American Women

Alex I pay the electric bills in places that I will never visit. I pay taxes to fund programs for people that I will never meet. I might complain about that sometimes but the fact is those people cash the checks they got from the goverment and buy things from people I do business with. We are all connected and I understand that its not a free ride. Your going to have a tough time convincing many people that you deserve money for prostitutes more than mothers deserve money to care for their kids. Good luck selling that idea my freind.

Alex,

"To have children and to make a mistake about this - is not a crime, that men shold pay for. "

That was exactly my point....paying child support is not a "punishment". It is a responsibility! Parents support their children financially, emotionally and materially...that is part of the job description. It's quite obvious by your constant references to the financial position of single mothers, that you believe this money is paid to keep the WOMAN happy. That is not what it's for. I believe Americans have alimony payments that cover that sort of thing (a concept that I find bizarre mind you). Child support is paid to provide for the children....children that BOTH the parents brought into this world.

re: the father losing custody.
A child is not property that can be divided up equally between the parents. It is unfortunate that one parent has to miss out, but that's the way it goes. "Shared custody" is really the only situation that keeps both parties happy, but living in two different houses usually does kids heads in. It's also not possible if the separated couple live too far away from each other (with school, etc).

Women are not always automatically granted custody of children just because they are mothers. As someone involved in the sex industry, I know MANY women who have lost custody of their children after being classified as "unfit mothers" due to their occupation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, (and yes, I have studied stats and numbers while doing a research project on sex workers and residency), women are granted custody because they are unemployed. When there is a choice between a man who works fulltime (who would have to put the kids in daycare) and a woman who is a housewife (who can give all the attention necessary to the children)...the courts will choose the mother. The other fact is...the majority of men do not WANT custody! They run off and start a new, dependent-free life and the woman is left literally holding the baby. Most of these "fathers" (and I use the term lightly) are showing friends the baby photos and bragging about how well their son is doing on the school soccer team, while at the same time flatly refusing to pay child support. When the kid grows up and gets married, the "father" will expect an invitation. He will want to be called Grandpa when the time comes too. If he wants all that, he can damn well help with the child's upbringing. You can't just be a father when it suits you...it's a fulltime, lifelong job.


"No single mother has died with the child from hunger yet"

Of course they haven't. Any mother worth her salt would sacrifice EVERYTHING to ensure her children have food on the table. That may be why "providing for my children" is (worldwide) the most common reason given when you ask a woman why she became a prostitute...

Random,
Beautifully said honey! :)

Alex --

First, sex is not tennis. Just because there are balls involved and love matches, doesn't mean it's the same. Sex may be sport, but that's not all it is. And in any event, tennis also has its rules -- you don't get to simply decide that "I want to hit the ball and win, so any place I hit the ball must be in." You wanna play, it's got to be something where the opponent has an equal chance to come out ahead.

We do in fact have laws that prohibit discrimination by race, though they don't always work. We've had a long stretch of affirmative action programs (whatever one might think of them) to try to compensate for inequities in opportunity in that regard. Even the most vocal proponents of such programs acknowledge that they give preferential treatment to those who fit into the definitions. So it's far from an unknown scenario.

I don't agree with you that "making a mistake about children is not a crime that men should pay for." First of all, children are one of the basic potential byproducts of sex -- if you're not willing to deal with this then you shouldn't be engaging in the act. You don't want kids, get a vasectomy and then you've got nothing to worry about. As long as you're shooting something other than blanks, pregnancy can happen, and it's part of the deal that you're co-responsible. Frankly, it's childish to expect that you don't have to accept the consequences of your actions -- if you're part of bringing a kid into the world, you're responsible for making sure that kid is supported and nurtured to adulthood.

I'm sorry, but your concept that maybe we should ask the boys about this situation and maybe they'll prefer lots of no-string sex as an adult to lots of toys right now is simply beyond silly.

You say, these laws penalize men who want nothing to do with their ex-wives and children, and that society should pay for the raising of children, so men can basically abdicate their responsbilities if they so choose. In other words, I have to help pay for the fact that you choose to go out and make a slew of women pregnant, right? So what you really want to do is shift the burden for [i]your[/i] behavior to [i]my[/i] wallet as opposed to yours. Why should I think that's a good idea, exactly?

Interesting questions on your stats issues -- here's a few answers:

Simple numbers I found from the Census Bureau, slightly dated by probably still in the ballpark -- in 1995 there were 2.3 million marriages and 1.2 million divorces.

Yes, everything I've read says that women are more commonly the ones who file for divorce. The best stats I've seen put the number at far less than your 90% citation around or slightly higher than 2/3rds -- the highest historical rate cited in general was in 1931, when it was 72.8% female filings (American Law and Economics Review 2000) The National Center for Health Statistics says the same -- in marriages with children, women file two-thirds of the time. Isn't it worth asking, given that women end up worse off after divorce, why this is the case? Custody might be part of it, but the stats aren't clear in that regard.

The legal truth is that maternal preference laws regarding custody were found to violate the 14th Amendment (Roth, 1976), so things have been changing and joint custody is much more common than it used to be. The NCHS did the first studies looking at custody rates, and, using their definition of joint physical custody as a minimum of 30% time share, while women still get custody from about half (Montana and Kansas) to 80% (several states) of the time, both women's and men's percentage of sole custody tend to be higher in those states where there's little joint custody, and women's rates are the ones that are substantially reduced in places where there's a substantial rate of joint awards.

The bottom line is that marriages tend to fail because of sex and money problems, so why would it be surprising that those are the two things there are most complaints about here?

RN

"That was exactly my point....paying child support is not a "punishment". It is a responsibility! "

You can call it anyway, it's just words, but the result is more severe, then if you'd steal something.

"Parents support their children financially, emotionally and materially...that is part of the job description. It's quite obvious by your constant references to the financial position of single mothers, that you believe this money is paid to keep the WOMAN happy. "
"A child is not property that can be divided up equally between the parents. "
"The other fact is...the majority of men do not WANT custody"

I agree with this. I do not idealize men and don't despise women. It's all difficult problem that has no easy solution. What I say is that current solution is VER bad. It sacrifice normal relationship between men and women for business matters.

"As someone involved in the sex industry" - I am not sure what do you mean, but some women " involved in the sex industry" have reason to worry. If marriage will be canceled, prices for sex industry will go down.

I am asking all men - Do you want to get sex-for-sex, free, or do you want to live in a country of "sex industry". If you prefere second choice - go continue support for marriage laws.


random753

"I pay taxes to fund programs for people that I will never meet." - good, let's pay taxes for raising children. Not marriage law alimonies.

"Your going to have a tough time convincing many people that you deserve money for prostitutes more than mothers deserve money to care for their kids. Good luck selling that idea my freind." -

I am not trying to sell it for your friends, but to people, who will understand it correctly.

for joe :

"As long as you're shooting something other than blanks, pregnancy can happen, and it's part of the deal that you're co-responsible. Frankly, it's childish to expect that you don't have to accept the consequences of your actions" -

In current situation women have whole control on this matter - she can have a baby, or make an abortion, man has no control. Is this correct, that he has equal responsibilities, on something, he can not really control ?
The only solution for the man who don't want children - abstinence from sex. Is it going to be happy society ?


"I have to help pay for the fact that you choose to go out and make a slew of women pregnant, right?" - no, not right. You will pay for the fact, that you will never pay more, even if a prostitute lured you into sex and bore a child. ( It's not my case, don't think that I am just hurt and speaking for myself. )


"I'm sorry, but your concept that maybe we should ask the boys about this situation and maybe they'll prefer lots of no-string sex as an adult to lots of toys right now is simply beyond silly. " - why ? did you ask them ?
They will answer what they, children, whom we do care about, want.

"If marriage will be canceled, prices for sex industry will go down."

Let's see...if the Family Laws were gone and marriage didn't exist, and women knew they could no longer get financial assistance for their children after a relationship breakdown, then women would be terrified of becoming pregnant. Women would then stop having sex. When women stop having sex, sex industry demand increases. And when demand is high...so are the prices!

Or...when women are no longer being screwed over by joint loans that their husbands manage to slither out of paying after the divorce, and the state is supporting all the single mothers with taxpayer funded welfare payments, many women will no longer be forced to work in the sex industry. That will mean fewer prostitutes, and when demand is high but supply is low...up go the prices again! :) LOL

Seriously though, apparently about half of all sex workers clients are married...which by my calculations means that half are not. Single men see hookers too. I can't see how the abolition of marriage would effect the sex industry at all.

Also, apparently around half of all marriages end in divorce. That means the other half don't. So all those men who are in happy marriages are currently getting all the free sex they need. Anyway, marriage has nothing much to do with sex. Marriage is a partnership...a friendship...if you happen to have great sex in that relationship then you are lucky. But if you are getting married just because you want lots of sex...then you are getting married for totally the wrong reasons, and it will fail. And if you then find yourself in the predicament you're describing, I reckon it's your own fault.

for RN :

Let's see...if the Family Laws were gone ... then women would be terrified of becoming pregnant. Women would then stop having sex... -
no, they would have sex. they would stop having babies when they are not sure.

"Anyway, marriage has nothing much to do with sex. Marriage is a partnership...a friendship..." -
Wrong ! The main reason why man marry is that they want normal regular sex and can't get it other way. For friendship you can meet in a cafe, even to have business in partnership, but not live in the same house.
Men, if not gays, don't live together for mutual cooking, cleaning...

"But if you are getting married just because you want lots of sex...then you are getting married for totally the wrong reasons, and it will fail." -
Thats what is, unfotunately, happen TOO often. Or why there is 50% divorces ?

"in current situation women have whole control on this matter
- she can have a baby, or make an abortion, man has no control."

i'm sorry, did i miss some kind of biological breakthrough where women can now get pregnant without sperm? i've been screwing for a lot of years, and no one's ever gotten pregnant with my child without my active participation in the process. and if i'm worried that someone is going to have a baby and hold me hostage either emotionally or fiscally, i've got other options than to stop having sex.


"the only solution for the man who don't want children - abstinence from sex. is it going to be happy society ?"

hello, let's try again -- condoms, birth control, etc. that's not abstinence (heck, that's only good sense, with stds running around.) you're saying that a society full of neglected children and self-centered irresponsible males is going to be a happy one?


" 'i have to help pay for the fact that you choose to go out and make a slew of women pregnant, right?' - no, not right. you will pay for the fact, that you will never pay more, even if a prostitute lured you into sex and bore a child. ( it's not my case, don't think that i am just hurt and speaking for myself. )"

sorry, but if you're asking "society" to raise kids, you're asking me to help pay for that, as opposed to you taking full responsibility for your actions. that means that you (and it's the rhetorical "you" not you personally) just pawn off your actions on the rest of us. and i'm sorry -- a "prostitute luring you into sex and bearing a child"? c'mon! what planet are you from?


"they will answer what they, children, whom we do care about, want. "

so you seriously expect to go to a seven-year old boy and say. "honey, if we stop giving you as many toys and clothes, when you grow up you'll be able to have all the sex you want without those nasty girls taking money from your wallet or worse, your house, after she emotionally screws you over. doesn't that sound great?" and actually put some stock in the answer? i suggest you do a little reading on child development before you put forward such absurb suggestions, because it really undermines the rest of your argument.

alex, there are some areas where you say some really good things, but c'mon, on some of this stuff you're just waaay out there.

and i'm with rn -- your concept of marriage explains a lot, and it's clear you've never been in one, or at least one that works. marriage definitely [i]is[/i] a partnership, one in which sex is included in the mix but is not the only thing happening. let's keep in mind that part of the so-called "traditional" marriage was very much one of the man working outside the home, the women providing meals, support, a home, etc., and the man gratefully coming back for relief, comfort, something of his own, etc. things may have changed and roles may have changed, but food, shelter, safety, and family are still pretty important in the big scheme of things. if you seriously think that the only reason men marry is for "normal" sex, and that friendship and partnership and family have nothing to do with it, then please, please, please never marry, even if all the laws change to what you'd like. that would be like diving off a skyscraper and expecting to hit water.

joe_zop

"Hello, let's try again -- CONDOMS, birth control, etc." -

What if a condom breaks ? Or, more often, a women say - I take precautions, but then she says "sorry, I am pregnant and I want a baby and you will be the father." How many people were cheated this way ? Do you have statistics ?

"Sorry, but if you're asking "society" to raise kids, you're asking me to help pay for that, as opposed to you taking full responsibility for your actions." -

And what is the alternative ? This way, that we have it now ?
Even the existence of this topic "American women" proves, that it's something wrong in this situation.

"So you seriously expect to go to a seven-year old boy and say. " -
Not 7 years, but at 14 years old they will understand it well. I'm wondering, what'd be results of such experiment ?
Anyway, this is not my main point.


"If you seriously think that the only reason men marry is for "normal" sex, and that friendship and partnership and family have nothing to do with it" -
yes, that what I think. 2 good friends, not gays, that share appartment, may even cook together, understand one another, be lifetime friends and so on - are not married. They are not financialy responsible before the law. ( Why not to look this way at all relationships, regardless off sex ? ) Marriage happens only when sex is involved. If sex woldn't exist - nobody would ever marry.

>What if a condom breaks ? Or, more often, a women say - I take precautions, but then she says "sorry, I am pregnant and I want a baby and you will be the father." How many people were cheated this way ? Do you have statistics ?

Do [i]you[/i] have statistics? You throw this out as though it's the major problem here. The percentage of condom breakage is pretty low overall, which means so is the rate of pregnancy in that regard. Your approach is that everything needs to be defined by the worst-case scenario.


>Even the existence of this topic "American women" proves, that it's something wrong in this situation.

No, it proves that there is a dysfunction of relationship between men and American women. It doesn't prove a darn thing about the marriage situation, as this is a board about prostitution.


>Anyway, this is not my main point.

Thank heavens, because as I said it's a weak one. And setting up a scenario where you ask 14-year-olds about sex both ignores the majority of childhood and basically chooses the precise spot where raging hormones and social discomfit coincide. It's picking only the spot where your scenario might work.


>yes, that what I think. 2 good friends, not gays, that share appartment, may even cook together, understand one another, be lifetime friends and so on - are not married. They are not financialy responsible before the law. ( Why not to look this way at all relationships, regardless off sex ? ) Marriage happens only when sex is involved. If sex woldn't exist - nobody would ever marry."

I'm sure that's what you think, but how long/often have you actually been married? What examples and personal knowledge are you speaking from? C'mon, fess up -- RN and I have at least walked the walk.

Tell you what -- you spend your life living with guys, then, and having sex whenever you can manage. I've lived with guys, and I'll take marriage any day, even with its various perils, and I'm sorry to really disagree with you on this, but it absolutely [i]is[/i] different. And for far, far more than the sex. As you mentioned oh-so-briefly in one of your other posts, there's also love, and I'm not talking about fraternal love. And love is about more than sex, though it obviously can involve that. You thesis compared marriage to legal prostitution -- normal, healthy love (which I use because you keep referring to normal sex) doesn't fit into that equation.

BTW, your two guys [i]are[/i] financially responsible before the law if they have entered into any kind of contractual obligation, such as buying a house or leasing. (A better example would probably be a two-person business, as there is a more clear co-mingling of interests.) And marriage is a legal contract, a statement of financial and emotional committment. If you don't like that, don't sign up for it -- same as moving in with a guy.

Since we're pondering statistics, suppose you give me one about the number of non-gay guys who live together for, say, twenty, thirty, or fifty years, since this seems to be such an attractive example to you to use. There is a different level of committment being made in marriage, even keeping kids out of the equation, which is difficult to do, and the statistical truth is that frequency of sex tends to decrease the longer the relationship lasts, regardless of whether marriage is involved or not. Tell me, if you would, since sex is all there is that's important in marriage, why so many older guys (and this was still true pre-viagra) get married again to women their age, even in nursing homes? Surely it's not for the sex!

I'll tell you what, if sex is what it's all and only about then here's what you want to be -- a never married/ divorced/separated/widowed person living with someone of the opposite sex. Statistically speaking, that's the single group of who most often get laid more than twice a week. More than married guys or women. More than single folks. So I suggest you just skip the whole angst about the marriage thing and move in with someone. You'll have more sex and less existential crisis, and your partner will be clearer on your level of committment. (And again, I'm using the univeral "you" as opposed to talking about you specifically.

- Even the existence of this topic "American women" proves, that it's something wrong in this situation.
- No, it proves that there is a dysfunction of relationship between men and American women.

You say the same thing in other words.
What do you think is the cause of this dysfunction of relationship ?
I think - marriage law is one of main causes.

joe_zop :

"your two guys are financially responsible before the law if they have entered into any kind of contractual obligation" -

The difference is that 2 guys make the contract voluntary. but marriage is often happens under sexual blackmail/pressure - marry me or go away. Just like prostitutes - no money - no sex for you. There are happy exceptions, sure, but the rule is this - men do not need marriage law, women do need it to get money. I am not against love and living with women, not againt happy marriages, I am against the law, that corrupt sexual relationships. And your advise just to keep out of marriage does't work well, it's women that wouldn't let you to keep out of it.

Yes, I present extremist position here, while you argue for women also. But I don't see any other solution - it simply does't work for both men and women. So we have to make choice - either for men or for women. Now the choice is made for women - are you happy ? Look at this site - how many people go even to Philippines to get cheap sex - is it normal ? Their life must be really unhappy for them to do it. Who can state that this is a smaller problem, compare to better financial well being of women. I feel that women have unfare advantage in today's society, and the first step to decrease this gap will be - cancellation of financial shit in marriage, which will decrease self esteem of american women, make them more dependable of men to compensate men's dependency of sex.

You also have mentioned, that marriage law practice violates amendment 14 - yes, it violates it even with all cosmetic attempts to repair it. How can it still exist ? It's clearly sexually discriminating law.

>What do you think is the cause of this dysfunction of relationship ? I think - marriage law is one of main causes.

I don't think that's the case -- marriage happens in all countries, and the laws in many are pretty similar. The situation's with women's different there, as many here will testify.

Causes? A post-feminism boredom that has translated into a wide pendular swing toward male-bashing, basically unhealthy competition between men and women over whose rights and interests are paramount, a culturally materialistic and and callous societal undercurrent that promotes unrealistic expectations about beauty and possessions, obsession with winning as opposed to cooperation, fast food and unhealthy lifestyles, too much time spent on work by both sexes, heck, there are lots of culprits. I put marriage laws down the list -- IMHO, dissatisfactions with them are symptoms of the disease, not the cause.

Please, see my post 12, if you want to answer it now, do it. I'll return tomorrw.

Thanks.

PS. In what you say in your last post - do you see any solution ?