Arnold Schwarzenegger’s adultery: Blame the bitches!
Non-stop fun indeed!
Poor Arnold Schwarzenegger!
Picture the scene.
It’s January 1997. Arnold’s in a good mood, sitting in his den, paging through the latest issue of Variety. He chuckles to himself. Fuck the critics! Jingle All the Way is putting asses in the seats of the multiplexes of America, and that means money in the bank to the Terminator.
Suddenly, he hears the door to the room click shut behind him. It’s that devious maid again, with her wily, sexy Latin ways! “Que pasa?” she says, running her hands through his hair. He’s still not quite sure what that phrase means, exactly, but it seems to have a hypnotic effect on him, and his penis. He pulls the maid to him.
The next minute and a half are a blur. “Curses!” he mutters to himself, as he realizes that, once again, the wily maid has lured his hapless penis into her vaginal cavity. But it’s too late. The penis has released its precious load. “Me han robado tu esperma,” she hisses. “¿Dónde está la biblioteca?”
This, give or take a few of the details, seems to be how the author of the Rebuking Feminism blog imagines the events that led to the birth of Arnold’s love-child 14 years ago. Yep: in his version of events, it’s the women – both the maid, Patty Baena, and wife Maria – who are responsible for Arnold’s indiscretions:
Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house. The whole ballgame changes when a man reaches Arnold’s status. Women come begging to be f***ed by you. Women practically disrobe and spread when guys like Arnold walk in the room. I’m sure he abstained plenty of times but women like this maid wait for her opportunity when in such close proximity.
It’s tough, I guess, to be a freakishly huge, fabulously wealthy alpha male who wants to fuck everything in sight. But tougher indeed to be a beta:
As is quite common with the type of situation that took place with Arnold, I’m sure this little whore took her prized bastard back home to be raised by her oblivious, committed, and cuckolded beta male husband.
Some people might say, hey, isn’t Arnold partially to blame for cuckolding that little whore’s cuckolded beta male husband? No. It’s important to remember: he’s a victim too, and obviously not responsible for the sexual activity that Mrs. Baena lured him into with her fiery Latin vagina.
Maria may now file for divorce. The only people to end up completely fu*ked here will be the two men…Arnold for engaging in adultery (and the price only men have to pay for it) and the man that was cuckolded by his adulterous whore wife and will have to pay for it as well. Men bear liability to women on both sides of the equation. Men have no rights.
Now all Maria and Patty need to do is sit back and collect the cash. Ka-ching-gle All the Way!
EDITED TO ADD: The author of the post has added a response to my post as a addendum to his original post. The gist of it:
Arnold and his impropriety was not the intended focus of this article. I take it as common knowledge among my readers that what Arnold did was obviously wrong. This was not the point of the article.
The point of this article was to illustrate how adultery is supported by law on one end (the female end) and not supported by law on the male end.
Posted on May 22, 2011, in antifeminism, bad boys, beta males, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, precious bodily fluids, sex, sluts, vaginas. Bookmark the permalink. 674 Comments.
The creepiest part is “Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house.” Talk about normalizing controlling relationships.
I guess to these guys, it seems completely reasonable to prevent your partner from spending time with any attractive member of their preferred sex, because whether they cheat on you is more important than whether they have freedom to live their own life.
‘Men have no rights.’
Clearly this is totally the case. That’s why we evil feminists dress them in Burkas and refuse to allow them to drive.
Maria is totally to blame. For letting an attractive woman in the house. She knew what would happen. Note that the same is not true of the cuckholded husband who let his wife work in the home of a super-alpha male. He couldn’t have possibly foreseen it. Because he’s a naive victim like Arnold. Oh, those manipulative wimmins!
