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.
I have researched many states divorce laws.
Your very statement contradicts itself.
No where in the legal code is divorce, child support or alimony laws based on gender. Prove it or shut up.
The law is irrelevant. The application of the law is the only relevant factor. You know, what actually happens in real life.
Guys who are smart, have assets or income, will not engage in sex with women capable of having children. At least in the first world. Historically only 40% of male DNA survives. Meaning 60% of males leave no lineage. The result will be adverse selection, those men with no assets, who aren't very smart, who can't pay for their prodigy, will become the dads of future children. This may adversely affect IQ in many first world western nations.
Like that will happen. Or maybe smart rich guys will all chase after grandmas?
Like that will happen. Or maybe smart rich guys will all chase after grandmas?
Actually given the mental acuity seen here and the world in general I don't even think adverse selection is up for debate. Whether it's due to high male IQ not reproducing, or joint low IQ outpacing higher IQ's. There is much to be concerned about. It's already a known fact that the people with the least ability to support kids are the ones most likely to have them, just look at the demographics of parents and child counts.
As a species it may not be relevant, after all intelligence evolved so that we were smart enough to avoid risks, there are many risks in having kids from loss of prosperity to child birth to risk reduction on behalf of those kids. Rationally no kids sets all of those risks to zero. So species wise you need to be smart enough to not get eaten, but dumb enough to still breed.
As a culture it's concerning because our existence depends on intellect. If we lose sufficient smarts we may no longer progress and ultimately we'll regress (not be smart enough to even maintain what we have). Queue Idiocrisy quotes.
Guys who are smart, have assets or income, will not engage in sex with women capable of having children. At least in the first world. Historically only 40% of male DNA survives. Meaning 60% of males leave no lineage. The result will be adverse selection, those men with no assets, who aren't very smart, who can't pay for their prodigy, will become the dads of future children. This may adversely affect IQ in many first world western nations.
May I welcome you to the 21st century.
As much as you would like to misapply history the current reality is that smart, employed and wealthy do actually engage in sex, get married and have families and unlike the past where the warriors, like Genghis khan, kings, rulers and noblemen through their authority and positions bedded many women spreading their seed, our more current history has been moving to increase genetic diversity. So no worries there.
As much as you would like to misapply history the current reality is that smart, employed and wealthy do actually engage in sex, get married and have families and unlike the past where the warriors, like Genghis khan, kings, rulers and noblemen through their authority and positions bedded many women spreading their seed, our more current history has been moving to increase genetic diversity. So no worries there.
It was, but I think it might be trending the other way again. The erosion of the traditional family unit is creating a more chaotic reproductive environment, and in that type of environment reproductive opportunities are not equally distributed among the available men. Notice that these "deadbeat" men women are always going on about tend to have a string of bastard children with different mothers that they are not paying for. And you almost never hear a woman remarking that her particular deadbeat ever had a problem getting laid again after he reportedly took off. Women aren't bedding these men because of their future earning potential or probability of providing a stable household.
It was, but I think it might be trending the other way again. The erosion of the traditional family unit is creating a more chaotic reproductive environment, and in that type of environment reproductive opportunities are not equally distributed among the available men. Notice that these "deadbeat" men women are always going on about tend to have a string of bastard children with different mothers that they are not paying for. And you almost never hear a woman remarking that her particular deadbeat ever had a problem getting laid again after he reportedly took off. Women aren't bedding these men because of their future earning potential or probability of providing a stable household.
Reproductive opportunities are never equally distributed.
They are just more equally distributed than they were historically.
I don't think so, mom hired her own attorney- she'd have no reason to do that if the state was going to recoup the money
"His ex-girlfriend's lawyer, Carel Stith, claimed that money was taken out of Cornejo's paycheck several years ago and he didn't contest it, and that in itself can satisfy a court argument that he should have handled the matter long ago. "Don't stick your head in the sand because it's not going to go away," Stith told local news. "There can be consequences even if you don't do anything."
They can and do accept the plaintiffs word for income if the defendant fails to appear. When my son filed for child support against his ex, he gave the court the name and address of her employer and told the court what she had admitted her salary was, since she failed to appear in court so the judge set support according to what my son claimed. When she was served with the judgment she went back to court with pay stubs showing that she no longer worked full time so the judge modified the order.
It worked the same way in the case we are discussing; the woman went to court for a support order and the father wasn't there, so the court believed her when she said that he was the father, they did nothing to ensure that she was telling the truth.
Point being... IF you give them proof, they will indeed use it. If you never do, they can only go on what they are told. That doesn't sound unreasonable.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
