Boy... this makes me really eager to stop advocating mens rights...

[Deleted]

Uuh.. would it not be easier to just get on the pill if you're in a relationship rather than carrying condoms around? <.<

In that context I'm talking about a possible one nighter...

[FusedMass]

Ok FusedMass, you win. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who can't speak english and I am not fluent in any other languages (although I may be able to construct sentences as required in a few, if there's one you had in mind?) I don't mind if your not a native speaker but it would be nice to know.

I overlooked your spelling mistake. For example the Irony here you did not spell English correctly. I'm not sure how I could get my point across any more clear to you. It seems that you are living in a fantasy world (denial) which is not just the name of a river in Egypt. If you truly cannot understand what I am saying in my message. Perhaps that speaks more volumes about you then myself.

Most people seem to understand me just fine. It seems like an excuse because I boiled down your entire debate into a matter of a few sentences. Rather then reply with a solid counter argument. (You have none) you rather just ignore. Which is fine with me. I find your entire situation just as silly as you likely find my ability to construct sentences.

[Rukentuts]

In that context I'm talking about a possible one nighter...

A "possible one nighter" isn't "perfect" without a condom.

[Deleted]

In that context I'm talking about a possible one nighter...

Oh, I always saw it as a sign of thinking ahead if the guy brings condoms in ONS, if not.. too bad for him, he's not getting any from me atleast.

[Raiju]

I overlooked your spelling mistake. For example the Irony here you did not spell English correctly. I'm not sure how I could get my point across any more clear to you. It seems that you are living in a fantasy world (denial) which is not just the name of a river in Egypt. If you truly cannot understand what I am saying in my message. Perhaps that speaks more volumes about you then myself.

Most people seem to understand me just fine. It seems like an excuse because I boiled down your entire debate into a matter of a few sentences. Rather then reply with a solid counter argument. (You have none) you rather just ignore. Which is fine with me. I find your entire situation just as silly as you likely find my ability to construct sentences.

What's ironic here is that you used irony to pick out a pedantic error (not capitalizing a language) while completely misunderstanding my entire post. That's a great show of irony. Should be a listed example.

Continue to pretend like you knew my argument though! It will serve you well to explain about the fantasy world you created for me.

[Soth]

There was a story on the news a few weeks ago (US) about a lesbian seeking child support from a sperm donor. At the time, she and her partner decided to have a child. They asked a personal friend for his sperm and, after insemination, the couple broke up. The now single mother is suing the sperm donor for child support.

On this issue of divorce and child custody, my state almost always awards custody to the mother regardless of any living or financial situation. To top it off, in the few cases that a father is awarded custody the mother typically pays far less in child-support (if any at all) than a father in similar financial situations.

[DisposableHero]

Yes as you put it. It is YOUR CHILD too. You decided to get naked one night (without a condom assuming) now you want no part in the child's life (that's kinda sad) and you want her new boyfriend. (If she has one) to foot the bill. You are missing if she doesn't have a new boyfriend or she cannot get finances. You simply cannot make excuses to why you cannot pay but you took responsibility in having sex.

This is just comedy. The child belongs to both parents solely when it comes to paying for it. The bold is the real problem here. You're assuming this hypothetical woman has no agency, and is incapable of having a job and providing for herself. Her only recourse to get financing for her child (which is only the man's child in his responsibility to pay for it, and no other capacity) is through child support or from a new boyfriend. If you made the assumption that she can earn her own living, and take steps to support the child on her own, and be perfectly well off that way if she worked hard, then you would be less blind to the fact that forcing the man to support the woman's choices is wrong, and the responsibility for the child should ultimately rest with her if she decided to override her partner's wishes and have that baby on her own.

[Raiju]

There was a story on the news a few weeks ago (US) about a lesbian seeking child support from a sperm donor. At the time, she and her partner decided to have a child. They asked a personal friend for his sperm and, after insemination, the couple broke up. The now single mother is suing the sperm donor for child support.

On this issue of divorce and child custody, my state almost always awards custody to the mother regardless of any living or financial situation. To top it off, in the few cases that a father is awarded custody the mother typically pays far less in child-support (if any at all) than a father in similar financial situations.

