This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Snowie Stormflower wrote on 2014-10-01 07:30
I see results of this kind of scenario a lot, either because parties both forgot to use protection or because the woman didn't take the pill on purpose.
(I can tell by the way they're handling the kids or the looks on their faces/general behavour towards eachother)
It's scary how much power women actually have in general society, if you look at the subject of relationships, extreme feminists should be ashamed for what they're demanding because the amount of rights they have (or the value of those) far surpass those of men.
A lot of people don't realise what they're getting into, having and raising a child looks great to those who have never had to deal with it before, but it can be true terror if you make a few mistakes. (I have a 9-year old sister myself and am basically forced to watch how my parents have turned her into a spoiled little brat, and she'll be a VERY problematic teenager if nothing gets done).
I really despise the current system though: "Hey man, you don't want any kids? Too bad, your girlfriend/wife decides that, she may already be pregnant without having told you."
And from that point forward, the man is trapped for either the rest of his life or until the child is old enough to stop needing to be paid child support for.
(PS: I was confused by the title at first, thinking this was gonna be about a scenario in which the roles were switched)
-
Zekkii wrote on 2014-10-01 08:54
Quote from Hanna;1249459:
How are #2 for a and #2 against different
Well #2 for means genetic proof is required if the mother wishes for child support, but #2 against means that the potential father wouldn't be able to demand a test provided he was given no obligations. Basically it would still be the mother's decision to take the test, sacrificing a little bit of privacy for monetary gain.
-
Darkboy132 wrote on 2014-10-01 17:45
And I thought men had a lot of power back then... (*cough* Slavery *cough*)
But jeez, a woman pulling the strings in reproductive rights is crazy.
-
Hanna wrote on 2014-10-01 20:39
Quote from Zekkii;1249468:
Well #2 for means genetic proof is required if the mother wishes for child support, but #2 against means that the potential father wouldn't be able to demand a test provided he was given no obligations. Basically it would still be the mother's decision to take the test, sacrificing a little bit of privacy for monetary gain.
gotcha i agree
@Snowie
[Image: http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/44004940.jpg]
-
Aubog007 wrote on 2014-10-02 04:10
Well there are ways out of child support as a guy. Hell my step mother has it reversed, she has to pay child support, with no job. Talk about the irony.
And she couldn't pay the child support either, they just slapped the bill to my dad and took it out of their taxes.