she was a good lay, easy on the eyes, and reasonably good company.

I knew I shouldn't have read past that line, and I wish I hadn't. This guy's nothing but a walking, talking mean streak! Fortunately, I think the story is probably complete B.S. Even if it is, I suppose we can be thankful that his genetic stock will not be surviving in a generation of offspring.

I refuse to believe this is real. That being said, good story.

What an asshole. Doesn't matter if it really happened or not. He's going to the special hell.

What an asshole. Doesn't matter if it really happened or not. He's going to the special hell.

May I ask why?

The guy is a royal jerk, the woman is a rotten person, they both suck. Still, it's entertaining provided you don't know either of them.

I just think people should be honest with each other.

In fact, I'm not sure what would be sadder: That story being real, or the existence of a guy who needs to make that up.

mb's right, and I was being sexist. If the girl is real, she's pretty awful, too.

As bad as her is, she deserves nothing better. I mean, trying to con someone into thinking a kid is theirs when it isn't? That's low.

Good point, matildaben, the woman's an asshole too.

CF, I think he's basically a bad person to do (or pretend to have done) such a heartless thing. And fenriq's right, the guy seems to relish being mean. So yeah, the special hot place.

I can't vouch for the reality of that particular incident, obviously, but in my rash youth, I've been down the same exact road (except for being several years past my vasectomy, instead of 3 months), right up to the point of assembling documentation, and doing a reverse set up.

And actually, in my case, I wasn't particularly a jerk about it. I just listened to the woman, asked her if she was "sure," heard her undying pledges of love and fidelity afresh, and then quietly told her why I knew she was bullshitting me. And I left her place, without a backward glance, while she was still sitting on her couch, gobstruck. I never went back for the change of clothes or the shaving sundries I'd kept at her place, either.

Stuff like this happens, for real. A lot more frequently than I think anyone is willing to admit.

I don't mean this to reflect on paulsc's story, because I don't have the details, but regarding the CL posting: You know, if you're a jerk, and you have such high opinions of women as a group that "reverting to woman logic" is even in your regular vocabulary, of *course* you're going to attract histrionic idiots. Who the hell else would put up with your assholery? Sheesh.

It always astounds me that guys who act like assholes are surprised when women aren't honest, kind, or good to them.

Heh, occhi -- right on.

Stuff like this happens, for real.

That does astound me. I know it's true, yet it astounds me. After hauling coal for decent women over at MeFi for the last couple days, I'm near worn out on defending my gender. These sorts of stories just make me reflect on how fortunate I've been to know such good people throughout my life. Run-ins with joiks have been few.

The guy's a twat. And don't forget that this is his "I'm nice" version. In all probability the real story would probably paint him as much, much nastier. Also, I wouldn't trust him with the truth if he gave it me in a government sealed truth canister, so the jury's out on what the woman said or did.

After reading shit like this, I genuinely despair for my sex. I'm getting a sex change or joining a drum circle or something.

I'm reading this interesting book right now (which I keep meaning to email you about, occhi) about a woman who spent a year dressed as and passing for a man. In the section about dating, she describes that sort of histrionic woman and expresses a lot of sympathy for men. I kind of had a hard time swallowing that part (because she put it forth as "This Is What It's Like To Be a Man," and she can never know that, no matter how much fake facial hair she glues on, but anyway...). But it was interesting.

I also found myself thinking that her definitive opinion of what it's like to date women couldn't help but be colored by, well, dating women, since she's a lesbian.

I'm not sure what this adds the the discussion. I think I had a point, but I've already forgotten it.

Carry on.

I figure it was a troll although trolling cl seems somewhat pointless. Maybe someone is practicing.

Wow, that guy is one total asshole, and the girl, well she is just as bad if not worse. Happy Valentine's Day.

He's a jerk, for his comments like "woman logic" or whatever it was and stuff like that. Totally a jerk.

Assuming the story is real/accurate, the woman deserved what she got.

Pretty much what matildaben said. They both suck.

Now, if he gets a special place in hell for being a dick, logically the woman would get a special place in hell for what she did as well.

Good thing I don't beleive in hell. I hope both of them get what's coming to them, though. Karma-wise, I mean.

mudpuppie, I'd love to hear more about that book. I read an interview with the author in Salon when it first came out. It definitely sounds like there are limitations inherent in the exercise, but like it would be interesting nonetheless.

