Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We live in a sad society in which fathers are seen as second-class parents and their rights are completely disregarded in some cases (Eg. Abortion). Just take a look at 90 percent of advertisements in which the father is portrayed as the village idiot who is always setting things on fire or breaking something. At least one commercial did something right:
No wonder young men grow up today with little ambition, do not attend college at the same rate as women, and are becoming more and more absent in the lives of their own kids. Society tell them they are doofuses with no real parental rights. Society cannot ask men to be parents and at the same time treat them as if they have no right to parenthood.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't work to make it more fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
Condom.
What if he does use a condom and she still gets pregnant? Both parties can be fully responsible and still get pregnant. Heck, even a woman with an IUD can get pregnant even if it's unlikely. I just think if a woman should have the right to have sex and get pregnant but decide she doesn't want to be responsible for it, a guy should as well.
We live in a sad society in which fathers are seen as second-class parents and their rights are completely disregarded in some cases (Eg. Abortion). Just take a look at 90 percent of advertisements in which the father is portrayed as the village idiot who is always setting things on fire or breaking something. At least one commercial did something right:
No wonder young men grow up today with little ambition, do not attend college at the same rate as women, and are becoming more and more absent in the lives of their own kids. Society tell them they are doofuses with no real parental rights. Society cannot ask men to be parents and at the same time treat them as if they have no right to parenthood.
I am a woman, but even I have thought of it as quite unfair that if a woman gets pregnant and she doesn't want the responsibility she can go have an abortion or give it up for adoption regardless of what the father says, yet if a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep it and he doesn't he's hooked for child support for 18 years. Sure you can say "Well, a woman goes through pregnancy/labor etc. for 9 months and a man doesn't" but a man being forced to pay for a child he doesn't want for 18 years kind of equalizes that methinks.
Women constantly say they should be allowed to have sex as much as they want without being looked down on, which I agree, but isn't it unfair if men can't just go have sex as much as they want if even with BC he gets a woman pregnant? Seems silly to go the other way and basically tell men they can't just enjoy sex because they might get a woman pregnant.
great post!!!
ive thought the same for yrs,
you never hear this angle on the woman talk shows...
you never hear this angle on the woman talk shows...
Yet one would think this would be the incentive to not be knocking up gals you aren't married too, right? Why isn't it? Do consequences mean nothing? Because that totally flies in the face of everything.
Yet one would think this would be the incentive to not be knocking up gals you aren't married too, right? Why isn't it? Do consequences mean nothing? Because that totally flies in the face of everything.
But couldn't that be turned around to say "Yet one would think this be the incentive to not not be screwing lots of guys, you aren't married too, right? Do consequences mean nothing? Because that totally flies in the face of everything.".
If you think it's a-okay for a woman to go out in the world flirting and willingly having sex with guys she thinks is hot/attractive/whatever then I do not see how it's wrong for guys too.
If a woman wants to go screw around with lots of men just because she wants to, why is it ONLY men that should be expected to support the child in case of pregnancy? I might understands in the case of ecenuating circumstances such as if they are married, but if it is believed that a woman that simply wants to experience sex but not deal with the responsibility of a child can go and have an abortion or give it up, why can't men have a way out as well? Just saying it's "biological differences" is a total cop out. I don't have a son, but if I did I don't see why he shouldn't have the same option of "fathering out" of fatherhood as a woman that gets pregnant opting out of "motherhood".
There is no primary caregiver if the parents have joint legal custody and joint physical custody.
Oh yeah, struggling to get that concept in my head. How should they decide then? The better school, or the parent working less hours (so less need for after school care) or what? Sounds pretty complicated to decide, I agree though that it shouldn't automatically be the mother if its 50/50 custody but how common is that anyway?
Oh yeah, struggling to get that concept in my head. How should they decide then? The better school, or the parent working less hours (so less need for after school care) or what? Sounds pretty complicated to decide, I agree though that it shouldn't automatically be the mother if its 50/50 custody but how common is that anyway?
Well it would be more common if one were to account how many men WANT to be father's but the court system screws them over and makes it as hard as possible to be fathers. Not that there aren't dead beat dads, but so many times fathers get screwed.
