What's Going On Here?

[Point Of No ReturnParticipant 4074]

I’m a little confused. What’s going on here? It’s almost as if they are hoping to rekindle their relationship. Maybe one of them is hoping to get back together with the other. That does happen. If not, then hey, this looks like a case of, it was too ‘difficult’ so we just decided to separate. What are your thoughts on this situation?

http://honey.nine.com.au/2017/03/14/13/39/mum-praises-her-ex-for-not-paying-child-support

Know when it is your duty to give them zero explanations for your actions.

[Point Of No ReturnParticipant 4074]

I must admit though that this seems unusual. Either she has no legal foot to stand on, or she doesn’t need the money. Weird.

Know when it is your duty to give them zero explanations for your actions.

[MGTOW KnightParticipant 7477]

Either way you slice it, this situation is quite perplexing. I’m glad both parents are involved in the child’s life. I just think women find any reason to dump a man, and hence why the prison population increase in the U.S. Single mothers are the scum of the earth. They shouldn’t be praised. They create 80% of the criminals in the Criminal justice system.

Fuck bitches... literally and metaphorically

[AutoliteParticipant]

It’s interesting that we have here (a mother who’s concern for the well-being of her child taking precedence over the drive to f~~~ over the father) is considered something of an extremely rare exception…

[MuglintarParticipant 1333]

“explained that she can always depend on him to help her with anything they need, Jon doesn’t just take care of their son Pierson, he also makes a point to help Jessica out, whenever he can, including small gestures like dropping of boxes of pull-ups as a surprise for her just so she doesn’t have to go shopping.” – so what? women are lazy, if she doesn’t have to fight for anything, getting everything she could possibly get (and most probably even more) and benefits by having a sitter on “a 10-minutes notice” – she gets all the beta-provider traits without having to give him pussy anymore. Well, done good boy! who’S a stupid mangina?

“The single mother said Jon even reminds Pierson ‘not to forget mommy’s boyfriend when he lists his favourite people off the top of his head’.
Read more at http://honey.nine.com.au/2017/03/14/13/39/mum-praises-her-ex-for-not-paying-child-support#MP2ceq8RgZB5lAam.99” – yes sure, when he watches her kid (which he legally is or will be as soon as he is not a nice little mangina anymore), so she can bang with her chad, he also has to praise mommy’s boyfriend.

That pussy-worshipper should remove his testicles, his cheating ex needs some new earrings.
Where it comes to mind, about 30% pay child support for children, that they haven’t even biologically fathered. Is it possible, she knows exactly a nice fierce court battle could end up in a paternity test? Afterwards she wouldn’t get s~~~?

this “jon” wannabe guy is a disgust to mankind.

P.S. she is 22, so he is what? 23? how high in the ladder you can have climbed at that age? Let’s see when her current chad dumps her, when she hits 30 and living on social benefit, if she is still so happy about the “volunteer” arrangement.

P.P.S.: women take always the easy road to personal gain, what gives her most for the smallest effort. AWALT

"Him, who delights in solitude, is either a wild beast or a GOD!" - Aristotle (Aristot. Pol. 1.1253a) 1 Hom. Il. 9.63; the passage goes on: ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος ι ὃς πολέμου ἔραται.

[narwhalParticipant]

I would wager that Dad wants to get back to mom and figures being the perfect Dad is the way to get that done. I’d also wager that the only reason there is no government required support is because she never bothered to request it.

The article leaves out plenty of important information that gives context to the situation. Why are they no longer together? Who wanted it to end. Article does not say they were married so it’s safe to assume that isn’t the case…otherwise there would be a divorce date specified.

For all we know Dad’s name isn’t even on the birth certificate and he fears he could be cut out entirely if he doesn’t play along. Perhaps she has rich parents, no need for money, and therefore doesn’t need CS from him.

Ok. Then do it.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Point Of No Return wrote:

What are your thoughts on this situation? Either she has no legal foot to stand on, or she doesn’t need the money. Weird.

——- AMMENDED ——–

Weird is right. I previously responded under the assumption that he IS the boy’s biological father – which the article wants you to do. They even capitalize the word “FATHER”.

But he is not the father as the article reveals.
(explained in my second comment below)

— ./END AMENDMENT —

Muglintar wrote:

Is it possible, she knows exactly a nice fierce court battle could end up in a paternity test? Afterwards she wouldn’t get s~~~?

An excellent point, and a very possible flip-side.
It may very well not even be HIS son at all.

SMH if that’s the case.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Muglintar is right. In the state of Florida: if paternity is established, the father has both an obligation to provide financial support to the child until the child reaches the age of majority, and has the legal right to visit the child or engage in timesharing of the child with the mother.

BUT

If the parents divorce within two years of the birth of the child, or the mother and father have never been married, a man who believes he is not the biological father of the child can petition the court to disestablish paternity via DNA.

So the kid probably is not his.

[GrumpyParticipant]

Meh

O.K that’s 1, only 3+ Billion more to go.

Having said that she is in no way a single parent. I understand its semantics really.

