Paternity Testing

Off Topic
141

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
^is one bette than the other.

Court ordered is crazy and I’m not paying.

Second is misleading as “doing the right thing” is subjective and based on personal views. But for the sake of argument I’m doing the right thing.[/quote]

Of course LD I was just asking, cause if it is court ordered then how much would it cost to go get it lowered/dropped etc.

Doing the right thing is personal agreed, subject to heavy debate on that topic.

Personally I would only be paying the X if I had a relationship with that child. If I was just paying out of honor and no relationship with the child then I would not pay. [/quote]

Same here…but then none of us know his true situation. Shit like that scares me. That seems like way too much drama just because you wanted sex.

LOL.

142

It does seem odd that the father doesn’t have to sign anything to be listed on a birth certificate.

143

[quote]Professor X wrote:
For instance, I could get married right now to a woman who doesn’t even work, stay with her for one year…she cheats on me…and I get stuck paying her for years.
[/quote]

You could do that.

But that would be stupid.

“You can’t fix stupid”

You also can’t legislate common sense. You can’t save people from themselves.

144

Law or not! I would never allow myself to be declared the father of a child without a test and encourage every man I know to do the same (in a solid marriage or not). I can see how it could create some ‘hard’ feelings but the consequences of discovering an ‘error’ later are to great.

145

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Real quick question,

I’ve been with a woman for 10 yrs. She had a kid when we met but we had a falling out and are no longer together.
Am I that kids father w/financial responsibility to that kid?

Story moves on:
I meet a great gal a year or so later. We get married and start a family. I’ve been writing checks for $600 a month to this “other woman’s kid” for the last year or so. How do I explain that to my “understanding” wife?

Wife, who somehow understood me taking care of a kid that wasn’t mine now gets pregnant and leaves her job to take care of our kid. Finances are tight. Do I take food out of my family’s mouth to feed the other or do I get a second job to take care of both?[/quote]

I don’t know about Texas, but here your new kid would be fucked, because “you should have made sure you could financially support the new child before creating it”. The basic support amount is there to provide a maintananc of the standard of living the kids would have had if you had not divorced, and since the new kid was born to a poorer father than their sibling, no such maintanance is required. I also hope your second job pays well, as if your income goes up, your support obligation will go up aswell. About the only argument you can make at that point is that the “other child” would benefit from more time with you so that they can spend time with their new sibling, AND that the standard of living in your home is substantially lower than in the other home. Welcome to family law: where complex colour problems are solved with simplistic black and white one-size-fits-all clusterfuckery by judges and politicians so far removed from reality, you’d swear they ride unicorns to work.

146

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
For instance, I could get married right now to a woman who doesn’t even work, stay with her for one year…she cheats on me…and I get stuck paying her for years.
[/quote]

You could do that.

But that would be stupid.

“You can’t fix stupid”

You also can’t legislate common sense. You can’t save people from themselves.[/quote]

Except that when the thing that makes it stupid is legislation itself, you need to fix the legislation. Look, if nobody has kids our species goes extinct. Men who can provide a good life for their kids, not just financially, but in teachings, and time, are the men you want to have kids. Breeding with a woman who doesn’t work who he can afford to have at home rearing his kids until they reach school age is the best thing a kid could have (as opposed to throwing them in a daycare asap and letting someone else raise them). But if the bitch fucks around on him, the situation changes for everyone, and you can’t protect the kids from that no matter what you do. The current systems in north america attempt to do so, but they don’t work, and simply perpetuate resentment and conflict between the parents, while hand cuffing the “provider’s” abuility to provide which isn’t good for anybody.

147

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
For instance, I could get married right now to a woman who doesn’t even work, stay with her for one year…she cheats on me…and I get stuck paying her for years.
[/quote]

You could do that.

But that would be stupid.

“You can’t fix stupid”

You also can’t legislate common sense. You can’t save people from themselves.[/quote]

But the thing is, it isn’t stupid. People do things like this everyday because of “LOVE”.

Then they fight, suddenly hate each other and she ends up on The View telling all of your deep dark secrets to the world for book rights.

