Upon the Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver, Mildred Baena & Rogelio Baena adultry Scandal:
Maria Shriver should have known better than to let any half way decent looking woman spend so much time in the house. The whole ballgame changes when a man reaches Arnold's status. Women come begging to be f***ed by you. Women practically disrobe and spread when guys like Arnold walk in the room. I'm sure he abstained plenty of times but women like this maid wait for her opportunity when in such close proximity. In fact it is used to be women that set the precedent to ostracise these women. It used to be called a home-wrecker.
However, there is nothing wrong with cheating and adultery, at least when women do it of course. In fact, female adultery is the only adultery that is legal. Not only that but the man has to pay for the pleasure of such a betrayal. What type of self loathing man would sign up for a commitment like that?....What is the point?
As is quite common with the type of situation that took place with Arnold, I'm sure this little whore took her prized bastard back home to be raised by her oblivious, committed, and cuckolded beta male husband. If he ever finds out it is to late for him. He's already signed as the father and will be paying support for another man's child.
At least women can divorce when they are cheated on. At least parental fraud and adultery is legal for women. Men who are cheated on and were stupid enough to sign onto feminist marriage 2.0 laws live in quite heartache and suffering. Eventually his feelings play out in the relationship and the woman ends the marriage. All men suffer the same fate when things turn south. All men suffer the same fate when betrayed. Women have no commitments to uphold....only men.
"The boy's birth certificate listed the father as the man Mildred Baena was married to at the time."
HAAAAAAA HAAAAAA....I KNEW IT!
HEY...WHY NOT..WOMEN BEAR NO COMMITMENTS TO MEN...IF THIS COUPLE ARE DIVORCED NOW IT DOES NOT MATTER...SHE ALREADY CUCKOLDED HIM AND THERE ARE NO PARENTAL FRAUD LAWS TO PROTECT MEN....WOMEN ARE FILTHY LICENSED WHORES BY LAW.
Maria may now file for divorce. The only people to end up completely fu*ked here will be the two men...Arnold for engaging in adultery (and the price only men have to pay for it) and the man that was cuckolded by his adulterous whore wife and will have to pay for it as well. Men bear liability to women on both sides of the equation. Men have no rights. The other losers here will be the children from these relationships.
If only women were held accountable for adultery as men are then this little whore maid may have thought twice about committing adultery against her husband.
The real victim in the Arnold Schwarzenegger bastard child adultery scandal is the HUSBAND of the adulterous whore cuckoldress. She got what she wanted didn't she. I have not seen the media but I bet they are focusing on her as the victim and the onus of betrayal of any commitments broken is placed on Arnold alone.
She got what she wanted didn't she. Now she gets paid and rewarded. Her ex-husband loses everthing he ever worked hard for. The onus of responsibility to honor her husband, family and sanctity of marriage is abdicated from her in this culture. This goes for any adulterous woman in this culture.
UPDATE: "Some people might say, hey, isn’t Arnold partially to blame for cuckolding that little whore’s cuckolded beta male husband? No. It’s important to remember: he’s a victim too, and obviously not responsible for the sexual activity that Mrs. Baena lured him into with her fiery Latin vagina."
No, what I mean is that Arnold is paying the price vicariously through the marriage \ divorce law system. It is an illustration of the bigger picture regarding lack of female culpability under law. What I mean is that only men i.e. Arnold in this case is paying the price where as a woman in this situation, as is illustrated by the reversal in this case (the maid and her husband) does not have to pay the price nor does any woman within marriage law. Arnold and his impropriety was not the intended focus of this article. I take it as common knowledge among my readers that what Arnold did was obviously wrong. This was not the point of the article.
The point of this article was to illustrate how adultery is supported by law on one end (the female end) and not supported by law on the male end. Care to debate this??? The onus of responsibility and consequences of adultery and paternity fraud fall upon men.... categorically at both ends of this equation.