1. She did not asexually reproduce. = not single
2. The father is supplying support = not doing it all on her own = not single
3. She has a “boyfriend” who may also be supporting her = not single
4. Government/legal support available and readily enforceable = not single.

Whether she went public on her own or someone else went public for her with her “letter” there is an angle that is not clearly visible in this article.
Aside from be a good lil slave and pay up. Given that the options of pay up voluntarily or we will force you to pay up are not really a exercise of choice.

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[narwhalParticipant]

Keymaster wrote:

The article says…..
“just being there of his own accord”.
In this case, I commend her for it. MOST of the time, women have pressure for relationship and marriage contract, but there is more value in being there with someone simple because you WANT to be. Not out of some binding contract, a trap., or a sense of obligation and resent.

I’m seeing this differently. I do see a trap, just a different kind of trap. She knows she call him to go buy clothes or diapers, and even get him to babysit on a moments notice. He isn’t doing this on his own accord, she’s asking him to do it.

Is this how you think a man would behave? Would a man ever go ask her to go buy clothes and diapers? Would he call her up to babysit so he could take a nap? As a father, can you guess how many times I did that to my ex? Nope, he wouldn’t manipulate her in that way.

She’s not asking for formal child support because she doesn’t need to. What do you think happens if he starts telling her no, go buy the clothes yourself? Even though I do pay child support, I still get asked to buy extra for my kids. What do you think happens when I say no?

The message I see here…don’t give up on manipulation and straight to government control if you don’t have to. A manipulated man is way more useful than a government controlled man.

Ok. Then do it.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

narwhal wrote:

I’m seeing this differently. . . . . A manipulated man is way more useful than a government controlled man.

That’s a fact and you ask interesting questions. Is he buying into the ILLUSION of “fatherhood”? A Captain Save-a-Ho? There’s definitely unmentioned context missing.

He even reminds the boy “not to forget mommy’s boyfriend“.
Not “Daddy”.

He speaks about himself to the boy as — >> “mommy’s boyfriend”.

Not the father.

The first half of my first reply assumed he IS the father.
I should therefore strike it.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[narwhalParticipant]

The other thing you can derive from the story…Dad doesn’t have a GF. He probably doesn’t even date. No woman could stand to have her man under the control of another woman.

That said, this publicity would likely change that. Now women will want to be with such a sweet man…with such high utility! Of course, the moment this a new GF has enough control, she will demand an end to providing for the needs of Mom. That’s the GF utility now! And mom will go get government enforced child support.

Ok. Then do it.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

narwhal wrote:

No woman could stand to have her   man   wallet under the control of another woman.

Fixed.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[narwhalParticipant]

Keymaster wrote:

narwhal wrote:

No woman could stand to have her man wallet under the control of another woman.

Fixed.

Ah. My bad.

Ok. Then do it.

[Point Of No ReturnParticipant 4074]

My ex tried this kind of crap. Luckily, by the time she tried to sneak up on me with manipulation, I was at the point of being convinced that the No Contact Rule method would be a great tool against an attempt by her to manipulate me. Oh she tried alright, replete with considerate thoughts and the like, all the while taking good care of her profile on OKStupid (I caught it by pure fluke, what a catch, and it sits in a PDF file as we speak). Muglintar saw this mangina from a mile away, and I agree, my hunch is that Jon has a bad case of the mangina complex.

Know when it is your duty to give them zero explanations for your actions.

[Anonymous 13]

Whatever the truth is behind this, it stinks.

[DaveVParticipant 450]

Now correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the article ….basically he :

(a) Pays all the costs for the child and her;
(b) He is on call, with 10 minutes notice;
(c) Baby sits at a drop of a hat, and all for free;
(d) Does the shopping, DIY, gifts etc when required, for free;
(e) His ex has her own boyfriend and does stuff with him;
(f) Can be screwed by the State at any time or when she wants at a later date;
(g) He accompanies her to meetings where she hook ups with strangers from Craiglist wtf ??!!!;

And he doesn’t get any sex……….

Now on the face of it, not taking alimony (we don’t know how much she might get from him…he might have a low paying job) in return to giving access to child seems good…but I have to draw the line at him doing all the other stuff. 50/50 it is not. But I am sorry but it seems he is the live in father, whilst his ex just screws around and he does things that fit into her schedule/lifestyle. He still has no rights.

What I don’t understand is, if she thinks so highly of him as a father, why divorce? Surely that’s in the best interest of the child ?

It still however doesn’t address the issue that the man has no rights, can have 60-75% of his assets removed by the State, and can be denied access to his kids – if the ex decides not to cooperate. Just because one individual decided not to exercise those ‘rights’, does not change the reason why men should DGI.

I would ask, how many women do you know that would do that (considering the majority of women initiate the divorce)?

D. G. I. Don't. Get. Involved. (Be happy, and stress not)

[Point Of No ReturnParticipant 4074]

If she didn’t have any legal footing in the beginning, well, the more this simp plays her game the more likely she will be able to go to a judge and point the finger at him and say “father figure”. Then she’ll only be a step away from being on his payroll. What a dimwit, not even getting any from her… ass.

Know when it is your duty to give them zero explanations for your actions.

[Author]

Posts