...I'm really sick of this attitude:

"In other countries over-the-counter genetic tests are illegal because they consider stability and family structure as worth more than fights over paternity."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23773999-families-at-risk-as-chemists-sell-paternity-test-kits.do

Stability and family structure are worth more than the man, basically.  It's enshrined in law that men are nothing but money providers -- your individual rights don't matter if there is a child involved and the finger, for reasons other than actual paternity, points in your direction.

What we need is more DNA tests, not less.  And if there's no government agency to oversee the claims of 99.9% accuracy, then there should be.

I agree. if DNA tests are easy and cheap there will be less fights over paternity, not more, because the facts will be freaking obvious.


..there may be somewhat fewer successful relationships of course...

what would really suck is the number of people who would be caught out because they cheated in the believe nobody could ever tell for sure....there would be a huge spate of people being caught out, and then everything would sort itself out again.


I think it would be worth the spate, just to smooth out the path of society's suspicions...

Things are backwards there. It should be illegal for the government to do tests or store results without consent. Private people should be able to do whatever the fuck they want regarding these tests.

If things are so backward, why are the tests on sale?

It just says that the results aren't accepted by the courts. Which, given that the test only claims to be 99.9% accurate seems reasonable enough.

They are on sale because they are legal if all parties consent.

>What we need is more DNA tests, not less.  And if there's no government agency to oversee the claims of 99.9% accuracy, then there should be.

Completely in agreement. Paternity should be an automatic process at childbirth, in my opinion (maternity is much more certain). Who would seriously argue against it?

(Determining paternity, I mean)

Women's rights groups probably would, under the auspices of it being "wrong for the child".

TBH, even though I agree too, it would be bad for the child in a LOT of cases. I suspect that it would break up a large number of families that would otherwise be together - especially if cuckoldry really does average around 10% (I read that somewhere...not sure if it's true).

Do you think it would continue to average that high if the ramifications were that certain? I doubt it.

People can argue that paternity shouldn't matter, and it's the relationship, etc. (e.g. people who adopt love their kids), and I wouldn't argue with that for a moment. However honesty and knowing the real deal is kind of a good thing for everyone.

The numbers on cuckholdry are typically pulled out of the researcher's ass.  I used to work in developmental psychology, and there were studies claiming as high as 50%.  Every one of these studies suffers from gigantic bias based on their survey methods.

Best bet: if, at one year, the kid looks like the mail man, kick the mail man's ass.  Apparently one year is kind of a sweet spot for the kid looking like the father.  Before that they look like Winston Churchill, and after that they'll drift back to looking like their mother.

>Do you think it would continue to average that high if the
>ramifications were that certain? I doubt it.

Probably not, no. I'm just saying, it would cause an awful lot of pain to begin with as a large number of families would be torn apart by the knowledge.

This is somewhat similar to the notion that we should know what assets the banks have. On the one hand, ideally yes we should, on the other, there is the potential to cause a lot of harm if everybody knew and it caused a panic.


>People can argue that paternity shouldn't matter, and it's the
>relationship, etc. (e.g. people who adopt love their kids),
>and I wouldn't argue with that for a moment. However honesty
>and knowing the real deal is kind of a good thing for everyone.

I think it's pretty self evident that it does matter. It's a question of men's rights. While it might not matter to some men, it matters to the majority.

I don't think it's a good thing for women. Honestly, it's probably better for them if the law keeps men from knowing. They can use the pretty boys for genes and keep the ugly father around to raise the child. Best of both worlds.

>The numbers on cuckholdry are typically pulled out of the
>researcher's ass.  I used to work in developmental psychology,
>and there were studies claiming as high as 50%.  Every one of
>these studies suffers from gigantic bias based on their survey
>methods.

I've suspected that they might be, but even so, the absolute WORST figure I've ever seen is 10%, which sounds a little bit more reasonable. I don't see how anybody could claim with a straight face that it's as high as 50%.

You've never met developmental psychologists then, especially not ones working in a publication mill.  They love extreme numbers because they get attention.  They tend to be repressed drama queens.

Worst study I saw claimed cuckholdry, but they were also including adoptive parents who didn't tell the kid, and people like me who married into a family. 

I mean, heck, if the kids looked like me it would just be freaky.

>Honestly, it's probably better for them if the law keeps men from knowing. They can use the pretty boys for genes and keep the ugly father around to raise the child. Best of both worlds.

While that's the general theory, I don't think that's how it really plays out. I suspect it's more of a general diversity thing, almost randomly redistributing.

Meaning husbands who have sometimes unknown children with other wives, and wives having children with those straying husbands, and so on. The advantage of paternity to women is that it would probably improve fidelity -- if you can't just bareback without consequence (a new mother dumped when paternity showed her husband to be a cuckold is likely to come knocking on the biological father's door), men would be pushed into more honesty as well.

I don't see this kind of testing changing how much people sleep around.  It's just going to let people confirm their suspicions.

>I don't see this kind of testing changing how much people sleep around.

It wouldn't affect sleeping around, but it would absolutely change the spreading and cultivating of seeds.

I remember when I worked in one shop and one of the executives, who we knew was trying to get pregnant, had me in her office for some reason. She continually made sexually suggestive comments.

I remember it mostly because I was oblivious at the time.

In her mind she had a family, had a provider, and now she just wanted to get pregnant, willing to mix up the seed supply so long as it got the intended result. She was an intelligent, attractive woman. Is it reasonable that she would do that if she knew that on delivery day the doctor would come back and say "And btw, the husband isn't the father so we need to real father's name for the birth certificate"?

>I don't see this kind of testing changing how much people
>sleep around.  It's just going to let people confirm their
>suspicions.

I imagine it would make women in committed relationships sleep around less.

Oh, right, because "I might get pregnant with somebody else's baby" isn't enough of a deterrent already?

"Who would seriously argue against it?"

I would against it being required. I think it should be optional.

I am arguing against it being PROHIBITED. I am not arguing for it being REQUIRED. Why does every legal issue have to be all or nothing.

Again, requiring it means the government is calling the shots. Prohibiting it means the government is calling the shots.

Government has no fucking business in any of this.

And yes, get rid of all fucking welfare just so that we don't have to listen to the bullshit argument "Well, because we have welfare, we have a right to have our microscopes up everyones ass."

Hypothetical, if it was mandatory, then it would be certain that a woman would be found out.

So cases where they are sleeping around TRYING to get pregnant with "more desirable genes" would be reduced.

But as far as cheating in general just for the thrill, you'd have the same number, but more consistent birth control use AND the number of abortions to married women would go up.

>Oh, right, because "I might get pregnant with somebody else's
>baby" isn't enough of a deterrent already?

Apparently not because it happens all the time.

>Government has no fucking business in any of this.

It is the government's business to ensure the child is well looked after.

>But as far as cheating in general just for the thrill, you'd
>have the same number, but more consistent birth control use
>AND the number of abortions to married women would go up.

Firstly, there is always the risk of pregnancy. Even with the pill. Yes, it would probably lead to a higher incidence of birth control, but it would almost certainly also lead to a lower incidence of cheating as it significantly raises the risk associated with it AND PEOPLE ARE NOT SO STUPID THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW THIS (emphasis added for you, who clearly believes that everybody is as dumb as you are).

In some states in the US if you just live with woman that has children (that are not yours) you can end up paying for them if you break up.

UK as well. There was a guy who fought on paternity grounds and lost, incredibly. He knew from day 1 the baby wasn't his and it didn't matter. So, he pays child support to the mother who ended up moving in with the REAL father. Fucked. Up.

> What we need is more DNA tests, not less.

Umm... No. Thanks. But no.

Who I am... What hereditary ailments I might have... Nobody should have that information, except, maybe, me.

Anyway, what would the DNA be like of someone who is half man, half fish?

The test could be used to verify parentage in the presence of a notary and then discarded. There is no requirement that your records be kept in perpetuity, only your status as a father (which already happens).

Likewise, if you know you AREN'T the father and still want to be on the birth certificate and raise the child... again, fine.