Are there single fathers, who never married, with children in the West?

[Draka]

What is the check on such fraudulent women?
Regards

It isn't really all that pervasive of a thing actually. Unless the woman in question is hitting up extremely wealthy men it's not as if they get all that much. Child support is based on income. It is rarely ever enough to really make a huge difference. Often one is looking at anywhere between $50 to $400 a month in child support. Far less than what it takes to raise a child, let alone live off. It's not as if one can make headway by having children. The thought is ludicrous.

 

[paarsurrey]

It isn't really all that pervasive of a thing actually. Unless the woman in question is hitting up extremely wealthy men it's not as if they get all that much. Child support is based on income. It is rarely ever enough to really make a huge difference. Often one is looking at anywhere between $50 to $400 a month in child support. Far less than what it takes to raise a child, let alone live off. It's not as if one can make headway by having children. The thought is ludicrous.

It is difficult to raise a family in this meagre amount. I understand that.
Regards

 

[Draka]

It is difficult to raise a family in this meagre amount. I understand that.
Regards

My first husband was ordered a whopping $50 per month in child support. He didn't even pay that. I managed to get the judge to agree to have him sign over all parental rights to our daughter and cut ties completely. Which he was willing to do. Rather have the piece of mind knowing he had nothing to do with either me or our daughter considering his violence than battle for pennies.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What defines domestic abuse is the habitual use of verbal or physical force to get what is desired.

Okay. But now you are defining it as "domestic abuse" which is not what this has been about for the last few pages.

 

[Robert.Evans]

ARGUMENTS ARE NOT ABUSE. Can you hear me now?

ARGUMENTS ARE ABUSE can you hear me?

 

[Robert.Evans]

An argument is nothing but the vocalizations of disagreement.

correct.

If I think that an actress looks better brunette and my hubby thinks she looks better blond and we each try to defend our side by using points and pictures and the like we have had an argument. It was not abusive.

that argument would not be, no. But that depends on how you define argument doesn't it. If it is a disagreement, then fine. But if the argument is heated, it is a form of abuse, as abuse can take many forms.

An argument, by sheer definition, is not abuse. Someone within an argumentative setting can turn abusive

sorry, what did you say there? Can turn what?

and start berating another and if they are the only ones doing so, especially within a domestic situation, then they are abusing the other

so an argument can be so heated as to be abuse then, right. which is what I have been saying; and the one shouting could start the other off and then they would both be abusing one another. I think that is clear.

and can be considered domestic abuse. If both get heated and are yelling at each other equally then it is a fight on even grounds and is therefore not abuse (mutually wrong and childish though it may be). If one gets upset about the fight and takes it to another level and physically attacks then they are the aggressor, and thus, the abuser.

Which first and foremost would suggest we should not argue too the extent that that might happen. We should respect one another, that includes women respecting men i might add. And if it is a mutual fight, then they are both abusing one another. If, on the other hand, you wish to shorten the definition to, then you might well use the term domestic abuse, which might clear it up. But just saying abuse does not, as many things are abuse, psychological, physical, etc.

 

[Robert.Evans]

An argument is nothing but the vocalizations of disagreement.

correct.

If I think that an actress looks better brunette and my hubby thinks she looks better blond and we each try to defend our side by using points and pictures and the like we have had an argument. It was not abusive.

that argument would not be, no. But that depends on how you define argument doesn't it. If it is a disagreement, then fine. But if the argument is heated, it is a form of abuse, as abuse can take many forms.

An argument, by sheer definition, is not abuse. Someone within an argumentative setting can turn abusive

sorry, what did you say there? Can turn what?

and start berating another and if they are the only ones doing so, especially within a domestic situation, then they are abusing the other

so an argument can be so heated as to be abuse then, right. which is what I have been saying; and the one shouting could start the other off and then they would both be abusing one another. I think that is clear.

and can be considered domestic abuse. If both get heated and are yelling at each other equally then it is a fight on even grounds and is therefore not abuse (mutually wrong and childish though it may be). If one gets upset about the fight and takes it to another level and physically attacks then they are the aggressor, and thus, the abuser.

Which first and foremost would suggest we should not argue too the extent that that might happen. We should respect one another, that includes women respecting men i might add. And if it is a mutual fight, then they are both abusing one another. If, on the other hand, you wish to shorten the definition to, then you might well use the term domestic abuse, which might clear it up. But just saying abuse does not, as many things are abuse, psychological, physical, etc.

 

[Draka]

Okay. But now you are defining it as "domestic abuse" which is not what this has been about for the last few pages.

Holy crap. Domestic abuse is what we have been talking about this whole time. It is only you that seems to struggle with that concept. While the rest of us have been discussing Pine trees specifically, you have been arguing about how trees that have leaves lose them in the Autumn. We have been specifically speaking about domestic abuse this whole damn time. You, meanwhile, have been making absurd arguments about the various definitions of the word "abuse" by itself. Catch up here already.

 

[savagewind]

Okay. But now you are defining it as "domestic abuse" which is not what this has been about for the last few pages.

Really? Might you be wrong about that?

 

[savagewind]

ARGUMENTS ARE ABUSE can you hear me?

We are arguing on the internet. Abuse?

 

[paarsurrey]

My first husband was ordered a whopping $50 per month in child support. He didn't even pay that. I managed to get the judge to agree to have him sign over all parental rights to our daughter and cut ties completely. Which he was willing to do. Rather have the piece of mind knowing he had nothing to do with either me or our daughter considering his violence than battle for pennies.

I understand that. Very cruel of him.
Regards

 

[Draka]

When the topic of conversation is domestic abuse one should not have to continually use the word "domestic" to clarify every single use of the word "abuse". It is implied. Just as if the topic of conversation is "Valentine's Day cards" one should not have to say "Valentine's Day" before every use of the word "card". It would be implied due to the topic of conversation. Sheesh.



Edited due to stupid autocorrect.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Here you go:

Yes I get it.​

You are playing games with the word abuse.

@Draka SAID:
"No, you really can't. As your personal religious beliefs have no effect upon me or my life, nor anyone else's. Just your own.

Please don't. It is all rather disgusting and offensive."

I SAID:
Disgusting, Offensive'? No, I don't think so. I think we might make wiser choices and bring up and look after people better as a society if we thought something was wrong however. Abuse, whatever it might be, is not usually onesided.
___________
Again, the "whatever it might be" was referring to the different forms of abuse that can happen.
As arguments can be heated and hurtful psychologically, they are a form of abuse.
And that came from post 261

 

[Robert.Evans]

ah, so using your above logic we can generalize about Christianity by quoting Westboro Baptist Church, right?
And since we beleive the quotes from Westboro Baptist Church, they are not opinions, but facts?

Seems you have backed yourself into a rather embarrassing corner.
To bad you are completely unaware of how embarrassed you honestly should be.

There is always the thin end of the wedge and the thick. One follows the other for the benefits that come from the thin edge. What were you, born yesterday?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Ignoring the evidence, and assuming your claim that "feminism set out to destroy the family" is accurate, how do you get from this to "mothers are on their own a lot now because of feminism"? You are missing a large part of reasoning here required to make it coherent. Where is your evidence that feminism succeeded in what you claim they set out to do and this is the cause of single mothers? It seems obvious that the actual cause of single mothers is lack of sexual education, poverty, lack of birth-control use, physical/emotional abuse from significant others, and religious teachings that women must bring every pregnancy to term. But, I am all ears.

It seems so obvious you don't bother with any link to back it up showing how ridiculous you look....... to use your words.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Let me provide another side to this. There are men who are known as reproductive abusers. They purposefully get women pregnant by pricking a hole in the condom. Or it 'falls off', most likely be removed by the man in the middle of coitus. And as a woman who had her children taken away from me by a the man who beat the merde out of me for years and then had the cahones to blame ME for my daughter's rape, you have no idea how many times this kind of thing has happened to women by men still walking on all fours and carrying a #E(*$(# club. Yes, what you write does happen but let's not make this all about how reprehensible all women are, or at least, that is how your post seems to paint women to be.

I think there are plenty of posts here backing women and I think her post showed the other side. Now we have balance.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Aggressive arguments are not abuse, as they are not one-sided. There is no victim being taken advantage of, which is a requirement for abuse.

Both would be victims.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Exactly, I agree of course. I have read about 10 pages of this now and I cannot fathom someone doing so much back pedaling and at the same time, seeming to be so completely obtuse.

Explain back peddling woman.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It isn't really all that pervasive of a thing actually. Unless the woman in question is hitting up extremely wealthy men it's not as if they get all that much. Child support is based on income. It is rarely ever enough to really make a huge difference. Often one is looking at anywhere between $50 to $400 a month in child support. Far less than what it takes to raise a child, let alone live off. It's not as if one can make headway by having children. The thought is ludicrous.

You need more than 100 dollars to keep a child per week?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Holy crap. Domestic abuse is what we have been talking about this whole time. It is only you that seems to struggle with that concept.

\no. We have been discussing the defintion of "abuse". Keep your responses more honest, eh.

While the rest of us have been discussing Pine trees specifically, you have been arguing about how trees that have leaves lose them in the Autumn. We have been specifically speaking about domestic abuse this whole damn time. You, meanwhile, have been making absurd arguments about the various definitions of the word "abuse" by itself. Catch up here already.

I already have. Have you? Abuse takes many forms, do you understand that yet? Are you still in here with your ad hominem comments