[justme]

[quote=CA renter]

Most women would be more than happy to let men take over the BC responsibility. Oddly enough, though men often complain about being “trapped” they all too often refuse to take any responsibility for their own birth control. They have ALWAYS had choices (abstaining from having sex with women you don’t want to procrate with would be a logical first step, no?).[/quote]

To your first point: I do not believe for one second that a woman is going to trust a man to be responsible for contraception, unless the contraception method can be visually verified.

To your second point: I wish you were kidding. What kind of choice is that? Especially when women get the choice of having sex with men they may or may not want to procreate with, and also get the options of fraudulently getting themselves pregnant or even fraudulently fingering an innocent man to be the provider for someone else’s biological child.

There is no justice in either of the above scenarios.

[justme]

[quote=patientrenter]davelj, you fought the good fight here. I agree with just about everything you said. Some of your interlocutors responded to what you didn’t say, but that’s in the nature of argumentation. The truth is that a lot of the basic trades in a typical man-woman relationship are not spoken honestly in polite company. Social conventions.[/quote]

And that is exactly why men have to stop being polite when their rights are being trampled upon. Stop taking it like a man, and instead fight back.

[justme]

[quote=patientrenter]davelj, you fought the good fight here. I agree with just about everything you said. Some of your interlocutors responded to what you didn’t say, but that’s in the nature of argumentation. The truth is that a lot of the basic trades in a typical man-woman relationship are not spoken honestly in polite company. Social conventions.[/quote]

And that is exactly why men have to stop being polite when their rights are being trampled upon. Stop taking it like a man, and instead fight back.

[justme]

[quote=patientrenter]davelj, you fought the good fight here. I agree with just about everything you said. Some of your interlocutors responded to what you didn’t say, but that’s in the nature of argumentation. The truth is that a lot of the basic trades in a typical man-woman relationship are not spoken honestly in polite company. Social conventions.[/quote]

And that is exactly why men have to stop being polite when their rights are being trampled upon. Stop taking it like a man, and instead fight back.

[justme]

[quote=patientrenter]davelj, you fought the good fight here. I agree with just about everything you said. Some of your interlocutors responded to what you didn’t say, but that’s in the nature of argumentation. The truth is that a lot of the basic trades in a typical man-woman relationship are not spoken honestly in polite company. Social conventions.[/quote]

And that is exactly why men have to stop being polite when their rights are being trampled upon. Stop taking it like a man, and instead fight back.

[justme]

[quote=patientrenter]davelj, you fought the good fight here. I agree with just about everything you said. Some of your interlocutors responded to what you didn’t say, but that’s in the nature of argumentation. The truth is that a lot of the basic trades in a typical man-woman relationship are not spoken honestly in polite company. Social conventions.[/quote]

And that is exactly why men have to stop being polite when their rights are being trampled upon. Stop taking it like a man, and instead fight back.

[justme]

johnnycsd,

Excellent collection of facts, as opposed to fiction.

[justme]

johnnycsd,

Excellent collection of facts, as opposed to fiction.

[justme]

johnnycsd,

Excellent collection of facts, as opposed to fiction.

[justme]

johnnycsd,

Excellent collection of facts, as opposed to fiction.

[justme]

johnnycsd,

Excellent collection of facts, as opposed to fiction.

[justme]

[quote=Russell][quote=justme][quote=Russell]

I still think if they had lived differently in marriage they would have had a better chance at equity in child support, alimony and visitation. Divorce and subsequent life probably would have gone better overall. If the courts make decisions based on how the
couple/ family/children actually lived I can’t blame them.[/quote]

Russel, what the hell are you talking about? “if they had lived differently”? You are simply taking sides and assuming that any divorce is the man’s fault! And by the way, that is the same approach the courts are taking. No matter who did what!

Phew.[/quote]

No I am not saying that men are always at fault. This is a no fault state I believe. However, if the career/bread winning vs. nurturing/home making are out of balance, I think it should not come as a surprise that alimony and child support are forth coming. If a man can prove that there was a mutually cooperative balance in those things and he also wants and can make a good case for 50/50 custody which actually resembles how things were before the divorce , then I think there is a smaller chance of getting “screwed”.Better if he can show that he actually facilitated the advancement of his wife’s career through child care and homemaking and other sacrifice as much as she did his. The price to pay for this may be having a mediocre career but that too does add evidence to the argument that you had kids to raise them not just to pay your wife to do it. It also establishes that she can support herself as well as you can.[/quote]

1. not always at fault, no-fault divorce

You understand what no-fault means, right? It means that your wife can divorce you *even if you did nothing wrong to the marriage* (and do not forget that 70% of the time the wife is the initiator).

2. custody according to previous % childcare:

Oh, so the MAN has to PROVE that the did 50% of the childcare in order to get 50% custody? Don’t you grasp how ridiculous a demand this is? He was busy making money for the family, how could he? It is the *wife* that demands that he sacrifices himself for his career. He does not have a choice. What planet are you on??

3. helping the wifes career: what if she refuses to work? Can he force her to take job an forcibly “support” her career advancement. Have you seen how many women just fluff out as soon as they get married. Some of them don;t even have children, bu they still want to stay at home. Does the man have a say? Hell no.

Russel, you are either a woman or a very blinded man that lacks insight into real world marriages.

[justme]

[quote=Russell][quote=justme][quote=Russell]

I still think if they had lived differently in marriage they would have had a better chance at equity in child support, alimony and visitation. Divorce and subsequent life probably would have gone better overall. If the courts make decisions based on how the
couple/ family/children actually lived I can’t blame them.[/quote]

Russel, what the hell are you talking about? “if they had lived differently”? You are simply taking sides and assuming that any divorce is the man’s fault! And by the way, that is the same approach the courts are taking. No matter who did what!