Yes, Baena totally forced him to have sex with her. That’s why he’s a well-documented grabbyhands who’s been creeping out women in service positions since the 1980s at least. (I feel like we must all have at least one friend with a personal story of serving him drinks. Just me?) Here is a quote from an actual news article:
“When he first ran for governor of California in the 2003 campaign to recall Gov. Gray Davis, Schwarzenegger was dogged by allegations of sexual harassment — of having groped more than a dozen women over the years who did not want his attention and who were humiliated and angered. During the campaign, he vaguely admitted to ‘behaving badly’ and said that if there were people out there whom he had offended, he was sorry.”
Many of the MRA’s have a double standard about adultery just like they do for premarital sex. When a woman cheats on her husband, she’s an evil whore. When a man cheats on his wife, it’s because his wife was too frigid, she let herself go, or she is a nag. The commenters at the Spearhead were also blaming Maria Shriver for Arnold’s behavior. Why can’t they admit that men and women are equally capable of cheating, and then put the blame on the cheater?
Sometimes men cheat on women even when their wives live up to the incredibly high beauty standards set by MRAs. Even women like Halle Berry, Sandra Bullock, and Christie Brinkley have been cheated on. Women that are passive and meek are also cheated on. The only thing these women have in common is that they had bad luck or bad taste in men.
I’ve heard people also point the blame at the mistresses, calling them home wreckers, and excusing the man as if he has no control over his own actions. I think the mistresses are less to blame. They aren’t breaking somebody’s trust like the cheating husband is. I’m not saying that mistresses are blameless, but that cheating husbands are the most at fault. My views are exactly the same when the situation is reversed, and the wife is the adulterer, too.
“¿Dónde está la biblioteca?”
Not only did she entrap Schwartzenegger, she also went to a crappy community college in Colorado?
To blame the cheater would be to acknowledge reality*, and that might mess up their worldview. So then the MRAs in question would have to maybe admit that the twisted way they see things is out of whack. Maybe.
*reality being that both men and women are capable of cheating
What pisses me off is that I’m pretty sure adultery ruins the sanctity of marriage far more than a gay or lesbian couple getting hitched; but Arnie opposes the latter while engaging in the former.
@Lady Victoria
Especially since those who are against gay marriage usually quote the bible to do so…and adultery is actually one of the ten commandments, while homosexuality is not.
“¿Dónde está la biblioteca?”
this made me laugh so hard i almost snorted tea out of my nose.
I second tree. Except I wasn’t drinking tea. I almost snorted air out of my nose?
Just trying to show off my command of the language!
What he meant was that Arnold is paying the price vicariously through the marriage \ divorce law system. He seems to mean that only men i.e. Arnold in this case is paying the price where as a woman in this situation, as is illustrated by the reversal in this case (the maid and her husband) does not have to pay the price.
“Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house.”
Because it’s like like LA in general or Hollywood in specific isn’t FULL of insanely attractive people or anything.
If we use this logic she should start kicking women out of the city limits.
Duh, it’s a well-known fact that everyone in LA/Hollywood is either Brad Pitt or a supermodel. So the only way Shriver could have prevented this is by not allowing anyone in her house EVER. Also if someone gets cheated on, its obviously that person’s fault, and never the cheater’s.
/snark
Arnie – Do we know that the maid isn’t “paying the price?” Not really, that isn’t really covered in anything. We don’t know what she’s going through other than people blaming her for something that takes two people to engage in.
And aren’t all the children involved “paying the price” — or, you know, being emotionally affected — by Arnold’s indiscretions?
To be fair, the author does devote a sentence to the kids.
The author has also added a bit to the original post in response to my post.
One thing…if everyone in LA/Hollywood is attractive, doesn’t that mean that no one is? Isn’t attractiveness based on context and opposites? If so, the more one calls a person an Alpha or Beta simply because one sympathizes with/hates a person, the more it becomes irrelevant as a category. It even applies to “mangina”. It’s not just that the fundamentals behind the term are stupid, but the frequency of the term as it used against the “enemies” of MRAs makes it even more stupid.
