In-Reply-To: <4gcoo5$akn@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> 
Message-ID: 
References: <4f5sq0$cr3@dorsai.dorsai.org> <4gajts$kg@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4gcmle$1dao@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> <4gcoo5$akn@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status: 


	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard

>  writes: 
> >*You* obviously must be male to come up with logic like that!

> > "She got herself in the the mess in the first place!"

When my son was conceived, I was tied spread-eagled to the bed, 
blind-folded, and ball-gagged.  THEN my (now-ex) wife. let me know she 
WASNT going to use a condom!  When she wanted to tie me up, I hadn't seen 
her for a month, and we were accustomed to using both condom and 
spermicide during coitus.

All I could think in the blackness was - when I come, I will pay for it 
for the next 20 years.

Many years later, she told my sister and several of her friends that she 
had used a thermometer and litmus paper to be certain that she would only 
have to do it once.

The moment the pregnancy was confirmed, she refused to have any form of 
sex with me for 3 years.  At the end of the 3rd year, she again offered 
to have sex with me.  Once in March, once in August.  Each time I asked 
her to promise not to "cut me off again" and to promise to stay with me 
for the next 20 years.  Both times, she made both promises.  The day 
after the pregnancy was confirmed, she went back to her asexual self.

She liked to tease me, get me slightly aroused, and then tell me that she 
would rather hand-wash the toilets than have sex with me again.  She also 
said this to a room filled with 10 of our mutual friends.

I now pay $1200/month in support, insurances, and benefits on
after-withholding income of $3000/month.  My ex pays $350/month for a 3
bedroom 2500 square-foot house in a Yuppie suburb while I pay $700/month for
a 300 sq foot "efficiency" in a neighborhood where someone gets mugged at
least once/day.

She and her handsome husband - 10 years younger than I, both collect
disability, have been going to college for over 5 years (they keep changing
their majors).  He already has a math degree.  He is capable of earning
$45,000/year today.  She is capable of earning over $40,000/year.  Even if
both were earning at their full potential, it would only reduce my child
support by $40/month.  It wouldn't even cover the increase in taxes due to
lose of the children as dependents. 

> > How archaic can you get?

> >I suppose the male would be an unwilling sexual partner?

I think I've just illustrated one scenario.  For the first child, she 
raped me, for the second one, she used fraud.  To get the divorce (so 
that she could marry her lover) she used extortion and black-mail.

No sane man would willingly become an NCP on purpose.  No sane man would 
deliberately put himself in a position to pay 20-25% of his GROSS income 
while paying taxes at the single rate of 50-60%.  For a "one night stand".

Most men are never told about the "Uniform Dissolution of Marriage", or 
any of the other names for the Draconian measures of Child Support 
determination.

Most men consider the promise of "marriage for life" as part of the total 
agreement to have children in the first place.

> >If a man is willing to have sex with a woman he should be willing to 
> >face the fact she may end up being the mother of his child. 

Men who willingly become fathers are doing so in the context of a 
commitment.  I realize there are those, especially those in the Military, 
who think it's cool to put a "Jewel in the Crown" (get a girl pregnant 
and then disappear forever).  

There is, however a substantial minority (let's say 40%) of men who are
responsible and committed to both their marriage and their children.  When
the woman unilaterally files for divorce in a no-fault state, and gets a
"default judgement" of 20% of the income that a man has spent 20 years of his
life trying to get - so that he could properly care for his wife and
children, while forcing him to settle for a monastic life-style and
"Visitation" of a few hours/month, can you tell me how many sane, responsible
men would willingly and sanely make that choice? 

Our entire justice system was set up, with the Bill of Rights based on 
the premise that "Better 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent man be 
convicted unjustly".  By "streamlining" the family court system, by 
revoking the right to know the charges, face the accusers, call 
witnesses, and be given councel, we have force men to accept 
"settlements" that are little more than extortion.  Hundreds of men have 
committed suicide rather than go to jail for non-payment.  At least one 
has been shot for resisting arrest on unconstitutional charges of being 
in arrears.  Even more have been exposed to HIV, and are facing certain 
death, as a result of the enforcement of child-support orders.

Honest men work 60 hours/week - and more, trying to make enough to 
survive, only to have it soaked up by taxes and child-support.

>  If that is
> >a concern he'd rather not face he should wear a condom or abstain, but

Condoms break and slip off.  Condoms alone are the most ineffective form 
of birth control next to the Rythm Method.  ALL OTHER forms of BIRTH 
CONTROL require the consent of the woman.

Do you want me to have the right to FORCE you to use an IUD, Norplant, or 
Birth control pills?  What about the effect of antibotics on birth 
control pills (you're "fertile Myrtle" for 8-10 weeks, but Mr Moneybags 
thinks he's safe).