My cousin was married for 5 years until his wife cheated on him. He even went to counseling but she would not work to help save the marriage, even cheated a second time DURING their counseling. All the while he was working 50+ hours a week to keep a roof over their head while she just had a part time job with one child. In the end they got divorced and he was forced to give her the house, child support, alimony AND a car! She eventually went full time but got in lots of debt from gambling and such and ended up having to sell the house and she and their kid lived in the car for 2 weeks until a friend allowed them to stay at her place.
She even was arrested for pot but just got a slap on the wrist. He took it to court and tried to get full custody and to change the alimony agreement (he never complained about the child support) but was denied and now she and their son is living in S8 housing in a dangerous area and she gets food stamps.
But couldn't that be turned around to say "Yet one would think this be the incentive to not not be screwing lots of guys, you aren't married too, right? Do consequences mean nothing? Because that totally flies in the face of everything.".
If you think it's a-okay for a woman to go out in the world flirting and willingly having sex with guys she thinks is hot/attractive/whatever then I do not see how it's wrong for guys too.
If a woman wants to go screw around with lots of men just because she wants to, why is it ONLY men that should be expected to support the child in case of pregnancy? I might understands in the case of ecenuating circumstances such as if they are married, but if it is believed that a woman that simply wants to experience sex but not deal with the responsibility of a child can go and have an abortion or give it up, why can't men have a way out as well? Just saying it's "biological differences" is a total cop out. I don't have a son, but if I did I don't see why he shouldn't have the same option of "fathering out" of fatherhood as a woman that gets pregnant opting out of "motherhood".
I get where you're coming from, somewhat. But his statement is kinda odd. How is it that ONLY men that are expected to support the child? That doesn't make sense. Obviously if the woman is keeping the child and the man is not to be part of it's life by choice then the woman is supporting the kid in a myriad of ways.
I actually agree that if the man is vehemently opposed to having children and the woman chooses to keep the child against his utmost sincere wishes then I don't think he should be obligated. The ball really is in the woman's court here. There are several options available to her to make sure this doesn't happen - him too, but ultimately he does not have any real say in the outcome.
I do think it's a sad reality. I don't think it's ideal for the child, and I don't condone it. But I don't see the point in forcing someone to be involved when the decision was made against their will. I don't believe in that either.
Having said that, if this happens because he didn't wear a condom or was careless - I don't have much sympathy for him. A lot of things happen in ways we wish they didn't but that doesn't mean you should abdicate your responsibilities.
But couldn't that be turned around to say "Yet one would think this be the incentive to not not be screwing lots of guys, you aren't married too, right? Do consequences mean nothing? Because that totally flies in the face of everything.".
If you think it's a-okay for a woman to go out in the world flirting and willingly having sex with guys she thinks is hot/attractive/whatever then I do not see how it's wrong for guys too.
If a woman wants to go screw around with lots of men just because she wants to, why is it ONLY men that should be expected to support the child in case of pregnancy? I might understands in the case of ecenuating circumstances such as if they are married, but if it is believed that a woman that simply wants to experience sex but not deal with the responsibility of a child can go and have an abortion or give it up, why can't men have a way out as well? Just saying it's "biological differences" is a total cop out. I don't have a son, but if I did I don't see why he shouldn't have the same option of "fathering out" of fatherhood as a woman that gets pregnant opting out of "motherhood".
She didn't say not to have sex, she said not to get anyone pregnant. You are using a double standard. Men and women can both have sex, but if there is an unwanted pregnancy, they both deal with the consequences. You are making it sound like abortions are a choice without consequences for the woman as well, which is also wildly unfair.
And you are confusing lots of different variables.
For a man to have rights as a father, there has to be a child, a pregnancy is NOT a child. Pregnancy might result in a a child but it is fundamentally a medical condition that happens to the woman ALONE. Therefore since it happens to women, they are the only ones who have a say in it.
If the pregnancy results in a child, than a fathers rights come into play, or more correctly the child's rights to a father. And I do not think at that point a woman has the right to choose adoption unless the father also agrees to it. As for the notion that women don't support their children, where do you get that idea?
Look it comes down to a simple fact, if you have sex with someone, there is a possibility it will result in a child, if you are absolutely under no circumstances willing to deal with that fairly remote possibility (assuming you are using a condom) than you should not be having sex. That fundamental fact is true for both men and women.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