I just find it funny how many married guys seem to think they are “safe” from this.

LOL.

It doesn’t look like ANY of them are.

148

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
When a woman decides she doesn’t want to be married anymore, that should be her fucking problem. [/quote]

And there are countless examples of men that left. Dude, you, no offense, can’t see this situation objectively. I don’t blame you, and I doubt I see it 100% objectively either.
[/quote]

I’d like to think that I see it more objectively than most, having personally been on both the children’s end, and the father’s end, while several of the women I care most about (mother, sister, and the woman I’ve been dating for the last 2 years) have been on the woman’s end. There certainly are alot of cases of men who leave. But if 70% of divorces are initiated by women, and only 30% by men, than there are more than 2 times as many women leaving their breadwinners, as their are men leaving their caregivers.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

They don’t always. Well, the kids do, 99% of the time.
[/quote]

The kids do 100% of the time. Dad does 80-90% of the time.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
But mom got fucking PAYED to do just that. And you think that’s right?[/quote]

I don’t see it that way. You make it sound like women are leaving to spite the man and kids, and I doubt that is the case. [/quote]

That’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that the odds of a man losing his children, and being forced to subsidize the breakup of his family are high regardless of the reason behind the break, while the odds are high that a woman will be not lose her children, NOR the financial backing of her former mate, while opening the possibility to go laso another man into supporting her. 2 providers are better than one no? The current system creates winners and losers, and that’s not the way it should be. Kids lose if either parent struggles, they lose if there is significant conflict, and resentment between the parents, they lose if the “support payer” has little incentive to asert themselves beyond the basic requirements, they lose, lose, lose. Men (usually) lose their kids, lose their income, lose their opportunities to prosper beyond their basic means, lose the freedomes taken for granted by married parents, etc… Women (usually) lose very little, and thus there is not nearly the same incentive for them to keep their vows if married, or stay with the father at all if they are not. They have the cake, and eat it too, while they go latch on to yet another man to milk.

Look, it’s like this: If someone of either gender is unable to provide for themselves wholly without outside assistance, than I’m inclined to question that person’s suitabuility as a “custodial parent”. If you make enough to provide for yourself, and your children than you are suitable as a “custodial parent”. If both parents are suitable, both parents should be custodial, the kids should spend similar amounts of time with each, and it should be presumed that as custodial parents they will do what they see is best for their kids. Just as it is presumed for current custodial parents, and for parents who are married. CURRENTLY, there is too much insentive (money and power) for parents to hurl accusations at each other of maltreatment, neglect, and poor behaviour. Take the price tag, and power struggle away, and how many fewer conflicts are there going to be? How much will kids benefit when both parents have significant time with them, have insentive beyond the “goodness of their heart” to work hard, and excel financially, and the focus is on improving unmarried life for all parties, rather than pretending that it hasn’t happened while perpetuating the problem as contestants vie for the prize. Currently women win that prize signifcantly more often than men, but the gender of the winners doesn’t matter. If there is a winner at all, the kids lose.

149

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

It’s massively fucked up that you have to pay for the mother [/quote]

oops, you fall into the same category as uncle gabby.

You aren’t paying for the mother, you are providing for your child.

How long have you been fighting with your ex over your kids? (I’m sorry that you seem to be having a very hard time with it too.)[/quote]

4 years. We’re in court constantly. My ex-wife uses the patented 3 step program to widdle my time down each trip: Step 1: acuse man of abuse, Step 2: demand full custody, Step 3: Profit. When we started out I had my kids 3 1/2 days each week, PLUS all the time their mother spent at work as we do not work the same hours. So they spent more time with me than with her, and I STILL had to pay her. Than it went down to 3 days 3 times a month PLUS the time she was at work. Nowadays it’s 2 1/2 days 3 times a month. My kids go to a baby sitter when I’m at home which I AM ORDERED TO PAY FOR, and I no longer have shared custody, as “high conflict” situations eliminate that as a possibility regardless of why the conflict exists.[/quote]

Your situation totally bites Andy. I guess it can’t be taken care of just between the 2 of you especially not if it’s been like this for 4 years. What can be done? Is it possible for you to get full custody?

