Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
DNA tests are harmful to children, family relationships, and women. If a woman has sex with several men, she should have the right to name the man who would be the best provider for her and her child.
They kind of already are in two-thirds of US states. Most US states have criminalized men doing DNA tests on children without the knowledge and consent of the mother. In order to appropriately do so, men have to petition the court for the right to verify that the children they’re raising are their own. In most cases, they are denied.
Additionally, the majority of US states have “dad by default” laws. Which basically allows women to name the man who will provide for her and her children. It began as an order of stepfatherhood, but some women have named random men with whim they never even had a relationship, and it becomes the man’s responsibility to literally do the impossible. Which is prove a negative. Men have to prove that they never had a relationship with a woman who names them, which is nearly impossible in those states with the above mentioned laws preventing them from getting DNA tests.
The entire system is already stacked against men. We don’t need more legislation to cement that fact.
It’s actually across the board. The US fundamentally has two political parties. Neither has any interest in true equality between the sexes. The left wants feminist supremacy and the right wants the patriarchy. Don’t get your panties in a bunch over that word. It’s true and it applies. “Patriarchy” is just a fancy word for fatherhood. Fathers often have to protect their families from themselves, preventing their wives and children from participating in self destructive behavior. Wives and children have ALWAYS wanted all of the freedoms of being wives and children with NONE of the responsibilities and sacrifices from of fatherhood. The right absolutely wants to return to that culture. That IS patriarchy. It’s just not the dirty word that the left has made of it.
There are many great qualities involved in Godly patriarchy. But the left wanted always to throw the baby out with the bath water. Sure men are not perfect either but why attack men and manhood because of a few bad apples. The left needs to go away. Shut up and leave. I hear Mars is seeking a second chance at life. Go there.
In the UK and US, approximately 13% to 14% of married women admit to having cheated on their husbands. However, this number varies by age and culture. For example, in France, studies show that about 32% to 40% of women admit to infidelity during their marriage.
DNA does not lie. It can show true relationships between people. Essential for correct genealogical research. Yes, it can show up cases of infidelity, but my attitude is if you are scared of DNA and the truth, don't be unfaithful!
I have learned much about my ancestry usind DNA tests.
Like I have, every child has the right to know its true origins.
Belief is not the same as knowing. Are you going to ban people ftom knowing their blood group? Just in case it shows an impossible match?
It is the father we are concerned about.
I was adopted as a child so I have tested myself very extensively and done a lot of genealogy. That testing along with lots of genealogy, provides the data that you apparently know nothing about. You may not need or want to know anything about it, but trust me if you were adopted like I was you would want to.
Men who are being jammed up for 18 years of child support are also people who develop a sudden and profound interest in DNA testing and genealogy for obvious reasons. No man wants to be forced to pay for a child that isn't his and no child wants to be told that some guy who's not really his father is being portrayed as his father. We all need to know where we came from.
@Kelley1 so pregnant women chose a father for their child? Not biological father but money father?
@Kelley1
"Yes, before DNA [testing], haven't they always"
Yes and no.
First, generally, children came from married couples. If the husband was a cuckold meaning that he is the man raising her children which, to him, are due to adulterous intercourse, then there are three options.
1. If it is not obvious that the child is not the husband's, then he would likely be oblivious to the fact. The wife/mother may also be oblivious to it; for all she knows, the child's siring father might actually be her husband despite infidelity.
2. The child is obviously not the husband's. Many outside the family would suspect that possibility as well. In this case, there are all sorts of options...
1) The husband files for divorce.
A) He may chose to support the child anyway.
B) Under certain circumstances, he might be required to.
C) He doesn't support the child; it's not his.
2) The husband accepts his wife's infidelity and raises the child as his own anyway.
