RE: breeding ?

RE: breeding ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

antipode -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 4:44:49 PM)
quote: It is not so in California. I suspect what you describe is the case in many states. I know it is in New York. When my ex-wife, after we separated, but before the formal decree absolute, had a baby, I ended up on the birth certificate automatically, courtesy of the hospital. I had to drag the boyfriend into court, have him recognize the child, and do a paternity test, and much to my surprise, at family court in Lafayette Street the presiding judge gave me a stern talking-to, about my relinquishing my parental rights, even though the DNA test was right in front of her on the desk. I had no idea, and was very glad I had my attourneys check, don't even know why I asked them.

antipode -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 4:48:16 PM)
quote: Does a Master or Owner of a collared and owned slave (female for obvious reasons) have the absolute right to breed his slave ? with other men ? I really wonder why you ask such an obviously silly question. There isn't a rulebook, everybody makes this up as they go along, so why the - on the face of it - nonsensical question? If you had a profile and it would be possible for us to know about you as a person, would you still ask these types of questions?

LafayetteLady -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 5:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist You take the subject of lineage much more lightly than I do. You also project some very strange motives and perspectives on others, as is your prerogative. Taking the subject of lineage "lightly?" The fact that I find it absurd that the "lineage" of the child would be completely questionable based on the attempt at concept by any number of different men speaks otherwise. quote: Also your opinion of 40 year olds is antiquated considering modern medical screening techniques used for donors. Antiquated? First of all the OP is not the "donor." Second of all, regardless of medical technology, women getting pregnant in the 40s still qualifies them as a high risk pregnancy with a higher result of developmentally disabled children. That isn't my "opinion" that is medically proven FACT. ETA: She isn't talking about IVF procedures which makes all your scientific "data" worthless in this scenario. quote: Further, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Perhaps a “slave” that doesn’t want babies should find a Master that is less jovial lineage and has the same goals? Or consider a different style of relation that allows negotiation? Frankly, the reckless attitude you show towards control and your presumption of abuse for those that have control is frightening. IF the OP's master wants children and is unable, for whatever reason, to provide the viable sperm to create that child, AND is going to "screen" the "donors" in a realistic way, AND take the necessary legal measures in regards to that child, then that would be one thing. Everything the OP writes indicates otherwise. About a month ago, she posed the question regarding turning over all of her finances to a "master" in Australia that she had never even met (she is in the states). They had spoken for just a couple of months. She is in her 40s, so logically anyone who wants to forceably impregnate their "slave" should logically choose one of a more viable age. Regardless of that, there has been no discussion as to who will be responsible for this child? Does he just want to impregnate her and then put the child up for adoption? Does he want to raise the child in the "lifestyle" (which is completely inappropiate). What about the "donor's" rights? Are they aware of this "master's" plans? Lots of unanswered questions before this seems like anything remotely logical. On the face it sounds like a middle aged woman without an ounce of common sense who is so desperate for someone to "love" her that she is willing to do whatever the fool says without regard for the consequences or her own personal safety. You think I have a "reckless" attitude towards control. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you are trying to say you think I am far from "submissive." You can have your opinion. My "submissiveness" is confined to my intimate relationship and that is all. Which translates into anyone who thinks I ought to be so nice and submissive in my thoughts, words or actions to them because they call themselves "dominant" is in for a big surprise, and for the record, I consider myself a "switch" which means I am as capable of taking control as I am of giving it. I actually never said I thought the moronic master was abusive. I said I think he is an idiot, and that she doesn't have the sense God gave an amoeba if she goes along with this "idea." If all of the "questions" had been answered, she wouldn't be posting here asking "how" this is done. When I see a woman in her 40s who lacks the common sense to not give over all of her money and assets to someone that she hasn't met in person, then is asking about if someone has the "absolute right" to have her fuck as many men as he says with the hope of her getting pregnant, I don't see an abusive "master," I see a woman who shouldn't even be in a relationship because she has a huge sign on her forehead that says "clueless." Personally, the woman would probably be better off giving all her assets to this "master" in the outback somewhere (if she is even still talking about the same one) and let someone with a brain make her decisions, because it seems obvious she isn't capable. But bringing a child into the world is not a BDSM event or play session. It is a real responsibility that lasts a minimum of 18 years. Unless that child is going to be in a loving environment, "planning" it is wrong, plain and simple. Unless of course in your "uber domliness" you think it is totally appropriate to bring a non-consenting human being into your play for your shits and giggles. If that is the case, then you need as much psychological help as the OP and her "master"

LafayetteLady -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 5:20:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx A legal father (one who has been found to be or is presumed to be by law) cannot sign away his "rights" (read obligations) to his child unless the mother is married and her husband is willing to adopt said child. Actually, blushes, this is not true. A father (or mother for that matter) can sign away the rights of their child when both parents are consenting. The court can not forbid this based on the mother (or father) being married and having a readily available "new parent" for the child. The courts try to persuade folks from not doing this, but there are more than enough circumstances where such a thing is warranted and granted.

derangedmaniac -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 5:26:41 PM)
I still firmly believe that a woman has the right when it comes to something like that. But...

LafayetteLady -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 5:38:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: peppermint quote: ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 quote: ORIGINAL: peppermint quote: ORIGINAL: subtlebottomgirl Where does the responsibility to take care of the off springs lay ? Do the child a favor. Give it up for adoption so the child can have intelligent thinking humans for parents. This is just you being a snarky bitch. And I'll stick by my so called snarky answer and if I am a bitch for doing so, I certainly don't care. I call it the way I see it. The lady in question is certainly not accepting the caring role of Mommy, hence her question. Master doesn't seem to have said he wants the child and diaper duty, hence her question. The poor fucker to make the "off springs" will probably never know his real role in all this, hence her question. Quite frankly, I really doubt she was asking a question about child support. She's not talking about a baby or child here. She is discussing the "off springs". peppermint, if that is you being a snarky bitch, I guess my posts on the subject qualify me for "Queen Snarky Bitch." In this instance, like you, I will stand by what I have said.

xxblushesxx -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 5:43:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx A legal father (one who has been found to be or is presumed to be by law) cannot sign away his "rights" (read obligations) to his child unless the mother is married and her husband is willing to adopt said child. Actually, blushes, this is not true. A father (or mother for that matter) can sign away the rights of their child when both parents are consenting. The court can not forbid this based on the mother (or father) being married and having a readily available "new parent" for the child. The courts try to persuade folks from not doing this, but there are more than enough circumstances where such a thing is warranted and granted. They can sign away their rights but NOT their responsibilities. That is a fact.

ModeratorSeven -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 5:52:46 PM)
As long as this thread discusses the implications of having children as part of a kinky lifestyle, it is ok. We will not tolerate any reference to activities including minors. Those remarks have been pulled and none will be tolerated.

ResidentSadist -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 6:43:32 PM)
I agree, “forcing” theories are bullshit. If she can post on Collarme, she can call the police. Noncompliance is always a slave's choice. I have also read the OPs other threads and she has the right to be as stupid or smart as she likes whether we like it or not. As to the disposition of the child, method of breeding and with whom, Until the OP clarifies further, we can only use the comments she has made. If what she meant to post was that “does a Master have the right to commanded me to fuck a plethora of strangers without a condom, take the offspring and let Domiguy adopt them” . . . that answer would still be YES. . . and the fact would remain that she still has the right to refuse. Whether refusal causes the loss of the relationship, punishment, recompense, demotion in rank or whatever, is between them. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady et al . . .

LafayetteLady -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 6:51:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx A legal father (one who has been found to be or is presumed to be by law) cannot sign away his "rights" (read obligations) to his child unless the mother is married and her husband is willing to adopt said child. Actually, blushes, this is not true. A father (or mother for that matter) can sign away the rights of their child when both parents are consenting. The court can not forbid this based on the mother (or father) being married and having a readily available "new parent" for the child. The courts try to persuade folks from not doing this, but there are more than enough circumstances where such a thing is warranted and granted. They can sign away their rights but NOT their responsibilities. That is a fact. Actually, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. If someone signs away their rights, all future support issues are moot. Arrears that are still due and owing must be paid, but there is no future responsibilities. I've worked cases where this is what happens. You can't tell someone they have no "rights" but all the responsibilities. Think about it, then if the cases where CPS terminates parental rights, those parents would still be held liable for support, and they aren't, nor should they be. When one terminates their parental rights, they are also terminating their parental responsibilities.

xxblushesxx -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 6:55:13 PM)
It is difficult, if not impossible to sign away your "rights" in the US unless someone else is willing (and able) to take on those "rights". SO many want to, and SO many try, but very few are able.

LafayetteLady -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 6:55:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist I have also read the OPs other threads and she has the right to be as stupid or smart as she likes whether we like it or not. On this we most definately agree. quote: As to the disposition of the child, method of breeding and with whom, Until the OP clarifies further, we can only use the comments she has made. If what she meant to post was that “does a Master have the right to commanded me to fuck a plethora of strangers without a condom, take the offspring and let Domiguy adopt them” . . . that answer would still be YES. . . and the fact would remain that she still has the right to refuse. Whether refusal causes the loss of the relationship, punishment, recompense, demotion in rank or whatever, is between them. Actually, the adoption part would be hard to fly past a court, and it would have to go through a court for a legal adoption. The OP can agree or disagree, there is no question about that. But at some point, common sense and concern for another's life (that of the child) should be taking precedent over "demands" of a master. If they aren't, then it shouldn't be happening because the person doesn't have the sense needed to do what is demanded.

LafayetteLady -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 6:57:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx It is difficult, if not impossible to sign away your "rights" in the US unless someone else is willing (and able) to take on those "rights". SO many want to, and SO many try, but very few are able. It is typically "difficult" because the people looking to do so are doing so impulsively and the court will recognize that. But any judge who would state on the record that a single parent can not sufficiently support a child and MUST have another "parent" lined up to adopt in the terminating parents stead would find themselves not only quickly overturned on appeal, but also censured by the judiciary for such statements.

peppermint -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 7:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady peppermint, if that is you being a snarky bitch, I guess my posts on the subject qualify me for "Queen Snarky Bitch." In this instance, like you, I will stand by what I have said. YOU GO LADY!!! You said what I wanted to say but was too angry to say it. I'll share the snarky bitch title with you anytime.

xxblushesxx -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 7:01:50 PM)
I'm sorry, but this is the norm. I've seen it over and over again. A person does not have to take their rights to see the child, but they do not have the option of signing away their responsibility without someone offering to do so.

ResidentSadist -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 7:19:47 PM)
If your rights weren’t already spoken for, I’d take them away any day baby! quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx It is difficult, if not impossible to sign away your "rights" in the US unless someone else is willing (and able) to take on those "rights". SO many want to, and SO many try, but very few are able.

LafayetteLady -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 7:38:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx I'm sorry, but this is the norm. I've seen it over and over again. A person does not have to take their rights to see the child, but they do not have the option of signing away their responsibility without someone offering to do so. What you are seeing are "absentee" parents who don't see their child and don't want to pay. They see terminating their rights as a way to get out of child support. You are quite correct that an "absentee" parent looking to terminate would likely be turned down. For that very reason. However, when the custodial parent is looking to terminate the absentee parent's rights with cause, the court does not make the ludicrous demand of there needing to be a new spouse to adopt. The court will demand that the custodial parent make a showing they can financially support the child on their own because they aren't going to terminate child support (which with an absentee parent is really all that is happening) if the custodial parent can not self support the family. It makes a huge difference as to who does the asking for the termination and the reasons behind it.

CalifChick -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 9:28:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx I'm sorry, but this is the norm. I've seen it over and over again. A person does not have to take their rights to see the child, but they do not have the option of signing away their responsibility without someone offering to do so. I have a feeling this varies greatly state to state, and even court to court. My exhusband, in his first divorce, signed away all rights and responsibilities to their adopted child, and there was no one "waiting in the wings." So yes, at his ex-wife's request, he did sign away everything. I know all the details, because I was there for the meetings with the attorney, who, based on the facts of the case, advised him to fight for everything, or fight for nothing. He chose nothing. Cali

xxblushesxx -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 9:37:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx I'm sorry, but this is the norm. I've seen it over and over again. A person does not have to take their rights to see the child, but they do not have the option of signing away their responsibility without someone offering to do so. What you are seeing are "absentee" parents who don't see their child and don't want to pay. They see terminating their rights as a way to get out of child support. You are quite correct that an "absentee" parent looking to terminate would likely be turned down. For that very reason. However, when the custodial parent is looking to terminate the absentee parent's rights with cause, the court does not make the ludicrous demand of there needing to be a new spouse to adopt. The court will demand that the custodial parent make a showing they can financially support the child on their own because they aren't going to terminate child support (which with an absentee parent is really all that is happening) if the custodial parent can not self support the family. It makes a huge difference as to who does the asking for the termination and the reasons behind it. You are correct, LL. Unfortunately, most of the parents I see asking about it are either the ncp who doesn't want to pay any more, or sometimes the cp who really can't afford to do it on his/her own, but want to anyway. It doesn't work out well for them. I like to throw the "real" law (which you did as well!) in these threads when relevent, because at times I see people pretend that the "lifestyle" will protect them from the law. sigh Or if they can just explain it right...or if they can get the judge to feel that they should get what they want... They don't realize that the judge has to follow the law, whether they agree with it or not. And most states want two parents responsible financially for the children, whether they want to be or not.

thishereboi -> RE: breeding ? (1/30/2010 10:41:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Don't hold back.... tell us how you REALLY feel...:) Jeff Yea and people said I was mean.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875