mens rights

zap · texaschickeee translator

RE: mens rights

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

Zap, how is emotion involved in what I've twice proposed above?

What about this scenario:

People start recognizing sex as risky business and learn to take it seriously. Couples make an attempt at getting to know each other and learning each other's beliefs before allowing their relationship to become sexual. Then at some point they sit down and discuss the issues involved: pregnancy, STD's and the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship. They decide on what form/s of protection to use and what they will do if the birth control fails. If one party says they would want to keep the baby, they discuss whether that party is fully capable of taking financial responsibility. They write a letter of intent, stating what action will be taken if a pregnancy results. If any party chooses to go against what was agreed on, they take full responsibility for the child.

How's that?

I'm still waiting for you to respond to this or to even acknowledge that I said it. When any logical attempts at reaching an agreement are ignored, that's when things get down to personal examples and emotion.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

scarecrow wrote:

the recipient may be assessed imputed income because they are in school trying to learn a trade to be better able to provide for themselves and the baby. They might have medical problems that prevent them from being able to do the work that is available. I look forward to seeing what you all, as a group, decide to do.

I think that should then be covered by public assistance. I'm not sure if the father should have to have increased payments because of those issues.

I'm tempted to say that if the guy got a woman with a medical or mental problem pregnant he should have known what he was in for child support-wise. But that's only because I've seen men making retarded women pregnant over and over again, often with babies who are also retarded or disabled and I'd like to see the govt come down harder on those guys with child support because of it. But as Zap says, then emotion would be involved, so I won't say that.

-- Edited by entre new at 20:49, 2006-03-25

zap · texaschickeee translator

entre new wrote:

Zap, how is emotion involved in what I've twice proposed above? What about this scenario: People start recognizing sex as risky business and learn to take it seriously. Couples make an attempt at getting to know each other and learning each other's beliefs before allowing their relationship to become sexual. Then at some point they sit down and discuss the issues involved: pregnancy, STD's and the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship. They decide on what form/s of protection to use and what they will do if the birth control fails. If one party says they would want to keep the baby, they discuss whether that party is fully capable of taking financial responsibility. They write a letter of intent, stating what action will be taken if a pregnancy results. If any party chooses to go against what was agreed on, they take full responsibility for the child. How's that? I'm still waiting for you to respond to this or to even acknowledge that I said it. When any logical attempts at reaching an agreement are ignored, that's when things get down to personal examples and emotion.

I"m sorry Entre...I was not ducking you and didn't realize you intended that to me.

First, that is not a bad idea, though it might be an unfeasable one. I don't think you will ever be able to make people sign a contract before engaging in sexual activities. (even the ones who SHOULD be allowed to breed)

But lets quickly put it this way. What if you do all the planning ahead of time and the rubber breaks? Now, even with the signed contract, the mother changes her mind. Is it fair to her to say no...you can't do that? Do you still feel that the father would have some responsibility?

I agree that this solution you put out is logical....but I don't think it is realistic. Just as child support is supposed to be for the child...it is not always that way.

The logic or emotion comes out when we delve into the gray areas of the situation that no one wants.

zap · texaschickeee translator

But as Zap says, then emotion would be involved, so I won't say that.

Nope...not at all. I agree with you. I think the logical way to deal with that situation is to make a dent in responsibilities.

Just as I think the way to logically deal with women who have all the rights and little responsibilities is to make a dent in their responsibilities (thought less support and more rights for the guy involved)

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

I don't think you will ever be able to make people sign a contract before engaging in sexual activities.

Unfortunately, I think if guys will be let off of paying child support because they say they told the women before sex that they didn't want a baby, it should have to be in writing. Otherwise I think all guys would say that.

What if you do all the planning ahead of time and the rubber breaks?

This is part of what I said. "They decide on what form/s of protection to use and what they will do if the birth control fails."

Now, even with the signed contract, the mother changes her mind. Is it fair to her to say no...you can't do that?

Because I do believe in honoring contracts, I would feel a lot more comfortable saying that if the woman changes her mind she should support the baby. I don't so much mind putting the burden on her if she has broken a condition of the contract. I also wouldn't mind my taxes helping her because she at least tried to be responsible.

Of course I think couples who use only condoms as birth control are irresponsible, but nevertheless they stuck to what they agreed on.

I agree that this solution you put out is logical....but I don't think it is realistic.

But that's the thing, Zap, we have to start thinking of this as at least feasible because the direction things are going isn't good at all. We have to take sex more seriously in general. I would like to see a man in a child support case be able to produce a letter of intent or a contract, and then see what happens. If enough people did this it might get some attention, just like the guy in the original article is getting attention.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

zap wrote:

I think the logical way to deal with that situation is to make a dent in responsibilities. Just as I think the way to logically deal with women who have all the rights and little responsibilities is to make a dent in their responsibilities (thought less support and more rights for the guy involved)

And I guess that's what I'm trying to do too. Make a dent in responsibilities for guys who don't think before they have sex. Okay, give the woman more responsibility, but taking away what little most guys already have can only make things worse.

Unfortunately I think that to assess more child support for a woman with a medical condition could open up a can of worms. Sure I'd love to get all the guys who do what I mentioned above, but it could ultimately lead to people saying they can't work because of an addiction or stress or whatnot, and then asking for more child support.

-- Edited by entre new at 22:29, 2006-03-25

SB · ohh, canada

entre new wrote:

Make a dent in responsibilities for guys who don't think before they have sex.

You really have an issue with men when it comes to child support. You come so far, then turn around and blame the guy for 90% of the problems.

I have to say, that I find this disturbing and it makes women seem "less than". I think women should be empowered over there that guys! If a guy refuses to use approprate birth control, and she engages in sex, than she has given away her power! She has put herself in a bad position.

The woman has the baby, the stretch marks, the weight gain, the diabetes, high blood pressure, her body changes forever, and if she chooses to keep the baby, she possibly ruins her financial future.

So, who agian isn't thinking before sex?

USofAcop · Banned

What are you running you gums about ZAP? You are no man, what do you know about mens rights?

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB, as you know I'm not reading your posts because our views are so different that it's non-productive for us to talk, and because I just don't want to be mad at you. But I did catch your last two sentences as I read US's post, so I would like to comment.

I think men are generally the ones who pressure women for sex. My views are certainly colored by my own experience but I have no reason to think that mine is different from anyone else's. What I remember most about my years of actively dating was the constant and intense pressure for sex, often beginning on the first date. There was really no getting to know each other, because all the talk was of how sexy I am (which I am not) and how much they wanted to "make love" to me.

I finally started using personal ads and specifically searched for ones in which guys specifically stated that they wanted to be friends. But then it was always, "I thought that was what I wanted until I met you." (Oh please... ) If I expressed any hesitancy it was, "Do you have some kind of problem with sex?"

As I've said before, when I did choose to have sex, I was ABSOLUTELY NEVER asked whether I was using birth control or whether I believed in abortion.

I find the whole situation discouraging. Guys think of sex as a fun pastime and don't seem to realize that there are any downsides. I think that if they have no responsibility for the children they make, it will get a lot worse. Yeah, the woman is an idiot if she goes along with it, but it seems like if she wants to meet men she has to play the game. That's why I rarely date anymore, and one of the reasons why I'm considering dating women.

There are people being stupid on both sides, but you want the woman to be the only one who suffers consequences for it.

-- Edited by entre new at 14:35, 2006-03-26

SB · ohh, canada

entre new wrote:

. There are people being stupid on both sides, but you want the woman to be the only one who suffers consequences for it

That's not true, I do not want only the woman suffer the consequences for "it".

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone to answer my two very simple questions. So, I'll cut it down to one.

Should men receive any form of compensation for not having rights when it comes to abortion?

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

Should men receive any form of compensation for not having rights when it comes to abortion?

How about the 5 sessions of psychotherapy that you proposed for the woman? If that was compensation for something that will affect her for the rest of her life, then it should be for the man too.

And by the way, when I said "it" I was referring to the stupidity, not the sex act or the child.

-- Edited by entre new at 20:52, 2006-03-26

SB · ohh, canada

Thank you for that well thought out response.

So, you are saying that men's rights, and the loss of tens of thousands of dollars, is worth 5 couseling sessions.

I guess it's impossible to intelligently debate equal rights for all.

Plush · Make believe Slutty Zombie/Official TOP Drama Queen

What must I do to end this repeating as thread. Don't make me pull out my boobies.

SB · ohh, canada

plushleather wrote:

What must I do to end this repeating as thread. Don't make me pull out my boobies.

Pull them out!!!! lol Or don't, if you think you can actually say no to a man. I hear most women can't!!

Plush · Make believe Slutty Zombie/Official TOP Drama Queen

who you been talkin to?

Date: Mar 26, 2006

yada yada yada...

Summary of post (p7) listed following. what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread?

entre you are women.. have no ability to have the higher intelligence level of logical reasoning... and... you dont even have the brain to recognize it.

drive bye insult to scarecrow

Men are always the victems in discussions

Instructions on small child level regarding correct debating form

denial of "bitterness and issues" with women

generalization that women are more coniving and evil than men

more listing of where author is the victem , yet again

another slam on women

another drive bye at scarecrow.

zap wrote:

Entre 1st, that was the most emotionally charged argument I've seen you post. I know it is not your fault, it is just the way you have learned to 'fight'. It is the same with MOST women whether they realize or admit it or not. (At least you are not trying to attack the credibility of the person that disagrees as Scarecrow is.) If someone disagrees with that argument, it will appear that we are heartless and cruel. That is the basis of an emotional arguement. The opponent has to either comply or look like an ass if they don't. That is why in a serious debate like this...you just must leave emotion out and only look at the issues and facts. Becasue after all....in a face to face confrontation like this....the next step would be tears. That doesn't work on the internet though. (I am not suggesting that YOU would use tears to win an argument....but MOST women I"ve known certainly would) Kat If I really was bitter and had issues with women, they would not have had the opportunities to do the damage that they have in my case. Women are simply better at being coniving and evil than MOST men are. That doesn't mean I have issues with them...that just means in my life experience and observation of situations involving myself and many others, women cause more mayhem with less responsibility for doing so, than do most men. I can think of one notable exception to that where a man played emotion and stole a lot of money from me and others....but on second throught....there was a coniving and evil woman behind that one too. It is an observable fact that MOST women turn to emotion in a disagreement. (like Entre, and even you I've noticed at times) Some try to not only use emotion but try to discredit the person who dissagrees with them as does Scarecrow. (who still will not admit her position on the issues or answer the direct questions possed her mind you)

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

Thank you for that well thought out response. So, you are saying that men's rights, and the loss of tens of thousands of dollars, is worth 5 couseling sessions. I guess it's impossible to intelligently debate equal rights for all.
As you were saying that the loss of a child is worth 5 counseling sessions!!! That is exactly what you proposed for the woman. Are you saying the loss of a child is less traumatic than the loss of tens of thousand of dollars?

zap · texaschickeee translator

Hey Scarecrow....

Do you have ANYthing related to the topic of the thread to contribute?

Date: Mar 26, 2006

SB wrote:

What appears to keep getting lost, is that this debate is about "men's rights" in relation to paying child support for a child they wanted aborted. This represents a very small percentage of live births (or at least I would hope so).

Another fact, is that 85% of single parents are women. = So, to say that we are unfairly picking on, or unfairly saying that single parents just want to sit at home is not an accurate statement.

I must have missed something. (I'm not being sarcastic)

85% of single parents are women.=single parents just want to sit at home ???

how did you get from one point to the other point? (maybe I missed a post somewhere along the way?)

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

Thank you for that well thought out response. So, you are saying that men's rights, and the loss of tens of thousands of dollars, is worth 5 couseling sessions. I guess it's impossible to intelligently debate equal rights for all.

SB, it's because of answers like this that you piss me off and Zap doesn't when you both have the same beliefs. When I spoke of the trauma of losing what I perceive as a child, you offerred me half of 5 sessions of psychotherapy as compensation. I offerred you the same in return for your money, and you imply that I'm not intelligent and didn't think out my response. I'm not sure what the hell you see as being the difference.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I'm just always so amazed.

-- Edited by entre new at 00:18, 2006-03-27

Date: Mar 26, 2006

SB wrote:

plushleather wrote: What must I do to end this repeating as thread. Don't make me pull out my boobies. Pull them out!!!! lol Or don't, if you think you can actually say no to a man. I hear most women can't!!

lol... sb honey.... WHERE do you live that the women just cant say "no"?

lol.. there is going to be a stampeede of guys heading your direction as soon as you let the cat out of the bag on that location...

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

scarecrow wrote:

WHERE do you live that the women just cant say "no"?

I've talked about how there is pressure for sex way before women are ready. My point is that guys are complaining about unwanted children but are still ready to push sex on any woman who's in front of them. Of course SB's interpretation of this is that I was saying "women can't say no to sex".

-- Edited by entre new at 01:01, 2006-03-27

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

Scarecrow, I would just like to say that I am not bothered by Zap or the things he's said because I believe he's at least genuinely trying to keep an open mind and is partly able to see the viewpoint of others. However, as always, I appreciate your input.

-- Edited by entre new at 23:29, 2006-03-26

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

You really have an issue with men when it comes to child support. You come so far, then turn around and blame the guy for 90% of the problems. I have to say, that I find this disturbing and it makes women seem "less than". I think women should be empowered over there that guys! If a guy refuses to use approprate birth control, and she engages in sex, than she has given away her power! She has put herself in a bad position. The woman has the baby, the stretch marks, the weight gain, the diabetes, high blood pressure, her body changes forever, and if she chooses to keep the baby, she possibly ruins her financial future. So, who agian isn't thinking before sex?
I am participating in a thread which was started by an article regarding child support, so that's what I'm discussing. Child support is not even a subject which is particularly close to my heart.

I see no place where I've blamed the guy for 90% of the problems. I do blame guys for the fact that dating has come to mean a series of negotiations for sex, but that's just my personal thing, and not what I base my opinion on.

I absolutely believe in women being empowered. There is NO reason for a woman to agree to have sex with a man who won't use birth control. I am just pointing out that while men, are crying, "why should we have to pay child support?" they are at the same time asking for sex from women they barely know, and not protecting themselves in any way. Where's the power in that? Like I said, both sides are being stupid, both sides should experience consquences.

SB · ohh, canada

EN, the reason why I accuse you of always seeming to blame men, is because you do!! In your posts, it's always the guy wanting sex, or out of paying child support.

I am going to say this once again. We are ONLY TALKING ABOUT MEN WHO DON'T WANT TO BE A FATHERS WHILE THE WOMEN IS IN THE EARLY STAGES OF PREGNANCY AND WANT THE WOMAN TO HAVE AN ABORTION, and not any other form of relationship.

The issues are:

1. Does a man have the right to force a woman to terminate a pregnacy;

2. If he can't force a termination (because the woman wants to keep the child) should he pay child support?

The arguement before the courts and the cause of this debate, is that some 19 guy slept with a gal who told him she as unable to get pregnant due to a medical condition. She got pregnant and he wanted her to have an abortion, which she refused. She now has a two year old and wants him to pay child support. He believes he shouldn't have to pay child support as he made his intentions known (the abortion), and she ignored them and decided to have the child on her own.

This debate does not encompass your "average dead beat dad" and I wish we could somehow remember that. I have no issue with any other child support situation. In every other situation I think the guy should pay half of ALL costs associatated with having a child and then some.

I am just sick of this "victim" mentality bullshit. Even down to "men have always pressured me for sex" crap. Women have fought for equality for decades, but if equality mens accountability and hardship, it appears they're not interested. Life is full of really tuff decisions and consequences.

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

SB wrote:

I am just sick of this "victim" mentality bullshit. Even down to "men have always pressured me for sex" crap. Women have fought for equality for decades, but if equality mens accountability and hardship, it appears they're not interested. Life is full of really tuff decisions and consequences.

I'm always going along with you for most of your post, and then you say something really annoying at the end. I am asking why MEN don't look out for themselves. You talk about empowering women, but how are men empowered when they go sniffing around stangers for sex, and don't bother to ask if that stranger is on birth control. If you're going to say "women should say no" I'm going to say, "men shouldn't press the issue in the first place". Don't you understand that when the mother is a single parent SHE takes on a life of "accountability and hardship" as well? At least in that case, BOTH parties are accepting the consequences of their actions.

I have also been VERY CLEAR that I realize the fact that men pressure me for sex is MY personal issue and that it's not what I'm basing my opionion on. But it is what makes me think that men are not acting like people who don't want to have babies.

And in having this on my mind for the past couple of hours, I realized one thing: if I had pressured a man for sex and he gave in to me and I got pregnant there is NO WAY I would not take 100% responsibility for the child. Whatever issues he had that made it difficult to say no to me would not be relevant, because I was the one that pushed it. I guess I have more of an innate sense of responsibility than most men do.

Your patronizing attitude which makes you want to tell me repeatedly that life is tough as though I was not aware of that is what really makes my blood boil. Maybe our answer to the men who don't want to pay child support is "life is full of really tough decisions and consequences". To me, they're the ones with the "victim mentality". If at some point you can stop being patronizing, I may get around to answering your specific questions.

-- Edited by entre new at 03:13, 2006-03-27

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

Does a man have the right to force a woman to terminate a pregnacy

If a man does not have a say in whether a pregnancy he equally caused should be terminated, that’s not fair. All he wanted was an enjoyable experience, and he’s now in for 18+ years of financial hardship. He has no say in whether the baby is born but he’s still responsible for its support. That’s very unfair.

If a man does have a say in whether a pregnancy he equally caused should be terminated, that’s not fair. The woman has already developed a bond with the child and her instinct is to protect it. It’s a child that she wants and loves, and now she is forced to give it up. At the point where the man makes the decision, his part is over but her troubles are just beginning. That’s very unfair.

To me it’s a matter of weighing one unfairness against the other. Most people would agree that the experience of losing a child (or what one perceives as a child) is worse than the experience of losing money. Most people would also agree that when two people participate in something which causes a problem they should BOTH experience consequences. In the first case, both parties experience consequences equally. In the second, all the consequences fall on one . So in choosing between two unfair alternatives, I choose the first option.

So I say no, the man does not have the right to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy.

SB · ohh, canada

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Though, it's not fair to assume that all pregnant women feel a need to protect their unborn children. Some women have numerous abortions, hate the child growing inside them, sell them, act as surrogates, and after child birth some mothers kill there babies.

So we agree that it is unfair for men to have no say in the matter, but the great unfairness would be to force a mother who wants to keep the child to terminate the pregnancy. On that I agree with you as well!!!!!!

So, should the man who did not want the baby in the first place and has no rights for the greater good, pay the exact same amount child support as a father who wanted a child and for want ever reason the relationship disolved?

entre new · Et tu, Brute?

If he can't force a termination (because the woman wants to keep the child) should he pay child support?

If the man is forced to provide half the support of the child while the woman pays the other half, the man will suffer significant financial hardship. He didn't want the child and will receive no benefit from the money he pays. That’s unfair.

If the woman is forced to provide the full support of the child with no help from the other party she will suffer significant financial hardship. The child will also suffer significant financial hardship. The father will suffer no financial hardship. That’s unfair.

Again it’s a matter of weighing one unfairness against the other. Most people would agree that it is worse for a child to suffer hardship than for an adult to suffer hardship. And once again, most people would agree that when two people participate in something which causes a problem they should BOTH experience consequences. In the first case, both guilty parties experience consequences equally, and the innocent party, the child, suffers none. In the second, all consequences fall on only one guilty party, and the child who had no fault in the matter, suffers consequences as well. So in choosing between two unfair alternatives, I choose the first option.

So I say yes, the man should pay child support.

-- Edited by entre new at 06:41, 2006-03-27