There is an interesting article in the November issue of Details magazine that addresses the problem of women deceiving men to get pregnant. Quotes:

It’s not about trapping the guy. That’s kind of old-fashioned. Yeah, you want him to be into it, but there are other ways to get a guy to commit. If you’re smart and in a good relationship, it’s just about the fact that you want a kid. I see and hear people talk about it, and I understand. I get it and I don’t even think it’s that manipulative. It’s more like, ‘Hey, the timing is right for me. I got pregnant–oops! Well, it’s here, let’s have it.’ I think that’s more the way it is now than it was back in the day when you had to marry someone before you got pregnant. Marriage doesn’t matter now. (emphasis added)

Jody
got pregnant without telling her boyfriend

---

Any guy with a heart and soul, and preferably with a job, once he sees the baby on the sonogram or hears the heartbeat, will melt.

Vicky Iovine
author of The Girlfriends’ Guide to Pregnancy

---

She was like, ‘You know what? You gotta be a man. You’re gonna have to have a job 40 hours a week, and you need to support this child — this is your responsibility and your obligation.’ And I’m thinking to myself, like, ‘How is all of this my responsibility and my obligation when none of this was my choice?’

Jeremy
new father after girlfriend went off birth control without telling him

A few years ago I remember making fun of a friend for being so paranoid about this very same thing. He was dating an older woman he didn’t trust and would take home used condoms wrapped in toilet paper after spending time at her place. My experience since then suggests that he was more smart than crazy.

Guys, it’s simple: do not allow your sperm inside a vagina unless you are ready to have a child with the woman attached to it. Birth control or not, there is no amount of pleasure worth giving up reproductive control over.

If I got a girl pregnant right now, and she insisted on keeping it, I’d skip out of the country without hesitation. Since I’m very careful with my seed, any girl who gets pregnant by me is 100% using nefarious means and deserves no support or money for her deception. Send me pictures every five years.

I’ll be a father when I’m ready, not because a reformed whore is bored with her life.

Related Posts You May Like: MOMENT OF CLARITY HELMET HEAD THIS WEEK’S BEST COMMENTS WHERE ARE THE REAL MEN? VENEZUELA: RUSSO DOES NOT RESPECT ME

My Pick-Up Guide: Bang is the book I wrote after swimming in game for six years after college. Inside I teach everything about meeting girls, dating them, and finally sealing the deal. Check out the homepage for reviews, excerpts, and a detailed outline.

I sympathise with men who have been trapped, but your article is insulting for two reasons:

1. It seems to assume that all women are deceptive creatures, or have the capability of becoming deceptive when it comes to having children.
2. That there is no possibility you could be at fault if your girlfriend got pregnant because you are “careful.”

Well, not all women are deceptive. Just as not all men are bastards, not all women would ever even consider trapping a man this way. And contraception fails. The pill is not 100%. Condoms are not 100%. Nothing is 100%. People are unlucky.

So my thoughts are if you don’t trust a girl then you shouldn’t be sleeping with them. Think with your brain and not your dick.

I agree with E:)…Use a condom and birth control when having sex unless you can accept the consequences and even then its not always going to work.

But the idea that any woman would trap a man for his baby is scary. If I got pregnant right now I WOULD skip out of the country and freak the fuck OUT.

That is just fucking insane. And what is considered older? These days if you want a baby and you are unattached you can adopt or inseminate yourself.

Yikes.

Hey, if deluding yourself into believing women are trying to “trap” men by getting pregnant will encourage you TO USE A CONDOM, well hurray! USE A CONDOM. USE A CONDOM EVERY TIME. PLEASE! For the sake of every nasty little virus and parasite out there. An unwanted pregnancy counts as a parasite in MY realm.

Trapping a man to save a relationship doesn’t work. I don’t think it has worked since 1960. It’s a surefire way to doom a woman to single parenthood and poverty, and only stupid women attempt it on purpose. Thing is, 99.99% of the women of this world already KNOW it’s stupid.

Around the world the news of a pregnancy is usually accompanied by an “OOPS!” I swear if it weren’t for the unexpected pregnancy the human race would die out. As my grandmother, who was pregnant and married at the age of sixteen, told all the girls in her family: “Every first pregnancy is a surprise.”

The reproductive game is totally in the woman’s favor. If she wants it, you have to pay. If she doesn’t want it, that’s her choice too.

If she fingers you and your name ends up on the birth certificate, many states will FORCE YOU TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT EVEN IF DNA PROVES YOU’RE NOT THE FATHER!! Check Men’s Activist sites for this info (like Eternal Bachelor or Glenn Sacks).

Since Roe V. Wade, children have become solely the domain of women, therefore, men should have nothing to do with kids (i.e. American men should not be impregnating women on US soil). If pregnancy is women’s “choice,” it’s their responsibility, and it can be their cost too at a sperm bank. (And in the UK, sperm bank donors are now being denied anonymity because kids have come of age and demanded answers. So the sperm has stopped flowing. Expect that to come to these shores too.)

So we will continue to devolve into a Third World Bastard Society, with fatherless gang kids running wild and — ironically — terrorizing the very women who sought freedom with reproductive rights to begin with. Women will then reproduce with more so-called Alpha Bastard Males, creating an entire society of non-families and criminals. Statistics about broken families and non-families bear this out.

A society run by matriarchs has never been world-dominant. In fact, all such societies — while glamorized in universities — are impoverished and overrrun by superstition and witchcraft. As such, the terrorists will ultimately devour us.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=a4VAKgj2MTKo&refer=europe

This is exactly why men need to start seriously lobbying for the right to “abort” unwanted pregnancies. Why can’t a man, upon hearing about his girlfiend’s pregnancy, pay her some amount (like the cost of an abortion) and give-up all parental rights and obligations? Given that the number one cause of death for pregnant women in America is homicide, usually at the hands of the baby’s daddy, women would be much safer if these guys could simply “abort” their responsibility to the child.

Yes, of course it is completely wrong for a woman to intentionally get pregnant without her partner’s consent or knowledge. It’s completely narcissitic thinking, focusing on her desire for a baby or whatever attention/commitment a baby might get her rather than thinking about the horrrible emotional environment and lifelong difficulties she is creating for a child who may not be wanted by his/her father. And hedonistic is right; it’s likely to backfire and result in a stressful life full of financial troubles for the mother.

That said, I have to agree with E:),

“…contraception fails. The pill is not 100%. Condoms are not 100%. Nothing is 100%. People are unlucky.”

When a couple sleeps together, they’re taking a calculated risk. If contraception is used properly, there’s a 90-something-percent chance that nothing will happen, but there is still always a small chance that a child will be conceived, which pretty major and long-term as consequences go. Whether the man accepts an equal share of the responsibility or runs away like an irresponsible coward is a true test of his integrity.

Both sexes also assume risk when we choose our partners. For the guy, there’s always the chance that the woman will either be deceptive about her use of birth control, or underinformed about how to use it or what other medications or conditions may affect its efficacy. For the woman, there’s always the risk that the guy will turn out to be a selfish little boy and run away if an unintended pregnacy happens.

None of us is entitled to sex without the risk of pregnancy. The best we can do is sex with a dramatically decreased likelihood of pregnancy. To pretend otherwise is both selfish and foolish. If life were completely fair, we’d all get to choose if, when, and how we became parents; but it’s not and we don’t. It’s not an impressive character trait for members of either sex to belly-ache about not wanting to face the consequences of their actions.

I disagree, and so does the law. Apply legal reasoning and any thinking person will come to the same conclusion:

We are individual human beings.

Individual human beings have the right to control their own sexuality and fertility.

See, Men have control over their own sexuality and fertility: They can say yes or no to sex with specific females. They choose whether or not to use birth control. They face the consequences of these actions - but ARE ONLY ABLE TO CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES.

The day a man gets pregnant is the day he gets to decide what to do about it. The law will support you in this decision 100%. See, life is fair after all.

“They face the consequences of these actions - but ARE ONLY ABLE TO CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES.”

Exactly what I said above. Don’t get anyone pregnant on American soil.

Now here is my question: If me are supposed to “control their own bodies,” why do they not get a choice in being circumcised? This is not strictly an anti-circ argument, but a question to show the two-facedness of American society. Choice is fine for women, apparently, but let a man want to make a decision about his own body, and the counter-argument will be about “what is best for women” not men.

In all, America is a backwards, overly Christian fatally-chivalristic society that will die because the Muslims are the new Alpha males and are producing more kids.

“…that?s more the way it is now than it was back in the day when you had to marry someone before you got pregnant…”

:laugh:This guy right here:hump:

Now here is my question: If me are supposed to ?control their own bodies,? why do they not get a choice in being circumcised?

This is an interesting question to me. I’ve seriously considered choosing not to have a son circumcised (I don’t have kids yet). However, every time I’ve raised that possibility with a man I’ve considered having kids with, the man has argued strongly in favor of circumcision. It turns out it’s a concern that the little boy will be made fun of in the locker room and alienated by other, circumcised men. The possibility of him being rejected by women has also come up.

I’d be interested in hearing what more men have to say about this.

I think some of the ladies here are ignoring the fact that women have more opportunities to make decisions about pregnancies than men do. Men can decide to have sex and use birth control, but after that EVERYTHING is decided by women.

Consider this:

Woman wants pregnancy and man doesn’t = man has to pay child support for 18 years for a kid he never wanted.

Woman doesn’t want pregnancy and man does = Abortion and man has no input on the decision.

In both cases women make the ultimate decisions that impact the men (who have ZERO input).

I’m not suggesting that women should have to keep pregnancies they don’t want because of some man. But there is no reason a man should be financially obligated to a child that he did not consent to. If anything the ability to sever ties with an unwanted child would probably prevent women like those in the column DCB cited from even trying to get pregnant on the sly. The idea of raising a child alone is a lot less attractive if you can’t force someone to help you pay for it.

Lady Bizness, the “mens rights activists” have tried to reason this already, and they’ve all been laughed out of court.

I’ve read the briefs and the judges’ reasonings are flawless: Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the child’s arrival, the child EXISTS. The child is an individual human being with rights granted by law. The Law has already determined that an individual human being has the LEGAL RIGHT to be supported by BOTH parents until maturity.

The legal reasoning is gender-neutral. For instance, if a woman abandons her child to be raised by the child’s father, the woman will be legally obliged to pay child support. This is not about WOMAN’S right but about the rights of the child to be adequately fed, clothed and supported.

Case closed.

Q, my sister refused to allow her son to be circumcized for this very reason. And the father’s family is Jewish, can you IMAGINE the stink it caused?

In any case I agree: A man should have the right to decide whether or not a knife is taken to his weenie. For heaven’s sake this is not rocket science, why in God’s NAME are people still paying doctors do this when there is no medical or hygienic reason for it?

Oh wait, I just answered my own question: In GODS NAME. Silly me.

(Like God cares about what men’s weenies look like. Sweet Jeebus on a cracker.)

There’s a serious flaw in the reasoning behind the argument of “women can choose to abort, why can’t men choose that too, wah wah wah.”

Which is: each parent who contributed to the existence of the child has a legal obligation to that child.

Rather than looking at abortion as a means of birth control over which both parents should have equal right, look at it for what it is: surgery performed on a woman’s body.

So the argument can be reframed as: “a man should have authority, equal to a woman, over surgery performed on that woman, solely by virtue of having sex with that woman.”

Which is the long way of arguing for slavery-by-fucking. Would any of you men consent to a legal relationship in which a woman is granted equal legal standing with regard to surgery performed on your body just because she had sex with you? I sure as fuck wouldn’t. No sane person should.

If a child exists, both parents have equal legal obligation to it. If no child exists, the question is moot. The child comes into existence when it is born. The law does not, and should not, have much to say about the child before it is even born.

Think about the flipside of this argument: what if a woman does not want to have the child, but the man does. Does the man have the same legal rights over the woman’s body, by virtue of having fucked it, as the woman herself does? This, again, is slavery-by-fucking, the explicit version of the “you poke it, you own it” bullshit. No woman is obligated, morally or legally, to anyone, to act as an incubator for a fetus she does not want in her body.

