Some hopeful news for duped dads (thanks to the reader who emailed me this post).
posted by Helen at 9:54 AM
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Podcast on Forensic Science
- “These are stupid, spoiled little girls."
- No-Touch Torture?
- Law Suit or No Pay--Docs, Take Your Pick
- Why Men (and Women) Don't Want Sex
- A New Way to Increase Technorati Rankings?
- Isn't this Outrageous?
- Cathy Young reflects on her "fruitful 6 years for ...
- Neo-neocon has an interesting post on her experien...
- More Scarlet R
41 Comments:
This type of law is not of recent vintage. At common law there was something called Lord Mansfield's Rule. This prohibited a husband from introducing any evidence that he "did not have access to his wife" when a child was conceived.
Essentially, it made it impossible for a man to bastardize a child born to his wife. Thats the basis for the laws that we have today.
Lord Mansfield did not forsee DNA testing.
"Lord Mansfield's Rule" is another example of the "patriarchal" laws and prejudices that have conveniently stayed in place to keep fathers under control while mothers have shrugged off others until they end up holding all the cards. I wonder why this is the case and if the answer doesn't lie somewhere in the surviving alpha males keeping the rest of the tribe's males under control, which would have a brutal irony in the face of the demonization of the so-called patriarchy.
A few posts ago you asked why men would not want to have sex with women. Being forced by the state to pay for a child who is not yours and who you are not allowed to see is one of MANY good reasons.
I am a scientist in a department with four other male scientists. Of these four, all of whom are decent supportive guys, three have been through false allegations, assaults by spouses, brutal divorces, etc. In every case the man was assumed guilty and evil from the get go. One was driven from his childrens lives and lost everything he possessed, though police, hospital and other reports, therapists, and even social workers indicated that he did nothing and that the wife was lying. The judge simply declared that she believed the wife and gave her all assets and sole custody. Period. My coworker became depressed over several years of this hell (including not seeing his children even once), lost his job, was unable to pay child support which amounted to most of his salary anyway. Though his wife had a professional license she was not required to bear any financial burden for the family. When it became apparent that he was about to be arrested for failure to pay child support the guy finally fled the country to start a new life. Is this in anyone's best interest???
The others have had the same general sort of experience though less extreme. Based on these experiences, and following my own divorce many years ago, I have lost any interest in a sexual/romantic relationship with a women. I'd rather be with my dogs, kids, friends, hobbies, books, and the internet(wink). I don't care what percent of women would do this (or could be talked into it by their local womans' center, DA, or whomever). If there was even a 2% chance that I would be hit by a car every time I crossed the street, and I was powerless to affect it, I'd stop crossing the street.
It'd be nice to meet a really brainy, ethical, thinking woman, who had thought through and totally rejected the whole anti-male philosophy that radfems and chivalrous conservatives have foisted on us, but I haven't met any, other than my sister, two happily married friends, and a few bloggers/writers like Dr. Helen, Cathy Young, and Wendy McElroy. On the contrary, the vast majority of women I have talked to (particularly in academia) seem to believe a good bit of the radfem party line. Others outside academia, while not too aware of it, still buy into a lot of the garbage. I am starting to think that the majority of women nowadays are either unethical or stupid or just don't give a damn.
I can't imagine how any guy who wasn't totally clueless about the effect of divorce, false allegations, etc would want to risk any involvment with women at all.
Doc
""Lord Mansfield's Rule" is another example of the "patriarchal" laws and prejudices"
The nasty truth is that a lot what is called feminism, what Christina Hoff Sommers calls gender feminism, is based on patriarchal assumptions and prejudices. This explains all the vituperation against the patriarchy; it's all cover. This kind of "feminst" is just Daddy's Little Girl, really.
The point abouve about alpha males constructing laws is quite valid. One example is the laws making it intrusively diffcult to marry foreign wives and bring them to the US. These bogus feminsts have gotten the patriarchal power structure to enact what amount to protectionist measures.
