an argument for dna tested, non biological fathers, to pay child support for kids they thought were


Incels.Net Novice
I searched the woman who wrote this article and I want so badly to send her an email or even call her, to open a discussion about her argument that a women who cheated on her husband and was impregnated by another man should not be looked at as having done something evil, and furthermore, the father who has been raising the child who isn't biologically his, needs to continue to pay child support if there's a divorce.

she's a university professor, thank god. She's so far gone with her extreme feminist liberal views, and surrounded so closely by ball and vagina fanning academia ideologues, that's she's been able to rise to the top her field with such extreme and terrifying views.


EteRnal Evil.
So feminist. There must be a special term for that, but I can't remember.

Of course, it's more important to function as a parent than give birth, but how is it supposed to follow that a married woman can have Chad impregnate her instead of her husband making the cuck pay for it all?

It only follows if a "marriage material" man is accepted as a synonym to reliable beta provider and nothing more, but this ruins the concept of marriage and makes us no different from animals in this regard. A woman have no obligations in this new kind of marriage. She can do little to no house chores because of technology and muh feminism, she can have no job, she can have no sex with this beta male, she can even give birth to Chad's children instead of her husband's and oblige him to raise these bastards, realizing these innocent kids will never see their real father again.

If men aren't entitled to anything both in marriage and not, there's no point. Nothing to compensate for the risks.