(more)
Almost certainly, that last thing is what happened between my uncle and my aunt. My aunt had 4 sons, but her second son looks nothing like my uncle. My uncle was a dark-haired Italian. My cousin looks more Nordic like me and we are separated by a month in age. At an extended family function when I was 26 in 1989, my father asked me "Ever notice how you your cousin Guido..." (not his real name) "... doesn't look like his brothers?" "Yeah, I always wondered about that." "Well, I had this friend Billy and Guido looks just like him..." Now, my grandparents lived only 3 blocks apart in Queens and my parents were only 3 years apart with my aunt only being 2 years younger than my dad and a year older than my mom. So, my parents and their siblings and friends all went to school together and knew each other and lived close to each other even after the first few years of marriage. My aunt was not quite 21 when my cousin was born... and Guido was her second child. Almost certainly, she was fucking around on my uncle who allegedly wasn't a great guy (he was always good to me). My uncle wasn't stupid and likely knew Guido wasn't his. But, who knows, maybe he thought Guido was blonde like my mother and me due to genes even though my aunt and uncle both had dark hair...
@abc3643 According to the American Association of Blood Banks, as much as 30% of the general population, men are raising and paying for children that are not theirs and don’t know it. 25-30% of men accused of being the father, after a paternity test it’s revealed they are not the father.
This 30% figure applies only to men who have already requested a paternity test. These are generally men who already have a biological reason to doubt paternity, rather than a representation of the general population. Studies estimating non-paternity rates across the general male population generally show much lower numbers, ranging from 1% to roughly 30% (with medians often around 3% to 4%), depending on the demographic.
dnatesting.com/.../
Yes, I can believe that.
I have a major issue with this statement...
"If a woman has sex with several men, she should have the right to name the man who would be the best provider for her and her child."
:
Do you know what a gedanken experiment is? They are very useful. Einstein's theory of relatively came about because of one. Think of it as like using the Socratic Method to teach yourself.
In engineering, we often come up with requirements for systems by doing the same thing as a gedanken experiment except the method is coming up with things called called "use cases".
What I would like for you to do is perform a gedanken experiment thinking about the legal possibilities of the implications of your statement.
Give it a shot. I will be happy to help if need be.
@abc3643 First, before DNA testing, given the opportunity, that is what women have always done. Second, if "In the best interest of the child" is the determining factor, then men are expendable. Therefore, if the child's interest is above what is fair to men, then it is okay to punish the man for the benefit of the child. Choosing the best provider is in the best interest of the child, even if that is not fair to the man.
You are not answering my question.
OK, let's do this. I'll create a "use case"...
Suppose Mary is a woman who graduated from college within the past 6 monts and has recently given birth. Mary doesn't believe in birth control and wants to be married ASAP.
Mary's sexual promiscuity is irrelevant, but she's had intercourse with 2 of these 3 men: Bob, Mike, and Dave.
Bob had protected intercourse with Mary. Bob graduated with Mary and now has a decent job.
Mike had unprotected intercourse with Mary. Mary lied to Mike saying she was on the pill. Mike is still in school; he graduated, but is now in graduate school.
Before Bob and Mike, Mary dated Dave. Dave comes from a well-to-do family that owns a regional chain of funeral homes (so business is always steady). Dave did not have intercourse with Mary because she talked about marriage way too early in the relationship and sensed she might be using him for a future sperm donor/wallet, so he ended it before they had intercourse. Mary was heartbroken, but she got over it quickly by her subsequent rebound relationships/sexual conquests with Bill and Mike.
Mary, now a new single mother, wants the best her newborn. She publically states that Dave is the father which, of course, is not true, but this is not public knowledge. She sues him for child support. He takes her to court...
What happens?
@abc3643 That is the type of situation that occurred before DNA testing. She would name Dave, and the court wouldn't know about Mike and Bill. Dave would have had 2 possible defenses. 1. Her and the child's blood type is A, AB, or B, and Dave's blood type is O. 2. Dave can prove that he was never near the mother during the month or so she could have gotten pregnant, because she would say she doesn't remember the date. Without the Blood type proof, Dave's only defense would be to prove he was out of the country. For example, it didn't matter that E. Jean Carroll couldn't remember the date.
THIS:
"Dave's only defense would be to prove he was out of the country."
