mens rights

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

RE: mens rights

zap · texaschickeee translator

Kat... everything I say is my opinion of the facts.

Just as everything you or plush or anyone else says is THEIR opinion of the facts.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

Being the knight in shining armor type....I have dated a few gals who were single moms.
That is so sweet. I wish I had met a guy like you when I was younger.

I have to say that in every case where guys have told me about their relationships with crazy women, it turns out that there have been very clear-cut signals that the women were less than stable or at least extremely selfish, and the guys have ignored them because they've been swept away by the woman's looks. I've always believed that the blonder the hair and the bigger the boobs, the more a woman can get away with in how she treats her man. (Maybe that's sexist and I'm not saying all women are that way - just that this is what I've seen.) It's always the classic scenario of guys thinking with the wrong head. I'm not saying you do this, Zap. Just making a comment.

zap · texaschickeee translator

Be careful...you make too much sense. plush might start calling you names next....

Actually...that trend you see is a nice guy trying to work out and compromise differences. The thing I've noticed about blondes I've been around....the blonder the hair and bigger the boobs...the more outspoken, rude, obnoxious, and spoiled they are. I guess we know which head I think with don't we....

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

Actually...that trend you see is a nice guy trying to work out and compromise differences.
Yeah, but I'm talking about really EARLY signals. Like if you just met last week and she's already calling you several times a day, and/or asking to borrow money that should be a big red flag for guys. But if the woman is hot they ignore that type of thing.

One reason I stopped going to singles things, even at church, is that there will be a whole array of attractive, friendly women available, but all the guys will be crowded around one or two blondes. It's easy to see how they can become obnoxious and spoiled.

Plush · Make believe Slutty Zombie/Official TOP Drama Queen

zap wrote:

Be careful...you make too much sense. plush might start calling you names next....

That is uncalled for and immature. I was letting this thread die. Zap. Now shut the fuck up and leave me out of your fucked up thought process.

-- Edited by Badmofo at 16:19, 2006-03-13

zap · texaschickeee translator

Badmofo wrote:

zap wrote: Be careful...you make too much sense. plush might start calling you names next.... That is uncalled for and immature. I was letting this thread die. Zap. Now shut the fuck up and leave me out of your fucked up thought process.-- Edited by Badmofo at 16:19, 2006-03-13

Oh come on plush....you can say what you really think. We can handle it...come on now...let it all out. Give us some more of that INTELLIGENT "fuck you" talk.

Plush · Make believe Slutty Zombie/Official TOP Drama Queen

I do believe we have our own thread for this now. So let me go inaugurate it with some words of advice for you.

zap · texaschickeee translator

Badmofo wrote:

I do believe we have our own thread for this now. So let me go inaugurate it with some words of advice for you.

Then why did you post here? More intelligence showing?

texaschickeee · Seductively Sassy

zap wrote:

And, if you are a nice guy...how the hell do you know this chick didn't go pschyco on her ex?

first off, my ex, last b/f is the one that went psycho on me. I forgot he still had a key and showed up when I was not home and took shit out of my house. Hes statement was "you knew you were going to break up with me, so Im taking all these things back. (I would have gladly given them back if he had ASKED for them)

secondly, dont be the knight in shinng armour. that shit went out the window with goldie locks and snow white. Guess what...every person has some shit that is with them, be it from childhood, past realtionships and/or their own mental health issues. I choose to be with who I choose to be with. as I have said to my clients (females and males) that the one your with needs to be your gravy. that means they bring out the bright points in you, cover what flaws you and makes you comliment each other.

and ECON- thanks for the respect stuff. As far as I have alsways been consired its about the child, if you do the time on your back, you do the time in labor. Th eonly reasons abortions should be consired IMHO is rape, incest, mother/.babies health. but thts me. I look at it from the point I do becasue of who I am, and what I know to be true for me

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

texaschickeee wrote:

dont be the knight in shinng armour. that shit went out the window with goldie locks and snow white.
Oh pleeeeease don't encourage guys not to be knights in shining armor. I think being a knight is the most incredibly charming thing a guy can do. Sure we shouldn't depend on them or not be able to get along if they're not there for us, but that desire to rescue is soooooo amazing and wonderful and I will never stop appreciating it.

zap · texaschickeee translator

I don't think that trait and personality is long gone Chicks... I think it has just become so friggin risky and unappreciated that those of us who are naturally that way try to hide it to keep some skin on our ass....<shrug>

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

I don't think that trait and personality is long gone Chicks... I think it has just become so friggin risky and unappreciated that those of us who are naturally that way try to hide it to keep some skin on our ass....<shrug>
That is so sad. I hope knighthood doesn't get wiped out altogether. That would be a tragedy.

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

zap wrote:

I don't think that trait and personality is long gone Chicks... I think it has just become so friggin risky and unappreciated that those of us who are naturally that way try to hide it to keep some skin on our ass....<shrug>

Isn't that the fucking truth !!!!