"Based on these experiences, and following my own divorce many years ago, I have lost any interest in a sexual/romantic relationship with a women."
This may explain why there are so many straight men cruising parks and peep shows, not to say that you are one of them. In the end there is no such thing as an enforceable monopoly.
Jim, that I take your points notwithstanding, I was actually getting at something a little different. In a sense, I wonder if the feminists have been themselves duped. We are, at heart, primates. A lot of life (if not all) is about producing offspring, and that is a highly competitive process for any species, never mind one that is over-populating its environment.
We're all prone to inherited behaviors from our ancestors and study of other primates shows that a fair amount of the alpha males' effort is put into making sure they stay on the top of the pile. That is, keeping the other males down. Thus it makes sense that the powerful men want laws that stamp on any man who gets into trouble in the process of reproduction. The dominant females, too, don't mind this at all. Each of them wants an alpha male to breed with, or as close as they can get. It therefore suits both the alpha females' and males' purposes that the road to reproduction be as fraught with danger as possible, including the risk of being made to pay for another man's kids. It is not a patriarchy that does this, it is a natural consequence of a social hierarchy.
Feminism plays into the hands of such a hierarchy by a) failing to recognize it and b) approving the advancement of equality for women without doing the same for men. I don't think anything is knowingly based on "patriarchal principles".
Is feminism itself best served by fighting for true equality? Otherwise it runs the risk of self disempowerment through selectively and unknowingly pursuing the ends of of an oppressive and polarizing hierarchy that it simultaneously confuses with its arch enemy. Thus I would argue that the gender feminists actually have no idea what they are doing and this enlightened feminism is what we all really want.
I wonder if it is that complicated, john doe. I see it is as revenge, punishment. For what, I don't really understand. It appears almost primal. I do agree with you - I believe the movement was first duped, then hijacked.
Where this conversation can (and may eventually) go as days go by, will be very tricky to navigate. Beyond my capability to express my views, and be as clear as air about it.
Have female casual acquaintances, and do not let it go beyond that. Not even to becoming a friendship. As was said elsewhere in another post on this blog site, once the "boundary" is crossed, i.e., intimacy reached, the rules of engagement definitely change. To deny that is pure, unadulterated cow pie.
Maybe I'm a 90's guy, don't know. I am all for the best person for the job - gender, race, place of birth, should not come in to play. Otherwise, society looses in the long run. I have no problem with who my boss is, provided they are good enough to be my boss. That has to do with my pet peeve about people expecting more out of others than they do of themselves in the work place setting. Regardless, again, of gender, race, on and on.
I'll stick my neck out here, a little. It is my belief that any woman over 32 years of age who is not married, wants to be - taking into consideration the inevitable exception to the rule. Rats. I'm probably gonna get screamed at now.
My oldest friend (since 9), my age (54), has never married. He knows he would not be a good husband or father. He is simply not built that way. He is still dating like we did in our early twenties. Dating women from half his age, on up. Things go well enough, until that point where the rules of engagement change (intimacy occurs). All of a sudden, they want to know where he's been, what he's doing, why hasn't he called. They want to be with him at all times. The relationships end badly - every time. He shrugs his shoulders, and moves on. He tells each and every woman he dates - up front - marriage is and never will be, in his future. It appears to me if you are not as the female expects you to be, you are gonna pay. I prefer table saws and overhead routers.
There are a lot of men that are as screwed up as a soup sandwich. It is not exclusive, by any means. These are personal observations, K? For any male, there is absolutely no such thing as an expert on females. That, too, is unadulterated cow pie.
we are more than just breeding machines, we have self awareness, we know when its not a good idea for us to have children or get married.
i disagree with the "patriachal" society idea, it was built in that time to look after women and children, even on the titanic, in wars, it was mostly about looking after the women and children. is that patriarchal, yes there were a few abusive men, but who gave the woman the vote .. the common man (who himself only got the vote 1 generation before the women did 20-25 years before), the so called patriarchal society made rules and laws for women, gave them the freedoms they have now. so is a society that gives women freedom so bad..
asi have said before i KNOW for a fact i would be a bad father.
men have always been more abused at work than women, expected to work 18 hour days, expected to risk their lives, etc. in the industrial revolution men and women both worked, and children, but it soon became that women worked less, and less, and less, until they didnt work at all, this is the common worker, there came into effect rules for women, none for men.. is that a patriarchal society, that women were looked after better than the men. the women didnt have to risk their lives in work, only in childbirth, women then controlled the household, sometimes with a rule of iron.
women had power behind the throne, who fed the man, the woman did.. who sent him out to work the woman did. and this is a patriarchal society..
NOW i live in the north of england where strong women were the norm, you always obeyed your mum and grannie, they were tough.
this law will be "ignored" as many laws have been and still are, because they dont fit the idea at the moment.
especially if it goes against the current ideology of modern americe/britain and other western countries. this gives power to men, which a lot of feminists hate the idea of, these harpies want to be totally in charge of everything, men especially. like reducing the rape evidence, like having retroactive consent removed.. all are made to reduce man. i am a cynic i know, but this wont change a thing for men not until people stop pandering to these type of women.
br549-
Things go well enough, until that point where the rules of engagement change (intimacy occurs). All of a sudden, they want to know where he's been, what he's doing, why hasn't he called. They want to be with him at all times. The relationships end badly - every time. He shrugs his shoulders, and moves on. He tells each and every woman he dates - up front - marriage is and never will be, in his future.
This came up in the discussion of the "hook-up" culture too. Everything is fine as long as the woman gets her way. The second she doesn't get her way it has to be declared a disaster and the man's fault, even if she initiated it and no matter how enthusiastically she took part in it. And there is a rich set of double standards associated with this:
Man rejects a woman after sex - he's a cad.
Woman rejects a man after sex - the guy was a loser
Man who won't accept rejection and haunts a woman - stalker.
Woman who won't accept rejection and haunts a man(no matter how pathological) - normal.
So the discussion is always framed in a "heads I win, tails you lose" manner, no matter how criminally, pathologically, unreasonably, inequitably, etc. the woman is behaving.
It appears to me if you are not as the female expects you to be, you are gonna pay. I prefer table saws and overhead routers.
Unfortunately this isn't going to cut it for the younger guys that want to have sex, get married, raise a family, etc. - the usual things one does in a free, capitalist country.
Re: The "chivalrous" right, the patriarchy, etc.
There are really some strange birds here, because you know a lot of these twits are having sex with their secretaries, importing hookers from other cities for the political party conventions, super bowl, etc. There seems to be a lot of guilt, puritanism, hypocracy, etc. mixed up in this - pleasure has to be punished if it is discovered, period.
A lot of these goobers have daughters so a magical double standard comes into existence. No matter how much of a grab-ass daddy was the world has to stop rotating on its axis and everyone has to become monks when these knuckledraggers have daughters.
I guess there's also a component that just didn't get many dates growing up - so no one else should either.
So between the hypocritical puritans, the nuts with daughters, and the "I was unlucky at love so everyone else has to be" crowd there seems to be enough support for the man-haters to do whatever the hell they want.
Re: The "chivalrous" right, the patriarchy, etc.
This seems to be a strange group, because you know a lot of these dorks are having sex with their secretaries, importing hookers from other cities for the political conventions, super bowl, etc.
Then you have the puritans, pleasure has to be punished somehow, even if it legal and between two consenting adults.
Then there's the nuts with daughters. No matter how much of a grab-ass daddy was the world has to stop rotating on its axis and everyone has to become monks when one of these knuckledraggers has a daughter.
Then there's the "I didn't do much dating so nobody else should" camp.
So I guess between all of them - the hypocrites, the puritans, the "nuts with daughters", and the "unlucky at love so everyone else has to be too" crowd - there is enough of them to allow the man-haters to do whatever the hell they want.
Oops - sorry for the duplicate post, it looked like the first one got eaten.
