Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Has anyone had a good relationship with someone on POF?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 230 (view)
 
Has anyone had a good relationship with someone on POF?
Posted: 11/20/2014 4:32:19 PM
A few, yes.

Messages this short may not be posted, though!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 118 (view)
 
Your Personal Philosophy
Posted: 11/20/2014 4:24:59 PM
"Do the right thing"
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 103 (view)
 
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:41:55 PM

Not sure what the problem is if that's the case? I fully recognize that there is a wage gap between females and males, but if it's not by discrimination, what is the issue? It's just the choices that men and women typically make that lends itself to this situation.

You could say we as a society should try to encourage women to pursue higher paying jobs. I don't really see anything wrong with that, but it's just not a huge issue. It's personal choices.


You obviously didn't do your research. It is a fact that women make less than men in the same jobs, plain & simple. The gap is closing, but it remains a fact.


I find it curious how if I ever disagree with someone older than me, they always throw down the age and wisdom card. As if age guarantees intelligence. Yeah, you probably do have more experience, but wisdom is being able to process that information and apply it sensibly and, even without experience, you can read and learn from other's experiences to reach the same level.


Age doesn't guarantee intelligence, it guarantees experience. You have wisdom all wrong, honey.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2873 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:36:44 PM

No - I chose to ignore your obtuse wording and yea, you did get owned


I think not, as your retort was completely unrelated and suggested nearly the complete opposite if what you responded to. Then again, I'm starting to believe that you really aren't capable of understanding.

I'm sorry for you. Why don't you have another drink?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2871 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:26:57 PM
I'm not a victim but I do know more than one that has been. Friends mostly but it is a pretty common occurrence.
However many men never know.


That is quite telling. Pretty common in your circle of friends? Not mine......
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2870 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:22:29 PM
As far as legally speaking you are right. Because the laws protect the women from her responsibility on that.


I am right, legally speaking, not because the laws favor women but because of the legal definition of fraud. Why can't you just admit that? How would you prove one's intent? Intent is a requirement that if it were lifted, would extend to so many circumstances that it would create havoc. You continue to push for this to be a gender issue but fraud is not a gender issue.


Of course the mothers would have to be honest about who the father is to get any support this way........ And I know you hate that.


That, sir, is what is childish. If you truly believe that my posts here indicate that I support women who lie to men, you are a complete moron.


I'm not asking for any protection for the men...... Just a legal avenue to not be defrauded by unscrupulous partners.
And honestly we are all responsible for our own protection. However you can't protect yourself from fraud if the laws won't let you.


Supporting a mandate most certainly is doing so, and ignores that we all, men included, have both the ability & the responsibility to protect ourselves from fraud. Legal avenues relative to fraud come after the fact, and we could go on ad nauseum about fraud, but you simply can't get past your own agenda.


You should try not being a victim....... It is actually a very good feeling.


Another immature nonsensical utterance. I have never been, have not played & never will be a victim. Grow up, already!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2869 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/20/2014 3:10:58 PM
Actually, no. I tend to agree with Tealwood and mchurch. Seems to me they owned you quite regularly on the other threads.....lol....

Actually, it is apparent that your comprehension is lacking. More likely, you are so focused on making a point, not to mention childish comments that you neglected to properly read; no matter. "Owned"? that IS funny, I am my sole "owner", but if that's what you need to make you feel better. I stand by my words.


Please show me where I indicated this was a gender issue.

Your lack of comprehension is showing again. I didn't say you were making it a gender issue.


If more people took an optimistic view of the economy and wanted to work for a living instead of always having a hand out, the whole issue of food stamps and social assistance would not nearly be as big an issue as it is now (and I know Tealwood owned you in another thread on that topic). In any case, I worry more about making money, not paying taxes

Tealwood & I have had disagreements, but he hardly owns me. Perhaps you should go back to the schoolyard. For the record, I have never had a handout, have worked since I was 13, up to 3 jobs at once. You are quite the fool to not worry about your taxes.

Frankly I don't think you have anything of substance to add to this thread. I guess you're bored. Back to the playground with you!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 97 (view)
 
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:09:25 PM
This:
More likely, the idea that men might not want to be ruled and controlled by women anymore scares you

Then, this:

I respectfully disagreed with her, offering logic to counter hers. How is that "poo pooing" her? Whatever that even means.

Followed by:

Age is irrelevant. Logic and facts are all that matter.


Truth is, I find you fairly respectful, or at least mindful enough to appear so. Yet, for one so young your words convey quite an old fashioned display of narrow mindedness & arrogance. Most of us choose to take them much as we accepted that our 13 yr-olds' "knew everything"; don't worry, one day you will realize that you don't, and you will be far better for that. Assumptive statements like your first above are disrespectful in their own way.

With age comes wisdom, borne of experience; never irrelevant.

You are quite incorrect in that a man can not legally screw up a woman's life; of course he can. Clearly, you have no experience with the judicial system.

As for your comment regarding "stay at home" moms, has it ever occurred to you that the decision for one parent to remain at home, to forfeit earnings, to forfeit both future earnings & retirement, is a decision made by TWO people, usually one male & one female. You speak as if it is a decision made in a vacuum, with the resulting "deficit" to fall upon one party alone. Parenting is a very difficult job with very little financial rewards. It would not be incorrect to state that the rewards of same are most often reaped by the child who had a parent available to them. I would venture a guess that were the earnings of those offspring, their "output", attributed to that parenting, you would see things in a very different light.
Never too young to think outside of the box, young man!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2863 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:45:39 PM
There is no doubt that the legal system is set up for attys. to make money.

Of course, "yip yap drivel" comes from only those with whom you don't agree. The likes of us, if you actually pay attention to what you read, in no way support those who would seek to deceive a man.

You're right, nothing has changed. You continue to act is if it is those you disagree with who are making this a gender issue. It;s not, it;s a civil rights, invasion of privacy, personal responsibility issue, and the legal definition of fraud is quite pertinent.

Your 20% is nothing more than blabber, another ridiculous attempt to make it sound as if there are more than 63 million who don't know who their real father is. BS! No one is saying it's right, or that it's not a problem, but you are blowing it way out of proportion, with no basis in fact whatsoever. To what end, I have no idea. Mandated DNA testing isn't about money to those citizens who value their rights.

Since you're so worried about money, why not instead spout equal vehemence for those, men & women alike who do not pay their cs, and take your hard earned dollars via food stamps, medicaid & the like? Are you able to concede that that is a MUCH larger problem, economically at the very least?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 95 (view)
 
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:24:26 PM

A man cannot legally screw up your life. A woman can. Well, to be fair it's more about income (since men typically still earn more by choice). Any man marrying a woman who is poorer than her can be taken to the cleaners. That is the difference that irks me and has me very anxious. But I think it's wonderful if women also want to break out of these established gender roles. Do what you want, but most importantly, think for yourself and figure out who you even are first.


Sorry, but there you are 100% incorrect! The absolute, bottom line truth is that, in a divorce, the one with the most money wins, ALWAYS. You'll never convince me otherwise; I have seen it untold times, I have lived it, I know far too much about it.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 94 (view)
 
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:22:03 PM
[quot]There is none that I have seen. Women who are as skilled, educated and work as long as a man, regardless of the field, will earn the same. The idea that there is this mass discrimination against women is ludicrous, bordering on downright conspiracy.

I never said there was mass discrimination. If you really do want to see, it should take you less than 5 minutes (Google it, and steer clear of the feminist websites, my dear).
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2861 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:15:30 PM

Why not adjust the system where it is harder to commit fraud?


Exactly what part of you is it that can not comprehend the legal definition of fraud?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2860 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:09:32 PM
So you don't consider a man being defrauded by a woman having a child that is not his, but the laws in most states forcing him to pay for a child he had nothing to do with bringing into this world.


Although your sentence makes no sense, I think I can see what you're trying to say. Most states do NOT force a man to pay for a child not his own. You are speaking of those cases where a man takes responsibility for a child for a length of time & only wants out when the relationship ends. Sometimes those cases result in a decision that it is in the best interest of the child to continue benefiting financially. No, I'm not saying this is right, but it is different from what you state as fact. It is not a fact that every woman who has a child by a man other than her partner is defrauding him. It may be true that the majority are, but legally speaking, that would be nearly impossible to prove. Your response was directed at my statement indicating that we all have some responsibility for our choices. If you are sleeping with someone you don't trust, then by all means get a DNA test, not 10 years after the child is born. As I said, it is not the job of the government to protect you from yourself. How you spun that into the nonsensical drivel above is beyond me.


Bull butter as I said in GA where I raised my children it takes DFACS about two months to find and start support deductions.
If the absent parent runs their license are revoked. If that doesn't get the job done they set in jail.

Maybe you should look into why your state is so bad at their jobs.


A bit childish of you to attempt to put down my state, but once again, a poor attempt to veer off topic. A federal mandate would affect all states, and across the US, less than 1/2 received of cp's owed CS received all of the monies due & approx. 1/3 received nothing at all. As a country, I feel pretty safe saying we're not doing such a great job. Perhaps our tax dollars would be better spent on collections ,thus saving in welfare , etc. than in providing free tests for all those "defrauded" men.


However it should be available to any supposed parent.

It is!


Also the ridiculously lopsided laws that force men to pay for children that are not theirs should be abolished.

Although we disagree that there are such laws, I certainly don't believe that any man should be supporting a child not his own, unless he so chooses.


Making a bad choice should not be an excuse for legal extortion.

Of course it shouldn't, and neither should it be an excuse to pass off one's personal responsibility to the general population.


As far as the rape question. Carry a handgun and put a bullet in the POS's head! Problem solved for good.

Another childish retort that completely avoids the question. What you are suggesting is that it makes sense for the government to protect men from being defrauded, but it is up to women to protect themselves? Interesting thought pattern, there. One wonders why it is that you are unable to follow & make a valid comparison.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 414 (view)
 
If a woman agrees to a FWB relationship ...
Posted: 11/18/2014 6:31:38 PM

Even whynot46 seen you accuse me of things I never said in an attempt to try and make a point...


I would prefer you not involve me, given your history of inability to comprehend. Frankly, I find you to be nasty & somewhat ignorant, hell bent on attempting to further your own agenda, which makes it impossible for you to carry on intelligent conversation.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 76 (view)
 
Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)
Posted: 11/18/2014 6:25:14 PM

More likely, the idea that men might not want to be ruled and controlled by women anymore scares you. I guess I don't blame you, you have a nice status quo going on now.

Feminism isn't a dirty word, it's an irrelevant word since there isn't anything to be a feminist about. You hold all the cards, in every category.


