# Women & Politicians FEAR Solutions that Work



## vej36 (Dec 23, 2017)

The Deadbeat Dad who failed or outright refuses to pay his Child-support remains Public Enemy #1 in the nightly news and throughout Media; however, Feminists and Govt "NEVER" advocate for a Male Birth Control Pill nor Mandatory DNA testing to ensure Paternity immediately after a child's birth......WHY? 

Best Interest of the child to know his/her father ....right? 

Best Interest of society to provide Male Contraceptive Technology to PREVENT an unwanted pregnancy....Right?

Best Interest of society to avoid wasteful Family Court hearings....right?

Best Interest of society to prevent/reduce wasteful spending of public tax dollars....right?

So, what's the delay with Feminists and Politicians lobbying for REFORMS (Male Birth Control Pill & DNA Testing at Birth)
that eliminate problems for women?

Thx,
Vej36


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

What's your deal? On a war against women? Geez. Lighten up some!

Most women, to include feminists, want a male contraceptive. Why not let men take some respopnslibty and screw up their bodies with chemicals as women have been doing to avoid pregnancy? I think it's a grand idea.

Unfortunately, men don't want it. It is the predominately male review boards that have stopped male contraceptives because they cause similar side effects to those women get on contraceptives.


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

There already is a male contraceptive: the condom.

As stated by Elegirl, chemical contraception would pose health risks for men; as it always has for women.

But bottom line? Men don't get pregnant. Even in a committed relationship, a woman would have to depend on her SO to take his pill responsibly every day at at the same time---so that she doesn't get pregnant!! lol


Sure, mandatory DNA testing at birth. I never had kids, I guess if my husband had felt it necessary, I would have found it both humorous and it would have insulted me no end. But I don't see how it is harmful, I would have known the kids were his, so whatever.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Mandatory DNA testing at birth is a personal issue. If a man is unsure about being the biological father of the child, he can go to the drug store, get a DNA test and pay the $100 to get it run. If it's made mandatory, it will have to be paid via tax money.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt (Jul 30, 2016)

vej36 said:


> Best Interest of society to provide Male Contraceptive Technology to PREVENT an unwanted pregnancy....Right?


They HAVE.

It's called a condom. But an awful lot of men are too damned selfish to compromise their pleasure - God FORBID - and instead, make stupid mistakes. The next thing you know, there's yet another 'single mother' that dated some ass maybe a whopping 4 times and who wants to keep the baby. Not surprisingly, lover boy wants nothing to do with her *or* the kid and just like you, he'll whine for the next 20+ years about how 'unfair' it is to be trapped by a woman.

Don't want to end up being a deadbeat dad? Don't want to pay out child support for the next 20+ years depending on your state? Don't want to be forced into having a kid you never wanted because SHE decided not to get an abortion?

Then man the hell UP and start taking some damned *responsibility* toward contraception! Stop letting your genitals do your thinking FOR you. You're *not* a victim. The minute you drop your drawers you're taking a risk and you're well aware of that going in! Get yourself a Real Doll if you can't be responsible enough to do your* PART*. Where the hell is the puke icon when I need one????


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> They HAVE.
> 
> It's called a condom. But an awful lot of men are too damned selfish to compromise their pleasure - God FORBID - and instead, make stupid mistakes. The next thing you know, there's yet another 'single mother' that dated some ass maybe a whopping 4 times and who wants to keep the baby. Not surprisingly, lover boy wants nothing to do with her *or* the kid and just like you, he'll whine for the next 20+ years about how 'unfair' it is to be trapped by a woman.
> 
> ...


I would give this a thousand likes if I could.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> They HAVE.
> 
> It's called a condom. But an awful lot of men are too damned selfish to compromise their pleasure - God FORBID - and instead, make stupid mistakes. The next thing you know, there's yet another 'single mother' that dated some ass maybe a whopping 4 times and who wants to keep the baby. Not surprisingly, lover boy wants nothing to do with her *or* the kid and just like you, he'll whine for the next 20+ years about how 'unfair' it is to be trapped by a woman.
> 
> ...





EleGirl said:


> What's your deal? On a war against men? Geez. Lighten up some!
> .


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

To the OP. Your points have been made on this forum and argued or discussed ad nausium. If you think the game is rigged don't play.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt (Jul 30, 2016)

notmyrealname4 said:


> As stated by Elegirl, chemical contraception would pose health risks for men; as it always has for women.


I say it's high time to let men risk their health for a *big* change. Let _them_ deal with the threat of cancer and heart problems and unwanted skin pigmentation issues and fluctuating weight and sex drives, cysts and fibroids and hair loss and everything *else* the pill has caused for the last 50+ years to untold numbers of women. 

Since they seem to have NO problem expecting women to risk THEIR health year after year for their pleasure, I can only assume that guys would be thrilled to return the favor and risk _their_ health for 10 or 20 years taking a male pill so they could do their *part*. 

I think we have a better chance of shaking hands with Jesus then ever seeing THAT happen.


----------



## Chisox (Dec 24, 2017)

All contraception is intrinsically evil. It causes major damage in society and in marriages. Abstinance untill marriage, then, the married couple should practice Natural Family Planning if they have serious reason to postpone a pregnancy.


----------



## marriageontherocks2 (Oct 4, 2017)

We have the technology to determine paternity at birth very easily. Before any man is ordered to pay child support it should be determined if he's actually the father. Paternity at birth is a no-brainer in my opinion. I can't imagine why anyone would have an issue with it.

I've said before if a man can't pay for his children he's a deadbeat, and should be jailed. If a woman can't pay for her children she gets WIC, affordable housing, free cell phones, free child care, welfare payments, free education.

Logically speaking since women are sole deciders on whether the child lives or dies, the man should have no responsibility for the child if she determines to carry it to term. I think in marriage that could be part of the contract. But outside marriage if a woman makes the decision to bring a child to term instead of killing it, that's HER decision, HER responsibility alone.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

AHEM The OP is in favor of male chemical contraception. Who are you trying to convince?


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I think we have a better chance of shaking hands with Jesus then ever seeing THAT happen.


I had my scrotum cut, my reproductive organs burned and mutilated. I sat on a bag of frozen peas for two days while my testicle swelled to 3x normal size, turning the colors of a prize fighter's face after a championship bout. I suffered two decades of random testicular pain when I slept wrong the night before.

I guess I'm not sure what more you want from me to hold up my end of the birth control bargain.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

marriageontherocks2 said:


> We have the technology to determine paternity at birth very easily. Before any man is ordered to pay child support it should be determined if he's actually the father. Paternity at birth is a no-brainer in my opinion. I can't imagine why anyone would have an issue with it.


Paternity is a question that doesn't need answering until it does. When it does, then it's a no-brainer. Testing every child born in the country costs money. It comes with a low but nonzero false positive and false negative rate. It is a pointless test to run until such time as one of the parents needs the answer.

Prenatal paternity testing is fraught with even more problems. It should probably only be done if you have other more pressing reasons to perform an amniocentesis.


----------



## toblerone (Oct 18, 2016)

Chisox said:


> All contraception is intrinsically evil. It causes major damage in society and in marriages. Abstinance untill marriage, then, the married couple should practice Natural Family Planning if they have serious reason to postpone a pregnancy.


Nah.


----------



## marriageontherocks2 (Oct 4, 2017)

Cletus said:


> Paternity is a question that doesn't need answering until it does. When it does, then it's a no-brainer. Testing every child born in the country costs money.


Between 10 & 20% of children born are not the biological children of the men the women claim to be the fathers. With 7 billion people in the world that seems like a question that needs answering since most men are naive and clueless. The vast majority of these men have no idea that their wife or girlfriend has been cuckolding him for months and is impregnated by another man. Paying for a test online is great and all but it's not binding, to get it binding the man needs to pay a lawyer a large retainer, the lawyer needs to argue the reason for the paternity test, and the judge needs to order it, it can take years to sort out and thousands in legal fees.

The amount of money it costs to provide mandatory DNA testing is nothing in comparison to the fraud perpetuated on these unsuspecting men.

The real reason this isn't law is because of how it will further tear apart society and destroy the credibility of marriage, when men find out so many women are lying about the paternity of their children they will shun marriage even further.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

marriageontherocks2 said:


> Between 10 & 20% of children born are not the biological children of the men the women claim to be the fathers. With 7 billion people in the world that seems like a question that needs answering since most men are naive and clueless. The vast majority of these men have no idea that their wife or girlfriend has been cuckolding him for months and is impregnated by another man. Paying for a test online is great and all but it's not binding, to get it binding the man needs to pay a lawyer a large retainer, the lawyer needs to argue the reason for the paternity test, and the judge needs to order it, it can take years to sort out and thousands in legal fees.
> 
> The amount of money it costs to provide mandatory DNA testing is nothing in comparison to the fraud perpetuated on these unsuspecting men.
> 
> The real reason this isn't law is because of how it will further tear apart society and destroy the credibility of marriage, when men find out so many women are lying about the paternity of their children they will shun marriage even further.


There is another reason for this. A lot of people are very uncomfortable with the idea of collecting DNA on every person. If our country were to make DNA testing mandatory at birth, that means that the DNA of most men and most babies will be available for the government to build that big DNA database that some want.

Any man can DNA any child that his wife has. It's easy and cheap. If they are concerned they can put out the money and do the test.


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

Chisox said:


> All contraception is intrinsically evil. It causes major damage in society and in marriages. Abstinance untill marriage, then, the married couple should practice Natural Family Planning if they have serious reason to postpone a pregnancy.


This particular belief causes major damage in society and family. It keeps 50% of society enslaved to reproduction, it keeps women and children in poverty, and it allows society to marginalize women.


----------



## CuddleBug (Nov 26, 2012)

vej36 said:


> The Deadbeat Dad who failed or outright refuses to pay his Child-support remains Public Enemy #1 in the nightly news and throughout Media; however, Feminists and Govt "NEVER" advocate for a Male Birth Control Pill nor Mandatory DNA testing to ensure Paternity immediately after a child's birth......WHY?
> 
> Best Interest of the child to know his/her father ....right?
> 
> ...



Male birth control pill.

https://melmagazine.com/heres-where-we-re-at-with-the-male-pill-fbd0a2be62b3


Women have birth control and men will soon have the same. Problem solved.


----------



## Chisox (Dec 24, 2017)

BlueWoman said:


> This particular belief causes major damage in society and family. It keeps 50% of society enslaved to reproduction, it keeps women and children in poverty, and it allows society to marginalize women.[
> 
> What marginalises women is men(and women) thinking they can use the other person just for pleasure as contraception does. Then when the contraception fails, or it tears apart marriages, there are un wanted pregnancy, abortion which leads to more hurt women and men and dead babies, and poverty for women and children as their fathers flee.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I say it's high time to let men deal with hair loss


News flash, 
But I am so glad that you are in favor of my hair loss.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

It's not just men who don't like condoms and find they ruin the pleasure of intercourse.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

marriageontherocks2 said:


> We have the technology to determine paternity at birth very easily. Before any man is ordered to pay child support it should be determined if he's actually the father. Paternity at birth is a no-brainer in my opinion. I can't imagine why anyone would have an issue with it.
> 
> I've said before if a man can't pay for his children he's a deadbeat, and should be jailed. If a woman can't pay for her children she gets WIC, affordable housing, free cell phones, free child care, welfare payments, free education.
> 
> Logically speaking since women are sole deciders on whether the child lives or dies, the man should have no responsibility for the child if she determines to carry it to term. I think in marriage that could be part of the contract. But outside marriage if a woman makes the decision to bring a child to term instead of killing it, that's HER decision, HER responsibility alone.


Most of us knew who the father was, our husbands, no need for testing for all. if any man I was with wanted testing, I would know I was with the wrong man. If we can't trust each other then there is no marriage. If she had an affair ok, they can get a testing kit and do it themselves.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

vej36 said:


> The Deadbeat Dad who failed or outright refuses to pay his Child-support remains Public Enemy #1 in the nightly news and throughout Media; however, Feminists and Govt "NEVER" advocate for a Male Birth Control Pill nor Mandatory DNA testing to ensure Paternity immediately after a child's birth......WHY?


I, personally, DO. I am a strong feminist, and believe that people NEED ability to control and manage their reproduction. Condoms suck, and men are the most vocal about their problems... in bed. Not so much elsewhere. I am not sure why paternity testing would be universally needed. But if you want a paternity test, rock it. What I think I understand is that they are readily available. Is there some massive paternity fraud occurring that needs addressing? If so, I am unaware of it. It would have to be brought to life for me as a systemic problem before I stand behind systemic change. 

I don't see why the media would be shrieking about either of these issues since there does not seem to be a grass root effort to change either.


> Best Interest of the child to know his/her father ....right?
> 
> Best Interest of society to provide Male Contraceptive Technology to PREVENT an unwanted pregnancy....Right?
> 
> ...


I waft between chuckling and crying when I see these posts about society not acting as one to fix social ills. Society is not some hive mind. We are individuals with our own priorities. As a woman, I am lucky to follow women who stood up and acted to fix some of them. As the sister of a black man, I consider myself lucky for the civil rights activism that affords my brother some freedom under the law he would not formerly have had. As a mother of a young man, I don't prioritize his reproductive rights or equity in family courts because a) he is gay and b) he has no intention of having children. Personally, access to affordable and awesome education is higher on my priority list. I have a host of other issues on my mind that don't focus on these issues when I head to the polls.

In my state, family court is pretty equitable. One state over it is not. A good friend of mine was reamed by a lying ex-wife in his divorce proceedings. I offered to stand before the court and testify to direct experience with those lies. He declined as he was not interested in my getting involved in some fairly sordid stuff. Nice guy. 

Every social change that has ever come about in the US has come about through people banding together and forming the roots of a movement. I know it is popular on this board to voice how the problem for women, blacks and gays is solved. Anyone who followed the Brock Turner case knows that this is not true. Anyone who shrieks All Lives Matter simplify the obvious to the absurd. Of course all lives matter. But as a white person married to a white man, my social and economic reality has not been systemically marginalized. My son still has to watch whom he speaks to about his sexuality in a very liberal state. He still has to worry about being beaten to death. My daughter's first predator approached her at ELEVEN years old. She maintains a numbered list on her social media of the men and boys who have sent her unsolicited genital pictures with requests for nude photos so she can recognize them if she comes across them to steer clear. 

The truth of the matter is that if there was a market for effective male contraceptive, pharmaceutical companies would be researching that like crazy. We know that the motivation of pharma is BUCKS. When men start opening up their mouths, marching with their feet and their dollars, I promise to be right behind them. In the meantime, what is it that the media should be covering, exactly? Silence?


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Cletus said:


> I had my scrotum cut, my reproductive organs burned and mutilated. I sat on a bag of frozen peas for two days while my testicle swelled to 3x normal size, turning the colors of a prize fighter's face after a championship bout. I suffered two decades of random testicular pain when I slept wrong the night before.
> 
> I guess I'm not sure what more you want from me to hold up my end of the birth control bargain.


That was one hell of a truth or dare game!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Chisox said:


> All contraception is intrinsically evil. It causes major damage in society and in marriages. Abstinance untill marriage, then, the married couple should practice Natural Family Planning if they have serious reason to postpone a pregnancy.


Natural Family Planning makes me laugh out loud. Some SERIOUS REASON to postpone pregnancy? How about the hoards of actual human being that result from pregnancy. Those are the most serious reason to delay pregnancy or avoid it altogether. Heaven's to betsy, people want to have sex? It has only been going on since the beginning of TIME.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Mr. Nail said:


> News flash,
> But I am so glad that you are in favor of my hair loss.


Bald is HOT.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> Bald is HOT.


Balding is not


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Mr. Nail said:


> Balding is not


Razor?


----------



## turnera (Jan 22, 2010)

vej36 said:


> The Deadbeat Dad who failed or outright refuses to pay his Child-support remains Public Enemy #1 in the nightly news and throughout Media; however, Feminists and Govt "NEVER" advocate for a Male Birth Control Pill ...WHY?


Ha, that's easy. Because we women know we could never DEPEND on the man to continue taking the birth control, that it would still be on OUR shoulders to ensure we don't get pregnant and have our lives and careers changed overnight.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

The current fashionista declaration that every man with thinning hair shave his head regularly is no less ridiculous than the wearing of wool wigs in Benjamin Franklin's day. Ben refused to wear the ridiculous uncomfortable things. the end result was a bunch of french wig makers making a wig that looked like a balding man. 

So to answer the "razor?" I'll continue to use it where I want and not where a bunch of idiots who think it is a good idea to cut a hole in the shoulder of your shirt say I should.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Mr. Nail said:


> The current fashionista declaration that every man with thinning hair shave his head regularly is no less ridiculous than the wearing of wool wigs in Benjamin Franklin's day. Ben refused to wear the ridiculous uncomfortable things. the end result was a bunch of french wig makers making a wig that looked like a balding man.
> 
> So to answer the "razor?" I'll continue to use it where I want and not where a bunch of idiots who think it is a good idea to cut a hole in the shoulder of your shirt say I should.


Of course you should only use it if you want to. Whom else would need to like your look?


----------



## notmyrealname4 (Apr 9, 2014)

Mr. Nail said:


> The current fashionista declaration that every man with thinning hair shave his head regularly is no less ridiculous than the wearing of wool wigs in Benjamin Franklin's day. Ben refused to wear the ridiculous uncomfortable things. the end result was a bunch of french wig makers making a wig that looked like a balding man.
> 
> So to answer the "razor?" I'll continue to use it where I want and not where a bunch of idiots who think it is a good idea to cut a hole in the shoulder of your shirt say I should.




Hair Club for Men? Why not? Men shouldn't be ashamed of getting their hair restored if/when they begin to lose it.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

notmyrealname4 said:


> Hair Club for Men? Why not? Men shouldn't be ashamed of getting their hair restored if/when they begin to lose it.


Men shouldn't be ashamed of their looks, feelings or anything. Period. Shame is such a useless thing.


----------



## marriageontherocks2 (Oct 4, 2017)

Paternity at child birth mandated by the state is necessary because child support is being demanded by the state. In order for the state to determine if the right party is being subjected to the penalty they need to determine that they're the biological parent. The woman's word isn't good enough here.

Getting a DNA kit from Walmart is fine, but it's not admissible in court. To get a court ordered paternity test can take years and cost thousands in legal fees many can't afford. And by the time the man suspects something the court may not even care and basically say "he's been playing daddy for 2 years so he's the dad". The numbers for children born to men who aren't their fathers ranges from 10-30%, that's very high, which means there is a massive amount of fraud being perpetrated against men. A simple cheek swab at birth solves all of it. I have no clue why this would be a problem to anyone.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

marriageontherocks2 said:


> Paternity at child birth mandated by the state is necessary because child support is being demanded by the state. In order for the state to determine if the right party is being subjected to the penalty they need to determine that they're the biological parent. The woman's word isn't good enough here..


The moment the state has to step in and mandate child support is the moment paternity questions need to be answered, IFF the "penalized" party demands it. 

Mandated testing at childbirth is of convenience, not of necessity.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> I, personally, DO. I am a strong feminist, and believe that people NEED ability to control and manage their reproduction. Condoms suck, and men are the most vocal about their problems... in bed. Not so much elsewhere. I am not sure why paternity testing would be universally needed. But if you want a paternity test, rock it. What I think I understand is that they are readily available.* Is there some massive paternity fraud occurring that needs addressing? If so, I am unaware of it. It would have to be brought to life for me as a systemic problem before I stand behind systemic change.
> *


Well, I guess that depends on what you demand as a threshold for "massive" or to qualify as a "system problem". 

Most studies I have seen have quoted that it is at least 4%, and this seems to be borne out by this Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud). I have also seen statistics as high as 30%, but those seem to be based on samples where there were reasons to be suspicious (eg, from series of dispute paternity cases), so are not likely to apply to the population as a whole. 

Interestingly, I saw a very intriguing article in the Economist (which was a summary of a scientific paper elsewhere), where they looked at genetic testing of families in England who could be traced for centuries, and although I forget all the details of the article, they also calculated that there seemed to be a 4% rate of "paternity fraud" in past centuries as well. 

So I think a very strong case can be made for a minimum of 4% rate of paternity fraud. Does that qualify for concern? Or, can we just dismiss it as a negligible amount? Let's put this in perspective.

For example, this New England Journal of Medicine Article estimates that in the study most recent to the article, 2% of post-adolescent US males were exclusively homosexual (MMS: Error). In a similar vein, in a Gallup poll in 2015, 3.8% of the respondents identified as homosexual (Americans Greatly Overestimate Percent Gay, Lesbian in U.S.). So that means, if you see a man randomly on the street, he is as likely, or even twice as likely to be a victim of paternity fraud as he is to be gay. Is that large enough population to deserve concern? There are many laws and quite a bit of activism in favor of civil rights for the gay segment our nation. Since the paternity fraud victims are at least as big a percentage, would they be entitled to as much support? 

Here's another way to look at it. Even at the lower number of 4%, that's about one in every 25 children. That means in every elementary school classroom of 30 (or more! these days) children, 1 or 2 kids will not know who their actual father is. Don't they deserve to know? And that means every classroom has 1 or 2 fathers who is supporting a child under false pretenses. Doesn't he have the right to his own reproductive destiny and the right to know the truth so he could have his own child and direct his resources to his own progeny? If this fraudulent child is his only one, he has been condemned to genetic oblivion by fraud. Doesn't he have the right to determine his own reproduction?

Other numbers that might give some perspective to the magnitude of paternity fraud-- Asian Americans are about 5.6% of the population--about 1 in 20. So the paternity fraud victim rate of 4% is only slightly less than the US Asian rate. It is also four times the percent of Muslims (1%) in the US. I'm sure most of the US population has known some Asian-Americans and even Muslims. So you can use that to reflect on how many paternity fraud victims you must have encountered as well. 

So, I don't know what sort of threshold you demand to qualify as a "systemic problem". But since I know a lot of gays, school children, Asian-Americans and Muslims, I realize I must know a LOT of paternity fraud victims as well--perhaps unwitting victims. Enough to qualify as a "systemic problem" in my book.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

Cletus said:


> The moment the state has to step in and mandate child support is the moment paternity questions need to be answered, IFF the "penalized" party demands it.
> 
> Mandated testing at childbirth is of convenience, not of necessity.


Well, I think you're forgetting some very practical issues. 

For one thing, in some states, if the paternity fraud is not discovered by a certain time (often 2 years), then it can no longer be contested for child support purposes even if proven by genetic testing later. 

Secondly, I think it would be hard for many (?most?) men, even if they found they were frauded, to turn their backs on a child with whom they have bonded for 2-3 years. Testing at childbirth allows the man to more easily pick up the pieces of his life and regain his own reproductive rights to raise his own offspring. 

I am not necessarily advocating paternity testing at birth (nor am I necessarily against it), but I think there are practical reasons that waiting for a mandated child support order will lead to problems. 

For those who complain about the cost--well, of course there will be costs, but I will also point out that most states mandate testing for neonatal conditions such as phenylketonuria and hypothyroidism, even though the incidence is far less than the 4% paternity fraud rate.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Wolfman1968 said:


> Well, I guess that depends on what you demand as a threshold for "massive" or to qualify as a "system problem".
> 
> Most studies I have seen have quoted that it is at least 4%, and this seems to be borne out by this Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud). I have also seen statistics as high as 30%, but those seem to be based on samples where there were reasons to be suspicious (eg, from series of dispute paternity cases), so are not likely to apply to the population as a whole.
> 
> ...


So. 96% of families are not part of this systemic problem. Hmmmm. I don't think I have ever seen a rate of 4% causing societal uproar. I am not sure whom you are identifying as the victims. The children? How? I don't think I have ever seen anyone concerned until it is time to pay MONEY in the form of child support. 

I have no philosophical objection to paternity testing. I am much more troubled by the large scale circumcision of male children. But, as I said, not so much that it takes activism priority over much more serous societal issues. I do not think, though, that women and politicians fear the solution to this massive non-issue as the title suggests. No smoking gun here. Sorry.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> So. 96% of families are not part of this systemic problem. Hmmmm. I don't think I have ever seen a rate of 4% causing societal uproar.
> 
> *Really? I saw a lot of uproar over gay marriage even though the reliable statistics show the adult gay population at or below 4%. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

One study on paternity fraud a few years ago had interesting results. I believe their number was 1 in 17 children was fathered by other than the presumed father. That's 5.8%. Anyhow, they found the rate was pretty consistent across various demographics.

Most interesting to me was that in families where the husband is presumed to be the biological father of all the children, the more children the more likely one or more of them are not his. These larger families typically are more stable financially and socially, and frequently are more religiously conservative (Catholic or Mormon). A man can't take comfort that the kids are his simply because his marriage and family seems solid.

Since we cannot predict future divorces, a new father shouldn't believe he will never be on the hook for child support in the future. But, just like first time marriages rarely include a prenup, new fathers rarely think about protecting themselves in case of future child support.

When my son has kids of his own, I'll be doing testing to ensure I am their bio grandfather.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

marriageontherocks2 said:


> Paternity at child birth mandated by the state is necessary because child support is being demanded by the state. In order for the state to determine if the right party is being subjected to the penalty they need to determine that they're the biological parent. The woman's word isn't good enough here.
> 
> Getting a DNA kit from Walmart is fine, but it's not admissible in court. To get a court ordered paternity test can take years and cost thousands in legal fees many can't afford. And by the time the man suspects something the court may not even care and basically say "he's been playing daddy for 2 years so he's the dad". The numbers for children born to men who *aren't their fathers ranges from 10-30%*, that's very high, which means there is a massive amount of fraud being perpetrated against men. A simple cheek swab at birth solves all of it. I have no clue why this would be a problem to anyone.


Where did you get those figures?

Forgive me, I am a little skeptical.


----------



## Stang197 (Aug 31, 2015)

Wow. Some people are very opposed to to paternity testing. I wonder why? Seems pretty fair if someone is going to be on the hook financially for 18 years. Only saying.......


----------



## Stang197 (Aug 31, 2015)

If it was mandatory it would take paternity fraud to almost zero. If this test was mandatory it would add very little to cost of the childbirth overall . The cost would almost certainly come down with widespread use of the test. It would also keep honest people honest. This might save a lot of marriages .


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Stang197 said:


> Wow. Some people are very opposed to to paternity testing. I wonder why? Seems pretty fair if someone is going to be on the hook financially for 18 years. Only saying.......


For my part, I am not particularly against it. Of all the things that we spend money on, I would rather it be that than a great many things. The trend in family court has been to get out of figuring out how each member of a marriage has screwed up but to focus on the benefit to the child (and division of assets of course). So if the presumptive father is not the father, who will support the child? 

While it has nothing to do with family law, I am always a bit confused why it would only be a matter of interest when the issue is paying money in the form of child support. I see nothing wrong with activism in the area of family law being more equitable to men. It just strikes me odd that the only concern is the payment of child support.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Stang197 said:


> Wow. Some people are very opposed to to paternity testing. I wonder why? Seems pretty fair if someone is going to be on the hook financially for 18 years. Only saying.......


I am not against it if one parents suspects that the child is not his, but for the majority who have never been unfaithful it would be demeaning.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Statistics aside, paternity fraud should be a criminal offense.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

Stang197 said:


> Wow. Some people are very opposed to to paternity testing. I wonder why? Seems pretty fair if someone is going to be on the hook financially for 18 years. Only saying.......


If women were somehow capable of unknowingly becoming pregnant with, carrying, and giving birth to children that are not their genetic offspring, there would be a lot more understanding.

But most are largely unaffected by it, so meh.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Mandatory DNA testing? I think I'm going to throw up.

How about if you suspect the child isn't yours, you pay for a DANA test and go to court. Please don't invite the government to intrude even further in my life because you did a bad job picking who you slept with. Take responsibility for your own actions and leave the rest of us out of it.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

GusPolinski said:


> If women were somehow capable of unknowingly becoming pregnant with, carrying, and giving birth to children that are not their genetic offspring, there would be a lot more understanding.
> 
> But most are largely unaffected by it, so meh.


From the only on TAM files, a poster was urged to DNA test the baby to make sure it was really *hers*. And it wasn’t a mix up situation.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

GusPolinski said:


> Statistics aside, paternity fraud should be a criminal offense.


I don' think that anyone would disagree that the stupidity and straight up contempt that goes into getting pregnant by another man and passing it off as your husband's is just mind blowing. I a frequently blown away by the truly horrible things that people do.

But I am trying to figure legislators crafting this law. Since we are talking about paternity fraud, we are talking about a baby or child. If the penalty is the mother getting jail time, what happens to the kid(s)? Placed with the potentially unwilling non-father? Placed with the almost certainly unwilling father, if he can even be identified. If the penalty is a fee, then who really pays? One of the things about marriage is that most families' money is intertwined. And even when that is not the case, the money that goes to the fees then becomes unavailable to the support of the child(ren). I would be curious about what your thoughts on that are.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I don' think that anyone would disagree that the stupidity and straight up contempt that goes into getting pregnant by another man and passing it off as your husband's is just mind blowing. I a frequently blown away by the truly horrible things that people do.
> 
> But I am trying to figure legislators crafting this law. Since we are talking about paternity fraud, we are talking about a baby or child. If the penalty is the mother getting jail time, what happens to the kid(s)? Placed with the potentially unwilling non-father? Placed with the almost certainly unwilling father, if he can even be identified. If the penalty is a fee, then who really pays? One of the things about marriage is that most families' money is intertwined. And even when that is not the case, the money that goes to the fees then becomes unavailable to the support of the child(ren). I would be curious about what your thoughts on that are.


While I think that the collateral victims of all sorts of crimes are often indirectly — and unjustly — punished when the perpetrators of said crimes are justly punished for them, I think that there are more ways than jail time to punish crime.

I think there is nothing so inherently divine or untouchable about being either female or a mother that those who choose to be so egregiously dishonest when transitioning from the former to the latter shouldn’t be held accountable for their respective decisions to do so.

I think that paternity fraud — in that it involves the falsification of legal documents — should be considered the same as tax evasion or perjury, and both of those are considered felonies.

I think that any attempt to knowingly entrap a man into parting with any portion of the proceeds of his work in order to provide for a child — or children — that are not his biological offspring should be considered tantamount to human trafficking.

I think that all sorts of crimes _aren’t_ committed every day precisely because they ARE considered crimes, and therefore have a list of foreseeable punishments associated with them.

I think that, for one to truly _own_ his or her sexuality, he or she must be prepared to accept the natural consequences of engaging in consensual sexual acts.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

vej36 said:


> The Deadbeat Dad who failed or outright refuses to pay his Child-support remains Public Enemy #1 in the nightly news and throughout Media; however, Feminists and Govt "NEVER" advocate for a Male Birth Control Pill nor Mandatory DNA testing to ensure Paternity immediately after a child's birth......WHY?
> 
> Best Interest of the child to know his/her father ....right?
> 
> ...


Male contraception? My friend, I have never shied away from sexual relations with women. I come from a highly potent family of males. Never once did I impregnate a woman, and I ALWAYS took care of birth control. Exactly what forms of male contraception do you not know about? 

And then there's the vascectomy - takes 20 minutes, minimal discomfort, back to work the next day, done for almost free by most doctor's offices. What's stopping you? Whereas, for women, tubal ligation is highly invasive surgery.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I wish it were that simple. 

Condoms really do fail sometimes. 

Drugs for mail contraception are tricky - unlike for women there isn't a natural cycle to adjust to keep men in a non-fertile stage. Not saying its impossible, but its a more difficult problem. 

There was a poster here a while back talking about the rather serious side effects he had from a vasectomy. I don't know how common those are. Its certainly less serious than sterilization of a woman. 






DustyDog said:


> Male contraception? My friend, I have never shied away from sexual relations with women. I come from a highly potent family of males. Never once did I impregnate a woman, and I ALWAYS took care of birth control. Exactly what forms of male contraception do you not know about?
> 
> And then there's the vascectomy - takes 20 minutes, minimal discomfort, back to work the next day, done for almost free by most doctor's offices. What's stopping you? Whereas, for women, tubal ligation is highly invasive surgery.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> But I am trying to figure legislators crafting this law. Since we are talking about paternity fraud, we are talking about a baby or child. If the penalty is the mother getting jail time, what happens to the kid(s)? Placed with the potentially unwilling non-father? Placed with the almost certainly unwilling father, if he can even be identified. If the penalty is a fee, then who really pays? One of the things about marriage is that most families' money is intertwined. And even when that is not the case, the money that goes to the fees then becomes unavailable to the support of the child(ren). I would be curious about what your thoughts on that are.


What should happen? The same thing that happens when a mother commits any other crime.

Do you think that, for example, if a mother defrauded an elderly person out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a scam she should not go to jail because she has a child? Or she should not make restitution to the elderly fraud victim because then there is less money for support of her child?

*No one would accept that argument for other crimes.* I contend that your tolerance for the wrongs committed against the wronged man reflects an underlying lack of sympathy for the true depth of injustice done to him. 

The wronged man deserves EVERY opportunity to try to salvage as much of his life as he can after this fraud. He has been denies his basic reproductive rights by deception. The time and years can never be returned. But he will need his financial resources to attempt, if possible, to have a child that really IS his through another relationship and be able to use those resources to try to salvage his reproductive rights to raise his OWN child(ren).

To deny him the opportunity to fulfill his own reproductive rights and raise his own children to the best level possible only EXACERBATES and COMPOUNDS the wrong done to him by the fraud. I think its inexcusable that courts currently perpetuate the wrong under the fig leaf of "best interest of the child".

So, no, I do not think that Paternity Fraud offers a magic protection against consequences that the mother would have to face WITH ANY OTHER CRIME (including crimes of fraud).


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> While it has nothing to do with family law, I am always a bit confused why it would only be a matter of interest when the issue is paying money in the form of child support. I see nothing wrong with activism in the area of family law being more equitable to men. It just strikes me odd that the only concern is the payment of child support.


It's not the *ONLY* concern, and your statement is false. In fact, this thread itself contains posts about prosecuting the mother who perpetuates the fraud (which is not the first time this have been raised). Also, this thread also discusses testing at birth which is not child support either, but an issue of knowledge. 

However, with the CURRENT status of Paternity Fraud, the main way the courts cause and perpetuate injustice is by imposition of child support. The court does not force the man to stay married after the fraud is discovered. The court does not force the man to have contact with the child that may remind him daily of the betrayal. The court does not prevent him, after divorcing the unfaithful wife, of marrying someone else to try to have his OWN child (if possible, given age, health, etc.). But the courts in many states DO impose an unjust child support, often even after the paternity has been disproven. 

So, if child support is the main way court impose injustice on the male victim of Paternity Fraud, why should it "strike you odd"---or strike ANYONE odd-- that it would be the main focus of complaint? By my way of thinking, it would "strike me odd" if someone complained about a smaller side issue and ignored the biggest mechanism for injustice.

Because child support is the biggest cudgel of injustice used by the courts against men in Paternity Fraud situations, it seems obvious to be the natural target of complaint and a starting point for correction of the inequities of Family Court. That should be patently obvious to anyone. So it "strikes me odd" that it "strikes you odd" that it is a source of complaint for the victims of Paternity Fraud.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> While it has nothing to do with family law, I am always a bit confused why it would only be a matter of interest when the issue is paying money in the form of child support. I see nothing wrong with activism in the area of family law being more equitable to men. It just strikes me odd that the only concern is the payment of child support.


And here is another concern besides payment of child support--which I posted before your post, so your comment that you repeat here about "only concern is child support" is not true. You should read the post by the adult child here in TAM whose world destroyed when he discovered the Paternity Fraud his mother perpetrated. 



Wolfman1968 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by NobodySpecial View Post
> So. 96% of families are not part of this systemic problem. Hmmmm. I don't think I have ever seen a rate of 4% causing societal uproar.
> 
> ...


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

Cletus said:


> I had my scrotum cut, my reproductive organs burned and mutilated. I sat on a bag of frozen peas for two days while my testicle swelled to 3x normal size, turning the colors of a prize fighter's face after a championship bout. I suffered two decades of random testicular pain when I slept wrong the night before.
> 
> I guess I'm not sure what more you want from me to hold up my end of the birth control bargain.


Damn Cletus, and I was seriously considering a vasectomy before you totally made me chicken out.


----------



## GusPolinski (Jan 21, 2014)

She'sStillGotIt said:


> I say it's high time to let men risk their health for a *big* change. Let _them_ deal with the threat of cancer and heart problems and unwanted skin pigmentation issues and fluctuating weight and sex drives, cysts and fibroids and hair loss and everything *else* the pill has caused for the last 50+ years to untold numbers of women.


No thanks. Think I’d rather learn more about my own natural cycle.

Oh.

Wait.



She'sStillGotIt said:


> Since they seem to have NO problem expecting women to risk THEIR health year after year for their pleasure...


Incorrect.

You wear that victim hat well, though.



She'sStillGotIt said:


> ...I can only assume that guys would be thrilled to return the favor and risk _their_ health for 10 or 20 years taking a male pill so they could do their *part*.


You’d be wrong.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Wolfman1968 said:


> What should happen? The same thing that happens when a mother commits any other crime.
> 
> Do you think that, for example, if a mother defrauded an elderly person out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a scam she should not go to jail because she has a child? Or she should not make restitution to the elderly fraud victim because then there is less money for support of her child?
> 
> *No one would accept that argument for other crimes.* I contend that your tolerance for the wrongs committed against the wronged man reflects an underlying lack of sympathy for the true depth of injustice done to him.


Ok. I can get with that bolded. I guess that is what criminalizing it would be all about. I contend that your accusation that I lack sympathy for wronged is innacurate. There are a LOT of wrongs in the world that have no recourse in the criminal justice system for reasons both good-ish and bad-ish. I am simply not naive enough to think every wrongdoing has its comeuppance in court.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> Ok. I can get with that bolded. I guess that is what criminalizing it would be all about. I contend that your accusation that I lack sympathy for wronged is innacurate. There are a LOT of wrongs in the world that have no recourse in the criminal justice system for reasons both good-ish and bad-ish.* I am simply not naive enough to think every wrongdoing has its comeuppance in court*.


I totally don't get this "naivety" thing. Do it seems like you feel like a guy being duped his whole life into thinking he's at least a bio dad, likely causing him to rework his entire life to fit the kid's needs, and likely spending a lifetime of his earnings on the child thinking it's his responsibility.......

You aren't so "naive" as to think this evil deed is worthy of punishment by law?

I just don't get it. People can be accused of assault for a punch in the face that may cause no lasting damage......and serve hard tune...
But this nefarious deed that is carried out on a man which affects his whole life and takes advantage of his hard work for many years---- it's not deemed worthy of a law?

Kind of strange. Men's rights really don't seem nearly as important to some people as they should be. Men get dumped on horribly by courts over kids and child support. I especially feel sympathy for guys who make good money from their own hard work who have to pay outrageous sums to their exes who cheated in the form of child support.
I k is a guy who paid. 11k a month in c.s. And his wife used the first payment to buy her AP a new truck.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Evinrude58 said:


> I totally don't get this "naivety" thing. Do it seems like you feel like a guy being duped his whole life into thinking he's at least a bio dad, likely causing him to rework his entire life to fit the kid's needs, and likely spending a lifetime of his earnings on the child thinking it's his responsibility.......
> 
> You aren't so "naive" as to think this evil deed is worthy of punishment by law?


I am not so naive as to think all of those things that are worthy of being punished by law are or even should be for the greater good. It sucks. But it is. Maybe I am jaded. 



> I just don't get it. People can be accused of assault for a punch in the face that may cause no lasting damage......and serve hard tune...
> But this nefarious deed that is carried out on a man which affects his whole life and takes advantage of his hard work for many years---- it's not deemed worthy of a law?
> 
> Kind of strange. Men's rights really don't seem nearly as important to some people as they should be. Men get dumped on horribly by courts over kids and child support. I especially feel sympathy for guys who make good money from their own hard work who have to pay outrageous sums to their exes who cheated in the form of child support.
> I k is a guy who paid. 11k a month in c.s. And his wife used the first payment to buy her AP a new truck.


Family court is a red hot mess. There is no doubt that it needs some serious help. But family court is not criminal court. The thing that Wolf said that resonated with me is that fraud is CRIMINAL and should be.


----------



## zookeeper (Oct 2, 2012)

Greater good? How many atrocities have been committed in human history in the name of the greater good?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

zookeeper said:


> Greater good? How many atrocities have been committed in human history in the name of the greater good?


I guess my thoughts were focused on family court. I really don't see the benefit to trying to apply some kind of justice to how bad 2 people messed up their relationship. For background, you should bear in mind a few things about my PoV. I am not convinced civil marriage makes any sense at all. I don't think that cheating is the single most evil thing a person can do in a marriage. It is placed on whatever the opposite of a pedestal is on this board along with all manners of abuse. Yes, it is pretty f-ed up. But many, many things that don't rise to the level of criminal abuse do. And I don't think that the family courts should be in the business of sorting that mess out when dissolving a marriage. 

What made me rethink paternity fraud was Wolf's correct attribution of paternity fraud as what it is in a way that other marital dysfunctions are not. Fraud. Assuming one can let go of the horrible gut punch that has to be (if one could do that), having had your teeth pulled out of your life, you are unable to get on with your life because you owe massive amounts of money as presumed father to someone who was foisted on you by fraud. I am not sure I have the bandwidth to figure that. But it certainly resonated with me what an injustice that is. 

He actually triggered me to rethink my feelings on my bafflement about only caring about paternity when their was money involved. My context of this thinking is how often it is brought up in terms of child support but not the actual raising of the kid... the original topic being about mandatory paternity testing at birth. I think my feelings were unfair. Most people go into relationships in good faith. So respondents to this thread are thinking in those terms. That seems fair since most people are not getting on board with the whole notion that their relationships are a sh!t storm before there is evidence to that. The premise of the thread that women are such evil people that we need to be on watch for them has bee either vilified or, rightly, ignored.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

I wonder what the OP thinks about what's been discussed in his thread? He's only got 9 posts so far. He's started 4 threads, all of which are hot topics.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Evinrude58 said:


> Damn Cletus, and I was seriously considering a vasectomy before you totally made me chicken out.


Did I forget to mention that it was still totally the best contraception decision ever? 

Sorry, my bad.


----------

