Aunt B. sides with Rob Briley being of the opinion that if a man signs on as father on a child's birth certificate and then finds out later the child is not biologically it is his fault for not getting all the information before he signed on the line:

A person is not free from the debts their spouse incurs while they are married, even if the person in question didn’t have anything to do with incurring those debts. Why should a person be free of paying child support for a child brought into the marriage just because the person didn’t have anything to do with incurring that child?

To me, it seems like these men are pissed because, in their minds, they’re giving money to their wives and kids in order to purchase their wives’ sexual fidelity and the assurance that those kids share genetic material with him. So, on the one hand, they believe their wife and children to be their property.

On the other hand, if you ask why this kind of “property” should be treated differently than other kinds of property incurred during the marriage, they get to argue that it’s different because women and children aren’t property.

To me, though, what it looks like is that they want the ability to punish their wives for being unfaithful by cutting off funds to their kids.