Again guys, just imagine the flipside: should a woman have legal rights to prevent you from obtaining a surgery you want, just because she fucked you once? Nope.

I’m a guy. I don’t ever want anyone to have legal rights over my body for any reason. I don’t want anyone to have legal rights over the body of anyone else. That is the implication of “equal rights and obligations over pregnancy,” rather than the sensical “equal rights and obligations over a child.” One has to do with a person’s sovereignty over their own body, the other has to do with the obligations and rights of parenthood.

But seriously, how often does this happen? The “don’t fuck in America or else the womens will steel your seed!” folks act as if this happens every time a man has sex with a woman. Statistics, please. I imagine this is incredibly inconsequential, but is overinflated in your imagination because you’re obsessed with the potential loss of power that comes with women having the right to decide for themselves what they do with their bodies, even if you did poke.

Wankers.

That is a horrible article for many reasons.

What scares me most is all the mindless twits will begin to read things like this, and start to feel it is okay to “trap” a guy, because “it’s not really trapping him.” These are the stupid whores who take sex in the city too seriously. Also younger girls growing up do not need to be exposed to these type of thoughts.

I know a dude who got trapped by his girlfriend. She went off the pill, and was off it for a few months (getting off long term pill usage takes a few months before a woman become fertile again). It probably would have been nice of her to tell him she got off the pill.

Wait, there is not medical or hygienic reason for it?…….its been proven otherwise actually multiple studies and research….. an ignorant comment….. i think now you are in unfamilliar territory and need to back up a little bit…….so annoying when people try to sound smart and in reality dont know shit…..

This all started when we let ‘em out of the kitchen. I know, I know, hindsight is 20/20 but still, we should have seen it coming. Thank God for Details magazine (which isn’t covertly gay AT ALL)!

Exactly. Thanks for pointing that out Eugenius.

People, you’ve heard of UTI? Well certain children are predisposed to repeated infections, and the old weenie chop can clear that up.

I am not an urologist, but I can guarantee you that there are medical reasons for performing this procedure.

Folks, most men and boys in the world are UN-circumcized and they do just fine.

If one boy is in the minority and actually has urological (sp?) problems, well ok, then do the weenie chop. Otherwise, circumcision is nothing more than a tribal marking, a sign of the Jew’s (and later the Christian’s) covenant with God.

What is missing in everyone of those quotes: “Husband”

I can assure you, in every case, that kid will be f’ed up for life.

“getting off long term pill usage takes a few months before a woman become fertile again”
Corny Cob, this is NOT true. Everyone’s body chemistry is different. A friend of mine got pregnant after missing only 3 pills. If more men educated themselves on how to prevent pregnancy, maybe fewer of them would be shocked and feel “trapped” when the woman they’ve slept with winds up pregnant.

Spanky got it right with his comment. I’m very impressed that this comment came from a guy. Are there more of him where he came from?

Personally, I don’t know any educated women that would want to ‘trap’ a man into getting them pregnant. My advice to any guys that are really worried about this: stop dating 2 bit hookers that don’t have a job or a degree. As someone already mentioned, if you don’t trust the person you’re sleeping with, you probably shouldn’t be sleeping with that person.

DCB, I think it’s apparent that you need to write something up about weenie chopping…

Yeah, I heard about the guys trying to have choice for their child. It’s about time. Right now women have all the choice and men have all the responsibility. If women want “choice”, then an unmarried man should have the right to end financial obligations to a child he doesn’t want to deal with. Then the woman can choose whether she wants to have the child by herself or not. This is not because I myself would want to shirk my responsibility, I don’t think I would ever do that. What it would do is make people much more careful about who they sleep with, resulting in many fewer illegitimate pregnancies. In my opinion.

Lady bizness - you’re very bright. Single?

Jack, “women have all the choice and men have all the responsibility?”

Try raising a child all by yourself without a dime of child support. Come one, I dare you. It’s a blast!

Asshole.

Check out the current issue of Cosmo on newsstands, the one with Christina Aguilera on the cover. I was flipping through it at the grocery store yesterday and there is an article that advocates getting knocked up (or lying about getting knocked up) to trap a man.

The man-pill seriously cannot get here soon enough.

My point is not about men having power over women’s pregnancies. It’s that pregnant women have all the choices and men have none. If I was sleeping with some sleazy dude and he refused to have anything to do with a child that resulted from our “union” then I would be able to a) have an abortion, b) give the child up for adoption, or c) raise it alone. Heck, many women turn their kids over to their own parents to raise. So, Hedonistic, no woman has an obligation to raise a child by herself. That’s a personal choice. I wouldn’t take any woman’s choice away. I just think we should afford men at least some of the same choices.

But it is, it absolutely is, about men having power over the bodies of women. You want men to have the same, equal rights as women?

Fine: if you don’t want to ever have any responsibility at all ever for a child ever EVAR!!, don’t fuck.

This applies, nicely and neatly, to all men and all women, equally.

But this, unfortunately, is not enough for some people. These people, such as yourself and the whiny crybitches of the “Mens’ Rights Movement,” do not care that they share with women the equal right to not fuck if they don’t want to. They want equal legal standing in determining whether a pregnancy is completed to term or aborted.

This is the logical extension of this argument. Men should be able, if they don’t want to bear responsibility for a child, pay women the cost of an abortion and then be absolved of any responsibility to the mother or the child. Right?

So a man’s choices are “pay a small fee or bear responsibility for a child,” while the woman’s choices are “have surgery or carry to term a fetus and then bear responsibility for a child.” Hm, not so equal anymore!

But what’s the root of this? The root of this idea, of men paying for an abortion and having no further legal responsibilities, is the idea of commidification. The woman’s pregnancy and the legal responsibilities towards a child become nothing more than a simple monetary transaction. Just buy a “get out of fatherhood” card, right?

What of the reverse, what if a woman does not want the child but the man does? Can the man then just pay for the costs of the pregnancy, plus a little thrown in for the pain and suffering and the risks of childbirth? Should the man have the legal right to rent out a woman’s body to incubate his fetus, should he have the legal right to enforce pregnancy?

Think through the legal implications of this: right now, the focus of the law is the child, and the parents’ legal responsibilities to that child. No child, no obligation. Child, obligation. What you are proposing changes the law from being about a child to being about a pregnant woman’s body - it doesn’t matter if there is a child or not, what matters to you is that sex was had and a woman’s body was impregnated. Hence, slavery-by-fucking.

if in the heat of passion there plausibly could be a conception the man can quickly ascertain the woman’s level of deceptiveness by asking her kindly to take Plan B in the morning.

if she declines, you know you’ve got either a scheming cunt or a sentimental sap on your hands, so prepare yourself. if, some time later, she calls to inform you of her pregnancy your options, in the following order, are:

1. ask her to get an abortion because you are not ready or willing to support a kid. if she demurs

2. tell her in no uncertain terms that as a single mother she will live a miserable life, her child will suffer various and sundry social ills, and her attractiveness to quality men as a long term partner will shrivel up to near nothing. reminding her of these things serves to wonderfully focus even the dimmest mind. if she still insists on bringing the brat to term

3. transfer your assets and leave the country, as dcb so wisely suggested. U.S. law, designed as it is for the pre-feminism, pre-abortion epoch, is rigged against men. don’t bother trying to change it; there are too many mewling beta males willing to bend and grab their ankles in advocacy of laws conspicuously against their interests.

at the very least if you are to support her in raising the kid get a dna test before signing any papers.

ps: if a woman wishes to have a kid without a man in the house she should bear the full costs of doing so in order to discourage such irresponsible behavior. there should be no welfare. none. not a fucking penny. if she wants ‘child support’ she should marry him and stay married. if she goes aghast at this suggestion she should abort or put the spawn up for adoption into a two parent family.

pps: abortion clinics are a good place to pick up loose women.

hedmaster, i can hear your blood boiling. good…. good…. let your hate consume you. this is what your feminism has wrought. the dark side beckons all.

Shorter Roissy:

“If a woman refuses to immediately chemically alter her body on my demand, then pregnancy is a well-deserved punishment for fucking…me.”

Nothing says “I’m a little boy who’s scared of girls” like running away to another country.

My point was not that men should have “power” over women’s bodies, it was that giving men the same choices as women will encourage people to behave more responsibly, without that guaranteed child support check coming. Women choose who gets sex and when.

Let’s back up a minute here:
“There is an interesting article in the November issue of Details magazine that addresses the problem of women deceiving men to get pregnant.”

Is this a widespread problem? How many men do you all know who this has actually happened to? Because aside from inflammatory articles in third-rate men’s magazines (check circulation figures if you are doubtful), I can’t say I’ve heard much about this.

I’m a single woman with many single female friends living in the country’s largest city, so I think I’ve got a pretty good cross-section into the mind of the modern single girl. And not one woman I know would ever deceive a man she was dating to get pregnant. I don’t know what kind of woman would do that, but I’d imagine that she would, for starters, be completely divorced from reality. If you’re dating someone you think culpable of that, my advice to you is to end the relationship and try to find someone who doesn’t strike you as batshit insane.

The best way to avoid this is, as you and others, including Jack above, have noted: be careful about who you sleep with. Don’t sleep with someone you don’t trust, and don’t chance a pregnancy if you aren’t prepared to deal with the possible consequences, end of story. You may feel the legal blocks are stacked against you, and perhaps they are, but that doesn’t change the reality that the law is what it is right now, and that it takes two to impregnate a woman, and even if you’re careful, condoms break and birth control fails sometimes.

And finally, on the Vicki Iovine quote, go to your library or local bookstore and check it out. I think you’ll find her “statement” was pulled way, way out of context.

[...] Too much time on a cell phone will make your sperm weak swimmers. Maybe somebody should DC Bachelor about this, then he can worry less about knocking up his sluts. But I wonder how a guy that gets so much tail, and apparently has a job, can devote so much time to writing about how to get that much tail. Not a flame, I’m just saying. [...]

spanked, 18 years of involuntary financial slavery will do that to a man.

In determining child support obligations, the law considers the best interest of the CHILD, not the Father. The law doesn’t give two shits if you aren’t “ready to be a father” and society as a whole is better off this way. Otherwise we as taxpayers are stuck footing the bill for your child. Trust me the law will find a way to make absent parents pay– they will garnish wages, attach liens to any property owned, etc. etc. If anybody don’t want to be obligated to pay child support, man or woman, then don’t have sex. No form of contraception is 100% accurate; there will always be some risk that pregnancy will occur.

The women quoted in this article are all certifiably insane. Bringing up a child takes more than a few dollars from a man. He needs to be emotionally committed, not just financially obligated.

The way I see it, up until conception, women and men have exactly the same choices and opportunities to control when they become parents. After conception, women get a second opportunity to decide whether they want to become parents because they are the ones who assume the physical risks and burdens of pregnancy, labor and delivery. If men had to assume these physical risks and burdens, they’d get the additional opportunity to choose. But they don’t, so they don’t. Seems fair to me.

Here is an idea, if you’re too stupid to pick a girl who isn’t certifiably insane (and secretly trying to get pregnant) get a vasectomy.
Snip, snip. And no more worries about little swimmers getting loose. That’s the only way to get 100% protection.

js, go further. Women don’t get “a second opportunity to decide” because they bear the physical burdens of pregnancy and delivery, and we as a society decided that as fair compensation they should get a second chance to decide. They have that chance to decide because we, as a society, respect the agency of the individual and the individual’s sovereignty over self and body. Women get to decide, just as men do, what they do or do not do to their own, and only their own, bodies.

The MRA bullshit - men should have equal say over what women do over their bodies as women do - is based on the fundamental assumption that abortion is basically a wave of the hand. It is, in their imagination, a card that is turned in, a voucher redeemed, a button clicked, something like that. Women can get an abortion whenever they want! Men can’t! Blah blah blah.

