Topcat, Dark Angel, thank you...

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Topcat, Dark Angel, thank you...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> Topcat, Dark Angel, thank you...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Topcat, Dark Angel, thank you... - 1/12/2005 10:34:52 AM

SubmitAndBeLoved

Posts: 32
Joined: 12/15/2004
Status: offline

For engaging in polite, constructive conversation with me.

Topcat, you may find these websites to usefully add to your knowledge of just how and how far the relationship between men and women has degraded in America today:

www.angryharry.com (it's a site run by a Brit, with lots of U.K. news, so Dark Angel might want to look at, too)

http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/ (Brit group)

http://ancpr.org

http://www.ncfm.org/

www.nomarriage.com

www.glennsacks.com
www.mensnewsdaily.com (especially Baskerville and Chapin's pieces in the archives)

Here are two good ones of Baskerville's:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/baskerville/03/baskerville062103.htm

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/baskerville/03/baskerville031103.htm (below)

Boy Victim of Statutory Rape Forced to Pay Child Support to Adult Woman Rapist

March 11, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Iowa, the government has confiscated the savings of an 11-year-old boy. Rylan Nitzschke saved $200 from chores and shoveling snow, but now his savings belongs to the state. Why? Rylan's father allegedly owes child support - for Rylan! - and the father's name was on the boy's bank account.

OK, so this is a fluke, and the state will return the boy's savings, right? Wrong. State officials have no intention of returning the money. And why should they? They receive federal funds for each dollar they collect. Returning Rylan's piggy bank is bad fiscal management.

Such expropriations are far from unusual. In West Virginia, child support officials cleaned out the bank account of an 85-year-old grandmother whose son allegedly owed child support. The son never paid into the account, which comprised her life savings. She was also charged $75 processing fee.

Children often pay child support to grown-ups. In California and Kansas, minor boys statutorily raped by adult women must pay child support to the criminals who raped him. In one case, the boy was drugged before sex.

The elderly can also become targets of rape-for-profit. A disabled 85-year-old man, sexually assaulted by his housekeeper and awarded damages for the assault, was ordered to pay her child support, and his pension was garnished. He was denied access to the child.

"We've got some 45-year-old 'kids' running around who are owed child support," says Nick Young, enforcement director in Virginia.

In Canada, runaway children now sue their parents for child support. In California, a 50-year-old divorce lawyer successfully sued his own parents for child support because depression rendered him unable to work.

Child support has little to do with providing for children. Its purpose is to redistribute money - and political power - among grown-ups. Iowa officials say the only way Rylan's father can prevent the looting of Rylan's savings in the future is to give the money to the adult with custody.

Thus has child support turned children into cash prizes and even "cash crops." One girl tells a Toronto newspaper of her career plans: "I'm going to marry a really rich guy, then divorce him," she says. "But first I'm going to have his kids, so I get child support."
=================================================================

Here are several especially good ones on just how insidious gender feminism is, and how it makes increasingly difficult good men and good women happily being together for life in equitable (but not identical) roles:

http://www.harrysnews.com/tgTheRealGoalOfFeminism.htm

http://www.harrysnews.com/toogoodtomiss6.htm#How civilizations fall

Here are the words of a famous gender feminist, who after advocating mass murder of all males was not dismissed as wrong or irrelevant by other better-known ones, but was celebrated by them! In her own words:

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/e-sermons/scum.html

===================================================================

Info on two of the best books available on the whole issue:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/5225/surviving_frame.htm

http://www.divorcereform.org/abol.html
http://www.fathersforlife.org/abolition_of_marriage.htm (on same book)
Quotes from second book:

A few excerpts from Maggie Gallagher's "The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love." (Regnery Publishing, 1996, ISBN 0-89526-464-1, US$24.95)

"The spouse who leaves learns that love dies. The spouse who is left learns that love betrays, that he or she has no control over the terms of marriage. Neither the culture nor the courts will enforce any commitment. The rule is, He who wants out, wins." [p.146]

"Try this thought experiment: What would happen if courts treated property and business contracts as we now treat the marriage contract? What if American law refused to enforce business contracts and indeed systematically favored the party that wished to withdraw, on the grounds that "fault" was messy and irrelevant and exposed judges and attorneys to unpleasant acrimony [Elsewhere, Maggie Gallagher argues that the new divorce culture has wreaked social destruction and saves only judges and attorneys from acrimony. —WHS]. What if property were viewed, as marriage increasingly is, as a strictly private matter, so that when disputes arose, thieves and owners would be left to work things out among themselves, because after all, one cannot legislate morality? If the corporation were required to operate under the same legal principle that govern our marriage laws, the economy would collapse. It is not surprising that under the same regimen, marriage is on the verge of just doing that.