Redlocker – It’s generally surprising to people visiting LA how many people look like they stepped off a catwalk or film set. Of course there are normal people there, it would be silly to say otherwise. But there is a glut of people who were the “hot kid” in school or back in Minnesota or Virgina and are trying to get their big break. The comment I made technically could be applied to any city in the world but due to LA and the fact that it’s the center of the film world, you get a lot of good looking people. It’s ridiculous to say anyone should keep their partner from “attractive” members of the opposite sex, but if we’re going to say that about the maid, we should say that about coworkers, the barista down the street who has dreams of stardom, the fashionistas who shop at the same supermarket, the trophy wives who walk the same route with their kids and dogs… All I was saying is that it gets silly.
Thanks for the twist on things David, I’ve added to the blog post to clear up your confusion.
MRAs once again blame the women in every way possible. They complain about double standards, and then they go and insist men are innocent while blaming female victims.
This is more proof that MRAs don’t want equal rights; they want to abolish women’s rights (which they perceive as a threat to their male privilege) and give men the ability to not be held responsible for their actions.
What’s this? The man cheated on the woman with the sexy maid? It must be the fault of both women, because the man is innocent. Because, you know, men are smarter and have more control then women, even when they cheat on their partners. Damn women for being siren harpies! We should take away their right to vote (according to some MRAs) and keep them out of the career field! That’ll teach ‘em to not lead their men astray!
I’m still a little confused on how female adultery is supported by law, whereas male adultery is not. I assume that Maria Shriver is divorcing her husband because he cheated on her; nothing is stopping the husband of the maid for doing the same thing.
In fact, if you research for just ten seconds on Google, you’ll find that Baena and her husband divorced in 2008 (though it doesn’t say who filed), and that even though Baena was raising Schwarzenegger’s kid, the court records state the couple had no children. I.E., Baena’s kids were not her husband’s kids, and the court system recognized that fact.
And even still… why shouldn’t Shriver divorce Schwarzenegger over this? It’s not like he had a drunken one-night stand, his mistress was a person that he kept around the rest of his family. I assume that Shriver and the housekeeper would have to come into regular contact with each other – how is that not a cruel thing to do to your wife? He never even confessed, Shriver had to confront first Baena and then her husband to get the truth.
I won’t argue that it sucks for a man to discover that his wife has hidden paternity from him when the children he thinks are his actually aren’t; but isn’t hiding the child you fathered with a housekeeper and then continuing to employ that housekeeper (and possibly continuing the affair right beneath her nose) on the same level of cruel deception?
Yep. Women are always at fault for everything, all the way back to Eve.
But the real question is: es el raton debajo de la mesa?
Man, David, I’m such a jerk and a pedant — and also not a very good Spanish student — but it just occurred to me that it’d be (I think) “Te he robado tu esperma.” “Me han robado tu esperma” is something more like (I think) “they have robbed me (of) your sperm.” Those online translator thingies are kinda wack.
Hey, you’ve seen Arnold’s Brazilian travelogue right? Trigger warning for grabbyhands!
Bee, I’m sure you’re right. I don’t have much faith in the accuracy of online translators. But I’m still sort of amazed that they exist at all, and they do a lot better than I ever did in Spanish class.
In that case Ahnold ought to be muttering something like “Ach du lieber!” or “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!” If we’re being all linguistically talented, here.
Oh, I wouldn’t be sure, David! It wasn’t meant as a correction so much as a comment about … I dunno. Being bored and nerdy, I suppose.
It is kind of amazing that online translators exist, though. My last Spanish class went so much more smoothly than all those years I wasted in high school Spanish, pre-internet.
I don’t get what DA LAW is doing here that is so horrid. No one forced Arnold to have sex with them; he chose, while he was married, to have sex with lots of women he wasn’t married to, only one of which was Patty Baena. DA LAW is not forcing him to get a divorce from his wife, nor did it force Baena’s then-husband to leave her three weeks after the baby was born. The only thing it’s doing, is saying that as this child was fathered by Arnold, he is expected to help provide for it — a ruling which does seem to make sense in a society where the parents of a child are expected to provide for it.I am not sure how this is interpreted as supporting female adultury and punishing male adultury.
