Quote: (02-17-2016 08:04 AM)Onto Wrote:
However, it's illegitimate to choose what you want in life, but make others pay the price for it. This is why I'm against pauperizing child support laws. Especially when there was no planned pregnancy/marriage involved.
Saying to just use a condom isn't practical. People want the real.
If western laws were such that they gave real power to men over the raising of their child and over the money involved we would see a very different picture in the modern-day family landscape. Men would develop inwardly by stepping up to the plate and growing into the Father. It would be a trans-formative event for them. Those who shy away from it would miss out and be shamed by society.
As such, it's not that way today. Modern day laws have stripped men of choice. They have taken away the opportunity to "choose" to develop into the Father. I say we've been robbed of it because when the government forcibly takes your money, and your power over the child then you are left with nothing. It's a symbolic castration of one of the most important moments in masculine development there is.
Today instead of shaming men for not taking responsibility, we shame them for not wanting to be sent to the slaughterhouse. To be a servant under the thumb of a woman and her government.
I think those who suggest to simply fight for sole custody, be the man and make it how you want it to be, has never been in an American court. I have tried and it was a complete failure. When I wanted to take it to the next level my lawyer said, "Do you have $100,000?" Of course it would've been just pissing more money away.
Sure, there are exceptions, but the rule is men lose. I would think the countless posts here on the forum about false rape allegations, sexual harassment, and all the rest would be enough for those to see what the modern-day courts attitude is towards men when it comes to going up against women.
Like another member commented above. Go out there and knock up some random girl you're not in love with, who is a self-absorbed, animus-possessed, entitled, modern day woman who has an ax to grind with the Patriarchy.....and let us know how it goes.
You are speaking a lot of truth here, Onto.
I really appreciate your words, because this is very much my experience. It happened to me, and I discovered firsthand the way things really work in America's family court system. After going through the system, I became more concerned with not becoming penniless myself, and not being jailed if I couldn't keep up with the court-ordered child support, than with growing into fatherhood.
To make matters worse, every time my business grew, the mother would go to court to pursue, and get, a higher amount of child support. The problem was, my business is cyclical, and I had some very bad years. The system did not care about that, and always denied my requests to lower support during tough financial times.
It would be a much fairer system, if men had the one-time election option early-on, to agree to provide lifetime child support or not, rather than being forced. Personally, that one change would have made a huge positive difference in my life, and the life of my son. My entire mindset would have been different. Instead of thinking about what the court was going to stick me with next, I could have focused more energy on providing the maximum I could at that time to my son, in both dollars and time spent, without fear that level of financial support would then become mandatory.
Also, giving men the option early-on to agree to provide lifetime child support or not, would encourage women to carefully consider the men they choose to have sex with, and whom they choose to have a child with.
Alternatively, if it is politically impossible to change the law to allow men the option of agreeing to child support or not, then child support should be set at a low amount. Something like $500/month maximum, not $1,400/month. This should be an amount that is in-line with the actual needs of the child, rather than being backdoor transfer payments to the mother.
Personally, I now take Gandarusa tablets to help prevent more unintended pregnancies. I await Vasalgel very eagerly. I considered having a vasectomy, but I may want kids in the future. Also, the complication rate for vasectomies may be higher than the stated 1%, according to some research.
I dislike condoms, to the point that I prefer to not even have sex, rather than wear one. This obviously has many implications. For instance, to reduce my STD risk, I stick with just a handful of high-quality women, and avoid promiscuous women. To reduce pregnancy risk, I pull-out, take Gandarusa, and choose women with a good sense of responsibility and no children. After I have been with a woman a long time, and she has proven to be trustworthy and responsible, and is on birth control, I will blow deep inside. It's always a risk. But it is what I live for. It has come back to haunt me many times. As soon as Vasalgel or RISUG is available and proven, I will be getting it.
On the bright side, getting a kid is better than getting AIDS. So I am grateful for that! Rather than wishing for different laws, that don't seem to be coming any time soon, we just have to make the best of the current state of society. For most men, that means wear a condom. For me, it means always being at risk of an unexpected $300,000 child support bill, and plenty of unwanted government interference, every time I blow inside. It means that no matter how hot a girl is, if she would be a shit Mom, I must factor this in to my thrusting equation. I'm not always so good at that last part. I'm still sometimes a sucker for a hottie, even if she comes with a side of loco.
![[Image: confused.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/confused.gif)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/13cwA6tNZHQ4rS/giphy.gif)
