I get food stamps, and I’m not ashamed — I’m angry

[Nice Squirrel]

I've got to get in to have it done.

from the time i walked into the clinic until i was done and walking to my car to drive home was seriously like 35 minutes - it took less time to get my man gravy diluted than it did to renew my driver's license.

Sweet.

 

[laughing dog]

You have offered no evidence whatsoever these women have a net benefit from their large progeny. None. Anyone who has raised children scoffs at your ridiculous claim. Raising children is demanding work (even doing it poorly) that literally does not end after an 8 hour day.

It is very rewarding work, maybe not financially, but very rewarding work. That is why there are child custody battles and why people plan to have large families. It obviously is rewarding. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Regardless, it is demanding work.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

on average men have more partners than women

How does that work exactly? Are gay men being more promiscuous than lesbians?

- - - Updated - - -

It is very rewarding work, maybe not financially, but very rewarding work. That is why there are child custody battles and why people plan to have large families. It obviously is rewarding. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Regardless, it is demanding work.

With a net benefit that motivates people to want kids.

 

[prideandfall]

How does that work exactly? Are gay men being more promiscuous than lesbians?

you got me - but every study and survey in existence says men on average have more partners than women.

 

[Derec]

You have offered no evidence whatsoever these women have a net benefit from their large progeny. None. Anyone who has raised children scoffs at your ridiculous claim. Raising children is demanding work (even doing it poorly) that literally does not end after an 8 hour day.

I have. I have told you about the negative taxes due to generous (for those with kids) exemptions and refundable credits. Even somebody with 2 kids (like the angry, whiny woman in the OP) who makes $20k gross ends up with something like $25k net, even when factoring in FICA and state taxes. And that doesn't count food stamps and other benefits nor does it count child support.

Nor does it get you rich.

I did not say that it gets you rich, only that it is financially beneficial.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How does that work exactly? Are gay men being more promiscuous than lesbians?

you got me - but every study and survey in existence says men on average have more partners than women.

That is a curious finding. Over reporting by men and under reporting by women due to cultural expectations? Men counting their hands as partners? A strong negative correlation between women having a lot of sex partners and women willing to answer these surveys? Because... I mean... hetero sex kind of needs a man and a woman right?

 

[Derec]

reality isn't fair, derec - nut up and get over it.

It's quite telling that this "argument" is only used for injustices against men, never those against women.

men can get sterilized in an out-patient procedure that takes about 30 minutes, has full recovery within a couple of days, and is nearly 100% effective. it leaves virtually no scars, and is just as easily reversible.

So? That is not a reason to force men to get sterilized when it is the women who benefit from having many children. Men already have a disincentive - child support which can be up to 40% of a man's pay here in GA. For women child support in yet another incentive to have children in addition to all the tax and government benefits.

all of NONE of those factors are true for female sterilization, so there is simply a biological and resource based gulf between the two genders in this situation.

Still no reason to force sterilization on men.

not to mention that on average men have more partners than women,

Unless there is more heterosexually active women than men that is not possible.
N_m: number of sexually active men
s_m: average number of sexual partners per man
N_f: number of sexually active women
s_f: average number of sexual partners per woman
For heterosexuals, N_ms_m=N_fs_f= number of unique man-woman sexual pairings
Therefore \(s_m= \frac{N_f s_f}{N_m}\)

so if you look at it from a purely economics perspective it makes more financial sense to focus on men, since you're preventing more pregnancies per operation that way.

No, it does not. Quite beside the point that it's a great injustice, but you have already said you don't care about injustice as long as the victims are men.

getting snipped was the best thing i've ever done for myself - it's liberating, it's psychologically and emotionally reassuring and satisfying, and it's made every day of my life better since i had it done.
seriously, every man should get a vasectomy, they're the best.

So what, that is no reason to force it on the rest of us like some feminists want to do. For me in particular, I only have sex with sex workers (by necessity, not by choice) and thus always use condoms so a vasectomy would be useless.

 

[jonatha]

there's a minimum number of hours they must pay you for if you walk through the door.

Citation needed....

