Empowering Female Infidelity and Legalizing Cuckoldry of Men

Updated: Sep 4, 2018


A discourse about the roots of modern cuckoldry, gender biased discrimination against men in the legal system, the anti-male child support policies and the bias in gender roles as well as the modern family courts as a system of exploitation and redistribution of resources from men to women as the subsequent heritage of Byzantine time and the "Four Seas Law of Cuckoldry" in English common law mirrored in Osborne’s 17th-century "Advice to a Son"


"An excerpt from "On the Origins of European Gynocentrim and its Symbolism"


Byzantine Misandry and anti-male bias in ancient divorce law!

Men today endure systemic and institutionalized cuckolding through paternity assignment that systematically empower female infidelity and employ undue influence, mis-representation, and disservice. Severe anti-male bias in child custody, child support, and alimony verdicts is a well-known but a suppressed aspect of the modern day narrative when it comes to the discourse about the current institutions of our family courts! Under the disguise of justice and so called equality, anti-male discrimination is a universal phenomenon that is vividly visible in all of our Gynocentric cultures. An insight into understanding the distinction between the formal, written, law and actual, popular, practice is vital in considering the history of child-support as in regard to the common divorce proceedings. It is in due to such an inquiry that a true understanding of the historical dynamics rooted in the Byzantine Empire, the medieval Europe as well as the Middle ages, can arise. With respect to actual divorce decisions it is only that such a journey through almost two Millennia of Gynocentrism and Misandry can provide us with an amazing insight into those early divorce practices which has led us to the current family law procedures rooted in the feminist man hating ideology which is based and has adopted all of this ancient heritage and legacy.


One of the most interesting depictions in this regard recalls an early fifteenth century story, "Mazaris’s Journey to Hades", which tells us about a man, Padiates, who was having sex with a married woman in Constantinople. Padiates, the affair partner, subsequently to his affair with the cheating wife, left for the island of Lemnos. It was thought that Padiates left because there allegedly was that or another problem or discrepancies with his secretary. However, the accounts about the Padiates's departure recall a completely different story. We read: "That wasn’t how you came to sail off to Lemnos, you cripple Padiates. It happened like this: you were terrified that the heartbroken cuckold who shared the use of his wife with you, the late Malakenos, might return from the dives of Thessalonica and take his stand at the top of that famous flight of stairs, with which adulterous wives threaten their husbands: “Think twice, you men, before you have anything to say against us, or else we will make you walk up those famous seventy-two steps to the Patriarch’s Palace.” As I was saying, it was out of fear of that cuckold that you forgot everything else and rushed off to Lemnos"


In modern day terminology, the wives’ sarcasm and mockery, vividly apparent in the above passage through the statement "the famous flight of stairs, with which adulterous wives threaten their husbands" is openly and forthrightly equal to a threat of filling for divorce by a modern day wife. Walking up the steps to the Patriarch’s Palace as depicted in the above story seems also as a reference to being called to formal divorce proceedings – to file for divorce in modern day terminology knowing that for the husband this would mean the complete destruction of everything he has built in his life. Whether it was in ancient or it is our modern day divorce normally means also the financial and usually the personal obliteration of the husband. It normally deprives him of a close relationship with the children risking being in fact alienated from them for life. In such situation both the modern as well as the ancient wives could easily threaten their husbands with divorce. That same dynamic seemingly existed in early-fifteenth-century Byzantium. Men were and are also today better off turn their eyes from their wives adulterous affairs and accepting them being cuckolded than getting out of infidelity and getting their wives divorced.


Furthermore, the cuckolded husband standing at the top of the stairs may further symbolize less well-known aspects of family law. The AP (affair partner) here seems to have being afraid of the betrayed husband's reaction, namely that he would seek a divorce from his cheating wife despite the fact the courts and divorce proceeding are stuck against the husbands and especially after he was cuckolded by her. In particular he seems to being afraid that he might find himself pressured to marry the ex-wife. Possibly, the situation could have been even worse than that what we might assume here. One should also bear in mind that under the family law today men having no reproductive rights could easily mean being legally forced into financial fatherhood. Moreover, a married man is financially accountable for any children that his wife might have during the course of their marriage, even if the children come from his wife’s adulterous affairs. Between the lines, it seems here that Byzantine family law probably worked similarly. This we can learn especially from the dynamics between husbands and wives as depicted in the story.


