Open mariages and paternity

[garbon]

HAIL THE PATARICHY

Odd.

LONG RAIN THE PATRIACHY

?

Sensible.

[derspiess]

  I love Meri threads.

[Ed Anger]

  I love Meri threads.

MISOGYNIST!

[Barrister]

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.

I always assumed the guy was also "taking advantage of the marital agreement".

[Valmy]

I always assumed the guy was also "taking advantage of the marital agreement".

Meri may be projecting here.

[ulmont]

I always assumed the guy was also "taking advantage of the marital agreement".

I certainly didn't.  I have yet to see an "open" marriage, relationship, or whatever, that wasn't one party basically settling for someone good enough to pay the bills while searching for someone better.  Maybe this one is that special snowflake.

[DontSayBanana]

The implication was that she was impregnated by another man, coincidentally the hubby's best friend.  I stand by my statements, and would respond the same way if he had fathered a child with her best friend.

[merithyn]

I always assumed the guy was also "taking advantage of the marital agreement".

I certainly didn't.  I have yet to see an "open" marriage, relationship, or whatever, that wasn't one party basically settling for someone good enough to pay the bills while searching for someone better.  Maybe this one is that special snowflake.

Oh, this relationship is most definitely not a "special snowflake", at least on the face of it. I have very little faith that it will last two years, open relationship not withstanding. The pity is the child will bear the brunt of the insanity.

That being said, I have seen open relationships that have lasted for a decade or longer and where both people were happy to play, as it were. Of course, those couples were older (40+), in second (or third) marriages, and basically, didn't want to be alone but didn't want to be monogamous. They went in knowing what they were doing, and it worked because they were best friends more than they were married couples.

Personally, I couldn't do it, but I have no problem with those who can. These guys, mostly likely, cannot.

[merithyn]

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.

No, I was seriously trying to find out what would happen regarding the child, should paternity turn out to be in question. I only gave generalities at first because I was at work and couldn't spend the time fleshing the situation out.

It wasn't until I started reading some of the responses that I realized that the amount of information I gave probably led to some odd conclusions, and that was born out as the thread continued. What struck me, however, was a) how at first it was all about how the husband was going to be "on the hook" for child support and no one considered his relationship with the child, and b) how the wife was a total slut who should "keep her legs closed" but no one considered (or at least brought up) that the husband might have been a "slut", too.

[merithyn]

Aside from all of that, you guys make good points. I was harsh to say misogynistic, and for that, I'm sorry. I was, again, just surprised at the way the thread went, though I shouldn't have been based on the information that I provided.

Anyway, yeah, there's no real way to know what will happen with these guys, but I can hope that when it comes to the kid, they manage to keep it together.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Thats a pretty odd viewpoint.  I blame you Jetboyism for your loose grip with reality.

[Eddie Teach]

He's right, though. I've noticed with my nieces and nephews that the ones who can talk are WAY more interesting than the newborns.

[Barrister]

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.

Thats a pretty odd viewpoint.  I blame you Jetboyism for your loose grip with reality.

Your baby years were quite some time ago.  Time does funny things to your memory.

Either that, or those years of exposure to basketball have warped your mind.

[MadImmortalMan]

To be fair, I think most of us were approaching the question from the standpoint of wanting to protect our friend's kin, who happens to be the guy in the relationship. We can only see the situation through Meri's eyes, and that seems to be the most likely interest she's got in the game, assuming she takes any interest at all.

[crazy canuck]

He's right, though. I've noticed with my nieces and nephews that the ones who can talk are WAY more interesting than the newborns.

Yeah, the part I thought was entirely warped was the notion that unless one has a biological connection it is "pretty damn hard to form much of a connection" with that baby.

That is fucking retarded as any parent of an adopted baby will tell you.