*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 :)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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 :-)