# Do you think it's wrong for a man to ask for a paternity test , and if so, why?



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Many if not most people (men and women) have cheated, currently cheat or would cheat given the opportunity. People want their partners to trust them, but trust is not a shield or preventative measure against cheating.

Being that most cheaters deny cheating, even when caught balls deep, asking for honesty is in practical terms unrealistic as a way of preventing or proving infidelity leading to pregnancy.

Men also face being court ordered to pay child support for children proven not to be theirs, even to the extremes of having gag orders placed on them.

I have not touched on the negative social ramifications of raising a child that's not theirs, like being labelled a cuckold, but they exist.

So considering all of the liabilities a man could face for not knowing, do you think it would be wrong for him to ask for a paternity test?


----------



## MarriedDude (Jun 21, 2014)

anonim said:


> Many if not most people (men and women) have cheated, currently cheat or would cheat given the opportunity. People want their partners to trust them, but trust is not a shield or preventative measure against cheating.
> 
> Being that most cheaters deny cheating, even when caught balls deep, asking for honesty is in practical terms unrealistic as a way of preventing or proving infidelity leading to pregnancy.
> 
> ...


Not wrong at all. If a man wants a paternity test- by all means one should be done. He will, however, have to live with the consequences. 

HOWEVER, as I have told my sons...be careful in choosing the women you sleep with. The ramifications go far beyond that short duration act. If you wouldn't trust her with your wallet....don't trust her with your semen.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have one done - if he wishes.

A woman always knows it's her child - why shouldn't a man? That's especially true if he's supporting the child, IMO.


----------



## scatty (Mar 15, 2013)

If I was a man, I would want a paternity test. I would do a swab first, then confront if it came back I wasn't the bio father. Actually, my kids are all blonde with blue/grey eyes and my hubby is olive skinned with dark hair. I would done one if I was him, after the first. All three of our kids look the same, so if he ever had any doubts (that he never told me about) I would have been having any affair for 14 years with the same guy! You can never be too careful though, because a man should not have to pay for a child that is not his, and should know right away so he doesn't bond with the kid. The heartbreaking stories are the ones who find out when the child is older.


----------



## ILoveSparkles (Oct 28, 2013)

I think it depends on the situation. If there is no known history of infidelity in a committed relationship the man should not demand a DNA test out of the blue IMO. If there is that history, especially around when a child is conceived then a DNA test request is appropriate.

Also, if a man is having sex with someone other than his partner and that woman becomes pregnant, a DNA test should be done to determine if the child is his or another man's.


----------



## soccermom2three (Jan 4, 2013)

Sure, my husband go ahead paternity test the kids all he wants. It would be a waste of money and he's going to look pretty ridiculous when they all come back showing positive that he's the dad.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

There are many ways to figure out if the kids can't be yours without a DNA test.

Heredity is what it is. Do those first, if you're worried about it.

The real question is, what happens if they aren't?


----------



## Mr.Fisty (Nov 4, 2014)

I am up for paternity testing. Not to mention the information can be linked to the biological father and the child knows their background, potential medical concerns, and whether they would like to build a relationship with their biological father. Some children do and some do not, but it will be their choice as well.

Personally, I think genetic testing is highly important for a child's well-being. Depending on issues, there can be a certain lifestyle that can be beneficial to the children involved.

In rare cases, it will help avoid potential relationship with half-siblings. They might have brothers and sisters that they do not know about.

It would be wise to find out early so if the husband leaves, the child would not feel abandoned.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

I personally would be ok with it being automatically required. I have a relative who recently had a baby (got married when she got pregnant). I just can’t see it to the point I'm wondering if they both know it's not his and just intend for him to raise the child as his.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

thefam said:


> I personally would be ok with it being automatically required. I have a relative who recently had a baby (got married when she got pregnant). I just can’t see it to the point I'm wondering if they both know it's not his and just intend for him to raise the child as his.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think it should be automatic as well. Just one of the many standard tests they do with newborns in the hospital.

That way a man gets peace of mind without having to look like the bad guy for asking. Or, he gets a whole lot of information to think about!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I think that if a guy wants to make sure, he can get the test without telling his wife. For a woman who is faithful, I think that the husband asking for the test is a pretty big insult. But I get that a guy would want to know for sure.


----------



## Maneo (Dec 4, 2012)

automatic? in all cases? do we have such little faith in the morals of women that a paternity test should be automatic? 

I think this is one of those "it depends" situations.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

anonim said:


> So considering all of the liabilities a man could face for not knowing, do you think it would be wrong for him to ask for a paternity test?


A birth certificate is a legal document, which you are signing under the penalty of perjury. I require positive identification before I am willing to sign my name to a legal document. Thus, I require a paternity test before I am willing to have my name listed on said document.

This is an excellent clause any man should have written into his prenuptial agreement, immediately after the BMI Clause.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Maneo said:


> automatic? in all cases? do we have such little faith in the morals of women that a paternity test should be automatic?
> 
> I think this is one of those "it depends" situations.


:iagree:

If a man has such little faith and trust in the fidelity of a woman he chooses to have sex with, _knowing sex can lead to pregnancy_, then he probably shouldn't be having sex with her!

Perhaps we should demand that men ALWAYS wear condoms--even if married--because we never know if he's cheating until he gives his wife herpes, aids or an STI. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

scatty said:


> If I was a man, I would want a paternity test. I would do a swab first, then confront if it came back I wasn't the bio father. Actually, my kids are all blonde with blue/grey eyes and my hubby is olive skinned with dark hair. I would done one if I was him, after the first. All three of our kids look the same, so if he ever had any doubts (that he never told me about) I would have been having any affair for 14 years with the same guy! You can never be too careful though, because a man should not have to pay for a child that is not his, and should know right away so he doesn't bond with the kid. The heartbreaking stories are the ones who find out when the child is older.


My husband is Hispanic and I am white. Our son took after my genes with blonde hair and light skin. I honestly would be insulted if he asked for a paternity test. He could absolutely get a paternity test done for our son, but it would also put a rift in our marriage since he doesn't trust me. I know my husband trusts me though. 

Men need to be careful with who they have sex with. I will always caution my son to use protection, both to prevent pregnancy and to protect his health. Hopefully he will not have unprotected sex unless he is with a woman for a long time and knows he can trust her.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Given the climate of casual sex , cheating & lying in our society today.. .. I honestly can't understand WHY this has not been pushed as mandatory by now... the only thing I am against is the fact we eat the cost of it.. A man should be able to refuse it -if he wants..

But given how upset women get over this by the near mention.. Like "How dare you not trust me!" then put him in the doghouse....I think it would be best to be mandatory, to avoid all of that.. ... this should clean up some of the wayward cheating females out there -knowing the truth will be revealed...the fact this happens at all is a grave grave injustice to any man. Having 5 sons.. I can't imagine the sheer anger I would feel if this happened to one of them.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

I agree. If it was just mandatory to have paternity testing prior to the man's name going on the birth certificate, many issues would be avoided. This way, it would also take it out of the hands of either party, so no one could get offended about it. It would be a waste of time for a great majority of cases, but as long as a quick and very cheap method was developed (I don't believe current testing is either quick nor cheap, so some brainiacs would need to get on to this), I don't see anything wrong with it. Just make it a part of the cost of a birth certificate.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

SimplyAmorous said:


> Given the climate of casual sex , cheating & lying in our society today.. .. I honestly can't understand WHY this has not been pushed as mandatory by now... the only thing I am against is the fact we eat the cost of it.. A man should be able to refuse it -if he wants..
> 
> But given how upset women get over this by the near mention.. Like "How dare you not trust me!" then put him in the doghouse....I think it would be best to be mandatory, to avoid all of that.. ... this should clean up some of the wayward cheating females out there -knowing the truth will be revealed...the fact this happens at all is a grave grave injustice to any man. Having 5 sons.. I can't imagine the sheer anger I would feel if this happened to one of them.


Would you have been ok with your husband demanding a paternity test with each of your children?


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

A guy can get one done of he likes. Women do lie about this. .... my ex made a comment about getting our younger one tested. He'd been deployed and had been home for 2 weeks before he left again and the guys gave him a hard time. 

I told him to knock himself out if it would make him feel better but he never bothered. No matter, both boys are his. 

The younger one favors his family a little, the older one looks just like me so in that sense it makes more sense to suspect him. 

Should he ever change his mind he's welcome. That's something should knock out right away though before relationships start to form.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

In France and ?Germany? It's illegal. Peace of the family or some such. Yikes.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

anonim said:


> Many if not most people (men and women) have cheated, currently cheat or would cheat given the opportunity. People want their partners to trust them, but trust is not a shield or preventative measure against cheating.
> 
> Being that most cheaters deny cheating, even when caught balls deep, asking for honesty is in practical terms unrealistic as a way of preventing or proving infidelity leading to pregnancy.
> 
> ...


Men are not the only ones who can get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't theirs. WOMEN can get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't theirs, too! 

Consider a married man who cheats on his wife and gets his affair partner pregnant. The AP has a DNA test and the child is determined to be his. 

That man can be ordered to pay child support. Money that SHOULD be directed to his MARRIAGE is now redirected to support a child that isn't his wife's. 

Hmmm...


----------



## 6301 (May 11, 2013)

Back in 68 my fiance got pregnant. I was in the army home on leave and we slept together. I went to Europe after my leave and a few months later she told me she was pregnant. I came home in December and married her and two weeks later found out that the kid wasn't mine. Back then then didn't have DNA but it still took only 9 months to have a baby and she didn't deliver until for 11 and 1/2 months later which proved that when she got pregnant, I was in Europe. Lucky for me that she married the bum who knocked her up and I gave up my rights to the baby boy that wasn't mine. It's a terrible feeling to know that someone can be so deceitful not to mention an embarrassing and humiliating experience. Makes you think about giving your full trust ever again. I never could after that. I save a little for myself.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
I'm male, but I think if I were female the request would be a mortal insult. 

If the law cares about the biological paternity, then I don't mind having paternity tests be automatic at birth.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

6301 said:


> Back in 68 my fiance got pregnant. I was in the army home on leave and we slept together...Back then then didn't have DNA but it still took only 9 months to have a baby and she didn't deliver until for 11 and 1/2 months later which proved that when she got pregnant, I was in Europe....I gave up my rights to the baby boy that wasn't mine.


Consider yourself lucky.

In some of the more liberal states in America, courts have ordered men to pay child support for children which have been proven genetically not to be theirs. She very easily could have come after you to pay child support for that kid.

This alone is reason enough to always require a paternity test on any child a woman (even if you're married) claims is yours. This is also one reason why it is likely to never become mandatory, because political agents will block any attempt to make it become so.

Some women of course will attempt to "guilt" you into not getting a paternity test with the "you don't trust me" claim. Rest assured, if the shoe were on the other foot and it was the man who gave birth, they'd be the first to demand maternity tests.

This is but one of many life lessons a man should pass on to his male offspring.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

I think that a paternity test should become mandatory, but not precisely or only for the reasons offered up in this thread.

I spent several years as a consultant for a genetics start-up.

Many offspring suffering from suspected or diagnosed genetic disorders require the parents to have their DNA sequenced and tested, if there's any ambiguity. It is in these cases where the child falls ill, with a genetic disease as the suspected culprit that many men find out that they are not the biological father.

It not only comes as a shock (and brings in all of the emotional stress with it) but it also creates a very real problem in terms of treatment. Without being able to trace the source of the variant/mutation/other, it could very well mean hindering the child from receiving the proper diagnosis and/or treatment, or make it that much more difficult to diagnose and/or treat... or even compute the statistical probability that the child may or may not pass this on to his/her offspring.

Just another angle.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> Men are not the only ones who can get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't theirs. WOMEN can get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't theirs, too!
> 
> Consider a married man who cheats on his wife and gets his affair partner pregnant. The AP has a DNA test and the child is determined to be his.
> 
> ...


This is true. However, the woman in this case is never under the illusion that the child is hers, never comes to love a child that is not hers, is not denied her genetic heritage, has the option to stop any personal financial loss by divorce, and has no personal legal responsibility for the child.

It's a completely different scenario.

Cuckqueans have very few negative consequences compared to cuckolds.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I am absolutely for it being included in one of the battery of tests and exams they perform at birth.

I trust my wife. Not an issue here and my son is so much like me people joke about an experiment in cloning.

There is, however, an alarming amount of women who are a little too loose when it comes to sex, (I am referring to women in or entering into committed relationships), that have no problem with having their committed partner raise another man's child.

The amount of dishonorable women in this situation is substantial.

Honorable women should not be treated with contempt but could maybe understand paternity being determined as a universal practice.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I've read that geneticists and biologists think that up to 30% of children born in wedlock throughout history were not the husband's. Before testing you couldn't know. This is why I laugh whenever I see comments about women cheating more these days. ....that's bull, women have always cheated like men. It's just that before women had any financial power they had no choice but to look the other way while men did what they wanted. And it was socially more acceptable for men to cheat so women had to hide it.

But they've always done it, and birth control is fairly recent in human history. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

EleGirl said:


> *Would you have been ok with your husband demanding a paternity test with each of your children?*


 I understand your asking me this.. since I take a strong stance on it.. plus I wasn't met with a hint of questioning on his part...so it's easy for me to say ...isn't it...

May I add this...my husband is a very trusting man when he falls in love...He wants to believe the best in people.... I could see him being duped -seeing what he wanted to see.. if a woman wanted to get away with this, if she hid a darker side, a wayward side.... It's often the good hearted ones who get screwed here. 

We were talking about this ...he wouldn't want to do anything to pi** her off either.. he can understand why a woman would feel this way...of course!!!...(I can too, especially if she has been everything faithful & devoted to him, no red flags)... he also feels the Insurance companies will NEVER go for this , due to the cost.. even if a fraction of children do not belong to the Man written on the birth certificate..unbeknownst to them..... 

*Anyone known the statistics on this?*

As to our personal situation.. Given my very strong feelings to wait until marriage for intercourse .. if anyone KNEW my heart & soul on what sex meant to me, this anticipated Union ....forevermore.. it was HIM.. all those deep talks we had .. it's not like I am going to take this sort of stance -then go fvck someone else behind his back .. also we were always joined at the hip.. 