Is it that the courts see it as whatever is good for the kids? Joint custody is bad due to disagreement so it has to be one or the other? So you or Mom not both? Is there anything she has said would make her agree to more sharing of the kids time?[/quote]

As I’ve said, I’ve got it better than most. I wish that my situation was somehow unique or rare, but the only thing rare about my situation is that my kids spend 3 weekends with me instead of 2. There is nothing to be done, and to be clear I have never formally asked for full custody (on the paperwork, although it has come up in the court room), as I do not seek to deprive my children of their mother anymore than I consent to the deprivation of their father. Not to mention that I wouldn’t win anyways. Their mother doesn’t abuse them physically, isn’t on drugs, isn’t a convicted fellon, etc… According to every lawyer I’ve spoken to, and every judge I’ve argued with, my superiority as a provider does not entitle me to custody, it entitles me to pay more. Her restriction of my access and disregard for the court’s orders has had me repeatedly take her to court for “contempt”, which can eventually lead to custody changes, however proving contempt in the family court system is nearly impossible, and convictions are all but nonexistant as there is an extremely high standard involving the proof of intent. For example, the court’s order can be legally broken if she “feels” it’s adherance would endanger the children. Wether or not the children are in danger, or even if it was a reasonable fear is irrelevant. Contempt is a criminal charge, and unlike anything else in the family court system bears the burden of proof. How do you PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that someone feels differently than what they claim? Case dismissed. Her repeated success with this defence has empowered her to become increasingly bold. She can do what she wants, when she wants. She is in control. She knows it, and I know it. You get a differnet judge every time you go to court, and previous cases are not permitted as evidance, so you get a clean slate each trip, and are never called for crying wolf.

The courts see conflict between parents as bad for kids, so they would rather have one power tripping while the other cowers and obeys, than have them argue with each other. Bow down to your master, she has your kids, she has your money, she has your power.

There is absolutely no way that I’m getting more time. I actually got a phone call from her an hour after the last ruling was handed out asking to “buy” my third weekend for 500 dollars a month off my support. My kids aren’t for sale. She wants a pay cheque and a baby sitter for 2 weekends a month, and she’ll eventually get it. Like most men, I’m at her mercy, and can do little more than cling to what I’ve got, and the hope that her brainwashing is ineffective enough that they’ll ask the court to live with me when they’re teenagers and old enough to speak for themselves.

150

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]Charlie Horse wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:

It’s massively fucked up that you have to pay for the mother [/quote]

oops, you fall into the same category as uncle gabby.

You aren’t paying for the mother, you are providing for your child.

How long have you been fighting with your ex over your kids? (I’m sorry that you seem to be having a very hard time with it too.)[/quote]

4 years. We’re in court constantly. My ex-wife uses the patented 3 step program to widdle my time down each trip: Step 1: acuse man of abuse, Step 2: demand full custody, Step 3: Profit. When we started out I had my kids 3 1/2 days each week, PLUS all the time their mother spent at work as we do not work the same hours. So they spent more time with me than with her, and I STILL had to pay her. Than it went down to 3 days 3 times a month PLUS the time she was at work. Nowadays it’s 2 1/2 days 3 times a month. My kids go to a baby sitter when I’m at home which I AM ORDERED TO PAY FOR, and I no longer have shared custody, as “high conflict” situations eliminate that as a possibility regardless of why the conflict exists.[/quote]

Your situation totally bites Andy. I guess it can’t be taken care of just between the 2 of you especially not if it’s been like this for 4 years. What can be done? Is it possible for you to get full custody?

Is it that the courts see it as whatever is good for the kids? Joint custody is bad due to disagreement so it has to be one or the other? So you or Mom not both? Is there anything she has said would make her agree to more sharing of the kids time?[/quote]

As I’ve said, I’ve got it better than most. I wish that my situation was somehow unique or rare, but the only thing rare about my situation is that my kids spend 3 weekends with me instead of 2. There is nothing to be done, and to be clear I have never formally asked for full custody (on the paperwork, although it has come up in the court room), as I do not seek to deprive my children of their mother anymore than I consent to the deprivation of their father. Not to mention that I wouldn’t win anyways. Their mother doesn’t abuse them physically, isn’t on drugs, isn’t a convicted fellon, etc… According to every lawyer I’ve spoken to, and every judge I’ve argued with, my superiority as a provider does not entitle me to custody, it entitles me to pay more. Her restriction of my access and disregard for the court’s orders has had me repeatedly take her to court for “contempt”, which can eventually lead to custody changes, however proving contempt in the family court system is nearly impossible, and convictions are all but nonexistant as there is an extremely high standard involving the proof of intent. For example, the court’s order can be legally broken if she “feels” it’s adherance would endanger the children. Wether or not the children are in danger, or even if it was a reasonable fear is irrelevant. Contempt is a criminal charge, and unlike anything else in the family court system bears the burden of proof. How do you PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that someone feels differently than what they claim? Case dismissed. Her repeated success with this defence has empowered her to become increasingly bold. She can do what she wants, when she wants. She is in control. She knows it, and I know it. You get a differnet judge every time you go to court, and previous cases are not permitted as evidance, so you get a clean slate each trip, and are never called for crying wolf.

The courts see conflict between parents as bad for kids, so they would rather have one power tripping while the other cowers and obeys, than have them argue with each other. Bow down to your master, she has your kids, she has your money, she has your power.

There is absolutely no way that I’m getting more time. I actually got a phone call from her an hour after the last ruling was handed out asking to “buy” my third weekend for 500 dollars a month off my support. My kids aren’t for sale. She wants a pay cheque and a baby sitter for 2 weekends a month, and she’ll eventually get it. Like most men, I’m at her mercy, and can do little more than cling to what I’ve got, and the hope that her brainwashing is ineffective enough that they’ll ask the court to live with me when they’re teenagers and old enough to speak for themselves.

[/quote]

If you had full custody you could set it up so it is fair for your kids so they get access to both parents. That’s all I was thinking as far as full custody is concerned because she could set it up so you had more access but chooses not to.

She sounds crazy.
I always suspected that of her and I never liked her btw. :wink:

151

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
For instance, I could get married right now to a woman who doesn’t even work, stay with her for one year…she cheats on me…and I get stuck paying her for years.
[/quote]

You could do that.

But that would be stupid.

“You can’t fix stupid”

You also can’t legislate common sense. You can’t save people from themselves.[/quote]

But the thing is, it isn’t stupid. People do things like this everyday because of “LOVE”.

Then they fight, suddenly hate each other and she ends up on The View telling all of your deep dark secrets to the world for book rights.

I just find it funny how many married guys seem to think they are “safe” from this.

LOL.

It doesn’t look like ANY of them are.[/quote]

I don’t know why you would say ‘married guys seem to think they are safe from this’.

The beauty of the States is that Tenn can enact this if they want. Maybe set a precendent, maybe not. Maybe this is just the non-epidemic legislation for legislation’s sake that will finally break the failing TennCare.

Mak- Does NZ have this law in effect? If no, why not? If no, are you championing the call for the legislation there?

152

[quote]simpstr1 wrote:
As a woman, I have to say a lot of times, women use the kids to get money that they spend on them not the children. There are lots of women with custody that actually need help and lots of great Dads contributing. What I don’t like is women that use the kids to punish Dad and keep them from seeing their fathers. Its not about you and Mom its about those kids and being able to help them function after the divorce,which is very traumatic whether you realize it or not. Whatever happen you are the parents and keeping them from one or the other is fucked up and all I can say is that you will get your - payback is a bitch. I’ve noticed more single Dads taking care of their kids then I have ever before and I say congrats! The court system is not going to automatically give custoday to the Moms any longer so DADS - FIGHT FOR CUSTODY, especially if Mom is a deucsh (sp) bag![/quote]

Simpstr1, one can see why you are the only dame from here to be invited out on a night with BG, Lew and AC.