I am not trying to be rude, but I will say that your age is showing. Feminism:"the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."
Nothing more, nothing less. Women most certainly do not "hold the cards". Sure, women earn much more than they used to, but they still don't earn as much as men in the same positions. They still are responsible for more than half of the household chores, more than half the childcare, and more often than not, after having spent the day at a full time job. Still, for many women, they wouldn't want it any other way, no matter how much they complain.
I don't know of many women who want to rule & control a man, except those who are control freaks, and I'd venture a guess (bet money, even) that there are just as man men as women who are so.

You are no different than others, choosing to buy into what is fed to you, rather than simply opening your eyes. Men who feel as you state are likely to "join a movement" , but most men and women alike would simply be happy to find someone of the opposite sex who cares for them, listens to them & values them. I believe it is most likely that the increase in selfishness, lack of community & expectation of immediate gratification prevalent in today's society is what feeds such movements. The genders don't really hate each other, we simply hate having to work, to wait, to put effort into relationships.

Contentment is highly underrated.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2853 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/18/2014 5:00:29 PM
owhynot only suggest that occurs with men...or how was it put...a specific subset of society


Knock it off already! I suggested no such things. You take a few words, completely out of context, to try to paint a picture that was never even taken. As I put it,.. the "subset" was, according to the poster who used the stats, a class of college students. Hardly indicative of the general population, not to mention a completely false allusion. The study he referred to was never published & never even completed. It was/is oft referred to by those with an agenda. Of course, neither the original poster who cited it, nor any other have addressed that fact. Many times throughout this post have I noted my belief that men & women are equally capable of fraud, deceit & generally low moral character. Stop trying to portray it otherwise.

As soon as you are able to present intelligent, logical debate I will have no problem accepting it. btw, opinions are not something which require acceptance.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2851 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/17/2014 4:37:05 PM

Then you missed my point.
The LAWS allow this and women are the only ones that can perpetrate such. However as I pointed out the laws are slowly changing.
The more this is brought to light the more chance to show these lopsided laws for what they are.
All I'm asking for is a law that doesn't allow someone to defraud another.


That's ridiculous! I don't see a lopsided law here at all; there are no laws to protect you from yourself, when it comes to choosing your sexual partner. Are you suggesting that there should be? Both men & women "defraud" each other on a regular basis. It is the defrauded who "allows" it, in this case, by not seeking a paternity test. Prosecution for such types of fraud, against either side, seems nearly impossible. We have beaten this to death, but tell me, how would one go about proving that the other party had intent? Intention is, after all required for fraud to be successfully prosecuted.


Actually this is not accurate. I have seen the system work. For one thing if a absent parent is job hopping the state can and does revoke their drivers license.
Not to mention the fact they issue arrest warrants that are nation wide.
So you may claim the system doesn't work but I've seen it work.
As I said just the other day I saw them find and get support in a mother's hand in two months....... That prior to that he hadn't paid in over a year.
I think that is fairly efficient.
And yes they took extra from him to help catch up the back support.


Actually, it is VERY accurate. That is EXACTLY how it works in NY, for sure. You clearly see through tinted glasses. If the system works so well, why, then are millions & millions of $$ owed to CP's? Certainly the system is far better than it was decades ago, and CS isn't really the topic of conversation here, still.... The parent you portray as an example hadn't seen a penny in more than a year; that's "working"? that's "efficient" ? then I guess my coworker who hasn't seen a total of $1000.00 in 11 years isn't doing so bad, following your logic?

It is most certainly not a fact that states "can & do". Very few are those whose license is suspended due to CS arrears. Why don't you find the stats on this one?



So you are saying this doesn't happen?
Now that is bullish!t.
Even the studies that show the 10% numbers show you to be wrong.
The facts are that no way can you be 100% accurate and find all the cases.

I said no such thing. The studies are unrelated to me at all, but thank you for giving me such power! I simply said that there are no "real" studies, and there aren't. There is propaganda & there are skewed numbers derived from nonvalid subsets which are promoted by those with an agenda, and that's all there are. Of course it happens. Life isn't fair. We make bad choices, horrible mistakes; people lie, people cheat. All of that doesn't warrant a mandate to collect DNA samples from every citizen. That is what I'm saying. Clear enough? I wouldn't promote subjecting all men to DNA sample collection either, even though far more women are raped each year than are men subjected to paternity fraud. Would you?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2849 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/17/2014 3:57:45 PM

Actually, this small issue is becoming a huge issue - nobody should get exemption. Even though I stated we compromise, I do not believe that is the right thing to do.


That you responded to my post completely out of context is further indication that you seek only to further an agenda, rather than actual intelligent debate.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2848 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/17/2014 3:56:00 PM

Your paranoia and/or lack of trust is irrelevant


Actually, it's not. It's quite pertinent to the topic. As, I suppose is the evidence of the male gender's distrust of the opposite sex, hmmmm?


