REVISING PATERNITY LAWS TO MAKE THEM PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF MEN...

FATHERHOOD IS A BEAUTIFUL AND MAGICAL THING... FOR MANY MEN IT OPENS A NEW AND FASCINATING DOOR INTO MANHOOD... I HAVE INCLUDED POSITIVE IMAGES OF FATHERS TO SHOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN FATHERHOOD IS HANDLED CORRECTLY... WE ALL KNOW THE NEGATIVE IMAGES AND STATISTICS SUPPORTING EXAMPLES OF WHEN IT IS MISGUIDED...

The current paternity laws are violate the constitutional rights of men to choose or reject fatherhood, but they have never been challenged.  Paternity laws have been abused and twisted to punish men who do not desire to be father unwanted children for them there is no choice... only the ominous cloud of perpetual legal and economic entrapment within a system that ignores their right to self determination.  The lives and livelihoods of many men have been ruined by unconstitutional paternity laws designed to punish men who do not wish to father children.  The laws have been driven by spiteful, vengeful and desperate women in genuine need who have not had the wisdom to act responsibly themselves or to take reality at face value...  Often it is the man who must pay dearly for a the lack of communication and simple common sense that should have been inherent in paternity laws... but these laws have little basis in reason or justice... A man should have the right to reject a fatherhood he does not want! If the legal process for determining paternity liability issues was  concerned with the fathers constitutional rights a man could successfully dispute being trapped into unwanted fatherhood.  Fatherhood, and for that matter parenthood can a beautiful thing when both parents are mentally and financially prepared to take on this responsibility... but when these variables are not in place we have a recipe for social dynamite.  The current paternity laws actually exacerbate what are already bad conditions... and they take the power of justice and choice away from the man. 

I always seem to come the the point in a debate when I argue the "Idealism Vs Reality" spin.  In this case, easy one... the Ideal is that every man and woman has thoroughly thought out the ramifications of sex including having offspring, both the financial and emotional aspects.  These parents or potential parents are both financially stable or have made plans to manage the finances and other unavoidable responsibilities of both time and energy.  The real is quite a different story.  More than often parenthood is not the intended outcome of sex.  A woman may feel that her pregnancy obligates a man to participate as a father and spouse but a man may have a completely different view.  He may look upon the sex as merely casual and recreational and the pregnancy as accidental and therefore disposable.  He does have this right, even though it may not fit traditional views, it is nonetheless his right to reject fatherhood. 

His reasoning whatever it may be, should be heard and taken seriously before a new child is born into a hostile and potentially tragic world of strife and potential poverty.  He may realize that he does not love the woman, that he is not financially or emotionally prepared for fatherhood, any reason is viable if he deems it so... but he should be able to be heard and know that if his argument is sound he will not be forced into a horrible state of affairs forever changing his life.  An unwanted child is not ever a good thing to force when it does not have to  be forced....

When a man and woman procreate it is indeed a serious thing.  But the modern world in which we live is already grossly overpopulated and the global demand for resources including jobs and housing compounded by an exponentially expanding impoverished population has made it a luxury to afford to raise children in a proper manner.  At the height of the sexual revolution when artificial insemination has made reproductive sex obsolete, sexuality has become more of a recreational activity than a necessary ritual to preserve humanity.   Overpopulation and changing perspectives on traditional notions of  sexuality have catapulted pornography  and other sexually oriented business establishments to a multi-billion dollar industry in America.  But all this has not changed the very serious nature of procreation...when sex goes beyond being, "just sex" and a child is created the party comes to a grinding halt! Everyone is sent home, and the parents have to sit down and have a very complicated discussion...

When a woman realizes that she is pregnant the law should require her to give timely notice to the father.  This notice should be formally served within the first two to three months of conception to allow, if necessary, for the fetus to be safely aborted. 

The court should note if the woman is uncertain of the father and every male that is given notice should complete a paternity test within 30 days of notice bringing the term of pregnancy to no more than 4 months should it be terminated.  Furthermore, if a woman is uncertain as to the father the court should duly note this and give great weight to the issue of the number of men served for paternity should the father elect to reject responsibility.  If a woman is not able to identify the genetic father within a timely manner to abort the child then she must waive her right to sue him for compensation and must advise the court of her decision to either mother the child alone, accepting complete financial and legal responsibility, to abort the fetus or to enter into an adoption arrangement.  As in any court of law a woman must prove who the father is and the window in which she must to do so should be limited to not more than 6 months into the pregnancy to allow for a safe abortion if necessary. 

Men who have been erroneously charged with the payment of child support should be reimbursed by the jurisdiction that erred in their determination of paternity.  it should should be the responsibility of the mother to pay back the state through a combination of fines and community service.  A man should never be charged to pay back payment for missed child support unless he has first agreed willingly to enter into such a financial agreement and not been compelled by the court.  Especially is the father was not given timely notice of his paternity in order to reject it in lieu of abortion or adoption. 

It is a serious matter when a man identifies that he does not wish to father a child but opts that the fetus be aborted or that the child be given up for adoption.  Because the man is a 50% responsible party with the woman his decision not to father the child should be respected.  Because the child must ultimately be carried to term inside the woman's body and not the mans she must not be forced to abort or adopt the child merely because the father does not wish to be a father.  But it must be made crystal clear to her that merely by virtue of her pregnancy she will not be able to force the father into legal and financial responsibility for the child if she elects to have it without his consent to parent it.

Fatherhood is a beautiful thing and it is something many men find to be the most fulfilling dynamic of manhood.  Shaping the life of another human being from the time of their first breath to maturity is a huge and magnificent accomplishment... but it is something that needs to be handled properly and not forcefully by courts who ultimately have no human interest in the outcome of their decisions.  As a mature decision fatherhood is all about choice.  

It does not take rocket science to determine that fathers who are financially and mentally ready to take on the task of fatherhood are more likely to participate in the shaping of more productive and well rounded children.  Why are we forcing awful conditions upon the weakest and most impressionable... our children.  We do have a choice... Men have a choice...

The Dynamics of "POWER" Within A Gay Male Relationship

                                                  

Whenever I imagine two men within a relationship the first thing I think of is, "Testosterone"!  Specifically, I wonder how difficult it must be for two men to share "Power."  Men, by their very nature are power-seeking... we thrive on it... it is a variable that defines us... so it is not unlikely that intense power struggles should arise between two men living and loving together, making the mundane decisions that couples make. 

I remember listening to Essex Hemphill talk about relationships when he would visit my lover and I.  When his book, “Tongues Untied,” was published Michael wrote an amazing article about him and his work.  Essex loved the fish fry we would give for him on Fridays at our Capitol Hill apartment… the house was filled with luminaries…writers, artists, radio and other personalities… all the Howard University Gay Royalty… all engaged in intellectual dialogue well into the wee hours of the morning…

Michael and I would discuss his articles exhaustively while he cranked them out… it was a wonderfully creative time…  The media was just beginning to publish films and documentaries with gay issues especially concerning African American men.  Michael was fascinated with Marlon Riggs and he eventually decided to pursue his graduate degree under him at The University of Berkeley in California.  By the time I came out to visit him at the end of the first year Marlon Riggs was very sick and died shortly thereafter of Aids.  Essex had also been diagnosed with Aids and had taken an offer to teach at Oxford University in the United Kingdom.  There were to be no more Friday fish fries…

Marlon’s explication of the black male image as portrayed in film was groundbreaking…   I met him for the first time when I accompanied Michael at a press conference at the Nation Press Club on F. Street N.W. after a preview of his yet to be released documentary, “Color Adjustment,” at the Rayburn Building on Capitol Hill.  Michael’s articles deeply inspired me while I studied architecture at Catholic University where I was one of only 3 black males.   The climate of racism there was subtle but omnipresent.  Notwithstanding, as I was going through a very militant period… I was more than equipped to meet the challenge…  One of his most provocative and evocative articles was entitled, “Are You Black Or Are You Gay,”!  This article examined the power struggle of black gay men within the context of their community layered with racial, religious, corporate and other tensions in a nation that had historically turned it’s back on men of color… mind you that this was during the era of Rodney King and O.J. Simpson… charged with racial tension… it was an amazing time…

I have never given much credibility to the stereotype of the Gay couple, modeled after a heterosexual prototype.... men are chemically and physically different than women and it has always been my observation that men are not "innately" submissive in any respect unless they have been  conditioned to suppress their innately dominant nature.  Suppression, however is never an absolute condition... In men the instinct to dominate will eventually arise no matter how long it has lain dormant.  Now, I do not mean to imply that submissiveness in a man is wrong or unnatural or anything but perfectly and absolutely the personal choice of that man... which it is... exactly and as such to be respected.  If a man is submissive... or considers himself to be a "Bottom" this is perfectly legitimate, however it has nothing to do with the fact that men are innately possessed of the hormone testosterone a chemical that has be observed to possess the genetic characteristic to evoke dominant, aggressive and assertive behavior in many males.  It is a hormone that accounts for the marked difference in male behavior and physical development as compared to women who have higher levels of the hormone estrogen than they do testosterone.  Estrogen is the hormone that drives the female physique including the ability to give birth. 

The goal and objective of this article is to explicate the nature of dominance within the male species and the objective is by discussing the many variables or dynamics of male behavior specifically within the context of a male on male relationship.  The objective is not to imply that women are not innately seekers of power or that they are in any way more naturally submissive than their male counterparts.  Nor is it my intention to imply that men who consider themselves to be submissive or bottoms are freaks of the male species.  On the contrary... my premise is that though driven by testosterone they have made conscious choices not to explore dominance through a process that owes more to unique personality than any other variable.  This choice must be respected, but as nothing is absolute... let me say that it is my experience that instinct is the most difficult thing for man or any other animal to fight consistently....

Imagery plays a huge part in our ability to visualize what is otherwise an intangible property... "Power" and "Dominance."  As I wrote "male on male" I immediately visualized the implications it made about status.  Male on male implies that one man is over the other... does this mean that the man on top is dominant or is this merely a means of describing a gay couple.  Why, for instance do we not say a "Male Beside Male Relationship,"?  I have heard the expression Male/Male relationship... I guess the words "GAY" or "Homosexual" are meant to avoid this confusion and apply a uniform coat of power to both parties.

I have spoken with men who say that their sexual fantasies include being submissive to another man in every way; some only on occasions and others at all times.  In contrast many of them have very powerful jobs and physical images.  Even if they do not... this issue is a recurring theme.  Power struggle comes about because of a combination of economic and and sexual status as pointed out by one of my friends who has been discussing this article with me. Power struggle between men play out differently in and out of the bed.  I originally did not want to include the sexual aspect of the power struggle to avoid confusion and taking it on will add a second level of complexity but in order to see the holistic picture it must be contemplated.  Let me say that the reason I began to think about this article is because I saw that many people believed that all gay male relationships involved a dominant and submissive arrangement between both partners.  It has not been my experience, or the experience of most of my close associates and we have looked on for years wondering why this stereotype has never been challenged in order to broaden the purview... the range of the types of relationships we understand gay men to enjoy.  The classically "Polarized" view of dominant/submissive is a lazy perspective... based on traditional heterosexual standards but not necessarily valid within the gay male community. 

Returning to perception and image i must digress to discuss the stereotype of the feminized submissive gay male.  Let me say that the physical and perceivable characteristics of gay men range from what could be called flamboyant  to absolutely undetectable.  Clearly the more flamboyant man will be most easily detected whereas the man who is perceived to have the perceptible characteristics of what society deems a "regular" man will slip by the gaydar.  Because the flamboyant man is more easily detected he goes into the snapshot for "gay men" and is kept there as a psychical reference file.  But this man is imagined to always be looking for his opposite... the undetectable, perceptibly straight man.  It is inconceivable that he would be attracted to another effeminate or submissive man... how could that work? I have heard the term used among gay men as, "Bumping Pussies."  Likewise, many people both gay and straight cannot imagine how two very masculine and presumably dominant men could have any attraction at all because then who would be the top and who the bottom?  Driving all of these preconceptions is the question: "Who's fucking Whom"!  Which, of course, drags us into yet another complicated stereotype about dominance and submission.  It is generally held that the submissive man is the one who is penetrated and services the dominant male as a woman would her male lover.  But I want to discuss the less discussed variable... Two masculine, dominant men who neither wish to be submissive in the way that a woman or submissive male may wish to be nor wish to be dominant in the way that a heterosexual or homosexual, top male may wish to be.  Because this genre of gay male is so under the radar it has not got much discussion.  Now let me clarify this the way I did once to a gentleman who made a particularly bad homophobic remark in the gym.  This man said that he was tired of seeing gay men in the gym and that he wanted to find a gym that did not have any gay men.  I responded that he might seek a gym at home, (if he was sure that he was not gay), in order to exact such precision.  I also added that for every flamboyant gay man he saw in the gym there were at least 10 other gay men just like himself and myself who he would never notice.  The man then replied, "O I'm not talking about DL Mothafukas"! I responded that I was not talking about DL men either... just normal men like anybody else who lived their lives openly and freely gay but did not feel the need to wave any flags being perfectly comfortable with themselves.  These men, I added were not ashamed of their sexuality and surely were not fearful of him or any other person... they were just minding their business and tending to their own lives because they had one! Hint.  Well it is no mystery but because this population is rather silent in it's presentation people tend to not know they exist at all, but they do exist and I would like to discuss their story along with the other stories included in this discussion. 

Let me return to the discussion of shared power in a gay male relationship.  I will generalize here because it is my belief that the human condition is quite universal and transcends sex in many ways.  Notwithstanding, lessons can be learned on all sides since relationships among humans tend to have very common strands. 

When two men are in a relationship it is important for them to develop a system to manage "Control"... that is, they must learn to share control and be sensitive to their partners needs when assuming a decision making role that will have a shared impact.

I personally find it ironic that men, who might otherwise have a sexual attraction, would not absolutely battle one another on a continual basis due to that overly and misused word we call... "Testosterone"!  It seems as if the constant struggle for power and dominance would literally tear them apart or catapult them into an abrasive cycle of inexorable competition. 

The phenomenon of power  and dominance in men is the very same thing that will motivate a man to act independently on his libido... when he feels entitled to rather than offer it up for discussion or negotiation with his partner.  But that was below the belt... It is also the thing that will motivate a man to act independently to make decisions concerning critical matters from finance to what is going to be had for dinner...  In any event I have spoken to many men who have expressed that their relationships had ended or were being stressed out due to a power struggle that I maintain is inherent in men who are power seekers by nature.  This, of course, gives a serious blow to the stereotype, "Opposites Attract," but isn't that what being gay is all about anyway... an attraction of same rather than opposite. As in most things... it is not that simplistic.  Though men are similar genetically they may not be sexually or psychologically.  In issues of dominance both in terms of power and sexuality men may fall anywhere along the broad range of the spectrum.   The spectrum is a polarity ranging from absolute dominant and absolute submissive. 

We have been taught that the dominant role (being the penetrator or the most powerful decision maker in a relationship) is always the top and the submissive role (being the one penetrated or the one deferring the greater portion of the decision making process to the other partner) is at the bottom, but this is not true.  If this were the case then sexuality and relationships would be far less interesting and diverse than we know them to be.  It is human nature to attempt to over simplify in order to easily process.  Who says that the man being penetrated is the weaker of the two, the bottom and not the man in most power and the top? Who is to say that the man doing the penetration is not actually the most submissive and the sexual bottom, the one being managed by the more effeminate partner who calls all the shots?

There may be no issue at all after we Analise the whole... but men who have been taught from birth that they are to be the decision makers, that they are to be in control and that they are to seek power and dominion over others are set against a very serious obstacle when they meet their match within the context of a gay relationship...  If anything we will discover how two powerful men manage power... either by sharing or alternating control between themselves... It is my sincere belief that the stereotype of the gay couple with one dominant and one submissive male is only just a stereotypical myth.  Even within a heterosexual relationship the power is generally shared by both parties in order to achieve a sense of unity and satisfaction... The sharing of power within a relationship traditionally established as being between a man and a woman is part of the sexual revolution and is contradictory to Victorian standards.  While I am of the opinion that we are still within the last stages of the Victorian culture and ethos it is clear that quantum leaps have been made with respect to the social evolution of the, "relationship" such that its "master-slave" nature has been almost completely subdued... although it is still a very compelling and popular theme in the bedroom... outside of the boudoir it is usually, but not always, a much different story.

"Well we were both laying in the bed both of us 280lbs and 275lbs of pure muscle, masculine and strong... he an ex pro-football player and me a professional and powerlifting athlete and as we looked one another in the eye we laughed having the same Revelation at the same time... The idea of one of us being a top and the other a bottom was ridiculous... we were both the same... both men and proud of it... there was no femininity, that idea was ridiculous to us... no desire to be dominated or dominate... we shared one another on equal terms..."

I found this story to be especially interesting because it so defines many men who are masculine, powerful and confident and have no element of that soft-stereotype associated with gay men... I only wish these men were more visible... the fact that they do not fit any stereotype makes them invisible.  They are not magically without any power struggle... I am sure... it is a phenomenon that all men must manage... whether they are a self professed "Topman" or a "Power-Bottom."

I want to discuss the issue of power struggle at this time with a bit more detail...

RELATIONSHIP #1.

Two men are in a relationship both of them masculine.  Both men work but one partner makes considerably more money.  This man has a white collar corporate occupation and wears a suit to work daily.  He has a masters degree and is considerably better educated than his partner who only has a high school education.  Both men are attractive but one man is considerably more masculine and athletic in appearance , has a blue collar occupation and wears a uniform or more informal apparel to his job. 

RELATIONSHIP #2.

Two men are in a relationship, both men make well over six figures and hold powerful positions in corporate America but one partner makes at least 90k more than the other.  Both men are well educated, both have at least a masters degree and attended Ivy league schools.  Both men are equally attractive and they regularly work out in the gym. 

RELATIONSHIP #3.

 Two men are in a relationship, both of them make moderate salaries below 60k.  They both have high school degrees but no further education.  Both men have been incarcerated at some point in time and have criminal records.  Both men are not equally attractive, one man is very muscular and moderately handsome and the other is not handsome at all.

RELATIONSHIP #4.

Two men are in a relationship.  Both men make moderate salaries below 60k and have at least a high school degree.  One man has a former wife and children and is still devoted to his fatherly obligations.  Both men are moderately attractive but are very simple and casual in their appearance. 

In my next update of this article I will further develop these relationships to show the way in which power struggle may show itself.

I want to leave the discussion of just what a "Power-Bottom" might be to another time... you are certainly welcome to offer input... for now I would like for you to consider this first post and please do leave comments expressing your ideas concerning the issue of "Power" between two men in a gay relationship...

Cheers!