What this fundamentally ignores is that abortion is an invasive medical procedure performed on a woman’s body. You people need to start thinking in terms of agency and sovereignty. I can consent to or refuse any medical procedure that might be performed on my body. This consent or refusal creates no, NO obligation, moral or legal, to anyone else anywhere ever.

So men and women have the equal right to fuck. And men and women have the equal right to consent to or refuse invasive medical procedures on their own bodies.

“18 years of involuntary financial slavery”?

Sorry you fucked and later came to regret it. Maybe you should accuse her of rape, isn’t that what girls do ALL THE TIME, THOSE CRAZY BITCHES?!?!?! Sorry you took part in the creation of another human life and now resent that human life, and resent your obligations to your son or daughter. Must make your kid feel great to know her father is a worthless, immature bag of shit who couldn’t get over his baggage about women to actually think of him or her as a human being, rather than as a financial obligation.

Listened to
Tom Leykis yesterday
Same subject
There is intentional deceit and the type of subjective rationalization that goes on here (i.e trying to change a guy)
Both are wrong but the later is what is more often what is going on

For those who think there is no medical reason for circumcision it appears that there is. In recent years there have been circumcision initiatives in Africa because it turns out that a circumcised male is less likely to get the HIV virus. In southern Africa circumcision is a major part of the anti-AIDS campaign.

Regarding all the whining men on this site who are so concerned about being “trapped” into a pregnancy, I have no sympathy whatsoever. The point is, when there’s a child involved then the child’s welfare is paramount, not his self-indulgent father’s. No one’s raping you guys, so quit your bitching.

As for all the women who complain about the putzes they slept with and got pregnant by, what exactly did you expect? If you have a guy who’s all about himself and his own pleasure and shows no interest in really settling down and starting a family, why are you complaining when he plays true to type? Immature jerks don’t change overnight just because the girlfriend got pregnant.

Everyone but the kid’s being a selfish prick under such circumstances. Unfortunately, 20 years of my particular line of work has brought me into contact with countless crybabies who want to blame the woman for “tricking” them into pregnancy or blame the man for “using” and then abandoning her and the baby. Meanwhile, their innocent children have to put up with mothers who cannot care for them, who resent them for “ruining” their lives, or who dump them on grandparents or others. They have to deal with neglectful fathers who disappear like the craven creeps they are and feel they should not be held responsible for the lives they’ve put on this planet. Neither side is a winner. Both sides are appalling examples of self-absorbed, infantile assholes.

You play, you pay. It’s the law and you know it, so if you don’t want the responsibility then get yourself sterilized or whatever, but don’t go crying when a pregnancy happens.

Carla opines (as does Spanky, but this addresses both of them)

“Regarding all the whining men on this site who are so concerned about being ?trapped? into a pregnancy, I have no sympathy whatsoever. The point is, when there?s a child involved then the child?s welfare is paramount, not his self-indulgent father?s.”

Sorry, doesn’t wash. If we cared about the “child” then we wouldn’t allow abortions except to save the life of the mother. You don’t get to choose whether or not it’s a child simply by deciding whether or not to bare it.

I’m a guy who supports Roe-v-wade, but I recognize a bullshit argument when I hear it. My personal opinion is that abortion is wrong, short of for saving the life of the mother - but I’m enough of a libertarian to recognize I have no business imposing my idea of God’s will on anyone else. Be that as it may, the current law is schizophreniac: it’s a child when the mother wants it and when the state can get a bite of the child support dime, a fetus otherwise.

As for Spanky’s arguments, they are really silly and do not hold up when examined closely. Most of men’s “responsibilities” are due to the application of five hundred years of English common law, something that we’ve freed women from. I have no shame in suggesting that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. If a woman decides she wants a fetus, er “baby” over the objections of this child’s putative father irregardless of whether he can or wants to care for it, and irregardless of whether she can or wants to care for it - well, that shows the kind of unfit mother-to-be she is. Ditto if she pokes holes in a condom or uses any other underhanded method of impregnating herself. If we still insist on sticking the man with “obligations” in these circumstances perhaps we should give him automatic custody of the child or put the decision whether to adopt it up to him - she’s certainly shown herself to be a dishonest or stupid person and such people should never be entrusted with the honor of being an active primary parent.

“Marriage doesn?t matter now.”

“An unwanted pregnancy counts as a parasite in MY realm.”

OMG JAMES DOBSON IS RIGHT ABOUT LIBERALS!!!!11!

Reason #9: many women are selfish whores.

http://msn.match.com/msn/article.aspx?articleid=6906&TrackingID=516165&BannerID=541888&menuid=6>1=8647

This thread confirms the fact that Western Civilization is on it’s deathbed. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. I’m not kidding….a good time was had by all. That’s what matters right? PARTY like it’s 1999. The next evolutionary step please. Bring it on! We may have to take a step back first however. It’s only a few thousand years so what the hell? How does it feel to be so “progressive”?

tick…tick…tick…

The hor’devours were sublime. Thank you Food Network!

Damn pleasure seeking higher monkeys.

Y’all are totally taking the upper-class look at all this. Down at the low end, women trap men a helluva lot more by getting knocked up. When I was military I couldn’t believe how many women had had kids just to lock up a military man, with his garuanteed paycheck, free house even when he’s away, health care bennies, and, on at least one ocasion, tax-free cigarettes. It’s beyond sleazy. You’d see women with five kids from four husbands because they weren’t picky up front about who they opened their legs to, and switched quick when they realized their mistake.

Then again, you also see a lot more men running away from women they knocked up. And they do it with skill; fake names, never taking the girl home, etc etc. This is who the laws are supposed to protect against.

It all goes back to what might as well be the first law of DCB; if you, as a woman, believe your greatest power over people is between your legs, that’s all you’ll ever amount to.

Where the hell did this circumsision discussion come from? Snip that shit. Having a flap is gross and collects lint, dick cheese and disease. And circumsised men last longer in the sack. Of course, for me, it’s my covenant. You heathens can spend your lives praying; I’ll chop off a piece of my pecker. We’ll see who God thinks is more sincere.

Suggest concerned men check out cryostorage/ vasectomy options. May give you virtually total control over your parenting, peace of mind, and freedom from moral, legal, support, and entrapment concerns, while retaining the ability to reproduce when you are ready to do so (assuming you, and your intended are both fertile).

Wikipedia on “sperm bank” says “There is no shelf life on sperm and there have been cases with birth of healthy babies with sperm stored for more than 20 years.”; on “vasectomy” says “the long term viability of spermatozoa in cryostorage is questionable”.

Cob, did you miss THIS article?

http://msn.match.com/msn/article.aspx?articleid=6907&TrackingID=516165&BannerID=541888&menuid=6>1=8647

Re: the cell phone/sperm count thing - I am waiting for DCB to jump on this one. However, the point is moot because any douche wearing his cell phone on his belt is not getting laid anyway.

Jewcano, yes, you’re right, I think this happens a lot more often in the lower end of the education/income spectrum. So, to prevent the problem: 1) get snipped (vasectomy, not circumcision, if the victimized whiners above are to be believed) 2) don’t sleep with poor, uneducated women hanging out at abortion clinic reading the latest issue of Cosmo. Glad we fixed this one for you guys.

All I can really say is that I feel great compassion for the men who really believe that the women are all out to get them and trap them into financial servitude. Life must be truly awful if you believe 50% of the population is out to get you.

I agree with DCB’s statements about not having sex without condoms, not letting your sperm near her.. etc. However, I believe the heart of the conflict between men and women perceived here is when men don’t see women as people, but instead as pussies and cunts, rolls in the hay, objects. Having objectified women, they have no problem believing that the women are objectifying them, seeing them as objects as well (wallets). It ain’t necessarily so.

It is amazing how many women out there are believed to be scheming to find a life of bonbons and TV through pregnancy… as if the typical child support award of less than $500 / month would leave a woman reclining in the lap of luxury should the “trapped” father actually be legally obligated to provide CHILD support.

Men have been “opting out” of parenthood for as long as humans have been around. They move. They get a new girlfriend. They make her life a living hell until she leaves him. There’s an entire generation growing up now without fathers in their lives; this can not solely be due to selfish women, or else there’s be an entire generation of young people growing up without mothers because their fathers would’ve wanted custody.

The whole argument is pretty old (anyone remember Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants”?) “Why don’t you just get it taken care of” he says.. “It’s just a simple procedure.” Except its not and it never was.

I think the paranoia rampant in everyone’s arguments is interesting.

Women are trapping men by getting pregnant…(some) men are fighting back to have legal rights over female reproduction (whether the child comes to term or not), or what their financial responsibilities should entail…women are fighting back about whether they deserve rights over a man’s body as a counterattack…

But men and women should be working together! A couple of nutcases here and there who claim to “trap” men with pregnancies are NOT indicative of the general female population.

Sex is a risk, people! When did we stop thinking that sex was inherently risky? What with AIDS (which is far more likely to transfer from a man to a woman than the other way around), herpes, a variety of other nasty STDs, and pregnancy, anyone who thinks sex isn’t a risk is kidding themselves.

I applaud men who protect themselves. Even if you’re just doing it to protect yourself from future financial responsibilities, DO IT, please! Because at the end of the day, if mistakes happen, then at least you know you did your best. And the woman in your life–who hopefully means something to you, or am I being optimistic?–should thank you, because if you look at the basic anatomy of sex, whoever’s being penetrated is automatically more vulnerable to suffering the consequences of unprotected sex.

goodness me there are reasons you are a bachelor, and likely to remain one. Yuk.

“You don?t get to choose whether or not it?s a child simply by deciding whether or not to bare [uh..sic] it.”

That’s actually exactly how it works.

And if you really think women are poking holes in your condoms, here’s a thought: don’t sleep with those women, or any women. No problem. Just because the biological realities of pregnancy give women the additional opportunity to avoid parenthood post-conception doesn’t take away your opportunity to avoid parenthood pre-conception.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54361

DNA Evidence Frees Man After 15 Years of Marriage!

“That?s actually exactly how it works.”

Yes, but it’s not philosophically consistent. Oops. You’ve probably never picked up a book of philosophy in your life. My bad.

“And if you really think women are poking holes in your condoms..”

And if you think that a man might rape you on a date, don’t go dating…

Oh, I forgot. That’s “oppression of women”. She shouldn’t be afraid that she might be guilted or drugged or coerced into unwanted sex. But damn: a guy shouldn’t be concerned he might be coerced into an unwanted financial slave to both the gal and the state.

I made suggestion about an alternate system as regarding not rewarding this kind of behaviour from women. Changes in custodial rights, etc, rather than necessarily letting the man off the hook. Such suggestions were ignored which tells me you’ve never tried walking in the shoes of one who was the victim of such a crime.

“In determining child support obligations, the law considers the best interest of the CHILD, not the Father. The law doesn?t give two shits if you aren?t ?ready to be a father? and society as a whole is better off this way. Otherwise we as taxpayers are stuck footing the bill for your child. Trust me the law will find a way to make absent parents pay? they will garnish wages, attach liens to any property owned, etc. etc. If anybody don?t want to be obligated to pay child support, man or woman, then don?t have sex. No form of contraception is 100% accurate; there will always be some risk that pregnancy will occur.”

Blah, blah blah. Abortion is one hundred percent effective, but it’s only the woman who gets to make that choice. Once she’s made it, the poor sap she was with gets stuck with her choice. If more men knew this, they might be more careful with who they select as a sexual partner. They’ve made tremendous strides over the last few years in making a “male pill” that will take this level of control out of female hands. It will be interesting to see women’s reaction to it, when it comes out in stores and pharmacies. I predict a big feminist catfight.

“I agree with DCB?s statements about not having sex without condoms, not letting your sperm near her.. etc. However, I believe the heart of the conflict between men and women perceived here is when men don?t see women as people, but instead as pussies and cunts, rolls in the hay, objects. Having objectified women, they have no problem believing that the women are objectifying them, seeing them as objects as well (wallets). It ain?t necessarily so.

