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.
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! 😀 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! 😀 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? 😀 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.
😀
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.
“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.”
Wow! How the winds do change when it suits you. How about going over to ACFC and sign the shared parenting petition?? Aye? How-a-bout it : ) Let’s see what you’re really made of.
What does what you quoted have anything to do with the petition? Or winds?
“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.”
Ohhhhh not a chance virtually all healthcare funding is reserved for women. This must be why you have 7 or more federal offices on your health. Not so much as a paternity test will be alloted for men.
Personally I would advocate that men not become emotionally close to any children, not even their own.
Wow, it must suck to be you.
“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?”
Yep, this is exactly what many men would do. Feminists will fight against anything of the sort just like they fight against shared parenting.