Gimble,

I know you didn't. I'm just not very trusting.

I would support such laws if they mandated that the tests be destroyed and not used for any other purpose without the express written consent and knowledge of the parties -- but even then, I'm squeamish about it. Our government gives itself lots of 'permissions' about personal information sometimes. For all I know they probably all ready have one. *sigh*

It's not even that I have anything to hide, particularly. I don't have any children and I lead a pretty boring life. I just don't like the idea of the tracking.

edited to add: It would be an interesting social experiement, if nothing else. I wonder if it would make the divorce rate go up rather than down, for instance, as more men found out about their wives infidelity in this rather shocking way. Also, like someone else pointed out (Nellie), it would introduce unfairness into the system because while husbands would know about their wives illegitimate children -- wives wouldn't necessarily know about their husband's children if the WH was with a woman who didn't provide a man's name to test (unless you did the national database thing and did a random search to see who did it and then what do you do about sperm banks?).

I just don't think we're going to make this system exactly fair.

Mys

Myschae wrote:
===================================
I just don't think we're going to make this system exactly fair.
===================================

Agreed. There is no fair. There is more fair and less fair. Right now, the system is less fair, and by a large margin. The best we can do is to close the gap a bit.

All the best,
Gimble

myschae,

Your arguement goes along very nicely with NOW, which is adamently oppossed to DNA testing for paternity. I wonder why?

I must say while I share your lack of trust of the government, I think it is a little late. You do realize that all of the blood samples you, your family, your H, anyone has ever given is in fact able to be DNA tested to build the dreaded Government data base don't you? You do realize that all military as well as convicts have their DNA taken and tested? You realize that IF the government decided to obtain such a data base without approval by the voters it probably could do so very easily?

We could have mandatory DNA testing, have it done at the same labs that do blood testing (they would buy the equipment necessary if the money was right, and volume makes the money right), and forbid the government to collect the data. If you felt they would ignore this restriction, then you must realize that they can collect a lot more DNA now, then from father's wondering if they are the father. In fact, for many states Amnio test are required for women over 30-35 depending on the state and no one complains, yet that two can be tested for DNA.

I live on the Left Coast and I, unfortunately, have a Senator representing me that is considered the "village idiot" by many in DC. Her ONLY campaign slogan is "It's a woman's right to choose." Senator what do you think about taxes? "I believe in a woman's right to choose." Senator what do you feel about terrorism and a threat to CA? "I believe in a woman's right to choose."

It seems to me if women have the right to choose, so do men (to choose to be a father to a child that is not his biologically). Unfortunately, unless it is universal, men won't have the right to choose, just as the woman's movement pushed to make it a NATIONAL policy for woman to have a "woman's right to choose", not just a state by state basis.

I find it remarkable as the noose is tightened on deadbeat fathers via national data sharing, while NOT tightening the noose on "dead beat Mom's", that the laws are not changed to allow men not just a year after birth or two years after birth, but anytime after birth to be financially relieved of rearing a child that can be show by DNA testing to not be his.

It seems to me "big brother" is already in the middle of this mess, and the fear of a national data base is not rational given that it can be built up now IF the government fails to follow rules or where there are no rules about this sort of data.

Just some thoughts.

JL

Uh JL


Which one? Aren't they both on the low end of the bell curve?

Larry

I am a woman....

So if I move to the left coast can I choose not to pay taxes ever again?

Larry,

Well, if you want an opinion...YES? But, what I was stating is really all we hear from one of your distinguished Senators. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Hey Noodle, one never knows. All she says is "its a woman's right to choose." Soooo, I guess one could infer that you would have the "right to choose.' I don't know much but I do know as a guy, I don't have any "right to choose" and in CA that even includes a vasectomy. The wife has to approve that as well. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> I'm not kidding there.

But, my daugher as a 12 year old could choose to have an abortion without telling her mother and I. I just don't see many choices for me these days. And believe me after forking over what I just forked over to Uncle Sugar, I would avail myself of that right. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

JL

Mys:


This is what I found in Nellie's post:


I don't see any statement of "Fair." But that begs the issue. Two wongs don't make a wight! In other words, fix what you can. Simply put, paternity fraud against males has nothing to do with the possibility that some male may fertilize some female and not be discovered for whatever reason.

Larry

JL,


I'm not sure where you get that I'm against DNA paternity testing. In fact, I wrote several posts stating that I think that men should insist on it and that it should become a social norm. I don't happen to agree that making it a law instead of encouraging people to talk about it is the only way, but I respect that you believe that.

Yeesh.


I do know you're probably right -- that still doesn't make me any happier about the possibility or reality. Rational or not, it's how I feel.


*shrugs* You might be right -- if it happened, I'd be interested (I mean that honestly) to see what would end up happening. I wonder if the divorce rate would go up or whether men would just decide to father children that aren't biologically theirs, anyway. I don't happen to think it would put a dent in the rising infidelity figures among women any more than DNA testing put a dent in promiscuity in men who weren't looking to have children.


Ok. *shrugs* You've convinced me. I won't say I'm an advocate of mandatory testing but I wouldn't do anything to hinder or oppose it. If I had a vote on it specifically like in a proposition type setting, it would really have to do with how the bill was worded on whether it would get my support. If it was worded in the way you guys describe here, I'd probably check "Yes."


Larry


Well, I suppose that's true. I'll say it again as I've said it before. I don't know what the "answer" to the inequities in paternity, child support, child custody and all these issues that are wrapped up in the whole package of our societies current cluster f*&k about child rearing.

I do agree that men currently are getting the short end of the stick especially in the legal arena. Women still get the short end of the stick in the pregnancy/child bearing arena -- that doesn't look like any kind of fun to me. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

The best "sounding" solution always seems to be to avoid the problem in the first place by 1.) choosing not to have kids (*quietly raises her hand*) or 2.) choosing to preserve two parent families as much as possible (assuming adoption/genetics are above board). But, let's be realistic and accept that those "solutions" while they sound good and seem to make sense aren't happening.

The next best solutions all sound awful to me. Either it sounds like you end up short changing a child, a woman or a man. Or, any combination of the three.

Maybe I'm just irrational -- hey, I never claimed to be particularly rational, I'm an emotional/intuitive kinda gal. I guess I just "Feel" that we're moving in the wrong direction with this and that it would be better to focus on the underlying issues that create the problem in the first place (splintering of the family - not so much convincing less people to have children) rather than focusing on putting bandaids on the gaping wound. Which is why I keep talking about getting conversations started -- getting society comfortable talking about these uncomfortable topics and making it OK for men to stand up and say "Hey, I want to be sure." In the long run, I think finding these things out about yourself and sharing them with your potential partners before they become your spouse is the type of conversation/exploration that needs to happen in this complex world where marriage seems to have become such a mine field.

Goodness, if you know someone well enough to have sex with that person, shouldn't you be comfortable enough to have these tough conversations on where you stand on things?

Anyway, maybe paternity testing would make things better. Maybe it would end up splintering more families as men find out they've been decieved in such a shocking way and make things worse (from a divorce rate perspective). Maybe it would result in a national DNA repository where we declare "every child has a right to know his/her parentage."

We can only speculate about what would happen.

What do you guys think? Do you think there would be more divorces if men knew they weren't the fathers of the children their wives had?(I do.) Do you think women would be more careful? (I don't.)

I think there's bound to be fallout from doing something like this -- which is not a good reason not to do it. It's just a good reason to plan for contingencies in advance so you don't get caught flat footed.

Mys

And, by the way, I don't have an axe to grind about any of this. I don't have kids and can't have them without technological help even if I wanted to have them due to a birth defect. That works out for me because I've never really wanted any children and neither does my H (he went and got himself 'fixed' before we discovered about my situation).

I am still quite interested because I think it's an important societal issue that's going to become more and more critical to address - as current trends don't seem to be moving in positive directions.

I'm really here to discuss because I do happen to think its important and I am trying to understand the issue(s) involved and because I do have some opinions about things which I'd like to share.

That's about it.

Mys

Myschae wrote: "I think there's bound to be fallout from doing something like this "

As I suggested earlier, I think that the institute of marriage is going to take a terrible blow. I also agree that the divorce rate will skyrocket, and that the courts are going to be flooded with civil actions. All inevitable anyway since the pendulum has already started to swing.

As for guessing what people will do about the changes, I don't know. Humans are going to screw up.

You might as well ask how many young women will choose to ignore the HPV vaccine. I imagine the percentages of people that just don't care will be the same as the ones that don't care about DNA <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

What will happen is that men that DO care, and maybe some that just realized that they care because they read the results of the test they just took, will come to appreciate all that has gone before them to regain their right to know.

Most importantly, women will lose a power that they have held since the beginning of humanity, but many times wielded unwisely, and for whatever it is worth, there will be just a little less deception and inequity on the planet.

I bet that last statement is popular <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

All the best,
Gimble

Gimble:


Shocked, shocked! What a concept. Feel the heat? NOW is burning your effigy.

Larry

Larry wrote:
==========================================
Shocked, shocked! What a concept. Feel the heat? NOW is burning your effigy
==========================================

Yea, I bet they have operatives already en route and should be storming the door at any minute!!

I couldn't resist stirring the pot <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Be good,
Gimble

Myschae,

I did not say you were against testing I said your arguement goes will with NOW's stated position.

You also asked
Actually, I am not sure. I'll tell you why. If you read Harley's articles a woman becomes pregnant with OM's child. It is her third child the other's being her H's. From the experiences I have seen on this site, I would say they would not divorce. If the woman was truly sorry and really wanted to make the marriage survive, I think the man would do his best to keep in the marriage. You must remember, that if he did divorce her, He would very likely see the kids once a week and every other weekend and pay child support and possibly alimony. So if there are already children of the union and the woman was serious about remaining in the marriage, I think the odds are they would NOT divorce. The data from this sight seems to agree.

If the child were their first child, I think divorce would be inevitable. But, would that add to the stats of divorce? Hard to say, but I would think not, because this marriage is in big trouble if an affair is already going on, and a child was not going to make it better no matter who fathered it.

So my guess... it would make little difference in the divorce stats.



I agree. I would like to think that woman were smarter than men about these things, but I have learned that is not the case. It is said that us guys often think with our little head (or is that big head, <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> ) but I have no idea what women think with in these cases.


I could not agree more on all counts.

JL

I would divorce in a heartbeat...and would ultimately win custody of my children as she would be an unfit parent.

So an affair makes a woman an unfit mother? How so? Does that automatically make men unfit fathers? I would agree if she did anything to endanger the children but having an affair would not give you automatic rights to custody as we have all seen here.

MEDC, I had an affair long ago. While I was not the smartest parent during my affair, I was still their primary caregiver and was a constant in their lives. I would never walk out on my children. My H had 3, count them 3 affairs and I would say that while he did not have the best interest of my children or his OC at heart during his A's he never put my children in danger nor did he walk out of their lives.

So I should have divorced him and ALL of the children, our COM and his OC, be damned?

Nope.

Fortunately ONE of us was thinking clearly ... and even better now, BOTH of us are.

Edited to add: And ALL of us, all my kids (because the OCs are mine too now) benefited from us standing up for the family.

no, lying about paternity of a child and committing that fraud on another makes them an ufit parent. I also believe that EVERY WS is an ufit parent until they change their ways.
And yes, an affair makes a man an unfit parent as well until he changes his ways.

>I also believe that EVERY WS is an ufit parent until they change their ways.
And yes, an affair makes a man an unfit parent as well until he changes his ways.

Oh. Well then...ITA.

It's the selfishness isn't it? The NOT putting the kids and family first...I get that. It was perhaps the biggest obstical for me to overcome...the not putting all the kids first and doing right by them.

- Kimmy

I don't keep up with NOW. I suppose I probably should, being a woman and all, but I don't. So, I will take your word for it.


I'm not sure how much the data from this site (this forum, in particular) really contributes because of several factors:

First, while there are many people here who post about affairs, I think the success rate is lower than average (probably much lower than average) if there's an OC involved. It's probably even lower if the primary custody of the OC is with the marriage and the other father is "out there somewhere." McBecca's situation comes to mind -- I'm not sure how her situation turned out but it didn't sound like things were going well last time I looked.

Second, as shocking as it is to discover that your wife was unfaithful to simultaneously discover that the little bundle of joy is not yours is quite a double whammy. I wonder how many BH's would even make it to MB. Particularly if the usual situation applies and that reminder gets to come home with you.

The pregancy board here is pretty slow -- I think most women that get to find out about their WH's affairs in that particular way probably aren't much interested in Plan A - they go straight to divorce. I can't blame them for that.


I wonder about this statement -- why you would like to think women are smarter than men about this particular issue. I wish everyone were smarter across the board, really. It always takes two (generally one from each gender but as we've learned here not even that holds all the time).

I think people are people and they have affairs for more or less the same reasons: 1.) they had the opportunity, 2.) they thought it would be fun/exciting/feel good, 3.) they didn't think they'd get caught, 4.) and therefore they gave themselves permission to do it.

I don't think people are that much different -- I think the primary reason more women are having affairs is because more women have the opportunity to have affairs. Now, it may be true that men and women look for different things/qualities in affair partners, but I think the justifications all look remarkably the same. Women weren't more "sensible" back in the old days -- they just either didn't have anyone around to cheat with or knew they were going to get caught.

And, now we have the Internet which is the great equalizer of all opportunities for everyone no matter how upstanding or perverted their tastes may be. You have 'myspace' or 'adult friend finder' if your tastes run to "average" depravity. Or, check out the show "To Catch a Predator" and see what pedophiles are doing with the internet to increase their opportunities.

I don't think all the messing around will stop until we either 1.) decrease opportunities (good luck with that), increase the "getting caught" rate (this one might be possible but how much intrusion are you willing to allow), OR we manage to somehow change people's minds about doing it.

So far, religion doesn't seem to be helping -- not that I'm picking on religion, just saying that large numbers of people who profess to be religious still fall into the category of cheaters and it seems to be one of the favorite ways of trying to change people's mind about doing things they shouldn't. The other favorite way to try to change people's mind is with penalties - we've all ready gone around on this board about increasing penalties (jail time, death, loss of custody, assets, and not being allowed to remarry, etc.)

Mys

Gimble,


Heh. You really don't make this sound like an attractive solution, you know. *nudge*

In Europe, I think the marriage rate has been steadily declining and the age of first marriage has been rising. Maybe we'll follow that trend and people will simply become so disillusioned that marriage will become a quaint tradition from the past.


Oh, I don't know. I think that many of the women will be surprised, too. It's not like women know which sperm fertilizes her egg. If she's having sex with multiple men during that time period then she might have an idea it might not be her H's but she's not going to know for certain until after the birth -- and probably only then if there's testing or something obvious comes up.

More women might choose to quietly terminate the pregnancy if they're uncertain and they know they'll be 'caught out' by testing at the birth. It's not like it's obvious they're pregnant for a couple of months, at least.

Mys