Common-law relationships are consider to tbe the same as matrimonial relationship in terms of responsibility. Sexual relationships that are casual should be held to a certain stanbdard for the sake of a newborn child. Mandatory testing should be mandatory because there is not a commitment to the child and it seems foolish to have the man live in doubt and/or waste time questioning if he is the only sex partner she has - nobody will know that except her. The child has the right to be identified with the proper father - not the "preferred" father


I have never heard that in a common law relationship the man is assumed to be the father. Financial responsibility for a child is not determined by the relationship between the parents, other than that married men are assumed to be the father of a child born during a marriage. Commitment to a child is outside of commitment to a relationship, not only legally speaking, but for the majority. I am wondering whom you think it is that would determine if a relationship is merely "casual sex"; sounds like a "he said, she said" if you ask me.
That a child has the right to know is outside of the issue, as I can not imagine that government mandate would extend to informing a child.


No time restrictions - that's not reasonable to demand a duped father be held more accountable than a misleading mother.

That there are time restrictions is a fact, not a matter of you feeling it unfair. If a father has the right to find out & ails to do so, why wouldn't he bear any responsibility for that?


If paternity is not to be determined immediately at birth then there is no justification for time restrictions - paternity fraud is the result from lying before the child was even born.... how can you restrict one spectrum of time while ignoring the other spectrum in time?


But paternity CAN be determined very shortly after birth. How can you ignore the responsibilities of both parties? Those men who distrust the women with whom they choose to lay, as I distrust the government, have recourse.


Your position on this topic certainly comes off as someone who is against government intervention unless it's for the betterment of women.


I have never mentioned government intervention specific to women at all! You may want my posts to come off that way, but that's on you.


Then change it.... for the kids


You make this statement as if mandated DNA testing will change the legal definition of fraud, but it won't. I rest easy in that my moral code is such that I would never be in such a position, but it is the morality of individual men & women that is required as far as paternity issues go, not mandates by an uninterested government.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2835 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/16/2014 4:00:47 PM

Why don't you all compromise and agree on this:
1. All births that arise from relationships that are not within a matrimonial arrangement must participate in a mandatory DNA test.
2. If, at birth, the husband suspects he is not the father of the child being born, he may request an immediate DNA test.
3. If, after birth, with no given time restriction, a wife was found to commit paternity fraud, a husband can file for reimbursement of child support from the biological father.
4. In the case of paternity fraud, any other child of the marriage can seek compensatory damages from the parent committing paternity fraud.


Well, I might like to, but I do see a few problems.
1). I don't see a reason to single out the unmarried especially in light of the fact that so many are choosing not to marry. It discriminates against unmarried parents & most likely would not be upheld legally. It does nothing to protect the married man whose wife cheats (as so many of you here have pointed out seems to be the most problematic). Most importantly for me is the issue of government intervention. I wouldn't support such a mandate simply because it is a mandate & an intrusion on our privacy & our wallets.
2). I don't have a problem with that. Actually, I believe any man can do that now, with time restrictions. Since a married man is presumed to be the father it is a very small issue for the man to make an appt. with his legal child's pediatrician & obtain a DNA test. He needn't even inform his spouse.
3). I admit I have an issue with the "no time restriction", mostly due to the effect on the child. Truth is, since there is a time restriction, if any male feels strongly in this regard, simply request the test. Seems like a no brainer! In addition, how unfair does that seem to the "real" father, who likely had no idea that a child was even produced? Admittedly, the time factor is a sticky issue. We can't (although I imagine some of you will) ignore the issue of "fraud" in this scenario as well. Who's to say that the man didn't know all along, chose to act as the father, than thought better of it once the relationship ended? Men can be just as evil as women, you know, and the only one who would really suffer would be the child.
4). I think fraud is very difficult to prove in these type of cases, given the legal definition.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2834 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/16/2014 3:43:16 PM

Bamagirl,your long"well stated" response was full of of what ifs that have nothing to do with the basic issue of whether or not a man should have to support a child that is not his...

Didn't she post this?:


I would back up laws to force them to pay back every dime to the man proven not to be the father. We will probably never see the day when they go to jail for it, but that's not to say that they shouldn't.


I think we have gotten so caught up & so far off the original topic that we are missing much of what has been said. I have not seen one single post here that defends a woman who would intentionally seek to defraud a man for cs, not one.

Just sayin'.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2825 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/14/2014 5:26:06 PM

So why,in your view,is it impossible to have laws that treat both sides fairly ? if I am under suspicion of having committed a crime or fraud at one point should my rights to protect myself from the possibility that the truth will not work in my favor( I'm guilty) trump any and all rights others might have,if the IRS thinks you have committed fraud on your taxes you are required to submit to an investigation and telling them they must have your consent to inspect records and evidence will get you no where,same goes for other forms of suspected fraud and criminal activity.........why is this different from the perspective of a Nurse or anyone else,apparently the Cows have come home on other issues of fraud and deception which paternity fraud certainly is.......why do you think this is so ? is there any particular social or political ideology at work here ?


Relative to paternity fraud, both sides ARE treated equally. Have you ever known a man to be successfully prosecuted for fraud after impregnating a woman who states that he swore he was sterile, or had a vasectomy? I think not, as that would be very difficult to prove. It would be similarly difficult to prove that a woman knew for sure that a man was not the father of her child. Pretty simple.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2824 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/14/2014 5:21:22 PM
Show me where I've said to punish anyone. I haven't unless you consider not allowing a woman to take child support from a man that did NOT sire that child punishment.


Your post to which I responded indicates that YOU believe that women feel as if they are entitled to do so, and would be punished for
"getting caught".


Besides there is already a system in place where the state goes after the absent father for support so there is no need to punish him.


