Your Body, Your Baby (Part 1)

[This has turned into a series.  My follow-up to rational criticisms is here, my follow-up to the more emotion-based arguments is here, and this is a post inspired by a comment that might drive the importance of this issue home to women.]

In today’s current cultural and legal climate, most any husband (and a fair amount of boyfriends) who asks for a paternity test upon hearing his woman is pregnant will be greeted with weeping and cries of “How dare you not trust me?” from her and “How dare you not trust her?’ from everybody else.  The assumption is that if she’s female she would never lie about that sort of thing.

I don’t necessarily agree.

As a solution, some advocate mandatory paternity testing.  However, the libertarian in me isn’t particularly comfortable with making people do something.  Fortunately, I don’t have a problem with requiring that people do something if they want something done for them in return.

That’s why I advocate something similar to what’s happened in Tennessee, only I expound a bit more.  I don’t know the ins and outs of the Tennessee law, but here’s what I advocate:

1.  That all paternity tests be entirely voluntary.

2.  That a paternity be medically confirmed before a father is listed on the birth certificate (what it looks like they do in TN).

Of course, the feminists are perplexed:

However, I don’t understand why paternity tests couldn’t be required at the time of a paternity or child support dispute, rather than requiring the test for everyone.

So that soft-hearted males don’t get suckered into paying for kids that aren’t their own, that’s why.  If you so much as ask for a paternity test, you’re the bad guy, and if you don’t ask for one and the kid’s not yours, you’re on the hook.

Another site advocates that [emphasis the author’s]:

Those born in wedlock or brought into wedlock are the husband’s — even following divorce, even if they are not their biological children — unless they formally disown them.

Which puts the entire onus to establish paternity on the evil dude who’ll be strung up by his genitalia if his suspicions prove to be unfounded.  Such logic gives him every reason to play it safe and gives her every reason to play it risky.  This mindset conflates the sanctity of marriage with the sanctity of the Female Imperative for alpha fux/beta bux.  For some reason, Alte thinks that requiring ( every married man(unless he raises a major stink) to act as father to kids who aren’t his will “deprive[] women of an incentive to cheat, and interlopers of an incentive to sleep with married women.”

The woman:

“If Bill gets me pregnant, if Ed even suspects anything, he’ll never have the balls to do anything about it.  I’ll make him feel so guilty that he’ll never require a paternity test.”

The interloper:

“If I bang Isabella and get her pregnant, Bill has to pay for all the kid’s diapers and crap.  Cool.”

Sounds like a foolproof plan to me!

Of course, there’s the children to consider.  As this commenter says:

A presumption of paternity – whether legal or cultural (preferably both) – is necessary for the protection of the family and especially the children. Even if it turns out to be a “necessary fiction”. The honor of the husband is entirely subordinate to the ontological reality of his marriage.

What a great time to be a man!  Your wife boinks some other dude, and your “honor” means nothing.  It’s up to you to pay for your wife’s infidelity and let the “necessary fiction” of your wife’s basic decency dictate your life and drain your finances.

These idiots presuming to support marriage are giving men every reason imaginable to avoid it like the plague.

“The Blogmaster” continues:

Also important: the presumption of paternity eliminates another incentive for the wife to leave her husband, possibly even abandoning other children. Her lover cannot claim the child and further divide her loyalties. All of her children belong to her husband alone. If she wants her children, she must restore her marriage.

Actually, the fear that her husband will find out if she gets pregnant with another guy might provide even more incentive for her to maintain the sanctity of her marriage, not only as a “necessary fiction”, but through not sleeping with other dudes.  Furthermore, if she leaves her husband, no child support for her.  If he gives so much as a dime to those kids, it’s going to be because he wants to.

Which means that the husband would either dominate his marriage (like he should), or he can let her find out if the badboy with Alpha seed is willing to play beta and help to raise her kids after he leaves her.

In short, there will be consequences for her actions.

I’m aware that kids in this situation will get screwed over.  However, like I described in The Red Pendulum, sometimes the only way to limit certain behaviors is to disincentivize them.  The first few women under this system may find themselves in dire straits, but other women will see what’s happening to those women and therefore perhaps behave themselves so that it doesn’t happen to them, too.

Which would mean that it’s better for the children because you’ll have fewer wives boinking the stable boy and husbands who have reason to trust their wives other than “she’s female and therefore deserving of every conceivable benefit of the doubt.”

A major part of the Red Pill, an essential component of A is A is that incentives matter.  The incentive structure that Alte, Rachel, and “The Blogmaster” advocate is one that punishes the loyal husband who gets screwed over and blesses the wife with his paychecks as she enjoys the seed of another man.

It’s what most states do now, and it isn’t working.  As we harp on “deadbeat dads” while praising “heroic single moms”, we find ourselves with more children growing up without a father than ever before.  I’ve little good to say about a man who boffs some babe and refuses to have anything to do with the kid, but shouldn’t we save at least a little bit of criticism for sluts both married and single?

I know we do it for the children, but dammit, nothing affects a young child more directly than the behavior of its mother.  If she gets pregnant by some player, she’s relegated her kid to a life without a decent father.  If she gets pregnant through cheating on her husband, then the sanctity of her marriage is a fiction.  Pretending otherwise only ensures that it will happen even more.

She should be loyal to her husband, but she won’t be if we punish her husband for her screw-ups instead of her.

[Part II, in which I address my other point, to follow soon.]