Do you want to give me the right to FORCE you to have an abortion?  How 
about the right to FORCE you to put it up for adoption?  Do you want me 
to have the right to tell the doctors to strap you to the guerney so that 
you can never see your child - they way they did to Elizebeth ROE?

Do you want me to have the right to FORCE you to have a baby.  Do you 
want to give your husband the right to rape you and force you to carry 
his baby so that he can take custody of it just before he starts school 
(when you will no longer be "necessary").

You have the RIGHT to make these choices about about your body.  Do you 
want to forfeit those rights to be able to righteously claim I have the 
power of Choice?

Finally, are you willing to become a prisoner, wear a chastity belt, and 
never be alone in a room with another man so that I can guarantee that I 
am the only man who could possibly be the father?

Even if you would, it wouldn't matter.  I've had a vasectomy.  The only 
children I will ever have are living in another man's house, with another 
man's wife, while I PAY HIS RENT, FOOD, and CAR bills.

Tell me how much choice I had.

> >to indicate that he isn't equally responsible should she turn up 
> >pregnant shows a mentality that is primeval.

I am responsible for letting a woman tie me up.  I am responsible for 
believing a network of lies that started the day we met.  I am 
responsible for allowing her to take custody of children she beat 
regularly, to live with a man she met in the Lock-Up-Ward of a 
Psychiatric Hospital.  Because I didn't have the $50,000 in cash needed 
to pay for her lawyer, my lawyer, and "investigation fees" for social 
workers employed by the local "Social Services".  She had embezzled 
everything.

The irony is that if I miss a payment, I"M the one who would go to jail, 
without a trial, without a hearing to determine the merits of the claim, 
and without even the benefit of an attourney (which I REALLY can't afford 
now).

> --------------------------------------
> Cynthia;
> 
> You have to remember that the folks who are bringing us this great
> programming are the same folks that originally decried the right of a
> woman to choose.

I believe you should have the right to choose.  I also believe that you 
must be responsible for the consequences of those choices.  If you choose 
to seduce a man that you don't intend to stay with for the next 20 years, 
you should come up with some plan of action that gives you the ability to 
become self-sufficient or find someone else, within a relatively short 
period of time (3-5 years?).

My wife wanted $400/month, for 5 years.  This would be long enough to get 
her degree and long enough for Jerry (her new husband) to get established.
The state guidelines required subtantially more ($500 + $300/month for 
daycare) for a subtantially longer period of time.  The judge didn't know 
until he asked if she wanted to switch back to her married name, that she 
was going to be married in 2 weeks.

> Any time SOME men feel the need to control, they try
> to find new ways to express that need.

Control?  Leslie didn't even have to bother with the sex.  She could have 
just filled up a condom and inserted it with a turkey baster.  All she 
had to do was pretend to be asleep on the couch and wait for the bed to 
stop squeeking.  She would have had a hard time selling the "Emaculate 
Concpetion" though.

> I suppose they figure if they
> are unable to  "head 'em up and move 'em out" by forming the bathroom
> posse to make sure we can't abort,

I support a woman's reproductive choices.  But if she decides that she 
would rather have some other man be the father to my children (including 
calling him "Daddy"), then why shouldn't she have HIM pay for the Kid's 
day-care.  Instead, I get to pay HIM to babysit (off the books of course).

> they will try to control wherever
> they can, even if that form of control means running out on
> responsibility.

I believe there is a fundamental law of the universe.  The law of "Cause 
and Effect".  For each action or "choice", there are consequences.  
Someone must be reponsible for those consequences.  A responsible person 
is responsible for the consequences of their choices.  An irresponsible 
person makes choices without being responsible for the the consequenses 
of those choices.

When a man racks up $3000 on his credit card, he doesn't expect the bank 
to pay the debt of for him.  When a woman racks up $3000 on a her 
husband's credit card, she expects him to include that liablity on his 
half of the settlement.  She wants the house in her name, she wants the 
mortgage in his name.

$1000/month for 20 years is about $240,000.  A pretty hefty paycheck for 
2 year's work.

I realize that there are men who get women pregnant and "skip town", that 
there are men who get married and then trade the "old hag" in for a 
"trophy wife".  I realize that there are men who beat their wives into 
submission.  I support using the full force of the law to prosecute these 
people for the appropriate crimes, and force them to pay restitution to 
the victims.  What I ask is "due process", before we start throwing 
innocent men into prison with HIV infected felons.

How many women would be willing to murder an innocent man?

> Lefty


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Feb 20 23:32:39 1996
Newsgroups: alt.child-support