“Young and ambitious”…

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: And yet you have out-of-wedlock births in some black communities approaching 70%. How to explain the statistical significance of that?[/quote]

Maybe they wanted to have babies. No chance they wanted to have babies with this guy, “knowing what they were getting into”.[/quote]

22 babies say you’re wrong.

With only 14 mothers, at least 8 of them are number 2 or higher.[/quote]

I’ve also known a man like this — 14 kids *that he knew of,* with multiple women, some of the kids were in foster care. Only spoke with him briefly, as he was visiting some of his kids in the foster home (a friend of mine was the foster mom), but it sounded like some of the women didn’t know about the other women and children, and this was even by his own account. This is NOT uncommon with these types of men.

Having been on the female side of these things (never fell for it, but that’s because I’m especially skeptical and inquisitive), there are an awful lot of men out there who don’t even tell their new “woman” that they are married, much less that they have kids. They will often flat-out deny it for months or years. While it might be difficult for responsible men to comprehend this, it does happen more often than you’d like to think.

It’s entirely possible that these women believed they were “the one” for him, and that they were going to get married and live “happily ever after.” It’s almost certain that he told them this at every point in the relationship…until the baby arrived. Once in awhile, he might have fancied a woman enough to keep up the ruse for another baby or more.

You’d be stunned by how well some men can keep secrets like this. Oftentimes, they don’t even know about these babies themselves until many years later when they’re found and pursued for child support.

I do not necessarily believe that these women were trying to “scam the system” by having babies with a deadbeat. That’s a really painful, difficult way to go about doing it, IMHO.

[no_such_reality]

I’ve met people like that guy too. I don’t find them particularly smooth. Bold face liars, yes, smooth, no.

I’ve also known women that fall for schmucks like that guy in the video. Everybody knew he was a schmuck and a liar. I suspect she really did too, but she was accept virtual any halfassed lie as a rationale for his behavior. She wanted to believe.

I’ve also know confidence men like Madoff, literally sitting in Fed prison now having swindled millions. Not really smooth either. Again, pretty bold face liar. He played their greed and somewhat ignorance. But I’ve seen some of the promises and the BS meter went right off.

The common thread is they want to believe. The liars aren’t particularly good.

[sdduuuude]

I’d summarize this the same way I summarize whether or not bankers or borrowers were to blame for all the bad loans: It takes two to Tango.

[sdduuuude]

… or horizontal Mombo, in this case

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality]I’ve met people like that guy too. I don’t find them particularly smooth. Bold face liars, yes, smooth, no.

I’ve also known women that fall for schmucks like that guy in the video. Everybody knew he was a schmuck and a liar. I suspect she really did too, but she was accept virtual any halfassed lie as a rationale for his behavior. She wanted to believe.

I’ve also know confidence men like Madoff, literally sitting in Fed prison now having swindled millions. Not really smooth either. Again, pretty bold face liar. He played their greed and somewhat ignorance. But I’ve seen some of the promises and the BS meter went right off.

The common thread is they want to believe. The liars aren’t particularly good.[/quote]

In some cases they are very, very good liars. You’re right about some people being painfully naive when it’s obvious someone is a scammer, but I’ve known times when whole families and communities have been duped. Not sure that’s what’s happened here, since the idiot in this video seems pretty darn proud of his “accomplishments” and should have been easy to spot; OTOH, others can be surprisingly believable when they pretend to be upstanding, decent people.

Another anecdote: I once worked with a woman who was married with kids and whose MIL lived with them in their home. She came to find out that her husband of quite a few years had another entire family not far away (with kids about the same age as hers), and the woman who was supposed to be her husband’s mother was just some woman he had met and invited to live with them.

[davelj]

[quote=UCGal]
FWIW – she’s not a push-over, tramp, or someone who slept around. In the 20 years I’ve known this friend, she’s never had a boyfriend. And this was her one “serious” relationship. She’s a good, church going, woman. Not a tramp. The guy’s lines were very smooth.
[/quote]

I know this wasn’t the point of your post, but… it should be blindingly obvious that “good” and “church going” have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Going to church is a social hobby, not unlike hunting or gambling in terms of the percentage of participants that are “good” or “bad.”

“Tramp” – like “slut” – is a pejorative term used by certain men to keep “their” women from expressing their sexuality and, likewise, by uptight women to label other women who might be a threat to their domestic tranquility. Which is why there’s no real comparable term for men who engage in the same activities – it’s acceptable. I thought Piggington, of all places, had crawled out of the previous century.

Anyhow, I doubt there’s much correlation between “church going” and having babies out of wedlock. Some of the highest rates of church attendance are in rural areas and inner cities… where there are also high rates of out of wedlock births.

Just sayin’…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dave: I’m Catholic. We’re still trying to get out of the 16th century.

Kidding aside, I grew up inside a culture that was the epitome of hypocrisy. People who were hugely judgmental and yet were drunks, drug abusers and philanderers.

My dad always cautioned that, as soon as someone started spouting off about their piety, check to make sure you still have your watch and wallet.

And don’t even get me started about the Mormon girls I knew in high school…

[UCGal]

[quote=davelj][quote=UCGal]
FWIW – she’s not a push-over, tramp, or someone who slept around. In the 20 years I’ve known this friend, she’s never had a boyfriend. And this was her one “serious” relationship. She’s a good, church going, woman. Not a tramp. The guy’s lines were very smooth.
[/quote]

I know this wasn’t the point of your post, but… it should be blindingly obvious that “good” and “church going” have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Going to church is a social hobby, not unlike hunting or gambling in terms of the percentage of participants that are “good” or “bad.”

“Tramp” – like “slut” – is a pejorative term used by certain men to keep “their” women from expressing their sexuality and, likewise, by uptight women to label other women who might be a threat to their domestic tranquility. Which is why there’s no real comparable term for men who engage in the same activities – it’s acceptable. I thought Piggington, of all places, had crawled out of the previous century.

Anyhow, I doubt there’s much correlation between “church going” and having babies out of wedlock. Some of the highest rates of church attendance are in rural areas and inner cities… where there are also high rates of out of wedlock births.

Just sayin’…[/quote]
Dave – valid point. Very valid.

I’m not religious, she is. And she lives her beliefs more than most… She has guilt about the “sin” that brought her daughter into the world.
Maybe uptight about sex would have been a better description. But, for her, her religious values are what she uses as the reason not to have sex.

Not saying it’s right or wrong, rational or irrational, etc. – this is just who she is. She’s been celibate outside of this one relationship.

The other comments about guys like this being smooth liars, fits this FOB.

[Author]

Posts