Bee would be correct – I have taken Spanish. Me han robado tu esperma is “They have robbed me of your sperm.” Te he robado tu esperma” or “Te robe (accent on the e) tu esperma” works for what you want to say. /takes nerdcap off
In a certain sense, ‘punishing’ adultery is less up to the law and more up to the cheated-upon spouse. After the revelation of infidelity, it’s entirely up to the cheated-upon to decide if the transgression is worth a divorce. You can’t sue someone for cheating on you, or prosecute them in a criminal court.
And I might be wrong in this, but don’t most divorce courts not really care about infidelity? I mean, unless it violated a pre-nup?
I’m just going to trust any Spanish to say what you think it says.
I’m competent in two other languages (other than English), but my Spanish is limited to, “El gato esta enfrente de la casa. El queso esta en la pared.” Something like that.
spitfire- Oh, I know all of that. After all, I do live in LA. ;) And yes, the MRAs are being silly about matters like this as usual.
@Lady V. I am not sure that is completely accurate. There used to be a civil cause of action for adultery in most states and I think there might be a few hold out states there (apparently, Texas is one of them). Also, a few states appear to have never removed criminal adultery statutes on the books and just never prosecute based on them. So, you might be able to sue your spouse for cheating on you, depending on the state. Still, those rules apply to both male and female cheaters, so they are not problematic on those grounds (though they are obviously problematic for other reasons).
“Baena was raising Schwarzenegger’s kid, the court records state the couple had no children. I.E., Baena’s kids were not her husband’s kids, and the court system recognized that fact.”
This is IN FACT NOT the normal case. This no doubt was most likely done with the sway of the governor. Ordinarily men have no protection from paternity fraud. Men who find out after 18 years of child support that their only offspring are not theirs have no rights toward the ends of a fraud case. Once the child is born if he does not plead contest then legally it is his not matter who’s offspring it is. Even step fathers have been ordered to pay support.
Also under age little boys have also been ordered to pay support to their rapist…just so you know.
Arnie: In Calif. the husband is the presumptive father. It’s not the case that one needs something like gubernatorial intervention (and such an intervention would have been noted; also Pete Wilson was teh Gov. in 1997, so the odds of such are 1: slim, and 2: almost certainly not something which wouldn’t have come out in the recall fiasco that put Arnie in office.
But, if at birth the mother declares the father to be someone else, a paternity test can be done, and the spouse will not be listed as the parent.
The actual father need not be named, but the non-father will have no obligation to support the child.
It’s clear that this woman is an evil demon seductress.* Oh, Arnold, did you not learn anything about feminine wiles from “Batman and Robin”? But in fairness, these wicked, wicked women are capable of shape-shifting in their seductive ploys to rob men of their sperm. He probably thought she was Maria. It happens.
*And just in time for #4 of “Tropes vs. Women” at feministfrequency. Woohoo!
Also, “No man may have me unless he beats me in a fair fight!”
Um. Because I have always wanted to say that. As you were.
Redlocker – Sweet! I thought you were mad about my joke :( I need joke love sometimes.
@arnie, this happens to underage girls too. It is not as if female rape victims are not expected to financially support their offspring, in fact, they are expected to be the primary caretakers of these children.
Yeah, but, they’re . . . like . . . chicks. That’s normal for chicks, y’know? But making a male rape victim provide child care is, like, totally unfair!
This is IN FACT NOT the normal case. This no doubt was most likely done with the sway of the governor
A) Arnold was not the Governor in 1997.
B) Nor did Schwarzenegger even know that the child was his until the baby grew up to be a toddler. I’m not sure what age qualifies as a toddler, but considering that Baena and her husband separated *months* after the baby’s birth and not years, I think it’s fair to say that Schwarzenegger did not pull any of his clout (which, at the time, would have been celebrity clout anyway, not legal/political).
Are you saying that Maria Shriver is not in fact completely justified in divorcing her husband? I think she’s at least entitled to a divorce as Baena’s ex was to leave her.