This man was lucky. His name is on the birth certificate as the father yet it has been removed from the divorce certificate by some political sway no doubt. Ordinarily once a man's name is on the birth certificate as the father you are legally responsible for a woman's offspring no matter who's it is. Even fathers who find out after 18 years of child support that their children are not their children have no case for lawsuit for paternity fraud.
A woman can cheat on you, have another man's child then divorce you and you will be responsible for supporting not only for her but her child. This is just one of many legal pitfalls of feminist marriage 2.0 law....Still want to marry???
Posts
2 hours ago
12 comments:
"If only women were held accountable for adultery as men are then this little whore maid may have thought twice about committing adultery against her husband."
How do you know the husband was deceived? He may have known all along because I'm sure Arnold paid this maid and her husband a bundle to keep their mouths shut. For all we know; this guy participated in the "paternity fraud" for monetary gain even though he knew all along the kid wasn't his.
So let me get your logic straight....you are saying that this was premeditated?
You are saying that this woman's vagina was so valuable that Arnold was willing to pay the family including the husband so he could have access to this woman's holy vagina??? I mean I guess I can see how some....if not all women somehow see their vagina as the center of the universe but Wow!!!..Your comment really has me amazed. It is so gynocentric I could never even imagine the thought process..
That Arnold paid this man in order that this man would willingly set himself up with paternity fraud committed against him by his wife.
Ok...well only a woman would have come up with this idea. I'm blown away....really. Ma'am, you suffer from a serious case of cognitive dissonance. I really don't know how to dignify your comment in any way.
Also....Is this how you attempt to explain away all injustices toward men in America through female created marriage 2.0 laws?
Is this how you attempt to explain away female culpability for adultery within the new justice system women have created?
It's been remarked on in the media that the maid's husband is "strangely quiet". Most husbands would be screaming paternity fraud on every talk show. That tells me he just might have known about this, and yes, men will take responsibility for a kid not theirs if there is money in it. You guys don't even want anything to do with your OWN KIDS if you can avoid paying support. Your not above taking some other guys kid and claiming it as your own if you can get something from it. Howard K. Stern anyone?
"You guys don't even want anything to do with your OWN KIDS if you can avoid paying support."
What makes you think that men owe women's families and women's children support?
So the family was paid hush money. I hear the good governor even had the child removed from the divorce certificate.
Anyway, back to the point. What does this have to do with legalized female adultery in marriage law? Do you think this ever would have happened if women were held accountable under marriage law?
I'm not American so I don't know the backgrounds to this.
What do you mean legalised adultary? Is it not legal for both sexes? Surely it's a family matter than a legal one.
Or are you referring to divorce laws? Can only women divorce cheating spouses? When can men obtain a divorce?
Yes, I'm referring to divorce law. Women created no-fault divorce law. The idea of no-fault was essentially to absolve women of all liability of commitment in marriage and therefore be entitled to the male body and thus the fruits of its labor by default.
The other intention was to enact default female child custody.
The end result was to make the liability, responsibility, and accountability of commitment in marriage a one way contract from a man to a woman.
http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/marriage20/
Thanks for the info. Very interesting. American divorce law seems like a minefield.
In Calif. the husband is the presumptive father.
But, if at birth the mother declares the father to be someone else, a paternity test can be done, and the spouse will not be listed as the parent.
The actual father need not be named, but the non-father will have no obligation to support the child.
In Calif. the husband is the presumptive father.
BINGO..your catching on.
“But, if at birth the mother declares the father to be someone else, a paternity test can be done, and the spouse will not be listed as the parent.”
Yea just depends on who she wants to be the father and saddle with legal responsibilities. Thank you mistress may the cuckold have another?
“The actual father need not be named, but the non-father will have no obligation to support the child.”
Yes, fathers are not considered as necessary so I can see how one can claim immaculate conception. Heck male genes are harvested and sold over the internet by what Hollywood celebrity the specimen looks like. Yes, so you are correct, legally a child’s father does not have to exist at all..thank you mistress.
Paternity tests should be made a mandatory part of hospital care at birth.
Post a Comment