Monday, April 13, 2009

Comments worth reading

If you haven't done so already, take a look at the interesting comments in the "Gotcha pregnancy" thread, they are worth a read.

56 Comments:

Blogger Doom said...

What is that saying... something about leading a horse to honesty? Nay, my good friend. Some just cannot tell the difference.

I read all this while I am looking for a good woman and wife. For the right one, the money isn't an issue (though trust always will be). For a good family, money cannot compare. But to be cheated... And they wonder why some men become violent.

Then again, I will stay celibate until I am married, so trickery isn't available. I got "lucky" in my earlier "conquistador" era. I found out about a woman who was poking holes in a friend's condoms, I caught a girlfriend doing her own little tricks, and I know that scene. As I said, I lucked out. Perhaps now that I am settled, I can find a good woman as I try to be a right man.

I am not sure what can be done about the bias, however. We cannot seem to elect politicians who are pro-American in the broader sense of the term, perhaps even in the simpler meaning, how can we possibly find politicians who are moral and can engage such issues?

I have given up on the state as a place for hope (long ago). So, it is in my hands and only personal. That is probably as good as it gets. Men are going to have to become chaste. That would change the thing a great deal. I don't know, however, if we can do it. I do know, if things keep going as they are, we will continue to decline as a society. Then again, I think that is what the gov wants. It gives the gov an excuse to butt into things it shouldn't.

Just some thoughts.

3:38 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Major-General said...

The next time I read about the gender wars, I promise not to listen to songs about prostitutes (Lili Marleen, Marlene Dietrich).

On topic though, it seems to go around arguing the same points over and over.

5:30 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

To me it seems more about intense emotional reactions when someone has a different viewpoint. Not all of the posts, but certainly more than a few.

Trey

8:51 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Doom wrote: "I can find a good woman as I try to be a right man."

Outstanding, I wish I had said it that well.

Trey

8:52 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

I just can't get over how some focus all their animosity for the duped father and not the scheming mother.

Was the father foolish? Yes. But the mother was far worse.

9:00 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Fraud is indeed far worse than foolishness in my book. It is a willfull choice to deceive and profit from that deceit.

We need a good Catholic here to parse it better.

Trey

9:05 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

There are only two solutions to the issue of "oops" paternity fraud.

1. Make it equal. If these women thought that the men they trick would have a 40-50% chance of getting custody and child support themselves, they would probably use the donor clinic or pick a willing partner for the arrangement.

Or

2. Give women all the responsibility, which would be the price they pay for having all the power. Child support would have to be a mutual arrangement tied to visitation, but he would not be legally obligated.

Our society isn't ready for either option. Too many votes to buy otherwise. But the plain and ugly truth is that as long as custody and financial support for the woman are automatic, it will continue to happen. Unless, of course, men write off women altogether, which may be a reality that the feminists have set up for their daughters.

This is also why women are divorcing their husbands at such high rates--if getting the house, kids, and money weren't automatic --indeed, if they were as big a risk for the woman as the man--there would be more effort to make it work. People who have all the options have less tolerance and effort.

9:16 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

Trust, are you seeing animosity towards duped fathers in that thread? I'm seeing a few people suggest that if men don't want to be duped they take responsibility for their reproduction, or lack thereof. Is that really animosity?

9:23 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Laura(southernxyl) said... "Trust, are you seeing animosity towards duped fathers in that thread? I'm seeing a few people suggest that if men don't want to be duped they take responsibility for their reproduction, or lack thereof. Is that really animosity?"
__________

Not all. But yes, I saw some animosity.

I did see animosity from a couple male posters against women in general, which I found unnecessary as well. But I ignored them because they were off topic.

Insofar as taking responsibility for their reproduction, the question is not whether they know the risk and were willing to take it, it is that they did not know the risk--they were foolish enough to trust reproductive prevention was in place. There is a difference. More to the point, why should the person who schemed them get so richly rewarded for it?

9:27 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

I guess there wasn't the animosity you wanted to see toward the women b/c no one was really defending the fraudulent pregnancy thing. How could that be defended? I think everybody took it as given that tricking someone into something as significant as parenthood is pretty wretched.

I don't know what they teach in sex ed these days. For a man to have sex with a woman between the age of consent and, I don't know, 45 or so, and not realize that there is a risk of pregnancy - well, I don't know what to say about that.

9:31 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

Allow me to give this analogy as well...

Let's say a woman has sex with a man who says he had a vasectomy then turns up pregant. He admits he lied to her because he wanted a child, or because he liked it better without, would that be a failiing on the part of her "responsibility for reproduction or lack thereoff?"

What if she made him wear a condom and got pregnant. She may think "I knew the risk" initially, but what if after the fact he had the gall to admit he poked a hole in the condom because he wanted to impregnate her. Again, a failing on the part of her "responsibility or lack thereoff"?

Think about it. He likely knew the risks, but he was given deceptive information in regards to how much risk he was taking. Worse, we reward the person who deceived him with 20% of his money for a couple decades.

