Introduction Drama is usually associated with information, education and communication (IEC) more than advocacy.

It becomes an advocacy method when: The general public has been identified as an indirect target who will go on to influence a direct target for example, subjects of a chief who will influence the chief Influential people are in the audience for example, ministers watching a young peoples performance. Drama can also be used in planning advocacy work, especially to involve beneficiaries (the people affected by the advocacy issue). Drama is useful in identifying and analysing issues, developing solutions and identifying targets and allies. Drama is an effective advocacy method because it can bring a theoretical issue to life, making it emotionally powerful, more interesting, easy to understand and relevant to peoples lives. In some situations, a play is more likely to be noticed and memorable than a written report. It can be a useful way to involve a wide range of people with very different levels of analytical skills and experience at local, national and international level. Drama by itself can be a powerful way to convey messages and persuade people of our points of view. Its impact can be increased by adding activities that involve the audience. For example, discussions can be held after the performance, or forum theatre can be used, in which the audience is invited to explore possible courses of action for the characters. Drama can address sensitive issues that are difficult to talk about. It can also be used as evidence to support an issue. Performances can be video-taped to share with people in positions of influence who cannot attend a live performance. Note: All of the above can also apply to other art forms for example, songs and story-telling. Advantages Drama is an easily understood and commonly used means of communication. No need for literacy. Good for involving people at community level. Can be more powerful than written advocacy at any level. It captures emotions, personal experiences and other peoples points of view which are difficult to convey by using other advocacy methods. It creates an environment where controversial issues can be discussed. Drama often attracts media coverage which increases its impact. Disadvantages It may be difficult to put new messages calling for change into traditional drama which often supports the status quo. It can be dominated by people who enjoy performing. Issues can be lost in the entertainment especially when professional actors are involved. It is more commonly used for IEC, and therefore the targets may miss the advocacy messages or not take

them seriously. Skills-building activity Objective: By the end of the session participants will be able to plan and perform a simple drama for HIVrelated advocacy work Preparation time: 2 hours Resources: How to... Handout Instructions Timing: 2 hours 1 Introduce the topic and explain the objective of the activity to the participants. 2 Ask participants: How can we use drama in our advocacy work? What is the difference between drama for IEC, for community mobilisation and for advocacy? 3 Divide participants into groups of four or five people. 4 Give participants 20 minutes to plan a five-minute drama. Make sure they identify: An advocacy issue or problem An advocacy objective A target audience of influential people. 5 Ask them to plan a discussion by writing down possible discussion questions and choosing a facilitator. 6 Let each group perform their play and lead a discussion. 7 After the performances and discussion, lead a whole group discussion based on the following kind of questions: What did you like about the dramas? What could be improved? What do you think the reaction would be from the real target audiences of these dramas? Why is it important to have a discussion after a performance? What is different about drama, compared to other advocacy methods? 8 Invite any other comments or experiences of using drama for advocacy. Facilitators notes Make sure that participants understand how drama can be used during planning of advocacy work, as well as for implementation. Participants can save time by using issues, objectives and target audiences identified during Section 2 in previous workshop sessions.

Make sure the groups do dramas about an advocacy issue, not about the process of advocacy. Encourage participants to think of a powerful story to portray the issue it could even be based on a true story (although they should be careful about confidentiality). If there is not enough time for all groups to perform to the whole group, two groups can perform to two other groups simultaneously. After the presentations, focus on discussing drama as an advocacy method, rather than discussing the specific issues highlighted in the dramas. Sometimes drama for advocacy will overlap with drama for education or awareness-raising, etc. But make sure that there is also an advocacy issue or message and influential target refer to the definition. You may want to ask some pairs to do a different activity preparing some advice (for example, Try to... and Try not to... tips) for using drama in advocacy work. Example: photo Participants at an advocacy workshop held in India role-play a drama to convey an advocacy message to an audience of influential people. Participants noted that they could convey very strong messages through drama which they would not be able to through a conversation or document. Reference: Photo taken at an advocacy skills-building workshop for HIV/AIDS Work, India HIV/AIDS Alliance and International HIV/AIDS Alliance, India, November 2001. Example: Persuading through drama Advocacy issue: A shelter is required for the street children. Advocacy objective: To provide a safe shelter for street children in Ulaan Baator by March 2003. Target audience: Members of the city council. A father with a drink problem spends all the familys money on alcohol, so they go hungry. He beats his wife and daughter. The daughter runs away to live on the street. She is victimised by other street children, and is forced to sell sex. Eventually she goes to an uncle for help. He helps her, but says he cannot help her again. The girl discusses her situation with other street children. They say they prefer to be on the street than with their violent families but they want somewhere safe to sleep, where they will not be sexually abused. Reference: Adapted from an advocacy skills-building workshop for HIV/AIDS/STI work, National AIDS Foundation and International HIV/AIDS Alliance, Mongolia, February 2002. Advice Try to choose a clear advocacy objective. Try to know your target audience. Try to choose the topic of the drama carefully. Try to make sure that all information contained in the drama is accurate. Try to allow enough time for discussion.

Try to prepare the after-show discussion as much as the show itself. Try to choose discussion questions to bring out the advocacy issue. Try to adapt the performance to different audiences. Try to video the performance and discussion, if possible, to share with others. Try not tolet the drama be only education or awareness-raising make sure it has a strong advocacy issue or message. Try not to confuse the audience with too many themes and messages. Try not to make the drama too long. If it is longer than 10 minutes the audience will be bored, or there will not be enough time for them to discuss afterwards. Try not to worry about how good the acting is, the costumes, or props; the topic or message of the play is the most important thing. How to...persuade through drama Introduction It is important to be clear about the objective of any drama for advocacy, and to choose a limited number of messages or themes so that the audience clearly understands which problem or issue is being highlighted and what the suggested solution is. Drama should highlight typical examples of the issue or problem, rather than extreme cases. The involvement of people directly affected can make the drama much more powerful, if they are happy to do this. It is usually best to use a style of drama that is popular and familiar. A standard drama, with an obvious ending, is best if the target audience are decision-makers. Sometimes the target audience is the public, or a community, with the objective that they will put pressure on decision-makers. In this case, it is useful to involve the audience so that they can fully understand the issues and even debate possible solutions. Two key ways to involve an audience are unfinished stories and forum theatre. Unfinished stories A good way to get an audience talking is to stop the drama before the story ends, leaving the audience in suspense. Then ask the following kinds of questions: What happened to the person in the story? How do you want the story to end? How do you think the story will end, in reality? Why did this situation happen? How can this situation be changed? How can we prevent this happening in the future? Forum theatre The aim is to make the audience aware of their power to change their situation, and for them to explore possible courses of action.

In the simplest form of forum theatre, a small group makes a short drama about a central character facing an urgent issue or problem. The drama shows the central character facing choices, and the possibility of changing the situation. They perform to the rest of the group, and then start the performance a second time. This time the audience is invited to stop the action at any time and suggest alternative actions for the central character. Next, members of the audience are invited to act as the central character and try out alternative actions. They can do this a number of times, until the audience agrees that a satisfactory solution to the issue or problem has been found. Source: Advocacy in Action This is an extract from Advocacy in Action: a toolkit to support NGOs and CBOs responding to HIV/AIDS, developed in collaboration with the International Council of AIDS Service Organizations (ICASO) and published by the International HIV/AIDS Alliance in June 2002. To view the whole report follow this link. To download this section, complete with graphics, in pdf format (which requires Adobe Acrobat software to read it) follow this link (file size 1.0 Mbytes).

Pajamas Media

Andrew Klavan, Barack Obama & Talking Crap PJTV Undercover: Canadian Healthcare Horror Stories Sarah Palin v. The Left, The Media & GOP Elites Home About Us PJTV PajamasXpress Press Advertising News Tips for PJM Search World News | US News | Money | Science & Technology | Lifestyle | Conservatism 2.0 Daddy Nobucks: When Involuntary Fathers Are Forced to Foot The Bill Men who make it clear they don't want kids shouldn't be forced to pay child support, writes Amy Alkon, who has no patience for unscrupulous women luring unwitting partners into checkbook daddyhood. November 14, 2007 - by Amy Alkon

A child a man agrees to have is one thing, but should a man have to pay child support when he makes it clear to a woman that he does not want one? Jennifer Spenner for the Saginaw News and Kathy Barks Hoffman for the AP wrote about a Michigan man who recently challenged being forced to pay child support for his girlfriends baby despite what he alleges were her assurances that she couldnt get pregnant because of a medical condition, and her knowledge that he didnt want a child.

He made the point to the court that if a woman can choose whether to abort, adopt out, or raise the child, a man should have the same right, and argued that Michigans paternity law violates the Constitutions equal protection clause. Matt Dubay lost the case, which he previously acknowledged was a long shot but should it have been? As I wrote in my syndicated advice column, in no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked. In an especially sick miscarriage of justice, even a man who says he was sexually victimized by an older woman from the time he was 14, has been forced to pay support for the child that resulted from underage sex with her. While the law allows women to turn casual sex into cash flow sex, Penelope Leach, in her book % %AMAZON=0679754660 Children First %%, poses an essential question: Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so? A child shouldnt have to survive on peanut butter sandwiches sans peanut butter because he was conceived by two selfish, irresponsible jerks. Still, theres a lot more to being a father than forking over sperm and child support, yet the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood. This isnt 1522. If a woman really doesnt want a kid, she can take advantage of modern advances in birth control like Depo-Provera or the IUD, combine them with backup methods (as recommended by her doctor), add an ovulation detection kit, plus insist that her partners latex up. Since its the woman who gets a belly full of baby, maybe a woman who has casual sex and is unprepared, emotionally, financially, and logistically, to raise a child on her own, should be prepared to avail herself of the unpleasant alternatives. Its one thing if two partners in a relationship agree to make moppets, but should a guy really get hit up for daddy fees when hes, say, one of two drunk strangers who has sex after meeting in a bar? Yes, he is biologically responsible. But, is it really in the childs best interest to be the product of a broken home before theres even a home to break up? For all you boys out there, until that day there is actual male choice, dont neglect the birth controlno matter what she tells you. Unless youre a sterling judge of character, on the level of secret service agents and clinical psychologists, and unless youre absolutely sure youve got an ethical and/or infertile girlfriend, or you personally watch her get Depo Provera injectionsprudent thinking is never believing her when she says she cant get knocked up, always bringing your own condom, and retaining custody over it at all timeslest it find its way to the business end of a pin. Sound cynical? Thats what a lot of guys think before they write to me about what they can say to persuade some girl to get an abortion, or whether theres anything they can do to get out of paying child supportshort of dying. And yes, sure, you can say a man doesnt have sex if he doesnt want a childbut lets discuss this as if were living in the real world, kay? Amy Alkons syndicated advice column, The Advice Goddess, runs in over 100 papers across the US and Canada. She blogs daily at AdviceGoddess.com Podcasts PJM Home 114 Comments 1. Aledra Hollenbach: Thank you for having the nerve to say women have responsibility for unwanted children. Nov 14, 2007 - 3:48 am 2. SaltedSlug:

