patrick.net

Not a surprise - google "Code Pink Hospital".

Hospitals have drills training all staff to go to the doors and lock everything down...

And these same women turned down plenty of engineering majors who were willing to commit and now have high paying jobs and are stable and reliable companions.

Dan8267 says

And these same women turned down plenty of engineering majors who were willing to commit and now have high paying jobs and are stable and reliable companions.

Sounds like more men need to get a vasectomy.

Things have gotten out of hand. Pregnancy tests you can buy, huh?

It's not enough to fake enjoying the conception - now you can fake the announcement and the entire pregnancy. Ain't life grand?

What happens when they reveal that they are not really pregnant?

Heraclitusstudent says

What happens when they reveal that they are not really pregnant?

They get a divorce and she gets his house and half his income for life.

Evidently the sex blackmail wasn't working so the fake pregnancy ploy was the next step.

Let them think you're broke and you'll never have such problems :)

I can't get over the fact that ANYONE would want to handle someone else's pee-stick! YUCK! That's up there with handling some stranger's dirty underwear.... or used condom.

I suppose when you're done showing your +HPT, you can download someone else's ultrasound to really bring the point home. People are nuts.

So the message here is, if she shows you a +HPT, make her pee on another one right in front of you.

It's not all bad news - I can see some future Jerry Springer episodes, though.

Lesson for men: Buy a pregnancy test on the way home. Mark the stick in some recognizable way. Get her to pee on it.

Better yet: Don't get married anyway. It's an institution that was destroyed some time ago BY WOMEN who radically changed the role of women in marriage. I am personally glad that women have entered the workforce en masse (We have all gained from this -- truly), but to suggest that "marriage" is still as good a deal for men would be lunacy.

It's an absolutely *terrible* arrangement for men today. Which is why men, by the millions are basically just saying "No thanks. What's in it for me?". To which women resort to calling men cold and heartless. (But as we can see from stories like this, "heart" has little to do with it).

One must also note that in all surveys, professional women ALL hope to "marry up". So the notion that marriage is now more equal, or about something called "love" is a bit laughable.

Besides, we don't need more people in the world. Be single. Enjoy being single. And don't get conned into thinking that the word "marriage" means the same thing that it has over the centuries. It doesn't. This thing they're currently calling "marriage" is a grotesque distortion of what it used to be.

Women changed the role of women. Men, I believe, are better off for it in the professional arena. But at home? Just lol. Not even close. That arrangement has been twisted into something that's just plain bad for the boys.

I see your point. American women are trained to be bratty, entitled, and selfish. However, they can be retrained. Its amazing what a good wake-up call will do for a marriage. Personally, I like being married, having a family, having a companion and lover for life. She's my closest friend and the person I talk with more than anyone else. Where we clash is at the points that feminism has told her she needs to be a certain way. Mostly this has to do with household chores. With three kids, these can really pile up! I'm busy, she's busy (she works too), and fighting over who has to spend their precious free time cleaning was no bueno. So we got a maid that comes every couple of weeks to give the place a good once over. Best decision ever!
Marriage can work, but you gotta be committed to it, spend time with each other, and try to farm out the housework if you both work.

Women are not interested in men skilled in periodic formulas, as they can calculate and identify an oncoming pregnancy scam.

Dan8267 says

And these same women turned down plenty of engineering majors who were willing to commit and now have high paying jobs and are stable and reliable companions.

+1.

Obio99 says

And don't get conned into thinking that the word "marriage" means the same thing that it has over the centuries. It doesn't. This thing they're currently calling "marriage" is a grotesque distortion of what it used to be.

Heraclitusstudent says

What happens when they reveal that they are not really pregnant?

That's where the vasectomy really comes in handy. You just play along with the "surprise" pregnancy until the right moment comes along.

Reminds me of another fave Best-Of

Vasectomy: $400. Speechless look on her face: priceless.

I'll try to sum up a funny story that happened a few years ago:

I got a vasectomy.

