The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Missing Fathers evade Responsibiliy for their children.

Missing Fathers evade Responsibiliy for their children.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 48
  7. 49
  8. 50
  9. All
In NSW alone, 30,000 children born in the last ten years, have no father with whom they could have a `meaningful relationship' and regular contact, and with financial responsibilty for their maintenance.

`Figures released by the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages show 29,144 babies born between 1999 and 2009 do not have a father identified on their birth certificate. Social demographer, Hugh Mackay said the number of single parent families was steadily growing. "Today, about 24 per cent of households with children are single parent households,''Mr Mackay told The Sunday Telegraph.
"(Single families) are still a big phenomenon and a growing phenomenon because 35 per cent of contemporary marriages end in divorce. "It is still more common for the mother to be the single-parent,'' Mr Mackay said. The Australian Institute of Family Studies released a report last month predicting Australia will have almost 1.2 million sole-parent households by 2026 - an increase of 42 per cent since 2001.'
Relationships Australia CEO Anne Hollonds said fathers may not want to be identified on a birth certificate if their child is the result of an affair or they do not want to pay child support. "Commonly it is because the father doesn't want to pay child support or could be married to somebody else,'' she said.

Further questions can be raised regarding how much this is costing Australian taxpayers to support the children of errant fathers who evade their financial responsibilities in this way. Many others apply for limited `contact' or even `Equal Care' as a means of similarly evading such financial responsibilities. So again the Australian taxpayer has again to pick up the father's bill.
Posted by ChazP, Sunday, 2 August 2009 9:49:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChazPL:"`Equal Care' as a means of similarly evading such financial responsibilities"

So, if a mother is left holding the baby it can only be because the father is a deadbeat and if the father wants to be involved and carry half the burden of rearing the child it's only to avoid paying the mother.

Nice summation of the NCSMC position, dear. Elspeth must be so proud...

How does the motto go again? "Seeking a free ride for mothers who don't want fathers around" is something pretty close, IIRC.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 2 August 2009 11:49:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And what do the Ping Pong children feel about the gross disruptions to their lives from `equal care', Antiseptic?. The Male Supremacists and Patriarchal Chauvinists of the FR Movement must be very proud of you too that you have evaded the major issue on evasion of financial responsibilities for their children by so many fathers. If the NSW figures are extended across the country and up to the age of 18 years, then at any one time there are approximately 310,000 children in Australia for whom their `fathers' are evading financial responsibility and who the Australian taxpayers are having to subsidise. Thats not fair to those fathers who take such financial responsibilities for their children, nor to the taxpayers, and most of all to the children themselves, who can suffer serious financial neglect by their fathers, a severe form of abuse per se'.
Posted by ChazP, Sunday, 2 August 2009 12:51:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChazP:"what do the Ping Pong children feel about the gross disruptions to their lives from `equal care',"

I'd imagine that varies for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure that some kids look forward to spending time with one parent more than the other for all sorts of reasons and that may well vary over time. On the whole, in my own case it has worked well for all of us. Once the financial issue was taken out of the equation the mother had a much harder time getting the State involved and so became more willing to negotiate with goodwill. The kids benefit because they have parents who are less tressed and more relaxed and hence more fun to be around

It's all about goodwill, not the horrible tug-of-war that you would make of it.

If CS is making men avoid contact with their children, surely it is time to examine why we do it the way we do? Abolishing the CSA would be a good place to start.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 2 August 2009 1:19:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What an utter rubbish post, best described as hate mail, or should it be male?. I could have had some sympathy for your argument, if it were not so biased, & dripping with hate.

You give a prediction by an activist group for 15 years into the future, & treat it as fact. Come on now love, even ladies can't get away with that stuff.

Then you give us the same activists reason for no fathers on birth certificates, as if it also was true.

No mention of the mothers who don't know who they slept with, have no idea of which of the large group did the deed, or to put it crudely, decided to screw for a living.

A very large number of single mothers, in lower income groups have simply decided they would rather live on the single mothers pension, rather tham work for a living. This is fact.

Then no mention of the quite large number of men, supporting some other blokes kid, with this fact well known to the mother. You can't take the moral high ground here, with this biased junk.

Then we have Master jump in with a post simply attacking anothers point of view. Sorry girls, you will get much further with reasoned argument, than this rubbish. I can see plenty of falt with many fathers, but getting my back up, & the backs of any reasonable person, with this twaddle, is not the way to win support for your position.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 2 August 2009 1:44:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Hasbeen in 7 paragraphs, could not bring himself to say even ONE positive word about the female of the species. Not one word. But he has a LOT to say about mothers who he says "screw for a living". And ya gotta love his phrase "Come on now love, even ladies can't get away with that stuff". Then he goes on to present women in a negative way, and males as poor victims. He's taken the high moral ground with his biased junk.

Obviously Hasbeen is an old dinosaur from a past era, still stuck in the time warp. But he's probably younger than me, just about everyone else here is younger than me. But even I, at 81 years of age, have enough sense to NOT be bitter about, and condescending towards, women - - - - - unlike the attitude displayed by the language of the old dinosaur Hasbeen.
Posted by Master, Sunday, 2 August 2009 2:18:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you are a perennial victim then you can always find a rescuer in a state sponsored organisation.
If you are a woman perennial victim then you can always find a male-hating rescuer in a state sponsored organisation.
Together you can ensure that a male is always placed in the position of persecutor.

Give us all a break – do you really expect us to believe with the plethora of women advocacy groups that exist today that women are still making such poor life decisions?
Posted by The Observer, Sunday, 2 August 2009 2:31:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have recently seen a number of articles decrying the lack of men willing to commit to marriage. As a backlash there seems to have been an increase in women having children without the involvement of the father. I have even noticed a few women advocating getting pregnant and never telling the father.

Men dont want to get married because of family law concerns and because they are scared they might get shafted and never see their kids while having to pay nearly half their wages as support to a vindictive ex wife. So women are having children on their own and causing the reported increase in fatherless birth certificates.

I wonder where it will all lead and what we are bringing on ourselves with all the changes to familys and marriage in the past 50 years or so. All good intentioned im sure but what are the unintended consequences going to be? Already children are growing up faster and becoming sexualised much younger while at the same time they are much more dependant and likely to remain at home with their parents into their late 20s. Who could have predicted that in the 70s when everything began to be liberalised.

I wonder if more fatherless families will see a reduction in machoism and typical masculine behavior and an increase in feminisation of society?

A funny thought I had is that if this became widespread (women getting up the duff and not telling the bloke) would men respond by restricting their coupling and promiscuity and sexual relations would be turned on its head. Women would be out on the prowl while guys would be selective who they slept with and looked on as sluts if they were "easy". LOL that would be so funny and not that far fetched.
Posted by mikk, Sunday, 2 August 2009 2:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodness me, as a female weighing in on this debate, there seems to be a few posts of hysterical-female hating. LOL master, dinosaur is indeed an appropriate description.
calm down guys, and you might want to actually read the article. men aren't around. the majority bugger-off - because they can. the majority of men make great dads. the majority of bugger-offers are men. and all the bleating in the world isn't going to change the fact. no point in putting mr invisible, or mr crazy on the birth certificate, as ultimately, what these women have needed to address is the ultimate protection of their child. and that is the bottom line. the mothers are protecting their children from these fathers. not all fathers - these ones. the ones that for whatever reason, have compelled the mother to ensure that they were not acknowledged on the birth certificate. pity the mothers, pity the children, but i'd think long and hard before pittying the majority of these fathers. okay hysterics - you may resume - LOL!
Posted by singlemumoftwo, Sunday, 2 August 2009 2:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Singlemumoftwo – these Dinosaurs and Neanderthals are merely the guard dogs of heavily defended male power in this Patriarchal Society with its male-dominated political system, organised religions, the media, the legal system, commerce, and industry. This feudal system treats women and children as serfs. The Howard Family Law Act was a move backwards to Victorian days when women and children were mere Goods and Chattels of the male head of the household and that is why the male establishment, is resisting any attempts to reform this law and give mothers and children, a fair and equal position.
There are still some parts of the Western world such as the Channel Islands which still retain the principles of the goods and chattels acts. Denying children financial independence by failing to provide financial support for them, is one aspect of containment and is also serious form of child abuse.

The Patriarchy in the political system in this country continues to resist and deny the introduction of a Charter of Human Rights for Women and Children, whilst hypocritically condemning human rights abuses in other countries.

If women merely wanted a child but without a partner, then they could simply obtain AID and that removes a permanent male partner. Sperm can be manufactured in a test tube, so males are now completely redundant in the child creation process but this will be suppressed and thereby deny females the choice of the most desirable DNA qualities, they may wish in their children. Sadly the Dinosaurs and Neanderthals will for the moment continue to be reproduced by females who exercise unwise choices or are deceived by them and their false charms.
Posted by ChazP, Sunday, 2 August 2009 5:47:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Sperm can be manufactured in a test tube, so males are now completely redundant in the child creation process but this will be suppressed and thereby deny females the choice of the most desirable DNA qualities, they may wish in their children.”

It can?

But anyway:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/fathers-go-missing-in-baby-boom/story-e6frewt0-1225757065721

["Commonly it is because the father doesn't want to pay child support or could be married to somebody else,'' she said.]

Okay so an agreement between two grownups about who and/or how a child is going to be raised.

Are there stats available somewhere to say the taxpayer is paying for excess anything? Single and female with young children at home? I have no problem with tax going to that.

Young children; they were/are often still asleep when a dad leaves for work and commonly in bed when he gets home. Traditionally a lot of us were raised fatherless.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Sunday, 2 August 2009 8:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, come on.

This has got to be a troll.

Come in spinners.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 2 August 2009 8:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Classic stuff Chazp – brilliant really!

You start your second post by clearly identifying the persecutor in your little drama triangle.
Second sentence and you identify the victim.
Clearly you have placed yourself as rescuer.
Follow this up with some factual but non-Australian related information.
The second paragraph follows the typical blame pattern.

Interesting third paragraph –some information for discussion purposes. Could it be?
Are you getting ready to take on the persecutor role yourself?
Are you ready to reveal the cause of your pain and move on?
Persecutor yes!
No!! You’ve turned on your own victims! They are now unwise and easily deceived.

Great work you have just passed Backyard Psychology 101.
Posted by The Observer, Sunday, 2 August 2009 8:51:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual in all these debates between single mother advocates and missing father advocates, everyone seems to forget that there are two hopefully willing participants in a sexual act resulting in a pregnancy.
I am assuming that if a couple wanting to have sex don't want to have a baby, they will both take the adequate precautions, of which there are thankfully plenty available in this country.
If one or the other paricipant wants to take the risk and this results in a baby, then that person should take full responsibility for that baby.
Thus, all those men and boys out there who have unprotected sex with a woman shouldn't be surprised if a baby results from your actions.
There is no point saying that the woman said she had the contraception under control or not. If you really don't want a baby, then use a condom properly or be celibate. Simple really!
Posted by suzeonline, Monday, 3 August 2009 1:02:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These threads always see one sided views, Master in usual fashion fails to see anything.
Yes some fathers are not worth the effort, some so bad only keeping them away from the kids will work.
Some mothers are just as bad.
Some kids never will know who dad is, some fathers never find out they are not.
Some young girls want a child, not for love but income, we pay to see unwanted kids get a horrible life.
I know of kids, from the 1970,s who truly loved their dad, who was wed to a very bad woman.
She used every trick in the book to keep him away, then told them he was dead.
Moved away, after 26 years they found him, told of many different dads and boy friends mum had and how in their minds she no longer had kids, them.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 3 August 2009 5:32:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I've said it all before, the system is just not fair.

There is bias toward high-income earners and a distinct class separation with the children. Of cause there are also the minority of women who either have so many partners they can't remember, or they simply are attracted to the money, which looks attractive from the outside.

I think in a one night stand situation, if the father of the EMBREO, (it's not a child yet) decides that they want no part of it then some questions must be asked as to why they should be held accountable. After all, I don't know of a one nighter that had having a child as the motivational factor.

But seriously, if the system was fairer I think the decent fathers would pay up. Rogues will always be rogues.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 3 August 2009 6:49:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Observer – a very crude attempt to evade the issues when you have nothing to contribute except by poking sticks at the participants. A very poor quality attempt at pseudo-psychoanalysis and so very wide of the mark, especially when my contribution was mainly from a sociological perspective of our society. I bet the other boys find you real fun to be with when you gather round the Barbie.!. Do you ever wonder why they never invite you down the pub afterwards?.

Put away your paperback psychology books so beloved by social workers, and engage in the issues which are affecting women and children in this country. Or just stay out of it as you clearly lack the knowledge to put forward a reasoned and rational argument.
Posted by ChazP, Monday, 3 August 2009 7:42:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I believe I have a deep understanding of an issue I do consider the motives of the participants.
Experience has taught me that meaningful progress on an issue is only made when the participants are honest about their motives.
Some people never are.
There is so much pain and hurt in their own lives they do not realise they are often trying to save themselves.
So what are your motives Chazp?
Posted by The Observer, Monday, 3 August 2009 8:33:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes well not all fathers have run away frOm their responsibilities, either emotional or financial.
The reward I get for having been there for my daughters, after their mother and I separated, is reflected in me giving one away at her wedding last year and still currently having "dad & daughter" time with my 29 year old.

I dislike the notion that a minority of miscreants depict the values of the majority.

From experience, I ensured my daughters benefitted from joint parenting, regardless of law, which at the time empowered their mother with absolute parental authority.

Joint parenting (preferably by the natural parents) is what children need and what any sensible society should encourage, rather than a system of lop-sided custodial authority.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 3 August 2009 8:41:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Observer:"do you really expect us to believe with the plethora of women advocacy groups that exist today that women are still making such poor life decisions?"

That's the crux of it, isn't it? I don't think ChazP thinks much of the average woman's intelligence.

Mikk:"All good intentioned im sure but what are the unintended consequences going to be?"

Shhh, don't mention the side-effects - there's a whole new group of victims to be milked once the whole "feminism" schtick starts to wear thin.

Mikk:"I wonder if more fatherless families will see a reduction in machoism and typical masculine behavior and an increase in feminisation of society?"

It already has. Look at the current Government, which is extremely "feminised" and ask yourself how many of those people were raised by "single mums". Just off the top of my head there's the PM and the Attorney General and there are no doubt several others in Cabinet if I could be bothered looking it up.

singlemumoftwo, try punctuation. You won't make any more sense but the nonsense will be easier to see.

All-in-all, it seems that ChazP and her NCSMC cronies are getting some flak about the cost of paying for them to sit at home and so she's trying to find a way to blame the fathers who they have excluded from their children's lives. Tragically, the same tactics have worked in the past, mostly because men of goodwill have allowed them to.

However, as the demands of the fre-riders get more strident and more men experience the gross unfairness and ineptitude of the CSA the goodwill is eroding.

As I said earlier, if the current system is driving fathers away from their children it is past time to ask why we allow it to continue. Abolition of the CSA and implementation of a levy on all taxpayers to pay for a general CS or child endowment scheme would be a good place to start. Of course, it would mean that the NCSMC grrls would lose their capacity to twist the knife in the ex whenever they felt like it...
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 3 August 2009 8:54:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'In NSW alone, 30,000 children born in the last ten years, have no father with whom they could have a `meaningful relationship' and regular contact, and with financial responsibilty for their maintenance.'

More fruit of our wonderful secular society. All joy but no responsibility and once again the kids pay for their parents immorality.
Posted by runner, Monday, 3 August 2009 10:02:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't it better to let father who don't want to be fathers to NOT be fathers of their biological offspring? Babies and young children in particular need responsive reliable nurturing relationships in order to properly develop. Placing them in the 'care' of someone who doesn't want to know them is unlikely to have a positive outcome. There are lots of male family members other than fathers for children to relate to - brothers, uncles, grandfathers, cousins: there are also good male role models in the community - child care workers, teachers, sport coaches, religious ministers. Fathers are fabulous when they are responsive, reliable, nurturing. If they are rejecting, hostile, angry, resentful,vengeful toward their baby or the baby's mother then they are a toxic to their child and better off out of the picture.
Posted by mog, Monday, 3 August 2009 10:35:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those wondering at ChazP's approach to fathers involvement in childrens lives have a look at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#145809

I'd mentioned a couple of cases I knew of, one where a father had a 3000km round trip to see kids after the mother relocated. Sometimes he would do the drive and find that mum did not show with the kids and was uncontactable, a minor inconveniance to the father in ChazP's view of the world. Another where a father relocated to be closer to his kids after the mother relocated with the children. In the process he took a lower paying job (not the same opportunities in the area where the mother had chosen to move to). CSA deemed that he still had the same income earning capaity and he was eventually forced back to a capital city to get back his old income. ChazP see's that as trying to evade his responsibilities to the children.

Enough of these gender wars, both men and women do good by their children and do bad. Both can be victims of a system that does not work well and both can use to for their own advantage or to hurts others. Continuing to make it about gender does nothing to help children.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 3 August 2009 10:47:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am as suspicious as CJ. The initial post was simplistic, easily countered and full of emotive language aimed at men. Sure enough, subsequent posts raised other possible scenarios that make the women look bad.
It is really simple. If these women want a father in their children's life, they need to solve their own problem by making an effort to find a man who loves them enough to stay with them.
Posted by benk, Monday, 3 August 2009 11:02:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
benk I think that ChazP has enough history on this topic to take the post at face value. Not a troll, just a strong anti-father bias. Have a browse through ChazP's posting history. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=52012&show=history

I don't thinbk it's a simple as women finding men who love them enough to stay around. That assumes that it's mostly men who leave which is yet another bit of spin in the gender wars. The stats I've seen on the topic show the reverse and when we get down to it it's very hard to say the one who leaves is less loyal to the relationship.

Often it takes experience and a few mistakes to learn and when it comes it kids it can be to late. Often it's not until people actually have children that it's possible to tell how they will go with children, kids in short doses are very different to the day to day responsibility. Often children have a big impact on the ability of parents to way parents get to relate which changes the dynamics of a relationship over a sustained period.

I doubt that there are any "great" answers to the issues around seperated families. I've reached the view that the harm done by keeping parents tied together financially when they are apart in other parts of their lives prolongs conflict that nobody needs but dropping CSA would not satify the desire to make parents meet their responsibilities. I prefer shared care but I get that it can be disruptive and that some parents just don't control themselves enough for it to work.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 3 August 2009 11:46:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How does fathers not being named on birth certificates morph into the boring gender debate, again.

As if the mothers are part of any collective action until way to late to direct their lives! Women are still raised on the find true love and all else will follow fairytale.

This sub-plot where the female spawn of feminist, welfare-dependent single mothers are training their children to chose to live in poverty while raising the next generation, forsaking any relationship satisfaction - just a quick, impregnating screw and get money for life. But their boy children miss that exciting opportunity?

Planning for success at family law? you have to be joking!
So wrapped up in the media-money driven 'wedding'industry and making plans for escape at the same time? Wake up!

It's easy for those perfect people to criticise the female (not 'the mother' as described) with more than one sexual partner, but not the men? Taking an opportunity for sex does not correlate to 'making and accepting responsibility for a baby'. Getting pregnant doesn't make you into a good mother, and it sure doesn't say anything about parenting by mothers or fathers, or their rights.

Isn't mostly becaue at the time, the mother (present)and shortly after the birth, decides that's what she needs to put on a certificate? Do you have any idea how hard it is to avoid naming the father and get Centrelink?

Illegitimate pregnancies have been around since the year dot, followed by abortions. Women get pregnant. Men dont. Ever.

Women decide do i kill this child by having it ripped from my body, or do I do the best I can by it, do i know the father well enough to tell, will he help, or did he refuse. Can I even tell him and mess up his life? He didn't want a child, neither did I but am pregnant. What to do? for everyone's sake. Not necessarily for my selfish gain.

Fact is dont have sex unless you take responsibility for what it creates. So, who is responsible?
Posted by Cotter, Monday, 3 August 2009 1:11:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fact is dont have sex unless you take responsibility for what it creates. So, who is responsible?

Yes, they both are responsible.

Fact is though, does the woman have the right to expect the father of this embrio, to be financially responsible for its well being if it is the mother who decides to allow it to become a child.

Now I am not trying to start a debate about abortion, but, is this not a descision that should involve both parties?

Now on the other hand, if the woman was involved in a one night stand, with intent to trap the man, well what then. Perhaps, if the woman is anti abortion, then they should not have sex inless they intend to have a child, in which case, one night stands should be out of the question for her.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 3 August 2009 3:39:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The statement that a woman can have a one-night stand to 'trap' a man, implies that men should be able to spray sperm around like sprinklers and women then 'trap' it or presumably discard it. If men don't want their sperm 'trapped' they need to look after it. Keep it in a safe place, like their testes or a condom.
Posted by mog, Monday, 3 August 2009 4:03:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, biology lesson time for the apologists for men who don't accept responsibility for their actions.

Firstly he takes his penis out of his pants, secondly he inserts his penis into a vagina, and lastly he ejaculates inside said vagina.

Therefore - - - - *HE* is to blame for the pregnancy

Just as much as she is.

Not hard to understand folks, except for the dimwitted apologists.
Posted by Master, Monday, 3 August 2009 6:24:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And if an old bloke my age can understand that basic biology, then surely anyone should be able to. But alas, such is not so!
Posted by Master, Monday, 3 August 2009 6:27:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mog and Master, I swear that between the pair of you is the most unromantic view of intercourse I have ever read.

Rehctub:”Fact is dont have sex unless you take responsibility for what it creates. So, who is responsible?”

Fact is people do have sex a lot without thought to what could be created. I’m a bit scared to say it but it isn’t the sex it is the choice of what to do if something is created aye.

Us grown ups would understand this varies from situation to situation. Unless we happen to be one of a couple that has produced a child with half the details on a birth certificate missing then none of can judge or assume or criticize or condemn.

Well obviously we can but doesn’t make sense to do it to 30,000 different situations.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Monday, 3 August 2009 7:54:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*And if an old bloke my age can understand that basic biology, then surely anyone should be able to*

Mister, clearly you only know a bit about biology, but not enough.

In biology, its the male who invests a mere ejaculation, so its in his
biological interest to spread his genes around, as far and wide as
possible. If the female wants a provider to help feed the offspring,
its up to her to be fussy and select a suitable male. The real loser
in biology is the bloke who raises some other guy's children.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 August 2009 8:15:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh Yabbs, I see now, it's up to the "woman" to make good choices, but not the "man". Gee, that enables us the blame the woman. I see you've got it all worked out. Good onya cob.

Jewels, actually I'm quite the romantic (or was, I'm well past it now). There was nothing better in life than to spend those wonderful times with my wife, who I loved with all my heart, and still do even though she's left this planet. I go through a lot of torment when I try to rationalise my non belief in an afterlife with the fact that she's gone. I think it's something I'll never come to terms with. But I do have support from loved ones, so I'm ok.
Posted by Master, Monday, 3 August 2009 9:06:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Ahh Yabbs, I see now, it's up to the "woman" to make good choices, but not the "man". Gee, that enables us the blame the woman. I see you've got it all worked out. Good onya cob.*

Nope Mister, it was your claim of using basic biology to justify
your reasoning, that was the point. There is no such thing as
objective morality, morality is simply our subjective opinion.

Do not confuse your personal morality with biology.

Pairbonding in nature, evolved for good reasons in some species.
Humans are just one of them
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 August 2009 9:56:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby I have to laugh about your fondness for biological reductionism and the way you use *one* theoretical interpretation as if it were established fact.

You confuse fact with subjective interpretation.

For example, if we're talking about spreading genes about, then it would be just as much in a female's interest to spread her own about wouldn't it. Just because a man has many sperm, he isn't obliged or driven in any way to run about depositing them willy nilly; a woman also has hundreds of eggs that will never be used. In the interest of mixing up the genes, she'd be just as irresistably driven to having a baby every year.

It would also make as much or more sense for a female to be as promiscuous as a man, or more so, if we're talking about her obtaining the most vigorous sperm to fertilize her egg/s. Group sex would then be the norm, with one woman to several partners in rapid succession, so that the most superiour sperm could out race all the others to the egg.

Another thing to think about: women have many eggs (and are therefore biologically capable of giving birth to many children) and men have many sperm - yet both men and women enjoy the act of sex irrespective of fertility, age or the desire to have children. That is, sex is not only performed in the interest of reproduction. It may also be seen to have a function as an expression of trust and intimacy between people.

I don't hold any of the first two views as desirable, or as THE way that humans are bound to behave. What I am pointing out is that interpretation of scienific fact is also a subjective matter.
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 3 August 2009 11:15:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And like I said Yabbs, it's VERY "convenient" for you to make your "assertion" that it's up to "only" the woman to make the choice, whereas men can just spread their spern around willy nilly, without being "bound" by choice.

Gee Yabbs, that enables you to blame the "woman". Nice to know you take the moral high ground, and that your "version" of biological science just happens by "sheer chance" to BLAME WOMEN but NOT blame men when things go wrong.

Yes, nice to know you're keeping philosophy out of this and that you are sticking to pure science! Well done Yabbs ol' cobber! Nudge nudge, wink wink!
Posted by Master, Monday, 3 August 2009 11:24:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*You confuse fact with subjective interpretation.*

Well Pymchme, biology is generally backed up by a huge amount of
evidence, but that is another story.

*then it would be just as much in a female's interest to spread her own about wouldn't it*

Have you ever heard of the milkman, postman, poolboy etc, being the
real father? DNA tests show its true and not just myth.

*In the interest of mixing up the genes, she'd be just as irresistably driven to having a baby every year.*

and who would feed all those babies? Popping them out is not a
problem for humans, feeding them for years and years is another story.

*Group sex would then be the norm, with one woman to several partners in rapid succession, so that the most superiour sperm could out race all the others to the egg.*

Well its common in chimps etc, where mothers don't need a partner
to feed the offspring. Its common in some women too, so men
invest an ejaculation and run for cover when it comes to the offspring, for there is no guarantee that its theirs.

To get a partner to stick around, it helps to at least delude him
that its his kid. So the fling with the milkman is seldom mentioned lol.

*That is, sex is not only performed in the interest of reproduction. It may also be seen to have a function as an expression of trust and intimacy between people.*

Sex as pleasure evolved for good reasons. You'll find that if there
is no sex in a relationship, males generally don't stick around to
help feed the offspring.

*Gee Yabbs, that enables you to blame the "woman". *

I am not blaming anyone, but explaining to you how nature works.
You raised the issue of biology, I am explaining the bits that
you clearly don't understand
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 12:01:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was a single father once and one of my daughters mother would turn up in a wheelchair in court. I challenged the judge for lawyers to prove she needed a wheelchair and so he ordered this. They provided an affidavit of a doctor that she needed a wheelchair, just that I then made clear a vet is not qualified to make such a statement and the affidavit got withdrawn. The judge then stated (seeing the mother via monitor from another state (only seeing her shoulders and face) that he could see she needed a wheelchair. Since when is a judge a doctor? And since my daughter turned to age the mother no longer uses a wheelchair. And she refused to pay child support while my daughter was underage. Then I got a letter from CSA asking me to forgo the outstanding overdue child support and this I refused. Now, my daughter is 24 and I am getting the child support finally and only because I refused to cancel it!
When we have all this going on about deadbeat fathers it is too often ignored there are many deadbeat mothers also! Up to my daughter being 20 years old CSA had refused to collect any child support from the mother despite my numerous request (and registered court orders). As such it seems DOUBLE STANDARDS. They kept telling me that with non-custodian mothers there were different rules that apply.
Really?
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 1:33:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Generaly speaking I agree that mising fathers evade Responsibiliy for their children.
1.The question is what happen when they do not know that they are fathers (temporary relations, moved in an other place etc, relations with two or males simultaneously, I read in Sweden 5 males claimed the fathership for a child ), what hapen if the male knows that he is father but the woman rejects the support from the father, because she is married and prefer to avoid family problems etc. There are some cases where fathers are missing not because they try to avoid to undertake their responsibilities BUT for other reasons.
2. What are father's responsibilities? Most fathers believe that their only responsibilities are the financial support for the child. Logicaly both parens have the same responsibilities and rights on their child/children, that means they should share the "cost" for their child/children. Most times is the mother who leaves her job, who destroys her carier, her future, who becomes fully dependant from the father BECAUSE THE FATHER DOES NOT UNDERTAKE EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES AS THE MOTHER.
From studies we know that if both parents care their child it has higher probabilities to be more healthy and more succesfull. In Australia the law does not encourage employee fathers to spent more time with their children.
3. Bigger problem exist with the missing fathers or devorsed fathers. I had in my workplace a father who lives in the same city with his children (Adelaide)and did not see his children for four years. I try to convince him to see his children, even I promised to pay the gifts for his children but he did not care. He said he pays money for his children and mothing else.
4. Personaly, I was devorsed and my children was overseas with their mother, I sold my property, and I brought my children with me in Australia, working full time and caring three children.
5. We can not create a better future if we do not care our children, if we do not care ALL the children.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 2:02:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert:"dropping CSA would not satify the desire to make parents meet their responsibilities."

The CSA doesn't actually accomplish that. The rate of unemployment among CSA "payer parents" is massively high - around 40% on the last data I saw, which is hardly conducive to meeting responsibility or to being a productive member of society. Each of those men costs the state several hundred a week on top of the cost of supporting the mother and children.

Additionally, of the money which is transferred, most is transferred privately, with the CSA having an automatic role only when at least one of the parents is receiving more than the base rate of FTB Part A or some other Centrelink benefit. They still claim the private transfers as part of their justification for existence, even though they have no part in them.

Also, if the OP's claim of men deliberately avoiding being identified is correct, it is hardly achieving the goal of making them meet their parental responsibility to be good carers, role models and advisors to their children. By focussing on the narrow financial aspect of responsibility we seem to have lost sight of the broader picture.

Is the aim to ensure kids are properly cared for or an ideological desire to punish fathers who mothers don't want around?

The Parkinson report worked out the cost of raising children and Centrelink knows the cost of supporting single mothers who choose not to work. It should be a simple matter to calculate a general levy on all taxpayers to raise the funds needed.

Children are a public social good and as such everyone benefits, not merely the parents. Even gay people had to come from somewhere and will require someone to look after them in their age and infirmity so why should they and the other childless be exempt from paying for the "production" of those future workers?

Whatever our society does, it is clear the CSA is a failure on all sorts of levels. abolish it and free up $1billion or so that could be paid to support children.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 7:54:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert: 'For those wondering at ChazP's approach to fathers involvement in childrens lives have a look at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#145809'

R0bert again: ‘I think that ChazP has enough history on this topic to take the post at face value. Not a troll, just a strong anti-father bias. Have a browse through ChazP's posting history.’

Robert, you sound like a rape prosecutor inviting the court to consider the alleged victim’s shady past. ChazP simply made a post about missing father's and their drain on the public purse. Not a nice fact of life, but a fact of life nonetheless. And I personally know at least a dozen women who have or have had to live with this fact of life.

What ChazP has is not ‘a strong anti-father bias’ – only a strong refusal to kow-tow to the hypocritical emotional blackmail that you trot out on every divorce and gender thread. You provide this link as supposed evidence of her stony-hearted inability to sufficiently empathise with some anonymous father’s totally subjective, one-side account of having driven 3,000 miles to see his children (why not just catch a plane?), only to have Ethel the Cruel-Hearted Ex fail to show up at the proposed meeting place (maybe she just got the times mixed up).

In that particular past exchange you talked of men’s lives being ‘… torn to pieces under the pretense of childrens best interest which was really about mothers wants and interests’.

Whoa! Yet, after this stunning piece of rampant anti-mother bias, you then have the audacity to say this:

‘Enough of these gender wars … Continuing to make it about gender does nothing to help children.’

Oh, really? Well, if it’s not about gender, then practice some of the gender balance that you demand of others, especially the women here. Writing post after post after post about a fictitious divorce system that only looks after ‘mother’s wants and interests' to the exclusion of fathers and children is not exactly practicing what you preach.
Posted by SJF, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 9:33:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic I agree with you! (It must be the lunar eclipse or something).Child support based on biological parentage should be abolished and there should be a tax-budget allocation for all children (regardless of whether their parents live together) approach. Children are a public good - the future in fact and the childless will still need to be looked after in age and infirmity by the younger generations, even if they haven't directly produced some. Forcing one parent to pursue the other parent in order to have enough to house and feed the children has only produced grief and division. In many cases both parents are low income earners and each dollar taken from the other produces a sum of misery and hatred. The determined wealthy child support avoiders are also usually tax avoiders - use the force of the Commonwealth to pursue tax evasion. The public policy project of using child support as father bait should be buried.
Posted by mog, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 9:35:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic, agreed however I think the make fathers pay sentiment goes way beyond the practical aspects for some. I've seen enough genuine cases where fathers have not been willing to take their parenting responsibilities seriously (both time and money) to know that it's not all spin by the mothers lobby, likewise I've seen enough mums using the system to avoid paid employment (and where the kids are not getting better care than those of working mums) to see the other side of that as well. I understand why those who do the right thing don't want to pay even more to support the children of those who don't. For a solution to work it's got to be politically viable and I suspect that at this stage I don't think that enough people have really thought about the harm done by keeping seperated parents in ongoing conflict.

Making "deadbeat dads" pay is still more important than the harm done to kids by the ongoing conflict with both parents feeling ripped off by the other.

There are no easy answers despite how appealing some things might seem to one side or the other.

One compromise solution I've suggested in the past is to break the direct linkage between payer and payee where there are issues. Payers pay into a pool, payee's are paid out of the pool and minimise the impact on the other parent of choices beyond their control. The choices the other parent makes should not impact on child support obligations or benefits. That could reduce the triggers for ongoing conflict between parents, not perfect but it might be a step forward on the money issue.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 9:57:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ChasP and others.

What is it that people don't understand about statistics and News papers?

STATISTICS ARE GENERALISATIONS. Raw numbers open to various alternatives. Their value depends on how they were collected.

NEWS PAPERS SELL ADVERTISING exactly like TV...do you believe “reality TV” is in any real sense a reflection of reality?

Believe either literally at your peril.

When one registers a birth Hatches, Matches, Despatches does exactly that. No reasons are asked or given. Common sense tells you that at the point of birth registration and without further information NO ONE can determine the quality of parental care/circumstances that child may or may not experience in the future.

The only substantiated fact is that 30k children were born without Father being nominated. The only conclusion one might sensibly make is to compare the numbers with that of an equal time period before then maybe one could conclude the number is on the rise....ergo the Base family unit is changing from the 50's mum dad and two children model. Anything else is pure unsubstantiatable pointless speculation/ prejudice baiting.
The conclusions McKay draws are as meaningful as me having a system for Lotto.
He is simply gathering readers for the ads. In advertising terms he is puffing the figures...

If one was to try and correlate the numbers with DOCS A totally different set of numbers would show up.

Contrary to blatant prejudice of some the actual relative numbers of teenage girls who deliberately get pregnant to avoid work is comparatively small. Especially when compared to starry eyed pregnancies and or whoopses. Advocates of blatant pregnancy view would find actual FACTS contradict their assertions .

Meanwhile those who are trying to understand the changes in our society are being lost by the fog.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 10:24:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mog: 'The determined wealthy child support avoiders are also usually tax avoiders - use the force of the Commonwealth to pursue tax evasion.'

Excellent perspective - and one that is rarely, if ever, brought up in these discussions. ALL the men I know who get out of paying child support are well off - no exceptions. Another common factor is that they are, without exception, self-employed businessmen or professional men, who are fully conversant with unethical accounting flexibilities that minimise their 'official' earnings - and this also ties in with your observations about tax evasion.

It's the low- to middle-income wage-earning man who is footing the bill for other men to evade the child support system. But, of course, you won't hear this from father's rights advocates, for whom it's standard practice to always blame the woman.
Posted by SJF, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 10:56:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF's statement:

<< It's the low- to middle-income wage-earning man (and woman - apologies SJF) who is footing the bill for other men to evade the child support system. But, of course, you won't hear this from father's rights advocates, for whom it's standard practice to always blame the woman. >>

True. And bears repeating.

And this from R0bert, which I found very concerning:

<< Making "deadbeat dads" pay is still more important than the harm done to kids by the ongoing conflict with both parents feeling ripped off by the other. >>

I disagree. There are times in one's life where it is necessary to cut one's losses and move on. The case of the well being of children, I would posit being one of them. The conflict between warring parents requires mediation NOT the current adversarial system that we have at present. The adversarial system suits those who have an axe to grind, the losers are the children and the parent who is trying to care for them.

Chazp and other women who dare to speak up on the rights of children have not, to my knowledge on reading her posts on OLO, ever condemned ALL MEN - just those whose agenda is the constant disparagement of women. Any women. Any of us to dare to voice our opinions. No matter how often I point out the adoration I have for the men who have stood by me and have supported me though-out my life, if I dare to criticise a single male such as Formersnag, Antiseptic or Roscop I am subjected to abuse - apparently with the approval of the OLO editor-in-chief.

For example,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9238&page=0#147350

Examinator

While I agree with much you have written in your post, I do not understand why you singled out Chazp... "and others" seems a little weak and very ambiguous. Please clarify.

Thank you
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 12:06:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle the current approach to child support makes it very difficult for those with a less than ethical ex to cut their losses and move on. Custodial parents get less if their ex manages to avoid paying child support for some reason, non-cusodial parents pay more if the custodial parent cuts back on their income. The tie's between Centerlink payments and CSA assessments mean that many who might otherwise work it out for themselves get drawn into CSA's web.

Residency arrangements get impacted by CSA care brackets, I'm not current on that but it certainly used to be an issue.

CSA maintains adversarial situations because the choices of one parent have such a direct impact on the other parent.

ChazP has certainly made some broad attacks on all of the fathers support groups and on fathers generally. I was told " you seem to be one of that very rare breed - fathers who really care for their kids" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#145730 - nice for me personally but as a father who has seen the sacrifices other fathers make for their families grossly insulting. In the same post from ChazP we had "and who form groups such as Father4Tyranny and Fathers4Domination".

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 12:39:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
deadly analysis ChazP,

"these Dinosaurs and Neanderthals are merely the guard dogs of heavily defended male power in this Patriarchal Society with its male-dominated political system, organised religions, the media, the legal system, commerce, and industry. This feudal system treats women and children as serfs."

patriachy is most effectively removed and child support equitably achieved in perpetuity with an equal rights Republic in which decision making is conducted by agreement between women's and a men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

moreover, rather than wait until Queen Elizabeth II dies to proclaim a republic as some Australians have suggested, why not honour her reign while she is still alive with the declaration of an equal rights republic?

what better way to honour Her Majesty's legacy than to pass her sovereignty onto governance accommodating the first women's legislature of the modern era.
Posted by whistler, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 1:31:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator, you are very good at telling others they are wrong, & they should get the facts. However, you appear to be very short of facts, yourself.

In another post you told me Captain Bleigh had nothing to do with wild rivers, as if your statement made it fact, & now we get another "fact".

Well here's a couple for you.

In a 10 year period I ran a little group of manufacturing companies, behind the Gold Coast.

In this period I gave on average, a couple of young ladies their first ever job, each year. A couple were graduates, but most were working in assembly warehousing, or office areas, often all three, as many moved up the chain.

A couple didn't last long, as drugs, & grog made them unemployable, however of the twenty that started, six got pregnant, within 2 years. Two were accidents, & one of these still works there. However, four decided to get pregnant, & go on the be benifit.

Thats 20% for one fact.

Now the Gold Coast has some doctors who somehow get these young ladies on a benifit, as soon as they are pregnant. Three of these girls were gone the moment they could start bludging. The other worked as long as she could, before leaving.

She was back, looking for a job, about five months later, she didn't like the bludging life. She had a hard time, as she did not get anywhere near as much help [almost mone in fact] as the bludgers on the benifit.

She got no public housing, & when she did some extra work for a while, they decided she was rich, & took her health care card off her.

We had quite a few young mothers, both single, & with partners, working for us, as we had a policy that allowed them to take "kid" time off, any time required, without loss of pay, provided their important work was up to date. Most of the staff would help them out. This saved their sick pay for a real emergancy.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 2:38:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

With all due respect you do tend to jump to conclusions by micro analyzing portions of what was said and miss the context.

I said Bligh ("being an awful woman" and her deals) had nothing to do with the topic posed NOT nothing to do with wild rivers ....I suggest you read the whole post in context.

I have no doubt that in your experience in one specific area of Qld lots of girls become deliberately pregnant etc but if you look at ALL the figures state or Aust wide you would be surprised how few BY COMPARISON there actually are.

I also note from other reports that 'professional' mums tend to occur more frequently in areas of lower economic average. It raises all sorts of possibilities when it come to causes.

i.e. Logan has more than Indooroopilly
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 4:39:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Master:“Jewels, actually I'm quite the romantic (or was, I'm well past it now). There was nothing better in life than to spend those wonderful times with my wife, who I loved with all my heart, and still do even though she's left this planet. I go through a lot of torment when I try to rationalise my non belief in an afterlife with the fact that she's gone. I think it's something I'll never come to terms with.”

I remember your wife’s maiden name… I’m the same, can’t wrap my head around an afterlife. I have requested my family vaporize me, I want nothing left behind.

Now prior to marriage, and many a man must wonder... are there any little fatherless Masters out there?

Then there are all the poor men who discover after being a father to a child that oops, kid isn’t theirs. Didn’t Britain find a huge percentage of men were discovered not to be the real dad’s of children they’d raised?

Surely the more honest women in this scenario actually buggered off to raise a child alone.

“But I do have support from loved ones, so I'm ok.”

Good, it’s important and you remain where the memories are.

Mog:”Child support based on biological parentage should be abolished and there should be a tax-budget allocation for all children (regardless of whether their parents live together) approach.”

You could all start with the children who have neither their mother or father as they need society to help them even more than the others. Help the state wards first.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 5:17:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

The statistics for "misattributed paternity" is 20-30% of 0.025% of Australian men.

A lot of fuss was made of the 20-30% figure, but it applies only to a minute sub-set of men - 0.025%.

"But this minuscule, highly skewed group has a very different rate of misattributed paternity from the rest of us - the other 99.975%. One way to track the percentage of misattributed paternity for the general (and trusting) population is by certain medical conditions that can be passed to the children if, and only if, both parents carry the condition. This tells us that in the general Australian population (and most of Western society), misattributed paternity is around 1-5%, and usually much closer to 1% than 5%. This backs up a 2001 Australian sex survey that looked at 10,173 adults who had been in a regular relationship for over a year. This survey found that 2.9% of women had more than one sexual partner over that year."

and

"The 30% figure is a very dramatic one, and is endlessly trotted out by the media. It is also publicised by two other groups - first, support groups for the fathers who are indeed not biologically related to one or more of their children, and second, the Paternity Laboratories who charge for the tests."

Please read the link below for the full story.

http://abc.gov.au/science/articles/2006/06/02/1646546.htm

As you are no doubt already aware there are plenty of people who will grab at any reason to denigrate mothers and this 30% figure is just one of them.

As Examinator pointed out:

"STATISTICS ARE GENERALISATIONS. Raw numbers open to various alternatives. Their value depends on how they were collected."
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 5:31:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle
"why you singled out Chazp... "and others" "
It was Chazp discussion point that had such a factually poor foundation and the others that were writing at the time were going off in their prejudice driven axe grindings. with perspectives that
Years at the coal face has taught me that stats are for holistic planing (perhaps)but bear no relationship to the day to day specifics.
All the arguments tend to emphasize their personal bias by generalizing on that 'personalized prism'. A bit like defining a pile of coloured gravel by describing a few different coloured pebbles.
Besides I don't want to get involved in a heated war unless it is based on solid facts.
Weak? perhaps. Ambiguous how so?
There isn't enough substance to the arguments thus far. Most respond with soft and highly unreliable data. As I said to Hasbeen what one sees in one part of a state or the country doesn't necessarily follow for the whole.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 6:32:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It appears that three different questions are becoming entangled here. The first question is whether these men have an obligation to at least offer financial and emotional support to the mother. It appears that almost all posters think that the answer is yes.

The second question is whether these dads also have rights to see their child. I think so.

The third question is the most hotly contested. How do we get those dads who won't honour their obligations to change their ways?

In the past, we have relied largely on social pressure to get these men to do the right thing by the mother. This is a powerful weapon but it won't get any more men to change because it has already been tried so extensively.

We could also look at the current child support arrangements. The current system is so unpopular that many women refuse to name the father (if they know) and many men use tactics like tax evasion or going onto welfare. If the demands made of men were less unreasonable, more men might accept them.

If the parents were in long term relationships, the number of these babies would also reduce. In the past, society has pressured people not to sleep around. Whatever one’s opinion of the morality of this, it has been tried and hasn’t worked. I believe that the quality of advice given to (heterosexual) women about men is one area that could easily be improved. We no longer talk about how to distinguish between men who love them and pick-up artists, because of paternalistic ideas about self-esteem. Whatever people think about her right to make choices, lets make these choices informed.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 8:56:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The 30% figure is a very dramatic one, and is endlessly trotted out by the media. It is also publicised by two other groups - first, support groups for the fathers who are indeed not biologically related to one or more of their children, and second, the Paternity Laboratories who charge for the tests.”

Hey Fractelle, thank you for directing me to that, I had read the media version of years ago and it was stuck in my head which was something like 1/10 men raising a child they had thought was theirs, in Britian. Along with what I read was something about females when at a fertile phase sought out very masculine men but at home wanted a more sensitive type for the actual raising of the children.

Seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

Benk:“We could also look at the current child support arrangements. The current system is so unpopular that many women refuse to name the father (if they know) and many men use tactics like tax evasion or going onto welfare. If the demands made of men were less unreasonable, more men might accept them.”

You reckon? The current system does seem to encourage a lot of bitterness.

I like Mogs idea about everyone paying. However they were created, once here, we should all contribute.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 9:20:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A fourth question I would add to benck's is this:

How do we get society to stop pressuring women to take the primary responsibility for the bearing and rearing of children?

There is still an extremely entrenched belief that a woman who does not take primary responsibility for her children, both during and after marriage, is not just a bad mother, but is a downright evil person. This is the main issue at the heart of the matter and it's the very issue that father's rights groups prefer to ignore, in favour of portraying women as using the kids as a weapon post-divorce - when 9 times out of 10, the woman is simply fulfilling the primary caretaker role that society has conditioned her to play.

If father's rights groups wish to be taken seriously, especially by women, then they need to face up to their own double standards. All the fatherly love in the world has not increased the incidence of men putting their hand up to compromise their careers, financial independence and long-term employability by staying home with their kids - unless the outcome of a divorce compels them to.
Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 11:01:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All
Benk may be right but sadly in our self centred world societal responsibility is discouraged.

As I've said generalisations (stats) may be useful in forming policy directions but like all averages "one side suits nobody' approach tends to create more unintended victims (anomalies).
I find it intensely frustrating having worked on the crisis intervention coal face to read debate(?) that argues over (universal) culprits..

Like Hasbeen I've seen more than my share of 'professional teenage mums' who play the system and prey on the naivety of some males. Me included.

Embodied in that is a genuine doubt that this attitude is hardly conducive to good parenting. The child is immaturely seen as a means to an end(pension) . But they are hardly the majority.

Likewise there are irresponsible and predatory males who see have no sense of responsibility (it's the girls look out). But again they too are a minority.

The figures in the question do not allow for deliberate pregnancies by women who want babies but not the male price tag. Gays and some 'power' women come to mind (e.g. donated sperm etc.)

Data and experience *suggests* that most single pregnancies are "starry eyed" Whoopses of various durations and or simply poor choices. e.g. trap a hubby, extend/cement a relationship or diverging imperatives ( young woman was living with her boyfriend wanted a baby ...he didn't they separated after which she discovered she was pregnant...the baby was born without a reg father because the mum no longer wanted or to force his involvement.)

Other factors like environment, ignorance, opportunities availability and social conditioning all play large in the genesis of the problem.
Clearly there is no one solution but a complex mix.

I can see better opportunities, education, tighter criteria of stay at home pensions more other options i.e. pensions come with mandatory parenting courses, training for jobs, govt child care forcing single mums to work . Mandatory they naming the father. Refundable paternal tests and garnishing of wages and benefits, forcing the males to advance skills etc. Tighter supervision.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 11:16:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well the responses so far have been pretty predictable -deadbeat fathers vs deadbeat mothers without really getting to the crux of the problem.

One issue that has not been raised is the high divorce rate. Why do so many modern marriages end in divorce? Perhaps it is too easy to get married or people get married for the wrong reasons.

What ever happened to adults choosing to stay together for the kids surely it can't be any worse than what we have now (excepting the obvious for domestic violence situations).

Surely if two people loved each other once they can work it out and we can stop using children as pawns in what is really an adult problem.

I am not sure about the idea of tax revenue being used to support children of single parents over a long period, but I can see that it might be something worth throwing into the discussion - if it were to fly perhaps it could be like HECS and both parents can pay back a sum through their taxes when the kids turn 18 or become fully independent.

It is food for thought but seems an easy way out for people not taking personal responsibility. At least the kids will benefit from having one parent at home during the most important development years (probably not PC to say that anymore).
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 12:03:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator, you ask how so you were a tad ambiguous?

"ChasP and others."

Now I am sure who the "others" maybe, I think, perhaps. But the "others" I am thinking of aren't noted for their self-reflection. You stated that Chazp's argument lacked foundation, so many arguments on offer here lack a shred of reason I wonder just how you managed to single out Chazp.

Anyway it was fun scrolling through this thread because I found a post of A-septic's I actually agreed with - must've entered some kind of alternative universe. Here 'tis:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2968&page=0#68373

Please don't anyone tell A-septic I thought this an excellent post, he needs to maintain a particular mind-set about me or his world will fall apart.

As for myself, if I had been so stupid as to have had children with my ex-husband - I wouldn't have demanded a cent, I would've been too busy moving states, or countries, go anywhere to get away from him.

So maybe the missing fathers aren't all being evasive but being evaded.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 12:33:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benk, your post has accidently highlighted a large area of the problem, when you suggest there were pressures for the man to do "the right thing by the mother".

Now assuming the sex was consensual, I can't see how the man has any more responsubility to woman, than she does to him. Neither have offered to support the other for life.

If a child has been the result, then both should have the same responsibility to that child. Now enter the Family Court, with the same idea, that he owes her, rather than the child, & no thought that she owes the child.

She is given the right to chose to have/not have the child, & then to keep or not keep the child. He is given no right, just the responsibility to pay for her choice.

Most men's income will not support the three of them, if they live together, in one household. It is rather stupid when that family court says he must now keep all three of them, in two seperate households.

The fact that this is impossible does not stop the same family court odering it.

Although in a family situation, she would hane had to help contribute financially, she is now no longer expected to do so.

Just listen to the complaints of the second wives about the unfairness of this system.

Some men, when faced with this judical injustice, decide to dig their feet in. If they are going to live in poverty, "because of her demands", true or not, they might as well do it somewhere nice, on the dole, rather than work their guts out for it. The feeling of injustice outweighs their feelings of responsibility.

Sorry girls, I can see no reason why I should contribute more to raising your kids, than I do with medical, & education now.

I do not see how we can get a fair, & reasonable outcome for most broken families, so how about those who can't come up with a suitable funding arrangement for their kids, should have to surrender them for adoption?
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 12:48:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator
"forcing the males to advance skills"
Why ONLY males? what about females's future? what about young mother's future?
If we leave them unskilled, if we leave them in weaker position than the males, then we do not give them many chances and we can not blame them for what they are doing in hopless conditions.
If we want a better future, if we want less problems for females then we MUST suport first them, the persons in need, the young mothers.
WE CAN NOT FORCE MALES FOR ADVANCE SKILLS AND IGNORE FEMALES'S NEEDS FOR SIMILAR SKILLS.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 1:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
* without really getting to the crux of the problem.*

Well the crux of the problem is that society has changed. Today
recreational sex is common and normal. Agreeing to recreational
sex does not mean that anyone has made a commitment to lifelong
paying for kids. If one party tries to enforce this, there are
going to be tears and resentment.

I still maintain that kids are best, when they are wanted by
both parents.

I heard of a drug the other day, commonly used by Asians, for
chemical abortions. It sounds like its available in Asia but
not here, so they just bring in their own.

If the news report was correct, then clearly there is a demand for
abortions that currently is not being met locally by our present
options.

Better sex education in our schools and making the options clear
to people, is long overdue in Australia.

Taxpayers already cough up over 100 billion$ for social welfare.
Trying to increase that even more, would indeed be foolish and
only encourage even more single career moms, where the Govt foots
the bill.

Hasbeen is correct, there are plenty out there right now, who find
even the present payments attractive. Throw in another 5000$ for
the baby bonus and the deal is clearly quite inviting for many.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 2:37:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AS,
You are right I did say that women should be forced to up grade their skills too as a condition of social security.

Hasbeen,
While not quite so strident as you I do agree with the concept that single mums shouldn't get a free ride rather they do the same as they would probably do if in a both parent family work to help pay.

Unfortunately, whether something if fair to the parents or not the real issue. In my mind is the Child(ren)'s well being that must be the paramount concern.

To really cheese off the OLO women I don't believe that a woman should have an automatic rights to 50%+ or to be the primary care giver.

BTW I got caught with my eldest daughter, sucked into a relationship believing it was prelude to marriage only to find that once mum was safely pregnant there was no room/need for me.(yes I was that naive once!)
The rest you can guess....BUT was that the fault of the child? (the daughter is now 35 and no longer speaks to her mum)

Despite that I still rationally think that there should be strings attached to SMP and the dole of DB dads. The issue is the children to ensure it doesn't become a family dead end trait.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 5:08:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
I keep saying make sure there are strings attached to SM pensions seems to make the most practical sense.
I think baby bonus is a joke given that we are 'with current entrenched practices, attitudes etc.' pushing the capacities of our country.
But if you're going to give a baby bonus then make it a rebate on baby specific expenditures food vouchers instead of Plasma TVs et al.

There should be *limited* self indulgent options when it comes from the public purse.

If one added and enforced professional mums to improve their skills and, extra child care so they can work then the 'easy option' has gone.

Likewise the DB dads need to realize ...you want sex then protect, protect hence I advocate if the public has to pay for the consequence of your recreational sex be advised you will pay too would help send the message. People only obey rules if there is some penalty or benefit to do so.

To me all this seems so self evident. no victimizing just consequential responsibilities.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 6:09:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator:“To really cheese off the OLO women I don't believe that a woman should have an automatic rights to 50%+ or to be the primary care giver.”

Yeah you sure socked it to the chicks with that one.

I suspect what would annoy the OLO women was you assuming we wouldn’t find that reasonable.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 6:26:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator's sweeping statement:

"To really cheese off the OLO women I don't believe that a woman should have an automatic rights to 50%+ or to be the primary care giver."

I don't know a single female OLO contributor, or, in my private life female friend, who believes that a woman should have automatic rights to being the primary care giver.

What is important is the best interests of the child, if that proves to be the father, then so be it. The problem is not women, it is the anachronistic family court system that is still in the 19th Century regarding the make-up of families - it hasn't caught up with the fact that many women want careers and the progress many men have made in wanting to be fathers rather than just breadwinners. Currently the system plays into the hands of women who want to retain control of all children and men who still believe that child care is the women's responsibility.

This is the 21st century, no longer "Me Tarzan, you, Jane" we are slowly and painfully breaking free of stereotypes that trap both genders. I am surprised that someone with your enlightened intelligence is unaware of these societal changes. We need to move on from the adversarial court system, which is inadequate to the needs of families and into a system of mediation, where emotional blackmail is limited between warring parents and children given the priority of consideration.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 6:27:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle, beautifully put. I have known a few women who thought that the kid were their by default but then I used to spend a lot of time around borderline christain fundies.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 6:46:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you R0bert, I was beginning to think that I had wandered into an alternative universe, but you understand me. Foxy has forgiven me. Piper still has the driest sense of humour, so all is right with the world; mostly, a little concerned where the real Examinator has gone.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 6:56:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fathers in Australia have been deserting wives and children since the first fleet where often, abandoned children had to be placed in orphanages by their destitute mothers.

Rape, sodomy or bestiality by a husband was introduced in the UK and Australia in the mid 1800s (for good reason) as grounds for divorce while divorce reform for desertion (plus five years imprisonment) was not introduced as grounds for divorce until 1911 and then, only in WA. Sole parenting during those days would have incurred many hardships.

As one historic account on life during the gold rush era states: “Wife beating was by no means uncommon, and almost every month some wife brought her husband to court for assault, or for threatening to murder her.”

It appears that little has changed except now deadbeat dads are fleeing the country to avoid paying child support. “These parents owe around $90 million in unpaid child support, but the Australian Government is about to crack down on them” according to a 2008 publication.

Since the advent of the Family Law Court in Australia, we have estranged fathers continuing to lay the blame on the mother for all sorts of reasons, however, it is only since this law reform that errant fathers are able to find fewer opportunities to escape their responsiblities.

While taxpayers (including the responsible dads) pick up the tab for these missing fathers, perhaps they should be grateful that a mother, no matter her “faults”, abandons her children far less frequently.

After centuries of a patriachial system in control, we now have the emergence of aggrieved and estranged fathers howling all over the web on how unjust the present legal system is.

Prior to reform in the 80s, two thirds to three quarters of fathers failed to pay the full amount of court awarded support within a few years of divorce and many more sole-mother households relied on income support.

And in 1992, in the US, $27 billion in child support went uncollected.

If the current system appears unfair, remember reforms are only implemented because the previous one failed - for obvious reasons.
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 8:18:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Fathers in Australia have been deserting wives and children since the first fleet where often, abandoned children had to be placed in orphanages by their destitute mothers.*

Gawd Dickie, you do make it sound dramatic! Perhaps you have not
read "The Floating Brothel".

http://www.gould.com.au/Floating-Brothel-Female-Convicts-p/hod002.htm

or

http://www.aussiereviews.com/article1012.html

The first boatload of women sent to Australia were extremely practical
women, who worked their way around the world, making a quid at
every port.

They knew how to charge for their services, so forget the tearjerker
stuff. These girls could clearly take care of themselves in what was
a tough world all around, not just for women.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 8:47:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator and others.

There should be *limited* self indulgent options when it comes from the public purse.

It would be rather simple to convert these welfare payments to a ‘debit type’ card whereby the money can only be used to purchase food, cloths and other necessities conducent to a child’s needs.

A system like this would ensure the monies paid were used for their intended purpose rather than being wasted on items not associated with the well being of the child.

Protagoras,
It appears that little has changed except now deadbeat dads are fleeing the country to avoid paying child support.

You are forgeting that these are not dads by choice, rather a participant in a one night stand. It's the mother who has decided to have the child, not the father.

Now on the other hand, if a father leaves after the child/children are born, then you are entitled to call them whatevr you wish.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 8:54:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rechtub

"You are forgeting (sic) that these are not dads by choice, rather a participant in a one night stand. It's the mother who has decided to have the child, not the father."

ROFL

Yeah, sure, we mothers hide behind bushes, jump out on unsuspecting men, attach their dicks to a vacuum hose then head for the nearest turkey-baster.

I can write a load of bollocks too.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 10:20:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Yeah, sure, we mothers hide behind bushes, jump out on unsuspecting men, attach their dicks to a vacuum hose then head for the nearest turkey-baster.*

You miss the point Fractelle. If a bloke agrees to a bit of casual
sex, he's agreeing to exactly that, not to marriage or fatherhood,
or paying bills for life.

As Rehctub pointed out, its a different story if somebody marries
and agrees to have kids.

Perhaps girls should make it clear that if a mistake happens, they
want the whole lot, not just to what was agreed to. Otherwise
they can always keep their legs together :)
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 10:33:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If so many men are in danger of being misused by these crafty women women who are scheming to obtain a life of luxury on the government tick and child support, then men had best protect themselves.

Is there a problem with men wearing a condom (or even considering a vasectomy) for their own protection against all these scheming women?

(Enjoyed ur posts Fractelle :D)
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 10:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There was this man who owned various business properties and had a business and declared to pay himself merely $100.00 a week wages. Well a judge made clear he could claim whatever he liked but where he was taking family members at his cost to Europe then he wasn’t going to accept this nonsense of a mere $100.00 a week income. So he was ordered to pay his wife the outstanding property settlement. When it comes to child support he made the same claims but CSA refused to accept anything as he had not filed his tax returns for various years. In the end the High Court of Australia ruled against him that he owed child support. Then this man declared his taxation and even so HCA had made it’s ruling, the CSA then declared that after all he didn’t own a cent on child support. So from more then $36,000 it went to zero! What this underlines is that those who are clever enough to avoid paying taxes or under declare their real taxable income can get away with paying child support.
In my past published books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues I have extensively canvassed this issue.
In my view it would be better if the entire child-support-system was scrapped as then it would remove a lot of hatred and conflicts that the children suffer under. I have been assisting men in litigation where the mothers tried to reduce access so they could claim more child support!
As I made all along known we should have a special tax that taper off as you get older as toward the bring-up of children. As such there is a general pool and all children regardless of the non-custodian parents wealth are equally provided for.
What we now have is that woman can so to say father-shopping as to select a potential-father who had a high income as to get more child support.
Abolition of child support and replace it with a tax is the better way to go.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 11:36:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I assisted a man in his case who had been paying child-support for this three children. For many years. When paternity testing was done it turned out two of the three children were not his biological children. With about 20% of children born in a marriage not being that of the husband I view that DNA is long overdue. Sure women may not like it but it is the only way to stop men paying for children they are denied to see anyhow and are not their biological children.
There was this man who was proud to be told by his girlfriend to be the father and so he paid child-support for many years. She had another child with him but they never lived together. Then she stopped access when he pursued custody claiming he was not the biological father of the eldest child. And, too often this game is played by women.
I recall with my second wife she applied for child support, even so I was at the time ordered to pay a mere $5.00 a week but was paying voluntarily about $75.00 a week, and at the same time was contesting paternity for the child I was all along paying child support. The judges asked her to make up her mind either I was not the b8iological father and no child support or I was the biological father and I have to pay child support. She choose I was not the biological father (I always had known) as the child was 9-months old when I first got to know his mother and married her) but didn’t mind paying the child support as I held the child to be my own son, still the judge held no child support was further payable. In the end the child was still declared a child of the marriage. Years later I gained custody of him and his siblings also and I didn’t seek child support of the mother ever!
It is sad that women far too often use children as a tool rather then consider what is best for the children.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 11:56:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Mr Gerrit, can you post a link to the case you mentioned where a rich man claiming to earn $100 a week ended up paying no child support. I'd like to read the details of how he managed to do this. If there's no public net link available, could you tell me where the details of this case can be obtained and verified. It seems rather odd that he paid nothing. Thanks Mr Gerrit.
Posted by MaryE, Thursday, 6 August 2009 12:27:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pied Piper and Fractelle,

Usually a male suggesting that women shouldn't automatically entitled to half the 'family fortune?' and and the natural care giver would be accused of misogyny .
It's good to see that some women can theoretically see the objectivity in the concepts. More power to you girls sorry to inadvertently offended.

These 'rights?' are entrenched by most women.
True the out dated legal system favours that view ( could be paternalism today, but was originally survival motivated)

The point to be made is that when women are going for a break up they don't have to sue for everything they can get but they on average tend to do so.

When crisis counseling breakups that topic is a no no.

In many instances I've seen the wife has a legitimate claim for 1/2 the assets but often it is taken as an undeserved right.
As a counselor I've seen obscenities on both sides.

I have personal experience of this from the declared liberated femanist mother of my eldest.

She claimed that I should maintain both her and my daughter in the same standard as my new family. Even though when were together I was on poor wages etc. She took everything I had including the flat I had bought before meeting her.
BTW she was on a pension while illegally moonlighting as a taxi driver etc.
Once she remarried she forced my daughter out but insisted that the new hubby be referred to as dad.

It is easier to take a high moral position if it is theoretical than in reality.

PS I was estranged from my daughter for the time her mum had control. While not particularly close the daughter talks to me but not mum now.

again sorry for the conditioned reflex :-)
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 6 August 2009 12:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“You are forgeting that these are not dads by choice, rather a participant in a one night stand. It's the mother who has decided to have the child, not the father.”

Sheer guess work on your part Rehctub since the report also advised that:

“Separated parents living overseas now owe around $90 million in payments to their kids back in Australia," Senator Ludwig said.

‘"Wherever separated parents live, it's unacceptable for them to shirk their child support obligations."

“A meeting in Hobart yesterday decided to make greater use of orders that banned parents with a child support debt from leaving the country.”

Yabby

May I suggest you first take your hand off it and read further into Sian Rees’ account of life on the Lady Juliana?:

“About 225 female thieves, prostitutes and con artists were rounded up from prisons in London and the British countryside to the failing Sydney Cove colony aboard the Lady Juliana, wrote one historian.

"The females were to serve two purposes - to prevent the starving and isolated male colonists from engaging in 'gross irregularities', and to act as a breeding stock for the troubled settlement.

Hmmmm......funny....I thought Holstein cattle were of Dutch origin?

“Historian, Nicol describes life onboard the ship and the ways in which the women were pressured to use sex to improve their situation and status.

"He details the difficult conditions the women were forced to endure during the long journey and the extreme seasickness that overtook the female passengers as they left England's shores.”

A first hand report of the first day and evening of arrival still survives: :

"Soon after the convict men were unshackled and disembarked, the inhospitable terrain considered a deterrent for escape.

"The women were brought to the shore ten days later and on seeing the women the convict men broke into frenzy, the rum barrels were broken and rape and debauchery reigned. Seeing the wildness in their eyes, Phillip and his Officers kept their own men at a distance, deciding to let the events take their course and did nothing to help the women."
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 6 August 2009 12:56:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could someone more informed please tell the rest of us if child support agencies employ investigators to look at the type of scamming that has been highlighted in this thread?
Posted by benk, Thursday, 6 August 2009 8:11:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF:"portraying women as using the kids as a weapon post-divorce - when 9 times out of 10, the woman is simply fulfilling the primary caretaker role that society has conditioned her to play."

Partially accurate, for a change. The structures that were set up for Family Law were in response to the demands of "women's rights" activists who claimed that women were being ripped off during divorces, sometimes with some justification. Those processes now mandate that any woman who is not working must do all she can to recover as much money from the father as possible if she wishes to avail herself of any form of state support, such as the dole. The process has become self-energising, with the only genuine beneficiaries being the second-rate, ambulance-chasing legal aid lawyers who those women are forced to use unless they have money.

It's not "conditioning" of the mother that's at fault, it's the fact that she and the father are locked into an adversarial co-dependent relationship for years after they should be allowed to get on with things.

Some women are happy to use the system in a passive-aggressive way - "it's out of my hands, take it up with my lawyers/CSA/the police" all the while knowing that he is being sent broke trying to meet his obligations without any State support whatever and that it is all being done in her name without her having to do anything other than fail to work to support herself.

As a "feminist activist", what do you think should be done to change that?
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 6 August 2009 8:14:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras: "After centuries of a patriachial system in control, we now have the emergence of aggrieved and estranged fathers howling all over the web on how unjust the present legal system is".

exactly. it's drop dead obvious children will remain victims of parental disputes until such time as women and men can resolve disputes from a level playing field, which can only ultimately be accomplished with law enacted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures.
Posted by whistler, Thursday, 6 August 2009 10:41:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator

1. "forcing the males to advance skills"
2. "women should be forced to up grade their skills too as a condition of social security"
advance skills for men, up grade their skills for women.
Are the advance skills equal with the upgraded skills from the social security or you mean to give the top skills to men and the basic skills for women?
When you say "forcing the males to advance skills" do you mean male employees or males without work?
If you mean male employees then why not to force women employees for advance skills?
If you mean non working males then why for them advance skills and for non working women up grade skills?
examinator
You know that there is huge discrimination against women, part time work, casual work, low wages, low opportunities, non equal pay for equal work, althought in our days more women have finished or study in tertiary education than men and women are working harder, (studies show it, in USA)than the men and women work better as team than men.
PLUS the children and the second sift at home.
BUT WOMEN ARE MORE PROGRESIVE THAN MEN , LES RECISTS, MORE SENSITIVE ON ENVIRONMENT ISSUES, HIGHER DEMOCRATIC AND SOCIAL SENSITIVITY AND LESS REPRESENTATION IN THE DECISION MAKING BODIES.
If we have to give something more then it must go to women not to men!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Thursday, 6 August 2009 10:42:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras

Very interesting posts, particularly the first one. It’s refreshing to see another OLO poster making an effort to put an emotive gender issue into a wider historical perspective.

The current divorce child custody laws in most Western countries have remained pretty much unchanged since the 1920s, when major reforms were first put in place. Until then, fathers got full 100% child custody on divorce, and this was not negotiable. However, back then divorce was rare and socially unacceptable and only the upper classes had the money to obtain them. Usually, when a marriage foundered, the husband just buggered off and the wife and kids went to the poorhouse and orphanage repsectively.

The reforms of the 1920s, which transferred child custody mainly to the mother were more the product of the introduction of the welfare state, the empowering of the labour movement and changing attitudes to children’s rights and status. Until then, children were considered little more than the workhorse chattels of their parents. WWI also created a desire to renew and entrench the caring role of the family (in other words, the mother) as it did in the decade following WWII.

The Family Law Acts of the 1970s only really introduced no-fault divorce, while leaving the mother-dominant child custody laws intact. On this basis, I believe the more recent introduction of 50-50 child residency legislation in some countries is a progressive move.

Ironically, feminism, which has brought so many positive benefits to the family is lagging behind in accepting the 50-50 laws – mainly because of the old pressure on women to be primary childcarers. But I do notice feminist attitudes are softening on this.
Posted by SJF, Thursday, 6 August 2009 11:53:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Dickie, I have actually had a copy of "The Floating Brothel"
here in my library for some years, it makes for fascinating reading.

But to quote the back cover for you:" The women aboard the Lady
Julian arrived in Australia healthier and happier then they had
ever been before "

Perhaps you should read it, before you try to make out that these
were innocent litle rosebuds.

Some of their courtcases make for great reading too. Prostitution
was the norm in those days, but the danger for a man was that he
would lose his watch, his money and his breeches all in the one
go. If they managed to rent a room, commonly they would pawn off
anything that was not locked down, within 48 hours.

Many stored any money up their vaginas, as it was the one place
where others could not steal it from them.

Life in the slums of London was extremely tough, these girls were
commonly just as tough. They also made a good quid on the way
to Botany.

So forget the tearjerker "mums and kids" stuff.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 6 August 2009 11:56:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ASymeonakis

As a woman and a feminist, I’m flattered by your supportive remarks, but I can’t agree with you. Women are no more or less progressive, racist or democratic than men. As for being more sensitive, that’s more a matter of female conditioning to fulfill the caring role – rather than any inbuilt biological imperative.

I know you mean well, but women are no better or worse than men as people. It's just that they are valued less than men in socio-political terms.

MaryE

Regardless of whether Mr Gerritt H Schorel-Hlavka can post you a link about wealthy men evading child support, I can verify this from experience, as I have now witnessed this outcome in 2 divorces that I have been closely linked with in the last 3 years (thankfully, not my own – as I’m happily married myself!).

In both cases, the men are worth about $1.5 - $2 million each in assets but are able to declare business losses every year.

And wait … there’s more. In both cases, the WIFE pays the HUSBAND child support, because the wives are both wage earners.

Overall, I believe the CSA does a good job within the limits of what it can do but until child support can be means tested, it will remain a very unjust system.
Posted by SJF, Thursday, 6 August 2009 12:10:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF,
"Women are no more or less progressive, racist or democratic than men"
I think you do not read very often the surveys and studies about women.
woman are less racists, read any survey about race discrimination in Australia and you will find they are less racists.
They are more sensitive about environment, against the war, more progresive , the majority of Green members and Green voters are women.
I am going work but I will give plenty infotrmation when return back I AM BUSY SORRY!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Thursday, 6 August 2009 2:43:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your informative posts SJF…… and Ant, I do believe you’re a real SNAG – bless you – ie, a real, “sensitive new age guy!”

SJF – The issue of wealthy fathers claiming tax losses through their businesses appears not to be uncommon. A young friend of mine (a policewoman) receives no child support from her ex-husband as a result of his “failing” business interests and the children inform her that during visitations, they are mostly cared for by the paternal grandparents because Dad (and his lady friend) have “other” commitments.

My father deserted us on my second birthday and we never saw or heard from him again. Nevertheless my disabled mother managed to pay off a canvas lined humpy for 50 pounds, covering the dirt floors with newspaper and lino scraps and my sibling and I would regularly run to the railway crossing with our billycart, freezing at 5am, where the train driver would shovel out coal which we could use for heating.

My mother took in washing and resumed her trade of trouser making where my sibling and I would often smirk when my mother would advise: “Mr Smith, I’ll just measure the rise” as she groped for the hapless gentleman’s crotch!

The realisation of being poor would occur during school hours when other children’s lunches comprised of meat and salad sandwiches – perhaps some fruit cake and an apple whilst mine was a stale tomato sauce sandwich. Always hungry, I sensed being “different” though it didn’t stop me from hanging about hoping for some leftovers!

My mother, from pioneering stock, was able to endure many hardships caused by her disabilities and the disadvantages of being a deserted wife, having to pay off ten shillings a week for her divorce too though I never heard her complain. Nor did she ever malign our absent father though I learnt later from relatives that he was a “womaniser, “batterer” and gambler.”

A loving and dedicated lone parent, I believe, is better than two in conflict and indeed, as a result, I’ve had a most fortunate life.
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 6 August 2009 3:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF

<< Ironically, feminism, which has brought so many positive benefits to the family is lagging behind in accepting the 50-50 laws – mainly because of the old pressure on women to be primary childcarers. But I do notice feminist attitudes are softening on this. >>

I have pondered this anomaly myself, I think it is because in the past, custody of children (as well as the traditional pressure) was the only power women had. It was only a few decades ago a woman could not even be granted a mortgage for a home. As more men take on active parenting roles and are also seen to be active parents will this change. However, some women will feel threatened by the shift in responsibilities just as some men threatened by the influx of women into positions of power and influence in society.

Examinator

Thank you for your story - I know how the reflex reaction is hard to beat. I concentrate on the good men I know rather than the bad - which is part of how I manage my depression as well.

Protagoras

Your childhood story was very moving, you painted a very clear picture of what must've been a hard life - especially when you saw glimpses of what other children's lives appeared to be. Well, all I can say is the result has been a deeply thoughtful and reflective person.

One of my last attempts to save my marriage was to go to a counsellor, but my then husband refused to go with me. If you cannot communicate then how do you negotiate the mine-field of separation? This is why I believe the adversarial system has become an anachronism for today's families.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 6 August 2009 5:00:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras. I like your mum.

Examinator. I like your attitude.

Yabby. You are losing your edge that was barely shocking.

Fractelle. When I got the call to say my ex had died (which I was expecting any day at the time) I felt really bad, we had grown up living together.

By the end of the call my voice had started to crack and I could feel the tears spill over but amongst the rush of sadness were two little words that I tried to ignore but they eventually surfaced…

“I won”

His favorite t-shirt said “he who dies with the most toys wins”.

The next two words that bubbled up…

"fcuk wit"
Posted by The Pied Piper, Thursday, 6 August 2009 6:31:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You won when he died? All because of his t-shirt?

That would then explain this:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/newlywed-dalia-accused-of-hitman-plot-20090806-eao5.html
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 6 August 2009 9:47:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your kind words Fractelle and PP.

Enjoy the slideshow, provided especially for our disgruntled dads.

http://www.2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=211480&d=1245883551
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 6 August 2009 10:12:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras, nice slide show but I wish you'd drop the digs at fathers. The fathers who abandon their kids are unlikely to be the ones online distressed by a system which only seems to value them for their capacity to earn.

Some dads do just walk out because they don't care, others are shut out or get to the point where trying to have a role in their childrens lives carries a cost to their children and themselves which they can't sustain. I've never been to that point but did accept changes to residency which I was strongly opposed to for that reason. I still had a regular role, it was clear that the changes would be damaging but the ongoing fight was more so.

I have a good friend who eventually had to accept that he could not stop his ex's attempts to shut him out of his daughters life, all he could change to stop a part of the hurt to his daughter and himself was his attempts to have an ongoing role.

I enjoyed the presentation because I get the good side of kids growing both with my son and my partners children. For the parents who don't get to do all those things with their kids because their kids have been taken to another part of the country or their times with their children are so constrained by an ex's control that they are not fun for anybody it would be a very painful slideshow.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 6 August 2009 10:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaryE, in regard of the case involving the HCA and CSA even refunding monies to him by way of a cheque this is documented by me in my book published on 27 May 2008 titled;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on the battle SCHOREL-HLAVKA v BLACKSHIRTS
For the quest of JUSTICE, in different ways. Book on CD.
(ISBN 0-9580569-4-3 prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-4-6

Then go to tif documents in folder;
CHAPTER 23 Abbotts case/Further material/Bogus Child Support claims/ 961105cheque.tif

As such not only does this folder include the refund cheque but also shows how some $36.869.46 was credited back by CSA. As such the book included the statements of CSA, etc, to prove it all!

I am not a person to make up stories as the evidence was already published by me in the above mentioned book.

The book is in the national Library of Australia at Canberra and also in the State Library of Victoria with these and other details.

You can always go to my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com as shown also with my identity and contact me via email for details.

there are woman who gave me the understanding that had they known that Legal aid would claim cost back from them they would never have persisted in litigation as they never realised that tin the end they would have to pay the legal bill from any property settlement, etc.

Well, I always made clear that they should have considered that when they were litigating as now it is too late.

Having been a single father for up to 5 children I know how important it is to care for children and in my view any woman/man who is the homemaker should be entitled to half of what the other parent is making. Because generally woman are the full time carers for children I view their rights to anything achieved during the marriage equally belong to them. I would however make sure that any superannuation is not touchable until retirement age as to avoid also the loss of investment, etc. As such changes are needed to provide for that.
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Friday, 7 August 2009 2:06:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF
"As a woman and a feminist, I’m flattered by your supportive remarks"
The truth is that I have supported women' rights for long time. From the begin of 1980 you will find me in open discusion on state TV defending and promoting working women's rights. later you will see that in my office (union movement) to write the constitution for a women organization to promote housewife's rights.
In australia everything has been wrong for me,plus sole parent with three children.
"Women are no more or less progressive, racist or democratic than men"
From the study about race discrimination in Australia
How often have YOU experienced discrimination because of your OWN ETHNIC ORIGIN in the following situations? At Sport or public event 20.2% for male , 10.9% for women!
How often have YOU experienced discrimination because of your OWN ETHNIC ORIGIN in the following situations? In the workplace Male 20.8%, Female 12.8%
Analysis of last Election Results in USA — Women and Young Voters Were Key
Seventy (70%) percent of unmarried women supported Obama!
"Nineteen per cent of men do not believe carbon emission reduction to be of any importance as opposed to just two per cent of women."
Australia - Postgrad Women Trailing Men in Salaries
Women with postgraduate qualifications are earning between $3,000 and $10,000 a year less than their male counterparts, new figures show
"A woman meets a man, falls in love, moves in, gets married, has kids and it all falls apart. It's not until this moment that she realises just how dependent she is on her partner's money."
Women who contribute 70 per cent or more of the weekly income start doing more housework rather than less, the study shows.
Without doupt women are more progresive, less racists and more democratic.
Personaly while I am an agresive supporter of women's rights I found my self offensive in few cases.
I would like to apology to The Pied Piper for my behavior.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Friday, 7 August 2009 6:19:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert:"the fathers who abandon their kids are unlikely to be the ones online distressed by a system which only seems to value them for their capacity to earn."

Spot on, R0bert, but anathema to the "victim-riders" who see activist and active fathers as a threat to the livelihood of their "constituency".

Besides, "all men are bastards, I know because I was married to one" is much easier to pontificate about than "some men are bastards, some men are pretty good and some are excellent". Borderline personalities dislike nuance.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 7 August 2009 7:57:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Doctor
What this underlines is that those who are clever enough to avoid paying taxes or under declare their real taxable income can get away with paying child support.

2 points here.
1. This thread is not about cheating on child support, it is about anonymous fathers.
2. I recall one change in the recent overhaul of the laws was that the courts/enforcers have the power to claim upon what a ‘non-custodial’ parent was capable of earning, rather than what they earned. Although I don’t agree fully, something had to be done to catch these scumbags.

I have to say though that I to have pushed for a change, much like what you have said when it comes to the value placed on raising a child. The current system puts children in to 'classes' and that's not fair. Every child is equal in my view.

Protagoras
Thank god for the legalise brothels hey. At least there a guy can have a one nighter, pay up front and never be bothered again. And remember IT TAKES TWO!

See girls, it is possible that because you have pushed hard enough things have changed, only, your half will be out searching for a thrill seeker but they will be harder to find as they would rather pay the bucks 'up front', get their rocks off and continue on their merry way. Perhaps there is a link between legalised brothels and ‘man trapperss’ hey!
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 7 August 2009 9:17:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ASymeonakis

Thanks for those survey bits and pieces. I've read a lot of similar stuff too - that tend to show that men have a tougher worldview than women on many issues such as race etc. I suppose that, as a feminist, I lean more to putting this difference down to social conditioning rather than biology. The messages to little boys to toughen up start very early. I also believe that women would be less socially tolerant generally if they were subjected to similar conditioning.

Because we didn't want this for our sons, my husband and I sent our kids to an alternative school, where this kind of conditioning was almost entirely missing. Unfortunately, we didn't have the same choice for their high school, but by then they were old enough to not be unduly influenced by any macho pressures they encountered there.
Posted by SJF, Friday, 7 August 2009 10:50:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it comes down to the reality that children grow and develop as part of women's bodies, whereas men's experience of becoming a parent relies (1) on a cognitive belief that they are the father of the child AND (2) that they have 'consented' to undertake an actively responsible role as the father. Men react variously to the information that there is a pregnancy depending on their relationship to the two highlighted points. For women who decide to proceed with a pregnancy there is no further choice - their bodies WILL subdivide into a new human and they WILL have a socially and biologically shaped set of obligations to that human, regardless of their own views and desires. If mothers' own views and desires fail to come together with the survival and nurturance of their newborn, the baby is at high risk and may come to need alternative care. The infant's survival and wellbeing is certainly enhanced by supportive nurturant care from a loving father and other family members, but it does not necessarily depend on the care of others in the same way. If no father is present there is one less source of support, one less pair of arms and hands, one less driver, one less earner. If an abusive, angry dangerous father is present, both mother and newborn are at greatly increased risk of injury, and the baby will bear the added risk of developmental injury - that is where their development is adversely impacted by their exposures to abuse, as well as the injuries caused by abuse. That's why I don't want 'missing fathers' made to engage with their children - they are unlikely to do anything positive for the child if (a) they are always focused on themselves and (b) they resent the child's existence.
Posted by mog, Friday, 7 August 2009 10:53:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Protagoras
Thank god for the legalise brothels hey. At least there a guy can have a one nighter, pay up front and never be bothered again. And remember IT TAKES TWO!"

Rehctub

Any self-respecting hooker I know will not take your money unless you wear a CONDOM. After all, they are conducting a business and don't intend receiving any more than they bargained for (including STDs) therefore, if you prefer to pay for it when you can get it for nothing (except the cost of a franga), you must have more money than sense.

Back in the "dinosaur" era, when my son was fifteen or sixteen and I was suspicious, I read him the riot act:

"Son," I said. "If you get a girl pregnant, you will pay for that child for the rest of your life or you won't have a mother."

A couple of weeks later when I was performing an underhand "bedroom blitz" (I don't believe in this "privacy" rubbish for pubescent teenagers), I discovered a packet of condoms.

And we all lived happily ever after!
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 7 August 2009 11:23:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some fascinating posts.

Some comments:

A good brothel insists on clients wearing condoms and that clients be checked for obvious STD's like herpes, prior to confirmation of a booking. They also provide an essential service for the lonely, the marginalised and the disabled. I think the women who work in them deserve every cent they earn. Some men I would not even want to be in the same room with let alone....

ASymeonakis

I agree with SJF that men are conditioned to be more aggressive than women. Which causes problems for both sexes if they "step out of line": men by being emotive or women by being aggressive. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses.

Protagoras

Excellent advice to your son - you must've been happy that he took it.

As for those men who do evade responsibility for their children, they can because it is generally easier, as women still do the bulk of child-care. As men put more emotional investment into their children, then leaving them would be more difficult wouldn't it? Women have a head-start - placing a baby to one's breast to feed it, nothing beats that. Nothing.

OK, feeling a bit emo, must go.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 7 August 2009 11:45:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I suppose that, as a feminist, I lean more to putting this difference down to social conditioning rather than biology*

You might well do that SJF and you might be wrong. For we know
quite well that hormones affect behaviour. Inject a male with
female hormones, his behaviour changes. Inject a female with
male hormones, the same thing occurs.

Now the human chemical factory that is the endocrine system,
clearly influences behaviour and that is all about biology.

Ignore it if you wish.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 7 August 2009 12:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Yabby, I think the stereotyping and gender profiling of the sexes that results from your apparent sole belief that we're slaves to our hormones, is very similar to, and just as wrong as, the stereotyping and gender profiling that results from the social conditioning theory that STG seems to believe in. It's not either one, or the other. It's both, plus a whole lot more. People will only drop their gender profiling when they gain enough insight to see the WHOLE picture.
Posted by MaryE, Friday, 7 August 2009 12:47:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaryE,

Yeah but testosterone is bad. I think we really should look to eradicate it as much as possible. Just look at rugby league. It's the testosterone that's often blamed. Maybe we should start injecting more males with Estrogen.

If any kid at school shows aggressive behaviour, or wont sit through a reading of war and piece quietly, we should really give them Estrogen rather than ADD medication.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 7 August 2009 1:11:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“For we know quite well that hormones affect behaviour. Inject a male with female hormones, his behaviour changes. Inject a female with male hormones, the same thing occurs.”

Dear Yabby and Houellebecq

If only others before you had possessed your wisdom, history would have been changed for the better. Just think if oestrogen had been administered to Hitler, we could have saved six million Jews. Imagine the suffering you could have prevented by feeding oestrogen to Caligula, Tiberius, Nero, Ivan the Terrible, Pol Pot or Idi Amin?

Lets not forget Vlad the Impaler where history gives accounts of impaling, torturing, burning, skinning, roasting and boiling people alive and feeding others the flesh of their friends or relatives. Or nailing people’s hats to their heads and all because of testosterone you say.

Had those who'd gone before you been imbued with such resounding knowledge on hormonal impacts on the human psyche, history could have turned these ignominious brutes into pussy cats.

Thank you good Sirs for sharing that information with us.

"He who overcomes others has strength.....
But he who overcomes himself is strong."
(Lao Tsu)

Tut tut gentlemen!
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 7 August 2009 2:36:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras
"Ant, I do believe you’re a real SNAG – bless you – ie, a real, “sensitive new age guy!”
I want to be good and sensitive, I try to be good and sensitive BUT I know that some times, few times I AM NOT!
There is a distance between what I say and what I do, a distance bwtween what I want to do and what I realy do, I try to minimize the gap between words and acts but I know I have long way.
While I am not very proud for my self, I know that I am not the worst one on our planet.
The problem with missing fathers will become worst and I am afraid soon or later we will find that the number of missing mothers will grow up.
If we had a better system for the children, FOR ALL CHILDREN from very early, I am sure we could create a better society, a better future.

Fractelle,
I found my self soft, in my personal life, in my home but hard for the general interests. Althougt I am close to sixty I am not sure yet if I know my self enouph and probably NOT!
You are lucky because you seem familiar with your self and you have to deal only with the others.
I know you have advanced knowledges and experiences and good intensions.
We can not change the system if we do not change first our self.
I hope genetic engineering will improve our abilities to understand and control the very basics.
At the moment we are lost.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Friday, 7 August 2009 2:40:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ASymeonakis,

'There is a distance between what I say and what I do, a distance bwtween what I want to do and what I realy do, I try to minimize the gap between words and acts but I know I have long way.'

That's one of the nicest, honest and inspiring comments I've seen on OLO. You seem like a really wonderful person.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 7 August 2009 3:04:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Thank you good Sirs for sharing that information with us.*

You are welcome Dickie. You are correct, the entire Australian army
could have been injected with oxytocin, progesterone and oesterogen.
They would have prefered cuddling babies and doing girly things,
rather then deal with the Japanese during WW2. The downside
is that the Japanese in that case could easily have taken over,
turning girls like you into Japanese soldier playtoys, to do as
you are told or die. So be careful what you wish for :)

*gender profiling of the sexes that results from your apparent sole belief that we're slaves to our hormones*

Not so Mary, for my claim has alwasys been that hormones affect
behaviour in a huge way, not that they determine behaviour.
The consious part of your brain is only a small part of what actually
is going on up top. All that brain chemistry affects you and
affects your judgement and decisions, that is the point.

Now just look at the urge that some women have to have a baby, any
baby. Look at the love of a mother for her babies and their wellbeing. Fact is that these things do not just involved rational
and conditioned thoughts, but are part of our genetic make up and
instincts.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 7 August 2009 3:24:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MaryE
some of the posts prove that a little knowledge and or dogma are indeed dangerous.
Chemical determinism and all its consequences are at best overstatements on steroids.

It has not and as things stand can't be been proved that to change a psychopath to a normal person just add estrogen et al.Where as experimental research have determined that there are many other factors at play.

The bulk of the professional researchers tend more towards your simplification than the unprovable "the don't blame us our genes/hormones made us do it" cheer squad.

There are just too many possible variations on a theme to justify the outrageous misinformation being dredged up yet again by those trying to hijack the topic into the above version of deterministic rubbish.
Perhaps someday in the future we maybe able to define an individual by their genes and hormonal motivation but to do that logic dictates we will need to be able to not only define but quantify all the other influences that make up or cause a specific action.

The broad brush strokes that estrogen = nice calm and testosterone = aggression is so qualified and conditional as to be therapeutically/diagnostically almost meaningless
Posted by examinator, Friday, 7 August 2009 5:10:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagorus
You said; Any self-respecting hooker I know will not take your money unless you wear a CONDOM

Care to take your foot out of your mouth so you can put the other one in.

You have just admitted that if a woman does not wish to fall pregnant then they would insist on a condom. Does this then mean that if they don't insist one that they are simply a 'man trapper'?

I don't think anything else needs to be said as Pr has summed it up perfectly in my view.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 7 August 2009 5:27:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm really starting to think my sarcasm is totally undetectable. Too funny. Hey Maybe I'm like Dave Graney in Rock'n'Roll is where I hide.

People would sit behind me at cafes and say he thinks he’s invisible watch
Jees you know I hate to keep em waiting i tried my best I got quite upset

Then I thought
Ahh it’s not such a bad thing
To be seen as a guy who thinks he can’t be seen
Even though I know I can
It’s quite a trip

I mean in certain circumstances certain places
Anything goes if your known
If you’ve got a name around town as a guy who’ll do anything if nobody’s looking
But if any body’s looking
‘Cause they think he thinks he can’t be seen
I mean they scare

Like they think I can’t see em
It’s like I’m flying
Like I’m invisible
Ah you know soon

Everybody’s looking
Because they think I think nobody’s looking
So I can’t not be seen so I’m not looking at them I know exactly where they are

And even if I was they couldn’t see me because they’re too busy waiting for me to dematerialise right there in front of them

I think I could post exclusively in song lyrics really. Probably be quite an improvement!

rehctub,

He had me at '*self respecting* hooker'.

...snif he had me at self respecting hooker. (For Jerry McGuire fans)
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 7 August 2009 5:37:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah song lyrics Houel, I think I could say everything I need to using Lenard Cohen alone.

Fractelle:“As for those men who do evade responsibility for their children, they can because it is generally easier, as women still do the bulk of child-care. As men put more emotional investment into their children, then leaving them would be more difficult wouldn't it? Women have a head-start - placing a baby to one's breast to feed it, nothing beats that. Nothing.”

I could write a list if it would help Fractelle.

Breastfeeding is more often a messy, painful and exhausting process and all power to mums that see it through the mess, pain, and exhaustion to the bitter end where it is commonly about feeling rejected – and even more mess.

The advantage men have is they just need to think it is their baby and look at their baby to bond and it can go wrong for either sex in both circumstances.

IMOLO the fathers who “knowingly evade” responsibility suck. Offline I use much stronger language to describe them.

Kids leave my house at a about an average rate of one a month. We never know at the other end if they were allowed to keep their accumulated and often expensive clothing and toys. All their stuff is packed and sent with them because it is the right thing to do. The adults at the other end could well hate my guts and convince a child we are bad people. Care factor; zero.

Doing what is right in regard to a child is not negotiable and not for external reward or recognition.

Protagoras: “A couple of weeks later when I was performing an underhand "bedroom blitz" (I don't believe in this "privacy" rubbish for pubescent teenagers), I discovered a packet of condoms.”

I felt better when I found some used ones. Then I just needed to talk about cleaning rather than parenthood.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Friday, 7 August 2009 9:06:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
QUOTE
Protagoras
Thank god for the legalise brothels hey. At least there a guy can have a one nighter, pay up front and never be bothered again. And remember IT TAKES TWO!
END QUOTE
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 7 August 2009 9:17:15 AM
.
The truth is different because the Family court of Australia declared a man to be the father of the child of a prostitute when she claimed she had fallen pregnant of him and he refused to subject himself to DNA testing. So, he paid for the prostitute and ended up afterwards having to pay for about another 18 years!
.
As to children being registered without father being known, my wife (while we were married) had two of our children registered in her maiden name and “Father unknown” on the birth certificate even so the divorce decree shows the children being children of the marriage, showing both the registered name my former wife used (including her maiden name as surname) and their names as children of the marriage with my surname then as their surname. And the Family court would do nothing about the incorrect registration and the Registrar of Birth claims that because she registered the children as being unmarried then that is it.
While the Family Law Act is supposed to be about children rights and judges claim to pursue the best interest of the child reality is they generally couldn’t care less. In my view no child born within a lawful marriage should have to go through life as being born out of wedlock without the father being known. It is however a trick women use so that in the event there is a divorce then the husband cannot claim custody unless perhaps paternity is established and by then generally the wife (ex wife) will have already obtained interim custody!
Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Saturday, 8 August 2009 12:01:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq
"You seem like a really wonderful person"
My friend I want and I try to be a good person but you know better than me if I am.Thank you.

The Pied Piper
"The advantage men have is they just need to think it is their baby and look at their baby to bond"
This not an advandage BUT A disadvantage ...Can you tell me how deep, how strong is the connection between mother and her baby from its first move? Do you think only mothers want so strong connection with their children but not the fathers? Are you sure you understand father's love for their children or you think they do not or can not love the children as their mothers? Are you harder than I thought or this is temporary?
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 8 August 2009 7:17:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

You have the most incisive and earthy (if that's not a contradiction) sense of humour I have encountered on OLO.

On condoms:

"I felt better when I found some used ones. Then I just needed to talk about cleaning rather than parenthood."

Hilarious.

Of course, you speak truth about the downside of breastfeeding, and some mothers are unable to breastfeed at all, but this doesn't mean they are any less likely to form that amazing bond. Ditto for dads, the more involved, the more a strong relationship develops. But then, I guess that the dads who distance themselves (for a variety of reasons, please note) are more likely to leave anyway. A little bit of my history (herstory?) the only time my ex-husband pressured me to get pregnant was when he finally realised I was intent on leaving him, think about that.

Rechtub & Houllie

Prostitutes are human beings (amazing) - they have as much self-respect as any other human being and a hell of a lot more courage and empathy than most.

On testosterone and estrogen, as Examinator has noted these hormones are not just about aggression and pacificity. For a start both sexes have both hormones - in varying quantities. For something to consider read the following:

"Female hormones circulating in the brain determine masculine behavior, at least in mice. Estrogen--the quintessential female hormone responsible for regulating the reproductive cycle--turns lady mice into wannabe male mice when it is allowed to penetrate the brain during development, according to new research."

Read on at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=female-hormone-key-to-mal

Not straight forward at all and too big a subject for the limitations of OLO - requires individual research if anyone wants to move on from stereotyping people into "male" and "female" and subsequent behaviour.

ASymeonakis - thank you.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 8 August 2009 11:27:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle
"hormones...stereotyping people into "male" and "female" and subsequent behaviour"
It is shamefull to accept that hormones control our behave and our values.
We can not ignore the glorious, long human marsh from our far, dark past to our civilization.
We can not use hormones as an excuse for our mistakes, for our weakness, for our immaturity, for our denial to undertake our responsibilities.
When a mother risk her life to save the life of her child she does not do it of cause her hormones but of cause her unimagined love for it.
When I say I LOVE YOU, I know what I say, why I say it, I know the consequences of it and I am ready to undertake fully my responsibilities, It is shamefull to denote the human sensitivities and belitle them as animals. It is shamefull to put our hormones as the regulators of human feelings and activitis!
When a teenager give his/her life to save the life from an other person, does not do it of cause hormones but of cause his/her sensitivity and love for human beings, of cause his/her courage to provoke and win the death threw his/her own death.
The denial of human life in the name of democracy, of justice, of the country or for a better future are not caused from testosterone and estrogen and it is an offence and disrespect for the millions of people, who died and are ready to die for US.
Human beings with their feelings, with their love or hate, with their dreams and hopes, with their values, dreams and hopes, with their emotions and thoughts, minimize the role of hormones and allow to flourish our civilization.
I want to ask all stupid people who think that our activities controled from our hormnes HOW MANY TIMES I DID YOU HAD SEX WITH YOUR DAUGHTERS, MOTHERS, SISTERS OR GRANDMOTHERS?
NONE, NEVER!
Even when you think that you are like the animals even then your behavior prove that you are not animals but stupid, immature humans!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 8 August 2009 1:42:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello yabby, your comment on the bottom of page 18 in reply to my comment at the top of page 18 tells me that you didn't properly read, and understand, my full comment. I could always write twenty pages and cross every t and dot every i in order to impart full, total and complete meaning, but we only have a few lines on this forum. I'm sorry you don't understand, and I feel it would be a waste of time to explain further what I meant. I give up, and I think this will be my last post on this website. Arguing seems to be the main preoccupation of people here. I'll go on to more enriching things.
Posted by MaryE, Saturday, 8 August 2009 1:47:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ASymeonakis

How wonderfully, passionately and powerfully written was your last post. We always are and always will be greater than the sum of our parts.

Regards
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 8 August 2009 2:20:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That’s an interesting link you provided Fractelle and it sort of demolishes our resident misogynist’s “expert” advice on his purported links between hormones and human behaviour.

Twenty years ago, I was diagnosed with having “low hormone” levels and prescribed various potions for correction; however, I trashed the prescriptions once I was out of sight of the doctor.

Apparently I’ve maintained a “feminine” appearance, still have all my teeth and I haven’t yet grown a beard or a hump on the back! Nor have I sustained a fracture like many of my more hormone pumped, calcium swallowing buddies where several also suffer recurring kidney ailments. That's what you get when you eat ground up rocks flogged off by the pharmaceutical barons!

Meanwhile back to the topic where, up to 2008, in the UK, deadbeat dads are responsible for a national child support debt of 3.8 billion pounds, New Zealand $1.27 billion and Australia, $1 billion.

Hey…hormones aside.....whatever happened to good old fashioned honesty?
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 8 August 2009 2:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*On testosterone and estrogen, as Examinator has noted these hormones are not just about aggression and pacificity*

Nobody claimed that they were, so Examinator does little then shoot
down his own strawman arguments. Where Examinator and I differ is
that I sit back and look at the big picture, as Paul Keating so
wisely put it, Examinator bogs himself down with details.

Now we could
have a huge and complicated discussion about human brain chemistry
here, but most would not be interested past the 2nd line. So
I focus on the big picture, explained with simplicity. If people
are interested in the many details, they are free to educate
themselves further.

*We always are and always will be greater than the sum of our parts.*

Yup, we are the product of our parts, not the sum of our parts,
there is a huge difference!

*When a mother risk her life to save the life of her child she does not do it of cause her hormones but of cause her unimagined love for it.*

Just like the well known hen, who sits on her brood through the
fire and dies for the sake of her chickens. Motherly love is a
product of brain chemistry. The mind is, what the brain does.
There are no ghosts in there Antonious.

*It is shamefull to denote the human sensitivities and belitle them as animals. It is shamefull to put our hormones as the regulators of human feelings and activitis! *

Antonious, humans are just another species of animals. But I accept,
neuroscience is not your strong point. Name me a single section of
the human brain that does not exist in a chimpanzee brain.

Antonious sorry, but there are no ghosts in the human brain, its
a product of its evolutionary past, just like the brains of other
species.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 8 August 2009 3:10:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby
Unfortunatly it seems that there are ghosts in your brain!
NONE desagree that human brain does not exist from mater, from chemistry BUT THIS CHEMISTRY IS ADVANCED almost fully controled from human beings!
What kind of chemistry will be activated, what part of my brain will be activated DEPRND ON ME. I decide if I will listen music, if I will feel sick from your ideas or if I will love a woman and for what reason I will love her.
The chemistry will serve my decisions, my feelings, my dreams BUT IT WILL NOT DECIDE FOR ME!
HUMAN BEINGS TAKE THE DECISIONS, THEY CONTROL THEIR SELF, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTS NOT THEIR CHEMISTRY.
I found in many cases you have sick ideas for humans and human society.
HUMANS ARE NOT ANIMALS, HUMAN SOCIETY IS NOT A GANGLE.
You are fully responsible for what you say and do, not your chemistry.
Do you understand that? Chemistry under same conditions reacts always with the same way, H2+O=UNDER SAME CONDITIONS ALWAYS GIVE WATER.
While you will try to to steal the property, the wealth of a person may be I will risk my life to protect his property! Or while one day I am ready to thru you to rubish bin the next day I think that I have to respect you even when you have SO BAD IDEAS!
Except if you mean the bad ideas and acts come from chemistry and the good one from your moral code and your basic principles!
For you I will accept it, but I know that you cheat me!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 8 August 2009 4:06:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Antonious, but as passionate as you are, Yabby is correct. Human Beings are a species of animal very similar to the apes. When looking at the bodies and brains of humans and apes, there is no denying the similarities.
However, humans have evolved further along the evolutionary trail than the apes at some point many years ago. They have a far more advanced brain. And yes, most of the functions of our body are controlled by a mixture hormones, environment and history.
Still, there are a fair few male humans around who didn't evolve far enough to take on the responsibility of their actions with a fertile female human!!
Posted by Moondoggy, Saturday, 8 August 2009 4:25:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ASymeonakis

<< Except if you mean the bad ideas and acts come from chemistry and the good one from your moral code and your basic principles!>>

Kind of like the biblical excuse of the "devil made me do it; using hormones as an excuse for bad behaviour, but taking personal accolades for good behaviour. Do you think Yabby is being a tad hypocritical?

I'm sure that missing fathers use similar excuses to evade responsibility for their children.

Nature versus nurture is a common debate. Far too simplistic. We may start with certain characteristics as birth, for example, I was a very shy timid child, when I tell people this now, they frequently react in disbelief given my lifestyle. However, even now I can feel the old shyness sweep over me like when I meet an actor I am a big fan of. But I can control that tendency, I have learned to assert myself and I can and do take responsibility for my actions. Doesn't mean I don't make mistakes but at least I can account for them rather than blaming my hormones or something. Perhaps that is what is called 'growing up'.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 8 August 2009 4:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle
I do not know the reason but I found in your last posts you are more sensitive and calm than in the past I hope and wish you are happy.

Antonios Symeonakis
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 8 August 2009 4:57:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle:“A little bit of my history (herstory?) the only time my ex-husband pressured me to get pregnant was when he finally realised I was intent on leaving him, think about that.”

Editor will not allow my heartfelt reply Fractelle, about every second word is banned.

You my lady have been more than morose of late and your posts tinged with regret.

But your view of the world in posts is something I haven’t found fault with, you’re intelligent and sensitive. You have no problem defending how you feel.

Do not drown yourself in this past hurt. This man was not a mirror and his sickness was not a reflection of who you are.

I had a little girl once, gorgeous delicate wee thing, part Maori and only a tiny 18 month old with olive skin and big brown eyes, her hair was very thin, light brown baby hair and she had a beautiful wide smile and a surprisingly deep belly laugh when tickled.

My son (he was about 9 years old then) loved her to bits, each day he got home from school she’d throw herself in to his arms and not leave his side and he would carry her around and spoil her rotten. She called him “dord” (for Jordan).

If she saw me frown she would begin to shake, hold her hands over her head and squat down.

She was returned to parents still broken and without choice.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Saturday, 8 August 2009 5:38:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all who dare to care:

Thank you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1CjbcqhGyU
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 8 August 2009 5:57:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*BUT THIS CHEMISTRY IS ADVANCED almost fully controled from human beings!*

You miss my point and open a can of worms here Antonious, but I shall
try and explain it to you. Lets say Fractelle has a bout of
depression. Brain chemistry at work. Her friends ask her to go skydiving or whatever. Do you think that how she feels at that time
does not influence her decision? Of course it does.

Another example, which is common. The stronger an emotion, the less
we reason. Mr C has an argument with his partner, she responds,
he responds, anger becomes rage, they are yelling at each other,
nobody is thinking clearly now, she throws a frying pan at him,
he sees the gun in the corner and shoots her. Its very common
in America, where 100'000 are shot a year, a great many for this
very reason.

Once again, forget your strawman arguments and focus on my
claim: Ligands, which includes hormones, peptides and neurostransmitters, all influence any decision which we claim to
make by so called "free will".

Candace Pert wrote an interesting book called "Molecules of emotion",
which explains some of the science behind what I am saying.

Now the debate about how free our so called "free-will" actually is,
is still hotly debated in science. Susan Greenfield, another great
reasearcher in the field, has done some interesting experiments on
this, which she even demonstrated for the public. Interestingly
the sub concious areas of the mind were active and making decisions
a long time before the concious areas came to the same conclusion
at a later time.

So its not all as black and white as you claim, but still open
to very vigorous discussion, by people who know far more about this
field then you or I do.

Moondoggy, thats a cute Nick!
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 8 August 2009 6:07:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A Song About Fractelle.

"I Am Mine"

The selfish, they're all standing in line
Faithing and hoping to buy themselves time
Me, I figure as each breath goes by
I only own my mind

The North is to South what the clock is to time
There's east and there's west and there's everywhere life
I know I was born and I know that I'll die
The in between is mine
I am mine

And the feeling, it gets left behind
All the innocence lost at one time
Significant, behind the eyes
There's no need to hide
We're safe tonight

The ocean is full 'cause everyone's crying
The full moon is looking for friends at hightide
The sorrow grows bigger when the sorrow's denied
I only know my mind
I am mine

And the meaning, it gets left behind
All the innocents lost at one time
Significant, behind the eyes
There's no need to hide
We're safe tonight

And the feelings that get left behind
All the innocents broken with lies
Significance, between the lines
(We may need to hide)

And the meanings that get left behind
All the innocents lost at one time
We're all different behind the eyes
There's no need to hide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgkkvtVuBDE
Posted by The Pied Piper, Saturday, 8 August 2009 9:46:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Pied Piper, Fractelle
Lady, you have one from the best characters I met in my life.
Be proud for your self and always you will be a friend of me!
You have right about Fractelle she is very sensitive woman and her posts do not represent the best part of her self. She is many times better from her posts. My relations with Fractelle was not very good because she was little bit agresive, I knew she was hurt and she felt (feel) more depresed than me! For me all this years Australia was a big, a huge....prison! I was in the middle of the desert going to nowhere as I forgot to...dream!
I do not know why she stacked(stick) in her past, why she continues to think and speak for her former husband.
I do not understand why a strong character like Fractelle did not cut her ties from a bad past.. Who cares if he was good or bad, care for your future, for your happines, for your self BUT ....never abandon your human, social, democratic or global sensitivities.
Fractelle, you are a progresive person HOW WE CAN CHANGE THE WORLD WHEN WE CAN NOT CHANGE OUR SELF IN A SO SIMPLE AND BASIC THING?
I had real problems in Australia, the discrimination in my workplace, the children, blocked banks of cause my children, low income , sold properties etc. When my children grew up enouph I did not allow my ex wife to speak to me on the phone, simple I connected her direct to children, (she has lived overseas).
We have two ways to change our world one is the love for it and the other is the hate for it but the hate most times is cover even from our self, be carefull with it, because I find my self moving in dark areas and I scared very much!
The Pied Piper, Fractelle IGNORE ME! I have lost in the middle of the desert, pray for me!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelade
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Saturday, 8 August 2009 10:28:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I lost on the way to ITHACA! Flowers, storms and internal emptyness drive me to nowhere.

Ithaca
As you set out for Ithaca
hope your road is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
angry Poseidon - don't be afraid of them:
you' ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
wild Poseidon - you won't encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Hope your road is a long one.
May there be many summer mornings when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you enter harbours you're seeing for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician trading stations
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind -
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to learn and go on learning from their scholars.

Keep Ithaca always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you're destined for.
But don't hurry the journey at all.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you're old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you've gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaca to make you rich.

Ithaca gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you wouldn't have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.
And if you find her poor, Ithaca won't have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you'll have understood by then what these Ithakas mean.

K.Kavafis
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Saturday, 8 August 2009 10:42:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AnSymeonakis & Pied Piper

Between the two of you I have been left speechless (very rare) by your compassion and thoughtfulness.

Yes, going through bad patch at the moment, which tends to leave one in the past rather than focussing on the now. Hell, I even took a swipe at Foxy on another thread for which I feel very ashamed. I really appreciate your words to me. And, yes, you have helped.

Yabbs - if someone offered to take me sky-diving right now, I would go - I love a good adrenalin rush and would take up offer irrespective of my mood. Nyah Nyah.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 9 August 2009 11:56:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

Hormones seem to drive certain impulses and urges, but they in turn are governed by cognitive capacity, which is informed by values and beliefs and other accumulated knowledge - including planning and being able to weigh the consequences of one's decisions and actions.

For example, many people with impaired cognitive functioning display quite disinhibited behaviour - it takes longer to absorb social expectations and automatically behave accordingly.

Another example: a bloke who is desperate for sex weighs up the consequences of leaping on someone in front of a police station versus picking up a one night stand versus visiting a brothel versus whatever other solutions are available to him.

People at the height of anger mid argument, can be interrupted by the doorbell and if there is a copper standing there, they are much less likely to continue to assault their annoying partner.

“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of
atoms in my brain, I have no reason for supposing that my beliefs
are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make
them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my
brain is composed of atoms.”
J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (1927)
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 9 August 2009 12:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antonios:

Lovely posts. I know we aren't always in agreement but neverteless you seem like a really nice bloke.

pynch
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 9 August 2009 12:43:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just some clarification on my previous (Friday) post ...

Contrary to what some posters claim, I did not say that as a feminist I totally support social conditioning over biology. I said that, as a feminist, I LEAN towards social conditioning. There's a difference. I also said in my post previous to that one, that I did not believe men were inherently better or worse people than women.

Far too much is made of testosterone in men as the reason for male aggression when the true problem - as I see it - lies with the historical exploitation of men's physical strength.

The last 4-6 milennia have been a period of virtually non-stop, highly organised warfare, unprecedented in human history. Predictably, males have been more valued than females over that time because of their superior physical strength, which has been harnessed and exploited by power elites in their successive power struggles with other power elites.

Most societies put up a show of condemning male violence. However, the reality is that it's still very much a covertly valued commodity. Little boys pick up on this confusing contradiction early in life and, I suspect, spend their entire lives trying to come to terms with it.

The emotional and often physical separation of men from their children - which is enshrined in 20th century child custody laws - is a hangover from the historical male 'decompassioning' process to make men better and more obedient fighters.

In the face of all the macho crap men are still drip-fed throughout their lives, it's a wonder so many manage to be decent fathers and partners at all.
Posted by SJF, Sunday, 9 August 2009 2:55:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My Father's Son
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CLO59_IJng&feature=PlayList&p=A285431CE3A9BB47&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=30
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 9 August 2009 5:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*And hence I have no reason for supposing my
brain is composed of atoms.*

Pynchme, clearly your author was mistaken! So I'll give you
a better quote from Susan Greenfield, who is better informed
about the topic:

"Now my own view is that the mind is more than just the brain, it is the personalisation of the brain through connections. Susan Greenfield"

*Hormones seem to drive certain impulses and urges, but they in turn are governed by cognitive capacity*

Actually not quite so Pymchme, for they all compete, different
centres of the brain adding input at different levels. Emotional
centres always have some input, usually at the sub concious.
Modern equipment used in neuroscience today can show that.

Under your scenario, people would be totally rational individuals
and they are clearly not. So they will commonly follow their feelings, then rationalise away their behaviour.

Ever heard of "chemistry" when falling in love? I thought so lol.

IMHO Fractelle's problem is a tiny thinggy about the size of
an almond in her brain, called the amygdala. Its there for good
evolutionary reasons. It registers any kind of serious trauma that
we have experienced, like bad relationships etc. When anything
reminds us of that trauma, even in a roundabout way, it triggers.

Its the reason people like my dad could never get over his childhood,
something that I never understood, until I got interested in how
brains function.

Given that Antonious won't accept that humans are just another
species of animal, here is a cute story to show that even
some birdbrains are pretty smart critters!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8181233.stm
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 9 August 2009 7:14:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby
What you say are the very basics, I am atheist that means I do not speak for seouls and ghosts. What I say is that we save our memory in a specific part of our brain, we use an other part of our brain for the hate etc. All these procces are chemical procces not metaphisic one BUT THEY OBEY TO MY DECISIONS, TO MY ORDERS. I am the boss of my chemistry not the chemistry the boss of me.
I speak for the boss who takes the decisions, you try to tell me how the system works!
I decided to go to the market sir with my car and you say me how the car is working! I know or I do not care for it, It is much better instead to weast your time explaining me how the brain or the car is working, it is better if you give money for the shoping! That is my problem, humans have to solve real problems, human are burning for what they want and not how the brain works!
Something you wrote for Fractelle she has very high standards, probably she is a beautiful woman too and I supposed she is interested for a man of her level, of her standards. If she wanted a man like me she could find one million! It is not easy to find a quality man or a quality woman!
It is not the bad man or the bad women who have problems to find their other half, but the good one, the quality men or women.
More I know Fractelle more I find that she is an exelent person, you do not care and do not know or understand from human characters, from human values and moral codes. For you humans are not different from the animals and if we know the animals then we know the humans too.
Next time when you will be sick I will phone a doctor for the pets to check you, not big different!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Sunday, 9 August 2009 8:20:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh Fraccy, looks like you have a great admirer there, there
is hope for you yet :)

Antonious, never underestimate what we can learn from the natural
world and other species. When scientists looking for new drugs
followed chimps to see what leaves they ate, sure enough, some
of them contained compounds which killed worms!

Human society
thrives because of the interlinking of our brains due to language,
so you have this cumulative effect of billions of brains cooperating.
Other primates can't pronounce consonant sounds like we do and are
stuck with vowels, so communication is limited and far more difficult.

OTOH they are far smarter then most people give them credit for and
if we set Antonious and a chimp loose in the jungle, one for one,
chances are pretty high that the chimp would thrive and you might
starve. For this very reason I have a respect for nature which
you clearly don't share.

*I am the boss of my chemistry not the chemistry the boss of me.*

People keep saying that and then rush off to follow their feelings!
That is why my point, instinct, genes, brain chemicals matter and
affect what you think is pure free will. Its an illusion to some
extent. You are the product of your genes interacting with your
environment.

*I know or I do not care for it, It is much better instead to weast your time explaining me how the brain or the car is working*

Ah Antonious, until your car plays up and you won't have a clue as
to how to fix it,if you don't know it works.

People have speculated about human behaviour for thousands of years,
usually coming to the wrong conclusions. With neuroscience we start
to look inside that brain to see what is going on and the information
is fascinating, for it explains human behaviour.

If you don't understand human behaviour and why it occurs, you will
never solve humanity's problems. Its as simple as that.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 9 August 2009 9:40:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We do not have to be bad when we can be good and we have nothing to lose.
I prefer friends than enemies and I feel more friendly to lonely persons as I am lonely one too! It is not good or easy to be alone I choose my children than a woman, today my son returned from overseas and took the results from his studies, ALL HIGH DISTINCIONS!
I my posts I do not debate but I try to support people, to encourage people, I try to promote the understanding and minimize the cost from our debate.
My chemistry is very diferent from yours and in my life I CRUNCH many idiots who thought they are brave and strong when in real they was cheap, scary hienas!
The chemistry and empty words do not make a man strong character, it is our moral values, our principles and our destinity who makes us stronger even from the death.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Sunday, 9 August 2009 11:03:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to fully endorse something that SJF said earlier:

"In the face of all the macho crap men are still drip-fed throughout their lives, it's a wonder so many manage to be decent fathers and partners at all."

Lets hear it for the all the men who don't need to find ways to win every argument, have their opinion reign supreme, admit that they too love, are sometimes confused, love their families - all this in contradiction to a culture that reveres controlling dominant men.

Cheers guys - there are more of you than the primitive 'alpha' males or irresponsible users.

And I say thank you.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 10 August 2009 7:20:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,
It was my mistake, SORRY!, I did not have the right to "touch" you but
Yabby was very hard to you"Fractelle's problem is a tiny thinggy about the size of an almond in her brain, called the amygdala" he now become a high specialist doctor check his "cliends" remotle and publish his findings!
I tried to support you with a stupid way BUT I was honest!
I hope I was not very bad to you. MY MISTAKE, SORRY!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Monday, 10 August 2009 10:16:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antonius

Yabby doesn't know me nor is he any kind of expert in either psychology or neurology - in other words I don't take him too personally (or seriously).

As for my present position where I have focused perhaps a little too much on my ex - it is partly because I feel my experiences are relevant to the topic. There are many reasons why men father children and then find they cannot deal with the consequences - just as there is for women. The fact that my ex was pressuring me into having children when our relationship had failed is an important one. I believe I would've been a fool to succumb, not only would I have continued to be abused, but so too any children - and if he didn't abandon me when the reality of fatherhood became too much for him, I most certainly would've and believe me I would've hidden myself and my children from him. As I have even now - silent telephone number that sort of thing. He did try tracking me through my mother, but she no longer lives at the last address he knew so I have not had contact from him in a long time and want to keep it that way.

We need more Antonius' in this world and a lot less macho posers.

I would also like to point out that not all fathers evade responsibility deliberately - our culture does not help to build the skills needed for child care. As SJF alluded to; many qualities that are admired and encouraged in men are the antithesis of the values needed for raising a family.

Regards
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 10 August 2009 11:54:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*he now become a high specialist doctor check his "cliends" remotle and publish his findings!*

There is no need at all for me to do such a thing Antonious, for
its all been done already.

The role of the amygdala was highlighted in Daniel Goleman's
"Emotional Intelligence", which was a best seller around the world
and is well known. The work done by Joseph LeDoux was then published
in a book which he wrote himself on the topic.

Interestingly, when I explain this popular science to some people,
they are in fact thrilled, for at last they understand why their
heart beats faster when something reminds them of a past experience
or why they can't get over certain things which happened to them.

Not you, as you say, you are not here to debate. Seemingly you
know the lot.

One thing I pride myself on is to keep an open and inquisitive mind,
learning something new every single day. Its why I participate on
OLO and pay attention when posters like Pericles have something
to say.

But keep your mind closed, that's your choice and none of my concern.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 10 August 2009 12:28:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle
The good thing is that I helped my children, my son is studying in Flinder University and the results from his studies for last year was exelent, all with high distinction, about me, Fractelle you are religious person Pray for me!!
Fractelle
This world is more complex and hard than I thought I can not tell you many things ONLY care your self. If you are not very old rebuild your life, rediscover the love, the world, the dream or hope, do not afraid to restart your life , try for honest person, for a person with similar ideas with you. Wipe your past and try.
Ignore me I am all empty words I have the same problem and I stack! I lost.....
SORRY MADAM, THIS CROSS IS MINE!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Monday, 10 August 2009 12:35:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what's all this crap got to do with MIA fathers.

As Protagorus stated, if the female had insisted on a condom being worn, just like any 'self respecting hooker', there would be no MIA fathers, no illigitimate children. It really is that simple, unless of cause you are a 'man trapper'.

I also have to wonder what would happen to the single mother rates if the baby bonus was dumped and all child support was spent soley on the child's needs and them alone.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 5:57:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"As Protagorus stated, if the female had insisted on a condom being worn, just like any 'self respecting hooker', there would be no MIA fathers, no illigitimate children"

Rehctub - That is not what I said but that's OK since it just confirms for me what a devious individual you are. "Man trappers?" Please advise why any female without an intellectual disability would want to trap the men you exemplify?

And while I agree with you by opposing the baby bonus, you too should take your hand off it and realise that most women prefer not to travel second class. Unfortunately a few naive ones succumb to the wiles of males whose only objective in their pathetically sordid lives is to hit and run!

Toorooloo!
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 12 August 2009 11:20:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rehctub - That is not what I said but that's OK since it just confirms for me what a devious individual you are.

you said
Any self-respecting hooker I know will not take your money unless you wear a CONDOM.

Tell me where I am wrong?

Now you can't tell me that there not some women out there looking to 'snag a big one', a real 'money man'.

Please advise why any female without an intellectual disability would want to trap the men you exemplify?

If you’re referring to men like me;
Well I work up to 80 hours per week, have been married for 24 years, have raised two children, have accumulated a firm asset base SO I WON'T BE A BURDON TO OTHERS, now if that's the group I represent, then yes, we would be a catch. Essecially since CS is calculated as a percentage of ones income.

You too should take your hand off it ........ Unfortunately a few naive ones succumb to the wiles of males whose only objective in their pathetically sordid lives is to hit and run!

So did they think that guy would be a great father, if not, why didn't they insist on a condom. Or didn't they care AT THE TIME.

Many are simply out for a 'free ride'. Why else would they have four children to three fathers, especially if the first one abandons them.

Having children is often just a free ride, except; it’s the child that misses out.

Stop handing out money and many of societies problems will simply go away!

The fact is that as long as child support is handed out as ‘cash’, to the mother, to be spent at her discretion, kids will always be used as ‘tools’.

This is also the cause of many arguments between separated parents. No father wants their CS $ being wasted on non-child related expenditure.

More accountability is needed when it comes to CS.

Take away the cash, you take away the motives of many single mothers.

No cash-No splash!

Just checking, yes, not one PERSONAL insult.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 13 August 2009 6:17:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub, spot on.

The current CS regime doesn't work and is destructive of relationships between children and their parents as well as between separated parents. it drives some to extraordinary actions, including killing themselves and their children.

It has to go.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 13 August 2009 6:28:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“If you’re referring to men like me;
Well I work up to 80 hours per week, have been married for 24 years, have raised two children, have accumulated a firm asset base SO I WON'T BE A BURDON TO OTHERS, now if that's the group I represent, then yes, we would be a catch. Especially since CS is calculated as a percentage of ones income.”

Retchub women just aren’t that simple. You lost me at “80 hours per week”. But it sounds like men are stupid if they can be trapped so easily once they have released the details of their wallets.

“This is also the cause of many arguments between separated parents. No father wants their CS $ being wasted on non-child related expenditure.”

If they are separated how do the men know that the CS +more is not going straight towards the children’s needs?

“Take away the cash, you take away the motives of many single mothers.”

Okay that was weird. Now I cruise through parenting, love doing it but I haven’t met many women that feel the same way. They actually really struggle through the sleepless nights the coughs and colds, the discipline the worry, making a meal and doing a load of washing every single day of their lives. Less money, more struggle.

You forget that most of these mums love their kids and give to their kids first? They do not in general have some money spending extreme lifestyle.

Anti:”The current CS regime doesn't work and is destructive of relationships between children and their parents as well as between separated parents. it drives some to extraordinary actions, including killing themselves and their children.”

Sounds just like DoCS Anti, now how does anyone rework an entire department or even get them to listen?
Posted by The Pied Piper, Thursday, 13 August 2009 7:32:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, the truth can be painfull, can't it!

By the way, you left out the words 'up to' 80 hours per week.

So how do you explain four children to three fathers, each one being persued for CS. Trouble is, not only did most of these 'man trappers' not learn their lesson after the first child, but the also often chose 'a dud' as the father of their children/money pit.

Take away the cash, you take away the motives of many single mothers.”

Simply means that CS should be spent on the childs needs, not on non-child related expences.

Perhaps A good system would be to deduct child related expenses from the fathers wages, or, perhaps a restricted debit card in the childs name. Sorry, can't buy grog, cigs, pokies or new shoes for mum, only for that child. Hard to police perhaps, but what's wrong with a system like that.

Remember, some of these mothers have made not one, but four mistakes. That's four times unprotected sex, four times deciding to have a baby and you say this is accidental. Right!

Now IF you truely believe that this does not happen, then off you go and join your little group of believers in some far away 'fairy land'. Meanwhile, fathers will continue to contemplate suicide and continue to ask why they are being screwed. Meanwhile, the kids continue to suffer.

No self respecting father, who wanted a child, would consider cheating that child ever. If they do, then I agree, they are a looser.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 13 August 2009 7:29:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Retchub, take a break man – you just went slightly off the deep end in defense of men and you keep talking about some skanky solo mum that spends all the child support on new shoes while ignoring the needs of her 4 different kids to 4 different dads, all of whom she only shagged to produce another brat so she could suck money from their wallets at a distance.

I’m sure the horrible cow exists; she’s probably just round the corner from me. And those four stupid men, they probably live within a 6 block radius, one lives with his mum and has no friends because he is always going on about his ex and the child support he pays, another is on his third partner and has 6 kids he pays 25 dollars for each a month and laughs as he collects his disability pension.

The other two are single having learnt their lesson and wear condoms and hate all women, they work hard and blow it all at the local club and don’t give a crap about their kids on account of their mother being a skank. One of them owns a few houses now but is hiding his under the table second job he makes a fortune at.

As for kids suffering and me being in fairy land. I could give lectures in child suffering that would make you weep cause when all those dad’s and that mum keep being who they are all their kids come and live with me for awhile.

“No self respecting father, who wanted a child, would consider cheating that child ever. If they do, then I agree, they are a looser.”

And in turn no child respecting mother would cheat her child and if they do they are also a looser.

Am I seriously the only woman here who had two kids, split up and then the useless tosser had to pay child support until he died?

That's a little odd.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Thursday, 13 August 2009 9:13:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PP, I hate to be a pest, but when you say;
And in turn no child respecting mother would cheat her child and if they do they are also a looser.

Please, let's both go back to the title.

These are mothers 'wholly and soley' of their own choice. The father wanted nothing to do with either them, or the child they decided to have. Full stop!

We are not talking about failed relationships, or fathers that have left the relationship and refuse to pay maintinance.

5 grand, to any looser, is a pretty huge carrot.

Now I am betting many of these mums decided to have the child and pocket the bucks, then, once the 5 grand was gone, and only then, they decided to chase the father. That's the ones who knew who the father was anyway.

Now there is substatial evidence to support this theory of 'uncertain fathers' when mothers refuse to allow a DNA test as they are not really sure who the father is, but anyone will do.

Now if these are not 'man trapper', then you explain to me what their motives are.

Why don't they allow DNA testing?

Why don't they insist on safe sex if they don't want children?

It's simply a case of chasing the bucks and when the bucks run out, then what!

Perhaps sigle mothers should have to sign a disclaimer and release the father when they decide to have the child and receive the hand outs.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 August 2009 7:55:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Retchub, I had, as usual, completely forgotten the start of the thread.

A female who chooses to keep the result gets the baby bonus over 13 payments of about 398.00 a fortnight. Plus…

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/filestores/co029_0907/$file/co029_0907en.pdf

I don’t get what you mean when you say “pocket the cash”, I don’t believe (talking in general) that they do, children eat, wear clothes, have toys and I think the mums pay for all that stuff.

But I do think if the mother is the one looking after the child and the father isn’t interested because he didn’t want it then unless you want all the taxpayers fitting the bill then he best contribute.

And if the taxpayer wants to do that then all power to them. I don’t see a problem if the taxpayer is asked to pay for DNA testing either if there is any doubt. No one should be labeled the parent of someone else’s child.

I think what we are doing is talking about a small percentage of bad females and also rather stupid if they think raising a child is cheap and they will get to pocket anything. But yes, both adults are to blame for unsafe sex.

But say me and Anti had a one night stand and oops, I decide to keep it and although we don’t want to stay together he wants to be part of his child’s life. We’re perfectly friendly and everything is amicable but he is fighting with CSA over the amount they want him to pay, he feels ripped off.

I’m trying to survive on the benefit and doing okay, child is having a normal life although pre-school says the child has a tendency to bully others while giggling a lot. From my point of view anything he is made to pay helps the kid so I appreciate who he is but I am not likely to request CSA reduces what they taking from his income.

It would have the feeling of ripping off my own child.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Sunday, 16 August 2009 10:02:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

Wonderful analogy.

To which I add that there is no need for a paternity test:

<< I’m trying to survive on the benefit and doing okay, child is having a normal life although pre-school says the child has a tendency to bully others while giggling a lot. >>

LOL - Love your work.

Seriously now, when will you know the results of your meeting with the despots from DoC's?
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 16 August 2009 10:43:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A female who chooses to keep the result gets the baby bonus over 13 payments of about 398.00 a fortnight. Plus…

PP, my point exactly "A female who chooses to keep the result gets the baby bonus", so why then, if it was her choice, and her's alone, are they entitled to chase the father 'who did not want the child and chose not to be a father'.

Why then can the women, besides a few who don't beleive in abortion, make the descision on behalf of both, against the wishes of the father (to keep the result, as you say), then seek financial support for the result once she has allowed it to become a child.

I am sorry, but I stand by my opinion that many young women today have children as a result of being lured to the cash.

We’re perfectly friendly and everything is amicable but he is fighting with CSA over the amount they want him to pay, he feels ripped off.

Yes, we are deviating again but this is the major floor in the system. One which segrigates children into the 'haves' and the 'have nots', because it all depends on the non custodial parents income. Why?

Do you realise that it is almost impossible for a man to have a child, separate, then start over, all because the more her earns, the more he pays and it's wrong!

A set amount per week based on the age of the child is what is needed, then, it wouldn't matter how much a father earned he could still meet someone and start again. Meanwhile, all children would be treated equal.

By the way, the tax payer already contributes. The baby bonus, health care card etc.

Wouldn't be so bad if it went to the childs need, all the time.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 16 August 2009 8:10:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle
"Seriously now, when will you know the results of your meeting with the despots from DoC's?"
Thank you Fractelle you are a good human.
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Sunday, 16 August 2009 9:31:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Retchub, we are approaching this whole thing in a strange way if an assumption of “woman is the bad one” is clung to so tightly.

She gets the baby bonus because she had the baby, if in a couple they probably share or make joint decisions about where the money goes, adoptive parents also receive the bonus. Mother dies in child birth then dad gets it.

So after the bonus the mother then gets a benefit so that she has a hand raising a child that will one day become part of this society. She gets it so we don’t have to have beggars on the street and children suffering.

We have children segregated in to the haves and have nots because this is a capitalist society isn’t it?

Maybe it is made harder for a man to move on because financially he is contributing to his child and on the other side a women with a child is also held back a little more because of that shared history.

Now your “many young women today have children as a result of being lured to the cash” well of course, if we’re talking stupid young people then stupid young people will always act stupid and young.

Hey Fractelle, the situation at my house is like a mixture of this thread and the Jacky O one and the Suffer little Children one strangely enough. I have to parent someone while in turn teaching them to parent. There is far too much money in benefits and potential for harm that on my property I could potentially be responsible for. The solution is put up with it or they leave but others will try and address some of the problems. The meeting turned in to them saying they felt I was angry at them.

Maybe, mostly I need them to listen to me. I believe I can fix a lot but my methods do not fit with their plans and expectations. My experience of life and parenting do not outweigh their experience with casework and unpersonlised (is that a word?) expectations
Posted by The Pied Piper, Monday, 17 August 2009 8:16:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

<< mostly I need them to listen to me. I believe I can fix a lot but my methods do not fit with their plans and expectations. My experience of life and parenting do not outweigh their experience with casework and 'depersonalised' .. expectations >>

You have expressed the situation very well. My experience with the bureaucracy occurred when I had to make a claim for a workplace injury. The tactics were the same: the B's (bureaucrats) relied on their policies and guidelines, if your situation didn't fit with policy-A, subsection-B; they lack independence of thought, imagination and resources. All these same qualities are required to care for children; so you are in completely different worlds from the get-go. Ironically, they interpret your anger at the stupidity and inflexibility of the system as a personal attack. While they take refuge in their policies, they take your justifiable emotion as personal.

The problem is to convince, that your complaint is with the limitations of the system; not them as individuals. To do this requires suppressing your emotions AND setting out facts in a straightforward manner. And then it doesn't always work.

Add to this mix parents who aren't all that caring and evade responsibility, people who believe that single mothers are making a fortune out of the system, B's with a power complex... and you, stuck in the middle.

What is the solution? Part of the problem is the way B's work performance is assessed; it is all about stats, what looks good on paper. You can't list hugs and the emergence of trust from the children in your care on paper. The outcomes B's are expected to achieve have no relationship to the messy lives of human-beings.

I am trying not to mention Kafka here, damn it now I have. But his writings are horribly and profoundly true of bureaucracy and its evil twin totalitarianism; this is not unique to government, it applies to any large organisation (private or public).

Sorry I don't mean to be so depressing, the only thing that worked for me was sheer persistence.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 17 August 2009 9:06:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a strange thing, I know this department actually has a lot of flexibility. They could listen to me and try it my way but they are looking too far in to the future and the goals they have set. We wont get there successfully because it does depend on personality and the personality I am dealing with needs many responsibilities removed for now. A child that has no parents and has not been parented cannot be expected to parent.

Ignoring this leaves another child at risk of harm and a lot of confusion about who it is I am caring for.

It is one of those things where I can wait and go “told you so” but by then far too much damage will be done. Witnessing it for years will probably take its own toll on our household.

I haven’t heard of kafka.

But persistence might be all I am left with.[smile]

Were you successful with your problem?
Posted by The Pied Piper, Monday, 17 August 2009 11:48:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

<< It is one of those things where I can wait and go “told you so” but by then far too much damage will be done. Witnessing it for years will probably take its own toll on our household. >>

I understand.

As for me, I got 6 months lump-sum payout. I suffer from anxiety, depression and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis - I refuse to call it by its common name of Chronic Fatigue because that is like calling a migraine a headache.

I do temp administrative work (which bores me completely) and when I can get it; acting work - despite the ME, acting is the one thing I seem to get energy from - even if a 24 hour shoot requires a week in bed afterwards - I don't care, I am doing something I love. If only I could make a living from it.

Franz Kafka was a novelist noted for the dystopian theme of his books. He was commenting on totalitarianism, either from extreme left politics (communism) or extreme right (fascism). He is brilliant but depressing reading. But the really good thing about his writing is that you know other people are as completely gobsmacked by petty authority as you and I.
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 17 August 2009 2:54:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

Life is Irony

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/media/folder_193/file_1926709.jpg
Posted by Fractelle, Monday, 17 August 2009 4:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My relations with beaurocracy are very friendly!
1. I reported some of them to federal or state Ombudsmen.
2. One time I desagreed with an an Ombudsman on phone and I asked them to give me in writing what they said me on phone. they did!
3. An other time I asked beaurocrats to give me in writing what they said me or I will ignore them, because their rules was discriminating against parents, they did not give me and I ignored them! ready to meet them in the court!
4. One time a beaurocrat tried to find me after work and convince me not to report him to Ombudsman, without succes.
5. I took to court a federal agancy and of cause I won.
6. An other time I wrote to Ombudsman not because I wanted to report beaurocrats but to inform them that I will not accept any kind of discrimination as happened in the past and I received my new pasport within 2-3 days!

When we claim our rights we discourage beaurocrats to ignore and violate people's rights.
TPP you should be carefull because you depend on them professionaly and you are not citizen or permanent resident, at least try to become permanent resident.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Monday, 17 August 2009 5:11:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well PP and others, I give up. You lot just can't stick to the thread.

This thread has nothing to do with fathers walking out on their families. Go back, take a look, and you will see it is about MISSING FATHERS EVADE...........

The fact remains that these situations appear to have increased since the introduction of the 'baby bonus'.

Now why has this happened other than the mother taking it upon hereself to have the child, unwanted by the father, just so she can pocket the cash.

Now unless you have had a child, either without the consent of the father, or, without knowing who the father is, then you simply can't use your situation as an example.

It is my view that since the introduction of the BB, it has been viewd as a 'gravy train' to many young women. Only problem is, once the gravy runs dry, they then turn to the unwilling father, if known, for support.

Sorry girls, but you can't have an each way bet when you're playing with someones life.

It would be worth seeing if there has been an increase in teenage mothers in the past few years as well. My bet is there has been. Anyone?

You girls took it upon yourself to allow this 'one nighter' to turn into a child, so you, and you alone have to deal with the concequences.

I say again, take away the 'lure of the cash' and you are well on your way to solving the problem.

Now if you wish to bag me for this, fine, I have no objections to you having your views, but please, stick to the toppic and I will continue to debate this very sensitive issue.

As always, I am happy to be proven wrong.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 6:36:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excuse me Fractelle, I feel Retchub is walking in circles, I’d like to stand here and maybe slap him on his way back round.

Get rid of the BB and stop telling young girls that the country needs more babies – my god what were the grownups thinking? You have set up some stupid young teens and now you’re dogging on them. This is exactly what the foolish country encouraged them to do.

I don’t know who you are calling “you girls” but Fractelle and I haven’t actually had a one nighter that has resulted in a child aka consequence. But according to you the result of a one nighter should be on the mother – give her all the power to tell any would be interested dad to butt out forever? I’m surprised the men aren’t in here having a go at you but some of me isn’t.

And let me repeat – the money is crap, only a young stupid thing (exactly the ones this country targeted with the BB) would keep a baby thinking it was some sort of cash cow. You seriously believe they’re out there jet setting around the world on this CSA money along with a five grand baby bonus?

Christ on a bike, when I became solo I didn’t eat, I didn’t have new clothes, I could go to the doctor but then not afford prescriptions. A chest infection will go in about three months, inflamed nerve in the tooth will die after awhile but you have to keep so much cold water on it that you will be vomiting crystal clear water. Getting to the doctor cost money so I couldn’t go – oops, no uterus now.

I had nothing because I gave everything to my kids. At about 27 a friend gave me 400.00 to spend on anything I wanted, I burst in to tears. It seemed a fortune.

So you stop these sweeping statements about these mums without partners whose only focus is the money. It insults and it hurts while degrading the children.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 8:50:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TPP: “I had nothing because I gave everything to my kids. At about 27 a friend gave me 400.00 to spend on anything I wanted, I burst in to tears. It seemed a fortune.”

So is $400 a lot of money or not then? Did the previous $400 seem as much, or does it depend on the identity of the giver or how much you have at the time?

You know this does not explain your daughter’s lack of empathy. Ungrateful buggers.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:01:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

The likes of Seeker & Rechtub are beneath you - don't let their deliberately offensive comments goad you.

You can never ever say anything that will placate these "people".

Your honesty is wasted on those who will twist and pervert everything you say.

Go and hug someone - even your pets - although goldfish don't really go in for hugs and I think there's a law about that sort of thing.

Sending a hug to you right now.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 10:18:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh, they say that men and women (in general-not always) see the
world through quite different eyes and I still reckon its true.

If I was a young female and halfway attractive, kids or no kids,
I'd simply tell all those single guys with pocketfulls of money
who tried to hit on me, that it will cost 200$ or whatever.

But this of course is far too practical :)

So instead the blokes go to the pub and tell the girls alot of lies,
to get into their pants and the girls give it all away for nothing.

I betcha that kids or no kids, unmarried mother or not, I'd always
have a few spare $ in my pocket.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 12:32:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker:“So is $400 a lot of money or not then? Did the previous $400 seem as much, or does it depend on the identity of the giver or how much you have at the time?”

Was around 1995 and I had nothing, I received 500 exactly a fortnight as a benefit. I had 12 chickens and would swap eggs for other foods with the other solo mums in my street. I’m over it all now, hadn’t intended to use my uterus again anyway.[smile] A few years later I handed a solo mum 500.00 to spend on whatever she liked – she burst in to tears - I didn’t tell her why I was laughing.

“You know this does not explain your daughter’s lack of empathy. Ungrateful buggers.”

Haha.,. my kids don’t know. And my daughter… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVam-fshUgw

Fractelle:”The likes of Seeker & Rechtub are beneath you - don't let their deliberately offensive comments goad you.”

I missed that… were you goading me Seeker?

“Go and hug someone - even your pets - although goldfish don't really go in for hugs and I think there's a law about that sort of thing.”

I have one (no not a goldfish) who I wish would stop hugging me, another is dribbling and when grown up will be super hero called The Walking Puddle. My dogs are at the groomers today, only hassle with having poodles.

“Sending a hug to you right now.”

Thank you Fractelle. It is a shame that all single mums are still seen in this way, we usually carry around enough guilt, shame and dissapointment without the additional imput.

Hey I had written you a message before that sits here in my editor – I was wondering if your ME bought on the depression and anxiety or if they were separate problems? And I stared at that painting for so long, freaked me out a bit. Oh and what kind of acting?

Yabby, you are an idiot and I am embarrassed for your mother, unless your mother taught you this stuff and then I am embaressed for you.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 1:00:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

For a long time I thought that all my problems were due to depression (have had that illness on and off since teens), but that didn't explain the probs with digestion/aching bones and muscles, extreme lethargy (falling asleep at desk) after doing very little exercise, and other stuff. So I sought expert opinion, having gotten fed-up with doctors just staring at me blankly when I tried explaining my symptoms, and finally diagnosed by a leading Professor in the medical profession. Now, I manage my illness by only eating fresh food - rarely anything processed; a piece of chocolate is like having a real knees-up. Gave up drinking, smoking, not in that order. Never eat fast food. As a result I look healthy - which is helpful for the acting work.

Coping much better now. But I have to plan everything I do so that I have enough energy.

Acting? Television and film work. Would like to do stage - but I'm not sure I could get through an entire production. Whereas with film work you get to sit down and wait around a lot.

Yabby

A question.

What is the career path and likely success for the average prostitute? CEO? Prime Minister? I am sure a lifetime spent sucking c*ck would no doubt achieve the network and contacts needed to become a successful leader in our community. Although I admit there are certain skills in common.

Conundrum. Do you think that there are as many former prostitutes who wind up as 'captains of industry' as NRL players?
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 1:48:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Yabby, you are an idiot and I am embarrassed for your mother, unless your mother taught you this stuff and then I am embaressed for you.*

PP, I nver took much notice of what my mother taught me, for
motherhood does not imply intelligence, as we all know very well :)

Think of me more as a philosopher with no sexual hangups, unlike
yourself.

Fractelle, the career path of working girls is indeed much like that
of any other women. I seem to recall one famous transvestite who
made it to NZ parliament, something similar in Italy.

Thats just the ones being open about it. Perth's sex industry
is littered with university students making a few bucks on the side
to get them them through their studies. Many are Japanese, Koreans,
some Aussies.

Would I spend months going through tooth ache, because of false
pride and morals? No way! I'm far too realistic about life
for that.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 2:20:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle I can understand the frustration with the medical profession. My son had stomach aches for years and so did I – we both got called mental with a strong suspicion he was just copying me. We moved town and I went to another doctor with him, he had classic and unmistakable and immediately suspected Crohns Disease soon as he pointed to where he gets the pain. Had the operation and has never had a problem since. Me, boring old IBS which I’d kinda figured out anyway. I have to watch the silly foods too but tolerate any and all pain for a wood smoked pizza.

Acting, way cool. Nup – nothing else to say, bit jealous really.[smile]

“PP, I never took much notice of what my mother taught me, for
motherhood does not imply intelligence, as we all know very well :)”

Be still my beating heart, a reply from Yabby. You’ll be okay Yabby, maybe combined your parents managed to hand you a decent brain to be going on with?

As for sexual hang-ups; you must have been talking to my husband recently, tell him from me he can damn well forget it because I looked that one up and it is not humanly possible without one of us being a dwarf.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 3:00:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

I am going to ask you to do something very difficult - to empathise, to imagine what it would be like to 'service' clients - they don't all look like Richard Gere, nor are pleasant or charming. Yes, one can point to rare success which is, I posit, about the same rate as for NRL footballers.

Sure uni-students earn money on the side, till they graduate and go on to REAL careers. And its not work experience that will be included on the CV.

BTW women seek out males at pubs or bars for the same reason as the men do - they would like to have sex, they find someone they are attracted to and they CHOOSE that person. Unlike the professional hooker.

Piper

About the picture I sent you - it is deceptively simple until you study it more, I believe it is about optimism, but there is much that can be read into it.

As for TV/film it is easy to join a agency that specialises in providing extras for background work - that's how I got started. Are you near Brisbane? I can give the name of a reliable agency for you if you like.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 3:31:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I am going to ask you to do something very difficult - to empathise*

ROFL Fractelle. Speak for yourself :)

I can certainly empathise, toothache is not pleasant, so you find
a solution. Lots of people do things they don't enjoy doing,
every day. That's life, we make a crust one way or another.

I never mentioned being a career hooker, never mentioned sleeping with
just anyone at any time. I'm just saying for a young female, its
a handy option for a bit of spare cash, if she is ever broke.

When somebody pays you 200$ an hour or whatever, it would be a great
time to practise those acting skills!
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 5:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PP
And let me repeat – the money is crap, only a young stupid thing (exactly the ones this country targeted with the BB) would keep a baby thinking it was some sort of cash cow.
This is exactly what I am reffering to.

For the unptdeanth time, I am not reffering to you, and you accuse me of running around in cirlces.Take a pill!

And as a matter of fact, yes, it is the mothers responsibility if a child is born from a one nighter, without the concent of the father.

No responsible female would even consider unsafe sex with a one night stan if they had no intention to have children. On the other hand, there are plenty of options available if she to did not want the child, allbeit, none to pleasent I must agree.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 6:43:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SOME FACTS:
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes
--U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes
--Center for Disease Control
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes
--Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes
--National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools
70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes
--U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report Sept., 1988
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home
--Fulton County Georgia jail populations & Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992

http://deltabravo.net/custody/stats.php

rehctub
Do you know that ONLY 3% of single parents on social security payments are teenagers?
Do you know that the average age of single parents on social security payments are 33.5 years?
Do you know that 25.5% of Partnered mothers and 21.0% of single mothers work full time?
"You girls took it upon yourself to allow this 'one nighter' to turn into a child"
Your claims for 'one nighter' is totaly baseless, a provocation against single mothers, who have average age 33.5 years and who are trying to create their families BUT the immature, irrisponsible fathers of their children run away!
You blame the teenagers that make children for the money but teenagers single mothers are only 3% of the total number of single mothers. Your attacks against teenagers are totaly unfair!
You blame single mothers that they berth children for the money but statistcs show that they work full time as the maried mothers, while they have no support from their partner.
SORRY SIR BUT ARE YOU MISOGYNY? Do not you feel sorry for the fatherless children and their dark future? What kind of society we will create with fathers run away? Do not you know that your children and grandchildren will live in this dangerous society? READ THE STATISTICKS FOR THE FATHERLESS CHILDREN. FAC* THE MONEY SIR WHEN WE DISTROY OUR SOCIETY!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:22:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Blabby: <"If I was a young female and halfway attractive, kids or no kids, I'd simply tell all those single guys with pocketfulls of money
who tried to hit on me, that it will cost 200$ or whatever.

But this of course is far too practical :)

So instead the blokes go to the pub and tell the girls alot of lies,
to get into their pants and the girls give it all away for nothing.">

1. Since these young women aim to live a life of luxury on benefits, CS and the baby bonus, wouldn't it be more "practical" for men to stop giving away their sperm ? Maybe if they were smart enough, they'd hold out and charge for their services.

2. If men are in such danger of being victimized for child support; they would be very silly NOT to wear a condom of their own accord - regardless of whether a woman insisted or not.

3. It seems that you're saying that young men declaring their love or good intentions for young women are all liars?

4. Should women always assume that men lie "just to get in their pants" ?

5. If all men are liars just to get sex, then don't they deserve what they get if there's a baby to support out of it
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:53:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Antonious, there seem to be good evolutionary reasons for all
that!

As a wise female friend of mine noted " Women will draw up a list
of qualities that they seek in a male, then run off and follow their
feelings".

We know very well that many females are attracted to testosterone
laden "bad boys".

I have a shearer friend, who in his younger days was a real chick
magnet. He's got around 5-6 kids spread around the place, to
3-4 different mothers. He'd tell the most outrageous stories to
get his end away, women fell for it, time after time.

Meantime plenty of "nice boys" were being ignored. Evolution
in action for you!

Perhaps better sex education, to explain to gullible young girls
how many blokes really think, would not be such a bad idea.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:59:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey....I see this site has been resurrected so for all the sad sacks on this thread, pullin' their puds, I offer an innovative strategy to assist them in hitting on their next victim:

An Aussie is sitting at a bar in New York and looks at his watch several times in the space of a few minutes. The woman sitting nearby notices this and and asks "Is your date late?"

"No" he replies. "I have this state-of-the-art watch, and I was just testing it."

The intrigued woman says, "A state-of-the-art watch? What's so special about it?"

The Australian explains, "It uses alpha waves to talk to me telepathically." The lady says "And what's it telling you now?"

" Well , it says you're not wearing any panties."

The offended lady replies "Well it must be broken because it's wrong, I am wearing panties."

The Australian leers, taps his watch once more and says "Bloody thing's running about an hour fast again, can I buy you a drink?"

Pathetic ain't it!
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 1:20:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Att, as you're one for the stats;
Do you know that ONLY 3% of single parents on social security payments are teenagers?

So has this increased in the past 7 years?

Do you know that the average age of single parents on social security payments are 33.5 years?
So what was it 7 years ago?

Stats are great tools when you want them to be. Do you know the average wage is about 90 grand a year. Do you think this reflects the REAL AVERAGE?

BUT the immature, irrisponsible fathers of their children run away!
Sorry, not thier children, it was a mistake that they wanted nothing to do with, SOMETHING THEY MADE plain and clear!.

Why then did the mother, after knowing that the guy wanted nothing to do with the child, or her, choose to have the baby?

Why would a single mother bring a child into the world knowing that life would be tough, if not for the thought that there may be some way of making the father pay?

Did she think that the non-interested father would earn enough so that his CS payments could support her and her baby?

Now as for kids from fatherless homes. I see them all the time, mainly as apprentices. They are usually great up until they start to tell mum what to do.

I have no control over others, I have simply helped raise two great kids without crime, violence or disrespect.

SORRY SIR BUT ARE YOU MISOGYNY? No idear what this means sorry.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 5:31:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I probably did stare at the painting far too long Fractelle and I wasn’t sure if it was an old painting or the scratches were part of the painting.

I’m on the Central Coast, NSW. But no time for ‘off property’ stuff. Might be a good idea for daughter though, not a shy bone in her body. Don’t know about her learning lines – might be pushing it. How busy do they keep you?

Yabby:“I can certainly empathise, toothache is not pleasant, so you find a solution..”

Oh Yabby, if someone had offered to fix it for a quickie I would have jumped at the chance. That kind of pain with an inflamed tooth nerve” Hell yeah. No one offered as I upchucked water every few minutes is all.

Now as a regular occupation prostitution really wasn’t an option. I’m afraid myself, and probably a lot of other women, except under extreme circumstances, just can’t do it with just anyone at anytime. If we could you males would all be broke all of the time because why would there be any other way?[smile]

Retchub, you make no sense. We teach our children to be responsible for their actions so I see no reason to change the rules for adults. Adult males being no exception.

This belief you have firmly set in your mind that single mothers are raking it in at the expense of some male they trapped is nuts. Children actually cost a lot to have around. I have even heard of fathers who want to contribute and be part of even their accidental children’s lives. I know it is shocking but they are out there.

And the other males that were forced in some way to have unprotected sex and then made to contribute should take Yabby’s advice:

“Lots of people do things they don't enjoy doing, every day. That's life, we make a crust one way or another.”
Posted by The Pied Piper, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 8:56:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

As an extra there are no lines to learn - you just do what the director tells you. An extra is more like set decoration or a prop - but you get paid for it and fed, rates are between $20 to $25 P.H. If you are a featured extra - like an advert where a face can be clearly discerned - the money is way better, instead of an hourly rate it is a lump sum payment. And if you get to say a line - party on! As for frequency of work - not enough, but it is a lot of fun and you meet some fantastic people, yes you do meet a star or two.

Yabby

I was asking you to imagine working as a prostitute (yes there are some horrible jobs) but you seem unable to 'get' what prostitution is about - the inherent risks, broken condoms, STD's, even violence can occur in a well managed brothel. Having lived in St Kilda for some time I got to know a lot of working girls. One of the reasons some women choose to work streets is that they can turn clients away - unlike in brothels where a good reason is needed like an obvious case of herpes. Your "empathy" for the work of prostitution ends and starts with your ....

As Piper clearly pointed out it is not always possible (or practical) to earn a fast dollar when facing a toothache. Even though I know how to act, I doubt I'd be very convincing when in need of root canal (that's an infected tooth, Yabby - not a sex act).

What is it about SOME men, they want casual sex, but have issues if it results in a pregnancy? Use a condom AND lube - condoms do break. You want to live dangerously? Then take the consequences.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 9:50:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'What is it about SOME men, they want casual sex, but have issues if it results in a pregnancy? Use a condom AND lube - condoms do break. You want to live dangerously? Then take the consequences.'

I agree. Be responsible for yourself. If you don't want kids, don't leave it to someone else's diligence.

But Fraccy, the woman who is always going on about empathy. Why do you have no empathy for the man who has no say in whether his mistake ends up costing him 18 years of his life? The woman who also made that same mistake can have an abortion, the guy has no choice in the matter. Now I have empathy for any woman having to be pregnant for 9 months for example, but you seem to have zero empathy for any man as evidenced on this thread.

Which, you men on this thread, is why guys should be much more keen on protecting themselves than women. If a women doesn't want a baby, she has a second chance (even a third if you count the morning after pill), the guy doesn't. He's left at the mercy of the women's choice, as he will likely be again when it comes round to who goes to work and who stays home with the kiddies.

Fact of life, protect yourself. If women can accept they have to go through labour, surely you can accept you have no choice in the matter when contraception fails.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 11:28:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*wouldn't it be more "practical" for men to stop giving away their sperm ? Maybe if they were smart enough, they'd hold out and charge for their services.*

Pynmche, a comment like that can only lead me to conclude that a good
education was wasted on you, if you don't even understand basic
evolution theory :)

* I’m afraid myself, and probably a lot of other women, except under extreme circumstances, just can’t do it with just anyone at anytime. If we could you males would all be broke all of the time because why would there be any other way?*

Ah, there is some truth coming out from PP! Like they say, women
need a reason, men need a place. Instinct matters.

Fraccy, you are seemingly unaware how the internet, mobile phones
etc, have changed the sex industry. Perth today is a city with
huge money around, from mining. So called private escorts, ie
girls running their own businesses, on their own terms, is what
its all about these days. In the CBD they do "lunchtime specials"
for 500$, or 3 grand for a night. For mining executives
away from their families, that is beer money.

We are not talking clapped out drug addicts here, as might be
common in Melbourne's brothels. Google "Perth Private Escorts"
if you want to check them out :)
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 1:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

The picture I linked - not a painting it is a photograph of a flower growing inside an old shack towards the light. Its real - that is why I like it.

Yabby

I know what a mobile phone is - you are just so insulting. In fact I know quite a lot. Prostitution has been legal in Victoria for years - there are some very classy establishments around town and some not so glamorous too.

Now I know you want to live in happy-land and believe that all working-girls retire to live in monetary splendour for the rest of their lives.

Doesn't work like that. The women only have a few years in which to make their money, the most successful ones are those who manage to pay off a mortgage and go back to civilian life. Many others, in order to cope with the err 'variety' of clients do take drugs either to limit the 'yuk' factor or to stay awake during what can be long working hours.

You ask why more attractive women don't do it for a living? Well may be if you actually sat down and thought it through you might just understand.

But, you're dreamin' mate, you probably think that the working girls you see actually fancy you.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 2:15:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Fact of life, protect yourself."

Houellebecq

We now have the issue of drink spikers in this country where it’s reported that there are some 4,500 victims annually and over 40% have been sexually molested.

The last thing on a male’s mind when molesting a semi-conscious or unconscious woman, is a condom and a moment's silence please for victim, Diane Brimble. One of her perpetrators, Silvestri told police that Brimble was an "ugly dog", she smelled, and he wouldn't talk to "anything that's over 60 kilos".

Now Diane Brimble's dead and Silvestri's on the loose!

And how many missing fathers, one wonders, were drink spikers?

The Bureau of Criminal Investigation advises that these rapes are significantly under-reported and in a separate survey during 2007, about half admitted to deliberately mixing cocktails too strong to get their victim more drunk.

Sixteen per cent said they had added extra alcohol shots to alcoholic drinks, including wine and beer

Six per cent had added alcohol to non-alcoholic drinks, including soft drinks or hot chocolate

The Western Australia Police Service, Alcohol and Drug Co-ordination Unit have published a paper:

“Take away her freedom and you could lose yours.”

The Australian government's findings of a sexual assault survey, conducted during the 90’s found almost 60 per cent of the 2642 victim/survivors who responded to the survey had been raped more than once in their lives.

Nearly half of the respondents (46 per cent) described incidents that had occurred over a decade earlier. Moreover, a staggering 37 per cent of all those who responded had, prior to the survey, never told anyone about their experiences (Easteal 1992).

The survey estimated that 1.2 million Australian women (18 per cent) had experienced at least one incident of sexual violence from age 15 years and over, and that one-third of these have experienced more than one incident.

Brute force is on the increase but “consensual” sex? En garde gentlemen for “if it’s not on, it’s not on!” Your choice – your responsibility! No more duckshoving thank you!
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 4:03:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I know what a mobile phone is - you are just so insulting*

Fraccy I should frigging hope that you know what a mobile phone
is. That did not stop you not understanding my point, or just
inventing your own strawman argument.

Fact it that the combination of the internet with mobile
phones, has changed and continues to change the sex industry in
WA. Smart girls don't work in brothels anymore, they keep 100%
of the profits for themselves and run their own businesses on
their terms. Good on them!

*Now I know you want to live in happy-land and believe that all working-girls retire to live in monetary splendour for the rest of their lives*

Now where did I say that? Fraccy, you live in dreamland.

*Many others, in order to cope with the err 'variety' of clients do take drugs*

Hehe, so the druggie finds another excuse to justify their addiction
and you believe every word? Fraccy, you are gullible! They could
after all quit the drugs and stop being a hooker.

*You ask why more attractive women don't do it for a living?*

Hang on, check out some of those high class private escorts. They
are better looking then most pub girls! Its your drug addicts
who are working in the brothels.

*But, you're dreamin' mate, you probably think that the working girls you see actually fancy you.*

Fraccy, at times you can be so smart and at times so frigging stupid.

I have long ago pointed out to you that love and sex are based on
self interest. As I don't have your self esteem problems, I could
not give a hoot what any cute 20 year old thinks of me and nor
could any other self assured bloke that I know of. Blokes screw
these girls for the sheer fun of it, natural instincts satisfied.

They are service providers, without a bloke having to tell a bunch
of lies at the pub or face the hassles of baby claims for 20 years
or a divorce bill going into the millions. Its a win-win situation.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 4:49:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So called private escorts, ie girls running their own businesses, on their own terms, is what its all about these days. In the CBD they do "lunchtime specials" for 500$, or 3 grand for a night. For mining executives away from their families, that is beer money."

Yep Yabby - you know the economy is all about supply and demand but of course it's also often to do with an executive's generous expense account, replete with a few bodgie receipts which is of added value to the sex industry.

And how buoyant would that industry be if female mining executives chose to go to male brothels for a "lunchtime special?" On the hand, since I'm from mining stock, I'm reminded that female mining executives have more respect for their families and prefer to lunch with their associates rather than cheat on their spouses (and their shareholders), by using expense accounts to pay for a quick poke with a perfect stranger.
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 4:54:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras,

Not sure what any of that has to do with my post that was all about men protecting themselves from unwanted pregnancies.

I have a suggestion though. Maybe those women could buy their own drinks.

I do suspect this 'drink spiking' is a bit of an urban myth anyway. It's a very convenient excuse for young people (male and female) who drink too much and regret their drunken actions the next day.

You cant tell me someone can become passed out drunk from drinking a double vodka rather than a single. Even if you have 3 in an hour and someone has made them doubles, you feel drunk, and say 'I've had enough to drink thanks' next time you're asked.

Anyway with the drink costs in Sydney you'd soon be paying more for drinks than you would if you went to one of Yabby's brothels!

Man I wish people would spike my drinks, it would save me a fortune.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 5:14:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Antonios,

Right now, young girls are being sold into unwanted marriages to pay their fathers' debts. Their sisters are raped by rebel bands as a tool of war. And their mothers are beaten by husbands in retribution for daring to seek basic education such as the ability to read.

The United States could be doing more to combat rape in conflict, high rates of domestic violence around the world, human trafficking, and other forms of violence against women.

But the comprehensive legislation that would make fighting violence against women a priority for US foreign policy and give the State Department Office for Global Women's Issues the force of law is still missing.

Help us add 5,000 signatures to our petition urging President Obama and Vice President Biden to actively support the re-introduction and passage of I-VAWA this fall.

We've been working with Senators Kerry and Lugar, who have promised to lead I-VAWA through the Senate.

And the Obama Administration has already taken historic measures this year to raise the issue of violence against women by:

Creating a State Department Office for Global Women's Issues
Appointing a White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, and
Creating the White House Council on Women and Girls
But the bottom line is I-VAWA has still not been reintroduced.

A little pressure from the top can go a long way in advancing this important legislation when Congress returns in September. President Obama and Vice President Biden championed I-VAWA as Senators. So we know that their support is there.

Given the long list of priorities that Congress has to tackle this fall, we can't allow women's human rights to be pushed to the back-burner once again....

...We need at least 5,000 signatures on our petition to the President and Vice President to show strong grassroots support for a coordinated U.S. government effort to stop the global crisis of violence against women and girls.

Sign petition
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&aid=12684&ICID=S0908A1&tr=y&auid=5199901

Antonios Symeonakis
Posted by ASymeonakis, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 5:18:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle”The picture I linked - not a painting it is a photograph of a flower growing inside an old shack towards the light. Its real - that is why I like it.”

You’re kidding. That just changed the whole thing for me, now I’m even more freaked out.

“…yes you do meet a star or two.”

Yep you read me like a book.

Yabby:”Ah, there is some truth coming out from PP! Like they say, women need a reason, men need a place. Instinct matters.”

Good one Yabster. You just read me like a person who has never even seen a book.

Houel:”You cant tell me someone can become passed out drunk from drinking a double vodka rather than a single. Even if you have 3 in an hour and someone has made them doubles, you feel drunk, and say 'I've had enough to drink thanks' next time you're asked.”

Not the young chicky babes, 18 year olds etc. They have absolutely no idea how much they’ve had and when drunk they think they want more. But I agree I think drink spiking is rarer than reported, not a single fact to support that one just a feeling.

Prostitutes... now I’ve met some very keen ones but I think if I won lotto I’d just hire a nanny to help and have even more kids – does anyone think a prostitute would hang on to their job?
Posted by The Pied Piper, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 5:46:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

<< now I’m even more freaked out. >>

Its a flower... not a triffid.

Yabby

I don't know any parents recommending prostitution as a good career move, although there are those who recommend stock broking (work that creates nothing but also pays well - at least prostitution requires a creative flair).

Your claims about prostitution being an ace job is kind of like those claims about single mums raking in a fortune, (brilliant segue, Fractelle) you don't see them buying up masses of blue chip shares or driving Porsches.

Back when I still worked in Public Housing, I was at a dinner party hosted by my then partner's parents and they seated me next to a stock broker. Usual polite chit-chat regarding what we did for a living blah, blah, blah; the stock broker went into a little tanty over the money single mothers raked in, especially the ones who had children from different fathers (I know there's no more money if there are different fathers - unlike doing a threesome in prostitution). When he finished, I, ever so courteously, (I was at my partner's parents') asked him how many single mums he had as clients. Now this is the amazing fact, he didn't hold any portfolio's for single mums. Who'da thunk it? For the sake of the dinner party I did not ask how many estranged dads held stock portfolios with him.

Now we are back to where we started.

:-)
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 6:27:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes I agree that both the guy and girl need to be responsible for their own actions or face the concequences.

But! what gives the girl the right to allow this one nighter to become a child on behalf of both parties?

What if the tables were turned and the guy wanted the child but the girl decided not to keep it. What rights does the father have?

Why can the mother decide to have the child, against the wishes of the guy, then persue the guy. Is this fair?
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 7:08:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I don't know any parents recommending prostitution as a good career move*

I don't know any parents who suggest that their daughters go to the
pub, get pissed, screw whoever for free and land up pregnant and on
a pension! Instead, many parents still tell their daughters to find
a rich guy, which is similar to the working girl, only less honest.

* although there are those who recommend stock broking (work that creates nothing but also pays well*

Ok Fraccy, so you don't understand the importance of the stock market
to our economy. Economics is not your strength. Best you stick to
acting :)

*Your claims about prostitution being an ace job*

I did not say it was an ace job. I said it was a highly paid job,
for those with the aptitude for it. If you think that girls
dishing it out for nothing, when they are too drunk to think, then
landing up on a pension for years, well that is your opinion,
not mine. All I have stated is that if I was young and female, I would
not be so stupid!

* I think if I won lotto I’d just hire a nanny to help and have even more kids – does anyone think a prostitute would hang on to their job?*

PP, don't confuse your instinctive motherly hormones, with real paid
for work out there. Note how many buy lotto tickets each week,
many actually don't go to work by choice, they are simply on the
treadmill.

Dicky dear, you claim to know the mining industry, but seemingly hardly understand it.
Luckily in business, there is not the
scrutiny of politics, which is why politics does not land up with
the sharpest of candidates.

Results matter in business, and mining is an industry where billions can be
wasted on stuff ups, as we see with various past BHP projects.

If I was on the board of a major mining company, results would be
my criteria for management hiring and firing, not if one of
my executives had a blow job at lunchtime
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 7:57:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“If I was on the board of a major mining company, results would be
my criteria for management hiring and firing, not if one of
my executives had a blow job at lunchtime”

Oh but Yabby dear – you're not on the board of a mining company and unlike "Dicky" you have never been on the board of a mining company. What's more, you wouldn't know a geological report from a shipload of sheep, so once again, you exhort through the wrong orifice.

“You cant tell me someone can become passed out drunk from drinking a double vodka rather than a single. Even if you have 3 in an hour and someone has made them doubles, you feel drunk, and say 'I've had enough to drink thanks' next time you're asked.”

Houellebecq – I was not referring to double or triple nips of spirits. I was referring to the drugs Rohypnol and Fantasy, the date rape or 'drink spiking' drugs. Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 19 August 2009 9:41:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras: You raise profound points and examples.

The Diane Brimble case - one of the saddest examples of the contempt in which a woman can be held while being drugged (an overdose) and used for sex. Lawd only knows what that poor woman endured. Instead of getting help in a timely manner, her 4-8 abusers ensured that all evidence was washed away and that she was clothed again before they raised the alarm.

There was even photographic evidence of the abuses that one of them tried to destroy; later retrieved by police - yet as you say, they're all still walking around. One has since been in strife for importing porn I think; another has left the country. Biz as usual.

That cruise line site that her ex-spouse set up I think documents many similar events. Just so terribly sad.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 20 August 2009 12:54:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, I remember once that you said you'd read a book; perhaps two; on evolutionary theory. Very commendable. However, I advise you to read some more and read more widely.

You still don't seem to understand the difference between established, evidenced fact and subjective explanation. Taking current (preferred, by some - such as yourself) behaviours and then trying to rationalize them as 'natural' and inevitable because someone THINKS (not knows) that early humans or animals behaved in a certain way, is merely a moral convenience.

I've demonstrated before how we can devise any number of explanations depending on whose interests or preferences are being served.

I've also pointed out some of the many holes in your preferred (and worn out old) theories. You never take account of any that detract from your narrowly chosen set of beliefs.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 20 August 2009 1:06:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby:”PP, don't confuse your instinctive motherly hormones, with real paid for work out there. Note how many buy lotto tickets each week,many actually don't go to work by choice, they are simply on the
treadmill.”

No way I would Yabby, I hated working in an office, it really felt like work. Worked on a farm but that was the same as fostering – messy, tiring, but on the whole far too much fun these days to be considered working.

Did you just do a complete about face there saying that prostitutes are now on a treadmill rather than the “women just need a reason” line you used earlier?

Pynchme could you give me an example of a “subjective explanation”? It means a biased explanation?

Fractelle:” Its a flower... not a triffid.”

Haha.. not by the flower, there is a weird looking person type thing in the shed.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Thursday, 20 August 2009 6:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
protagorous,

'I was referring to the drugs Rohypnol and Fantasy'
Rubbish. The whole post was all about alcohol. But if you want to talk about those drugs, even easier...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-436592/Drug-rape-myth-exposed-study-reveals-binge-drinking-blame.html

The 12-month study was based on 75 patients - mostly women - treated in casualty who told doctors their drinks had been tampered with in pubs or clubs.

But tests for drugs such as Rohypnol, GHB and ketamine found nothing, says the study published in the Emergency Medicine Journal.

It showed 65 per cent of women had 160mg of alcohol in their blood - twice the 80mg drink/drive limit - and a quarter were three times over the limit. Although all the patients denied taking drugs such as cocaine and amphetamine, one fifth tested positive.

Sure it happens, but nowhere near as much as people make out.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 20 August 2009 8:35:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*However, I advise you to read some more and read more widely.*

Hehe Pynchme, your ignorance is kind of cute! As a matter of fact,
the reference library which I have here, would take you many years
to digest, covering everything from neuroscience, primatology,
endocrinology to evolutionary biology. I'm afraid your arts
degree won't do it for you :)

The mountain of evidence is right there, for all those interested,
but as it covers many fields of science, its not all wrapped up
in one easy paragraph, as you seem to want to understand the world.

*Did you just do a complete about face there saying that prostitutes are now on a treadmill rather than the “women just need a reason” line you used earlier?*

Not at all PP. The "reason versus place" argument, when it comes
to differences between men and women, is an old one which still applies.
Some girls follow their instincts, as you and Fraccy have
shown.

Dickie dear, I remind you that David Morgan was asked to join the
board of BHP, not for his skills as a geologist, but his ability
for showing good judgement. In fact most mining stuff ups have
little to do with geology, everything to do with engineering,
forward hedging etc. As we have seen, you let your personal little
pet hates interfere with sound judgement, when it comes to making
business decisions. No wonder there are not more women on company
boards, its a common foible.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 20 August 2009 9:58:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A follow on from Houellebecq's post re the prevelance of "drink spiking with illicit drugs - http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/briefing/b2.html

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 August 2009 11:11:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee, Yabby had to go and look up 3 big words "neuroscience, primatology, endocrinology", then he had to figure out how to use them all in one post so he could impress the masses. He then came up with the reference library idea, put 2 and 2 together and bingo, we now have Yabby's magnificent Reference Library that he's built up. A library that would take lesser beings than him, like Pynchme, "many years to digest". Yes, Yabby has proven that her mere arts degree pales into insignificance compared to his abilities and reference library. Somehow, judging by Yabby's previous post, I tend to think his 'real' reference library consists of saved past copies of Hustler and Playboy, all with the appropriate stains. The reference library idea was a good try Yabby, but come on old boy, you can do better next time.
Posted by MaryE, Thursday, 20 August 2009 11:23:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow Mary E, that last post would just about qualify you to join
the OLO sisterhood club. Congratulations! As a relative newbie
you might not as yet be aware of it, but when one of the OLO sisters
is under a bit of pressure, the others all rally to defend her, as
best they can. Its very sweet to watch :)

If you don't believe that I have an extensive reference library
here, well that is what you believe and can't be helped. That is
your concern, not my concern.

Meantime of course, it's possible that you think that primatology,
neuroscience and evolutionary biology are not important when it
comes to understanding human behaviour. Fair enough, that is
your choice. OLO posters like Runner and OUG believe that snap,
crackle, pop, god did the lot!

Meantime, I do actually refer to my extensive reference library
when debating on OLO, so if you have any knowledge about these
topics, feel free to make your point, I'd be happy to debate the
various issues, as I always have on OLO.

Or perhaps, you could just keep trying to shoot the messenger,
on behalf of the sisterhood. You would not be the first :)
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 20 August 2009 2:26:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that Pynchme – I shall have a look at the cruise-line site. It appears also that there's a gap in date rape forensic research. Currently, delaying tests until the next day could render false results:

http://fusion.stolaf.edu/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsDetails&id=4658

Yabby – You do have a penchant for throwing in red herrings to distract us from the previous ludicrous statements you make. Now you assert that men are more competent at managing businesses than women and since you’ve raised the totally irrelevant issue of BHP Billiton, permit me to inform you on just how "competently" the corporate males conduct their operations:

1. Thirty thousand villagers from Papua New Guinea suing BHP/B for $5 billion. “The Ningerum people have suffered from tonnes and tonnes of arsenic, copper, zinc and other heavy metals dumped into this once pristine habitat where they had lived since time immemorial. Experts predicted it would take 300 years to clean up the toxic contamination.

2. "Julian Kelton has told the ABC's 7.30 Report that BHP disposed of equipment, ranging from chemical cleaners to office furniture, in two massive pits on the site of the Ravensthorpe nickel mine since the mine closure was announced in January. He says he helped bury an estimated $1 million worth of equipment.

3. "BHP Billiton attacked for 'half-truths and evasions.' The world's largest mining company, BHP Billiton, was attacked at its Annual General Meeting (London October 2008) for its forced relocations of farming communities in Colombia, its obliviousness to local opposition to mining in the Philippines, and its plan to begin mining nickel in Indonesian-controlled Papua, which will devastate one of the most pristine marine ecosystems in the world.

4, "The West Australian government says it hopes BHP Billiton is "embarrassed" by the five fatalities at its mines in Western Australia this financial year.

Whoops Yabbs – why not stick to what you know best – exporting live sheep to the barbarians? And don’t forget to mark your “favourites” (the ones that don't kick) with a cross now – ya hear?
Posted by Protagoras, Thursday, 20 August 2009 3:31:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

You are seeing something in that photo I'm not, sorry for freaking you out.

Speaking of different perspectives apparently I am "stupid" for not agreeing with Yabby's take on life, the universe and everything. That's all it takes disagree on prostitution being a fantastic career option and that stock-broking is even lower down the pecking order of careers one can be proud of doing - and I am called names.

Yabby, if love and sex are the same thing to you, fine. I don't care. To me they are separate - that's my opinion, get over it.

Often I have been told that I am "sitting on a fortune" - the men who have leeringly informed me of this have never been a type I would even consider having a drink with let alone anything else. You only value women according to appearance - not all men do. Now we all like to look at beautiful people, but most of us (male and female) need more than just superficialities. As you have demonstrated, there remains men who do not consider women as fully human - just receptacles, these are the 'males most likely' to skip through if their partner winds up pregnant, when what they really should be doing is paying for their sex-lives to prostitutes and leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 20 August 2009 4:04:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see it Piper. I thought that's what it was all about. Weird.

Fractelle,

I'm surprised at you.

You've said previously that all men judge women instantly they see them,
deciding instantly whether they are f&ckable or not.
Seeing them is all that is required to decide this.

When I disputed this,
as did other posters,
you called us all liars.

'I know men!' you said.

Now you say...

'not all men do. Now we all like to look at beautiful people, but most of us (male and female) need more than just superficialities.'

Have you been getting some counselling?

Further evidence is you used 'and I am called names.' (ok that's normal/expected for you), but where is ...

'excuse me for having an opinion while being female'?

Are you just toying with me, being lazy, or are you making progress again?

Is Yabby just a poster calling you names, or is he a Male poster calling you names because you are female! Backed up by the biased Graham Y!
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 20 August 2009 4:49:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You really don’t see the person in the shed standing sort of near the centre veering just a bit to the right of the window Fractelle? I’m glad Houel saw it and I just showed the husband who said it was quite disturbing and he could see the person but said they looked munted. He said it didn’t become disturbing until I said you had mentioned it being a photograph.

You’re not stupid Fractelle, Yabby has just been carrying on this way forever from what I have read. He can't change now because then he’d have to reflect back with some kind of guilt or embaressment and that would just rip his undies.

Typically noting people for what and not who they are, is classic. You’ve got to admire the uncomplicated pattern that emerges each time. So cyclic in its very nature and kind of reassuring that one always knows where this is heading.

Fractelle:”Often I have been told that I am "sitting on a fortune…"

You could get a nasty chill down there baby doll but when you meet men like that mostly you feel so sorry for the past, present and future partners in their lives aye.

Hey Houel, I missed the “all men” comment. Usually all people judge all others instantly, but you know, then it can change. Like Exams comment a while back about a model that was beautiful until she spoke. It’s kind of handy and there must be something in it. I’m hopeless with adult faces and there’s something so wrong with how I recognize grownups but with kids usually with the first glance I can judge a character and where we’re going with this one rather accurately.

Umm… and if particularly attractive or ugly the way adults have treated them has really mattered.

I just veered off on a whole new tangent there. Sorry ‘bout that.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Thursday, 20 August 2009 6:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie dear, you make my point for me. Fact is that even for BHP
it is very difficult to find talented management. Now you want to
make that even more difficult and fuss over their sex lives.
Fact is, you'd land up with a bunch of drongos, like our politicians,
for the real smarts would simply not bother. Top entrepreneurs
commonly have a mistress on the side. Packer had one, Pratt had one,
plus a host of others. You seemingly want to make business decisions
based on your private morals about managers sex lives. Stick to
housework lol, for business is clearly not your talent.

*Yabby, if love and sex are the same thing to you, fine. I don't care*

I didn't say that Fraccy, so there you go again, being either stupid
or devious. Either you don't read what I actually write, or you
are being devious, busily creating yet another strawman fallacy to
attack.

*Often I have been told that I am "sitting on a fortune"*

ROFL that is common bloke talk. Some blokes say it in front of
women, some behind their backs. If that gets your knickers in a
twist then you need to learn a bit of tolerance.

The truth is you'd be getting a bit old to claim that now, they
usually say that about younger women :)
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 20 August 2009 8:33:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PP: “You really don’t see the person in the shed standing sort of near the centre veering just a bit to the right of the window Fractelle? I’m glad Houel saw it and I just showed the husband who said it was quite disturbing and he could see the person but said they looked munted. He said it didn’t become disturbing until I said you had mentioned it being a photograph.”

That picture must be changing each time we look at it, or we’re all seeing different things. What does that say about these debates aye?

Beyond the flower, I see a woman holding a baby inside a picture frame. Anyone else?

The freakiest thing for me, is that Fractelle introduces it with “Life is Irony”, and sees nothing inside the frame. She describes it as “The picture I linked - not a painting it is a photograph of a flower growing inside an old shack towards the light. Its real - that is why I like it.” I wonder what else she does not see. Ironic maybe, but definitely spooky.

PP: “I missed that… were you goading me Seeker?”

No way PP. You missed it because it wasn’t there.
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 20 August 2009 10:32:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lmfao Mary - that was a great response. Hilarious. Yabby's was nearly as funny in it's own way.

The other part of Yabby's whole line of argument beyond that post, is that he thinks that foisting a pasty, saggy oldster's body on a 20 something year old is a win-win situation. Sure he gets to use the young body, but he doesn't even see that keenly seeking; and especially paying, to be the source of someone else's revulsion makes him pathetic. Unless of course he looks like Sean Connery, in which case I withdraw my comment.

That was a good article R0bert - thank you for posting it.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 20 August 2009 11:51:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Btw Yabby, I don't have an Arts degree (although I fully respect those who do).
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 20 August 2009 11:54:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Beyond the flower, I see a woman holding a baby inside a picture frame. Anyone else?"

Me too Seeker though the second time I saw a child lying on its back, a woman facing that child and another child lying behind her.
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 21 August 2009 12:02:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/media/folder_193/file_1926709.jpg

Just bringing the picture forward a few pages. I see a person with like an oversized jaw in like a white sun frock with a hand stuck back out through the right shoulder strap.

Protagoras saw heaps more than me and I think Seeker nailed it with “spooky”. But it becomes spookier if you are told afterwards that it is a photo. I haven’t spotted babies yet.

I never considered the opening on the far wall to be a window but a painting or a mirror.

Seeker:“That picture must be changing each time we look at it, or we’re all seeing different things. What does that say about these debates aye?”

Well it’s a funny one, I have no problem if someone convinces me I am thinking wrong and no biggy for me to admit I am wrong or even say sorry/thankyou blah.

But I think some others would rather keel over than admit they learnt something new or were introduced to a new way of thinking. But maybe that’s why I ask lots of questions and a few others make lots of statements?

And a song for you Seeker – I can’t help it but when reading stuff from you or runner this song keeps going through my head. Anyone else do that; giver some users their own theme song?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am1kJM823Vk
Posted by The Pied Piper, Friday, 21 August 2009 8:46:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that song PP. Nothing like Kylie singing about death and hope to cheer me up in the morning…

And here’s one for all the single mums out there, and for the not so single.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLS0Y40WwlA

You really don’t see the woman’s face in the middle right of the framed picture (just to the right of the back window in the centre), looking down at the child she is holding? That head is about 20% of the picture area PP. Amazing.
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 21 August 2009 9:57:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

This is pure serendipity - the picture I posted just for fun illustrates perfectly how everyone has a different perspective on the same thing. The blurry image in the window - the top part is the roof of a house not a hat. But see whatever you want - that is just being human. Like the old parable about the blind men and the elephant.

Yabby sees women as either fuckable or not - which was my point all those months ago, Houllie, the one you are STILL dwelling on. Time to move on?

I will be 43 this year, my current beau is 11 years younger and yes, unfortunately, I still meet those sad men who claim I am sitting on a fortune - yuk. Having heard this phrase since I was 13 (when I first heard it I didn't have a clue what they were talking about), it indicates that SOME men are still living in the past, with their cave-man view of women. This "bloke-talk" - well not all men talk like that. Women are far more than what is between our legs. I know I will never convince the Yabbies of this world - but I really enjoy 'outing' the silly old coots.

Houllie, beware you too could wind up like Yabby - alone and paying a fortune to root a 20 something. Or worse fathering a child you don't really want.

Strong maternal feelings don't always happen to all women, but due to a mighty mass of hormones that kick in from the start of conception it can mean women, who prior to pregnancy didn't want a child at all, can find themselves very attached to the growing life inside them. In other words they change their minds. What this means for the man who prefers the one-night stand, make sure you either have a vasectomy or at the very least WEAR AN EFFIN' CONDOM.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 21 August 2009 10:17:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme my pleasure. I found it interesting especially the focus on seperating the spiking issue from the consent (or lack thereof) issue. Some good points in there.

I am finding it difficult to be confident that I've got my head around the issues of consent when neither party is in a state where they can give meaningful consent (assuming that neither has passed out) but are willing participants at the time. My impression is that's not all that uncommon but I don't know how often that translates into reported unwanted sexual activity. My impression is that much of the comment around consent seems to rely on gendered stereotypes which don't necessarily reflect individual choices (even if the stereotypes have some validity).

I'm not talking about the situation where one is sober and the other clearly incapicated or where the situation has been strongly manipulated by one to take advantage of the other, rather a bad case of beer glasses or lowering of inhibitions altering judgement at the time.

I've tried to list the things I'm asking myself where the commentary I've seen on the topic leaves me with concerns.

Are both parties guilty of rape if after sobering up both wish they had not engaged in the act? I assume that if neither has serious regrets the law won't be involved even if consent could not properly be given by the parties at the time.

If a drink driver is responsible for their choices when drunk then why is a choice to engage in sexual activity regarded so differently?

If after sobering up one has regrets and the other does not can we legitimately see the one with regrets as a victim and the other a perpetrator?

Can the law readily differentiate the nuances of these situations?

That may be the topic for another thread sometime, given how often it seems to pop up in the media and OLO discussions I'd like to get an understanding of it that I'm more confident in.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 21 August 2009 11:06:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Fractelle, I’m going to be 42 in October. Hubby is nearly exactly one year younger. Had a new acquaintance fess up a little while ago (and I’ve heard this repeatedly through the years) that they were scared of me for a long time. Always a surprise, I care for small children, I see myself as kinda woosey at times and would rather suck it up than intentionally hurt someone else’s feelings.

On the other hand, I am known to be very clear and very loud when facing something like an obvious insult. Note the “obvious” part as I am awful at subtlety. A friend, who owns a massage parlor, set me up once; I went up to see him at his business and the man on reception asks my name then starts calling out “the new girl is here!” The girls rushed out to welcome me saying “the next client is all yours” – I was at full red faced stutter.

I can see what Yabby thinks is funny. He says stuff to wind people up and I’ve had a few flatmates in my past like that. Never worried me if spouting off to each other but if there was a younger female present I’d step in. Haven’t seen them all in 20 years but I am guessing some are just the same as they always were and truly think they are just so amusing.

Seeker I really don’t see a baby in the picture, but I plan to ask all visitors in my house from now on what they see.

That was a lovely song and a stunning chick singing it too, thank goodness she went in to singing and didn’t decide to use her good looks for other stuff.[smile]

R0bert you ever done the “walk of shame” like early Saturday or Sunday morning? You wake up and think “aarrgghhh!” sometimes this slips out and becomes audible, you exit the premises desperately trying to work out where you are and even which town you’re in.

What happened the night before; don’t go there. EVER!
Posted by The Pied Piper, Friday, 21 August 2009 12:51:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pied Piper, no walks of shame. I've been mildly tipsy a few times but never drunk and I've never been in a situation where a one night stand seemed like a good plan.

There are aspects of casual sex where I doubt that I would be comfortable that I'd done the right thing by myself or the other person. Sometimes I could kick myself for that but mostly it works for me.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 21 August 2009 1:08:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

'Yabby sees women as either fuckable or not - which was my point all those months ago, Houllie, the one you are STILL dwelling on. Time to move on?'

Such lies. You said all the male posters were liars, more than once, and couldn't bring yourself to retract it, so you made a whole other topic!:-) I will dwell on it to my dying day. I cant believe it would hurt you so much to admit a mistake. If fascinates me.Ah, I rmember it like it was yesterday. Even in the face of six quotes from 6 different posters you wouldn't retract your 'All' men do this and if you disagree you're a liar.

'Houllie, beware you too could wind up like Yabby - alone and paying a fortune to root a 20 something. Or worse fathering a child you don't really want.'

How would that happen? What a weird thing to say. I'm happy with my long term partner and kids thanks. Any surprises (it's a better word than mistake for the poor unexpected child) we would deal with.

Also I'd never go to a hooker. Who wants to shag someone who's doing it for a job? I just don't get it. Even if they were fantastic actresses I don't think I could ever get the idea out of my mind they might be acting. And then if they aren't acting and they were enjoying themselves, well how rude! They should pay me if they're gonna bloody enjoy it! Also condom sex is a waste of time. It's pretty shite all things considered and not worth paying for that's for sure.

Why is it bad to have sex with young people anyway? I thought someone like you would accept age means nothing. Imagine if Yabby banged on about it being gross for a forty year old woman to do it with a 30 year old guy. If you assume the woman would think Yabby's gross, how do you not worry about your hubby really thinking it's gross with you?
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 21 August 2009 2:50:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*'Houllie, beware you too could wind up like Yabby - alone and paying a fortune to root a 20 something.*

Houllie, she wrote that as she's getting snarly and bitchy, trying to
get back at me somehow and she doesen't really know how else :)

Fraccy really doesen't understand my philosophies, so just invents
her little strawman arguments, as she goes along. It must make her
feel better!

Fact is, the old Bhagwhan was correct, ultimately we are all alone
in this world. That is the reality. Her toyboy might be hit by
a proverbial bus tomorrow, or the attraction of a free "root", (to
use Fraccy's language) might not be enough, some younger,
more attractive thinggy might come along and cut her out.

Speaking of "free roots", John Cleese is seemingly licking his
wounds. He married a girl he found in a council flat in the 90s,
now the divorce cost is seemingly around 16 million$, she's left
with more money then he is! So back to work in his 70s.

All that love, until they hit the divorce courts!

*but due to a mighty mass of hormones that kick in from the start of conception it can mean women, who prior to pregnancy didn't want a child at all, can find themselves very attached to the growing life inside them. In other words they change their minds*

Very true indeed Fraccy! As I always insist, hormones affect behaviour,
even though many on OLO seem to want to deny it.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 21 August 2009 3:40:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Fractelle – peace sister. And to the blokes on this thread – the wounded, the bitter and twisted, the guilty and the innocent, ask yourselves why there is now:

A family law court
Refuges and charities to provide sanctuaries for abused woman and children in every Australian state
Government agencies for violence and sexual assault against women and children
Paedophilia - Sex Offenders’ Registration and Monitoring Acts
$1 billion child support debt in Australia
Government housing to accommodate disadvantaged mothers and children
The Commonwealth Criminal Code – Slavery and Sexual Servitude

All at massive costs to the taxpayer. Meanwhile we have the “wounded” male promoting irrational hatred against “man trappers.” The “wounded” accept that it’s fine to use a “free” condom when paying for sex, but wearing a condom is unacceptable if you can get sex for nothing. Curious how they can afford to pay for sex but not child support.

The bashers and paedophiles hide behind the cloak of an “abused” childhood; the missing fathers accuse the mother of fraud and the agencies of bias and all hunger for the return of a patriarchal society.

Alas, for homo-erectus, the enlightened male no longer considers women a possession - a commodity which can be traded for something better. And it is no longer their belief that it’s a woman’s job to obey and to serve men, accepting arguments that their opinions are inferior to those of men.

Statistics confirm that there remains in the West, a large proportion of homo-erectus who believe they can continue inseminating as many young girls (and women) as possible without any consequences.

Simian-brain,Yabby, brags that his shearer friend, got around 5-6 kids spread around the place, to 3-4 different young mothers who were naive enough to believe the sperm donor’s outrageous lies. However, with maturity, naivety can be remedied (though often at great cost to the naive) but the lies from a habitual trickster, cannot.
Posted by Protagoras, Friday, 21 August 2009 3:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

I know Yabby loves to wind people up - he's been like this since I started posting here - problem is he actually believes what he is saying, there's no irony intended he gets to offend women and rant like winning a double.

About the picture, in order for the photographer to get the right exposure for the flower inside the shack, it meant overexposing the window, hence the blurred image which people are seeing as a human shape. I can sort of see what you mean. I happen to know the photographer, he lives in South Africa and as well as landscapes, takes photos of the animal life in his area. We both upload photos to a web-site called Renderosity. You should check it out - however I am not going to tell you the name I work under.

Love Nick Cave BTW - used to go to his gigs when he was still with the Birthday Party. Imagine if Kylie Minogue had decided to go into prostitution (because she is attractive) instead of her chosen career.

Houllie

I am not a liar - Yabby has proven time and time again that he values women according to appearance - to the point where he will pay for sex, because there is no way a 20 year would go near him otherwise. There are a lot of men like Yabby, still.

No-one picks that I am older than my partner unless we tell them. I said 42 not 82. BTW Kylie is 41 and you think women over 40 are gross?

Do I have this right? You don't want to pay for sex, but you're not into long term relationships or can't deal with women your own age, if I understand you correctly.

So what're gonna do when you are as old as Yabby?

Protagoras

Thanks. It never ceases to amaze me with OLO that certain men here can offend and denigrate women, but if any woman dares to hold up a mirror to those same men, they really throw a tanty - poor dears.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 21 August 2009 4:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle are you on drugs or something?

'I am not a liar - Yabby has proven time and time again '
Yabby has, not the six other posters who you called liars merely for saying they weren't the same as Yabby.

'and you think women over 40 are gross?'
Where on earth did you get that? I said if you think it's gross for Yabby to be with a 20yo, why is it not gross for you to be with a 30yo?

'Do I have this right?'
Ummmm. Not a bit of it.

'but you're not into long term relationships'
Where did you get the idea? Is 7 years long term?

'or can't deal with women your own age'
Huh? My missus is only 2 years younger. Maybe you cant deal with men your own age since your mr is 11 years younger.

'So what're gonna do when you are as old as Yabby? '
How old is Yabby? Age is no barrier to finding suitable sex partners even if I was to end up single. F&ck buddies and Friends with benefits, romantic relationships seemed to work before I committed to someone.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 21 August 2009 5:43:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert:”Pied Piper, no walks of shame. I've been mildly tipsy a few times but never drunk and I've never been in a situation where a one night stand seemed like a good plan. There are aspects of casual sex where I doubt that I would be comfortable that I'd done the right thing by myself or the other person. Sometimes I could kick myself for that but mostly it works for me.”

Me too, I was just saying I’d heard about this “shame” thing.[grin]

Houel, you have to appreciate a woman who will take nothing back, stand by her post no matter what. Gawd if 6 people wrote to me saying “take it back” I bloody would in a shot whether I meant it or not.

“How would that happen? What a weird thing to say. I'm happy with my long term partner and kids thanks. Any surprises (it's a better word than mistake for the poor unexpected child) we would deal with.”

She might go back to NZ for a holiday and get eaten by a glacier? Attacked by a Tuatara? Get trampled at the annual kiwifruit round up?

Ah surprises, now I don’t have a uterus and I’m still terrified of having like an ectopic pregnancy or something. I would fair spew. Although my little sister wants one so could be handy…

Anyway that was just a quick blither… you have to find me this thing you’re going to remember until your dying day Houel. I can’t find it (cause I haven’t looked) and it’s bugging me now.

But Yabby (and nup haven’t read a single book on the subject) if a female does have this rush of hormones and wants to keep it – the hormones wouldn’t affect a decision like she knows that it’s going to be born a mutant or something and decides to abort.

Hormones may make a suggestion but they do not make a decision? Is that close to what you and Protagoras both mean?
Posted by The Pied Piper, Friday, 21 August 2009 6:29:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Careful Protagoras,
Even though you are right the wounded male ego in some, overwhelms any rationality or objectivity, engendering the "a victim must be found." and as per G&S "Mikado" they have a (tied ) little list (of prejudices).

To be fair there are evil vile women, some who on any rational basis, don't deserve to be parents. But, two tiny points.. it's not about the parents it's about the children and heaven forbid that males should actually take some responsibility and if not then for the consequences.
In any relationship there are two and while some women are unable to leave a violent relationship it is pre stone-age reasoning to say ( as some do ) it is in man's nature to be the aggressor and that women should leave and if she doesn't therefore the male can claim some perversion of caveat emptor...she knew what I was like. Many “stone- age” tribes of PNG don't accept such DV. This attitude and its very creaky impotent defense are simply the last ditch stand of the recalcitrant, lazy, insecure social Luddites.

While this perspective is an eminently defensible observation. The response will undoubtedly be to attack on spurious grounds of style rather than substance focusing on vitriol against the messenger..
Posted by examinator, Friday, 21 August 2009 7:04:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Fractelle, I agree it becomes offensive. It was a bit weird he’d immediately be insulting towards mothers and include his own in the insult in a message to me but I got what he was doing.

Fractelle he obviously knows what he is doing, you know what he is doing and yeah he probably does believe it. He’ll be set in his ways, thinks he knows it all already… you can’t really do anything about him.

Why bother? Just let him be him, it’s a punishment unto itself.

Nick Cave is cool that voice aye. Yeah I don’t think Kylie would have made as much somehow or looked as good as she does now.

The picture… I have never talked about a picture so much and normally my photos have people I know in them. Can you tell me what sort of subject matter you prefer? Me – obviously kids and I take about one good one every 500 or so, thank goodness for digital. I have a good little camera for a mum sony 14 megapixel, no clue how to use it properly.

I’ll guess a name, if you’re Fractelle online I’ll go for Pixel for your photography.[smile]
Posted by The Pied Piper, Friday, 21 August 2009 8:01:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper, yes indeed there are cases of mothers who know that the future
baby will be deformed and still decide to go ahead. Personally I think
that is a bit selfish. See it this way.
In your brain there is effectively a competition going on, from many
different sections. That means that you can think one thing but feel
something else. Emotions can be strongly affected by hormonal input.

*you have to appreciate a woman who will take nothing back, stand by her post no matter what*

Nope, that just tells you that they are stubborn and difficult. I have
far more respect for a person who can think something through, then
admit when they got it wrong. That is character for you!

*Simian-brain,Yabby, brags that his shearer friend*

Ah dickie dear, I did not brag, but pointed out. I am not as judgemental
as you are about other people. Fact is that you are
not going to change the laws of nature by complaining, but by
better education. I have long promoted better sex education and
the teaching of evolution theory in all schools, as
well as conflict resolution skills. Many social problems would
vanish if they were, but if society decides to not bother, then
don't be amazed if these social problems occur, including lots
of gullible, pregnant females who got sucked in. So be it,
that is society's problem and not my problem for I have suggested
a solution and people are seemingly not interested. They would
rather just complain, as we see in your case.

Fraccy, you are dead right, I have absolutaly no issues about paying
for sex. Money is only a problem when you don't have any :)

Now why should I be a cheapskate and want a freebe? Why should I go
and tell a heap of lies to get into somebody's knickers? Much easier
to just give them some bucks, so that they can have the pleasure of
going shopping, if they give me the pleasure I'm after. All very
simple really and totally rational. But that is seemingly way
beyond you.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 21 August 2009 9:13:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where to start?

Houllie

You, Yabby and many other men judge women by their appearance. You have demonstrated this by implying that I would 'appear' too old for my partner. Yabby; by insisting that prostitution is a good career move for attractive women. Do you have a daughter?

You also exaggerate and take out of context comments I made about men in general being more visually cued towards women. Fortunately for you both, women, for the most part, are more forgiving about appearance. BTW what really pressed my buttons then was the holier than thou a certain OLO CEO was taking - enough to say I know rather more about him than maybe you do.

FYI Yabby is in his 50's, he certainly has a mind-set that is from the 50's. Actually I don't have a problem with him paying for sex - that's how he chooses to live his life - but I am not about to romanticise the facts and pretend that prostitution is easy street; the women earn every cent they make and you're fooling yourselves if you think they do it because of a high libido or they are somehow different from other woman. They're just women with a high gross-out thresh-hold - like nurses or ambos.

Yabby

I have discussed prostitution in other threads. You would be aware I believe the workers supply an essential service for the disabled or elderly. But don't tell me that prostitution is a better career than doctor, lawyer, prime minister, CEO, artist or nurse . That's total B/S.

I have to ask, why is it OK for you to try to wind me up? But if I wind you up, that's not acceptable? Oh yeah, 50's mindset.

Contd...
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:48:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
contd...

Piper

The hormones a woman is flooded with at conception can change her perception on wanting a child, I also agree she can still make pragmatic choices; if the baby is disabled or whatever. But male or female we sometimes don't make logical choices.

How would you like this for a choice? Something a man will never face.

My cousin was expecting twin boys, one of them with Downs, the issue was that she could terminate the pregnancy or give birth to one normal and one mentally disabled boy. She chose to go ahead with the birth. Her disabled boy has very severe Downs and won't even be able to work - ever, unlike some Downs people who can live independent lives. The boys are now 18. I don't know how she manages - but you kind of remind me of her in your mannerisms. I think she is amazing.

Yet I would expect Yabby would call my cousin selfish - but then it is very easy to sit on the sidelines and pass judgement.

I know I couldn't have gone ahead, I know my strengths and I also know my weaknesses. Nor could I foster the children that you do. I don't even know if I could've been a good mother or not - I'll never have that chance. Now the 'manly' brigade will cast aspersions on my maternal skills. Sheesh.

Likewise not all men should be fathers, which gets us back to the big responsibility question. Should men just screw whoever they want and not take the consequences?
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:51:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator"Many “stone- age” tribes of PNG don't accept such DV."

They do accept "bride wars" though, in which a tribe attacks another tribe for the purpose of acquiring women to be given to the young men as brides. Those that have gone beyond that arrange women paid for with a "bride price" of pigs, salt, yams, etc (money as well today), given to the woman's erstwhile family. Is that part of your preferred agenda as well?

Furthermore, while hitting the missus is not acceptable, being a nag to your husband or lazy, or failing to fit in with the other women of the tribe is equally unacceptable and can lead to a woman being cast out. Rarely will she be accepted back to her family in this situation, since she's shown herself to be "bad". When you're selecting breeding stock, you tend to cull the duds. Is that where you think we went wrong?

Seeing we're bringing "stone-age" tribes into it and all...

Examinator:"The response will undoubtedly be to attack on spurious grounds of style rather than substance focusing on vitriol against the messenger"

LOL, old "shoot the messenger" himself seems to have had an epiphany. I expect it to last as long as it took him to write...

Fractelle:"What this means for the man who prefers the one-night stand, make sure you either have a vasectomy or at the very least WEAR AN EFFIN' CONDOM."

And the woman's responsibility is?
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:56:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby:”In your brain there is effectively a competition going on, from many different sections. That means that you can think one thing but feel something else. Emotions can be strongly affected by hormonal input.”

Okay hormones effect emotions which in some can completely mess with a decision making process? Plus obviously a person’s past can mess with decisions as well.

But still through all that a person can make a logical decision aye and not based on past experiences or an emotion they are experiencing at the time.

And I guess you are saying women are inclined to more often make more emotional based decisions. The books you have and the stuff you have read… is it hormones that cause things like intuitive type thoughts “gut instinct” about things?

Fractelle, that choice your cousin made was one of the hard ones (the right one I think). I had an acquaintance who had an unexpected down syndrome baby, she adopted it out, her husband had a breakdown as he wanted to keep it, few years later they adopted one of my “normal” spares. I didn’t approve of those decisions.

There are kids we have that either me or hubby really want to adopt and keep forever – it has just never come about that we both felt the same way about the same kid. Now there, I guess, is hormones and decision making clashing horribly.

And of course you could foster kids, the kids themselves are great. You probably would lose patience quite swiftly with the departments you have to follow orders from.

Now if at any point you really were uncertain as to what type of mother you would be you would not have any regrets about not having your own child. You would have been a great mum. But if I didn’t foster I’d be over parenting by now with my own children and the ages they are. And if I could go back in time, knowing what I know now, and not having any guilt about the decision – I never would have had my own children.

HelloAntiWhereHaveYouBeen?IRanOutOfWords.[smile]
Posted by The Pied Piper, Saturday, 22 August 2009 10:32:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby: “Now why should I be a cheapskate and want a freebe? Why should I go
and tell a heap of lies to get into somebody's knickers? Much easier
to just give them some bucks, so that they can have the pleasure of
going shopping, if they give me the pleasure I'm after. All very
simple really and totally rational.”

Just make sure you wear a condom Yabby, take it with you when you leave, and don’t forget to worry that it might fail. As a man of such means, don't be surprised that you may appeal as a prospective father even at those high class WA establishments.

“A MAN who paid a woman for sex is resisting child support requests after the prostitute had his baby.

The married Melbourne man argues the child is potentially a breach of the Trade Practices Act.

He told a federal magistrate he shouldn't have to pay for the inadvertent offspring given the circumstances of the conception. “

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25963638-661,00.html
Posted by Seeker, Saturday, 22 August 2009 10:40:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Okay hormones effect emotions which in some can completely mess with a decision making process? Plus obviously a person’s past can mess with decisions as well.*

Piper, yup absolutaly, the mind works by association. If you've had
a bad experience years ago with something, that association will have
an input, even if it is at the subconcious level. Those experiences
after all, are a large part of making you whom you are. Or so called
nature and nurture, both having an input.

*But still through all that a person can make a logical decision aye and not based on past experiences or an emotion they are experiencing at the time.*

Piper, every thought involves emotional input. The thing is, our
brains can play amazing tricks on us, we can prove that. So it's
common for people to feel one thing, then find a good excuse to
justify the feeling in terms of what is rational.

The gambler will always remember his big wins, but conveniently forget
the many losses. The share market buyer will rush in and mortgage
his house, when markets are booming, then be forced to sell in fear,
when things collapse.

So called emotional intelligence is all about learning to think about
what we feel and why. For many its extremely difficult to be honest
with themselves about themselves. Its much easier to blame the
whole world for our problems, then admit that we made a mistake in
judgement.

Of course we much prefer people who tell us what we want to hear and
make us feel good about ourselves, especially if we lack self
confidence. But its also rational to know that other people know
that and can use it to their advantage, to take advantage of us.
It's common in everyday life. Deception is common in nature.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 22 August 2009 12:33:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*FYI Yabby is in his 50's, he certainly has a mind-set that is from the 50's*

Now to Fraccy and her problems. Indeed I am in my 50s Fraccy,
you are not far behind me, every day another wrinkle :)

Rather then a mindset of the 50s, one day it might hit you that
I am actually ahead of my time in ways of thinking. It's been like
that in virtually every aspect of my life, years later they catch
on and scratch their heads.

If you bother to read this weekend's Australian Financial Review, there
is a two page spread about relationships and how they are
changing and have changed over the last 15 years.

Fact is that marriage is turning into little more then a baby
raising exercise. Once people hit 50, the majority in fact prefer
to do their own thing domestically. 45% of divorces that happen
today, are between couples who have been married more then 20
years.

A "partner" might be somebody you see once or twice a week for a
social occasion, or a bit of intimacy, or perhaps a bit of travel.
In other words, little more then a convenience.

Above all, people with assets want to protect them, too many have
been burned by our legal system. 1-2 million for a bit of cohabitation,
is not a worthwhile price to pay. Much better
to just pay people for services rendered, its a win-win all round
and far more predictable then our family law courts.

*and you're fooling yourselves if you think they do it because of a high libido or they are somehow different from other woman*

Nobody has claimed that. IMHO they are women who understand their
own value and that giving it away at the pub for a few cheap
compliments and a bit of feel good, which is so common, is not the
smartest thing to do either. So they cash in. Fair enough, for
all women, their prime years are limited
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 22 August 2009 2:16:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Yabby so these MAA (missing after action) fathers, do you think in general it is easier to walk away because they didn’t first work out what the consequences would be or if they don’t have kids just don’t really have a concept of having their own child? If they stay away they can remain emotionless about them? That might be good grounds for some to be declared a non-parent, if there was some way to test it.

But do all thoughts really have an emotion attached? Or do all thoughts trigger hormones? This might be one of those things I’m really not good at understanding.

When you say emotion does that always means a particular hormone is at play… I might even be asking the wrong questions in the wrong way but I am wanting to know if every time we have an emotion is it because of a particular hormone? And people at all times are having an emotion? We’re never emotionless?

So the emotional IQ thing is identifying what emotion we are having – like knowing if you reacted at one point from anger or fear?

I think I understand the honest with yourself stuff, it’s like front braining something, acknowledging you did something wrong instead of choosing not to think about it because it might make you feel bad.

Yabby – how many emotions are there? Is there an official list somewhere?
Posted by The Pied Piper, Saturday, 22 August 2009 3:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby
Even the idiots know that humans control their self, are responsible for their acts that hormnes, any hormones controled from our brain, from our self.
Human brain is the advanced part of the live matter and you can not simplify our mind in hormones independend reactions.
Hormones are only one from the mediums used by our brain during its activities, they do not take decisions but take part in the execusion of our brain's decisions and activities.
When we say our brain we mean from our self because our brain is what makes us human and separate us from the animals.
Do not try to find excuses for your ideas or behave to our hormones or our relations with the animals.
If you feel or behave as animal it does not mean you are an animal, simple you are not the best human, but do you have to prove it in all your life,
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 22 August 2009 5:28:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The initiated on this forum will know that historically, Yabby has spent the majority of his OLO time bickering with women. Regardless of the topic he’s an expert and rest assured he'll have the last say on this thread.

Given that our resident hillbilly is a childless, abandoned sad sack, whose wife escaped some thirty years ago (“couldn’t cope with rural life” – ahem!) it’s astonishing that he views himself as an expert on the sex life of women.

His theory behind this jabberwanky, that female actions are a result of their hormones, and not on reasoning and logic, is easily demolished.

Thousands of hormone depleted, post menopausal lone grandmothers in this country are now voluntarily raising grandchildren. Incidentally I ‘m told by some old codgers (wearing comb overs and nostril hair) that male menopause is a lot more fun than female menopause. With female menopause some women get hot flashes. Male menopause is when you ingest a handful of Viagra and get to date young girls and ride motorcycles - I trust replete with haemorrhoid cushion!

Yabby’s know-it-all has an opinion on everything regardless of whether he actually knows anything about the subject or not. You know the type: something is self-evidently true purely because he happens to think it is though I wonder who his “control” group were on the empirical study on the sex life of females? Baa-bra Lamm and Louise Yu?
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 22 August 2009 5:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras
His theory is bad for human relations and human responsibilities, I do not know why he says this things about hormones, why he tries to free humans from their responsibilities the males or himself.
Sir you are responsible for you are writings as I am responsible for mine! simple and clear things, we can not transfer our responsibilities to hormones!
REALY IT IS A PROVOCATION TO SAY THIS THINGS.
According to Yabby Humans have no responsibilities because controled from their hormones and because they are animals(not different from the animals)
Yabby use your brain and think what will hapen if every one had similar ideas.
NO YABBY HUMAN SOCIETY IS NOT A JANGLE AND HUMANS NOT ANIMALS WHO CONTROLED FROM THEIR HORMONES.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 22 August 2009 6:36:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh this goes so against the grain but I think Yabby is on to something. I also realized my question to him about how many emotions was straight from the dimwits book of etiquette and I should have thought about it for a bit first.

I am guessing there is negative ones and positives ones and then different degrees and different languages would have different words for many of the emotions in each little degree and some languages probably identify more? Is Romany about?

The hormone thing is fascinating isn’t it? These little chemicals control so much of what we do – every decision we make must be accompanied by the right feeling. You must agree with yourself it is the correct thing to do so the emotion would be one that has a hormone attached.

Someone is going to have to help me here because I am having an awful time finding the right words.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Saturday, 22 August 2009 6:53:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, I think you are asking for trouble!

In actual fact, the sex hormones of both male and female humans decline slowly after the 30's and are very low by the 60-70s.

Women are unable to produce children once these hormones abate, although some men can still reproduce well into their 70s or even 80s
This does not necessarily mean an end to sexual desires though.

There are many elderly couples today still enjoying active sex lives- albiet a little less often or vigorously!

I may be a romantic, but I hope the practice of cohabitation continues for evermore. Mnay lonely people cohabit for this reason, and do not worry about the money at all. I guess if they did they could arrange for a prenuptial agreement.

I think some of the saddest people in the world are those living alone in huge houses, with heaps of money and no-one to share it with because they are scared of losing half of it.
Come on Yabby, better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all!
Posted by Moondoggy, Saturday, 22 August 2009 6:54:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ant

The Yabby has not respect for any animal. That's why he chops up live puppies with an axe.

The rest of his bitter and twisted life he spends maligning and insulting women. The only intimate contact he has with females is when he has to pay for it which tells me that he must be pretty darn gruesome on the outside as well. There's no chicks out there, knocking his door down, Ant. Besides why would any chick want a ride on his gopher!
Posted by Protagoras, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:01:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper, to really understand how emotions effect us constantly, you
need to understand how brains evolved in various species.

At the bottom you have the brain stem. That controls things like
breathing etc. Then you have the so called limbic system, which they
call the emotional centre. Above that you have the neocortex or
thinking bits.

Emotions are kind of our natural, innate instincts to act, for whatever life
throws at us. You feel angry, your adreneline starts
to pump, blood flows to your hands, ready to throw that punch.
You feel fear, blood drains from your face, goes to the muscles in
the legs, ready to run. But at any time you feel something, even
if at a very low level. You feel happy, sad, love, anxious, suprised, etc.

If you see say a snake, you react before you spend alot of time
thinking that you have seen a snake.

Its a really interesting topic, but hard to explain it all in a few
words. To explain more about how emotions affect our every thought
and action, there is a great book out, published in 1995 by
Daniel Goleman, called "Emotional Intelligence- why it matters more
then IQ". He's written some others on the topic since, but that's
the one that explains the basics in a way that is easy to understand.
He also devotes a fair bit in how to teach kids to think about their
feelings, so that they think before they throw that first punch etc.

Goleman quotes the latest science of the time, he used to teach
at Harvard and was editor of "Psychology Today" So you are not
reading some crap, but well informed science, written in an easy
to understand way.

My nephew picked it up from one of my bookshelves, went out and
bought his own copy and it gave him a whole new understanding of
himself, his friends and his relationships with them.

Its available even second hand, for just a few bucks from companies
like Amazon, so especially if you are involved with kids, its stuff
really worth knowing.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:05:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Pied Piper
I will write about it my friend, be sure, I hope tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow morning I have to go very early in the market and I started to write IN A VERY IMPORTANT, MISUNDERSTOOND AND CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE NUCLEAR ENERGY AND BE SURE I will have to fight against most if not against all forum members. Always I need your understanding.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:09:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How the Human Brain Developed and How the Human Mind Works
It is apparently easier for people who are 'cold and calculating' to be dominant, to dominate those who are 'emotional'.

Add that those dominating others may in this way acquire power over others, or social and economic gains from using, and from misusing, people.

Such a system rewards primitive inhuman brutal (beastlike) behaviour (acquiring territory by force, might is right), held in check only by the fear of consequences.

We also see that dominating others is conditioned, that is unnatural, behaviour which is destructive of humane behaviour. A throw-back to the level of the unthinking unfeeling primitive animal.

Humane behaviour is based on feelings of care and affection for the young and for the family, and then for other people and the community. From this emerges a sense of social responsibility: people matter and are important, need to be treated well and looked after, are entitled to share equally. Backed up by knowledge, understanding and reason.
http://www.solhaam.org/articles/humind.html
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 22 August 2009 7:44:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As usual Yabby is telling half the story. he is right that it is near as impossible to define the process in 350 words.

I would point out to you that the science has moved along way in 14 years. in most sciences 14 years is an eternity.

While he is essentially right in the mechanism he doesn't make it clear that the balance between the elements isn't as clear cut as presented.
There are a myriad of individual variations on a theme and that's without physical anomalies. In essence Yabby for his own ends or through misunderstanding, is over simplifying/stating the power of the mechanism.

He also ignores the ability of individuals to over rule the limbic system, either by effort or training/conditioning. It is possible to condition sub conscious motor responses which further complicate and throws real doubt on the definitive emphasis he presents.

Yabby stresses the importance of 'emotional intelligence' over IQ . That is again a fundamental miss-understanding of the process it isn't a simple as a competition between the two.
The following equation is not a valid explanation.

Hormones and several other chemical inputs + genetic propensity = limbic response = actions.

any more than bricks plus concrete = empire state building.

Gives insight? perhaps, interesting yes, at least we agree on that.
Justify or solely explain an individuals behaviour..... not with current knowledge.

Research investigates limited issues under certain conditions. There is a huge difference what can be deduced from research and what has practical value in psychiatry.
Yabby is trying to extrapolate too much from provable scientific observations
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 22 August 2009 10:53:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examinator:"Yabby is trying to extrapolate too much from provable scientific observations"

You mean like "stone age tribes don't condone DV so we should be more like them"? Nice one...

Yabby is pointing out the simple truth that we are chemical factories and everything we feel is the result of chemistry. That's not "extrapolation" it's simply stating the obvious.

As with any sufficiently complex system, there are "emergent" behaviours that are not obvious first-order consequences of the chemistry, which in the case of people includes cerebration and some volitional control of the chemical processes via feedback mechanisms that can be triggered by that cerebration. The same applies to all mammals to a greater or lesser degree, I suspect. Certainly it does to the domestic animals I'm familiar with.

It's fascinating that some people, especially feminist types, are so threatened by such a deterministic view.

I guess when you've pinned your career on a wishy-washy "social engineering" informed by nothing but ideology, it's a bit painful to have to face facts that don't require 4 pages of jargon to "justify".
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 23 August 2009 9:36:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*our brain is what makes us human and separate us from the animals.*

Ah Antonious, your political writer's summation of the brain, was
not the best. Just to set the record straight, the neocortex is not
specific to humans, many species have them, ours is just a bit larger.
In fact chimps brains and human brains are incredibly similar!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071014173548.htm

So they think and feel, love their families too. Get over it
Antonious, the human animal is just another species, with
a larger neocortex.

*As usual Yabby is telling half the story.*

Yup Examinator, I mentioned some basics, then referenced it with
a 350 page book, which contains 29 pages of references. You are
free to do your homework, if you dispute Goleman's science.

Dickie dear, that little rant would have got things off your chest!
I hope that you had a cup of tea and a lie down after that, for at
your age there is the heart to consider :)

Moondoggy, if you think that cohabitation is great, well go for it!
My point was that most 50s plus people would these days not agree
with you, according to the AFR statistics that I mentioned.

Is it wise to risk losing a million bucks in the courts, based on
the changing and commonly irrational emotions of some female?
Well for me it is not, but for those who think it is, that is up
to them.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 23 August 2009 10:11:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

I forgot to add this comment yesterday.

About my moniker for the Renderosity site: PIXEL - darn, why didn't I think of that - very cute and clever. I mostly do landscape photography with some arty-farty stuff thrown in - but all derived from the natural world.

Yabby

You are spending a great deal of time here arguing with the nasty feminists, and rarely make an observation on a topic you started yourself - "Our Godly Origins". Makes it very clear where your priorities are at. And hilarious as well.

Maybe its your hormones that make you so argumentative with anyone who disagrees with you. Go pop another viagra, dear.

Antonius

<< Even the idiots know that humans control their self, are responsible for their acts that hormnes, any hormones controled from our brain, from our self. >>

Not ALL idiots apparently.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 23 August 2009 12:07:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby – why do you call me “Dickie?” Is it not to humiliate me? Do you actually believe your malevolence could affect me in any way? Of course in the sick minds of brutes and hypocrites, control is paramount.

My “little rant” in fact is entirely relevant to the topic while your irrelevant and incessant screeching continues, shoved down our throats and not infrequently. But hey... when do you plan a refresher course on oxytocin?

Back to the topic where throughout the thread you malign women for not providing birth control. What would you suggest for a fifteen year old girl whose chemistry is working overtime? Shove her on the pill just in case? What about a long-acting synthetic hormonal method like a shot in the rump to stuff up her biological processes? Of course if the lass is plump or has taken up smoking these synthetic hormones place her at greater risk of blood clots and other medical conditions.

One can consider the insertion of a sponge or diaphragm shoved up the hapless teenager's vagina, I guess. It’s of no surprise that the male controlled pharmaceutical corporations have failed to invent birth control methods for the male. And of course, the male would cry foul as he does with the use of a condom complaining that a condom reduces sensation during intercourse while others wince at the thought of a vasectomy – a simple, outpatient procedure!

Without a condom, how do these birth control methods prevent the gruesome STD infections carried in semen (particularly HIV) that you guys spread around with relish? Don’t you love that rumour that HIV originated from a homosapien male having sex with a monkey? Who would have thought that?

Now we have the male insisting that women should empower themselves by always providing the condoms to protect the male species. Hey Yabby – good advice but no wonder sales on turkey basters have gone through the roof and with $1 billion child support debt and the emergence of wised-up, financially independent women, who needs a hit/runner as a sperm donor?

contd…….
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 23 August 2009 1:14:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

"be more like them?" Where did I say that?
The absence of an extreme doesn't automatically imply the opposite extreme.
I was making observations not comparative judgement which are like comparing apples with durions. Subjective and pointless.
I'm not interested in playing those games.

Yabby
My basic points are still valid....
- 14 years is a long time and a lot of refinement has taken place in that time.

- The issue isn't the book it's your over statement of the conclusions that concerns me. I've read the book and yes, it's good in context.
- I also made the point that the interplay is far more nuanced than indicated by you here and on other posts.
- Conditioning/environment can and does make substantial differences.
e.g. I've seen teenagers talking to each other while absent mindedly playing with venomous scorpions. The same goes for Asian snake rituals.

Popular book are interesting in a general sense of overall mechanisms But one should be cognisant of their limitations.

Just because a male is aroused doesn't mean he has to act on it or that he has little control over his actions. Which is what you suggest in some current posts. Even the best possible interpretation that the mechanism, as you describe it that it explains behaviour from feral footy boys to wayward fathers is simply not credible or supportable (including by those books)
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 23 August 2009 1:16:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
B/F

Oh yes – your propensity to chop up little puppies Yabby. While you portray the human female as irresponsible, money grubbing man trappers - overloading the planet with unwanted babies, the control freak thinks nothing of wilfully permitting the insemination of a canine bitch.

The bitch goes through the painful process of delivery, drops the puppies so the heinous Yabby can take to them with an axe. Of course this is all to do with the reluctance of the powerful one to spay the bitch in the first place. Why spend money for birth control when an axe is available and the axeman is above human morality? Hmmmm…and I wonder how my kindly neighbours in Urbansville would react if they witnessed me chopping up live canines?

I trust you’ll forgive me Yabby for also pointing out that in your frequent, tedious lectures; you’ve not referred to the hypothalamus which is stimulated when spotting the enemy and initiates a sequence of nerve cell firing and chemical release that prepares the body for running or fighting - the "flight or fight" response.

This chemical reaction was a primitive evolutionary response to protect man from the proverbial sabre tooth tigers in the woods and fields around us, threatening our physical survival. However, the primitive 21st century, homosapien now uses it to flee his responsibilities.

The irresponsible male can whinge, demean women, board a plane, hide out, go on the dole or just give the finger so he can continue impregnating the hapless female and free of charge too! All that’s needed is one egg a month from the female and some 120 million sperm per ejaculation from the male – seven days a week - 365 days a year!
Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 23 August 2009 1:27:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm a bit too busy to post much for a while, but just dropped by to procrastinate again for a few minutes.

Antonios; Fractelle, Protagoras and Examinator - thank goodness for your sanity and your shared sense of human decency. Applause; applause to each of you - great posts.
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 23 August 2009 2:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fraccy dear, just because I don't post on a thread, does not mean
that I don't read what is being written. You and Pericles are making
some great contributions there, so I have no need to add anything.

You do indeed have your intelligent moments, but only sometimes :)

Anyhow, I'm happy that you concede that hormones affect human behaviour,
as you have agreed, earlier in this thread, when you raised
the issue of pregnant women.

Brain function just happens to be a pet topic of mine, I've spent
years learning about it and always interesting to note, how little
most people know, about what affects their ownn behaviour. But
when its pointed out to them, some take to it like a duck to water
and it helps in people understanding themselves, as well as
other people around them.

*Just because a male is aroused doesn't mean he has to act on it or that he has little control over his actions*

Very true Examinator. But let me put it this way. When Antonious
was a teenager with raging testosterone and woke up with a great big
hard on, he'd be more likely to try and have sex with the girl lying
next to him in bed, then if he was 80. That is my point. Hormones
affect behaviour, they do not determine it. Antonious can claim
that his raging hard on had nothing to do with it, but I think he
is wrong.

Yes, new information about how hormones affect behaviour is appearing
all the time:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20090602/Why-does-dishing-with-a-girlfriend-do-wonders-for-a-womans-mood.aspx

and

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/04/29/48971.aspx

Dickie, given that you are the raving lunatic on the thread, I'll have to leave my
response to your many claims until later, when I have posts to spare.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 23 August 2009 2:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheers Yabby – have already put my order in with hubby for either or both books to start with.

This is really interesting and the more I think about it of course knowing more would be of huge benefit for the kids I get who do come with some very confused emotions.

And obviously I have a bit to learn on the subject that could help me too.

A long time ago I read a lot about transactional analysis. I don’t think it got very popular but it always made sense to me.

Examinator/Protagoras, can you suggest something else for me to read to balance what I learn about the emotion/hormone stuff?

Fractelle:”About my moniker for the Renderosity site: PIXEL - darn, why didn't I think of that - very cute and clever.”

I thought it suited you perfectly.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Sunday, 23 August 2009 2:26:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yabby ready How he misled the public, read Others' Criticism of Golema
1. He makes unsupported claims about the power and predictive ability of emotional intelligence.

2. His own, self-created definition of emotional intelligence includes aspects of personality and behavior which are not correlated to emotional intelligence as it is scientifically defined. He also interchanges terms such as emotional literacy, emotional health, emotional skill, and emotional competency. He never defines any of these other terms, but he equates them all to emotional intelligence.

3. He tries to make us believe he is presenting something new, when in fact much of what he is reporting has been studied for years under personality research.

4. He implies that anyone can learn emotional intelligence and fails to acknowledge either the relatively fixed nature of the personality traits he includes in his definition of EI or the differences in innate potential among individuals.

5. He presents himself as the sole expert in emotional intelligence and fails to give adequate credit to Mayer, Salovey, Caruso and others.

6. He represents his work as "scientific" when it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

7. His personal beliefs about what is "appropriate" contradict the academic theory concerning the value of our emotions. He still seems to regard emotions as largely something to be controlled and restrained, rather than something to be valued.

8. He has claimed that his ECI -360 test is the "genuine article" when it comes to testing for emotional intelligence, but no one in the academic community seems to think it is even a measure of EI, let alone the "genuine" one.

9. When he wrote his book in 1995 he wanted us to believe the book was about emotional intelligence, but there is strong evidence that Goleman was not intending to write a book about emotional intelligence when he started writing. It seems much more probable that he was actually writing a book about emotional literacy and then later changed the title of the book to "Emotional Intelligence" so his book would have more sales appeal.
http://eqi.org/gole.htm#How%20Goleman%20misled%20the%20public
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Sunday, 23 August 2009 2:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emotional Intelligence: Science & Myth

" It is questionable whether civilization is falling apart quite so catastrophically. In any case, while it is plausible that school-based programs for EI are beneficial, there is no convincing evidence showing dramatic changes in adaptation..." p. 546

"In the absence of definitive research findings, we cannot be sure that the myths are entirely false. However, at the least, these sweeping claims are inadequately supported by empirical evidence, and thre are solid indications from existing ability and personality research that the claims made are either false or highly overstated. Indeed, while Goleman's (1995) vision has been widely disseminated, much of the empirical research in the area is more sober in its conclusions. It is surprising that exaggerated and very possibly false statements can command such widespread public acceptance." p. 546-7

"Goleman (1995, 2000) seeks to give EI scientific credibility by linking the construct to brain structures such as amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex...Nevertheless, there is no evidence that individual differences, in the normal range, map in any direct way to variation in brain function." p. 545 "To equate EI with neurological properties of brain systems is conceptually naive and of little use in explaining empirical data on huma emotion function." p. 538

"Goleman (1995), and to some extent Bar-On (1997, 2002) appear to claim that all desirable aspects of emotional function reflect a general factor of EI. Such a factor would be on par with IQ in bringing together many apparently distinct personal qualities. We have seen that tests of EI fail, thus far, to meet psychometric criteria, or even to correlate highly with one another. In addition, the extensive literature on personality shows that qualities such as resilience under stress, self-control, sensitivity to others and social assertiveness are distinct constructs that relate to different fundamental personality dimensions, and to differing psychological processes." p. 545
http://eqi.org/roberts1.htm#Their%20criticism%20of%20Goleman
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Sunday, 23 August 2009 3:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I read Goleman, I get the impression that he believes we need to control our emotions. In other words, he seems to believe that if we are out of balance as a society, it is in the direction of being too emotional, too impulsive. On page xiii, for example, he says that self-restraint is one of the "two moral stances" that our times call for (...the other being "compassion", which I agree with to the extent he defines compassion as understanding and empathy rather than sympathy and pity).

I agree that our society is out of balance, but I believe it is out of balance in the direction of over-intellectualization. I believe we are over-socialized to repress, suppress, disown, deny, medicate away,. etc. our emotions. I advocate that we listen to our feelings, that we get in touch with them, that we learn to identify them and then look for the message in them to see what we can learn from them.

That said, I do believe there are certain segments of society which are indeed overly impulsive, and this impulsiveness and lack of self-control contributes to violence, rage and other forms of socially destructive behavior.

Generally speaking, though, for those of us who have endured college, graduate school, the corporate world, etc., I suggest that we would do ourselves a favor to re-connect with our child-like feelings and our gut-level instincts. When we listen to our own inner voices, as it were, we find our own unique paths.

This, I believe, is highly preferable to conforming to the prevailing social standards, to trying to live up to the expectations of others, and to doing what we have been socialized to believe we "should" do.
http://eqi.org/gole.htm#An_example_of_Goleman's_EQ?
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Sunday, 23 August 2009 3:43:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

I don't know AS so I can't reasonably say what his proclivities are however you still don't get the point or don't want to.
In your adolescent mode of conversation... if I remember my adolescence. That status was more the norm than an oddity...sitting on a tram with the hot sun on my lap got the same response. I don't recall trying to mount rape or bash every female I fancied....good grief I would have been in constant violence with almost half the e students of Villa Maria (girls school). I say half ...30 secs each 300 girls I was never a super man. If Thoughts would have been read I would have been incarcerated...or was that have been cast....nah.

Your knowledge of anatomy/body functions is woeful A full bladder or a warm bed will do that...

A male erection doesn't license/ justify actions of violent or rape they still have some control/responsibility.

Providing you're not in the latter of your groupings(80+) in which case (more than your hormones would have waned or is missing). Might I solemnly suggest you don't try that defense out in court. I'm not sure sex offenders are allowed on the net in there.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 23 August 2009 4:48:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Protagoras/dickie: << The bitch goes through the painful process of delivery, drops the puppies so the heinous Yabby can take to them with an axe. >>

What?

I haven't really been paying too much attention to this thread, but without any context that's just nuts.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 23 August 2009 7:19:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am so pleased you asked first CJ, the puppies have been mentioned a couple of times and I was a little afraid to question it amongst all the serious stuff.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Sunday, 23 August 2009 7:35:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper, Dickie hates Yabby so much that she throws anything she can
think of at him. She does not understand the context, but it will
take me a post or two, which I don't have to waste right now.

First to Antonious!

*His own, self-created definition of emotional intelligence*

Yup,
he took the concept from an obsure paper in a journal, included it
in a book he was writing about emotions at the time and popularised
the term globally. I gather around 5 million books were sold, EQ
is now common language, thanks to Goleman. The basics concept is
taught in thousands of schools and right through the business community,
because it works and gets results.

The science behind the basic concept was done by neuroscientist
Joseph LeDoux. That is today accepted science. This stuff is not
rocket science. You can bother to read the book, apply it to yourself
and notice how it works, but you have told us that you have no interest in how brains work.

Who is your critic? He is a writer who owns a website with a clever
name. He has no qualifications in psychology or neuroscience and
simply shares his opinions with others, as he travels around.

Amusingly enough, he comes up with his own self appointed definition
of emotional intelligence :) So in terms of credibility, you will
have to do better then that Antonious!

*I don't recall trying to mount rape or bash every female I fancied*

You don't need to have, Examinator. But you might have masturbated, due to those erections, in other words, hormones affected your behaviour!

Now the fact is, that if a woman feels maternal, or a man paternal,
or a teenager argumentative, or a myriad of other examples, they
are all examples of brain chemistry affecting our behaviour in
some way. That is the issue here, the interacting of the limbic
system with the neocortex, when we make decisions.

What EQ is about is learning to stop and think about what you feel
and why you feel it.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 23 August 2009 8:26:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, you come across as knowledgable in the workings of the human brain and hormones, yet your brain does not seem as open to other peoples ideas or experiences, particularly females?

Just wondering if, as you asked another writer, you have any qualifications in psychology or neuroscience? How about neurosurgery or psychiatry?

There is an old saying that if you don't really have any idea about what you are trying to say, blind them with science!
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 23 August 2009 10:27:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Yabby, Can I guess about the pups? I’m guessing it’s literal…You had some unwanted puppies on the farm and so got rid of them? If that’s wrong then I’m just fair worried about that answer.

Can I make a guess at something else? Because this stuff is of interest to you I reckon you have become an emotion voyeur, and of course to observe emotions you have to be quite emotive?

You’re just poking and prodding us all over the place and then analyzing the responses and if it isn’t strong enough you step up your game.

It works both ways, if someone is mean enough to you then you get to analyze your own feelings – my god, it’s win win.[smile] See I have touble leaving a post if the emotion I am attaching to my words isn't obvious - I need to "[smile]"

Can I ask a general off topic question - how do you know you're about to run out of posts - do you just count them as you go or is there a secret to it?
Posted by The Pied Piper, Sunday, 23 August 2009 10:47:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican

<< What ever happened to adults choosing to stay together for the kids surely it can't be any worse than what we have now (excepting the obvious for domestic violence situations).

Surely if two people loved each other once they can work it out and we can stop using children as pawns in what is really an adult problem. >>

<< At least the kids will benefit from having one parent at home during the most important development years >>

You've probably long since left this thread, but I just had to let you know that I agree with your post, and consider the above statements in particular worthy of a repeat!

<< (probably not PC to say that anymore) >>

You're right, it almost is that way, all the more reason I admire you for being gutsy enough to put it out there.

I've only had a quick scroll through the thread so might have missed it, but it looks as though your remarks scored a zero response. Now, why is that?

We'll probably never know, because I'm sure this post will receive exactly the same non-response!

That's okay folks, I understand, the debate that's raging here is much too interesting to be sidetracked by latecomers throwing around unwanted observations.

Perhaps someone though might pick these ideas up in a new thread at a later stage.
Posted by Bronwyn, Monday, 24 August 2009 12:04:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“how do you know you're about to run out of posts - do you just count them as you go or is there a secret to it?”

No secret there PP – Yabby’s procrastinating - preparing his defence. He’s hormonal you know, the hypothalamus just kicked in - the “fight or flight” response (that response denied to his victims.) Naturally, he needs to work out how best to put a repulsive, act of savagery into “context” so he can justify that act to his audience.

Therefore, while Yabby’s back preparing his brief – look what I discovered in my “favourites” to assist his recall:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2246#50713

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2246#50950

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2246#50383

“We need a boundless ethic which will include the animals also. The ethics of respect for life makes us keep on the lookout together for opportunities of bringing some sort of help to animals, to make up for the great miseries men inflict on them.

"The human spirit is not dead. It lives on in secret.....It has come to believe that compassion, in which all ethics must take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind." - Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) - Nobel Peace Prize Address, "The Problem of Peace in the World Today."

Great horny toads - I must be "hormonal?" Yay!
Posted by Protagoras, Monday, 24 August 2009 1:16:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn, I'd not picked up on the original.

My gut feel on people staying together for the sake of the kids is that all to often the kids will be growing up in a home where the parents resent each other with the snipping and lack of warmth that goes with that. That few adults are adult enough to change habit's values etc while still in the situation to make whatever created the problem go away.

Staying for the kids is possibly better than worst case scenarios of single parent homes but worst than a lot of the other scenario's.

I was a stayer but in retrospect I think my son is getting a much better environment to grow in now than he had when my ex and I were together, my ex has remarried and from the outside that seems to be going well. I'm in a long term relationship and it's fantastic, a whole different world to the environment in the home when my son was young.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 24 August 2009 6:16:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*yet your brain does not seem as open to other peoples ideas or experiences, particularly females?*

Suze, if that was the case, I would not be reading and quoting stuff
by neuroscientists such as Susan Greenfield or Candace Pert, or
Sue Carter, plus others.

Antonious quoted Steve Hein as an authority on the subject, which
he clearly is not. He simply has an opinion and a website.

Now finally to the dog. Quite a few years ago I bought a pup from
a drover, which turned out to be the best sheepdog I've ever owned,
even though she was the runt of the litter. From 6 weeks old, this
kiddo just had it!

I intended to keep her entire for having another litter in some years time,
to keep her genes going for another generation. So the plan would
have been to find her an err eligible boyfriend, who is equally
talented.

Things did not work out that way, when a new dog in the neighbourhood
travelled a few km for a visit and my female snuck out at 5am, as
girls do when on heat :)

8 pups landed up being far too much for mom and the pups, all fighting
at a couple of days old already. So I removed two of the 8 and
chopped their heads off with an axe, all pretty straightforward and
sensible. At two days old they are the size of a large mouse and
still blind.

The other 6 pups went to homes, bar one which is still here annoying
her mother lol.

All quite rational and sensible, but beyond a geriatric like dickie
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 24 August 2009 9:50:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle,

'You, Yabby and many other men judge women by their appearance. You have demonstrated this by implying that I would 'appear' too old for my partner.'

Nup. Comprehension isn't your strong point is it. I give up. Sorry, you're just too thick.

You guys are all nuts,

'Oh yes – your propensity to chop up little puppies Yabby.'

'yet your brain does not seem as open to other peoples ideas or experiences, particularly females?'

'The initiated on this forum will know that historically, Yabby has spent the majority of his OLO time bickering with women. Regardless of the topic he’s an expert and rest assured he'll have the last say on this thread.

Given that our resident hillbilly is a childless, abandoned sad sack, whose wife escaped some thirty years ago (“couldn’t cope with rural life” – ahem!) it’s astonishing that he views himself as an expert on the sex life of women.'

Jesus man, what has the guy done but express his opinion. Talk about bullying...:-)

You all have your opinion, he has his. He no more puts himself up as an expert than you lot.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 24 August 2009 10:33:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq
You are a sensitive and mature person and I ask you to see whatb realy yabby has done.
He read one-two books about hormones or brain, mind etc and every time he uses this knoledges to fight his opponents. He appointed him self a specialist neuro-psyxologist and instead to write about the debate, instead to tell his personal opinion about other's coments, opinions he try to make analysis of mental or brain conditions of the writer and for them every one who desagree with him has brain problems, he makes details stupid analysis and every one who agree with him is a smart logical non sick person.
This kind of behavior is provocative unexaptable.
Sir if you want to speak for brain functions do it in a special thread about it, if you want to make analysis of the mental or brain conditions of the writers do it but shut up your mouth, keep it for your self, every one makes analysis for the personality of the writer, I am one of the best on it, I do not care what one writes but what is his/her character, personality, values etc and I am very happy with you because you have a very nice character and you know what I think about it,
Yabby should stop immediatly his sick brain analysis, stop his attacks on very personal issues for any poster and express his opinion about what the posters write, not their brain functions or their mental conditions.
If we want to learn it we can visit a doctor or we can read the books as he did.
He can not convert any discussion to brain analysis or humutiate any posters with stupit brain analysis.
Do you understand my friend, every poster deserve respect and good threatment, including Yabby.
Sorry yabby I am hard to you because you passed the expected red lines in your brain or emution analysis, stop this story!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Monday, 24 August 2009 12:04:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

I’m so pleased I was able to assist where you merely had to parrot the information that this hormonally depleted, “geriatric raving lunatic” provided.

Permit me to parrot yours: “ Blokes screw these girls for the sheer fun of it, natural instincts satisfied.” And: “ If a bloke agrees to a bit of casual sex, he's agreeing to exactly that, not to marriage or fatherhood, or paying bills for life.”

I have a sneaking suspicion that your nonsense about visits to the knockers could be a figment of your imagination Yabby. I mean let’s face it, hookers don’t come cheap these days and you’re not known for a propensity to pay your way. Rather you prefer to make a fast buck no matter how sordid the details.

Which reminds me of your assertion that homo sapiens are merely animals (some more than others) and speaking of animals, let’s go back to the farm and observe the hapless dogs under your control, “screw(ing) for the sheer fun of it.”

Costs to eradicate the plague of wild dogs and hybrid dingoes, breeding out of control in rural Australia, is in the vicinity of tens of millions of dollars annually – to no avail.

In the meantime, you, the supreme leader of the “Hypocrites and Hillbillies Collective” have dogs on heat on your rural property running amok and mating at random:

“and my female snuck out at 5am, as girls do when on heat."

“Strange that the farm dogs around here are seldom sterilised……….” (Yabby – November 2008)

Miserly cheapskate eco-vandals never pay for anything, do they Yabby, no matter the consequences. Again I shall witness your feeble endeavors to put lipstick on a pig but alas, Yabby,..... it’ll still be a pig!
Posted by Protagoras, Monday, 24 August 2009 2:16:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks RObert. I'm glad it's working out for you and your boy. You sound to me like you'd be a great Dad.

I won't expand on my ideas any further here - it's just not the place for it! But I'm sure we'll touch on these issues again some other time.

:)
Posted by Bronwyn, Monday, 24 August 2009 2:28:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nothing wrong with that, Yabby.

>>So I removed two of the 8 and chopped their heads off with an axe, all pretty straightforward and sensible. At two days old they are the size of a large mouse and still blind.<<

Trouble is, you need at least four to make a decent meal.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 August 2009 2:48:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antonious, the world is full of people like you, with a political
agenda. If you hear anything that does not suit your agenda, it
must be false! You refuse to consider that your basic assumptions
about this world could be false. So you simply close your mind.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/08/21/study.demonstrates.how.we.support.our.false.beliefs

Comfirms what I am on about, for this kind of stuff swings elections!
Smart people like Karl Rove understand it, many don't. It is how he
won the elections for Bush.

Fact is, you refuse to accept that humans are part of nature and not
above nature. Yup we are another species, we think and we feel, both
affect our decisions and judgement.

Just this morning I referred back to another great neuroscience writer,
who has written various books on the brain, including for
National Geographic. He confirms what I have been on about, ie that
emotions act largely at the subconcious levels and that hormones
affect behaviour. So you Antonious, are not even aware of what is
going on in your own brain alot of the time!

You can reject all these understandings of the human mind, that is
your choice. I prefer to increase my knowledge and add some new
knowledge every single day.

If you think that I won't mention these things in my posts, because
you want to deny reality, well think again. Feel free to ignore my
posts if they give you stress, don't even read them, but don't expect
me to not discuss things which science is proving and you too could
learn if you wished, but they simply don't suit your political agenda.

Fact is you will never make sense of the human race and our niche
spot on this planet, if you don't make some effort to understand
how our brains work. For the mind is, what the brain does.

Ignore nature at your peril if you wish. Meantime people like you
and Dickie can keep shooting the messenger. I am used to it lol.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 24 August 2009 3:08:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby:“Let me see, so far she's had two litters, two puppies have died. I destroyed them with an axe when they were a couple of days old, as mommy and pups were stressing due to 8 being too many.”

Oh well sweet, I was right about the pups. [the crowd roars]

And there was a “dickie” who is that now?

Plus an argument with PALE which seemed to be really common for awhile there.

And as for the missing dads, I still like that Mog’s idea about everyone paying for all children regardless of how interested either parent is or how they were created in the first place.

The mind thing, well of course hormones are important and controlling, would have to be because evidence is that people are so damn illogical. Why am I sad and missing my hubby? I know he’ll be back in a few days so why waste time on this emotion?

Because I have no idea how not to miss him. Completely without logic aye.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Monday, 24 August 2009 5:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only intimate contact he has with females is when he has to pay for it which tells me that he must be pretty darn gruesome on the outside as well.

Protag
A second car for a misses costs about $300 per week. Her hair cut about one a month, average $70 a week. Nails, petticure, another $30 a week. All that girly stuff, another $50 a week. Airobics or gym membership, another $40 a week. Diet foods etc, another $80 a week.

Bottles of wine, entetainment with the girls, another $100 a week.

Now thats almost $700 a week.

Makes a night or two at the brothel sound cheap hey. Did I mention the lack of bitching?

Hang on, I think I may have to ring my lawyer tomorrow.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 24 August 2009 6:24:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub,
After all that expense you can AFFORD the phone call let alone the lawyer?
Posted by examinator, Monday, 24 August 2009 8:42:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“A second car for a misses costs about $300 per week. Her hair cut about one a month, average $70 a week. Nails, petticure, another $30 a week. All that girly stuff, another $50 a week. Airobics or gym membership, another $40 a week. Diet foods etc, another $80 a week. Bottles of wine, entetainment with the girls, another $100 a week. Now thats almost $700 a week. Makes a night or two at the brothel sound cheap hey. Did I mention the lack of bitching?”

I don’t drive, I have naturally curly hair that drives me nuts but doesn’t get cut, my nails are fine without spending money and I can reach my own toes, I don’t have girly stuff, I don’t go to the gym I walk, I would eat less food if dieting not buy more, I don’t drink wine or entertainment with girls.

But most of all I have nothing to bitch about because I’m not married to you.[smile]
Posted by The Pied Piper, Monday, 24 August 2009 9:56:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ouch! T.F.F.T- to boring for me I'm sorry.

But my point was, visiting a brothel once or twice a week is an option many are preffering to take.

Now apart from the few hundred left in the kitty at weeks end, there are, No mood swings, no arguments and most certainly no babies.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 6:32:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think your view of Aussie chicks is really weird Retchub. I don’t believe they are generally expensive or flashy type people without personal income. You make them sounds like a bunch of footballers wives with worse attitudes.

This conversation certainly clashes with recent ones about marriage and fiancés and families, children. I also don’t believe you. I think in a relationship men are happy to spoil their partners now and again, indulge the odd mood swing and love their children – and of course visa versa.

It wouldn’t surprise me if those visiting a brothel once or twice a week are married.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 7:23:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, at least now we know why rehctub spends so much time whingeing about those who are less affluent than he is - the poor bugger's obviously miserable at home, despite the wealth that he crows about so often.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 8:14:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The bottom line is that kids cost money. Blaming gender bias for that is simply stupid.”

Anti said it, might have been in another thread but he said it.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 6:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“A second car for a misses costs

Well I thought someone would jump to conclusions, not CJ though.

Note the word 'a', not mine, just an example, but hey, can't blame you for having your two bobs worth of 'tall poppy syndrome' CJ!

Now as for PP, and this;
I don’t believe they are generally expensive or flashy type people without personal income.

I think you need to get out a little more dear, no I'm not talking about bingo at the local bowls club. You need to see how the other half live, then you may change your views.

High maintinance is one word that generally comes to mind.

So where are you Yabby, I stuck on in for you and you've left me out to dry!
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 10:04:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“A second car for a misses costs"

You pay that for someone else’s missus? Retchub ya muppet.

I think you’re much older than me and I’m not from here so if you say your Aussie chicks are like that then until I hear otherwise I’ll just have to believe you honey bunny.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 10:32:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*So where are you Yabby, I stuck on in for you and you've left me out to dry!*

I'm right here Rehctub. PP probabaly took it a bit personally,
but indeed you are correct, some women are extremely high maintenance
and its a common joke amongst blokes to calculate their cost of sex.
Throw in a divorce case or two and it can be frigging huge!

Don't worry about CJ. Despite all his claimed womanly expertise,
by what he's told us, most of his adult life was spent in failure
with women. He finally got lucky late in life but seemingly forgets
that all that expertise did not do him much good for the previous
twenty something years.

Today its not about brothels anymore. As I pointed out to Fraccy,
the net combined with mobile phones, has changed the sex industry.
Private escorts are the go now, they even come to your house, if you
live in a city. You can check em out on the net, even book them
on the net and you know what you are up for from the start.

Add up baby claims, high maintenance women, divorce courts and
lawyers, frankly its a practical option for anyone who has got
a few bob and does not want to lose his shirt in the family law
courts
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 10:48:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Private escorts are the go now, they even come to your house, if you
live in a city. You can check em out on the net, even book them
on the net and you know what you are up for from the start."

Oooohhh......"you know what you're up for from the start." Errr..... but does she? How much extra for beasties......the little crab and scabie critters?
Posted by Protagoras, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 1:39:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joke!
A guy came home from work one day and the missus was packing her bags.

The guy asked, "so where are you going to go", she replied, "to the cross. The girls there are being paid up to $1000 per night for sex".

The guy then started to pack his bags so she said, "where are you going". He replied, "I'm comming with you as I want to see how you live on 2 grand a year!

PP, you will have to try much harder if you want to insult me dear.

I know guys with missus's that spend in excess of $10,000 PER MONTH.

Trouble is, they are stuck with the dragon because silly them worked thier a's off to secure a future but are now trapped and simply pay the fee and go elsewhere to avoid the settlement. 10K a month is sometimes worth it to them, esspecially when the alternative is to part with 50 to 80% of 300 mill or so.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 5:56:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dickie dear, yes we know that crabs and scabies can spread like
wildfire in those old peoples homes. But at your age, with the
brain fading, most likely you won't notice :).

If you have em and do notice, you can always go and tell the nurse, I am sure she will help you.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 8:43:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby: << Don't worry about CJ. Despite all his claimed womanly expertise, by what he's told us, most of his adult life was spent in failurewith women. He finally got lucky late in life but seemingly forgetsthat all that expertise did not do him much good for the previous twenty something years. >>

Hardly wasted, Yabby. Unlike some, I choose to learn from my experiences, including my mistakes. That's how I've grown up to be a reasonably contented middle-aged bloke who has a beautiful and loving partner, great kids and grandkids and a couple of ex-wives who are among by best friends still.

Others, on the other hand, pretend to themselves that being alone in life is just as good so long as you can pay someone for sex, or spend inordinate amounts of time whingeing and moaning about others who haven't sacrificed personal fulfilment in favour of conspicuous consumption.

To each their own, I guess - but I'd challenge anybody to find a post I've written here that indicates unhappiness or discontent in my life. Life's too short to waste by avoiding the opportunities for personal growth that are afforded from learning from one's experiences, including one's mistakes.

Rehctub - so that was someone else's wife you were talking about? Riiiigggghhht, whatever you say old son.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 9:02:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Morning Retchub and Yabby, howzit hanging boys?

I haven’t met any women like you describe Retchub but are you saying that if women aren’t the flashy type with the hair do and nails then they’re boring? So you prefer woman like that but then complain they are like that?

I don’t get what sort of females you have both known or attract let alone the type of friends you have that sit around and joke about women and babies costing so much while living in financial fear of divorce. Is this what Australians are like in general?

And I really can’t imagine being in a situation where greed was the reason I stayed in a relationship.

Retchub that wasn’t an attempted insult in that post, I was just yanking ya chain. I did like your joke though. Hubby cracked me up the other day in the car and we’d been driving for about half an hour through various small towns and I’m oblivious to everything when he suddenly asks “Is today big tit day?”

10,000.00 per month?

Do you find wealthy people like that just incredibly self-centered, self- indulgent, self-serving (and any other word that starts with “self”)? I suspect fostering changed the way I see things, I’d rather not have the latest fashion item and get the new 3 year old girl that arrived with nothing her first pretty dress.

Am I in a minority here? I feel lucky to have my husband and the life we have. Oh except for right now, been up since 4am and no idea what I have eaten but suspect I’m going to uphcuck soon. But this will not affect my flash hair, manicure or husband... phew aye.[grin]
Posted by The Pied Piper, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 9:20:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper

I had pretty much given up on this thread, but you had me laughing out loud - again.

<< I haven’t met any women like you describe Retchub but are you saying that if women aren’t the flashy type with the hair do and nails then they’re boring? So you prefer woman like that but then complain they are like that? >>

Champagne observation, Julie - you are indeed a jewel; a diamond. I suspect that these 'men' get the women they deserve.

I am sure that there are women like Retchub has described, but the majority of us are busy working, caring for our children and partners. Also, if you enjoy gardening as much as I, then a manicure makes no sense at all; however a good bit of pruning and weeding tones the body and is free.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 9:39:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Piper, you only need to go to middle and upper class suburbia, to
find them in their tens of thousands! I call them females with
the spending gene :) Shopping for shoes, clothes, makes them feel
better. That's why so many people are maxed out on their credit
cards.

* I suspect that these 'men' get the women they deserve.*

One could
say the same thing about you Fraccy, for it was your bad judgement in
the end, that was the reason why you've landed up with the various
partners that you have.

*but the majority of us are busy working, caring for our children and partners.*

Ah so romantic, but its not the reality out there. For half of
marriages end up in the divorce courts. Of the half that remain,
many officially stay together for the sake of the kids or for the
reasons that Rehctub has pointed out.

Now the family law act has been changed once again, so that after
2 years, any bloke with assets is fair game, even the mistress can
claim! Never mind who worked for those assets, the future "wellbeing"
of the other partner is considered. In other words, the family
law court has the right to basically commit daylight robbery
on a bloke's assets, if they wish.

I wonder what input the feminist brigade had in all these legislative
changes? We can't have some bloke scoring a bit of free nookie,
best we get even by law.

That is exactly why my prediction that blokes with assets will get
wise to all this and high class hookers will thrive.

Those blokes with no money, well there ain't much to rob.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 11:26:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby
"even the mistress can claim!"
The truth is that for many men their wifes are not different from mistresses, not very different from official prostutes in a family level.
But if the men block their wifes to improve or use their abilities, if they do not love and respect them, women have no other choice than to separate.
What do you think Yabby if a woman left her carieer, her studies, her goals to support her husband, if she has no other choice than to leave a sick environment and relations, what do you expectf from this woman to live on the streets or suffer for the rest of her life?
When we marry we know what we are doing, we fully undrestand and undertake our responsibilities, we do not play with others life and we pay hard for any suffering of innocent persons, of innocent woman.
Is not the same thing for the rich or successfull women? Is not the same thing for men who married rich women? Why you see only the one side and not the other side?
The law in both sides try to cover the weak, the victim, it is wrong to believe that the law is against the men.
Except if you agree that the men are the bad one and give no other choice to their wifes than to separete, in this case instead to blaim the law or the women try to teach the men the very basics.
HUSBANDS OR WIFES DESERVE LOVE AND RESPECT AND IF WE IGNORE OR HUMILIATE THEM, WE WILL PAY FOR OUR BAD BEHAVIOR.
ANTONIOS SYMEONAKIS
ADELAIDE
Posted by ASymeonakis, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 11:58:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So apart from PP and Fractelle who are haplessly confusing the issue by claiming middle ground, we seem to be evenly split between bag ladies and gold diggers on this one.

For those girls about to be chucked out onto the street, or those already homeless, nobody can say it quite like Erykah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJiOWShBsvQ

And to be fair, here’s one for the boys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU13MRtSD7E
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 12:14:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby:”Shopping for shoes, clothes, makes them feel better.”

They actually sound bored to me Yabby like shopping as a time filler. Shopping for fun because there is nothing else fun to do. Mind you – I love toy shopping. Happily spend a fortune on them and justify it by telling myself multiple children will make use of them and not just one child that will get tired of them within minutes.

“For half of marriages end up in the divorce courts. Of the half that remain,many officially stay together for the sake of the kids or for the reasons that Rehctub has pointed out.”

I don’t fit in to those groups. Are you sure you’ve met everyone? It is a backward argument really – you’re about to say “oh you’ll be divorced in the end” or “you’re only together to save money or doing it for the kids”. I know not to believe either and there is no evidence to support it but for some reason you’ll be all sure of yourself. This bothers me no end.[smile]

I figure the only honestly committed to marriage people in your book would be a couple of childless bums living in a cardboard box somewhere?

You ever trusted females to like you just for who you are? You’re intelligent, witty, the mile wide chauvinistic streak would be considered a bit of a challenge to most feisty fems. Get out there man.

Fractelle, love gardening, had half an acre of mature garden in Wellington for 7 years and I still think about my plants and trees, wonder how they’re doing. Had a little creek running through and was just lovely. But anyways, moving on… yeah I personally like making my husband happy and hope we are together a long long time – we’ve been hanging out for many years waiting for our own kids to clear the hell out so we can spend our money on ourselves.[grin] My daughter said she is never leaving – we may have to ditch her.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 12:28:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*you’re about to say “oh you’ll be divorced in the end” or “you’re only together to save money or doing it for the kids*

Piper, nope, not at all! I am simply pointing out the basic
statistics and pointing out that those self righteous, so called experts, like Fraccy and CJ, both themselves have chequered pasts,
when it comes to relationships, so they clearly don't have all the
answers.

I do know quite a few couples who are real soulmates and nothing
would break them up. They want the same things out of life and
their communication and love lives are excellent. My point is,
they are few and far between and certainly not a majority.
Somehow they are on a similar mental frequency. like tuned to the same
radio station lol.

Hey that is great when it happens, but it is indeed rare.

As for me personally, I have more then enough notches on my belt
and nothing more to prove :)

I live in the bush, deeply involved in some really "ahead of their
time" projects, which fascinate me completely. I really don't have
the urge to go visiting the relies etc and all the other things
women want to do.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 2:53:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PP; I love toy shopping. Boy, you had me excited there for a minute. Sorry, mind in the gutter again, wrong toys!

Yabby, I hear you loud and clear.

I live in a great house overlooking morten bay, I also have a block in the bush about 2000 ac, that's where I would rather be. Love the bush!

Saw a couple of great slogans recently.
one on a shirt, said "I chose a life, not a wife", the other on the back of a Winnebago, it said "adventure before dementia".

So what's happened to the thread by the way. Boy are we off track. But hey, it's fun!

These man hatting feminists, and anttonio, are just to much fun.

Nothing personal girls, but you really should get out and see how the other half live.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 6:35:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I do know quite a few couples who are real soulmates and nothing
would break them up.”

Thank goodness for that. You sure know how to make a person paranoid.

“I live in the bush, deeply involved in some really "ahead of their
time" projects, which fascinate me completely. I really don't have
the urge to go visiting the relies etc and all the other things
women want to do.”

Oh no no no – relies, no, his or mine, rather die thanks.[smile]

Projects in the bush? Like with animals or plants? C’mon Yabby don’t be such a hold out.

Evening Mr Rehctub, Can you tell me if there is such a thing as an albino goana? I swear I saw one once in the bush outside of Tenterfield, huge, white with pink eyes. Have to admit I was severly hungover at the time but still the horror of the moment has stuck with me forever and what was going through my mind at the time is still crystal clear, it went like this:

“!”
Posted by The Pied Piper, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 7:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Seeker, at least I am sitting on the fence with my husband and Fractelle is parked up in mid field with her fella. Actually they look more comfortable than us.

Good music, thank you. Gold digger was a fav when it came out and feat wassisname who did that movie about the other dude. Yes I have been practicing being much clearer in my message style sanx. Erykah is magic.

My daughter drove me nuts playing this song over and over awhile ago but it suits this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVTyLqkez6A
Posted by The Pied Piper, Thursday, 27 August 2009 8:28:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 48
  7. 49
  8. 50
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy