From: yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: vixie says goodbye (Re: Cowardly Fathers Who Abandon Their Children)
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:28:32 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <VIXIE.92Sep12222324@cognition.pa.dec.com> vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie) writes:
>> It turns my stomach to see how many fathers there are who stick the mother
>> with the child(ren) [...]
>
>It sickens me, as well, to have seen so many immature male "adults" here,
>and elsewhere, who claim (honestly, so far as I can tell) that they have
>no responsibility to children whom they helped create.  The usual refrain
>is "but I told [the mother] before we had sex that I didn't want to be a
>father, and she said she would have an abortion if pregnancy occurred, but
>then it did and she didn't even though I offered to pay for it."
>
>These immature male "adults" do not and will never see that the child does
>not care what promises were made and should never be required to face such
>facts or their consequences.  Only real, actual adults will ever understand
>that nothing about child support is or can ever be "about" the parents.

>Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
>Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
><vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
><paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me

	The thing that Paul and others like him fail to realize is
	that there are two scenario's possible.  One involves a
	man/parent who has a bond with a child, and the second one
	is where the man doesn't.

	Why has it historically been that parents have taken care of
	their offspring, and why has it been that women have both
	tended to bond with their kids and been branded as the automatic
	default parent?  Because they love the kids.  Why do women
	almost without exception "love their kids"?  Because they are
	bonded to them.  They are bonded via 9 months of pregnancy
	like something out of the movie "Alien", followed by a rather
	interesting event called "childbirth".

	A man also would tend to bond with the child brought forth
	by love, which he has been near.  But through association.
	And if that association has never taken place, that bond
	never occurs.

	It is easy to see how people and many of the men on this net
	view this bond to their children as self evident.  It's a little
	like sex.  Before you had it, you didn't know what it was like.
	And after the first time, you FOREVER know what it's like and
	forget what it's like to not know.

	I was once pretty much like Mr. EuStress.  I had a son to whom
	I had never bonded to.  And I had never bonded with any offspring.
	Now, having bonded with my daughter, I can see how strong a bond
	it is, and because of this I can understand why people are
	intolerant of "deadbeat fathers", because the bond is so intimate.

	But the majority of people like this have never experienced the
	other side.  Having an offspring that you never bonded to.
	Understanding the sterile side of the issue.  Understanding that
	it *is* possible to have an offspring that means nothing to you.

	If any can relate to my side of this "two way mirror", then
	it should at least be possible to understand that there is
	a side that most have never lived. I am an example of one person
	who can see both sides of the issue.  Yes, both are possible.
	And very probable.  Given the correct life circumstance.

-- 
	Alan Yasutovich
	"inquiring  (and nosey) minds WANT TO KNOW!!!"
	I can remember when "safe sex" meant having a padded headboard!!
	Tick Tock.....Tick Tock......Tick Tock .....Tick Tock......
Xref: sparky alt.child-support:3202 soc.men:16477 soc.women:16647