Would our situation even remotely describe what is common today.. Absolutely not... Many do not even care to get married, many have experienced Hook ups, meet a man, go to bed with him that night... some do not even believe in monogamy, pounding we are not wired for it... how many have opposite sex friends - go out alone with them, a little boundary pushing that the man may not be comfortable with ... we see plenty of stories here ..how about " Girls night out"...wife/GF dressed a little too ravishing, they argue about this).... couples being too secretive, can't have cell phone passwords... (after all most do not find transparency in all things ALL THAT IMPORTANT)... Trust is earned by how we act and live.. not because we ARE... 

The way it is set up today..paternity test wise...the man has to SNEAK to do it.. and if she ever finds out, he'll have hell to pay.. he'll never live it [email protected]# 

Would she consider his concerns IF she did ANYTHING to cause the smallest lack of trust? I don't think people are self aware enough to go there... if a man has been cheated on *even 1 time in his life.*...isn't it true his trust will take a dive after this..(we are all impacted by our experiences)...sometimes we have to give some leeway in how he may feel too.. 

If a man's name goes on the Birth certificate with his being financially responsible for the next 18 yrs.. he has EVERY RIGHT IN THIS WORLD TO KNOW.. and so does the child ... 

Someone mentioned how the woman will have to pay if her man is unfaithful.. this too!! None of it is OK.. 

I watched a 20/20 program yrs ago before I got the net.... I was OUTRAGED to this father's plight... I felt his helplessness & pain hearing his story.... working man...4 kids.. one comes down with mysterious illness.. so tests are taken on the parents, he comes to learn only 1 (or maybe it was 2) of the 4 was his.. the whole thing gets busted open ...she had a lover for years on the side.. this man would have never known.. the courts didn't care!!! The Mother - I didn't see any remorse...all she was concerned about was his trying to get out of paying for children that was not biologically his... that THIS would hurt the kids.. so really.. it's all about the Kids.. to everyone.. Just suck it up men.. Lay down & give give give, doesn't matter if it's someone else's seed. 

Did she care about the injustice she did to him -who provided for all of them?? while she fcked another behind his back?? ...then tore his heart out.. ...just never forgot it.. couldn't believe how the courts DID NOTHING.. no legal recourse....I was SHOCKED ... I realized through that program.. there is no justice in this life.. NONE.. so Men... you better be very very cautious who you stick your D*** into.

Would I feel all that bad for a PlayBoy who found himself in this situation. NO.. honestly.. NOT REALLY.. but a good family men.. hell yeah! 

I feel she should be ordered by the courts to pay him back every red cent...

We had a friend yrs ago.. he always wondered why he was the only one of his siblings to have diabetes.. well he come to learn when was about 30 yrs old.. that who he THOUGHT was his father, never was.. he was so angry...it took him a while to deal with this.. . I could understand if he would be more weary on trust... when it was his own Mother who kept this from him..


----------



## 6301 (May 11, 2013)

Constable Odo said:


> Consider yourself lucky.
> 
> In some of the more liberal states in America, courts have ordered men to pay child support for children which have been proven genetically not to be theirs. She very easily could have come after you to pay child support for that kid.
> 
> ...


 She didn't want child support. They guy she was cheating with didn't have two nickles to rub together. I was in the army, if she married me, she would be a dependent and the whole pregnancy would be covered by the government. She was smart I'll give her that much. They both cooked this whole plan up and it worked like a charm. I played the fool and they walked away scot free. Hard to believe that there are people that ugly in this world.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Maneo said:


> automatic? in all cases? do we have such little faith in the morals of women that a paternity test should be automatic?
> 
> I think this is one of those "it depends" situations.


Not women... _people_ in general.

Nice stab, though.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

weightlifter said:


> In France and ?Germany? It's illegal. Peace of the family or some such. Yikes.


Commies!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I understand your asking me this.. since I take a strong stance on it.. plus I wasn't met with a hint of questioning on his part...so it's easy for me to say ...isn't it...
> 
> May I add this...my husband is a very trusting man when he falls in love...He wants to believe the best in people.... I could see him being duped -seeing what he wanted to see.. if a woman wanted to get away with this, if she hid a darker side, a wayward side.... It's often the good hearted ones who get screwed here.
> 
> ...


It would be as insulting for your husband to ask you for a DNA test as it would be for most women because the majority of women are faithful in their marriage.

But I think that if a guy wants one, he should do it. I suggest he not tell his wife that he is doing it because it would be pretty bad blow to the majority of women. It's an accusation that he thinks she had cheated.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

6301 said:


> She didn't want child support. They guy she was cheating with didn't have two nickles to rub together. I was in the army, if she married me, she would be a dependent and the whole pregnancy would be covered by the government. She was smart I'll give her that much. They both cooked this whole plan up and it worked like a charm. I played the fool and they walked away scot free. Hard to believe that there are people that ugly in this world.


There are people who are morally ugly in this world... they come in a lot of different flavors. 

Sorry for what happened to you. Unfortunately, like is a hard teacher.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> It would be as insulting for your husband to ask you for a DNA test as it would be for most women because the majority of women are faithful in their marriage.
> 
> But I think that if a guy wants one, he should do it. I suggest he not tell his wife that he is doing it because it would be pretty bad blow to the majority of women.


Once again, you miss, or fail to acknowledge, the point entirely, which is, it is in a man's financial best interest to always insist on a paternity test before his name goes on any legal document naming him as the father of a child -- regardless of whether or not he "trusts" a woman or not.

And certainly a woman who didn't cheat wouldn't care. Why would she? She has nothing to hide from, she knows the child is his.

A paternity test for any children I father is a standard clause in all my prenups, and I would recommend to all men, as I do my sons, they insist it be in theirs as well.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Sometimes DNA tests are required by the state and it's not clear.

A friend of mine adopted her niece and She and her brother, the child's father are both very dark. The mother is white. The child came out very fair skinned with green eyes.

Even though the mother identified the father and the father did not dispute it, the social workers still required a DNA test before proceeding.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Constable Odo said:


> Once again, you miss, or fail to acknowledge, the point entirely, which is, it is in a man's financial best interest to always insist on a paternity test before his name goes on any legal document naming him as the father of a child -- regardless of whether or not he "trusts" a woman or not.
> 
> And certainly a woman who didn't cheat wouldn't care. Why would she? She has nothing to hide from, she knows the child is his.
> 
> A paternity test for any children I father is a standard clause in all my prenups, and I would recommend to all men, as I do my sons, they insist it be in theirs as well.



If it were standard operating procedure by the state, who can feel insulted by it?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

NextTimeAround said:


> If it were standard operating procedure by the state, *who* can feel insulted by it?


Any woman who is married/in a serious relationship with a man and who has a child by him. THAT'S who. 

Just because SOME woman will cheat and/or try to hang their partner for the financial/emotional responsibility for "his" child doesn't mean ALL women do this. In fact, I tend to believe that MOST of them don't. 

You may as well just come out and say that NO woman can be trusted, and that ALL women have to 'suffer' because of the sins of a handful. 

If a man doesn't want to get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't his, then perhaps he should learn how to make better choices when it comes to WHO he'll be having sex with.


----------



## Ripper (Apr 1, 2014)

Make it mandatory to save someone the inevitable drama that we are already witnessing here.

Failing that, the other option is to start holding these women accountable for paternity fraud. Allow and start prosecuting them for it like any other case of fraud and allow lawsuits to compensate the victims for financial and "emotional" damages. 

Society isn't holding women responsible for anything right now, so don't hold your breath.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Constable Odo said:


> Once again, you miss, or fail to acknowledge, the point entirely, which is, it is in a man's financial best interest to always insist on a paternity test before his name goes on any legal document naming him as the father of a child -- regardless of whether or not he "trusts" a woman or not.


No I do not miss the point. I said that if a guy wants one, then he should get one.



Constable Odo said:


> And certainly a woman who didn't cheat wouldn't care. Why would she? She has nothing to hide from, she knows the child is his.


I disagree that a woman who did not cheat would not care. A lot of women have said that they would care because it is accusing her of infidelity.



Constable Odo said:


> A paternity test for any children I father is a standard clause in all my prenups, and I would recommend to all men, as I do my sons, they insist it be in theirs as well.


Prenups? How often do you marry?

If your bride to be is ok with it, then I don't see any problem with it.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Ripper said:


> Society isn't holding women responsible for anything right now, so don't hold your breath.


I know.. isn't it great? I can go out and steal, murder, commit all kinds of crimes just because I'm a woman and am not held responsible for anything.


> Life is grand.


----------



## Ripper (Apr 1, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> I know.. isn't it great? I can go out and steal, murder, commit all kinds of crimes just because I'm a woman and am not held responsible for anything.
> 
> 
> > Life is grand.


Pretty much. Unless you count community service and a harsh scolding as equal punishment.

Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says

For sex related crimes its even worse.

Bonus:
If you can find me a single case of a woman being charged for paternity fraud I will change my avatar to something pink and frilly.


----------



## Maneo (Dec 4, 2012)

Scientifically sound and statistically valid studies put the % of babies born not the offspring of the man identified by the woman as the father as somewhere between 1.7 and 3.4% of all births. Only conspiracy fringe elements like Jeff Rense give false credibility to higher %. 
It is an urban myth that false paternity is running rampant. 
Does it happen? Yes. Is it a frequent thing? No. 
File this one with the other urban myths life Obama's birth certificate.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Actual % of paternity fraud aside, I know far too many women that consider it a viable option for it not to be taken somewhat seriously.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

I would be the end of a marriage for me if a paternity test were asked for. I am an honest, non cheating woman and would view a man that asked for a paternity test as weak and of low morals, why else would he suspect me of cheating?


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> Actual % of paternity fraud aside, I know far too many women that consider it a viable option for it not to be taken somewhat seriously.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My sister's roommate at college tried it on her long distance boyfriend. the timing was so off as to be obvious. 

If paternity tests were mandatory, fewer women would try it on. Maybe even fewer men would fool around with married women or at least insist on practicing safe sex with her.

If it were the law, a routine part of what the hospital does for newborns, then what is the problem? 

Probably these same women who take insult at the idea freely say in other scenarios (to other people) "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear."

There have been mix ups at birth in the hospitals from time to time, at least a routine paternity test would prevent that from happening as well.

And quite often, black women who have white husbands and therefore, fair skinned children, get accused all the time for kidnapping their own kids. Imagine how insulting that is.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

Constable Odo said:


> Once again, you miss, or fail to acknowledge, the point entirely, which is, it is in a man's financial best interest to always insist on a paternity test before his name goes on any legal document naming him as the father of a child -- regardless of whether or not he "trusts" a woman or not.
> 
> And certainly a woman who didn't cheat wouldn't care. Why would she? She has nothing to hide from, she knows the child is his.
> 
> A paternity test for any children I father is a standard clause in all my prenups, and I would recommend to all men, as I do my sons, they insist it be in theirs as well.


I'm a little surprised by the statement that a woman who didn't have anything to hide wouldn't care if she was asked by her partner to have a paternity test. Do you really think having your integrity questioned by someone who you thought loved and trusted you more than any other person on the planet would not mean anything? I think it's the person who is the most trustworthy who would be the most hurt. Someone who is unfaithful might feel fear and put on a front, but the woman who loves her partner and would never do that would be hurt and confused.

What if your partner asked you to have regular STD tests done because they didn't trust you not to cheat? Would you not be even a little insulted at the assumption that you are a faithless scumbag?


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

NextTimeAround said:


> And quite often, black women who have white husbands and therefore, fair skinned children, get accused all the time for kidnapping their own kids. Imagine how insulting that is.


Getting a bit off-topic, my ex-BIL is an OR nurse. He worked at a local hospital which did not have a maternity-specific wing, so would often see C-sections and occasionally have to assist in deliveries. It was fairly routine, about once per year, that a white woman (with a white husband) would give birth to a child that had black features. This, naturally, would cause a great rift immediately between husband and wife, until, usually one side of the family or the other got quietly spoken to about their great-great-great-great-grandmother, whose husband was actually black, but its never spoken about hush-hush-hush.

Genetics are a funny thing. Fortunately my SO goes ga-ga over ginger men, as I was borne a ginger, despite the fact neither of my parents, or grandparents in memory, were gingers. Later of course I found my Y and mtDNA haplogroups are western European/Scandinavian in origin, so it really wasn't the postman after all, if dad suspected.




breeze said:


> What if your partner asked you to have regular STD tests done because they didn't trust you not to cheat?


I think this is an excellent idea. Thank you very much, I am going to add it to my list of essential pre-nup clauses. An annual sexual-health exam should be a mandatory part of any marriage, for *both* partners.

The only people who would object, of course (to either an annual SHE or a paternity test) would be someone who wants the option to deceive their partner.

Using the same logic presented by several in this thread, I suppose I should be "offended" when my SO wants the password to my smart-phone, because, well, that means she doesn't "trust" me.


This is the most salient clause of this thread, and men reading it should take note:

*Any man who doesn't protect his financial best interests and ensures a child is his, genetically, before being registered with the State with his name as the father on a birth certificate, is a fool, because the State has the power to seize his assets and compel him to provide financial support for said child under threat of imprisonment if he does not -- even if that child is later proven not to be his genetically. *


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Constable Odo said:


> ..............................
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You say it like it is fact but you are wrong, so it isn't fact it is just your opinion.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I think annual STD testing is a great idea just for your regular checkups.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

breeze said:


> *I'm a little surprised by the statement that a woman who didn't have anything to hide wouldn't care if she was asked by her partner to have a paternity test. Do you really think having your integrity questioned by someone who you thought loved and trusted you more than any other person on the planet would not mean anything? *I think it's the person who is the most trustworthy who would be the most hurt. Someone who is unfaithful might feel fear and put on a front, but the woman who loves her partner and would never do that would be hurt and confused.
> 
> What if your partner asked you to have regular STD tests done because they didn't trust you not to cheat? Would you not be even a little insulted at the assumption that you are a faithless scumbag?


To be asked that as a one off, yes you are right.

But if DNA testing was part of the maternity package that the hospital was required by law to give, I don't see how that would be insulting to you.

If I go somewhere and I am the only person asked to show my ID, yes I would consider that racist and insulting. However, if I saw that everyone is asked to show their ID, I would think that that's not only fair but also reassuring.

I hope that you are not refusing to see the difference just to make your own point.


----------



## Hopefull363 (Feb 13, 2012)

Deciding to have a child and raise that child is a huge life changer. Women know the child is theirs. Men should have the right to that knowledge as well. Paternity testing should be automatic. Then the accusation will be taken out of the equation. Most people do not go into a marriage thinking infidelity will happen. Yet it does. Men have the right to know with 100% certainty just like women

Jeez doesn't anyone around here watch Maury? (Joking)

Holding women accountable for fraud and automatic testing will never happen. How would the government be able to make men pay for being a victim of fraud then?


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

breeze said:


> I'm a little surprised by the statement that a woman who didn't have anything to hide wouldn't care if she was asked by her partner to have a paternity test. Do you really think having your integrity questioned by someone who you thought loved and trusted you more than any other person on the planet would not mean anything? I think it's the person who is the most trustworthy who would be the most hurt. Someone who is unfaithful might feel fear and put on a front, but the woman who loves her partner and would never do that would be hurt and confused.
> 
> What if your partner asked you to have regular STD tests done because they didn't trust you not to cheat? Would you not be even a little insulted at the assumption that you are a faithless scumbag?



:iagree:

I have nothing to hide, as my husband is our son's father, but I would still be highly insulted if he questioned that. It would definitely take a toll on our marriage if he brought that up. I'd rather not to unnecessary testing that can be costly.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Vega said:


> Men are not the only ones who can get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't theirs. WOMEN can get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't theirs, too!
> 
> Consider a married man who cheats on his wife and gets his affair partner pregnant. The AP has a DNA test and the child is determined to be his.
> 
> ...


The caveat is that should she chose to divorce and remarry, she doesnt 'lose' anything.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Cost isn't a big factor. $100 is cheap for peace of mind. Amazon.com: STK Paternity Test Kit: Health & Personal Care

In a marriage, it can create problems to even bring this up, but I don't think it should. Men can just have the test done (they don't need permission when marriage creates the presumption that they are the father) and not bring it up unless the results indicate a problem. Birth certificates can be delayed in some places. It's far easier to get it right the first time than it is to amend, and if you're married it often requires a court order to NOT be assumed/listed as the biological father.

If you're not married, then by default I think most men should ask for one before allowing themselves to be listed on the birth certificate or assume parental responsibility.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Vega said:


> Just because SOME woman will cheat and/or try to hang their partner for the financial/emotional responsibility for "his" child doesn't mean ALL women do this.


If 10% of skittles were poisoned and would kill you upon ingestion, would you reach into a bowl and eat a handful?



Vega said:


> If a man doesn't want to get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't his, then perhaps he should learn how to make better choices when it comes to WHO he'll be having sex with.


Yes because women that do that have a clearly visible warning label. /s

It's ok to say you dont care.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> I know.. isn't it great? I can go out and steal, murder, commit all kinds of crimes just because I'm a woman and am not held responsible for anything.
> 
> 
> > Life is grand.


Kind of. You *will* get a significantly lesser sentence if you get found guilty.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Holland said:


> I would be the end of a marriage for me if a paternity test were asked for. I am an honest, non cheating woman and would view a man that asked for a paternity test as weak and of low morals, why else would he suspect me of cheating?


On the contrary, how strong is your marriage that simply requesting a paternity test will destroy it?

Being one question away from a divorce is a bad marriage IMO.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

NextTimeAround said:


> My sister's roommate at college tried it on her long distance boyfriend. the timing was so off as to be obvious.
> 
> If paternity tests were mandatory, fewer women would try it on. Maybe even fewer men would fool around with married women or at least insist on practicing safe sex with her.
> 
> ...


If it mandatory DNA tests were the law, then no one is being insulted because it's across the board.

What's insulting is when a husbands accuse the 97%-99% of wives who are not pulling paternity fraud of cheating. 



NextTimeAround said:


> There have been mix ups at birth in the hospitals from time to time, at least a routine paternity test would prevent that from happening as well.


Yes there have been mix-ups that result in babies being swapped. I don’t think that DNA tests will prevent that. The hospital knows 100% which woman every baby comes from. Yet mix ups occur once in a blue moon, probably less than .01% of the time.

If the hospital cannot keep babies straight when they know who the mothers are, then I doubt that they can keep it straight ever after a DNA test.




NextTimeAround said:


> And quite often, black women who have white husbands and therefore, fair skinned children, get accused all the time for kidnapping their own kids. Imagine how insulting that is.


Taking a big stretch here. There is no comparison between a husband demanding a DNA test because he’s accusing his wife of cheating and some stranger on the street thinking that a woman kidnapped her own child.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> Taking a big stretch here. There is no comparison between a husband demanding a DNA test because he’s accusing his wife of cheating and some stranger on the street thinking that a woman kidnapped her own child.


You are wrong. There are reports of women who are held up in immigration for hours while background checks are made on them and their children.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Constable Odo said:


> A paternity test for any children I father is a standard clause in all my prenups, and I would recommend to all men, as I do my sons, they insist it be in theirs as well.


Do you also put in clauses in your prenups that say what the penalty is if you fathered a child outside the marriage with another women? It only makes sense that this should also be part of every prenup.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> Do you also put in clauses in your prenups that say what the penalty is if you father a child outside the marriage with another women? It only makes sense that this should also be part of every prenup.


That wouldn't work if the penalty were purely monetary or any other way asset based. 

The husband will be liable for child support to out of wedlock child and most likely will be based on the household income (ie both husband's and wife's income and wealth). Not to mention time taken away from the primary wife and family to do visitation.

As I said before, if paternity tests were SOP at the maternity ward, then men would be more careful about how they go about their sexual extra curricular activities instead of assuming that the chump husband will pick up the bill.


----------



## Clay2013 (Oct 30, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Do you also put in clauses in your prenups that say what the penalty is if you father a child outside the marriage with another women? It only makes sense that this should also be part of every prenup.


You know honestly I would not have a problem with a woman demanding some conditions in a prenup as well. I personally don't think cheating is right under and condition. I also feel all children should be dna tested regardless. I understand why women feel that they are being questioned but sadly in this day and age I feel it just has to be done. 

There is no recourse for a man to find out years after raising someone elses child. Sure he built a bond with that child but its clear he was lied to believe it was his. A woman will never have that as a concern. 

C


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> Taking a big stretch here. There is no comparison between a husband demanding a DNA test because he’s accusing his wife of cheating and some stranger on the street thinking that a woman kidnapped her own child.





NextTimeAround said:


> You are wrong. There are reports of women who are held up in immigration for hours while background checks are made on them and their children.


No I am not wrong. I did say that some women are suspected of kidnapping because their child(ren) do not have their same coloring/features. What I did say is quoted above. IT’s the difference between having the person who you thought loved you accusing you of infidelity and some stranger having suspicions. There is a big difference.

My mother had 8 children. We have a wide range of complexion, from blond blue eyed, to red head, to olive skin + black hair to dark skinned. I heard people joke that my mother had a lot of different mail men. Some did not believe that we were all one family. But there were idiots and easy to ignore.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

NextTimeAround said:


> That wouldn't work if the penalty were purely monetary or any other way asset based.
> 
> The husband will be liable for child support to out of wedlock child and most likely will be based on the household income (ie both husband's and wife's income and wealth). Not to mention time taken away from the primary wife and family to do visitation.


Yea, adding some other penalties would be a good idea.. any suggestions? 



NextTimeAround said:


> As I said before, if paternity tests were SOP at the maternity ward, then men would be more careful about how they go about their sexual extra curricular activities instead of assuming that the chump husband will pick up the bill.


It might or it might not. Men and women are notoriously stupid in decisions dealing with sex. If they were not few people would cheat and there would be few children born to single mothers who had no way to support the children.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Vega said:


> Men are not the only ones who can get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't theirs. WOMEN can get 'stuck' paying for a child that isn't theirs, too!


Yeah, but its a pretty safe bet a woman knows whether or not a child she squeezed out is hers or not, wouldn't you say? Or, are there a large number of women popping out kids that are not theirs? I suspect hearing a woman say "I 'HE HE HE HO''d for 28 hours only to find out the little bastard wasn't mine after all!" isn't something that occurs all that often.

Family Courts rarely hold a woman accountable for paying child support for their husbands' children from a previous marriage/relationship. I'm sure there are a handful of cases out there, but they are so incredibly rare your chances of hitting MegaMillions is likely better.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> My mother had 8 children. We have a wide range of complexion, from blond blue eyed, to red head, to olive skin + black hair to dark skinned. I heard people joke that my mother had a lot of different mail men. Some did not believe that we were all one family.* But there were idiots and easy to ignore.*


but it's easy to ignore an immigration official? 

A policeman is easy to ignore when they're called to investigate possible kidnapping?

Really?


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> Do you also put in clauses in your prenups that say what the penalty is if you father a child outside the marriage with another women? It only makes sense that this should also be part of every prenup.


That would be a clause inserted by my SO, but I'm okay with it. She insists on a "no cheating" clause. I'm okay with that, because she's so incredibly hot the thought of cheating on her with another woman is the furthest thing from my mind. She doesn't have the option of letting herself go, either, and become so sexually unattractive like many wives do, because the standard BMI clause I also have written into pre-nups requires her to maintain a BMI of under 10, otherwise its grounds for immediate divorce and loss of all rights granted under the pre-nup.

And if you think I'm joking, I'm not.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

NextTimeAround said:


> but it's easy to ignore an immigration official?


In america, sadly, yes. Hence "sanctuary cities"


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

weightlifter said:


> In France and ?Germany? It's illegal. Peace of the family or some such. Yikes.


At least there is a greater social welfare net in those countries.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Constable Odo said:


> In america, sadly, yes. Hence "sanctuary cities"


What do you mean by sanctuary cities?

Never mean been held up by an immigration officer. And don't want to be. Can't imagine that anyone else would be want to be either. imagine having your own country not trust you.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

NextTimeAround said:


> What do you mean by sanctuary cities?


The term, Sanctuary city is given to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to shelter illegal immigrants. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto).

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Way off topic.

Immigration officers are non-existent in those cities, and law enforcement are forbidden by local authorities to ask your immigration status.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Constable Odo said:


> The term, Sanctuary city is given to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies *designed to shelter illegal immigrants. *These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto).
> 
> Sanctuary city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
> ...


We're not talking about women carrying fake passports or traveling without one. We're talking about government officials who are doubting whether these women have the right to travel with the children who are with them.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

A lot more than 1 to 3% of married women cheat BTW.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

NextTimeAround said:


> We're not talking about women carrying fake passports or traveling without one. We're talking about government officials who are doubting whether these women have the right to travel with the children who are with them.


True, but I guess my point was you're unlikely to find an immigration official in many American cities anyway.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Mr. Nail said:


> As to the insult of being asked for a test. It is akin to getting insulted at being asked to show ID when buying medication, cashing a check, or purchasing alcohol. Protecting one inocent is not accusing another. But, we will obviously have to overcome some serious inertia before such a test could become routine.
> MN


Sorry, but that comparison is silly. We are not offended by those things because they are done by folks who genuinely do not know us.

But when a loved one accuses us, it of course hurts. To pretend otherwise is to be obtuse.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

You can choose how you look at it - either as an insult, or confirmation of your virtue. You can also look at it as providing peace of mind for your husband, and agree out of love and caring for his well-being.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Sorry, but that comparison is silly. We are not offended by those things because they are done by folks who genuinely do not know us.
> 
> But when a loved one accuses us, it of course hurts. To pretend otherwise is to be obtuse.


So what you are saying is that if it was a general public safety (government) requirement, then it wouldn't be hurtful. I think most proponents of testing agree. Odo is more agressive at protecting himself. Most wounded animals will be.

The fact is that in any relationship there is a possibility of betrayal. I do check my wifes Cell phone. I even look at her bill from time to time. Is that accusing her, or protecting myself? and try this one on for size; If I am more secure in my relationship with her doesn't that protect her? Wild thought.
MN


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Having a paternity test is not the same as accusing the mother of cheating. There is a real non-zero possibility any man is not the father of his wife's children. Contrary to a previous poster's data, I have seen multiple studies showing false paternity running in the high single digit percents. Regardless of the %, the more children within the marriage, the higher the chance of false paternity. False paternity crosses all socio-economic lines. So we can't claim false paternity mostly happens with single welfare moms, or some other demographic outside of the wide majority.

Furthermore, we know somewhere around 30% to 50% of women will cheat. So it is certainly not a rare thing.

Are we accusing our spouses of cheating when we share passwords or ask them where they were when they come home later than expected?

Personally, I will be having a private test done on my son's children to establish they are my grandchildren. The test would then cover him as the father. I don't think most young men would ask for a paternity test, they're blind to the possibility of false paternity with their wife.


----------



## Hopeful Cynic (Apr 27, 2014)

If we want men to be responsible for every baby their sperm makes (see instances of men being ordered to pay child support for babies they didn't intend to conceive, because the woman manipulated things) then we also must be able to give them 100% certainty that every child someone purports is theirs actually is. The only way to do that in a neutral non-accusatory fashion is standard, mandatory testing.


----------



## Maneo (Dec 4, 2012)

Thor said:


> Regardless of the %, the more children within the marriage, the higher the chance of false paternity.


Where do you guys come up with this stuff? It is a real hoot except I think there are some of you deadly serious about this stuff. How dark your world must be.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Maneo said:


> Where do you guys come up with this stuff? It is a real hoot except I think there are some of you deadly serious about this stuff. How dark your world must be.


A published study 2 or 3 years ago. Numerous studies have established a range of percentages for false paternity. The specific study also showed false paternity crosses all lines, and in fact the more children within a family where the husband is the presumed father, the higher the chance one or more are not his bio children.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

I am quite concerned about the government or insurance companies using the dna for other purposes. At this time I would prefer for the testing to not be mandatory for married couples.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

NextTimeAround said:


> but it's easy to ignore an immigration official?
> 
> A policeman is easy to ignore when they're called to investigate possible kidnapping?
> 
> Really?


You are twisting my words.

If a white women with a baby who appeared oriental, and I had snuck over the southern US border, the immigration folks would be ding DNA tests on me and my child too.

I will repeat it one more time. There is a huge different between a husband accusing his wife of infidelity by telling her that he's going to DNA test the on the their new baby, and the boarder patrol doing routine checks on illegal immigrants.

The difference is that the husband is saying very clearly that he does not trust his wife and thinks that she has cheated and is trying to get him to raise a baby conceived in an affair.

The second is boarder patrol making sure that no one is moving someone else's child across that boarder illegally.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Constable Odo said:


> That would be a clause inserted by my SO, but I'm okay with it. She insists on a "no cheating" clause. I'm okay with that, because she's so incredibly hot the thought of cheating on her with another woman is the furthest thing from my mind. She doesn't have the option of letting herself go, either, and become so sexually unattractive like many wives do, because the standard BMI clause I also have written into pre-nups requires her to maintain a BMI of under 10, otherwise its grounds for immediate divorce and loss of all rights granted under the pre-nup.
> 
> And if you think I'm joking, I'm not.


I have no doubt that you are not joking. It does not surprise me at all that you would do this.

Does she have a clause in there for you letting your self get old, out of shape and in poor health? Sure hope she does, because you know, like so many husbands do?

Suppose she comes own with a really bad case of something like hypothyroid and the meds do not work (they seldom really do). So she puts on weight above that BMI? You going to dump her I guess. Now that's love :surprise:


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

NextTimeAround said:


> What do you mean by sanctuary cities?
> 
> Never mean been held up by an immigration officer. And don't want to be. Can't imagine that anyone else would be want to be either. imagine having your own country not trust you.


Sanctuary cities exist all over the country. For example San Francisco is one. They generally refuse to follow immigration laws and do not cooperate with the US Government on immigration issues.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

I've read stories where people find out that their dad isn't their biological parent and it causes emotional trauma and resentment (EDIT: toward their mother for hiding it). I know I would be feel betrayed by my mom to find out my dad wasn't my biological dad. I don't think moms want their grown kids to have that resentment, I don't think kids want to resent their mom, and I don't think men want to feel tricked either. So there's motive from all directions for paternity to be known sooner rather than later and in a non-confrontation way. Just as a standard part of the process.

It wouldn't change how I see him at all but it would change how I see her.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Mr. Nail said:


> Years ago I had a female employee who insisted that it was a fact that ALL men cheated.


I"m not your female employee from years ago so I have no idea what she has to do with me.



Mr. Nail said:


> Ele here is insisting that 97 -99% of married women are 100% faithful.


Reading comprehension is your friend. I did not say what you claim. Here is what I actually said.


EleGirl said:


> What's insulting is when a husbands accuse the 97%-99% of wives who are not pulling paternity fraud of cheating.


There is a difference between the percentage of women who cheat and the percentage of women who cheat and who get pregnant by the affair partner and who pull maternity fraud.



Mr. Nail said:


> Way back when, I decided that my employee was probably wrong. Her hypothysis lead to some unlikely corrilaries. If all men Cheat but not all women. then either there are a few women who are performing the role of affair partner with many men, or the men are cheating with other cheating men.


You forgot about single women. A single woman who is having an affair with a marriage man is not cheating. One can only cheat if they are married.

You also forgot about the huge sex-for-hire industry that has always existed for men. About 14% of men say that they have paid for sex at some point in their lives. Most men who admit using prostitutes are married men.


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> I've read stories where people find out that their dad isn't their biological parent and it causes so much emotional trauma and resentment. I know I would be floored to find out my dad wasn't my biological dad. I don't think moms want their grown kids to have that resentment, I don't think kids want to resent their mom, and I don't think men want to feel tricked either. So there's motive from all directions for paternity to be known sooner rather than later and in a non-confrontation way. Just as a standard part of the process.


Really?!?

If I found out my dad was not my biological father it would make absolutely zero difference in how I feel about him or view him. He has been an amazing hands on dad, one who coached my soccer team, took me to dance class, and was always there for me. Being blood related doesn't somehow make him "better" or anything like that. I don't at all understand that thought process that somehow not being blood related revokes all they have done in raising the child. It doesn't make any sense.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

*
‘Who’s Your Daddy?’ DNA Testing Truck Comes to Downtown Boston*


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Mr. Nail said:


> About the cost of DNA testing. If a test can be had on Amazon for $100.00, that would be a reasonable cost. The trouble I'm seeing is that it would probably be unacceptable for legal purposes. Chain of evidence for starters. The question would be if we could get an acceptable test down to a reasonable price. If their was political will to do this, it could be done.


There were about 3,985,924 births in the USA in 2014.
If everyone used the DNA tests form Amazon.. that would cost the $398,592,400 a years to the US economy.

The more reliable DNA tests used for court proceedings cost about $550
So that would be a cost of about $2,192,258,200 a years to the US economy.

About 48% of births in the USA are covered by Medicaid.
So Medicare costs alone would go up somewhere between $191,324,352 and $1,052,283,936 

Of course that does not cover things like doctor and administrative costs to handle the tests and the reporting.

So if you are looking for a good industry to buy stocks in or open your own business.. Here’s an idea. Then go lobby congress and the states to make the tests mandatory.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Sorry. But holding ALL married women/women in a committed relationship under the microscope of "cheating as a POSSIBILITY" doesn't warrant a DNA test for ALL children born. 

Just because it's POSSIBLE doesn't mean anything. Lots of things are "possible". It's possible that I'll be raped tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to avoid ALL men because of the POSSIBILITY of being raped. 

I could be robbed at gunpoint...but that doesn't mean that I'm going to hunker down in my home with the doors locked, and build a moat stocked with alligators because of the "possibility". 

Choosing to marry a partner is more than love. It's FAITH-based, which means that you've learned enough about your partner to WANT to marry them based on the behaviors that you've witnessed. 

Got nothing against DNA testing....IF there's a REASON to do so. I know a lot of men can _manufacture_ 'reasons', but I also know that quite a number of them really had no reason to doubt in the first place.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> A lot more than 1 to 3% of married women cheat BTW.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not one person on this thread said that 1%-3% of women cheat.

What was said is that about 1% - 3% of babies born to a wife are her husband's biological child.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> Not one person on this thread said that 1%-3% of women cheat.
> 
> What was said is that about 1% - 3% of babies born to a wife are NOT her husband's biological child.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Anonymous07 said:


> Really?!?
> 
> If I found out my dad was not my biological father it would make absolutely zero difference in how I feel about him or view him. He has been an amazing hands on dad, one who coached my soccer team, took me to dance class, and was always there for me. Being blood related doesn't somehow make him "better" or anything like that. I don't at all understand that thought process that somehow not being blood related revokes all they have done in raising the child. It doesn't make any sense.


The resentment I've read about and would feel would be toward my mom. Not my dad. Maybe I should have specified that in my comment. It was clear in my own head though .


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> There were about 3,985,924 births in the USA in 2014.
> If everyone used the DNA tests form Amazon.. that would cost the $398,592,400 a years to the US economy.
> 
> The more reliable DNA tests used for court proceedings cost about $550
> ...


It's worth pointing out that, as the tests become more pervasive, the cost for a test would very likely drop somewhat significantly.

And hey... it would create jobs!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

GusPolinski said:


> It's worth pointing out that, as the tests become more pervasive, the cost for a test would very likely drop somewhat significantly.
> 
> And, and it would create jobs!


I know huh? While the test would be cheating... the job creation would be huge. It could save our country. It could get everyone back to work.

Has anyone suggested this is Obama and Congress yet?

>


----------



## ExiledBayStater (Feb 16, 2013)

If I want a paternity test, I will ask for one. Then I will sleep on the couch for an indefinite period of time.

I don't need lawmakers telling me that I need one. I trust my wife implicitly, even if they don't.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ExiledBayStater said:


> If I want a paternity test, I will ask for one. Then I will sleep on the couch for an indefinite period of time.
> 
> I don't need lawmakers telling me that I need one. I trust my wife implicitly, even if they don't.


EXACT-A-MUNDO! 

I've been burned a few times with cheating men. Does that mean that I shouldn't trust ANY man??? That ALL men are under 'suspicion' of the POSSIBILITY of cheating, even tho they haven't demonstrated any cheating 'behaviors'?


----------



## Maneo (Dec 4, 2012)

paternity testing is a necessary option to have for those who desire it or need it or want it. The necessity of mandatory testing for all is not supported by the available statistically valid evidence. In other words, the magnitude of false paternity is small enough it doesn't justify the expense of implementing a mandated testing regimen. New advances in DNA testing are making do-it-yourself testing affordable and reliable enough that anyone with a desire to know can do so. The skewed population of this forum where discussions of infidelity and divorce are major themes is hardly representative of the general public on this topic.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

- Routine testing? Good. 
- Mandatory testing? Bad.
- Utilizing technologies? Good.
- Mandating technologies? Bad.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Not one person on this thread said that 1%-3% of women cheat.
> 
> What was said is that about 1% - 3% of babies born to a wife are her husband's biological child.


Apologies then Ele.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

anonim said:


> On the contrary, how strong is your marriage that simply requesting a paternity test will destroy it?
> 
> Being one question away from a divorce is a bad marriage IMO.


Quite the opposite. Being considered a cheater simply by virtue of my gender is the realm of a weak man's mind, weak men are very unappealing. Not having to ask the question in the first place is a good marriage in the making.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

This surely is a strange thread full of all sorts of issues that are so outside my normal little life.

No way would I ever support something like mandatory paternity tests (and fortunately I doubt many people in Aus would go down that path). To label a whole gender as a cheater until proven innocent is a despicable concept. 

Financial Binding Agreements are the usual where I live for second and subsequent marriages but putting in things like BMI etc is just so freaking bizarre. 

Maybe when we sign our FBA I could add in there that he must not lose his hair (like most men do) and he must be able to satisfy me sexually 5 times a week at a minimum (which most men don't do as they get older). On second thoughts, protecting financial assets is wise, controlling another human being to the point of what happens to their body as they age is controlling and very unloving, not the sort of world I would ever want to live in.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

NextTimeAround said:


> To be asked that as a one off, yes you are right.
> 
> But if DNA testing was part of the maternity package that the hospital was required by law to give, I don't see how that would be insulting to you.
> 
> ...


You obviously didn't read my post previous to that, and you've missed the point of my question to the other poster. What I said has nothing to do with making it mandatory for everyone. It is addressing the assumption that a woman wouldn't be offended by her partner asking her if she had nothing to hide. Please don't take my post out of context to make your own point.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> I know huh? While the test would be cheating... the job creation would be huge. It could save our country. It could get everyone back to work.
> 
> Has anyone suggested this is Obama and Congress yet?
> 
> >


Don't be so snarky about it. What's your opinion about trans vaginal sonograms that some (republican) states require women to have before getting an abortion.

Do you think that idea is smarter than Gus's?


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

Holland said:


> This surely is a strange thread full of all sorts of issues that are so outside my normal little life.
> 
> No way would I ever support something like mandatory paternity tests (and fortunately I doubt many people in Aus would go down that path). To label a whole gender as a cheater until proven innocent is a despicable concept.


To be honest, most of our laws are created for the reason that *some* of us are liars/murderers/thieves/bad etc. I'd have a lot to get offended about if I took every law personally.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

We are all sitting on a hotbed of a forum where the predominantly active forum is CWI. 

And the thread has quite a number of members feeling they would be greatly offended if their spouse asked for a paternity test. 

It's been assumed by many that the reason would primarily be because of mistrust or an assumption or suspected cheating. This is but ONE reason a paternity test may be requested. 

If my SO told me that he wanted to have a paternity test done, I'd say by all means do. I wouldn't be offended because after spending a few years on TAM, plus going through my own experiences, I've come to understand that bad things do and can happen. We want to live in a world where we can be trusted, when there are those who care little for trust and ruin it for us all. We have laws to keep order, yet we know they'll be broken or circumvented at the soonest possibility by enough people, and the law will get tougher on all,regardless of the fact that the "good" people did no wrong. 

My feeling is, if you want to live in a world of trust, offer up your accountability and see what it nets you. If a distrustful spouse asking for a paternity test is offensive to you, understand that it may become offensive for others to be held accountable for things you feel are important for in establishing accountability.

I'd love my SO more for being cerebral about the world we live in, and I hope he would come to trust me more by being the same...being open to fulfilling his request without creating resentment where none should exist.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

It's a bit of a pointless debate. If you have the sort of relationship where you both know your children are yours without doubt the question wouldn't be asked anyway, so no one would get offended. If you have the sort of relationship where there is doubt, either because you caused doubt, or because your partner trusts no one, then the question may be asked and it shouldn't come as a surprise.

Honestly, if DH turned around tomorrow and asked for a test, I'd suspect a brain injury of some sort and take him to the doctor. It's about as likely as a dinosaur walking by my window, and I think I'd be just as shocked.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> Does she have a clause in there for you letting your self get old, out of shape and in poor health? Sure hope she does, because you know, like so many husbands do?


If she wants one in there, that's okay with me. I already know that I have to remain hot and appealing, not only for her, but for other women to appreciate me as eye candy as well. Keeping myself in shape ensures she will work harder and not let herself go too, knowing the possibility is always there if she lets herself go I'll just find another, hotter woman to replace her with. There's always another, hotter woman out there, just as there is always another, hotter male too. Like Juan, the pool boy.

Evolutionary biology at its finest.




> Suppose she comes own with a really bad case of something like hypothyroid and the meds do not work (they seldom really do). So she puts on weight above that BMI? You going to dump her I guess. Now that's love :surprise:


Certainly I'd have the option to exercise that clause if I so wanted to. To be fair, though, I'd likely sell the couch and replace it with a few pieces of equipment for a home gym so she could work harder at getting hot again. And stop buying bon-bons.




Anonymous07 said:


> If I found out my dad was not my biological father it would make absolutely zero difference in how I feel about him or view him.


You don't feel you would feel some resentment towards your mother for deceiving you of the possibility of a relationship with your true biological parent? 

I have an cousin who my uncle adopted in his second marriage. My cousin knows her biological father, but thinks of my uncle as "dad", because he raised her from the age of 7.

However, she was not deprived of the ability to know her biological father by her mother, or deceived into thinking a man who was not her biological father was.




EleGirl said:


> If everyone used the DNA tests form Amazon.. that would cost the $398,592,400 a years to the US economy.


