Posted by
Playful Walrus on Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:11:11 PM
Just in time for Valentine’s Day, we get this Dear Margo.
RUNNING ON EMPTY IN MASSACHUSETTS writes in to explain that he’s been married for 28 years and has three children, and why he has very good reason to believe that his middle child is the result of his wife committing adultery.
Their youngest child is 14
My wife never had much of a sex drive; two to three times a year was more than enough for her.
Women should not use men this way. No sex drive? Don’t get married, unless you can find a man who also has no sex drive and you openly discuss this.
If my second son isn't mine, I want a divorce. While I may not have much self-confidence -- living with her for 28 years would do that to anyone -- I think I deserve some happiness. So what should I do? Try to perform a secret DNA test, or say to him, "Hey, kid, I think your mom was screwing around back in the day and you may not be my biological son"?
Margo responds:
While I understand the desire to determine whether one of your kids is another man's child, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to divorce for something that happened two decades ago. If you want to end the marriage for other reasons, that's another story.
It doesn’t make sense for women to keep bringing up something that happened two decades ago, but they still do it all of the time. But she broke her vows to him in more than one way. One of those ways becomes more apparent as time goes by, so "it was so long ago" will always be an accessible defense. But just because he has stuck in there and taken care of the children does not mean he should have to continue to endure her breaking of her vows to him. As soon as the youngest child is 18, he should be out of there. He should make financial preparations now – like finding out if there is a state that won’t make him pay alimony for life, and moving the family there.
The self-confidence reference suggests your wife may be a ball-breaker.
Uh, it is probably the lack of sex that destroyed his confidence.
As for the son in question, in a very real sense you are his father, having raised him from birth.
He is legally, too.
What is to be gained by telling him he is, in essence, an outsider?
Nothing, and he shouldn’t. He should simply tell the kids that the he had his reasons for the divorce are those reasons are none of their business. The kid should not be punished any more for the wife's mistakes.
Meanwhile, over at Dear Abby, AM I OR AM I NOT, COSHOCTON, OHIO asks:
When my mother became pregnant with me, she was married -- but not to the man who impregnated her. Does this make me a bast-rd?
Dear Abby’s response:
The answer to your question is no. Because you were born within the bonds of wedlock, you are as legitimate as the next person.
P.S.: The term "bast-rd" went out of style at least two decades ago. A better term would be "love child."
No, “love child” is not a better term. It isn’t loving to commit adultery and cuckold a man. It isn’t loving to do that to a child and then tell them about it. It isn’t loving to conceive and birth a child out of wedlock, either.
Something like 1 in 10 children are NOT the biological child of the man who assumes he is the father. Or maybe that figure is married men who think that they are the biological father, but aren’t. Scary stuff. Legally speaking, a child born in a marriage is the husband's. That means his wife can cheat on him, get pregnant, give birth (and thanks to no-fault divorce) can divorce him without financial penalty, run off with her lover (who is really the biological father), take the kid, and get child support from her ex-husband. If the marriage lasted ten years, then in states like California she can get alimony for life as long as she doesn't remarry. And, if her ex-husband remarries, any income of his new wife's can be factored in to adjust the child support payments up. So there are women out there right now paying child support for children they've never met who are in the custody of both of their biological parents – in addition to all of the men paying child support for children that are not biologically theirs.
Yeah, that makes sense.