The result is that over the next 50 years, while peace and prosperity reigns due to the guiding hand of the Overlords, marriage, traditional morality and organized religion all vanish.
Of course, Clarke actually thought this was a good thing, and the rest of the novel is about humanity moving onto the next stage of evolutionary development: as a non-material group mind. But in a sense, that's the really interesting thing, that as someone who saw traditional marriage, morality and religion as a problem back in 1953, Clarke say the two inventions most likely to get rid of all three as being completely reliable contraception and paternity testing.
Coming at things from a Catholic point of view, G.E.M. Anscombe saw the same trends, now well advanced, in relation to contraception, morality and marriage in her 1972 essay "Contraception and Chastity". Some key bits:
I will first ask you to contemplate a familiar point: the fantastic change that has come about in people's situation in respect of having children because of the invention of efficient contraceptives. You see, what can't be otherwise we accept; and so we accept death and its unhappiness. But possibility destroys mere acceptance. And so it is with the possibility of having intercourse and preventing conception. This power is now placed in a woman's hands; she needn't have children when she doesn't want to and she can still have her man! This can make the former state of things look intolerable, so that one wonders why they were so pleased about weddings in former times and why the wedding day was supposed to be such a fine day for the bride.
There always used to be a colossal strain in ancient times; between heathen morality and Christian morality, and one of the things pagan converts had to be told about the way they were entering on was that they must abstain from fornication....
Christianity was at odds with the heathen world, not only about fornication, infanticide and idolatry; but also about marriage.... But the quarrel is far greater between Christianity and the present-day heathen, post Christian, morality that has sprung up as a result of contraception. In one word: Christianity taught that men ought to be as chaste as pagans thought honest women ought to be; the contraceptive morality teaches that women need to be as little chaste as pagans thought men need be.
And if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with contraceptive intercourse, and if it could become general practice everywhere when there is intercourse but ought to be no begetting, then it's very difficult to see the objection to this morality, for the ground of objection to fornication and adultery was that sexual intercourse is only right in the sort of set-up that typically provides children with a father and mother to care for them. If you can turn intercourse into something other than the reproductive type of act (I don't mean of course that every act is reproductive any more than every acorn leads to an oak-tree but it's the reproductive type of act) then why, if you can change it, should it be restricted to the married?
Today, we can see pretty clearly that both Clarke and Anscombe were right.
25 comments:
"they provide two inventions: a 100% effective oral contraceptive, and a 100% accurate paternity test."
While I am in agreement with your take on the effect of readily available contraceptives, I'm wondering about the supposed role of paternity testing.
Of course, I'm one of those supposedly woman-hating guys from over in the Manosphere who sees paternity testing as a boon to men - completely counter tot eh view of your fellow Catholic Melanie McDonaugh:
Who’s the daddy?
Paternity can now be verified by a simple test – but that doesn’t mean it should be
You teased it, but never really did get into any discussion of the supposedly anti-family role of paternity testing.
So, what is your take on paternity testing?
I believe a man has the right to know. If he then choses to to accept the child as if his own (ala Joseph), it is his freely made choice. But, if he is deceived into doing so, I find it quite wicked - quite a bit worse that mere infidelity.
It is an interesting question, I agree, and I don't think that the answer is necessarily obvious.
One point I think that is worth making is that we quite often acquire special responsibility towards another person, arising from a relationship we have with that person, without explicitly consenting to have that responsibility. We are, so to speak, our brother's keepers, even if we did not ask for our brother to be born.
The first obvious relationship and responsibility we don't consent to is our relationship with our parents. I think that most agree it is possible for a parent to forfeit our responsibility towards him, by abandoning us or by abusing us; but excepting that, we have a responsibility to provide for care for our parents as they age or become disabled, even though we did not consent to be their children. Another obvious, un-consented responsibility (according to those who concede the humanity of the unborn child) is the responsibility that a mother has to her child, even if the conception was unplanned and undesired, to protect the life of the child.
It happens sometimes that a man becomes a father-figure to a child who is not biologically his. Once that has happened, I submit that the relationship exists, and with that special relationship comes a special responsibility -- even if he never intended to become a father-figure to anyone but his own biological children, even if he became that father-figure because the child's mother wronged him (and make no doubt about it, he and the child were wronged together).
But this takes for granted that the proper response to a child, as to all humans, is love.
Darwin, it sounds like you are in Melanie McDonagh's corner regarding paternity testing. I hope that is not true and that you take the time to clarify your differences with McDonagh. I find McDonagh's article vile in the worst way. In this day and age when we are told to give "reformed" women a chance, we need to be able to verify that trust!
I do not object to raising kids that are not mine as long as I know up front about it. It is the cheating behind my back and getting me to pay for it against my will that I strenuously object to. If a woman does that to her husband, she needs to bear the consequences of her adultery as does the man she did it with. And yes that would include shame within the community. Only said shame would deter other women from following that path.
"It happens sometimes that a man becomes a father-figure to a child who is not biologically his. Once that has happened, I submit that the relationship exists, and with that special relationship comes a special responsibility"
Which coincides perfectly with the current state of (anti-)Family Law, under the "Best Interest Of the Child" ideology. If a man consents to acting as a father might, he can then be held liable to continue to do so. And, he is subject to the same "debtors prison" as any biological father who cannot or will not pay up.
This has happened to men who were merely the boyfriend of the mothers, and even to some men who did nothing more than provide some financial support for a child.
Not to discount that love-gift of a man who would take a child as his own, but men today need to be extremely careful about any associations with single mothers. Man up, do what you believe God would want you to do, take the child under your wing, try to help raise and teach them, and BOOM! - the child's mother can go to court and get a lawful court order requiring that you pay child-support for that non-biological child of "yours", even if she kicks you out of the child's life, and takes up with another man.
Which is a greater example of love:
1. Giving to charity freely with love
2. Supporting others thru taxation at the point of a gun.
Paternity testing allows this choice to be made. If a man is forced thru either court of law or deception to raise and support a child that is not his, he is being forced into subjugation. No different then a slave. He then becomes a slave to another mans progeny. If in light of truth he chooses to raise that child it is an act of great charity to the child.
100% birth control with 100% paternity may be bad for all. Birth control without paternity will become slavery for men. Just look around, you will already see the signs of this.
There will be a major push to retrict paternity testing in the future.
mortarmanmike
I think Arthur C. Clarke's point was that if people knew for sure whose children was whose without sexual exclusivity -- as in, a woman could be openly sleeping with multiple different men, with their knowledge and consent, and be very clear with all of them whose child she bore -- and if a woman could also choose to only have children when she wanted to, that there would be no need for marriage or for any kind of sexual moral code.
In the modern world, if a man is accused of fathering a child out of wedlock, and he believes that child is not his from the get go, I don't see why his insisting on a paternity test before providing support would be a problem. After all, he and the mother are not married and so they both clearly have been having sex outside of a permanent commitment to take care of each other. They should have known this was dangerous to both of them when they started out. (Which is why I'm moderately ambiguous about the whole thing, making things harder on one side necessarily makes it easier on the other.)
If a man has been supporting a child for a long time (either of his wife's or of a woman not his wife) and having a father/child relationship with that child, I think it becomes a much stickier moral issue whether he should/can cut off support for that child simply due to finding out he's not the biological father. This isn't out of an interest of protecting the woman involved (who clearly would have wronged him very, very seriously) but out of an interest in protecting the child involved.
I mean, think about it. Imagine you were about ten years old and one day your dad comes up to you and says, "Hey, I just found out you're not really my kid. Get out of my house. Now."
And as with so many things, this is obviously an area in which by the time things hit the courts they have obviously gone so deeply wrong that everyone is going to suffer.
That said: The post here contraception and marriage. I am okay with a bit of topic drift, but let's keep things close to the topic.
” The post here contraception and marriage. I am okay with a bit of topic drift, but let's keep things close to the topic.”
If I did that, I’d have nothing to argue with you about!!!
