Open mariages and paternity

[Ed Anger]

HAIL THE PATARICHY

[garbon]

HAIL THE PATARICHY

Odd.

[merithyn]

HAIL THE PATARICHY

Indeed....

[garbon]

NO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.

LOL wait we are taking Ms. Makes-Spicey-Look-Like-A-Democrat's views on this as gospel?  She is probably projecting her fears on this.

Yep.

The projection in this thread has been priceless, especially with the assumption that the wife was the only one taking advantage of their marital agreement with nothing to indicate that this is the case. I know you guys joke about how misogynistic Languish is, and this thread shows just how much truth there is in that.

To be fair, Beebs just followed along with the line that AR spun.

[Brazen]

Reading between the lines, he was ready for commitment and she wasn't, so they made what could turn into a very messy compromise.

[merithyn]

Reading between the lines, he was ready for commitment and she wasn't, so they made what could turn into a very messy compromise.

Quite possibly. I could also see him doing this as sort of a thumb to his nose at the conservatism that he grew up in.

[Malthus]

NO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.

LOL wait we are taking Ms. Makes-Spicey-Look-Like-A-Democrat's views on this as gospel?  She is probably projecting her fears on this.

Yep.

The projection in this thread has been priceless, especially with the assumption that the wife was the only one taking advantage of their marital agreement with nothing to indicate that this is the case. I know you guys joke about how misogynistic Languish is, and this thread shows just how much truth there is in that.

People are commenting on what they "know", not what they don't know, and all that they "know" comes from you.  The story *as presented by you* makes the situation sound like the "open marriage" is one-sided, even if that it totally not the case.

It is hardly an example of the patriarchy in action that people are leaping to such a conclusion, even if it is totally unfounded. 

[merithyn]

People are commenting on what they "know", not what they don't know, and all that they "know" comes from you.  The story *as presented by you* makes the situation sound like the "open marriage" is one-sided, even if that it totally not the case.

It is hardly an example of the patriarchy in action that people are leaping to such a conclusion, even if it is totally unfounded. 

Right, because on Languish everyone sticks to exactly what's said and never go beyond that. 

[Valmy]

Right, because on Languish everyone sticks to exactly what's said and never go beyond that. 

It is like a small town, people hear the gossip and start projecting and pretty soon a rather harmless story has people forming up gangs with torches and pitchforks

[Valmy]

To be fair, Beebs just followed along with the line that AR spun.

Well that is the other thing.  We jump right in the middle of threads so whatever tangent the first guy went off on we all follow.

[The Minsky Moment]

Minsky, you asked good questions, all of which are pertinent. I know my cousin's son fairly well, and no, I don't think this is a good relationship for him. I don't think he's been talked into it by his wife, however. Instead, I think that the idea - in concept - appealed to them both so they went with it. The problem is that he is too tender-hearted and needs the commitment of a monogamous relationship, even if he doesn't realize it himself yet. Both he and his wife are 21, which is far too young to fully understand what they're getting into with this arrangement, and I foresee ugliness ahead.

21 is usually too young to have children even under the most stable of circumstances, and reading between the lines of your character assessment, I get the impression that he in particular is not ready for it.   

EDIT: I don't see any point in critiquing the marriage arrangement itself, b/c aside from lacking many of the peritent facts, it's the kind of thing that at that age can be easily fixed if it goes wrong without much expense, complexity or long-term emotional entaglement.  But adding a child to the equation radically ups the stakes.

[Malthus]

People are commenting on what they "know", not what they don't know, and all that they "know" comes from you.  The story *as presented by you* makes the situation sound like the "open marriage" is one-sided, even if that it totally not the case.

It is hardly an example of the patriarchy in action that people are leaping to such a conclusion, even if it is totally unfounded. 

Right, because on Languish everyone sticks to exactly what's said and never go beyond that. 

Well, this is what you said:

1) Her newly married son and his wife are five weeks pregant; and
2) They are in an open marriage, which the wife made use of about five or six weeks ago with her husband's best friend. (Which, oddly, coincides with their wedding date.)

Setting aside the moral issues regarding open marriages, how will this work regarding paternity if sometime down the road this marriage falls apart (and really, why would it?)?

Fair reading: that you are of the opinion that the marriage is doomed [really, why would it??  - indicates sarcasm] and that you are of the opinion that the "open marriage" is a bit of a sham - given that "oddly", she "made use of it" it have sex with the guy's "best friend" on their "wedding date".

It may well be dumb to not see beyond the scenario you yourself outlined and say "wait a minute, Meri may be an unreliable narrator here - all she has said, she is getting from the mother; maybe the son's having sex with *his wife's* best friend on their wedding date *as well*!!!!"

But it is hardly a stupidity that is caused by the patriarchy.

[The Minsky Moment]

HAIL THE PATARICHY

Odd.

LONG RAIN THE PATRIACHY

?

[Ed Anger]

I enjoy how defensive Meri gets. 

[alfred russel]

NO ONE knows if his best friend wore a condom or not (except presumably the three of them). NO ONE knows if the son is also sleeping around (though HER best friend is coming to live with them in the next few weeks). At no time has either the son or his wife said that there's a question of who's child it is; that's all presumption on his mother's part.

LOL wait we are taking Ms. Makes-Spicey-Look-Like-A-Democrat's views on this as gospel?  She is probably projecting her fears on this.

Yep.

The projection in this thread has been priceless, especially with the assumption that the wife was the only one taking advantage of their marital agreement with nothing to indicate that this is the case. I know you guys joke about how misogynistic Languish is, and this thread shows just how much truth there is in that.

You frame a situation and ask what seems to be a legally oriented question, make the marriage sound very unstable if not one sided, and imply questions of paternity (and thus no condom). People respond to what you posted in that light, and then you attack them for being misogynistic in part because apparently they didn't challenge the reliability of the narrative that you provided.

This whole thread seems like an Orwellian trap.