> it can't be good for kids

Your sentiments called to mind this oft-cited post from Lileks.

Dr. Batista needs a good head shrinker. When you do a noble deed, you do not do it for gratitude, you do it for the deed itself. I would hope a surgeon who has seen so much in his life would understand this.

>> There's no deeper pain or betrayal from somebody you loved and devoted your whole life to...

Horsehockey. What a tool.

Eric, not trying to be argumentative, but why horsehockey? Having only skimmed the headline, it looks like this guy took a pretty good punch.

On the other hand, he'll always be in her pants...

(HAR!)

(Get it? Transplant humor! Hahah!)

I saw this and wondered if you'd comment. What an ass. Really. A kidney is not a retrievable gift, nor can you buy them or give any compensation to the donor. I'm sure, as a surgeon, he's well aware of this. Seems like he's just doing whatever he can to be unreasonable and make this harder than it has to be.

I"m sure it sucks to give so and be cheated on, if that happened, but life goes on. All he's doing is being bitter. And stupid.

YOu can blame no-fault divorce for cheaters being able to walk away with the money. Another wonderful development brought to you courtesy of feminists and ivory-tower liberals. Divorce is fault. Period. Sometimes one persons, sometimes both, but it doens't just fall from the sky one day.

That said, there's a reason for financial settlements being the way they are. I stay home. I have earning power, decreasing every day I stay home to raise our kids. That is a value I bring to this relationship. Should he decide to leave me, I'd be up shit creek without some financial renumeration for the fact that he was able to work, and not pay daycare, for all these years. So you really can't say "walk away with what you brought, and earned while in it". Not unless you think kids just don't need parents at all.

"unless you try to leave with half that the other person has earned and built, just by virtue of being with them" - Amy

I agree with that to a certain extent. But nobody ever forces a man to marry a spoiled mooch. And most people don't change that much after "I do", meaning, if someone is a brat before the big day, she'll be a brat after. "Adults" need to discuss this stuff before they get married.

If she stayed home with the kids and didn't work that should have been a decision that the couple made together. And again, if it's something she demanded - that she do nothing while he works - then I blame him for marrying her in the first place. But, just to defend families which have a stay at home parent, the stay-at-home parent doesn't get something "just by virtue of being with them" - both people decided one would stay home with the kids b/c it was better for the family and the family's goal that s/he do so. If the marriage breaks up, that person shouldn't get fucked (even if s/he brought it on him/herself...though it would be tempting to ruin the person's life, I think that that's an overly harsh punishment.).

You can write it into a pre nup or post nup exactly what happens if there's a split and one of the parent's is a stay-at-home. People tend to think they (and their marriage) is special - which leads them to ignore really important things, which then, ironically, can lead to a lot of problems in the relationship.

Onr thing I've always wondered about divorce proceedings.

Why is it the woman is expected to maintain her level of lifestyle?

If one household was making it on one salary how is the guy supposed to maintain any sort of level of comfort himself?

Why the fuck ANYONE gets married these days is beyond me

Classy guy!

It's a modern Merchant of Venice - with a typically grotesque Long Island twist!

Tough room.

> Horsehockey

> Classy guy!

> What an ass.

Having only read the headline, the gal doesn't seem any too angelic, herself....

I don't see how this case can even be brought to court. Selling organs is against the law and I'm pretty sure forcibly removing them is, at the very least, frowned upon.

This guy makes me sick. Does it suck to be cheated on? Yup. But this is the woman's actual LIFE we're talking about! Okay okay, so I've secretly wished death on guys that cheated on me...but I didn’t have kids with any of them!

What we have here is a man so insecure that being cheated on has damaged him beyond repair. Instead of sucking it up, taking it like a man and moving on with his life, he's trying to make himself feel better by making her life miserable. This isn't some serving dish or the TV they bought together. This is a vital organ that is keeping the mother of his children alive.

If the judge orders her to pay or return it (which I doubt), I am done with this country. I'm not kidding. If he forces her to return his kidney and she dies, I hope they charge him, his lawyer and the judge with murder. Can they even put the thing back at this point?! Seems like a whole lot of risky surgery for a bruised ego.

Relax, Kim, I don't think they'll make her give it back. What the hell would he do with it, have it put back in?? o.O But yeah, the guy is being a real tool and a big whiny crybaby! "Wah! You cheated on me! Wah! Gimme back my kidney! Wah!" He needs to grow a backbone where his wishbone is.

Horsehockey!

Crid- my wife had an affair during her 43 year old mid-life crisis. We survived. I then spent a year and a half having the sex life I should have had in college. We survived. One night at a party my wife's best friend started sucking on my fingers and we ended up wrestling for a drunken half hour. We all survived. My two best female friends are ex lovers. We all survived. And no, we are not swingers by any stretch of the imagination.

We are all sexual beings. I wouldn't want to be married to someone who wasn't. How dull.

The film "Unfaithful" was so on the money for the first 45 minutes, before Richard Gere kamakazied the movie into the crapper. Diane Lane- now there's a sexy woman!

This surgeon is a spoiled attention whore. He knows, or should know, he will be laughed out of court. I bet his attorney is constantly telling him to shut the f**k up.

Friends. help me understand. I don't understand the vector of your venom today. I'm a contentedly divorced guy who never suffered --or caused-- any distress about fidelity, and have often argued here that people need to be as patient with human nature as they can. Thisis a favorite melody from the early Mullet period of pop.

But...

> What we have here is a man so
> insecure that being cheated
> on has damaged him

Well, it turns out he was in fact not secure, right? If his feelings were causing him distress, those feelings were correct, so they weren't something he should have ignored.

> Instead of sucking it up,
> taking it like a man and
> moving on with his life

Well, it's probably time to read the story. But if I understand correctly, she broke up the family to have sex with another guy. So she put his kids through that. And she, y'know, made a mockery of his fidelity to her. And that's after he literally gave her a pound of flesh. Is that about right?

