Finnish man ordered by court to pay alimony for a child resulting from his wife cheating: this week in the strange death of Europe

[Terrell]

Get up off of him and go after the other dude.

 

[Jarhyn]

It should boil down to consent. If you engage in a consensual act of sex then you are responsible for the product. If you consent to raise a child then you consent to a set of obligations associated with that. But, if you find out that the child is a product of a breach of contract in a relationship that you thought to be monogamous then consent is breached and you have choices. If the infidelity of your partner ends that partnership then you may not wish to pass anything on to the product of that infidelity. You find out that your partner is a really shitty person that has been cheating on you for years, embezzling money from her employer, and is just a really shit person then you should have the right to let her and the product of her behavior fend for themselves.

Does a baby deserve to be born even if it is conceived in rape or incest irrespective of the burden that places on the mother to carry to term and deliver? I don't think so. So why should a man be compelled to raise a child to which he did not consent at some step along the way?

I agree in principle that in such circumstances, the man should not be compelled.

But at the same time, I can also in principle see why, for different reasons, child-centred approaches and priorities have come to be.

It is a difficult and complicated issue, with several competing and sometimes contradictory interests (the interests of children versus the interests of adults for example). Finding the right balance in any society is going to be difficult. This case appears from what we know to have arguably leant too far against the cuckold husband.

It may even be that there is scope to now re-examine the decision via checks and balances in the legal system. The case does seem to have produced a bit of an outcry, perhaps understandably.

A caveat would be that it would certainly be interesting to read the court transcripts or the formal decision. Such things are often publicly available if someone knew how to access them online. Sometimes, media reports can be simplistic or sensationalist.

A lot of this comes from a place of immaturity, both personal and cultural. A man too immature to talk to his own wife about her sexual needs and interests. A wife too immature to be honest about those things. A culture so immature as to deride honest and open discussions like these, whose ubiquity of derision for sexual exploration and fulfillment drives all the reasons why someone would be hesitant in the first place to have the discussions necessary to avoid this whole mess.

The plain fact is, these are problems that I won't ever have to deal with, and not because my husband cannot get pregnant, because he can; rather, these problems will not arise because when one of us wants to fuck someone, we talk to each other about it first and find out each others feelings on the matter, and we have already discussed what it means for us if a child arises out of that situation.

Does a child deserve to suffer a lack of parents due to the shitty decisions of those who decided together to bring a child into their lives*? So the child he got wasn't the child he wanted. Big fucking deal. Lots of parents end up with children that aren't exactly what they wanted. People end up with daughters instead of sons. People end up with autistic or even trisomy-21 children. It's a gamble. And sometimes their terrible relationship choices end up with them getting "cucked". I have LESS pity for those parents than I do for the ones who end up with a child who faces deep developmental challenges. They have a perfectly normal child that they get to be a guide to, and they still balk.

Maybe that breach of trust and lack of communication is an apt reason to get a divorce, but I'll likely never end up at that crossroads, nor will anyone else with the wisdom to value open communications in their relationships. What I do know is that any child that I have decided to love will continue to be loved, because no child deserves to have someone stop loving them for the foolish decisions of another person.

*And they did decide it. They decided that they would be in a marriage and that a pregnancy could happen from what they did and that when a pregnancy did happen, to stick around and become a father. He decided he wanted to have a child rather than wearing condoms, rather than using the pill, rather than a vasectomy, rather than seeking a divorce, rather than seeking an abortion or discussing an adoption.

 

[Trausti]

As Sowell would say, there are no solutions only trade offs. The presumption of paternity - which usually can be rebutted in the first year or two depending on locale - ensures that children of cuckoldry are not made burdens of society. May seem unfair, but that’s the patriarchy.

 

[ruby sparks]

It should boil down to consent. If you engage in a consensual act of sex then you are responsible for the product. If you consent to raise a child then you consent to a set of obligations associated with that. But, if you find out that the child is a product of a breach of contract in a relationship that you thought to be monogamous then consent is breached and you have choices. If the infidelity of your partner ends that partnership then you may not wish to pass anything on to the product of that infidelity. You find out that your partner is a really shitty person that has been cheating on you for years, embezzling money from her employer, and is just a really shit person then you should have the right to let her and the product of her behavior fend for themselves.

Does a baby deserve to be born even if it is conceived in rape or incest irrespective of the burden that places on the mother to carry to term and deliver? I don't think so. So why should a man be compelled to raise a child to which he did not consent at some step along the way?

I agree in principle that in such circumstances, the man should not be compelled.

But at the same time, I can also in principle see why, for different reasons, child-centred approaches and priorities have come to be.

It is a difficult and complicated issue, with several competing and sometimes contradictory interests (the interests of children versus the interests of adults for example). Finding the right balance in any society is going to be difficult. This case appears from what we know to have arguably leant too far against the cuckold husband.

It may even be that there is scope to now re-examine the decision via checks and balances in the legal system. The case does seem to have produced a bit of an outcry, perhaps understandably.

A caveat would be that it would certainly be interesting to read the court transcripts or the formal decision. Such things are often publicly available if someone knew how to access them online. Sometimes, media reports can be simplistic or sensationalist.

A lot of this comes from a place of immaturity, both personal and cultural. A man too immature to talk to his own wife about her sexual needs and interests. A wife too immature to be honest about those things. A culture so immature as to deride honest and open discussions like these, whose ubiquity of derision for sexual exploration and fulfillment drives all the reasons why someone would be hesitant in the first place to have the discussions necessary to avoid this whole mess.

The plain fact is, these are problems that I won't ever have to deal with, and not because my husband cannot get pregnant, because he can; rather, these problems will not arise because when one of us wants to fuck someone, we talk to each other about it first and find out each others feelings on the matter, and we have already discussed what it means for us if a child arises out of that situation.

Does a child deserve to suffer a lack of parents due to the shitty decisions of those who decided together to bring a child into their lives*? So the child he got wasn't the child he wanted. Big fucking deal. Lots of parents end up with children that aren't exactly what they wanted. People end up with daughters instead of sons. People end up with autistic or even trisomy-21 children. It's a gamble. And sometimes their terrible relationship choices end up with them getting "cucked". I have LESS pity for those parents than I do for the ones who end up with a child who faces deep developmental challenges. They have a perfectly normal child that they get to be a guide to, and they still balk.

Maybe that breach of trust and lack of communication is an apt reason to get a divorce, but I'll likely never end up at that crossroads, nor will anyone else with the wisdom to value open communications in their relationships. What I do know is that any child that I have decided to love will continue to be loved, because no child deserves to have someone stop loving them for the foolish decisions of another person.

*And they did decide it. They decided that they would be in a marriage and that a pregnancy could happen from what they did and that when a pregnancy did happen, to stick around and become a father. He decided he wanted to have a child rather than wearing condoms, rather than using the pill, rather than a vasectomy, rather than seeking a divorce, rather than seeking an abortion or discussing an adoption.

I hear and appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree more than I agree (note that that means I agree up to a point). First, we would be speculating to an enormous extent regarding people we do not even know. For example it could be that one of them (it could be either) behaved entirely reasonably and in the way you and I would approve of towards the other partner as regards the years leading up to the cheating & (quite possibly accidental) pregnancy, and the other didn't. Why did she have the affair, for example? There is too much we don't know. Second, I think you're being a bit unrealistically idealist in your expectations about how 'evolved' and rational we can expect people to be in difficult circumstances. Sure, none of this would have happened if [insert desirable, evolved and rational human behaviour here], but for me, based on what we know (see large caveats above) this one is fairly clear cut. The wife/mother seems mostly at fault and we should have sympathy with the husband. Imho.

If I were to judge her, it would be more for deliberately going after his money when she consciously knew the child was not his. It smacks of 'playing the system'. The affair and even the (probably unintended) pregnancy would not be so.....necessarily 'wrong' or 'bad', imo.

Even then, there may be extenuating or nuanced circumstances for her that we don't know of, but alleged embezzlement of her employer does not strike quite the right note for me. Him being traumatised, and for a while (too long as it turns out) contemplating staying in the marriage and being a father to the child, does, because it suggests he was at least initially willing to forgive, despite the hurt. I think any man in those circumstances might be confused, possibly for quite a while, about what to do, and we don't know how things went between the couple during that initial time after the problem came to light. Was she contrite, for example?

In a nutshell, he doesn't sound like a bit of a shit and she does. But we don't know. We wouldn't necessarily even know if we read the court transcripts, though we might get some insights if certain things came to light during the case. It may even be the case that the court didn't even get into those things, and just applied the letter of the law (ie he missed a deadline). I hear that courts can't be bothered so much these days with the whole, messy, 'who did what to who in the run up to this' thing.

I will say one thing, him paying her legal costs seems....odd. It's either rubbing salt into his wounds and therefore additionally harsh or.......there's more nuance than we know of. It could be either. It could also be that in this case, he is very well off and she is poor, and the state (via the courts) is strongly trying to look after the needs of the child, regardless of whether it's fair on the man. As far as I know, the underlying legal rationale is very child-centred.

If you are in a relationship where such things can or could agreeably be avoided by both parties being open, flexible and mature, before during or after such events, then you are imo very fortunate (or wise) in that sense.

 

[Jarhyn]

A lot of this comes from a place of immaturity, both personal and cultural. A man too immature to talk to his own wife about her sexual needs and interests. A wife too immature to be honest about those things. A culture so immature as to deride honest and open discussions like these, whose ubiquity of derision for sexual exploration and fulfillment drives all the reasons why someone would be hesitant in the first place to have the discussions necessary to avoid this whole mess.

The plain fact is, these are problems that I won't ever have to deal with, and not because my husband cannot get pregnant, because he can; rather, these problems will not arise because when one of us wants to fuck someone, we talk to each other about it first and find out each others feelings on the matter, and we have already discussed what it means for us if a child arises out of that situation.

Does a child deserve to suffer a lack of parents due to the shitty decisions of those who decided together to bring a child into their lives*? So the child he got wasn't the child he wanted. Big fucking deal. Lots of parents end up with children that aren't exactly what they wanted. People end up with daughters instead of sons. People end up with autistic or even trisomy-21 children. It's a gamble. And sometimes their terrible relationship choices end up with them getting "cucked". I have LESS pity for those parents than I do for the ones who end up with a child who faces deep developmental challenges. They have a perfectly normal child that they get to be a guide to, and they still balk.

Maybe that breach of trust and lack of communication is an apt reason to get a divorce, but I'll likely never end up at that crossroads, nor will anyone else with the wisdom to value open communications in their relationships. What I do know is that any child that I have decided to love will continue to be loved, because no child deserves to have someone stop loving them for the foolish decisions of another person.

*And they did decide it. They decided that they would be in a marriage and that a pregnancy could happen from what they did and that when a pregnancy did happen, to stick around and become a father. He decided he wanted to have a child rather than wearing condoms, rather than using the pill, rather than a vasectomy, rather than seeking a divorce, rather than seeking an abortion or discussing an adoption.

I hear and appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree more than I agree. First, we would be speculating to an enormous extent regarding people we do not even know (for example it could be that one of them behaved entirely reasonably in all respects as regards the years leading up to the cheating & pregnancy, and the other didn't). Why did she have the affair? There is too much we don't know. Second, I think you're being a bit unrealistically idealist in your expectations about how 'evolved' and rational we can expect people to be. Sure, none of this would have happened if [insert desirable, evolved and rational behaviour here] but for me, based on what we know, this one is fairly clear cut. The wife/mother seems mostly at fault and we should have sympathy with the husband. Imho.

If you are in a relationship where such things can agreeably be avoided by being open, flexible and mature, then you are imo just pretty lucky in that sense.

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have divorced her. But the kid didn't violate his trust, she did. Then as a result he CHOSE to violate the trust and needs of a third party rather than letting the buck stop there. Then, this is coming from someone who would spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to adopt a child such as the one he would seek to abandon. I do not think I'm being unrealistically idealistic in deciding what acts earn my derision; it is entirely my right to determine the cost of my respect. What I know here is that presented with a suboptimal set of choices, this man picked the choice that is categorically the worst for the largest number of people.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have divorced her. But the kid didn't violate his trust, she did. Then as a result he CHOSE to violate the trust and needs of a third party rather than letting the buck stop there. Then, this is coming from someone who would spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to adopt a child such as the one he would seek to abandon. I do not think I'm being unrealistically idealistic in deciding what acts earn my derision; it is entirely my right to determine the cost of my respect. What I know here is that presented with a suboptimal set of choices, this man picked the choice that is categorically the worst for the largest number of people.

Sorry, I heavily edited my post while you were replying. A terrible habit.

I still think you are being very hard on him.

And as others have said, your situation (or the hypothetical one you are putting yourself into) seems very different to his.

 

[laughing dog]

I will say one thing, him paying her legal costs seems....odd. It's either rubbing salt into his wounds and therefore additionally harsh or.......there's more nuance than we know of. It could be either. It could also be that in this case, he is very well off and she is poor, and the state (via the courts) is strongly trying to look after the needs of the child, regardless of whether it's fair on the man. As far as I know, the underlying legal rationale is very child-centred.

There is no nuance there. This man was legally ordered to pay child support. Regardless of the fairness of the order, he is legally bound to make those payments until the child support order is withdrawn. The recipient ought not to have to pay to enforce the payments. If people who refuse to obey legal orders do not pay the court cases of the recipient, then those who are ordered to pay child support can punish the recipient by forcing them to pay to get their legal payments.

What seems to be missing in much of this discussion is that the child support payments are for the support of the CHILD. As much as some would like to punish the "wrongdoer", the child is not in the wrong here.

I agree that this particular woman appears to be a very shady character (embezzlement and having an affair with a child as a result). The ex-husband missed his chance to have the paternity annulled due to his (or his lawyer's) negligence.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not saying that he shouldn't have divorced her. But the kid didn't violate his trust, she did. Then as a result he CHOSE to violate the trust and needs of a third party rather than letting the buck stop there. Then, this is coming from someone who would spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to adopt a child such as the one he would seek to abandon. I do not think I'm being unrealistically idealistic in deciding what acts earn my derision; it is entirely my right to determine the cost of my respect. What I know here is that presented with a suboptimal set of choices, this man picked the choice that is categorically the worst for the largest number of people.

Sorry, I heavily edited my post while you were replying. A terrible habit.

I still think you are being very hard on him.

And as others have said, your situation (or the hypothetical one you are putting yourself into) seems very different to his.

Yes, I am being quite hard on him.

I will note that the reasons for my situation being quite different from his are not accidental, but owning to differences in the choices I make compared to him.

I think he has a terrible and cavalier attitude with respect to a living, breathing child.

Maybe that means that there are few people in this world who I would respect for their choices if they were forced to make such choices in the first place, but I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[Toni]

Why is it that these alleged "bureaucratic stumbling blocks" always favor the woman and screw over the man?

because, as i have explained many times, there are three fundamental ingrained social constructs at play:
1. the desire to have children raised in a stable (financially and otherwise) environment to maximize the odds of them turning out as functioning members of society.
2. historically women were literally incapable of not allowed to provide for themselves and their dependents, due to the structure of civilization. it's only extremely recently that women being capable of being being allowed to be financially independent was even a widespread thing, maybe 40 years at most.
3. if you're a governing state body you have two options when it comes to single women with a dependent: A. tell them and their children to get fucked and go live in poverty and starve, B. provide them with support to allow them to be self sustainable.
if you choose A well then it doesn't matter, if you choose B then you have two options: robust social programs funded by tax money, or require the financial support from a husband/father that has resources to spare.

if there's one thing i feel that i can reasonably surmise about you and metaphor it's that were alimony and child support not a thingm and instead all financial aid for women and children was derived from government funds supplied by taxes, you would lose your minds even more than you already do over the handful of random stories in the world of men paying alimony or child support that you obsessively search the internet for in order to jizz over these forums to the interest of absolutely nobody.

Actually, women have always been left to raise children alone, through abandonment and widowhood. In the US, certainly by the time WWII rolled out full force, many/most women were raising and providing for their families while their husbands were away at war or killed in war or MIA, often taking paying jobs that were typically reserved for men and otherwise doing the same work as men did on farms, in family businesses, etc.

Yes, historically, women raising children alone meant poverty, often desperate poverty and early death for mother and children. Which is why we have laws on the books ensuring that minor children are provided with some minimal support, from their fathers, when possible but from the state if their mothers are unable to do so. FWIW, I know (and am related to) quite a number of women who raised their children with little or no assistance from the fathers of the children. The money wasn't necessarily an issue as a number of these women are highly educated professionals earning a good living. Regardless of the money, the children did suffer for being abandoned by their fathers. That will mess you up just as surely as abject poverty, although physically you are more likely to be healthy. And yeah, I know a couple of young adults who were abandoned by their mothers (and in one very sad case, both parents) to be raised by fathers or grandparents, generally in or near poverty. Amazingly, some of these kids have done well enough for themselves, financially, personally. But the scars of abandonment by either parent, let alone both, are very, very deep.

Men, if you don't want to have children, please get a vasectomy. Please.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, historically, women raising children alone meant poverty, often desperate poverty and early death for mother and children. Which is why we have laws on the books ensuring that minor children are provided with some minimal support, from their fathers, when possible but from the state if their mothers are unable to do so. FWIW, I know (and am related to) quite a number of women who raised their children with little or no assistance from the fathers of the children. The money wasn't necessarily an issue as a number of these women are highly educated professionals earning a good living. Regardless of the money, the children did suffer for being abandoned by their fathers. That will mess you up just as surely as abject poverty, although physically you are more likely to be healthy.

Toni I hope you don't express these views in public. Imagine believing and saying that growing up with both a mother and father in the household is beneficial to children. That's normative whiteness.

Men, if you don't want to have children, please get a vasectomy. Please.

Ironically, your suggestion here would not have spared this man your prescription that the state should compel him to pay for a child that isn't his. As for as you are concerned, he is a father and needs to pay for it, even though his sperm did not contribute.

 

[Metaphor]

I will say one thing, him paying her legal costs seems....odd. It's either rubbing salt into his wounds and therefore additionally harsh or.......there's more nuance than we know of. It could be either. It could also be that in this case, he is very well off and she is poor, and the state (via the courts) is strongly trying to look after the needs of the child, regardless of whether it's fair on the man. As far as I know, the underlying legal rationale is very child-centred.

There is no nuance there. This man was legally ordered to pay child support. Regardless of the fairness of the order, he is legally bound to make those payments until the child support order is withdrawn. The recipient ought not to have to pay to enforce the payments. If people who refuse to obey legal orders do not pay the court cases of the recipient, then those who are ordered to pay child support can punish the recipient by forcing them to pay to get their legal payments.

On this point, until recently, I thought once a court entered an order for you to pay somebody else, that was it - the court would make sure it was paid e.g garnishing wages, seizing bank accounts, etc. But a recent case I've looked into does not appear to bear that out - if somebody has not paid a court-ordered amount to you, you have to chase it up personally, including paying for the expenses you incur in doing so.

Australia has an agency that can enforce child support payments, and has the apparatus and legal powers to get payments when they are not voluntarily made.

 

[ruby sparks]

Men, if you don't want to have children, please get a vasectomy. Please.

Your man-blaming and women-excusing does not even make sense in the circumstances half the time.

And the rest of your post is not describing the prevailing circumstances in places like Finland, so it's not that relevant. With progress and freedoms (for women, or anyone) comes increased personal responsibility, and yet you haven't uttered one word against the woman in this case.

It's just inherent bias, played out like clockwork on a computer keyboard.

 

[RVonse]

Men, if you don't want to have children, please get a vasectomy. Please.

How would have that have made any difference or helped this guy from Finland?

And even if you were to give every man their vasectomy that you desire, it would be a complete waste for 80% of the men out there. Those are the 80% of the celibate men who will not ever have the opportunity for sex anyway. They are the beta men still living in their parents basement. According to science and evolution, women will have no interest at all in those guys anyway. Them having your vasectomy would just be even more salt in the wound being sterilized AND still paying for the other alpha guys children.

I thought slavery was done away with after the civil war but it is still much alive in your mind today.

 

[ZiprHead]

Men, if you don't want to have children, please get a vasectomy. Please.

How would have that have made any difference or helped this guy from Finland?

And even if you were to give every man their vasectomy that you desire, it would be a complete waste for 80% of the men out there. Those are the 80% of the celibate men who will not ever have the opportunity for sex anyway. They are the beta men still living in their parents basement. According to science and evolution, women will have no interest at all in those guys anyway. Them having your vasectomy would just be even more salt in the wound being sterilized AND still paying for the other alpha guys children.

I thought slavery was done away with after the civil war but it is still much alive in your mind today.

80 percent of men are celibates???

 

[Arctish]

Men, if you don't want to have children, please get a vasectomy. Please.

How would have that have made any difference or helped this guy from Finland?

And even if you were to give every man their vasectomy that you desire, ...

Toni has never indicated she wants every man to get a vasectomy. She has consistently advised those who don't want to become fathers to be pro-active about it.

... it would be a complete waste for 80% of the men out there. Those are the 80% of the celibate men who will not ever have the opportunity for sex anyway. They are the beta men still living in their parents basement. According to science and evolution, women will have no interest at all in those guys anyway. Them having your vasectomy would just be even more salt in the wound being sterilized AND still paying for the other alpha guys children.

Those numbers are way off.

According to the Center for Disease Control, the average American who ends up having penis-and-vaginal intercourse does so for the first time around the age of 17. This age has something to do with how stable your family life is, peer pressure, personality and, according to a recent study, even your genes. But between 12-14 percent of adults aged 20-24 have never had sex. This number drops to around five percent for adults aged 25-29, and by age 44, only around 0.3 percent of adults report never having had the type of sex that could end in somebody getting pregnant. <link>

The article cites data from a National Health Statistics Report produced by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, dated March 3, 2011. If you want to skip the article and just read the report, you can find it here

 

[Toni]

Men, if you don't want to have children, please get a vasectomy. Please.

Your man-blaming and women-excusing does not even make sense in the circumstances half the time.

And the rest of your post is not describing the prevailing circumstances in places like Finland, so it's not that relevant. With progress and freedoms (for women, or anyone) comes increased personal responsibility, and yet you haven't uttered one word against the woman in this case.

It's just inherent bias, played out like clockwork on a computer keyboard.

Your bias is noted, although it's just a reflex by now.

Coming from you, I know I've done something right.

I wonder why it is that men go nuts anytime anyone suggests that if they don't want to be responsible for fathering children, they take responsibility for birth control?

 

[Toni]

Men, if you don't want to have children, please get a vasectomy. Please.

How would have that have made any difference or helped this guy from Finland?

And even if you were to give every man their vasectomy that you desire, it would be a complete waste for 80% of the men out there. Those are the 80% of the celibate men who will not ever have the opportunity for sex anyway. They are the beta men still living in their parents basement. According to science and evolution, women will have no interest at all in those guys anyway. Them having your vasectomy would just be even more salt in the wound being sterilized AND still paying for the other alpha guys children.

I thought slavery was done away with after the civil war but it is still much alive in your mind today.

If he'd had a vasectomy, he would have had an excellent reason to question paternity as soon as his wife told him she was pregnant. He could have even provided a sample to demonstrate that he wasn't among those very few men whose vasectomies do not 'take' and remain fertile.

Perhaps he was hoping for a child some day with his wife or some other woman.

I certainly do not wish that every man would have a vasectomy. I wish that in general, men would assume more responsibility for birth control. I wish that men who know for certain that they do not wish to father children/more children would get a vasectomy. I wish that men would assume more responsibility for the children they father.

I wish the female equivalent for women, as well.

In real life, things get messy and uncertain. People change their minds. People want to skip out on responsibility for children when they are angry with the other parent. People wish to avoid adult responsibilities and adulthood. By people, of course I mean some people.

It is easy to understand why the man in the OP is devastated to learn that his son is not his biological son and that his wife cheated on him. I can only imagine the pain that caused. But it is not the child's fault and the child deserves to have a consistent father, despite whatever genetics are involved.

 

[Toni]

Yes, historically, women raising children alone meant poverty, often desperate poverty and early death for mother and children. Which is why we have laws on the books ensuring that minor children are provided with some minimal support, from their fathers, when possible but from the state if their mothers are unable to do so. FWIW, I know (and am related to) quite a number of women who raised their children with little or no assistance from the fathers of the children. The money wasn't necessarily an issue as a number of these women are highly educated professionals earning a good living. Regardless of the money, the children did suffer for being abandoned by their fathers. That will mess you up just as surely as abject poverty, although physically you are more likely to be healthy.

Toni I hope you don't express these views in public. Imagine believing and saying that growing up with both a mother and father in the household is beneficial to children. That's normative whiteness.

What the racist fuck?

Ironically, your suggestion here would not have spared this man your prescription that the state should compel him to pay for a child that isn't his. As for as you are concerned, he is a father and needs to pay for it, even though his sperm did not contribute.

Nonsense. If he had had a vasectomy, he would have had reason to know and a way to prove right up front that he could not be the father simply by going to his doctor and submitting a sample to show that sperm was not contained in his ejaculate. He could have straight up challenged paternity before the child was born and without any cooperation from his wife. He could have realized right away that his wife had been unfaithful (or had been raped) and made an informed decision about whether to accept responsibility for the child or not.

 

[Toni]

If you believe the child is yours, if you have committed acts with the mother that you know could have led to a child and indeed, believe did lead to the existence of the child in question, if you treated that child as your own, then it's your child, genetics or not.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the child the woman is carrying is not your child or possibly not your child, that is the time to raise the question and to establish paternity or non-paternity.

This is too absolute. It is almost Derec in reverse. There must certainly be cases where a person can be blind to an infidelity during pregnancy and even early in childhood but then find out that the child is a product of infidelity. That person certainly should not automatically be responsible for the child indefinitely because he was successfully tricked by his mate. I may find out when the child is four years old that the child is a product of cheating. That should start the clock on legal severance.

If both parties agree to sever parental rights and the true father agrees to accept paternal rights then, sure.

The truth is that for centuries, law has held that children born into a marriage are considered the legal children of the husband in that marriage. This was established long before it was possible to determine by genetic testing that a child was or was not the offspring of a particular man.

Even today, there remains good reason to maintain this legal reasoning. The state has an interest in ensuring that children receive adequate financial support from someone. The state would prefer that support not come from state coffers.

Other than that, many people raise children who are not their own--knowingly and not. Parents adopt. People marry partners who have very young children or where the woman is already pregnant with someone else's child. Paternity is not always so easily determined without a test. My own ob was adamant and 100% wrong about my due date with my first child--he refused to believe me---and it turns out I was right about when the child was conceived, not my doctor. In my case, there was no question of paternity but most of the men on this forum are all for free love or rather, free sex with whomever, wherever, whenever----unless someone makes a mistake about paternity. And a lot of times, it's just that: a mistake. A doctor is not accurate about due date/date of conception. A woman prefers to ignore an indiscretion or a horrible mistake or terrible relationship for someone she sees as more stable. Not even necessarily consciously. Men seem to want the freedom to screw whoever they want, whenever they want and do not seem too interested in assuming responsibility for birth control or for resulting children. Some men, I should say. but it's hell to pay if the woman does the same or wants support.

Honest mistakes can be made. Women can make a choice about who they think would be a better bet as father for their child. Think about it: You are in a stable relationship but have an indiscretion during some time apart. You hook up with a past love. It was a one off thing and you immediately regret it. Or it wasn't even consensual but you're not inclined to report it to the police. You end up pregnant because the 14 times you had sex with your partner did not impregnate you but the one time you had sex with someone else did---most women would assume it was the guy they were having regular sex with.

I realize that this is even worse than suggesting that men start assuming responsibility for birth control but honestly, it's in your best interests to start being more selective about where you put your penis. If there's no way in hell you'd want her as the mother of your offspring, maybe that's a hard pass.

 

[Metaphor]

It is easy to understand why the man in the OP is devastated to learn that his son is not his biological son and that his wife cheated on him. I can only imagine the pain that caused. But it is not the child's fault and the child deserves to have a consistent father, despite whatever genetics are involved.

No, it's not the child's fault.

So tell me again, Toni. How does the State compelling money from a man who is not and does not want to be a father provide 'father consistency'?

 

[Metaphor]

What the racist fuck?

1) You. You're the racist fuck. All white people are racist. Read a book - a DiAngelo one if you are so racist you need a white woman to explain it to you, or Kendi if you are racist but not as racist as that.

2) A nuclear family is normative whiteness, Toni. That's why the National Museum of African American History & Culture made a lovely graphic about it.


3. A nuclear family is normative whiteness, Toni. That's why Black Lives Matters excludes fathers, and men, from its rhetoric. Don't you know that the nuclear family structure was forced upon present-day Black families?

4. A nuclear family is normative whiteness, Toni. That's why the regressive left has to lie about how important it is to children to have one.

Toni is a normative white racist fuck, and she openly admits it!

Nonsense. If he had had a vasectomy, he would have had reason to know and a way to prove right up front that he could not be the father simply by going to his doctor and submitting a sample to show that sperm was not contained in his ejaculate. He could have straight up challenged paternity before the child was born and without any cooperation from his wife. He could have realized right away that his wife had been unfaithful (or had been raped) and made an informed decision about whether to accept responsibility for the child or not.

Ah, I see.

So, a man has two options.

If he doesn't want kids, ever, he should get a vasectomy, and proactively challenge any cases of paternity.

If he maybe does want kids, he should accept that any child his partner or wife has may not be his and deal with it. Once he has made this 'commitment', he cannot alter it. And he can't enter into a marriage with any alternative agreement, either. He can't say "I want to raise only my biological offspring with you, not another man's". No. He 'committed actions' that could have impregnated her, therefore he is responsible also for any pregnancy, even ones he did not cause.

Gotcha.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As Sowell would say, there are no solutions only trade offs. The presumption of paternity - which usually can be rebutted in the first year or two depending on locale - ensures that children of cuckoldry are not made burdens of society. May seem unfair, but that’s the patriarchy.

There should be no time limit. There is no justification for imposing a burden on someone who isn't responsible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nonsense. If he had had a vasectomy, he would have had reason to know and a way to prove right up front that he could not be the father simply by going to his doctor and submitting a sample to show that sperm was not contained in his ejaculate. He could have straight up challenged paternity before the child was born and without any cooperation from his wife. He could have realized right away that his wife had been unfaithful (or had been raped) and made an informed decision about whether to accept responsibility for the child or not.

So he's at fault because he didn't have a vasectomy to realize the problem sooner? Is there anything you think is a woman's fault?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even today, there remains good reason to maintain this legal reasoning. The state has an interest in ensuring that children receive adequate financial support from someone. The state would prefer that support not come from state coffers.

But why should an innocent be made to pay the bill? Should we go out and throw someone in jail who was at the scene if the murderer can't be found?

Other than that, many people raise children who are not their own--knowingly and not. Parents adopt. People marry partners who have very young children or where the woman is already pregnant with someone else's child. Paternity is not always so easily determined without a test. My own ob was adamant and 100% wrong about my due date with my first child--he refused to believe me---and it turns out I was right about when the child was conceived, not my doctor. In my case, there was no question of paternity but most of the men on this forum are all for free love or rather, free sex with whomever, wherever, whenever----unless someone makes a mistake about paternity. And a lot of times, it's just that: a mistake. A doctor is not accurate about due date/date of conception. A woman prefers to ignore an indiscretion or a horrible mistake or terrible relationship for someone she sees as more stable. Not even necessarily consciously. Men seem to want the freedom to screw whoever they want, whenever they want and do not seem too interested in assuming responsibility for birth control or for resulting children. Some men, I should say. but it's hell to pay if the woman does the same or wants support.

Just because mistakes happen doesn't mean we shouldn't care if mistakes are made.

Honest mistakes can be made. Women can make a choice about who they think would be a better bet as father for their child. Think about it: You are in a stable relationship but have an indiscretion during some time apart. You hook up with a past love. It was a one off thing and you immediately regret it. Or it wasn't even consensual but you're not inclined to report it to the police. You end up pregnant because the 14 times you had sex with your partner did not impregnate you but the one time you had sex with someone else did---most women would assume it was the guy they were having regular sex with.

She knows she's lying. If she swears under oath the good provider is the father then she should go to jail.

I realize that this is even worse than suggesting that men start assuming responsibility for birth control but honestly, it's in your best interests to start being more selective about where you put your penis. If there's no way in hell you'd want her as the mother of your offspring, maybe that's a hard pass.

Once again, anything to excuse the woman.

 

[fromderinside]

Sexist bullshit. Both parties are responsible in general. In particular case of this marriage, it is the wife's fault because she cheated and got knocked up by her boy toy.

Typical feminist claptrap not to hold women responsible for any of their actions.

Well gee I don't want to get you all up in a political lather just because laws of marriage and divorce derive from man as the owner more or less of women and children produced by marriage.

What you just piped is patent bullshit. You need to go out and change those church agreed to laws that put the male at the head of the family so that they reflect such equality as your vainity wants. . Until they they do change you are just up shied creek.

fromderinside, when I first read your response I thought you just being sarcastic and not serious. But since you were serious and felt it is the mans responsibility to make sure a wife does not have semen from another man, just how would that be done? Make her wear a chastity belt? If a man required that of his wife he would be accused of all sorts of things in today's society!

Haw. Never Read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, eh. Hint: The girdle is a chastity belt.

No, I actually wrote l was "marriage and divorce derive from ...." Its the law that is slow to change from that perspective not my view. We live in a very different world from that from where marriage law originates. It is the law interpreted by a very old fashioned mind that contrived the punishment. Back in the day it was either support them (hide their transgressions) or kill them. After all they were just property.

 

[laughing dog]

As Sowell would say, there are no solutions only trade offs. The presumption of paternity - which usually can be rebutted in the first year or two depending on locale - ensures that children of cuckoldry are not made burdens of society. May seem unfair, but that’s the patriarchy.

There should be no time limit. There is no justification for imposing a burden on someone who isn't responsible.

Of course there is a justification - Trausti gave it. It is a justification you don't like it.

IMO, the notion of no time limit is linked to the notion that a child is basically no more than a financial liability.

 

[Toni]

What the racist fuck?

1) You. You're the racist fuck. All white people are racist. Read a book - a DiAngelo one if you are so racist you need a white woman to explain it to you, or Kendi if you are racist but not as racist as that.

2) A nuclear family is normative whiteness, Toni. That's why the National Museum of African American History & Culture made a lovely graphic about it.
View attachment 29895

3. A nuclear family is normative whiteness, Toni. That's why Black Lives Matters excludes fathers, and men, from its rhetoric. Don't you know that the nuclear family structure was forced upon present-day Black families?

4. A nuclear family is normative whiteness, Toni. That's why the regressive left has to lie about how important it is to children to have one.

Toni is a normative white racist fuck, and she openly admits it!

Because I asked a question? I will agree that follows your 'reasoning.'

Ah, I see.

So, a man has two options.

If he doesn't want kids, ever, he should get a vasectomy, and proactively challenge any cases of paternity.

If he maybe does want kids, he should accept that any child his partner or wife has may not be his and deal with it. Once he has made this 'commitment', he cannot alter it. And he can't enter into a marriage with any alternative agreement, either. He can't say "I want to raise only my biological offspring with you, not another man's". No. He 'committed actions' that could have impregnated her, therefore he is responsible also for any pregnancy, even ones he did not cause.

Gotcha.

Gotcha? I think your reach has extended far beyond your grasp.

 

[Toni]

But why should an innocent be made to pay the bill?

The innocent is the child, in this case. Outside of some Islamic states, conceiving a child through an adulterous affair is not actually a crime.

The man believed he was the father of his wife's child. He seems to have not questioned this at all. He acted as a father to the child, as any decent human being would do. I do understand why he is hurt and angry at finding out that his wife cheated and that he is not the genetic father of the child but how exactly is this the child's fault? Why should the child go without needed support, financial and otherwise? Did the man suddenly decide he didn't love the child? Was he merely pretending to love the child before? Either of these makes the man a monster. Which kind of monster do you suppose that he is?

Just because mistakes happen doesn't mean we shouldn't care if mistakes are made.

No one is suggesting otherwise.

Honest mistakes can be made. Women can make a choice about who they think would be a better bet as father for their child. Think about it: You are in a stable relationship but have an indiscretion during some time apart. You hook up with a past love. It was a one off thing and you immediately regret it. Or it wasn't even consensual but you're not inclined to report it to the police. You end up pregnant because the 14 times you had sex with your partner did not impregnate you but the one time you had sex with someone else did---most women would assume it was the guy they were having regular sex with.

She knows she's lying. If she swears under oath the good provider is the father then she should go to jail.

Excuse me? Under what reality does a married woman swear under oath that the father of her child is her husband? This is stricter, I believe than Sharia law.

Or are you suggesting that every woman knows exactly who the father of her child is? Because I've explained that in fact, that's not always the case. Not at all. And sometimes she makes a mistake because the doctor made a mistake about the date of conception or whether or not a vasectomy was effective or a dozen other reasons. And sometimes she's in a difficult situation and makes her very best guess. And sometimes wishful thinking is involved. Sometimes she tells her boyfriend that he's the father because she doesn't want to hurt him by telling him that maybe he's not because one time--and only one time--she cheated or was pressured into sex with someone else. So, in the course of a week, say she had sex with her boyfriend 12 times and once, with some other guy. She gets pregnant that week. Most women would assume that the boyfriend was the father of the child. Or she has sex with her boyfriend 12 times in one week. They have a fight. She has sex the next week with some other guy, one time. A month later she realizes she might be pregnant. The doctor tells her she conceived during the week she had sex 12 times with her boyfriend.

Does the man have an obligation to tell his significant other every time he has sex with someone other than the significant other? Because he might impregnate the other woman and be financially responsible for that child, taking away income from his family with his significant other.

I realize that this is even worse than suggesting that men start assuming responsibility for birth control but honestly, it's in your best interests to start being more selective about where you put your penis. If there's no way in hell you'd want her as the mother of your offspring, maybe that's a hard pass.

Once again, anything to excuse the woman.

No, I just think that men should start acting like adults and assume some responsibility for birth control. If that's your version of excusing the woman, then you are way more messed up than I had imagined.

 

[Metaphor]

Because I asked a question? I will agree that follows your 'reasoning.'

I'm glad I was able to elucidate for you that [removed] asking men to step up to the fatherhood plate is racist normative whiteness.

Gotcha? I think your reach has extended far beyond your grasp.

No. I don't mean 'a gotcha moment'. I mean 'I understand what you are saying'.

And if that wasn't what you were saying, then perhaps you can explain what you were saying. Because you appear to agree with the ruling, and you want the State to forcibly extract money from a man who is not a biological father for a child he does not want to be a father to, and you want it all because...think of the children.

And you won't even acknowledge that forcibly extracting money from a man does not and cannot make him a father.

I can only conclude your sentiments are to punish men further for marrying cuckolding women, and to make sure cuckolding women suffer no consequences, legal or social.

 

[laughing dog]

Ironically, your suggestion here would not have spared this man your prescription that the state should compel him to pay for a child that isn't his.

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

 

[Metaphor]

The man believed he was the father of his wife's child. He seems to have not questioned this at all. He acted as a father to the child, as any decent human being would do. I do understand why he is hurt and angry at finding out that his wife cheated and that he is not the genetic father of the child but how exactly is this the child's fault? Why should the child go without needed support, financial and otherwise? Did the man suddenly decide he didn't love the child? Was he merely pretending to love the child before? Either of these makes the man a monster. Which kind of monster do you suppose that he is?

What a breathtaking admission.

You want a man who is a monster to continue to father a child, never mind that his love turned to hate or he hated the child all along.

Never mind that forcibly extracting money from the monster doesn't and can't make him love and father a child he doesn't love and doesn't want to father.

Never mind that you ascribe feelings as 'monstrous', even though feelings are beyond the scope of morality.

Of course, in your vicious, ludicrous, misandric strawman binary, you neglected multiple other options. But you don't care. A man must be punished.

 

[Metaphor]

Ironically, your suggestion here would not have spared this man your prescription that the state should compel him to pay for a child that isn't his.

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

No. As Toni points out, sometimes vasectomies are incomplete and men can still father children afterwards. Much like birth control can be 99.9% effective, and 0.1% ineffective.

And no. Toni's example fails anyway. Toni has no reason to believe this man didn't want to be a father. He probably wanted to be a father. He may yet want to be a father. To his own genetic children to a woman he thought he knew.

I see you and Toni don't really understand consent.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I just think that men should start acting like adults

You first, Toni. You start acting like an adult. The best leaders lead by example.

 

[ruby sparks]

I wonder why it is that men go nuts anytime anyone suggests that if they don't want to be responsible for fathering children, they take responsibility for birth control?

I'm not going nuts. Your suggestion of itself is one that in general I would go along with to some extent. I mean, it will depend, on circumstances, but by and large men, imo, generally have needed and probably still need to take more responsibility for avoiding unwanted pregnancies than they have done and still do. Too often it is left mostly to the woman. In general I mean.

But it's largely irrelevant here (as regards the man we have been talking about, the husband).

And not one word of criticism of the woman had previously left your lips so to speak.

This is the sort of thing you always do, and it's why I say your views are heavily unbalanced in one direction.

 

[ruby sparks]

I see you and Toni don't really understand consent.

It seems they understand female consent. When a man does not consent, it's essentially his fault, one way or another, apparently.

 

[ruby sparks]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

 

[ruby sparks]

As Sowell would say, there are no solutions only trade offs. The presumption of paternity - which usually can be rebutted in the first year or two depending on locale - ensures that children of cuckoldry are not made burdens of society. May seem unfair, but that’s the patriarchy.

There should be no time limit. There is no justification for imposing a burden on someone who isn't responsible.

I think that just for pragmatic reasons, and as with many other situations, time limits are not unreasonable legal devices.

It may be that 6 months in cases such as this, especially if there is genuine and indeed understandable trauma (which it seems there was, the man was seeing a therapist who testified to him having PTSD, as is often the case, even just for infidelity, which to many people can be a crushing blow) is a bit short. I have spoken to several people who have gone through what I will call 'these sorts of relationship traumas' (divorce, infidelity, abortion, death of a child, whatever). It is not untypical for them to say that it took them, say, at least 2 or 3 years to even get partly over it. I am not surprised, and indeed I think it seems to reflect well on him that for a time he apparently considered staying with her and being a father to the child. We do not know why he changed his mind about that, but he must have been going through confusing difficulties.

I suspect that the time limits here are short in order to try to minimise disruption for the child. In other words to encourage the adults to make a decision.

So I think one problem here might be that the (well-meaning) laws are using very blunt instruments. In this case, the husband is essentially collateral damage in a system where the child, not unreasonably, is intended to be the top priority. But even those who might try to say that in the round, such laws are better for a society than they are worse should imo have more sympathy for this guy.

Based on what we know. There may be many things we don't know. In my experience, such conflicts often have two sides (even if they are not evenly matched) or are complicated. We do not know what led up to this, and we don't know all that much about what happened in the relationship after it emerged. But based on what little we know so far, this one seems fairly clear cut.

And if it's true as Jayjay said that this woman was also later convicted of embezzlement, then that might be considered a bit of a potential red flag, as regard our interim speculations. Nor does the infidelity reflect well on her. To completely disregard such things and trot out the (in this case) largely irrelevant 'men should have vasectomies' is imo more than a bit off.

 

[Toni]

I see you and Toni don't really understand consent.

It seems they understand female consent. When a man does not consent, it's essentially his fault, one way or another, apparently.

It seems you understand nothing about 'them.'

Not at all a surprise.

As far as I can tell, no one forced the husband to have sex with his wife, much less in such a way that he could get her pregnant and make his fatherhood very plausible, at least to him.

Those are equivalencies.

AFAIK, there is nothing preventing him from going after custody and seeking child support for his child. Yeah, I said HIS child because legally, it appears to be his child.

 

[Toni]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

It's not at all victim blaming. He is not a victim of this child's birth! As far as we can tell, he welcomed the child and loved the child! Now he's pissed at the mom, justifiably, and likely devastated as well. Very understandable right up to the point where he rejects the child who regards him as daddy. That's emotionally cruel, far more cruel than the mother having sex with someone else.

 

[laughing dog]

Ironically, your suggestion here would not have spared this man your prescription that the state should compel him to pay for a child that isn't his.

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

No. As Toni points out, sometimes vasectomies are incomplete and men can still father children afterwards. Much like birth control can be 99.9% effective, and 0.1% ineffective.

When all else fails, march in your pedantry. Fine, if he had a vasectomy, then he would have had an immediate reason to doubt his paternity and he would (or should) have had the dna test, and then annulled the paternity. That is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

And no. Toni's example fails anyway. Toni has no reason to believe this man didn't want to be a father. He probably wanted to be a father. He may yet want to be a father. To his own genetic children to a woman he thought he knew.

That is a reasonable point.

I see you and Toni don't really understand consent.

Nah.

 

[laughing dog]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

No, it points out the logic of the proposition - if he had a vasectomy, he could have easily avoided this situation. If I had proposed it as the solution, you'd have a point. But since I explicitly ended my observation with explicitly pointing out that it is basic logic and that it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the vasectomy proposition, it ought to be clear that I did not agree or disagree with the proposition.

 

[ruby sparks]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

No, it points out the logic of the proposition - if he had a vasectomy, he could have easily avoided this situation. If I had proposed it as the solution, you'd have a point. But since I explicitly ended my observation with explicitly pointing out that it is basic logic and that it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the vasectomy proposition, it ought to be clear that I did not agree or disagree with the proposition.

Nice try.

Toni (who for whatever reasons has very one-sided views imo) says it in such situations, therefore you effectively more or less back it up automatically. It's what you do. It's been one of the more obvious and predictable features of this forum ever since I joined.

 

[Metaphor]

I see you and Toni don't really understand consent.

It seems they understand female consent. When a man does not consent, it's essentially his fault, one way or another, apparently.

It seems you understand nothing about 'them.'

Not at all a surprise.

As far as I can tell, no one forced the husband to have sex with his wife, much less in such a way that he could get her pregnant and make his fatherhood very plausible, at least to him.

Those are equivalencies.

AFAIK, there is nothing preventing him from going after custody and seeking child support for his child. Yeah, I said HIS child because legally, it appears to be his child.

He doesn't want custody of the child. It isn't his child, and it's the product of a betrayal by his wife.

I know you claim that he is a monster for that making a difference, but it makes a difference to him. And so he is not going to be a father to this child, and extracting every last cent from him wouldn't make him one, either.

 

[Jarhyn]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

No, it points out the logic of the proposition - if he had a vasectomy, he could have easily avoided this situation. If I had proposed it as the solution, you'd have a point. But since I explicitly ended my observation with explicitly pointing out that it is basic logic and that it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the vasectomy proposition, it ought to be clear that I did not agree or disagree with the proposition.

The thing is, and it's pretty important: he did want a child.

He became a father of choice. Which brings me to back to my own point: lots of people have children that aren't exactly what they were expecting. He wanted to have a child to raise and guide through the world and he got one. Then, he displayed the ability to love a child and then abandon the same child, showing that he probably doesn't deserve children in the first place.

 

[ruby sparks]

He became a father of choice.

That does not seem to fit the facts as we know them without quite a bit of contortion, semantics and speculation.

I think it's a downright odd interpretation of what a choice is. I do not even understand how you could possibly even know it.

I think you continue to conflate your own situation with a very different one.

But, since you agree that you are being harsh, perhaps that is all there is to say. I do not agree with you that it is a good thing.

 

[Metaphor]

When all else fails, march in your pedantry.

It wasn't my pedantry, it was Toni's.

Fine, if he had a vasectomy, then he would have had an immediate reason to doubt his paternity and he would (or should) have had the dna test, and then annulled the paternity. That is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

What he could have done to avoid being a victim of the State is all well and fine, but it doesn't make the law any better that there are actions he could have taken to protect himself from a cuckolding women--actions he only needs to take because of an unjust law.

Toni made - and makes - all and any kinds of excuses she can imagine for the woman who betrayed her husband, even invoking the spectre of rape!

Toni's double standards beggar belief. If this woman had instead wanted to abort the baby, Toni would have undoubtedly supported that. After all, taking actions (like having sex) that could end up in pregnancy does not mean you are consenting to be a parent. Except for men. And even if you didn't actually cause a pregnancy.

And, won't somebody think of the children? That child deserves a father, don't you know? Even a monster. And, even though parenting is about loving your child and spending time with them, the court can't actually order that. But that doesn't matter. The court can seize assets.

(Not a word from Toni on why the actual, genetic father isn't on the hook. As long as some man somewhere is).

 

[Metaphor]

No, it points out the logic of the proposition - if he had a vasectomy, he could have easily avoided this situation. If I had proposed it as the solution, you'd have a point. But since I explicitly ended my observation with explicitly pointing out that it is basic logic and that it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the vasectomy proposition, it ought to be clear that I did not agree or disagree with the proposition.

The thing is, and it's pretty important: he did want a child.

He became a father of choice. Which brings me to back to my own point: lots of people have children that aren't exactly what they were expecting. He wanted to have a child to raise and guide through the world and he got one. Then, he displayed the ability to love a child and then abandon the same child, showing that he probably doesn't deserve children in the first place.

No, he did not become a father by choice. In fact, he isn't a father, socially or biologically.

What he may have consented to was becoming a father, to his own genetic child, with a woman he thought he knew. None of that applies here.

And your insistence that he ought feel a certain way beggars belief. You have no empathy whatsoever for his position. You have imagined finding out that a child isn't genetically yours when you thought it was would make no difference whatsoever to you. Yet you cannot allow that it might make a difference to someone else. And if it does make a difference, that person is a monster that probably shouldn't be a father at all. But, he should pay, in cash, for his monstrous feelings.

And when I say 'beggars belief', I don't really mean that. I mean, it's fucking outrageous, but I am hardly surprised by your attitude.

EDIT: By the way, I know Jarhyn has me on ignore and won't see my replies, but I do want to illustrate for the rest of the message board his lack of logic, his vainglorious moralising, and his smug disconnection from ordinary human experience.

 

[Metaphor]

If he had a vasectomy, he would have known the child was not his even before the birth. So he would have had plenty of time to file for annulment. Sorry, that is really basic logic and it has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with the request of "Please get a vasectomy if you don't want children".

That's an incredibly victim-blaming 'logic', especially when we don't even know if he previously did or didn't want any more children with his wife.

It's not at all victim blaming. He is not a victim of this child's birth! As far as we can tell, he welcomed the child and loved the child! Now he's pissed at the mom, justifiably, and likely devastated as well. Very understandable right up to the point where he rejects the child who regards him as daddy. That's emotionally cruel, far more cruel than the mother having sex with someone else.

Tell me, Toni, what percentage of this cruel monster's money, forcibly extracted from him each fortnight, will make him love that child again?

 

[Jarhyn]

He became a father of choice.

That does not seem to fit the facts as we know them without quite a bit of contortion, semantics and speculation.

I think it's a downright odd interpretation of what a choice is. I do not even understand how you could possibly even know it.

I think you continue to conflate your own situation with a very different one.

But, since you agree that you are being harsh, perhaps that is all there is to say. I do not agree with you that it is a good thing.

No, he absolutely became a father of his own choice. He wanted to have a child. He CHOSE to try and have a child. Either they were actively trying to have a child, or when he heard his wife was pregnant, he chose to stick around. Obviously he thought it could have been his, so that means that they were having sex, within a marriage, that could ostensibly produce a child. That's a choice. And the result is a child. He chose to have a child. Sucks to be him that he didn't get exactly the child he was looking to have.

Child is born a grotesquery of genetics? Congratulations, enjoy the next three years as the child you had withers and dies of some fatal abnormality. It's yours and you get to foot the bill. Have a perfectly normal child born to your home that will live and love and learn? Go ahead and abandon them!

 

[Toni]

It seems you understand nothing about 'them.'

Not at all a surprise.

As far as I can tell, no one forced the husband to have sex with his wife, much less in such a way that he could get her pregnant and make his fatherhood very plausible, at least to him.

Those are equivalencies.

AFAIK, there is nothing preventing him from going after custody and seeking child support for his child. Yeah, I said HIS child because legally, it appears to be his child.

He doesn't want custody of the child. It isn't his child, and it's the product of a betrayal by his wife.

I know you claim that he is a monster for that making a difference, but it makes a difference to him. And so he is not going to be a father to this child, and extracting every last cent from him wouldn't make him one, either.

Legally, it is his child. Biologically, genetically? No. So what? He's been a father to this child in every way that counts for the past two years. It is cruel to the child to lose his father because the man is angry with his mother. It's outright cruelty.

I will be the first to say that people in monogamous relationships should not cheat. If you are having sex with multiple partners, you should be sure of birth control and disease prevention. If there is a question about either one of these: a condom breaks, then everyone involved should know as soon as possible. Presumably the people involved in the condom breaking know immediately.

Men cheat all the time. Sometimes, they father children outside of the marriage and must support said child, drawing resources from the marriage, the wife, any children the married couple have together. The wife ends up supporting some other woman's child. Sometimes men bring home sexually transmitted diseases. Sometimes women do. People really, really, really ought to take more care of their health and the health of their partner/spouse. They really, really, really ought to take better care of their relationships.

They really, really ought to be familiar with family law in their country/state.