I met a girl soon afterwards. She was nice and attractive but with a selfish streak that raised a big red flag. She was 32 at the time and I could practically HEAR her biological clock ticking. Regardless, she was a good lay, easy on the eyes, and reasonably good company.

I did NOT tell her about my vasectomy and I always used a condom with her to protect against STDs. She assumed, obviously, that the condom was only used for birth control. Silly girl.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html

I don't think that the problem is American women, at large. The problem is with the legal system. We've created a system that allows women to profit from their fertility. We have turned motherhood into a potential windfall of security. It's not about the needs of the children being met. In this country, we pretty much pad child support so that it's tax-free alimony that's flown under the flag of child support.

I lived in Europe for a few years. The women there aren't all that different. I met many who were just as interested in marrying well and living an easy life as women are here. Don't kid yourselves. What is different is that when they get divorced, the mother isn't getting a fat (tax-free) annuity for the next 20 years simply because children are involved. Of course they still have child support, but the amounts are based on needs of children as opposed to some la-la-land concepts of "ability to pay" and "best interests of the children."

Having kids has become quite the meal ticket in this country.

Dan8267 says

And these same women turned down plenty of engineering majors who were willing to commit and now have high paying jobs and are stable and reliable companions.

ah, your fallacy there is the assumption that women are turned on by stable and reliable companions. they are not. such men may be the best economic choice, but it's not just about economics.

see http://heartiste.wordpress.com/ but be warned that it's extremely politically incorrect

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

What happens when they reveal that they are not really pregnant?

They get a divorce and she gets his house and half his income for life.

Presumably you wouldn't marry a woman who is trapping you for child support, unless you really really believe it was an accident, and it's really the case, she should conceivably accept to have an abortion.

Plus if she really had a child this way, wouldn't you get a paternity test before spending the next 20yrs paying child support?

The only trap is if she *really* has a child from you.

turtledove says

I lived in Europe for a few years. The women there aren't all that different. I met many who were just as interested in marrying well and living an easy life as women are here. Don't kid yourselves. What is different is that when they get divorced, the mother isn't getting a fat (tax-free) annuity for the next 20 years simply because children are involved. Of course they still have child support, but the amounts are based on needs of children as opposed to some la-la-land concepts of "ability to pay" and "best interests of the children."

Exactly. Women are biologically wired to look for resourceful men. This is true everywhere, except women from poorer countries have more modest expectations.
In the US, feminism has transformed these expectations into legal entitlement.

Child support based on 'ability to pay' is a purely feminist law meant to punish men.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Heraclitusstudent says

What happens when they reveal that they are not really pregnant?

They get a divorce and she gets his house and half his income for life.

Presumably you wouldn't marry a woman who is trapping you for child support, unless you really really believe it was an accident, and it was she should conceivably have an abortion.

Plus if she really had a child this way, wouldn't you get a paternity test before spending the next 20yrs paying child support?

The only trap is if she *really* has a child from you.

What if....you believe she really is pregnant even for a while, and you let your guards down, and stop using contraceptives. Now she really could end up pregnant. You're in real trouble now.

Heraclitusstudent says

What happens when they reveal that they are not really pregnant?

elliemae says

I can see some future Jerry Springer episodes, though

Or in a more sinister fashion a future case on Information Discovery.

Heraclitusstudent says

Child support based on 'ability to pay' is a purely feminist law meant to punish men.

It's a magic trick. You take a pie. You divide the pie between two people. One half of the pie represents no more than half of the original pie. The other half of the pie is actually larger than the entire original pie. I don't know what's so difficult to understand. Sounds like something the Fed might have come up with. Equitable division is fun.

The story loses it's 'funnyness' when you realize the guy is just porking a piece of meat, no love involved. What a sorry way to go through life.
He might as well hollow out a watermelon and have his way with it.

Automan Empire says

I'll try to sum up a funny story that happened a few years ago:

turtledove says

Heraclitusstudent says

Child support based on 'ability to pay' is a purely feminist law meant to punish men.