Perhaps no one should admire his bitterness, but should anyone be surprised? "Bruised ego" doesn't quite cover the territory.

>>He needs to grow a backbone where his wishbone is.

Thinking along the same lines here, Flynne.

Why does he need a spare kidney anyway - since he already lacks a brain, and hasn't much of a heart?

(I know, I know - "the lousy bitch stole my heart too..!")

“How come making it work -- really making it work, in a nice, loving family environment -- until the kids go to college doesn't count?” Wow Amy, you kick ass!! I wish media types would point that out. But then that would conflict with the no fault liberal divorce position wouldn’t it? That brings me to the need for marriage lite, a marriage for kid less folks, sisters, old folks or gays.
Marriage should be viewed as a vehicle to raise or kids to adult hood, but it isn’t. It should be hard to get out of, not easy.Everyone wants to confuse it with love.

While its quite possible he's very bitter (has every right to be IMHO), its not the best angle to take for sure. My guess (and hope) is, this is a way to knock it to her in court (and get some shaming attention on her) to get an equitable settlement in the divorce. Notice she's kept his kids from him for 3 years and she was the one who cheated on him allegedly plus the whole kidney deal. This is another example of the insanity that is the blanket no fault divorce laws. Its a "business" contract with government supervision that routinely ignores or dismisses legitimate causes for violations of said contract, well unless you're a woman (in most cases).

Yet another reason why I have no desire to get married. Only real reason I'd do it is because I want kids but right now, I don't think its worth the risk.

"My guess (and hope) is, this is a way to knock it to her in court (and get some shaming attention on her) to get an equitable settlement in the divorce..."
That's what it sounds like; the story mentions that she wants "everything else." If you devote yourself to someone for 15 years, buy them a beautiful home and afford them an elegant lifestyle, and save their life by giving them one of your organs, and they thank you by fucking around before leaving you, would you not be bitter?
I'm with Crid on this one.

Since no-fault divorce has ruined the possibility of a damaged party emerging from the divorce proceedings with even a hint of vindication, he's most likely looking for some way to come out of this divorce with a salve for his bruised feelings.

He saved her life (at no small risk to his own if he develops kidney issues later) and she then cheated on him shortly afterward. While he may be silly for expecting eternal gratitude, he's probably nonetheless feeling just a bit used.

I agree he needs to get over it and move on...for his own emotional health. But slamming him and his feelings only perpetuates the myth that men's feelings are like their nipples...mostly decorative.

Devil's advocate time: one wonders if he'd been holding the "I saved your life" card over her head to the point that she finally jumped into bed with a guy who didn't feel she owed him.

boyo is an idiot, but what I have found is that splitting especially when you have been wronged can make both people remarkably or insanely nasty... to the point that you wonder if they were ever actually in love with their ex at all. It's just a strategem for him to be able to admit something into court that is measurable about his fidelity to her. They prolly won't care that she cheated, mostly because they aren't allowed to. Especially if she is a real piece of work, but the court is ignoring that part [and they often do] he is just showing something about doing right by her. But as everyone points out, it'll backfire. It was a good gesture at the time, and he should let it go at that. This is one of those situations where you simply cut your losses and get out the best you can...

"That said, there's a reason for financial settlements being the way they are. I stay home. I have earning power, decreasing every day I stay home to raise our kids. That is a value I bring to this relationship." momof3

This is a common way of looking at it, I know, but out of curiosity, are you not a team? Is he not providing for you, in essence paying you, or paying into the partnership? I naively went into marriage looking at it all as being a UNIT. Where both parties do the things they need to to help the unit/family move foreward. In my case, and apparently yours, the guy is working for money externally, and you are working internally for the family. My question is why does he owe you for that time if you were to split? Were you not being "paid" in kind by living in the house, getting your food/medical and such. Just as he is being "paid" for the work he does outside, and then bringing that money home for the family's use.

It's just a thinking game, naturally, since most caselaw and judges look at it as you do, but I've never understood why I owe my ex money now for time that I spent working my butt of paying for a family then. [since she doesn't owe me WORK for money I paid her then.] Either way, the fact that she is using a very expensive engineering degree that I helped pay for to answer phones and do some light bookeeping, is such a defferential in pay now that I pay more than half my take home salary to her. You might imagine that this has financially ruined me, while she lives in the house that I remodled to her specs and paid for. She and many people believe that I OWE this to her, and I still can't fathom the why of it. I would pay for my kids regardless, but she doesn't pull her weight in that. If I tried the same tack they would haul me into court and tell me I was under employed. When I tried that with her, she got the magical pass that she was the mom and it's too hard for her to have a career. That was the bill she and her lawyer sold the judge, and he bought it. Why should she work a difficult job if I pay for everything?

"How come making it work -- really making it work, in a nice, loving family environnment -- until the kids go to college doesn't count?" Amy.

Because you both have to want that... and there is an idea that it is better to have at least one parent happy separately, rather than 2 really miserable ones together. Sadly it's a least bad choice... but if one doesn't want to do anything, won't participate in counselling, and has checked out, should the other stay and cater to their whims?

> if he'd been holding the "I saved your
> life" card over her head to the point
> that she finally jumped

Marriages can be pretty confining anyway... And doctors can often be Master of the Universe types. (I've never had a good personal vibe with a surgeon of any description in any setting.)

But when you consider the magnitude of the betrayal here, just saying "get over it" seems awfully brusque.

Surgeons not infrequently have a very highly developed sense of their own power, huge egos and tunnel focus. All good things in the operating room, obviously - and maybe a source of problems outside it.

But what a fine Long Island story it's shaping up to be!

I've just read the lawyer for the indian kidney giver is the prince who represented Joey Buttafuoco!

What kind of low life cheats on a man who GAVE HER A KIDNEY? Dont get married, and above all, dont give her a kidney.

What's galling is that she cheated, and then filed for divorce?

We really need to put fault back into divorce so that bitches can't do this shit.

The reason I single women out is because the system already makes sure that a man who cheats is gonna get ass-raped anyhow. I'm simply looking to restore some balance to the force.

My question is why does he owe you for that time if you were to split? Were you not being "paid" in kind by living in the house, getting your food/medical and such.

No, because there is a definite sacrifice on the one side, that is not on the other. As my Dh points out, he'd be working anyway, wife or no, kids or no. The stay at home parent, on the other hand, would certainly be working if there were no kids. And would not be able to get a job-in the case of divorce-making nearly what he/she would have if they'd stayed in the workforce the whole time. Pretty ridiculous to say that sacrifice of earnings and promotions was repaid by "free" rent for however many years. No one spends 100% of their income on rent. And the stay at home parent is working for her keep. Housecleaning, childcare, tutoring, cooking-all these things bring a premium on the open market.

So no, she doesn't owe you work for the money you spent feeding her. She gave you that work already.

I am late in this but i find that whole story quite silly. He really want his Kidney back?? Honestly, without that whole "Shylock" thing, this divorce would be just one among many. He really sound like the groom who want the wedding ring returned at all cost just to save his face. I can't barely imagine what their wedding ceremony looked like...

With this Kidney, I wed you...

Dr. Batista really need to meditate on how weird his obsession of righteousness is.

Eric, very wise. And here's advice I e-mailed a guy yesterday (in the wake of his wife's bout of unfaithfulness). They're now in counseling, and she seems to want to save the marriage, but he's clinging to the fact that she cheated:

And once again, because you have kids, you don't have the luxury of being all pissed off and sulking around. Put your head up, man up, act romantic, and pull yourself and your marriage back together.

On my tombstone will read:

The penalty for bigamy is two wives.

"(Get it? Transplant humor! Hahah!)"

I don't know about the others but it certainly had ME in stitches.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law, so he's going to have to reach in there himself if he wants that kidney back.

If I were her I'd beware of free trips to Rio and bathtubs filled with ice.

I didn't read all the comments, but a lot of them are critical of the husband.

Try and imagine a reversal of gender in this situation. You'd all be incredibly critical of a man who'd leeched off his wife, cheated on her, and taken her kidney.

Why is the man who always has to "man up?" Aren't we talking about two adults? Maybe she should have "man-ed up" by not fucking someone else.

He risked his life for her by donating his kidney. Was she entitled to his body parts? And if so, wasn't he entitled to her fidelity?

Maybe gratitude is a burden, and she just couldn't carry that burden anymore. So, she decides that she needs to wound him terribly to make the burden go away. By divorcing him, she creates a fiction, a mythology, where she is the aggrieved party. She no longer owes her husband, he owes her.

She should be glad to be alive, and she should be grateful to her husband for saving her life. She literally owes him her life.

"No, because there is a definite sacrifice on the one side, that is not on the other. As my Dh points out, he'd be working anyway, wife or no, kids or no."

The other way of looking at that is that he doesn't get the Choice and you do. In very rare cases [something like 125,000 in the US] the guy stays home, and the Wife is the breadwinner... for the most part it isn't an option. Since my wife was making way more than me when we started the family, it seemed logical to me that I'd stay home and she'd work, but I was again being naive. The minute she didn't feel like working anymore, she didn't, and it was up to me to feed the family. This was her choice, and the marriage prolly should have ended right there, but I thought it was better to work it out, so I was the one to give in.

I guess that would be the difference in the way this is being looked at, which I didn't see. You would WANT to work, if you didn't have kids. My ex, and some number of other women don't want to work [for money] anyway. They are looking for someone who is willing to work for them. The sacrifice of earnings and promotions is in the eye of someone who feels value in that. If you are sacrificing that based on your own decision, why are you owed money for that later? It's your choice to sacrifice work for pay to do work for the family. Unless of course your husband FORCES you to stay home, then naturally it his decision. Courts don't ask whose decision it was. I would have by far been happier had she worked, and I think she might have been too... but the thing that galls a lot of my women friends [and me] is that HAD SHE worked, we would have just split everything, no alimony, and halvsies on child support. It's as if saying that a woman that work for money are capable of supporting themselves, and women who work at home aren't.

The guy has to work either way.

> it certainly had ME in stitches.

I got that! I got that!

You're kind of an ass. I should joyfully embrace the indisputable poverty if he chooses to leave me, as my choice in raising the kids? Not much of a choice, is it? Why would any parent stay home, if that were the case? Would you have stayed home, living off her bigger salary, if you knew that should she get bored with you, you were out on your ass with nothing except a really out of date resume? Every child in America would be raised by not-giving-a-shit nannies or daycare workers, with an average education of 11th grade. That'd really improve the next generation, wouldn't it?

> The penalty for bigamy
> is two wives.

If you're gonna carve perfectly good marble, I'd go with "Show me the most beautiful woman in the world, and I'll show you the guy who's tired of fucking her."

Shakespeare probably said it more elegantly. (Anyone?) And it's a very old saying, anyway.

But when I was in my early 40's, my friend Dale said it and it stuck for some reason.... Maybe it was just middle age that made it a more comfortable truth. But since then, no pang of jealousy has ever been fully distracting.

On the other hand, an old girlfriend just texted from Santa Monica looking for a cup of coffee, and I know better than to meet anywhere but the loudest, brightest Starbucks we can find... Her fiance's a brawny cop, and I'm a tubby little guy.

---

The internet: Is there anything it can't do?

| And oft, my jealousy shapes faults
| that are not. ~William Shakespeare

(I still like Dale's version better.)

And after think about this for a few moments during the commute, I've concluded that even if you guys are being harsh on this surgeon, he's probably a pretty controlling guy anyway.

Like Jody says, we want them to be that way. It takes real confidence to cut into someone's flesh with a knife and know that you're improving their health... The guilty nightmares alone would kill you if you had doubt. You need a strong ego to be certain you understood all the med school lectures on anesthesia.

But there's probably no more of a controlling gesture than making somebody think of you, gratefully, each time they pee.

well momof3 YES I would have stayed home that way, because that is exactly the way it would work. This happened exectly that way to the only guy I know who was a stay at home. He got NADA when they got divorced. Her lawyer told him to go get a job. I would have stayed home anyway, because I thought that was the best course.

What I would point out, at least in my state CO. is that the amount both parties makes is put in a formula for child support, totalled up and then apportioned based on what they make. That's why I pay 80% of the child support. Since they live with her, I pay that to her. Don't see that's impovrishemnt esp. since I pay alimony on top of that. She makes more than half my takehome without lifitng a finger. But see, if she gets a better job, or starts working in a career, then her percentage owed goes up a bit. The is a disincentive to her to make more money, init?

My intention wasn't to come off bad to you, but I surely hit a nerve, didn't I? If you split amicably he'll be paying for the kids proportionately, and sharing their rearing, yes? Why don't you have to pull your weight, if he would have to if the roles where reversed? That's the thing. You would get back into the workforce, start moving up the ladder and so forth, and that's to the good. But if you didn't feel like doing so the system now would allow you to check out till the kids are 18. This is what some people do.

>> we want them to be that way. It takes real confidence to cut into someone's flesh with a knife and know that you're improving their health... The guilty nightmares alone would kill you if you had doubt. You need a strong ego...

Damn Crid!

I gotta say, after I don't know how many years, that was probably the coolest thing I have read you write.

PS- Re: your link. A L-o-n-g while back, someone gave me the Forbes Dictionary of Quotes (or Sayings). I read it cover to cover. If I were stuck in a fortune cookie factory I would die a happy man.

When is it ok for parents to split up, in your opinions? Aside from physical abuse that is. Could deceit on the part of one partner be a good enough reason? What about one partner putting in 99%, while the other could care less about putting work in at all unless it suits his/her needs?

Who Loses Here?

They all lose. If something is not working in a marriage, both have to work on the issues.

Especially with kids, you really must have a contingency plan. And give the kids a choice (if they are able to choose)

For the kidney part, as rude as it may sound, what you gave a away, you do NOT expect anything back. Otherwise it would not be a gift would it?

Kendra, I agree with Dr. Laura on this one (but certainly not on everything), grounds for divorce are the 3 A's -- abuse, addiction and affairs -- because being raised amid those three behaviors damages kids arguably worse than divorce does. Self-centeredness, fighting, deceit (depending on what it's about) and other bad behaviors make relationships difficult and unhappy, but don't impact kids as radically and tragically as divorce does. So it's not an ideal situation, but it's the least bad alternative. Despite what people want to hear, happy (selfish) parents do not equal happy children.

The best alternative is what Amy suggested -- 2 parents both really work at it to create a stable family life for kids even if they fall out of love -- find a way to be nice to each other and continue to live together for the sake of the kids. This does take 2 people to work hard at being polite. But as Amy implied, being polite to a person you loved so much at one time that you chose to have children with them should be easier than giving your life for your kid and everyone says they'd do that.

I read a report several years ago that said that of couples who stayed together when they were ready to divorce the majority reported that after 5 years their marriages were happier than they had been. I think the secret really is about commitment. (As I'd said, though, this is in the absence of abuse, addiction and affairs.)

Spring, I'm curious: Are you a boy blog commenter or a girl blog commenter?

Just curious, just curious.......

I'm a girl commenter.
Why? Just curious...

Eric: "Dr. Batista needs a good head shrinker. When you do a noble deed, you do not do it for gratitude, you do it for the deed itself."

Sorry to point out the obvious, but that's baloney, *nobody* is that 'perfect'. Yours is a pretty sentiment and perhaps a noble ideal, but we're all human, and it doesn't represent a pathology ('needs a shrink'? come on!) that great affection and emotion was intricately wound up in saving the life of his most loved one by devoting his kidney to her. If anything, I would think something was wrong with someone who didn't form strong emotional bonds in such a situation.

"What we have here is a man so insecure that being cheated on has damaged him beyond repair."

You actually think it represents a weakness to be highly upset when your wife of 15 years and mother of your children cheats on you and then files for divorce? Wow - I've never met anyone that stone cold - sounds to me like he's only human.

I love all of these comments from people who have absolutely no clue about what it is like to be a man during and after a divorce! You write it off as "guess he's just bitter" or "yeah, it sucks to get cheated on, but..."

How about some advice from someone who has lived it, and is still living it. Please don't assume you know anything about the court system, the physical, mental, and emotional toll involved with someone taking your kids away just because of her gender, the financial ruin, the total life-changing attitude you are left with, and the grand future of a life paying child support and not raising your kids, until you actually know something about what you are talking about.

It's all fine and dandy sitting on the sideline commenting on why some dumbass is wanting his kidney back, but quite another to work your ass off while your wife sits on hers all day and then find out you have to give her 1/2 of your 401k simply because you were married...give me a break.

I'm not commenting because I am bitter. I am commenting because of all the guys who are getting screwed every single day with bs like this. Yeah, wanting a kidney back is idiotic, but this guy should be compensated for keeping her ALIVE!

Actually, I can take delight inn saying I won my fight (for now), by winning in a custody trial. Hopefully this happens more often.