Either way, by having sex with the cheating wife, it is clear that Padiates was acting vigilantly for a man who sought only to have sex with a married woman. If the cuckolded husband would have divorced his wife, Padiates’s risks in having sex with the married woman would go up significantly. He probably decided to escape the situation because he feared being pressured into an involuntary marriage and its forced financial fatherhood. The “famous flight of stairs” having seventy-two steps is a unique, late, reference to yet another ancient structure in the city of Constantinople. An eighth-century text on the monuments of Constantinople mentions “seventy-two steps” leading from a “golden-roofed” basilica to the church of the Mother of God at Chalkoprateia. While this stairway isn’t depicted as famous, it surely had a well-known position on the path of imperial and ecclesiastical processions

Associating a famous stairway with adultery and ifidelity may have grown in rhetorical significance and meaning in relation to a stairway now known as the Scala Sancta! According to Christian tradition, Saint Helena, the mother of the early fourth-century Roman Emperor Constantine, had this stairway brought to Rome from Pontius Pilate’s palace in Jerusalem. Jesus is thought to have walked up its steps to be judged by Pilate and then crucified. The Scala Sancta would have made a poignant symbol for wives threatening their husbands with divorce proceedings – exactly as it is with a modern wife threatening her spouse with filling for divorce. However, the Scala Sancta isn’t well documented prior to the sixteenth century.


It is possible that Dante’s early fourteenth-century Comedia mentioned it. The passage in Liber Pontificalis for the ninth-century Pope Sergius II states: He performed another excellent work outside the doors of this venerable church {the original St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome}: the holy thresholds were formerly hidden from the people, and with great endeavour he rendered them visible to all when he constructed there from the foundations beautifully adorned arches; and these he magnificently adorned with various pictures. {Et aliud quidam opus ante fores huius venerandae ecclesiae valde optimum fecit, quia sacra pridem quae latebant populis limina summo studio omnibus manifesta constituit cum pulchri decoris ibidem arcos a fundamentis construxit; quos etiam variis picturis nitide decoravit.}


There are those who believe that Liber Pontificalis refers to the Scala Sancta. That’s questionable. Whether in early fourteenth-century Constantinople Holobolos might have parodied the Scala Sancta must be regarded as an open question. Michael Psellos’s influential eleventh-century history of Byzantine emperors offers a more substantial setting for a famous stairway to divorce court. Psellos’s history pronounces that the early-eleventh-century Empress Zoë Porphyrogenita has been blatantly cuckolding her husband the Emperor Romanos III. The story recalls that after his wife Empress Zoe fell in love with a charming young man named Michael, Byzantine Emperor Romanos III arranged for Michael to have authorized access to the imperial bedroom so he can freely have sex with his wife. As the ultimate archetype of a cuckold, this everything was done and arranged for exchange for Michael giving him foot massages in bed. As the story continues and recalls, Michael, with his outstanding masculine beauty, enchanted the Empress Zoe at first sight. He was: "a finely proportioned young man, with the fair bloom of youth in his face, as fresh as a flower, clear-eyed, and in very truth red-cheeked"


Michael’s brother was a eunuch who had risen to high royal office. Through his eunuch-brother’s scheming, Michael appeared before the Emperor and Empress. The Empress Zoe was immediately smitten with him. The story continues and recalls: "Her eyes burning with a fire as dazzling as the young man’s beauty, she at once fell victim to his charm, and from some mystic union between them she conceived a love for him. … Zoe could neither regard the young man with philosophic detachment, nor control her desires. Consequently, though in the past she had more than once shown her dislike for the eunuch, she now approached him frequently. Her conversations would begin with reference to some extraneous matter, and then, as if by way of digression, she would end with some remark about his brother. Let him be bold, she said, and visit her whenever he wished"


Like many men, Michael was slow to perceive romantic intrigue: "The young man, so far knowing nothing of the empress’s secret, supposed the invitation was due to her kindness of heart, and he accepted it, although in a modest and timorous fashion. This bashful reserve, however, only made him the more dazzling. His face, suffused with blushes, shone with a glorious colour. She eased his fear, smiling gently upon him and forgetting her usual grim arrogance. She hinted at love, tried to encourage him, and when she proceeded to give her beloved manifest opportunities to make love on his part, he set himself to answer her desire, not with any real confidence at first"


Zoe was fifty-four years old, three decades older than Michael. Men tend to prefer young, beautiful, warmly receptive women. Yet Zoe offered Michael intimate access to great political power. He ultimately acted in love to serve his political interests: 'suddenly he threw his arms about her, kissing her and touching her hand and neck, as his brother had taught him he should do. She clung to him all the closer. Her kisses became more passionate, she truly loving him, he in no way desiring her (for she was past the age for love), but thinking in his heart of the glory that power would bring him. For this he was prepared to dare anything, and bear it with patience. [2]


He went on to have sex with her frequently. Lacking other good opportunities for advancement, many men will have sex with an old woman if she in return will greatly advance their careers. Zoe and Michael’s affair became widely known in the Byzantine palace. They made little effort to conceal it. Zoe dressed Michael in royal finery. Moreover, several courtiers discovered them sleeping together. Michael Psellos, a contemporary who later wrote a history of Byzantine emperors, observed:" That she should adorn him, as if he were some statue, cover him with gold, make him resplendent with rings and garments of woven gold cloth, I do not regard as anything remarkable, for what would an empress not provide for her beloved?


In private, Zoe went even further in her devotion to the young man: "she, unknown to the world, sometimes went so far as to seat him, turn by turn with herself, on the imperial throne, to put in his hand a sceptre; and on one occasion even deemed him worthy of a crown. Thereupon she would throw her arms about him all over again, calling him her “idol,” “the delight of her eyes,” “the flower of beauty,” “the comfort of her soul.” Zoe not only was cuckolding her husband, she also was contemplating killing him and establishing her lover as the new emperor. Emperor Romanos willfully disregarded the serious implications of his wife’s behavior. Everyone in the palace knew what was going on. Romanos, however, had extraordinarily weak perception of realityand a strong will not to believe:


Romanos was so completely blind. However, when the flash of the lightning and the roar of the thunder did eventually play round his eyes and deafen his ears, when he himself saw some things going on and heard of others, even then, as if he preferred to be blind and deaf, he closed his eyes again and refused to listen. Romanos eventually faced his marital situation. He sought to make the best of it: 'many a time when he was sleeping with the empress and she, clothed in some garment of purple, was waiting for him to lie down on their couch, he would call for Michael, bidding him come alone, and order him to touch and massage his feet. In fact, he made him servant of the bedchamber, and in order that the young man might do this office, deliberately abandoned his wife to him. [


Confronted with being cuckolded, no less than a Byzantine emperor acquiesced in exchange merely for foot massages in bed. Subsequent events were personally and politically disastrous. Zoe apparently poisoned her husband, the Byzantine Emperor Romanos III. She then installed her lover Michael as the new Byzantine emperor. Shortly thereafter, Michael began to fear her and hate her. He ceased having sex with her and essentially imposed house arrest on her. As for the Byzantine Empire, “what had taken place was, in reality, the beginning of mighty disasters in the future.”[4] If not to preserve their own dignity, men for the sake of their country should not accept foot massages in bed in exchange for being cuckolded.


Anyway, there is a subsequent message to learn from those accounts and stories. As it happens today, having practically the same dynamics, Emperor Romanos was extremely unwilling to divorce Zoë. As we have seen above, he degraded himself even offering her affair partner unrestricted access to their bedchamber in return for foot massages in bed. Zoë later in life became extremely devoted to an icon of Jesus called the Antiphonetes (ἀντιφωνητής). In Zoë’s time, that icon was held in the church of the Mother of God at Chalkoprateia next to the stairway of seventy-two steps. Zoë frequently went to the church at Chalkoprateia to venerate the Antiphonetes icon. She also had a replica created for her own personal use.


The various sources recall on this topic: "Zoë made several prophecies with regard to the future from a study of this image. It is said that when she had met with some good fortune, or when some trouble had befallen her, she would at once turn to her image, in the one case to acknowledge her gratitude, in the other to ask its favor. I myself have often seen her, in moments of great distress, clasp the sacred object in her hands, contemplate it, talk to it as though it were indeed alive, and address it with one sweet term of endearment after another. Then at other times I have seen her lying on the ground, her tears bathing the earth, while she beat her breasts over and over again, tearing at them with her hands. If she saw the image turn pale, she would go away crestfallen, but if it took on a fiery red colour, its halo lustrous with a beautiful radiant light, she would lose no time in telling the emperor and prophesying what the future was to bring forth"


According to Psellos’s history, Zoë died at age seventy-two. With her well-documented connection to the seventy-two steps her unashamedly cuckolding her husband, and her emotional intimacy with an icon, Zoë offers a reasonable source for the association of the stairway with adultery. Underscoring Zoë’s connection to the Chalkoprateia, after describing why Padiates fled to Lemnos, Holobolos turned to his friend Mazaris and said: Don’t you realize that this so-called son of his is in fact a bastard of Rhiphas Chalkeopoulos? The one who cuckolds being cuckolded is a form of the well-known folk motif “trickster tricked.” The famous stairway upon which adulterous wives threaten their husbands seems to be a mythical figure built upon a real stairway in Constantinople and Michael’s Psellos’s historical account of the Empress Zoë. Much more important than the source of the fictional figure is its lasting policy insights! Men not only today but especially historically have been punished more harshly for adultery than women have. Acute anti-male bias in child support, child custody, and alimony makes for unusually cruel punishment for husbands whose wives commit adultery and then divorce their husbands. Those husbands climb on their knees to family court crucifixion.


The four seas doctrine of English common law

Social, cultural and legal conditions affect the magnitude of cuckoldry. The four seas doctrine of English common law provided for legally accepted cuckoldry. Francis Osborne’s Advice to a Son, a serious 17th-century English work that was expansively known among the English elite societies, addressed the four seas doctrine. Since then, deliberative democracy has developed to principally subdue serious debate of central legal and policy issues linked to cuckoldry. Men normally have deep affection and loving support for their own children. According to evolutionary-biological understanding, men have valid reason to be attentive to their biological children given the fact they also know who they are. Moreover, men have enormous financial responsibilities under law to children officially declared to be theirs. The four seas doctrine legally declares a man to be the father of a child in cases in which he was obviously cuckolded. Specifically, the four seas doctrine states that if a husband was anywhere under the jurisdiction of the King of England, evidence that the husband could not and did not have sex with his wife is irrelevant to determining fatherhood. So, for example, the absurdity of the law would go as far as a man, for instance, imprisoned in early twentieth-century British South Africa would be legally declared to be the father of any children his wife in London might have during his absence on behalf of her adulterous affairs. The four seas doctrine is as reasonable as much of current law on reproductive rights, child support, and child custody. Adopted by almost any imaginable country and deprived of any reproductive rights whatsoever men today are subject to institutionalized cuckoldry and forced into financial fatherhood for children who are not their own biological off springs. Under state-institutionalized polices of such legal cuckolding, men are also subject to financial in order to redirect resources from them to women through a legal system that is misandristic and is doing so by legally empowering female infidelity and cuckoldry through the state apparatus and raison d'etat namely the reason of state. Moreover, men seeking custody of children legally declared to be theirs face acute anti-men bias in child custody and child support decisions.


Much different than the family law today, the English common law four seas doctrine wasn’t publicly vague. Men of comprehensive education knew and debated the four seas doctrine in seventeenth-century England. For example, in Oxford in 1656, Francis Osborne had printed his 150-page book, Advice to a Son. Regarding English law concerning love and marriage, Osborne writes:' The English Laws are composed so far in favor of Wives, as if our Ancestors had sent Women to their Parliaments, whilst their Heads were a wool-gathering at home; allowing no abusing of husbands Capital, nor marriage dissolvable, but in case of Adultery, not subject to proof but under the attests of two witnesses at one and the same time (, which interestingly mirrors the Jewish practices of marriage dissolutions in case infidelity and that must be further researches as a part of the Judeo Christian heritage in creating Feminism). In other words, husband weren’t legally permitted to divorce wives for squandering their husband’s assets (again a shared Judeo Christian dynamic and heritage). Given the fact of the two witnesses' requirement as with the same dynamic as in the Jewish practices, husbands also faced a high burden in proving adultery! Modern no-fault divorce now allows either spouse to trigger law on division and re-assignment of assets and income among ex-spouses. That change in law probably favors women even more, because women tend to be more oriented to valuing economic status in men than men do in women. Osborne instantaneously continued with observations on the four seas doctrine. He writes again: 'Nor is non-cohabitation a sufficient discharge from his keeping all such children, as her lust shall produce during his abode between the four English Seas; so as if his wife be a Strumpet, he must banish himself, or deal his bread and clothes to the Spurious issue of a stranger; a thraldom no wise man would sell himself to for the fairest inheritance, much less for trouble, vexation and want during life.


In other words, Osborne objected the law making men legally into cuckolds. Modern law that is the legal adaptation of misandry and its subsequent man hating policies and dynamics as described above continue to force legal fatherhood on men in defiance of clear facts and if the evidence says otherwise. Osborne’s Advice to a Son circulated broadly among the English elite. A historian living in Oxford at the time of Osborne’s publication reported that it was “greedily bought up, and admired in Oxon {Oxford}, especially by young scholars.” Within two years of its first publication, five printings of it were issued. Samuel Pepys was reading Osborne’s work in London on January 23, 1661. Pepys was then a member of the Naval Board and Justice of the Peace. He went on to become a Member of Parliament. Pepys greatly admired Osborne’s Advice to a Son and referred to Osborne as “my father". Three years after Pepys read Osborne’s Advice, it was still a subject of debate: "Up and to the office, and at noon to the Coffeehouse, where I sat with Sir G. Ascue and Sir William Petty, who in discourse is, methinks, one of the most rational men that ever I heard speak with a tongue, having all his notions the most distinct and clear, and, among other things (saying, that in all his life these three books were the most esteemed and generally cried up for wit in the world. Religio Medici,” “Osborne’s Advice to a Son,” and “Hudibras”, did say that in these — in the two first principally — the wit lies, and confirming some pretty sayings. Sir William Petty was a leading intellectual and political figure. An economist, scientist, philosopher, and politician, he was a founding member of the Royal Society and served as a Member of Parliament. Osborne also became friends with the prominent English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Osborne’s blunt words for men about love, marriage, and English law were seriously discussed among leading English public intellectuals of the seventeenth century.[4]


As educated persons would expect, Osborne faced a sharp backlash for his blunt, cutting counsel. About two years after Osborne published his Advice to a Son, John Heydon in London had printed his opposing publication, Advice to a Daughter in Opposition to the Advice to a Son. In a typical way that reminds feminist male white knights and their anti-male shaming tactics, Heydon countered Osborne’s advice point by point. Not essentially but as always with those white knights ad hominem. For example, Osborne, following the wisdom of Juvenal, suggested adopting children as a single man. Osborne then charitably added: "But if this savors too much of the Stoic, You may qualify it as you please; For I doubt not but the zeal your youth does yet retain towards the Creed and Practise of others (possibly not so well taught) may at present make much of This look like Blasphemy; But when so many winters have snowed on your Head, as on your Father’s, you will think it Canonical, and fit to be read to Posterity". Heydon countered this with the sort of name-calling and pedestalization that has now become common in the feminist circles: "He speaks still but faintly as a man out of breath; I’ll give him a serious reproof, and let him take rest a while: Oh vain man, be advised, approach not the presence of such Angelical Creatures (as women) upon pain of my displeasure, and their frowns, which frowns alone are able to destroy a woman-hater. With regard to men bragging about having sex with various women, Osborne advised the son: "If it be Levity and Ostentation, to boast when you do well, in what Class of Folly must they be ranked, that brag of the Favours of Women? rendering themselves, by this, no less frail, then they; It being more shame for a man to be leaky & incontinent at the mouth, then for a woman to scatter her favours. Heydon countered with claims that have now become commonplaces:I answer; Friend, why may he not be emblem’d {symbolized} by the cozening fig-tree that our Saviour cursed, never to bear fruit after? So I pronounce that it’s worthy his deserts to be hated of Ladies for ever after who boasts of their favours that perhaps never enjoyed any