It's a magic trick. You take a pie. You divide the pie between two people. One half of the pie represents no more than half of the original pie. The other half of the pie is actually larger than the entire original pie. I don't know what's so difficult to understand. Sounds like something the Fed might have come up with. Equitable division is fun.

Do men get primary custody 50% of the time? Do men get a 50% of the vote in whether to keep, adopt out, or have an abortion?

I'm not advocating the latter, but don't you think men should be able to opt out of fatherhood if they clearly state their intent not to have a child and use protection during the relationship? Otherwise men have no reproductive rights.

Whereas under modern law, women can give away, keep, or abort any baby they want and the father's opinion counts for nothing. That ain't equal.

Men are designed to keep as many women as possible brimming with sperm at at all times.

The fact that the women have the audacity to become pregnant is, well, unnatural.

One of the illegal alien females I know had a fight with her boyfriend. So, she had a one time fling with a guy from the gummy bear factory on the west side to get "revenge".

The poor slob knocked her up. So he's paying her $400 per month on his gummy bear factory job. I bet he's depressed.

So this guy's one time experience with the "hot tamale" will cost him $86,400 at least.

I don't get it, the proper technique is shown in numerous educational videos called "porn". He should have watched "Cream Rinse" first.

clambo says

I don't get it, the proper technique is shown in numerous educational videos

In this day and age, when people are paying 5-figures to get pregnant, most people getting pregnant accidentally must be morons. It's really not that hard or expensive to avoid, and it's the people who can afford it the least who are not thinking long-term about this.

There is a cultural divide here between low income/uneducated people and higher income/higher educated people on children. The high income/education group thinks of child-raising as a larger burden, that children are for when you settle down, that the child must be raised properly or not at all, and that having a child may require a sacrifice to other parts of your life. The low income/educated people don't see children as an impediment to their life and think they only need to get married when they "settle down," but you can have children before you settle down -- hence all the unmarried parents. This split attitude towards children only makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, all from their own doing.

By the way, for those of you in relationships where you've already had one kid that's currently being breast-fed, don't trust the minipill as birth control -- failure rate is huge.

turtledove says

In this country, we pretty much pad child support so that it's tax-free alimony that's flown under the flag of child support.

The way to avoid it is joint custody in some states, actually. One way to get fake pregnancy women to back off is to say that you won't marry her and that you will seek joint custody of the child so that they get no child support.

Btw, if you are dating a nurse, they may be able to get a fake ultrasound too -- actual story I heard. That guy actually threatened to seek full custody while not marrying her.

thunderlips11 says

Do men get primary custody 50% of the time? Do men get a 50% of the vote in whether to keep, adopt out, or have an abortion?

If support were limited to needs, of which both parents were responsible for providing half, none of this would be such an issue. The rest would boil down to making good partner choices. Unfortunately, it's about providing a lot more than needs and the responsibility falls on the party with no rights to self-determine the outcome unless he sterilizes himself. You guys were blindsided by laws that are stacked squarely against you.

Can you imagine if women were faced with such a choice....? Sterilize themselves OR be forced to have a child they don't want and assume all financial responsibility, while someone else decides how the money is to be used -- in the child's best interest? Women would be screaming in the streets if that were the case.

It's very wrong and profoundly unfair. So why aren't you guys fighting harder? Women would be. I suppose when all our sons are of reproductive age, more women will lend you their support. Watch out, though. It could just as easily become law that you are also on the hook for your son's mistakes. Remember, it's in the best interests of the child to have support from those with the greatest ability to pay. Our newest crop of young men don't have the ability to pay. But you might. Consider yourselves warned! :)

turtledove says

It's very wrong and profoundly unfair. So why aren't you guys fighting harder? Women would be. I suppose when all our sons are of reproductive age, more women will lend you their support. Watch out, though. It could just as easily become law that you are also on the hook for your son's mistakes. Remember, it's in the best interests of the child to have support from those with the greatest ability to pay. Our newest crop of young men don't have the ability to pay. But you might. Consider yourselves warned! :)

No doubt the child comes first. It is your flesh and blood, and not wanting the baby is not the baby's fault. This baby deserves a full time father, but you will probably not be able to deliver on that. The least you can do is to pay your fair share.