It is amazing how many women out there are believed to be scheming to find a life of bonbons and TV through pregnancy? as if the typical child support award of less than $500 / month would leave a woman reclining in the lap of luxury should the ?trapped? father actually be legally obligated to provide CHILD support. ”

Have you ever researched paternity fraud? I can assure you it’s not a 1 in a million type of thing.

As for your complaint about being treated as an object , well- despite the fact that there are women who treat men as wallets but we’ll ignore that for now- perhaps you should consider it from the man’s point of view. He has to take the initiative pretty much all the time. Most men, except for the very good looking, very socially comfortable, or very rich, have far more failure than success. Since you run the risk of being rejected and it hurts less to be rejected by an object, and since men tend to get far more rejections than acceptances, I think you can see why this happens. If you want it to change, you women have the power to do two things:

A. Reject less
B. Initiate more

The ball is in your court on that one.

How come no one has responded to the vasectomy suggestions? This is the only way to be 100% sure (as DCB claims to be). I had one, in office procedure on a Friday afternoon, hung out on the sofa watching football all weekend, and back to work Monday morning. No big deal, and never had to use a condom with my partner since. Its the best. Anyone still complaining, but unwilling to get snipped, is either a sniveling fuckwad, or better be able to address this.

Clarance: Do you realize what a whiner you look like?

Women generally love the thought of the male pill, but already there are indications that men will be unwilling to take it because “they don’t want to mess up their bodies with artificial hormones.” Because that’s the WOMAN’s job.

(snort)

All this “mens rights” whining is just that, whining. Whiny baby privelege. WAHH.

(PS: Spanky, marry me! I don’t even care if you’re actually a woman in disguise.)

“if you think that a man might rape you on a date, don?t go dating”

See, the problem here is conflating “the result of a consensual act is a result of which both parties are aware because it has been a biological reality for the entire history of our species” with “the result of a consensual act is the violent assault of one person by another.”

In the first, having sex, you both know that the woman might get pregnant. You both know it, it’s just something that happens. It’s what sex is for.

In the latter, dating, rape is a violent crime, a violation of the law and of shared morality and of one person’s sovereignty over their own body.

It’s like conflating

“if you don’t want to get fat, don’t eat so much cake”

with

“if you don’t want to be tortured, raped, and murdered, don’t eat so much cake”

Rape, like any other violent crime, does not follow as the logical and natural consequence of ANY ACTION but the decisions of the rapist.

The fact that here, on this webpage, people are conflating one with the other is very telling: having consensual sex while aware of the possibility of pregnancy with violent assault.

Utter and complete, and totally pathetic, narcissism.

Why do I care so much about this? Why am I, in the words of one poster, a “mewling beta male”? Because, apparently, I actually care about preserving and defending the autonomy and sovereignty of human beings? That’s a big part of it. But the other part is that I cannot stand to be associated, by virtue of being a guy, with all you pathetic losers.

Did mommy not love you enough? Have you been rejected so many times by so many women that, instead of actual self-analysis to determine what about you makes you so undesirable, you decided the blame must lie with women? Are you infuriated by the notion that you might actually be responsible for your actions? Are you enraged at the thought of women having control over their bodies, even if you have fucked them? Do you hate the thought that women might be free to date, fuck, be total sluts, get drunk and have sex with whomever they choose, and not be punished with pregnancy and destitution? Can you barely stand the thought of not being able to rent out a woman’s womb, or purchasing an abortion, or having equal legal standing with the woman over her own body?

Two comments are really telling:

“This thread confirms the fact that Western Civilization is on it?s deathbed.”

Ah, yes. Nothing says “self-absorbed loser who is afraid of women” like equating “having to take personal responsibility for your own actions” and “the autonomy of women over their own bodies” with the end of Western civilization.

“Women choose who gets sex and when.”

Nothing says “scared little boy” like establishing women as another class of being, outside the normal realm of human affairs, who must be appeased and scorned for their power.

Seriously, do you guys realize what pathetic losers you are? Planning on running away to another country? Christ, what wankers. Has this actually happened to any of you? Doesn’t seem like it. Seems like this is just one more reason for you to bitch and moan about how women are out to get you and are all Teh Skank Bitches and Hos!!!! Grow up. You are not the center of the universe. Half the population is not out to get you. Seriously, I’d guess that significantly more than half the population holds you in nothing but contempt.

So, please, I implore you: stop claiming to represent all men in the eternal struggle against big scary women out to get you. I’m embarrassed for both of us.

?if you think that a man might rape you on a date, don?t go dating?

See, the problem here is conflating ?the result of a consensual act is a result of which both parties are aware because it has been a biological reality for the entire history of our species? with ?the result of a consensual act is the violent assault of one person by another.?

I don’t know where you got that definition of rape, Spanky, but the law has significantly expanded what might be termed “rape”. I don’t much feel like educating you as to the nuances you are missing, but I’ll make a suggestion: Google Rape or better yet go to Wikipedia or best go to an online law encyclopedia. It’ll be an eye-opener.

As for the rest, it does not follow logically. With today’s technology sex does not usually lead to unwanted pregnancy. With abortion it practically never does.

“Why do I care so much about this? Why am I, in the words of one poster, a ?mewling beta male?? Because, apparently, I actually care about preserving and defending the autonomy and sovereignty of human beings? That?s a big part of it. But the other part is that I cannot stand to be associated, by virtue of being a guy, with all you pathetic losers.”

Waaaaaah. I can’t make an argument, so I’ll throw insults. Waaaaaaaah. You’re looking like such a big boy there, “Spanky”.

“Did mommy not love you enough? Have you been rejected so many times by so many women that, instead of actual self-analysis to determine what about you makes you so undesirable, you decided the blame must lie with women? Are you infuriated by the notion that you might actually be responsible for your actions? Are you enraged at the thought of women having control over their bodies, even if you have fucked them? Do you hate the thought that women might be free to date, fuck, be total sluts, get drunk and have sex with whomever they choose, and not be punished with pregnancy and destitution? Can you barely stand the thought of not being able to rent out a woman?s womb, or purchasing an abortion, or having equal legal standing with the woman over her own body?”

Waaaaah. More shaming language. How old are you, Spanky? Did mommy let you off her tit yet? It’s not enough that you want women to be equal to men -nothing wrong with that - it’s that you want them to have the choices and men to have all the responsibility. That’s not treating women like adults. Fact is, if females want kids these days they have absolute control over whether or not they have them. I don’t think a man should be forced to subsidize a woman financially to support a child he does not want, when he has absolutely no choice whatsoever on whether that child will be born or not. All you and some of the others on here will do is whine if the man refuses to take responsibility for her choice. Anyway, this is 101 level stuff. I’m getting sick of explaining it to you already.

“Seriously, do you guys realize what pathetic losers you are? Planning on running away to another country? Christ, what wankers. Has this actually happened to any of you? Doesn?t seem like it. Seems like this is just one more reason for you to bitch and moan about how women are out to get you and are all Teh Skank Bitches and Hos!!!! Grow up. You are not the center of the universe. Half the population is not out to get you. Seriously, I?d guess that significantly more than half the population holds you in nothing but contempt.”

I note that to you women are superior beings who never fall prey to narcissism , that exclusively male fault. It would be laughable if you weren’t such a pathetic mangina. Grow a sack. There’s nothing wrong with noticing that with equal rights come equal responsibilities, and in terms of military service, employment law, and most especially the area of reproduction , women enjoy more rights and fewer responsibilities than men. It’s men like you who enable this, and, if you weren’t such a hypocritical asshole (who is probably in his first semester at some college somewhere) it wouldn’t be no skin off your flabby balls if other men decide other strategies for the dating and mating game these days.

“How come no one has responded to the vasectomy suggestions? This is the only way to be 100% sure (as DCB claims to be). I had one, in office procedure on a Friday afternoon, hung out on the sofa watching football all weekend, and back to work Monday morning. No big deal, and never had to use a condom with my partner since. Its the best. Anyone still complaining, but unwilling to get snipped, is either a sniveling fuckwad, or better be able to address this.”

I might actually look into it. Depends on how spermabanks operate though, as I want to be able to have a kid someday.

I’d like to do it when both me and a partner decide the time is right, not when she unilaterally decides to trap me. So sue me.

Wow. And here I was thinking its simply a misplaced sense of entitlement by these guys, thinking that life’s unfair if they have to live with the consequences of their actions, because they should have the right to disclaim (i.e., support)any child born of their actions. To be fair to Spanky, I think that rant is directed toward the more ignorant factor of the He-Man Women Haters Club out there, and not all the guys (most of whom are just whiners not willing to get snipped). Still, wow.

Sorry. Should read “not support.” And Clarence, for someone who is so threatened by unwanted pregnancy, “I might actually look into this” isn’t enlightening, its halfassed. You can still have kids after vasectomy, they don’t chop your nuts off, they just disconnect them. No excuses for big boys.

edonistic says,
48 minutes ago

“Clarance: Do you realize what a whiner you look like?”

Do I particularily care what you think I “look like”? Your nick is “hedonistic”. That’s sure a nick the carries the implication of responsibility and fidelity which is what is necessary for successful marriages.

“Women generally love the thought of the male pill, but already there are indications that men will be unwilling to take it because ?they don?t want to mess up their bodies with artificial hormones.? Because that?s the WOMAN?s job.”

Not some of the feminists I read on the net, they don’t. Nor do the ones who want to trap men like this one little bit. I suspect we’ll see just how numerous your antagonistic sisters are when the thing is ready to hit the shelves.

“(snort)

All this ?mens rights? whining is just that, whining. Whiny baby privelege. WAHH.”

I’m still looking for my “male privilege”. Could you help me find it? It’s certainly not written into any of the laws, nor is it enforced by any of them.

“(PS: Spanky, marry me! I don?t even care if you?re actually a woman in disguise.)”

Please do, Spanky. It seems like you got a real whiner, er winner of a female here for you. Narcassistic and perfectly willing to guilt any male at any time. I think with your lack of a sac, you’d be perfect for each other.

“Sorry. Should read ?not support.? And Clarence, for someone who is so threatened by unwanted pregnancy, ?I might actually look into this? isn?t enlightening, its halfassed. You can still have kids after vasectomy, they don?t chop your nuts off, they just disconnect them. No excuses for big boys.”

Hey dumbass, even a cursory reading about vesectomies will tell you the rate of successful reversal isn’t one hundred percent. It makes sense to have a back-up plan. You’re not telling me anything I don’t already know.

“Fact is, if females want kids these days they have absolute control over whether or not they have them.”

So do men. It’s called “not fucking.” Women get a “second bite of the apple” because a) pregnancy biologically involves women exclusively and b) adults, regardless of gender, should have exclusive rights over their bodies.

Incidentally, I am a woman and a feminist, and the day the male pill comes out, I am having a huge party. Can’t WAIT.

o do men. It?s called ?not fucking.? Women get a ?second bite of the apple? because a) pregnancy biologically involves women exclusively and b) adults, regardless of gender, should have exclusive rights over their bodies.

So? Where does a wallet come into this picture? Can’t women take care of themselves these days without snaring some man to support the offspring she wanted and he didn’t?

And as for the “not fucking” part..wow, are you a ’sex-positive’ feminist. It’s shit like this which is why I support legalized (heavily regulated) prostitution. Prostitutes don’t want to have your children ..it’s bad for business. And they don’t insist you subsidize their “second bite of the apple” with 18 to 21 years of financial servitude.

Incidentally, I am a woman and a feminist, and the day the male pill comes out, I am having a huge party. Can?t WAIT.

Goody for you. Now if you could convince all of your sisters and some of the “chivalrous” male politicians.

If this were a thread about women being forced into motherhood I have a feeling that everyone who has commented would be appalled at the notion. But somehow, when the issue is men being forced into fatherhood, there is nowhere near the sympathy for him. Whereas women have many, many opportunities to back out of motherhood (hell, you can abandon your baby at a fire station and no one will punish you), men have ZERO. And somehow, the fact that a dude has consented to sex means that he can’t make any further decisions, but a woman who consents to sex can do just about anything she wants, leads only a few posters on here to ponder the inequality of the situation.

