If all men who never actually wanted to risk being forced to pay child support either abstained from sex or got surgically castrated, just how long would it take for our child support laws to get changed for the better?

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:10:27 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear wrote:

> If all men who never actually wanted to risk being forced to pay child support either abstained from sex or got surgically castrated, just how long would it take for our child support laws to get changed for the better?

The main reason for the child support system is that the government does
not want to pay these bills. If there are no bills, then it would not
exist.

From personal experience, I can say that this department is the
worst run government agency I have ever dealt with. It needs an overhaul.

> SolomonW
> > WolfBear
> >
> > If all men who never actually wanted to risk being forced to pay child support
> > either abstained from sex or got surgically castrated, just how long would it
> > take for our child support laws to get changed for the better?
>
> The main reason for the child support system is that the government does
> not want to pay these bills. If there are no bills, then it would not exist.

Sure, but the child support regulations are rooted in the obsolete idea that
most women don't work when the exact opposite is the case nowadays,
creating a situation where it's in the woman's benefit to divorce her husband,
(or for a single gal, get a kid before her biological clocks runs out) as she's
guaranteed a monthly paycheck that she can spend how she pleases while
still holding down a job.

I'd suggest the answer would be to require the (claimed) father to sign off on
accepting financial responsibility for the child (in cases of unmarried moms)
or be automatically absolved of this burden.

This would eliminate the problem of single-moms almost overnight and further
more, eliminate all kinda other problems that stem from single-motherhood;

https://ibb.co/swKKgzq

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 08:18:27 -0700 (PDT), edstas...@gmail.com wrote:

>> SolomonW
>>> WolfBear
>>>
>>> If all men who never actually wanted to risk being forced to pay child support
>>> either abstained from sex or got surgically castrated, just how long would it
>>> take for our child support laws to get changed for the better?
>>
>> The main reason for the child support system is that the government does
>> not want to pay these bills. If there are no bills, then it would not exist.
>
> Sure, but the child support regulations are rooted in the obsolete idea that
> most women don't work when the exact opposite is the case nowadays,
> creating a situation where it's in the woman's benefit to divorce her husband,
> (or for a single gal, get a kid before her biological clocks runs out) as she's
> guaranteed a monthly paycheck that she can spend how she pleases while
> still holding down a job.

Plus, she often does no longer need to work helped by too many feminazi
staff in the department.

>
> I'd suggest the answer would be to require the (claimed) father to sign off on
> accepting financial responsibility for the child (in cases of unmarried moms)
> or be automatically absolved of this burden.
>
> This would eliminate the problem of single-moms almost overnight and further
> more, eliminate all kinda other problems that stem from single-motherhood;

I think something has to be done for married people too.

Part of the reason so many men live alone nowadays is because of the
potential problems here.

>
> https://ibb.co/swKKgzq

Interesting website

> SolomonW
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > I'd suggest the answer would be to require the (claimed) father to sign off on
> > accepting financial responsibility for the child (in cases of unmarried moms)
> > or be automatically absolved of this burden.
>
> I think something has to be done for married people too.

Agreed, after watching what a friend is going thru with a divorce but from
what I've seen, this mostly can't be done legally and instead requires a cultural
change that holds women responsible for their (bat-shit crazy) actions.

A divorced guy will get thrown in jail at the drop of a hat pretty much based on
the ex-wife's word alone, whereas an abusive/insane gal is given break after
break by the courts, as our society is still stuck in the mentality that divorced
women are frail and helpless creatures who are incapable of doing evil.

And with the advent of social media, this has only gotten worse as there are
forums where divorced gals get together and provide tactics and strategies to
women looking to fuck over their soon-to-be-ex-husband and get away with it.
> > https://ibb.co/swKKgzq
>
> Interesting website

Another example of a change needed in our culture but instead, the media
and Hollywood continue to portray single-moms as some kinda "strong/brave"
model for women to emulate.

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 8:18:28 AM UTC-7, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > SolomonW
> > > WolfBear
> > >
> > > If all men who never actually wanted to risk being forced to pay child support
> > > either abstained from sex or got surgically castrated, just how long would it
> > > take for our child support laws to get changed for the better?
> >
> > The main reason for the child support system is that the government does
> > not want to pay these bills. If there are no bills, then it would not exist.
> Sure, but the child support regulations are rooted in the obsolete idea that
> most women don't work when the exact opposite is the case nowadays,
> creating a situation where it's in the woman's benefit to divorce her husband,
> (or for a single gal, get a kid before her biological clocks runs out) as she's
> guaranteed a monthly paycheck that she can spend how she pleases while
> still holding down a job.
>
> I'd suggest the answer would be to require the (claimed) father to sign off on
> accepting financial responsibility for the child (in cases of unmarried moms)
> or be automatically absolved of this burden.
>
> This would eliminate the problem of single-moms almost overnight and further
> more, eliminate all kinda other problems that stem from single-motherhood;
>

It would certainly prevent me from getting a bilateral epididymectomy and, if that fails, from chopping my balls off!

