2009 November 20 Friday
Biologically Intact Family Gets Child Support Payments

Truly an amazing and disgusting story: “I pay child support to a biologically intact family”.

For four years, Mike had known that the girl he had rocked to sleep and danced with across the living-room floor was not, as they say, “his.” The revelation from a DNA test was devastating and prompted him to leave his wife — but he had not renounced their child. He continued to feel that in all the ways that mattered, she was still his daughter, and he faithfully paid her child support. It was only when he learned that his ex-wife was about to marry the man who she said actually was the girl’s biological father that Mike flipped. Supporting another man’s child suddenly became unbearable.

Two years after filing the suit that sought to end his paternal rights, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. “I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”

Is the Law fair? Not remotely. Guys, be careful. Love isn't a battlefield. Love is a minefield.

Roissy advocates mandatory paternity testing at birth. I agree.

This is why I support mandatory paternity testing (MPT) at birth. MPT would completely negate the risk of having to choose between loyalty to a child to whom the father has already bonded, and walking away to leave the child to the whore mother to raise. It’s a simple procedure that would intrude on no one’s rights or emotional well-being, similar to how the state requires driver’s tests for people who want the privilege of driving. By making it mandatory, all issues of trust are rendered moot. If it’s discovered the child isn’t his, the father is legally absolved of any further paternal or marital obligations, and is welcome to exit the marriage without having to pay one red cent to the bitch.

The guy Mike above feels emotionally bonded to his non-daughter. How cruel is nature to give him an emotional matrix that makes him feel that way? How cruel is his ex-wife? He'd have been far better off to find out right after the birth so that he could file for divorce before the wife left the hospital.

On a related note, I'm currently reading Geoffrey Miller's Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior. For realists about human nature the book is an informative synthesis of what is known about how we seek status by buying things. People waste a lot of money buying things to signal status that do not do much (if anything) to raise their status in the minds of potential mates and other observers. The book will help you understand your buying impulses and think more rationally about your desires.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2009 November 20 11:20 AM  Cultural Wars Marriage


Comments
Mthson said at November 20, 2009 1:35 PM:

Now that these things are known, smart guys will let their partners know early on in the relationship that any children will receive paternity testing, just as good policy.

However, is genetic relatedness really a meaningful basis for emotional bonding? Cognitively and ideologically, I have nothing in common with either of my parents. It seems like we interpret genetic relatedness as a metaphor, in the same way study participants feel closer to other participants when they're told they have some of the same numbers in their social security numbers.

Marky Mark said at November 21, 2009 3:52 AM:

@Mthson - Mmm..not sure that conversation would go well. Telling a women that you want paternity testing for any kids basically means that you're saying that you like her and that the relationship might progress but that you don't trust her not to sleep around like a whore. The sort of good/faithful woman that you are after is more than likely to take this as a direct attack on her and a statement that you don't trust her (which is not far off the mark). The woman you don't want may well just laugh it off.

Are you gonna get the second kid tested too?

Gotta be 100 and 1 ways better ways to find out if you can trust a woman.

MaryJ said at November 21, 2009 8:08 AM:

The real victim in this case is the little girl, who will grow up with horrible psychological scars because of her mother's foolish actions.

Marky Mark: If my husband asked for a paternity test I would file divorce papers tomorrow.

Bob Badour said at November 21, 2009 11:04 AM:
If my husband asked for a paternity test I would file divorce papers tomorrow.

Only because divorce law is so anti-male. I feel sorry for your husband. You show you are aware you have the means for control and the willingness to use it. At least a fox or a wolf can chew off his leg to escape. As Randall's article reveals, no such escape exists for the American male.

Didn't someone recently ask you a poignant question about this very issue of anti-male laws discouraging fatherhood, and how it relates to preserving the culture? (Or do I have you mixed up with someone else?) Regardless, I guess we have your answer. You are more interested in control and personal power over others than in preserving the American culture.

Bob Badour said at November 21, 2009 11:23 AM:

Then again, your husband wouldn't have to ask: All it takes is a couple quick cheek swabs when you are not around.

If he works out of the house, he could have the results sent to his work. If the results came back negative, the law would still screw him, but at least he wouldn't be the one coming home to an empty house to find all his money moved into someone else's bank account.

Mthson said at November 21, 2009 11:23 AM:

Interesting. Thanks for the feedback Marky Mark and MaryJ.

If there was a way to test my fidelity (or anything else about me), I couldn't care less if my spouse insisted on it. It just looks like rational risk management to me.

MaryJ said at November 21, 2009 12:28 PM:

Only because divorce law is so anti-male. I feel sorry for your husband.
---

Well, we've already established that you are not marriage material Bob so I don't see that you have the experience to post knowledgeably on the subject.

My husband doesn't have any reason to suspect infidelity; he chose me on the basis of my character, achievement, and intelligence: not on "evo-psych" principles. It doesn't surprise me that the Roissy crowd is terrified of being cuckholded, because they don't choose their partners for character, achievement, or intelligence; they only want hot, young "fertile" pussy. They say this all the time, they have no intersst in women of character, virtue or accomplishment; they only care about biology. They are in fact prisoners of their "evo-pscyh" ideology. They attract greedy, reductive and selfish women because they themselves are greedy, selfish, and reductive. You usually get the partner you deserve -- that's been my experience. (The guy in the article sounds like he might be an innocent victim, but I also have to wornder, what's wrong with him that he picked such a dishonest spouse?) Did he select for biology, or for brains and character?

I don't see why decent and virtuous women should suffer a public and humiliating invasion of their privacy because Roissyites are incompetent at choosing their spouses. The Roissyites have zero sympathy for women who choose poor spouses, so why should I have sympathy for men who do the same? My sympathy is for the little girl.

MaryJ said at November 21, 2009 12:29 PM:

Only because divorce law is so anti-male. I feel sorry for your husband.
---

Well, we've already established that you are not marriage material Bob so I don't see that you have the experience to post knowledgeably on the subject.

My husband doesn't have any reason to suspect infidelity; he chose me on the basis of my character, achievement, and intelligence: not on "evo-psych" principles. It doesn't surprise me that the Roissy crowd is terrified of being cuckholded, because they don't choose their partners for character, achievement, or intelligence; they only want hot, young "fertile" pussy. They say this all the time, they have no intersst in women of character, virtue or accomplishment; they only care about biology. They are in fact prisoners of their "evo-pscyh" ideology. They attract greedy, reductive and selfish women because they themselves are greedy, selfish, and reductive. You usually get the partner you deserve -- that's been my experience. (The guy in the article sounds like he might be an innocent victim, but I also have to wornder, what's wrong with him that he picked such a dishonest spouse?) Did he select for biology, or for brains and character?

I don't see why decent and virtuous women should suffer a public and humiliating invasion of their privacy because Roissyites are incompetent at choosing their spouses. The Roissyites have zero sympathy for women who choose poor spouses, so why should I have sympathy for men who do the same? My sympathy is for the little girl.

Bob Badour said at November 21, 2009 12:34 PM:

With all due respect, no person of character would threaten to tear apart his or her own family and threaten to harm his or her own children when asked to demonstrate his or her own character in a process that doesn't even require his or her own involvement.

Bob Badour said at November 21, 2009 12:37 PM:

P.S. Why does a little girl living in an intact home with both her parents require sympathy? I should think many other children have greater need for it.

MaryJ said at November 21, 2009 12:41 PM:

If he works out of the house, he could have the results sent to his work. If the results came back negative, the law would still screw him, but at least he wouldn't be the one coming home to an empty house to find all his money moved into someone else's bank account.
---
Not that it's any of your business, but I make almost as much money as hubby, and have always contributed to our financial success. I am also a person of honor, and I would never treat anyone the way some of these men say they have been treated by their bimbo wives. I'm an excellent wife. However, the Roissy crowd would have turned up their noses at me, because when I married at 35 I was a "used up" "old" woman who didn't have "high sexual market value." They would have ridiculed my husband, who is some years younger than myself, as a "herb" or an "omega" for "settling" for a "low market value" spouse like me.

15 years later, hubby is a relatively wealthy man with a wife who's capable of carrying him if he loses his job, a loving and faithful partner, and a child whose parternity he doesn't have to question. Many of the men we know who went for the "high sexual market value" wives aren't nearly so lucky.

Bob Badour said at November 21, 2009 12:44 PM:

P.P.S. While my ex-wife has her flaws, as we all do, she has far more character than you do. I don't feel at all sorry for the father of her children. My loss was his gain.

MaryJ said at November 21, 2009 12:46 PM:

With all due respect, no person of character would threaten to tear apart his or her own family and threaten to harm his or her own children when asked to demonstrate his or her own character in a process that doesn't even require his or her own involvement.
---
Bob, since your experience with marriage and partnership is limited, I doubt if I could explain it to you. And what's with the "all due respect" crap? You post very little here that is respectful toward the other posters, and it's not just me who attracts your rudeness.
--
P.S. Why does a little girl living in an intact home with both her parents require sympathy? I should think many other children have greater need for it.
--
The little girl loves the daddy who raised her, not the "biological" one, and is now an emotional football being tossed around amongst three selfish, self-centered adults.

MaryJ said at November 21, 2009 12:51 PM:

P.P.S. While my ex-wife has her flaws, as we all do, she has far more character than you do.
---
You don't even know me, so you are hardly in a position to judge, and yes I am quite proud of my character. It doesn't surpise me that you were unable to sustain a successful marriage. However it's a moot point, as hubby would never even consider asking. He's not a creepy bioreductionist like most of Roissy's admirers.

Bob Badour said at November 21, 2009 12:51 PM:

A "loving and faithful partner" has no legitimate objection a paternity test and has no reason to consider the paternity of her children an issue of privacy to keep secret from her partner. Isn't it more correct to say your husband is not allowed to question the paternity of his children than to say he has no need to?

MaryJ said at November 21, 2009 12:56 PM:

No, it's not because he knows he doesn't have a need to. Your understanding of human relationships is limited and bizarre. But go ahead, if you should ever be lucky enough to be able to attract another wife and actually reproduce, feel free to ask her for that paternity test. It's no skin off my nose; I just feel sorry for her.

Bob Badour said at November 21, 2009 1:20 PM:
what's with the "all due respect" crap?

Unlike some people, I have neither the intention nor the desire to express disrespect even when I point out someone's obvious denial or self-delusion. It's not like I made your character an issue: You did. You may have personalized the issue to cut off discussion, or maybe you really are the narcissist someone recently accused you of being. I don't know.

If you feel it is rude when someone points out an obvious contradiction in a highly personalized statement you made, I suggest you stop making highly personalized statements -- especially ones so obviously and demonstrably false. Your attempts at character assassination and false accusations of rudeness do not faze me.

No person of character would threaten to harm her child over anything so allegedly inconsequential. No loving partner would even think of depriving the father of her children a little reassurance and piece of mind when he expresses the need.

You don't even know me

Obviously, that cuts both ways: I don't particularly admire Roissy.

I know my ex-wife well enough to know she would not threaten to harm her own child over anything so inconsequential as a paternity test.

and yes I am quite proud of my character.

Demonstrably false pride.

MaryJ said at November 21, 2009 1:35 PM:

If you feel it is rude when someone points out an obvious contradiction in a highly personalized statement you made, I suggest you stop making highly personalized statements -- especially ones so obviously and demonstrably false. Your attempts at character assassination and false accusations of rudeness do not faze me.
--
It amazes me that you continually think you can somehow strike up a fruitful dialog with anyone given the kind of responses you habitually make, and your inability to respond in a civil and constructive way. Your feeble attempt to excuse your habitual rudeness by posting some false line of reasoning doesn't faze me either. You are a nasty piece of work, and a dishonest debater to boot.

Demonstrably false pride.
--
I'm sure I have my flaws, but my character is quite intact thank you very much.
--
No loving partner would even think of depriving the father of her children a little reassurance and piece of mind when he expresses the need.
--
No loving partner would "express the need". Personally, such a request would hurt me tremendously, and I would lose quite a bit of respect for my husband if he did. Our marriage would be seriously harmed. Luckily my husband is not a creepy, selfish, greedy and reductive Roissyite.


Bob Badour said at November 21, 2009 2:03 PM:

I reiterate: False accusations of rudeness and attempts at character assassination do not faze me.

my character is quite intact thank you very much.

I reiterate: No person of character would threaten to harm her own child and tear her family apart over anything so inconsequential as a paternity test. Did you not assert: "If my husband asked for a paternity test I would file divorce papers tomorrow." ?

No loving partner would "express the need".

Partnerships require open communication. Partners can and must express their needs in a partnership. If one partner is prohibited from expressing his needs, no real partnership even exists.

such a request would hurt me tremendously

If a husband and wife are both loving partners and the husband has such a need, the husband would prepare and take great pains to present the request in a non-hurtful manner, and the wife would make an effort to see the husband's perspective. She would quickly get over any disappointment she feels.

I would lose quite a bit of respect for my husband if he did. Our marriage would be seriously harmed.

That's certainly a more measured statement than your 1st one on the topic. It still leaves me feeling for your husband, though.

P.S. I have very fruitful dialogs with a lot of people here. Most of them do not go out of their way to make everything personal and to take everything personally.

roissy said at November 21, 2009 3:24 PM:

mary j bilge:
"If my husband asked for a paternity test I would file divorce papers tomorrow."

your husband should be so lucky.

Bill Alden said at November 26, 2009 11:30 AM:

** "Now that these things are known, smart guys will let their partners know early on in the relationship that any children will receive paternity testing, just as good policy." **

How about not telling her then just getting the paternity test on your own? It's fine to want definitive proof, but I'd never tell her to her face that I didn't trust her.

Our child support laws in this country are a joke. They come from a time when there was no way of knowing who the real father was (or, at least, wasn't). They need to embrace the modern era, where we can actually determine such things.

I remember seeing an episode of Donahue or Oprah or some show where a paternity test proved the child didn't belong to the alleged father. The man didn't want to pay child support, but the woman wouldn't let him off the hook. The audience booed...the man.

Randall Parker said at November 26, 2009 4:49 PM:

Bill,

Remember the amoral bitches who want cuckolded guys to pay for another guy's kids. Remember their amorality.

The NY Times article I linked says that 30% of the guys who get paternity testing done find they aren't the father.

MaryJ said at November 27, 2009 7:03 PM:

roissy the creepy bioreductionist wrote: mary j bilge:
"If my husband asked for a paternity test I would file divorce papers tomorrow."

your husband should be so lucky.
---
My husband IS lucky. He has a loving and faithful wife, a beautiful child, a fat bank account. You have none of those things. (Okay, maybe you have a fat bank account, but probably not as fat as ours.) Your childish attempt at name-calling (mary j. bilge) is duly noted and not really considered impressive.
--
Bob wrote: If a husband and wife are both loving partners and the husband has such a need, the husband would prepare and take great pains to present the request in a non-hurtful manner, and the wife would make an effort to see the husband's perspective. She would quickly get over any disappointment she feels.
--
There's no real way you can present such a request in a "non-hurtful way," especially to a woman who has never given any indication that she has ever been unfaithful. You are living in a fantasy world if you think that, frankly.
--
Most of them do not go out of their way to make everything personal and to take everything personally.
--
Just a suggestion, but if you don't want people to "take everything personally," then don't make highly personal remarks to them.

--
Randall: Remember the amoral bitches who want cuckolded guys to pay for another guy's kids. Remember their amorality.
--
Again, why should decent women suffer because some men choose poor marriage partners? If they picked with their brains instead of their dicks, maybe they would get better, more trustworthy spouses. I find it odd that you want mandated government intervention in this most personal issue, while at the same time, usually promote limited government instrusion in other areas.

However, It's really nothing to do with us normal, decent, family-oriented people, raising our families, loving our spouses and children, and building our communities. You roissyites can live alone in your sad, lonely little paranoid worlds of bio-reductionism all you want -- it has nothing to do with us. It's strange how all of you unmarried, childless men who constantly complain that women don't want you think you are experts on family relationships. Live a life, raise a child, prove that you can give love and receive it, and then come back and talk.

Bob Badour said at November 27, 2009 7:51 PM:
Just a suggestion, but if you don't want people to "take everything personally," then don't make highly personal remarks to them.

With all due respect, MaryJ, I don't give a flying fuck if you take things personally. I am just as happy either way. If you make highly personal statements that are demonstrably false, don't be too surprised when someone else points out the contradiction. If you want to have a hissy fit over it, have a hissy fit over it. I don't care.

If you think you heard me complain about anything, you are hallucinating. But I guess that should come as no surprise--you also have some psychotic fantasy that I am a "roissyite", whatever that is. Frankly, I could not care any less whether or how some blogger gets laid or claims to get laid. Get a grip, woman! Get real.

MaryJ said at November 28, 2009 12:00 PM:

I don't think you are a "roissyite" Bob, I took you at your word when you said you weren't. I just think you're rude sometimes.

Why do you think that commentary was directed at you? It was just a general commentary about the attitudes of the sort of people, er men, who follow that particular line of thinking.

I was merely pointing out your habit of lobbing personal attacks at people, that's all. Which you do, usually out of left field. I find some of your other commentary quite valuable and intelligent, and it sort of perplexes me that you take these personal attack routes sometimes.

Bob Badour said at November 28, 2009 1:50 PM:
Why do you think that commentary was directed at you?

You made similar comments in other messages that were directed primarily at me and especially in messages where you made comments about my marriage status as if that conveyed some sort of judgment I should care about. I asserted long ago in an entirely different comment thread that the attitude you express when you do so merely demonstrates your bigotry, prejudice and closed-mindedness. Apparently, you consider those indicators of character instead of character defects.

You included the "roissyite" comment in a post, at least partially addressed to me, juxtaposed to a comment about unmarried, childless men, and in a sentence that reiterates your small-minded prejudices about people who live alone. I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that you included me among the men you were trying so hard and yet so feebly to dismiss or put down.

Etiquette is not a weapon by which an individual or individuals may have license to stifle discussion and silence alternative viewpoints in an open forum. I have been entirely civil toward you. It is not uncivil to respond to a highly personalized comment in an open discussion. If you don't like replies to highly personal and demonstrably false statements, stop making them.

As for rudeness, almost everything you write is vitriol. You are projecting.

MaryJ said at November 28, 2009 2:44 PM:

You included the "roissyite" comment in a post, at least partially addressed to me, juxtaposed to a comment about unmarried, childless men, and in a sentence that reiterates your small-minded prejudices about people who live alone. I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that you included me among the men you were trying so hard and yet so feebly to dismiss or put down.
--
The comment was a response to something Randall wrote and wasn't even addressed to you. I don't write vitriol although I admit that I can be rude to people who are rude to me. You almost always throw the first punch and invite a competitive response in turn. Look back at your own posts objectively and you will see this is true. Look at the posts you directed at the commentators in one of the Afghanistan threads. Completely disproportionate to the commentary.

About the comments about unmarried men, I don't find it prejudicial to point out that people who don't have a good track record in pursuing personal relationships are not in a good position to offer advice about the same subject (this is NOT directed at you). I don't find it "bigotted" that men who complain constantly (again, this is NOT directed at you) that they have no chance of getting married and fathering children are that way mostly because of their own poor choices and ideological leanings.

It seems like a no-brainer to me. However if it upsets you so much, don't post to me and I won't post to you. Problem solved.

MaryJ said at November 28, 2009 2:49 PM:

As for mandatory paternity testing, on second consideration I would go along with that, if we could also make it legal for women to sue men for lying to and cheating them in order to get sex from them. Call it "sexual fraud" or something like that. That would have the positive effect of freeing up more undamaged women for decent men to marry, and would cut down on the necessity of paternity suits at the same time. A win-win for all concerned.

RealityKnows said at November 28, 2009 5:48 PM:

MaryJ says her husband has a faithful wife. So, if we take her at her word, she is not currently cheating on him. She does not say that she has never cheated on said husband. Nor does she say that she never will.

The fact that she says that her husband "has no reason" to be suspicious does not reassure. In fact, her choice of words leads me to believe that he should be very careful. Having dealt with many cheating women, I can attest to the fact that accomplished women in their 30s and 40s who have trusting (i.e. naive) husbands are much more likely to cheat on their husbands. And such women have very little respect for their husbands.

I almost feel sorry for MaryJ's husband.

Bob Badour said at November 28, 2009 6:16 PM:
since your experience with marriage and partnership is limited, I doubt if I could explain it to you
live alone in your sad, lonely little paranoid worlds

Nope, no ignorant prejudice there. Couldn't possibly be any.

I live alone. My world is not sad, lonely, little or paranoid. I feel sorry for you, and I feel doubly sorry for your husband.

wasn't even addressed to you.

Then why did my name appear before it in the same post?

Look back at your own posts objectively and you will see this is true.

I do look back at my own posts. I see nothing of the sort. I see you making highly personal statements to stifle conversation and to silence alternative viewpoints.

I have no idea what you mean by "one of the Afghanistan threads". Is that the one where I expressed my well-informed opinion that Bush is stupid and evil?

It seems like a no-brainer to me. However if it upsets you so much, don't post to me and I won't post to you. Problem solved.

Um, let's see: You post highly personal statements about yourself to stifle discussion and your proposed solution for that is for me not to reply. I agree: That sounds brainless.

RealityKnows said at November 28, 2009 6:20 PM:

Interesting: womensinfidelity.com

MaryJ said at November 28, 2009 7:17 PM:

Bob,

"since your experience with marriage and partnership is limited, I doubt if I could explain it to you" -- this comment was made after you personally attacked me, i.e. threw the first punch. What did you expect? You alredy said in the other thread that you liked living alone, didn't have much experience with women, and were happy that you weren't a father. Did you not expect anyone to take you at your word?

The other comment I made appears after Randall's name. Not after yours. You misread that part of the post completley. Secondly, my other comments were not directed at unmarried or living alone people in general; they were directed at the unmarried men who post on certain websites and who are admirers of roissy etc. In general they do come off as sad, lonely and paranoid, not to mention bitter, hateful and immature. Next time I make such a comment I'll be certain to include a parens which states (this comment is not directed at you, Bob).

Reality Knows: I've never cheated on my husband, nor would I. Sorry if your mate cheated on you, sounds like she left quite a scar. Maybe you should look into your heart and ask yourself why you are so poor at picking your mates. Why exactly did you chose your cheating mate over a more trustworthy one?

RealityKnows said at November 28, 2009 8:27 PM:

On the contrary, MaryJ, many women have cheated on their significant others with me so I know not to trust them. It's been my experience, that when women cheat on their mates, they feel NO REMORSE. None. In fact, they often blame their "nice guy" husbands for their decision to cheat. It's always the guy's fault.

In case you're wondering, they do the chasing. And the less you care about the involved woman, and the greater the danger of being caught, the more she will chase after you. This applies especially to "happily married", financially secure women. This isn't based on theory, it's based on experience (i.e. fact).

If a man doesn't test for paternity, he's a sucker in the making.

MaryJ said at November 28, 2009 8:48 PM:

On the contrary, MaryJ, many women have cheated on their significant others with me so I know not to trust them.
--
Oh, okay, then you're a creepy dishonest slut with no morals who destroys other men's marraiges (and just because you didn't initiate it doesn't excuse it) who's not capable of initiating or sustaining a decent family life or LTR, and I can safely ignore your unsupported attacks on me and mine. That's sorted then, as the British people say. Nothing to do with the decent girl-scout-raising families who inhabit my boring little social sphere. Carry on.

RealityKnows said at November 28, 2009 9:18 PM:

Oh, okay, then you're a creepy dishonest slut with no morals who destroys other men's marraiges
==
Gee, MaryJ, thanks for helping me expose your double standards for all. Your vitriolic outburst has laid bare your bias for all to see.

Such strong language against a male enabler of infidelity. But tolerance and acceptance of behavior by female initiators. You rail against a smart precaution that reduces the likelihood of being taken for love and treasure by a dishonest woman but blow your top at less dishonest behavior because it comes from a man.

As I stated earlier, it's ALWAYS the guy's fault.

The women who leave their happy homes to chase down another man are obviously victims. Dainty victims caught up in circumstances they couldn't possibly have engineered. No need to address the fact these women consciously and deliberately abused their husbands' and their children's trust. The cuckolded men are simply bystanders. Maybe the men even deserve dishonesty because (in your world) men are disposable pawns.

Nasty words and bias aside, women (including soccer moms) cheat as often as men. More coldly and more efficiently than men. And usually without guilt. When they are caught, their protestations are shrill and they use words like "creepy" and "dishonest."

Their usual excuse: "It just happened" or a convenient equivalent.

My original statement stands: a man who does not test his children is a SUCKER.

Bob Badour said at November 28, 2009 9:29 PM:
threw the first punch.

Punch? I think the person who called you a narcissist was probably right. As sorry as I feel for you and for your husband, I am truly horrified for your children.

You alredy said in the other thread that you liked living alone, didn't have much experience with women, and were happy that you weren't a father. Did you not expect anyone to take you at your word?

I do like living alone. I have enough experience with women. I am happy I am not a father. I can tell when you say things like the above that you are trying very, very hard to say something hurtful. I don't feel hurt by them, which is why I noted they are so feeble.

Secondly, my other comments were not directed at unmarried or living alone people in general

On their face, they were directed at everyone living alone, and even if they were not, I don't see how that would make the statements any less ignorant, bigoted, or prejudiced. A direct analogue to your method would be to denigrate all women and then say: "Well, it wasn't directed at you but at those other women over there."

Let's face it: You are ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced and vehemently proud of it.

In general they do come off as sad, lonely and paranoid, not to mention bitter, hateful and immature.

I have seen some of the people you direct that vitriol at, and I can say with certainty they come off in no such way. You project your own sadness, loneliness, paranoia, bitterness, hatred and immaturity onto them.

I'll be certain to include a parens which states (this comment is not directed at you, Bob)

And if the statement is ignorant, bigoted or prejudiced, I reserve the right to note and to assert so regardless.

Oh, okay, then you're a creepy dishonest slut with no morals...

More projection?

Bob Badour said at November 29, 2009 8:29 AM:
The other comment I made appears after Randall's name. Not after yours.

The comment appears after Roissy's name, my name, and Randall's name. And Roissy's name appears earlier in the post than mine does. Are you saying your comment was directed solely at Randall and not at Roissy?

You seem to want to paint me as jumping to some unreasonable conclusion. I jumped to a conclusion, but it was an entirely reasonable one to jump to. You also try to paint me as upset when I am anything but. I find such sophistry weak.

Regardless, as I noted in my first post here, you demonstrate 1) the knowledge that you have means for control over your husband and 2) the willingness to use those means. Off-hand, I can think of nothing more stark you could have done to confirm and to validate the points made by Roissy and RealityKnows.

I am too lazy to go back and check. Wasn't it RealityKnows who asked you a poignant question in another comment thread about your plans to preserve the culture by making family law in the US less overtly anti-male so that more American men will want to start families? Do you acknowledge that you proved his point for him?

Laban Tall said at February 12, 2010 4:45 PM:

For God's sake, you lot above ! It's like when my children argue with each other at the tea table ... you said x so that means you must be y ... well if I'm y then you're z .... give it a break !

weisteger said at September 5, 2012 3:07 PM:

Am weisteger from Germany, there is a spell caster i saw his info online, his email is vudoospell@gmaill.com, i tried contacting this is the great man and he help me solve all my problem he helped me
bring back my ex girl friend back whom i cheated on and at thesame time
he helped me got a good job he is realy a great spell caster to rely on, I believe he can help you solve any kind of problem if you can contact him. I know you would surely have doubt like i did, but as i gave in a little faith to his work, things changed for good.

alain smithee said at February 7, 2013 11:52 AM:

As a man with an unfaithful ex-wife, I agree that paternity testing should be mandatory at birth.

A woman always knows that the child is hers, but the man has to trust that the child is his.

With the infidelity and divorce rate in "modern" societies, it's time for both partners to protect themselves.

Besides, Maury, Jerry Springer, and all of the "reality" shows that center on "finding the father" would be off the air for lack of subject matter.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©