It's clearly because you don't understand a womans needs and she needs much more to care for the child, as all shop owners will discriminate against a woman charging her 3-4x more for the same product than a man.

[Rukentuts]

Oh, I always saw it as a sign of thinking ahead if the guy brings condoms in ONS, if not.. too bad for him, he's not getting any from me atleast.

Because he shouldn't. You were actually thinking of consequences. Advocating that men should be able to have sex without protection "because it's perfect" and get out of the consequences (child support) is one of the most ludicrous arguments I've ever heard.

[FusedMass]

This is just comedy. The child belongs to both parents solely when it comes to paying for it. The bold is the real problem here. You're assuming this hypothetical woman has no agency, and is incapable of having a job and providing for herself. Her only recourse to get financing for her child (which is only the man's child in his responsibility to pay for it, and no other capacity) is through child support or from a new boyfriend. If you made the assumption that she can earn her own living, and take steps to support the child on her own, and be perfectly well off that way if she worked hard, then you would be less blind to the fact that forcing the man to support the woman's choices is wrong, and the responsibility for the child should ultimately rest with her if she decided to override her partner's wishes and have that baby on her own.

I read your reply. The Keywords that stick out to me are "If she decides to override her Partner wishes and have a kid" Even if the male is supporting it or not supporting the child. It should make very little difference. At least in the eyes of the law. If you knock a woman up despite encouraging her not to have the child. You are still required by state law to pay child support. (Even if you did not want the child. Which is kinda harsh to even say)

You imply that if the male makes his wishes known. He should NOT have to pay child support. That's the exact same thing the other poster said. I understood it but I disagree with it. I am assuming the women is taking care of the child full time and cannot work. It's not un-reasonable to assume if a women is getting child support. Then she has the kid for the majority of the time.

You are assuming if she could make her own way. In these tough economic times its much more difficult to make your own way. Then it was 10 years ago. It's possible she could earn her own way. There are some women who do not apply for Child Support. However that does not mean all situations should be treated as if the woman can support her child solely.

[DisposableHero]

Because he shouldn't. You were actually thinking of consequences. Advocating that men should be able to have sex without protection "because it's perfect" and get out of the consequences (child support) is one of the most ludicrous arguments I've ever heard.

Well perhaps you should read the real arguments rather than assuming the intention behind them. The intention is to protect men from a form of fraud that can be devastating financially for a long period of time. A consequence of that change would allow men something that is already afforded to women through abortion, the ability to have sex without protection for whatever reason, and get out of the consequences (pregnancy, having a child), however, you make the leap in saying that lack of consequence is the point of the change. It isn't, it is a side effect of it. It isn't a negative one unless again you believe that the ability get out of the consequences of sex is something only women should have access to.

[Stir]

Because I agree that as a basic human rights for women. They should be allowed to get finances from a child both people equally contributed to making that would make me a male feminist. It's basic human rights. A woman typically goes through nine months of hell to have the child. After that if the male decides to split. Like some other posters hinted they would like the option.

What is wrong with a female getting money for the child. It's not going to her partying lifestyle. It's basic food and things for the child.

There's nothing about any of that in my post.
My close friend is a feminist, he is male, and his opinion has absolutely nothing to do with childbirth.
Me, myself: As a gender equalitarian (you know; both feminist and masculinist), I am much more concerned with how society functions when it comes to gender expectations, how we're indoctrinated to expect and act accordingly, and how this indoctrination is harming the human rights of both genders in their own ways.
I

read your reply. The Keywords that stick out to me are "If she decides to override her Partner wishes and have a kid" Even if the male is supporting it or not supporting the child. It should make very little difference. At least in the eyes of the law. If you knock a woman up despite encouraging her not to have the child. You are still required by state law to pay child support. (Even if you did not want the child. Which is kinda harsh to even say)

You imply that if the male makes his wishes known. He should NOT have to pay child support. That's the exact same thing the other poster said.

If I give you a knife for your birthday, and tell you not to cut your hand off, and the next day you decide you dó want to lob off your hand and go through with lobbing off your hand anyway, I am in no way responsible for your decision to lob off your hand, even though I gave you the knife.

[Rukentuts]

Well perhaps you should read the real arguments rather than assuming the intention behind them.

