"♫ The kid is not my son... a-hee-hee-hee ♫"
Usually, it seems, Johnny's right. Then all of ol' girl's smart-assed comments to him about not being a man, about being a dead-beat dad, about how he lied about her promiscuity, about how Johnny Jr's got his EXACT. SAME. NOSE. ...all crumble to pieces. She runs off the stage in embarrassment, then Maury runs after her (with cameras, of course) to tell her it's okay because he'll happily bring her back NEXT WEEK with a different dude that she just KNOWS is lil
No thanks.
As I've said in the past, I ain't takin' no chances with my future-child's paternity. Regardless of how much I love or trust my partner(s), there are going to be paternity tests for each and every child they claim is mine - even if I'm married.
I'm not saying I think all women are deceitful creatures or that just the ones *I* dig on are. I'm saying that there are all kinds of scenarios in which a woman may find herself unsure of her child's paternity - or really sure, but really wrong. Fuck that. I'm not spending 20, 30, or 40 years bonding with a child just to find out he's or she's someone else's. If it happens, it won't be for lack of effort on *my* part.
"You jackass! That's the same as saying this woman you claim to love is nothing but a lying slut! Why don't you get with a better class of women... or get some class of your own so you don't have to worry about this kinda shit?
Punk ass."
Thank you for the tactful response, Queen B, but I've apparently seen more and have a more powerful imagination than you do. Just off the top of my head, I can think of two or three reasons why a woman might conceal the chances that some other guy's the father - without any malicious intent.
1) The lady is raped, but doesn't want to tell me - for her sake and/or mine. Some women don't think it's worth the hassles associated with reporting or prosecuting such an assault. Maybe she wouldn't want to burden me (that's how some see it) with the knowledge that this terrible thing happened. Plus she doesn't want me to feel bad for not protecting her and not being able to punish the person who assaulted her. Or maybe she doesn't want me pressuring her into reporting the crime.
Then, one day she realizes she's pregnant, but doesn't want to reveal the truth.
2) We break up or seem to be headed there and she ends up kickin' it with some ex-husband or ex-boyfriend or whatever... but we get back together, soon after. Of course, we celebrate the occasion by dancin' the squishy.
She doesn't feel her encounter was technically wrong and revealing it could put our relationship in jeopardy, again. Best for all concerned if she just keeps her mouth shut and puts that dick back in its glass case.
Then, one day she realizes she's pregnant, but doesn't want to reveal the truth.
There are other potential scenarios, but many of them are variations on the above. The point is there are possibilities other than the Stanksluthoe Scenario. The larger point is that the bottom-line is that I and my child deserve to know the truth about the child's paternity.
Another problem is that too many people, especially women, believe that a woman "just knows" who her baby's daddy is. I heard someone say this on the radio, the other day. PLEASE. I must say, I'm unimpressed with the collective track-record. Even if you *know,* you may not tell the truth. Even if you tell what you *think* is the truth, yo' ass could be WRONG.
Please give me a break. If you've only slept with one man in the past year, cool. If you've slept with a couple dudes within a month, I ain't judging you. I just don't want you rollin' the goddamned dice to figure out who to put on your Maury application. I don't want you deciding, "Well, THIS DUDE's swingin' a ton o' ding-a-ling, so I'd always have some good meat in the freezer. He also loves kids, but too bad he's broke.
THAT DUDE's got a good job and pays his bills on time, so I think he'd offer more security. Too bad he hates kids and won't lick my bunghole.
DING-DING-DING-DING. We have a winnah!
♂ ♥ ♀
EDIT: In my opinion, this is along the same lines as a prenuptial agreement. One could say it's a purely pessimistic or one could say it's a matter of legal and social pragmatism.
EDIT: In my opinion, this is along the same lines as a prenuptial agreement. One could say it's a purely pessimistic or one could say it's a matter of legal and social pragmatism.
17 comments:
i haven't finished reading this entire post. i got stuck at "i'll have paternity tests for all of my kids - even if we're married"
dude, eventually you gotta step out on faith. either you trust folk or you don't. there really ain't no inbetween there, and why would you want to marry a woman you don't trust?
I don't really gotta.
And it's not all about trust, as I explained in the rest of the post.
let me read the rest, then...
west, i don't think you've argued your stance effectively here. frankly, whether the intent is malicious or not, it still comes down to trust. the act in and of itself of having the paternity test done implies distrust, regardless of whether or not you think she's being malicious about it.
it's like this...if you trust her completely and feel as though you have chosen a mate who would tell you if any of the mentioned scenarious took place, then the fact that she hasn't means they haven't, and she deserves you believing in her.
if you doubt her in any way, then you have to wonder about the solidity of the relationship. i mean really...you either trust her or you don't. this isn't about thinking the worst but believing the best. i'm sure there are a number of things you accept as truth just cuz, and no additional confirmation is necessary.
this isn't about the person you've chosen. this seems to be more about your faith in your own ability to choose a trustworthy person.
re: " west, i don't think you've argued your stance effectively here. "
I've got to disagree. I've effectively expressed why I feel the way that I do. I even provided an example of a more common and more accepted practice that I think is comparable - one that you didn't address. Prenup's could be considered documents which prove that one doesn't trust one's spouse or that one doesn't think the relationship will work out. Actually, they're not all about pessimism or distrust so much as they're about protection and discussion.
Kinda like making a guy wear a condom, even though you're committed, until you're married. One could say you don't trust him until he buys you a ring.
re: "it's like this...if you trust her completely and feel as though you have chosen a mate who would tell you if any of the mentioned scenarious took place, then the fact that she hasn't means they haven't, and she deserves you believing in her."
I don't know what you're getting at here with "then the fact that tshe hasn't means they haven't."
EDIT: I think I get you, now.
Personally, I think the only thing we're guaranteed in this world is that people will be people. We can love them and hate them, trust them and suspect them, but "good people" sometimes do "bad things" and "bad people" sometimes do "good things."
That is what I trust ANY person to do. I choose to form relationships with them, anyway, but I'm not going to fool myself into believing that I know everything my mate would (n)ever do.
re: "you either trust her or you don't."
Try again. I trust her to be a human-being.
Ever asked your mate what was wrong and he said "nothing" when that wasn't the truth? Yeah. That's just human. Personally, I don't play that game. If something's wrong, but I don't wanna talk about it, I don't lie. I say I don't want to talk about it. I think that's a very worthwhile distinction, but not everyone's like me, though.
re: "i'm sure there are a number of things you accept as truth just cuz, and no additional confirmation is necessary."
I'm sure there are a number of things that you don't accept as truth just cuz, and additional confirmation is necessary. How we decide which things are which depends on just how important those things are to us and how much protection or security that confirmation provides.
When it comes to child paternity, the law is not looking out for the father. It's looking out for the child and the mother. If you're married to a woman and she has a child, the courts make "you" the father, even if she admits that she cheated on you. That's fucked up, but it's not going to stop me from forming relationships.
I don't recall all of the other legal entanglements, but I think it'd be really smart to request confirmation before signing on the dotted line.
re: "this seems to be more about your faith in your own ability to choose a trustworthy person."
A woman who's raped, but doesn't want to tell anyone about it = untrustworthy?
A man whose woman won't sex him without a condom = untrustworthy?
A couple who mutually agree to have a pre-nup = mutually untrustworthy?
Got it.
"I've got to disagree. I've effectively expressed why I feel the way that I do. I even provided an example of a more common and more accepted practice that I think is comparable - one that you didn't address. Prenup's could be considered documents which prove that one doesn't trust one's spouse or that one doesn't think the relationship will work out. Actually, they're not all about pessimism or distrust so much as they're about protection and discussion."
you're right. prenups could be seen that way. in fact, many do see it that way. others see it as a means of protection against behavior detrimental to the marriage. a prenup guards against future behavior. i wouldn't think a brotha distrusted me by suggesting a prenup, because it's kinda like signing a paper saying "i promise i won't do the worse to you." it's just like vows, only more business-like.
however, in the case of a paternity test, you're trying to prove or disprove an action that has already taken place, i.e. her telling you the baby is yours. in other words, you're trying to prove she's not already lying by already having slept with someone else. that's different than a prenup.
if you down with a prenup, adding the clause stating you will have a paternity test done after each child could be seen as overkill. i mean really, you already got the person signing something stating they won't cheat, so why is there a need for a paternity test?
again, it comes down to trust. you said people are capable of good and bad. the act of having a paternity test for all of your kids infers a focus on the worst a person could do. to me, its the equivalent of your wife asking you to have an aids test done before each and every time you have sex. it might be a smart suggestion because "who really knows where your dick has been, right?", but really, what is the message being sent regarding her faith in your behavior?
re: 'i wouldn't think a brotha distrusted me by suggesting a prenup, because it's kinda like signing a paper saying "i promise i won't do the worse to you." it's just like vows, only more business-like.'
A pre-nup's more than that. To follow your line of thinking, a pre-nup's more like saying, "You're the kind of person who would do these negative things to me, so here's a legally binding document to protect me in case you do."
re: "in other words, you're trying to prove she's not already lying by already having slept with someone else."
Actually, by telling her, in advance, that I'll always have paternity tests done, she knows I'll find out the truth, so the actual test is more like a formality. But if you don't follow-through with it, it loses its significance.
re: "i mean really, you already got the person signing something stating they won't cheat, so why is there a need for a paternity test?"
Maybe your experience differs from mine, but I don't know of any prenups that are about each partner "stating they won't cheat." They're about clearly stating one's intentions and agreements before potentially negative, but entirely possible situations occur.
At any rate, I never said I'd have both a prenup and a paternity test. It's possible, though.
re: "again, it comes down to trust. you said people are capable of good and bad. the act of having a paternity test for all of your kids infers a focus on the worst a person could do. to me, its the equivalent of your wife asking you to have an aids test done before each and every time you have sex. it might be a smart suggestion because "who really knows where your dick has been, right?", but really, what is the message being sent regarding her faith in your behavior?"
Best example, yet. It doesn't address the "condom until we're married" trust issue, but I'll entertain it, anyway.
It's about protecting and probability, really. The real equivalent to my wife wanting me to have an AIDS test every time we're gonna have sex is for ME to want HER to have an AIDS test, every time. I've decided that I'll risk my own health, but I have not decided to risk my and my potential children's (or anyone else's) paternal identity.
It's far less likely that a man would be raped. (Although I admit that he may be more likely to want to keep it to himself.) In fact, a man can take an AIDS test, on his own, before having sex after being raped. A woman, as far as I know, will not be able to test her child's paternity for quite some time, so she'll have to either admit the possibilities or assume the child's paternity, well in advance of the child's birth.
It's a different situation than the one you describe, in my opinion, although there are some similarities.
Again, like a prenup, my partner and I have agreed that we'll take certain action if certain situations occur.
As an aside: I know of far more children who were "assigned" the wrong father than I know of women who were given AIDS from their husbands.
oh well, i tried.
you've explained why you feel the way you do. i respect it. however, your reasoning isn't applicable to everybody. i wouldn't put up with the paternity test, and that doesn't make me wrong. i have my reasons for feeling the way i do as you have your reasons for feeling the way you do. this is kinda like the whole "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" debate: a fundamental difference in how the action is interpreted will always create conflict.
i'm sure there are women who think as you do and would be willing to have a paternity test after each child without thinking you don't trust them, so ultimately, as long as you find a sista down with it, it's all good for you.
re: "you've explained why you feel the way you do. i respect it. however, your reasoning isn't applicable to everybody."
I never meant to suggest that it was.
I said what was right for me. Would I advise it to anyone else? If they asked - yes. If they were my offspring - yes.
Just like I'd suggest people have their new partner (or long-time partner, depending) take an AIDS test... and show them the results. You could always just ask them to have the test done, but it'd behoove you to see it yourself.
Same kinda thing.
Anyway, if other people don't want to do this, that's fine. I'm not having sex with them.
You don't seem to be interested in addressing the condom-unless-married question, so how about this one:
What would you recommend to your (future-)son?
I've talked to multiple women about this and that often makes the difference. When they're the wife or girlfriend, it's an offense. When they consider what they'd want their sons to do, it's a good idea.
I think that's when they start thinking of all the lying women they know - not really considering the examples I gave, even. Most women, it seems, aren't as concerned with this kinda thing because they don't need to be. They're having the babies. They don't have to worry about if they're the mother (except with those switched-at-birth situations).
Once they're the grandmother-to-be, they wanna look out for their sons.
i agree there. folks should use a condom unless they're married, and even then if the folks aren't ready for kids. however, it goes without saying that the only guarantee for no children is to abstain.
of the women i know, most of them use condoms. i think we are just as aware of the importance of contraceptives in our lives as we would be for our sons.
that said, when my brother impregnated the girl in san diego, my parents suggested a paternity test. i asked him if he knew her well enough to trust what she told him because they had only known each other a short time before they became intimate. in that case, a paternity test made sense.
in my mind that isn't a relationship to be compared to that between married folks who have given vows to be faithful to each other.
btw, he never asked her to have the test. either way, i get a niece to love and am not concerned with whether or not she's my blood or not. she's still a child who deserves love. now if she wasn't my brother's child, the biological father deserves to know. however, that's not my call to make.
The other stuff has been covered, but I'll just say that claiming babies ain't my thing... and I love kids.
I'll take a child in in heartbeat, but paternal identity needs to be clearly and accurately established, from the get-go. I think that's best for all concerned.
You two have had a great discussion here and I'm sorry to have come to it late. But, as a happily married man with kids, let me give you my perspective on your line-in-the-sand here, West.
You're crazy.
I'm only being slightly facetious here. Let me put it to you this way and perhaps my point will make more sense. Let's say your wife, the woman whom you cherish above all others and with whom you exchanged vows in front of your respective loved ones decide that you want to start a family. Then, after some time, she announces the miracle of all miracles: she's pregnant.
So, everyone's excited and the calling of parents and siblings, etc. begins.
But wait, you say, we have to have a blood test first. Boy, aren't you the proverbial turd in the punch bowl. And, although I never checked it out, I somehow remember that there's an issue with checking paternity while the baby is in utero, so I think you'll have to wait until the baby is actually born.
So, imagine, that you go through the 9 months of pregnancy, through the cravings and weight gain and various tests for genetic markers for horrible diseases that will scare you and your spouse to death, through her discomfort and anxieties and self-image problems and (hopefully not) possibly complications with the pregnancy, only to arrive at the blessed event: the birth of your first son or daughter.
And, after seeing the miracle of this new life and hugging and kissing your wife, and crying, and talking to your loved ones on the phone, and even when you first get to hold him or her, and walk your baby around the hospital ...
After all that, you're going to ask for a paternity test?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's fine to think of these conditions in the abstract, but even setting aside the trust issues which Nikki rightly raised, you're talking about having this test done after probably a year or more of trying to conceive, conceiving, carrying the baby, labor and birth. There's a lot of emotion tied into that process and it's not something to set aside lightly.
And let's say the unthinkable happens and it's not your genetic child, what then? I'm sure you and your wife will have words, but will you walk away from your wife and this child? Intellectually, easy to say 'yes,' but try to imagine looking down at his little miracle, a child who has harmed no one, and walking out on that child's life to abandon the child to whatever fate awaits him or her. If you're not going to walk away from your wife and the child, then why bother having the test in the first place? What possible good can come of the test then?
Anyway, I've rambled far too long. The "man" in me sympathizes with your position, West, but the husband and father in me says that your little proposal is fine in theory but horrible in practice.
re: "After all that, you're going to ask for a paternity test? "
No. As I said, I talk to them about it well before marriage. My current girlfriend already knows the deal and, while she isn't enthused about it, she admits that's what she'd recommend for her son, if she had one.
So, it's not like I'll be the turd in the punchbowl. It's already out there, just like with the pre-nup.
Nobody plans their wedding out, makes arrangements, goes through the rehearsal, hits the church, then says, "So, will you sign this pre-nup?"
You get that stuff out of the way beforehand and your scenario never has to come to pass.
re: "And let's say the unthinkable happens and it's not your genetic child, what then? I'm sure you and your wife will have words, but will you walk away from your wife and this child?"
Hell yes!
The woman cheated on ME, didn't tell me, pawned a child off as mine and I'm supposed to STAY with her?!
That baby's GOT a daddy and it damn-sure isn't me. The idea that you or anyone else would judge a man for leaving such a situation makes me think you've got a lil more "crazy" than I do.
re: "Intellectually, easy to say 'yes,' but try to imagine looking down at his little miracle, a child who has harmed no one, and walking out on that child's life to abandon the child to whatever fate awaits him or her."
My presence didn't make this child, so my absence won't break this child.
Calling that abandonment is a bit peculiar. The mother and father are the ones who deserve whatever criticism there may be to give.
re: " If you're not going to walk away from your wife and the child, then why bother having the test in the first place? What possible good can come of the test then?"
If the woman's telling the truth about the child's paternity, then it's all good.
If she's lying, then I wanna know that, as soon as possible.
Simple as that.
I understand where you're coming from, but again, I think you're thinking of this as an intellectual exercise and discounting the emotion that will be involved.
If your future wife agrees to the paternity test up front, more power to you. Like Nikki, however, I wonder how many women will agree to your terms. Moreover, I wonder how willing you will be to stand on principle when the woman you are in love with and want to spend the rest of your life with tells you not just no, but hell no.
I also question whether you would just walk away from your wife and a child that turns out not to be yours, it sounds simple in practice, but suppose you love this woman who you married with all your heart and soul. Do you really think it is so simple a process to say, as she is craddling a newborn whom up until moments ago you thought was yours, "I'm out?" You say the hypothetical child in my scenario already has a daddy and you ain't it. Really? What if your wife really did get raped or had a one night stand and "daddy" is long gone? So, your solution is to take off and let your wife fend for herself? And what about the kid? The baby doesn't know anything about the politics of relationships, nor did the baby ask to be the result of your wife's illicit affair.
Life isn't a chess match and it doesn't always go by the rules we set out for it. It's great to have principles, but the ramifications of following those principles to the letter might be a bit more than what you imagine.
re: "I understand where you're coming from, but again, I think you're thinking of this as an intellectual exercise and discounting the emotion that will be involved."
Guess, AGAIN, oh Hufferferred-one!
It's emotion AND pragmatism that brought me and the women who've recommend this to me, to come to this decision. It's emotion and pragmatism that lead other women to say that, while they don't like the idea of it happening to THEM, they'd absolutely recommend this to their own sons.
My heart would rather be broken in the beginning, as opposed to a couple decades later.
My mind would rather avoid the legal entanglements and financial burdens.
I've already seen 40-year-olds find out somebody else, who'd just died, was their real father. The truth doesn't always come out, but sometimes it does and sometimes it hurts.
re: "Moreover, I wonder how willing you will be to stand on principle when the woman you are in love with and want to spend the rest of your life with tells you not just no, but hell no."
If she can be offended by my request, then I can be offended by her denial.
Q: "If you trust her, then what's the problem?"
A: "If I'm the father, then what's the problem?"
If a woman were to tell me this is a deal-breaker for her, I'd tell her that we can continue to enjoy each other's company, but that our relationship will be limited by that decision.
I can live with those consequences - especially since I'd ask this before we got super-serious.
As far as the rape scenario goes, I didn't say I'd definitely leave her, then. The cheating scenario? Strong possibility I'd leave.
If she were raped and didn't tell me, though, it's possible I'd leave. Just like some women don't want to be in a relationship with a man, like me, who wants a paternity test, no matter what... I don't want to be in a relationship with a woman who would go through something like that without telling me.
In fact, I've been there (or mighty close to it), already.
It's not just a matter of anger or immature melodramatic macho bullshit, either. To me, that's a BIG TIME issue with far-reaching repercussions. If that's the kind of relationship we have, I'd want to know that as soon as possible.
If I decide to stay, it'll be an informed decision, as opposed to one based on illusion.
I'd prefer a hard truth over a soft lie.
re: "Life isn't a chess match and it doesn't always go by the rules we set out for it. It's great to have principles, but the ramifications of following those principles to the letter might be a bit more than what you imagine."
Just like the ramifications associated with assuming a child is (or isn't) yours. I know.
I've got people older and younger than I am who agree - both men and women. I like to talk about these things, in case I've missed something, but please don't think this is some decision I make lightly.
It's serious to me - as serious as my feelings for the children I've loved almost all my life... the children who haven't even been born, yet.
Post a Comment