Guys Haven't Changed

From generation to generation, one constant thing in the U.S. is that a lot of guys will want to have sex with as many women as they can.  That has not changed over the decades.  What has changed is that the responsibility to care for any children made with these women has faded.  

We've all heard stories back in the day about "Mr. Earl" having an entire family on the other side of town that "no one knew about".  Mr. Earl would bring his "other kids" to his house and his wife would feed them, no questions asked.  In a lot of cases (not all), he would do what he could to take care of both households.  

Fast-forward to today and "Mr. Devante" does the same thing Mr. Earl did decades ago except he doesn't stop with just one household.  He'll have babies in multiple households.  And in a lot of cases (not all) he will not do much to take care of those kids he's created with others.  

What happened?  Where did the disconnect start?  How did the responsibility fade over the generations?

If you know me, I place a lot of the today's societal woes at the feet of 70's babies (for the record, I was born in 1971).  70s babies spend more time these days trying to defy growing older instead of using that time to train up the young ones.  We want to compete with them.  Not teach them.

But it's not all on us.  So much has contributed to the erosion of responsibility in the U.S.  Especially in the black and brown communities.  We blame women.  We blame men.  We blame the white man.  

Regardless of who gets the blame, nothing seems to ever change for the better, so my only suggestion is simply for people to change themselves.

- If you're a guy who doesn't want a bunch of baby mamas and child support orders then wear a condom or don't have sex at all.

- If you're a woman who doesn't want the responsibility of raising a child on your own then use some form of birth control or don't have sex at all.

Mr. Earl lived during a time when one salary could pay a lot of bills.  Not in Mr. Devante's world though.  One salary can barely even take care of a single-person household.  You'd think that would be more of a deterrent from spreading one's seed, but nope.

The person who doesn't want the responsibility of being a parent should be the one who uses the birth control.  It only takes one person to do it to prevent a baby.

There are too many examples of people in bad situations for us to allow this to continue to happen.  Share this blog post on your timeline and at least change the minds of people you care about.

Who Is Responsible for Birth Control?

When two people who aren't married decide to have sex, who is responsible for birth control?  It sounds like a tough question, doesn't it? 

Well, it's not. Despite the fact that people have argued this question for decades is beyond me. The answer is plain and simple: the person who doesn't want the obligation is the one responsible for preventing it. 

Period.  

Guys, let's say that you don't want a child brought into this world, and the reason doesn't matter.  It can be because: 

• You don't want the financial obligation.  
• You don't want the responsibility of being a dad. 
• You don't like the woman you're about to have sex with enough to raise a child with her. 
• Maybe you just hate kids. 

The reason doesn't matter.  It's your responsibility to ensure that conception never happens.  The sperm has to reach the egg in order to create a child.  Stop the sperm and there won't be a child.  You can't blame the woman if she ends up pregnant because you didn't protect yourself.  It's like blaming someone for having a wet floor when the plumbing is leaking.  Yeah, you could put a bucket under the leak and protect the carpet, but isn't the most reliable way to stop the leak is at the source?

If a guy doesn't want a baby then he can just about guarantee that it doesn't happen by simply wrapping up.  That's a lot better for everyone than just having a kid and then abandoning the child and the mother or not taking care of them adequately.  

And ladies, while you're laughing at me getting on the fellas, let me talk to you all for a minute...  

It's not a man's fault if you get pregnant from unprotected sex.  If you think that the pull-out method is foolproof then ma'am, you're the fool and the baby is proof.  Please don't rely on that or trust that he will even do it.

It's pretty much a given that if a woman has a child out of wedlock that she's going to be the primary person to care for it.  And if she doesn't want to deal with factors such as:

• Not being able to afford the child.
• Not having accommodations for someone to watch the child when she's unavailable.
• Not wanting to tether herself to a dude who isn't worth it. 
• Or maybe she, too, just hate kids.

The reason matters not, but, it's still your responsibility to ensure that conception never happens. 

One of my favorite comedians, Tyler Craig, who tragically passed away earlier this year, use to always end his jokes with a moral, so I will end this blog post by saying, "and the moral of the story is:" It takes two to make a baby, but only one to stop it. 

And the person who doesn't want the obligation should be the one to stop it. 

Every time a man goes in unprotected then he's obviously cool with possibly having a baby.  

Every time a woman allows a man to have sex without some form of birth control then she's obviously cool with possibly having a baby as well. It doesn't take a genius to understand how pregnancy works. 

All of these years, men and women have been finger-pointing when the answer to this question has always been and always will be, "you".