In modern terms, for instance, this modern day shaming tactic would mean for example that a pick-up artists who share their expertise in having sex with various women are accused of never having sex. That’s just not a trustworthy allegation. Pick-up artist are also accused of wanting to have sex without having children. That allegation might be associated with the suppression of birth-control technologies that men can use. With respect to Osborne’s serious criticism of the ridiculous four seas legal doctrine, Heydon countered with irrelevant claims of NAWALT and gibberish: "I answer; Pigwiggin Myrmidon you are severe against the sex, and so uncharitable, as you think all women bad; yet others, I have heard dared affirm they are all good; sure though you speak as you find, there is reason to direct your opinion, without experience of the whole sex, which in a strict examination makes more for their honour then you have acknowledged. At first she was created his equal, only the difference was in the sex: otherwise they both were man. If I must box you to the Text, and there argue, both male and female made man; so the man being put first was worthier. I answer, you (flea-bitten canonic weed) so the evening and the morning was the first day, yet few will think the night the better". Again, the same dynamic we can also observe today.


That’s a level of childish and ignorant engagement or argumentation at an intellectual level similar to mainstream engagement with men’s human rights activists today. In seventeenth-century England, the balance of public deliberation favored Osborne’s wisdom. Heydon’s backlash against Osborne gave rise to an immediate counter-backlash. Thomas Pecke of London published in 1658 his book Advice to Balaam’s Ass; or, MomusCatechised. In Answer to a certain Scurrilous and Abusive Scribbler, One John Heydon, Author of Advice to a Daughter. Pecke’s Advice to Balaam’s Ass included a dialogue poem “To the Book and Reader.” This poem featured paired couplets such as these: "And this perhaps may sometimes move their Laughter, That thou art call’d Advice unto a Daughter. A. {Answer} She that don’t Laugh at Advice to a Daughter, I shall ne’re count for A Wise Woman after. Commenting on Heydon’s book offering a conclusion, Pecke declared: "I am glad your Book shall have an end although sorry that you should stagger six miles in such a difficult road, where your despicable wit, and indiscernible learning know scarce one step of the way, yet you are sure of fit company, if the Adage be true, Stultorum omnia plena {the universe is full of fools}. But it matters not when your book ends, for a few lines will make the Reader weary, and unable him to conclude, what both it and the Author are; that is to say none of the wisest.


Those words comment poignantly on the pervasive, disgusting torrent of discourse that pours forth today from the feminist main stream media. Cuckoldry, and its institutional correlate in “child support” policies, should be subject to vigorous public deliberation in a well-functioning deliberative democracy. The amount of money that a mother receives for child support is directly proportional to the income of the man with whom she had sex. That’s a highly unequal welfare system. It’s also grossly oppressive in circumstances in which men lack an appealing range of birth-control options and men have no reproductive rights whatsoever. Today, scientists serving gynocentric interests and journalists functioning as tools of the propaganda apparatus seek to inculcate public belief that cuckoldry is “surprisingly rare” and “fear of cuckoldry is seriously overblown.” The reality is that millions of men are cuckolded despite most men’s intense private concern to avoid being put in that position. The damage to men from being cuckoldedcan be enormous. Cuckoldry is deeply institutionalized in current state laws and policies. Current “scientific” claims about cuckoldry mainly display the Soviet quality of public intellectual life in today’s Western societies. Deliberative democracy must be invigorated. For those interested in culture, much world literature throughout history addresses cuckoldry. For those interested in law and policy, the four seas doctrine and its modern parallels concern vitally important aspects of public governance. If public discussion of these issues continues to be held hostage by name-calling and hate-mongering, deliberative democracy in actual current practice will remain a farce.


Paternity, Lack of Reproductive Rights and the Danger of Cuckoldry

Today, as the result of the above heritage, men suffer pervasively from lack of good biological paternal knowledge. That’s not a problem as one may think of biology or evolution, men’s personal doings or wrong doing, or men’s free choices. It is simply as we have seen because the legal system and paternity laws support cuckoldry and false biological fatherhood inherited though an almost two Millennia of female infidelity an male cuckoldry encouragement. Due to unwarranted influence, misrepresentation and disservice it has become today a socially constructed and man-made phenomenon. In high-income democratic states, fatherhood is commonly established in hospitals shortly after the wife gives birth to the children. If the woman is married, fatherhood of her newly born child is assigned by law to her husband. Furthermore, a husband on his own initiative normally could not seek to have a paternity test. In some countries this might be considered a criminal offence and lead to legal action taken against the husband. Additionally, the mother might perceive her husband’s request for a paternity test as a grave insult to her. It worsens the situation. A husband asking for a paternity test could thus seriously jeopardize his relationship with his wife, unrelatedly of the outcomes that such a test would provide and whatever actions a husband would take given certain knowledge of fatherhood or non-fatherhood. Not having paternity testing as a default legal rule supports relational circumstances that favors the wife, gives her un-proportional power, unearned privileges and unduly conditions the husbands to remain ignorant of true fatherhood knowledge. If a mother is not married, paternity is commonly established through having a man sign an acknowledgement of father in the hospital shortly after the mother gives birth. Here, a man, if necessary and as a default procedure is forced to do a paternity test to administer the acknowledgement of the fatherhood with the aim at distributing resources from him to the woman. An unmarried man’s relationship with a girlfriend is less legally important than a husband’s relationship with his wife because the exploitation of a man with the frame of the marriage is already established. But that does not essentially infer that a relationship with a wife is less personally significant to a man than a relationship with a girlfriend. Just as for married men, requiring an unmarried man to request personally a paternity test unduly influences him to remain ignorant of true paternity knowledge.


Misrepresentation in the administration of acknowledgements of fatherhood also contributes to men remaining deluded and unaware about their fatherhood. Child-support laws and policies falsify acknowledgement of paternity as offering a man the benefits and responsibilities of fatherhood. This technic is not only used by the legal system but is serving both feminists in the emasculation of men as a part of the social engineering tactic as well as billion "reconciliation industry" luring the cuckolded and betrayed men to stay with cheating wives instead of throwing them to the getting and getting the adulterous wife divorced. Signing a legal acknowledgement of paternity isn’t essential for a man to provide emotional or financial support to a child, or more generally to act as a father to the child. Signing an acknowledgement of paternity does nearly nothing to improve men’s highly unequal opportunities to gain physical custody and to receive child-support payments. Legal acknowledgement of paternity, which child support laws and policies administer and fund, primarily serves the interests of the cheating wife as well as the child support agencies seeking to redistribute the wealth and resources from men to women and the Gynocentric state apparatus that support them. Misrepresentation in the administration of acknowledgement of paternity goes deeper than misrepresentation of interests. New York State’s Acknowledgement of Paternity form, for example, informs the man and the mother in: "If you have any doubts about the child’s paternity, after reading this notice and having received oral notice, do not sign an Acknowledgment of Paternity. Globally, today, about 5% to almost 20% of children falsely identify their biological father. Highly accurate paternity testing can now be done easily at low cost. As we have said in some of the countries and in order to cover female infidelity and continue the redistribution of resources this is illegal. With D.N.A testing a man has no rational basis for uncertainty about whether a child is his or mot. Without such a test, a man unavoidably has a sound basis for suspicion about whether a child is his or not. That’s simply a matter of logical reasoning and biological and social reality. Without paternity testing, the Acknowledgment of Paternity form cannot fairly be presented to a man to sign, because no man should sign it.


Disservice of legal notifications of alleged fatherhood and subsequent default procedures create numerous deceitful legal ascriptions of fatherhood. Child-support institutions obtain claims of fatherhood from women and serve notice of those claims to men. A default evaluation of fatherhood, with a child support order not correctable retroactively, is established when the man does not respond to the notice. About the year 1999, default evaluations established 68% of child support orders in California and more than 50% of child support orders in six other states. Default evaluations number in the hundreds of thousands per year. Service procedures for fatherhood notices help to explain why a large portion of fathers subject to child support orders have fatherhood established through default evaluation: In California, documents in civil proceedings do not have to be delivered to the person named in the proceeding, referred to as personal service. If a complaint cannot be hand delivered to the person, “substitute” service is allowed, which essentially means that any adult can be served the summons and complaint at the residence or employment of the noncustodial parent. If that fails, service by publication is allowed, which means LCSAs {local child support agencies} can publish the notice of the complaint in the newspaper. Substitute service and service by publication make it possible that noncustodial parents are not aware of the legal proceeding being brought against them. The County, a political embodiment of its citizens and inhabitants, must always act in the public interest and for the general good. It should not enforce child support judgments it knows to be unfounded. And in particular, it should not ask the courts to assist it in doing so. Despite the Legislature’s clear directive that child support agencies not pursue mistaken child support actions, the County persists in asking that we do so. We will not sully our hands by participating in an unjust, and factually unfounded, result. We say no to the County, and we reverse. The state of California quickly sought to minimize the value of this precedent. Default judgments serve state interests in generating child-support financial obligations. Quickly establishing child-support orders, even without good information about the alleged father, is a particularly potent source of financial claims. That’s because child-support debts cannot be retroactively expunged, even with a finding that paternity was falsely established through default evaluation against a man who had no relationship with the child. Child support agencies declare paternity and order child support payments with little regard for truth and justice under law. Legal notifications of alleged paternity also misrepresent knowledge. That’s the typical effect of paternity notifications to which the alleged father acquiesces. Men, with good evolutionary and practical reasons, are keenly interested in who their biological children are. Modern paternity testing technology can easily remove reasonable doubt about paternity and eliminate false legal attributions of paternity. Paternity establishment practices unjustly keep men ignorant about true biological paternity.


Adultery Punishments are gender-biased against men throughout history!

Through the above discourse we have also shed light about the fact that a gender double standard in punishment for adultery has existed throughout history and is not only a feature of modern history. We have also learned that while male infidelity was disapproved the female one was empowered including the institutionalized state cuckoldry of men. For the same reason as for that gender double standard, almost everyone believes the double standard went against women. As we have seen it didn’t. The truth is that it worked vice vera against men. With astonishing boldness in our era of Soviet-quality intellectual life, a recent scholarly study of early modern France declared: "Whether a husband committed adultery or his wife did, the blame lay with the husband. … We usually think of premodern European adultery laws and the courts that applied these laws as intended to punish women’s illicit sex while condoning men’s illicit sex. This is not how late medieval courts operated. Instead, courts punished men for adultery, particularly husbands, while punishing only a fraction of female offenders"


Research on punishment practices centuries ago is much more difficult than studying what’s going on right now. The evidence for gender discrimination against men in criminal justice today is as overwhelming as the vastly disproportionate imprisonment of men. Accumulating examples of bizarre unequal justice under law by gender requires an ironic and cynical sense of humor! Serious researchers might consider how modern academics have misrepresented Blackstone’s figure of coverture and ignored mass imprisonment of men for debt in early modern England. Ordinary folk might just consider a story from medieval Latin literature. A wise and powerful king had a beautiful daughter. He was very fond of her. Exploiting the socially devalued lives of ordinary men, the king ordered five men (soldiers) to protect her: "he charged them, under the heaviest penalties, to preserve her from every possible injury. The soldiers were on guard night and day. Before the door of her bed-chamber they suspended a burning lamp so that the approach of an intruder might be more easily detected. They similarly kept a dog, whose bark was loud and piercing, to rouse them from sleep.


Putting aside her father’s caring concern for her safety, the young lady sought the pleasures of the world. Her chance came when a duke passing by noticed her beauty. He ardently proposed to her. She eagerly said yes. She killed the guard dog, put out the watch lamp, and at night running away with the duke. She was a strong, independent woman who undoubtedly played well the game of seduction. Punishment of the runaway woman and man differed characteristically by gender. A white knight like Lancelot and today’s ignorant white knights hunted down the fugitives: "A battle speedily ensued, in which the champion triumphed, and decapitated the seducer on the spot. The lady he conveyed back to the palace" In an adulterous affair, the man gets castrated or killed. The woman gets forgiven. So it was in this story. The woman married a powerful nobleman. She received many gifts and pious advice from her father and others. She lived out the rest of her days in peace as a married woman. Occasionally she surely recalled fondly her few pleasurable nights with her duke-lover who had been decapitated for his sexual offense with her. The most important challenge isn’t to understand historical truth. It’s to change present injustice.


Attribution: the article here is based on elaborations and works of Doughlas Ghalbie on his website purple motes (CCA)

4 views

​FOLLOW ME

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Google+ Social Icon

© 2023 by Samanta Jonse. Proudly created with Wix.com