[quote]Professor X wrote:
Eat cheeseburgers.
[/quote]
Damn, dude, talk about off topic.
[quote]giterdone wrote:
Being around and interacting with kids improves your comfort level and ability to interact with these little, foreign beings called kids. Beyond that, it in no way prepares you for or gives you true insight into the highs, lows and sometimes grinding responsibility of parenthood.[/quote]
This.
I can understand how being around kids all day would improve one’s ability to relate to them and understand them on some level, but I don’t see how any of that relates to the complete emotional dedication many parents feel to their offspring and the impact that has on nearly every decision they can/will make for the rest of their lives… which is what I feel is crux of the whole “you won’t understand until you actually have a child” argument.
Can someone truly “learn” that emotion from second/third/fourth-hand experiences?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What you all essentially did in this thread was try to shut down any and all opinions other than your own based ONLY if the person had children or not.[/quote]
That wasn’t the intent, if that is the way it was construed or stated so be it.
[/quote]
It may not have been the intent, but that is what happened. None of my posts were related to acting as I feel what you feel for your kids. This was a topic that started off about PATERNITY TESTS, and nearly all of my posts were directly related to that until I responded to you…at which point you acted as if everything I wrote was invalid…which isn’t even true.
No one is trying to take away your honor as far as being a parent.
No one is trying to tell you we know exactly what you feel.
Stop acting like that whenever these topics come up.
At least debate what was actually written.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
At least debate what was actually written.[/quote]
I don’t remember not doing that with you at all.
EDIT: Taking out the parts where I’m a retard.
[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
There will come a day, where you’ll come home from an absolute shit day at the office. Everything just went wrong, and someone dented your 40k car on the ride home. Now, your son is about 5 at this point, so times where he would be so happy to see you, his whole body would go into convulsions just because you walked in the door, are gone. Now he is just plain happy to see you, excited as can be, but it isn’t as passionate as it was 3 years ago.
You’ll feed him dinner, and talk about his day with him, this makes you feel better, but you are still tired, and angry. Because you are just done with life, and don’t want to hear him whine, you agree to watch Cars the movie for the 482nd time after dinner. So you tell him to brush his teeth and put on PJ’s. Now while he is grabbing his blanket and pillow, fucking PUMPED to be watching his favorite movie with his favorite person, you’ll be thinking: "Jesus, I know every line in this movie by heart, and he always laughs at the same stupid Mater jokes. But… It’s been a long day, and I’ll just zone out and make his day for him.
So about 40mins in, you notice he isn’t laughing at the same jokes anymore. And you look over and he is passed out. You’ll watch him sleep for a moment and think about how innocent he is, and how he has no idea at how hard life is going to fuck him in the ass in a few years. You wonder if you’ll be there when life slaps him in the face to help him brush himself off when he gets up. You wonder if he’ll have to deal with the fat bitch in the cube next door that smells like wet dog and talks down about you to everyone… Then you’ll realize you are still dwelling on the shit day you had.
So you’ll stand up, and go to pick him up to bring him to bed. As you lift him off the couch, he will startle awake… He will panic for a second, not knowing what the hell is going on. Then, his eyes will meet yours, you will be able to watch the calm rush back over him, and you will feel him thinking “oh, it is just dad.”
When he falls back asleep in your arms, that is when it hits you. That is when you know. You are everything to this little man. You are him, he is yours, you are his, and your whole life has been lived solely for this one moment. For the 45 seconds it take to walk him to his room, you are superman, you are spiderman, you are every hero that could ever be imagined, to him. And he is all that matters.
[/quote]
That’s a fantastic story and I hope to experience that for myself one day. However, that has nothing to do with how I would feel after a divorce, coming home to an empty apartment because I can’t go back to the house I helped pay for, and can’t see the kids until next weekend. [/quote]
I think maybe a better question for Beans would be how he figured out that the woman he married was the right one. I’m thinking Beans makes good decisions.
Or maybe ask yourself why you end up with crazy women. I know you don’t have kids but if this is a fear of yours there must be a reason. Do you often end up with women who stab you in the back/cheat/whatever?
[/quote]
Sure, I’ve asked myself that. I’ve never said they were all crazy, though some were. Mostly we were just on different pages and went our seperate ways. I’ve never had a really nasty breakup, at least not to the point of being assaulted like some posters here have written about in other threads.
Frankly I’m not even scared of divorce or losing my kids. I know it would suck, but I know plenty of men who have reconnected with their children, and one young man who reconnected with his father after he turned 18 and have developed strong healthy relationships. Divorce isn’t the end.
If I find the right woman I’ll have kids, might even get married. Who knows.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
At least debate what was actually written.[/quote]
I don’t remember not doing that with you at all.
EDIT: Taking out the parts where I’m a retard. [/quote]
It is more that you took what was written and used that as some soap box to preach to the childless.
My first response as a general inquiry to everyone was:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I get why some of you respond the way you do…but it would seem that the response is simply to justify your own actions.
I am asking logically, what is the real benefit of marriage for the guy in the relationship?[/quote]
You then responded. I then wrote:
To which everyone with kids decided to attack everyone without kids.
That doesn’t make sense.
These last few pages are nothing more than chest thumping because you all did what the rest of us can not.
I am exaggerating here, but seriously, man. Quit that. I usually don’t even have static with you, but this “no one can even speak about kids until they have them” bullshit is tired.
I could see if someone were really trying to get involved with your personal parenting approach…but no one is.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
However, that has nothing to do with how I would feel after a divorce, coming home to an empty apartment because I can’t go back to the house I helped pay for, and can’t see the kids until next weekend. [/quote]
You are 100% false. Your perspective here is shit, you don’t have kids, and you and everyone needs to have one before you can have any idea what so ever how you will feel about them, raising them, or losing them.
That is like a newb pontificating how it feels to pull 5 plates, when he has never deadlifted in his life.[/quote]
Another thing about your story about coming home from a shitty day at work to be with your son that makes it worthless in this discussion is that it is an Appeal to Emotion which is not a rational argument at all and is really just a cheap debate tactic. And again you dodge the issue, by not addressing what it would be like to get divorced and have those kids you care so much about taken away from you.
No I don’t know what that’s like either, but I know I certainly wouldn’t be happy about it, nor would I want to give a large portion of my income to the woman who took them from me. I also think it’s funny that you dismiss my points with a wave of the hand because I haven’t experienced it first hand. Yet you dismiss Brocandy’s points PRECISELY BECAUSE HE HAS EXPERIENCED IT FIRST HAND, and therefore he’s just biased. More inconsistency from you, but whatever.
But even though I’ve obviously pissed you off Beans, I still wish you the best. I envy the relationship you have with your kids, and I hope neither of us ever know what divorce feels like. Also, I understand why you want to dismiss my and Brocandy’s points, because you yourself are vulnerable and don’t even what to think about it. But I sincerely wish you the best, and I hope that your stories about your friends successful divorces are true.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I usually don’t even have static with you, [/quote]
lol, dude, I’m not harboring any ill will at all. (Not that I think you are either.) We just see things differently is all, and that isn’t an issue, imo.
Like I said, consider my stance on the subject dropped. No more soap boxes for that topic, at least from me.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Another thing about your story about coming home from a shitty day at work to be with your son that makes it worthless in this discussion is that it is an Appeal to Emotion which is not a rational argument at all and is really just a cheap debate tactic. [/quote]
First off, no it wasn’t. Had you read the post in the context it was written, I was trying to explain my point of view to X. And the best way I saw to explain that was through a story.
Second, you try to do the same thing later in this same post.
I’m not dodging shit. I can’t speak to that issue as I haven’t been through it as a parent. I’ve seen a lot of instances, but I haven’t lived it, so I don’t feel right commenting on it, in the context of your posts.
I think this is a natural and honest feeling. I’ve just been trying, unsuccessfully to explain how your $ and how much she gets, may not, at that time, be as important as you think. That was the point I was trying to make.
That thinking of the kids first and the $ second might just be what happens. That spiraled into us bickering like school kids…
Maybe I wasn’t clear, maybe my point is BS. But I know that the kids should matter more than they do, to both the courts and the parents. And I’ve seen cases where when the parents put the kids first, it was a lot healthier.
No, actually I dismiss his projecting his awful situation onto the whole of separated parents and the whole tone of “women are evil sluts looking to put good men down” in this thread.
But our conversation, BA & I, has evolved, and I expect it to continue.
I’m not mad, lol. This is the internet. Frustrated maybe.
No need to envy anything. If you are happy that is all that matters.
Am I vulnerable? sure. So are my wife and my kids.
Do I “don’t even what to think about it”? nope. I think about “what if” all the time.
They are, but I don’t give a shit if anyone believes it or not.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Mak - What happened with the law from your OP? The news story is 3+ years old.[/quote]
Looking more into it, but it doesn’t look like anything came of it because people complained it was violating women rights or some bullshit.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Damn good post, Beans.
I’d concur with the reasons you got married, also.
Falling in love, marrying and genuinely giving yourself to that person takes a LOT of courage… Some people find the risks greater than the reward and there’s nothing wrong with that.
I was on the fence about getting married…then I met Greeny. I’ve never wanted anything more in my life.
…except maybe that giant dinosaur set when I was 8. It was THAT cool.
Looks on EBay for dinosaur set[/quote]
Just a question though…those guys who get divorced…do you think they consider the decision to marry a “courageous” one?[/quote]
The few (3) guys that I know and spoke to today, (2 have been divorced and remarried and 1 is still divorced) agreed that it is, in fact, a courageous thing to do.
Otherwise, I have no idea what other divorced guys think about whether it takes courage or not, to get married.
What do YOU think?
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Damn good post, Beans.
I’d concur with the reasons you got married, also.
Falling in love, marrying and genuinely giving yourself to that person takes a LOT of courage… Some people find the risks greater than the reward and there’s nothing wrong with that.
I was on the fence about getting married…then I met Greeny. I’ve never wanted anything more in my life.
…except maybe that giant dinosaur set when I was 8. It was THAT cool.
Looks on EBay for dinosaur set[/quote]
Just a question though…those guys who get divorced…do you think they consider the decision to marry a “courageous” one?[/quote]
The few (3) guys that I know and spoke to today, (2 have been divorced and remarried and 1 is still divorced) agreed that it is, in fact, a courageous thing to do.
Otherwise, I have no idea what other divorced guys think about whether it takes courage or not, to get married.
What do YOU think?[/quote]
I would think they would consider it a “learning experience” but would not call their act “courageous”.
I think how you phrase the question can have much to do with how they respond as well.
I think getting married requires FAITH. I do not see it as “courageous” by any stretch of the imagination. There are people who get married in the military just so they get more pay. No bullshit.
It requires faith that the person you think you trust and love actually can be trusted to not royally screw you should it not have a happy story book ending.
Many of the posts right here tell us it does not always work out that way…so “courage” is not the label for it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Damn good post, Beans.
I’d concur with the reasons you got married, also.
Falling in love, marrying and genuinely giving yourself to that person takes a LOT of courage… Some people find the risks greater than the reward and there’s nothing wrong with that.
I was on the fence about getting married…then I met Greeny. I’ve never wanted anything more in my life.
…except maybe that giant dinosaur set when I was 8. It was THAT cool.
Looks on EBay for dinosaur set[/quote]
Just a question though…those guys who get divorced…do you think they consider the decision to marry a “courageous” one?[/quote]
The few (3) guys that I know and spoke to today, (2 have been divorced and remarried and 1 is still divorced) agreed that it is, in fact, a courageous thing to do.
Otherwise, I have no idea what other divorced guys think about whether it takes courage or not, to get married.
What do YOU think?[/quote]
I would think they would consider it a “learning experience” but would not call their act “courageous”.
I think how you phrase the question can have much to do with how they respond as well.
I think getting married requires FAITH. I do not see it as “courageous” by any stretch of the imagination. There are people who get married in the military just so they get more pay. No bullshit.
It requires faith that the person you think you trust and love actually can be trusted to not royally screw you should it not have a happy story book ending.
Many of the posts right here tell us it does not always work out that way…so “courage” is not the label for it.[/quote]
Well, then marriage isn’t the same thing to everybody, obviously.
“a learning experience”? Sure. Faith? Yes, I agree with that.
But, you don’t think that giving youself, mind, body, soul, and committing to that person for the rest of your life doesn’t take courage? Especially, after seeing what can happen if it all goes to shit?
What would you call it, then?
If I may ask; have you ever been in love? And, what’s the longest relationship you have ever had? I’m curious.
Beans, I did a piss poor job of communicating the point I was trying to make when I said “When you lose this blah blah blah”, and than I became frustrated at what I can now see as your inabuility to read my mind over the internet. So, that’s my bad. What I was trying to get at is that just as the people without kids may re-evaluate their stance on these issues when confronted with the situations such as what you described, and envisioning the details of the situation you described may help them to understand your point of view, I’d like you to envision what it’s like for someone with the usual 2 weekends a month, and child support setup, and where their perspective comes from. Imagine looking a tiny son in the eye, and telling them “I’ll see you in a couple weeks buddy”. See the tears well up in their eyes while your holding them, as you hand them to their mother before you have to turn, walk to the car, and drive away. Than, tell me the court had the child’s best interest at heart when they ordered that you only spend 4 days a month with him. Yes, it hurts the parent to be away from their kids for 2 weeks. But 2 weeks for an adult is not alot of time. To a small child, it’s an eternity. And the pain you’ll know the situation is causing them will break your heart more than being away from them will. Imagine being asked by a small boy if you’ll take him to the ball game, and having to tell him “sorry buddy, we can’t do that today”, because your ball game money went towards paying for his mother’s new kitchen table. See the disappointment on his face. And know that you’ll have to scrounge and save for months, because you’re income barely covers the essentials, and having tried every avenue available to you to make more money, only to have that extra taken away, and now imputed as standard, you know you can’t work hard enough, or long enough to out run the corresponding support increases. Than tell me the court had his best interests in mind when they ordered half your pay cheque to his mother. The point though, is that it’s very very easy to write off support payers who complain about the size of their court ordered support obligations as selfish because of the personal impact these laws have on just them, and say that it’s for the kids. But if you were to witness the effects that these laws have on their children first hand, you might have a differnet opinion. I never understood the actions of my father, until I walked a mile in his shoes. I hope that my children never come to understand mine. The benefacters of the current system (in the case I’ve described the mother of the children) do not see the impact, because they do not want to. It is an inconvenient truth to them, that the money they recieve from the other parent is anything but beneficial to the children, and that the children’s time spent in their care is anything but optimal. These benefacters have traditionally been women, and as our society is generally more empethetic to the plight of the “single mother”, it is uncommon for outsiders to fully comprehend the other side of the equation.
I do not want my son to be afraid of women or children, or marriage either. I want both him, and my daughter to enjoy the same care free sheltered freedomes currently enjoyed primarily by women to do just that. I do not believe that the pendulum should be swung back, it is my position that the pendulum should be cut off. There was a time when women were at a true disadvantage in the work place, and children required their fathers to act as providers first, and caregivers second, wether married, or divorced, because their mothers had no chance of making a similar financial contribution. Those days are long gone, and the laws, and attitudes of that era need not just to evolve, but to be abolished.
Traditional marriage is more than just 2 people who are both employed. It’s a partnership, and it used to be a solid reliable foundation on which to build a family. Wether both people work, and kids go to daycare, or one parent works, and the other stays home and rears the children is irrelevent. Nowadays, people are increasingly tempted to abandon it regardless of the stage of construction, in search of a better life, and I don’t think that trend is going to stop any time soon. But in a world where both parties have equal opportunities to build new lives for themselves AND there children post divorce, the need to proclaim one of them “custodian / caregiver”, and the other “visitor / provider” is all but non existant. Contrary to popular belief, having children spend large amounts of time with their father is not a new concept. The small amount of time we’re currently used to fathers spending with their children is a product of the industrial age. Most children would benefit greatly by spending more time with dad wether their parent are married or not. People get into these situations together, and they need to get out of them together also. Courts should encourage their cooperation, and good behaviour, because THAT is what’s best for the kids. When divorced parents get along, kids win. We assume that married parents will act in the best interst of their children, and we should assume the same of divorced parents. Former spouses (regardless of gender) who misbehave and refuse to “play nice” should be PUNISHED. As it stands, there is very little punishment in the family court - especially for “custodial parents” because how do you punish a custodial parent without inadvertantly punishing the children aswell? You can’t just take away their kids and give them to the other parent for example, because that would upset the status quoe, which the courts see as detrimental to the children. The problem with this, is that it’s too specific. As in we can’t do that to THESE children. But it’s like paying terrorists for hostages. If you do what’s best for THESE hostages, terrorism spreads like an epidemic. So you shoot the mother fuckers and let that be a lesson to other potential terrorists. Abuse and neglect allegations should carry the burden of proof, and false allegations should carry an appropriate consequence. Our laws today tell a woman “You can raise a family without a man”. What they should tell a woman is “You can raise a family without a man… BUT YOU’D BETTER HAVE A GOD DAMB GOOD REASON ,AND YOU’D BETTER NOT BE MAKING THIS SHIT UP”, and it should say the very same thing to men about women.
I do not hate women. I have a daughter whom I love very much, that will some day be one. I don’t want her to grow up to wear clear heals, and spin from a pole for a living because she’s got daddy issues from only having a part time father. I recognize that there is large problem created by current family laws that results in every woman being a potential psycho ex. Just like feminists say every man is a potential rapist. We have laws that discourage rape, and we should have laws that discourage being a psycho ex. That is all.
As it pertains to the law that this thread was started about, paternaty tests give men who don’t want kids an out. But how many of them don’t want kids just because of the liability they present? And how many men that WANT those kids will be alienated from them because of a lack of paternaty? The good outweighs the bad, but it’s not all good.
BA, I have nothing but respect for you, for going through the garbage that you are with class and maturity.
I doubt that I would, or could, handle the situation the way you have been and I hope to never find out.
That is a great post, and I have certainly re-thought a lot due to our back and forth.
I can go into a lot of what you said in more detail, but most of it would be “I agree.”
I think we do agree on a lot, and the internet did just get in the way.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I think we do agree on a lot, and the internet did just get in the way. [/quote]
I think this is the case much of the time on these forums.
About the cost of children: I for one, am cheap. I’ll squeeze a nickle until the beaver shits. But I have never ever thought of my kids as expensive. Because I get my money’s worth. It doesn’t matter how much they cost, because it’s a fucking steal. When I pay my mortgage, the cost of those bedrooms doesn’t even cross my mind. When I buy groceries, those snack packs are insignificant. When I buy little shoes, or little clothes, or little bikes, or little bows, or little toys, their comfort, and enjoyment is worth every penny. It’s the price of having kids, and I’m happy to pay it.
Unfortunatly I can’t say the same about “child support”. It’s intended to provide them with things I already pay for. What a waste of money. In my case, it literally does nothing but lower their standard of living, and supplement’s the government’s welfare system. But even for people who’s support lands in their ex-wives pockets, it’s a fucking ripoff. And I think that’s where alot of “deadbeats” are made. You stop getting your money’s worth, stripped of all your privlidges, yet saddled with all the same responsabilities, it’s a raw deal. It’s not the cost of having kids, it’s the cost of having an ex-wife, and that’s where it fails. Everybody loves a good deal, but nobody likes a bad one. We can say “it’s for the kids”, but when all that it pays for is things you’ve already provided, it’s not for the kids. It’s for the ex-wife, so that SHE can have a home, and so that SHE can have YOUR kids. And that’s just about the worst deal imaginable. I’d rather pay for a kick in the nuts.
It occurs to me now, that squeezing shit from the beaver is probably a local term. Pic related.
I’m not going to bother with the how much support in needed question because I have no idea how they come up with there numbers or what is required and all that.
But I don’t think the custodial parent should just be allowed to make accusations without proof which causes the non custodial parent to loose his or her visitation rights.
In your case BA I think your ex does not have the kids best interest at heart if they are only allowed to see you 2 weekends a month. I don’t think that’s enough.
Never heard the squeezing the beaver thing either but I knew what you meant. lol