Post: #51

(06-13-2013 11:49 PM)_DC_ Wrote:  This is a different situation. I specifically said ONS.Still the idea that 1/3 or more of my income could be stripped away from me is horrifying.

If you get a pissed off judge, it can be even worse than 1/3 in America in some states. If you are making say 50k as a plumber, then she has a kid, and you start working less and making 25k, they can say you're doing it to avoid paying child support, and bill you as it you were making 50k. It's called "Imputed Income" and literally means "we think you SHOULD be making this much, so we'll charge you as if you are, even though you aren't. "

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_jer...ld_support

So, say they were charging you 20k/yr for child support and spousal support when you were making 50k.

You cut back, start making 25, and they STILL are billing you for 20! It DOES NOT automatically go down because you make less. You have to go to court to get it adjusted, and if they don't like your story they don't do it.

So in that case, the guy can't pay the 20k because he's only making 25k, so the bill adds up, he eventualy if he owes more than some amount (5k? 10k?) he can't get a passport......

And there's not appeals or anything like a criminal court as far as I know. It's just the subjective "feeling" of the family court judge.

And even if there is an appeal mechanism, you are accruing debt while the years go by, you are just so fucked if things go a little wrong.

I am just in terror of having a kid in the USA. It means full time work with no breaks for 20 years, and if she gets pissed at you, paying her to fuck someone else. I can only see the sense if you REALLY trust your GF/wife, or are making 175K + so even if they take 75k per year you can still live OK.

Post: #52

I really wish women would give up trying to be men.

I believe that that women are the cause of most wars, and that we have more women around than men so there should be fewer wars.

Post: #53

(06-15-2013 03:01 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  It's called "Imputed Income" and literally means "we think you SHOULD be making this much, so we'll charge you as if you are, even though you aren't. "

That is fucking scary. I would like to enjoy life at some point and chill out. Being told that my abilities should earn X dollars would just be too much. What I don't have a choice any more?

Post: #54

(06-14-2013 11:50 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 09:33 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  Part of the right of reproductive autonomy? How does this have anything to do with reproduction?

Quote:by broadening our definition of “father” to include men who willingly perform fatherlike roles in a child’s life

It has nothing to do with reproduction, the child has already been born. It's just another encroachment on male autonomy.

I've got a better idea. If a woman gets into a relationship with a guy and he takes a liking to her child and performs "fatherlike roles" then great. If the relationship ends, then he stops performing "fatherlike roles." That includes laboring in the child support mines.

Male post-conception reproductive autonomy - our counterpart to abortion, and, in short, this entire fight - is about having a choice in raising and funding a child, not the biological impossibility of unilaterally preventing its birth. If a man wants to raise and fund a child he didn't biologically sire, that's part and parcel of that autonomy. It's silly to claim that a man should have the freedom to make an informed decision to permanently withdraw his time and money from a child's life and not give him the same opportunity to make an informed decision to permanently supply it. Whether that idea is wise, noble, or utter folly depends on the circumstances of the individuals involved.

No it isn't. You're comparing apples and oranges.

LPS holds a man and a woman to an equal standard of reproductive responsibility pre and post conception.

What we're talking about is totally different, let me explain.

Two biological parents going through a divorce should have equal opportunity for access to the child, and as a result both parents should be held to an equal standard of responsibility for the child.

What you're proposing is not practical for one simple reason. The mother is a biological parent and the father is not. It would be neither practical nor fair to give the father equal opportunity to establish custody if the relationship breaks down, since the child is not biologically his. The biological parent in this case should also be able to decide she does not want her previous partner in the child's life anymore.

Because the father in this case cannot reasonably be given equal opportunity to the child, it is utterly ridiculous to hold him to the same standard of responsibility as a biological father would be held to.

Your premise is flawed because you're making no distinction between social and biological definitions of fatherhood, and are thus willing to hold both to equal standards of responsibility which isn't practical or fair.

Feminists have worked for years to make motherhood biologically defined while making fatherhood socially defined. It's why men are held financially responsible when other men knock their wives up. It's a double standard which is a recipe for injustice and disaster. You think the feminists want a non biological father to take a child away from a biological mother? Of course they don't, they merely want the state to hold a man financially responsible.

Have you heard of hypergamy?

And btw LPS isn't a strictly post conception issue, because in a society wherein LPS is a reality, women would understand that they are fully responsible for the reproductive autonomy they have fought for.

Post: #55

(06-15-2013 01:25 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 03:01 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  It's called "Imputed Income" and literally means "we think you SHOULD be making this much, so we'll charge you as if you are, even though you aren't. "

That is fucking scary. I would like to enjoy life at some point and chill out. Being told that my abilities should earn X dollars would just be too much. What I don't have a choice any more?

You don't have a choice because western society considers you to be a slave. If you are male and unmarried, you can and will be targeted in every way possible. It is a witch hunt and you are the hunted. You can be accused, tried, and convicted without any proof.

Etc.

Post: #56

This whole discussion would be a moot point if there were a reliable male contraceptive short of a vasectomy. I find it ironic that feminists complain that medical researchers are anti-female for developing a female but not a male pill. But the truth is, a male pill will benefit men far more than women.

Post: #57

One thing I'm wondering is with all the advances made in medicine/technology and all the money raised and up for research in the pharmaceutical field, why haven't they come up with a male version of the pill? There must be some strong lobyying behind the scenes against such a thing by the feminazis out there for damn sure...

Check this guys: does it get any more ridiculous than this? What's up with the sense of entitlement of these american women and specially black americanas? Unreal! The only one to be held liable and accountable for having 15 kids by numerous guys, is your sorry stupid ass. No one else!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E

Post: #58

I'm sure all of you have heard of RISUG (http://www.newmalecontraception.org/risugvasalgel/). This sounds like the absolute best male contraceptive possible. I believe it is still in clinical testing. When it comes out, I am on it. I even thought about getting it done in India, but apparently it is still only in clinical trials there as well. It's amazing (perhaps not) that this has not received more funding. Do you think we could get the National Organization for Women to give some cash for it?

Post: #59

The whole thing with male birth control is, that most of the things that stop sperm production are all crazy androgens or affect male testosterone production. Something we all know is already under attack in more ways than one.

They'll make it work, but now that I think about it we all know how crazy girls get when on the pill, imagine what craziness will occur for men on something like that. Messing with hormones is a rough thing.

Post: #60

Watching this video now and this is a great video that I encourage all of you to watch. This guy, Dr. Coutinho is a genius! He talks about a pill that he had developped back in the 70's and that the Chinese used with great success. This little pill, made from cotton extraction, increases virility and desire in the man while making stop producing sperm cells while he's taking this pill. If he wants to conceive, all he has to do is stop taking this pill for 3 months and then the guy becomes fertile again. He said they tried that with bulls in Northern Brasil and it worked wonders. Since that pill is made from natural extracts, big labs and big pharma companies, won't touch it as it's not lucrative enough.

Dr. Coutinho also talks about how during a World Population Congress in Budapest, he said he went there with the intentions of getting the support of women. During his speech, at which the American feminist were all there, including that famous, big and ugly one, interrupted him Betty Friedan! That big fat ugly femicunt objected saying all this male pill would do is for men to get laid more. Unreal! Anyways, watch it, it's quite an informative video!

Btw, love it how in prime time, during a very popular show, people, even high ranked and famous ones, can still talk freely and use words such as "ugly", "beautiful", "sexy", "fat", "slim" without thinking twice and without offending some butt hurt coucou.

(06-13-2013 03:12 PM)bacon Wrote:  

Post: #61

(07-10-2013 12:12 AM)placer Wrote:  This whole discussion would be a moot point if there were a reliable male contraceptive short of a vasectomy. I find it ironic that feminists complain that medical researchers are anti-female for developing a female but not a male pill. But the truth is, a male pill will benefit men far more than women.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/health...d=all&_r=0

Post: #62

My child's mom offered the deal to sign my rights as a father away. I said no.

Post: #63

(06-13-2013 11:18 AM)Menace Wrote:  2Wycked, I wish I had been more red pill during my Family Law course...it would have made for more interesting discussions.

Jajajajaja, i was already a little red pill when in did Family Law, and that is why the feminazi teacher i had did not aprove me and i had to make the course with another (more sensate and male) profesor.

Post: #64

FYI: courts in Canada (Ontario for sure) will take you to task as the father role even if afterwards you find out the kid is not yours. Happened to a friend of mine.

The argument is that if you are around, and making the father role, the kids will assume you are the dad. And 'wont someone think of the children?!' . . .

10 years and my friend is still paying child support. Sucks.