Your Ad Here
2013 January 21 Monday
Man Wins Suit Was Tricked Into Raising Babies Not His Own

Richard Rodwell wins a civil suit in Britain for being tricked into raising kids not really his own.

A husband has won £25,000 in damages for “bereavement” after his wife tricked him into believing children whom he raised until they were teenagers were his rather than the products of affairs.

The £25,000 seems like small potatoes considering the time and money involved. Guys, get your babies genetically tested by a company like 23andme.com. Don't wait to make a big investment in time and money. Find out right away. It is a prudent thing to do anyway just in case of genetic defects that need medical treatment.

Update: Paternity testing should be required.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2013 January 21 09:01 PM 


Comments
Tom West said at January 22, 2013 9:05 AM:

This has got to be the world's worst marital advice.

If you don't trust your partner to be faithful to you, then don't get married, and for goodness sake, don't have children.

Of course, in any marriage, there is the possibility of misplaced trust. But if you cannot stand the idea of taking the risk of trusting your judgement, then you're not a candidate for a successful marriage.

(Equally, if you're not prepared to have friends visit your house without keeping them under surveillance to stop them from stealing things, you're not ready to have friends visit your house.)

Glengarry said at January 22, 2013 10:49 AM:

That's some good, solid, experienced shaming there, Tom. Are you a marital counselor by any chance?

Any women who have been abused by their husbands? Golly, you shouldn't have married him. You might just not be a candidate for a successful marriage.

Tom West said at January 22, 2013 11:53 AM:

Any women who have been abused by their husbands? Golly, you shouldn't have married him.

I'm not sure how you jump from "a marriage won't succeed without a presumption of trustworthiness" to "blaming someone whose trust was betrayed". The two sentiments aren't even related outside of the use of the word trust.

No sane person marries (or God forbid, has children with) someone they don't implicitly trust.

However, as I explicitly said, it is possible for it to turn out that one's trust was misplaced.

If one is confronted with evidence, then the marriage is pretty much dead and one takes whatever precautions are necessary. But that is *hugely* difference from assuming one's spouse's untrustworthiness from the get-go.

Vektor said at January 22, 2013 1:31 PM:

The issue isn't trust. This kind of betrayal has been happening forever and will continue to happen without countermeasures: (male birth control actually evolves beyond condoms or surgery), or legal/financial disincentives: (like this story).

The most interesting this about the story is the official recognition that:
1: the man was wronged and was the 'victim'
2: the woman's actions were a clear betrayal worthy of sanction.

This is far from equality in regards to divorce laws, but it a step in the right direction. IMO.

McNeil said at January 22, 2013 1:47 PM:

Tom, you are kind of naive, teenage naive, to say the least.

Like the immense majority of humans, one day the need will come to you. The need to either get married and/or produce your own children which you will feel as an extension of yourself that will continue living after you're gone. Then, right after you have had your children you will remember how you use to think back in 2013. Then you're probably going to be biting your fingernails, wondering if one of "your" children is really yours. Ouch!


Perhaps -if you're a male- you'll say that your intention is just to get laid and if the woman you're boning gets pregnant, you'll just walk away. Right? Well, but even if you do run away safe, something inside you will be wondering how and where that child of yours is growing; how he/she is growing; how that beautiful person is being used, and of course, how he/she might be treated by a stepfather. Ouch! Ouch!


Check it Out said at January 22, 2013 4:46 PM:

"No sane person marries (or God forbid, has children with) someone they don't implicitly trust."

Anybody who accepts marriage is saying "You can trust me", implicitly, simply because marriage is based ON TRUST and FAITHFULNESS. Marriage is not only based on a blessing, but it is a legal agreement and not complying with it or having mental reservations or hiding a relevant truth that goes against such agreement, should have some kind of exemplary punishment.

I think tha man should receive alimony or at least some kind of fair compensation for making a man waste an important part of his life. We should start by exposing the case all over the web, like in youtube.

Vektor said at January 22, 2013 5:44 PM:

Trust in another is not a static proposition. People change. People are exposed to different situations. You may have a wife who is normally very trustworthy...as long as she is not exposed to temptation. Or maybe in marriage years 1-6 she is wonderful and trustworthy person, but in year 7 she is starting to get bored and/or question herself if she is 'fulfilled'. Having kids changes you. Getting older changes you.

In my experience, I have met more that a few people who I would label as hardcore narcissists. The kind of people who have no difficulty telling straight-faced lies...but the majority of the time, they appear and act completely 'normal'. It just takes the right kinds of life stimuli to bring it out. I have known many women who I would say could justify, in their own minds, virtually any act.

This woman in the linked story, probably started out as a good wife....a 'trustworthy' wife. What she did...is probably the worst thing a woman can do to a man. Not to mention how messed up the kids will be. However, I am glad it ended up as it did. If the roles were reversed, he would certainly be demonized. Hell, in the US he would have to continue to pay child support for another man's kids.

Here is another take on the issue: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/beta-of-the-month-when-you-cant-hide-it/


Tom West said at January 23, 2013 10:57 AM:

Vektor: The issue isn't trust. This kind of betrayal has been happening forever and will continue to happen without countermeasures

True. But the cost of countermeasures proposed (don't trust your spouse ever), far, far outweigh the benefit of detection of the odd betrayal. Again, I'll say it. If you think people are so untrustworthy that you need "to be sure" by getting DNA tests, then you do not have enough trust for a successful marriage (at least by any metric I'd use).

Betrayal by friends stealing things from one's house has also occurred forever. That doesn't mean that conducting a strip-search when they leave is a good idea, even if it reduces the chance of such a betrayal. If you can't trust a friend, then they're not actually a friend. And if you cannot trust your spouse, then you don't have a marriage, except in name.

McNeil: one day the need will come to you

Don't be silly. 99% of men don't need DNA proof that their children are theirs. And yes, some few of them will be wrong. But regardless of whether they're right or wrong (and they're almost certainly right), they'll go to their graves happy and secure. For those who cannot trust their spouse, they're married in name only. Moreover, when they reveal that they cannot trust their spouse, there probably not married in name, either. (Could you remain married to someone who did not trust you? I thought not.)

I fully understand and support not getting married because you cannot find someone you trust. But quite frankly, if you *are* going to get married, unless there's been serious evidence to the contrary, I consider a failure to trust (such as Randall proposed) to be a betrayal of one's spouse. The idea of burning 100% of marriages to detect a 1% betrayal rate is beyond crazy. Let's be honest - the vast majority of marriages are successful enough for there to be no question of parentage in the minds of the husband. Neither do most women (in the absence of other causes) distrust their husband enough hack their email or cell-phone (and if they are, the marriage is already on life-support).

I understand that people have been burned. But it's a class I fallacy to turn "I experienced X" to "everyone experiences X". I've been burned once in business. The corollary is "there's a chance you get burned in business". It's not "you shouldn't go into business".

Teenage naivete? I've *got* teen-angers.

Check it Out: We should start by exposing the case all over the web, like in youtube.

Unlikely to be welfare enhancing. Airplane crashes, like emotional betrayal is vivid. Plastering airplane crashes over the Internet and YouTube, real as they are, will make a lot of people needlessly paranoid about airplanes, grounding them forever (except for the small number that now won't die in an airplane crash). Are you better off for lots of people unable to fly? No.

Likewise, trying to inflame the paranoia of males about their children's genes is likely to make more men fearful enough to destroy their marriages when the children are theirs. I don't believe "it is better that ten healthy marriages perish than one infidelity remain unexposed."

Tom West said at January 23, 2013 12:43 PM:

And further, I'd like to think that if I accidentally found out that I was not the biological father of one of my children, that I'd have the decency to privilege the welfare of my children (and yes, they'd still be my children, biological or not) over the pain at my wife's infidelity. This fellow doesn't get any kudos from me.

Implicit in Randall's post is that parenthood is a net-negative, only made up for the positive of leaving a genetic decedent. I'll happily admit that it *is* a positive for me, but the idea that in the absence of that, parenthood would be a net negative is pretty repulsive. If that's the attitude going in, for the child's sake, don't have children!

(That's not to say parenthood isn't a tough job. It's certainly makes any professional challenges pale in comparison. But the positives are huge as well.)

Vektor said at January 23, 2013 2:07 PM:

If you CHOOSE to continue to support a person who has lied to you, manipulated you, and stolen your CHOICE (and opportunity) to have your own offspring...fine for you. You finally get to make a real decision in your life.

However, many men would not feel the same. Some would react with emotions ranging from acute embarassment to suicidal despair to murderous rage....or all of the above. Some would want the CHOICE to walk away, and not be held responsible for what they didn't create. It is a strawman to suggest that you cannot love a non-biological child. Millions of adopted children would say otherwise....the point is that adopting is a CHOICE.

Trust? Any given marriage in the US has basically a coin-flip chance of making it. Nobody enters into a marriage with someone they think they can't trust. The article is not about trust. It's about fairness and consequences. It's noteworthy because it's a break from the Western female-centric family law system that treats men as second-class.

Check it Out said at January 23, 2013 3:07 PM:

"If you think people are so untrustworthy that you need "to be sure" by getting DNA tests, then you do not have enough trust for a successful marriage (at least by any metric I'd use)."
That is not what it is all about. One thing is the trust and another the deceiving which actually took place, even if there might've been enough apparent reason for trusting her.

"For those who cannot trust their spouse, they're married in name only."
Hmmm, sometimes I wonder if that might be true and also the rule in the U.S. but no, not really, Tom. We all see that marriage IS a gamble any way you want to look at it. It's a trusting gamble, an economic gamble, a getting along gamble, a sexuality gamble, an in-laws gamble, an educational difference gamble, an IQ difference gamble, a disposition gamble, a different-job-opportunity gamble, etc. Life itself is a gamble, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't marry because he can never "be sure" or fully trust a woman. It's not one's mother that one can trust whole heartedly. No. But when rules are set, rules should be respected, and faithfulness is the first thing a man will demand from a wife as far as human nature goes. D E M A N D, not ask for.

"Let's be honest - the vast majority of marriages are successful enough for there to be no question of parentage in the minds of the husband."
Sorry, more than 50% divorce rate in the U.S. is not the "vast majority" even if it is for reasons other than parentage question. And let me tell you that I don't believe the vast majority of men trust their wives 100% all the time, neither should they, considering statistics. And that doesn't mean one is not for marriage.

"Likewise, trying to inflame the paranoia of males about their children's genes is likely to make more men fearful enough to destroy their marriages when the children are theirs."

Hey, I thought you were the one not wishing for marriage without certainty or absolute trust. Nobody is inflaming nothing, and the airplane example is not a parallel one, simply because the decision of flying is only yours -not an oath of trust between you and the airline- and I really doubt any crew members will ever plot and betray the trust of the passengers because they would also get f***ed, unlike a deceiving wife who might by now be walking as cool as a cucumber.

Tom West said at January 23, 2013 3:43 PM:

Vektor: The article is not about trust. It's about fairness and consequences.

Actually, my entire response is directed at Randall's advice, not the article. The article I find a little sad, but there are people for whom rage will overpower everything else.

Check it Out: It's a trusting gamble

I agree, it *is* a trusting gamble. However Randall's advice is to gamble, but not trust. In other words, go through with marriage, but then break the fundamental component. *That* is what I thought was terribly, terribly bad advice. If what he had said was don't get married and don't have kids, then I'd have held my fire. Likewise, I consider fidelity and trust to be major components of almost any marriage. I think lack of fidelity *or* trust is grounds for divorce. But I am not criticizing the man for choosing to divorce on the basis of infidelity. I *am* criticizing Randall for giving anti-marriage advice from the basis that you should never trust your spouse.

Hey, I thought you were the one not wishing for marriage without certainty or absolute trust.

Yes, but both fidelity and trust are influenced by our environment. I don't think marriage is well served by efforts to reduce either. I have to say from your last line that it feels that your rage at the idea that some wives "get away with it" is stronger than your desire to see the most marriages prosper. Not a good place to be.

ASPIRANT said at January 23, 2013 5:22 PM:

Tom West: Marriage is a social contract, a transaction. It's offering resources in exchange for a good chance at reproduction. Do you think that cashiers are violating the contract between buyer and seller by counting your money when you pay for things?

You want to imply some kind of spiritual dimension to marriage. Any kind of deeper meaning is just an illusion born of tradition. Putting your faith in concepts like love, unverified trust almost always leads to misery. I'm sure the world will disabuse you of your notions sooner or later, maybe brutally.

The most successful marriages I've ever seen are ones born of practical common sense. Real mutualism, shared best interests, as opposed to a fairy tale of LURRRRVE and TURST FEREVER!!! (insert blingee image two 14-year-olds arm-in-arm at an MCR concert here)

I think you're a troll.

And further, I'd like to think that if I accidentally found out that I was not the biological father of one of my children, that I'd have the decency to privilege the welfare of my children (and yes, they'd still be my children, biological or not) over the pain at my wife's infidelity. This fellow doesn't get any kudos from me.
Then you support creating an environment where illegitimacy can run rampant. The society-destroying players thank you for relieving them of the burden of their hellion seed so they can spend their days gleefully spawning more.

Don't you see that these things have effects outside of your personal life? That your pompous moralizing dooms the civilization that gave us space travel and a life expectency that goes beyond our earliest breeding years, and that without our-fossil fuel training wheels we might not be able to make it back?

Randall Parker said at January 23, 2013 7:58 PM:

Tom,

Some people are really really excellent deceivers. We overestimate our ability to predict and know people.

I know guys who were and are very sane who married women who got knocked up by other guys while married. I know a guy who got his 3 kids tested (after coming home early to find his wife in bed with another guy) and found they had 3 blood types that were not all possible given his blood type. Back then there weren't good genetic tests. I know another guy who found out both his kids weren't his. These were sane guys.

This is a false statement:

99% of men don't need DNA proof that their children are theirs.

Read this. In particular, this page:

The most extensive and authoritative report, published in Current Anthropology in 2006, analyzed scores of genetic studies. The report concluded that 2 percent of men with “high paternity confidence” — married men who had every reason to believe they were their children’s father — were, in fact, not biological parents. Several studies indicate that the rate appears to be far higher among unmarried fathers.
Randall Parker said at January 23, 2013 8:04 PM:

ASPIRANT,

I'm shocked by the number of married women who have propositioned me flat out and the number who've sent strong signals of interest. The marriage gets old. They want to trade up. Guys who do not get this treatment do not realize what most women are like. I think there'd be a lot more adultery if women had more opportunity. Some of the less attractive women don't cheat because they can't - at least not with anyone they'd be interested in doing.

I'm way way past the women-on-the-pedestal view.

Engineer-Poet said at January 23, 2013 9:01 PM:
Unlikely to be welfare enhancing.
On the contrary.  If the outcry over the case leads to changes in law which make women liable for such acts of deception, it would increase marital fidelity and make men more likely to be willing to commit.  These are very positive things.
Tom West said at January 23, 2013 10:30 PM:

ASPIRANT: It's offering resources in exchange for a good chance at reproduction.

If you have a marriage organized on that basis, and both parties are fully aware of that, then fine, good for the two of you.

However, pretending that most (Western marriages are organized on that basis is ludicrous. All you have to do is look around you. As such, Randall's advice is poison for a standard marriage where trust is fundamental to happiness.

Putting your faith in concepts like love, unverified trust almost always leads to misery.

Funny, if I look over everybody I know, the people who can no longer trust are almost invariably miserable. Now, yes, there have been a few who have trusted and been burned. That is the price of trust. But, oddly enough, the people who were able to trust again after a betrayal are *still* happier than those who "learned what the real world is like". And quite frankly, among the parents of my friends who I know well to gauge how much they trust their spouses, once again the strong majority trust their partners implicitly and are vastly happier for it. I guess they simply fail to see reality. However, they'd better learn fast. Most are already nearly 80.

You talk about shared mutualism as a basis for marriage, and I'd strongly agree. But how on earth can you have mutualism with someone you don't trust? Without trust, all you have is an ally of convenience. Hell, I'd never enter even a business relationship with someone I didn't trust. And yes, I've been burned, but that gamble is the price of entering a business relationship.

And for what its worth, trust is vastly more enduring than 'LURRRRVE'. Passion can wax and wane, that's hormones. But trust, that's who you are. And for God's sake, if you didn't trust your spouse's fidelity, why on earth would you trust them with something as important as raising your children?

Randall: This is a false statement: 99% of men don't need DNA proof that their children are theirs.

You obviously don't understand what I said. I *didn't* say that 99% of men are correct. I said they don't need any proof. They are not harmed, and in fact, and almost certainly happier for never having known.

Yes, infidelity does occur (albeit it's somewhat more likely that men stray, so let's not get all righteous about those awful women), and it's a tragedy when one learns that one's trust has been betrayed, regardless of gender. But, just as we accept the occasional horrible death in car accidents as the price for allowing the vast majority the privilege of driving, we also have to accept the marital betrayals that will inevitably occasionally occur as the price of allowing the vast majority the joy and comfort of a successful marriage.

Randall, pretending that what most men and women think of as a successful marriage can occur in the absence of trust is, well, crazy. Perhaps you don't believe a successful marriage is actually possible - perhaps those tens of millions are all faking happiness while behind closed doors evil deceivers cackle joyfully over the crushed hopes and dreams of betrayed spouses. Fine. Then advocate that men and women avoid marriage altogether.

But the only way your advice is to me acceptable is if you made it clear before marrying that you would never trust your partner. However, I suspect you wouldn't find too many women (or men) willing to accept the proposal.

By the way, the article you pointed to is excellent. The stories of how some men sacrificed their children because they were consumed with rage at their wive's betrayal is heart-breaking. Thank goodness it was leavened by those for whom love of their child trumped their personal pain. (It was distressing how many equated child support with supporting the wife. But I suppose you can't expect reason to always triumph under such unhappy circumstances.)

Vektor said at January 24, 2013 7:00 AM:

Tom,

Look at the title of the attached article: 'Husband tricked into believing wife's children were his awarded £25,000 damages'. The husband was 'tricked'...betrayed...the husband didn't have a lack of 'trust'. Then he 'heard rumors'...probably meaning his ex-wife, being a wonderful mother, decided to reveal and perhaps even flaunt her betrayal.

You keep talking about what marriage 'should' be. Yes, I agree with you, it 'should' be filled with trust. No father 'should' ever need to question if his children are indeed his. Some people are fortunate that they are never faced with situations like this...and they live happily ever after. However, that's not the way the entire world is...nor has it ever been that way....nor will it ever be that way.

I am not advocating a pessimistic and paranoid relationship outlook, but what Randall and others are suggesting is using modern science to protect one's interests if there is cause for question. If you are the type of person who 'wouldn't want to know', then fine....that's your choice. I don't have to question my son's paternity....he looks just like me. However, other men may have cause to question or may just want piece-of-mind. The test is a tool. What I would really like to see is a long-overdue advacement in birth control options for men. Then men won't have to rely so much on trust so much, because they will have more control.

Tom West said at January 24, 2013 9:47 AM:

Vektor: what Randall and others are suggesting is using modern science to protect one's interests if there is cause for question.

Vektor, what Randall said (and again, I'm reacting to Randall's advice.) was that every father should *automatically* get a DNA test. Not, get a DNA test if your spouse has lost your trust. It was do not trust your spouse, ever (because statistically there's some chance your trust will be misplaced).

That is not good advice for a marriage.

Now quite frankly, a marriage where the husband (or wife) needs proof of fidelity in order to sleep at night is probably already one that is on shaky ground. My observation is that the number one short-term killer of marriages is lack of respect for one's partner (in either direction). If one's insecurities are larger than one's respect for one's partner when starting out, then I think you are morally obliged to make that clear before you get married.

(By the way, I'm getting the impression that nobody here actually thinks Randall's advice was meant to be taken seriously, but rather it's actually just a general voice in the "look at evil women betraying poor men" chorus. If that's the case, I've spent a lot of time attacking something nobody took seriously. Am I mistaken?)

As for male birth control, I'm quite in favor of both partners having control over their destiny. However, if my observations of men who are most at risk is any guide, even if it's available, the vast majority will be happy to leave contraception as "her problem", even when it could very much be *their* problem...

Mirco Romanato said at January 24, 2013 11:41 AM:

There is no need to say before the marriage: "I want all the children checked, when they are born (or if technology allow, before they are born) for DNA to be sure they are mine".
Just drop, casually, to her "I want you and me and the children, before or just after they are born) to test for DNA problems, etc." - "Just to be sure the babies have no problems and we have no problems". it is for their wellness.
I will know the child is mine and you will know the child is your when they deliver it to us.

If she say "No" ask "Why?". If she continue to say no, drop her.

Tom West said at January 24, 2013 6:39 PM:

Mirco Romanato:: There is no need to say before the marriage: "I want all the children checked, when they are born for DNA to be sure they are mine".

Dear God. Now we have someone giving advice onto how to betray one's wife! At least Randall wasn't advocating doing the test secretly, so that (presumably at least) a prospective wife knows the ground rules when she marries. You, on the other hand, are advocating utter betrayal. Lure her into believing that you trust her and that the marriage will be based on mutual respect!

If you believe that all of humanity is scum and no-one can be trusted, then at least have the decency to let people know that that is your modus operandi.

Randall's advice is a triumph of fear (over a small but real chance) over trust and respect. Your advice, on the other hand, is actually evil.

Check it Out said at January 24, 2013 7:00 PM:

Agree with Mirco Romanato and what's more, I think maybe that DNA testing should be implemented automatically everywhere just as many other procedures performed onto the baby like neonatal screening, blood tests, etc.

No man should be forced to support, live with and even learn to love other man's children. And also, if no future marriage or family has been talked about and thoroughly discussed while dating, maybe no man should be foreced to support a child his own if getting pregnant was a decision taken unilateraly and solely by the woman, without consulting the man. Many women have played this game too long in order to get the man to marry them. How perfect for them.

Any woman over 15 who gets pregnant -rape aside- is because she meant it. I will never buy a woman's "surprise" when she's been knocked.

Check it Out said at January 24, 2013 7:02 PM:

I will never buy a woman's "surprise" when she becomes pregnant, I meant.

Tom West said at January 25, 2013 8:27 AM:

Check it Out: Agree with Mirco Romanato and what's more, I think maybe that DNA testing should be implemented automatically everywhere

You realize that there's an immense moral gap between what Mirco Romanato was proposing (which, by its covert betrayal, is morally evil) and universal mandatory testing (which I find repugnant and welfare-reducing, but is not morally evil).

Since you're surely no hypocrite, I'm assuming that you are okay with automatic fidelity testing for men. Perhaps automatic location tracking, phone records, and browsing history being forwarded to one's spouse? After all, no woman should be forced to unknowingly support a treacherous vermin that has betrayed his spouse, and now that technology can make such a betrayal much more easily detected...

Anyway, given your evident attitudes towards women, I can't imagine you'd ever have any interest in a long-term relationship with one. All I can say is I think that's probably very good for both sides. I think we can all thank God that we live in an era where women financially support themselves at least as well as men, and thus aren't forced into a relationship for survival's sake (and on the other side there's no moral censure for failing to take a bride).

ASPIRANT said at January 26, 2013 11:24 AM:

Tom West: If you have any understanding of evolutionary psychology at all, you'd realize that's what our instincts guide us to do, regardless of our conceits. Whatever reasons people THINK they have for marrying is irrelevant. In the end, men mostly do it for sex and children, women mostly do it for resources and children. (social pressure has a big role here too, but the pressure is always in the interest of children so it evens out)

I'd be willing to believe that trust likely brings happiness, but you have to realize that happiness is not synonymous with survival and replication, in fact they're often directly opposite.

Judging by the fact that the people who are most "Happy" aren't always the most successful, and the people who are most successful are often miserable and unsatisfied, it seems to me that happiness is sort of a cash-out emotion. If you're happy, your limbic system is telling you that this is as good as it's going to get for you. Ambition might be suppressed because taking risks is likely to make things worse.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html

Why are people with huge and growing wealth unhappy? Maybe they don't feel like they're as successful as they could possibly be. They have something else they're gunning for. It seems happy people are the ones who have reached the end of their struggle.

Check it Out said at January 26, 2013 11:49 AM:

Universal mandatory testing is repugnant, I'll have to grant you that, but the kind of betrayal perpetrated by the woman in question is far more repugnant. Not seeing this seems hypocrite to me.

"...I'm assuming that you are okay with automatic fidelity testing for men. Perhaps automatic location tracking, phone records, and browsing history being forwarded to one's spouse? After all, no woman should be forced to unknowingly support a treacherous vermin that has betrayed his spouse, and now that technology can make such a betrayal much more easily detected.."

I know there has been women lib long time ago, but since when do women support men as a rule?

So, to your proposal I say bsolutely no. First because automatic location tracking, phone records, etc, are a form of invasion, and I still believe in freedom and privacy. Second, in your proposal, where are raising children involved? Perhaps when men start getting pregnant by women we'll discuss that. Third, The reasons why a woman in unfaithful to a man are different than those for which a man is unfaithful, even though that sounds too macho or politically incorrect to you. Sorry a man should never forgive a woman's infidelity. In fact no man can deal with it afterwards however much he tries. Woman generally can and eventually forgive that a man's infidelity, even though they'll always deny it of course.

A woman who has been unfaithful to her man has ceased to love him, and the same rule is far from applying to men. Place five female lions in a cage and one male lion and you got continuation of the species. Place five male lions and one female lion in a cage and what happens? No survival of the species.

I'm not saying it's ok for men to be unfaithful. All I'm saying is there are other things for which a woman will never forgive a man. If you're curious ask me.

What's more, I don't see how my attitudes towards women are so evident to you, but I know my attitudes towards women are shared by most men in the world -perhaps not Americasn- simply because they work.

Furthermore, I can never join you in thanking any god for anything, simply because I don't believe in gods. And even if the "God" I pressume your talking about existed, I wouldn't thank him for anything either, simply because a simple judgment will find his divine performance on this world as a very lousy one, (if not criminal.) I don't see where we're supposed to start looking for evidence of his infinite benevolence, wisdom, love and justice.

Wolf-Dog said at January 27, 2013 9:40 AM:


Question: What percentage of those Americans whose mothers were married at the time of their birth, happen to be conceived due to extramarital affairs that their mothers were having?

Richard 1960 said at May 5, 2013 8:30 PM:

As a matter of fact- some 1 child in 25 is raised by man who is not his/her father- unknowingly. It calculates like this- in 1 dozen dads- one is raising cuckoo's chick (some 2 children per family- 2 dads and 2 mums). To have infidelity resulting in pregnancy- not every one infidel woman is getting pregnant- many wives need to work for it.... Summary- for every one classroom- there is one boy who will have cuckoo baby in his family when he'll grows up. And- many girls will be infidel, but only one will have child from it.


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 ©