The user, a 28-year-old male, was involved in a relationship with a 23-year-old female manager when he was 16. This relationship involved grooming and sexual assault by today’s standards. The former manager subsequently had a child.
Recently, this child has reached out to the user and has begun stalking him online. The mother also contacted the user’s current girlfriend, causing significant upset and making the user feel unsafe and paranoid in public. Despite advice from friends and his employer suggesting he owes the child a meeting to establish paternity, the user strongly disagrees, wanting no involvement, which leads him to question if he is wrong.
AITAH For Refusing to met the Biological Child I Do Not Claim
As renowned trauma specialist Dr. Judith Herman explains, “The impact of trauma is not determined by the objective circumstances of the event, but by the subjective experience of the survivor.” This statement directly applies to the user’s current distress, as the current outreach forces a confrontation with a deeply painful and formative experience of victimization.
The user’s reaction—paranoia, emotional shutdown, and the desire for complete cessation of contact—is a common protective response following severe relational trauma like grooming and sexual assault. The obligation others place on him (meeting the child) clashes directly with his instinct for self-preservation. The insistence that he “owes” the child a meeting ignores the boundaries established by the initial, non-consensual power dynamic. While the child is an innocent party, the user’s current capacity and willingness to engage are compromised by his history.
The user’s actions in seeking to maintain distance appear appropriate as a means of preserving his mental health and current relationship stability, given the foundation of trauma. For future interactions, if contact becomes unavoidable, the constructive recommendation is to establish firm, non-negotiable boundaries, potentially mediated by a legal or mental health professional. This strategy allows him to address any perceived obligation without immediately sacrificing his safety or letting the situation escalate through uncontrolled direct contact.
REDDIT USERS WERE STUNNED – YOU WON’T BELIEVE SOME OF THESE REACTIONS.
The central conflict involves the user’s deeply held desire to maintain distance from a past trauma and its associated consequences, specifically the child born from that event, versus the external pressure from others who believe the child has a fundamental right to know its parentage, regardless of the circumstances of conception.
Given the user’s feelings of violation, paranoia, and fear of future demands, is the user justified in refusing contact and acknowledging no responsibility toward the child, or do the ethical obligations toward the offspring outweigh the need to protect his established emotional safety and current relationship?