Today all of us are children of divorce, however happy our own or our parents' marriage. We have seen what happened to an aunt, a neighbor, a brother, or a friend. People are afraid to invest in a relationship in which they know from hard experience what the law teaches: The one who leaves, wins." [p.149]

" To recreate marriage we must rethink our approach to the law of marriage. The old marriage contract, we are told, was oppressive. But imagine if today's marriage license set down the new contract state legislatures have written for us, warning that marriage is a strictly temporary relation that neither party can rely on. If we were handed this new marriage contract, how many of us would sign?..." [p.151]

=================================================================

Here's some info on just how screwed kids are who grow up without fathers (whether from illegitimacy or divorce):

http://www.fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm

63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.

90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

80% of rapist motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes

85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.

Children from fatherless homes are:

4.6 times more likely to commit suicide,

6.6 times to become teenaged mothers (if they are girls, of course),
24.3 times more likely to run away,
15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions,
10.8 times more likely to commit rape,
6.6 times more likely to drop out of school,
15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenager.

and — compared to children who are in the care of two biological, married parents — children who are in the care of single mothers are:

33 times more likely to be seriously abused (so that they will require medical attention), and
73 times more likely to be killed .

See why I am so hard-core and judgemental about children being fatherless due to illegitimate birth (which women largely control) and divorce (mostly filed for by women in marriages involving minor children)?

_____________________________

"The more masculine a man is, the more feminine any healthy woman near him will become -- and vice versa."

(in reply to SubmitAndBeLoved)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: The above reposted with format fixed: - 1/12/2005 10:37:16 AM

onceburned

Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SubmitAndBeLoved
First off, a debt is not legitimate unless either for damage done, or is a voluntary obligation freely taken on. Neither applies to court-ordered child support.

A man who has children with a woman outside of marriage, in the absence of an explicit prior agreement (such as a handfasting ceremony or written contract) has NOT indicated willingness to have children, to undertake their support, etc. That is because in our society, marriage is how a man indicates this.

Hogwash.

The era of shotgun marriages went out of fashion.... well... a very long time ago.

But the idea behind it was that a man was held accountable for his actions. If he fathered a child, he was forced to help raise it.

I am not in favor of forced marriage, but I think the societal value of holding folks accountable is a good thing. And I think it is the basis of many of our laws.

Raising a child is expensive. It is a major debt. And a father is responsible to paying his half of the expense...married, divorced, unwed or whatever the circumstance.

SubmitAndBeLoved, what you wrote about child support is plain silly...are you just yanking on our chain?

(in reply to SubmitAndBeLoved)

Profile

Post #: 42

Dark Angel, your last questions answered, I hope... - 1/12/2005 11:06:03 AM

SubmitAndBeLoved

Posts: 32
Joined: 12/15/2004
Status: offline

1) What about the child'd rights and choices in divorce?

The child is best off if it lives with its father in the vast majority of cases. If that means a choice between living with one parent over the other, that means that the child's interests mean it parts from its mother. I showed this at the end of my last post. We don't let children have autonomy in virtually life-or-death decisions like whether or not to use illegal drugs, drop out of school at age 9 if they want to, enter into contracts at early ages, etc.; so it should be with this issue.

2) Responsibility for pregnancy the mother wants and the father (unmarried to her) does not feel in a position to have:

Think of it this way; the man has 50% control over an average of maybe 5 minutes out of the process of a 280-day pregnancy. The woman has 50% control over that 5 minutes, and 100% of the rest of it. There are 60 * 24 * 280 = 403,200 minutes in a pregnancy. Say the costs of raising a child to maturity borne by the parents should average $200,00.00 (U.S. dollars). According to the current control situation a man in America has over pregnancy, that would mean a commensurate (and thus appropriate) level of responsibility would be: (5/2 * 200,00 * 100 [cents in dollar])/403,200 = 1.24 cents.

That's what the women get for that level of control; if they want men to go along with 50/50 responsibility, then they have to allow 50/50 control.