If tests were mandatory, or more people started using them, the costs would come down significantly. All one has to do is look at the cost of mt and Y DNA testing over the past few years, which has dropped significantly. Now companies are offering much lower costs for more comprehensive STR and individual SNP tests as well.





ExiledBayStater said:


> I trust my wife implicitly, even if they don't.


You and hundreds of thousands of other men in divorce court have trusted their wives "implicitly". Good luck with that.




Holland said:


> Maybe when we sign our FBA I could add in there that he must not lose his hair (like most men do) and he must be able to satisfy me sexually 5 times a week at a minimum (which most men don't do as they get older).


If those things are important to you (a man who can please you sexually 5 times per week and has a full head of hair) then by all means you should stipulate it. Otherwise, you are settling for less than what you truly want, and in the long term, your relationship will be doomed, as each time you look at your husband you will resent him more and more. Eventually, you will either cheat, or divorce him anyway, so the net effect is the same in the long run.

It is far more fair to him, and to yourself, to stipulate these things up front, so everyone knows exactly where they stand, what the requirements are, and what happens if your needs aren't met. 

This way, there can be no hard feelings. He knows what is expected of him, and vice versa.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Women Against Paternity Fraud: Women Against Paternity Fraud - How Many Paternity Fraud Victims?

Men are victims, and the laws are stacked against them.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

My feeling is that the state will rarely require a paternity test because they want to ensure that the newborn will be taken care of.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

NextTimeAround said:


> My feeling is that the state will rarely require a paternity test because they want to ensure that the newborn will be taken care of.


Of course. The State won't prosecute a woman for knowingly lying when lists a man whom she knows isn't the father on a birth certificate, despite the fact it is perjury to do so. Just like they won't prosecute a woman for falsely accusing a man of other crimes, like domestic violence, child abuse, etc.

Doing so would result in the D.A. being labelled as "anti-woman" in the next election cycle.

...when politics trumps the truth...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Constable Odo said:


> That would be a clause inserted by my SO, but I'm okay with it. She insists on a "no cheating" clause. I'm okay with that, because she's so incredibly hot the thought of cheating on her with another woman is the furthest thing from my mind. She doesn't have the option of letting herself go, either, and become so sexually unattractive like many wives do, because the standard BMI clause *I also have written into pre-nups requires her to maintain a BMI of under 10, otherwise its grounds for immediate divorce and loss of all rights granted under the pre-nup*.
> 
> And if you think I'm joking, I'm not.


Is your fiance an anorexic on life support? Assuming she's 5'4, *she'd have to weigh approximately 60 lbs* to maintain a BMI of 10. :surprise:


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

Ironically, I was not offended when I had to 'admit' to be the father of my boys at the hospital...


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> The resentment I've read about and would feel would be toward my mom. Not my dad. Maybe I should have specified that in my comment. It was clear in my own head though .





Constable Odo said:


> You don't feel you would feel some resentment towards your mother for deceiving you of the possibility of a relationship with your true biological parent?
> 
> I have an cousin who my uncle adopted in his second marriage. My cousin knows her biological father, but thinks of my uncle as "dad", because he raised her from the age of 7.
> 
> However, she was not deprived of the ability to know her biological father by her mother, or deceived into thinking a man who was not her biological father was.


Nope. I would not feel resentment toward my mom. Being a blood parent doesn't somehow make them special. I trust my mom would do what was in my best interest. 

I have family members who are adopted. They're not somehow different because we're not genetically related, we're all family. None of them care that they don't know they're biological parents. What they care about is that they are in a loving family. Blood relation does not matter. 

I like the saying "any man can be a father, but it takes someone special to be a dad". Being a sperm donor doesn't make the guy a dad. If the guy truly wants to be in the child's life, he will be and can fight to be apart of it.


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

Vega said:


> I've been burned a few times with cheating men. Does that mean that I shouldn't trust ANY man??? That ALL men are under 'suspicion' of the POSSIBILITY of cheating, even tho they haven't demonstrated any cheating 'behaviors'?


Same here. I've been cheated on before, but I don't put that past hurt on my husband, as he has done nothing wrong. Why should I punish my husband for my loser ex's behavior? I don't assume all men cheat like my ex did and see no reason to suspect my husband. I trust him. 

I would expect that same trust from my husband, as I have given no reason for him to suspect me of anything like that. It would be insulting if he did accuse me of such actions.


----------



## thefam (Sep 9, 2014)

Anonymous07 said:


> Nope. I would not feel resentment toward my mom. Being a blood parent doesn't somehow make them special. I trust my mom would do what was in my best interest.
> 
> I have family members who are adopted. They're not somehow different because we're not genetically related, we're all family. None of them care that they don't know they're biological parents. What they care about is that they are in a loving family. Blood relation does not matter.
> 
> I like the saying "any man can be a father, but it takes someone special to be a dad". Being a sperm donor doesn't make the guy a dad. If the guy truly wants to be in the child's life, he will be and can fight to be apart of it.


I know of a few people who got this revealed to them. It bothered every one of them. That's a wonderful sentiment to have but when you're blind sided with it, chances are it won't be all sunshine and roses.

The cost of mandatory testing could easily be absorbed into the economy. Like how easily we absorbed cell phones cable and the internet. And those are ongoing never ending costs. My grandmothers and older aunties never had sonagrams so that’s another cost that's been absorbed into having babies. 

And all the arguing in this thread about being insulted by your SO would be out the window if it is mandatory. There is a lot more I could say about the ugliness of the paternity question (the number of young girls having babies by family members forcing themselves on them, women who honestly don't know who the father is or thought they knew but had the timing off). The world may not be messy in some of our corners of the world but that doesn't mean it's not messy in others. Those are usually the demographic that doesn't make it into the statistical samplingl.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

Lila said:


> Is your fiance an anorexic on life support? Assuming she's 5'4, *she'd have to weigh approximately 60 lbs* to maintain a BMI of 10. :surprise:


Hah I think he meant 20.

18.5-25 is "optimal" AFAIK.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Satya said:


> Hah I think he meant 20.
> 
> 18.5-25 is "optimal" AFAIK.


:laugh::wink2:


----------



## naiveonedave (Jan 9, 2014)

I kinda question the stats of 1-3%. If 30+% of women cheat (this is just the # I recall, so correct me if I am wrong), I would think there would be closer to 10+% paternity fraud.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Thor said:


> Having a paternity test is not the same as accusing the mother of cheating.


How is it not doing that?



> There is a real non-zero possibility any man is not the father of his wife's children.


If she is cheating.



> Contrary to a previous poster's data, I have seen multiple studies showing false paternity running in the high single digit percents. Regardless of the %, the more children within the marriage, the higher the chance of false paternity. False paternity crosses all socio-economic lines. So we can't claim false paternity mostly happens with single welfare moms, or some other demographic outside of the wide majority.
> 
> Furthermore, we know somewhere around 30% to 50% of women will cheat. So it is certainly not a rare thing.
> 
> ...


LOL. I particularly enjoy how you use PC language in place of cheating. As if there is another possibility for how that baby ends up not being your son's.

I am not advocating that someone test or not test. That is up to them. There are reasons to do so.

But quit pretending that it is not going to insult a lot of wives. Because at a time of joy, it is saying I don't trust you enough to take your word and I have to protect myself. Some women will accept that. But others won't.

Own what you are doing and don't demand that your actions won't have consequences.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

naiveonedave said:


> I kinda question the stats of 1-3%. If 30+% of women cheat (this is just the # I recall, so correct me if I am wrong), I would think there would be closer to 10+% paternity fraud.





> A 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence, around the world, from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%).[2] However, as many of the studies were conducted between the 1950s and the 1980s, some numbers may not be reliable due to inaccuracies in the scientific testing methods and procedures used at the time. The latest studies, ranging in date from 1991 to 1999, quote the follow incidence rates: 4.0% (Canada), 2.8% (France), 1.4% and 1.6% (UK), and 11.8% (Mexico), 0.8% (Switzerland).[2] These numbers suggest that the widely quoted and unsubstantiated figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate. However, this number may have been inaccurately circulated due to the following: *in studies that solely looked at couples who obtained paternity testing because paternity was being disputed, there are higher levels; an incidence of 17% to 33% (median of 26.9%)*. Most at risk were those born to younger parents, to unmarried couples and those of lower socio-economic status, or from certain cultural groups.[3]
> 
> A 2008 study in the United Kingdom found that fathers were wrongly identified in 0.2% (1 in 500) of the cases processed by the Child Support Agency. Of that 0.2%, those resolved with DNA testing between 2004 and 2008 showed that between 10 and 19% of mothers had deliberately named the wrong father; none of the women were prosecuted.[3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

GusPolinski said:


> It's worth pointing out that, as the tests become more pervasive, the cost for a test would very likely drop somewhat significantly.
> 
> And, and it would create jobs!


It will also increase the number of false positives (or in this case negatives). Lot's of heart ache and accusations when a screw up occurs at a lab (and that will happen).


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Tall Average Guy said:


> It will also increase the number of false positives (or in this case negatives). Lot's of heart ache and accusations when a screw up occurs at a lab (and that will happen).


Wouldn't it actually be false negatives? (Edit: Doh... I see you mentioned that. That's what I get for "skimming and scanning".) Anyway, I'm sure it happens now as well.

Anyway, a false negative could trigger a re-test at a different lab.

Invest now, folks!!!


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

thefam said:


> And all the arguing in this thread about being insulted by your SO would be out the window if it is mandatory.


I'm willing to wager many of those arguing against paternity tests would be the first to demand their spouse's cell phone unlock code.




Satya said:


> Hah I think he meant 20.


No, I meant 10  I'm surprised it took someone that long to catch it 




naiveonedave said:


> I kinda question the stats of 1-3%. If 30+% of women cheat (this is just the # I recall, so correct me if I am wrong), I would think there would be closer to 10+% paternity fraud.


There are no accurate statistics on paternity fraud. Most stats I have seen are self-reported, which means the stats will be woefully understated. 

The only way to get an accurate figure would be to randomly test people, without their consent (since those giving consent to be tested would likely not be conducting paternity fraud.)




GusPolinski said:


> Anyway, a false negative could trigger a re-test at a different lab.


For male offspring, it would be easy, you simply look at the Y chromosome inherited from the father. I carry a Y chromosome from my father, who got it from his father, and so on, all the way back to the "patriarchal Adam".

Male/Female testing would be more difficult.


----------



## Maneo (Dec 4, 2012)

Actually, there are a number of studies on paternity using standard scientific rigor including random samples. A little searching of the internet will unearth these studies. The majority of them are well defined in scope and typically appear in fairly obscure scientific journals not generally read by the general public. However, these surveys have been replicated and done across enough different populations to provide some reasonable targets for paternity fraud.

There are also studies of questionable statistical validity or results for reasonable studies taken out of context. These are typically used to support whatever point of view is being advocated. 

Paternity statistics, both valid and questionable, are also combined sometimes with other statistics - estimates of female extramarital relationships, for example - to prove some agenda. These shoot from the hip connections may be unsubstantiated and unsupported but proponents on both sides of the argument use them to try to "prove" their thesis.

Of course, all this playing fast and loose with the statistics ends up as another poster mentioned with little reliability in all paternity statistics. There are valid statistics but they are too often buried in the pile of glittering generalities and false conclusions drawn from numbers merely to support one viewpoint or another. That is not unlike the stream of comments in this thread where people come in with a point of view in search of examples to support their view of reality.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Constable Odo said:


> I'm willing to wager many of those arguing against paternity tests would be the first to demand their spouse's cell phone unlock code.


The argument isn't against paternity tests _in general_; it's against mandatory paternity tests for every birth and/or for a man to ask for a paternity test JUST because a woman he's had sex with becomes pregnant, even if she's given no indication that she's cheated. Personally, I would be highly insulted if my spouse asked for a paternity test when I became pregnant. 

And no...I never demanded my spouse's unlock code to his cell phone. In fact, I never even checked...

If these tests became mandatory, it would seem kind of bizarre that you would trust a woman enough to have unprotected sex with her, to share an income and a house with her, to share your hopes, fears and dreams with her, but if she became pregnant, you suddenly don't trust her. 

Huh?! :scratchhead::slap:

Then again, if you don't trust her enough to believe that any child she conceives is YOURS, then what are you doing having unprotected sex with her in the first place?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

It should not be mandatory but available (and not out of pocket walmart available). I think this is a case where society hasn't caught up with technology yet. Let's face it, most men and a good percentage of women are okay with with standard pat test so long as they aren't mandatory. So it's not such a scary taboo thing for a lawmaker to push at some point. Matter of fact this is more likely to be an issue that will bring someone into office over the incumbent who's playing it safe. IMO we're about a generation away from pat test being one of the normal things that happens in many states. And guess what? The world will keep spinning and 95% of the population will never think twice about it. The small number who it effects will hate it but that's a good thing.

Think about this whole concept of trust. How many people are outraged and offended that hot items are locked behind glass in about every store; or that business's have security cameras; or that teachers don't let everyone mingle during tests; or that credit cards have expiration dates and pins; or that police have radar guns; etc? It's the standard of civilization to protect society from a smaller number of people who would take advantage and we all know who we're annoyed with when it's affects us. We're annoyed with cheaters and thieves and liars and takers in general. This topic isn't much different. Everyone should be angry at the small number of men and women to blame. The man to doesn't step up and the women to pins paternity on someone it's not are both equally to blame for this. Everyone else are victims of this group.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Vega said:


> Personally, I would be highly insulted if my spouse asked for a paternity test when I became pregnant.


That's your right, I suppose. Of course, as a woman, you're not in the position of needing to wonder whether or not a child is yours or not, so naturally your attitude will be remarkably different.



Vega said:


> If these tests became mandatory, it would seem kind of bizarre that you would trust a woman enough to have unprotected sex with her, to share an income and a house with her, to share your hopes, fears and dreams with her, but if she became pregnant, you suddenly don't trust her.


Trust, but verify.

If you feel you have to hide your childs' paternity from your husband, that's your right, I suppose. I can see why a woman would want to reserve the right to deceive her husband.

I have nothing to hide from my SO. If she walks in the door tonight and asks to see my cell phone, I'd hand it to her. She already knows my lock code. I have no secrets from her, or her from me. The paternity of our children is no different.




Thundarr said:


> IMO we're about a generation away from pat test being one of the normal things that happens in many states.


Sorry, you're sadly mistaken on this point. The women's lobby will never allow this to happen. It is not in their vested interest to require paternity tests.

Want to watch the female lobby have their heads spin like something out of an exorcist movie? Start campaigning to have men, en-mass, stop signing their names to birth certificates.

*THEN* watch how fast the women's lobby will demand mandatory paternity tests, even without the husbands' consent.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Constable Odo said:


> That's your right, I suppose. Of course, as a woman, you're not in the position of needing to wonder whether or not a child is yours or not, so naturally your attitude will be remarkably different.


My attitude is NOT about me being a woman; it's about me working my butt off for over 50 years to be a TRUSTWORTHY, *HONEST* woman. 

Most of cheating does NOT result in pregnancy. And even though STI's are epidemic, most of the time, cheaters do NOT contract them. But unless either of these two possibilities occur, there is no medical 'test' to determine if a man (or woman) has been cheating. 

But imagine if there WAS such a test available. Would my husband/partner be insulted or at least saddened if I INSISTED on a random 'cheaters test' for HIM simply because SOME people cheat? 

Once again, it's not that I don't believe in DNA testing for paternity. I just don't believe in doing so because of some inconclusive 'statistics' or 'just because'. There's got to be a more valid reason than that! 

I mean, it's fine to want to protect yourself, but at what point does self-protection become mere _paranoia_?



> If you feel you have to hide your childs' paternity from your husband, that's your right, I suppose.


This is not about "hiding" anything. My husband knew he was the father of his children well before he even cut the cord!


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> IMO we're about a generation away from pat test being one of the normal things that happens in many states.
> 
> 
> Constable Odo said:
> ...


First off you inserted a nasty little word all of your own (Mandatory). Really that means your reply doesn't say anything about my actual comment. But let's lose that word from the comment and if we're not talking about mandates; you'd think such a powerful and evil lobby would have prevented purchase of paternity tests in the first place. They would have prevented the alleged fathers from being able to even request a test via the courts. For that matter they would have push for legislation that no test is needed because whoever the mother says is the father is just stuck with no means to contest.

No "The Woman" isn't holding us down. It just takes time. The paternity snowball is already rolling. We can already contest paternity so it's not that much of a leap to make it common.


----------



## Laila8 (Apr 24, 2013)

I would not be offended in the least. DH and I have four kids. If he asked for a paternity test, I would not be insulted. I have nothing to hide, and I believe in the policy of "trust but verify."


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Vega said:


> The argument isn't against paternity tests _in general_; it's against mandatory paternity tests for every birth and/or for a man to ask for a paternity test JUST because a woman he's had sex with becomes pregnant, even if she's given no indication that she's cheated. Personally, I would be highly insulted if my spouse asked for a paternity test when I became pregnant.
> 
> And no...I never demanded my spouse's unlock code to his cell phone. In fact, I never even checked...
> 
> ...


there are a lot of single moms out there who can have unprotected sex with a man; carrya child to term and then believe that they don't know the baby daddy well enough to let him have visitation; or when going the gets tough, they're still not happy with supervised visits..... 

but they can still cash their child support checks...... I guess because the state makes them (before they can collect state benefits)


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

NextTimeAround said:


> there are a lot of single moms out there who can have unprotected sex with a man; carrya child to term and then believe that they don't know the baby daddy well enough to let him have visitation; or when going the gets tough, they're still not happy with supervised visits.....
> 
> but they can still cash their child support checks...... I guess because the state makes them (before they can collect state benefits)


And WHY would a man have unprotected sex with a woman he isn't married to when he KNOWS what the risks are?


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

thefam said:


> I know of a few people who got this revealed to them. It bothered every one of them. That's a wonderful sentiment to have but when you're blind sided with it, chances are it won't be all sunshine and roses.
> 
> *The cost of mandatory testing could easily be absorbed into the economy. Like how easily we absorbed cell phones cable and the internet. And those are ongoing never ending costs. My grandmothers and older aunties never had sonagrams so that’s another cost that's been absorbed into having babies. *
> 
> ...


Great examples but you forgot the cost of a university education which was not only considered NOT a necessity at one time but the cost of which these days is forever in upward motion (can you say at least $100K).

I'm sure most men would think that the cost of a paternity test -- even at $500 -- is a bargain in comparison to the other cost......


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Vega said:


> And WHY would a man have unprotected sex with a woman he isn't married to when he KNOWS what the risks are?



and why would a woman have unprotected sex with a man when she's not sure he will make a great father.....


----------



## Jung_admirer (Jun 26, 2013)

A paternity test is both a test of genetic heritage and coincidentally, a fidelity test for women. Vega is right that there is no equivalent fidelity test for men. The best guesstimate of misattributed paternity is 3-10%. France did not outlaw paternity testing because the results were inconsequential. Trust but verify ... blind trust is naive and foolish.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

NextTimeAround said:


> and why would a woman have unprotected sex with a man when she's not sure he will make a great father.....


Please don't change the subject. The subject is about whether or not it's wrong for a man to ask for a paternity test; not whether or not he would make a great father. 

If a man is going to doubt whether a child is HIS child, then perhaps he should take better precautions BEFORE the woman gives birth. One way to do that is to not have unprotected sex with her until he's taken the time to get to know her _character_. That takes longer than a few weeks or even a few months. 

It won't eliminate the usefulness of paternity tests, but it sure would _reduce_ the need for them! 

The point is, as many have pointed out, that mandatory paternity tests aren't really even necessary. If a man wants a paternity test, he can get one...in many cases, WITHOUT the mother even knowing.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Vega said:


> If a man is going to doubt whether a child is HIS child, then perhaps he should take better precautions BEFORE the woman gives birth.


Precautions are one thing - and they sometimes fail. Even so, there are some women who will falsely attribute paternity.

Blaming the victim - the man here - is no different than blaming the victim of rape for not taking better precautions or dressing conservatively.


----------



## ExiledBayStater (Feb 16, 2013)

Jung_admirer said:


> A paternity test is both a test of genetic heritage and coincidentally, a fidelity test for women. Vega is right that there is no equivalent fidelity test for men. The best guesstimate of misattributed paternity is 3-10%. France did not outlaw paternity testing because the results were inconsequential. Trust but verify ... blind trust is naive and foolish.


Does this mean that in France, any woman can name any man as the father of her child and have the last word?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

Married but Happy said:


> Precautions are one thing - and they sometimes fail. Even so, there are *some* women who will falsely attribute paternity.


Yes! There are SOME women who will do this. But does that mean that ALL women should be "under suspicion" simply because SOME women do this? 

A policeman needs "REASONABLE SUSPICION" before he searches my car. He doesn't get to search my car for his belief that 'MOST people have something to hide' or that 'most people would commit a crime if they thought they could get away with it'. To me, those are invalid unjustifiable excuses to search my vehicle. 

Likewise, I believe the same standard should be applied to seeking a paternity test. Don't assign mandatory paternity tests because of some wayward (false) belief that MOST women cheat or WOULD cheat or even have thought about cheating!


----------



## Jung_admirer (Jun 26, 2013)

ExiledBayStater said:


> Does this mean that in France, any woman can name any man as the father of her child and have the last word?


I don't believe so. It's means the woman's male partner is legally the biological father, whether it is true or not.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Vega said:


> And WHY would a man have unprotected sex with a woman he isn't married to when he KNOWS what the risks are?


People can have protected sex and still end up with a pregnancy (condom breaks, she turns it inside out when she offers to throw it away for him, etc.)


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

True that at the moment there is no equivalent fidelity test for men but if a national DNA database could pass Constitutional muster in all countries and be established, then eventually no man who had a child and left the mother before the he/she was born, could escape from being identified as the father. This would include married men who had extra marital affairs.

DNA testing has turned the tables and now women do not have sole knowledge about who the biological fathers of their babies are. This is good because it identifies irresponsible men who have unprotected sex and women who pass on the costs of their children unto the State and on to unsuspecting men.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> How is it not doing that?
> 
> If she is cheating.
> 
> ...


If my son's children are not my grandchildren, either he is not my son or those children are not his. Two possibilities.

There is a non-zero probability that any woman has cheated on her husband. There is a non-zero chance that any particular pregnancy was from cheating. No husband knows for a fact that his wife's pregnancy is his child, except in some specific situations such as in-vitro where there should be zero doubt (but I refer you to the case of the Utah in-vitro clinic employee who substituted his own semen for many husbands' and thus fathered many many children).

I can see how women would see it as an accusation of cheating. But the man is not saying "I think you cheated". He is saying "I don't think you cheated but I cannot know 100% this is my child without a paternity test".

To me a paternity test is in the same category as a pre-nup which has a cheating clause. Is the pre-nup (dang the auto-correct keeps changing that to pre-nip!) an accusation of future cheating? Is a pre-nup an expectation of divorce? Or is it prudent legal cya?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Vega said:


> But imagine if there WAS such a test available. Would my husband/partner be insulted or at least saddened if I INSISTED on a random 'cheaters test' for HIM simply because SOME people cheat?


Imagine you had something not only substantial but deeply important at risk. Imagine your children, your procreation is at risk. Imagine all of your future earnings and quality of life are at risk.

For the man who is the victim of paternity fraud, he can expect to pay large amounts of child support. But, probably more importantly, he may lose his opportunity to procreate. Perhaps he had a vasectomy after the 2nd child reached school age, then he found out neither child was his. Perhaps he didn't find out for 20 years and is now too old to realistically have children. Perhaps he never found out at all, and thus he never has his own biological children.

There is nothing like this for women. Your baby is 100% assuredly your biological child.

If your husband's cheating would mean you could not have children, you might think it ok to ask him to do the cheaters test.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

breeze said:


> To be honest, most of our laws are created for the reason that *some* of us are liars/murderers/thieves/bad etc. I'd have a lot to get offended about if I took every law personally.


The difference is that these laws are not gender specific. If the l;aw stated that every man was considered a cheater, murderer, thief etc just because they were male then that would be different.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Constable Odo said:


> ...................
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Far better to actually discuss these things and live fluidly knowing that people change as they get older. To put it in a contract lowers the tone of a relationship to nothing more than a work place agreement. Communication is far more civilised than a threat on paper.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Holland said:


> The difference is that these laws are not gender specific. If the l;aw stated that every man was considered a cheater, murderer, thief etc just because they were male then that would be different.


huh? Paternity testing isn't accusing a gender of being cheaters. That is unless you're saying these women got themselves pregnant. It's merely verifying the person who believe they are the father is actually the father. If he's not then guess what? Some other dude is and and that other dude needs to be a part of his child's life and help support the child. That's both genders.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> huh? *Paternity testing isn't accusing a gender of being cheaters.* That is unless you're saying these women got themselves pregnant. It's merely verifying the person who believe they are the father is actually the father. If he's not then guess what? Some other dude is and and that other dude needs to be a part of his child's life and help support the child. That's both genders.


Yes it is.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> huh? Paternity testing isn't accusing a gender of being cheaters. That is unless you're saying these women got themselves pregnant. It's merely verifying the person who believe they are the father is actually the father. If he's not then guess what? Some other dude is and and that other dude needs to be a part of his child's life and help support the child. That's both genders.
> 
> 
> Holland said:
> ...



I'll go out on a limb and assume that you're saying MANDATORY testing is bad. If so then we agree and your comment doesn't apply to mine at all. But more available paternity testing is not accusing a gender of being cheaters. There's a ton of lof logic to support this.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Yes mandatory testing is saying a whole gender are cheaters until proven otherwise. I do not support the notion that a man should have to financially support a child that is not his unless he chooses to, so if there is a strong, justifiable concern then testing could be a consideration. However there are many here that are suggesting that mandatory testing would not be insulting to women and that if they have nothing to hide then they would not be insulted, I 100% disagree with this.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Holland said:


> Yes mandatory testing is saying a whole gender are cheaters until proven otherwise. *I do not support the notion that a man should have to financially support a child that is not his unless he chooses to, so if there is a strong, justifiable concern then testing could be a consideration*. However there are many here that are suggesting that mandatory testing would not be insulting to women and that if they have nothing to hide then they would not be insulted, I 100% disagree with this.


Unfortunately, the State does not hold your fair and just POV. Laws have been created "in the best interests of the child" that limit the time a man can challenge paternity to 2 years from the birth of the child. So if the time limit has passed, the man has no recourse under the law. He, and countless thousands of men like him, are totally screwed.

So while many women may feel insulted or have their feelings hurt, by mandatory DNA testing, that is nothing compared to the legal and economic nightmare of thousands of men who become victims of paternity fraud. They are not just victims of the women who perpetrate this heinous injustice (who BTW face no penalty for lying) but by the State itself.


----------



## Maneo (Dec 4, 2012)

The fallacy of all these arguments for mandatory testing lies in direct opposition to one of the basic principles of in, not only this USA, but across north america and europe. That is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The insistence that a pregnant woman must take the test asserts the guilty until proven innocent frame of mind. 

This is supported by the argument that is there is nothing untoward having been done there should be no hesitation to take the test. This is the same poverty of logic and justification used during the witch trials in New Salem and again during the black days of communist hunting in the McCarthy era when citizens were blacklisted for standing by their fifth amendment rights. And there are countless other examples of such guilty until proven innocent backward thinking. 

It is a philosophical position based on fear and paranoia that no one can be trusted. The tactics eventually become intimidation. It is of the same illogical ilk as the question, "prove that you don't beat your wife." No, it is upon the shoulders of the accuser to prove that I do beat my wife, to show one shred of evidence that may be substance to the charge.

To this, of course, the advocates of this wayward thinking for mandatory testing will exclaim, "exactly why we need the testing! to prove the guilt or innocence!" Exactly wrong. In this nation, in most all civilized and modern nations we presume innocence until there is justification otherwise to look into a person's body or enter their home or search their person.

It is good we have the science that allows paternity testing. It has it's value. For those, both men and women, husbands and wives, who wish to use it freely and voluntarily, more power to them. But to insist it be mandatory and to base it on the presumption of guilt supported by grossly inaccurate generalities and useless numbers fabricated on the thinnest evidence or wholly manufactured is simply a world view that the sane majority of people must reject or lose precious freedoms. 

It was the nazi regime who espoused the purity of race. And how, ultimately would that be achieved? By genetic testing and careful breeding. And how does one breed with certainty? Paternity testing is one ingredient. Luckily the nazis didn't have the technologies of today to help them build their perfect race. They were too busy trying to eradicate another race anyway.

This argument for mandatory testing is not some facile argument though some may be taking that point of view simply to exercise skills of provocation and misdirection, but it is a dangerous world view that could erode the freedoms held dear if ever it actually took hold.

Oh, and I and my first wife had the tests to determine genealogy. Our first born had trisomy 21, more commonly called down's syndrome. We both had genetic testing, not because there was any doubt who the father was, but to try to determine why it happened. There are valid reasons for such tests. And when we both tested negative, we went on to have three more healthy children and i now have yet a fifth with my current wife. And not a shadow of a doubt concerning the paternity of any of them.


----------



## anonim (Apr 24, 2012)

Maneo said:


> Where do you guys come up with this stuff? It is a real hoot except I think there are some of you deadly serious about this stuff. How dark your world must be.


Yeah, being duped into raising a child that isnt yours is hilarious. Except its not. This really happens. And it isnt funny. 



Anonymous07 said:


> If I found out my dad was not my biological father it would make absolutely zero difference in how I feel about him or view him.


Would you feel bad for him? How would you feel about your mother?



Vega said:


> Sorry. But holding ALL married women/women in a committed relationship under the microscope of "cheating as a POSSIBILITY" doesn't warrant a DNA test for ALL children born.
> 
> Just because it's POSSIBLE doesn't mean anything. Lots of things are "possible". It's possible that I'll be raped tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to avoid ALL men because of the POSSIBILITY of being raped.
> 
> ...


Faith doesnt always follow through.
If false paternity really happens (ProTip: it does) then the reasons are not 'manufactured.'

You and many others of your beliefs totally ignore the _consequences_ of false paternity.

Can you tell me the consequences of false paternity, from a womans perspective and then from a mans?



breeze said:


> If you have the sort of relationship where you both know your children are yours without doubt the question wouldn't be asked anyway, so no one would get offended.


A lot of men 'knew' their children were theirs until they did The Test.



Vega said:


> And WHY would a man have unprotected sex with a woman he isn't married to when he KNOWS what the risks are?


For the same reason _she_ chooses have sex with _him_?



Vega said:


> Please don't change the subject. The subject is about whether or not it's wrong for a man to ask for a paternity test; not whether or not he would make a great father.


You're the one changing the subject. Dont redirect away from answering. Your response is akin to victim blaming.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Maneo said:


> The fallacy of all these arguments for mandatory testing lies in direct opposition to one of the basic principles of in, not only this USA, but across north america and europe. That is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The insistence that a pregnant woman must take the test asserts the guilty until proven innocent frame of mind.


I don't disagree too much with that. But let me then extend it to this: No man should be presumed the father of a child until proven so. No man should be required to raise, house, feed, cloth, educate, or financially support a child until he is proven to be responsible for that child's creation.

The legal system we have now is one where a man is immediately indentured to a baby for 21 years merely upon the word of the mother. No proof required. Even if she isn't married to him, even if she divorces him, even if the baby is not his, her assertion of his paternity is enough to attach his labors for 21 years.

Emotionally, the man will be bonded to the baby quickly and his life changed forever. If it turns out not to be his child his emotional well being will be forever destroyed.

What is wrong with the man wanting proof of his paternity before being burdened with the financial and emotional investment required of him?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Maneo said:


> It was the nazi regime who espoused the purity of race. And how, ultimately would that be achieved? By genetic testing and careful breeding. And how does one breed with certainty? Paternity testing is one ingredient. Luckily the nazis didn't have the technologies of today to help them build their perfect race. They were too busy trying to eradicate another race anyway.


Actually, scientific eugenics was invented by early 20th century Progressives, not by Nazis. Today's progressives would love to institute mandatory genetic profiling for a variety of reasons. One reason would be to ensure the true father of every child could be determined in order to ensure he paid for the child's expenses. But over time the progressive mindset would surely take it far beyond such uses, resulting in eugenics and other nasty oppressive things.

I think men would be well served to secretly run paternity tests on children.


----------



## Anonymous07 (Aug 4, 2012)

anonim said:


> Would you feel bad for him? How would you feel about your mother?


That would depend on whether or not he knows. There are many men who happily choose to help raise children who are not biologically their own. My uncle raised my cousin from infancy to adulthood, even though she was not biologically his child. I don't feel bad for him. He was happy to have her in his life and help her grow up. He cried like a baby when she got married last month.  

I tend to assume people are innocent before thinking they have some evil intent, so I would assume my mother would do what was in my best interest. My family has long joked that I am the mail man's baby. I have blonde hair, very light skin, and hazel eyes. Neither of my parents have blonde hair, but my aunt and grandma do. Genetics are weird in how they work. If it were true that my dad isn't biologically mine, it wouldn't matter to me. I would still presume my mom was looking out for me. 

A friend has kept her baby from the biological dad. He is a very irresponsible, immature guy, so she didn't want her son around him. She never went after child support and is raising him on her own. She wants her son to have better role models. I don't necessarily see an issue with it. The guy never went after her to try and be in his son's life. He continued to party wildly and drink heavily.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Here's an interesting little thought experiment ...

In all but a few states, if a married man's wife has a child, he is automatically and legally presumed to be the father. He has to contest this in court even when he is known to NOT be the father.

In the laws are gender neutral, then if a married woman's husband has a child by another woman, then the WIFE should be legally presumed to be the mother of the child. (Even though the child has another biological parent who may have a separate set of rights.) The wife should be liable for child support paid to the man for his child with his mistress.

It would be interesting to see if there is any legal basis to pursue such a decision, and test it in court.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Anonymous07 said:


> There are many men who happily choose to help raise children who are not biologically their own.


Of course, but that's a choice they willingly make being fully aware of the fact the child is not theirs.




Married but Happy said:


> It would be interesting to see if there is any legal basis to pursue such a decision, and test it in court.


It'll never happen, the women's lobby would never allow it, and brand anyone who attempted to do so as "anti-woman".


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Interesting

The paternity myth: the rarity of cuckoldry - Gene Expression


----------



## chris007 (Jul 15, 2015)

I have read quite a few studies, reporting anywhere between 3%-30% of men unknowingly raising children that aren't theirs. The 3% number usually comes from feminist sponsored studies and surveys, the 30% comes from testing centers themselves, but its inflated simply because men who are unsure of their paternity, tend to ask for paternity testing, thus skewing this number by quite a bit. Most sensible people and objective sources, estimate the real number to fall somewhere between 8-10%. That is millions and millions men, raising children that aren't theirs. If that doesn't bother you as a fellow human being, then I must question your moral compass and your set of values.

Here is a survey, that would make any soon to be father want a DNA test, no matter how much he trusts his woman.

In a survey for That's Life magazine, 5000 women were asked some personal questions:

50% said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father!!!!

let me repeat that and let it sink in for a miunute

50% said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father!!!!

Forty-two per cent would lie about contraception in order to get pregnant, no matter the wishes of their partner. 

And an alarming 31 per cent said they would not tell a future partner if they had a sexual disease: this rises to 65 per cent among single women. 


If that doesn't tell you to get a DNA test at your childs birth, you will just remain ignorant. Feminist groups are fighting hard (and mostly succeeding) in banning DNA testing, making it illegal for man to perform without the mothers consent or trying to stop it altogether as means of establishing paternity. It obviously challenges their narrative, that is to provide women with endless sexual options while absolving any and all responsibility for said actions.

One last thing I will mention, as a woman - you haven't a single clue, what it means to a man to be able to pass on his genes and father his own bilological children. If you did, you wouldn't lie about it and oppose it as much. Mandatory DNA Testing is an absolute must and all humans should fight for it.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> Interesting
> 
> The paternity myth: the rarity of cuckoldry - Gene Expression


According to that link, studies are showing that men who have a high confidence they are the bio-dad really have about a 3% false paternity rate, whereas men who are worried enough to have the test done have a 30% false paternity rate. What is not known is what percent of the population these groups represent, or how the rest of the populations fits in.

Something else to consider is how this fits in with married people vs single people. Is the false paternity rate higher for married couples, or do single moms lie more about who the real father is?

Numbers I've seen show around 1 in 17 children is a false paternity, which is about 6%. This is probably a pretty good ballpark number. That's a lot of men fraudulently led to believe they are the father.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Interesting
> 
> The paternity myth: the rarity of cuckoldry - Gene Expression


Most of us knew those numbers so it's not a surprise. 1.5% - 3.7% is a lot of people.


> What are the real numbers? Zuck asserts that they’re more in the 1-5% range, with 3.7%


When we put our fathers, our selves, male syblings, and sons into the equation then it's concerning to see the likely hood of this happening to someone we know and love. When I go to work there are a few guys I see each day who are raising kids they don't know are not theirs.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Married but Happy said:


> Here's an interesting little thought experiment ...
> 
> In all but a few states, if a married man's wife has a child, he is automatically and legally presumed to be the father. He has to contest this in court even when he is known to NOT be the father.
> 
> ...


This and with absolutely no legal penalties for the cheating husbands for having lied to their wives for their out of wedlock child.


----------



## chris007 (Jul 15, 2015)

morituri said:


> This and with absolutely no legal penalties for the cheating husbands for having lied to their wives for their out of wedlock child.


Honestly, a man having a child with another woman, outside of marriage is nothing remotely like a woman having a child with another man, and pretending it to be her husbands. The only similarity in these cases, is that a married person steps outside of marriage and cheats on their spouse, in most cases anyway.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

chris007 said:


> Honestly, a man having a child with another woman, outside of marriage is nothing remotely like a woman having a child with another man, and pretending it to be her husbands. The only similarity in these cases, is that a married person steps outside of marriage and cheats on their spouse, in most cases anyway.


Technically you are right but there is no way for some women to grasp the enormity of what paternity fraud is until they become financial and emotional victims of it, with the State's blessings and support.


----------



## Maneo (Dec 4, 2012)

In this thread emotions seem to run high. Several have repeatedly pointed out the trauma and potential devastation for the man who discovers a child is not his own. I don't believe anyone has ever denied the upheaval of that situation. Nor, I believe, has anyone argued against the availability of testing for those who want or need it, including those situations where it may be ordered by a court.

Can all agree that even one instance, let alone many instances of false paternity is a potentially devastating experience. Now, the question becomes, is that significant enough to warrant mandatory testing. 

We live in a world of probabilities. The drugs we take, prescription and over the counter, have some chance of bad effects, even life threatening. We have laws and regulations in place to minimize those but if absolute certainty was necessary most, if not all, of our drugs would vanish. The anguish of those who have an adverse reaction to a drug are palpable but not to the extent that it becomes mandatory that all must forego use of the drug. 

That's only one of countless examples where we as a society and the governments that represent us make decisions based on probabilities, individual rights and the public good. 

There was a time when seat belts in cars were optional. Now, they are almost universally mandatory. The evidence - objectively obtained and replicated - as well as the public sentiment was sufficient to make them mandatory and the effects have been on the whole positive. Again, there can be the horror story of someone trapped in a vehicle after an accident because of a faulty or damaged seat belt who perish. Those are tragic and terrible and steps should be taken to try to reduce even those rare instances, but the rate of those happening compared to all seat belt use does not warrant changing the way we use seat belts.

Then we get to the evidence of paternity and various statistics have been flying about including accusations that the lower end statistics are somehow driven and unduly influenced by a feminist agenda. Also thrown into the mix are unscientific opinion polls from popular periodicals. There is in fact multiple valid studies using standard statistical tools that arrive at similar numbers for random samples of the population that repeated come up with percentages under 10%, and most under 5% for false paternity. A not too extensive search on the internet will reveal these studies. When the sample size is taken from those who suspect there is false paternity then the number jumps as high as 30% and one would expect that.

But evan at, say 3%, that is a large number if taken across the general population. The core question then becomes, is that a number of significance that mandatory testing should become the law of the land. We are setting aside for the moment religious, ethical and moral arguments for or against mandatory testing. Part of the discussion on this needs to reflect on recourse for those who are the victim of false paternity. Do we have laws and regulations in place to deal with those situations and are they sufficient to handle the situation? Laws, in part, are in place to maintain a civil and safe social structure. Here we may have ground for a debate on the adequacy of existing law concerning paternity. Some have indicated the burden financially is on the accusing man to pursue legal remedy for false paternity. I'm not a legal expert but I believe if there is a legal opinion against the defendant (the woman) in a paternity case, the costs would in most instances be borne by the losing side. Yes, there is the loss of time and one's own lawyer fees and the proponents of mandatory testing would argue that such testing would erase these court cases. Here again we must weigh the costs for a minority of the population against the larger cost for the general population. And we haven't even mentioned the civil rights implications of mandatory testing.

Mention of rights will inevitably raise the flag among the proponent of mandatory testing the cry of "what about the rights of the fathers!" along with examples drawn where the law of the land, usually through the Supreme Court, has mandated certain that protect minorities against the majority, civil rights being the prime example. And so, the proponents may argue, should this minority of cuckolded fathers be protected in the same vein? Here again, we need to look to see what recourse is already available to this group to redress wrongs done against them. Voluntary testing is available. There are legal avenues to pursue for enforced testing if the woman claiming paternity refuses to allow the test. There is, i would argue, sufficient safeguards and existing options on the open market to satisfy most instances of paternity questions.

Finally there is this deeper justification for testing that draws on a man's need to know that his offspring do indeed come from his own seed. This need comes from both emotional and spiritual need as well as far more practical financial considerations (I'm not going to pay to raise a kid who is not mine). Once again, and somehow this does not seem to resonate with the mandatory advocates, there appears to be satisfactory options available for any man for whom these are significant concerns to confirm paternity. 

Let's drop out of the equation those who have no need or desire for paternity testing. let's also drop out those couples who voluntarily agree to the testing. That leaves a small percentage of men who want the tests for whatever reason but have the woman not agreeing. And there we turn to what options exist for resolving those disputes. I would argue mandatory testing for the entire population is not the optimal option.

In sum, no one denies the crushing impact of false paternity on the individual. And while the number of those cases may be large even at a 3% level of the general population, it is not a significant enough impact for the massive social and economic impact of mandatory testing, particularly since there are open market voluntary testing options (and the price of that keeps dropping as well as existing law to address cases of false paternity.


----------



## chris007 (Jul 15, 2015)

morituri said:


> Technically you are right but there is no way for some women to grasp the enormity of what paternity fraud is until they become financial and emotional victims of it, with the State's blessings and support.


And whats more important, they can never understand what this means to a man. Observe nature and see what dominant male animals do to offspring of another male, in order to ensure undivided attention of the mother for their own. Its not pretty. You cannot understand what it means to a man, unless you are a man. Its a lot more important than hurting someones feelings, trust me.

Ive been in a relationship for 3 years, and we are planning marriage and a family in the future. I told my GF within a week of dating, that any and all of my kids will be DNA tested, and gave her reasons why. At that point in time, in didn't trust her or mistrust her, since we barely knew each other, but I made sure she knows my stance on this issue. I advise every man getting into a relationship gets this out of the way. I would DNA test my kids, even if I was 110% sure they were mine, simply because its the right thing to do.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Even at 1.5%, that means 1 out of 100 men are fathering a child which is not theirs.

Next time you're with your son at a baseball game or basketball game, take a look around, and wonder, if you're that 1 out of 100, or is someone else.


----------



## chris007 (Jul 15, 2015)

Im sorry but both 1.5% and 3% figures are wishful thinking. The real number is between 8-10% and can also be found in many studies, although funding for such studies with big sisters oversight is pretty much impossible, for obvious reasons. We know a real number, 30% of DNA paternity tests come back negative. In either case, we are talking about MILLIONS of fathers in US alone, unknowingly raising another mans child, unaware of his wife's indiscretion, unaware of kids genetic make up, breaking their backs to provide and raise someone elses kids for 2 decades, all that while being robbed of an opportunity to pass down his own family line. Today 1.6 million fathers are forced to pay child support despite having proven the children are not theirs. If those aren't good enough reasons for you to understand that Mandatory DNA testing is a real need, then I am at a loss for words.

Oh, forgot to add - 50% of women admit that they would lie about paternity of the child, if they wanted to stay with their current spouse..


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

DNA testing after birth can also serve the interests of women as well because if the husband knows that he is or isn't the child's biological father and agrees to raise to raise the child as his own, then if the marriage ends later on, he can't come back and try to weasel his way out of his financial obligations towards the child by claiming that it isn't his. 

Furthermore, even if the child isn't the husband's but he chooses not to end his marriage and agrees to care for the child as though it was his, he and his wife could agree to make the former OM financially responsible for the child. The interests of everybody involved will be served. 

Here's an interesting organization called *Women Against Paternity Fraud* which was founded by two women and by its very existence, shows that many women want to destroy this heinous fraud perpetrated not just against men, but against the children who are the other victims and who did not have any say as far as choosing their parents.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Maneo said:


> In this thread emotions seem to run high. Several have repeatedly pointed out the trauma and potential devastation for the man who discovers a child is not his own. I don't believe anyone has ever denied the upheaval of that situation. Nor, I believe, has anyone argued against the availability of testing for those who want or need it, including those situations where it may be ordered by a court.
> 
> Can all agree that even one instance, let alone many instances of false paternity is a potentially devastating experience. Now, the question becomes, is that significant enough to warrant mandatory testing.


No because mandatory testing is flawed in that it implies that testing must be done even if the man and women both say they don't want a test. I think solutions are more in the direction of making sure that any test asked for by either the father or the mother are granted at no costs, at least for a while. If a test is requested years later then maybe whoever wants it should penny up and pay for the test but those results should have real affect regarding support. In other words there shouldn't be a statute of limitations that says "you're financially responsible for 21 years no matter the result".

Let's face it, there are a lot of guys out there who would never want to see a test. Most because they trust their wife but then others because they're too scared of what the results might be.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

chris007 said:


> One last thing I will mention, as a woman - you haven't a single clue, what it means to a man to be able to pass on his genes and father his own bilological children.


Now I KNOW that you're not speaking on behalf of ALL men. If this was so important to ALL of them, then why are there so many dead-beat dads on the planet? The ones who KNOW that the children they father are THEIRS, yet they CHOOSE not to financially/emotioinally support them? 

Seems to me that there are many MORE men out that who want to pass on their genes WITHOUT accepting the financial/emotional 'burden' than there are women who try to lay a false paternity claim on men.


----------



## chris007 (Jul 15, 2015)

Ability to opt out, should certainly be an option, to those who choose to accept the child blindly, as their own. It just shouldn't be a social norm, where men are berated by their SO for wanting 100% certainty when a great tool like DNA testing can provide it. Very recently, feminist groups were attempting to sponsor a bill that would make DNA testing illegal in establishing paternity of a child. They are working very hard to take it away. In many parts of the world, like Great Britain, the father does not legally have an option of DNA testing for paternity, without mothers consent. What really irks me, is the way most women respond to the concept of paternity testing. IMO, it needs to take place before parents names are put on birth certificate. The fact that it hasn't happened yet, is a crime.


----------



## chris007 (Jul 15, 2015)

Vega said:


> Now I KNOW that you're not speaking on behalf of ALL men. If this was so important to ALL of them, then why are there so many dead-beat dads on the planet? The ones who KNOW that the children they father are THEIRS, yet they CHOOSE not to financially/emotioinally support them?
> 
> Seems to me that there are many MORE men out that who want to pass on their genes WITHOUT accepting the financial/emotional 'burden' than there are women who try to lay a false paternity claim on men.


Im sorry, but I was under the impression that this thread was about DNA testing as it relates to establishing paternity, not about "dead-beat dads" that you know little about, other than what you've been fed by the feminized media. Either stick to the topic, or don't quote me, please. Moving the goalposts isn't exactly new to me, and I have a great idea on how to respond. And I may not speak for all men, but I can assure you, there are many of them that would ask for the test, if it was ok with their spouse.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Vega said:


> Now I KNOW that you're not speaking on behalf of ALL men. If this was so important to ALL of them, then why are there so many dead-beat dads on the planet? The ones who KNOW that the children they father are THEIRS, yet they CHOOSE not to financially/emotioinally support them?
> 
> Seems to me that there are many MORE men out that who want to pass on their genes WITHOUT accepting the financial/emotional 'burden' than there are women who try to lay a false paternity claim on men.


And that is another reason why DNA testing is needed. To bring those "dead beat dads" and make them responsible for footing the costs of helping to bring children into this world and not given a free ride while another man is unjustly saddled with their responsibilities.

BTW the percentage "dead beats" for non custodial mothers is higher than it is for non custodial fathers.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Maneo said:


> And while the number of those cases may be large even at a 3% level of the general population, it is not a significant enough impact for the massive social and economic impact of mandatory testing, particularly since there are open market voluntary testing options (and the price of that keeps dropping as well as existing law to address cases of false paternity.


I think the best point on this topic was made by a previous poster, which I summarize here:

If 3% of Skittles were poisonous and caused immediate death, would you buy a bag?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

chris007 said:


> Im sorry, but I was under the impression that this thread was about DNA testing as it relates to establishing paternity, not about "dead-beat dads" that you know little about, other than what you've been fed by the feminized media. Either stick to the topic, or don't quote me, please. Moving the goalposts isn't exactly new to me, and I have a great idea on how to respond. And I may not speak for all men, but I can assure you, there are many of them that would ask for the test, if it was ok with their spouse.


First of all, I'm not moving any 'goal posts'. I simply piggy-backed off of the generalization that YOU made. And, as far as me knowing "little" about dead-beat dads, let me tell you that I worked as a paralegal in the family law system since 1989. So, yeah...I got to witness the horror of a man discovering that he IS the child(ren) father, and does NOT WANT TO BE. I also got to read many cases where the husband/partner insisted (sometimes VIOLENTLY) that his wife/partner had an abortion because HE did not want children. 

I'm sorry to say that I got out of law before tackling a case of false paternity. 

Look, I'm not saying that paternity tests don't have their place. Obviously, they are extremely beneficial, not only to establish paternity but for medical reasons as well. 

What I AM saying, is that I don't agree that paternity tests should be MANDATORY. I also don't believe that a man should be FORCED into paying support for a child that isn't HIS child. 

I don't believe that mandatory testing would solve the problem of WRONGLY FORCING a man to be financially accountable for a child who is NOT his biological child, IF the man does not wish to financially support him/her. I also don't believe that mandatory testing would FORCE a man to be financially/emotionally accountable for a child who _IS_ his biological child. 

I DO believe that laws need to change. I just don't believe that mandatory paternity testing is the way to go about it. Something else needs to be done.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Have there been cases of a bio father coming back to claim his child years after another man has accepted the child as his?

That would be another good reason to DNA the child. I would hate the thought of bonding to a child to have taken away from me .... in part or totally.

Plus, I havbe read stories of rape vitims who have had to allow their child supervised visits with the rapist father.... somtimes in jail. Obviously, a DNA test had to be forced on the mother to determine fatherhood in that case.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

NextTimeAround said:


> Have there been cases of a bio father coming back to claim his child years after another man has accepted the child as his?
> 
> That would be another good reason to DNA the child. *I would hate the thought of bonding to a child to have taken away from me .... in part or totally.*


Here the laws should be changed not just for the benefit of the father who raised these children and loved them as though they shared his own blood, but also "in the best interests of the child" since the children themselves would probably be the most harmed by ripping them away from the man they have loved and called daddy. The whole point is that there is no lies and deception towards the man and the innocent children.



> Plus, I havbe read stories of rape vitims who have had to allow their child supervised visits with the rapist father.... somtimes in jail. Obviously, a DNA test had to be forced on the mother to determine fatherhood in that case.


In this situation, the laws should be changed to sever all rights of the rapist "father" for the emotional well being of both mother and child. No $scvmbag should be allowed to do this after the heinous crime he's already committed.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Vega said:


> Now I KNOW that you're not speaking on behalf of ALL men. If this was so important to ALL of them, then why are there so many dead-beat dads on the planet? The ones who KNOW that the children they father are THEIRS, yet they CHOOSE not to financially/emotioinally support them?
> 
> Seems to me that there are many MORE men out that who want to pass on their genes WITHOUT accepting the financial/emotional 'burden' than there are women who try to lay a false paternity claim on men.


The issue isn't parenting and raising offspring, it is passing on one's dna to offspring.

The deadbeat dad is actually a fantastic example. He goes and has as many children as possible with as many different women as possible. He is fulfilling his need to have offspring.

You actually made the point of what the underlying instinct behind the devastation of paternity fraud on a husband.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Thor said:


> The issue isn't parenting and raising offspring, it is passing on one's dna to offspring.
> 
> The deadbeat dad is actually a fantastic example. He goes and has as many children as possible with as many different women as possible. He is fulfilling his need to have offspring.
> 
> You actually made the point of what the underlying instinct behind the devastation of paternity fraud on a husband.


|Plus I blame women to some degree for this.



> Seems to me that there are many MORE men out that who want to pass on their genes WITHOUT accepting the financial/emotional 'burden' than there are women who try to lay a false paternity claim on men.


I have a cousin who is never married and has 5 kids, different fathers. At least our grandmother in common had no idea.


----------



## chris007 (Jul 15, 2015)

Thankfully, relief is just just around the corner :wink2:


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

NextTimeAround said:


> Have there been cases of a bio father coming back to claim his child years after another man has accepted the child as his?
> 
> That would be another good reason to DNA the child. I would hate the thought of bonding to a child to have taken away from me .... in part or totally.
> 
> Plus, I havbe read stories of rape vitims who have had to allow their child supervised visits with the rapist father.... somtimes in jail. Obviously, a DNA test had to be forced on the mother to determine fatherhood in that case.


Please link those cases. I am greatly interested in rapists given parental rights to the product of their rape.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## chris007 (Jul 15, 2015)

Here is one

Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support

Ooops, this is a man who was raped as a child and now has to pay child support. All I can really find is similar situations. Please ignore.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

chris007 said:


> Here is one
> 
> Statutory rape victim forced to pay child support
> 
> Ooops, this is a man who was raped as a child and now has to pay child support. All I can really find is similar situations. Please ignore.


LOL! Still bad! Thanks for checking.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## chris007 (Jul 15, 2015)

Oh, why is that bad. He was a teen boy, he must of loved it. When his kid was 6 or 8, he was told of her existence, because he received a bill for years of child support payments and charged with abandonment.
/sarcasm


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

My question is why as a nation do we allow a statutory rapist to keep her child after birth and deem her worthy of public assistance? 

These children should be taken away from their rapist mother and given up for adoption where the child could be brought up by parents who are more likely to give her/him a better life. 

But the State doesn't care about the welfare of victims and children, all it wants is reimbursement for providing public assistance given to convicted criminals.

Criminals should be reimbursing their victims, not the other way around.


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

Notice the rapist conveniently waited until the statute of limitations ran out on the statutory rape charge before she sought child-support, effectively giving the man no recourse.


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Constable Odo said:


> Notice the rapist conveniently waited until the statute of limitations ran out on the statutory rape charge before she sought child-support, effectively giving the man no recourse.


Yep.

But on another note, I'm glad to see that we are finally showing no mercy and prosecuting more and more of these female predators. Hopefully one day soon, their sentences will catch up with their male counterparts.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Here's a clip about women as rape victims.

The story about that guy is heart breaking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH7OS5uJGkY


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

GusPolinski said:


> It's worth pointing out that, as the tests become more pervasive, the cost for a test would very likely drop somewhat significantly.
> 
> And hey... it would create jobs!


In my previous job we shared a building with a company that made DNA sequencing machines. Even though we were separate companies, we shared some ownership and had a lot of trust so they never went to the expense of splitting the tenant space up. We shared shipping a receiving spaces, office spaces and so on. 

The machines held 100's of samples. The tech would load up trays of samples (swabs or swatches, etc) and it would do everything from there to extract and sequence what they were instructed for each sample. I think they went for $300K.

IIRC they were making about 50 machines a week. They were a VERY busy and profitable company.


----------

