So, my girl's spending the weekend at her mother's, and I was supposed to get together with some buds for dinner, drinks, and poker tonight, but that fell through because one of the guy's kids got the flu, and his wife felt like she couldn't handle it. Fucking friends with kids man, sometimes they really irk me. Especially when my time is treated or seen by them (seemingly) as less important as theirs, just because they have spawn (to use a J term). It's funny because when I go over there to pick them up, they're running around the house doing a million things which could've been done way before I got there, and yet when they come and pick me up, they'll call on the cell 10 minutes away and say, "Dude, I'm almost there. You ready? Meet me outside so we can get going." I'm like, "Fuck that man. You can park your car and walk to my door like a civilized human being. It's not like we hit the ground running when I come out and pick you up." Whatever. Hmm, Friday night alone. Whatever shall I do?

i just got a copy of the OG Duke Nukem 3d being distributed free in pc gamer. i know what im doing....i dumped my copy long ago.

Oh yeah, I could blow the dust off my old playstation. Good idea Patrick!

Tribes 2 baby!!!

i should install that oni i pirated.

I'm just trying to get high,or low.

I read comic books and ate a bag of popcorn and drank a bottle of stout. Fuck. I am starting to get real lonely here.

Sem, are you still in Columbus? Did you ever check out Larry's Bar & Grill on High Street?

Not yet - what's it like? So far, the best one I have been to is the R bar on High st. Comfortable.

if i get whistler, i can get reason!

A good friend of mine is pregnant right now and I just want to say to her 'well, it's been nice knowing you' because I know once that kid happens our friendship is over. It really sucks.

spawning often destroys friendships. everyone i know who's ever had kids has ended up writing me off as a friend. they eventually decide that i just can't relate to the parenthood trip. damn straight. in my life, there exists only one exception to this. pilate. he's still my dear friend...& so's his kid.

just because your friend is having a baby doesn't mean your friendship is over. it may be different, but it doesn't have to end. i remained friends with all but one of my good friends when i had cleo. the one loss was a long and elaborate tale of woe that i'm sure you'd rather not hear about, but suffice it to say that she was always really demanding and selfish and i finally reached the end of my rope after ten plus years of trying to make it work out. our friendship would have dissolved eventually, i believe, regardless of my having a kid.

This isn't particularly relevent... But I just found out that a friend from High School who I haven't seen in a long time is a dad. Wow.

Some people really do change when they have children. Take my ex-wife (please!). She went from being a fun girl and my best friend to something akin to those Alien things that made Sigourney Weaver's life such living hell in the movies. Whether due to hormones or an excess of maternal instinct, motherhood brought out the worse in her. To the point of obsession, all she cared about was the child. She no longer cared about her career, her interests, her husband. She lost all her friends, and eventually lost me too.

I wish I could lose my kids,I wish I could get lost and nobody could find me.I think I could get sober then.

Procreating definately changes ones perspective on life/reality.As parents,ones value system makes dramatic changes.I believe that is basically an instinctual thing.Something nature stuck into our genetic code,so we don't eat what we spawn,once we realize what ingrateful little creatures they are. My biggest fear is that my little darlings will never grow up,and move away.At a very early age,I started reviewing the benefits of out of state colleges,with them.Kinda a brain washing technique,so this idea won't be foreign to them,when the time is right. Let me share a little tidbit that my kids did last month. I work nights,and sleep days.I wake up a few week-ends ago,to get ready to go back to work.My son says to me,"Guess what we had for lunch today?"I say "what?" He says "pizza".I say "no way".[I live way out in the country] He proceeds to show me the empty pizza box.I ask how they got it.He tells me "they delivered it." I asked how much it cost.$12.99 he tells me.I then ask how they paid for it. "With the pennies in the change jug." I said,"You paid with 1300 pennies?" He said "No,1500 pennies,we gave her a tip". I said,"Oh my God,what did she say when she got here?" He said,"she was pretty mad,and only counted out part of the money,then told us she was giving us a discount." I now make up names when I call and order pizza. I thought about going and paying,but was too embarrassed.

That's pretty funny! Hey, money's money, right? Until the U.S. decides that pennies are irrelevant, pennies are legal tender. I use that thing at the grocery station (Coinstar?) where you throw your coins in -- I think they charge 7 cents on the dollar. I only use it for pennies -- you'd be surprised what a couple of coffee cans worth of pennies is worth.

some good friends of mine recently had a kid. they also moved a block away from us and if anything we have become better friends. Her older son from a previous engagement...absolutely loves "MIKKO". I suspect we will be called on the baby sit soon...maybe. Which is fine i suppose. Nico enjoys it...i do to an extent. The best part about hangin with Hayden is when we listen to music...his step-pop...my pal...got him into Cypress Hill and hearing this little kid talk abotu "gettin high" and boppin around the living room like he's on stage well...can't beat that except when the Peanuts song comes on. oh and he has this hilarious Curious george outfit with head piece and ears and all....smoke his step-daddy's pot...look at this kid in a curious george get up and watch a video call "Potty time" or some other trippy relgious video with talking vegetables. go fuckin figure. childrearing, either yourself or your friends is what you make it.

I don't hate my friends who have kids, I just miss them. They usually are too busy and stressed to persue much else than raising the child. It sucks. You wish them the best but they are into a whole different thing in their life than you are and all you can do is talk about how much fun it was when you used to be able to hang out together, do things, talk. I still have friends with kids but most can't make time for me. Truth be told I'm not sure why this particular friend of mine is having a kid besides 'I'm married and I'm the right age and if I don't what if I wind up regretting it'. To me, not very compelling reasons to have a child. She's been bitching through the whole pregnancy about being ugly, feeling like crap, and not looking forward to a baby dominating her and her husband's life. I mean, why have one if that's how you feel?

One of my psych professor's stated, "You either think like a child, or you think like a parent." I think he's right. Before kids we think about ourself, after kids we think about them and sacrifice our own needs. (willingly or unwillingly) My advice is quickly sterilize yourself. Your life will be much better. Kids are so much fun. (sarcasm) I got a call from Walmart yesterday, my son was busted for shoplifting.

You know, on the baby tip really, I started dating this boy a month ago and things seem to be really good (as in not all fucked up like usual) but tomorrow I'm going for a pap smear so I can go on the pill again. It's not because I love the pill but I do not ever want to be pregs - it would not be a pleasant suprise - but I think it's the only way to be very very close to 100% safe. The prob is when I say 'I'm going on the pill' he may take that to be a statement of seriousness. Truth be told he's the first person I've dated in YEARS AND YEARS who I really think is a viable possibility for real LTR things. I'm very hopeful about it. But I don't want to put some pressure in that will create a situation. Do I just fib and hide that I'm pilled up for a month or two? We'd be using condoms anyway till he gets tested for HIV (I know I'm clean).

don't lie about these kidns of things. if he can't handle the fact that you made the decision to go on the pill, thats his problem, not yours.

Yer probably right. I actually was just thinking the same. I mean, whatever! Sometimes you just need these things to settle in your head.

i cant imagine where the problem would be..i mean seriously....get the test and he's barebacking with a little less worry.

Ya, it's stupid. This just seems like the most functional relationship I've ever been in and even though this guy is not half as skittish or erratic as most of my exes I can't help imbuing him with those qualities. Bad bad bad. Must deprogram! I hate thinking 'ooh, what if I fuck this up' - but then again, I know I can't. It'll just happen or not. I just haven't dated anyone who was normal/rational/sane in, um, ever? Well not since the person I lived with who I started dating 8 years ago and broke up with 4 years ago.

I wouldn't volunteer the BCP info,unless he already knows you're not on it.Thats relatively personal info.You just started dating this guy. Should it be brought up,you could say,yes,I am on the pill,it helps regulate my period,or it helps with cramping.

Or,you could just say,"Yes,now come fuck my brains out!" :)

birth control is not something one should keep from your sex partner. if you able to be personal enough to fuck, you should be able to tell him if you're on birth control or not. it could be potentially misconstrued as deceptive to not tell him this kind of thing.

"if you able to be personal enough to fuck, you should be able to tell him if you're on birth control or not." that's kind of puritan of you, don't you think, patrick?

not at all, and im surprised YOU of all people say so. considering, birth control affects all parties involved.. If she's on or off birth control without his knowledge and the fact that it could result in a pregnancy, that is half his responsibility, don't you think he should know, so he can choose to take appropriate measures if necessary? I mean i guess he could insist on condoms regardless of whether she's on the pill or not... i just don't see the point in not being honest and open about that. It certainly doesnt make sense to be a privacy issue when you're willing to have sex. if we were talking about pills for some other problem unrealted to sex, i would agree that its certainly ok to with hold from someone you are having sex with, but birth control is directly related to sex. are you trying to start something? I've suspected in the past you have made an obnoxious statements to bait.

all my statements are bait. i just don't think sex needs to be all that personal. and in the first world, where women can choose not to have sex, birth control should be the responsibility of the person who can give birth.

hey, nate, I thought of you the other day when I heard on npr that some woman in massachusetts is suing a guy for child support. when she got pregnant seven years ago, she lied to him and told him he was the father. he believed her and paid her child support for years. recently he got a dna test that proves he is not the father. so he stopped paying, and she's suing. her lawyer is arguing that biological paternity is no longer the issue. jesus christ. not only should that guy not have to pay, he should be getting paid back from the real father!

birth control should be the responsibility of whoever doesn't want to have children. the man is never forced to believe whatever truths or lies the woman may be telling. when in doubt, keep it out. if you're ok with 5-10% risk, then use a condom. if you're an idiot, then go ahead and believe whatever this person you may hardly know tells you. I think you'll legally be obligated to pay for only 18 years.