My honest reaction after reading that link, is that I do emphathize with any man who finds himself in that situation. All these "symptoms" and scenarios that unfold are the result of the disintegration of the family unit.
It doesn't have to be all about an us versus them mentality.
Here is an interesting read:
http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia_1710.htm
anonymous 8:29. 8:40, 8:41 AM
From what I know, you really don't have to pull that many punches in here. So go ahead, what do you really think, anyway?
And how 'bout them nuts with daughters, eh?
"A lot of these goobers have daughters so a magical double standard comes into existence. "
Yeah. It's called My Family vs Everybody else. it's the way we are wired. we care about our own and prey on everyone else. It's the way of nature. You got a probelm with that? I do.
Funny how the predators and aggrssors are always the ones banging on about other people's evil motives and wicked actions. It's called projection. It explains a lot of the hatred that passes for moral comment.
The parody of feminism that people decry so often in these comments is misogynistic. In this case the law that imputes fatherhood regardless of the facts says that women are all such sluts that they can't be expected to remember who fathers their children and so weak an useless that they can't be expected to support the resulting bastards on their own. And this passes of rprogressive thought these dyas.
jim-
Yeah. It's called My Family vs Everybody else. it's the way we are wired. we care about our own and prey on everyone else. It's the way of nature. You got a probelm with that? I do.
Yes, its disgusting how they act like this predatory behavior is chivalrous.
The way I look at it, if you marry a woman who cheats and have kids with someone else -- while you are married -- you should be man enough to pay the tariff for their care and feeding.
It is not about what is fair -- it is about what is right. Kids should not be made the victims of spousal wars. Just because you, as a guy, chose badly when you took a wife, you should not choose the easy way out of the responsibilities of that decision. That is the "for worse" part of the marriage vows.
Real men suck it up and take care of the children produced during a marriage -- even if the marriage fails and even if the kids are not biologically yours. "Dad" is about more than just biology. Unfortunately this is the age of the girly man, which is why this type of "relief" is getting enacted into law.
And, yeah -- this is the code I have lived by in my marriage (which is why I was careful about the decisions I made) and this is the one I expect my sons to live by.
real men should suck it up. is this a real man, should he pay,
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29035.html
There were excellent reasons to think so. He had never met or heard of the mother of the child. He had never lived in Northern California, and at the time of conception (spring 1991) he was attending the University of California at Santa Barbara, beginning a monogamous relationship that would last for two years. What's more, he's a condom fanatic -- only once in his life, Pierce swears, has he failed to use a rubber during intercourse, and that was "many years after." (He's been a friend of mine for 15 years, and I believe him.) And if the summons had included the mother's testimony (it was supposed to, but did not), he would have seen himself described as a "tall" and "dark" black man named "Anthony Pierce." Pierce is a hair over five feet, nine inches; he is so light-skinned that even people who know him sometimes don't realize he's black; and no one calls him Anthony except his mom.
** should he just suck it up
so men should forget injustice if it happens to men, oh men get beaten up in domestic violence cases.. suck it up.. men get murdered suck it up..
injustice affects everyone, you cant say its ok for a woman to cheat, to have kids that are not yours, and expect you to pay for them. what about the biological father does he get a free pass.
if you discover your not the father, and there is a divorce. would you pay for it..
Mark l.,
Real men suck it up? Being told to "act like a man" used to mean something. In this day and time, all it seems to mean is "don't cause me any trouble and hand me 20 bucks as you go out the door." Real men stand up for themselves, other men and freedom from fraud. It is about what is fair, that is called justice. You expect men to be mind readers as well as psychics in that they can tell 100% if their wife will cheat or not? You now blame men if their wife cheats? How pathetic is that? Do you tell your daughters to suck it up if their husband is sleeping around on them? I hope not.
I call that a "girly" man--one who takes whatever abuse is handed out, expects other men to take it, and doesn't fight unjust laws and undermines his fellow men who do so--all the while believing he is some kind of a "real man."
