Who's your Daddy?
 

Maybe not who you think it is?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050811/...discrepancy_dc

I blame Clinton.

rodham's a lesbo.

That explains a lot.

I hear members of the Clinton administration prefer anonymous paternity.

I have to say I’m both amused and fascinated by this story, I can’t help but think back to the various Kinsey controversies. We don’t want to study human sexuality because we know we won’t live up to our standards.

I think it poses a curious ethical question. Is it better to acknowledge our actual sexual behavior – as unflattering as it may be? Or are we better, not discussing such things, and leaving the topic of sex firmly a taboo. In some ways it seems we’re victims to our own moral standards, if we can’t live up to them we lie about them or hide them. But is it even possible to get to a level of acceptance for certain sexual practices – such as extra-marital sex. Not to mention what downsides the acceptance might have to our individual relationships.

I’m curious, if you found yourself in the middle of a “paternal discrepancy” how would you like the situation handled?

At this point in my life, if it were my dad, I'd want to know who the bio dad was, but only (at first) for health reasons. Any further relationship with him would be determined by him. I don't think, for me, it would break up my family. My parents might have issues, but I wouldn't love them any less than I do now.

I think the person who raises the child has just as much, if not more, importance in the child's life, not just the one who gave them life. The hard part of being a parent isn't becoming one, it's the being one that kills you.

One important issue arising from this is one of financial responsibility. I recall reading about a case - although I can't recall exactly when and I am certain I could not find any link to the case online - where a man had been paying child support faithfully for 3 years, as it was assumed that this was his child. A few years later he took a paternity test (because of his own suspicions) and was found not to be the father. He stopped paying. A judge ruled that he had to continue doing so because it had been his "de facto" child.

Seemed like an odd ruling to me.

The thing about extra marital sex is that it isn't really even about the sexual taboo part of it. The devastating part is the complete break in trust and faith. The fact is, each spouse made a lifelong promise to the other, and one of them broke that promise. That's a difficult thing to get past, especially if it results in someone developing a whole new emotional relationship under false pretexts (i.e., bringing up someone else's child think they are your own). Now they've invested great amounts of time and emotional energy in something that's the result of a substantial breach in trust.

So the question of sexual taboo, as I see it, doesn't even come into play when thinking about post-infidelity reactions.

Where the question of sexual taboo comes into play is in attempting to prevent this kind of loss of trust to begin with. If we as a society were more open about sexuality, and more aware that the "ideal" of monogamy isn't ideal for everyone, a lot of this can be avoided. I am not, of course, decrying monogamy, just the fervent way in which our society insists that it's the only healthy answer. So what you end up with is people who have no capacity to handle a monogamous relationship being forced into them, and that leads to the lies necessary to cover up the resulting breaches of trust.

Of course, that far from covers all cases of infidelity. I'm not trying to imply that everyone who cheats is a swinger at heart, or that anyone who's been a swinger would definitely cheat if they entered a monogamous relationship. There are countless reasons people cheat. But certainly the freedom to feel like you can be honest about one's needs and desires would only reduce the amount of deceipt that takes place.

As much as it pains me to say this, I am toooooo like my dad not to be his daughter. Plus, I am built just like his sister. As for my sister (older) I have decided that she was hatched by aliens and placed with the Old People.

Hey now, the mailman brought my sister.

This was a running family joke since she was brunette while the rest of us (including my dad as a child, though his hair is dark brown now - what's left of it) are/were blondes and my dad was a mail carrier at the time.

I have to admit, I looked at the title of this Thread and thought, "Ooh! Kinky! Are we going to discuss role playing? Are we going to discuss those times you act like a little girl, and then you get turned over on your fella's knee because, well, you've been a bad girl? Sometimes a very bad girl and then, pre-spanking, you have to answer the question of "Who's your daddy?" before somehow the whole scenario segues into you being Little Red Riding Hood"?

:evil:

Not that I'd know or anything. Okay, maybe a little. Maybe a lot. Maybe I'm a total pig.

Oink oink, my friends. Oink oink. ;)

These situations can get quite sticky. Even when the father knows he isn't the biological father.

A friend who is divorced has two sons. One is a smaller carbon copy of him, the other bears absolutely no resemblence at all. The ex wife had admitted to cheating etc and everyone is fairly certain one son isn't biologially his. But he never pursued anything, duly paid child support etc as he did not want to put the child through any further trauma.

Scaeagles I do remember that case, it can't have been too long ago.

And I have another friend who had the opposite situation, had been raising a child as his own whom he knew was not biologically his. They had three other children together. When they got divorced the Mom made sure he got no contact with the child who was not his (she didn't even know he was not her Dad till the social worker let it slip) even though he wanted to take responsibility for her as well as the three that were his.

It can all get very messy.

ok, that was a total turn on:eek: what is happening to me?

Lickey, you need some lickey on your lumbo. ;)

I walk like my Dad. I had an autoimmune disease like my Dad. I look like a blend of my Mom and Dad. There ain't no guesswork here.

Now, my evil sister.........there's a good question!

Thanks, Ally. Anyone got a cigarette? :eek:

Looks like Ally just threw one EVERYONE'S way. Nicely done. :snap: ;)

Yes, in one deft maneuver, she threw it to us all... ;)

Who's forcing anybody into relationships?

"Forced" as in "pressured by society". There are still plenty of people who think that the only way to live is heterosexually married and with 2.5 kids, and decry anyone who says otherwise (my father is one of them).

But are you sure he's your father?

I diefinitely see the point, and I somewhat agree. I think that one's smaller societal group might pressure someone to commit when they don't want to, i.e. friends, neighbors, family, etc., but I think society as a larger entity is very noncommital. In fact, I'd say it's an opposite kind of pressure. Everything is about instant gratification, living for oneself, or for the moment, etc. I think society actually makes it more difficult to stay committed to a monogamous relationship, not less so.

Either way, a person should have the moral integrity to be honest with him or herself prior to commiting. If one doesn't want a monogamous relationship, than one shouldn't commit. I think the society excuse is sometimes too heavily relied upon.

I completly agree with you. I have seen the desire for immediate gratification growing while the "disposability" of relationships has increased. Having gone through our own personal trials in marriage, I can say that having a committed, monogomous relationship can be incredibly challenging but also more rewarding than anything. It takes maturity to have that kind of commitment and respect the other person enough to remain monogomous. Not everyone can do it or understands and respects the grave consequences that enivetably happen wothout it.

That's what works for you, and that's fantastic. But I find it hard to believe that that's the only viable option, that it's right for everybody. Because as far as I've seen, nothing is right for everybody.

Well, I'm am fortunante enough to have done enough things "wrong" and seen my friends do many wrong things to know that committed relationships are hard and it takes a lot of maturity to successfully pull it off. Again, I bless being 40 and experienced.

I think most people enter into a monogamous commitment with the full intention of remaning so, but time and life circumstances often intervene to make that more difficult than anyone ever realized in the first blooms of love. In other words, I don't think people enter these relationships dishonestly or without integrity, rather they do it perhaps with a bit of ignorance - how well do you really know yourself at 18?

So it doesn't surpise me the people will sometimes stray, and I understand the desire not to hurt spouse and family, by fessing up to something that ultimately may have little meaning to you in your life - which is one scenario.

From an objective stand point it seems clear that being honest is best (especially now since such indiscretions can be more easily detected and harder to cover up) but how it all happens depends on your relationship with your partner(s), whether you can talk through the difficult moments and support one another when times are bad.

Next can we talk about who is right on abortion and religion? ;)

my opinion is:
If one is ok and comfortable in their own skin, while not harming others in the process, then live and let live. (please don't start a debate of symantics on the above mentioned topics) I don't always agree with the way people live, and somtimes it frustrates me cause they don't think the way I do. Then again, I dont have to live in heir skin. (*grabs chainsaw* ..hee hee ...YET :evil: )

If it works for you, great. if it doesn't, change. but be true to yourself.

Bingo, well said.

Absolutely. No matter what kind of relationship it is. Monogomous or otherwise, if people aren't communicating and being truthful with each other, disaster is assured.

Which brings us back to my original point, that being that as long as heterosexual monogomous relationships are the only variety accepted by societal structures, people who have no business being in that kind of relationship will continue to be unable to communicate their needs and desires truthfully to themselves or others, which will continue to result in more infidelity than would otherwise.

I stress again, of course, that I don't purport that this narrow analysis accounts for all problems. Just because someone cheats doesn't mean, "Hey, what the really need is a non-monogomous relationship!" And certainly not everyone who has entered an open non-monogomus relationship did so because they had issues or would have been driven to cheat otherwise. And just as I don't feel that tolerance of homosexuality won't lead to an apocalypse of homosexual behavior in our society and the downfall of the institution of marriage, I wouldn't expect tolerance of non-traditional relationships to render the traditional relationship obsolete either. It would simply allow the small percentage of people for whom that's a viable option to be true to themselves, as ubergeek put it.

Edit: And I might add that the need for truthfullness extends beyond the ability to discuss alternative lifestyles, I was just keying off of €'s question, "But is it even possible to get to a level of acceptance for certain sexual practices – such as extra-marital sex." Honestly, that probably accounts for a very tiny amount of trust problems in marriages. It's equally important to engender honesty regarding ALL things sexual/realational. Whatever it is, if there's a problem in a relationship but you feel like you're not "supposed" to talk about it, that ain't good.

I completely agree. Talking out issues is key to any relationship, marital or otherwise. However, acting on those issues, is quite a different thing. Married does not bean you are dead, attractions happen, but, personally, I am not naive enough to think that I could act on those attractions without some sort of damage to my marriage. It happens. I can guarantee that. I've experienced it. And, 99% of the outcomes are not good ones. I was lucky - after many years of pain and hurt. So, it doesn't make sense to me at all. My marriage comes first. Period.

To circle back to the original situation, if you remove the elements of sexuality what you really have is the ethics of keeping secrets and betraying confidences. As a dissintereted 3rd party (the Doctor) what should he or she divulge and to whom?

I think we're all pretty clear that the best situation is where a couple is honest with each other. But this is an example of where they are not.

I don't understand how so many women have babies with paternal uncertainty. I experience this perplexion every time I stay home and watch Maury Povich. Do other married women not use birth control? If you're cheating, wouldn't that *definitely* be the time *to* use birth control? It doesn't seem logical.

Or maybe it isn't logical. Maybe it's some primative drive to seek out the best genetic material and one isn't sure one's spouse fits the bill. No idea.

Lying to your spouse isn't logical. I don't expect much logic in the whole situation.

Also, all forms of birth control have some error rate, so given a large enough population od cheating spouses, you should find a fair amount of offspring from said population, despite the use of birth control.

Being that the pregnant woman is his (or her) patient, his obligation is to respect her confidentiality. He has no professional relationship with her husband, so he isn't obligated to tell him anything without her permission. In fact, doing so would be illegal.

In my opinion, that's the way things should be. If the woman feels she can trust the doctor, then she's more likely to be honest about genetically/medically important information.

Honest which it other? You've been drinking too much of what's in your avatar, methinks. :p

If it weren't for Spell check it would become painfully obvious that I'm a "C" speller - thankfully, as an admin on these boreds, I can still use the edit button ;)

Cheers,

:cheers:

Yeah, but 1 in 25 exceeds the failure rate for most forms of birth control. By quite a lot, in some cases. Which leaves a bunch of people clearly not at all considering long term consequences -- even the more practical ones.

Such is the nature of love and lust ;)

That doesn't exceed the failure rate by as much as you'd think. It exceeds the failure rate with proper useage by a lot, but most evidence shows that a distressingly large number of people don't follow proper useage.

I've never understood this either. It's very easy to do and you'd think if you were smart enough to sneak around without getting caught you'd be smart enough to take precautions.

I also have never understood married couples who do not want more children but do nothing to prevent it. And don't get me started on the women who get pregnant on purpose to "trap" the guy - yea that's a great way to start a relationship - that'll work.

Also besides pregnancy there are those nasty STD's and HIV which can then be passed along to the innocent spouse.

You mean condoms aren't meant to be used to make baloon animals?

Yes! Condoms ARE meant to be used as Balloon Animals - but only past their expiration date. Before then, use them for their first priority - putting the winkey in the bag. ;)

Still, you can get pregnant (or impregnant someone) - proper usage or not. Even BCP, used correctly are only 99% effective. I got pregnant on them. You have sex, you could impregnant someone or get pregnant. Short of tubal ligation or abstinance, there is no 100% way to prevent pregnancy. Sex partners should probably be looked at as potential fathers. If you don't want to have their baby - or their abortion - is it worth it for the sex?

I was lucky in my slut period. I don't know anyone who was as active as I was who did not end up with some fine "memory".

I knew my right hand very well at 18.

And GusGus and I have been having unprotected sex for six years and are STILL not pregnant.:mad:

Hmmm... On second thought, maybe we should be having sex with each other...

Yes, but Prudence's point was that the 1:25 figure is 4 times the expected pregnency rate of 1%. Her assumption was that that meant that a huge number of people were taking no precautions. In reality, a 4% failure rate is pretty close to (or possibly even less common) what's expected based on most estimates of the rate of improper use of contraception (e.g. forgetting to take today's pill, or not knowing how to put a freaking rubber on correctly). So the high number probably doesn't indicate a particularly large rate of people not protecting themselves as she first assumed.

Hmm, you DO seem to have a new dragon every time we see you...and I swear Gratch was trying to give me a link to a lewd picture. The resemblance is uncanny.

Yeah, tell me about it. In my world, BC makes you preggers and lack of BC makes you unable to get pregnant. Whatever.


Yeah, I loved these types of "facts" when I was slutting it. I would glom on to them like they were gold - until almost everyone I knew either go a disease or got pregnant. Now, years later, I see just how stupid I was to depend on those "facts".

It's not that I assumed they were taking no precautions, it's that I assumed that people cheating would go out of their way to make sure they took extra special precaution. And I now readily conceed that people, as a rule, are maroons and probably don't do that after all.

Maroons.