Why Worry?


Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Why Worry?

Why Worry?
Happyone
Newbie
Happyone

Ladies, Ladies,
Why are you bothering to argue with such drivel?  Who needs to marry such loser creeps anyway?  Moneyneversleep and his cohorts look like they have done nothing other than spew filth on this forum in days; would you want such a loser in your life, anyway?)

If they so desire, let them marry/date their foreign born baby dolls.  You can do as I did – buy some sperm (there’s plenty of that on sale) and make your own family without their lousy influence on your children.

Good luck.

09-01-2006 12:32 AM

Re: Why Worry?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

We need to do as Britian did and outlaw sperm donations aswell.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-01-2006 12:36 AM

Re: Why Worry?
Back2TheKitchen
Regular Contributor
Back2TheKitchen
Yes Happyone, and children raised by single mothers turn out so well don’t they?

Anybody have those stats handy on children of single mothers?

“With women or the female mindset imparted through feminization on the vast majority of society, it will be very easy to control the Empire…I mean…the republic.” – mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com

09-01-2006 01:23 AM

Re: Why Worry?
Happyone
Newbie
Happyone

Well, children with single moms certainly would turn out better than if they were raised by the loser men who have made their lifetime’s work being on this chat room.

Especially those with names like Back2thekitchen (my daughter would just blossom with that name for dad!!) who spew vitriol rather than engage in discussions that would bring about a solution/compromise to some real issues.

Glad to see though, there have been a handful of thoughtful replies from men.  Salute to you, sirs!.

09-01-2006 01:41 AM

Re: Why Worry?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Just by chance, Nightline is rerunning a couple of segments on sperm donation. They’re saying the single most important factor in whose sperm gets chosen by women is the man’s height. (Like that’s a surprise… Can you say “dimorphism”?) One donor thinks he might have several hundred children out there, something which puts him right up there in the reproductive success rankings with harem owners of old. To think this is somehow progress is questionable at best. The word “bizarre” keeps coming to mind.

While banning such practices might at first seem like a good idea, it’s not very practical. Regulating reproduction by regulating male sexuality, as we’re now doing throughout the society as a whole, is futile. Why? Because it is female reproduction which is the bottleneck, not male reproduction. You can be 99.99% successful with the male population and there’s still enough sperm left over in the remaining 0.01% to wreak havoc. Be 99.99% successful with the females and you have effective regulation.

This was figured out thousands of years ago and is why ours is the first to try the idiotic approach we’re using. Anyway, the point is one could try a prohibition on, or a voluntary boycott of, sperm banks, but that would just increase the incentives for defectors. And it wouldn’t take very many of `em to make all that one tried in that direction a complete waste of time. You’d end up not even making a dent. Besides, free sperm donations are pretty easy for women to acquire on the street if they don’t mind the uncertain quality, but that doesn’t stop it from happening all the time.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-01-2006 01:44 AM

Re: Why Worry?
C2shiningC
Contributor
C2shiningC

Hey Happyone… why buy sperm?? I’ll be more than happy to give you a deposit… for free!!    And what the heck… for a limited time I’ll even do it the old fashioned method! Hurry, this offer won’t last forever!!

09-01-2006 02:15 AM

Re: Why Worry?
Jet_Jaguar
Contributor
Jet_Jaguar

———————————————
Ladies, Ladies,
Why are you bothering to argue with such drivel?  Who needs to marry such loser creeps anyway?  Moneyneversleep and his cohorts look like they have done nothing other than spew filth on this forum in days; would you want such a loser in your life, anyway?)

If they so desire, let them marry/date their foreign born baby dolls.  You can do as I did – buy some sperm (there’s plenty of that on sale) and make your own family without their lousy influence on your children.

Good luck.
——————————————-

Nope, no contempt for men there.  Yes, go have children without a father, who needs those losers anyway.  Keep on pushing this culture faster toward its destruction.  You go grrls!

This is the cultural version of giving the keys of an 18-wheeler to a 5-year-old.

And here I was mentioning Orwellian double-speak on another thread.  Your name just happens to be “HappyOne”.  The irony is delicious.

Message Edited by Jet_Jaguar on 09-01-2006 03:08 AM

09-01-2006 03:07 AM

Re: Why Worry?
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

PatriarchVerlch wrote:

We need to do as Britian did and outlaw sperm donations aswell.

Well thats not strictly true.

What’s happened is that changes in the anonymity laws have kept donors away from proper registered sperm banks that screen for genetic problems and STD’s. It’s still legal to donate to these places and they are crying out for donors but the men dont want to come forward because of the likelihood of being sued for child support.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2210281_1,00.html

That has led to the appearance of internet sperm banks that provide unfrozen samples direct from the donors who have not been screened.
Like http://www.mannotincluded.com

http://www.stonesoup.co.nz/ecoqueer/archives/001347.html

Laws are being passed to ban these organisations unless they comply to existing health and screening regulations.

On a side note something I was unaware of until recently was the percentage of parents who were not heterosexual couples using sperm donations.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041116235500.htm

Quote from that source:

“The 29 young people taking part were aged 12 to 17 with an average age of 14.7 years, and two-thirds were boys. Just over 40% were the children of lesbian couples, 38% had single mothers and 21% had heterosexual-couple parents.”

Message Edited by Doc_Savage on 09-01-2006 07:50 AM

Message Edited by Doc_Savage on 09-01-2006 08:26 AM

09-01-2006 07:46 AM

Re: Why Worry?
phatkat811
Regular Contributor
phatkat811
Who needs to buy sperm? It seems like the majority doesn’t agree with the closed-minded and somewhat insecure men around here anyway.

09-01-2006 09:51 AM

Re: Why Worry?
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

phatkat811 wrote:

Who needs to buy sperm?

Interesting question.

I saw an article once about a career woman who wanted to settle down and start a family at 38. It was the usual “man drought” story, so she deceided to go it alone and went to a fertility clinic to purchase sperm. The cost was way higher than I would have expected (in the thousands). But she wanted sperm from a tall dark handsome man with high intellegence so she willingly payed up.

The impression I get is that alot of women want their babies to be the best they can possibly produce. If it comes to a choice between paying for the sperm of a neurosurgeon that looks like George Clooney or having to sleep with a bus driver that looks like Woody Allen (assuming thats all she can attract) then if she’s got the money and wants to be a single mom she’ll pay for the artificial insemination.

Message Edited by Doc_Savage on 09-01-2006 10:23 AM

09-01-2006 10:20 AM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Why Worry?

Re: Why Worry?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-01-2006 11:53 AM

Re: Why Worry?
warbaby
Regular Contributor
warbaby

Happyone,

What an ironic name for you. You try to sound strong, but you actually sound…threatened?…jealous?…of the “foreign baby dolls” men are choosing over the likes of the unbelievably vast majority of Western Women. You don’t sound happy at all.

09-01-2006 02:31 PM

Re: Why Worry?
Happy_Bullet
Regular Contributor
Happy_Bullet

The statistics are overwhelming. Children to single mothers grow up far worse than children to families.

You have to admit it’s sort of funny that a woman would spend all that money on sperm from the guy with the best stats available only to ruin the kids life so they grow up a delinquent barbarian anyway…

Men have standards. Women will be compared. DEAL WITH IT.

09-02-2006 04:36 AM

Re: Why Worry?
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

Happy——There are many teen pregnancies…Far too many this is true….However, I don’t see a line of teenaged males wanting to take care of their offspring.  The girl is usally stuck with the child (Many young girls are in fantasy land thinking that this baby is soo cute–like a toy—then reality sets in)—while his life goes on uninterrupted….Probably making more unwanted children that he will not want to be involved with.  Finally, due to DNA, boys are being held accountable too for these unwanted pregnancies and are being forced to pay child support at the age of 16, 17, etc.  It takes two to tango.  If boys don’t want to get stuck with child support and they want to be sexually active, they need to protect themselves and wear a condom.  Don’t rely on a woman to use contraceptives.  Educated women don’t want to be childbound at a young age.  Girls that don’t think much of themselves and don’t want an education will get pregnant on purpose thinking that the boy will take care of her and they’ll live happily ever after. This is not right, obviously….but they are out there.

09-02-2006 11:29 AM

Re: Why Worry?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

You have to admit it’s sort of funny that a woman would spend all that money on sperm from the guy with the best stats available only to ruin the kids life so they grow up a delinquent barbarian anyway…

Happy, That’s why she chooses the “tall” swimmers, so her sons can be better equipped to kick butt in their many inevitable future scuffles. Not that this is much different from what happens outside the clinics; you will never see a woman’s personl ad where she’s looking for a short man.

PANDORASBOX123 wrote:
Happy——There are many teen pregnancies…Far too many this is true….However, I don’t see a line of teenaged males wanting to take care of their offspring.

Oh no, here we go again…
It’s Her Body, Her Choice, and it should be Her Responsibility too.

He barely has the ability to take care of himself, so why should she even want to breed w/him? Is she brainless? Or is it because the government-as-husband programs available to her are better than her slacker/thug boyfriend? I believe the latter is the case because it explains why she shows him the exit he’s of no further use to her — she’s a strong independend women who doesn’t need no man — and then feminist types get to go around scoring points making it sound like he abandoned her. What a sick racket.

We previously knew a man was willing to support a woman and their children by his willingness to marry her. Simple. Worked great for the vast majority. Since when did his mere willingness to have sex with her denote this? And why doesn’t hardly anyone except MRA’s seem to see that the new setup is a tried-and-failed experiment?

But I understand your need to employ scary and draconian words like “held accountable”, “forced to”, and “stuck with”. Poor sucker. He thought he was getting lucky… Did it ever occur to you to ask why we now need to employ the “controlling” powers of the state to make men do what they formerly did in vast numbers entirely voluntarily? Or are you just some sadist who enjoys seeing it get stuck to men, who then because of these obligations are less marriageable to other women as a result?

She doesn’t get “stuck with” the child. She chooses to have the child. (We’d certainly hear that last sentence if we tried to make her have an abortion…) Why not hold her accountable, or is her future life itself enough punishment? What about her likelihood of inflicting a disaster (i.e., a fatherless child) on the rest of us?

You are right that deluded “girls like her” (women too) are out there. Men need to be warned. When that happens, no women will be able to find a date except with those who have nothing to lose.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-02-2006 12:17 PM

Re: Why Worry?
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

Martin—-I just feel both parties should be responsible.  Boys need to protect themselves from women trying to get pregnant by being deceitful…..Before DNA—many males would say–It’s not mine.

Thinking about your points—Men should have a choice to whether to continue with the pregnancy or not.  If a woman wants an abortion and the male doesn’t, she can have one regardless of his feelings.  If the male wants her to abort but she wants to have the baby, he gets stuck with child support.  That is not right either.  I feel people do need to be accountable regardless of what sex they are.

09-02-2006 12:36 PM

Re: Why Worry?
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

PANDORASBOX123 wrote:

Martin—-I just feel both parties should be responsible.  Boys need to protect themselves from women trying to get pregnant by being deceitful…..Before DNA—many males would say–It’s not mine.

Oh dear, you’ve just raised another sore point men have about the double standards in the law courts (in the USA at least).

If the courts want to prove a man is the father of a child they can order the DNA test and he’ll have to pay child support if he is the father I have no problem with that. A clear cut definition of fatherhood is needed and what better than actually impregnating the woman?

On the other hand if a woman has cheated on her partner and fooled him into thinking a child from another man is his then the DNA evidence is dismissed because they claim that donation of genetic material does not constitute fatherhood. If the courts say he’s the father (even when he’s not), then he is and he has to pay up.

How is that fair or just?

Seems to me the American government is just out to grab whatever money they can in the easiest way possible and to hell with real justice as long as its only the man who has to suffer.

The following link tells a story of a man who never even met the woman who was trying to claim child support from him and how it nearly ruined his life.

http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml
Any American men who haven’t read this story should.

09-02-2006 03:31 PM

Re: Why Worry?
PatriarchVerlch
Regular Contributor
PatriarchVerlch

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/socialservices/20060810/15/1931

Read that and try not to get choked up. Single mothers are a welfare and tax burden.

Why are we trying to create more of them?

If the break down of the family unit is the goal, we are accomplishing it tenfold more than we need too.

The State funds 700,000 out of wedlock births a year. A epidemic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_parent

http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/fathers4justice_in_the_name_of_the_father.htm

One out of nine single households is run by Fathers.

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Is there any women still pro family? Pro-life? Where are you? Sitting quietly by as long as there are advantages to being women? Why are MRA’s having to stand up for causes you should be fighting for? For the health of our nation, and for the betterment of humanity.

Women have been proving for the last 30 years that men have been right for the last 30 centuries!
http://www.verlch.blogspot.com

09-02-2006 07:11 PM

Re: Why Worry?
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

If the courts want to prove a man is the father of a child they can order the DNA test and he’ll have to pay child support if he is the father I have no problem with that. A clear cut definition of fatherhood is needed and what better than actually impregnating the woman?

Hey Doc—You didn’t read my posts from yestersday…..I stated that my husband had to pay child support for a child that wasn’t his.  The judge said he was legally married to her at the time therefore he had to pay support.  He even knew who the father of the baby girl was….his brother–a cop no less…His brother sat by all those years and let him pay never offering once to help out.  I do not feel that men should pay child support for children that are not theirs.  His brother is will probably be dead in less than a year due to alcoholism.  He is only 46.  I believe it ate at him all of these years.  Karma is working.

09-02-2006 07:56 PM

Re: Why Worry?
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

PANDORASBOX123 wrote:

Hey Doc—You didn’t read my posts from yestersday…..I stated that my husband had to pay child support for a child that wasn’t his.  The judge said he was legally married to her at the time therefore he had to pay support.  He even knew who the father of the baby girl was….his brother–a cop no less…His brother sat by all those years and let him pay never offering once to help out.  I do not feel that men should pay child support for children that are not theirs.  His brother is will probably be dead in less than a year due to alcoholism.  He is only 46.  I believe it ate at him all of these years.  Karma is working.

Your correct, I didn’t see your post.

But how does that make my post any less pertinant since you seem to agree with what I say?

Plus I’m not talking about specific cases here but general trends.

What sort of message does it send to the average woman that she can collect child support whether the man is the biological father of her child or not?

What sort of message does it send to men that their wages can be confiscated whether they are the childs real father or not?

And women are still angry that men aren’t willing to commit to marriage in the western world of today?

It’s going to take alot more than just karma to correct this situation.

Like women starting to accept they have had a very big role to play in the current situation rather than just trying claim they are not feminists? And as well as continuing the tradition of pointing the finger of blame and shame at men over and over again.

Message Edited by Doc_Savage on 09-02-2006 08:27 PM

09-02-2006 08:19 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Reader Response to “Don’t Marry Career Women” – Why Worry?

Re: Why Worry?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

PANDORASBOX123 wrote:
Martin—-I just feel both parties should be responsible. Boys need to protect themselves from women trying to get pregnant by being deceitful…..Before DNA—many males would say–It’s not mine.

Thinking about your points—Men should have a choice to whether to continue with the pregnancy or not. If a woman wants an abortion and the male doesn’t, she can have one regardless of his feelings. If the male wants her to abort but she wants to have the baby, he gets stuck with child support. That is not right either. I feel people do need to be accountable regardless of what sex they are.