This entry was posted in Alpha, Culture, Family, Feminism, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

86 Responses to Your Body, Your Baby (Part 1)

  1. pancakeloach says:

    Point of curiosity: does the presumption of the husband’s paternity in family law date back to Ye Olde Days when, in the very rare case that if the couple did divorce, the husband got custody of the children – and there was no such thing as a conclusive paternity test?

    • Martel says:

      I have no idea. If somebody else does, please contribute. I might have time to look into it tonight.

      • deti says:

        pancake:

        Yes, pretty much. Presumption of husband paternity was based on the notion that women could not lawfully have sex outside marriage; adultery was a serious crime; and childrend born to a marriage were the “property” of the father. Part of the rationale for that was that the father is legally obligated to support the children. So if he has to support them; he’s the one better suited to raise them in the event of a divorce.

  2. Stingray says:

    2. That a paternity be medically confirmed before a father is listed on the birth certificate (what it looks like they do in TN).

    Does this mean that if one opts out of the test that the father cannot be listed on the birth certificate at all?

    • Martel says:

      Correct, but he can adopt the kid if he wants.

      On the birth certificate, we’re pretty damn certain who the mother is. Why should we list a father the same way when we could be just as certain, but aren’t?

      • Stingray says:

        I think the father should have a choice. Yes, I am going to go anecdotal, but my husband would have been pissed if he couldn’t be listed on the birth certificate without having to give the state/hospital his DNA first. I do not think he is the only one.

        Now, I do think men should have every right to have a test done at their request. It is logical. But it is also logical in this day and age for a man to not want to freely give up things (his DNA) should he choose not to. He should not be denied paternity on these basis. Neither should he have to go through court to receive that paternity.

      • Martel says:

        I see where your husband’s coming from (and in fairness, Alte pointed out this issue in her post as well). I advocate some sort of safeguard to destroy the DNA immediately after paternity has been established or something similar.

        In prior eras, paternity was uncertain, but the hypergamic beast was kept under some sort of control through custom and a moral code that was generally actually followed. Today, the moral code is gone, but we have better technology. The tech won’t make up for our flaws, but it can mitigate some of its ill effects.

        The family is disintegrating. Men aren’t blameless, but we’re shielding women from the ill-effects of their bad choices. This is one of the only ways to directly connect her actions with some sort of consequence. Alpha fux/beta bux has almost nothing standing in its way, and that’s got to change.

        And a man have every right to adopt a child that he hasn’t proven is his own, it’s just that I think that if we’re going to assign kids to fathers, now that we have the technology to do so, we should make certain it’s the right father.

      • Stingray says:

        Martel,

        I agree with you on every point except to either test of adopt. First, not for on second would I believe that the DNA would be destroyed even if they said it would be. Second, I also do not believe that any proceedings for adoption would be in favor of the man any more than they are for custody now.

        What I am for is educating men on the actualities of the situation today so that they can make an informed decision for themselves. Then making it as easy as possible for them to get the test at the hospital.

        (If this comes out terribly I blame my phone.)

      • Martel says:

        Your DNA fears are well-founded, but as with all policies I advocate, this is what I believe to be the least worst option.

        The largest way in which the state encroaches on our lives is through the decline of the family, which is why I think libertarians need to pay more attention to it. For every marriage that breaks up with a custody dispute, we’ve got judges and Friends of the Court. Determining where some kid spends his Saturdays.

        Therefore, despite the risk (which could be mitigated, If not mitigated) of DNA info being abused, that’s a potential problem, whereas paternity confusion and infidelity are actual problems in the here and now. Some dude finding out that the kids aren’t his ten years down the line causes enormous problems for the kids, the supposed father, and the actual father. Although guys can get pat tests now (unless we pass laws like they just did in France), absolutely every societal influence besides the Manosphere and MRA’s tells men that requesting such a test is weak and insults the wife horribly. Nevertheless, we’ve got to do something to even things out in favor of men. Did you read the “Blogmaster” comments on how irrelevant he considered male honor to be? That’s what every guy faces before he gets the test. He needs something to back him up.

        The adoptions for those who decide to opt out of the tests would probably proceed like they do for step-parents now. I haven’t studied up on it, but I’ve not come across much that leads me to believe that such procedures are a particularly raw deal.

        Other than that, the kids could call him “dad”, he could be listed as father on a baptismal certificate, etc. If there’s ever a divorce, he wouldn’t get custody if the kids are really his, but that’s the chance he’d take (and maybe he could take the test then). But if the kids aren’t his, his wife won’t be able to play him for a sucker and insist on child support for another dude’s spawn

      • Stingray says:

        Nevertheless, we’ve got to do something to even things out in favor of men.

        I agree with this and that a man’s honor is completely relevant. I just cannot get behind any new laws that remove choice (TBH I have a difficult time getting behind any new laws these days. We’d be better off getting rid of many of the ones we have). Any man who honorable just wants to be left the hell alone to raise his family gets the short end of the stick on this deal. Either he has to give his DNA or be the guy who had to adopt his own children.

        I don’t know what the answer is. I do know plenty of men who would absolutely balk at this set up.

      • Martel says:

        I hate new laws, too, but if we have smarter laws, maybe we’ll be able to have fewer of them.

        I look at it this way: If you want me (the state) to formally recognize that he’s your kid, then simply prove he’s your kid. Otherwise, there’s a chance that the part of the kid’s birth cert that says “Father” may well be a fraud, only it’s a fraud that can cause complete chaos if it’s not caught early.

      • Stingray says:

        If you want me (the state) to formally recognize that he’s your kid, then simply prove he’s your kid.

        Putting it this way, I don’t think many of the men whom I know would object to this want the state to be involved with their children in any way, shape, or form now. If we could just get recognition from the church, I know my husband would be good with that and so would many others. As with marriage, we don’t think the state should have anything to do with any of it.

        I find it interesting how even the females with the most common sense are so resistant to this

        Of course, in every case it’s their husbands who would object.

        Do you doubt there are men out there who would resist this?

  3. slwerner says:

    Just my opinion, but the real answer to the issues created by the lack of at birth paternity testing (be it lack of legal obligation or simply the cluelessness of the duded guy) is to remove the narrow statute of limitation of the legal disestablishment of paternity. The real need for at-birth testing is due to the limitation of the time during which a man can prove he is not the father and be legally indemnified against court-order financial obligations for a child not biologically his own.

    Consider that there is no such statute of limitation on the establishment of paternity (as in proving a man to be the biological father so as to legally financially obligate him to the child(s mother). In the somewhat infamous case of the women who claimed Keanu Reeves as the father of her four grow children, had DNA testing shown him to have been the biological father, the pending case was intended to seek back-support (in the millions) for the 18+ years this woman (and her then husband) had provided for the children themselves. And, it was to go entirely to her (so much for the lie that its the “right of the child” to have the provision gained via court-ordered child support, eh?).

    If men had the same rights as woman do in regards to both the establishment as well as the disestablishment of paternity (for both legal and financial purposes), the need for at-birth testing would be obviated.

    The point of disestablishing putative paternity is not to protect the poor duded cuckold who is blissfully raising a child believing it to be his own, loving that child, and bonding with that child. It is to protect that same man from long-term financial obligation when his whore wife divorces him, taunts him about the child not being his, and rips that child he has bonded with from his life.

    Make the laws equal, removing the statute of limitations imposed uni-genderly on men, and they won’t have to prove they aren’t the father within that narrow window (from as little as 90 days to a less-than-generous 2 years, depending on location).

    I actually support the notion of all men knowing from the time of birth if they’ve been cuckolded and that the child id not their own, but realize that too many either (believe that they) don’t want to know, or are simply clueless as to potential ramifications later-on. Thus, I am lead to the conclusion that the best possible way to protect the most possible men is to simply remove that deliberately misandric statute of limitations on the disestablishment of paternity.

    • Martel says:

      You make some good points, but if paternity (or a lack thereof) is established at the outset it would more directly address some of these problems. The emotional hell a guy must go through if he learns that his 12 year-old daughter isn’t really his would be lessened substantially if he found out right when she was born, the girl wouldn’t develop bonds to a father who isn’t really her dad, and there’s probably a better chance that the real dad will get involved in her life. Dad would know if his wife’s unfaithful much earlier, so he wouldn’t spend so much of his life living a lie.

      I probably agree that fathers should have more rights like what you advocate (although I haven’t put as much thought into it), but it’s harder to break ties that have been developed over years and harder to recover from long-term deceptions than it is to nip them in the bud before they get started.

      A lot of guys will suck it up if they find out they’ve been cuckolded 15 years later. At the moment of birth, not as many. Give the guy the choice as soon as possible.

      • slwerner says:

        My argument is not against at-birth DNA-based paternity testing for absolute establishment/disestablishment of paternity. I’m all for that. I even go against my normal libertarian leanings as I would actually like to see it be made mandatory (the genetic materials used are already protected by the reputable companies doing such testing, and the 17 loci paternity testing is not the same as would be needed for incorporation into a CODUS database; making the typical personal privacy concerns largely irrelevant).

        My point is that even those men who would refuse to know at birth should still be protected against the day their whore of a wife does divorce them. Even and idiot who unquestionably believed he was the father deserves to be indemnified against financial obligations being imposed by court order.

        The is no way to protect men from the fallout of their wives deceit and infidelity – at best the blow can be softened. But, we could protect them financially whether or not they know they need that protection.

        As a compromise, men who believe that they don’t want to know the results of a paternity test could opt out of being informed. But, the results would still be maintained against such time that they might wish to revisit the matter (i.e. child support).

        Perhaps what might also be needed is a legal requirement to absolutely (DNA) establish paternity before any court would be allowed to assign any child support…period.

      • Martel says:

        I agree with limiting the statue of limitations also, but if we have to do one or the other, I think what I advocate would prevent more problems (although I still oppose making it mandatory for reasons I’ll get into in Part II).

        Under my system, if you refuse to know at birth, you’re not the official father, hence no child support liability. Also, a woman is less likely to cuckold her husband if she knows that either he’ll find out immediately or he won’t be on the hook for the kid if something goes wrong. That’s a much stronger disincentive than “maybe he’ll find out someday”.

  4. M3 says:

    I’ve always been an advocate for mandatory paternity testing, to take the pressure off anyone (men) from looking like an untrusting lout denigrating the honor of his womans fidelity. To protect the men who wouldn’t have the balls to ask even if they suspected it.

    But mostly i think of the ‘wont someone please think of the children’ argument.

    Children have a “RIGHT” to know their biological heritage, lineage, where they came from, who their real parents are, and especially family medical histories (does dad have a family history of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc…)

    Every blood doner gets screened before they can give blood, no exceptions. The risk in terms of damage, injury and loss of faith in the blood system should people with STD’s or blood borne illness be allowed to donate and infect patients would be immeasurable. Nobody get’s their blood into the system using the honor system of ‘I swear im fine’.

    Just another aspect of why men are walking away from marriage/children and birthrates plummet. There system is just stacked to high against men at present .

