The New Normal: Singleness in America

BreakPoint ^ | 11 Dec 03 | Chuck Colson

[Hodar]

The law cannot protect you from every mistake in judgment you make..

I agree with you on that point. However, the law should prevent people from FRAUD. If a woman has a child and leads a man to believe he is the father; and he is deceived into paying for the child's upbringing, that is FRAUD. Currently, there are several cases in which the woman lied, and led a man to believe he is the father. The man KNOWS he is not the father, but the courts nontheless are forcing him to pay child support. This is wrong.

If a man discovers he has been lied to, and desires to be recompensated for the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon him; his only recourse is to sue the innocent child. This is wrong.

The woman who has lied to the man, has placed the child into a set of circumstances in which it is unfairly exploited; yet there are no legal repercussions for this activity. This is wrong.

These are some (but hardly all) of the reasons why many men are simply chosing not to get married.

[Hodar]

Some responsibility is on you to protect yourself.

And that is why many men are simply chosing never to marry.

[IDontLikeToPayTaxes]

Hey Hodar, thanks for keeping up the good fight ! These FR threads are always my favorite. I've been reading them for years, and there is something I've noticed about ALL of them that is obviously missing.

In all these threads about marriage, divorce, men getting destroyed in divorce, etc etc over the past few years........

I have YET to see ONE female member of this forum EVER say that the divorce laws in this country are unfair.

It's always the same arguments:

Oh, but I'M not like that.

You're just a mean man !

You're just a whiner!

I'm happily married, so therefore, you're a loser !

I'm sure you can think of a few more of the typical responses. It's very striking that not ONE female member of this forum has EVER supported the notion that the laws are extremely biased against men. It's just amazing.

The thread THE MARRIAGE STRIKE on this forum is chock-a-block filled with examples of men (members of Free Republic) that have been absolutely DESTROYED by their ex-wives. The stories these poor guys tell about their destroyed lives are incredible.

And the female response? "HA HA, get over it. Stop whining."

And the women here are supposed to be conservative, and yet have this level of viciousness against men?

No thanks, I'll stay single. My advice to the single guys out there, with regards to women, is what those psychic hotline commericals have at the bottom of the TV screen:

TO BE USED FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY

[RosieCotton]

I'm gonna say this one more time.

Since I don't have any close friends or family who have gone through a divorce, I don't know whether or not the laws are fair.

But anyone who is afraid of marriage because they think they might get screwed in divorce court (if you pardon my language) should not be getting married. Period. Happy marriage requires mutual trust, and divorce should not be an option for spouses except in extreme circumstances.

I would never get married to someone who didn't really, truly feel the same way (not just SAY it...which means knowing a person well, and I can't believe it's really THAT hard), and neither should anyone else.

[CajunConservative]

If you are married and have sex and a child is created by you, then you are responsible for the well being of the child whether you like it or planned it or not. If you are smart you will invest in that child your time and love instead of being more concerned with the costs of having a child. The pay off will be better for you if you do. All I can say is plan wisely who you marry. If you fail to do so then by all means don't take it out on your child if you have any.

My father made that mistake of being more in love with his money than his kids. He was a bitter old man when he died. He spent so much time complaining about having to pay child support instead of investing in his children with his time and love that when he was old there was just broken relationships. I do have to say he finally got it about two months before he died. However, he did not get to take his most precious possession with him, it ended going to his kids in the long run.

We would have rather had the relationship instead though.

[Texan5]

I beg to differ-I did say that the laws were unfair, particularly in the diligence with which they pursue child support-custodial fathers (my husband was one) need to speak up. She should pay child support if the man has custody, just like he does. I have never ruined a man in my life-not even when I was a young, naive girl-but I've had a couple of them really put the screws to me. It still didn't keep me from marrying a wonderful man, or enjoying our life together as best friends and husband and wife. All women are no more the enemies of all men than men the enemies of all women, like the feminazis keep saying. We all just need to stop listening to those hating harpies-they have never helped anyone.

[Hodar]

I can certainly see your point. I'm married and have been happily married for over 5 years. The point that so many people have a rough time swallowing is exactly what you have brought up.

"I'm not like that" is a prime one. No one said that the person reading the post is like that. However, the FACT that these actions happen, are allowed to continue happening, and will most certainly happen again in the future is never addressed.

The logic exhibited boils down to "I wouldn't ever kill innocent children and torture their puppies; therefor anyone accused of doing so is automatically innocent". Naturally, if follows that if someone points out that monsters do indeed exist who would do this sort of thing, the response is "ok, it only happened once, get over it"

Woudn't it be a hoot if the rolls could be flipped? A man marries a well to do business woman. He proceeds to mess about with a teenage hottie. The teenage hottie get's pregnant. Now, the successful woman finds herself paying 25% of her after-tax income for the hottie's child support for the next 18 years. If the woman divorces her philandering husband, the child support against her remains. Women would consider this unfair, but it's somehow fair when a married woman goes after the husband for child support for children he didn't father.

Or, consider a woman who get's a letter from a man that reads as this. I slept with you 18 years ago, and while you were sleeping I (somehow) took the fetus and grew it in a cardboard box. Now your daughter is 17 and you have never seen her. You will not have anything in common with her, you have missed out on watching her grow up. I have robbed you of watching your offspring enjoy birthdays, Christmas and visting 'Grandma and Grandpa'. Now, I want 17 years worth of back child support payments, with interest. Oh, yeah; I told your daughter what a horrible person you are for the past 17 years, so she doesn't want to meet you; let alone visit you under any circumstances.

Please make the checks payable to me, and have them to my bank by the 5th of the month, or I'll have your wages garnished.

[FreedomAvatar]

Times change. People change.

I wasn't afraid to marry because I thought it would end in divorce. Most men don't go into marriage thinking that way. I thought I knew her well. Heck, we were married for 14 years and dating for 5 years before that.

She always said what you are saying: divorce is not an option. Then, her new boyfriend came along.

Times change. People change.

[gobucks]

Thanks for pinging me on this!!

[IDontLikeToPayTaxes]

You seriously don't know whether or not the divorce laws are unfair? Allrighty, I assure you, the laws are unfair. Also, the divorce rate is 50%. These are facts.

Since those are the facts, who in their right mind would enter into something in which there is a 50-50 chance of their lives being destroyed?

Flip a coin, heads you win, tails you've lost everything.

Should a person buy a car in which there is a definate 50% probability that the transmission will fail? Would you?

Should a person invest in a stock in which there is a 50% chance they'll lose all of their money? Would you?

I can play this game all day and night.

However, the definate FACTS about marriage and divorce in the USA are that the divorce rate is approx. half, and that men are hosed in a divorce. Those are facts. :)

[CajunConservative]

I agree with you on that point. However, the law should prevent people from FRAUD. If a woman has a child and leads a man to believe he is the father; and he is deceived into paying for the child's upbringing, that is FRAUD. Currently, there are several cases in which the woman lied, and led a man to believe he is the father. The man KNOWS he is not the father, but the courts nontheless are forcing him to pay child support. This is wrong.

If a man discovers he has been lied to, and desires to be recompensated for the fraud intentionally perpetrated upon him; his only recourse is to sue the innocent child. This is wrong.

The woman who has lied to the man, has placed the child into a set of circumstances in which it is unfairly exploited; yet there are no legal repercussions for this activity. This is wrong.

These are some (but hardly all) of the reasons why many men are simply chosing not to get married.

I agree with you regarding the fraud issue. I don't think you should have to pay for a child that isn't yours. The law does need to change now that accurate tests can be done to prove paternity. My posts have been if you are the biological father, then be a father.

[Skywalk]

That's what some of the people on this thread don't understand. The people who walk out, cheat or what have you don't always give you the benefit of "warning signs," especially women. I would say that men are the most transparent of individuals. If they are a jerk before you marry them, but you "overlook" those qualities, then you will likely be unhappily married to a jerk 10 years down the road.

But marry a woman that you think is wonderful and she will confirm your opinion each day, until whenever it is she "wakes up" and feels differently or needs to find herself or whatever other thing that pops out of nowhere.

In any event, the fact is, no matter the religion, ethnicity, age or seeming temperament of the person you are involved with, there are NO GUARANTEES.

The sad thing about that is I know how loyal and committed I can be. Therefore I know that I won't just up and leave, so that really does leave the "blame" on one person if it happens.

[Hodar]

If you are married and have sex and a child is created by you, then you are responsible for the well being of the child whether you like it or planned it or not.

And I wouldn't dream of suggesting it be any other way. And true, some people do put money before relationships, and they are poorer for it.

But the point remains, when the laws support fraud, when they allow one gender an unfair legal advantage over the other; there will be repercussions. The repercussions may be that men simply will refuse to marry, they may be that men will flock to see their Urologists for a vasectomy, or the repercussons may be something as minor as a husband watching his wife take the pill every morning as he is brushing his teeth.

The personal decisions your family members make, are theirs and theirs alone. However, you have yet to even acknowledge that the laws are biased. That has been my point throughout. Men are treated like chattel, liens can and have been placed upon their future earnings; based on a failed relationship. The reverse is seldom if ever true. The result, is as the article pointed out ... fewer men are getting married. It boils down to a list of pro's and con's. The con's list dominates, and not by a small margin.

[Hodar]

My posts have been if you are the biological father, then be a father.

Absolutely agree. I'll go you one further and see if you agree on this one.

Manditory DNA testing upon the birth of the child. No exceptions. That way, if the husband (or boyfriend) finds out he is not the biological father, he can make an INFORMED decision as to whether he wants to raise the child as his own. An informed decision means that fraud did not occur. If the husband (or boyfriend) decides not to raise the child (which is a real world possibility) the woman either must identify the real father, or she is entirely on her own. After all, she is the one who put herself and the child in this situation.

[Gabz]

From casual observations, that statement holds a lot of water. Not necessarily in every case (assuming this statement does not apply to you), but it seems to be true more often than it is false.

And my casual observation says it does not. It is not applicable to me, and I have found it to be false more often than true.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen - I just don't think it's all that common.

[FreedomAvatar]

Yes. There's a certain amount of "it can't happen to me" around here. I was like that, too. And I fought hard for my marriage - tried to save it. All in vain...

Like I said, people change. I can accept that. But what I will never abide is a court system that denies loving fathers access to their children and turns them into wage slaves. And many men are realizing that these horror stories are not isolated incidents.

It comes down to this: does the benefit of marriage outweigh the risk?

[RosieCotton]

Statistics aren't something to base your life on. I don't doubt that you're right about 50% of marriages ending in divorce. That's not what I'm disputing.

I'm saying that the way to change the divorce ratings is to change the society divorces are coming out of, not making divorce fairer. Divorce should be beside the point.

And among the people I'm closest to, divorce is much, much rarer than in general society. I gotta think they're doing something right.

[RosieCotton]

To clarify...when divorce is absolutely necessary, yes, it should be fair. But it's wayyyyyy too prevelant.

[CajunConservative]

Manditory DNA testing upon the birth of the child. No exceptions. That way, if the husband (or boyfriend) finds out he is not the biological father, he can make an INFORMED decision as to whether he wants to raise the child as his own. An informed decision means that fraud did not occur. If the husband (or boyfriend) decides not to raise the child (which is a real world possibility) the woman either must identify the real father, or she is entirely on her own. After all, she is the one who put herself and the child in this situation.

I would have no problem with that.

[Gabz]

Some of the single guys here should take notice that there are some single, self reliant women here that might appreciate a good man...

Yes but those single self reliant women are also smart enough to steer clear of the attitudes being expressed by some of those same single guys.