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.
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.