I can't believe how many women talk about "his responsibility" and "him keeping it in his pants" (on the other thread) but if either of the two scenarios i described took place they wouldn't blame the woman who was lied to.

Of course, the mother could in those cases legally kill it for her own convenience and no one would call her a 'dead beat mom'.

9:32 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Laura(southernxyl) said... "realize that there is a risk of pregnancy - well, I don't know what to say about that."
___________

They all know there is a risk, they were just lied to about how great the risk was.

9:34 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

Maybe I'm a bit more sensitive to this since it happened in my family.

My wife's brother was tricked. His girlfriend was on the pill, and he always wore condoms because he did not trust the pill alone. She got pregnant anyway, and admitted to my wife that she went off the pill and poked needles through his condom. She was hoping he would marry her pregant.

He not only knew the risks, he took his own precautions, and still got duped. I'm sure she regrets it every time she cashes his check.

9:37 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

"Let's say a woman has sex with a man who says he had a vasectomy then turns up pregant. He admits he lied to her because he wanted a child, or because he liked it better without, would that be a failiing on the part of her 'responsibility for reproduction or lack thereoff?'"

Abso-damn-lutely.

"What if she made him wear a condom and got pregnant. She may think 'I knew the risk' initially, but what if after the fact he had the gall to admit he poked a hole in the condom because he wanted to impregnate her. Again, a failing on the part of her 'responsibility or lack thereoff'?"

No, the condom-hole-poking is a whole different ballgame, on both sides. I wouldn't blame the duped man or woman there - except - I wonder how a person gets in the position of having sex with someone they either know so little of as not to realize they would do such a horrible thing, or know they'd do it and don't care. But I'm of the rapidly-dwindling school of "wait for marriage" thought so I guess I just don't get the casual sex thing at all.

Am opposed to abortion.

9:43 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

Cross-posted with your last two.

9:44 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

People believe what they want. Had a man tell me on a newspaper comment thread that a woman should know when she's fertile, so if she tells him she's not fertile he shouldn't have to wear a condom. And he didn't want to wear one if she told him that, b/c he didn't want to hurt her feelings - but was terrified that he'd get "caught". Did nobody pay attention during sex ed?

9:46 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

Laura, I enjoy the dialogue.

I'm opposed to abortion as well, but the fact remains, after conception, women have rights and men don't. Before hand, we are in agreement, it is a different situation.

Insofar as the condom poking, we were all stunned that his girlfriend did that. We never dreamed it was intentional until she confided in my wife. What is worse is that she actually admitted it.

9:47 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@Laura(southernxyl) said... "People believe what they want. Had a man tell me on a newspaper comment thread that a woman should know when she's fertile, so if she tells him she's not fertile he shouldn't have to wear a condom. And he didn't want to wear one if she told him that, b/c he didn't want to hurt her feelings - but was terrified that he'd get "caught". Did nobody pay attention during sex ed?"


That was foolish on his part. Even honest people mess up with the rhythm method (or pills), not to mention the failure rate.

I won't give too much detail, but I always insisted on at least two protections, usually three, before I was married.

9:50 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:50 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:51 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:55 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@mark hays said... "Of course you're all little pussies that won't do anything about it so things just continue to get worse."
________________

The last guy who kept throwing the pussy word around so much here got into a nasty argument with me. I turned out to be wrong about the guy and regretted it ever since (sorry Jeff), so I won't fire back now.

But I will say this about the "pussy" argument...

A woman I used to work with made a comment about how women in some middle east countries have to cover their hair and walk behind their men, and she proclaimed "I'd never put up with that." Yes she would. With the law of the land on the men's side in those countries, making it legal for her husband or the authorities to beat and prosecute her, she would submit to it.

Though it is not violent, yet, men get jailed and punished severely in this regard, and laws like this are hard to reverse or fight in the current political climate, court mentality, and media. The pendelum will likely swing back, if we survive, but it won't be tomorrow.

9:58 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

mark hays said...
Currently the laws are 100% PURE EVIL and work from a basis of PURE FRAUD. Isn't that really interesting? And children grow up fatherless in 50% of American homes because women are evil selfish scumbagrs.

Of course you're all little pussies that won't do anything about it so things just continue to get worse.

Here's something funny about to bite women in the ASS - what goes around comes around bithches- I'm not making this up- it was in the news- GOOGLE IT- of course this isn't TV star trash talk so that isn't something you read:

The Woman's Act:

A sweeping government policy for all new births in the United States has just passed the House of Representatives and is now headed to the Senate. The Mother's Act, if passed, will mandate that all new mothers be screened by means of a list of subjective questions that will determine if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home from the hospital.

Just imagine that after your child is born, you are told that you can't take them home since a multiple choice questionnaire wasn't answered correctly. Just imagine being told that the only way you can take your child home is if you or your spouse goes into treatment or on anti-depressants which we know causes psychosis, delusions, and even homocidal thoughts.

It just doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, this bill is on a fast track--No public debate, no public disclosure of the broad impact on our society and that is why we need you to act now!

The Mother's Act violates our Constitutional right to privacy and your right to liberty and it is just outright dangerous. That is why we need you to help stop this. We urgently need you to call and email each Senator on the HELP Committee and tell them you STRONGLY OPPOSE the MOTHER'S ACT and that you are OUTRAGED that there was NO public debate or disclosure on the impact this would have on our society as a whole."

Ha ha of course you won't do anything about it bcause you're all idiots and you don't even believe in freedom. You don't even know what I'm even talking about retards- do you? That's really scary.

10:03 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Trust,

Look around you - this isn't the Middle East.

10:05 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

@mark hays said... "Look around you - this isn't the Middle East."
______

A few points...

1. I know that.

2. Thank God.

3. It was an analogy. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to give a parrallel of something similar against women to get some women to have a speck of empathy towards men.

10:08 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Why are you even talking? you don't even make any sense.

10:11 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

I'm talking for the same reason you are, albeit with more civility.


If anyone besides mark here thinks I make no sense, please let me know and I'll apologize to him. Otherwise, I'm just going to ignore his rants from here on.

10:14 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

Probably best not to feed the trolls.

10:20 PM, April 13, 2009  
Blogger Cham said...

I spent an hour talking to a homeless man yesterday. He was telling me about his ethics. His attitude was that if one doesn't lock their bicycle, they can expect it to be taken. If one leaves their expensive digital camera on a bench, they've pretty much donated it to whoever finds it.

I don't exactly see things that way, but the man had his opinions and he has a right to them. Everybody's ethics are different. But I find it interesting that some men think that all women everywhere should possess a particular set of ethics, their very specific version of right and wrong. This would be a set of ethics which allows a man to have sex with whomever he wants whenever he wants leaving the woman the job of raising any offspring that results or shouldering the entire burden of birth control.

I'm not convinced that men are that calloused and uncaring, so I am willing to think about this a little further. I'm starting to develop the idea that sex is so important to a man causing him to him feel whole, complete and personally satisfied that the very idea that a woman might become pregnant, that the feeling of satisfaction from the sexual experience could be turned into long-term drama and unexpected personal responsibility is emasculating, horrifying, repugnant, potentially humiliating and must be stopped at all costs.

7:28 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

Yeah, Cham, and the idea of getting money is so important to women that rules can be bent and personal responsibility is emasculating, horrifying, repugnant, potentially humiliating and must be stopped at all costs.

Don't women get enough money out of men that they maybe shouldn't be given free run to also get it by fraud?

Or are you willing to use any argument that is even borderline plausible (or not) to try to keep this "freedom" for women?

7:41 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

And with your snotty attitude about men, Cham, you damn well better be fully self-supportive. If you have all that venom but are also getting money out of men (as are MOST women in some way or another), your worth is approaching zero in my eyes.

7:43 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

I think a bunch of folks are talking past each other.

Can we all stipulate that it's wrong for a person to trick another person into pregnancy? Whether it's the man getting tricked, or the woman?

Because that actually is a separate issue from a man getting his pleasure and then walking away from his responsibility.

8:13 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Trust said...

Laura,

Reading between the lines, you are saying: "Let's hurry up and stipulate that what the women did is wrong and get that over real real fast, so we can focus more time on talking about the man."

What about a woman "getting her pleasure" and walking away (more like killing it)? You seem like a decent person, but have quite the double standard in your criticism. Probably don't recognize it--decades feminist indoctrination has done this to men and women alike.

I'm not saying men should have no responsibility, I'm saying that we shouldn't reward the women in cases like this with big fat checks for two decades. Maybe the men should have equal shot at custody and child support, and incidents like this would quite happening so much.

8:33 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Wow!I have absolutely nothing in common with any of you! Your ramblings make absolutely no sense and you're all psych drugged out. Sad really. See I have to be at work in an hour- I'm what is called 'employable.'

Is there is anyone on this blog who isn't completely worthless?

8:46 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

Re: Men and responsibility.

As a side note, do you all know that although women are ordered to pay far less child support in the same circumstances as men, their default rates are FAR higher (around double) those of men.

Most women simply don't pay. Somehow "what about the children" doesn't apply when it's women.

8:59 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

What sometimes happens is that there is money flowing from the woman's new husband or boyfriend to her, so she may not work as much or not at all. The court will base her child support on that amount (sometimes it won't even do that), but her REAL lifestyle is actually a lot higher.

The situation is frequently reversed for the man. The court will base child support payments on his actual earnings (in fact, sometimes on what the court "thinks" he could earn if he puts his nose to the grindstone - that's "imputed income"), but his real lifestyle may be lower because he may be supporting a new girlfriend or wife.

That's certainly not how it is in all cases, but money statistically flows from men to women in a relationship.

And women have much higher default rates even with THAT setup (something like 28% for men and over 50% for women). Women on the whole (not all, of course) just don't seem to feel much of a sense of responsibility or shame.

9:46 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

That's right- that's because a woman's love is measured on a CALCULATOR. A woman is incapable of feeling real love or anything real for that matter.

