(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.

---