Guys: thoughts on young(20's) single moms

[Untouchable_Fire]

So then it starts to come down to this: will I have to settle on that "good man" who has the kind enough heart to accept me and my children. With things narrowed the way they are, I highly doubt that the "good" man will also be the one who I could actually fall in love with.

 

Don't you DARE pull in a guy you refuse to love just to have someone... or to have someone with your kids!!!

 

I don't think it sounds bitter. I wonder if sometimes men who are good, handsome, highly intelligent, great fun, you know, the whole package, if maybe some don't understand about single moms and their kids?

Thankfully, human understanding for the most part has "evolved" or whatever you want to call it, in many ways. For example, now many people understand that slavery is wrong, that racism is wrong, and so forth, but we still have a long way to go in some areas, and I think in this case with many men not wanting to accept a wonderful single mom and her kids, that this is an area that needs to be "evolved" more...?

 

Look... you are fighting against evolutionary biology. Men who raise OTHER mens kids instead of raising their own... are biological failures of the highest magnitude. Think about it. Over the last 10,000 years of human history... those men have been selectively bred out because of their stupidity.

 

So, do you actually expect the laws of evolution to bend to your will?

 

In nature... if you switch mates before your cubs are capable of living on their own... the new male will kill them. There is good reason to believe tribal humans acted in this way as well. Which meant if your mate died you would get together with one of his relatives... preferably a brother.

[sweetjasmine]

Currently the ability to choose fatherhood begins and end with the choice to have sex. Potential mothers can make a choice long after sex without any input, consent, or acknowledgement given to the father.

 

Right, and that was behind my first post that you responded to. That is how things is, whether you or I like it or not, so people need to be aware of that and act accordingly. If you're really terrified of your partner getting pregnant and completely cutting you out of the loop, either make decisions that are going to protect you or accept the risk and understand the consequences of your decisions.

 

Potential fathers should be given a 1 month grace period upon learning of his impending fatherhood to decided whether he wishes to accept that responsibility or not.

 

There are people who refuse to sign the birth certificate/acknowledge paternity, and if the mother doesn't go after them, what happens?

 

Philosophically, I'd agree that potential fathers should have some means of making a choice after conception but before the mother has made a choice as to abortion, adoption, or motherhood. But practically, that's going to create more problems, and the ones most likely to suffer would be the ones brought to term and kept.

 

Imagine this type of situation: man sleeps with his girlfriend, and girlfriend gets pregnant. He's never wanted children, and she had told him she would get an abortion if something like this ever happened. He wants her to abort, but she decides to bring the pregnancy to term and keep the baby. He says he'll decide not to accept any responsibility, so she's faced with the choice of abortion or raising the baby by herself without his acknowledgment of paternity.

 

How do you think that would influence her decision? Do you think it would be the lesser of two evils to have the father dangle the possibility of denying responsibility in front of the mother's face to push her into getting an abortion? What if she calls his bluff, and he follows through? Is it any benefit to society to have yet another OMG HORRIBLE SINGLE MOTHER who might need government support to raise a child alone? What good does it do the child?

 

I love how people are perfectly glad to label single mothers as trashy damaged goods, but they have no problem setting up a system that would likely result in more single mothers.

 

It should also be illegal to have a baby and not inform the potential father.

 

And what would the punishment be?

 

I don't really disagree with your suggestion, but what type of violation would it be? A felony? A misdemeanor?

 

In my opinion other people can abort/not abort as they choose. I just expect them to understand the gravity of their choices and not be so flippant as the girls in highschool were. I remember one in particular who had 3 abortions in highschool and was very nonchalant about it.

 

I wish people wouldn't be flippant about sex and birth control, as well, but there will always be people who do stupid, irresponsible crap.

 

If it's my child, I should have a legal right to decide it's future. Where it lives holds no bearing on whether I am actually the father or not. If I am the father... then I should be allowed to make choices.

 

How far do you take this?

 

You're the father and you should be allowed choices when the fetus is inside a woman and relies on her body for survival. Does this mean you get to decide what the mother can and can't do, physically? Does this mean you have input in telling her what she should and shouldn't eat? Does this mean the mother can't travel somewhere without your agreement?

 

You can make that choice a life positive one way street. Where both parents have veto power over the action of putting the child to death. So if even one parent wants the child it cannot be legally killed.

 

However, if both parents find the child unwanted... it can be legally murdered.

 

Okay, so if the mother wants an abortion, but the father doesn't, then abortion is not allowed, right? What happens if the mother miscarries? Does the father have the right to call the police and have a forensic OB-GYN make the mother prop her feet up on the stirrups so they can investigate her uterus to determine whether the miscarriage was natural?

 

What happens if it turns out she shoved a coat hanger up her vagina to terminate the pregnancy? Do you try her for second degree murder and sentence her to 25 to life?

 

What happens if the mother previously had a very high risk pregnancy and barely made it through childbirth? If the father demands that she bring the baby to term, should she be forced to do it?

 

What if the baby has a very high risk for birth defects, as in the situation my friend went through? Does the father have the right to demand the mother carry to term and then watch the baby suffer and die?

 

Besides... I've never been convinced that 9 months of irritation and discomfort is worse than 18 years of financial responsibility.

 

I don't believe anyone should be forced to go through childbirth, which is still dangerous and risky for many women, just because of someone else's desires.

 

I use my body to earn a living for myself and those around me. I should have the ability to say... my body my choice. Why should I be subjected to enslavement without my consent, while others are provided that choice?

 

It's still your choice whether you stick your dick in a fertile woman's vagina and it's still your choice whether you choose a partner who shares your views and beliefs on the subject. If you're putting your semen inside someone's body, you're already making a decision and taking a risk. If your partner gets pregnant, it's no longer about your body but about hers. It's a fact of biology. Do you actually expect the laws of evolution to bend to your will?

 

I'm not particularly in favor of "forced incubation" either... but when I look at the two choices one does seem to have heavier consequences.

 

Heavier consequences for you.

[theBrokenMuse]

Look... you are fighting against evolutionary biology.

perhaps in the same way that people who are against cheating are fighting against evolutionary biology. The good news is that we aren't unaware of what is or is not working for us now that we are no longer ignorant creatures that only follow basic drives. We have evolved the ability be able to not only understand such complex patterns behind behaviors but ultimately the intelligence to direct changes to our path over the long-term.

 

Men who raise OTHER mens kids instead of raising their own... are biological failures of the highest magnitude. Think about it.

Well if they ONLY raise other's offspring and not their own then yes. This is not the age (if not living in a third world country) in which children are pitted against it's siblings for limited resources in order to survive so some of the old imperatives have grown about as useless as the appendix.

Edited December 8, 2010 by theBrokenMuse

[sally4sara]

Men who raise OTHER mens kids instead of raising their own... are biological failures of the highest magnitude.

 

**** you Untouchable. I don't care if I get banned or infracted for typing it either. That my husband chose me and my son and says he'd rather adopt a child than have one of his own does not make him a failure. Nor are people who cannot have biological kids failures. It makes him better than you and other self interested people who only care about a child when it is theirs biologically and know the law would punish them for neglect if they didn't care for their own children.

[26.2]

Don't you DARE pull in a guy you refuse to love just to have someone... or to have someone with your kids!!!

 

 

 

Look... you are fighting against evolutionary biology. Men who raise OTHER mens kids instead of raising their own... are biological failures of the highest magnitude. Think about it. Over the last 10,000 years of human history... those men have been selectively bred out because of their stupidity.

 

So, do you actually expect the laws of evolution to bend to your will?

 

In nature... if you switch mates before your cubs are capable of living on their own... the new male will kill them. There is good reason to believe tribal humans acted in this way as well. Which meant if your mate died you would get together with one of his relatives... preferably a brother.

 

Ok, this is downright scary. The general populous of men and their beliefs on single mothers and/or fear of single mothers is one thing. However, it is people like you, Untouchable_weak flame, who really freak me out. On one hand you are stating that men who raise children whom they did not biologically father have been "bred out because of their stupidity."

 

On the other hand, you align human behavior completely with animal behavior. So are you a believer in evolution or not? If so, then given our society, government, technology, language, monetary systems etc., human beings should have evolved in some way, shape, or form to be above the mating rituals of bears and lions.

 

In my opinion, there are some individuals who have evolved in brain capacity more than others. Your inaccurate description of human nature and closed-minded black and white views on human relations should certainly qualify you to have been "bred out." Good lawwd, I'd definitely remain single rather than touch your dying embers. I would hate for my children to be exposed to lesser evolved ways of thinking. Perhaps a young, childless donkey would be your preferable mate.

 

In conclusion, I truly believe that men who date single mothers are highly evolved and have a more maturely developed sense of empathy and a greater capacity to love. I just want to find one of these non-cavemen types who actually lights my fire.

[sweetjasmine]

**** you Untouchable. I don't care if I get banned or infracted for typing it either. That my husband chose me and my son and says he'd rather adopt a child than have one of his own does not make him a failure. Nor are people who cannot have biological kids failures. It makes him better than you and other self interested people who only care about a child when it is theirs biologically and know the law would punish them for neglect if they didn't care for their own children.

 

What I've learned from this thread is:

- caring for someone else's child instead of having your own makes you a biological failure

- but if your partner has a baby you never wanted, you're shackled and enslaved because you have to pay child support to help raise your own child

- but if she were to have an abortion, that would be wrong and irresponsible because it's murder and it's not fair for men to not have a say in what happens to a pregnancy

- but if she decides to keep it and he doesn't want it, he wants to have no say and no responsibility

- but if he's allowed to deny responsibility and leave her to raise the child herself, she's damaged goods and only good enough for desperate losers

- but if a woman were to refrain from vaginal sex for fear of such complicated situations, then she's not worth the time of day because she doesn't spread her legs and put out

- but if she does put out, get pregnant, and keep the baby, and her partner runs off, she's a promiscuous loser with baggage who only wanted to screw bad boys

- but if she realizes she wants better then she's acting entitled when she wouldn't have been entitled if she had asked for better before getting pregnant

- and men should be allowed to dodge all responsibility for a child they never wanted

- but single mothers should be scolded if they date instead of focusing every minute of their life on their children.

 

How wonderful.

[Stung]

Humans evolved as social animals to live in extended families and tribes, with everyone taking care of everyone else. Survival of the fittest was largely a matter of groups, not individuals. Biology constructed successful humans to be hormonally inclined to interact with, form bonds with, and help each other. One current prevalent theory is that women undergo menopause precisely so that they can help take care of other people's children in their later years, rather than their own, thereby helping more children survive and making the entire tribe successful. I've read other theories outlining the idea that gay people fulfilled a similar function. Also men hunted for the tribe as a group, not for their individual favorites.

 

While in strict biological terms an organism survives to propogate itself through reproduction, if you believe that someone who chooses to adopt or care for other children rather than reproduce themselves is a failure, you're taking a way overly simplistic and probably half-educated view of evolutionary strategies. Human biology and society is complex, hardly restricted to gamete production.

 

This thread is full of misplaced anger and it makes me recoil a little. On the other hand it makes me thankful that most of the men I know in real life, while they might quite reasonably choose not to date single mothers themselves, aren't so full of vitriol and hate--and are mature enough to understand that there are reasonable outcomes dictated by biology if they put their semen into a vagina. That little planetary ramble was perhaps the most sick and bizarre thing I have read outside of my Abnormal Psych texts. Anyway, I think I spend too much time feeling sorry for some of the twisted hearts on these forums, perhaps I should take a break from them for a while. Seriously, people, some of you should really, really consider therapy to help get that bile out of your systems and help you figure out how to choose people better so you're not surrounding yourselves with the negative examples that seem to proliferate in your lives.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Stung

[sally4sara]

What I've learned from this thread is:

- caring for someone else's child instead of having your own makes you a biological failure

- but if your partner has a baby you never wanted, you're shackled and enslaved because you have to pay child support to help raise your own child

- but if she were to have an abortion, that would be wrong and irresponsible because it's murder and it's not fair for men to not have a say in what happens to a pregnancy

- but if she decides to keep it and he doesn't want it, he wants to have no say and no responsibility

- but if he's allowed to deny responsibility and leave her to raise the child herself, she's damaged goods and only good enough for desperate losers

- but if a woman were to refrain from vaginal sex for fear of such complicated situations, then she's not worth the time of day because she doesn't spread her legs and put out

- but if she does put out, get pregnant, and keep the baby, and her partner runs off, she's a promiscuous loser with baggage who only wanted to screw bad boys

- but if she realizes she wants better then she's acting entitled when she wouldn't have been entitled if she had asked for better before getting pregnant

- and men should be allowed to dodge all responsibility for a child they never wanted

- but single mothers should be scolded if they date instead of focusing every minute of their life on their children.

 

How wonderful.

 

I know. I've never been one to focus only on the promotion of anyone over others. But reading stuff like this......I want to vomit.

 

I'm beginning to feel the worst thing that ever happened was men finding out they had a hand in procreation. Once they did, they wanted to own it. Now that they have to share it, many want nothing to do with it.

[sweetjasmine]

Also men hunted for the tribe as a group, not for their individual favorites.

 

[LS bitter mode]American men are so selfish![/LS bitter mode]

 

On the other hand it makes me thankful that most of the men I know in real life, while they might quite reasonably choose not to date single mothers themselves, aren't so full of vitriol and hate--and are mature enough to understand that there are reasonable outcomes dictated by biology if they put their semen into a vagina.

 

Same here. It's important to keep that in mind.

[sally4sara]

I've been shown the light! Now I too am convinced! Thank you men of LS for convincing me that circumventing you entirely and heading to the sperm bank is the way to go! I can't wait till they work out all the kinks in their goal of making female sperm so women can have female babies with other women!

 

Bring on the All Female Utopia!

[sweetjasmine]

I've been shown the light! Now I too am convinced! Thank you men of LS for convincing me that circumventing you entirely and heading to the sperm bank is the way to go! I can't wait till they work out all the kinks in their goal of making female sperm so women can have female babies with other women!

 

Bring on the All Female Utopia!

 

Oh, you're going that route?

 

I was thinking of the "I'm only ever going to have sex when I know both of us want to conceive a child and I will request a signed contract to that effect including stipulations for support in case of abandonment, all before participating in any sexual act that could conceivably result in pregnancy" path instead. It's an undeniably fair way of doing things.

[theBrokenMuse]

What I've learned from this thread is:

- caring for someone else's child instead of having your own makes you a biological failure

- but if your partner has a baby you never wanted, you're shackled and enslaved because you have to pay child support to help raise your own child

- but if she were to have an abortion, that would be wrong and irresponsible because it's murder and it's not fair for men to not have a say in what happens to a pregnancy

- but if she decides to keep it and he doesn't want it, he wants to have no say and no responsibility

- but if he's allowed to deny responsibility and leave her to raise the child herself, she's damaged goods and only good enough for desperate losers

- but if a woman were to refrain from vaginal sex for fear of such complicated situations, then she's not worth the time of day because she doesn't spread her legs and put out

- but if she does put out, get pregnant, and keep the baby, and her partner runs off, she's a promiscuous loser with baggage who only wanted to screw bad boys

- but if she realizes she wants better then she's acting entitled when she wouldn't have been entitled if she had asked for better before getting pregnant

- and men should be allowed to dodge all responsibility for a child they never wanted

- but single mothers should be scolded if they date instead of focusing every minute of their life on their children.

 

How wonderful.

Bwahahaha! The doublethink is truly nothing short of breathtakingly astounding.

[112233]

Men who raise OTHER mens kids instead of raising their own... are biological failures of the highest magnitude

 

In nature... if you switch mates before your cubs are capable of living on their own... the new male will kill them.

 

SOMETIMES that happens, and it's not always the case that they are a biological failure, it depends on the distribution of genes in the pool and whatnot.

 

But more often than not, yes. They would actually probably be less a failure if they would assist their siblings with their kids, maybe start a college fund or trust for their nephews or nieces.

[sally4sara]

Oh, you're going that route?

 

I was thinking of the "I'm only ever going to have sex when I know both of us want to conceive a child and I will request a signed contract to that effect including stipulations for support in case of abandonment, all before participating in any sexual act that could conceivably result in pregnancy" path instead. It's an undeniably fair way of doing things.

 

I'm just full of vinegar right now dear. I was not posting in seriousness.

[112233]

I'm just full of vinegar right now dear.

 

Sexy, but I like Champagne better.

[Woggle]

I've been shown the light! Now I too am convinced! Thank you men of LS for convincing me that circumventing you entirely and heading to the sperm bank is the way to go! I can't wait till they work out all the kinks in their goal of making female sperm so women can have female babies with other women!

 

Bring on the All Female Utopia!

 

Aren't you now stereotyping all men just like you accuse me of doing with women? This attitude if precisely why many men unfairly stereotype single mothers. They think they are manhaters who devalue fatherhood. It is not true but posts like this don't help that perception. No man with self respect wants to date a woman that hates men.

[sweetjasmine]

Aren't you now stereotyping all men just like you accuse me of doing with women? This attitude if precisely why many men unfairly stereotype single mothers. They think they are manhaters who devalue fatherhood. It is not true but posts like this don't help that perception. No man with self respect wants to date a woman that hates men.

 

She was joking, and so was I.

 

Wogs, what do you think of labeling stepfathers with no biological children of their own "biological failures" because they haven't spread their genes?

 

I think devaluing "stepfatherhood" is just as harmful as devaluing fatherhood. It's interesting to me that you focused on sally's hyperbole out of all the things in the last two pages of this thread.

[112233]

.... what do you think of labeling stepfathers with no biological children of their own "biological failures" because they haven't spread their genes?

 

Not Wogs, but honestly, they ARE biological failures *IF* they don't help their genes survive. However a lot of the "spread your genes" idiots are really just looking for an excuse for their fooling around. "Spreading" genes in and of itself is not the relevant thing, effectively ensuring their survival *IS* the only thing. Biologically.

[Woggle]

She was joking, and so was I.

 

Wogs, what do you think of labeling stepfathers with no biological children of their own "biological failures" because they haven't spread their genes?

 

I think devaluing "stepfatherhood" is just as harmful as devaluing fatherhood. It's interesting to me that you focused on sally's hyperbole out of all the things in the last two pages of this thread.

 

I hope she was joking because for the most part I am actually starting to like her.

 

I focus on it because when you devalue fathers you devalue men and I am one. I do notice more when my own side is attacked because it affects me.

 

I do not feel that stepfathers are biological failures and I actually applaud them for giving a child a male role model in their life. I hear time and time again from feminists about how men are not needed in the family and even some who think we are also dangerous abusers so it is good that she appreciates what her husband brings.

[sweetjasmine]

"Spreading" genes in and of itself is not the relevant thing, effectively ensuring their survival *IS* the only thing. Biologically.

 

I absolutely agree, which is why a father who abandons the mother and child and leaves it up to others to ensure the survival of his offspring is much more of a failure to me.

 

I have a lot of respect for people who raise children well even though the children aren't theirs biologically, whether they're stepparents, godparents, adoptive parents. The fact that a living, breathing child is being cared for by a competent and loving adult is more important to me than whose genes are being preserved.

[theBrokenMuse]

what do you think of labeling stepfathers with no biological children of their own "biological failures"

Technically, that would not be an inaccurate classification for those who don't propagate their genes. However, outside of the realm of evolutionary directives and gene propagation, it's certainly not a bad thing to refrain from spreading one's genes by a long shot. It speaks nothing of any kind of deficiency of character. In fact, considering how Humanity seems to be circling the toilet bowl, I think it's a very reasonable move.

[sally4sara]

I hope she was joking because for the most part I am actually starting to like her.

 

I focus on it because when you devalue fathers you devalue men and I am one. I do notice more when my own side is attacked because it affects me.

 

I do not feel that stepfathers are biological failures and I actually applaud them for giving a child a male role model in their life. I hear time and time again from feminists about how men are not needed in the family and even some who think we are also dangerous abusers so it is good that she appreciates what her husband brings.

 

Woggle, I'm not going to let a bunch of *******s change my values.

 

But I will pretend, make a mock post as though their views got through to me to show them that if all men thought like they did, then women would have every reason to begin to devalue men as parents.

[112233]

I absolutely agree, which is why a father who abandons the mother and child and leaves it up to others to ensure the survival of his offspring is much more of a failure to me.

 

Since you are apparently a single mom, well of course you would have this view. However, biologically, it's unlikely that either is an optimal strategy, but the "shag and run" technique is probably the better of the two from the males standpoint.

 

 

 

I have a lot of respect for people who raise children well even though the children aren't theirs biologically, whether they're stepparents, godparents, adoptive parents. The fact that a living, breathing child is being cared for by a competent and loving adult is more important to me than whose genes are being preserved.

 

Of course it is, particularly if it's your biological child. I always note with some humor the microscopic number of women who are willing to forgo having their own kids and instead will help raise those of another unrelated woman.

 

As someone else noted, being a biological failure doesn't make one a bad person in and of itself. After all the human race has almost 7 billion gene transport machines in operation as we speak, it's not like we really need every single person to optimally reproduce.

[Woggle]

Woggle, I'm not going to let a bunch of *******s change my values.

 

But I will pretend, make a mock post as though their views got through to me to show them that if all men thought like they did, then women would have every reason to begin to devalue men as parents.

 

If all women thought the way some women did men would have every reason to hump and dump. It goes both ways and while I am 100% against the mentality from some men on here radical feminism helped create it. You tell men we are nothing more than sperm donors and walking wallets and some will actually start to act like it. If more feminists fought for the rights of men who really are good fathers then I would get behind them on this issue. I grew up hearing my father be called a seed bag so don't be surprised when men think this way.

[sweetjasmine]

Since you are apparently a single mom, well of course you would have this view.

 

You're talking to someone who's never been pregnant or given birth. Nice try, though.

 

I always note with some humor the microscopic number of women who are willing to forgo having their own kids and instead will help raise those of another unrelated woman.

 

My SO has a child, and kiddo's mom was the one who ran off to another city when she realized that taking care of a toddler isn't all fun and games.

 

Again, nice try.