”This isn't out of an interest of protecting the woman involved”
Well, actually, yes it is. Because, in the typical case, the legal issue of support isn’t about emotional support, but rather it’s only about the money the women wishes to keep on receiving (which she may then to chose to spend on the child’s behalf, or not). It usually only comes up in regards to divorce or relationship break-down – in which they typical woman is also seeking to deny any custody to the non-bio dad anyway.
The just, and dare I say, righteous, thing to do would be to require that she would have to name and pursue the biological father for child support, while the duped-duped dad would be allowed to sue for joint custody if he wished to do so (note – the current state of the law denies non-biological duped-dads the standing to do this, under the legal position that (drumroll, please) they aren’t the child’s father).
In the real world, many thusly duped-dads have expressed biter resentment at being cut-off from the children with whom they have bonded – as well as having to be financially liable for the children they love, but can never spend time with.
Interestingly, under the law, (positive) paternity can be established at any time after the child is born (no time limit) and back-support can (and will) be ordered for any years in which an unaware father didn’t provide it. A woman can literally not tell a man he fathered her child until that child is 18 years or older, and still collect back support (see the case involving the woman who tried to name Keanu Reeves as the father of her 4 adult children).
Yet, in most jurisdictions, a man has only 2 years to dis-establish paternity before he is permanently liable (which can include college expense past the age of 18). In some, he has just 6-months. It is a huge legal hypocrisy at work. But, it’s all dishonestly called “In The Best Interest Of The Child”. Personally, I call it the “Playa Protection Act” as it allows the Lotharios with whom cheating wives cuckold their husbands to walk away Scot-free.
But, it’s all dishonestly called “In The Best Interest Of The Child”.
If it's dishonestly called "In the Best Interest of the Child" that can only be because it is not in the best interest of the child. What are you suggesting the best interest of the child actually is?
Brandon - "If it's dishonestly called "In the Best Interest of the Child" that can only be because it is not in the best interest of the child."
That legal doctrine would be more honestly named "In The Best Interest Of The Child's Mother", as it is ALL about ensuring that she continues to receive money (with no over-sight on how it's actually spent).
The true best interest of the child would be that he/she continue to have contact with the man they regard as their father, and at an appropriate age (or if medically necessary, they learn about their true father.
Further, any financial liability should only lie with the mother and the biological father, while the duped-dad should be fully indemnified, while granted joint custody.
Of course, it would also create a situation in which the unfaithful wife or cheating girlfriend would experience some of the (appropriate) shame, as she would have to admit before the court her adultery and name the real father in order to pursue support from him.
But, even that would likely be more palatable to you than true justice would be.
In any other comparable incident in which deceit is used to financially defraud a person of thousands of dollars, it is considered a felony crime. If their were true justice in the world, criminal women who commit paternity fraud would be subject not only to prison sentences, but be liable to pay back the money they stole.
slwerner,
If I did that, I’d have nothing to argue with you about!!!
Exactly.
Look, I try to make it a point not to get myself sucked into discussing legal principles I don't know a lot about. The main thing that I know about paternity and child support suits (which I have heard about from time to time from friends who work for school districts, which get sucked into custody battles, and from a friend whose a small town lawyer and reluctantly does some family law) is that they tend to get very messy, and that they're very individual.
I don't feel like I have a wide enough understanding of the field as a whole to provide any opinion on how suits normally go and whether that's good, though I'm willing to bet that most results are considered unjust by most of the parties involved.
What I will state in very general terms is the following:
- I'm moderately conflicted about whether it should be possible to negotiate custody, visitation or child support through the courts at all when no marriage has ever existed, unless both parties willingly acknowledge parenthood.
- If a man has voluntarily treated a child as his own for some length of time, I think it would usually be wrong for him to withdraw his support for that child, regardless of whether it is biologically his, unless he's no longer being allowed to act as father to the child.
That's really about all I'm willing to commit to.
But, even that would likely be more palatable to you than true justice would be.