Men should be given the choice to foot half the bill for an abortion, or be absolved of any potential future costs. Have those desires notarized, and if some piece of shit worthless judge, with the prison and probate system waiting in the wings for their windfall, stakes claim otherwise,,,,,prepare your gaitling gun

So what country would you buy citizenship to in order to escape paying child support?

Enquiring minds want to know.

It's not "personal", I wanna know in case I need to become a "Clairian" of planet Claire also.

Let me guess: Haiti or Bangladesh?

After all, a "man with money" should protect himself at all times, ha ha, you're too much.
Oh, now it's just murder like Blake did? That's not financially wise, lawyers cost more than the child support.

Keep giving us the benefit of your wisdom, we are all ears.

turtledove says

So why aren't you guys fighting harder?

I dunno.

My guess is that middle class white guys don't see themselves as victims, and guys like to be seen as "in control". There are MRAs, but some of them are the male equivalent of Rad Fems, just at the other extreme.

At least it's not as bad as Britain in the 19th Century. There was a time when the head of household was responsible for his unwed sisters actions AND debts, so an alcoholic spinster could gamble away the family's entire fortune, and his kids and wife and he himself would end up in the Workhouse. He could neither restrain his alcoholic sister financially, physically, etc. but had to pay for all the mistakes and debts.

turtledove says

My husband has paid three-quarter's of a million dollars in court-ordered child support for two kids over the last twelve years. When the oldest started college two years ago, she told him there was no money.

We could make child support based on reimbursements, rather than a set fee the woman has total control of.

"$300 for hair coloring at Wonder Day Spa? Janet is only 9 years old!"
"That was me. My new boyfriend and I---."
"I'm not paying for that. This is child support, not adult support."

vs.

"$300 for hair coloring at Wonder Day Spa?"
"Janet's Prom, she's 17 you know"
"*SIGH* Fine."

clambo says

Turtledove's story is amazing.

You realize that I am NOT the ex-wife, right? If I had received the money she had, I'm pretty sure I'd have two dimes to rub together to contribute to my child's education.

clambo says

Did he pay for your "premium" Patrick account or did you?

I know, I know. $5/month... I'm like a princess!

turtledove says

So why aren't you guys fighting harder? Women would be.

We don't like to whine (except anonymously online).

We should recruit deprived second wives to do it for us.

SoftShell says

The story loses it's 'funnyness' when you realize the guy is just porking a piece of meat, no love involved.

A sad legacy of the now 45 year old sexual revolution.

thunderlips11 says

We could make child support based on reimbursements, rather than a set fee the woman has total control of.

We tried so hard to include expense accounting in the new law. I think the issue is the practicality of having to treat each and every child support case as a unique situation. With standard rates, you simplify the cases a bit. Even though the amounts were reduced, you still had padding. For example, 7% of the GA support amount was for activities. This gets back to needs v. wants. Activities for children shouldn't be a part of the c/s calculation. It's just not a need. Do we force parents in intact marriages to pay a set amount for activities? Of course not. But when it comes to c/s, there is a portion that is allotted for such things.... whether the custodial parent chooses to spend it on activities for the kids, or not.

Enjoy your watermelon.

P N Dr Lo R says

SoftShell says

The story loses it's 'funnyness' when you realize the guy is just porking a piece of meat, no love involved.

A sad legacy of the now 45 year old sexual revolution.

All I can say is that I am fortunate to have met my wife back when I was in college back in my early 20s. The things I hear about the dating scene from the people in their 30s and 40s are sickening to say the least. It's like gangsta rap - "watch your back or u might get smoked!"

dublin hillz says

All I can say is that I am fortunate to have met my wife back when I was in college back in my early 20s. The things I hear about the dating scene from the people in their 30s and 40s are sickening to say the least. It's like gangsta rap - "watch your back or u might get smoked!"

Better to get smoked, than burnt,,,nigga!