Is A Piece Of A Dad Better Than No Dad At All?

Singer, Betty Wright, once famously said that, "a piece of a man is better than no man at all."

That quote may make sense within the right context, but how about this one: is "a piece of a dad better than no dad at all?"

So often, I've encountered women who appear to be going at it alone. Single moms who find themselves trying to take care of their children and maintain a certain standard of a lifestyle on top of that.  Of course, not all women who say that they do it by themselves actually do so. There are a lot of cases where there's a man in the background helping out. However, I want to focus on the dads who aren't there consistently.

Is a part-time dad better than no dad at all when it comes to the well-being of the children and the stress levels of the mother? 

I know quite a few mothers who are struggling financially because their children's father won't help consistently, if at all. But, he does just enough to help from time-to-time.  He may contribute towards back-to-school shopping.  He may pick the kids up now and then to give the mom a much-needed break and some alone time.  Since she's not taking him to court to for steady and mandatory support payments then he's perfectly fine with their arrangement of being able to come and go and he pleases.  Rather than alienating him and forcing him away from good, some of these women tolerate his inconsistencies and continue to make ends meet the best way possible. This not only has an impact on the mom's stress level, but it can also affect the children, and it can also impact any relationship that the mother may attempt to have with a new guy.

Is it worth it?  To have the baby's dad pick his child up every other weekend or give $100 every few weeks worth not putting him on child support and potentially losing any additional actions on his part?

I'm not a single mom, so of course I haven't a clue of what they're going through. However, I've worked with and dated quite a few of them and to say that this acceptance of a piece of a man doesn't have any negative impact whatsoever would be a fairy tale.

I've found myself in position to play dad when it comes to discipline as well as financial assistance. I once even had a woman get upset with me for not helping her financially because I insisted that she asked her child's dad first. We weren't even dating yet she was holding my feet to the fire because she couldn't rely on her baby's dad.

Where do you stand on this? Should a mother always seek child support to secure her kid's prosperity and risk upsetting the dad? Or should she just take what she can get and deal with any shortcomings on her own?

Don't Let Your Struggle Become Your Identity

"Who's that dude?"

"Oh, that's the guy that has four babies by three different women."

"Who's the chick?"

"That's the one who got her car repossessed last week."

"What about that guy?"

"Who?  Him?  He's the one that can't keep a job."

We all have problems.  Things come up in our lives that tend to take over our very being.  You can't let that happen.  Don't let your problems become the center of every day that you live.  Doing so will cause people to identify you with whatever struggles that you may have.

Life was designed for us to have problems.  It's true that some have a lot more than others, but that's beside the point.  Problems are supposed to be temporary.  There's a way out of every problem that society has ever known.  It may not be easily achieved, but there is a way even if the odds aren't in your favor.

Be the one who overcame.  Be the one who survived.  Be the one who defied the odds and made something out of nothing.  It's your life.  Your destiny.  Let your struggles mold you and not control you.

Men Deserve Birth Rights

It can protect your bank account, too.

I'm not a father, but I feel the pain of so many of them who try and do the right thing.  Men have very few rights when it comes to a child's birth.  Some would go as far as to say that they don't have any rights whatsoever. It's sad in a few cases and unfair in a lot of them.

Here are the options that a woman has after she finds out that she's pregnant:

1. She can have the baby.
2. She can abort the baby.
3. She can put the baby up for adoption.
4. She can just leave the baby at a fire station or church.
5. She can tell a man the child is his (even if it isn't) and collect support (if not challenged in court by a certain period of time).

Here are the options that a man has when he finds he got someone pregnant:

1. They can attempt to adopt the baby if she puts it up for adoption.
2. They can opt not to pay child support and risk jail time.

Of course, I'm not an expert so I may have missed something, but that's basically it.  Everything pretty much depends on what the mother decides.  He may want to marry her and be there for the child, but if she wants to abort then he can't stop her.  He may not want to have anything to do with the child at all, but if she wants him to pay child support then he will or go to jail.

Men are at the mercy of women in all matters involving a child's birth.  Even men who aren't even the fathers.  #5 on my list for women alluded to that.  Case in point: let's say that a man and woman are married and she gets pregnant in an affair.  DNA proves that he's not the father, but he could still be forced to pay child support because they're married.  

If a woman tells a man he's the father of a child and he finds out three years later that he isn't, then he's still on the hook for 15 more years if she chooses to stick it to him.  Although he may not have thought he had a reason to petition the courts he still has to "beat the clock" to possibly get out of support.  If not, he could wind up paying for another man's child if she refuses to remove him from the birth certificate.