There were blood tests way before the better DNA technology came along, but they were rarely needed because the system was based on regulating female reproduction function (aka “oppression”), which is a system that basically worked. We’re now trying to base the system on the regulation of male reproductive functioning, which is bound to fail for good reasons and has only created (at best) a huge mess.

The article Doc pointed to, which is indeed a must-read, mentions the 500 year old common law… I just wanted to note that the presumption of a man being responsible for any children born by his wife rests on the presumption of female monogamy within marriage, an outdated notion now that we’ve transitioned to what some describe as a feral breeding system backed up by space-age technology, one in which the woman can do just about anything she wants (or can get away with) so long as we can track down her partners in crime.

The article points to more than just yet another disincentive for men to date. It seems it would also be wise to make sure your name and address aren’t present in any database, lest you get sucked into the meat-grinder by mistake.

…”over 60 percent of debtors have recent net [annual] incomes below $10,000. Only 1 percent have recent net incomes in excess of $50,000.”

-Seems to bear out the contention I’ve made on several occasions that men within something to put at risk (i.e., $$$’s) have abandoned the playing field, leaving women to breed with the economic losers.

And all this is supposed to be for the benefit of children?

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-03-2006 01:19 AM

Re: Why Worry?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor

PANDORASBOX123 wrote: …If the courts want to prove a man is the father of a child they can order the DNA test and he’ll have to pay child support if he is the father I have no problem with that. A clear cut definition of fatherhood is needed and what better than actually impregnating the woman?

That contention gets to the essence…

The focus on biological fatherhood is misplaced IMO. The man’s contribution biologically is of virtually no significance; he’s easily replaced in that regard.

This is quite different from the mother’s much larger and very crucial biological contribution.

Yea, it leads to a double standard, but women have no problem pointing to this difference when it’s to women’s benefit.

All the machinery designed to bleed money out of men based on treating their biological contribution as crucial is based on a big fallacy, of equating the two biological contributions.

Margaret Meed correctly noted that fatherhood is a social not a biological construct in those societies where the concept is found. Beyond the idea that fathers should give money to the mothers of “his” children, what’s left beyond that than mere taste and opinion? Aren’t women just reduced to whore status by this focus on money for sex? They have sex, she has a baby, he gives her money. End of society caring about it.

As a social construct, it is the other social aspects of fatherhood where the attention needs to be. The current support enforcement mechanisms are the opposite of that because by reducing men to johns with a big outstanding tab they are destroying the opportunity for women who want to reproduce responsibly within marriage. Hence the declining marriage and birth rates.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-02-2006 11:37 PM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-03-2006 01:34 AM

Re: Why Worry?
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

I believe they are working on a male contraceptive pill.  I think it would be wise that men utilize it when it comes out.  Would you use it?

09-03-2006 10:52 AM

Re: Why Worry?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
Non-sequitur…
-and irrelevant since I’m nonogamous (TM), and there is no male pill anyway.

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-03-2006 05:00 PM

Re: Why Worry?
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

PANDORASBOX123 wrote:
I believe they are working on a male contraceptive pill.  I think it would be wise that men utilize it when it comes out.  Would you use it?

If a male pill came on the market and it was cheap and was proven to have no side effects then I would use it for sure.

From a hypothetical standpoint I would say that most middle class and upper class guy’s would welcome the male pill and use it as well.

And another guess is that more and more women from the same social classes would have something more to whine about.

“OMG! First the “man drought” then the “marriage strike” now we cant even TRICK THEM INTO MAKING US PREGNANT ANYMORE!!!!”
Of course the lower and under classes will continue to breed like rabbits but who cares. The effects of global warming will sort the human race out soon enough.

09-03-2006 05:21 PM

Re: Why Worry?
Doc_Savage
Regular Contributor
Doc_Savage

MartianBachelor wrote:

That contention gets to the essence…

The focus on biological fatherhood is misplaced IMO. The man’s contribution biologically is of virtually no significance; he’s easily replaced in that regard.

My position on this is completely opposite to yours then. Your view sounds like a charter to help encourage deadbeat dads.

As I pointed out in a previous post, if a man can be sued for child support if he IS the biological father, and if he can be sued for child support even if he is NOT the biological father what message does this send to the population?

The govenment and lawyers profit from this sort of complicated ambiguity but the public at large do not.

In my view what is needed is to simplify the law so that right and wrong are more clear cut.

So how do you define parenthood?

Well I’m in favour of just looking at nature.

A man and a woman come together and have sex. The man’s sperm fertilizes the womans egg. A child is born. He’s the father and she’s the mother.

I guess thats too simple for the government and lawyers though. The more complicated it is the more they can justify insane amounts of bureaucracy.

09-03-2006 05:46 PM

Re: Why Worry?
MartianBachelor
Regular Contributor
MartianBachelor
My position on this is completely opposite to yours then. Your view sounds like a charter to help encourage deadbeat dads.

I’m not sure how you get that. But I’m a radical by the standard of today, so I don’t believe there should be such a thing as a beat-dead dad.
“Our Paychecks, Ourselves”, and all that.

As I pointed out in a previous post, if a man can be sued for child support if he IS the biological father, and if he can be sued for child support even if he is NOT the biological father what message does this send to the population?

That the biology doesn’t matter? That we just need some $$$’s from any male in close proximity?

The govenment and lawyers profit from this sort of complicated ambiguity but the public at large do not.

Not to mention the women getting the guy’s $$$’s, and the cost to the rest of us to have fatherless children around in large numbers.

In my view what is needed is to simplify the law so that right and wrong are more clear cut.

Good luck.

So how do you define parenthood?

To act as a parent to; raise and nurture; “A genitor who does not parent the child is not its parent.” – Ashley Montagu

Well I’m in favour of just looking at nature.

And I think that’s a key mistake. A state of civilization is unnatural.

But I see how your thinking is in accord with most, who would say it’s not fair for a man who’s not the biological father to have to pay child support. Of course I agree with that, but it’s only an incremental improvement in a thoroughly broken system, which I don’t want to see merely patched but overthrown because it ultimately can’t be made workable.

A man and a woman come together and have sex. The man’s sperm fertilizes the womans egg. A child is born. He’s the father and she’s the mother.

That used to be self-evidently true, but now it takes a DNA test because women aren’t bearing children within monogamous marriages where their chastity can be taken for granted; maybe some are, but you can’t presume it to be the case.

To say that “it takes two to tango” and all that is to indulge in a false equality IMO, to reduce fatherhood to a mere biological fact equal to the mother’s. The motherhood mystique’ers will be quick to point out all the extra requirements on the mom of giving birth, that her contribution is the larger one. Biologically this is true. An insemination sample pays a donor on the order of $50-100, eggs get on the order of $5000, and a surrogate mother to implant a fertilized egg into to be carried to term costs on the order of $20,000. (I think these numbers are close.)

I guess thats too simple for the government and lawyers though. The more complicated it is the more they can justify insane amounts of bureaucracy.

I thought that was what they were basing their activities on, at least ostensibly and however incompetently.

Message Edited by MartianBachelor on 09-03-2006 06:22 PM

______________________________________________
“The loudest, most strident voices calling women weak, stupid, and incapable of competing in the world at large are the feminists.” – zed the zen priest

09-03-2006 08:01 PM

Re: Why Worry?
PANDORASBOX123
Regular Contributor
PANDORASBOX123

OMG! First the “man drought” then the “marriage strike” now we cant even TRICK THEM INTO MAKING US PREGNANT ANYMORE!!!!”

Exactly—A pill for men would be beneficial towards your cause.  My husband’s ex wife said she was taking the pill but really wasn’t.  She got pregnant.  They were both teens at the time.  She was a poor student that wanted the easy way out–so she thought.  He said if their were a pill out there then, he would have taken it.

09-04-2006 03:05 PM

==============================================================================
Click on the board or message subject at the top to return.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: