Open mariages and paternity

[The Brain]

tried to divorce himself financially from the child.

Like Ed if his marriage goes sour.

[merithyn]

The only reason I jumped into this is because you lamented us Languish men for being a sad statement about society.  And then you said

For those without children, I can see how this can be sketchy, but for those with, I don't understand it.

So I was trying, obviously ineffectually, to try to get you to have a little compassion and understanding for where we are coming from and not be too disgusted.

That was in response to garbon's comment that there would be a timeframe for him, day 0 vs day 1, etc. And the assumption is that you would have a choice. My cousin's son has a choice, after all. He knows what the score is, and he's made his decision with all of the facts. No one at any point said that you couldn't make a decision. The point was more that once you've made that decision, you really can't go back. And you really can't not make the decision, either.

For instance, if you found out tomorrow that your wife was pregnant and there was a question of whether or not the one-night-stand she had three months ago during a really ugly period in your relationship was the father or you were, you'd have to decide what to do. Once you decided, however, then that's it. There's no going back. You don't get to decide one thing today and come back in a month and say, "Yeah, this isn't going to work for me." That's just not how it works when you're a parent.

But it seems that a number of guys here are okay with, within a certain timeframe, saying, "Yeah, I've changed my mind." That's what I don't understand.

[Valmy]

That was in response to garbon's comment that there would be a timeframe for him, day 0 vs day 1, etc. And the assumption is that you would have a choice. My cousin's son has a choice, after all. He knows what the score is, and he's made his decision with all of the facts. No one at any point said that you couldn't make a decision. The point was more that once you've made that decision, you really can't go back. And you really can't not make the decision, either.

Yeah I agree with that.  Once you commit one way or the other you are in it for the longhaul, presuming you know the score.

[viper37]

Family law courts order access to children from parents who don't want to grant it all the time.

But he's not the parent... the paternity test shows he's not the parent and the mother does not consent to visitation rights.

[garbon]

That was in response to garbon's comment that there would be a timeframe for him, day 0 vs day 1, etc. And the assumption is that you would have a choice. My cousin's son has a choice, after all. He knows what the score is, and he's made his decision with all of the facts. No one at any point said that you couldn't make a decision. The point was more that once you've made that decision, you really can't go back. And you really can't not make the decision, either.

For instance, if you found out tomorrow that your wife was pregnant and there was a question of whether or not the one-night-stand she had three months ago during a really ugly period in your relationship was the father or you were, you'd have to decide what to do. Once you decided, however, then that's it. There's no going back. You don't get to decide one thing today and come back in a month and say, "Yeah, this isn't going to work for me." That's just not how it works when you're a parent.

But it seems that a number of guys here are okay with, within a certain timeframe, saying, "Yeah, I've changed my mind." That's what I don't understand.

Well you're right I didn't consider the pregnancy period. I think there is probably enough time to consider a kid your during that period.

And I'm not saying that it wouldn't cause anguish in my day 0 vs. day 1 example but rather I guess if there would be enough anguish that you'd be willing to put up with the continual slogfest that it would be between you and your ex.  I don't think it is a sad commentary on society of people feel they don't have the stamina for that.

[merithyn]

Well you're right I didn't consider the pregnancy period. I think there is probably enough time to consider a kid your during that period.

And I'm not saying that it wouldn't cause anguish in my day 0 vs. day 1 example but rather I guess if there would be enough anguish that you'd be willing to put up with the continual slogfest that it would be between you and your ex.  I don't think it is a sad commentary on society of people feel they don't have the stamina for that.

Oh, I agree. The sad commentary was that so many men immediately went to the money instead of the relationship with the child.

[The Brain]

Money doesn't shit and puke all over the place.

[Malthus]

I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.

*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?

I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.

I hear where you are comming from, but there must be more to it than a purely subjective test. I agree biology isn't determinative, but it must be based on something more than 'I have decided this child I have never seen and who is not related to me is mine'.

Well, when did you think of your child as yours? How long after she found out she was pregnant? Or did it take seeing him? Or was it when he first said your name?

For those without children, I can see how this can be sketchy, but for those with, I don't understand it.

My child is my biological child, so there was an instant assumption that it was "mine" from the monent she found out she was pregnant. This was based on two factors:

(1) The fact that the child was biologically mine; and
(2) the strength of my relationship with my wife, which is a relationship based, in part, on sexual exclusivity.

It would be odd indeed if I simply decided that some kid borne by a woman I did not have such a relationship with and which was not biologically "mine" was nonetheless "mine" - based on what? My decision, as in adoption? That implies I could decide otherwise, no?

Seems to me you are confusing the notion that a person who adopts is "just as much" a parent as a bio-parent (which I agree with) and that a person who adopts is in the same situation as a bio-parent (they are not). A bio-parent is a parent by default. An adoptive parent is a parent by choice. That choice may be formally made by signing some legal mumbo-jumbo, or arise because someone is acting like a parent over time (BB's in loco parentis or some such latin legal mumbo-jumbo).

But choice implies a choice not to do something, and that choice isn't as readily available to biological parents.

[Malthus]

Family law courts order access to children from parents who don't want to grant it all the time.

But he's not the parent... the paternity test shows he's not the parent and the mother does not consent to visitation rights.

If he's acted as the parent, he's the parent.

[Ed Anger]

tried to divorce himself financially from the child.

Like Ed if his marriage goes sour.

Bitch will never find me.

[Martinus]

Yea it makes a lot more sense for the guy who chooses to become the parent to be held responsible than the guy who has no say in the birth or raising of the child. Biology shouldn't enter into it.

Precisely.

[Barrister]

I think time might play a factor though in whether or not you'd want the child if you had to keep contact with someone you now hate*.

*So like child born on day 0, day 1 relationship with mother harmed irreparably and you know kid isn't biologically yours. Has enough time elapsed that you'd consider kid yours and fight to stay in contact?

I don't see biology as that important, so I just can't answer that. To me, whether the child is my blood or not, if I think of him/her as mine, he/she is mine, and therefore worth fighting over if need be. It seems that men - or at least many Languish men - feel differently.

I hear where you are comming from, but there must be more to it than a purely subjective test. I agree biology isn't determinative, but it must be based on something more than 'I have decided this child I have never seen and who is not related to me is mine'.

Well, when did you think of your child as yours? How long after she found out she was pregnant? Or did it take seeing him? Or was it when he first said your name?

For those without children, I can see how this can be sketchy, but for those with, I don't understand it.

Babies... aren't terribly interesting.  They eat and sleep.  It's pretty damn hard to form much of a connection with one absent that biological connection.

I was noting that about Andrew the other day.  He's 10 months old, and he's finally getting to the age where he's interesting and fun to play with.

[Martinus]

If Max had an affair that resulted in a child and he brought that child home to be loved and raised by us as a family, that child would be mine.

Or you wouldn't know how to love it, and as a result your real kids would end up being crippled, or lost, or dead, and you would end up as a zombie and there would be a severe climate change. Things like this has happened.

[Valmy]

Or you wouldn't know how to love it, and as a result your real kids would end up being crippled, or lost, or dead, and you would end up as a zombie and there would be a severe climate change. Things like this has happened.

Huh?

Oh Game of THrones.  Nice

You know nothing Max Snow.

[The Brain]

Or you wouldn't know how to love it, and as a result your real kids would end up being crippled, or lost, or dead, and you would end up as a zombie and there would be a severe climate change. Things like this has happened.

Huh?

Think popular books/TV show.