The argument Ive always heard back when I bothered making similar statements is that (in an ironic twist that makes women merely impersonal sex objects) a mans decision to have sex is implicit consent to have and be financially responsible for any resulting children. Unless, of course, its the womans unilateral choice not to give birth. There are many similar, and more egregious, laws hitting the books these days. The statement that chivalry is dead, and women killed it is rather old. I wonder whats being killed now? Nov 14, 2007 - 5:07 am 3. JHoward: Bravo. Custody law is a sham and a corruption against bedrock constitutional justice. Family Court grants no constitutional justice whatsoever. In fact, it and its supporting industry thrives on denying it. You ask why this is so? Its because of bad social law, enabled partly by leftist gender feminists who root for lopsided treatment of and by the sexes, and by rightists who mistakenly that the best way to deal with the Welfare State is by enacting bulletproof welfare enforcement, against any number of constitutional proofs and protections, that always force single fathers to pay, even if it has to create them, which it does by the legions. The root causes are exposed in Stephen Baskervilles brilliant new book, Taken Into Custody, which documents the enormous money trail from Washington DCs Title IV-D, down to your local divorce industry, which earns millions in federal kickbacks. You read that right: Single parenthood makes a pile of money and the combination of trial lawyers and gender feminists work in your statehouse to keep it so. They benefit, and your states coffers benefit. The short version is that weve created a culture thats invented enormous incentives to have children out of wedlock, or once in wedlock, to end it. Child support and a lackey family court system, operating as what amounts to a secret, unconstitutional court, have made a nightmare out of the American family. The situation is now so bad that the conventional wisdom simply says to never get married, and never have children. Nov 14, 2007 - 6:13 am 4. Webutante: I think we must live in two different worlds. To wit, I have always lived by the maxim that a mans and a womans actions speak louder than their words. Believe what a person does rather than just what that person says, because talk is oh so cheap in our world. Thanks for educating me once again, Amy, to the real way of it. That in fact a man can and should have it both ways. Having his cake and eat it too are a wonderful way to keep men and women in a perpetual state of adolescence. Whats next? I didnt want to declare bankruptcy, judge! Even though I spent money like a drunken sailor, I didnt want to declare bankruptcy..Someone call Amy and tell her that was what I said so she can tell the world I have no responsibility here, cause I that was never my intention and I shouldnt have to pay.. Nov 14, 2007 - 6:22 am 5. Louis Santacroce: I never wanted children for the simple reason that I have no patience for them. Not fair to the child, in other words. The solution? A visectomy. Simple, painless and if I had changed my mind later on (I never did), reversable in the majority of cases (and, if not, there are a million children in this country who need to be

adopted) Nov 14, 2007 - 6:35 am 6. Xanthippe: _Parents_ are responsible for offspring. If you dont want children, ensure that you wont have them use birth control yourself or become neutered. Even with that, sometimes pregnancy still occurs. Teach children not to rely upon other peoples assurances that a pregnancy will not result. It doesnt matter whose fault it is. There is still a child to be raised. And teach children that life isnt fair, so they dont grow up into adults who constantly complain about the unfairness of it all. Nov 14, 2007 - 7:08 am 7. D: except for the part webutant, where peoples actions dont becoem clear until MUCH later. So the upshot for men is pretty simple: Assume the worst. assume that anyone you can talk into casual contact, has a reason for that. You either catch something or be caught. Also? Just because you are envisioning something long term doesnt mean you can know everything. Do some detective work, to make sure you arent being played for a patsy. remember: cheap lovers make expensive wives. One hopes that you yourself are above reproach in this, but that is no armor against someone who wants to target you. There are also women out there who want to be taken care of, and are willing to say anything to make it happen. Once you have a kid, the law it totally on her side So, verify. THEN trust. Nov 14, 2007 - 7:37 am 8. Drugstore Cowgirl: Absolutely true. I know far too many men who are spending their lives supporting children they will never know and whom they never wanted because of out of control child support laws. Nov 14, 2007 - 7:56 am 9. bramie: If a man doesnt want children, then use a condom or have a vasectomy. Although there are without a doubt women out there who are child support sharks, lets not paint all men as hapless victims of unscrupulous women. Surely there are plenty of men who father many children with different women without ever paying a dime of support. And yes, it is difficult to feel sympathetic for the women who hook up with these jerks. Ultimately it is the kids who pay the price for irresponsible adults who do not think about the consequences of having sex. Sex dumbed men Amy calls them; I feel no sympathy for these guys either you know.

And society that gets stuck paying the bill for fathers who are AWOL and mothers who cant provide for the kids they produce. But oh well; at least the US birthrate isnt in decline like in Europe where they are slowly killing themselves off.. Nov 14, 2007 - 8:29 am 10. Serabus: If you dont want kids, dont do things that make them. Nov 14, 2007 - 8:32 am 11. theo: I have been saying this for years. Fortunately, being gay, Im not much in danger of accidental impregnation. That said, custody law is inequitable and unjust. It is a crazy concept and absolutely unacceptable. I dont know when there will be a solution, but until then, wear the condom gentlemen. Its not just your wallet youre protecting, its your life and the lives of those you love. Pregnancy is not the only thing a condom prevents. Nov 14, 2007 - 9:32 am 12. bramie: Amy you write ..but should a guy really get hit up for daddy fees when hes, say, one of two drunk strangers who has sex after meeting in a bar? Yes, he is biologically responsible. But, is it really in the childs best interest to be the product of a broken home before theres even a home to break up?.. My question to you is; Who should pay? Lets translate your unfinished thoughts into a possible scenario; 29 year old guy with income of $80.000 goes to the bar, hooks up with a 23 year old who works at minimum wage for Walmart (she also dropped out in 11 grade). They dont know each other, but get drunk, end up spending the night at his nice apartment (she now knows where he lives and observes he seems to do well financially). Two months later she finds out she is pregnant. By New York state law she could go after him for 17% of his incomeor he could also file for custody. Now what Amy???? Force her to get an abortion? Make society pay for her through welfare programs because her minimum wage job isnt going to cut it after paying for child care for the kid etc? Go after poor sex dumb 29 year old who couldnt keep his member in his pants? Force him to take custody as he has the higher income, even if he doesnt want the kid? Let kid live in poverty conditions because of man and womans irresponsibility? Fo Nov 14, 2007 - 9:46 am

13. JHoward: there are plenty of men who father many children with different women without ever paying a dime of support. Utter myth. Men actually pay for kids they never parented in the first place. Do some research, please. But oh well; at least the US birthrate isnt in decline like in Europe where they are slowly killing themselves off.. Another myth. Statistics show that enormous numbers of American men, aware of the reality of family law, are warding off unions (and families) like the plague. Eighteen years of seven or eight hundred unavoidable dollars a month is no price to pay, nor is losing your driver license, constantly risking the loss of privacy or imprisonment, never having a place in your childs life, having your basic rights taken, etc. And society that gets stuck paying the bill for fathers who are AWOL and mothers who cant provide for the kids they produce. Consider unintended consequences becoming intended consequences then: Society gets stuck paying the bill for mothers who are willfully gaming a really stupid system that is the foundation for this particular case. Child support includes as much as a hundred billion in matching funds paid by Washington to the states; did you know that? This means that from the States perspective, unwed single mothers are the greatly preferred new social unit. Now tell me about costs to society. That is also the widespread reality of todays legal conventional wisdom. We are remodeling the entire social fabric out of a great sense of cultural hubris, a hubris that paints women as inherently and dramatically superior to presumed deadbeat dads. When you cultivate a pervasive new moral standard by way of federal financial incentive, thats when you have costs to society. This statist religion is so inculcated that many of us cant see just how staggeringly unjust it is to core principles such as Supreme Court-ruled rights to parent, due process, jury trial, presumptions of innocence, preexisting contracts, etc. What some here are openly advocating is an apparently sexist application of those principles rights dispensed under the prior weight of what makes the most money, which is typically impoverishing dad regardless. And the mantra is cost to society the same bogus myth that gives us all manner of nannyist Orwellianism from cigarette taxes to villainizing fast food. Where do we draw the line, poster? Cost to society? The real costs to society invariably and inevitably come to those most oppressive and unfair societies. And the most oppressive and unfair legal society these days is without question or doubt custody and child support law. What some are advocating is nothing less than sexually-conditional application of fundamental rights. Nice place you got here. Nov 14, 2007 - 9:59 am 14. wmb: yes, children deserve support. The problem is that men are being forced to be responsible, women are not expected to be responsible. Women should reasonably be expected to take on responsiblity too, more then a man if they are to have more

choice about the decision to have a child. That is how that big word right to choose works, the right and the responsibility go hand and hand. Nov 14, 2007 - 10:13 am 15. Don: Who even needs a real baby? http://www.krqe.com/Global/story.asp?S=7054492 Nov 14, 2007 - 10:37 am 16. Little Much: Actually. It takes two to make a baby. Everyone knows that condoms DO in fact prevent pregnancies at least 99% of the time. What exactly prevents a man from knowing this and wearing one to protect HIMSELF. No, Im not in agreement at all. Each party is 50% to blame for making a baby. If one does not want to have children the responsibility to NOT have them is on that person. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for someones good time. No, sorry, cant agree with this nonsense of his being a victim. No one is forced NOT to wear a condom when one knows better TO wear it. Nov 14, 2007 - 10:44 am 17. Gregory G. Oman DDS: Great points. I have never had the problems these people have had. I have always wondered why? Oh, now I remember, I am still married to the same woman after 29 years and never practiced premarital sex. That must be it. Nov 14, 2007 - 10:45 am 18. JHoward: bramie keeps suggesting that cost to society, as imputed by conventional, disproved wisdom, constitutes a standard by which to create sexist, unconstitutional, Orwellianized civil law. Likewise, wmb doesnt define terms: yes, children deserve support. And I deserve free medical. I mean, youre talking government support here, arent you? And when that support creates the very problem it was initially but vaguely aimed at preventing? When support moves from private responsibility to public-sector opportunity and gamesmanship, then what? Because, frankly, thats where were at and under that guise, children deserve absolutely nothing but their patents misery. Controversial as this may seem, governments job is certainly not to manage your costs. Its not to provide for your children. Its not to make you safe and secure in the face of bad stuff that happens to you because you do stupid things. Ladies. Or because you elect to do stupid things, fully intending to profit from them. Ladies. That obligation falls directly on your shoulders and yours alone.

The idiocy of this flagrant nannyism is borne out best, perhaps, in the tale of the vulnerable barhopper impregnated by the rich lout. If you depend on those sorts of feeble canards to establish law punishable by incarceration and loss of property, well, then were screwed, if youll pardon the pun. Nov 14, 2007 - 10:51 am 19. kwo: Serabus said If you dont want kids, dont do things that make them. Winner. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:02 am 20. pjr12345: In light of the LEGITIMATE pro choice position The choice is made in the back seat of the car at the drive-in theater; after that, it becomes a responsibility it seems to me that the man ought to pay regardless of his expressed desire to avoid having children. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:05 am 21. Squid: Ah, so Dr. Greg thinks the solution is to outlaw premarital sex and to institute forced marriage on couples who copulate. Lovely vision there, Doc. I agree that people should be responsible for their actions, especially when theres a real possibility of an innocent third party becoming involved. However, I think its a sad situation when I see people here basically admitting that its up to the man to protect himself at any cost because the law will not treat him fairly. Is this really an acceptable state of things for you people? Im not making excuses for the real deadbeats who deserve the judgements against them. But just because deadbeats exist doesnt mean that we should automatically assume the worst of every man, nor withhold sympathy from those who are tricked into fathering a child they never wanted (and were assured werent a risk). It disappoints me that so many commenters are willing to sell their own sons up the river just for falling prey to an attractive liar. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:05 am 22. Rightmom: I have always been against abortion. However, I have thought it was not right that woman have the absolute right to abortion without a mans consideration, even though the baby is 50/50. My thought to bring more equalization to this has been a mans abortion. That is, once a man has sex and he is not sure of the out come or the woman involved, he can sign an Affidavit in front of a Notary and file with the County Court dis-avowing any child, thus having a legal abortion. I know the feminist would come unglued over the idea. But then again, the feminist drove the idea that women are not entirely free without abortion rights. I think this would equalize the sexes even more and would be more Constitution (under the equal protection clause), than the current ruling on Constitutionality of Abortion itself. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:10 am 23. cubanbob:

Bramie your argument only makes sense if abortion were illegal. Whether the guy makes eighty grand or eight hundred grand a year in your scenario is irrelevant, she is an adult woman who consented to sex. And since woman get pregnant not men, it is her choice to get pregnant and stay pregnant. No form of male birth control is absolute. And a man cannot compel a woman to have an abortion. So as long as the woman has the ultimate say in whether or not to conceive and give birth the onus ought to be on her unless she conceived during the course of a marriage or the man explicitly agreed to be a father to her child. Indeed woman who have kids and defraud the man ought to have their kids removed from them and put up for adoption. It is in the best interest of the child to be brought up by a parent(s) that are honest and caring instead of fraudsters. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:14 am 24. Stacy: Sorry, living in the real world means that if you have sex, be prepared for the consequences. Dont kill a kid for your mistake. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:16 am 25. Clyde: A man who really doesnt want children under any circumstances but still wishes to engage in unprotected sex should have a VASECTOMY. The I didnt know the gun was loaded, Your Honor defense just doesnt cut too much ice. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:20 am 26. JHoward: it seems to me that the man ought to pay regardless of his expressed desire to avoid having children. Define, please. Pay means involuntary conscription into a system where all basic rights must disappear for that system to exist at all? And define expressed desire. Are verbal contracts not contracts? Are written contracts not contracts? Is willfully misleading a fellow citizen so as to take vast sums from him under penalty of law legal? Is the law that does so itself legal? Lastly, where does this abstract, groundless notion of I think he should have to pay (and pay regardless, including when hes simply not dad at all) come from? From more cost-to-society rubbish? When the real cost to society of our corrupted, amoral, unfolding support/custody law debacle is so blindingly clear, both in fiscal and human terms? When doing so is to openly admit were helpless to order our own lives and must rely on our fellows to pay even greater costs to society to perpetuate this wreckage of a system upon all of us simultaneously?! Title IV-Ds costs are truly astronomical. So are the costs of paying society for fatherlessness. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:25 am 27. sam: Its disgusting and despicable we even have to have these arguments. Innocent children, who have harmed no

one, and only need parents who love and support them are thrown in the middle because two selfish partners want to have a good time together. Its incredibly saddening and I wish people would think of the consequences in human life. Kids are suffering as a result of selfish parents, whether those people are willing or un-willing parents. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:31 am 28. KoryO: So.all these immature boys who just dont like the feeling of latex and shudder at the thought of getting a vasectomy are victims? You gotta be freakin kidding me! And as for some girl hitting pay dirt by getting pregnant? Again, you gotta be kidding me. I made as much money, if not more, than the guys I dated. I had the house and a paid off car, and no student loans. I wasnt the only one out there like that, either. Amy, this aint the 50s any more, where guys automatically make more and have more financial resources. Wrap it, snip it, or grow up and realize that sex, while fun, is not and has never been without potential consequences. Yes, they are literally life (pregnancy) and death (AIDS). Do the gene pool a favor and whack off until this seeps into your tiny craniums. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:40 am 29. mark: I was trying to find this study I read about a few months ago that was done at a university that revealed that at least half of all young women polled admitted they would be willing to lie to a man about being on birth control in order to trick him into fatherhood against his will becuase the woman felt he was father material. Can someone help me here? Does anyone remember that study and the link to it? Please provide if you know where to find it. Have you ever wondered why it is that we have had birth control pills since the 1960s and still massive amounts of abortions? With birth control pills, abortion shouldnt even be an issue today! But of course it is, and the average womans amorality is the reason why. Its easy to figure out- the man flips out hard enough, shell get the abortion- still crying and wanting sympathy even though she decieved him (?!?) One thing is clear to me though.. today, except for a handful of women like the author of this article, we as men have virtually nothing in common with the average woman and how she thinks. Our standards of right and wrong are as different as chalk and cheese. Women are living in their own world, and so is our legal system. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:41 am 30. plutosdad: I have always wondered why, when it comes to men, feminists say you make the decision to have a child when you decide to have sex That is the exact same argument pro-life people use. But the same pro-choice people who say MEN decide at the time they have sex, say WOMEN dont have to decide. This doesnt make any sense. 100 years ago, forcing a man to pay might make sense, but everythings different now. Women have more choices and power, and they too need to be responsible for their choicees. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:42 am 31. D Palmer:

Sorry buddy, pay up. If you dont want kids it is YOUR responsibility to make sure you dont have them. A womans word that she has a medical condition that prevents conception is not a method of birth control. If you arent smart enough to protect yourself then you deserve what happens. And yes, if 2 drunk people hook up and produce a child then the father should be responsible. He wanted to play, now he pays the price. Stop whining about being held responsible for your own actions. If you know you dont want kids, get snipped. Voila, no children. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:43 am 32. TomP: I got a vasectomy (had to get written permission from my wife to do so). A year later, she got pregnant. I am paying child support, since she has no idea which of a large number of men might be the sperm donor. (She liked to go out and party when I was at work.) I am not permitted to be a father to the child, but I am permitted to pay the mothers bills. Can you say Presumption of Paternity laws? Knew ya could. If you are male, and you dont want to be used as an ATM, dont rely on vasectomy or a condom, and especially dont rely on the Law. The Law is not your friend. If you can state with certainty that is provable to a disinterested observer that the woman you are having sex with will NEVER leave you, NEVER lie to you and NEVER take advantage of you, and you can prove that you will act the same to her, then get married. Otherwise, you are setting yourself up. Its just another example of acceptable sexism. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:48 am 33. Gahrie: 1) Most of you are ignoring the case Amy cited where a boy was raped by an older woman, and is still forced to pay support. 2) There is at least one documented case where a woman saved the product from oral sex, impregnated herself, and later won child support. 3) It is simply undeniable that under current law concerning procreation, men have responsibilities and no rights; while women have rights and no responsibilities. Men have no choice, women have absolute choice. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:56 am 34. Looking Glass: Squid wrote, people here basically admitting that its up to the man to protect himself at any cost because the law will not treat him fairly. Thats the consensus. Women have authority without responsibility. Men have responsibility without authority. Thats a recipe for disaster. Plekto, commenting on Fetal Attraction at Advice Goddess site, points out:

Its an expensive lesson to learn (but infinitely better than marrying someone who would pull this trick) Compared to a divorce from such a person its more than infinitely better. Point-Counterpoint Synchronicity: A one-night stand may be the best thing that ever happened to him tag line from the Knocked Up trailer that just showed on TV. Paired with that is the trailer from 28 Weeks Later, which follows immediately with They thought it was over. as a threat thought dormant arises unexpectedly to devour peoples lives in a cannibalistic horror-show. Think someones trying to be clever with that particular pairing? Related news, report from the UK earlier this year. co-habitation laws are already in place in the UK. If you live with a woman for more than two-years, youre stuffed. She can take at least half of your assets and plenty of your future earnings too. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:57 am 35. The Monster: Re: mans abortion. Since the woman has the absolute right to choose whether to abort or carry the pregnancy to term, the mans liablity should be limited to the cost of the abortion and follow-up medical care, and any lost wages due to missing work for such care. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:57 am 36. Akaky: I am not a clairvoyant nor do I play one on television, but Ive known something like this gentlemans challenge was coming for the past fifteen years or so. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that the concept of child support rests firmly on the belief, once common throughout the United States, that men ought to support the children they father. This belief was itself the product of a time wherein abortion was dangerous and not readily available, and birth control was at best crude and not very effective. We now live in a world where abortion is both safe and commonplace and effective birth control is widely available. In addition to this, through a series of court decisions, radical feminists have more or less eliminated the male role in the decision to become a parent, reducing him to little more than a sperm donor and an open wallet. Children today are wholly optional, it seems, and only women get to exercise the option. Sooner or later, someone was going to challenge this situation in the courts. I didnt think the courts would go along with this gentlemans argument, and I use the term gentleman in the most generic sense possible; most judges are old enough to believe the old premise that fathers should pay for their children, and those that dont will look to the vast corpus of legal opinion that exists on the subject and refuse to throw the baby out with the law books. This attitude, however, will not survive in the long run. The radical feminists have fatally undermined it, thereby proving yet again that the law of unintended consequences is still with us and doing quite well these days, thank you for asking. The feminists constant demand for unfettered sexual rights without any sexual responsibilities have led inexorably to this argument: if a woman cannot be compelled to be a mother, then it necessarily follows that a man cannot be compelled to be a father. If the courts do not accept this argument now, they will sometime in the next twenty to thirty years; it is only a matter of time, for this is the inevitable conclusion of the demand for complete sexual freedom. It will be more than a little amusing to watch the feminists upend all their usual arguments in order to keep child support going; it will, I think, be very similar to their performance during the Lewinsky scandal, where more than one prominent feminist shaded her demand for ever more stringent protections against sexual

harassment in the workplace with her desire to keep President Clinton in the Oval Office. If nothing else, this episode might teach the feminists that running to the courts for redress for all of the nations ills might not be such a good idea; any state legislator in the country would laugh off this guys argument in a heartbeat, if for no other reason that there are no votes to be had in being known as a defender of cads rights, but the courts must follow precedent and the Constitution, and if the Constitution gives women the right to be irresponsible dolts then it must give men the same right. After all, we live in a country that prides itself on giving the equal protection of the laws to everyone, even sexually irresponsible jackasses. As for the rights of cads, I thought everyone knew that the major unintended consequence of womens liberation was the liberation of the caddish impulse in most men. Once upon a time, if a young man wanted to sow a few wild oats or a older man wanted to pretend he wasnt getting old, they would both hie themselves hence to the nearest house of assignation, there to indulge the reproductive urge without having to deal with any of its consequences. Everyone involved knew the rules: the man wanted sex, the girl wanted money, and afterwards the man would go home and pretend to be a moral pillar of his community. You would certainly not marry a denizen of the demimonde nor would you encourage a decent girl to become a demimonde herself, and if you should impregnate a nice girl, the rules were clear: you had to marry her, whether you wanted to or not, if only to avoid being blown apart by her menfolks shotguns. Our modern era does not prize the concept of the nice girl anymore, since there is no real need for any girl to be nice in the sense that the term usually meant, which is to say, sexually chaste before marriage and monogamous afterwards. The invention of the birth control pill, the advent of readily available abortion, and the relative ease of modern divorce have changed the traditional equation. I am sure that many women would say, hallelujah, to the old orders passing, and they may well be right about the overwhelming hypocrisy of that order, but it seems to me that Oscar Wilde was right when he said that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. The old order served a purpose by channeling humanitys greatest creative and destructive drive onto a constructive path that served, in the broad number of cases, the best interests of everyone involved. The old dispensation did not serve all equally well, though; it stigmatized gay men and lesbians viciously, and often victimized women, especially lower class women, by limiting their educational and economic opportunities, thereby trapping them in marriages where they were utterly dependent on the goodwill of their husbands. It was largely to stop the abuses of the old order that activists created the gay rights and the womens liberation movements, and both movements have done a tremendous amount of good for their specific constituencies and for the nation as a whole through their efforts to eliminate the mental exception. The mental exception is what comes at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance, when the person pledging allegiance to the flag says, with liberty and justice for all and then mentally makes the exception for blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Catholics, women, gays, or life insurance salesmen, whom they can treat in as abusive manner as they want without worrying too much about their rights. In freeing women from the old order, however, the womens liberation movement tossed much good out with the bad. The womens movements systematic demonization of men has led to a situation in which men bear almost no responsibility for the children they sire. We now live in an age where a woman can choose to become mothers, but men cannot choose whether or not they become fathers. Men do not have a say in whether or not their sexual partners have an abortion or not, which is to say, they have no choice in whether or not they become fathers, and yet the law, and the womens movement as well, insist on their paying for children they do not want. This last vestige of the old dispensation will soon disappear as well. After all, we now live in a world of rights, and if a woman has a right to choose then so does the man, and compelling him to pay for a child he does not want seems grossly unfair and is probably a violation of his constitutional rights. The womens movement will fight such an interpretation of the law; their ideal world is one in which men play the role of sperm donor and sugar daddy, paying all the bills and seeing the children every other Tuesday in July, but the more I think about it, the more likely this scenario becomes. You can only undermine institutions for so long before they come down, bringing down everything else with it. You cannot, I think, knock down all the supporting walls out of your house and then complain to all and sundry when the roof comes crashing down on your head. Nov 14, 2007 - 11:59 am

