Paul Elam of A Voice for Men: In His Own Words
Posted by David Futrelle

Paul Elam in a web-only clip from the 20/20 segment that never ran on television.
Paul Elam, the founder and primary animating force behind the website A Voice for Men, is probably, for better or worse, the most influential figure in the Men’s Rights movement (or, as he prefers to call it, the Men’s Human Rights Movement).
Elam is also a fierce misogynist with a penchant for angry, violent rhetoric full of only-slightly veiled threats. But don’t take my word for it. Perhaps the best way to get to know Mr. Elam is through his own words.
So here are some of Elam’s thoughts on a variety of issues, taken from postings on his own website. I have linked each quote back to its source on A Voice for Men.
Paul Elam on Domestic Violence
In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess. …
Now, am I serious about this?
No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong. Every one should have the right to defend themselves. …
But it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.
Here, courtesy of the Wayback Machine, is the post as it originally appeared on A Voice for Men in 2010, where it was illustrated with a picture of a woman with a black eye, captioned “Maybe she DID have it coming.”
Elam now says this was “satire,” though its hard to see how it is “satire” when he clearly says that he doesn’t think his allegedly “satirical” solution is wrong. When Swift wrote his Modest Proposal he didn’t think that eating babies was actually a good thing; if so, it would not have been a satire.
Paul Elam on Rape
I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires … And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.
But are these women asking to get raped?
In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it.
And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
Elam, apparently trying to project a more respectable image, has replaced the original A Voice for Men post containing these passages with a disingenuous disclaimer. But the Internet never forgets. An archived copy of the original post can be found through the Wayback Machine here. The quote is not any better in context.
Paul Elam on Why He Would Vote to Acquit All Rapists
Elam feels that courts are “patently untrustworthy when it comes to the offense of rape” and so, he explained in one post:
Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.
Original post here.
Paul Elam Explains How the Thought of Harming His Critics Sexually Arouses Him
No, I’m not making this up. Here are the strange, threatening remarks he addressed to an opponent of his Register-Her website (on which, more below).
Do you think I am going to stop?
It’s a serious question, because the answer to that question … should inform you of what will work for you or not work for you in dealing with me.
And the answer is, of course, no, I am not going to stop. You see, I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.
Original post here.
Paul Elam on the Necessity of “Inflicting Pain” on Opponents
Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.
You can see this quote in context here.
Paul Elam, the World’s Strangest “Pacifist”
From a post on family courts:
I am a pacifist. I do not advocate violence. But I tell you this. The day I see one of these absolutely incredulous excuses for a judge dragged out of his courtroom into the street, beaten mercilessly, doused with gasoline and set afire by a father who just won’t take another moment of injustice, I will be the first to put on the pages of this website that what happened was a minor tragedy that pales by far in comparison to the systematic brutality and thuggery inflicted daily on American fathers by those courts and their police henchmen.
It would not even so much be a tragedy as the chickens coming home to roost.
You can see the comment in context here.
Paul Elam on Mothers’ Day
To all you mothers of the world, please give your Mother’s Day flowers and give them all generously. Most importantly, give them where they will do the most good. Place a bunch of daffodils at a dumpster near you, perhaps one in which one of you, or one of your kind, has tossed an unwanted baby, leaving it there to slowly die alone in a pile of trash.
Perhaps you could lay a single rose at the base of a bridge that has been used by a mother to throw her baby into an icy river. Perhaps you can lay it there with hands that have beaten or shaken a baby to death. …
Inspired? Good. Now perhaps some of you could place large, colorful arrangements at the abortion centers where women go to have children cut out and laid to rest in those colorful and attractive biohazard containers that are all the rage in the clinics.
He continues on in this vein for some time before getting to this:
This is not a request for some mothers, or a percentage of them, but all of you. In fact, you don’t even have to be a mother. If you have a vagina, the blood of all those children, who are abused far more at the hands of women than men, has stained your skin and caked around the cuticles of your fingers.
And he continues on for several more paragraphs of abuse, until this:
In Daffodils for Dumpsters the gash gets you in, and you don’t really have a choice.
After several more paragraphs of this he makes clear that this time he’s not even claiming he’s writing satire:
Now, do I really mean all this? Yes.
You can read the whole remarkable thing here. He also wrote a similarly unhinged post about Valentines Day, which I wrote about here.
Now, Elam not only says many terrible things; he also does terrible things. Here are a few posts detailing some of these things.
Here’s a post about his website Register-Her, a fake “offenders registry” where feminist writers and activists are vilified alongside female murderers and child abusers, and threatened with the exposure of their personal information, in an attempt to silence them.
Here’s a post about A Voice for Men’s glorification of Thomas Ball, a disturbed man and self-admitted child abuser who set himself on fire on the steps of a courthouse in hopes that his death would inspire Men’s Rights activists to launch a campaign of firebombing attacks against courthouses and police stations.
Despite Elam’s claims of non-violence, A Voice for Men published Ball’s long terrorist manifesto — including his calls for firebombing — on its website, in its “activism” section. It was only after the Boston Marathon bombings that AVFM finally took the manifesto down.
Here’s a post about the time Paul Elam (along with a ragtag team of online misogynists and white supremacists) viciously attacked a young woman as an anti-male, anti-white bigot, resulting in threats directed at her and at her alma mater, Georgetown University. As it turned out, all the attacks on her, from Elam and other, were based on bogus information — as Elam would have known if he had taken ten minutes to fact check his sources.
These quotes, and these articles, are really only the tip of the iceberg. I invite anyone interested in finding out more about what Paul Elam believes to look through my archives at some of my other posts about him, and about A Voice for Men more generally.
Posted on October 18, 2013, in a voice for men, a woman is always to blame, abortion, advocacy of violence, antifeminism, domestic violence, evil sexy ladies, evil women, harassment, hate, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, not-quite-explicit threats, not-quite-plausible deniability, paul elam, playing the victim, rape, rape culture, taking pleasure in women's pain, terrorism and tagged 20/20, a voice for men, domestic violence, manosphere, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, paul elam, rape culture, terrorism, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 573 Comments.








Argeneti (spelling)
Please post news articles that prove what you said.
Rantings from lunatics on Reddit doesn’t count as proof.
I haven’t heard of Paul or Tommy encouraging men to commit violent acts.
Arrests following rape accusations rarely happen. Convictions happen far, far less. Innocents aren’t being convicted of rape. Lots of people guilty of rape never face any legal repercussions though. Good news for rapists all around, really.
So, false rape accusations aren’t actually resulting in harm. That’s a myth. It should be a punishable offense when it occurs but the notion it’s a problem equivalent to rape is fucking absurd.
And if you don’t want to pay child support for a kid that’s yours, you establish that with the person you’re risking having a child with ahead of time or you don’t have sex.
For the record, my man and I agreed, if we conceive, I’ll solely support the child to enable him to finish medical school, after which point he can participate financially.
You don’t read, do you? A cursory search of this blog will provide you with endless links to examples of Paul Elam advocating violence.
Dan, you seem to think that the way this conversation works is that you post assertions, the assertions are assumed to be true until we make arguments as to why those assertions are wrong, and then it’s our job to provide sources (which, for some reason, have to be news articles) to disprove your assertions to your own satisfaction.
That’s…not how actual conversations work.
Which could make for an entertaining “debate” — I suspect my cats could more than hold their own against Dan.
Or wait, could we have Falconer’s babies debate Dan? That would be awesome.
@marinerachel
I never said that biological fathers should not pay child support. Please show me where I said that. If I did, it was a typo. I am pro child support just as long as the biological parent is paying it.
False rape claims don’t hurt anyone. Ask Brian Banks. The only reason why he was able to move on was because he landed a Pro Football contract.
I was accused of rape a couple of years ago, but I was aggressive with the detectives who interviewed me, I accused the female detective of raping me, just because I was being accused of a rape that didn’t have my DNA in a rape kit. No semen, no skin under the so called victim’s nails, or no proof I was anywhere around. I cussed out both detectives, threatened to sue the police department, the city, DA’s office, and the detectives. However, most guys (especially young Black men) fear the police. That is why they just take plea deals even if they are innocent.
Now once again, post news articles where men that were involved with MRA groups actually committed violent acts towards women, court buildings, or etc.
Hell, I will throw you a bone.
The Pittsburgh, PA LA Fitness shooter( George Sodini) was not tied to any MRA online groups like a few wack jobs on Youtube claimed. The shooter had Aspergers syndrome just like the sick man boy who shot up an elementry school late last year.
The wack job who shot Asia McGowan back in 2009 was accused of being a member of Blackmenvent. He wasn’t. The guy was mentally ill, would not take his meds, and was obsessed with Asia. He did not track her down and stalk her. They went to the same school.
So, go ahead and post some articles where men from MRM or MRA sites have committed violent acts. Talking about shit online doesn’t mean a damn thing. I am not talking about Keyboard commandos. I am talking about guys who actually committed violent acts in the name of MRM.
@ cloudia
Anyone can post sick and twisted shit they want to do. For all I know, you people could be posting under sock accounts on sites like Reddit in order to discredit the MRM. The thing is, anyone can post anonymous. That is why I asked for news articles that show these men committing violent acts in the name of MRM.
Heck, show me a video of a guy showing his face threatening violence towards women in the name of MRM.
Good bit of goal posting moving there, bucko. The MRM is well known for not accomplishing anything (thank goodness.) Advocating violence though, they do in spades. This blog will link you to countless examples of your friend Paul doing exactly that. But now you’ve decided advocating violence is OK as long as everyone’s too lazy to actually, you know, kill the bitch. Anti-feminist murderers include Anders Breivik and Marc Lepine.
And no, Banks’ conviction was overturned. Nothing to do with football. Everything to do with the justice system correcting it’s self in the face of new evidence. He’s hardly an example of someone’s life being ruined, much less evidential support for the claim harm caused by false rape accusations is comparable to harm caused by rape in general.
I bet Dan is actually a feminist sock puppet posting to make the MRM look bad.
bodycrimes on October 18, 2013 at 3:00 pmI read Matt Forney’s post about how ABC approached him and mentioned they couldn’t get anybody from the Manosphere to reply to their emails or agree to be interviewed. Funny, eh? These men stand for ‘men’s rights’ and yet when they have a golden opportunity, they run to ground. What a contrast to other civil rights groups, who take every opportunity to present their case.
I agree with this. This is why I attack both sides. Sites like this and sites like a voice for men are jokes a d pathetic.
Believe it or not, I clown both sides for being dumb and irrational.
Lol, you’re just going to keep shifting the goalposts as the evidence piles up that the MRM in it’s current form is rife with advocation of violence. I guess The Necessity of Domestic Violence never happened!
We’ve established damn near the whole of the MRM is too lazy to get off their asses and follow through with any of the threats they make. The advocation of abuse is still a problem.
Oh, Dan is TOTES trying to sully the good name of the MRM.
Yeah, I’ve suffered enough anecdotes as proof of wide-ranging real world problems for the day. I have physics to study.
Anders Breivik
He was diagnosed with NPD and parnoid schizophrenia.
Nothing he did was linked to MRM site.
Marc Lepine
He had a few personality disorders and hatred towards women.
He was not affiliated with any MRM groups.
Try again.
If MRM groups were advocating violence like you claimed, then those groups would be on terrorists watch lists. Since I post on those sites the FBI, local law enforcement, and etc would be watching me. Paul also would not have talked to the media.
Any site that advocates violence against Americans is considered a media outlet for
Terrorists. Oh, and threatening to fire bomb court buildings is a felony. If you people are so confident in these threats, then why haven’t any of you people contacted law enforcement?
@ Cloudiah, nope I am just calling out your side as liars too.
Most of the MRM posters do not have the guts to debate.
Jesus Christ, Dan, you fucking dolt, PaulE’s own words are in this post. You apparently too stupid to understand them.
Fuck off now, mmmkay?
You’re not worth a fart in high wind to the FBI, but not for the reasons you think.
Wow, you sound like a real charmer.
Dan, debating you isn’t good sport. You’re bringing knives to gunfights, son. I’m just going to keep telling you how ignorant you are until you explode, but there’s others here who can and will make mincemeat out of your sorry ass.
Can you say outclassed?
Katz: not only is he a charming young man, he’s completely ignorant of how the justice system works.
I’ll bite.
Dan, why is it that we have to cite outside sources–and, strangely, only news stories–to prove what Paul Elam writes on his own blog, but your assertion that false rape accusations are a big problem is supposed to be taken as fact with no sources whatsoever?
What, you can’t just swear at and sexually harass the detectives and they’ll go “Wow, this guy is really angry, better let him go?”
Next you’ll tell me that if you get into a high-speed chase with the police, you can’t just drive far enough and eventually they’ll go “I guess he got away fair and square.”
@dan
I…um….based on what quote? Like, evidence plz.
Just because you say it doesn’t make it so.
Not everything women do is for the attention of men, you self-centered twit.
Again. Not everything women do is about men. I (and many other women, probably) do not use my body to taunt men, I dress like a ‘slut’ either 1)because I like to. I like the way it looks on me or 2) because it’s hot and sometimes I don’t want to be boiling under a bunch of layers when I have a crappy heat tolerance. Neither of those options involves giving a fuck about your worthless opinion. If men feel taunted by my existence, that’s their fault, and they can go back to the part in childhood where they get the less that the world does not revolve around them.
Yeeesssss.
I officially call bullshit on Dan actually having read the article he’s commented on. It’s like…bwuh?
@Dan
Citations desperatley needed, you ableist fuck. Not everyone who kills someone is mentally ill. FFS.
This site advocates for men who aren’t biological fathers to pay child support.
I never said false rape claim was a big problem. I said that it needs to be prosecuted just like other cases of providing false information to police officers.
This site advocates for women to get away with parternity fraud.
What this site advocates actully happens IRL.
The crazies on sites like a voice for men and reddit have never had one of their killing or raping spree fantasies come true.
The shit you people advocate happens and nothing is done about it
When a cray fuck kills women or rapes women, he is prosecuted.
This site does none of that, you dishonest fucknut. Learn to read.
Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
I see you’re an ableist fucknut as well. Bravo.
@dan
Citation needed.
Whatthefuck. Stop calling everyone you don’t like ‘crazies’. FFS.
…
………….
…………………..
O_o Really? ugh, anyone have a link to the some actual stats on this (couldn’t find mine :( ) Because trollboy needs some actual citations. Not that he’ll pay them any mind.
Marie: I think that like so many of our trolls, Dan can’t read for comprehension.
@hellkell
Probably. Though I can’t tell if he’s taking it to a new level, or I’ve just been away too long. It’s like talking to a brick wall! :P
How have you been?
@hellkell
(I’m assuming you mean me? Sowwyz if I’m wrong)
I’ve been meh. My depression’s been flaring up for quite a while. But my meds got increased so that is good news.
marie: I meant you. I’m glad you seem to be on the upswing. Or starting to, anyway.
@hellkell
Thanks :3 Hopefully it stays that way.
So the interesting thing about these dudes who are so upset when a non-biological parent is on the hook for child support, is that they don’t really think things through.* Most men & women who have established a parental relationship with children, whether or not they are biological parents, would want to be able to continue that relationship even if they divorce the other parent. If we establish a rule saying that non-biological parents have no legal responsibility to children they have a parental relationship with, doesn’t that mean they also have no right to a continuing relationship with those children after divorce, even if both they and the children desperately want one?
*I know it’s really that these dudes are incapable of envisioning what it’s like to have a healthy parental relationship with a child, considering them only as property, but I still like to game the argument out to its logical conclusion.
Meanwhile, am I the only one having the following reaction to Dan’s comments?
Goddam. Dan, do the world a favor and go fuck yourself.
Men can be raped too, and by “rape” I mean non consensual sex, not someone not getting fucked after buying a girl a drink. You’re insulting male victims as well.
Hi Marie! Hope the increased dosage helps!
@cloudiah
Hi :D
@auggz
Oh wow, sounds like I missed Dan being even grosser than I’ve already seen :(
Oh fuck your rape apologia ass, Dan.
(Not literally, rape is bad, mkay?)
I see you’ve abandoned the pretense that we’re having a conversation and now you’re just throwing random stuff out there. Why you think that stating that this site does something that a) it doesn’t do and b) even if it did you wouldn’t know because you showed up 10 minutes ago would be persuasive to anyone I don’t know.
“What problems do you people have with only biological fathers being obligated to pay child support?”
Step-fathers and adoptive fathers who take on that responsibility knowing the kid isn’t biologically theirs, I said that last night.
“What problems do you have with people who file false rape charges being prosecuted?”
Assuming they’re sure it’s a false report, I don’t. I just don’t see the point in bothering when no one was hurt by it since nothing will come of it besides her paying a fine.
“Why should a man who never even had sex with a chick be forced to pay child support, just because a woman put his name down on a piece of paper?”
Can we have that straw back? I’d like a scarecrow for my Halloween decor.
Who ever said he should? Cuz I recall saying that he should ask for a paternity test if he wants done, it’s really rather simple.
“Please post news articles that prove what you said.”
Which thing? Cuz I’ve said a lot and you don’t seem to be listening (it’s Argenti btw, Latin for silver)
“I haven’t heard of Paul or Tommy encouraging men to commit violent acts.”
Go click the damned links to AVfM, read Paul’s own words with his own byline on his own blog.
Next page!
The “What problems do you have with” framework is, of course, yet another way of framing things so that Dan’s position is assumed to be right and the burden is entirely on us to prove otherwise.
“So, go ahead and post some articles where men from MRM or MRA sites have committed violent acts. Talking about shit online doesn’t mean a damn thing. I am not talking about Keyboard commandos. I am talking about guys who actually committed violent acts in the name of MRM.”
You back hurt from that goalpost shifting?
So far on Spot! That! Fallacy! We have shifting goal posts, a burden of proof issue (you made the claim, you defend it, we don’t have to defend our counter-point until you do), strawman’ing, and that’s without going back to check.
“I agree with this. This is why I attack both sides. Sites like this and sites like a voice for men are jokes a d pathetic.
Believe it or not, I clown both sides for being dumb and irrational.”
Had you not been accusing us of being against fairness and equality because we don’t support the MRM, just last night, I might be more inclined to believe this.
“Any site that advocates violence against Americans is considered a media outlet for
Terrorists. Oh, and threatening to fire bomb court buildings is a felony. If you people are so confident in these threats, then why haven’t any of you people contacted law enforcement?”
But posting a manifesto supporting it under the heading “activism” is legal. As are vague threats against unnamed people, and dox’ing, and all the other shit they pull. They know where that line is and stay just barely on this side of it.
“This site advocates for men who aren’t biological fathers to pay child support.”
When they know they aren’t the biological father, and took on that responsibility anyways, yes. Otherwise no. Seriously, either you’re too dense to see why adoptive parents should have to same responsibilities as biological parents, or you’re being intentionally dishonest. Personally, I’m voting for both.
“This site advocates for women to get away with parternity fraud.”
Uh, when? Cuz I very much disputed that last night, can you read?
Oh and if you think proof by verbosity is going to work, go read pages 6~10 on the glossary’s comments. I’m one stubborn fucker.
Don’t forget argument to moderation.
Dan, brah, this is how you come across… not that I think you actually care, since no one with an ounce of self-respect would be arguing the way you argue for the things you’re arguing for.
At any rate, do us all a favor and fuck off, dipshit.
Ah yes, how ever did I miss that one?!
If all that were required to get child support from a man that you had never even slept with was to write his name on the birth certificate and then he HAD to pay ALL his money FOREVERZ then why would the woman be naming Joe ‘Douchecanoe’ Bloggs from Reddit instead of like, Donald Trump or Bill Gates?
So basically, you people think biological dads should be let off of the hook for child support, because another man married the single mother with kids.
Every one of Dan’s comments*
*CITATION NEEDED
It’s not just that he’s a liar, it’s that he’s a really unconvincing one. Sorry, bud, if you want to succeed as a con artist you’re going to have to up your game.
(Unless the people you’re conning are MRAs, because they’re gullible and want to be conned.)
Also seconding our producer guest – a newsroom can definitely be a place where the language gets a bit salty, but nobody in their right mind would talk to a potential guest or source like that.
(Ignoring Dan since he seems to have arrived pre-frothed, and I’ve already had my latte ration for the day.)
I’m confused about why Dan feels the need to advocate for people who seem to have reached perfectly amicable solutions.
“So basically, you people think biological dads should be let off of the hook for child support, because another man married the single mother with kids.”
Dear gods, can you read? If another man took on the legal responsibility, then yes. You get that parental rights have to be severed for that to occur, right? And that most people have no issue with this concept?
Example — you’re happily married, decide, for whatever reason, to adopt. Sign all the paperwork, you and your wife become he kid’s legal guardian. Sometime later you two decide it just isn’t working out and file for divorce. Are you seriously saying the biological father, who gave the kid up for adoption, should have to pay child support instead of you, the adoptive father who knowingly signed on for legal responsibility?
Nat — me too. (And is it okay if I call you that?)
It’s fine Argenti :)
If a guy is retarded enough to sign adoption papers, then yes he deserves what he ask for. Ok, we are on the same page.
Google Gil Garcetti and see what he did to men who cleared by DNA not to be the biological father. BTW notices of child support are mailed and not served my sherrif deputies or court officials.
I’m still having this reaction to Dan.
Dan, forgive me as I’m switching between this page and, er, my homework (which is due Monday but probably isn’t going to be done by then) but what specifically about child support and non-biological parenting do you find objectionable?
If the non-biological parent has formally adopted the child, obviously that is grounds to enforce child support and visitation. I think it is strange, but also sort of understandable, to enforce CS and visitation for former partners who didn’t formally adopt; this happened to a woman I know.
She and her ex-husband of several years had always shared custody of their children. He went on to remarry, so the kids also had a stepmom.
When the ex-husband died unexpectedly, the stepmom sued the mom for visitation, and the mother was really angry. She figured since the ex-H had died, the kids would no longer have any relationship to their step-mom, who the mom didn’t much care for.
I could see it both ways; for the mom: “What right does this chick have to demand MY kids?”
From the kids’ standpoint, dang, the stepmom had been a contributing part of their lives for as long as they could remember. Now she’s just somebody they used to know?
From the stepmom’s POV, her husband died and now her step-kids are ripped away, too?
Not sure how the case came out and am not familiar with the legal situation in that state (or even in my own state, tbh) But it seems to me like these things are actually pretty complicated.
Check out this article.
http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/child-support/can-you-get-refund
@ cloudiah
Me too. May I suggest a more exciting alternative?
http://www.buzzedgames.com/watch-paint-dry-game.html
CassandraSays – There’s a game about watching paint dry?
…
Much more interesting than trolls. *nod* Except when they blow up, as they inevitably do. Then I make popcorn. Speaking of which, anyone want some?
Seems like this one would be a waste of good popcorn, honestly.
Of course adoptive parents who divorce have to continue supporting their kids. You can’t divorce a child you adopt if you change your mind. It’s the same deal as when you make a child. You’re stuck with that responsibility. The only difference is how you become a parent, not what responsibilities that entails.
I’m pretty sure marrying someone’s parent doesn’t make you their parent. You can adopt your spouse’s children if they only have the one parent but, otherwise, you’re only related to the child through the parent and, when you divorce them, that bond is severed. In what world does marrying a parent give you parental rights, particularly over children who already have two parents? That makes no sense to me.
CassandraSays – It’s for the watching paint dry one, not the troll.
For that I got a rotten tomato somewhere… ;)
I have caramel corn! But I’m saving it for the “Elam makes a fool of himself on national TV” event.
Wonder when they’re going to air that, anyhow. How many times has it been postponed?
Remind me where anyone here said men shouldn’t request a paternity test? Cuz I’d swear I’m saying this for the third time now.
It is agreed. Adoptive parents should pay child support.
Now check out this article. I think it got ignored. My point is made clear in what was posted on legal zoom.
http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/child-support/can-you-get-refund
Dan, you ignorant piece of shit, if you don’t think a kid is yours, think it might not be, or just generally don’t want to be culpable for child support, you don’t sign an admission of paternity. An admission of paternity basically legally makes you the father. If you don’t want to be a father, it’s a damn stupid thing to do to LEGALLY PROCLAIM YOURSELF TO BE ONE OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL.
Now fuck off.
It’s so cute how he thinks he can order us to go read stuff and we’ll actually do it. Bless.
Seconding dustydeste.
Love “it is agreed” though, like this is a
pirate shipcourtroom and “I agree” is inappropriate.Btw, this is a pirate ship, not a courtroom, and you, matey, are heading for the plank.