I have been reading lolalola's posts, and that's exactly what he is saying.

[FusedMass]

Well perhaps you should read the real arguments rather than assuming the intention behind them. The intention is to protect men from a form of fraud that can be devastating financially for a long period of time. A consequence of that change would allow men something that is already afforded to women through abortion, the ability to have sex without protection for whatever reason, and get out of the consequences (pregnancy, having a child), however, you make the leap in saying that lack of consequence is the point of the change. It isn't, it is a side effect of it. It isn't a negative one unless again you believe that the ability get out of the consequences of sex is something only women should have access to.

Every Time I notice a person posts the real topic of the thread. That is To get out of Child Support people want to change the context. First it's about Men's..Rights..then protecting yourself from fraud. You Imply that women can have an abortion where the male does not have an option to "Opt Out" that's a tiny bit sickening.

Since the woman if she decides to keep the child. Has to keep the child and raise it. She also goes through nine months of hormones and mourning sickness. It's not as if the woman is getting a free ride. Simply making the man pay child support to get more money for herself. If your argument is that you want an option for her to have the child without paying a dime in support.

Then why not flat out say so instead of making it seem like some women are corrupted or they use fraud etc. It's the same argument for not wanting to be a responsible parent and be there if not emotionally or physically at least financially. I think my remarks have fallen on deaf ears. Most people in this thread seem hell bent on not paying anything despite what the state and federal law already says.

[DisposableHero]

I read your reply. The Keywords that stick out to me are "If she decides to override her Partner wishes and have a kid" Even if the male is supporting it or not supporting the child. It should make very little difference. At least in the eyes of the law. If you knock a woman up despite encouraging her not to have the child. You are still required by state law to pay child support. (Even if you did not want the child. Which is kinda harsh to even say)

Abortion is legal. Access to it is not restricted to those in serious medical need of it, nor is it restricted to those who can prove in court that they took reasonable precaution against the pregnancy. Through this the law tells us that a woman has a right to choose, and no woman can be made a mother against her will. If it is illegal to force motherhood on a woman against her will, it should be illegal to force fatherhood on a man against his will. That is simply equality. I can link cases until this thread is 200 pages long that show that child support payments are often onerous, that some men are not fit to raise children financially, emotionally or for other reasons, and that some women recklessly throw this burden on to men in their desire to have children, and neither care for the impact on their so called lovers nor the cost to society to support children they are not ready to raise, but in the end it comes down this simple fact:

The law prevents a women from ever being forced into motherhood. It offers no such protection for men being forced into fatherhood.

Lastly, if you are going to argue about the woman's inability to raise a child, there are two things you should consider:
1) Maternity leave, social safety nets that account for dependents, and day care are all things that exist. No women with children at home are forced to abandon their job for those children if they don't feel that is whats best for them.
2) Any argument against the woman's ability to raise children can be turned around and shown to be that said woman is making a choice and expecting someone else (be that society as a whole or just the man who impregnated her) to carry the lion's share of the consequences for her, which is not behavior the law should encourage.

[Ebildays]

A bit late because of organizing my thoughts, but oh well.

I feel like I've been told by my parents is that my only job is to go to college, get a job, and provide for a family. I've never wanted to be anything other than a writer, and I don't feel any desire to have children. I went to college for about a year (smart enough to get a full scholarship), but I absolutely could not stand it so I dropped out. My mom constantly pressures me to go to community college and then go back to university, and doesn't accept my desire to solely write, insisting that I can't support a family as a writer.

My mom and my dad divorced when I was 8 or 9 and she pretty much cut off most all contact with him, and I didn't see him except a couple weekends a month. They didn't get along well towards the end of the marriage. She ended up just raising me and my sisters on her own, and my dad barely played much of a role in my life. I guess I didn't really understand at the time why my dad was so frustrated after the divorce. My sisters and I were the most important things to him and he didn't get to see us much and didn't get much opportunity to help raise us. We went on quite a few fun trips with my mom, but never went with my dad because he never got enough time. I used to enjoy going on road trips to see my dad's family in Idaho around Christmas and spend a week or so there in the snow. I never got to go on those trips after the divorce.

I don't know how much child support or alimony my dad had to pay, but my mom lived rather comfortably after divorcing my dad, and he wasn't able to afford a living space big enough for my sisters and I for a few years, only a tiny condo (my mom kept the house). He went through a few jobs at this point as well, if I remember correctly. It either started shortly after or shortly before the divorce. I know for sure my mom didn't have a job at that point, but still got primary custody. She did get a well-paying job later, though.

I don't really get how my mom can tell me that I need to get a job and support a family when she divorced my dad and supported us without any real need for him to even be in the picture.

My mom and sisters are rather materialistic. Perhaps it's just me, but I've never understood the reasons behind giving jewelry and expensive gifts on Valentine's Day and anniversaries or even the point behind them, and I remember my mom got in a fight with my step-dad (she remarried when I was halfway through high school.) because he didn’t her something expensive one year. She told me that one day when I get married I’m gonna have to spoil my wife with jewelry and such, and work to support her. This was only reinforced through my experiences outside of my family.

I honestly did feel like for a while that my only real value to any potential partner the amount of money I would have or my social status or my looks, and not so much who I am as a person or my mind. Perhaps I don't feel like that anymore because it's something I don't think about anymore. Either way I had my mom pushing it on me that my duty was to marry and work to provide. My dad married and provided but then after the divorce it turned out he wasn't really needed to provide either, aside from maybe child support and alimony to make things more comfortable. He provided what could be called emotional support, but that made no difference really. It's hard for me to fathom how a good dad must feel to not be able to see his kids often, not be able to raise them or take them on trips, to lose his house and basically his entire life that he built, in a divorce. I suppose the best comparison I can make for it for myself is if everything I had written was destroyed or burned. It would be losing the identity that I had built for myself. My dad was a family man and basically lost his identity. My dad was lucky that my mom grew up without a father and she wanted us to have a relationship with my dad (although I don’t think she realized a few days a month isn’t much of a relationship), because she probably could have gotten full custody.

I consider myself lucky because my girlfriend (and future wife) does not care for anything material, doesn't mind living in poverty, and doesn't want kids either. She wants to support herself and wouldn’t feel right to live off of what I make, which I find pretty odd to find in anyone. She’s had a shitty life and had terrible things happen to her and she doesn’t bitch about it and doesn’t let it affect her, and we both find humor in it. Everything I had seen up to the point of meeting her had told me that this type of person does not even exist. And now I know that people like her are actually real. So, I would say things have ended up working out well.

Probably still a bit disorganized, but oh well. TL;DR mom (and it feels like society as well) tells me my job in life is to provide for a wife and raise kids, she divorced my dad and pretty much raised me and my sisters on her own, no real need for dad.

I want to start off by saying that divorce is rarely the fault of just one person. And there may be many factors that lead up to your parents divorce that you may not know about.

Society does tell men that their job (worth) in life is to provide for a wife and children. It also tells men that they should be emotional or show weakness, because of this women are told (believe) that a man shows his love by his actions. Actions meaning how much he spends on her by taking her out to dinner, buying her nice things, and spending money on her in general. The more a man loves you the more he will spend on you, so by asking a man to buy you expensive things a woman can reinforce to herself how my a man loves her. The problem with this now is that women have their own money, can buy nice things for themselves and in some cases afford something better than a man can give her. So the actions by which men have been "told" to show their love and emotions by are not really needed by most women. Women now want to see a man's emotions and they want to see a man doing something that is normally woman's work like washing clothes or cooking dinner. But society still tells men that doing those things are some who wrong and not "manly" so it drives the disconnect between men and women even more.

I think the best group for men to look to for advice about male identity would be gay males. For the most part this group of men have left the traditional male identity of husband/father and made their own. We don't see gay males as worthless to society because they are not married or have children, now at one point people did I will admit. It is as if by being gay they have been able to shed not only ideas about male identity but gender roles as well.

Now this is just my ideas on this issue and I am not saying they are fact even if it sounds like it.

On a side note some women did get pregnant on purpose but it is not to trapt a man into child support payments but due to the antiquated belief that child will keep a man in a relationship. So it is more to trapt a man into a relationship, which woman have been doing since......forever. It is nothing new or something that just came into popular fashion.

[Deleted]

A "possible one nighter" isn't "perfect" without a condom.

I agree completely! Which is why I'm making sure I have one with me I don't want to run the risk he doesn't have one. As small as it may be. And especially to the younger population (who are more prone to going for it anyway, even when he has none with him) I say its better to have condoms with you, even as female.

I must say I've never used a female condom though.

[Wafffles]

Basically what the article shows is that modern attitudes to sex and fidelity need to be re-thought.

Its unreasonable to expect your partner to stay faithful to you for one. I don't expect my girlfriend to be faithful to me, I merely expect her to be subtle about it and not catch any STDs or pregnancies while she is at it.

...Can I get yo' girl's numba?

But seriously, what a depressing outlook. Why not just be single then and be with her when you both feel like it? Or be officially in an open relationship?

Also, I'd like to point out that no one ever 'expects' to get an STD, especially while cheating. As if her natural inclination is to be like, "not only am I gonna cheat on my insufficient boyfriend, I'm gonna get the clap too! Just to shove it in his face! Ha!" and the only thing stopping her are your 'expectations' to the contrary.

[Ebildays]

Every Time I notice a person posts the real topic of the thread. That is To get out of Child Support people want to change the context. First it's about Men's..Rights..then protecting yourself from fraud. You Imply that women can have an abortion where the male does not have an option to "Opt Out" that's a tiny bit sickening.

Since the woman if she decides to keep the child. Has to keep the child and raise it. She also goes through nine months of hormones and mourning sickness. It's not as if the woman is getting a free ride. Simply making the man pay child support to get more money for herself. If your argument is that you want an option for her to have the child without paying a dime in support.

Then why not flat out say so instead of making it seem like some women are corrupted or they use fraud etc. It's the same argument for not wanting to be a responsible parent and be there if not emotionally or physically at least financially. I think my remarks have fallen on deaf ears. Most people in this thread seem hell bent on not paying anything despite what the state and federal law already says.

I don't see how an "Opt Out" is sickening when a woman can abort a child if she chooses to. We can white wash abortion as giving women control over their bodies which it does but it also robs a potential child of life and for what reason? In most cases it is because the woman does does not want the potential child or cannot afford to have it. So when a woman aborts for those reasons it is okay because it is her body but if a man wants to "opt out" for those very same reason it is a bit sickening. Now, don't get me wrong because I am pro-choice but I still see abortion as taking a potential life away and for me I see giving men an "Opt Out' as sort of legal abortion but with less denying of life.

Now if a woman chooses to keep her child she is making that choice knowing what pregnancy is and what is about. She knows fully well that she will not be getting anything from the man so if she wants to go it alone where is the problem? I see this no differently than a woman choosing to have a child with a man that already has children that he does not support. Don't be stupid enough to have sex with someone that will not support you both emotionally and financially in the event you become pregnant. Which is the same thing I say about men who don't use a condom, don't be stupid use a condom.

The whole point of the thread is to get federal laws to change so that men can opt out of paying.

[TheBeardedOne]

once again i will post the fairest solution that doesn't take away anyone's rights
Allowing a man to opt out in the first month of pregnancy or something similar would allow the woman to decide her OWN future with all the information in front of her. She isn't forced into anything and the child(if it is even born) will be born into a situation where is is loved and provided for.
None of the childs rights are taken away.
The possible outcomes from this would be as follows;
1-both man and woman want to keep it- both are happy
2- man wants to keep it but woman doesn't- the WOMAN decides on whether or not to carry it or have an abortion, if she carries it she has no financial responsibility
3- man doesn't want it but woman does- man has limited period to opt out, woman has all the FACTS in ample time and is able to make whatever decision she wants
4-neither want it-woman decides abortion or adoption, both are happy

Neither the woman or the man has any choices made for them in this type of deal and nothing is forced onto another person. The child is taken care of in all cases. Yes mistakes have been made by both parties, but one party should not be making a unilateral decision for both parties just because of their genitals and because they have a fetus in them. They are adults for gods sake, you do not make life changing decisions for another adults life ever. Its still not equal but it never will be(you can never force a woman to give birth), at least this is close