Yeah, I heard that too. Seems the issue that the mother's lawyer is arguing is that it's not who's truly the biological father, but who the child sees now as her nuclear family -- the guy who's been paying child support, and her mother. I think they said that only 3 states allow fathers to contest with DNA tests.

I really really disagree with the whole "sex doesn't need to be personal" thing. Sex is about as personal as you can get. And if it's not personal, you're not doing it right. The idea of fucking someone I couldn't talk to about a basic like birth control is unthinkable. But then I don't fuck people I don't love. Dinner Lady, just tell him you went on the pill because you don't want to get pregnant and you feel more comfortable with this method of birth control. Full stop. It shouldn't be a big deal to him and if it is, there's deeper problems there. I'm with the responsibility for birth control resting on the female thing. It's not fair, but neither is biology.

so, cat, are you saying that when birth control fails, the mother should be wholly responsible for the outcome (e.g., the cost of raising a child), and the father should be able to just walk away if he wants to? I think that is what nate is saying.

i listened to that too. the arguement that he's been her father for seven years is bankrupt. what do you think the chance of him winning a custody suit would be? certainly, he was defrauded by the woman. if men had equal reproductive rights in the first place, this would never be an issue. When a woman is pregnant, she has three choices: abortion, adoption, motherhood. I don't think a man should be able to tell a woman she must have a child, but aside from that he should be able to decide whether or not he wants to be a father. none of this child support bullshit. the man should decide on his involvement early, so that the woman can choose abortion, adoption or motherhood (sans subsidy.)

women should not have sex with anything they do not see as being a father. fathers are important for the wellbeing of male children. fathers reduce the incidence of crime. women control sex. women control birth.

I understand, sympathize, and disagree with nate's position. what do you feel about cases in which the woman didn't have the right to choose? should rape victims be able to collect child support? what about when women were defrauded by men, who could claim they'd had vasectomies or whatever?

I am just now realizing how unfair divorce laws are. I know a man getting a divorce in washington state. ok, I'm down with the whole community property thing. income obtained during the mariage is split equally. fine fine fine. luckily in washington state, each person also gets to leave with what the came in with. but what's with this common-law bullshit? years ago he had been living in a house with a bunch of other people, including his girlfriend (later wife). while they were dating she chose not to put any of her salary into a 401K fund. but now of course she wants half his 401K going back to the day they met or something. it's a fucking outrage.

I guess it's not technically a "common-law marriage" issue, it's "implied partnership" or something. ridiculous. it's like legalized theft.

cyst, "the man is never forced to believe whatever truths or lies the woman may be telling. when in doubt, keep it out." i'm sure this applies both ways. i am absolutely not talking about rape. if i remember correctly, rapists don't have any claim to custody. i am speaking with the assumption of choice. men have no reproductive rights in this country.

I can only speak about this from a personal level. If I fell pregnant to someone I didn't want to be with forever, it would be totally up to them what role, if any, they wanted in their child's life. My personal preference would be for them to waive any parental rights and not pay a cent. However, if they wanted to be a part of the child's life, I would have to accept that. And Cyst, I think the responsibility issue has been decided by biology. If a woman decides to proceed with a pregnancy, she has to take the burden of care for the child. It's simply not fair, nor is it beneficial for the child, to force an unwilling person into being a parent.

see how fuckin polluted the matter has become because people just can't be honest? If the women and man are honest about birth control from the beginning, then there won't be any surprises. I know people are going to lie...there will always be exceptions to this. Making birth control the women's responsibility seems puritanical to me nate. And if you believe that it is indeed the women's responsibility, do you think she should disclose or do you believe its ok just to pop a load and then and hope for the best? That doesnt make any damn sense. I also agree with cyst to a certain extent that man AND a women both have opportunities to zip the pants up. "he man is never forced to believe whatever truths or lies the woman may be telling" you know, maybe im out of touch, not being in the dating scene and what have you, but if you are actually kinda diggin someone, you want to believe them. All this talk about responsible free sex, and sex without committment is crap. For the most part, people develop emotions from sex, and they are liars or assholes if they don't. Sure people have one night stands and what not but why pollute the beginning of a potential relationships with lies and suspicion? But you know ALL of this guesswork and passing of responsibility back and forth could be resolved if people were just damn honest in the beginning. How hard is that? And I totally agree with cat, if you willing to let the tongue and you and poke you with his unit....how the hell could disclosing that you take a pill to help prevent pregancy be any more private? thats absurd. god im so glad i dont have to deal with these issues.

"Making birth control the women's responsibility seems puritanical to me nate" how so? the bottom line is that men cannot birth. who else can possibly have responsibility for this? any responsibility of the man in this case comes from a time when women were frail creatures who needed our protection.

It's not purantical, it's just biology. Nature has already decided that women are responsible for birth control. We have the wombs, and it's really up to us to ensure only welcome tenants get across the threshold. Sure it would be nice if men thought before they fucked. The Easter bunny is also coming next week.

thinking and fucking have nothing to do with each other.

its your sperm nate. men are half the equation in creating a birth. and thats what we are talking about here what goes on before sex, not after. the "responsibility" you speak of is post insemination. the protection i assume you speak of is once a women is pregnant, of course its not applicable, but by that time responsibility for the child to come is a different matter. im speaking of the responsibility of placing a sperm in vagina. if a women opens her self and a guy is inserting himself they both are responsible. what will your argument be once the male pill becomes legal?

"It's simply not fair, nor is it beneficial for the child, to force an unwilling person into being a parent." no one can force someone into being a parent. it is impossible. what someone can do, however, is sue for child support. and that is all I am talking about. it's true that women have more reproductive rights than men do. however, all american men and women have the right to not have children if they don't want to. men who do not want to pay child support should not impregnate women. if they want to have sex with women, then they should use their own super-strength condoms. the avoidance of pregnancy is not a complicated issue. for many women (especially young, rural, poor), abortion is not really a option. 83% of american counties have no abortion providers. there are no abortion providers in kentucky, utah, wyoming, iowa, north dakota, south dakota, as well as a few other states, I believe. did anyone else ever wonder why the abortion clinic in wichita was so often the target of violent crazies? well, it's because it seems to be the only clinic in the great plains states. women from hundreds of miles around have to go there to get abortions.

Good to know that I won't be impregnating my lover any time soon. I think we've got the whole birth control thing worked out.

So Cyst, just to be argumentative, if we apply the same simplistic logic to your earlier example: Men who don't want to get sued for their 401K's shouldn't have relationships?

Nope. They should get 403b's.

no. I generally think it's a good idea to consider decisions about one's actions in terms of actuality instead of dreamland. however: I think the principle of child support is fair. I do not think most palimony and drug laws are fair.

another way to put it. I think that when a man has (unprotected) sex with a woman, he is implicitly accepting the risk that he may have to pay child support for 18 years. this is not completely fair, as the woman holds 100% of the choice whether to keep the child or give it up for adoption. (or have an abortion if proximity to clinic, finances, parental-consent laws, etc., allow.) maybe there could be some other way to go about all this. like maybe there could be a legally binding opt-out contract with six-month renewals required. but I think that by default the man should have to help pay for the child's upbringing if the mother has one and decides to keep it. the 401K thing is crazy. what does one 22-year-old's 401K fund have to do with the 19-year-old he happens to be sleeping with? he wasn't married to her. he didn't sign the fucker over. I don't see how someone can just go lay claim to someone else's property like that. and have the courts go along with it. with a child, the connection is obvious. the guy paying child support is the child's father.

also, a child has no income. in the case I'm referring to, the woman makes $34K more a year than the guy with the modest 401K fund. she has never been dependent on him.

I do see your point about child support and I'm not sure I totally disagree with you. But the crucial sticking factor for me is the way women have all the control. If we want to have the rights over our wombs, shouldn't we also be prepared to take the responsibility? That seems only fair. Same thing for me with alimony. If women want equal pay, then we have to be prepared to give up our dependance on male income. The exception is, of course, where a woman raises children instead of working for an income. On a related subject, why do we always talk about abortion as the only option for unwanted pregnancies? What happened to adoption? And on the subject of adoption, what is it with all these celebrities adopting children like they were pets?

doesnt WA state have the highest divorce rate, or the highest out of wedlock birth rate or the most strict divorce laws....or SOMETHING like that? maybe im offbase, bust seems like i read something o that effect somewhere. thats just ridiculous and should be thrown out of court, moreover, the women clearly has no shame.

if six huge drunk guys come to my door and ask if they can raid my fridge, i can say yes or no. if i say yes and they eat every single bit of food in my house, it's my own fucking fault. if i help you plant a tree in your yard and nine months later it drops cherries all over your deck and ruins it, am i responsible? if a woman can require a man to pay child support, why can't a man require the woman to give the child up for adoption? it's half his child. why can't the man claim custody and have the woman pay child support? it's half his child. if a woman cannot support a child without additional funds, she can give it up for adoption. no abortion required. plenty of people will adopt babies. furthermore, i think anyone under 21 who has a baby should be required to give it up for adoption. her parents can decide to adopt the baby if they like. they can even have first shot at it. and let's close down all these moronic fertility clinics.

