasoning for what we are considering draconian in this thread re:child support is that the state has determined that an innocent child deserves to be protected, no matter what.


It's still a massive financial penalty on the man with no standard of evidence or due process whatsoever. How 'bout this: in the case of a mother poking a hole in the condom or whatnot, the baby, upon birth, is immediately placed in foster care or the dad, and she immediately goes to prison like the guy in TFA. Loses all rights to the child, and HER wages are garnished to take care of the kid once she's out.

"For the Children" almost universally makes for horribly unjust law, and any contention that you try to support with it will be inherently suspect in my book. It's just too often an excuse to cover for a half assed "solution" to a problem that dramatically undercuts rights and due process, with the expectation that the emotional weight of kids will ensure that no-one can point out the massive flaws in a proposal.
 
2013-01-04 01:45:05 AM  
Theaetetus: C'mon, now.

Consider the hypothetical case of a 14 year old boy who is statutorily raped by a 23 year old woman, who becomes pregnant and has a baby.

Are you really telling me that the 14 year old should be on the hook for child support? Because that's how the laws work now. Granted, mommy would spend some time in prison, but probably not for half as long as the boy was paying for his raping.

You can white knight for the chilluns all you want, but face it: our current system is unfair and gives males the short end of the stick, with half the liability but 0% of the control over the situation.
 
2013-01-04 02:09:24 AM  

pxlboy: topcon: taurusowner: Every week or 2 a thread like this comes around and makes me even more glad I got a vasectomy.

How old were you when you got it? A guy I work with, his nephew wanted to get one at like 22 with no kids. He had a lot of trouble finding a doctor who would agree to do it but finally did. Weird how they're so "ethical" about such a thing.

It's even worse for women; they get a patronizing "you'll change your mind" lecture.


This. I got laughed out of a goddamned Planned Parenthood for trying to get the snip three months before my 29th birthday. The doc took one look at the clipboard, noting my age and the number of kids I'd already had (0), and glazed over, charitably allowing me to state my case even though she clearly wasn't listening before telling me flat out that she refuses all under-30s as being too young to make such a permanent decision, and to come back in a year - to give me some more 'thinking-it-over time' (on top of the years I'd already been waiting just for a decent insurance plan). If I'd been trying to conceive, do you think I'd have been asked to think on it for another year, or would I have gone home that very day with a list of vitamins to take and techniques to try? Last time I checked, having a child is a rather permanent decision too.

Luckily the second doc I talked to gave me the greenlight, and with no bullmess. Two months after the first doc's refusal, I was snipped.

/holy hell does this article reinforce how glad I am to have had the snip
//don't stick crazy in it, folks
 
2013-01-04 02:26:02 AM  
Not this crap again.

You guys have raised some interesting issues in this thread vs. the other one.  I think the sperm donor to the lesbians should never have to pay a penny of child support, but don't blame women for this:  the lesbians agree he should not be billed.  It was the state that decided they could pass the bill on to somebody/anybody.  It was a bad decision.

I don't know of any babbies that have been made by sticking needles in condoms.  I can see how it works in theory, but the last time I saw a condom over an excited dick, back in the 1920s IIRC, it would have been immediately obvious that needle had been inserted into condom.  That little pin prick (I'm talking about the needle hole, relax) would be a great deal larger when the condom was in use.

The simple fact is that most babbies are made the old-fashioned way; man has unprotected sex with fertile woman's vagina.  Then thinks (per the other thread) that he should have a say in whether she has an abortion (no, you can't) or be off the hook for child support (no, you can't either and it's not about you or the woman you impregnated; it's because the baby needs support).

If you all hate women so much, I suggest abstinence, wanking, or homosexuality.  It's gross to hear how you speak here - fark her in the ass - but no, that's not safe, she'll keep some of your precious seed that spills from her rectum and insert it vaginally!   As if.  Way to get a beyond-the-yeast infection.

There are men's rights I will vote for immediately.  The sperm donor to the lesbians should not be on the hook (and especially because the judge ruled on the technicality that a doctor didn't do the insemination).  Men should be considered equally capable of being parents in family court, with no presumption that the mother knows best.  I would back that.  Men should not be presumed to be the father of their wife's child if a DNA test proves otherwise.  I'd back that.

But for the mostly whiny bunch of male biatches on this thread with their knickers in a twist because they want to fark and don't want the consequences, stop.  Go get snipped, like Ogre did, if you are so paranoid. If you don't, and you conceive a child, it's your child and you should pay for it.  It's equally likely the child is male.  This isn't a matter of men's rights.
 
2013-01-04 02:27:17 AM  

rat_creature: This. I got laughed out of a goddamned Planned Parenthood for trying to get the snip three months before my 29th birthday. The doc took one look at the clipboard, noting my age and the number of kids I'd already had (0), and glazed over, charitably allowing me to state my case even though she clearly wasn't listening before telling me flat out that she refuses all under-30s as being too young to make such a permanent decision, and to come back in a year - to give me some more 'thinking-it-over time' (on top of the years I'd already been waiting just for a decent insurance plan). If I'd been trying to conceive, do you think I'd have been asked to think on it for another year, or would I have gone home that very day with a list of vitamins to take and techniques to try? Last time I checked, having a child is a rather permanent decision too.


Not if the $$$ paid to Planned Parenthood says anything about it.
 
2013-01-04 02:28:11 AM  

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: Gyrfalcon: pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.

Pretty much this.

Sorry, no court in the world lets the child suffer because daddy was stupid. That's the general basis for child-support laws. The general thinking is that regardless of whether the parents were careless, mommy was a sneak, or dad was thoughtless, the result was a baby who deserves to be taken care of. Daddy could have kept it in his pants. If mommy poked a hole in the condom, well....daddy could have kept it in his pants.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with this, but that's where the child-support laws are coming from.

The problem is a man has absolutely no say in the matter, even if the woman poked the holes in the condom.  The woman can choose to abort or not.  A man can pay child support, or he can pay child support.  I'm not suggesting we start forcing women to have abortions.  However, if she committed fraud (pin holes in the condom or fetched the condom out of the trash), I might consider an exception.

Well, that's why I don't always agree with the laws. If he was entrapped into the situation, there's no reason he should be paying for  his child; unless, you know, he WANTED to because he's a decent person. But in that case, he should get custody and mom shouldn't be able to contest it. If HE commits fraud, like in this case, then mom should get 100% support and he never gets a chance at custody because obviously he's a rat. Or something similar. But just making the guy pay willy-nilly without considering all the circumstances is often not fair.


I agree 100%.
 
2013-01-04 02:30:07 AM  

Fano: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: there's no reason he should be paying for  his child

... except, you know, the child.

Ianal, but I seem to recall that the legal reasoning for what we are considering draconian in this thread re:child support is that the state has determined that an innocent child deserves to be protected, no matter what.


Well, that's why...but having done some work in Child Support Services, I question whether the child gets protected anyway. I agree that if a guy knew what he was doing (as far as having sex even if he thought he was using protection) he SHOULD pay if he's any kind of a man...but if he's going to be a deadbeat and give the mother and/or child (and the state) all kinds of runaround about actually doing the supporting, then it just may not be worth anyone's effort.

Couple anecdotal cases to point up what I mean: In one case, the guy was a scumbag, fled the country owing over $250K in back support. The county suspended his passport, so he wasn't coming back till he paid up--but is he likely to now? By the time the extradition goes through, if ever, he'll owe more than he can ever pay back. Another case, the guy was more than 25 years in arrears. Kids were grown, he was disabled and old, on disability, so nothing to garnish or withhold. He was going to die without ever repaying the more than $300K he owed. He felt bad about stiffing his wife and admitted he'd been a f*ckup but there was nothing he could do anymore.

Point being, if the man wants to pay support, great. But if he doesn't, or can't, then he forfeits his rights to be a father, and that should be it. A man who can't do the right thing financially isn't going to be doing the right thing any other way; the mom is going to be on welfare one way or another; so allow her to cut the man off earlier and easier and end it. We should stop pretending that a guy who flees the country is somehow going to realize his responsibilities and "not let his kids suffer" or that we can make him pay up. It ain't gonna happen.
 
2013-01-04 02:41:23 AM  

ElizaDoolittle: Not this crap again.

You guys have raised some interesting issues in this thread vs. the other one.  I think the sperm donor to the lesbians should never have to pay a penny of child support, but don't blame women for this:  the lesbians agree he should not be billed.  It was the state that decided they could pass the bill on to somebody/anybody.  It was a bad decision.

I don't know of any babbies that have been made by sticking needles in condoms.  I can see how it works in theory, but the last time I saw a condom over an excited dick, back in the 1920s IIRC, it would have been immediately obvious that needle had been inserted into condom.  That little pin prick (I'm talking about the needle hole, relax) would be a great deal larger when the condom was in use.

The simple fact is that most babbies are made the old-fashioned way; man has unprotected sex with fertile woman's vagina.  Then thinks (per the other thread) that he should have a say in whether she has an abortion (no, you can't) or be off the hook for child support (no, you can't either and it's not about you or the woman you impregnated; it's because the baby needs support).

If you all hate women so much, I suggest abstinence, wanking, or homosexuality.  It's gross to hear how you speak here - fark her in the ass - but no, that's not safe, she'll keep some of your precious seed that spills from her rectum and insert it vaginally!   As if.  Way to get a beyond-the-yeast infection.

There are men's rights I will vote for immediately.  The sperm donor to the lesbians should not be on the hook (and especially because the judge ruled on the technicality that a doctor didn't do the insemination).  Men should be considered equally capable of being parents in family court, with no presumption that the mother knows best.  I would back that.  Men should not be presumed to be the father of their wife's child if a DNA test proves otherwise.  I'd back that.

But for the mostly whiny bunch of male biatches on this t ...


You are completely ignoring the simple fact that women HAVE used trickery to become pregnant, grabbing the condom out of the trash, "saving" after a beej, etc.  Those are the circumstances we are arguing.  You are trying to change the debate by arguing that most pregnancies occur the normal unprotected sex.  Again, WE AREN'T DEBATING THAT SITUATION since any reasonable man would agree he took his chances and is responsible for his actions.

So back to the actual argument.  If the woman uses fraud and trickery to become pregnant despite the man taking every reasonable precaution to prevent it, are you arguing that he not only has no say, but is also on the hook for the next twenty years for financial support?
 
2013-01-04 02:58:35 AM  
In regards to child support, if the woman is pregnant because she sabotaged the birth control and/or lied about using birth control then the father should NOT be required to pay child support.
 
2013-01-04 03:01:07 AM  
Ogre:

Totally okay.  If the woman used fraud to become pregnant, then we as a society have to agree to support the child.  (Under any circumstances, the child must be protected).  The man whose sperm was somehow illicitly taken should not be on the hook for 18+ years of support. No argument from me.

Someone has to pick up the bill, so it will be the tax-payers.  I will gladly pay my part of that if you will too; the child has to be raised anyway.

And for the 99% of children conceived the old-fashioned way, will you agree - that Daddy pays first even though he doesn't want to, didn't know he had to, just wanted a one-night-stand, doesn't want baby, wants to be able to force the mommy to have an abortion so he can get out of it and doesn't get to do that?

Deal?
 
2013-01-04 03:10:58 AM  

ElizaDoolittle: And for the 99% of children conceived the old-fashioned way, will you agree - that Daddy pays first even though he doesn't want to, didn't know he had to, just wanted a one-night-stand, doesn't want baby, wants to be able to force the mommy to have an abortion so he can get out of it and doesn't get to do that?


Why shouldn't this bill be picked up by society, also? The state is more capable than the unwilling father, here, so it sounds like you are advocating inferior care for this infant so that it may be used to punish the father for his sexual activity. Presumably he pays taxes and is already caring for the aforementioned socially-funded fraudulent children, so his debt should be paid, no?
 
2013-01-04 03:27:02 AM  
I'm not suggesting that a man get punished for his sexual activity.  I'm suggesting he accepts his responsibility if he creates a child.  And I think, hell yes, he should pay for his infant child, the way every other law-abiding and decent father does.

1/10.
 
2013-01-04 03:38:13 AM  

ElizaDoolittle: Ogre:

Totally okay.  If the woman used fraud to become pregnant, then we as a society have to agree to support the child.  (Under any circumstances, the child must be protected).  The man whose sperm was somehow illicitly taken should not be on the hook for 18+ years of support. No argument from me.

Someone has to pick up the bill, so it will be the tax-payers.  I will gladly pay my part of that if you will too; the child has to be raised anyway.

And for the 99% of children conceived the old-fashioned way, will you agree - that Daddy pays first even though he doesn't want to, didn't know he had to, just wanted a one-night-stand, doesn't want baby, wants to be able to force the mommy to have an abortion so he can get out of it and doesn't get to do that?

Deal?


Agreed.  Be responsible.  I still, however, am not happy with the current system where the man has no choice when the "accident" happens.  A woman can decide to have an abortion if she chooses, or she can choose to have the baby and that puts the man on the hook for child support.  The man has zero say.  But I am even more uncomfortable with allowing a man to force an abortion.  I chose the only safe route (snip snip), but that's the radical solution.
 
2013-01-04 03:59:06 AM  
Thanks for being responsible.  I understand why men resent that they have no say in a pregnancy, especially when they are on the hook to support the kid and it is usually a lot of money.  But they can't have a say. I'm copying this from the other thread, and this is written by a man :


You are correct that a man is financially responsible if the baby is born but does not get a legal vote as to whether the baby is taken to term or aborted.

The alternative is force a woman to take a baby to term (the word for this is slavery) or force a medical procedure on the woman (cutting into to someone without their permission is called assault).

Yeah, the man doesn't have as much control over the situation after intercourse.  The fact is that men and women are not completely equal in this situation.  Women's bodies are the incubation system -- they just have more control over their bodies than anyone else.

There is no alternative that modern society considers acceptable (and I am happy for that).


And the only edit I would make to his post is this:

they just^ly have more control over their bodies
 
2013-01-04 04:19:30 AM  

ElizaDoolittle: I'm not suggesting that a man get punished for his sexual activity.  I'm suggesting he accepts his responsibility if he creates a child.  And I think, hell yes, he should pay for his infant child, the way every other law-abiding and decent father does.

1/10.


But you just said that if a woman takes sole responsibility for creating a baby (through fraudulent activity involving deception of the partner) that society should pay for it, and not the woman. Yet here you are saying that if the man has any responsibility, he should pay for it. Why should the woman's share be taken care of by society, whilst the man's share is not?
 
2013-01-04 04:31:45 AM  

sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.


yeah but War on Women yo
 
2013-01-04 04:57:53 AM  

desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?


Buddy got it done after he and the wife had two kids.

He doesn't regret it, but he DID say the procedure wasn't nearly as painless as the doc promised, despite the local anesthetic.

"Hard tugging on the lines" was the way he described it...I didn't really want to know more :)
 
2013-01-04 05:01:03 AM  

lewismarktwo: RedVentrue: inglixthemad: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Heck, if the woman did anything and got knocked up with his sperm. Even if he masturbated onto the counter and she shoveled it in herself while he ran to get a towel to clean it up. She'd probably still get child support.

Some cases, he doesn't even have to be the father, or even sleep with her. Watch out who you roommate with.

And all because the state doesn't want to have to pay anything for the kid. It's basically slavery.


As a taxpayer, I pay enough for welfare babies, etc. I have no problem sticking the actual father with the bill, if he can be found.

Your best defense? Don't stick it in the crazy.