37. PatHMV: Oh, those poor, pitiful men. Forced to have sex against their will! Forced to rely on the womans assurances rather than take action themselves to insure that they couldnt father children. Abstinence, condoms, vasectomy. If a man doesnt want children, he must do one of those things. Theres no need for the law to get into the minds of the two people who chose to have sex and decide which is telling the truth about who wanted children, etc. Theres a baby. Its got to be fed, clothed, housed, and diapered. If the father doesnt pay his fair share, the odds are that the taxpayers going to have to pick up the slack in some way. And WE didnt make the mistake he did. Child support is not about rewarding the mother, its about making sure that the child is provided for. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:02 pm 38. sparky: The other great unfairness is that the woman has ALL the choice and the man none. If he wants to be a father and keep the baby but she chooses to abort, tough luck to the guy. If he doesnt want the baby, he has no say as to whether an abortion should take place and gets to pay child support for the next 18 to 21 years. All the laws are 100% on the womans side. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:03 pm 39. AST: I see this as the righting of an ancient wrong. Men have seldom had to worry about engaging in promiscuous sex while women had to guard against becoming pregnant, especially out of wedlock. The pill has leveled the field, but theres a lot of history to make up for. Until men are as careful about their behavior has women must be, this is a good way to send the message, especially when the alternative is too often letting the rest of society pay child support. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:06 pm 40. Tom Paine: Webutant (Nov 14, 2007 06:22 AM) If you will lend me your Drivel-to-English dictionary, I will try to figure out what you think you were saying. although Abnormal Psychology isnt really my main field. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:15 pm 41. sofasleeper: Ah, so Dr. Greg thinks the solution is to outlaw premarital sex and to institute forced marriage on couples who copulate. I think youre reading a bit much into what he said. But Im going to join Dr. Greg under the hail of brickbats, and agree with what I think you can reasonably read into what he said: So many problems would be solved if folks could keep it in their pants until theyre ready for a marriage commitment.

So maybe we need to heap a little more social opprobrium on those who dont. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:19 pm 42. jim2: I think the original column was carefully crafted, but would like to point out a few other points. First, a child is an innocent member of society and the rest of society has a valid interest in assuring that the parties responsible for the child bear the financial burden instead of the rest of society. Yes, a man may have been hoodwinked by the fem, but he was an adult and caveat emptor would seem to apply. The tricked under-age male father seems a real problem, though. After all, if Vanessa Hudgens can use her age to get out of a contract, how can a 14-year old boy be held to the implicit contract of fatherhood? Second, a vasectomy is not the answer if a man might want to have kids some other time. It would be like saying that women should have their tubes reversibly tied (with a clip or something) unless they are willing to become pregnant. Third, the mans child support is to the child (at least in theory). Even if the mother has no money, her commitment in time to the child has been demonstrated to be so great that (even assuming minimum wage) her expenditure is usually greater by far than court-ordered child support. (I admit some exceptions there for wealth or celebrity dads, but not the earlier mentioned $700/800 per month) So, in the case of inadvertent pregnancy from consensual sex between adults, both parties result in paying and the man probably less (but the woman has the choice so thats not entirely unfair). Fourth, there are notorious unfair examples that simply boggle my mind. IIRC, there is one case where a fem used the products of oral sex to essentially artificially-inseminate herself. There are other cases where a wife got pregnant and it was demonstrated that the kid was not the husbands. In those cases, the man (in the former) and the husbands (in the latter) were held financially responsible. Any system that allows that is so patently unfair as to extinguish respect for all the rest of it. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:20 pm 43. Sarah: We have a word for disavowing parenthood already: its called adoption. I stand ready to be convinced that elective abortion is morally superior to adoption, but I must say that none of what Ive already seen comes close to a reasonable standard of persuasion. For cases in which its not about the health of the mother, why not simply say: 1. the mother can voluntarily (and irrevocably) turn custody over to the father, or 2. the father can voluntarily (and irrevocably) turn custody over to the mother, or 3. both can jointly (either by one turning custody over to the other first, or actually making the decision together) voluntarily and irrevocably turn custody over to the courts, another individual/family, or another appropriate agency (church, hospital, whatever.) You lose elective abortions and enforced non-custodial child support. You also lose all the nasty legal wrangling that comes up when you have non-married parents fighting over the child, the support payments, and so forth. I work as a legal assistant on GAL and custody cases, and its a nightmare for all parties, including the court system, to try and sort it all out. My parents did the semi-responsible thing (they divorced, hence the semi) and went through a mediator rather than the court system for custody stuff; they also managed to act like adults long enough for me to turn 18 and solve the problem permanently. But if there had been trouble, the juvenile court system, which was meant for abuse and delinquency problems, would have taken over. Oh, yeah, and dont have sex, and especially unprotected sex (and thats what it is if you believe the girl who says oh, no, baby, I cant get pregnant) if you dont want children. My gosh. The 14-year-old is one thing,

but the rest of us are supposed to be grown-ups, right? Nov 14, 2007 - 12:20 pm 44. Greg: Am I the only one who thinks of NYC Mayor Lindsey? As in: A welfare mother, screaming at New York mayor John Lindsay (responsible for much of the citys rise in welfare cases), expressed the systems new philosophy: Its my job to have kids, Mr. Mayor, and your job to take care of them. I remember growing up in NYC, during this time. And yes this was real, there was a cottage industry in illegitimate babies, because the support payments scaled per child. Each net bastard was net profit. What with welfare reform and all, this is passe. But again, we have women, who have been granted (rightly or wrongly) final control over whether a child is born, trying to find someone else to pay. Except this time, since the legislative route is closed, it has to be done through the courts. Personal responsibility is *not* expecting someone else to pay for YOUR decision. You want men to be on the hook to pay for *any* child, desired or not, let men decide whether or not the child should be born. Only fair. But that will *never* happen. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:20 pm 45. Crystal Therese: Wow, this is the most narrow-minded drivel I have read so far this week. If people have sex they BOTH know the risks and have to accept the consequences. Women should not be forced to abort or give their children up for adoption because they get pregnant by accident. If men cant accept the consequences of having sex then they have NO business having sex. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:32 pm 46. Lord Nazh: http://lordnazh.com/DailyRamble/2007/09/pro-choice-equality.html Great post. I wrote on this a couple of months ago and got many various responses (now deleted due to move to haloscan , but youre layout and reasoning seems to be aces above my thoughts. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:38 pm 47. Rupert Fiennes: Sorry, pathetic. It is the real world; if you have sex, no whining if someone gets pregnant. In short, STFU and be a man Nov 14, 2007 - 12:39 pm 48. Tigger: Will anyone using the tired oh those poor poor men who were forced to have sex line of thinking please address the example she sites in her originial post? The victim of statutory rape being forced to pay child support? How about girl who had oral sex with a guy and then used his sperm to impregnate herself and win

support after the fact? Someone please tell me how right it is that these people pay support for the rest of their lives. Because every man should assume that if a woman is anywhere near sperm she will do anything in her power to get herself pregnant and he should have just been more careful? Im eager to see the suspension of logic and ad hominem attacks in each reply. And AST, that is the WORST form of argument I can possibly think of. Lets break it down. It was tough for women in the past. Some men made it tough for them. Theyre dead now. So lets wrong an entirely new class of people who had NOTHING to do with the original problem. Well give the benefits to people who never really suffered the old problems but it will make us FEEL so much better about our guilty pasts. Its just a cosmic way of saying that two wrongs make a right. Well do to them what they did to you. Not because its the right thing to do, but because its payback for all those historical wrongs youre ancestors suffered. Equality is equality is equality. What youre advocating isnt equality so much as discrimination in your favor. And discrimination is discrimination no matter how much you torure logic or the historical record to get the outcome you desire. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:42 pm 49. Looking Glass: Crystal Therese wrote, If men cant accept the consequences of having sex then they have NO business having sex. If women cant accept the consequences of having sex then they have no business having sex. Nov 14, 2007 - 12:44 pm 50. submandave: I am always amazed every time this topic comes up with the sheer number of people who use the if he doesnt want a child he should keep it in his pants argument when they know damn well theyd never use it as an argument against abortion on demand. If youre gonna get all high and mighty with regard to responsibility, at least try to act consistent. Nov 14, 2007 - 1:04 pm 51. holdfast: Saying that by having sex the man consented to paying child support is complete BS. Sure the woman did too, but she has another three or six months (depending where you live) to change her mind about having the moppets. The man only has one chance to make that choice. This situation clearly is not fair, but as smart as I think I am, I cannot come up with a really fair alternative eiher, unless one wants to discuss forced abortion, and I dont think anyone wants to go there. Unfortunately, men are in the more vulnerable position here it is totally unfair but for gods sake, use a rubber. If shes such a little skank that she wants to be a chequebook mommy, then she;s likely packing some other presents in her special places. Nov 14, 2007 - 1:17 pm

52. JHoward: What a pitiful, discouraging thread of comments: Tantamount to socialism, most of it is, all this mustered, angry bravado about paying consequences so as to reduce costs to society. The entire notion of forced conscription into The Divorce/Custody/Child Support System more of a regime, actually, as Baskerville aptly defines it underscores nothing but enormous costs. Those billions are squandered in federal and local administration. This left-leaning, nannyist tyranny is then, naturally, a huge assault on civility, decency, social excellence, education, and the like. Make the bastards pay, say you! Because a hundred billion dollars in federal overhead is far cheaper than say, accepting personal responsibility and never having the kid in the first place. Do you not understand what youre advocating when you blindly demand the state enforce child support blind to the particulars? Is this somehow such a mystery? Do you also believe government schools educate? That Welfare ensures welfare? That theres anything secure about Social Security? Then how is it the federalized child support system (operating outside the Constitution and Bill of Rights, by the way) somehow supports children?! Didnt exactly work out that way here, did it folks? Our lovely child support system induced, in whole or in part, the fraud of the mothers original choice! Is this somehow lost on you? Because your government, acting by way of that quasi-conservative social bravado, paid her to. Your ostensible conservatism created a vast sea of collectivist legislation! Did you expect otherwise? All because, in this thread, rightists adopt this impossibly misled belief that you screw, you pay, dammit, thereby saving the rest of us big dollars. To make that claim is to profess utter ignorance of the system and its repercussions. Please allow me to reassert an excerpt of my now-prescient comment from the third reply to the author, above: You ask why this is so? Its because of bad social law, enabled partly by leftist gender feminists who root for lopsided treatment of and by the sexes, and by rightists who mistakenly that the best way to deal with the Welfare State is by enacting bulletproof welfare enforcement, against any number of constitutional proofs and protections, that always force single fathers to pay, even if it has to create them, which it does by the legions. Nice job. Enforcing the child support regime means youre wrong economically, constitutionally, legally, and ultimately, socially. Nov 14, 2007 - 1:20 pm 53. Mark G: If it can be shown that a woman is intentionally deceiving a man in order to impregnate herself for the purpose of financial gain, then she should be found guilty of fraud. For the majority of cases, you have two people being stupid, and I dont see how you can pin the responsibility on the partner that was being slightly more stupid. You want to make the system more fair? Let the fathers have a shot at primary custody and make the mothers

pay child support in those cases. Nov 14, 2007 - 1:27 pm 54. JHoward: Let the fathers have a shot at primary custody and make the mothers pay child support in those cases. The impossible legislation in this land of equality, gender-neutrality, enlightened feminism, parenting rights guaranteed by the SCOTUS for 200+ years, and simple civility and reason is whats called a presumption of joint, equal custody. Who fights against the presumption of joint custody tooth and nail in all 50 statehouses and in DC? Gender feminists and the legal associations. Might that give us a clue that theres huge federal cash in single parenting? Even if it involves what normal humans know to be clear and willful fraud? Nov 14, 2007 - 1:41 pm 55. Little Much: What is funny about this whole thing is if one even LOOKS at the amount of child support a father gives up for the fruit of his loins it PALES in comparison to what the child actually DOES need Geesh just way an episode of Judge Judy to see the extent of irresponsibility there is on both sides. This child support is never even close to representing what the mother of said child must pay, in time, loss of social life, end of college career, day to day care of child, sleepless nights from illnesses and days missed from work due to such and the list goes on. So which position would you prefer? Simply writing a check in the amount a man might use to go clubbing or wine and dine another sex-buddy on any given weekend, or the loss of having a life and the physical freedom that goes with it> The blame and responsibility must be equal for both parties regardless whether they wanted a child or not and they must grow up be accountable and share in it. No sympathy here. Nov 14, 2007 - 1:43 pm 56. Russ: I agree that if a man and woman hook up at a bar and a pregnancy results, the man should absolutely pay child support. But that was never the premise of the thread. The premise was that the man in question was LIED TO on repeated occassions. If such a circumstance can be proven in court, he ought to be freed from such obligations. And those that have sex with underagers or impregnate themselves through oral insemination should be brought up on charges and jailed, with their children being given up for adoption. I listen to a lot of women moan and gripe about men not wanting to settle down, but they whoop with righteous indignation when stories like this come up. Women, you made the bed, now lie in it. As was said earlier Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.

Nov 14, 2007 - 1:43 pm 57. jim2: The fraud cry sounds good and feels even better to cry, but it has real problems, IMHO. You have an innocent kid and two parties unequally able to contribute. Lawyers call similar situations something like The Deep Pocket Rule: +++++++ When tort defendants are held jointly and severally liable, the total of all damages is payable by each defendant without regard to each defendants individually assigned degree of fault. Because this rule allows plaintiffs to seek out defendants who may be minimally liable but have substantial assets, it is often referred to as the deep pocket rule. In contrast, the rule of proportionate or several liability is a legal concept that limits each defendants liability to the amount of damages caused by the proportion of each defendants fault. +++++++ http://www.gcglaw.com/resources/govt/deep_pockets_hb143.html The current practice here is essentially identical to holding both parties to the conception jointly and severally liable instead of proportionately. If one supports tort revision of the Deep Pocket Rule, then one should support the same fix here. Nov 14, 2007 - 1:48 pm 58. Darrell: If men and women would just get back to celibate dating/courting with the purpose of developing enduring friendship, followed by marriage and sex (and perhaps children), most of these problems would simply go away. Personal responsibility begins with controlling/mastering yourself. I have no sympathy for those that dont get this simple concept. Men and women who expect rational justice when they act irrationally and immorally will almost always find misery rather than happiness. I have some empathy for men and women who feel that their lives have been ruined by unjust social and legal systems. However, this empathy does not translate into excusing their failure to control their sexual impulses. Happiness is something that we earn through responsible living. It is not a constitutional right. Nov 14, 2007 - 1:53 pm 59. Little Much: To JHoward: The only way a man can be forcible raped is anally. To think a woman can forcibly rape a man is silly. Or are you suggesting that once in motion, a man has absolutely no choice or mind/body control but to finished being raped? Gee if that was the case I can hardly imagine all the rapes of women there might be when theyve said NO to an otherwise in motion and too persistant man on the first date. Nov 14, 2007 - 1:57 pm 60. KoryO: Ok, you want me to address the statutory rape example? Fine. Him, Ill give an exception to. What happened to that boy should not have happened. But to the rest of them.no. They were all, legally at least, adults. Wrap it or snip it. Yes, the second option

is permanent. Probably cant be reversed easily. But if you want to ensure you dont have children, theres your choices, boys. Lifes not fair. The woman will probably always have more birth control options, since its easier to stop 1 egg per month than it is 1 million sperm every other day. Deal with it. Using the same logic that some of the previous posters have done, its not fair that I have a scar across my tummy because I had a child, and my husband doesnt. Sure, I knew a c section was a possibility when I got pregnant, but What do you suggest we do to make it equal, so we both have the same consequences for bringing our boy into the world? Cut him open, too? Look, if you fell asleep in biology class and missed the part about human reproduction, I dont see why *my* tax dollars should go to support *your* night of fun. Thats what it boils down to. And yes.keep it in your pants if you dont want to man up and possibly assume the responsibility. Grow up and stop buying into the Hollywood bullshit that there are no consequences for anything you do, ever. Sex is for grownups, not immature little twits. Nov 14, 2007 - 1:59 pm 61. phwest: While I agree at the individual level with the duty to accept responsibility for your offspring, intended or otherwise, there is more to it than that. By actively rewarding women for having children out of marriage, the current system promotes single parentage, something which is clearly not in societys interest on the whole, even if it is better after the fact for the child in question. This is simply another facet of the welfare dilema child support (from either the state or absent father) is better for the child than abandonment, but it also increases the number of children in single-parent households. The tragedy of the current system is not the burden it places on fathers, but the damage it does to families, whether through casual divorce, bypassing marriage entirely, or the development of a male CW based on the proposition that the system is stacked against men and women cannot be trusted. For now, I dont think thats true. Most people (men and women) have enough of a moral sense not to abuse the system in that way. But just as there was a tipping point with welfare that led to the complete collapse of the family in the underclass, there is a point where the mainstream family collapses as well. That is the fire being played with here. Nov 14, 2007 - 2:05 pm 62. Mark G: Darrell said, If men and women would just get back to celibate dating/courting with the purpose of developing enduring friendship, followed by marriage and sex (and perhaps children), most of these problems would simply go away. Agreed. But what do you do with the problems these people are having now? Nov 14, 2007 - 2:07 pm 63. JHoward: I agree that if a man and woman hook up at a bar and a pregnancy results, the man should absolutely pay child support. Why? If a man and woman hook up at a bar and a pregnancy results, and suddenly theres no child support

regime, might the odds of that event occurring lessen dramatically before next month? If the federal child support regime, the one that literally pays for single parenting and for special interest and an entire industry comprising lawyers, gender feminists, psychological professionals, social workers, local and legal officials didnt exist, presumably because the repercussions of personal acts were personal and not public, how would it impact personal responsibility? The notion that so many of you have that child support is responsible is folly. Its utter social irresponsibility to push off on others the consequences of your own bad choices, and rest assured that others are whos footing the bill for single parenting enabled and motivated by child support. And social irresponsibility of the magnitude of this phenomenon is radically reshaping American society and culture. Is this a mystery? Child support is a federal program and its part of public assistance machinery. Do you really expect success at any level? Nov 14, 2007 - 2:10 pm 64. serabus: KWO.thank you. All too often people with personal agendas include them in simple matters and convolute the issue. As you may have noticed Nov 14, 2007 - 2:26 pm 65. Darrell: Mark: We must teach them that we live in a real world where irresponsible behavior results in occasional injustice and misery. We must teach them that they must live in the bed of their own making (i.e. accept full responsibility for their actions). Turning back the clock is not an option, so they must make the best that they can out of a bad choice and a miserable outcome. We must teach them to pass along their learning experience to future generations, with the hope that we can reverse some of the damage caused by modern sexual permissiveness and chaos. If there is no pain, there can be no gain. Nov 14, 2007 - 2:26 pm 66. matt cb: well, hell, my girlfriend told me she never wanted children and that should our birth-control fail, she would seek an abortion. so operated under a pretty clear paradigm, but then lo and behold she gets pregnant, wants to get married and have the kid. this is all nice and good, but i wanted none of itnow i pay child support while have a kid i never wanted to father. i love him dearly, but for crying out loud, men deserve some sort of assurance from the court that it wont incentivize this female behavior with monetray support from an unwilling and tricked father. and yet, now i dont even get custody but for a few weekends a year after she used my statements of not wanting children to gain court favor. thanks family court! Nov 14, 2007 - 2:34 pm 67. JHoward: are you suggesting that once in motion, a man has absolutely no choice or mind/body control but to finished being raped? No. What gave you the notion I had and to then suggest as much? Im going well beyond suggesting, however, that the notion of forced payments naturally and predictably perpetuate the problem of unwanted pregnancy by greatly lessening the need to act responsibly. Whatever

urges men and women have, theyre beginning to be radically altered by federal child support law, and that alteration isnt exactly gender-neutral (if that matters.) The private sector has always had means of dealing with the economic consequences of single motherhood and disadvantaged children. Meanwhile, history shows convincingly that the collective public sector eventually destroys whatever domestic ideals it is entrusted with furthering. Since making fathers pay is the majority tone of issues like this, how exactly do we intend to enforce that payment if were not prepared to do it by way of social pressure? Penalty of state-level law in all 50 states motivated by federal financial kickbacks is clearly not working, nor is it arguably consistent with American constitutional principle. Precisely because people have and must exercise sound choices we must eliminate fallbacks for them to do otherwise. To your point, the child support regime, by its very nature, shifts vast responsibility to males and away from females. To their credit, legions of males are indeed, just lately, bailing out. Admittedly, theyre bailing out because of the dire legal consequences, not because of social consequences or a simple sense of responsibility. This is the only way the child support regime, exemplified by this story in all its gory unfairness and willful single motherhood, serves to slow the tide of single parenting. I dont have the statistics, but Id be willing to claim that that discouraging effect falls well short of the encouraging effect federal policy has to create single parents and their statistically far more dysfunctional children. (Remember that the majority of child support cases come from splitting families, where a mother can typically gain as much as thousands of largely uncontestable dollars a month until her children turn eighteen, and in many cases well beyond.) Is that consistent with the gender-neutral political enlightenment we profess about ourselves these last 50 years? Nov 14, 2007 - 2:36 pm 68. Looking Glass: If the woman claims to be sterile and gets pregnant its the mans fault. Therefore if the man claims to be sterile and the woman gets pregnant its her fault. Nov 14, 2007 - 2:39 pm 69. JHoward: I dont see why *my* tax dollars should go to support *your* night of fun. Thats what it boils down to. To the tune of billions a year, your tax dollars are going to support enormous federal programs that by their very nature encourage waste, fraud, and kids without dads. Thats what it really boils down to. Nov 14, 2007 - 2:40 pm 70. Brown Line: Its simple, really: If the choice is the womans, and hers alone, Then the responsibility is the womans, and hers alone.

