If he doesn't want a baby, you shouldn't seek CSA

[NeedACleverNN]

Why the hell is this line still trotted out?

I've even seen it on here. Woman falls pregnant, boyfriend doesn't want it and wants an abortion. She doesn't. People advise her to keep the baby and let him go. Don't bother seeking child maintenance because he didn't want the baby in the first place.

No!! If he didn't want a baby he should take his own precautions to preventing pregnancy. You don't like condoms? You don't have sex!

but Voyage - you are mixing up a physical reflex with an emotional/thought out reaction. The two are not the same at all.

Your argument is. We are mammals. Mammals HAVE to behave a certain way because of nature. Men therefore need to fuck lots of women and walk away without thinking about the babies, because nature insists that they make lots of babies.

Erm - nature compelling men to make lots of babies is a reason why men SHOULD be more aware of the link between sex and babies, not less aware.

People are also born with the 'natural reaction' to fight for what is theirs, hence the joy of parenting a toddler. But we socialize children into not hitting and fighting etc. We see it as a problem, that something has gone wrong, if they still give in to their 'natural urges' when older. Why don't we just do the same about this issue?

Because - other countries do and it works!! So - evolution only exists in the UK? Is that part of your argument?

Anyway - the evolution thing is a false argument, there are plenty of previous threads about this for anyone who wants to read more.

Who wants to cut the benefits budget by at least 24 billion pounds a year?

More than that if you take into account housing benefit. Possibly topping 30 billion pounds a year (that's conjecture, I haven't looked up how many single parent families claim HB).

Anyone feeling like it would be nice to see a cut in the benefits that are paid out? Because making NRP pay would achieve that.

So - if a man has consensual sex and becomes a parent, it is his duty to pay to support the child he created, because it can keep the benefits bill down.

Is there anyone who really believes that an adult who has sex willingly gets to add to the cost of benefits paid out in this country just because they didn't really want to face up to the consequences?

What - nothing to say Voyage?

There are various evolutionary strategies for reproduction and parenting. The drive is not just to have offspring but to ensure those offspring survive to reproduce.

"Seed scattering", alpha male group set ups, pair bonding for life etc are all seen in the animal kingdom. My understanding is that early humans were in groups that supported each other, so a father and mother would both support their offspring.

Anyway, we don't spend the majority of the day foraging for food and avoiding predators, so with respect to the relevance of evolution.

Agree that if a man has sex and creates a baby he should pay for it - as should a woman. Both should work and pay. It would cut the benefits bill indeed.

It is, as we know, over simplified of course - just another factor to consider.

The assumption is that these men are all working, don't have other family to support and know about their children.

And as for biology - it drives the women too. That drive to have a baby, that need even when it doesn't make sense, even if it is going to ruin her career and her finances, even if she has no stable man in her life, no decent income and no real means to support a child. We still do it!

Let's not swap insults - never satisfactory over the internet!

Social messages are a far bigger influence than evo psych bollocks in what we find attractive, IMO.

As the majority of nutrients came from gathering not hunting in cave times, those with good plant spotting skills probably had a better chance of surviving to reproduce than anyone else.

The evolution argument ... Whatever ... Parents should still pay for their children...

Even if only 1 in 5 fathers ticked all the boxes - that's still nearly £5 billion...

Voyage - you said that evolution explains why men don't link sex with babies as much as women. It doesn't matter if you think it's good or bad, that was your argument. But actually 'evolutionary imperative' means that men would be doing that BECAUSE they link babies and sex. So the argument doesn't work.

If sexual attraction is so strongly linked to evolution (and this isn't part of the discussion, btw) then explain why certain characteristics have been viewed as attractive in different times and places. If it were purely evolution, then there would be no divergence anywhere in place or time. But we know that's not true. What is seen as attractive has varied greatly throughout the world and history. So another false argument.

What makes men think they can have sex and walk away with no responsibility is growing up in a society which allows that, and therefore teaches them that they can behave that way. So let's change how our society thinks about it, and make NRP parents accept their responsibility.

Like many, many, other countries do, where men are aware that they have to support any children they create.

"What makes men think they can have sex and walk away with no responsibility is growing up in a society which allows that, and therefore teaches them that they can behave that way. So let's change how our society thinks about it, and make NRP parents accept their responsibility."

Yes, yes and thrice yes.

"If the instinct of man is to produce as many children as possible ( along with many other instincts )"

As noted above, "seed scattering" does not seem to be the strategy adopted by early humans to ensure successful reproduction of genes down the generations.

The example of muscular men is constant over what timeframe, set of cultures and exposure to what social influences?

For something like a million years, maybe more, humans have been unique in requiring tools, clothes etc to actually survive in their habitats (as opposed to furred pelts and claws, say). Have pin ups looked like those in Men's Health for all that time, do you think?

And if a man was " muscular but thick"- charming- to the extent that, say, he couldn't hide from a predator or build social relationships in his group, why would he have survived to reproduce?

This is why I hate evo psych - and won't post further on it here - it's all post hoc. In 2016 some women have fireman calendars - oh, that must be evolution. In 2016 millions of women pay taxes, take public transport, say please and thank you - any comments from evo psych? Nah.

Is there evidence that thick muscular men are responsible for most of the fatherless children? If not then I'm not sure that this line of thinking is very relevant. I would expect that attractive people are likely to have more sex, or at least more offers. However primates live in social groups with significant investment by the whole group into the offspring, as opposed to males only encountering females for reproduction so it's really unlikely that there is some sort of evolutionary imperative to impregnate and abandon.

So, CSA...

Jacquetta, I don't think Voyage is ever going to answer the question of what his evolutionary theory means for CSA.

What is it with these charmers who suddenly become self-employed when they've impregnated some poor woman. That shouldn't be allowed.

Biology means men and woman can't have equal options and won't have equal consequences, so I think the following is as fair as it is possible to be.

1. Potential mother or father can each legally disclaim parenthood of any children at any time from potential conception to three months after birth of resulting children.
2. Once they've formally disclaimed, they can't change their mind, unless the other person agrees to let them.
3. The time-limit for disclaiming ends early if they make a binding mutual agreement about who is opting in/out.
4. Only mother has any say over potential abortion.
5. From birth onwards, both parents automatically have equal rights and responsibilities, including financial responsibility (unless/until they disclaim parenthood.)
6. If both parents disclaim, child put up for adoption.
7. If only one parent wants child, they get sole rights and responsibilities, other walks away.
8. If neither disclaim, they have 50:50 custody except when and for as long as they voluntarily agree otherwise. Each pays their own costs, including childcare while working. Paying the other person to have child more than half the time might be one option. Neither parent would be able to escape half the financial responsibility, or force financial support out of the other, as there can only be a carer-versus-payer asymmetric relationship if both agree the terms.

Have already made my views on this thread so moving on...

Maybe a fair solution would be that from birth both parents automatically have 50% residence. That way no money needs to be paid either way. Then boys/men who dont like looking after their children will have more of an understanding how hard it is and we wont have this system where women automatically are the default carers.