Who’s your Daddy?

Remember my little rant about sexual double standards a month or two back? Well, watching yesterday’s edition of The Wright Stuff made another manifestation of this social cancer all the more evident….

One of the subjects brought up for discussion on the show was paternity testing, generally being argued from the angle of whether or not the kids, in the event of being conceived via an affair, should be allowed to know who their real father is. Disdainfully – thought not surprisingly – most people elected to keep things hush-hush for fear of “upsetting the apple cart”. Unsurprisingly in this context, most of these pro-deception panellists were female; yet even the outspoken George Galloway – the man who gave Dubya the big “what for” concerning the Iraq War – elected to embrace the bliss of “what you won’t know won’t hurt you”.

I think I only remember one voice of opposition to this popular and cherished viewpoint.

The response to some of the callers proved ever the more contemptible. When Wright took phone views on the issue – as is customary on his show – he heard from a caller who told of how he’d chosen to play daddums to the kid conceived from his wife’s affair. To this, the whole room – that is Wright, his panellists and the audience – clapped heartily. Now I’m stood staring at the TV screen with a look somewhere between befuddlement and disgust, wondering why the fuck anyone with an active braincell would find this poor bastard’s choice anything to applaud. That’s not noble or “manly” or any other other adjective you’d care to throw his way – it’s the pure fucking lockstep sound of a slave, lacking the prerequisite self-regard to break his imaginary shackles.

Many bemoan the fact that many relationship attempts end up as abortions. I myself am glad that people have the sense and self-respect to sever – if not completely avoid – weak or tainted connections. The happily united eighty year old couples with decades of marital bliss behind them are most likely an exception in any time. I’m willing to bet that, for every successful happily-long marriage there were twice as many “successful” unhappily-long marriages kicking around. In light of the poor judgement and lack of prerequisite self-knowledge and self-mastery seen in many people, the de-sanctification of marriages and partnerships for their own sake is something to rejoice rather than revile.

Thus when you have peeps holding onto relationships they should have aborted ages ago, I can’t help wondering that they’re merely placating the partner or mistaken societal notions of morality. Morality? Pah! The same society that’d condemn a man for walking out on a gold-digging cheat would support said cheat’s will to deception – nice to see peeps are consistent, eh? When Wright, his panel and the caller tried to drum up support for the latter’s stance by talking of the bond between the false father and his “son”, I felt like rolling my eyes and laughing – when all else fails “think of the children” is the shibboleth spoken by those with not a leg to stand on! Beyond that, since when is affection based on deception something to hold onto and cherish? The kid isn’t his and his wife has proven herself to be of questionable integrity – why the fuck should he stick around, stifling his resentment under platitudes of “parental feeling”?

Scorn upon the culture that generates pain, suffering and animosity in its desire to “spare feelings” and “avoid rocking the applecart”! Such a pathetic irony brings me to the conclusion that we’d all be better off if we cared less about each other’s feelings – that is, if each of us, alone, resolved to put our self-respect ahead of the hobgoblin that is “social reputation”.

As Anton La Vey once wrote – responsibility to the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires. The only decent thing to do in such a situation is to ditch the millstone and leave the scheming spouse to pick up the tab. Much better than having one’s back broken under the wheel of slave morality, no?

~MRDA~

About MRDA

The beast shouting "I" at the heart of the world. Alien misanthropologist in a homo sapiens skinsuit. Pass the wine and get out of my sunshine!
This entry was posted in The Wright Stuff and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Who’s your Daddy?

  1. chiller says:

    Beyond that, since when is affection based on deception something to hold onto and cherish? The kid isn’t his and his wife has proven herself to be of questionable integrity – why the fuck should he stick around, stifling his resentment under platitudes of “parental feeling”?
    It’s not about slavery. It’s about getting to a stage of maturity where you realise and acknowledge that nobody – no, not even yourself – is perfect. We all fuck up. We all learn to move on.
    What if the man genuinely loves the child? What if he’s NOT stifling resentment, but is mature enough to have got over it?
    What if the child genuinely loves the man? Is it alright to destroy a child’s world for the sake of a principle? What does that gain the world, the child, the man, the woman? Nothing. What, you think an instant’s orgasm on the part of papa is just cause to determine whether a child deserves two parents? Or that a man is emotionally unable to commit to a child unless that brief squirt occurred? If the man didn’t beget that child, should he simply be able to walk away? But what of his own heart?
    What if the man and woman genuinely love one another, despite whatever problems they have in their relationship? Long term relationships are hard – the first five years are a blast, but like all growing things they change, pass through periods of adolescent resentment, learning curves of mistakes, of painful growth, of awkward grace. During all that time the people in those relationships are like two trees, growing so close together they join. Sure, if someone fucks up you can just dump them and move on.
    But – if you entered that relationship honestly and invested yourself fully in it – doing so will cost you what you are, it will cost your wife what she is, and it will cost that child what they may have been.

    • newedition says:

      Hi,
      I was reading MRDA’s entry and saw your comment and I wanted to respond.
      “It’s about getting to a stage of maturity where you realise and acknowledge that nobody – no, not even yourself – is perfect. We all fuck up. We all learn to move on.” I believe that people can be morally perfect, and that is achieved by consistently upholding their principles (“having integrity”). If a mistake or error in judgement is made, yes, we should “move on” but not without first analyzing what we have done. In the case of a cheating mother and a pretend father, moving on involves the mother acknowledging what she has done, telling her spouse, and telling her child– and then continuing with life. To not tell the child is to never move on, because the lie is always being lived.
      “What if the man genuinely loves the child?” This may happen in some cases, and then I’d say it’s fine for him to act like the father. This would be an adoption of sorts, but is only proper if his choice is made not out of pity or slavery but out of whatever values his wife still possesses.
      “Is it alright to destroy a child’s world for the sake of a principle?” Of what is one’s world made but of principles? One’s sense of life should not be shattered by knowing that their parent is a cheater. If anything, this allows them to see their family for the reality that it is. And acknowleding reality, painful as that may be for some at times, is the only way one can continue to live. If you do not know all the facts, your interpretations, judgements, and decisions are stifled.
      “What does that gain the world, the child, the man, the woman?” You say “Nothing.” I say “Truth.”
      I don’t mean to dismiss everything you say or offend you, especially since I don’t know you! But I want to say that I would rather know all the facts about my family or friends or whatever situation effects me, even if those facts are considered unpleasant, than to live what I would consider a lie. If you are shielded from reality, you can’t deal with reality when it eventually hits you– which it will.
      Thanks for reading 🙂

    • MRDA says:

      Thanks for posting – I appreciate the counter-argument
      Firstly, next to no one is free of error – on that I agree with you entirely. You, me and most (if not all) others have fucked up somewhere down the line in some matter or other – I can appreciate that. However, for you, me and others, there’s a line that cannot – and should not – be stepped over. It’s a big part of what defines each of us – otherwise one is nowt but Play-Doh. Forgiveness has its place – as does ruthlessness (or whatever you wish to call it).
      “What if the man genuinely loves the child? What if he’s NOT stifling resentment, but is mature enough to have got over it?
      What if the child genuinely loves the man? Is it alright to destroy a child’s world for the sake of a principle? What does that gain the world, the child, the man, the woman? Nothing. What, you think an instant’s orgasm on the part of papa is just cause to determine whether a child deserves two parents? Or that a man is emotionally unable to commit to a child unless that brief squirt occurred? If the man didn’t beget that child, should he simply be able to walk away? But what of his own heart?”

      Well, I see no reason why the bloke should necessarily cut contact with the kid, if there is a genuine bond there which goes beyond any (lack of) genealogy.
      I’d have to question who’d really be responsible for “destroying” things for the kid, if there was a complete parting of the ways. “Daddy” may well have walked out, but mommy planted the seeds for the “destruction” with her deceit right from the start. Does the kid deserve to live a lie in the same way that the parents have – what of the real father somewhere out there?
      Would it be right for the woman to physically restrain “father” and son to her, till death the parting? At the end of the day, willful restraint on the part of the mother (albeit non-physical) is what this boils down to.
      “What if the man and woman genuinely love one another, despite whatever problems they have in their relationship? Long term relationships are hard – the first five years are a blast, but like all growing things they change, pass through periods of adolescent resentment, learning curves of mistakes, of painful growth, of awkward grace. During all that time the people in those relationships are like two trees, growing so close together they join. Sure, if someone fucks up you can just dump them and move on.
      But – if you entered that relationship honestly and invested yourself fully in it – doing so will cost you what you are, it will cost your wife what she is, and it will cost that child what they may have been.”

      If the person defined themselves solely by the relationship then the big break-off would certainly cost them what they are. If the relationship is but one part of what defines them, the person will most likely not be affected – to such a drastic extent. At the end of the day, all parties will suffer if stuck in an environment rife with mistrust and false pretenses. Better a no relationship than one built on deceit and unease – for all parties!

  2. newedition says:

    Hooray for another excellent entry. A lot of your entries make me laugh not necessarily because they are funny, but because your wording is so perfectly accurate and descriptive that I understand exactly what you are saying.

  3. withonen says:

    hey you,
    i love this entry, if you dont start looking for a column in a magazine I will.
    In fact, I’m going to start looking for you.
    This stuff needs to be published

    • MRDA says:

      ^_^ Haha! Thankyee, Ana!
      However,the question remains : “Who’d be willing to take my views on-board their vessel?”
      I’d be interested to find out the answer…

  4. noshot says:

    we’d all be better off if we cared less about each other’s feelings – that is, if each of us, alone, resolved to put our self-respect ahead of the hobgoblin that is “social reputation”.
    some people value the illusion of respectability they present over feeling respectable inside. I suppose they’re taking the opposite extreme – instead of being ultra-conceited and only caring about what they felt about themselves, they’re being ultra-reserved and caring only about what everybody else thinks. I prefer a “happy medium” where you give an equal share of thought to both parties, that way you balance everything out and neglect noone.

    • MRDA says:

      The degree of consideration you give to outside parties depends on two things:
      1) Their significance in relation to you.
      2)The rationality and reliability of their judgment/ conduct.
      In 99% of cases, neither of these points should be divorced from the other.
      If one has a more rational judgment than the piddling mobs around him/her – why shouldn’t they disregard their thoughts and feelings?

  5. Pingback: Feminumpties: thinking with their ovaries, once again…. « MRDA's Inferno

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s