    • Martel says:

      This is what I consider to be a decent balance between forcing a guy to do it and encouraging it.

      Completely right about the rest.

    • Kate says:

      A child has no legal right to their parent’s medical history, I’m not sure how that has bearing in this conversation. Paternity testing won’t provide information about diabetes etc., if that is what you are implying

      • M3 says:

        Why is establishing paternity important?
        Identity: It is important for all of us to know who we are. Children have the right to know both parents.
        Medical: Children may benefit by knowing their medical history, as children sometimes inherit health problems that can be treated better if the doctor knows both parents’ medical histories.
        Support: Children have the right to be supported by both parents. Children who are supported by only one parent often do not have enough money to meet their needs.
        Benefits: Acknowledged children may also have the right to other benefits, including Social Security, Veteran’s benefits, and medical insurance.
        Inheritance: Children should have the right to inherit from both parents.

        http://www.dss.state.la.us/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=185

      • Kate says:

        @M3 you still haven’t answered my question of how paternity testing means that children(or their doctors) gain access to their parent’s medical histories.
        I’m not disputing the other points.

      • M3 says:

        Fair point. You can’t force anyone to give up confidential information. Altho that’s probably not the point i was trying to drive home.

        By creating a system where false paternity is impossible to get away with, very few (much less) children will be placed in a position where they have no clue about their genetic history, and family history of diseases.

      • Martel says:

        The authorities having access to DNA is the weakest aspect of this, but it’s not impossible to overcome. A kid may not have the right to know who his parents are, but he does have the right to know if he doesn’t know.

    • Martel says:

      “Children have a “RIGHT” to know their biological heritage, lineage, where they came from, who their real parents are, and especially family medical histories (does dad have a family history of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc…)”

      Actually, I’d change this to “children have the right to know they’re birth certificate’s not fraudulent.””

  5. theshadowedknight says:

    I swear, every time I think that maybe marriage is possible and not all women are totally beyond hope, they prove me wrong. I was in that thread at SSMatD yesterday, and I am back to the single forever outlook. It amazes me how ruthless women are. What a shame.

    The Shadowed Knight

    • Martel says:

      I find it interesting how even the females with the most common sense are so resistant to this. It’s almost like stripping away the option to get the best seed without getting caught touches on some fundamental primal fear common to all women, even those who would never do such a thing.

      Of course, in every case it’s their husbands who would object.

  6. deti says:

    Martel:

    I kid you not, I would love, love, love to see some form of option for paternity testing (PT) of children at birth. The main reason I’d like to see it is that PT is one of the only checks men have on unrestrained hypergamy. (When you think about it, the only real checks on women in the SMP now are: dread game, withholding commitment before marriage; withdrawing commitment after marriage in the event the wife shirks marital obligations; and PT for children born during the marriage.)

    But unfortunately it’s not going to happen. Good on Tennessee for doing this. But a system or statutory scheme for PT on a widespread scale is never, ever going to gain enough political support. Several reasons for this, I think. First is that cuckoldry is not perceived to be a sufficiently important problem to warrant a policy-based solution.

    Second is that the howls from feminists and their white knight co conspirators will drown out all the reasoned, legitimate arguments. Decisions will be made based on feelings. This will be portrayed politically as mean, evil men and angry, pinch faced moralists lording sexual morality over everyone else; the complaints of “not trusting” women; etc. The feminist and tradcon lobby is simply too powerful for anything like this to gain widespread support.

    Third, look for the TN law to be challenged on any number of constitutional grounds. The law could violate persons’ rights to substantive due process to be free of governmental intrusion into their bodies by requiring them to give up a substantial right (bodily integrity without due process) in order to gain a substantial right (declaration of fatherhood). The law could violate the constitution and Supreme Court decisions by unnecessarily interfering in family relationships. (I’m the mom; I say he’s the dad; he says he’s the dad; that’s always been good enough before.) There could be 14th amendment equal protection arguments (treating opt out dads differently from those who decide to get the DNA testing, without a rational basis related to a legitimate government interest).

    • Martel says:

      You’re probably right, but it happened once…

      But what does give me a sliver of hope is that the two Tennessee legislators who proposed the bill were both DEMOCRATS. Yes, the party of Sandra Fluke!

      Again, you’re probably right, but things have changed pretty fast before. We’ll see.

  7. “Female Imperative for alpha fux/beta bux”– I have no idea what this means. Is this some blanket assertion about ALL women again?

    Aside: You have a serious problem with inside baseball on your blog. If you want to branch out, and I think you can, you need to stop using lingo/allusions that only certain people already understand. I assume that is some MRA expression, but if you want nonMRAs to read and understand your blog, either link such “insider” phrases to a definition (my usual solution on my own blog) or provide a footnote/quick parenthetical explanation. Otherwise, this is unnecessarily off-putting. ALL ideological bloggers do this, but the very best (i.e. Glenn Greenwald) use the inside-baseball terms as an opportunity to educate/link and never miss a beat in the process.

    • Martel says:

      “Alpha fux/beta bux” (which I occasionally refer to as AFBB, but didn’t this time for reasons you cite) summarizes the feminine sex drive at its most primal. Of course, women want it all in the same guy if they can get it, but her reproductive chances are optimized when she can secure the strongest seed of the most masculine man. Unfortunately, the sexy ones have other options and are more likely to neglect her. Therefore, she wants to secure the $ of some really nice dude who’s devoted to her.