A man can claim custody. Unfortunately, our sexist courts make it very difficult for a man to become the custodial parent--usually he has to prove the woman incompetant, which is unfortunate. My parents never went to court--I shared time and then I just moved in with my father. That's the way it should be, I think. The kids should choose in an out of court deal if they're old enough. But in a case like the one on NPR, it's obvious that the man should be allowed to stop making payments. For the record, he never actually stopped making the payments--he's asking the court to reconsider the ruling that made him make the payments in the first place. It's lame that people lie about that stuff, but I can understand that the girl might have felt panicked or something and saddled him with paternity so that she would have some money coming in... As I said above, I honestly feel that this stuff should be settled OUT of court, since _usually_ the parties involved are mature, responsible adults.

"A man can claim custody." theoretically, yes. and in cases of divorce. but good luck if it was unwed or casual sex.

Note that it's all the childless Sorabjites carrying on about reproduction.

Is everyone PMS'ing? Sheesh........the point I was trying to make was,The Dinner Lady just met this guy,and it seemed rather forward to just pop out with,"by the by,I started on BCP's today". I have no idea how intimate their relationship has become.If it hasn't progressed to the sexual/impending sexual arena yet,I think it would be innappropriate to bring up the BCP info. On the other hand,if it has indeed progressed to that arena,then it should certainly be discussed. As far as responsibility,it should be jointly shared. Loose sex is not a wise idea in these times of serious STD's.[personal opinion] The sexual union of 2 people who care intensely about each other cannot be compared to just a quick sex act.They are 2 very distinct occurances. That is a personal choice,that each of us has to make.And we all do,using different criteria.We all have to live with our choices. Unfortunately,in my line of work,I have delivered way to many young mothers.The youngest I have ever delivered is 11 years old.Unfortunately,I have delivered several 13 year olds.I have also delivered a 19 year old her 5th baby.

I'm childless and I'm not carrying on. But, I suppose I could do some judgin': Nate: mostly idiotic. cyst: mostly cynical. Cat: mostly reasonable. Pilate: mostly sperm burping. Dougie: mostly flippant. patrick: mostly patrick. Platypus: mostly right. Czarina: mostly experienced. Antigone: mostly self referential.

to me, the most important thing in all of this is the child (or possible child). i wouldn't want to bring a life into this world and have it embroiled in some custody or support battle just because i couldn't resist a few moments of sexual pleasure. i think it's everyone's responsibility to at least try to make sure this doesn't happen. it might put the shrinks out of business but we'd have a lot more sane people walking the streets.

the kid is the most important element. if you're so fucked up that acrimony toward the father or mother, whatever the case may be, is more important than the kid that YOU made together, then shame on you. it's the woman's call. needless to say, we're all doomed. just watch springer if you have any doubt.

Mostly sperm burping? Aw, honey, you're just jealous. ;) My kid's here with me. He just saw that and can't stop laughing. I get the feeling I'm going to be hearing that phrase a LOT around the house. Custody battles become unnecessary when you don't spawn in the first place. Too many kids grow up with that shit. It's a damn shame. When I was growing up, neither of my parents wanted me. It was kind of like the anti-custody battle. They solved the whole thing by shipping me off to boarding schools and summer camps. I rarely saw them. They used to have bitter fights right in front of me about who'd have to take on the chore of spending time with me during the few weeks out of the year I was actually home. My mother especially hated being a parent and never lost a single opportunity to say so to my face. She went to her grave saying that motherhood was a disgusting dirty affair that she'd never wanted any part of. Just thinking about my parents makes me want to go hug my own kid. I never want him to feel like I felt as a child. He is very much loved and wanted.

I take offense to that charge of being flippant, Antigone, and challenge you to a duel. Pistols at dawn tomorrow. Please fly up here to Long Island today (you can stay at the Mariott Courtyard Laguardia) and meet me at Jones Beach Field 6 tomorrow morning at 5:30 am. I will be the one wearing a purple bonnet, and carrying a load of firearms, from which we will both choose. Don't be late, and bring some coffee if you can. And doughnuts. And maybe a danish or two.

Wow, I had no idea I'd start a firestorm. Well since everyone is interested I'll give the full disclosure. We have been having sex with condoms and we did talk about the birth control topic the first time that happened 'so are condoms the only birth control in these parts?' 'yep, they are for now' 'well it's good to know these things'. I went to get a pap smear yesterday so I could get back on the pill. I'll tell him sometime between now and 1 1/2 weeks from now when I'll start up the pill that I'm going back on it and that if he wants to go get tested we can be having naked sex soon but till then it will be pills AND condoms. There is a free and anonymous hospital you can go to here and have HIV tests done. It's the 90's way of saying 'I'm serious about having more naked and (probably) monogamous sex with you in the future' I guess. Honestly, he does very little to show me that he is anything but serious about me, my neurosis are mostly in my head and if I'm clear headed about it I really can't imagine him freaking out with 'commitment issues' re: the pill. I am the commitment issues queen, I just haven't let him see that yet, hoping it will go away if I just hold myself together enough for time to pass. "If a woman can require a man to pay child support, why can't a man require the woman to give the child up for adoption? it's half his child." He can't because the Mother is the Mother of the child so if there is a parent who wants the child you can't force someone to get rid of it. I would be suprised if a father could prove paternity via DNA and still not be able to retain custody of a child he wanted. What court would turn down a Father who wanted his child unless there was something wrong with him?

"He can't because the Mother is the Mother of the child so if there is a parent who wants the child you can't force someone to get rid of it." total sexist bullshit. if a father wants a child, a woman still has the right to an abortion.

Tuff titties. Men will just have to bear the one horrible cross that you can't force someone to be a human incubator for 9 months. I hope this doesn't ruin your whole life.

this is becoming extremely complex. simplify. honesty is best. intercourse is mutual concession, and birth control should be as well. a woman will always have the upper hand due to biology, but more should be done in the legal system to protect men from women like the aforementioned situation in which the wrong guy had been paying child support. hey nate i got one for ya.....women and the draft...should they be regquired to register with the selective service at 18? You can get tuition assistance unless you sign up, as you may know. How messed up is that.

absolutely. we shouldn't have any laws that are sexually biased. "Men will just have to bear the one horrible cross that you can't force someone to be a human incubator for 9 months." that's not the point. your arguement was that if one parent wants the child, then they have right to that child. "if there is a parent who wants the child " How about "Women will just have to bear the one horrible cross that you can't force someone to be a child support provider for 18 years" if you want to keep the child, fine, but if the man doesn't you cannot expect him to pay for what you want. because you could abort or put the child up for adoption. this is state sanctioned sexism. hence, men are oppressed in society. bring it on. ps. tuff titties is not an arguement.

I also agree that women should have to register for selective service as long as men have to. and while I think the choice for abortion should remain in the woman's hands, I believe that men should be treated equally in custody cases, married or not.

yeah that really peeves me about the selective service. in addition to having to register to get education aide.

Nate, it's simple. Women have reproductive rights and responsibilities. Rights: They have legal control over their wombs. Responsibilites: They must bear children or the human race dies. Sure, the consequences of these rights and responsibilities do not completely balance themselves out. Tough titties. Is there an imbalance between men and women? Of course! Women have wombs! Jesus christ! Get it through your head! Of course, technology could change all this, unless the conservative right has it's way...

"Women will just have to bear the one horrible cross that you can't force someone to be a child support provider for 18 years" You're not supporting the woman Nate, you're supporting the child you fathered. So change that to "Children will just have to bear the one horrible cross that you can't force a parent to be a child support provider for 18 years". Oh wait, plenty know that. I percieve from your arguement that you're full of terror that someone is going to have your pup and make you pay. I suggest you get a vasectomy chop chop. Why does this upset you so much anyway? Do you pay support to a child you fathered that you never see? Pushes your buttons. "we shouldn't have any laws that are sexually biased." ...and welcome to the real world where most laws are and they're not in favor of women. Duh.

which US laws don't favor women? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

The way rape trials are conducted come to mind. Also statistics show women are far more likely to be incarcerated for violent crimes than men and are more likely to get the death penalty than men for lesser crimes. Technically US laws are pretty much unbiased for both men or women I suspect. More the justice which is rendered from them. Which I think relates back in part to the paternity rights issues. But then again, compared to countries where women are still pretty much property of the men in their families or husbands US women don't have much to complain about.

I'm tempted to be flippant again, but will refrain, so as not to disturb the possibility that this argument might be resolved anytime soon.

Oh c'mon. Do it.