Nov 14, 2007 - 3:00 pm 71. Darrell: Too many of you want to assign responsibility and consequences to either the man or the woman for unwanted pregnancies that result from dishonest relationships. The truth is that life doesnt work that way. Both must assume some responsibility for their freely chosen actions. Both must suffer some consequences. It doesnt matter if one or both lied. Men and women often lie to each other in irresponsible sexual relationships. Those who think otherwise are just being naive. Finger pointing and the blame game dont resolve anything. Taking personal responsibility along with the associated painful consequences is the only just outcome for the children that result from such circumstances. Nov 14, 2007 - 3:02 pm 72. Dave: Guys, maintain custody of that condom at all times. Dont just throw it away after sex squirt in some dish detergent and swish it around. Also be careful about accepting oral or manual sex. In either case youre giving live sperm to a fertile woman. Nov 14, 2007 - 3:30 pm 73. quadrupole: There is another wrinkle here. It has been pointed out that the mother has substantial rights to choose whether to be a parent *after* the sex act that are denied to the father. What has not been pointed out is that she effectively has substantial rights after the *birth* of the child to not be a parent. Under the safe harbor laws in most states she can simply drop the child off at a hospital or firestation and walk away no questions asked. Totally anonymous. The child is then a ward of the state, and the mother has no financial obligations for the child. The father effectively does not have this option, nor does he effectively have any capacity to prevent the mother from availing herself of this option. How is it that the mother can abandon her parental responsibilities even after birth, while a father cannot? Nov 14, 2007 - 3:45 pm 74. Ron Mock: Why cant I suggest abstinence from extra-marital sex and still live in the real world? I live in a real world in which a whole lot of men avoid extra-marital sex their entire lives. I dont mind if you joke about my looks, and in my case you might be right, but for many abstainers opportunity is plentiful, but self-discipline is in even greater supply. The pretense that in the real world extra-marital sex is inevitable is a self-delusory (and self-justificatory?) lie modern Westerners willingly tell themselves. There is nothing realistic about it. Ron Mock Dundee, Oregon Nov 14, 2007 - 3:48 pm 75. jim2:

How is it that the mother can abandon her parental responsibilities even after birth, while a father cannot? While I do not totally disagree with that post, the man has invested a few minutes in the pregnancy at the cost of a few sperm cells. The woman, OTOH, has invested nine months and a great deal of expense and personal costs (not the least of which are life-long, life-changing physical changes). Im a guy, but I have never considered the gender positions equal in this mater. In short, the woman has EARNED some greater status. Its like the difference in the relationships of a chicken and a pig to a breakfast of ham and eggs. The chicken was involved, but the pig was committed. Nov 14, 2007 - 4:02 pm 76. KoryO: JHoward.ok, my tax dollars go for a bunch of crap I dont support, not just kids without dads. But that still doesnt justify some little whiner walking away from a child he helped create, and forcing the rest of us to support that child when he has the resources to do so. Im pretty sure all of the people adopting that he had no intention to do that, so he should be able to walk away attitude wouldnt be nearly so forbearing if said twit got all liquored up, got behind the wheel and plowed into their car. After all, that twit didnt intend to wreck your car or possibly cripple you, right? He just wanted some tequila. Had it a hundred times and managed to get home safely. So why get all agitated about this one time?? Sheesh, cut him some slack, will ya? Nov 14, 2007 - 4:05 pm 77. Little Much: Jhoward, maybe if the forced payments WERE successfully enforced it WOULD give men the incentive to protect themselves better, dont you think? Its no picnic for the woman, believe me, she bears the brunt of ALL the physical responsibility. Im so but you do not make your case successfully. there are endless numbers of deadbeat Dads (and i do dislike that term) who skip out, get paid cash for their jobs, and use any number of ways to get out of THEIR part of the responsibility. Its momma who is stuck then 100%. What better way to punish someone aside from jail, than to pinch the wallet a little. Most of these accidents happen in the heat of passion by BOTH parties. Such is not ever a good defense. for unwanted pregnancy or murder. Nov 14, 2007 - 4:17 pm 78. Dood: If you dont want to be held responsible for children, but want to have sex, it is your responsibility, not hers, to make sure you are shooting blanks, and youd better be able to prove it. Her word and actions dont cut it, and wearing a condom doesnt cut it. Youre not a victim here, youre the idiot not taking responsibility for your actions. Nov 14, 2007 - 4:23 pm

79. Little Much: Many seem to point out that AFTER the sex was had that only the mother has the right to abort or not. That is still whining about having to pay the bill after youve already eaten more than his share at the buffet so to speak. If men do not want to EVER EVERRRRR be put in such a situation dont you think the smart thing would be to PROTECT himself from being charged with more than was his fill. In other words. ALWAYS WEAR A CONDOM IF YOU ARE NOT SNIPPED. why depend on someone else to protect you, against pregnancy OR an STD? That is the real world. Nov 14, 2007 - 4:25 pm 80. DWGirl: I am SO sick of the excuses from BOTH parents. No one bothers to learn about their legal responsibilities before undertaking SEX, an activity which most people should know by now MAKES BABIES, babies which COST MONEY.they probably take more time shopping for a good cell phone contract than learning (BEFORE making a baby) about the laws of their states concerning child support and custody. Women.1) Dont sleep with losers and then expect an $8 per hour overworked county child support worker to be able to magically turn them into responsible upright citizens once youve left them. If he worked at McDonalds when you were together, NO the court cant make him go get a $20 hour job just because you want to be a stay at home mom now. 2) If he didnt pay for the 6 kids he had before he was with you, he WONT PAY FOR YOUR NEW ONES EITHER. 3) When the kids live with Dad, PAY YOUR SUPPORT.being a mom is not a get out of child support free pass!!! 4) And stop withholding the visitation every time a payment is a day late.you may think its a great way to get back at the jerk, but someday your kids WILL figure out what youve done. I hope you pay for it in spades. Men.1) Dont wait until youve been the kids dad for 15 years before you call and say Im not the Dad its TOO LATE. 2) If you already have 4 kids to 2 exs.DONT go out and get a new wife and have more kids! If you couldnt afford two cars, youd never go out and buy a third.WHY are you bringing more kids into the world??? 3) And if mom doesnt let you see the kids.TAKE HER TO COURT. When you just stop paying, you add fuel to her fire and you dont exactly score points with the Judge. LEARN your RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES. 4) GET and KEEP a freakin job. If those kids lived with you, you wouldnt have the luxury of not paying for their food and housing.just because they live with mom shouldnt change your responsbilities. 5) Learn about what happens when you dont pay support, and take stepsLIKE PAYING to ensure you dont have to deal with child support enforcement. To BOTH parents.NO, the situation is NOT GOOD. No, neither of you is going to be terribly happy with WHATEVER the court order is. NO, the court CANNOT fix him/her/the situation FOR you. Mom NEVER thinks shes getting enough money, and Dad ALWAYS thinks hes paying too much. Mom and Dad show off with new purchases, new boy/girlfriends, vacations, to show the ex how GREAT their life is without them, when all it does deep down is cause problems between you two, and harm your kids. GET OVER YOURSELVES, LIFE IS NOT FAIR and THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO YOUR ACTIONS. This is NOT ABOUT YOU, its about those KIDS. If you didnt want to be in this situation, keep your pants zippedit wont KILL YOU to not have SEX. I am soooo tired of this excuse, like everyone is some kind of mindless automaton that is required to copulate with whoever is nearest when the mood strikes, or risk exploding. Next time you just *cant* resist, and the idea of bringing some poor innocent kid into your messed up lives isnt enough to stop you, think about the THOUSANDS of dollars it could cost you, YEARS of protracted court hearings, and having to deal for AT LEAST the next 18 YEARS with some person you obviously didnt love or respect enough to maintain a relationship, whether romantic or just being able to treat each other like adults.

YOU both did this, and YOU need to accept that BAD DECISIONS have CONSEQUENCES, and it shouldnt be the governments job to make up for your POOR LIFE CHOICES. (P.S. Yes, there are exceptions to what I wrote above, but if youre flying to type some angry, screaming, poorly spelled post right now, youre probably not one of them) Nov 14, 2007 - 4:27 pm 81. DWGirl: Also This constant harping on how much money the states make from child support. Child support payments are paid to the person CARING FOR THE CHILD not to the state collecting it for them. The Federal government provides funds to states, based on performance, in the hopes that obtaining support payments for the children will keep their parents OFF WELFARE. Welfare benefits cash, medical, food stamps, housing are infinitely more expensive to society than working to get support payments for kids, so its a good investment. Also, morally its YOUR job to pay for YOUR kids. I work hard enough for my meager paycheck without having thousands more go on the dole because Mom or Dad feels its unfair to support their own children. States arent exactly filling the coffers with child support money, what little of it they can collect from deadbeat parents in the first place. Nov 14, 2007 - 4:42 pm 82. Punditius: If women werent willing to have sex outside of marriage, we wouldnt have this problem. A woman who choses to have sex without marriage chooses to risk being poor being an unwed mother seems to be the best guarantee of a lifetime at the poverty level. If men werent willing to have sex outside of marriage, we wouldnt have this problem. A man who choses to have sex without marriage chooses to risk being poor having to pay child support can put a real damper on the old lifestyle. Welcome to the poverty level But for some women, the risk is actually the desired outcome being poor with a baby is better than being better off without a baby. So the risks arent quite as symmetrical as they seem. Used to be, we ostracized those women. But no more. Used to be, we frowned on sex outside of marriage, at least if it was open & notorious. No more. Essentially, sex used to incentivize marriage. But since it doesnt anymore, we have no remaining social tools to clamp down on unmarried sex. So the result is going to bebabies who need support. As always happens when societal mores break down, we turn to the law. The legal answer is that that men need to be careful to avoid these women, or take precautions if they dont. Otherwise, the woman gets the child and the man gets to pay support. Any other answer seems to either produce more unmarried mothers (welfare) or impoverished children (no child support.) Both answers seem to produce worse problems. Bottom line: the bad answer we have is the best answer we can find, as long as we are depending on the law. Of course, I suppose that we could require unwed mothers who get child support to have sex once a week with the fathers as long as the child support is being paid. That could provide incentives all around We could call that system marriage. Uhwait a minutedoes that mean that maybe we should figure out some way to reincentivize marriage?

Hmmmmaybe women could refuse to have sex outside of marriage, and thennaahhh Nov 14, 2007 - 4:50 pm 83. AM: Why cant I suggest abstinence from extra-marital sex and still live in the real world? I was wondering the same thing. I stopped dating a decade ago, shortly after I became rich enough to make these kinds of scams worth attempting. I was lucky. The first woman who tried a get-rich-quick scheme on me changed her story so often (and the pregnancy in question turned out to be fictional) that the courts eventually ruled in my favor. We went on just one date. I didnt sleep with her. I didnt even kiss her. That experience, while painful, taught me a valuable lesson. A woman can ruin a mans life with a false accusation. Men are presumed guilty. Since then I have been extremely cautious about even being alone with a woman (or a child). I realize that most women will not try to get child support from men who never even slept with them. But there are enough women who will do that to make the legal and financial risks too high. Of course, if you have no money or morals, the legal and financial risks of sleeping around as a man are very low. It seems like theres a strong moral hazard element to family law these days. Nov 14, 2007 - 5:15 pm 84. Beatrix: The point being left out of this discussion is that child support is not for either parent it is for the child. There are three people involved in this situation, not just two, and the child is the only one of those three people who made absolutely none of the choices that brought the situation about. I absolutely agree that there are inequities in the present situation and that the result is that women have more ways out of unwelcome parental responsibilities than men do. But the law has to choose, here, which of three people to be unfair to: unwilling mothers; unwilling fathers; or their unwanted kids. If you think about it, there isnt any solution that is going to be perfectly fair to all three parties. The claim that women who hoodwink men into pregnancies should not be able to look to those same men for financial support seems perfectly fair as far as the father and mother are concerned but the child ends up short-changed, and whats fair about that, when the child is the one person who did absolutely nothing to create the situation? Unfortunately, the law cannot create a perfect world in which there is no unfairness at all and nobody ever has to suffer as the result of a bad choice. Confronted with that impossibility, the law must, instead, choose who should suffer least from the inevitable unfairness of the circumstance of an unwanted pregnancy and the law has picked the child. Really, can anybody here create a defensible ethical argument that society should have selected fathers to protect from these injustices, rather than children? Even fully acknowledging the truth of the various injustices that commenters here have pointed out, I cant come up with a better answer that doesnt foist the injustices improperly onto the kids. And yes, before somebody else points it out, I realize that the legality of abortion is hardly consistent with the theory that in child support, the law is putting children first. Nov 14, 2007 - 5:48 pm 85. JHoward: Within some of the last half dozen or so comments lives an ignorance of the facts.

