# Would your husband accept a child that was not his?



## jld

This is a spin off of that PSA thread in Men's. 

I hear this brought up a lot here on TAM, that men do not want to raise and pay for children who are not their own. And some have suggested paternity tests after the birth. I have always felt a little surprised when I read these things.

I have not been unfaithful, we are done having kids, and we have five, but if I had for whatever reason had a child before marrying him, or had a child by another man during the marriage, I know dh would not take it out on the child. I just know him. He loves children, and he loves me, and he would just accept the responsibility.

How about your husband? What do you think he would do?


----------



## Faithful Wife

My husband has been an excellent step-father my son. They have a wonderful relationship and both have benefited from it so much.

Though I can say that if they had not been able to get along or there was anything about the situation that my husband just couldn't get on board with, he would have stopped dating me, and I wouldn't have blamed him at all. If someone can't handle parenting someone else's kid, they should not even try.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Male here.

We have no kids but I raised one of my sister's son who was the product of an affair she had while married to her husband.
He didn't really pay much attention to him.

He's now eighteen years old.

Raising kids are pretty expensive, but some men would raise a child that isn't theirs , based on the circumstances.

If the child was the result of an affair she had, then they might have problems paying for the kid, because they would be a constant reminder of her infidelity.
I suppose based on how reconciliation goes , he might decide to raise the kid.
But it would definitely take a lot if it happened to me.
If she had that kid before meeting him, then most men wouldn't have a problem paying for the kid.
But lots of problem develop later in life when the man can't even speak to or discipline the kid because the kid doesn't recognize his authority.

In a case like that , both the man and the mother need to agree on these issues before marriage.
A lot will also depend on the relationship that kid and his mother has with their natural father.


----------



## Rowan

My ex-husband isn't an involved parent and has no wish to be. He actually interacts more with our son now that we're divorced than he did when we were married. He tried to talk me out of him having to pay child support during our divorce, before he realized that state law and not the parents set the minimum for child support in our state. Some men just don't want to be parents, even to children of their own that they wanted. 

Luckily, I think most men aren't much like my ex-husband. I think many men are just fine helping to raise a step child. Obviously, most men who adopt with their wives are willing to raise an adopted child. But I don't think most men would be at all happy to discover they had been deceived into raising and paying for some other man's child. 

I wouldn't expect many people, men or women, to be very happy about raising a child of their partner's infidelity.


----------



## baedono

I actually asked my husband while we were engaged that if I had a child before we met, would he still consider dating me and he said absolutely and that because he loves me, he'd want to help me and help raise my child with me.

You know, even though he says it, you never know! Maybe if I really DID have a child when I met him, he would have not taken our relationship farther than just being friends, haha! But I trust his words and I know that he is a good guy and loves me very much. 

We fell in love pretty fast and he was very pushy about getting married so I think despite any problems that could have been, he would have still wanted to get married regardless.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Another amazing thing my husband has done...along these lines but possibly even MORE of a commitment to me...is that he came into our marriage knowing that I have two relatives who will soon need full time care and probably will end up living with us. He knows that and still went forward with our relationship. Time is drawing near on those two relatives and my husband is still in this with me, ready to take on that huge challenge.


----------



## kitty2013

My husband would.


----------



## jld

That is a big commitment, taking on the care of elderly or ill relatives.

I know dh would do that, too. I think to him, there are just responsibilities in life that must be accepted. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. You just do what needs to be done.


----------



## Giro flee

I don't think I could ask that of my husband. I do have an aunt and a girlfriend who have accepted their husbands "love child", so women do this as well. I didn't know my cousin was special until I was in my twenties.


----------



## 6301

jld said:


> This is a spin off of that PSA thread in Men's.
> 
> I hear this brought up a lot here on TAM, that men do not want to raise and pay for children who are not their own. And some have suggested paternity tests after the birth. I have always felt a little surprised when I read these things.
> 
> I have not been unfaithful, we are done having kids, and we have five, but if I had for whatever reason had a child before marrying him, or had a child by another man during the marriage, I know dh would not take it out on the child. I just know him. He loves children, and he loves me, and he would just accept the responsibility.
> 
> How about your husband? What do you think he would do?


 Just wondering. If your husband ever got another woman pregnant and then had to raise the child for some reason, would you want to take on his love child as your own?


----------



## jld

6301 said:


> Just wondering. If your husband ever got another woman pregnant and then had to raise the child for some reason, would you want to take on his love child as your own?


I was just thinking about that, after reading Giro Flee's post. I think I would. I just don't think it would be right to give the baby up for adoption. It would be his child, you know? And it is a child. It would need care.

I bet I would grow a lot. I would be less selfish. I would just have to do the right thing, and not worry about my feelings. I would have to be patient and wait for my feelings to soften.

Good question, 6301!


----------



## Maricha75

The subject never came up with us. However, if something were to happen to either of my sisters and their spouses/ex-husbands, he wouldn't hesitate to take the kids in. In fact, when my dad was stressing out over the financial situation since mom passed a few weeks ago, we discussed that it would be hard, but we'd take in my godmother, who was excluded when my sister's future FIL said Dad and sis and sis's daughter could stay with them. There is no question about it... my godmother is family. She is not blood, never married into the family, but she has been there since before I was born.And if, for whatever reason, Dad needed to stay with us...again, no question about it. Knowing my husband's heart in these instances, I believe he would accept a child, if I had one before we got together. If a child had been the product of infidelity during our marriage, that might be a different story. But, if the infidelity was discovered years later, after the bond was formed, he would still call the child his. In all the ways that matter, that is how he would see the child. However, it was a non-issue. All three are his, and I cannot have anymore children.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I would think it has a lot to do with the circumstances of said child. Bringing a child into a relationship is different then one conceived through an affair; I have two kids that my hb is stepfather to but there was no deception involved. He has a daughter, but once again no deception. We were both married before.
Now if I had an affair and got pregnant I wouldn't expect him to raise that child, and if he has an affair and a child comes out of it there's no way in h!ll I'd raise that child. We'd be done. But bringing in a child from before me? No problem.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## larry.gray

If you don't mind a dude posting in the ladies lounge....

Your two examples JLD are VASTLY different. A kid from before the relationship? No problem at all for me. I'd try to be the best step dad possible. The second example, the child of an affair is a *WHOLE* different thing.

In a way it is hard for a woman to comprehend since the same thing can't happen to her. A close equivalent would be if a man got his affair partner pregnant, and then she died in childbirth. Could you go around telling people that the baby was yours and raise it like your child?


----------



## jane1213

I am thinking now of the Irish singer Bob geldof. He adopted his late ex-wife affair child.


----------



## ntamph

My GF has a 4 year old girl from her first boyfriend.

He has been completely absent since she was a few weeks old.

If our relationship ever leads to marriage, that little girl (who will become a grown woman) won't be by her sperm donor's bedside when the time comes. GF: "He's not a dad, has never acted like one."


----------



## jld

larry.gray said:


> If you don't mind a dude posting in the ladies lounge....
> 
> Your two examples JLD are VASTLY different. A kid from before the relationship? No problem at all for me. I'd try to be the best step dad possible. The second example, the child of an affair is a *WHOLE* different thing.
> 
> In a way it is hard for a woman to comprehend since the same thing can't happen to her. A close equivalent would be if a man got his affair partner pregnant, and then she died in childbirth. Could you go around telling people that the baby was yours and raise it like your child?


I would tell them the truth. Dh would have to live with that transparency. That would be part of the reality of having had the affair.

I just feel like we would have to raise the child. It would be dh's child, you know? And it is a child, a defenseless being. Why should it bear any blame?

Unless dh wanted to give it up, I would think we would keep it. 

I guess it would be his child, his choice.


----------



## Maricha75

I have stated many times that my husband and I agree that if either of us ever physically cheated, that would be the end of our marriage. However, I am willing to say that I will not say that is an absolute certainty. I say that because there are MANY people who have said that, and they chose to reconcile after all. 

So, let's assume we choose to reconcile, rather than divorce. Yes, I would accept the child into the family. That child would be my stepchild, and would be treated EQUALLY to my natural children. There is no question about it. And, if the biological mother died in childbirth, I would be the mother. My husband and I would raise the child together, and I would legally adopt him or her. 

Again, this is assuming we choose to reconcile, rather than divorce.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> I would tell them the truth. Dh would have to live with that transparency. That would be part of the reality of having had the affair.


One parallel that can't happen to a woman is that she's going to know the moment the child comes home it isn't hers. There are plenty of men who either never find out or find out years to decades later.



jld said:


> I just feel like we would have to raise the child. It would be dh's child, you know? And it is a child, a defenseless being. Why should it bear any blame?


It's not a matter of blame, it is the fact that the child will be a walking, breathing trigger.


----------



## johnAdams

Mrs. John Adams said:


> If my husband had an "affair" child....I would raise it as my own...no question. I love children and it would be a part of him.


One of the many ways our personalities differ


----------



## jld

That's how I see it, too, Maricha. 

I guess we don't really know unless it has happened. 

I have gone back and forth on whether I could get past an affair. But if there were a child and no living mother, then definitely I would have to stay with him. I would feel an obligation to the child.

Gosh, these are sad things to think about!


----------



## jld

larry.gray said:


> It's not a matter of blame, it is the fact that the child will be a walking, breathing trigger.


I know, but I am an adult. Who should sacrifice: me, or the child?

I don't own dh, larry. He's not my property, you know? 

He could someday do this. And I would have to see him as the completely fallible human he is. I would really find out how strong my love for him is.


----------



## larry.gray

johnAdams said:


> One of the many ways our personalities differ


I'll maintain the difference is found primarily in the biological differences between men and women. I'd be really curious if the women of this thread actually ask their husbands vs. presuming what they'd do?


----------



## jld

larry.gray said:


> I'll maintain the difference is found primarily in the biological differences between men and women. I'd be really curious if the women of this thread actually ask their husbands vs. presuming what they'd do?


I called him and he said yes, he would accept the child.

He is a Catholic man, and that may influence his thinking. Also, he is just a family man, period, and loves children. And is truly kind and forgiving.


----------



## Thound

To me those are 2 different questions. If my wife had a child before we were together, I would treat them like my own. If she had a child that was not mine thru cheating, she would be raising them alone, cause I would be long gone.


----------



## jld

Thound said:


> To me those are 2 different questions. If my wife had a child before we were together, I would treat them like my own. If she had a child that was not mine thru cheating, she would be raising them alone, cause I would be long gone.


Why, Thound?


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Thound said:


> To me those are 2 different questions. If my wife had a child before we were together, I would treat them like my own. If she had a child that was not mine thru cheating, she would be raising them alone, cause I would be long gone.


On the 2nd scenario in particular I'm with you, except I'd also give her the option of raising her affair child by marrying its father (she'd be legally clear to do that in fairly short order) and raising it with him. Or she could raise it alone until she found a new husband. In any case I would feel no more responsible for it than I would for my neighbors child or for any other child that is not mine. 

To do otherwise would IMO demonstrate to my family and to the rest of the world that my value as a man, as a person is so low that I would tolerate any almost any level of humiliation.


----------



## GusPolinski

As CM stated, for most men it would depend on the situation... 

A child/children from a previous relationship? No problem. 

A child conceived by way of an affair? For many men I'd think it would be no; for me it would be a resounding HELL NO, followed very quickly by a divorce. I love my wife absolutely and without reservation, but there is only so much that my pride can withstand. Aside from an actual, physical neutering, this is -- IMO -- the absolute worst thing that a woman can do to a man. I realize that the child itself would be blameless, but that doesn't mean that the BH should feel responsible for raising the child. I certainly wouldn't. WW and OW can take care of that.

Now flip the tables... I wouldn't expect my wife to raise a child conceived as a result of my affair w/ another woman. Knowing her, she probably would, but there's just no way that I could ask that of her.

A child conceived by way of rape? Can't answer for anyone other than myself but, for me, I'd feel compelled to do it. Or, rather, I'd defer to my wife's wishes. Given our beliefs, however, I'm pretty sure that abortion (I can barely bring myself to type the word) would be off the table. Adoption, perhaps (and even that seems VERY unlikely), but not abortion.


----------



## jld

nuclearnightmare said:


> To do otherwise would IMO demonstrate to my family and to the rest of the world that my value as a man, as a person is so low that I would tolerate any almost any level of humiliation.


I would not see you that way, nn. I would see you as a mature, compassionate man, willing to set your pride aside to care for a small, defenseless child.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> I love my wife absolutely and without reservation, but there is only so much that my pride can withstand.


None of us really knows what we would do until we are there, right?

And you might surprise yourself, Gus, if you truly love her "absolutely and without reservation."


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> None of us really knows what we would do until we are there, right?
> 
> And you might surprise yourself, Gus, if you truly love her "absolutely and without reservation."


I know myself well enough to know that I'd have to love her from afar. Sorry, couldn't do it.

Edit: I could expand upon this a bit more, but it's bedtime, and Mrs. Gus needs her cuddles.


----------



## Miss Taken

I think that he would. He loves kids -- more than I do. I think if we fostered or I had a child from a previous relationship he would be fine. An affair baby is a different story.

I could happily raise step-children but I know if he got a woman pregnant during his affair, I'd have to walk away. I don't think I am strong enough to handle that. I think he'd say the same for himself.

I do know I could love a step-kid of a fostered/adopted kid though. I had a hand in raising a baby through to toddler-hood before I was a mother and I loved that little boy very much. I also hope to be a foster mom or adopt when my kids are older.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld...It is true people may actually decide differently if it really happened to them versus how they feel about the idea of it in the abstract. But how they feel in the abstract is still valid. Most people would not agree to wanting to raise such a child. As much as the child is in fact innocent, it is still not their child. I love kids but not that much! A friend of mine recently was telling me how she and her husband may have to take in their baby niece because the teen mother and her boyfriend are neglecting/abusing the baby and child protective services have taken the baby into custody. They want to place babies like that with a family member if there is one, versus into the foster care system, so she and her husband were the only eligible family.

She has two teenagers, she is on the verge of having an empty nest...and now possibly have to take in a baby?

She will do it...she is capable and will love the baby and will do it...but she sure as heck doesn't WANT to. She wants her freedom back and she is so close she can smell it.

I wouldn't want to either.

Damn, let me tell you how awesome an empty nest is! Heck no I would not welcome a baby.

I am sure I would eventually just accept the situation and be happy about it...for instance if my daughter couldn't care for her kids, of course I would be right there with open arms. But do I want to do that, heck no!


----------



## jld

I just can't see dh leaving me for any reason, ever. And I don't think he can see himself leaving me for any reason, ever. I truly feel unconditionally loved.

If he got a girl pregnant, I think I would feel he would need to go and be with her. That baby would need him more than the kids and I need him, though he would still need to see our kids. I am pretty sure I would divorce him.

I just would not feel right having that girl and the baby alone and me with my kids already somewhat grown with dh. 

Gosh, the thought of all this is so sad. I truly hope I never actually live it.


----------



## WyshIknew

Well as many of you know, I was that husband. My wife had a child from a previous relationship, she basically got humped and dumped, he refused to acknowledge the baby as his.

I first met him when he was nearly four and my former slightly wild child wife had started settling down.

I ended up legally adopting him, and my son paid me the greatest compliment a little while ago.

He told me that as far as he was concerned anyone could be a father but it takes a special person to be a dad.

One of the highlights of his childhood (for me) was his transitioning from calling me Uncle to calling me dad.


----------



## jld

For sure, everybody's thoughts are valid. And none of us really knows.

I just think sometimes we think we could never handle something . . . and somehow, we find we can.

But again, we don't know, and everybody is free to do what they want, anyway.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jld...I totally believe you, that is how you would feel. You are a kind soul.


----------



## jld

Oh, that is so beautiful, Wysh! I am sure you are a great dad.


----------



## jld

Thanks a lot, FW. You are, too.


----------



## WyshIknew

jld said:


> Oh, that is so beautiful, Wysh! I am sure you are a great dad.


Just a guy who does the best he can. That's all anyone can ask.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No wysh...many people do not have a father. You are more than many people get to have. You are not "just a guy who does the best he can". Much more than that. Some of our tasks in life feel easy (like loving your kids) but are far more important than anything else.


----------



## Duguesclin

nuclearnightmare said:


> On the 2nd scenario in particular I'm with you, except I'd also give her the option of raising her affair child by marrying its father (she'd be legally clear to do that in fairly short order) and raising it with him. Or she could raise it alone until she found a new husband. In any case I would feel no more responsible for it than I would for my neighbors child or for any other child that is not mine.
> 
> To do otherwise would IMO demonstrate to my family and to the rest of the world that my value as a man, as a person is so low that I would tolerate any almost any level of humiliation.


But isn't the value of a man to give a fair chance to a child. If the baby is dumped by the biological father, wouldn't you think twice before dumping the baby too?

I do not think pride should be part of that decision.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> *I just can't see dh leaving me for any reason, ever. And I don't think he can see himself leaving me for any reason, ever. I truly feel unconditionally loved.*
> 
> If he got a girl pregnant, I think I would feel he would need to go and be with her. That baby would need him more than the kids and I need him, though he would still need to see our kids. I am pretty sure I would divorce him.
> 
> I just would not feel right having that girl and the baby alone and me with my kids already somewhat grown with dh.
> 
> Gosh, the thought of all this is so sad. I truly hope I never actually live it.


As you say, you might be surprised.

Edit: Stupid [email protected]#$ing [email protected]@$$ morons stomping around upstairs...


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> But isn't the value of a man to give a fair chance to a child. If the baby is dumped by the biological father, wouldn't you think twice before dumping the baby too?
> 
> *I do not think pride should be part of that decision.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Perhaps, but "should" ain't "is".


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> But isn't the value of a man to give a fair chance to a child. *If the baby is dumped by the biological father, wouldn't you think twice before dumping the baby too?*
> 
> I do not think pride should be part of that decision.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry, I don't see it that way at all. How can you "dump" something that was never yours to begin with? 

To be clear, I'm referring to the "affair baby" scenario and NOT the step-parent scenario. Again, I -- and many other men -- would have no problem w/ that.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Sorry, I don't see it that way at all. How can you "dump" something that was never yours to begin with?
> 
> To be clear, I'm referring to the "affair baby" scenario and NOT the step-parent scenario. Again, I -- and many other men -- would have no problem w/ that.


I think what he means is it is still an innocent life that is going to suffer if it does not have a father.

What, if anything, do you think would make you change your mind about the baby, Gus? Not a trick question. Just sincerely wondering.


----------



## jld

I was just thinking that it is like Jesus. Mary got pregnant while she was engaged to Joseph, but it was not Joseph's baby. He could have divorced her, but he did not.


----------



## jld

You mean how the Bible says an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream?

I think the non-believers would say Mary just got pregnant by someone, but Joseph was a compassionate man and was willing to marry her anyway. 

Wouldn't she have been stoned if he had not?


----------



## over20

Not necessarily.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I think what he means is it is still an innocent life that is going to suffer if it does not have a father.


The child can have a father; it can have OM. If OM makes a conscious decision to not own up to his responsibilities, that's on him, and not me.



jld said:


> What, if anything, do you think would make you change your mind about the baby, Gus? Not a trick question. Just sincerely wondering.


Again, if we're talking about the "affair baby" scenario, I honestly can't see anything changing my mind. I'm just not built that way.


----------



## jld

Thanks for your honesty, Gus.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Thanks for your honesty, Gus.


De nada. I may not always be right, but I'll always be honest.


----------



## Entropy3000

Thound said:


> To me those are 2 different questions. If my wife had a child before we were together, I would treat them like my own. If she had a child that was not mine thru cheating, she would be raising them alone, cause I would be long gone.


No question about this.

I raised my wife's daughter as my own. I knew this going in. In restropect I sacrificed a great deal for that commitment. Long story.

Adopting is an act of love no doubt.

But an affair child? No. 

It would not be fair to the child. The child deserves their mother and they deserve someone who could raise them without this issue. And yes it IS an issue.
Asking why is ludicrous. The child is better off with another man not involved in the betrayal if not the bilogical father. The woman made this choice after all. NOT the husband.

1) The wife has given herself sexually to another man. She gives herself to someone other than her husband. This alone is a dealbreaker for many folks. This is cruel and humliating to her husband.

2) Was there no birth control? Go ahead and throw out statistics but let's be clear here, the way this happens is that the woman has unprotected sex with another man. So this is just another level of the betrayal. Then this woman expects if she gets pregnant that her husband should rasie this child!? Huh? This IS the true definition of a cuckold BTW. A male raising the child of another male. Look it up.

3) She then decides to have another man's child. I am a recovering Catholic. I understand how some do not believe in abortion. Ok fine. But if you are really that moral how in the world did you get pregnant by another man? 

A woman having a man's child is a very big deal. Yes it is a human life. But indeed ladies you honor greatly the man whose baby you carry. A man cannot do this for a woman. A man can bond with his woman and raise their child. So when a woman not only has sex with another man but carries his child, it is a very big thing. This was something that was reserved for her husband. To carry HIS children. Not another man's. I am not religious but I am spiritual and I view this as a very spiritual bond between father and mother of the child. 

4) The woman and the other man are forever joined not just by their sexual act BUT by the child she carried for them while she was married to her husband. Go ahead and explain that this was a drunkin ONS with a guy in a band at a bar. Nice ... But how about when the guy wants to be in the child's life? In the Navy some mean spirited folks used to chide "How's your wife and my kids?". Not really funny. Because sometimes this was true. This is more than a monetary thing. Her OM has a legal right to be in her life. Deal with that.

Realize that many kids do want to seek out their biological father. Be prepared for that.

5) Asking a husband to raise her affair child is yet another level of disrespect. Indeed I think as the mother of the child she sould NOT put them up for adoption. I think she should raise the child. But should not ask the husband to be reminded of this every day and to take on the burdens of raising the child.

6) The only thing worse to me is for a woman to convince her husband it is his child. This is what typically happens. How often the statistics vary but the numbers seem to be larger than most of us would like to admit. In this case the husband is cheated out of his child. I am finding that many women do not get this. All they know is that the child is theirs. But many do not get that it matters to many men that they be given the opportunity to father their child. 
Sometimes nurses can tell by the blood types that the husband is not the father. 

So if you have a penis either keep it in your pants or be willing to deal with the consequnces.

If you have a vagina then do not spread your legs and expect someone to understand and cover this for you. I know daddy always made it better. But your husband as they say is not your father. I hear this all the time, so stop expecting him to be the white night for his unfaithful princess.

I do think that it should be automatic to have a paternity test. That likely will never happen though.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> You mean how the Bible says an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream?
> 
> I think the non-believers would say Mary just got pregnant by someone, but Joseph was a compassionate man and was willing to marry her anyway.
> 
> Wouldn't she have been stoned if he had not?


Today the wife would get stoned first and then have sex.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> I think what he means is it is still an innocent life that is going to suffer if it does not have a father.
> 
> What, if anything, do you think would make you change your mind about the baby, Gus? Not a trick question. Just sincerely wondering.


_So as it came to pass the wicked woman was caste out of the home and would spend one score years banished to the brothels servicing the army to repent for her sins. After her penance she would then be accepted into the convent where she made quilts for the poor children of the world and memorized the holy scriptures as she wore her white vestments. Her name was Magil, and she called herself Lil. But everyone knew her as Nancy.

During this time the innocent child shall be raised by the betrayed husband and his choice of five wives who would carry his children.

Upon the child's 18 birthday he shall recite the charm of making and all will be right with the world. He then bows to the husband and thanks him for his mercy and vows that he shall not screw married women. Honor is restored.
_


----------



## tacoma

I married a woman with two kids so I obviously would accept a child that's not mine.

I do however think you're misunderstanding the calls for paternity tests to assure men children are theirs.

It's not about the child, it's about the woman and the disrespect involved in fooling a man into raising a child he falsely thinks is his own.

I did marry a woman with two children but if the paternity test on our child (third kid) had shown me the child wasn't mine I would have divorced my wife immediately with absolutely zero chance of any other outcome.

No man wants to be used by the woman he loves.


----------



## TiggyBlue

If my husband had a affair we would be done anyway regardless of a pregnancy. There is no way I would raise the child of his and a OW (nothing against the baby, a baby is totally innocent in the whole situation).


----------



## Caribbean Man

I also don't think that it's fair to judge a mans character based on his acceptance or non acceptance of a child that isn't his , which was the result of infidelity.

That decision is solely up to him , and doesn't make him a better man than the one who chooses not to.

Getting married to a woman who already has kids is an entirely different scenario , and is a very common, acceptable practice , especially among divorced folks.


----------



## hookares

Although it isn't likely to ever happen since I have no plans for anymore long term relationships, I would draw the line at any child my SO might conceive with another guy if we were already married. If she already has children before we meet, then I would consider them to be part of the package.


----------



## Cosmos

larry.gray said:


> If you don't mind a dude posting in the ladies lounge....
> 
> Your two examples JLD are VASTLY different. A kid from before the relationship? No problem at all for me. I'd try to be the best step dad possible. The second example, the child of an affair is a *WHOLE* different thing.
> 
> In a way it is hard for a woman to comprehend since the same thing can't happen to her. A close equivalent would be if a man got his affair partner pregnant, and then she died in childbirth. Could you go around telling people that the baby was yours and raise it like your child?


:iagree:

Or what my father did. He raided the family coffers to support his AP and their child. We were all oblivious to this until after our parents had died (including my mother, who had raised 6 children whilst working full-time).


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> I was just thinking about that, after reading Giro Flee's post. I think I would. I just don't think it would be right to give the baby up for adoption. It would be his child, you know? And it is a child. It would need care.
> 
> I bet I would grow a lot. I would be less selfish. I would just have to do the right thing, and not worry about my feelings. I would have to be patient and wait for my feelings to soften.
> 
> Good question, 6301!


OR...you (generic) could become a 'mother' like Jon Snow had in Game of Thrones...who saw to the physical needs of the child, but was otherwise constantly reminded of her husband's weakness in a walking talking intruder to your home.

I can see it both ways...for both genders.


----------



## JCD

I think there are three different scenarios here.

1) Would you, as a man, be willing to raise a known set of kids by another man?

Yes, but. The woman has changed the deal. In a normal relationship, she is offering herself. In THIS relationship, she is offering herself AND. So the man has to judge 'the package'.

And the 'package' includes not only how well he gets on with her, but how well he gets on with the kids...AND an estimation of how much time and influence the OTHER MAN has on the relationship. I am reminded of 'Dexter', where the lead married a woman who had two kids. Her ex husband was a felon violent drug user/dealer.

Now, if I were a serial killer, this wouldn't be a problem for me either. Since I am not...

The short answer is that I would not go after a woman I am 'meh' with. She would need to bring a lot to the table in terms of love, looks and understanding. She doesn't get to run the 'they are MY kids and *I* will be the only one disciplining them'. That would be a huge dealbreaker for me. Almost to divorce levels.

But at my age and my demographic of women (30s-40s), it is unlikely to meet a woman with NO kids. 

2) My wife had an affair and she TOLD me the child wasn't mine before birth.

This at least shows me some respect and give me some options. Since she took my choices away, I would pretty much take hers and get to decide whether we keep it, abort it or give it away. 

She, of course, can always walk away. But that is on HER.

But as stated, school children know how to avoid pregnancy in America. She was so passionate or sloppy that SHE got pregnant? That is a pretty high level of disrespect.

I doubt my marriage would survive.

3) She got preggers with another man, she never told me, and I had bonded with the child well before I found out.

Surprisingly, this is the best scenario for my wife and I to 'stay together' if you consider that a good outcome. Because I would love that kid. I would love my kids too. I would like to think I wouldn't blame the kid for his mother's actions...but you never know until it happens to you.

So my kids need a mother and they need a father. It would be preferable to have a LOVING mother and father, but she should have thought of that before adding blatant deception to the mix. 

Yes, I understand she is desperate. I would probably live with her. The affection, the easy conversations, the times spent together, the random loving touches, the sex...that's over. And we have a 'sell by' date on the marriage: the 18th birthday of the youngest child.

She is, of course, always free to leave anytime she wants.

Luckily, AFAIK, this isn't an issue at all, since the kids all have elements of me in their looks and personality.

As they say "Mommy's baby, Daddy's maybe."


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Or what my father did. He raided the family coffers to support his AP and their child. We were all oblivious to this until after our parents had died (including my mother, who had raised 6 children whilst working full-time).


I consider this an honorable solution to a dishonorable situation.

He made a mess. He tried to clean it up. I am sorry for the pain it caused you personally.

However it is a better solution than destroying his family by adding them to the mix OR leaving his core family for another woman.

Still, rotten all around.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> I consider this an honorable solution to a dishonorable situation.
> 
> He made a mess. He tried to clean it up. I am sorry for the pain it caused you personally.
> 
> However it is a better solution than destroying his family by adding them to the mix OR leaving his core family for another woman.
> 
> Still, rotten all around.


A more honourable solution would have been to tell my mother rather than simply using joint funds without her permission... 

Had she known, I'm sure she wouldn't have waited until she was in her 70s before divorcing the old philanderer - and perhaps saved us all the misery of growing up with a husband/father who lived his entire life as a single man and clearly didn't give a crap about her or any of his children.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> A more honourable solution would have been to tell my mother rather than simply using joint funds without her permission...
> 
> Had she known, I'm sure she wouldn't have waited until she was in her 70s before divorcing the old philanderer - and perhaps saved us all the misery of growing up with a husband/father who clearly didn't give a crap about her or any of his children.


There is that.

Tell me, did he treat you and your mother badly? 

I was discussing purely the situation of 'cleaning up his mess'. I have nothing to say about how he interacted with you. Sorry if you thought I was whitewashing his history.


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> There is that.
> 
> Tell me, did he treat you and your mother badly?
> 
> I was discussing purely the situation of 'cleaning up his mess'. I have nothing to say about how he interacted with you. Sorry if you thought I was whitewashing his history.


Cleaning up his mess by using the family joint account to support his AP and child is the opposite of honorable imo.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> There is that.
> 
> Tell me, did he treat you and your mother badly?
> 
> I was discussing purely the situation of 'cleaning up his mess'. I have nothing to say about how he interacted with you. Sorry if you thought I was whitewashing his history.


_When_ he was home, yes he did. _Very_ badly - as he did his children.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> Today the wife would get stoned first and then have sex.


:rofl:


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> jld...It is true people may actually decide differently if it really happened to them versus how they feel about the idea of it in the abstract. But how they feel in the abstract is still valid. Most people would not agree to wanting to raise such a child. As much as the child is in fact innocent, it is still not their child. I love kids but not that much! A friend of mine recently was telling me how she and her husband may have to take in their baby niece because the teen mother and her boyfriend are neglecting/abusing the baby and child protective services have taken the baby into custody. They want to place babies like that with a family member if there is one, versus into the foster care system, so she and her husband were the only eligible family.
> 
> She has two teenagers, she is on the verge of having an empty nest...and now possibly have to take in a baby?
> 
> She will do it...she is capable and will love the baby and will do it...but she sure as heck doesn't WANT to. She wants her freedom back and she is so close she can smell it.
> 
> I wouldn't want to either.
> 
> Damn, let me tell you how awesome an empty nest is! Heck no I would not welcome a baby.
> 
> I am sure I would eventually just accept the situation and be happy about it...for instance if my daughter couldn't care for her kids, of course I would be right there with open arms. But do I want to do that, heck no!


This is almost the exact scenario my STBW and I faced a while back. Her brother and his wife got into some trouble, and their three year old boy was taken into protective custody. They prefer to place kids with family if at all possible, and my STBW was the only one who could do it.

It was an extremely stressful situation for all of us, and to be honest, I did not want to do it at all. My STBW didn't want to do it either, at all, but felt compelled as he was her nephew, and so the choice was mine. Accept having a three year old that we could end up having to raise until he was 18 in order to be with my STBW, or walk. I know I could have walked with no hard feelings from her.

I chose to stay, and it ended up that we only had him for a little over seven months. I played the fatherly role the whole time, and I did a very good job as I have had lots of practice with my own, but I will also say that I never developed true fatherly feelings for him, and I doubt I ever would have.

My STBW and I had made it very clear to each other from the very beginning that we did not want any more kids at all.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> _So as it came to pass the wicked woman was caste out of the home and would spend one score years banished to the brothels servicing the army to repent for her sins. After her penance she would then be accepted into the convent where she made quilts for the poor children of the world and memorized the holy scriptures as she wore her white vestments. Her name was Magil, and she called herself Lil. But everyone knew her as Nancy.
> 
> During this time the innocent child shall be raised by the betrayed husband and his choice of five wives who would carry his children.
> 
> Upon the child's 18 birthday he shall recite the charm of making and all will be right with the world. He then bows to the husband and thanks him for his mercy and vows that he shall not screw married women. Honor is restored.
> _


Unless it happened to your mother . . . until it happens to your daughter . . . then it feels different, somehow . . .


----------



## JCD

TiggyBlue said:


> Cleaning up his mess by using the family joint account to support his AP and child is the opposite of honorable imo.


Abandoning some woman he knocked up without a nickel to her name is also a subpar outcome.

Not to start a fight, but there are no great choices here. 

As far as I can see it, here are the three scenarios.

1) if he can afford it without fiscally hurting his family, he should support this kid he created. Isn't that one of the basic assumptions here? 

2) if he cannot afford this, he needs to let them go and support his primary family out of necessity, not out of convenience.

3) He could have thrown this woman and his child under the bus because he got what he wanted.


I am not big on lying. He should have told the wife, particularly if he took that money.

So...I am not so big on stealing either. If he was making his family suffer for these other people, I sympathize and would be against that.

If, after he had that big 'oops', he continued in his ways, he is a ****.

I very much doubt that however bad his primary family had it, the life of that other child was any picnic. It is fully within my ability to sympathize with Cosmos AND that child without a father.


----------



## jld

TiggyBlue said:


> If my husband had a affair we would be done anyway regardless of a pregnancy. There is no way I would raise the child of his and a OW (nothing against the baby, a baby is totally innocent in the whole situation).


But isn't that kind of the problem? The baby ends up paying the price of the parents. And the person who could make a difference, can't see past his pride.

How many children in this world pay the price of the sins of the parents? How is it going to stop if pride is always a justification for not doing anything to help?


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> _When_ he was home, yes he did. _Very_ badly - as he did his children.


See, that changes everything.

I am speaking of a gentleman who makes a mistake and has enough character to clean up his mess (without continuing his mistakes) without harming his family or stealing. There was that one Speaker of the House who was caught doing that and he resigned.

I am not speaking of a cad who treats everyone badly and steals to clean up his messes.


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> I married a woman with two kids so I obviously would accept a child that's not mine.
> 
> I do however think you're misunderstanding the calls for paternity tests to assure men children are theirs.
> 
> It's not about the child, it's about the woman and the disrespect involved in fooling a man into raising a child he falsely thinks is his own.
> 
> I did marry a woman with two children but if the paternity test on our child (third kid) had shown me the child wasn't mine I would have divorced my wife immediately with absolutely zero chance of any other outcome.
> 
> No man wants to be used by *the woman he loves.*


Does he love her, really? How do you define love, tacoma?


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> Abandoning some woman he knocked up without a nickel to her name is also a subpar outcome.
> 
> Not to start a fight, but there are no great choices here.
> 
> As far as I can see it, here are the three scenarios.
> 
> 1) if he can afford it without fiscally hurting his family, he should support this kid he created. Isn't that one of the basic assumptions here?
> 
> 2) if he cannot afford this, he needs to let them go and support his primary family out of necessity, not out of convenience.
> 
> 3) He could have thrown this woman and his child under the bus because he got what he wanted.
> 
> 
> I am not big on lying. He should have told the wife, particularly if he took that money.
> 
> So...I am not so big on stealing either. If he was making his family suffer for these other people, I sympathize and would be against that.
> 
> If, after he had that big 'oops', he continued in his ways, he is a ****.
> *
> I very much doubt that however bad his primary family had it, the life of that other child was any picnic. It is fully within my ability to sympathize with Cosmos AND that child without a father*.


I totally sympathize with the child, that has no bearing on the father and his actions. Just like sympathizing with the child of a that is no bearing on a women who got pregnant through affair and let her husband raise it (the child ha a father figure and if she doesn't do it again).

You're right their is very few great choices when a child is created from a affair (not any that is fair to all innocent parties anyway), but to never tell your partner about your betrayal and then use their money to support the situation you have created (obviously without the knowledge of the affair they have no knowledge their money is going to the WH and OW child) doesn't really seem like a honorable solution at all.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> I also don't think that it's fair to judge a mans character based on his acceptance or non acceptance of a child that isn't his , which was the result of infidelity.
> But isn't that why Mary's husband, Joseph, is a saint? Because he did what other men could not: he looked past her behavior at what was best for her innocent child.
> 
> That decision is solely up to him , and doesn't make him a better man than the one who chooses not to. It makes him more compassionate and humble, imo.
> 
> Getting married to a woman who already has kids is an entirely different scenario , and is a very common, acceptable practice , especially among divorced folks.
> 
> Isn't that fairly recent? How many men in the past would have accepted a divorced woman, much less children from divorce?
> 
> I think things that people today are scandalized by may not be a scandal in the future. We are always evolving, and I hope in a compassionate way.


----------



## jld

hookares said:


> Although it isn't likely to ever happen since I have no plans for anymore long term relationships, I would draw the line at any child my SO might conceive with another guy if we were already married. If she already has children before we meet, then I would consider them to be part of the package.


Again, I don't know that men in centuries past would have seen it that way. As we are becoming more transparent, due to techonology, we may find ourselves accepting more things we thought we never could, just because they are our reality.

People are just not perfect. If we could all be transparent for a day, the things we would learn! And be forced to deal with!


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Or what my father did. He raided the family coffers to support his AP and their child. We were all oblivious to this until after our parents had died (including my mother, who had raised 6 children whilst working full-time).


(((((Cosmos)))))

I am so sorry, Cosmos. I hear the hurt and anger in your voice. 

Thank you for sharing your story. We learn so much from real life experiences. My heart goes out to you.

My dad was unfaithful, too. The selfishness hurts so much . . .


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> OR...you (generic) could become a 'mother' like Jon Snow had in Game of Thrones...who saw to the physical needs of the child, but was otherwise constantly reminded of her husband's weakness in a walking talking intruder to your home.
> 
> I can see it both ways...for both genders.


For sure we don't want an innocent child with a vindictive person.

*shudder*


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> Does he love her, really? How do you define love, tacoma?


Sorry jld. I would turn the onus of 'proving love' on the wife.

Do you lie to someone you love?

Do you betray someone you love?

Here we have a case of one partner doing this. So it isn't outrageous for the BS to ask 'does she love me at all'?

You are asking someone to a) take in someone who he isn't sure if she loves him or not b) with a track record of betrayal and deceit, to c) pay for and raise a stranger's pup d) who might come around disrupting his family unit! and e) risking his reputation and standing in society's eyes.

Now...I agree it is a grand, noble and loving thing if a man can do that. It is also very very very difficult!

So let's not minimize exactly how huge a thing that you are asking here.


----------



## JCD

TiggyBlue said:


> I totally sympathize with the child, that has no bearing on the father and his actions. Just like sympathizing with the child of a that is no bearing on a women who got pregnant through affair and let her husband raise it (the child ha a father figure and if she doesn't do it again).
> 
> You're right their is very few great choices when a child is created from a affair (not any that is fair to all innocent parties anyway), but to never tell your partner about your betrayal and then use their money to support the situation you have created (obviously without the knowledge of the affair they have no knowledge their money is going to the WH and OW child) doesn't really seem like a honorable solution at all.


I see it as a choice: abandon a child with or without sustenance.

Neither are good. One is slightly better. I hear about WAY too many dads who run like their tail was on fire from their OWN LEGAL KIN.

The fact he didn't wins a point from me. A small point but a point.


----------



## Eagle3

I like most men on here have been saying have pretty much raised a daughter my wife had from a previous relationship and I never had an issue with it at all. I think that scenario is much easier because you know going in that is what the situation is.

As for the people on here that are taking in kids from relatives and such my respect goes out to you cause that is not an easy task to handle. It can be tough on a marriage at times. My Aunt took me in from foster care and I can’t thank her enough but I know her marriage suffered some as a result and I felt terrible for it. Her husband was not in favor of doing it and I get it when I look back as I got older. She had 2 kids from her previous marriage and one with him. That is a lot of different elements under one roof to handle. It def is a hard task to take on and if the wife or husband don’t want to do it I don’t think makes either not a caring person…honestly if anything I think it’s even more beneficial to be upfront about it. Trust me you are not doing that kid any favors raising them if you are not wanting to. They will know that is the case anyway.


----------



## samyeagar

I understand that in the cases of children that result from an affair are innocent in all of that, but fortunately, in the United States at least, there are many resources available to the cheating mother, to help support the child so that a man does not not have to take responsibility for the results of his own betrayal.


----------



## TiggyBlue

JCD said:


> I see it as a choice: abandon a child with or without sustenance.
> 
> Neither are good. One is slightly better. I hear about WAY too many dads who run like their tail was on fire from their OWN LEGAL KIN.
> 
> The fact he didn't wins a point from me. A small point but a point.


I guess we see it very differently. Then again to me there is another choice in the mix.


----------



## JCD

Eagle3 said:


> I like most men on here have been saying have pretty much raised a daughter my wife had from a previous relationship and I never had an issue with it at all. I think that scenario is much easier because you know going in that is what the situation is.
> 
> As for the people on here that are taking in kids from relatives and such my respect goes out to you cause that is not an easy task to handle. It can be tough on a marriage at times. My Aunt took me in from foster care and I can’t thank her enough but I know her marriage suffered some as a result and I felt terrible for it. Her husband was not in favor of doing it and I get it when I look back as I got older. She had 2 kids from her previous marriage and one with him. That is a lot of different elements under one roof to handle. It def is a hard task to take on and if the wife or husband don’t want to do it I don’t think makes either not a caring person…honestly if anything I think it’s even more beneficial to be upfront about it. Trust me you are not doing that kid any favors raising them if you are not wanting to. They will know that is the case anyway.


This is a good point. I would like a little say in whom I choose to 'care about'. I would prefer not to be morally blackmailed into something I am not at least halfway on board for it.

Because if I am against the idea from the start (hypothetically speaking) I could be worse than 'no parent.'


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> But isn't that kind of the problem? The baby ends up paying the price of the parents. And the person who could make a difference, can't see past his pride.
> 
> How many children in this world pay the price of the sins of the parents? How is it going to stop if pride is always a justification for not doing anything to help?


OK, so where's the line? Two affair babies? Three? Half a dozen? At what point, in your opinion, is a BS entitled to put his/her foot down and walk away?

For me, along w/ many others, it would be ONE. Actually, scratch that; the line is/would be a PA, period, whether or not a child resulted from it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

jld said:


> Does he love her, really? How do you define love, tacoma?


Would have loved the person she portrayed to be rather than she actually is IMO.


----------



## JCD

TiggyBlue said:


> I guess we see it very differently. Then again to me there is another choice in the mix.


My default assumption from the original post, based on the generation they were raised in, was that HE was paying the freight, not that he was stealing from the family.

So yeah, HE should be skimping on that bass boat, that new car, quit smoking, wear his clothes a little longer, work that overtime.

It comes to 'not making his family suffer'.

Seems he did. I am frankly shocked he didn't just abandon the child. Probably was blackmailed into it. Which removes that point if true.

So at this point, I am making this hypothetical. But we'll probably disagree anyway. No problem.


----------



## samyeagar

GusPolinski said:


> OK, so where's the line? Two affair babies? Three? Half a dozen? At what point, in your opinion, is a BS entitled to put his/her foot down and walk away?
> 
> For me, along w/ many others, it would be ONE. Actually, scratch that; the line is/would be a PA, period, whether or not a child resulted from it.


And what about the next door neighbor affair baby that her husband just found out about? How many of those should I try to adopt? Or the checkout lady at the grocery store? It's an innocent child after all.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> I think there are three different scenarios here.
> 
> 1) Would you, as a man, be willing to raise a known set of kids by another man?
> 
> Yes, but. The woman has changed the deal. In a normal relationship, she is offering herself. In THIS relationship, she is offering herself AND. So the man has to judge 'the package'.
> And she is judging him, too, to see if he is good enough, too.
> And the 'package' includes not only how well he gets on with her, but how well he gets on with the kids...AND an estimation of how much time and influence the OTHER MAN has on the relationship. I am reminded of 'Dexter', where the lead married a woman who had two kids. Her ex husband was a felon violent drug user/dealer.
> It is always wise to consider all that comes with marrying a particular person.
> Now, if I were a serial killer, this wouldn't be a problem for me either. Since I am not...
> 
> The short answer is that I would not go after a woman I am 'meh' with. She would need to bring a lot to the table in terms of love, looks and understanding. She doesn't get to run the 'they are MY kids and *I* will be the only one disciplining them'. That would be a huge dealbreaker for me. Almost to divorce levels. Good to know your limits. She needs to, too.
> 
> But at my age and my demographic of women (30s-40s), it is unlikely to meet a woman with NO kids. So you may be forced to deal with what you may have considered less than ideal, but you find you can adapt.
> 
> 2) My wife had an affair and she TOLD me the child wasn't mine before birth.
> 
> This at least shows me some respect and give me some options. Since she took my choices away, I would pretty much take hers and get to decide whether we keep it, abort it or give it away.
> I don't think the law would see it that way . . . Transparency is encouraged at TAM after an affair. Do you disagree with that?
> She, of course, can always walk away. But that is on HER. Yes, she definitely needs this freedom. Her real problem is money to support the child. But maybe she can sue the father.
> 
> But as stated, school children know how to avoid pregnancy in America. She was so passionate or sloppy that SHE got pregnant? That is a pretty high level of disrespect.
> Even in committed marriages, birth control can fail.
> I doubt my marriage would survive. And that is honest, too. Different people have different limits.
> 
> 3) She got preggers with another man, she never told me, and I had bonded with the child well before I found out.
> 
> Surprisingly, this is the best scenario for my wife and I to 'stay together' if you consider that a good outcome. Because I would love that kid. I would love my kids too. I would like to think I wouldn't blame the kid for his mother's actions...but you never know until it happens to you.
> 
> So my kids need a mother and they need a father. It would be preferable to have a LOVING mother and father, but she should have thought of that before adding blatant deception to the mix.
> 
> Yes, I understand she is desperate. I would probably live with her. The affection, the easy conversations, the times spent together, the random loving touches, the sex...that's over. You don't know that. It may feel that way now, but just the fact that you can contemplate the compassionate act of accepting a child that may not be yours, tells me you are capable of love: real, sacrificial, mature love. I think you are selling yourself short, JCD. . And we have a 'sell by' date on the marriage: the 18th birthday of the youngest child. We'll see.
> 
> She is, of course, always free to leave anytime she wants. Every woman needs to be.
> 
> Luckily, AFAIK, this isn't an issue at all, since the kids all have elements of me in their looks and personality.
> 
> As they say "Mommy's baby, Daddy's maybe."
> 
> I think the idea of a standard after birth paternity test sounds very interesting. Just never heard of that before, I guess. Learning a lot here at TAM . . .


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> A more honourable solution would have been to tell my mother rather than simply using joint funds without her permission...
> 
> Had she known, I'm sure she wouldn't have waited until she was in her 70s before divorcing the old philanderer - and perhaps saved us all the misery of growing up with a husband/father who lived his entire life as a single man and clearly didn't give a crap about her or any of his children.


Transparency.


----------



## GusPolinski

samyeagar said:


> And what about the next door neighbor affair baby that her husband just found out about? How many of those should I try to adopt? Or the checkout lady at the grocery store? It's an innocent child after all.


As many as you want, I suppose.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> It is fully within my ability to sympathize with Cosmos AND that child without a father.


I told you you had a good heart, JCD. 

Lots of suffering in this world. Lots of need for compassion.

And a great need to _learn from_ this suffering, too.


----------



## Rowan

jld said:


> Again, I don't know that men in centuries past would have seen it that way. As we are becoming more transparent, due to techonology, we may find ourselves accepting more things we thought we never could, just because they are our reality.


jld, men and women have been raising step children for as long as there has been marriage. Because before modern medicine a whole lot of people died pretty young, leaving widows and widowers with children in tow. Those widowed people usually remarried, bringing children with them into a new marriage. The concept that a man might be okay with raising step kids isn't a new thing. Much about what we consider normal has changed greatly in recent decades, but this is not one of those things. It's been a part of the human reality for millennia.

And, in my opinion, being willing to raise step children isn't in any way on par with being willing to raise a child resulting from your spouse's infidelity. I would not expect my husband to accept any child of mine that entered the world as a result of my infidelity. I would not accept a child my husband had with another woman during my marriage. Although, I might be willing to raise his affair child if he and the OW were somehow utterly out of the picture, so YMMV.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> (((((Cosmos)))))
> 
> I am so sorry, Cosmos. I hear the hurt and anger in your voice.
> 
> Thank you for sharing your story. We learn so much from real life experiences. My heart goes out to you.
> 
> My dad was unfaithful, too. The selfishness hurts so much . . .


His actions damaged all of us, JLD, particularly his only son whom he hated with an absolute vengeance... Perhaps he really loved his AP and resented his legal children, who knows? 

I cried when he died, but they were tears for the father I never had. I truly can't remember one single kind word from him, let alone a hug. 

Every man who had the misfortune to love me paid dearly for my father's behaviour. Thank God for therapy!


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Sorry jld. I would turn the onus of 'proving love' on the wife.
> 
> Do you lie to someone you love? I do not.
> 
> Actually I did lie to my husband once, it is true. I told him I was going to the drugstore to look at magazines when I was actually going to get a nice cream cone. I was too ashamed to tell the truth.
> 
> When I got home, I told him. He smiled and said he already knew.
> 
> It was still a lie, even though I did stop a few minutes at the drugstore to look at magazines, to partially clear my conscience.
> 
> It was not transparency.
> 
> Do you betray someone you love? I better not. I would hate myself and definitely feel unworthy of him.
> 
> But I know dh. He considered the priesthood. He knows the nature of humans, and somehow still manages to believe in humanity.
> 
> Here we have a case of one partner doing this. So it isn't outrageous for the BS to ask 'does she love me at all'? It is totally natural. And she is accountable for her actions.
> 
> But is the child, JCD?
> 
> You are asking someone to a) take in someone who he isn't sure if she loves him or not b) with a track record of betrayal and deceit, to c) pay for and raise a stranger's pup d) who might come around disrupting his family unit! and e) risking his reputation and standing in society's eyes. I don't think you realize that to some of us, your willingness to look beyond your wife's behavior, to care for an innocent child, has raised you to a level few men seem able to achieve.
> 
> It is sainthood, JCD. It is going past your pride, your natural selfishness. Even the fact you can consider this shows your maturity.
> 
> Now...I agree it is a grand, noble and loving thing if a man can do that. It is also very very very difficult!
> 
> So let's not minimize exactly how huge a thing that you are asking here. Nope. Doing the right thing is rarely easy. And it does not always involve glory.
> 
> But deep down, you have peace in your soul..


----------



## jld

Eagle3 said:


> I like most men on here have been saying have pretty much raised a daughter my wife had from a previous relationship and I never had an issue with it at all. I think that scenario is much easier because you know going in that is what the situation is.
> 
> As for the people on here that are taking in kids from relatives and such my respect goes out to you cause that is not an easy task to handle. It can be tough on a marriage at times. My Aunt took me in from foster care and I can’t thank her enough but I know her marriage suffered some as a result and I felt terrible for it. Her husband was not in favor of doing it and I get it when I look back as I got older. She had 2 kids from her previous marriage and one with him. That is a lot of different elements under one roof to handle. It def is a hard task to take on and if the wife or husband don’t want to do it I don’t think makes either not a caring person…honestly if anything I think it’s even more beneficial to be upfront about it. Trust me you are not doing that kid any favors raising them if you are not wanting to. They will know that is the case anyway.


((((((((Eagle3))))))))

Thank you so much for sharing that.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I understand that in the cases of children that result from an affair are innocent in all of that, but fortunately, in the United States at least, there are many resources available to the cheating mother, to help support the child so that a man does not not have to take responsibility for the results of his own betrayal.


And this may be the most realistic route, Sam. 

And as women make more money, they will have more political power. I hope the lives of children will be better as a result.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> _Isn't that fairly recent? How many men in the past would have accepted a divorced woman, much less children from divorce?
> 
> I think things that people today are scandalized by may not be a scandal in the future. We are always evolving, and I hope in a compassionate way. _


Well, yes and no.

Yes social mores are rapidly changing to suit modern realities. Divorce is one of our modern realities. Compared to 50 years ago, divorce today is much more common. With divorced partners comes kids , both on the man's side and the woman's side.
Obviously, in remarriage , one would first have to consider the future of the kids in the context of the relationship.

Also with the advancement of women in the workplace came women choosing to have kids outside of marriage because they were able to maintain them , on their own if faced with that option. Obviously, men were also haveing kids outside of marriage.
Hence the change in the attitudes of men towards marrying women with kids.

But with respect to infidelity , I don't think that society will ever evolve to a place where either men or women would tolerate infidelity in their marriage / relationships , especially given the fact that both genders _can_ and do get married after a first divorce, with their children in tow.

Simply put, there are way more options available now than before , to both sexes, if infidelity should occur in marriages and if a child is born from an affair.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> This is a good point. I would like a little say in whom I choose to 'care about'. I would prefer not to be morally blackmailed into something I am not at least halfway on board for it.
> 
> You know my son has had cancer twice, right? No way my dh and I were ready for it, or wanted it in any way.
> 
> But we have all grown from it.
> 
> Still don't want it. Found out we are much stronger than we ever imagined. Sadly.
> 
> Because if I am against the idea from the start (hypothetically speaking) I could be worse than 'no parent.'
> 
> And as long as there is a welfare system, there is an alternative, much less than the ideal, though..


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> OK, so where's the line? Two affair babies? Three? Half a dozen? At what point, in your opinion, is a BS entitled to put his/her foot down and walk away?
> 
> For me, along w/ many others, it would be ONE. Actually, scratch that; the line is/would be a PA, period, whether or not a child resulted from it.


And that is why it is a free choice. You are not forced.


----------



## samyeagar

I think I will just come out and say it in that a child resulting from an affair is ultimately just more collateral damage with the responsibility for that being SOLELY on the two who had the affair.

I honestly don't see a man's decision to accept the child as his own to be noble or virtuous, nor do I see it as less than manly or weak. It is just a decision, nothing more. I think there is a certain level of judgement when one man is deemed better, stronger than another for making a different decision under extreme emotional duress.


----------



## jld

TiggyBlue said:


> Would have loved the person she portrayed to be rather than she actually is IMO.


Yep, transparency. It is so important.


----------



## Wolf1974

Entropy3000 said:


> No question about this.
> 
> I raised my wife's daughter as my own. I knew this going in. In restropect I sacrificed a great deal for that commitment. Long story.
> 
> Adopting is an act of love no doubt.
> 
> But an affair child? No.
> 
> It would not be fair to the child. The child deserves their mother and they deserve someone who could raise them without this issue. And yes it IS an issue.
> Asking why is ludicrous. The child is better off with another man not involved in the betrayal if not the bilogical father. The woman made this choice after all. NOT the husband.
> 
> 1) The wife has given herself sexually to another man. She gives herself to someone other than her husband. This alone is a dealbreaker for many folks. This is cruel and humliating to her husband.I
> 
> 2) Was there no birth control? Go ahead and throw out statistics but let's be clear here, the way this happens is that the woman has unprotected sex with another man. So this is just another level of the betrayal. Then this woman expects if she gets pregnant that her husband should rasie this child!? Huh? This IS the true definition of a cuckold BTW. A male raising the child of another male. Look it up.
> 
> 3) She then decides to have another man's child. I am a recovering Catholic. I understand how some do not believe in abortion. Ok fine. But if you are really that moral how in the world did you get pregnant by another man?
> 
> A woman having a man's child is a very big deal. Yes it is a human life. But indeed ladies you honor greatly the man whose baby you carry. A man cannot do this for a woman. A man can bond with his woman and raise their child. So when a woman not only has sex with another man but carries his child, it is a very big thing. This was something that was reserved for her husband. To carry HIS children. Not another man's. I am not religious but I am spiritual and I view this as a very spiritual bond between father and mother of the child.
> 
> 4) The woman and the other man are forever joined not just by their sexual act BUT by the child she carried for them while she was married to her husband. Go ahead and explain that this was a drunkin ONS with a guy in a band at a bar. Nice ... But how about when the guy wants to be in the child's life? In the Navy some mean spirited folks used to chide "How's your wife and my kids?". Not really funny. Because sometimes this was true. This is more than a monetary thing. Her OM has a legal right to be in her life. Deal with that.
> 
> Realize that many kids do want to seek out their biological father. Be prepared for that.
> 
> 5) Asking a husband to raise her affair child is yet another level of disrespect. Indeed I think as the mother of the child she sould NOT put them up for adoption. I think she should raise the child. But should not ask the husband to be reminded of this every day and to take on the burdens of raising the child.
> 
> 6) The only thing worse to me is for a woman to convince her husband it is his child. This is what typically happens. How often the statistics vary but the numbers seem to be larger than most of us would like to admit. In this case the husband is cheated out of his child. I am finding that many women do not get this. All they know is that the child is theirs. But many do not get that it matters to many men that they be given the opportunity to father their child.
> Sometimes nurses can tell by the blood types that the husband is not the father.
> 
> So if you have a penis either keep it in your pants or be willing to deal with the consequnces.
> 
> If you have a vagina then do not spread your legs and expect someone to understand and cover this for you. I know daddy always made it better. But your husband as they say is not your father. I hear this all the time, so stop expecting him to be the white night for his unfaithful princess.
> 
> I do think that it should be automatic to have a paternity test. That likely will never happen though.



Great post:iagree:


----------



## magnoliagal

jld said:


> And that is why it is a free choice. You are not forced.


My husband has indicated he could never respect himself if he doted on another man's child that was conceived while I was married to him.

I can't blame him.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> My default assumption from the original post, based on the generation they were raised in, was that HE was paying the freight, not that he was stealing from the family.
> 
> *So yeah, HE should be skimping on that bass boat, that new car, quit smoking, wear his clothes a little longer, work that overtime.
> 
> It comes to 'not making his family suffer'.*
> 
> Seems he did. I am frankly shocked he didn't just abandon the child. Probably was blackmailed into it. Which removes that point if true.
> 
> So at this point, I am making this hypothetical. But we'll probably disagree anyway. No problem.


:iagree:


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And what about the next door neighbor affair baby that her husband just found out about? How many of those should I try to adopt? Or the checkout lady at the grocery store? It's an innocent child after all.


You are right. We all have limits. 

It is a free choice, Sam.

But if we do not consider it from all sides, is it really an informed choice?

And abortion is a choice, too, as Tiggy alluded to. But that has to be a free choice, too.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

My husband wouldn't stick with me if I had sex with another man so it's pretty safe to assume I'd be on my own if I got pregnant as a result of an affair. 

He accepts my son and loves him very much.So yes,he can accept a child that is not his. He doesn't want his own children at all though.


----------



## Wolf1974

ScarletBegonias said:


> My husband wouldn't stick with me if I had sex with another man so it's pretty safe to assume I'd be on my own if I got pregnant as a result of an affair.
> 
> He accepts my son and loves him very much.So yes,he can accept a child that is not his. He doesn't want his own children at all though.


Yeah I am in this category as well. Would never be a debate about raising the kid cause the cheating is an automatic deal breaker. I would probably only think of her being pregnant as the karma bus coming early


----------



## jld

Rowan said:


> jld, men and women have been raising step children for as long as there has been marriage. Because before modern medicine a whole lot of people died pretty young, leaving widows and widowers with children in tow. Those widowed people usually remarried, bringing children with them into a new marriage. The concept that a man might be okay with raising step kids isn't a new thing. Much about what we consider normal has changed greatly in recent decades, but this is not one of those things. It's been a part of the human reality for millennia.
> 
> But divorce has not. It used to be a scandal. I doubt a woman who was divorced with children was easily remarried.
> 
> What is a scandal changes the more we are forced to be honest with ourselves.
> 
> And, in my opinion, being willing to raise step children isn't in any way on par with being willing to raise a child resulting from your spouse's infidelity. I would not expect my husband to accept any child of mine that entered the world as a result of my infidelity. I would not even expect him to stay with me. But I know dh. He is compassionate. I would not accept a child my husband had with another woman during my marriage. Although, I might be willing to raise his affair child if he and the OW were somehow utterly out of the picture, so YMMV. None of us really knows. But these discussions get us thinking.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I think the average person, whether male or female would rather adopt clothe, school and feed a strange child from another impoverished country than accept a child that was conceived from an affair.

That child would always be living reminder of that partner's unfaithfulness.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> My default assumption from the original post, based on the generation they were raised in, was that HE was paying the freight, not that he was stealing from the family.
> 
> No he wasn't paying the freight. I stated in my OP that my mother not only raised 6 children but worked full-time.
> 
> So yeah, HE should be skimping on that bass boat, that new car, quit smoking, wear his clothes a little longer, work that overtime.
> 
> No skimping or over-time on his behalf. My mother's salary was used to support the family and was 'topped up' by his own. He was 'head of the household' and all funds had to be in his name. Any monthly savings were his own and supported his single-man lifestyle and hobbies.
> 
> It comes to 'not making his family suffer'.
> 
> Seems he did. I am frankly shocked he didn't just abandon the child. Probably was blackmailed into it. Which removes that point if true.
> 
> Could be, but he registered the birth himself...
> 
> So at this point, I am making this hypothetical. But we'll probably disagree anyway. No problem.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> His actions damaged all of us, JLD, particularly his only son whom he hated with an absolute vengeance... Perhaps he really loved his AP and resented his legal children, who knows?
> 
> I cried when he died, but they were tears for the father I never had. I truly can't remember one single kind word from him, let alone a hug.
> 
> Every man who had the misfortune to love me paid dearly for my father's behaviour. Thank God for therapy!


I am so sorry, Cosmos. So sorry.

I could not speak to my dad when he was dying, Cosmos. The fear was still so great. _Eight months after he died_ I started to not be afraid of him.

I cannot tell you how much dh's love and compassion over the years has meant to me. It is an undeserved gift.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I think I will just come out and say it in that a child resulting from an affair is ultimately just more collateral damage with the responsibility for that being SOLELY on the two who had the affair.
> 
> I honestly don't see a man's decision to accept the child as his own to be noble or virtuous, nor do I see it as less than manly or weak. It is just a decision, nothing more. I think there is a certain level of judgement when one man is deemed better, stronger than another for making a different decision under extreme emotional duress.


How do you think the child would later view him?


----------



## LongWalk

Everything in this scenario would depend on the circumstances. TAM has poster whose WW got pregnant. Their daughter rejected the mother. So the father could not have easily reconciled even had his WW made the effort. I think they live in the UK. I forget his name.

If the child was the result of an affair the husband would have to very secure in himself to accept it.

In a book store one day I picked up a thick hardbound anthology of modern Greek short stories. One was set in the early part of last century as the Ottoman Empire was collapsing and men were pressed into the military. One man went off to two war and did not return for over two years. When he suddenly showed up in the village the wife was pregnant.

He asked her who the man was and she told him. He went to the man out of the blue and stabbed in to death.

Not long after the child was born the man told his wife to take the baby and follow him. He walked to an isolated field and dug a hole in the ground. Once finished, he told his wife to throw the baby into it... or did he simply take it from her and pitch it in? I don't remember but he buried it alive and took his wife home.

After that I shut the book, found my kids and we left the store to do something else.


----------



## jld

magnoliagal said:


> My husband has indicated he could never respect himself if he doted on another man's child that was conceived while I was married to him.
> 
> I can't blame him.


He is being transparent with you. 

That is a healthy starting point.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Yeah I am in this category as well. Would never be a debate about raising the kid cause the cheating is an automatic deal breaker. I would probably only think of her being pregnant as *the karma bus coming early*


For both of you?

We are offered opportunities for growth in life, Wolf. 

We are not obliged to accept them.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> I think the average person, whether male or female would rather adopt clothe, school and feed a strange child from another impoverished country than accept a child that was conceived from an affair.
> 
> That child would always be living reminder of that partner's unfaithfulness.


This appears to be true.

That must be why Mary's husband is known as _Saint_ Joseph.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

samyeagar said:


> I think I will just come out and say it in that a child resulting from an affair is ultimately just more collateral damage with the responsibility for that being SOLELY on the two who had the affair.
> 
> I honestly don't see a man's decision to accept the child as his own to be noble or virtuous, nor do I see it as less than manly or weak. It is just a decision, nothing more. I think there is a certain level of judgement when one man is deemed better, stronger than another for making a different decision under extreme emotional duress.


I agree with this. But if my husband accepted not only me after a physical affair but a child from that affair I'd have a pretty tough time respecting him.He would step into doormat territory in my mind.

There would be judgments passing in my mind toward a female who got pregnant by someone during an affair then expected her husband to accept the child as his own. She has no right to expect anything from her husband at that point.


----------



## jld

Cosmos, you are much kinder to your father than I would have been. That kind of selfishness irks me to no end, however human it may be.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

larry.gray said:


> If you don't mind a dude posting in the ladies lounge....
> 
> Your two examples JLD are VASTLY different. A kid from before the relationship? No problem at all for me. I'd try to be the best step dad possible. The second example, the child of an affair is a *WHOLE* different thing.
> 
> *In a way it is hard for a woman to comprehend since the same thing can't happen to her. A close equivalent would be if a man got his affair partner pregnant, and then she died in childbirth. Could you go around telling people that the baby was yours and raise it like your child*?


Just imagining how that would feel to a man..







... I completely agree with you Larry Gray... I am the woman here...I would NOT HANDLE THAT WELL... Every time you'd look at this child...it would be a living reminder to being BETRAYED on the deepest level imaginable... it wouldn't matter to me that child was innocent ..... I'd have a hell of a time overcoming that.. and I do believe every time that child gave me trouble...good possibility I would take it out more so on that child... Not nice to say of me ... but it's honest. 

If I had to compare the 2 of us...My husband is more loving than I am .... he would better handle someone else's kid...though he would have never even dated me had he felt I was the type to step out on him in any way....he was very choosy in this respect.

Me.. I didn't even want to adopt...when we couldn't conceive...oh we looked into it..but my heart was NOT in it.....I wanted MY OWN.. I doubt I would have even gotten through the "Home Study" process as they would have gleamed I did not yet give up the hope for having more of our own. 

If it was his problem, he would have allowed me to use donor sperm, but I can't see me allowing him to use a surrogate, I'd not feel that kid was really mine...It just wouldn't be the same !

I also greatly understand why any man would insist on a Paternity test at birth ...I would support it being mandatory.. with the hooking up culture we live in, seems crazy that it's not...at the very least -at the request of any man whose name is put on a birth certificate -I don't even feel the mother needs to know this...(since most would be so offended & put him in the dog house)...

Too many men get chumped and fooled...the men who need it the most seem to be the ones who get taken -raising someone else's kid...once your name is on that birth certificate, you are obligated for 18 yrs.....even if they learn later you are not the Father, no one cares ...it's all about the kid.....I don't feel this is right at all..


----------



## jld

LongWalk said:


> Everything in this scenario would depend on the circumstances. TAM has poster whose WW got pregnant. Their daughter rejected the mother. So the father could not have easily reconciled even had his WW made the effort. I think they live in the UK. I forget his name.
> 
> *If the child was the result of an affair the husband would have to very secure in himself to accept it.*
> 
> In a book store one day I picked up a thick hardbound anthology of modern Greek short stories. One was set in the early part of last century as the Ottoman Empire was collapsing and men were pressed into the military. One man went off to two war and did not return for over two years. When he suddenly showed up in the village the wife was pregnant.
> 
> He asked her who the man was and she told him. He went to the man out of the blue and stabbed in to death.
> 
> Not long after the child was born the man told his wife to take the baby and follow him. He walked to an isolated field and dug a hole in the ground. Once finished, he told his wife to throw the baby into it... or did he simply take it from her and pitch it in? I don't remember but he buried it alive and took his wife home.
> 
> After that I shut the book, found my kids and we left the store to do something else.


And this is my mission at TAM: urging, begging, pleading with men to become _truly_ secure. The world desperately needs _truly_ secure men.


----------



## GusPolinski

LongWalk said:


> Everything in this scenario would depend on the circumstances. TAM has poster whose WW got pregnant. Their daughter rejected the mother. So the father could not have easily reconciled even had his WW made the effort. I think they live in the UK. I forget his name.


I believe you're referring to Whyeme. Here is a link to his thread...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/109002-there-any-point.html


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> I agree with this. But if my husband accepted not only me after a physical affair but a child from that affair I'd have a pretty tough time respecting him.He would step into doormat territory in my mind.
> 
> There would be judgments passing in my mind toward a female who got pregnant by someone during an affair then expected her husband to accept the child as his own. She has no right to expect anything from her husband at that point.


Was Joseph a doormat?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> Was Joseph a doormat?


Joseph who?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> And this is my mission at TAM: urging, begging, pleading with men to become _truly_ secure. The world desperately needs _truly_ secure men.


I agree. Men -- and women -- need (and deserve!) to be secure in the knowledge that his/her spouse has been/is/will be faithful.

To call someone insecure when his/her spouse has been unfaithful -- let alone brought another child into the picture -- is little more than an insult.

I mean seriously... How is this such a difficult concept to comprehend?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

jld said:


> And this is my mission at TAM: urging, begging, pleading with men to become _truly_ secure. The world desperately needs _truly_ secure men.


You definition of secure is a one way street. I am happy to skip by what you are trying to sell here.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> How do you think the child would later view him?


That is an extremely complicated question that ultimately one that can not be answered.

Before my ex and I separated and divorced, I thought I knew, KNEW, exactly how things would go with my kids. That they would see what I went through with a NPD mother who eventually cheated with one of the kids teachers. My two oldest kids have not spoken to me in the better part of a year even though I keep reaching out to them. Not even a response. Completely dark, no contact...


----------



## magnoliagal

jld said:


> And this is my mission at TAM: urging, begging, pleading with men to become _truly_ secure. The world desperately needs _truly_ secure men.


I find working on myself to be difficult enough without taking on everyone else.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> And this is my mission at TAM: urging, begging, pleading with men to become _truly_ secure. The world desperately needs _truly_ secure men.


You are setting up the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy here...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Tall Average Guy said:


> You definition of secure is a one way street. I am happy to skip by what you are trying to sell here.


I agree. Secure is the wrong word. *Extremely* humble perhaps?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree. Secure is the wrong word. *Extremely* humble perhaps?


You spelled doormat wrong.

LOL

jk

Just bc I would personally consider my husband a doormat if he accepted my affair child and me doesn't mean it's necessarily correct for all men,of course.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I agree. Secure is the wrong word. *Extremely* humble perhaps?


Based on her other posts, I would say "doormat", but your milage may very.

Edit - Or what Scarlett said.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> I just can't see dh leaving me for any reason, ever. And I don't think he can see himself leaving me for any reason, ever. I truly feel unconditionally loved.
> 
> If he got a girl pregnant, I think I would feel he would need to go and be with her. That baby would need him more than the kids and I need him, though he would still need to see our kids. *I am pretty sure I would divorce him.*
> 
> *I just would not feel right having that girl and the baby alone and me with my kids already somewhat grown with dh.*
> 
> Gosh, the thought of all this is so sad. I truly hope I never actually live it.


Here is what I don't get....you said THIS....but then you feel the Most "secure" husbands/ fathers would never consider divorce but open their loving arms to an affair child.....but you would not even feel right having such a baby near your own kids, his/her half siblings...and you would divorce...your stance on this is unclear to me, you feel overwhelming "giving' that he needs to be with his new baby so you'd give him up.. no jealousy, no fight ??

This thread is like wild fire and I missed the posts after this.. but it's like the man NEEDS to be so Loving/ unconditionally embracing...and we as women are off the hook if we can't handle it... I wouldn't handle it.. like Larry Gray said "It's not a matter of blame, it is the fact that the child will be a walking, breathing trigger."

Men have deep emotions and triggers too...if they do not , and this was So easy for them, I would not at all understand it -frankly.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> Was Joseph a doormat?


Joseph was going to quietly divorce her, which the Bible seems to indicate was a generous thing to do, since he could have probably killed her and walked. An angel then explained to him what the deal was, and Joseph said "cool", or the Aramaic equivalent.

If my wife is pregnant, and the kid's not mine, I might go along with the program if I get a direct unmistakable word from God that He, in fact, is the father. But short of that it's all over.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> And this is my mission at TAM: urging, begging, pleading with men to become _truly_ secure. The world desperately needs _truly_ secure men.


_Know thyself. That is the start of Wisdom. Aristotle_

There is a fine line between requesting compassion for the sinners and the innocent victims and becoming a shrewish _yenta_.

It is in some ways a bad thing to make someone accept that which is unacceptable to them, a betrayal of their self.

So while I get compassion for the sinner (I really do!), let's not forget compassion for the victim either.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

GTdad said:


> Joseph was going to quietly divorce her, which the Bible seems to indicate was a generous thing to do, since he could have probably killed her and walked. An angel then explained to him what the deal was, and Joseph said "cool", or the Aramaic equivalent.
> 
> If my wife is pregnant, and the kid's not mine, I might go along with the program if I get a direct unmistakable word from God that He, in fact, is the father. But short of that it's all over.


OOOOH THAT joseph.ok LOL


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Unless it happened to your mother . . . until it happens to your daughter . . . then it feels different, somehow . . .


First off, this was to exaggerate to the absurd that there was no way to make this workable.

It would not be something that happens to them. It would be something they did. See the difference? No ooopsies. Getting pregnant by another man is not an accident. It may be a risk and it may even be intended at some level. Rape is something else entirely. We are not talking about that.

I would not expect my daughters husband to stay with her if she did this to them. 

This would be the least of my step daughters problems in her case. She has pulled our family down at every instant. This goes down the whole environment versus heredity path. But my step daughter suffered with the same issues her biological father had. We have a loving child and we have a hateful child. Trust me, we raised them the same.

While we have an unconditional love for our children in many ways, there is also tough love. We have free will. If our children make bad decisions we cannot expect the harmed parties to enable them further.

In spite of the lifetime of pain she has caused my wife and I, I actually bought her a house in the country four years ago. So that my wifes grandchild could have a stable place and go to school. That lasted less than two months. Now I am stuck with a house. I continued to enable her. At my own peril. This is offtrack but yet it is not. The problem many of us have with people like this is we have the unconditional love thing. Unfortunately that can turn into enablement.

So yes, allowing the person to create the mess and then expect those harmed to make it all better is enablement in my view. We all have to be accountable at some point. This scenario is actually incredibly cruel to the husband. He needs to move on.

I mean if the OM is not able to support the child then why not invite him into your family and take care of him too? Let them have the master bedroom while you save the day. That way the innocent child can have their biological father there for them. Just suck it up and get another job to make this work. Turn the other cheek. Be a man about it.


----------



## Fenris

I have absolutely no problem helping raise the child my wife had before we met. 

However, were she to have an affair, come home and say "I'm pregnant, and its not yours..." I'd be out the door before the word "yours" stopped echoing.


----------



## Tess112

I know for a fact he wouldn't. He actually had our daughter DNA tested.

Now if the tables were reversed and he had a "love child" I'm not sure what I would do. On the one hand it wouldn't be fair for me to ask him to abandon his child, nor would it be fair of him to ask me to raise his child conceived outside of the relationship.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I would NEVER raise a child my husband had with another woman while we were married.I don't care if the chick is dead or not.He's on his own if he messes around like that.
I don't have many of those "lines you don't cross" but that is absolutely one of them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Entropy300O. said*: It would not be something that happens to them.* It would be something they did. See the difference? No ooopsies. Getting pregnant by another man is not an accident.* It may be a risk and it may even be intended at some level. Rape is something else entirely. We are not talking about that.
> 
> *I would not expect my daughters husband to stay with her if she did this to them. *
> 
> This would be the least of my step daughters problems in her case. She has pulled our family down at every instant. This goes down the whole environment versus heredity path. But my step daughter suffered with the same issues her biological father had. We have a loving child and we have a hateful child. Trust me, we raised them the same.
> 
> *While we have an unconditional love for our children in many ways, there is also tough love. We have free will. If our children make bad decisions we cannot expect the harmed parties to enable them further.*
> 
> In spite of the lifetime of pain she has caused my wife and I, I actually bought her a house in the country four years ago. So that my wifes grandchild could have a stable place and go to school. That lasted less than two months. Now I am stuck with a house. I continued to enable her. At my own peril. This is offtrack but yet it is not.* The problem many of us have with people like this is we have the unconditional love thing. Unfortunately that can turn into enablement.
> 
> So yes, allowing the person to create the mess and then expect those harmed to make it all better is enablement in my view. We all have to be accountable at some point. This scenario is actually incredibly cruel to the husband. He needs to move on.*


What an excellent post Entropy300O.. I feel exactly as you have described here.... I am more a tough love parent myself... very BIG on consequences ...to not going into something blindly...or you are going to face the Piper...understand it and well.

If our daughter ruined her marriage by stepping out on her husband, I don't care if she is my daughter or not..... wrong is WRONG...and I would have sympathy on HIM.... her husband would have EVERY RIGHT TO LEAVE her....she wouldn't be getting any pass or coddling from me... and my H would be GRAVELY disappointed in her..


----------



## samyeagar

I would submit that it would take a STRONGER, MORE SECURE man to stand up for himself, and his feelings and conviction than to cave to societal pressure and shaming.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

samyeagar said:


> I would submit that it would take a STRONGER, MORE SECURE man to stand up for himself, and his feelings and conviction than to cave to societal pressure and shaming.


IF I was pressed to pass judgment on a man for his decision regarding this matter, I would likely lean toward this view and adopt it as my own. 

Otherwise,like I stated earlier I would refrain from passing judgment on the betrayed husband.


----------



## WhiteRaven

samyeagar said:


> I would submit that it would take a STRONGER, MORE SECURE man to stand up for himself, and his feelings and conviction than to cave to societal pressure and shaming.


Or an incurable doormat. It's like someone made you his 'wife' in the slammer and after the end of your term, you decide to frame that guy's photo and place in your living room.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> But isn't that kind of the problem? The baby ends up paying the price of the parents. And the person who could make a difference, can't see past his pride.
> 
> How many children in this world pay the price of the sins of the parents? *How is it going to stop if pride* is always a justification for not doing anything to help?


What is all this pride stuff? Like it is a vanity.

A man is not a man without self respect. How has this discussion become an indictment of a man's self respect when his wife has completely stomped on him and humliated him in the worst way. 

Why is this about a man's pride? Why is this not about the wife's vanity in all of this? 

There is no pride left to this man you speak off. His wife took that from him.

The man needs to leave, find a better woman and raise his own children. Not some other man's.

This child is not his. He has no responsibility for it.

Ok, more absurdity ... why not just make this a life style? Be a man with no pride. Just be the provider. Have your wife find men with better genes than you. Have her suit up and have ONSs with other more fit males so that she can become pregnant. Then you can raise the child in a loving environment. The child is a superior child from the genes of a man who is not nurturing so society benefits as he would not be a good father. 

I mean the woman owns her body. She can do anything with it she wants. BUT, her husband promised to be there for her and support the children she has. A man should not let his pride interfere with this. The better man is the one who did not promise her anything but was the sperm donor. This is the child she wants. Not the child from the man with no pride.

I have achieved a few things in my life. But the best thing that will come of it is my daughter. She is a part of me. I live on in her. Not just because I rasied her. But she literally is from me. She is the best gift my wife has ever given to me.


----------



## naiveonedave

there is no way I could raise my w affair child
1. Triggers - no way I could ever forget and that is no way to live a life
2. I have to have some self worth and raising someone else's kid in this way would leave me none.
Sorry, this is not a moral dilemma. Morality went out the window when she cheated. now it is on her and the OM.


----------



## GusPolinski

LongWalk said:


> If the child was the result of an affair the husband would have to very secure in himself to accept it.


LW, I've got mad respect for you, as your posts are pretty much always very insightful and on point, but I couldn't possibly disagree w/ this statement more.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Again, I don't know that men in centuries past would have seen it that way. As we are becoming more transparent, due to techonology, we may find ourselves accepting more things we thought we never could, just because they are our reality.
> 
> People are just not perfect. If we could all be transparent for a day, the things we would learn! And be forced to deal with!


I sincerely hope we do not become more accepting of anything like this at all. Ambivalence is not the answer.

This is NOT progress at all. Accepting disrespect is wrong. It is Darwinian however.

Why should men be humbled? We are not asking for perfection at all. How about the wife does not make a child with another man? If she does she takes the accoutnability for it. Simple as this.

What agenda is this after all? That if you love a woman you must accept and support the children she has with any men? Is this the agenda? Again this is NOT an ooopsie.

No perhaps this transparency will make these women and men more accountable and not be able to hide as in the past.

The laws do need to catch up but there is no incentive for the government to do so.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> I think the average person, whether male or female would rather adopt clothe, school and feed a strange child from another impoverished country than accept a child that was conceived from an affair.
> 
> That child would always be living reminder of that partner's unfaithfulness.


:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:


----------



## larry.gray

JLD: I think you're not quite able to empathize with the men, again because you're not able to comprehend what it means to have a child that isn't yours. 

You have several sons, right? Let's say only your sons have kids, but your daughters don't. Later, after several grand-kids you find out that your sons didn't father any of those kids, they were all tricked. 

Stop and truly think about how you'd feel about those kids. You'd have some feelings for them, no doubt. But it would also be a huge vacuum left knowing that you now don't have any biological grand-kids.


----------



## GusPolinski

I've been trying to come up w/ a scenario that may help to give jld insight into how a woman could possibly experience this level of betrayal, and the closest that I can muster would be a man who, by way of deception, convinces his wife to carry, give birth to, and raise a child that is not her genetic offspring. 

Obviously some sort of IVF-type medical procedure would be required for this. The husband would have to somehow -- and likely w/ collusion from someone at the doc's office -- manage to surreptitiously swap her eggs for those of another woman, have them fertilized w/ his sperm, and then have the resultant embryos implanted into his wife's womb.

So... How would you feel about this? Again, there is no correct answer, only a correct answer FOR YOU.


----------



## vellocet

I would not want to pay for another man's child if I know it to be true just after birth.

However, if I found out any of my kids are not mine, I'd be devastated. But they would still be mine. I have a bond with them, I love them.

Here is what I'd do. If I found out one of my kids isn't mine, I'd let the x-wife know what a ho she is and how despicable she is for putting me and the kids in that position.

I would proceed to let her know that they are still mine, I love them, and that I am their ONLY father. And any attempt by her to inform whatever POS she bedded down that he is the father only further indicates her deplorable character.

I would not want them knowing they have another father and that their mother engaged in paternity fraud. I am the only father they know and I'd want it to stay that way. She did enough damage at that point. At some time she'd have to decide to actually be a decent human being.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> And this is my mission at TAM: urging, begging, pleading with men to become _truly_ secure. The world desperately needs _truly_ secure men.


A secure man has self respect. A secure man is not a passive man. He does not allow others to disrespect him either.

I challenge that a truly secure man would stay and support this at all. A secure man would be able to move on and realize he had no guilt in this. His only flaw was giving his love to the wrong person.

Being secure does not mean accepting of humliation. A truly secure man is not afraid to be a man. he is secure in his boundaries. He knows he has value and he does not squander it. he can be secure in knowing there are better women out there who are worth his time.

Also on the evolving thing .... Evolution is not in its nature linear in one direction. In fact adaptations happen all of the time. Not all adaptations survive.

Also "progress" is much like a pendulum.
While one can look at the founding of the New World as progress for many, we still had slavery for many centuries. We still have trouble with basic human rights. It all still exists today in the world. There is always a Yin and Yang and we try to be hopeful that things progress ... but they tend to pulse. Ambivalence is not the answer.

Progress is not nirvana. It is a continuum in a Darwinian way. In many ways our freedoms are taken from us in this progress. So I see it as continual battle.


----------



## LongWalk

re: secure men and automatic DNA testing of all children









Sex is beautiful, reproduction is optional.

How about: _*Sex is fun, fatherhood is optional*_

Don't force your abortion views on my body.

How about: _*Don't force your motherhood views on my freedom.*_

Men are not at all secure because the legal system is compels men to pay for children whether they want them or not. Furthermore, if a married man discovers that the 6-year-old child who calls him dad is not his biological child, he must remain the legal parent, even if the biological father's identity becomes known. A betrayed husband could not without great difficulty and expense renounce custody of a love child and sign over custody to the biological father, even if that man had a secure family in which to take the child.

If the unfaithful wife agreed to give up the child to her affair partner and let his wife raise her child, she would generally be thought poorly of.

A father who owes child support can have his wages garnished, even if he moves abroad to hide. The Swedish government will help a US family court in Texas enforce child support payments.

Women do not trust men to voluntarily take responsibility for their children. This freedom is too much for males to handle. The downside of this that any group that is routinely treated with suspicion will never feel secure.

It would be interesting if there were a national referendum to institute mandatory DNA testing of newborn infants to confirm the father's blood relationship. What would most men vote? Most women?

Would Planned Parenthood support such a law?

One of the primary reasons people marry is to ensure that the their spouse is monogamous, which should in turn ensure that their children are theirs. But guess what? Many modern wedding vows do not include the "...forsaking all others" and "faithful" phrases.

Why is this? Is it because we are super secure and don't need them or because we are so scared that cheating is possible that we dare not mention it and jinx the deal?

If society wants men to be more secure, so much so that they would love a love child and get over the opportunity cost of raising another man's child, then men need relationship training in their teens to understand women's needs. This should be part of sex education.

Boys and girls should sit together and hear about common scenarios that cause pain. There are probably many young people from broken families who have never had counseling or guidance to deal with their experiences.

Most young people today are probably consuming porn and romance escapism, both of which will not make them more secure or relationship savvy.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Oh Ent,you are so on point with every one of your posts here. Fantastic!


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Was Joseph a doormat?


I am a recovering Catholic for many reasons.

I think any man not raising the son of God is a doormat in this case. Yes. ( a variation on the bird is in your hands )

I do not think in any way that we should teach our sons or daughters that this is a good thing at all.

I do not follow any religions any more. I do try to follow Bushido. 

_Rectitude--Courage--Benevolence--Respect--Honesty--Honor--Loyalty_


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD - we need more secure men, but raising your wife's affair child has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with be a secure man. The guy willing to do this has a name: cuckold, which basically means he is permanenly humiliated.

To think it is his responsibility or even care, to me is borderline offensive.


----------



## Entropy3000

ScarletBegonias said:


> Joseph who?


DiMaggio maybe. He did love Marilyn very much I believe.


----------



## naiveonedave

All I can say to your last post LW, is that the biological father should be held responsible. The rest of the post is a world I not want to live in.


----------



## JCD

I think that a precursor to a 'secure man' accepting such a child would be a GREAT DEAL OF ASSURANCES that this level of disrespect which lead to infidelity was a thing of the past.

This is hard to achieve. I am sure that jld is not suggesting in any way that a person, secure or not, should accept continual abuse and disrespect from their spouse.

The first step is true and deep remorse on the part of the victimizer.


----------



## samyeagar

JCD said:


> I think that a precursor to a 'secure man' accepting such a child would be a GREAT DEAL OF ASSURANCES that this level of disrespect which lead to infidelity was a thing of the past.
> 
> This is hard to achieve. *I am sure that jld is not suggesting in any way that a person, secure or not, should accept continual abuse and disrespect from their spouse.*
> 
> The first step is true and deep remorse on the part of the victimizer.


She does openly admit to giving her husband deliberate sh1t tests from time to time, and revels in his his willingness to accept them because in her eyes, that makes him secure...


----------



## LongWalk

naiveonedave said:


> All I can say to your last post LW, is that the biological father should be held responsible. The rest of the post is a world I not want to live in.


I only described the world as it is.


----------



## Miss Taken

Not in response to any particular post but my BIL was cuckolded. 

In 2007 he met a girl and they started dating long distance. He would pay her bus fare to come stay with him for a weekend or a week at a time or would drive up to see her.

Eight months into the relationship, she reveals that she's seven months pregnant and that she didn't know she was pregnant the entire time. 

So he moves her in assuming that the baby is his, buys a condo and moves out of mom and dad's house and builds a nursery - yadda, yadda, yadda. 

When the baby - she looked nothing like BIL was born we all grew suspicious. My inlaw's genes are pretty strong - there are now four grandchildren and there are certain traits they all share. (Widow's peaks hairlines, certain birth marks, nose shape, similar feet/toes, ears etc.) The baby, though beautiful had none of them. 

My sneaky MIL, did a DNA test on the baby when she was three months old. As suspected, the baby was not his and she told BIL. Having raised this girl for three months believing he was the father he tried to do right by her and raise her as his own and did so until she was nine months old. Eventually though, the relationship didn't last. The girl's mother was CRAZY. (Putting stuff in his food kind of crazy). 

He has no rights to the child but she tried to come after him for child support and lost. Now that same girl has another child or two by the same guy as was the father of her daughter. 

Our family had to grieve for this baby. We've had to explain to our kids that she was not really their cousin and why we can't see her anymore. The entire situation sucked all around for everyone involved.


----------



## Anon Pink

GusPolinski said:


> I've been trying to come up w/ a scenario that may help to give jld insight into how a woman could possibly experience this level of betrayal, and the closest that I can muster would be a man who, by way of deception, convinces his wife to carry, give birth to, and raise a child that is not her genetic offspring.
> 
> Obviously some sort of IVF-type medical procedure would be required for this. The husband would have to somehow -- and likely w/ collusion from someone at the doc's office -- manage to surreptitiously swap her eggs for those of another woman, have them fertilized w/ his sperm, and then have the resultant embryos implanted into his wife's womb.
> 
> So... How would you feel about this? Again, there is no correct answer, only a correct answer FOR YOU.


I think this might be why a lot of women have trouble understanding the depth of betrayal a man might feel, causing him to be able to walk away from a child he helped raise and discovered was not his biological child.

When a woman spend a significant amount of time caring for a child, there is an emotional bond that just doesn't break. This bond, if begun in infancy is hormonally based. Men have it too, but not as strongly as women do.

Going waaay out on a limb here and off topic to boot, but IMO, this is why women are able to live in polygamous marriages so easily. When we live with children, they simply become...ours.

Always wondered why polygamy never went the other way, several husbands with one wife! Sex wise, women can literally hop from bed to bed. Wouldn't it be so much easier to raise children in a financially stable and well run home if there were a few husbands? Bringing in income and helping with the home, the wife would have enough stability and help to keep herself in tip too shape and ready to take care of her husbands and kids. And the kids would have a ton of attention from their fathers!

Win win as far as I can see.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> I think this might be why a lot of women have trouble understanding the depth of betrayal a man might feel, causing him to be able to walk away from a child he helped raise and discovered was not his biological child.


That's the gist of it for me. It hinges on whether I helped raise the child. If I raised a child as my own, then found out he/she is not mine, there is no way I could walk away from that child because I love that child.

Would I be humiliated? Yes
Would I feel a fraud had been committed against me? Yes

But those facts don't erase the attachment I'd have to the child.

Like I said before, if I find out at birth and I had not had any emotional bonding with the child, then I'd be out the door and tell her to find the father and hold him accountable. And I know, once the child is born I automatically love that child if I think he/she is mine. But then again, if I have no reason to believe the child is not mine, I would not be testing for paternity.

I can't judge a man who decides to turn around and leave, but I can't fathom leaving a child I have grown to love. I'd hold the mother accountable, but I am that child's father and that's the way it will be.

And the laws are just starting to change in some places, but even if a man found out the mother engaged in paternity fraud, that man is forced by the courts to continue financial support.


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> I think this might be why a lot of women have trouble understanding the depth of betrayal a man might feel, causing him to be able to walk away from a child he helped raise and discovered was not his biological child.
> 
> When a woman spend a significant amount of time caring for a child, there is an emotional bond that just doesn't break. This bond, if begun in infancy is hormonally based. Men have it too, but not as strongly as women do.
> 
> Going waaay out on a limb here and off topic to boot, but IMO, this is why women are able to live in polygamous marriages so easily. When we live with children, they simply become...ours.
> 
> Always wondered why polygamy never went the other way, several husbands with one wife! Sex wise, women can literally hop from bed to bed. Wouldn't it be so much easier to raise children in a financially stable and well run home if there were a few husbands? Bringing in income and helping with the home, the wife would have enough stability and help to keep herself in tip too shape and ready to take care of her husbands and kids. And the kids would have a ton of attention from their fathers!
> 
> Win win as far as I can see.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ6AtbcEG9o


----------



## Anon Pink

Entropy3000 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ6AtbcEG9o


:rofl:

That's IT!!!! 

Where do I sign up for that sect?


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> That's the gist of it for me. It hinges on whether I helped raise the child. If I raised a child as my own, then found out he/she is not mine, there is no way I could walk away from that child because I love that child.
> 
> Would I be humiliated? Yes
> Would I feel a fraud had been committed against me? Yes
> 
> But those facts don't erase the attachment I'd have to the child.
> 
> Like I said before, if I find out at birth and I had not had any emotional bonding with the child, then I'd be out the door and tell her to find the father and hold him accountable. And I know, once the child is born I automatically love that child if I think he/she is mine. But then again, if I have no reason to believe the child is not mine, I would not be testing for paternity.
> 
> I can't judge a man who decides to turn around and leave, but I can't fathom leaving a child I have grown to love. I'd hold the mother accountable, but I am that child's father and that's the way it will be.
> 
> And the laws are just starting to change in some places, but even if a man found out the mother engaged in paternity fraud, that man is forced by the courts to continue financial support.


That's not my understanding of the laws in my state.

If a husband, during the time he was co parenting with his wife, didn't know the child wasn't his biologically, he is not required to pay child support for that child.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> I think this might be why a lot of women have trouble understanding the depth of betrayal a man might feel, causing him to be able to walk away from a child he helped raise and discovered was not his biological child.
> 
> When a woman spend a significant amount of time caring for a child, there is an emotional bond that just doesn't break. This bond, if begun in infancy is hormonally based. Men have it too, but not as strongly as women do.
> 
> Going waaay out on a limb here and off topic to boot, but IMO, this is why women are able to live in polygamous marriages so easily. When we live with children, they simply become...ours.
> 
> Always wondered why polygamy never went the other way, several husbands with one wife! Sex wise, women can literally hop from bed to bed. Wouldn't it be so much easier to raise children in a financially stable and well run home if there were a few husbands? Bringing in income and helping with the home, the wife would have enough stability and help to keep herself in tip too shape and ready to take care of her husbands and kids. And the kids would have a ton of attention from their fathers!
> 
> Win win as far as I can see.


Yes, why wouldn't I want to give my paycheck to a woman for a steady supply of sloppy seconds? :rofl:

The question answers itself.

To REALLY answer your question, look up what happened to the Bounty crew on Pitcairn island.

All I can see is the necessity of cities having to hire much larger homicide divisions. 

For the WOMAN...it's a win. She gets 2+ paychecks without any additional housework. The first night she gets a 'headache', whoa nelly!

It is appropriate that we are talking about 'saints' here, because that is what it would take for that to work out even short term.


----------



## larry.gray

GusPolinski said:


> Obviously some sort of IVF-type medical procedure would be required for this. The husband would have to somehow -- and likely w/ collusion from someone at the doc's office -- manage to surreptitiously swap her eggs for those of another woman, have them fertilized w/ his sperm, and then have the resultant embryos implanted into his wife's womb.


Not just "another woman" but a woman that her husband had been carrying on a sordid affair with.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Actually, there are more and more non-traditional relationship groupings...many of which have two or more males. Any grouping you can think of is happening, including communal living where no one really knows who the paternity is of offspring. Some tribal communities have always lived this way, but now our society is starting to as well.

https://www.lovemore.com/mediareact/real-polyamorous-families/


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here is what I don't get....you said THIS....but then you feel the Most "secure" husbands/ fathers would never consider divorce but open their loving arms to an affair child.....but you would not even feel right having such a baby near your own kids, his/her half siblings...and you would divorce...your stance on this is unclear to me, you feel overwhelming "giving' that he needs to be with his new baby so you'd give him up.. no jealousy, no fight ??
> 
> Maybe I did not explain myself clearly.
> 
> Let's say dh had an affair with a 25 year old, and she gets pregnant. I would be shocked. I would be absolutely shocked. But I don't think I could ask him to stay with me. And I would assume he would want to be with her, if he has had an affair with her, and gotten her pregnant. Honestly, I think he would be obligated to. Doesn't she need him, with that baby?
> 
> Of course he and the baby would be seeing our kids. I guess I could see the baby, too, if they wanted me to.
> 
> It is a child, SA. You know that. It has needs that a woman in her forties like me does not have.
> 
> It would be incredibly sad to go through this. My life would completely change. Even if dh and I stayed friends, whatever we had, all that trust, would be over. I could not feel safe physically with him. Who knows what diseases he would expose me to?
> 
> Even if the woman died in childbirth, and I raised the child, there would be incredible trust issues to overcome. We would have to go to counseling to understand why all that would have happened. Trust would have to be earned back. It would not be easy.
> 
> What is the alternative, SA? To give the baby up? I don't know if dh would want to do that. But again, his child, his choice.
> 
> Does this explain things better?
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is like wild fire and I missed the posts after this.. but it's like the man NEEDS to be so Loving/ unconditionally embracing...and we as women are off the hook if we can't handle it... I wouldn't handle it.. like Larry Gray said "It's not a matter of blame, it is the fact that the child will be a walking, breathing trigger."
> 
> No one has to do this. But I am not even sure it is brought up. It is just assumed no one would do this, would rise above his natural, understandable reaction, and look at what the child needs.
> 
> Have you ever seen an orphanage, SA? I did, in India. There was one near where we lived. Our maid's mother grew up there. Those kids would have loved to have mothers and father. If there is a chance to give them one, why not?
> 
> Men have deep emotions and triggers too...if they do not , and this was So easy for them, I would not at all understand it -frankly.
> 
> Nothing involving adultery is easy for anyone, I am sure. I doubt it was easy for Joseph. Not everyone believes an angel spoke to him. Some think Mary just got pregnant and Joseph was kind enough to take her in anyway. He could have had her stoned. He could have swept her, and Jesus, from his life. But he chose not to.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> That's not my understanding of the laws in my state.
> 
> If a husband, during the time he was co parenting with his wife, didn't know the child wasn't his biologically, he is not required to pay child support for that child.


It depends on the state I believe, or maybe just the individual courts. I've heard the stories before that most courts will force the man to still be financially responsible for the child because its in the best interest of the child. That's their excuse anyway.


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> It depends on the state I believe, or maybe just the individual courts. I've heard the stories before that most courts will force the man to still be financially responsible for the child because its in the best interest of the child. That's their excuse anyway.


I believe this isn't true in MOST states, actually. If a man has a biological child with his wife, who later during the marriage gives birth to a child not related to her husband and they divorce, he is NOT required to pay child support for THAT child. Unless he wishes to continue to be an "equitable parent" and continue to have his rights as a father for that child.

Paternity Issues and Child Support | Nolo.com


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> I think this might be why a lot of women have trouble understanding the depth of betrayal a man might feel, causing him to be able to walk away from a child he helped raise and discovered was not his biological child.
> 
> When a woman spend a significant amount of time caring for a child, there is an emotional bond that just doesn't break. This bond, if begun in infancy is hormonally based. Men have it too, but not as strongly as women do.
> 
> Going waaay out on a limb here and off topic to boot, but IMO, this is why women are able to live in polygamous marriages so easily. When we live with children, they simply become...ours.
> 
> *Women are able to bond w/ their children in a way that no man will ever (outside of some sort of MAJOR medical advancement but, even then, what would be the point?) be able to experience. You are able to feel the child grow and move within you for 9-10 months prior to actually giving birth. And then there's the birth itself. And then nursing.
> 
> I can only imagine the flood of emotions which much be associated w/ these experiences, many of which are brought about by the hormones that are intrinsic -- and unique -- to the experience. Again, no man will ever be able to experience this and, to some degree, we are envious of it.
> 
> For the most part, all we really have, in the beginning, is the genetic link, and much of what we initially feel for the child is based upon that foundation. There is a certain sense of pride in knowing that we have successfully passed our genes along to a new generation. When this is taken from us, the rest of the feelings become much more difficult for us.*
> 
> Always wondered why polygamy never went the other way, several husbands with one wife! Sex wise, women can literally hop from bed to bed. Wouldn't it be so much easier to raise children in a financially stable and well run home if there were a few husbands? Bringing in income and helping with the home, the wife would have enough stability and help to keep herself in tip too shape and ready to take care of her husbands and kids. And the kids would have a ton of attention from their fathers!
> 
> Win win as far as I can see.
> 
> 
> *I get the sense that you were joking here, but I'll respond as if you weren't...
> 
> Outside of some sort of ovulary irregularity, a woman is able to carry the child (or children) of only one male at a time. In this situation, in the case of a pregnancy, each of the males would spend 9-10 months wondering whether or not the offspring growing within his wife's womb was his or one of the other husbands. And then, once the day came (assuming that certain traits are present) and/or the results of a paternity test were received, all but one of them would probably feel pretty crushed. After all, at the end of the day, once you get down to the "trog" that we call carry within us, it's about passing along our genes. Honestly, I don't see how any self-respecting man could live with this type of arrangement, and I don't see how any self-respecting woman could be at all attracted to one who was able to do so.
> 
> There are societies where this type of polygamy exists, but I don't see how this arrangement could work in any of the pre-dominantly "Western" societies.
> 
> Now, I'm by no means an expert on polygamy, but my take on the "one husband, many wives" type of polygamy that is practiced by certain Mormon denominations here in the states essentially has the stated goal of producing as many good, wholesome, well-rounded, like-minded Mormons as possible for the purpose of spreading their faith and values.
> 
> Paging Machiavelli...*


----------



## tulsy

jld said:


> This is a spin off of that PSA thread in Men's.
> 
> I hear this brought up a lot here on TAM, that men do not want to raise and pay for children who are not their own. And some have suggested paternity tests after the birth. I have always felt a little surprised when I read these things.
> 
> I have not been unfaithful, we are done having kids, and we have five, but if I had for whatever reason had a child before marrying him, or had a child by another man during the marriage, I know dh would not take it out on the child. I just know him. He loves children, and he loves me, and he would just accept the responsibility.
> 
> How about your husband? What do you think he would do?


I would accept and raise any adopted, step, or foster child, just like it was my own flesh and blood.

I just wouldn't raise a child who's the product of my spouse's torrid, adulterous affair. I wouldn't waste one minute more with the spouse either. Divorce and bye-bye.

It's disturbing...I think deceiving a man to believe he's the father of a child should be a punishable crime. I'm sure it has serious financial and mental side effects for dudes who find themselves in that predicament. I've met a few guys who had this happen...it's devastating. 

On the flip...I work with a guy who found out he was a father when the child was 4. The man who was raising her was destroyed, and now the bio-dad is in the picture...he even ended up marrying the girl. He's a great guy and he actually told me he feels terrible for the other guy...neither guy knew about the other guy, she was casually sleeping with both guys and basically "picked" which one she wanted to be father. 4 years later, she can't help but notice how the child looks exactly like the other "F-buddy" from back in the day, so DNA tests all around, heartbreak, and finally a marriage to the bio-dad.

Guess it works out for some people...they're really happy these days, and have a second child. The other guy literally had a nervous breakdown.


----------



## jld

larry.gray said:


> JLD: I think you're not quite able to empathize with the men, again because you're not able to comprehend what it means to have a child that isn't yours.
> 
> You have several sons, right? Let's say only your sons have kids, but your daughters don't. Later, after several grand-kids you find out that your sons didn't father any of those kids, they were all tricked.
> 
> Stop and truly think about how you'd feel about those kids. You'd have some feelings for them, no doubt. But it would also be a huge vacuum left knowing that you now don't have any biological grand-kids.


I do have four sons. One cannot have biological children because of his cancer. The other three likely will be able to, Larry.

Larry, I don't believe in lying. I would feel very sad for my sons if their wives lied to them or hid this from them. I can only imagine their sorrow at being deceived. Yes, they would be angry, but anger is the second emotion, right? Sorrow is the first.

I am sure I would be shocked to learn those were not my biological grandkids. Just shocked.

But changing my feelings for them? After I had cared for them and loved them and just enjoyed being part of their growing up years? All that attachment would just go away?

I just can't see it, Larry. I know it is hypothetical, but I know my heart, and I just don't think it would matter. We would love them and be attached to them.

I know life is hard, Larry. I know we all have pain. But do we have to give pain to that new life, too? Do we have to do it?


----------



## GusPolinski

WhiteRaven said:


> Or an incurable doormat. It's like someone made you his 'wife' in the slammer and after the end of your term, you decide to frame that guy's photo and place in your living room.


Dude. LMFAO.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> I would submit that it would take a STRONGER, MORE SECURE man to stand up for himself, and his feelings and conviction than to cave to societal pressure and shaming.


Isn't that what I am saying, sam? That for a man to stand up and say, yes, she did wrong, and now there is an innocent life, and I know the OM, and he is a crumb, and I know what is going to happen to this child.

And he stands up to whatever pressure there is to leave her, and stands up to other guys saying he is a "cuckold," when he knows in his heart that he could be a father to this very vulnerable child. Is that not a strong, secure man, sam?


----------



## larry.gray

Anon Pink said:


> That's not my understanding of the laws in my state.
> 
> If a husband, during the time he was co parenting with his wife, didn't know the child wasn't his biologically, he is not required to pay child support for that child.


Those laws are a *VERY* recent modification due to the MRA dudes. Nearly every state forced a cuckolded husband to pay support if he divorced. This was the law as late as 2000 until the MRA guys got them changed. Now only 3 states still force men to pay.

Yeah, the MRA guys are fun to ridicule because they are so over the top in many ways, but this is one place they are spot on about.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Isn't that what I am saying, sam? That for a man to stand up and say, yes, she did wrong, and now there is an innocent life, and I know the OM, and he is a crumb, and I know what is going to happen to this child.
> 
> And he stands up to whatever pressure there is to leave her, and stands up to other guys saying he is a "cuckold," when he knows in his heart that he could be a father to this very vulnerable child. Is that not a strong, secure man, sam?


No, not at all. What does he have to be secure in?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Isn't that what I am saying, sam? That for a man to stand up and say, yes, she did wrong, and now there is an innocent life, and I know the OM, and he is a crumb, and I know what is going to happen to this child.
> 
> And he stands up to whatever pressure there is to leave her, and stands up to other guys saying he is a "cuckold," when he knows in his heart that he could be a father to this very vulnerable child. Is that not a strong, secure man, sam?


Ummm...no.


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD - I just don't get your point, that is asking for every man to be a saint. Totally sub-servient to the W who figuratively tore his heart out. 
All he would be secure in is being 2nd rate. In essence, you are asking him to adopt the very thing that is caused him the most pain in his life and call that being secure. He would be delusional, not secure.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Anon Pink said:


> Always wondered why polygamy never went the other way, several husbands with one wife! Sex wise, women can literally hop from bed to bed. Wouldn't it be so much easier to raise children in a financially stable and well run home if there were a few husbands? Bringing in income and helping with the home, the wife would have enough stability and help to keep herself in tip too shape and ready to take care of her husbands and kids. And the kids would have a ton of attention from their fathers!
> 
> Win win as far as I can see.


Polyandry Is Actually Way More Popular Than Anthropologists Have Led Us to Believe


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> Why is this about a man's pride? Why is this not about the wife's vanity in all of this? Her stupidity? Her short-sightedness? Her selfishness? Do you not think she will be reminded of that the rest of her life?
> 
> There is no pride left to this man you speak off. His wife took that from him.
> 
> She can't take anything from him. She hurt herself. She hurt him, too, but he has the clear conscience. Right?
> 
> The man needs to leave, find a better woman and raise his own children. Not some other man's.
> 
> This child is not his. He has no responsibility for it.
> 
> He is certainly not obligated. Joseph was not, either.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> I've been trying to come up w/ a scenario that may help to give jld insight into how a woman could possibly experience this level of betrayal, and the closest that I can muster would be a man who, by way of deception, convinces his wife to carry, give birth to, and raise a child that is not her genetic offspring.
> 
> Obviously some sort of IVF-type medical procedure would be required for this. The husband would have to somehow -- and likely w/ collusion from someone at the doc's office -- manage to surreptitiously swap her eggs for those of another woman, have them fertilized w/ his sperm, and then have the resultant embryos implanted into his wife's womb.
> 
> So... How would you feel about this? Again, there is no correct answer, only a correct answer FOR YOU.


I give birth and the child does not seem to be from me at all, right?

Sounds like my ds8. 

I love him anyway. I take him as he is. What else should I do?


----------



## GusPolinski

larry.gray said:


> Not just "another woman" but a woman that her husband had been carrying on a sordid affair with.


Not necessarily. It could be that he'd been spending some time talking w/ egg donor registries and browsing the associated sites and, in that time, found a donor with traits that he found more desirable than those of his wife.

So I'll ask again, how would a woman feel in this scenario?


----------



## Anon Pink

samyeagar said:


> Ummm...no.


Not picking on you Sam...

But I have actually talked about this scenario with some friends.

What if your husband admitted that he had had an affair and it resulted in a child and he wanted to bring that child into the family.

Assuming the relationship has reconciled from the affair, every single friend admitted she would welcome the child into the family and mother that child along with the others.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I give birth and the child does not seem to be from me at all, right?
> 
> Sounds like my ds8.
> 
> I love him anyway. I take him as he is. What else should I do?


Was your son born by way of IVF and via an egg donor? If so, YOU LIKELY KNEW THAT GOING IN. Correct?


----------



## Anon Pink

Gus, it was in jest. But I thank you for your eloquent and insightful reply. Your opinion does make sense.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> Not picking on you Sam...
> 
> But I have actually talked about this scenario with some friends.
> 
> What if your husband admitted that he had had an affair and it resulted in a child and he wanted to bring that child into the family.
> 
> Assuming the relationship has reconciled from the affair, every single friend admitted she would welcome the child into the family and mother that child along with the others.


We'll just have to chalk this up to differences between the genders; IMO, women feel a need to nurture, while men feel the need to pass along their genes. It is a very real and deeply-seated drive that exists within every one of us. Or at least most of us.

Again, this is probably because (outside of the scenario that I've described above, or one similar to it), due to human biology, women cannot be made to carry, give birth to, nurse, nurture, feed, clothe, or provide for a child that is not their own. At least not w/o their explicit knowledge.


----------



## jld

vellocet said:


> I would not want to pay for another man's child if I know it to be true just after birth.
> 
> However, if I found out any of my kids are not mine, I'd be devastated. But they would still be mine. I have a bond with them, I love them.
> 
> Here is what I'd do. If I found out one of my kids isn't mine, I'd let the x-wife know what a ho she is and how despicable she is for putting me and the kids in that position.
> 
> I would proceed to let her know that they are still mine, I love them, and that I am their ONLY father. And any attempt by her to inform whatever POS she bedded down that he is the father only further indicates her deplorable character.
> 
> I would not want them knowing they have another father and that their mother engaged in paternity fraud. I am the only father they know and I'd want it to stay that way. She did enough damage at that point. At some time she'd have to decide to actually be a decent human being.


I think that shows some compassion, vellocet. Thank you. On behalf of the kids.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> Gus, it was in jest. But I thank you for your eloquent and insightful reply. Your opinion does make sense.


I figured as much, but I felt compelled to provide some input since at least some of it seemed relevant to the conversation.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> Not picking on you Sam...
> 
> But I have actually talked about this scenario with some friends.
> 
> What if your husband admitted that he had had an affair and it resulted in a child and he wanted to bring that child into the family.
> 
> *Assuming the relationship has reconciled from the affair*, every single friend admitted she would welcome the child into the family and mother that child along with the others.


This is a very big assumption that pretty much the rest of this scenario is completely hinged on, and I would imagine a pregnancy would make the reconciliation that much more difficult.

Also, contrary to recent popular belief, men and women ARE different, and so it is a very different question when asked to a man or a woman.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> A secure man has self respect. A secure man is not a passive man. He does not allow others to disrespect him either.
> 
> I challenge that a truly secure man would stay and support this at all. A secure man would be able to move on and realize he had no guilt in this. His only flaw was giving his love to the wrong person.
> 
> Being secure does not mean accepting of humliation. A truly secure man is not afraid to be a man. he is secure in his boundaries. He knows he has value and he does not squander it. he can be secure in knowing there are better women out there who are worth his time.
> 
> Also on the evolving thing .... Evolution is not in its nature linear in one direction. In fact adaptations happen all of the time. Not all adaptations survive.
> 
> Also "progress" is much like a pendulum.
> While one can look at the founding of the New World as progress for many, we still had slavery for many centuries. We still have trouble with basic human rights. It all still exists today in the world. There is always a Yin and Yang and we try to be hopeful that things progress ... but they tend to pulse. Ambivalence is not the answer.
> 
> Progress is not nirvana. It is a continuum in a Darwinian way. In many ways our freedoms are taken from us in this progress. So I see it as continual battle.


Entropy, children need mothers and fathers, right? Regardless of how they got here, they need that, right? They turn out best when they are loved by a devoted mother and father? Society functions best when children are loved and cared for and grow up to be loving, caring adults?

It is about what children _need_, entropy. 

But still, no one has to do this. Children are a gift. Maybe not everyone should be a part of the gift, per what Eagle3 said this morning.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There are a lot of stories of children born from an affair over at Marriage Builders. A lot of the people involved say that they would have never believed they would have done this before it happened to them. It is a choice some make, though.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Isn't that what I am saying, sam? That for a man to stand up and say, yes, she did wrong, and now there is an innocent life, and I know the OM, and he is a crumb, and I know what is going to happen to this child.
> 
> And he stands up to whatever pressure there is to leave her, and stands up to other guys saying he is a "cuckold," when he knows in his heart that he could be a father to this very vulnerable child. Is that not a strong, secure man, sam?


To me that is a creepy scenario. Total lala land.

A fallacy.

He should just cut off his nuts and send all his earnings to Saint Judes hospital.

What is your agenda here? Why is so important to you to convince men that they should take care of their unfaithful wives love children. Just creeps me out.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> JLD - we need more secure men, but raising your wife's affair child has nothing, repeat nothing, to do with be a secure man. The guy willing to do this has a name: cuckold, which basically means he is permanenly humiliated.
> 
> To think it is his responsibility or even care, to me is borderline offensive.


Why, dave? Why would a man secure enough in his own image of himself care what other people say if he chooses to raise a child who would otherwise not have a father? 

Does he not care more about how that child turns out, than what anyone else thinks in the moment?


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> Not picking on you Sam...
> 
> But I have actually talked about this scenario with some friends.
> 
> What if your husband admitted that he had had an affair and it resulted in a child and he wanted to bring that child into the family.
> 
> Assuming the relationship has reconciled from the affair, every single friend admitted she would welcome the child into the family and mother that child along with the others.


Not Sam but had an x friend that went something like this. He had an affair and the woman, also married, got pregnant. When the wife of my friend found out they reconciled but their emerged an interesting dynamic because neither of the families wanted the unborn child. 

The woman he cheated with was a SAHM of two kids I think it was. This would be her third. Her husband threatened to divorce her if she didn't give up the kid at birth to either adoption or to my friend to raise. My friends wife didn't want the child because they didn't have any but were in process of trying. Later it came out she wasn't able to have kids at all.

This crazy back and forth went on for a few weeks. Finally it was decided that child would be put up for adoption. My x friend and his wife divorced. I don't know if the other couple stayed together but I heard they were in counseling and yes the child was adopted from what I was told. Was very complicated with a lot of emotions running around.


----------



## WhiteRaven

Faithful Wife said:


> There are a lot of stories of children born from an affair over at Marriage Builders. A lot of the people involved say that they would have never believed they would have done this before it happened to them. It is a choice some make, though.


MB seems more like a cult.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> I think that a precursor to a 'secure man' accepting such a child would be a GREAT DEAL OF ASSURANCES that this level of disrespect which lead to infidelity was a thing of the past.
> 
> This is hard to achieve. I am sure that jld is not suggesting in any way that a person, secure or not, should accept continual abuse and disrespect from their spouse.
> 
> The first step is true and deep remorse on the part of the victimizer.


Absolutely!!!

No one is accepting anyone to accept anything less than transparency and healthy boundaries. Period.

And shouldn't we start our marriages with transparency? Why waiting until an affair happens?


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD = what Ent wrote:
"To me that is a creepy scenario. Total lala land.

A fallacy.

He should just cut off his nuts and send all his earnings to Saint Judes hospital.

What is your agenda here? Why is so important to you to convince men that they should take care of their unfaithful wives love children. Just creeps me out."

I totally agree with this. That is probably the ultimate insult to a man. Short of maybe Lorena Bobbitt.


----------



## Anon Pink

Wolf1974 said:


> Not Sam but had an x friend that went something like this. He had an affair and the woman, also married, got pregnant. When the wife of my friend found out they reconciled but their emerged an interesting dynamic because neither of the families wanted the unborn child.
> 
> The woman he cheated with was a SAHM of two kids I think it was. This would be her third. Her husband threatened to divorce her if she didn't give up the kid at birth to either adoption or to my friend to raise. My friends wife didn't want the child because they didn't have any but were in process of trying. Later it came out she wasn't able to have kids at all.
> 
> This crazy back and forth went on for a few weeks. Finally it was decided that child would be put up for adoption. My x friend and his wife divorced. I don't know if the other couple stayed together but I heard they were in counseling and yes the child was adopted from what I was told. Was very complicated with a lot of emotions running around.


I don't think I could allow my husbands love child to be adopted...at least back when I was in the thick of raising little ones. At this point in my life, at 51, I still don't think I could allow it, but I'd be royally pissed about going through raising little one AGAIN!!!!


----------



## over20

Wolf1974 said:


> Not Sam but had an x friend that went something like this. He had an affair and the woman, also married, got pregnant. When the wife of my friend found out they reconciled but their emerged an interesting dynamic because neither of the families wanted the unborn child.
> 
> The woman he cheated with was a SAHM of two kids I think it was. This would be her third. Her husband threatened to divorce her if she didn't give up the kid at birth to either adoption or to my friend to raise. My friends wife didn't want the child because they didn't have any but were in process of trying. Later it came out she wasn't able to have kids at all.
> 
> This crazy back and forth went on for a few weeks. Finally it was decided that child would be put up for adoption. My x friend and his wife divorced. I don't know if the other couple stayed together but I heard they were in counseling and yes the child was adopted from what I was told. Was very complicated with a lot of emotions running around.




Wow...Wolf that's terrible. I really feel bad for your friends wife that can't get pregnant. Double sorrow for her


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Entropy, children need mothers and fathers, right? Regardless of how they got here, they need that, right? They turn out best when they are loved by a devoted mother and father? Society functions best when children are loved and cared for and grow up to be loving, caring adults?
> 
> It is about what children _need_, entropy.
> 
> But still, no one has to do this. Children are a gift. Maybe not everyone should be a part of the gift, per what Eagle3 said this morning.


Each of the notions that you describe here involve the ego/super-ego. The betrayal, disrespect, and rage that a man feels when he realizes that his child or children are not his own come from the id -- the "trog", if you will. It can be very difficult the reconcile the two of them. Depending on the offense, some men cannot. I'd dare say that most couldn't in this case.

Look... At a very base level, each sexual interaction carries with it the implicit understanding that pregnancy (and, therefore, a child or children) can result from it. What this means to a husband whose wife has engaged in an extramarital (physical) affair is that she, at some base, animal level, WANTED to be impregnated by her lover; she wanted to accept his fluids, and she wanted to carry and give birth to his child. Things like condoms, birth control, or whatever don't even come into the picture here. Sure, if a BH finds out that his WW and OM used a condom, he feels like he can relax a little, but that's because a) he feels that the risk of STDs has been at least mitigated and b) MORE IMPORTANTLY, he's relieved that he (hopefully) won't be stuck raising another man's offspring. And that's IF the PA itself isn't a deal-breaker for him.

As men, we want to be EVERYTHING to our wives -- lover, best friend, confidant, co-parent, etc. When we discover that, for any amount of time, we have been replaced in any one of these roles, we are devastated.

Now, the presence of other children within a relationship would no doubt complicate things. Looking back at my other posts, I'm now aware that I probably wasn't very clear in this regard. More on this later.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> She does openly admit to giving her husband deliberate sh1t tests from time to time, and revels in his his willingness to accept them because in her eyes, that makes him secure...


I asked you to discuss this on a thread a few weeks ago, sam. Why didn't you ever come back?

Two weeks ago, I went to see dh in his apartment in a neighboring state. (He lives away for work and we see each other on the weekend.) Dh is not very affectionate. I am always asking for hugs. I ask for words of affirmation. He doesn't need affection outside the bedroom, it seems, and requires no affirmation. He is an independent kind of guy.

Well, on the way home, I realized I had forgotten to give him a book I had brought. I knew we would be going past his office, and thought I would stop and drop it off. 

As I asked the receptionist to call him to come and get it, I wondered if he would hug me when he picked up the book. He had already hugged me when he left the apartment that morning, and I just had a feeling he would smile, pick up the book, and tell me to have a nice trip back.

Well, guess what happened? 

Yes. 

And I just stood there, kind of lingering, hoping for the hug. And he looked at me quizzically, and said he would go out to the van and say goodbye to the kids (they were sleeping when he left). 

On the way out, I said I was waiting because I was hoping he would hug me. He laughed and put his arm around me and said of course he would have hugged me. But I know he would not have thought of it. But I was hoping . . .

This is a **** test, right? I should have just, when I handed him the book, said, "Honey, I want a hug now before I leave." Right?

But to me, that doesn't feel very satisfying. I want him to think of hugging me on his own. So I keep saying it, and always hope for it . . . Maybe someday he will become affectionate.


----------



## Wolf1974

over20 said:


> Wow...Wolf that's terrible. I really feel bad for your friends wife that can't get pregnant. Double sorrow for her


Way x friend but yes I felt bad for her to. I tried to be supportive of her but we weren't really close as I had grown up with him and didn't know her well

Hope she found a better man


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> I don't think I could allow my husbands love child to be adopted...at least back when I was in the thick of raising little ones. At this point in my life, at 51, I still don't think I could allow it, but I'd be royally pissed about going through raising little one AGAIN!!!!


Well this is a way assumption on my part but I think my x friend was lying. He told me she, his wife, didn't want the child but I'm certain it was at least mutual if not entirely him that didn't want it. I think he was playing the sympathy card to gloss over the fact he cheated


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Absolutely!!!
> 
> No one is accepting anyone to accept anything less than transparency and healthy boundaries. Period.
> 
> And shouldn't we start our marriages with transparency? Why waiting until an affair happens?


Sorry, but after the initial transgression, how could the husband feel at all secure in the thought that his WW wouldn't engage in yet another extramarital affair, resulting in yet another illegitimate child? So again, where is the line drawn?

And yes, there should ALWAYS be transparency within a marriage. I am a huge proponent of that. But shouldn't there also be consequences when the transparency, trust, and boundaries involved in the marriage are broken? If not, then why have them at all?


----------



## over20

We had friends that separated due to my (ex) girlfriend's affair with her trainer. The couple wasn't even divorced yet and she became pregnant by her new man. Because she was still not legally divorced to our friend (the husband), she was still on the health insurance policy. The husband's premiums and policy paid for the prenatal care and delivery of my (ex) friend's new baby. This was in Florida. It was a horrid situation


----------



## Anon Pink

jld said:


> I asked you to discuss this on a thread a few weeks ago, sam. Why didn't you ever come back?
> 
> Two weeks ago, I went to see dh in his apartment in a neighboring state. (He lives away for work and we see each other on the weekend.) Dh is not very affectionate. I am always asking for hugs. I ask for words of affirmation. He doesn't need affection outside the bedroom, it seems, and requires no affirmation. He is an independent kind of guy.
> 
> Well, on the way home, I realized I had forgotten to give him a book I had brought. I knew we would be going past his office, and thought I would stop and drop it off.
> 
> As I asked the receptionist to call him to come and get it, I wondered if he would hug me when he picked up the book. He had already hugged me when he left the apartment that morning, and I just had a feeling he would smile, pick up the book, and tell me to have a nice trip back.
> 
> Well, guess what happened?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> And I just stood there, kind of lingering, hoping for the hug. And he looked at me quizzically, and said he would go out to the van and say goodbye to the kids (they were sleeping when he left).
> 
> On the way out, I said I was waiting because I was hoping he would hug me. He laughed and put his arm around me and said of course he would have hugged me. But I know he would not have thought of it. But I was hoping . . .
> 
> This is a **** test, right? I should have just, when I handed him the book, said, "Honey, I want a hug now before I leave." Right?
> 
> But to me, that doesn't feel very satisfying. I want him to think of hugging me on his own. So I keep saying it, and always hope for it . . . Maybe someday he will become affectionate.


That's not a sh!t test! That's waiting for and hoping for your expectations to be fulfilled. He knows you want more affection FROM him, initiated BY him, so you linger near to him in those moments you wish him to demonstrate he heard you.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> No, not at all. What does he have to be secure in?


The difference between a child having a stable, loving father . . . or maybe not?


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Entropy, children need mothers and fathers, right? Regardless of how they got here, they need that, right? They turn out best when they are loved by a devoted mother and father? Society functions best when children are loved and cared for and grow up to be loving, caring adults?
> 
> It is about what children _need_, entropy.
> 
> But still, no one has to do this. Children are a gift. Maybe not everyone should be a part of the gift, per what Eagle3 said this morning.


Children are a responsibility. A husband supporting his wifes love child is no gift at all.

A child is just a reminder that this gift came from the gift of herself to another man. Her gift should have been to have sex with her husband and give him this gift.

There are so many starving and innocent children in the world. It is irrepsonsible to be bringing these gifts into the world.

So did the other man give this gift to the couple?


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> JLD - I just don't get your point, that is asking for every man to be a saint. Totally sub-servient to the W who figuratively tore his heart out.
> All he would be secure in is being 2nd rate. In essence, you are asking him to adopt the very thing that is caused him the most pain in his life and call that being secure. He would be delusional, not secure.


If he does not want to do it, he does not have to.

And clearly, not every man is able to.

The regular reconciliation rules still apply: transparency, boundaries, NC (to the extent possible considering the father may have contact with the child). Trust still has to be earned back.

You can walk away. You have that right. 

But realize that you are not just walking away from her. You are walking away from a child that may become very vulnerable, very quickly.

It is up to each man and his conscience.


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD - the problem is that the child is not his responsibility. It is more the governments than his. This is all on the WW and the OM. Anything he does to make it easier for the child is noble, but should not be expected. 

I don't think my conscience would even consider this to be an issue. I would feel much more for starving kids in Africa than any responsibility to a WW love child.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> To me that is a creepy scenario. Total lala land.
> 
> A fallacy.
> 
> He should just cut off his nuts and send all his earnings to Saint Judes hospital.
> 
> What is your agenda here? Why is so important to you to convince men that they should take care of their unfaithful wives love children. Just creeps me out.


I read stories about infidelity and have rarely heard about just accepting the baby and raising it, even though it is not yours, _just because it needs a father._ And I wondered why. 

Why assuming that just because it is commonly rejected, it needs to be? Why not challenge men to more? Why not ask them to be what that child may not otherwise get?

They can still refuse. But if we don't ask, we will never know.


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Not Sam but had an x friend that went something like this. He had an affair and the woman, also married, got pregnant. When the wife of my friend found out they reconciled but their emerged an interesting dynamic because neither of the families wanted the unborn child.
> 
> The woman he cheated with was a SAHM of two kids I think it was. This would be her third. Her husband threatened to divorce her if she didn't give up the kid at birth to either adoption or to my friend to raise. My friends wife didn't want the child because they didn't have any but were in process of trying. Later it came out she wasn't able to have kids at all.
> 
> This crazy back and forth went on for a few weeks. Finally it was decided that child would be put up for adoption. My x friend and his wife divorced. I don't know if the other couple stayed together but I heard they were in counseling and yes the child was adopted from what I was told. Was very complicated with a lot of emotions running around.


Yes, that is a possibility, too, giving up the child for adoption. And for some people, that may be the option they feel most comfortable with.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *jld said*: Of course he and the baby would be seeing our kids. I guess I could see the baby, too, if they wanted me to.
> 
> *It is a child, SA. You know that. It has needs that a woman in her forties like me does not have*.


 I'd be so pissed off, fire would be coming out of my ears.. No, the child would not be my 1st concern, I am not as loving as you JLD ....nor forgiving... I know what I can handle, I know my demons... it may not be the kids fault... but it sure as hell is the 2 who screwed...and that taints it all for me...

CHILDREN SUFFER EVERY DAY FOR THEIR PARENTS atrocious mistakes...where do we begin...

I know you are an idealist... I am a realist...See I harp on casual sex, in my world.. 2 people shouldn't be Fvcking around if they would not bare the responsibility -if a baby results......period.. but ya know...this is dream land too!! No one wants to listen to my BS... sex is FUN.. enjoy it, who cares if we never see each other again!"... ... "So when a baby results & people hate each other, they used each other...others can get hurt...well...it Fvcks everyone's life up....including the innocent....that's the reality... 

Where you want to clean if up* after the fact*..your focus is here..."people make mistakes...we're only human... we need to LOVE everyone, it's a child , where is your heart.. don't you care about the innocent"....

I harp on taking *responsibility *BEFORE you take someone to bed...I am more concerned with preventing these scenarios from the get go... If that even makes any sense...



> *jld said:* It would be incredibly sad to go through this. My life would completely change. Even if dh and I stayed friends, whatever we had, all that trust, would be over. I could not feel safe physically with him. Who knows what diseases he would expose me to?


 same goes for the wife stepping out.. diseases and all...but you are trying to get the men to forgive and stay with their 2 timing wives.. why is the measurement stick not leveled here ?? 



> *jld said* : othing involving adultery is easy for anyone, I am sure. I doubt it was easy for Joseph. Not everyone believes an angel spoke to him. Some think Mary just got pregnant and Joseph was kind enough to take her in anyway. He could have had her stoned. He could have swept her, and Jesus, from his life. But he chose not to.


 I don't buy the whole supernatural Holy spirit impregnation story.. so this one falls off of me.... you know Jesus wasn't the 1st they claimed was born of a virgin.. you can google that one and learn of the others.. not like anyone believed those !

I once watched a 20/20 program of this Father who thought all 4 of his children was his.. only to learn after raising them for years that only 1 was biologically his...she had her secret affair partner on the side while he was working...that level of betrayal is unthinkable to me...I was SO outraged watching that..I felt the fire under me..for HIM... and no, I wasn't really thinking about the kids.. but the INjustice done to HIM... for some reason this is where My FOCUS goes..if that is a fault of mine...then so be it...

If those kids do suffer, they can blame their mother...that's just how I see it.


----------



## WhiteRaven

jld said:


> Why, dave? Why would a man secure enough in his own image of himself care what other people say if he chooses to raise a child who would otherwise not have a father?
> 
> Does he not care more about how that child turns out, than what anyone else thinks in the moment?


The question is not about how secure a man is about his image. The question is how his psyche would react with such a constant reminder of the ultimate betrayal. 

I would have preferred my WW to kill me rather than to cheat on me. Being alive means I'd have to deal with what happened for the rest of my life. Only those who have been there would understand what I'm talking about.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy....jld has a unique perspective and lifestyle. She doesn't always see things the way many/most people do. Included in this is her ability to "do the right thing", as much as she can. You will see this in many of her posts.

I'm not saying I always agree...but many of her posts and ideas make me stop. More patience and love in the world are not bad things.

But she can come across as naive or even "clueless"...IMO, she just has a much different set of values that most people.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Quick question re: paternity tests: Although not compulsory by law, could a husband request one each time his wife bears a child? Is that something that is his legal right? If so, then are compulsory tests needed? Why don't husbands just request?


----------



## jld

Anon Pink said:


> That's not a sh!t test! That's waiting for and hoping for your expectations to be fulfilled. He knows you want more affection FROM him, initiated BY him, so you linger near to him in those moments you wish him to demonstrate he heard you.


Oh, okay. Maybe I don't understand what **** tests are, then.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GettingIt...you can buy them in pharmacies now and do it yourself at home, no one would know and the father could find out for sure.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Identigene DNA Paternity Test Kit - Walmart.com


----------



## Anon Pink

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy....jld has a unique perspective and lifestyle. She doesn't always see things the way many/most people do. Included in this is her ability to "do the right thing", as much as she can. You will see this in many of her posts.
> 
> I'm not saying I always agree...but many of her posts and ideas make me stop. More patience and love in the world are not bad things.
> 
> But she can come across as naive or even "clueless"...IMO, she just has a much different set of values that most people.


Thank you!

I am so glad more people are understanding that JLD is a loving idealist. Her ideals are all based on and firmly rooted in loving kindness and you will NEVER see her posting anything other than expressing her ideals and trying to understand others. She makes people uncomfortable because she is so guileless in her compassion.

I think it's rather telling how threatened some people are by JLD expressing herself.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> JLD - the problem is that the child is not his responsibility. It is more the governments than his. This is all on the WW and the OM. Anything he does to make it easier for the child is noble, but should not be expected.
> 
> I don't think my conscience would even consider this to be an issue. I would feel much more for starving kids in Africa than any responsibility to a WW love child.


Well, as long as there is support for the child, financial as well as emotional, that might be okay. Maybe a father is not necessary. I thought it would be best, but maybe you are right. 

A lot of kids grew up without fathers in wars past. Maybe a loving mother with enough money is enough.


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD - The OM is the father. Fathers are hugely important. However, in my view, paternity makes the father, unless there is adoption.

Adopting a WWs love child is just not something I could do, nor could many do.


----------



## JCD

samyeagar said:


> She does openly admit to giving her husband deliberate sh1t tests from time to time, and revels in his his willingness to accept them because in her eyes, that makes him secure...


That's funny. IIRC, the tone she took was one of startled guilt, not exactly realizing what she was doing or that it was a product of her own insecurities.

BUT...I could be wrong. She shouldn't seek reassurances that way and maybe she will learn.


----------



## Anon Pink

jld said:


> Oh, okay. Maybe I don't understand what **** tests are, then.


I think the term **** test is ambiguous. Essentially it means when a woman wants a man to do something and he may NOT want to do that thing.

But what **** test doesn't take into account is when a woman wants her man to do something because it's important to her vs just being *****y and controlling.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Ah, yes, "noble" is a word that's been missing from this debate. I think it is more apt a word than "secure." The man who could perform this task nobly is rare indeed. 

A man who would consent to raise a child of his wife's affair is not _necessarily_ a doormat with no self respect. Intent matters, motivation matters, circumstances matter. 

Which is why it's so hard for me to comment on a poorly defined hypothetical scenario.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'd be so pissed off, fire would be coming out of my ears.. No, the child would not be my 1st concern, I am not as loving as you JLD ....nor forgiving... I know what I can handle, I know my demons... it may not be the kids fault... but it sure as hell is the 2 who screwed...and that taints it all for me... I sure would not be happy, SA! It would ruin my life, too! But as a mother, how can I not think about that child, too?
> 
> CHILDREN SUFFER EVERY DAY FOR THEIR PARENTS atrocious mistakes...where do we begin... Can't we make a difference where we can?
> 
> I know you are an idealist... I am a realist...See I harp on casual sex, in my world.. 2 people shouldn't be Fvcking around if they would not bare the responsibility -if a baby results......period.. but ya know...this is dream land too!! No one wants to listen to my BS... sex is FUN.. enjoy it, who cares if we never see each other again!"... ... "So when a baby results & people hate each other, they used each other...others can get hurt...well...it Fvcks everyone's life up....including the innocent....that's the reality... Yes, and that is why TAM exists, so we can all learn how bad things can be when we act impulsively and selfishly.
> 
> Where you want to clean if up* after the fact*..your focus is here..."people make mistakes...we're only human... we need to LOVE everyone, it's a child , where is your heart.. don't you care about the innocent"....
> 
> I harp on taking *responsibility *BEFORE you take someone to bed...I am more concerned with preventing these scenarios from the get go... If that even makes any sense... You are right.
> 
> same goes for the wife stepping out.. diseases and all...but you are trying to get the men to forgive and stay with their 2 timing wives.. why is the measurement stick not leveled here ?? For sure, I don't want to see men get diseases, either. You and I have many sons, SA. We both love our boys. And we certainly love our dear husbands!
> 
> I don't buy the whole supernatural Holy spirit impregnation story.. so this one falls off of me.... you know Jesus wasn't the 1st they claimed was born of a virgin.. you can google that one and learn of the others.. not like anyone believed those ! That is what I think, too. But it is a famous example.
> 
> I once watched a 20/20 program of this Father who thought all 4 of his children was his.. only to learn after raising them for years that only 1 was biologically his...she had her secret affair partner on the side while he was working...that level of betrayal is unthinkable to me...I was SO outraged watching that..I felt the fire under me..for HIM... and no, I wasn't really thinking about the kids.. but the INjustice done to HIM... for some reason this is where My FOCUS goes..if that is a fault of mine...then so be it... And yet, he had the joy of fatherhood, the attachment to those kids. And they had the gift of a loving dad. Still does not excuse the lack of transparency.
> 
> If those kids do suffer, they can blame their mother...that's just how I see it. Do you think at some point, SA, the dad might say, she was wrong, totally wrong with what she did. But I am so glad I have those kids in my life.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Not picking on you Sam...
> 
> But I have actually talked about this scenario with some friends.
> 
> What if your husband admitted that he had had an affair and it resulted in a child and he wanted to bring that child into the family.
> 
> *Assuming the relationship has reconciled from the affair*, every single friend admitted she would welcome the child into the family and mother that child along with the others.


This is the key point.


----------



## jld

Anon Pink said:


> I think the term **** test is ambiguous. Essentially it means when a woman wants a man to do something and he may NOT want to do that thing.
> 
> But what **** test doesn't take into account is when a woman wants her man to do something because it's important to her vs just being *****y and controlling.


I thought it meant seeing what he would do if you did not tell him what you wanted him to do. Seeing what was really in his heart.

Like not going by his words, but by his actions.

For example, it is my birthday Thurs. I am wondering if dh will do anything. I am pretty sure he will remember, at some point in the day, lol. But I will be surprised if any action is actually performed.

What I really want is a loving e-mail. And since dh is reading this thread, now I may get it.


----------



## JCD

Entropy3000 said:


> Children are a responsibility. A husband supporting his wifes love child is no gift at all.
> 
> A child is just a reminder that this gift came from the gift of herself to another man. Her gift should have been to have sex with her husband and give him this gift.
> 
> There are so many starving and innocent children in the world. It is irrepsonsible to be bringing these gifts into the world.
> 
> So did the other man give this gift to the couple?


That could lead to an interesting moral scenario.

Wife has 'love child' Says 'this kid needs a father and deadbeat beat feet'.

So the man ADOPTS SOME OTHER KID while giving away the trigger.

So...jld...does that satisfy your formulation? A poor deprived child finds a home. Wife has to pay a price. She freely and willingly inflicted a grievious wound on her husband...and he did one back.

Granted, I wouldn't want to be married to either of these people.


----------



## Anon Pink

jld said:


> I thought it meant seeing what he would do if you did not tell him what you wanted him to do. Seeing what was really in his heart.
> 
> Like not going by his words, but by his actions.
> 
> For example, it is my birthday Thurs. I am wondering if dh will do anything. I am pretty sure he will remember, at some point in the day, lol. But I will be surprised if any action is actually performed.
> 
> What I really want is a loving e-mail. And since dh is reading this thread, now I may get it.


I don't have the greatest understanding of **** tests. But if the above is a **** test then I get them regularly and fail them with frequency. However, if he can't tell me what he wants, I don't feel obligated to guilt when I don't provide it...and yet I feel guilty anyway dammit!


----------



## Anon Pink

GettingIt said:


> Ah, yes, "noble" is a word that's been missing from this debate. I think it is more apt a word than "secure." The man who could perform this task nobly is rare indeed.
> 
> A man who would consent to raise a child of his wife's affair is not _necessarily_ a doormat with no self respect. Intent matters, motivation matters, circumstances matter.
> 
> Which is why it's so hard for me to comment on a poorly defined hypothetical scenario.


:iagree:

Nobility! That is the word. Being noble and doing the right thing doesn't make a man a door mat.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Urban Dictionary: **** test


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> If he does not want to do it, he does not have to.
> 
> And clearly, not every man is able to.
> 
> The regular reconciliation rules still apply: transparency, boundaries, NC (*to the extent possible considering the father may have contact with the child). *Trust still has to be earned back.
> 
> You can walk away. You have that right.
> 
> But realize that you are not just walking away from her. You are walking away from a child that may become very vulnerable, very quickly.
> 
> It is up to each man and his conscience.


Nah. Total deal breaker for me. If she can't get him to renounce all parental rights, she can damn well go to HIM!

If a child is a walking trigger, what is a smirking, a-hole who comes around asking about how 'you are treating his kid'.

jld...what is the problem with the FATHER raising this child? Why isn't this a part of a solution?


----------



## over20

jld said:


> I thought it meant seeing what he would do if you did not tell him what you wanted him to do. Seeing what was really in his heart.
> 
> Like not going by his words, but by his actions.
> 
> For example, it is my birthday Thurs. I am wondering if dh will do anything. I am pretty sure he will remember, at some point in the day, lol. But I will be surprised if any action is actually performed.
> 
> What I really want is a loving e-mail. And since dh is reading this thread, now I may get it.




Honey, you mother a large family, take care of a sick child and homeschool...you deserve more than a loving email IMHO!!!

You need to be pampered!! 

Happy Early Birthday!!


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> That could lead to an interesting moral scenario.
> 
> Wife has 'love child' Says 'this kid needs a father and deadbeat beat feet'.
> 
> So the man ADOPTS SOME OTHER KID while giving away the trigger.
> 
> So...jld...does that satisfy your formulation? A poor deprived child finds a home. Wife has to pay a price. She freely and willingly inflicted a grievious wound on her husband...and he did one back.
> 
> Granted, I wouldn't want to be married to either of these people.


If I knew a woman in this situation, I would tell her to divorce her husband at once.

No one needs a husband like that. She's better off alone with the kid. And so is the kid.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> Urban Dictionary: **** test


They put that link up a few weeks ago on another thread. But when I look it up, it just says Not Defined.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Each of the notions that you describe here involve the ego/super-ego. The betrayal, disrespect, and rage that a man feels when he realizes that his child or children are not his own come from the id -- the "trog", if you will. It can be very difficult the reconcile the two of them. Depending on the offense, some men cannot. I'd dare say that most couldn't in this case.
> 
> Look... At a very base level, each sexual interaction carries with it the implicit understanding that pregnancy (and, therefore, a child or children) can result from it. *What this means to a husband whose wife has engaged in an extramarital (physical) affair is that she, at some base, animal level, WANTED to be impregnated by her lover;* *she wanted to accept his fluids, and she wanted to carry and give birth to his child.* Things like condoms, birth control, or whatever don't even come into the picture here. Sure, if a BH finds out that his WW and OM used a condom, he feels like he can relax a little, but that's because a) he feels that the risk of STDs have been at least mitigated and b) MORE IMPORTANTLY, he's relieved that he (hopefully) won't be stuck raising another man's offspring. And that's IF the PA itself isn't a deal-breaker for him.
> 
> As men, we want to be EVERYTHING to our wives -- lover, best friend, confidant, co-parent, etc. When we discover that, for any amount of time, we have been replaced in any one of these roles, we are devastated.
> 
> Now, the presence of other children within a relationship would no doubt complicate things. Looking back at my other posts, I'm now aware that I probably wasn't very clear in this regard. More on this later.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

You nailed it. You captured the very base issues here.

This is why it is insulting to ask a husband to care for that child.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Nah. Total deal breaker for me. If she can't get him to renounce all parental rights, she can damn well go to HIM!
> 
> If a child is a walking trigger, what is a smirking, a-hole who comes around asking about how 'you are treating his kid'.
> 
> jld...what is the problem with the FATHER raising this child? Why isn't this a part of a solution?


Is he going to? 

I am focused on the kid, but you are convincing me the mother may be better off alone with her kid.

No wonder we have so many single mothers. Seriously.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> I think it's rather telling how threatened some people are by JLD expressing herself.


The expression isn't at all threatening; what IS threatening -- and even offensive, to a degree -- is the notion that a husband should feel compelled (or even worse, forced) to provide for a child that has resulted from his wife's infidelity. As jld herself has said, it is -- and should continue to be, in all such cases -- a personal choice.


----------



## jld

over20 said:


> Honey, you mother a large family, take care of a sick child and homeschool...you deserve more than a loving email IMHO!!!
> 
> You need to be pampered!!
> 
> Happy Early Birthday!!


Thanks, over20.  

But I crave words of affirmation. I am serious about dh not needing them, and not needing much affection outside of sex. So he does not think to give them. So any love letter is just such a gift, such a treasure. I just cannot tell you.

Dh, you're reading this, right? (Or will be tonight.) I'm counting on you . . .


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> :iagree::iagree::iagree:
> 
> You nailed it. You captured the very base issues here.
> 
> This is why it is insulting to ask a husband to care for that child.


He does not have to do it, entropy. If anything, it could be considered a sign of respect for her to want him to be in her child's life.

There are all kinds of ways to see this, not just as her using him somehow.


----------



## GusPolinski

GettingIt said:


> Ah, yes, "noble" is a word that's been missing from this debate. I think it is more apt a word than "secure." The man who could perform this task nobly is rare indeed.
> 
> A man who would consent to raise a child of his wife's affair is not _necessarily_ a doormat with no self respect. Intent matters, motivation matters, circumstances matter.
> 
> Which is why it's so hard for me to comment on a poorly defined hypothetical scenario.


All very, very true.


----------



## Rowan

jld said:


> He does not have to do it, entropy. If anything, it could be considered a sign of respect for her to want him to be in her child's life.
> 
> There are all kinds of ways to see this, not just as her using him somehow.


I think there are all kinds of ways that you _would like _to see this. However, I think in reality, the way this usually _is_, is the opposite of respect. A woman who passes off an affair child as her husband's is, in fact, using him. And a woman who asks her husband to raise her affair partner's child isn't really doing it out of respect for her husband. These things are done out of selfishness, so she does not lose her comfortable, secure, respectable marriage. It's an attempt at cake eating, not respect for her husband's parenting abilities.


----------



## jld

Rowan said:


> I think there are all kinds of ways that you _would like _to see this. However, I think in reality, the way this usually _is_, is the opposite of respect. A woman who passes off an affair child as her husband's is, in fact, using him. And a woman who asks her husband to raise her affair partner's child isn't really doing it out of respect for her husband. These things are done out of selfishness, so she does not lose her comfortable, secure, respectable marriage. It's an attempt at cake eating, not respect for her husband's parenting abilities.


Do you think she is thinking of the child, too?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Rowan said:


> I think there are all kinds of ways that you _would like _to see this. However, I think in reality, the way this usually is, is the opposite of respect. A woman who passes off an affair child as her husband's is, in fact, using him. And a woman who asks her husband to raise her affair partner's child isn't really doing it out of respect for her husband. These things are done out of selfishness so she does not lose her comfortable marriage. * It's an attempt at cake eating, not respect for her husband's parenting abilities.*


:iagree:
I think the majority of men would be more likely to see this as a slap in the face rather than a sign of respect.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> He does not have to do it, entropy. If anything, it could be considered a sign of respect for her to want him to be in her child's life.
> 
> There are all kinds of ways to see this, not just as her using him somehow.


Sorry, but this wouldn't come across as any sort of "respect" to me. Seriously, how would that conversation go? Here is one version...

"Honey, OM is a total d-bag, and he can't or won't provide for my baby. And that's cool, because you're a much better man, and a much better provider. I really only wanted him sexually, and all that I wanted from him was his seed. Now that I've gotten that, I'd really prefer that my child and I stay in this home, which you've provided with your many years of blood, sweat, and hard work. And if you could manage to pour the next 18+ years of yourself into helping me to love, nurture, feed, clothe, educate, and provide for this child, that would be great. Thanks. Oh, and I promise that I'll never do this again. Unless I want to."


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD - not really, she was selfish when she created it, selfish when she had it and is being selfish making some poor sob pay for it.


----------



## JCD

Rowan said:


> I think there are all kinds of ways that you _would like _to see this. However, I think in reality, the way this usually _is_, is the opposite of respect. A woman who passes off an affair child as her husband's is, in fact, using him. And a woman who asks her husband to raise her affair partner's child isn't really doing it out of respect for her husband. These things are done out of selfishness, so she does not lose her comfortable, secure, respectable marriage. It's an attempt at cake eating, not respect for her husband's parenting abilities.


This is a very real issue and hence a terrible suspicion which would scuttle this type of plan.

A woman selfish enough to conduct an affair and get pregnant now suddenly has this HUGE epiphany and suddenly realizes what a gem her hubby (you know...the one she had enough disrespect for to actually cheat on) that she can ask him to raise this bastard child.

'Respect' isn't the word I would find coming out of my mouth.

I think the most generous interpretation is she is seeking a soft landing for herself and her kid. Which is understandable. Everyone wants grace and forgiveness when they make a mistake.

But this isn't a dented car. It calls into question all the fundamentals of that relationship.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> No wysh...many people do not have a father. You are more than many people get to have. You are not "just a guy who does the best he can". Much more than that. Some of our tasks in life feel easy (like loving your kids) but are far more important than anything else.


Yes, I know what you mean.

Being a father seemed to come naturally to me. I think my main fault is I can be too soft on them.

I already knew that if I never met Miss Right I wanted to be an awesome Uncle.

Much like in your blog where some peeps are naturally sexual and some have to learn, aome people are natural parents and some have to learn.


----------



## Rowan

jld said:


> Do you think she is thinking of the child, too?


My experience with cheaters has been that they don't tend to really think of anyone but themselves.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

All I see in these scenarios are her actions saying "I wanted _that guy's_ genes, but I want you to care for his babies".

She'd be out of my life so fast she'd have whiplash. I have zero reason to care about this kid. That's her and HIS responsibility, not mine.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> Do you think she is thinking of the child, too?


Yes, but since she is a package with the child, she also gets to experience the soft landing as well so her motives are far from pure.

The sacrifices involved are very asymmetrical. She loses nothing. She has the kid. She had the fun sex. She gets 18 years of money and care.

What does the husband get other than some spiritual kudos from a few and laughing insinuations from everyone else?


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> JLD - not really, she was selfish when she created it, selfish when she had it and is being selfish making some poor sob pay for it.


It sounds like they are better off apart, dave.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> And yet, he had the joy of fatherhood, the attachment to those kids. And they had the gift of a loving dad. Still does not excuse the lack of transparency.


...and three-fourths of all of that was based on a foundation of lies.


----------



## samyeagar

I understand what you are saying with the picture...but the baby could have been adopted...


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Yes, but since she is a package with the child, she also gets to experience the soft landing as well so her motives are far from pure.
> 
> The sacrifices involved are very asymmetrical. She loses nothing. She has the kid. She had the fun sex. She gets 18 years of money and care.
> 
> What does the husband get other than some spiritual kudos from a few and laughing insinuations from everyone else?


I doubt it is as simple as this. 

And I think a man who would do this for the sake of the child would not care who is laughing, except the baby.


----------



## samyeagar

Now...if I could find a way to terminate the bio dads rights, terminate the mothers rights after I divorce her, I might actually consider adopting the child...and I stress MIGHT.


----------



## GusPolinski

samyeagar said:


> I understand what you are saying with the picture...but the baby could have been adopted...


I saw this pic a few years ago. It's funny, but that was my first thought as well.

As someone said earlier, each scenario described and debated here will likely be, to some degree, different, and not quite "equal" to any other as a result.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Faithful wife said: *Entropy....jld has a unique perspective and lifestyle. She doesn't always see things the way many/most people do. Included in this is her ability to "do the right thing", as much as she can. You will see this in many of her posts.
> 
> I'm not saying I always agree...but many of her posts and ideas make me stop. *More patience and love in the world are not bad things.*
> 
> But she can come across as naive or even "clueless"...IMO, she just has a much different set of values that most people.





Anon Pink said:


> Thank you!
> 
> *I am so glad more people are understanding that JLD is a loving idealist. Her ideals are all based on and firmly rooted in loving kindness and you will NEVER see her posting anything other than expressing her ideals and trying to understand others. She makes people uncomfortable because she is so guileless in her compassion.*
> 
> I think it's rather telling how threatened some people are by JLD expressing herself.


Really the WORLD needs all kinds of people and perspectives...so nothing wrong with it...but neither is it if someone else would say "HELL NO"...and be outraged by the notion of it......I don't feel people should put themselves in situations where resentment would fester...or endless triggering ...that could be taken out on the child, even though the Husband may not want to do this.. after all we are only human...

This would not be a healthy home for such a child anyway.... Better to be adopted by a couple who wait with loving arms to fill... 

Unless they were Inspired...and felt called to Do THIS....this in my opinion would take a very special man ...I wouldn't so much see him as a doormat ...as Getting it's post pointed out so well.. but that sort of *Nobility* is very very rare... Saintly comes to mind....



> *jld said :* Do you think at some point, SA, the dad might say, she was wrong, totally wrong with what she did. But I am so glad I have those kids in my life.


 It would completely and utterly taint everything for some..... I can only guess of course.. but the bitter sweetness would be enough for some men to take their own lives in the wake of this knowledge.. it would cut that deep....the ones who care the most ...trust me are the ones who would also suffer the most..another dagger if they want to meet their biological father someday.. 

You've said your husband is more on the unemotional side.. so it would make sense to me he would not be as emotionally outraged as others...


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I doubt it is as simple as this.
> 
> And I think a man who would do this for the sake of the child would not care who is laughing, except the baby.


This isn't entirely true, and he would forever hate himself -- if even at some very small level (and it would take him a while to get there) -- for doing it. It goes against our nature, and is an affront to our most primitive of instincts.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

naiveonedave said:


> JLD - not really, she was selfish when she created it, selfish when she had it and is being selfish making some poor sob pay for it.


But women can do no wrong! it's a woman's biology that makes her do sh*t tests,lash out like a 5 year old little girl,and when she's asking her husband to care for her affair child she's really just respecting him! It's up to the man to be selfless,confident,SECURE,and accept that this is what women do!

I can handle a whole load of idealistic thoughts but this concept that women can't control their emotions,should be cared for like little girls,etc is a bit much for even me to take. Then throwing the implication that if a man doesn't raise her love child he's insecure or somehow lacking as a man just takes the cake. 

Men are not robots and they are not hardened stoic marble statues. They are human beings with feelings that get hurt just as easily as women.They have hearts that get broken just as easily as women's hearts. This doesn't make them insecure or unmanly. this makes them just as lovable and worthy of care as females are. If a man says he can't stick with a woman who slept w/someone else and got pregnant by that dude...he's not going to get ANY judgments from me.


----------



## jld

Believe me, SA, he would not be _happy._ 

But I told you he considered the priesthood, right? And he has told me if something would happen to me and the kids, he would sell everything and go serve the poor in Africa. He would have been a great Peace Corps volunteer.

Just a highly moral man. Not selfish (well, everyone is a little), not demanding, always willing to help. Very much a giver. So kind.

I love him so much, SA. I know you understand.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> If a man says he can't stick with a woman who slept w/someone else and got pregnant by that dude...he's not going to get ANY judgments from me.


You knocked it out of the park with this post. Thank you.

TBH, I'd think the guy who takes his wife back and her affair child has no self-respect whatsoever. Very nice for the other man, his kid, and the woman... who in all probability will do it again. The man has no respect for himself, so why should she respect him?


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> This isn't entirely true, and he would forever hate himself -- if even at some very small level (and it would take him a while to get there) -- for doing it. It goes against our nature, and is an affront to our most primitive of instincts.


Then that man should not do it.

Remember what Eagle said? We don't want a child with someone who does not value him/her.


----------



## LongWalk

samyeagar said:


> I understand what you are saying with the picture...but the baby could have been adopted...


Because the husband's sperm count was too low?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You knocked it out of the park with this post. Thank you.
> 
> TBH, I'd think the guy who takes his wife back and her affair child has no self-respect whatsoever. Very nice for the other man, his kid, and the woman... who in all probability will do it again. The man has no respect for himself, so why should she respect him?




I also don't think that a man has lower morals or is unloving or less giving bc he doesn't want to raise a child from an affair.

I don't think raising the affair child makes him a better man either.I don't think it shows him to have higher morals or anything noble. it just makes him different from someone who wouldn't raise the child.Not in a good way or a bad way necessarily...just different.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> Believe me, SA, he would not be _happy._
> 
> But I told you he considered the priesthood, right? And he has told me if something would happen to me and the kids, he would sell everything and go serve the poor in Africa. He would have been a great Peace Corps volunteer.
> 
> Just a highly moral man. Not selfish (well, everyone is a little), not demanding, always willing to help. Very much a giver. So kind.
> 
> I love him so much, SA. I know you understand.


My husband is good man, but he ain't that Unselfish, nor does he love people that much... one of his common sayings is.. right after discussing some A-hole ....he'll say nonchalantly *>>* "I hate people"..... No Priesthood for him...he likes







too much!!... I'm good with all that "giving" coming my way.....don't want it going anywhere else! 

You 2 are surely a special couple & very far from the norm...I think I was one of the odd women out before you arrived on the landscape here.... and shared your story.. I don't mean this in a bad way.. mind you.. you do open some "feathers ruffling" discussions !


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> He does not have to do it, entropy. If anything, it could be considered a sign of respect for her to want him to be in her child's life.
> 
> There are all kinds of ways to see this, not just as her using him somehow.


A sign of respect to the wife that did this? Respect her!? What planet is this? Are you pushing some kind of FemDom thing here? Trying to figure out where such rhetoric might come from. 

Oh one can look at all sorts of perverted things and say there are different ways to look at this.

I think what is so offensive is that I look at this from the male perspective as abuse. Just like I get upset about men who physically or mentally abuse women this is how I see this. This is how a woman destroys a man. I would rather be beaten and have my bones broken than endure something this bad. This to me would be the equivalent of being raped. It is violence to me. It is hateful to me. It takes all that I hold dear away from me. It would be less painful if I did not love the woman. 

I am amazed you are not willing to look at this side. One can justify anything. I mean you can join a cult and then allow the cult leader to have your wife when he wants her. He may gift you with a child. But you stay in the cult out of respect for your wife. Crazy stuff.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Then that man should not do it.
> 
> Remember what Eagle said? We don't want a child with someone who does not value him/her.


LOL. But that's _*every*_ man. Every. single. one. of. us.

Granted, some men will have an easier time w/ this notion and, as a result, would more readily accept such a situation as their new (albeit undesirable) reality. I'd think that the overwhelming majority of us, however, would not.

Again, this decision would definitely be made more complicated -- and even more painful -- by the presence of existing children within a relationship.

jld, you seem like a really nice person -- a true idealist, if you will. Truly, I respect and admire that. I really do. I am, however, struggling w/ why this seems to be so difficult for you to grasp.

/sigh I dunno, maybe my amygdalae are just too damn large. Maybe I'm the product of a bygone era. But if I am, so are most men walking the Earth today.


----------



## GusPolinski

Entropy3000 said:


> A sign of respect to the wife that did this? Respect her!? What planet is this? Are you pushing some kind of FemDom thing here? Trying to figure out where such rhetoric might come from.
> 
> Oh one can look at all sorts of perverted things and say there are different ways to look at this.
> 
> *I think what is so offensive is that I look at this from the male perspective as abuse. Just like I get upset about men who physically or mentally abuse women this is how I see this. This is how a woman destroys a man. I would rather be beaten and have my bones broken than endure something this bad. This to me would be the equivalent of being raped. It is violence to me. It is hateful to me. It takes all that hold dear away from me. It would be less painful if I did not love the woman. *
> 
> I am amazed you are not willing to look at this side. One can justify anything. I mean you can join a cult and then allow the cult leader to have your wife when he wants her. He may gift you with a child. But you stay in the cult out of respect for your wife. Crazy stuff.


Yes! ^This! Exactly ^this!


----------



## jld

Lol, SA. I noticed. 

It really was just a thought I had last night, when I started this thread. And I called dh and he saw it the same way I did. And I was curious what other people thought.

We learn when we can try to understand each other. But pain and idealism can both be blinding, I think.

And lol on marital relations . . . it's the reason dh ultimately decided against the priesthood.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Sorry, but this wouldn't come across as any sort of "respect" to me. Seriously, how would that conversation go? Here is one version...
> 
> "Honey, OM is a total d-bag, and he can't or won't provide for my baby. And that's cool, because you're a much better man, and a much better provider. I really only wanted him sexually, and all that I wanted from him was his seed. Now that I've gotten that, I'd really prefer that my child and I stay in this home, which you've provided with your many years of blood, sweat, and hard work. And if you could manage to pour the next 18+ years of yourself into helping me to love, nurture, feed, clothe, educate, and provide for this child, that would be great. Thanks. Oh, and I promise that I'll never do this again. Unless I want to."


You are a God!!!! :toast:


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> And lol on marital relations . . . it's the reason dh ultimately decided against the priesthood.


LOL. Ditto. _Not that I gave it too much consideration_, but ditto.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> LOL. Ditto. _Not that I gave it too much consideration_, but ditto.


----------



## Entropy3000

samyeagar said:


> I understand what you are saying with the picture...but the baby could have been adopted...


Yes. I am guessing it likely was. I get their point.

If adopted they are likely very wonderful people.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> I doubt it is as simple as this.
> 
> And I think a man who would do this for the sake of the child would not care who is laughing, except the baby.


It really is that simple.

This is not the man's problem to fix. Again, he is not her father. This woman brought another child into this world. Into this situation. I say she had no right to do this. But if she did, she has to own this one. Alone or with the OM. She did this without the husband. I hope ... or we are now into the fetish side of things which this is creeping towards.


----------



## Entropy3000

samyeagar said:


> Now...if I could find a way to terminate the bio dads rights, terminate the mothers rights after I divorce her, I might actually consider adopting the child...and I stress MIGHT.


See my post where I explore the husband rasiing the child but banashing the mother.  She is the one not worthy here.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> LOL. But that's _*every*_ man. Every. single. one. of. us.
> 
> Granted, some men will have an easier time w/ this notion and, as a result, would more readily accept such a situation as their new (albeit undesirable) reality. I'd think that the overwhelming majority of us, however, would not.
> 
> Again, this decision would definitely be made more complicated -- and even more painful -- by the presence of existing children within a relationship.
> 
> jld, you seem like a really nice person -- a true idealist, if you will. Truly, I respect and admire that. I really do. I am, however, struggling w/ why this seems to be so difficult for you to grasp.
> 
> /sigh I dunno, maybe my amygdalae are just too damn large. Maybe I'm the product of a bygone era. But if I am, so are most men walking the Earth today.


It does not promote healing, Gus. I tend to reject any idea, on a fundamental level, that does not move us to a more loving, kind, understanding place.

We are all broken, Gus. That cheater is, too. That baby may eventually be, but we can try to help, can't we?

I have to believe in redemption. I have to. We have to try to understand why people do what they do. How can we solve problems if we don't understand them?

Anybody can throw rocks. Anybody can walk away. The interesting person, to me, is the person who can put his emotions aside, even temporarily, and _seek to understand._

I have not lived infidelity, Gus. I don't really know how I would react. But I have a child with cancer who has a 25% chance of surviving the next few years. I am acquainted with emotional pain, Gus. I did not want it, either.

But where do we go from here? Do we scream and hate and live in anger? Or do we do the best with what we have? Do we try to understand somehow, and try to make things better, or the best they can be? If we want some kind of peace, what else can we do?


----------



## Entropy3000

ScarletBegonias said:


> But women can do no wrong! it's a woman's biology that makes her do sh*t tests,lash out like a 5 year old little girl,and when she's asking her husband to care for her affair child she's really just respecting him! It's up to the man to be selfless,confident,SECURE,and accept that this is what women do!
> 
> I can handle a whole load of idealistic thoughts but this concept that women can't control their emotions,should be cared for like little girls,etc is a bit much for even me to take. Then throwing the implication that if a man doesn't raise her love child he's insecure or somehow lacking as a man just takes the cake.
> 
> Men are not robots and they are not hardened stoic marble statues. They are human beings with feelings that get hurt just as easily as women.They have hearts that get broken just as easily as women's hearts. This doesn't make them insecure or unmanly. this makes them just as lovable and worthy of care as females are. If a man says he can't stick with a woman who slept w/someone else and got pregnant by that dude...he's not going to get ANY judgments from me.


You are a Goddess!!!!

I am sure I have written this before. :rofl:


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> [/owned-baby.jpg[/IMG]


Deleted the picture because the caption made it offensive on so many levels. I get you were trying to make a point but it wasn't a very good way to make one!


Does this mean that every time you see a Caucasian couple raising a biracial baby, the man has been cucked? The mother is a wh0re and the baby is....

The reason I find it so damn offensive is because I worked in the child welfare area and there are a ton of Bi racial children waiting for adoption! That picture with that caption perpetuated the reason why it's so hard for Bi racial children to be adopted! Because it makes the man appear to be a **** and God knows how delicate a mans ego is!!!!!


----------



## samyeagar

LongWalk said:


> Because the husband's sperm count was too low?


Was that dig really necessary? It's because she cheated on her husband, got chlamydia and is infertile if you must know...


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> It does not promote healing, Gus. I tend to reject any idea, on a fundamental level, that does not move us to a more loving, kind, understanding place.
> 
> We are all broken, Gus. That cheater is, too. That baby may eventually be, but we can try to help, can't we?
> 
> I have to believe in redemption. I have to. We have to try to understand why people do what they do. How can we solve problems if we don't understand them?
> 
> Anybody can throw rocks. Anybody can walk away. The interesting person, to me, is the person who can put his emotions aside, even temporarily, and _seek to understand._
> 
> I have not lived infidelity, Gus. I don't really know how I would react. But I have a child with cancer who has a 25% chance of surviving the next few years. I am acquainted with emotional pain, Gus. I did not want it, either.
> 
> But where do we go from here? Do we scream and hate and live in anger? Or do we do the best with what we have? Do we try to understand somehow, and try to make things better, or the best they can be? If we want some kind of peace, what else can we do?


Peace comes from knowing when to quit. Just Bc a man has limits and leaves doesn't mean he's choosing anger or bitterness or revenge. It means he knows when it's time to hang it up.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Anon Pink said:


> God knows how delicate a mans ego is!!!!!


And that, AP, is the lesson I am taking away from this thread.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Believe me, SA, he would not be _happy._
> 
> But I told you he considered the priesthood, right? And he has told me if something would happen to me and the kids, he would sell everything and go serve the poor in Africa. He would have been a great Peace Corps volunteer.
> 
> Just a highly moral man. Not selfish (well, everyone is a little), not demanding, always willing to help. Very much a giver. So kind.
> 
> I love him so much, SA. I know you understand.


Ah yes Africa. Ah yes birth control. Too many gifts to feed. Absolutley cruel and inhumane it is. We need to stop bringing children into this world we cannot care for.

I was an altar boy. My relatives wanted me to be a priest. I joined the Navy instead. Thank God


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> But where do we go from here? Do we scream and hate and live in anger?


We move on, and let those who are responsible deal with the consequences of their actions.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> Deleted the picture because the caption made it offensive on so many levels. I get you were trying to make a point but it wasn't a very good way to make one!


Your right, I just deleted it. I hope it wasn't anyone's thinking that I am inferring that anyone who is still a father in a child's life that is not his is "owned". Definitely not the case. 




> Does this mean that every time you see a Caucasian couple raising a biracial baby, the man has been cucked? The mother is a wh0re and the baby is....


No. It was just one of those things that would indicate that the baby more than likely wasn't his.




> The reason I find it so damn offensive is because I worked in the child welfare area and there are a ton of Bi racial children waiting for adoption! That picture with that caption perpetuated the reason why it's so hard for Bi racial children to be adopted! Because it makes the man appear to be a **** and God knows how delicate a mans ego is!!!!!


Agreed, and it is gone. I would ask anyone who replied to also delete the post or the picture.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> And that, AP, is the lesson I am taking away from this thread.


Then you are taking away the wrong lesson.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You knocked it out of the park with this post. Thank you.
> 
> TBH, I'd think the guy who takes his wife back and her affair child has no self-respect whatsoever. Very nice for the other man, his kid, and the woman... who in all probability will do it again. The man has no respect for himself, so why should she respect him?


You get a Semper Fi for this one.


----------



## jld

ScarletBegonias said:


> Peace comes from knowing when to quit. Just Bc a man has limits and leaves doesn't mean he's choosing anger or bitterness or revenge. It means he knows when it's time to hang it up.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And there is nothing wrong with saying to a woman, "I can't do it. I can't be what you need. You are not wrong to need it, but I am not that man." And then he moves on. And they are both free.


----------



## LongWalk

Gus,

re: a man with self assurance
I understand where you are coming from. All guys understand this instinctively. Just sit and imagine that it is you and your wife is pregnant with another man's brat. It just eats at you. For sure women are more loving and caring and can accept a polygamous or polyamorous constellation more easily than a man. This is hard wiring.

If a man sticks by a woman with another man's child there are two explanations: 1) he is beta and he is owned 2) he not beta and somehow is accepting because he doesn't give shxt about the opinion of others. I would expect that in the later case, he was the dominant person in the relationship and that the fWW was completely ready to meet his needs. It would not be a marriage of equals in either case.

I have friend who perhaps illustrates how the biological tie is critical for many. He is a citizen of French speaking part of Europe. He ex was from Scandinavia. They met in his country, married there and started a family. They had two daughters. Suddenly his then wife became obsessed with the desire to adopt a child from Africa. They got a girl from Ethiopea. 

This wife he had come to realize was very difficult to please. He was constantly struggling to deal with her caprices. Next she wanted to buy a summer home in her home country. They went and bought one in isolated country village, where they had no previous family connections.

She then began to detach from him. They separated. She began to spread horrible rumors about him. All the people in their small town believed he was a monster. She made custody very difficult. She fled to the capital of the country and begged for help of the Scandinavian Lutheran church there. The pastor believed her story. Eventually she kidnapped the children and went to the summer house.

She told the authorities in her home country that her husband was a child molester or an abuser. The Swedish courts should have sent the children back to their home country in accordance with the Hague treaty. They they began a protracted and bitter legal struggle.

By the time he was allowed to see his children again. They had largely forgotten how to speak French, the first language of their lives. He drove and flew to Scandinavia every weekend permitted him. He learned the local language, although he hated the country that had fvck him over so royally.

Eventually he even rented a house in the village and lived in the town. At first he was a pariah. But over a couple of years people came to know he was the sane one and his ex was BPD. People even came apologize to him. He was so kind and so patient and networked so well, that he became a spokesman for parents whose children had been kidnapped and suffered parental alienation. He was invited to speak before the European parliament to expose violators of the Hague agreement.

Of course there are fathers who are treated well by the court systems, but miscarriages of justice are not unusual.

At last what was the connection to other men's children?

At the height of the legal battle. The father actually won a lower court decision ordering her to turn the children over to him and return to the continent. She simply refused and tied him up in an appeal that dragged out the case. While everything was in limbo she proposed giving him the adopted girl if he would drop his custody claims on the biological daughters.

This he refused to do.

The crazy ex never had a good relationship with the adopted daughter.

Blood is thicker than water.

Also, there was an series of articles about children the US conceived by donated sperm. The intention was that they should never know the identity of their biological fathers. But the by the time they reached their teens or young adulthood the children went on to the web founded forums and exchanged info on donor numbers.

By comparing donor numbers and geographical location the sperm donor children cracked open the system and found fathers and tried to start relations with or at least learn about them.

Blood is thicker than water. Not always but often.

Jld, do you or the other TAM women posters like the idea of routine DNA test after childbirth?

At the end of the day it is possible for us to love other's children. Silas Marner is good illustration of out ability to do this.

Finally, given that many do not have so many children today. If you have on average 2.4 children per marriage, love children of other men represent a huge drain on the resources of the couple.


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> And that, AP, is the lesson I am taking away from this thread.


What? That if a man decides to leave a marriage because he was cheated on and that the mother tricked him into fatherhood, that he has an ego?

This insinuates that he is some sort of d!ck if he doesn't want to put up with that.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> And there is nothing wrong with saying to a woman, "I can't do it. I can't be what you need. You are not wrong to need it, but I am not that man." And then he moves on. And they are both free.


Perhaps he should also add "And I hope you at least have the dignity to make any other men you get involved with aware of just how many lives you are capable of destroying so he can at least make an informed decision."


----------



## Entropy3000

SimplyAmorous said:


> My husband is good man, but he ain't that Unselfish, nor does he love people that much... one of his common sayings is.. right after discussing some A-hole ....he'll say nonchalantly *>>* "I hate people"..... No Priesthood for him...he likes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> too much!!... I'm good with all that "giving" coming my way.....don't want it going anywhere else!
> 
> You 2 are surely a special couple & very far from the norm...I think I was one of the odd women out before you arrived on the landscape here.... and shared your story.. I don't mean this in a bad way.. mind you.. you do open some "feathers ruffling" discussions !


OMG!!!! This is awesome :









I am spiritual. I choose the way of the warrior ... I absolutely believe in fighting for those who cannot defend themselves. I do believe in doing the right thing. It is just I have a different idea of what the right thing is.

But I refuse to raise the Jokers love child with my wife who abandoned me in the worst way.










I feel the darkside rising again.


----------



## Anon Pink

Very noble of you Vellocet!


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> Very noble of you Vellocet!


Well, wasn't trying to be noble. Your post got me thinking I guess that could be seen as a d!ck move on my part, even though that was not the intention. Was just trying to inject some humor, but see now it was in poor taste.


----------



## TiggyBlue

jld said:


> And there is nothing wrong with saying to a woman, "I can't do it. I can't be what you need. You are not wrong to need it, but I am not that man." And then he moves on. And they are both free.


It doesn't seem that it's intentional but your wording sometimes sounds comes off quite insulting towards men.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> And there is nothing wrong with saying to a woman, "I can't do it. I can't be what you need. *You are not wrong to need it*, but I am not that man." And then he moves on. And they are both free.


The phrasing here is so one-sided it turns my stomach. You phrase it as if he should APOLOGIZE to her or this is some failing of his. *puke*

No one should accept such treatment. She and the kid can go with the other man or struggle alone. It is not evil, unjust or immoral to demand others face the consequences of their actions. In such a scenario, I don't see why he should give a rats behind about "her needs".

"I can't be what you need"?? For real, as if he's somehow not enough because he refuses? Her need has nothing to do with anything. "I am not that man"? Ha, that doesn't even begin to remotely capture it. Its more like, "I am not your b*tch. You made your bed, now sleep in it."

The language you've chosen just blows my mind.


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> What? That if a man decides to leave a marriage because he was cheated on and that the mother tricked him into fatherhood, that he has an ego?
> 
> This insinuates that he is some sort of d!ck if he doesn't want to put up with that.


No, not at all!

What I think is that both the husband and wife should put the needs of the child right up there with their own needs. What I think is that neither the husband raising his wife's love child nor the wife raising the husbands love child should refuse to do so on the basis of bitterness. If the affair killed the love they have together so be it. But if they want to reconcile and there is now a child to be dealt with, the needs of that baby must be considered.

I get the sense that some men are confusing feeling like they're being pressured into agreeing it would be noble with agreeing they could do it themselves.

So instead of saying I could not do this what I'm seeing is any man who could has no self respect, is a doormat and is worthless.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> It does not promote healing, Gus. I tend to reject any idea, on a fundamental level, that does not move us to a more loving, kind, understanding place.
> 
> We are all broken, Gus. That cheater is, too. That baby may eventually be, but we can try to help, can't we?
> 
> I have to believe in redemption. I have to. We have to try to understand why people do what they do. How can we solve problems if we don't understand them?
> 
> Anybody can throw rocks. Anybody can walk away. The interesting person, to me, is the person who can put his emotions aside, even temporarily, and _seek to understand._
> 
> I have not lived infidelity, Gus. I don't really know how I would react. But I have a child with cancer who has a 25% chance of surviving the next few years. I am acquainted with emotional pain, Gus. I did not want it, either.
> 
> But where do we go from here? Do we scream and hate and live in anger? Or do we do the best with what we have? Do we try to understand somehow, and try to make things better, or the best they can be? If we want some kind of peace, what else can we do?


Very well written. I can see the altruism bleed forth in your words. And, truthfully, I cannot disagree w/ the general sentiment behind them. But there is a stark difference between understanding a thing and suffering a thing.

I consider myself to be a pretty introspective and emotionally aware person. When I do a thing, or say a thing, I pretty much know why... But that doesn't excuse me from having to shoulder the burden of whatever consequences or fallout that my words or actions may bring about.

And sometimes finding peace means nothing more than walking away -- with integrity, respect, and honor -- from a situation that you know you cannot live with.

Infidelity hurts. A lot. My own experience w/ it hurt me so badly and so deeply that, in the throes of my despair, I called my mother and, choking back a torrent of tears, told her that I wished she'd aborted me. Even now, almost two years later, there are still days in which I think I'd still be willing to give my life in exchange for it never having happened. At times I feel silly for this because it was "just" an EA. But it hurt so very badly... And we can't help how we feel, right?

I love my wife so very much. The dust from my bones will have been scattered into atoms before the fury of the Sun itself and, even then, wherever this ethereal container that I call my "soul" happens to be, I will still love her. All of Creation will come crashing to a halt, and I will still love her. Time and space will collapse and unravel into nothing more than invisible bits of God-string, and I will still love her. This will never change. There is literally nothing that she could do to change that. This, along w/ an understanding of WHY she did what she did AND a very mature realization that, through either my action or my inaction, I'd helped to create an environment in which she could conceivably do it, helped me to forgive her. But none of that rationalization made it hurt any less. 

Now, if it had been a PA...? Well, I think I've already covered that. And, as I've said, if this specific instance that we've been debating for the past 20+ pages ever came to pass, I'd just have to love her from afar.

I am so very sorry to hear of your son's health issues. I cannot imagine the soul-rending pain that you must be feeling through all of it. I earnestly hope -- and will pray -- that he is able to see this horrible journey through to a happy and healthy end.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Anon Pink said:


> No, not at all!
> 
> What I think is that both the husband and wife should put the needs of the child right up there with their own needs.


She and the OM can go do that.

I see nothing noble in what you propose. I see a sucker with no self-esteem.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> No, not at all!
> 
> What I think is that both the husband and wife should put the needs of the child right up there with their own needs. What I think is that neither the husband raising his wife's love child nor the wife raising the husbands love child should refuse to do so on the basis of bitterness. If the affair killed the love they have together so be it. But if they want to reconcile and there is now a child to be dealt with, the needs of that baby must be considered.


And it must be considered by those that conceived the child. Not the poor sap that was deceived.

If I would have had a paternity test at birth, and the baby wasn't mine, then I'm not taking care of another man's child to whom I do not yet have a bond. Years later, like now, I wouldn't dream of abandoning my kids if one or both weren't mine.

But at birth, you bet. The baby's needs should then be taken care of the two that did the f****g to conceive him/her.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

jld said:


> I would not see you that way, nn. I would see you as a mature, compassionate man, willing to set your pride aside to care for a small, defenseless child.




jld -- a problem I have with you is that you now can do no wrong in my eyes. Including what you post about me or in response to me or to anyone else. 

a couple more comments nonetheless:

--first, If you think I sound tough in my last post.....let me tell you something - that would be me JUST WARMING UP! 

-- I'm afraid my anger and resentment would win out in the end, but hopefully I'd be one of most mature, compassionate angry men you'd ever encounter.

:lol:


----------



## JCD

Can we change the subject or drop the thread? No one is convincing anyone about their POV here.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> It does not promote healing, Gus. I tend to reject any idea, on a fundamental level, that does not move us to a more loving, kind, understanding place.
> 
> We are all broken, Gus. That cheater is, too. That baby may eventually be, but we can try to help, can't we?
> 
> I have to believe in redemption. I have to. We have to try to understand why people do what they do. How can we solve problems if we don't understand them?
> 
> Anybody can throw rocks. Anybody can walk away. The interesting person, to me, is the person who can put his emotions aside, even temporarily, and _seek to understand._
> 
> I have not lived infidelity, Gus. I don't really know how I would react. But I have a child with cancer who has a 25% chance of surviving the next few years. I am acquainted with emotional pain, Gus. I did not want it, either.
> 
> But where do we go from here? Do we scream and hate and live in anger? Or do we do the best with what we have? Do we try to understand somehow, and try to make things better, or the best they can be? If we want some kind of peace, what else can we do?


Enabling bad behavior does not move towards healing. It is appeasement. It is catering to controlling and degeneraive behavior.

Just like the battered wife has to get out of the situation but she tends to blame herself and sacrifices. Advising her to move towards healing by staying in the abusive situtation is wrong. So to the husband needs to leave this abuse behind him. It takes guts to walk away. It is very painful to walk away.

The answer to the worlds problems is not acceptance of what is wrong. Indeed the meek will inherit the earth. But at what cost? Let them have it.

The answer is not to enable.

I say putting this on the man is not kind and loving. It is minimizing him. The answer is to discourage the bad behavior. To fight against disrespect. To fight against actions that are hateful and that humiliate others. This is kind and loving. 

The healing begins for the man when he can walk away and find a new life where he has a chance to be respected by himself and others. Where he can be with another woman who truly cares and loves for him. Staying is a living hell. I wish that on no one.


----------



## LongWalk

Anon Pink said:


> Deleted the picture because the caption made it offensive on so many levels. I get you were trying to make a point but it wasn't a very good way to make one!
> 
> 
> Does this mean that every time you see a Caucasian couple raising a biracial baby, the man has been cucked? The mother is a wh0re and the baby is....
> 
> The reason I find it so damn offensive is because I worked in the child welfare area and there are a ton of Bi racial children waiting for adoption! That picture with that caption perpetuated the reason why it's so hard for Bi racial children to be adopted! Because it makes the man appear to be a **** and God knows how delicate a mans ego is!!!!!


The photo was hurtful and politically incorrect but relevant to this discussion. There are children adopted from one country to another. In Sweden there was a wave of adoptions from South Korea, typically the children of prostitutes or unmarried mothers. They grew speaking perfect Swedish and no Korean, but acceptance was never complete, although Sweden is very big on the progressive altruistic spirit.

Some of the adopted Koreans are fine, but their suicide and substance abuse rate is higher than among children born and raised in family. The school failure rate is also higher.

It is almost certain that a love child with a very different appearance to the father would experience problems. Racism, although it is wrong, exists. 

As to forgiving and accepting a love child, does that mean the child has a right to know its origin? Who should be informed? If is okay, why do these questions not have simple answer?

Jld, you are kind and warm. Thank you for being you. Earth mother.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> And there is nothing wrong with saying to a woman, "I can't do it. I can't be what you need. You are not wrong to need it, but I am not that man." And then he moves on. And they are both free.


Curious:

Do you think the way a man bonds to a child might just be a teensy, tiny bit different than the way a woman bonds to a child? --Given the fact that we don't get pregnant, carry the child for forty weeks or so, give birth in blood sweat and agony and breast feed the little darling?

It really seems like you're expressing a basic difference as a failing.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> And that, AP, is the lesson I am taking away from this thread.


Again, you want to minimize men. Ego? Really?

Many men of quality have respect, do the right thing and put themselves in harms way for what they believe in. If they did not have self worth and values they would not even try.

Blaming this on a man's ego is nothing but hateful rhetoric. A man has a spirit. This is where he lives. What is this need to demoralize and humiliate a man? Or men in general. Why all this hate in the name of love and healing. Yet you admit yourself you would not do it.

I am very proud to be a man. I encourage men on this forum to not be shamed out of being a man. 

But where is your outrage in your posts towards the woman who does this? Was her ego involved with her doing this?

Indeed a man without self worth ... without an ego ... should not be raising a child. It is better for a man of quality to raise the child as to impart by example what a man should be.


----------



## LongWalk

From an evolutionary point of view the mother of a love child should strive to get her husband to accept it as his and failing to keep the secret, her interest is to get him to bond with the child anyway. 

She benefits by getting the stronger alpha genes. 

Is the reed warbler altruistic?


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> And there is nothing wrong with saying to a woman, "I can't do it. I can't be what you need. *You are not wrong to need it,* but I am not that man." And then he moves on. And they are both free.


She is entirely wrong to need it.

I also give you credit for being very intentional with your wording. You intend what you write.

You purposely try to make this an aopology that somehow the man is not up to the task. He has some flaw. He cannot do this. 

This is not at all how this discussion should take place. It should be centered on her actions. How she betrayed and humiliated you.
That she was completely wrong. That you no longer will tolerate her actions and disrepect. That you will therefore move on and find a better woman. Someone capable of love and fidelity. Someone not so selfish. Someone more responsible.

The wild card here is other children. If there are no others then that is a doubelegded sword. It means she did not give him the gift of his child but had another man's instead. All the more reason to move on.

If there are children he has to wonder if they are his at all. But some women will use he children as a power play to manipulate and control the husband.

But existing children or not he owes it to his children not to be a doormat. Being a doormat is an unhealthy lesson to your children. This stuff recurs in cycles generation to generation. Abuse that is.


----------



## GusPolinski

Entropy3000 said:


> She is entirely wrong to need it.


Needing a thing isn't intrinsically wrong but, in this case, expecting it is absolutely wrong. Actually, I take that back. In the sense that it is needed SOLELY BECAUSE of the betrayal and dishonestly involved? Then yes, it's wrong. 

Asking for it...? I dunno. Sort of depends on the relationship dynamic, I suppose. For me personally, though? I'd certainly feel it to be wrong, and I think that I know my wife well enough to know that she wouldn't even ask.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Deleted the picture because the caption made it offensive on so many levels. I get you were trying to make a point but it wasn't a very good way to make one!
> 
> 
> Does this mean that every time you see a Caucasian couple raising a biracial baby, the man has been cucked? The mother is a wh0re and the baby is....
> 
> The reason I find it so damn offensive is because I worked in the child welfare area and there are a ton of Bi racial children waiting for adoption! That picture with that caption perpetuated the reason why it's so hard for Bi racial children to be adopted! Because it makes the man appear to be a **** and* God knows how delicate a mans ego is!!!!*!





jld said:


> *And that, AP, is the lesson I am taking away from this thread. *




So let me get this straight. A woman goes out and breaks her vows to God and Man. 

She betrays her husband by having careless sex with another man

Then, finding herself in a family way (what family?) instead of quietly dealing with HER sin and HER consequences, leaving her family intact and emotionally unscarred, she selfishly wraps herself in faux morality to avoid a hard choice of her own with an abortion...cause she certainly didn't use any morality when she was screwing this guy

She then goes to her husband and essentially tells him "Hey, I've cheated on you and I have a little souvenir so I can remember ALL THOSE DREAMY NIGHTS with his father for the next 18 years...but you need to pay for him and love him or you aren't the big man I thought you were..."

And she essentially wants to metaphorically brand his forehead with a big scarlet *C* so he is exposed to public ridicule...

and the BEST thing you can come up with for someone to say no to this amount of emotional damage is *DELICATE MALE FRIGGING EGO?!?!?*

You have totally jumped the shark. You are one of those 'True Love' types. You seem to believe that REAL AND TRUE love means that YOUR PARTNER (Never you) has to put up with any indignity...and sort of pain...or he doesn't 'truly love her'.

And the common thing with that sort is they feel NO NEED to reciprocate. 

The next word I hear from you taking such a woman to task for doing these horrible things to the one she is supposed to love will be the first.

Recant. This was a thoughtless, stupid and offensive thing to say. It shows ZERO compassion to the VICTIM here. Recant this!

And Anon Pink...shame on you for liking this.


----------



## hookares

What I like best about threads such as this one is getting the views of people who have never been faced with the issue. These noble utterances regarding what others should do very likely wouldn't bare the test of time if those who insist that the cuckold husband should just overlook his cheater's indiscretions actually were faced with the problem (s).
I can assure most that if they had the "privilege" of discovering they worked their ass off raising two other guy's children purported to be their own, they would find the information hard to swallow.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lol! I swear I saw your badger jumping up and down when I read that, JCD.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Needing a thing isn't intrinsically wrong but, in this case, expecting it is absolutely wrong. Actually, I take that back. In the sense that it is needed SOLELY BECAUSE of the betrayal and dishonestly involved? Then yes, it's wrong.
> 
> Asking for it...? I dunno. Sort of depends on the relationship dynamic, I suppose. For me personally, though? I'd certainly feel it to be wrong, and I think that I know my wife well enough to know that she wouldn't even ask.


My point is that her needing this at all is because of what she did. So in this case I find her needing this as intrinsically wrong because the source of the problem was intrinsically wrong.

A person needing a lawyer may not be intrinsically wrong for needing the lawyer. However, that circumstance may have been caused by what they did.

Cause and effect.

But the man has no reason to apologize.
He is not the inadequate one.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Interesting thread. I wouldn't stay with my wife if she cheated on me even if there wasn't a kid involved. So it goes without saying I couldn't accept the offspring. I do know one man who tried. His wife supposedly got pregnant on a ONS. He made it through the pregnancy, but filed for divorce after the child was born. I don't judge him for not being in the child's life. That is the responsibility of the child's biological father.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Hum. Interesting thread. Lots of different ways to approach and talk about the topic, and I think this is what is getting lost in the passion. Reality says that most people--men and women alike--wouldn't fault a man for refusing to raise the child of his wife's affair. I'd go as far to say that most women who become pregnant during an affair would know better than to ask, and I'd guess most wouldn't try to pass the child off as her husband's. (I fully expect to be challenged on the latter statement.)

But I think what jld proposes to do in this thread is to explore the extraordinary and challenge our expectations. She's not saying, "you should," so much as "what if . . . " 

But the distinction gets quickly lost in the emotions. Sometimes trying to imagine the unthinkable just throws up a wall in our minds. We don't let ourselves "go there." But jld is very good at imagining the unthinkable. It doesn't scare her--or perhaps it scares her more _not to go there._ Mabye in this thread, due to the subject matter, she is challenging men more, but she's challenged women many times, too. The more I read her threads, the more I appreciate what she brings to TAM. 

Thanks jld!


----------



## jld

LongWalk said:


> Jld, do you or the other TAM women posters like the idea of routine DNA test after childbirth?


I'm fine with it. I don't know if it would pass legal muster, but I am fine with it.

Any reason I should not be?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm fine with a DNA test...heck I think we women should get them too if the baby was born in a hospital...in case of mix up!


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Hum. Interesting thread. Lots of different ways to approach and talk about the topic, and I think this is what is getting lost in the passion. Reality says that most people--men and women alike--wouldn't fault a man for refusing to raise the child of his wife's affair. I'd go as far to say that most women who become pregnant during an affair would know better than to ask, and I'd guess most wouldn't try to pass the child off as her husband's. (I fully expect to be challenged on the former.)
> 
> But I think what jld proposes to do in this thread is to explore the extraordinary and challenge our expectations. She's not saying, "you should," so much as "what if . . . "
> 
> But the distinction gets quickly lost in the emotions. Sometimes trying to imagine the unthinkable just throws up a wall in our minds. We don't let ourselves "go there." But jld is very good at imagining the unthinkable. It doesn't scare her--or perhaps it scares her more _not to go there._ Mabye in this thread, due to the subject matter, she is challenging men more, but she's challenged women many times, too. The more I read her threads, the more I appreciate what she brings to TAM.
> 
> Thanks jld!


Ah you mean like these topics :

Is slavery really a bad thing? I refuse to look at the good in this.

Is beating a woman a bad thing? I refuse to look at the good in this.

Is child molesting really a bad thing? I refuse to look at the good in this.

I understand intellectualizing things. But when you do. When you try to rationalize certain behaviors it really comes down to justifying hatred of some kind.

Is it really wrong to have sex with a coed who is passed out? I refuse to look at the good in this.

But I do not think that is what is going on here. Too much rhetoric. Too many buttons being pushed. Too much blame put on men for being men.

This comes off more as manipulation to me. Pressing an agenda. Boundary issues.

If you can start sliding boundaries then they really do not exist.

But there has been no real emphasis on being accountable. 

Throughout history intellectualizing has caused much pain and injustice.

I mean go ahead and try to be clever and win the internet. But these are not the droids you are looking for.


----------



## over20

JCD said:


> So let me get this straight. A woman goes out and breaks her vows to God and Man.
> 
> She betrays her husband by having careless sex with another man
> 
> Then, finding herself in a family way (what family?) instead of quietly dealing with HER sin and HER consequences, leaving her family intact and emotionally unscarred, she selfishly wraps herself in faux morality to avoid a hard choice of her own with an abortion...cause she certainly didn't use any morality when she was screwing this guy
> 
> She then goes to her husband and essentially tells him "Hey, I've cheated on you and I have a little souvenir so I can remember ALL THOSE DREAMY NIGHTS with his father for the next 18 years...but you need to pay for him and love him or you aren't the big man I thought you were..."
> 
> And she essentially wants to metaphorically brand his forehead with a big scarlet *C* so he is exposed to public ridicule...
> 
> and the BEST thing you can come up with for someone to say no to this amount of emotional damage is *DELICATE MALE FRIGGING EGO?!?!?*
> 
> You have totally jumped the shark. You are one of those 'True Love' types. You seem to believe that REAL AND TRUE love means that YOUR PARTNER (Never you) has to put up with any indignity...and sort of pain...or he doesn't 'truly love her'.
> 
> And the common thing with that sort is they feel NO NEED to reciprocate.
> 
> The next word I hear from you taking such a woman to task for doing these horrible things to the one she is supposed to love will be the first.
> 
> Recant. This was a thoughtless, stupid and offensive thing to say. It shows ZERO compassion to the VICTIM here. Recant this!
> 
> And Anon Pink...shame on you for liking this.


:iagree:


----------



## jld

nuclearnightmare said:


> jld -- a problem I have with you is that you now can do no wrong in my eyes. Including what you post about me or in response to me or to anyone else.
> 
> a couple more comments nonetheless:
> 
> --first, If you think I sound tough in my last post.....let me tell you something - that would be me JUST WARMING UP!
> 
> -- I'm afraid my anger and resentment would win out in the end, but hopefully I'd be one of most mature, compassionate angry men you'd ever encounter.
> 
> :lol:


Oh, nn. You can't fool me. I bet you are sweet, despite what you say. 

And thank you. 

Dh, are you taking notes? Will you please say such things to me?


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> Ah you mean like these topics :
> 
> Is slavery really a bad thing? I refuse to look at the good in this.
> 
> Is beating a woman a bad thing? I refuse to look at the good in this.
> 
> Is child molesting really a bad thing? I refuse to look at the good in this.
> 
> I understand intellectualizing things. But when you do. When you try to rationalize certain behaviors it really comes down to justifying hatred of some kind.
> 
> Is it really wrong to have sex with a coed who is passed out? I refuse to look at the good in this.
> 
> But I do not think that is what is going on here. Too much rhetoric. Too many buttons being pushed. Too much blame put on men for being men.
> 
> This comes off more as manipulation to me. Pressing an agenda. Boundary issues.
> 
> If you can start sliding boundaries then they really do not exist.
> 
> But there has been no real emphasis on being accountable.
> 
> Throughout history intellectualizing has caused much pain and injustice.
> 
> I mean go ahead and try to be clever and win the internet. But these are not the droids you are looking for.


Well, I'm a boundary pusher myself, which is probably why I don't have any buttons to be pushed. I can discuss just about anything for the sake of discussion without seeing judgement being passed one way or another, and without feeling hurt. Plus my "internet skin" is pretty damn thick. You can poke me with a stick all day long and I'll just yawn and walk away. 

Sometimes it's just intensely interesting to say "what if." In my mind, jld doesn't instigate so much as make folks confront what makes them intensely uncomfortable. I like to explore that which makes me intensely uncomfortable. But we're all different--which of course is why threads like this can be fascinating to someone like me. 

I understand that the topic is a huge trigger for some people here. I'm not saying I don't understand that, but we do have the power to walk away from our triggers.


----------



## Entropy3000

Homeschooler, vegan, liberal, *D/s marriage

*So my feeling that this was pushing some kind of a Dominant / Submissive agenda I see is validated. 
FemDom? Idunno. You tell me.

Also not sure if part of this is about the cuckold fetish where not only does the man get off on his wife being plowed in front of him by a bull but his wife may insist he fellate the other guy. My guess is that that may or may not be part of this.

So I get it now. This is about Dominance and Submission. No wonder. This explains your rhetoric and your attempts at control. Not interested Mistress. :rofl:

I have never been into humliation. Creepy.

That said whatever gets you off. BUT, when it involves degrading people NOT in that relationship ... sorry I am going to be in your face about it.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Well, I'm a boundary pusher myself, which is probably why I don't have any buttons to be pushed. I can discuss just about anything for the sake of discussion without seeing judgement being passed one way or another, and without feeling hurt. Plus my "internet skin" is pretty damn thick. You can poke me with a stick all day long and I'll just yawn and walk away.
> 
> Sometimes it's just intensely interesting to say "what if." In my mind, jld doesn't instigate so much as make folks confront what makes them intensely uncomfortable. I like to explore that which makes me intensely uncomfortable. But we're all different--which of course is why threads like this can be fascinating to someone like me.
> 
> I understand that the topic is a huge trigger for some people here. I'm not saying I don't understand that, but we do have the power to walk away from our triggers.


I now understand the reference to the safe word. I will apologize for suspecting but being slow to commit.

Check.

I say what if a lot. I am an Engineer. I look at everything as having Yin and Yang. But I have the ability to weigh things and make choices.
I have an over the top ego BTW. But I have to. I do things few others in my company would even try to do. I guess I am a Masochist. 
But my field is incredibly humbling at the same time. If you are not confident ... you lose. When you lose, people lose their jobs. People who have families and dreams. So no thank you to humliation. I face that prospect often enough. The risks that is. I do not want humliation from my wife.

First thing if possible ... do no harm. 

I have a safe phrase ... "Do not F*** with me". It is really the best for all concerned.


----------



## theroad

jld said:


> This is a spin off of that PSA thread in Men's.
> 
> I hear this brought up a lot here on TAM, that men do not want to raise and pay for children who are not their own. And some have suggested paternity tests after the birth. I have always felt a little surprised when I read these things.
> 
> I have not been unfaithful, we are done having kids, and we have five, but if I had for whatever reason had a child before marrying him, or had a child by another man during the marriage,


Talk about apples to oranges or to bananas.

Lady you went from apples straight to hand grenades.

It is one thing to marry a woman with baggage such as she had a kid before he married her.

Another thing when a WW gets knocked up by the OM. That is more then just a suitcase/baggage.

That is more baggage then what goes through JFK and LAX combined in one day.

When you can grasp the difference then you will understand why many a BH cannot raise an OC.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> I now understand the reference to the safe word. I will apologize for suspecting but being slow to commit.
> 
> Check.
> 
> I say what if a lot. I am an Engineer. I look at everything as having Yin and Yang. But I have the ability to weigh things and make choices.
> I have an over the top ego BTW. But I have to. I do things few others in my company would even try to do. I guess I am a Masochist.
> But my field is incredibly humbling at the same time. If you are not confident ... you lose. When you lose, people lose their jobs. People who have families and dreams. So no thank you to humliation. I face that prospect often enough. The risks that is. I do not want humliation from my wife.
> 
> First thing if possible ... do no harm.
> 
> I have a safe phrase ... "Do not F*** with me". It is really the best for all concerned.


Dude, ya lost me! :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

He think JLD's entire post and everything behind her lifestyle has to do with BDSM.


----------



## theroad

JCD said:


> Then, finding herself in a family way (what family?) instead of quietly dealing with HER sin and HER consequences, leaving her family intact and emotionally unscarred, she selfishly wraps herself in faux morality to avoid a hard choice of her own with an abortion...cause she certainly didn't use any morality when she was screwing this guy



So because it is immoral to have an affair it is ok to continue to be immoral and murder the unborn child.


----------



## larry.gray

hookares said:


> What I like best about threads such as this one is getting the views of people who have never been faced with the issue. These noble utterances regarding what others should do very likely wouldn't bare the test of time if those who insist that the cuckold husband should just overlook his cheater's indiscretions actually were faced with the problem (s).
> I can assure most that if they had the "privilege" of discovering they worked their ass off raising two other guy's children purported to be their own, they would find the information hard to swallow.


JLD - Since you're newer here, you may not realize who hookares is. He's lived through the nightmare in your hypothetical situation. To you they're abstract ideas, but he's lived them.

I encourage you to treat him with some empathy that you're lacking at the moment. To put it in context: Imagine he's over on a support forum for parents of children with cancer and telling you about what the proper and ethical things parents of children with cancer should be doing when he's never lived it himself. That's what you're doing to him.

I would *NEVER* presume to tell somebody in this situation that they're "LESS OF A MAN" because they don't stay with the kid. To imply that is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE, and I think you've overstepped the bounds of propriety to state that.


----------



## larry.gray

theroad said:


> So because it is immoral to have an affair it is ok to continue to be immoral and murder the unborn child.


Yet again we've got people right here that have stared that decision in the face.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> He think JLD's entire post and everything behind her lifestyle has to do with BDSM.


I felt it in her words all along. 

Sorry but our sexuality is a part of us. Sure we may try to compartmentalize things but it creeps into our conversation and our rhetoric. Into our opinions and values. Everything about the agenda which I have challenged continully feels like playing out a Dominance / Submission dance. A Kino Escalation of Boundaries. I get it.

And while for sure I know very little about the lifestyle, I am certain that not all D/s relationships are manifested in the same way. That if anything to be truly monogamous they have to have some very tight boundaries about letting others in. But I also understand that this may for some also include the cuckold fetish. What amount? I have no freaking idea. Why is that relevant here? Because this thread is about being a cuckold. Though she never inferred the fetish part directly.

But her rhetoric keeps pushing on male humliation.
She plays with it. I have sensed that all along. Hence me being creeped out. She means exactly what she says. I do assume she is a she, but who really knows?

Now I think a guy who shares his wife and she becomes pregnant is asking for this. YMMV. This scenario has not been explored here.

So since I may not be on target. Since you are in the know. Just what is the lifestyle you refer to? I think it is relevant. Her profile dos not say D/s Marriage | Cuckold. Transaprency has been thrown about. I have been MIA here for a long time. So I do not know the inside joke here.


----------



## Anon Pink

OMG Entropy... You're seeing dead people again!


----------



## GettingIt_2

Tangled webs, wow. Now we've got ball gags and necrophilia to deconstruct. Well, lets get started! Who's first?


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> Tangled webs, wow. Now we've got ball gags and necrophilia to deconstruct. Well, lets get started! Who's first?


Sorry, I'm a bit tied up at the moment.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy...it isn't what you think.

I'm not saying you would "agree" even if/when you do fully understand JLD's position and lifestyle. But it is not a sex/cuckold thing. The D/s part is a lifestyle thing not a sex thing. Lifestyle meaning, they live their day to day life in a certain way, with rituals, roles they play, etc....but this doesn't always mean kink and sex, which is what you are thinking. (I am not sure she and her H are kinky at all, actually. They just live an emotional lifestyle that to others would seem freaky).

In any case...JLD's thread here is one of many similar ones she has posted asking questions like this one. I know you may not be able to just yet, but if you take her at face value, she really is pretty much WYSIWYG. The things she is saying, she believes. And not because of a freaky sexual kink thing. Also not because of her D/s lifestyle. She basically has a sort of personal religion. It is more about that than her sex life.

Go read some of the other threads she has started. You'll see what I mean.

I like JLD. I believe she is who she says she is. She is a different sort of soul. Her view of life reminds me of A Course In Miracles, which I studied and read for several years. It is basically a "all things and all people work together for the good of all" type of message, and even when you can't "see" the good people are doing, it is there regardless. Her belief system is a lot like that.


----------



## LongWalk

Jld started a thread and that is her right. She also has right to imagine a compromise of interests. A BH summons something from within, sucks it up and is a kick azz dad to a beautiful child. Most of the male posters are thinking "whoa, that would be heavy". And for for those who actually have faced such a situation it may be a trigger. But if someone doesn't want controversy and discussion, don't come to TAM.

Human nature allows both men and women to take interest in the children of others. I coached swimming for a few years. I found that liked the kids, even the ones I did not care for. It was necessary for me to get myself in a positive mindset to accomplish my goal: to impart my love of the water to them.

I can close my eyes are remember them. Teachers must do the same. You have to open your heart and let them in. It is both a conscious and spontaneous psychological process.

A BH can do the same for a love child. He must disassociate the child from POSOM. He cannot obsess about the sex that impregnated his wife. He cannot dwell on who his wife's vagina might be a little worn and looser after love child was squeezed out.

One poster wrote about a fem dom agenda. Actually, in my own mind I am going through the women in my life ex wife and various girlfriends and I am trying to image how I would have reacted to them cheating and becoming large with child, not my child an competitor's child. The more I think about it the more intolerable the idea is. It is quite simply torture for a man to consider it. Masochism.

If the woman came with a child, that would be one thing. Some step-children are very loveable. If the was an affair, what sort of affair was it? An exit affair that failed? A one night stand? A work place betrayal? What sort emotions were involved?


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> OMG Entropy... You're seeing dead people again!


If I see dead people. Rest assured they are there. Sometimes I will look at my wife and say I can see her areola through her blouse and she says I am just imaginging things. Ummm. No.

I feel a D/s influence in the thread. I go look at the jld profile and see D/s Marriage.

GMAFB.

I could care less as to their chosen lifestyle but it is relevant to where people are coming from. It explains the whole deal. The whole viewpoint. The whole exact wording.

I have to wonder how far that goes. You tell me.

Has she addressed this openly here? I am NOT being critical of them. But it is relevant to the question. To this exact thread.

I just hope that nuns outfits never become involved. 

I think them posting this in their profile is a good thing for transparency and for birds of a feather networking.

Now certainly their privacy matters, but I wonder is this is light stuff or if a bull is involved. Not really my business to know but it would shed some light on things.

It actually makes what has been said less offensive really.


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> Sorry, I'm a bit tied up at the moment.


Pshaw. You can still type while wearing handcuffs.


----------



## over20

GettingIt said:


> Pshaw. You can still type while wearing handcuffs.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


That's if he's not cuffed to the bed!!!


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> Pshaw. You can still type while wearing handcuffs.


Pshaw to you.

Who needs hands?

It is qutite puiossiblee t o tyope usung ohthtter prats of the bboddy.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy...it isn't what you think.
> 
> I'm not saying you would "agree" even if/when you do fully understand JLD's position and lifestyle. But it is not a sex/cuckold thing. The D/s part is a lifestyle thing not a sex thing. Lifestyle meaning, they live their day to day life in a certain way, with rituals, roles they play, etc....but this doesn't always mean kink and sex, which is what you are thinking. (I am not sure she and her H are kinky at all, actually. They just live an emotional lifestyle that to others would seem freaky).
> 
> In any case...JLD's thread here is one of many similar ones she has posted asking questions like this one. I know you may not be able to just yet, but if you take her at face value, she really is pretty much WYSIWYG. The things she is saying, she believes. And not because of a freaky sexual kink thing. Also not because of her D/s lifestyle. She basically has a sort of personal religion. It is more about that than her sex life.
> 
> Go read some of the other threads she has started. You'll see what I mean.
> 
> I like JLD. I believe she is who she says she is. She is a different sort of soul. Her view of life reminds me of A Course In Miracles, which I studied and read for several years. It is basically a "all things and all people work together for the good of all" type of message, and even when you can't "see" the good people are doing, it is there regardless. Her belief system is a lot like that.


But D/s is still about Dominance and Submission. That is my point. Also she has posted D/s Marriage in her profile. 

I stand on this. I am not being stubborn. I am telling you I felt the influence through the thread. I have every bit of a right to post my views on all this as anyone else. 

I absolutley can see she has her own religion. Most of us do.

But what comes ot mind is not so much the bondage thing. I am feeling the D/s.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy...you're kind of jumping to many conclusions...but I understand why. Many people have jumped to similar conclusions about other threads and posts by JLD.

When you get to know her and her writing style, you will see what I mean.

Her husband has posted a few times here, too. He sounds just like she describes him. Kind, noble, in love with her, puts family first.

They aren't swingers, Ent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

One more note about dom and sub...these things mean different things to different people, Entropy. The "way" you probably think JLD and her husband experience D/s is not the way they experience it.

They are just...different. They aren't kinksters, really. They are more like...hippies. When hippies play D/S, the results can be very interesting and not what you'd expect.

Read a few more of the threads she has started. It will make more sense then.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy...you're kind of jumping to many conclusions...but I understand why. Many people have jumped to similar conclusions about other threads and posts by JLD.
> 
> When you get to know her and her writing style, you will see what I mean.
> 
> Her husband has posted a few times here, too. He sounds just like she describes him. Kind, noble, in love with her, puts family first.
> 
> They aren't swingers, Ent.


And rather than jump to conclusions ... other than D/s, I am asking directly. You know I can be very direct sometimes. Especailly when I am curious. I have been trying to figure out where she is coming from.

And again the last thing that came to my mind in any of this is handcuffs. Who would really care? Yawn.

But the thread title and her position struck me as having something to do with D/s. My position has everything to do with my values, my personality, my lifestyle and my sexuality. This is true for all of us.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> One more note about dom and sub...these things mean different things to different people, Entropy. The "way" you probably think JLD and her husband experience D/s is not the way they experience it.
> 
> They are just...different. They aren't kinksters, really. They are more like...hippies. When hippies play D/S, the results can be very interesting and not what you'd expect.
> 
> Read a few more of the threads she has started. It will make more sense then.


I am sure I met them last week in SF.


----------



## over20

Entropy3000 said:


> But D/s is still about Dominance and Submission. That is my point. Also she has posted D/s Marriage in her profile.
> 
> I stand on this. I am not being stubborn. I am telling you I felt the influence though the thread. I have every bit of a right to post my views on all this as anyone else.
> 
> I absolutley can see she has her own religion. Most of us do.
> 
> But what comes ot mind id not so much the bondage thing. I am feeling the D/s.


You make a great point....maybe she can explain the D/s more as it applies to this thread.


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> Pshaw to you.
> 
> Who needs hands?
> 
> It is qutite puiossiblee t o tyope usung ohthtter prats of the bboddy.


You know, you'll find that much easier if you don't wear the ball stretcher at first. Practice makes perfect!


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> You know, you'll find that much easier if you don't wear the ball stretcher at first. Practice makes perfect!


:rofl:


I'm off to bed, g'night folks.


----------



## Entropy3000

I hope we can all go home now and contemplate all we have learned today.

Goodnight all.

Tomorrows safe word is ....

pie


----------



## GettingIt_2

WyshIknew said:


> :rofl:
> 
> 
> I'm off to bed, g'night folks.


Yeah right. You're off to google "ball stretcher."


----------



## over20

WyshIknew said:


> :rofl:
> 
> 
> I'm off to bed, g'night folks.


Wysh...maybe your'e already in bed......:rofl::rofl:

Night


----------



## sandc

Am I still allowed to answer the original question? 

I would have no problem adopting orphans, or children from a prior marriage if that option was available. I would not be interested in raising a child conceived in infidelity. That would be between my wife and the child's father. I wouldn't expect my wife to raise a child that I conceived out of wedlock. Even though she might, I'd never ask her to.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Well....hmmmm

I'm a curious person too. The lifestyle requires the partners to switch between the two roles - yes? One is not always the D or the s. Yes?


----------



## GusPolinski

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm fine with a DNA test...heck I think we women should get them too if the baby was born in a hospital...in case of mix up!


I've often had this thought as well. You hear about these things happening from time to time, and it is terrifying to contemplate. Not as terrible as, say, a baby-napping, but terrible nonetheless.


----------



## over20

nuclearnightmare said:


> Well....hmmmm
> 
> I'm a curious person too. The lifestyle requires the partners to switch between the two roles - yes? One is not always the D or the s. Yes?


Yes, it can be very strict D/s or partners can switch back and forth.


----------



## soccermom2three

I thought in one of JLD's previous posts she stated that her and her husband have a parent/child thing going on. I don't know the proper term for that fetish or whatever they call it. I'm not hip on such things.

ETA: I think it was this thread. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/168065-kink.html


----------



## pidge70

soccermom2three said:


> I thought in one of JLD's previous posts she stated that her and her husband have a parent/child thing going on. I don't know the proper term for that fetish or whatever they call it. I'm not hip on such things.


But, you're from California!......:rofl:


----------



## soccermom2three

pidge70 said:


> But, you're from California!......:rofl:


Haha, I know! What can I say, I grew up very sheltered. I don't represent my state very well, I guess, lol.

ETA: I did use the word "hip" though.


----------



## pidge70

soccermom2three said:


> Haha, I know! What can I say, I grew up very sheltered. I don't represent my state very well, I guess, lol.


I am like, so disillusioned......


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> Does he love her, really? How do you define love, tacoma?


I define (the value of) love by the level of respect and sacrifice one has for and is willing to make for another.

I have once before loved another to a level of sacrifice that harmed myself, I will not ever carry that level of love for another romantic partner.

This is why I will not ignore my own self respect to make things right for someone who obviously doesn't carry enough respect for me to reach an equivalent level of love.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> Was Joseph a doormat?


The greatest of all doormats he was.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> And this is my mission at TAM: urging, begging, pleading with men to become _truly_ secure. The world desperately needs _truly_ secure men.


You say "secure" I hear "lacks self-respect".


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> Isn't that what I am saying, sam? That for a man to stand up and say, yes, she did wrong, and now there is an innocent life, and I know the OM, and he is a crumb, and I know what is going to happen to this child.
> 
> And he stands up to whatever pressure there is to leave her, and stands up to other guys saying he is a "cuckold," when he knows in his heart that he could be a father to this very vulnerable child. Is that not a strong, secure man, sam?


Not from my POV.

From my POV this is a man who fears being without the attention of a woman who obviously has no respect for him.
A woman who would use him to secure her lovers offspring.

This is a very weak and insecure man to my mind.

This is a man who lacks boundaries and faith in himself.


----------



## pidge70

tacoma said:


> Not from my POV.
> 
> From my POV this is a man who fears being without the attention of a woman who obviously has no respect for him.
> A woman who would use him to secure her lovers offspring.
> 
> This is a very weak and insecure man to my mind.
> 
> This is a man who lacks boundaries and faith in himself.


:iagree:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

I suppose we could just be thankful that male h.sapiens aren't quite like so many other males in the animal kingdom.

They kill offspring that don't carry their genes.


----------



## tacoma

GettingIt said:


> Quick question re: paternity tests: Although not compulsory by law, could a husband request one each time his wife bears a child? Is that something that is his legal right? If so, then are compulsory tests needed? Why don't husbands just request?


A husband doesn't even need to request a husband just needs to do.

DNA testing can be done by the husband quickly, cheaply, and easily.

If that non-professional test results in a negative chance he is the father he can have a professional court accepted test ordered which will relieve him of any and all responsibility for that child.

This is a very recent ability men have, not so long ago if you didn't deny and request a test through legal means immediately after/before birth you were stuck with the child.


----------



## tacoma

Anon Pink said:


> I think the term **** test is ambiguous. Essentially it means when a woman wants a man to do something and he may NOT want to do that thing.


Yes, with the added twist of her "knowing" he doesn't want to do it but wants him to deny himself to appease her by doing it anyway.

That's a **** test.


----------



## larry.gray

Deejo said:


> I suppose we could just be thankful that male h.sapiens aren't quite like so many other males in the animal kingdom.
> 
> They kill offspring that don't carry their genes.


You need to add the words "most" to that sentence there Deejo.

My cousin is a big city homicide detective. She's had two cases of "family eliminators" where the husband killed off the wife and kids after he found out that he was cuckolded.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> And there is nothing wrong with saying to a woman, "I can't do it. I can't be what you need. You are not wrong to need it, but I am not that man." And then he moves on. And they are both free.


jld,

Your posts in this thread come off as so offensive to men it angers me.

Judging from what you've said here men are nothing more than a mule and provider for the ever so delicate woman and children and that's the limit of their value.

Come to think of it your posts are offensive to women as well in the supposition that they need a man to support and work for them.

Many here speak as if you have a good heart and I'll refrain from judgement for now but in order to have a good heart one must be capable of empathy.
It seems you have none for the male gender.


----------



## tacoma

Entropy3000 said:


> But D/s is still about Dominance and Submission. That is my point. Also she has posted D/s Marriage in her profile.
> 
> I stand on this. I am not being stubborn. I am telling you I felt the influence through the thread. I have every bit of a right to post my views on all this as anyone else.
> 
> I absolutley can see she has her own religion. Most of us do.
> 
> But what comes ot mind is not so much the bondage thing. I am feeling the D/s.


If I might go out on a limb.

From reading jld's posts the D/s in her profile most probably denotes a popular Christian concept of wifely submission to her husband as head of the household as Christ is the head of the church.

Again, going out on a limb as I don't know her, total assumption on my part with very little circumstantial evidence to base it on.


----------



## Anon Pink

Entropy3000 said:


> Again, you want to minimize men. Ego? Really?
> 
> Many men of quality have respect, do the right thing and put themselves in harms way for what they believe in. If they did not have self worth and values they would not even try.
> 
> Blaming this on a man's ego is nothing but hateful rhetoric. A man has a spirit. This is where he lives. What is this need to demoralize and humiliate a man? Or men in general. Why all this hate in the name of love and healing. Yet you admit yourself you would not do it.
> 
> I am very proud to be a man. I encourage men on this forum to not be shamed out of being a man.
> 
> But where is your outrage in your posts towards the woman who does this? Was her ego involved with her doing this?
> 
> Indeed a man without self worth ... without an ego ... should not be raising a child. It is better for a man of quality to raise the child as to impart by example what a man should be.


My outrage can be found in the other thread, though minimal, from which this thread is a spin off. But you make a good point. In my zeal to protect a child I neglected to justly demonize any woman who would perpetrate such a fraud.

My POV is coming from the scenario described in the other thread, or perhaps it was this one. A man finds that a child he had raised as his own is not in fact his. My concern was for that child who is now cut off from the father she loved and adored while her siblings continue to see him. That is the scenario in my head when I post on this subject.

A woman who is pregnant with another mans child, can not and should not expect her husband to care for the infant as if it were his own.

But a man who raised a child thinking it was his, loved the child as they were his, does himself a dishonor to then walk away from that child.



JCD said:


> So let me get this straight. A woman goes out and breaks her vows to God and Man.
> 
> She betrays her husband by having careless sex with another man
> 
> Then, finding herself in a family way (what family?) instead of quietly dealing with HER sin and HER consequences, leaving her family intact and emotionally unscarred, she selfishly wraps herself in faux morality to avoid a hard choice of her own with an abortion...cause she certainly didn't use any morality when she was screwing this guy
> 
> She then goes to her husband and essentially tells him "Hey, I've cheated on you and I have a little souvenir so I can remember ALL THOSE DREAMY NIGHTS with his father for the next 18 years...but you need to pay for him and love him or you aren't the big man I thought you were..."
> 
> And she essentially wants to metaphorically brand his forehead with a big scarlet *C* so he is exposed to public ridicule...
> 
> and the BEST thing you can come up with for someone to say no to this amount of emotional damage is *DELICATE MALE FRIGGING EGO?!?!?*
> 
> You have totally jumped the shark. You are one of those 'True Love' types. You seem to believe that REAL AND TRUE love means that YOUR PARTNER (Never you) has to put up with any indignity...and sort of pain...or he doesn't 'truly love her'.
> 
> And the common thing with that sort is they feel NO NEED to reciprocate.
> 
> The next word I hear from you taking such a woman to task for doing these horrible things to the one she is supposed to love will be the first.
> 
> Recant. This was a thoughtless, stupid and offensive thing to say. It shows ZERO compassion to the VICTIM here. Recant this!
> 
> And Anon Pink...shame on you for liking this.


I was specifically referring to what I saw as the attempts to persuade other men from doing an honorable thing in the best interest of the child he had helped to raise. I was specifically referring to NOT branding a man who continues to raise a child he LATER finds out isn't his, as a doormat.

Yes, I think a man who would walk away from a child he helped raise thinking the child was his, has too delicate an ego. He can walk away from his worthless wife, I'm all for that! But not walk away from the child who has only known this man as her father, has loved this man as her father and now learns he wants nothing to do with her because he's not her father.

I think the man should continue to parent, but I think the wife should pay for his expenses to parent that child. The wife should not be getting a dime from her ex husband to help raise that child. 

My only concern is for the child.

I have worked with a kid who saw her older siblings going out with a daddy that used to be her daddy too but now wants nothing to do with OM's child. It is devastating! And the horrible mother put them in that position!


----------



## Anon Pink

tacoma said:


> Yes, with the added twist of her "knowing" he doesn't want to do it but wants him to deny himself to appease her by doing it anyway.
> 
> That's a **** test.


That doesn't make any sense to me. Unless you're taking about pathologically self centered women....?

Like when my ex SIL expected my late brother to not have any friends or hang out with his family...? Would those be sh!t tests? And if he gave in to her, wouldn't that be failing the sh!t test? And wouldn't it be better to fail a **** test?

I don't think I'm understanding this.


----------



## tom67

Anon Pink said:


> That doesn't make any sense to me. Unless you're taking about pathologically self centered women....?
> 
> Like when my ex SIL expected my late brother to not have any friends or hang out with his family...? Would those be sh!t tests? And if he gave in to her, wouldn't that be failing the sh!t test? And wouldn't it be better to fail a **** test?
> 
> I don't think I'm understanding this.


Anon what happened to your late brother is horrible.


----------



## GusPolinski

tom67 said:


> Anon what happened to your late brother is horrible.


Agreed.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon,

Each of my earlier posts in this thread were framed around a scenario in which a husband discovers that a) the child that his wife is carrying is not his own or b) the child that his wife has recently birthed is not his own. As such, I failed to directly address a situation similar to the one that you described above. I even mentioned that I hadn’t done so in a couple of my posts. 

Having said that, let me now say this… There is absolutely no way that I, having spent any significant period of time loving, protecting, and raising a child, could simply wash my hands of that child in the event that I discovered that I was not his/her biological father. I’m sure that there would be a cutoff date of some sort but it would probably be more like weeks/months and certainly not years. I’d like to think that this would be true for most men. 

Don't misunderstand me; I’d certainly be angry. In fact, “angry” isn’t even the word for it. More like rage. Absolute, searing, unmitigated rage. But that rage would be reserved for my wife and OM.

Now, here’s the hard part. At some point, I’d have to let the child know that I wasn’t his/her biological father. He or she would have an absolute right to know, and it might even become pertinent in the case of some sort of medical diagnosis further down the road. This is, of course, assuming that my wife (who would either be my ex-wife or STBX at that point) didn’t take care of this conversation. Either way, I’d be present when this conversation took place, and I would do everything that I could — with both words AND actions — to assure the child (MY child) that I loved him/her, would ALWAYS love him/her, and that I’d always be his/her father.

Depending on the age of the child at discovery, I’m not sure how I’d handle child support issues. It would seem to me that OM would (or at least SHOULD) have some responsibility in this regard, but I’m not sure that I’d want him to have anything to do w/ my child.


----------



## LongWalk

> *Pregnancies are very common in affairs.* The passion of an affair makes birth control less effective, and it's often never even used. And birth control is not all that effective even when it is used. I know of a couple that faithfully used two forms of birth control whenever they made love, and yet had five unplanned children.
> 
> Most women who become pregnant from an affair have an abortion as soon as the pregnancy is discovered. But there are many who simply cannot let their child die that way. For these, they are faced with very difficult choices.


Source: Marriage Builders

A Christian counseling website believes that the best men accept and adopt the child. The interests of the child come first in their POV.

Another Christian forum

YouTube Christians
Audrey was afraid of Christian Bob's anger and then family friend was very friendly and hung out with them. He told Audrey she was beautiful.

"Extreme rage and hatred came into his eyes."

She still had one secret. (Bob had had an a vasectomy).

Plus child was "bi-racial".









Another forum entry in which husband, deployed military, came to understand that it was really rape because the wife had drunk the first time she had sex with OM.

Chump Lady says it cannot be forgiven.

The next one includes a kicker. Husband starts having sex with pregnant wife. After two year drought the sex affects his judgment, positively or negatively, depending on your POV.



> Wife is pregnant with another mans baby.... help me please
> Ok, I will try to get this all out. We have been married for almost 20 years and throughout the marriage have had a history of infidelity from both of us... I do not know why we have even stayed together weather it be fear or maybe it is love?
> 
> Either way, 5 years ago I had an affair that lasted over a year. When my wife found out we went through a lot of hell and she eventually moved out as we separated. I slept with someone and she slept with someone during the separation. Mine was one time. She carried on a relationship with the guy even traveling with him and going to concerts and such. We decided to get back together because we have 4 children and were going to try and work on it. I found out she continued to talk to this guy pretty frequently so it was decided we would get a divorce when the lease was up on the house. Keep in mind that the divorce is the only thing we have talked about for the last 6 months.
> 
> About a month ago we found some friends and started to realize that it was nice being able to be together again but never talked about it. 2 days ago she told me she slept with that guy again about a month ago and that she is pregnant. She said she realizes she messed up severely and wants to work things out but will not have an abortion and I do not know what to do? I would love to stay with her and make things better because I think I do love her but I cannot raise that guys kid. I do not want him around the house and I do not want to have to see him but I will have to regardless if I stay. I also do not want to have to explain to my family and friends that the baby is not mine.
> 
> There has been no love or affection for over 2 years now and I have slept on the couch since we moved back in together. We have had sex with each other twice in the last two years. Now she is remorseful and wanting to work things out. She has been so nice to me for 2 days now and is acting like the wife I would love to have. It makes it so much easier to be the man she needs but will it all go bad again? Getting rid of the baby is not an option for her.
> 
> At this point any advice would be wonderful.


For thousands of years of human evolution **** sapiens have dealt with this problem. Sometimes murder was the outcome. Sometimes the cuckolded male had to listen to the stronger male mating with the female. He was not killed and even got sloppy seconds.

It may be that in a physically harsh environment both men were needed for war and hunting. Getting along was more important for the survival of their gene than exclusivity.

Eskimo film one.

White Dawn. In this film the Inuit man offers his wife to the White guest because that was good manner's in their culture.

Human's are flexible and can adapt to all sorts of situations.

jld,

Hope you are not bummed out by the strong feeling that this subject provokes.


----------



## Anon Pink

Gus, thanks for your thoughts. TBH, that's how I assumed most men would behave. While obviously men and women are different, I just couldn't imagine that a man could walk away from a child, especially a child who has siblings that are his!


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> I was specifically referring to what I saw as the attempts to persuade other men from doing an honorable thing in the best interest of the child he had helped to raise. I was specifically referring to NOT branding a man who continues to raise a child he LATER finds out isn't his, as a doormat.
> 
> Yes, I think a man who would walk away from a child he helped raise thinking the child was his, has too delicate an ego. He can walk away from his worthless wife, I'm all for that! But not walk away from the child who has only known this man as her father, has loved this man as her father and now learns he wants nothing to do with her because he's not her father.
> 
> I think the man should continue to parent, but I think the wife should pay for his expenses to parent that child. The wife should not be getting a dime from her ex husband to help raise that child.
> 
> My only concern is for the child.
> 
> I have worked with a kid who saw her older siblings going out with a daddy that used to be her daddy too but now wants nothing to do with OM's child. It is devastating! And the horrible mother put them in that position!


:iagree:

As I stated in the other thread, yeah, if I had already bonded with the child, IT'S MINE. SHE isn't, but the child of COURSE is mine!

I would think a man who could walk away from his 6 year old that he had taught how to burp and throw a baseball and how to make pancakes pretty despicable to suddenly throw all his emotions and love away for HIM.

HER, on the other hand...

So it's all good. I am glad you stuck around and clarified. We don't always get our first attempt at communication to work.

From what it sounded like, jld was saying that any man who DIDN'T lift that cross willingly was some pathetic human being with a crystal delicate ego.

I take quite an exception to THAT idea.


----------



## JCD

WyshIknew said:


> Pshaw to you.
> 
> Who needs hands?
> 
> It is qutite puiossiblee t o tyope usung ohthtter prats of the bboddy.


But it is very much 'hunt and peck'...


----------



## WyshIknew

JCD said:


> But it is very much 'hunt and peck'...


----------



## WyshIknew

How would I deal with an affair child?

I don't know.

If I found out many years later that one of my children was an affair baby I highly doubt that I could disown that child.

If it was a case of my wife telling me "Oh hi, I'm preggers and it's Fred's next door." I would probably say, "fine have a great life together."

However if you look at me and look at my kids I highly doubt they are anyone else's.
If the 'blue eye' thing is correct then there is a low chance they are not mine.
Plus my first born son inherited Pyloric Stenosis from me and my last born inherited Hypoxic Seizures from me.

The blue eyed gene has even trickled down through to my Grandchildren.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon Pink said:


> Gus, thanks for your thoughts. TBH, that's how I assumed most men would behave. While obviously men and women are different, I just couldn't imagine that a man could walk away from a child, especially a child who has siblings that are his!


Another male female issue that isn't. I sure as **** would not be raising my husband's AP's kid. But then, he would not be around either, so the point is moot.


----------



## samyeagar

I am another man who would never be able to walk away down the line. I'm not sure how I would handle the situation if the bio dad at some point wanted to be involved in the child's life however. After discovering the affair and learning of the resultant pregnancy would be difficult enough, but if the OM would regularly be in the picture as well...


----------



## LongWalk

Nobody Special,

It is a gender issue but not absoute of course.


----------



## WyshIknew

samyeagar said:


> I am another man who would never be able to walk away down the line. I'm not sure how I would handle the situation if the bio dad at some point wanted to be involved in the child's life however. After discovering the affair and learning of the resultant pregnancy would be difficult enough, but if the OM would regularly be in the picture as well...


'He' basically disowned my eldest. I was able to adopt my eldest as my own a few years later.

His bio dad does keep in touch with him from time to time, but has no bearing on what he does with his life.

I don't know if he harboured any feelings of jealousy as at significant stages in our life he would suddenly show up and start some token interest.

When my wife and I first got together he suddenly showed up, When she moved in to my house he sent a gift to my eldest. When we got married he suddenly popped up.

He doesn't live locally anymore, but when he was over here once he spotted us in the supermarket. He collared my wife and had a right old moan at her apparently, didn't want to face me. And he was meant to be an alpha bad boy.:rofl:


----------



## WyshIknew

GettingIt said:


> Yeah right. You're off to google "ball stretcher."


OMG!

How did you know? :rofl:

I actually have something a bit similar. One of my willy rings is a combo unit. Unfortunately I find it too uncomfortable.
so it doesn't get used.


----------



## hookares

Each person deals with infidelity and it's results differently. Having wasted twenty years of my life providing for two other guy's children thinking I was their father, I was faced with deciding to pay for the younger child's last two years of education in spite of knowing she wasn't fathered by me. I elected to do it and my reward for this has been no contact between neither she nor her brother and me since their genetic makeup apparently follows that of their mother and both felt it must have been some fault of mine that she strayed.
Having experienced this first hand, I have a somewhat jaded view of the concept referred to as "love".


----------



## JCD

Well, jld. You sure know how to start a conversation.

It seems we have a pretty broad consensus. 

1) Most men would accept a woman with her own kids...though most of us would go into that with eyes WIDE open and probably wouldn't accept an unequal role in being a parent.

2) Most men who had bonded with an already born affair partner kid would NOT disown the kid. He might divorce the wife, but he would treat all the innocent kids equally and gladly pay their freight.

3) A woman who was selfish enough to get pregnant by an affair partner and then presumed to beg/ask/demand that her current husband help her raise it and uses 'moral blackmail' to try to accomplish that wouldn't particularly persuade anyone as a selfless request. The fact that HER interests are so intrinsically tied to the baby calls her 'objectivity' into question and sounds like an additional bit of selfishness added to the manifest selfishness she has already shown.

No one would 'blame' the baby. However, just as the wife hadn't bothered to ask her husbands 'help' to create this issue, she has no moral right to demand her husband care for 'her problem'. SHE was the one who separated their 'interests', not him.


If anyone disagrees or has a different spin, I'd be happy to hear it.


----------



## samyeagar

WyshIknew said:


> 'He' basically disowned my eldest. I was able to adopt my eldest as my own a few years later.
> 
> His bio dad does keep in touch with him from time to time, but has no bearing on what he does with his life.
> 
> I don't know if he harboured any feelings of jealousy as at significant stages in our life he would suddenly show up and start some token interest.
> 
> When my wife and I first got together he suddenly showed up, When she moved in to my house he sent a gift to my eldest. When we got married he suddenly popped up.
> 
> He doesn't live locally anymore, but when he was over here once he spotted us in the supermarket. He collared my wife and had a right old moan at her apparently, didn't want to face me. And he was meant to be an alpha bad boy.:rofl:


The only decision the man has in this situation that is truly his, that he has control over is to stay or leave. Ultimately everything else depends on the mercy and cooperation of the mother and biodad.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

I truly don't understand how this scenario can work. Perhaps for some it might, but I know it wouldn't for me.

Because I'm a woman, I'm flipping this around. If my H produced a love child, there's no way that I could care for that child. Not only would the child be a constant reminder of his infidelity (making it very difficult to heal from the affair), but it could also entail having the AP drifting in and out of the child's life. I think it would take a saint to handle that sort of situation.


----------



## samyeagar

I know this is an extreme example, but this topic is kind of extreme.

You watch as beautiful baby girl is born as healthy as can be, and you cut her cord. You change countless diapers and miss countless hours of sleep because you just can't help getting up in the middle of the night, you're her dad, you want every moment, you love her so. The smile on her face as she looks at you, the laughter as you toss your baby girl in the air and catch her. That one time, on her fifth birthday, you painted her toe nails and let her paint yours, and you showed them off to the guys at work, you're her dad, you love her so. With a beaming proud smile, That's my girl, you tell the couple next you after her first solo in the orchestra. They don't know what you know, what you've tried to forget, what you hardly ever think about because your her dad, you love her so. She's been feeling kind of tired lately, having headaches, just not herself. You take her to the doctor to make her well again because you're her dad, you love her so. That's when he shows up and says no, that's not your choice to make because you're NOT her dad. I am.


----------



## jld

This just started out as a hypothetical situation. It has come to reveal much about people's characters. 

I am surprised that so many men have reacted so intensely to my posts. I have no power over your life. It really does not matter what I think. It's not worth investing your emotions in this.

I am further persuaded, after reading many of these posts, that automatic divorce after infidelity is a good idea, and automatic paternity testing would be, too. Accountability, straight up, _on both sides._ Some forced transparency, _on both sides._

Justtryin seemed to say, in one of his recent posts, that some men do not feel they have power in their relationships. They feel at the mercy of the female. I think this is the basic disconnect between me and the men on this board who are getting emotional. 

My husband has lots of power in our marriage. He doesn't feel threatened because there is nothing threatening him. He feels my dependence and does not use it against me. To him, if I had an affair, it would mean something had gone wrong in the marriage, and he would want to know what it was. He feels responsible for the marriage, and the family.

There was a question like this a few months ago on General, and I asked dh what he would do if I had an affair. He said he would want to know what he had done, and we would go to counseling. He said he doubted he would divorce me, but it would not be just no big deal.

That sounded consistent with dh's character to me. He is not emotional and does not easily get rocked. Our son's cancer rocked him. But he does not get emotional about some woman's posts on the internet. 

He will exhibit frustration at men's taking advantage of women, though. He is very sensitive to that. His mother was not respected by his father, and he hated that, knew it was wrong. He definitely believes women are, by and large, more vulnerable to men's selfishness than the other way around.

So, yes, my marriage and the man I am with does affect how I see these issues. My reality is not your reality. I do not have a 50/50, I will go this far and no farther, I'll clean my half of the street and not do a thing to help you clean yours, not my problem, you deal with it yourself kind of marriage. We're an all in kind of couple. There is certainly complete transparency from me to him. I could not live any other way. And he would not want it any other way.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> I am surprised that so many men have reacted so intensely to my posts. I have no power over your life. It really does not matter what I think. It's not worth investing your emotions in this.


Let me offer some additional insight into this... It's very common to see intense, emotionally-charged reactions from men on this topic because it is as critical an issue to us as abortion is to women. 

As we've said over and over and over, it's about having the freedom to make a *choice*. We don't feel that we should be *forced* by any court, judge, or statute to offer either our affection or the spoils of our labor to care for a child that has been born into the world as the result of our spouse's infidelity (and, therefore, is not biologically ours). If we *choose* to do so, great. But, again, we should have that choice. We deserve it, and we demand it.


----------



## JCD

Here is the disconnect jld.

You openly advocate communication, understanding and compassion for each partner for the other.

Well and good. Something to be hoped for for everyone. When you think you hurt or insult someone, you go out of your way to apologize in a seemingly sincere manner.

But on this thread, both your tone and your words are stating that any man who does not exactly match the...staidness of your monkish husband in terms of understanding and overweening forgiveness...well...that is because he is a FLAWED MAN, not that a woman emotionally kneecapped the man so he can NOT get over this.

Your compassion seems one way and the take away is 'you men are deficient with your fragile male egos'. I am troubled that you cannot see how incredibly condescending and insulting that is.

Because what you are wanting is 'grace': forgiveness of horrible sins against you. Grace cannot be demanded. It cannot be shamed. It has got to be a freely given gift or it loses all spiritual meaning, becoming instead blackmail and coercion...which is the exact spiritual opposite of what you seem to actually want.

I would also suggest you seem to hand wave the actions of the woman as really unimportant.

This is doubly highlighted by the fact that YOU REFUSE TO DO WHAT YOU ARE DEMANDING OF MEN: Let it go and raise the baby.

So...


----------



## Wolf1974

jld said:


> This just started out as a hypothetical situation. It has come to reveal much about people's characters.
> 
> I am surprised that so many men have reacted so intensely to my posts. I have no power over your life. It really does not matter what I think. It's not worth investing your emotions in this.
> 
> *I am further persuaded, after reading many of these posts, that automatic divorce after infidelity is a good idea, and automatic paternity testing would be, too. Accountability, straight up, on both sides. Some forced transparency, on both sides.[/I*_]
> 
> Justtryin seemed to say, in one of his recent posts, that some men do not feel they have power in their relationships. They feel at the mercy of the female. I think this is the basic disconnect between me and the men on this board who are getting emotional.
> 
> My husband has lots of power in our marriage. He doesn't feel threatened because there is nothing threatening him. He feels my dependence and does not use it against me. To him, if I had an affair, it would mean something had gone wrong in the marriage, and he would want to know what it was. He feels responsible for the marriage, and the family.
> 
> There was a question like this a few months ago on General, and I asked dh what he would do if I had an affair. He said he would want to know what he had done, and we would go to counseling. He said he doubted he would divorce me, but it would not be just no big deal.
> 
> That sounded consistent with dh's character to me. He is not emotional and does not easily get rocked. Our son's cancer rocked him. But he does not get emotional about some woman's posts on the internet.
> 
> He will exhibit frustration at men's taking advantage of women, though. He is very sensitive to that. His mother was not respected by his father, and he hated that, knew it was wrong. He definitely believes women are, by and large, more vulnerable to men's selfishness than the other way around.
> 
> So, yes, my marriage and the man I am with does affect how I see these issues. My reality is not your reality. I do not have a 50/50, I will go this far and no farther, I'll clean my half of the street and not do a thing to help you clean yours, not my problem, you deal with it yourself kind of marriage. We're an all in kind of couple. There is certainly complete transparency from me to him. I could not live any other way. And he would not want it any other way._


_

I also agree with this and think it would be a good idea to have affairs automatically end a marriage with no financial obligation to the affair partner. Then after if they want to reconcile they can and even get remarried. Kinda bringing back the across the board at fault divorce. I do also agree with automatic DNA testing. Was never an issue with me until my wife cheated and I, along with std tests, had to consider getting a DNA test on my youngest. Ugly business it is when people stray._


----------



## LongWalk

Gus,

Do you think that we are deceived about the marriage contract from the very beginning?

How often do young people feel they are having fun but sooner or later must marry, for it is the done thing?

Why do many take vows of fidelity, till death do we part, in health and sickness, rich or poor, blah blah, when none of these vows have the force of a contract? In fact much of family law concerns the terms of divorce. The terms refute the vows, everyone of them. One cannot make any claim for violation of the vows. And yet marriage is full legal consequences.

The love child of an affair is the sharpened spear of what is not true about marriage. It's one of the last things a man wants thrust into his heart.


----------



## JCD

Wolf1974 said:


> I also agree with this and think it would be a good idea to have affairs automatically end a marriage with no financial obligation to the affair partner. Then after if they want to reconcile they can and even get remarried. Kinda bringing back the across the board at fault divorce. I do also agree with automatic DNA testing. Was never an issue with me until my wife cheated and I, along with std tests, had to consider getting a DNA test on my youngest. Ugly business it is when people stray.


I absolutely disagree with this notion.

1) While it is not demanded, we should always keep forgiveness as a hope for both parties. We have heard from people here who survived infidelity after years of a bad marriage and learned some important lessons on how to DO BETTER. So 'automatic' doesn't work for me.

2) 'No financial obligation'? Are you nuts? Most men do NOT take the kids. They don't. Let's put this myth behind us. They may WANT to, but their work schedules make it incredibly difficult for that to happen. So...we throw the wife and kids away without cash because she's a bad person? Can't give money to one without the other benefiting.

3) We see cases of this here: one partner is REALLY LOUSY. I mean...no sex, no hygiene, doesn't clean, is a spendthrift, emotionally distant (please note there is no gender assigned here. We've seen it from both ends) So...a desperate spouse makes the mistake of cheating after years of abuse (Yes, I know...should have just left) OR some paranoid spouse who wants to leave with HIS assets intact (just saying...) tries to find ANYTHING on his spouse to twist into infidelity so he can just drop this inconvenient person like bad cheese.

I would not want these things inflicted upon anyone.

*I* get to choose when my marriage ends...or maybe her...but ONE OF US, not some arbitrary law.


----------



## jld

JCD, the disconnect is that some men feel powerless in their relationships, and the mere thought of accepting to raise another man's child makes them feel even more powerless. I get that now.

These men should definitely divorce the woman as soon as possible, and have nothing to do with her affair child. She and the child will get along somehow, as long as there is some kind of safety net.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I think the problem is how the discussion is being framed.

In the "good man / bad man " context.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> JCD, the disconnect is that some men feel powerless in their relationships, and the mere thought of accepting to raise another man's child makes them feel even more powerless. I get that now.
> 
> These men should definitely divorce the woman as soon as possible, and have nothing to do with her affair child. She and the child will get along somehow, as long as there is some kind of safety net.


This becomes more difficult the longer the deceit continues. And it is not a FEELING of being powerless...it IS being powerless. As in my example, the only decision the man has that he actually has control is to stay or leave. Ultimately he has no rights to the child...that's the mother and bio dad. He loves the child as his own, but always knows that he is powerless, that everything is dependent on the good graces of a woman and man who betrayed him.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

There is no right or wrong answer. The question is simple

Would your husband accept a child that was not his?

My husband would not....period no explanation needed. It does not make him a good man or a bad man. It is the answer for him.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> I suppose we could just be thankful that male h.sapiens aren't quite like so many other males in the animal kingdom.
> 
> They kill offspring that don't carry their genes.


Well, my first thought was "throw a barbecue; serve baby back ribs; invite other man"... but I reconsidered.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> JCD, the disconnect is that some men feel powerless in their relationships, and the mere thought of accepting to raise another man's child makes them feel even more powerless. I get that now.


No, that's not the disconnect. The fact that that's what you believe the disconnect to be just shows how wide a gaping abyss the disconnect really is.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> I think the problem is how the discussion is being framed.
> 
> In the "good man / bad man " context.


Well, it was originally about the needs of the child, and how a man could figure into that.

I am now wholly convinced that some men should definitely not be a part of an affair child's life. And I am starting to understand, from many different angles, why there are so many single mothers.


----------



## samyeagar

You say your husband would stay and love the child if he found out some time down the line that you had had an affair and the child was not his. It is tragic what you are going through with your son, and takes a lot of strength to carry on, but how do you think he would react if that child, the child he loved as his son was the result of an affair, and the bio dad decided to step in and over rule him? I know you would stand up for your husband, but he would have no say for himself. If the bio dad said no, I don't want him visiting in the hospital, your husband would be restricted. The courts and the law allow for just that scenario...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

tacoma said:


> Yes, with the added twist of her "knowing" he doesn't want to do it but wants him to deny himself to appease her by doing it anyway.
> 
> That's a **** test.


Technically speaking, a sh*t test isn't about her actually getting what she wants - its not even about her actually wanting it. Its a behavior driven by the subconscious mind aimed at testing him to see if he caves to her. A sh*t testing woman doesn't actually want him to cave. If he caves, he'll keep getting more sh*t tests until she eventually leaves because he's weak and unattractive; subconsciously, she feels she can't trust him to handle things if he can't even stand up to her.

Whether sh*t tests are a real thing or not is debatable (I think they are), but this is the concept. You pass sh*t tests by not being a doormat; they're not about her getting what she says.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Was Joseph a doormat?


Joseph, son of Heli/Jacob in the synoptics? Honestly, I don't think that analogy would survive even cursorial scrutiny. 

Joseph and Mary were betrothed, but the union had not been consummated and they were not yet married in the full sense of the term. In the Matthean account, Jospeh actually was going to divorce her, albeit secretly. Sparing her the public humiliation and shame was as far as his noble nature went. 

What stopped him was a dream visitation by an angel where he was told in no uncertain terms that the pregnancy was the product of Divine intervention. 

So even in this story, the Joseph character reacts like any betrayed husband would. Men are perfectly capable of adopting a child and loving it as their own, when there is an emotional reason to do so. In Joseph's case, it took the realization that the child was the son of God himself to plant that desire in his heart. In a mundane setting, who is the counterpart to God in this analogy? The OM? (!)

Any analogy will collapse if you push it too far, but this one doesn't even get off the ground.


----------



## WyshIknew

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well, my first thought was "throw a barbecue; invite other man"... but I reconsidered.


Dunno, could be fuel for the Barbie.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> You say your husband would stay and love the child if he found out some time down the line that you had had an affair and the child was not his. It is tragic what you are going through with your son, and takes a lot of strength to carry on, but how do you think he would react if that child, the child he loved as his son was the result of an affair, and the bio dad decided to step in and over rule him? I know you would stand up for your husband, but he would have no say for himself. If the bio dad said no, I don't want him visiting in the hospital, your husband would be restricted. The courts and the law allow for just that scenario...


Sam, I run to tell dh when I have even a hint of attraction to another man. Do you think I would ever make it to affair stage? 

So for us, this is really all hypothetical. If I ever did do something like that, I would not be hiding it for years. I just can't hide things.

I know dh. He is a giver. It would not be about him. It would be about what he could do for the child. That is the kind of heart he has.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Joseph, son of Heli/Jacob in the synoptics? Honestly, I don't think that analogy would survive even cursorial scrutiny.
> 
> Joseph and Mary were betrothed, but the union had not been consummated and they were not yet married in the full sense of the term. In the Matthean account,*Jospeh actually was going to divorce her, albeit secretly. Sparing her the public humiliation and shame was as far as his noble nature went. *
> 
> What stopped him was a dream visitation by an angel where he was told in no uncertain terms that the pregnancy was the product of Divine intervention.
> 
> So even in this story, the Joseph character reacts like any betrayed husband would. Men are perfectly capable of adopting a child and loving it as their own, when there is an emotional reason to do so. In Joseph's case, it took the realization that the child was the son of God himself to plant that desire in his heart. In a mundane setting, who is the counterpart to God in this analogy? The OM? (!)
> 
> Any analogy will collapse if you push it too far, but this one doesn't even get off the ground.



The bolded is a good point. I forgot about that. So I guess Joseph's sainthood was limited, too. 

The counterpart to God would be What Is In the Best Interests of the Child. Ideally, that is what would be motivating everybody involved. 

But we are clearly not dealing with the ideal.


----------



## GusPolinski

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well, my first thought was "throw a barbecue; serve baby back ribs; invite other man"... but I reconsidered.


Dude. Damn.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Sam, I run to tell dh when I have even a hint of attraction to another man. Do you think I would ever make it to affair stage?
> 
> So for us, this is really all hypothetical. If I ever did do something like that, I would not be hiding it for years. I just can't hide things.
> 
> I know dh. He is a giver. It would not be about him. It would be about what he could do for the child. That is the kind of heart he has.


So you won't even entertain answering the scenario I laid out...in that case, all of us men here would gladly be Mary fvcking Poppins then when it comes to this. Case closed.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> The bolded is a good point. I forgot about that. So I guess Joseph's sainthood was limited, too.
> 
> The counterpart to God would be What Is In the Best Interests of the Child. Ideally, that is what would be motivating everybody involved.
> 
> *But we are clearly not dealing with the ideal*.


Yes. We aren't. We have a woman giving it away and getting pregnant. We have a woman selfishly taking resources from the family she swore vows to so she can pay for her 'hobby.' And if it's HER hobby, it's EVERYONE'S hobby. We have a woman who refuses to take one for the team and give the child away to a loving couple instead of constantly causing emotional pain in her 'family'. SHE has to have it. No one else and her family's wants and needs be damned.

I think that we left 'ideal' about 50 miles back and are still accelerating.

Or were you talking about the men again?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> The bolded is a good point. I forgot about that. So I guess Joseph's sainthood was limited, too.
> 
> The counterpart to God would be What Is In the Best Interests of the Child. Ideally, that is what would be motivating everybody involved.
> 
> But we are clearly not dealing with the ideal.


Speaking very generally, what would be best for the child would be for him/her to grow up in a loving, supportive home in which he/she is loved and raised by both parents... Ideally, both *biological* parents, not by one biological parent and another parent who may very well grow to resent the child, if only at a very base level.

So, in this instance, I'd basically "free up" my WW so that she were able to pursue her obligations in this regard. And, again, if she and/or OM can't manage this, that's on them, and not me.


----------



## LongWalk

jld said:


> Well, it was originally about the needs of the child, and how a man could figure into that.
> 
> I am now wholly convinced that some men should definitely not be a part of an affair child's life. And I am starting to understand, from many different angles, why there are so many single mothers.


This is a profound insight. And the chronic decline of the nuclear family is a concern. When I was a child there was a lot of stigma attached to divorce. Divorce itself was considered a kind of evil. That is no longer true. Single parent mothers who chose to have a baby by artificial insemination as a life choice, that was unthinkable at one time.

Norms are changing. But the gut responses to relationships and sexuality are not at the instinctual level.

You are a caring, nurturing person and the question that started the thread was came from legitimate curiosity. Generally men do not intuitively grasp the inner values of women more than 30%. We have to learn to understand women through our mistakes, the process is sometimes filled with joy. Both men and women complete themselves in each other. Not all of us will succeed in this over an entire lifetime. But what would an existence of guaranteed success mean?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

LongWalk said:


> For thousands of years of human evolution **** sapiens have dealt with this problem. Sometimes murder was the outcome. Sometimes the cuckolded male had to listen to the stronger male mating with the female. He was not killed and even got sloppy seconds.


Absent law, being the weaker man or not I'd find a way to kill that man... likely in a completely cruel and inhumane way. Sorry to say it, but that's the bottom line. That rage would go so deep it wouldn't even have emotive expression when acted on.

That's how big a violation this is imo.


----------



## John Lee

If I remember correctly, there is lore about Genghis Khan that, early in his ascendancy, his wife was kidnapped by a rival tribe and raped and impregnated. Genghis Khan led a successful raid against the tribe and got his wife back, but raised the child as his own even knowing that it was probably from the rape. Whether or not this is true, I think it's interesting that the story survives -- it doesn't really get more "alpha" than Genghis Khan, and yet he is seen as willing to raise the child of an enemy.


----------



## samyeagar

John Lee said:


> If I remember correctly, there is lore about Genghis Khan that, early in his ascendancy, his wife was kidnapped by a rival tribe and raped and impregnated. Genghis Khan led a successful raid against the tribe and got his wife back, but raised the child as his own even knowing that it was probably from the rape. Whether or not this is true, I think it's interesting that the story survives -- it doesn't really get more "alpha" than Genghis Khan, and yet he is seen as willing to raise the child of an enemy.


Unwilling rape and willing affair...one of these is not like the other...


----------



## GusPolinski

John Lee said:


> If I remember correctly, there is lore about Genghis Khan that, early in his ascendancy, his wife was kidnapped by a rival tribe and raped and impregnated. Genghis Khan led a successful raid against the tribe and got his wife back, but raised the child as his own even knowing that it was probably from the rape. Whether or not this is true, I think it's interesting that the story survives -- it doesn't really get more "alpha" than Genghis Khan, and yet he is seen as willing to raise the child of an enemy.


Again, a child resulting from his wife's rape, for many men, will evoke far more consideration and compassion than a child resulting from his wife's infidelity. If this story is true, then this notion was clearly true even in GK's day (at least for him), which is largely considered to be a much more brutal time in human history.


----------



## JCD

John Lee said:


> If I remember correctly, there is lore about Genghis Khan that, early in his ascendancy, his wife was kidnapped by a rival tribe and raped and *possibly* impregnated. Genghis Khan led a successful raid against the tribe and got his wife back, but raised the child as his own even knowing that it was probably from the rape. Whether or not this is true, I think it's interesting that the story survives -- it doesn't really get more "alpha" than Genghis Khan, and yet he is seen as willing to raise the child of an enemy.


Fixed that for you. There were a great deal of questions.

And let's finish the story. Because of the questions of his ancestry and familial disagreements, Jochi was suspected of being assassinated by his father. His existence almost caused a Mongol civil war.



> Marriage to Börte
> 
> As previously arranged by his father, Temujin married Börte of the Onggirat tribe when he was around 16 in order to cement alliances between their respective tribes. Soon after Börte's marriage to Temujin, she was kidnapped by the Merkits, and reportedly given away as a wife. Temüjin rescued her with the help of his friend and future rival, Jamukha, and his protector, Toghrul Khan of the Kerait tribe. She gave birth to a son, Jochi (1185–1226), nine months later, clouding the issue of his parentage. Despite speculation over Jochi, Börte would be his only empress, though Temujin did follow tradition by taking several morganatic wives.[15]


----------



## Caribbean Man

John Lee said:


> If I remember correctly, there is lore about Genghis Khan that, early in his ascendancy,* his wife was kidnapped by a rival tribe and raped and impregnated. * Genghis Khan led a successful raid against the tribe and got his wife back, but raised the child as his own even knowing that it was probably from the rape. Whether or not this is true, I think it's interesting that the story survives -- it doesn't really get more "alpha" than Genghis Khan, and yet he is seen as willing to raise the child of an enemy.


She was kidnapped, raped and got pregnant.

She didn't go off and have an affair.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> So you won't even entertain answering the scenario I laid out...in that case, all of us men here would gladly be Mary fvcking Poppins then when it comes to this. Case closed.


 He would do what he could for the child, sam. _It would not be about him._


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Yes. We aren't. We have a woman giving it away and getting pregnant. We have a woman selfishly taking resources from the family she swore vows to so she can pay for her 'hobby.' And if it's HER hobby, it's EVERYONE'S hobby. We have a woman who refuses to take one for the team and give the child away to a loving couple instead of constantly causing emotional pain in her 'family'. SHE has to have it. No one else and her family's wants and needs be damned.
> 
> I think that we left 'ideal' about 50 miles back and are still accelerating.
> 
> Or were you talking about the men again?


I really think it is good for women to be with men who love them and their children. And if the man in her life is not like that, it really is best for both of them if they separate and move on with their lives.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> No one would 'blame' the baby. However, just as the wife hadn't bothered to ask her husbands 'help' to create this issue, she has no moral right to demand her husband care for 'her problem'. SHE was the one who separated their 'interests', not him.
> 
> 
> If anyone disagrees or has a different spin, I'd be happy to hear it.


I agree. That baby is no more (or less) my responsibility than any other child who may be in need of care. I sure as heck would foster three DIFFERENT kids in need than care for that one glaring reminder of my spouse' infidelity. Nor would I be the best choice of caretaker.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> He would do what he could for the child, sam. _*t would not be about him*._


You are right. It would not be about him as he would have no choice in the matter. The other man would be the one to make the choices.


----------



## JCD

GusPolinski said:


> Speaking very generally, what would be best for the child would be for him/her to grow up in a loving, supportive home in which he/she is loved and raised by both parents... Ideally, both *biological* parents, not by one biological parent and another parent who may very well grow to resent the child, if only at a very base level.
> 
> So, in this instance, I'd basically "free up" my WW so that she were able to pursue her obligations in this regard. And, again, if she and/or OM can't manage this, that's on them, and not me.


Not 'both parents'. TWO parents. Not a parent and a place holder. Not a single mom.

So...I have to ask...why, if we are ONLY thinking of what is best for the CHILDREN (Including the woman's current brood) aren't we seriously discussing adoption? I mean, we avoid adding MORE problems to the marriage...we are preserving the resources that the family gathered for itself, not a stranger, hubby doesn't have a trigger around, the OM can go chase after his kid if he's so damned diligent now...but he won't be inflicting himself on THIS family, the wife has given a very CLEAR AND DISTINCT act of contrition.

So...why isn't this on the table? Why is the wife being so selfish and not thinking of the needs of the child?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> Well, it was originally about the needs of the child, and how a man could figure into that.
> 
> I am now wholly convinced that some men should definitely not be a part of an affair child's life. And I am starting to understand, from many different angles, why there are so many single mothers.


Lots of kids have sh*tty parents - we all draw some bad cards. I will not allow bs notions of moral cause to be used on me as a bludgeon.

The only people who bear moral responsibility for this child are the parents... and I'm not one of them. If you insist there is such a moral responsibility, or that this is about honor and nobly caring for an innocent child, then you effectively condemn every person of means who does not adopt one of the millions of starving children in the world - and in the end only condone the behavior of the parents. What a deal for them! Pawn their kids off on everyone else! No consequences?? Let me go make some more!


----------



## LongWalk

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Absent law, being the weaker man or not I'd find a way to kill that man... likely in a completely cruel and inhumane way. Sorry to say it, but that's the bottom line. That rage would go so deep it wouldn't even have emotive expression when acted on.
> 
> That's how big a violation this is imo.


I fully grasp that feeling. I don't think women can understand violence dwells in men, not just with regards to infidelity. I remember playing football in the summer at the age of 14 or 15 and smelling sweat of the Chuck, an older kid from across the street. I didn't really like him. I hated that smell. It disgusted and angered me.

Whenever boys encounter bullies they are filled with rage. Boys got in fights when I was kid. Maybe today it's not allowed anymore. Gangs of boys have pecking order. An alpha leads the others. Healthy outlets of competition are playing baseball and basketball. Unhealthy expressions include physical bullying. And group criminal behavior as in boyz in the hood claiming territory.

Before mankind was kind we were not.

OJ Simpson murdered OM and ex wife. That a jury could have found him not guilty shows how divorced we are from human nature.

Elin Nordegren came from an upper class family. She went berserk when she learned that her husband Tiger Woods was fornicating.



> Nordegren was still yelling at Woods, demanding he come out. When he emerged minutes later, she swiped the cellphone, took one look at his last sent message — “divorce” — and exploded. She threw it at Woods, chipping his tooth. She pummeled his chest and scratched his face. He wrested himself away, and Nordegren reached for the nearest weapon — a golf club — and began chasing him.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> I really think it is good for women to be with men who love them and *their* (not HER, THEIR) children. And if the man in her life is not like that, it really is best for both of them if they separate and move on with their lives.


Right back to 'it's all the man's fault'.

Well done.

Do you have ANYTHING to say to the woman who shoved this steaming pile of misery onto the family's kitchen table?


----------



## jld

John Lee said:


> If I remember correctly, there is lore about Genghis Khan that, early in his ascendancy, his wife was kidnapped by a rival tribe and raped and impregnated. Genghis Khan led a successful raid against the tribe and got his wife back, but raised the child as his own even knowing that it was probably from the rape. Whether or not this is true, I think it's interesting that the story survives -- it doesn't really get more "alpha" than Genghis Khan, and yet he is seen as willing to raise the child of an enemy.


He loved her, and did not hold it against the child.

And maybe even if she did, temporarily, love another man, some men are able to forgive that, and put it behind them. 

They might ask themselves if they could possibly love another woman, and how they would want their wives to react to that. That probably helps them forgive, and move ahead.

Humans are just so much more fragile than we want to admit, I think.


----------



## samyeagar

JCD said:


> Not 'both parents'. TWO parents. Not a parent and a place holder. Not a single mom.
> 
> So...I have to ask...why, if we are ONLY thinking of what is best for the CHILDREN (Including the woman's current brood) aren't we seriously discussing adoption? I mean, we avoid adding MORE problems to the marriage...we are preserving the resources that the family gathered for itself, not a stranger, hubby doesn't have a trigger around, the OM can go chase after his kid if he's so damned diligent now...but he won't be inflicting himself on THIS family, the wife has given a very CLEAR AND DISTINCT act of contrition.
> 
> So...why isn't this on the table? *Why is the wife being so selfish and not thinking of the needs of the child*?


Why not...the wifes selfishness has pretty much been disregarded at every turn in this discussion already...it's all about the child doncha know...


----------



## tacoma

Anon Pink said:


> I have worked with a kid who saw her older siblings going out with a daddy that used to be her daddy too but now wants nothing to do with OM's child. It is devastating! And the horrible mother put them in that position!


I don't think most men could do what this man did.

If I had discovered my daughter wasn't my biological child after I had created a relationship and bonded with her my wife would be gone but there's no way I could leave my girl.

It would destroy me emotionally.

To discover my daughter wasn't mine before I had bonded with her would make it impossible for me to bond with her in the first place.
I couldn't raise her as mine without seriously harming myself emotionally and probably her as well.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Right back to 'it's all the man's fault'.
> 
> Well done.
> 
> Do you have ANYTHING to say to the woman who shoved this steaming pile of misery onto the family's kitchen table?


"Help me understand."

The conversation would go on from there, but that is where we would start.

Are you afraid she would not be suffering enough?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

John Lee said:


> If I remember correctly, there is lore about Genghis Khan that, early in his ascendancy, his wife was kidnapped by a rival tribe and raped and impregnated. Genghis Khan led a successful raid against the tribe and got his wife back, but raised the child as his own even knowing that it was probably from the rape. Whether or not this is true, I think it's interesting that the story survives -- it doesn't really get more "alpha" than Genghis Khan, and yet he is seen as willing to raise the child of an enemy.


Funny you mention Genghis Khan... probably the most prolific genes ever. Its believed the man fathered hundreds if not thousands of children. He has roughly 16 million living descendants... and some .5% of the world's male population. An absolutely astounding number.

If evolution is a competition and spreading genes scores points, Khan is atop the leaderboard.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> "Help me understand."
> 
> The conversation would go on from there, but that is where we would start.
> 
> Are you afraid she would not be suffering enough?


How about asking the correct question: how much suffering and want is she willing to pile onto her husband and current children?

There are a couple of very simple solutions to this problem which you just will not consider for a moment. Abortion I get. Not so much in favor of it either.

But if she LOVED her family, if she wanted to SPARE HER FAMILY PAIN, she would _'go work out of state' _ for 6 months and come back alone, ready to atone to her family for the suffering and misery SHE and SHE ALONE piled on them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> He loved her, and did not hold it against the child.


FYI, Khan had many wives... and harems of virgins on top of that everywhere he went. I'm not sure this is the kind of love you're thinking. In all probability, this is more like beating up your neighbor for stealing your stuff.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> "Help me understand."
> 
> The conversation would go on from there, but that is where we would start.
> 
> *Are you afraid she would not be suffering enough*?


Aside from basic human empathy that should be afforded to any human being, no matter how despicable, why should we give a rats ass about HER suffering?


----------



## tacoma

samyeagar said:


> The only decision the man has in this situation that is truly his, that he has control over is to stay or leave. Ultimately everything else depends on the mercy and cooperation of the mother and biodad.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't know Sam.

The same laws that often entrap a man into responsibility for a child that isn't his can be used as resources for a man who wants to remain the father if a child that isn't his.

If a "love child" is born into a marriage through a woman's infidelity and the BS wished to remain in the child's life the fact that he signed the birth certificate and has a history if supporting parenting the child gives him some power in any fight to remove the child from him if he wishes to keep the child.

First if all it would force the bio dad to invest a lot of money in any attempt to be recognized as the child's father.

He would have to drop thousands against a determined BH just to get a court order for a DNA test to begin with.


----------



## samyeagar

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> FYI, Khan had many wives... and harems of virgins on top of that everywhere he went. I'm not sure this is the kind of love you're thinking. In all probability, this is more like beating up your neighbor for stealing your stuff.


So many people either forget, or never knew that love tied with marriage is a relatively new social construct.


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD - the man is purely gutted, probably way worse than rape and you expect him to just suck it up and care for the kid. Just won't happen to a man who has any self worth.

Even if he has the fortitude to take care of the kid, it will remind him of his wifes transgressions forever. Not sure I would stay sane.


----------



## JCD

samyeagar said:


> So many people either forget, or never knew that love tied with marriage is a relatively new social construct.


From everything I heard, GK thought the world of her. He got married to her when he was dirt poor and hunted. She was there every minute for him.

That is not something a man can or should forget easily.

Now...if Borte had jumped on a horse and RODE to the other tribe wearing Fredrick's of Ulan Bator with a smile on her face and a song in her heart...I think we'd hear a lot less about Borte.


----------



## samyeagar

tacoma said:


> I don't know Sam.
> 
> The same laws that often entrap a man into responsibility for a child that isn't his can be used as resources for a man who wants to remain the father if a child that isn't his.
> 
> If a "love child" is born into a marriage through a woman's infidelity and the BS wished to remain in the child's life the fact that he signed the birth certificate and has a history if supporting parenting the child gives him some power in any fight to remove the child from him if he wishes to keep the child.
> 
> First if all it would force the bio dad to invest a lot of money in any attempt to be recognized as the child's father.
> 
> He would have to drop thousands against a determined BH just to get a court order for a DNA test to begin with.


You are correct, but think of the hell a custody dispute is when parentage ISN'T in question...

Again, the non bio dad would be entirely at the mercy of the mother. If she just up and agreed to the DNA test...The non bio dad would have to rely solely and entirely, place all of his trust in the woman who had betrayed him.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> The counterpart to God would be What Is In the Best Interests of the Child. Ideally, that is what would be motivating everybody involved.


I'm not sure even that works. I'm not a believer, but even as an agnostic, I can recognize that if God specifically tells you to do something, then you had probably better do it.

When altruism becomes obligatory, not just in the general sense that falls upon us all as human beings, but in regard to specific cases, then we start having a basic contradiction in terms and the act in question is arguably no longer altruistic at all.

All of us have the capacity to do good in this word, but all of us also have the free will to decide exactly when and how and where this happens. When it comes to children, all of us, whether we're willing to admit it or not make a conscious decision over which children in the world are going to receive our direct attention and which ones will not.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but it seems to me that you're simply assuming a husband has not just a general, but a specific obligation towards the children his wife bears regardless of whether he's the father of said children. I don't see the concatenation and would like to see if fleshed out, if possible.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> How about asking the correct question: how much suffering and want is she willing to pile onto her husband and current children?
> 
> There are a couple of very simple solutions to this problem which you just will not consider for a moment. Abortion I get. Not so much in favor of it either.
> 
> But if she LOVED her family, if she wanted to SPARE HER FAMILY PAIN, she would _'go work out of state' _ for 6 months and come back alone, ready to atone to her family for the suffering and misery SHE and SHE ALONE piled on them.


To you, her first obligation is to you? To her, her first obligation may be to her child.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> FYI, Khan had many wives... and harems of virgins on top of that everywhere he went. I'm not sure this is the kind of love you're thinking. In all probability, this is more like beating up your neighbor for stealing your stuff.


You're right. I don't really know anything about him.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> JLD - the man is purely gutted, probably way worse than rape and you expect him to just suck it up and care for the kid. Just won't happen to a man who has any self worth.
> 
> Even if he has the fortitude to take care of the kid, it will remind him of his wifes transgressions forever. Not sure I would stay sane.


It won't happen to a man who can't handle it. Some men can handle it.

Can we agree on that?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

You know... I'm not sure there is a worse way to violate a man than this. I'd rather be gang raped in prison than discover that the daughter I loved since birth is the child of another man. I'd still love her as we tend to do anyone we care for, for an extended period. All those memories - diapers, first steps, first words, first bike... to take the most pure kind of love and reveal it all to have been a manipulation by the worst of women... I can think of nothing worse.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but it seems to me that you're simply assuming a husband has not just a general, but a specific obligation towards the children his wife bears regardless of whether he's the father of said children. I don't see the concatenation and would like to see if fleshed out, if possible.


He does not have an obligation. But some men can rise above their pride and put the needs of a child above their own. It should not be discounted as an option.

But the kind of men who can do this do not need me to tell them this. They already know it.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> To you, her first obligation is to you? To her, her first obligation may be to her child.


I'm the one she said vows to.

To have and to hold.

Richer or Poorer.

Sickness and Health

Forsaking all others.

Let two come together and become One Flesh.

She promised to look after MY needs and I promised to look out for hers.

She's already broken her word to God and me. She is also stiffing her current set of kids, opening them up to questions, bad role models, scanty resources. 

She is playing favorites...and it isn't to her nuclear family. So if she isn't giving us loyalty, what call does she have on ours?


----------



## jld

She doesn't, JCD.

But I just wonder, are you talking with us, or wrestling with your conscience?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> It won't happen to a man who can't handle it. Some men can handle it.
> 
> Can we agree on that?


No. Its not a matter of handling it. Its not a matter of one man superior to the other. Can you stop phrasing it this way since pretty much every man here has told you its garbage?

Few men will do it, period... for any reason. If he does it just because he loves his WW so much he'll do anything for her including raising her bastard baby, then he's the definition of desperate. If he'll do it simply for the sake of the child, why hasn't he already adopted some random kids? That he hasn't, betrays the actual motivation of the man who accepts this situation. Raising the other man's kid is his key to keeping her. The worst kind of desperate love imo. A man with no self-value.


----------



## jld

DA8, some men are really mature. They see how fragile humans are, and don't hold it against them. 

Have you ever been really loved, DA8? Really, truly loved?


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> She doesn't, JCD.
> 
> But I just wonder, are you talking with us, or wrestling with your conscience?


What do you mean 'she doesn't'? Do you mean we hadn't had kids of our own prior to this?

If we didn't have kids together, her stuff would be on the front stoop about two hours after we had that conversation.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> DA8, some men are really mature. They see how fragile humans are, and don't hold it against them.
> 
> Have you ever been really loved, DA8? Really, truly loved?


If he loved her...he would take in a bastard baby, put himself up to public ridicule, and happily and lovingly raise a bastard.

If she love him, she'd want to spare him that if at all possible.

It IS possible. She won't do it. Q.E.D, she does not love him.


----------



## samyeagar

JCD said:


> What do you mean 'she doesn't'? Do you mean we hadn't had kids of our own prior to this?
> 
> If we didn't have kids together, her stuff would be on the front stoop about two hours after we had that conversation.


She, the WW, doesn't have any say in YOUR loyalty.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> DA8, some men are really mature. They see how fragile humans are, and don't hold it against them.


You just can't stop can you? Now its that these men are really mature? Implying that the men who wouldn't accept this situation aren't?

I find this notion truly disgusting.



jld said:


> Have you ever been really loved, DA8? Really, truly loved?


Of course.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> DA8, some men are really mature. They see how fragile humans are, and don't hold it against them.
> 
> Have you ever been really loved, DA8? Really, truly loved?


I think this is why the men are giving you a tough time here. That sentence "some men are really mature" 

It insinuates men who choose to not raise the affair child are immature and don't see how fragile human are.


----------



## LongWalk

tacoma said:


> I don't know Sam.
> 
> The same laws that often entrap a man into responsibility for a child that isn't his can be used as resources for a man who wants to remain the father if a child that isn't his.
> 
> If a "love child" is born into a marriage through a woman's infidelity and the BS wished to remain in the child's life the fact that he signed the birth certificate and has a history if supporting parenting the child gives him some power in any fight to remove the child from him if he wishes to keep the child.
> 
> First if all it would force the bio dad to invest a lot of money in any attempt to be recognized as the child's father.
> 
> He would have to drop thousands against a determined BH just to get a court order for a DNA test to begin with.


This is because the family law system is designed to give cuckolds higher social status to prevent an exodus from marriages in which the wife cheats. Think about it, the law declares that a man is a father automatically, although a certain percentage are not. Biology is denied to strengthen the social institution of marriage.

When a woman who has been having sex with two men discovers she pregnant whom does she hope is the father?

It is entirely conceivable and maybe even likely that a married woman who has cheated wants the lover to be the father of the child she is bearing. That is why she did not think of using a condom.

A cousin of mine is an andrologist. She counts sperm while noting the type and frequency of deformities. There are many tragic stories in the diagnosis of infertility. A Latino guy who was at the clinic had a pregnant SO. He semen contained no sperm at all. It was hard news to spill.

I don't think she learned whether he raised OM's child.

When the mortgage crisis struck she got laid off. People did not have money for fertility treatment.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

JCD said:


> If he loved her...he would take in a bastard baby, put himself up to public ridicule, and happily and lovingly raise a bastard.
> 
> If she love him, she'd want to spare him that if at all possible.
> 
> It IS possible. She won't do it. Q.E.D, she does not love him.


But you're not seeing the point here. It's not about all the awful things she did to put him in the situation. What she does really doesn't matter bc she's human and weak by nature so of COURSE she's going to mess up and get pregnant by another man. 

It's NEVER about what the woman did...it's ALL about judging how the man reacts to it.


----------



## pidge70

ScarletBegonias said:


> But you're not seeing the point here. It's not about all the awful things she did to put him in the situation. What she does really doesn't matter bc she's human and weak by nature so of COURSE she's going to mess up and get pregnant by another man.
> 
> It's NEVER about what the woman did...it's ALL about judging how the man reacts to it.


I think it says more about the BH's lack of strength than anything.


----------



## tacoma

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Of course.


But is it the kind of "love" you learn from Lifetime movies D8?

Is it?


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> What do you mean 'she doesn't'? Do you mean we hadn't had kids of our own prior to this?
> 
> If we didn't have kids together, her stuff would be on the front stoop about two hours after we had that conversation.


She doesn't have any call on your loyalty.

And I agree, you two should not be together.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I asked my husband his thoughts last night... my reaction was worse than his even....and I'm the woman! ...

Awful situation....he doesn't think he could do it.. even if he still loved the woman & they decided to stay together...He said if he even tried to play this loving Father role .... he said he WOULD take it out on the child, he would not love the child like his own....and as everyone else has hammered for pages now....it would be a constant kick in the gut to the gravest of betrayals...


----------



## pidge70

tacoma said:


> But is it the kind of "love" you learn from Lifetime movies D8?
> 
> Is it?


Off topic but, I really hate that channel.


----------



## Rowan

jld said:


> She doesn't, JCD.
> 
> But I just wonder, are you talking with us, or wrestling with your conscience?





jld said:


> DA8, some men are really mature. They see how fragile humans are, and don't hold it against them.
> 
> Have you ever been really loved, DA8? Really, truly loved?


Jld, as a woman, I find the level of patronizing condescension here pretty astounding. Please understand that people may feel very differently about a situation without any of them being automatically wrong. If your husband would be the guy who takes on your affair-child, then I'm sure he's a truly worthy man. But to then say that any man who would not do that is less of a man, doesn't really know how to love, or is insecure, or less of a good person, is extremely judgmental in a way that is very off-putting to others - both men and women. Quite simply, your inability to recognize that other perspectives are not only valid, but may be held by those who are equally "good", rubs people the wrong way.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Rowan said:


> Jld, as a woman, I find the level of patronizing condescension here pretty astounding. Please understand that people may feel very differently about a situation without any of them being automatically wrong. If your husband would be the guy who takes on your affair-child, then I'm sure he's a truly worthy man. But to then say that any man who would not do that is less of a man, doesn't really know how to love, or is insecure, or less of a good person is extremely judgmental in a way that is very off-putting to others - both men and women. Quite simply, your inability to recognize that other perspectives are not only valid, but may be held by those who are equally "good", rubs people the wrong way.


It's the vegan discussion all over again.


----------



## pidge70

Rowan said:


> Jld, as a woman, I find the level of patronizing condescension here pretty astounding. Please understand that people may feel very differently about a situation without any of them being automatically wrong. If your husband would be the guy who takes on your affair-child, then I'm sure he's a truly worthy man. But to then say that any man who would not do that is less of a man, doesn't really know how to love, or is insecure, or less of a good person is extremely judgmental in a way that is very off-putting to others - both men and women. Quite simply, your inability to recognize that other perspectives are not only valid, but may be held by those who are equally "good", rubs people the wrong way.


:iagree: QFT


----------



## ConanHub

A lot of attention has been directed at a man "stepping up" and taking the responsibility for raising an affair child. As to that, the cheating wife obviously could not have cared less for her family or the possibility of bringing another child into the world, while she was happily getting plowed by a POS.

Her infidelity and a resulting child are totally on her and her responsibility to take care of.

Looking back on my marriage, our ability to have children is in the past, if my wife cheated we would have been through. If she would have had a baby from her cheating, I would have done everything in my power to, literally, never speak or hear from her again.

Not the Childs fault at all, but he or she would be the total responsibility of others who decided to bring them into the world.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> DA8, some men are really mature. They see how fragile humans are, and don't hold it against them.
> 
> Have you ever been really loved, DA8? Really, truly loved?


Wow. Just...wow.

While I'm not certain that you intended it as such, this post seems to carry with it a certain amount of passive-aggressive condescension. In fact, many of your more recent posts seem to be taking this tone. I *hope* that it's nothing more than perhaps naiveté.

Either way, when faced with such an acute misunderstanding of our stance on such topics, many of us men (myself included) will find the logical/rational centers of our brain completely overridden by stupid, clumsy rage. When this happens to me, it's all that I can do to walk and chew gum at the same time, much less operate a keyboard intelligently.

DA8... Please, before you reply, get up, walk around the block, and throw some cool water on your face.


----------



## JCD

ScarletBegonias said:


> I think this is why the men are giving you a tough time here. That sentence "some men are really mature"
> 
> It insinuates men who choose to not raise the affair child are immature and don't see how fragile human are.


Honestly, while this is insulting, I find the inequity of obligation and sacrifice to be much worse.

HE needs to 'give up his pride' and proudly raise a little bastard child.

SHE...needs to do nothing. No crawling. No exposure. Certainly not getting it taken care of or giving it away. Nope...that isn't HER obligation at all. She is allowed to love it more without recrimination and I am supposed to suck it...if I am 'mature' by jld's definition.


----------



## GusPolinski

pidge70 said:


> Off topic but, I really hate that channel.


Ha! No doubt!


----------



## naiveonedave

JLD said - "It won't happen to a man who can't handle it. Some men can handle it. Can we agree on that? "

In a word, NO


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You just can't stop can you? Now its that these men are really mature? Implying that the men who wouldn't accept this situation aren't?
> .


DA8, what do you call it when people help people who have wronged them, forgive people who have hurt them, give to people who will never give back to them, simply because that is what the need is to make things better? What is it other than maturity?

I asked about your feeling love, because you seem so angry. It is a hypothetical question, but you are so rocked. 

I think when people have been deeply, truly loved, they can find it in their hearts to show compassion to other people.


----------



## vellocet

LongWalk said:


> It is almost certain that a love child with a very different appearance to the father would experience problems. Racism, although it is wrong, exists.


My posting of that picture has nothing to do with racism, and I hope you aren't implying such.

The point was if the mother gave birth to a child of a race other than her husband's, then that's a pretty good sign that the H is not the father, adoption not being considered.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> He does not have an obligation. But some men can rise above their pride and put the needs of a child above their own. It should not be discounted as an option.
> 
> But the kind of men who can do this do not need me to tell them this. They already know it.


There is an especially iconic picture from the early 90's of a starving Sudanese toddler being preyed upon (i.e. Stalked) by a vulture. I'm not going to link to it. It's disturbing.

Again, all of us, whether we're willing to admit it or not make a conscious choice about which children receive our direct attention and which children do not. If a couple want to make the life choices of, say, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, that's great. But it is not a moral failing on the part of those who do not or cannot adopt.

It still seems to me that you are portraying this as a moral failing. In your latest, you characterize it as overcoming pride, which in Christian ethics is one of the capital vices, cardinal sins, seven deadly sins, etc., and even in Humanist systems of ethics, is usually defined as inordinate love of oneself.

Why?


----------



## Jellybeans

jld said:


> Have you ever been really loved, DA8? Really, truly loved?




DA8, it's clearly because you've never been really truly loved... 



(I kid).


----------



## tacoma

pidge70 said:


> Off topic but, I really hate that channel.


It's the most offensive, exploitive, manipulative programming I've ever seen.

Kinda like this thread.

I can't be in the same room if it's on.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jld said:


> DA8, what do you call it when people help people who have wronged them, forgive people who have hurt them, give to people who will never give back to them, simply because that is what the need is to make things better? What is it other than maturity?
> 
> I asked about your feeling love, because you seem so angry. It is a hypothetical question, but you are so rocked.
> 
> I think when people have been deeply, truly loved, they can find it in their hearts to show compassion to other people.


I see you're mistaking having boundaries with a lack of compassion. 

I'm sure all of these men would let the wayward pregnant wife stick around til she found a stable environment to live and got on her feet w/getting monetary support from the OM. That's compassion while still sticking to the boundaries that were set hopefully prior to marriage. 

You are expecting people to have blind compassion to the point of allowing others to abuse them.


----------



## Entropy3000

soccermom2three said:


> I thought in one of JLD's previous posts she stated that her and her husband have a parent/child thing going on. I don't know the proper term for that fetish or whatever they call it. I'm not hip on such things.
> 
> ETA: I think it was this thread. http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/168065-kink.html


THANK YOU!!! I just read the opening post. I will read the whole thread later.

I am not being mean I hope to observe from this that I caught some possible father issues in the thread. Which lets be honest a lot of us have had parental issues of one kind or another. I get really upset over abuse.

My father was both an alcoholic and and a workaholic. Yet I am glad I have many of his traits. 

I left home when I got in between my father and my sister. She was five years older. He did not hit her but it was not good and I stepped in before that could happen. A whole story there. We did not speak for ten years after that.

Later on my step daughter has had a series of bad relationships with abusive men. Long story short I have put a .357 in one guys fathers face and told another that if he did not leave Texas or hurt her again, I would take him out. Intellectually I know that this is a symptom of my own issues. You feel responsible for your children. You ask yourself where you went wrong. But I will not tolerate abuse. My own daughter is the complete opposite. There have been other circumstances, but I am a protector. I put myself in harms way if I think there is no one else to step up. So when I see in real life someone cruely trying to dominate another I will at least draw their fire. Am I always right? Hell no. But it is who I am. I over analyze trying to find the the right thing. 

As it pertains to the the hippie comment from FW. 
This made me laugh. I can relate to this because there is some part of me that is that way. That is my generation afterall. I enjoy SF and Boulder cultures. Austin Texas is awesome. And as far as I am concerned I am stardust. If anything I am overly compassionate to my detrement. But there is something inside of me that puts me in harms way. Hence my affintiy for my Dark Knight internal persona. So maybe that is my kink. I think the world takes all kinds. We survive because of our diversity. The we take is equal to the love we make.


----------



## Jellybeans

jld said:


> I asked about your feeling love, because you seem so angry. It is a hypothetical question, but you are so rocked.
> 
> I think when people have been deeply, truly loved, they can find it in their hearts to show compassion to other people.


So if you don't do this, men, something is VERY wrong with you. 

You suck as a human being.


----------



## pidge70

Jellybeans said:


> DA8, it's clearly because you've never been really truly loved...
> 
> 
> 
> (I kid).


He's loved plenty. He's a narcissist and he loves himself lots.......:rofl:

I kid too. My BPD ass agrees with Dvls NPD one......


----------



## johnAdams

SimplyAmorous said:


> Awful situation....he doesn't think he could do it.. even if he still loved the woman & they decided to stay together...He said if he even tried to play this loving Father role .... he said he WOULD take it out on the child, he would not love the child like his own....and as everyone else has hammered for pages now....it would be a constant kick in the gut to the gravest of betrayals...


It is difficult enough to try to reconcile after an affair, but to have a constant reminder with HIS child would be too much. If you kept and raised the child of an affair, you would also more than likely have to deal with the AP forever as the biological father.


----------



## naiveonedave

To your last post JLD - I would call that person, not a man but a doormat. Sure, I spill coffee on your blouse, I get it cleaned or buy you a new one. that is maturity. When it gets to the level of marriage vows, maturity is to walk away, head held high, without violence or saying something you would regret.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Honestly, while this is insulting, I find the inequity of obligation and sacrifice to be much worse.
> 
> HE needs to 'give up his pride' and proudly raise a little bastard child.
> 
> SHE...needs to do nothing. No crawling. No exposure. Certainly not getting it taken care of or giving it away. Nope...that isn't HER obligation at all. She is allowed to love it more without recrimination and I am supposed to suck it...if I am 'mature' by jld's definition.


No one needs to do anything.

Did you read all my posts? The regular rules apply. Transparency, NC, etc.

And you don't have to stay. She and the baby can get along without you.


----------



## JCD

Okay, let's us an analogy.

A very few people can run a mile in four minutes or less. As of 2006, fewer than 900 people TOTAL have ever run less than a four minute mile.

This is a crowning achievement of athleticism. It is a person who is HEAD AND SHOULDERS above everyone else around.

Anyone who does LESS then a 4 minute mile, you are essentially calling low moral, prideful curs instead of acknowledging that what you are DEMANDING is incredibly difficult. Not a little difficult. Not a lot difficult.

INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT.

You are, as I warned you not to, minimizing that sort of effort.


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> I really think it is good for women to be with men who love them and their children. And if the man in her life is not like that, it really is best for both of them if they separate and move on with their lives.


I agree in the situation where a man becomes involved with a woman that *already has children*.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Okay, let's us an analogy.
> 
> A very few people can run a mile in four minutes or less. As of 2006, fewer than 900 people TOTAL have ever run less than a four minute mile.
> 
> This is a crowning achievement of athleticism. It is a person who is HEAD AND SHOULDERS above everyone else around.
> 
> Anyone who does LESS then a 4 minute mile, you are essentially calling low moral, prideful curs instead of acknowledging that what you are DEMANDING is incredibly difficult. Not a little difficult. Not a lot difficult.
> 
> INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT.
> 
> You are, as I warned you not to, minimizing that sort of effort.


JCD, I did not say it would be _easy._ But people have done it, right? So it is not impossible.

And no one _has_ to do it.


----------



## Jellybeans

pidge70 said:


> He's loved plenty. He's a narcissist and he loves himself lots.......:rofl:
> 
> I kid too. My BPD ass agrees with Dvls NPD one......


:rofl:

By the way, I am loving Entropy's posts in this thread.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> DA8, what do you call it when people help people who have wronged them, forgive people who have hurt them, give to people who will never give back to them, simply because that is what the need is to make things better? What is it other than maturity?
> 
> I asked about your feeling love, because you seem so angry. It is a hypothetical question, but you are so rocked.
> 
> I think when people have been deeply, truly loved, they can find it in their hearts to show compassion to other people.


Whether I have ever been 'truly deeply loved' I can show compassion to people.

I can also recognize that sometimes, people will take advantage of my good nature. Some people will engage in acts which are incredibly hurtful.

That I may need to protect myself from a person who is selfish enough to say 'You know what...I need to find myself...find myself on top of another man. It isn't that I don't love you, but if you were secure, REALLY SECURE, you'd allow me this little something because YOU ARE MY HUSBAND and I will never change that."

The other huge logical fallacy here is 'forgiveness'. I can forgive a woman who comes to me with a little baby from someone else. Stuff happens. It will be happening to her away from me, because obviously, she has staggering amounts of contempt for me, but forgiveness is easy.

What is being asked for here is the ability to harm and cause affront to one's spouse without consequences.


----------



## Jellybeans

No, no. It just means something is wrong with you, JCD.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> It still seems to me that you are portraying this as a moral failing. In your latest, you characterize it as overcoming pride, which in Christian ethics is one of the capital vices, cardinal sins, seven deadly sins, etc., and even in Humanist systems of ethics, is usually defined as inordinate love of oneself.
> 
> Why?


Haven't people mentioned that they would not do it because they would be embarrassed? Isn't that a factor?

Let's say it another way. Let's say that for some reason, a man and his wife and her child from an affair were dropped on a desert island. Would it matter then if the child was from an affair or not? Would the man kill the child and throw it into the sea so as not to have to look at it anymore?


----------



## Jellybeans

Almost seems like a baiting thread.

Posting topics and then naysaying any poster that has a different point of view.


----------



## pidge70

jld said:


> Haven't people mentioned that they would not do it because they would be embarrassed? Isn't that a factor?
> 
> Let's say it another way. Let's say that for some reason, a man and his wife and her child from an affair were dropped on a desert island. Would it matter then if the child was from an affair or not? Would the man kill the child and throw it into the sea so as not to have to look at it anymore?


Well, that's a little far fetched, doncha think?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## JCD

Jellybeans said:


> No, no. It just means something is wrong with you, JCD.


We don't have an internet big enough to list what is wrong with me.

I embrace this. I set the bar very low...and still barely clear it.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Is this thread about trying to convince one another to change our minds about how we feel about a scenario? Unless there is someone here who has actually had this happen to them..it is all purely speculation. They could tell us how they handled the situation....but even that does not mean we could handle it the same way.

Raising a child already in a relationship, raising an adopted child, is very different from raising a child that is a product of an affair. There are so many more facets to the issue than just a baby.

You feel the way you feel...it is easy. You can either say yes or no.

Good grief!

You are not going to change each other's minds. I think I could do it...my husband thinks he couldn't. We disagree. Neither of us Is right or wrong.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Haven't people mentioned that they would not do it because they would be embarrassed? Isn't that a factor?
> 
> Let's say it another way. Let's say that for some reason, a man and his wife and her child from an affair were dropped on a desert island. Would it matter then if the child was from an affair or not? *Would the man kill the child and throw it into the sea so as not to have to look at it anymore*?


If they got really hungry, he probably wouldn't throw it into the sea...


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Whether I have ever been 'truly deeply loved' I can show compassion to people.
> 
> I can also recognize that sometimes, people will take advantage of my good nature. Some people will engage in acts which are incredibly hurtful.
> 
> That I may need to protect myself from a person who is selfish enough to say 'You know what...I need to find myself...find myself on top of another man. It isn't that I don't love you, but if you were secure, REALLY SECURE, you'd allow me this little something because YOU ARE MY HUSBAND and I will never change that."
> 
> The other huge logical fallacy here is 'forgiveness'. I can forgive a woman who comes to me with a little baby from someone else. Stuff happens. It will be happening to her away from me, because obviously, she has staggering amounts of contempt for me, but forgiveness is easy.
> 
> What is being asked for here is the ability to harm and cause affront to one's spouse without consequences.


Not sure you saw my post on the regular rules applying.

Of course you need boundaries. She does, too. It is normal and natural, and, I thought, was understood. I have mentioned the need for transparency, NC, etc. in earlier posts.

I know this is hard to consider. And that is why no one is _required_ to do it.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> If I might go out on a limb.
> 
> From reading jld's posts the D/s in her profile most probably denotes a popular Christian concept of wifely submission to her husband as head of the household as Christ is the head of the church.
> 
> Again, going out on a limb as I don't know her, total assumption on my part with very little circumstantial evidence to base it on.


Ah!!! To each their own. I do not want a submissive wife personally. Not dominant either. Playful yes.


----------



## Jellybeans

JCD said:


> We don't have an internet big enough to list what is wrong with me.
> 
> I embrace this. I set the bar very low...and still barely clear it.





samyeagar said:


> If they got really hungry, he probably wouldn't throw it into the sea...


Haha. I love you guys! :rofl:


----------



## pidge70

samyeagar said:


> If they got really hungry, he probably wouldn't throw it into the sea...


If it is a deserted island, they would all likely die anyway.


----------



## Jellybeans

Not if they have compassion!


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> My outrage can be found in the other thread, though minimal, from which this thread is a spin off. But you make a good point. In my zeal to protect a child I neglected to justly demonize any woman who would perpetrate such a fraud.
> 
> My POV is coming from the scenario described in the other thread, or perhaps it was this one. A man finds that a child he had raised as his own is not in fact his. My concern was for that child who is now cut off from the father she loved and adored while her siblings continue to see him. That is the scenario in my head when I post on this subject.
> 
> A woman who is pregnant with another mans child, can not and should not expect her husband to care for the infant as if it were his own.
> 
> But a man who raised a child thinking it was his, loved the child as they were his, does himself a dishonor to then walk away from that child.
> 
> 
> 
> I was specifically referring to what I saw as the attempts to persuade other men from doing an honorable thing in the best interest of the child he had helped to raise. I was specifically referring to NOT branding a man who continues to raise a child he LATER finds out isn't his, as a doormat.
> 
> Yes, I think a man who would walk away from a child he helped raise thinking the child was his, has too delicate an ego. He can walk away from his worthless wife, I'm all for that! But not walk away from the child who has only known this man as her father, has loved this man as her father and now learns he wants nothing to do with her because he's not her father.
> 
> I think the man should continue to parent, but I think the wife should pay for his expenses to parent that child. The wife should not be getting a dime from her ex husband to help raise that child.
> 
> My only concern is for the child.
> 
> I have worked with a kid who saw her older siblings going out with a daddy that used to be her daddy too but now wants nothing to do with OM's child. It is devastating! And the horrible mother put them in that position!


My disadvantage then was not reading the other thread.

I would not walk away from the child, but I would from the mother. Unfortuantely I suspect that this is more common than we would be led to believe. Not based on any facts. Just a feeling. 

But if we are going to put this burden on men, then let's also modify the other attitudes. You know, the ones where we are told not to be a woman's father. That is so absurd because what we are trying to be is her husband. If men have this responsibility then so too do women have the responsibility to realize that while their body is their own, what they do with it matters to theoir partner. This goes both ways but like it or not men and women are not identical. Ooopsies do not cut it.

And it is a horrible fraud. At least from the man's perspective. Few men would ask for a DNA test. They assume the child is theirs. Some of them are wrong. So all I am saying is that all those other threads ... and you know which ones. There is and undercurrent of exactly this.

And yes you should have daemonized the women. Why? because you were daemonzing the husband. A victim. Yes a victim. Is the child a victim? Most certainly. But as has been noted too many come off as thinking men are just provider drones. A man without an ego is not a man. This goes way beyond a vane ego. This dance has gone on for a very long time. I hate abusive men. But this is the way some women abuse men. Different side of the same coin. 

In this case I am going to cut the victim some slack. YMMV.


----------



## sandc

A child of rape would be a different question for me. I would suggest to my wife that we put the child up for adoption (abortion is not an option for us). I could raise that child, it truly is an innocent in the situation. But I don't know that my wife could raise the child, it would be a constant reminder of her brutalization. But if she could, I could. Adoption would be my first preference though.


----------



## Jellybeans

Entropy3000 said:


> But if we are going to put this burden on men, then let's also modify the other attitudes. You know, the ones where we are told not to be a woman's father.


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> JCD, I did not say it would be _easy._ But people have done it, right? So it is not impossible.
> 
> And no one _has_ to do it.


Sure people have done it. I'd do it if I found out my kids aren't mine, although if married, I'd still divorce, but I'd still consider them my kids.

But I find it offensive that I would not be considered a real man if at birth I found out the child isn't mine and I decided to leave from someone who defends the wh0re who didn't think of the child's well being enough to keep her legs closed to someone other than her husband.

The well being of the child starts with responsible conception. But you don't seem to care about that. All you care about is that we men rise to the occasion and bail out your unscrupulous members of your female species.


----------



## samyeagar

sandc said:


> A child of rape would be a different question for me. I would suggest to my wife that we put the child up for adoption (abortion is not an option for us). I could raise that child, it truly is an innocent in the situation. *But I don't know that my wife could raise the child,* it would be a constant reminder of her brutalization. But if she could, I could. Adoption would be my first preference though.


That could make an interesting counter thread. I wonder if jld would be as compassionate to the women as she has been to the men here. Somehow I imagine she would be...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

sandc said:


> A child of rape would be a different question for me. I would suggest to my wife that we put the child up for adoption (abortion is not an option for us). I could raise that child, it truly is an innocent in the situation. But I don't know that my wife could raise the child, it would be a constant reminder of her brutalization. But if she could, I could. Adoption would be my first preference though.


I would see this as a completely different situation... So would HE...this I know... Adoption would be for the best. I would fear the child would have monsterous genes if the Father was a rapist.


----------



## over20

Jld, are you and your husband the couple you are describing?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> Almost seems like a baiting thread.
> 
> Posting topics and then naysaying any poster that has a different point of view.


I agree. I had to find out JLD's backstory so I could get an understanding of why she holds these views that she does against men in this situation.

Although I didn't find a really insightful backstory, I did see a thread where she called for compassion for wayward spouses, but specifically called for it for wayward wives and not the men.

So its a "you damn men grow up and take care of your wife's child with another man" thread is what it is. Therefore I believe, JB, you are correct.


----------



## samyeagar

Who wants to start it...

If you were raped and got pregnant while married, would you keep the baby if your husband wanted you to?


----------



## sandc

samyeagar said:


> That could make an interesting counter thread. I wonder if jld would be as compassionate to the women as she has been to the men here. Somehow I imagine she would be...


I only bring it up because I saw it mentioned in an earlier posting. Not trying to change the thread. Just wanted to cover all the bases. Bottom line is, I don't want to punish the innocent over the crimes of others.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

SimplyAmorous said:


> And you know, it's easy for all of us who has not walked in these shoes to say "this is how I THINK I would feel/ react ".. (like you said...it's all speculation).... I felt he was rather "soft" in his response... ME... I'd want to kill the bi*ch ...and I wouldn't give a da** about the baby at all.. so yeah... I'm just not that nice.... nor would I care to be...
> 
> Every post on here against the woman and her actions...leaving her to fend for herself and how SHE is to blame for hurting the child & giving him/her a lousy start in life... This is what I resonate with...
> 
> There are few scenarios that could wound a good man more than this one, so I feel...I would equate it to myself not being able to conceive (been there) and his going out & cheating on ME - and getting another woman pregnant.. I can't think of any betrayal from a husband worse than that one!
> 
> I just feel a man has every right to cut her dry and never look back...and if they had kids, I would hope he'd win the custody of them too...



I can see both sides of the coin...and I guess because I am a fww..I can see how the situation could have played out in my own life.

My husbands response is how he feels. If I would have gotten pregnant...that is what he would have to deal with. He is not wrong because he feels that way. Thank god, we did not have this issue to deal with. I am certain he would have divorced me. Period...and I would not blame him.

If the situation was reversed...I think I could raise the child as my own without looking at him and thinking of the affair...but hell...how do I know that for sure? 

I think every person has the right to deal with the situation the best way they feel is right for them. No judgement passed from me.

This whole discussion has twisted and turned and the question long forgotten.


----------



## vellocet

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Is this thread about trying to convince one another to change our minds about how we feel about a scenario? Unless there is someone here who has actually had this happen to them..it is all purely speculation. They could tell us how they handled the situation....but even that does not mean we could handle it the same way.
> 
> Raising a child already in a relationship, raising an adopted child, is very different from raising a child that is a product of an affair. There are so many more facets to the issue than just a baby.
> 
> You feel the way you feel...it is easy. You can either say yes or no.
> 
> Good grief!
> 
> You are not going to change each other's minds. I think I could do it...my husband thinks he couldn't. We disagree. Neither of us Is right or wrong.


Its not about changing ones mind.

Take me for example. I wouldn't best a man for staying or leaving. I would have a hard time understanding a man that would abandon a child that he already raised as his own and had a bond with, but I wouldn't best him for being so devastated that he felt the need to leave.

What I take exception with is the despicable idea that if a man finds out his wife f****d another man and that the child isn't his, that THE MAN isn't a man or just has an ego, as if he is a child.


----------



## LongWalk

vellocet said:


> My posting of that picture has nothing to do with racism, and I hope you aren't implying such.
> 
> The point was if the mother gave birth to a child of a race other than her husband's, then that's a pretty good sign that the H is not the father, adoption not being considered.


No, I am not accusing you of racism. Clearly humans pick up on nuances of appearance and it matters to us that our children look like us. I see aspects of my mother in my daughters. To see the OM appearance in a selfish gene child (adultery) would be a trigger of course.

I posted a picture of the Christian TV minister who accepted his wife's love child.


----------



## jld

over20 said:


> Jld, are you and your husband the couple you are describing?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Which couple?


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

And I guess Jld feels differently...so you and she disagree and neither one is wrong.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Haven't people mentioned that they would not do it because they would be embarrassed? Isn't that a factor?


It could be a factor for those who have said so, but it doesn't give any of us license to project those reasons on to others who have not said so. 



jld said:


> Let's say it another way. Let's say that for some reason, a man and his wife and her child from an affair were dropped on a desert island. Would it matter then if the child was from an affair or not? Would the man kill the child and throw it into the sea so as not to have to look at it anymore?


I suspect the disconnect on this thread is between hierarchical senses of fairness vs. outcome based senses of fairness. I'm (obviously) in the former camp here. 

No, a man would not murder a child born from an affair. Not under any circumstances whatsoever. However in your scenario above, you've shrunk the scope of morally acceptable choices down practically to the point of the "Tiny lifeboat" conundrum. 

In this desert island scenario, that would include acts of omission, which would almost certainly necessitate taking care of the child physically. I would take care of my worst enemy under those circumstances, not because I love him like a brother or even like him, but because basic human morality demands it. 

In real life, our choices are not so constrained though, and imposing these sort of constraints seems to be drifting away from your original question of whether a man would "Accept" a child that was not his.


----------



## pidge70

Mrs. John Adams said:


> And I guess Jld feels differently...so you and she disagree and neither one is wrong.


Sorry but, I beg to differ.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

How can you disagree neither is wrong? This is a personal choice. My opinion has nothing to do with your choice.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> In real life, our choices are not so constrained though, and imposing these sort of constraints seems to be drifting away from your original question of whether a man would "Accept" a child that was not his.


The idea is to get down to the basic objection to accepting the child. Several have been given, and to me, the issue of embarrassment is the most surprising. I did not expect it at all.

From all the discussion yesterday, I can see that if the man and the woman don't both agree that it would be good to raise the child together, it would be better for one of them to leave, or to give the child up for adoption, or have an abortion.

The child deserves to be valued.


----------



## LongWalk

jld said:


> Haven't people mentioned that they would not do it because they would be embarrassed? Isn't that a factor?
> 
> Let's say it another way. Let's say that for some reason, a man and his wife and her child from an affair were dropped on a desert island. Would it matter then if the child was from an affair or not? Would the man kill the child and throw it into the sea so as not to have to look at it anymore?


jld,

I understand you. You are asking a perfectly legitimate question and some who say they could never accept it if it happened to them might actually react differently.

If you husband had love child, I think you would suck it up and make an effort. Perhaps even to adopt the child, supposing the mother was incompetent. But nonetheless you might not ever entirely forgive your husband. One does not know how one will react. You might be like Elin Nordegren.

People forgive murderers. Mothers have pleaded that justice not carry out the death sentence of the person convicted for murdering their (the mother's) only child. I have read that they did not want another mother to suffer the death of her child. So, yes we can say stop to suffering.