> https://ibb.co/swKKgzq

On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 19:28:27 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear wrote:

> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 8:18:28 AM UTC-7, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> SolomonW
>>> > WolfBear
>>> >
>>> > If all men who never actually wanted to risk being forced to pay child support
>>> > either abstained from sex or got surgically castrated, just how long would it
>>> > take for our child support laws to get changed for the better?
>>>
>>> The main reason for the child support system is that the government does
>>> not want to pay these bills. If there are no bills, then it would not exist.
>> Sure, but the child support regulations are rooted in the obsolete idea that
>> most women don't work when the exact opposite is the case nowadays,
>> creating a situation where it's in the woman's benefit to divorce her husband,
>> (or for a single gal, get a kid before her biological clocks runs out) as she's
>> guaranteed a monthly paycheck that she can spend how she pleases while
>> still holding down a job.
>>
>> I'd suggest the answer would be to require the (claimed) father to sign off on
>> accepting financial responsibility for the child (in cases of unmarried moms)
>> or be automatically absolved of this burden.
>>
>> This would eliminate the problem of single-moms almost overnight and further
>> more, eliminate all kinda other problems that stem from single-motherhood;
>>
>
> It would certainly prevent me from getting a bilateral epididymectomy and, if that fails, from chopping my balls off!

A friend of mine had sex with a woman. A short time later, she was pregnant
and claimed he was the father. He had to pay some money till they did some
test. When it was found he was not the father, he could stop the payments,
but they said that he could not get the money he paid back. It was claimed
she had legit reasons to believe that he was the father.

>
>> https://ibb.co/swKKgzq

> SolomonW
> > WolfBear
> >
> > It would certainly prevent me from getting a bilateral epididymectomy and,
> > if that fails, from chopping my balls off!
>
> A friend of mine had sex with a woman. A short time later, she was pregnant
> and claimed he was the father. He had to pay some money till they did some
> test.

The sister of a guy I know pulled the same stunt. She was pushing 40
and unmarried so she simply "forgot" to take her birth control pills and got
pregnant. The guy wouldn't marry her but the kid was still his, so he's on the
hook for 18-21 years of child support payments (and he already has two kids
from a previous marriage…)

> When it was found he was not the father, he could stop the payments, but they
> said that he could not get the money he paid back. It was claimed she had legit
> reasons to believe that he was the father.

France has made paternity tests illegal without a court order (and you can
be assured this will come to the U.S.) and of course the courts rarely grant
them because as you pointed out, it's in the State’s best interest that
_someone_ pay for the kid, even if the guy isn't the actual father…

And on the divorce side, Canada has passed legislation that simply dating
a gal for X years is the equivalent of marriage and somehow entitles her to
alimony and child support payments in the event of a break-up.

https://ibb.co/qCbYLRg

https://ibb.co/mFjZ0Y8

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 8:18:55 AM UTC-7, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > SolomonW
> > > WolfBear
> > >
> > > It would certainly prevent me from getting a bilateral epididymectomy and,
> > > if that fails, from chopping my balls off!
> >
> > A friend of mine had sex with a woman. A short time later, she was pregnant
> > and claimed he was the father. He had to pay some money till they did some
> > test.
> The sister of a guy I know pulled the same stunt. She was pushing 40
> and unmarried so she simply "forgot" to take her birth control pills and got
> pregnant. The guy wouldn't marry her but the kid was still his, so he's on the
> hook for 18-21 years of child support payments (and he already has two kids
> from a previous marriage…)
> > When it was found he was not the father, he could stop the payments, but they
> > said that he could not get the money he paid back. It was claimed she had legit
> > reasons to believe that he was the father.
> France has made paternity tests illegal without a court order (and you can
> be assured this will come to the U.S.) and of course the courts rarely grant
> them because as you pointed out, it's in the State’s best interest that
> _someone_ pay for the kid, even if the guy isn't the actual father…
>
> And on the divorce side, Canada has passed legislation that simply dating
> a gal for X years is the equivalent of marriage and somehow entitles her to
> alimony and child support payments in the event of a break-up.

That will simply discourage people from dating single mothers, then!

>
> https://ibb.co/qCbYLRg
>
> https://ibb.co/mFjZ0Y8

On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 6:02:50 PM UTC-7, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > WolfBear
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > >
> > > And on the divorce side, Canada has passed legislation that simply dating
> > > a gal for X years is the equivalent of marriage and somehow entitles her to
> > > alimony and child support payments in the event of a break-up.
> >
> > That will simply discourage people from dating single mothers, then!
> It doesn't have to be a single mom, date a childless gal long enough and she
> can "divorce" you and take all your money and stuff.

Fuck!

On Sat, 5 Jun 2021 08:18:54 -0700 (PDT), "edstas...@gmail.com"
<edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>And on the divorce side, Canada has passed legislation that simply dating
>a gal for X years is the equivalent of marriage and somehow entitles her to
>alimony and child support payments in the event of a break-up.

Uh no - it's cohabitation for two years.

Although there WAS a case where a guy had to pay child support for the
child of a woman he had lived with but wasn't his as it was a child
who had called him Dad and the judge applied the 'in the best
interests of the child" rule which normally only applies in custody
matters in a divorce. (Not sure whether this was appealed)

> The Horny Goat
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > And on the divorce side, Canada has passed legislation that simply dating
> > a gal for X years is the equivalent of marriage and somehow entitles her to
> > alimony and child support payments in the event of a break-up.
>
> Uh no - it's cohabitation for two years.

Ok, I stand corrected and it's still absolute bullshit.

> Although there WAS a case where a guy had to pay child support for the
> child of a woman he had lived with but wasn't his as it was a child who
> had called him Dad and the judge applied the 'in the best interests of the
> child" rule which normally only applies in custody matters in a divorce.
> (Not sure whether this was appealed)

And how long were they cohabiting?