Listen ladies of Tnation: the difference between you and Simp is that when the men here talk about women generally, she does not take it as an attack on herself and react defensively, even though what you are defending is more often or not inexcusable. She weighs up a viewpoint and makes a balanced contribution. A number of the girls here can learn a lesson. How the fuck can anyone with a straight face declare “think of the marriages this will break!” Well think of the poor sod who is lumbered with another man’s child or a child who grows up never knowing his real father. Irregardless of current cultural and media thinking that women can never be wrongdoers, any woman who does this is evil and deserves to be shamed for it in a public forum.

On the subject at hand, OF COURSE this should be mandatory. Besides the potential for a woman messing up a man’s life and the life of her spawn, she is commiting fraud.

Remember gentleman, DNA testing is affordable and the technology is there to check paternity WHILE THE CHILD IS STILL IN THE WOMB. Generally (do not take this as an attack women or you will show yourself up to be mentally feeble) women in the Anglo-saxon west are in a very bad state. Even though you may think you have got a brilliant girl who is a keeper, there is a possibility that the cancerous influence of her peers or the mass-media has egged her on to cheating and convinced her to push down the fact into her deepest recesses. She is only human afterall. As such, I for one will be verifying the paternity of any children I may or may not have before signing on the dotted line.

153

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Because you, not the law, are going to put the child’s needs ahead of yours. So what the law thinks won’t matter.

Unless someone is a scumbag, then they will abandon the kid to punish the whore of a mother.
[/quote]

Of course I will still love the child, (I’ve always said that), but that doesn’t mean I’m going to keep paying mom’s rent. But the law WILL put the child’s needs ahead of mine, by taking a very large percentage of my income away from me and redistributing it to the mother. That is another thing that is massively fucked up about the system, it treats all father’s as deadbeat dads.

Another point you made, and I haven’t bothered to dig up your quote, was that “you can either pay or get custody.” Bullshit. A father never really has custody, as the legal battles often continue until the kid turns 18. Shared custody? Theirs no money in that, so mommy gets a better lawyer, and two years after the divorce the battle flares up again, and dad has to pay his own lawyer through the nose to keep his time with his children. I’ve seen that happen too, but you’ll probably dismiss that as another fairy tale.

154

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
For instance, I could get married right now to a woman who doesn’t even work, stay with her for one year…she cheats on me…and I get stuck paying her for years.
[/quote]

You could do that.

But that would be stupid.

“You can’t fix stupid”

You also can’t legislate common sense. You can’t save people from themselves.[/quote]

But the thing is, it isn’t stupid. People do things like this everyday because of “LOVE”.

Then they fight, suddenly hate each other and she ends up on The View telling all of your deep dark secrets to the world for book rights.

I just find it funny how many married guys seem to think they are “safe” from this.

LOL.

It doesn’t look like ANY of them are.[/quote]

I don’t know why you would say ‘married guys seem to think they are safe from this’.

The beauty of the States is that Tenn can enact this if they want. Maybe set a precendent, maybe not. Maybe this is just the non-epidemic legislation for legislation’s sake that will finally break the failing TennCare.

Mak- Does NZ have this law in effect? If no, why not? If no, are you championing the call for the legislation there?
[/quote]

It doesn’t for the same reason you don’t have it - sluts and white knights want to maintain the status quo where men are vilified and women are virginal whores.

And yes, I do what I can to support a similar push for testing here.

155

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
For instance, I could get married right now to a woman who doesn’t even work, stay with her for one year…she cheats on me…and I get stuck paying her for years.
[/quote]

You could do that.

But that would be stupid.

“You can’t fix stupid”

You also can’t legislate common sense. You can’t save people from themselves.[/quote]

But the thing is, it isn’t stupid. People do things like this everyday because of “LOVE”.

Then they fight, suddenly hate each other and she ends up on The View telling all of your deep dark secrets to the world for book rights.

I just find it funny how many married guys seem to think they are “safe” from this.

LOL.

It doesn’t look like ANY of them are.[/quote]

I don’t know why you would say ‘married guys seem to think they are safe from this’.

The beauty of the States is that Tenn can enact this if they want. Maybe set a precendent, maybe not. Maybe this is just the non-epidemic legislation for legislation’s sake that will finally break the failing TennCare.

