Livid.

[81West]

I'm a woman too, and I can't imagine either gender reasonably concluding that a man should not be made legally responsible to provide financially for his children. Conception is always a possible side affect of intercourse that concludes with a man ejaculating inside a woman's vagina. Given that there is no reasonable argument that could be made in support of the notion of dictating whether or not his sex partner decides to carry a child to term, men who find themselves fathering children they didn't choose are simply SOL if the woman decides to pursue support.

 

They can choose not to *be* a father to that child however, and many do make that choice. In these cases, any emotional fallout for the child must be the responsibility of the mother who chose to give birth under those circumstances.

 

I became pregnant by a man who did not want a child with me, and he left the relationship when he learned the news when I was just a few weeks along. I have never pursued support, and he has never become involved with my son who is now 13. It's hard not to think of him as a big jerk, though in reality I suppose his choice is a fair and valid one in many ways.

[PinkKittyKat]

Given that there is no reasonable argument that could be made in support of the notion of dictating whether or not his sex partner decides to carry a child to term, men who find themselves fathering children they didn't choose are simply SOL if the woman decides to pursue support.

 

See, that's the part I find unfair. They BOTH had sex, but only the woman can choose whether to have the kid and raise it, or to get an abortion or adopt it out.

 

The man has NO say. If she decides to have it, the man just has to go along with it. I just know if it were reversed, it would stick in my craw a bit. Say the birth control fails, woman isn't on any but says it's safe, they have unsafe sex, any of these situations can happen, and the man will end up being a victim of the system.

 

And I was raised by a single mom. Whose father SOMETIMES paid support. So I'm looking at this from that angle as well. ANyway, that being said, I empathize with Never_Again's position to an extent, and this abstract "man/woman child support consent issue" is sort of off topic... I feel bad discussing it in her thread.... She needs our support right now.

 

Sorry, Nev.

[child_of_isis]

You know...I am a woman & single & had a child. I agree with him also. Men, along with their partner get to choose to have sex, they can also choose not to use protection.

 

But woman get to choose whether to carry out the pregnancy... men don't. This is going to blow up in women's faces one of these days.

 

I don't know how.....but it scares the hell out of me. One day this might lead to our not having the right to choose.

 

When it comes to birth, men don't have the right to choose...why should women? <<<-----this will be the big debate one of these days.

 

 

 

Whether LakesideDream is a man or not, I am a woman, and I agree with him. I think the childcare/benefits thing is weighted too heavy on the woman's side in this day and age. That snarky "I can tell you are a man" was pretty dismissive of you to say to him...

[81West]

See, that's the part I find unfair. They BOTH had sex, but only the woman can choose whether to have the kid and raise it, or to get an abortion or adopt it out.

 

That's just the biological/evolutionay reality. There's nothing unfair about it - it's just the way it is, and known by all parties on, ahem, the way in.

 

The man has NO say. If she decides to have it, the man just has to go along with it. I just know if it were reversed, it would stick in my craw a bit. Say the birth control fails, woman isn't on any but says it's safe, they have unsafe sex, any of these situations can happen, and the man will end up being a victim of the system.

 

Nobody can be 'victimized' by their own act of intercourse. Intercourse is always optional. If the system later victimizes the father through unreasonable support requirements that is indeed a failure, and everything should be done to protect the father's rights to fair treatment in this regard. But that's a separate issue from engaging in sex when you aren't willing to accept all possible consequences, however remote.

[81West]

But woman get to choose whether to carry out the pregnancy... men don't. This is going to blow up in women's faces one of these days.

 

I don't know how.....but it scares the hell out of me. One day this might lead to our not having the right to choose.

 

That will simply never happen. It's conceivable (lol) that men may someday have the right to opt out of financial responsibility, and that would be viewed as a positive thing by many. Inevitably in many cases the slack would be picked up by social programs, making everybody pay instead of just one responsible person. I'm not sure that's much better.

[PinkKittyKat]

That's just the biological/evolutionay reality. There's nothing unfair about it - it's just the way it is, and known by all parties on, ahem, the way in.

 

Nobody can be 'victimized' by their own act of intercourse. Intercourse is always optional. If the system later victimizes the father through unreasonable support requirements that is indeed a failure, and everything should be done to protect the father's rights to fair treatment in this regard. But that's a separate issue from engaging in sex when you aren't willing to accept all possible consequences, however remote.

 

Well it was optional for the woman too. And she still gets to choose.

[LakesideDream]

81, PINK, Isis,

 

The questions I raised are largely moot for me, as I have no sexual interest in young women. Unlike "most" men my age, my tastes have matured with my body. While the "youngsters" can sometime be marvelous to look at, the idea of a realtionship with a gal near the age of my daughter is... well, impossible for me.

 

That being said, my comments are/were phylosophical. I have doubts about those of us who don't seem to take personal responsibility for our actions. I do not consider relying on older more "mature" reletives, or the largess of the government to be taking responsibility. At Never Again's young age she hasn't contributed enough to the state to be able to expect a lifetime of return.

 

As a "geezer" which I am at 58, as have not as of yet taken advantage of any state programs, not even unemployment, or disability insurance. Were it necessary I suppose I would as a last resort. I am looking forward to Social Security in 10 years, as "iceing on the cake".

 

I cannot imagine that a college age woman, unemployed outside school can afford to support a child on her own, unless she was born into wealth. She has made choices that affect all of us fellow citizens, and made them alone.

 

Literally nobody else was allowed to even so much as comment or reccomend a course of action. Now she's angry because her MM has more success/assets/income than she does, and has chosen to stay with a wife who has a generous income as well. Sounds like spoiled grapes to me. I am well aware of my own hypocracy, and I know anothers when I read it.

 

Had her original plan of action worked out, her MM and her would be living happily after handing out scraps to the BW and children. Irony can be brutal.

[81West]

Well it was optional for the woman too. And she still gets to choose.

 

Do you walk to work, or do you pack a lunch?

[PinkKittyKat]

Do you walk to work, or do you pack a lunch?[/quote

 

WTH?

[81West]

Do you walk to work, or do you pack a lunch?[/quote

 

WTH?

 

Exactly...

[child_of_isis]

LOL.....I think it might mean that you are not poor?....lol...I dunno man, I'm guessing.

 

Do you walk to work, or do you pack a lunch?[/quote

 

WTH?

[PinkKittyKat]

LOL.....I think it might mean that you are not poor?....lol...I dunno man, I'm guessing.

 

Yeah, holy non sequitur, batman.

Urgh, my quotes farked everything up... Oops!

[81West]

81, PINK, Isis,

 

That being said, my comments are/were phylosophical. I have doubts about those of us who don't seem to take personal responsibility for our actions. I do not consider relying on older more "mature" reletives, or the largess of the government to be taking responsibility. At Never Again's young age she hasn't contributed enough to the state to be able to expect a lifetime of return.

 

As a "geezer" which I am at 58, as have not as of yet taken advantage of any state programs, not even unemployment, or disability insurance. Were it necessary I suppose I would as a last resort. I am looking forward to Social Security in 10 years, as "iceing on the cake".

 

I cannot imagine that a college age woman, unemployed outside school can afford to support a child on her own, unless she was born into wealth. She has made choices that affect all of us fellow citizens, and made them alone.

 

Literally nobody else was allowed to even so much as comment or reccomend a course of action. Now she's angry because her MM has more success/assets/income than she does, and has chosen to stay with a wife who has a generous income as well. Sounds like spoiled grapes to me. I am well aware of my own hypocracy, and I know anothers when I read it.

 

Had her original plan of action worked out, her MM and her would be living happily after handing out scraps to the BW and children. Irony can be brutal.

 

Never again has the right to receive reasonable child support, no less, and certainly no more. Hopefully the 'Never Again' refers to the fact that she's learned the very painful lesson that the decision to do the MM thing in these circumstances has heavy financial, social, and emotional costs. I know from experience that single parenthood makes you pay and pay and pay, from all of these banks, until you are spent and exhausted. And then you get up and do it all over again the next day. So your perception that's she's leading a cushy life of sorts is probably off some.

 

I myself took advantage of government grants to complete college, along with about one year of government assitance in total before and after my child was born. I re-entered the workforce as a college graduate 9 months after his birth, and have been paying taxes without interruption on a growing income in the 12 years since. In the end it's money well spent and a benefit to society as a whole that outpaces what are in my opinion somewhat narrow and impractical arguments against it.

[child_of_isis]

YOU took responsibility. You didn't sit & moan & groan over what someone "owed" you..or how someone else was managing their finances.

 

You, as a single mother, knew that it was your responsibility & yours alone, to pull this thing off. And by god, you did it, didn't you?

 

I think that's all the posters want for this OP. To open her eyes up to the facts.

 

The fact that she will never be able to depend on MM, nor his W, nor be a part of their lives. And most likely her child won't either.

 

That is it SHE who will have to bust butt for the next 18 years (plus 4 years of college).

 

The sooner she learns this the better off she is. Right now she is not taking responsibility. Everything is everybody else's fault.

 

She also feels that this family owes her something.

 

 

I myself took advantage of government grants to complete college, along with about one year of government assitance in total before and after my child was born. I re-entered the workforce as a college graduate 9 months after his birth, and have been paying taxes without interruption on a growing income in the 12 years since. In the end it's money well spent and a benefit to society as a whole that outpaces what are in my opinion somewhat narrow and impractical arguments against it.

[LakesideDream]

Never again has the right to receive reasonable child support, no less, and certainly no more. Hopefully the 'Never Again' refers to the fact that she's learned the very painful lesson that the decision to do the MM thing in these circumstances has heavy financial, social, and emotional costs. I know from experience that single parenthood makes you pay and pay and pay, from all of these banks, until you are spent and exhausted. And then you get up and do it all over again the next day. So your perception that's she's leading a cushy life of sorts is probably off some.

 

I myself took advantage of government grants to complete college, along with about one year of government assitance in total before and after my child was born. I re-entered the workforce as a college graduate 9 months after his birth, and have been paying taxes without interruption on a growing income in the 12 years since. In the end it's money well spent and a benefit to society as a whole that outpaces what are in my opinion somewhat narrow and impractical arguments against it.

 

 

Congratulations that is the reasons the programs exist. You succeeded, you are paying back your support, via taxation. I am happy to have paid into a system used properly.

 

And... you are proud of your success, which is without doubt the most important part of your story.

 

The assistance was available to you. You used it to better your situation. It came from your fellow citizens without strings attached. You didn't "deserve it" or "earn it" , it was just there. There are no "deserves" without hard work and effort.

[child_of_isis]

The most important part is that her son has a strong & independent woman as a mother.

 

And... you are proud of your success, which is without doubt the most important part of your story.

 

[herenow]

Not sure where you live, but where I live child support in cases like this are based solely on the "fathers" income. The BW is not a factor. She is not part of the case.

 

Also, if I were his wife, knowing that he has a child with an OW, I would have him sign a post-nuptial as part of the decision to stay married to the man. Hopefully she was smart enough to do that.

 

But then again, if I was his wife and he had a child with an OW, I wouldn't be his wife anymore, and I would have 50% of everything that he has and 100% of my income all to myself. Plus alimony and child support of my own.

 

So, you should be glad that she stayed married to the man. Had she left him, he would be paying her alimony and child support and you would certainly be left with only a few dollars. So when you say that they are messing around with your life, know that she did you a favor and you should leave her, her money and her purchases alone.

 

Deal with the MM for your CS and let the wife be. She never did anything to hurt you and if you feel that her extravagant purchases are messing with your life, maybe you should have a talk with her so she can tell you how she feels about what you have done (with her H, yes it's his fault as well) to mess with her life.

Edited April 5, 2008 by herenow

[herenow]

Well it is harsh. Because it is my business if she isn't contributing to their household when she makes almost as much money as him and yet he is paying all of the bills so he "doesn't have" any money to send to our son.

 

That is ridiculous.

 

Actually, it's none of your business what the BW does with her money. You have no say in anything the BW does. All you have is the MM's income and whatever the courts decide he should pay in CS.

 

The fact that you think you can have any say in how the BW spends HER money is ridiculous. It's not your decision on how they run their household. You are not a part of that family unit. Now, I do agree that the MM should pay CS for the child you had with him, but not with even one penny of the BW's money.

[LakesideDream]

The most important part is that her son has a strong & independent woman as a mother.

 

Of course you are correct. Being a man, and a geezer to boot I often have trouble seeing matters from the young mother / childs point of view. Thank you for the kick in the pants.

 

Now I have two things to be proud of a fellow poster about! Double congratulations.

[Mino]

I guess a single woman has 3 choices. One would be abortion. Two would be adoption. three would be raising the childs on their own. I believe it all the womans choice. men kinda of get stuck with support payments, not fair, if they did not PLAN the child. I would hate to be a man in that situation. Birthcontrol.... thats a tricky one. But at the end it is more the woman responsbilty. I have aborted, not any easy thing to do, but it was a better choice then liviing in poverty. Just like alimoney, totally stupid in my eyes.....

[child_of_isis]

I believe in alimony. But with conditions. Only if it was a family agreement for W to be a SAHM.

 

And only until she either gets herself educated/skills, whatever & a good income going.

 

I also think she should get the marital home if she keeps the children & H (or XH) should have to pay the mortgage as long as the Children are at home/school.

[GreenEyedLady]

I guess a single woman has 3 choices. One would be abortion. Two would be adoption. three would be raising the childs on their own. I believe it all the womans choice. men kinda of get stuck with support payments, not fair, if they did not PLAN the child. I would hate to be a man in that situation. Birthcontrol.... thats a tricky one. But at the end it is more the woman responsbilty. I have aborted, not any easy thing to do, but it was a better choice then liviing in poverty. Just like alimoney, totally stupid in my eyes.....

 

You know if a guy doesn't want to have to pay child support, then he should PULL OUT...

 

Or you play, you pay...Literally...

[child_of_isis]

A woman can still get pregnant with the withdraw method.

[GreenEyedLady]

A woman can still get pregnant with the withdraw method.

 

I know that, but at least he's trying something...

 

And from personal experience, it worked in my case until we actively started trying for a baby...

 

And it sure beats just cumming in her and expecting her not to get pregnant. That's just ridiculous.

[Never_Again]

Sorry, I had just read your reply. I knew the OP was never again, just had a "senior moment" while typing. I apologise.

 

HA!! I knew you were old! And senile!!!