============================================================
Two more points:

1) Each state has determined what it really (reasonably but not excessively) costs to raise a child. That is the amount of money that foster parents are paid to care for children temporarily in their care, typically a few hundred dollars a month. I do not see that a divorce court could have any legal standing to ever order a higher level than that for involuntary cross-household child support. The noncustodial parent's income being high should not ever cause a higher award than that; after all, the child is being taken care of by the state's own figures at the foster care reimbursement level, and we don't raise traffic fines, cost of groceries or gasoline, etc., for someone of higher income.

2) Parents who have custody (both parents before divorce, and CPs after divorce) do not have the amount they must spend on their children decided on and enforced by a court. I take the position that a parent's right to decide that does not become changed by divorce, so again any court-decided cross-household child support makes no sense under our customs and legal system.

_____________________________

"The more masculine a man is, the more feminine any healthy woman near him will become -- and vice versa."

(in reply to darkinshadows)

Profile

Post #: 43

Not so, Onceburned... - 1/12/2005 11:10:03 AM

SubmitAndBeLoved

Posts: 32
Joined: 12/15/2004
Status: offline

"what you wrote about child support is plain silly"

Actually, what it is is logically correct, and correct with respect to justice towards fathers, children, and (though they wouldn't want it) faithless mothers. I've meant every word I've personally written on this thread, and believe I have clearly identified other people's words that I consider thought-provoking.

_____________________________

"The more masculine a man is, the more feminine any healthy woman near him will become -- and vice versa."

(in reply to SubmitAndBeLoved)

Profile

Post #: 44

Two more classic pieces... - 1/12/2005 11:26:55 AM

SubmitAndBeLoved

Posts: 32
Joined: 12/15/2004
Status: offline

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/3604644.htm?1c

Posted on Fri, Jul. 05, 2002

A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss

By Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson

Katherine is attractive, successful, witty, and educated. She also can't find a husband. Why? Because most of the men this thirtysomething software analyst dates do not want to get married. These men have Peter Pan syndrome: They refuse to commit, refuse to settle down, and refuse to "grow up."

However, given the family court policies and divorce trends of today, Peter Pan is no naive boy, but instead a wise man.

"Why should I get married and have kids when I could lose those kids and most of what I've worked for at a moment's notice?" asks Dan, a 31-year-old power plant technician who says he will never marry. "I've seen it happen to many of my friends. I know guys who came home one day to an empty house or apartment - wife gone, kids gone. They never saw it coming. Some of them were never able to see their kids regularly again."

Census figures suggest that the marriage rate in the United States has dipped 40 percent during the last four decades to its lowest point since the rate was measured. There are many plausible explanations for this trend, but one of the least mentioned is that American men, in the face of a family court system hopelessly stacked against them, have subconsciously launched a "marriage strike."

It is not difficult to see why. Let's say that Dan defies Peter Pan, marries Katherine, and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be Katherine, not Dan, who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that Dan was a decent husband. Studies show that few divorces are initiated over abuse or because the man has already abandoned the family. Nor is adultery cited as a factor by divorcing women appreciably more than by divorcing men.

While the courts may grant Dan and Katherine joint legal custody, the odds are overwhelming that it is Katherine, not Dan, who will win physical custody. Overnight, Dan, accustomed to seeing his kids every day and being an integral part of their lives, will become a "14 percent dad" - a father who is allowed to spend only one out of every seven days with his own children.

Once Katherine and Dan are divorced, odds are at least even that Katherine will interfere with Dan's visitation rights. Three-quarters of divorced men surveyed say their ex-wives have interfered with their visitation, and 40 percent of mothers studied admitted that they had done so, and that they had generally acted out of spite or in order to punish their exes.

Katherine will keep the house and most of the couple's assets. Dan will need to set up a new residence and pay at least a third of his take-home pay to Katherine in child support.

As bad as all of this is, it would still make Dan one of the lucky ones. After all, he could be one of those fathers who cannot see his children at all because his ex has made a false accusation of domestic violence, child abuse, or child molestation. Or a father who can only see his own children under supervised visitation or in nightmarish visitation centers where dads are treated like criminals.

He could be one of those fathers whose ex has moved their children hundreds or thousands of miles away, in violation of court orders, which courts often do not enforce. He could be one of those fathers who tears up his life and career again and again in order to follow his children, only to have his ex-wife continually move them.