      Some women luck out and find both in one guy. Others find themselves in ostensibly monogamous relationships with one or the other. A reliable guy who pays the bills is great, but he’s not exactly exciting, so women have a tendency to explore other options (or at least want to). In other eras, it wasn’t worth the risk. Today it is. That’s why women are more likely to cheat on their spouses with each successive year.

  8. Which means that the husband would either dominate his marriage (like he should)

    You really believe men should dominate marriages? This is due to your Christianity, I take it?

    As we harp on “deadbeat dads” while praising “heroic single moms”, we find ourselves with more children growing up without a father than ever before.

    This is men’s decision, not to have anything to do with their kids. Don’t blame women for this please. And I speak from experience!

    If she gets pregnant by some player, she’s relegated her kid to a life without a decent father.

    The “player” can straighten up any time he pleases. HE has relegated his own kids to life without a a father, not her. HIM.

    If he is the kind of person who doesn’t care about his children, he is a pig. What kind of man is that, as Eminem asked on “60 Minutes”–the least one can do is LOVE THEIR OWN FLESH AND BLOOD.

    Stop making men’s morality contingent on women. Men are responsible for their own behavior, as women should be. Its called being a grown up.

    • deti says:

      “You really believe men should dominate marriages?”

      Yes.

      “This is due to your Christianity, I take it?”

      Yes, and because it works.

      “This is men’s decision, not to have anything to do with their kids. Don’t blame women for this please. And I speak from experience”
      Your experience of one data point does not make a trend. And it’s not always men’s decision to be excluded from kids’ lives. Many times the mom makes that decision through denying visitation or through bankrupting him.
      “The “player” can straighten up any time he pleases. HE has relegated his own kids to life without a a father, not her. HIM.”

      Let’s be realistic. He’s not going to “straighten up”. So it’s on HER to select properly BEFORE the clothes come off. Women can fix this tomorrow by not pursuing douchebags; not having sex with douchebags; and not letting douchebags knock them up.

      “Stop making men’s morality contingent on women. Men are responsible for their own behavior, as women should be. Its called being a grown up.”
      If he’s up front about the fact that he’s a player, that he’s down for quick and easy sex and nothing more; and she signs up for that; then it’s on HER. THAT’s called being a grown up.

    • Martel says:

      “You really believe men should dominate marriages? This is due to your Christianity, I take it?”

      And my own not-lyin’ eyes. All masculine preferences aside, women WANT dominant men. Drive by your nearest college campus and observe the most desirable females (women can tell which are which). Where are they most likely to be hanging out. Sorority row AND with all the loud obnoxious DOMINANT frat boys.

      “Don’t blame women for this please. And I speak from experience!”

      I also speak from experience; I was raised by a single mom who made a very poor choice regarding the man she mated with.

      “The ‘player’ can straighten up any time he pleases. HE has relegated his own kids to life without a a father, not her. HIM. “

      He “can straighten up any time he pleases”, but he WON’T. Unfortunately for women, the guys they most want to breed with are those who are often the least likely to take care of their kids. As we mitigate the “side effects” of banging some drummer, we lessen her reason to evaluate for character traits like reliability and decency. “Nice guy” traits are currently completely undervalued because she’s got almost no reason to avoid the hotter guys who aren’t like that.

      “Stop making men’s morality contingent on women. Men are responsible for their own behavior, as women should be. Its called being a grown up.”
      Perhaps women “should be” responsible for their own behavior, but we’re not looking at it that way. She boinks some loser, we (rightly) blame the loser, but she’s a victim and we owe her government funds. How about she not band the loser in the first place? Oh yeah, personal responsibility isn’t very fun. We get that when it comes to guys, how about we do the same for women.

  9. I hope you are 100% honest with the women you date and inform them early on: “I believe men should dominate marriages” when you decide to go out with them… or stick to “Christian Mingle” where this is (I assume?) a standard belief.

    Otherwise, that is pretty sneaky, the kind of sneaky dishonesty you accuse women of.

    If you think it wouldn’t be WISE to admit your “man is the head of the house as Christ is head of the church” agenda up front, you might ask yourself why that is.

    • Martel says:

      It’s not even close to standard belief among Christians. Pastors who emphasize the verses that tell women to submit are routinely excoriated. Rest easy, feminism has more influence in the church than guys like me.

      By the time marriage comes up, she’ll know where I stand without question. if I blindly lead a woman into something that would make her miserable, it would make me into a bad leader. I want to be in charge, but more importantly, I’ve got to deserve to be in charge.

  10. Kate says:

    I’m confused about one point. If the father does not wish to take the paternity test, does that mean he can refuse, and his name never appears on the birth certificate? I wouldn’t support that, if that is the case.

    What about cases where the couple has used a sperm donor? Why should they have to explain that to the state, if they don’t wish to?

    What happens if the father is overseas, serving in the military? Would the child be potentially denied benefits if there was a delay in him legally being proven the father?

    As I understand the process there is nothing stopping a man from independently doing a paternity test without asking permission from the woman. So if a man is suspicious he can already pursue the option of paternity testing. It does sound like getting the mother involved provides the most accurate results though.

    I’m done having kids. At the very least, I can say my husband and I would have been angry to have to worry about paying for such a test that had absolutely no bearing on our own personal situation.

    • Martel says:

      “I’m confused about one point. If the father does not wish to take the paternity test, does that mean he can refuse, and his name never appears on the birth certificate?”

      Correct. Y’all females are going to DESPISE Part II, even the Red Pillers I imagine.

      “What about cases where the couple has used a sperm donor? Why should they have to explain that to the state, if they don’t wish to?”