Do you think that it would work if men had the option to waive their rights to a child without the threat of forced child support?  Would that make women think twice about unprotected sex?

I know that it sounds unfair to the women, but we've already gone over what's unfair to the men and the list is lengthy.  Besides, women are normally the ones carry the child and who wind up being responsible for the child.  So, shouldn't they be the ones who should think twice about birth control since they go through so much?  I know that sounds like the words of a chauvinist, but I think if you looked at that with an unbiased eye that you would at least consider where I'm coming from on it.

Or what about the default for custody disputes being joint custody?  Isn't that what is best for the child anyway?  Why does it always seem that it has to be one parent or the other in these cases?  Why can't it always default to 50/50 custody?

What do you think?  Shouldn't men have some sort of say so in regards to the birth of a child?

Dead Beat Dads Can Suck It

First of all, let me say that I grew up in a two parent household, so "dead beat" doesn't apply to me.  And although I'm a childless man, I do love children.  Watching my god kids grow up over the past decade has been amazing to me.  Seeing how they learn to think and develop is awesome, to say the least.  However (in my best Yosemite Sam voice), "I hates a dead beat dad!"

There is nothing more pathetic than a dude who won't take care of his child(ren).  Wait.  I take that back.  There is something more pathetic: a guy who won't take care of his child(ren) and then goes out and gets someone else pregnant.  Notice that I've yet to use the term "man."  That's not an accident.

Now, I've heard horror stories of females using the child as a pawn in an emotional game with some guys.  But, those stories are few and far between.  A lot of guys want to act like that's the norm, but I'm old enough to know better.  There are very few women who wouldn't want their child to see their father.  Very few!  And even if she doesn't, then that's what the courts are for.  It may be difficult to get sole custody of a child, but it's usually not difficult to get visitation.  There aren't too many courts that would discourage a man visiting his child every other weekend.

Are there some bad chicks out there who play games with the child?  Of course.  But, that doesn't excuse a guy to stoop down to her level at the expense of the child.  Regardless of how much you hate her, handle your business.  Your kid needs your money and your time.  Even if she's constantly telling your kid that you're no good, your actions will make her into a liar every single time if you do the right thing.  At some point, that child will grow old enough to see the real deal.

Some guy recently made the news for not being able to pay child support on 22 kids by 14 different women.  First of all, I'm pretty sure that a majority of these women knew that this guy had more kids than an orphanage when they laid down with him.  So, I don't feel completely sorry for them, but the children didn't ask to be born into a family full of idiots.  Mandatory vasectomies will never be legal here in the U.S., but if they were, then this is the perfect case for it.  I would have snipped this dude at six kids.

If you are a guy and you're not paying your child support, then you are a loser.  I understand that there's an exception to every rule, but 99% of you are losers!

And the celebrities and athletes who cry about the ridiculous amounts of child support that they have to pay can cry me a river.  Boo-freakin'-hoo!  Although I agree that it's ridiculous to hit someone up for $10,000+ month in child support, these celebs/athletes know the deal.  It's not like they're hearing for the first time that child support for famous guys costs a huge amount.  But they love to cry "foul" when they go out and have five babies by six women.  Read that last sentence again and shake your head.  There are way too many examples of guys paying ridiculous amounts of money for someone to act "brand new" when they get taken to court for five digit child support amounts.  Wrap up and keep your cash to yourself.

Idiots.  Oh, by the way... Happy Father's Day!

T.O. cries on and off the field.

Stupid People Have Stupid Children

Photo courtesy of the last presidential debate.

Okay, I need to step on my soap box for a bit.  Let me start off by saying that I'm not perfect.  However, one thing that I am is fair.  Unfortunately, that's a trait that has gone the way of the dinosaur.  As a blogger and talk radio show host, I read/hear a lot of opinions from people all over the world.  It's so sad to me that people think the way that they do.  I'm not just talking about a difference of opinions because that will happen.  I'm talking about how a lot people argue their opinions: with emotions.

You cannot debate something based on emotions.  Let me repeat: you cannot debate something based on emotions.  You can only debate something with logic.  Logic contains facts and facts are what win debates.

Emotions are important in everyday living, but they generally make a person unreasonable in debates.  They can cause you to repeat your argument, but only louder, to attempt to make a point.  They make you feel personally attacked in an argument that's not even about you.  They make you say stupid things like "just because" which is what people say when they don't have facts to support their argument.  You're just emotional.

