Sunday, November 16, 2008

"I'm just another man crying, 'I don't know this person. I don't have their kid.' It's a routine they're just used to."

Reader Chris sends in a pathetic story about a man who was forced to pay child support for a kid even though he was not the child's father:

When Walter Andre Sharpe Jr. signed for a certified letter from Dauphin County Domestic Relations in 2001, he didn't know he was signing on for a seven-year nightmare. Since then, the Philadelphia man has been thrown in jail four times, lost his job, become estranged from his four children and spent more than $12,000 to support the child of another man.

It finally stopped in May 2007 when a judge reversed a finding that he was the father. But the same judge has since ruled that Sharpe is not entitled to any compensation, not even the money he was forced to pay to support the child.

Think this can't happen to you? Think again. Many times, people think that these mistaken cases are few and far between until it happens to them. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young in their book, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men, point out that one of the problems inherent in our legal system is inefficiency. The authors suspect, however, that this inefficiency would not be tolerated if women suffered from it and I agree. For instance, the authors state, "Officials in Los Angeles County have admitted to going after the wrong man for child support payments approximately 350 times a month."

Women's groups would stick up for women who suffered this type of injustice and put a stop to it. I can't imagine things will improve in many (if any) states with the incoming administration. This is why it is so important for men's rights activists to keep up with these issues and fight back when they can. It may be an uphill battle, but it is worth the struggle to keep innocent men like Walter Sharpe out of jail.



Blogger TMink said...

I guess there are lots of reasons to be careful who you sleep with. Abstinence till marriage then monogamy looks smarter every day.


3:02 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger Gary Cruse said...

Abstaining from sex wouldn't have helped Walter Andre Sharpe Jr. in the least.

3:09 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger Helen said...


I agree with Gary above and will add that it is unfair to penalize men with abstinance (unless they choose it freely) just because the laws are sexist and inefficient. Many men are not getting married at all and do not want to abstain for a lifetime. This is not a realistic goal for most in our society--for men or women.

3:18 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another area in life where it appears the best thing to do is go John Galt. It took a while to adapt to quitting smoking, also.

4:45 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger luxurytwist said...

Once again, even here, instinct #1 is automatic: Blame the man. No matter how utterly innocent, no matter how badly and bizarrely he got screwed over, blame him now, blame him completely. He's a man, he's the one who has to change his behavior for no reason. That's the first moral of the story, apparently.

No one even begin to ask why the women were accepting checks they knew were not coming from the real father. No one question the feminine culture of "take".

Sometimes the misogyny/misandry semantics kind of foul me up. I know what's meant and implied in the terms. The question is: Why is it wrong in this society for men to be misogynists?

No, we don't want to make blanket assumptions about everyone in either group, but which is the exception and which is the rule? What percent of women today would cash these checks they knew were being extorted from an innocent man? Do we believe that fewer than 50 percent of American princesses would? Really?

4:53 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there's any confusion:

Men are hard-wired to feel sorry for women, to protect women and to shield women. So men just naturally assume that these same feelings exist in a reciprocal way in women.

They don't.

Men are basically there to PROVIDE protection and money and shielding and money. And also real-world work like cleaning out the eaves troughs. And did I mention money?

So men are basically perplexed about how so many women can just keep taking these checks without feeling even a small bite of conscience. It's the same way that they can be supported for 40 years, while bitching, and it's the same way that Heather Mills can easily take her millions.

Women don't think the same way as men on the whole, and men would go a long way in at least thinking about that and then observing the differences.

Women are wired to protect children and to be in a kind of union with other women. Men are wired to protect women.

Men compete among each other, so basically no one gives a rip about men.

That's it in a nutshell, so the only solution is to avoid these traps (the heavily perfumed trap door of marriage to start with).

5:12 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, child support is an ABSOLUTE kind of thing, meaning that the courts don't care if the woman stuck her finger in the condom and impregnated herself, if she gave a blow job and still used the sperm to get pregnant (those two things have happened to more than one rich guy, Boris Becker is one), if the women was a statutory rapist and the kid was still ... a kid (kids have been ordered to pay child support to the rapist) etc.