Phew.[/quote]

No I am not saying that men are always at fault. This is a no fault state I believe. However, if the career/bread winning vs. nurturing/home making are out of balance, I think it should not come as a surprise that alimony and child support are forth coming. If a man can prove that there was a mutually cooperative balance in those things and he also wants and can make a good case for 50/50 custody which actually resembles how things were before the divorce , then I think there is a smaller chance of getting “screwed”.Better if he can show that he actually facilitated the advancement of his wife’s career through child care and homemaking and other sacrifice as much as she did his. The price to pay for this may be having a mediocre career but that too does add evidence to the argument that you had kids to raise them not just to pay your wife to do it. It also establishes that she can support herself as well as you can.[/quote]

1. not always at fault, no-fault divorce

You understand what no-fault means, right? It means that your wife can divorce you *even if you did nothing wrong to the marriage* (and do not forget that 70% of the time the wife is the initiator).

2. custody according to previous % childcare:

Oh, so the MAN has to PROVE that the did 50% of the childcare in order to get 50% custody? Don’t you grasp how ridiculous a demand this is? He was busy making money for the family, how could he? It is the *wife* that demands that he sacrifices himself for his career. He does not have a choice. What planet are you on??

3. helping the wifes career: what if she refuses to work? Can he force her to take job an forcibly “support” her career advancement. Have you seen how many women just fluff out as soon as they get married. Some of them don;t even have children, bu they still want to stay at home. Does the man have a say? Hell no.

Russel, you are either a woman or a very blinded man that lacks insight into real world marriages.

[justme]

[quote=Russell][quote=justme][quote=Russell]

I still think if they had lived differently in marriage they would have had a better chance at equity in child support, alimony and visitation. Divorce and subsequent life probably would have gone better overall. If the courts make decisions based on how the
couple/ family/children actually lived I can’t blame them.[/quote]

Russel, what the hell are you talking about? “if they had lived differently”? You are simply taking sides and assuming that any divorce is the man’s fault! And by the way, that is the same approach the courts are taking. No matter who did what!

Phew.[/quote]

No I am not saying that men are always at fault. This is a no fault state I believe. However, if the career/bread winning vs. nurturing/home making are out of balance, I think it should not come as a surprise that alimony and child support are forth coming. If a man can prove that there was a mutually cooperative balance in those things and he also wants and can make a good case for 50/50 custody which actually resembles how things were before the divorce , then I think there is a smaller chance of getting “screwed”.Better if he can show that he actually facilitated the advancement of his wife’s career through child care and homemaking and other sacrifice as much as she did his. The price to pay for this may be having a mediocre career but that too does add evidence to the argument that you had kids to raise them not just to pay your wife to do it. It also establishes that she can support herself as well as you can.[/quote]

1. not always at fault, no-fault divorce

You understand what no-fault means, right? It means that your wife can divorce you *even if you did nothing wrong to the marriage* (and do not forget that 70% of the time the wife is the initiator).

2. custody according to previous % childcare:

Oh, so the MAN has to PROVE that the did 50% of the childcare in order to get 50% custody? Don’t you grasp how ridiculous a demand this is? He was busy making money for the family, how could he? It is the *wife* that demands that he sacrifices himself for his career. He does not have a choice. What planet are you on??

3. helping the wifes career: what if she refuses to work? Can he force her to take job an forcibly “support” her career advancement. Have you seen how many women just fluff out as soon as they get married. Some of them don;t even have children, bu they still want to stay at home. Does the man have a say? Hell no.

Russel, you are either a woman or a very blinded man that lacks insight into real world marriages.

[justme]

[quote=Russell][quote=justme][quote=Russell]

I still think if they had lived differently in marriage they would have had a better chance at equity in child support, alimony and visitation. Divorce and subsequent life probably would have gone better overall. If the courts make decisions based on how the
couple/ family/children actually lived I can’t blame them.[/quote]

Russel, what the hell are you talking about? “if they had lived differently”? You are simply taking sides and assuming that any divorce is the man’s fault! And by the way, that is the same approach the courts are taking. No matter who did what!

Phew.[/quote]

No I am not saying that men are always at fault. This is a no fault state I believe. However, if the career/bread winning vs. nurturing/home making are out of balance, I think it should not come as a surprise that alimony and child support are forth coming. If a man can prove that there was a mutually cooperative balance in those things and he also wants and can make a good case for 50/50 custody which actually resembles how things were before the divorce , then I think there is a smaller chance of getting “screwed”.Better if he can show that he actually facilitated the advancement of his wife’s career through child care and homemaking and other sacrifice as much as she did his. The price to pay for this may be having a mediocre career but that too does add evidence to the argument that you had kids to raise them not just to pay your wife to do it. It also establishes that she can support herself as well as you can.[/quote]

1. not always at fault, no-fault divorce

You understand what no-fault means, right? It means that your wife can divorce you *even if you did nothing wrong to the marriage* (and do not forget that 70% of the time the wife is the initiator).

2. custody according to previous % childcare:

Oh, so the MAN has to PROVE that the did 50% of the childcare in order to get 50% custody? Don’t you grasp how ridiculous a demand this is? He was busy making money for the family, how could he? It is the *wife* that demands that he sacrifices himself for his career. He does not have a choice. What planet are you on??

3. helping the wifes career: what if she refuses to work? Can he force her to take job an forcibly “support” her career advancement. Have you seen how many women just fluff out as soon as they get married. Some of them don;t even have children, bu they still want to stay at home. Does the man have a say? Hell no.

Russel, you are either a woman or a very blinded man that lacks insight into real world marriages.

[Author]

Posts