1. Deadbeat dads are a myth and the statistics and documentation thereof are ironclad. Virtually all nonpayers are well below poverty level. Many are in jailcollecting not a dime of income. The percentage of dads who do not pay when they can is in the low single percentages. Why? You go to jail if you do not, and believe it or not, dads love their kids. Child support is an American institution, as wrong-headed and utterly fiscally asinine as it is. It gets paid. 2. Child support IS welfare, tens of billions of wasteful dollars of it folks, and it REALLY costs like it, underperforms like it, and fails like it. Title IV-D comes from the Einsteins that gave us the $700,000,000,000 Department of Health and Human Services, Welfare, Social Security, TANF, and VAWA. Its also remolding society and not in a good way. 3. Please stop failing to therefore make the enormous distinction between private responsibilities and federally enforced programs. Child support is radically fiscally different from one to the other. 4. Child support, once paid, is untaxed and unaccountable. It has nothing in it whatsoever that ensures it supports children. Evidence is thick on the ground about support going to anything everything BUT the children. Come on, crack mothers care for their kids? Those kids are paychecks, folks. Why would it be any different for child support than we KNOW it is for much of welfare? Nov 14, 2007 - 6:30 pm 86. Looking Glass: The child doesnt get the money. The mother does, unsupervised. A woman willing to trick a man into unwanted fatherhood is unlikely to make a good mother. Nor is she likely to be fiscally responsible if she uses the government to extort money from him. Going out of her way to have a child out of wedlock does not speak to her concern for the child either. If its really for the children, let the father choose what is to be done with the child. The mother thinks hes a good provider and a good father for the child. Shes proven herself unfit by her actions. The father can have the child put up for adoption, foster care, adopt it himself, or even have the mother raise it. This will restore the necessary balance between authority and responsibility. Its in the best interests of the child. Nov 14, 2007 - 6:58 pm 87. Mike L: cubanbob said: No form of male birth control is absolute. I beg to differ. NO woman I have never had sex with has become pregnant with my child. Yeah, it sounds a bit utopian, but if you dont want to be a dad, then Keep It In Your Pants!!! Similarly, I have never suffered from a STD. Lack of self control, accompanied by a lack of self respect, leads to unintended, yet all too often predictable consequences. The fact that those consequences many times result in an unwanted living, breathing human being is tragic and is something that we, as a compassionate society, should strive to minimize. I dont really think there is any such thing as an involuntary father. Reluctant yesRegreting, yes When YOU volunteer to have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, YOU have to be ready for the consequences.

Nov 14, 2007 - 8:01 pm 88. Synova: But if were talking about what is good for children Im not at all certain that forcing child support in cases of fraud not just irresponsible sex or freaky acts of God or faulty contraceptives, but FRAUD is in the best interests of the child. Because best interests are not just financial. Men or women should both be held responsible for children they create. I sometimes talk about legal abortions for men, but generally its to make a point that asking women to be responsible for their choices isnt unreasonable. But when its *fraud*, when there is good evidence that conception was deceptive and deliberate, I think that a father should have some choices. One of those choices should be full custody with the mothers custody fully revoked. NOT up to her. If he wants it (and isnt an ax-murderer,) he should get it. Another choice available should be giving up all parental rights and responsibilities. Another choice should be child support and *joint* custody. HIS choice. Firstly, because she should not be rewarded for fraud. Secondly, because if she wanted so badly to have a baby *herself* she ought to be prepared to support it. Because we arent talking about irresponsibility. Were talking about deliberate, pre-meditated, actions. Whats best for the *child* in this situation is probably NOT having a mother who got away with it. That the child needs to be cared for is also the reason that laws require a husband to pay support for a child or children that are not his. This should also change. It made sense in a different time when paternity was impossible to determine. It doesnt make sense *now*. The law should still pick the child, but the law has the ability to identify the father and there is no reason not to do so when it comes to support. Because guys who dont keep it zipped SHOULD be responsible for children they father, if they wanted to father children or not. Or if their girlfriend was married or not. Nov 14, 2007 - 8:47 pm 89. keelyellenmarie: Okay, so heres the thing. As much as we would like them to be, because it would make things simpler, men and women are not equal players in sex. The woman always has more to lose than the man. Not only can a woman get pregnant, womens reputations are far more likely to be harmed by sex than a man, they are more likely to get/be seriously harmed by many sexually transmitted diseases, and so on. Guys are much more likely than women to be able to just get up and walk away from a sexual encounter and forget about it forever. Societys response to this has been to try and make men and women more equal by pushing some of the penalties off on the man. The idea, I suppose, is that the vulnerability and cost of sex should be spread

around. The problem with this, of course, is that it just doesnt work. Its artificial, clumsy, and it allows women to act like they havent been given (biologically) a greater burden. The solution? People need to face reality. Women need to realize that they have more to lose, and therefore need to be more involved in protecting themselves. There was a time when culture and technology didnt make this possible, but now it is. Of course, we dont live in a perfect world and a lot of girls still dont have the education and/or confidence to protect themselves, but ideally, women have the ability to protect themselves. And men need to realize that every time a women has sex with them, there is probably more at risk on her side of things than his. Of course, we cant count on everyone to be good responsible people, and we cant legislate proper casualsex ethics. But we can get rid of the stupid laws that are easily gamed and put some better ones in place that truly protect women AND men from victimization without infantilising either party. The goal of these laws shouldnt be to make things fair, because things are never going to be fair. The goal should be to prevent serious harm and punish those responsible when it occurs. And we can also encourage more sex-education and frank discussion about the manners and consequences of casual sex. Because it is going to happen, and being all uptight and stupid about sex is what has got us so screwed up in the first place. Nov 14, 2007 - 9:06 pm 90. Vanguard: My father died when I was 10. I spent two years in an orphanage and was shuffled from foster home to foster home. I put myself through college and earned an Associate of Applied Science in Electrical Engineering Technology with a cumulative GPA of 3.4. The mother of my child possesses a bachelors and an associates degree. I began investing in real estate and securities in my mid twenties. Through hard work and wise investing my net worth most certainly would have been between $1.5 and $2 million by age 55. Im 40 and bankrupt. My child support and medical support order total $1130/mo despite the fact that I have my daughter 50% of the time. I consider myself fortunate. Many Fathers regularly pay their child support yet are prohibited from seeing their children. I cant afford to heat my home in winter, drive a beater, am behind in all of my bills and am once again facing foreclosure on my home. My mortgage company will debit my checking account on November 30th. Should there be insufficient funds, they have informed me that a foreclosure action will be initiated against me. My take on those sanctimonious persons posting to this thread who in complete ignorance defend the present child support system, yet no nothing about Title IV-D, E, TANF, and the hundreds of billions of dollars in profits by the states at the EXPENSE of our children?

Simple minded. The ignorance of those dispensing their overvalued opinions regarding a child support system whose corrupted and deceptive architecture they no nothing about is very entertaining to me. Those who honesty dont believe one can be incarcerated and have their assets seized absent a trial and without committing a crime are simple minded people. Their perception of reality is more than mere illusion, its pathological. Im facing foreclosure again and honestly dont care. What can I do? I owe thousands to family members, have no credit and emptied the IRAs long ago. Even more funny is that for the first time in my life, I owe the IRS and lack the ability to pay. What are they going to do, take my house? Why do I find this amusing? First and foremost I still retain my most precious and invaluable treasure. A 50% visitation schedule with my wonderful daughter. Since I still have access to my daughter (for now), Im bankrupt, cant pay my bills, am facing incarceration again (because I cant afford to make court ordered payments) what do I have left for them to take? Absolutely nothing. Do I mismanage my money? Absolutely not. I simply cant pay my bills with a child support order that nearly equals my mortgage, and steals almost half of my net monthly income. Life has become very simple for me. First, pray to God that I will continue to be fortunate enough to see my daughter. Second, stay out of jail. If I am incarcerated for contempt I will lose my job. That would create a small problem as the felony clock begins ticking. With my support order set as high as it is, in a matter of months Id officially qualify as a deadbeat and a felony non-support warrant for my arrest would be issued. If that happens, logic dictates but two choices. Go on the lam, or be incarcerated UNTIL I can pay my arrearage. Do I still find this humorous? ABSOLUTELY! Why? The day will come when all will not only see, but be forced to acknowledge the truth. By then, itll be too late. If Stephen Baskervilles newly released book, Taken Into Custody doesnt stop this madness, this country will rightfully implode. Regards, Vanguard Nov 14, 2007 - 10:02 pm 91. David: What about the guy in Florida (I tghink it was Florida) who was locked up for years on a rape charge. When the powers that be finally got the verdict changed they let him out and he was paid a settlement by the state of over $300,000.

His former girlfriend sued for child support and got over half the money. Nov 15, 2007 - 1:24 am 92. jw: I look at this starting with the men who have ZERO choice. Start with the most serious female offender / male victim rapes that result in pregnancy. For Canada & the US together we get three or four of these every year. The man is, by force of law, a biological cash machine he MUST support both baby and rapist. Move down the level of violence to where she grabs a used condom and uses the semen to get pregnant. He has only the most minor of choices, but is still a biological cash machine. He must by force of law support both baby and thief. How much more violent and discriminatory will it be when he has more choice? A LOT more! The law must change. Males must be considered human beings. Males are NOT ATMs with legs! Nov 15, 2007 - 1:30 am 93. TexasRainmaker: I took a similar position in an unpopular paper in law school a decade ago (prof. was a woman). The class was called Religion, Ethics and Law and I was to take a controversial position on a subject and explore it from religious, ethical and legal views. I reprinted it on my blog a few years ago: http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2005/10/31/113077152519252047 Nov 15, 2007 - 5:20 am 94. CG: Wow, why dont we go back to the dark ages! There was a time in history when women had no rights at all and were considered the property of their husbands. For years in western countries, especially after laws changed in the 1900s, women were usually not financially able to raise children alone. There was no family allowance, no child support, women didnt even have the right to vote or own property. These days in western countries women are considered full citizens and have the same rights as men on paper. Yet there is still generally an income gap between women and men and single women are disproportionately taking responsibility for unplanned children, taking 100 per cent of the blame if a pregnancy occurs. We dont have safe and effective birth control yet for women in fact if a woman goes on the Pill for eight years or more she is at a high risk of developing cancer. Many women cannot tolerate the Pill. Depo Provera is dangerous for womens health so are IUDS. The female condom is difficult to use, its hard to find a doctor these days who will fit the cervical cap or a diaphragm. Its shocking with all the information available about AIDS and STIs (STDS) that condom use wouldnt be automatic but there are still men out there who refuse to use a condom. There arent enough birth control methods focused on men. I think we need better sex ed for both women and men and we need to teach younger women and girls especially how to advocate for themselves better. In New France (1534-1763) men were obligated to pay for any children they created whether they were married to the woman/girl or not.

Judging from what Amy is saying, since men have carte blanche to use women for sex and then refuse to acknowledge any children they help conceive then women should point blank refuse to have sex with men unless and until the men sign a legal agreement beforehand. Whatwith hormones and emotions and such I dont know how realistic that would be, but it would sure save a lot of women from derailed careers and poverty and save a lot of children from the pain of being abandoned by their fathers. Nov 15, 2007 - 8:45 am 95. Ranba Ral: What Ive seen personally of the child support system and the behavior of at least half of the women Ive known over the years makes me want to keep it in my pants forever. Granted, a lot of deadbeat dads deserve what they get, but Ive seen too many good guys get screwed to really believe the system works. It wouldnt be so bad, but the system is apparently stacked in favor of not letting the man act on his responsibilities. Take, for example, my uncle. He got married just before being shipped to Vietnam. Got his wife pregnant before he left. Upon his return, she divorces him; telling him point-blank that she only married him for the life insurance payout she would inevitably get for him getting KIA. She gets the divorce on the grounds he beat her the entire duration of the marriage. Child support ensues and he is ordered to have no contact with his daughter (hes infantry, therefore a killer, and he beats his wife magically over thousands of miles of separation), despite wanting to help raise her. The ex-aunt uses my cousin as a pawn to try to get him in trouble throughout the next 8 or so years by dropping her off at my uncles house at random, often while hes at work. After it became obvious he would follow the law and call the social worker and police every time this happened, she stopped and we dont know what happened to my cousin to this day. All attempts to get joint custody were denied because of the cross-world beatings. My godfather had a child with his ex also. His military duties kept him bouncing around the nation so direct contact was limited, but he kept in touch with his son by phone and mail and paid above and beyond what he was supposed to because he thought it the right thing to do. The ex-wife sued him shortly before he died for back child-support after their son was over 20. Court defacto finds in her favor because he doesnt show up (he had cancer treatments where he lived on the other side of the nation), despite the fact that the military automatically garnishes wages for child support and sends it. This one doesnt fall into the wanting to be a father to the child category, but further shows me its bad news to get too seriously involved with anyone: a buddy whose fiancee at the time gets knocked up. Hes very devout, and was thus waiting until his wedding night for his first time. Turns out the fiancee was being ridden about as often as the Sydney Harbor Ferry by nearly everyone but him. Hes stuck working two jobs to pay child support for a child that isnt even his, while she doesnt work (she mooches off her current sugar-daddy) and continues whoring around the clubs. Last time any of the crew saw her she was on child 3 and male money-target number 5. Nov 15, 2007 - 10:08 am 96. crystal therese: Looking Glass- Women dont really have much of a choice when it comes to accepting the consequences of sex. If we get pregnant by accident we HAVE to do something about it, whether thats raise the child, give it up, or kill it. None of those is an easy choice. WE dont have the luxury of just taking off the way men do. This whole idea that men should be relieved of their responsibility because they are not more careful about where they put their dicks is just another symptom of what is wrong with our society. What kind of country do we live in that we place some mans bank account over the welfare of an innocent child? While I am sure there might be some instances of women who get pregnant on purpose so that other peoplewhile its the welfare system or the baby daddy, those instances are RARE. Of course, losers who seek to

shirk their responsibilities are a dime a dozen. This article, however, insinuates that women are lining up to entrap unsuspecting men to a lifetime of lost income. It just gives ammunition to the losers who cant keep it in their pants to do as they please and then turn around and cry foul when the consequences catch up with them. Nov 15, 2007 - 10:48 am 97. Edward Lunny: If a man doesnt want children, or the responsibilty for them, there are tworules to remember. 1..Never marry. 2..Never engage in vaginal intercourse. Hew to those rules and the issue will never arise. Nov 15, 2007 - 10:55 am 98. Looking Glass: Crystal Therese wrote, Women dont really have much of a choice when it comes to accepting the consequences of sex. Abortion as long as that options on the table arguing its for the children is fatuous. The fathers on the hook for the cost of the abortion, no more. Simple, cheap. Everyones happy. Otherwise were back to government authority being used to subsidize unwed mothers. Even Bill Clinton didnt think that was a good idea. Nov 15, 2007 - 12:24 pm 99. Joe: 14 years ago my wife of a year and a half died of a congenital heart condition. Needless to say I was distraught and an emotional mess for a bit. A few months after that happened I got a call from an old girlfriend. I confided to her the recent tragedy. LSS after several long phone conversations I went to her city to spend a weekend. Looking for some affection and familiarity I ended up in bed with her. In the midst of the deal I managed to gasp is it safe? to which she replied yes Im on the pill. The relationship didnt last more than a few weeks. I met my wife of 13 happy years shortly after that relationship ended. You guessed it, I got the call from old girlfriend 3 months later. Having no intention of marrying her nor ever indicating such I asked her if she wanted to have the child anyway and put it up for adoption. Clearly this was not her plan. So Ive been paying child support for 13 years now. Its as much as the mortgage on our house. But I was stupid and weak and I look at the monthly support payments as a reminder of the cost of actions based on emotion and thoughtlessness. My wife and I live in a smaller house than we could afford without the CS payments but other than that I have no emotional scars and the mistake only costs me money. The other individual has to live daily with her actions. I failed to note that it came out during the paternity action that she had planned my visit to coencide with her ovulation and intended all along to get pregnant. I was one of several targets she had had sex with over a one week period of time. Bottom line, Im a lawyer and know full well the lack of justice in the laws and our legal system. Im sure that the child support statutes could be different and more fair. I know through experience the current laws award a windfall to the unscupulous in the name of the children. But I dont know how you would fix that without damaging the truley deserving or needy. Was I pissed off at the idea of paying out $180,000 to a whore? You bet. But I made my bed and Ill teach my kids to be smarter.

Nov 15, 2007 - 1:17 pm 100. D: so, what gets me after reading much, commenting and reading some more, is how the options seem extreme one way or the other. Is it SO very hard to go back to the moment of the deed, and take equal responsibility? Some keep repeating If he has does the deed, he has to pay! OK. Ill take that. Why doesnt she, then? From that moment everything should be halvsies. Support, visitation, AND/OR the abortion question. Period. She did the deed TOO. It takes two to tango TOO. It takes TWO to tango so the responsibility for the child should be divided EQUALLY. This only makes sense. Its not fair if you get to pick and chose what things you want. Sure the guy can take off, and the chica can have the abort without telling. These are people who wouldnt follow the law in any case. the people who ARE impacted are those that stay to do the right thing for the kid. It would never be perfect, because the physical truth is that we are NOT equal in terms of carrying the child before birth. But before the eyes of the law we are supposed to be equal, otherwise we call that discrimination. I am not advocating a return to the dark ages here, that is the most foolish argument Ive heard. Why should I pay the sins of my grandfathers generations, or long before? Why not make it fair moving ahead? or are the femmes afraid of making it fair? Think on it this way: guys who will take off already do. Guys who stay already stay. Same with the women. Why not make it so that those who seek to do right are not punished for doing so? BOTH women AND men. Nov 15, 2007 - 3:03 pm 101. Alec Leamas: Under the safe harbor laws in most states she can simply drop the child off at a hospital or firestation and walk away no questions asked. Totally anonymous. The child is then a ward of the state, and the mother has no financial obligations for the child. The father effectively does not have this option, nor does he effectively have any capacity to prevent the mother from availing herself of this option. How is it that the mother can abandon her parental responsibilities even after birth, while a father cannot? I would like to see a test case where the father drops the kid off at the firestation no questions asked. I surmise that the Court would find a tortured way around saying babies are the property of women but yielding the same result, and landing the mans ass squarely in jail.

Nov 15, 2007 - 6:44 pm 102. rosignol: While I am sure there might be some instances of women who get pregnant on purpose so that other peoplewhile its the welfare system or the baby daddy, those instances are RARE. Rare, my @$$. Out of a circle of a dozen or so close friends, no less than three have been targetedsuccessfully- by women like this. Seeing the hell (financial, legal, and emotional) these gold-digging, blood-sucking harpies have put my friends through has dramatically changed my opinion of if prostitution should be legal. As near as I can tell, it already is- and it comes with an 18-year financing plan. Nov 15, 2007 - 8:52 pm 103. cubanbob: KoryO: if a woman does not want to get pregnant she can either get her tubes tied or abstain. Spare me the taxpayers argument. unless your in the top 20% your not a net taxpayer. Mike L: if a man is supposed to keep it in his pants are you saying a woman should not be held to the same standard by keeping her legs crossed? A kid is better of being adopted by parents that truly want him or her than being raised by a woman alone who let herself get pregnant by a man who did not volunteer to be daddy. All too many woman confuse child support with mom support, sixteen years and six hundred thousand dollars later I know than story all to well. And mom earns 45k a year with full benefits. No need for a pity party for her. As a previous commenter put it so well: the woman have all the rights and none of the responsibilities and the men have all the responsibilities and none of the rights. Nov 16, 2007 - 12:00 am 104. jw: The venom from some women! Are males human beings? Or are we not? Answer that yes and we can talk. Continue with NO and we cannot talk. The distrust from some men! Talk about what you want and what you fear, dont project. I fear womens attitudes in regard to male victim/survivors of sex assault: Ive GOOD reason to so fear. Womens attitudes tend to be fairly sexist. I do not have the right to project that women WANT to destroy male survivors. Nov 16, 2007 - 1:29 am 105. Dee: The purpose of sex is to make babies. Anything else is just fun. Even taking all the precautions available, a baby might still be the result. So, if you dont want a baby and the resulting twenty years of serdom, dont have sex.

Nov 16, 2007 - 9:37 am 106. Crystal Therese: Looking Glass- Simple, cheap, and everyones happy? Oh yes, because having an abortion is soooooo easy. *eye roll* Please! Even if a woman decides to have an abortion, she has to deal with the monetary cost (unless the guy chips in), the physcial pain- oh, and she also has to live with that decision for the rest of her life! Same goes for adoption. Of course most men would not understand that. Its all so easy for them to just make their deposit and run. Rosignol- The people you know. Now there are some scientifically gathered numbers. In fact the original article has no data on how often this happens. Why? Because it doesnt happen that often. But OMG we better have some legislation to protect the wallets of the stupid!!! This whole discussion is so reminiscent of the Reagan era, when they tried to do away with welfare by painting all women on welfare as lazy,money-grabbing welfare queens and conveniently overlooking that the mojority of people on welfare are not like that. Salted Slug said The statement that chivalry is dead, and women killed it is rather old. I wonder whats being killed now? hehe Right now? My desire to ever get involved with another man so long as I live. Nov 16, 2007 - 11:24 am 107. masterwindu: My Body. My Choice. OUR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. Who wants it both way. Nov 16, 2007 - 12:35 pm 108. masterWindu: So let me get this straight. It is the women right to choose if the man will be the fater or just sperm donor, but somehow, resposiblity for an action that is totally hers is shared by someone that has no input into the decision!!! As far as I am concern, if there was not intention what so ever, its no different than the woman going to the clinic and getting impragnated. I can see that many posters believes what I heard many times but would have been too affraid to say in most circles. Men always pay for it. If the man does not want to concequence of her choice too bad, you had sex, so you pay, next time go on the street where the price are cheeper. And yes, it is her choice, pregnancy does not imply birth any more, (about 20 to 25% of pregnacies are aborted). Nov 16, 2007 - 12:54 pm 109. Melissa: All u people say that a man is responsible no matter what because they didnt use a condom. What about if the man thought she wasnt going to get pregnant because she said she was on birth control? Im sorry for all u against me, but if a woman lies in order to get pregnant, then no the man shouldnt be financially liable to that child. She wanted it so deal with it. Our system is so screwed up that it does not matter what a woman says or does, men have no say in it. If they are the father, they are going to have to pay. How is it fair to try and bring a father into the life of a child after 8 years because thats what the woman wanted? That will take a toll on that child years down the road. To all women, think before u decide to lie about birth control. Its

not just ur own lives ur screwing up. Apr 23, 2008 - 1:07 pm 110. LJC: This is a tough topic because I am in somewhat of a similar situation. I recently had gotten off of the depo provera shot (which I have been on for a number of years) and was told that I would be sterile for a year. It just so happened that four months after getting off of the shot I ended up pregnant. We have discussed this and I actually thought that I was okay because I would be sterile (well supposed to be). With this issue I agree with Melissa. I do not believe in abortions at all unless it is required by the doctor to do so. Now if the man does decide to eventually to do for the child financially or be in the childs lifr then that is when you can do the things that you need to make it happen. If the man feels that he doesnt want to have anything to do with the child financially or physically then I feel that I you can not force it upon that man. It takes to, but it takes one to be the smart one in the situation. I am not making him obligated to do anything for my child if he does not want to do anything for it, and I will not be upset with him for his decicision either. This was an actual mistake on my behalf for actually believing that I was sterile after getting off of the shot. May 11, 2008 - 4:33 am 111. cam: It take two to make a child it should take two to rise The child. This is so far from the truth. As many fathers cant get custoy. Even when their fit, willing and able. Its not 50/50. The woman could have 5 kids with 5 diffrent fathers and still have all power to their up bringing. What a shame! Jun 20, 2008 - 3:07 pm 112. Daddy Nobucks: When Involuntary Fathers Are Forced to Foot The Bill - antimisandry.com: [...] Goddess, Oct 1, 2008 - 6:42 pm 113. Anonymous: Child support is and has always been a scam to cheat men out of their money and create a legal way for women to extort it from them and continue to receive a free ride through life. As a woman, I feel only contempt for other women who choose not to stand on their own two feet and suck up their philandering ways. A woman physically is the baby making machine, therefore it is her sole responsibility to raise and pay for the little monster she spits out. Nov 16, 2008 - 10:18 am 114. Colin Timberlake: