So if people don’t do exactly what you think they should do they are stupid and selfish?
What do you think of fathers that choose to be absent from their children for 8 or more hours each and every week-day? Are they selfish, and are their wives stupid?
I think that if he’d not gone on his trip, he’d have spent most of his time down at the marina on his boat anyway, fiddling with stuff, wishing he was on his voyage. I’d say that it was good for him to do it, get it out of his system and now he can focus on being a dad.
I’d think it would have been harder on the child if dad just suddenly went away after being in his life.
I don’t have a problem with it.
You know, I bet he knows where babies come from by now. No one forced him to have a girlfriend. If you play, you should be prepared to step up when natural consequences occur.
I do not know if he made a mistake. How involved would he be in the kids life if he was there? Kid did not miss much.
Now I think she really made a mistake.
Hell, I wonder if she got pregnant on purpose just to get off the damn boat.
Sailing around the world SOUNDS great until you find its mostly out in the open ocean and its either boring as hell or terrifying when the weather is bad (from what I hear from real sailors anyhow).
I would say no in a utilitarian sense.
Father made some kind of effort. (The family might be some kind of mess)
Child became somekind of a celebrity.
He can use this to pick up ladies, Be diffetent, claiming he has a famous dad.
Score.
Then justify his dads behaviour.
Think this is a model of rationalizing.
But he could have just spent the two years with his child and then shot the Pope. He would have bonded with his son and been more famous. It’s a win-win.
It kind of looks that way at the moment. 
Nobody’s going to care that his father made a long sailing trip when he was an infant. The father would have to be a celebrity for that to work, and it’s unlikely he’ll be anything other than a flavor of the week.
With such limited information there are people here (smartest people around, dontchaknow?) who really think they have what they need to pronounce this guy a jerk and a bad father? Awesome.
I’m approaching that guys age and if I fathered a child I’d probably run away to sea as well. (Put me down as thinking he is a crud for a) the child, and b) pissing off).
I guess some guys will do anything to get out of changing diapers.
Indeed dangermom.There are 4 nautical terms in that extract; 17 in the entire post.
Can you spot them?
What deep space expedition are you talking about? This isn’t Star Trek? You might as well be asking “What if instead of a sailing trip he was off fighting one of Skald’s silly world conquest schemes?”
Fuck that shit. The guy gave up something precious and irreplaceable to stoke his ego. Fuck him.
Oh, well done.
Well hellllloooooo sailor…!
Exactly.
It’s one thing if a father is off to war or whatever. It’s an entirely different thing if he is out getting his jollies on a sailboat.
Too right. I would rather find out later that my father’s absence was due to seeking and destroying, rather than simply seeking. Stories without explosions quite simply have no impact.
I can’t believe I’m posting this, but… I agree with Rand Rover on this one. They both made the joint decision for him to continue. He’s not a jerk. In older times when travel was not so easy, fathers often had to leave their families for very long periods of time. Not all of those children ended up with cold distant relationships after all. I also disagree that the first two years are all that important for bonding. I have no memory whatsoever before the age of three, and only a vague few between the ages of three and five. We did a thread here not too long ago and I think that most posters were about the same. I think that it’s really the years between two and five that count the most for parental imprinting.
The article I linked to in my OP says “A sailor has returned to shore after spending more than three years at sea without touching dry land.” To meet him they would have needed another boat.
In his defense, he didn’t marry someone more than thirty years his junior, he got a twenty-three year old girl knocked up and kicked her off his boat then waited 3 years to see her and his son. There’s no mention of nuptials in the article.
Isn’t it at least possible that a pregnant woman in her early 20s and a man in his mid 50s might not have been on truly equal footing? She said they agreed in advance that if she got off the boat he would keep going without her but do you think she thought about pregnancy as the reason? Maybe a man who wasn’t a jerk would say, “oh shit, I know you agreed I would keep sailing but I did get you pregnant and you’re quite young so I think I’ll get off the boat too so you’re not all alone for 2 years.”