 

[DrZoidberg]

How does that work exactly? Are gay men being more promiscuous than lesbians?

you got me - but every study and survey in existence says men on average have more partners than women.

Yes. Gay men are the most promiscuous while lesbian women are the least promiscuous. Straights are in between. This is a popular argument against men and women being biologically equally promiscuous. Not that I'm all that convinced though.

But straight men having more partners than straight women might as well mean that a few women have lots of sex. This makes sense if we compare human sexuality to other primates. Low status chimpanzee females are highly promiscuous, while high status chimpanzee females are more selective.

Me personally, I think human sexuality is just really fucking complicated. Humans primarily have sex for other reasons that procreation. We use sex as a way of bonding socially between people. How much sex with have is dependent on our perceived success rate in forming bonds through sex. And this can vary quite a lot considering various social factors. I think when it comes to human sexuality it's fucking impossible to separate nature and nurture. I think they're both in their is one big happy soup.

 

[Derec]

But straight men having more partners than straight women might as well mean that a few women have lots of sex. This makes sense if we compare human sexuality to other primates. Low status chimpanzee females are highly promiscuous, while high status chimpanzee females are more selective.

The averages would still balance out though, as I have shown.

 

[Toni]

Of course, all those single dads are totally blameless in all this. Why does no one suggest that the men get themselves sterilized so they quit creating kids they have no intention of supporting?

It's amazing how the feminist who think any notion to sterilize women against their will is misogynist have no qualms about sterilizing men.
The big difference is that it's the women who most often get these government benefits and child support for all those children they keep having. I.e. they are the ones benefiting financially from their large progeny, not the men.

You need to read more carefully. Nowhere did I suggest that men--or anyone--should be sterilized against their will.

I said that men who had no wish to become fathers should get THEMSELVES sterilized.

You seem much more interested in spewing your anti-woman venom than in acquainting yourself with actual data or facts. If you ever decided to actually educate yourself even a tiny bit, you would discover that welfare benefits are not generous nor are they sufficient to provide for basic needs. You would also learn that few beneficiaries (I'm talking non-corporate ones here) collect benefits for more than a short time.

Corporate welfare beneficiaries are a different matter.

 

[Axulus]

There should be no before on this. The same situation would be the outcome. The same medicine can be applied to each condition. Thinking about just what somebody intended can get you into real trouble. I have always felt that we as a society need to perfect inasmuch as possible contraception. In that aspect I am against there being any other than needed abortions. The unintentional pregnancy is the source of almost all abortions. Abortion opponents do themselves a great disservice when the also oppose contraception.

No, offence, but people who have worked on themselves and have their emotional life in good working order, get completely swept away by horniness and have all out passionate sex. People like that might not think of contraception each time they have sex. Add alcohol and drugs to that (neither of which are going away... and you have a problem). That's my opinion. People who have their full faculties operating when they're about to have sex are neurotic control freaks who need to work with a therapist. Because it's a problem. Until you do you'll never be able to experience sex like we're supposed to. It's passionate, hot, often violent and is amazing. And often leads to contraceptives being forgotten.

We will never reach 100% use of contraceptives. Not even close.

This is why you plan ahead when you are not horny. There's the pill, there's IUD's, among others.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There's the pill, there's IUD's, among others.

Improvised Unexplosive Devices?

 

[Axulus]

I have. I have told you about the negative taxes due to generous (for those with kids) exemptions and refundable credits. Even somebody with 2 kids (like the angry, whiny woman in the OP) who makes $20k gross ends up with something like $25k net, even when factoring in FICA and state taxes. And that doesn't count food stamps and other benefits nor does it count child support.

Nor does it get you rich.

I did not say that it gets you rich, only that it is financially beneficial.

So let's say she ends up with an even $7k in benefits. How much outlay does she have for expenses for the kids, including daycare when they aren't in school and she's at work? How much does having the kids impact her work schedule flexibility and thus her employment options and wage impact?

Then there are the nonfinancial costs: you can't just plan a night out with friends and family - you have to have a babysitter lined up. You have to plan your entire schedule around them.

 

[Toni]

And yet, with absolutely zero effort on my part, I came up with not one but FOUR of those little 'exceptions to the rule' from my own personal acquaintance and let's be frank: from my own life.

Good for you, but you are ducking the point of what I was writing. I am not against this benefit. I am just suggesting that we may want to examine ways to discourage people who know they can't support large families from having large families, and requiring the rest of us to foot the bill for them so that they can. It reminds me of those exceptional cases Derec keeps bringing up where he says people are forced to pay child support for children they have nothing to do with. In such cases (if they exist), we should all pay as a group to support the kids. But quite often it could have been easily seen that those kids wouldn't have parental support and the situation could have been avoided.

I'm not 'ducking' anything. You, along with Derec, seem to be grossly misinformed about welfare recipients, at least in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

No, offence, but people who have worked on themselves and have their emotional life in good working order, get completely swept away by horniness and have all out passionate sex. People like that might not think of contraception each time they have sex. Add alcohol and drugs to that (neither of which are going away... and you have a problem). That's my opinion. People who have their full faculties operating when they're about to have sex are neurotic control freaks who need to work with a therapist. Because it's a problem. Until you do you'll never be able to experience sex like we're supposed to. It's passionate, hot, often violent and is amazing. And often leads to contraceptives being forgotten.

We will never reach 100% use of contraceptives. Not even close.

This is why you plan ahead when you are not horny. There's the pill, there's IUD's, among others.

Like condoms. Why didn't you mention condoms?

 

[Axulus]

Good for you, but you are ducking the point of what I was writing. I am not against this benefit. I am just suggesting that we may want to examine ways to discourage people who know they can't support large families from having large families, and requiring the rest of us to foot the bill for them so that they can. It reminds me of those exceptional cases Derec keeps bringing up where he says people are forced to pay child support for children they have nothing to do with. In such cases (if they exist), we should all pay as a group to support the kids. But quite often it could have been easily seen that those kids wouldn't have parental support and the situation could have been avoided.

I'm not 'ducking' anything. You, along with Derec, seem to be grossly misinformed about welfare recipients, at least in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

No, offence, but people who have worked on themselves and have their emotional life in good working order, get completely swept away by horniness and have all out passionate sex. People like that might not think of contraception each time they have sex. Add alcohol and drugs to that (neither of which are going away... and you have a problem). That's my opinion. People who have their full faculties operating when they're about to have sex are neurotic control freaks who need to work with a therapist. Because it's a problem. Until you do you'll never be able to experience sex like we're supposed to. It's passionate, hot, often violent and is amazing. And often leads to contraceptives being forgotten.

We will never reach 100% use of contraceptives. Not even close.

This is why you plan ahead when you are not horny. There's the pill, there's IUD's, among others.

Like condoms. Why didn't you mention condoms?

Because, in his example, both sides are so horny that by the time the condom is needed their mental faculties have been taken over by the hormones. Thus, the contraception must be in use when one is not horny in his scenario.

Others did mention the vasectomy if you were wanting an example for men under these restrictions.

 

[Derec]

I'm not 'ducking' anything. You, along with Derec, seem to be grossly misinformed about welfare recipients, at least in the US.

You are the one misinformed. I purposely didn't focus on TANF (welfare proper) but primarily on tax exemptions and credits, which are rather large and are not temporary.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, offence, but people who have worked on themselves and have their emotional life in good working order, get completely swept away by horniness and have all out passionate sex....We will never reach 100% use of contraceptives. Not even close.

This is why you plan ahead when you are not horny. There's the pill, there's IUD's, among others.

Like condoms. Why didn't you mention condoms?

Have you ever tried to put a condom on your date when he wasn't horny?

 

[Axulus]

Do any of the "more generous welfare benefits when children are in the household leads to poor households having more children" crowd have any studies to cite that empirically verifies the claim? What is the elasticity of demand? Is it large, small, or perhaps so tiny that it gets lost in the statistical noise?

 

[Bomb#20]

There's the pill, there's IUD's, among others.

Improvised Unexplosive Devices?

You're in the wrong thread.