Want some good advice? Keep your distance away from all of them.

10:21 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

"Trust said...
Laura,

Reading between the lines, you are saying: 'Let's hurry up and stipulate that what the women did is wrong and get that over real real fast, so we can focus more time on talking about the man.'"

Well, no. I think nobody is trying to defend deceptive people here. I think it's a given for everyone here that it's wrong to lie and get a person trapped with an unwanted responsibility. If you want to spend time talking about how baaaaad it is, oh it's baaaaad, well, go ahead.

"What about a woman 'getting her pleasure' and walking away (more like killing it)? You seem like a decent person, but have quite the double standard in your criticism. Probably don't recognize it--decades feminist indoctrination has done this to men and women alike."

The post was about men and gotcha pregnancies. If we want to talk about women getting screwed over, that's fine and I'll talk about their responsibilities regarding taking care of themselves. Kind of funny to focus on how men get the shaft and then complain about a double standard. To be clear - I think it's OK to focus on one problem. You don't have to be an equal-opportunity disapprover. But then don't complain when the response is mirrors the one-sidedness of the original complaint.

"I'm not saying men should have no responsibility, I'm saying that we shouldn't reward the women in cases like this with big fat checks for two decades. Maybe the men should have equal shot at custody and child support, and incidents like this would quite happening so much."

No argument here.

Actually, the point of my comment was that when Cham said that about men not doing as they pleased and walking away from responsibility, Tether took that as a defense of gotcha pregnancy. Once again, these are two (2) separate issues.

11:19 AM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Laura - "Cham said that about men not doing as they pleased and walking away from responsibility, Tether took that as a defense of gotcha pregnancy. Once again, these are two (2) separate issues."Indeed, they are definitely two separate issues.

Yet, I doubt the (Christian) feminists and their mangina supporters can find anyone here who would support a deadbeat like this guy:

http://www.theweeklyvice.com/2009/04/man-wanted-for-owing-half-million.html

And while you (just for one example, not to single you out) do acknowledge that the women who have duped men have behaved badly, there still seems to be something of a consensus that men (first and foremost) are the ones who need to take precautions.

Despite the extensive use of shaming language towards that ends, I actually do agree. Men ought to wise up to the potential outcomes of their foolish decisions.

Thus, in the interest of "equality" why is it that "slut shaming" seems to be no longer in vogue (if tolerated at all)?

Why don't we complain that the 13 women who had children by this one dead-beat "Should have known" that he was a untrustworthy "bad boy" type. They should have know that there was a very high probability that if he got them pregnant, he would abandon them. Shouldn't we, as a society, be loudly and repeatedly denouncing the women who put out, unprotected, for the bad boys?

Given that people like Mary are so keen on protecting the tax-payer from the fallout of having to pick up the tab for children who's fathers don't, you'd think we'd hear a lot more condemnation of women who choose their sex partners (and lack of protections) so very foolishly.

Wouldn't making women be more responsible (financially) when they make foolish decisions benefit every one in the long run, protecting tax-payers and forcing women to be more thoughtful about who they have sex with, and under what conditions?

Oops! My bad! In this modern era of womens sexual freedoms we aren't suppose to question womens choices in the men they prefer to f*ck.

12:15 PM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

"And while you (just for one example, not to single you out) do acknowledge that the women who have duped men have behaved badly, there still seems to be something of a consensus that men (first and foremost) are the ones who need to take precautions."

No. Once again, the post was about men and gotcha pregnancies. If we're going to talk about men being tricked, then yes, it's relevant to say that men need to take precautions. If a woman doesn't want a baby, then the burden is on her to protect herself, first and foremost. That's not what this post is about.

12:26 PM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Laura - "No. Once again, the post was about men and gotcha pregnancies."So, you're saying that men getting duped into fatherhood is NOT the same thing as a "gotcha pregnancy"?

Silly me! I thought the post about "Gotcha pregnancies and men's rights" was what gave us this notions (brought up by posters on that thread) that men are still financially responsible for children they father even if they were tricked; and, that in order to avoid such resultant obligations, they would need to always take all necessary precaution (which, from the case linked near the end of that thread, would include not passing out in a location where a women could rape you).

At least, that was what I had gotten out of it. I don't know how I could have gotten it so wrong.

So, seeing as how I'm so hopelessly confused, maybe you could explain to me how men being tricked into fathering children that they did not intend are not "gotcha pregnancies"?

And, where does the stuff about "If a woman doesn't want a baby, then the burden is on her to protect herself, first and foremost" come from?

I was suggesting that if women don't want to have to deal with dead-beats, they shouldn't have unprotected sex with known bad boys. I really don't see that suggestion as being so very different from telling guys not to have sex with women they do not know that they can trust.

How do you see the two suggestion differing?

[note - personally, I think the women who have had babies with bad boy's just wanted to have babies; but they knew that the tax-payers would end up being on the hook for their support, so they didn't bother to apply any meaningful criteria as to whether those bad boys would be able or willing to provide any support before allowing themselves to be impregnated by them. Perhaps you view it differently?]

12:46 PM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:51 PM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger mark hays said...

Good job, slwerner. You were on the mark when you shouted out 'All women sluts and whores." Good times.

There is nothing more than I like than a good stupid POS whores like you who applaudes the SUICIDE of our people. Hey! Abortions- Good Times! 50% Divorces- Let's Party! Oh course you know you're going straight to Hell!

Oh - I forgot you're a feminist so you don't believe in GOD. You'll just end up going nowhere when you die. You're a scumbag and a freak.

4:00 PM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

"Laura - 'No. Once again, the post was about men and gotcha pregnancies.'So, you're saying that men getting duped into fatherhood is NOT the same thing as a 'gotcha pregnancy'?"

Well, I'm kind of baffled here. I would have said that a man getting duped into fatherhood is the same thing as a "gotcha pregnancy" (unless you are specifically excluding women who may have been duped into motherhood) and I don't know how you could read anything I've written as saying otherwise.

"Silly me! I thought the post about "Gotcha pregnancies and men's rights" was what gave us this notions (brought up by posters on that thread) that men are still financially responsible for children they father even if they were tricked; and, that in order to avoid such resultant obligations, they would need to always take all necessary precaution (which, from the case linked near the end of that thread, would include not passing out in a location where a women could rape you)."

I'm not Mary.

I don't want to see the taxpayers stuck with raising somebody's kid either, but I suspect that the offspring of "gotchas" are a tiny fraction of the total number of children who suffer from irresponsible, improvident behavior on the part of adults. But I will say that men ought to take responsibility for their reproduction, to exactly the same extent that women ought to take for theirs, no more and no less; and I have little patience or sympathy for anybody who passes out anywhere unless they are ill or poisoned. Make of that what you will, but there it is.

"And, where does the stuff about "If a woman doesn't want a baby, then the burden is on her to protect herself, first and foremost" come from?"

Well, it comes from you saying this: "And while you (just for one example, not to single you out) do acknowledge that the women who have duped men have behaved badly, there still seems to be something of a consensus that men (first and foremost) are the ones who need to take precautions." I was telling you that I don't subscribe to this supposed consensus. You keep arguing with arguments I am not making.

"I was suggesting that if women don't want to have to deal with dead-beats, they shouldn't have unprotected sex with known bad boys. I really don't see that suggestion as being so very different from telling guys not to have sex with women they do not know that they can trust.

How do you see the two suggestion differing?"

I don't. Please point out where I have ever, ever said that I do.

"[note - personally, I think the women who have had babies with bad boy's just wanted to have babies; but they knew that the tax-payers would end up being on the hook for their support, so they didn't bother to apply any meaningful criteria as to whether those bad boys would be able or willing to provide any support before allowing themselves to be impregnated by them. Perhaps you view it differently?]" No. I don't.

Are we straight now?

6:41 PM, April 14, 2009  
Blogger Joe said...

These threads are among the most idiotic I've ever read. Like another thread on Althouse, it appears that many men believe that women have some sort of obligation to give them consequence free sex.

Men, if you are having sex with a woman you don't trust completely, then you are a fucking asshole who deserves pretty much anything you get. And don't give that bullshit about how you can't trust a woman; there are millions of men married to women they do trust for reason.

And what about STDs? You meet a partner and jump right in the sack without protection on their say-so of being healthy?

And what kind of complete moron of a man doesn't supply their own condoms?

I fully expect some of these misogynistic, clueless assholes to come up with some twisted response about how I don't understand that this type of woman TRICK and MANIPULATE men. Yeah, and a certain percentage are completely psycho. So the fuck what? Beyond the idiot rhetoric of woman as temptress and man as innocent victim, whatever happened to NOT HAVING SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE?

You morons remind me of people who find that shiny new car, buy it without an inspection and then complain when it turns out to be a lemon. (Yeah, I did that once only I didn't complain and turn myself into a victim. I accepted responsibility and learned. The guy selling me the car may have been dishonest, but I KNEW BETTER and bought anyway.)

Above all, I surprised at how many whiny, pansy ass misogynistic men there are out there (and aren't the least bit surprised that the only women you attract are skanks and whores.)

1:51 AM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger Tether said...

Joe sez:

"And don't give that bullshit about how you can't trust a woman; there are millions of men married to women they do trust for reason."

----------

A lot of those married men (statistically) are going to get divorced. From the women they trust. And not all of those divorces are going to be all flowers and baby ducks and happiness.

I had a relative who was similar to you, Joe. He went on and on about how you keep a marriage together for 20 years and what a great, smart guy he was.

And I hope the same thing happens to you as happened to him - because then you'll join the human race and gain some empathy for people.

Women don't have a big sign on them that says "Caution: Manipulative Person".

-----

Why don't you and TMink get together and ponder your reciprocal greatness?

3:12 AM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger JG said...

After reading Joe's post, one of the few memories I have from early childhood bubbled up into my consciousness:

When I was in kindergarten (like 40 years ago), we had to all line up to get a hefty vaccination shot in the arm. It was fairly painful.

I was way in the back of the line with a big-mouth named Billy. Billy bullied lots of kids, but I was fairly big even as a kid, so we had an uneasy truce and I even talked to him.

A couple of kids in the front of the line started crying about their shots. Billy was making fun of them. Haw-HAW little baby has to cry.

As the line moved on, Billy was making fewer comments about the cry-babies. When we were in front, he got downright silent.

And then he got his shot and burst out in tears - far more than the other kids. He had to be calmed down by the teachers.

--------

And that's the type of guy Joe seems to be. He thinks he's absolutely invulnerable to anything on the part of women, but if it happened to him (and it COULD), he would be wailing the loudest. Because it happened to HIM, not to all of these people who are lesser than him.

In summary: What an idiot. I'm starting to really get a disgust for "tough guys" and "real men".

3:45 AM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Tether wrote: "Why don't you and TMink get together and ponder your reciprocal greatness?"

OK, that was really funny. Touche.

What I was thinking is I REALLY appreciate Joe saying things about responsibility and being careful in an abrasive and completely insulting way because it would serve as a nice contrast to my saying similar things in a far less abrasive and insulting way.

My bad, I was obviously hoping for too much. This is was too emotional an issue for that to happen.

For the record, I should never have insulted anyone. That was BS on my part, I was wrong and I appologize. I will try hard to not do that again.

Also for the record, I am divorced and have a 14 year old daughter from a pregnancy that I was told could not happen. After $49,000 in legal fees and being a part of the fathers' rights case law in Tennessee, she lives with me and my wife and other kids half time. So I have first hand experience of how this can work.

But the insult stung a bit and made me laugh, so good job there.

Trey

11:19 AM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

TMink - "For the record, I should never have insulted anyone. That was BS on my part, I was wrong and I appologize."Thanks for "Man-ing up" Trey:)

But, getting back to the genesis of this discussion, Dr. Helen (along with Amy Alkon) raised the issue of just what "rights" should men enjoy in cases where they have, in fact, been tricked into biological fatherhood (they are often completely shut-out of the lives of those children.

From the ensuing discussion, two issues have emerged for me:

1) Given that typical child support, as in cases of divorce, is well-know to be intended as de facto alimony; it is wholly inappropriate to use the same formula to derive the financial obligation for a man who has never been married to the mother, and has never, nor will ever, play any personal role in that child's life.

&
2) Since we can (I believe justifiably) insist that men take responsibility to avoid being thusly duped, and given that "keep it in your pants" style shaming language is felt to be appropriate - then just why is it that similar shaming language seems to have become verbotten when used towards women who have children that they cannot afford, with men who they should be fully aware ARE NOT likely to be able or willing to provide support?

My desired outcomes:

Child support being based on 1/2 of the actual costs of rearing the child, with an itemized accounting of those expenses required.

And, a whole-sale return to "slut shaming" and a lessening of tax-payer derived benefits to women who willfully have children with bad boys.

Would you happen to have an opinion on either of these?

11:37 AM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

Laura asks of me - "Are we straight now?"I believe so, Laura.

11:42 AM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

I think after a fraudulent gotcha pregnancy the man should be considered for primary custodian and the person who committed fraud, the woman, should pay the child support and get every other weekend visitation.

I think that the state taxing people to provide for illegitimate (remember that word from the past?) children is doing us all a disservice. The children grow up to be basically wards of the state at ALARMINGLY higher rates than children from intact families.

Where I get stuck is what the government can do about it. Not supporting the children makes it less likely for women to have children they cannot afford, but would hurt the innocent children as well. Providing money for the children provides a racket for people who want to have enough children to live on the doll.

Social pressure against illegitimate children would help a lot. There is basically none now. So I am all for some shaming of girls who get pregnant, women who are not married that get pregnant, and the men who knowingly make them so.

The fact is they are birthing kids who do not have a chance.

I can't wrap my head around what the government should do.

Oh, and I did not mean the "keep it in your pants" as shaming, though I accept that it sounded that way. That was a funny phrase that was often used in my redneck childhood. I thought is was funny!

Thanks for accepting my apology. Very manly of you! 8)

Trey

6:17 PM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger slwerner said...

TMink - "Thanks for accepting my apology."Trey,

The apology wasn't mine to accept, as I wasn't actually ever offended. I was just giving you the "business", even though I don't know if it was you who was one of those using the "Man up" phrase.

I'm actually interested in hearing other peoples positions, even those That I do not agree with. It's part of having an open dialogue and meaningful exchange.

Hey, I even though that Mark Hays might have been a legitimate poster, and encouraged him to tone down his approach so as to make his arguments more palatable.

While I may not quite agree with all of your positions, but I actually do respect you for your Christian faith - you seem quite sincere, unlike another poster who seemed to me to merely be "using" Christianity to conceal her feminist ideology. I have a particular "issue" with such behavior - but that's a rather long story.

Anyway, I hope that you an I can continue with more civil dialogue than what seems to happen too often on forums such as this one.

8:07 PM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger TMink said...

Slwerner wrote: "I have a particular "issue" with such behavior - but that's a rather long story."

Me too. Wolves in sheeps clothing and all.

And the things I posted are certainly not well thought out positions, more reactions and thoughts.

And it is complicated by my personal involvement in a similar situation. My eldest daughter (that is her in Helen's post titled "Nashville Protesters Don't Feel Stimulated" amazingly enough) was born from, well, not exactly a gotcha pregnancy, but in the same neighborhood. Another long story. 8)

So many people fought and prayed and paid for me to stay in her life and her in mine, that it is perhaps impossible for me to be a clear thinker on the matter.

Writing this now, I am certain that is where my rudeness came from, well at least that time, from my own struggle to keep my child and protect her from or at least amerliorate a bad situation for her.

So I am not the best person to comment in a dispasionate manner about this issue. But, thank God and lots of wonderful people, including my mother and father and sister and current wife, she lives with us half time.

And that is a good, a very good thing. That I can comment upon with authority. 8)

Thanks pal.

Trey

9:34 PM, April 15, 2009  
Blogger 9988 said...

哈啦網路社區080 聊天室 6k聊天館尋夢園6k聊天室聯盟美少女自拍貼圖洪爺免費影城洪爺影城H漫-成人漫畫嘟嘟情人色網影片8comic無線動漫網免費影片分享航海王h短片分享彩虹頻道免費a短片成人做愛影片丁字褲性感影片性愛自拍貼圖區免費性愛影片下載免費影片線上直播台灣a片王洪爺 影片下載區美國a片下載免費a片影片下載台灣美女寫真貼圖區免費a片線上觀看卡通美女短片免費試看色色小遊戲ut蟲蟲聊天室嘟嘟色情貼圖區69成人聊天室免費線上成人影片007色情貼圖網米克成人情色論壇色情動漫貼片論壇微風成人交友論壇免費av18禁383成人影城伊莉成人討論區歐美模特兒寫真歐美a免費線上看85cc成人片免費色咪咪影片網櫻井莉亞 三點全露寫真集2009真情寫真日本偷拍自拍圖片999成人性站成人電影下載網色情電影分享區洪爺色情電影免費色情電影觀賞色情卡通電影免費下載色情電影免費下載免費下載色情電影免費成人片觀賞免費色情電影下載台灣論壇好玩遊戲區微風論壇短片區台灣論壇遊戲區線上成人影片草莓論壇小老鼠分享論壇eney伊莉論壇ok論壇dcp2p論壇搜樂論壇台灣論壇女生遊戲ktzone論壇台灣18成年人網UT援交友聊天室豆豆交友聊天室嘟嘟成人聊天室新6k聊天室新豆豆聊天室視訊美女34c成人貼圖區

1:08 PM, April 25, 2009  
Blogger 9988 said...

smiling,face.Not,only,can,answer,good,intentions,by,form.Can,also,shorten,distance,between,human,relationses!Happiness-not-is-getting-much.And-is-accounting-less~wish-happy-delectation..

1:10 PM, April 25, 2009  
Blogger peter.w said...

