NationStates

Don´t see any real reason that we need to make it mandatory and I suspect the reasoning behind making it mandatory is iffy but okay I guess it is a pretty harmless suggestion.

Purgatio wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Considering the inherent biases of our courts against men that's a bit iffy.

Paternity fraud is literally an open and shut case. The tort of deceit means you can claim compensation for any deception, whether deliberate or in reckless disregard for the truth, which results in consequential economic loss. Paternity fraud fits the bill. Just show the kid isn't yours and you raised him all these years and you'll win damages, simple.

I mean, there are literally cases in this country where men are forced to pay for children who they know are not theirs.

So I doubt it's as open and shut as you believe.

Necroghastia wrote:

Lower Nubia wrote:Current studies suggest 10% of children are raised unknowingly, by mother and “dad”, by the wrong father.

So, yes.

Studies like...?

I know it’s Wikipedia, but the 10% was told to me by a lecturer who did genetic analysis for work in hereditary genetic conditions, obviously paternity is important here - including faux paternity.

If the man requests a paternity test, it should be allowed. Other than that, no, paternity tests shouldn't be mandatory.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Heloin wrote:Both of those sentiments are sexist.

Not really. Rape, by its original definition, requires a penis, hence the notion that women can only be potential sexual assaulters, at most.

Rape committed against men involves penises, though.

Purgatio wrote:This wouldn't be a problem if we created a national DNA database, with a person's DNA entered into the database from a drawn blood sample from the moment of birth. Not only would issues like paternity and child support obligations be determined automatically, but it would allow us to solve many violent crimes through a simpler and streamlined process.

While Im not opposed to a DNA database, this would heavily increase the chances of random sex with individual during party leads to surprise child support payments, and other such cases similar to it. Furthermore, it also does risk hurting relationships, which is another major problem of this. Especially early age children who's parents havent formed a strong enough bond to overcome the feelings of betrayal.

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Or perhaps the father just can't write as big of a check as the last one.

Yeah, because naturally women decide who to claim child support from based on the ability to pay. You really don't have any issues coming off as a massive misogynist, do you?

Are we supposed to just pretend that raising children doesn't require a boatload of money?

No one's being shamed. Men just don't really feel like being financially and legally on the hook for the rest of their lives for a baby that's not even theirs. Or are we expected to by default assume that all women are virtuous angels who would never sleep with anyone else?

And tbqh, if you slept around and end up with a baby who's not your SO's offspring then you absolutely deserve to be shamed.

You say that you're not shaming anyone... and in the sentence right after, you're shaming literally all women, building in the premise that they're all automatically and entirely untrustworthy, to the point where even if a man trusts a woman, he has to be forced to have a paternity test.
You also started out referring to single women, now it's women with SO's sleeping around. At least get your misogynist stories straight.

Not really. In fact, my philosophy on this is pretty simple.

Trust, but verify.

Do you have any actual arguments beyond shrieking "misogynist"?

It should be optional, with both parent's consent required. Often, people are so apprehensive of their reputation being sullied (if it is placed on the line), that they will blunder their way into under taking one.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:Yeah, because naturally women decide who to claim child support from based on the ability to pay. You really don't have any issues coming off as a massive misogynist, do you?

Are we supposed to just pretend that raising children doesn't require a boatload of money?

Getting child support from who you thought was the father, getting child support from who was actually the father... the cost of raising kids on your own doesn't change.

You say that you're not shaming anyone... and in the sentence right after, you're shaming literally all women, building in the premise that they're all automatically and entirely untrustworthy, to the point where even if a man trusts a woman, he has to be forced to have a paternity test.
You also started out referring to single women, now it's women with SO's sleeping around. At least get your misogynist stories straight.

Not really. In fact, my philosophy on this is pretty simple.

Trust, but verify.

Do you have any actual arguments beyond shrieking "misogynist"?

You conveniently didn't read the conversation we've had?

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Are we supposed to just pretend that raising children doesn't require a boatload of money?

Getting child support from who you thought was the father, getting child support from who was actually the father... the cost of raising kids on your own doesn't change.

No... it doesn't.

I'm not talking about the cost changing. I'm talking about having less money to spend.

Do I need to start using crayons to get you to understand the fairly simple words I'm saying?

Not really. In fact, my philosophy on this is pretty simple.

Trust, but verify.

Do you have any actual arguments beyond shrieking "misogynist"?

You conveniently didn't read the conversation we've had?

Yes, I did. You're whining about me apparently assuming all women are untrustworthy.

So I'll reiterate again my fairly simple philosophy of "Trust, but verify."

If you want a paternity test, that is a sign something is wrong in your relationship. Why would your girlfriend/ wife sleep with others if she is happy with you?

I am for open honest curiosity and good communication. If you do that in your relationship, you can tell each other your fantasy, your dreams and your wishes to bed other people. (If that wish existed)

If you want kinky stuff or just rpg, talk about it, pay attention to your SO. And your SO will feel safe to do the same and feel no urge to sleep around behind your back.

The only time I’d be for paternity tests is when there is a strong reason to have one: finding if a child belongs to one of the parents, to find a lost parent or when a parent is refusing to take responsibility for a child. Other than that, nope.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:Getting child support from who you thought was the father, getting child support from who was actually the father... the cost of raising kids on your own doesn't change.

No... it doesn't.

I'm not talking about the cost changing. I'm talking about having less money to spend.

You're talking like women decide who to claim is the father because they think they can get some men to... what? Pay extra? Bribe them to remain silent? Originally you were talking about child support. Is US child support based on income?

Do I need to start using crayons to get you to understand the fairly simple words I'm saying?

Making a coherent and valid argument would be a nice help, but I'm not holding my breath.

You conveniently didn't read the conversation we've had?

Yes, I did. You're whining about me apparently assuming all women are untrustworthy.

So I'll reiterate again my fairly simple philosophy of "Trust, but verify."

And here you're presuming that all women are inherently untrustworthy and should automatically be suspected of infidelity or fraud (And sloppy of me to forget that option before). It's libellous based solely on gender, and inherently demean their reputation, which is discriminatory towards women. I.e. it's a transgression against the rights of women. That was your original question. Your oft-repeated misogynistic "arguments" aside (Whether you wish to phrase it as just an outcome of your philosophy or not), discrimination normally not legal.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:The only time I’d be for paternity tests is when there is a strong reason to have one: finding if a child belongs to one of the parents, to find a lost parent or when a parent is refusing to take responsibility for a child. Other than that, nope.

May I add, contested inheritances seem to be grounds enough, as many people "know" their kids were from a prior relationship and affair, and subsequently deny them their due.

Maybe it shouldn't be a automatic thing, but it should absolutely happen if either partner wants it.

Always best to know.

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:No... it doesn't.

I'm not talking about the cost changing. I'm talking about having less money to spend.

You're talking like women decide who to claim is the father because they think they can get some men to... what? Pay extra? Bribe them to remain silent? Originally you were talking about child support. Is US child support based on income?

I think his arguement is that if women can afford providing for the child vary the payment based off that. If the individual can make plenty of money on her own, the male shouldnt have to pay as much, but if the individual has difficulty the pay for the male should be more.

Do I need to start using crayons to get you to understand the fairly simple words I'm saying?

Making a coherent and valid argument would be a nice help, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think you probably out to calm down and take a nice slow read before posting. Things get heated and misread all the time.

Yes, I did. You're whining about me apparently assuming all women are untrustworthy.

So I'll reiterate again my fairly simple philosophy of "Trust, but verify."

And here you're presuming that all women are inherently untrustworthy and should automatically be suspected of infidelity or fraud (And sloppy of me to forget that option before). It's libellous based solely on gender, and inherently demean their reputation, which is discriminatory towards women. I.e. it's a transgression against the rights of women. That was your original question. Your oft-repeated misogynistic "arguments" aside (Whether you wish to phrase it as just an outcome of your philosophy or not), discrimination normally not legal.

His argument has been firmly, "lets play it safe and find out," nothings distrusting in a attitude like that.

Attempted Socialism wrote:You mean the mandatory slut-shaming and distrust based on her gender for no viable reason at all?

Firstly, no one is owed anyone's trust. It's a privilege, not a right.

Secondly, there is no real male equivalent of feeling the baby emerge from one's womb, so the phrase "based on her gender" would more accurately be described as "based on the real-world implications of the very definition of biological sex."

Thirdly... wouldn't mandatory paternity testing, if anything, yield the comparative advantage to sluts who are honest about being sluts, over the ones who aren't? Wouldn't that be the opposite of slut-shaming?

Attempted Socialism wrote:You're proposing a policy change on the basis that all women are automatically suspected of infidelity, and you can't see how that's a transgression?

Is having locks on your doors an automatic accusation against everyone else of attempted burglary, or a reasonable precaution?

Attempted Socialism wrote:In my country, that insinuation would be libellous (And the discrimination based on gender makes it a rights violation).

But there is no male equivalent ANYWAY. How does the word "discrimination" even apply to something that by definition cannot be gender-neutral?

Attempted Socialism wrote:Yeah, because naturally women decide who to claim child support from based on the ability to pay.

Well, does she have any reason not to?

Being that it's physically impossible by the very definition of male and female for males to do any "opposite-sex equivalent" of the issue being described here, the word misogynist, by definition, cannot apply.

Sometimes it lookst like the best case for mandatory paternity testing is the irrationality of its opponents.

The Sherpa Empire wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:Not really. Rape, by its original definition, requires a penis,

Expect a lecture if Gallo ever reads this.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The South Falls wrote:What about female maternity tests? thonk about that

Indeed. I have a story.

After 10 years, the wife starts to think their kid looks kinda strange so she decides to do a DNA test.

She finds out that the kid is actually from completely different parents.

Wife: Honey, I have something very serious to tell you

Husband: What’s up?

Wife: According to DNA test results, this is not our kid

Husband: Well you dont’t remember, do you?? When we were leaving the hospital, we noticed that our baby had pooped. Then you said: - Please go change the baby, I’ll wait for you here. So I went inside, got a clean one and left the dirty one there

I'll admit it, I laughed.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Heloin wrote:Both of those sentiments are sexist.

Not really. Rape, by its original definition, requires a penis, hence the notion that women can only be potential sexual assaulters, at most. Likewise, women know the baby's hers, because they felt the baby emerge from their own womb. Men have no way of knowing this.

<insert lecture here>

Thepeopl wrote:If you want a paternity test, that is a sign something is wrong in your relationship. Why would your girlfriend/ wife sleep with others if she is happy with you?

Who knows? Certainly not males, who've failed to predict infidelity time and time again. It's almost as if testosterone doesn't help you predict the effects of estrogen and progesterone or something.

Thepeopl wrote:I am for open honest curiosity and good communication. If you do that in your relationship, you can tell each other your fantasy, your dreams and your wishes to bed other people. (If that wish existed)

And what better way to incentivize honesty than to tell the dishonest that they'll eventually get caught?

Thepeopl wrote:If you want kinky stuff or just rpg, talk about it, pay attention to your SO. And your SO will feel safe to do the same and feel no urge to sleep around behind your back.

Once again, the phrase "that's what they all say" applies. People keep pretending others' motives are predictable, and they're wrong all the time.

So why not use something more real, like DNA tests, to figure out WHO is cheating (and with whom, I might add; I'm surprised the thread got to page 3 without anyone pointing out it catches men who sleep with other men's girlfriends too) before we can speculate about why?

I'm not sold on mandatory testing, but women shouldn't feel offended if a man asks for one. For equality purposes I'd say it should become a norm.

Galloism wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Indeed. I have a story.

After 10 years, the wife starts to think their kid looks kinda strange so she decides to do a DNA test.

She finds out that the kid is actually from completely different parents.

Wife: Honey, I have something very serious to tell you

Husband: What’s up?

Wife: According to DNA test results, this is not our kid

Husband: Well you dont’t remember, do you?? When we were leaving the hospital, we noticed that our baby had pooped. Then you said: - Please go change the baby, I’ll wait for you here. So I went inside, got a clean one and left the dirty one there

I'll admit it, I laughed.

I wish I had shown that much forethought.

Ethel mermania wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I think people are against it because it perhaps assumes by default that all women are thots.

Having a kid is too damm expensive as it is, why do things to raise the cost for no good reason.

As a father of four, I second this.

Attempted Socialism wrote:The only argumentin I can see for why a woman would not pursue the actual father (If she even knows herself) would be power disparity; namely, a father with the power to contest parentage in court. I'd guess their financial situation is either unchanged or better. Your argument is even worse than I thought.

Actually, it's likely because that man already thinks (or suspects) he's the father, and she wants to pursue a relationship with him. She then uses the child as a bargaining chip to further that end. Keep in mind, a number of fathers who are not fathers were actually married to the mother at the time - her lying about parentage is necessary to preserve the relationship she has. If she admits the child is not his, the relationship is likely very much over, and she doesn't want it to be over, so she has extremely strong reasons to lie.

And we know that this happens. We also know there's mistaken paternity - where women think that a man is the father, and he isn't. Frequency of these we're not certain.

The consensus figure is 4% - about one in 25.

https://www.livescience.com/375-surpris ... ather.html

Notably however, there's a hugely wide variance in literature:

Researchers pawed through a host of scientific articles published around the world from 1950 through last year. The perceived "paternal discrepancy rate," as it is called, ranges from less than 1 percent to as high as 30 percent in the various studies. Most researchers believe the rate is less than 10 percent.

Okay, I gotta ask.

How is performing a mandatory paternity test a baby in any way a violation of the rights of women?

You mean the mandatory slut-shaming and distrust based on her gender for no viable reason at all? You're proposing a policy change on the basis that all women are automatically suspected of infidelity, and you can't see how that's a transgression? In my country, that insinuation would be libellous (And the discrimination based on gender makes it a rights violation).

There's actually a really solid argument due to what we've learned about DNA that there's valid medical reasons to be sure of paternity, as a child's medical risks are to a large extent determined by ancestry.

No real reason to bring gender into it at all.