I’d expect this kind of “suffer the consequences” talk from some pro-life blog, but not among the more liberal ilk that read DC Bachelor.

I noticed some people mention that abortion is actually a messier, more complicated procedure than NOW would have us believe, implying that just because a woman can have an abortion, does not mean that she get’s off easy. And that’s true. But to throw the “suffer the consequences” meme back into the mix: any woman who has sex should be prepared to deal with any pregnancy that may arise. All women have known their entire lives that they have the mixed blessing of being able to bear children. That’s just part and parcel with owning and operating the equipment. The fact that despite many advances in reproductive law, medical science, and social welfare programs women still have to bear the brunt of childbearing and rearing responsibilities is just a fact of nature. But punishing men by inhibiting their own rights is not a remedy.

To touch on the factor of socio-economic status, it is definitely more common for poorer women to have out-of-wedlock children precisely because these women see themselves as worthless outside of their abilities to get and keep a man. This would be why I have known plenty of girls who have gotten abortions, and they were all at least solidly middle-class. Those girls had college, career, and marriage to look forward to. The girls I know who have kept the children they didn’t plan for are by-and-large, poor, uneducated, and unambitious. To them having children wouldn’t really ruin their lives, because their lives were pretty crappy to start with. Indeed, having children and and man is probably their biggest accomplishments in life. Plus, when you are poor with no good job prospects, the measly child support checks and welfare services you can receive as a breeder are quite a windfall.

This is what keeps poor families poor. I have seen generations of these people repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Maybe if these poor girls with crappy lives knew that having a baby wasn’t an easy way to ensure a stady flow of income, they wouldn’t be so lackadaisical with their birth control. Then maybe they’d DO something with their lives.

By the way, js, and for all you other half-educated commenters on this subject:

n the cases discussed so far, the obligation to pay child support has been predicated upon the voluntary act of sexual intercourse. Is a man still liable for child support even if he does not engage in sexual intercourse with a woman, but merely provides sperm for artificial insemination and agrees with the mother that there shall be no child support liability? Once again, the answer has been yes. In these cases, the courts have uniformly held that outside the strict requirements of the jurisdiction’s statute governing artificial insemination, a mother simply cannot waive child support on behalf of the child and the father cannot waive his parental rights; such a contract is void as against public policy. (For an excellent discussion of why parties should be free to enter into such contracts, see Nancy D. Polikoff, The Deliberate Construction of Families Without Fathers: Is It An Option for Lesbian and Heterosexual Mothers?, 36 Santa Clara Law Review 375 (1996).)

Can a man escape this liability if he has neither the intent to have sexual intercourse nor the intent to make a baby? The answer is no. So long as a man engages in an intimate sexual act resulting in his depositing of his sperm with a woman who then becomes pregnant, he is liable for child support.

In State of Louisiana v. Frisard, 694 So. 2d 1032 (La. Ct. App. 1997), the mother and father of the child for whom support was sought met in a hospital while the father was visiting an ill relative. The mother was a nurse’s aid who has access to a variety of medical equipment. The mother offered to perform oral sex on the father, and, in the words of the father, “as … any male would, I did not refuse[.]” 694 So. 2d at 1035. The mother had the father wear a condom. The mother then removed the condom for the father, and unknown to the father, she inseminated herself with the father’s sperm using a syringe.

The Louisiana court, noting that the probability of paternity was 99.9994%, held the father’s testimony that he “had some sort of sexual contact with the plaintiff around the time frame of alleged conception, although he denied that they had sexual intercourse” was sufficient to prove paternity. 694 So. 2d at 1036. This fact of paternity obliges a father to support his child. 694 So. 2d at 1034. In essence, because the father intentionally engaged in a sexual act resulting in his deposit of sperm with the mother, he is liable for child support.

Another case reaching the same result on facts that are, quite frankly, bizarre is S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). In that case, the father testified that he went to a party at the mother’s house. He had been drinking for several hours before he arrived, and had in fact gotten sick on the way to her house. At the mother’s house, the father continued to drink, and the last think he remembered was getting sick again and his brother putting him in bed at the mother’s house. The next morning, the father awoke in that same bed with only his shirt on. The father did not remember having sex with the mother, and he did not knowingly and purposely have sex with her.

The man in the lower case -who was raped- was still held liable.

http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html

Afraid the advice to “abstain from sex” as if you were a monk” doesn’t always provide protection either. I wish a painful death on any of you who support these kinds of cases.

“If this were a thread about women being forced into motherhood I have a feeling that everyone who has commented would be appalled at the notion. But somehow, when the issue is men being forced into fatherhood, there is nowhere near the sympathy for him. Whereas women have many, many opportunities to back out of motherhood (hell, you can abandon your baby at a fire station and no one will punish you), men have ZERO. And somehow, the fact that a dude has consented to sex means that he can?t make any further decisions, but a woman who consents to sex can do just about anything she wants, leads only a few posters on here to ponder the inequality of the situation.”

Thank you for providing some understanding of a man’s various problems with our current reproductive regime from a woman’s perspective.

Funny thing is, I wouldn’t halfway mind men paying child-support for “oopsie” preganancies if we could at least do something about female misbehaviors such as paternity fraud, stolen sperm, etc. Even if it was just changing custody. But rather than respond to these suggestions all idiots like “Spanky” can do is blame and shame and not ever, ever admit there might be some unfairness in the process, and that some of these unfairnesses could be remedied with babies starving on the streets. We actively subsidize female reproductive misbehaviours, but point this out and you are a bad guy who is out to enslave women or a “little boy” who doesn’t want to take responsibility for trusting his girlfriend not to steal his used condom.

Pathetic.

I mean “without” babies starving on the streets. God, I wish there were an edit function.

“Can?t women take care of themselves these days without snaring some man to support the offspring she wanted and he didn?t?”

The problem with this statement, and the cases cited where mothers can’t waive paternal obligations, is that child support is not the mother’s right, nor is it for the mother’s benefit. The right belongs to the child. I heartily support cases where moms who take child support and use it for their own benefit are penalized–they should be, they’re stealing someone else’s money. But the extension of the argument is that you can’t punish the child by removing half of its support because the mom was dishonerable, even intentionally.

“The problem with this statement, and the cases cited where mothers can?t waive paternal obligations, is that child support is not the mother?s right, nor is it for the mother?s benefit. The right belongs to the child. I heartily support cases where moms who take child support and use it for their own benefit are penalized?they should be, they?re stealing someone else?s money. But the extension of the argument is that you can?t punish the child by removing half of its support because the mom was dishonerable, even intentionally.”

I’ve heard this argument many times. In the case of courts and states that get a percentage of federal money based on the amount of child support they collect, and in the case of collection companies (who help set the guidelines -talk about conflict of interest!!) it’s hypocritical.

Far as it goes, answer me this directly: If a mother was found to be dishonerable -shouldn’t her parental rights be terminated or severely restricted?

The argument you present has two other flaws anyway:

A. The woman is not forced to bring the child into the world. Perhaps she should have to consider the living standard she could provide it on her own when making her decision. You know, what with being an “empowered woman” and all.

B. Sometimes child support has an income maintanence part. This tends to happen upon breakup of marriages, 2/3 or more of which are initiated by women. And often “child support” amounts exceed what was spent on children during the marriage. To me any extra child support beyond support for the basics of food, health, and education should never be imposed, merely allowed if the two parties themselves work it out that way.

As far as a fair method of child support caluclation, how the guidelines were formed, etc, I refer you to Roger F. Gay.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/

“It would be laughable if you weren?t such a pathetic mangina. Grow a sack.”

Oh, I see. Someone who is wrong or stupid is, of course, feminine, if not down-right female. Which is simply part-and-parcel of your fear, or hatred, or both, of women.

Sorry, I’m not a first year college student. My field of research is Grasci’s theory of ideology and its applicability to modern society - how do we create structures of power? More importantly, how do we get people to consent to power? And so it’s interesting to observe how people who are terrified by changes in power structures - that is, terrified that women have control over decisions made about their bodies - react by creating new narratives about women having all the power and men having none.

Which, of course, is fascinating given the stark inequalities that still exist - women earning less than men, lower-income women facing enormous difficulties obtaining abortions even when they want one (see how many counties, especially in rural areas, lack any facilities that offer abortion services), rates of rape and physical abuse, and so forth. There is a large power structure involved, but it has shifted slightly, since Roe v Wade gave women at least the possibility of reproductive control. So we see, as here on this page, is an attempt to construct a new narrative about power in an attempt to justify, again, male control over female bodies.

This, of course, is nothing new. See Klaus Theweleit’s “M?nnerphantasien” on the centrality of hatred of women and the acting out of violent fantasies against women to fascism.

And it is just a narrative, just a story you tell yourselves. How often does this really happen? You offer anecdotes, the possibility of the threat, but no data. If this sort of thing happens, as I suspect, to a fraction of a percent of men, then you’re really just little boys sitting in a tree house telling each other BOO stories about evil women out to castrate you.

hedonistic, I appreciate the offer, but I must decline. I am currently dating, and plan to marry, a wonderful woman who is a) a diplomat by profession, b) cooks me dinner, and c) fucks like a champ. My relationship with her is basically perfect, and a big reason for that is my ability to accept individual women as individual human beings, rather than as symbols of a dark, mysterious entity that must, as I said, be variously appeased in hope of permission for sex and scorned for their otherness. You guys, the MRA “we’re totally powerless, wah wah wah” guys, who find posession of a vagina to be a reason for fear, disgust, and contempt, should give it a try, because then maybe you too would be able to have a real, human, adult relationship, instead of cowering from all the sluts and whores out to get you.

Sorry, typo: that would be “Gramsci’s theory of ideology,” not “Grasci.” If, in case, any of you were curious enough to look into a brilliant Italian Marxist and political theorist.

And as for the ?not fucking? part..wow, are you a ?sex-positive? feminist. It?s shit like this which is why I support legalized (heavily regulated) prostitution. Prostitutes don?t want to have your children ..it?s bad for business. And they don?t insist you subsidize their ?second bite of the apple? with 18 to 21 years of financial servitude.

It’s called personal responsibility and exercising judgment. Sex has risks, and pregnancy is only one of them. Abortions also have risks, much like vasectomies, of damaging the reproductive system. Heck, even a boob job has risk of death!

You don’t have to fuck the low class trailer trash you meet at the club. You certainly can go find a prostitute somewhere, but even they sometimes get pregnant because no birth control method is 100% effective when used except abstinence.

No one is debating the existence of paternity fraud. We see it on Maury all the time. (You are NOT the father!!) But no one can deny that if he wouldn’t be in that situation if he didn’t fuck her to begin with.

The bottom line: wrap it or snip it, or make wiser choices about who you’re with. Imagine that.

nd as for the ?not fucking? part..wow, are you a ?sex-positive? feminist. It?s shit like this which is why I support legalized (heavily regulated) prostitution. Prostitutes don?t want to have your children ..it?s bad for business. And they don?t insist you subsidize their ?second bite of the apple? with 18 to 21 years of financial servitude.

“It?s called personal responsibility and exercising judgment. Sex has risks, and pregnancy is only one of them. Abortions also have risks, much like vasectomies, of damaging the reproductive system. Heck, even a boob job has risk of death!

You don?t have to fuck the low class trailer trash you meet at the club. You certainly can go find a prostitute somewhere, but even they sometimes get pregnant because no birth control method is 100% effective when used except abstinence.

No one is debating the existence of paternity fraud. We see it on Maury all the time. (You are NOT the father!!) But no one can deny that if he wouldn?t be in that situation if he didn?t fuck her to begin with.

The bottom line: wrap it or snip it, or make wiser choices about who you?re with. Imagine that.”

No dear. *Pats you on the head*. It’s called giving men responsibility whilst excusing women from any. Go back to home, do not pass Go, do not collect 200.

I hardly think that bringing a kid into this world excuses women from any responsibility. They gain a hell of a lot more, especially if the father is anything like you.

“Far as it goes, answer me this directly: If a mother was found to be dishonerable -shouldn?t her parental rights be terminated or severely restricted?”

