Comments on: Ignoring Betrayal

By: Thinker

Thinker — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:07:03 +0000

Everyone has failed to mention the elephant in the living room when it comes to marriage & children , and business relationships as opposed to a “significant other” & trust. That is the role of the State in our interpersonal relationships. Paternity is important because it lays responsibility for support (i.e. resources) for children on someone, even if that someone isn’t the biological parent. (As in the case of LA wherein the spouse is considered to be the parent, for example.) Marriage was once the instrument the State used to help insure, albeit imperfectly, individual responsibility for children. The rise of the welfare state, access to divorce & abortion, the sexual revolution, DNA testing etc. has allowed individuals to abandon, shirk, or otherwise bail on financial responsiblity for children collectively.
Consider the case of a biological father who relinquished his parental rights so a step-father could adopt, but that person did not adopt. When the parties divorced, the biological parent was told he could not sign away the child’s right to financial support, nor could the biological aprents contract to do so by an agreement even if it was approved by a legal document. Responsibility reverted to the biological aprent even though he believed he was legally no longer the parent.
Trust, as an emotional component of an interpersonal relationship, is akin to a deeper social need for “good faith” in business and other contractual relationships on which social order is based. Our’s is a social contract society with or without a license, permit, formal contract, or other paper proof of intent.
DNA and other trust-exploding technology become mighty inconvenient for the State because it makes keeping social order (and social roles assist in social order) more difficult. Ask the IRS to trust you and see what happens if there is suspicion you’re a cheat — there are situations where the state has a vested interest in knowing (about income) and not knowing ( about paternity that relieves financial repsonsibility for children).
As for individuals – remember the adage, the truth shall set you free? It will also make you a prisoner of choice, forcing you to make decisions you may not like making. But, are you going to live life life as a weenie or as an adult – and perhaps have to make difficult, moral choices and live with your decisions? That is the question as the root of the original question.

By: Puma

Puma — Wed, 13 May 2009 06:04:59 +0000

Robin,
The oddity of Carolyn Hax’s advice to the potential-cuckold has been picked up in other parts of the blogosphere as well. One particulary entertaining one is Roissy in DC’s take on it:

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/washington-post-fembot-tells-cuckold-suck-it-up/

It is also interesting that some of your female readers take the “what’s the big deal?” line on paternity-fraud. Either they naively don’t understand how this means genetic metadeath for the cuckolded chump, or alternatively they hemselves see cuckolding as a legitimate evolved tactic. I hope it is the former.

By: akwilco

akwilco — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:25:06 +0000

“Betrayal” is a subjective condition, and truly neutral third parties may not have sufficient information on what is considered betrayal to accurately assess and advise. There are situations where a subject “has to know”, despite the foreknowledge that seeking the truth will irreversibly change their lives in unpredictable ways.
From the view of the child in your scenario, there may be an emotional and subjective need to accurately know their parentage. A neutral third party would likely caution against digging into it, particularly if the parents have an emotional commitment to keep the knowledge hidden and questioning their decision may be viewed as betrayal. This is a common situation for adopted children.

By: Sarneparne

Sarneparne — Tue, 12 May 2009 19:07:45 +0000

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/washington-post-fembot-tells-cuckold-suck-it-up/

By: Vichy

Vichy — Tue, 12 May 2009 16:55:10 +0000

To HH:
“I don’t know what alternative regime you’re proposing [free love?], but that’s the one that would be at odds with reality.”
I’m proposing that people who can control themselves just like they control their envy stand to benefit themselves, and also make less of an ass of themselves. Also, some of us don’t get jealous like that – not I, said the fly.

By: Adam Nelson

Adam Nelson — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:55:30 +0000

The difference in the analogy is that most businesses operate in a competitive marketplace. So customers might be inconvenienced, but rarely will they have a huge decrease in consumer surplus, while children’s parents are a monopoly provider so splitting up that partnership carries larger costs.

By: George

George — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:13:33 +0000

Why are people talking about cheating/faithfulness? Isn’t this about paternity fraud and the desire (need?) people have to pass on their genes? With modern technology (IVF, contraception), these are no longer necessarily related.

By: Eliezer Yudkowsky

Eliezer Yudkowsky — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:47:51 +0000

I’ve just talked to a second religious person who, after being presented with it, agreed with the statement: “I would do everything exactly the same way whether there is or isn’t a God.”

I’d guess there’s a strong connection here.

By: HH

HH — Tue, 12 May 2009 00:42:47 +0000

@Vichy

I’ll have to disagree with you. You may find the concept of cheating idiotic, but it’s a reality: people get jealous and demand faithfulness from their partners. I don’t know what alternative regime you’re proposing [free love?], but that’s the one that would be at odds with reality. Like it or not, jealousy is in us – you may prefer if it weren’t, but it is. You may think we’d all be better off if it didn’t exist, and that’s a highly questionable proposition. Yes, maybe it’d be better if nothing upset but we could still derive joy from things. However, I doubt it’s plausible that we could derive as much utility from a successful relationship as we do now if we didn’t get jealous in cases of cheating. I don’t see how it’s possible to value something if you have it but not value it if you don’t have it. I don’t think there’s a way to tell if utility would be higher under an alternative regime, but I don’t find those kind of thought experiments particularly instructive anyway. I know I’ll get jealous if I get cheated on, and I’ll go on trying to prevent that feeling. Like a rational person would.

By: retired urologist

retired urologist — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:13:45 +0000

the interests of children might trump the interests of parents, but they shouldn’t trump the interests of unrelated strangers duped into financially supporting said children

In Louisiana, if a child is conceived while a couple is legally married to one another, the child legally is that of the husband at the time of conception, even if they were living apart and had not had sex together in years, and even if DNA proves that he could not be the father. On the other hand, if the woman is not married at the time of conception, she can use DNA results to force legal paternity and its responsibilities on the man. Many a Louisiana man has been required to support the children of his wife’s lovers. Consequently, very little good can come from asking in Louisiana, especially if you believe yourself to be happy. The pendulum has swung.