Actually, there is a need, and the system in place is not so easy to utilize as you state. It is far too easy for parent, of either gender, to move, change jobs, work for cash, etc. In NY, those with cs in arrears are "sought" by the CS Unit, approx. every 6-8 weeks, via a SSN search looking for an employer. Then, the employer is contacted to see if that person is still in their employ. At which point not a few of them are informed and leave their jobs. It is another 6-8 weeks before the search begins again. It ca be a very long time before the other parent sees a dime, if at all. I disagree about the need to punish, as why they should be less punished than any other debtor? I don't believe that interest & penalty are added to arrears, although they certainly are for those late on payment to other creditors.


However there is nothing helping these defrauded husbands.... To the contrary they are forced to pay for someone else's child in most states.


We don't disagree that men should not be forced to pay for someone else's children. You are most likely referring to those instances where a man has taken on the responsibility of a child for quite a lengthy period of time, sometimes even knowing he was not the biological father. These instances, while they certainly seem (and are) "unfair", are decided based on the best interest of the child, not in an attempt to prefer women over men.


There are the facts!


There certainly are! Then, there are the half truths & skewed information, such as your posts.


Y'all really need to check yourselves the only person that has mentioned that is c4 and she was trying to say I said it and I proved her wrong about that...... Keep spinning!!!!


Mere confusion in this lengthy discussion, forgive me. Hardly spinning though.


What?...... It takes a few days to get results...... Plus the state has programs for that if needed.
Also most men don't even ask for the tests and by the numbers I presented it would not be a majority found to be guilty of this......
However there is 10-30% that are.........you act like all women should be handed a pass.


Results don't equate to cash & court battles can takes months, even years. Not everyone qualifies for the programs you mention, and the state should not be the responsible party. The numbers you presented are BS at best. If they were accurate, most certainly the majority of men would be guilty of falsely disclaiming children; simple math. I "act" like nothing of the sort. I am simply tired of you spouting drivel as "facts". It is not a fact, those are not the truths and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can follow the simple logic.


I'm just saying a man should have the right to know and not have to pay for a child/ren that are not his.
What is so unreasonable about that?


There is nothing unreasonable about that, and no one is saying there is. The problem is that you act as of men don't have a right to know. They do, they have the means & opportunity to exercise that right. What is unreasonable about expecting each of them to do so, rather than involve the entire country?


It has become quite clear that you equate CS with punishment, from every angle. Simple logic tells us so.


Now you sound like an azz! CS is a RIGHT, a child's right, nothing more, nothing less.

It has become quite clear that you are incapable of simple logic. No reason to engage you further.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 346 (view)
 
HeforShe UN speach by Emma Watson
Posted: 11/13/2014 6:55:05 PM

Women have more social value than men. You will never see "Men's Night, Men Get In Free" at your local bar.


Don't kid yourself; that is not about social value. It's about profits. The more women at the club, the more men will come, to spend money!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 86 (view)
 
With the insignificance of humans, does it make you happy or sad?
Posted: 11/13/2014 6:51:19 PM
OP, only if you measure significance by size.

It thrills me that I do not consider humans insignificant in the slightest!

Does that answer the question?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2815 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/13/2014 6:48:42 PM

Exactly how is it punishment to the woman if the children are her husbands? He would be not only responsible for the test but HIS children as well.

Oh I know what you are crying about if he finds the child/ren are not his she will be punished by not being able to get money from a person that she had already lied to and cheated on.


Awfully presumptuous of you, don't you think? You "know" what she is crying about? That's a ridiculous & immature statement. You claim to be on the side of fairness, yet you continue to ramble on as if you were incapable of logic at all. You have refused to respond or acknowledge the fact that as many (actually, more) men deny paternity, then refuse a test, than deny paternity at all, much less deny paternity & are proven correct. You fail to address the fact that your numbers indicate that far more men than women lie about this. You drone incessantly about punishing women for fraud, yet never mention punitive legal action against the man who is proven a father despite his denial. You talk of fraud prosecution, with total disregard for the legal definition of fraud. Even civil fraud requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Adultery does not constitute such proof.

You downplay the effects on a woman, not to mention her children, of having a man accuse her of lying, all the while withholding financial support from his offspring. After all, even if we were to concede that what you say is fact, significantly more than half of the children whose fathers' deny them ARE their children! I guess it's okay, in your eyes, for them to wait out the court fight until they can have food on their table? clothes on their back?

You accuse others of not being able to stay on topic, but the topic, after all, is forcing DNA testing on all children, not punishing married women who cheat.

It has become quite clear that you equate CS with punishment, from every angle. Simple logic tells us so.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2805 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/12/2014 3:59:52 PM
My best guess is that the study to which you are referring is taken from a remark made by Dr. Elliot Philipp about a study. The study to which he referred was, and remains unpublished & was never finished. If you really want to discuss facts, then you'll agree that there is simply not enough data to make an estimate.

I don't have a theory, and conjecture doesn't "blow away" anything at all. Interesting , though, is the study that concludes "Men with high paternity confidence (subjects in genetic studies) have very low rates of nonpaternity (median = 1.9%, N = 22).
Men with extremely low paternity confidence (cases of disputed paternity resulting in paternity tests) have much higher levels of nonpaternity (median = 30.2%, N = 30).
In short, "bad picker" is not sufficient to warrant a mandate.

I do feel that the majority of both men & women have some inkling of the character of those with whom they choose to lay. And that's all I'm saying, not that men should be saddled with responsibility for children not their own.

