Post-feminism and BDSM

[ownedsubgal]

In what real sense? Legally, marriage and civil unions are simply partnerships with certain legal benefits.

in the sense that your two lives are now in many ways one, you are tied to each other, your futures are intertwined, etc.

 

[intothewoods]

in the sense that your two lives are now in many ways one, you are tied to each other, your futures are intertwined, etc.

Many married people would say those sentiments apply to them, but far fewer would say that the woman belongs to the man only.

 

[JMohegan]

no, i would not say that Netz would get a "choice" to retain those rights. this is more about core identity, and i don't believe Netz chooses her identity any more than i choose mine. all the standard gender rules simply do not apply to her, and she personally is greatly responsible for my ability today to truly understand and respect that there can still be a cohesive and sensible "Way" for our society without everyone having to color within the same lines. it is not about choice or freedom to choose, it is about who you are.

as for your "hardcore D/s" comment, no, that is not what i believe. i am failing to understand how anything i have described is "hardcore." now as for simply D/s, i believe that exists anyway to some degree in every human/animal relationship. however that's a different topic.

what i'm saying is that 1. i recognize and greatly appreciate the differences between genders, and 2. marriage, civil unions, and other legally binding contracts between adults is in a very real sense belonging to someone. now, depending on one's personal beliefs or ways, that "ownership" can go both ways, however this is where point 1 comes into play. because there are certain differences between men and women (vaginas, birthin' babies, etc.), the same rules cannot be blindly applied across the board. as a single and free woman, what goes in or out of your uterus is your business. but as part of a greater whole, the person without the uterus is effected as well.

Let's assume that you are 100% correct in asserting that individuals do not choose their core identities. You, me, Netzach, everybody.

What about other Netzach-like females? Are you also in favor of "fooling the gov't a bit" for them? How should that work, in your view? The law is the law, and while breaking it without getting caught is frequently possible, in some cases it's not. If Netzach and others like her show up at a bank to open an account, should they lie to the teller and claim to be single? Forge their husband's signature on the permission slip? How would that work?

The choice I see here is not picking one's own core identity, but rather asserting one's rights in alignment with one's core identity. Taking away the legal rights of Netzach-like females denies them their choice to behave in a dominant way.

What about core identities somewhere in between yours and Netzach's? Is it your belief that women like that actually exist?

As for "hardcore D/s" - that's my shorthand for extreme control. Force someone to become financially dependent, and take away all rights of refusal or control over her own body, and that's hardcore in my book. This nothing to do with SM, pain, or degradation; I'm talking purely about control.

 

[BiBunny]

I think what osg is talking about would be ok, as long as it went both ways.

Female wants more sex than male (and, yes, it does happen)? He either gives it to her, or he agrees to open the relationship. One partner wants a child and the other doesn't? We have agreements in place on how to resolve it beforehand.

As far as the draft goes, let's not have it at all.

 

[intothewoods]

As a kid I expected my needs to be provided for, because that's all I knew. That's a separate issue from the effect of an absentee parent. Money has no impact on that.

On the question of identity, I wonder how the law can assess identity to determine who is allowed to maintain certain rights in a marriage.

 

[Tabea]

exactly. as a kid what would you prefer...a reluctant monthly check from a sperm donor, or someone to teach you to ride a bike and go to your piano recitals?

i do not agree with the concept of child support outside of a committed/established relationship gone sour. it is of no emotional/psychological benefit to the child (and can even be damaging, reminding them of being unwanted, etc.), and completely denies a man's rights. and while yes i'm aware women are mandated to pay child support also, the situations are so extreme and so rare as to be in a completely different category.

Do you really think it’s a choice? Would a father develop a loving a relationship with his child just because he didn’t have to pay for it?

The money from the reluctant father could make it possible to afford those piano lessons and would mean that the mother could spend more time with her child.

Why should the child be completely the woman’s responsibility? It’s not as if she created it all by herself.

In Germany both parents owe child support. The parent who looks after the child provides the child support through caring for it.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Many married people would say those sentiments apply to them, but far fewer would say that the woman belongs to the man only.

of course. that is why i stated, directly after the sentence you highlighted: now, depending on one's personal beliefs or ways, that "ownership" can go both ways, however this is where point 1 comes into play...

 

[intothewoods]

of course. that is why i stated, directly after the sentence you highlighted: now, depending on one's personal beliefs or ways, that "ownership" can go both ways, however this is where point 1 comes into play...

Yes, but that doesn't exactly comport with the rest of your posts.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Do you really think it’s a choice? Would a father develop a loving a relationship with his child just because he didn’t have to pay for it?

The money from the reluctant father could make it possible to afford those piano lessons and would mean that the mother could spend more time with her child.

Why should the child be completely the woman’s responsibility? It’s not as if she created it all by herself.

why should a man have to pay to financially support a child he did not "choose," by a woman he was never committed to? why should he be financially indebted for the next 18 years of his life simply because a woman "chose," on her own, to carry a pregnancy to term and then raise that child? i have never understood that logic. as the humans with the uterus, the onus DOES lie on us, sorry. if you are a single/unattached woman, do not have a child you are not financially prepared to care for.

i know a man (actually a relative) who has 4 children by 3 different women, all casual sex partners/flings. all 3 women are happily jobless. 80% of his meager income goes toward paying child support. now of course it could be easily argued, he should have learned to keep it in his pants, no question. however is it fair, is it proper, that he is forced to live at a near-poverty level, unable to even dream of owning a home or even a decent vehicle, unable to build any savings...so that he can financially support children he never wanted, by women who were nothing more than scrump buddies?

 

[ownedsubgal]

Yes, but that doesn't exactly comport with the rest of your posts.

how so? point 1, there is a difference between genders.

 

[intothewoods]

how so? point 1, there is a difference between genders.

You have stated that married women should have less rights than single women. That suggests that the woman belongs to the man only in some pretty important ways.

 

[intothewoods]

osg - In response to your story about your friend, while I haven't reviewed the child support formula in every state, it is near impossible for a jobless woman to live on child support for one child, unless the man is absolutely loaded. She would need an additional form of support. Your friend is paying support for three children, and that certainly adds up. I find it difficult to feel sympathetic for someone who did not learn after the first casual fling. Is a woman who doesn't use protection in the midst of a casual fling sympathetic? Nope, she's not either.

 

[Netzach]

Here's the thing, my aunt was paying off credit card debt accrued by her husband for a decade after their divorce. I'm all for some kind of notion that protects person A from the idiocy of person B or prevents the hiding of vast sums of money within a marriage, but let's not pretend that wives are more apt to do this and less apt to suffer this.

Sure, when you marry you give up certain things. Restful nights, brilliant unquestioned decision making, control of the remote. I don't know that this enmeshment needs to be legally reinforced, because it's not enforceable, just like making fathers out of deadbeats isn't enforceable. I also don't think that women need to be policed into the relationship nearly as much as *men* might, because, well - look where things are at. The whole notion of traditional marriage is that men regulate themselves out of honor.

Look at how things have actually historically been, with courtesans, bastard children all over the place - an idyllic notion of "traditional marriage" is pretty much a right wing fantasy and no more.

I also am not entirely sure that my identity isn't a choice. I mean, my desires aren't, but I sure have the option to live my life more ways in this culture than in other cultures, where my options would be pretty much go crazy and kill yourself or kill yourself quick. There's a lot more latitude for me at this time and in this place than any other, and so there *are* options about how I can play my hand.

I do feel like I made a lot of choices, difficult and not wildly popular at times. But I also think that a lot of people want to make easy popular choices and then complain about lack of fulfillment, and my patience is pretty thin at times with that.

 

[Tabea]

why should a man have to pay to financially support a child he did not "choose," by a woman he was never committed to? why should he be financially indebted for the next 18 years of his life simply because a woman "chose," on her own, to carry a pregnancy to term and then raise that child? i have never understood that logic. as the humans with the uterus, the onus DOES lie on us, sorry. if you are a single/unattached woman, do not have a child you are not financially prepared to care for.

i know a man (actually a relative) who has 4 children by 3 different women, all casual sex partners/flings. all 3 women are happily jobless. 80% of his meager income goes toward paying child support. now of course it could be easily argued, he should have learned to keep it in his pants, no question. however is it fair, is it proper, that he is forced to live at a near-poverty level, unable to even dream of owning a home or even a decent vehicle, unable to build any savings...so that he can financially support children he never wanted, by women who were nothing more than scrump buddies?

Women don't always choose to get pregnant either. They still have to raise the child if they can't bring themselves to have an abortion.

I feel it would be wrong to force women to have abortions because they couldn't financially support the child.

It's hardly the children's fault that their parents seem to have problems with contraception. If the father did not have to pay, the kids would be the ones who suffer. Personally I think it is fair that the father has to pay for them. He did chose to have - presumably unprotected - sex with their mothers even though he was aware of the financial risk. Do you really think it would be fairer for the kids to suffer?

 

[kaycee217]

Women don't always choose to get pregnant either. They still have to raise the child if they can't bring themselves to have an abortion.

I feel it would be wrong to force women to have abortions because they couldn't financially support the child.

It's hardly the children's fault that their parents seem to have problems with contraception. If the father did not have to pay, the kids would be the ones who suffer. Personally I think it is fair that the father has to pay for them. He did chose to have - presumably unprotected - sex with their mothers even though he was aware of the financial risk. Do you really think it would be fairer for the kids to suffer?

Exactly; as mentioned before, it's not about fairness with respect to the parents. It's about the best interests (financial support) of the child.

 

[where]

i wonder, do feminists agree with american child support laws? laws which mandate a man pay child support to a woman with whom he had no committed relationship, for a child he did not want or "choose" if you will?

I can only speak for myself, but no, if the woman gets pregnant and doesn't want a relationship with the father and he feels the same, then the father shouldn't have to pay. If the father (or absent parent because it cuts both ways) had a prior relationship or desires contact, then there should be payment made.

It is however a really difficult issue and I think best taken on each individual case.

I'm no feminist, but I agree with child support laws, even if the child is a result of bad faith by the mother.

It's not about making "the man" support the child. It's about providing for the child, whether the man or woman has to pay the child support or either party acting in bad faith.

I would be persuaded by that but with some caveats... what for example if the mother has no desire for contact because the father is abusive?

there's having a total dictatorship on finances, and then there's having the peace of mind knowing your wife can't secretly squirrel away 50K "for a rainy day" or purchase that beach house down in the keys under pretense of senile old mom's retirement home expenses. total dictatorship is what suits me and my relationship, general awareness and peace of mind is what i wish for relationships at large.

what about the man squirreling money away so he can dump the wife and get a younger and prettier model?

 

[kaycee217]

I would be persuaded by that but with some caveats... what for example if the mother has no desire for contact because the father is abusive?

The father still has to pay child support.

Perhaps I don't quite follow what you're asking?

 

[JMohegan]

Here's the thing, my aunt was paying off credit card debt accrued by her husband for a decade after their divorce. I'm all for some kind of notion that protects person A from the idiocy of person B or prevents the hiding of vast sums of money within a marriage, but let's not pretend that wives are more apt to do this and less apt to suffer this.

That basic financial education we keep talking about (but few people actually get) would go a long way toward minimizing idiocy and marital theft or fraud.

You'll never be able to eradicate it, but you could definitely teach people (male and female) to pay more attention to what's going on, to know what to expect & look for, signs of trouble, how to protect themselves, etc.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Women don't always choose to get pregnant either. They still have to raise the child if they can't bring themselves to have an abortion.

I feel it would be wrong to force women to have abortions because they couldn't financially support the child.

It's hardly the children's fault that their parents seem to have problems with contraception. If the father did not have to pay, the kids would be the ones who suffer. Personally I think it is fair that the father has to pay for them. He did chose to have - presumably unprotected - sex with their mothers even though he was aware of the financial risk. Do you really think it would be fairer for the kids to suffer?

personally i believe that children suffer far more when they are brought into this life unwanted by their parents, as an "oopsie," or when their mother decided to commit the ultimate selfish act by deciding to raise them knowing that they are unable to adequately care for the child financially.

moreover, have you never heard of adoption? if an unplanned and completely undesired pregnancy occurs, and a single woman cannot bring herself to terminate the pregnancy, then what is wrong with giving that child the opportunity to live a good, stable life with a family who dearly wants them?

 

[where]

The father still has to pay child support.

Perhaps I don't quite follow what you're asking?

I'm not really asking anything, more pondering. the child support thing is really complex and many fathers make the assumption that giving financial support entitles them to contact and also some women don't actually WANT financial support from the father for this reason and in the UK they are penalised for it if they receive welfare benefits.

I agree that in principle a father should pay to support his child irrespective of whether he is in contact or not and indeed even if he had no say in the pregnancy. However if you abide by that principle then you are setting up single mothers to be even further vilified and also open to being pressured into having unwanted abortions. Whilst it is a given that both parties should be using contraception, accidents DO happen and in these cases child support becomes a punishment on the father, which is not a good thing. At least I don't think so.

 

[kaycee217]

I'm not really asking anything, more pondering. the child support thing is really complex and many fathers make the assumption that giving financial support entitles them to contact and also some women don't actually WANT financial support from the father for this reason and in the UK they are penalised for it if they receive welfare benefits.

In the United States, it is my understanding that child support and visitation rights/obligations are not dependent on each other. The right for a father to see his child still exists, whether he pays his child support or not. However, I don't know if each state tweaks this somewhat with deadbeat fathers. So if the woman decides to have the child, it's my understanding a possible consequence of this is that the father will remain in her life, at least indirectly.

I agree that in principle a father should pay to support his child irrespective of whether he is in contact or not and indeed even if he had no say in the pregnancy. However if you abide by that principle then you are setting up single mothers to be even further vilified and also open to being pressured into having unwanted abortions. Whilst it is a given that both parties should be using contraception, accidents DO happen and in these cases child support becomes a punishment on the father, which is not a good thing. At least I don't think so.

How do you see this happening?

 

[where]

How do you see this happening?

if you had a fling with a woman and used a condom and were then informed 8 months later that you would be paying x% of your income for the next 18 years would you not be pissed off? Like I say, it turns child support into a punishment which will breed resentment against these women.

lets face it, even today young women who are openly sexual are denigrated in society and single mothers especially. you add in a bunch of pissed off don'twannabe dads into the mix and single mothers, especially young ones are going to get more crap than they already do.

Swear to god, you read some sections of the UK press and you would think they have horns and tails!



Disclaimer: I'm really hormonal so possibly being a bit garbled, but I know what I mean!

 

[kaycee217]

if you had a fling with a woman and used a condom and were then informed 8 months later that you would be paying x% of your income for the next 18 years would you not be pissed off? Like I say, it turns child support into a punishment which will breed resentment against these women.

lets face it, even today young women who are openly sexual are denigrated in society and single mothers especially. you add in a bunch of pissed off don'twannabe dads into the mix and single mothers, especially young ones are going to get more crap than they already do.

I don't know how prevalent the situation you've described is, but even if it happens all the time, the mother should take this "resentment." Why? Because why should the child suffer? Remember, this is NOT about fairness to the mother or father. It is about fairness to the child. If all 3 parties can be fairly treated, that's ideal. But if a party has to pay the price for the unwanted child, it should not be the child.

 

[where]

I don't know how prevalent the situation you've described is, but even if it happens all the time, the mother should take this "resentment." Why? Because why should the child suffer? Remember, this is NOT about fairness to the mother or father. It is about fairness to the child. If all 3 parties can be fairly treated, that's ideal. But if a party has to pay the price for the unwanted child, it should not be the child.

if the mother is on benefits here then the benefits are just reduced so it makes no financial odds anyway. if she isn't on benefits and she is working then shouldn't she have the choice to accept the money?

money helps but isn't neccessary for a happy childhood.

<<<<<< kid of a poor single parent

 

[Ravenwind]

i know a man (actually a relative) who has 4 children by 3 different women, all casual sex partners/flings. all 3 women are happily jobless. 80% of his meager income goes toward paying child support. now of course it could be easily argued, he should have learned to keep it in his pants, no question. however is it fair, is it proper, that he is forced to live at a near-poverty level, unable to even dream of owning a home or even a decent vehicle, unable to build any savings...so that he can financially support children he never wanted, by women who were nothing more than scrump buddies?

Being a parent myself, when two people cause to bring about a new life, I no longer have sympathy for the those people. Your [generic*] time for screwing off is done and over for the rest of your life. Not until the kids are 16, 18, 21, 25, when they marry, or whenever... you obligate yourself unto the well-being of your progeny indefinitely.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my greatgrandma, and all my grandparents watched out for my well-being until the days they passed, and I know my dad and step-mom share the same sentiments as well, and I have every intent on doing the same for my kids and the generations that follow. Being a good parent is more than "getting them through high-school and leaving them to their fate", it is being the safety net they can fall back upon, the confidant of their every word, their shoulder angel, and being every sort of positive influence you can be, so that they are stronger and more equipped to handle real life better than you yourself were at their age. All the legal system requires you to do is to pay to ensure the child survives until adulthood- it does not ask of you to be a good parent.

If it is your decision make yourself poor from your mistakes, then you have to live with it. I'm not saying this purely against the guys, mind you, the same applies to the women as well. If they choose to keep their children, then they need to do what they must to ensure the well-being of that child. I will admit right now that I do not work. But, my Husband works to provide the physical means for their upbringing, while I provide the mental, and we both provide the spiritual.

Now, to answer your question, "is it fair to him?". Let me answer by asking another question... "would it be fair to the children if he did not?". Knowing that their mothers do not work, would it be fair to the children to permit them to starve to death? To have them die from a simple cold because medicine could not be bought? Since their father left them, and therefore does not give any mental support, it becomes his duty to provide the physical support. Whether he chooses to continue his folly and further indebts himself to new children is his own fault, and therefore, is completely fair.

And on a final note... At times, I have gone without eating for a week at a time, just to ensure that my own children have enough to satisfy them at mealtimes through that week. What profit have I to see an innocent child, my own flesh and blood at that, suffer at the expense of my own selfish material wants of 'owning a home' or 'driving a decent vehicle'? At least your friend gets to eat. You reap what you sow.