He could be one of the fathers who has lost his job, seen his income drop, or suffered a disabling injury, only to have child support arrearages and interest pile up to create a mountain of debt which he could never hope to pay off. Or a father who is forced to pay 70 percent or 80 percent of his income in child support because the court has imputed an unrealistic income to him. Or a dad who suffers from one of the child support enforcement system's endless and difficult to correct errors, or who is jailed because he cannot keep up with his payments. Or a dad who reaches old age impoverished because he lost everything he had in a divorce when he was middle-aged and did not have the time and the opportunity to earn it back.

"It's a shame," Dan says. "I always wanted to be a father and have a family. But unless the laws change and give fathers the same right to be a part of their children's lives as mothers have, it just isn't worth the risk."

=======================================================================

http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm article #32

Universal Divorce

A Male's Perspective On A Bad Idea

"If you were to believe those brawny viragos at NOW, you might think that universal divorce was a force for liberation of women, and just a splendid thing for kids. You know the line: marriage is the vilest form of chattel slavery, men molest their kids when they're not beating them like drums, and such like. (Actually, I can't think of a better authority on children than 12,000 squalling lesbians who don't have any. Can you?)

Well, let me offer a revisionist view of divorce, from a male point of view:

After a few years under one roof, Willy Bill and Cupcake no longer get along well. Part of it is Willy Bill's fault, and he knows it. Part of it is Cupcake's fault, but she doesn't know it. She expected marriage to fulfill her fantasies and make her happy. It didn't, because married people are just married people, and life ain't all ham hocks and home fries. This too is Willy Bill's fault. Life, that is.

Since Cupcake wasn't happy being single, and wasn't happy being married, she now figures she'll be happy divorced. She's going to have a dynamite social life, not like living with what's-his-name. She'll have a fascinating job and a swell place. Joe Perfect will appear on a white horse and life will be roses again. She forgets that it never was, and anyway there just isn't that much Prozac. The divorce occurs.

Which devastates the kids. She says it's better for them to have one parent than to have parents who don't get along. This is the Enabling Fantasy of divorce. Ten years later the kids will still be trying to get mommy and daddy back together.

Next, Cupcake learns that the business world is not importunate in its desire for women of thirty-six with no resume. Day care is expensive. As kids get older, their toys cost more. What's-his-name may have been inadequate as a fantasy mechanic, but he did have a sizable paycheck.

Joe Perfect doesn't show up, which is hardly surprising. Cupcake isn't Suzy Prom Queen any longer. Most guys shy away from women who always have kids in tow. They have either had kids, and don't want more, or else never wanted them in the first place. As men get older, marriage becomes less important to them.

Cupcake finds that the men she might date, typically two to eight years older than she is, are a sorry lot. The good ones have been taken. The leftovers are either gay, or confirmed bachelors, or three-time losers looking for their fourth divorce, or such awful dweebs that nobody wanted them in the first place. Or they've been burned in one marriage and aren't about to make that mistake again.

In the divorce, either she got the friends or she didn't. When a couple split, the friends seem to think they can continue to be friends with only one of the former couple. If he got them, she's horribly lonely. If he didn't, she finds that married couples, which most of them were, don't want single people around. Four's company; three's a triangle. If she's attractive, it's worse.

Then come the long empty weekends when nobody calls. Depression arrives. She has a hard time growing a new social life because the kids are always there. Depression is two to four times more common in women than men, depending on whose figures you like, and she's got reasons to be depressed. No retirement, for example. She gets a prescription for lithium. Try finding a single woman past forty who isn't on Prozac, lithium, Depacote, Zoloft, or Welbutrin, all the M&Ms of the irremediably unhappy.

You can't divorce a car payment. Cupcake finds that she has to have a full-time job, and maybe some part-time jobs too. Days only have twenty-four hours. She doesn't have time to be a full-time mother and have an adult's social life. Often motherhood draws the short straw. She starts leaving young kids alone for long periods while she goes out. By no means all divorced mothers do this, but more do than the newspapers tell you. Latch-keyism becomes inevitable. The kids, unsupervised, feeling neglected, angry because Daddy left, begin to get into trouble.

Not infrequently mommy comes to resent her offspring. They're always there, always whining and fighting and wanting this and that. They make her life miserable, which doesn't happen with two parents, and there's no respite in sight. At best she becomes irritable and seems cold. At worst she slaps the hell out of them.

Then, dear God, puberty hits. Other things being equal, women are better parents than men for small children. A man would go crazy. For older kids, no. At adolescence they begin asserting themselves and testing Cupcake. A fifteen-year-old girl makes Attila the Hun look like a milk-fed pansy in lace shorts. With mammals like that, Cupcake will soon reflect, no wonder the dinosaurs died out. The kids walk over her, becoming contemptuous. She comes close to hating them for it.

A man would say, "No. You aren't going to run away with a feeble-minded dope-dealer who plays bass guitar. Because I say so. We've finished talking about it." It would stick. Women don't do this as well.

Relations with the ex run from none to good. Like as not, she hates him because the divorce didn't make her happy. Frequently she gets back at him through the kids. An angry man smacks someone. A woman's aggression is passive: She withholds sex or, after the divorce, the kids, while earnestly pretending she's doing something else. He gets no influence in raising the tads, doesn't get the report cards or school pictures, isn't consulted.

At best, he gets called only when the kids get into trouble and she can't handle it. Daddy becomes The Heavy. Five years later when they figure it out, they will be grateful. But that's five years off.

And there's nothing he can do about it: "joint custody" or not, if she doesn't comply, his choice is to put up with it, or sue mommy, which is not the high road to a kid's heart. He puts up with it.

Don't you love it? I mean, what a deal. The kids hate the divorce like poison, Willy Bill misses his kids horribly, and Cupcake gets to grow old by herself in a bleak apartment with a cat named Fluffy.

If that's not social advance, I don't know what is."
================================================================

_____________________________

"The more masculine a man is, the more feminine any healthy woman near him will become -- and vice versa."

(in reply to SubmitAndBeLoved)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: Over 25 responses to the article I posted... - 1/12/2005 11:54:14 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Yeah...we women are real blood sucking, money seeking bitches.

So, you know my ex-wife?

quote:

FROM S&B4. If the answer is yes, then I must ask- Where is Your trust?
The possibility of my trust being offered blindly was destroyed by awareness of too many millions of good men being raped in the court system, where justice no longer exists for men when they conflict with women.

Adding the reference to "blindly" changed the question. S&B, 'blind' trust is for fools and masochists outside the lifestyle reference. Where within your dogma is the opportunity for ANY trust? As a person, let alone a Dominant or Master, I couldn't live my life paranoid about my partner stealing it, planning every asset purchase to exclude sharing the joy of it with someone else. Assists and money are relatively easy to replace. Trust me - I have that experience. In fact I developed an attitude regarding it. Both in business and with personal relationships, when challenged for assists, instead of fighting, I gave them, if possible, MORE then requested or ordered. I made sure the person knew, whatever it was, it meant less to me then having to deal with them. I always tried to get them to ask why I was being so "easy", because I wanted them to hear; "It's worth it to be rid of YOU!". The look on their face was worth the cost. But even if the question wasn't asked - it was true. Rationalization? Perhaps. There is truth to the joke, "Why is divorce so expensive? - Because it's WORTH it!".

Relationships are much more difficult. People worthy of having a relationship with are rare and valuable. To have a relationship you MUST trust. My original question to you is still outstanding - I don't see any relationship, vanilla or flavored, with blind "Miss-Trust". Please explain?

quote:

FROM S&B4I value good women who honor their commitments and their femininity (not wanting to be men) more than most men probably value them, understanding how rare and desirable a prize such women are. Note that the measures I advised in my original post's preamble are purely defensive; on my honor as a man, I would NEVER do one thing to screw over or cheat in any way a woman I was involved with who behaved honorably with me.

How the hell do you get here? How would you ever get to know a woman well enough to know what she's 'really' like? Not "cheat"? You previously say you would never give all to any woman, never fully trust; isn't that cheating?

Regarding all your references and all the horror stories. What's your's?

Sighting anecdotal "evidence" is akin to the "sex-crimes" still on the books in some states. Both scary and fun to read at the same time. But similarly they don't tell the 'whole' story. If I was representing a woman fighting to pierce a man's assets, I'd site your website as a reason why additional, and invasive discovery is necessary. Enough lawyers are getting richer by the day through the fights between spouses. And it's always the "What's best for the child(ren)" argument that most expensive. The light at the end of the tunnel is that we've finally reached the over saturation point with lawyers, and they are starting to feed upon themselves. If we can only evolve into the English Tort system, we'll see our disposable income increased by 20% minimally. (But that's the subject of another boring thread.)