In California, if you have a "significant bond" with a woman who has SOMEONE ELSE'S kids, you could be on the hook for child support. If someone lies about court service to you, it is very difficult to get an order changed. If you aren't fully aware of the law, and you don't realize that what a default judgment is if you don't answer a summons, you are going to pay, and they are going to take extreme measures to get it out of you.

In addition, arrears can never be dismissed in bankruptcy or by a judge (Bradley Amendment 42 USC 666, I think).

5:18 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In many states, for instance Pennsylvania, you can be ordered to pay child support if you were married to the woman, regardless of whether a DNA test says that the kid is not yours.

There have been cases in which the woman got pregnant while the man was overseas for a couple of years, the DNA test showed what everyone knew, and the man was STILL ordered to pay child support.

5:20 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger Helen said...

Peter and JG,

I am not sure the mother ever received any money, there is no mention of it. The child was being raised by a grandmother who states she didn't get the money and was actually getting help from the girl's real father--although the article does say the grandmother would not bring the girl for DNA testing:


Our state representative in Tenn. is trying to get a law passed that would allow men to quit paying child support if they find out a child is not theirs:

"Attempts by the legislature to alter the paternity law included a bill introduced this past legislative session that would have allowed a man to stop paying support for a child that is not his, no matter when he finds out he's not the father.

"I think it's an injustice to make someone pay for a child that isn't theirs," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville. He said he introduced the bill after hearing from a constituent who was stuck paying child support even though he was proven not to be the biological father.

The bill didn't pass.'

5:32 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There have been some unbelievable child support cases because of the Bradley Amendment and because of the sentiment in general in the country.

Here are a couple (that can be Googled):

There was a guy named Bobby Sherrill who worked for Lockheed. He made good money and was paying his ex-wife child support. He was sent to work in Kuwait, and in 1990, the Iraqis moved into Kuwait and took him hostage. He spent several months as a hostage, maybe wondering whether he was going to die. There was nothing he could do.

So he was finally released and bolted back to the United States as quickly as he could. As soon as he got back, he was arrested on a charge of owing back child support (for the period in which he was chained to a radiator by terrorists).

In another case, a guy named Clarence Brandley was accused of murder and found guilty. He was sentenced to prison and was even on death row. 10 years later, in 1990, he was exonerated of the crime. He sued the state, but I guess the state wasn't finished with him yet, because he got a bill $50,000 for back child support that he hadn't paid while he was (wrongly) on death row.

Now keep in mind, as I said above, that these amounts simply can't ever be reduced. A judge can't reduce it, it can't be included in a bankruptcy etc. Mr. Brandley has to pay it, or he will periodically be thrown in jail.


Actually, there are a whole lot of other cases like this if you Google child support. It gets a bit strange that their own country is treating men like this.

5:44 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few states have caps on child support amounts, but most don't.

There are quite a few orders for $30,000 per MONTH for one child (not just Daryl Strawberry, P. Diddy or the like). I don't understand that any more than I understand awards of millions to a woman who was married for a few years (or a few months) to a rich guy.

And WOMEN are claiming oppression? LOL I guess if men are that stupid and chivalristic, they deserve to get fleeced.

5:48 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way: I have no kids personally, so I have no direct ax to grind, other than seeing a few friends get caught up in this crap.

5:51 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, one more giggler:

Women in many states have a big chunk of time to bring a child support action (WITH arrears in many cases).

One example is Michigan: She has 6 years to bring an action (possibly WITH ARREARS, picture that out of the blue), but an unlimited amount of time if she says she couldn't find you or if you were out of state (even if she knew where you were).

This could be a one-night stand in college that you long forgot about. 15 years later you could get a bill out of the clear blue sky for child support for that period, plus the amount going forward. You didn't even know you had a kid and you don't even remember her, but something triggered her desire for money, she lost her job or you got a big job.

I'm not kidding, and it has also happened.

5:58 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger fivewheels said...

"I am not sure the mother ever received any money, there is no mention of it."

That's true, we don't know for sure. But given that the man's wages were garnished/robbed, I'm guessing that the checks were cut, and that the checks were cashed. Call me a cynic.

6:01 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frankly, you can find peace as a man by simply knowing that you are going to have to PAY if you have much of anything to do with a woman. Much more if you marry her, but even if you don't. And you are going to have to pay much more than a prostitute would take.

When you just realize that's how it is, you get peace with it. That's what women do.

6:40 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger DADvocate said...

The system is incredibly biased against men plus tremendous ineptitude among the workers in the system. Child support enforcers went after a man I know for a child he had full custody of. Here's a case where a man was forced to pay child support for a child that didn't exist.

Just more of the same.

7:27 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger GawainsGhost said...

My first degree was in biology, and I took several courses on animal behavior, the science of ethology, an absolutely fascinating field of study. Particularly interesting was reproductive strategies and mating behavior.

Let's take a look at chimpanzees, the closest primate relative of humans. Chimps live in what are known as fluid societies, in which individuals commonly move from one group to another. However, in each group there is always 2-3 alpha males, 5-6 beta males, and as many as 10-15 gamma males. (It is the gamma males that most often move from one group to another.)

Interestingly, the females, who do not normally move to another group, will engage in intercourse with every male in the group. However, when fertile, they will only engage in intercourse with alpha males. This is a strategy that ensures the female she will conceive offspring from the strongest gene pool, but also, since none of the males know who actually fathered the offspring, that all the males in the group will participate in protecting and providing food for the young.

Remind you of any girls you know, guys? Say someone who got pregnant by an athlete then promptly married a banker.

It's an old Jewish saying. You never know who the father is. You always know who the mother is.

Howbeit, more to the topic, our legal system is a mess. Community property, community funds, sweat equity, presumptive paternity, no-fault divorce, the law has been set up to protect women from men. There is no law to protect men from women. This is especially true in false accusations of rape or spousal abuse.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, what happens when you give a woman all the power in court? She abuses it, naturally.

This case though seems to be a matter of not just inefficiency but institutionalized misandry. And frankly I don't see that being changed any time soon.

Half the voting population is female. There is absolutely no way women are ever going to agree to change the law. It gives them power.

7:32 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the article a couple times in an attempt to figure where any money went the man paid out. I guess it just disappeared. The whole story is insane. But what am I talking about? I've been through similar crap.

And these are the very bureaucrat types that will be administering universal health care when run by the government.((((((shudder)))))

7:39 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's just like another tax on you.

If you are used to taxes (I used to get upset, now I don't care), then it's pretty much the same thing.

Women cost money. Ain't gonna change.

7:51 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think about 7 billion a year flows to women in alimony. Some astronomical figure, like 100 billion, flows to women in child support.

A ton of money that men earned flows to women in dates and informal prostitution, the GNP of several countries flows to women every year in money that men earned when the men die, quite a bit of money flows to women in divorce settlements.

Men are taxed far more (because they work far more) and the tax money goes more towards women.

When you start thinking about the massive sums flowing to women in society, you can only say "Wow".

And not just the $100 you spent on a date last weekend.

7:56 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since women usually "marry up", money also flows to women in marriage. Tons of it.

I'm not sure how much money on the whole flows to women, but it is truly an astronomical amount.

How come feminists never talk about THAT?

7:58 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger jabrwok said...

I wonder why there hasn't been any violence directed at these women yet, or if there has and it just hasn't been reported.

Also why can't they be charged for fraud? *If* they can't be, as appears to be the case, then I'd expect some of them to come to a violent end sooner or later.

8:06 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


It's basically the State that's the Big Pimp here.

The little hooker just takes what she gets from the Big Pimp.

8:10 PM, November 16, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You got a problem ... you go see Big Pimp. And he doesn't want to talk to you right now.

8:21 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger TMink said...

"Many men are not getting married at all and do not want to abstain for a lifetime. This is not a realistic goal for most in our society--for men or women."

I TOTALLY understand not wanting to abstain. We disagree about it being a realistic goal though. Given the nature of many of the posts about inequity towards men, and how many of them come from ill chosen sexualy partners, it seems like not only a realistic but a smart goal!


8:46 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger LissaKay said...

Child support laws are draconian and unfair. Period. I have sat at both tables in chancery court (where child support cases are heard in Tennessee), and I have heard the chancellor say, "I don't care if you have to eat out of garbage cans and live in the gutter, you WILL pay $550 out of your $900 paycheck every two weeks to your ex-spouse (who makes $2000 every two weeks) or you will go to jail."

I have also been in the situation where a child we had joint custody of was taken from his father due to abuse into state custody, then immediately placed in my full physical custody pending court hearing to determine whether I would get full legal custody as well (I fondly refer to this process as the DCS Inquisition). During this period of time, the child was considered to be in foster care with family placement. Parents of foster children are expected to pay child support to the state (the legal custodian), and non-related foster parents are paid the stipend from this child support collection. Yes, family foster care placement is not eligible for foster care assistance. So, I was in a position of having to pay support for a child that was living in my household, my own natural child whom I had always had at least partial custody. A judge did finally set aside the child support order on my behalf, but still ... how absurd!

Counseling abstinence is not so extreme. Seriously, I say women who rant on about choice (in their mind, the choice to either kill or birth their babies) that the point at which their choice should be made is before they jump into bed with someone with whom they would not want to have a child. Why can men not abide by that as well? Every act of sexual intercourse bears the possibility of creating a child. Everyone, men and women, would do well to keep that in mind and act accordingly. If you aren't ready, willing and able to take responsibility for a child for the next 18+ years with the person with whom you are about to sleep with, then you probably should put your pants back on and go home.

When it comes down to it, it is the casual attitude we, as a society, have adopted towards sex that has created such problems with men being treated as sperm donors with a wallet attached, and all women thought of as evil conniving, manipulative users and abusers of men. Sex is no longer the special, intimate, loving encounter shared by two people who are committed to each other and to their marriage. In losing that specialness, sex is nothing but a game, one in which innocent children are the losers.

9:36 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger MRA said...

Here's a question I want to throw out to Dr. Helen and everyone else. What do we do about this? Most women (as in 99.9% of women) except for a few like Dr. Helen see nothing wrong with men being forced to pay child support for kids who aren't theirs (as well as other injustices against men). Except for a few like Dr. Helen the only way to get any women to even see situations like this as an injustice is to have it happen to their husband/boyfriend, in other words extreme self interest. Obviously, we can't depend on this get female support for correcting injustices against men.

One way or another these injustices against men will be corrected eventually. Knowing that why can't men just take care of this without support from women? There is no reason men need support from women to correct these injustices unless women want to maintain their rights. If women aren't willing to be part of the solution to injustice against men, then why should women have any rights, in particular the right to vote? Women will have problem that they can't be trusted with rights such as the right to vote.

For that matter, if women aren't willing to step up to the plate to help correct injustice against men, why should men trust women with anything? Why should be trust women to be our girlfriends & wives? Why should we trust women to raise our kids, particularly our SONS? Why should we trust women as employees?

Eventually, sexbots and cloning will be perfected. With those technologies what will men need women for, parituclarly if women think injustice against men is a good thing?

11:56 PM, November 16, 2008  
Blogger Factory said...

The only thing men can do is let the world know how mad we really are.....

12:44 AM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger Scott said...

All I can say is, thank God I'm gay . . .

4:33 AM, November 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It takes time to get used to it, but going John Galt on women as well as taxable income is the best answer. There is more than one reason abstinence makes perfect sense. I honestly expect the human species to eventually die out if the same things continue on. Just like the U.S. can only be destroyed from within (good start, eh?) the same holds true for mankind itself.

I can't wait to see what happens when EVERYONE simply has to make it on their own, pay for their own mistakes, or not make it at all. Recoil in horror, call me racist, call me sexist. Our society has made it a crime to call a spade a spade.
Everyone responsible for them selves - that is what is needed. Of course, expect a heavy handed response from government, the ultimate co-dependent entity - and those who loot and mooch a living through it.

5:02 AM, November 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

scott - humor!

5:02 AM, November 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But it won't save you.

5:16 AM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger javadoug said...

Here's an interesting item for you:

8:12 AM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger Trust said...

Did I read that correctly? Walter Sharpe was being sued for support as the father while Andre Sharpe, the real father, was living with the person Walter was paying support to for four years?

This is unacceptable.

I also don't get this part: "The agency fought Sharpe's attempts to have DNA testing and said it determined he was the father 'after reasonable investigation.'"

If they were sure he was the father after "reasonable investigation", wouldn't they want the DNA test? Besides, even if all other reasonable evidence pointed to him as the father, why WOULDN'T a DNA test still be appropriate? I think most rationale adults understand that it doesn't take much for someone else to father a child with little evidence--happens in bars across the country every night.

Sorry, I'm stating the obvious. It's just so ridiculous as to blow the mind.

Sounds like fraud to me, and I'm talking about more than just the identity theft.

8:45 AM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger BobH said...

As far as I know, the only state where paternity fraud is considered "fraud" is in Maryland, where a prosecutor took a case to the Maryland State Supreme Court with a simple question: Do the facts of this case fit Maryland's definition of fraud? The court said yes.

Read this, written in 2000 before Maryland changed its stance, and note the opinion of the two ABA committee chairs:

I also have a 2001 Ann Landers column with a letter from a female former ABA committee chair making the same argument. The lack of irony displayed by both Landers and the letter writer is amazing. What you have is two women congratulating themselves on being wonderfully caring and giving in protecting some child, while they are holding a gun to some poor guy's head for making the mistake of believing some other woman.

But the biggest joke is when women say that men should fix the law, i.e., that this whole situation is men's fault. Reliable paternity testing isn't that old, the legal doctrine cited by Blumner is hundreds of years old, there are more female voters than male voters in the U.S. and women have been told for the past 35 years ago to vote for politicians, men and women, who look out after women's interest. When I sent a copy of the Blumner article to the governor and both of my state legislators, the governor and one of the legislators never responded and the other other legislator replied that it was being done "for the children" and men should just put up with it. (Also, FWIW, last week I sent a copy of Blumner's column to Sarah Palin and asked her how Alaska handled proven paternity fraud.)

Personally, the scariest part of this is that I've come to despise women, viewing most or all of them as self-righteous, hypocritical, petty, vindictive, manipulative and treacherous to the core. I suspect that the number of men who feel this way is increasing. If women want to live in a society where most men hold them in complete contempt, they need only keep doing what they're doing. They'll get there.

9:48 AM, November 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trust - state supported and state perpetrated fraud, by the way.

10:15 AM, November 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Personally, the scariest part of this is that I've come to despise women, viewing most or all of them as self-righteous, hypocritical, petty, vindictive, manipulative and treacherous to the core. I suspect that the number of men who feel this way is increasing."


Yup. I agree.

Most women don't engage in paternity fraud (although more do than men suspect according to blood bank figures etc.), BUT most women "look the other way" and take what they can get (from feminists, manipulation and all the rest) in a PASSIVE way.

10:18 AM, November 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mean, if this kind of stuff goes on, and I'd have to bet much more of it happens than hits print - isn't it possible that other types of fraud are carried out, or allowed to slip through - such as, say....... voter fraud, perhaps? Hey, I'm just sayin'.

10:20 AM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

I personally think this is insane as well. How do you fight the legislature, how do you fight the judge's sentences? Changes need to be made and why aren't are elected officials changing it?

Women have organized groups to advocate their issues and its worked. Men need to do the same, or, do women also need to organize groups to protect men's rights? If so, why and where are the men here?

I would gladly participate in a organization of such nature as I have on Glenn Sacks website.

11:58 AM, November 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we men are dumb asses, vicki. But if men start advocate groups, it'll just make the lawyers even more delirious, and a lot more wealthy. Perhaps that's the plan.

My financial clock got cleaned and my reputation destroyed. Nothing I could do changed it, right up until I finally went broke, and then the lawyers walked away. But, thank God, I got my kids.

There's a saying, "The person a man ends up hating the most in a divorce is his own lawyer". Believe it.

12:41 PM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger Skyler said...

I think a very important point is being missed here. He received a legal document in the mail and he ignored it.

This is a very stupid thing to do. He didn't deserve his fate, but the law doesn't look too kindly on people who ignore summonses or other notices.

12:53 PM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger BobH said...


I never cease to be amazed when women demand that men change their behavior to avoid being exploited by women. And, of course, women like you (and Helen) claim that it is because men don't behave enough like women.

As for why the laws aren't being changed, I'd suggest you go back and read the fifth paragraph of my previous posting. If that is too subtle or complicated for you, let me explain it as plainly as I know how. The U.S. is a feminazi police state where women hold a priveleged position. Most women apparently would like this situation to continue but, if they make their true intentions known, face the very real prospect of alienating their potential victims (i.e., men). So these women routinely make public expressions of sympathy and solidarity toward men while privately working to exploit men (i.e., voting for politicians who support "women's rights", including allowing the current legal environment to persist) The problem that men have is determining whether a woman's claim that she "doesn't hate men" is an accurate predictor of her future behavior. The suspicion is that women who really "don't hate men" and who never would commit paternity fraud to men they love would never allow the current laws to persist. One perfectly reasonable way for men to respond to this level of ambiguity and/or hostility is to have as little to do with women as possible, except for the occasional one-night stand.

1:08 PM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

Bob, please do not talk down to me as you don't know me. All this talk is fine and I am one woman who does not believe in paternity fraud.

My son's father and I split 50/50 physical custody and there is no child support payments, he makes a little more than I do, so he spends a little more on our son than I can. I am happy with this.

But just talking about it, and withdrawing from women is not going to change the situation. Sticking your head in the dirt does not equate success. 90% of my legislatures are men, my mayor & governor are men. These are where the changes need to begin. Do you have a plan or idea to make change happen? If so, sign me up.

2:06 PM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

Vicki --

Some men get burnt and wind up hating and distrusting all women just as some women do with men. Can't change that, it's a function of personality more than situation. The dirt ain't where he sticks it.

My suggestion is that as a woman you write your male politicians and tell them in no uncertain terms that you don't support the bias and encourage any and all female acquaintances to do the same.

2:15 PM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger vivictius said...

Bobh - Alaska has a law that requires unwed parents to establish paternity through genetic testing.

Stuff like this is part of the reason I just dont deal with women outside of what I have to do for work. Over 11 years now and I really dont miss the hassle. They are just not worth it.

When will it change? Just like everything else, it wont change until enough people die because of it. Screwing some guys over doesnt hurt the judges and politicians right now so they wont do a damn thing.

2:15 PM, November 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just out of curiosity, olig, you ever been in a similar situation? I'm wondering because what you said in your first couple sentences seemed a tad bit cut and dry. May be you had a better lawyer than many, if you have indeed been on the wrong end of the accusation come divorce stick.

2:39 PM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

br549 --

What situation? Accused of paternity, accused of horrible things, had a horrible marriage, had a terrible divorce? Yes to a several.

Interestingly, the woman who did #2&3 didn't do #4. It was a completely even divorce.

I've also known many (as in above single digits) women who were wonderful and considerate people and I am utterly sure I was not 'deceived' as to their nature.

Some percentage of women are horrids, some percentage of men are wife beaters; if I wish to not be lumped in with wife beaters I sure's hell can't lump all women in with the horrids.

6:38 PM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger Trust said...

@br549 said... "But if men start advocate groups, it'll just make the lawyers even more delirious, and a lot more wealthy."

Probably, but most of us men aren't interested in a gender war. That may change if it become as effective a profiteering mechanism as modern feminism. A lot of money can be made (and voted earned) by dividing people on race, sex, and economic lines.

6:40 PM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger Factory said...

Helen Says: "I agree with Gary above and will add that it is unfair to penalize men with abstinance (unless they choose it freely) just because the laws are sexist and inefficient. Many men are not getting married at all and do not want to abstain for a lifetime. This is not a realistic goal for most in our society--for men or women."

Factory replies: The laws are sexist and inefficient by design Helen, and they are accomplishing the goals of their designers. Namely, to "criminalize" normal male sexual behaviour, make everything dependant on the approval of the woman (including staying out of jail), punishing "licentious" behaviour on the part of men (but not women), in short, to place all the power in sexual relationships (up to and including incarceration) squarely in the hands of women. And place men in a socially AND sexually subservient position.

Men quite literally can't do anything without being exposed to danger from one aspect of the law or another when it comes to women. Why that pleases women, or doesn't scare the hell out of men, is beyond me...

6:56 PM, November 17, 2008  
Blogger RR Ryan said...

What Scott said. And yes, with a really good lawyer this does protect you. Just don't let yourself be caught in circumstances that are ambiguous. Sadly, the same thing applies to contact with children.

8:28 PM, November 17, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

olig, hopefully those who lump all of either gender in one bag or another don't get out much anymore. I was not trying to "set something up", but I was curious. I am interested in hearing other people's stories.

trust, division is what I meant. It's there and the fire is fueled. Not as much between individuals, as between groups. Mob mentality is kind of weird. A lawyer's job is to win the case for his client. Seemingly, hell or high water.

As my ex best friend come accuser never showed up in court (for which every man was issued a bench warrant if he didn't show - but no women), my case was pushed to the end every day I was there. So, I sat through many cases as they came up. A lot of stuff goes on, incredible stuff. I have read many things on this site similar to what I saw in court, and what I personally experienced.. I also took a week and sat through many more, as I couldn't believe what I saw was the norm. Ratio wise, it was overwhelmingly the norm. Misandry is real. That's all I'm saying. But the door does swing both ways.

6:50 AM, November 18, 2008  
Blogger Helen said...


"The laws are sexist and inefficient by design..."

I understand that, I don't think that abstaining from sex is the answer, however. I realize that men must protect themselves but that is a high cost to pay. We should try our best to attack the laws, one at a time, if necessary or perhaps a revolution is coming. At some point, men will not be able to take it anymore and will rebel. Others here say that I want men to act like women. Perhaps women who organize should serve as an example to men. They get results. Glenn Sacks often organizes and gets his readers to go after those who dish up misandry--by emailing, calling and writing. This is effective at times. What is the other alternative?

7:04 AM, November 18, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Perhaps women who organize should serve as an example to men. They get results."


Yeah ... but ... they get results because they are working off the chivalry of men. Joe Biden will see to it that the little lady gets what she wants.

That isn't the case with men. Men themselves work against these kinds of things UNTIL THEY EXPERIENCE IT THEMSELVES.

I have read about quite a few instances of a male legislator who gets bit by his own law down the road (he assumed that he, as a Real Man (TM), would never get divorced down the road and his wife would never "be like that") and a male judge who is suddenly on the receiving end of things.

I wonder what the 3 Duke boys would have said about false accusations before they ran into Crystal Mangum. They probably would have laughed at the possibility.

In any case, men can't alway suse the same tactics that women use. I think that's clear.

7:26 AM, November 18, 2008  
Blogger Trust said...

@jg: "I have read about quite a few instances of a male legislator who gets bit by his own law down the road (he assumed that he, as a Real Man (TM), would never get divorced down the road and his wife would never "be like that") and a male judge who is suddenly on the receiving end of things."

I think that's a fair point. Too often, we see women as the kinder, gentler, and more oppressed gender, so even other men assume things are almost always men's fault. They think the man must have done something, because the opposite is against the image we have of women.

I always thought "yeah right" to men who said their wives changed almost instantly after the wedding (or wives who said their husbands changed), thinking they were making excuses or didn't get to know them well enough first. By the end of my honeymoon, I realized what they were talking about.

8:27 AM, November 18, 2008  
Blogger Cham said...

It is my humble opinion that people can only keep up an act for a limited amount of time. It could be 2 months, 4 months, or for those who are really good actors, 6 months. Sooner or later the ugly truth comes out. Those that marry undesirable people do so for 2 reasons: They either didn't date long and hard enough, or they chose not to see the writing on the wall.

If your family or friends take you aside during the dating process and quietly tell you that your beau or belle might have some issues, take their guidance under advisement. If your date starts talking marriage after the first month or week, put the skids on the process.

Marriage is a contract, a very serious contract that should not be entered into lightly. There are plenty of great people out there that want to get married so it is best to find one and to set the losers free.

If you do marry and have the unfortunate result to divorce, expect the worst and hope for the best.

5:07 PM, November 18, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

br549 --

No problem. I wasn't being vague because I was suspicious, I was vague because I don't broadcast specifics about my exs.

6:16 PM, November 18, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

olig - understood and apologies extended. I did not mean to pry, or come across as I was.

Sometimes I forget this thing is wide open by default. And I would probably be wise not to feel as familiar with some of the regulars as I do.

7:01 PM, November 18, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

br549 --

Again, no prob. If you wish to discuss privately, bounce your e-add off of The name is what it implies, but I'll check it for a day or so and respond.

7:24 PM, November 18, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道a片免費視訊聊天室微風成人免費視訊聊天 ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂免費 a 片85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費A片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網qq美美色網ut13077視訊聊天sex383線上娛樂場sex888sex520免費影片sex999免費影片情色視訊sex85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費 a 片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片aaa片免費看短片aa免費看aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片5278論壇情色偷拍免費A片sex520免費影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片

4:34 PM, April 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

6:34 AM, May 20, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home