We can accept things we find unacceptable because hate and anger are tiring. I think that is what you are saying. And I don't think you are baiting people for asking this question.


----------



## ConanHub

jld said:


> DA8, what do you call it when people help people who have wronged them, forgive people who have hurt them, give to people who will never give back to them, simply because that is what the need is to make things better? What is it other than maturity?
> 
> I asked about your feeling love, because you seem so angry. It is a hypothetical question, but you are so rocked.
> 
> I think when people have been deeply, truly loved, they can find it in their hearts to show compassion to other people.


I am for mercy and forgiveness and helping someone who may have wronged me, but, I refuse to submit myself to the abuse that this scenario calls for. There would be years of torment and pain from the abuse that a "loving" wife would be pouring out on her husband in this scenario.

I give a hell of a lot in my marriage and I expect a hell of a lot of respect. My wife feels very fortunate to have me and I feel the same about her.

She knows I don't put up with too much nonsense and she loves me for it. I don't take sh!t from anyone and, as a result, neither does she. 

I actually know a man who had his wife pull this crap on him. They had kids, he worked really hard to provide and was a great guy. I would even say he was pretty good looking, about 6'2" with Pierce Brosnan characteristics.

She cheated and got pregnant. He was a nice guy and decided to stay married and raise the kid as his own. They even had another child. She later talked him into paying for breast enlargement and then she decided she wanted some time to separate and date other people. She still wanted him to be there for her afterwards. She thought they could get together again.
He finally had enough and divorced.

When we were talking through the years of anguish he was going through, I told him point blank, he needed more John Wayne and less prince charming.

His wife had learned to walk all over him for years when what she really needed was a good "Quiet Man" country walk.

I am not justifying her poor behavior because of his white knight routine. But if he had been more of a dangerous brute that did not suffer insult, he would have been a better match for his wildcat wife.

I am a dangerous brute. I don't suffer insult and my wife absolutely loves that about me. My family has been well protected from idiots because of fear of crossing me. If I have had to suffer a reputation as an a-hole, so be it.

Just because a man won't suffer infidelity and cuckoldry, does not mean he is not merciful, or is immature, or is not strong. 

Just because a man does suffer infidelity and cuckoldry doesn't mean he has any worthwhile traits, he could just be a pathetic loser.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ocotillo...actually, many examples have been given where men DID kill an affair child, here on this thread, including other men condoning this and saying they might do that, too. It is in fact, a part of nature that killing babies occurs. Just a comment, because in your post you suggested that this literally never occurs, but it does in a fraction of cases.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> Aside from basic human empathy that should be afforded to any human being, no matter how despicable, why should we give a rats ass about HER suffering?


Are we talking about a specific situation of someone on this board? I think we are talking about a plain old cheating wife? If so, I don't know what would possess a person, man or woman, to love a partner who was such a worthless DB, lacking in any kind of character as demonstrated by getting pregnant by an AP and actually asking the spouse to raise that child. It has nothing to do with strength and everything to do with choosing to love someone with no integrity. I wouldn't.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Let me offer some additional insight into this... It's very common to see intense, emotionally-charged reactions from men on this topic because it is as critical an issue to us as abortion is to women.
> 
> As we've said over and over and over, it's about having the freedom to make a *choice*. We don't feel that we should be *forced* by any court, judge, or statute to offer either our affection or the spoils of our labor to care for a child that has been born into the world as the result of our spouse's infidelity (and, therefore, is not biologically ours). If we *choose* to do so, great. But, again, we should have that choice. We deserve it, and we demand it.


It is right there with abortion and rape.

It also has less to do with a man's personal situation and more to do with our culture and laws.

This topic relates directly to various other threads on boundaries, EAs, PAs, respect, love, Needs, GNOs, opposite sex freinds .... on and on. This small factor impacts all of those things and more. Men and women may be equal but we are not identical.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> From all the discussion yesterday, I can see that if the man and the woman don't both agree that it would be good to raise the child together, it would be better for one of them to leave, or to give the child up for adoption, or have an abortion.


Well you've hit the nail on the head. There has to be agreement; it has to be voluntary and it has to come from the heart.

Assuming that a couple take the path of reconciliation, maybe a man could cultivate paternal feelings towards the unborn child to the point where they become real, but I don't know, I've never had to deal with this. 

I will point out though, that women are usually among the first to state that if feelings of love towards another human being are not there, then they are simply not there and can't be forced.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Ocotillo...actually, many examples have been given where men DID kill an affair child, here on this thread, including other men condoning this and saying they might do that, too. It is in fact, a part of nature that killing babies occurs. Just a comment, because in your post you suggested that this literally never occurs, but it does in a fraction of cases.


Well maybe it would have been better to use the word "Should" instead of "Would." I was speaking about what would be ethical in the moral dilemma posed by jld.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Well you've hit the nail on the head. There has to be agreement; it has to be voluntary and it has to come from the heart.
> 
> Assuming that a couple take the path of reconciliation, maybe a man could cultivate paternal feelings towards the unborn child to the point where they become real, but I don't know, I've never had to deal with this.
> 
> I will point out though, that women are usually among the first to state that if feelings of love towards another human being are not there, then they are simply not there and can't be forced.


Well, I'll tell you what. I think humans are capable of much more than they realize, or what they feel like at any particular moment. 

They find themselves in challenging circumstances, and all of a sudden they are doing things they never knew they could. And maybe even enjoying it.

They would have sworn up and down before they never could have done it. And later they wonder why they thought it was so hard.


----------



## GusPolinski

Holy geez. Lots of compassion and vitriol here. Seriously, wading through all of it is starting to feel like I'm trying to play ping pong on a see-saw. Either way, I've yet to read anything to sway my mind away from this...



GusPolinski said:


> Speaking very generally, what would be best for the child would be for him/her to grow up in a loving, supportive home in which he/she is loved and raised by both parents... Ideally, both *biological* parents, not by one biological parent and another parent who may very well grow to resent the child, if only at a very base level.
> 
> So, in this instance, I'd basically "free up" my WW so that she were able to pursue her obligations in this regard. And, again, if she and/or OM can't manage this, that's on them, and not me.


By the way, it *would* be possible for me to show compassion and consideration to my wife if this situation were to come to pass. Admittedly, I may not have been very clear on this point earlier. Given everything that we have shared and suffered together over the past 20+ years, I just wouldn't be capable of anything less. I'm just not built that way.

But there would still be a divorce. It is entirely possible for a divorce to be conducted with dignity, honor, and integrity.


----------



## vellocet

Mrs. John Adams said:


> And I guess Jld feels differently...so you and she disagree and neither one is wrong.


Ok then, I'm an immature child and have an ego if I leave a woman that has another man's child.....got it.


----------



## GusPolinski

vellocet said:


> Ok then, I'm an immature child and have an ego if I leave a woman that has another man's child.....got it.


We all have egos. Every one of us, women included. It is the "id" that is provoked in these types of situations, and reconciling the two can be very difficult, if not impossible, for many of us.

I see the word "embarrassment" coming up over and over again. IMO, embarrassment is nothing more than a higher-level emotion that is made manifest by way of an intense reaction within the id.


----------



## vellocet

But JLD specifically insinuated that a man is immature if he leaves a woman for cheating and has another man's child.

THAT is the problem I have with her view, aside from the fact she is more sympathetic towards female cheaters which I found in another thread.

I don't have a problem of her view that she thinks a man should stay. I would stay, in the child's life, and I would consider my kids MINE, no matter what, with the exception of finding out at birth.

I have a problem with her view of men who would leave, while saying nothing of the person that is directly responsible for the child's situation....the mother and the OM.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'm totally fine with being a hypothetically immature immoral person as long as I don't have to raise the hypothetical offspring from my spouse's hypothetical affair.


----------



## GusPolinski

vellocet said:


> But JLD specifically insinuated that a man is immature if he leaves a woman for cheating and has another man's child.


Each of us is entitled to our own opinions, regardless of how wrong we may be.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Well, I'll tell you what. I think humans are capable of much more than they realize, or what they feel like at any particular moment.
> 
> They find themselves in challenging circumstances, and all of a sudden they are doing things they never knew they could. And maybe even enjoying it.
> 
> They would have sworn up and down before they never could have done it. And later they wonder why they thought it was so hard.


The decision to become an adoptive parent is again, a uniquely personal one that each person must decide for themselves. It is not for everyone.

You are (Yet again) presenting this as a matter of personal mettle


----------



## vellocet

GusPolinski said:


> Each of us is entitled to our own opinions, regardless of how wrong we may be.


Ok then, I can now say this whole thread smacks of misandry.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

vellocet said:


> Ok then, I'm an immature child and have an ego if I leave a woman that has another man's child.....got it.


That may be what Jld thinks of you...but not what you think of yourself and certainly not what I would think of you either.

Just because someone thinks something about you doesn't make it a fact.

I think you have to make the best choice for you and I cannot dictate to you what is right or wrong.


----------



## Anon Pink

jld said:


> Well, I'll tell you what. I think humans are capable of much more than they realize, or what they feel like at any particular moment.
> 
> They find themselves in challenging circumstances, and all of a sudden they are doing things they never knew they could. And maybe even enjoying it.
> 
> They would have sworn up and down before they never could have done it. And later they wonder why they thought it was so hard.



:iagree: Very true.


----------



## GusPolinski

vellocet said:


> Ok then, I can now say this whole thread smacks of misandry.


Eh, I wouldn't go quite that far, but I can see your point. Let's just be thankful that those who disagree w/ the "meat" of what we're saying don't have the legislative power to enforce their own ideals.

Aside from that, I feel that this thread would really benefit from a bit less vitriol. If all we do is tear each other down, there is no foundation on which to build any sort of common ground. 

I hate that that last bit sort of rhymed.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Well, I'll tell you what. I think humans are capable of much more than they realize, or what they feel like at any particular moment.
> 
> They find themselves in challenging circumstances, and all of a sudden they are doing things they never knew they could. And maybe even enjoying it.
> 
> They would have sworn up and down before they never could have done it. And later they wonder why they thought it was so hard.


Again, I can't disagree w/ the sentiment behind these very general statements. That last thought, though...

We all face many trials in life, and there is a different degree of emotional pain associated w/ each of them. For some of them, though, you NEVER forget the pain. It may subside in time, but it will always be there, to a degree, and you'll ALWAYS remember *precisely* why it was so hard to reconcile.


----------



## vellocet

How about this.

Wife never tells husband she had sex with another man

Wife gives birth to other man's child

Husband finds out years later, still wants to be the father, but can no longer be with the mother.

Man wants custody and based on the fact the mother committed paternity fraud, he should be granted custodial parent status.


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> How about this.
> 
> Wife never tells husband she had sex with another man
> 
> Wife gives birth to other man's child
> 
> Husband finds out years later, still wants to be the father, but can no longer be with the mother.
> 
> Man wants custody and based on the fact the mother committed paternity fraud, he should be granted custodial parent status.


I would get behind that. However, proving the wife knew the child was not her husbands... Might be tricky. 

I think any woman who would knowingly commit paternity fraud disqualifies herself as a good parent because she has disqualified herself as a decent human being.


----------



## Jellybeans

That exact situation happened to a friend of mine, Vellocet.


----------



## GusPolinski

vellocet said:


> How about this.
> 
> Wife never tells husband she had sex with another man
> 
> Wife gives birth to other man's child
> 
> Husband finds out years later, still wants to be the father, but can no longer be with the mother.
> 
> Man wants custody and based on the fact the mother committed paternity fraud, he should be granted custodial parent status.


My opinion on this situation would require me to have much, more more insight into the complex relationship dynamic between the husband, wife, and child than you've provided here. 

In a very general sense, in this case, the husband should clearly be considered the child's father and his rights should be respected in this regard. But...

Is she a bad mother? Is he a bad father? Do either of them have the potential to be a bad (or worse) parent due to the changes in their relationship that will no doubt be brought about by the discovery? Is the father pressing for primary custody solely out of spite?

These are all very important questions IMO.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> I would get behind that. However, proving the wife knew the child was not her husbands... Might be tricky.


If the wife had sex with another man and there was a possibility the baby wasn't her husband's, then she did know. She withheld pertinent information from the husband.



> I think any woman who would knowingly commit paternity fraud disqualifies herself as a good parent because she has disqualified herself as a decent human being.


Then you'd have to conclude that any woman that had sex with another man, gets pregnant, and doesn't tell her husband is committing paternity fraud.


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> That exact situation happened to a friend of mine, Vellocet.


You mean paternity fraud itself, or the husband divorced and went for custody?


----------



## vellocet

GusPolinski said:


> My opinion on this situation would require me to have much, more more insight into the complex relationship dynamic between the husband, wife, and child than you've provided here.
> 
> In a very general sense, in this case, the husband should clearly be considered the child's father and his rights should be respected in this regard. But...
> 
> Is she a bad mother?


Yes. IMO




> Is he a bad father?



That would depend on how he interacts with the children.

And if one assume's both are good parents, IMO, paternity fraud should be considered a crime. And last I checked criminals shouldn't be granted custody. From what I'm reading, paternity fraud isn't considered a crime. I'd be happy if I'm wrong and someone has a link indicating it is.




> Do either of them have the potential to be a bad (or worse) parent due to the changes in their relationship that will no doubt be brought about by the discovery? Is the father pressing for primary custody solely out of spite?
> 
> These are all very important questions IMO.


Youd be correct. We'd have to assume that the man in question is a good father.

IMO, if he is a good father, he should be given preference based on the mother's immoral actions and reckless regard for her reproductive choices that put a child in a horrible position.


----------



## Wolf1974

JCD said:


> I absolutely disagree with this notion.
> 
> 
> 1) While it is not demanded, we should always keep forgiveness as a hope for both parties. We have heard from people here who survived infidelity after years of a bad marriage and learned some important lessons on how to DO BETTER. So 'automatic' doesn't work for me.
> ok by me if you want to disagree. I think that courts shouldn't be involved in any way with making a marriage but since they are when the legal contract is broken by one or both participants the contract should be void. Has nothing to do with forgiveness. If both parties want to not report the breached contact or forgive and forget they can certainly do so. Those that it's an absolute deal breaker could just be out of it with no waiting period.
> 2) 'No financial obligation'? Are you nuts? Most men do NOT take the kids. They don't. Let's put this myth behind us. They may WANT to, but their work schedules make it incredibly difficult for that to happen. So...we throw the wife and kids away without cash because she's a bad person? Can't give money to one without the other benefiting.
> Dude seriously??. I was talking about the financial obligation of a kid who isn't yours or even alimony. No idea where your headed with that but if you want to be financially responsible for another's kid be my guest lol
> 3) We see cases of this here: one partner is REALLY LOUSY. I mean...no sex, no hygiene, doesn't clean, is a spendthrift, emotionally distant (please note there is no gender assigned here. We've seen it from both ends) So...a desperate spouse makes the mistake of cheating after years of abuse (Yes, I know...should have just left) OR some paranoid spouse who wants to leave with HIS assets intact (just saying...) tries to find ANYTHING on his spouse to twist into infidelity so he can just drop this inconvenient person like bad cheese.
> 
> I would not want these things inflicted upon anyone.
> 
> *I* get to choose when my marriage ends...or maybe her...but ONE OF US, not some arbitrary law.


Cool for you. Just had a notion that maybe JLD was on to something with the mandatory divorce thing. If that was an option that infidelity could automatically break the marriage contract I would certainly be more willing to consider the prospect of getting married again


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> JCD, the disconnect is that some men feel powerless in their relationships, and the mere thought of accepting to raise another man's child makes them feel even more powerless. I get that now.
> 
> These men should definitely divorce the woman as soon as possible, and have nothing to do with her affair child. She and the child will get along somehow, as long as there is some kind of safety net.


Powerless? I guess you mean that some men are not controlling.

Indeed a man is powerless to control his wife from spreading her legs for another man. Just as a woman is powerless to stop her husband from keeping his pants on. 

BUT, to your point, any man or woman who are unable to assert proper boundaries is indeed lost.

That is the problem. Perhaps another D/s freudian slip. Power struggles in a marriage are counter-productive. Indeed at a low level conflict is a good thing. BUT, to me it is NOT about power over my wife or even power over my marriage.

A subset of this is when I see threads where some women insist on being more independent. Well independence to a point I understand. BUT, what we do, like it or not affects our marriage and our partner. I will not turn this into a GNO or OSF discussion ... here. But when a husband or wife starts doing things counter to their spouses wishes they are on thin ice. This is why I like POJA. 

What is my point :

Power Struggle / Unmet Needs --> Inappropriate Behavior --> Unfaithfulness --> Cheating --> Children

I have expanded my continuum here. Many folks do not see the continuum when it happens but can connect the dots after the fact.


----------



## Jellybeans

Vellocet: All of it. Paternity fraud, divorce and now he's going for custody.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Sam, I run to tell dh when I have even a hint of attraction to another man. Do you think I would ever make it to affair stage?
> 
> So for us, this is really all hypothetical. If I ever did do something like that, I would not be hiding it for years. I just can't hide things.
> 
> I know dh. He is a giver. It would not be about him. It would be about what he could do for the child. That is the kind of heart he has.


You choose to do that. Ok fine. So you see yourself as being naughty. Perhaps you get spanked. Idunno. But on the positive side you are transparent. So good. I really do not want to hear from my wife that she saw some guy and got all tingly. I also do not run to my wife and tell her that kind of thing either. In fact she will point those women out to me if I am with her. I do not disrespect my wife by staring at women.

I am attracted to many women for all sorts of reasons. Why? Physical and emotional reasons good and not so good. But for sure because I have testosterone in my body. Women can be very attactive. It is why we exist BTW. 

IMO anyway, attraction is fine. How we handle it is what matters. We are not flawed for this attraction. We just need to achknowledge it and have proper boundaries to deal with it. It is not always easy. I am not talking about not cheating. But it can be easy to fall into inappropriate behavior. I can atest to that persoanlly. having said this last year I decided I was holding myself too tough a standard and had punished myself enough. 

When I no longer am attracted to women just hit me with a shovel and bury me.


----------



## vellocet

Jellybeans said:


> Vellocet: All of it. Paternity fraud, divorce and now he's going for custody.


Well I hope he gets it. It is not in the best interest of the child to be raised by someone who engages in deception, fraud, and what should be criminal activity...immoral for sure.


----------



## over20

jld said:


> Which couple?


You. Are you describing your own situation here going on in your life or your past?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

over20 said:


> You. Are you describing your own situation here going on in your life or your past?


she started the thread based on a topic from another thread.she has stated she has never experienced infidelity from either side.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> The bolded is a good point. I forgot about that. So I guess Joseph's sainthood was limited, too.
> 
> The counterpart to God would be What Is In the Best Interests of the Child. Ideally, that is what would be motivating everybody involved.
> 
> But we are clearly not dealing with the ideal.


Life is not black and white. For some reason you need to put the child above all else. I disagree. It is not the responsibility of the husband to pay the debt of his wifes wrong doing. If the child was important she would not have done this. All on her. This is a father issue IMHO again. Expecting the man to fix it. It is very much a power play as well.

But I will play along. The best thing for the child once born is to be brought up by it's real father and mother. 

Arguably this is only possible under limited circumstances. So then it comes down to the best for the child within reason. BUT, this is not at ALL costs.
There are others involved. There may be siblings.

But here is my logic.

1) Wife has a PA / ONS -- divorce

2) Baby -- I am not the best answer here. I am no longer living with the mother. She is no longer my wife. She should get the OM to support the child or find another guy who can tolerate her.

The biggest issue with the above is if there are other children. It gets tenuous. Daddy why do you take us to the amusement park and not Bubba? That just sux. I have no idea what I would do there. My kneejerk is not to exclude Bubba, but this gets very tangled.


----------



## over20

Thank you, SB. I was just wondering if her passion in this argument stemmed from a situation she currently finds herself in or has been in the past.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Speaking very generally, what would be best for the child would be for him/her to grow up in a loving, supportive home in which he/she is loved and raised by both parents... Ideally, both *biological* parents, not by one biological parent and another parent who may very well grow to resent the child, if only at a very base level.
> 
> So, in this instance, I'd basically "free up" my WW so that she were able to pursue her obligations in this regard. And, again, if she and/or OM can't manage this, that's on them, and not me.


Thank you for saying this better than I.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

over20 said:


> Thank you, SB. I was just wondering if her passion in this argument stemmed from a situation she currently finds herself in or has been in the past.


no problem


----------



## vellocet

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'm totally fine with being a hypothetically immature immoral person as long as I don't have to raise the hypothetical offspring from my spouse's hypothetical affair.


If this is suppose to be an argument that one shouldn't be offended, then nobody on these forums should be offended about anything but a direct personal attack.

You've been offended by hypothetical situations before that don't pertain to you. Why is it different here?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

vellocet said:


> If this is suppose to be an argument that one shouldn't be offended, then nobody on these forums should be offended about anything but a direct personal attack.
> 
> You've been offended by hypothetical situations before that don't pertain to you. Why is it different here?


It was said in jest,Vellocet.Calm down.

ETA read through the thread,I think I've said enough about the topic to demonstrate I was kidding. If you want to be offended,be my guest.


----------



## Entropy3000

John Lee said:


> If I remember correctly, there is lore about Genghis Khan that, early in his ascendancy, his wife was kidnapped by a rival tribe and raped and impregnated. Genghis Khan led a successful raid against the tribe and got his wife back, but raised the child as his own even knowing that it was probably from the rape. Whether or not this is true, I think it's interesting that the story survives -- it doesn't really get more "alpha" than Genghis Khan, and yet he is seen as willing to raise the child of an enemy.


Ah yes. The father of rape and pillage himself. 

Recently it has been stated that his dna is within an incredible number of people today. How could that be?

But this was kidnapping and rape. Hopefully that is another thread.


----------



## vellocet

ScarletBegonias said:


> It was said in jest,Vellocet.Calm down.
> 
> ETA read through the thread,I think I've said enough about the topic to demonstrate I was kidding. If you want to be offended,be my guest.



Oh ok


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> If this is suppose to be an argument that one shouldn't be offended, then nobody on these forums should be offended about anything but a direct personal attack.
> 
> You've been offended by hypothetical situations before that don't pertain to you. Why is it different here?


The thing that I find offensive is that the situation is crafted to be

1. completely outside your control
2. a MASSIVE betrayal of love and trust

and then paints the guys who would not go there as somehow lacking in strength, character and love. Daft, if you ask me.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

vellocet said:


> Oh ok


----------



## ConanHub

I will give jld this.

She has been able to put her finger, painfully, on the pulse of a very primal subject.

Interesting, surgical thread. Lots of responses in a very short time.

I have enjoyed the reading.


----------



## vellocet

So this whole thing isn't even about staying with the cheater. Its about supporting the child.

Ok, as women, if you divorced your husband, would you pay child support for his "love child"? Because that is what OP is saying should happen. 
Regardless of staying or going, would you pay for your husband's child and stay in his/her life even if you divorced him?


----------



## vellocet

ConanHub said:


> I will give jld this.
> 
> She has been able to put her finger, *painfully*, on the pulse of a very primal subject.


And that was the intent all along I believe, given her responses.


----------



## GusPolinski

ConanHub said:


> I will give jld this.
> 
> She has been able to put her finger, painfully, on the pulse of a very primal subject.
> 
> Interesting, surgical thread. Lots of responses in a very short time.
> 
> I have enjoyed the reading.


Agreed, and ditto!


----------



## over20

vellocet said:


> So this whole thing isn't even about staying with the cheater. Its about supporting the child.
> 
> Ok, as women, if you divorced your husband, would you pay child support for his "love child"? Because that is what OP is saying should happen.
> Regardless of staying or going, would you pay for your husband's child and stay in his/her life even if you divorced him?


No way


----------



## vellocet

over20 said:


> No way


What an ego!!!!!


----------



## over20

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## happy as a clam

Caribbean Man said:


> We have no kids but I raised one of my sister's son who was the product of an affair she had while married to her husband.


Awwww.... Caribbean Man... that's so noble. And a sweet 'thang I never knew about you. I am humbled.

:smthumbup: :smthumbup: :smthumbup:

My best friend raised her brother's daughter after he was killed in a car accident when she was 3 years old. He and the child's mother had never been married, the mother was on drugs and basically a walk-away mom; my friend stepped up after his death, legally adopted her, and is now sending her to college.

Your post just made my day.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> FYI, Khan had many wives... and harems of virgins on top of that everywhere he went. I'm not sure this is the kind of love you're thinking. In all probability, this is more like beating up your neighbor for stealing your stuff.


But I can relate more to Kahn than some others. :rofl:

Role models :

Joseph -- check

Kahn -- check



Then there was Catherine the Great.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> But I can relate more to Kahn than some others. :rofl:
> 
> Role models :
> 
> Joseph -- check
> 
> Kahn -- check
> 
> 
> 
> Then there was Catherine the Great.


Can you relate to her, too? 

J/k!


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> To you, her first obligation is to you? To her, her first obligation may be to her child.


Ah!!! yes.

This is why so many marriages go to crap after the children arrive. 

Indeed many folks think a marriage is just about the children. It is it's own reward.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> It won't happen to a man who can't handle it. Some men can handle it.
> 
> Can we agree on that?


Again you phrase this condescendingly of a man being capable of handling it.

No man should accept disresepct.

Few men can handle sharing their wife? This is good thing.

I cannot handle seeing abuse. This is not a defect.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You know... I'm not sure there is a worse way to violate a man than this. I'd rather be gang raped in prison than discover that the daughter I loved since birth is the child of another man. I'd still love her as we tend to do anyone we care for, for an extended period. All those memories - diapers, first steps, first words, first bike... to take the most pure kind of love and reveal it all to have been a manipulation by the worst of women... I can think of nothing worse.


I totally agree.


----------



## Thinkitthrough

Then there is the fellow who became part of a relationship study. The youngest boy had a congenital condition that was genetic. Didn't appear in his family, or hers, but it was very much in the OM's famly. He had all his children teated and found out that only the eldest daughter was his, the other four each had different fathers. Wife denyed everything, DNA tests were wrong. The tests were redone and varified. Only the one child was his. His wife moved out in a huf and moved in with the OM. Husband raised the five kids on his own till he was remarried.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> He does not have an obligation. But some men can rise above their pride and put the needs of a child above their own. It should not be discounted as an option.
> 
> But the kind of men who can do this do not need me to tell them this. They already know it.


You say rise above pride like this is wrong.

I see it as a man lowering himself.

Again this is NOT his child. He has no more responsibility for it than the child next door. 
In fact he should have less.

There is nothing to rise too.
You do not rise to humliation and disrespect.

If a man will rise he will move on and find a better woman.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> Again you phrase this condescendingly of a man being capable of handling it.
> 
> No man should accept disresepct.
> 
> Few men can handle sharing their wife? This is good thing.
> 
> I cannot handle seeing abuse. This is not a defect.


Okay, how would you consider this disrespect? (Referring to his accepting her child)


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> She doesn't, JCD.
> 
> But I just wonder, are you talking with us, or wrestling with your conscience?


Put down the pipe.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> Put down the pipe.


Are you a comedian in real life, Entropy? Because you are making me laugh.


----------



## Entropy3000

JCD said:


> If he loved her...he would take in a bastard baby, put himself up to public ridicule, and happily and lovingly raise a bastard.
> 
> If she love him, she'd want to spare him that if at all possible.
> 
> It IS possible. She won't do it. Q.E.D, she does not love him.


If he loved her, he would dress her up for her dates with her boy friend. Take care of the kids while she is with her men. 

This is a hotwife scenario.


----------



## Entropy3000

ScarletBegonias said:


> I think this is why the men are giving you a tough time here. That sentence "some men are really mature"
> 
> It insinuates men who choose to not raise the affair child are immature and don't see how fragile human are.


She is NOT naive. Her words are carefully crafted.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> You say rise above pride like this is wrong.
> 
> I see it as a man lowering himself.
> 
> Again this is NOT his child. He has no more responsibility for it than the child next door.
> In fact he should have less.
> 
> There is nothing to rise too.
> You do not rsie to humliation and disrespect.
> 
> If a man will rise he will move on and find a better woman.


Entropy, imagine yourself living in the Middle East, able to have your wife stoned if she committed adultery, or maybe even let an ankle show. You would be dishonored, right? Wouldn't you feel the same things you have written above?


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> She is NOT naive. Her words are carefully crafted.


I am _sincere,_ Entropy. Why do you sound so afraid of me?


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Okay, how would you consider this disrespect? (Referring to his accepting her child)


To accept a child born of these circumstances, to many men, would mean accepting the scenario in which the child was brought about as *acceptable*. It is not.

And again, once the covenant of marriage and the trust involved in it has been shattered, what assurances does the betrayed husband (or betrayed wife, for that matter) have that his wife won't continue to revisit this particular flavor of emotional torment upon him again and again and again? So, again, where do we draw the line? 

At one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jln3mi0vfJU


----------



## jb02157

I think that it would really depend on the circumstances. If I ever get re-married, chances are she would have kids from a previous relationship and while I wouldn't necessarily like the idea of accepting these children as my own I would do it for her.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I am _sincere,_ Entropy. Why do you sound so afraid of me?


Afraid being confused with disgust?


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> To accept a child born of these circumstances, to many men, would mean accepting the scenario in which the child was brought about as *acceptable*. It is not.
> 
> And again, once the covenant of marriage and the trust involved in it has been shattered, what assurances does the betrayed husband (or betrayed wife, for that matter) have that his wife won't continue to revisit this particular flavor of emotional torment upon him again and again and again? So, again, where do we draw the line?
> 
> At one.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jln3mi0vfJU


You are free to leave. You do not have to stay.

If you stay, there need to be clear boundaries, like transparency and NC.

I watched the clip. I understand the fear and feeling of powerless, and I am sorry that many men feel that. It is just not something I have seen in real life, so my experience is limited. 

I have seen many more women mistreated in real life than men. That may explain my sympathy.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Entropy, imagine yourself living in the Middle East, able to have your wife stoned if she committed adultery, or maybe even let an ankle show. You would be dishonored, right? Wouldn't you feel the same things you have written above?


And what exactly does that have to do with what is being discussed? Theocratic morality could be an interesting discussion for sure, but please stay on the topic at hand and not obfuscate.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> You are free to leave. You do not have to stay.
> 
> If you stay, there need to be clear boundaries, like transparency and NC.
> 
> I watched the clip. I understand the fear and feeling of powerless, and I am sorry that many men feel that. It is just not something I have seen in real life, so my experience is limited.
> 
> I have seen many more women mistreated in real life than men. *That may explain my sympathy*.


And lack of empathy.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> I am _sincere,_ Entropy. Why do you sound so afraid of me?


This line shows me exactly what Entropy is talking about when he says your words are carefully crafted.

I do not believe you are this naive, I believe you are either a troll or highly transparently manipulative.

Which makes you bad at manipulation even.

You're lucky you have the man that you do, many would see through your submissive act for the manipulation it really is.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> You are free to leave. You do not have to stay.
> 
> If you stay, there need to be clear boundaries, like transparency and NC.
> 
> I watched the clip. I understand the fear and feeling of powerless, and I am sorry that many men feel that. It is just not something I have seen in real life, so my experience is limited.
> 
> I have seen many more women mistreated in real life than men. That may explain my sympathy.


But boundaries and transparency were there before, and they were violated.

As for NC...?!? Easier said than done where a child is involved. Many BS's have a hard enough time getting their WS's to agree to NC when the infidelity DOESN'T result in a child.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And lack of empathy.


What would you like me to say, sam? How exactly do you want me to empathize?


----------



## tacoma

samyeagar said:


> but please stay on the topic at hand and not obfuscate.


If you hold her to that standard Sam she'll be unable to post anymore.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> Okay, how would you consider this disrespect? (Referring to his accepting her child)


Because, jld, it's disrespectful for either party to make a unilateral decision to bring a child into the marriage. It's even more disrespectful if that decision is cast it as an ethical hurdle, moral challenge, test of character that they must now face.

Maybe in all honesty, you'd be okay with that. Maybe your husband could go get another woman pregnant, gain custody of that child; (If the other woman does not want it.) and come home one day, proclaiming, "Junior, Say hello to your new Mom!"

But we can't expect everyone to react that way. And it's not because they're lesser human beings.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> But boundaries and transparency were there before, and they were violated.
> 
> As for NC...?!? Easier said than done where a child is involved. Many BS's have a hard enough time getting their WS's to agree to NC when the infidelity DOESN'T result in a child.


And that is why I am growing more partial to the idea of automatic divorce for infidelity. It is a fresh start for each one.

I realize affairs, and esp. affairs that produce children, complicate things. I am sure it is just a step by step, one day at a time thing. Learning as you go.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> Well, it was originally about the needs of the child, and how a man could figure into that.
> 
> I am now wholly convinced that some men should definitely not be a part of an affair child's life. And I am starting to understand, from many different angles, why there are so many single mothers.


I don't accept this is a gender specific issue. I've personally known three guys that have had their wives abandon the family to run off with the AP. Full custody given to the dad, no fight... just gone.


----------



## over20

Jld, would you be able lock the thread, I fear there will be no end in site to this topic and I wouldn't want anyone to slip and get banned. There was enough bannings last week.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> And that is why I am growing more partial to the idea of automatic divorce for infidelity. It is a fresh start for each one.
> 
> I realize affairs, and esp. affairs that produce children, complicate things. I am sure it is just a step by step, one day at a time thing. Learning as you go.


No, as someone said earlier, it shouldn't be automatic, at least not from a legal perspective. If a BS makes the decision to initiate divorce proceedings upon or shortly after learning of his or her spouse's infidelity, then fine.

Again, this is all about choice. We shouldn't be taking choices away from people here.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Because, jld, it's disrespectful for either party to make a unilateral decision to bring a child into the marriage. It's even more disrespectful if that decision is cast it as an ethical hurdle, moral challenge, test of character that they must now face.
> 
> Maybe in all honesty, you'd be okay with that. Maybe your husband could go get another woman pregnant, gain custody of that child; (If the other woman does not want it.) and come home one day, proclaiming, "Junior, Say hello to your new Mom!"
> 
> But we can't expect everyone to react that way. And it's not because they're lesser human beings.


No one is forced to do anything, ocotillo. I have said that several times.


----------



## jld

larry.gray said:


> I don't accept this is a gender specific issue. I've personally known three guys that have had their wives abandon the family to run off with the AP. Full custody given to the dad, no fight... just gone.


At one point we were discussing it from both sides, and then it seemed to veer heavily towards one.

I have heard of one, no, two families like this. The dads were devoted to the kids.


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> I have seen many more women mistreated in real life than men. That may explain my sympathy.


You mean your bias.

I rest my case.


----------



## jld

over20 said:


> Jld, would you be able lock the thread, I fear there will be no end in site to this topic and I wouldn't want anyone to slip and get banned. There was enough bannings last week.


It will run its course. I don't see anyone getting banned.


----------



## vellocet

How about lock it because its insulting to good men who simply wouldn't want to pay for a child that isn't his and has no bond with?


----------



## jld

vellocet said:


> How about lock it because its insulting to good men who simply wouldn't want to pay for a child that isn't his and has no bond with?


No one is forced to read anything here, nor to post anything, vell.


----------



## tacoma

over20 said:


> Jld, would you be able lock the thread, I fear there will be no end in site to this topic and I wouldn't want anyone to slip and get banned. There was enough bannings last week.


I appreciate your concern for me over20.

:rofl:


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Haven't people mentioned that they would not do it because they would be embarrassed? Isn't that a factor?
> 
> Let's say it another way. Let's say that for some reason, a man and his wife and her child from an affair were dropped on a desert island. Would it matter then if the child was from an affair or not? Would the man kill the child and throw it into the sea so as not to have to look at it anymore?


I am embarrassed when I make very poor decisions.

I am embarrassed when I do not respect myself.

I am embarrassed when I do stupid things.

I am embarrassed when I put faith in someone and they let me down.


----------



## larry.gray

tacoma said:


> I don't know Sam.
> 
> The same laws that often entrap a man into responsibility for a child that isn't his can be used as resources for a man who wants to remain the father if a child that isn't his.
> 
> If a "love child" is born into a marriage through a woman's infidelity and the BS wished to remain in the child's life the fact that he signed the birth certificate and has a history if supporting parenting the child gives him some power in any fight to remove the child from him if he wishes to keep the child.
> 
> First if all it would force the bio dad to invest a lot of money in any attempt to be recognized as the child's father.
> 
> He would have to drop thousands against a determined BH just to get a court order for a DNA test to begin with.


Unless the WW allows it and permits the change of paternity. 

If both the WW and BH are aligned in keeping the kid, then OM has no recourse. The case would be dismissed before trial.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> I am embarrassed when I make very poor decisions.
> 
> I am embarrassed when I do not respect myself.
> 
> I am embarrassed when I do stupid things.
> 
> I am embarrassed when I put faith in someone and they let me down.


We all feel embarrassed, Entropy. But we get over it. And we usually learn something from it.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> No one is forced to read anything here, nor to post anything, vell.


This is your lack of empathy in action. Here you have a person who feels as if you have marginalized, patronized, disregarded, and your response is simply get over it, when you have been touting a highly moral line...


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> No one is forced to do anything, ocotillo. I have said that several times.


No force in the example I gave, although there would be a certain pressure if your SO would think less of you for not accepting the child.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> To you, her first obligation is to you? To her, her first obligation may be to her child.


What about her other children? Does she have an obligation to them to keep a nuclear family? 

She is given a choice: abort or give up for adoption and maybe keep the rest of her family OR she can keep the kid and certainly lose the rest of her family.

FWIW, I know a woman well who's adamantly opposed to abortion - until she faced having her affair uncovered by being pregnant. Her husband had a vasectomy, so the odds where overwhelming that it was OM's. She ended up having an abortion. A huge factor was knowing that her husband would leave her if she kept the baby. A year later she totally broke down. She couldn't live with the guilt of what she'd done.


----------



## tacoma

larry.gray said:


> Unless the WW allows it and permits the change of paternity.
> 
> If both the WW and BH are aligned in keeping the kid, then OM has no recourse. The case would be dismissed before trial.


Yes, sadly that is the case.

However when you consider the male response to this idea in this thread this situation would in the vast majority of cases not even come about until after the BH has formed a bond with the child meaning the OM is most likely out of the picture (parentally anyway)and the BH has established parentage.

Due to the fact that the OM has already allowed the child to be fathered by the BH it's less likely he'd care to establish paternity.
The WW would also be less likely to oppose the BH and ally with the OM considering she had already made her choice between the BH and OM by staying with the BH.
To oppose him at this point would be self defeating.

Your point is entirely correct, I just think it's a very grey area dependent on the situation like most other topics here.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> No force in the example I gave, although there would be a certain pressure if your SO would think less of you for not accepting the child.


But isn't that up to you to deal with? 

We all get pressure from other people. We don't just rock back and forth. We decide our own boundaries.


----------



## samyeagar

larry.gray said:


> Unless the WW allows it and permits the change of paternity.
> 
> If both the WW and BH are aligned in keeping the kid, then OM has no recourse. The case would be dismissed before trial.


That's an awful lot of faith to put in someone who has proven untrustworthy in the extreme. And while the case would likely end in favor of the BH and WW IF and only IF she cooperated fully, it would not be an easy, nor cheap fight, likely with appeals, not to mention the additional and continuing emotional damage to everyone involved, especially the innocent child.


----------



## larry.gray

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You know... I'm not sure there is a worse way to violate a man than this. I'd rather be gang raped in prison than discover that the daughter I loved since birth is the child of another man. I'd still love her as we tend to do anyone we care for, for an extended period. All those memories - diapers, first steps, first words, first bike... to take the most pure kind of love and reveal it all to have been a manipulation by the worst of women... I can think of nothing worse.


I'll touch that third rail for several of the other posters here:

I've lost a child. It was a horrible, life altering experience.

I know for certain that finding out one of my children I'd raised from birth would be worse than this. By a LOT.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Haven't people mentioned that they would not do it because they would be embarrassed? Isn't that a factor?
> 
> Let's say it another way. Let's say that for some reason, a man and his wife and her child from an affair were dropped on a desert island. Would it matter then if the child was from an affair or not? Would the man kill the child and throw it into the sea so as not to have to look at it anymore?


This scenario is kind of "out there", but I'll roll with it...

IMO this situation would bring about an immediate change in the relationship dynamic for all involved. At this point, to at least some degree, the husband's interests -- and resultant protective instincts -- would likely shift from protecting his own bloodline to protecting *all members of his own species*.

Furthermore, as they spent more and more time in this situation, a parent/child bond between the husband and the child would likely develop and grow. Given enough time, and whether or not they ever found themselves back ashore, the bond would likely be permanent.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I keep looking for where jld--or anyone--says a man should be forced to or expected to take on a child of an affair. I got the impression it was very much about the choice of the husband--the title of the post is "Would your husband_ accept_ . . . " 

That implies that he knows the child is not his, but agrees (his choice) to parent that child. 

I think we all can agree that it would take an extraordinary man to do such a thing with an open heart, and likely even an extraordinary man would do so under certain circumstances. 

Now, where there seems to be some contention is with how this "extraordinary" man makes the average man look. I think that depends on how you view the behavior of the extraordinary man--is he extraordinary for his lack of self respect and level of door mat behavior, or is he extraordinary for his selflessness and ability to see beyond his own valid feelings to the needs of the child (and perhaps even his wife, if there is reconciliation)?

How one views the behavior of the extraordinary man seems to inform the responses here. The typical male would not consider accepting responsibility for the child and he does not want to have his (valid, understandable and thoroughly appropriate) reaction compared unfavorably to a "white knight" who steps in and does accept the responsibility. Much better to stand next to a doormat.

jld's husband--her very beloved husband--is an extrodianry man in her eyes. How do you think she's going to interpret HIS extraordinary behavior? 

Don't compare yourselves to jld's vision of her husband. You WILL lose.


----------



## jld

larry.gray said:


> I'll touch that third rail for several of the other posters here:
> 
> I've lost a child. It was a horrible, life altering experience.
> 
> I know for certain that finding out one of my children I'd raised from birth would be worse than this. By a LOT.


So sorry. ((((((((((Larry)))))))))


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> But isn't that up to you to deal with?
> 
> We all get pressure from other people. We don't just rock back and forth. We decide our own boundaries.


Yes, and the point people here are trying to get through to you is that all those boundaries are valid regardless of whether or not we share them.

My boundaries are no less valid or ethical than yours yet you consistently imply that they are less ethical.


----------



## notmyrealname4

@6301 (#10)

"Just wondering. If your husband ever got another woman pregnant and then had to raise the child for some reason, would you want to take on his love child as your own?"
***************

Probably impossible for me to do. 

You know how guys (righteously) state how disgusted they would be if their wife/girlfriend knowingly made them raise a kid that wasn't theirs - even if they eventually found out about it?

What you're describing is the closest equivalent for a women. He cheats on you. The other woman is able to request a DNA test. He is the father. And you are now stuck with child support payments for the kid (which is only fair to the kid), for the next 18 years.

Deal breaker. It's his "love child", not mine.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> This scenario is kind of "out there", but I'll roll with it...
> 
> IMO this situation would bring about an immediate change in the relationship dynamic for all involved. At this point, to at least some degree, the husband's interests -- and resultant protective instincts -- would likely shift from protecting his own bloodline to protecting *all members of his own species*.
> 
> Furthermore, as they spent more and more time in this situation, a parent/child bond between the husband and the child would likely develop and grow. Given enough time, and whether or not they ever found themselves back ashore, the bond would likely be permanent.


See, this is what I mean. When we remove the superficial aspects, like embarrassment, the whole thing does not feel so absurd. It is more like a practical matter, and it is dealt with in a practical way.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> See, this is what I mean. When we remove the superficial aspects, like embarrassment, the whole thing does not feel so absurd. It is more like a practical matter, and it is dealt with in a practical way.


I think we should actually take over20's earlier advice before I do get banned.


----------



## Wolf1974

larry.gray said:


> I'll touch that third rail for several of the other posters here:
> 
> I've lost a child. It was a horrible, life altering experience.
> 
> I know for certain that finding out one of my children I'd raised from birth would be worse than this. By a LOT.


Good lord don't say this. The morality police of TAM will jump on here to tell you how wrong you are to have these feelings and that you aren't smart enough to distinguish which hurt and pain you should feel


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> See, this is what I mean. When we remove the superficial aspects, like embarrassment, the whole thing does not feel so absurd. It is more like a practical matter, and it is dealt with in a practical way.


/sigh


----------



## GusPolinski

larry.gray said:


> I'll touch that third rail for several of the other posters here:
> 
> I've lost a child. It was a horrible, life altering experience.
> 
> I know for certain that finding out one of my children I'd raised from birth would be worse than this. By a LOT.


I want to "Like" this post, but I can't bring myself to do it.

So sorry for your loss.


----------



## Rowan

This thread is like watching a train wreck. I feel bad about it, but I just can't stop looking...


----------



## SadSamIAm

If the world consisted of only my wife, me and my illegitimate child, then I would try to make it work.

But since the world has many more options, I would leave my cheating wife.


----------



## larry.gray

SimplyAmorous said:


> I would see this as a completely different situation... So would HE...this I know... Adoption would be for the best. I would fear the child would have monsterous genes if the Father was a rapist.


I won't go there because we have the option of plan B. It's standard to offer it at the ER when being examined after a rape. 

I understand that some hesitate because it would be considered 'abortion' by some. But it is the same as an IUD - it prevents implantation, so I don't view it that way.


----------



## GusPolinski

Rowan said:


> This thread is like watching a train wreck. I feel bad about it, but I just can't stop looking...


I'm gonna head over to CWI to calm my nerves.

LOL


----------



## larry.gray

Mrs. John Adams said:


> And I guess Jld feels differently...so you and she disagree and neither one is wrong.


I agree with the premise that neither's position is wrong.

But saying insulting things about the men who don't hold her position is wrong. Things like "immature" "insecure" or "egotistical" are insulting and out of the line.

As I already said, she's talking in a hypothetical but we have real people here who've lived this. We have rules against calling fWW "****s" because it's offensive (and I agree with those rules). What she's doing is as offense as that hypothetical.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Rowan said:


> This thread is like watching a train wreck. I feel bad about it, but I just can't stop looking...





GusPolinski said:


> I'm gonna head over to CWI to calm my nerves.
> 
> LOL


I, too, am utterly fascinated by the folks who seem to be driven to distraction and distress . . . yet keep coming back for more. 

Walk away from your triggers peeps! You CAN do it!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Rowan said:


> This thread is like watching a train wreck. I feel bad about it, but I just can't stop looking...


Same here. Although I'm REALLY trying to formulate how exactly I might react if this happened to me for real. Whether it was my husband getting some chick knocked up then expecting the child to be raised part time or full time in our house Or if I was the preggo one from an affair. 

I can't have babies anymore but I am still a mother. I just don't think I'm that mother. I'm not the mother who can love any child and accept any child. I've never been that kind of mother. Does that mean I'm less of a mother? I don't think so. 

it wouldn't even be a question of "is he going to accept this baby?" if I had an affair and got pregnant. it would be "well,I guess I either put this child up for adoption if my husband will still have me or leave and raise it if he can't forgive me." 

That probably doesn't say anything noble about me that I'd choose my husband over a baby.
I'll just have to find a way to be ok knowing other people might look down on me for it or say I am not evolved bc I feel like this.


----------



## jld

Larry, did you read GettingIt's post?


----------



## TiggyBlue

ScarletBegonias said:


> Same here. Although I'm REALLY trying to formulate how exactly I might react if this happened to me for real. Whether it was my husband getting some chick knocked up then expecting the child to be raised part time or full time in our house Or if I was the preggo one from an affair.
> 
> I can't have babies anymore but I am still a mother. I just don't think I'm that mother. I'm not the mother who can love any child and accept any child. I've never been that kind of mother. Does that mean I'm less of a mother? I don't think so.
> 
> it wouldn't even be a question of "is he going to accept this baby?" if I had an affair and got pregnant. it would be "well,I guess I either put this child up for adoption if my husband will still have me or leave and raise it if he can't forgive me."
> 
> That probably doesn't say anything noble about me that I'd choose my husband over a baby.
> I'll just have to find a way to be ok knowing other people might look down on me for it or say I am not evolved bc I feel like this.


Might not be seen as 'noble' or 'secure' by some but it's honest, a lot more damage all around can be caused by not admitting who you are and staying true to yourself imo.


----------



## larry.gray

Anon Pink said:


> I would get behind that. However, proving the wife knew the child was not her husbands... Might be tricky.


It's not like she didn't know the circumstances of conception. A woman *KNOWS* if it is possible for another man to be the father.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

tacoma said:


> I do not believe you are this naive, I believe you are either a troll or highly transparently manipulative.


I am not sure it is either of these things. Rather, jld has a very unique view that men bear virtually all responsibilities in a relationship and women have none. Any issues in a marriage are due to the failure of the man. When she acts out, it is incombinent on him to accept it and hold her. Her bad behevior is because he was lacking in the required characteristics. Personally, jld needs a man who can put up with her emotional hurricanes and love her unconditionally. That unconditional love draws her to him. This discussion is merely the natural extension of that belief. 

But she cannot see that others have very different needs. She see everything through that prism. So a man who expects something from his wife is a lesser man in her eyes.


----------



## jld

TiggyBlue said:


> Might not be seen as 'noble' or 'secure' by some but it's honest, a lot more damage all around can be caused by not admitting who you are and staying true to yourself imo.


:iagree:

I think it is always helpful to be open and honest with yourself.

And a big part of security, to me, is not caring what _other people _think, but caring what _you_ think.


----------



## GettingIt_2

larry.gray said:


> I agree with the premise that neither's position is wrong.
> 
> But saying insulting things about the men who don't hold her position is wrong. *Things like "immature" "insecure" or "egotistical" are insulting and out of the line.*
> 
> As I already said, she's talking in a hypothetical but we have real people here who've lived this. We have rules against calling fWW "****s" because it's offensive (and I agree with those rules). What she's doing is as offense as that hypothetical.


But Larry, did she come out and explicitly say that men who would not make that choice are immature, insecure or egotistical? IIRC, she said that her husband (who she contends would make the choice to accept the child) is "really secure," "really mature," etc. 

I understand it's a small distinction, but jld is describing her husband *through her eyes. * This post of hers, in my opinion, is more about how she views him as extraordinary more than how she views the typical man. She is singing his praises, she wants all men to match her man. 

But it's not her husband who is extraordinary . . . it is her love for him that is extraordinary. 

Yes, I know she wants men in general to "step it up," but I will say it again . . . you cannot compare yourself to jld's vision of her man.


----------



## tacoma

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am not sure it is either of these things. Rather, jld has a very unique view that men bear virtually all responsibilities in a relationship and women have none. Any issues in a marriage are due to the failure of the man. When she acts out, it is incombinent on him to accept it and hold her. Her bad behevior is because he was lacking in the required characteristics. Personally, jld needs a man who can put up with her emotional hurricanes and love her unconditionally. That unconditional love draws her to him. This discussion is merely the natural extension of that belief.
> 
> But she cannot see that others have very different needs. She see everything through that prism. So a man who expects something from his wife is a lesser man in her eyes.


That actually makes more sense considering my assumption of her Christian D/s relationship.

Thanks.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am not sure it is either of these things. Rather, jld has a very unique view that men bear virtually all responsibilities in a relationship and women have none. Any issues in a marriage are due to the failure of the man. When she acts out, it is incombinent on him to accept it and hold her. Her bad behevior is because he was lacking in the required characteristics. Personally, jld needs a man who can put up with her emotional hurricanes and love her unconditionally. That unconditional love draws her to him. This discussion is merely the natural extension of that belief.
> 
> But she cannot see that others have very different needs. She see everything through that prism. So a man who expects something from his wife is a lesser man in her eyes.


Great post!! Makes a ton of sense and explains why I have such a strong reaction to some things JLD posts.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> But it's not her husband who is extraordinary . . . it is her love for him that is extraordinary.


GettingIt, that is beautiful. Thank you so much. I am touched.


----------



## larry.gray

GusPolinski said:


> I want to "Like" this post, but I can't bring myself to do it.


Yeah, I get why. 



GusPolinski said:


> So sorry for your loss.


Thank you.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I think it is always helpful to be open and honest with yourself.
> 
> And a big part of security, to me, is not caring what _other people _think, but caring what _you_ think.


You're predicating almost every single response here on the assumption that the ONLY reason that a man wouldn't be willing to take on the responsibility of raising his wife's "affair baby" (ugh, there's that damn term again) is whatever embarrassment that he may feel when looked upon by others. 

This is absolutely and unequivocally NOT TRUE.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

GettingIt said:


> I understand it's a small distinction, but jld is describing her husband *through her eyes. * This post of hers, in my opinion, is more about how she views him as extraordinary more than how she views the typical man. She is singing his praises, she wants all men to match her man.
> 
> But it's not her husband who is extraordinary . . . it is her love for him that is extraordinary.
> 
> Yes, I know she wants men in general to "step it up," but I will say it again . . . you cannot compare yourself to jld's vision of her man.


But her language was not just about her husband. It extended to any man who would care for a child who was a product of his wife's affair. A man who did this was truly secure, truly mature, truly a man. She did not limit this description to her husband, but applied it across the board.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> GettingIt, that is beautiful. Thank you so much. I am touched.


More than you realize.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Tall Average Guy said:


> But her language was not just about her husband. It extended to any man who would care for a child who was a product of his wife's affair. A man who did this was truly secure, truly mature, truly a man. She did not limit this description to her husband, but applied it across the board.


No, her language is not just about her husband. But I do believe that her world view is colored by and inextricably bound by her extraordinary love, reverence and trust in him. 

Unless you know and accept this about jld, you cannot really understand or have sympathy for her position.


----------



## GettingIt_2

larry.gray said:


> More than you realize.


Okay, I admit it. You made me guffaw.


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> You're predicating almost every single response here on the assumption that the ONLY reason that a man wouldn't be willing to take on the responsibility of raising his wife's "affair baby" (ugh, there's that damn term again) is whatever embarrassment that he may feel when looked upon by others.
> 
> This is absolutely and unequivocally NOT TRUE.


You're supposed to be in CWI.

It's nice in there today, go back.


----------



## GusPolinski

larry.gray said:


> More than you realize.


Damn.


----------



## GusPolinski

tacoma said:


> You're supposed to be in CWI.
> 
> It's nice in there today, go back.


Hey, I'm multi-tasking!


----------



## Tall Average Guy

GettingIt said:


> No, her language is not just about her husband. But I do believe that her world view is colored by and inextricably bound by her extraordinary love, reverence and trust in him.
> 
> Unless you know and accept this about jld, you cannot really understand or have sympathy for her position.


I do understand it and posted my observations about it. But I don't see why that should create any sympathy for her. She judges men based on her particular view. That some may push back on that should not be unexpected.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Tall Average Guy said:


> I do understand it and posted my observations about it. But I don't see why that should create any sympathy for her. She judges men based on her particular view. That some may push back on that should not be unexpected.


I didn't say that it "should" create sympathy for her. Only that knowing this about her "could" lead to understanding and/or sympathy. 

There is a ton o' judgement on TAM--every day, most every thread. And it's not the pushing back on jld's position that is unusual, it is the amount of vitriol often accompanies it. Is it because she remains calm and communicative even as others begin to froth? Is it that she accepts the push back and then asks for further clarification and shows interest in understanding the views of those who rail? Is it that her faith in the rightness of her marriage is unshakable? 

People react to her as if they feel . . . threatened. I guess this is what fascinates me the most. She is one person, with one view. Is there a fear that she might convince others? 

I want to understand the "jld affect"! 

(sorry jld . . . hope you're doing okay out there as we try to figure you out!)


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Can you relate to her, too?
> 
> J/k!


She had a large sexual appetite.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Okay, how would you consider this disrespect? (Referring to his accepting her child)


The child existing at all is a manifestation disrespect.
It has been said again and again.

Why not have have him lick the creampie?

This is rubbing another man's child in the face of the husband. I am hard pressed to find anything more disrespectful than this period.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Are you a comedian in real life, Entropy? Because you are making me laugh.


Good. You took the comment in the spirit it was given.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> But isn't that up to you to deal with?
> 
> We all get pressure from other people. We don't just rock back and forth. We decide our own boundaries.


Well the example I gave was actually about you.  

If you are as willing to become a mother to the offspring of your husband's (hypothetical) infidelity as you would have him be willing to become a father to yours, than you are at least being consistent here by not expecting anything you would not be willing to do yourself.

But yes, in regard to your question, unrealistic expectations from one's spouse are things we all probably deal with at least once in awhile and it's up to us decide and be clear about our boundaries.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Entropy, imagine yourself living in the Middle East, able to have your wife stoned if she committed adultery, or maybe even let an ankle show. You would be dishonored, right? Wouldn't you feel the same things you have written above?


No.

Are you saying a woman being plowed by some other guy, getting knocked up and then rubbing her husbands face in it is like showing an ankle?

jld ... go to the kitchen and make me a sammich. Sigh.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> I am _sincere,_ Entropy. Why do you sound so afraid of me?


Darlin, I am afraid FOR you. Why? Because I am that guy. I fear no man nor woman. Yet my arms are as safe a place as there is in this Universe. So no one with good intent need fear me either. 

Please do not bother to look back on my thousands of posts. OMFG. But there is one central theme in my opinion and that is for people to lose their FEAR. And yeah all that stuff about EAs but I digress.

I am telling you that I am not afraid to follow my own convictions. I am Sammurai. 

Part of the code is to stand for your beliefs, even if you stand alone. I am not archaic ... I am ancient. Just as the white belt becomes the black belt the black belt becomes the white again. So too is our society. We come full circle. All this has happend before. 

The Dragon

Look into the eyes of the Dragon ...


----------



## samyeagar

Entropy3000 said:


> Darlin, I am afraid FOR you. Why? Because I am that guy. I fear no man nor woman. Yet my arms are as safe a place as there is in this Universe. So no one with good intent need fear me either.
> 
> Please do not bother to look back on my thousands of posts. OMFG. But there is one central theme in my opinion iand that is for people to lose their FEAR.
> 
> I am telling you that I am not afraid to follow my own convictions. I am Sammurai.
> 
> Part of the code is to stand for your beliefs, even if you are alone. I am not archaic ... I am ancient. Just as the white belt becomes the black belt the black belt becomes the white again. So too is our society. We come full circle. All this has happend before.
> 
> The Dragon
> 
> Look into the eyes of the Dragon ...


Ok Charlie (Sheen) 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LongWalk

I am a jld fan. Hang in there jld. This is a good thread.

Does anyone think that any BH would accept a "love child" in exchange for knowing that their WW did not love the OM? Would any BH accept a love child if their wife had become a better person and expressed genuine remorse in fact and not just words.

Do you think a strong BH would be happy to have WW request his permission to put the love child up for adoption? Wouldn't a BH want her to be true to her maternal instincts?

Could any BH decide that raising the love child was also an opportunity to give the OM a big eff you by raising the love child to be a good person who loved and respected him and did not care anything about the OM?

Could BH be the master of the situation and not merely react?

The idea that 6-year-old girl could suddenly be abandoned by the man whom she considered her father is pretty horrible.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> Well the example I gave was actually about you.
> 
> If you are as willing to become a mother to the offspring of your husband's (hypothetical) infidelity as you would have him be willing to become a father to yours, than you are at least being consistent here by not expecting anything you would not be willing to do yourself.
> 
> But yes, in regard to your question, unrealistic expectations from one's spouse are things we all probably deal with at least once in awhile and it's up to us decide and be clear about our boundaries.


I know the thread is long and it is hard to read all of it. But yes, I have said that I, too, would accept his child, if the mother were dead. 

If she were alive, I think he should go and be with her and the child. I would be very sad, but I really and truly think that that baby would need him, and really, the girl, too. It would have been part of the choice he made by accepting to have the affair. And it would be very painful for both of us.

But, for me, the child would have to come first.


----------



## ReformedHubby

GettingIt said:


> I didn't say that it "should" create sympathy for her. Only that knowing this about her "could" lead to understanding and/or sympathy.


Jld is one of those people with one of those gigantic sized hearts. I think her viewpoint is that all of the concern should be about the child, the most vulnerable. So much so that she see's it as the most important thing above all else. Its basically how she wishes things would be given that scenario. Its an idealistic viewpoint, and she approaches most things this way. Honestly I think the world needs people like jld. It balances things out. That however, doesn't mean I can understand the view point.


----------



## jld

That was very kind, RH. Thank you.


----------



## samyeagar

LongWalk said:


> I am a jld fan. Hang in there jld. This is a good thread.
> 
> Does anyone think that any BH would accept a "love child" in exchange for knowing that their WW did not love the OM? Would any BH accept a love child if their wife had become a better person and expressed genuine remorse in fact and not just words.
> 
> Do you think a strong BH would be happy to have WW request his permission to put the love child up for adoption? Wouldn't a BH want her to be true to her maternal instincts?
> 
> Could any BH decide that raising the love child was also an opportunity to give the OM a big eff you by raising the love child to be a good person who loved and respected him and did not care anything about the OM?
> 
> Could BH be the master of the situation and not merely react?
> 
> The idea that 6-year-old girl could suddenly be abandoned by the man whom she considered her father is pretty horrible.


Here we go again with the strong, mature, crap again. It's also been established that almost to the man that if we found out long after the fact, we would love the child as we always had. Please stop with the misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

over20 said:


> Jld, would you be able lock the thread, I fear there will be no end in site to this topic and I wouldn't want anyone to slip and get banned. There was enough bannings last week.


A thread without the threat of being banned is like sex using a condom. No thanks.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> We all feel embarrassed, Entropy. But we get over it. And we usually learn something from it.


Correct. And many of us have learned to not enable bad behavior and to hold people accountable including ourselves.

We also have learned to invest ourselves in people worthy of us.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Hey, I'm multi-tasking!


Men cannot multi-task as well as women.

We do things in phases / incremental steps.
We build.


----------



## SadSamIAm

LongWalk said:


> I am a jld fan. Hang in there jld. This is a good thread.
> 
> Does anyone think that any BH would accept a "love child" in exchange for knowing that their WW did not love the OM? Would any BH accept a love child if their wife had become a better person and expressed genuine remorse in fact and not just words.
> 
> Do you think a strong BH would be happy to have WW request his permission to put the love child up for adoption? Wouldn't a BH want her to be true to her maternal instincts?
> 
> Could any BH decide that raising the love child was also an opportunity to give the OM a big eff you by raising the love child to be a good person who loved and respected him and did not care anything about the OM?
> 
> Could BH be the master of the situation and not merely react?
> 
> The idea that 6-year-old girl could suddenly be abandoned by the man whom she considered her father is pretty horrible.


I could maybe do these things you mention above if I was in that circumstance. But I wouldn't want my wife to know that I maybe could. I would want her to know that if she cheats, she is gone. With or without an illegitimate child. 

And even if I could take on an OM's child, our marriage and our lives would never be the same. They would never be as good, knowing she cheated.


----------



## samyeagar

Entropy3000 said:


> Men cannot multi-task as well as women.
> 
> We do things in phases / incremental steps.
> We build.


Not truely strong, secure men.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

samyeagar said:


> Ok Charlie (Sheen)
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Winning!!!


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

*Originally Posted by over20 
Jld, would you be able lock the thread, I fear there will be no end in site to this topic and I wouldn't want anyone to slip and get banned. There was enough bannings last week.*

no but she can delete the entire thread


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> We all feel embarrassed, Entropy. But we get over it. And we usually learn something from it.


"Getting over" something doesn't mean accepting or forgiving it. Or, in the case of forgiving it, forgetting it. What this phrase implies is that that person is able to cope or has coped with it, somehow. For many, given this situation, this would mean simply walking away. Now, I don't mean to say that this would be without pain...

As for what we learn from these things, that will usually be subjective.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

GettingIt said:


> I didn't say that it "should" create sympathy for her. Only that knowing this about her "could" lead to understanding and/or sympathy.
> 
> There is a ton o' judgement on TAM--every day, most every thread. And it's not the pushing back on jld's position that is unusual, it is the amount of vitriol often accompanies it. Is it because she remains calm and communicative even as others begin to froth? Is it that she accepts the push back and then asks for further clarification and shows interest in understanding the views of those who rail? Is it that her faith in the rightness of her marriage is unshakable?
> 
> People react to her as if they feel . . . threatened. I guess this is what fascinates me the most. She is one person, with one view. Is there a fear that she might convince others?
> 
> I want to understand the "jld affect"!
> 
> (sorry jld . . . hope you're doing okay out there as we try to figure you out!)


My dime store pyschologicial evaluation - 

She triggers a lot of folks because the calmness of her posts belies the insults that subtle insults. When a poster calls some one an @$$, most are comfortable that others will see that poster for what they really are. 

But jld does not do that. Rather, she insults by implication. Real men with strength, conviction and character agree with her and what she advocates. If you don't, you are not such a man. She won't say "TAG, you are not a real man, but rather a cowardly boy who won't fight for his woman." She will say "I disagree TAG, because a confident and secure man would do what I am saying he should do. "

People react strongly to this because it is subtle and often hidden. They want people to understand that. I know I react a bit more because I think for many, her ideas will make things much worse (I think respect between spouses is very important and doormat behavior is very bad).


----------



## samyeagar

Entropy3000 said:


> Winning!!!


I hope you accept that that was in no way meant to slight you, but rather a tribute to the absurdity of this thread 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

LongWalk said:


> I am a jld fan. Hang in there jld. This is a good thread.
> 
> Does anyone think that any BH would accept a "love child" in exchange for knowing that their WW did not love the OM?
> 
> *No. This means she betrayed me without the excuse of love. A greater betrayal. I can understand love.*
> 
> Would any BH accept a love child if their wife had become a better person and expressed genuine remorse in fact and not just words.
> 
> *No. She needs to walk a diferent path. A fresh start. Without me as baggage.*
> 
> Do you think a strong BH would be happy to have WW request his permission to put the love child up for adoption?
> 
> *Only if I thought she would be an unfit mother. But in either case she is gone from my life. She lost out on a sure thing.
> *
> 
> Wouldn't a BH want her to be true to her maternal instincts?
> 
> *Yes. She should be remorseful and devote the rest of her life to taking care of her child and becomng a better person. Without me.*
> 
> Could any BH decide that raising the love child was also an opportunity to give the OM a big eff you by raising the love child to be a good person who loved and respected him and did not care anything about the OM?
> 
> *Hell no. That is just twisted. Doing something out of hate instead of love. Creepy even.*
> 
> Could BH be the master of the situation and not merely react?
> 
> *Yes. Being master would be able to take action. That is not reacting. That is being decisive. Knowing your own value and having the wisdom and strength to recognize that this was not the woman you were looking for. Lose your fear and deal with this maturely. Never accept disrespect.*
> 
> The idea that 6-year-old girl could suddenly be abandoned by the man whom she considered her father is pretty horrible.
> 
> *This is called mentally playing with oneself. trying to twist situations to break down boundaries. Creating no win scenarios. Be the father to the child. Ditch the wife.*


----------



## Cosmos

IMO, emotional maturity, among other things, is about healthy boundaries and self-respect. I think a spouse starting a family outside of the marriage would test the strongest and most emotionally mature of individuals to breaking point... Frankly, I think very few would be capable of putting the needs of an AP's child above their own in such a situation... It's just too big an ask, IMO.


----------



## GusPolinski

LongWalk said:


> Does anyone think that any BH would accept a "love child" in exchange for knowing that their WW did not love the OM?


For me, no. It wouldn't matter to me whether or not my WW loved the OM. I'm sure that it would come up very early in our conversations (as it is something that almost all BS ask in the beginning, when attempting to mitigate their shock and pain) but, honestly, just knowing that the desire that she felt for OM was so strong that she was willing to disregard her marriage vows to me -- even if only once! -- would be all it took for me to initiate divorce. And this is whether or not a child resulted from her affair.



LongWalk said:


> Would any BH accept a love child if their wife had become a better person and expressed genuine remorse in fact and not just words.


Dude, WTF? Seriously, how would you even quantify this? Where is the magical set of metrics that will allow me to somehow empirically determine that my WW has somehow become a better person? No matter your response, trust will always be a factor here.



LongWalk said:


> Do you think a strong BH would be happy to have WW request his permission to put the love child up for adoption? Wouldn't a BH want her to be true to her maternal instincts?


I would never ask my wife to give up a child for me, via neither abortion nor adoption. As for whether or not she decided to stay true to her maternal instincts, I believe that she would but, either way, I wouldn't be around to help change the diapers.



LongWalk said:


> Could any BH decide that raising the love child was also an opportunity to give the OM a big eff you by raising the love child to be a good person who loved and respected him and did not care anything about the OM?


LOL, no. OM would probably be tickled pink, as he'd be completely "off the hook", per se. But honestly, how he did or didn't feel about it wouldn't matter to me at all.



LongWalk said:


> Could BH be the master of the situation and not merely react?


Very vague...



LongWalk said:


> The idea that 6-year-old girl could suddenly be abandoned by the man whom she considered her father is pretty horrible.


Again, I could NEVER do this. My marriage would be over but, in this instance, my child would ALWAYS be my child.


----------



## larry.gray

Entropy3000 said:


> Men cannot multi-task as well as women.


If that's true why do men love 69 so much more than women?


----------



## JCD

GusPolinski said:


> Each of us is entitled to our own opinions, regardless of how wrong we may be.


I like my wrong opinions.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

one idea/theme in this thread is the true meaning of 'mature.' but the discussion here is really about the meaning of love, kindness and a person's moral underpinnings.

A man that accepts his wife's love child as his own might do so thinking it will be easy. Hard to not acknowledge that as kind, but if a week later he realizes it wont be and cries and stomps his feat in front of his family - I'd call that immature. 
On the other hand someone like Joseph Stalin or Julius Caesar would qualify as just plain ruthless, but "immature" would not apply to either of them I don't think. If I was the affair child of the wife of either of these guys abandonment would be likely, but also the least of my worries...


----------



## GusPolinski

Tall Average Guy said:


> My dime store pyschologicial evaluation -
> 
> She triggers a lot of folks because the calmness of her posts belies the insults that subtle insults. When a poster calls some one an @$$, most are comfortable that others will see that poster for what they really are.
> 
> But jld does not do that. Rather, she insults by implication. Real men with strength, conviction and character agree with her and what she advocates. If you don't, you are not such a man. *She won't say "TAG, you are not a real man, but rather a cowardly boy who won't fight for his woman."* She will say "I disagree TAG, because a confident and secure man would do what I am saying he should do. "
> 
> People react strongly to this because it is subtle and often hidden. They want people to understand that. I know I react a bit more because I think for many, her ideas will make things much worse (I think respect between spouses is very important and doormat behavior is very bad).


I have been fighting for my wife and marriage for the past 14+ years and, for the six years prior to that, I was fighting for my girlfriend (who is now my wife) and our relationship. Any suggestion that my efforts in this regard have been insufficient is *highly* insulting.

*THIS* is one of the many reasons why infidelity hurts so very badly.


----------



## Entropy3000

samyeagar said:


> Not truely strong, secure men.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Especially them.

This is why men and women can be so awesome together. They can be greater than the sum of their parts.

So where does one even set this stuff up? Craigslist?


----------



## tacoma

JCD said:


> I like my wrong opinions.


I like your wrong opinions too.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

JCD said:


> I like my wrong opinions.


My wrong opinions are clearly superior to yours!


----------



## Alisha1

Nope he would not and I would not expect him to either if I had messed up.


----------



## Entropy3000

Tall Average Guy said:


> My dime store pyschologicial evaluation -
> 
> She triggers a lot of folks because the calmness of her posts belies the insults that subtle insults. When a poster calls some one an @$$, most are comfortable that others will see that poster for what they really are.
> 
> But jld does not do that. Rather, she insults by implication. Real men with strength, conviction and character agree with her and what she advocates. If you don't, you are not such a man. She won't say "TAG, you are not a real man, but rather a cowardly boy who won't fight for his woman." She will say "I disagree TAG, because a confident and secure man would do what I am saying he should do. "
> 
> People react strongly to this because it is subtle and often hidden. They want people to understand that. I know I react a bit more because I think for many, her ideas will make things much worse (I think respect between spouses is very important and doormat behavior is very bad).


I see this because I have to play this dance in the professional world all too often. Not shocking that I call them out for this.


----------



## Entropy3000

samyeagar said:


> I hope you accept that that was in no way meant to slight you, but rather a tribute to the absurdity of this thread
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I grok. I felt good intent.


----------



## Entropy3000

larry.gray said:


> If that's true why do men love 69 so much more than women?


Ah!!! You are very clever. But we knew that.

It seems men can give pleasure at the same time as receiving it. I have known women ... some more than once, that need to concentrate on one of the other.

So yeah, that IS interesting.

But if you have a woman who can have sex, watch TV, do her shopping list, plan what she will be wearing and so on at the same time it can be a bit frustrating. I for one want her full attention. BUT, in those case I do blame myself. If you want her full attention you need to do your part right.


----------



## Tony55

Anon Pink said:


> Deleted the picture because the caption made it offensive on so many levels.


I see picture man struck again, don't worry, he doesn't mean what he says when he says it in a picture.

T


----------



## Entropy3000

nuclearnightmare said:


> one idea/theme in this thread is the true meaning of 'mature.' but the discussion here is really about the meaning of love, kindness and a person's moral underpinnings.
> 
> A man that accepts his wife's love child as his own might do so thinking it will be easy. Hard to not acknowledge that as kind, but if a week later he realizes it wont be and cries and stomps his feat in front of his family - I'd call that immature.
> On the other hand someone like Joseph Stalin or Julius Caesar would qualify as just plain ruthless, but "immature" would not apply to either of them I don't think. If I was the affair child of the wife of either of these guys abandonment would be likely, but also the least of my worries...


A mature person can see down field better. 
They have a better chance of seeing all the hurdles and pitfalls and be less likely to be swayed by the immediate fears. They have the advantage of experience.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> Can you relate to her, too?
> 
> J/k!


Was it the cheating or the killing of one's spouse? 

I personally relate to being a despotic dictator of millions, myself


----------



## Entropy3000

Gotta go. Taking my wife out. Before she decides I am not meeting her needs.

Oh by the way. The best way to fight for your woman is before she starts banging someone else. After that she is not your woman. And no I do not want her back.


----------



## ocotillo

LongWalk said:


> Does anyone think that any BH would accept a "love child" in exchange for knowing that their WW did not love the OM?


Well we can only speak for ourselves here and at Mrs Ocotillo's age, (And mine too) the question is academic. But in response to that question, how is this, "Exchange" going to make me love that child?




LongWalk said:


> Would any BH accept a love child if their wife had become a better person and expressed genuine remorse in fact and not just words.


Everything after, "If" would be part and parcel of reconciliation without which there is no marriage and the whole question becomes moot. But again, how is that going to make me love that child?


I'm not going to respond further, as you are indulging in the same type of interrogative fallacies that have marred this discussion. Expressions like, "Strong BH" and "Master of the situation" and "Merely react" smack of ideological prejudice here.


----------



## Racer

Ugh… popping in late. Haven’t really read through it all.

My opinion. Yes, you’d still love that child. It’s what you know and how it’s always been. But you wouldn’t forget. So, it does change. When that child, like all children, just really pisses you off; You’ll remember he’s not yours. The hurt will be more because it’s not just your son treating you with such disrespect, it’s a child, not yours, that you raised as your own when there’s no good reason to do so and you had to make that choice to do, doing the hurting. 

It is simply different because there is an implied choice that you made to be “a good man”. And here’s this little sh!t bastard son absolutely ungrateful about it (something you probably won’t tell him but will remember). It’s hard enough not to kill your own offspring sometimes…. And this one brings forth a series of traumatic experiences for you about ‘your family’ and massive sins and traumas within it. You can’t undo those firing synapses creating those memories just like you can’t forget your spouse cheated and caused this. It wasn’t supposed to be like this. You just suck it up as best you can. But it will be there… always.


----------



## LongWalk

samyeagar said:


> Here we go again with the strong, mature, crap again. It's also been established that almost to the man that if we found out long after the fact, we would love the child as we always had. Please stop with the misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am an atheist but my understanding of Christianity is that Christ urged his followers to accept the unacceptable. The Christian TV pastor accepted the love child and even went public with his humiliation. So some men will accept this... perhaps under religious duress.

Here is a pertinent true story about a love child whose paternity was hidden from her cuckolded father. The truth came to her in a dream like state and she exposed her mother's infidelity to the father who have never loved her properly. 

This case illustrates how sensitive people are to the truth even when it is not revealed. Blood is thicker than water. But in the end... well read it for yourself.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> No one is forced to do anything, ocotillo. I have said that several times.


No. You have just been passive aggressively judgmental about a man who was violated and disrespected by his cheating woman.

HER you give an olive branch of understanding and forgiveness. HIM...a deep sigh at his low lack of character.


----------



## GusPolinski

Racer said:


> Ugh… popping in late. Haven’t really read through it all.
> 
> My opinion. Yes, you’d still love that child. It’s what you know and how it’s always been. But you wouldn’t forget. So, it does change. When that child, like all children, just really pisses you off; You’ll remember he’s not yours. The hurt will be more because it’s not just your son treating you with such disrespect, it’s a child, not yours, that you raised as your own when there’s no good reason to do so and you had to make that choice to do, doing the hurting.
> 
> It is simply different because there is an implied choice that you made to be “a good man”. And here’s this little sh!t bastard son absolutely ungrateful about it (something you probably won’t tell him but will remember). It’s hard enough not to kill your own offspring sometimes…. And this one brings forth a series of traumatic experiences for you about ‘your family’ and massive sins and traumas within it. You can’t undo those firing synapses creating those memories just like you can’t forget your spouse cheated and caused this. It wasn’t supposed to be like this. You just suck it up as best you can. But it will be there… always.


It sounds like you're talking about the scenario in which a husband/father finds out years after the fact that this child is not his biological offspring. The scenario that we've mostly been discussing in this thread is the "I just found out that my wife is pregnant w/ another man's child" or "I just found out that the child that my wife recently gave birth to isn't mine" situation.


----------



## GusPolinski

LongWalk said:


> I am an atheist but my understanding of Christianity is that Christ urged his followers to accept the unacceptable. The Christian TV pastor accepted the love child and even went public with his humiliation. So some men will accept this... perhaps under religious duress.
> 
> Here is a pertinent true story about a love child whose paternity was hidden from her cuckolded father. The truth came to her in a dream like state and she exposed her mother's infidelity to the father who have never loved her properly.
> 
> This case illustrates how sensitive people are to the truth even when it is not revealed. Blood is thicker than water. But in the end... well read it for yourself.


I have accepted and forgiven the unacceptable. 

Once. 

I will not do so again.

Again, at what point are we entitled to move on? Christ himself gave consent for a man to divorce his wife for sexual immorality.


----------



## tacoma

LongWalk said:


> Here is a pertinent true story about a love child whose paternity was hidden from her cuckolded father. The truth came to her in a dream like state and she exposed her mother's infidelity to the father who have never loved her properly.


Exceptional article, thanks!


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> I am a jld fan. Hang in there jld. This is a good thread.
> 
> Does anyone think that any BH would accept a "love child" in exchange for knowing that their WW did not love the OM? Would any BH accept a love child if their wife had become a better person and expressed genuine remorse in fact and not just words.
> 
> Do you think a strong BH would be happy to have WW request his permission to put the love child up for adoption? Wouldn't a BH want her to be true to her maternal instincts?
> 
> Could any BH decide that raising the love child was also an opportunity to give the OM a big eff you by raising the love child to be a good person who loved and respected him and did not care anything about the OM?
> 
> Could BH be the master of the situation and not merely react?
> 
> The idea that 6-year-old girl could suddenly be abandoned by the man whom she considered her father is pretty horrible.



I think that the ONLY way to keep the family intact is if she paid the price of giving it up for adoption. This was her 'mess', she gets to clean it up. Instead, in this scenario, the wife wants everything made whole without giving up anything except her reputation. Her family will carry the heavy freight.

And by better person' I am thinking Stepford Wife. This is such a horrible high pressure thing to do to a family and HER kids, that she'd be crawling a long time to make this up.

But from her tone, jld seems to be treating this as a mulligan on her part


----------



## ReformedHubby

Entropy3000 said:


> Ah!!! You are very clever. But we knew that.
> 
> It seems men can give pleasure at the same time as receiving it. I have known women ... some more than once, that need to concentrate on one of the other.
> 
> So yeah, that IS interesting.
> 
> But if you have a woman who can have sex, watch TV, do her shopping list, plan what she will be wearing and so on at the same time it can be a bit frustrating. I for one want her full attention. BUT, in those case I do blame myself. If you want her full attention you need to do your part right.


Interesting, every woman I've ever been with describes 69 as "not her favorite".


----------



## tacoma

JCD said:


> Instead, in this scenario, the wife wants everything made whole without giving up anything except her reputation.


It's unlikely that would be damaged any further than her husband as he's unlikely to want to announce to his family let alone the rest of the world that he's cuckolded by his wife and her love child.

There are no repercussions for the cheating wife in OP's world.
All payment/penalty falls on the husband.

The whole motivation for this Christian D/s gig is becoming clearer to me with every post in this thread.

It's fascinating.

By submitting to her husband in such an utter and complete manner she holds responsibility for ..nothing.
Nothing can be her fault because everything is his responsibility by default.

Of course at the same time it seems she must give up any self-determination but hey... everythings got a price right?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Again...if anyone is confused about jld's message, they should check all the posts she has started. Reading just the titles will give you a clue. I think she did not know much about infidelity before coming here. She started this thread, which a lot of people got on her case about:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/159049-some-compassion-waywards.html

Her stance clearly shows someone who hasn't experienced infidelity, but believes that compassion should be shown, as long as full transparency and repentance was achieved by the cheater. Everyone beat her up pretty good on that thread.

But I'm posting it here to show you guys (esp. JCD), that she really doesn't have a double standard between men and women.

The baby thing is just a matter of biology. I fully assume that if men were the ones who had babies, jld would still advocate that wives at least try to accept a love child in the same way. She isn't granting females with more leeway...she would give us all leeway, patience, compassion, kindness, and forgiveness.

I honestly believe she feels that way about all of us, this isn't a trap. She doesn't think women are more deserving or whatever than men. Her post here isn't about that, it is about compassion for the child.

I realize her posts cause confusion and anger, and she does come across differently than she is trying to. That is why I'm popping in, on her side a little bit....but not necessarily on the topic itself, just that I think she is totally sincere. WYSIWYG. She wants everyone to be more agape.

Jld has not experienced infidelity.

Many people think they know how they would feel about infidelity, and then feel differently about it if it does happen to them. So jld, if you did experience infidelity...you could feel very different than you do right now.


----------



## Cosmos

GusPolinski said:


> It sounds like you're talking about the scenario in which a husband/father finds out years after the fact that this child is not his biological offspring. The scenario that we've mostly been discussing in this thread is the "I just found out that my wife is pregnant w/ another man's child" or "I just found out that the child that my wife recently gave birth to isn't mine" situation.


Which is a slightly different scenario... The bonding would have taken place without the knowledge that the child wasn't his.

My sister divorced my BIL when they were in their early 50s because she found out my BIL had had an affair. For some reason, out of the blue, he then decided to have a DNA test done on his eldest son, who had been conceived whilst he and my sister were engaged. When the result revealed that his eldest son _wasn't _ his, BIL was cast as an even _bigger _rogue than before for having subjected his 'son' to a DNA test. 

I still battle to grasp the logic in this - as also the fact that my sister came out smelling of roses...:scratchhead:


----------



## LongWalk

ocotillo said:


> Well we can only speak for ourselves here and at Mrs Ocotillo's age, (And mine too) the question is academic. But in response to that question, how is this, "Exchange" going to make me love that child?
> 
> Everything after, "If" would be part and parcel of reconciliation without which there is no marriage and the whole question becomes moot. But again, how is that going to make me love that child?
> 
> *I'm not going to respond further, as you are indulging in the same type of interrogative fallacies that have marred this discussion. Expressions like, "Strong BH" and "Master of the situation" and "Merely react" smack of ideological prejudice here.*


To discover that your wife has cheated and moreover is pregnant with another man's child or has already given birth to one and kept it secret is nearly certain to devastate almost any man. By strong BH I mean a man who doesn't start drinking hard and manages to struggle through hard days at work without getting fired. A man who managed to keep his temper with his other children and even the love child.

A weaker mind might collapse.

I can imagine a BH whose wife was pregnant acting decisively. It is possible that he might contact the OM and order him to appear before him and inform him that he was to sign a binding agreement to pay generous child support for the upbringing of the child and that he would meet the child every other weekend to share responsibility for raising the child.

This agreement might include 100 percent of the costs of a 4-year degree.

Furthermore, I can imagine that the BH's cold anger compelled the man to sign and be under the BH's thumb for 18 years.

I am not saying that such a response would to everyone's taste but it would be an alternative to being a doormat.

The POSOM would have to deal with the strain of this situation and its impact his marriage and family.


----------



## tacoma

Cosmos said:


> I still battle to grasp the logic in this - as also the fact that my sister came out smelling of roses...:scratchhead:


That's due to the fact that when a woman cheats it's because her husband wasn't treating her right but when a woman gets cheated on it's because her husband wasn't treating her right.


----------



## Maricha75

GettingIt said:


> But Larry, did she come out and explicitly say that men who would not make that choice are immature, insecure or egotistical?


Uhhh, yes, she did. I went back through this entire thread (and I showed up late, of course.  To see the whole uproar. I posted on the first (or second?) page, and then didn't read after that, until tonight. Do you have any idea how long it takes to go through 48 pages of argument about whether or not someone is immature for choosing NOT to raise a child, conceived via an affair, and is known from the beginning?



jld said:


> I don't think you realize that to some of us, *your willingness to look beyond your wife's behavior, to care for an innocent child, has raised you to a level few men seem able to achieve.*
> 
> It is sainthood, JCD. It is going past your pride, your natural selfishness. Even t*he fact you can consider this shows your maturity.*





jld said:


> And this is my mission at TAM: urging, begging, pleading with men to become _truly_ secure. The world desperately needs _truly_ secure men.



This one is an attempt to guilt men who choose not to raise a child conceived via an affair:



jld said:


> Entropy, children need mothers and fathers, right? Regardless of how they got here, they need that, right? They turn out best when they are loved by a devoted mother and father? Society functions best when children are loved and cared for and grow up to be loving, caring adults?
> 
> It is about what children _need_, entropy.
> 
> But still, no one has to do this. Children are a gift. Maybe not everyone should be a part of the gift, per what Eagle3 said this morning.


And this one:



jld said:


> You can walk away. You have that right.
> 
> *But realize that you are not just walking away from her. You are walking away from a child that may become very vulnerable, very quickly.*
> 
> *It is up to each man and his conscience.*





jld said:


> I really think it is good for women to be with men who love them and their children. And if the man in her life is not like that, it really is best for both of them if they separate and move on with their lives.


As for this last one, I would agree, if the child was from a previous relationship, or children beonging to both of them, not from an affair. But if he chooses NOT to remain married to her, and know the child is not his, from the start, it has NOTHING to do with accepting her and HER child. He loves THEIR children, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that she has cheated. Period.

But, yes, it would be best for them to separate... so he can (hopefully) find a woman who will not betray him.


----------



## Maricha75

GettingIt said:


> Don't compare yourselves to jld's vision of her husband. You WILL lose.


In her eyes. maybe. But in mine, her husband doesn't hold a candle to my husband.


----------



## LongWalk

Cosmos, 

That is mind bending.

Should a BH, like you BIL have the right to collect 18-years of child support from the father of that child? Why don't legislatures protect the rights of BH?


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> I am _sincere,_ Entropy. Why do you sound so afraid of me?


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh thank you for that! I needed a good laugh! Sincerely.


----------



## Cosmos

tacoma said:


> That's due to the fact that when a woman cheats it's because her husband wasn't treating her right but when a woman gets cheated on it's because her husband wasn't treating her right.


Not in my world.


----------



## tacoma

Cosmos said:


> Not in my world.


That was just a little angry sarcasm on my part Cosmos.
I live in your world.



Edit: But honestly it does seem our society in general has the habit of blaming the man for both his and his wifes infidelity.

It's getting better but still.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Again...if anyone is confused about jld's message, they should check all the posts she has started. Reading just the titles will give you a clue. I think she did not know much about infidelity before coming here. She started this thread, which a lot of people got on her case about:
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/159049-some-compassion-waywards.html



I remember that thread. That's why I tend to have her back for the most part. Her kindness really is unconditional.


----------



## sinnister

I'm late to this party. I wouldnt do it. I know that's not going to come across very "modern" or 2014...but I wouldnt raise a kid that wasn't mine.

My wife would not accept a child that I had out of marriage.

Invading male lions who defeat the incumbent male leader of the pride immediately procceds to kill all offspring of the former king. After which, the females immediately go in to heat and are ready to produce offspring for the new male lion.

Now I know humanity is far more evolved and sophisticated than a wild lion but to me the premise of raising anothers offspring has similar sentiments (minus the killing part of course).


----------



## GettingIt_2

Tall Average Guy said:


> My dime store pyschologicial evaluation -
> 
> She triggers a lot of folks because the calmness of her posts belies the insults that subtle insults. When a poster calls some one an @$$, most are comfortable that others will see that poster for what they really are.
> 
> But jld does not do that. Rather, she insults by implication. Real men with strength, conviction and character agree with her and what she advocates. If you don't, you are not such a man. She won't say "TAG, you are not a real man, but rather a cowardly boy who won't fight for his woman." She will say "I disagree TAG, because a confident and secure man would do what I am saying he should do. "


But why do you accept her definition of what it means to be a real man, a secure man? When she says "I think it takes a secure man to do xyz," do you think, "Well, I don't do xyz, so that means I'm not secure" ? Or does it just drive you nuts that someone ELSE would not accept you as a secure man? If that's the case, if a random internet stranger's idea of security can make you so upset . . . well, THAT is what I don't understand. 

She has not power to say whether you are secure or not--only whether you'd be secure enough for HER. 

If you're secure with your security, what is there to get so upset about? 



Tall Average Guy said:


> People react strongly to this because it is subtle and often hidden. They want people to understand that. I know I react a bit more because I think for many, her ideas will make things much worse (I think respect between spouses is very important and doormat behavior is very bad).


I think people react strongly to it because it makes them intensely uncomfortable to have their sense of self shaken. You think you're secure and healthy and have good boundaries. You've worked on yourself and your marriage, and you're damn proud of it. And here is someone who says, "Well, you still wouldn't be good enough for me." The implication that someone out there could actually desire _more_ seems to make some people really see red. 

But there is always someone who could ask more of you--and in fact, maybe our spouses _do_ want more. Is there a niggling fear that this is the case with our parters in real life? That they might secretly agree with jld, but would never say so? 

At the end of the day, we want our partners to be happy with our efforts and with the self that we proudly produce from those efforts. But if we could know their deepest, innermost desires and wants and cravings . . . if shame and propriety and fear and respect and manners and love and whatever else humans use to set boundaries suddenly evaporated, then what would we see? Would we want to see?

jld is making us look.


----------



## TiggyBlue

jld said:


> And a big part of security, to me, is not caring what _other people _think, but caring what _you_ think.


:iagree:
If someone thinks they want to stay and raise the baby or have a hand in raising the baby then shaming/mocking won't stop them if they're secure in themselves and if someone won't bring up another man/woman's baby that was conceived from their spouses cheating then shaming/guilt trips won't get them to if they're secure in themselves.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

tacoma said:


> That was just a little angry sarcasm on my part Cosmos.
> I live in your world.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: But honestly it does seem our society in general has the habit of blaming the man for both his and his wifes infidelity.
> 
> It's getting better but still.


and a REAL MATURE woman...would set people straight...
My affair was entirely my fault.

and while I am here can I say something?

My husband is a strong, moral, good mature, responsible man....and yet...if i had bore another mans child...he would have divorced me....and you know what...I do not blame him.
I understand where JLD comes from..she admires, respects and adores her husband. So do I....and he is my husband...not my daddy.

We all have different beliefs and opinions and as long as we can agree to disagree it's all good.

I do not need my husband to dominate me like a child....I am a mature woman. I need my husband to treat me with respect and to value me as a person...and to adore me as his wife.


----------



## over20

Jld, I am finally commenting in full.

If I was a WW and got pregnant I, out of respect for my Dh and my previous children with him would leave my marriage. I would not expect any custody rights with those children and certainly would not take any financial support from the husband I hurt deeply. 

Out of love and respect for my Dh I would want him to find new love again with a woman that would not hurt him like I had. 

It would never cross my mind to stay and ask him to do that, even if he said "Yes".....I would not stay. He deserves better.


----------



## Cosmos

tacoma said:


> That was just a little angry sarcasm on my part Cosmos.
> I live in your world.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: But honestly it does seem our society in general has the habit of blaming the man for both his and his wifes infidelity.
> 
> It's getting better but still.


I'm not too sure about that, Tacoma... If a man strays we often hear that it's because his W wasn't taking care of his needs. Cheating is cheating no matter who does it, and neither gender should be given a free pass.


----------



## sinnister

Cosmos said:


> I'm not too sure about that, Tacoma... If a man strays we often hear that it's because his W wasn't taking care of his needs. Cheating is cheating no matter who does it, and neither gender should be given a free pass.


Cheating is ALWAYS a result of unmet needs. Always.

The needs are mostly wacko, crazy and insane, but they are needs to the cheater. The need to posses a different penis/vagina so that the cheater can have some strange, comes to mind.


----------



## Cosmos

sinnister said:


> Cheating is ALWAYS a result of unmet needs. Always.
> 
> The needs are mostly wacko, crazy and insane, but they are needs to the cheater. The need to posses a different penis/vagina so that the cheater can have some strange, comes to mind.


Needs or wants?


----------



## larry.gray

GettingIt said:


> But why do you accept her definition of what it means to be a real man, a secure man? When she says "I think it takes a secure man to do xyz," do you think, "Well, I don't do xyz, so that means I'm not secure" ? Or does it just drive you nuts that someone ELSE would not accept you as a secure man? If that's the case, if a random internet stranger's idea of security can make you so upset . . . well, THAT is what I don't understand.


Because there are a few topics where society is very unfair to men. This is one. Another posted hit on the fact that men's choices are taken away when this happens. They have to choose between a few crappy options.

I bet if we started digging, we could find your hot button issues. Shall we probe abortion? Maybe stay at home moms vs. working moms? I'm nobody to you, but if I start throwing out some misogynist statements, I can rile up the women of the board.


----------



## larry.gray

Cosmos said:


> I'm not too sure about that, Tacoma... If a man strays we often hear that it's because his W wasn't taking care of his needs. Cheating is cheating no matter who does it, and neither gender should be given a free pass.


:iagree:

We can stroll right on over to SIM where LD women are warned that if they don't meet their husband's needs, they will be cheated on.

Look, I was there and didn't cheat. As many other men that are / were on SIM in that situation. Had I cheated, it would have been MY fault.


----------



## larry.gray

Mrs. John Adams said:


> My husband is a strong, moral, good mature, responsible man....and yet...if i had bore another mans child...he would have divorced me....and you know what...I do not blame him.
> I understand where JLD comes from..she admires, respects and adores her husband. So do I....and he is my husband...not my daddy.


:iagree:

We all have different beliefs and opinions and as long as we can agree to disagree it's all good.



Mrs. John Adams said:


> I do not need my husband to dominate me like a child....I am a mature woman. I need my husband to treat me with respect and to value me as a person...and to adore me as his wife.


:iagree:
Gosh darn it, I can only like this post once!!!! It just unlikes and likes it again when I manically hit the same button.

*** I'll add -> He values you as a strong, independent woman.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

GettingIt said:


> But why do you accept her definition of what it means to be a real man, a secure man? When she says "I think it takes a secure man to do xyz," do you think, "Well, I don't do xyz, so that means I'm not secure" ? Or does it just drive you nuts that someone ELSE would not accept you as a secure man? If that's the case, if a random internet stranger's idea of security can make you so upset . . . well, THAT is what I don't understand.
> 
> She has not power to say whether you are secure or not--only whether you'd be secure enough for HER.
> 
> If you're secure with your security, what is there to get so upset about?


I don't accept it. But because of her style, it is necessary to be explicit in not accepting. That comes out as strong dislike, where if she just called me weak (as in my example), I can simply say she is wrong and move on.



> I think people react strongly to it because it makes them intensely uncomfortable to have their sense of self shaken. You think you're secure and healthy and have good boundaries. You've worked on yourself and your marriage, and you're damn proud of it. And here is someone who says, "Well, you still wouldn't be good enough for me." The implication that someone out there could actually desire _more_ seems to make some people really see red.
> 
> But there is always someone who could ask more of you--and in fact, maybe our spouses do want more. Is there a niggling fear that this is the case with our parters in real life? That they might secretly agree with jld, but would never say so?
> 
> At the end of the day, we want our partners to be happy with our efforts and with the self that we proudly produce from those efforts. But if we could know their deepest, innermost desires and wants and cravings . . . if shame and propriety and fear and resect and manners and love and whatever else humans use to set boundaries suddenly evaporated, then what would we see? Would we want to see?
> 
> jld is making us look.


Speaking for myself, no she does not make me look at anything (ironic, as I suspect that my relationshiop with my wife is a difference of degree, not kind, from what jld and her husband have). Rather, I find much of her theories to be the antithesis of boundaries for most men. I am glad they work for her and her husband (and I am sure with others). But I think they would hurt many of the nice guys that come here.


----------



## Cosmos

larry.gray said:


> :iagree:
> 
> We can stroll right on over to SIM where LD women are warned that if they don't meet their husband's needs, they will be cheated on.
> 
> Look, I was there and didn't cheat. As many other men that are / were on SIM in that situation. Had I cheated, it would have been MY fault.


Me, too, LG. I was in a 6 year sexless marriage, but decided to get out before I was seriously tempted to cheat.


----------



## GettingIt_2

larry.gray said:


> Because there are a few topics where society is very unfair to men. This is one. Another posted hit on the fact that men's choices are taken away when this happens. They have to choose between a few crappy options.
> 
> I bet if we started digging, we could find your hot button issues. Shall we probe abortion? Maybe stay at home moms vs. working moms? I'm nobody to you, but if I start throwing out some misogynist statements, I can rile up the women of the board.


I'm afraid you'd go away quite disappointed, Larry. I don't do "hot button"--most especially on the internet with strangers. I'll discuss, but I just don't get that passionate about "issues"--and most especially with individuals whose opinion (of the issue or of me) have zero bearing on my life. Why would I grant strangers that kind of power over my emotion? But you can try!

Plus I'm pretty good at being able to see how people arrive at their various opinions and stances, even if I don't agree with them. I'm pro choice, but I'm not dismissive of the pov of pro lifers. I'm a stay at home mom and think it's the right choice for my family, but would never presume to judge mothers who work. I'm not Christian, but wouldn't insult someone for their faith. 

I'm not trying to be a brat--in many ways I'm lucky. Things just don't bother me. I'm married to a ruminator, so I do have sympathy for people who are bothered . . . but at the end of the day, and most certainly when it comes to what we choose to read on TAM or what we choose to expose ourselves to, we're responsible for stepping away when our triggers start to overwhelm our ability to function with good judgement.


----------



## Entropy3000

ReformedHubby said:


> Interesting, every woman I've ever been with describes 69 as "not her favorite".


Right. I think we are on to something here.

So this thread may have given birth to something of value after all.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> That's due to the fact that when a woman cheats it's because her husband wasn't treating her right but when a woman gets cheated on it's because her husband wasn't treating her right.


This is clever and synergistic. But in all seriousness, there is much truth here.


----------



## Entropy3000

Maricha75 said:


> :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> Oh thank you for that! I needed a good laugh! Sincerely.


 It was almost adorable.


----------



## Entropy3000

Cosmos said:


> Not in my world.


No. Indeed no.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> But why do you accept her definition of what it means to be a real man, a secure man? When she says "I think it takes a secure man to do xyz," do you think, "Well, I don't do xyz, so that means I'm not secure" ? Or does it just drive you nuts that someone ELSE would not accept you as a secure man? If that's the case, if a random internet stranger's idea of security can make you so upset . . . well, THAT is what I don't understand.
> 
> She has not power to say whether you are secure or not--only whether you'd be secure enough for HER.
> 
> If you're secure with your security, what is there to get so upset about?
> 
> 
> 
> I think people react strongly to it because it makes them intensely uncomfortable to have their sense of self shaken. You think you're secure and healthy and have good boundaries. You've worked on yourself and your marriage, and you're damn proud of it. And here is someone who says, "Well, you still wouldn't be good enough for me." The implication that someone out there could actually desire _more_ seems to make some people really see red.
> 
> But there is always someone who could ask more of you--and in fact, maybe our spouses _do_ want more. Is there a niggling fear that this is the case with our parters in real life? That they might secretly agree with jld, but would never say so?
> 
> At the end of the day, we want our partners to be happy with our efforts and with the self that we proudly produce from those efforts. But if we could know their deepest, innermost desires and wants and cravings . . . if shame and propriety and fear and respect and manners and love and whatever else humans use to set boundaries suddenly evaporated, then what would we see? Would we want to see?
> 
> jld is making us look.


Calm down please. I actually do not see anyone being upset. I see some folks calling BS. 

:redcard:


----------



## Entropy3000

Cosmos said:


> Me, too, LG. I was in a 6 year sexless marriage, but decided to get out before I was seriously tempted to cheat.


But you are freaking awesome woman. Uncommon.


:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> Calm down please. I actually do not see anyone being upset. I see some folks calling BS.
> 
> :redcard:


Dude, I'm all like "c'mon lets have some peace and luv n' understandin, most 'specially for ourselves." AND YOU FREAKIN' RED FLAG ME? ME? *Rolling up my sleeves over here. . . . *

But no, seriously, did ya think I'm not calm? Like from where in my post? I mean, I was being sincere. I'm trying to understand why jld yanks so many chains. But I'm not mad or anything. Sorta fascinated, though.


----------



## tacoma

sinnister said:


> The needs are mostly wacko, crazy and insane, but they are needs to the cheater. The need to posses a different penis/vagina so that the cheater can have some strange, comes to mind.



I would disagree with that for the most part.

In fact the path to a solid reconciliation often runs farther down the BS side of the street in order to create a stable fulfilling relationship.

Many of the BS I've come across have realized they did play a large part in the disintegration of their marriage.

Infidelity is the wrong way to get those needs met but it doesn't mean those needs weren't valid to begin with.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Tall Average Guy said:


> I don't accept it. But because of her style, it is necessary to be explicit in not accepting. That comes out as strong dislike, where if she just called me weak (as in my example), I can simply say she is wrong and move on.


So after you lay out your "not accepting," it matters to you that she acknowledges your belief that she is wrong? I guess I'm wondering why it's harder to move on from jld than from an assh0le. I mean, if you disagree with someone, you should be able to say so and move on. But something about jld makes you need to do more. She _matters_ more to you for some reason. 



Tall Average Guy said:


> Speaking for myself, no she does not make me look at anything (ironic, as I suspect that my relationshiop with my wife is a difference of degree, not kind, from what jld and her husband have). Rather, I find much of her theories to be the antithesis of boundaries for most men. I am glad they work for her and her husband (and I am sure with others). But I think they would hurt many of the nice guys that come here.


Why would it hurt them? Her husband doesn't have a nice guy bone in his body and jld responds to that. She's always said that he weathers her "tantrums" and her sh!t tests" with dispassion and amusement. He is the ultimate in "outcome independence." Seems nice guys could learn from that. 

If I'm recalling correctly, you're a former nice guy who turned around with MMSLP. Is it jld's rejection of the tactics espoused there that makes you want to disavow her so strongly? I usually really relate to your views and find you a thoughtful, generous poster . . . but I'm puzzled as to why jld really pushes your buttons.


----------



## tacoma

GettingIt said:


> I think people react strongly to it because it makes them intensely uncomfortable to have their sense of self shaken. You think you're secure and healthy and have good boundaries. You've worked on yourself and your marriage, and you're damn proud of it. And here is someone who says, "Well, you still wouldn't be good enough for me." The implication that someone out there could actually desire _more_ seems to make some people really see red.


I think you assume far too much.


----------



## GettingIt_2

tacoma said:


> I think you assume far too much.


Perhaps.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Dude, I'm all like "c'mon lets have some peace and luv n' understandin, most 'specially for ourselves." AND YOU FREKIN RED FLAG ME? ME? *Rolling up my sleeves over here. . . . *
> 
> But no, seriously, did ya think I'm not calm? Like from where in my post? I mean, I was being sincere. I'm trying to understand why jld yanks so many chains. But I'm not mad or anything. Sorta fascinated, though.


See you do have buttons. -- check

We all do. There are a number of people on this board who know intimately my buttons. Thankfully I consider them dear friends. Yes they can play me like a violin. Great fun.

But I did that to make a point. Being disengenuous to people like I just was with you on purpose is very controlling. I implied a fallacy.

So you reacted just like some others have to jld.

I mean just tell the guys not to worry their pretty little heads about it all.

A man is defined within himself ( so is a woman BTW ).
But I see a number of folks, men and women here being quite sincere. YET, they get belittled. 

What jld posts is very precise. I find it somewhat entertaining. I also think the topic itself is worth pursuing. IF I was truly offended I would put her on my exclusive ignore list. There are some real douche canoes there. She is not even a candidate for this list. 

I have a great affintiy for intelligent women. I do not mind them challenging me at all. But do it on the up and up or it becomes tedious.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> See you do have buttons. -- check
> 
> We all do. There are a number of people on this board who know intimately my buttons. Thankfully I consider them dear friends. Yes they can play me like a violin. Great fun.
> 
> But I did that to make a point. Being disengenuous to people like I just was with you on purpose is very controlling. I implied a fallacy.
> 
> So you reacted just like some others have to jld.
> 
> I mean just tell the guys not to worry their pretty little heads about it all.
> 
> A man is defined within himself ( so is a woman BTW ).
> But I see a number of folks, men and women here being quite sincere. YET, they get belittled.
> 
> What jld posts is very precise. I find it somewhat entertaining. I also think the topic itself is worth pursuing. IF I was truly offended I would put her on my exclusive ignore list. There are some real douche canoes there. She is not even a candidate for this list.
> 
> I have a great affintiy for intelligent women. I do not mind them challenging me at all. But do it on the up and up or it becomes tedious.


But you know I was being silly at you, right? :scratchhead:

Erm, I think you lost me, Ent. Or maybe I lost you? 

We're lost! Lost I say!


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> But you know I was being silly at you, right? :scratchhead:
> 
> Erm, I think you lost me, Ent. Or maybe I lost you?
> 
> We're lost! Lost I say!


This makes me smile for many reasons.

I enjoy getting lost. Typically I am lost when I am somewhere I have not been before.  Which just might be good. Or it just might not be so good. Part of the fun really. My first true love and I used to revel in getting lost together so long ago. Sigh. She set the bar very very high. Multiple degrees in Engineering and Math ... but we only occasionally discussed waveguide theory. 

And it reminds me of being in the ocean in the middle of a big storm and being tossed about like a small piece of insignificant drift wood. You want to talk about being humbled and lost?

My favorite coffee cup says "Lost at C". Nerd humor.

***** TAM DISCLAIMER *******

Although inspired in part by a true incident, the current thread is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event. No real babies went unloved.

In the marital relationship, sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous. 

Within this forum, the dedicated moderators and posters who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the TAM.

These are their stories.


----------



## tacoma

Entropy3000 said:


> Although inspired in part by a true incident, the current thread is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event?. No real babies went unloved.
> 
> In the marital relationship, sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous.
> 
> Within this forum, the dedicated moderators and posters who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the TAM.
> 
> These are their stories.



You're showing your age.


----------



## pidge70

tacoma said:


> You're showing your age.


Law & Order isn't that old....lol
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski

Cosmos said:


> Which is a slightly different scenario... The bonding would have taken place without the knowledge that the child wasn't his.
> 
> My sister divorced my BIL when they were in their early 50s because she found out my BIL had had an affair. For some reason, out of the blue, he then decided to have a DNA test done on his eldest son, who had been conceived whilst he and my sister were engaged. When the result revealed that his eldest son _wasn't _ his, BIL was cast as an even _bigger _rogue than before for having subjected his 'son' to a DNA test.
> 
> I still battle to grasp the logic in this - as also the fact that my sister came out smelling of roses...:scratchhead:


This is absolutely despicable.


----------



## tacoma

pidge70 said:


> Law & Order isn't that old....lol
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh, then I'm showing my age I thought of Dragnet when I read it.

:rofl:


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> You're showing your age.


My rambling and reminiscing should be a very big clue to that my friend.

Also I have always thought Patti Boyd was hot.


----------



## Entropy3000

pidge70 said:


> Law & Order isn't that old....lol
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


SVU


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> Oh, then I'm showing my age I thought of Dragnet when I read it.
> 
> :rofl:


OMG. Black and White TV. I was a little wanker then.

Dum-da-dum-dum, dum-da-dum-dum-DAAA

This show actually did exist before I was born. 

I was born the same year as the Heller Novel ... Catch 22

But that was in the dreaded times of the 1950s. Considering this was post depression and WWII ... it gets a bad rap I think. The 50s had to happen for the 60s to become ... the 60s. That many of us still live in. I loved the 60s. I loved the womens movement.


----------



## hambone

This is a moot point for us because my wife is way past child bearing years.

BUT, if she had delivered a baby that was not mine... as much as I love her... I don't think I could get over the betrayal... I couldn't stand looking at that baby every day.. and being reminded of her infidelity.

My wife... honestly, we have the best marriage of anybody I know... I love her with all my heart but I would absolutely be crushed. 

I would divorce her. I will never love love anybody any more than i love her but... I don't know... I might just commit suicide. I would be that crushed.


----------



## Entropy3000

hambone said:


> This is a moot point for us because my wife is way past child bearing years.
> 
> BUT, if she had delivered a baby that was not mine... as much as I love her... I don't think I could get over the betrayal... I couldn't stand looking at that baby every day.. and being reminded of her infidelity.
> 
> My wife... honestly, we have the best marriage of anybody I know... I love her with all my heart but I would absolutely be crushed.
> 
> I would divorce her. I will never love love anybody any more than i love her but... I don't know... I might just commit suicide. I would be that crushed.


I get this. Completely. I could write every word of this myself at points in my life.

I think if I found out now ... I would just leave.
But I would have to convince myself that the years leading up to this were not just a lie. But I would pull it together. I would still love my daughter more than myself. But I would be crushed. And I would never lose the love I would have for my wife but I am pretty sure i would move on. It could never be the same.

I think it is great to be all-in ... but it comes with some serious risks. We read that One-itis is a danger. This is just a part of that.

I know that my friends would get me through and I would be the saddle again very soon.


----------



## over20

hambone said:


> This is a moot point for us because my wife is way past child bearing years.
> 
> BUT, if she had delivered a baby that was not mine... as much as I love her... I don't think I could get over the betrayal... I couldn't stand looking at that baby every day.. and being reminded of her infidelity.
> 
> My wife... honestly, we have the best marriage of anybody I know... I love her with all my heart but I would absolutely be crushed.
> 
> I would divorce her. I will never love love anybody any more than i love her but... I don't know... I might just commit suicide. I would be that crushed.


Hambone, you are an amazing, noble and honorable man. Thank you for sharing. Your wife is very blessed to be married to you.


----------



## hambone

over20 said:


> Hambone, you are an amazing, noble and honorable man. Thank you for sharing. Your wife is very blessed to be married to you.


Well, thank you... You are too kind!


----------



## over20

I am speaking the truth, you are very humble and wise


----------



## larry.gray

Entropy3000 said:


> Right. I think we are on to something here.
> 
> So this thread may have given birth to something of value after all.


To give credit where it is due, I believe Bandit.45 was the first to catch this paradox.


----------



## larry.gray

pidge70 said:


> Law & Order isn't that old....lol
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It only seems that way.....


Go watch a Max Greevy & Mike Logan episode. After a few minutes you will be saying "OMG, that's soooooo long ago."


----------



## Lyris

GettingIt said:


> Dude, I'm all like "c'mon lets have some peace and luv n' understandin, most 'specially for ourselves." AND YOU FREAKIN' RED FLAG ME? ME? *Rolling up my sleeves over here. . . . *
> 
> But no, seriously, did ya think I'm not calm? Like from where in my post? I mean, I was being sincere. I'm trying to understand why jld yanks so many chains. But I'm not mad or anything. Sorta fascinated, though.


- because she's disingenuous
- because she uses subtle insults and innuendo in a passive aggressive and underhand way
- because she is all over the board and posts 25 posts a day, making it very difficult to ignore her
- because she projects a persona that is very far from her real character as evidenced by sly nastiness and relentless repetition of unasked for and unwelcome advice. 


There are lots of posters that I find annoying on these boards. But they don't post as often. There are a lot of people who don't like me, I know. But at least what you see is basically what you get. I don't insult people while hiding behind syrupy sweet faux concern.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Interesting, every woman I've ever been with describes 69 as "not her favorite".


Lol,
Me too.

This made me laugh.

" 69" is like one of those things that sounds great in theory but are a waste of time in practical.

69 are like threesomes.
Awkward and confusing.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> - because she's disingenuous
> - because she uses subtle insults and innuendo in a passive aggressive and underhand way
> - because she is all over the board and posts 25 posts a day, making it very difficult to ignore her
> - because she projects a persona that is very far from her real character as evidenced by sly nastiness and relentless repetition of unasked for and unwelcome advice.
> 
> 
> There are lots of posters that I find annoying on these boards. But they don't post as often. There are a lot of people who don't like me, I know. But at least what you see is basically what you get. I don't insult people while hiding behind syrupy sweet faux concern.



That has not been my experience and I see absolutely no need to go down the route of trashing her.
We can thrash her thread , or her ideas , but there is no need to attack her publicly.

Different doesn't automatically mean wrong or evil or bad.

Jld and I have disagreed a few times and she has said stuff directly to me on threads that would have made others feel offended.
I was not , because I am not easily offended.

Yet she PMed me and apologized SINCERELY ,and we had a fruitful discussion about the issue.
And she apologized without me even asking her to, or telling her that I felt offended.

I don't see her as a fake or disingenuous .
Like everyone else here , she has her POV , and no one should be expected to give up their POV simply because it might be politically incorrect.

That is why we have debate.

I think it is a good trait in her as a person , that she is humble enough to apologize if she offends.


----------



## JCD

Clarity and Transparency are virtues.

"I think that all men should accept the bastard children from their cheating wives because it is a noble and right thing to do. If they do not do this, they are showing serious character flaws."

See how simple that is to write? But this leads to confrontation and being dismissed, two things most people want to avoid.

Now, this is arguably true. Let me adjust the language a little bit.

"A man who would accept the care of a bastard child carried by his wife is showing an *extraordinary* amount of selflessness...or a distressing weakness or neediness according to his character."

It really can go both ways.

Let us probe this situation a little more. 

jld, this is directed specifically at you.

I will give you two statements. Show me which one you agree with the most.

1) My noble husband is taking care of my bastard baby and I should stoically face the consequences of having behaved so abominably to them.

2) My noble husband, as part of getting over my mistakes, should not inflict any consequences on my for my prior actions.

I will not buy the 'she should be transparent, do NC and have boundaries' because in a wife, that SHOULD be nothing special. That is the JOB DESCRIPTION. She doesn't get a pat on the head for DOING HER JOB. Millions of wives do all these things. It is like giving her a prize for tying her shoes.

All I ask is that you select ONE of these statements, and then you can comment and discuss what you mean by them and why you disagree with the other one.


----------



## Omego

It's such a strange question anyway. The marriage would already have to be in bad shape to get to the point of cheating, let alone getting pregnant with someone else's child.

I honestly cannot say whether or not my husband would abandon me for that, but I think he would.

If my H cheated, and got someone else pregnant, I would leave him and never look back because the pain would be unbearable.

Maybe I'm weak, but so be it. I just couldn't handle it.


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> That has not been my experience and I see absolutely no need to go down the route of trashing her.
> We can thrash her thread , or her ideas , but there is no need to attack her publicly.
> 
> Different doesn't automatically mean wrong or evil or bad.
> 
> Jld and I have disagreed a few times and she has said stuff directly to me on threads that would have made others feel offended.
> I was not , because I am not easily offended.
> 
> Yet she PMed me and apologized SINCERELY ,and we had a fruitful discussion about the issue.
> And she apologized without me even asking her to, or telling her that I felt offended.
> 
> I don't see her as a fake or disingenuous .
> Like everyone else here , she has her POV , and no one should be expected to give up their POV simply because it might be politically incorrect.
> 
> That is why we have debate.
> 
> I think it is a good trait in her as a person , that she is humble enough to apologize if she offends.


I'm not attacking. I'm responding to questions by GettingIt. I'll take the post down if the mods think I should. 

And I disagree with your perspective on that poster's modus operandi. So that's my POV, which, according to your post, I shouldn't be expected to give up.

That is, after all, why we have debate.


----------



## Cosmos

I think men are programmed to have an innate fear of finding a cuckoo in their nest, hence most of the reactions we're seeing here. Even their bodies are built to create 'killer sperm' to ward off their partners being impregnated by other men...

On a primal level, women have similar fears about their partners impregnating other women and failing to provide for them and their off-spring.

There's a lot more than maturity and self-respect going on here, and I believe it would take a very high level of emotional detachment for anyone to find this sort of thing acceptable or even tolerable...


----------



## samyeagar

LongWalk said:


> To discover that your wife has cheated and moreover is pregnant with another man's child or has already given birth to one and kept it secret is nearly certain to devastate almost any man. By strong BH I mean a man who doesn't start drinking hard and manages to struggle through hard days at work without getting fired. A man who managed to keep his temper with his other children and even the love child.
> 
> A weaker mind might collapse.
> 
> *I can imagine a BH whose wife was pregnant acting decisively. It is possible that he might contact the OM and order him to appear before him and inform him that he was to sign a binding agreement to pay generous child support for the upbringing of the child and that he would meet the child every other weekend to share responsibility for raising the child*.
> 
> This agreement might include 100 percent of the costs of a 4-year degree.
> 
> Furthermore, I can imagine that the BH's cold anger compelled the man to sign and be under the BH's thumb for 18 years.
> 
> I am not saying that such a response would to everyone's taste but it would be an alternative to being a doormat.
> 
> The POSOM would have to deal with the strain of this situation and its impact his marriage and family.


And just why in the HELL would anyone want the OM to be around their kids, their wife for 18 more years? That is cuckold in the extreme.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Lyris said:


> I'm not attacking. I'm responding to questions by GettingIt. I'll take the post down if the mods think I should.
> 
> And I disagree with your perspective on that poster's modus operandi. So that's my POV, which, according to your post, I shouldn't be expected to give up.
> 
> That is, after all, why we have debate.


Lyris, I should have been more clear: I'm curious about unpacking the discomfort towards jld's ideas in this thread; I wasn't inviting comments toward her in general.

I wish you'd take your post down; I'd be sorry to see you get banned again!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Maricha75

GettingIt said:


> Lyris, I should have been more clear: I'm curious about unpacking the discomfort towards jld's ideas in this thread; I wasn't inviting comments toward her in general.
> 
> I wish you'd take your post down; I'd be sorry to see you get banned again!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There is nothing wrong with Lyris' post. You asked why people feel "discomfort towards jld's ideas". Lyris responded. It is HER observation on things she has seen in this thread, as well as others. And she is not the only one who has noticed these things, as other posters have stated. There is no reason for Lyris to take her post down.


----------



## WyshIknew

Wasn't it Evelyn Hall that said "I disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it?"


----------



## Lyris

GettingIt said:


> Dude, I'm all like "c'mon lets have some peace and luv n' understandin, most 'specially for ourselves." AND YOU FREAKIN' RED FLAG ME? ME? *Rolling up my sleeves over here. . . . *
> 
> But no, seriously, did ya think I'm not calm? Like from where in my post? I mean, I was being sincere. I'm trying to understand why jld yanks so many chains. But I'm not mad or anything. Sorta fascinated, though.


That sounds like general wondering to me. As do some of the other things you posted in this thread in response to TallAverageGuy.

There's not much point taking it down now as it's been quoted. I will though, if mods feel it's an attack. I don't feel that it is; I am being honest, upfront and transparent about how I feel about a very prolific and high profile poster on these boards. 

I've had plenty of less than positive things said about me here, it's the nature of being a reasonably visible poster on a busy message board. I try not to deal too much in passive aggression and dissimulation, and I prefer to be straightforward when possible. 

And I don't like the inference that anyone who disagrees with jld secretly feels inferior and jealous, which is what your posts implied.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> That is, after all, why we have debate.


And that's why there are _rules of engagement_ when debating.
Ad hominem , is not an honest debate tactic.

TAM also has it's own set of rules.


The point is, Jld's husband is also a member and has threads on TAM . Incidentally , many folks agree with his POV's, which are no different to his wife's.

He just explains himself differently.

Now several times you've attacked her in the past, I'm sure he would have seen , yet refused to comment , defend or even hit the report button and alerted the mods.

That's the type of man he is.
I know for sure he's on this thread.

No need to attack her personally.

That upsets the thread and the mods come in and lock them


----------



## JCD

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's why there are _rules of engagement_ when debating.
> Ad hominem , is not an honest debate tactic.
> .
> .
> .
> No need to attack her personally.


But is it?

I looked at her post and she described jld's debating 'tactics' perfectly.

All her posts have been passive aggressive and insinuated at 'male inadequacy' frequently. It wasn't very veiled.

Describing these tactics isn't a personal attack. Nor is saying that Lyris doesn't like her.


----------



## LongWalk

Lyris,

I can understand your reasoning about jld, but it is not really fair for the simple reason that if someone asks jld a question, even a probing one, she will earnestly try and answer it. So it is not like she throws in a handful of cherry bombs and runs away laughing.

You are an incisive, hard azz observer. I enjoy reading what you write. Don't change. If you write psychological analysis of someone, make certain that you don't salt it with personal distaste.

Returning to the topic:
Do folks think that Christianity weakens masculinity? If you mess with a woman (married or single) in some countries, her relatives will come after you: it's a matter of honor that women don't have sex unless the clan approves the man (and his clan).

Where is the borderline for forgiveness in Christianity? Should God or Jesus ever be brought into discussions of reconciliation? If vows are spoken in church, should the church also regulate conflict from infidelity? The Catholic church still does (try at least).


----------



## GettingIt_2

Lyris said:


> That sounds like general wondering to me. As do some of the other things you posted in this thread in response to TallAverageGuy.
> 
> There's not much point taking it down now as it's been quoted. I will though, if mods feel it's an attack. I don't feel that it is; I am being honest, upfront and transparent about how I feel about a very prolific and high profile poster on these boards.
> 
> I've had plenty of less than positive things said about me here, it's the nature of being a reasonably visible poster on a busy message board. I try not to deal too much in passive aggression and dissimulation, and I prefer to be straightforward when possible.
> 
> And I don't like the inference that anyone who disagrees with jld secretly feels inferior and jealous, which is what your posts implied.


Very well.


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> But is it?
> 
> I looked at her post and she described jld's debating 'tactics' perfectly.
> 
> All her posts have been passive aggressive and insinuated at 'male inadequacy' frequently. It wasn't very veiled.
> 
> Describing these tactics isn't a personal attack. Nor is saying that Lyris doesn't like her.


Lol,
Alright JCD, you made me chuckle this morning.

It is always better not to fight unnecessarily with a badger!


----------



## Jellybeans

Oh, FFS. 

Lyris, you haven't done anything wrong. 



Lyris said:


> And I don't like the inference that anyone who disagrees with jld secretly feels inferior and jealous, which is what your posts implied.


And doesn't that seem to be a theme, not only in this thread but in others? In addition to being "wrong" and lacking compassion, etc?

When someone posts on TAM, people will develop a personality for that person. Especially if they post a lot. It is par for the course. Not everyone is going to like or agree with everybody on TAM. 

And debates abound. Everywhere, not only here but in other places.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> Lyris,
> 
> I can understand your reasoning about jld, but it is not really fair for the simple reason that if someone asks jld a question, even a probing one, she will earnestly try and answer it. So it is not like she throws in a handful of cherry bombs and runs away laughing.


Not sure about that 'straight answer' thing.

For example, I asked what she had to say about a cheating wife. "Help me understand" i.e. give me your excuses. Her incredibly fine tuned 'moral judgment' which insinuates that a man who doesn't welcome a little bastard baby with open arms is 'immature' suddenly disappears when met by an IMmoral woman. Where is the 'judgment' about HER maturity? 

Then she turned it around and asked if I needed her to suffer more.

Additionally, TWICE I have asked about why adoption isn't the first thing out of the gate? Many people have stated that having such a baby around would be a painful emotional trigger and harm her family, her husband and herself. That by even asking this, the woman is making her husband suffer more (ring any bells jld?) Why would the wife want to make her husband suffer more?

She has heretofore refused to discuss that. Why? That is not straightforward. There are very moral and righteous reasons why a woman SHOULD do that with THAT baby. Suddenly, that moral judgment which measures any man less than a saint as a lesser being again disappears. Why?

So...I would welcome her to earnestly and honestly answer those questions and the ones I posted an hour or so ago.


----------



## JCD

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> Alright JCD, you made me chuckle this morning.
> 
> It is always better not to fight unnecessarily with a badger!


Our teeth reach to an uncomfortable level and we are low down and dirty.


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's why there are _rules of engagement_ when debating.
> Ad hominem , is not an honest debate tactic.
> 
> TAM also has it's own set of rules.
> 
> 
> The point is, Jld's husband is also a member and has threads on TAM . Incidentally , many folks agree with his POV's, which are no different to his wife's.
> 
> He just explains himself differently.
> 
> Now several times you've attacked her in the past, I'm sure he would have seen , yet refused to comment , defend or even hit the report button and alerted the mods.
> 
> That's the type of man he is.
> I know for sure he's on this thread.
> 
> No need to attack her personally.
> 
> That upsets the thread and the mods come in and lock them


1) we are not in a formal debate setting, therefore I am not bound by formal debate rules

2) I did not use an ad hominem attack

3) I abided by TAM's rules as I understand them. I'm happy for a mod to correct me if I didn't 

3) why should it matter to me that jld's husband is reading this thread? I stand by everything I've said. And so what if many people agree with him? Many people agree with jld. I don't agree with either of them. 

4) and finally, I find it highly ironic that I am being lectured about ethical posting and debate style by someone who routinely uses intimidation, contempt, innuendo and vague inference as tactics. I haven't forgotten the incident where you outright stated I lied and then refused to supply proof. And from PMs I've received, I'm not the only one who remembers.


----------



## Jellybeans

JCD said:


> . Her incredibly fine tuned 'moral judgment' which insinuates that a man who doesn't welcome *a little bastard baby*


Made me :rofl:

JCD, you're funny.


----------



## JCD

Jellybeans said:


> Made me :rofl:
> 
> JCD, you're funny.


 No doubt I'll be accused of an ad hominem when it is in fact a correct term for the infant.


----------



## Jellybeans

Yeah because everything is so PC now.  Must handle with care or else you are EVIL!


----------



## Maricha75

Jellybeans said:


> Yeah because everything is so PC now.  Must handle with care or else you are EVIL!


Then I am evil. I don't "do" PC.


----------



## JCD

Maricha75 said:


> Then I am evil. I don't "do" PC.


Badgers only do low bars...


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Somebody PLEASE tell me who JLD's husband is!!! I want to read his threads.


----------



## Jellybeans

Maricha75 said:


> Then I am evil. I don't "do" PC.


Yeah, you are! That's why you're my friend.


----------



## JCD

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Somebody PLEASE tell me who JLD's husband is!!! I want to read his threads.


Well, the way he's described, he's this guy










With a side of lust.


----------



## ScarletBegonias




----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> 1) we are not in a formal debate setting, therefore I am not bound by formal debate rules
> 
> 2) I did not use an ad hominem attack
> 
> 3) I abided by TAM's rules as I understand them. I'm happy for a mod to correct me if I didn't
> 
> 3) why should it matter to me that jld's husband is reading this thread? I stand by everything I've said. And so what if many people agree with him? Many people agree with jld. I don't agree with either of them.
> 
> 4) and finally, I find it highly ironic that I am being lectured about ethical posting and debate style by someone who routinely uses intimidation, contempt, innuendo and vague inference as tactics. I haven't forgotten the incident where you outright stated I lied and then refused to supply proof. And from PMs I've received, I'm not the only one who remembers.


LMAO.

See the direction the thread is taking?
Now put yourself in _her _position...

Goodnight Lyris.


----------



## Omego

JCD said:


> Well, the way he's described, he's this guy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a side of lust.


:rofl: Who is that actor, by the way? 

We can start posting pictures of good-looking guys to bring this thread back to the lighter side..... always a fun distraction.


----------



## Omego

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Somebody PLEASE tell me who JLD's husband is!!! I want to read his threads.



It's Duguesclin. He posted a really good thread on men listening to their wives. I'll try to find it.


That being said, I'm not going to debate on who's wrong, who's right, but I don't think Lyris's post should be removed. People can express their opinions as long as they do not insult anyone. Some are direct, others are not.


----------



## Jellybeans

JCD said:


> Well, the way he's described, he's this guy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a side of lust.


Jesus would not approve, Do not do that, JCD.


----------



## Dollystanford

Is Jim Cavaziel no? And of course her post shouldn't be removed. It is blisteringly accurate as she generally is. If people don't agree then OH WELL


----------



## Omego

Dollystanford said:


> Is Jim Cavaziel no?


Yes, it is. I barely recognized him. He's very good in Person of Interest.


----------



## Jellybeans

He's hot. So him being Jesus makes me feel weird. 

LOL.

I bet JC was a hottie. Just saying.


----------



## samyeagar

Jellybeans said:


> He's hot. So him being Jesus makes me feel weird.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> *I bet JC was a hottie*. Just saying.


The western idealized version maybe...


----------



## Jellybeans

No. I am talking about his actual origins. Not westernized versions. In my mind he was probably a very attractive man with beautiful caramel middle eastern skin. And tall.

Maybe something like this.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

samyeagar said:


> The western idealized version maybe...



yes...I seriously doubt that Jesus had Blonde hair and blue eyes but hey...with GOD all things are possible.

It doesn't really matter what He looked like though does it?


thanks for the name. I am interested in what he has to say.


----------



## samyeagar

I'll start with some plattitudes..."To each their own", and "There's someone for every one."

I was originally going to try and veil things in the same way some others here have done, but one thing I learned over the years of dealing with my my NPD ex wife is that is never works. Things are so carefully crafted and framed that any disagreement can and will be turned around as an attack, so they can either be validated or feel the victim. The dangerous part of this is that often times the person doing it has it so honed, so ingrained that they honestly do not recognize the behavior in themselves, only in others. So I decided to just come right out and say it...

There are not many women who could tolerate a husband as jld's has been described by her. It simply wouldn't appeal. They would expect more. There are not many men who could tolerate a wife like jld. THere would simply be no appeal. They would expect more. Many of us on this thread would make far better husbands and wives for eachother than either of those two, and that brings me full circle here...

"To each their own", and "There's someone for every one."


----------



## samyeagar

Jellybeans said:


> No. I am talking about his actual origins. Not westernized versions. In my mind he was probably a very attractive man with beautiful caramel middle eastern skin. And tall.
> 
> Maybe something like this.


But he looks like he has a professional hair stylist, and had a shower with clean water within the last few weeks...


----------



## Jellybeans

Are you suggesting that Jesus could NOT have had nice hair or bathed?


----------



## samyeagar

Jellybeans said:


> Are you suggesting that Jesus could NOT have had nice hair or bathed?


I'm sure he did...in a 2000 year ago sort of way


----------



## ScarletBegonias

samyeagar said:


> I'm sure he did...in a 2000 year ago sort of way


:rofl:


----------



## Jellybeans

samyeagar said:


> I'm sure he did...in a 2000 year ago sort of way


Touché :rofl:


----------



## samyeagar

Jellybeans said:


> Touché :rofl:


And when ever a period sex thread pops up...I so badly want to make a Moses joke...


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

samyeagar said:


> I'll start with some plattitudes..."To each their own", and "There's someone for every one."
> 
> I was originally going to try and veil things in the same way some others here have done, but one thing I learned over the years of dealing with my my NPD ex wife is that is never works. Things are so carefully crafted and framed that any disagreement can and will be turned around as an attack, so they can either be validated or feel the victim. The dangerous part of this is that often times the person doing it has it so honed, so ingrained that they honestly do not recognize the behavior in themselves, only in others. So I decided to just come right out and say it...
> 
> There are not many women who could tolerate a husband as jld's has been described by her. It simply wouldn't appeal. They would expect more. There are not many men who could tolerate a wife like jld. THere would simply be no appeal. They would expect more. Many of us on this thread would make far better husbands and wives for eachother than either of those two, and that brings me full circle here...
> 
> "To each their own", and "There's someone for every one."


and I agree with you 100%

It does not matter to me how they live their lives. If they are happy and fulfilled...wonderful.

The problem comes when "because" of their choices...they decide that they can help everyone else if they could convince others to be more like them. This thread is an example. 

The same point has been argued for pages and pages. WHY? Because JLDs views are very important to her and she thinks if she can convince the others to think like her...the problem is solved.

Now she is certainly not alone in her thinking...We see that type of behavior everyday. We are told by politicians what is best for us and how we should go about it and that their way is the best way. So I cannot fault her for her effort.

She is truly convicted of what she believes.

I think JLD means well...I dont agree with her most of the time...but I do not doubt her good intentions. I could say the same thing about many people here. Most people here have very good intentions.


----------



## samyeagar

Mrs. John Adams said:


> and I agree with you 100%
> 
> It does not matter to me how they live their lives. If they are happy and fulfilled...wonderful.
> 
> The problem comes when "because" of their choices...*they decide that they can help everyone else if they could convince others to be more like them.* This thread is an example.
> 
> The same point has been argued for pages and pages. WHY? Because JLDs views are very important to her and she thinks if she can convince the others to think like her...the problem is solved.
> 
> Now she is certainly not alone in her thinking...We see that type of behavior everyday. We are told by politicians what is best for us and how we should go about it and that their way is the best way. So I cannot fault her for her effort.
> 
> She is truly convicted of what she believes.
> 
> I think JLD means well...I dont agree with her most of the time...but I do not doubt her good intentions. I could say the same thing about many people here. Most people here have very good intentions.


And that is where the TRULY strong, secure people rise above these tactics. They see it for what it is, and are not swayed by it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> And that is where the TRULY strong, secure people rise above these tactics. They see it for what it is, and are not swayed by it.


:iagree:

On BOTH sides of the debate/ divide.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Mrs. John Adams said:


> She is truly convicted of what she believes.
> 
> I think JLD means well...I dont agree with her most of the time...*but I do not doubt her good intentions.*


:iagree:

And _that's_ the point.

IMO , it's isn't right to impute improper motives to a person simply because we disagree with them, or don't like them.

And BTW, I disagree with her , vehemently sometimes. Even on this thread I disagreed with her, but I like her and respect their marriage.

Twenty plus years and they're happily grounded,
I got to respect that.

Just like I told another poster who's married for quite sometime and they're swingers.

I disagree with him, we argue a lot sometimes , but I have to respect the fact that it worked _for them_.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

larry.gray said:


> *I won't go there because we have the option of plan B. It's standard to offer it at the ER when being examined after a rape.
> 
> I understand that some hesitate because it would be considered 'abortion' by some. But it is the same as an IUD - it prevents implantation, so I don't view it that way*.


I didn't think of this at the time, I am not against abortion (given certain dire circumstances)... I agree with you, I didn't know it was called >







...(not up on things).....and I have had christians tell me I am killing babies cause I have an IUD.. ..whatever....I love my IUD!


----------



## JCD

Plan B should have been this woman's Plan A.

She would have felt like hell over doing this, but frankly, she deserves it.

Instead, she decides she is going to share her shame and pain with everyone else in her life: her mother who keeps stopping mid conversation and just looking at her; her father who can barely stand to talk to her; her sister who gives the BH pitying glances, the kids who want to know what mommy and daddy are always crying when everyone says a baby is a happy time...

BUT...the woman would have to sacrifice. She would have to sacrifice to give it up for adoption.

For reasons I do not understand, this is anathema. If you'd like to clear this up, jld, please do so.


----------



## Jellybeans

Long live the IUD, birth control pills, the sponge, Plan B, the patch, depo shots, condoms and all the other things that are exist JUST for the purpose of NOT getting pregnant. Yee haw!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'm pleased as punch with my hysterectomy. While the other ladies are like "do you have a tampon?" I'm all "wtf is a tampon??" While the other ladies are like "gotta go refill my birth control rx" I'm all "Wtf is this birth control you speak of?" ROFL


----------



## samyeagar

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> And _that's_ the point.
> 
> IMO , it's isn't right to impute improper motives to a person simply because we disagree with them, or don't like them.
> 
> And BTW, I disagree with her , vehemently sometimes. Even on this thread I disagreed with her, but I like her and respect their marriage.
> 
> Twenty plus years and they're happily grounded,
> I got to respect that.
> 
> Just like I told another poster who's married for quite sometime and they're swingers.
> 
> I disagree with him, we argue a lot sometimes , but I have to respect the fact that it worked _for them_.


Don't get me wrong. I vehemently disagree with jld on most things, and I do find her communication tactics to be very manipulative and disingenuous, but I also recognize them for what they are. As for motives, I believe her motives are so ingrained in her that she honestly believes what she says so in that sense, yes, they are pure. I don't however think she has the built in empathy to understand why people disagree with her which is what makes communicating with her so difficult as to be nearly impossible.


----------



## Maricha75

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'm pleased as punch with my hysterectomy. While the other ladies are like "do you have a tampon?" I'm all "wtf is a tampon??" While the other ladies are like "gotta go refill my birth control rx" I'm all "Wtf is this birth control you speak of?" ROFL


No hysterectomy, but tubes tied. I'm happy with that choice, however I do have days I wish we'd had just one more baby. Must be that whole "My baby is almost done with kindergarten!".... Also, my daughter will need some sort of feminine products in a few years...so I will STILL be carrying them around, even after I no longer need them. Well, at least, until she's 14 or 15 lol.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> That has not been my experience and I see absolutely no need to go down the route of trashing her.
> We can thrash her thread , or her ideas , *but there is no need to attack her publicly.
> 
> Different doesn't automatically mean wrong or evil or bad.*
> 
> Jld and I have disagreed a few times and she has said stuff directly to me on threads that would have made others feel offended.
> I was not , because I am not easily offended.
> 
> Yet she PMed me and apologized SINCERELY ,and we had a fruitful discussion about the issue.
> And she apologized without me even asking her to, or telling her that I felt offended.
> 
> I don't see her as a fake or disingenuous .
> *Like everyone else here , she has her POV , and no one should be expected to give up their POV simply because it might be politically incorrect.
> 
> That is why we have debate.
> *
> I think it is a good trait in her as a person , that she is humble enough to apologize if she offends.


As usual .. I am with CM !! Ya know...there are many threads I've thought of starting here... but it'd cause a freaking firestorm...people would accuse me of trying to change them and all that Bs by throwing a subject out -and expressing how I personally feel....because it's not "politically correct"....so I hold back...

But yeah.. nothing wrong with some debate...love it... if someone doesn't like JLD & sees her only through the eyes of disgust.... do her a favor...put her on Ignore...

She doesn't bother me... even though I vehemently disagree with her views on this one...Yet ....I invite her viewpoint !


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Maricha75 said:


> No hyterectomy, but tubes tied. I'm happy with that choice, however I do have days I wish we'd had just one more baby. Must be that whole "My baby is almost done with kindergarten!".... Also, my daughter will need some sort of feminine products in a few years...so I will STILL be carrying them around, even after I no longer need them. Well, at least, until she's 14 or 15 lol.


I have those tugs every now and then bc DH and I don't have children together. Then I go to a restaurant or a mall on a Saturday...instantly cured.


----------



## Caribbean Man

samyeagar said:


> Don't get me wrong. I vehemently disagree with jld on most things, and I do find her communication tactics to be very manipulative and disingenuous, but I also recognize them for what they are. As for motives, I believe her motives are so ingrained in her that she honestly believes what she says so in that sense, yes, they are pure. I don't however think she has the built in empathy to understand why people disagree with her which is what makes communicating with her so difficult as to be nearly impossible.


Sammy i agree with you.

But I know you know what I mean!


----------



## LongWalk

Everybody has his own idea of what sort of betrayal he could forgive, but until these are real choices we don't really know how we will react. Forgiveness that is coerced from us may end up retracted upon deeper consideration.

Some men and women will never forgive or reconcile after infidelity, period. Others will under certain circumstances. If folks on TAM can advise some to go for reconciliation if a wayward shows remorse, who is to say that a baby is for sure an absolute deal killer?

Imagine having sex with a preggo WW?

Actually some time ago there was a doctor whose wife cheated and was pregnant. It was uncertain whose child it was. The OM was a masseuse. He was going to divorce her if the baby was OM's. They had a test done and it was his. They reconciled and he stopped posting.


----------



## vellocet

Despicable, completely despicable. No man should have to go through this, much less a man who is overseas risking his life.

The Curious Case of Staff Sergeant Parsons - | @TheRhinoDen | Home Of All Things Military


----------



## jld

Good morning, JCD. I just read your latest posts. I am going to finish exercising and take a shower, and then I will sit down and answer your latest questions, okay?

But if you want, in the meantime, you can go back and read my earlier posts. I am pretty sure they will cover what you want to know. 

And if not, you can keep asking. We all learn from spirited debate.

I know the thread is long, and it is hard to remember everything that was said.


----------



## SadSamIAm

jld said:


> Good morning, JCD. I just read your latest posts. I am going to finish exercising and take a shower, and then I will sit down and answer your latest questions, okay?
> 
> But if you want, in the meantime, you can go back and read my earlier posts. I am pretty sure they will cover what you want to know.
> 
> And if not, you can keep asking. We all learn from spirited debate.
> 
> I know the thread is long, and it is hard to remember everything that was said.


Is this a polite way of calling him stupid?


----------



## Oldfaithful

I don't think my h could accept a child if I conceived it cheating on him. 
I won't say he treats my child as his own because he knows my ex is the father and as much as we both don't like him, he doesn't want to try to take his place. 
He does take full responsibility for child rearing tasks when I am too sick to do them, and I know that he loves and cares for her.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> But if you want, in the meantime, you can go back and read my earlier posts. I am pretty sure they will cover what you want to know.


I'm sure he could take a few hours and read through 50+pages of a thread. However, he wouldn't find the answer to the question. I went through 48 pages last night, so it's still pretty fresh in my mind. The question he asked is not answered... yet.



jld said:


> And if not, you can keep asking. We all learn from spirited debate.


That's why he's asking... because it's not.



jld said:


> I know the thread is long, and it is hard to remember everything that was said.


Exactly. Which is why I went back last night, after someone said "I don't think she said...." and yes, what was in question WAS said. But no, what JCD is asking was not said before.


----------



## JCD

SadSamIAm said:


> Is this a polite way of calling him stupid?


Badgers are not known for our speed. To put it bluntly, we are slow.

We also like simple declarative sentences, not answering questions with questions or deflections. It's our brain structure.

Well...most of us. Honey Badger don't care.

So let me reiterate them.

Why isn't adoption the best option?

How is asking her family to do this not going to cause them a bucket full of pain which is easily avoided?


Pick the phrase which you agree with more:

-Just as my husband has nobly agreed to take in my little bastard baby, I would stoically and understandingly take the consequences of my poor actions however painful they may be because I will do this for the baby.

-To really and truly reconcile, my husband should make things as normal and painless for me as possible if he has any nobility of character.


----------



## JCD

Maricha75 said:


> I'm sure he could take a few hours and read through 50+pages of a thread. However, he wouldn't find the answer to the question. I went through 48 pages last night, so it's still pretty fresh in my mind. The question he asked is not answered... yet.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why he's asking... because it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which is why I went back last night, after someone said "I don't think she said...." and yes, what was in question WAS said. But no, what JCD is asking was not said before.


To be fair, jld asked for a specific scenario: would a man take in a child not his own in X,Y, and Z situation.

So we really aren't discussing ALL the options. I am allowed to ask the question however.


----------



## soccermom2three

Dollystanford said:


> Is Jim Cavaziel no? And of course her post shouldn't be removed. It is blisteringly accurate as she generally is. If people don't agree then OH WELL



Totally off topic: My cousin and his fiancé worked on a film with Jim Cavaziel (he's a prop master, she's a costumer). I guess he's a total ******* jerk.


----------



## naiveonedave

Vellocet - that story is why so many men on here are riled up by JLD. You hear these stories of how men get hosed and then there are women who claim we are not mature enough. UGH.


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> "A man who would accept the care of a bastard child carried by his wife is showing an *extraordinary* amount of selflessness...or a distressing weakness or neediness according to his character."
> 
> It really can go both ways.
> 
> Let us probe this situation a little more.
> 
> jld, this is directed specifically at you.
> 
> I will give you two statements. Show me which one you agree with the most.
> 
> 1) My noble husband is taking care of my bastard baby and I should stoically face the consequences of having behaved so abominably to them.
> 
> 2) My noble husband, as part of getting over my mistakes, should not inflict any consequences on my for my prior actions.
> 
> I will not buy the 'she should be transparent, do NC and have boundaries' because in a wife, that SHOULD be nothing special. That is the JOB DESCRIPTION. She doesn't get a pat on the head for DOING HER JOB. Millions of wives do all these things. It is like giving her a prize for tying her shoes.
> 
> All I ask is that you select ONE of these statements, and then you can comment and discuss what you mean by them and why you disagree with the other one.


Both 1 and 2 are the same.

My noble husband is taking care of my bastard baby and as I stoically face the consequences of having behaved so abominably toward my family, my noble husband is such because he does not inflict any consequences on my bastard baby.


----------



## JCD

soccermom2three said:


> Totally off topic: My cousin and his fiancé worked on a film with Jim Cavaziel (he's a prop master, she's a costumer). I guess he's a total ******* jerk.


How so?


----------



## Maricha75

Anon Pink said:


> Both 1 and 2 are the same.
> 
> My noble husband is taking care of my bastard baby and as I stoically face the consequences of having behaved so abominably toward my family, my noble husband is such because he does not inflict any consequences on my bastard baby.


In the post you quoted, it shoudl have read "should not inflict any consequences on ME, not "my", in the 2nd statement. (In a later post, it was written correctly) So, no, they are not the same thing.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Both 1 and 2 are the same.
> 
> My noble husband is taking care of my bastard baby and as I stoically face the consequences of having behaved so abominably toward my family, my noble husband is such because he does not inflict any consequences on my bastard baby.


No. That is the primary point.

jld asserted that THE BABY is the most important thing.

Well and good. Let us say that noble husband is perfectly willing to see things in that light. A BABY is innocent. A BABY can't wrong him.

But his wife did...

So, he is a perfect father. He teaches it to walk. He teaches it to read and write. He learns to love it. 

I am partitioning the baby from the mother.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Both 1 and 2 are the same.
> 
> My noble husband is taking care of my bastard baby and as I stoically face the consequences of having behaved so abominably toward my family, my noble husband is such because he does not inflict any consequences on my bastard baby.


Marchia75 is correct. My claws slipped on the keyboard. The second rendition above is clearer. Use that.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> Why isn't adoption the best option?
> 
> How is asking her family to do this not going to cause them a bucket full of pain which is easily avoided?
> 
> 
> Pick the phrase which you agree with more:
> 
> -Just as my husband has nobly agreed to take in my little bastard baby, I would stoically and understandingly take the consequences of my poor actions however painful they may be because I will do this for the baby.
> 
> -To really and truly reconcile, my husband should make things as normal and painless for me as possible if he has any nobility of character.


JCD, I hope you don't mind, but I need to give you a rather quick reply (for me, anyway). I am taking my kids to lunch and a children's museum, and need to scoot to get that in before their ballet lessons this afternoon. Feel free to ask more, if you like. I should be back later this afternoon, or early evening. 

About adoption, yes, I remember this coming up earlier in the thread and I thought I said that yes, that is an option, too. Obviously it is the mother's decision. I don't think that should be forced on anyone.

Yes, anytime there is an affair, there is going to be a bucketload of pain, even if it is just one person carrying it silently his or her whole life. If they have a conscience, anyway.

For sure, whatever we do has consequences, not only for us, but for the people around us, and perhaps far beyond that. That is why the stories here on TAM are so instructive: we can read them and learn what not to do, because the price is indeed so high.

A few of my sisters got pregnant out of wedlock. My parents were ashamed to death the first two times it happened. But they got past it. 

I think they grew in their compassion, and certainly in their understanding. 

It happened to 3 of my sisters over the course of 23 years. It was interesting to see the evolution in my parents' thinking.

By the time my niece got pregnant the same way, about ten years ago, my dad actually immediately wrote her an e-mail expressing support and compassion, telling her we are all only human. I thought that was very kind on his part.

JCD, I long ago accepted my dh's authority in my life. Any conditions he put on me would be adhered to, and I know they would be with my, the baby, and everyone else's best interests in mind. So to be brief, the first option more closely matches my thinking, though it is not in the spirit of dh's way of thinking.

Well, got to go now. I hope this clarified things.


----------



## vellocet

:slap:


----------



## WyshIknew

ScarletBegonias said:


> I'm pleased as punch with my hysterectomy. While the other ladies are like "do you have a tampon?" I'm all "wtf is a tampon??" While the other ladies are like "gotta go refill my birth control rx" I'm all "Wtf is this birth control you speak of?" ROFL


Same reason I like my vasectomy. No annoying rubber bags for down below, and no pills/chemicals for my wife to take which could possibly be harmful for her.

No worries about birth control etc etc.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I still think taking such a child is the equivalent of accepting the OM's c*mshot to the face. Jld's appeal to authority in judging what is or is not a "real man" or "real love" or a man who can "handle it" or whatever could never convince me otherwise... because she in fact has no such authority.

I'd honestly prefer a world where such a mother faces large negative consequences for her actions - losing her husband and support for her bastard child - over a world where "good men" take on and care for these children. If we were all such "good men" such misbehavior would flourish. In my world, the real world, there is greater disincentive.

Regardless, "good men" should not keep and raise the bastard children of "sh*tty women". "Good men" deserve better. And I say this in full light of my own misbehaviors. Consequences must be paid and it is justly so. The baby is NOT the most important thing. Self-determination: not being a slave to the actions of others is the most important thing.

This is the trap jld sets. Slavery by false moral coercion.


----------



## vellocet




----------



## JCD

jld said:


> JCD, I hope you don't mind, but I need to give you a rather quick reply (for me, anyway). I am taking my kids to lunch and a children's museum, and need to scoot to get that in before their ballet lessons this afternoon. Feel free to ask more, if you like. I should be back later this afternoon, or early evening.
> 
> About adoption, yes, I remember this coming up earlier in the thread and I thought I said that yes, that is an option, too. Obviously it is the mother's decision. I don't think that should be forced on anyone.
> 
> Yes, anytime there is an affair, there is going to be a bucketload of pain, even if it is just one person carrying it silently his or her whole life. If they have a conscience, anyway.
> 
> For sure, whatever we do has consequences, not only for us, but for the people around us, and perhaps far beyond that. That is why the stories here on TAM are so instructive: we can read them and learn what not to do, because the price is indeed so high.
> 
> A few of my sisters got pregnant out of wedlock. My parents were ashamed to death the first two times it happened. But they got past it.
> 
> I think they grew in their compassion, and certainly in their understanding.
> 
> It happened to 3 of my sisters over the course of 23 years. It was interesting to see the evolution in my parents' thinking.
> 
> By the time my niece got pregnant the same way, about ten years ago, my dad actually immediately wrote her an e-mail expressing support and compassion, telling her we are all only human. I thought that was very kind on his part.
> 
> JCD, I long ago accepted my dh's authority in my life. Any conditions he put on me would be adhered to, and I know they would be with my, the baby, and everyone else's best interests in mind. So to be brief, the first option more closely matches my thinking, though it is not in the spirit of dh's way of thinking.
> 
> Well, got to go now. I hope this clarified things.



:scratchhead:

Okay...let's try this again.

What is the moral and ethical choice for the woman to make? Should she give the baby to parents who need and want a baby or should she bring it into her family, hoping they can be 'compassionate' enough take it in with the obvious possibility of a divorce?

And why does her husband have no say in this matter? I thought it was his family too. 

Are you suggesting that the wife is the final arbiter of who is allowed into the family, or that she can choose to leave?


----------



## sandc

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I still think taking such a child is the equivalent of accepting the OM's c*mshot to the face. Jld's appeal to authority in judging what is or is not a "real man" or "real love" or a man who can "handle it" or whatever could never convince me otherwise... because she in fact has no such authority.
> 
> I'd honestly prefer a world where such a mother faces large negative consequences for her actions - losing her husband and support for her bastard child - over a world where "good men" take on and care for these children. If we were all such "good men" such behavior would flourish. In my world, the real world, there is greater disincentive.
> 
> Regardless, "good men" should not keep and raise the bastard children of "sh*tty women". And I say this in full light of my own misbehaviors. Consequences must be paid and it is justly so. The baby is NOT the most important thing. Self-determination: not being a slave to the actions of others is the most important thing.
> 
> This is the trap jld sets. Slavery by false moral coercion.


I don't think any child should go without monetary support. However, I think the bio dad (whomever he is) should be on the hook for that support. Whether the child is born of an affair or not. Whether the woman has to go to court or not. The biological father should pay for his children no matter who the mother is... in a perfect world.

So if my wife became pregnant from an affair, as part of the R process, I would demand that she go to court and seek child support from the bio dad. I would ask her to keep pursuing her legal options until said bio-dad was forced to pay either by wage garnishment or whatever legal avenues are available to her.


----------



## GusPolinski

vellocet said:


>


In a government run by GusPolinski, they will be!

Vote Gus for President in 2016!

He's the *GUS*T of fresh air that our country needs!

Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## Married but Happy

Did you just fart? 

Sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## GusPolinski

Married but Happy said:


> Did you just fart?
> 
> Sorry, couldn't resist!


LOL


----------



## JCD

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I still think taking such a child is the equivalent of accepting the OM's c*mshot to the face. Jld's appeal to authority in judging what is or is not a "real man" or "real love" or a man who can "handle it" or whatever could never convince me otherwise... because she in fact has no such authority.
> 
> I'd honestly prefer a world where such a mother faces large negative consequences for her actions - losing her husband and support for her bastard child - over a world where "good men" take on and care for these children. If we were all such "good men" such behavior would flourish. In my world, the real world, there is greater disincentive.
> 
> Regardless, "good men" should not keep and raise the bastard children of "sh*tty women". "Good men" deserve better. And I say this in full light of my own misbehaviors. Consequences must be paid and it is justly so. The baby is NOT the most important thing. Self-determination: not being a slave to the actions of others is the most important thing.
> 
> This is the trap jld sets. Slavery by false moral coercion.


I am all for nobility of the spirit. However, there ARE negative consequences to society for 'too' forgiving a nature. It enables and encourages bad behavior.

These actions SHOULD be painful.


----------



## Married but Happy

Just to add a curious factoid I read recently: if you could trace your ancestry back to around 1900 and examine the genes of every ancestor, almost every person alive today had at least one ancestor who was the result of infidelity during marriage. Most such infidelities are never discovered.


----------



## Entropy3000

JCD said:


> Well, the way he's described, he's this guy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a side of lust.


Close ...


----------



## GusPolinski

Married but Happy said:


> Just to add a curious factoid I read recently: if you could trace your ancestry back to around 1900 and examine the genes of every ancestor, almost every person alive today had at least one ancestor who was the result of infidelity during marriage. Most such infidelities are never discovered.


I've often thought about this myself, especially when I've looked at pictures of my paternal grandfather and his father standing side-by-side. To be clear, he looks a LOT like his mother, but there are certain traits that you'd think would have been passed on to him by his father.

I get the same feeling when looking at pictures of my mother and her parents. She doesn't look like either of them to me. I would HATE to think that my (maternal) grandmother could have been capable of such a thing but I guess you never really know.


----------



## Entropy3000

SadSamIAm said:


> Is this a polite way of calling him stupid?


I just saw the reference to long and hard.


----------



## vellocet

Omego said:


> It's such a strange question anyway. The marriage would already have to be in bad shape to get to the point of cheating


Not always. Sometimes it just as simple as one of the spouses don't like the fact that they have to forsake all others and the variety that comes with it. Sometimes its just the obviously poor character of the person doing the cheating and nothing to do with the marriage other than the fact the cheater isn't fit to be married to anyone.




> If my H cheated, and got someone else pregnant, I would leave him and never look back because the pain would be unbearable.
> 
> Maybe I'm weak, but so be it. I just couldn't handle it.


And that's the problem with the thread starters opinion of someone like you. Well, maybe for you, since you are a woman, she wouldn't hold this view. But if you were a man, you'd be a less of a man because you wouldn't put up with it.


----------



## Anon Pink

Maricha75 said:


> In the post you quoted, it shoudl have read "should not inflict any consequences on ME, not "my", in the 2nd statement. (In a later post, it was written correctly) So, no, they are not the same thing.


Okay revised for typo.

My noble husband is taking care of my bastard baby and as I stoically face the consequences of having behaved so abominably toward my family, my noble husband is such because he does not inflict any consequences on my bastard baby, even though I no longer enjoy his love toward me, nor his emotional or financial support.

I don't think JLD suggested anywhere that the wife who gives birth to a bastard baby NOT bear the consequences of her fraud.

No, I am NOT going to go back and reread this thread.


----------



## GusPolinski

Entropy3000 said:


> I just saw the reference to long and hard.


Giggity.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Entropy3000 said:


> long and hard.


now instead of focusing on the topic I'm daydreaming about DH...


----------



## LongWalk

:iagree: with Vellocet

Mommy's little secret

In fact child support is coercion to increase male acquiescence to marriage. "If I get some woman pregnant, I'll have to pay for the rest of my life, so I might as well marry a woman and get laid regularly."

This is not to say men don't also want to fall in love and commit, but they do not understand they will have to date their wife and pass all sorts of shxt tests. Men do not understand that in exchange for their commitment to monogamy chances of a cheating spouse are high.

Here is a reprint of a Canadian newspaper article that states that fathers are falsely attributed paternity in the range of 5% - 15% of all children born. The insights come from studies involving genetically transmitted diseases.



> Some peg the range at 5 to 10 per cent; others, such as Jeanette Papp of the University of California at Los Angeles, feel that 15 per cent is reasonable for the Western world, even if there is no hard evidence.


In the discussion, it comes out that when doctors discovered that dad is not dad, they often routinely cover up the truth, even though denying the man knowledge about his own genetic material, i.e., he is not a carrier of the disease. He many spend the rest of his life thinking he can pass on cystic fibrosis or some other malady. This could easily influence the decision not to divorce in the belief that he would have to tell potential partners that he is flawed.

Clearly routine DNA testing in the hospital after childbirth would result in a higher divorce rate.

Also, from the selfish gene perspective the father who expends a significant amount of his income on handicapped child whose genetic defects were not his may forego having his own children. Luckily there a billions of people on the planet, so the individual tragedies do not threaten our collective reproductive success.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

SB...you aren't thinking of calling him daddy are you?


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> JCD, I long ago accepted my dh's authority in my life. Any conditions he put on me would be adhered to, and I know they would be with my, the baby, and everyone else's best interests in mind. So to be brief, the first option more closely matches my thinking,* though it is not in the spirit of dh's way of thinking*.



I saw what you did there. Nice try.

Let me translate from the quoted text:

"I will submit to punishment from a man who doesn't believe in punishment."

Now...would you submit to consequences from someone a little less saintly?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Mrs. John Adams said:


> SB...you aren't thinking of calling him daddy are you?


oh heaven's no.This gal calls NO MAN daddy.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Funny...I used to call my husband...dad to the kids...you know..go ask dad....that kind of thing.

My daddy is my daddy...and always will be! Love my daddy so much!


By the way...Focus girl...focus


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Okay...let's try this again.
> 
> What is the moral and ethical choice for the woman to make? Should she give the baby to parents who need and want a baby or should she bring it into her family, hoping they can be 'compassionate' enough take it in with the obvious possibility of a divorce?
> 
> And why does her husband have no say in this matter? I thought it was his family too.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the wife is the final arbiter of who is allowed into the family, or that she can choose to leave?


If a woman gets pregnant and isn't sure if her husband is the father or her AP is the father, I would hope she gets an abortion immediately! It's bad enough she needs to confess her betrayal but to add insult to injury... NO, she needs to abort.

If she is so stupid to delude herself into believing that the baby must be her husbands... Then she is too stupid to be raising children.

What if she confesses immediately to her husband after her... Let's say drunken ONS. Prior to that drunken ONS, she and her husband had been having regular sex.

Two months go by, they haven't resumed sex because they are still trying to work out a reconcile. She now has to bring this up to her husband. Telling him she is pregnant and there is no way to know for sure if he is the father or the ONS AP is the father.

Do the men on this thread think she should abort? Is her pregnancy, and there is a chance the husband is the father, something that makes reconciliation more important, or less important? 

Obviously, it's now more complicated.

I hope we don't go down the abortion debate road.


----------



## Maricha75

Married but Happy said:


> Just to add a curious factoid I read recently: if you could trace your ancestry back to around 1900 and examine the genes of every ancestor, almost every person alive today had at least one ancestor who was the result of infidelity during marriage. Most such infidelities are never discovered.


This really wouldn't surprise me. Tbh, I can't speak for timeframe, but I know that my grandmother was never married to my biological grandfather. Not sure if she got pregnant, then married the man whose name dad carries or if she cheated on the man. They divorced when dad was really young, but not sure how old he was. THe only thing I know about the man whose name dad carries is that dad visited him one summer, when he was about 9 or 10 years old. The man referred to him as "my son" all that summer. When dad went home, the man sent a letter to my grandmother, stating he never wanted to see my dad again, that he wasn't his son. Do you know who my grandfather was? The man who raised dad. THAT man was my dad's dad.

Now, an even more unreal twist to the story? We went to a family reunion a few years after grandma passed away. My dad's cousin said, "Wow, I never realized how much [my dad's name] looks like Uncle R." Uncle R was dad's step-uncle. Dad's cousin's mom shushed him really fast, but not fast enough for us to NOT start wondering... And it's true. Dad looks like Uncle R. And, grandma and Uncle R did have a brief fling. So we have no clue if he is bio-grandfather or if it is the man we have thought all these years.

So, yea, I can totally believe it. Knowing how odd my family is... totally believe it.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Okay revised for typo.
> 
> My noble husband is taking care of my bastard baby and as I stoically face the consequences of having behaved so abominably toward my family, my noble husband is such because he does not inflict any consequences on my bastard baby, even though I no longer enjoy his love toward me, nor his emotional or financial support.
> 
> I don't think JLD suggested anywhere that the wife who gives birth to a bastard baby NOT bear the consequences of her fraud.
> 
> No, I am NOT going to go back and reread this thread.


See her latest answer to that question.

I think that point is VERY much in question.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Anon Pink said:


> If a woman gets pregnant and isn't sure if her husband is the father or her AP is the father, I would hope she gets an abortion immediately! It's bad enough she needs to confess her betrayal but to add insult to injury... NO, she needs to abort.
> 
> If she is so stupid to delude herself into believing that the baby must be her husbands... Then she is too stupid to be raising children.
> 
> What if she confesses immediately to her husband after her... Let's say drunken ONS. Prior to that drunken ONS, she and her husband had been having regular sex.
> 
> Two months go by, they haven't resumed sex because they are still trying to work out a reconcile. She now has to bring this up to her husband. Telling him she is pregnant and there is no way to know for sure if he is the father or the ONS AP is the father.
> 
> Do the men on this thread think she should abort? Is her pregnancy, and there is a chance the husband is the father, something that makes reconciliation more important, or less important?
> 
> Obviously, it's now more complicated.
> 
> I hope we don't go down the abortion debate road.


You know it's inevitable right? And we are all blaming you.


----------



## ocotillo

jld said:


> I long ago accepted my dh's authority in my life. Any conditions he put on me would be adhered to, and I know they would be with my, the baby, and everyone else's best interests in mind.


Well I think I'm finally starting to understand where you're coming from and the connection you see between the decision to become the adoptive father of the child and male virtue.

My only observation is that some marriages (Like mine, for example) are far more 'Democratic' than this.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Maricha75 said:


> This really wouldn't surprise me. Tbh, I can't speak for timeframe, but I know that my grandmother was never married to my biological grandfather. Not sure if she got pregnant, then married the man whose name dad carries or if she cheated on the man. They divorced when dad was really young, but not sure how old he was. THe only thing I know about the man whose name dad carries is that dad visited him one summer, when he was about 9 or 10 years old. The man referred to him as "my son" all that summer. When dad went home, the man sent a letter to my grandmother, stating he never wanted to see my dad again, that he wasn't his son. Do you know who my grandfather was? The man who raised dad. THAT man was my dad's dad.
> 
> Now, an even more unreal twist to the story? We went to a family reunion a few years after grandma passed away. My dad's cousin said, "Wow, I never realized how much [my dad's name] looks like Uncle R." Uncle R was dad's step-uncle. Dad's cousin's mom shushed him really fast, but not fast enough for us to NOT start wondering... And it's true. Dad looks like Uncle R. And, grandma and Uncle R did have a brief fling. So we have no clue if he is bio-grandfather or if it is the man we have thought all these years.
> 
> So, yea, I can totally believe it. Knowing how odd my family is... totally believe it.


Are you from Arkansas? Lol

Just kidding

We have all kinds Of screwed up in my family...big time


----------



## Anon Pink

Mrs. John Adams said:


> You know it's inevitable right? And we are all blaming you.


In that case lets skip to the chase and say I won...Kay?


----------



## LongWalk

One Polish mother of twins discovered that the children had two different fathers. The sperm war ended in a tie. She divorced her husband.

Today Show

False paternity varies by socioeconomic class. Wealthy educated men are more successful at preventing paternity fraud. Two part program


----------



## Jellybeans

Entropy3000 said:


>


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Ok. Long walk. That is just bazaar.


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> See her latest answer to that question.
> 
> I think that point is VERY much in question.


Possibly. It's also possible that she simply skipped over several paragraphs of detailing the painful and torturous reconciliation process to arrive at the question of what to do about this child. Which is a different question than what to do about this pregnancy.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> About adoption, yes, I remember this coming up earlier in the thread and I thought I said that yes, that is an option, too. Obviously it is the mother's decision. I don't think that should be forced on anyone.


Agreed.



jld said:


> Yes, anytime there is an affair, there is going to be a bucketload of pain, even if it is just one person carrying it silently his or her whole life. *If they have a conscience, anyway.*


Here we go again...



jld said:


> For sure, whatever we do has consequences, not only for us, but for the people around us, and perhaps far beyond that. That is why the stories here on TAM are so instructive: we can read them and learn what not to do, because the price is indeed so high.
> 
> A few of my sisters got pregnant out of wedlock. My parents were ashamed to death the first two times it happened. But they got past it.
> 
> I think they grew in their compassion, and certainly in their understanding.
> 
> It happened to 3 of my sisters over the course of 23 years. It was interesting to see the evolution in my parents' thinking.
> 
> By the time my niece got pregnant the same way, about ten years ago, my dad actually immediately wrote her an e-mail expressing support and compassion, telling her we are all only human. I thought that was very kind on his part.


Not all instances of children being conceived or born out of wedlock involve infidelity and, either way, I'd think that most parents would support their children (and grandchildren), at least emotionally, if they found themselves in this situation. I would.

But, then again, there is no marriage contract between parents and their children. Neither party swears to be faithful to the other within the same parameters that typically exist within a marriage. Therefore, for many people, supporting a spouse's indiscretions is a world apart from supporting those of their children. Why? Because the relationship is _different_. It's _supposed_ to be.

Look, no one is trying to "get out" of anything here. Once a spouse -- whether it's a husband or a wife -- discover's that his/her spouse's commitment to their marriage isn't on an even keel w/ his/her own, there is often no going back. Add infidelity and, even worse, a child born of the infidelity to this, and it's even worse.

So... Again, in your mind, where should a betrayed spouse be able to draw the line? How much indignation should one be made to suffer in order to qualify, in your opinion, as a "good", "moral", "strong", "secure", "noble", "selfless", yadda yadda blah... person?


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> If a woman gets pregnant and isn't sure if her husband is the father or her AP is the father, I would hope she gets an abortion immediately! It's bad enough she needs to confess her betrayal but to add insult to injury... NO, she needs to abort.
> 
> If she is so stupid to delude herself into believing that the baby must be her husbands... Then she is too stupid to be raising children.
> 
> What if she confesses immediately to her husband after her... Let's say drunken ONS. Prior to that drunken ONS, she and her husband had been having regular sex.
> 
> Two months go by, they haven't resumed sex because they are still trying to work out a reconcile. She now has to bring this up to her husband. Telling him she is pregnant and there is no way to know for sure if he is the father or the ONS AP is the father.
> 
> Do the men on this thread think she should abort? Is her pregnancy, and there is a chance the husband is the father, something that makes reconciliation more important, or less important?
> 
> Obviously, it's now more complicated.
> 
> I hope we don't go down the abortion debate road.


I will not go down that road.

While I am firmly against killing in general, in detail, there is some killing I can regretfully accept. Some wars. Self Defense. Executions of heinous people properly tried.

And in this case, I agree that IF THERE WAS ANY QUESTION IN HER MIND, she should get an abortion. This is the second time I've mentioned it. Regretable, sure. A blood sacrifice which cleanses the sins of the womb...

If my wife came to me and stated 'Remember my ONS...well, I'm late and the paternity is up in the air,' huh. Time for some deep thinking.

We DO have in womb paternity tests so it could be established pretty quickly...and the added risk to the infant doesn't bother me in the slightest in this case.

BUT...what the woman is REALLY saying is "What are you going to make me do?' because even asking the question means her vote is to keep it, all things being equal. If she voted the other way, I'd probably never even hear about it.

So the question makes me know her feelings: the child is more important than the relationship with me. I can understand that, but that attitude does not particularly strengthen the path to R.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> Possibly. It's also possible that she simply skipped over several paragraphs of detailing the painful and torturous reconciliation process to arrive at the question of what to do about this child. Which is a different question than what to do about this pregnancy.


This is what I am trying to establish.

Submitting herself to the authority of someone who will not try to rule her isn't particularly helpful in clarifying this matter.

So, let me clarify what I mean by consequences, lest my words get twisted.

The WW gets treated as untrustworthy by her family...because she breached their trust.

She loses much of her moral authority to her kids and almost all of it to her husband...because she was immoral.

Her needs are treated...not as an afterthought, but not given primary priority...because she clearly put a couple of someones ahead of her family (OM and his baby)

There is little intimacy between the man and the woman because she has already sundered the bonds of intimacy.

None of this is set in stone forever, but for the foreseeable future. None of these are abusive. None of this is outrageous. None of it is 'unbearable'.

So...jld...would you 'put the child first' and live in such a situation if it meant that the baby was properly and lovingly taken care of? Since we are asking the man to be all selfless and such.

Are you willing to put in your ante?


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> If a woman gets pregnant and isn't sure if her husband is the father or her AP is the father, I would hope she gets an abortion immediately! It's bad enough she needs to confess her betrayal but to add insult to injury... NO, she needs to abort.
> 
> If she is so stupid to delude herself into believing that the baby must be her husbands... Then she is too stupid to be raising children.
> 
> What if she confesses immediately to her husband after her... Let's say drunken ONS. Prior to that drunken ONS, she and her husband had been having regular sex.
> 
> Two months go by, they haven't resumed sex because they are still trying to work out a reconcile. She now has to bring this up to her husband. Telling him she is pregnant and there is no way to know for sure if he is the father or the ONS AP is the father.
> 
> Do the men on this thread think she should abort? Is her pregnancy, and there is a chance the husband is the father, something that makes reconciliation more important, or less important?
> 
> Obviously, it's now more complicated.
> 
> I hope we don't go down the abortion debate road.


An abortion in this case, to me, would be *abominable*. IMO, abortion in any case aside from rape or several birth defect (the type that would essentially force a woman to go through the pain of giving birth to a neo-natal corpse) is unconscionable. But, then again, I'm not a woman, so my opinion in this regard is little more than academic.

It's probably best that I don't say much more than this. A woman's body is her own, and I accept that.

I do agree that the woman described above probably shouldn't be allowed to "play in the gene pool". Ever.

Anyway, it would be my wife's (who, at that point, would be my STBX) choice to make. Honestly, I'm pretty sure that she'd never -- seriously -- consider it. Either way, it would be a conversation for her and OM.

Now, if I never knew about it... Obviously, that would be a different story. If, however, I ever found out, divorce papers would be served soon thereafter.


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> BUT...what the woman is REALLY saying is "What are you going to make me do?' because even asking the question means her vote is to keep it, all things being equal. If she voted the other way, I'd probably never even hear about it.
> 
> So the question makes me know her feelings: the child is more important than the relationship with me. I can understand that, but that attitude does not particularly strengthen the path to R.


I hadn't thought of it that way. 

I just assumed that being married and having worked through a R meant a woman wouldn't seek an abortion without talking to her husband first. I see how naive that is...


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> If she is so stupid to delude herself into believing that the baby must be her husbands... Then she is too stupid to be raising children.


:iagree:




> What if she confesses immediately to her husband after her... Let's say drunken ONS. Prior to that drunken ONS, she and her husband had been having regular sex.
> 
> Two months go by, they haven't resumed sex because they are still trying to work out a reconcile. She now has to bring this up to her husband. Telling him she is pregnant and there is no way to know for sure if he is the father or the ONS AP is the father.
> 
> Do the men on this thread think she should abort?


No, because its not the baby's fault. But the law states that its her right to kill "it" if she so wants.

I think she should have the baby, get him/her tested for paternity right away, and seek support and possible parenting from the biological father.




> Is her pregnancy, and there is a chance the husband is the father, something that makes reconciliation more important, or less important?


Its not the "chance" that, to me, would make a difference. It would be the paternity results that might make a difference.

Then again, I won't stay with any woman that cheats.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> That has not been my experience and I see absolutely no need to go down the route of trashing her.
> We can thrash her thread , or her ideas , but there is no need to attack her publicly.
> 
> Different doesn't automatically mean wrong or evil or bad.
> 
> Jld and I have disagreed a few times and she has said stuff directly to me on threads that would have made others feel offended.
> I was not , because I am not easily offended.
> 
> Yet she PMed me and apologized SINCERELY ,and we had a fruitful discussion about the issue.
> And she apologized without me even asking her to, or telling her that I felt offended.
> 
> I don't see her as a fake or disingenuous .
> Like everyone else here , she has her POV , and no one should be expected to give up their POV simply because it might be politically incorrect.
> 
> That is why we have debate.
> 
> I think it is a good trait in her as a person , that she is humble enough to apologize if she offends.


I have to agree with Lyris calling BS here. 

Hope that is ok with everyone. But if not that is ok with me as well.

I have a few theories about the manipulation and all the rest. But suffice it to say that some manipulators mean to manipulate. Others have other things going on.

So carry on. I trust that at some point the truth will set us free.


----------



## sandc

Ugh, no way could I kill the child. Adoption. It would be hard on her but, hey. Them's the breaks. Or we divorce and coparent our children. She gets support for the other kid from him, and they coparent that one. Not fair? Nope.


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> I hadn't thought of it that way.
> 
> I just assumed that being married and having worked through a R meant a woman wouldn't seek an abortion without talking to her husband first. I see how naive that is...


I can see it both ways: a woman scared of not being honest or willing to do the hard thing.

And I can see that a woman, scared to death at derailing her R with this additional bump in the tracks, decides to take care of the matter herself quickly and quietly.


----------



## JCD

Am I the only person who checks how big the size of the jpegs are so we DON'T blow up the screen?

Entropy...no cookie for you!


----------



## Tall Average Guy

GettingIt said:


> So after you lay out your "not accepting," it matters to you that she acknowledges your belief that she is wrong? I guess I'm wondering why it's harder to move on from jld than from an assh0le. I mean, if you disagree with someone, you should be able to say so and move on. But something about jld makes you need to do more. She _matters_ more to you for some reason.


Not to me. I respond to her occasionally, but no more than any other poster.



> Why would it hurt them? Her husband doesn't have a nice guy bone in his body and jld responds to that. She's always said that he weathers her "tantrums" and her sh!t tests" with dispassion and amusement. He is the ultimate in "outcome independence." Seems nice guys could learn from that.


Not based on her definition of weathering. 



> If I'm recalling correctly, you're a former nice guy who turned around with MMSLP. Is it jld's rejection of the tactics espoused there that makes you want to disavow her so strongly? I usually really relate to your views and find you a thoughtful, generous poster . . . but I'm puzzled as to why jld really pushes your buttons.


Not sure I was completely a nice guy, but certainly had some of the traits. I also don't know that she particularly pushes my buttons (as I mentioned, I don't think I go out of my way to go after her), at least no more than anyone else does. 

Be that as it may, my real disagreement is with her insistance that a man actually have no personal boundaries. It is not merely with a particular post or even this thread. Rather, it is about her world view as shown across her posts. In that view, everything about a man is predicated on focusing on the woman. If she rails at him, spewing hate and anger, he is required to stand there an take it in her world. If he does not, he is weak in character and not secure. He msut show his love and commitment regardless of her actions. Even here, where she cheats and has another man's child, he is insecure if he refuses to raise that child.

So that is my issue with her (her insults that others seem to ignore is merely icing on the cake). I beleive it is reasonable for a man to have boundaries. That a woman should actually be accountable for her behavior, and that the love does not mean accepting whatever she (or he) dishes out. I understand it works for jld and am glad. Based on her posts, she has had to deal with much in the past and her husband seems to be a great support. I am sure it works for others. But I think that group it works for is very small, and that the danger to others in adopting it is incredibly great.


----------



## LongWalk

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Ok. Long walk. That is just bazaar.


You don't believe the statistics? Or the twin case?


----------



## GusPolinski

JCD said:


> Am I the only person who checks how big the size of the jpegs are so we DON'T blow up the screen?
> 
> Entropy...no cookie for you!


*cough* Ditto!


----------



## Jellybeans

No you're not the only one, JCD but I had to repost because I thought it was funny!


----------



## JCD

Jellybeans said:


> No you're not the only one, JCD but I had to repost because I thought it was funny!


Entropy: As penance, you shall have to post 10 Carmen Electra jpegs of 1024 x1025 and 3 Salma Hayecks

JB: it is not enough to see a sin, but seeing the consequences, instead of avoiding it, you openly embrace it. Yours is the greater sin. You will have to watch three hours of the Kadashians on a big screen t.v.

Go forth and size no more

In Nomine jpeg, et file in spiritu screensaver.

A man.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

LongWalk said:


> You don't believe the statistics? Or the twin case?


The twin case


----------



## Maricha75

JCD said:


> Entropy: As penance, you shall have to post 10 Carmen Electra jpegs of 1024 x1025 and 3 Salma Hayecks


He is a recovering Catholic. Penance won't work for him.... but the pictures might.


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> Entropy: As penance, you shall have to post 10 Carmen Electra jpegs of 1024 x1025 and 3 Salma Hayecks
> 
> JB: it is not enough to see a sin, but seeing the consequences, instead of avoiding it, you openly embrace it. Yours is the greater sin. You will have to watch three hours of the Kadashians on a big screen t.v.
> 
> Go forth and size no more
> 
> In Nomine jpeg, et file in spiritu screensaver.
> 
> A man.


That is goddam hilarious!


----------



## samyeagar

For me, the issue of child support from the OM would be moot. I would have divorced her before that came to be. But as an intellectual exercise...

I can see this in two different ways. The first being going all out to stick it to the OM and making him pay to the extent the law allows. The other being, I don't want another man helping me support my family. That is my duty. I would also not want to invite another man, a man who impregnate my wife to be around either her or my children in any way for any reason.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

JCD said:


> JB: it is not enough to see a sin, but seeing the consequences, instead of avoiding it, you openly embrace it. Yours is the greater sin. You will have to watch three hours of the Kadashians on a big screen t.v.


I am fairly certain that is not constitutional and prohibited by the Geneva convention. 

No one deserves that punishment (okay, perhaps Justin Bieber).


----------



## Tony55

vellocet said:


> Then again, I won't stay with any woman that cheats.


Agreed.

T


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> I usually really relate to your views and find you a thoughtful, generous poster . . . but I'm puzzled as to why jld really pushes your buttons.


There's no secret why she pushes anyone's buttons.

Saying "some men can handle it" is phrased purposefully to demean men who would not choose this. There are a lot of things I can handle that I reasonably choose not to do.

Her agenda in saying these things is driven by her apparent perception that it is a man's duty to carry all burdens. I say f-that... carry your own damn burdens. I'm glad she's found a nice sheltering situation with her husband that relieves her of all responsibility and independence, as she apparently wants, but I frankly find it disturbing and don't think much of men who desire such absolutely domineering positions... in my experience its just a front. A woman isn't a child, and a "good man" doesn't treat her like one. <-- see what I did there?


----------



## JCD

samyeagar said:


> For me, the issue of child support from the OM would be moot. I would have divorced her before that came to be. But as an intellectual exercise...
> 
> I can see this in two different ways. The first being going all out to stick it to the OM and making him pay to the extent the law allows. The other being, I don't want another man helping me support my family. That is my duty. I would also not want to invite another man, a man who impregnate my wife to be around either her or my children in any way for any reason.


One of my guiding principles is 'clean up your own mess'.

Which is why a WW is morally obligated IMO to aborting or giving a bastard up for adoption AND if said child exists, the OM needs to take it or pay for it.

Money is fungible and his presence isn't required


----------



## Wolf1974

Also in the club of once the cheating occurred I'm out. Abortion, adoption, keeping the kid whatever is not going to be a relevant concern of mine.

Only question I guess I would have to think about is how much involvement would I want, or would I legally have to allow, my daughters to have with their 1/2 brother or sister. Won't ever be faced with that now either I guess


----------



## samyeagar

JCD said:


> One of my guiding principles is 'clean up your own mess'.
> 
> Which is why a WW is morally obligated IMO to aborting or giving a bastard up for adoption AND if said child exists, the OM needs to take it or pay for it.
> 
> *Money is fungible and his presence isn't required*


True but...

In order to get money, paternity must be demonstrated which opens to door for his presence...


----------



## Rowan

Tall Average Guy said:


> I am fairly certain that is not constitutional and prohibited by the Geneva convention.
> 
> No one deserves that punishment (okay, perhaps Justin Bieber).


I thought only Here Comes Honey Boo Boo was expressly prohibited under the Geneva Convention.

The Kardashians must be pretty bad indeed to compete with that.


----------



## ReformedHubby

JCD said:


> Entropy: As penance, you shall have to post 10 Carmen Electra jpegs of 1024 x1025 and 3 Salma Hayecks


I met Carmen Electra once in an airport. She was super down to earth and genuinely pretty cool. We talked for a while as our flight was delayed and actually ended up getting cancelled.


----------



## ocotillo

GettingIt said:


> Why would it hurt them? Her husband doesn't have a nice guy bone in his body and jld responds to that. She's always said that he weathers her "tantrums" and her sh!t tests" with dispassion and amusement. He is the ultimate in "outcome independence." Seems nice guys could learn from that.


I can't comment on jld's marriage, but would observe that there's an old saying to the effect that you can so far towards one end of the spectrum that you inadvertently traverse a full circle and find yourself on the other end. 

A lot of what has been implied and even openly stated on this thread, certainly falls under the umbrella of the colloquialism, "Nice guy."


----------



## Eagle3

_I met Carmen Electra once in an airport. She was super down to earth and genuinely pretty cool. We talked for a while as our flight was delayed and actually ended up getting cancelled._

Please tell me you have a Part 2 to to this story!!!


----------



## GettingIt_2

ocotillo said:


> I can't comment on jld's marriage, but would observe that there's an old saying to the effect that you can so far towards one end of the spectrum that you inadvertently traverse a full circle and find yourself on the other end.
> 
> A lot of what has been implied and even openly stated on this thread, certainly falls under the umbrella of the colloquialism, "Nice guy."


I have to admit, I've touched on the "full circle" effect in my musings on the nice guy conundrum. A friend of mine once described her politics as "so far left, they're right." Same sort of idea. But it's fun to entertain pushing envelopes. At least for me.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Eagle3 said:


> _I met Carmen Electra once in an airport. She was super down to earth and genuinely pretty cool. We talked for a while as our flight was delayed and actually ended up getting cancelled._
> 
> Please tell me you have a Part 2 to to this story!!!


LOL, nope. I wish. I was actually flying to Chicago with a guy friend for the weekend. Carmen Electra was headed there because she was dating Dennis Rodman at the time. Her brother was with her and he was cool too. When the flight got cancelled my friend and I decided to just go clubbing instead (there were no more flights that night). They actually asked us where we were going and said maybe they'd meet us. But.....they never showed. Oh well.... Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

The hater in me was hoping you'd say 'yeah that Carmen Electra..ugh.she's the pits.totally photoshopped and snobby to boot'


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There's no secret why she pushes anyone's buttons.
> 
> Saying "some men can handle it" is phrased purposefully to demean men who would not choose this. There are a lot of things I can handle that I reasonably choose not to do.
> 
> Her agenda in saying these things is driven by her apparent perception that it is a man's duty to carry all burdens. I say f-that... carry your own damn burdens. I'm glad she's found a nice sheltering situation with her husband that relieves her of all responsibility and independence, as she apparently wants, but I frankly find it disturbing and don't think much of men who desire such absolutely domineering positions... in my experience its just a front. A woman isn't a child, and a "good man" doesn't treat her like one. <-- *see what I did there?*


What, stated a position that's in oposition to the OP's? That happens every day on TAM. You want props, or what?


----------



## LongWalk

Mrs. John Adams said:


> The twin case


It's easy enough to understand. She had sex while ovulating and two eggs came down. Consciously or subconsciously she was creating a competition between her husband and lover.








re: jld pushing buttons
I don't really get the at length discussion of jld's motives. It has become a question of whether she is stuffing a moral position down people's throats, or worse trolling for amusement. I don't think either is true. She wants to know what people think and she idealistically wishes there was more love in the world than there is.

If you don't like her POV/personality, I suggest you don't annoy yourself, just block her so her posts are invisible. Conrad used to block and unblock Sandfly. So much do some people get our goats.

What I find stunning in this discussion is that we are imagining a hypothetical BH and his moral dilemma in dealing with this. But in actuality the level of children whose paternity is false is at disturbing. At the lowest level three out 100 children don't belong to their dad. More likely 5% to 15% are not correctly identified.

Moreover in many jurisdictions private paternity testing does not affect presumed paternity. In France it is illegal to privately test the paternity of your child. I did not manage to find a list of US state laws. However, it is now clear that when TAM posters advise a BH to test his children's paternity, there is real justification for this advice.

If they follow this advice, then more instances of what jld wonders will be documented IRL on TAM.

When BS say that they have tested for STD's and paternity, do you think they are telling the truth 100% of the time? Could it be that they sometimes lack the will to explore further into an already bad situation?


----------



## GusPolinski

LongWalk said:


> ...she idealistically wishes there was more love in the world than there is.


Truly, this is admirable. But you can love someone w/o being his or her doormat.


----------



## LongWalk

ReformedHubby said:


> LOL, nope. I wish. I was actually flying to Chicago with a guy friend for the weekend. Carmen Electra was headed there because she was dating Dennis Rodman at the time. Her brother was with her and he was cool too. When the flight got cancelled my friend and I decided to just go clubbing instead (there were no more flights that night). They actually asked us where we were going and said maybe they'd meet us. But.....they never showed. Oh well.... Sorry to disappoint.


I wonder how many tall North Korean women Rodman dated when the was there?








If Rodman had said he wanted to sleep with interpreter, it would have been arranged.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Tall Average Guy said:


> Not to me. I respond to her occasionally, but no more than any other poster.
> 
> 
> 
> Not based on her definition of weathering.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure I was completely a nice guy, but certainly had some of the traits. I also don't know that she particularly pushes my buttons (as I mentioned, I don't think I go out of my way to go after her), at least no more than anyone else does.
> 
> Be that as it may, my real disagreement is with her insistance that a man actually have no personal boundaries. It is not merely with a particular post or even this thread. Rather, it is about her world view as shown across her posts. In that view, everything about a man is predicated on focusing on the woman. If she rails at him, spewing hate and anger, he is required to stand there an take it in her world. If he does not, he is weak in character and not secure. He msut show his love and commitment regardless of her actions. Even here, where she cheats and has another man's child, he is insecure if he refuses to raise that child.
> 
> So that is my issue with her (her insults that others seem to ignore is merely icing on the cake). I beleive it is reasonable for a man to have boundaries. That a woman should actually be accountable for her behavior, and that the love does not mean accepting whatever she (or he) dishes out. I understand it works for jld and am glad. Based on her posts, she has had to deal with much in the past and her husband seems to be a great support. I am sure it works for others. But I think that group it works for is very small, and that the danger to others in adopting it is incredibly great.


I agree with basically everything you say, just not with your interpretation of jld's stance. I don't think she means to denigrate the average man for his response; rather I find her ideas more "musings" on the issue. But I'm not a man, so perhaps my attempts to understand the leaps to judgement of jld will get me nowhere. I simply don't see where there is room to feel insulted by her saying, "Wow, a man who would raise an affair baby must be pretty damn secure, huh?" 

And, again, even if she does think you guys are all a bunch of gutless pansies . . . um, so? You're not, you know you're not, she's not going to convince anyone that you are . . . 

And I absolutely don't see anyone "adopting" the ways of her marriage as she describes them. She and her husband are a unique combination and their dynamic has been like it is today since the day they met. But I think there is value in what she says about a man being steadfast against the occasional storm from his wife. Boston's thread and what I wrote on it this morning is a perfect example. Everyone needs boundaries--even jld has said so--but that doesn't mean they can't be consciously and lovingly softened by choice within a loving and communicative dynamic. 

Anway, thanks for your well-thought response. I do understand your points. You always make me think a little deeper.


----------



## Jellybeans

JCD said:


> Entropy: As penance, you shall have to post 10 Carmen Electra jpegs of 1024 x1025 and 3 Salma Hayecks
> 
> *JB: it is not enough to see a sin, but seeing the consequences, instead of avoiding it, you openly embrace it. Yours is the greater sin. You will have to watch three hours of the Kadashians on a big screen t.v.*
> 
> Go forth and size no more
> 
> In Nomine jpeg, et file in spiritu screensaver.
> 
> A man.


:rofl: The ultimate punishment. I think those Kardashish*ts are tasteless, classless and well, the worst.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Jellybeans said:


> :rofl: The ultimate punishment. I think those Kardashish*ts are tasteless, classless and well, the worst.


I've never watched an episode..I really don't know what all the hoopla is about...from all the dirt I see in the rags checking out at the grocery store..."classless" seems an understatement to me.


----------



## Cosmos

samyeagar said:


> True but...
> 
> In order to get money, paternity must be demonstrated which opens to door for his presence...


Well, if you're going to allow half of his genes to live under your roof, in a sense he's already present, IMO...


----------



## Jellybeans

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've never watched an episode..I really don't know what all the hoopla is about...from all the dirt I see in the rags checking out at the grocery store..."classless" seems an understatement to me.


I don't get it either. They are the antithesis to anything I'd ever want to be associated with.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

SimplyAmorous said:


> I've never watched an episode..I really don't know what all the hoopla is about...from all the dirt I see in the rags checking out at the grocery store..."classless" seems an understatement to me.


ugh for real. And why is everyone gaga over Kim?? Her face is beautiful but that butt looks ridiculous on her body! Like little sticks with a giant balloon stuck to the top. Reeediculous. 
Gimme a gal shaped like Christina Hendricks...RAWR!


----------



## Jellybeans

Her face looks like a wax figure. She is only 32 and already has wax face down. I shudder to think what she will look like at 40. And don't get me started on the dumpy A$$ injections. EWWW


----------



## GusPolinski

scarletbegonias said:


> gimme a gal shaped like christina hendricks...rawr!


Yes! Oh my dear God, yes. A thousand times, YES!!!


----------



## Entropy3000

JCD said:


> Am I the only person who checks how big the size of the jpegs are so we DON'T blow up the screen?
> 
> Entropy...no cookie for you!


I am compensating.

BTW who is that guy?


----------



## Cosmos

Musing about this topic some more, I've thought about how I'd feel if I were the pregnant WW and my H forgave the affair and accepted my unborn child...

I think my initial reaction would be relief and appreciation, but what surprised me was my next reaction... Disrespect for my (hypothetical) H. 

Perhaps others would feel differently, but I think I would lose respect for a man who not only forgave my affair but was also prepared to co-parent my lust child.


----------



## samyeagar

Cosmos said:


> Musing about this topic some more, I've thought about how I'd feel if I were the pregnant WW and my H forgave the affair and accepted my unborn child...
> 
> I think my initial reaction would be relief and appreciation, but what surprised me was my next reaction... Disrespect for my (hypothetical) H.
> 
> Perhaps others would feel differently, but I think I would lose respect for a man who not only forgave my affair but was also prepared to co-parent my lust child.


I think many, many women would feel the same, in fact this has been touched on over the course of this thread. As I also said, not many women would be happy with a husband such as jld's...they would have higher expectations of him as a man.


----------



## GusPolinski

Cosmos said:


> Musing about this topic some more, I've thought about how I'd feel if I were the pregnant WW and my H forgave the affair and accepted my unborn child...
> 
> I think my initial reaction would be relief and appreciation, but what surprised me was my next reaction... Disrespect for my (hypothetical) H.
> 
> Perhaps others would feel differently, but I think I would lose respect for a man who not only forgave my affair but was also prepared to co-parent my lust child.


Thank you! This is part of the point that I've been trying to make.

So, having arrived at this conclusion, how do you think this newfound feeling of _additional_ disrespect would would lead many WWs to conduct themselves...?

IMO they'd likely wind up engaging in additional affairs, thereby possibly bringing _*even more*_ illegitimate children into the equation.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> What, stated a position that's in oposition to the OP's? That happens every day on TAM. You want props, or what?


I'm demonstrating the sort of insult by implication that jld regularly throws out. From what I gather, her husband basically runs the show and she accepts her position as his subject. He decides what's best for them, as a parent would a child.


----------



## Cosmos

GusPolinski said:


> Thank you! This is part of the point that I've been trying to make.
> 
> So, having arrived at this conclusion, how do you think this newfound feeling of _additional_ disrespect would would lead many WWs to conduct themselves...?
> 
> IMO they'd likely wind up engaging in additional affairs, thereby possibly bringing _*even more*_ illegitimate children into the equation.


Frankly, if I were a cheater (which I'm not), I think the message this would give me is that the marriage is without boundaries.


----------



## Entropy3000

LongWalk said:


> :iagree: with Vellocet
> 
> Mommy's little secret
> 
> In fact child support is coercion to increase male acquiescence to marriage. "If I get some woman pregnant, I'll have to pay for the rest of my life, so I might as well marry a woman and get laid regularly."
> 
> This is not to say men don't also want to fall in love and commit, but they do not understand they will have to date their wife and pass all sorts of shxt tests. Men do not understand that in exchange for their commitment to monogamy chances of a cheating spouse are high.
> 
> Here is a reprint of a Canadian newspaper article that states that fathers are falsely attributed paternity in the range of 5% - 15% of all children born. The insights come from studies involving genetically transmitted diseases.
> 
> 
> 
> In the discussion, it comes out that when doctors discovered that dad is not dad, they often routinely cover up the truth, even though denying the man knowledge about his own genetic material, i.e., he is not a carrier of the disease. He many spend the rest of his life thinking he can pass on cystic fibrosis or some other malady. This could easily influence the decision not to divorce in the belief that he would have to tell potential partners that he is flawed.
> 
> Clearly routine DNA testing in the hospital after childbirth would result in a higher divorce rate.
> 
> Also, from the selfish gene perspective the father who expends a significant amount of his income on handicapped child whose genetic defects were not his may forego having his own children. Luckily there a billions of people on the planet, so the individual tragedies do not threaten our collective reproductive success.


Thank you for putting a number on this. This is what I recalled. This is part of why I think this is very valid and why I get such a kick out of some of the other topics on TAM. 

Anyway, I have no idea how many guys might make a decision based on getting laid and not having to pay a lot of child support. The concept is not without merit I suppose, but most guys are not that ... sophisticated.

But the number is why this topic is very relevant on this site. It is not an insignificant number by any means.

Legally this could bounce all over. At some point a husband may be able to sue the medical instituion for not telling him. Depends on who owns that knowledge. 

This may increase the number of divorces. But just as with Volume / Pressure / Temperature that assumes holding other factors constant.
All in all the truth be told.


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm demonstrating the sort of insult by implication that jld regularly throws out. From what I gather, her husband basically runs the show and she accepts her position as his subject. He decides what's best for them, as a parent would a child.


Meh, it takes two for an "insult by implication" to work.


----------



## GusPolinski

GusPolinski said:


> An abortion in this case, to me, would be *abominable*. IMO, abortion in any case aside from rape or several birth defect (the type that would essentially force a woman to go through the pain of giving birth to a neo-natal corpse) is unconscionable. But, then again, I'm not a woman, so my opinion in this regard is little more than academic.
> 
> It's probably best that I don't say much more than this. A woman's body is her own, and I accept that.
> 
> I do agree that the woman described above probably shouldn't be allowed to "play in the gene pool". Ever.
> 
> Anyway, it would be my wife's (who, at that point, would be my STBX) choice to make. Honestly, I'm pretty sure that she'd never -- seriously -- consider it. Either way, it would be a conversation for her and OM.
> 
> Now, if I never knew about it... Obviously, that would be a different story. If, however, I ever found out, divorce papers would be served soon thereafter.


I'd like to add to this, if I may. I realize that abortion isn't quite THE topic of this thread, but I feel a need to say this...

In addition to the rape and birth defect scenarios that I described above, I also believe that abortions should be widely considered -- and accepted -- as an option in the case of a high-risk pregnancy, especially where the life of the mother herself is at risk. IMO, the life of a wife and mother -- who is herself her parents' child -- should _never_ be trivialized solely for the sake of bringing a child into the world. 

If my wife and I were faced w/ this scenario, I would beg, grovel, and plead with her to opt for abortion. (And, knowing her opinion on this subject, I would likely have to go to extremes.) It would be heartbreaking and, in the end, it would be her choice to make, but I'd want to continue to have her with me at all costs.


----------



## GusPolinski

Cosmos said:


> Frankly, if I were a cheater (which I'm not), I think the message this would give me is that the marriage is without boundaries.


Exactly. Again, thank you.


----------



## Entropy3000

Mrs. John Adams said:


> SB...you aren't thinking of calling him daddy are you?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCuIyA7kXvI


----------



## GusPolinski

Entropy3000 said:


> Legally this could bounce all over. At some point a husband may be able to sue the medical instituion for not telling him. Depends on who owns that knowledge.


Legally (and, as I believe, ethically), here in the States, the patients "own" the information, while the healthcare institutions -- along w/ the clinicians, etc. that work in them -- themselves are but _stewards_ of said information.



Entropy3000 said:


> *This may increase the number of divorces.* But just as with Volume / Pressure / Temperature that assumes holding other factors constant.
> All in all the truth be told.


In the short term, perhaps. And, in the long run, I believe that would be a good thing. Consequences and repercussions should ALWAYS go hand-in-hand w/ the breaking of boundaries. As you say, due to the law of constants involved, things would equal out in time.


----------



## Entropy3000

LongWalk said:


> One Polish mother of twins discovered that the children had two different fathers. The sperm war ended in a tie. She divorced her husband.
> 
> Today Show
> 
> False paternity varies by socioeconomic class. Wealthy educated men are more successful at preventing paternity fraud. Two part program


Yes. Thank you for going there. The demographics have everything to do with those numbers.

Perhaps women married to these men have more to lose.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Meh, it takes two for an "insult by implication" to work.


When someone shoots and misses the intent was clear and it is best to deal with them and let them know that will not be tolerated. So zero tolerance has its merits.

It is all about eroding boundaries. Indeed letting the small stuff go is not a bad idea as that kind of petty stuff reflects on the person doing it. But I think it an act of love to help the offender change such behavior because it limits us all. YMMV.

Joseph said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."


----------



## Anon Pink

GusPolinski said:


> I'd like to add to this, if I may. I realize that abortion isn't quite THE topic of this thread, but I feel a need to say this...
> 
> In addition to the rape and birth defect scenarios that I described above, I also believe that abortions should be widely considered -- and accepted -- as an option in the case of a high-risk pregnancy, especially where the life of the mother herself is at risk. IMO, the life of a wife and mother -- who is herself her parents' child -- should never be trivialized solely for the sake of bringing a child into the world.
> 
> If my wife and I were faced w/ this scenario, I would beg, grovel, and plead with her to opt for abortion. (And, knowing her opinion on this subject, I would likely have to go to extremes.) It would be heartbreaking and, in the end, it would be her choice to make, but I'd want to continue to have her with me at all costs.


Don't want to derail, but it often ask people who want to ban late term abortions, if it was your daughter who risks her life... You'd be okay with forcing the birth that might kill your daughter?


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> I'd like to add to this, if I may. I realize that abortion isn't quite THE topic of this thread, but I feel a need to say this...
> 
> In addition to the rape and birth defect scenarios that I described above, I also believe that abortions should be widely considered -- and accepted -- as an option in the case of a high-risk pregnancy, especially where the life of the mother herself is at risk. IMO, the life of a wife and mother -- who is herself her parents' child -- should never be trivialized solely for the sake of bringing a child into the world.
> 
> If my wife and I were faced w/ this scenario, I would beg, grovel, and plead with her to opt for abortion. (And, knowing her opinion on this subject, I would likely have to go to extremes.) It would be heartbreaking and, in the end, it would be her choice to make, but I'd want to continue to have her with me at all costs.


Counter to some, while I would give my life for those I love, I would not sacrfice my wife for the unborn child. I would want to take risks to save them both, but I would never choose a baby over my wife in such a case.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> Don't want to derail, but it often ask people who want to ban late term abortions, if it was your daughter who risks her life... You'd be okay with forcing the birth that might kill your daughter?


And then I always ask the question, how is the woman's life in danger if they C-section? I think the whole, "but the mother's life is in danger" is just an excuse more times than not. Not saying it isn't possible. But I'd like someone to explain to me that if delivering a child naturally would kill the mother, then C-section.

And as far as partial birth abortions go, there is no risk to the "mother" at that point because they already delivered the baby, all but the head so they can "legally" say the baby wasn't born yet. They just use it as an excuse to stick scissors in the back of "its" skull.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> Don't want to derail, but it often ask people who want to ban late term abortions, if it was your daughter who risks her life... You'd be okay with forcing the birth that might kill your daughter?


No! Absolutely not!


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Legally (and, as I believe, ethically), here in the States, the patients "own" the information, while the healthcare institutions -- along w/ the clinicians, etc. that work in them -- themselves are but _stewards_ of said information.
> 
> 
> 
> In the short term, perhaps. And, in the long run, I believe that would be a good thing. Consequences and repercussions should ALWAYS go hand-in-hand w/ the breaking of boundaries. As you say, due to the law of constants involved, things would equal out in time.


Yes.


----------



## GusPolinski

vellocet said:


> And then I always ask the question, how is the woman's life in danger if they C-section? I think the whole, "but the mother's life is in danger" is just an excuse more times than not. Not saying it isn't possible. But I'd like someone to explain to me that if delivering a child naturally would kill the mother, then C-section.
> 
> And as far as partial birth abortions go, there is no risk to the "mother" at that point because they already delivered the baby, all but the head so they can "legally" say the baby wasn't born yet. They just use it as an excuse to stick scissors in the back of "its" skull.


Clearly I need more education on this very specific sub-topic, but the bottom line -- for me -- is this...

I wouldn't want my wife, daughter, aunt, niece, granddaughter, great granddaughter, grandniece, cousin, step-cousin, babysitter, boss's wife's 3rd cousin twice removed... any woman, anywhere... to feel that she HAD to continue a pregnancy that carries with it a significant risk of ending her life, thereby taking her away from her family. Period.

Again, we're all our parents' children, which means that wives and mothers are, themselves, their parents' children. This notion should not be -- in any way -- minimized or trivialized.


----------



## vellocet

GusPolinski said:


> Clearly I need more education on this very specific sub-topic, but the bottom line -- for me -- is this...
> 
> I wouldn't want my wife, daughter, aunt, niece, granddaughter, great granddaughter, grandniece, cousin, step-cousin, babysitter, boss's wife's 3rd cousin twice removed... any woman, anywhere... to feel that she HAD to continue a pregnancy that carries with it a significant risk of taking her away from her family. Period.


And if the woman's life is TRULY at risk, then I would agree.

But I think its an excuse. If a canal birth would risk the woman's life, I believe a C-section would not. 

And again, forget the argument of risking the mother's life with a partial birth abortion.....because they already performed the birth. At that point there is no risk by pulling the rest of the baby out.....the head.


----------



## larry.gray

Married but Happy said:


> Just to add a curious factoid I read recently: if you could trace your ancestry back to around 1900 and examine the genes of every ancestor, almost every person alive today had at least one ancestor who was the result of infidelity during marriage. Most such infidelities are never discovered.


Well for me it only requires going back to the 1930's. My grandmother was the OW's child. My great grandmother went back twice to the same guy. When my grandmother was 10 my great-grandmother married. It turns out she was unable to give her husband a child because of infertility from a social disease. (Back then we had to whisper ya know). From what I understand from many people, step-dad loved his step-kids.

When my step-great grandfather passed, my grandmother went to look up her bio-dad. She found him, and that's when the news of the affair broke. The betrayed wife had no idea that her husband had cheated, fathered two kids and had many grand-kids. BW snapped, and tried to kill off the whole family.


----------



## LongWalk

Anon Pink said:


> Don't want to derail, but it often ask people who want to ban late term abortions, if it was your daughter who risks her life... You'd be okay with forcing the birth that might kill your daughter?


I wouldn't mind so much if the child were unhealthy, e.g., Downs.

If the mother's life was really at risk, ok, go for the abortion.

Most of Europe does not allow abortions as late is in the US. Even progressive feminist Scandinavia would not allow what the US does.


----------



## larry.gray

Anon Pink said:


> Do the men on this thread think she should abort? Is her pregnancy, and there is a chance the husband is the father, something that makes reconciliation more important, or less important?
> 
> Obviously, it's now more complicated.
> 
> I hope we don't go down the abortion debate road.


I won't go into the debate - but just consider that _personal_ opinion against abortion is over 60%. A sizable middle ground doesn't want to ban legal access to abortion but is morally opposed to it. 

I'm in that gray area myself. I'd *NEVER* ask or encourage a woman to have one.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'm in the "it depends why" boat. If you've got a girl who is just using it as a sole method of birth control over and over that girl needs to be surgically sterilized until she's ready to be responsible. Some folks call that controlling and extreme though 

I could have aborted my son. I don't know why I didn't honestly. he's a product of failed birth control and I didn't even want kids. I imagine I was too afraid of the feelings I might have afterward if I had gone through with an abortion. 

Late term abortions should only be utilized when the mother is in grave danger and the fetus can't survive even with medical intervention.

Rape victims should ALWAYS be given the option of a guilt free abortion imo.


----------



## Eagle3

_I could have aborted my son. I don't know why I didn't honestly. he's a product of failed birth control and I didn't even want kids. I imagine I was too afraid of the feelings I might have afterward if I had gone through with an abortion. 

Late term abortions should only be utilized when the mother is in grave danger and the fetus can't survive even with medical intervention.

Rape victims should ALWAYS be given the option of a guilt free abortion imo_

Scarlett this was a well done post and I respect your honesty about asking yourself why you didnt. I believe when it comes to this it is strictly the choice of the woman. 

And I can imagine having that feeling of possible regret later on. My wife had an abortion from a previous relationship and combined with some othe factors it has lead to us unable to have children. I can't tell you the guilt she has felt on her deciscion at times. All a guy can do in that situation is be supportative best he can i guess.

And mentioning this is reason #12456 why my wife will not come on TAM.


----------



## sandc

ScarletBegonias said:


> ugh for real. And why is everyone gaga over Kim?? Her face is beautiful but that butt looks ridiculous on her body! Like little sticks with a giant balloon stuck to the top. Reeediculous.
> Gimme a gal shaped like Christina Hendricks...RAWR!


Apparently we have similar tastes in women, Scarlet.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> When someone shoots and misses the intent was clear and it is best to deal with them and let them know that will not be tolerated. So zero tolerance has its merits.
> 
> It is all about eroding boundaries. Indeed letting the small stuff go is not a bad idea as that kind of petty stuff reflects on the person doing it. But I think it an act of love to help the offender change such behavior because it limits us all. YMMV.
> 
> Joseph said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."


Meh, I guess if you feel the need "to deal with them" then knock yerself out. As for letting the petty stuff go, as demonstrated by this thread, "petty" is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm still baffled at the vitriol jld has brought out for what I see as one of her characteristic musings on men, women, love and relationships. I mean, sure, disagree with her, but if the topic makes your eyes bleed and you begin to rend your hair . . .


----------



## theroad

LongWalk said:


> Human nature allows both men and women to take interest in the children of others. I coached swimming for a few years. I found that liked the kids, even the ones I did not care for. It was necessary for me to get myself in a positive mindset to accomplish my goal: to impart my love of the water to them.
> 
> 
> 
> A BH can do the same for a love child. He must disassociate the child from POSOM. He cannot obsess about the sex that impregnated his wife. He cannot dwell on who his wife's vagina might be a little worn and looser after love child was squeezed out.



We as adults can choose to mentor kids that are not our own.

A BH can and some BH can not do the same for an OC. 78% of marriages survive an affair.

For whatever reasons 22% of marriages end after an affair because the BH can not get past what happened.

I do not fault any BH dumping his WW and her OC. Though I will support any BH that wants to recover his marriage.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> :scratchhead:
> 
> Okay...let's try this again.
> 
> What is the moral and ethical choice for the woman to make? Should she give the baby to parents who need and want a baby or should she bring it into her family, hoping they can be 'compassionate' enough take it in with the obvious possibility of a divorce?
> 
> And why does her husband have no say in this matter? I thought it was his family too.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the wife is the final arbiter of who is allowed into the family, or that she can choose to leave?


I am sure it is hard. If the husband wants to divorce, he should divorce. If the woman wants a divorce, she should divorce. 

It is the woman's body, so she has to decide if she wants an abortion or not. I don't think you can demand she give it up for adoption or insist on an abortion. She has to be in agreement; it is her body and her baby, after all.

If they cannot come to a decision they both feel good with, they should divorce.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> I saw what you did there. Nice try.
> 
> Let me translate from the quoted text:
> 
> "I will submit to punishment from a man who doesn't believe in punishment."
> 
> Now...would you submit to consequences from someone a little less saintly?


What consequences do you have in mind?


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again...
> 
> 
> 
> Not all instances of children being conceived or born out of wedlock involve infidelity and, either way, I'd think that most parents would support their children (and grandchildren), at least emotionally, if they found themselves in this situation. I would.
> 
> But, then again, there is no marriage contract between parents and their children. Neither party swears to be faithful to the other within the same parameters that typically exist within a marriage. Therefore, for many people, supporting a spouse's indiscretions is a world apart from supporting those of their children. Why? Because the relationship is _different_. It's _supposed_ to be.
> 
> Look, no one is trying to "get out" of anything here. Once a spouse -- whether it's a husband or a wife -- discover's that his/her spouse's commitment to their marriage isn't on an even keel w/ his/her own, there is often no going back. Add infidelity and, even worse, a child born of the infidelity to this, and it's even worse.
> 
> So... Again, in your mind, where should a betrayed spouse be able to draw the line? How much indignation should one be made to suffer in order to qualify, in your opinion, as a "good", "moral", "strong", "secure", "noble", "selfless", yadda yadda blah... person?


You can draw the line wherever you want. It really isn't any of my business.

I think a secure man makes a decision without worrying about public opinion. He thinks about what _he_ thinks about the whole thing, and goes from there.

You know your wife best. Is she sorry? Was it a one time thing? Is she willing to do the things necessary to win back trust? These all have to be considered. In my mind, these things would of course have happened.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> This is what I am trying to establish.
> 
> Submitting herself to the authority of someone who will not try to rule her isn't particularly helpful in clarifying this matter.
> 
> So, let me clarify what I mean by consequences, lest my words get twisted.
> 
> The WW gets treated as untrustworthy by her family...because she breached their trust.
> 
> She loses much of her moral authority to her kids and almost all of it to her husband...because she was immoral.
> 
> Her needs are treated...not as an afterthought, but not given primary priority...because she clearly put a couple of someones ahead of her family (OM and his baby)
> 
> There is little intimacy between the man and the woman because she has already sundered the bonds of intimacy.
> 
> None of this is set in stone forever, but for the foreseeable future. None of these are abusive. None of this is outrageous. None of it is 'unbearable'.
> 
> So...jld...would you 'put the child first' and live in such a situation if it meant that the baby was properly and lovingly taken care of? Since we are asking the man to be all selfless and such.
> 
> Are you willing to put in your ante?


That is interesting. Why do you think either partner would want to accept this? In America, in 2014?

I can imagine this in some other countries, though. And yes, I think I would do it for the sake of my child. The man, though, would certainly not be some kind of hero in my eyes. He would better than the guy who would simply turn me out of doors. Or the one that would immediately have me stoned. But not a lot better.

Can you not imagine a man who, when he finds all this out, and gets over his initial anger, sits down rationally and contemplates the whole thing? And knows that he still loves his wife very much, and knows that she is sorry? 

Can you not imagine that he would think about how to put the whole thing back together, not to what it was, because that is shattered, but to a new reality? And that part of that new reality is that a new life is coming into their family?

Can you imagine anything other than anger and embarrassment and betrayal and thoughts of revenge?


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> I have to agree with Lyris calling BS here.
> 
> Hope that is ok with everyone. But if not that is ok with me as well.
> 
> I have a few theories about the manipulation and all the rest. But suffice it to say that some manipulators mean to manipulate. Others have other things going on.
> 
> So carry on. I trust that at some point the truth will set us free.


What "truth" are you looking for, entropy?


----------



## jld

sandc said:


> Ugh, no way could I kill the child. Adoption. It would be hard on her but, hey. Them's the breaks. *Or we divorce and coparent our children. She gets support for the other kid from him, and they coparent that one. * Not fair? Nope.


This sounds like the choice most people on the thread would make. And considering how they feel, the healthiest.


----------



## over20

Entropy3000 said:


> I have to agree with Lyris calling BS here.
> 
> Hope that is ok with everyone. But if not that is ok with me as well.
> 
> I have a few theories about the manipulation and all the rest. But suffice it to say that some manipulators mean to manipulate. Others have other things going on.
> 
> So carry on. I trust that at some point the truth will set us free.


Here, here


----------



## jld

Tall Average Guy said:


> Be that as it may, my real disagreement is with her insistance that a man actually have no personal boundaries. It is not merely with a particular post or even this thread. Rather, it is about her world view as shown across her posts. In that view, everything about a man is predicated on focusing on the woman. If she rails at him, spewing hate and anger, he is required to stand there an take it in her world. If he does not, he is weak in character and not secure. He msut show his love and commitment regardless of her actions. Even here, where she cheats and has another man's child, he is insecure if he refuses to raise that child.
> 
> So that is my issue with her (her insults that others seem to ignore is merely icing on the cake). I beleive it is reasonable for a man to have boundaries. That a woman should actually be accountable for her behavior, and that the love does not mean accepting whatever she (or he) dishes out. I understand it works for jld and am glad. Based on her posts, she has had to deal with much in the past and her husband seems to be a great support. I am sure it works for others. But I think that group it works for is very small, and that the danger to others in adopting it is incredibly great.


Have you read WOTSM, TAG? It is a great book.

TAG, it is possible to have boundaries and still show compassion.

How am I not accountable for my behavior, TAG?

You want me to say that a man leaving the room when his woman is angry with him is the same as a man who can stay there and be dispassionate about it, even calming her by using active listening. It is not to me, TAG. Very different effect on the woman. Or at least this one.

You want me to say that a man who says That's it, I'm gone, you cheated and you're pregnant, is the same as the man who says, ****, you cheated, you're pregnant, but I still love you, I know you're sorry, and what are we going to do about the baby. It is not to me, Tag. It may be to you, and to everybody else, but it is not to me.

And I don't really know why anybody cares. Or seems to want my approval.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Meh, I guess if you feel the need "to deal with them" then knock yerself out. As for letting the petty stuff go, as demonstrated by this thread, "petty" is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm still baffled at the vitriol jld has brought out for what I see as one of her characteristic musings on men, women, love and relationships. I mean, sure, disagree with her, but if the topic makes your eyes bleed and you begin to rend your hair . . .


Ask yourself why you care so much that I choose to not be a conflict avoider? Ask yourself why do you feel the need to defend jld?

Petty stuff IS in the eye of the beholder. To many if not most men this topic is as poignant as rape, abortion or child abuse. I do see some pettiness in the not so veiled insults and fallacies. But again most of us see this is as D/s Cuckoldry. This is incredibly offensive to a few of us.

I cannot think off hand of an equivalent thread but imagine if I decided to muse on this thread:

Ladies would you want your rapist to have visting rights with your child?

This is actually a real topic. Then the guy who creates that thread starts saying a truly secure woman could handle it. The needs of the child come first. Why would a person be so selfish as to not do this. She needs to look past her own frail ego for the sake of the child. She makes more than him so she needs to help him out. What if he changes? This would be absurd it it were not also so offensive.

Now all this said, I reiterate this is a worthwhile thread. So lets see if we continue the cycle of putdowns and then ask why the men are hysterical.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> What "truth" are you looking for, entropy?


I am not sure you can tell me what the truth is.
That is not an attack. I honestly am not so sure.

I am not so sure if you ( or anyone else on the internet ) would. Many people on the internet are as relaible as asking Putin why there are Russian soldiers in the Crimea. He answers by telling us you can buy uniforms anywhere. So are you most people?

What persona are you right now? We are told you role play during the day. How old are you at this moment? Are you only the child with your husband? I am NOT belittling you. There are hints of things. What is the truth?

This is for me, the Byzantine Generals problem.
So I will have to deduce my estimation of the truth based on observations going forward. Time may tell.

While there are any number of speculations one could make, I will say that I hope that the truth is not a tragic one. I hope it is as harmless as some tout. 

But if you are for real. If you are not just some other poster having us on. If you are not an abused person. How about you not try and trigger those good folks. If you do not see, maybe try and put yourself on the other side. Role play that. I throw myself under this bus in hopes that maybe, just maybe that may reach you.


----------



## over20

Jld, can I ask, and I mean no disrespect, how is it you are able to spend so much time on TAM and still homeschool?

I have a dear friend with 6 children, and you have 5 I think, who also homeschools and she is very, very busy....she has almost no free time. She even co teaches with her homeschooling group.


Happy Birthday by the way!!


----------



## jld

over20 said:


> Jld, can I ask, and I mean no disrespect, how is it you are able to spend so much time on TAM and still homeschool?
> 
> I have a dear friend with 6 children, and you have 5 I think, who also homeschools and she is very, very busy....she has almost no free time. She even co teaches with her homeschooling group.
> 
> 
> Happy Birthday by the way!!


I'm organized. 

And thank you!


----------



## over20

Do you co teach? :scratchhead:

I believe you are very organized for sure. There must be days though that the classroom commands your full attention.

The homeschooling community is growing and that is nice to see.


----------



## jld

over20 said:


> Do you co teach? :scratchhead:
> 
> I believe you are very organized for sure. There must be days though that the classroom commands your full attention.
> 
> The homeschooling community is growing and that is nice to see.


No, we do not do co-ops. The kids use self-teaching materials. It is an important part of our system. Our daughter has found it very useful in college.

I don't know if homeschooling is growing in our area, but we do all seem to enjoy it.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

over20...My daughter home schools. She has three children...one is autistic. She is very busy too...but while the children are working on assignments she has tiime to spend on facebook or blog etc. she is a member of homeschool group, she takes my grandson to therapy three times a week and she takes the kids to swimming, and archery, and soccer, and scouts...etc

She still has time to be on the internet. 

I will repeat for you....once you have given the assignments and the children are working on them...you have to be available to help them but you have time.

We who were raised in public schools have forgotten how much the teacher sat at her desk...while we were busy doing work. She was available to help...20-30 students...but she still sat at her desk.

My daughter is the busiest in the evening...when she is grading papers. she spends much of her summers ordering curriculum and making day planners.

the secret is organization...and JLD says she is very organized. I believe she knows what she is talking about. She has done this for years...piece of cake


----------



## pidge70

Entropy3000 said:


> I am not sure you can tell me what the truth is.
> That is not an attack. I honestly am not so sure.
> 
> I am not so sure if you ( or anyone else on the internet ) would. Many people on the internet are as relaible as asking Putin why there are Russian soldiers in the Crimea. He answers by telling us you can buy uniforms anywhere. So are you most people?
> 
> What persona are you right now? We are told you role play during the day. How old are you at this moment? Are you only the child with your husband? I am NOT belittling you. There are hints of things. What is the truth?
> 
> This is for me, the Byzantine Generals problem.
> So I will have to deduce my estimation of the truth based on observations going forward. Time may tell.
> 
> While there are any number of speculations one could make, I will say that I hope that the truth is not a tragic one. I hope it is as harmless as some tout.
> 
> But if you are for real. If you are not just some other poster having us on. If you are not an abused person. How about you not try and trigger those good folks. If you do not see, maybe try and put yourself on the other side. Role play that. I throw myself under this bus in hopes that maybe, just maybe that may reach you.


----------



## Duguesclin

I am Jld's husband!

I am quite amazed with what I read. What is the big deal? A bunch of grownup guys are all bent out of shape because a small lady is challenging them. Isn't disagreeing good enough? Why do you have to go on and on about it?

I have many colleagues that are born again Christians and they, deep down, believe that I am going to hell because I have not accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. Does it stop me to interact with them? No! I respect them, like they respect me. We disagree and we move on. They ask my opinion, I give it to them. That's it.

Jld has opinions, I agree with most of them, you don't. That is OK.

The Manichean view of life is not what Jld and I believe in.There are other valid answers to a wife getting pregnant with another guy than just kicking her out. Decisions based on pride are weak decisions. 

You may feel I am a doormat, that is OK. It is you who feel I am that way, not me.

Some of you have way too much wild imagination. My wife and I have a very conservative and traditional life.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

I am confused...I thought you were both Christians? I do believe that you are very conservative...but I would think that calling your marriage traditional is a bit of a stretch since your wife describes it as KINK.


----------



## Duguesclin

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I am confused...I thought you were both Christians? I do believe that you are very conservative...but I would think that calling your marriage traditional is a bit of a stretch since your wife describes it as KINK.


I believe in God and I can be a conservative without being a Christian or voting Republican. It all depends on the definitions you have. That is true for Kink as well.


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> I am Jld's husband!
> 
> I am quite amazed with what I read. What is the big deal? A bunch of grownup guys are all bent out of shape because a small lady is challenging them. Isn't disagreeing good enough? Why do you have to go on and on about it?
> 
> I have many colleagues that are born again Christians and they, deep down, believe that I am going to hell because I have not accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. Does it stop me to interact with them? No! I respect them, like they respect me. We disagree and we move on. They ask my opinion, I give it to them. That's it.
> 
> Jld has opinions, I agree with most of them, you don't. That is OK.
> 
> The Manichean view of life is not what Jld and I believe in.There are other valid answers to a wife getting pregnant with another guy than just kicking her out. Decisions based on pride are weak decisions.
> 
> You may feel I am a doormat, that is OK. It is you who feel I am that way, not me.
> 
> Some of you have way too much wild imagination. My wife and I have a very conservative and traditional life.


----------



## Duguesclin

Sorry, I do not like popcorn!


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Duguesclin said:


> I believe in God and I can be a conservative without being a Christian or voting Republican. It all depends on the definitions you have. That is true for Kink as well.



So you believe in God but you are not a Christian...a man who once considered becoming a priest

You are conservative but not republican ( I actually get that)

You are traditional kink...Your wife calls you daddy and you give her spankings

You are an upstanding French executive..(which explains the accent in your writing) who travels a great deal.

You listen and repeat back everything your wife says to you because you know how to truly listen

You take full responsibility for everything in your relationship because you are a real mature man.

Your wife totally admires and respects you...because you take full responsibility for the relationship because you are a real mature man.


I think I have it!


----------



## Anon Pink

Gus! That was hysterical! 

Dug! So glad you could pop in for a minute to unveil yourself. But the Sh"t will hit the fan again tomorrow at about JLD's lunch time when everyone else is zooming out at meetings.


----------



## john117

Duguesclin said:


> Sorry, I do not like popcorn!



It's a European thing  me neither.


----------



## Duguesclin

Mrs. John Adams said:


> So you believe in God but you are not a Christian...a man who once considered becoming a priest
> 
> You are conservative but not republican ( I actually get that)
> 
> You are traditional kink...Your wife calls you daddy and you give her spankings
> 
> You are an upstanding French executive..(which explains the accent in your writing) who travels a great deal.
> 
> You listen and repeat back everything your wife says to you because you know how to truly listen
> 
> You take full responsibility for everything in your relationship because you are a real mature man.
> 
> Your wife totally admires and respects you...because you take full responsibility for the relationship because you are a real mature man.
> 
> 
> I think I have it!


For the Christian part, I used the American definition. I consider myself a Catholic the European way, that is, not going to church.

For the rest, I feel honored that my wife feels that way.


----------



## Anon Pink

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I am confused...I thought you were both Christians? I do believe that you are very conservative...but I would think that calling your marriage traditional is a bit of a stretch since your wife describes it as KINK.


You might be surprised at how many "traditional" homes practice some sort of kink! The power dynamics in any given relationship are up to each spouse to work out. So long as it is safe, sane and consensual...it's all good! And if you ask Dug or JLD, they will say it's better than good.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> Gus! That was hysterical!
> 
> Dug! So glad you could pop in for a minute to unveil yourself. But the Sh"t will hit the fan again tomorrow at about JLD's lunch time when everyone else is zooming out at meetings.


----------



## over20

Something doesn't feel right here...


----------



## jld

Anon Pink said:


> You might be surprised at how many "traditional" homes practice some sort of kink! The power dynamics in any given relationship are up to each spouse to work out. So long as it is safe, sane and consensual...it's all good!*And if you ask Dug or JLD, they will say it's better than good.*


----------



## Anon Pink

over20 said:


> Something doesn't feel right here...


Put the lid back on the glue and open a window.


----------



## Duguesclin

Anon Pink said:


> Gus! That was hysterical!
> 
> Dug! So glad you could pop in for a minute to unveil yourself. But the Sh"t will hit the fan again tomorrow at about JLD's lunch time when everyone else is zooming out at meetings.


I am just puzzled why anyone's manhood is so threatened.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Anon Pink said:


> You might be surprised at how many "traditional" homes practice some sort of kink! The power dynamics in any given relationship are up to each spouse to work out. So long as it is safe, sane and consensual...it's all good! And if you ask Dug or JLD, they will say it's better than good.


I stated in the KINK thread that what I may think is normal may very well be kinky to you. Not making a judgement call here...simply to trying to understand.

I have no doubt that Jld and Dug have an outstanding relationship. And as Long as they are both fulfilled...that is all that is important. I stated that earlier....I still feel that way. What I think or believe is irrelevant.

It does seem that some of their disclosures are a bit contradictory...I am not a Christian...I am a European Catholic...I don't go to church. 

I am still trying to wrap my head around where they are coming from.


----------



## TiggyBlue

My manhood isn't


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I am still trying to wrap my head around where they are coming from.


France.


----------



## Duguesclin

TiggyBlue said:


> My manhood isn't


You have balls, that's why!


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> France.



lol...I was in Toulon and Ax En Provence in September.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> lol...I was in Toulon and Ax En Provence in September.


How did you like Aix?


----------



## Duguesclin

Mrs. John Adams said:


> lol...I was in Toulon and Ax En Provence in September.


If you went to Church on Sunday there, you would have noticed just a few people. Yet the country is 70% Catholic!


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> Put the lid back on the glue and open a window.


Bring out the gimp.


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> You have balls, that's why!


You know what, I take back everything that I've said. Honestly, you sound like a great guy, and a true man. Seriously. I just have one question for you...

How many children sown from another man's seed would your wife have to bring home for you to raise before you'd consider divorcing her?


----------



## Entropy3000

Duguesclin said:


> I am just puzzled why anyone's manhood is so threatened.












I love that movie.


----------



## GusPolinski

TiggyBlue said:


> My manhood isn't


Ditto. But they're not "getting it", so it doesn't really even matter at this point.


----------



## Anon Pink

Entropy3000 said:


> Bring out the gimp.


Have no idea what that means. Perhaps it was before my time.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

it was amazing....while we were there...the church we were supposed to tour had a funeral for the Mayor...so we did not get to go inside. But there were hundreds of people. 

We had lunch at Belle Epogue.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> it was amazing....while we were there...the church we were supposed to tour had a funeral for the Mayor...so we did not get to go inside. But there were hundreds of people.
> 
> We had lunch at Belle Epogue.


Yeah, funerals and weddings will do that. Christmas, too.

How did you like your lunch?


----------



## over20

Duguesclin said:


> If you went to Church on Sunday there, you would have noticed just a few people. Yet the country is 70% Catholic!


I am glad you rescued your wife...my hubs would do the same for me!!  Can I ask though, is it common for men to be named after a former French heroe?? IDK I am in the states.


----------



## Duguesclin

GusPolinski said:


> You know what, I take back everything that I've said. Honestly, you sound like a great guy, and a true man. Seriously. I just have one question for you...
> 
> How many children sown from another man's seed would your wife have to bring home for you to raise before you'd consider divorcing her?


Gus, the reality is that I will never divorce my wife and she will not have an affair.

Now, the point she has tried to make is that you need to look beyond some hard rules. Family dynamics involve more than a wife and a husband and lives are at stake. I think the divorce card is often drawn out way too fast and pride is the worst reason to make such a decision.


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> Have no idea what that means. Perhaps it was before my time.


Only if you were a little girl when you married your husband?


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> Only if you were a little girl when you married your husband?


:rofl:


----------



## Duguesclin

over20 said:


> I am glad you rescued your wife...my hubs would do the same for me!!  Can I ask though, is it common for men to be named after a former French heroe?? IDK I am in the states.


I would not call Duguesclin really a hero. The most famous of the family was actually pretty brutal and loved killing people. I just like the name.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

over20 said:


> I am glad you rescued your wife...my hubs would do the same for me!!  Can I ask though, is it common for men to be named after a former French heroe?? IDK I am in the states.


Is over20 your real name? Do you think his real name is really a french hero? (spelled correctly)

OMG


----------



## Wolf1974

Duguesclin said:


> I am Jld's husband!
> 
> I am quite amazed with what I read. What is the big deal? A bunch of grownup guys are all bent out of shape because a small lady is challenging them. Isn't disagreeing good enough? Why do you have to go on and on about it?
> 
> I have many colleagues that are born again Christians and they, deep down, believe that I am going to hell because I have not accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. Does it stop me to interact with them? No! I respect them, like they respect me. We disagree and we move on. They ask my opinion, I give it to them. That's it.
> 
> Jld has opinions, I agree with most of them, you don't. That is OK.
> 
> The Manichean view of life is not what Jld and I believe in.There are other valid answers to a wife getting pregnant with another guy than just kicking her out. Decisions based on pride are weak decisions.
> 
> You may feel I am a doormat, that is OK. It is you who feel I am that way, not me.
> 
> Some of you have way too much wild imagination. My wife and I have a very conservative and traditional life.


Wild imagination and assumption on TAM. Can't be


----------



## jld

Wolf1974 said:


> Wild imagination and assumption on TAM. Can't be


----------



## Anon Pink

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Is over20 your real name? Do you think his real name is really a french hero? (spelled correctly)
> 
> OMG


:rofl:

OMG between you and Gus and about the pee the bed laughing here!


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Ditto. But they're not "getting it", so it doesn't really even matter at this point.


cirque du soleil


----------



## tacoma

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Is over20 your real name? Do you think his real name is really a french hero? (spelled correctly)
> 
> OMG


I've never even been to Washington.


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> :rofl:
> 
> OMG between you and Gus and about the pee the bed laughing here!


Golden Showers now.


----------



## over20

Duguesclin said:


> I would not call Duguesclin really a hero. The most famous of the family was actually pretty brutal and loved killing people. I just like the name.


So that is your birth name? It must have been handed down from your father or grandfather.......I love tradition.....


----------



## johnAdams

tacoma said:


> I've never even been to Washington.


But, I am the second President of the United States of America


----------



## tacoma

johnAdams said:


> But, I am the second President of the United States of America


Well, then you have been to Washington (DC anyway)


----------



## Anon Pink

over20 said:


> So that is your birth name? It must have been handed down from your father or grandfather.......I love tradition.....


That's great, now it have to change the sheets!


----------



## Duguesclin

over20 said:


> So that is your birth name? It must have been handed down from your father or grandfather.......I love tradition.....


Some French history:
Bertrand du Guesclin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am in no way related to the guy. I just like the name.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

over20 said:


> So that is your birth name? It must have been handed down from your father or grandfather.......I love tradition.....


Are you fvkin kidding me?


----------



## john117

Hello Mr. President. I am the Master Chief, the guy from the Halo video game series :lol:


----------



## Anon Pink

john117 said:


> Hello Mr. President. I am the Master Chief, the guy from the Halo video game series :lol:


Nope sorry, you're just plain John. Don't feel bad, at least your not some unspecified shade of red.


----------



## over20

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Is over20 your real name? Do you think his real name is really a french hero? (spelled correctly)
> 
> OMG


I was being very respectful and curious...and yes I did spell it wrong.. I am sorry


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> Now, the point she has tried to make is that you need to look beyond some hard rules. Family dynamics involve more than a wife and a husband and lives are at stake. I think the divorce card is often drawn out way too fast and pride is the worst reason to make such a decision.


I can agree, in a very general sense, with the sentiment expressed here. But to what degree should a spouse agree to relax or overlook said rules and boundaries just so that he/she is able to receive whatever scant morsels of affection or dignity that his/her WS is willing to throw his/her way? How many slights should he/she endure just for the sake of continuing to share a bed w/ the WS?



Duguesclin said:


> Gus, the reality is that I will never divorce my wife and *she will not have an affair.*


This is hilariously naive. Many spouses who have been blunted by the clumsy, brutal (and yet painfully sharp) club of infidelity have earnestly believed this, with some even proclaiming it ecstatically to the heavens, for all to hear. And they were all wrong.

Either way, you've *COMPLETELY* dodged the question but that's cool, I'll play...

For those husbands who have or will experience this, what would you advise? What should their limit be? How much indignity should they be forced to suffer before they're justified in moving on?

And please, no more hippy dippy "do what's in the best interest of the child" crap because, AT SOME POINT, children need to see that their parents are capable of conducting themselves with at least SOME dignity, honor, and integrity. THAT is what is in the best interest of the child.


----------



## john117

Anon Pink said:


> Nope sorry, you're just plain John. Don't feel bad, at least your not some unspecified shade of red.



I have beaten every Halo game in heroic mode... But Cortana died at the end anyway so...


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> Have no idea what that means. Perhaps it was before my time.


Pulp Fiction. 90's movie by Quentin Tarantino. WAY overrated.


----------



## larry.gray

Gus... Ent.... Those were epic.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

over20 said:


> I was being very respectful and curious...and yes I did spell it wrong.. I am sorry



Your spelling is the LEAST of your worries. How many people do you know here that use their real name?

Why the hell would you assume HE DOES????

Good grief.


----------



## Anon Pink

over20 said:


> I was being very respectful and curious...and yes I did spell it wrong.. I am sorry


Okay, I'm sorry for laughing. It wasn't because you spelled it wrong, I didn't catch it but I'm a notoriously bad speller.

It's because you seem to be under the impressions that Dug used his real name instead of a screen name. Get it, he wasn't named Duguesclin by his parents, but picked that fictitious name as his user name....


----------



## TiggyBlue

GusPolinski said:


> Pulp Fiction. 90's movie by Quentin Tarantino. WAY overrated.


I think that may be the most offensive thing I've read in this thread


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Pulp Fiction. 90's movie by Quentin Tarantino. WAY overrated.


Perhaps a Basic Instinct reference would have been more appropos.


----------



## larry.gray

tacoma said:


> I've never even been to Washington.


I thought you liked Toyota pickups.


----------



## Entropy3000

TiggyBlue said:


> I think that may be the most offensive thing I've read in this thread


Where did I put my watch.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> Okay, I'm sorry for laughing. It wasn't because you spelled it wrong, I didn't catch it but I'm a notoriously bad speller.
> 
> It's because you seem to be under the impressions that Dug used his real name instead of a screen name. Get it, he wasn't named Duguesclin by his parents, but picked that fictitious name as his user name....


Hey, I'd have fallen for it... IF I knew who in the hell that was. Because I honestly, really, and truly am...

Gus Polinski, Polka King of the Midwest!

Home Alone - Gus Polinski (John Candy) - YouTube

/crickets


----------



## TiggyBlue

Entropy3000 said:


> Where did I put my watch.


Think that belongs on the kink thread


----------



## larry.gray

Just in the interest of full disclosure, my singing voice sucks.


----------



## Entropy3000

I commonly use my real name on most forums.


----------



## Entropy3000

TiggyBlue said:


> Think that belongs on the kink thread


Blurred lines here.


----------



## tacoma

larry.gray said:


> I thought you liked Toyota pickups.


Exactly, but everyone assumes I'm from Tacoma due to my screen name.

I'm named after my truck


----------



## Anon Pink

Ouch Tiggy!


----------



## over20

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Your spelling is the LEAST of your worries. How many people do you know here that use their real name?
> 
> Why the hell would you assume HE DOES????
> 
> Good grief.


I was just asking... a lot of times names are passed down through the generations for various reasons


----------



## Duguesclin

GusPolinski said:


> And please, no more hippy dippy "do what's in the best interest of the child" crap because, AT SOME POINT, children need to see that their parents are capable of conducting themselves with at least SOME dignity, honor, and integrity. THAT is what is in the best interest of the child.


If his wife is truly sorry and he believes she is sincere, he should take her back. 

Now if he does not believe her, he may have different considerations. But he has still the power of saving the child's life. His decision should be based on the best interest of his wife, future child and himself. He should work hard to get his pride out of the way.


----------



## GusPolinski

tacoma said:


> Exactly, but everyone assumes I'm from Tacoma due to me screen name.
> 
> I'm named after my truck


Tacomas are awesome! I almost bought one a couple of years ago.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Anon Pink said:


> Ouch Tiggy!


That was just a joke.


----------



## Duguesclin

I need to go to bed now. Let's continue this discussion tomorrow..... tomorrow night because I have to work!


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> If his wife is truly sorry and he believes she is sincere, he should take her back.


This is a very difficult thing to quantify. By your wife's admission, she has never experienced infidelity. It may or may not be safe to assume, based on this, that you have not either, but I'll go there. Either way, once you both have, get back to me.



Duguesclin said:


> Now if he does not believe her, he may have different considerations. But he has still the power of saving the child's life.


You're assuming that the child's life is somehow in peril here. That wouldn't necessarily be the case but, if it were, I'd do what I could to remove whatever danger existed... Prior to moving on w/ my life.



Duguesclin said:


> His decision should be based on the best interest of his *future wife and himself.*


I fixed that for you. Or, rather, for me. And the vast majority of men. Everywhere.



Duguesclin said:


> He should work hard to get his pride out of the way.


Again, it's not JUST about pride. Why have boundaries, oaths, promises, or vows if there are no consequences or repercussions for breaking them?


----------



## Entropy3000

Duguesclin said:


> If his wife is truly sorry and he believes she is sincere, he should take her back.
> 
> Now if he does not believe her, he may have different considerations. But he has still the power of saving the child's life. His decision should be based on the best interest of his wife, future child and himself. He should work hard to get his pride out of the way.


Pride is pretty much gone by then Dug. But I think you are confusing pride and respect. Pride is what the wife was asserting when she strayed. Respect is something else. YMMV.

Also it is a fallacy that the husband has to save the child at all.


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> I need to go to bed now. Let's continue this discussion tomorrow..... tomorrow night because I have to work!


And a good night to you, sir. Dignity, honor, integrity, principle, and respect will be here waiting for your return.

And balls. Lots and lots of balls.

Popcorn balls, even.


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> Tacomas are awesome! I almost bought one a couple of years ago.


It is awesome!

I'm really a Chevy guy but they stopped making the S-10 so I opted for the Tacoma.

Was a good move.


----------



## GusPolinski

tacoma said:


> It is awesome!
> 
> I'm really a Chevy guy but they stopped making the S-10 so I opted for the Tacoma.
> 
> Was a good move.


The S-10 was cool. My brother bought one back in the 90's. I think I drove it as much as he did.

My first truck was a Mazda B2300 i.e. Ford Ranger. I love the Ranger! I wish that Ford were still making them.

My wife and I both drive Silverados now and love them.


----------



## tacoma

That rape victim should swallow her pride and raise that child.

It's all about the child ins!

**** that


----------



## GusPolinski

tacoma said:


> That rape victim should swallow her pride and raise that child.
> 
> It's all about the child ins!
> 
> **** that


I'm gonna bite the bullet and pre-emptively address this on jld's and Dug's behalf (or would it be behalves...?) ...

jld / Dug: "There is an intense amount of pain and trauma associated w/ rape that can't or shouldn't even be compared to something as trivial as a spouse's infidelity." 

...and my reply...

GusPolinski: "I wouldn't attempt to quantify or compare the trauma intrinsic to either experience but, as to how traumatic infidelity can be for a BS... Well, like I said, you need to experience it for yourselves."


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> The S-10 was cool. My brother bought one back in the 90's. I think I drove it as much as he did.
> 
> My first truck was a Mazda B2300 i.e. Ford Ranger. I love the Ranger! I wish that Ford were still making them.
> 
> My wife and I both drive Silverados now and love them.


I seriously considered the Ranger but they weren't making them either.

It was a big step for me just to be let down again since I have an irrational fear of Fords.
My first car was a 71 Maverick and I'm still not quite over the trauma.

Considered the Silverado too being a Chevy guy and all, was just more truck than I needed.

Anyway the day I bought my truck I signed up here at TAM and considering the personal nature of posting here I wanted a screen name I didn't use anywhere else so I wouldn't pop up if Googled.

My oh so creative mind decided on Tacoma right away.


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> I'm gonna bite the bullet and pre-emptively address this on jld's and Dug's behalf (or would it be behalves...?) ...
> 
> jld / Dug: "There is an intense amount of pain and trauma associated w/ rape that can't or shouldn't even be compared to something as trivial as a spouse's infidelity."
> 
> ...and my reply...
> 
> GusPolinski: "I wouldn't attempt to quantify or compare the trauma intrinsic to either experience but, as to how traumatic infidelity can be for a BS... Well, like I said, you need to experience it for yourselves."


Thanks Gus but I was ready man.

I know it's coming.


----------



## Anon Pink

TiggyBlue said:


> That was just a joke.


I knew that, but you know how when you see someone fall and your but clenches in response.... So...ouch.


----------



## LongWalk

Anon Pink said:


> Put the lid back on the glue and open a window.


Anon Pink,

While this sort of comment is witty, don't you think that it is disrespectful? Sniffing glue = brain damaged, does it not?


----------



## tacoma

Anon Pink said:


> I like you and respect you Tacoma, I don't want to open this line again.


Not like you to just shut down an avenue of discussion at all AP.
Odd.




> How about you get pushed to the ground, your clothes forcibly removed, ripped and torn, you're kicking and screaming but aren't strong enough,
> Oh **** it


Ok, I'll alter the analogy(not that I think I should).

"All victims of non-violent rape should keep that child."

You can bend it and twist it and rant against it AP but the analogy is comparable in any form.

We've already decided a child can be tossed aside due to emotional duress by an adult (considering rape is an acceptable reason to toss aside a child for you) now we're just talking about degrees of emotional duress.

This is reaching hypocrisy levels even higher than those it's already ascended to.


----------



## jld

What do you want us to say, tacoma?


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> What do you want us to say, tacoma?


I want you to explain to me why one type of horrid emotional trauma has more value to you than another type of horrid emotional trauma because I can guarantee nearly every man here now believes it's due to misandry.

I don't think you want to be thought of that way.


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> I want you to explain to me why one type of horrid emotional trauma has more value to you than another type of horrid emotional trauma because I can guarantee nearly every man here now believes it's due to misandry.
> 
> I don't think you want to be thought of that way.


No, I think what you and several other posters want is to tell me the correct way to see this. So, just go ahead and tell me the correct answer to this test, please.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> No, I think what you and several other posters want is to tell me the correct way to see this. So, just go ahead and tell me the correct answer to this test, please.


This is no test, every poster here will vouch for my history of sincerity in this forum even those who disagree with me in this thread.

I don't play games and they know it.

My question is valid and sincere.

Why is one form of horrid emotional trauma an acceptable reason to toss aside a child when another arguably equitable form of horrid emotional trauma is not an acceptable reason to toss aside a child?

It's a simple question easily answered by anyone who has no bias or agenda in the discussion that spawned it.


----------



## GusPolinski

tacoma said:


> This is no test, every poster here will vouch for my history of sincerity in this forum even those who disagree with me in this thread.
> 
> I don't play games and they know it.
> 
> My question is valid and sincere.
> 
> Why is one form of horrid emotional trauma an acceptable reason to toss aside a child when another arguably equitable,form of emotional trauma not an acceptable reason to toss aside a child?
> 
> It's a simple question easily answered by anyone who has no bias or agenda in the discussion that spawned it.


Let me just say this...

I've never experienced rape, nor would I want to. Nor would I want ANYONE to, let alone those closest to me. Similarly, I would never wish for anyone to experience infidelity. If, however, I had to choose between the two for myself, I would probably choose the former. If I had to choose for my wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, cousin, etc, I would probably choose the latter.

I would _never_ seek to minimize, question, or trivialize the pain involved w/ rape.

I will also say this; both rape and infidelity have been known to cause PTSD. Having said that, I think it would be more common in those who have experienced rape than in those who have experienced infidelity.


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> Let me just say this...
> 
> I've never experienced rape, nor would I want to. Nor would I want ANYONE to, let alone those closest to me. Similarly, I would never wish for anyone to experience infidelity. If, however, I had to choose between the two for myself, I would probably choose the former. If I had to choose for my wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, cousin, etc, I would probably choose the latter.
> 
> I would never seek to minimize, question, or trivialize the pain involved w/ rape.
> 
> I will also say this; both rape and infidelity have been known to cause PTSD. Having said that, I think it would be more common in those who have experienced rape than in those who have experienced infidelity.



I agree with you Gus but again, from a completely rational perspective these are just degrees of emotional trauma.

They are both classified as "horrible" traumas by everyone in this forum whether they believe one is worse than the other is irrelevant to the fact that they are both truly horribly mind altering.

To believe and espouse the idea that one has more value as an excuse to reject a child than the other is objectively hypocrisy.

Considering this entire debate has revolved around sex/gender I can only believe this hypocrisy is due to gender since the trauma that is generally experienced by woman seems to hold a higher value to those shaming men in this thread I have no where to go but misandry.

Please tell me where I'm wrong because I hold a high degree of respect for some of the posters supporting this shaming and I'd rather not lose any of that respect for them.


----------



## GusPolinski

tacoma said:


> I agree with you Gus but again, from a completely rational perspective these are just degrees of emotional trauma.
> 
> They are both classified as "horrible" traumas by everyone in this forum whether they believe one is worse than the other is irrelevant to the fact that they are both truly horribly mind altering.
> 
> *To believe and espouse the idea that one has more value as an excuse to reject a child than the other is objectively hypocrisy.*
> 
> Considering this entire debate has revolved around sex/gender I can only believe this hypocrisy is due to gender since the trauma that is generally experienced by woman seems to hold a higher value to those shaming men in this thread I have no where to go but misandry.
> 
> Please tell me where I'm wrong because I hold a high degree of respect for some of the posters supporting this shaming and I'd rather not lose any of that respect for them.


I do see your point but I can't..._quite_...agree w/ this. Sorry.


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> I do see your point but I can't..._quite_...agree w/ this. Sorry.


Can you tell me why?


----------



## GusPolinski

tacoma said:


> Can you tell me why?


Not now. Battery almost dead. Also need sleep. Tomorrow, I promise.


----------



## As'laDain

i disagree with the assumption that one trauma holds more merit than another when it comes to deciding whether to raise a kid or not. 

in the end, it comes down to what the individual involved can realistically do. 


as for me, i could raise a child from another man if certain criteria were met. first, the other man could not be in my life. i will not compete with another man for my family. its not something i think i can do, nor wish to do. i think it would breed resentment in me towards my spouse and the innocent child. if there were no other man, however, and my wife managed to make me believe she was really repentant, it would be a non-issue for me. 

i wouldnt even think twice about it. to me, it would be the same as adopting. the thing is, at any time i can end the relationship. i can bail if i want to. if i stay, its because i want to. there is no other reason. 

so, with that in mind, i KNOW that i can get past it. hell, even if my wife cheated on me and was not repentant, i still wouldn't mind raising the child. i just wouldn't want her in the picture. 

in this situation, it would be me, the one who was hurt, making the conscious decision to let go of the pain and seek the joys of raising a child. 


for a victim of rape, it would be the same deal. the only determination is the victims decisions. if they can let go of the pain, the may choose to raise the kid. if they cant, then they will give it up for adoption, or get an abortion. its not for me or anyone else to decide. one decision is not more justifiable than the other. neither is one situation more justifiable than the other. 

i dont see any difference. my best friend was a rape baby. his mother refused to have an abortion or give up the child for adoption. im glad she did. she raised an amazing man. she is a strong woman and she did what felt right to her. 


i think people here on TAM are too worried about what other people will think. in the end, there is only one person we have to lay in bed with. as long as your being honest with that one person, no decision is wrong for you.

so, to answer the original question, i for one would be willing to raise a kid from another father. 


but then again, im trying to adopt out of the foster system, so i guess i carry a bias?


----------



## TiggyBlue

The question wasn't could you raise the child from another man/woman though (plenty of stepfathers/mothers) it was would you accept the child was conceived during the time you're partner was cheating and deceiving you and continued to deceive you even further by letting you believe that child is biologically theirs (I know that doesn't apply to women). 

If you would leave a partner for cheating and the pain and betrayal they caused you anyway (everyone has different deal breakers, I'm guessing this would be at the top of most people's list), a child who already has 2 parents isn't going to stop you. It doesn't mean that you have anything against the innocent child and don't wish the best for them, just that you can't stomach his/her parents. 

Massive difference between consciously deciding to raising someone Else's child and having it unknowingly forced on you.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> No, I think what you and several other posters want is to tell me the correct way to see this. So, just go ahead and tell me the correct answer to this test, please.


No, what we want you to see is that just because someone cannot reconcile with his or her spouse if a pregnancy resulted from an affair, it doesn't make them any less mature, secure, etc. And, honestly, it is immature for someone to state that one who cannot reconcile, for the sake of the affair child, is immature. 

It isn't a test, as you put it to tacoma. The "correct way to see this" is that there IS NO correct answer. There is whatever works for the individuals invloved, period. Even Deejo pointed out that his brother was treated well by his dad... but did you notice that he also stated that his parents divorced?Again, there is no correct answer... no "one size fits all" to this situation. But choosing to divorce rather than "suck it up" doesn't make someone less mature than another person.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

over20 said:


> I was just asking... a lot of times names are passed down through the generations for various reasons



Yes...yes they are

I named all of my children Mrs. John Adams because THAT is my real name.

I am quite certain Dug and Jld named their children after them as well.

Did you name your kids over20?


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Maricha75 said:


> No, what we want you to see is that just because someone cannot reconcile with his or her spouse if a pregnancy resulted from an affair, it doesn't make them any less mature, secure, etc. And, honestly, it is immature for someone to state that one who cannot reconcile, for the sake of the affair child, is immature.
> 
> It isn't a test, as you put it to tacoma. The "correct way to see this" is that there IS NO correct answer. There is whatever works for the individuals invloved, period. Even Deejo pointed out that his brother was treated well by his dad... but did you notice that he also stated that his parents divorced?Again, there is no correct answer... no "one size fits all" to this situation. But choosing to divorce rather than "suck it up" doesn't make someone less mature than another person.


 I said this back oh a hundred pages ago...lol

There is no right or wrong answer. As individuals we do what we think is best for our own situation.

the original question is Would your husband accept a child that was not his?
in my case...the answer to this question is NO.

In your case it may be yes.

Because my answer is NO...does not mean my husband is a bad guy. It means that emotionally he cannot handle raising a child that was not his. No explanation is needed.

Dug could raise a child that is not his.

The issue here is no longer the question...


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> Ask yourself why you care so much that I choose to not be a conflict avoider? Ask yourself why do you feel the need to defend jld?


Well, I think those are the wrong questions to ask, because I don't feel you should be a conflict avoider, and I don't feel I need to defend jld. Most of my musings have been based on curiosity over why some posters here feel insulted by jld saying that a man who would raise an affair child under certain circumstances must be extraordinarily secure. I know, I know, the whole insult by implication thing: but I don't see that insinuation at all. 



Entropy3000 said:


> Petty stuff IS in the eye of the beholder. To many if not most men this topic is as poignant as rape, abortion or child abuse. I do see some pettiness in the not so veiled insults and fallacies. *But again most of us see this is as D/s Cuckoldry. This is incredibly offensive to a few of us*.


Your eyes, not jld's. And _she_ is the one who is impressed by the traits of a man who consent to raise that child under certain circumstances. She doesn't see it as D/s cuckoldry, and her husband doesn't see it that way--why should she see it this way? She's made it clear that men who do see it this way wouldn't be good candidates to stay with their wife and raise the child. 



Entropy3000 said:


> I cannot think off hand of an equivalent thread but imagine if I decided to muse on this thread:
> 
> Ladies would you want your rapist to have visting rights with your child?
> 
> This is actually a real topic. Then the guy who creates that thread starts saying a truly secure woman could handle it. The needs of the child come first. Why would a person be so selfish as to not do this. She needs to look past her own frail ego for the sake of the child. She makes more than him so she needs to help him out. What if he changes? This would be absurd it it were not also so offensive.


Why is this such an offensive question? It's not phrased like this: "Should women be forced to consent to allow their rapists to have visiting rights to her child." It asks the women to guess how they'd feel if they'd been raped and had a child as a result. You might get a variety of answers raging from "Hell to the no," to "Under these very particular circumstances I would . . . " 

It's not a perfect analogy, of course, because it involves violent crime but I am willing to accept that many men feel that the violation of being betrayed by their wife in the worst possible fashion rises to the level of emotional trauma that a victim of rape feels. 

I've neither been raped, nor been a man most horribly betrayed by his beloved wife, so I can't comment on the relative pain. 



Entropy3000 said:


> Now all this said, I reiterate this is a worthwhile thread. So lets see if we continue the cycle of putdowns and then ask why the men are hysterical.


Cycle of put downs by who? I still maintain that jld didn't put anyone down.


----------



## jld

For some reason, what I admire in a man has become a bar for other people to meet . . . In their own minds.

And instead of saying, oh, jld and I see this differently, they say, no, jld must see that her bar is wrong. We need to show her, _and force her to accept_, the correct setting of the bar.

This is a hypothetical question. Not anyone's actual current situation. Everybody can think what they want.

And nobody needs my approval.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

GusPolinski said:


> Hey, I'd have fallen for it... IF I knew who in the hell that was. Because I honestly, really, and truly am...
> 
> Gus Polinski, Polka King of the Midwest!
> 
> Home Alone - Gus Polinski (John Candy) - YouTube
> 
> /crickets


My FAVORITE movie! I laugh EVERYTIME i watch it!


----------



## GettingIt_2

TiggyBlue said:


> The question wasn't could you raise the child from another man/woman though (plenty of stepfathers/mothers) it was would you accept the child was conceived during the time you're partner was cheating and deceiving you and continued to deceive you even further by letting you believe that child is biologically theirs (I know that doesn't apply to women).


See this ^^ right here is the root of some of the troubles on this thread. Not all the posters are operating under the impression that this is the question. jld, for example (at least at one point) was assuming the reconciliation work had been done and it was time to decide what to do with the child. 

Others imagine a scenario in which the child was passed off as the husband for years and years, he'd bonded with that child, and then found out it was his. 

Other imagine that they find out during the pregnancy, but aren't sure whether the child is theirs or not. Still others see a scenario where the unrepentant wife approaches the husband with an expectation of support. 

Sometimes its unclear which posters are responding to which scenarios, and then new posters chime in assuming that they are answering to a specific set of circumstances, but some readers think they are answering to a different set. 

It's a cluster I tell you! A cluster!

Ah, communication. So simple, and yet so complex . . .


----------



## GettingIt_2

GusPolinski said:


> Ditto. But they're not "getting it", so it doesn't really even matter at this point.


That's right. I'm GettingIt. Nobody else is!


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> For some reason, what I admire in a man has become a bar for other people to meet . . . In their own minds.
> 
> And instead of saying, oh, jld and I see this differently, they say, no, jld must see that her bar is wrong. We need to show her, _and force her to accept_, the correct setting of the bar.
> 
> This is a hypothetical question. Not anyone's actual current situation. Everybody can think what they want.
> 
> And nobody needs my approval.


 I see what you are saying...I understand what you are saying....I agree with this statement.

It is like I said to you on the KINK thread...somehow...and I truly don't know how you do it...when you make a statement...it feels condemning.

Now it is that the way I perceive it? or is that the way you mean it? I don't think you mean it to be that way...something in my gut says you don't.

Do you see what I am saying?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I see what you are saying...I understand what you are saying....I agree with this statement.
> 
> It is like I said to you on the KINK thread...somehow...and I truly don't know how you do it...when you make a statement...it feels condemning.
> 
> Now it is that the way I perceive it? or is that the way you mean it? I don't think you mean it to be that way...something in my gut says you don't.
> 
> Do you see what I am saying?


This is the core of the issues people have w/jld and her communication style. No one wants to feel passively judged or passively condemned by anyone. 

Well stated,MrsJA.Very well stated.


----------



## Jellybeans

jld said:


> For some reason, what I admire in a man has become a bar for other people to meet . . . In their own minds.


I don't think this is it at all.

This comes across as really sanctimonious.


----------



## jld

I hear people saying those things, and I don't really get it, either. I really do not know why _my_ opinion carries so much weight, that if people find they disagree with me, they feel _condemned._

I have had people criticize me plenty on homeschooling, vegan diet, liberal political beliefs, etc. When I am solid on something, it rolls off my back.

It is when _I_ feel insecure about something, that it rocks me.


----------



## LongWalk

Do you ever let your children eat animal protein?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

It's not your opinion that carries weight...it's the way you say things to people. It comes off smug and as though you feel you're somehow better than the rest of the world. 
That's what rubs people. You can have opinions all day long but the style which you use to communicate those opinions can be really offensive and come off poorly. People aren't responding to your opinions strongly...they're responding to your personality and the way you word things.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> I hear people saying those things, and I don't really get it, either. I really do not know why _my_ opinion carries so much weight, that if people find they disagree with me, they feel _condemned._
> 
> I have had people criticize me plenty on homeschooling, vegan diet, liberal political beliefs, etc. When I am solid on something, it rolls off my back.
> 
> It is when _I_ feel insecure about something, that it rocks me.


 JLD...it isn't that your opinion carries so much weight...it's that you come across so judgmental...and it is a dichotomy...because you Preach compassion.

This is so hard for me to explain. I think you are an amazing woman....I so respect who you are...but at the same time...I despise what you say. Does that makes sense? 

So it makes me defensive towards you. I am TRULY trying to understand...because I THINK you are honest and sincere.


----------



## john117

I value your opinion because unlike some others here you seem to have a more normal and stable life. This enables emotionality. By contrast, if you're stuck in a not so great marriage as some of us invariably are, temporarily or not, emotionality is a luxury. Yet we (I at least) value the input of someone who has not been thru the marital wringer and find it quite useful. You're the "control group" 

Plus you provide enough details to make what you say more effective, not a dogmatic "do this and you'll be fine" means of presentation.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> I hear people saying those things, and I don't really get it, either. I really do not know why _my_ opinion carries so much weight, that if people find they disagree with me, they feel _condemned._
> 
> I have had people criticize me plenty on homeschooling, vegan diet, liberal political beliefs, etc. When I am solid on something, it rolls off my back.
> 
> It is when _I_ feel insecure about something, that it rocks me.


JLD, I think the problem actually is not you or your views, but rather that the topic (of this thread) is perhaps rather triggering for some on a forum such as this.

I don't perceive you as being judgmental or condemnatory, but when people are triggered it's sometimes difficult for them to walk away from the source.


----------



## jld

LongWalk said:


> Do you ever let your children eat animal protein?


I let them have dairy and eggs sometimes. I never buy flesh.

They eat what they like at their grandparents' house. I think the older ones have all tasted flesh.

They will make their own decisions when they are older. I just give them a start in life.


----------



## Omego

jld said:


> I hear people saying those things, and I don't really get it, either. I really do not know why _my_ opinion carries so much weight, that if people find they disagree with me, they feel _condemned._


I dunno, it's kind of like my mother's way of communicating. 

One feels judged, so one just stops saying anything. It's like if I say, this happened to me, or I did this, she will say, Oh my! NEVER would I do such a thing, or NEVER would this happen to me. Or if you say, I do such and such a thing that I like, she'll say WHAT ? How can this be, I would never do that or like doing that! Even something as harmless as choice of music. 

So then you just feel like crap.

I haven't followed all of the debate and the threads and the discussions, etc. but I can understand what others are saying.


----------



## john117

Interestingly enough I don't find JLD's writings the least offensive or annoying. I do find her writing honest and perhaps online-inexperienced a bit. But it is not laden with cynicism, sarcasm, put downs, and assorted literary sledgehammers some of us seem to be so fond of using.

If you're offended by that style of writing I suggest a foray into totally Xanax'd out discussion boards where everyone writes as if they have been pumped full of the stuff. A particular BPD support forum comes to mind :lol:..


----------



## Jellybeans

jld said:


> It is when _I_ feel insecure about something, that it rocks me.


And there it is again. A gentle, underhanded jab. The suggestion that when people disagree with you, it's because they are insecure. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them insecure or trying to reach a "bar" or morally wrong or lacking in compassion. 

There is a passive-aggressive tone in so many of your posts and that is what folks are pointing out.

I don't actually think you mean harm. I think you just present things in a way that anyone who doesn't live your way is somehow wrong. 

Or maybe we're just being put on.

But that's another thread topic.


----------



## Jellybeans

john117 said:


> If you're offended by that style of writing I suggest a foray into totally Xanax'd out discussion boards where everyone writes as if they have been pumped full of the stuff.


Nope. This is an open forum and anyone is free to discuss anything that is presented. So the solution isn't going to a "Xanax'd out discussion board."


----------



## jld

I care about people. I want their lives to be easier and happier, and that is why I share my thoughts.

However people react to me is really their own emotions speaking to them. They may act out against me, but the true struggle is inside themselves.

When people say things that have me reeling, I know that means I have inner issues to resolve. It really has nothing to do with them. They are just the catalyst.


----------



## Jellybeans

jld said:


> However people react to me is really their own emotions speaking to them. They may act out against me,* but the true struggle is inside themselves.*


And there it is again. Anyone who disagrees with your POV has a "struggle" within themself.

Seriously.

WTF. 

It is really almost comical.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> I hear people saying those things, and I don't really get it, either. I really do not know why _my_ opinion carries so much weight, that if people find they disagree with me, they feel _condemned._


It is because of the WAY you have worded things. I quoted a post I made a couple nights ago, where I went back and found some of the posts that got people riled up. Sorry, I cannot do the "quote within a quote" on my computer, like I can on the phone, but the post I made quoted some of the posts you, JLD, made. JLD, in some of those, you came across as condescending toward the men, that if they did not do what YOU felt was the right choice. I will say it again, the way you WORDED the posts came across as condescending. And, you even stated that one man who could even consider doing what you feel is "best" "has raised [him] to a level few men seem able to achieve." You really don't see how someone could view that as condescending? Or even this: "But realize that you are not just walking away from her. You are walking away from a child that may become very vulnerable, very quickly.

It is up to each man and his conscience." To some, both men and women, you seem to say that one who cannot stay with a wife who is pregnant by another man lacks a conscience. 



Maricha75 said:


> Uhhh, yes, she did. I went back through this entire thread (and I showed up late, of course.  To see the whole uproar. I posted on the first (or second?) page, and then didn't read after that, until tonight. Do you have any idea how long it takes to go through 48 pages of argument about whether or not someone is immature for choosing NOT to raise a child, conceived via an affair, and is known from the beginning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one is an attempt to guilt men who choose not to raise a child conceived via an affair:
> 
> 
> 
> And this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for this last one, I would agree, if the child was from a previous relationship, or children beonging to both of them, not from an affair. But if he chooses NOT to remain married to her, and know the child is not his, from the start, it has NOTHING to do with accepting her and HER child. He loves THEIR children, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that she has cheated. Period.
> 
> But, yes, it would be best for them to separate... so he can (hopefully) find a woman who will not betray him.





jld said:


> For some reason, what I admire in a man has become a bar for other people to meet . . . In their own minds.
> 
> And instead of saying, oh, jld and I see this differently, they say, no, jld must see that her bar is wrong. We need to show her, _and force her to accept_, the correct setting of the bar.
> 
> This is a hypothetical question. Not anyone's actual current situation. Everybody can think what they want.
> 
> And nobody needs my approval.


You have taken away the wrong message, then. They don't want your approval. All they, or rather we, want is for you to acknowledge that your way is best for YOU, but it doesn't mean that your way is somehow ABOVE everyone else, that it is something that we all must strive to achieve... and that's how the posts with the condescending tone come across.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Omego said:


> I dunno, it's kind of like my mother's way of communicating.
> 
> One feels judged, so one just stops saying anything. It's like if I say, this happened to me, or I did this, she will say, Oh my! NEVER would I do such a thing, or NEVER would this happen to me. Or if you say, I do such and such a thing that I like, she'll say WHAT ? How can this be, I would never do that or like doing that! Even something as harmless as choice of music.
> 
> So then you just feel like crap.
> 
> I haven't followed all of the debate and the threads and the discussions, etc. but I can understand what others are saying.


I've run across people who do this, too Omega (I do not sort jld into the same category at all, though, btw.) 

I think the key is "One *feels* judged . . . " Only _you_ can allow yourself to "feel" judged. I'm not saying that is a bad or incorrect response, or that it is not understandable. But it is within one's power to stop feeling that way, or at least to recognize it for what it is, and then decide not to react to it negatively, to allow it to make you feel like crap, or to allow it to affect your behavior with that person. Most important, I think it allows you to behave in a way that exhibits acceptance and confidence and control over your own opinions and outlooks. (CBT teaches the method for people with OCD or impulse control disorders). 

Next time your mom goes on and on in that fashion, just hear her out and then say, "Huh. Interesting. " Then change the subject.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> I care about people. I want their lives to be easier and happier, and that is why I share my thoughts.
> 
> However people react to me is really their own emotions speaking to them. They may act out against me, but the true struggle is inside themselves.
> 
> When people say things that have me reeling, I know that means I have inner issues to resolve. It really has nothing to do with them. They are just the catalyst.


But don't you see by saying it the way you do...it builds a wall between you and THEM?

I care about people too. I want them to be happy but I dont have all the answers to all their problems. Somehow...the way you say it...makes it sound like you are better than they are....

God I dont know how you do it...it is the TONE somehow. Maybe If I heard your voice I would understand your inflections ...I don't know.

Sorry if I appear to be badgering you JLD....I am not trying to do that...I am just baffled.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

GettingIt said:


> Next time your mom goes on and on in that fashion, just hear her out and then say, "Huh. Interesting. " Then change the subject.


 I say that exact line so much to my boss "huh.interesting" :rofl:


----------



## As'laDain

Jellybeans said:


> And there it is again. A gentle, underhanded jab. The suggestion that when people disagree with you, it's because they are insecure. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them insecure or trying to reach a "bar" or morally wrong or lacking in compassion.
> 
> There is a passive-aggressive tone in so many of your posts and that is what folks are pointing out.
> 
> I don't actually think you mean harm. I think you just present things in a way that anyone who doesn't live your way is somehow wrong.
> 
> Or maybe we're just being put on.
> 
> But that's another thread topic.



wow, i dont see any of that in jlds posts. 

i see a lot of you getting offended by some of the simplest things, however. for instance, that post. 

"i feel blank when i feel blank" turns into "you feel blank when you feel blank". 


it seems like you just argued against an attack that didnt happen.


----------



## Wolf1974

Jellybeans said:


> Nope. This is an open forum and anyone is free to discuss anything that is presented. So the solution isn't going to a "Xanax'd out discussion board."


And this is true anyone can share their thoughts and opinions contrary to what some here will have you believe. However at the End of the day if one persons opinion bothers you so much that you become angry or upset because you can't force feed the "correct view" down their throat well then that is a you issue.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

It's just going to be one of those threads LOL


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> But don't you see by saying it the way you do...it builds a wall between you and THEM?
> 
> I care about people too. I want them to be happy but I dont have all the answers to all their problems. Somehow...the way you say it...makes it sound like you are better than they are....
> 
> God I dont know how you do it...it is the TONE somehow. Maybe If I heard your voice I would understand your inflections ...I don't know.
> 
> Sorry if I appear to be badgering you JLD....I am not trying to do that...I am just baffled.


I do have strong opinions, Mrs. Adams. When I believe in something, and I am not able to meet whatever standard I set for myself, I do not just excuse myself. 

I tell myself, well, this is what I believe to be true, but I do not feel like putting the time or energy or self-discipline into it. 

I don't say, oh, that is not really true. It's all the same, it doesn't matter, etc. 

I can't lie to myself. And I can't pretend to other people, either. If I care about them, what I think is going to come out eventually. Dh found that out right away, actually. 

Know that I care. I rarely say something just to be mean. And if I feel bad about something, or believe I was wrong, I _will_ apologize. I'll force myself to.

I think truth has to be acknowledged, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel. I just don't think we'll have happy lives if we don't align ourselves with truth.

The trick is finding out what the truth is, I think.


----------



## Jellybeans

As'laDain said:


> wow, i dont see any of that in jlds posts.


You may not but many people are.



Wolf1974 said:


> However at the End of the day if one persons opinion bothers you so much that you become angry or upset because you can't force feed the "correct view" down their throat well then that is a you issue.


I'm not angry or upset. I'm discussing an issue as many of us are. 



Omego said:


> I dunno, it's kind of like my mother's way of communicating.
> 
> One feels judged, so one just stops saying anything. It's like if I say, this happened to me, or I did this, she will say, Oh my! NEVER would I do such a thing, or NEVER would this happen to me. Or if you say, I do such and such a thing that I like, she'll say WHAT ? How can this be, I would never do that or like doing that! Even something as harmless as choice of music.


Reminds me of my grandmother. Totally. We just would always call her out on her passive-aggressive BS. She pushed everyone away from her with that attitude and has gone into old age w/o hardly anyone checking up to see how she is. It is really sad actually. She has a son who hasn't seen her in over a decade, by choice.


----------



## GettingIt_2

As'laDain said:


> wow, i dont see any of that in jlds posts.
> 
> i see a lot of you getting offended by some of the simplest things, however. for instance, that post.
> 
> "i feel blank when i feel blank" turns into "you feel blank when you feel blank".
> 
> 
> it seems like you just argued against an attack that didnt happen.


Yes, this how I see much of the interplay, too. But what I'd like to figure out is . . . . what is the difference between people who are put off by jld's style, and the people who are not?

She does have a different style from the typical TAMer, as john points out. I noticed it right of the bat, in fact she and I had several back and forth conversations as we tried to establish understanding of one another's view points, personalities, back grounds, etc. That focused back-and-forth was extremely fruitful and I think we both now are able to learn from one another. 

Dunno. Maybe some people don't have the time or interest to establish that sort of rapport when it doesn't just click right away. jld pushed for it with me, and I accepted it, and I'm glad I did. As I've said, she and I don't always agree, but we are able to articulate to one another why and then move on.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> I do have strong opinions, Mrs. Adams. When I believe in something, and I am not able to meet whatever standard I set for myself, I do not just excuse myself.
> 
> I tell myself, well, this is what I believe to be true, but I do not feel like putting the time or energy or self-discipline into it.
> 
> I don't say, oh, that is not really true. It's all the same, it doesn't matter, etc.
> 
> I can't lie to myself. And I can't pretend to other people, either. If I care about them, what I think is going to come out eventually. Dh found that out right away, actually.
> 
> Know that I care. I rarely say something just to be mean. And if I feel bad about something, or believe I was wrong, I _will_ apologize. I'll force myself to.
> 
> I think truth has to be acknowledged, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel. I just don't think we'll have happy lives if we don't align ourselves with truth.
> 
> The trick is finding out what the truth is, I think.


I get it....

Now having said that let me address this


*I think truth has to be acknowledged, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel. I just don't think we'll have happy lives if we don't align ourselves with truth.

The trick is finding out what the truth is, I think*

This statement...makes it sound like YOU have the truth and the rest of us do not. You have aligned yourself with the truth so you are happy. and you are trying to help the rest of it find it.

so this sounds like...the truth according to JLD. not necessarily the "truth".


----------



## Wolf1974

Jellybeans said:


> You may not but many people are.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not angry or upset. I'm discussing an issue as many of us are.
> 
> 
> 
> Reminds me of my grandmother. Totally. We just would always call her out on her passive-aggressive BS. She pushed everyone away from her with that attitude and has gone into old age w/o hardly anyone checking up to see how she is. It is really sad actually. She has a son who hasn't seen her in over a decade, by choice.




I wasn't saying you were but I have followed most of the 1000 plus posts here and you can clearly see that many are.


----------



## jld

Something about me scares them. 

And instead of acknowledging that, and asking themselves why, they become aggressive. 

They simply must have my submission to be able to feel reassured.


----------



## Jellybeans

Yeah. That's what it is.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I get it....
> 
> Now having said that let me address this
> 
> 
> *I think truth has to be acknowledged, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel. I just don't think we'll have happy lives if we don't align ourselves with truth.
> 
> The trick is finding out what the truth is, I think*
> 
> This statement...makes it sound like YOU have the truth and the rest of us do not. You have aligned yourself with the truth so you are happy. and you are trying to help the rest of it find it.
> 
> so this sounds like...the truth according to JLD. not necessarily the "truth".


jld, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about finding YOUR truth, right? You are digging deep with your self and forcing yourself to make sure your actions align with your beliefs, and to call a spade a spade when they do not. Do I have that right? 

You examine your emotions--particularly negative or uncomfortable ones like fear and anger and turn your search for the cause of those feelings inward, instead of outward? Looking to yourself to understand why you feel the way you feel instead of associating those feelings with or blaming them on the actions and thoughts of others.

Again, hope I'm not speaking out of turn.


----------



## Jellybeans

On a lighter note, how about those bastard babies?


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I get it....
> 
> Now having said that let me address this
> 
> 
> *I think truth has to be acknowledged, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel. I just don't think we'll have happy lives if we don't align ourselves with truth.
> 
> The trick is finding out what the truth is, I think*
> 
> This statement...makes it sound like YOU have the truth and the rest of us do not. You have aligned yourself with the truth so you are happy. and you are trying to help the rest of it find it.
> 
> so this sounds like...the truth according to JLD. not necessarily the "truth".


I am always searching, Mrs. Adams. And I change my beliefs when new evidence supplants the old.

If something has helped me, or I have read about something that I think could help someone, and I care about that person, I will share it. Maybe not right away, but eventually I will feel compelled to. 

And even if we disagree, I don't stop caring. My love does not stop. I thought that came from being a mother, but maybe that is just me.

I want the best for people. I want them to be happy. 

I have had many people tell me that even though they don't agree with my ideas at all, they know they come from a place of caring. 

That is enough for me, that they know I love them, and want the best for them.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> Something about me scares them.
> 
> And instead of acknowledging that, and asking themselves why, they become aggressive.
> 
> They simply must have my submission to be able to feel reassured.


No I dont think they are looking for your submission...and maybe you feel that way because you are a submissive person.

They are trying to get you to see that the way you have worded things makes it appear that you are judging them to be immature irresponsible men because they cannot choose to raise the child that is the product of an affair.

And for some reason you cannot seem to undo what you say and each time you reiterate how you feel...it cuts deeper.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> jld, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about finding YOUR truth, right? You are digging deep with your self and forcing yourself to make sure your actions align with your beliefs, and to call a spade a spade when they do not. Do I have that right?
> 
> You examine your emotions--particularly negative or uncomfortable ones like fear and anger and turn your search for the cause of those feelings inward, instead of outward? Looking to yourself to understand why you feel the way you feel instead of associating those feelings with or blaming them on the actions and thoughts of others.
> 
> Again, hope I'm not speaking out of turn.


It is good that you say what you think. That is how we can learn the most from you. 

It could be that there are different truths. That is why it is so important to listen, and to be ready to change my beliefs if they are wrong, or incomplete, or whatever.

I think real truth, whether universal, or just individual, does not change. We know it in our hearts, and what other people say to us, however aggressively, does not change it. 

They can argue and cajole and berate us that 2+2=5, and we can listen and be polite and agree to disagree. It is not even that we want, for whatever reason, to believe 2+2=4, but that, to us, is just what it is, and there is really nothing we can do to change it.

But not everything is a universal truth. There are individual truths, and there must be much openmindedness and tolerance there.

What food makes your body feel best, or what kind of man pleases you, is likely an individual truth.

All people wanting to feel respected and valued, in the way that makes them feel respected and valued, is a universal truth, I believe.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> I am always searching, Mrs. Adams. And I change my beliefs when new evidence supplants the old.
> 
> If something has helped me, or I have read about something that I think could help someone, and I care about that person, I will share it. Maybe not right away, but eventually I will feel compelled to.
> 
> And even if we disagree, I don't stop caring. My love does not stop. I thought that came from being a mother, but maybe that is just me.
> 
> I want the best for people. I want them to be happy.
> 
> I have had many people tell me that even though they don't agree with my ideas at all, they know they come from a place of caring.
> 
> That is enough for me, that they know I love them, and want the best for them.



yes..I truly believe you love people and want to help them...I do not doubt it. 

The problem is that in your process of loving them....you also seem to somehow pass judgement upon them and make them feel like they are LESS than you. I don't think you mean to...but that is how it comes across.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> No I dont think they are looking for your submission...and maybe you feel that way because you are a submissive person.
> 
> They are trying to get you to see that the way you have worded things makes it appear that you are judging them to be immature irresponsible men because they cannot choose to raise the child that is the product of an affair.
> 
> And for some reason you cannot seem to undo what you say and each time you reiterate how you feel...it cuts deeper.


Why does it cut deeper, Mrs. Adams?


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> yes..I truly believe you love people and want to help them...I do not doubt it.
> 
> The problem is that in your process of loving them....you also seem to somehow pass judgement upon them and make them feel like they are LESS than you. I don't think you mean to...but that is how it comes across.


I don't think we are greater or lesser than each other. We are all different. We all have the divine in us. We all have different roles to play in this world, I think.


----------



## john117

Mrs. John Adams said:


> This statement...makes it sound like YOU have the truth and the rest of us do not. You have aligned yourself with the truth so you are happy. and you are trying to help the rest of it find it.
> 
> 
> 
> so this sounds like...the truth according to JLD. not necessarily the "truth".



It is always the truth according to someone. Unlike other things that I can get at Costco, the truth is context dependent. 

The only ones who insist that Costco sells the truth are religious or political types. 

In my mind my wife is BSC and that's my truth. In her mind I'm BSC and that's her truth. This is a discussion board, not The People's Court with Judge Wapner presiding.

When we think we often categorize our thoughts in little graphs with each option as a node and each path as an arc. Reading a discussion board hopefully helps add more arcs and nodes to the graph that we may not have considered otherwise. 

That's the whole purpose. If one comes here looking for validation or support in the strict sense they may find it but they may also find examples or opinions relevant to their case they'd rather not have to think about. 

If one really believes they bought the last container of Truth from Costco and are dispensing it here I have news for them...


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> It is always the truth according to someone. Unlike other things that I can get at Costco, the truth is context dependent. Yep.
> 
> In my mind my wife is BSC and that's my truth. In her mind I'm BSC and that's her truth. This is a discussion board, not The People's Court with Judge Wapner presiding. Exactly. We don't have to agree. Strong feelings do make for interesting discussions, though.
> 
> When we think we often categorize our thoughts in little graphs with each option as a node and each path as an arc. Reading a discussion board hopefully helps add more arcs and nodes to the graph that we may not have considered otherwise. For sure.
> 
> That's the whole purpose. If one comes here looking for validation or support in the strict sense they may find it but they may also find examples or opinions relevant to their case they'd rather not have to think about.
> 
> And we can grow from that. If we let ourselves.
> 
> If one really believes they bought the last container of Truth from Costco and are dispensing it here I have news for them... :rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> Meh, it takes two for an "insult by implication" to work.


Are you and jld related? Your response is blame the insulted for taking insult? You asked why it pushes buttons. I gave you the answer. The implication of what you just said is like saying its unreasonable for black people to feel insulted back when NFL scouts only scouted white quarterbacks while claiming the position requires intelligence. The implication is clear and insulting with good reason.

If she did not intend the insult, then she wouldn't repeat it at every opportunity after being told by several men how insulting it is.

Some men may choose to care for the affair child. Most will not. Neither is indicative of the man's moral standing or ability. No man but the AP has a moral duty to care for the affair child.


----------



## jld

John, do you believe in universal truth? And if you do, what would be an example?


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Are you and jld related? Your response is blame the insulted for taking insult? You asked why it pushes buttons. I gave you the answer. The implication of what you just said is like saying its unreasonable for black people to feel insulted back when NFL scouts only scouted white quarterbacks while claiming the position requires intelligence. The implication is clear and insulting with good reason.
> 
> If she did not intend the insult, then she wouldn't repeat it at every opportunity after being told by several men how insulting it is.
> 
> Some men may choose to care for the affair child. Most will not. Neither is indicative of the man's moral standing or ability.


I am the NFL scout? I have that kind of power?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Some men may choose to care for the affair child. Most will not. Neither is indicative of the man's moral standing or ability.


She feels it is and many others feel it isn't.

Everyone has expressed why they feel the way they feel.It's all out there now.neither viewpoint is budging an inch.

That really should be end of the discussion actually.


----------



## Wazza

Jld, I am reading through your thread. I won't comment until through it, but it would help me to know what actual experience you have of what infidelity does to a relationship, even if you stay in it. Have you and your husband had any instance if infidelity?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Duguesclin said:


> There are other valid answers to a wife getting pregnant with another guy than just kicking her out. Decisions based on pride are weak decisions.


Decisions based on lack of pride are even weaker.


----------



## jld

Wazza said:


> Jld, I am reading through your thread. I won't comment until through it, but it would help me to know what actual experience you have of what infidelity does to a relationship, even if you stay in it. Have you and your husband had any instance if infidelity?


Nope. It is all theoretical. And I have said so throughout.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

john117 said:


> I have beaten every Halo game in heroic mode... But Cortana died at the end anyway so...


But that's the future. She was born in windows phone recently.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Decisions based on lack of pride are even weaker.


What you are saying is that people need boundaries, right?

We all need them. I think we all have them. Some people may need stronger ones.

Have you ever heard the line, "It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong."


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Something about me scares them.
> 
> And instead of acknowledging that, and asking themselves why, they become aggressive.
> 
> They simply must have my submission to be able to feel reassured.


/sigh 

Get over yourself. We aren't "scared" or "threatened" by either yourself or Mr. jld.

Again, the core issue here is that, to men, the _notion_ of being compelled, forced, or legislated into having to accept a child born of a wife's infidelity *IS EVERY BIT AS CRITICAL AN ISSUE* as abortion is to many women. When it is even suggested that we should "suck it up" or "get up, rub some dirt in it, and walk it off", then yes, we can easily become enraged.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> /sigh Get over yourself. We aren't "scared" or "threatened" by either yourself or Mr. jld.
> 
> Again, to men, the _notion_ of being compelled, forced, or legislated into having to accept a child born of a wife's infidelity *IS EVERY BIT AS CRITICAL AN ISSUE* as abortion is to many women. When it is even suggested that we should "suck it up" or "get up, rub some dirt in it, and walk it off", then yes, we can easily become enraged.


Look at the emotion in your post, Gus.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. It is an idea. Nothing more.

What was that about boundaries, again?


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> Why does it cut deeper, Mrs. Adams?


That is exactly what I am trying to figure out doll! lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

maricha75 said:


> no, what we want you to see is that just because someone cannot reconcile with his or her spouse if a pregnancy resulted from an affair, it doesn't make them any less mature, secure, etc.


exactly.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Something about me scares them.
> 
> And instead of acknowledging that, and asking themselves why, they become aggressive.
> 
> They simply must have my submission to be able to feel reassured.


JLD, it's interesting that you think that you have the ability to "scare" people...

As I said earlier, in a marriage forum where people are _very_ sensitive when it comes to the subject of infidelity (many having had their lives utterly devastated by it), it's natural that there will be strong reactions to such topics. If anything, it angers such people, which is totally understandable. 

It isn't about you scaring people. It's about you triggering them.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> JLD, it's interesting that you think that you have the ability to "scare" people...
> 
> As I said earlier, in a marriage forum where people are _very_ sensitive when it comes to the subject of infidelity (many having had their lives utterly devastated by it), it's natural that there will be strong reactions to such topics. If anything, it angers such people, which is totally understandable.
> 
> It isn't about you scaring people. It's about you triggering them.


But isn't that fear, Cosmos? Aren't our triggers our fears?

And believe me, I am not trying to scare anyone. But when I see the emotional responses, and the projections, that is the conclusion I have come to.


----------



## GusPolinski

LongWalk said:


> Do you ever let your children eat animal protein?


Ha!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> However people react to me is really their own emotions speaking to them. They may act out against me, but the true struggle is inside themselves.


This is so narcissistic. "Its not me, its never me, its you."


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> *I don't think we are greater or lesser than each other.* We are all different. We all have the divine in us. We all have different roles to play in this world, I think.


I do not believe you.


----------



## Jellybeans

john117 said:


> I have beaten every Halo game in heroic mode... But Cortana died at the end anyway so...





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> But that's the future. She was born in windows phone recently.


You guys...

are a bunch of nerds.


----------



## Jellybeans

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is so narcissistic. "Its not me, its never me, its you."


You're so vain. You probably think this post is about you.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is so narcissistic. "Its not me, its never me, its you."





samyeagar said:


> I do not believe you.





Cosmos said:


> It isn't about you scaring people. It's about you triggering them.


And basically what she's saying is none of this is her problem or her fault...it's the problem and fault of the individual. 

I think. LOL


----------



## john117

samyeagar said:


> I do not believe you.



People are not ranked by attribute like toaster ovens in Consumer Reports. The moment you start discounting their input or contributions because of differences in your vs their belief systems is when you've lost.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

As'laDain said:


> it seems like you just argued against an attack that didnt happen.


You're missing that these statements are truly worthless to the value of her arguments. They are in fact ad hominem judgments. She has expressed extremely little in the way of logically sound argument. Anyone who disagrees with her is insecure, prideful or struggling internally... or by implication isn't a "good man" or "can't handle it".

If we reject this casting, we're playing right into it. This is textbook narcissism complete with the veneer of righteousness. What does one say to being called insecure or prideful? The only thing you can say is nothing because anything said in opposition can be cited as as evidence of the pride or insecurity. Its a shady tactic similar to gaslighting. JLD's post reek of such subtle tactics.

Her belief that the husband should accept the affair child to meet the child's need can stand on its own without her judgment of others. Similarly, counter arguments - like showing that the man has no more moral obligation to this child than he does anyone else's child stand on their own. Subjective judgments of the man are irrelevant.


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> But isn't that fear, Cosmos? Aren't our triggers our fears?
> 
> And believe me, I am not trying to scare anyone. But when I see the emotional responses, and the projections, that is the conclusion I have come to.


Not quite... I believe that fear is often:-

*F*alse
*E*vidence
*A*ppearing
*R*eal

Whereas a trigger is something that sets off a memory tape or flashback transporting the person back to a trauma that has been previously experienced.

What's happening here, IMO, is that your posts are triggering people who have been_ badly _hurt...


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Look at the emotion in your post, Gus.
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to do anything. It is an idea. Nothing more.
> 
> What was that about boundaries, again?


LOL. This is an emotional issue. I'd have to be a robot for it not to affect me in some way. Or, I'd have to essentially just not give a sh*t about my wife and/or marriage.

I _shower_ my wife w/ affection -- both physical and non-physical -- every single day. I end every single phone call w/ some sort of permutation of "I love you". I never walk out the door w/o a kiss and "I love you". 

Foot massages. Warm baths. Flowers on every birthday, Valentine's Day, and different anniversaries. I stand up for and support her family. Chocolate-covered rainbows. Champagne wishes. Caviar dreams. (I'm going a little overboard, but you get the point.)

I have suffered for this woman. I have bled, cried, and labored for this woman. I have put literally every single facet of my life on hold in order to ensure that the path before us was/is one that would/will ensure her happiness and fulfillment. _Always_ hers before mine, because that is what makes me truly happy.

To have all of that commitment, dedication, and love betrayed in the most animalistic, base, and vile way possible would absolutely crush me. I had but a slight taste of it once, and it very nearly destroyed me.

So, again, having NOT experienced any of this, how can you presume to know how you'd react? Even better, how can you presume to tell others how they _should_ react?

I will soon start a thread in the "Private Members" section that may offer additional insight into WHY I feel the way that I feel about this.


----------



## samyeagar

john117 said:


> People are not ranked by attribute like toaster ovens in Consumer Reports. *The moment you start discounting their input or contributions because of differences in your vs their belief systems is when you've lost*.


I discount her input and contributions because the words she uses say something very different than what she is saying.


----------



## As'laDain

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're missing that these statements are truly worthless to the value of her arguments. They are in fact ad hominem judgments. She has expressed extremely little in the way of logically sound argument. Anyone who disagrees with her is insecure, prideful or struggling internally... or by implication isn't a "good man" or "can't handle it".
> 
> If we reject this casting, we're playing right into it. This is textbook narcissism.


what i see is a whole lot of people stretching posts and looking for judgments. 

what i see from her is a lot of "i feel, i think, i believe..."

what i see from her critics is "you are, she is, she says this because..."

basically, i see a lot of people asserting that their views of jld is the right view, and trying to convince her of it. 

she said something that offended them, so she must be judging them. 

... a narcissist does not offer their view and leave it up to you to take it or leave it. they dont like you having that much power, so they try to convince you they are right, or at least acknowledge it. 
and if they cant, they try to get others to do it for you. 


jlds arguments are based on her feelings. it seems to me that you want her to justify her feelings with logic...


----------



## ocotillo

GettingIt said:


> Yes, this how I see much of the interplay, too. But what I'd like to figure out is . . . . what is the difference between people who are put off by jld's style, and the people who are not?


Please forgive this circuitous explanation: 

Interrogative fallacies incorporate two questions into one. Let's take a simple example:

1) _Are you cheating on your husband?
_
2) _If so, does he know about it?_​
Now let's combine those two questions into one:

_Does your husband know that you are cheating?_​
Here, I've rolled the first question into the second question as a starting premise so you don't get the chance to answer it that fairness demands. It doesn't matter if you say, "Yes" or if you say, "No" as you will be forced to agree with the starting premise either way. This is the crassest example possible of an interrogative fallacy. Usually they are far more subtle and sometimes span entire paragraphs. 

This thread contains a subtle interrogative fallacy via the assumption of paternalism. In the paternalistic model of authority, the person in charge makes the best decisions for those in his or her care, but those subject to that authority have neither rights nor responsibilities themselves. 

Paternalism is how most of us exercise authority over our minor children. We make the best decisions we can for them while they are minors and it really doesn't matter if they like those decisions or not because they do not have the rights and responsibilities of adults. 

Throughout this thread, jld has maintained that there is a moral obligation on the part of the husband towards the best interests of the illegitimate child his wife is carrying, even at one point equating that with the Divine. And I would have to agree with her. Under the paternalistic model, that obligation would indeed exist in much the same way as it would if a daughter became pregnant while still a minor or a son burned down the neighbor's house while still a minor. Responsibility for your children's mistakes is by extension, your own and if you exercised similar authority over your wife, then your wife's moral obligations would therefore become yours through an identical concatenation. 

Not all marriages function that way though. In plenty of marriages, both husband and wife are autonomous adults capable of taking full responsibility for their own mistakes. Under that arrangement, the injection of moral virtue into the decision to become the adoptive father of the illegitimate child is unfair. The decision to become an adoptive parent is a deeply personal one, free of moral obligation and judgement. 

But on this thread, it is not. And *that *is what people are objecting to, even if they cant put it into words. The starting assumptions here are as unfair as asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> LOL. This is an emotional issue. I'd have to be a robot for it not to affect me in some way. Or, I'd have to essentially just not give a sh*t about my wife and/or marriage.
> 
> I _shower_ my wife w/ affection -- both physical and non-physical -- every single day. I end every single phone call w/ some sort of permutation of "I love you". I never walk out the door w/o a kiss and "I love you".
> 
> Foot massages. Warm baths. Flowers on every birthday, Valentine's Day, and different anniversaries. I stand up for and support her family. Chocolate-covered rainbows. Champagne wishes. Caviar dreams. (I'm going a little overboard, but you get the point.)
> 
> I have suffered for this woman. I have bled, cried, and labored for this woman. I have put literally every single facet of my life on hold in order to ensure that the path before us was/is one that would/will ensure her happiness and fulfillment. _Always_ hers before mine, because that is what makes me truly happy.
> 
> To have all of that commitment, dedication, and love betrayed in the most animalistic, base, and vile way possible would absolutely crush me. I had but a slight taste of it once, and it very nearly destroyed me.
> 
> So, again, having NOT experienced any of this, how can you presume to know how you'd react? Even better, how can you presume to tell others how they _should_ react?
> 
> I will soon start a thread in the "Private Members" section that may offer additional insight into WHY I feel the way that I feel about this.


Okay, I think your marriage is different from mine. Dh loves me, but not in a "nice guy" kind of way. He has definite boundaries, and it is probably part of what I love about him.

He forgets Valentine's Day. He did call me for my birthday yesterday, and sent me an email, and posted on TAM last night. Those were the gifts.

He tells me when he thinks I am wrong. And he would never grovel.

Loving someone does not mean letting them walk all over you. It is doing what is in their best interests even when they cannot see it.

I think we must just be coming from really different places.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Okay, I think your marriage is different from mine. Dh loves me, but not in a "nice guy" kind of way. He has definite boundaries, and it is probably part of what I love about him.
> 
> He forgets Valentine's Day. He did call me for my birthday yesterday, and sent me an email, and posted on TAM last night. Those were the gifts.
> 
> He tells me when he thinks I am wrong. And he would never grovel.
> 
> *Loving someone does not mean letting them walk all over you. It is doing what is in their best interests even when they cannot see it.*
> 
> I think we must just be coming from really different places.


To most people, that describes very well the love of a parent to their child. That describes very well the obligation of a parent to their child.

Most people do not hold this as love between a husband and wife, or the obligation between a husband and wife.


----------



## EasyPartner

jld said:


> Okay, I think your marriage is different from mine. Dh loves me, but not in a "nice guy" kind of way. He has definite boundaries, and it is probably part of what I love about him.
> 
> He forgets Valentine's Day. He did call me for my birthday yesterday, and sent me an email, and posted on TAM last night. Those were the gifts.
> 
> He tells me when he thinks I am wrong. And he would never grovel.
> 
> Loving someone does not mean letting them walk all over you. It is doing what is in their best interests even when they cannot see it.
> 
> I think we must just be coming from really different places.


Well, this post kinda proves Ocotillo's paternalism theory applied to this case, doesn't it. Which was very insightful and well written btw.

I was gonna write something about jld's own Kink thread and the "father/daughter" dynamics in there... and a father forgives his daughter about pretty much everything, right... but I liked Ocotillo's post better.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> To most people, that describes very well the love of a parent to their child. That describes very well the obligation of a parent to their child.
> 
> Most people do not hold this as love between a husband and wife, or the obligation between a husband and wife.


It makes me feel loved. It is part of why I trust him so much.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Okay, I think your marriage is different from mine. Dh loves me, but not in a "nice guy" kind of way. He has definite boundaries, and it is probably part of what I love about him.
> 
> He forgets Valentine's Day. He did call me for my birthday yesterday, and sent me an email, and posted on TAM last night. Those were the gifts.
> 
> He tells me when he thinks I am wrong. And he would never grovel.
> 
> Loving someone does not mean letting them walk all over you. It is doing what is in their best interests even when they cannot see it.
> 
> I think we must just be coming from really different places.


OK. Having read this, I am beginning to see that your perception of marriage is probably somewhere between my own and what I _thought_ yours was. This is good. Common ground or, rather, _more of a common ground than was previously perceived_ is a good thing.

But here is what I'm still not getting... If a child conceived of his wife's infidelity isn't one of your husband's boundaries, what is? I mean... If that's not one of his boundaries, WTF kind of boundaries could he possibly have?


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> Okay, I think your marriage is different from mine. Dh loves me, but not in a "nice guy" kind of way. He has definite boundaries, and it is probably part of what I love about him.
> 
> *you are aware of the connotation "nice guy" here on TAM right? The guys here find that insulting*
> 
> He forgets Valentine's Day. He did call me for my birthday yesterday, and sent me an email, and posted on TAM last night. Those were the gifts.
> 
> *I am glad you are happy with the things your husband does for you..but in THIS house...that would not cut it! Loving someone in my opinion means putting their cares and needs first. I can understand forgetting some holidays, I can understand not purchasing a gift for some holidays. Your husband acknowledged your birthday yesterday...but he did not do anything special for you right?...because he calls you and e mails everyday. Yesterday was a special day for you...a card, dinner, flowers, candy, SOMETHING would have been nice.*
> 
> He tells me when he thinks I am wrong. And he would never grovel.
> 
> *You should have left out the grovel part...just sayin*
> 
> Loving someone does not mean letting them walk all over you. It is doing what is in their best interests even when they cannot see it.
> 
> *You are right....loving someone means putting their needs, desires, wants, first..in doing so you could never walk all over them. AND I understand guidance... but the way you have worded this sounds like you have no part in making your own decisions. My DH certainly will advise, recommend, etc...and we may make decisions together....but I unlike you...am not a child and he is not my daddy*
> 
> I think we must just be coming from really different places.
> 
> *yes...jld...we are coming from very different places...and we are all happy where we are.*


----------



## GusPolinski

As'laDain said:


> what i see is a whole lot of people stretching posts and looking for judgments.
> 
> what i see from her is a lot of "i feel, i think, i believe..."
> 
> what i see from her critics is "you are, she is, she says this because..."
> 
> basically, i see a lot of people asserting that their views of jld is the right view, and trying to convince her of it.
> 
> she said something that offended them, so she must be judging them.
> 
> ... a narcissist does not offer their view and leave it up to you to take it or leave it. they dont like you having that much power, so they try to convince you they are right, or at least acknowledge it.
> and if they cant, they try to get others to do it for you.
> 
> 
> jlds arguments are based on her feelings. it seems to me that you want her to justify her feelings with logic...


Can't speak for everyone else here, but I'm trying to understand. Maybe I need to read jld's "Kink" thread that has been repeatedly referenced by so many here. If there really is a parent/child or, more specifically, a father/daughter dynamic to their marriage, that may tell me just about everything that I need to know.


----------



## Jellybeans

There is


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> But here is what I'm still not getting... If a child conceived of his wife's infidelity isn't one of your husband's boundaries, what is?


Do you even need many boundaries in place when the power balance in a relationship is so heavily slanted towards you?

When you essentially control nearly every aspect of the relationship and your partner are boundaries even necessary?


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> Can't speak for everyone else here, but I'm trying to understand. Maybe I need to read the jld's "Kink" thread that has been repeatedly referenced by so many here. If there really is a parent/child or, more specifically, a father/daughter dynamic to their marriage, that may tell me just about everything that I need to know.


You really do need to read it.

It explains everything going on here.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

As'laDain said:


> ... a narcissist does not offer their view and leave it up to you to take it or leave it. they dont like you having that much power, so they try to convince you they are right, or at least acknowledge it.
> and if they cant, they try to get others to do it for you.


No, narcissism takes a position of unassailable righteousness - usually in their intellectual ability, but in her case its more along the lines of "I'm a godly woman and I care about people". A narcissist's arguments however, then point to all the ways others are inferior in very subtle ways. If you don't agree with them, the common narcissist subjectively judges you an idiot. In jld's case, if you don't agree you're insecure, prideful, not as good of a man, less capable of handling something etc etc. Note the repeated need to declare a subjective fault in the other person. Its not... "well, see, here's where maybe we can't agree..." or "I think you're misunderstanding me". No, those who disagree are prideful, insecure and can't handle it.

Her entire logical argument rests on this moral imperative to care for a child in need. However, this argument may apply just as easily to any child, not just an affair child... so if we're not all adopting starving children in need, then according to the logic she applies we're all bad, less capable people. She rejects that the woman responsible for creating this child ought justly face consequences of her actions, and she ignores the moral obligation of the biological father. She heaps responsibility for this imperative entirely on a third party... the betrayed man. Its no different than my dropping off my kids at a random doorstep and saying "you are morally responsible for raising my child. Bye!"

No such imperative exists.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Marriages have boundaries...spoken and unspoken. I am willing to bet that 100% of the married people here assumed when they exchanged vows with their spouse that they would live their married lives without infidelity...and certainly that there would be no "love" children conceived.


----------



## As'laDain

ocotillo said:


> Please forgive this circuitous explanation:
> 
> Interrogative fallacies incorporate two questions into one. Let's take a simple example:
> 
> 1) _Are you cheating on your husband?
> _
> 2) _If so, does he know about it?_​
> Now let's combine those two questions into one:
> 
> _Does your husband know that you are cheating?_​
> Here, I've rolled the first question into the second question as a starting premise so you don't get the chance to answer it that fairness demands. It doesn't matter if you say, "Yes" or if you say, "No" as you will be forced to agree with the starting premise either way. This is the crassest example possible of an interrogative fallacy. Usually they are far more subtle and sometimes span entire paragraphs.
> 
> This thread contains a subtle interrogative fallacy via the assumption of paternalism. In the paternalistic model of authority, the person in charge makes the best decisions for those in his or her care, but those subject to that authority have neither rights nor responsibilities themselves.
> 
> Paternalism is how most of us exercise authority over our minor children. We make the best decisions we can for them while they are minors and it really doesn't matter if they like those decisions or not because they do not have the rights and responsibilities of adults.
> 
> Throughout this thread, jld has maintained that there is a moral obligation on the part of the husband towards the best interests of the illegitimate child his wife is carrying, even at one point equating that with the Divine. And I would have to agree with her. Under the paternalistic model, that obligation would indeed exist in much the same way as it would if a daughter became pregnant while still a minor or a son burned down the neighbor's house while still a minor. Responsibility for your children's mistakes is by extension, your own and if you exercised similar authority over your wife, then your wife's moral obligations would therefore become yours through an identical concatenation.
> 
> Not all marriages function that way though. In plenty of marriages, both husband and wife are autonomous adults capable of taking full responsibility for their own mistakes. Under that arrangement, the injection of moral virtue into the decision to become the adoptive father of the illegitimate child is unfair. The decision to become an adoptive parent is a deeply personal one, free of moral obligation and judgement.
> 
> But on this thread, it is not. And *that *is what people are objecting to, even if they cant put it into words. *The starting assumptions here are as unfair as asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife*?"


i like this. very well written. 

but, i think the bold portion suffers the same fallacy you wrote about above it. to me, it implies that the there was an assumption that was implied as a prerequisite for a response. i just dont see it. what i saw was a question, and an assumption in those who responded that there was an unfair judgement, regardless of what she was actually saying. 

it seems to me that people are not able to understand where jld is coming from. since they cannot understand her point of view, they are not able to interpret her questions the way she intends them. thats why i dont think that she was unfair at all. i think people view things completely different from her and are therefore unable to believe what she says. 

the unfair assumption is that she must be lying, mentally ill, a narcissist, etc.


----------



## Jellybeans

You're a damn wordsmith, Ocotillo.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

tacoma said:


> You really do need to read it.
> 
> It explains everything going on here.


it explains things...it gives some insight....but it in NO WAY covers this entire thread. I am almost more confused now than I was two days ago.

the highlights of JLD and DUG's relationship have been discussed here...what is missing from the kink thread is the reason the kink thread was started in the first place. JLD was in a bad place emotionally...and that has since been resolved and really has nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

As'laDain said:


> i like this. very well written.
> 
> but, i think the bold portion suffers the same fallacy you wrote about above it. to me, it implies that the there was an assumption that was implied as a prerequisite for a response. i just dont see it. what i saw was a question, and an assumption in those who responded that there was an unfair judgement, regardless of what she was actually saying.
> 
> it seems to me that people are not able to understand where jld is coming from. since they cannot understand her point of view, they are not able to interpret her questions the way she intends them. thats why i dont think that she was unfair at all. i think people view things completely different from her and are therefore unable to believe what she says.
> 
> *the unfair assumption is that she must be lying, mentally ill, a narcissist, etc.*


 

I an only speak for myself...but this statement is totally wrong. 
I do not understand her writing...I think I understand the person....and they contradict each other,

She is almost opposite of the way she writes.


----------



## As'laDain

Mrs. John Adams said:


> [/B]
> 
> I an only speak for myself...but this statement is totally wrong.
> I do not understand her writing...I think I understand the person....and they contradict each other,
> 
> She is almost opposite of the way she writes.


i dont see it. :scratchhead:


----------



## Jellybeans

As'laDain said:


> it seems to me that people are not able to understand where jld is coming from. since they cannot understand her point of view, *they are not able to interpret her questions* the way she intends them.


Wait. So people who don't live her way are somehow them less intelligent or able to do reading comprehension? 



As'laDain said:


> i think people view things completely different from her and are *therefore unable to believe what she says. *


Or what you really means is, they are unable to DISAGREE with her. Right? 

Because that is what is going on here. Really. Disagree and somehow everyone else is wrong/narrow-minded/silly/being unfair.

"It's all of YOU who have issues/are scared/jealous/insecure/trying to reach a moral bar I've set. It's YOUR problem you can't agree with me."

Got it. 

Please.

Dead a$$ horse.

I am telling you. The passiveness is what makes me think this sh*t is a baiting thread. 

FAH REAL.

YES, I just spoke like a rapper and I don't care, because it's Friiiiday!


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> Do you even need many boundaries in place when the power balance in a relationship is so heavily slanted towards you?
> 
> When you essentially control nearly every aspect of the relationship and your partner are boundaries even necessary?


Yeah, that is probably a good explanation. 

It is hard for me to put into words things I just live. Pleasing dh is like breathing to me. I don't know if I can exactly say it is my life's purpose, but that is in the water here.

There is not a lot of negotiation or power struggle or really conflict at all. The trust is incredibly strong. Everything is what is best for the family as a whole. Dh is the first to sacrifice.

There is a feeling of communion. Most of the time. 

When I say that dh does not look at other women, or comment on them, that I have never seen him so much as glance at other women, and that he does not use porn . . . I get rolled eyes and disbelief. But people IRL do not doubt this.

When you have great trust, because it has been earned, there is incredible freedom in the marriage. You know that whatever big decision is taken, and even most small ones, will be done with your highest good in mind. And when you feel it is not, you are free to say so, just how and whenever you like, and you will be listened to. You may not get what you want, but you will always be unselfishly considered.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

tacoma said:


> When you essentially control nearly every aspect of the relationship and your partner are boundaries even necessary?


I imagine boundaries wouldn't be necessary. You tell them to accept your affair child and they do it because they truly believe you've acted in the best interest of all parties. Sweet deal, but :slap:


----------



## tacoma

Mrs. John Adams said:


> Marriages have boundaries...spoken and unspoken. I am willing to bet that 100% of the married people here assumed when they exchanged vows with their spouse that they would live their married lives without infidelity...and certainly that there would be no "love" children conceived.


Apparently MJA you're slightly incorrect.

That figure should be more like 99% considering the perspective JLD is speaking from.

While she probably assumed such a thing wouldn't happen I don't see any boundaries against it happening in her beliefs.


----------



## vellocet

GusPolinski said:


> /sigh
> 
> Get over yourself. We aren't "scared" or "threatened" by either yourself or Mr. jld.
> 
> Again, the core issue here is that, to men, the _notion_ of being compelled, forced, or legislated into having to accept a child born of a wife's infidelity *IS EVERY BIT AS CRITICAL AN ISSUE* as abortion is to many women.


Well to me its the idea that someone will completely dismiss the people who are directly responsible for a child conceived out of an affair, and denigrate a husband that does not want to take care of another man's child as something less than a man.

We men, if we find out our wives committed paternity fraud, are to be cuckolded and suck it up. Rather than the obvious solution, which is to hold the two people responsible accountable. The cheating wife, and the OM. You think that would make a whole lot of sense. Oh no. The betrayed husbands out there aren't men, immature, and have an ego if they don't want to be responsible for someone elses responsibility. 

I guess it makes sense, jld is a liberal.


----------



## vellocet

Mrs. John Adams said:


> No I dont think they are looking for your submission...and maybe you feel that way because you are a submissive person.
> 
> They are trying to get you to see that the way you have worded things *makes it appear *that you are judging them to be immature irresponsible men because they cannot choose to raise the child that is the product of an affair.


It doesn't appear that way. It IS that way.


----------



## As'laDain

Jellybeans said:


> Wait. So people who don't live her way are somehow them less intelligent or able to do reading comprehension?
> 
> 
> 
> Or what you really means is, they are unable to DISAGREE with her. Right?
> 
> Because that is what is going on here. Really. Disagree and somehow everyone else is wrong/narrow-minded/silly/being unfair.
> 
> "It's all of YOU who have issues/are scared/jealous/insecure/trying to reach a moral bar I've set. It's YOUR problem you can't agree with me."
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Dead a$$ horse.
> 
> I am telling you. The passiveness is what makes me think this sh*t is a baiting thread.
> 
> FAH REAL.
> 
> YES, I just spoke like a rapper and I don't care, because it's Friiiiday!



im not sure how you got all that from my post. if i say something based on my own experiences, and you disagree because you have never walked in my shoes and do no know my experiences, does that mean that you are less intelligent if you do not understand me?

i never said that. you did. why? you seem to know exactly what im thinking... 
i wonder where you got that ability.

whats funny is that you keep jumping in here asserting your view while claiming that jld is the one who wont let others disagree with her. you could just state your opinion and move on.
why do you keep coming back to beat a dead horse?


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

tacoma said:


> Apparently MJA you're slightly incorrect.
> 
> That figure should be more like 99% considering the perspective JLD is speaking from.
> 
> While she probably assumed such a thing wouldn't happen I don't see any boundaries against it happening in her beliefs.


I believe that is is also a boundary for the relationship she has with her husband...she is TRUSTING that it will not happen...in her statements here...she is smart enough to realize that it COULD happen...she is trusting it WON'T. THAT is a BOUNDARY..is it not?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> Please forgive this circuitous explanation:
> 
> Interrogative fallacies incorporate two questions into one. Let's take a simple example:
> 
> 1) _Are you cheating on your husband?
> _
> 2) _If so, does he know about it?_​
> Now let's combine those two questions into one:
> 
> _Does your husband know that you are cheating?_​
> Here, I've rolled the first question into the second question as a starting premise so you don't get the chance to answer it that fairness demands. It doesn't matter if you say, "Yes" or if you say, "No" as you will be forced to agree with the starting premise either way. This is the crassest example possible of an interrogative fallacy. Usually they are far more subtle and sometimes span entire paragraphs.
> 
> This thread contains a subtle interrogative fallacy via the assumption of paternalism. In the paternalistic model of authority, the person in charge makes the best decisions for those in his or her care, but those subject to that authority have neither rights nor responsibilities themselves.
> 
> Paternalism is how most of us exercise authority over our minor children. We make the best decisions we can for them while they are minors and it really doesn't matter if they like those decisions or not because they do not have the rights and responsibilities of adults.
> 
> Throughout this thread, jld has maintained that there is a moral obligation on the part of the husband towards the best interests of the illegitimate child his wife is carrying, even at one point equating that with the Divine. And I would have to agree with her. Under the paternalistic model, that obligation would indeed exist in much the same way as it would if a daughter became pregnant while still a minor or a son burned down the neighbor's house while still a minor. Responsibility for your children's mistakes is by extension, your own and if you exercised similar authority over your wife, then your wife's moral obligations would therefore become yours through an identical concatenation.
> 
> Not all marriages function that way though. In plenty of marriages, both husband and wife are autonomous adults capable of taking full responsibility for their own mistakes. Under that arrangement, the injection of moral virtue into the decision to become the adoptive father of the illegitimate child is unfair. The decision to become an adoptive parent is a deeply personal one, free of moral obligation and judgement.
> 
> But on this thread, it is not. And *that *is what people are objecting to, even if they cant put it into words. The starting assumptions here are as unfair as asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"


This is a down right brilliant post Octillo. Well done.


----------



## tacoma

As'laDain said:


> i like this. very well written.
> 
> but, i think the bold portion suffers the same fallacy you wrote about above it. to me, it implies that the there was an assumption that was implied as a prerequisite for a response. i just dont see it. what i saw was a question, and an assumption in those who responded that there was an unfair judgement, regardless of what she was actually saying.


I disagree.
The judgements laid on JLD here are not because of what she was saying.
They are entirely due to the subtle condescending implications of how she is stating her point, it has nothing to do with the content of her message.
It isn't very difficult for me to accept that men can and do accept their wives love children. 
It is difficult to me to accept that those men who cannot are "insecure" or "prideful"



> it seems to me that people are not able to understand where jld is coming from. since they cannot understand her point of view, they are not able to interpret her questions the way she intends them. thats why i dont think that she was unfair at all. i think people view things completely different from her and are therefore unable to believe what she says.


I have no problem believing she is sincere in what she says.
I have a problem with the lack of tolerance towards those who don't share her beliefs.



> the unfair assumption is that she must be lying, mentally ill, a narcissist, etc.


Considering the lack of tolerance she shows to opposing points of view is often due to the reasons you cite I don't see how those assumption are unfair, in fact they are perfectly rational.
They may be false but they are not unfounded.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

vellocet said:


> Well to me its the idea that someone will completely dismiss the people who are directly responsible for a child conceived out of an affair, and denigrate a husband that does not want to take care of another man's child as something less than a man.
> 
> We men, if we find out our wives committed paternity fraud, are to be cuckolded and suck it up. Rather than the obvious solution, which is to hold the two people responsible accountable. The cheating wife, and the OM. You think that would make a whole lot of sense. Oh no. The betrayed husbands out there aren't men, immature, and have an ego if they don't want to be responsible for someone elses responsibility.
> 
> *I guess it makes sense, jld is a liberal.*


She and her husband said they are conservatives...I will take them at their word....besides...now we have to get into definitions...and I do not think I even want to go there...lol


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> Apparently MJA you're slightly incorrect.
> 
> That figure should be more like 99% considering the perspective JLD is speaking from.
> 
> While she probably assumed such a thing wouldn't happen I don't see any boundaries against it happening in her beliefs.


We are monogamous, tacoma. And a large part of how we feel about the topic of this thread is probably due to our already being parents and our Catholic upbringing. 

I don't know how many people are familiar with Catholic social teaching, but my guess is that you could find what we are saying there. Protection of the most vulnerable.


----------



## Jellybeans

As'laDain said:


> if i say something based on my own experiences, and you disagree because you have never walked in my shoes and do no know my experiences, does that mean that you are less intelligent if you do not understand me?


HUH? What are you talking about? 

And just cause someone hasn't LIVED something doesn't mean they cannot disagree with it.

I personally have not been abusive to a child and lived that yet I know I DISAGREE with it.



As'laDain said:


> i wonder where you got that ability.


I don't know what you're referring to but feel free to clarify since you seem to be claiming you know something I don't. 



As'laDain said:


> whats funny is that you keep jumping in here asserting your view while claiming that jld is the one who wont let others disagree with her. you could just state your opinion and move on.
> why do you keep coming back to beat a dead horse?


You could also state your opinion and move on. What's good for the goose. 

I post in the threads I want to in TAM. Everyone's free to do the same. Open forum and all that jazz. But yes, this horse has been beaten to DEATH.

It feels like we are being put on completely.

But I am enjoying the show. 

It's like we are watching someone living out a fiction novel on the board. Or like it is material-gathering for some project they have on the side.

Carry on.


----------



## Maricha75

vellocet said:


> It doesn't appear that way. It IS that way.





jld said:


> (jld responded within the quoted post, thus her responses do not show here. But she DID say it, in the blue writing within the post this one quotes.)


----------



## tacoma

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I believe that is is also a boundary for the relationship she has with her husband...she is TRUSTING that it will not happen...in her statements here...she is smart enough to realize that it COULD happen...she is trusting it WON'T. THAT is a BOUNDARY..is it not?


It depends on your definition of boundary.

Mine often have a consequence to being crossed or broken.

If you do this thing I will react in this manner in order to protect myself from the backlash of the thing you did.

I'm not seeing that here.

No, I don't see trust as a boundary.
I see a boundary as an insurance policy in the event of broken trust.


----------



## ocotillo

As'laDain said:


> ...to me, it implies that the there was an assumption that was implied as a prerequisite for a response.


This is a long thread and we've each taken away our own experience from it. 

At one point the example of St. Joseph and his relationship to Jesus as an adoptive father was invoked. It was pointed out (By me) that in the story, St. Joseph's initial reaction was to revoke the betrothal, in effect divorcing Mary. What stopped him was a dream visitation by in angel where God instructed him not to.

The question was asked (Again by me) who the counterpart to God in the analogy would be and the response was, that it would be the best interests of the child.

You cannot elevate an obligation any higher than a Divine command, so unless jld wants to expand on this, there does appear to be an assumption of special obligation here.

My position is that a husband has no more obligation towards the illegitimate offspring of his wife's affair than he does to any other human being on the planet. 

It wouldn't be fair, for example for me to ask you how many orphans of the Sahel you have adopted, because to do so would be to assume a special, rather than a general obligation on your part.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

As'laDain said:


> it seems to me that people are not able to understand where jld is coming from. since they cannot understand her point of view, they are not able to interpret her questions the way she intends them. thats why i dont think that she was unfair at all. i think people view things completely different from her and are therefore unable to believe what she says.
> 
> the unfair assumption is that she must be lying, mentally ill, a narcissist, etc.


I believe what she says. Octillo's post was very insightful. If you view the woman as a child, then it makes sense for the husband to take responsibility for her actions.

However, her applying this undeniably rare perspective to others, and handing out subjective judgments of them is entirely inappropriate - as I tried to demonstrate by emulating her style in saying "a good man doesn't treat his wife like a child." This is where she goes astray IMO, and why she gets so much flak.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

tacoma said:


> It depends on your definition of boundary.
> 
> Mine often have a consequence to being crossed or broken.
> 
> If you do this thing I will react in this manner in order to protect myself from the backlash of the thing you did.
> 
> I'm not seeing that here.
> 
> No, I don't see trust as a boundary.
> I see a boundary as an insurance policy in the event if broken trust.


I will say this simply....SHE DOES..SHE SEE IT AS A BOUNDARY

You may not ...SHE DOES


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> I am the NFL scout? I have that kind of power?


When I first saw JLD's posts, I made the presumption of a lower intelligence. It was the naive, bumbling nature of her posts that led me to think that. Then I see this _very targeted_ comeback in a 2 minute span. She's not lacking in intelligence at all, it is all an act. 

We're being played folks. Some parts of this may be real and some may be not. But 'she' knows exactly what she's doing here.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> .
> 
> I don't know how many people are familiar with Catholic social teaching, but my guess is that you could find what we are saying there. Protection of the most vulnerable.


I am intimately familiar with Catholic culture and quite honestly "Protection of the most vulnerable" is not a definition I'd ever use to describe it.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

larry.gray said:


> When I first saw JLD's posts, I made the presumption of a lower intelligence. It was the naive, bumbling nature of her posts that led me to think that. Then I see this _very targeted_ comeback in a 2 minute span. She's not lacking in intelligence at all, it is all an act.
> 
> We're being played folks. Some parts of this may be real and some may be not. But 'she' knows exactly what she's doing here.


I will not go that far but I will agree with you...she is VERY intelligent.


----------



## jld

Ocotillo, yes, there is a paternal flavor to our relationship. It is a mutually satisfying dynamic for us, however it is defined.

But that still does not answer the question of why some people react so strongly to my posts. Some people just disagree and move on. Others have highly emotional responses and cannot seem to let it go. 

It is, for some, beyond simply trying to understand my pov. They are seeking, very hard, to find a way to discredit me.


----------



## larry.gray

Would this be the same Catholic church that employed the priests that molested several of my family members? That one?

I guess vulnerable 9 year old boys don't count.


----------



## Jellybeans

larry.gray said:


> We're being played folks. Some parts of this may be real and some may be not.


You can share with me, Larry.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> Ocotillo, yes, there is a paternal flavor to our relationship. It is a mutually satisfying dynamic for us, however it is defined.
> 
> But that still does not answer the question of why some people react so strongly to my posts. Some people just disagree and move on. Others have highly emotional responses and cannot seem to let it go.
> 
> It is, for some, beyond simply trying to understand my pov. They are seeking, very hard, to find a way to discredit me.


I don't believe they are trying to discredit you JLD...some are offended by your words...and some...like me are trying desperately to understand you.


----------



## tacoma

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I will say this simply....SHE DOES..SHE SEE IT AS A BOUNDARY
> 
> You may not ...SHE DOES


Perhaps she does but I don't see that in her posting.

She describes this concept more like divine grace than any objective limit.

This is actually a rejection of boundaries.

She appears not to need boundaries in her relationship because "It's just going to work out fine"


----------



## Fenris

Jellybeans said:


> Wait. So people who don't live her way are somehow them less intelligent or able to do reading comprehension?
> 
> 
> 
> Or what you really means is, they are unable to DISAGREE with her. Right?
> 
> Because that is what is going on here. Really. Disagree and somehow everyone else is wrong/narrow-minded/silly/being unfair.
> 
> "It's all of YOU who have issues/are scared/jealous/insecure/trying to reach a moral bar I've set. It's YOUR problem you can't agree with me."
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Dead a$$ horse.
> 
> I am telling you. The passiveness is what makes me think this sh*t is a baiting thread.
> 
> FAH REAL.
> 
> YES, I just spoke like a rapper and I don't care, because it's Friiiiday!


DAAAAAAAAYum!


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

larry.gray said:


> Would this be the same Catholic church that employed the priests that molested several of my family members? That one?
> 
> I guess vulnerable 9 year old boys don't count.


lArry...that has nothing to do with them and you know it...

however...I found that interesting that she said that since earlier in the day it was explained that they are no longer affiliated with church of any kind. that's when I go HMMMM


----------



## Jellybeans

Fenris said:


> DAAAAAAAAYum!


:rofl:


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> I am intimately familiar with Catholic culture and quite honestly "Protection of the most vulnerable" is not a definition I'd ever use to describe it.


Catholic social justice teaching is _all about _ protection of the most vulnerable.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

tacoma said:


> Perhaps she does but I don't see that in her posting.
> 
> She describes this concept more like divine grace than any objective limit.
> 
> This is actually a rejection of boundaries.
> 
> She appears not to need boundaries in her relationship because "It's just going to work out fine"


Ask her...you are speculating....point blank ask her 

and if you can get a yes or no answer I will send you $10


(I will win)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I believe that is is also a boundary for the relationship she has with her husband...she is TRUSTING that it will not happen...in her statements here...she is smart enough to realize that it COULD happen...she is trusting it WON'T. THAT is a BOUNDARY..is it not?


I think a boundary is more a matter of "this is what I will not tolerate". I think it fair to say that most of us have boundaries against our partners having affairs and certainly against being coercively obligated to raise other people's children.

However, is a boundary real if it is not enforced, and how is it enforced if you take the partner back and raise the child? To me, these say the boundary was not real. It was merely undesirable. But its something the person exchanges in order to keep the partner - which to me, points to a lack of self-worth.


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> Perhaps she does but I don't see that in her posting.
> 
> She describes this concept more like divine grace than any objective limit.
> 
> This is actually a rejection of boundaries.
> 
> She appears not to need boundaries in her relationship because "It's just going to work out fine"


Tacoma, how much control do you think anyone really has in a marriage, any marriage? It is _all about_ trust.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> lArry...that has nothing to do with them and you know it...
> 
> however...I found that interesting that she said that since earlier in the day it was explained that they are no longer affiliated with church of any kind. that's when I go HMMMM


We both grew up Catholic. I attended Catholic school at different points. We were certainly influenced.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> We are monogamous, tacoma. .


I believe you are but your statements in this thread lead me to believe that monogamy isn't a boundary in your relationship.

This is perfectly fine in an open marriage but you don't have an open marriage.

You expect your husband to just accept the consequences of any infidelity you could have regardless of the pain it might cause him.

Sure there will be repercussions but if those repercussions go so far as him being unable to accept raising a love child then he is an insecure unworthy man.
Not your fault he didn't measure up under the abuse of your infidelity.
It's his fault for being weak.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> When I say that dh does not look at other women, or comment on them, that I have never seen him so much as glance at other women, and that he does not use porn . . . I get rolled eyes and disbelief. But people IRL do not doubt this.


I don't have any issue w/ believing this, but how are his T levels?



jld said:


> When you have great trust, because it has been earned, there is incredible freedom in the marriage. You know that whatever big decision is taken, and even most small ones, will be done with your highest good in mind. And when you feel it is not, you are free to say so, just how and whenever you like, and you will be listened to. You may not get what you want, but you will always be unselfishly considered.


Again, I can't disagree w/ the general sentiment behind these statements. Trust is INCREDIBLY freeing. It is an absolutely wonderful feeling. But, the higher you soar, the further you fall. 

And, again, here is what I don't get... How would seeing his wife carrying another man's child NOT violate your husband's trust in you?


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> Catholic social justice teaching is _all about _ protection of the most vulnerable.


To a point, but you mentioned Catholic culture and in my experience Catholic Culture doesn't reflect Catholic teaching very well.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think a boundary is more a matter of "this is what I will not tolerate". I think it fair to say that most of us have boundaries against our partners having affairs and certainly against being coercively obligated to raise other people's children.
> 
> However, is a boundary real if it is not enforced, and how is it enforced if you take the partner back and raise the child? To me, these say the boundary was not real. It was merely undesirable. But its something the person exchanges in order to keep the partner - which to me, points to a lack of self-worth.


DA8, some marriages are all about love and trust and grace and perseverance and just riding out whatever wave comes along in life. It is all in for some of us. There is a great desire to meet each other's needs, even if we were not familiar with HNHN before a few months ago, and have not read the whole book.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Jellybeans said:


> You can share with me, Larry.


That really is my absolute favorite popcorn gif.Out of the millions...just this one.Perfect


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think a boundary is more a matter of "this is what I will not tolerate". I think it fair to say that most of us have boundaries against our partners having affairs and certainly against being coercively obligated to raise other people's children.
> 
> However, is a boundary real if it is not enforced, and how is it enforced if you take the partner back and raise the child? To me, these say the boundary was not real. It was merely undesirable. But its something the person exchanges in order to keep the partner - which to me, points to a lack of self-worth.




If you asked my husband when we married...if your wife has affair will you divorce...I can absolutely tell you he would have said YES..no questions asked. It was a boundary.

In JLD's case...the boundary still exists...however....she is speculating that IF infidelity occurred...and IF a child was conceived...THEY would value the child's life ABOVE everything else.

It is simple to see where she is coming from. If she had just left her statement at this....this thread would be over. She had to add WHY she thinks this...opening the can of worms


----------



## As'laDain

Jellybeans said:


> HUH? What are you talking about?
> ill use a real life example. i once made a man scrub about a couple thousand rounds with a brillo pad until they all shined. i then made him apply a lubricant to them and set them all out and stand them up until they dried. afterwards, i made him put every round back together into a belt. it took him hours and he had blisters on his fingers by the time he got done. you may think that it is cruel, but i would disagree. if you knew nothing about war, i would not judge you for disagreeing. i would not be implying that you are less intelligent either. i WOULD be saying that my first reaction to that might be different than yours. i see that as love. you might see it as a bit harsh. if i tell you it was done out of love, you dont have to agree. you may not understand. and thats fine. (although, i imagine you DO understand why i made my soldier do this)
> And just cause someone hasn't LIVED something doesn't mean they cannot disagree with it.
> disagreeing with it is fine. who says it isnt?
> 
> I personally have not been abusive to a child and lived that yet I know I DISAGREE with it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're referring to but feel free to clarify since you seem to be claiming you know something I don't.
> 
> i was being sarcastic.
> 
> You could also state your opinion and move on. What's good for the goose.
> 
> I post in the threads I want to in TAM. Everyone's free to do the same. Open forum and all that jazz. But yes, this horse has been beaten to DEATH.
> 
> It feels like we are being put on completely.
> 
> But I am enjoying the show.
> 
> It's like we are watching someone living out a fiction novel on the board. Or like it is material-gathering for some project they have on the side.
> well, in this case, its not fiction.
> Carry on.


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Are you and jld related?


i have no clue; are you and I? 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your response is blame the insulted for taking insult?


Well, "blame" is the wrong word . . . more asking those who feel insulted to examine their role in those feelings. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You asked why it pushes buttons. I gave you the answer. The implication of what you just said is like saying its unreasonable for black people to feel insulted back when NFL scouts only scouted white quarterbacks while claiming the position requires intelligence. The implication is clear and insulting with good reason.


No, it's not like that at all. jld has no power over the future or destiny of any of us . . . unless WE GIVE her that power. It's up to you how much power you cede to her. Equating feeling insulted on an anonymous internet forum to institutional racism . . . well, frankly, I'm underwhelmed by the argument. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If she did not intend the insult, then she wouldn't repeat it at every opportunity after being told by several men how insulting it is.


Again, what is your role in perceiving the insult? You said the insults were "implied." Deciphering an implication isn't science--each of us will bring something different. What are you bringing? 

I am NOT saying anyone's emotions on the issue in this thread (whether or not you'd raise an affair child) are unjustified, weak or somehow wrong. But accept that others might identify a path different than the one you would choose and admire it. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Some men may choose to care for the affair child. Most will not. Neither is indicative of the man's moral standing or ability. No man but the AP has a moral duty to care for the affair child.


A perfectly reasonable opinion. If you can live by it and hold your head high, then you're golden.


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> I believe you are but your statements in this thread lead me to believe that monogamy isn't a boundary in your relationship.
> 
> This is perfectly fine in an open marriage but you don't have an open marriage.
> 
> You expect your husband to just accept the consequences of any infidelity you could have regardless of the pain it might cause him.
> 
> Sure there will be repercussions but if those repercussions go so far as him being unable to accept raising a love child then he is an insecure unworthy man.
> Not your fault he didn't measure up under the abuse of your infidelity.
> It's his fault for being weak.


Tacoma, do you not see that the moral force in our family comes largely from _him_? Have you read my thread in LTS? Husband Key to LTR?

I think the reason men are reacting so strongly to me is that I have high standards for them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> They are seeking, very hard, to find a way to discredit me.


I have no interest in your credibility. I think I even understand your position now. I do however wonder why you insist on judging others for disagreeing with you.

Would you have greater moral obligation toward your husband's affair child than you would for on any other child in need? If so, why?


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> Tacoma, how much control do you think anyone really has in a marriage, any marriage? It is _all about_ trust.


I completely agree JLD and once that trust is broken not only by my wife's infidelity but her assumption that I am going to raise the love child born of her infidelity that trust is gone, completely destroyed.

So what do I have left to support the action of actually raising this child within such a shattered marriage?

How can I possibly do such a thing when the entire basis of my relationship has been destroyed by the very thing she wants me to accept?

How could it even be in the child's best interest to grow up in such a broken family?

How?


----------



## vellocet

Mrs. John Adams said:


> She and her husband said they are conservatives.l


Posts in the political section indicate otherwise.

But I digress, this isn't the political section


----------



## over20

larry.gray said:


> When I first saw JLD's posts, I made the presumption of a lower intelligence. It was the naive, bumbling nature of her posts that led me to think that. Then I see this _very targeted_ comeback in a 2 minute span. She's not lacking in intelligence at all, it is all an act.
> 
> We're being played folks. Some parts of this may be real and some may be not. But 'she' knows exactly what she's doing here.


:iagree:


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> I don't have any issue w/ believing this, but how are his T levels?
> 
> He never has trouble getting erections, Gus. Is that what you mean? He is satisfied in the marriage.
> 
> Again, I can't disagree w/ the general sentiment behind these statements. Trust is INCREDIBLY freeing. It is an absolutely wonderful feeling. But, the higher you soar, the further you fall.
> 
> And, again, here is what I don't get... How would seeing his wife carrying another man's child NOT violate your husband's trust in you?
> 
> He will be here tonight. It would be best if some of these questions went to him directly.


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> To a point, but you mentioned Catholic culture and in my experience Catholic Culture doesn't reflect Catholic teaching very well.


Where did I mention Catholic culture? Specific post, please. 

I agree that Catholic culture and Catholic social justice teaching are indeed different.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> Tacoma, do you not see that the moral force in our family comes largely from _him_? Have you read my thread in LTS? Husband Key to LTR?
> 
> I think the reason men are reacting so strongly to me is that I have high standards for them.


I've read many if your threads JLD those included but you misunderstand the reasoning behind the grief you are getting here.

I don't consider your standards high at all.

I consider the man who will meet your standards to be not much of a man.

The word we use here to describe such a man is "doormat".

I don't admire such a man I pity him and much of my reason for even being here is to help them become better than that.

Now your husband is a different case due to the nature of your relationship.
However, the part I have trouble seeing is how a man could get past the emotional trauma of not just accepting his wife's infidelity but her love child as well.

The only answer I can come up with is "That man has little or no emotional investment in his wife".

You're cries for attention from your husband in other threads and his apparent inability to even try to give you what you need only strengthen my perception.

The only way I could accept such a thing would be if I really didn't give a damn.

My investment in this thread isn't because I'm offended by you, it isn't because I'm threatened by your viewpoint, it's because I'm worried about you.


----------



## jld

vellocet said:


> Posts in the political section indicate otherwise.
> 
> But I digress, this isn't the political section


Dug said that. He also said you can be a conservative without being a Christian or voting Republican.

You are trying to put us into a familiar box. But we are not fitting.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

vellocet said:


> Posts in the political section indicate otherwise.
> 
> But I digress, this isn't the political section


I am basing my opinion on what they stated here...I do not go to the Political section much..you may have much more insight than I do.

He is FRENCH...very few FRENCH people are conservative (she said having just gotten back from St. Martin...the FRENCH side) lol


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> Dug said that. He also said you can be a conservative without being a Christian or voting Republican.
> 
> You are trying to put us into a familiar box. But we are not fitting.


You are correct. But it isn't your being or being not Christian, or voting Republican or otherwise that makes you a liberal.

Your views make you such, and they are quite evident in the politcal section.

Not that it matters. What matters is the idea that if one doesn't want to be responsible for someone elses actions, that they are somehow lesser people.

Sorry, it just aint so. Says more about the person who holds that view than the one to whom they hold the view.


----------



## jld

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I am basing my opinion on what they stated here...I do not go to the Political section much..you may have much more insight than I do.
> 
> He is FRENCH...very few FRENCH people are conservative (she said having just gotten back from St. Martin...the FRENCH side) lol


Yep. Both main parties in France are flavors of Democrat.

And the Catholic Church there does not get deep into abortion and gay marriage. It is more focused on helping the poor.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> Again, what is your role in perceiving the insult? You said the insults were "implied." Deciphering an implication isn't science--each of us will bring something different. What are you bringing?
> 
> I am NOT saying anyone's emotions on the issue in this thread (whether or not you'd raise an affair child) are unjustified, weak or somehow wrong. But accept that others might identify a path different than the one you would choose and admire it.


These implications are thinly veiled. It doesn't take a scientist to decipher them. My example of her style: "good men don't treat their wives like children", clearly implies that her husband is not a good man, and unjustly so. That's not admiring men who don't treat their wives like children. 

Stating that taking on an affair child is a matter of one man's ability to "handle it" versus another man's inability to do so is a contrast of skill that necessarily declares the latter inferior to the former. With full awareness of there being no greater moral obligation to this child than to any other child, these are not expressions of admiration. That they are attacks on the character of men who would not - their inability, their pride, etc is particularly apparent because she consistently phrases them in the negative perspective: expressing what fault lies in the man who chooses not to accept this situation, instead of accepting that he has no moral imperative here beyond that of any stranger to a strange child.

Kudos to those who choose to adopt, but I wouldn't frame an opinion of them in such a way as to cast those who don't adopt in a negative light. And honestly, such subjective opinions are irrelevant to whether or not there is a moral obligation to adopt.

This is where jld regularly goes astray and earns the hostility she gets. She should ask whether its more reasonable that almost everyone else is insecure or prideful, or whether her delivery could use some mindfulness.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> These implications are thinly veiled. It doesn't take a scientist to decipher them. My example of her style: "good men don't treat their wives like children", clearly implies that her husband is not a good man, and unjustly so. That's not admiring men who don't treat their wives like children.


ah uh huh I see what you did there!


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> You are trying to put us into a familiar box. But we are not fitting.


But, isn't that what you are trying to do with those of us who disagree with your point of view? You have stated that if a man is secure and mature, he would be able to take his wife and her child in, with no problem. You have stated that a man who even considers doing that is above one who would not. So how would that not equal trying to put US (both men AND women) into YOUR tiny box, which we do not fit in? :scratchhead:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> DA8, some marriages are all about love and trust and grace and perseverance and just riding out whatever wave comes along in life. It is all in for some of us. There is a great desire to meet each other's needs, even if we were not familiar with HNHN before a few months ago, and have not read the whole book.


Your hypothetical presumes a pretty damn big "wave" that completely invalidates the presumption of mutual desire to meet each other's needs.

So given the violation of boundary in this hypothetical situation, how do you propose its enforcement? Returning the naïve state that they each really have great desire to meet each others needs in trust and grace and perseverance?


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

jld said:


> Yep. Both main parties in France are flavors of Democrat.
> 
> And the Catholic Church there does not get deep into abortion and gay marriage. It is more focused on helping the poor.


yes JLD...Having been to St. Martin...the FRench side 15 times and to FRance once....the one thing I can say is

The French are very tolerant of nudity and gays and INFIDELITY is not only tolerated but expected. Most FRench people we know....the husbands have and maintain a mistress...

and an interesting side note for dog lovers..the most preferred breed...Yorkshire terriers.

Please do not take offense to my observations if you are French...they are not scientifically proven


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> I've read many if your threads JLD those included but you misunderstand the reasoning behind the grief you are getting here.
> 
> I don't consider your standards high at all.
> 
> I consider the man who will meet your standards to be not much of a man.
> 
> The word we use here to describe such a man is "doormat".
> 
> I don't admire such a man I pity him and much of my reason for even being here is to help them become better than that.
> 
> Now your husband is a different case due to the nature of your relationship.
> However, the part I have trouble seeing is how a man could get past the emotional trauma of not just accepting his wife's infidelity but her love child as well.
> 
> The only answer I can come up with is "That man has little or no emotional investment in his wife".
> 
> You're cries for attention from your husband in other threads and his apparent inability to even try to give you what you need only strengthen my perception.
> 
> The only way I could accept such a thing would be if I really didn't give a damn.
> 
> My investment in this thread isn't because I'm offended by you, it isn't because I'm threatened by your viewpoint, it's because I'm worried about you.


Thanks for your concern, tacoma, for both dh and me. 

He is not naturally affectionate, and I do indeed ask for attention. He is working on it, but will never be a natural at it.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Well, I think those are the wrong questions to ask, because I don't feel you should be a conflict avoider, and I don't feel I need to defend jld. Most of my musings have been based on curiosity over why some posters here feel insulted by jld saying that a man who would raise an affair child under certain circumstances must be extraordinarily secure. I know, I know, the whole insult by implication thing: but I don't see that insinuation at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Your eyes, not jld's. And _she_ is the one who is impressed by the traits of a man who consent to raise that child under certain circumstances. She doesn't see it as D/s cuckoldry, and her husband doesn't see it that way--why should she see it this way? She's made it clear that men who do see it this way wouldn't be good candidates to stay with their wife and raise the child.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this such an offensive question? It's not phrased like this: "Should women be forced to consent to allow their rapists to have visiting rights to her child." It asks the women to guess how they'd feel if they'd been raped and had a child as a result. You might get a variety of answers raging from "Hell to the no," to "Under these very particular circumstances I would . . . "
> 
> It's not a perfect analogy, of course, because it involves violent crime but I am willing to accept that many men feel that the violation of being betrayed by their wife in the worst possible fashion rises to the level of emotional trauma that a victim of rape feels.
> 
> I've neither been raped, nor been a man most horribly betrayed by his beloved wife, so I can't comment on the relative pain.
> 
> 
> 
> Cycle of put downs by who? I still maintain that jld didn't put anyone down.


Again, tunnel vision can prevent people from seeing things. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and just say that you have tunnel vision IMO. 

We just disagree.


----------



## GusPolinski

Mrs. John Adams said:


> yes JLD...Having been to St. Martin...the FRench side 15 times and to FRance once....the one thing I can say is
> 
> The French are very tolerant of nudity and gays and INFIDELITY is not only tolerated but expected. Most FRench people we know....the husbands have and maintain a mistress...
> 
> and an interesting side note for dog lovers..the most preferred breed...Yorkshire terriers.
> 
> Please do not take offense to my observations if you are French...they are not scientifically proven


Ugh. I need a burger. And some _freedom_ fries. But first I'm going to stand at attention and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, sing The Star-Spangled Banner, and then use my rifle, shotgun, and multiple pistols to completely obliterate targets depicting Adolf Hitler and the abstract concept of blind, insipid passiveness.

'MERICUH!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGQaH3-LK54






(This is a joke.)

(But only slightly.)


----------



## over20

Maricha75 said:


> But, isn't that what you are trying to do with those of us who disagree with your point of view? You have stated that if a man is secure and mature, he would be able to take his wife and her child in, with no problem. You have stated that a man who even considers doing that is above one who would not. So how would that not equal trying to put US (both men AND women) into YOUR tiny box, which we do not fit in? :scratchhead:


Very good Maricha!!


----------



## Entropy3000

ScarletBegonias said:


> This is the core of the issues people have w/jld and her communication style. No one wants to feel passively judged or passively condemned by anyone.
> 
> Well stated,MrsJA.Very well stated.


Passive agressive behavior -- check


----------



## GettingIt_2

ocotillo said:


> Please forgive this circuitous explanation:
> 
> Interrogative fallacies incorporate two questions into one. Let's take a simple example:
> 
> 1) _Are you cheating on your husband?
> _
> 2) _If so, does he know about it?_​
> Now let's combine those two questions into one:
> 
> _Does your husband know that you are cheating?_​
> Here, I've rolled the first question into the second question as a starting premise so you don't get the chance to answer it that fairness demands. It doesn't matter if you say, "Yes" or if you say, "No" as you will be forced to agree with the starting premise either way. This is the crassest example possible of an interrogative fallacy. Usually they are far more subtle and sometimes span entire paragraphs.
> 
> This thread contains a subtle interrogative fallacy via the assumption of paternalism. In the paternalistic model of authority, the person in charge makes the best decisions for those in his or her care, but those subject to that authority have neither rights nor responsibilities themselves.
> 
> Paternalism is how most of us exercise authority over our minor children. We make the best decisions we can for them while they are minors and it really doesn't matter if they like those decisions or not because they do not have the rights and responsibilities of adults.
> 
> Throughout this thread, jld has maintained that there is a moral obligation on the part of the husband towards the best interests of the illegitimate child his wife is carrying, even at one point equating that with the Divine. And I would have to agree with her. Under the paternalistic model, that obligation would indeed exist in much the same way as it would if a daughter became pregnant while still a minor or a son burned down the neighbor's house while still a minor. Responsibility for your children's mistakes is by extension, your own and if you exercised similar authority over your wife, then your wife's moral obligations would therefore become yours through an identical concatenation.
> 
> Not all marriages function that way though. In plenty of marriages, both husband and wife are autonomous adults capable of taking full responsibility for their own mistakes. Under that arrangement, the injection of moral virtue into the decision to become the adoptive father of the illegitimate child is unfair. The decision to become an adoptive parent is a deeply personal one, free of moral obligation and judgement.
> 
> But on this thread, it is not. And *that *is what people are objecting to, even if they cant put it into words. The starting assumptions here are as unfair as asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"


Although I see your point, Ocotillo, I still don't "get" why people are feeling judged. So jld finds admirable a man who could chose to raise that child . . . why does everyone then make the leap to feeling that she then thinks a man who would choose not to do so is "less than?" Multiple quotes have been pulled out to demonstrate the insult, but I still do not see it. 

I'm not trying to be obtuse here; nor do I at all mean to imply that anyone's feelings on the issue of whether or not to raise the are somehow "wrong" or "less moral" than another's feelings.

But I can imagine a case where a man would choose to raise that child because he has the grace to grant the gift of redemption to a woman he loves (or once did) and sees as truly contrite. 

And I can imagine a case where a man would chose to raise that child because he lacks boundaries--or is a "doormat." 

And I can imagine a case where a man would react viscerally to the deception, and choose divorce. 

The list of things I can imagine goes on and on and on. Which man is the best man? Jld has her idea of which is the best man, as do all of you. _But when an individual decides which man is "best," for them, why does that have to mean that all the others feel less worthy/moral/good?_

jld has only put her standard out for discussion. Agree, disagree--but don't feel judged. 

Easier said than done, I guess. But _why_ that is so still has not be answered for me. I just don't see the interrogative fallacy that everyone else does, I guess. GettingIt is not getting it today.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your hypothetical presumes a pretty damn big "wave" that completely invalidates the presumption of mutual desire to meet each other's needs.
> 
> So given the violation of boundary in this hypothetical situation, how do you propose its enforcement? Returning the naïve state that they each really have great desire to meet each others needs in trust and grace and perseverance?


How do you reconcile, you mean? Transparency. Complete transparency and working together to restore trust.

DA8, I don't have a 50/50 marriage. The idea of a VAR is foreign to me. A lot of things I read about here are foreign to me.

I have a hard time relating to marriage that is not all in, all the time, in every way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Mrs. John Adams said:


> If you asked my husband when we married...if your wife has affair will you divorce...I can absolutely tell you he would have said YES..no questions asked. It was a boundary.
> 
> In JLD's case...the boundary still exists...however....she is speculating that IF infidelity occurred...and IF a child was conceived...THEY would value the child's life ABOVE everything else.
> 
> It is simple to see where she is coming from. If she had just left her statement at this....this thread would be over. She had to add WHY she thinks this...opening the can of worms


No offense, given I know your situation and can relate, but I believe actual boundaries to be non-negotiable. When someone says they have a boundary on infidelity, but they take back the unfaithful partner, that says to me they didn't really have a boundary on infidelity. They valued the partner above the boundary. The real boundary is "I refuse to be with a cheating (note the "-ing") partner". Many will forgive one or even more "mistakes", as long as they come out the other end thinking their partner isn't going to continue cheating. So the boundary for many isn't actually, "cheat and I'm gone". It's "cheat and I'll judge whether you'll to do it again, and if I think so, THEN I'm gone."


----------



## As'laDain

jld said:


> And there is nothing wrong with saying to a woman, "I can't do it. I can't be what you need. You are not wrong to need it, but I am not that man." And then he moves on. And they are both free.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The phrasing here is so one-sided it turns my stomach. You phrase it as if he should APOLOGIZE to her or this is some failing of his. *puke*
> 
> No one should accept such treatment. She and the kid can go with the other man or struggle alone. It is not evil, unjust or immoral to demand others face the consequences of their actions. In such a scenario, I don't see why he should give a rats behind about "her needs".
> 
> "I can't be what you need"?? For real, as if he's somehow not enough because he refuses? Her need has nothing to do with anything. "I am not that man"? Ha, that doesn't even begin to remotely capture it. Its more like, "I am not your b*tch. You made your bed, now sleep in it."
> 
> The language you've chosen just blows my mind.





GettingIt said:


> Although I see your point, Ocotillo, I still don't "get" why people are feeling judged. So jld finds admirable a man who could chose to raise that child . . . why does everyone then make the leap to feeling that she then thinks a man who would choose not to do so is "less than?" Multiple quotes have been pulled out to demonstrate the insult, but I still do not see it.
> 
> I'm not trying to be obtuse here; nor do I at all mean to imply that anyone's feelings on the issue of whether or not to raise the are somehow "wrong" or "less moral" than another's feelings.
> 
> But I can imagine a case where a man would choose to raise that child because he has the grace to grant the gift of redemption to a woman he loves (or once did) and sees as truly contrite.
> 
> And I can imagine a case where a man would chose to raise that child because he lacks boundaries--or is a "doormat."
> 
> And I can imagine a case where a man would react viscerally to the deception, and choose divorce.
> 
> The list of things I can imagine goes on and on and on. Which man is the best man? Jld has her idea of which is the best man, as do all of you. _But when an individual decides which man is "best," for them, why does that have to mean that all the others feel less worthy/moral/good?_
> 
> jld has only put her standard out for discussion. Agree, disagree--but don't feel judged.
> 
> Easier said than done, I guess. But _why_ that is so still has not be answered for me. I just don't see the interrogative fallacy that everyone else does, I guess. GettingIt is not getting it today.


i can see the fallacy from the other side...
usually from the very people accusing her of it!


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> Again, tunnel vision can prevent people from seeing things. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and just say that you have tunnel vision IMO.
> 
> We just disagree.


Yes, but try not to be so quickly dismissive ("check!", "tunnel vision!") of points you do not agree with and cannot affect a change of position on.


----------



## Entropy3000

As'laDain said:


> wow, i dont see any of that in jlds posts.
> 
> i see a lot of you getting offended by some of the simplest things, however. for instance, that post.
> 
> "i feel blank when i feel blank" turns into "you feel blank when you feel blank".
> 
> 
> it seems like you just argued against an attack that didnt happen.


Tunnel vison and / or just having the same agenda.

Just because you do not see it does not mean it is not there. Points of view. It is very passive agressive.


----------



## jld

Thank you, As'laDain, for bringing up that quote. It really upset people, and I still cannot figure out why.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Something about me scares them.
> 
> And instead of acknowledging that, and asking themselves why, they become aggressive.
> 
> They simply must have my submission to be able to feel reassured.


Again, something wrong with other people. 

I do not think offending people is the same thing as scaring them.


----------



## As'laDain

Entropy3000 said:


> Tunnel vison and / or just having the same agenda.
> 
> Just because you do not see it does not mean it is not there. Points of view. It is very passive agressive.


flatly claiming everyone who disagrees with you has tunnel vision doesnt make it true.


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> Again, something wrong with other people.
> 
> I do not think offending people is the same thing as scaring them.


What is the offense, ent? Disagreeing with you?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> How do you reconcile, you mean? Transparency. Complete transparency and working together to restore trust.
> 
> DA8, I don't have a 50/50 marriage. The idea of a VAR is foreign to me. A lot of things I read about here are foreign to me.
> 
> I have a hard time relating to marriage that is not all in, all the time, in every way.


Very strange then that you'd pose a question that is premised by someone who is "not in, all the time, in every way" - hence showing up with another man's baby.

Do you believe in justice? Or should this man accept baby after baby from his wife's infidelities? I'm curious as to what you think his breaking point ought to be since you expect him to raise another man's child.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No offense, given I know your situation and can relate, but I believe actual boundaries to be non-negotiable. When someone says they have a boundary on infidelity, but they take back the unfaithful partner, that says to me they didn't really have a boundary on infidelity. They valued the partner above the boundary. The real boundary is "I refuse to be with a cheating (note the "-ing") partner". Many will forgive one or even more "mistakes", as long as they come out the other end thinking their partner isn't going to continue cheating. So the boundary for many isn't actually, "cheat and I'm gone". It's "cheat and I'll judge whether you'll to do it again, and if I think so, THEN I'm gone."



I believe circumstances can change boundaries..

My husband is a person who slams down his fist and says...it is the principle of the matter....(in our house...we know when this occurs...we better shut up)

I understand your viewpoint...I can only speak for my own situation. in MY case...there was a firm boundary...that I unfortunately pushed.

That is one reason this thread is so amusing! It is all SPECULATION! Unless this scenario has actually happened to you....you REALLY do not know how you would react. You may THINK you know...but when it ACTUALLY happens...you may not react the way you thought you would.


----------



## vellocet

GettingIt said:


> Although I see your point, Ocotillo, I still don't "get" why people are feeling judged. So jld finds admirable a man who could chose to raise that child . . . why does everyone then make the leap to feeling that she then thinks a man who would choose not to do so is "less than?"


Pretty simple. She has indicated that a man that does not want to raise another man's child has an "ego" and that they aren't as mature as a man that would.



> Multiple quotes have been pulled out to demonstrate the insult, but I still do not see it.


Don't see it? Or don't want to see it?




> The list of things I can imagine goes on and on and on. Which man is the best man? Jld has her idea of which is the best man, as do all of you. _*But when an individual decides which man is "best," for them, why does that have to mean that all the others feel less worthy/moral/good*?_


Because she said it.




> jld has only put her standard out for discussion. Agree, disagree--but don't feel judged.


It also goes along with her mindset. She has even argued for compassion for wayward spouses, and admitted that the was primarily concerned with compassion for the wayward wives.

There's a pattern here.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> What is the offense, ent? Disagreeing with you?


Seriously, jld? C'mon now. You know exactly what has offended people, and why. It has been stated ad nauseum, and you can STILL act like you haven't the faintest idea why? *smh*


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> What is the offense, ent? Disagreeing with you?


Claiming that someone is scared for objecting to being insulted, is an additional insult.

You would do best to totally avoid characterizing other people. Make your points and leave declarative statements about other people out of them.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> I am the NFL scout? I have that kind of power?


More like a fan who thinks that they could have been a been QB than the real one.

Note now you are off on the path of :

Whay do I scare you? Fallacy.

Why do I have that power? Fallacy.

Delusional perhaps.


----------



## GusPolinski

Currently slogging my way through the aforementioned "Kink" thread. Not currently making much headway, though that may be because I need to take a break and get that burger.

At any rate, it's been enlightening thus far, and every word that I read cements the feeling that perhaps every word expended by so many of us here is done in absolute futility.

Clearly the dynamics within jld's marriage are different than most. This type of relationship wouldn't be at all fulfilling to many of us here and, in all honesty, it seems that it isn't very fulfilling to jld at the moment either.

Either way, different doesn't necessarily mean bad or worse. It's just different.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Very strange then that you'd pose a question that is premised by someone who is "not in, all the time, in every way" - hence showing up with another man's baby.
> 
> Do you believe in justice? Or should this man accept baby after baby from his wife's infidelities? I'm curious as to what you think his breaking point ought to be since you expect him to raise another man's child.


I think you should do whatever you are able to. It is a free choice.

Not every man can do this. I get that.

It's okay, DA8. We all have limits.


----------



## Anon Pink

Maricha75 said:


> Seriously, jld? C'mon now. You know exactly what has offended people, and why. It has been stated ad nauseum, and you can STILL act like you haven't the faintest idea why? *smh*


Maybe you already did this and I missed it.

What if you were to skip telling her how she offends and specifically tell her how she should reword the ideas she has expressed so that it doesn't offend?


----------



## Jellybeans

Maricha75 said:


> Seriously, jld? C'mon now. You know exactly what has offended people, and why. It has been stated ad nauseum, and you can STILL act like you haven't the faintest idea why? *smh*





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Claiming that someone is scared for objecting to being insulted, is an additional insult.





Entropy3000 said:


> Delusional perhaps.


I have a tear in my eye. Sometimes I forget how truly awesome my TAM comrades are. So smart, eloquent and logical. And I want to make a toast. I love you guys. All of you, really. I feel like I am posting with the best of them right now. It has been an honor to serve with you. 

I"ll stop now. You're going to make me cry.


----------



## Entropy3000

Jellybeans said:


> You're so vain. You probably think this post is about you.


You are freaking awesome.


----------



## As'laDain

Entropy3000 said:


> More like a fan who thinks that they could have been a been QB than the real one.
> 
> Note now you are off on the path of :
> 
> Whay do I scare you? Fallacy.
> 
> Why do I have that power? Fallacy.
> 
> Delusional perhaps.


or perhaps she got tired of the incredibly large number of biased questions and assumptions so she decided to humor them a bit?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

over20 said:


> Very good Maricha!!


This one puzzles me,O20. I really thought you were right there w/jld on this topic.The two of you seem very similar in style and views such as feeling men should be in the driver's seat. Now it seems you're in agreement w/the people who are questioning her. 

color me confused


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> These implications are thinly veiled. It doesn't take a scientist to decipher them. My example of her style: "good men don't treat their wives like children", clearly implies that her husband is not a good man, and unjustly so. That's not admiring men who don't treat their wives like children.


But "Good men don't treat their wives as children," is sufficiently vague and subjective that every man who reads that could say, "Yeah, good thing I don't treat my wife like a child," even if that man is someone who YOU think DOES treat his wife like a child. 

Similarly, if you believe you are a secure and moral individual, wouldn't you read the statement, "My husband is a secure and moral man because he would raise my affair child," and say, "Good for him. _This_ secure and moral man would not." Or, "Maybe if I was married to you, I could, too, but I'm not married to you, I'm married to a woman who I could and would NOT do that for." There are various ways to respond that don't include feeling judged. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Stating that taking on an affair child is a matter of one man's ability to "handle it" versus another man's inability to do so is a contrast of skill that necessarily declares the latter inferior to the former. With full awareness of there being no greater moral obligation to this child than to any other child, these are not expressions of admiration. That they are attacks on the character of men who would not - their inability, their pride, etc is particularly apparent because she consistently phrases them in the negative perspective: expressing what fault lies in the man who chooses not to accept this situation, instead of accepting that he has no moral imperative here beyond that of any stranger to a strange child.


I disagree that these are attacks on the character of men who wouldn't raise the affair child. But I know that many here see her stance as such. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Kudos to those who choose to adopt, but I wouldn't frame an opinion of them in such a way as to cast those who don't adopt in a negative light. And honestly, such subjective opinions are irrelevant to whether or not there is a moral obligation to adopt.


I've often seen it phrased that those who adopt are extraordinary in some ways--generosity of heart, etc, etc. People who adopt at risk or kids with challenges are often highlighted in the local paper and lauded for their actions. I don't feel judged by that because I chose not to adopt. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is where jld regularly goes astray and earns the hostility she gets. She should ask whether its more reasonable that almost everyone else is insecure or prideful, or whether her delivery could use some mindfulness.


I think jld will learn from this--she always "seeks to understand" as she says. I've seen quite a bit of change in her as a result of her interactions on TAM.


----------



## GusPolinski

Feeling the need to say this as well...

jld, I've been trying to understand your perspective, I really have. And I think that others have been as well. But when both yourself and Mr. jld dodge or gloss over certain questions (specifically those involving boundaries), it doesn't make it any easier for us. Hopefully your other thread will help me in that regard. 

In turn, I have been trying -- so very hard -- to relate my perspective (which happens to be shared by many, many others) to you. I'm beginning to feel as if I've just utterly and completely failed in this, and that additional input from me unfortunately won't do anything to alleviate this.

Also, w/ respect to the question posed in the title of this thread, I think that -- for the most part -- you have your answer.


----------



## tacoma

> That is one reason this thread is so amusing! It is all SPECULATION! Unless this scenario has actually happened to you....you REALLY do not know how you would react. You may THINK you know...but when it ACTUALLY happens...you may not react the way you thought you would.


With all due respect MJA I get tired of hearing this as if it were gospel.

While I agree boundaries can be malleable they simply are not malleable for many of us or at least certain boundaries are more malleable than others.

It's always stated that until you've been in the position you cannot know how you would act and that is entirely true but the thing that is always left out is that many have already been in the position and know beyond a shadow of a doubt how it would go down.

Then there is the point of ethical beliefs and self awareness.

While I have never been in the position of the cuckold who is expected to adopt his wife's love child I can tell you with certainty I would not even consider it and you could bank on that.

One reason is simply because I know from my own history of experiences I cannot reconcile a sexual infidelity so it naturally follows I wouldn't be raising anyone's love child.

Even without the boundary of non-acceptance of infidelity, even if I could reconcile with my wife I could not ever even consider raising her love child.
In such a case her insistence on keeping the child would result in divorce, not the infidelity itself.

I know this because I have spent decades making mistakes and building boundaries to keep from repeating those mistakes for my own welfare.
I know this because I am very self aware and know that accepting a love child would destroy who and what I was.
I could not be "me" while accepting such a thing and I have a pretty good idea of what I would be if I attempted it.
It isn't a desireable picture.


----------



## Jellybeans

Entropy3000 said:


> You are freaking awesome.


Why, thank you.










(Bows and curtsies)


----------



## GettingIt_2

vellocet said:


> Pretty simple. She has indicated that a man that does not want to raise another man's child has an "ego" and that they aren't as mature as a man that would.


Don't see it? Or don't want to see it?

Don't see it; but am intensely curious to understand why others who do see it cannot disagree without feeling that they've been insulted.



vellocet said:


> It also goes along with her mindset. She has even argued for compassion for wayward spouses, and admitted that the was primarily concerned with compassion for the wayward wives.
> 
> There's a pattern here.


There is a pattern--it's called jld!


----------



## over20

ScarletBegonias said:


> This one puzzles me,O20. I really thought you were right there w/jld on this topic.The two of you seem very similar in style and views such as feeling men should be in the driver's seat. Now it seems you're in agreement w/the people who are questioning her.
> 
> color me confused


We share a lot of views yes....I posted my response hmmmm about 50 pages back..the difference is I RESPECT MEN AND LIFT THEM UP


----------



## Entropy3000

Cosmos said:


> Not quite... I believe that fear is often:-
> 
> *F*alse
> *E*vidence
> *A*ppearing
> *R*eal
> 
> Whereas a trigger is something that sets off a memory tape or flashback transporting the person back to a trauma that has been previously experienced.
> 
> What's happening here, IMO, is that your posts are triggering people who have been_ badly _hurt...


If your child is in danger it is natural to have fear. 
So those with courage overcome fear.

So when we say that we need to lose our fears we are talking mainly about false fears. But we can also be referring to having the courage to deal with the issues head on. 

The opinion that a man must stay is just that an opinion. As valid as any other. But I choose to reject that straight out. I have a different value system. I think at least to some extent, this whole pride, ego thing has much to do with the lifestyle.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> Feeling the need to say this as well...
> 
> jld, I've been trying to understand your perspective, I really have. And I think that others have been as well. But when both yourself and Mr. jld dodge or gloss over certain questions (specifically those involving boundaries), it doesn't make it any easier for us. Hopefully your other thread will help me in that regard.
> 
> In turn, I have been trying -- so very hard -- to relate my perspective (which happens to be shared by many, many others) to you. I'm beginning to feel as if I've just utterly and completely failed in this, and that additional input from me unfortunately won't do anything to alleviate this.
> 
> Also, w/ respect to the question posed in the title of this thread, I think that -- for the most part -- you have your answer.


I hear your perspective. I hear that men don't want to raise the affair child. And they do not have to.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Mrs. John Adams said:


> That is one reason this thread is so amusing! It is all SPECULATION! Unless this scenario has actually happened to you....you REALLY do not know how you would react. You may THINK you know...but when it ACTUALLY happens...you may not react the way you thought you would.


I've been on both sides. 

I cheated and she wanted me back (boundary wasn't real). I was cheated on by a different woman and I immediately left even though I loved her (boundary was real). It was MUCH harder to do than I ever imagined. But in the end, the boundary was more important to me - it was real.

The pressure of love vs a boundary is intense... and because of it, some of the boundaries we claim aren't as real as we imagine them to be, and others are.

Given my experience, I now think of boundaries as things you'll enforce even when your heart really doesn't want to. Cutting off an arm to save the body, if you will. Recognition of an inability to trust a person again once they've beached your trust - regardless of still loving them. I can forgive, my anger goes away, but I never forget and will never trust them again. Things will never be the same. So for me, infidelity is a real boundary. I will leave regardless of circumstances.


----------



## jld

You're reading into this, ent.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> I think you should do whatever you are able to. It is a free choice.
> 
> Not every man can do this. I get that.
> 
> It's okay, DA8. We all have limits.


:lol: Well, aside from you continuing your trend... you also sidestepped the question.

Its not a matter of my limits or ability. It is a matter of choice. If its a matter of "whatever you are able to" or "not every man can" or "limits", then you are not in fact claiming it a "free choice"? Do you understand that?

So when does your hypothetical man put his foot down? You admire him for raising the first bastard baby. How about the 5th? Please don't sidestep this time. Is the man who "can do this" with 1 a good man, and the man who just keeps on taking the children of his wife's infidelities a Saintly man?


----------



## Entropy3000

ocotillo said:


> Please forgive this circuitous explanation:
> 
> Interrogative fallacies incorporate two questions into one. Let's take a simple example:
> 
> 1) _Are you cheating on your husband?
> _
> 2) _If so, does he know about it?_​
> Now let's combine those two questions into one:
> 
> _Does your husband know that you are cheating?_​
> Here, I've rolled the first question into the second question as a starting premise so you don't get the chance to answer it that fairness demands. It doesn't matter if you say, "Yes" or if you say, "No" as you will be forced to agree with the starting premise either way. This is the crassest example possible of an interrogative fallacy. Usually they are far more subtle and sometimes span entire paragraphs.
> 
> This thread contains a subtle interrogative fallacy via the assumption of paternalism. In the paternalistic model of authority, the person in charge makes the best decisions for those in his or her care, but those subject to that authority have neither rights nor responsibilities themselves.
> 
> Paternalism is how most of us exercise authority over our minor children. We make the best decisions we can for them while they are minors and it really doesn't matter if they like those decisions or not because they do not have the rights and responsibilities of adults.
> 
> Throughout this thread, jld has maintained that there is a moral obligation on the part of the husband towards the best interests of the illegitimate child his wife is carrying, even at one point equating that with the Divine. And I would have to agree with her. Under the paternalistic model, that obligation would indeed exist in much the same way as it would if a daughter became pregnant while still a minor or a son burned down the neighbor's house while still a minor. Responsibility for your children's mistakes is by extension, your own and if you exercised similar authority over your wife, then your wife's moral obligations would therefore become yours through an identical concatenation.
> 
> Not all marriages function that way though. In plenty of marriages, both husband and wife are autonomous adults capable of taking full responsibility for their own mistakes. Under that arrangement, the injection of moral virtue into the decision to become the adoptive father of the illegitimate child is unfair. The decision to become an adoptive parent is a deeply personal one, free of moral obligation and judgement.
> 
> But on this thread, it is not. And *that *is what people are objecting to, even if they cant put it into words. The starting assumptions here are as unfair as asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"


Very well done.

For me once my wife would do such a thing she formally broke the marriage. If there was a marriage to continue it would have to be a new marriage. She chose to be autonomous at the point. The fruit of that autonomy is therefore not the responsibility of the old marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

If you guys have read any David Deida, jld's posts would make a lot more sense to you.


----------



## Maricha75

Anon Pink said:


> Maybe you already did this and I missed it.
> 
> What if you were to skip telling her how she offends and specifically tell her how she should reword the ideas she has expressed so that it doesn't offend?


It's been stated, but I'm not sure if she's completely skipping over my posts now or not. 

It's not just me who has said to her that the tone of the posts were condescending.

Oh, sorry. Just went back through my posts to see what I have said. The closest I have come to telling her how to reword is by saying "there IS NO correct answer. There is whatever works for the individuals involved." And "just because someone cannot reconcile with his or her spouse if a pregnancy resulted from an affair, it doesn't make them any less mature, secure, etc." And I even stated there is on "one size fits all" when it comes to things like this. Basically, don't tell people (men, specifically, in this case), that they are lesser if their boundary is not what YOURS is. The thing is, I am not the only one who has said this. And he STILL maintains she has no idea what we're talking about. I don't buy it. I just don't.


----------



## GTdad

jld said:


> I think you should do whatever you are able to. It is a free choice.
> 
> Not every man can do this. I get that.
> 
> It's okay, DA8. We all have limits.


:lol:

If you weren't doing this sort of thing on purpose before, you certainly seem to be doing so now.

You're not supposed to be having fun here, dammit.


----------



## tacoma

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> :lol: Well, aside from you continuing your trend... you also sidestepped the question.


I thought that was part of the trend

:scratchhead:


----------



## jld

Entropy3000 said:


> Very well done.
> 
> For me once my wife would do such a thing she formally broke the marriage. If there was a marriage to continue it would have to be a new marriage. She chose to be autonomous at the point. The fruit of that autonomy is therefore not the responsibility of the old marriage.


Then you're out. You know your limits.


----------



## Entropy3000

EasyPartner said:


> Well, this post kinda proves Ocotillo's paternalism theory applied to this case, doesn't it. Which was very insightful and well written btw.
> 
> I was gonna write something about jld's own Kink thread and the "father/daughter" dynamics in there... and a father forgives his daughter about pretty much everything, right... but I liked Ocotillo's post better.


Indeed. A husband / wife dynamic are very differrent from Father / Daughter.

So indeed I could help raise my Daughters child. But this is a completely different relationship ... for most of us.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> :lol: Well, aside from you continuing your trend... you also sidestepped the question.
> 
> Its not a matter of my limits or ability. It is a matter of choice. If its a matter of "whatever you are able to" or "not every man can" or "limits", then you are not in fact claiming it a "free choice"? Do you understand that?
> 
> So when does your hypothetical man put his foot down? You admire him for raising the first bastard baby. How about the 5th? Please don't sidestep this time. Is the man who "can do this" with 1 a good man, and the man who just keeps on taking the children of his wife's infidelities a Saintly man?


It is hard for me to imagine this happening more than once.


----------



## As'laDain

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've been on both sides.
> 
> I cheated and she wanted me back (boundary wasn't real). I was cheated on by a different woman and I immediately left even though I loved her (boundary was real). It was MUCH harder to do than I ever imagined. But in the end, the boundary was more important to me - it was real.
> 
> The pressure of love vs a boundary is intense... and because of it, some of the boundaries we claim aren't as real as we imagine them to be, and others are.
> 
> Given my experience, I now think of boundaries as things you'll enforce even when your heart really doesn't want to. Cutting off an arm to save the body, if you will. *Recognition of an inability to trust a person again* once they've beached your trust - regardless of still loving them. I can forgive, my anger goes away, but I never forget and will never trust them again. Things will never be the same. So for me, infidelity is a real boundary. I will leave regardless of circumstances.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> :lol: Well, aside from you continuing your trend... you also sidestepped the question.
> 
> *Its not a matter of my limits or ability. It is a matter of choice*. If its a matter of "whatever you are able to" or "not every man can" or "limits", then you are not in fact claiming it a "free choice"? Do you understand that?
> 
> So when does your hypothetical man put his foot down? You admire him for raising the first bastard baby. How about the 5th? Please don't sidestep this time. Is the man who "can do this" with 1 a good man, and the man who just keeps on taking the children of his wife's infidelities a Saintly man?


you seem to be contradicting yourself.


----------



## jld

Faithful Wife said:


> If you guys have read any David Deida, jld's posts would make a lot more sense to you.


My gosh, yes.

He talks about how, if you cannot meet a woman's needs, you need to let her go. It is best for both of you.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Can't speak for everyone else here, but I'm trying to understand. Maybe I need to read jld's "Kink" thread that has been repeatedly referenced by so many here. If there really is a parent/child or, more specifically, a father/daughter dynamic to their marriage, that may tell me just about everything that I need to know.


Oh ... yes you do need to read that thread.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> It is hard for me to imagine this happening more than once.


Actually statistically speaking if it happens once it's very likely to happen again.

Especially if there are no negative consequences to the first infidelity.

AKA "Rugsweeping"


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> It is hard for me to imagine this happening more than once.


Just for clarification... can't imagine a woman having multiple affairs and passing the children off as the children of her husband, all while he has no idea? Or a man accepting children of the affair(s) more than once? Big difference between the two.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> My gosh, yes.
> 
> He talks about how, if you cannot meet a woman's needs, you need to let her go. It is best for both of you.


Does he advise the same considering a mans needs?


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> Actually statistically speaking if it happens once it's very likely to happen again.
> 
> Especially if there are no negative consequences to the first infidelity.
> 
> AKA "Rugsweeping"


You need limits. What are the negative consequences you are thinking of?


----------



## JustSomeGuyWho

Answering the original post, I would have no problem raising a child who wasn't mine as if they were. I love kids and I'm just built that way ... and kids tend to sense that and gravitate towards it. My wife has two friends who are single moms with daughters around my daughters age. They have no consistent father figure in their lives. They are like family and in my house are treated like family. I am very close with my own girls and when they come over, I don't treat them much*differently. In some ways it is a little sad because it is obvious that they crave attention from me because they otherwise don't have that in their lives.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## vellocet

GettingIt said:


> Don't see it? Or don't want to see it?
> 
> Don't see it; but am intensely curious to understand why others who do see it cannot disagree without feeling that they've been insulted.


Well then let me get it directly from JLD for you here:

Anon Pink said in gest: "God knows how delicate a mans ego is!!"

To which JLD replies:


> And that, AP, is the lesson I am taking away from this thread.


That a man who does not want to take care of another man's child has an ego. Forget who is responsible, the wife and the OM, its EGO!!





> There is a pattern--it's called jld!


The pattern is, compassion for wayward wives even if that includes insulting a man who had no hand in the wayward wife's cheating conception of another man's child.


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> Does he advise the same considering a mans needs?


I am not sure, but I would guess so. He is pretty big on accepting the flow of things, I think. Not every relationship is meant to last.

The book is for men. Please consider reading it.

I don't think marriage should be about controlling each other. It is more voluntarily giving each other into one another's keeping.


----------



## GusPolinski

OK. I'm a little further along in the "Kink" thread. More red flags there than in a _freaking red flag factory_. So, having read a bit more, I have the following question...

jld, have you ever, while married to your husband, engaged _in any type_ of sexual intercourse w/ another man? If so, does your husband condone this activity?

Having read what I've read thus far, I'd think that the answer to both of these questions would be "yes". That's really the only way that I can imagine that your husband is able to unequivocally state that you would never cheat, have an affair, etc.


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> If you guys have read any David Deida, jld's posts would make a lot more sense to you.


Just looked him up.

I have read Dieda, a whole two chapters of The Way of the Superior Man.

What Dieda describes as a superior man is from my worldview anything but superior.

Many if us reject that which directly collides with our life experience.
Dieda definitely collides with my life experience


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

tacoma said:


> With all due respect MJA I get tired of hearing this as if it were gospel.
> 
> While I agree boundaries can be malleable they simply are not malleable for many of us or at least certain boundaries are more malleable than others.
> 
> It's always stated that until you've been in the position you cannot know how you would act and that is entirely true but the thing that is always left out is that many have already been in the position and know beyond a shadow of a doubt how it would go down.
> 
> Then there is the point of ethical beliefs and self awareness.
> 
> While I have never been in the position of the cuckold who is expected to adopt his wife's love child I can tell you with certainty I would not even consider it and you could bank on that.
> 
> One reason is simply because I know from my own history of experiences I cannot reconcile a sexual infidelity so it naturally follows I wouldn't be raising anyone's love child.
> 
> Even without the boundary of non-acceptance of infidelity, even if I could reconcile with my wife I could not ever even consider raising her love child.
> In such a case her insistence on keeping the child would result in divorce, not the infidelity itself.
> 
> I know this because I have spent decades making mistakes and building boundaries to keep from repeating those mistakes for my own welfare.
> I know this because I am very self aware and know that accepting a love child would destroy who and what I was.
> I could not be "me" while accepting such a thing and I have a pretty good idea of what I would be if I attempted it.
> It isn't a desireable picture.





You can assume how you will react to any given situation one way and then when it occurs...react differently. 

I have had MANY situations in life that this has happened.

My granddaughter died. If someone had asked me how I would have coped or reacted....I would have given them an answer....but until it really happened to me....i really did not know. While...some of my reactions certainly...did not surprise me....some did. I never realized how I would not only grieve for the loss of my granddaughter...but the disappointment in myself that I could not protect my daughter from this tragedy! I never thought about how horrible i would feel that I as her parent...failed her somehow. It took me YEARS to deal with this. So you see...had you asked me...how would you deal with the death of a grandchild....I could tell you how I thought I would react...but having lived through it...showed me....I really only had the perspective on one who had NEVER really experienced it.


I am not trying to sway you to agree with me. You have your opinion....I have mine. I have lived through infidelity...twice....mine and his. it is unfortunately no longer speculation for me. Thank GOD...i did not have to live through infidelity that produced a "love" child.

JLD..is speculating her reaction....based on her beliefs. But she really has no idea what she might or might not do.


----------



## jld

GusPolinski said:


> OK. I'm a little further along in the "Kink" thread. More red flags there than in a _freaking red flag factory_. So, having read a bit more, I have the following question...
> 
> jld, have you ever, while married to your husband, engaged _in any type_ of sexual intercourse w/ another man? If so, does your husband condone this activity?
> 
> Having read what I've read thus far, I'd think that the answer to both of these questions would be "yes". That's really the only way that I can imagine that your husband is able to unequivocally state that you would never cheat, have an affair, etc.


Absolutely not, Gus.


----------



## TiggyBlue

As'laDain said:


> you seem to be contradicting yourself.


Personally I don't see what dvls contradicting himself, I took it that it's a choice if he wants to stay with someone who has broken their trust.
He may be able stay with them to but after knowing that they've cheated doesn't want to.


----------



## jld

Your husband was unfaithful, MJA?


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> I don't think marriage should be about controlling each other. It is more voluntarily giving each other into one another's keeping.


I agree but marriage is in part about controlling yourself.

What happens when you find yourself tied to a partner who is incapable of doing so?


----------



## EasyPartner

jld said:


> My gosh, yes.
> 
> He talks about how, if you cannot meet a woman's needs, you need to let her go. It is best for both of you.


Did he tell also to take her back? AND her bastard child (not pc i know)?

And if he does, why would her needs be met then?

Just having bit of fun now btw. Academic anyway...


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> Absolutely not, Gus.


OK. Sorry for the implication. 

I actually wouldn't judge or condemn either of you if that had been the case. Marriage means different things to different people. IMO, spouses who engage in extramarital sexual activity with the approval and/or participation of the other spouse aren't cheating, as they're being faithful to each other within the defined parameters of their own marriage.


----------



## Entropy3000

Mrs. John Adams said:


> She and her husband said they are conservatives...I will take them at their word....besides...now we have to get into definitions...and I do not think I even want to go there...lol


Yes but her profile says she is liberal. 

I am not beating on liberals. I am liberal about some things and conservative about others.

But her profile says liberal.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> I am not sure, but I would guess so. He is pretty big on accepting the flow of things, I think. Not every relationship is meant to last.
> 
> The book is for men. Please consider reading it.
> 
> I don't think marriage should be about controlling each other. It is more voluntarily giving each other into one another's keeping.


Just because his audience is men, it doesn't mean women shouldn't read it. Just like with MMSLP and any others mentioned on TAM, I think women SHOULD read the books. JMO... if you are recommending a book, you ought to have AT THE VERY LEAST glanced through it.


----------



## GettingIt_2

vellocet said:


> Well then let me get it directly from JLD for you here:
> 
> Anon Pink said in gest: "God knows how delicate a mans ego is!!"
> 
> To which JLD replies:
> 
> That a man who does not want to take care of another man's child has an ego. Forget who is responsible, the wife and the OM, its EGO!!


But you disagree with this, correct? You believe it does not at all apply to you? And yet you still feel insulted? 




vellocet said:


> The pattern is, compassion for wayward wives even if that includes insulting a man who had no hand in the wayward wife's cheating conception of another man's child.


I don't think she's insulting the husband. She is saying it would, in her mind, be an _extraordinary_ man who could pull it off.


----------



## Faithful Wife

tacoma...I'm not saying I agree with Deida or that anyone should...I'm just saying jld's personal world view is really close to that.


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> I agree but marriage is in part about controlling yourself.
> 
> What happens when you find yourself tied to a partner who is incapable of doing so?


Personally, that would be the wrong man for me. I would move on.

Or maybe one chance? If he seemed truly sorry? Not sure. I need to have absolute trust in a partner for the dynamic to work. And I don't think I could respect him anymore. No respect, no dynamic. Friends at best. Little attraction. Complicated.

And it really would not matter what anyone else thought of it. I know my limits.


----------



## GusPolinski

Entropy3000 said:


> Yes but her profile says she is liberal.
> 
> I am not beating on liberals. I am liberal about some things and conservative about others.
> 
> But her profile says liberal.


IMO attempting to sort or classify people as either liberal or conservative is pretty much futile. Like yourself, I have liberal AND conservative leanings. Honestly, it all depends on the issue. I suspect that this will be the case for many -- if not most -- of us. At the end of the day, I consider myself to be a libertarian. 

Many of my liberal friends would no doubt classify me as a foaming-at-the-mouth, rabid sort of conservative, while my family would likely consider me to be much more of a liberal.

I can also see where someone could be so liberal or so conservative that the lines sort of begin to blur. I think that this is why so many people tend to change their political affiliation at different points in their lives.


----------



## LongWalk

An alternative line of inquiry to jld's: how many BH suspect their wife has or is cheating and furthermore wonder about the paternity of one or more of their children? On TAM this not uncommon. More than one BH has replied that he will not DNA the children because he loves it/them and is unwilling to submit that relationship to a test. Some of these BH are on the way to D, some to R. The relationship with the child is to some large degree autonomous.

There are BH on TAM who are struggling with this to-know-or-not-to-know dilemma. Jld never imagined that she was touching an healed wound.

If I were a BH whose WW had just died giving birth to OM's child, would I give up the child or raise it? Who knows? What if on her death bed WW had begged me to give the child to POSOM or forgive her and raise it as my own? Who knows?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GusPolinski

LongWalk said:


> If I were a BH whose WW had just died giving birth to OM's child, would I give up the child or raise it? Who knows? What if on her death bed WW had begged me to give the child to POSOM or forgive her and raise it as my own? Who knows?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I cannot imagine a scenario more agonizing than this.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> But "Good men don't treat their wives as children," is sufficiently vague and subjective that every man who reads that could say, "Yeah, good thing I don't treat my wife like a child," even if that man is someone who YOU think DOES treat his wife like a child.


Its implied, but it is not so vague when given in direct reply to someone who regularly claims to be the submissive part of a highly paternal relationship.



GettingIt said:


> Similarly, if you believe you are a secure and moral individual, wouldn't you read the statement, "My husband is a secure and moral man because he would raise my affair child," and say, "Good for him. _This_ secure and moral man would not." Or, "Maybe if I was married to you, I could, too, but I'm not married to you, I'm married to a woman who I could and would NOT do that for." There are various ways to respond that don't include feeling judged.


Absolute not. Stating "my husband is secure and moral man BECAUSE" necessarily means what follows are attributes specific to secure and moral men. This is precisely what I object to: that she declares these things as elements of a man's security and morality. They are not. The last thing I feel is insecure. I think the man who accepts the affair child lacks self-respect. I could respond a billion ways, including ignoring her, but I am not unreasonable in my view that her statements are insulting and I choose to call her out on them.

She's continued to respond in this manner without the least modification in spite of many people relating its condescending and insulting flavor to her, leaving me only to believe that her intent is to insult.



GettingIt said:


> I've often seen it phrased that those who adopt are extraordinary in some ways--generosity of heart, etc, etc. People who adopt at risk or kids with challenges are often highlighted in the local paper and lauded for their actions. I don't feel judged by that because I chose not to adopt.


Note the positive connotation - he's extremely generous to adopt such a needy child. It is lauded as an above and beyond action, not simply living up to moral obligation - which is jld's position on the affair child. There is nothing to live up to when faced with an affair child. I take no issue with the positive characterization of the adoption. However, nobody says he adopts because "he can handle it". Or criticizes the pride and security of those who don't adopt as being unable to live up to the obligation. Note the negative connotation.

For someone who always seeks to understand, she listens little. Else she would alter her delivery rather than continue the same ol same ol.... "It's okay DA8, we all have limits". Here in the southern US, we have an equivalent saying with this same connotation: "Oh, bless your heart."

It is plainly and purposefully insulting.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> Thanks for your concern, tacoma, for both dh and me.
> 
> He is not naturally affectionate, and I do indeed ask for attention. He is working on it, but will never be a natural at it.


Well clearly he is insecure about physical demonstrations of affection.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> We are monogamous, tacoma. And a large part of how we feel about the topic of this thread is probably due to our already being parents and our Catholic upbringing.
> 
> I don't know how many people are familiar with Catholic social teaching, but my guess is that you could find what we are saying there. Protection of the most vulnerable.


Ah. Thank you. Yes. 

My Catholic upbringing. I do have this weird kink for women in short plaid skirts. -- check

Many of my positive values come from that upbringing.
However I found many of these type of things to be less than healthy as well. My family wanted a priest. So they got a spiritual warrior instead. 

However, I give some credit to my upbringing for putting myself in harms way. Good and bad. But one should never cheapen their value. Make the cause a worthy one. 

"... always ready to defend those who are unable to defend themselves." -- Excerpt from US Navy SEAL creed.


----------



## larry.gray

jld said:


> I hear your perspective. I hear that men don't want to raise the affair child. And they do not have to.


Three states still state that they have to. Less than a decade ago it was 47 states.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

larry.gray said:


> Three states still state that they have to. Less than a decade ago it was 47 states.


WHA??!!! For real? That is the biggest load of BS ever. omg that's infuriating. 

Which states??


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its implied, but it is not so vague when given in direct reply to someone who regularly claims to be the submissive part of a highly paternal relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute not. Stating "my husband is secure and moral man BECAUSE" necessarily means what follows are attributes specific to secure and moral men. This is precisely what I object to: that she declares these things as elements of a man's security and morality. They are not. The last thing I feel is insecure. I think the man who accepts the affair child lacks self-respect. I could respond a billion ways, including ignoring her, but I am not unreasonable in my view that her statements are insulting and I choose to call her out on them.
> 
> She's continued to respond in this manner without the least modification in spite of many people relating its condescending and insulting flavor to her, leaving me only to believe that her intent is to insult.
> 
> 
> 
> Note the positive connotation - he's extremely generous to adopt such a needy child. It is lauded as an above and beyond action, not living up to moral obligation - which is jld's position. I take no issue with the positive characterization. However, nobody says he adopts because "he can handle it". Or criticizes the pride and security of those who don't adopt as being unable to live up to the obligation. Note the negative connotation.
> 
> For someone who always seeks to understand, she listens little. Else she would alter her delivery rather than continue the same ol same ol.... "It's okay DA8, we all have limits". Here in the southern US, we have an equivalent saying with this same connotation: "Oh, bless your heart."
> 
> It is plainly and purposefully insulting.


Well, thanks for your efforts to explain, Dvls. I see how your opinion of a man who could accept the affair child is different from jld's--that isn't what I struggle with. It's why you are insulted by her view that I still don't understand. 

Guess I'll just have to continue to seek . . .


----------



## ocotillo

GettingIt,




GettingIt said:


> . . . why does everyone then make the leap to feeling that she then thinks a man who would choose not to do so is "less than?"


Because the standard was being applied to other men. Even a Christian Saint fell down a peg in this discussion, 




GettingIt said:


> Easier said than done, I guess. But _why_ that is so still has not be answered for me. I just don't see the interrogative fallacy that everyone else does, I guess. GettingIt is not getting it today.


When one has to go back and point out that the starting premises behind a question aren't necessarily accurate, then it's a fair bet that this fallacy has occurred. This is an incredibly easy thing to do and I'm not saying this because I think jld was being disingenuous or mean. She's just speaking from her own situation. 

In this thread, it was simply assumed that a husband has not just a general, but a special obligation to see to the best interests of the illegitimate offspring of his wife's affair. Failure to meet our moral obligations is by direct corollary, a deficiency and people got upset.


----------



## Entropy3000

larry.gray said:


> When I first saw JLD's posts, I made the presumption of a lower intelligence. It was the naive, bumbling nature of her posts that led me to think that. Then I see this _very targeted_ comeback in a 2 minute span. She's not lacking in intelligence at all, it is all an act.
> 
> We're being played folks. Some parts of this may be real and some may be not. But 'she' knows exactly what she's doing here.


Yes sir. I hope I have been consistent with this. In no way have I ever inferred anything negative about her intelligence. I think some others see her as naive and good hearted and so on. I only challenge the naivete.


----------



## As'laDain

TiggyBlue said:


> Personally I don't see what dvls contradicting himself, I took it that it's a choice if he wants to stay with someone who has broken their trust.
> He may be able stay with them to but after knowing that they've cheated doesn't want to.


its his choice to leave* because *he would not be able to trust again. so, if he were able to trust again, he might not choose to leave?

but then he takes offense at the idea that it is a matter of ability. 

kinda like "how dare you say i dont have the ability! its my CHOICE because i CHOOSE to recognize that i dont have the ability!"


looked contradictory to me.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> That is interesting. Why do you think either partner would want to accept this? In America, in 2014?


Why do you think a man would want to be publically humiliated...in America...int 2014?

Cause let's be frank here: there are a LOT of single women out there who would be much better for him emotionally. However 'strong' and 'mature' he is, the constant press of public ridicule will wear.

He has a better chance with a DIVORCED woman with a little bastard baby than this married woman who...in your eyes, has no desire to stay if she has to pay ANY price at all. Because that divorced woman now knows the price of her actions...which this entitled princess you describe does not.



> I can imagine this in some other countries, though. And yes, I think I would do it for the sake of my child. The man, though, would certainly not be some kind of hero in my eyes. He would better than the guy who would simply turn me out of doors. Or the one that would immediately have me stoned. But not a lot better.


Absolute straw man. I should not bother wasting my time answering it, but for the benefit of our viewing audience I shall.

WHY should he trust this woman? She lied already. She betrayed him already. And she had the gall to ask him to make sacrifices which pretty much every single person here says is WAY to much to demand. Men and Women. The ONLY person in your corner is your husband...and he can say what he wants IN PRINCIPLE. Bring a red headed child home and see what he really does.



> Can you not imagine a man who, when he finds all this out, and gets over his initial anger, sits down rationally and contemplates the whole thing? And knows that he still loves his wife very much, and knows that she is sorry?


How does he know? He can't. All he knows is the last time he TRUSTED her, the last time he had faith in her BOUNDARIES and believe in her MORALS...she pretty much blew every one.

So even if she had some Saul of Tarsus moment, big deal! He has to act to history. Cause there is a word for someone who continues to believe in a person who constantly fails you. It starts with S but it isn't followed by 'aint'. It's followed by 'ap'.




> Can you not imagine that he would think about how to put the whole thing back together, not to what it was, because that is shattered, but to a new reality? And that part of that new reality is that a new life is coming into their family?
> 
> Can you imagine anything other than anger and embarrassment and betrayal and thoughts of revenge?


Of course he feels betrayed. He was betrayed! Of course he is embarrassed! He is carrying a baby carrier of a 5 month old when he just got back from a year deployment 6 months ago.

And IF this man took in this baby...he is behaving FAR more manly, justly and objectively than he should...even if he treats her like garbage.

But here is the thing: He is NOT treating her like garbage. He is treating her like the person she is.

People who lie and cheat and steal get put in jail. They lose friends and family members. This isn't hate. It is self defense by the WRONGED.

So, if Suzy Homewrecker is suddenly asked 'where are you going', this is NOT abuse. If she says 'I want to go to Mitchell's for dinner' but Mitchell's is where hubby caught her with her boytoy, his refusal is NOT abuse. If he wants to turn on 'find a phone' on her iPhone with al passwords...this is not abuse.

If the family members who used to adore her look at her with the expression of waiting for the other shoe to drop...why shouldn't they? She has shown that she is very willing to hurt them. 

Because here is the thing you refuse to admit: this request WILL hurt her family (hubby and kids) no matter how 'secure' they are. I've outlined half a dozen ways. And SHE chose this. SHE chose to hurt them.

So...yeah, I'd be waiting for her to do it again.

You can't be this clueless and insensitive.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

As'laDain said:


> you seem to be contradicting yourself.


Besides those being two separate discussions, there is no contradiction. I would never trust someone after they have beached my trust in such a major way. Whether this is choice or not is meta-discussion that I think is irrelevant, given the nature of trust is entirely different from the nature of what jld is pushing.

I AM capable of raising more than 10 kids from affair partners or random children from some poor country if I wanted to. I don't want to and I'm damn sure not morally obligated to. My doing so or not doing so has no bearing on my ability or moral standing. This is what I object to in her posts.


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> tacoma...I'm not saying I agree with Deida or that anyone should...I'm just saying jld's personal world view is really close to that.


Understood FW.

I reject Deida because I believe his worldview is unhealthy and actually dangerous within the culture we find ourselves in.

I also want to make it clear I have no ethical problem with jld's lifestyle or relationship structure on a personal level.
To each their own.

I do have some concerns that it puts her in a very insecure position which I believe is evidenced by the trouble she's having in her marriage.

My complaint about jlds is the subtle superiority she exudes through belittling others within her posting style.

Many here believe this to be intentional and I can see their point but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt although it is not easy when most direct questioning of her POV is ignored and or glossed over throughout this thread.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> I know my limits.


As does everyone else on this thread. But what we are wondering is WHY would someone be immature if they don't live up to your expectations? Yes, we all know that your husband is not like that. But we want to know why other men, who are NOT your husband, who are secure in who they are and what they feel, would be insecure and immature because their boundaries are different. You keep saying that it doesn't matter to you how they feel, but I think it does. If it didn't, you wouldn't stress it so much. Do you understand, now? You deal in absolutes (I've heard of that in a movie, once....). But not everything IS absolute. And, it appears you have been dismissive of what others feel about the subject... sort of "Well, I guess it's ok that you feel that way, but you really ought to be striving to be like my husband." No, they shouldn't. They should strive to be the men they were created to be... which is what they are doing.


----------



## larry.gray

ScarletBegonias said:


> WHA??!!! For real? That is the biggest load of BS ever. omg that's infuriating.
> 
> Which states??


I need to dig further on this.

Prior to 2002, nearly every state had no out for a cuckolded man. He was legally stuck. In 2002 the UPA (universal parantage act) was modified to allow contesting the husband's presumed paternity. 19 states copy the UPA. 

Here is a list of the state laws. http://gv70.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/left_out_paternity_presumption_state.pdf

It would take some digging to know what the blanks mean...


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> I don't think marriage should be about controlling each other.


Funny you should say that. Because a wife that commits paternity fraud is doing just that to her husband.


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> Personally, that would be the wrong man for me. I would move on.
> 
> Or maybe one chance? If he seemed truly sorry? Not sure. I need to have absolute trust in a partner for the dynamic to work. And I don't think I could respect him anymore. No respect, no dynamic. Friends at best. Little attraction. Complicated.
> 
> And it really would not matter what anyone else thought of it. I know my limits.


Perfectly understandable and I agree with your either of your possible reactions.

However I have to point out that it doesn't mesh with your earlier statement that the correct course of action for a man who has been betrayed would be to stay with his wife and raise their love child and your implication that a man who does not is "prideful" or "insecure".

In fact it's a direct contradiction if one is considering that a man has equal rights within a relationship.

Since you do have this contradiction in your point of view I can only conclude that you don't believe a man has equitable rights within the relationship.

Is this so, why not?


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Catholic social justice teaching is _all about _ protection of the most vulnerable.


I agree with this statement.

I grew up feeling responsible for starving children and the problems of the world. 

Did this F up my head. Oh hell yes. 

In my Sophomore year at St. Joseph's H.S. I did a paper on comparative religions. One of the best things I have ever done frankly. I made some conclusions and it changed my life.

Sister Mary Oblivious gave me an F.

I went to my school counselor because this was going to impact my grades unfairly IMO. He read the paper. Told me I had uncommon insights especially for my age on the topic and gave me an A+. Even told me I had way more understanding of some of the subjects than some of the teachers. He did not molest me. Just want to add that.

So I have no doubt that those attending Our Lady Of Bleeding Agony in the next town had some similar guidance.

But again, I still have some fondness for many Catholics. Maybe because once they get in your head they never leave. Welcome to Hotel Catholic.
I do have an affintity for ritual.

My upbringing : mea culpa

But I live by the greek phrase now : Ή τάν ή επί τάς


----------



## As'laDain

tacoma said:


> Perfectly understandable and I agree with your either of your possible reactions.
> 
> However I have to point out that it doesn't mesh with your earlier *statement that the correct course of action for a man who has been betrayed would be to stay with his wife and raise their love child* and your implication that a man who does not is "prideful" or "insecure".
> 
> In fact it's a direct contradiction if one is considering that a man has equal rights within a relationship.
> 
> Since you do have this contradiction in your point of view I can only conclude that you don't believe a man has equitable rights within the relationship.
> 
> Is this so, if not why not?



i keep looking for this statement. i think im missing it... where is it?


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> I cannot imagine a scenario more agonizing than this.


While it would be horrendously painful I wouldn't agonize over the decision.

If my wife on her deathbed begged me to care for her love child it would be no different to me than if she were begging me in full health.

Being on her deathbed while emotionally traumatic does not make the request any more valid than it would be otherwise.


----------



## ocotillo

Entropy3000 said:


> But I live by the greek phrase now : Ή τάν ή επί τάς


Let's hear it for Plutarch!


----------



## GettingIt_2

ocotillo said:


> Because the standard was being applied to other men.


Again, not trying to be obtuse, but I didn't see that happening.



ocotillo said:


> When one has to go back and point out that the starting premises behind a question aren't necessarily accurate, then it's a fair bet that this fallacy has occurred. This is an incredibly easy thing to do and I'm not saying this because I think jld was being disingenuous or mean. She's just speaking from her own situation.


Is it possible that there is only a perceived fallacy? 



ocotillo said:


> In this thread, it was simply assumed that a husband has not just a general, but a special obligation to see to the best interests of the illegitimate offspring of his wife's affair. Failure to meet our moral obligations is by direct corollary, a deficiency and people got upset.


Again, I just didn't see this "specific obligation" being laid out. Nor do I see why so many people see the corollary to mention. 

I think what I see is . . . people seeing what they want to see. 

But I'll keep looking!


----------



## john117

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I am basing my opinion on what they stated here...I do not go to the Political section much..you may have much more insight than I do.
> 
> 
> 
> He is FRENCH...very few FRENCH people are conservative (she said having just gotten back from St. Martin...the FRENCH side) lol



Stereotype alert!!!


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Tacoma, how much control do you think anyone really has in a marriage, any marriage? It is _all about_ trust.


Marriage is NOT about trust. At least not in my book.

It is about love and respect. Trust is a by product.


----------



## vellocet

GettingIt said:


> But you disagree with this, correct? You believe it does not at all apply to you? And yet you still feel insulted?


Yes, I do. Because if I had found out at birth my child wasn't mine, I'd be gone.

And one not need to be in a direct situation to feel insulted.

Its insulting to men in general. It ignores the unscrupulous cheating wife and puts the responsibility on the man that had nothing to do with the situation.





> I don't think she's insulting the husband. She is saying it would, in her mind, be an _extraordinary_ man who could pull it off.


Then she should have left out that it is "ego" that would have a man leave his cheating wife and child, or not implied a man that does this is "less selfish", meaning the man that does is more selfish, or saying that the man needs to put away his pride for the sake of a child that isn't his.

Notice in all of that she ignores the actions of the wife since she is sympathetic to wayward wives.

She isn't just saying its extraordinary that a man can love another man's child. She is also saying, in so many words, "egotistical, selfish, immature man won't put away his pride and raise the child of another man"


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Entropy3000 said:


> Yes but her profile says she is liberal.
> 
> I am not beating on liberals. I am liberal about some things and conservative about others.
> 
> But her profile says liberal.


Ok...dug said he is conservative...either way makes no difference to me. People are people.

But thank you for correcting me.


----------



## JCD

Duguesclin said:


> I am just puzzled why anyone's manhood is so threatened.


You are characterizing it as 'a threatened manhood.' You want to diminish those who disagree with you.

Instead, the majority feels that the relationship is a contract. You GIVE things and you GET things....like respect. Like someone caring about your reputation, your feelings and your resources.

The woman described has specifically taken actions to harm all three of these things. So to question her 'love', or even on a more basic level, her suitability as a mate is not a 'threatened manhood.' It is someone actually asking RATIONAL questions about the actions of this sudden stranger.

So no, your strawman distortions won't work. See...I am secure in my manhood. She is having trouble defending her opinion because it is so totally contradictory.

If she loved him so deeply, she would not do this to him. She did this to him. And it is not a ONS. It is several actions in a row.

So it isn't MY cognitive dissonance you need to worry about.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> France.


That explains everything. Who doesn't cheat there?

And to show anger and disappointment would be to lose sang froid...which is to be avoided at all costs.

Much easier to suck it up and pay for the little bastard and go find your own diversion. Maybe Babette is free...


----------



## ScarletBegonias

This discussion really isn't any different than the ones about people's sexual number and what matters to them. 

Some people insist they wouldn't touch a person with a high number of partners and others insist it doesn't matter to them.Both sides present their arguments.

100 pages later neither side of that fence is any closer to convincing the other side of how wrong they are or how condescending they're being


----------



## GusPolinski

Oh sh*t. The Honey Badger is back. 100+ pages inc!


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

john117 said:


> Stereotype alert!!!


Uh oh...busted! Lol


----------



## As'laDain

JCD said:


> You are characterizing it as 'a threatened manhood.' You want to diminish those who disagree with you.
> 
> Instead, the majority feels that the relationship is a contract. You GIVE things and you GET things....like respect. Like someone caring about your reputation, your feelings and your resources.
> 
> The woman described has specifically taken actions to harm all three of these things. So to question her 'love', or even on a more basic level, her suitability as a mate is not a 'threatened manhood.' It is someone actually asking RATIONAL questions about the actions of this sudden stranger.
> 
> So no, your strawman distortions won't work. See...I am secure in my manhood. She is having trouble defending her opinion because it is so totally contradictory.
> 
> *If she loved him so deeply, she would not do this to him. She did this to him. And it is not a ONS. It is several actions in a row.*
> 
> So it isn't MY cognitive dissonance you need to worry about.


who did what to who?


----------



## vellocet

Duguesclin said:


> I am just puzzled why anyone's manhood is so threatened.


Nobody can threaten my manhood. I'm more of a man than the OM that would have impregnated my (hypothetical) wife, or more of a man than this cheating woman is a woman, because she isn't.

There is a difference between feeling threatened, and insulted. Especially by someone who borderlines misandry. I simply call that kind of bullcrap out.


----------



## ocotillo

GettingIt said:


> Is it possible that there is only a perceived fallacy?


I would say, "No." Interrogative fallacies evaporate into thin air when the assumption is rephrased as a question and answered properly. 

In this case, a concrete explanation of why a husband would be obligated to see to the best interests of the offspring of his wife's affair is all it would take.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

As'laDain said:


> its his choice to leave* because *he would not be able to trust again. so, if he were able to trust again, he might not choose to leave?
> 
> but then he takes offense at the idea that it is a matter of ability.
> 
> kinda like "how dare you say i dont have the ability! its my CHOICE because i CHOOSE to recognize that i dont have the ability!"
> 
> 
> looked contradictory to me.


You're talking to entirely different subjects and claiming I'm being contradictory?

Subject 1 - I would not trust someone after an affair. Whether you consider this choice or ability is irrelevant to subject 2. I wouldn't trust them even if I wanted to.

Subject 2 - I have the ability to raise the child. I don't want to and have no moral obligation to, so I won't. Its not a matter of what I can handle or being a good person. That JLD implies they are, is insulting. Just as my saying she chose the relationship she has because she is incapable of making her own decisions would be insulting. Bottom line, the child is the STBXW and OMs obligation and the price of their actions. Placing any obligation on the husband is a gross injustice.


----------



## Entropy3000

But did you bang his wife and make her pregnant?

Context matters.


----------



## JCD

Duguesclin said:


> If his wife is truly sorry and he believes she is sincere, he should take her back.
> 
> Now if he does not believe her, he may have different considerations. But he has still the power of saving the child's life. His decision should be based on the best interest of his wife, future child and himself. He should work hard to get his pride out of the way.


My father had an automechanic. He had a classic Mercedes Benz he wanted restored. 

He gave the man thousands of dollars to find the parts and do the work. To get a new engine.

The mechanic stole the money and spent it on other things. Being a Christian man (much more traditional than yourself), he forgave this man. He was going through a rough patch in life. 

There was no hate involved. 

Should my father have 'put his pride aside' and given this man thousands of more dollars?

Because you are asking the Betrayed Husband to have faith in someone who proved themselves faithless.

And between her parents, the government, the other man, and her own two hard working hands, the baby will be fine.

This isn't 16th Century France where babies were left in garbage pits to die and the 'work houses' are a thing of the past.

Single mothers survive. Their children survive. 

This is moral blackmail. Don't do this again.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> For some reason, what I admire in a man has become a bar for other people to meet . . . In their own minds.
> 
> And instead of saying, oh, jld and I see this differently, they say, no, jld must see that her bar is wrong. We need to show her, _and force her to accept_, the correct setting of the bar.
> 
> This is a hypothetical question. Not anyone's actual current situation. Everybody can think what they want.
> 
> And nobody needs my approval.


I do not need your approval.


----------



## As'laDain

JCD said:


> My father had an automechanic. He had a classic Mercedes Benz he wanted restored.
> 
> He gave the man thousands of dollars to find the parts and do the work. To get a new engine.
> 
> The mechanic stole the money and spent it on other things. Being a Christian man (much more traditional than yourself), he forgave this man. He was going through a rough patch in life.
> 
> There was no hate involved.
> 
> Should my father have 'put his pride aside' and given this man thousands of more dollars?
> 
> Because you are asking the Betrayed Husband to have faith in someone who proved themselves faithless.
> 
> And between her parents, the government, the other man, and her own two hard working hands, the baby will be fine.
> 
> This isn't 16th Century France where babies were left in garbage pits to die and the 'work houses' are a thing of the past.
> 
> Single mothers survive. Their children survive.
> 
> This is moral blackmail. Don't do this again.


im calling BS on pretty much all of this.

so, first you accuse him of asking a betrayed spouse to have faith in someone who is faithless, even though he already set the condition "if they are truely sorry and he believes she is sincere". in that case, your not having faith in someone faithless. your having faith in someone who made a mistake. 

then you insult him based on his nationality and accuse him of moral blackmail? dont do this again?
hell, id like to know where he did it the first time.


----------



## GettingIt_2

ocotillo said:


> I would say, "No." Interrogative fallacies evaporate into thin air when the assumption is rephrased as a question and answered properly.


But SOMEONE has to find the alleged assumption and rephrase it--and that is a wholly subjective endeavor, is it not? After all, language is very subjective--rather the assignment of meaning to language is subjective. 



ocotillo said:


> In this case, a concrete explanation of why a husband would be obligated to see to the best interests of the offspring of his wife's affair is all it would take.


But jld has said many, many times that no man has that obligation. It's a choice. He can feel about that choice--and the choices of others-- as he sees fit.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said:


> I do not need your approval.


And jld doesn't need yours to post whatever she wants.


----------



## Omego

GettingIt said:


> I've run across people who do this, too Omega (I do not sort jld into the same category at all, though, btw.)
> 
> 
> Next time your mom goes on and on in that fashion, just hear her out and then say, "Huh. Interesting. " Then change the subject.


I'm Omego ( not Omega -- I think there is another poster with that username). 

Been done a long time ago. I don't mention anything other than neutral subjects.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> Something about me scares them.
> 
> And instead of acknowledging that, and asking themselves why, they become aggressive.
> 
> They simply must have my submission to be able to feel reassured.


No, you are being incredibly self centered in the way you view things.

I specifically tried to box you in on 'what would the woman sacrifice for her child.' You are pretty clear on what the MAN has to sacrifice: pride, time, resources, public image, a spine.

At first, you tried your passive aggressive: I will gleefully allow myself to be scourged by Gandhi.

But when pressed, that humans might be angry, might be doubtful, might not trust...well, this is TOO much! I am practically trying to stone you to wonder if you might go out and spread your legs again. I am practically beating you by being angry and upset at this situation YOU FORCED ME INTO.

I am not allowed to be angry. I am not allowed to hurt. I am not allowed to wonder at your fidelity. Any such response is 'pride' or 'threatened manhood'.

This is a despotic assumption of power in the relationship, be it by force of will or moral blackmail. And since I view marriage as a partnership, having a partner dictate such terms to me would be anathema.

But you keep on keeping on. You are WAY above my caveman sense of ethics. Purer. You eat vegetables. Badgers eat meat.

We like it that way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

As'laDain said:


> im calling BS on pretty much all of this.
> 
> so, first you accuse him of asking a betrayed spouse to have faith in someone who is faithless, even though he already set the condition "if they are truely sorry and he believes she is sincere". in that case, your not having faith in someone faithless. your having faith in someone who made a mistake.
> 
> then you insult him based on his nationality and accuse him of moral blackmail? dont do this again?
> hell, id like to know where he did it the first time.


I'd just like to point out there's no insult on nationality. Its simply a reference to the discarding of children in the distant past.

The moral blackmail is that the husband has a moral obligation to this child's needs because his/her parents suck. As JLD put it, its "all about the child". No, its not. The husband is not a slave to the irresponsible actions of his wife and some random man.


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> And jld doesn't need yours to post whatever she wants.


Nope, but at times she flirts close to getting banned. She skirted extremely close when she was vegan spamming.


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> Well then let me get it directly from JLD for you here:
> 
> Anon Pink said in gest: "God knows how delicate a mans ego is!!"
> 
> To which JLD replies:
> 
> That a man who does not want to take care of another man's child has an ego. Forget who is responsible, the wife and the OM, its EGO!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pattern is, compassion for wayward wives even if that includes insulting a man who had no hand in the wayward wife's cheating conception of another man's child.


I'm just catching up so forgive if this has already been pointed out.

The "man's ego" comment was based not on any particular mans response to this scenario within his own home, but to the group think, the need that all men be in agreement on how to deal with this and if a man isn't in agreement...it's like he makes everyone else look bad or something.

For instance, totally different scenario, but the way a lot of women used to put down Martha Stewart. She created a standard that some women emulated while others wanted no part of. Those who wanted no part of it ridiculed her and the home made arts and crafts stuff she stood for.

That's what I see happening in this thread.

Ego driven ridicule for a standard that isn't really possible for the VAST majority of men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

larry...that's her choice, too.

I just don't get the point of some posters telling her to "stop", "take it back", "recant this!", or anything like that....she can say what she wants.


----------



## vellocet

Duguesclin said:


> If his wife is truly sorry and he believes she is sincere, he should take her back.


No, he SHOULDN'T take her back. He can and that would be his choice. But he should not just because she behaves a certain way after the fact.

I could possibly believe a woman to be sincere that she is sorry after cheating on me. I could even possibly forgive her.

But I wouldn't be happy staying with her after that.




> Now if he does not believe her, he may have different considerations. But he has still the power of saving the child's life. His decision should be based on the best interest of his wife, future child and himself. He should work hard to get his pride out of the way.


Wrong, his decision should be based on himself. The responsibility of the best interest of the child resides with the cheating wife and the OM.

As I've said before, if I found out after all these years of bonding and love that my kids are not mine, I would not abandon them. They are my kids, end of story.

But I also said that if I had found out at birth that the child isn't mine, then my decision is to leave. I feel sorry for the child in that case, but that is the **** wife and OM's responsibility.


----------



## As'laDain

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *I'd just like to point out there's no insult on nationality. Its simply a reference to the discarding of children in the distant past.*
> 
> The moral blackmail is that the husband has a moral obligation to this child's needs because his/her parents suck. As JLD put it, its "all about the child". No, its not. The husband is not a slave to the irresponsible actions of his wife and some random man.


true.

i disagree with the second part of your post though(sort of). telling Dug not to do it again is implying that he did it to begin with. 

ETA: the moral obligation part, well, i dont see any need to aply jlds views to my own life, so i guess its not an issue to me.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> Not quite... I believe that fear is often:-
> 
> *F*alse
> *E*vidence
> *A*ppearing
> *R*eal
> 
> Whereas a trigger is something that sets off a memory tape or flashback transporting the person back to a trauma that has been previously experienced.
> 
> What's happening here, IMO, is that your posts are triggering people who have been_ badly _hurt...


I am not a betrayed spouse.

There are no triggers for me here. 

Her posts are self serving, one way, and contradictory. Pointing this out is not incorrect. It is showing up some sloppy thinking.

She is asserting that this woman loves her family, wants the best for them, respects and is transparent for them, has good boundaries (after the mistake of the affair)...but she INSISTS on bringing this baby home to sh*t test her husband to see if he is 'secure' enough a man for her.

HIS pain is worth it because it makes HIM grow.

Is she willing to put up with any pain or even discomfort? :rofl::rofl:


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> Have you ever heard the line, "It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong."


Oh, very subtle.....again


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> Oh, very subtle.....again


That was not a personal dig to you vello. You aren't being cruel so it doesn't even apply to you.


----------



## As'laDain

vellocet said:


> Oh, very subtle.....again


are you trying to imply that she is passively insulting you? 

because if you are, its a pretty passive way to insult someone...


----------



## vellocet

jld said:


> For some reason, what I admire in a man has become a bar for other people to meet . . . In their own minds.
> 
> And instead of saying, oh, jld and I see this differently, they say, no, jld must see that her bar is wrong. We need to show her, _and force her to accept_, the correct setting of the bar.


We don't need you to correct anything. But at the same time your contempt for men, while on your quest to sympathize with and protect cheating women, is despicable. 

I agree, and I would be the same way with my kids if I found out they weren't mine, that a man that can love a child that isn't his truly has love in his heart. But that doesn't mean that a man that won't be responsible for another man's child is incapable of the same kind of love....say, towards another woman's child that wasn't conceived out of an affair.

But you took it in the other direction and decided to sh!t on betrayed men that will not put up with what was done to them.

You did it, you know you did it, don't play dumb. As I've found in other threads, you are sympathetic, specifically, to wayward women, and you simply took it a step further here.
Hey, believe what you want to believe. If you want to be a misandrist, that is your choice. And you don't need my approval.


----------



## As'laDain

JCD said:


> I am not a betrayed spouse.
> 
> There are no triggers for me here.
> 
> Her posts are self serving, one way, and contradictory. Pointing this out is not incorrect. It is showing up some sloppy thinking.
> 
> She is asserting that this woman loves her family, wants the best for them, respects and is transparent for them, has good boundaries (after the mistake of the affair)...but she INSISTS on bringing this baby home to sh*t test her husband to see if he is 'secure' enough a man for her.
> 
> HIS pain is worth it because it makes HIM grow.
> 
> Is she willing to put up with any pain or even discomfort? :rofl::rofl:


it seems to me your posts are meant to attack her character.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> That was not a personal dig to you vello. You aren't being cruel so it doesn't even apply to you.


It wasn't a personal dig, but a dig just the same. 

Man who doesn't want to be responsible for another man's child = weak, therefore cruel.


----------



## vellocet

As'laDain said:


> are you trying to imply that she is passively insulting you?


Nope, but passively insulting men who do not want to stay with a wife that cheated on them and take care of another man's child.


----------



## As'laDain

vellocet said:


> We don't need you to correct anything. But at the same time your contempt for men, while on your quest to sympathize with and protect cheating women, is despicable.
> projection
> 
> I agree, and I would be the same way with my kids if I found out they weren't mine, that a man that can love a child that isn't his truly has love in his heart. But that doesn't mean that a man that won't be responsible for another man's child is incapable of the same kind of love....say, towards another woman's child that wasn't conceived out of an affair.
> 
> But you took it in the other direction and decided to sh!t on betrayed men that will not put up with what was done to themyour own assertions. false accusation.
> 
> You did it, you know you did it, don't play dumb.
> false accusation
> As I've found in other threads, you are sympathetic, specifically, to wayward women, and you simply took it a step further here.
> Hey, believe what you want to believe. If you want to be a misandrist(insult), that is your choice. And you don't need my approval.


what was your purpose for posting this?

it seemed to me that you just want to insult her and punish her for her own thoughts and opinions.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> I hear your perspective. I hear that men don't want to raise the affair child. And they do not have to.


Here. Let's make it easy.

1) I think men who raise their wives' bastard children are better than men that don't.

2) While I believe it would be better to look after the child, I understand and respect the choices of men who do NOT do this. This is a function of the wives' bad choices and not their lack of character.

Just give me a quote and one number.

But this is a simple declarative sentence. Sunlight disinfects...and burns vampires. Why these two things seemed to come to mind, I am not sure.

Probably because I am scared.


----------



## Anon Pink

vellocet said:


> It wasn't a personal dig, but a dig just the same.
> 
> Man who doesn't want to be responsible for another man's child = weak, therefore cruel.


Do you disagree with the sentiment? Or do you disagree with the sentiment being applied to this scenario?

"It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong."

I completely agree with this! I also admit that I am weak which is why I get triggered to angry responses so easily.


----------



## GettingIt_2

JCD said:


> Here. Let's make it easy.
> 
> 1) I think men who raise their wives' bastard children are better than men that don't.
> 
> 2) While I believe it would be better to look after the child, I understand and respect the choices of men who do NOT do this. This is a function of the wives' bad choices and not their lack of character.
> 
> Just give me a quote and one number.
> 
> But this is a simple declarative sentence. Sunlight disinfects...and burns vampires. Why these two things seemed to come to mind, I am not sure.
> 
> Probably because I am scared.


Your funniest post of this thread. :rofl:

My apologies if you don't feel like laughing . . . .


----------



## Anon Pink

JCD said:


> Here. Let's make it easy.
> 
> 1) I think men who raise their wives' bastard children are better than men that don't.
> 
> 2) While I believe it would be better to look after the child, I understand and respect the choices of men who do NOT do this. This is a function of the wives' bad choices and not their lack of character.
> 
> Just give me a quote and one number.
> 
> But this is a simple declarative sentence. Sunlight disinfects...and burns vampires. Why these two things seemed to come to mind, I am not sure.
> 
> Probably because I am scared.


Can I answer? Tough cause I am anyway.

I pick #1.


----------



## vellocet

As'laDain said:


> what was your purpose for posting this?


responding to her assertion that all we want her to do is see our side of it. Its not. Its her insult to men that do not want to take care of another man's child. That's neither projection or a false accusation. 



> it seemed to me that you just want to insult her and punish her for her own thoughts and opinions.


She could have said that she commends a man for taking care of a child that isn't his. Hell, I'd do that if I found out my kids aren't mine after all these years.

But she didn't simply do that. She attributed such characteristics as selfishness, prideful, egotistical, immature, and weak to those men that won't put up with the deception and responsibility of another man.

But since you are so big on insults, maybe you should start with the original offender. Oh wait, you won't do that because somehow you don't see it.

Funny, too many other people in this thread see what you can't.


----------



## vellocet

Anon Pink said:


> Do you disagree with the sentiment? Or do you disagree with the sentiment being applied to this scenario?


The latter. A man who doesn't want to take care of another man's child is not weak. 



> "It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong."
> 
> I completely agree with this! I also admit that I am weak which is why I get triggered to angry responses so easily.


I agree with that sentiment in general. But this is about men being deceived into raising another man's child. So I am putting in context.

She knows what she is doing by posting things the way she does.


----------



## As'laDain

Anon Pink said:


> Can I answer? Tough cause I am anyway.
> 
> I pick #1.


i pick #82

'MERICA!!!


----------



## ConanHub

I have already posted what my response to this scenario would be but here is another spin, possibly on some males psyche.

I have a revulsion for cheaters that borders on the primal. Intellectually, I can move past the transgression and realize that people can change, but on a visceral level, I am never fully at ease with them.

For example, I am in friendly relations with only one former cheater and it is because she cheated on one of my best friends and he wanted to R so I went through agony with him. It has been years and I now like this woman and consider her my friend, but I still can't be fully at ease around her and can't bring myself to trust her in certain situations.

I would like to, but I can't control the "instinct " to be on guard.

That said. My revulsion for a cheater, that gets pregnant or impregnates as a result of cheating, is so forceful that I cannot overcome it for any circumstance. My revulsion for a BS in these circumstances that chooses to R is impossible for me to overcome as well.

I, for some reason, can't bring myself to trust or feel comfortable around a man that would accept such a situation.

I have known some men in this situation. One of them is my nephew. I, unfortunately, cannot bring myself to be in a relationship with my nephew and his family.

I can't help but loathe his wife, and honestly, him as well.

To be clear. I have no such feelings towards any child for any reason whatsoever. I also do not show open contempt for anyone in a scenario like this. I simply cannot be around them for more than a passing moment.

I guess it sucks but maybe I am just a hard bastard.

Intellectually, I can work my way through it, on another, far more powerful level, I can't.

Anyone else?


----------



## Broken at 20

Lotta arguing back and forth here. 

So thought I'd share my own little story for those that don't know it. 

Now, it has taken me a long time, and lots of unpleasant conversations to figure out my true, biological history. And it wasn't easy, because it is something that most of my family is embarrassed about. 

Now, my grandparents on my father's side.
My grandfather had a (biological) sister that got married to another man. I wasn't able to figure out exactly what happened to my great aunt. All I know is that, somehow, this new brother-inlaw got very close to my grandmother. 
Now, most can probably guess, but this is where the affair started. 

And this affair produced two little children. 
Now, this was a brother-in law. Not even the real blood of the original family, but some outsider's. 
And these two children are my aunt, and my father. There is a 6-year age difference. (unless my aunt lied about her age, she has been doing that for the past 15 years, so that might change)

As for my grandfather (by law) he became a miserable drunk. He hated his wife for obvious reasons, and wasn't a very good father to either of them. My dad always talked about how hard working he was, but now I see him as a beaten down, tired old man. My aunt said her father barely even talked to her. She feels like he just tolerated her presence. 
So, when my dad was 14, his supposed father suffered a second stroke, (the first one paralyzing his entire left side of the body, and I am sure his alcoholism didn't help it) and died on the way to the hospital. 

And the support that came from the real father of both my aunt and dad was minimal. 
Right now, all of those involved in the affair and that digusting incident in the family's history, except for the children produced from the affair, are rotting 6 feet underground. 
And I imagine two of them are in a very hot place right now. 


Now, skip ahead 50 years after that tragic tale, and we have a whole new one unfolding. 
Now, when my dad married the OW, she knew he had children, and she had her own children. 
They both accept the fact that they'll need to accept each other's children, and be as good a parent to their new step children as they can be to their biological children. 
Notice, they both knew what they were in for when they got married, and more accepting of the other's children. Neither of them was deceived about the children (except for maybe the OW because I don't think I ever really met her)
Now the OW's children are grown, and not really around, but my dad still has to be with them on the holidays, and treat them like family. 



Need me to explain the differences here?


----------



## As'laDain

ConanHub said:


> I have already posted what my response to this scenario would be but here is another spin, possibly on some males psyche.
> 
> I have a revulsion for cheaters that borders on the primal. Intellectually, I can move past the transgression and realize that people can change, but on a visceral level, I am never fully at ease with them.
> 
> For example, I am in friendly relations with only one former cheater and it is because she cheated on one of my best friends and he wanted to R so I went through agony with him. It has been years and I now like this woman and consider her my friend, but I still can't be fully at ease around her and can't bring myself to trust her in certain situations.
> 
> I would like to, but I can't control the "instinct " to be on guard.
> 
> That said. My revulsion for a cheater, that gets pregnant or impregnates as a result of cheating, is so forceful that I cannot overcome it for any circumstance. My revulsion for a BS in these circumstances that chooses to R is impossible for me to overcome as well.
> 
> I, for some reason, can't bring myself to trust or feel comfortable around a man that would accept such a situation.
> 
> I have known some men in this situation. One of them is my nephew. I, unfortunately, cannot bring myself to be in a relationship with my nephew and his family.
> 
> I can't help but loathe his wife, and honestly, him as well.
> 
> To be clear. I have no such feelings towards any child for any reason whatsoever. I also do not show open contempt for anyone in a scenario like this. I simply cannot be around them for more than a passing moment.
> 
> I guess it sucks but maybe I am just a hard bastard.
> 
> Intellectually, I can work my way through it, on another, far more powerful level, I can't.
> 
> Anyone else?



honesty. i like it. 

if only others posted their take on it without the insults or butt-hurt. 


as far as im concerned, i know i can get over anything given time, but i couldnt do it if i felt like i was constantly being faced with it. thats why i say that i could raise an affair baby, but not if the other man is involved in any way. 

as long as my conditions are met, i can get passed the pain. most women wouldn't submit themselves to my conditions for reconciliation though...


----------



## GettingIt_2

vellocet said:


> I agree with that sentiment in general. *But this is about men being deceived into raising another man's child. * So I am putting in context.


It is? :scratchhead:

See, like I posted before, I REALLY think there is a big disconnect between what people think jld is asking and what she is asking (or wondering). But after a gazillion pages, I guess it's not unusual for things to get lost in the shuffle. But I also notice that some folks cut straight to a worst-case scenario in which the cheating wife has horns and a tail and no remorse and the hard working, innocent husband has not only been cuckolded but accepts it meekly even after it's happened multiple times.

I wonder how we can productively discuss this when we can't even agree on what the question is.


----------



## Faithful Wife

GettingIt said:


> It is? :scratchhead:
> 
> See, like I posted before, I REALLY think there is a big disconnect between what people think jld is asking and what people think she is asking. But after a gazillion pages, I guess it's not unusual for things to get lost in the shuffle. But I also notice that some folks cut straight to a worst-case scenario in which the cheating wife has horns and a tail and no remorse and the hard working, innocent husband has not only been cuckolded but accepts it meekly even after it's happened multiple times.
> 
> I wonder how we can productively discuss this when we can't even agree on what the question is.


A daily occurrence on TAM.


----------



## JCD

As'laDain said:


> im calling BS on pretty much all of this.
> 
> so, first you accuse him of asking a betrayed spouse to have faith in someone who is faithless, even though he already set the condition "if they are truely sorry and he believes she is sincere". in that case, your not having faith in someone faithless. your having faith in someone who made a mistake.
> 
> then you insult him based on his nationality and accuse him of moral blackmail? dont do this again?
> hell, id like to know where he did it the first time.


There was this huge revolution in France, started by one king or another (I am thinking it was Bonaparte). Whomever demanded that church doors put in this turnstile in the door. A woman could bring up a basket of baby, put it on the roundabout, turn it so the baby was inside, ring a bell and walk away anonymously. See...he was tired of getting reports of dead babies all the time.

This is a historical and cultural phenomena which he would still be well aware of and would influence his thinking. They still have these things in some churches today. YOU obviously are not.

But here is where your call of BS is BS. His quote (relevant part)



> But he (the husband of the disloyal wife) has still the power of saving the (strange) child's life.


How exactly is the child's life in danger? I am not the first one to ask this. America has numbers of single mothers which would horrify the French. We don't have dead children littering the streets.

The implication is, if this man does not 'get his pride out of the way', this child's life will need 'saving'...or it needs saving now. Not a dime's worth of difference between the two.

This is a false assertion, but by implying it, I find it moral blackmail "You don't want to kill babies just because you are PROUD, do you?"

Now, unlike jld, if you want to disagree with me, that's fine. Even though I am not that attention wh*re like Honey Badger, I also don't care.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

As'laDain said:


> ETA: the moral obligation part, well, i dont see any need to aply jlds views to my own life, so i guess its not an issue to me.


Isn't that like saying an intelligent blonde shouldn't find blonde jokes offensive? They're still offensive. If said blonde tells the joker that she finds those jokes offensive and the joker insists on telling them to her, do you not find this to be intentional insult or at the very least a complete lack of respect?

Or switch the subject to religion. If an atheist says religion is the opiate of the masses, or the comfort of weak minds, is that not insulting? You don't need to apply another's views to your life to understand that this is an insult by implication of being religious. Such statements would be entirely irrelevant and disruptive to any discussion of belief or disbelief, agreed? So why include such judgments, much less reiterate them again and again, if one is not intent on offending and denigrating the person for their position?


----------



## JCD

As'laDain said:


> who did what to who?


The wife slept with another man at least once (hurts his feelings and trust)

His wife was sloppy enough to get pregnant (hurts his feelings and trust)

His wife UNILATERALLY decided to KEEP the baby (hurts his public reputation whether they divorce or not)

AND, his wife had such an opinion of him that she felt she could ask (demand with moral blackmail) that he accept this bastard baby, proudly carry this bastard baby, and pay for this bastard baby (Feelings, resources, reputation) all publically.

So...I'm sitting here trying to fit THESE actions with 'selfless love'.

MAYBE there is selfless love...for the baby. But it clearly shows this woman is asking (demanding) that the family 'take one for the team' But the husband's penis length really wouldn't be a question. Instead, there are very valid reasons to question the love.

Now, SURE, her husband said 'if I had faith in her repentance and remorse, I could forgive her.'

Guess what, genius? You had that faith in her character BEFORE she spread for someone else. You believed her then too. So obviously your judgment of character isn't all it's cracked up to be!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

vellocet said:


> You did it, you know you did it, don't play dumb. As I've found in other threads, you are sympathetic, specifically, to wayward women, and you simply took it a step further here.
> Hey, believe what you want to believe. If you want to be a misandrist, that is your choice. And you don't need my approval.


Of course these would be the case given her perspective: the man runs the show and women are helpless children in need of a man's stewardship. If she was wayward, he wasn't stewarding. If that adventure produced a child, he bears responsibility.

Nowhere in any of this does the child have responsibility. Leaving her wouldn't be consequences of her actions, it would be a result of the man's ego and inability to handle it.

Just. Wow.


----------



## As'laDain

JCD said:


> The wife slept with another man at least once (hurts his feelings and trust)
> 
> His wife was sloppy enough to get pregnant (hurts his feelings and trust)
> 
> His wife UNILATERALLY decided to KEEP the baby (hurts his public reputation whether they divorce or not)
> 
> AND, his wife had such an opinion of him that she felt she could ask (demand with moral blackmail) that he accept this bastard baby, proudly carry this bastard baby, and pay for this bastard baby (Feelings, resources, reputation) all publically.
> 
> So...I'm sitting here trying to fit THESE actions with 'selfless love'.
> 
> MAYBE there is selfless love...for the baby. But it clearly shows this woman is asking (demanding) that the family 'take one for the team' But the husband's penis length really wouldn't be a question. Instead, there are very valid reasons to question the love.
> 
> Now, SURE, her husband said 'if I had faith in her repentance and remorse, I could forgive her.'
> 
> Guess what, genius? You had that faith in her character BEFORE she spread for someone else. You believed her then too. So obviously your judgment of character isn't all it's cracked up to be!


um... i think your missing something


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> There's no secret why she pushes anyone's buttons.
> 
> Saying "some men can handle it" is phrased purposefully to demean men who would not choose this. There are a lot of things I can handle that I reasonably choose not to do.
> 
> Her agenda in saying these things is driven by her apparent perception that it is a man's duty to carry all burdens. I say f-that... carry your own damn burdens. I'm glad she's found a nice sheltering situation with her husband that relieves her of all responsibility and independence, as she apparently wants, but I frankly find it disturbing and don't think much of men who desire such absolutely domineering positions... in my experience its just a front. A woman isn't a child, and a "good man" doesn't treat her like one. <-- see what I did there?


New to the conversation, but I definitely agree with this. If a woman has the audacity to cheat on her husband, why should he be the one held accountable for it? If a man chooses(without being threatened, coerced, or manipulated into it) to keep that child, then that is his choice, and bravo for him. But I don't think that makes him more of a man, or any better than a man who doesn't make that choice. Infidelity _is_ a very real deal breaker for many people. Why should the person who was betrayed bear the ultimate responsibility for that betrayal? What happens if the woman goes on to get pregnant a second time? Or a third? Or a fourth? 

No, I don't think the child should be punished. But I don't think holding the cheating wife accountable, and making the biological father provide for the child, is punishing the child. I know I could _never_ accept a child if DH had an affair and got the woman pregnant. I don't think that makes me "less of a woman". The person who is the real "less" of a human being, is the person who cheated.


----------



## JCD

As'laDain said:


> it seems to me your posts are meant to attack her character.


I am holding her statements up to the sunlight.

She discussed how her parents now got inured to their daughters having unwed babies all the time. She asserted that 'all this pain' would make them grow. Umm...NO. It means they have found coping mechanisms for what was formerly intolerable. This doesn't 'cleanse' the actions of the daughters. Nor does she bother to ask if her parents (or the husband whom she is asking to raise a little bastard baby) WANTS to grow. In one post, she asserted that 'the loved one can FORCE them to grow'. Guess who has that whip hand? (Hint...it isn't the husband)

This isn't 'losing a moral point' it is dealing with reality. And I called her on that.

She asserts that this wife REALLY loves her husband. Not from any particular EVIDENCE. Certainly, she is showing that she loves this little bastard baby more. And when coupled with the pain, he is right to question her love.

If she feels that causing her family so much suffering is moral and just...well...okay. Fine.

It isn't MY sense of morality, where someone can take the choices from others and cause them needless pain. But it works for her.


----------



## JCD

As'laDain said:


> um... i think your missing something


Explain. Simple declarative sentences.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Ugh. I need a burger. And some _freedom_ fries. But first I'm going to stand at attention and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, sing The Star-Spangled Banner, and then use my rifle, shotgun, and multiple pistols to completely obliterate targets depicting Adolf Hitler and the abstract concept of blind, insipid passiveness.
> 
> 'MERICUH!!!
> 
> America **** Yeah! - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (This is a joke.)
> 
> (But only slightly.)


F'ing A


----------



## As'laDain

JCD said:


> Explain. Simple declarative sentences.


you wrote as if jld cheated on her husban. 

reading the post i responded to, im not sure if you believe that is the case, or if you were trying to create a hypothetical situation to help make your point.


----------



## GettingIt_2

ConanHub said:


> I have already posted what my response to this scenario would be but here is another spin, possibly on some males psyche.
> 
> I have a revulsion for cheaters that borders on the primal. Intellectually, I can move past the transgression and realize that people can change, but on a visceral level, I am never fully at ease with them.
> 
> For example, I am in friendly relations with only one former cheater and it is because she cheated on one of my best friends and he wanted to R so I went through agony with him. It has been years and I now like this woman and consider her my friend, but I still can't be fully at ease around her and can't bring myself to trust her in certain situations.
> 
> I would like to, but I can't control the "instinct " to be on guard.
> 
> That said. My revulsion for a cheater, that gets pregnant or impregnates as a result of cheating, is so forceful that I cannot overcome it for any circumstance. My revulsion for a BS in these circumstances that chooses to R is impossible for me to overcome as well.
> 
> I, for some reason, can't bring myself to trust or feel comfortable around a man that would accept such a situation.
> 
> I have known some men in this situation. One of them is my nephew. I, unfortunately, cannot bring myself to be in a relationship with my nephew and his family.
> 
> I can't help but loathe his wife, and honestly, him as well.
> 
> To be clear. I have no such feelings towards any child for any reason whatsoever. I also do not show open contempt for anyone in a scenario like this. I simply cannot be around them for more than a passing moment.
> 
> I guess it sucks but maybe I am just a hard bastard.
> 
> Intellectually, I can work my way through it, on another, far more powerful level, I can't.
> 
> Anyone else?


Very well put explanation of your feelings, and no rationalizing or comparing or feeling insulted. 

And yes, I have experienced "visceral" judgements of people. I normally am very good at controlling my behavior, despite the feelings, same as you seem to be. I have no need to make them aware of how I feel about them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> Have you ever heard the line, "It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong."


Rhetorical motivational nonsense from a hippie at USC.

Sounds good in a motivational speech, but in the real world both the strong and the weak are equally capable of cruelty and kindness. As it happens, cruelty is a lot worse when perpetrated by the strong. Ask Jews or older African Americans.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Yes, but try not to be so quickly dismissive ("check!", "tunnel vision!") of points you do not agree with and cannot affect a change of position on.


At some point you have to cut your losses. We stop investing. ROI.


----------



## jld

Anon Pink said:


> Ego driven ridicule for a standard that isn't really possible for the VAST majority of men.


Yes, I am seeing this, too. But it does make me sad.


----------



## Entropy3000

As'laDain said:


> flatly claiming everyone who disagrees with you has tunnel vision doesnt make it true.


Actually we ALL have tunnel vision. So when you do not see something do not assume it is not there. That is the take away.


----------



## jld

As'laDain said:


> true.
> 
> i disagree with the second part of your post though(sort of). telling Dug not to do it again is implying that he did it to begin with.
> 
> ETA: the moral obligation part, well, *i dont see any need to aply jlds views to my own life, so i guess its not an issue to me.*


Exactly, As'laDain. Exactly.


----------



## Created2Write

What defines "cruelty", though? I don't think it's cruel to hold a woman, or a man, accountable for their actions. I don't think it's cruel to divorce over infidelity, even if some people can reconcile after an affair, nor do I think it's cruel to not accept the child of the affair. It _is_ cruel, however, to commit adultery. It's _is_ cruel to punish the faithful spouse by insisting that they be responsible for the affair-child.


----------



## JCD

As'laDain said:


> you wrote as if jld cheated on her husban.
> 
> reading the post i responded to, im not sure if you believe that is the case, or if you were trying to create a hypothetical situation to help make your point.


Excuse me. Purely hypothetical.

Though I have no idea how this discredits the ideas involved.

Look, here is one of the things I find offensive about jld's posts. And I am not afraid to write it directly. Simple declaratives sentences. Heck, this is a simple word: penance.

If I get drunk, hit some person and injure or kill them, I should go to jail. I would WANT to go to jail. I caused suffering. I owe the universe.

This is a VERY CATHOLIC CONCEPT (unless you subscribe to the 'buffet' style of religion. Most people of ALL religious backgrounds do to a certain extent). Remorse isn't just 'I'll make him his favorite dinner and give him a few blow jobs and have a few frank conversations...as I bring this little bastard baby into the house'.

Remorse is "I am willing to suffer for the wrong I did." And if her family behaves in perfectly understandable and justifiable ways: with anger, distrust and a lack of respect, *I would deserve it!* I was the person who brought all this pain and suffering into the family. The very LEAST I can do is be (saintly) patient with them as they work through their issues. After all, she is demanding this sort of patience from the men.

And yet, when I pressed her on this point, she characterized these actions as a (small) step up from Bedouin stonings.










That arrow ain't pointing toward the hubby...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy3000 said:


> At some point you have to cut your losses. We stop investing. ROI.



What return on investment SHOULD there be, when the "investment" is a person's voluntary energy given to write a post on an anonymous internet forum? :scratchhead:


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> At some point you have to cut your losses. We stop investing. ROI.


Well, on this we can agree.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> What is the offense, ent? Disagreeing with you?


I couldn't care less. 

At some point this just becomes the deny, deny deny.


----------



## Entropy3000

As'laDain said:


> or perhaps she got tired of the incredibly large number of biased questions and assumptions so she decided to humor them a bit?


I think fundamentally we have a different value system. I am not into the D/s culture and perhaps folks who are get into such interactions.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

jld said:


> Thank you, As'laDain, for bringing up that quote. It really upset people, and I still cannot figure out why.





jld said:


> And there is nothing wrong with saying to a woman, "I can't do it. I can't be what you need. You are not wrong to need it, but I am not that man."


There is absolutely something wrong with saying this. Her needs are irrelevant and the point is not on what he can or can't be. Its rather, "No. Its not my child. You and the other man can go deal with it. Have a nice life." Her needs became irrelevant the moment she stopped taking his into account. Its not about her needs, its not about who he is or what he can do... its plain and simple: This is HER responsibility, not his. She is a grown woman who can take care of herself and face the consequences of her poor decisions. That has nothing to do with him whatsoever.

Your default assumption that he needs to explain that he can't meet needs she has no right to place on him is what is insulting. If a woman sought similar from me, I would laugh my @ss off in her face. Babe, I can be everything you and your baby need... but I don't want to be. Pack your bags and gtfo.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> I hear your perspective. I hear that men don't want to raise the affair child. And they do not have to.


Here. Let's make it easy.

1) I think men who raise their wives' bastard children are better than men that don't.

2) While I believe it would be better to look after the child, I understand and respect the choices of men who do NOT do this. This is a function of the wives' bad choices and not their lack of character.

Just give me a quote and one number.

But this is a simple declarative sentence. Sunlight disinfects...and burns vampires. Why these two things seemed to come to mind, I am not sure.

Probably because I am scared.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I think this thread needs a theme song . . . for some reason the Rocky theme keeps popping into my head when I read some of the posts. :rofl:

Or how about some Epic Battle music?


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> Then you're out. You know your limits.


I get to decide when I am out.


----------



## Created2Write

Hold on...a man who refuses to provide and care for the child of his wife's affair now "can't" be the man "she needs"? WTF? What about _her_ not being able to be the _woman he needs_ by keeping it in her pants? 

Man...talk about cake eating. This whole thing is bizarre.


----------



## ConanHub

Created2Write said:


> Hold on...a man who refuses to provide and care for the child of his wife's affair now "can't" be the man "she needs"? WTF? What about _her_ not being able to be the _woman he needs_ by keeping it in her pants?
> 
> Man...talk about cake eating. This whole thing is bizarre.


The man she really needs is the POS that knocked her up.......

Or maybe that is just the man she deserves......


Or maybe she just needs a spanking?


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> I think fundamentally we have a different value system. I am not into the D/s culture and perhaps folks who are get into such interactions.


Now HERE is a nugget I was turning over in my mind this afternoon. Successful, mutually satisfying D/s marriages only exist under a very particular set of circumstances/traits . . . both within the marriage and the individual. _(I'm not saying that ONLY D/s marriages and individuals exhibit these traits, only that they must be present in a successful D/s dynamic)._ I'm wondering if the traits required for such a dynamic are those that allow a dispassionate contemplation of the scenario that jld lays out.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> I think this thread needs a theme song . . . for some reason*the Rocky theme *keeps popping into my head when I read some of the posts. :rofl:
> 
> Or how about some Epic Battle music?


:rofl::lol::rofl:


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> Now HERE is a nugget I was turning over in my mind this afternoon. Successful, mutually satisfying D/s marriages only exist under a very particular set of circumstances/traits . . . both within the marriage and the individual. _(I'm not saying that ONLY D/s marriages and individuals exhibit these traits, only that they must be present in a successful D/s dynamic)._ I'm wondering if the traits required for such a dynamic are those that allow a dispassionate contemplation of the scenario that jld lays out.


Would you like to elaborate, GettingIt? I think it could be enlightening, for all of us.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

D/s relationships are intensely fascinating and foreign to me. If I can hold back my urge to judge the submissive,I really enjoy reading about those types of relationships.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Created2Write

An affair is a complete betrayal of the marriage relationship. It's willfully and intentionally putting one's self above their spouse to satisfy a selfish desire. In and of itself, for many people there is no return from a breach of trust like that, regardless of it being a ONS, or an ongoing affair with one person, or many different people. Add in the fact that there is now _a child_ implies, if not outright states, that the cheating spouse didn't just disregard their spouse so much to have sex with someone, but that they didn't even care to use protection says that they _wanted_ to make their spouse suffer as much as possible. That's how I see it, anyway. 

So to turn around and chide and guilt-trip men who wouldn't provide for the affair-child by calling them weak, or immoral, or worse than men who would, is beyond ridiculous. It downplays the severity of betrayal, and only seeks to punish the already betrayed spouse. IRL, it doesn't work that way. If my husband chooses to act in a way that gets another woman pregnant, then he should be man enough to own his choices, and not shirk them onto me my calling me less of a woman. Because at that point, he'd be a pathetic excuse for a human freaking being, let alone a man.


----------



## over20

ConanHub said:


> The man she really needs is the POS that knocked her up.......
> 
> Or maybe that is just the man she deserves......
> 
> 
> Or maybe she just needs a spanking?


:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## ConanHub

GettingIt said:


> I think this thread needs a theme song . . . for some reason the Rocky theme keeps popping into my head when I read some of the posts. :rofl:
> 
> Or how about some Epic Battle music?


I keep hearing. "DAT der my baby daddy!" 

That line was sung as a chorus or background by a lady in some obscure hip-hop song from several years ago.

Too lazy to look it up.


----------



## over20

I was thinking of Kanye West's "Gold digger"


----------



## GusPolinski

Damn! I get up to get my burger and *BAM* we're closing in on 100 pages.

Anyway, I know what this thread needs...

Pink Floyd HD - Lost For Words (Video) - YouTube


----------



## ConanHub

over20 said:


> I was thinking of Kanye West's "Gold digger"


Haven't heard that one but I respect herpes more than Kanye.


----------



## Entropy3000

GusPolinski said:


> Oh sh*t. The Honey Badger is back. 100+ pages inc!


Honey Badger Don't Care!!!


----------



## ConanHub

GusPolinski said:


> Damn! I get up to get my burger and *BAM* we're closing in on 100 pages.
> 
> Anyway, I know what this thread needs...
> 
> Pink Floyd HD - Lost For Words (Video) - YouTube


I cheated. Took my portable while I ate my steak.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

GettingIt said:


> I'm wondering if the traits required for such a dynamic are those that allow a dispassionate contemplation of the scenario that jld lays out.


Let JLD come home with another man's baby in her belly and we'll see how Dug would actually be. I have doubts that outside observers would qualify it as dispassionate contemplation.

The subject evokes strong reactions because I think most of us place ourselves there and feel the visceral, primal instinct to just eat the baby, if you will. I think most perceive the incredible slight this is... not only suffering the indignity of another man having your wife - of your wife seeking this other man, but also supporting this man's offspring? This is emotional and productivity rape. The notion that the man say something like "I can't meet your needs", seems tantamount to demanding a woman apologize to her rapist for not being a good enough lay. Its completely out of place. Its stunningly out of place.

I firmly believe most men would also know in their heart of hearts that this d-bag other man is grinning ear to ear and saying "Yeah, that's right, take care of my babies b*tch. Your wife needed a real man's seed."

I can't think of a man who would accept that as anything but lacking in self-respect.


----------



## over20

ConanHub said:


> Haven't heard that one but I respect herpes more than Kanye.


It's in the second stanza that he talks about after 18 years he finds out he has supported another man's kid :lol:


----------



## Maricha75

ConanHub said:


> The man she really needs is the POS that knocked her up.......
> 
> Or maybe that is just the man she deserves......
> 
> 
> *Or maybe she just needs a spanking?*


Or maybe that's how it all started? :scratchhead:


----------



## GettingIt_2

jld said:


> Would you like to elaborate, GettingIt? I think it could be enlightening, for all of us.


I'm tempted, but those threads just never end well . . . 

Plus it really was just at the level of wondering and musing this afternoon; I'm not sure I actually reached any conclusions. D/s (for submissive and dom alike) requires intense, regular self-reflection combined with a lowering of inhibitions and boundaries made possible only by very high levels of trust, intimacy, and communication. For many folks who choose to practice D/s, there is often the need to put aside personal feelings/emotions and put the well being of the dynamic first. It becomes, after awhile, second nature to subvert any negative emotions for your partner and, instead, trust in the "contract" that you _deliberately and consensually_ developed with your partner. 

Honestly, I'm not sure how all this connects up to the ability to envision a marriage in which an affair partner could be assimilated successfully. I can sort of see multiple paths to possible answers . . . but it really is complex because D/s manifests in as many ways and forms as do "vanilla" marriages." 

Dunno. All conjecture, I must stress.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> D/s relationships are intensely fascinating and foreign to me. If I can hold back my urge to judge the submissive,I really enjoy reading about those types of relationships.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Totally admit, they make me twitchy.


----------



## ConanHub

Maricha75 said:


> Or maybe that's how it all started? :scratchhead:


Vicious cycle!


----------



## GusPolinski

Entropy3000 said:


> Honey Badger Don't Care!!!


Honey Badger don't give a f*ck! :rofl:


----------



## GettingIt_2

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Let JLD come home with another man's baby in her belly and we'll see how Dug would actually be. I have doubts that outside observers would qualify it as dispassionate contemplation.


I doubt we'll ever get a chance to test your hypothesis. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The subject evokes strong reactions because I think most of us place ourselves there and feel the visceral, primal instinct to just eat the baby, if you will. I think most perceive the incredible slight this is... not only suffering the indignity of another man having your wife - of your wife seeking this other man, but also supporting this man's offspring? This is emotional and productivity rape. The notion that the man say something like "I can't meet your needs", seems tantamount to demanding a woman apologize to her rapist for not wanting to be raped. Its completely out of place. Its stunningly out of place.


Extraordinary, even!



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I firmly believe most men would also know in their heart of hearts that this d-bag other man is grinning ear to ear and saying "Yeah, that's right, take care of my babies b*tch. Your wife needed a real man's seed."
> 
> I can't think of a man who would accept that as anything but lacking in self-respect.


That seems to be a fairly common interpretation.


----------



## Entropy3000

As'laDain said:


> i pick #82
> 
> 'MERICA!!!


Thank you for your service.

Not everyone can be a SEAL  

Anyway, there were a number of folks with alternate lifestyles when I was in. Fine. They were a little cultish but that really makes sense. Arguably it was a cult within a cult. They did try to get folks to join their lifestyle which also makes sense. Choices, values and tastes. I found I had to cut them out of my life once I was married. My wife teases me about those friends to this very day.

And as we have all said this is a very broad lifestyle that may or may not overlap into swinging. To each their own.

But at least in this thread, much of this discussion seems to anyway ... divide across, lies of who is in the life and who is not. There are shades of grey here of course.

But friendships aside and this topic in particular, our lifestyles whatever they are, influence us greatly


----------



## Created2Write

I have no issue with a man _choosing_ to provide for the affair-child. Well, okay that's not true. I have a big issue with it, as it shouldn't be his responsibility in the first place, but if he really made this choice of his own free will, then I hope he has the strength to see it through. 18 years is a very, very long time. My greatest issue is the implication that that man is _better_ than the man who doesn't or wouldn't make that choice. He's not "better". Different, yes. But not better.


----------



## ocotillo

GettingIt said:


> But SOMEONE has to find the alleged assumption and rephrase it--and that is a wholly subjective endeavor, is it not? After all, language is very subjective--rather the assignment of meaning to language is subjective.


The SOMEONE would, of necessity be the person framing the original question. 

I suspect that you might be coming more from a position of moral subjectivity here and I can respect that. Maybe it would help to look at it this way:

Infant exposure is not nearly as commonplace in developed countries today as it used to be, but if we were to go back in time two hundred years or so, it would not be that unusual for the indigent to leave infants on the doorsteps of the more affluent.

If you got up one morning and found a baby on your doorstep would you have any obligations towards that baby? Of course you would! Basic human ethics would dictate certain obligations here.

The real question though is how far those obligations would go and to what extent your ultimate decision regarding that child would define you as a "Secure" or "Noble" or "Good" person vs. an "Egotistical" or "Prideful" or "Selfish" person. 

As soon as we start expressing the choice in those terms, we are, in fact making moral assumptions and all the protestations to the contrary will not change that.


----------



## sandc

Wow, if you guys aren't careful... this could turn into a social thread.


----------



## jld

GettingIt said:


> D/s (for submissive and dom alike) requires intense, regular self-reflection combined with a lowering of inhibitions and boundaries made possible only by very high levels of trust, intimacy, and communication. For many folks who choose to practice D/s, there is often the need to put aside personal feelings/emotions and put the well being of the dynamic first. It becomes, after awhile, second nature to subvert any negative emotions for your partner and, instead, trust in the "contract" that you _deliberately and consensually_ developed with your partner.


I think it is hard to describe the intensity of these relationships. And it is understandable that people would be skeptical.


----------



## GettingIt_2

sandc said:


> Wow, if you guys aren't careful... this could turn into a social thread.


You are right, we are starting to be far too civil in our contemplations . . . .


----------



## GettingIt_2

ocotillo said:


> The SOMEONE would, of necessity be the person framing the original question.
> 
> I suspect that you might be coming more from a position of moral subjectivity here and I can respect that. Maybe it would help to look at it this way:
> 
> Infant exposure is not nearly as commonplace in developed countries today as it used to be, but if we were to go back in time two hundred years or so, it would not be that unusual for the indigent to leave infants on the doorsteps of the more affluent.
> 
> If you got up one morning and found a baby on your doorstep would you have any obligations towards that baby? Of course you would! Basic human ethics would dictate certain obligations here.
> 
> The real question though is how far those obligations would go and to what extent your ultimate decision regarding that child would define you as a "Secure" or "Noble" or "Good" person vs. an "Egotistical" or "Prideful" or "Selfish" person.
> 
> As soon as we start expressing the choice in those terms, we are, in fact making moral assumptions and all the protestations to the contrary will not change that.


Well, I really think jld was being academic in her musings, but I can see that others didn't feel that way. I can go just about anywhere with academic musings . . . including into discussions of sliding scale morality. Heck, I don't mind being considered at a lower point on the sliding scale . . . as long as I don't have to raise another baby.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Totally admit, they make me twitchy.


You know I wanna know why now 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> What return on investment SHOULD there be, when the "investment" is a person's voluntary energy given to write a post on an anonymous internet forum? :scratchhead:


When someone just denys, denys, denys it can become very tediuos in trying to communicate. It becomes something else rather than communication.

It "feels" narcissitic and manipulating. And I can feel anyway I want ... so can others.

But again I think there are agendas at play and fundamental value differences. 

It becomes ... Religion. Cultish. So I have very limited time for that past a point.


----------



## ConanHub

sandc said:


> Wow, if you guys aren't careful... this could turn into a social thread.


Gotta have some silly with the serious.

Though I have seen this scenario in real life play out, the people involved were extremely ridiculous.

Sometimes I just got to make fun of extreme stupidity. Better to laugh sometimes than cry.


----------



## GusPolinski

Meanwhile, back on page 21...



JCD said:


> Can we change the subject or drop the thread? No one is convincing anyone about their POV here.


LOL


----------



## over20

We all are getting a bit dizzy..


----------



## Created2Write

I've only been apart of four or five pages, and already I feel like I'm going in circles. lol.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy3000 said:


> When someone just denys, denys, denys it can become very tediuos in trying to communicate. It becomes something else rather than communication.
> 
> It "feels" narcissitic manipulating. And I can feel anyway I want so can others.
> 
> But again I think there are agendas at play and fundmental value differences.
> 
> It becomes ... Religion. Cultish. So I have very limited time for that past a point.


Yet here you are, continuing to post...it is your choice, as you said.

So what would the "return" be on this investment of your time?


----------



## Wazza

JLD, I see two fundamental problems with your argument.

The first is...."Think of the children". A noble sentiment, but neither you nor I are in the slums of Calcutta right now helping the poor. We have both chosen to focus on some children (specifically our own) and accepted that, while the death or a child is sad, we can't help everyone. Me choosing not to care for an affair child is no different from that. I am placing a lesser priority on those who are not my flesh and blood. We both have the same values here. You just don't realise, or won't admit it.

The second is that you don't really seem to have any notion of how infidelity permanently changes a marriage. There's been a lot of discussion here about deal breakers, respect and such (which matter) but not a lot about the day to day grind of living with a scar that never fully heals. And I could write pages on that without conveying the full sense of it to you. But one key fact is, sometimes you can't put it back together. And the betrayed partner often has no say, no control. I reconciled (stayed for my kids actually....not your scenario because they are mine) and it was the hardest and most painful thing I have ever done. And we succeeded, but I could have done all that and ended up with nothing. I had no control over it, I had to put trust in a wife who (at the time) was a demonstrated cheat and liar who hated me. In such a situation, you either decide to accept endless abuse, or you draw a line. You decide that either the toxic parts of the marriage (even in a successful reconciliation they are there) can be dealt with, or they too much dominate things, and it is better that the marriage end. These lines are arbitrary and every situation is different. 

To that end, you are coming into a situation where many people have had incredibly painful journeys and saying "If you can't deal with this, then it shows you are less secure." Well, apart from being an incredibly insensitive thing to say, it's wrong. All the security in the world won't make a serial cheat behave.

You are certainly entitled to your views, but to anyone who has lived the reality of infidelity it's obvious you just don't get it. You are like a virgin trying to tell people how to have the most fulfilling sex life. Sorry.

Lastly, calling anyone who does not make your decision "insecure" is a bit like telling someone with a disability or a terminal illness it's their fault. You don't seem to understand some of the reactions you are getting. I think this is why people are reacting. You are saying things that can be taken as an insult, based on a position that is logically inconsistent within itself, and ignorant of key facts.

This is why I posted. Right now I am secure and I can just smile at your mistakes, but earlier in the process your words would have hurt me deeply and possibly damaged me. So I am hoping my post will help you to consider what you are doing here for the sake of others. Most people in TAM are much earlier in the process.

Take care.


----------



## GusPolinski

Wazza... Dude, where are you? I need to buy you a beer.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> I think this thread needs a theme song . . . for some reason the Rocky theme keeps popping into my head when I read some of the posts. :rofl:
> 
> Or how about some Epic Battle music?


Various Metallica songs:

Sanitarium

Unforgiven

Nothing Else Matters

But also these :

November Rain

Love Hurts

I Figured You Out

Lyin Eyes

Sundown

Easy Lover

Me and Mrs Jones

BAS


----------



## ocotillo

Slight digression here, but how does a man not know?

People used to joke with me and say, "Your daughters can't possibly be yours, Ocotillo. They're beautiful!"

But the truth is, by the time they were three or four they were displaying so many traits of my family there could be no possible doubt in my mind.


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> Hold on...a man who refuses to provide and care for the child of his wife's affair now "can't" be the man "she needs"? WTF? What about _her_ not being able to be the _woman he needs_ by keeping it in her pants?
> 
> Man...talk about cake eating. This whole thing is bizarre.


Get out of this thread while you can.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> Can we change the subject or drop the thread? No one is convincing anyone about their POV here.


True, but this thread is like a petri dish for someone with an interest in psychology


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Now HERE is a nugget I was turning over in my mind this afternoon. Successful, mutually satisfying D/s marriages only exist under a very particular set of circumstances/traits . . . both within the marriage and the individual. _(I'm not saying that ONLY D/s marriages and individuals exhibit these traits, only that they must be present in a successful D/s dynamic)._ I'm wondering if the traits required for such a dynamic are those that allow a dispassionate contemplation of the scenario that jld lays out.


I am saying it influences your interactions at some level. With other people.


----------



## Philat

GusPolinski said:


> Wazza... Dude, where are you? I need to buy you a beer.


Get in line, Gus. I feel like I owe wazza a few over the last several months.


----------



## Faithful Wife

If someone isn't getting anything (ie: return on investment of time spent to post) out of this post, then why are they still posting?

Why hasn't this thread just died off with no responses?

Clearly, people have an interest in it or they would just stop.

Possibly people are interested in chasing rabbits down holes?


----------



## ConanHub

Entropy3000 said:


> Get out of this thread while you can.


:lol::rofl::lol::rofl:
Too late!!!! She has looked into the abyss and can't unsee it!!!!


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> I am saying it influences your interactions at some level. With other people.


Hmmm. I might agree with that. For example, I think the high levels of self awareness, self reflection/examination, and self discipline developed within a D/s dynamic probably do influence interactions with others.


----------



## GusPolinski

ocotillo said:


> Slight digression here, but how does a man not know?
> 
> *People used to joke with me and say, "Your daughters can't possibly be yours, Ocotillo. They're beautiful!"
> *
> But the truth is, by the time they were three or four they were displaying so many traits of my family there could be no possible doubt in my mind.


:rofl:


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> If someone isn't getting anything (ie: return on investment of time spent to post) out of this post, then why are they still posting?
> 
> Why hasn't this thread just died off with no responses?
> 
> Clearly, people have an interest in it or they would just stop.
> 
> Possibly people are interested in chasing rabbits down holes?


I think it's like watching a train wreck. One knows one shouldn't, one knows it's an unhealthy, but one just can't resist.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Right but why ask others to "drop this thread" if others are willingly engaging?

And why claim that posting to this thread has no value (return on investment) and then continue to post?

We're all here voluntarily. Asking that we drop this thread is essentially like saying "hey you all, STOP voluntarily posting on this thread!"


----------



## ReformedHubby

Wazza;8420985
The first is...."Think of the children". A noble sentiment said:


> I can identify with this. There are lots of individuals that are really struggling financially in my extended family Many of them have children. I'm thought of as the rich cousin, uncle, etc. etc. If I wanted to I could probably make all of them middle class if I was ok with providing less for my wife and kids. But....I would never do that. My kids are my responsibility and their kids are their responsibility. Why would I give less to my own to care for someone else's. I now it sounds harsh but that's how I see things. Hmmmm.....sounds kind of political don't it? That wasn't my intent though.


----------



## Created2Write

ConanHub said:


> :lol::rofl::lol::rofl:
> Too late!!!! She has looked into the abyss and can't unsee it!!!!


Exactly what I was about to post. lol


----------



## Maricha75

ocotillo said:


> Slight digression here, but how does a man not know?
> 
> People used to joke with me and say, "Your daughters can't possibly be yours, Ocotillo. They're beautiful!"
> 
> But the truth is, by the time they were three or four they were displaying so many traits of my family there could be no possible doubt in my mind.


When I was younger, I had a friend who had an adopted sister. This sister had NO genetic ties to their family, not one. But if you stood the sisters side by side, they actually looked a LOT alike. Unless you were told, you never would have known one was adopted. How could a man not know? Because, sometimes, people look a LOT alike, after living together for years.

*I really hope my husband doesn't start looking like me!*


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Yet here you are, continuing to post...it is your choice, as you said.
> 
> So what would the "return" be on this investment of your time?


I honestly do not expect you to read all my posts. BUT I have already stated why I continue to post. The topic is worthwhile.

A private social group would keep the difficult people away. But that defeats the purpose as well.


----------



## GusPolinski

ReformedHubby said:


> I can identify with this. There are lots of individuals that are really struggling financially in my extended family Many of them have children. I'm thought of as the rich cousin, uncle, etc. etc. If I wanted to I could probably make all of them middle class if I was ok with providing less for my wife and kids. But....I would never do that. My kids are my responsibility and their kids are their responsibility. Why would I give less to my own to care for someone else's. I now it sounds harsh but that's how I see things. Hmmmm.....sounds kind of political don't it? That wasn't my intent though.


And here's the other thing... More often than not, money doesn't solve financial problems.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy...I asked you a different question than "why you continue to post". I asked WHAT is the return on investment? Because in another post you are the one who said the ROI was low on this, and that just made me wonder, what would the actual RETURN be to us from our investment on any post?


----------



## Entropy3000

Wazza said:


> JLD, I see two fundamental problems with your argument.
> 
> The first is...."Think of the children". A noble sentiment, but neither you nor I are in the slums of Calcutta right now helping the poor. We have both chosen to focus on some children (specifically our own) and accepted that, while the death or a child is sad, we can't help everyone. Me choosing not to care for an affair child is no different from that. I am placing a lesser priority on those who are not my flesh and blood. We both have the same values here. You just don't realise, or won't admit it.
> 
> The second is that you don't really seem to have any notion of how infidelity permanently changes a marriage. There's been a lot of discussion here about deal breakers, respect and such (which matter) but not a lot about the day to day grind of living with a scar that never fully heals. And I could write pages on that without conveying the full sense of it to you. But one key fact is, sometimes you can't put it back together. And the betrayed partner often has no say, no control. I reconciled (stayed for my kids actually....not your scenario because they are mine) and it was the hardest and most painful thing I have ever done. And we succeeded, but I could have done all that and ended up with nothing. I had no control over it, I had to put trust in a wife who (at the time) was a demonstrated cheat and liar who hated me. In such a situation, you either decide to accept endless abuse, or you draw a line. You decide that either the toxic parts of the marriage (even in a successful reconciliation they are there) can be dealt with, or they too much dominate things, and it is better that the marriage end. These lines are arbitrary and every situation is different.
> 
> To that end, you are coming into a situation where many people have had incredibly painful journeys and saying "If you can't deal with this, then it shows you are less secure." Well, apart from being an incredibly insensitive thing to say, it's wrong. All the security in the world won't make a serial cheat behave.
> 
> You are certainly entitled to your views, but to anyone who has lived the reality of infidelity it's obvious you just don't get it. You are like a virgin trying to tell people how to have the most fulfilling sex life. Sorry.
> 
> Lastly, calling anyone who does not make your decision "insecure" is a bit like telling someone with a disability or a terminal illness it's their fault. You don't seem to understand some of the reactions you are getting. I think this is why people are reacting. You are saying things that can be taken as an insult, based on a position that is logically inconsistent within itself, and ignorant of key facts.
> 
> This is why I posted. Right now I am secure and I can just smile at your mistakes, but earlier in the process your words would have hurt me deeply and possibly damaged me. So I am hoping my post will help you to consider what you are doing here for the sake of others. Most people in TAM are much earlier in the process.
> 
> Take care.


Very well written, insightful and yes sobering. It is posts like this as to why I am still here. It gave me a different perspective. I have not experienced this personally. But you expressing these things in this thoughful and thought provoking way has taken me aback right now. Thank you.


----------



## ocotillo

Maricha75 said:


> How could a man not know? Because, sometimes, people look a LOT alike, after living together for years.


I guess it depends on what you look at. If I want to see family resemblance, I look not so much at faces, complexions, heights, hair color, eye color, etc, but at the shape of fingers and fingernails, the shape of elbow and knee joints, and other skeletal indicators. These things are extremely distinctive if you have an eye for it and pretty hard to change.

---Not even remotely scientific, I admit.


----------



## Anon Pink

Entropy3000 said:


> I couldn't care less.
> 
> At some point this just becomes the deny, deny deny.





Entropy3000 said:


> I think fundamentally we have a different value system. I am not into the D/s culture and perhaps folks who are get into such interactions.





Entropy3000 said:


> I get to decide when I am out.





Entropy3000 said:


> When someone just denys, denys, denys it can become very tediuos in trying to communicate. It becomes something else rather than communication.
> 
> It "feels" narcissitic and manipulating. And I can feel anyway I want ... so can others.
> 
> But again I think there are agendas at play and fundamental value differences.
> 
> It becomes ... Religion. Cultish. So I have very limited time for that past a point.





Entropy3000 said:


> Get out of this thread while you can.


Entropy, if we all voted and gave you leave to say anything you wanted and promised to give you a standing ovation, would you actually have something to say or would it be more vague and veiled insults?

It's not too late for you either.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Hmmm. I might agree with that. For example, I think the high levels of self awareness, self reflection/examination, and self discipline developed within a D/s dynamic probably do influence interactions with others.


However you wish to spin it to match your view is perfectly fine really. Indeed if you did not think it was the superior path then why would you follow it?

I like more symetry in interactions. Even when I have led I try to keep things more even. But I also am not overly impressed by anyone higher in authority. My interactions with Ross Perot for example were not all that different from those with an Operator on third shift. Indeed I respect someones accomplishments and their level of responisbility but at a human level it is not about dominatiing someone or being dominated. That becomes tedious and frankly not worth my time and effort. Someone being overly submissive in my live has little value add to me. 

Our values and emotional / sexual personalities go with us. How that is manifested likely varies much.


----------



## ConanHub

Dang jld!!!!! 

You kept throwing atoms into the heart of an already too dense star and now none of us will escape the black hole!!!!

I wonder if we will end up in yesterdays posts????:scratchhead:


----------



## ReformedHubby

GusPolinski said:


> And here's the other thing... More often than not, money doesn't solve financial problems.


Amen, to that.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy...I asked you a different question than "why you continue to post". I asked WHAT is the return on investment? Because in another post you are the one who said the ROI was low on this, and that just made me wonder, what would the actual RETURN be to us from our investment on any post?


I answered this. I said the topic was worthwhile. 

I was addressing that poster. You can read that is that we were circling.

You have to believe that your personal time and thoughts are spent in some way. If spent on something of lesser value then your return is low.
It is the law of diminishing returns.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> However you wish to spin it to match your view is perfectly fine really. Indeed if you did not think it was the superior path then why would you follow it?


Nice spin on my spin, Ent.  Well all need to be comfortable with ourselves, this is true. 



Entropy3000 said:


> I like more symetry in interactions. Even when I have led I try to keep things more even. But I also am not overly impressed by anyone higher in authority. My interactions with Ross Perot for example were not all that different from those with an Operator on third shift. Indeed I respect someones accomplishments and their level of responisbility but at a human level it is not about dominatiing someone or being dominated. That becomes tedious and frankly not worth my time and effort. Someone being overly submissive in my live has little value add to me.


You don't have the same understanding of D/s as someone who lives it, that is all. Same as I don't have the same understanding of what it's like to be cheated on as someone who has. 



Entropy3000 said:


> Our values and emotional / sexual personalities go with us. How that is manifested likely varies much.


Agree.


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> Entropy, if we all voted and gave you leave to say anything you wanted and promised to give you a standing ovation, would you actually have something to say or would it be more vague and veiled insults?
> 
> It's not too late for you either.


I have been very direct Anon. I do not need yor validation. I have had my share of ovations in my life.
I do not come here for that. I get that elsewhere.


----------



## Entropy3000

GettingIt said:


> Nice spin on my spin, Ent.  Well all need to be comfortable with ourselves, this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have the same understanding of D/s as someone who lives it, that is all. Same as I don't have the same understanding of what it's like to be cheated on as someone who has.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree.


I wish you peace and more importantly love.


----------



## over20

We forgot Crazy Train by Ozzy....sorry just thought that is more fitting
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

Entropy3000 said:


> I wish you peace and more importantly love.


Right back attcha . . . and I mean that with the utmost sincerity.


----------



## larry.gray

Entropy3000 said:


> Various Metallica songs:
> 
> Sanitarium
> 
> Unforgiven
> 
> Nothing Else Matters
> 
> But also these :
> 
> November Rain
> 
> Love Hurts
> 
> I Figured You Out
> 
> Lyin Eyes
> 
> Sundown
> 
> Easy Lover
> 
> Me and Mrs Jones
> 
> BAS


You missed the most fitting for JLD's premise:

Offspring Self Esteem


----------



## john117

Entropy3000 said:


> Marriage is NOT about trust. At least not in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> It is about love and respect. Trust is a by product.



Nope. Nope. Nope.

I can love someone without trusting them. Think PA or EA.

I can respect someone without loving them. I'm not so sure my wife loves anyone these days, what with BPD et al. Yet she respects me.

If you add trust to the above two scenarios things become a lot clearer.


----------



## larry.gray

Maricha75 said:


> When I was younger, I had a friend who had an adopted sister. This sister had NO genetic ties to their family, not one. But if you stood the sisters side by side, they actually looked a LOT alike. Unless you were told, you never would have known one was adopted. How could a man not know? Because, sometimes, people look a LOT alike, after living together for years.
> 
> *I really hope my husband doesn't start looking like me!*


My grandfather was a philanderer on the epic scale. I just figure if some random person looks a lot like me they could be a long lost half cousin I don't know about.


----------



## Mrs. John Adams

Maricha75 said:


> When I was younger, I had a friend who had an adopted sister. This sister had NO genetic ties to their family, not one. But if you stood the sisters side by side, they actually looked a LOT alike. Unless you were told, you never would have known one was adopted. How could a man not know? Because, sometimes, people look a LOT alike, after living together for years.
> 
> *I really hope my husband doesn't start looking like me!*


I have an adopted sister 11 years my junior. I am 5'1...she is 5'8
She has a square face with dimples and a cleft chin and a tiny little nose. I have an oval face and a long nose. All of our lives people have said....oh you look just alike.

Really? Not even remotely.


----------



## Entropy3000

john117 said:


> Nope. Nope. Nope.
> 
> I can love someone without trusting them. Think PA or EA.
> 
> I can respect someone without loving them. I'm not so sure my wife loves anyone these days, what with BPD et al. Yet she respects me.
> 
> If you add trust to the above two scenarios things become a lot clearer.


We are not disagreeing here. We are iterating through the combinations.

I think that the foundation of marriage ... again in my book, is both love and respect.

Indeed I can hate someone and respect them.

I am saying that blind trust is not a marriage. 

Yes, you can love someone and not trust them. Totally agree. Hard to completely respect someone you do not trust at all.

So rather than try to win an argument or be clever, I am saying that love is what marriage is about. To most men respect / admiration is a need. But certainly respect.

I trust my wife more than anyone else in the world. However I know that we have blind spots. I speak from personal experince. My blind spots.


----------



## Entropy3000

larry.gray said:


> My grandfather was a philanderer on the epic scale. I just figure if some random person looks a lot like me they could be a long lost half cousin I don't know about.


I take after my dad. A lot. Good and bad I am finding out. I have done ok avoiding alcoholism but his example was what made that possible.


----------



## Maricha75

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I have an adopted sister 11 years my junior. I am 5'1...she is 5'8
> She has a square face with dimples and a cleft chin and a tiny little nose. I have an oval face and a long nose. All of our lives people have said....oh you look just alike.
> 
> Really? Not even remotely.


Hmmm... must be those elbows and fingers ocotillo was talking about. 

Seriously, though, I can understand why you would question them. It sounds like you look nothing alike lol. But these two? Same facial structures, same height and build, bone structure the same, etc. Only difference was hair color.


----------



## john117

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sounds good in a motivational speech, but in the real world both the strong and the weak are equally capable of cruelty and kindness. As it happens, cruelty is a lot worse when perpetrated by the strong. Ask Jews or older African Americans.



Anyone is strong when they have overwhelming advantage of force. Most of the people who carried out the atrocities were afraid that they'd be the next one to go to the oven if they did not follow orders. 

In WW2 the Germans executed many adults in my village and HQ sent an order to kill the women and children too. The officer in charge declined to carry out the order and was executed.

That's what 'strong' means.


----------



## john117

ocotillo said:


> People used to joke with me and say, "Your daughters can't possibly be yours, Ocotillo. They're beautiful!"



If I had a dollar for every time I see the question come up people's throats when they see my girls...

One is a Kim Kardashian lookalike (without enhancements lol) with darker skin and striking Eurasian features (mom is a Central Asian Kris Jenner lookalike). Most people think she's some kind of Asian / Indian / etc. 

The other is a stunning tall classic European beauty with pale skin, curly dark hair, and killer accent (she's bilingual French English). Most people think she's French. 

Few people ever realize they're sisters.


----------



## john117

Entropy3000 said:


> So rather than try to win an argument or be clever, I am saying that love is what marriage is about. To most men respect / admiration is a need. But certainly respect.
> 
> I trust my wife more than anyone else in the world. However I know that we have blind spots. I speak from personal experince. My blind spots.



My personal experience is with a wife that has BPD. I have seen first hand how crucial trust is. 

Love comes and goes, has ups and downs. But trust is constant. You need both, but in my situation without trusting the other side it's curtains.

It could well be two sides of the same coin.


----------



## GusPolinski

john117 said:


> My personal experience is with a wife that has BPD. I have seen first hand how crucial trust is.
> 
> Love comes and goes, has ups and downs. But trust is constant. You need both, but in my situation without trusting the other side it's curtains.
> 
> It could well be two sides of the same coin.


It is either the existence or absence of trust that is the absolute foundation of ALL relationships.


----------



## tacoma

As'laDain said:


> i keep looking for this statement. i think im missing it... where is it?


The statement is implied throughout Jld's posts throughout this thread by use of the terms "insecure" "prideful" "ego" "not measuring up" "setting standards too high" and numerous others that escape my memory right now concerning those men who would refuse to raise their wife's love child.


----------



## edgya1234

jld said:


> This is a spin off of that PSA thread in Men's.
> 
> I hear this brought up a lot here on TAM, that men do not want to raise and pay for children who are not their own. And some have suggested paternity tests after the birth. I have always felt a little surprised when I read these things.
> 
> I have not been unfaithful, we are done having kids, and we have five, but if I had for whatever reason had a child before marrying him, or had a child by another man during the marriage, I know dh would not take it out on the child. I just know him. He loves children, and he loves me, and he would just accept the responsibility.
> 
> How about your husband? What do you think he would do?


I can't say anything about my husband but as he said that if we can't have children we can always adopt - so I guess is not a problem.
I think it depends of the men or woman. Is not a general rule.
I can tell you though something from my own family: my father remarried after my mom divorced him, his next wife had a daughter and he raised her as his own. More than that we were both very young and we loved each other and we still do and she is my sister in every way but blood. I couldn't love her more. 
However my step mother hated me with passion, never accepted me and did all she could to separate me from my father. So...people are people and they chose to do things based on their big or small souls or minds.


----------



## tacoma

Damn this blew up!

This is the second time I personally have pointed out what appears to be a contradiction in jlds's views so great it seems to border on misandry.
This is the second time my question has been ignored.

I've done this twice in this thread yet others have pointed out these contradictions in jld's (and others) views numerous times only to be ignored as well.

It's this intentional ignoring of the meat of the issue that leads many here to believe jld isn't at all what she claims.

Answering these simple questions would immediately clear everything up but I suspect that doing so would also point of some glaring hypocrisy that jld would rather not have so solidly outlined.

For the sake of all that is holy jld could you please just answer my question in post #1299 (dear lord) on page 87 of this thread.

Below is nearly the entire interaction ...



jld said:


> I don't think marriage should be about controlling each other. It is more voluntarily giving each other into one another's keeping.





tacoma said:


> I agree but marriage is in part about controlling yourself.
> 
> What happens when you find yourself tied to a partner who is incapable of doing so?





jld said:


> Personally, that would be the wrong man for me. I would move on.
> 
> Or maybe one chance? If he seemed truly sorry? Not sure. I need to have absolute trust in a partner for the dynamic to work. And I don't think I could respect him anymore. No respect, no dynamic. Friends at best. Little attraction. Complicated.
> 
> And it really would not matter what anyone else thought of it. I know my limits.





tacoma said:


> Perfectly understandable and I agree with your either of your possible reactions.
> 
> However I have to point out that it doesn't mesh with your earlier statement that the correct course of action for a man who has been betrayed would be to stay with his wife and raise their love child and your implication that a man who does not is "prideful" or "insecure".
> 
> In fact it's a direct contradiction if one is considering that a man has equal rights within a relationship.
> 
> Since you do have this contradiction in your point of view I can only conclude that you don't believe a man has equitable rights within the relationship.
> 
> Is this so, why not?



We have agreed that trust is the bedrock of marriage and you yourself said above concerning your marriage ...

"I need to have absolute trust in a partner for the dynamic to work. And I don't think I could respect him anymore. No respect, no dynamic. "

Yet you seem to expect a man to get past this trust problem, to continue to respect the wife who crushed him and his family.

The hypocrisy could reside anywhere in there but wherever it resides it appears to be misandrist as hell


Plain and simple, Jld....

Why is it acceptable for you to "move on" if a man was unfaithful to you but it is not acceptable for a man to "move on" if his wife is unfaithful enough to become pregnant with her lovers child?

Will you please answer this question?
Pretty please?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Comic relief for which I will likely get lynch mobbed...get your pitchfork.

If you read the book Eat, Pray, Love...the author described a situation where in Bali, if a baby wasn't forthcoming from a marriage, it was always assumed to be the wife who was infertile. It simply wasn't even discussed that this might be the man. Or rather, I think they believed there was a curse upon them or something like that, can't remember exactly. Anyway so, the women there, knowing that it very well could be the man who is infertile, would go to the witch doctor and get a "spell" from them that would make them pregnant. The real "spell" was that the witch doctor would pay a young man to have sex with the wife at the doctor's office. Surprise! The spell worked and she is pregnant!

(my apologies to their culture if I got that all wrong but that was the gist of it, plus the book is fiction and I have no idea if any of that is actually true or if she made it up, PLUS I know that book is hated by people who have infidelity triggers)

Anyway as I said, I'll wait for the pitchforks now....


----------



## john117

> Why is it acceptable for you to "move on" if a man was unfaithful to you but it is not acceptable for a man to "move on" if his wife is unfaithful enough to become pregnant with her lovers child?


If the first case did not result in pregnancy and there are no other children involved moving on is a good choice. 

In the second case it's a bit more complicated. If one could ensure that the WW would run to OM and he would provide for her and the baby everyone lives happily ever after and they have a stable household well it is nice. If there are kids involved not so easy of course and family court would have a field day there. 

In the second case if reconciling is in the tea leaves raising the child with the BS is an option. 

Someone ends up paying the piper one way or another. No good way around it. Do the math and see what's best for those who did not choose to be there and who can't fix things on their own.


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> Comic relief for which I will likely get lynch mobbed...get your pitchfork.
> 
> If you read the book Eat, Pray, Love...the author described a situation where in Bali, if a baby wasn't forthcoming from a marriage, it was always assumed to be the wife who was infertile. It simply wasn't even discussed that this might be the man. Or rather, I think they believed there was a curse upon them or something like that, can't remember exactly. Anyway so, the women there, knowing that it very well could be the man who is infertile, would go to the witch doctor and get a "spell" from them that would make them pregnant. The real "spell" was that the witch doctor would pay a young man to have sex with the wife at the doctor's office. Surprise! The spell worked and she is pregnant!
> 
> (my apologies to their culture if I got that all wrong but that was the gist of it, plus the book is fiction and I have no idea if any of that is actually true or if she made it up, PLUS I know that book is hated by people who have infidelity triggers)
> 
> Anyway as I said, I'll wait for the pitchforks now....


When you put someone in an unfair position where they can only lose no matter how they play the game you shouldn't get upset when they find a creative way to cheat the game.


----------



## Lyris

Tacoma, jld doesn't believe that women should be held to the same standards as men in relationships. She believes they are weaker, basically, and less able to function. She doesn't believe women can really hurt men.

It's not misandry. It's closer to misogyny.


----------



## tacoma

john117 said:


> If the first case did not result in pregnancy and there are no other children involved moving on is a good choice.
> 
> In the second case it's a bit more complicated. If one could ensure that the WW would run to OM and he would provide for her and the baby everyone lives happily ever after and they have a stable household well it is nice. If there are kids involved not so easy of course and family court would have a field day there.
> 
> In the second case if reconciling is in the tea leaves raising the child with the BS is an option.


So this part has no bearing on the decision?
The emotional stability of the BH is inconsequential?
Doesn't matter if he's destroyed in every way as long as she and the child are "secure"?

_I need to have absolute trust in a partner for the dynamic to work. And I don't think I could respect him anymore. No respect, no dynamic._

You are aware that under such a dynamic every man is going to crumble in many different ways.
None of which are good for the wife or the child.



> Someone ends up paying the piper one way or another. No good way around it.


True but I think person who hired the piper should hold the responsibility of paying him.

Not the guy who hates the type of music he plays, didn't want him around in the first place and was promised there would be no pipe playing.

Why is that guy responsible for payment?


----------



## tacoma

Lyris said:


> Tacoma, jld doesn't believe that women should be held to the same standards as men in relationships. She believes they are weaker, basically, and less able to function. She doesn't believe women can really hurt men.


I know, but I've been trying to get her to simply admit that for 50+ pages and she just.won't.do it.



> It's not misandry. It's closer to misogyny.


I even agree with this but can you see how people who don't understand her mindset and relationship structure will see it as misandry?

Edit: I simply couldn't understand it myself until I read her "kink" thread and the entire thing just crystallized in my mind.
it makes perfect sense and while most will disagree with her at least they won't be so angered by her considering it's just a misunderstanding.


----------



## Lyris

She actually has said exactly that in other threads. Not sure why she's being coy about it here.

No, I'm not really seeing the misandry. I'm seeing a lack of understanding generally and an inability to be empathetic or accept anything that she hasn't herself experienced.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes Tacoma...I actually liked that part of the book when I read it. It was presented as a humane option to an impossible sitch. Obviously nothing to do with today's discussion. Just thought I'd toss a match on the gasoline, see what happened.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Anyone is strong when they have overwhelming advantage of force. Most of the people who carried out the atrocities were afraid that they'd be the next one to go to the oven if they did not follow orders.
> 
> In WW2 the Germans executed many adults in my village and HQ sent an order to kill the women and children too. The officer in charge declined to carry out the order and was executed.
> 
> That's what 'strong' means.


Thanks for sharing that, John. And you got the definition just right.


----------



## tacoma

Lyris said:


> She actually has said exactly that in other threads. Not sure why she's being coy about it here.
> 
> No, I'm not really seeing the misandry. I'm seeing a lack of understanding generally and an inability to be empathetic or accept anything that she hasn't herself experienced.


Of course you're not seeing the misandry, you have an understanding of her ideals.

There are many men here who have called it out as misandry (myself included) because without understanding her mindset all it looks like is an inequitable value of the emotional needs between men and women where the man isn't important at all.

To say it's wrong for a man to cheat but it's ok for a wife to cheat displays this hypocrisy quite clearly.

Once you understand she says this BECAUSE she believes woman are so inferior to men that men become godlike you can understand that she's not being misandristic she's actually being misogynistic. 

It's a cluster**** even when you do understand her POV just to keep it straight in your head.
With no understanding of her POV it's impossible to understand.


----------



## Lyris

Ok I understand where you see it now.


----------



## john117

tacoma said:


> So this part has no bearing on the decision?
> The emotional stability of the BH is inconsequential?
> Doesn't matter if he's destroyed in every way as long as she and the child are "secure"?
> ::::::
> You are aware that under such a dynamic every man is going to crumble in many different ways.
> None of which are good for the wife or the child.
> ::::::::::
> Why is that guy responsible for payment?



Ultimately the arrangement will crumble due to resentment - just like OM's marriage will crumble if he shows up with his bundle of joy at his home and shows BW what he found in the cereal box....

And I would be willing to bet that OM and -not sure of the proper TLA- CW won't be together for long following OM's marriage collapse.

Sooooooo. Let's destroy three homes to prove the point that cheating is wrong... 

I don't personally think there is a good way out of this. Someone will get hurt. In JLD's scenario maybe not immediately. But at the end nothing is free. 

A couple folks in my village raised kids that likely were not their own. They must have received the JLD memo and raised the kid as their own even if half the village knew the story. Nobody questioned them or their actions. It was something you did period. 

One of those kids (nickname Duck - I kid you not, that was her nickname) talked relatively openly about her experience and was all to eager to, ehem, help us younger kids, ehem, expand our horizons . She was happy as one could be working in her dad's cafe'. She would have been in far worse shape if they had split. Eventually Duck got married to another village kid and had Ducklings and all was forgotten.


----------



## tacoma

john117 said:


> I don't personally think there is a good way out of this.


There is never a good way out of infidelity.

Only ways more or less acceptable to each individual within the ****storm.

This scenario only adds more bad ways to the mix.


----------



## TiggyBlue

tacoma said:


> There is never a good way out of infidelity.
> 
> Only ways more or less acceptable to each individual within the ****storm.
> 
> This scenario only adds more bad ways to the mix.


:iagree:
I definitely disagree that the BH/BW bears any of the responsibly for damage control of their wayward spouses actions though, which seems to be implied.


----------



## john117

jld said:


> Thanks for sharing that, John. And you got the definition just right.



My mom gave everyone the "weak" vibes.... Strong would have been #125 in a list of words to describe herby most folks. Fully devoted to Major Dad and us kids.

Those of us who knew her well knew that she received the country's highest Resistance medal in WW2 for doing some seriously BSC acts. 

Same person who blew the whistle at a government corruption fest, was fired, sued the government, won, and was reinstated.

I have many examples like that.


----------



## john117

TiggyBlue said:


> :iagree:
> I definitely disagree that the BH/BW bears any of the responsibly for damage control of their wayward spouses actions though, which seems to be implied.



Well... Not damage control but...

Hypothetical scenario. OM is in an unhappy marriage due to BW's actions or attitude. So he hooks up with CW and they have a steamy little PA that results in a pregnancy. 

Are you telling me that BW is blameless in all this? Legally she is, but I could park the Mini on the Dan Ryan expressway and when a semi rear ends me and I go meet my 72 virgins was it all Bob the truckers fault?

Infidelity creates plenty of blame to go around.


----------



## jld

tacoma said:


> Why is it acceptable for you to "move on" if a man was unfaithful to you but it is not acceptable for a man to "move on" if his wife is unfaithful enough to become pregnant with her lovers child?
> 
> Will you please answer this question?
> Pretty please?


Tacoma, where did I say it is not acceptable?


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Infidelity creates plenty of blame to go around.


Thank you for saying it.


----------



## As'laDain

over and over again i am surprised by the way people attack each other for their views. 

its like a view that veers from our own preconceptions must be inherently wrong. if it is not aligned with our own, it must be meant as an affront to our views. 

and yet so many here give jld that power. they get so upset and galvanized behind their own views. so much so that they are willing to resort to character degradation and personal attacks, and they justify it because they assume that they were attacked first. this wouldn't be so insufferable if it weren't for the fact that they refuse to accept that their perceptions of the intent of the OP may not actually be what they THINK it is. 

i mean, it could be that jld just wanted to get an opinion and discuss something that is really hard to discuss. or, it could be that she just wants to set the stage to condemn others who dont agree with her. what is the truth? 

personally, i like to give people the benefit of the doubt. from what i have seen, jld is being honest and people are upset by her honesty. they are so upset that they cannot even let her speak her mind without demonizing her. what does that say about jld?

not much, to me. she is who she is. she has already stated who she is.
but on the flip side, what does that say about them?

it tells ME that they are sensitive to the issue. it tells me that the issue that jld brings up triggers them. that it reminds them of a painful situation. it tells me that they are not able to let go of their pains long enough to engage in a debate and try to learn about the view presented, from the person who presents it. 

this thread has led me to believe that many people here are dealing with their own issues and jld just happened to be a catalyst for their triggers.

i know i have my own triggers...


----------



## TiggyBlue

john117 said:


> Well... Not damage control but...
> 
> Hypothetical scenario. OM is in an unhappy marriage due to BW's actions or attitude. So he hooks up with CW and they have a steamy little PA that results in a pregnancy.
> 
> Are you telling me that BW is blameless in all this? Legally she is, but I could park the Mini on the Dan Ryan expressway and when a semi rear ends me and I go meet my 72 virgins was it all Bob the truckers fault?
> 
> Infidelity creates plenty of blame to go around.


Blameless in the marriage not at all, the bh to leave the marriage if she was unwilling to work on the marriage or yes he could cheat..

Blameless on the fact he decided to cheat and the result of his affair was a child yes she is blameless. I don't believe that she would be automatically have any responsibility for a child that she didn't have part of creating.

He had the choice of leaving or cheating, if he's cheating is found out and there is a child conceived she has the choice of staying or leaving.


----------



## tacoma

john117 said:


> Well... Not damage control but...
> 
> Hypothetical scenario. OM is in an unhappy marriage due to BW's actions or attitude. So he hooks up with CW and they have a steamy little PA that results in a pregnancy.
> 
> Are you telling me that BW is blameless in all this?
> Legally she is,


She's blameless ethically too, at least for the infidelity.
There have been many potential infidelities I could have had AND been able to lay on my wife's shoulders if we followed these line of thinking.

There are alternatives to deceit and betrayal.
Ethical people use them all the time.

The problems within the marriage may or may not be partially laid at her feet (depends on the situation, sometimes people just **** around because they like to **** around). 



> Infidelity creates plenty of blame to go around.


Not really, it just takes one, usually two but it can be done with just one person behaving in an unethical manner.


----------



## GusPolinski

john117 said:


> Well... Not damage control but...
> 
> Hypothetical scenario. OM is in an unhappy marriage due to BW's actions or attitude. So he hooks up with CW and they have a steamy little PA that results in a pregnancy.
> 
> Are you telling me that BW is blameless in all this?


Yes. As we've all come to understand from our time in CWI, both spouses, at any given time in their marriage, are to equally accountable for the state of their marriage. The blame for any infidelity, however, falls squarely on the shoulders of those explicitly involved in it.



john117 said:


> Legally she is, but I could park the Mini on the Dan Ryan expressway and when a semi rear ends me and I go meet my 72 virgins was it all Bob the truckers fault?


Technically, yes.



john117 said:


> Infidelity creates plenty of blame to go around.


Seems like I covered this above...


----------



## tacoma

jld said:


> Tacoma, where did I say it is not acceptable?


Jld just forget it.

I'm seriously tired of the coy act, all it is accomplishing is me repeating myself over and over while you stare blankly going "huh?".
You aren't worthy of my sincerity and I'm wasting it on you.

I hope you never do cheat on your man, you're a master of deflection and blameshifting.
The poor bastard wouldn't stand a chance.


----------



## GusPolinski

john117 said:


> Ultimately the arrangement will crumble due to resentment - just like OM's marriage will crumble if he shows up with his bundle of joy at his home and shows BW what he found in the cereal box....
> 
> And I would be willing to bet that OM and -not sure of the proper TLA- CW won't be together for long following OM's marriage collapse.
> 
> *Sooooooo. Let's destroy three homes to prove the point that cheating is wrong...*


The logic involved here is just so tragically flawed.


----------



## tacoma

GusPolinski said:


> The logic involved here is just so tragically flawed.


Spend enough time in this thread and you start getting used to it Sam.

It's just rolling off my back now.


----------



## john117

Regardless of reason tho the destruction is real, is it not?

Focus on the end result first then try to assign blame....


----------



## GusPolinski

john117 said:


> Regardless of reason tho the destruction is real, is it not?
> 
> Focus on the end result first then try to assign blame....


Yes, but the destruction (the end result, if you will) began the very instant that OM shoved his phallus into WW.

100!


----------



## As'laDain

tacoma said:


> Jld just forget it.
> 
> I'm seriously tired of the coy act, all it is accomplishing is me repeating myself over and over while you stare blankly going "huh?".
> You aren't worthy of my sincerity and I'm wasting it on you.
> 
> I hope you never do cheat on your man, you're a master of deflection and blameshifting.
> *The poor bastard wouldn't stand a chance*.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


wow, you really dont know her husband at all...


----------



## TiggyBlue

john117 said:


> Regardless of reason tho the destruction is real, is it not?
> 
> Focus on the end result first then try to assign blame....


The reason blame was brought up is because you asked this and it seemed you were automatically assigning blame on the betrayed spouse.




> Are you telling me that BW is_ blameless_ in all this? Legally she is, but I could park the Mini on the Dan Ryan expressway and when a semi rear ends me and I go meet my 72 virgins was it all Bob the truckers fault?
> 
> Infidelity creates plenty of _blame_ to go around.


----------



## Duguesclin

tacoma said:


> Jld just forget it.
> 
> I'm seriously tired of the coy act, all it is accomplishing is me repeating myself over and over while you stare blankly going "huh?".
> You aren't worthy of my sincerity and I'm wasting it on you.
> 
> I hope you never do cheat on your man, you're a master of deflection and blameshifting.
> The poor bastard wouldn't stand a chance.


Tacoma, I have been reading your latest posts on this thread as well as the kink thread. I have a hard time to comprehend your insistence

When I disagree with someone and I do not get through that person, I just move on. I am not going to waste my time. I feel you are right now. For whatever reason you seem obsessed. Are you hurting?


----------



## tacoma

Duguesclin said:


> Tacoma, I have been reading your latest posts on this thread as well as the kink thread. I have a hard time to comprehend your insistence
> 
> When I disagree with someone and I do not get through that person, I just move on. I am not going to waste my time. I feel you are right now. For whatever reason you seem obsessed. Are you hurting?


Yes, it's killing me.


----------



## GusPolinski

Duguesclin said:


> Tacoma, I have been reading your latest posts on this thread as well as the kink thread. I have a hard time to comprehend your insistence
> 
> When I disagree with someone and I do not get through that person, I just move on. I am not going to waste my time. I feel you are right now. For whatever reason you seem obsessed. Are you hurting?


Welcome back, sir! We have balls aplenty for you! Feel free to grab a couple...










Be warned, though, as these balls are pretty big.


----------



## john117

tacoma said:


> Not really, it just takes one, usually two but it can be done with just one person behaving in an unethical manner.



Nothing happens in a vacuum or for no reason. 

If just one person behaves in an unethical manner, he or she will do it sooner or later so the marriage is toast anyway.

But many marriages blow up because of the actions of both partners. Someone content and happy in their marriage is not going to cheat with the same likelihood that a resentment-laden husband or wife will. 

Think of the difference between explaining an action and excusing an action. In SIM you'll find many men and some women whose partners have checked out. Some seek EA's or PA's as a result. Then we are surprised?

There are many outcomes in an affair driven pregnancy - none are good and seeking the less bad option may or may not be the answer. But it's worth a look.


----------



## john117

TiggyBlue said:


> The reason blame was brought up is because you asked this and it seemed you were automatically assigning blame on the betrayed spouse.



Some blame. Not all of it.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> Jld just forget it.
> 
> I'm seriously tired of the coy act, all it is accomplishing is me repeating myself over and over while you stare blankly going "huh?".
> You aren't worthy of my sincerity and I'm wasting it on you.
> 
> I hope you never do cheat on your man, you're a master of deflection and blameshifting.
> The poor bastard wouldn't stand a chance.


ROI


----------



## tacoma

john117 said:


> Nothing happens in a vacuum or for no reason.


A marriage or any relationship is hardly a vacuum.
In fact a true vacuum is a very rare thing in this universe.



> If just one person behaves in an unethical manner, he or she will do it sooner or later so the marriage is toast anyway.





> But many marriages blow up because of the actions of both partners. Someone content and happy in their marriage is not going to cheat with the same likelihood that a resentment-laden husband or wife will.


Indeed but that doesn't make the betrayed responsible for anything beyond whatever they personally acted upon within that marriage.
If I get pissed off at my wife tonight and go out drinking and driving my way into a tree at 90 MPH does that make her responsible for my accident?
If I drive into a tree because my wife has repeatedly refused to get her license because she likes to be driven around does that make her responsible for my accident?

I was driving, I am responsible for the vehicle regardless of anything else that may have influenced why I was on the road or how I was driving.



> Think of the difference between explaining an action and excusing an action. In SIM you'll find many men and some women whose partners have checked out. Some seek EA's or PA's as a result. Then we are surprised?


No, the BS shouldn't be surprised.
They should also not be blamed for their partners EA or PA either as there are a multitude of ethical actions that can be taken instead of betraying your spouse.



> There are many outcomes in an affair driven pregnancy - none are good and seeking the less bad option may or may not be the answer. But it's worth a look.


Less bad for who?


----------



## TiggyBlue

john117 said:


> Some blame. Not all of it.


Without having all of the true facts of a individual couple's marriage where cheating has occurred that is just a presumption.


----------



## jld

What are you afraid of, Gus?

You think Dug is a doormat, right? You couldn't be scared of a doormat, right?


----------



## tacoma

Entropy3000 said:


> ROI


You really should have kicked me 20 pages ago.


----------



## Entropy3000

Duguesclin said:


> Tacoma, I have been reading your latest posts on this thread as well as the kink thread. I have a hard time to comprehend your insistence
> 
> When I disagree with someone and I do not get through that person, I just move on. I am not going to waste my time. I feel you are right now. For whatever reason you seem obsessed. Are you hurting?


ROI

gret idea.


----------



## FrenchFry

Don't bait people jld.


----------



## tacoma

FrenchFry said:


> Don't bait people jld.


What would be the point of this thread if she stopped baiting people?

:rofl:


----------



## Entropy3000

john117 said:


> Nothing happens in a vacuum or for no reason.
> 
> If just one person behaves in an unethical manner, he or she will do it sooner or later so the marriage is toast anyway.
> 
> But many marriages blow up because of the actions of both partners. Someone content and happy in their marriage is not going to cheat with the same likelihood that a resentment-laden husband or wife will.
> 
> Think of the difference between explaining an action and excusing an action. In SIM you'll find many men and some women whose partners have checked out. Some seek EA's or PA's as a result. Then we are surprised?
> 
> There are many outcomes in an affair driven pregnancy - none are good and seeking the less bad option may or may not be the answer. But it's worth a look.


Except Halo in space.


----------



## FrenchFry

tacoma said:


> What would be the point of this thread if she stopped baiting people?
> 
> :rofl:


I've been questioning this the whole day, honestly.


----------



## Duguesclin

tacoma said:


> If I get pissed off at my wife tonight and go out drinking and driving my way into a tree at 90 MPH does that make her responsible for my accident?


It does not make her responsible for your accident, but if she cares about you, and I am sure she does, she will feel responsible.


----------



## GusPolinski

john117 said:


> Nothing happens in a vacuum or for no reason.
> 
> If just one person behaves in an unethical manner, he or she will do it sooner or later so the marriage is toast anyway.
> 
> But many marriages blow up because of the actions of both partners. Someone content and happy in their marriage is not going to cheat with the same likelihood that a resentment-laden husband or wife will.
> 
> Think of the difference between explaining an action and excusing an action. In SIM you'll find many men and some women whose partners have checked out. Some seek EA's or PA's as a result. Then we are surprised?
> 
> There are many outcomes in an affair driven pregnancy - none are good and seeking the less bad option may or may not be the answer. But it's worth a look.


Look, we understand all this. Really, we do. But sometimes, just sometimes, the only "fault" that truly lies with a BS is an explicable inability to magically morph into an exact doppelganger of the WS's boss or co-worker, the best friend's spouse, the neighbor, the babysitter, or some random person at the bar or on the Internet.

Let's say D*ck and Jane are arguing. After a bit, D*ck leaves the house angry. As a result of his anger, D*ck starts driving aggressively. At some point, someone -- let's say Diane -- pulls up behind D*ck and, due to the way that he's driving, she decides that she wants to get around him. She flashes her lights at him. This enrages D*ck and, after a bit of back and forth, due to D*ck's aggression, their exchange results in a wreck. Someone is injured, perhaps mortally so. Could be D*ck, could be Diane, could be both. Doesn't matter. Either way, Bob, Diane's husband, is devastated, as is Jane.

So, question... Is Jane responsible for any of this? How about Bob? Even IF Diane left her home under similar circumstances, the answer to both of these questions is no.

Here are the differences between this scenario and the one we've been going back and forth over... Diane may -- or may not have been -- a willing participant in the direct events that lead to her injuries. Let me be clear -- I am in no way attempting to make any sort of obvious or thinly-veiled reference to consensual sex vs. rape.


----------



## Entropy3000

jld said:


> What are you afraid of, Gus?
> 
> You think Dug is a doormat, right? You couldn't be scared of a doormat, right?


Jld. A woman no longer has to be afraid. They just have to get help. If you need help please let someone know.


----------



## tacoma

Entropy3000 said:


> Jld. A woman no longer has to be afraid. They just have to get help. If you need help please let someone know.


I see what you're doing there.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> You really should have kicked me 20 pages ago.


No no no. You were magnificent. 

Blaze Of Glory


----------



## FrenchFry

Seriously. If this is all that's left here is poking at each other, let's be done with it and shoot the damn dog.


----------



## Anon Pink

Entropy3000 said:


> Jld. A woman no longer has to be afraid. They just have to get help. If you need help please let someone know.


Do you have to be so condescending? Talk about baiting!

I've requested this before, if you have something of substance to offer then by all means make your point. But this snide remark and commentary that doesn't exactly say the insult your intend to be heard is really beneath you entropy. For some reason, the men here seem to look up to you, though I have no idea why. So be a man and say what it is you want to say?


----------



## Anon Pink

Shoot it! Shoot it already!

But the next time JKD makes a post, there will no doubt be more sniping at her. I get the feeling she has already said all that she has to say.


----------



## john117

entropy3000 said:


> except halo in space.


----------



## jld

Anon Pink said:


> Shoot it! Shoot it already!
> 
> But the next time JKD makes a post, there will no doubt be more sniping at her. I get the feeling she has already said all that she has to say.


Many pages back.


----------



## tacoma

Anon Pink said:


> Do you have to be so condescending? Talk about baiting!
> 
> I've requested this before, if you have something of substance to offer then by all means make your point. But this snide remark and commentary that doesn't exactly say the insult your intend to be heard is really beneath you entropy. For some reason, the men here seem to look up to you, though I have no idea why. So be a man and say what it is you want to say?


Complaining about snide insults with snide insults.

This thread is really bringing out the creativity in us.

I'm impressed.

AP can you explain to me how you managed to catch Entropys snide insult but managed to not only miss but defend a plethora of JLD's snide insults?

They hypocrisy is beneath you.

Disclaimer:
I hope any insults I may have made in this post weren't snide.


----------



## GusPolinski

jld said:


> What are you afraid of, Gus?


Within the context of this thread? Only that someone w/ your views may eventually gain the legislative power necessary to enforce them upon all of us.



jld said:


> You think Dug is a doormat, right?


No, I think only that his views are different than mine. I accept, understand, and respect that. There is a certain nobility and selflessness involved in the willingness of a BH to accept, care for, and raise a child born of his WW's infidelity. Truly, I do respect that. 

But this says nothing of one's ability to set and enforce boundaries. I keep coming back to this... How many children conceived from a wife's infidelity would it take for a man possessed of such nobility to leave her?

Do you think he's a doormat? Does he? Either way, why does it matter what I think in this regard?



jld said:


> You couldn't be scared of a doormat, right?


This is a silly question. Per the definition most commonly given here, a "doormat" is a desperate person, and desperate people are often capable of dangerous things. To be "scared" of a thing is, at it's core, to be cautious of it. So, in that sense, yes, I am "scared" of certain things.

But am I scared of your husband? I ask this only because you more or less asked it of me. No. It doesn't really sound like I need to be.


----------



## FrenchFry

So, night night.


----------