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

Sorry Zap, with all the "name calling" and highschool mentality I hardly see the knight in shining armor appeal......LOL

zap · texaschickeee translator

You don't look much like a damsel in distress either sister....

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

ROFLOL.....you mean my innocent smile isn't working today?????

LOL

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

Had a cat one time that tried to scratch my eyes out! I swear it was smiling the whole time.

KatScratch · Bad kitty....in the best possible way

eltsacon wrote:

Had a cat one time that tried to scratch my eyes out! I swear it was smiling the whole time.

Must have pissed that cat off! You're not supposed to tease them yah know!

Me....innocent until proven otherwise

eltsacon · I have seen USofA's big balls

O, but it likes it!!! I mean I can be sitting clear on the other side of the room and that cat will just look at me with that, "Why aren't you fucking with me?", look. LOL

zap · texaschickeee translator

KatScratch wrote:

ROFLOL.....you mean my innocent smile isn't working today????? LOL

Nope........

Didn't work yesterday or the day before that either

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB's quote from the abortion thread:

However that being said, if a guy can some how express his desire to have the pregnancy terminated before a predetermined date and the woman refuses to terminate, he then should have drastically reduce child support.

Why? Who's thinking of the child then? Go to the website PCW listed. Does the father have the right to choose that for the child? If reduced child support means the mother cannot afford to keep the child, then that's what will happen. What you're saying is that if the father wants to destroy the child and the mother wants to protect it she must pay for that with a life of poverty for both her and the child.

Doesn't anyone think the father is an adult who realized that sex can result in babies but chose to take the risk anyway????

-- Edited by entre new at 22:26, 2006-03-21

zap · texaschickeee translator

Yes...he was. AS WAS THE MOTHER.

To look at the question posed here in reverse....why should the father be forced to support the child and be bound to a life of poverty because the mother decided to keep the child and didn't want to support it?

(AGAIN to clarify...I am ANTI abortion. (Damn near in all cases) ....and I DO think it is the responsibility of BOTH parents to support their children...but I think the current situation allows women to sit on their ass when they are capable of making an income ...and simply makes it a prison offense if the guy can't pay support as ordered)

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

Yes...he was. AS WAS THE MOTHER. To look at the question posed here in reverse....why should the father be forced to support the child and be bound to a life of poverty because the mother decided to keep the child and didn't want to support it? (AGAIN to clarify...I am ANTI abortion. (Damn near in all cases) ....and I DO think it is the responsibility of BOTH parents to support their children...but I think the current situation allows women to sit on their ass when they are capable of making an income ...and simply makes it a prison offense if the guy can't pay support as ordered)
In all cases I am saying the man should pay HIS HALF. I've never said the mother is not equally resposible and shouldn't be pulling half the weight. The father can also work without the burden of paying child care (which in some cases can take literally the whole paycheck) so he will never be in poverty as much as the mother.

Things must be a lot different now. When I went through this, I was always the one at fault. It was "boys will be boys" and I shouldn't have been a slut. Nobody was offering to support me while I sat on my ass either. The support (which I got for less than a year) barely paid half the day care bill. I'm not sure if things have changed that much or if you're again focussing on divorced women (who are a completely different story).

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

In all cases I am saying the man should pay HIS HALF. I've never said the mother is not equally resposible and shouldn't be pulling half the weight. The father can also work without the burden of paying child care (which in some cases can take literally the whole paycheck) so he will never be in poverty as much as the mother. Things must be a lot different now. When I went through this, I was always the one at fault. It was "boys will be boys" and I shouldn't have been a slut. Nobody was offering to support me while I sat on my ass either. The support (which I got for less than a year) barely paid half the day care bill. I'm not sure if things have changed that much or if you're again focussing on divorced women (who are a completely different story).

Well...I can for the most part dismiss that outright. I understand the concept...I just don't think that it applies nearly as much as it did 20 years ago.

As for the woman being to blame....that is VERY rare...even now. Hell...after my first marriage I raised the boy I thought was mine til he was 3 1/2 years old ...BY MYSELF. I asked the court for child support twice and was ignored both times. When it was obvious I would win custody....she popped a paternaty test...and I never saw the child again. (*shrug* what can I say...that was why I divorced her in the first place.) That is a case of the mother having superior legal rights to the guy in the mix...mind you at the time I was bound by law to support him...and I was actually sued by the department of human services for support even after the paternaty test proved he was not my biological child.

I think it is wrong for a gal to abort a child against the wishes of the father. However, he has absolutely no say what so ever in the decision. Yet, in the reverse, how can you hold him fully financially responsible for a child that was created by accident (yes both were responsible..but accidents can happen) ...... and he will seldom if ever have any rights to even if he wanted them?

I think the guy should support his kids...as should the mother...but when you look at this logically the equation is totally out of whack and favors the gals hands down.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

how can you hold him fully financially responsible for a child that was created by accident (yes both were responsible..but accidents can happen) ......
His pants fell off and he stuck his dick in her by accident? You're still not hearing me when I say that he was an adult and knew he risked making a baby when he chose to do the deed. So because it was an "accident", she and the child should bear the full burden? Wasn't it an accident for her too?

I have to do something so I'll answer the rest later.

SB · ohh, canada

entre new wrote:

His pants fell off and he stuck his dick in her by accident? You're still not hearing me when I say that he was an adult and knew he risked making a baby when he chose to do the deed. So because it was an "accident", she and the child should bear the full burden? Wasn't it an accident for her too? I have to do something so I'll answer the rest later.

So, why can't we change the paradign from, "The whore man who impregnants helpless women with his dick and must pay for the 18+years," to one of, "The woman bares sole responsibility for reperductive organs and life she chooses to bare?"

I see it was as a double standard. Woman want equal rights, or in this case, the sole right without having to take sole responsibiliy.

And as far as a guy sticking his "dick" in, in most cases it's wanted. And for those instances that it's not there is another term - rape.

And what about the man adopting out the 50% or the child that is his to someone willing to spend time with the baby and pay the child support? How do you feel about that?

(I feel like a dumbass for not seeing this thread and having this debate in the abortion thread, sorry folks)

-- Edited by SB at 00:57, 2006-03-22

-- Edited by SB at 01:54, 2006-03-22

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

Zap, I don't know what you mean about blaming the woman being "very rare". I got it from family, friends and even strangers. Sometimes it was more subtle, like "well, after all you DID get yourself pregnant". Only my parents felt the father should share some responsibility, and even they thought I was mainly at fault because I shouldn't have had sex before marriage.

I'm so sorry for what happened to you. Laws that allow that are wrong. I personally felt screwed over because even though child support was ordered (when you apply for state medical insurance that happens automatically) they never went after him for it except for a limited time when they were able to garnish his wages. I know a lot of other women in that situation. The child support system is a joke.

Also if you apply for welfare (which I did for a while because I was blind in one eye and had a partially paralyzed leg) you then give up all rights to your child support. He owed me thousands of dollars in back payments, but in applying for welfare I signed that off. He later received an inheritance and they got $20,000 out of him but I will never see a penny of that. I have trouble feeling that I was favored.

-- Edited by entre new at 01:51, 2006-03-22

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

You didn't do anything wrong, silly. We were doing it first.

I think it should be: Two adults participated, therefore two adults are responsible for the WELFARE of the child. (This would not include killing it.) If a man wants to adopt out his half of the child that's fine by me. That would actually be a very responsible thing to to.

I still feel like no one thinks the act of sex is the first step in becoming liable for a future child (for both parties). When I drive my car on public roads I know I'm taking a risk of having an accident and I'm willing to pay for my responsibiity in it. I wouldn't later say, "I didn't want an accident so I shouldn't be responsible." I am at risk of liability the minute I pull out of my driveway, and I have no opportunity to decide later that I shouldn't have to pay.

SB · ohh, canada

entre new wrote:

You didn't do anything wrong, silly. We were doing it first. I think it should be: Two adults participated, therefore two adults are responsible for the WELFARE of the child. If a man wants to adopt out his half of the child that's fine by me. That would actually be a very responsible thing to to. I still feel like no one thinks the act of sex is the first step in becoming liable for a future child (for both parties). When I drive my car on public roads I know I'm taking a risk of having an accident and I'm willing to pay for my responsibiity in it. I wouldn't later say, "I didn't want an accident so I shouldn't be responsible." I am at risk of liability the minute I pull out of my driveway, and I have no opportunity to decide later that I shouldn't have to pay.

(This would not include killing it.)

Your imposing your beliefs and removing the right for the male to have his opinion matter. So, what compensation is there for the loss of that "right?"

So you leave the driveway and someone runs a red light and hits you doing minimal damage to your car. Well, you knew that leaving the house that an accident could occur, but in this case the other person's insurance would take care of the repair costs because you were not at fault.

In the "accidental" pregnancy/child support debate there is no fault, because the both parties are at automatically at fault and the guy is going to pay child support.

Don;t get me wrong, I think that the needs of the child are paramount, but the child support system is sooooooooo completely flawed it's not funny. BUT, I also believe that men have no rights and have too (if they comply) unfairly pay child support for children they never wanted.

It just reaks of typical double standards that many women embrace and feel entitled too. We recently had a guy make a human rights complaint about being denied membership in a ladies only gym. After the story had been in the News for about a week I walked to my gym, and as I was signing in, three women were standing there complaining about what an asshole this guy was for making the complaint. So, being my smart ass self, I casually mentioned that I thought it was completely unfair that a guy was trying to gain membership to a ladies only gym, just like I thought it was completely unfair that women were suing a local golf club to gain access to the men's only lounge!!! If looks could have killed!

Women want private ladies only gym and then scream gender bias if they can't enter a men's club. They want to have the sole decision over whether or not to have and keep a baby without taking the sole financial responsibility in raising it.

I wonder why that is?

-- Edited by SB at 02:36, 2006-03-22