Dave doesn't need a defense. (*)
The onus is on Mary to have sufficient evidence.
This would be a civil case and she'd need to "show by a preponderence of the evidence" that he is the father.
(*) By saying "defense", I assume she is suing him for support. This isn't a criminal case which involves "Prosecution" and "The Defense". In a civil case like this, Mary would be "The Petitioner" because she is petitioning the court for "remedy" to some wrong that was done to her by "The Respondent", Dave.
B Y W, in E. Jean Carroll's case, there was a lot of evidence because, even though she could not remember the exact date (which is mostly irrelevant), she told others of the events right after they happened and those people testified so in the trial. This is why E. Jean Carroll won her case.
But, forget about the technology level regarding Mary's case. We can imagine Mary's case in 1950 or 2050.
What I want you to think about is rights... Ponder that. Who are all the parties in this situation and what are their rights? This is the thrust of what I am aiming for you to learn. This response is in a thread for someone else's original opinion. In my own original opinion, I suggested what what you said:
"If a woman has sex with several men, she should have the right to name the man who would be the best provider for her and her child."
I mentioned:
"What you suggest would violate probably 3 or 4 constitutional amendments."
Why would I say that and what amendments might be violated, if any?
@abc3643 That is what E. Jean Carroll and the women said, but people lie when it supports their political beliefs.
Men are penalized or expelled from college based on accusations. The burden of proof is on Dave. The Duke fake rape proves that. If those students didn't have multimillionaire families, they would have been in prison. The DA should have gone to prison; instead, he got little more than a slap on the wrist. Much of the Constitution is not law because there is seldom a penalty for violating it or means of enforcement. It is like bank robberies would thrive if the law against bank robbery had no penalty or means of enforcement.
I remember the Duke case very well since I am a lacrosse fan.
As much shit as those boys and coach went through with false accusations, the justice system worked since they were exhonerated.
Remember what I said in your other question:
Currently, men are arrested on accusations. Instead, since injuries can be self-inflicted, should women have to prove assault before men are arrested? ↗
I detailed the criminal justice process which I will echo for this question:
Generally, this is process involving a criminal prosecution.
1. The victim informs the police of the crime.
2. The police investigate and collect evidence.
3. If there's enough evidence including an alleged "perp" (perpetrator), they go to the DA who will then recommend or not charging the alleged perp with a crime.
4. Once the alleged is arrested (and, per Miranda, informed of what they are being charged with), the DA goes before a Grand Jury to get approval to go to trial.
5. If the DA convinced the Grand Jury, then the Grand Jury will approve going to trial.
6. The trial occurs.
The failure in the Duke case was Step 3 and, worse, prosecutorial misconduct!
(more)
Believe it or not, the failure in what happened (besides the accuser lying) was what is called "overzealous prosecution" and "prosecutorial misconduct". The DA in that case was harshly disciplined. Overzealous prosecution occurs when a prosecutor in the DA's Office decides to charge the defendants while there was insufficient evidence to do so. Prosecutorial misconduct occurs when the DA is doing inappropriate (or even criminal) acts to secure a conviction. One example is when the DA hides evidence from the defense.
In this particular case, the evidence was insufficient for the DA to go to the Grand Jury and, worse, the evidence was exculpatory meaning that it would have immediately proved the Duke players innocent.
Unfortunately, the DA, Mike Nifong, wanted to get the conviction to advance his career since it was such a noteworthy case.
The fact that this case so readily fell apart illustrated the problem with this DA who was disbarred for his overzealous prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct. He then was sued out of existence in civil court for his wrongdoing.
One of the ironic things regarding this case and your question here is that the DNA would have exhonerated the Duke players. Nifong conspired with the DNA lab to hide that evidence and have a lab person commit perjury to get the conviction.
So, bottom line, if the system had worked as it should - with a reputable, honest prosecutor - the woman who made the accusations would have had her accusations ignored because the evidence showed she was lying. Worse for her, she could have actually faced charges herself for her lies. It ended up she was in prison anyway for other charges.
Meanwhile, in some ways, the Duke case was the best thing for some of the players; 3 of them sued Duke University over this. They each had their lives ruined by receiving $20 million checks from Duke. I wish I could have my life ruined by getting a $20 million payday.
So, @Kelley1, you still haven't answered my hypothetical scenario involving Mary, Bob, Mike, and Dave... and the baby.
What's the legal story here? Forget about DNA for the moment. We don't know who the father is and Mary wants Dave to support her child because, in her opinion, Dave is a good pick. Of course, Mary could say Bill Gates, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos is the father as well, right? After all, wouldn't they be better for her baby?
@abc3643 First, she can't name Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc., 10,000 people watch billionaires. The public would never believe it. The judge wouldn't dare because the ruling would be international news will millions disagreeing with the judge.
People are not watching Dave. Moreover, Dave dated Mar. It is easy to believe something happened. It is safe to make a ruling against Dave. It is not newsworthy; perhaps a paragraph on page 5, but generally, people don't care.
Resolving the case between Mary and Dave depends on whether the truth or the greater good is more important. Since men are expendable, the greater good trumps the truth. The greater good is defined as "In the best interests of the child." Since Dave has the most money, requiring Dave to pay child support is the correct decision.
I don't think so because there's nothing to compel him to do so. No court is just going to say "OK, he's the father." There has to be significant due process here. And, in today's era, she would not be successful because of DNA testing. But, forgetting about that testing, there legally needs to be something more than "He's the father!" Likely other witnesses. There's also a good chance that Dave's legal team would find witnesses for his side as well... such as friends of Dave that he spoke to about not having sex with her and/or other people who know that Mary had sex with at least one other person after Dave. Even something as simple as evidence of the date that Dave and Mary broke-up is likely to have an exhonerating impact if Mary conceived after that date...
I wanted to focus on people's rights because, in the legal system, people's rights are often at odds. This is a major reason why we have a judicial system to begin with.
In this case, we have three people:
Mary
Dave
The Baby
What are Dave's rights?
Just food for thought; you don't have to answer.
@abc3643 Our Judicial system is flawed. In an ideal world, Dave would not pay. Mary will say, "I don't remember the date." Although Dave and Mary broke up before she conceived, Dave cannot prove they did not meet up again near the time of conception. The actual day of conception is not known; only a range of dates is known.
OK, THIS:
" Although Dave and Mary broke up before she conceived,
>>>> Dave cannot prove they did not meet up again near the time of conception. <<<<
The actual day of conception is not known; only a range of dates is known."
This is the sort of thing I wanted to focus on.
Why is it Dave's responsibility to disprove?
Shouldn't it be Mary's responsibility to prove?
In the justice system - and in pretty much every potentially contentious scenario - it is always the duty of the one who asserts something as truth and not others' responsibility to disprove.
For instance, suppose I said "I have a proof of the Collatz Conjecture!".
Well, the mathematical news media aren't going to publish "abc3643 has solved the Collatz Conjecture, a previously unsolved problem from the 1930s!"
I have to submit my proof of the Collatz Conjecture and have it peer-reviewed meaning others say "Yep, he did it!" or "Hey, wait a minute... this doesn't make sense. Can you explain it?"
A lot of things in the real world are like this. The trial jury system is like this: the prosecutor is the one making the assertions about the defendant and the jury is the peer-reviewers. It's not the duty of the defense to prove their innocence; it's the duty of the prosecutor to prove guilt.
There was a protracted case in Australia where during a divorce the husband asked for DNA tests. If you are getting divorced you may as well... right? Under our law it is simply part of divorce if the husband requests and there is no penalty for offending an ex wife.
In any case ancestry kits should do the job. Husband get his ancestry done. Sometime latter do the kiddie. It should bring up the presumed father as a possible relative huh?
In this case it turned that none of the three children were his.
Husband sued ex wife for fraud. In the court he took the action in, he succeeded. The wife was found guilty of obtaining money by deception and it ordered her to pay back the money he expended on her bastard kiddies.
