Discussion:
Paternity Knowledge. [Was: Re: A sense of honour]
(too old to reply)
p***@zombieworld.com
2003-10-27 03:30:20 UTC
Permalink
e
ws-text.cableinet.net>...
[..]
Where did "paternity and inheritance rights" come from?
It's a consequence of reserving sexual activity to one's husband.
This is a bad thing --> how?
I didn't say it was bad, or good for that matter. I said it was directly
connected to the concept of paternity and inheritance rights.
You are correct, you did not say if it was good or bad. But you did use
the word "consequence" which usually has a negative connotation. Now i see
you did not mean the word consequence with a negative connotation.
But my question is still a valid one. How is reserving sexual activity to
one's husband a bad thing? Especially since women in general desire
monogamy.
Some women are monogamous, some are not. And sexual exclusivity in
relationships is a matter for the individuals concerned.
[...]
If
inheritance is through the male line, you have to have some societal
code
which prevents women having sex with anyone else. It's a silly
system, really, since women know for certain whether a child is
theirs or not, whereas men have to go to all sorts of lengths to
ensure it.
Well Jani if it's "silly" then how much derision and mockery DO you
have to heap on something before we can assume that you think it's a
bad system?!
Do you think there should be no social mechanisms in place to ensure
and/or to encourage men's knowledge of paternity?
Plainavy
If you have to enslave women and make them property to ensure paternity
then its to high a price.
In this day and age a simple test will soon prove who the father is.
Despite such feminist inspired demonization, slavery and chattel are
some distance from encouraging and/or ensuring paternity knowledge.
Castigating all social mechanisms that help ensure that knowledge as
amounting to nothing more than slavery is ludicrous. Chastity belts
and chains are one extreme but a variety of social stigmas and
penalties against cheating on spouses are something else.

Even if paternity tests were 100% accurate (and they appear to be
close to that IF you go through the right, legitimate channels,
there's the little matter of the woman lying to the man and the man
needing to wonder if his wife has done something terrible in the first
place; and the govt, as was proposed in the UK not long ago, may
decide at anytime that paternity testing is inconvenient and
detrimental to social and family stability because too many (!) women
cuckold their husbands. When the man gets suspicious that the kid(s)
may not be his and he wants a test, the govt., proposed that he be
banned from doing it or could only do it with permission from the
woman. So much for equal rights.

Clearly there is reason to doubt a sizable portion of women's fidelity
in a matter where men are peculiarly vulnerable to terrible, widely
repercusive fraud:

"There is plenty of scope for suspicion. Robin Baker, an
academic-turned-author, reviewed the available data a few years ago
and estimated that as many as 10% of children may not have been sired
by their supposed fathers. If the figure really is that high, a lot of
hitherto stable relationships are likely to end acrimoniously, and the
taxpayer will have to pick up the bill for yet more children.

That's why there was talk, in the run-up to the publication of the
genetics white paper, of forbidding suspicious men from doing this
without the mother's consent. In the event, the government decided
against it, and opted merely to propose banning taking unauthorised
DNA samples." ("Is you is or is you ain't my baby?" Jun 26th 2003 .
The Economist.) Reported at
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/cat_evolutionary_psychology.html.

On variability of testing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1241276.stm

See too on social destructiveness of paternity testing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3023513.stm
Women don't have any trouble recognizing their own children..
Your point?

Plainavy
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-10-27 03:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
Even if paternity tests were 100% accurate (and they appear to be
close to that IF you go through the right, legitimate channels
Nope. There is always a percentage of error.
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
there's the little matter of the woman lying to the man and the man
needing to wonder if his wife has done something terrible in the first
place;
Nope. That's what a paternity test solves to a degree of reasonable
probability. The only time men run into serious problems is if there
is a suspected infidelity between their wife and the husbands
/brother/. In that case, it is very difficult to ascertain paternity,
although I hear the accuracy is getting better. There are some very
interesting stories regarding this situation.
Goddess of Groundhogs
2003-10-27 05:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
Even if paternity tests were 100% accurate (and they appear to be
close to that IF you go through the right, legitimate channels
Nope. There is always a percentage of error.
Yep. .003 is average. ;)
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
there's the little matter of the woman lying to the man and the man
needing to wonder if his wife has done something terrible in the
first
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
place;
Nope. That's what a paternity test solves to a degree of reasonable
probability. The only time men run into serious problems is if there
is a suspected infidelity between their wife and the husbands
/brother/. In that case, it is very difficult to ascertain paternity,
although I hear the accuracy is getting better. There are some very
interesting stories regarding this situation.
Also, if the infidelity is with an identical twin, there's no way to prove
paternity.
--
-blu*goddess of groundhogs*juju-

Free Tommy Chong
www.freetommychong.org/

"When even one American who has done nothing wrong is forced by fear to
shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."
Harry S. Truman - Former U.S. President
plainavy
2003-10-27 11:58:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 17:39:07 -1000, "Maxie P. Diddly"
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
Even if paternity tests were 100% accurate (and they appear to be
close to that IF you go through the right, legitimate channels
Nope. There is always a percentage of error.
As I said, the tests are "close," i.e., not 100%. One paternity
testing site states the US courts only need 99% (or 99.5%) accuracy
(however such numbers are derived). My point is one raised by others
on this topic: some companies' "science" and ethical practices do not
all them (or their clients) to achieve even the 99% accuracy.
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
there's the little matter of the woman lying to the man and the man
needing to wonder if his wife has done something terrible in the
first
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
place;
Nope. That's what a paternity test solves to a degree of reasonable
probability.
The "percentage of error" is within a court's determination of
"reasonable probability." As already mentioned, there are factors
outside of pure science that affect results, lending complication to
paternity test findings.
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
The only time men run into serious problems is if there
is a suspected infidelity between their wife and the husbands
/brother/. In that case, it is very difficult to ascertain
paternity,
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
although I hear the accuracy is getting better. There are some very
interesting stories regarding this situation.
Nope. A man's brother cheating with the man's wife is not the "only"
issue. The test itself, no matter how accurate, can do nothing if the
husband suspects nothing and never applies it! Remember, many of
these couples have gone YEARS before some clue or some hint in the
child's physiognomy (perhaps combined with the mother's behavior or,
as often happens, a guilt-ridden confession by her or one of her
friends) has led the man to have any suspicions in the first place.
Such cases have hardly always included a man's male relatives as
culprits.

Paternity testing is no panacea. We still have issues of honesty
between people and the need for social codes in place that help keep
people from ruining their spouse's and children's lives.

You seem to have no response (q.v., my previous post) to either 1) the
ongoing and ever-present specter of govt. intrusion in these matters,
simply taking men's rights to paternity knowledge away, 2) the
surprisingly large number of cases of cuckoldry, or 3) the need for
social mechanisms to encourage ethical behavior.

Plainavy
Bob
2003-10-27 16:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by plainavy
The "percentage of error" is within a court's determination of
"reasonable probability." As already mentioned, there are factors
outside of pure science that affect results, lending complication to
paternity test findings.
There needs to be standard DNA tests done at birth along with the other
tests that have been done routinely for decades.

The DNA needs to be verified before any man's name goes on a birth
certificate or C$ claim.
Post by plainavy
Paternity testing is no panacea. We still have issues of honesty
between people and the need for social codes in place that help keep
people from ruining their spouse's and children's lives.
LOL. With routine paternity testing of all children women would have to
become a lot more honest about whom they are fucking or the cuckolded
men will know anyway.

Bob
plainavy
2003-10-27 22:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by plainavy
The "percentage of error" is within a court's determination of
"reasonable probability." As already mentioned, there are factors
outside of pure science that affect results, lending complication to
paternity test findings.
There needs to be standard DNA tests done at birth along with the other
tests that have been done routinely for decades.
The DNA needs to be verified before any man's name goes on a birth
certificate or C$ claim.
Post by plainavy
Paternity testing is no panacea. We still have issues of honesty
between people and the need for social codes in place that help keep
people from ruining their spouse's and children's lives.
LOL. With routine paternity testing of all children women would have to
become a lot more honest about whom they are fucking or the cuckolded
men will know anyway.
Bob
Sounds like it might work. But what are the realistic chances of
paternity testing becoming routine or mandatory for all children, say,
in America and/or the UK? It would seem to necessarily route everyone
into the hospitals (not so good for homebirthers, though as with
vaccines they could elect to have the test or not).

Making paternity testing routine (or even mandatory) seems a sad state
of affairs to me. I'm not denying the advantages. Women would have
to toe the line or come up with ways to fudge results or avoid the
tests.

But I still don't see such testing becoming routine anytime soon.

Plainavy
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-10-27 22:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by plainavy
Making paternity testing routine (or even mandatory) seems a sad state
of affairs to me.
I disagree. Privacy right advocates have blocked it's acceptance,
however. Why shouldn't paternity testing be routine? It would make
sense to have a genetic profile anyway, to screen for diseases and the
like.
Shez
2003-10-27 22:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
Post by plainavy
Making paternity testing routine (or even mandatory) seems a sad
state
Post by plainavy
of affairs to me.
I disagree. Privacy right advocates have blocked it's acceptance,
however. Why shouldn't paternity testing be routine? It would make
sense to have a genetic profile anyway, to screen for diseases and the
like.
Their is a small problem with that, you cant test soon after a birth,
the baby carries its mothers blood, you would need to wait until its
produced its own blood to do a blood test.
Blood tests would give a good indication, DNA testing at the moment is
extremely expensive and their is a long wait for results.
I don't seem the problem with DNA testing once the price is reasonable,
and once the wait is not to long,
However such testing could be used later in the chills life when he or
she becomes an adult to stop him accessing life insurance, loans or even
a mortgage if the DNA tests show genetic weakness that would lead to
problems in later life, heart disease, cancer, ect.
If DNA testing is used on every child, it would give an immediate result
for any medical problems that the child may face, helping doctors treat
before problems become to far gone to give reasonable help.
But other than for medical reasons, or paternity if its in dispute, I
think that such tests should be kept totally private,
If the Father is insisting on DNA testing, then he should bear the cost.
It should not fall to the state or the mother.
--
Shez ***@oldcity.f2s.com
Bob
2003-10-27 23:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shez
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
Post by plainavy
Making paternity testing routine (or even mandatory) seems a sad
state
Post by plainavy
of affairs to me.
I disagree. Privacy right advocates have blocked it's acceptance,
however. Why shouldn't paternity testing be routine? It would make
sense to have a genetic profile anyway, to screen for diseases and the
like.
Their is a small problem with that, you cant test soon after a birth,
the baby carries its mothers blood, you would need to wait until its
produced its own blood to do a blood test.
The feminists hate it, and Shit lies about it. Accurate DNA testing can
be done before birth whenever they take a sample now. They don't want
women to have to be responsible or honest.
Post by Shez
Blood tests would give a good indication, DNA testing at the moment is
extremely expensive and their is a long wait for results.
Shit is years out of date. Current DNA testing methods are automated
and becoming quite reasonable in price. Less than one month's C$ payment.
Post by Shez
I don't seem the problem with DNA testing once the price is reasonable,
and once the wait is not to long,
LOL. It forces women to be honest and responsible. Shit and her
feminazi friends hate that.

The DNA test ought to be done before a father's name goes on the birth
certificate. Too many women screw around and lie.


Bob
Post by Shez
However such testing could be used later in the chills life when he or
she becomes an adult to stop him accessing life insurance, loans or even
a mortgage if the DNA tests show genetic weakness that would lead to
problems in later life, heart disease, cancer, ect.
If DNA testing is used on every child, it would give an immediate result
for any medical problems that the child may face, helping doctors treat
before problems become to far gone to give reasonable help.
But other than for medical reasons, or paternity if its in dispute, I
think that such tests should be kept totally private,
If the Father is insisting on DNA testing, then he should bear the cost.
It should not fall to the state or the mother.
wd
2003-10-27 23:42:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shez
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
Post by plainavy
Making paternity testing routine (or even mandatory) seems a sad
state
Post by plainavy
of affairs to me.
I disagree. Privacy right advocates have blocked it's acceptance,
however. Why shouldn't paternity testing be routine? It would make
sense to have a genetic profile anyway, to screen for diseases and the
like.
Their is a small problem with that, you cant test soon after a birth,
the baby carries its mothers blood, you would need to wait until its
produced its own blood to do a blood test. Blood tests would give a good
indication, DNA testing at the moment is extremely expensive and their
is a long wait for results. I don't seem the problem with DNA testing
once the price is reasonable, and once the wait is not to long,
However such testing could be used later in the chills life when he or
she becomes an adult to stop him accessing life insurance, loans or even
a mortgage if the DNA tests show genetic weakness that would lead to
problems in later life, heart disease, cancer, ect. If DNA testing is
used on every child, it would give an immediate result for any medical
problems that the child may face, helping doctors treat before problems
become to far gone to give reasonable help. But other than for medical
reasons, or paternity if its in dispute, I think that such tests should
be kept totally private, If the Father is insisting on DNA testing, then
he should bear the cost. It should not fall to the state or the mother.
We agree 100% on this issue.

The potential misuse of cataloging every american is astonomical to say
the least.

The positive benefits would be far outweighed by any misue; like to prevent a
man/women from getting life insurance, loans or even a mortgage if the DNA
tests show genetic weakness. The list is huge.

When our technology grows to the point that we can insure 100% privacy of
this information, then i would say we are ready as a society to catalog
everyone. In this day and age, we cannot assure that kind of privacy.

But, what i find more disturbing is how many younger folks today are willing to
give up their privacy, to satisfy an immediate need.
Shez
2003-10-28 00:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by wd
Post by Shez
Post by Maxie P. Diddly
Post by plainavy
Making paternity testing routine (or even mandatory) seems a sad
state
Post by plainavy
of affairs to me.
I disagree. Privacy right advocates have blocked it's acceptance,
however. Why shouldn't paternity testing be routine? It would make
sense to have a genetic profile anyway, to screen for diseases and the
like.
Their is a small problem with that, you cant test soon after a birth,
the baby carries its mothers blood, you would need to wait until its
produced its own blood to do a blood test. Blood tests would give a good
indication, DNA testing at the moment is extremely expensive and their
is a long wait for results. I don't seem the problem with DNA testing
once the price is reasonable, and once the wait is not to long,
However such testing could be used later in the chills life when he or
she becomes an adult to stop him accessing life insurance, loans or even
a mortgage if the DNA tests show genetic weakness that would lead to
problems in later life, heart disease, cancer, ect. If DNA testing is
used on every child, it would give an immediate result for any medical
problems that the child may face, helping doctors treat before problems
become to far gone to give reasonable help. But other than for medical
reasons, or paternity if its in dispute, I think that such tests should
be kept totally private, If the Father is insisting on DNA testing, then
he should bear the cost. It should not fall to the state or the mother.
We agree 100% on this issue.
The potential misuse of cataloging every american is astonomical to say
the least.
The positive benefits would be far outweighed by any misue; like to prevent a
man/women from getting life insurance, loans or even a mortgage if the DNA
tests show genetic weakness. The list is huge.
When our technology grows to the point that we can insure 100% privacy of
this information, then i would say we are ready as a society to catalog
everyone. In this day and age, we cannot assure that kind of privacy.
But, what i find more disturbing is how many younger folks today are willing to
give up their privacy, to satisfy an immediate need.
What is even sadder is the children who are tested, and then their DNA
is available later in life to company's who will turn them down for jobs
or even medical insurance because of their genetic heritage.
They will become the new poor, the new lepers, who are cast out of
society because of their Genetic make up.
I could end up where you don't have a blood test when your married you
have a DNA test, and you refused a marriage licence or the right to have
children because of your Genetic heritage.
For medical reasons I am all in favour of DNA. for anything else
especially if the government is involved I am totally against their
having access to DNA for any reason.
--
Shez ***@oldcity.f2s.com
Bob
2003-10-28 01:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by wd
What is even sadder is the children who are tested, and then their DNA
is available later in life to company's who will turn them down for jobs
or even medical insurance because of their genetic heritage.
They will become the new poor, the new lepers, who are cast out of
society because of their Genetic make up.
I could end up where you don't have a blood test when your married you
have a DNA test, and you refused a marriage licence or the right to have
children because of your Genetic heritage.
For medical reasons I am all in favour of DNA. for anything else
especially if the government is involved I am totally against their
having access to DNA for any reason.
What really worries fembots is that lying whores who whelp bastards will
get kicked out on their kans when their husband finds out who the father
is not. Ask Shit sometime if her husband ever had his kids tested.

Bob
Paul Duca
2003-11-02 03:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by wd
What is even sadder is the children who are tested, and then their DNA
is available later in life to company's who will turn them down for jobs
or even medical insurance because of their genetic heritage.
They will become the new poor, the new lepers, who are cast out of
society because of their Genetic make up.
I could end up where you don't have a blood test when your married you
have a DNA test, and you refused a marriage licence or the right to have
children because of your Genetic heritage.
For medical reasons I am all in favour of DNA. for anything else
especially if the government is involved I am totally against their
having access to DNA for any reason.
What really worries fembots is that lying whores who whelp bastards will
get kicked out on their kans when their husband finds out who the father
is not. Ask Shit sometime if her husband ever had his kids tested.
Fortunately (not) for Bob, he will NEVER be in a situation where
paternity is disputed...


Paul
Shez
2003-11-02 14:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Duca
Post by Bob
Post by wd
What is even sadder is the children who are tested, and then their DNA
is available later in life to company's who will turn them down for jobs
or even medical insurance because of their genetic heritage.
They will become the new poor, the new lepers, who are cast out of
society because of their Genetic make up.
I could end up where you don't have a blood test when your married you
have a DNA test, and you refused a marriage licence or the right to have
children because of your Genetic heritage.
For medical reasons I am all in favour of DNA. for anything else
especially if the government is involved I am totally against their
having access to DNA for any reason.
What really worries fembots is that lying whores who whelp bastards will
get kicked out on their kans when their husband finds out who the father
is not. Ask Shit sometime if her husband ever had his kids tested.
Fortunately (not) for Bob, he will NEVER be in a situation where
paternity is disputed...
Paul
True, I doubt if even sperm banks would accept his donations, never
mind women,
--
Shez ***@oldcity.f2s.com
Bob
2003-11-02 23:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shez
Post by Paul Duca
True, I doubt if even sperm banks would accept his donations, never
mind women,
All Shez does is hate. Here's another classic ad-hominem example.

All Shit knows is hate. She's been full of hate for decades. Now she's
an old tired saggy broad who spends her pathetic life sitting at her
pathetic keyboard spewing the same old tired hate crap she learned 40
years ago.

Shit doesn't even bother to read what has been posted, or perhaps her
alzheimers is too advanced for her to remember from one post to the
next. Hate has destroyed her mind.

Shit usually spends her time on the witchcraft groups where people try
to be tolerant of divergent views, but even there most of her posts are
only tolerated. By now the regulars on the wiccan groups know all about
her hate and ignore her so she's come to soc.men to start a hate war
here. Hate is all Shit knows how to do any more.

Now that Shit is old and wrinkled she hates even more because men look
away from her ugly hate drawn wrinkles. Younger women have rejected the
hate she has taught and are turning back to men and a life as a mother
and partner. It's sad really, to see how decades of hate have taken
their toll on so many old tired ugly females and they have nothing to
show for it because the younger generation of women has more sense.
Old, ugly, wrinkled, diseased, and eschewed by young women and men
alike. Hate does that to her.

Misandrist (femi)NAZI) hate mongers stick together like a clique of
feminist bigots, and Shit is right in the middle of them. Hate is
always wrong, but Shit's too old, too saggy, too far gone to even
remember what her 50 year old hate slogans still mean. She's become a
pathetic, drooling whiny hateful old sow. Not anything left worth
salvaging.
Bob
2003-10-27 23:17:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by plainavy
Post by Bob
Post by plainavy
The "percentage of error" is within a court's determination of
"reasonable probability." As already mentioned, there are factors
outside of pure science that affect results, lending complication to
paternity test findings.
There needs to be standard DNA tests done at birth along with the other
tests that have been done routinely for decades.
The DNA needs to be verified before any man's name goes on a birth
certificate or C$ claim.
Post by plainavy
Paternity testing is no panacea. We still have issues of honesty
between people and the need for social codes in place that help keep
people from ruining their spouse's and children's lives.
LOL. With routine paternity testing of all children women would have to
become a lot more honest about whom they are fucking or the cuckolded
men will know anyway.
Bob
Sounds like it might work. But what are the realistic chances of
paternity testing becoming routine or mandatory for all children, say,
in America and/or the UK? It would seem to necessarily route everyone
into the hospitals (not so good for homebirthers, though as with
vaccines they could elect to have the test or not).
I expect that within 30 years it will be routine. Ten years ago a DNA
test took a couple of days and cost a lot. Today it has become fairly
automated and the cost has come down a bunch. In another 10 years it
will be as simple as putting a drop of blood or saliva in a machine and
looking at the results. Even today it could be done for a couple of
hundred dollars. There is no excuse any longer to put a man's name on a
birth certificate without some evidence that he is the father.
Post by plainavy
Making paternity testing routine (or even mandatory) seems a sad state
of affairs to me. I'm not denying the advantages. Women would have
to toe the line or come up with ways to fudge results or avoid the
tests.
There have been a list of mandatory tests and routine medical treatments
done on newborn children for a long time. One more is worthwhile to
establish paternity as the CHILD's right to know his or her father.
Post by plainavy
But I still don't see such testing becoming routine anytime soon.
Plainavy
Give it a few years. We are still trying to stop women from preventing
DNA testing when they know they lied, and to stop C$ collection from men
who have been proven not to be related to the child. The feminist lobby
opposes it because it benefits men and forces women to be responsible
and honest.

Bob
Scott Gilbert
2003-10-27 09:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
That's why there was talk, in the run-up to the publication of the
genetics white paper, of forbidding suspicious men from doing this
without the mother's consent. In the event, the government decided
against it, and opted merely to propose banning taking unauthorised
DNA samples."
Wouldn't that amount to the same thing? if he's not allowed to take a
sample, how can he get it tested? Or does "unauthorised" apply to
such things as dumpster diving for tissues rather than to male
parents?

[snip]
plainavy
2003-10-27 18:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Gilbert
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
That's why there was talk, in the run-up to the publication of the
genetics white paper, of forbidding suspicious men from doing this
without the mother's consent. In the event, the government decided
against it, and opted merely to propose banning taking unauthorised
DNA samples."
Wouldn't that amount to the same thing? if he's not allowed to take a
sample, how can he get it tested? Or does "unauthorised" apply to
such things as dumpster diving for tissues rather than to male
parents?
[snip]
From what I've been able to find out about the issue as it has
developed in the UK, the stealing of DNA samples from a potential
father was what was ultimately proposed to ban. The other instance
had to do with getting samples from the children without the woman's
permission. I've posted pretty much every link I've seen on the
issue. If other people (esp. UKers) can provide more links, bring it
on.

I've been told that the issue cropped up on soc.men earlier this year
but I haven't been able to dig up the relevant thread(s) yet.

Plainavy
Shez
2003-10-27 13:32:58 UTC
Permalink
n
e
ws-text.cableinet.net>...
[..]
Where did "paternity and inheritance rights" come from?
It's a consequence of reserving sexual activity to one's husband.
This is a bad thing --> how?
I didn't say it was bad, or good for that matter. I said it was
directly
connected to the concept of paternity and inheritance rights.
You are correct, you did not say if it was good or bad. But you did use
the word "consequence" which usually has a negative connotation. Now i
see
you did not mean the word consequence with a negative connotation.
But my question is still a valid one. How is reserving sexual activity to
one's husband a bad thing? Especially since women in general desire
monogamy.
Some women are monogamous, some are not. And sexual exclusivity in
relationships is a matter for the individuals concerned.
[...]
If
inheritance is through the male line, you have to have some societal
code
which prevents women having sex with anyone else. It's a silly
system, really, since women know for certain whether a child is
theirs or not, whereas men have to go to all sorts of lengths to
ensure it.
Well Jani if it's "silly" then how much derision and mockery DO you
have to heap on something before we can assume that you think it's a
bad system?!
Do you think there should be no social mechanisms in place to ensure
and/or to encourage men's knowledge of paternity?
Plainavy
If you have to enslave women and make them property to ensure paternity
then its to high a price.
In this day and age a simple test will soon prove who the father is.
Despite such feminist inspired demonization, slavery and chattel are
some distance from encouraging and/or ensuring paternity knowledge.
Castigating all social mechanisms that help ensure that knowledge as
amounting to nothing more than slavery is ludicrous. Chastity belts
and chains are one extreme but a variety of social stigmas and
penalties against cheating on spouses are something else.
Even if paternity tests were 100% accurate (and they appear to be
close to that IF you go through the right, legitimate channels,
there's the little matter of the woman lying to the man and the man
needing to wonder if his wife has done something terrible in the first
place; and the govt, as was proposed in the UK not long ago, may
decide at anytime that paternity testing is inconvenient and
detrimental to social and family stability because too many (!) women
cuckold their husbands. When the man gets suspicious that the kid(s)
may not be his and he wants a test, the govt., proposed that he be
banned from doing it or could only do it with permission from the
woman. So much for equal rights.
Clearly there is reason to doubt a sizable portion of women's fidelity
in a matter where men are peculiarly vulnerable to terrible, widely
"There is plenty of scope for suspicion. Robin Baker, an
academic-turned-author, reviewed the available data a few years ago
and estimated that as many as 10% of children may not have been sired
by their supposed fathers. If the figure really is that high, a lot of
hitherto stable relationships are likely to end acrimoniously, and the
taxpayer will have to pick up the bill for yet more children.
That's why there was talk, in the run-up to the publication of the
genetics white paper, of forbidding suspicious men from doing this
without the mother's consent. In the event, the government decided
against it, and opted merely to propose banning taking unauthorised
DNA samples." ("Is you is or is you ain't my baby?" Jun 26th 2003 .
The Economist.) Reported at
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/cat_evolutionary_psychology.html.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1241276.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3023513.stm
Women don't have any trouble recognizing their own children..
Your point?
Plainavy
You made my point, thank you.
Suspicious men, who constantly believe their wives are cheating on them.
That sort of jealousy needs therapy, how many men accuse women of
cheating on them when no such thing has happened.
How many men beat up women because they think they might have looked at
another man, not gone out with, or cheated on, just looked.
Most women don't cheat on their husbands, especially if they have
children,
Their will always be a percentage who do, as their is a percentage of
men who cheat on their wives or father babies with other women.
--
Shez ***@oldcity.f2s.com
Bob
2003-10-27 16:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shez
You made my point, thank you.
Suspicious men, who constantly believe their wives are cheating on them.
Cowshit. With DNA studies now showing that up to 30% of the children
from "monogamous" relationships have "surprising" DNA, (blood bank
study) it's obvious that wives usually ARE cheating.
Post by Shez
That sort of jealousy needs therapy, how many men accuse women of
cheating on them when no such thing has happened.
Yep, wives need therapy and honesty.
Post by Shez
How many men beat up women because they think they might have looked at
another man, not gone out with, or cheated on, just looked.
More hate Shit? The old "husbands beating wives" hate crap? Do you
ever post anything but hate? Do you ever do a real conversation? NOT!
Post by Shez
Most women don't cheat on their husbands, especially if they have
children,
With tests showing up to 30% of children of "monogamous" wives having
"surprising DNA, and only a fraction of sex making children, the
probability that a wife with 3 children has been cheating is close to
unity. Most women DO cheat on their husbands, now proven by the strange
DNA of the children.
Post by Shez
Their will always be a percentage who do, as their is a percentage of
men who cheat on their wives or father babies with other women.
Yep, a percentage, like 90%, of women cheat on their husbands. But just
post your old tired anti-men hate crap Shit. It identifies you.

Bob
Paul Duca
2003-11-02 03:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Post by Shez
You made my point, thank you.
Suspicious men, who constantly believe their wives are cheating on them.
Cowshit. With DNA studies now showing that up to 30% of the children
from "monogamous" relationships have "surprising" DNA, (blood bank
study) it's obvious that wives usually ARE cheating.
Post by Shez
That sort of jealousy needs therapy, how many men accuse women of
cheating on them when no such thing has happened.
Yep, wives need therapy and honesty.
Post by Shez
How many men beat up women because they think they might have looked at
another man, not gone out with, or cheated on, just looked.
More hate Shit? The old "husbands beating wives" hate crap? Do you
ever post anything but hate? Do you ever do a real conversation? NOT!
Post by Shez
Most women don't cheat on their husbands, especially if they have
children,
With tests showing up to 30% of children of "monogamous" wives having
"surprising DNA, and only a fraction of sex making children, the
probability that a wife with 3 children has been cheating is close to
unity. Most women DO cheat on their husbands, now proven by the strange
DNA of the children.
Post by Shez
Their will always be a percentage who do, as their is a percentage of
men who cheat on their wives or father babies with other women.
Yep, a percentage, like 90%, of women cheat on their husbands.
And yet you can't get any of them into your bed....



Paul
hypertech
2003-11-03 05:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
With tests showing up to 30% of children of "monogamous" wives having
"surprising DNA, and only a fraction of sex making children, the
probability that a wife with 3 children has been cheating is close to
unity. Most women DO cheat on their husbands, now proven by the strange
DNA of the children.
Post by Shez
Their will always be a percentage who do, as their is a percentage of
men who cheat on their wives or father babies with other women.
Yep, a percentage, like 90%, of women cheat on their husbands.
I think we are witnessing the end of monogamy, which has always
survived, in part,
on the double standard and hypocrisy. Now that women realize that the
deception as to paternity is no longer possible, and that men can no
longer escape the attribution of financial responsibility, I see the
rational young people I know abandon the romantic ideal.

Of course, the dumb schitts will keep on breeding anyway.

I know several young men, mid 20's who make 10$/hour doing construction,
sheetrock, cement foundations, framing, roofing, etc. I knew several of
my peers back in the 1960s who started families making 10$/hour. But the
kind of responsible smart young men of today know that they do not have
the income to support a family, and seem to rely more on porn than on
condoms for sexual gratifications. Lots cheaper.

Two of the young men I knew which did marry this year did so to women
who were 10 years older, and already had all the kids they wanted to
bear. As well as their own careers, which increasingly look promising to
women. They only want a stud muffin house husband, not a sperm donor.

This will work for a while, but there will be trouble ahead when the
little girls which they now have, begin to see these stud muffins as
attractive, and compete with attention with their mothers.

Some years ago, I turned down a chance of a relationship with an
attractive young woman whose pubescent daughter I saw acting in a
seductive manner, and just recently spoke with the mother of a 13 year
old who is resigned to living alone until her daughter turns 18 and
moves out on her own for the same reason.

Some of the Lesbians I know, and undoubtely many others, are not that
keen on having sex with women- so much as concerned that their girls not
go thru the sexual abuse with step fathers- which they themselves went
thru when they were growing up. This is, by far, the greatest risk of
sexual abuse, not 'strangers with candy'.
Ian
2003-11-03 09:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by hypertech
Post by Bob
With tests showing up to 30% of children of "monogamous" wives having
"surprising DNA, and only a fraction of sex making children, the
probability that a wife with 3 children has been cheating is close to
unity. Most women DO cheat on their husbands, now proven by the strange
DNA of the children.
Post by Shez
Their will always be a percentage who do, as their is a percentage of
men who cheat on their wives or father babies with other women.
Yep, a percentage, like 90%, of women cheat on their husbands.
I think we are witnessing the end of monogamy, which has always
survived, in part,
on the double standard and hypocrisy. Now that women realize that the
deception as to paternity is no longer possible, and that men can no
longer escape the attribution of financial responsibility, I see the
rational young people I know abandon the romantic ideal.
Of course, the dumb schitts will keep on breeding anyway.
I know several young men, mid 20's who make 10$/hour doing construction,
sheetrock, cement foundations, framing, roofing, etc. I knew several of
my peers back in the 1960s who started families making 10$/hour. But the
kind of responsible smart young men of today know that they do not have
the income to support a family, and seem to rely more on porn than on
condoms for sexual gratifications. Lots cheaper.
Two of the young men I knew which did marry this year did so to women
who were 10 years older, and already had all the kids they wanted to
bear. As well as their own careers, which increasingly look promising to
women. They only want a stud muffin house husband, not a sperm donor.
This will work for a while, but there will be trouble ahead when the
little girls which they now have, begin to see these stud muffins as
attractive, and compete with attention with their mothers.
That's a keen piece of inductive logic. My father used to describe
it as "a dangerous age"
Post by hypertech
Some years ago, I turned down a chance of a relationship with an
attractive young woman whose pubescent daughter I saw acting in a
seductive manner, and just recently spoke with the mother of a 13 year
old who is resigned to living alone until her daughter turns 18 and
moves out on her own for the same reason.
Some of the Lesbians I know, and undoubtely many others, are not that
keen on having sex with women- so much as concerned that their girls not
go thru the sexual abuse with step fathers- which they themselves went
thru when they were growing up. This is, by far, the greatest risk of
sexual abuse, not 'strangers with candy'.
GECOS
2003-11-04 08:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian
Post by hypertech
Two of the young men I knew which did marry this year did so to women
who were 10 years older, and already had all the kids they wanted to
bear. As well as their own careers, which increasingly look promising to
women. They only want a stud muffin house husband, not a sperm donor.
This will work for a while, but there will be trouble ahead when the
little girls which they now have, begin to see these stud muffins as
attractive, and compete with attention with their mothers.
That's a keen piece of inductive logic. My father used to describe
it as "a dangerous age"
It's not induction nearly so much, (sadly) as observation and listening
to the reports I have from young women talking about 'step fathers' &
'boyfriends' when they were pubescent. I know one who ran her uncle off
with a 12 guage pump. Fortunately, we live in the Ozarks, and most
backwoods homes are similarly equipped. I dunno what she wouldda done
had she lived in an urban area with gun control.

She wouldda killed the SOB, much as has been advocated here for
pedophiles. But her aunt depended on him to support three kids. Which is
the other thing about all the hysteria; they all seem to think that the
perverts are loners, when in fact, all of those I have heard of in my
face to face discussions, have been *family men*. The girl at the time
did not want to put the family on welfare, especially in a poor county
in a poor southern state.
Paul Hume
2003-11-03 13:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
Cowshit. With DNA studies now showing that up to 30% of the children
from "monogamous" relationships have "surprising" DNA, (blood bank
study) it's obvious that wives usually ARE cheating.
Bob, I think we'd need a cite. How does a blood bank study run DNA
matches for parentage on a donor? The study would need samples of at
least one parent (and to support your thesis, the non-biological
parent) as well as the offspring, plus a provenance to link the
samples (and blood banks do not typically identify donors on samples,
much less link donations from family members together).

There is also the question of controlling the population of donors -
relatively normal distribution across the general population, or a
commercial blood bank with a narrower set of criteria (whether for
winos or stock brokers would make a difference).

I don't see how you get "surprising" DNA in a sample from an
individual, since the legitimacy of the individual has no bearing on
his DNA. Like any other test for parentage, you need samples from all
the players, no?

Paul
Bob
2003-11-03 14:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hume
Post by Bob
Cowshit. With DNA studies now showing that up to 30% of the children
from "monogamous" relationships have "surprising" DNA, (blood bank
study) it's obvious that wives usually ARE cheating.
Bob, I think we'd need a cite. How does a blood bank study run DNA
matches for parentage on a donor? The study would need samples of at
least one parent (and to support your thesis, the non-biological
parent) as well as the offspring, plus a provenance to link the
samples (and blood banks do not typically identify donors on samples,
much less link donations from family members together).
There is also the question of controlling the population of donors -
relatively normal distribution across the general population, or a
commercial blood bank with a narrower set of criteria (whether for
winos or stock brokers would make a difference).
I don't see how you get "surprising" DNA in a sample from an
individual, since the legitimacy of the individual has no bearing on
his DNA. Like any other test for parentage, you need samples from all
the players, no?
Paul
A while back a long list of studies was posted on soc.men. There have
been many "blind" studies by legitimate researchers and the results vary
somewhat but all find a surprisingly high percentage of "surprising"
paternity from wives who swear that they are "monogamous." If you are
curious you can look it up. Until then you can drop the questions.

Bob
Paul Hume
2003-11-04 02:02:02 UTC
Permalink
A while back a long list of studies was posted on soc.men....If you are
curious you can look it up.
I am and shall, thanks.
Until then you can drop the questions.
What a perfect example of writing one line too much, to get the zinger
in. One "drops" questions when they have been answered substantively,
not because someone says to.

Paul
spammy
2003-11-03 19:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hume
Post by Bob
Cowshit. With DNA studies now showing that up to 30% of the children
from "monogamous" relationships have "surprising" DNA, (blood bank
study) it's obvious that wives usually ARE cheating.
Bob, I think we'd need a cite. How does a blood bank study run DNA
matches for parentage on a donor?
Don't need DNA. They note the child has "impossible" blood type given
the parent's respective blood types. In other cases, the child has an
inherited condition, but when they test the parents it turns out dear
old dad isn't the carrier. Oops!
Shez
2003-11-04 01:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by spammy
Post by Paul Hume
Post by Bob
Cowshit. With DNA studies now showing that up to 30% of the children
from "monogamous" relationships have "surprising" DNA, (blood bank
study) it's obvious that wives usually ARE cheating.
Bob, I think we'd need a cite. How does a blood bank study run DNA
matches for parentage on a donor?
Don't need DNA. They note the child has "impossible" blood type given
the parent's respective blood types. In other cases, the child has an
inherited condition, but when they test the parents it turns out dear
old dad isn't the carrier. Oops!
You don't know much about DNA do you, or inherited conditions, their are
conditions that are only carried by men, Like colour blindness, that
don't affect their female children, yet can be passed on to their male
children.
Their are inherited conditions that skip several generations and come
out perhaps three or more generations down the line.
Male baldness is inherited,
Because the father or mother didn't carry that genetic problem
themselves doesn't mean that the children could not inherit it from a
grandfather, or even further back. recessive genes pop up all the time.
We all carry a huge amount of information that can be passed on to our
children.
--
Shez ***@oldcity.f2s.com
spammy
2003-11-04 08:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shez
Post by spammy
Post by Paul Hume
Post by Bob
Cowshit. With DNA studies now showing that up to 30% of the children
from "monogamous" relationships have "surprising" DNA, (blood bank
study) it's obvious that wives usually ARE cheating.
Bob, I think we'd need a cite. How does a blood bank study run DNA
matches for parentage on a donor?
Don't need DNA. They note the child has "impossible" blood type given
the parent's respective blood types. In other cases, the child has an
inherited condition, but when they test the parents it turns out dear
old dad isn't the carrier. Oops!
You don't know much about DNA do you
I don't? Perhaps you should engage your brain before hurling insults.
When I said "dad isn't the carrier", I meant it. He not only doesn't
suffer from the condition in question, he doesn't even have the
recessive gene for it.
Gabby
2003-11-04 11:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by spammy
Post by Shez
You don't know much about DNA do you
I don't? Perhaps you should engage your brain before hurling insults.
When I said "dad isn't the carrier", I meant it. He not only doesn't
suffer from the condition in question, he doesn't even have the
recessive gene for it.
I guess he's never heard of diseases where both parents must carry the
recessive gene in order for the children to have the disease. Cystic
fibrosis springs to mind.

I remember reading the original article on this subject last year. It made
for interesting reading -- especially the ethics involved for the doctor.
"Do I tell? Do I keep my mouth shut?"

IIRC the doctor never told because in all instances the child was the
patient and the doctor's only duty was to the child. Possibly breaking up
the family was judged to not be in the child's best interest.

Suzanne

plainavy
2003-10-27 17:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
n
e
ws-text.cableinet.net>...
[..]
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
Where did "paternity and inheritance rights" come from?
It's a consequence of reserving sexual activity to one's husband.
This is a bad thing --> how?
I didn't say it was bad, or good for that matter. I said it was
directly
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
connected to the concept of paternity and inheritance rights.
You are correct, you did not say if it was good or bad. But you did use
the word "consequence" which usually has a negative connotation. Now i
see
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
you did not mean the word consequence with a negative connotation.
But my question is still a valid one. How is reserving sexual activity to
one's husband a bad thing? Especially since women in general desire
monogamy.
Some women are monogamous, some are not. And sexual exclusivity in
relationships is a matter for the individuals concerned.
[...]
If
inheritance is through the male line, you have to have some societal
code
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
which prevents women having sex with anyone else. It's a silly
system, really, since women know for certain whether a child is
theirs or not, whereas men have to go to all sorts of lengths to
ensure it.
Well Jani if it's "silly" then how much derision and mockery DO you
have to heap on something before we can assume that you think it's a
bad system?!
Do you think there should be no social mechanisms in place to ensure
and/or to encourage men's knowledge of paternity?
Plainavy
If you have to enslave women and make them property to ensure paternity
then its to high a price.
In this day and age a simple test will soon prove who the father is.
Despite such feminist inspired demonization, slavery and chattel are
some distance from encouraging and/or ensuring paternity knowledge.
Castigating all social mechanisms that help ensure that knowledge as
amounting to nothing more than slavery is ludicrous. Chastity belts
and chains are one extreme but a variety of social stigmas and
penalties against cheating on spouses are something else.
Even if paternity tests were 100% accurate (and they appear to be
close to that IF you go through the right, legitimate channels,
there's the little matter of the woman lying to the man and the man
needing to wonder if his wife has done something terrible in the first
place; and the govt, as was proposed in the UK not long ago, may
decide at anytime that paternity testing is inconvenient and
detrimental to social and family stability because too many (!) women
cuckold their husbands. When the man gets suspicious that the kid(s)
may not be his and he wants a test, the govt., proposed that he be
banned from doing it or could only do it with permission from the
woman. So much for equal rights.
Clearly there is reason to doubt a sizable portion of women's fidelity
in a matter where men are peculiarly vulnerable to terrible, widely
"There is plenty of scope for suspicion. Robin Baker, an
academic-turned-author, reviewed the available data a few years ago
and estimated that as many as 10% of children may not have been sired
by their supposed fathers. If the figure really is that high, a lot of
hitherto stable relationships are likely to end acrimoniously, and the
taxpayer will have to pick up the bill for yet more children.
That's why there was talk, in the run-up to the publication of the
genetics white paper, of forbidding suspicious men from doing this
without the mother's consent. In the event, the government decided
against it, and opted merely to propose banning taking unauthorised
DNA samples." ("Is you is or is you ain't my baby?" Jun 26th 2003 .
The Economist.) Reported at
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/cat_evolutionary_psychology.html.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1241276.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3023513.stm
Women don't have any trouble recognizing their own children..
Your point?
Plainavy
You made my point, thank you.
I don't think so. You said women "didn't have any trouble recognizing
their own children" and I was wondering what that had to do with the
issue of PATERNITY knowledge. Are you saying that women don't care
who the father(s) of their different children are?
Suspicious men, who constantly believe their wives are cheating on them.
That sort of jealousy needs therapy, how many men accuse women of
cheating on them when no such thing has happened.
Did you read about Baker's findings of a 10% cuckoldry rate? (It's
higher for poor people than for wealthy people, and higher for blacks
than for whites.) If the percentage was real low I'd agree with you
but at anywhere in the 10% zone, as reported in THE ECONOMIST (not a
fringe magazine), that's a serious and real problem of trust.
How many men beat up women because they think they might have looked at
another man, not gone out with, or cheated on, just looked.
Jealousy over looking at someone is one thing and cuckoldry proven by
paternity test is something quite else. In neither case should
physical violence be condoned but in the latter case we can understand
why men would leave their "families" built on lies.
Most women don't cheat on their husbands, especially if they have
children,
So what? "Most" is 80% or 90% but that leaves, according to Baker, a
significant proportion of women breaking trust.
Their will always be a percentage who do, as their is a percentage of
men who cheat on their wives or father babies with other women.
As you point out, women don't "have any trouble recognizing their own
children"--or more to the point, women rarely are hoodwinked about
being or not being their children's birth mother (the ultra rare
hospital switcharoo notwithstanding). Men do not have that advantage.
If a woman lies, the man is peculiarly vulnerable to the cuckoo nest
syndrome (unless the child is bi-racial or something genetically
obvious such as that).

A man who fathers babies with other women is certainly also a case
where we need greater social sanction on bastardy and out of wedlock
births. Again though, that man's wife is rarely as victimized by that
man's other "families" as that man is by his wife's infidelity. There
are cases where a cheating husband has had children with someone not
his wife and the wife has had to bear the burden--if she stays with
him--of his decreased paycheck if the other woman sues him for child
support, but the wife is NEVER in the situation of thinking the other
woman's child is HER OWN!

Plainavy
Ralph DuBose
2003-10-27 23:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shez
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
n
e
ws-text.cableinet.net>...
[..]
Post by Shez
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
Where did "paternity and inheritance rights" come from?
It's a consequence of reserving sexual activity to one's husband.
This is a bad thing --> how?
I didn't say it was bad, or good for that matter. I said it was
directly
Post by Shez
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
connected to the concept of paternity and inheritance rights.
You are correct, you did not say if it was good or bad. But you did use
the word "consequence" which usually has a negative connotation. Now i
see
Post by Shez
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
you did not mean the word consequence with a negative connotation.
But my question is still a valid one. How is reserving sexual activity to
one's husband a bad thing? Especially since women in general desire
monogamy.
Some women are monogamous, some are not. And sexual exclusivity in
relationships is a matter for the individuals concerned.
[...]
If
inheritance is through the male line, you have to have some societal
code
Post by Shez
Post by p***@zombieworld.com
which prevents women having sex with anyone else. It's a silly
system, really, since women know for certain whether a child is
theirs or not, whereas men have to go to all sorts of lengths to
ensure it.
Well Jani if it's "silly" then how much derision and mockery DO you
have to heap on something before we can assume that you think it's a
bad system?!
Do you think there should be no social mechanisms in place to ensure
and/or to encourage men's knowledge of paternity?
Plainavy
If you have to enslave women and make them property to ensure paternity
then its to high a price.
In this day and age a simple test will soon prove who the father is.
Despite such feminist inspired demonization, slavery and chattel are
some distance from encouraging and/or ensuring paternity knowledge.
Castigating all social mechanisms that help ensure that knowledge as
amounting to nothing more than slavery is ludicrous. Chastity belts
and chains are one extreme but a variety of social stigmas and
penalties against cheating on spouses are something else.
Even if paternity tests were 100% accurate (and they appear to be
close to that IF you go through the right, legitimate channels,
there's the little matter of the woman lying to the man and the man
needing to wonder if his wife has done something terrible in the first
place; and the govt, as was proposed in the UK not long ago, may
decide at anytime that paternity testing is inconvenient and
detrimental to social and family stability because too many (!) women
cuckold their husbands. When the man gets suspicious that the kid(s)
may not be his and he wants a test, the govt., proposed that he be
banned from doing it or could only do it with permission from the
woman. So much for equal rights.
Clearly there is reason to doubt a sizable portion of women's fidelity
in a matter where men are peculiarly vulnerable to terrible, widely
"There is plenty of scope for suspicion. Robin Baker, an
academic-turned-author, reviewed the available data a few years ago
and estimated that as many as 10% of children may not have been sired
by their supposed fathers. If the figure really is that high, a lot of
hitherto stable relationships are likely to end acrimoniously, and the
taxpayer will have to pick up the bill for yet more children.
That's why there was talk, in the run-up to the publication of the
genetics white paper, of forbidding suspicious men from doing this
without the mother's consent. In the event, the government decided
against it, and opted merely to propose banning taking unauthorised
DNA samples." ("Is you is or is you ain't my baby?" Jun 26th 2003 .
The Economist.) Reported at
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/cat_evolutionary_psychology.html.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1241276.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3023513.stm
Women don't have any trouble recognizing their own children..
Your point?
Plainavy
You made my point, thank you.
I don't think so. You said women "didn't have any trouble recognizing
their own children" and I was wondering what that had to do with the
issue of PATERNITY knowledge. Are you saying that women don't care
who the father(s) of their different children are?
Post by Shez
Suspicious men, who constantly believe their wives are cheating on them.
That sort of jealousy needs therapy, how many men accuse women of
cheating on them when no such thing has happened.
Did you read about Baker's findings of a 10% cuckoldry rate? (It's
higher for poor people than for wealthy people, and higher for blacks
than for whites.) If the percentage was real low I'd agree with you
but at anywhere in the 10% zone, as reported in THE ECONOMIST (not a
fringe magazine), that's a serious and real problem of trust.
In the US and GB paternity testing done at the time of divorce in
regard to child support is consistently turning up "oopsies" about 30%
of the time. This is why such testing has become utterly routine at
such times.
The full meaning of this fact is only slowly soaking into public
awareness. When it does however, expect some changes in male attitudes
in general.
The accuracy of the tests is not a serious issue. With careful
technique and a repeat if necessary paternity is an easy question for
dna testing to resolve.
For women to get a sense of what this means to men, they should
imagine what their own feelings would be if they discovered that their
actual newborn was swapped for another in the nursery. And someone
came along and said, "What is the big deal?" or "You should not be
allowed to know about this."
Post by Shez
How many men beat up women because they think they might have looked at
another man, not gone out with, or cheated on, just looked.
Jealousy over looking at someone is one thing and cuckoldry proven by
paternity test is something quite else. In neither case should
physical violence be condoned but in the latter case we can understand
why men would leave their "families" built on lies.
Post by Shez
Most women don't cheat on their husbands, especially if they have
children,
So what? "Most" is 80% or 90% but that leaves, according to Baker, a
significant proportion of women breaking trust.
Post by Shez
Their will always be a percentage who do, as their is a percentage of
men who cheat on their wives or father babies with other women.
As you point out, women don't "have any trouble recognizing their own
children"--or more to the point, women rarely are hoodwinked about
being or not being their children's birth mother (the ultra rare
hospital switcharoo notwithstanding). Men do not have that advantage.
If a woman lies, the man is peculiarly vulnerable to the cuckoo nest
syndrome (unless the child is bi-racial or something genetically
obvious such as that).
A man who fathers babies with other women is certainly also a case
where we need greater social sanction on bastardy and out of wedlock
births. Again though, that man's wife is rarely as victimized by that
man's other "families" as that man is by his wife's infidelity. There
are cases where a cheating husband has had children with someone not
his wife and the wife has had to bear the burden--if she stays with
him--of his decreased paycheck if the other woman sues him for child
support, but the wife is NEVER in the situation of thinking the other
woman's child is HER OWN!
Plainavy
Bob
2003-10-28 01:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph DuBose
In the US and GB paternity testing done at the time of divorce in
regard to child support is consistently turning up "oopsies" about 30%
of the time. This is why such testing has become utterly routine at
such times.
It's not routine in the US. Many US states still claim C$ from the
husband even if he is proven not to be the father. There are political
demands being made to change the laws, however it's being resisted by
fembots like Gray Davis who vetoed a new paternity law shortly before
being recalled.

Most of the time the state cares a whole lot more about forcing men into
slavery and collecting money than they care about paternity or people.


Bob
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...