As for histrionic women, I'm sure they do exist. But I'm also sure that they're not somehow holding people at gunpoint to date them; at a certain point, if you keep ending up with insane partners, you need to look at what you're doing to attract/enable/support/put up with them. And I'm sure there are tons of women making equivalent statements, but I really do keep reading guys say over and over again, essentially, "I'm such a nice guy! Why are all women such crazy cunts?" And you just kind of scratch your head and point out that hating women is not really a great way to attract stable ones, but it seems to go over their head.

Sweet mother of God, he doesn't deserve to live.

Here's a coupla interesting articles on Paternity: [1], [2, pdf]

Given the lack of economic advantage given to women historically and even in todays societies, I find it hard to blame anyone for trying to convince a man that a child is theirs. It's a nasty situation, immoral, and I wouldn't want it to happen to me but I think I'd do pretty much anything to make sure that a child of mine did OK.

"I'm such a nice guy! Why are all women such crazy cunts?"
I hear this from women all the time. Back in my single days I never tired of women telling me that there were no good men left and all the single men were crazy or bastards. [/sarcasm].

I think that if you're in a situation where every person you date turns out to be a mentalist, then you need to have a good look at yourself.

Exactly.

Also, I love the word "mentalist." Hee.

OK, look, I'm on an "assume good faith" kick, here. I hear advice (ed. note: mostly from men, I might add) that if you cheat on someone, and they don't catch you, and you're really really sorry then, well, there's no point in creating more drama, is there?

So yeah, maybe this woman was being a manipulative bitch (and I detest the writer for insinuating that all or even most or even the typical woman is like this) and trying to "trap" him into marriage or child support or whatever. But maybe she seriously believed it was his kid. Hell, maybe the other guy swore he was sterile.

The best part is that we only know one side of this story, and even that side of the story isn't very favorable towards the author.

I'm gonna stop now because the "people are all the same" part of my mind is starting to war with the "men and women are different" side. I'm in danger of saying something that'll get me roasted.

...

Oh bugger it.
OK.

...

So, I was wondering if women are generally less tolerant of cheating (real or imagined) because they have more to lose if caught. As a consequence, they're more likely to show a hostile response because they're more desperate to distance themselves from the possibility of ever cheating themselves.

...

There - I said it.

What do you mean they have more to lose? Are you speaking specifically about pregnancy?

I'm not sure women *are* less tolerant of cheating, except by pragmatism. It's generally assumed (and I do believe this assumption is sexist) that men can't control themselves and see sex as "no big deal" but simply their biological imperative, and that women, the civilizing force, don't have the same biological urges, and therefore don't face the same temptations, so when they do stray, it must be more pre-meditated.

Though I'd argue that the above is based not only on sexism but on economics and opportunity -- if men work outside the home, they're a hell of a lot more likely to meet someone to screw around with than women who work inside the home are. They've also historically been able (and maybe this is what you're talking about, seanyboy?) to divorce without losing their income (and in fact statistically tend to do economically better after divorce, while women's standard of living plummets), so you end up with: Society tells guys it's ok to cheat because they can't help it; the guys have opportunities to find partners; and the guys face less economic trouble if they're caught.

I do think that's changing a bit with women in the workplace, and with biologists starting to discover how much females cheat in the wild (I mean, chimps and animals and such). Once we get past this evo psych backlash about how men are "wired" to cheat and women are "wired" to seek monogamy, and add that to greater financial security for women who end marriages, and factor in the ability to end pregnancies (and, hopefully, more willingness for courts to award custody to deserving fathers), I think things will change a great deal.

(That was a bit of a ramble. Sorry!)

I meant to add somewhere in there that women growing up in the midst of all these assumptions about why guys cheat might be more inclined to look the other way when faced with infidelity. Not to mention that they'd be a hell of a lot more likely to face economic problems for ending a marriage, and so might forgive for those reasons.

Maybe we're more picky about cheating before marriage in order to weed out guys who might leave us economically vulnerable by ending a marriage? I don't know. I suspect decent arguments could be made for just about any stance on this issue.

That's an interesting analysis, occhiblu. NPR did a little segment on female politicians, who are often seen as less corrupt than male politicians. The journalist mentioned that female politicians are rarely ever punished as harshly (by the media, the public, or the party) as men when they're involved in sex or infidelity scandals. I can't think of a single female politician who has been implicated in such a scandal, even though I'm sure it happens.

The journalist mentioned that female politicians are rarely ever punished as harshly (by the media, the public, or the party) as men when they're involved in sex or infidelity scandals. I can't think of a single female politician who has been implicated in such a scandal, even though I'm sure it happens.

Huh, interesting. I didn't hear the NPR piece, and I can't think of any female politicians who have been dragged into a sex scandal. My gut reaction, though (which may be sexist), is that a woman in public life would be treated MORE harshly than a man. It's the whole slut/stud dichotomy.

I have nothing to base this on, of course. Just my own perceptions, I guess.

In the last three management jobs I held for U.S. companies or U.S. subsidiaries of foriegn companies, in every organizational unit which contained more than 100 men, at least one man whose story I personally knew, was paying court ordered child support for a child he claimed was not his genetic offspring. In many of these cases, sadly, I personally saw blood tests results from guys who were happy to show them to anyone who would listen, as U.S. courts typically will not.

So, that's 16 groups of at least 100 men, and no group larger than 227 men, over the last 18 years, in which I know of such cases. In some groups, there were as many as 6 men in that situation. It's impossible to avoid recitations of these stories in breakrooms and smoking pens of factories and warehouses, pretty much anywhere in the U.S. You don't have to be digging for such incidents, or cued into them particularly, just be someone in management with an interest in people, and a willingness to listen without being judgemental. But there may have been many more, whose stories I was not aware of, simply because their wages hadn't been garnished for support payments, or who didn't ask my opinion or help, to arrange time off to attend court, or verify employment for loans, etc.

These were all companies with manufacturing or distribution facilities in the Southeastern U.S., in facilities in rural communities, mid-size cities and towns, and large urban areas like Atlanta and Charlotte.

So if you take this data as reasonably randomized (actually it's not, because the groups are predominantly blue collar workers, who have passed several employment selection filters), something between 1% and 5% of American working men have been through this situation, and probably more. It's not at all uncommon.

Just some real world data, amongst this flurry of opinions.

I had already seen that CL post - someone linked it from MetaTalk, I think - and here's the way I look at it.

You don't really have to know whether it's true or not. Because whether it is or not is sort of irrelevant. What matters is that someone with a pretty good command of rhetoric chose to take time to type it up and post it.

The interesting question is "why;" the other interesting question is "why is this story compelling to its readers?"

Aw snap, ikkyu2 is gettin' all up in my head.

I'm going to be pondering this for a bit.

Because finding love is the central goal to most people's lives, which means there are all sorts of mythologies that have arisen about why people do, or don't, succeed. We all love to look at the signs and read the entrails and decipher the wiggle dance and consult the texts and pen the commentaries about what's real, what's fake, what's clear, what's ambiguous, who said what when under what pressure, who's a prophet and who's a crank. Because we're all looking to love, and be loved.

Thus spake occhiblu, this Valentine's Day in the year of our lords.

ikkyu, I think it's because of what paulsc said, it's a lingering fear for many people that their child isn't really theirs, on the male side, and that you might get pregnant and have no one to help you on the female.

I don't know anyone paying for a kid who isn't theirs, but I do know of two people in my circle of friends who didn't find out they even had a kid until years after the fact (in one case three, in another seven) because the mother was with someone else who thought it was his. One was a one-night-stand while she was involved with someone else, the other was conceived just before she dumped him for another guy. In both cases the men they'd convinced were much more financially stable than the actual fathers, and she knew who the real father was the entire time.
In both cases, when the truth came out it was a huge mess, and a lot of innocent lives were turned upside down.

And I think just about everyone knows at least one person who went through a pregnancy alone, and is raising a kid alone, because the father bolted. Yeah, you can take them to court for child support, but there's more to it than that, and personally, I would be terrified to go through that without the emotional support a partner would provide, and the extra help once the kid's around.

I personally saw blood tests results from guys who were happy to show them to anyone who would listen, as U.S. courts typically will not.

paulsc, can you elaborate on this point? Are you saying that US courts will not take DNA tests as proof of paternity?

I guess one of the reasons that I get offended by the "Women are trying to get money/security from men by getting pregnant" viewpoint is that, at this point in my life, I can monetarily support myself and a child. These stories almost devalue the work that I've had to do to get that way. "Oh, she's in her mid twenties? She's a breeder, she's gonna go (baby/money) crazy." Well, fuck you very much.

American courts don't care in many cases if your wife gets pregnant not by you. You can still be on the hook for support because it's "in the best interest of the child". There was fairly public case a few years go about a guy whose wife had three kids that weren't his and he ended up being responsible for child support for all three including the youngest who was still unborn when they seperated.

I'm not sure women *are* less tolerant of cheating

I'm not either; if you could walk with me down to a couple of women's shelters in town, I think we could probably find a few women who found that their cheating was not well tolerated.

I suppose I find it very hard to understand men who complain about these paternity swindles. It would seem that DNA evidence would pretty much scotch any claim a mother would try to place. Though this is certainly an area in which a lot of people are very messed up, I would guess that for every dubious paternity problem there are two or three deadbeat dads.

It's easy not to get someone pregnant if you don't want to....

In many jurisdictions in the U.S., it takes up to a year to divorce, starting from the date of actual seperation. During this period, any child concieved is presumed to be the child of the marriage, by law, unless a court can be persuaded to take a look at evidence to the contrary. But in many jurisdictions, such as Georgia, the willingness of courts to get into that, even at the demand of a litigant in a case, is extremely low. For one thing, the scientific evidence isn't all that cut and dried in many cases, since even an extensive DNA base pair match will be disputed, if the results aren't to the satisfaction of both parties.

So, the cost of establishing paternity legally go far beyond the cost of the medical testing, and can involve several days of testimony and court time. We're talking, typically, tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs (for lawyers, medical testing, expert witnesses, exhibit preparation, preparation and service of subpoenas, etc.), at a minimum, to try the question, which costs are payable up front, by the litigant wishing to dispute the statue presumption of children concieved during a marriage being the issue of the married parties. As a practical matter, it's a situation that is financially unaffordable to many working men. Moreover, the weight of the courts in domestic issues tend to bear on keeping such rules of procedure, because doing so keeps dockets moving, at the same time it keeps kids connected to a source of support.

Most working men faced with costs they can't afford to bear to prove they've been cuckholded are counseled to accept a child support agreement, in order to get the divorce accomplished, and thus forestall additional problems. They're told they can re-visit the issue later, and that's true, but it is still going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars to do so, and few ever manage to dispute paternity successfully.

So, issues of pride, legal expense, emotional fatigue and a desire to get on with life after divorce, cause many men to take a child support agreement for a child they know is not theirs. Happens in Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas, every day court is in session.

That post was written by someone who's never had sex. And who resents the fuck out of people who do.

No one but a sociopath would be that methodical about preparing a case against someone, then tricking them into bed again.

So many men tricked into paying child support for children who aren't theirs, AND YET, there are at least 4 guys (6 if you count her dead husband and son) trying to be Anna Nicole Smith's baby daddy.

That really has nothing to do with the conversation. I just wanted to get her name in here somewhere.

Follow the money, TPS. Smith's estate may yet be worth quite a bit.

And I think insinuating her son might have been her daughter's daddy "(6 if you count her dead husband and son)" just takes this discussion down to a whole new level of black dirt gossip. Congrats, TPS!

I didn't think of it, I swear- I read it on ONTD. I believe her son was her baby's daddy about as much as I believer Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband was, and almost as much as I believe Howard K Stern was.

The legal issues you raise, paulsc, are interesting; the solution clearly lies in legal change. Perhaps these men should become active in fathers' rights efforts and seek some change to the law.

That being said, I'm careful around fathers' rights issues and activism. Sometime fathers' rights advocates they are genuinely motivated by a desire to have a strong positive relationship with children who have suffered from divorce. Sometimes fathers find themselves in terrible situations with exes who have drug problems, financial problems, bad remarriages with unstable or even violent situations for kids, etc.

Other times the motivations are somewhat less noble: another way to strike back at the ex.

To ikkyu2's question - why are these stories compelling? It's a good question. Part of the answer, certainly, is that by roundly sharing outrage about something that seems beyond the pale, we define the boundaries for behavior that can be seen as genuinely acceptable. Whether the story is true or not, whether we condemn the male or female part more, we are all agreeing that it's not seen as desirable to decieve your partner about your intent to commit or your intention to become a parent or your fertility/birth control status. We're also all pretty much agreeing that the CL poster's attitudes are juvenile, boorish, and widely unacceptable.

By vilifying the outliers, we advance and reinforce our own norms.

sometime fathers' rights advocates they are genuinely motivated by a desire


Yes! And sometime I wish very good to become member of your beautiful language and country. Zank you! I kees you!

Yeesh. Several editings + glass wine = gibberish.

"...We're also all pretty much agreeing that the CL poster's attitudes are juvenile, boorish, and widely unacceptable."

Or, human and understandable. His actions might have been less than chivalrous, but chivalry is a deprecated art form in these advanced times, anyway.

And I think insinuating her son might have been her daughter's daddy "(6 if you count her dead husband and son)"

Heh. I read "son" as the (now deceased) son of her dead husband (the guy contesting the will), so make that 7.

I somewhere heard Anna Nicole's Supreme Court "victory" described as "a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie" -- the Supremes' ruling just sent the case back to the lower courts for adjudication, if I understand -- which is just a great description.

Not being a big brain and master strategist like this guy, my rule of thumb would be "don't sleep with people you don't trust." Of course, that may not be as much fun as "hey, I got me this vasectomy - now, what can I do with it?"

At any rate, it's too bad these two, real or fictional, as the case may be, couldn't work it out; they're birds of a feather, and not likely to ever do better. It's a shame they didn't stroll off into the sunset together, claw in fist, and tidy up the playing field a bit.

paulsc - yes, yes. These men should support me in my "marriage is an archaic form of a police state, and should not be legislated at the state or federal level" campaign. Domestic partnership for all!

Heh. I read "son" as the (now deceased) son of her dead husband (the guy contesting the will), so make that 7.

You heard it here first- Anna Nicole Smith's stepson was the father of her baby. Pass it on. Expect to see it on PerezHilton.com soon.

I AM IN UR BOLLOX REMOVING UR SPERMZ

That being said, I'm careful around fathers' rights issues and activism.

There were some nice comments recently at a feminist blog about how so much of the feminist and fathers' rights goals intersect -- we all want society to stop seeing women as automatic nurturers and men as uncaring oafs. I think there would be a lot to gain from an alliance, but so much of the MRA stuff does degrade into misogyny pretty quickly. Which is to bad -- it seems like there's a big opening for fighting some of this in positive ways, without villifying any person but instead examining the systems that create some of this mess to begin with.

"... so much of the MRA stuff does degrade into misogyny pretty quickly. ..."
posted by occhiblu 15 February | 15:57

Gratuitous opinion, much?

As to the rest, Chaucer worked the ground to sand, 400+ years ago.

Not gratuitous at all. Based on experience. Mine too.

hee, dodgy!

May I also just say "speechless look on her face" is hilarious, in a "I'm-not-laughing-with-you-I'm-laughing-at-you" kind of way?

I would guess that for every dubious paternity problem there are two or three deadbeat dads.

It's easy not to get someone pregnant if you don't want to....

Sometime fathers' rights advocates they are genuinely motivated by a desire to have a strong positive relationship with children ... Other times the motivations are somewhat less noble: another way to strike back at the ex.

I'm glad I didn't get into this thread earlier, because it's lost its steam now and I would have been compelled to leap in and attack Miko, who is someone I respect, so I am glad that didn't happen.

I do have to get a little snipe in though and then I am going to go home to my family for the weekend and never visit this thread again:

Of course, we all know that women never tell lies about birth control to "trap" the man in their sights into "doing the right thing", just as we all know that it is entirely the fault of the man if he "gets her in trouble", just as we all know that women should always get custody because men are incapable of raising children without a woman to help them. Of course, we all know that the only reason a man would fight for custody is to punish his ex.

I will allow that a lot of "men's rights" organisations sometimes seem to be pushing a secret platform of misogyny, but the reverse is true of many "women's rights" organisations. The whole lot of them can take a flying fuck at the moon for all I care, because they are all generally wrong.

*tears self away from keyboard before things get worse*

You can't ignore qualifiers and make huge assumptions that someone saying X=Y is really saying Z = not Y. No one said "never," no one said "all," no one said "every." In fact the argument you present was already presented in the thread, and agreed with by the person you think you're arguing against.

Men can be good fathers. The law should recognize that. Attitudes displayed in stories like the one posted do little to advance the cause.

Coming late to this thread, as a former divorce and family lawyer I would say:

- there is a higher-than-you-would-think percentage of women who lie about who the father of their child is (or who just don't know as there are several potential candidates).

- likewise, there are a lot of men who just walk away from their parental responsibilities without a backward glance.

- there are many good, kind, decent men who are not the fathers of 'their' children, who they have brought up and love. When the mother drops the bombshell, the repercussions are horrible.

And *takes off lawyer hat*, it never ceases to amaze me how men seem to desire and pursue the women whose attitude and conduct screams "gimme-gimme-gimme", the grasping, narcissistic types that make me feel ashamed to be a woman.