The wife appealed to the High Court (= your Supreme court) and she managed to get that decision overturned. The husband managed to get some money back. can't remember exactly but I think it was for expenditure before their birth.
The High court judge was female and was also known to have cheated on her husband. She based her judgement on policy i. e. no legal basis at all. She ruled it would be to the detriment of the children and therefore the wife didn't need to pay back.
That left a fairly sour taste that a cheating wife judge made a decision in favor of another cheating wife. Seemed a sisterhood decision
Of course a reasonable outcome would have been that the biological fathers paid the husband back the money he was owed for supporting their children.
I don't know if the wife fessed up as to she got to knock her up but I imagine she would have wanted child support since the husband was no longer on the hook after the DNA tests. The husband probably could have appealed to whole bench but I imagine he ran out of money.
Opinion
24Opinion
u So a woman gets drunk, pulls down her panties for the village bum, and gets pregnant. Fearing that she is pregnant, she seduces me for a ONS. I am not the biological father but she has the "right" to make me support her and her baby for 18 years? Where in the hell did you get that crazy idea?
@OlderAndWiser That has been happening for eons, with most men never knowing, and the human race is doing well. We shouldn't allow DNA testing to change a long-established good thing.
There was a long established practice called “slavery” that many people considered to be a “good thing.” That argument is very weak.
And what makes paternity fraud a good thing?
@OlderAndWiser A very good point about slavery.
DNA tests are like guns or knives or anything else in society.
They can be used to good or for harm.
DNA testing is a great method for doing geneaology and family history.
As for this:
"If a woman has sex with several men, she should have the right to name the man who would be the best provider for her and her child."
Absolutely not. That's a form of slavery and, worse, no different than rape; it is the taking away of freedom against your will. No man who is not the father should be required to be responsible for another man's child. That's the other man's responsibility, period.
What you suggest would violate probably 3 or 4 constitutional amendments.
No, making DNA testing in the U. S. or anywhere else is plainly retarded. The truth is not the problem, misuse of private information is.
So far people only use DNA tests to know more about their ancestry, family history, medical risks, and paternity clarity; nothing wrong with that.
However if someone uses genetic information for fraud, coercion, or privacy violations, then yes definitely punish that conduct. But banning people from discovering biological facts because the truth might be inconvenient is a bad principle.
... and then people wonder why some guys go MGTOW, put all their financial assets in their Mom's name, put hotsauce in their used condoms, or the even more extreme...
voluntarily go celibate just to not deal with the problems modern women bring to the table.
We all know why France does that... because cheating and parental fraud are rampant and everything will collapse if it's removed.
Maybe they should do that before having sex with them? 🤷♂️ I mean, maybe, just maybe?
... or I should say unprotected insemination sex. There is no mandate forcing them to have sex with lesser men is there?
No, I'm pretty sure it's just women being greedy and current societies don't put them in check over it and too many women don't even check themselves.
Lol. Sorry sound like you want to give
Women the right and freedom to have sex with ever she wants
DNA is good to find out who the father if raped , or who killed someone find a dead person in woods , side road , even Identify love one if missing
Testing is not to give a woman the right
to sleep with whomever she desires
I'd say if you want them to be so then you're a cheater as it's intent to hide it for such reason, which if so then you'd be happy with a man who also cheats on you.
Otherwise it's hypocritical.
@Kelley1 Indeed but equally a man can ditch her and not pay child fees if one can't prove it's their child. So if willing to take that risk and the cheating then at least you've thought about it and willing to take the bad that comes from such rule.
Me I just don't see the point sounds worse, plus kind of on her for being a bad liar right? Since the way a father would become suspicious their kid is not theirs if she gave it away somehow.
Not as if every father just randomly thinks better do a Dna test.
So a law to protect someone who's bad at lying?
Assuming marriage out of nowhere here? Who said anything about them being married? Along with marriage being on the decline, but even if so no that don't makes sense.
If you can't prove it's their child they have no obligation to take care of it, and even more reason just to not marry if you argue that's what marriage is for to make it so they have to.
Seems to me that is all they are used for and not sure what else they would be of any value knowing.
No , the other around , should be mandatory on birth , far too many deceitful women creating kaos with the lies..
It's the French who need to change also , same with guilty till proven innocent.
The only people opposed to DNA/paternity tests are immoral, low quality women and liberals that cater to stupid people.
No. A decision to have a DNA test or not is a choice, a free choice guaranteed by the first amendment. Forcing someone to have a DNA test is not, that requires a court order.
that is the most gold digger trapping with a child woman thing that I've ever heard.
women are sick. i just don't bother anymore. people in general are a disappointment. it's not just women. it's a mental state. and we are actually going backwards.
"He should have the right to name the man who would be the best provider for him and his child."
LOL, you miss the point.
A lot of these test companies are BOGUS to begin with. But overall, the time and cost wasted is tremendous.
Nope. Those tests are what caught the golden state killer.
I didn't know about him before; I Googled him a few minutes ago. I never imagined a person could commit that many crimes. That explains why you mentioned him as justification. Regardless, it is different whether DNA testing is used by law enforcement or medical professionals rather than by individuals.
It should not be illegal at all. There is no reason to make them illegal. They can be very important for medical reasons, and they can also be very important to establish one's true identity.
The only people that get harmed by D&HS are people who want to keep their sexual behavior private, or they want to lie about their sexual behavior to others. I suggest that you either keep it private or you just keep telling lies. If you happen to have a baby and you don't know who the father is, I suggest you tell that child when it grows up exactly that, so that they can go get DNA tested to find out who the hell you fucked to make them. Every human being is entitled to know who their real parents are. Nobody has the right to conceal or distort that information.
France has made it illegal for some time. I expect many men have found work arounds.
u I'm seriously curious about your parents/upbringing. Where did you pick this stuff up? 😵
Dna tests should be mandatory for every new born so the parents know it's theirs.
For what purpose Kelly? Who does it hurt to test? How does it create a victim by testing,
Superior children are best for improving the human race. Few women can marry the best, but they can fuck the best. When wives fuck the best, they have superior children. It was that way in the Stone Age. Women would mate with dependable and good providers. Then, when ovulating, they would have sneaky sex with the Alpha male. That way, their children have a slight survival advantage. Women who didn't do that when they had low risk of discovery opportunities are not our ancestors. Even a 1% survival advantage per generation is a 21,000 to 1 (1.01^1000) advantage in 1000 generations about 25000 years.
Well maybe you should start a superior club and all the best can join and have lots of screwing and create superior kids. But don't plan on deceiving the plain ordinary man. He may just not like it and destroy a lot of those superior fellas over there. Its not nice to cheat on someone but to add that deception to it can get a person killed.
@msc545 It has not been disproven, but it is not going to be proved by eliminating the breeding of people at the bottom of the barrel because they rarely breed. I understand regression to the mean. Children of superior parents will average less than their parents, but they will still be above the mean. In time, such breading creates a higher mean.
It's why a smart French man will be castrated as soon as he can
no I think men should not be liable if they are not the father
fuck that noise
The fact that you advocate for this is the reason I can't take women seriously.
@desserter4 It is not just me. Most women are opposed to being asked for a DNA test. The common reason is that it means he doesn't trust her. Moreover, even if a wife hasn't cheated, she at least wants to have the right. Therefore, it is best that DNA testing not be normalized. Moreover, it is best for the human race if more superior children are born. That can easily be accomplished if we eliminate DNA testing, since it is easy for women to have sex with men superior to the men they can marry.
Cause women are selfish liars that don't care about how they effect other people. If you want superior children then you yourself shouldn't breed as you aren't superior.
And you shouldn't be the one having them as you aren't superior yourself. That's why the superior men discard you after sex. Know your place.
The child isn't superior though cause the mother is inferior. Therefore you shouldn't breed.
Absolutely not.
No, denying the truth changes nothing
Nah that's actually messed up
No way Jose.
Nein nein gwendaline.
Nah. FAFO.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions