My friend Steve hangs out with this guy named Brian who just got married (and was engaged). Steve would go out with Brian and other guys and constantly hijack Brian. I feel like this is ethical. Dude is about to fucking get married and has pussy waiting at home. I feel hijacking with better or alternate game is fair, it is only cockblocking when "Hey, did he leave to get his Valtrex?" is combined with not closing the deal. Its one thing to take someones beer and drink it, its ho'nother'thang to take someone's beer just to pour it out.
Do we find intimacy by posting pics of ourselves on the internet? I am not criticising at all, as I have done it,I just think it's good to assess ourselves every once in a while.
Nope. That's purely a 'hey look at me, and look at what I work hard for/look at me I'm pretty' thing. It's always good hear nice things. That said, face to face, women generally prefer to be made to feel special.
Going back to the cockblocking, here is another reason. I've "cockblocked" friends who were notorious for making horrible choices when drinking then bitching about it nonstop for days on end. Sure, they are grown adults, but when they have the impulse control of a 5 year old, sometimes you need to step in as their conscious and judgement when you know that theirs is malfunctioning.
Not all of us. I grow weary of generalizations, sometimes. Not all women are looking for every guy they fuck to lead to intimacy. Sometimes you just want to get laid. Any time I've ever cockblocked - and I don't think it's happened since I was in my early 20s - it was because I legitimately thought my friend was too drunk to make a sensible choice for herself. Don't forget, guys, the odds of staying safe are in your favour. If you change your mind at the last minute and say, "no," the girl will likely oblige. If the girl changes her mind and says, "no," it's less likely that the drunken man will back off.* *The Rape Threat is another good generalization, eh?
I will Rackjack or cockblock a dude and remind him that he has a monogamous partner at home one time, maybe twice under extraordinary circumstances. You might forget that you've got something at home once or twice after too many drinks. If it's a serial offense? Wow you better hope I don't consider your partner a friend. Because if I know your partner enough to consider them a friend, or even just a good person who doesn't deserve a jerk, fuck you. I do agree that Rackjacking is a far more appropriate course of action than just cockblocking though. But I would always leave an exception in the moral code for when your friend is not only making a bad decision, but making it with an ugly or awful person.
What is this "Rackjacking" all of you are speaking of? I always thought it was called "Boxlocking", or in the past tense, "Boxlocked" Or at least that's what I've been calling it for years when a girl's friend stops her (usually the fat ugly friend) from going home with me for the evening. You know what never happens to me when I'm in the process of picking a chick up? Her friend walking up to us,,,, and saying: "Good job on the catch, he looks fabulous,, I hope he gives you a good bonering" When's that gonna happen ladies?
Because the first part sounds like an old lady, the second part sounds like a gay dude, and the last part sounds like a 13 year old boy. Does meeting your friend's new boyfriend while drunk and thinking he's much farther away before saying "Well, damn, Friend. Way to go. I would tear. That. Ass. Up." count?
Ok, question for the women. You're in a sexual/romantic type relationship with a guy, it's not official, but that's what it is. You meet a new guy, start dating new guy, and ultimately decide to be exclusive with this new guy. Where do you get the cognitive dissonance to tell guy #1 that your relationship with him has nothing to do with your relationship with guy #2?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are getting serious with someone, it's time to let the other boys go be free.
Ok, admittedly late to the cockblocking discussion, but women are being portrayed seriously shitty here, so I thought I'd give my two cents. There are two situations where I've cockblocked girlfriends: 1) She wanted to really let go that night, but for various reasons she knew she would regret it the next morning if she hooked up with a random. Before going out, she asked us to put the brakes on it if she looked like she was going home with someone. 2) A nice, cute guy was hitting on her, but at the end of the night she realized that she wasn't into it/didn't want it to go farther. She didn't want to hurt his feelings or deal with the late night "just come home with me" pressure, so discreetly asked us to intercede. Both of these happened a few years ago in the "early twenties" stage. While the second might be immature, neither is this crazy web of jealousy, "if I can't get laid no one can" game that most other folks are describing. I'm not saying that there aren't women like that out there, but a lot of the cockblocking I've seen by women is requested first (asked before going out or texted for help in the bar).
Gentlemen, is child support such a crazy idea? Why do some men feel so passionately that the child's mother will benefit from child support, therefore it must be wrong and/or unfair? This is spurred by my ex, but have encountered men with this thought process over the years. I have been repped frequently about my ex, why would I ever be with someone like him. The answer is simple, he is a liar and I was naive at 22. I didn't find out the bulk of this insanity until I was pregnant with our second child, four months after my first son was born. Talk about a surprise.
Child support is NOT a crazy idea. Every parent should be more than willing to provide for their children. For the most part, although there will always be exceptions, I think men understand that they're responsible for their children's well being and understand that they need to contribute monetary support because of that. They WANT their children taken care of. However, I've seen quite a few men (fathers) get pretty well dicked during divorce proceedings. It's already an emotionally challenging time, as the couple split up, no matter what the cause(es). If the causes revolve around infidelity or the betrayal of trust, things are even more bitter and difficult as the parents attempt to cause each other pain and emotional anguish...many times using the children as pawns in this. I think MANY of us have seen this first hand either in our own lives or in the lives of someone close to us. "He thinks he can <insert thing> me?! I'm going to take him for everything he has and never let him see his kids again!" And because the court systems of many states seem to automatically favor the mother, they get pretty close to what they want. I'm no lawyer, and I have not had to battle for custody so I'm not going to even attempt to go into specifics or examples. All I can say is there's a perception that the mother gets a LOT from the father, and the father is left feeling fairly screwed over. Let's not even talk about alimony. Add that to the mother eventually hooking up with another guy, creating a higher household income for herself, and feelings of resentment that are already present in the father, get exacerbated. I’ve heard things like “Christ, man…I’m paying half a house payment for a house I don’t live in anymore, but HE (the boyfriend) get’s to live in. I pay the car payment on her car, because she obviously needs a good car, and I WANT her to have a safe reliable car, for the kids. Although (kid) says (ex and boyfriend) just bought a “cute little Mustang that mommy loves”. I pay a metric fuck ton of money for child support, that wouldn’t bother me TOO much if I knew only the kids were benefitting from that money. I’m still fighting for more custody, because god forbid I want to be with my kids more often, but the little apartment that I can afford isn’t exactly a selling point to the judge, not to mention that I want them in (better school district) but oh no, they have to go to the school district SHE went to. AND…because of all this court battling still going on, the New Girl I’ve been seeing for the past few months, has decided that she doesn’t want to deal with all of this anymore, and that I should look her up when all my “shit” is over and taken care of. I’m not sure if my nuts can be stepped on any harder…but I’m sure someone will manage find a way tomorrow…” The above probably isn't close to your situation, and isn't meant to defend deadbeat dads. It's simply a idea of why some men might feel so passionately about the child’s mother benefiting from child support. They don't WANT the mother to benefit...they want the children to benefit. I'm on cold meds and feeling chatty for some reason, so I hope that all makes at least a little bit of sense and isn't just a bunch of words jumbled together.
You know why women are so adamant about taking everything you've got after you have had kids together? Because she feels like she's already given so much more than you by carrying and birthing these absurdly expensive bundles of joy. This a random aside, as I do not believe this is a solid basis for the cuntlike behavior so many experience. I just want some help with major bills, not his balls in a jar. The problem I am facing is getting him to tell the truth about things as well. He's trying to get out of paying child support every week. I'm over it.
As I said in a Rep, what you're looking for is entirely reasonable, at least as far as I can tell. Your ex pretty much sounds like an ass...for several reasons, and I think you've mentioned some before.
No, it isn't. Then, I care for my children, so perhaps I'm in the minority. As to why they think that? Because they are stupid. They equate a check to you for the benefit of his (your) children to be a check to you for your benefit. States now pretty much have to follow a fairly complicated formula proscribed by the Federal Government in calculating child support. There are all sorts of different numbers to punch into the formula: Private schools, health insurance, other kinds of insurance, day care, his income, your income, etc. It takes most of the guesswork and the knee-jerk "I'm getting screwed" gut reactions out of child support. Plus you can sic the Feds on the guy (through your state office of Enforcement) if he doesn't pay.
I have no sympathy for assholes that barely or never see their kids and then complain about having to pay their fair share, but if we split custody 50/50 and I pay for half of all my son's expenses (including those that his mother does not ask me about, but just decides to go out an drop $50 on new Nike sneakers), then why should I have to pay on top of that? And I pay for EVERY little expense she comes up with, to the penny. She chose to dissolve the marriage/partnership (after some unbelievably heinous activities) so why should we still be a team? Because I make more money than she does, in my opinion, is not a good enough reason. Iif I am already paying half, why does the state tell me that I need to pay on top of that?
In some (not all) cases, there is a significant spread between the amount of cash transferred and the amount used for the benefit of the children. If a payment is $2,000 a month, it's likely that it's not all being spent on the children. However, if the payment is only $200 a month, the custodial parent probably has to come out of pocket for more than half of the children's expenses. Perhaps a mechanism (like a bridal registry) whereby the custodial parent gets property in lieu of child support would be met without objection. I realize this isn't a novel idea; I wonder why it hasn't been tried. I suppose it may increase the cost of child support administration, or take away some autonomy from the custodial parent. It's fair to ask whether the custodial parent should be required to trade some decision-making authority in exchange for receiving the support payment. Another potentially interesting debate - who pays on dates? The guy? The person who asks? The person who picked the activity? The one with more money?