"The way rape trials are conducted come to mind." how so? "Also statistics show women are far more likely to be incarcerated for violent crimes than men and are more likely to get the death penalty than men for lesser crimes. " I don't believe this at all, in fact i believe it just the opposite.

it is absolutely the opposite. i'm not saying men should be able to tell a woman to have an abortion. (or not to.) if a man does not want a child, he has no choice under current laws if a woman gets pregnant. the woman has choices. right there, face value, gender bias. now, if a woman chooses to have the child, the man SHOULD be able to 1) be the father or 2) have nothing to do with the child he doesn't want. (because that is the choice the woman has) if the man doesn't choose the child, then the woman has two options: raise the child on her own (no support) or give it up for adoption. and it is very much supporting the woman, not the child. it is supporting the woman's choice to keep the child instead of putting it up for adoption. single women have no business raising boys. look what it did to patrick. the sexism of this issue is so deeply ingrained into our paradigm, that y'all are blind to what i'm saying. this upsets me because it is wrong. this upsets me because the unsubstatiated national view is that women are still getting the short end of the stick, when, in fact, it is the other way around. i'm not afraid. if i got someone knocked up and she was going to pull this child support crap on me i would fight to the bitter end for custody of my child. devious and dirty with my better lawyers and the full force of my funds. let her pay me child support.

yeah, the selective service laws are just that. they single out poor, young males who want to go to college. my first college boyfriend (white, privileged, private scool-educated, affluent, etc.) didn't register because he didn't want to ever be forced to risk his life for the government. but if I were male, I wouldn't have had that choice, because I needed a stafford loan. I don't think it's fair 1) to make males register while females don't have to, 2) to make receipt of federally guaranteed college loans by young men conditional upon selective service registration. laws should really only be sexist or classist, not both!

I totally understand what you're saying, nate. I agree that the laws are sexist. your argument is logical, powerful, and compelling. do you think that for out-of-wedlock pregnancies, the default should be that the father has no responsibility? and if the mother and father want, they can get a contract drawn up giving the man half the rights and half the responsibilities? and for marriage-based pregnancies, the deal would be the same but the default would be the opposite? I would have an easier time swallowing this idea if abortion was cheap, safe, and accessible nationwide.

The problem with father's abdicating all responsibility is the burden on the welfare system. Now you can argue that women shouldn't have babies if they can't afford them, but you have to be realistic. Poor uneducated women are always going to get themselves knocked up. And they're not going to be able to afford childcare on their crappy Walmart salary. So who pays?

I think that a lot of the time those types of fathers aren't paying anyway. Maybe if we could get a lot of men who are serving time for victimless so-called crimes out of prison (another form of welfare) and into the economy, everyone would be better off.

RE: "Also statistics show women are more likely to get the death penalty than men for lesser crimes. " "I don't believe this at all, in fact i believe it just the opposite." You're right - I looked it up. I had read the opposite somewhere though. You know numbers, they can make them say whatever they want - oops. The media, they'll tell me anything. Nate - I understand what you're saying but biology being biology I don't know what you can do. I'm with Antigone in the idea that biology isn't fair sorry. And that cuts both ways (ie: men don't have to get pregnant and give birth) I actually don't know this, but did child support laws came before legalized abortion? That might shed some interesting light on this topic. Well then again there'll be no legal abortions if the Prez has anything to say about it. My mother's 15 year old little sister (big bros big sis) is pregnant and of course knows all the answers. She currently lives in poverty with her parents and 4 siblings in an unfinished basement with blankets hung up to separate between rooms. She told my Mom she'd 'never consider' adoption because 'it's wrong'. <<sigh>> As for these draft laws I had no idea they were so slanted against the poor but I'm not very suprised.

"single women have no business raising boys. look what it did to patrick." i laughed a good belly at this. though i think there truth in the notion, i admit that compared to my brother, i came out a lot better, but you don't know him. I had grandparents a 1/4 mile down the street whom i was with before and after school. I also a step dad father figure since I was 6, but i admit when it came time to discipline, my mother handled it. However, he was quick to put my ass to work in the yard, chopping logs, digging holes with a two man auger (ever used one of these damn thing, they catch a root and rip your arms off), mowing the lawn and the worst of all, was raking and blowing leaves. To me, at the time, it seemed so damn futile to me. my brother on the other hand didn't have either of these and he's pretty messed up and confused. The lack of discipline completely ran him astray someone told me, i forget whom...that i should go and thank my grandfather...which i intend to do.

correction, the draft laws are slanted to the poor and male, i was all prepared to dodge the bullet until my mom read the fine print. no signature, no college.

i would argue that the burden on welfare would not change signifigantly if child support was abolished. maybe women who have children but cannot support them should be locked up for child endangerment and the children put into foster homes? i realize that isn't a good solution. i wonder why we societally lead from an assumption of an unalienable right to have babies? what right does a woman have to place this burden on society? birth is 100% avoidable. if i balance 100lb weights on the edge of a rooftop, and one falls and kills someone you had better believe i am going to jail. even if it wasn't my intent to have a weight fall. even if i thought that balancing these weights was the only way to get someone to love me. even if someone was beating me whenever i wasn't balancing weights. why is bringing a child into a fucked up existance any different? instead of punishing people who do this, we pay them.

also, while we're on the stump here.... "ie: men don't have to get pregnant and give birth" why do you say this? You act as if it's a force of nature that you have no control over. women always speak as if this is some sort of burden. Yeah it's physically trying...but something you are in complete control of.

and don't get me started on prison. 52% of inmates are in for non-violent offenses. 25% for drugs. the average crack-cocaine sentence is 180 months. the average murder sentence is 70 months. money put into schools is 300% more effective at preventing criminal acts than money put into prisons.

Of course there's gender bias. Duh. The genders are different. Laws affecting them should therefore be different. The issue is whether the difference are fair. Nate: "if a man does not want a child, he has no choice under current laws if a woman gets pregnant. the woman has choices. right there, face value, gender bias." Of course the man has choice: don't have sex. Why is that so hard to understand?

antigone: a man having sex is not at risk of getting pregnant. why is that so hard to understand? if we took a road trip to vegas, me with $100 in my pocket and you with $100,000, and we both lost everything, do I owe you $49,050? of course not. we both brought our own situations to the table, with seperate, different, assumed risks. Even though our outcomes were the same (we lost all our money,) your risk coming into the situation was much greater. Why is that so hard to understand?

Nate, your examples are cute and all, but you're making some huge leaps in logic. Just because something is true in one situation, doesn't mean it's true in another. Now just for fun, let's take your example and throw in a few more factors that you didn't disclose. You had a deal with the sleazy casino that you would fleece Antigone out of his money. So you tell him he'll get a guaranteed return if he puts his money down. When he loses, aren't you responsible? It's like when a man tells a woman he loves her, she falls pregnant and then he says he wants nothing to do with the child. Or maybe not. I'm just in the mood for a nakey death cage debate.

jesus christ. Antigone's not a moron, arguements on this thread aside. If I tell him he can get a blowjob from the moon if he'll just wash my truck, it's hardly my fault if he washes my truck and then kills himself jumping off a building with his pants around his ankles. your arguement presupposes that women are retarded, and we need special laws to protect them from themselves. you know, there are powerful, logical arguements against me taking a rifle and sitting on the roof of Joe's bar and picking off tourists, but deep down in my heart i just know it's not right for those tourists to continue to live.

Oh calm down Spanky, I'm just showing you how your simplistic examples are illogical. You can compare apples to oranges, but that doesn't make 'em the same.

"your arguement presupposes that women are retarded" for some god damn reason thats hilarious.....

Recently I have met a few women who are retarded. Just thought I would say that. I think the best way to solve the child support issue is to make the child support a loan to be paid back by the child to the parent in the parents old age. That's fair. No? Nate, your moon blowjob analogy was priceless.

ah fuckit. cut the cord and you're on your own!

Used to be, kids paid their way by working in the coal mines. Ah, the good old days.

Nate, you'd better give me the blowjob first. Christ, you've got a pretty mouth... Ahem! Sex is not a road trip to vegas. The consequences of losing $100k and having a kid are completely different for society and for the people involved. The situation is not that simple, so the analogy does not hold. The complexities alter the nature of the risk for each party involved such that it can't be reduced such a simple equation. Women are not retarded. Besides, laws are not just for the protection of the retarded, last time I checked. OK...maybe securities and exchange laws. But I digress. Laws are created to modify behavior that is destructive to society, at least in principle. Modifying that behavior may entail creating a imbalance.

Laws should not be there to save people from their own stupidity. that just encourages stupidity. we already have enough of that. what complexities? how specifically does the analogy not hold? i'm argueing that the paradigm is flawed, and you're argueing that my arguements do not fit within the paradigm.

I'm beginning to think that our paradigms are incommensurable. Are you advocating anarchy, Spanky? What's a valid purpose for laws, then? What complexities?? Would you argue that you are more complex than $100k? -$100k != human baby

Patrick, I say: "Men don't have to get pregnant and give birth" because it's a biological fact. If you are female and you want to have a baby (of your own) you have to be the one to do those things (OK you could hire another to do it too, I'm leaving advanced medical science out of this). I often think if I were a man I would be much more open to the idea of having children. Pregnancy and birthing do not appeal to me. Nor does being the primary caretaker of a child and sadly with 100% of the friends I have who have kids, the child rearing split is *at least* 70% Mommy and 30% Daddy. I'd be more keen on being a Father if that option were open to me. Change 1 diaper and the world thinks you're the greatest Dad ever. Don't even start to argue with me on this unless you are currently a parent. The rest of this arguement is really beginning to bore me. Except the blowjob from the moon and other analogies. They are fine reading.

Correction, Iowa has abortion providers. Continue fighting.....

are you a parent dinner lady? wtf. my brother works nights, sleeps 2-3 hours a night and then takes care of the kids during the day while the wife is at work. so of the people i know who have kids, the split is different. welcome to the world of generalities. don't even start to argue with me on this unless you are currently a parent. "-$100k != human baby " i'm pretty sure i could get a human baby for less than $100K. losing $100K is not the baby, losing $100K is the pregnancy. my arguement so far has had nothing to do with child welfare. the welfare of the child is firmly on the mother's shoulders -- if she cannot provide for the child, she needs to do what's best for her child. give it up for adoption. if i put some horses in my yard and couldn't afford to feed them, there is no way this government would allow me to keep them. human baby > horses i'm in no way advocating anarchy. i'm advocating equality. what are you advocating? all these words from a half dozen people and i haven't seen one arguement that addresses what i'm saying. am i not communicating here?

Nate, if you read my post you'd see I said 100% of MY FRIENDS have this problem. Not YOUR BROTHER. There is no arguement here.

"Women have choices, men have responsibility" The most accurate qoute I have ever heard.

Ms. Lady, you're making yourself look like a fool.

nate, do you still need reason? do you?

wtf are you talking about.

stoner

oh yeah. of course. i was trying to figure what you meant in context of this thread. silly me. i should know better.

Women can choose whether to be moms or not. Men can't- they are stuck with whatever the woman chooses to do- ultimately it's her decision since it's her body and nobody can tell her what to do with it.

"since it's her body and nobody can tell her what to do with it" if this is the case then it is her responsibility if she gets pregnant. therefore it should be unlawful to require a man to pay child support.

is anyone else starting to believe he may be right?

You are right Nate, and you are so cool.

i feel patronized.

check ym and go get it.

a friend of mine got married. at a time when the marriage was pretty shaky, she got pregnant. she asked her husband if he wanted to stay married and raise the child with her because she had no interest in going it alone. if he didn't want it, she would have an abortion. he promised he would stay with her and that he wanted to be a real father to the child. I think he had some moral problems with abortion, but apparently his conscience was fine with hitting the road two weeks after delivery. I think that under nate's scenario, she should have been able to lock him in financially for 18 years. (which, of course, she has.)

Nate: "human baby > horses" Yup. That's why there are laws against child abuse. Dimwit. The gloves are off, my friend. So, Nate... How many children have you fathered and abandoned?

and has anyone considered that this way may actually be better for women and children? take my friend's case, for example. the father was going to have to pay child support whether he stayed with her or not. what, if when she found out she was pregnant, he had had the option to get out without owing a cent? that probably would have been so attractive to him that he could have gone ahead and said no, thanks. she could have based her decision about a more truthful response from him. I think a lot of men probably figure if they're going to have to pay anyway, maybe they should stick around and see how things go. so the man stays with the woman and her baby for a while. then the man gets sick of the crying and the chores and whatnot. so then after a year or 10 years -- after the woman and child have begun to form strong, dependent family attachments -- the man leaves. if he had had the option to get out completely free before the ball really got rolling, then he probably would have. and the woman could have figured things out on her own from the beginning, or gotten an abortion, or given up the baby for adoption, or whatever. this really could be a lot better. not just fairer, but better.

and what a great early indicator for women to tell if men really want to be fathers. if they don't want to, they can just say no. also, child support is a crapshoot anyway. if the man doesn't work, he pays nothing, right? and if he's very rich, he pays a lot. that seems like a totally random basis on which to plan for the raising of a child. women probably shouldn't have children if they don't think they could pay for them on their own.

"So, Nate... How many children have you fathered and abandoned?" I hope none. yourself? regardless, this is not a child welfare issue. the child's welfare rests on the shoulders of the mother -- if she cannot afford to give the child a good life, she should put the child up for adoption. it has been plainly stated that the woman has the right to choose abortion or adoption. the man cannot choose either. if there is a pregnancy, the woman can choose to accept or decline the responsibility. the man has no choice. if the woman chooses to keep the child, the man is obligated to support the child. how is this not sexist? the law is that a woman can obligate a man without the man's cosent. in the same situation, the man cannot obligate the woman without her consent.

are you swung, cyst?

Cyst, by that logic, all parental income is "a totally random basis on which to plan for the raising of a child." By golly, you're right! Hasn't changed anything...

I haven't fathered any children, but I ask the question because it seems, from your arguments, that you would and could happily abandon the child. Would you do this? If no, why not? And it is a child welfare issue. Children can likely be involved, thus it is likely a child welfare issue. Anyway, about obligation: The woman is obligated by her biology. The man should be obligated in an equivalent manner. Do you agree?

you're right about that, sem. but that does not invalidate the argument. this would be too large a reversal of policy position for me to agree to at this moment. no one here has made a good argument against it, and it seems sound. the more I consider it, the more sense it makes. I love the idea of having all parties buy in or out of the whole parenthood thing very early on instead of later, when the changing of minds can cause so much more damage. I guess the abortion issue should be kept separate. but I would so much want to see that option always available to newly pregnant women, ESPECIALLY if the fathers were allowed to escape all financial obligation. it would be terrible for poor women in all those states and counties where there are no abortion clinics to have to carry babies to term. which I guess they do anyway already. damn. first I have to try this argument out on a real live person.

sem -- there are many times in my life when I would have happily abandoned the child (through abortion) if I had gotten pregnant. well, not happily. likely painfully, but that doesn't make any difference. what kind of monster does that make me? I would have done it even against the wishes of the father.

YOU ARE ALL WRONG, SO JUST STOP IT, ALL OF YOU. I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR NONSENSE.

So, share with us your wisdom.

good point, agatha.

Nah...Ya can't piss and moan outside the cage. If ya can't add anything to the soup, get outta the kitchen!

I love it when people start arguing with me when I haven't said anything. So, here I open my mouth: The amount of child support a non-custodial parent pays should be positively correlated with the amount of time the parent spends with the child. Perhaps there should be a minimum payment, so that if a non-custodial parent is so non-involved with the child that s/he doesn't pay the minimum, visitation is forbidden. Or we could simply put all unwanted children into organ farms.

Set sail for stem cell harvesting!

No, Antigone, I would not abandon my child. I would use the full force of my resources to gain majority custody. "And it is a child welfare issue. Children can likely be involved, thus it is likely a child welfare issue." no. it is not a child welfare issue. it is a child welfare issue that single women have children and do not give them up for adoption into two parent homes. THAT is a child welfare issue. this is a equal rights issue. if the child's welfare is an issue, then the woman should give the child up for adoption. "The woman is obligated by her biology" NO. the woman is obligated by her choices. if i call you up and say "hey man, i got a whole mess of bananas today! c'mon over for a banana party!" and you come eat bananas with me, knowing full well that your kidneys failed last week and all that potassium will kill you, it's your own damn fault. your biology didn't obligate you, your choices did. even though i supplied the banana.

"it is a child welfare issue that single women have children and do not give them up for adoption into two parent homes. THAT is a child welfare issue. " Hmmmm... So a household led by a single mother will automatically scar a child? Funny that you'd want to gain custody of your hypothetical child, then. Why would you necessarily be able to raise your child better than the mother? And it's interesting that you said "it is a child welfare issue that single women have children..." Just single women? Not single PARENTS? And, as for the banana analogy, you're just going to have to do better than that. You eliminate so many factors in your simplistic analogies that they're essentially meaningless. Besides, if you supplied bananas that killed me, you'd probably be charged with murder. It'd be a fruit assisted suicide, and you'd be a simian Dr Kevorkian. Chew on that, Spanky!

A man goes to the psychiatrist with a banana in each ear and a carrot up his nose. He asks, "Doc what's wrong with me?" The shrink replies, "You're not eating right." baaadaaabooom!

"Just single women? Not single PARENTS?" single mothers are the current societal problem. we don't have a huge amount of single fathers. but no, i meant single parents. "Funny that you'd want to gain custody of your hypothetical child, then." i don't think we're argueing the quality of my character. the reason why i would fight for custody of my child is because 1) I would rather raise a child than just write a monthly check, and 2) Doing so would be horrible for the mother. But like i said, we're not argueing the quality of my character. my analogies are simple because i am trying as hard as i can to help you understand. i'd draw you pictures if i could. you still haven't brought anything that counters my arguement.

My vote goes to Nate on this one. And if I were to ever spawn out of wedlock -- either if I want to keep the little shithook or want to hightail it out of there -- I would want Nate as my lawyer.

However, we childless ones must start thinking about procreating to continue the sorabji legacy into the next generation. Who will post when we're all dust? Spawn II -- The Next Sorabji Generation. I wonder if Mark has left a trust fund in his will to continue this site after his sweet reward so that future generations might partake anew from this gabfest?

if i were pregnant but intended not to keep the child, i wouldn't even tell the father that it happened. am i evil? furthermore i think being pregnant [when having children would be a good idea] would be great.

Sorabji needs my spawn,like my pool needs a turd in it.And you are not evil Heather,just real smart.

I love that word, "spawn", both as noun and verb. It's got a certain something to it -- a sinister sound, I guess.

I'm moving the argument to character because I'm wondering if you'd do something you counsel others to do. However, on to countering your argument. Your argument so far has been this: Women bear all of the biological risk form sex (pregnancy) and are aware of this risk. Thus, they should bear all of the consequences (i.e. Support of the child) and men should be able to opt out of those consequences completely. You think that forcing a man to bear these consequences is sexist, unfair, adn unbalanced in favor of the woman. Please correct me if I'm wrong in restating your argument. Once we understand each other's position we can then get to ass ripping. By the way, you've done nothing to counter my argument...

you've not presented an arguement to counter. "Thus, they should bear all of the consequences (i.e. Support of the child)" support of the child is not a necessary consequence of pregnancy. support of the child is the result of a woman's choice to keep the child. the (candidate for child support) man is not able to make the choice to abort the child or put the child up for adoption. if the woman chooses to keep the child, that man is automatically entitled to a monthly paycheck deduction. the woman choosing adoption or motherhood has nothing to do with the man. motherhood (raising a child) is not a necessary result of pregnancy/birth. now, i just discovered a rather deep and messy "mystery wound", probably from digging around in the case of my $35 computing artifact. i must clean it before i get any more gore on my computer.

"you've not presented an arguement to counter." Here... I'll quote myself to be clear: "Once we understand each other's position we can then get to ass ripping." Can you be hassled to read the posts you're arguing against? How can you know if I've countered your argument if you won't read the counter? Anyway, point by point... "support of the child is not a necessary consequence of pregnancy." The child has to come from some pregnancy. Pregnancy comes from sex. Science hasn't changed that yet. But, I assume you mean a child can be adopted. Please correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption. "support of the child is the result of a woman's choice to keep the child." The choice wouldn't have to be made if the pregnancy did not happen. If you want to trace cause/effect relationships, why stop with the woman's choice? What makes that a better stopping point in the chain than the couple's choice to have sex? If we go back to the sex act as the critical choice in the cause/effect chain, then there are two participants: man and woman. They are both participants in the choice, and are thus both responsible for the consequences of the choice. Using your argument, before the sex act the man has choice whether to father a child or not. After sex, the man has lost his choice. Thus, by having sex he risks losing all choice in the matter. Why should we protect the man from this risk? (Here's the counter you've been looking for...) "the (candidate for child support) man is not able to make the choice to abort the child or put the child up for adoption. if the woman chooses to keep the child, that man is automatically entitled to a monthly paycheck deduction." I see this as a given fact. There's nothing for me to argue against on this point. "the woman choosing adoption or motherhood has nothing to do with the man." Yes, it does. It affects the man, so it has something to do with him. However, as the law stands now, he has no ability (within the law) to affect her decision. However, he has many options outside the law, and I don't just mean coercive or sinister methods. For example, he can have foresight to not get involved with a woman whom he thinks will make a decision that will affect him badly. Now, you could say that laws should be made that give the man some legal power over the pregnancy, but then you'd have to advocate laws that would protect a man from his own stupidity. You wouldn't want to do that, would you, Nate? Laws shouldn't be made to protect us from our own stupidity, right?

"The choice wouldn't have to be made if the pregnancy did not happen." it would have never happened if the man's parents hadn't had him, either. or his parent's parents. you know, maybe she wouldn't have slept with him if he wasn't wearing obsession, so calvin klein should be paying support too? A man cannot require a woman to have an abortion because women are responsible for their own bodies. Do you agree with this? "Yes, it does. It affects the man, so it has something to do with him." What I should have said is: The woman's CHOICE of adoption or motherhood does not necessarily INVOLVE the man. As in, the man cannot require her to put the child up for adoption. "Now, you could say that laws should be made " I'm not saying laws should be made. I'm simply saying that a woman has a choice at time of birth. if the man does not want a child, and she chooses to keep the child, then she should not expect support from the man. This is not a child welfare issue, because if the child's welfare is in jeopardy, she can put the child up for adoption. where do you see the woman's right to extort money from the man coming from? what basis do you see for this right? and how is it not sexist?

I did try this argument out in a bar last night with a lefty male friend, but I couldn't convince him. I think the argument impressed him, though. I was drunk, didn't really push any of my points, and I think we ended up talking about lindsay buckingham and stevie nicks. I may try again tonight with a group that includes a crazy socialist feminist union supporter just to see whether I get hit.

antigone....your "man has a choice not to have sex" argument is unrealistic and out of touch. sex will happen. this started from a statement about birth control and the decision to inform your sex partner of the measures you have taken to prevent pregnancy...i.e. post coital, pre-birth. nate has been clear on his point from the get go. and most would argue i have the worst reading comprehension skills....i prefer to call it compulsive skimming....whatever. nate's position lends itself to greater equality than yours antigone. why must a man blow his load and his options at the same time? As you can (hopefully) agree, there is little rationality just before and during copulation. Have you ever been in the middle of sex and had a women say "come inside"......and not so much because she REALLY wants to get knocked as much she may want to just be close to you.....and you do....because you feel close...and of course after the fuck you're both...."oh shit".your emotions are on the table and in a big ass mess. calling for logic and precise reason at the time of sex is just not going to happen. why can't a man share or come as close as possible to sharing the same liberty a woman has once a woman is preganant. seems a lot more reasonable then saying "well he shouldnt have had sex" well yeah sure....but lets deal with reality here.

And yes, women should have to register for the selective service. Better yet, I think we should have mandatory two year service like a whole buttload of countries do. (Yes, I am prepared to be reamed for the above.)

im open to the idea of civil service, just perhaps not in a mandatory military environment.

here you go, antigone: under the current paradigm, and by your arguements, when a man has sex (with a woman) he risks fatherhood xor child support. a woman does not risk motherhood or support. why should the man assume all the risks of this behavior?

I suppose my perceptions and judgements are biased, patrick. I've had one girlfriend (my first) tell me that she was pregnant, only to learn a few weeks later that she was lying. Another girlfriend (my second) tried to get pregnant by going off the pill and not telling me. So I guess my personal bias leans heavily towards being very wary of the women I have sex with. patrick: "why can't a man share or come as close as possible to sharing the same liberty a woman has once a woman is preganant." Hard to believe this statement is coming from you, patrick. A man has FAR more liberty, physically speaking. Laws just equalize it a bit. Of course, there are exceptions where the laws are abused, as has been noted on this thread. But without those laws we'd have far more child poverty. Nate's position does not lead to more equqlity. How can it be more equal when a man can do anything he wants while the woman is saddled with a child she may have to bear for nine months or an abortion which could be physically and emotionally scarring? According to Nate the man should be able to leave the scene scott free. How is this equal, again? "Have you ever been in the middle of sex and had a women say 'come inside'......and not so much because she REALLY wants to get knocked as much she may want to just be close to you" Yep, and most of the time I didn't do it. See the begining of this post for why, though. But I am human, and that's why it was "most of the time." Nate: "it would have never happened if the man's parents hadn't had him, either." Lame try at reductio ad absurdam, but I suppose you had to try. I think the two choices that are really applicable are 1) the choice to have sex, and 2) the choice about whether to have a child if pregnancy ocurrs. Are there any other choices that we can reasonably consider? "where do you see the woman's right to extort money from the man coming from?" It's not the woman's right. It's society's right to have healthy, well supported children. We, as adults, have a responsibility to face the consequences of our actions. In the alternatives you've laid out, men are exempt from this responsibility. "and how is it not sexist?" It is sexist. I've never said otherwise. Your alternative is sexist in favor of men. How is it any better?

"when a man has sex (with a woman) he risks fatherhood xor child support. a woman does not risk motherhood or support." Of course she risks motherhood or support. She just has control over whether to choose it or not. The risk is still there. So, no, the man does not assume all of the risks of the behavior.

How can you actually think that the man assumes all the risks of sex? That's really absurd! Do you actually think that, or are you just playing silly logic games?

if men didn't have to pay child support, I bet fewer women would lie to men about pregnancy. or go off birth control without telling them. maybe men shouldn't have to accept such heavy penalties from their dealings with deceitful women.

i understand your personal bias. its fucked up. i'll spare my remarks on what i think of those two girls...as im sure you've already thought and sid them before. a man only has a little more liberty if he intends to walk away from said woman scot free. She still has the option to terminate or reliunquish the child. if it turns out he wants the child, and she doesn't he has none. if he doesn't want the child and she does he doesn't have any liberty. according to you he blew his chance for that in the throes of passion...which to me is akin to signing legal documents over martinis. there is a fine line in, say the instance in which cyst speaks of...he agreed to be a father, and then bailed. how do you deal with a situation like that? the guy is obviously an ass but how would she go about proving he made a verbal commitment of which he broke....which leads to the thought of legal documentation upon getting preganant...which is absurd...but then again they have pre-nups. As i advised dinner lady before...if people could just be honest in the beginning...all of this shit could be avoided. all in all i like heathers approach. when the time is right...and you make the decision to do it....embrace it, which is why i called on dinner lady's comment above.

I don't think the idea of drawing up legal documents over pregnancy is at all absurd. I mean, you sign a contract to finance a car. which is more important? I think the default for pregnancy in marriage would be that the man would have to pay. however, if he didn't want to, he would be able to legally serve notice to his wife that he wanted to opt out.

cyst: "if men didn't have to pay child support, I bet fewer women would lie to men about pregnancy." Not bloody likely! Before child support, there was daddy's shotgun. Besides, it's a moot point. Women can't lie about pregnancy or paternity anymore. Technology reveals both of these with effectively zero ambiguity. Child support provides economic equalization, not punitive damages...

Cyst, what exactly is the point of still being married to a woman if you opt out of supporting her children?

im pretty confident if you opted out of the child....you would opt out of the marriage... im pretty confident women lie to men about pregnancy more for reasons of control and fear than money.

"How can you actually think that the man assumes all the risks of sex?" in regard to the chance of becoming a parent. "Of course she risks motherhood or support. She just has control over whether to choose it or not. " eh? she can choose the risk? what? a woman gets pregnant, she can choose to keept the child or not. she's free to choose either way. if she does not keep the child, then she does have to be a mother (aside from biolgically, but that's not what we're talking about,) nor does she have to pay support. that sounds like no risk. she is not limited in this choice. "It is sexist. I've never said otherwise. Your alternative is sexist in favor of men." how is it sexist in favor of men? my alternative is still sexist in favor of women, but so long as we assume a woman's responsibility over her own body carries more weight than the life of an unborn child, that's the way it has to be. my alternative gives both parties equal choices: both parties may keep the child, either party may decide not to parent/support the child, or neither party will parent/support the child. where it is less than equal is the woman can rob the man of his right to fatherhood before the baby is born. "It's not the woman's right. It's society's right to have healthy, well supported children." a baby adopted into a two parent household can be healthy and well supported. that is based on the choice of the mother. on one hand you assume that a mother has ultimate choice over the destiny of her child, even if it means raising the child in a single parent household on welfare and alimony. on the other hand you're argueing that it is society's right to have healthy, well supported children. "Lame try at reductio ad absurdam" I think Lucy said that to me once. i think i told her to go fuck herself. "I think the two choices that are really applicable are 1) the choice to have sex, and 2) the choice about whether to have a child if pregnancy ocurrs. Are there any other choices that we can reasonably consider?" any woman who has sex with a man who she does not know to be a solid candidate for fatherhood is risking entering into a situation where she has a baby alone. do you deny this? we are a sexually active society. as a society we do not have sex purely for procreation. men often (OFTEN) have sex without the intent of causing pregnancy. do you deny this? we have socially determined that women are responsible for their own wombs. abortion is legal. do you deny this? assuming that you won't deny any of those three, we have womb-responsible women entering into sexual congress with men who they can assume would not stick around if a pregnancy occurs. when what they assumed would happen, happens, they demand money and are obliged by the legal system. how is this not court sanctioned extortion?

i feel like henry fucking fonda.

What ever happened to the good old days when you pushed her down a flight of stairs?

Incidentally, 'tig, DNA testing to determine paternity is only allowed in the courts of three states. I think that mandatory service should certainly become a regular thing in this country for men and for women, and it doesn't need to be in a directly military environment. People should be allowed to train as military psychologists, doctors, programmers, whatever. The mandatory service should simply be a service rendered for your country for two years--you don't need to take bullets.

Nate: "my alternative gives both parties equal choices" Equal choices, maybe, but not equal consequences. The man can choose to walk away and he faces no consequences. A woman can't just walk away from a pregnancy. Abortion is no easy choice for physical, emotional, and for some people moral reasons. "...you assume that a mother has ultimate choice over the destiny of her child, even if it means raising the child in a single parent household on welfare and alimony." Where did you get that from? I've never said that. You assume that I assumed that. "when what they assumed would happen, happens, they demand money and are obliged by the legal system." Boy, you don't just assign assumptions to me, you assign them to all women. You jump from women having "sex with a man who she does not know to be a solid candidate for fatherhood" to "entering into sexual congress with men who they can assume would not stick around." So, in the same breath, you you go from saying these hypothetical women don't know if their partners are risky, to knowing for certain that their partners are risky. That's a totally illogical leap. "how is this not court sanctioned extortion?" You bet it is. Any court enforced remedy between two parties is "court sanctioned extortion." No argument there. Do you have any other objection besides a dislike for court enforced remedies? "'Lame try at reductio ad absurdam'" "I think Lucy said that to me once. i think i told her to go fuck herself." I remember. You were lame then, too.

"Equal choices, maybe, but not equal consequences. The man can choose to walk away and he faces no consequences. A woman can't just walk away from a pregnancy. Abortion is no easy choice for physical, emotional, and for some people moral reasons." men don't pay child support to compensate for a woman undergoing pregnancy. if this is the basis for your argument, i think i hear your mom calling you in for dinner. if a woman gives the child up for adoption, neither pay support. remember? child support is specifically for the welfare of the child. that a woman can choose to have a man pay for a child she cannot afford to support herself is bankrupt. "you you go from saying these hypothetical women don't know if their partners are risky, to knowing for certain that their partners are risky." i clearly didn't state the former. if a woman doesn't know the quality of her parter, she is risking ending up a single mother. you know, like when you invest in a stock you risk losing your money? but when you put your money in a savings account you're going to get 2% no matter what? i hate throwing lame analogies at you, but you don't seem to be comprehending what i'm writing. "Any court enforced remedy between two parties is "court sanctioned extortion." " contextually i was probably talking about extortion as in undue or unjust? now, you didn't tell me if you deny any of these: 1) women are aware that having sex with an uncommitted partner could result in giving birth alone. 2) men often engage in sex without intent of procreation. 3) women are responsible for their own wombs.

"if a woman gives the child up for adoption, neither pay support. remember?" I'm not just talking about child support, but the general fairness of your views. When you say that women have "equal choices" as men in pregnancy I disagree. The choices are not equal if the consequences of all choices are unequal. A man can walk away from a preganncy. A woman cannot. "that a woman can choose to have a man pay for a child she cannot afford to support herself is bankrupt." That a man can run around getting women pregnant without any consequences is bankrupt as well. About your three points, I don't disagree with any of them, in general. I do have some nitpicks, but they don't bear on the argument. However, the points don't lead to the conclusion I believe you desire. Consider thise three equivalent points: 1) people are aware that walking down the street in LA is dangerous because they could get shot. 2) criminals often shoot people walking down the street. 3) people are responsible for their own bodily safety. From these three points, can I conclude that shooting someone on the street in LA should not be a crime? The pedestrians knew going into it that they could get shot. If it happens, it's their own problem and the government shouldn't interefere. The criminal could get the death penalty, and that would be government sanctioned murder!

jeezus. you're still on this?

"That a man can run around getting women pregnant without any consequences is bankrupt as well." are you talking about rape? or do you think women are unable to make correct decisions regarding their responsibilities? "1) people are aware that walking down the street in LA is dangerous because they could get shot. 2) criminals often shoot people walking down the street. 3) people are responsible for their own bodily safety. " shooting people is illegal, moron. having sex isn't. at least, not the kind i have. that can get people pregnant.

"or do you think women are unable to make correct decisions regarding their responsibilities?" Not at all, although some aren't, of course. My most recent ex girlfriend didn't know what ovulation was. She was 28 and a college graduate, believe it or not. Yes, shooting people is illegal, under some circumstances. Exactly my point. Shooting people has often has negative consequences, and thus there are laws to balance out those negative consequences. The negative consequences of shooting someone are rather common, though, so in most cases the act is illegal. There are laws to balance out the negative consequences of sex as well, under certain circumstances. One negative consequence of sex is the production of a child that the mother can't support by herself. Thus, we have child support laws. Within several countries today, sex between unmarried couples is illegal. In those societies, the pevailing notion is that premarital sex has too many negative consequences, similar to our attitude about shooting people. In our culture, when it comes to extramarital sex, we target the individual negative effects instead of making the act illegal. Could child support laws (and reproductive law in general) be better? Why, sure! But I don't hear you proposing any alternatives. All I hear is, "Throw the laws out! They're unfair!" Well, that ain't gonna happen unless a way is found to address the underlying problem that spawned the law in the first place. So, you still haven't refuted me. Go ahead and insult me. We are in the cage, after all. But at least have some substance behind it. Bitch.

"Yes, shooting people is illegal, under some circumstances. " goregous. words to live by.

antigone, mind if i use this: "Yes, shooting people is illegal, under some circumstances. Exactly my point. Shooting people has often has negative consequences, and thus there are laws to balance out those negative consequences. The negative consequences of shooting someone are rather common, though, so in most cases the act is illegal. " as i see fit (everyday quoting, signatures, etc)? if needs be, i'll properly attribute it when possible.

my sink just burped

Sure, use it however you like, except for the "has often has" fuckup in the third sentence. It's 3am, and it just got by me, dammit!

"One negative consequence of sex is the production of a child that the mother can't support by herself." this is the heart of my point, which you consistantly fail to address. why is it assumed that a woman has the right to keep a child she cannot support? you've mentioned what's best for society and what's best for the child. i would argue that having a solid, financially secure, two parent family adopt the child will be best for both society and the child. do you disagree on this point? as i've mentioned before, a man does not pay a woman anything if she chooses to place the child up for adoption. this would indicate that child support is not a payoff to the mother for undergoing pregnancy, but rather intended for the child's welfare. do you disagree on this point? now, clearly, unless you can dispute either of the above, whether a man pays child support or not is based solely on if the whim of the woman, regardless of what is best for the child or society. can you dispute this?

That wasn't your sink.

oh. damn sperm-burpin...freaks...

dill. green onions. yogurt. chicken. pita. i gotta burp for you.

"why is it assumed that a woman has the right to keep a child she cannot support?" My god, man. Because it's her child! By the same token, why would a couple have the right to keep a child that they could not support? "i would argue that having a solid, financially secure, two parent family adopt the child will be best for both society and the child. do you disagree on this point?" Sure, I'd disagree. You can't generalize to that extent. Would you advocate a law that says, below standard of living X, a single parent must give up their child into foster care? How about the same for couples? Should children be taken away if their parents are too poor? "...this would indicate that child support is not a payoff to the mother for undergoing pregnancy" I'd agree, though I think it should be different. I think a father should, in some way, be obligated to support a woman when she's pregnant with his child. If he disagrees with her choices there should be a tradeoff of some kind, but that might be too complicated for us to discuss here. "now, clearly, unless you can dispute either of the above, whether a man pays child support or not is based solely on if the whim of the woman, regardless of what is best for the child or society. can you dispute this?" Sure. Easily. The lynchpin is that you seem to think financial security trumps all other concerns. It does not. Besides, if you think financial security of the child is so important, you should be on my side. Your position would make child support less likely, as the person who is most likely to decide against it (the payer) could duck out at any time. What are you really trying to argue for, Nate? Anyway, I'm going on vacation soon, (I should already be on the road, really) so we'll have to table the debate for a couple of weeks.

i'm glad i'm not a man. i would be insecure about all this child-having/child-keeping stuff. or maybe i'm just so used to feeling in control of that situation that not being in control feels scary. maybe that's why men have so much to say about it and need so many rules. bottom line, besides financially [which only affects some women] they have no control of the kid having situation.

"My god, man. Because it's her child!" that's the paradigm. i think it's wrong. it's his child, also. "The lynchpin is that you seem to think financial security trumps all other concerns" actually, i think a two parent household is more important than financial security. but as a man, i cannot assure this for an unexpected child unless i want to marry the woman AND she wants to marry me. i think we've arrived to where are fundemental differences lay. have a good one.

Not only should it be a two parent household,but one where the two parents back each other up,my s/o's undermining me really fucked our kids up,I was always "the bad guy". It's probably what has really fucked my spawn up the most.

Hell's Child, Spawn of Satan?

Kind of,no it is.

dude, people, just DONT HAVE KIDS. get yourself a vasectomy or get your tubes tied. obviously, most people have sex entirely for the pleasure aspect, not to have kids, and if you want kids, ADOPT. society should only have a select group of people that breed, and then the rest of us dont. population control. that's almost why we need another world war. but about the draft thingy that you sign when youre 18....war with china seems like it could happen soon enough...and if i end up having to sign that, well...I REFUSE TO FIGHT AGAINST CHINA. thank you. anyone read today's george will? talk about a kick in the jimmies ::wince:: it really does make quite a bit of sense.

"that's almost why we need another world war." uh, that's kinda why we had the last one.

Zeph, I hear you on China. What if Lichtenstein declares war on us though? You good to go on that?

I'll fight against China any day, after what happened to my shower curtain yesterday.

i told you not to do that. the oil never comes off. and all those pubes and god knows what else stuck on is just fucking nasty.

Fuck Lichtenstein. Those guys are assholes.

Lichtenstein? huh? where's that? if i knew about lichenstein, and why they might declare war on us, well, we'll see. and of course...well...i'd be all for joining up, assuming that the US gov. decides to organize that so called "space corps" (i read about that on slashdot, so prolly not too valid) but otherwise, the USAF sounds like the group i'd prefer, right now. nate, i hope you're just joking around. i mean, pubes?!? come on! jesus invented the razor (or electrolysis for those that can afford it) for a REASON! (i really can't tell if i'm being serious here...that's a bad thing, isn't it?)

zephdog, when you have a moment, take your lady to a motel. take the shower curtain down and lay it over the bed. pour a bottle of baby oil over the top. fuck her in the ass. you will not regret it.

thats fuckin perverted nate. besides he's too young to get a hotel. don't you have to be 24 or 25 or something like that?

He could do it in the woods for free.That's what I use to do,but I'm not one to gossip and you didn't hear that from me.

i don't know patrick. i would think it would be 18. with moves like that, though, he could easily score a 25 year old.

You have to be 25 to rent a car, or at least you used to here in Boston. I think you can get a hotel no matter what age you are so long as you pay.

depends on the hotel...and it's 25 to rent a car... and yeah, well...haha! that does sound...interesting! thanks, nate! (although, maybe not in the ass, that isn't so pleasant for women, eh?) and...::swoon:: 25 year olds! wah-hoo! (gotta dig older, taller girls! (i'm like 5'7", and 17...sigh.)

right, the rental car thing, thats what i was thinking of. oh yeah, the move would definitly be impressive. so would tying her to the bed and wanking inches above her too.

i dunno, man. you're 17. sex with you isn't going to be super pleasant for the woman anyway. boomboomsplat.

Isn't that a Queen song? boom boom Splat. boom boom Splat... Buddy you’re a boy make a big noise playing in the street, gonna be a big man someday...

You are the spirit of Freddie Mercury. There is gonna be a new version of that song with the original members of Queen and Robbie Williams singing lead. That I gotta hear.

what? now i'm all confused! are you mocking me, patrick? "so would tying her to the bed and wanking inches above her too. " nate: why wouldn't it be pleasant? (just wanna know..sorry) Dougie: "boy make a big noise playing in the street" what? Dinner Lady: who's freddie mercury? i have 2 special DJ-only lp's of robbie williams' "rock dj" (remixes and the original) all unopened and such...long story how i got them

Umm, Zeph, think of any pro sporting event you've ever been to, especially basketball games. What song usually comes over the loudspeaker at time outs? Hint: "We will, we will ____ you". By Qu**n. Fr*ddie M*rcur* is the singer.

ahh. i knew that. (not really...sorry!) wait..who's the spirit of him ,then? (i am still mega confused)

I am the spirit of Freddie Mercury.

no man, not at all. bravado and confidence in the sack a good thing. Don't be too much of an ass. Wouldn't you loose your mind if a girl did that to you? No reason why it wouldnt work the otherway around. seriously. masturbation is very personal, but when you're with someone you dig (i.e. NOT the 7--1 gal) sharing something like that....it has good results. TRUST ME.

ahhh...ok, gotcha! also, what thread was the one you wanted me to see? huh?

i didnt want you to see any thread

oh...ok...i guess i'm just quite confused. yeah. never mind it.

SHUT YOUR FUCKING ASS JUVE.

I'm sorry Zeph, you are not the spirit of Freddie Mercury. Robbie Williams is with Dougie a close second. I don't know if I'd get off on a guy masturbating on me,... well I don't know, sort of depends how intimate you were with them already and how it was done... I'm not sure this is 100% a turn on though, could be real 50/50 depending. Some other lady Sorabjites should chime in here.

I have never had anybody masterbate on me,so I can't really say,I did act like I was doing it with this guy named Leon once,but it was to impress his friends,and we just jumped around on the bed and made noises,we didn't really do it.I don't think I'd get off on somebody masterbating on me,it would be like a waste.

im pretty sure i was ready to marry the day i was masturbated on....and i've been with women who found it an amazing turn on to see a guy diddle himself...it's not something you get to see often,..with either sex...so you know...the taboo element...seeing how one treats one's own body etc etc etc....i think it pretty damn sexy.

Oh yes, don't get me wrong, I know I've been with men who think it's sexy to watch women.

my virgin ears! haha. ok...i'll ask around too...plenty young'uns are more than sexually active enough to know this stuff. (not a good thing...)

God, I wish I had even a 1/1000000th of Freddie Mercury's spirit and/or talent. I heard Under Pressure on the radio the other day, and I always get goosebumps when Freddy's singing: "Why can't we give love give love give love? Give love give love give love give love give love?" and then Bowie comes in with a rising scale singing: "Cause love's such an old fashioned word And love dares you to care For people on the edge of the night And love dares you to change our way Of caring about ourselves" I gotta break out all my old Queen lps.

I'm a Queen fan myself,my favorite song is Somebody to Love.

Freddie really is a fucking God isn't he? And those clothes! I got A Night At The Opera for my birthday in 2nd grade and didn't even know what it was. A girl in my class gave me it, someone I wasn't even really good friends with and now it's probably the oldest record I have that I play the most often.

freddie was proof that the "tenor" voice isn't the private property of "classical" or art music. freddie was a true counter-tenor and probably could have performed renaissance and medieval music with the russel oberlin's of the world.

Oh! Having FRIENDS with CHILDREN!!!! Silly me! I went all the way through this thread thinking it was "Having CHILDREN with FRIENDS."