I am a girl and I am horrified at women who would perpetrate such a hideous fraud on a man.

I also think we will find that many cases of child abuse and child killings by the "father" are actually children who were OC - yet another reason for women NOT to bring a cuckoo into the nest and think no one will ever know.

Of course they know.
Mulan

I'm intrigued why this subject always evokes such an intense emotional reaction from the male posters - even from the most level-headed, calm male posters. It's clearly 'wrong' - I'm not arguing that it's right - but there seems almost no way for men to feel compassion for the woman who would choose to act this way.


If a man is discovered to be supporting an OC in secret from his wife, would the men here insist that he should be a) imprisoned, b) stripped of rights of access to his legitimate children, c) forced to hand the OC to his betrayed wife?

TA

I'm intrigued why this subject always evokes such an intense emotional reaction from the male posters - even from the most level-headed, calm male posters.

[color:"red"] $[/color]

It's ALL about the money.

committed

not even close to apples and apples.

the reason it evokes anger in me is that men are abused... yes... abused in the reproductive process.... and to have that abuse extend to their own home is beyond unforgivable.

And in answer to your question... I think if a man were found to do what you posed here that he should lose all access to his children with his wife.

I am very gender neutral when it comes to abuse in any form. It just so happens that men get the short end of the stick in issues concerning children. The other less objective issue for me is that women have been blessed with the ability to bear the children....and with that ability comes great responsibility. But you will NEVER see me here asking anyone of either gender to put up with abuse. NEVER.

And the bigger question is... why doesn't this raise outrage in you?

It's not the money... and frankly that is insulting. It is about having this stuff shoved down our throats... just like abortion without a fathers consent was.... it's also about the power that a woman can yield to rip apart her partner..... it is abuse... and it shoudl be abhored. I guess rape is just about the sex... and if they paid the woman, they wouldn't cry foul.

I don't consider that insulting.

What I would consider insulting is a man that DEMANDS a paternity test on child (children) when a divorce happens.

Why would it suddenly be necessary to establish paternity if not for any other reason that to avoid child support?

committed

Editing to add: I know this is entirely different from the original post and article. So, I should just back out gracefully.

I guess rape is just about the sex... and if they paid the woman, they wouldn't cry foul.

Wow...

That is ugly.

committed

I think that is insulting too... unless there were gorunds for the decision to demand the test... like infidelity. I really don't see the benefit to a man to demand a test since if he has no grounds to have the children tested and they are his... he will have to pay anyway.

That was the point.... you made it about money when men are the victim...just as ugly in my book.... both are horrendous expressions.

It is to me.

I, like many women, have given absolute love, fidelity and loyalty to my husband, and the biological imperative for this - I must accept - was to secure his unique investment in the children that I created with him. To discover that that investment was diluted by his interest in a child by another woman would be painful beyond description. It's an exactly analagous situation. Do men find that so difficult to comprehend?


What...all men? Even the gloomiest stats still suggest that most children are genetically the man named on the birth certificate.

Could you clarify what you mean by abuse?

TA

Men have choices -- maybe what they need is just better education. They have the choice who they have sex with and, with the prevalence/ease of paternity testing they have the abiilty to have each child presented to them tested for genetics before they sign the birth certificate.

The only thing we really know for sure when a baby comes out is who the mother is (hint: she's the one lying on the table panting/sweating). Although if you're talking genetics, with egg transplants etc, we might not even know that for certain any more... but, I digress.

Why not just educate men to ask for paternity tests at birth?

The technology is available and it's a painless procedure (I believe they might even be able to use cord blood). If their wife/girlfriend objects then *shrugs* it's too bad. If this issue is important to men, then I don't think we need new laws, etc, to start being proactive. We just need to educate men to be more assertive for their rights.

Oh, and I don't think the comparision with rape is a fair one. Women can't prevent rapes - they can be "careful" but there is no 100% sure fire method to ensure rape never happens. Men can certainly prevent conception (false fatherhood) by refusing to have sex.

Mys

myschae wrote:
=============================================
Why not just educate men to ask for paternity tests at birth?
=============================================

Why not mandate it (when there is a named father) just like every other mandated test of a newborn. That should include maternal tests as well. Hospitals make mistakes.

Gimble

I think because people are worried any time genetic material gathering is "mandated." I don't want to see men or women being victimized by "what else/where else" are those test results going. I think making a government program responsible for it instead of private testing might open up the door to a "genetic database" where anyone who has children or is born after that date is kept "on file" for future use.

It's a larger issue than this one -- and it would certainly solve THIS issue. Any time large amounts of information get gathered (mandated) by entities sponsored by the government there seems to be this almost irresistable "urge" to "do something with it." First it starts off with anonymous studies then the next thing you know insurance companies get to buy your genetic records in order to compute your life insurance premiums.



Mys

Hi, myschae.

I agree that it is a can of worms, but I think that it needs to be addressed, in fact already is being addressed in back rooms and legal studies, so that access to the information is both limited and discarded after a short period of time.

Waiting until it really does become a larger issue is the mistake in my opinion. Dealing with it in a limited fashion now is the better approach. I have read that some medical insurance companies are already looking at testing in order to lower the incident rate of suits due to misplaced babies.

I am afraid the genie is already out of the bottle.

All the best,
Gimble

Not understanding why the debate. So finding out if your kids are not truly yours is considered just a man's insecurity and problem?



In similar light as found in the article - if I discover that my adult kids were not mine - I would consider that the ultimate betrayal, the ultimate lie done on me. Wouldnt make my love or bond to the kids any less by the way. That is irreversible but my spouse - different story.

It would be a "rape" in my eyes because it was performed without my consent (infidelity and cuckoldry). I guess its a political correctness thing.

Not sure I understand how my celibacy will prevent my cuckoldry - but I am thick headed.

If you were celibate your entire life then you could be pretty sure you didn't father any children.

Not, mind you, that I'm recommending that option. Just saying that men CAN and some DO manage celibacy (I think anyway...). I imagine misplaced paternity is not a problem for them.

Mys

Well, in a way, it is just a man's problem. For the most part (with the exception of a few rare, highly publicized cases) women are pretty sure the baby is theirs. At least, women can be assured they had a baby -- and there's a pretty high probablility that the one they brought home is theirs. (Though switches are possible, I don't think they're even 3%, let alone 30%).

Men, on the other hand, don't really have a way to know if they're even a father -- unless genetic testing is done.

Let me say. I'm all for genetic testing for men who feel strongly about this issue. I'm just against bigger, more intrusive, government.

In fact, I HOPE more of them do it. I happen to think the biggest problem/barrier is the perceived conflict by the man (as in "If I asked my wife for genetic testing of the children she would go ballistic.") I don't see this as a "rights" issue that needs to be solved by the government. I see this as a societal attitude issue that needs to be solved by men standing up for their rights and women "getting over" their outrage at being asked to provide proof.

Now, I don't have children so I might be wrong about the legal/custody issues but this is my understanding. Men have the right to have testing done (as far as I know) before they are declared the legal father unless they are married to the mother in which case the child is automatically assumed to be part of the marital union. In the case of an unmarried couple, I do not believe the man has any rights to perform tests on the baby without the mother's consent -- but then again, I don't believe he has any custodial responsibilities legally assigned at that point. As a married man, I believe he has custodial responsibilities and rights legally and can therefore request testing. Does anyone know if I'm right/wrong on this?


Mys

edited for spelling

I guess I just don't understand the need for a government mandate. What is stopping men now from requesting paternity tests?

Don't married men have the custodial rights to do so all ready? Don't unmarried men have the right to request testing prior to assuming custodial responsibilities?

I think this is a societal issue of attitudes more than a lack of ability issue.



Mys

myschae wrote:
=======================================
I guess I just don't understand the need for a government mandate. What is stopping men now from requesting paternity tests?

Don't married men have the custodial rights to do so all ready? Don't unmarried men have the right to request testing prior to assuming custodial responsibilities?

I think this is a societal issue of attitudes more than a lack of ability issue.
=======================================

1) Weak men that don't want to make their wife unhappy during this (birth) the most happy moment of their life, after all, how could he suggest such a thing. (You would not believe how many variations of that statement I have read.)

2) Last time I checked, some states allowed fathers to be named on birth certificates without their consent, and some states have a time limitation after which the father named on the birth certificate can not be changed. That individual is also monetarily liable for child care.

3) Many states will only require testing when there is a dispute regarding custody or child care payments, and many of those disputes never occur because the father was never informed of the hearing.

I do believe that it is a man's responsibility, but there are many reasons it should be mandated. If I get a chance this weekend, I will post a list of links with information.

All the best,
Gimble

I didn’t read every post on this thread, so if this is a repeat ignore it:

About 15 years ago there was a child support case in California where this guy’s WW got pg by her OM.

He divorced her before the child was born. She sued BH for pregnancy/child support before the child was born.

Case was still pending when the baby was born and she married OM. BH got a dna test done and proved it wasn’t his.

Grounds were, essentially, he had deeper pockets than they did. Which he did.

They won.

ed: Child was not a tiny baby by then. Part of the decision said since BH had already been supporting it, even though he didn't want to, as required by the state, they believed the status quo should maintain.

The decision said the child’s interests were paramount, and since BH could afford it, he got to pay cs until the child was 18.

He even lost the appeal.