Your presumption here is both unacceptable and irrational; you know nothing whatsoever of my views on the matter because I haven't said anything whatsoever about them in any of this discussion. We were talking about your position, which you had laid out vaguely and in a rambling way, throwing out a key point without any adequate explanation at all. I asked you to explain yourself on that point; that is all. And anyone looking at the comments thread above can see that this is exactly what happened, so I'm not sure why you think it good strategy or why you think you can get away with it.
DarwinCatholic - "If a man has voluntarily treated a child as his own for some length of time, I think it would usually be wrong for him to withdraw his support for that child"
This, by itself, is quite reasonable.
However, what it think you might not be considering is that, in the cases of outright paternity fraud, that fraud is typically either the proximate cause of an impending divorce, or comes out during the pendency of an extant divorce filing (often an angry woman trying to humiliate her soon-to-be-ex-husband with the news).
In these cases, the women involved are the ones who are typically seeking to prevent the duped-dad from any further interaction with the child.
I understand that you don't "get out much", but paternity fraud is not a new issue, and not have I personally I known one man who was the victim, I've read the heart-wrenching written accounts of numerous other men. I can tell you that one commonly expressed thought was that although they were deeply hurt and angered by the evil their wives had visited upon their lives, they did not blame the child, and would have wished to continue on in their fatherly role.
In this regard, you seem woefully misinformed in believing that men typically withdraw their support. Yes, some men do initially need some space to get their heads clear, but they will tend to want to continue their relationship with the child after they've cooled off.
The men who are more likely to wish to have nothing to do with the child are those who have not bonded with child, such as those who learn of their cuckolding before or at the birth.
Brandon - "you know nothing whatsoever of my views on the matter because I haven't said anything whatsoever about them in any of this discussion."
but you did ask an all too obviously snarky and challenging question me.
I may not know your exact position on the issue, but your dismissive and indignant tone was never-the-less quite clear.
If you did not appreciate my similarly indignant tone with you, well, then you know how I felt about yours.
Mortarmanmike.
I personally know an example of this. A friend of mine's wife divorced him when their child was 6. According to her, the child is not my friends. He has never tested for paternity but is fairly sure she is telling the truth. He tries to maintain a relationship and supports the child financially. He would do so even if not required by the courts. This man is practicing extreme charity toward this child. Actually now that I think about it I know 2 men in that situation. They have both been far more charitable then their ex's.
- yes I know the plural of anecdote is not data.
My view on it is that the men are fools. Charitable fools, but fools nonetheless. Neither man is what you would consider wealthy and at least one of them wants children of his own (biologically.) I view the money diverted to the illegitimate child as stealing the food from the mouths of their own future biological children. That is why cuckoldry is at least as bad as rape. The woman is stealing the reproductive ability of the duped man as well as his resources.
There are those that want to limit paternity testing 'for the children'. Those are the people who always assume the worst about men. Pure wickedness. But that's ok, we'll just say its for the children.
As far as birth control, it's basically a non-issue anymore. By that I mean you can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber. It's here, it's rampant, it's unstoppable.
slwerner,
In this regard, you seem woefully misinformed in believing that men typically withdraw their support. Yes, some men do initially need some space to get their heads clear, but they will tend to want to continue their relationship with the child after they've cooled off.
I think you're reading things into what I said. I ventured no opinion at all as to how men typically behave in these situations. I just said that if a man has voluntarily treated a child as his own for some length of time, I think it would usually be wrong for him to withdraw his support for that child, regardless of whether it is biologically his, unless he's no longer being allowed to act as father to the child.
And that's really as far as I'm going to go on the topic -- in part because contrary to my reputation for not "getting out" much I actually do know about several such cases personally and thus I think I have some appreciation for how varied and how complicated they can be.
Anon,
I view the money diverted to the illegitimate child as stealing the food from the mouths of their own future biological children. That is why cuckoldry is at least as bad as rape.
I think many might consider violating the body to be worse that violating the pocket book.
Not to say that fraud isn't bad, it's very bad. But I think most people would rather lose money than be raped. Wouldn't you?
As far as birth control, it's basically a non-issue anymore. By that I mean you can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber. It's here, it's rampant, it's unstoppable.
An invention can't be un-invented. But that certainly doesn't prevent one from observing the destruction an invention has caused -- and I think the social disruption caused the species by contraception is pretty obvious. One can also attempt to rebuild a culture that simply refuses to use it -- though this will necessarily be distinctly different from a culture in which it never existed, and one must be realistic about this.
Darwin - ”I think Arthur C. Clarke's point was that if people knew for sure whose children was whose without sexual exclusivity -- as in, a woman could be openly sleeping with multiple different men, with their knowledge and consent, and be very clear with all of them whose child she bore -- and if a woman could also choose to only have children when she wanted to, that there would be no need for marriage or for any kind of sexual moral code.”
I’m not at all sure that this would happen as he imagined.
Some years back, I read about some feminist cultural anthropologists bleating on about some primitive-level grass-hut dwelling matriarchal tribe in the somewhere in the South Pacific (IIRC), praising their paternal-ambiguity model as a way to get more men to provide for more children (not knowing which might be their own) in a broader and more egalitarian way.
Supposedly, according the article I read, when a woman wished to have a child, she would have sex with multiple men (I think they note 20+) around the time that they were ovulating (not quite sure how a bunch of pre-Bronze Age level tribes woman knew when they were ovulating) specifically so that each of those men would feel a stake in the child produced.
To these feminist anthropologists, the other wondrous thing about these “amazing” people was that they didn’t form tight-knit man-wife family units (and of course, best of all to the feminist mind-set, the women were free to sleep around as they pleased. Obviously, this meant that the men did likewise, but the anthropologists were too enraptured of the sheer female empowerment of the sexual-libertine women to have even made mention of the men).
Conversely to this “ideal” matriarchal society, where in women were free from the shackles of monogamy, I’d have to imagine that positively knowing paternity would tend to bond (most) men the mothers of their children. And, those men would act so as to steer their excess economic output selectively towards their children, which would also necessarily mean protecting the women who was raising their children. Without necessarily pairing-off into husband-wife style family units, the net effect would end up being much as the traditional family unit has long existed – a joint effort to ensure the welfare and survival of the children a man and woman have in common.
I’d even suggest that the end-product would be even more traditional family-like than largely broken ex-family model that makes up too much of our own current society. Divorced parents use their children as pawns, but to people who have no formal interpersonal relationship outside of their mutual children have no reason to do so, as no advantage could be had by either via such reckless abuse of those children.
So, I’d argue that if PMAFT’s race of reptile aliens disguised as sports writers (sorry, inside joke there) did wish to wipe out every trace of anything resembling a functioning family unit, then they would deny humans the ability to have reliable paternity testing. Men who have no idea which children are their own would be more willing to put their efforts (and the fruits thereof) into a collective rather than try to selfishly favor children they knew where theirs. [/$0.2]
I hate Blogger. I had a nice 6 paragraph rebuttal and counterpoint and blogger just ate it.
I do not have the time to respond again. I will only say that cuckoldry is not simply a financial matter. It is WAY deeper then that. An illegitimate child can rob a man's ability to provide for offspring of his own. A man that may have been able to financially support 2 kids now has his resources split. He may not be able to support another child. Or he may not find out about it until the child is and adult and the man is old. Thus he is robbed of his own progeny. Thus his lineage dies. In that case yes, cuckoldry is worse then rape. If you flippantly dismiss cuckoldry as simple financial fraud you are missing the point.
A little empathy is required here. Darwin, imagine that 10 years from now you found out your daughters were not you own. Before you get mad, think about it. What if they weren't and you didn't find out about it until they were grown.
Birth control is about CONTROL. Abortion, birth control and no fault divorce have shifted ALL sexual and reproductive power to women. Aren't they doing such a good job with all that power.
Paternity testing is about truth. Regardless of the turmoil, the pain, the suffering, it is about the truth. What happens after the truth comes out is a different matter. Who supports which kids, who pays, all that comes later and is really a different issue. The day will come when they try to make paternity test illegal. Wait and see. I've heard it's already happening in europe. It will happen here. The pedestalizers and the feminist have a vested interest in not allowing paternity test. Why is that? Because it shifts a little bit of that sexual power away from women. The government will subsidize birth control all day long but they will fight paternity test. Just watch.
I stand by my previous comments. Birth control without paternity testing leads to male slavery. Cuckoldry and stealing a mans lineage is equivalent to rape.
- Mortarmanmike
For my second pro-paternity testing/pro-paternity certainty argument, I had hoped to link one woman's essay written in response to the rather disgusting Melanie McDonaugh one I linked earlier - but, unfortunately, I cannot locate it.
It was her story of the long-term personal pain she felt having live-through a rather estranged relationship with her father due to his paternal uncertainty with regard to her (after his death, she had the opportunity to do the DNA testing that proved that she was his biological daughter - but it was too late for the relationship she had always longed for).
Point is, paternal certainty, which can best be achieved via paternity testing is very much a pro-family stability enhancement. Fathers who believe (or, are 100% certain) that children are theirs will tend to unreservedly "give" for those children. Men who doubt paternity are not so likely to be as giving as it regards those children.
To better demonstrate this effect, I had also hoped to link a piece by Steve Sailer (which I am also unable to easily locate) in which he describes the inheritance model seen in west African matriarchal tribes, in which a man's fortune passed not first to the children of his wife, but rather to the children of his biological sisters.
Because, in those tribes, much like Clarke and Anscombe's ideal neither men nor women were particularly faithful to their spouses, and paternity was usually rather uncertain. But, a man could know that the children of his biological sister were biologically related to him. He would pas on any inheritance he had towards ensuring his families DNA line rather than risk wasting it on some other man's progeny.
It's also noteworthy that in these tribal societies, lack of paternal certainty leads to lack of paternal involvement which leads to very low male societal investment overall. Seems that Camille Paglia was right - if women were in charge, we’d all still be living in grass huts.
Where there is no paternal certainty, matriarchies seem to dominate.
California law regarding custody and support effectively ignores marital status, and only considers biological parentage (or adoption), with the sole exception of the presumption of paternity in marriage. If one doesn't need to have been married to get the same custody and support arrangements, why marry?
slwerner,
I’m not at all sure that this would happen as he imagined.
I don't think so either. I think Clarke had a point on the socially destructive effects of wide contraceptive use, but a lot of the rest of his vision is clearly way off base. Among other things, he seemed to imagine everyone would be happier with total family breakdown, which does not seem to be what one observes now there's actually been widespread family breakdown. (And actually, the reason I didn't refer to his paternity test idea any more in the post is I think his was only prescient in regards to the power to change culture involved in contraception, paternity testing strikes me as an invention with comparatively minor impact.)
For some reason, the idea of polyandry had an appeal for several of the Golden Age SF writers. Heinlein kept coming back to it as well. Maybe just because it seemed different in that it basically never works out in real human societies.
Because, in those tribes, much like Clarke and Anscombe's ideal neither men nor women were particularly faithful to their spouses, and paternity was usually rather uncertain.
I thought this was clear from my quote, but Anscombe was not in the least in sympathy with Clarke's vision of society. Anscombe was a Catholic philosopher writing in England in the middle part of the century, and her point in the linked piece is that the widespread use of contraception ends up being an assault on chastity more grievous than any in human history, in that it undermines the reason (desire not to have illegitimate children) that caused even pagan societies that didn't have moral issues with fornication to endorse at least selective chastity (for women, that is, though typically not for men.)
Anthony,
California law regarding custody and support effectively ignores marital status, and only considers biological parentage (or adoption), with the sole exception of the presumption of paternity in marriage. If one doesn't need to have been married to get the same custody and support arrangements, why marry?
Yeah, I saw that at work in California and it struck me as highly problematic.
Darwin - "but Anscombe was not in the least in sympathy with Clarke's vision of society."
I'm afraid it's just a matter of my poor writing:
"Clarke's ideal and what Anscombe envisioned", would have been a better way to have put it.
Mortarmanmike,
Your comment (the one from 11:20PM, not the other one that got eaten by Blogger -- sorry about that) had got stuck in the spam filter somehow. Sorry it didn't turn up earlier.
An illegitimate child can rob a man's ability to provide for offspring of his own. A man that may have been able to financially support 2 kids now has his resources split. He may not be able to support another child. Or he may not find out about it until the child is and adult and the man is old. Thus he is robbed of his own progeny. Thus his lineage dies. In that case yes, cuckoldry is worse then rape.
Part of the thing here is, I don't necessarily see a man's genetic lineage as being a deeply magic thing. Say a guy gets married and after several years it becomes apparent that his wife is unable to have children. Let's even push it out all the way and say that they get clear medical results that the husband is completely capable of fathering children, but the wife is completely incapable of getting pregnant, ever.
They're sad about this. They'll never have children who have Dad's eye and Mom's chin. But after a while they adopt a sibling group of three kids and raise them as their own.
Has this man been cheated of or denied his lineage?
No.
Now, if a guy and his wife raise three kids, and later he discovers that in fact two of them are not really his children -- clearly he has a huge reason to feel angry and betrayed by his wife. But the kids that he's raised to adulthood as his own as just as much his kids as if he had adopted them. He's right to be very angry at his wife's unfaithfulness, but the kids are his far more so than they are those of whoever his wife was sleeping with.
Again, I'm not saying that cockoldry isn't a horrific betrayal -- but I think that comparing it to rape is comparing very different things. Both are violations. But it seems to me that in cockoldry the violation is primarily the adultery, not the raising of a child who doesn't share one's DNA. Raising a child is, at least, an inherent good -- even if the origin of the child is an intense betrayal of trust -- while getting the treatment Marcellus Wallace got does not have any inherent good in it at all.
Two other quick notes on the topic:
- I don't think the government will ban paternity testing. I think that's mainly the product of a "women control the government" conspiracy theory that doesn't correlate with reality.
- There's a tendency in some circles to assume that cockoldry is far more common than it is. Razib of Gene Expression has a great post covering this from a while back.
Oh, Darwin -- you've invited the manosphere over your threshold. And much as with vampires, it'll be hell to get anything done with them around.
Chris - ”Oh, Darwin -- you've invited the manosphere over your threshold. And much as with vampires, it'll be hell to get anything done with them around.”
Hum??? Appears to just be Mortarmanmike and myself here representing the mean-old-Manosphere. But just the two of us managed to shut the whole place down?
I guess the folks around here aren’t up for any action (well, Darwin is anyway), and don’t know what to do with new thoughts and ideas that haven’t been fully vetted to ensure that they don’t contain any negative thoughts on women before they’re released into this echo chamber?
I guess I didn’t realize us big bad men scared you all so much. Hey, a feel like a part of a motorcycle gang that’s just descended upon some diner outside of town. We walked in, and the locals cower under their tables, frantically dialing their phones to try to get the sheriff to come get rid to the ruffians.
Well, sorry to scare you folks. If there’s no action here, I’m happy to ride on to somewhere where there is.
What we have here is not as much a discussion as people talking past each other.
It all comes down to culture. Yes, I'm serious.
DarwinCatholic comes from a buncha people who take Catholic Doctrine seriously and practice it. Both he and Mrs Darwin used the correct strategy for any Christian in this society marry a fanatic (I'm not sure if Dalrock or Elusive Wapiti invented that slogan, but it works). Among their subculture, divorce is shunned and those who divorce are shunned.
Mortarman and Werner are both victims of the current secular culture which as Oprah as its patron saint, abortion as its sacrament, and enjoys the distress of men and the destruction of families. In this society "it is all about the children" means "do whatever the womenz want because menz is evil".
Now, if you want true "best interests of the kid" you can come to NZ. Where there is no alimony. Where you can opt ouf of child support by negotiation. Where men win 50% of the contested custody battles, and solo Dads like myself are not uncommon.
But... I predict, predict, that our laws would be unthinkable in the current USA
Post a Comment