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

[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.