As for the switched at birth rate, well, we don't have that rate and I don't see you advocating any type of government mandate to ensure that those children go home to the proper families. As for me, I don't promote that for the same reason; I don't believe it necessary! Just as I don't feel that the one (or many) man who lies about his sterility necessitates a mandate requiring all men to submit to sperm count testing. All equally absurd. btw, a good argument for no prosecution against false paternity claims. How quickly do you think that that type of woman would claim that the father told her he was sterile? How would you prove that? We can not enact legislation to protect all citizens from those of dubious character. That's a fact, just as it a fact that if you have doubt you have the ability to request proof.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2797 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/11/2014 4:03:45 PM

Anybody got any stats about how many men claim "not my kid" and have that claim DISproven?


Well, according to the stats posted here, 70% of them.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2796 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/11/2014 4:02:05 PM

Actually you're wrong the studies I found were done on the actual students of the universities they attended.
So it was a random testing of the population.


Really? So tell me, exactly how many college students are accused of paternity? Shocking, huh? c'mon..... Cite those studies if you will.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Guys and Custody Court Perception - What MAYBE can help
Posted: 11/10/2014 3:47:12 PM
Thank you for this, although I'm sure you'll take a lot of flack from some. Whether we want to admit it or not, most men do not request custody, not because they are warned by legal advisors but either because they believe (still, yes they do) that children "belong" with their mother, or because they simply don't want it. For those men who do seek full custody, more often than not, they prevail, about 70/5 of the time.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2786 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/10/2014 3:40:26 PM

No one said that 30% of men asked for a paternity test. The studies shows around 30% of all children born in wedlock is not the husbands.

30% is a few?........ Hummmm....33% would be a third of all children....... Seems to be a little more than a few.


You are right, no one said that 30% of all men ask for a test, but the results cited are from data collected only from men who do ask. I used 30% as an example, as that is a subset. When applied to the entire population, hardly an accurate number. Were you to properly cite studies, I believe you'd see that 30% is the number out of approx. 300,000 tests.

Firstly, you completely discount the fact that 70% of men accusing someone of fraud are wrong. More importantly, where are the data on the men/type of men who deny paternity? Most importantly is that the number is used by those with an agenda, and blatantly promoted to indicate that 1/3 of ALL children do not belong to the man believed to be their father. It is simply not true, no matter how strongly you promote it. If you truly buy into that, you're a fool. I don't believe you do, though, I highly suspect that you use it to further an agenda which portrays all woman as lying whores.

Either way, no one is promoting paternity fraud, you are trying to make it seem that way, but anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows better.


I don't see anyone asking for that........ I think what most would agree to is anytime a man asks for a test it should be done.
If the test comes back showing him not to be the father then he can just move on.
The mother should pay for the test and the child...... No government help is needed.


Those pushing for mandated DNA testing are asking for exactly that. We agree, government intervention is unnecessary. Why, then are we arguing?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2780 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/9/2014 10:30:50 AM
Stop being so obtuse! More related to avoiding punishing the masses for the sins of a few. Yes, I said a few, as 30% of 30% IS a few, and you have not even shown that 30% of men request a paternity test, although they are certainly entitled to do so)! Simple opposition to a mandate does not point toward such an attitude at all. Besides, what I stated was the truth, a legal fact, not an attitude. We don't prosecute for crimes before they happen. Prevention is a combination of punitive against the criminal & care not to be defrauded by the "consumer". As it should be

No offense, but some of you sound like big dumb babies. It seems that what you are proposing is that men should suspect all claims of paternity, and you don't want them to have any responsibility for doing so, nor for paying for it. That's an immature standpoint.

In your case, captain, perhaps just a drunken rambling. (jk, I enjoy you!)
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2777 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/8/2014 7:07:06 PM
No one is defending fraud. Mandates that affect all are simply not necessary. Much easier, much less costly, both monetarily & otherwise to simply enact a statute allowing for prosecution of such frauds. I personally can't imagine how one would go about proving fraud versus, say miscalculation or error, but that is a different discussion. You are making a giant leap. We are protected against credit card fraud by virtue of prosecution for same, not by disallowing the use of credit cards. I believe that your logic is flawed.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2774 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/7/2014 5:55:31 PM
No 3rd party needed. Every one has the right to request a paternity test. I wholeheartedly agree that women who commit paternity fraud should be held accountable, but I concede that intent may to difficult to prove. I also firmly believe that in many instances the only one burying their head in the sand is the man who is lied to, just as in many cases the woman who has a man run out her once she becomes pregnant had blinders on. At the very least the cost of the test should be borne by the individual who is proven wrong. That is enough government intervention, as far as I'm concerned.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2772 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/6/2014 5:21:19 PM

Right back at you ohwynot ...so even if the DNA test proves they are not the father....and yet you suggest you understand why this needs to occur?


What I said, as you quoted but choose to misrepresent, is that I understand the time restriction. I do not agree, ever, that a man should have to pay cs for a child not their own. I do understand that if a man supports a child for many years, a court may not require that cs to be repaid. In part because he had a chance to find out the truth all along.


Today, 30% of DNA paternity tests, nearly one in three, prove that the man involved is not the father of the child in question. Currently more than 300,000 such tests are done each year. Since it is unlikely that these paternity tests were done without an underlying reason, almost certainly involving payment of child support, there are thus over 90,000 men who have been falsely accused of paternity each year.


Yes, this is true, but it does not follow that 30% of all children are raised/supported by a man who is not their father. It may well indicate that the men who choose to sleep with women of less than stellar moral character are aware of that when they choose to lay with those women. It also proves that 70% of men who claim to have been falsely accused are wrong, doesn't it?

The obvious is obvious, you simply choose not to see it. The matter at hand is mandated DNA testing, and nothing you have stated makes me feel that a mandate is warranted. Not because I enjoy seeing men the victims of paternity fraud, nor because I hate men, simply because it is not necessary to avoid the problem for those men who might become affected.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2770 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/6/2014 4:26:14 PM

However bottom line is if 30% of children born are not fathered by the husband it is still 30%.

Hard to spin that fact.


It is most certainly not a fact. I don't even believe that you believe that; pure ignorance!


However I do think a father should be able to ask for and receive a DNA test at birth or anytime for that matter.


We agree on that.


I said plenty not all or even most....... So why try to attack me?

That is something a misandrist would do.....this is why I think you earned the title of misandry.

If you're not a misandrist then debate the topic and leave the attacks off.


If that's your idea of an attack, while, forgive the sexism, but I think you might be a woman! Disagreement is not hatred, sir.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2766 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/5/2014 7:18:06 PM
Just for the record: I am not against paternity tests, I am against government mandated DNA testing. That is the topic of this thread.

Paternity test results would not, and should not, be provided to the wife of a man accused of fathering a child. One's moral obligations are not to be enforced by the government to such a degree.

I have no problem at all with the costs of requested paternity tests falling on the individual who is proven incorrect. This is not about gender based trust, it's not about gender at all. It's about government intervention.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2765 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/5/2014 7:03:39 PM
You can spin it anyway you chose however it is what it is....... I wonder what is the advantage of skewing a study like this? Is there big money in for the researchers?

I doubt it.


Spin.. exactly what stats are often used to do. Most certainly not "what it is", it is whatever the study is intended to show. Not big money; any money at all. Funds for research are provided based on what the study is intended to show and the funding likely comes from a group whose agenda is promoted by those results. Specific subsets of the general population are not an accurate measure of the general population, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize that. No need to argue this one. I am very sure that you can find evidence of most anything, using the same stats. Shouldn't take much time at all.


Without doubt......... The doubt comes in about.............. is it their children for the men.


Those with doubts have recourse, as it should be.


Then why the ad hominem attack right out of the gate?


Attack? I believe your perception is colored by something other than my posts. After all, it is you who accused me of misandry, no?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2762 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/4/2014 5:16:49 PM
No actually the numbers come from varied college studies on the subject.
Personally I've seen a good bit of it in real life.
So it's much more than conjecture.


Just because colleges do studies doesn't mean that they don't skew stats in favor of the assumed, as do most. I am willing to bet that those studies are based on those men who dispute paternity & are correct. It would nearly impossible to include those men who deny paternity, yet refuse a test. The studies do not include the general population of parents, as they cannot. Basing percentages of parents who lie on only those who do does not paint an accurate picture. Truth is, it is not possible to measure, only to surmise. The same studies & figures could be used to conclude that men are good judges of the women with whom they lay.

What I see in real life is that the majority of parents strive to do what is best for their children.


So your very myopic view mentioned above about me is the least of my concerns. As you don't know me nearly well enough to make a statement like that about me.


Right back atcha! Far from a misandrist am I.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2755 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/3/2014 5:00:20 PM
I agree with much of what you say, Tsar, but in all honesty, the numbers you note as "best guess" are nothing but pure conjecture. They are based on the number of men who deny paternity & are proven correct via testing. Good for them! Still, the number of men who deny paternity , then refuse to be tested is as high, if not higher. Educated guessing would take that into account. If anything, the educated guess serves as evidence that men are pretty good at knowing when they are being lied to, at lest as far as paternity goes.


However I'm sure there are plenty here that think the mother bilking a man that had nothing to do in getting her pregnant is fair game.


I find it sad that you think that. If I felt that way, I certainly wouldn't be here looking for dating prospects. As a matter of fact, if I viewed the opposite sex in such fashion, I wouldn't date at all.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2754 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/3/2014 4:53:49 PM

Ohwhynot---the reality is like your view on custodial parents not having to work full time but the non custodial parents being required to...your sliding scale of what is right is seriously tilted only one way.


Not true at all, not what I have stated nor what I feel, simply your slant in a weak attempt to make a point.


So say we have no mandatory DNA test...then would you equally be willing to stand under the premise at any time the father can have easy access to requesting a DNA test and at any time without time restrictions where they can have child support withdrawn if paternity is proven not valid. After all we have the two proud nurses who advocate against the ability of ordering it anyways....well if you are not the mother? I suspect you also would be a staunch defender against allowing easy access to DNA testing


We DON'T have mandated testing and a man DOES have access to that request. There are time restrictions, and although I don't think it fair, I do understand why. Still, I have never & will never advocate anyone lying or stealing from another relative to paternity.


as first impressions here you were dismayed you had to go back and start working again when you thought you had a life as the stay at home parent and not having to work


You're full of it. I indicated nothing of the sort. My time as a stay at home parent was a mutual decision between my ex & me. Truth is, I made more than he. Truth is, I forfeited that income & future earnings. I simply ask that we acknowledge that fact, no matter which parent forgoes income, retirement, etc.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 118 (view)
 
Religion and dating
Posted: 11/2/2014 4:28:14 PM
Everytime I go shopping in December, the stores employees all seem to be Ministers, Priests, and Deacons


Where are you shopping?!?!? I am over 50 & love to shop. I have never, ever, not even one time, encountered a priest working at a store. As a matter of fact, I'm fairly certain that priests do not have jobs, other than being priests. Ministers, deacons, perhaps, although I've never seen nor heard of one working in retail.

I suspect you have no other way to try to make your point. Just sayin'.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2749 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/2/2014 4:15:44 PM
I can't follow that logic. Of course some women lie about paternity. Some men lie about their virility as well, but we don't advocate mandatory sperm count testing, nor should we. Caveat emptor comes to mind. If you have a doubt, protect yourself, whether it be beforehand or after the fact. Why on earth anyone would suggest government intervention as opposed to personal responsibility/action is beyond me. This isn't a gender issue no matter how badly you wish it to be.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2747 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 11/1/2014 1:18:07 PM

I'm certain paternity claims would be disqualified if DNA tests were not taken from a legitimate, certified and recognized clinic


Qualified, court ordered tests are hardly cost prohibitive, and when measured against CS, they certainly pass the cost/benefit test.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2742 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 10/26/2014 5:23:29 AM

I disagree.... I believe that the child's right to know his or her father supersedes the mother's right to privacy. I believe that the UN has stated this in their Universal Rights of the Child (.... or whatever it's called...)


I said the only right pertinent to this conversation. The topic at hand is mandated testing, no? Unless you are willing to take that mandated testing a step further, notifying every child at some point of the test results, you are not protecting their right to know their parentage.

DNA testing is easily available without the intervention of the government. I see no need for a mandate.

Still drinking, Captain?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Income inequality
Posted: 9/26/2014 7:20:18 PM

The top 1% is devouring 37% of income, enjoying a disproportionate amount of the wealth that we collectively create, and you find nothing wrong with that?


Devouring, or earning? Merely enjoying, or choosing to sacrifice (perhaps not so collectively) so as to increase wealth?

Don't really have that strong of an opinion, & I am well aware that many "step in it", just a different spin.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 20 (view)
 
With the insignificance of humans, does it make you happy or sad?
Posted: 9/26/2014 7:16:15 PM
Significance is not measured by size, likely not measurable at all & related to happiness only to the extent that it pertains to what makes one "happy", no?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 2735 (view)
 
Mandatory DNA tests at birth?
Posted: 9/26/2014 7:10:15 PM
Wow, is this thread old! and I see that people haven't changed too much. Let's stick to the topic, MANDATED testing. Regardless of the admitted existence of both devious women & irresponsible men, I have to say that I agree with this:


...but suffice it to say, people should be wary of any type of forced DNA collection.
Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Big brother is NOT your friend, enough said, I hope.


We have no idea what will be able to be done with or discerned from the DNA that would be collected, any number of years later. The only "right" that is pertinent to this conversation is the right to privacy & government nonintervention, including the child's right to same. There are remedies that exist already, even if they make one's life difficult, for both men & women. Adult decisions come with the risk of consequences, so if it is difficult to prove a particular man a father, or difficult to disprove that you are not a father, so be it.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 136 (view)
 
We all heard of deadbeat dads-what about deadbeat moms?
Posted: 4/13/2014 7:33:53 AM
You are exactly right, lovefun. It is about fulfilling one's financial responsibility to their offspring, who are entitled to the financial benefit. No matter how anyone tries to portray it, losers are always the children when a parent refuses to support them. The sacrifices are borne by them, and they are truly the only innocent ones in these situations. Good for you!
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 50 (view)
 
would you turn down a relationship with someone who believes in a God?
Posted: 3/5/2014 5:00:56 PM

I believe that this stems largely from the cause or reason that drove them into being Atheist. If it was a reactionary or unterse reason (in defiance of organized religion) because they felt that "they" were not given life's due rewards (or any other form of imaginary entitlement); or even perhaps that such a 'God' has not offered them personal or empiric proof of his existence (as though they were worthy of it in some way) before they would acquiesce. Thus, I think that such an arrogance is more a reflection of that person's character or personality than anything else.


Aren't your first & last statement contradictory? I completely agree that the arrogant would be so regardless of the presence or absence of theism, but one does not become arrogant based on their perception of the effects of either theism or atheism, rather based on their perception of self & others, no? One needn't be "driven" into atheism. Neither theist nor atheist corners the market on pomposity, as far as I can see (although I admit to finding within these forums the most pompous atheists, personifying zealotry, I have ever come across but I don't believe they reflect reality behind these [fire]walls, so to speak).


To be fair, there is no shortage of arrogant religious (fundamentalists of all kinds) people who look down, disrespect, belittle, even do harm to others who they feel to be above because their "sky-creator" is better or more real than someone else's.


I don't believe that those who do as you cite do so because of their feelings in regards to their "sky creator"; they do so because they have character flaws. For the most part, religion (no matter the religion) advocates tolerance & love of fellow man, at its' core. It is the misguided who use religion as an excuse to treat others poorly, who defend their actions in the name of religion when no such excuse exists in the larger picture painted by religion.
 
Show ALL Forums