Back to the kids. What would be "best"? Pragmatically, before having a child you should be required to get a license. You need one for a dog, but pretty much any couple (or single who can rent a uterus and buy some sperm) can have a child. What if a $10,000.00 license was required? The money is put in the kid's name. Buying an annuity at birth in that amount can support not only the child's education, but give him/her a nice nest-egg at 21. As a parent you're required to add $1,000.00 per year into the account. This would go to schools, and medical insurance. Everyone then without kids would have their taxes reduced, because property taxes from people without children wouldn't be used to support the school system.

Can't afford the $10k. Don't have a kid. Save for it, then you may appreciate and value your child as it should be. $10k is probably low, but it's a good number to start. The point is, having a child should be considered at least as much as having a pet. Even if you go to the pound to pick one out - you pay for it.

Oh hell - I digressed in the perfect world according to "Merc The Just" - Sorry.

Back to focus, Submit&BeLoved, I don't think there is much, if any "lifestyle issue" in your thread. I feel sorry for you, and the opinions you developed from your ex-perience. How ironic is your profile name; Submit & Be Loved.

"Submit" To what? How can they?

"Be Loved" - How would they ever know? How is that possible with your beliefs?

(in reply to MizSuz)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: The above reposted with format fixed: - 1/12/2005 12:47:35 PM

MizSuz

Posts: 1881
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SubmitAndBeLoved

A man who has children with a woman outside of marriage, in the absence of an explicit prior agreement (such as a handfasting ceremony or written contract) has NOT indicated willingness to have children, to undertake their support, etc. That is because in our society, marriage is how a man indicates this. Lack of commitment = lack of commitment; it's called the Law of Identity. A penis is not a pen, and may not be used to enter into contracts.

I was married when I had my son, he was wanted by both parties and in fact we tried to have a second (that I lost due to a beating while pregnant by none other than the father).

quote:

Divorce in marriages involving minor children are filed by the women 80%+ of the time, overwhelmingly without traditional legal grounds, or "cause" being shown; usually it's some variation of "I'm bored" or "He wasn't meeting my needs". A man with children in marriage agreed to be married; odds are, he did not agree to divorce.

He didn't agree or disagree to the divorce. He simply didn't bother to show up. You'll note that I divorced (and married) him in a "no fault" state, which means no fault has to be declared to petition for divorce. Having said that, I think a couple of trips to the hospital due to beatings incurred while said father was drunk, and losing a child to one such beating, meets the "fault" category you refer to.

quote:

Also, a child growing up without its father in its home has its life prospects extremely crimped. From the chances of going to jail, not finishing high school or attending college, being physically or sexually abused as a child, being able to sustain a marriage, having gender identity problems, using illegal drugs, even committing suicide, you name it, the chances of worse outcome for these go up from about 40% higher to multiples of likelihood higher. Interestingly enough, past a very young age (pre-school at most), the same risks do not apply to children living with their fathers instead of their mothers.

It would have been interesting to see the father, a repeat offender, alcoholic and long time drug user, attempt to raise this child. Fortunately for my child I was not willing to see that happen.

quote:

Anyway, child support is something that legally has long been understood to be what a man provides his child in his own home.

Then what would you call a marriage in which the female is the primary (and most reliable) bread winner? Does that negate the father's responsibility to contribute? I don't think so.

quote:

Another thought, remembering first that over half of CS at all levels ends up de facto as alimony, benefitting the mother awarded custody as it does:

Your theory doesn't address those who contribute nothing. Nothing of nothing is nothing (in case you didn't notice that).

quote:

I believe the following:

1) In cases of divorce where paternal physical/sexual abuse or other crime is not legally proven to criminal court standards, children should either go with the father, or at least go with the parent who did not file for divorce (along with the family assets such as the marital home), showing their fitness for custody was the higher.

By your logic I would have had to take my husband to criminal court to prove the abuse that was well documented in hospital records and have him jailed, thereby negating any ability he might have had to contribute in order to be "deserving" of requiring the father to contribute to the upbringing of his WANTED child? I see that as flawed and self serving logic.

quote:

Again, I am not a misogynist, not at all; I am an anti-misandrist.

I never said you were a misogynist. You certainly seem to be defensive about what you perceived as accusation, though.

quote:

You don't think that car thieves and armed robbers should get away with their crimes and make money from those chosen behaviors, do you? I just extend that to wrongful divorce and paternity blackmail.

Not any more than I think that telephone solicitors should be given understanding for intruding on my home because they're 'just trying to make a living.'

I was showing you an example (one that is all together too common) that punches holes in your theories. Granted, it's a position you probably have no experience with. However, your lack of experience with it doesn't negate it's validity anymore than your self defense at a perceived slight that only exists in your mind creates a conflict that's not there.

As for whether or not I will read an entire post before responding to it - you have neither the right nor the power to dictate my posting habits. You do have the power to stop responding. Better yet, block me and you'll never have to see me again. Take back that power you have given me! I never asked for it.

Or perhaps you can't deal with someone who puts in your face the fact that, by being so defensive, you give your power away to the very women you would revile.

_____________________________

“The more you love, the more you can love—and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.”
- Robert Heinlein

(in reply to SubmitAndBeLoved)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: Dark Angel, your last questions answered, I hope... - 1/12/2005 12:53:30 PM

darkinshadows

Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

That's what the women get for that level of control; if they want men to go along with 50/50 responsibility, then they have to allow 50/50 control.

I do not question such. It is my belief (which I am not saying is right for all, but its right for me).... is that men & women are equally responsible. I know what the law does... I know what courts do, but I am not discussing them. From my point of view, men/women 50-50 when it comes to care for a child unless otherwise discussed before the event (in the case of a commited DS relationship).

To say children would be better of with the father is incredibly naive.
Some children are safer and better with mothers... some with their fathers.
Some are better off without their parents altogether(unfortunately)

Generalisation leads to hate and hate leads to fear.

Forget the stats... stats and studies are nothing but commerical *scaremongering* doctrines funded by different organisations for their own selfish reasons.

Peace and love

_____________________________

.dark.

...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to SubmitAndBeLoved)

Profile

Post #: 48

RE: Over 25 responses to the article I posted... - 1/12/2005 1:16:22 PM

BlkTallFullfig

Posts: 5585
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline

In my opinion, America is one of the few places you Can experience true love (she loves you because you are handsome/witty/fine/protective, caring, a good provider, you,etc), because a woman here, for the most part does not need you to provide food/clothing/shelter as do a lot of women in other countries. A lot of women in other countries Love american men because they hope to come to the US (I would bet you there is a direct correlation=The poorer the country/the nicer the women), and live like YOUR Despised American Women.
The fact of the matter is that we all have a survival instinct (so if one needs to be nice to retain life and obtain food and shelter, that's what one does); after that we have needs to be met (the higher one goes, the higher one needs to go toward top of self actualization scale, coupled with base human instinctive need for more money/power/resources: most people think the more power/money you have, the more fit you are for survival, so we hurt one another, dream big dreams, lie/connive/manipulate to reach them, and when I say we here, I don't mean women; I believe this is the same reason so many people want to be multimillionaires; not because they need it to get by, or because they'd like to have it to help other people in desperate circumstances, but because to feed that base need for power/greed. M

< Message edited by BlkTallFullfig -- 9/12/2005 6:19:20 AM >

(in reply to SubmitAndBeLoved)

Profile

Post #: 49

RE: Two more classic pieces... - 1/12/2005 1:51:33 PM

BlkTallFullfig

Posts: 5585
Joined: 6/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SubmitAndBeLoved

A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss

If that's not social advance, I don't know what is."
================================================================

I keep saying to myself I won't read your posts anymore, but I keep hoping for something different.
Can I just say, I agree with you on marriage, I certainly hope no one ever marries you, LOL, well unless he is a bigger/stronger Man. Marriage between opposing forces, is a humongous pain in the derriere, and I too discourage it. in fact, if you don't want children/want to sacrifice a lot of ego to raise them in a relatively healthy fashion, one shouldn't get married, just in case as you point out it turns out to be a disaster.
On the other hand, if you have mutual love, respect and consideration, there can be nothing as beautiful or satisfying (as I saw in my parents) M

< Message edited by BlkTallFullfig -- 1/12/2005 4:29:51 PM >

(in reply to SubmitAndBeLoved)

Profile

Post #: 50

RE: Topcat, Dark Angel, thank you... - 1/12/2005 7:58:15 PM

harmony3709

Posts: 292
Joined: 11/15/2004
Status: offline

(Replying as someone who is het and definitely not a man hater.) Men as victims? Sure, when held at gunpoint by a mugger, yes, of course. By some men in court by their ex wives? OK. I know a few who seem as if they were given an unfair divorce settlement. However, I also happen to know that these men hurt their wives terribly due to affairs, abuse, alcoholism, or some other kind of torture of the nonconsensual variety. So in the end..........does that mean that they were really given an "unfair" settlement? In the court system of today, punishment and retribution is typically the monetary kind. If it is not a criminal offense resulting in jail time.......then the settlement will be in dollars. *shrugs*

To think that the courts are always fair is laughable. I feel certain that if a poll were taken, the number of women who walked out of a court room in disbelief and feeling victimized is also an enormous number. Coming from the risk management industry, I was always amazed that the same injury with a similar set of circumstances can result in a very different settlement in the end. If you want to blame something, blame the system in place at this time and come up with a solution. Blaming women in general, believing them to be the devil incarnate -- oh yes, that's only American women, excuse me -- is a rather infantile rant from someone who couldn't get a date for the prom.

I must admit that I found this topic, the OP and subsequent posts by the originator extremely disturbing. Not because some person out there actually believes this, I wish that were the case, but my 45 years among the human race have unfortunately taught me that there are those who will just hate for the sake of doing so. What disturbs me is this opinion appearing on a BDSM site and from someone claiming to be a Dominant (because a friend told him he was) and is looking for a submissive to "love" and "play rape". *shudder*

How many times has a female been physically, emotionally, and mentally beaten down by someone claiming to "love her" and yet can also claim to have such a low opinion of her that he better keep his money buried in a mayonnaise jar in the backyard or else she will run off with it? To enter into a relationship knowing he will never trust her? I wish I could say I don't know any of these women..........oh how I wish I could say that.

I'm sorry, but these kinds of posts with these women-hating sentiments discourage me more than I can say. One of the reasons I struggled to accept and embrace my desire to submit, to serve, and to please was my fear that some men were using the title of Dom and this lifestyle as just another form of abuse, with a twist perhaps, but nonetheless, with the same underlying contempt for someone they could control to her detriment, not to her benefit. To diminish her spirit, not to raise it up and watch it flourish. Yes, such comments, along some other comments I have heard uttered in person, brings those doubts and concerns back to the surface.......(sigh).

As for American women being so horrible and the only decent women the authors of these articles wish to date are from other countries (I suppose those would be the countries that still force female circumcision).........well, all I can say to that is listen outside your windows.....that sound is not the wind, it is the collective sigh of relief coming from all American women, accompanied by our sympathies and concern for our sisters of other nationalities!

*Walking away quietly, shaking her head and confused,*
harmony

(in reply to SubmitAndBeLoved)

Profile

Post #: 51

RE: Topcat, Dark Angel, thank you... - 1/12/2005 8:53:19 PM

cynnacent1

Posts: 340
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Massachusetts
Status: offline

quote:

That's what the women get for that level of control; if they want men to go along with 50/50 responsibility, then they have to allow 50/50 control.

Maybe THIS is a major part of the ACTUAL problem with parenting & relationships today !
Shouldn't it, and wouldn't it be so much better if more people stopped giving 50/50 in everything they do?
Perhaps giving 100/100 would lead to a more likely level of success for ALL?

It certainly works better for me.

In regard to SubmitAndBeLoved's statements and opinions (geez where to begin?). It makes my head spin ... seems like a whole lot of bitterness as a result of fear of intimacy and commitment, and a whole lot of mistrust has taken power over this one's opinion regarding relationships, marriage, and children ... and much of what has been stated is total BS, and that is the most polite opinion i can offer. Who gets custody is decided upon who the primary day to day caregiver of a child is in any divorce, whether female or male. There ARE many men who have custody too, not all are women. There are many women who leave marriages who make MORE than the husband. Too much twisting of the statistics and not a whole lot of fact in your posts SubmitAndBeLoved. And the sources which you offer, are a bit too biased in origin to offer an unbiased opinion. That's my take on it all ... no offence, i just can't agree.

¸,ø¤º°cynnacent°º¤ø,¸ (proudly owned by, and devoted to INSIDEYOURMIND)

< Message edited by cynnacent1 -- 1/12/2005 8:54:49 PM >

_____________________________

Current imood of cynnacent1: [image]http://moods.imood.com/display/uname=cynnacent1/fg=339999ns=1/imood.gif[/image] Click the smiley to get your very own imood indicator.

(in reply to harmony3709)

Profile

Post #: 52

RE: Topcat, Dark Angel, thank you... - 1/13/2005 2:42:07 AM

darkinshadows

Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

Shouldn't it, and wouldn't it be so much better if more people stopped giving 50/50 in everything they do?
Perhaps giving 100/100 would lead to a more likely level of success for ALL?

Bows to cynns wisdom... oh my...

_____________________________

.dark.