I'm going to die in my linens tonight. I just ate a bunch of queso.

If it makes you feel better, wrapping the cheese loosely in parchment paper makes it last longer than in it does in stretch wrap.

Good luck tonight.

More baseless assertions.

I don't think women are gold diggers, I don't think women are necessarily anything in the sense that I think that like men, they're all unique just like everyone else.

Having said that, there's no denying that a woman's sex drive is generally geared towards a mate with obviously a combination of positive physical characteristics, good earning potential, activities that represent a sense of adventure and excitement alongside the ability to be sociable and well-respected amongst their peers as well as of course, their own total independence.

These factors all make for a fun, exciting, well-adjusted, heterosexual male partner and I don't blame women in the slightest for desiring them in one. How can you? How could anyone? I'll readily admit that if I'm to succeed in the dating game I'll need to attain these characteristics for myself in order to make myself attractive and desirable enough for a woman to appreciate me as a mate, whilst also being enthusiastic about getting to know (and hopefully rather like) myself and my personality at a deeper level culminating in (one would hope) a loving and healthy relationship.

The parts of the article that I do give a degree of credibility relate more to the effects of feminism as a movement and the frankly nonsensical assertion that in modern western societies, women are discriminated against and that men aren't generally seen as completely disposable.

I'll say it again. You'd never once hear someone condemn the 'bottom 40%' of women to a life of celibacy whilst telling them that should they be in the midst of experiencing a lack of love, affection and sex, it must surely be entirely their own fault, and that the solution is to compete their way out of that bottom 40%.

(Incidentally I don't actually think that the number is as high as 40%, but the point still stands, people in this thread have still been willing to condemn males to a brutal free market whereby a number as large as that are cruelly cast off and ignored, essentially proving my point about the prevalence of a culture of male disposability)

Is this sex advice or food safety advice?

In all seriousness, you seem pretty obsessed with sex and women in general. Forget about them and do the things you're talking about for your own good.

Living on your own is about a lot more than having a place to bring a women back to. Travelling is about a lot more than just having stories to tell a women (hell, if that's all you care about you can just lie). And so on.

The idea of waiting until your late 20s to start being an adult is just kind of sad to me.

If you're serious, you can read California Family Code Section 7540 (children born during a marriage) to start.

"conclusive presumption" means you are that kid's legal parent. You want to fight that based on DNA, you better have a fat bankroll.

I doubt California is alone in this.

Find this and other tips on Pinterest After Dark.

First, that's entirely unrelated to what you were talking about.

Second, lol "I doubt it's the only state". Cbf to find out if it's true, eh?

Kind of sounds like a lazier Eliot Rodger, who isn't anywhere near as frustrated simply because he knows he hasn't tried too hard and who is much more willing to hire a prostitute.

Not in the slightest. The reason we're talking about the utter irrelevance of my own life (when I started the thread to discuss a growing social phenomenon represented by the prevalence and support for a really quite extreme article) was because people immediately went for the most stereotypical shaming tactics of hysterically ranting that I must, by proxy, be supporting the article and that one could only possibly do so because of their own sexual failures.

As such, I've been dragged into this irrelevant conversation by people questioning me about my own sex/love life, questions that though they're incidental to the topic at hand, I'm perfectly willing to answer.

More straw-manning. I want to see South America, I want to go cage-diving with Great White Sharks. I'm happy to suspend 'adult life', responsibility and even sex in order to save money to do these things quickly.

Meh, to each their own. I'd just never forgive myself as I once again hopped onto the ferociously crowded tube on a wet Wednesday morning, trapped with a 9-5 (8.30-6 really), an extortionate rent and a hectically busy, tiring lifestyle if I hadn't taken the opportunity to do the above whilst still young.

ok.

The Uniform Parentage Act was adopted by 19 states in 1973. I didn't bother to track down the list.

It's been amended twice, to catch up with DNA technology.

The standard still holds, though. If that kid isn't yours, but you set forth publicly that it was (standards, time frame, blah blah), than you are responsible for the kid's support.

Good luck fighting, even if you win, it will be a phyrric victory to your wallet.

Oski might find his way here, this is his wheelhouse.

Now **** off, you never heard of a guy getting ****ed over this way? Where do you think MRA movement comes from?


edit: I thought you were talking about genetic parentage and support. Legally, genetics don't cut much ice, in a marriage.

Would it really be that expensive to fight?


"Kid's not mine. Here's the DNA test proving it."


"OK, then. You're off the hook."


The presumption is that it's your kid if you claim him, but seems DNA would be a slam dunk to overcome that presumption.

If you were married, and you had a hand in being that kid's parent, then either you'll pay support, or Oski.

You won't skate.

Thanks, I didn't know this. I guess that's why they package it like this at the deli counter. Got any other tips?

Step-parents who divorce the actual parent don't pay child support, do they?


How would this be different?

Alls I have to say is the word "whilst" is ****ing annoying.

Ask Oski. Kid is already born.

I was addressing a point, possibly wrongly, about a cheating wife getting pregnant.

Legally the kid is yours. Unless you challenged right out of the gate.

Chip,

How many days do you have from the birth of the child to challenge the birth?

Also, you have two years to request a paternity test under the California law you mentioned at least.

I think UPA is 60 days.

What a currious thing to think about women. You really don't know anything about them, do you.

It's going to be a legal fight regardless.

You keep saying that.


Doesn't seem a definitive paternity test would lead to much of a fight.

Male virginity past a certain age, certainly to 28, is universally accepted as a social stigma due to the (understandable) presumption that it represents total sexual rejection from women (which, in 99%+ of cases, it does indeed).

Its indisputably off-putting to near-enough all women, who'd rather have a man with at least some sexual experience, both for the validation as well as for the physical ability in the sack.

There have actually been a heap of studies proving that women are more sexually attracted to men in relationships or at least, men who've received positive attention from other females, as it forms a 'vetting process' which is likely rooted in biology.

Again, who can blame them for this any more than one can blame men for being attracted to a nice bum and boobs?

But yeah, the above is indisputable. The day women truly don't care about whether a man is a virgin or not is the day that it stops becoming an insult or indeed stigmatised.