I’m Beginning to Suspect that the Tennessee Legislature Thinks Women are Just Naturally Lying Liars who Lie

Via Whites Creek Journal, we learn that, on Tuesday, a state house subcommittee will be discussing this nasty piece of legislation, which would require that all babies have DNA tests to prove who their fathers are before the state will list a father on a birth certificate.

It’s an adventure to live in a state in which so many of our legislators come from the perspective of assuming that all women are liars and all men are idiots and if the state doesn’t step in to protect said men, we’d just be out fuckity-fuck-fuck-fucking whosoever we could get our vaginas around and ruining their lives*.

Over at the Crone’s, she makes this point:

If your husband died in Iraq, Afghanistan, or was killed in anyway after conception but before birth, too damn bad. Your child would be a bastard, should this be enacted, simply because the father is no longer available for that mandatory paternity test. Your word that you have not had sex with anyone else is not enough. Thus, your bastard would NOT be entitled to your now dead husband’s Social Security benefits.

I, myself, would make this point. There are a small, but growing number of people who have two genetically distinct types of cells. It is quite possible for these people to father (or in the cases I first heard about) or mother a child from eggs or sperm that have one set of DNA while the cells on the inside of your mouth or in your blood might have a different DNA. Is the State really ready to get into the lawsuits that might erupt when a man who really is a baby’s biological father can’t get on his child’s birth certificate?

*Although, if you are into having women lie to you, fuck you, and ruin your life, more power to you.

Edited to add:  The Vol Abroad brings the feminist criticism.

107 thoughts on “I’m Beginning to Suspect that the Tennessee Legislature Thinks Women are Just Naturally Lying Liars who Lie

  1. Can we go together or do we have to have a man go with us to make sure we’re not lying about something or hiding something from them while we’re there?

  2. Bad analogy…that one about the father dying in Iraq or one of the stans. The armed services requires their troops to have a DNA test done and keeps the DNA record on file. This is to be able to identify a body if the trooper is killed and left in the battle zone. If there is a child involved then the fatherhood would be able to be established.
    But I do understand the anger towards the legislature for this seemingly antique idea. Talk about “Big Brother”!!!
    YET, as an old guy, (52), I am appalled at the lackadaisical attitude of the “younger” generation towards sex. Yeah, yeah, I know I grew up in the summer of “free love” and my generation spawned all that (supposed) freedom. Yada, yada, yada
    I would hope that you would be able to acknowlege my perspective on this subject…because I have seen the outcomes of “hooking up”. I am old enough to see the results of a failed social atmosphere.
    One of those outcomes is a body of legislatures that are trying to stop the outpouring of money to one parent families.
    You may view your right to screw as a primary right. The tax payers are starting to view that privilege as being very expensive; and are starting to question the reasons why their taxes are being spent for people that don’t have any self control. They are starting to push their legislatures to “do something”. They are asking why should I be forced to pay somebody to have kids. Why should my money be spent to support somebody that can’t make a good choice.
    So if you think this legislation to DNA test for parenthood is bogus…just wait.

    Steve

  3. yikes! This scares me. Sure, Steve has a point in that the armed svcs keep DNA on file for service members but what if your baby – daddy was in the Sept. 11 attacks two days after impregnating you? No chance of getting DNA now…What if he was one of those miners in Utah that they never found? Is the state gonna send a robot back in the mine to obtain DNA? Scuba diver lost at sea, small plane pilot crashed into a mountain…there’s a thousand things that could occur to prevent a person from having obtainable DNA , this is a slippery legislative slope we’re walking.
    If the general consensus in our society truly is “why should I have to pay for someone else’s kid?”, that really saddens me. Remember, it takes a village. True, all the hooking up and carefree sex of the past several years has led to an inordinate amount of single parent families. So has war, cancer, heart attack, drunk driving, and infidelity.
    Should we punish the child for the mistakes or misfortunes of the parent? These kids need every chance, every opportunity to overcome the obstacles that their parent’s Indiscretions and or poor choices and sometimes just plain bad luck have imposed upon them. Otherwise they are doomed to mimic the examples set before them, thus perpetuating the cycle.
    whew…sorry to ramble…

  4. While this is a terrible bill and you are on target about possible consequences, the more likely motivation would seem to me to be 1) that the sponsor, or a big-donor constituent, is p.o.’d about paying child support to someone; or 2) that someone somewhere has a DNA testing company looking for work.

  5. Steve, I had looked over the bill. There is NO provision for comparing the DNA of service members collected by the military. It only states:
    Regardless of the relationship between a child’s parents, a genetic test shall
    be administered as provided in § 24-7-112 to confirm the paternity of the child before a
    father shall be listed on the birth certificate.

  6. “You may view your right to screw as a primary right. The tax payers are starting to view that privilege as being very expensive; and are starting to question the reasons why their taxes are being spent for people that don’t have any self control.”

    Erm, no, that makes zero sense. If the taxpayers/lawmakers wanted to minimize public costs related to sex, there would be free birth control of every kind for anyone who wants it and mandatory lessons on how to use all of it in public schools. That’s by far the cheapest solution. Since those making the laws don’t do that, we know low public costs associated with sex is simply not on the agenda, and there are other explanations for what they do.

  7. Um, who’s going to pay for all this paternity testing? Won’t that increase public spending ridiculously? And how, exactly, is public expenditure on a child without a father listed on its birth certificate going to be less than public expenditure on a child with a father listed? Now, if you mean, Steve, that this is a bill aimed at shaming people who are doing things you don’t like and which you consider unfairly costly to you, I can see that it is. But I’m not sure how you think it’s going to save you a penny.

  8. other than setting the social climate back about a century and a half by shaming and ostracizing “bastards”, just exactly what good is this bill supposed to do?

  9. Nomen – see my comment above. Either the sponsor or someone close to him has an axe to grind or there’s money to be made in the testing business.

  10. You may view your right to screw as a primary right. The tax payers are starting to view that privilege as being very expensive; and are starting to question the reasons why their taxes are being spent for people that don’t have any self control.

    Uhh… What does that have to do with demanding paternity tests before putting a father’ name on the birth certificate? I’m having a difficult time seeing how this statement relates to the topic at hand.

  11. Well here’s a thought. If you don’t get a daddy’s name on the birth certificate, you don’t get daddy to pay child support. Even, apparently, if he was married to mama. Now there’s good public policy – we’ll leave indigent children to be cared for by the state.

    And this benefits the taxpayers how?

  12. if he was married to mama.

    Precisely mojo mama.

    I can just see it…outraged women simply leaving hubby off the birth certificate altogether. It is certainly what I would do, and I can guarantee that if my husband submitted to this vile insult of his wife, the marriage would suffer serious damage.

  13. Pingback: Tennessee to Require DNA for Birth Certificates « Women’s Health News

  14. Having just been through the whole giving birth wringer I can tell you, there are several things that the state requires that you have to pay for. Even if the doctor doesn’t think they’re necessary.

    We had to put crap in our new babies eyes so they wouldn’t be able to see us for 24 hours because the state was worried that they might catch syphillis from their mother vagina. Never mind that they tested her for every VD known or the fact that the babies were delivered by Casarean so they didn’t get anywhere near that area.

  15. This is a despicable piece of legislation. It does sound like our boy Campy. You know, pregnancy and birth are pretty tough to go through without that final slap in the face at the end.

  16. What are you ladies afraid of? The only reason I see that women are opposed to this is if they’ve already committed paternity fraud, or plan on it some day.

    It’s simple, ladies. Don’t cheat! Can’t handle that? Don’t have babies!

  17. Ah, B, I see you got the same “Well, it’s just that all women are potentially liars, and all men should be suspect,” comment/er I did, albeit under a different name here.

  18. Pingback: Mandatory Paternity Testing Has Arrived « Roissy in DC

  19. I note that your two objections to this bill — soldiers killed overseas and people with multiple genotypes — are both based on extremely uncommon circumstances. That’s like arguing against seatbelt laws by saying, “Well, what about all the people who are saved by being thrown from the car?” Outliers like this are not relevant to a discussion of the issue as a whole. Statistically, you’re safer wearing a seatbelt.

    So, do you have any objections that don’t rely on unlikely exceptions?

  20. So, do you have any objections that don’t rely on unlikely exceptions?

    I’m floored. How about simply the fact that it’s the government requiring an otherwise completely elective medical procedure (not to mention a several hundred dollar expenditure) whether it is wanted or not? Do we really need to go beyond that?

  21. I’m floored. How about simply the fact that it’s the government requiring an otherwise completely elective medical procedure

    It’s not major surgery. I assume you’re equally up in arms about states that require a blood test to receive a marriage certificate, right? Because that’s equally as elective and invasive.

    Is your objection out of concern for state intrusion into people’s lives? If so, you also have to object to speed limits and welfare.

    (not to mention a several hundred dollar expenditure) whether it is wanted or not?

    The cost is an issue, but it’s worth the certainty of knowing exactly who the father is. Plus, as the number of tests increases, economies of scale at testing centers will bring the cost down. In time, it would be seen as just a part of the routine cost of hospital care for newborns.

    Do we really need to go beyond that?

    Yes, let’s. Let’s do a thought experiment in which we eliminate both the medically-invasive worries and the financial considerations so that we can consider the question in its pure form: Imagine that the test was completely free and totally non-invasive. Would you still object? On what grounds?

  22. Oh, Reggie, you’ve convinced me. Let’s just throw out the Constitution in order to protect you guys from liars who fuck around on you.

    I swear, for a bunch of folks who have so much invested in being manly men, you are the biggest fucking babies on the planet. You can’t take you and your kid into the doctor and get a DNA test? You’ve got to have the weight of the State behind you? Why? Your wife won’t let you have the car keys unless the State makes her?

  23. It’s not major surgery.

    Irrelevant.

    I assume you’re equally up in arms about states that require a blood test to receive a marriage certificate, right?

    I’m not sure the reasoning behind it (since the state deems me unworthy of marriage, I haven’t really looked into it), but off hand, yeah, that sounds like a stupid requirement.

    Is your objection out of concern for state intrusion into people’s lives? If so, you also have to object to speed limits and welfare.

    Hardly. The state you’re arguing that one has to choose between complete anarchy or a totalitarian state. That simply isn’t the case.

    The cost is an issue, but it’s worth the certainty of knowing exactly who the father is.

    Worth it to who? And why?

    The vast majority of couples (or even single women) having a baby already KNOW exactly who the father is.

    Would you still object? On what grounds?

    Yes, on the grounds that doing unnecessary shit for the sake of doing it (while regularly done anyways) is not a legitimate function of government. Not to mention huge privacy issues.

    Anyways, this post is a month old and if you can’t see why this legislation is so wrong just on it’s face, I probably won’t convince you, so I’m out.

  24. This issue is one of the more suppressed issues facing Americans today*. I have a quick and easy solution. Patch a very very very small fraction of tax LOOPHOLES and federally fund this testing.

    A. You patch loopholes that are ONLY available to the top 1/10 of 1% of wealthy Americans.

    B. That money previously “given away” to the wealthy FULLY FUNDS these tests – so there is no monetary cost to the individuals involved – except that it stimulates the local testing economies.

    C. People then know the truth – which is the morally right thing – the truth would always beat a falsehood.

    Since this is a win / win / win proposal I actually predict it will FAIL ! –
    and the wealthy will continue to abuse the American tax system and men and women will have to occassional raise children in marriages “seeded” with a lie.

    And who would argue for the husband / wife marriage seeded with a lie???

    *the other is the enormous amount of taxes collected that are funneled in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans – just 300,000 Americans control 48.5% of the wealth in the US – read David Cay Johnstons excellent books “Perfectly Legal” and “Free Lunch” for the truth*

  25. Seriously, y’all need to just take a step back. If you don’t know if your kid is yours, pay to have the damn dna test. You all are old enough to be fucking, you’re old enough to open your wallets and find out the truth.

    This whole “but we want the state to force our women to do this, because if they found out we did this behind their backs, they’d know we think they’re lying whores and they might leave us” nonsense is just that, nonsense.

    You have the legal right and the ability to do this right now. You don’t need the state to bully the mother of your children into participating. You can find out right now without needing my tax money or curtailing my rights to do it.

  26. Wait. Don’t the kids have a right to know?

    And doesn’t that right supersede and invalidate all the objections raised so far?

    And if not, why not?

  27. Oh, and as far as the money goes, they can just stop state funding for routine and ritual male genital mutilation, like California. North Dakota, Oregon, Mississippi, Nevada, Washington, Missouri, Arizona, North Carolina, Montana, Utah, Florida, Maine, Louisiana, Idaho, and Minnesota already have.

    That should more than cover the costs.

  28. “Wait. Don’t the kids have a right to know?” – Do the kids have a right to know from birth, before they can even really understand it, who is a biological parent and who is a loving adult willingly acting as a parent? I don’t know – ask some adoptive parents.

  29. But what’s the point of discussing the timing before we’ve determined whether they do have such a right or not, and that it supersedes and invalidates all the objections raised so far?

  30. Acksiom, get the test! It’s not illegal. You can have yourself tested, talk your dad into it, and you don’t have to have your wife’s permission to take a DNA sample from your kids. Or just borrow everyone’s toothbrushes.

    If you want to know, you can know. You do not need the law to force anyone to cooperate.

  31. Acksiom,

    You’re still presupposing your objection on the assumption that women are all liars, which is kinda the point of B’s post (as I read it). My father and myself have never been proven kin via paternity test, but since, according to my mother, he was the only man she’d slept with (period), I think it’s pretty damn safe to assume that he’s my father (or perhaps that I was immaculate conception??).

    You’re operating on the assumption that women are such inherent liars so much so that even when nobody objects to their assertion as to who the father is that we must put it through a test, just to be sure.

    If children “have a right to know” (and there’s certainly and argument that they do), then let them decide find out. For me personally, I have no doubts that the man I know as my father, is in fact, my biological father. If I did have doubts, as B says, I could get a test done NOW with no problems. Nobody here is objecting to paternity tests when someone is objecting to the assumed father. But why take the test when nobody doubts (or cares) what the results will be? At best, it’s wasteful, expensive and unnecessary. At worst it’s making incredibly insulting implications about women.

    I AM with you on state funding for circumcision though. Get rid of it.

  32. Aunt B., that doesn’t meaningfully answer my questions. I may not need the law in order to know, but that does not mean that incompetent infants, the State, and the Citizenry that pays the taxes that provide support and resources to those infants likewise do not need the law in order to know. They very well may; for one example, because of all the State status definitions that are done at birth.

    My actions in determining my paternity, today, are irrelevant to the issue of whether infants, born tomorrow, have a right to have their correct paternity objectively determined. So I would appreciate it if you would directly address that point, please.

    Dolphin – “You’re still presupposing your objection on the assumption that women are all liars”

    Er, no; it’s based on the fact (A) that some people are liars, and the proposition (B) that the State has a required responsibility in the best interest of children (which they, as incompetents, cannot exert for themselves), and possibly others, to determine paternity at birth.

    Dolphin – “But why take the test when nobody doubts (or cares) what the results will be?”

    Because of the cases where it does matter what the results are, and of the necessity for the State to apply the laws equally, without prejudice and discrimination.

    There are going to be men who will be confident that the child is not theirs, but who will nevertheless conspire with the mother anyways to defraud the child of the truth. Those men are culpable too. I do not find this to be an at all insulting implication about men. I do find it to be a sad but honest commentary about human beings.

    Sometimes, gender is not a useful filter for information and analysis, folks. Sometimes it just gets in the way and blocks out useful data and comprehension.

    Thank you very much for your support on the issue of defunding State financing of routine and ritual male genital mutilation. Sometimes being an intactivist makes me feel like I’m living in a giant open-air insane asylum, and hearing from someone new who gets it always helps with that.

  33. Another upside that just occurred to me is the potential for the decrease of rape and incestuous abuse. I believe that mandatory paternity testing will at least occasionally cause rapists and paternal abusers to refrain from committing these crimes. How valuable and necessary is that?

    BTW, this is no more an insulting implication about men in general than the fact that sometimes women are complicit in these abuses of children in their care is an insulting implication about women in general. The same applies to this proposed legislation.

  34. the State has a required responsibility in the best interest of children […], and possibly others, to determine paternity at birth.

    i dispute this. what good would it do? in particular, what good would it do that would outweigh the social evils of once again ostracizing bastardy, as would almost certainly happen if this legislative line was pushed through?

  35. Er, no; it’s based on the fact (A) that some people are liars

    Which by definition means some (I’d say MOST) are not. You’re arguing that we ought to punish non-liars (to the tune of $200-800 a child) for the “crimes” of liars (who are by far the minority). Meanwhile you haven’t yet discussed why the state even has a compelling interest to uncover the lies in the rare instance they occur.

    You are the one who said we should leave the extreme outliers out of the equation. I’d assert that the “average” mother is not a liar. Again, I’d suggest that when you look at your argument (per your own terms of the discussion), you are basing your view on the premise that all (or at least most) women are liars.

    the proposition (B) that the State has a required responsibility in the best interest of children (which they, as incompetents, cannot exert for themselves), and possibly others, to determine paternity at birth.

    You’ve neglected to show that (a) determining paternity at birth is truly always “in the best interest of the child” or, (b) should the determination of the paternity truly be in the best interest of the child, then such harm will come to the child in the absence of such a test that the state has a compelling reason to step in. It’s in the best interest of the child to not eat McDonald’s, yet I’ve not seen a state imposed ban on minors eating McNuggets.

    Because of the cases where it does matter what the results are,

    But I can think of no instance where the results matter (even remotely, much less in a severity that would require government intervention) in an undisputed conception.

    Again, it was you who chastised B for using outliers to back her position yet it seems to me that you are arguing that we need this law for the (pulling numbers out of the air here) .0000001% of the cases where this could, even only possibly, be a problem (and even then, not a big problem). You’re trying to kill a mosquito (not even a mosquito, more like a dust mite) with a shotgun (or a freaking nuke), and it’s a shotgun that violates privacy rights, coerces medical treatment, puts the state in the position of automatically assuming all citizens are criminals (guilty until proven innocent) and would financially make the cost of the Iraq War look like pocket change.

  36. I believe that mandatory paternity testing will at least occasionally cause rapists and paternal abusers to refrain from committing these crimes.

    I think you VASTLY over-estimate the effect such a thing would have.

  37. further it occurs to me that pushing the notion that most women are liars (maybe no doesn’t really mean no) would increase rapes in far greater numbers than mandatory paternity tests would decrease them.

  38. Nomen Nescio – “i dispute this. what good would it do?”

    Well, for starters, it would decrease paternity fraud, which is a genuinely awful thing to do to other people — isn’t it?

    Nomen Nescio – “in particular, what good would it do that would outweigh the social evils of once again ostracizing bastardy as would almost certainly happen if this legislative line was pushed through?”

    And I, in turn, dispute that. To what social evils, exactly, do you refer, and how did you measure their weight, and what is your support for your claim that they would almost certainly occur as a result of this legislation?

    Dolphin – “You’re arguing that we ought to punish non-liars (to the tune of $200-800 a child) for the ‘crimes’ of liars (who are by far the minority).

    No, I’m not. Please don’t misrepresent my actual statements. I am arguing that children have a right to have their paternity obejctively determined at birth. The issue of who pays for it is, again, not relevant to the establishment of whether they have such a right or not. I prefer to stick to one issue at a time; sorry, but I don’t multitask well.

    Actually, I have discussed why the State may have a compelling interest: the inability of children to exert their rights competently. That is the basic pretext.

    As to the matter of extreme outliers, I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have not addressed that.

    Finally, no, I am not basing my views on a premise about all women. I am basing my views on the objective FACTS about SOME PEOPLE. I went to some lengths to point out that in some cases, men share culpability for paternity fraud committed against children, and that gender filtering appears to be interfering with things more than clarifying them. So again, please stop misrepresenting my statements.

    Dolphin – “You’ve neglected to show that (a) determining paternity at birth is truly always ‘in the best interest of the child’ or, (b) should the determination of the paternity truly be in the best interest of the child, then such harm will come to the child in the absence of such a test that the state has a compelling reason to step in.”

    Yes, because I don’t have to, as State proxy exertion of children’s rights on their behalf has no such extreme requirements, and, as stated originally, there may be other valid Citizen taxpayer interests involved.

    The question remains whether or not children have a right to have their paternity objectively determined at birth.

    Dolphin – “But I can think of no instance where the results matter (even remotely, much less in a severity that would require government intervention) in an undisputed conception.”

    Okay; I suggest you try to think of any instances where the results of hospital misidentification error (i.e., getting the babies mixed up and sending them home with the wrong parents) matter, and then mapping across to paternity fraud from those. Does that help?

    Again, whoever may have been tasking B. about outliers, I don’t think it was me. In fact, I don’t even recall it happening from my first read through the comments.

    Oh, there it is. Someone named Reggie; not I.

    As to the number of cases, Wikipedia says:

    “According to Steve Scherer, a senior scientist in the department of genetics at the Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto), 10% of babies born in Canada are victims of paternity fraud. A 10% paternity fraud rate was cited during a science seminar for Canadian judges in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada in November, 2002 by a panel of medical experts.

    Dr. Jeanette Papp, director of genotyping and sequencing in the University of California at Los Angeles department of human genetics is of the expert opinion that 15% of children born in the Western world are victims of paternity fraud.”

    At even just a conservative half of what the professionals are reported to generally agree upon as an accurate estimate — 10% — that’s still 1 out of every 20 children.

    So I’d say it’s more like an epidemic, and the legislation more like a vaccine — a vaccine that decreases infidelity, increases the practice of safer sex, protects children, adults, and families from fraud, divorce, and other negatives, better places adult responsibilities where they better belong.

    Again, if you don’t understand why paternity fraud is such a serious problem, even before the rates of occurrence are considered, try imagining what it would be like to suddenly learn, years later, that the child you brought home from the hospital wasn’t the one to which you gave birth. And that the child to which you did give birth has been raised all these years by strangers, in who knows what kind of environment.

    And then try imagining what it would be like for those little girls.

    Dolphin – “I think you VASTLY over-estimate the effect such a thing would have.”

    Er, no; I think it’s actually you who vastly over-estimates how much effect I think it would have. The point is more about being open to potential positives of the proposed legislation, let alone actively and fairly looking for them.

  39. Dolphin – “further it occurs to me that pushing the notion that most women are liars”

    Please take that up with someone who actually asserts it, rather than I. I’ve made it explicitly clear that I disagree with that narrative, and why.

  40. paternity fraud is a bad thing, but it’s also not exactly an everyday scourge upon the general citizenry. why does it need such a draconian, all-encompassing measure to combat it? any law that impacts each and every single live birth had better have a justification that involves a very great many live-born infants, one would think.

    as for “weighing” (as if physically!) an ill of society past which anybody who’s picked up a few history books would know perfectly well was quite real — grow up; that kind of sophomoric whining doesn’t deserve any time in a serious discussion. that’s like trying to claim the 1950’s must not have involved any anticommunist scaremongering unless somebody can measure the lengths of McCarthyism on a yardstick.

  41. Nomen Nescio – “paternity fraud is a bad thing, but it’s also not exactly an everyday scourge upon the general citizenry.”

    How would you characterize a situations where (A) almost all hospitals were regularly mixing up newborns so badly that 1% of them were going home with the wrong parents, but (B) virtually nothing could be done to stop it from happening to any meaningful degree.

    What percentage of mixed up newborns would you need for a law that impacts each and every single live birth to be justified?

    As to the social evils of ostracizing bastardy, I gladly admit to being less informed on the matter than you are. That’s kind of why I asked you to inform me about them ITFP, and why I would still appreciate it if you would do so.

    However, please refrain from any more snotty condescension.

    Then, after you’ve brought me up to acceptable speed on the matter, we can get around to determining the actual validity of your comparative measurement between the two, and then finally what your support is for your claim that the former would almost certainly occur as a result of this legislation.

  42. Any idiot can only raise children who are genetically related to him. Wimps.

    Most males have no idea how to be real men. Whiny babies.

    There is a subtext to this conversation that really disturbs me. I haven’t quite decided if it’s worth my time.

    Full disclosure: I’m an adoptive dad, who is pretty pissed off at some in my gender.

  43. How would you characterize a situations where (A) almost all hospitals were regularly mixing up newborns so badly that 1% of them were going home with the wrong parents, but (B) virtually nothing could be done to stop it from happening to any meaningful degree.

    unless you’ve got some very good evidence to back that up, i’d characterize it as fantasy.

    the healthcare industry in general tends to consider a 0.5% error rate as totally unacceptable in most any other treatment situation, so i don’t see why it would be accepted in identifying and tracking newborns.

    far less do i see why such errors should be impossible to prevent or resolve; item tracking and identification is not a new or insoluble problem in any other field, after all. much more likely that you’re pulling numbers out of your nether orifice, i’d say.

    which, it now occurs to me, seems to well describe everything you’ve done on this thread so far. blatant assertions with no real support, used as support for draconic and extreme measures.

  44. Okay, clearly you have an opinion. Clearly most of us here think it’s bogus. You’re welcome to continue to speak your piece, but unless you’re willing to acknowledge that your anxiety rests upon the fact that women might do things you don’t like that are, in fact, not illegal and they might not tell you about it, we’re going to get no place.

    Now, I’m terribly sorry that you’re upset that women might do things you don’t like that are not illegal and they might not tell you about it, but that’s how it works.

    No one has an inherent legal right to know who their wife or mother has been fucking and there’s no reason you can’t take care of your problems through legal means.

    Involving the state is about forcing women to disclose to you information that’s really none of your business.

  45. No, I’m not. Please don’t misrepresent my actual statements.

    Actually, you are. That’s not your intention, but that is the result of the legislation. While your goal is not to punish non-liars, that is the end result and one you are (by default) arguing is worth it for what you see as a greater good.

    I am arguing that children have a right to have their paternity obejctively determined at birth.

    And I’m arguing that there is no such right. It’s arguable that people have the right to know who their biological parents are, but that doesn’t imply that an infant has that right at birth, when it is cognitively impossible for them to understand it (in fact an infant CANNOT know who their biological father is at birth, therefore how can they have that right). Testing should happen when there’s a dispute about the potential result.

    The issue of who pays for it is, again, not relevant to the establishment of whether they have such a right or not.

    I find it relevant. I may have the right to buy a car from a willing seller, but I don’t have the right to make you to pay for it.

    Yes, because I don’t have to, as State proxy exertion of children’s rights on their behalf has no such extreme requirements

    That’s a bold face lie. It’s in the best interest of children to not eat at McDonald’s yet there is no state-imposed prohibition on minors eating fast food. Except in cases of abuse/neglect the state (rightfully) lets parents do the parenting.

    The question remains whether or not children have a right to have their paternity objectively determined at birth.

    Not in my mind. I have very clearly stated that children (people in general) arguably have the right to have their paternity determined, should they want to. I have the right to vote, but the state doesn’t come force a ballot into my hand.

    Okay; I suggest you try to think of any instances where the results of hospital misidentification error

    Hold on there. No bait-and-switch please. Hospital misindentification errors are a completely separate matter. A paternity test will not solve a paperwork error. The two are unrelated.

    Please take that up with someone who actually asserts it, rather than I. I’ve made it explicitly clear that I disagree with that narrative, and why.

    Your personal feelings on it are irrelevant. That is the concept the bill implies in the minds of a large number of people. You don’t measure the effect it will have on the population at large by one persons interpretation.

  46. Oops, sorry; I apologize for not making my point more clearly.

    What I was trying to get at is the lower cognitive chunking level, where you characterized the existing degree of paternity fraud as being “not exactly an everyday scourge upon the general citizenry.”

    Yes, of course it’s ridiculous to imagine that almost every hospital in the usa could be getting away with that kind of grotesque unprofessionalism. But we need to take that ridiculous imaginary situation for granted in order to make the comparison work, since the actually existing situation is even more ridiculous — conservatively at least 5 times as ridiculous, and apparently by the general consensus of the experts, probably 10 times as ridiculous.

    So the point I was making is if, for some truly madly deeply bizarre reason, it were actually happening — that if 1% of newborns across the country were going home with the wrong parents, AND there were no simple solutions to fix the problem — how willing would you be to characterize that as “an everyday scourge upon the general citizenry,” or something similar along those general lines?

    The intended effect is the creation of a informative and enlightening comparison between normal paternity fraud, and hospitals engaging in. . .hmmm. . .maternity fraud, I guess.

    To be explicit, it is hoped that the reader comes to realizes that paternity fraud may actually be a very serious problem by imagining what it would be like for women and their children to be directly subjected to a similar abuse at the hands of deceitful hospital employees who cannot be held accountable by normal means.

    Which is then how we get to the next question, specifically: what percentage of repeated nationwide not-easily fixable cases of mixed up newborns would you need there to be to justify for you a law that impacts each and every single live birth?

    Again, I’m sorry for not explaining it better the first time. I hope this clears things up sufficiently.

  47. “It takes a village to raise a child.”

    Ah, yes. You do understand the flipside of this maxim right? WHEN it takes a village to raise a child THEN it is the village that gets to decide which children it raise and, thus, which children get born. Any government that is capable of absolving you of all responsibility is also capable of stripping you of all your rights I have my own business, bust my ass and for all my efforts I probably wind up with an effective 35% tax rate at all levels of government.

    What exactly do I get for it? Precious little. But if the state can take all that money from me, what can it take from you? How about the right to procreate.

    The new eugenics.

    It’s coming.

    Like a freight train.

    “All women are liars”

    Um, no. But when you give any people, in this case women, the power to make decisions but force others to bear the responsibility for those decisions you run into a problem called “moral hazard”. Current social policy incentivizes female lying, so it’s not shocking when people follow the incentives. As Reagan said “Trust, but verified”.

    “Best interests of the child”

    Actually, the best interests of some children are clearly the worst interests of society. And it is imprudent to sacrifice the best interests of society for the interests of a minority of children who have a strong propensity to grow up to be burdens on society.

    Funneling societal resources to genetic defectives is certainly not in the best interests of society.

  48. WHEN it takes a village to raise a child THEN it is the village that gets to decide which children it raise and, thus, which children get born.

    methinks somebody here was raised by a pack of wolves. because, surely, no human being could possibly be brought up within sight or earshot of an actual human society and so fundamentally misunderstand the way human societies function, what sort of values groups of humans place on children and parenthood, and what manner of powers humans consider validly ceded to society at large. or, for that matter, what powers parents can validly wield over their children and what they cannot do.

    this isn’t rocket science; most of us do these things instinctively, literally without even thinking about them. yet Asher seems not to grok in the slightest. poor Asher.

  49. Slartibartfast, you choose to become an adoptive dad. Whether you think that a “real man” wouldn’t care it should be our choice. Who put you in charge of what a “real man” is? Maybe I think you should be able to run 5 miles and bench 300 pounds. Maybe a “real man” would mind his own business when men want to raise their own biological child and not somebody else’s, If a guy knows the truth, he can make the choice of whether he wants to be an adoptive father.

    As far as cost, do you think women would have all these bastard children if they couldn’t commit paternity fraud. Less children, less cost to the state. Also, the presumption that the husband is the father under the law means that we should get the fact straight as soon as possible.

    I would be willing to nix this bill if there was an agreement that no child support order can be done without a paternity test, even if the parties were married.

    Saying that this assumes that all women are lying is like saying that a plaintiff in a civil case is a liar just because they have to prove their case. Women who aren’t lying, won’t care about the proving paternity. If you want the government to intervene on your behalf, you need PROOF.

    As far as the military example, just find a relative. You are really stretching to find a reason to protect the 10% of women who commit fraud.

  50. No one has addressed the idea that after doing this for a decade or two the government would have a pretty good database for law enforcement. They’d have everyone’s DNA from birth.

    Any idiot can only raise children who are genetically related to him. Wimps.
    Slarti, I’d like to hear how it is so much harder when they aren’t geneticly related to you. I just don’t see it. Granted you’re an exception since your children are racially different.

  51. I wouldn’t doubt this would raise anger in women, feminist or not.

    But think of it this way on the terms of abortion. A couple, married or not agrees to have a child then the woman changes her mind and aborts. The man has no say, none. This raises anger in men whether they be an MRA or not. What does the other side do in this case?

    Wimp. Crybaby. Sexist.

    Now the feminists are getting a taste of unfairness and what do some MRA do?

    Wimp. Crybaby. Sexist.

    It’s all pretty funny if you sit back and watch.

  52. If a woman has nothing to hide, then she should gladly submit to this test. Only those who have something to hide would want the supposed father not to be completely sure his child is not his. And if you women against this bill claim to be so honest, then prove it.

  53. Three months late to the party again, J.

    I suspect that you’re a total dumbass and I don’t want to be burdened with the social costs of your lack of critical reasoning skills. On the basis of that suspicion alone, I will be asking the state to force you to take a test on constitutional law. If you have nothing to hide, you should gladly submit. And you’ll need to prove that you’re not as dumb as a stack of shingles because I don’t believe that someone would object for any other reason (like finding such a test humiliating or an unconstitutional multiplication of the state’s policing power or whatall).

    Intrusive and unnecessary state-mandated testing for everybody, y’all. Home of the free…

  54. I think it’s all a plot for the government to get a blood sample from everyone so they can clone us all. That’s the most rational reason for such a law.

  55. This article is nothing more than typical female justification of cuckoldry. All babies should be paternity tested at birth – husbands, boyfriends etc have a right to know, if in fact, they are the actual fathers of their women’s children. If so, then this justifies him being around and contributing to the child’s upbringing. If not, the man has the right to leave the relationship with no strings attached.
    The only women who will object to manditory paternity testing (and no man would ever object to it) are women with something to hide). Such women should be shunned and shamed by society.

  56. Wow that comment is the internet equivalent of a flaming bit of dog poo Revo. The whole point of the OP is that every guy is free to ask for the testing and there’s no need to make it mandatory. The huge majority of guys who are told they are the father of a child are in fact the father of that child so making it mandatory is sort of like putting a full body cast on a guy who got a splinter.

    Care to address that?

  57. In Australia, many women object to any form of paternity testing. To this end, the State government of new South Wales has been under pressure from feminist lobby groups to ban paternity testing entirely. I see this as nothing more than an attack on the rights of men to know if they are the fathers of their wives/girlfriends children. In many cases, paternity testing has proven this not to be the case.

  58. Rob, you’re making a number of arguments for which you provide no support. The post is about Tennessee. You are talking about Australia. You make several quantitative claims — “many women object” and “In many cases” — without providing any data to back that up. How big is the number we’re talking about and by what measure are you getting those numbers? Or are you pulling these impressions out of your ass? And finally, you make no substantive case — why should the state be granted the compulsory power to order mandatory genetic testing based on nothing more than some guy’s paranoid suspicion that his girlfriend’s been running around?

    If you want people to keep engaging you — especially if you keep commenting on a post that is over two years old — you have to pick up your game.

  59. But the issue is not invading the privacy of women. It’s testing the child and testing the man to determine if he is in fact the father. Why is this important?

    Because the mother can go to court and file for child support if he signs the birth certificate (in the case of unmarried couples). However, in the case of married couples, there is a presumption that all children the wife has during the marriage are the husband’s. Well, there are cases where years later, these men find out that the children they’ve been supporting are not biologically theirs. To add insult to injury, quite a few of these men are forced (under threat of financial ruin, as well as arrest) to pay to support children that aren’t theirs.

    I know that some of you don’t give a shit about that. But imagine for a moment that your husband has to pay out $750-1500 per month for a child(or children) that isn’t/aren’t his, only because his ex deceived him into believing he’d fathered the child(ren). Imagine how much of a strain that would be and how your children would be deprived of their father’s full time and resources because someone else decided that she didn’t want to be honest.

    Well what about the children? In many cases, the mother knows who the father is. In that case, he can begin supporting his child/children, as responsible adults do.

    The law, while draconian and very Big Brother, is an attempt to right a wrong that the media wants to sweep under the rug.

    Think I’m wrong? If it had been Elin Woods who’d committed adultery with 13 different men and Tiger found out the kids weren’t his…she’d probably STILL have gotten the $100 mill. divorce settlement…even if the kids weren’t his.

  60. Listen, I know this is very, very hard for folks to wrap their heads around, so let me be as plain as possible. Nowadays, when a man gets married, he is entering into a legal relationship with a woman; he is not buying exclusive access to her vagina. It may be a terrible emotional betrayal if she cheats on him and has children that aren’t biologically his, but the idea that she’s defrauding him only works if you believe that he has bought her pussy and controls who accesses it.

    That’s a pretty disgusting belief.

    There is a difference between being betrayed by a loved one and having your property dare misbehave in a way that causes you to want the law to force her back into your power.

    You have my sympathy for the first. You will never have my support for the second.

    If you marry a woman, you are agreeing to be the father to the children she has during that marriage. You know that going in. If it is imperative that you father only children you are biologically related to, when your wife tells you she’s pregnant, get with a lawyer about figuring out how to stay off the birth certificate until the baby can be genetically tested.

    You can do that right now.

    You don’t need laws to force it.

    Y’all only want laws to force the issue because you don’t trust the women you fuck, but you don’t want to have to take action based on that mistrust, because then they would know what you really think of them. So, you want the state to come in and force things, so you can continue to be duplicitous while claiming it’s about preventing women’s duplicity.

    You want to believe that all women are lying bitches, you want to force others to act as if that’s true, and you don’t want the women you fuck to know you think they’re lying bitches, because, if they knew you hated them, they might not fuck you.

    No sympathy here.

  61. “It may be a terrible emotional betrayal if she cheats on him and has children that aren’t biologically his, but the idea that she’s defrauding him only works if you believe that he has bought her pussy and controls who accesses it.”

    So from this statement I take it you think that a man who does get a paternity test (law or not) and subsequently finds out that the child isn’t his “believes” he’s bought his wife’s pussy and controls who accesses it? That there’s no such thing as paternal fraud?

    You’re seriously shaming married men for wanting their wives to be faithful? That it’s somehow tantamount to considering her property?

  62. If you marry a woman, you are agreeing to be the father to the children she has during that marriage.
    Oh see that’s just not true at all. Getting married involves agreeing to a lot of things, but there’s no agreement regarding children. Children are a whole seperate agreement.

  63. W., yes, if you’re talking about a moral agreement. But a legal agreement? No, you’re not legally acquiring sole access to your wife’s vagina. And we get into some sketchy problems if we want the weight of the state behind our wishes for how people behave in marriages.

    Right now, the state wants some man to financially contribute to a child’s upbringing and the easiest legal approach is that the children that come into being in a marriage are the children of that man.

    If that’s not an arrangement you’d be happy with, you should make other legal arrangements. You could do a post-nuptial agreement, for instance.

    Avi, I encourage you to learn to read.

  64. Aunt B,

    Learn to write more clearly. Or at least remember what you’ve written. Here’s the leading paragraph in your post, copied directly once again considering you’ve done neither:

    “Listen, I know this is very, very hard for folks to wrap their heads around, so let me be as plain as possible. Nowadays, when a man gets married, he is entering into a legal relationship with a woman; he is not buying exclusive access to her vagina. It may be a terrible emotional betrayal if she cheats on him and has children that aren’t biologically his, but the idea that she’s defrauding him only works if you believe that he has bought her pussy and controls who accesses it.

    That’s a pretty disgusting belief.”

    Nowhere have you referenced the new law. You’ve effectively compared loyal monogamous men to slaveowners if they’re so audacious as to expect fidelity from their wives (who, in this case are cuckholding them).

    I’m a black woman. That notion is not only absurd but also ridiculously offensive to me as my ancestors actually were treated as property. If you want to idiotically shame loyal, non-misogynistic men in your quest to conflate all men as jackasses, do it another way.

  65. Avi, there is no such thing as a loyal, non-misogynistic man who thinks that the state should force his wife to remain sexually faithful to him.

    You can want your spouse to stay faithful to you. You can dump their asses if they’re not. But, when you get married, even if you two understand that you are entering into a MORAL agreement to stay faithful to each other, that is not the LEGAL arrangement you are making.

    And if you want the weight of the state to step in and force your spouse to do with their body what you want them to do with it, you are claiming ownership of that body, that your rights and wishes for what happen to that body trump the rights and wishes of the person whose body it is.

    If you’re offended by that notion, good. You should be. But don’t be pissed at me for telling the truth. Be pissed at men who can’t get it through their heads that they don’t own their wives’ bodies and that moral claims aren’t (and often shouldn’t be) the same as legal claims.

  66. I’m Canadian, but I’m educated enough to know that Tennessee has many sexist men. In fact, many places have many sexist men and women who follow them. I’m a sole support mother ( I could say ‘single’ mother but that would be offensive). I always feel offended when people assume that I’ve never been married. I was and both my children were born within wedlock. Once at the dentist my daughter was having some root canal done, the dental assistant actually said, ‘Don’t worry, this happens even to good families’. I replied, ‘We ARE a good family’. I was flaberghasted. How dare she say that? I pay my taxes, I have a Master’s degree, I’ve worked hard to provide for my children! The dentist , too, went on to imply that my daughter’s former dentist didn’t try to fix the problem because he knew it was ‘too far gone’. Not only saying that my daughter wasn’t worth it to have decent dental work, but that by not providing such dental work (and probably going against his oath) it wouldn’t jeapardize his license because, afterall, we are not of a ‘good family’ .Ei. ‘If you complain nobody will believe you anyway.’ It seems if a man is around, then, you’re a ‘good family’. If not, then you aren’t.
    It doesn’t matter that it was the ex-husband who decided not to pay child support. Anyway, it is my understanding that, luckily, in the states there is a law that a deadbeat dad can be charged with and that’s being a negligent parent. Just because you don’t want to be married doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be a father. This is a good thing. Because if more mothers received child support from their ex-husbands then, less would be collecting state funds. It’s very simple. However, what it does stir up is the idea that men are responsible for ‘what they leave behind’. It’s ironic because they are trying to leave EVERYTHING behind. The focus has to be put on the fathers to pay up. Until women have enough clout to take their own exes to court for support, the government has to do it. It may take a while but, it will even out. However, I wonder how many lawmakers in Tennessee have a few people they ‘left behind’ also.

  67. Economically it makes sense for all men to pay for a paternity test.

    Lets say it cost 150k to raise a kid on average. If you have a 10% chance of being cuckolded then a test would have to cost 150k * 0.1 = 15000 dollars before it no longer made sense to have a test done.

    Even if the chance is a low as 2% thats 150k * 0.02 or $3000 dollars. These days paternity tests only cost between 150 – 250 dollars, so even if you have 10 kids and test all of them you make out ahead economically and in terms of peace of mind.

    Note ladies 2% is the absolute lowest figure ever published for rates of cuckholdry in those men who are absolutely certain they are the fathers. The more likely figure is 10%. And 150k is an extremely conservative estimate of the cost to raise a child.

    If you don’t understand this argument, it’s referred to as “logic” and “science” with some “math” thrown in

  68. Aunt B is quite correct in saying that legally men no longer have any rights in marriage. That is why many men no longer choose to marry. The only legal benefits conferred are to the women. Thus Aunt B’s smug and gloating tone.

  69. You know, just when I think jackasses like you are convinced that women are the worst of the worst, you say something that convinces me that, as much as you think so little of women, you really hate men even worse.

    You know, there really is such a thing as “science” and scientists have asked men why they don’t get married (the straight ones who don’t) and by and large it’s because of job insecurity–they don’t feel like they could support a family or even contribute to the supporting of a family and they don’t want to be a burden on the women they care about.

    I know this will come as a surprise to your curdled soul, but most people act in ways, no matter how misguided, that they hope will benefit themselves and the people they love, not that will teach the people they’re only pretending to love a lesson.

  70. I know. Who sits around searching the internet for year old posts to come get all pissed off at? Certainly I’ve said something worth getting angry about since then.

  71. Late to the game, but this article misses the point of hundred of thousands of men that are raising children that are not biologically theirs. This is what the bill is trying to prevent. This isn’t a woman’s issue…this is a man’s issue that is supposed to establish the correct biological father at birth based on objective scientific testing not just accepting a woman’s word without question.

    Also, the headline of this article is highly deceptive. First off, people lie. Men and women both are capable of this…trying to deny it is foolish. So I don’t see how Aunt B is trying to make the claim that this legislation is painting “all women” as liars. All women don’t lie…but some do. Also, women now a days are much more promiscuous than previous generations and might not know who impregnated her and all she is doing is guessing.

    All you have to do is watch Maury Povich to see that certain women act all morally superior and righteous and yelling “you are the father” at the potential father. Then Maury says “You aren’t the father” and her whole lie comes crashing down. This is what this bill is trying to prevent. Unscrupulous women committing a man to pay for someone else’s child….it’s morally repugnant and completely unjust.

    The notion that complaining about this means I somehow “own” my girlfriend/wife’s vagina is ludicrous. My point is that if I didn’t contribute to the birth of the child, then I shouldn’t be obligated to pay for the child for at least 18 years. If I am married and my wife cheats, I shouldn’t be held responsible for the child that was created by said infidelity.

    The child would have already been born, so where does a woman’s body come into play. This is after she has already given birth, hence the child has their own basic autonomy that isn’t dependent on a woman’s body.

    Now knowing this, I think it makes sense to make sure the father is actually the father before he is committed to 18-23 years of child support payments. This isn’t Verizon screwing up on your phone bill, being forced to pay years of child support for a child that isn’t yours is a damn travesty.

    I think the idea of government mandated paternity tests is not needed…but I do think men should be able to request (and pay for) the test prior to being placed on the birth certificate of the child. If a man doesn’t want to get the test done, then he can suffer the consequences of possibly paying child support to a child that isn’t his. At the end of it all, men should NOT be paying for children that are not biologically theirs.

    Lastly, in response to Nomen’s response that “paternity is a bad thing…but not a scourge of the general citizenry” I would beg to differ. Just like one person being imprisoned even though they are innocent is a serious tragedy. One man paying child support to a non-biological child is also a tragedy. Biology is really the only thing men have to connect themselves to a child. Sure there is adoption, but the man still doesn’t have a random child foisted on him and ordered to pay for that child’s well-being. Even in adoption, a man has to sign lots of legal paperwork that establishes him as the legal guardian and/or parent of that child. So why can’t I check to see if my son/daughter is mine prior to being held legally responsible for that child?

  72. Oh, lord, Brandon. Here’s some advice: sleep with good women. Not “good girls,” but actual women with integrity. And even then, if you don’t want to have a child with her, use a condom every time you have sex with her. Then, if she does get pregnant, you should work on having the integrity to tell her you don’t want your name on the birth certificate until the paternity is verified.

    Ta-da! Problem solved.

    Honest to god, it’s not the government’s problem or the problem of people who’ve managed to have children with people they respect and trust that you are afraid of getting dicked over by a woman you can’t trust. Here’s an easy solution: Don’t stick your dick in a woman you don’t trust.

    p.s. A lot of people go on talk shows and exaggerate their situations for the sake of getting to be on tv. You shouldn’t believe everything you see at face value.

  73. Ya, are you saying that women can not be deceptive? She can act like a good woman with class and respect, but change overnight. This is why men use stereotypes like women sleep with men like crazy prior to marriage…but soon dries up after the wedding. There a good and bad women and there are women that act like good women but are in fact malicious. That is why men have female archetypes like gold diggers. And gold diggers do exist…I have dated a few briefly.

    What you have basically said is men are at fault because a woman may have been deceptive and cheated on the man and got pregnant. You won’t take the man’s side and denounce the woman for being deceptive or a cheater but you will take the side of the woman and blame men for having shitty taste in women.(what is the opposite of victim-blaming? Victim-gloating?) And you will use antiquated phases like “keep your dick in your pants” as a method for men to avoid deceptive women. Personally, I think you are grasping at straws to justify why men shouldn’t have govt funded paternity tests that will help ensure accuracy when establishing family lineage.

    The whole government angle is a crock. The government interferes with our lives plenty. Feminists get all in a tizzy when government tries to stop abortion funding but men can’t get a paternity test prior to being placed on a birth certificate which makes him legally responsible for that child. Feminists are even trying to get govt insurance companies to pay for their birth control every month. So I see no problem with government funding this if it also funds abortions and pays for women’s birth control (the govt doesn’t buy my condoms). I am not advocating that government pay for it…just that you saying it isn’t government’s “problem” is illogical and a thinly veiled attempt to justify the status quo which is more biased in favor of women.

    Feminists also point out all the money that is saved for maintaining these programs because paying for birth control helps prevent unwanted pregnancies that the state might have to take care of. So it is cheaper in the long run to give women free birth control so the state doesn’t have to pay further down the road to care for the children later. I can at least see the logic in this.

    Now if mandatory paternity test was put into place, just think of all the savings the legal system would get since they don’t have to hunt down men that aren’t the fathers, deal with men contesting fathering the child and any other legal work that has to be done in regards to men and family court. Seems like a money saver to me. Lawyers are expensive might as well do it at birth to save all the hassle and costs further down the road.

    Maury Povich and other shows like Jerry Springer are crappy TV to say the least. But these shows (mainly Maury) have thousands of people on there show every year to do paternity testing…they can’t all be exaggerating.

    I think a lot of this will go down if the FDA approves of RISUG. This way men can take control of their own birth control and not rely on women to take birth control properly or worry that she may be lying, etc… A man can take a proactive step to ensure he becomes a father when he wants to…not when she wants to become a mother.

  74. men can’t get a paternity test prior to being placed on a birth certificate which makes him legally responsible for that child

    Nonsense. Any man who wants one can have it done. Absolutely nothing prevents it.

  75. This *is* nonsense. If you are not married to the child’s mother, you are not forced to sign anything — and if she lawyers up to ask for child support or the DHS wishes to pursue the matter, the court as a matter of course requires a paternity test in situations where the reluctant party disputes paternity. If you are married (and there is a legal presumption of paternity), you have also have presumptive parental rights over the body of the child — no obstacle. But mainly, I’m thinking Betsy has a point. Don’t stick your dick in women you don’t know well enough to predict. (By the way, if a thousand men claim to have a problem in a population of 311 million people…it’s not that much of a problem that we need to infringe upon the other 310.99999999999999999 million’s rights to solve it.)

  76. A man can take a proactive step to ensure he becomes a father when he wants to…not when she wants to become a mother.

    Yes sir, Brandon. And that proactive step can begin this very day, without waiting for the FDA. It begins with A) remaining celibate UNTIL you are in a long-term committed relationship with a woman with whom you want to raise a child or B) if you choose to have sex, using *two* good condoms and ensuring that your partner is using good barrier contraception, preferably by helping to place/apply it yourself.

    Believe me, if you follow one of those two steps, you’re generally going to be communicating well enough with your partner to know what sort of person she is and can follow through accordingly.

    Or, short version: What B said.

  77. Double-bagging is not recommended by most condom manufacturers. When using latex condoms, the extra friction tends to increasing ripping. Other than that, though, the advice about condom plus correctly applied barrier protection (foam is easy to get and effective) is very sound.

  78. This is why I generally leave such advice to professionals and others much more knowledgeable than I (like yourself) about many, many excellent things, @bridgett! I just couldn’t stop myself, sadly, from feeding a troll who, as B so eloquently said during the initial late-posting brouhaha above,

    … sits around searching the internet for year-old posts to come get all pissed off at(.)

    Folks are welcome to have and express their opinions, and many do, quite eloquently and excellently, right here at this site, and our hostess is always gracious with her bandwidth. But there also are an awful lot of folks who seem to like to come to B’s place and mess on a rug she’s already cleaned several times, aired out and put in a different room. Puzzling.

  79. @nm: It is nice when you take me out of context and don’t quote that entire sentence. The point was that feminists would get in an outrage if lawmakers stopped funding anything that has anything to do with women’s reproduction…but as soon as men want the govt to pay for paternity tests, feminists and a lot of other women are all “oh..the government doesn’t need to butt into our personal lives and force new parents to go through this process”. The way I see it is if the govt wants to continue funding those programs, they should do something that benefits men just as equally.

    @bridgett: Yes men don’t have to sign anything…the mother just writes in the name of the father (which could be correct or incorrect) then if later down the road, the man questions paternity, it makes it much more difficult and expensive to challenge it in court since he could have already bonded with his non-biological “child”. Doing paternity testing from birth allows both men and women to properly determine the father without a lengthy court battle.

    When children are born there is a lengthy process of collecting blood samples, getting foot and hand prints, etc… What is one more cotton swab to test for paternity.

    Seriously? Who are they infringing on? The state would mandate it, it would be forced to be covered by health insurance and while you are waiting for your baby in the hospital they will check for both diabetes and paternity. As a man, I am unable to get pregnant, yet my health insurance payments include those costs in my bill. So men are forking over millions of dollars for a procedure they will never have to go through.

    Lastly, you really need to drop the whole “keep your dick in your pants” statement. I would be flat out called a misogynist if I used the phrase “she should keep her legs closed”. If you don’t like men using that line to keep you in your place…it might behoove you to extend men the same curiosity. Plus it makes you less credible when you hold men to a standard you are unwilling to hold women too.

  80. Brandon, here’s the thing–people are telling you things like “just sleep with nice girls” because they’re trying to be kind, in our own way.

    Let me dispense with the kindness. Tough shit. Just tough fucking shit if you’re too cowardly to get a lawyer the second the woman you’re sleeping with tells you she’s pregnant and making sure she doesn’t put your name on the birth certificate until you’re sure you’re the biological father.

    If that’s what you think you need, you have the legal right to it right now.

    But no, let’s be frank. What you want is to be able to pretend as if you trust whomever you’re fucking (because you know that, if you made it clear you thought the woman you’re fucking is likely a gold-digging liar, there’s an excellent chance she’d stop fucking you) and to put onto the state the burden of forcing a paternity test. That way it’s not YOU who’s the douche (though, let’s be clear, a self-protecting douche) who’s fucking a woman he thinks could be betraying him, but merely the state who’s FORCING the issue.

    You want the state to provide you cover because you don’t have the guts to live your life how you want.

    You want to hate women and still get to fuck us.

    And I think that’s a terrible idea. You should have to pick one or the other.

  81. @nm: It is nice when you take me out of context and don’t quote that entire sentence.

    I repeat, nonsense. I didn’t quote you out of context, since what you wrote makes no sense, which is necessary for context.Problem #1: you compared mandatory paternity testing with gov’t funding of abortion. The gov’t does not fund abortion. So your comparison is meaningless. Problem #2: you said that “feminists” want “gov’t insurance companies” to pay for their birth control. It is health care providers (the Institute of Medicine) who recommend that private insurance companies treat birth control as a preventive measure that doesn’t need a co-pay. Not gov’t insurance, but insurance that the birth-control user pays for privately, and therefore not free. So your claim is pointless. Then you compare this stuff to mandatory paternity testing. You are aware, are you not, that even if the gov’t were paying, or being asked to pay, for abortion and birth control, they are optional? No one is being forced to have abortions or use birth control. But you seem to think that they are the equivalent to forcing all parents to have newborns subjected to paternity tests. I’m not sure where the context was in there that I’m supposed to be ignoring. And your claim that men can’t have paternity tests done if they wish is every bit as nonsensical, incoherent, and pointless as the rest of what you’ve written.

  82. Aunt B, your lack of empathy towards men who have been lied into raising some man’s child and not his own is just sad. There are tons of men out there that are raising another man’s child and your only response to that is to tell those men “tough shit…I guess you picked the wrong woman”. That attitude is the reason why other men are pushing more men to “suck it up and ask for a paternity test despite what she thinks. Break up’s and divorce be damned”. Anytime a male friend tells me his wife/girlfriend is pregnant, I recommend he get a paternity test just to be sure the child is his and that she can’t say he isn’t the father later on (yes it happens…better safe than sorry).

    I am not a coward at all. If a woman told me she was pregnant, the first thing I would do is ask “is it mine?”. And seriously…cowardly? All I want is to have scientific proof that the child is actually mine. That might make me skeptical and meticulous…but not cowardly. I don’t see how proactively trying to not become a sucker makes me a coward…I say it makes me smart and slightly shrewd.

    I want to fuck women without getting married or having children. There are women that I love and women that I dislike. I can’t really claim to hate any one woman because if I really don’t like her, I don’t spend time with her. I spend time with women that enjoy my company and avoid women that make life unpleasant.

    @nm: If you had read above, I do not support the government mandating paternity tests. All I am saying is I would tolerate mandatory testing, since it would unilaterally benefit men in the long run.

    Subjected? Really? All we are talking about is a cotton swab. Do doctors subject babies and new parents when they draw blood to test what the babies blood type is or if the baby has any blood related medical issues. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s a swab and a few cheek cells…it’s the same procedure they do in 5th grade science class so kids can learn about using microscopes and cells. Seems pretty innocuous to me.

    I would just like men to be informed of that option after the baby has been born and the ability for the assumed father to test the paternity of the child without the mothers consent. This way she can’t prevent a man from finding out if he is or isn’t the father. Currently the system is “opt-in” when I think it should be “opt-out” instead. I don’t like the idea of government force…so I don’t approve of men taking the test if they truly don’t want to do the test.

  83. So… let me get this straight. You don’t support government-mandated paternity testing, though you’re not opposed to it. You do already encourage men to get paternity tests right now. And you yourself would demand one if a woman you are fucking becomes pregnant.

    Okay, great.

    So, what’s your point? That I should continue to not support government-mandated paternity testing and encourage men to get paternity tests right now but in a nicer manner?

    Dude, at least I assume the problem is that straight men are just afraid of insulting the women they’re fucking. You seem to be assuming they’re too stupid to know to ask for a paternity test. Forget about you hating women. You need to work on your low opinion of men and then work your way out to the rest of humanity.

    So, no. I’m not going to agree with you in a way that assumes men are idiots who need to be coddled and guided. See, I like and respect men, so I don’t assume all y’all are imbeciles.

  84. See, that is the problem right there…you think that asking “Is it mine?” is insulting to the woman the man is sleeping with…I do not. It’s 2011 and people have lots of sex with different people so I don’t think women should get indignant or hostile when asked that question . I think asking that question is a perfectly reasonable and women should just answer yes, no or i dont know. Instead some women getting asked see it as some personal attack against them…when it isn’t. It does happen, I have been yelled at twice for asking “Is it mine?” and I have many more accounts of my male friends going through the same crap. So please don’t say it doesn’t happen…because it clearly does.

    It’s hard to defend “I think men are stupid” because there are dumb men and smart men. My point was having the information be presented to the man so they know it is an option. Haven’t you ever gone somewhere and someone told you something where you thought “I didn’t know I could have that done” . There is nothing stupid with providing men with more information so they can make a more informed decision.

    However, I think a good deal of men are afraid to ask that question because of the fight that will most likely happen. This is why I tell them it is better to get it done now and know for sure than have doubts or court battles down the road. This isn’t just missing a credit card bill…if they fuck this up, they could wind up getting stuck paying thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support for a child that isn’t even his. (I personally know a man that proved the child wasn’t his…he is still ordered by the court to pay)

    I am not saying you should take my stance in the matter, but I do think your headline for this article is way off. This decision has nothing to do with the mother…it is between a child and the father and making sure all the documents are correct and in order.

    There are countless things in life that have to go through a verification process. This is why we have notary public’s, CORI’s, SORI’s, police reports, background checks, birth certificates, ID’s, passports, etc… we have these not to say one side is a liar…but to give the person receiving the verification assurance that what the person is saying is indeed accurate and non-biased.

    In fact “father verification” is pretty much the last thing we actually verify.

  85. Correction:

    In fact “father verification” is pretty much the last thing we actually don’t verify.

  86. Brandon, if a woman you’re having sex with says ‘I’m pregnant’ and it isn’t immediately followed by ‘and it isn’t yours’ the implication is that it’s yours. Otherwise why is she bothering to tell you?

    So when you respond to that by saying ‘is it mine?’ then you’re pretty much calling her a liar. I’m not a woman but I know if someone I like well enough to have sex with calls me a liar I’m going to be pretty pissed.

    Just out of curiousity, those two times you got yelled at for asking ‘is it mine?’ what was the answer?

  87. People “bother” to tell people all sorts of things. I don’t know what her thinking is prior to her telling me “Im pregnant” and it is pointless to assume what she is thinking. I am not going to play stupid little mind games and beat around the bush. I am just going to ask “Is it mine?” and hopefully get a direct answer. I am not going to assume “her implications”, I want her to verbally tell me the child is or isn’t mine.

    W, I can sort of see your point IF the relationship was with someone who was married. But if you are just dating or fuck buddies, you have no reassurance that you are the only man she is sleeping with. She could be having sex will a bunch of guys and she doesn’t have to tell you (plus it would be none of my business, just like me sleeping with multiple girls is none of her business).

    Both of the women that I asked “Is it mine?” went into a rage and flat out attacked me. One even started throwing pots and pans at me. Then they accused me of not trusting them(yet I would trust the answer they gave me…had the women answered my question.) Then both started sobbing for a while…basically both girls hit every possible emotion that a human can experience in a few minutes. I usually get sick of her yelling and I leave and tell her to talk to me when she calms down.

    My whole point to all of this is men and women can be fooling around with a bunch of people. If she does get pregnant…she wouldn’t even know who the father is. I am not casting judgement on her, just facing reality that now people are more promiscuous and if she slept with two different men in the same week…how could she possibly tell objectively who the father is. She can’t, hence paternity tests at birth solve that problem.

    According to lots of studies, men and women lie, cheat and steal at roughly the same percentages. So my logic is, if I would ask for verification from a man (even a trusted man…like my father) about something important (bank loans, mortgage, etc…) I see no reason to treat women any better or worse than I treat men when it comes to life-changing events (having a kid, getting married, buying a house, student loans…you get the idea). I trust my father more than any other person on this planet…but I would still want to see his cash flow statements if he wanted me to invest in a house with him. I am not just going to accept him saying “It’s ok…I got this”. I need a little more reassurance than that. And I bet he wouldn’t say to me “You don’t trust me!”…he would say “no problem, I would ask for the same”.

    The fact that it is a pregnancy is irrelevant to me. The issue is that it is a life changing event that will require loads of cash and I am not going to be the sucker that dumps a fuck load of money on something and get taken advantage of…It’s really not about me thinking she is lying. It’s about my refusal to be a sucker and some “poor man” that got taken advantage of. Plus, I would do practically anything to avoid the US legal system…especially family courts that stomp on everyone’s rights in the name of “in the child’s best interest” I have seen too many men get squeezed through the “family court ringer” and I refuse to be one of them.

  88. Okay, Brandon. So now we come to the truth of the matter. Your life is in chaos. You fuck around in ways that aren’t fun for you. You are unsettled by intimacy and dismissive, perhaps afraid of, empathy. You don’t trust people. And yet, you don’t take the easy steps–like using a condom or getting a vasectomy–that would protect you from the outcome you fear, probably because you’re a hair self-destructive (also as evidenced by you turning people against you when they are at their most vulnerable and then being surprised when they get pissed and violent towards you). Your testing behavior towards women isn’t about there being something wrong with them. It’s about you looking for an excuse to bail.

    But rather than face up to the fact that your life is in chaos and that you are unhappy and self-destructing, you run around claiming ALL men’s lives are in chaos and that the state needs to step in and protect them.

    Believe me, my heart goes out to you in this matter. You do need to be protected, but not from “gold-digging” women. From yourself.

    Most men, most adult men, don’t live like you do. And it’s not because they’re not as cool or something. It’s because living in chaos fucking sucks. So, most men grow up and look for stability and form relationships with people they can trust. They don’t seek out or settle for women who make their lives even more chaotic. They know that any woman who is desperate enough to fuck a man who is in the middle of self-destructing probably has her own issues. Seriously. Look at your life. Look at how your describe yourself. What non-problemactic woman would EVER have unprotected sex with you? Until you get your shit together emotionally, you can probably rightly assume you are fucking women with issues.

    If you can’t get your shit together, that’s not the government’s fault. That’s something you, personally, need to sit down with a therapist and fix. Otherwise, this is your life–thinking everyone’s betraying you, unwilling to empathize with people who care about you, and constantly getting yourself into situations that fucking suck for you.

    Is that really what you want from life? I mean, seriously. Go back and read your last comment and ask yourself if that’s how you want the rest of your long life to go?

  89. This has to be the funniest comment you have made so far Aunt B. You are so far off the mark it isn’t even funny. For one, I lead a polyamorous life, which is something that most men do not partake in. Personally, I believe monogamy goes against human nature and that it is perfectly fine to be with multiple people at the same time. Now with living a polyamorous lifestyle comes certain risks that other relationships do not have to worry about as much. I have to do what I can to protect myself from getting a woman pregnant or contracting any STD’s. So far so good. It really isn’t about being in chaos…it’s about maximizing pleasure while minimizing risk. I like to look at it as “intelligent hedonism”.

    Second, I do use condoms and I have no plans on getting a vasectomy since it is very permanent. I wouldn’t have a problem with getting RISUG but it hasn’t been approved yet.

    I do trust people…but they have to earn it first. It can take months for me to be comfortable enough to trust someone with something big (like having kids or being a medical proxy…you get the idea). If that person is a woman I am involved with sexually, I typically sleep with her way before I get to the part of trusting her completely. It typically goes like this:

    Meet – Get to know each other – decide I like her – begin trusting each other with small things – sex – talk – build more trust – sex – go to art galleries – sex – build even more trust ………and so on and so on. The longer the relationship goes the more I typically trust them.

    The women I see are all over the place. I have slept with everything from waitresses to lawyers. I have to actually like them before I sleep with them. I am not going to spend time or sleep with a woman I don’t like solely because I want to get into her pants. So I would say you are wrong in saying that girls I see are somehow emotionally unstable. There have been a few crazy girls here and there, but I don’t like them getting attached because they can get a little stalker-y.

    My life is far from chaotic. In fact, I think I need to shake it up a bit. For the most part, I work, meet women, do a little volunteer work and play a little Halo every once and a while. My life is pretty damn structured. Lastly, I can get stability from myself. I enjoy my care-free lifestyle and it is a shame that more men can’t see the pleasure in being a free man and having fun instead of being obligated to provide for a family. I just enjoy doing my own thing.

    Also:
    1) I never said that government should pay for it or even legislate it. I simply wouldn’t mind it if it was the status-quo.
    2) I DO support that doctors or some other medical staff inform the possible father that paternity tests exist. The man can make up his mind on if he wants it or not. I see nothing wrong with providing more information to men when it comes to healthcare.

    Lastly, I foresee my lifestyle becoming more popular. More and more men are coming to the conclusion that marriage serves them very little purpose and they can build relationships outside of marriage. Marriage rates are falling, divorces are climbing and the idea of the “nuclear family” is slowly deteriorating. Single motherhood is on the rise and men are often seen as nothing but a child support payment. I don’t have to read the newspapers to see it…it is happening in my own extended family (a few of my uncles are fighting just to see their kids (and my cousins))

    You might see my life as pure chaos, but I see it as unadulterated freedom. I am self-sufficient, pay my bills, have fun and live light and free. I love this way of life so much that I want to be damn sure that that kid is mine before I become a 18 year long payment plan to the mother. It would really take the fun out of life.

  90. So, I’m off the mark, but you still had to come back here and write this long a defense?

    Sure.

    That makes sense. Feeling the need to convince strangers on the internet that you’re not fucked up is surely evidence that you’re not fucked up.

  91. Brandon. Please. Go live your polyamorous life with unadulterated freedom elsewhere.

    You’re not proving a thing, except that you apparently are able to type on your phone while all these waitresses and lawyers are maximizing your pleasure. Good for you, honey.

  92. I live a different lifestyle than you…that doesn’t make me “fucked up” that makes you intolerant.

    I am not defending myself. I am fixing your mischaracterizations.

    I look at it this way. What is worse? A man who isn’t the father being ordered by the court system to pay child support for 18-21 years or a woman thinking/feeling that the state claims she is a liar. Your feeling will go away…that man will have to live with that error for 18+ years. I say in this situation, a little accountability and verification is in order to prevent such a travesty. And for thinking that, you claim that I am “fucked up”. Wow…just wow.

    @grandefille: I am not trying to prove anything. I am saying how I live my life and that this law would be helpful to men that live like I do. I don’t like government intrusion so I would settle for medical staff notifying men of that option.

    Not all sex is between “trusting partners” and it is naive to think so. We are living in a society that is less repressed and pregnancies happen outside of marriage. Marriage was the way in which fatherhood was determined (your wife is pregnant = you are the father). Marriage rates are slipping and there are more single parent homes, cohabitation and other living arrangements. We need a method of verifying maternity and paternity at birth. Just like I don’t want men paying for children that they didn’t help create, I think this testing could help women as well. I would think most if not all women would be outraged if given another child when they left the hospital. So the way I see it is that determining parenthood defaults to biology and we need a new way to verify parents. At the end of it all, I trust an objective DNA report over a person’s subjective thinking any day of the week.

    Anyways, I am done. I have expressed my POV multiple times. You continue to twist and contort it so anything I say is misogynistic, you telling me the “proper” way to express my sexuality or that I have some mental deficiency because I am asking for a little more accountability when it comes to naming fathers. You just cant see it as “this is a practical way to determine fatherhood because despite how honest and trustworthy people are…we are still susceptible to human error”.

  93. I don’t think we’re twisting what you say. If what you were saying is “this is how I live my life, so I will ask all my partners to have DNA testing to determine whether I am the father of any children they may bear” no one would have the least quarrel with you. But when you say “I think it would be a good thing to force all women to have DNA testing of any children they may bear” you are saying that all women, in any sort of relationship with men, are untrustworthy. That’s misogynistic. And when the reason you give for wanting this forced on others is “because that’s the way I live my life,” you are saying that all women — all women — should be bound by your personal behavior. That’s misogynistic. As far as telling you the proper way to express your sexuality, I haven’t done so. But I will point out that vasectomy is reversible, and given your concerns I think you ought to try it out.

  94. Dude. I was trying to be polite.

    If you are “done” and “not trying to prove anything,” may I suggest stepping over the pleasure maximizers kneeling in front of you, awaiting your bidding, and trying volunteer work. Fill food boxes for hungry people or build a house for Habitat or do something to take your mind off all the sex you clearly ain’t gettin’ if you have the time to continually come back here and harangue strangers at excruciating length about your inalienable rights to screw whomever you fantasize that you are screwing. For heaven’s sake, man.

    The only consolation i have is that you will not be raising children to pass on your worldview. At least I pray you don’t.

  95. What is worse? A man who isn’t the father being ordered by the court system to pay child support for 18-21 years or a woman thinking/feeling that the state claims she is a liar.

    If a man doesn’t want to pay child support for 18 years for a child he suspects is not his, why doesn’t THAT MAN have a paternity test done. Why must the government do it?

  96. Meanwhile how many men are screwed into paying child suport for 18 years for somone ELSE’s kid.
    I think a more reasonable solution is to allow the man the right to demand the test. If he is dead, it is no longer an issue. If there is trust between the woman and man, then it is not an issue.

  97. Also, in legal disputes if somekne makes a charge and is found to be wrong, they are compelled to pay court costs. likewise, if a man disputes paternity and the women claims he is the father, whoever the test shows to be wrong should be obligated to pay for it.

  98. This is good, I like it now men wont have to get fucked over, with child support and all these other bills its good that men are being protected from bekng used as piggy banks good job tennessee

Comments are closed.