But, let me get back to the fairness thing again.  What's bothering me is how people allow their emotions to do/say something that they absolutely know is wrong or unfair to another.  Here's an example: a man will father a child with someone he won't marry.  He and the woman get into an argument and because he doesn't like her, he won't support his child.

That's the epitome of stupid to me.  A man who denies his child because his feelings got hurt is a punk.  There's just no arguing that.  Regardless if that woman cheated on you with your best friend, the child still has to eat, be clothed and medicated regularly at a cost.  If a guy fails to see that because of the tears in his eyes over a woman, then he's a shell of a man.

Now, before you ladies stand up and clap, this foolishness applies to you, too.  In fact, despite the fact that women are said to mature quicker than men, that maturity is sometimes reduced by your emotions.  This is why we see the most popular reality shows with a predominantly female cast.  Because there isn't a shortage of women willing to turn a small disagreement into World War III.  Feeling the need to be right at the expense of others is the reason why so many of you are single and/or without friends.

It's a shame that our country is so volatile and that it thrives on divisiveness.  Black vs. white.  Young vs. old.  Democrats vs. Republicans.  Men vs. women.  All of this debating fueled with emotion instead of logic is why this country is filled with stupid people.  And stupid people have stupid children.  If you don't believe me, then follow a dumb kid home and see if someone just as dumb doesn't answer the door.

It is so frustrating to assume that each time I go into a debate, whether it's a serious topic or even something as trivial as sports, that I may be the only person with reasoning and facts behind my argument.  The other person may just have some emotional attachment to whatever it is they're supporting without any other debate ammunition.  I can definitely say that I truly understand why this country is deeper in a rut with each passing day, morally and financially.

We blame Obama, we blame teachers, we'll even blame the kid down the street and everyone else instead of ourselves.  We never blame ourselves.  After all, we can't be wrong because what we're saying "feels right."

Garbage.

(steps off soap box)

"Just because that's the way it should be!"

What are Prenatal Receipts?

What are prenatal receipts, you ask? It's when someone has a child with a person to "establish ownership" with them. It's like getting a receipt for a purchase with the child being the actual receipt.

I'll give you some examples: Some military men have been accused of getting their wives/girlfriends pregnant before deployment as some sort of motivation to come home. But, I've also heard that some attempt to get her pregnant to make sure that she has a hard time finding another suitor while he's overseas. Getting her pregnant establishes a bond with her and acts as a deterrent to other guys.

Makes sense? Is it right for someone to do that? Would you be upset if you found out that someone got a woman pregnant for any of the above reasons?

Well, let's flip the script a bit. What about women who may seek a little "insurance" on their relationships? By "insurance," I mean a child. What makes a woman get pregnant against a man's will in order to keep him? 

We see this happen to athletes and celebrities all of the time. They wind up with babies all over the country because there's always a woman looking to have unprotected sex with him in hopes of hitting the "sexual lottery." Rapper, 50 Cent, once had a song that stated "have a baby by me, baby and be a millionaire."

Well, that statement is true in most cases we see, especially in the NBA. Sometimes, I wonder if you have to have at least two baby mamas in order to even get drafted into the NBA. It almost seems like a requirement for them. LOL!

But, seriously.  There is a motivation for some to have a baby by a rich person.  In some instances, depending on the person, child support payments can be $10,000+ per month for some athletes/celebs.  So, even if he doesn't marry you, then you're still getting paid more than 80% of the country simply because you found "the right one."

In my opinion, a child's life isn't a bargaining tool.  One should never look to use getting someone or themselves pregnant as a motivation to come home, deter other people or get paid.  Doing so just makes you a low life, if you ask me.

What do you think?  

If you want to discuss this more, then join my chat room.

Tacky Tiki Returns

Tiki Barber is returning to the NFL after what has been almost four years since he retired. At 35 years old, the former New York Giants running back has decided to give it another try.

Is it his passion to play the game he loves so much that's bringing him back?

Nope.

Is it the camaraderie of his team mates that he misses so badly?

Nope.

Then why would a 35 year old man consider coming back to play running back in the game of football?

He's broke.


Yep. The former starting NFL RB and NBC correspondent is broker than a stopwatch in Professor Klump's back pocket. The man who earned over $28,000,000 in his NFL career and another $300,000 per year at NBC is now tapped out.

How could this be, you ask? Well, let me list the bad decisions that Tiki (what grown man is named this?) made that has him coming back to play:

He quit - Tiki was frustrated with his coach (Tom Coughlin) and his quarterback (Eli Manning). He didn't think the team was moving in the right direction and in the middle of the season, announced that he was retiring. It would later prove to be a huge distraction to the team. Most people speculate that he should have waited until the end of the year to announce retirement. When the season ended, Tiki left the team and his remaining two year contract totalling $8.5 million dollars.

He bad-mouthed his team - After leaving the NYG and getting a job at NBC reporting on football, Tiki let his former team have it. Mr. Microphone said Coughlin "stripped his desire to continue to play with his coaching style." He also insulted Manning stating he wasn't a leader and would never win anything. That very next year, the Giants and Manning pulled off one of the most stunning Super Bowl upset victories in almost 40 years. A championship for the people Tiki broke his neck to insult regularly on the air. And they did it without him. Guess who had to interview Eli after the Super Bowl? Poetic justice at its finest! Eli even took a shot at Tiki with the following quote: "We had the right guys playing that we could make it work."

Although Tiki held the mic and kept smiling, you could almost see the blood dripping from Tiki's lip as he bit it.

He cheated - Here's where the bank account starts to drain. Tiki already had two kids with his wife, Ginny of 11 years, and twins on the way as she was eight months pregnant. He decides to dump her a few weeks before child birth and leave her for a 23-year old intern at NBC named Traci Lynn Johnson (she was also the babysitter -- how convenient!). Traci was with him in Vancouver during the '08 Summer Olympics and was introduced to everyone as "his assistant." Yeah, right. Tiki fumbled away his marriage and was stopped, once again, short of the goal line when his ex-wife denied him entry into the delivery room for the birth of his twins. Ouch.

Ironically, back in 2004, Barber criticized his own father for leaving his mother. “Not only did he abandon her, I felt like he abandoned us for a lot of our lives,” Barber told the New York Post at the time. “I have a hard time forgiving that.”

Let's see what your kids have to say in 20 years about you, sir.


He sucked in front of a camera - The Tikster wasn't that great on the mic. NBC shifted him from the studio to sideline reporter in very little time. He also made a few appearances in '08 Olympic coverage, but he made a huge mistake that kind of sealed the deal on his already declining popularity: he tried to say “total medal count” and left out the "o" in "count."

Not good.

Tiki admitted he was broke in the summer of last year. With alimony payments and child support on four kids (get him, Ginny!), Barber's funds are leaving his bank account quicker than fans can leave the arena at a Jackson 4 reunion tour.

Hence his come back to the game. Barber hired 5WPR, a public relations firm, to help change the perception of his affair with Johnson and get his image back. They will probably have to drain whatever is left in his piggy bank to fix his image. Being on the biggest media stage in the city of New York and dissing their coach and QB won't be easily forgotten. Neither will leaving your ex-wife in the stirrups delivering your twins while you're "bumping uglies" with the young, hot, blond babysitter / "assistant."



If he is fortunate, then some team will pick him up and give him a veteran minimum salary of $800,000 or something. He may even get to play a year or two if he's lucky. The only downside for him is that his twins will still need about 15 more years of child support to be paid after those two years are up.



I wonder if UPS is hiring? Happy Job Hunting, "Tacky!" Pray that your mistress-turned-girlfriend doesn't dump you for a player with more money coming in than going out.

Should Marriage Licenses Expire?

Just about every license you get expires. Hunting, fishing, driving, etc. But, not marriage licenses. Once you apply for a marriage license and "jump the broom", that's it for life. Or until you divorce.

What if marriage licenses had an expiration date? Now, before you all jump down my throat, this is just a question to provoke thought. I'm not looking for an out from The Mrs. or anything. I'm just "kicking the can" on this one.

If marriage licenses expired every four years then divorce lawyers would be out of business. Judge Lynn Toler would be back to the municipal courts in Cleveland due to lack of couples signing up for her show. Husbands/wives who are unhappy don't have to try to justify cheating. "Just three more months and I'm home-free on that expiration date!"

On the downside, Vegas would be flooded every weekend with people willing to get married since they know that they have an out. "No need to date a long time and get to know my mate. If it doesn't work out, then we'll go our separate ways in October of 2014."



There would be more kids with step-parents than you could imagine. Now, that I think about it, Judge Toler would still be in business because someone has to separate all of the property/income received over the four year period.

Still, wouldn't it be interesting to have the ability to "renew" or let your license "expire"?

Take my poll on the left and voice your opinion on "Should Marriage Licenses Expire?" or voice your opinion in our forum here!