Mak- Does NZ have this law in effect? If no, why not? If no, are you championing the call for the legislation there?
[/quote]

It doesn’t for the same reason you don’t have it - sluts and white knights want to maintain the status quo where men are vilified and women are virginal whores.

And yes, I do what I can to support a similar push for testing here.[/quote]

I didn’t realize the US didn’t have that law because “sluts and white knights want to maintain the status quo”. Wow. And I live here and all that shit. Thank you for opening my eyes.

156

I’m sure if you’re following this closely then please give an update on the 3 year news story in the OP. Anybody from Tennessee posting here?

157

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
dad has to pay his own lawyer through the nose to keep his time with his children.[/quote]

Don’t forget that you’ll frequently have to pay for HERS!

158

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Bullshit. A father never really has custody, as the legal battles often continue until the kid turns 18. Shared custody? Theirs no money in that, so mommy gets a better lawyer, and two years after the divorce the battle flares up again, and dad has to pay his own lawyer through the nose to keep his time with his children. I’ve seen that happen too, but you’ll probably dismiss that as another fairy tale.[/quote]

I’m done conversing about this with you and BA, neither of you can see the situation for anything other than “poor dad gets ass fucked.” Does dad get shit on some times? Yup, but mom takes it in the ass a lot too. Look up the stats on unpaid support and deadbeat dads.

I can give you the name of the best man at my wedding who has the custody of his daughter. And has a very civil relationship with his son’s mom.

My son’s best friend is with his father all week, and with his mom every other weekend, for the exact reason BA said, he could provide a better life.

A very good friend of my college EX got custody of both his kids 9 & 12, when their mother remarried for a second time. it was a like a 32min hearing.

It isn’t 1986 anymore, at least in America. A man can get custody of his kids these days.

My college roommate got both his kids 5 & 8 less than 6 months out from graduation. And moved them across the country.

But you can believe whatever you want. I just don’t give a fuck anymore. You two aren’t objective, at all. And BA’s description of why he thought he was objective, is why he isn’t. He is getting assfucked, there is no way he can be objective, lol.

Do some men get a raw deal? Yup. Do a lot of women get fucked over by “men”? Yup. Are men at a disadvantage in the situation? Yup. Is that because woman have been the lawyers, legislators and judges that wrote these laws and set the precedences that rulings are based off of?

159

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Because you, not the law, are going to put the child’s needs ahead of yours. So what the law thinks won’t matter.

Unless someone is a scumbag, then they will abandon the kid to punish the whore of a mother.
[/quote]

Of course I will still love the child, (I’ve always said that), but that doesn’t mean I’m going to keep paying mom’s rent. But the law WILL put the child’s needs ahead of mine, by taking a very large percentage of my income away from me and redistributing it to the mother. That is another thing that is massively fucked up about the system, it treats all father’s as deadbeat dads.

[/quote]

Also, FOR THE 400TH FUCKING TIME. WHEN YOU HAVE KIDS YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT YOU, NOT THE FUCKING COURT, WILL PUT THE CHILD’S NEEDS BEFORE YOUR OWN.

opps, didn’t mean to hit the caps lock, lol, but I’ll leave it. Maybe it will sink in this time.

160

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But the thing is, it isn’t stupid. People do things like this everyday because of “LOVE”.

Then they fight, suddenly hate each other and she ends up on The View telling all of your deep dark secrets to the world for book rights.

I just find it funny how many married guys seem to think they are “safe” from this.

LOL.

It doesn’t look like ANY of them are.[/quote]

Any man that hasn’t thought about this is either lying or a flat out moron. You certainly consider this when you buy the diamond, and I, like many men, have my retainer funds ready to go, should the need arise. My buddies dad calls it the “dirty sock fund”.

But to avoid marriage, and avoid a family because of that fear, to me, is like saying “I’m never going to europe because planes crash.” or “I am never going to go outside because I’ll get skin cancer from the sun.”

I don’t know man. But I’m not going to miss out on some of the most amazing moments of my life out of fear of what may be. Life is too short to run from what I feel is right.