湖南塑料托盘,塑料栈板 长沙塑料托盘,塑料栈板 株洲塑料托盘,塑料栈板 湘潭塑料托盘,塑料栈板 衡阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 邵阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 岳阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 常德塑料托盘,塑料栈板 张家界塑料托盘,塑料栈板 益阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 郴州塑料托盘,塑料栈板 永州塑料托盘,塑料栈板 怀化塑料托盘,塑料栈板 娄底塑料托盘,塑料栈板 塑料托盘,塑料栈板 四川塑料托盘,塑料栈板 成都塑料托盘,塑料栈板 自贡塑料托盘,塑料栈板 攀枝花塑料托盘,塑料栈板 泸州塑料托盘,塑料栈板 德阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 绵阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 广元塑料托盘,塑料栈板 遂宁塑料托盘,塑料栈板 内江塑料托盘,塑料栈板 乐山塑料托盘,塑料栈板 南充塑料托盘,塑料栈板 宜宾塑料托盘,塑料栈板 广安塑料托盘,塑料栈板 达州塑料托盘,塑料栈板 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 轻型仓储货架|轻量型仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 中量型仓储货架|中量A型仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 中量型仓储货架|中量B型仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 横梁式仓库货架|重型仓储货架|货位式库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 模具货架|抽屉式仓库货架|仓储货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 贯通式仓储货架|通廊式仓库货架|驶入式库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 悬臂式仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 阁楼式仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架|钢平台 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 流利式仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架|辊轮式货架|自滑式货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 工作台|工作桌 工具柜|工具车 托盘|塑料托盘|钢托盘|铁托盘|钢制托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼 周转箱|塑料周转箱 静音手推车|铁板手推车|购物手推车|登高车 手动液压托盘搬运车|不锈钢搬运车|电子秤搬运车 高起升搬运车|电动搬运车|平台车 手动液压堆高车|手动液压堆垛车|半电动堆垛车 全电动堆垛车|油桶搬运车|圆桶搬运车|油桶装卸车| 柴油内燃平衡重式叉车|电动平衡重式叉车 液压升降机|剪叉式高空作业平台|固定式蹬车桥 文件柜 不锈钢制品 零件盒|零件柜 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 钢托盘 钢制料箱 堆垛架 物流台车 手推车 钢托盘 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|金属托盘|镀锌托盘 堆垛架|巧固架 钢制料箱 物流台车|载物台车 手推车|静音手推车 手推车|静音手推车 仓储笼|钢托盘|钢制料箱|堆垛架|物流台车|手推车 仓储笼|钢托盘 仓储笼 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架 塑料托盘|栈板 钢托盘|钢制托盘 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 托盘|钢托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 周转箱|塑料周转箱 托盘|纸托盘 料箱|钢制料箱 工具柜|工具车|抽屉柜 工作台|工作桌 刀具柜|刀具车|刀具架 手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 手动液压堆高车|手动叉车 仓储笼 仓库笼 南京仓储笼 常州仓储笼 无锡仓储笼 苏州仓储笼 徐州仓储笼 南通仓储笼 镇江仓储笼 连云港仓储笼 泰州仓储笼 扬州仓储笼 盐城仓储笼 淮安仓储笼 宿迁仓储笼 轻量型货架|角钢货架 中量A型货架 中量B型货架 货位式货架 横梁式货架 阁楼式货架|钢平台 悬臂式货架 贯通式货架|通廊式货架|驶入式货架 辊轮式货架|流利条货架 压入式货架 移动式货架|密集架 模具货架 抽屉式货架 汽车4S店货架 汽配库货架 自动化立体仓库货架 托盘|钢托盘|钢制托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 手推车|铁板手推车 手推车|静音手推车 置物架|工业置物架|家用置物架 堆垛架|巧固架 挂板架|物料整理架 登高车 物流台车|载物台车 料箱|钢制料箱 搬运车|手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 堆高机|堆垛机|手动堆高机|电动堆高机 叉车|电动叉车|内燃叉车|叉车厂 货架 货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架厂 货架公司 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|横梁式货架|中型货架 钢托盘|塑料托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 钢制料箱|工具柜|工作台 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架> 仓储货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 托盘|塑料托盘|钢制托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 托盘|塑料托盘|钢制托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|中型货架|横梁式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|塑料托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 钢制料箱|工具柜|工作台 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板 托盘|塑料托盘|栈板 纸托盘|栈板 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 钢制料箱|钢制周转箱|网格式料箱 搬运车|手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板 塑料托盘|塑料栈板 纸托盘|栈板 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 钢制料箱|钢质周转箱|网格式料箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|液压搬运车 仓储货架|>仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|中型货架|横梁式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|塑料托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 钢制料箱|工具柜|工作台 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板 塑料托盘|塑料栈板 纸托盘|栈板 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 钢制料箱|钢质周转箱|网格式料箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|托盘搬运车 货架|仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|上海货架|北京货架 轻型货架|中型货架|搁板式货架 重型货架|横梁式货架|托盘式货架 托盘|木托盘|纸托盘|木塑托盘 托盘|钢托盘|塑料托盘|钢制托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 手推车|静音手推车|铁板手推车 物料架|整理架|挂板架 料箱|钢制料箱|钢制周转箱|网格式料箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 手动液压堆高车|半电动堆高车|手动叉车 塑料周转箱|物流箱|塑料化工桶|塑料卡板箱 工具柜|上海工具柜|南京工具柜|抽屉柜 工作台|工作桌|南京工作台|上海工作台 刀具车|刀具柜|刀具架|刀具座 货架 货架厂 货架公司 仓储货架 仓库货架 库房货架 南京货架 上海货架 托盘 钢托盘 钢制托盘 货架|轻量型货架|角钢货架 货架|中量型货架|次重型货架 货位式货架|横梁式货架|重量型货架 仓储货架|阁楼式货架|钢平台 仓储货架|悬臂式货架 仓储货架|贯通式货架|通廊式货架|驶入式货架 仓库货架|库房货架|抽屉式货架|模具货架 仓库货架|库房货架|汽车4S店货架|汽配库货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架|上海货架|无锡货架|苏州货架 货架厂|货架公司|北京货架|天津货架|沈阳货架|大连货架 货架厂|货架公司|广州货架|深圳货架|杭州货架 托盘|钢托盘|钢制托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 置物架|多功能置物架|卫浴置物架 料箱|钢制料箱|钢制周转箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|不锈钢托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 手动液压堆高车|半电动堆高车|电动堆高车|堆垛车 货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 货架 货架 货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架厂 货架公司 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 货架 货架 货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架厂 货架厂 货架公司 货架公司 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 托盘 塑料托盘 钢托盘 钢制托盘 铁托盘 货架厂 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 货架

9:50 AM, May 01, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home