Well, since it’s Maria’s fault that the Gropinator cheated on her, she totally shouldn’t be allowed to leave him, and she double-totally shouldn’t be given any of his money.
As for Mr. Baena, I guess it wasn’t hard for him to guess the child’s real father, what with its muscular physique and comically thick Austrian accent.
FWIW, Lady von S., a baby is usually considered a toddler at one year or when he/she begins to walk. Toddlerhood usually is thought to end at age 3, though some have defined it as lasting through age 5.
So, yeah, it was probably at least a year after the baby’s birth that Herr Gropenfuhrer knew it was his, possibly longer.
Arnie: In Calif. the husband is the presumptive father.
BINGO
“But, if at birth the mother declares the father to be someone else, a paternity test can be done, and the spouse will not be listed as the parent.”
Yea just depends on who she wants to be the father and saddle with legal responsibilities. Thank you mistress may the cuckold have another.
“The actual father need not be named, but the non-father will have no obligation to support the child.”
Yes, fathers are not considered as necessary so I can see how one can claim immaculate conception. Yes so you are correct legally a child’s father does not have to exist at all..thank you mistress.
Reading comprehension much?
Pesronally, I’m pretty sure in LA the father is assumed to be Arnold. Q.E.D.
Yea just depends on who she wants to be the father and saddle with legal responsibilities. Thank you mistress may the cuckold have another.
I believe fathers can ask for a paternity test, no?
Arnie: Are you reading? No… I look at it again and I have to ask… can you read English.
The mother can’t say, “no, my husband isn’t the father, it’s so and so.” She has to actually prove the husband isn’t the father.
Why? Because (as a quirk of law) she’s not presumed to be sleeping with anyone else.
Now I suppose the law could say, “no one shall be deemed the father of any child without a paternity test,” but, to be fair, anyone who might be the father would be required to submit to a paternity test. But see, I’m not presuming (as such a law would have to) that all women are cheating on their partners.
As a pro-tip, snark ( e.g. “Thank you mistress may the cuckold have another”) should be somewhat believable. Since the situation being described is that of a woman saying, in public, “No, this kid isn’t yours”, and the specific case seems to imply “the cuckold” (who isn’t actually, since he has no obligation to the child… and so isn’t in the position of a cuckoo, i.e. rearing a child not his own), chose not to accept the burden, there doesn’t seem to be “another” to be had. Heck, there isn’t even this one.
As to the nonsense about the Immaculate Conception… you don’t understand that either. It doesn’t mean Mary conceived Jesus without sex. It means she was born without original sin, thus making her fit to carry the incarnate deity (thus making her alone among all of mankind to not have the taint of original sin. There is a lot of other oddities of dogma tied up in that, but they don’t concern us now. Since I doubt you will believe me, here’s a a link explains it all for you.
But… since you aren’t talking about that but spewing nonsense about the idea of children without sex… I thought a big part of the MRA deal was not being saddled with the children of, “sperm stealers”, so not having to be forced to declare paternity would seem to be a “men’s rights” issue that Calif. got right. But you are still complaining.
There’s just no pleasing some people.
CB: They can. It’s a bit of a nuisance, as the state presumes the mother knows who the father is, so the burden is actually that of disproving it.
There is some pressure to have unmarried women name a father, which the state has been known to use to chase down, “deadbeat dads/welfare cheats” if the mother ends up on some form of social assistance.
It gets ugly sometimes. As might be expected some of the break-ups aren’t amicable, and the fathers object to being billed for support. Since they are the declared parent, they are on the hook. They can’t, easily, get off the hook, even if a test shows them to be not the father.
The assumption is, they had the right to protest at the time, and by failing to do so, assumed the obligations which go with being a parent.
Yea just depends on who she wants to be the father and saddle with legal responsibilities. Thank you mistress may the cuckold have another
Your problem is that this particular case does not match up with your rhetoric. Baena and her husband separated shortly after the birth of the baby, and the ex was not told to pay any sort of child support. Schwarzenegger didn’t even know the child was his for at least a year, after the separation of Baena & her husband.
If you want to argue that there’s an epidemic of women cuckolding their husbands, you had better be able to back it up with data and examples that exist in the real world.
Besides, aren’t the men responsible for choosing to be with women who will cuckold them? I mean, really, they should have known better, just like MRAs always say women should have known better than to get with a guy who later turned out to be an abuser.
So, if cuckold comes from “cuckoo,” then why are they supposed to wear horns?
Well, most states will not allow a non-husband’s name placed on a birth certificate without his written permission anyways, so being un-named vs not present boils down to a pretty similar situation for fathers who are not married to the mother (even those who are in a relationship with the mother). Presumptive fatherhood means that the husband’s name goes on the birth certificate and barring evidence to the contrary, he is considered the father. In some states, if the husband acknowledges and raises the kid for a certain period, he has legal rights and responsibilities (but not in others-in some it just means that he has to demonstrate the kids are not his-and DNA tests make that fairly easy in most cases these days). Some states have similar rules about non-married men whose names are on the birth certificate, or parents who have acted as the parent for a certain period (usually at least a year). So, yes, a non-bio father might pay support, but in that case he also has rights to custody and visitation. Some men can and do only get custody of their kids via these laws. So, you have a tradeoff where some non-bio men who do not want the kids end up paying support and some non-bio men who do want the kids can get rights. It is not clear to me how such a system is automatically anti-men or anti-father’s rights, as some men and some fathers benefit from it, as do parents who use surrogacy and certain other reproductive technologies or sperm donation. I do wonder at the MRAs presumption that no non-bio father would ever actually want his kids, kids that he has raised for at least a year, minimum. “Whew, the blood test came back negative kids, good thing I don’t have to deal with you lot anymore”-is that really the default for non-bio dads who have been raising the kids? It is not in my experience, but, hey, I suspect the MRAs have a sort of sampling bias towards a-holes.
According to Wikipedia, the horns are supposed to be visible to everyone but the husband, since the husband is “always the last to know” about his unfaithful wife.
Also per Wikipedia, the female counterpart of “cuckold” is “cuckquean”.
The problem in a lot of these things seems to be that ppl get upset over their reading of the law (key being “their reading of”, everybody’s a google legal expert these days xD) which suggests that the law COULD be abused… but the facts suggest that ppl aren’t abusing it (if the interpretation and application of the law is as ppl think xD )
It doesn’t mean that maybe the law shouldn’t be altered if it needs altering, but why is everything always so hypothetical? :\ The great thing about real life is that it actually exists! :D It’s like… ppl arguing about weather it’s raining by using predictions and meterological science they googled when they could just go outside and find out if it’s raining! xD
Even in this situation there’s all this speculation about what might have happened, what could have happened and how the law might have, should have, could have, would have treated this… o_O;;
And at least for this particular situation, the facts seem to suggest that the basis for the upset feelings seem to be incorrect, b/c the assumption of facts was incorrect (as ppl have pointed out). Which is good! B/c it means this situation is NOT bad or awful in the way ppl thought and that means a real person is not entrapped as they thought he was! :D It doesn’t mean that there might not still be a giant problem, but this is not indicative of that, so the continual reaching is weird :( The great thing about theory is that if reality doesn’t fit, we can change the theory :) It’s like Yogi Berra says (gotta put in a baseball line SOMEWHERE right? :D Better than me talking about how Jose Bautista and his amazing OPS and somehow linking it to divorce law! xD (and I can, just you watch!) )
In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory, in practice, there is.
:D
And that is your Ami moment of super baseball awesome for the day xD
I work in a Vital Stats office (but not in CA, so take this comment with a grain of salt) and while I don’t typically process paternities, the person who does is in my unit, and I have occasionally filled in at that desk, so I have a pretty good working knowledge of how the birth certificate end of the whole paternity thing works in my state.
IN MY STATE, if the mother was married at any time between conception and birth, the husband is presumed to be the father of the child and his name is added to the record. If all parties are willing, there is a paternity form available that may be signed by the mother and the bio father (in the case of an unmarried woman) or by the mother, the bio father, and the mother’s husband (in the case of a married woman whose husband is not the father). If this form is completed by all parties, the husband’s name (if applicable) is removed from the record and the bio father’s name is added. From that point on the husband has no legal right or responsibility to the child.
If one or more parties is unwilling to sign the paternity papers, a DNA test may be done. The results may be turned in to the child support office, in which case that office will prepare an administrative order to remove the husband from the record if it is proven that he is not the father. They may also prepare orders to add the bio father to the birth record. When such an order is received by the vital stats office, the birth certificate is amended. DNA tests may also be brought to court, in which case a court order signed by a judge to establish or disestablish paternity is the usual result. Again, the birth certificate is amended upon receipt of such an order. (Vital Stats cannot accept DNA results directly, so a third party order is necessary.)
Again, that is all in my home state, which… is not Cali. XD
obv that should be “whether” not “weather” xD
The horns on the husband are from a different thing. The common stories are that the Minotaur’s horns showed that Mino’s wife was unfaithful.
It’s also alleged to be from stags butting to gain rivalry, and the idea that the losing stags horns are a sort of prize.
The idea of Roman legionairies being given horns for successful battle, but having been possessed of faithless wives I discount, because Roman soldiers didn’t marry, exactly, and the women they were involved with tended to be near the army.
Though, of course, what Arnie is talking about (with the snark) isn’t a cuckold, but a “wittol” one who knows his wife has been unfaithful, and either doesn’t care, or plans to take advantage of it for personal profit.
It fell out of favor when a French term (mari complaisant replaced it.
Oddly enough, the word, “condone” comes from the idea of the knowing husband, it was the legal term for a man knew of his wife’s infidelity, and did nothing about it. That made him something of an accomplice, and legally in the wrong.
Women, “wore willow” (as in the Steeleye Span song, “All around my hat”), or were referred to as, “grass widows”
“Arnie: Are you reading? No… I look at it again and I have to ask… can you read English.”
“The mother can’t say, “no, my husband isn’t the father, it’s so and so.” She has to actually prove the husband isn’t the father.”
“Why? Because (as a quirk of law) she’s not presumed to be sleeping with anyone else.”
“Now I suppose the law could say, “no one shall be deemed the father of any child without a paternity test,” but, to be fair, anyone who might be the father would be required to submit to a paternity test. But see, I’m not presuming (as such a law would have to) that all women are cheating on their partners.”
WOW!!!! I don’t think I’ve seen more cognitive dissidence in my life! Amazing!!!
“I thought a big part of the MRA deal was not being saddled with the children of, “sperm stealers”, so not having to be forced to declare paternity would seem to be a “men’s rights” issue that Calif. got right. But you are still complaining.”
No in my opinion and many other a paternity test should be conducted by default. Many men are reluctant to do so because of the implications it makes toward his wife or “significant other”
“There is some pressure to have unmarried women name a father, which the state has been known to use to chase down, “deadbeat dads”
There is nothing wrong with the male right to choose to have an abortion. If she doesn’t want the above problem then have an abortion otherwise supporting her family and HER child is her problem.
“It gets ugly sometimes. As might be expected some of the break-ups aren’t amicable, and the fathers object to being billed for support. Since they are the declared parent, they are on the hook. They can’t, easily, get off the hook, even if a test shows them to be not the father. The assumption is, they had the right to protest at the time, and by failing to do so, assumed the obligations which go with being a parent.”
This is why paternity tests should be a normal part of the process. A man should not have to request one thereby accusing his wife\ significant other of cheating.
“So, yes, a non-bio father might pay support, but in that case he also has rights to custody and visitation.”
OH BOY! Cuckold gets rights to be cuckold..thank you mistress.
“I do wonder at the MRAs presumption that no non-bio father would ever actually want his kids, kids that he has raised for at least a year, minimum. “Whew, the blood test came back negative kids, good thing I don’t have to deal with you lot anymore”-is that really the default for non-bio dads who have been raising the kids? It is not in my experience, but, hey, I suspect the MRAs have a sort of sampling bias towards a-holes.”
Ohhhhh cuckold will accept cuckolds place now mistress. I should want to raise other men’s children while I myself have been duped out of EVER having my own children..thank you mistress.
“IN MY STATE, if the mother was married at any time between conception and birth, the husband is presumed to be the father of the child and his name is added to the record.”
Yes mistress, cuckold knows his place. Cuckold will not ask for paternity test because cuckold is afraid of upsetting mistress. Cuckold knows paternity tests are not standard care.
By the way men have the right to an abortion of responsibility for any unwanted or unplanned conception…just letting you know.
Deadbeat is not an acceptable term for a man who wants to abort within a given time period. It is also not acceptable for a man to be expected to support a woman’s family or a woman’s children. After divorce (and by implication during) children are women’s property. There is no reason that a man’s body and the fruits of his labor should be her’s as well.
Contrary to popular belief conception and sex is not something a man does to a woman but a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility or, in the case of abortion, the mutual right to absolve oneself from this responsibility.
“So, yes, a non-bio father might pay support, but in that case he also has rights to custody and visitation.”
OH BOY! Cuckold gets rights to be cuckold..thank you mistress.
I know several men who have adopted children, and love them as much as they do their bio-children. In one case, the adoptive father retained primary custody even after divorcing the child’s mother (they were both still involved and loving parents, custody was mostly a matter of logistics and not wanting the kid to change schools – you know, that whole ‘in the best interests of the child’ thing that mature adults are capable of doing). In another case, the non-bio-dad went so far as to pay for his son, who wasn’t even legally adopted by him, to fly cross-country for visits after he and the mom broke up. Years later, that guy stood in the place traditionally reserved for bio-dads when the grown kid got married.
So it’s not like men are cold, emotionless beings who are only capable of loving people whom they are either fucking or related to by blood. Some men are indeed capable of forming loving, supportive parent-child relationships with children they are not related to. And if a man devotes a few years of his life and resources to parenting a child who is not his, and develops a close relationship with the kid, why *shouldn’t* he be able to retain some parental rights if the relationship with the mother goes awry?
And when it comes to a paternity test, who pays for it? The State? I thought MRAs were screaming and crying rather constantly about the Nanny State getting too involved in private lives. Also, there’s a pretty big gap in your logic. You claim that many women are having children by men other than their husband, and this could be proven with a paternity test. But you also say that it should be mandated by law to be standard upon the birth of the infant, because men are too weak to ask for one (and accuse their partner of infidelity by implication). But if the woman is cheating on you, wouldn’t you want to leave anyway, to avoid caring for a kid who’s not yours? You’re basically implying that there are a lot of cases where the woman isn’t cheating on her spouse/babydaddy, and would react (understandably) poorly to accusation that she is, and that this accusation might be enough to end the relationship.
I’m not sure what the legalities are, but would it be legal to get a paternity test on the down low? I mean, infant DNA should not be that difficult to acquire. It shouldn’t be hard to get a sample and quietly send it in to a testing company if you’re that paranoid.
Aw, all that trouble I went through describing the process of having hubby removed and bio-dad added (if all parties are willing to sign, you even get it FREE within 90 days of the birth) and the only part you hear is the part where hubby goes on the record in the first place. -sigh-
Anybody who knows better can correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t a husband request a private paternity test after the baby was born without the wife knowing? I thought that was an option for suspicious fathers.
“I know several men who have adopted children, and love them as much as they do their bio-children.”
Uh huh…go ahead and make your case for it. This is what I expected…zero accountability. Can you at least admit that it is wrong and that men should have some form of protection? How about mandatory paternity tests at birth. Feminists would go ape shit over that one. The ACFC is having a hard enough time fighting feminist lobbyists for shared parenting rights for men.
Personally I would advocate that men not become emotionally close to any children, not even their own.