Of course, if a man decides that he wants to continue to support children that are not his--that is good, but if he decides that he no longer wants to do so, it is within his rights to expect the mother of the child to support the child.
Helen, when you get married you assume a big chunk of the responsibility for the other party's behavior. Even their bad behavior. Or rather you used to, until it became fashionable to want it both ways.
I did not say "take any abuse that is handed out." I said stand by your responsibilities. As a guy, any kids produced by your spouse while you are married are YOUR kids. That is what you pledge in your wedding vows. It does not matter to your kids that you are not their biological daddy -- you are still their dad, and any man that walks away from that commitment is a coward and deserves contempt.
The commitment is not to their mother -- it is to them. It may become a man's legal "right" to walk away from it, but morally? That is to laugh.
If you cannot trust a woman you should not get married to her. If you show bad judgement in marrying a woman that does not deserve your trust -- divorce her, end the marriage, but stand by the responsibilities created during that marriage. If you cannot You Are Not A Man. The kids are the innocents in a busted marriage -- regardless of whom the biological father is. You have an obligation to take care of them by virute of being married to their mother. It may not be fair, but it is right. Right for the kids.
Mark,
And when you get married, you agree not to cheat on your husband (and vice versa). A man is not responsible for a woman's bad behavior any more than he should be responsible should she decide for herself to commit a crime etc. Do you hold him responsible for that also? I understand where you are coming from with the kids--they need support and for the man to cut off from the kids would not be a good thing--or it might, we don't know since the guy might feel used and upset everytime he saw them and that would have to affect the relationship. To make a long story short, I agree that it would be healthier if the man could keep being a dad to the kids--but this cannot and should not be forced by law, it should be his decision, no one else's and certainly not the state's.
Mark, I hope that some day I am a perfect judge of character like you are. I presume that if you are ever swindled out of thousands of dollars, or robbed or burgularized, you will Suck It Up and Be A Man and not try to report or get it prosecuted, since it was obviously your fault for allowing yourself to be victimized.
If you fall in love with, and decide to marry a woman who has children from an earlier marriage, you are aware of the situation from the beginning, and it is some of the thought process you go through before making the decision to marry in. In many cases, the man actually adopts the children when the natural father is of no help, or allows it. Sometimes they adopt them because they fall in love with them over time.
However, I do not agree that if you have children who are in no way your own, because your wife of x amount of time had some out of marriage sport sex, that you should be obligated to pay for the offspring. Because she carries it for nine months in your face? The act of adultery is grounds for divorce. Adultery with off spring? I don't think I have any obligation at all anymore - to the woman or the child. Wedding vows are a two way street.
Should a man do the same, say the birth mother did not want the kid(s), so he brought them home for his wife to care for and raise as her own - and by some sort of decree, she has no choice in the matter. Are we looking at a swell household to live in? Would anyone blame her for flipping him off, punting his seeds up into his chest, packing up and hitting the door?
Infidelity included, most things in this life are easier to do the second time than the first when it ends up not so bad after all. Or much easier, when someone else pays for your transgressions for you. I believe in Him, but I'm not Him. I would not be able to stay and allow the opportunity for a second time to occur.
Cousin Dave:
I did not say I was a perfect judge of character. I said I stood by my responsiblities.
All:
Apparently the bulk of those commenting feel that children are commodities, properties, or chattels -- to be swapped about like baseball cards, and disposed of when they are inconvenient or a burden. Fine. If you want to equate children to thieves or swindlers, that is your option. I hope you make arrangements for your own old age home, then, because kids are really, really good at picking up on that -- and will remember.
When you get married you assume responsibility for children produced during that marriage. Even if your spouse cheats. It is not a responsibility towards your spouse -- it is a responsibility to those kids. Ditch that responsibility if you want to. Make any excuses you want to justify that decision. But remember that those kids will see what you do and conduct themselves accordingly.
mark l-
No, a wife who is cheating and whomever she is cheating with are responsible for any children she produces. If the husband chooses to stay married to the cheater and provide support for kids that aren't his own that is his decision. (Of course we aren't talking about sham marriages here. Someone running a fraud like that is just a criminal.)
You can be a doormat in relationships all you want, but you aren't going to impose that on other people. (And I question whether you would really tolerate what you say you would tolerate.) And people are beginning to realize that it's wrong to treat people like doormats, that's why some of the laws are changing.
And there are some inconsistencies in your position. First of all, in the hypothetical its the adulterous biological father that should "be a man" and take responsibility for his actions. (Ignoring the possibility of the mother stealing sperm, etc.) And then there's the seemingly chauvinist attitude towards the mother. She's an adult, why can't she also take responsibility for her actions?
I refused to marry an American woman because the culture and laws has made it such a risky proposition. While overseas I met a lovely woman who I felt I could trust to not take my children and most of my money. I'm now in the middle of a 6-9 month ordeal to get my foreign born wife of several years a visa to come home to America with me. I've met quite a few Americans/Canadians/Brits who are in the same spot as I am.
Jim's statement: The point abouve about alpha males constructing laws is quite valid. One example is the laws making it intrusively diffcult to marry foreign wives and bring them to the US. These bogus feminsts have gotten the patriarchal power structure to enact what amount to protectionist measures.
made me wonder if there was any truth to his proposition. We streamline to let in millions of formally illegal aliens but the wife of a citizen gets this kind of intense scrutiny?
"Mark":
The biological father who sired the kids should be the one responsible to provide for these children if anyone is. The cuckold (cheated on man) has no responsibility towards the woman or the children in this situation. Why do you insist on further victimizing the man?
Has he no right to be the father to his own children? What happens when he leaves the woman who destroyed their marriage vows to find a trustworthy woman? Or do you consider it his moral imperative to stay with someone who would so dishonor the marriage vows? If we follow your advice he must continue to pay what is essentially a scam artist. Then how is the man supposed to be able to have children of his own? How is it right for the cuckold or his new wife? Or should she just give up having children too because the selfish immoral people who are screwing over her husband have taken away the money for them to have a family?
Frankly I think your view is that if the guy made the mistake of marrying a viper then he must settle for spending the rest of his life alone continuing to pay and pay for the mistake of trusting someone. You know what laws like this do? They end the possibility of trust for men. This is why so many men are refusing to marry and many are choosing to become essentially asexual.
You say it is about what is right? You are advocating letting other people ruin men's lives with them having no recourse whatsoever! Should the man refuse to cooperate they'll take away his ability to earn income and put him in jail. That is right to you? Thank the Lord that this crazy view is not the norm. Let us hope that these vicious laws can be overturned quickly. The damage they are doing to male/female relations is incredible. The fact that people like you think they are a good idea is truly frightening.
Honestly, I don't think your name is "Mark." You aren't a man but some feminist professor using a sock puppet to put forth her extreme anti male views.
Dr. Helen:
On issue after issue I have seen you standing up for men's rights not to be victimized. I just wanted to say that I appreciate it and thank you. We need all the allies we can get especially as too many men are buying into self loathing and embracing anti-male bias in law and culture. The pendulum has swung too far and it is now crashing into men and causing damage to not only men but to women, families and children.
I don't know what radical feminists are thinking or how they have accrued such power. Their support, even from women, is practically zero once they get past a few basic issues that have already been won. I am almost to point of conspiracy theory thinking that yes they do indeed seek the destruction of the family and are doing everything in their power to bring it about.
mark:
I disagree with helen on virtually every point. I think she's hopelessly biased to the point of worthlessness and extremely immature.
But even I have to agree that what you are arguing for is the wrong approach. I understand to some extent what you are saying, as I think helen has noted. Certainly, any man that agrees to keep being a father to kids he knows to be the offspring of someone else is a wonderful man and will be much beloved by those children. Conversely, any man who has acted as a father to children for ten years and then seeks to terminate that relationship completely because he finds out they are the offspring of someone else will be hated. But I reckon such a man will not have the good sense to care about such things. If a man has acted as a father for several years, he should LOVE those children. And even though he divorces the wife, he should naturally want to maintain that relationship. Otherwise, he is a selfish bastard and never really loved those kids.
However, we are not talking about morals here. We are talking about the law. And the law now has methods to determine paternity. Under those circumstances, it is inappropriate to hold a husband legally responsible for kids that are indisputably not his. For one thing, it's bad policy. As someone pointed out, the wife would have broken her vows. Her breach relieves him of any responsibility. Second, I imagine such a policy would discourage marriage these days. Also, such a policy would violate the rights of the bioligical father and doesn't really protect the children. It's not like the husband would get out of paying child support and now we only have one parent to provide for the children (mom). That would certainly be bad for kids. But in fact, the biological father would then be substituted for the husband as the second financially responsible party.
Certainly, folks would do well to use better judgment in their choice of spouse. I do think that alot of people (men and women) ignore this facet of their failed relationships. I do think it's important for people to recognize that "yes, my husband/wife is a vile, hateful person. But what is it with me that I couldn't see that?" However, this doesn't mean that one should accept ALL responsibility and LEGAL responsibility for the acts of one's spouse.
Because of biology, which is noone's fault, men can engage in adulterous relationships/ father children outside of the marriage but can not dupe the wife into believing the child is hers. But as I think someone has already said--if they could, I can't imagine you would think that if a man brought home such a child, the wife is financially and legally responsible for raising that child. Do you think she should be?
Again, I know that it may be different where we're talking about older children who have been raised to think this man is their father. And certainly, adults should think more about what is good for those kids--not about their technical legal rights. But again, you can't enforce morals. Just as alot of BIOLOGICAL fathers cannot be forced to be good, attentive, involved fathers.
Anonymous 10:50:
"I disagree with helen on virtually every point. I think she's hopelessly biased to the point of worthlessness and extremely immature."
So, why are you so masochistic that you would come here and waste your time? Seriously, do some introspection and try to figure out what is so inherently pathological in your nature that would warrant using your precious time to read "every point" that I make and deem them worthless and immature. If my view is so worthless and immature, what are you doing here? I absolve you of your self-imposed need to read my every point and post. Go enjoy yourself elsewhere and quit torturing yourself.
You never fail to disappoint, helen.
I'll admit to a little schadenfreude. Now, how about some introspection on your part?
anoan 10:50
just imagine you find your kids are not your kids, you will resent them because they are a product of being cheated, so every moment your with those children, it reminds you that she was unfaithful to you and her vows..
claiming you are the father of a child when you arent to get money, a home etc.. is fraud.
people change over time, you may pick the right woman for you, but she may become religious, or not.. you cannot tell what will happen, if she will cheat or not.
i trust my love, i will trust her till she shows me she cant be trusted.. thats all any of us can do.
it must be wonderful on your white tower, in your perfect world, where no one changes mark.
anonymous 10:50
Perhaps the point is the morals should follow the law, the law the morals, and stop trying to make them separate in an instance as this. The innocents in the situation are the children born through no choice of their own, and the man who has been duped, or forced, into caring for them. The kids have been duped, too. Lying through omission is still lying.
I noticed you added a few touches to the conversation by saying things such as if he had already been caring for them for ten years,then it should not matter, he should love them and is a rotten person if he doesn't. You inserted the ten year time frame to add weight to your point of view? Ten years down the road would certainly cause an incredible amount of pain for the child or chidren, as it would for the "father".
I see you protecting the kids' rights, the woman who cheated, and the man she cheated with and basically dumping on the one who got duped and shafted. I agree the children should be protected, they are certainly not at fault, and the man who got duped. Or woman, were it the other way around.
Ten years down the road, the man would love the kids, and the kids would love the man. If all found out that he was not the father, I would think the kids would also feel betrayed. Who, then, is my father? Where is he? Why did he abandon me? Why didn't you tell me? 1,000 questions could come up. All involved would be looking at the mom / wife as the one with the answers, who needs to start explaining. I think all who trusted her would find it difficult to look at her the same way again.
br549:
Did you just not bother to actually read my post? How in the hell do you get out of my post that I am trying to protect the woman? And how was I trying to shaft the duped father? I was agreeing with you people for once, for christ's sake. It's like you people (helen included) can not only not handle anything contrary to the party line around here, but like it is necessary to agree with you all in the EXACT SAME FASHION. No concurrence in the holding but not in the rationale accepted here, eh?
Why did I talk about ten years? Because obviously it's easy for people to talk about what OUGHT to be done. Until you start giving them real-life situations. It's one thing to talk about a guy finds out he's not the dad of a 10 month old. It's a completely different thing to say he just found after 10 years, as you seem to admit. I didn't say I necessarily thought it should change the legal result. But it might in the opinion of some. And that wouldn't be an altogether irrational decision.
I agree the kids would be mad at mom. I fricking would have thought that went without saying. But they would also be hurt by dad if he cut off the relationship. But if Mom stays in their lives, then eventually that relationship will heal. The other will not. The one thing we remember above all else is who stuck it out with us throughout our lives. The rest is just details.
anon 10:50
br549:
p.s. And what do you mean "not separate morals and the law"? If we do that, then your duped father WOULD be shafted and stuck with supporting these kids, as I said. Because the mother's behavior would not MORALLY relieve the husband from acting MORALLY with respect to these innocent children, who view him and love him as their father.
Also, keep in mind that a literal reading of the Bible would be permit a two-timed spouse to obtain a divorce but would not permit that spouse to marry again. I can't imagine to many of these MORAL people around here wanting that legislated.
Mark, where would you be without woman?
annonymous 1:00 AM
I can only agree with you in the ten year time frame scenario (and only about pain and confusion). Having thought one was the father of a child or children for that long, he would be way beyond hopelessly in love with them (I would). It would not change the facts, though, if they came to light. It would forever have me wondering what else went on during those years. The longer a deception goes on (to me) the more it would inflict pain if I found out. And any thoughts that perhaps it was a mistake, a moment of passion, would be hard to swallow. That's a thick cloud of fog to cut through. When it is your decision up front, it is a whole different story. As I said earlier, and that's just me, I would not be able to stay. Perhaps I'm a bastard, maybe even a worm.
I don't know, perhaps you are familiar with a similar scenario. Maybe a player in it. Maybe you listened to "Color Him Father" on the radio as a kid and went out and bought the 45. Or maybe you just love taking the opposite and condescending view to whatever is said in the blog. And it is just a blog, not the senate floor. Although anonymous, you are unmistakable when you write. If I could get through the spewing, I may be able to actually hear what you are saying. I'm trying, but I'm striking out. Yours is the superior view. All one has to do is ask you, and you'll tell them so. I'll bet you'd be a riot at a negotiating table.
This is not a "you people" (you people?) response. Just me. To me, a blog is similar to old time radio, where the listener wears ear phones. Something Arthur Godfrey understood well. Although many view what is said, it is said by one, and read by one at a time, only in many different places. I get the feeling you love coming in here, being you against the world. You seem very bright. But I don't like you. You won't let me.
Well, ok, br549. But you've completely glossed over the fact AGAIN that I wasn't disagreeing with anybody on this particular issue and that you misrepresented my comments.
Air Jordan shoes Air Jordan shoesjordan shoes
Air Jordan shoesjordans shoes
Cheap Jordans
wholesale jordan
Air Jordan shoes
wholesale air jordan
Nike Jordan Shoes
Nike Shoes Wholesale
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
xxx383美女寫真85cc免費a片試看日本美女寫真集寫真集蔡依林寫真集寫真女郎影片0401成人交友-情色免費看a片脫星寫真圖片美女寫真影片免費觀賞sex888免費看影片色美媚部落格情色080視訊聊天室情色貼圖情色a片視訊情人交友聊天室小魔女貼影片a片天使洪爺情色論壇成人小說
Post a Comment
<< Home