/has stuck it in the crazy
//got lucky
 
2013-01-04 05:19:42 AM  

Dokushin: ElizaDoolittle: I'm not suggesting that a man get punished for his sexual activity.  I'm suggesting he accepts his responsibility if he creates a child.  And I think, hell yes, he should pay for his infant child, the way every other law-abiding and decent father does.

1/10.

But you just said that if a woman takes sole responsibility for creating a baby (through fraudulent activity involving deception of the partner) that society should pay for it, and not the woman. Yet here you are saying that if the man has any responsibility, he should pay for it. Why should the woman's share be taken care of by society, whilst the man's share is not?


I think she's saying, if the man is a decent person, he would accept responsibility even if the child was conceived by fraud, because after all, he helped make it. And it is a baby, not, say, a car or a cake. It's going to be a person. If she was a whore and tricked him, that's a coont move on her part, but still, there's a baby. But if he wants to opt out, that should be his choice IF she lied and said Oh yea, I took my pill and knew it was a lie.

BUT if he wants to opt out of financial responsibility, MY point of view is that he doesn't get ANY share in that baby. My opinion is that if he says "Nope, you lied, that's not my problem!" then he has zero say in that baby from that moment forward. No whining if she gets an abortion, no coming back five years later to claim "parental rights," no contesting mom's marriage to another man. Either he accepts responsibility--and that's cool, he's a better man than she is a woman--or he doesn't, and then that's not his baby, end of story.

There are too many men out there who don't want to pay for baby because mama lied (or "How do I know it's mine?"); but then raise holy hell because "She ain't raisin' my kid right," I've seen that happen, and it's disgusting. Raise it or don't, but no half measures.
 
2013-01-04 05:53:22 AM  
Poking holes in condoms is attempting inverse murder.
 
2013-01-04 07:11:21 AM  

pxlboy: Men pretty much get the sh*t end of the deal in family court.


No. Children get the sharp end of the fark stick in family court. They aren't even parties to the case that decides their fate, they aren't legally entitled the money ostensibly supporting them, and if they are old enough to figure out that their parents suck they can choose between exactly two legal options: living in an abusive home until they're legally allowed to leave or being passed around the foster/group care system for years (17% of kids spend 5+ years in foster care; 45% spend >2 years in care)
 
2013-01-04 07:21:18 AM  
Gyrfalcon:
It's going to be a person
claim "parental rights,"


I'm confused. Is it a person, or is it some sort of property that's subject to the will of person? You say that paying for a child entitles you to rights over that child, while failing to pay for them means you abandon those rights -- that sounds a lot more like a thing you can own than a person.
 
2013-01-04 07:29:33 AM  

profplump: Gyrfalcon:
It's going to be a person
claim "parental rights,"

I'm confused. Is it a person, or is it some sort of property that's subject to the will of person? You say that paying for a child entitles you to rights over that child, while failing to pay for them means you abandon those rights -- that sounds a lot more like a thing you can own than a person.


That's a good point, but it's one most courts have ruled on.

Basically, kids are people, but w/o full rights until they hit adulthood; until then, a parent or guardian(s) has (some) control.

The reason this is 'OK' legally is because childhood is a temporary condition, as opposed to, say, owning a slave based on their skin color or gender.
 
2013-01-04 08:21:34 AM  
Gyrfalcon
BUT if he wants to opt out of financial responsibility, MY point of view is that he doesn't get ANY share in that baby.

That happens anyway. Mom commits fraud, has babby, sues Dad to collect support while maintaining primary custody, leaves the state. Et voila.

I know this happens because, well, it happened to me. :(
 
2013-01-04 08:35:30 AM  

Dokushin: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: A person (male or female) should not be able to benefit from fraud.

Should an innocent party be harmed by someone else's fraud?

Forcing some young guy to pay 20 years of child support has the potential to ruin his life.

Forcing some young child to go 20 years with half the support of the parents he's entitled to has the potential to ruin his life.

If the state is going to choose between "potentially ruining the life of an adult" and "potentially ruining the life of a child", the adult is going to lose every time.

Why is that support not provided by the state? Forcing the suspected (male) parent to provide it is punitive, and therefore questioning the accuracy of the charge is certainly in order.


Supporting your biological child is punitive? Or are you adding a new wrinkle regarding suspect paternity that we haven't yet discussed? We're talking about poked holes in condoms, where the male parent <I>is</I> the father.
 
2013-01-04 08:41:40 AM  

Dokushin: ElizaDoolittle: I'm not suggesting that a man get punished for his sexual activity.  I'm suggesting he accepts his responsibility if he creates a child.  And I think, hell yes, he should pay for his infant child, the way every other law-abiding and decent father does.

1/10.

But you just said that if a woman takes sole responsibility for creating a baby (through fraudulent activity involving deception of the partner) that society should pay for it, and not the woman. Yet here you are saying that if the man has any responsibility, he should pay for it. Why should the woman's share be taken care of by society, whilst the man's share is not?


Sorry if I was unclear.  I meant the man should be off the hook and society should support the woman.  She would remain responsible.
 
2013-01-04 08:43:23 AM  

mrexcess: Theaetetus: C'mon, now.

Consider the hypothetical case of a 14 year old boy who is statutorily raped by a 23 year old woman, who becomes pregnant and has a baby.

Are you really telling me that the 14 year old should be on the hook for child support? Because that's how the laws work now.Granted, mommy would spend some time in prison, but probably not for half as long as the boy was paying for his raping.


So? Again, as I said, if you're asking the courts to choose between an adult - or even a teenager - and a child, they're going to choose the child. Family courts explicitly are directed by statute to act in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child are that it receives support from both parents. Period. Any further complaints about are irrelevant, because the child is not the perpetrator of fraud or rape, so what right do we have to diminish the child's rights?

You can white knight for the chilluns all you want, but face it: our current system is unfair and gives males the short end of the stick, with half the liability but 0% of the control* over the situation.

You can ignore the chilluns all you want, but face it: you're not proposing to  end unfairness, but merely to pile it on an innocent third party. Your complaint is hypocritical, because  your proposed system would give children the short end of the stick, with 100% of the liability and 0% of the control over their situation.

*see, however, vasectomies. Just as with an abortion, there are voluntary medical procedures a male can undergo to prevent any possibility of bearing a child. Just as you can't order a woman to have or to not have an abortion, she can't order you to have or to not have a vasectomy. It's absolute parity.
 
2013-01-04 08:51:41 AM  

Gyrfalcon: BUT if he wants to opt out of financial responsibility, MY point of view is that he doesn't get ANY share in that baby. My opinion is that if he says "Nope, you lied, that's not my problem!" then he has zero say in that baby from that moment forward. No whining if she gets an abortion, no coming back five years later to claim "parental rights," no contesting mom's marriage to another man. Either he accepts responsibility--and that's cool, he's a better man than she is a woman--or he doesn't, and then that's not his baby, end of story.

There are too many men out there who don't want to pay for baby because mama lied (or "How do I know it's mine?"); but then raise holy hell because "She ain't raisin' my kid right," I've seen that happen, and it's disgusting. Raise it or don't, but no half measures.


There are plenty more men out there who have no interest in raising their kids or paying for them, however. Accordingly, the "you can opt out of child support and you forfeit any legal rights to your kids" exchange will simply result in a lot more kids and mothers on welfare.
Plus, it's not a contract anyone other than the kid (or a guardian ad litem) could make. The support is the right of the child, so the only person who can forfeit that is the child or a legal representative. The father would simply have no ability to make a binding agreement waiving someone else's rights.
 
2013-01-04 08:57:36 AM  

Tumunga: The Irresponsible Captain:

[i.imgur.com image 461x766]

It would be an asshole baby?


not sure if serious jpeg?
 
2013-01-04 09:12:50 AM  

PunGent: desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?

Buddy got it done after he and the wife had two kids.

He doesn't regret it, but he DID say the procedure wasn't nearly as painless as the doc promised, despite the local anesthetic.

"Hard tugging on the lines" was the way he described it...I didn't really want to know more :)


It feels like getting (lightly) hit in the balls while the procedure is going on. It doesn't take long though.
 
2013-01-04 10:22:14 AM  
In a just world it would work like this: Man and woman get pregnant, man no want baby, woman do want baby, man sign away all rights never pay for baby no backsies.

Man and woman get pregnant. Man want baby, woman no want baby, but no want kill baby. Woman has baby, signs over all rights never pay for baby no backsies.
 
2013-01-04 10:26:55 AM  

Loren: Chabash: If she consented to sex, she consented to all the dangers. Condoms aren't 100%...

He made it far more risky than she consented to. The court was right.


This.
But also:

pxlboy: sycraft: taurusowner: And if she did it to him? That's a child supportin'

Sad thing is you are probably correct. She wouldn't get charged with any crime, the courts would say "Well it was your fault for having a kid," and he'd get to support it for the next 21 years.


This too.
 
2013-01-04 10:38:28 AM  

lewismarktwo: In a just world it would work like this: Man and woman get pregnant, man no want baby, woman do want baby, man sign away all rights never pay for baby no backsies.

Man and woman get pregnant. Man want baby, woman no want baby, but no want kill baby. Woman has baby, signs over all rights never pay for baby no backsies.


This post should be sung bby Harry Belafonte
 
2013-01-04 11:03:10 AM  
I have no problem with this if the corresponding scenario where a woman did this to a man also resulted in the woman serving a jail sentence and released the man of any legal obligation to the child created with his stolen DNA.  However we live in a society where family courts perpetuate man hating policies against males in any and all cases, so I guess equal justice is just a pipe dream.

It all evens out though.  There's a lot of shiat women have to deal with that I would hate.
 
2013-01-04 11:09:03 AM  

dfenstrate: I've thought for a while that if I ended up getting pegged with a BS child support order, I'd go for custody of the child.


I agree.  If I'm going to pay for it, then it's parent is going to be ME - and I'm going to actually get the joy of raising my child instead of just being some shmuck it's mother trapped into subsidizing her life.

I feel bad for the guys that get dooped into paying for a kid and then get wedged out of the picture while his kid gets pressured into calling every one of mom's new boyfriends "dad".
 
2013-01-04 11:13:57 AM  

spiderpaz: I have no problem with this if the corresponding scenario where a woman did this to a man also resulted in the woman serving a jail sentence and released the man of any legal obligation to the child created with his stolen DNA.  However we live in a society where family courts perpetuate man hating policies against males in any and all cases, so I guess equal justice is just a pipe dream believe that some child shouldn't have to suffer a lack of support because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents.


FTFY.
 
2013-01-04 11:16:49 AM  
Rabid Turnip

PunGent: desertfool: Off topic, but Mrs Fool has been on the pill for years. I've been thinking about getting snipped so there are no little Fools. Any advice/cautions/tales that I need to know about?

Buddy got it done after he and the wife had two kids.

He doesn't regret it, but he DID say the procedure wasn't nearly as painless as the doc promised, despite the local anesthetic.

"Hard tugging on the lines" was the way he described it...I didn't really want to know more :)


Get a specialist to do it. Ask the doc how many vasectomies he performs per year. If it is a low number (in your opinion) get a referral to a specialist. When I had it done my doc referred me to a specialist straight away since he doesn't do them. The specialist does 400+ per year and I didn't need pain meds or even an ice pack afterwards. If I hadn't watched him do the procedure (that was surreal !) I wouldn't have known it was done. Worst thing about the whole operation was the awkward nurse who shaved me (good suggestion from someone upthread to shave yourself beforehand). It all depends on the quality of the doc.

/bonus, I'm Canadian, so I paid $0 out of pocket.
 
2013-01-04 11:43:30 AM  

Theaetetus: spiderpaz: I have no problem with this if the corresponding scenario where a woman did this to a man also resulted in the woman serving a jail sentence and released the man of any legal obligation to the child created with his stolen DNA.  However we live in a society where family courts perpetuate man hating policies against males in any and all cases, so I guess equal justice is just a pipe dream believe that some child shouldn't have to suffer a lack of support because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents.

FTFY.


However I suspect you're totally okay with the mother sending it to an orphanage or aborting it, causing the child to suffer "because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents ".  What a hypocrite.  Interesting that all your posts seem to put every shred of burden onto a man in every scenario possible, but never a woman.  You must believe women to be hapless fools who always need an out and men to be all powerful, omniscient beings who don't deserve the same.  Too bad your profile doesn't contain a pic.  I was hoping to see what an unabashed man hating twat might look like.
 
2013-01-04 11:50:51 AM  
Ooh, here is the woman trapped me into child support thread again. I am out of here!
 
2013-01-04 12:08:09 PM  

spiderpaz: Theaetetus: spiderpaz: I have no problem with this if the corresponding scenario where a woman did this to a man also resulted in the woman serving a jail sentence and released the man of any legal obligation to the child created with his stolen DNA.  However we live in a society where family courts perpetuate man hating policies against males in any and all cases, so I guess equal justice is just a pipe dream believe that some child shouldn't have to suffer a lack of support because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents.

FTFY.

However I suspect you're totally okay with the mother sending it to an orphanage or aborting it, causing the child to suffer "because of any alleged wrongdoings of its parents ".  What a hypocrite.


I suspect you eat puppies. What a hypocrite.

Pro-tip: rather than accusing people of hypocrisy based on what your fevered imagination dreams they believe,  ask them.

Here, I'll even do it for you. First time's free. After that, you're on your own.
1) "Are you okay with the mother sending the child to an orphanage, causing the child to suffer?"
No, I'd prefer that didn't happen, but the alternative would be slavery, and we as a society has determined that slavery is bad enough that it trumps even the child's rights to support.

2) "Are you okay with the mother having an abortion, causing the child to suffer?"
What child? If the mother has an abortion, there's no child, so what are you talking about? Do you not understand that abortion occurs prior to birth? Are you confusing "abortion" and "infantcide"? If so, then of course I'm not okay with infantcide. What a dumbass question.

Interesting that all your posts seem to put every shred of burden onto a man in every scenario possible, but never a woman.

That must be because you didn't bother reading "all my posts". Scroll up and you'll see that I place "every shred of burden" on both parents.
In the future, you should avoid statements like this if you haven't checked that they're true. They merely make you look stupid when they're so easily proven false.

You must believe women to be hapless fools who always need an out and men to be all powerful, omniscient beings who don't deserve the same.  Too bad your profile doesn't contain a pic.  I was hoping to see what an unabashed man hating twat might look like.

And, similarly, you should avoid statements like this. They make you look like a misogynistic dickbag, and destroys any credibility the rest of your post could have had. While one  could have thought you were merely lazy in not bothering to read the posts you're replying to and making statements about, now you just come off as an asshole who intentionally lied about them. Why should we listen to anything you say at this point?

Perhaps it would be best if you apologized and tried re-writing that entire post again, yes?
 
2013-01-04 12:21:13 PM  

Theaetetus: Here, I'll even do it for you. First time's free. After that, you're on your own.
1) "Are you okay with the mother sending the child to an orphanage, causing the child to suffer?"
No, I'd prefer that didn't happen, but the alternative would be slavery, and we as a society has determined that slavery is bad enough that it trumps even the child's rights to support.


LOL ... this is the funniest part of your ridiculous, rabid, frothy mouthed post.  When a mother is forced to support a child she doesn't want IT'S SLAVERY.  But in your opinion it's okay to force a man to pay for it when his sperm has been used against his will.  haha.  Oh yeah, you're "totally" not a hypocrite.

There is no low you will not sink to at this point.  There's no more use talking to someone so ridiculous.  I've been on fark for a long time, and you might be the FIRST person worthy of being blocked.

To be clear, that makes you worse than:
9beers, maxalt, JoeBlowme, SillyJesus, EWReckedSean, MyRandomName, LtCheaseWeasel, Cletus C, and all the other right wing trolls.

You were just highlighted in a group with other idiot man hating tools, but you are clearly in a class by yourself.  A whole new level of crazy.
 
2013-01-04 01:11:36 PM  
The double standard at play here hurts my head.
I hate them both.
 
2013-01-04 01:30:17 PM  

spiderpaz: Theaetetus: Here, I'll even do it for you. First time's free. After that, you're on your own.
1) "Are you okay with the mother sending the child to an orphanage, causing the child to suffer?"
No, I'd prefer that didn't happen, but the alternative would be slavery, and we as a society has determined that slavery is bad enough that it trumps even the child's rights to support.

LOL ... this is the funniest part of your ridiculous, rabid, frothy mouthed post.


Actually, the funny part is that I was quite polite, while you were calling me a twat. Apparently, you think helpful suggestions are "rabid, frothy mouthed".

When a mother is forced to support a child she doesn't want IT'S SLAVERY. But in your opinion it's okay to force a man to pay for it when his sperm has been used against his will.  haha.  Oh yeah, you're "totally" not a hypocrite.

Actually, your question was regarding  orphanagesand physical care of the child, not payment of child support. It's SLAVERY if you require someone to physically care for the child, regardless of whether it's the mother or father. Either parent has the ability to abandon the child to the state. There's no gender discrimination there.
Paying money for support, however, is not SLAVERY. And either parent - male or female - may be required to pay support for a child if the other parent has custody. Again, no gender discrimination.
And again, no hypocrisy.

There is no low you will not sink to at this point.  There's no more use talking to someone so ridiculous.  I've been on fark for a long time, and you might be the FIRST person worthy of being blocked.

Pro-tip: read the FArQ. Telling someone you're blocking them is trolling, and can result in a timeout. You could just block me, y'know.
 
2013-01-04 02:21:26 PM  

SnarfVader: If your girlfriend is wearing the condom, holes are the least of your concerns.



I was minding my business, just reading and giggling... then I make it to this comment. And squirt water out my nose.

You owe me a godd*** monitor.
 
2013-01-04 02:23:42 PM  

lewismarktwo: In a just world it would work like this: Man and woman get pregnant, man no want baby, woman do want baby, man sign away all rights never pay for baby no backsies.

Man and woman get pregnant. Man want baby, woman no want baby, but no want kill baby. Woman has baby, signs over all rights never pay for baby no backsies.


And here's a further example of how farked up the system is against men.  Girl gets pregnant.  Doesn't want baby but is morally opposed to abortion.  Has baby, puts baby up for adoption.  Father wants the baby, judge tells him to bugger off.  Baby is adopted against the father's wishes.
 
2013-01-04 03:18:59 PM  

Theaetetus: mrexcess: Theaetetus: C'mon, now.

Consider the hypothetical case of a 14 year old boy who is statutorily raped by a 23 year old woman, who becomes pregnant and has a baby.

Are you really telling me that the 14 year old should be on the hook for child support? Because that's how the laws work now.Granted, mommy would spend some time in prison, but probably not for half as long as the boy was paying for his raping.

So? Again, as I said, if you're asking the courts to choose between an adult - or even a teenager - and a child, they're going to choose the child. Family courts explicitly are directed by statute to act in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child are that it receives support from both parents. Period. Any further complaints about are irrelevant, because the child is not the perpetrator of fraud or rape, so what right do we have to diminish the child's rights?

You can white knight for the chilluns all you want, but face it: our current system is unfair and gives males the short end of the stick, with half the liability but 0% of the control* over the situation.

You can ignore the chilluns all you want, but face it: you're not proposing to  end unfairness, but merely to pile it on an innocent third party. Your complaint is hypocritical, because  your proposed system would give children the short end of the stick, with 100% of the liability and 0% of the control over their situation.

*see, however, vasectomies. Just as with an abortion, there are voluntary medical procedures a male can undergo to prevent any possibility of bearing a child. Just as you can't order a woman to have or to not have an abortion, she can't order you to have or to not have a vasectomy. It's absolute parity.


No it's not.
Vasectomy = Tubal Ligation.
Kicking the woman in the gut untill miscarraige = abortion.
 
2013-01-04 03:33:22 PM  

OgreMagi: And here's a further example of how farked up the system is against men.  Girl gets pregnant.  Doesn't want baby but is morally opposed to abortion.  Has baby, puts baby up for adoption.  Father wants the baby, judge tells him to bugger off.  Baby is adopted against the father's wishes.


OgreMagi, I am not familiar with these cases, but I think the father has to sign off on the adoption papers too.  I can't imagine a court that would turn down a request for custody from the genetic father if the genetic mother does not want to keep the child. The basic rules, as I understand them are that the rights of the child are first, and the rights of the genetic parents are next (unless they have some record that would preclude anyone wanting them to have custody - drugs/violence/crazy).  You can probably pull up three cases to prove your point, but the majority of cases are decided the way I just described.

I'm in favor of men's rights, and you need women to be on your side if you want them to get passed.  So don't tell crazy stories or cite rare incidences,  I think a majority of women would vote today in favor of a loving and involved father being just as entitled to custody as a mother.  Those are men's rights I would fight for.
 
2013-01-04 03:39:35 PM  

RedVentrue: Theaetetus: mrexcess: Theaetetus: C'mon, now.

Consider the hypothetical case of a 14 year old boy who is statutorily raped by a 23 year old woman, who becomes pregnant and has a baby.

Are you really telling me that the 14 year old should be on the hook for child support? Because that's how the laws work now.Granted, mommy would spend some time in prison, but probably not for half as long as the boy was paying for his raping.

So? Again, as I said, if you're asking the courts to choose between an adult - or even a teenager - and a child, they're going to choose the child. Family courts explicitly are directed by statute to act in the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child are that it receives support from both parents. Period. Any further complaints about are irrelevant, because the child is not the perpetrator of fraud or rape, so what right do we have to diminish the child's rights?

You can white knight for the chilluns all you want, but face it: our current system is unfair and gives males the short end of the stick, with half the liability but 0% of the control* over the situation.

You can ignore the chilluns all you want, but face it: you're not proposing to  end unfairness, but merely to pile it on an innocent third party. Your complaint is hypocritical, because  your proposed system would give children the short end of the stick, with 100% of the liability and 0% of the control over their situation.

*see, however, vasectomies. Just as with an abortion, there are voluntary medical procedures a male can undergo to prevent any possibility of bearing a child. Just as you can't order a woman to have or to not have an abortion, she can't order you to have or to not have a vasectomy. It's absolute parity.

No it's not.
Vasectomy = Tubal Ligation.
Kicking the woman in the gut untill miscarraige = abortion.


Vasectomy = private medical procedure that no one has a right to force you to undergo, or can prevent you from undergoing, that can remove the possibility of you having a child.
Abortion = private medical procedure that no one has a right to force you to undergo, or can prevent you from undergoing, that can remove the possibility of you having a child.
 
2013-01-04 03:41:17 PM  

ElizaDoolittle: You can probably pull up three cases to prove your point, but the majority of cases are decided the way I just described.


Unlikely. The only one I know of is a case where the biological father popped up years and years later and tried to claim parental rights over a kid who'd never met him.
 
2013-01-04 04:06:00 PM  

Theaetetus: The support is the right of the child, so the only person who can forfeit that is the child or a legal representative.


Funny, the kids have no right to that money, child support is the right of the mother, not the kids.

Lemme share with you a little CSB about farked up child support (and divorce laws).

22 years ago, in the small town in Kentucky I was growing up in, there was a local tycoon. He was probably the richest man in town. He owned a car dealership, a trucking company, a rock quarry, and I think he owned some commercial real estate around town and a furniture store downtown, and he lived with his wife and 2 kids in the biggest house in town, a mansion really.

His wife decided that she liked the lifestyle of being rich, but she thought she'd like it even more if she didn't have to put up with her husband. She filed for divorce, and was looking at getting half of everything, half his business empire (she wanted the commercial real estate and the stores), half the mansion (i.e. sell it and she'd get a high six-figure sum from that), and a big alimony check on top of child support for the two middle-school aged kids.

It was an ugly divorce, she immediately started dating some guy and trash talking her husband publicly and there were various ugly incidents and stunts you might imagine of a bitter divorce.

The divorce proceedings were well underway, when the judge noticed a little omission in the divorce papers: no marriage license. Thinking it was just an oversight, he asked the wifes attorney for it. The attorney noted that it was a common law marriage.

Well, the problem is, the Commonwealth of Kentucky does not have common law marriages, and she and her attorney knew that, they were trying to pull a fast one. Well, the Judge basically threw out the entire divorce on the spot, saying they were never married to begin with. She got nothing, not a penny. The only thing she could get was a couple thousand a month for child support. Of course, she was given custody of the kids with no questions asked, he asked for custody, it was denied immediately.

Well, she'd never worked a day in her life, and wasn't about to start. That "child support" was their only income while the kids were minors. She made sure to keep in designer clothes and cruises and fancy dinners for her at gourmet restaurants, while the kids clothes became increasingly threadbare and they lived off ramen and canned vegetables.

The father went to court, trying to have the child support order amended, noting that maybe 10%, at most, of what what he was paying was going to his kids, and again restated his desire for custody.

The Judge made it clear, she was the mother, so she got the kids (unless she was found legally unfit as a parent, the ONLY way he could ever get custody), and child support had to be paid based on a certain percentage of income to the mother, but the mother was under no legal obligation to spend any of that money on the children as long as Child Protective Services was satisfied that the household was not negligent or abusive (which they passed inspections, albeit barely).

So, she got a free ride for a few years until the kids turned 18, then she had to try to find a job, and imagine how that went.

Seeing that whole story unfold in front of me (the mother was a friend of my mother, and I was friends with both of the kids) really set it in stone for me how unfair and ridiculous the whole system of family law is in the US.

Child support isn't about supporting children, it's backdoor alimony, nothing more, or there would be some legal requirement to use the money to support the children.
 
2013-01-04 04:12:01 PM  

lewismarktwo: In a just world it would work like this: Man and woman get pregnant, man no want baby, woman do want baby, man sign away all rights never pay for baby no backsies.


I disagree.  Man and woman get pregnant, child is born, we now have a third party here - quite possibly an infant boy.  Father no want baby, tough shiat.  Still has to pay for 18 years to support his son or daughter.  This is not an issue of men's rights.  It's an issue of child's rights, which rank higher than your right to say Oops, or I insist you have an abortion whether you want one or not, but if you don't I should be spared from paying for the cost  of raising my child because I didn't want him.

I am in favor of men's rights.    As they pertain to real men who want to be fathers and not bystanders,  Not for whiny little boys who want to avoid the responsibilities associated with being a parent.

The only exception I allow is if a man is genuinely tricked into parenthood by some fiend who cuts holes in his condoms, or swallows and spits into a turkey baster.  You guys seem to think that is commonplace behavior.  The vast majority of pregnancies in this country arise because a man and a woman have sex.  Deal with it.
 
2013-01-04 05:48:45 PM  

ElizaDoolittle: lewismarktwo: In a just world it would work like this: Man and woman get pregnant, man no want baby, woman do want baby, man sign away all rights never pay for baby no backsies.

I disagree.  Man and woman get pregnant, child is born, we now have a third party here - quite possibly an infant boy.  Father no want baby, tough shiat.  Still has to pay for 18 years to support his son or daughter.  This is not an issue of men's rights.  It's an issue of child's rights, which rank higher than your right to say Oops, or I insist you have an abortion whether you want one or not, but if you don't I should be spared from paying for the cost  of raising my child because I didn't want him.

I am in favor of men's rights.    As they pertain to real men who want to be fathers and not bystanders,  Not for whiny little boys who want to avoid the responsibilities associated with being a parent.

The only exception I allow is if a man is genuinely tricked into parenthood by some fiend who cuts holes in his condoms, or swallows and spits into a turkey baster.  You guys seem to think that is commonplace behavior.  The vast majority of pregnancies in this country arise because a man and a woman have sex.  Deal with it.


Not wanting a baby doesn't make someone a whiny little boy. Nice emasculating there Helga. And getting pregnant against a man's wishes is extremely commonplace. Deal with it.
 
2013-01-04 06:52:35 PM  
Theaetetus
So? Again, as I said, if you're asking the courts to choose between an adult - or even a teenager - and a child, they're going to choose the child.

But this is a ridiculous false dichotomy. There are not only two choices available to our society: punishing the child or the father. Worse, this is the very opposite of justice: a rape victim should not be obligated to financially support their rapist. And through whatever lens of "its not for the mom, it's for the kid" euphemism you wish to phrase it, that's exactly what is going on when a rape victim has to send a check to their rapist.

Even most staunch objectors to abortion make an exception in the case of rape, because the unimaginable cruelty of forcing someone to parent the child of their rapist is so obvious and well understood. The fact that becoming the financial thrall of your rapist somehow merits different consideration is testament to just how lop-sided our system is with respect to gender.

If it is in society's interest to protect the children of rapists, and I'd agree that it is, surely that is not best accomplished by allowing the rapist to raise their child with the financial assistance of the one who raped them. Wouldn't you agree? Isn't there a role for a more generalized social responsibility in all of this?

Family courts explicitly are directed by statute to act in the best interests of the child.

It isn't in the best interests of children, who will eventually become teenagers and adults who have to live in the society, to propagate injustice, like the notion in that society that rape victims are responsible for caring for their rapists' children.

Family courts are simply an example of the old aphorism about having a hammer turning every problem into a nail. They're very good at child support enforcement, that is their hammer. But is that hammer really the most just or best solution to every type of situation where there's one willing and one unwilling parent? No, of course not.

The best interests of the child are that it receives support from both parents. Period.

See above. You're wrong. Period.

Any further complaints about are irrelevant, because the child is not the perpetrator of fraud or rape, so what right do we have to diminish the child's rights?

There are a few problems with this line of reasoning, I think I've outlined them fairly well above but let me re-iterate:

* Financial support is not provided directly to the child, but to the obligee, i.e. the custodial parent.
* The best interests of children are arguably not to live in a nation that inflicts massive injustices on its citizens in order to ensure that those children are provided for.
* The best interests of children, strictly speaking, would be to have society spend them billions of dollars a day raising them: the very best educations possible, the safest homes and methods of transportation, the best food imaginable, the best and most qualified guardians, etcetera. Obviously, that not done, because it is infeasible and impractical. But it would be in their best interests, wouldn't it?

You can ignore the chilluns all you want, but face it: you're not proposing to end unfairness, but merely to pile it on an innocent third party.

Do you object to universal health care? What about fire departments? Taxation generally? Collectivization is not generally perceived as "piling unfairness on an innocent third party" except by radical libertarians and the like. Why do you consider it so here? Are you consistent in that view, or is this an exception, and if it is the latter... why?

And why is a 14 year old rape victim any less innocent than any other party?

Your complaint is hypocritical, because your proposed system would give children the short end of the stick, with 100% of the liability and 0% of the control over their situation.

That's not so at all. I am not proposing a system whereby children would be forced to support themselves financially, and in basically any solution that I can think of, children will not have control over who their parents are or the particulars of their home situation. Your objections to my complaint are assumptive, ill-considered, and erroneous.

see, however, vasectomies. Just as with an abortion, there are voluntary medical procedures a male can undergo to prevent any possibility of bearing a child. Just as you can't order a woman to have or to not have an abortion, she can't order you to have or to not have a vasectomy. It's absolute parity.

Absolute parity? So there is such a thing as selective vasectomy, whereby I can choose after the act resulting in impregnation whether I would like to have a child with a specific person or in a specific circumstance? See, the thing is, no. Comparing vasectomy to abortion and declaring them functionally identical is blindly ridiculous. You are way smarter than this.

spiderpaz
There is no low you will not sink to at this point. There's no more use talking to someone so ridiculous. I've been on fark for a long time, and you might be the FIRST person worthy of being blocked.

He/she is actually generally a very quality poster, or at least was in the years I've been on here. And not one that I've known to troll. I'm not sure what's going on here, but the refusal to understand the complexities of the situation in favor of repeating ill-considered mantras like "the best interests of the child" are an aberration for Theatatus in any event, not really a pattern.

(Disclaimer: I've fallen out of my Fark reading habit in the past year or so.)
 
2013-01-04 06:54:17 PM  
Editing fail. Theatatus, not Theatatus.
 
2013-01-04 06:59:33 PM  
ElizaDoolittle
This is not an issue of men's rights. It's an issue of child's rights

Since control of the womb, and thus the issue of whether or not to give birth to a child, is exclusively the domain of women, it cannot be said that this is not an issue of men's rights as well. There is a child involved, but only after the woman has made a decision that men have no input into save for that input women are willing to grace them with. This can range from the somewhat reasonable (i.e. we decided to have a child but then you reconsidered, I am unwilling to reconsider) to the unreasonable (i.e. I lied about birth control and became pregnant, you fell victim to my con artistry and therefor are as responsible for the situation as am I) to the unconscionably absurd (i.e. I raped you, now I'm pregnant and choose to have the baby. Pay me money for 21 years because I raped you).

This complicated problem does not call for a "one-size-fits-all" solution like the one you are proposing. Justice exists, and you seem to have no interest in ensuring it.
 
2013-01-04 07:17:34 PM  

ElizaDoolittle: OgreMagi: And here's a further example of how farked up the system is against men.  Girl gets pregnant.  Doesn't want baby but is morally opposed to abortion.  Has baby, puts baby up for adoption.  Father wants the baby, judge tells him to bugger off.  Baby is adopted against the father's wishes.

OgreMagi, I am not familiar with these cases, but I think the father has to sign off on the adoption papers too.  I can't imagine a court that would turn down a request for custody from the genetic father if the genetic mother does not want to keep the child. The basic rules, as I understand them are that the rights of the child are first, and the rights of the genetic parents are next (unless they have some record that would preclude anyone wanting them to have custody - drugs/violence/crazy).  You can probably pull up three cases to prove your point, but the majority of cases are decided the way I just described.

I'm in favor of men's rights, and you need women to be on your side if you want them to get passed.  So don't tell crazy stories or cite rare incidences,  I think a majority of women would vote today in favor of a loving and involved father being just as entitled to custody as a mother.  Those are men's rights I would fight for.


Here you go.

http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2011/07/utah-rules-against-natural-f at her-again.html

The father had filed for custody eight days after the child was born, yet the Utah court ruled he didn't assert his parental rights in time.  The mother had fled the hospital and the state to prevent the father from even seeing the child.
 
2013-01-04 08:03:49 PM  
I see a lot of "right of the children" posts here. What about the cases where a woman puts an ex (doesn't even have to be an ex, but most examples are) on the birth certificate as the father when he isn't? He doesn't know about it. Grace period passes (time to contest), then she goes after child support. Ex (who isn't father) proves that he isn't the father, but still is on the hook for support.

This person, whose only crime was dating someone who ending up to be somewhat crazy, is on the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rights of the child? To him, so what? It's not his kid. It never was his kid. It's no different than him sponsoring a kid in Africa, except the cost is much, much more.

The right of the child argument also is nullified by the fact that there is no oversight as to what that money is spent on. The custodial parent should have to prove at least a tangential benefit to the child. Rent? Sure. Car payment? Okay. Trip to the spa? No. Gifts for the mom's boyfriend? No.

The deck is legally stacked against men regarding custody and child support. Unless the woman is an absolute fark up, or the man has unlimited legal funds, the chances of him getting custody are virtually nil. I saw a friend who had an ex who could not raise their kids. The kids were out of control when they were with the mom, but behaved when the dad had them on weekends. It got to the point where one of the kids was on the verge of being sent to juvie. The father sued for custody. No dice.
 
2013-01-04 08:11:22 PM  
forgetting to take your male birth control pills, that's a jailin'
 
2013-01-04 08:31:57 PM  

OgreMagi: ElizaDoolittle: OgreMagi: And here's a further example of how farked up the system is against men.  Girl gets pregnant.  Doesn't want baby but is morally opposed to abortion.  Has baby, puts baby up for adoption.  Father wants the baby, judge tells him to bugger off.  Baby is adopted against the father's wishes.

OgreMagi, I am not familiar with these cases, but I think the father has to sign off on the adoption papers too.  I can't imagine a court that would turn down a request for custody from the genetic father if the genetic mother does not want to keep the child. The basic rules, as I understand them are that the rights of the child are first, and the rights of the genetic parents are next (unless they have some record that would preclude anyone wanting them to have custody - drugs/violence/crazy).  You can probably pull up three cases to prove your point, but the majority of cases are decided the way I just described.

I'm in favor of men's rights, and you need women to be on your side if you want them to get passed.  So don't tell crazy stories or cite rare incidences.

Here you go.

http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2011/07/utah-rules-against-natural-f at her-again.html

The father had filed for custody eight days after the child was born, yet the Utah court ruled he didn't assert his parental rights in time.  The mother had fled the hospital and the state to prevent the father from even seeing the child.


Well, I don't know what to say to that except fark Utah.  This seems to be a clear case where a father's right were completely abused for the betterment of a Mormon couple.  You know the site you linked to is run by women, right?  And in the comments, most if not all of them seemed to agree it was a travesty that the father had been treated that way.  I completely agree.  I'd contribute, gladly, to an ACLU fund to get this overturned.

But I don't think this is a typical case.  I am totally in favor of men's rights when it comes to them having custody of their children and equal access to them.  It's not "men's rights" to argue that I didn't mean to impregnate the biatch; she should have an abortion because I don't want the  kid or the child support bills. And if she doesn't have the abortion, I should get a waiver on the child support since I didn't get to decide on the abortion.   Those advocating that position are not fighting for men's rights but for whiny little boy's rights.
 
2013-01-04 08:49:27 PM  

ElizaDoolittle: OgreMagi: ElizaDoolittle: OgreMagi: And here's a further example of how farked up the system is against men.  Girl gets pregnant.  Doesn't want baby but is morally opposed to abortion.  Has baby, puts baby up for adoption.  Father wants the baby, judge tells him to bugger off.  Baby is adopted against the father's wishes.

OgreMagi, I am not familiar with these cases, but I think the father has to sign off on the adoption papers too.  I can't imagine a court that would turn down a request for custody from the genetic father if the genetic mother does not want to keep the child. The basic rules, as I understand them are that the rights of the child are first, and the rights of the genetic parents are next (unless they have some record that would preclude anyone wanting them to have custody - drugs/violence/crazy).  You can probably pull up three cases to prove your point, but the majority of cases are decided the way I just described.

I'm in favor of men's rights, and you need women to be on your side if you want them to get passed.  So don't tell crazy stories or cite rare incidences.

Here you go.

http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2011/07/utah-rules-against-natural-f at her-again.html

The father had filed for custody eight days after the child was born, yet the Utah court ruled he didn't assert his parental rights in time.  The mother had fled the hospital and the state to prevent the father from even seeing the child.

Well, I don't know what to say to that except fark Utah.  This seems to be a clear case where a father's right were completely abused for the betterment of a Mormon couple.  You know the site you linked to is run by women, right?  And in the comments, most if not all of them seemed to agree it was a travesty that the father had been treated that way.  I completely agree.  I'd contribute, gladly, to an ACLU fund to get this overturned.

But I don't think this is a typical case.  I am totally in favor of men's rights when it comes to them having cust ...


You may not think it is typical, but the abuse of father's rights and the lack of equality in the family courts is standard procedure for men.
 
2013-01-04 08:52:26 PM  

mrexcess: ElizaDoolittle
This is not an issue of men's rights. It's an issue of child's rights

Since control of the womb, and thus the issue of whether or not to give birth to a child, is exclusively the domain of women, it cannot be said that this is not an issue of men's rights as well. There is a child involved, but only after the woman has made a decision that men have no input into save for that input women are willing to grace them with. This can range from the somewhat reasonable (i.e. we decided to have a child but then you reconsidered, I am unwilling to reconsider) to the unreasonable (i.e. I lied about birth control and became pregnant, you fell victim to my con artistry and therefor are as responsible for the situation as am I) to the unconscionably absurd (i.e. I raped you, now I'm pregnant and choose to have the baby. Pay me money for 21 years because I raped you).

This complicated problem does not call for a "one-size-fits-all" solution like the one you are proposing. Justice exists, and you seem to have no interest in ensuring it.


I wasn't aware how complicated the situation could be (can a woman who commits statutory rape sue the boy/father for child support?)  Does the baby of such a rape deserve to be supported by both parents?  I'd have to say no in this case.  You're correct in saying one size does not fit all.  Ogre Magi's link above, about a father who was not allowed to take custody of a daughter he wanted to raise makes me want to throw up at the injustice involved.

The "my girlfriend forgot to take a pill one day" defense doesn't carry the same strength, does it?    It seems to me, and since I have been wrong about one thing, maybe I am wrong about this, that most of the carry-on involves fathers who do not want to pay child support because they don't want the child.  Pure and simple.  And tough luck on getting my vote in your favor on that issue, guys.  The rights of the child rank above yours.
 
2013-01-04 08:53:21 PM  

OgreMagi: You may not think it is typical, but the abuse of father's rights and the lack of equality in the family courts is standard procedure for men.


This is pretty much spot on. Almost all things when it comes to custody and support are done to standards that are established. Any court hearing, witnesses, etc. are pretty much pointless in 95% of the cases. If you get a raise or a better job, you can bet your support payments are going up. Lose your job, or take a pay cut, good luck on that adjustment.
 
2013-01-04 10:03:15 PM  
OgreMagi: I apologize if I have been ignorant on real issues that affect men who want to be fathers and apparently get shafted.  I have to say, I agree with the courts who up child support when the father gets a raise.  As long as it's directed to his kids.  I do think kids should have the right to a lifestyle both their parents can afford.  I don't expect many on this thread to agree with that though.

But you have given me reason to pause and agree I was wrong to be so one-sided on the issue.

I have a suggestion for you.  Distance yourself from the guys who think they should not pay child support because the mother wouldn't have an abortion.

You're going to lose the support of so many women if that's your platform.
 
2013-01-04 10:31:59 PM  

ElizaDoolittle: I have to say, I agree with the courts who up child support when the father gets a raise. As long as it's directed to his kids. I do think kids should have the right to a lifestyle both their parents can afford.


What about when the father loses his job?

Also, there are no protections in place to make sure it goes for the benefit of the kids.

Lastly, the keyword in your last sentence is both. If it is so important that a child lives in a lifestyle that goes with a set income, shouldn't it follow (if so desired by the primary breadwinner) that the child should live with that parent?
 
2013-01-04 10:32:32 PM  

ElizaDoolittle: OgreMagi: I apologize if I have been ignorant on real issues that affect men who want to be fathers and apparently get shafted.  I have to say, I agree with the courts who up child support when the father gets a raise.  As long as it's directed to his kids.  I do think kids should have the right to a lifestyle both their parents can afford.  I don't expect many on this thread to agree with that though.

But you have given me reason to pause and agree I was wrong to be so one-sided on the issue.

I have a suggestion for you.  Distance yourself from the guys who think they should not pay child support because the mother wouldn't have an abortion.

You're going to lose the support of so many women if that's your platform.


If the woman committed fraud (as discussed to death already), then I won't distance myself from them.  The cheap bastards who won't man up, however, need to be publicly shamed.
 
2013-01-04 10:33:26 PM  

mjbok: OgreMagi: You may not think it is typical, but the abuse of father's rights and the lack of equality in the family courts is standard procedure for men.

This is pretty much spot on. Almost all things when it comes to custody and support are done to standards that are established. Any court hearing, witnesses, etc. are pretty much pointless in 95% of the cases. If you get a raise or a better job, you can bet your support payments are going up. Lose your job, or take a pay cut, good luck on that adjustment.


This is the best part of the whole system. If you are able to get an administrative adjustment after a job loss, the custodial parent can fight it. After two years of administrative and court hearings that can be delayed at the whim of the custodial parent or their attorney (usually to be put on the docket for 4-6 months later due to case loads), the judge can fully agree with the non-custodial parent that it should be lowered based on the changed circumstances.

Is it retroactive to the date it was administratively adjusted in the first place? NO! Even if Owed Support has been well in excess of wages earned for the whole time it was going through the system, you're farked for the difference. At this point, you've probably lost your driver's license and your credit is shot. Good luck ever getting that paid back within a reasonable amount of time.

The system is farked, and the chances of any reform coming are next to nil, because what congressman is going to want to be labeled as pro 'deadbeat dad'?
 
2013-01-04 10:44:49 PM  

mjbok: What about when the father loses his job?


That's a huge problem.  Family court judges are very quick to increase child support when the father's income increases.  I don't have a problem with that.  They almost never lower the amount when the income goes down.

A few years ago a news agency actually took the time to investigate the "dead beat" dads that were being publicly shamed (as part of a county wide initiative to deal with the problem).  It turned out the overwhelming majority of them weren't being cheap bastards.  They simply could not make the payments because they had lost their jobs or their income was lower from some other factor outside of their control.  In a couple of cases, the dads were withholding the payment because the mother was denying him his legal visitation and the family courts couldn't be bothered to force the mom to comply.  Not a smart thing to do, but I can understand their frustration.  Yes, a few were actual deadbeats, but they were the exception.

Just for the hell of it, here's some actual numbers on child support:

The U.S. Census Bureau's most recent data shows that non-custodial mothers are far less likely to pay the support they owe than are non-custodial fathers. So fathers pay 61.7% of what they owe while mothers pay only 54.6%. Forty-two percent of fathers pay everything they owe but only 34.1% of mothers do. But more interesting than that is the fact that so few non-custodial mothers are ordered to pay support. Some 54.9% of non-custodial fathers are the subjects of child support orders while only 30.4% of mothers are. In other words, fathers are about twice as likely as mothers to be ordered to pay support.
 
2013-01-04 11:13:30 PM  

Silverstaff: Theaetetus: The support is the right of the child, so the only person who can forfeit that is the child or a legal representative.

Funny, the kids have no right to that money, child support is the right of the mother, not the kids.


That's entirely, completely, 100%, soup-to-nuts incorrect. Like, blindingly incorrect. So much that reading it, I actually went "whaaaaa" and my wife came to take a look and then laugh at you.

As for your CSB:
Well, she'd never worked a day in her life, and wasn't about to start. That "child support" was their only income while the kids were minors. She made sure to keep in designer clothes and cruises and fancy dinners for her at gourmet restaurants, while the kids clothes became increasingly threadbare and they lived off ramen and canned vegetables.

The father went to court, trying to have the child support order amended, noting that maybe 10%, at most, of what what he was paying was going to his kids, and again restated his desire for custody.


Now, notice the problem here... The father in your little allegory doesn't realize that child support is the right of the kids, not the mother (and apparently, his lawyer is as fictional as your claim), and he  attempts to reduce the child support order. Well, that's just a fail. "Your honor, this money that I'm giving for the care of my kids is being intercepted and misspent by my ex-wife... so I want to send less money for the care of my kids."
Sorry, no. You lose, good day, etc. The  proper response is "your honor, this money is being intercepted and misspent. I'd like an accounting of receipts as for what it's being spent on, and then I'd like to review the custody order because my ex-wife is violating her fiduciary duty to the kids."  That's how you win those.

Child support isn't about supporting children, it's backdoor alimony, nothing more, or there would be some legal requirement to use the money to support the children.

Good thing there's a legal requirement to use the money to support the children, as well as legal ways to ensure it's being used that way, and legal repercussions you can employ when it's not.
 
2013-01-04 11:28:42 PM  
Just for shiats and giggles I looked up the child support schedule for the state I live in. I love how the rates are based on gross income, not net or taxable income. For my state it appears to be about 13 -14% for my income bracket. Figure in federal, state, local, SS and you are approaching 40% off the top before you even think about any future for yourself.

I did google if you can contest where the child support money is spent, and the basic consensus is that if the kid has clothes (no matter how ragged), a roof over their head, and food in their belly you can pound sand about what the money is spent on as it is none of your business.
 
2013-01-04 11:33:09 PM  

mrexcess: Worse, this is the very opposite of justice: a rape victim should not be obligated to financially support their rapist.And through whatever lens of "its not for the mom, it's for the kid" euphemism you wish to phrase it, that's exactly what is going on when a rape victim has to send a check to their rapist.


If you can prove it was rape, then the rapist is in jail and the child is in your custody (or the custody of a ward), and then you're not sending a check to your rapist. In fact, your rapist may be sending you a check.
And if you can't prove it, then why should the court punish the child over your unfounded accusations of a crime?

Even most staunch objectors to abortion make an exception in the case of rape, because the unimaginable cruelty of forcing someone to parent the child of their rapist is so obvious and well understood. The fact that becoming the financial thrall of your rapist somehow merits different consideration is testament to just how lop-sided our system is with respect to gender.

I think you're confused - we're talking about being the financial thrall of the  child and it's testament to how lopsided our system is with respect to our obligations to  children.

If it is in society's interest to protect the children of rapists, and I'd agree that it is, surely that is not best accomplished by allowing the rapist to raise their child with the financial assistance of the one who raped them. Wouldn't you agree? Isn't there a role for a more generalized social responsibility in all of this?

As noted above, the rapist should be in jail. The other person can raise the child, or can give the child up for adoption.

Family courts explicitly are directed by statute to act in the best interests of the child.

It isn't in the best interests of children, who will eventually become teenagers and adults who have to live in the society, to propagate injustice, like the notion in that society that rape victims are responsible for caring for their rapists' children.


Nope, but it is in their best interest to be well cared for, and propagate the notion that society believes that children should be taken care of.

* Financial support is not provided directly to the child, but to the obligee, i.e. the custodial parent.
See my reply to Silverstaff. That you write a trustee a check doesn't mean that the beneficiary doesn't receive the benefit of the cash. Similarly, you may send a check to the custodial parent because the child is 2 years old and doesn't have a checking account, but that money is provided for the explicit purpose of taking care of the child, and there are penalties if it's used otherwise.

* The best interests of children are arguably not to live in a nation that inflicts massive injustices on its citizens in order to ensure that those children are provided for.
I'd argue that, and I disagree with the sort of Randian blanket statement that the best interests of the child are upholding oblique ideals about justice rather than, say, getting them food, clothing, and shelter. On Maslow's hierarchy  philosophical ideals are pretty far down.

* The best interests of children, strictly speaking, would be to have society spend them billions of dollars a day raising them: the very best educations possible, the safest homes and methods of transportation, the best food imaginable, the best and most qualified guardians, etcetera. Obviously, that not done, because it is infeasible and impractical. But itwould be in their best interests, wouldn't it?
Sure, but your false dichotomy is still false - not every kid can be raised like Richie Rich, so let's give them a pamphlet about justice and some gravel to chew on? There's a pragmatic middle ground, which is that the best interests of the child can be reasonably served by giving them the support they're entitled to from both parents.

Do you object to universal health care? What about fire departments? Taxation generally? Collectivization is not generally perceived as "piling unfairness on an innocent third party" except by radical libertarians and the like. Why do you consider it so here? Are you consistent in that view, or is this an exception, and if it is the latter... why?
... I honestly have no idea what you're on about here or how it's at all relevant to this discussion. If you noticed, we don't require infants to pay taxes or serve on volunteer fire departments. If you'd like to bring that train of thought back to the station, I'd be happy to board it from the start and we can see where it goes.

And why is a 14 year old rape victim any less innocent than any other party?

What's this about "less innocent" or "more innocent"? I'm not sure where you got that one either.

That's not so at all. I am not proposing a system whereby children would be forced to support themselves financially, and in basically any solution that I can think of, children will not have control over who their parents are or the particulars of their home situation. Your objections to my complaint are assumptive, ill-considered, and erroneous.

You're proposing a situation where a parent can unilaterally say "hey, child, I'm taking your rights away. You don't like it? Tough. Suck it up. Here's a pamphlet about how this is better for you than that I suffer the injustice of having to buy you dinner or new clothes." I think my objections are quite apt.

Absolute parity? So there is such a thing as selective vasectomy, whereby I can choose after the act resulting in impregnation whether I would like to have a child with a specific person or in a specific circumstance? See, the thing is, no.
There's also no such thing as fetus implanted in your gonads, so it's irrelevant. You have the absolute right to an abortion, but it's somewhat moot due to your lack of a womb. But there's no gender discrimination in the law there.

He/she is actually generally a very quality poster, or at least was in the years I've been on here. And not one that I've known to troll. I'm not sure what's going on here, but the refusal to understand the complexities of the situation in favor of repeating ill-considered mantras like "the best interests of the child" are an aberration forTheatatus in any event, not really a pattern.

Thank you for the former. As to the latter, bear in mind several things:
(i) I'm not "refusing to understand" any more than  you are "refusing to understand." We disagree about some pretty base assumptions, and that's going to lead us to different conclusions. It doesn't mean that you're retarded or stubborn or trolling;
(ii) I'm not simply 'repeating ill-considered mantras,' but repeating - with extensive discussion and examples - the current state of the law, including statutory language. Again, you may disagree with how the law  should be, but my describing how the law is (and my agreement with it) does not mean it's "ill-considered".
 
2013-01-04 11:34:52 PM  

mjbok: I did google if you can contest where the child support money is spent, and the basic consensus is that if the kid has clothes (no matter how ragged), a roof over their head, and food in their belly you can pound sand about what the money is spent on as it is none of your business.


Contrary to popular Fark belief, the law firm of Google & Wikipedia is not as credible or necessarily correct as one would think.
 
2013-01-04 11:55:31 PM  

OgreMagi: ElizaDoolittle: OgreMagi: And here's a further example of how farked up the system is against men.  Girl gets pregnant.  Doesn't want baby but is morally opposed to abortion.  Has baby, puts baby up for adoption.  Father wants the baby, judge tells him to bugger off.  Baby is adopted against the father's wishes.

OgreMagi, I am not familiar with these cases, but I think the father has to sign off on the adoption papers too.  I can't imagine a court that would turn down a request for custody from the genetic father if the genetic mother does not want to keep the child. The basic rules, as I understand them are that the rights of the child are first, and the rights of the genetic parents are next (unless they have some record that would preclude anyone wanting them to have custody - drugs/violence/crazy).  You can probably pull up three cases to prove your point, but the majority of cases are decided the way I just described.

I'm in favor of men's rights, and you need women to be on your side if you want them to get passed.  So don't tell crazy stories or cite rare incidences,  I think a majority of women would vote today in favor of a loving and involved father being just as entitled to custody as a mother.  Those are men's rights I would fight for.

Here you go.

http://www.firstmotherforum.com/2011/07/utah-rules-against-natural-f at her-again.html

The father had filed for custody eight days after the child was born, yet the Utah court ruled he didn't assert his parental rights in time.  The mother had fled the hospital and the state to prevent the father from even seeing the child.


It's worth noting that your reference is a bit out of date... The case is still ongoing, and the courts appear to be leaning towards [gasp] the father.

24.media.tumblr.com
You right now?
 
2013-01-05 12:14:06 AM  

Theaetetus: Contrary to popular Fark belief, the law firm of Google & Wikipedia is not as credible or necessarily correct as one would think.


IANAL, so law blogs are my best, most readily available resource. While it is possible that there are cases where there have been repercussions for misuse of child support payments, it is the exception and not the rule. If we can exclude outliers from general policy consideration, they can be excluded here also.

Theaetetus: It's worth noting that your reference is a bit out of date... The case is still ongoing, and the courts appear to be leaning towards [gasp] the father.


I could find no updates after yours regarding that case. The fact that there is nothing to be found is most likely not a good thing. Also, even if the courts eventually rule in his favor, he will have spent how much money to get his parental rights? This actually supports the premise that the deck is stacked against paternal rights, having to spend (most likely) millions to get your rights, which also means these rights are out of reach for 99% of people.
 
2013-01-05 01:05:42 AM  

mjbok: Theaetetus: Contrary to popular Fark belief, the law firm of Google & Wikipedia is not as credible or necessarily correct as one would think.

IANAL, so law blogs are my best, most readily available resource. While it is possible that there are cases where there have been repercussions for misuse of child support payments, it is the exception and not the rule.


[Citation needed]
There are a lot of "I know a guy who knows a guy" anecdotes, but not much actual data to establish that they're the exception.
Additionally, the reason they would be the exception is not due to any problem with the courts, but the problem I noted above with Silverstaff's story - the court does not do its own investigation, but responds to motions from the parties, and if the non-custodial parent isn't bringing a motion for an accounting, but instead is trying to reduce their child support payments based on a vague unsupported allegation of misuse, then the court is not going to find for them: their very motion is inconsistent with their allegation.

Theaetetus: It's worth noting that your reference is a bit out of date... The case is still ongoing, and the courts appear to be leaning towards [gasp] the father.

I could find no updates after yours regarding that case. The fact that there is nothing to be found is most likely not a good thing.


Did you look in the Virginia state dockets? When the state supreme court gave him the go-ahead to file suit that means he probably went and filed suit. It's only been 8 months, and it'll probably be another 6 months before we start to hear any news on it.

Also, even if the courts eventually rule in his favor, he will have spent how much money to get his parental rights?

How much is he going to get back in damages is the real question.

This actually supports the premise that the deck is stacked against paternal rights, having to spend (most likely) millions to get your rights, which also means these rights are out of reach for 99% of people.

Not necessarily. This is actually the type of case that lawyers would love to take on contingency, since as a civil rights suit with a juicy set of facts, the payout is potentially huge. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that Wyatt hasn't spent much money, if any.

Additionally,  even if everything you said is true - let's say he spent a lot of money and let's say that courts don't pursue violations of fiduciary duty of a custodial parent (which is absolutely false) - this doesn't actually support your conclusion thatthe deck is stacked against  paternal rights. At best, you could claim that the deck is stacked against  non-custodial parents. You haven't shown anything having to do with  gender.
 
2013-01-05 01:29:39 AM  

Theaetetus: You haven't shown anything having to do with gender.


Could the case in question have happened with the roles reversed (man giving kid up for adoption while mother doesn't want them to)? No. Gender roles and rights are at the base of this case.

Theaetetus: There are a lot of "I know a guy who knows a guy" anecdotes, but not much actual data to establish that they're the exception.
Additionally, the reason they would be the exception is not due to any problem with the courts, but the problem I noted above with Silverstaff's story - the court does not do its own investigation, but responds to motions from the parties, and if the non-custodial parent isn't bringing a motion for an accounting, but instead is trying to reduce their child support payments based on a vague unsupported allegation of misuse, then the court is not going to find for them: their very motion is inconsistent with their allegation.


Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and all that, but that's what I've personally witnessed. How long does the ideal of getting support increased take to be heard by a judge? How long does the idea of getting support decreased take? More importantly: "When a court modifies an award of child support, it may make the award retroactive to the date that a modification was requested, but it cannot go beyond that date. It is within the discretion of the tribunal as to whether to make the award fully or partially retroactive to the date of filing. In some states, a person seeking modification must present evidence demonstrating why the order should be retroactive to the date of the date of filing. In other states, retroactivity is presumed, unless the court is decreasing the amount of support." Why is decreasing the amount not retroactive?

Life isn't fair, I get that. Men have some advantages, women have some advantages. In the child support and alimony areas the country is stuck in a 50's mindset.
 
2013-01-05 01:36:23 AM  
ElizaDoolittle
I wasn't aware how complicated the situation could be (can a woman who commits statutory rape sue the boy/father for child support?)

Yes. There's no exemption in the child support laws of any state that I'm aware of for statutory rape.

Does the baby of such a rape deserve to be supported by both parents? I'd have to say no in this case.

It isn't that the baby doesn't deserve support, to my view. That's broken thinking: every child deserves as much support as we can reasonably provide to them... mothers, fathers, and society as a whole. It just illustrates the folly of considering rights as a matter of "who is more special and therefor should trump others", rather than the way rights are supposed to work, which is more of a "yours end where mine begin" affair.

You're correct in saying one size does not fit all. Ogre Magi's link above, about a father who was not allowed to take custody of a daughter he wanted to raise makes me want to throw up at the injustice involved.

You might call that an edge case, but the reality is that this brand of imbalance happens a lot. Taken as a whole, it is pretty easy to see a pattern, and the pattern is this: when child support laws were designed, they were not designed with the rights of men in mind. Nor were they particularly designed with the rights of children in mind: as much as we talk about "best interests of the child", what we're really talking about here is more a matter of "best interests of mothers, even those who are not terribly fit for the job".

The "my girlfriend forgot to take a pill one day" defense doesn't carry the same strength, does it?

Well, if you ask me, it carries some weight. Not as much as cases of fraud, rape, etc., but still we have the issue of one person's decisions being the responsibility of another person. Men don't have wombs, which is why the law gives us no input into what women do with them: that'd be injust. That being the case, why are we being held legally responsible for womens'

There are a lot of reasons for this. One, outmoded thinking from a previous era when women were viewed (more or less rightly) as passive "victims" of pregnancy, rather than empowered individuals making their own choices. Two, the desire of social conservatives to promote nuclear family creation by creating an incentive/disincentive system for men. Three, the desire of fiscal conservatives to keep their taxes low by placing the financial burden on individuals rather than society. Four, the desire of single moms and other women-first types to encourage the continuance of a system that places them at a distinct advantage: under our system its possible to have your cake (a nuclear family with children, or just raising children on your own) and eat it, too (by having a non-member of your nuclear family fund the family). Fifth, well-meaning but naive people who really do buy the argument that everyone else's rights should be secondary to that of children... an iffy proposition from an objective standpoint.

It seems to me, and since I have been wrong about one thing, maybe I am wrong about this, that most of the carry-on involves fathers who do not want to pay child support because they don't want the child. Pure and simple.

I don't think that's true, at least not fully. In my case (which is a long, Springer-ian tale of woe), I did not want to have a child with the woman who I impregnated. But she committed fraud against me by lying about being on the pill. I did not and would not want to raise a child with that person under any circumstances. If I had the option to raise the child on my own, or to share equal custody, I would certainly be interested in that, but the law is so structured as to preclude its possibility - fathers are not considered equal to mothers by family courts.

In my case, the child isn't losing out on anything. She has a mother and her husband, a nuclear family. And she (or at least, her mom) also has a paycheck from a guy who lives thousands of miles away. The only one who loses out from such an arrangement is me. But I might as well be an indentured servant.

And tough luck on getting my vote in your favor on that issue, guys. The rights of the child rank above yours.

I'm not sure why you consider it so. Why should the rights of any person "trump" the rights of any other person? Allowing moms to buy and sell actual slaves would also be in the short-term best interests of their children... just imagine how much easier and more prosperous their lives would be if they had slaves to do their work for them! So, why not allow that, as well? After all, the rights of the child (and the mother) rank above those of lowly men, don't they?
 
2013-01-05 01:54:22 AM  
mjbok
Just for shiats and giggles I looked up the child support schedule for the state I live in. I love how the rates are based on gross income, not net or taxable income. For my state it appears to be about 13 -14% for my income bracket.

And I have to say, that seems fairly low. I know men who are making average or below average wages and paying $900/month per child. Personally, over the past decade I've payed anywhere from approximately 20%-40% of my net after-tax income, depending on how well my job paid at the time... typically closer to 40% than to 20%. Thusfar, it's been fairly detrimental to my livelihood... the opportunity cost is just incalculable. I probably will never be able to afford a family of my own, particularly given that for men, adequate finances to ensure the family's security are an important part of meeting a quality mate just purely on a biological level. I've never had the means to acquire higher education. I've missed out on a lot of formative experiences. Financial independence has basically been out of reach, meaning I've been a burden to my loved ones. And barring some really good fortune in the future (or really bad fortune), I'll probably become a burden on the state in my old age. It's just such a lamentable waste. I could have contributed a lot more to the world if I'd been enabled rather than disabled by it.
 
2013-01-05 02:19:44 AM  
Theaetetus
If you can prove it was rape, then the rapist is in jail and the child is in your custody (or the custody of a ward), and then you're not sending a check to your rapist. In fact, your rapist may be sending you a check.

Statutory rape don't often carry 20+ year sentences, and particularly not when women are the offenders. The mother might spend a couple of years in jail with the child in foster care, but she's going to get out and probably going to get primary custody (minors can't have primary custody, and expecting them to raise the children of their rapist is sort of messed up anyway).

I think you're confused - we're talking about being the financial thrall of the child and it's testament to how lopsided our system is with respect to our obligations to children.

I'm not confused, you're perpetrating a fiction. Children are the ostensible beneficiaries, but this depends entirely on the fealty of the mother. She's the obligee in the law, it is to her the money is given and it is her decision which rules how the money is used. If she decides she wants a maid instead of a college fund for the kid, guess what? That's what happens. So lets move past that fiction and address the reality of the circumstances, shall we?

As noted above, the rapist should be in jail. The other person can raise the child, or can give the child up for adoption

You're under the impression that the parent with primary custody can choose adoption without consent from the other parent? Because that isn't the case in any US state of which I'm aware. And this is really a US-centric problem. European child support laws actually tend to be fairly reasonable and much more fair. Take a look at how Germany handles it - without a great deal of strain on families, without Dickensian orphanages, and without placing ridiculous financial burdens on fathers. Why can't we have a system more like theirs?

There's considerable evidence that the result of making women more financially culpable for pregnancies has the effect of drastically lowering the rate of "unplanned" pregnancy. Women are not as naive or incapable as they are thought here in the US... when there is no financial incentive to have lots of babies without forming lasting relationships, it simply doesn't occur as often.

Nope, but it is in their best interest to be well cared for, and propagate the notion that society believes that children should be taken care of.

Well then, again, why not pass a law that requires every child born to be given millions of dollars, the best education, safest transportation, etc.? Why not require all children to wear observation cameras 24/7 monitored by the state, parents to drive only four-star-crash-rating vehicles, etc.? Because we have to balance safety and care of children with the rights of others.

That you write a trustee a check doesn't mean that the beneficiary doesn't receive the benefit of the cash.

Ah, but neither does it mean that they do receive that benefit. So, uhh... what's your point?

that money is provided for the explicit purpose of taking care of the child, and there are penalties if it's used otherwise.

That's just wrong. There are no such penalties anywhere that I'm aware of, provided that the most basic and meager needs of the child for food, shelter, and supervision are met. If a mother chooses to use the money to buy an airplane for herself rather than setting aside any for a college fund, or for that matter chooses to feed the child bread and water and vitamins while she eats steak, there is absolutely no penalty in any state's laws of which I'm aware, and certainly not any in my state.

I disagree with the sort of Randian blanket statement that the best interests of the child are upholding oblique ideals about justice rather than, say, getting them food, clothing, and shelter.

Ah, so then, we should restart slavery, so long as the products of slavery are to ensure that children receive food, clothing, and shelter? After all, objections to slavery are just oblique ideals about justice, right?

Sure, but your false dichotomy is still false - not every kid can be raised like Richie Rich

Not every father can afford to pay the amount of child support that they're required to pay, either. Our laws are not understanding in those circumstances, so why should we accept the notion that "not every kid can be raised like Richie Rich"? Who cares what's possible, we only care about what is in the best interests of the child, remember?!

... I honestly have no idea what you're on about here or how it's at all relevant to this discussion.

What I'm going on about is clearly labeled: collectivization. If it is in the best interests of society that children be cared for, isn't there a commensurate responsibility for civilization to facilitate that? Not just by placing the demands on someone else, but by actively contributing to the financial well-being of children? If we want to subsidize women who become pregnant whether through fraud or even rape, why not subsidize it collectively rather than shifting the burden onto men who are often victims ill equipped for the task?

What's this about "less innocent" or "more innocent"? I'm not sure where you got that one either.

Is a 14 year old male rape victim less innocent than the product of the rape? Why should they be burdened?

You're proposing a situation where a parent can unilaterally say "hey, child, I'm taking your rights away. You don't like it? Tough. Suck it up. Here's a pamphlet about how this is better for you than that I suffer the injustice of having to buy you dinner or new clothes."

That's a pure strawman. I don't propose that at all, though I do propose alternatives to forcing financial responsibility onto all men in all circumstances merely by virtue of their being biological fathers.

You have the absolute right to an abortion, but it's somewhat moot due to your lack of a womb.

This is the same reasoning that I've heard out of fundamentalists with respect to the gay marriage debate: "well they have just as much right to marry as anyone else, so long as its a member of the opposite sex!". It's facile reasoning. You are smarter than this.
 
2013-01-05 09:47:53 AM  
mjbok: Theaetetus: You haven't shown anything having to do with gender.

Could the case in question have happened with the roles reversed (man giving kid up for adoption while mother doesn't want them to)? No. Gender roles and rights are at the base of this case.

I disagree. I think this case is more about "don't let Mormons touch your baby" than "zomg courts hate men".

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal and all that, but that's what I've personally witnessed. How long does the ideal of getting support increased take to be heard by a judge? How long does the idea of getting support decreased take?

In both cases did the people have equally good lawyers? Or was one pro se?

More importantly: "When a court modifies an award of child support, it may make the award retroactive to the date that a modification was requested, but it cannot go beyond that date. It is within the discretion of the tribunal as to whether to make the award fully or partially retroactive to the date of filing. In some states, a person seeking modification must present evidence demonstrating why the order should be retroactive to the date of the date of filing. In other states, retroactivity is presumed, unless the court is decreasing the amount of support." Why is decreasing the amount not retroactive?

Because decreasing the amount retroactively would require the kid to pay back cash which they may not have. Note: your question isn't accurate - it should be "why is decreasing the amount not  presumed to be retroactive when decreasing the amount of support?" If you can establish that, for example, 50% of your support checks have been going into a savings account, then support may be decreased retroactively and you can get some of that money back.

Life isn't fair, I get that. Men have some advantages, women have some advantages. In the child support and alimony areas the country is stuck in a 50's mindset.

It's true, but I'd actually reverse those last two sentences: the country is stuck in a 50's mindset in many places, which means that it's tough for women to exercise reproductive freedom, obtain higher education, enter high paying careers, etc. You may or may not be shocked to find that the family courts are a lot more equitable, gender-wise, in progressive states like Massachusetts or New Hampshire than they are in, say, Mississippi or Texas. Fight for women's equality and that will then naturally lead to more equality in the legal arena.
 
2013-01-05 10:16:13 AM  
mrexcess:Statutory rape don't often carry 20+ year sentences, and particularly not when women are the offenders. The mother might spend a couple of years in jail with the child in foster care, but she's going to get out and probably going to get primary custody (minors can't have primary custody, and expecting them to raise the children of their rapist is sort of messed up anyway).

Unlikely. First, having been in jail, the mother is going to have an uphill fight to prove fitness. Second, the minor's adults relatives can be the foster parents, and once of age, the minor can easily obtain primary custody. And third, we're not "expecting" the minor to raise the child of their rapist - the whole argument is premised on the minor  wanting the kid. If the minor doesn't want the kid, then we're certainly not going to force custody on them. In which case, why shouldn't the mother get custody?
It seems like you want it both ways - you want to complain that the mother gets custody, but also complain that otherwise the father would have custody. Would you prefer the kid was thrown in the river in a weighted sack?

I'm not confused, you're perpetrating a fiction. Children are the ostensible beneficiaries, but this depends entirely on the fealty of the mother.

Not at all. Children are the legal beneficiaries. Practically, as in any other trustee-beneficiary relationship, it depends on the trustee performing their fiduciary duty, so yeah, if they suck, the beneficiary will suffer... but here's the thing - the beneficiary (and their guardian ad litem, the courts, and in these cases, the other parent) have a right to accounting, a right to force the trustee to perform their duties, and a right to punish and/or remove the trustee for violations.
You can't very well complain that mothers misspend child support if you're simultaneously saying "but gosh, there's nothing we can do about it so we shouldn't even try."

She's the obligee in the law, it is to her the money is given and it is her decision which rules how the money is used. If she decides she wants a maid instead of a college fund for the kid, guess what? That's what happens.
So lets move past that fiction and address the reality of the circumstances, shall we?


No, I'd rather not "move past" the legal reality and accept a falsehood. Sorry, call it a personality quirk.
Simply put, you're wrong. If the mother decides she wants a maid instead of a college fund, the father can biatch and moan about it at his local bar or on Fark, and the result will be exactly what you said. Or the father can bring it up to the court, and the result will be exactly what I said. When you say that the former is "what happens," I say that that's the fault of the father's laziness - or ignorance, due to FUD from people like you - and that it's not the fault of the law.

You're under the impression that the parent with primary custody can choose adoption without consent from the other parent? Because that isn't the case in any US state of which I'm aware.

Really? Go drop a baby off at a safe haven. See if they run after you to demand papers, proof of consent by the other parent, etc.

And this is really a US-centric problem. European child support laws actually tend to be fairly reasonable and much more fair. Take a look at how Germany handles it - without a great deal of strain on families, without Dickensian orphanages, and without placing ridiculous financial burdens on fathers. Why can't we have a system more like theirs?

Because "hurr durr socializm wharrgarbl!" I don't disagree with your underlying point here.

There's considerable evidence that the result of making women more financially culpable for pregnancies has the effect of drastically lowering the rate of "unplanned" pregnancy. Women are not as naive or incapable as they are thought here in the US... when there is no financial incentive to have lots of babies without forming lasting relationships, it simply doesn't occur as often.

(i) There is no financial incentive to have lots of babies here. No one ever got rich off child support. There are plenty of impoverished single mothers, contrary to your assertion. Hell, I'm working with one with 4 kids who makes $11k. There's a reason why the biggest recipients of welfare are single mothers with children - and if you think that counts as a "financial incentive" then that's like saying "it's a financial incentive to be unemployed, because then you save on taxes."
(ii) You're confusing correlation and causation. There's considerable evidence that there are lower rates of unplanned pregnancy where women have a greater rate of educational and career achievement. And when women are considered equal income earners with careers, then suddenly deciding primary custody and support gets a lot more fair - there's no presumption that the unemployed and uneducated mother will be stuck at home, so they might as well care for the kid.
(iii) Contrary to your assertion, there's considerable evidence that the result of making women more financially culpable for pregnancies has  no effect on lowering the rate of unplanned pregnancy, and may actually increase it. As noted above - poor single mothers. They're fully culpable financially, since they're single and getting support from no one, and they're certainly having unplanned pregnancies.

Well then, again, why not pass a law that requires every child born to be given millions of dollars, the best education, safest transportation, etc.? Why not require all children to wear observation cameras 24/7 monitored by the state, parents to drive only four-star-crash-rating vehicles, etc.? Because we have to balance safety and care of children with the rights of others.

We pragmatically accept that the "best" situation for a child is being cared for and supported by their parents. While it would be great to make every child a millionaire, we can't afford that. We can, however, ensure that parents don't walk away from their obligations.

That's just wrong. There are no such penalties anywhere that I'm aware of, provided that the most basic and meager needs of the child for food, shelter, and supervision are met.

Crucial limitation.

If a mother chooses to use the money to buy an airplane for herself rather than setting aside any for a college fund, or for that matter chooses to feed the child bread and water and vitamins while she eats steak, there is absolutely no penalty in any state's laws of which I'm aware, and certainly not any in my state.

What state are you in? The initial and most obvious penalty is loss of primary custody.

Ah, so then, we should restart slavery, so long as the products of slavery are to ensure that children receive food, clothing, and shelter? After all, objections to slavery are just oblique ideals about justice, right?


Yes, exactly - there is absolutely no difference between making someone a slave, and giving a child shelter. Not an iota of difference. Are you farkin' serious?

Not every father can afford to pay the amount of child support that they're required to pay, either.

Of course they can. They may not be able to afford the amount that they've been  ordered to pay, but that order can be modified upon showing of sufficient cause.
In fact, the median child support payment in the US is $280/month (as of a few years ago, but also pre-recession). And if your income is below the poverty line, in most if not all states, you're exempt from paying support.

What I'm going on about is clearly labeled: collectivization. If it is in the best interests of society that children be cared for, isn't there a commensurate responsibility for civilization to facilitate that? Not just by placing the demands on someone else, but by actively contributing to the financial well-being of children? If we want to subsidize women who become pregnant whether through fraud or even rape, why not subsidize it collectively rather than shifting the burden onto men who are often victims ill equipped for the task?

See Germany above. I'm not objecting to your suggestion here.

Is a 14 year old male rape victim less innocent than the product of the rape? Why should they be burdened?

Ah, got it - you think child support is a penalty or punishment for being "not innocent enough". That's not true. The "innocence" of the father is irrelevant - the paternity is all that matters.

That's a pure strawman. I don't propose that at all, though I do propose alternatives to forcing financial responsibility onto all men in all circumstances merely by virtue of their being biological fathers.

You've so far proposed two alternatives: socialism in which all kids are collectively cared for; or that parents be able to unilaterally waive their child's rights and abandon them. Accepting for the sake of argument that the former is not likely to occur in America any time soon, the latter is simply not a realistic solution.

This is the same reasoning that I've heard out of fundamentalists with respect to the gay marriage debate: "well they have just as much right to marry as anyone else, so long as its a member of the opposite sex!". It's facile reasoning. You are smarter than this.

Unlike marriage, a legal contract between two parties and the state, pregnancy and labor have  physiologicalaffects. Complaining that you don't have an ability to avoid pregnancy and labor that will never occur in you is like complaining that you can't get a hysterectomy and those mean old doctors are discriminating because you're male.
 
2013-01-05 11:36:05 AM  
Theaetetus: I'm amazed at how ingenuine your arguments are. Are you trolling?

You're defending women who rape 14 year olds' rights to extract child support from said 14 year olds.

You're putting forth the absolutely untrue and silly notion that obligees can be forced by obligors to account for the way they spend child support payments. They cannot. I speak as an obligor who has talked to the guy who literally wrote the book on my state's child support laws. Under our laws, I don't have a right to inspect her finances or receive any accounting as to how the money is spent. So long as the child's basic needs are met, the courts simply do not care. Guardians ad litem are not a part of the process at all. You're talking out of your butt.

You're talking about giving a baby to a "safe haven" when you have shared custody... you know what that's called? Kidnapping. You're advising people to expose themselves to criminal charges.

You're denying that there is a financial incentive for women to have babies by multiple unwed partners, when the financial incentive to do so is readily apparent: a woman who has children with her husband only enjoys the financial support of her husband.only, while a woman who has children with other men, then marries, enjoys the financial support of as many fathers as her children have along with her husband. It isn't just some small incentive to do this, it's a gravy train. My own "baby mama" is a perfect example - she works as a low-paid administrative assistant and her husband receives a disability check, yet they enjoy and have enjoyed a much higher standard of living than I do, despite my having a reasonably productive professional career. New cars, a huge house, vacations to swanky locales are theirs, while mine is either depending on relatives to have a roof over my head or living in tiny cramped apartments with my ilk: recent divorcees and the like who failed to obtain primary custody. This is common.

You're acknowledging that women who have greater rates of achievement experience fewer unplanned pregnancies, despite not having lower rates of relationships, but ignoring what this implies about womens' control over their rate of unplanned pregnancies. You're entirely ignoring the statistical differences between the unplanned pregnancy rate in locations that do not provide financial incentive to unplanned pregnancy in the form of huge child support payments, versus those that do.

You're foisting the absurd notion that single mothers are somehow not entitled to child support. What are we talking about here, single mothers in the case of immaculate conceptions? Single mothers are entitled under our laws to child support from fathers and there is no difference in the amounts based on the nature of the relationships that produced the children - a "one night stand" puts you just as on the hook as does a marriage and divorce after children are born.

Because "hurr durr socializm wharrgarbl!" I don't disagree with your underlying point here.

Then why continue insisting that there is a dichotomy between starving children and oppressing men? There is no such dichotomy, other options are available and indeed are put into practice in much of the world. The US stands practically alone in the world in the ridiculous oppressiveness of its child support system.

While it would be great to make every child a millionaire, we can't afford that.

Lets look at the numbers:

US Federal Tax Revenue, 2010: $15 Trillion
US Population size, 2010: 308 million persons
Percentage population 14 years or younger, 2010: 20%
Derivation of 0-14 year olds given above numbers, 2010: 61 million persons
Tax revenue dollars available per child, 2010: $245,000

Remember, the rights of children trump the rights of others. And we don't care about esoteric notions like justice, only tangible immediate benefits. So while we might not have enough money to make every child a millionaire, we do have the money to elevate the status of every child well above current numbers. And that's without even raising taxes, which by your reasoning we clearly should do since, again, the rights of children to the best possible living situations trump the rights of others.

What state are you in? The initial and most obvious penalty is loss of primary custody.

No, it isn't. Please show me the provisions in any state that allows the non-custodial parent to examine the finances of the custodial parent to determine how child support money is being spent. You can't because these laws don't exist. They've been proposed, and they've been resoundingly defeated every time that I'm aware of. So long as the basic needs of a child are being met, i.e. food, shelter, clothing, medicine, courts generally do not get involved.

In fact, the median child support payment in the US is $280/month (as of a few years ago, but also pre-recession).

I'd like to see how this is being calculated. Do you have a citation? Are we including child support payments of zero in the figure? Granted that it's anecdotal, but I have never met a man who has claimed to pay less than $400/month per child, and given my circumstances consider those men lucky indeed. I was ordered to pay more than $500/month on a $16/hour salary.

They may not be able to afford the amount that they've been ordered to pay, but that order can be modified upon showing of sufficient cause.

It's actually an interesting example of how oppressive things have been here. Since the recession has cost so many men their jobs, family courts and enforcement agencies have lightened up considerably in their enforcement: whereas a few years ago, failure to pay the full amount would have immediately resulted in license suspension and imprisonment, these days paying less than the full amount much more frequently results merely in accruing debts without the much more punitive enforcement measures. The system is very good at ascertaining how much oppression people will bear, and presumably having millions of men land in what is essentially "debtors prison" because of the economic collapse was deemed an unwise course of action, despite that being consistent with the way the law was previously enforced. It is indeed eye-opening to witness law enforcement being "tuned", not to enhance the enforcement of existing law, but to prevent the oppression effects from becoming so widespread as to result in making the oppression so widespread as to make rebellion likely.

Yes, exactly - there is absolutely no difference between making someone a slave, and giving a child shelter. Not an iota of difference. Are you farkin' serious?

That wasn't the comparison, you're being dishonest here. If a child needs shelter and the mother can't provide it but the father can, the obvious solution is to give the child to the father, not take the father's shelter to give to the mother.

See Germany above. I'm not objecting to your suggestion here.

In Germany, child support is only required to be paid by the non-custodial parent for the first few years of life, and the amounts are much lower than even the dubious $280/month figure you supplied. Would you agree that such a system is preferable to our own, then?

Ah, got it - you think child support is a penalty or punishment for being "not innocent enough". That's not true. The "innocence" of the father is irrelevant - the paternity is all that matters.

That's the rub! Paternity can result from maternal acts of fraud, deception, criminality, etcetera. And whether you want to call it "guilt" or whathaveyou, the notion of child support is punitive in nature and can certainly be used punatively. These fees are directly comparable to fines, exorbitant ones at that. And so we have a situation whereby victims of fraud or even rape are punished for nothing more than their having been victims. I guess all pubescent boys should be given reversible vasectomies in order to prevent this?

To use a real world example to illustrate the punitive nature of child support: my own "baby mama" - by her own admission, enforced child support on me out of revenge. I refused to become part of her family, thus she used the tools available to her to punish me after becoming embittered years after insisting that she'd never ask me for anything and wanted to have the baby on her own. I was 18 when the incident occurred and explained to her quite rationally at the time that I was neither capable of raising children, nor had any interest in raising any with her given the deception and associated trauma she'd brought into my life. This was quite effective revenge, as in many ways it has absolutely ruined my life... a life that before her deliberate deed had shown quite a bit of promise.

Accepting for the sake of argument that the former is not likely to occur in America any time soon

Nothing is likely to occur in America until the problem becomes so pernicious that it simply cannot be ignored, at which point our inane and self-serving government officials will pander to voting blocs and churn out the most byzantine, ineffectual, silly solution to the problem that they can get away with in order to cater to their special interests. That is the way it works here, now.

And the effect will be that America continues its steady decline from a position of leadership and prominence, to one where entitled groups and special interests receive preferential treatment and the disorganized masses pay the price.

If you want to see child support done right, look at Germany or virtually anywhere else in Europe.

And while you're at it, notice how much this resembles the health care debacle here. Our system is rusting, growing ever less capable of producing any justice or progress at all.

Unlike marriage, a legal contract between two parties and the state, pregnancy and labor have physiologicalaffects.

So does eating too much junk food. But if I choose to consume junk food and experience ill effects because of it, should I hold the manufacturers of the junk food responsible for my becoming fat?
 
2013-01-05 11:44:54 AM  
I think one of the silliest notions we're laboring under is the idea that pregnancy is some 50% woman and 50% man affair. That isn't the case at all, biologically or legally. If we wanted to reduce it all to percentages, it would be much closer to 95% women and 5% men. If a woman becomes pregnant and does not wish to remain so, she can simply choose to stop the pregnancy. And this is as it should be, because the pregnancy occurs in the female body and no one else has a right to tell women what to do with their own bodies. We acknowledge this in our law when it benefits women.

Women should take responsibility for their own bodies, as well as claiming the right to. If I had a womb, I would not expect someone else to be responsible for what I did with it. I don't expect a chef to be responsible for what I do with my stomach, even if it is their food that goes into it.
 
2013-01-05 12:50:58 PM  

mrexcess: Theaetetus: I'm amazed at how ingenuine your arguments are. Are you trolling?


Thanks! But I think you misspelled "ingenious".

You're defending women who rape 14 year olds' rights to extract child support from said 14 year olds.

Not at all. Normally, I'd say "[citation needed]" and accuse you of putting words into my mouth, but I'm getting tired of this thread, so I'll skip right to your error: I'm defending  children's rights to child supportfrom their parents, regardless of any acts of wrongdoing of the parents towards each other. I've been entirely consistent and explicit in it, and your repeated attempts to misconstrue my argument only reflect poorly on you.

You're putting forth the absolutely untrue and silly notion that obligees can be forced by obligors to account for the way they spend child support payments. They cannot.

Aw, did someone try to represent themselves pro se and lose?

I speak as an obligor who has talked to the guy who literally wrote the book on my state's child support laws.

Maybe you should've talked to a lawyer instead of an author.

Under our laws, I don't have a right to inspect her finances or receive any accounting as to how the money is spent. So long as the child's basic needs are met, the courts simply do not care. Guardians ad litem are not a part of the process at all. You're talking out of your butt.

Not at all. I'm talking about reality. You're talking about one anecdote from a loser who attempted and failed to forge his own way through the system based on some poorly written tripe from an "if you can't do it, write about it" hack.

I'm referring to you.

You're talking about giving a baby to a "safe haven" when you have shared custody... you know what that's called?Kidnapping. You're advising people to expose themselves tocriminal charges.

Nope, I clearly said "sole custody". That you're illiterate and read the word "sole" as "shared" is not  my problem.

You're denying that there is a financial incentive for women to have babies by multiple unwed partners, when the financial incentive to do so is readily apparent: a woman who has children with her husband only enjoys the financial support of her husband. only, while a woman who has children with other men, then marries, enjoys the financial support of as many fathers as her children havealong with her husband.

Maybe you're confusing child support and alimony. It seems you're pretty far out of your depth in this conversation.

It isn't just some small incentive to do this, it's a gravy train. My own "baby mama" is a perfect example - she works as a low-paid administrative assistant and her husband receives a disability check, yet they enjoy and have enjoyed a much higher standard of living than I do, despite my having a reasonably productive professional career. New cars, a huge house, vacations to swanky locales are theirs, while mine is either depending on relatives to have a roof over my head or living in tiny cramped apartments with my ilk: recent divorcees and the like who failed to obtain primary custody. This iscommon.

Yes, it's almost like there's a reason that people go to family law attorneys rather than filing poorly worded motions in crayon based on something they read in a book.

You're acknowledging that women who have greater rates of achievement experience fewer unplanned pregnancies, despite not having lower rates of relationships, but ignoring what this implies about womens' control over their rate of unplanned pregnancies.

You've got it backwards - it implies something about control over their ability to  plan, gained through experience and education. It's not that reading a textbook makes you sterile, though in your case, that's an apparently untested proposition.

You're entirely ignoring the statistical differences between the unplanned pregnancy rate in locations that do not provide financial incentive to unplanned pregnancy in the form of huge child support payments, versus those that do.

That's because there's no such thing as "providing financial incentive to unplanned pregnancy in the form of huge child support payments" so, by definition, there can't be any statistical differences between places that don't exist.

You're foisting the absurd notion that single mothers are somehow not entitled to child support.

Not unless they're minors with parents who aren't together. Because, y'know, then they'd be a child.

What are we talking about here, single mothers in the case of immaculate conceptions? Single mothers are entitled under our laws to child support from fathers and there is no difference in the amounts based on the nature of the relationships that produced the children - a "one night stand" puts you just as on the hook as does a marriage and divorce after children are born.

Oh, I see what you're talking about. Yes - I was referring to single mothers with  deadbeat fathers.You know, like you aspire to be. Cases were children are entitled to support, but because of some douchebag, they're not getting it.

Then why continue insisting that there is a dichotomy between starving children and oppressing men? There is no such dichotomy, other options are available and indeed are put into practice in much of the world. The US stands practically alone in the world in the ridiculous oppressiveness of its child support system.

Excellent, and when we start talking about "gosh, let's create a new system and tear down Wall St." I'll be right there to talk about it with you. However, here, we're talking about the system that currently exists.

Lets look at the numbers:
US Federal Tax Revenue, 2010: $15 Trillion
US Population size, 2010: 308 million persons
Percentage population 14 years or younger, 2010: 20%
Derivation of 0-14 year olds given above numbers, 2010: 61 million persons
Tax revenue dollars available per child, 2010: $245,000


We don't need no steenkin' roads.

Remember, the rights of children trump the rights of others. And we don't care about esoteric notions like justice, only tangible immediate benefits. So while we might not have enough money to make every child a millionaire, we do have the money to elevate the status of every child well above current numbers. And that's without even raising taxes, which by your reasoning we clearly should do since, again, the rights of children to the best possible living situations trump the rights of others.

It's amazing how you can take a statement that has extended conditions, wipe them out, and come up with something completely different. Like "X+Y=3 where X=1 and Y=2" and you turn it into "X+Y is always three, regardless! So if X is one billion and Y is pi, then you're saying they're three and you're stupid and hurrdurrwharrrrgarbl!"
Wait, I meant it was retarded. Sorry, the letters are so close to each other.

"What state are you in? The initial and most obvious penalty is loss of primary custody."

No, it isn't. Please show me the provisions in any state that allows the non-custodial parent to examine the finances of the custodial parent to determine how child support money is being spent. You can't because these laws don't exist. They've been proposed, and they've been resoundingly defeated every time that I'm aware of. So long as the basic needs of a child are being met, i.e. food, shelter, clothing, medicine, courts generally do not get involved.


I'm amused by the fact that, in spite of you claiming to speak knowledgeably about the laws of your state, you're unable to actually say what state you're in. It's almost as if you're trying to prevent anyone from actually looking up those laws and proving you wrong.
Wait, did I say almost? Damn typos.

"In fact, the median child support payment in the US is $280/month (as of a few years ago, but also pre-recession)."

I'd like to see how this is being calculated. Do you have a citation?


Ric Romero would like to teach you about the internet. Ric, take it away!
www.pciyes.com
"See that underlined thing in the post you're replying to? It's called a  link! If you click on it, your browser will open a new page, and that page may just have a citation and information about how it's being calculated! You should try it, it could be fun!"

Thanks, Ric.

Are we including child support payments of zero in the figure? Granted that it's anecdotal, but I have never met a man who has claimed to pay less than $400/month per child, and given my circumstances consider those men lucky indeed. I was ordered to pay more than $500/month on a $16/hour salary.

Well, clearly your anecdote about someone who tried to pave their own way through the court system based on a pamphlet on [your state's] laws he got from a homeless guy in a mall trumps data from the Census Bureau. I mean, heck, they may ask everyone in the country and tally up numbers, but you have your own checkbook as proof!

"They may not be able to afford the amount that they've been ordered to pay, but that order can be modified upon showing of sufficient cause."

It's actually an interesting example of how oppressive things have been here. Since the recession has cost so many men their jobs, family courts and enforcement agencies have lightened up considerably in their enforcement: whereas a few years ago, failure to pay the full amount would have immediately resulted in license suspension and imprisonment, these days paying less than the full amount much more frequently results merely in accruing debts without the much more punitive enforcement measures.


It's like the words I write go through your eyeballs and right out the back of your skull without your brain ever touching them.
Me: "You can go to court and get your order modified."
You: "If I just stop paying, I accrue debt! That proves you wrong!"


Did you miss the whole "go to court" bit?

Yes, the system is very good at applying the law evenly and fairly and not letting people decide for themselves "I'm just going to stop paying, because I've decided I can't afford child support anymore. Wait, you mean I can't do that? I have to actually ask the judge?! I can't just make my own court order out of feces and newspaper?!! That's UNFAIR!"

Seriously, it's like you're saying "I'm going to pay less than what's due for my mortgage, because of the recession," and then are upset because the bank starts foreclosure proceedings.

That wasn't the comparison, you're being dishonest here. If a child needs shelter and the mother can't provide it but the father can, the obvious solution is to give the child to the father, not take the father's shelter to give to the mother.

The obvious solution is to do what's in the best interests of the child. We don't need to apply a "either you live with the father or mother" dichotomy, because we have the ability to transfer this thing called money. Maybe you've heard of it?

In Germany, child support is only required to be paid by the non-custodial parent for the first few years of life, and the amounts are much lower than even the dubious $280/month figure you supplied. Would you agree that such a system is preferable to our own, then?

Do I believe that a society with free university educations for all and significant social services to protect children is preferable to our own? Absolutely. And as a result of that, non-custodial parents don't have to pay as much child support? Bonus! But, you see, they have to be considered in that order - start providing free education, medical care, etc. and  then we can eliminate your child support. Not the other way around.

That's the rub! Paternity can result from maternal acts of fraud, deception, criminality, etcetera. And whether you want to call it "guilt" or whathaveyou, the notion of child support is punitive in nature and can certainly be used punatively.

Not at all. In fact, the very concept makes no sense. Just because you  feel punished when you have to fulfill your obligations to your child doesn't mean the state is punishing you. It's a very Calvinist view you have: just because something bad happens to you doesn't mean it's punishment, y'know.

These fees are directly comparable to fines, exorbitant ones at that.

Not at all, for two reasons - first, they aren't fees, they're child support payments. Second, fines go to the state, while support goes to your kid. So, I correct myself - they're directly comparable, in that you can determine that they're nothing alike.

And so we have a situation whereby victims of fraud or even rape are punished for nothing more than their having been victims. I guess all pubescent boys should be given reversible vasectomies in order to prevent this?

Except for the fact that there's no punishment involved, your statement is correct - "victims of fraud or even rape... exist."

To use a real world example to illustrate the punitive nature of child support: my own "baby mama" - by her own admission, enforced child support on me out of revenge.

Your "baby mama" is the judge? Well, damn, son, you should have had her recuse herself! That's a travesty of justice!
Or no, you meant that she requested child support out of revenge. Yes, and? She could have requested child support because she thought aliens were transmitting MTV directly to your brain. It's irrelevant - child support is the right of the child, and so the only questions are "Are you a non-custodial parent of the child? If so, are you providing support? If not, are you able to pay? Okay, how much?"

I refused to become part of her family, thus she used the tools available to her to punish me after becoming embittered years after insisting that she'd never ask me for anything and wanted to have the baby on her own. I was 18 when the incident occurred and explained to her quite rationally at the time that I was neither capable of raising children, nor had any interest in raising any with her given the deception and associated trauma she'd brought into my life. This was quite effective revenge, as in many ways it has absolutely ruined my life... a life that before her deliberate deed had shown quite a bit of promise.

Again, this is all irrelevant. I'm sorry you had a bad relationship, but that doesn't matter to the question of child support, which are just the questions above. There's nothing in there about "did you really really wuv the mother?" or "Did you say 'let's make babby'?"
Simply 'are you a non-custodial parent?' and 'how much can you support the child?'

Nothing is likely to occur in America until the problem becomes so pernicious that it simply cannot be ignored, at which point our inane and self-serving government officials will pander to voting blocs and churn out the most byzantine, ineffectual, silly solution to the problem that they can get away with in order to cater to their special interests. That is the way it works here, now.

And the effect will be that America continues its steady decline from a position of leadership and prominence, to one where entitled groups and special interests receive preferential treatment and the disorganized masses pay the price.


Yes, that's right... Because you have to pay child support, America will collapse into post-apocalyptic anarchy. I'll meet you in the Thunderdome.
 
2013-01-05 01:15:55 PM  

Theaetetus: which means that it's tough for women to exercise reproductive freedom, obtain higher education, enter high paying careers, etc.


I try to be open minded, but you really pull some odd stuff out of your ass. According to the 2010 US Census the population of the US is 49.2% male, 50.8% female. For higher education: "In 2005/2006, women earned 62% of Associate's degrees, 58% of Bachelor's degrees, 60.0% of Master's degrees, and 48.9% of Doctorates."

Regarding reproductive freedom, I don't know what you mean. If you're talking about Sandra Fluke and that stuff, not having it free (though insurance) is not the same as freedom.

High paying careers is where you have a (very) slight point. The very top echelon of positions is still dominated by men, but each of the tiers below that has shifted significantly in the past several decades. You have to account for that a male worker in his 40's often has multiple more years experience than a female counterpart due to time taken off during their 20's and 30's.
 
2013-01-05 04:33:20 PM  
mjbok: Theaetetus: which means that it's tough for women to exercise reproductive freedom, obtain higher education, enter high paying careers, etc.

I try to be open minded, but you really pull some odd stuff out of your ass...  Regarding reproductive freedom, I don't know what you mean. If you're talking about Sandra Fluke and that stuff, not having it free (though insurance) is not the same as freedom.

It's a bit difficult to be open minded when you're (a) clipping a sentence out of context to disagree with it; (b) admitting that you don't actually understand what the sentence you just took out of context means; and (c) nonetheless proclaiming that I'm wrong because of some unrelated numbers you found.

Go back and read the context of the rest of the sentence. If you still can't figure it out, ask me and I'll help.
 
2013-01-05 05:16:04 PM  

Theaetetus: Go back and read the context of the rest of the sentence. If you still can't figure it out, ask me and I'll help.


You're saying regionally it is hard for women to get these things (education, reproductive freedom, high paying jobs)?

You state that it is hard for women to get access to higher education. I produced numbers that show that women attend and get degrees on a higher percentage than their percentage of the population. How are those two not tied together?
 
2013-01-05 07:53:39 PM  

mjbok: Theaetetus: Go back and read the context of the rest of the sentence. If you still can't figure it out, ask me and I'll help.

You're saying regionally it is hard for women to get these things (education, reproductive freedom, high paying jobs)?


Yep. Check out some of the census numbers for degree obtained, by gender, by state. Unsurprisingly, Utah is at the bottom, followed closely by southern states that have been recently attempting to close Planned Parenthood and the like.

You state that it is hard for women to get access to higher education. I produced numbers that show that women attend and get degrees on a higher percentage than their percentage of the population. How are those two not tied together?

Because you're looking at a countrywide average, and I quite explicitly was talking about the backwards parts of the country where they're still stuck in a 1950s mindset. Nationally, we're doing okay, because of places like Massachusetts and New Hampshire and other progressive states that bring up the average, but it's disingenuous to  only look at the national numbers and claim that therefore I'm "pulling stuff out of my ass" when  Iwas clearly talking about certain states.
 
2013-01-05 09:12:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Nationally, we're doing okay, because of places like Massachusetts and New Hampshire and other progressive states that bring up the average, but it's disingenuous to only look at the national numbers and claim that therefore I'm "pulling stuff out of my ass" when Iwas clearly talking about certain states.


Point taken, but doesn't that point to a different problem? If the averages are above the population percentage that means these "progressive" states are skewing heavily AGAINST men, correct?

Doesn't matter, because you're wrong either way:

"For each year from 1994 to 1999, the number of female first-time freshmen exceeded the number of men. The relative size of the differences in first-time enrollments ranged from 115 women per 100 men to 117 women per 100 men, with a mean ratio of 116 for this six year period (Table 3). IPEDS freshmen enrollment data by gender also are available for individual states. For the fall of 1999, the number of first-time freshmen women exceeded those of men in all but two states (Table 4). Only in North Dakota (95 women per 100 men) and Colorado (97 women per 100 men) were there more male than female freshmen college students. The ratios of the number of female freshmen per 100 men varied quite considerably across the 50 states and the District of Columbia, ranging from a low of 95 in North Dakota to a high of 153 in the District of Columbia (Table 4). The ten states with the highest relative number of female freshmen students were characterized by ratios of 125 women per 100 men to 153 women per 100 men. Seven of these 10 states were located in the South. Of the ten states with the lowest ratios of women to men, not one was located in the South, and eight of these ten states were located either in the Midwest farm belt or the Rocky Mountain region."

Top 10 States
Women Per 100 Men
District of Columbia
153
Delaware
148
Kentucky
133
Maryland
132
Louisiana
131
South Carolina
131
Mississippi
128
Alaska
127
Massachusetts
125
Virginia
125"

Two states had more men than women as starting freshman. Two. And those two were 95 and 97 women for every 100 men. You're wrong about this.
 
2013-01-06 02:06:21 AM  

mjbok: Two states had more men than women as starting freshman. Two. And those two were 95 and 97 women for every 100 men. You're wrong about this.


You're looking at freshmen, for some reason, which misses two important points: first, more women obtain bachelors degrees, because pink collar work tends to require one, and women are heavily discriminated against in blue collar jobs, so those pink collar jobs are often their only opportunity for a career - hence the skew particularly in the south, where women are practically unemployable if they don't have that degree; second, many  fewer women obtain masters, doctorates, or professional degrees - the ones which lead to  high paying fields. And that's according to the 2011 Census data.

In fact, the paper you quoted from but didn't bother actually linking to shows this, too. See chart 11 and the statement:
During the 1970s, women earned only 14 percent of all first professional degrees and one-fifth of all doctorate degrees awarded throughout the nation. In the 1990s, however, women were awarded four out of ten doctorate and first professional degrees, and the female share of these advanced degrees is projected to modestly increase over the 2000-2010 decade.
 
2013-01-06 10:14:06 AM  

Theaetetus: You're looking at freshmen, for some reason, which misses two important points: first, more women obtain bachelors degrees, because pink collar work tends to require one, and women are heavily discriminated against in blue collar jobs, so those pink collar jobs are often their only opportunity for a career - hence the skew particularly in the south, where women are practically unemployable if they don't have that degree; second, many fewer women obtain masters, doctorates, or professional degrees - the ones which lead to high paying fields. And that's according to the 2011 Census data.


Freshman rankings would show that women have access to higher education, which discredits your theory that a bunch of unenlightened states hold women back and don't let them into college and the only reason the national average is OK is that progressive states really care about women and let them into college. However, once again you are wrong as you are shifting the focus of your argument, now talking about graduate degrees.

Guess how many states given fewer master's degrees to women than to men? One, Utah. Guess how many states give fewer associates and bachelor's degrees? Zero. Granted I am taking a peer reviewed research paper as my information, but the data is so overwhelming against any of you points that have made that it would give you some credibility if you conceded this point. Link

Original statement: It is tough for women to obtain higher education.
Refutation: On average (also in 48 states plus DC individually) women are admitted to college at a higher percentage than their population percentage.

Revised statement: It is tough for women to receive degrees from college.
Refutation: On average (and in 49 states plus DC individually) women receive degrees at a higher percentage than their population percentage.
 
2013-01-06 10:26:46 AM  

mjbok: Theaetetus: You're looking at freshmen, for some reason, which misses two important points: first, more women obtain bachelors degrees, because pink collar work tends to require one, and women are heavily discriminated against in blue collar jobs, so those pink collar jobs are often their only opportunity for a career - hence the skew particularly in the south, where women are practically unemployable if they don't have that degree; second, many fewer women obtain masters, doctorates, or professional degrees - the ones which lead to high paying fields. And that's according to the 2011 Census data.

Freshman rankings would show that women have access to higher education, which discredits your theory that a bunch of unenlightened states hold women back and don't let them into college and the only reason the national average is OK is that progressive states really care about women and let them into college. However, once again you are wrong as you are shifting the focus of your argument, now talking about graduate degrees.


Actually, I was referring to graduate degrees originally. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Guess how many states given fewer master's degrees to women than to men? One, Utah. Guess how many states give fewer associates and bachelor's degrees? Zero. Granted I am taking a peer reviewed research paper as my information, but the data is so overwhelming against any of you points that have made that it would give you some credibility if you conceded this point. Link

As mentioned above, I was talking about graduate degrees. There are many reasons why more women would obtain associates degrees and bachelor's degrees than men,  particularly in states with a predominantly blue collar work force, as I said. I certainly concede that this is true - do you concede the cause? And, do you concede that, as I said and quoting from your same linked paper, the number of women obtaining doctorates and professional degrees are at vastly lower numbers?

Original statement: It is tough for women to obtain higher education.
Refutation: On average (also in 48 states plus DC individually) women are admitted to college at a higher percentage than their population percentage.

Revised statement: It is tough for women to receive degrees from college.
Refutation: On average (and in 49 states plus DC individually) women receive degrees at a higher percentage than their population percentage.


Neither of those were my statement, nor would I agree to either of them now. I said that in many parts of the country that are stuck in a 1950s mindset (note that here, your "refutation" about 49 states plus DC is now invalid), it is "tough for women to exercise reproductive freedom, obtain higher education, enter high paying careers, etc."  Leaving aside your improper geographic broadening, and conceding that I was not clear that I was referring to degrees that would lead to white collar jobs as opposed to pink collar bachelors and associates "middle education" degrees, the important point is the third - high paying careers - because that's what's relevant to this whole discussion about custody and support. If most women obtain a two or four year degree and enter the work force as underpaid secretaries, then when determining the necessity of rehabilitative alimony, which parent has time for primary custody, and which direction support should flow, the court is going to presume that women are economically disadvantaged relative to men.
 
2013-01-06 11:26:35 AM  
Theaetetus: Still awaiting your response.
 
2013-01-06 11:58:34 AM  

mrexcess: Theaetetus: Still awaiting your response.


I did respond to your last post. See 12:50:58PM in this thread.
 
2013-01-06 04:49:44 PM  

Theaetetus: many  fewer women obtain masters


This, according to the census data you linked, is completely incorrect.

Theaetetus: because of places like Massachusetts and New Hampshire


Those states do not perform exceptionally in rankings of states by female:male degree ratio. In fact, red states tend to perform better in this ranking. You will no doubt point to this assertion:

Theaetetus: degrees that would lead to white collar jobs as opposed to pink collar bachelors and associates "middle education" degrees


...which is relatively poorly defined, here. Do you have specific criteria for choosing "pink collar" jobs? The traditional WWI-derived definition concerned the service sector and not education.

Also, are you saying that these jobs are undesirable and that women are being disadvantaged by being chosen for them?  If so, what makes "pink-collar" jobs undesirable and "blue-collar" jobs desirable?
 
2013-01-06 06:24:04 PM  

Dokushin: Also, are you saying that these jobs are undesirable and that women are being disadvantaged by being chosen for them?  If so, what makes "pink-collar" jobs undesirable and "blue-collar" jobs desirable?


Income/expense ratio. If you have to spend $100k on a degree to get a job that makes $40k, it's less desirable than a job that makes $40k that doesn't require the degree. Would you like to look at median income among associates and bachelor degree holding women compared to median income among high school diploma holding men in those same communities?
 
2013-01-06 08:00:30 PM  

Theaetetus: Dokushin: Also, are you saying that these jobs are undesirable and that women are being disadvantaged by being chosen for them?  If so, what makes "pink-collar" jobs undesirable and "blue-collar" jobs desirable?

Income/expense ratio. If you have to spend $100k on a degree to get a job that makes $40k, it's less desirable than a job that makes $40k that doesn't require the degree. Would you like to look at median income among associates and bachelor degree holding women compared to median income among high school diploma holding men in those same communities?


That's a really interesting angle. I'd love to look at it -- I'm interested in this data. Do you have a reference or something I can pursue? It will take some digging, otherwise.
 
Displayed 251 of 251 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report