Amy, I'm usually with you on this topic, but as someone who grew up with parents who SHOULD HAVE divorced, but didn't until I was in my 30s, I can tell you that "staying together for the kids" is not always an option. Growing up in a dysfunctional home with two people who feed each other's most negative traits is WORSE THAN having to shift between two divorced people who hopefully try to make their lives better apart. No guarantees either way, of course, but I honestly believe both my parents would have been happier divorced, and I know I would have been.

SO, strangers should be compensated when they donate, Mike, for keeping someone ALIVE? And now we are up to buying organs. When you donate, you DONATE, whether to wife or stranger. Period. You get nothing but maybe some points on that big scoreboard in the sky, if you believe in such.

Swissarmy, you didn't come off bad to me. You were quite rational. You came off as an ass to your ex-wife, who birthed and raised your kids and presumably wiped your piss off the toilet and washed the skidmarks out of your underwear. You really seem to expect that she just walk away from the marriage feeling grateful she got to do that for you for however many years.

I have no exposed nerve on the subject. I know the law here in texas, and I know my husband. He wants me home, values me raising the kids, and has acknowledged that it takes every penny he makes to support them, now, and would still take every penny if we divorced.

I think the ass is doing this to try to make her look bad. He's just making himself look pathetic, which is what generally happens when one person wants to degrade another.

I'm a little late on this one - but I'm curious. Everyone is jumping on this guy for wanting his kidney back. Has anyone contemplated what may have happened had he refused to give his kidney to his wife in the first place? Think about it - Wife needs a kidney, they find out he's an eligible donor. How do you think things would have turned out if he decided not to give her his kidney? Anyone think he might have felt just a little bit obligated to, knowing full well that if he didn't, that would probably mean the end of the marriage right there? For those of you who are married, if your spouse needed a kidney and you were an eligible donor, do you think your marriage would survive if you told your spouse, "Nah, I'm not giving you my kidney"?

Now, assuming the marriage at the time was good, maybe he really did want to give it to her. But if she started having an affair within 18 months to 2 years, perhaps the marriage was a little rocky at the time he donated, and that was his last ditch effort to save it.

Sometimes it helps to read the article that is to be discussed:

From the article - "...he says he'll settle for $1.5 million in compensation."

For those who didn't grasp it yet, this man is setting himself up to come out better in the divorce settlement. He has gotten an expert (monetary) valuation on having donated a kidney to her. He is now trying to use that value, as a mean to argue that she has already received $1.5 million worth of their "marital assets", and that figure should be deducted from the amount she might otherwise be (legally only) entitled to.

And, so of you have been pretty vicious in attacking this guy, who was, after all, not only the one who made all the money, he is also the one who was cheated on, and has been denied access to his (? - given his wife's behaviors) children.

A lot of people complain about so-called "slut-shaming" of a promiscuous woman. But "cuckold-shaming"?

I guess some of you have provided your personal answer to that old question, "How low can you go?"

I believe the New York Post has a better account of this story here, including this additional information regarding their situation:

"She engaged in an extramarital affair and refused to go to marital counseling and reconciliation," he said.
"She slapped me with divorce papers in the operating room while I was trying to save another patient's life."

“"The main reason the doctor is doing this is because of how he's been treated in this case," said Dominic Barbara, Batista's lawyer.
They are asking for the $1.5 million as part of the distribution of assets in the divorce.
They found a medical expert to estimate the value of the kidney.

"This has never been done before in the state of New York," said his lawyer Dominic Barbara. "In theory we are asking for the return of the kidney. Of course he wouldn't really ask for that but the value of it."

Actually the main reason he's doing this is to reduce the ass rape he's getting. He has no desire to get the kidney back. He wants to give her 1.5 million less in the settlement. Reasonable as she is a dirty ho bag. Also to point out if the person you donated a kidney to you rapes your ass the judge will impose the absolute maximum sentence possible. The jury will view them as the scum of the earth.

"who birthed and raised your kids and presumably wiped your piss off the toilet and washed the skidmarks out of your underwear." There is no way in hell you can know that. First with regards to surgeons on Long Island : guess what princess everyone I know has staff or at the very least a cleaning lady who does house cleaning and laundry. Also unless he raped her which the hole would have brought up in the divorce she consented to having kids. I really despise this carp coming from women they are not HIS kids they are BOTH your kids. This is horse shit, they are your (not both but your individually) kids when child support and alimony are discussed but his kids when it suites you.

Again the main question is was it her choice to stay home, his choice for her to stay home or their choice together. Why the hell should he support her AFTER the kids are gone? That give women a clear and unreasonable advantage legally. So she can have the life style she wants and then the lovers she wants and he get to pay for it, that sound reasonable?

"while your wife sits on hers all day"

was that a recent trend, or was that how it always was?

The reason she gets half is b/c there is this assumption that kids are better off being raised by one of their parents and not some stranger.

It provides security for the stay at home parent who is, supposedly, taking care of household chores, the kids, day to day crap, etc. I don't have kids but I DO know that this stuff can fill an entire day.

If this person, who is taking half your 401k, was lazy and ineffectual at taking care of the house; sat on her ass all day eating cheese puffs watching soaps; neglected the children to the point their asses were raw from their own bodily mess...then YOU fucked up dude. Really. You stood for that?

Did someone hold an AK 47 pointed at you when you were signing the marriage certificate? Because most people don't morph into selfish, lazy, piece of shit partners over night. They're usually like that from the beginning.

Sometimes people CAN change for the worse - in which case you don't bend over and grab your ankles.

"Because most people don't morph into selfish, lazy, piece of shit partners over night." Yes they do it's called empty nesting. This is one of the variants. The concept of alimony is a crime (in most cases). I still fell that guys ducking child support for kids that are actually theirs should be flogged. However her (or his) fat lazy ass should not get a free ride. The other extreme does give me pause. Should they be left out on the street when the wealthy spouse decides to trade up? At 30-50 range they should be forced to work but at 60 after being a stay at home with no work experience and an education (if there is one) 40 years out of date it's not possible.

The law would be great if it were only applied to reasonable people.

> I'm a girl commenter. Why?

Before Oprah there was this guy named Donahue with a daytime talk show. I read an article by a guy who was trying to figure out why the show was so hard to watch for anyone who wasn't a middle-class woman.

He said that it didn't matter what topic was being discussed on the stage... War in the middle east, alcoholism, sexual dysfunction, employment policy, crumbling schools, whatever. The solution offered by the women in the audience (and hence, the moral of each tale) was always the importance of communication.

It wouldn't matter if a married surgeon had been pursuing a string of expensive affairs with crack whores for thirty years; the doctor and his poor misses just needed to communicate their feelings towards each other more clearly. It didn't matter if Arafat and Begin had been at each other's throats for millenia; they just needed to express their beliefs more gracefully.

I can't remember all the examples from the article, but it was funny to see them all listed.

That's what came to mind when you talked about commitment. It's like telling a shoplifter that he ought to think clearly about his need for blue jeans when he walks into the store. But he's a shoplifter, not a shopper. He's there to steal them.

Yeah, if these people had what you call "commitment", it wouldn't be a problem. But you're begging the question. When the wife in this Long Island story decided to step out on her marriage, it wasn't just a failure of resolve.

At least, that's message I'm taking from all these other commenters, who are so bitter towards her husband. They're saying her infidelity happened for a reason.

Well, don't say it's like it's news, and take the whole point: Women are whacky, irrational even, about "communication". (Bonds! Expression! Feelings!)

Gretchen,

No, you have your story all wrong. There were no kids, they were all at school all day. She did a limited amount of work at home, prefering simply to bitch at me for not doing my share after being at work all day.

And, you are right, it does consume an enormous amout of time. It was her choice to quit her job and stay home so she could "have more time for my spiritual development"...lol! No, she was just a lazy bitch who screwed everything in sight for years before finding me, her "bailout", her "nice guy to take care of me now".

And yes, I do take responsibility for my horrible choice in that marriage, because I do take responsibility for my actions. I decided to marry a ball-breaking little feminazi, and i payed the price. That is what accountability for your actions is all about.

Fortunately, i waited, and waited, and waited, and sure enough, she ended up totally screwing up. Now I have custody of the kids and she gets nothing. No child support, no alimony...nothing.

Why should I shoulder all the blame though? Funny how I get blamed for my actions, yet if my ex had drowned our two kids in the bathtub it would be my fault for "abusing" her.

"Because most people don't morph into selfish, lazy, piece of shit partners over night." Gretchen...

nah, it isn't over night, it usually takes a few years. It can certainly happen to both partners, and in a wide variety of ways. I think all in all that'd be the bottom line is that you can't make the broader judgement based on gender, but that is the way the laws are set up. momof3 presumes that I didn't do domestic chores, but she is wrong. All the years I knew my ex, I cleaned all the bathrooms, did most of the laundry, and bathed the kids and put them to bed. That's only fair really. momof3 doesn't know that and why should she?

But that's the point. It's an individual thing. momof3, you mention the laws in TX, and I agree with you [since one sister lives there] about what those laws are. I don't think they are fair. Why would it take every penny of your DH if you were working too? Wouldn't you have to pay some?

The things my ex did or didn't do while we were together, she would have had to do for herself as well. The argument I am hearing is that a guy would have to work anyway. This is correct. He also has to keep house, wash his clothes, and feed himself. AS DOES THE WOMAN. So, when they come together, they form a team and then the most efficient thing is to do division of labor. But they are still a team, each providing life and work for the family, equally.

Obviously kids shake that equation up, and they are supposed to, but we are not talking the support of children here, directly. Children are very important to my ex, me, less so. I think they are a good thing to plan for. Since she had a career, we planned to work around that, and got everything lined up. The week before she was to return to work, I was informed that she had decided to stay home instead. "I changed my mind." is what she said. A fight ensued, but for her it was a my way/highway moment.

If someone is willing to be that unreasonable, what is your choice? You either crater the marriage, or give in and hope that this is a one time issue. Years later I know it was not a one time thing, and that likely she never planned on returning to work.

This is why when Gretchen says "people don't morph" that is only partly true. People manipulate, and if they are willing, can be quite cunnig about it. Like a woman who has been planning her wedding since she was a child. It doesn't matter who the groom is, as long as it all meets her expectation, and she may do anything to make that happen. Control freak guys can be the same way, carefully figuring out how to make things work their own way. However. As momof3 points out, the law is on her side. For that reason I am unlikely to marry again, without an ironclad pre-nup. So that nobody can simply change their mind as they wish, so that the expectations are more clearly laid out.

Again, how can you valuate something that can NOT be purchased, by law? Shall we start considering all internal organs of divorce participants as assets to be counted? Should women's eggs and men's sperm be considered possible sources of cash, since they could sell them? It's inane and without legal standing.

We get that he doesn't, really, want it back (at least not on the top of his conciousness) but he's still a petty, petty man.

I haven't been called Princess since my dad phased it out in elemetary. Thanks fir the heartwarming little mental snuggle, vlad.

You men seem to want either to 1) be the one staying home. Funny. I think a month of it would have you running back to your job shrieking. Or 2) have a happy little housewife who does her work and thanks you for the priviledge when you decide she's old, and you'd rather have perkier boobs to look at, so you turn her out with nothing, cause the kids are in college now. And you can get teh perkier boobs because you have a decent career and money, since you got to work all those years, getting raises and bonus's.

Great point above, I forget who. You divorce what you marry. Marry for looks and ass, you're probably not getting much else, and every other guy out there sees her assets as well. Marry someone who actually wants the same things in life as you, and has a mind and morals, and do your part in the marriage, and you'll be ok. I get men are visual, and that's never hurt me any, but there are better things to base a lifelong commitment on.

Another great article on it:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ask-dr-helen-men-who-give-too-much-including-internal-organs/2/

I guess I didn't really complete my thought - I'll eat my words about the "morphing" thing.

From my experience, yes, people can change. But most of the changes are exacerbations of preexisting tendencies. I guess it's hard to predict which people will let their "fire" turn into major anger control issues and wind up abusing their children (per my lovely father). And which ones will become more even keeled with age.

If you marry someone who tends to blow up in a kinda scary way you should assume that will get worse, not better. There's a lot going into that temper - irrational thinking, inability to process a complete set of facts, inability to see other perspectives, etc. That's a big problem and it's usually pretty obvious.

How is one partner staying home to "find herself" beneficial to the whole family? It isn't at all. It is also not beneficial or thoughtful towards the whole relationship. It's pretty selfish and entitled. If there aren't kids at home I don't see the reasons for one person to stay home - do women just say "I'm done working" and that's it? I've never ever seen that in my entire family of married couples. All the women work except for two, and they have a bunch of kids and keep a really nice house for their guys.

Maybe, instead of me saying "people don't morph overnight" I shoulda said "people give up on their commitments". When you give up on your commitment to your marriage and stop giving a rat's ass about your partner I can see that it might be very easy to choose the options that benefit oneself.

"Like a woman who has been planning her wedding since she was a child. It doesn't matter who the groom is, as long as it all meets her expectation, and she may do anything to make that happen."

Ahh Swissarmy - I *hate* my own kind because of these bridezilla freaks. They're their own species. But you forgot to mention the other half of their goal: BABIES BABIES BABIES BABIES BABIES. They have babies rabies. They don't care who the sperm comes out of, so long as it belongs to someone who is employed.

Marry someone who actually wants the same things in life as you, and has a mind and morals, and do your part in the marriage, and you'll be ok.

What's needed is a "material misrepresentation" divorce.

I've seen too many stories from either side to deny that such a thing happens. In Swiss's case, his wife told him she intended to return to work, and they planned around that, at which point she drops the bomb that she changed her mind. Well, it's highly unlikely that she just up and changed her mind about something so important. It's far more likely that she never intended to return, and lied in order to get her way, figuring that he'd just let it go.

In any other contractual situation, that would either constitute breach of contract, or fraud by false promise.

I feel bad for harshing Amy, who was kind of agreeing anyway. She's not a therapist, but she's been an advice columnist for a long time, and I'm sure there was nothing in that comment she hadn't known for decades.

Women like to talk. So do men, but there's something about the stereotype. Men like to issue reports. ("The Steelers have the defensive power to go all the way to the super bowl!" "The new Metallica albums rocks!")

Women like to share. Y'know, saying you don't like Oprah because she talks too much goes all the way 'round from being not funny to almost being funny again.

"They don't care who the sperm comes out of, so long as it belongs to someone who is employed." Gretchen
*falls off chair laughing*
heh, the thing that hurts ego most about that is how easily we are duped... if we were raised as protectors [I'm 44 and I was] then it doesn't take much for us to believe that is our mission, which make us rather easy to fool.

momof3 one thing I'd mention about guys running back to their jobs shrieking after staying home with the kids, is not that this isn't true for some percentage of men the same way it is with a percentage of women. [not everyone wanting to be a stay at home mom to begin with]. It IS that expectation you have. That guys won't make it work if they need to. Mostly nobody ever knows this simply because women EXPECT that they can't. If you expected that men would, then they would. I don't take my kids back to their mom's just because they are sick. She hates that they prefer to be at my house when they are. My daughter has called me to come get her from her mom's when she is sick. The ex wasn't the one to sing lullabyes, I was. In the custody, my ex didn't want to do half time each because that changed the amount of cash she was getting. In retrospect I could have fought harder for halvsies, but didn't relly have the money for the lawyers by then.

Your expectation is that men can't handle it, and you are right for some guys, and wrong others. The same way for women, some women can't handle kids, and some don't have them. It depends entirely on the person, NOT on the gender. How much better would it be if everyone was expected to pony up and be a nuturing parent?

That alone would take care of many of these issues, because you would have to take it on a case by case, AND BE EQUAL. This whole thing starts with the assumption that women are the ones that should take the kids, except in rare exceptions. Once that double edged sword of descrimination based on gender is in place it goes bad for both genders from there. One edge that only woemn can take care of children, the other that men cannot. I'm not saying that all men should have kids with them, NOR ALL WOMEN. This should be a cse by case thing, based on the expectation that it will be equal.

and while I'm wishing that I want a pony.

> I *hate* my own kind because of
> these bridezilla freaks.

I see what you're getting at, but a lot of them wind up in typically happy marriages anyway. Their husbands seem to want wives like that. Maybe they don't feel especially close to the squealing 'zillas, as squishy romantics like you and I might want them to... But maybe that gives them the motivation to create richer fulfillment at work (staying later on weeknights or whatever), thus providing lavish, nourishing homes for another generation of seemingly-stunted function-bots....

This gets back to the thing that we were talking about last week. I want to believe that close, sharp, courageous friends can help you spot partnerships that are doomed.

If you're a career-oriented, uptight guy and you're infatuated with an earnest, folk-song-singing, vegetarian, global-warming-panicked girl, your friends ought to be able to convince you that bad things will happen after you make babies with her.

If it means a lot to you that your future wife will go back to work for a 35-year career after producing 2.1 babies, your friends ought to be able to tell you that she never seems to talk about that part of her life with any eagerness or anticipation. (Well, your friends should do that for you if you don't have the awareness to notice it yourself.)

> What's needed is a "material
> misrepresentation" divorce.

The last, last, last thing we need is exotic new applications of family law by which to adjudicate these bungles. These are failures of personal insight, not jurisprudence.

I want to believe that close, sharp, courageous friends can help you spot partnerships that are doomed.

And I want a fountain that flows 18 year old Glenlivet.

Doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

Look, in matters of romance, the surest way to get a man to marry a woman is to tell him that she's no damned good. Please note, however, that the reverse does not happen. He's not going to ditch her because you tell him how wonderful she is - he'll probably punch you out for checking out his woman instead.

> the surest way to get a man
> to marry a woman is to tell
> him that she's no damned good

Perhaps we move in different circles.

"...your friends ought to be able to tell you..."

While I agree with the overall sentiment, I have to point out a flaw in the logic: if someone is totally inept at picking a life partner, what makes you think s/he'd be any better at picking a group of pals?

We all need a few Vulcans in our lives. Their logic is undeniable :-)

"earnest, folk-song-singing, vegetarian, global-warming-panicked girl, "

Yeah, that is what I went for all right! LOL!

Hey momof3, it seems to me that these days I see more WOMEN than men advertising that they have recently divorced and the kids are in college...

Must be that evil patriarchy at work!

By the way, what is up with all of the 38+ divorced women and MOTORCYCLES??? So you go your whole life never setting foot on a cycle, dump your husband who is so "unexciting", and take up with some 25 year old with a harley??? Must be a phase.

Gretch, if someone's totally inept, we're fucked anyway.

Monica: "Growing up in a dysfunctional home with two people who feed each other's most negative traits is WORSE THAN having to shift between two divorced people who hopefully try to make their lives better apart."

I completely agree with you on that. That's not what Amy is suggesting though -- she said parents need to work at "...really making it work, in a nice, loving family environnment..." That means they don't have to fall back in love, but they both have to work at being civil and polite to each other. It sounds like your example is not one of civility at all.

I don't want to sound cavalier; I'm not saying it's easy, it's gotta be very hard many days, but that's parental sacrifice -- it's best for the kids if 2 people who at one point loved each other figure out a way to continue to live together and be polite to each other. And I think Amy is right on with her point that parents say they'd do anything to save their kid's life, but apparently being polite to the partner they chose isn't a sacrifice some parents are willing to make.

Crid - people are that inept. We are that fucked.

BF and I are discussing the "M" word. I don't want to hate him!

> people are that inept

Not all! Only some! A minority!

> I don't want to hate him!

If he's nice to waiters and especially nice to you, marry him.

(PS_ What do your friends say about him?)

"Growing up in a dysfunctional home with two people who feed each other's most negative traits is WORSE THAN having to shift between two divorced people who hopefully try to make their lives better apart"

I will speak as a CHILD of two dysfunctional adults who managed to stay together for my whole lifetime. (As an adult they have both admited to being suicidal)

For an outside observer their marriage would have been nightmarish. But let me tell you that having one hellish mother would have broken me down. She was tempered by my stepfather. But having him as an only parent would have also broken me down. He was tempered by my mother. Get it? They managed to be my mother and my father.

My stepfather has 5 kids from a previous marriage that he didnt raise. My mother has a son from a pervious relationship she didnt raise. None of their previous kids had a mother and a father. They only had single parents who raised them. I'm the only one that had them both.

My stepbrother and I are tied for the happiest, most centered children they have. So only one child from single parenthood came out alright. While the only child from a marrige came out just peachy.

Thanks! BTW my parents always talk about the mistake it is to divorce when you've got kids. I think they should know, when they got together this was their third marriage.

Purp!

Points not related to Purps comment-

After thinking about this for two days, I think it's kind of weird the way the first reflex of so many commenters was to completely discount the pain of the husband. Maybe he's an asshole, maybe he was half the problem, maybe whatever, but the first six words were "Who Loses Here? It's the kids." More people lose than that. Of course we feel bad for the kids. But gee whiz, guys.

And secondly, I was listening to an old Loveline on the internets the other day and heard Pinsky talking about development patterns. He offered a general truth: Having a competent mother figure leads to good mental health in broad terms, whereas competent fathering tends to result in better interpersonal relationships.

(General truth OK? Don't come squealing if you know of exceptions. Get the picture? It describes a slender, naked predominance of outcomes. Seriously... Get over yourself, it's pissing me off.)

Even if that's not true, it's fun to think about.

'What we have here is a man so insecure that being cheated on has damaged him beyond repair. Instead of sucking it up, taking it like a man and moving on with his life, he's trying to make himself feel better by making her life miserable.'

Huh!? How many women 'take it' and 'suck it up' when a man cheats on them?

How can she cheat on him, after he gave her a kidney? She sounds like a real winner...while you can live with one kidney, you have a chance of developing high blood pressure, or having a lowered GFR (filtration rate) and proteinuria, especially as one ages...it's not without effects on the donor.

'The penalty for bigamy is two wives.'

I think it's two mothers-in-law ;-)

You all are missing the point, he does not want the kidney back. This is the beginning of talking points. He goes out and undergoes a life threatening operation, one that is far more dangerous for the doner than the recipient. Spends days in the hospital while she is out the next day. Saves her from years of brutal dialysis and a life of crippling disability. Ok……so she cheats on him. She refuses to attend marriage counseling. She files for divorce. She interferes with his life with his children. I am on his side. there is nothing selfish about him

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-likidn0108,0,512593.story

"Barbara said his client isn't really looking for Dawnell Batista to give back her kidney. "Does he really want the kidney back? Of course not," he said.

"Batista said his aim instead was to draw attention to her not allowing him agreed-upon visitation with the couple's three children, ages 14, 11 and 8.

Batista, 49, of Ronkonkoma, said he donated his kidney to his wife in June 2001, after she had undergone two other failed transplants when her kidneys ceased working.

"My first priority was to save her life," Batista said at a news conference in Garden City. "The second bonus was to turn the marriage around." "