domtimothy46176
Posts: 670
Joined: 12/25/2004
From: Dayton, Ohio area
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FLButtSlut
quote:
ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176
Maybe I'm an uncaring insensitive ass, but I'll go ahead prove it anyway. Why is Emeraldslave2's comment offensive and uncaring?
We can start with her obvious lack of understanding of the situation, but the incessent need to post a comment based on that lack of understanding. Yes, TWO people consented to having unprotected sex. Having children HAD been discussed between the parties. The MAN, sub/slave or plain ole vanilla, had the option of saying, NO, I don't want to do that, but his "little head" did the thinking for him, while his "big head" ignored possible consequences.
The MAN had as much option of saying NO as did the woman, certainly, we can agree to that extent. How much option did the submissive truly have at that point? I doubt that I'm the only dominant who reserves the right to dictate when where and how sexual activity takes place. The anecdotal evidence would suggest that the majority of submissives fuck when and how they've been instructed.
How many female submissives would be complacent about getting pregnant with a dominant after only 6 months into the relationship, especially if they had other plans? A child is, afterall, a commitment of at least 18 years.
Much of the discussion has revolved around the MAN and not the submissive. That's a crock and it should be obvious to any who have spent any amount of time around male submissives and their dominant partners. The fact that he's male doesn't stop him from responding to the same need to please that female submissives exhibit.
How many submissives would agree to be bred by a dominant they had only served for a short time? I doubt that many would gracfully accept such an edict. Post the question in the "Ask a submissive" forum and watch the advice to "run, don't walk" flow. The only difference here is that in this case the dominant is in possession of the ovaries.
Break away from the gender politics for a moment and examine the situation in light of the balance of power.
quote:
SHE knew what the possible consequences were and, given prior discussion about the two of them having a child together, was ok with the risk. THEREFORE, the "you play, you pay" theory does in fact come into play. She didn't mislead him, he - as an (presumably) intelligent adult - knew what could happen. Far too often, men do not consider the physical and emotional trauma of abortion to be an issue - likely because they are not the ones having the procedure.
While I do agree with this concept of personal responsibility and advocate it as a matter of course for all submissives and dominants, in reality we do hold dominants to a higher standard, however inequitable that may be at times. The dominant, by virtue of his/her authority, tends to dictate the rules of engagement, once the initial boundaries are agreed upon. While we encourage submissives to take responsibility for communicating their wants and needs, it is inevitably the dominant who holds the greater share of blame when things go awry. The dominant is responsible for ensuring that he/she doesn't cross the line of consent or do irreparable harm. While we recognize that accidents can and do happen, it is the responsibility of the dominant to take all reasonable precautions to minimize the chance of something going wrong.
quote:
ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176
I, too, think it's stupid to have unprotected sex with someone with whom I don't share a belief in the proper course of action should a pregnancy result from the liason. Both parties are entitled to their own values and priorities, as thinking individuals. The situation described in the OP is a forseeable result of opposing viewpoints. I fail to see the lack of compassion in pointing out the obvious dichotomy.
quote:
Again, having a child had been discussed, and both were in agreement that this was a DESIRED thing. The "timing" (wanting it a year later) was just "not right" for the guy. THAT is a poor excuse on HIS part, given his consent to the activity. This woman, who believed this man did love her, they were planning a family together, but when the "timing" didn't mean HIS schedule, he wants her to have an invasive procedure, that although minor and relatively safe COULD present complications for HER. Finding out that someone you cared deeply about lacks a certain degree of integrity that you thought they had is difficult. Kicking her when she is down by calling her (and him) stupid is lacking in compassion.
Again I call BS. The submissive is in disagreement with the dominant and this must mean the submissive lacks integrity?
"Sure I want kids but I don't want them now. We've only been together for 6 months. Why don't we wait a year or two and then think about it?"
I don't find this to be a position without integrity. It would appear to be a submissive trying to honest with a dominant. It would seem to be a reasonable request from a submissive who wants to be sure of the relationship before making a larger commitment.
If pointing out the obvious, i.e. this is a mess that could easily have been avoided, is lacking in compassion, then I am guilty on a regular basis. toy and I got pregnant just a few months after we got together. Because of her medical situation, she was never supposed to be able to have children so we have a lil miracle baby snoozing in the next room. Despite the prognosis, however, it remained a possibility that required negotiation and agreement prior to the onset of sexual activity. As the dominant, it was my responsibility to ensure I had the bases covered. Had I failed to be prepared for the possibility of a pregnancy then it would have been a STUPID omission on my part.
quote:
ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176
As long as I'm risking being seen as offensive, I would also like to point out the blatant hypocrisy in the "It's her body so it's her choice" position. Where else in American jurisprudence can two adults engage in a joint venture that leaves one of them with fiduciary obligations for the unilateral decisions of the other party without the right to sever the partnership and thereby end the financial obligation?
As the custodial parent of two teenagers for the preceding 13 years, I could write at length about what I feel is the appropriate level of financial responsibility of the non-custodial parent.
quote:
As a custodial parent, the absolute ignorance of this statement is astounding. As custodial parent, do you bare NO financial obligation to your children? Statisticall, regardless of the child support you may or may not receive, YOUR financial burden for these children, as custodial parent is greater than the non custodial parent.
Furthermore, child support DOES also give the non-custodial parent "decision making" rights. Unless found "unfit" by the court, a non-custodial parent has the right to see their child. They have the right to participate in all major decisions regarding the child, i.e. education, health, religious upbringing. The fact that so many non-custodial parents (whether they be mothers or fathers) choose NOT to participate in those decisions is not a result of the law telling them that they can't. I have, during my career in family law assisted parents to obtain and maintain these rights when a custodial parent, in their misguided anger has refused those rights to the non custodial parent.
Obviously, you have "severed your partnership" with the mother of your children. The financial obligation that she (presumably) owes is to the CHILDREN, not to you. While I commend you for your devotion to your children, their mother has no obligation, financial or otherwise to you, but to the children that you both created together, regardless of her chosen or court ordered level of participation now.
Typically, I find your comments and opinions to be very intelligent and well thought out. What was offensive about your comments here concerned your obvious lack of knowledge of the law, not what you said. I have helped to make positive changes in the family legal system during my career, and your view is not uncommon, but it is a misconception.
My "obvious lack of knowledge of the law" comes from firsthand experience within the system. I will concede that the Family Courts of Marion County in Indiana may well be provincial compared to where you practiced but I can assure that, despite what the guidelines may lay out as the ideal, rulings continue to give the non-custodial parent a larger share of financial obligation without any input on religious, educational or health-related decisions.
I consider my children fortunate that their mother chooses to not participate in their upbringing. Given her choices since we divorced, I think she may well have been a poor role model and possibly undermined my efforts at teaching them personal responsibility. While I agree that, since she voluntarily entered into parenthood, she does have a continuing fiduciary responsibility to the children I am more than capable of covering what she doesn't pay in child support.
My comments, however, were not directed at my own situation. What appalls me is, as I said, the inequity within the sytem. Given the view that only a woman can choose whether or not she bears a child, it's illogical to hold an additional party responsible for the result of that choice. Only when both parties agree to have a child can both parties be responsibile for that child.
The "you play, you pay" line of reasoning is only valid so long as the result of sexual activity resulting in pregnancy is constant, i.e. the birth of a child. Once you replace that constant with an option available to only one participant, you change the dynamic to "you play, you may or not pay". Because the decision of whether or not the "player" becomes the "payer" rests completely on whether or not the woman decides, at any point during the pregnancy, to continue, terminate or, at the end of the pregnancy, to delegate to an adoptive family, the cause/effect relationship is corrupted and weakened. It's nonsensical to expect someone to maintain an old-fashioned traditional sense of responsibility under these circumstances.
quote:
ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176
Choosing to bring a child into the world, however, should be a joint decision.
quote:
While I completely agree with you on this point, it doesn't answer the all important question....when the parties can not reach an agreement, on which side does the decision fall? The "her body, her choice" concept is based on the fact that only one person is going to either go through the pregnancy (with its risks), the invasive procedure to abort, or the emotional trauma connected with adoption.
The answer, of course, is to refrain from sexual relations with those with whom one disagrees. While only one party possesses the uterus, both parties are susceptible to emotional trauma, the desire to parent and moral stances on the sancity of life. To presume otherwise is to ascribe to a sexist non-reality. Despite all claims to the contrary, men are just as human as women.
quote:
ORIGINAL: domtimothy46176
If you are willing to bear a child over the objections of the father, you should accept responsibility for your individual choice. Telling a man that you're having a baby whether he likes it or not and he should suck it up and hand over his cash is BS. It's also BS, IMO, that because I'm male, my children can be slaughtered on a whim leaving me with no legal recourse while a woman's children are sancrosanct and she can see the murderer executed for feticide. That is hypocrisy, by definition.
quote:
This man DOES have the option of walking away. To do so, he must terminate his parental rights.
I must admit I am ignorant of the legal precedents by which a man has successfully terminated his parental rights in the face of a woman establishing paternity in order to secure child support. This is contrary to the law within the state of Indiana, which is my only point of reference.
quote:
What "legal recourse" do you suggest that would permit you to force a woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn't want for you to have a child?
I would suggest the answer lies in a consistent definition of life. Under the status quo, an embryo is only a life when the mother decides it's a life. This is why abortion doctors are not routinely prosecuted for feticide.
If embryos are unborn children as the pro-lifers claim, mothers seeking to abort their babies can be legally confined until they are no longer, read post-birth, a danger to the child.
If embryos are not unborn children, then there is no financial or moral responsibility for what is a essentially a growth that has no intrinsic value and we should remove feticide as a criminal offense. Under this definition, I would also conclude that if an embryo only becomes a child when it is capable of independant existence outside the womb, then only the mother should ever be held legally or financially responsible since she was solely responsible for enabling the growth to become an independant entity.
quote:
Statistically, you are the exception, Timothy, not the norm. Statistically, fathers do not seek custody of their children, and at the end of a relationship, it is their choice to seriously limit their involvement with their children.
And 98.7% of statistics cited are made up on the spot. I would be greatly interested in seeing your sources. It's been my experience that, of those who have an interest in gaining shared or sole custody, the majority are counselled against pressing the issue in court in the face of opposition from the mother for fear of having their involvement with their children curtailed by the mother as punishment for "trying to steal the children" should the attempt be unsuccessful. I can only produce anecdotal evidence but I would welcome the inclusion of objective surveys into the discussion.
quote:
I would never say that one parent is better than the other, and I have seen both mothers and fathers who put aside their petty differences for the sake of the children's best interests, and both mothers and fathers who choose to abandon their children for "new" relationships with people who don't like the "baggage" of the children from a previous relationship. My ex husband was one of "those" parents, and just so there is no confusion, not only did he choose to abandon my son (our divorce had long since been over), but I did relieve him of his support obligations. The point is that it was never about the end of the partnership between him and I, but rather his parental obligations to my son, which HE chose to sever.
The OP whole point was that this man led her to believe things...
1) He loved her and was looking for the eventual "better or worse" scenario.
2) He wanted to have a child (or children with her)
Sometimes, as I am sure you know, "shit happens" and it doesn't necessarily fit into our conceived "schedule" of how it happens. Not using birth control, both parties knew the risk factors involved and since the eventuality of children had been discussed, it was obviously not a major concern for the OP. The man, on the other hand had other ideas about that which he failed to disclose leading to his current point of view. Quite frankly, the "timing" of wanting it a mere year later, in my opinion, is nothing more than a lame excuse. These aren't teenagers or even very young adults. It seems to me that this man's rigid sense of "timing" would likely have an adverse effect on any unplanned event in their lives. Certainly, he might, during the course of the pregnancy become comfortable with the idea. He may not. Either way, the OP is hurting by the shock of finding out the man she loved and the man she conceived a baby with were apparently not exactly the same guy. Now is not the time to tell her what a stupid decision she made, or to discuss the man's rights in the decisions of having a child. Now is the time to comfort her and assure her that in the end, everything will turn out as it should.
You're entirely welcome to your opinions and free to share them as strenuously as feel is appropriate. You and I have much different points of view. I'm less inclined to commiserate with the OP, as she would appear to have a good grip on what she has on her plate, than I am to give a text-based bitch-slap to those who want to turn the unfortunate situation into yet another opportunity to engage in gender politics and demonize the man who found himself in a position that few, if any, female submissives would tolerate.
This is not dissimilar to many of the complaints that arise on both sides of the slash as it arises from moving too quickly with someone you don't know well enough. Folks jump into situations that have unexpected but not unforseeable consequences. While the consequences in the OP are graver and more far-reaching, the basic condition remains indistinguishable from many others that prompt a call of "FOUL" elsewhere on these boards.
I think Emeraldslave2 was correct in saying that they did something STUPID and now they have to pay the piper. I think it should stand as a warning to all those who jump into intimate relationships without being fully prepared. If you're going to make stupid mistakes, you have to be prepared to suck it up and learn from it so that you can make wiser decisions down the road.
Things don't turn out as they should, they turn out in response to the decisions we make and the actions we take. Trying to spin it isn't going to help the next person avoid making a similar error in judgement. We're not victims of our partners, we're active participants who choose the people we allow into our beds and our lives.
Rather than offering comfort to one by demonizing the other, we would better serve everyone by accepting the concept of personal responsibility for our choices, as MsChief seem prepared to do, despite her personal pain and turmoil.
Timothy
|
RE: Unplanned pregnancy....D/s view - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread