Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

NY Post.com: Pregnant ex suing NFL star

TK

By TK
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
It includes men, but you're unaware that people lie to men about what they're taking? That people have gone so far as to dig condoms out of the trash or prick holes or "oops, missed a pill(deliberately)"

Your reference to Madonna/Whore complex is absurd, it has very little relevance, as no one here is demonstrating a dichotomous and cognitively dissonant view of females, it's a realistic view.

See, no one would expect that a system rigged in favor of men would not encourage men to act in such a way as to benefit themselves. In fact, nature itself is a system which shows that rich men and good looking women will work to secure resources or secure sex with attractive partners. This is not about slams on women, it's about slams on what we allow or incent in women.

The reason some old laws and structures were in place, however hateful to some, is that they militated against these types of situations.

The responsibility, by the way, recognizing that you are the gatekeeper, is on you. Especially in a world where the person with the womb gets to dispose of a child the man wants via abortion or terminate her rights via adoption but one night gets a man 18-21 years of servitude.

The current situation is one in which men have all of the responsibilities and none of the privileges or rights. Therefore, one would expect different discussions than one would find in a different system.

BTW, if men were allowed to terminate obligations/rights to children conceived outside of marriage, what are the odds these women would be getting pregnant at the same rate, if at all?

It's because we participate in subsidizing their mistakes and attempts to enrich themselves that this is an issue.

Men will seek to secure access to attractive sexual partners. Women want that, but value more highly securing the resources that will support her and her child. This is actually OK but kind of expresses itself in dysfunctional ways in a society which pretends that these things aren't true.

You must have missed my post where I posit that all are responsible for their reproductive freedom/responsibility. If men truly don't want to procreate, then take appropriate measures. Don't leave that condom behind, know that condoms will break, that some women are indeed scheming to use a child to get money and will do what what they will to effect that. Why rely on the word of someone who says that they have taken care of the birth control? Why are you ceding control over your reproduction to someone else? Do you know that some women cannot take the pill and they have to rely on other methods as well?

Why not advocate for more effective birth control for men, such as the male birth control pill? Why not research for other methods for men? Why must the burden for birth control ALWAYS fall on the women, it's her fault if she gets pregnant? That's just the easy way out. If they can make pills for men to get it up, then they can make birth control for men.

It takes 2 to get pregnant, and if you don't want a child, then take responsibility for your reproduction yourself and DON'T RELY ON ANYONE ELSE! If you are a man, use a condom and take that condom with you, rinse it out, do anything you can. If you are a woman, do whatever you can to prevent pregnancy. It's all about communication between the parties. Mistakes happen on both sides, that's why support is necessary.

When I had my child, I couldn't use the pill and other forms failed. The condom broke and I got pregnant. In those days, fathers could sidestep their responsibilities in support for the child, so I didn't get any. That's why the laws are tougher now, so children are not raised in poverty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arsenic

Arsenic

Posted
Posted

So Big Al had 2 choices:

a) pay her to go away, avoiding the media circus, regardless if he's the actual Father

B) wait to see if he's the Dad, knowing the media will have a field day with the 100million$$ man

edit: You could say C) Dont sleep around.. but surely a larger percentage of us has had one night stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ddub52

ddub52

Posted
Posted

Could it be possible that this "exotic dancer" was impregnated by someone else? Maybe he knew that she had been with someone else so he cut her off. Not that I would ever be caught with an exotic dancer, but if I were him I wouldnt be shelling out cash to a girl who more or less performs sexual acts for a living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Siven

Siven

Posted
Posted
As much money as he has, he should be able to pay her off out of his pocket. Idiot.

Child Support is going to be ****ing ridiculous, she'll probably request something absurd like 300,000 a year and get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Siven

Siven

Posted
Posted
MAybe if he was in camp Larry Johnson would have explained to him how to deal with women...

A serious thought now - how is it that this lady deserves 10 million? Child support - yes, but 10 million? Can you say greedy ho?

I have a friend, who is very wealthy (of his own hard work), and he was looking at some condoms that he had, while still in the wrappers, and the girl he was seeing had been poking holes in them presumably in an attempt to get pregnant so she could claim "IM KEEPING IT" and live like a fat cat the rest of her life.

I guarantee that if this was John Doe or any normal person she'd have had it taken care of by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of

Ghost of

Posted
Posted
the girl he was seeing had been poking holes in them presumably in an attempt to get pregnant so she could claim "IM KEEPING IT" and live like a fat cat the rest of her life.

I guarantee that if this was John Doe or any normal person she'd have had it taken care of by now.

Indeed. In fact, it's like a sliding scale. A girl with a lot of financial hardship could do something like that to a fairly middle class man simply because he's the best she can do. Actually, a form of this does happen because a woman who has slept with many men in a short period will get pregnant and then claim that the father is the one with, surprise!, the most financial resources or status of the group. In a very few cases, it may be the one who she actually has the closest bond with who she think she can ensnare.

As I tried to explain to LSF, this isn't about looking down on women at all, but about acknowledging the biological reality of the impulses that drive us, even beyond our ken to explain and confess to ourselves. A woman tries to secure resources and a man to protect her as she raises offspring (this can be skewed socially, of course, but this is the reality) and much of our dating life and life outside of the world of mating can be explained by a male's drive to risk, push boundaries both intellectual and physical, and often merely for the sake of securing sexual resources in the form of nubile and fertile women (likely to secure the best genetic parentage, so long as his genes are involved but it, of course, gets skewed into being just about sex.)

Now, of course, it is evil to poke holes in a condom or "oops! on purpose" forget your pills or birth control device in order to get pregnant but it's biology at play in a world that doesn't always conduce to biology's smooth function and expression. Just as it would be wrong to drug or coerce sex from women or outright lie to them about who you are or knowingly pass on disease.

The problem is, falsely claiming pregnancy or deliberately creating the situation is akin to enslaving a man for a period of no less than 18 years when he d

Now, Al is responsible if he didn't take the steps but even then, why is adoption or Albert having a nanny take care of his own offspring (as opposed to a STRIPPER, I'm sure his home CAN be more stable and more conducive) not an option for Ms. Hayek II? Oh, because if that were the case, she would be securing ZERO in financial support and maintaining close proximity to ALbert's status (also a factor) via a child.

It's ugly reality on display. A man's job is to make sure he does not allow it to happen but that's often (not always) because the world is filled with duplicitous individuals seeking to get a hold of his resources (be it a woman, the State, etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mbws

mbws

Posted
Posted

I'm on Albert's side in this. If it is his child, he should definitely support it, but there is no way she should get anything remotely close to 10 million.

If it turns out this is not his child, she should be prosecuted for extortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

Again I say, if someone doesn't want to procreate, then they should be responsible for their OWN reproductive freedom, whatever that may be. So guys, if you don't want to have a child, it is up to YOU to do whatever you can to not procreate AND not rely on your partner to be responsible for birth control. That includes locking up condoms, or believing that the woman is on the pill, taking the pill, or using some other method. Be responsible for your own swimmers. Only you have control of them.

Also, these days DNA testing will determine if someone is a parent, so it's not guessing anymore. I also think that laws should be changed that automatically assume that children born of a marriage are the husband's offspring, unless it's a matter of artifical insemination where the husband agrees that the resultant offspring are his or in the case of adoption. I don't think a man should have to financially support children who aren't his. Science has moved us past this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...