Non....you (and I) must be in the minority then. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many abortions or people with STD's.
And yes.....men are "horndogs". Just look at Tiger Woods. PERFECT example of a man who did what he wanted with who he wanted when he wanted.
Then crys when he got caught.

---

I don't think we're in the minority, frankly. I think a lot of male horndoggery is really just talk. I've talked to too many women who complain that their men turn them down more than they accept them. Of course, this is a few years into the relationship, not early on.

Believe me, Alan, while I will defend to the end the right to choose one's sexual lifestyle, I do not in any way promote promiscuity. I've personally wanted, for a very long time, to have a couple of steady, devoted relationships in my life, and I'm blessed to have found that. This has been one of the happiest periods of my life. But I also know full well my lifestyle is a fringe choice; it certainly isn't for everyone, and I make no attempt to push it on or even recommend it to others. I just ask that they respect my choice even as I respect them for theirs and marvel at the diversity of human desires that exist in this world.

I admire you monogamists -- those of you who choose it not because it's conventional, but because it's what you genuinely want for yourselves. Sometimes I wish I were one of you.

---

It is a choice.. just like any other. Personally speaking.. I couldn't live another way.

Not that at times there aren't temptations.. or some lust... but it is a choice.. a way of life to commit, learn and remaining intimate with your single mate.

And personally.. it shows a deepened amount of bond to commit to them alone.

But that is my choice.. my belief.. and each other person has the right to theirs.

Where I think it varies is I don't feel the need to embellish my commitment past I am married... where I think other types of relationships people feel the need to vocalize the situation repeatedly.. then they wonder why they are at times are challenged for their beliefs or actions.

But again.. that is my opinion.. and definitely is not correct because it is mine..

The other thing that I believe is no matter how much "open" relationship couples deny it.. but there are underlying emotions that are repressed verbally of jealousy or hurt.. and sooner or later they will emerge and will need ot be addressed. But that might be my own bias being applied.

---

Pack - No. It's not your own bias. I think the polygamy mindset is a small minority and only a handful of people can pull it off.

Now keep in mind, I'm all for the right to do anything. If Nonstop can pull it off, I'd applaud him.

I used to love listening to Tom Lycus on my daily commute home. He's kind of similar to me when it comes to sex. He's all for men to get as much tail as possible, then find the best of the best and marry that person, then become completely monogamous. Get it out of your system before you get married, but after you're married, open relationships only lead to hurt.

I believe that. Just from experience, it's been so rare to see a couple that can survive an outside relationship whether they know about it (and approve it) or not.

It's most likely cultural though. In Italy, it's understood that if you are a woman and your husband is rich and powerful, he will have a mistress. Who could say no to a drop dead gorgeous young Italian woman? Now, the wife would be PISSED if she were ugly because if she were ugly, he obviously loves her.

---

That brings up ANOTHER problem. What Zombie just wrote, my wife brought up to me last night. And what she said is true.
Guys want to screw around.......but when they are looking for a wife, who do they usually choose? Not the "sluts" that sleep around. They want the sweet virgin, not the whore.
Using other humans to please yourself and then throwing them aside. That's another mindset of today's world.
And many women "give in" to men because they are looking for love, and think the guy will leave if they don't "put out". And they end up mentally destroyed.
Guys can screw around, and not feel any shame or responsibility to the girl. Most women can't do that.

---

The entire concept of child support is flawed, in my opinion. The notion that one is willing to raise a child without the necessary finances already in place should not be having children in the first place.

---

This is a good point you bring up. I've always said if you can't afford kids, don't have them. Then some PC jerk gets butt hurt and says that I'm saying poor people shouldn't have kids.

Well, sort of I am. I'm saying that wait until you're not poor to have kids. You'd think it would be common sense. You'd think.

Cheesey - Depends on the person. I wouldn't marry a virgin. Virgins are too much work. I actually don't even like them.

But that's just me. While probably the majority of guys want a cute, innocent 18-year old virgin, I'd prefer a 30-year-old who speaks 4 languages, has a college degree, has been to at least 2 continents and has a 130+ IQ (and red hair).

---

Cheesey, your last post comes across as so unbelievably sexist. On the one hand you misogynistically argue for the inferiority of women, while on the other, you spew the anti-male feminist/fundamentalist vision of human sexuality as somehow predatory and exploitative in nature. The women who hurl these accusations aren't happy, well-adjusted people -- why are you defending their warped beliefs? I'd prefer to listen to the perspectives of people such as my wife, who actually like and even adore men as people -- and enjoy sex to boot.

As for this:



Wow . . . +1. Virgins are too much work and they're lousy in bed. Actually, most young women seem to be bad in bed. They seem to get much more fun around their mid-20s.

---

The point TheEngineer made is one I've said about both of my biological daughters.

When in court last summer some of my argument was, if shes living with me for primary placement, she gets to socialize with someone her age, her sister, resident stability, there would be no money from the state required nor money from the mother. I can handle it all on my own with no BadgerCare or anything of that nature. Completely 100% out of my own pocket.

They said, no. You pay more than the cost of rent plus all medical, dental and vision and oh you get to see her every other weekend.

My statement to them was ... if the mother can't provide adequately for our child, then she shouldn't be raising the child. Why would I want my daughter living with a woman who can't make financially sound decisions well enough to provide for herself and offspring? Wouldn't the child be better off living with the parent who has done such things? Does that not set a better example?

No, let's just let mothers badmouth fathers as they fight and fight to be in their kids life while spending their money to go on their second god damn vacation in six months wile the child misses a full week of school ... oh yea the child did NOT go on vacation with the mother. Yeah, that's GREAT parenting and GREAT use of child support for a unemployed mother.

I swear the mothers of this world, some of them, they prey on the notion that men are dead beat fathers. Here's a secret, many fathers RUN because the god damn system makes it impossible for them to be in their kids lives even if they want to!

I'm not the best father, but I'm sure as hell not the worst and I deserve a lot more than every other damn weekend with my daughter.

Wait, that's right. Because I shoved my cock in her pussy this is the hand I'm supposed to be dealt with... Right? Forget that uneducated ignorant theory.

It takes TWO to make a baby, it takes TWO to raise one. And in the damn eye of the state (Wisconsin anyhow) it goes like this.

Mommy - child resides with.
Daddy - pays all the bills.


This is not the freaking 20's and 30's anymore where the wife stays at home raising the kids while the husband brings home the bacon. FATHERS CAN RAISE KIDS JUST AS WELL AS ANY MOTHER!

Women want rights, you got your damn rights. When the hell will us Fathers get OUR rights to help raise OUR kids instead of being a god damn paycheck!

---

ok - as a mother of 2 little boys who receives child support, i'll give you my 2 cents worth on this subject.

my ex has screwed up his life so badly it's ridiculous. when i decided to have children with him, he had been sober for close to 8 years, owned his own semi, & was a productive member of society.

when i told him i wanted a divorce, the 1st words that came out of his mouth were "oh great - now i hafta fuckin pay child support for 14 fuckin years". then he proceeded to say "i know alotta guys who just work shit jobs so the child support is lower."

my take on this is - if we were STILL together, he'd be responsible for half of their upbringing, correct? so why if we're apart shouldn't he continue to be responsible for them?

i do NOT take vacations galore & spend the child support money on anything except our boys. he agreed to pay half of their medical/vision/dental costs but has yet to pay for ANY of it. yet he can go out & get attorney's galore to fight his 2 - yes i said 2 - dui's he got in a 4 month time span, pay $2500 in fines to the state but chooses NOT to help support his own flesh & blood.

2 people make babies & 2 people should be held equally responsible for the cost & care of raising said babies. now my new husband is truly raising the boys, paying for the vast majority of their needs, & my ex sees nothing wrong with that at all.

does that sound fair to any of you? this idiot went from making $2,000/week trucking to now maybe $400/wk changing oil. but now my kids have to suffer for his indescretions?? how is that right in ANY of your minds?? oh & he moved in with his parents, pays nothing to live there, declared bankruptcy, & has NO bills whatsoever. yet he still feels no need to support his children - and i don't just mean financially - he chooses to be on the fringe of their lives.

i think what men need to understand is they are NOT hurting the women - they are hurting the children. maybe if they'd take a step back & really think about it, they'd understand that. yes it of course hurts me emotionally but financially - i'm just fine. i couldn't care less if i ever get another dime from him but when he flat out agreed to do these things for the boys & he doesn't do it, it's just infuriating!!!

and then it's boo hoo poor me - she's a rich bitch & her rich family should pay for the boys - it's not my fault i'm a drunk - everybody feel sorry for me!!!

sorry - sore subject for me.

(Please note that I'm only speaking of men here since, quite frankly, I have no real clue how women might categorize men.)

IMO, men tend to put women into three categories:

1. Toy.
2. Roll in the hay.
3. Person to have relationship with.

The toy is just an object. The woman you see in a bar or on TV or wherever, and you drool, fantasize about anal sex with, buy pornographic pictures of, or whatever. Jessica Biel, alas, for me.

The roll in a hay is actually an interesting person, if perhaps only temporarily so. Someone you have common cause with, because of the nights conversation or set of conversations or whatever, and at the end of the night, you have some fun together. It might be a long time friendship, but the sex part is not something that gets repeated much. Just sort of happens naturally because of temporary "good vibrations".

"Toy" and "roll in the hay" are just sex centered. The third category is centered somewhere else, with sex as a possible byproduct. This is what I think of when I hear words like "marriage" or "relationship" or "monogamy" or "polygamy".

ISTM that, apart from what God says on the question (which I refuse to go into for reasons I've already stated), the first category is the only dangerous one. The only one where, in the language of this thread, where "men" should bear "more" responsibility for the consequences of the sex than "women."

"Roll in the hay" and "relationship" are both, by definition, reciprocal exchanges of value. It takes two to tango and it takes two to say "I do". The male who enters the bed thinking of his partner as just another set of receptacles or trophy to brag about, however, is not exchanging value. He's just littering his seed all over the highway.

Do we fine the highway for the beer cans we find along it?

---

On child support.. I think it should be handled as a case by case process, instead of Wisconsin's stance in the favor of women.

We have numerous laws on the books for equality between the sexes which I applaud.. yet we have laws where it promotes sexism.

Makes one wonder, or in a case of a divorced father... pay until you can prove that she is an unfit mother.. counter productive to maintaining some sort of relationship to raise the kids.

---

That's one of my problems. I have no problem sharing responsibility of my children, none at all. But give me MY share of it, not just the PAY for this and that aspect. I'm a man, a father, not a dollar amount. It's been proven that children with a father are more successful and less likely to go down the 'wrong' path of life.

The other portion of my beef is in order for me to get more 'rights' to my daughter, the mother has to fail as a parent. Tell me how that's not bittersweet? YES I get to see my daughter more and raise, but she had to go through HELL for it to happen and now I have to clean up the broken pieces.

How is that the best thing for the child?

---

maybe i'm just too fuckin nice but my kids are getting screwed out of not only money but a relationship with their dad...because of THEIR DAD!!! the court system where i used to live is from the dark ages. my ex agreed to supervised visitation because he drove the boys around while his license was suspended - clearly NOT a good thing. when we tried to discuss it with the judge his words were & i quote "i NEVER restrict visitation!" WTF?? he was agreeable to do it cuz he knew he f'd up & the high & mighty judge said NO???? my attorney was absolutely floored! the judge wouldn't listen to anything in regards to our reason for asking for it. for all he knew, my ex could've been physically abusing or molesting my children but he would NOT listen to anything further.

i get that men have very little rights & for those fathers who truly want a loving relationship with their children, i'm sorry for all the mothers who are keeping you from doing that - i just don't happen to be one of them. even though my ex has done truly horrible things, i have not once - EVER - said a bad thing about him to the boys. he's their dad - why would i bad mouth him? i just don't understand that mentality.

Again... why there should be no 'standard'... it should truly be a case by case nature.

Because in some situations that father is a bum.. and some the mother is the best choice either.

The state of Wisconsin is where you as a father have to prove that the mother is unfit to be awarded the rights.. that to me is unfair and put an additional strain on a relationship that was terminated.

---

Yes because the mother won't be honest to you cuz she fears ull use it against her.

---

Unless you are rich, a child will always be a financial burden. If people waited till they could "afford" one, no one would have kids.

I agree that all child support should be case by case.

---

i didn't know WI had that kind of law about proving the mother unfit. not sure how it is here in IL but my new hubby got custody of his son. his mother isn't unfit - just kind of a flake & he didn't want too much of her influence on him. he had to fight for his son but the judge ruled in his favor.

in a perfect world, child support would be agreed upon by the two people involved. that's what my ex & i did. we both wanted to keep the court out of it as much as possible. then he screwed up & wanted his support reduced & it's been court hell ever since! i didn't care if it was reduced some but he wanted a major reduction. in the end, it wasn't up to me - the judge decided.

This little Facebook snippet made me laugh:

---

The problem with it being a case by case basis is that it'll take an inordinate amount of time to process each claim application. The burden and bureaucracy will be tremendous.

I'd much rather prefer a significant education rebate, or infant food coupons. Children should be cherished and nurtured; they are not a method for teenage mothers to earn disposable income.

And no, I don't believe that impoverished people should raise, or be having children. Of course that'd never be enforceable, so it'd only be a pipedream for me.

---