No. We allow dishonerable people to be parents. We don’t stop people from having children because we disagree with their actions morally, unless the child is in danger (generally).

“The woman is not forced to bring the child into the world. Perhaps she should have to consider the living standard she could provide it on her own when making her decision. You know, what with being an ?empowered woman? and all.”

We don’t punish kids because their moms made bad decisions. And perhaps men could consider the living standard they can provide potential offspring before they have sex.

“Sometimes child support has an income maintanence part. This tends to happen upon breakup of marriages, 2/3 or more of which are initiated by women.”

Child support and alimony are two different things, and you don’t get alimony if you aren’t married. Last time I checked, poking holes in condoms doesn’t force men to say “I do.”

“Oh, I see. Someone who is wrong or stupid is, of course, feminine, if not down-right female. Which is simply part-and-parcel of your fear, or hatred, or both, of women.”

Ohhhhhhh. You trotted out the old fear of women canard. I mean really, don’t you lefties ever have any new ideas? A “Mangina” to me is someone who either believes in female moral superiority or male moral inferiority or both. You seem to fit the description perfectly. You kiss female ass better and cater to every woman’s whim, so you can pretend to be a friend of women, unlike all us other evil men.

“Sorry, I?m not a first year college student. My field of research is Grasci?s theory of ideology and its applicability to modern society - how do we create structures of power? More importantly, how do we get people to consent to power? And so it?s interesting to observe how people who are terrified by changes in power structures - that is, terrified that women have control over decisions made about their bodies - react by creating new narratives about women having all the power and men having none.”

“Narratives”? Gramsci? “power structures”? God, where have you been living the last 15 years? You might as well be a first year college student with such trite OLD bullshit. Oh well..it may not make much sense, and may not represent the real world, but I’m sure you make money off it Spankywhore, honey.

I quote laws and link to THE woman who more than just about anyone set up our current child support system. And you talk about Gramsci and power structures. You, Sir, are funny.

“Which, of course, is fascinating given the stark inequalities that still exist - women earning less than men, lower-income women facing enormous difficulties obtaining abortions even when they want one (see how many counties, especially in rural areas, lack any facilities that offer abortion services), rates of rape and physical abuse, and so forth. There is a large power structure involved, but it has shifted slightly, since Roe v Wade gave women at least the possibility of reproductive control. So we see, as here on this page, is an attempt to construct a new narrative about power in an attempt to justify, again, male control over female bodies.”

Because of all the imaginary posters in this thread who have been arguing in your head about how we should restrict women’s abortion rights and chain them to the kitchen. As for women earning less than men, and yadda, yadda, those are old canards, and not relevent to this discussion- even if they were true, which they are not.

“This, of course, is nothing new. See Klaus Theweleit?s ?M?nnerphantasien? on the centrality of hatred of women and the acting out of violent fantasies against women to fascism.”

Because women don’t have fascistic or group tendancies themselves and never condone OR incite physical or mental violence against their own.

You are a veritable list of feminist cliches, Spanky. Where’d they grab you from? Some sort of monastary in the middle of a liberal arts college? I suppose you could be a bot. You’re about as intelligent and on subject as a bot what with your insults and your inability to construct a logical argument to bolster your claims. I also suppose you could be an imposter of some type who is trying to make leftists and/or feminists look bad. You sure are succeeding. I haven’t run into someone with as many ideological cliches as you have exhibited in this thread for a long time.

“And it is just a narrative, just a story you tell yourselves. How often does this really happen? You offer anecdotes, the possibility of the threat, but no data. If this sort of thing happens, as I suspect, to a fraction of a percent of men, then you?re really just little boys sitting in a tree house telling each other BOO stories about evil women out to castrate you.”

I’d estimate paternity fraud affects 1 to 8 percent of female and male relationships. I can find stats if you want. Not that I think you want to stay on topic and argue stats. I doubt you could handle the math anyway. You don’t seem very bright.

“you guys, the MRA ?we?re totally powerless, wah wah wah? guys, who find posession of a vagina to be a reason for fear, disgust, and contempt, should give it a try, because then maybe you too would be able to have a real, human, adult relationship, instead of cowering from all the sluts and whores out to get you.”

Ohhhhhhhh. You said BAD WORDS. I hope mommy doesn’t spank you.

Anyway, the only one “cowering” here is you, as you’ve eschewed real debate in favor of cliches and insults.

No. We allow dishonerable people to be parents. We don?t stop people from having children because we disagree with their actions morally, unless the child is in danger (generally).

Well, at least you answered. I don’t really know what to say to that except that the more you subsidize a behavior the more of it you get, and that apparently you don’t care to think about what kind of moral climate such a “mother” would provide her child.

Guys, (and I don’t include Spanky in this group) you’ve been warned. This statement here incapsulates female irresponsibility.

I think I’ll stick to prostitutes for awhile. They would make better girlfriends then someone with your attitude.

I can only speak for myself, but as a woman, I will be weeping into my pillow tonight, as I am not a prostitute and therefore will be unable to throw a leg over a man who champions moral eugenics.

I?d estimate paternity fraud affects 1 to 8 percent of female and male relationships. I can find stats if you want. Not that I think you want to stay on topic and argue stats. I doubt you could handle the math anyway. You don?t seem very bright.

1-8 percent? Staggering!!!

Please, please stick with the prostitutes. Forever.

Right, let’s see…I’m cliched, I’m talking bullshit that doesn’t make sense, I’m kissing ass, I’m dumb, and I’m cowering. And you accuse me of eschewing real debate?

The only actual argument offered, other than “you’re wrong,” is the idea that paternity fraud effects 1-8 percent of male/female relationships. I’m guessing you basically waved your hand and made up this number. Honestly, it seems implausibly high. 1-8 percent of ALL male/female relationships?

Simple experiment: men and women on this thread, please report a) the number of sexual relations you have had with the opposite sex and b) the number of paternity fraud charges you have either made or had made against you. Please, Clarence and I must know!

Gramsci argued that consent to power is manufactured by the powerful among the weak. You end up with situations where, for example, a large majority of Southerners supported the Confederate cause, even though an incredibly small minority actually benefited from slavery. The economic considerations of the small slave-owning class where supported by an ideologically constructed “southern identity” which was supposedly at risk from attempts to abolish slavery. That is, a small number of rich people convinced lots of poor people to fight and die to defend the system that made them rich.

Chances are, most of the men who buy the bullshit argument that women are out to steel their semen and their money via vagina are probably taking part in someone else’s narrative. Someone enjoys power and privelege by convincing you not to look too closely at how they became powerful, but rather by worrying about someone who is actually no threat to you at all. Divide and conquer, in talking point terms.

So yes, I have lots of personal contempt for you, but you’re also fascinating from a theoretical standpoint, because you’re a classic example of ideological production and reproduction. Thanks!

“I can only speak for myself, but as a woman, I will be weeping into my pillow tonight, as I am not a prostitute and therefore will be unable to throw a leg over a man who champions moral eugenics.”

LOL! You got me to laugh, js. I gotta say despite the fact I think your moral stance is abominable, you at least show guts and a sense of humor. I have to respect that.

But I see there’s to be no compromise. Somehow holding women to any standard of behavior at all about how and when they get pregnant always hurts the child. So screw it. I’ve tried to be reasonable, and I’d love to work out some compromises about these kind of things. But if that is not possible it looks like guys like me are going to have to stand aside as you reap the whirlwind of your misguided laws and choices.

Cheers, Clarence. And in your post, I think you hit on the heart of our disagreement, assuming that you don’t secretly want to enslave women and I don’t secretly want to enslave men:

” Somehow holding women to any standard of behavior at all about how and when they get pregnant always hurts the child.”

I don’t think that it is the law’s job to hold people’s behavior to any standard. I think it is the law’s job to ensure that each individual has the maximum amount of freedom without encroaching upon the rights of another person. Here, we’re talking about the right of a man to control his pocketbook, versus the right of a woman to control her body, versus (at some point) the right of a child to its own support. That’s the calculus to me–how to weigh those rights in a way that prioritizes them appropriately and maximizes them.

I think behavioral standards are important, and should be upheld, but NOT by the government.

“simple experiment: men and women on this thread, please report a) the number of sexual relations you have had with the opposite sex and b) the number of paternity fraud charges you have either made or had made against you. Please, Clarence and I must know!”

Make sure they only talk about relationships in which they had children, as that was obviously what I meant.

I’d love to know your “thoughts” -such as they are about the “Towards a strict liability theory of sperm” -that I linked to. It’s only written by an expert. But you’ve avoided addressing any of those things.That’s precisely because reproductive LAW is one area which you can’t fit into your rather stupid silly paradigm. (”Paradigm”. See, I can get cliched, too)

“Gramsci argued that consent to power is manufactured by the powerful among the weak. You end up with situations where, for example, a large majority of Southerners supported the Confederate cause, even though an incredibly small minority actually benefited from slavery. The economic considerations of the small slave-owning class where supported by an ideologically constructed ?southern identity? which was supposedly at risk from attempts to abolish slavery. That is, a small number of rich people convinced lots of poor people to fight and die to defend the system that made them rich.”

Only partly true. There was loyalty to state and the biological desire to protect one’s family and property thrown in there too. Not to mention the racism of even lower class whites- which, indeed, was party manufactured. Once again, first year stuff.

“Chances are, most of the men who buy the bullshit argument that women are out to steel their semen and their money via vagina are probably taking part in someone else?s narrative. Someone enjoys power and privelege by convincing you not to look too closely at how they became powerful, but rather by worrying about someone who is actually no threat to you at all. Divide and conquer, in talking point terms.”

Um, “Perfessor” Spanky, I linked to cases in which THESE THINGS HAPPENED. The law allows it, nay, even encourages it. That doesn’t mean it happens often, but it does mean that:

A. There is an incentive to do such things
B. The law is not written with men in mind

Anyways, Mr. Cliche, I’ve formed most of my opinions on my own from a variety of sources and books that I’ve read. And I’ve been debating this stuff for years. You are not proving to be much of a challenge.

Weren’t the laws written with the children in mind?

An interesting thought experiment:

If a woman were to steel a man’s semen from a used condom, use it to impregnante herself, and then demand child support from the man, does the man bear moral (and therefore, should the man bear legal) responsibility for taking care of the child? After all, the man did not consent to the use of his semen in such a way.

If a woman were to be raped by a man and impregnated, does the woman bear a legal or moral responsibility to the child once it is born? After all, she did not consent to her impregnation or the use of her womb and ovaries in this way.

The latter case is, of course, complicated by the possibility of abortion. What if she finds it abhorent for religios or ethical reasons? What if she has been kidnapped and forced to carry the pregnancy to term? Etc etc. She’s produced the child, but against her will. What would or should a court decide?

The court - usually - attempts to decide in terms of the interests of the child. Even if the mother did not consent to the child, she still bears responsibility for it - she could not, for example, leave it in a dumpster or abandon it on the street. Likewise, a father, even if he did not consent to the birth of a child, abandon the child in a dumpster or on the street. Each bears some legal responsibility to the child. The law doesn’t - and shouldn’t - give two fucks about anything that went on prior to the birth of the child, except for conception. A child was conceived, through no fault or choice of its own. It is a human being, deserving of full rights, yet utterly unable to care for itself and totally dependent on others. The law does not - and should not - concern itself over the morality of the behavior that produced the child. If it was rape, let the father pay a penalty. If the mother stole the semen, let the mother pay a penalty. But denying child support? That’s not punitive to the mother, or the father, but to the child.

What the MRA movement wants is to move the focus of the law and the moral discussion away from the child, the human being requiring care, and onto the behavior of the parents, namely: fucking. They want to, in effect, transform the conception of children into an economic exchange in which men can pay women the cost of an abortion to absolve themselves of any responsibilty to another human.

Imagine if a man did not consent to conception, but it happened anyway. What if the man offers to provide money for an abortion? Should he be absolved of responsibility? What if he offers, but he finds out after the child has been born? Can the man, with a few hundred dollars, buy his way out of fatherhood? A woman, certainly, could not do that, because she would still have legal obligations to the child, even if she offered the man a few hundred dollars for him to take full legal responsibility.

Sorry, neither humans nor wombs nor parental responsibility can be bought or sold. But what if this happened - what if, legally, a man could offer a woman the price of an abortion to absolve himself of legal liability? By commodifying fatherhood (and just fatherhood, since mothers could not do the same to men), you would be creating a good that could be traded. What would a market in fatherhood look like?

“Weren?t the laws written with the children in mind?”

No, because then divorce -absent proof of abuse or neglect-would be hard to get with children involved, joint custody would be the norm if divorce wasn’t reformed, and maybe even if it was, and visitation would be enforced like they enforce child support.

Fact is, most of the common law base of the current laws goes back over 500 years to when women were considered the property of men. The trade-off being that they were his absolute responsibility. Many of the more recent additions to the laws of child support were written by people connected with collections agencies. “No fault” divorce itself was pushed mostly by lawyers groups.

I’m afraid that keeping families together is not high priority to most of those writing our laws.

See my Roger F. Gay link for more history on the child-support topic.

I was referring to child support laws, not divorce laws.

“Even if the mother did not consent to the child, she still bears responsibility for it - she could not, for example, leave it in a dumpster or abandon it on the street..”

You obviously didn’t read my link. And the fact is, there are ’safe harbor’ laws in most states now. A woman CAN legally abandon a baby. I can’t really disagree with that so long as the father is notified if she knows who he is. It’s to give her an “out” short of killing it.

“The law does not - and should not - concern itself over the morality of the behavior that produced the child. If it was rape, let the father pay a penalty. If the mother stole the semen, let the mother pay a penalty. But denying child support? That?s not punitive to the mother, or the father, but to the child.”

I produced other ideas short of “not paying child support”, such as changes in custody etc.

“Imagine if a man did not consent to conception, but it happened anyway. What if the man offers to provide money for an abortion? Should he be absolved of responsibility? What if he offers, but he finds out after the child has been born? Can the man, with a few hundred dollars, buy his way out of fatherhood? A woman, certainly, could not do that, because she would still have legal obligations to the child, even if she offered the man a few hundred dollars for him to take full legal responsibility.”

These cases have already been tried in courts. In all cases the courts ruled “no”. There was also a case in PA a few years ago where the guy wanted the baby and offered to take care of it, etc. Of course he had no rights, so she got the abortion anyway.

“Sorry, neither humans nor wombs nor parental responsibility can be bought or sold. But what if this happened - what if, legally, a man could offer a woman the price of an abortion to absolve himself of legal liability? By commodifying fatherhood (and just fatherhood, since mothers could not do the same to men), you would be creating a good that could be traded. What would a market in fatherhood look like?”

LOL! There is already a market in fatherhood. Not just the competition to be “the one” the woman chooses to let impregnate her, but also in relation to how much child support men of given incomes can provide. Welfare programs helped make many fathers superflous in the inner cities. Indeed, for 20 years (until welfare reform in 96) they actively discouraged father involvement as the woman would not be able to get any welfare if a man lived with her. Women in the inner city had reason to compare governmental support versus whatever she could wring out of the loser she “hooked up” with. Besides, the woman in your hypothetical still has the choice whether to abort or not, so it’s not like the man’s choice enslaves the woman. If I had my way though, she’d have to consider whether she could support the kid on her own or get his consent first before she decided to take the child to term.

“I was referring to child support laws, not divorce laws.”

Did you read far enough in to see that I was talking about BOTH kinds of laws? Roger F. Gay is all about child support.

Besides, I’d maintain you can’t talk about how such cs laws are “For the children” and not take a larger look at the system they are part and parcel of. And THE MOST COMMON (for emphasis, not shouting) child support order is between formerly married couples.

I had a experience with a woman who told me she could not have any children and then came up pregant. When I asked what happened, it turned out that she had been undergoing fertility treatments but didn’t bother to tell me. Had I known, I would have certainly behaved differently and taken a lot of precautions, but it it this kind of dishonesty that fuels mens fears and forces them out of what otherwise would be rational behavior.

needless to say, had she not lost the child, I would still have been on the financial hook, against my will and without my knowledge.

CD

“There was also a case in PA a few years ago where the guy wanted the baby and offered to take care of it, etc. Of course he had no rights, so she got the abortion anyway”

I totally agree with this result. He has rights, it’s just that his interest in raising a child was outweighed by the woman’s interest in controlling her own body. You don’t get to force a woman to go through pregnancy, even if you want the baby, because it’s her body, not yours. Seriously, why should men have that right? I’m not saying the guy’s interest in raising the child carries no weight, but it’s clear to me that the woman has a greater interest in controlling her own body.

“Welfare programs helped make many fathers superflous in the inner cities. Indeed, for 20 years (until welfare reform in 96) they actively discouraged father involvement as the woman would not be able to get any welfare if a man lived with her.”

Wait, now, Clarence, I would have thought you’d approve of this! There you go, a way to support the child without taking money from a man who clearly doesn’t want anything to do with the baby.

“I had a experience with a woman who told me she could not have any children and then came up pregant. When I asked what happened, it turned out that she had been undergoing fertility treatments but didn?t bother to tell me. Had I known, I would have certainly behaved differently and taken a lot of precautions, but it it this kind of dishonesty that fuels mens fears and forces them out of what otherwise would be rational behavior.”

That woman sucks. Seriously sucks. But we can’t penalize the child for that, either by diminishing the child’s support, or by basing custodial decisions on anything other than the best interests of the child.

“That woman sucks. Seriously sucks. But we can?t penalize the child for that, either by diminishing the child?s support, or by basing custodial decisions on anything other than the best interests of the child.”

Well, now you seem to contradict yourself. How can being with a deceitful mother be “in the best interests” of the child? What, the father’s going to drop it on its head or something? You do know that in the 19th century, in the relatively few cases where custody was at it issue it usually went to the father, right? This was because he was considered the more responsible one, and YES-because of real-honest-to-God-sexism - he had more chances to bring in opportunities to bring in income to support it.

Even if you wanted to assert that the bio mother was usually the best choice for caregiver, I’d think you would want to reconsider that had she shown herself to be of evil character. She won’t raise a good child if she has low morals.

“Wait, now, Clarence, I would have thought you?d approve of this! There you go, a way to support the child without taking money from a man who clearly doesn?t want anything to do with the baby. ”

Well, now, you see the results of fatherlessness in the inner cities. Or maybe you don’t, but I do: I happen to live in one. More to the point, it was all about the wallet.Government or daddy, whose is bigger? To be fair to the men, many of them gave her and their baby support “under the table”.

I’d just love js, or anyone, really to give me a reason why I should EVER trust women?

They often don’t trust each other ( I can’t count the female coworkers who’ve confided in me their mistrust of their “sisters”), and the law encourages them in deceitful practices. Child support doesn’t seem like a big deal until you are stuck with it for 18 plus years whether sick or well, unemployed, or not. They can even tell you where and what kind of jobs you must work if they slap “imputed” income on you. The payor has to pay under threat of imprisonment and garnishment of wages, loss of licenses,passports, etc. This can only be called slavery: Any other term for it would innacurate.

So be careful whom you sleep with, dispose of your condoms, take the “male pill” when it comes out, don’t trust a women’s word.

And weep for a country that builds and encourages this much mistrust between its sexes. Nothing good is coming from this, and nothing good will come from it in the future.

“How can being with a deceitful mother be ?in the best interests? of the child?”

Maybe she’s deceitful, but he’s in jail. Maybe she’s deceitful, but he doesn’t want the baby. Maybe she’s deceitful, but his job requires constant travel. Maybe she made one awful decision in a lifetime of good ones. Maybe, maybe, maybe…it’s a case-by-case issue.

“Well, now, you see the results of fatherlessness in the inner cities.”

So, it’s not that you want women to stop seeking child support from men, it’s that you want all unmarried pregnant women to be forced to have abortions or give up their babies?

You trust women the same way you trust anyone else–you get to know them, you learn a lot about them, you let them earn your trust bit by bit, and then you take the leap. Just like men! My god–it’s so crazy, it just might work! I mean, come on. This whole “wimmins is CRAZY!” shtick doesn’t exactly enhance your argument that you aren’t sexist, no matter how much anecdotal evidence you claim to have in your workplace.

“I totally agree with this result. He has rights, it?s just that his interest in raising a child was outweighed by the woman?s interest in controlling her own body. You don?t get to force a woman to go through pregnancy, even if you want the baby, because it?s her body, not yours. Seriously, why should men have that right? I?m not saying the guy?s interest in raising the child carries no weight, but it?s clear to me that the woman has a greater interest in controlling her own body.”

I agree with this, but I brought that up to illustrate there are some men who very very much want to be fathers. We aren’t all anti-child.

Of course the larger point is that what the man wants doesn’t matter. If he doesn’t support the decision to abort he’s a pig, if he wants her to abort and she doesn’t want to, he’s a pig. Of course the “best interests of the child” would be that she not ever abort short of health concerns, but , like everything else, that phrase only means something if there is $ attached to it.

A case that outraged me 2 years ago was that the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Maryland’s child support agency. At issue was whether they would have to return some money to a man who had custody of his two kids. Well, the court ruled that since they were government they were not subject to the “best interests of the child” standard. Heehee. To laugh is to cry.

’so, it?s not that you want women to stop seeking child support from men, it?s that you want all unmarried pregnant women to be forced to have abortions or give up their babies?’

How did you get that? I want all babies to have both a mother and a father in their lives. At least as long as both want to be there. Undoubtedly many “willing fathers” were driven underground due to those old welfare policies, for example. And many women got the mistaken impression it was a good thing to be a single parent. Single parenthood is only above being placed in an orphanage for children. Sometimes it works, more often it does not.

“Of course the larger point is that what the man wants doesn?t matter. If he doesn?t support the decision to abort he?s a pig, if he wants her to abort and she doesn?t want to, he?s a pig.”

It’s not that what the man wants doesn’t matter. It’s that what the man wants doesn’t control. I don’t believe that the man’s opinion in this issue should be taken lightly, but, at the end of the day, it’s not his decision, and if the consequence of the woman’s decision is a child, then that child can’t be punished because the man disagreed with the woman’s decision.

Yes, men carry an “extra” burden here, one that, I think, is outweighed, to say the least, by the physical realities of abortions, pregnancy and labor. Regardless of whether you agree or not, I can’t get too worked up about this “extra” burden when it’s one that is easily avoided by keeping your sperm to yourself.

“Single parenthood is only above being placed in an orphanage for children. Sometimes it works, more often it does not.”

Citation, please, showing that the only thing worse than all single parenthood is an orphanage, and that all single parents fail more often than they succeed.

I’d be particularly interested to see proof that all single parenthood is worse than an unhappy or unsafe married parenthood. Or being raised by wolves.

“You trust women the same way you trust anyone else?you get to know them, you learn a lot about them, you let them earn your trust bit by bit, and then you take the leap. Just like men! My god?it?s so crazy, it just might work! I mean, come on. This whole ?wimmins is CRAZY!? shtick doesn?t exactly enhance your argument that you aren?t sexist, no matter how much anecdotal evidence you claim to have in your workplace.”

I don’t have a gun to your head forcing you to get an abortion. I don’t have legal guns to your head should anything happen during sexual congress.

Sex and relationships are one area where you have power over me, and I have none over you. As the less powerful one in the relationship, I have to be very very careful about what I do. Unfortunately, people can change over time , and bad behavior on your part will almost always be rewarded.

Are you claiming, js, that you’ve never dated a guy you thought was nice, and had him turn into a jerk on you? Are you claiming that all your sexual relationships have been perfect? Do you think you have a single former lover you could consider an enemy?

Well, if you are a man and have any of these things happen to you, you are at risk of either a false report of domestic violence, being forced to support an unwanted and unexpected preganancy, or being assualted (on her word alone) by the other males in her life. And those are just the first things off my head.

Point being, unless a man rapes you, trust issues with him might hurt your heart but they will hurt nothing else. But trust issues with HER..they could get me imprisoned or enslaved. So it’s harder on me.

What I’m saying is that dating and relationships are very hazardous to men these days. Not that all women are scum.

Throwing in charges of sexism about trust issues doesn’t seem to make any sex to me.

“Yes, men carry an ?extra? burden here, one that, I think, is outweighed, to say the least, by the physical realities of abortions, pregnancy and labor. Regardless of whether you agree or not, I can?t get too worked up about this ?extra? burden when it?s one that is easily avoided by keeping your sperm to yourself.”

And not socializing with women. 2+2 equals four and I think more men than you may like are getting this message. Things don’t have to be this way, they aren’t this way in other countries, and they haven’t been this way in the past. A political backlash is coming, the personal one has already begun. Oh, it’s a little behind Faludi’s hysterical “Backlash”, but it is now out there. I personally, don’t want to return women to the kitchen or ban abortion. But I’ll do all I can to reform the fucked up laws that govern our reproductive choices.

“Throwing in charges of sexism about trust issues doesn?t seem to make any sex to me.”

sense..sense.. I think I’m gonna go eat

“Sex and relationships are one area where you have power over me, and I have none over you.”

Hahahahaha! Woo-hoo, man. That’s AWESOME! The way you just deftly stepped around rape. Well done! *golf claps*

“Are you claiming, js, that you?ve never dated a guy you thought was nice, and had him turn into a jerk on you? Are you claiming that all your sexual relationships have been perfect? Do you think you have a single former lover you could consider an enemy?”

Of course I do. I don’t use that as an excuse to condemn all men, though. Unless I’m drunk.

And, regarding those particular men, I may not run the risk of being dinged with child support as the result of a consensual act which I was aware *could* result in a child that needs to be supported. I do, however, run the risk of being stalked, harassed, beaten, raped or killed, and those are just the ones off the top of *my* head. But really, good luck with that “false report” paperwork.

spanked eeped:

“[condom stealing]…does the man bear moral (and therefore, should the man bear legal) responsibility for taking care of the child?”

no.

“If a woman were to be raped by a man and impregnated, does the woman bear a legal or moral responsibility to the child once it is born?”

no.

“What if she finds it abhorent for religios or ethical reasons?”

her fairy tale beliefs are not my (or the state’s) moral crisis.

“What if she has been kidnapped and forced to carry the pregnancy to term?”

c above.

“What would or should a court decide?”

cost of abortion goes to rapist/kidnapper, plus whatever hell on earth the executioners of justice can dish out. if abortion is not an option, the mother should be permitted to expose the child at birth.

i am not kidding.

“It is a human being, deserving of full rights…”

are you talking about the fetus? if it’s a human being why does it look like a fried shrimp?

“But denying child support? That?s not punitive to the mother, or the father, but to the child.”

abortion is your friend!
since there is a physical aspect to abortion i would not be opposed to having the man pay for the procedure.
if she chooses to carry the kid to term, she assumes all financial responsibility for it.
your problem, spanked, is that you and your ilk ignore incentives. your love of a marxist throwback was a dead giveaway of this peculiar affliction.

“transform the conception of children into an economic exchange in which men can pay women the cost of an abortion to absolve themselves of any responsibilty to another human.”

your feminist allies might raise a hairy unibrow at the idea put forward by one of their pantywaist lickspittles that a fetus is human.

“What if the man offers to provide money for an abortion?”

it’d be the christian thing to do.

“Should he be absolved of responsibility?”

responsibility to what? a fetus?

“What if he offers, but he finds out after the child has been born?”

is this what is known as a full-birth abortion?

“Can the man, with a few hundred dollars, buy his way out of fatherhood?”

pennies on the dollar.

“A woman, certainly, could not do that, because she would still have legal obligations to the child”

if she had no intentions of raising the kid as a single mother on her own financial wherewithal then the man should not be coerced to fork over his money because the mother was too stupid, or too indoctrinated, to get an abortion.

her choice, her financial obligation.

“What would a market in fatherhood look like?”

kinda like it does now, minus the lawyers.

HTH.

ps: it’s funny when self-proclaimed feminist hedonists unwittingly reveal their puritan dessicated rotten souls and tell men to “just say no” to sex.

It’s not “just say no” - it’s “pick your target better.” But then, here we are on a site where guys gripe about having to spend time with a woman before getting some ass. 2 dates and out! Yeah, that’s a strong basis to risk your (and someone else’s) future on!

Wrap it or snip it, and in the meanwhile, zip it!

“Of course I do. I don?t use that as an excuse to condemn all men, though. Unless I?m drunk.”

Point out where I condemmend all women, or you owe me an apology.
nd, regarding those particular men, I may not run the risk of being dinged with child support as the result of a consensual act which I was aware *could* result in a child that needs to be supported. I do, however, run the risk of being stalked, harassed, beaten, raped or killed, and those are just the ones off the top of *my* head. But really, good luck with that ?false report? paperwork.

I’m pretty sure I could find stats that say women “stalk” men was much as men “stalk” women.
I already mentioned “rape”, why mention it twice? Does it make you *HOT* down there?
I’m sure every woman gets beaten by her boyfriend.I mentioned me getting beaten first, though, so I’m sure that has to go both ways.
No men ever get killed by women via poison, proxy, or violence.

Anyway, you turned what I thought was a good-faith discussion into a victimology contest. And the funny thing is that most of the things you mention happen to men almost as often if not more (except rape unless you add prison stats) and..more to the point.. ARE ALL ILLEGAL. My point was that you have more legal power over me then I do over you.

In addition, I must wonder if you have multiple personalities as you keep acting as if I say things that I’m sure you must invent in your head.
I’ve never condemmned all women, at most I’ve asked for “real world” reason why I should trust them as a class with these issues when they have nothing but legal sanction to violate my trust on every level.

I’ve received no response, just an attack, and with that, I’ll bid you adieu.

“I?d just love js, or anyone, really to give me a reason why I should EVER trust women.”

This statement, that you can’t think of a reason why you should ever trust “women” because a few women entrap men (I think you said 1-8%), is condemning all women as untrustworthy. So, there you go.

“Sex and relationships are one area where you have power over me, and I have none over you….But trust issues with HER..they could get me imprisoned or enslaved. So it?s harder on me.”

As you can see, I didn’t trot out the “who’s the bigger victim” card. You did.

And the only place you mentioned “rape” was to dismiss it as a valid concern.

Finally, there is nothing stopping you from filing a false domestic violence report on me, or siccing your friends on me, or what have you. And when we’re talking about child support, I don’t have that power over you–the child does. So pack up your violins playing the World’s Saddest Song and take them with you as you bid me adieu. Good luck with the hookers!

“It?s not ?just say no? - it?s ?pick your target better.?

remind me again when women started wearing placards announcing their intention to rob a guy blind in case of accidental pregnancy.
puritan.

“in the meanwhile, zip it!”

is this what they’re teaching in the nunnery now?

When you all get done re-reading “Brave New World” can we rejoin reality?

welcome to thejungle, tomboy.

Here’s a thought. Be a little discriminating in who you take home. A quality woman wouldn’t pull crazy shit on a quality man, and vice-versa.

Would I accept any sexual favor from an attractive yet possibly crazy woman? No. I’d accept it from a sane one, but if you play with crazy fire, expect to get burned.

What about the persons free choice about whether to give money or not. I was told about a story in the bible when I was young and it said they used to throw people in jail who could not pay the money they owed until they paid it off. Well of course you can’t pay the money if your in jail. I thought how unfair is that, and there was a discussion on how enlightened we were to not have that going on. Of course today that done go on with child support if not paid the person is thrown in jail till they can pay. People sometimes lose there jobs wich would make them unable to pay, then there penalized for not paying. It is an amazing world we live in today. You would think the more educated people were the fairer they might be. I don’t see that as being the case as less educated might go from the gut on things wich might end up being more fair as most of us have some sort of concience inside of us that keeps us from doing bizzare things to people and think it is ok. What happened to the woman’s family helping her take care of the baby. Oh wait there aren’t any that are talked about. It’s always a woman that is by herself, alone, her own chioices alone. She does whatever she wants alone. Raises the kid alone. Single parent with a job raising a kid alone. I would like to see the figures if anyone has them on the violent deaths to woman by a man they knew since the beginning of men being forced into these financial committments to raise a child rather than doing it voluntarily. The child support payments have definetly created a lot of despair among men, at some point what more do they have to lose.

[...] is such that he needs to be eased into life-changing events. And that’s what my inaccurate pregnancy test does, coating his brain with wonderful doubt and inoculating him against the big revelation [...]

Interesting comments. I haven’t seen any comments from anyone who personally feels that they’ve been trapped.
Before I ever had sex with my child’s mother I asked “What happens if you get pregnant?”
Her response was “I’m not trying to trap you”.
I was foolish enough to have unprotected sex with her and she became pregnant. She then decided to tell me the she “didn’t believe in abortion”. I respect her beliefs but it would have been appropriate to mention that when I asked “What happens if you get pregnant?” Some months after my daughter was born, I asked why she had said that she “wasn’t trying to trap me”. She replied “I didn’t want to scare you off”.
I felt very uncomfortable about having sex with her for good reason. On one occasion I refused, but got a hand job off her instead. After I had cleaned myself up, I came downstairs to find her retrieving tissues covered in semen. If that doesn’t constitute attempted entrapment what does?
After that episode I found I became nausious when she attemped to have sex with me. That’s right, something in my unconscious mind would make me vomit at the thought of sex with her. That’s not normal for a male in his early twenties.
As much as I disliked my child’s mother, being nice to her was the only way to see my daughter without seeking contact through the family court. Being nice to her was honestly like putting cream on shit. As a male, I can’t really complain about the sex, but the whole episode has left me with soome trust issues.
I asked her about the kleenex episode some months later. This time she retorted “but I was very sick”.

I guess I caught one the fish that John West rejected. I can’t imagine most women are like that. I believe that dishonesty is just an unfortunate part of human nature, and all of us are capable of it. I also believe that dishonesty mainly propagates where it is tolerated. My objection is that the legal sytem provides no consequence for behaviour that is phsyotic on the part of such women. I get stuck with multiple government departments chasing me, (Child Support, community services, police, family court), while she gets money from me, her other kid’s dad, the government and legal aid. She also can make as many allegations as she likes without being prosecuted for perjury.

I walked away from my daughter over three years ago. I miss her every day. Inside it feels like a part of me is dead. I hope she’s safe. I sincerely believe that she deserves something better, but I just can’t fight that many gullible bleeding heart goverment departments at once.

On the bright side, I’ve been able to rebuild my life. I’m not walking on eggshells. No one is undermining me anymore. My daughter’s mother has no power over me anymore because she has nothing that I am willing to bargain for. I’m glad that some other poor shmuck is in her crosshairs and not me.

As many female respondants have noted, the real victim in all this is the child. I’m relatively free to get on with my life and pursue my goals. My daughter has no say in who her parents are or whether she even gets to see them. Hopefully when she’s old enough to make up her own mind, I’ll be in a stable enough position to be of some benefit to her. I can’t see that spending the next six years fighting the family court, community services and the police could do anything other than drive me to a nervous breakdown and bankruptcy.

I’d suggest to men to be more careful who they have sex with. Todays males are the only males of any species at any time in history who are forced to take responsibility for their offspring. Maybe this is a good thing, for the sake of children. It presents a challenges, requiring men to say no to sex. It seems that men are stuck with an itch which is biologically redundant in an overpopulated world. That’s not to say I advocate celibacy, or don’t like sex. I’m just more careful about who I have sex with. Child support send me a reminder notice every month of why I should be careful where I dispense my gametes, no matter what reassurances I’m given.

Adrian.

hyT57f

http://blog.lordelginhotel.ca/img/6/old-asian-fuck.html old asian fuck

Soma….

Temp soma. Cheap soma. Soma online sales. Soma. Ashes of soma lyrics….