      They don’t have to explain anything, only that the father is “unknown”. And part of the reason for voluntary paternity only is to protect sperm donors who are at legal risk for eventually owing child support (yes, it’s happened—I’ll find a link if you don’t believe me).

      “What happens if the father is overseas, serving in the military? Would the child be potentially denied benefits if there was a delay in him legally being proven the father?”

      I’m sure something could be worked out like a temporary assumption of paternity until a return from overseas, etc

      • Kate says:

        So, if the father never takes a paternity test, he can’t be listed on the birth support and never has a financial obligation to his kid? That won’t ever become law then, because you’ll be pushing additional costs on to the taxpayer in some situations. Not only that, if you have school aged children, you can see your own children are indirectly affected by those who come from lower economic means than your own children do. Why should any taxpayer subsidize someone else’s kid to be in the free and reduced lunch system solely because we changed the law.

        The other point I would be unclear about, is I am understanding the baby is basically fatherless under the law until the paternity tests come back. Who is the baby’s next of kin then in the case the mom is medically unstable/not thinking clearly in the hours/days after birth? That aspect seems frightening to me, is would seem to give an avenue for the mother’s relatives to shut the father out of the baby’s life.

      • Martel says:

        I”ll address your issues with taxpayer subsidies in Part II; it’s a valid point, but I think what we’re doing now is worse.

        Regarding those first few hours of life, we could easily put in some sort of “assumed paternity” provision for military fathers overseas, the first few hours of life, etc.

      • deti says:

        @ Kate:

        “Why should any taxpayer subsidize someone else’s kid to be in the free and reduced lunch system solely because we changed the law.”

        Because we can’t have it both ways. There is now a de facto presumption in American law that children in a family belong first to the mother. It used to be otherwise; children were presumed to belong to the father; but we’ve abandoned that in favor of maternal “possession” first. So if they are “her” kids, then the responsibility of financial support is hers FIRST.

        “The other point I would be unclear about, is I am understanding the baby is basically fatherless under the law until the paternity tests come back. Who is the baby’s next of kin then in the case the mom is medically unstable/not thinking clearly in the hours/days after birth? That aspect seems frightening to me, is would seem to give an avenue for the mother’s relatives to shut the father out of the baby’s life.”

        Baby’s next of kin is mom, then mom’s parents. Hard cases make bad law. Feminists wanted it this way – children belong to mom FIRST. It removes a lot of responsibility from dad unless and until he WANTS that responsibility. Small price to pay, I think, when we have ordered society such that mom “owns” the children. Again, we can’t have it both ways.

        Kate, at bottom your objections are that Martel’s proposal would allow men to escape and shirk child support responsibilities. Not so. Why should a man be punished for a woman’s screwups? Moreover, once the woman gets pregnant, the man has nothing to say about what she does: She can carry to term. She can abort. Either way, he has no choice in the matter. This is because the law considers women to be the “better” parent; and because children are presumed to “belong” to the mother. Well, again, if they “belong” to mom, then mom has first responsibility for supporting them.

      • Kate says:

        @deti…a woman becoming pregnant while married is a screw up? Because of factors that have nothing to do with her, her husband can opt out of being the legal father of the baby?

        I don’t necessarily support the “red pill” philosophy, but I’m trying to open myself up to other viewpoints. Why would a woman today want to take the risk of being a sahm, having a traditional marriage, or having children at all under such a scenario?

      • Martel says:

        @ Kate: There are millions of trustworthy guys out there who women can trust to help raise their child. As it stands now, trustworthiness is low on their list of mating choice and getting lower by the year. A system like this would encourage her to weigh the potential negatives of banging a bad boy and consider the positives of banging a decent one.

      • deti says:

        @ Kate:

        “a woman becoming pregnant while married is a screw up? Because of factors that have nothing to do with her, her husband can opt out of being the legal father of the baby?

        Depends on who the dad is. Her getting pregnant while married, and her husband is the father, is not a screwup. Her getting pregnant by one man while married to another, IS a screw up.

        “Why would a woman today want to take the risk of being a sahm, having a traditional marriage, or having children at all under such a scenario?”

        If she wants those things, then she’ll conform her conduct so as to bring to her and her children the most benefits while remaining responsible at the same time.

        It’s called “keeping her honest.” Maybe she’ll think twice about banging the badboy. Maybe she’ll think twice about going on the prowl, having an extramarital affair. Maybe she’ll be discerning about who she has sex with.

        If women want this to stop, then they have to stop giving attention to douchebags; stop having sex with douchebags; and stop making babies with douchebags.

    • M3 says:

      “I’m done having kids. At the very least, I can say my husband and I would have been angry to have to worry about paying for such a test that had absolutely no bearing on our own personal situation.”

      How’s about we split the difference and tell me if you would have a problem with this.

      When the couple have a baby, and the wife is resting comfortably after the delivery, and the baby is wrapped lovingly in the room full of baby’s… the man is quietly ushered to the front desk and is required to fill out a form. This step is mandatory.

      There is a check box on the form that specifically states:
      “Do you wish to have a paternity test performed?” along with optional check boxes for Visa/MasterCard/Cheque/Bill Me at my address.

      This information is kept strictly confidential. Hospital staff are under oath NOT to disclose this to the mother. Therefore the choice falls on the man without pressure whether he feels the need for it or not without looking like Hitler. The onus falls on him to pay the cost.

      Therefore you wouldn’t have to worry about paying for such a test! And you would never know if he checked Yes or No on the form. You’d simply have to go on his word 🙂

      Perfect yes?

      • Kate says:

        Such a fee still comes out of the couple’s available resources for the baby.
        Within the context of what can happen in the hospital, the law won’t change so that hospital staff will perform tests on the baby without the mother’s knowledge.

  11. Kate says:

    As I understand the post such a measure would, the eyes of the OP, make such behaviors(lying about paternity) less likely to happen.

    I can’t look back. For women that desire the traditional route(marriage, then kids), it seems these women would have a lot to think about, whether to even have kids or not, if they have no guarantee the actual father will decide to be legally listed as such, if he chooses on a whim not to take the paternity test.

    • M3 says:

      “Such a fee still comes out of the couple’s available resources for the baby.”

      Such a tiny cost compared to lifetime sum of money raising a kid for 18yrs..
      ..especially if you find out it’s not yours.

      “the law won’t change so that hospital staff will perform tests on the baby without the mother’s knowledge.”

      The baby is outside the womb and an autonomous human being that can be acted upon by either parent individually. Dad doesn’t need moms permission to bring the child in to the ER because he broke his arm on the playground.

      And in the case of paternity, it is a test to be done with the sole purpose of determining for the MALE whether the child is HIS. Everyone witnessed the child come out of the woman’s vagina, so her paternity is not in question here. Paternity tests are (or should be) completely confidential tests performed independent of the mother since the outcome is to determine his paternity, not hers.

      • Kate says:

        M3 the mom still has access to information about any tests that are performed in the hospital.

        Under the premise of the OP, the dad isn’t the parent until proven otherwise…so he doesn’t actually have the right to arrange for any sort of testing.

      • M3 says:

        This legal mumbo jumbo could be hashed out in under a week with some good lawyers. But yes, without a paternity test, you simply can’t say X is the father and have it be true. There are many walking wallets out there that aren’t the real father that thought they were because they went on a woman’s word and not DNA evidence.

        Mandatory paternity testing would cause paternity fraud to plummet to near 0%. No woman will take the chance to fuck the mailmain and pop out his kid if she knew hubby would get the results that it’s not his child she’s having. The cost savings in legal and medical bills would more than offset the cost of mandatory paternity testing.

        I can’t believe there is such a freaking pushback against supporting mandatory paternity testing, which has costs that are inconsequential to the entire cost of giving birth in a hospital and life time rearing of the child.

        It really seems to boil down to a trust issue. Women do not want to be questioned or have their honor impugned (yet fail to lobby against women who do false paternity to be sued for fraud). They create a society where men are bad guys for demanding paternity because they don’t trust the word of their loving partners. Cheating partners know this and abuse the system and commit paternity fraud because the system has evolved to allow for this risky behavior to have a greater chance of succeeding EVEN tho we have the means to eliminate it entirely through DNA testing.

        Low risk, high reward = greater incentive.

        I recall how horrified the women were at the insemination clinic that the doctor impregnated them with his own sperm rather than those of the men they chose from the catalogue…

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Jacobson

        Besides.. we don’t have any damn issues when it comes to having my tax dollars subsidizing daycare centers and other programs for single mothers.. if my money is good enough for providing for other peoples children that aren’t mine.. i certainly would like the government subsidizing paternity tests to make sure fathers DO end up with their own children and not the mailmans.

        But i really am getting tired of discussing this.. i’d like to hear women throw out some suggestions as to how to deal with false paternity.

    • Martel says:

      “I can’t look back. For women that desire the traditional route(marriage, then kids), it seems these women would have a lot to think about, whether to even have kids or not, if they have no guarantee the actual father will decide to be legally listed as such, if he chooses on a whim not to take the paternity test.”

      Hence the dilemma–sexy badboys are more likely to not take the test on a whim, reliable betas would NEVER consider such a thing. Women instinctually understand this, which is why it bothers them.

      • deti says:

        “sexy badboys are more likely to not take the test on a whim, reliable betas would NEVER consider such a thing. Women instinctually understand this, which is why it bothers them.”

        Right. Because it means the badboy deprives the mother of his commitment and therefore his resources. The reliable beta will take the test and provide his resources; meaning he’s not exciting, no fun, and boring. Most of the time beta is the dad , he’s listed on the BC, and it’s all good.

        But the real kicker is when beta hubby takes the test and mom knows he’s not the dad or there’s a chance he’s not. If the test comes up that alpha interloper is the dad, then the jig is up and her cheating is exposed. That’s what really bothers the women here — that this is a check on wife cheating and limits the ability to secure alpha fux/beta bux.

      • Kate says:

        @detii, I’m not sure what world everyone else lives in, but the afbb dynamic or whatever you all call it isn’t something that I see as widespread. I choose not to associate with women who would cheat, so your statement about the paternity testing being a check on women who might cheat isn’t something that applies to me or the people I associate with.

        That doesn’t mean I don’t know women who have cheated. They just aren’t people who I would want continued contact with. Maybe it is a women’s intuition sort of thing, but one in particular is just a giant red flag, and it shouldn’t really have been a surprise that she wasn’t a model of stability. But when women try to warn a coworker etc. in these sorts of situations, men aren’t very receptive.

        The other comment which could be separate, is that is SOME cases men can eliminate themselves as the father if they know anything about blood tying. If mom has A- blood, dad has O- and baby turns out to be B+, then you know something isn’t right. Now obviously this won’t apply in every situation, but that is one factor that has been around for a long time for men to pay attention to. So it isn’t as if there has never been any sort of check previous to paternity testing, it just can’t be universally applied.

      • deti says:

        With all due respect, Kate, that response is weak sauce. It’s really just “Not all women are like that” and “well, AFBB isn’t true because I don’t do it and the people I know don’t do it and I don’t like people who do cheat and I don’t hang out with them”. Come on. That’s a ridiculous argument. AFBB is essentially encoded into the female brain:

        Female prime directive: Secure semen from the most alpha man (men) available so as to reproduce and have as many strong, healthy babies as possible (Alpha fux)

        Secondary directive: Secure provisioning for self and babies (Beta bux)

        Tertiary directive: If she fails in Directives 1 and 2; secure provisioning for herself through any means necessary (Beta bux again)

      • deti says:

        Kate:

        AFBB is completely unconscious. The women who employ this strategy (nearly all of them) do so without even thinking about it. They use it because it serves their interests.

        Besides, what woman in her right mind will say “You know, I’m just going to have sex with the hottest guys I can find so I can get knocked up; and then go find some nice guy, screw him, lie to him and tell him the bun in the oven is his; and we’ll get married and I’ll use him and his money”? What woman would actually admit that’s what she’s doing, even if she’s fully aware of it?

        The fact that you and your friends don’t (consciously) employ AFBB is not the point (even though you and your friends probably do so unconsciously). The point is that ENOUGH women are exactly like that to require something be used as a check against women concealing cuckoldry.

  12. deti says:

    “I can’t look back. For women that desire the traditional route(marriage, then kids), it seems these women would have a lot to think about, whether to even have kids or not, if they have no guarantee the actual father will decide to be legally listed as such, if he chooses on a whim not to take the paternity test.”

  13. deti says:

    “I can’t look back. For women that desire the traditional route(marriage, then kids), it seems these women would have a lot to think about, whether to even have kids or not, if they have no guarantee the actual father will decide to be legally listed as such, if he chooses on a whim not to take the paternity test.”

    I actually think Kate’s objections are more multifactorial now.

    It comes down to a woman’s strong aversion to being judged.

    She doesn’t want a husband trusting but verifying. She views it as an affront, an insult. It is a negative judgment of her character.

    And it is about putting unwanted constraints on alpha fux, beta bux. Women want it both ways, or at least the OPTION to have it both ways. This proposal severely limits that option.

    • Kate says:

      How do I view it as an affront? Men can independently get these tests now.

      I object to Martel stating the man has the option to not take the test at all, so as a woman who did things the right way, under his system I’d have the potential to end up with a fatherless baby, in terms of the birth certificate? Why would that be an attractive choice? It would certainly seems to dissuade some women from having children.

      I do object to making it mandatory for those who want to be listed as the father on the birth certificate, to have to pay an additional cost to do so.

      • Martel says:

        Yes, fathers would have that option, decent men would never exercise it. That means that women would need to take CHARACTER into account when deciding who to boink and/or marry.

        And for those guys who know that they’re the dad but refuse to officially verify it, there’s nothing stopping them from adopting the kid, being dad during a baptism or whatever else, and raising the kid just like he would anyway. The difference would be that if she dumps him, he wouldn’t owe child suppor (another advantage).

        Is this the same Kate being congratulated over at Heartist at the moment?

      • Kate says:

        No I am not the same Kate.

        Of course every one needs to take character into account when considering who to marry.

        One can’t predict with 100% certainty that someone will never change due to issues like alcoholism etc.

      • Martel says:

        Likewise, we can’t be so sure that the sweet-natured girl we married will always stay that way. As it stands now, the man misjudges his woman, he pays. The woman misjudges her man, he pays.

  14. sunshinemary says:

    Dalrock had a similar suggestion a couple of years ago. I think his idea was that to get a man’s name on the birth certificate, there should either be a paternity test or a sworn affidavite signed by the mother saying there is no chance that another man is the father, with it being a criminal offense is she is later found to have been lying.

    I would support mandatory testing in order for a man’s name to be listed on the birth certificate. I offered my husband to have our children tested, but he declined because he said that he is confident that they are his. I wouldn’t have minded doing it,though, because I have nothing to hide.

    • Martel says:

      God bless you, Sunshine, but you very much seem to be an exception.

      • sunshinemary says:

        Thank you. I actually offered this to him before I had ever even heard of the manosphere. After our first child was born, my mother-in-law made several very public remarks about her not looking like my husband (actually, she looks very much like him; my MIL and I used to have a contentious relationship, but now we have a very good relationship). Finally, I told HHG that I wanted to have a paternity test done because I was 100% certain that there was zero possibility that he was not the father. He thought that was a silly idea and said no.

        After discovering the manosphere, I learned that many men are anxious about paternity even if they don’t say so. I went to him again and told him that I would like to have all the children paternity tested so that he would never have to wonder. He told me never has wondered and asked me what the hell my problem was. And then he said no again.

    • Stingray says:

      I can get behind Dalrock’s test or sworn affidavit. I can get behind fraud or other criminal charges if it is found the woman lied on the affidavit.

      My dad said something to us a couple of years after my kids were born that really stuck with me. “It’s only the mothers who really truly know if the kids are their husbands or not. It’s not something the father can ever really know with 100% accuracy. I don’t think he doubts for a second that we are his (we look just like him), but I could tell it had been something he had thought about more than once.

      Then I come to the manosphere and read about cuckholding and how it’s more common than people think. I told Maritus the same thing. I would be happy to have them tested if he had any doubts to their paternity. He said the same thing your husband did. He wasn’t at all concerned about it.

      I don’t care if the hospital has the option to do it in secret so any browbeaten husbands can hide it from their wives. Every single point makes sense, except for the man not having the choice to still be on the birth certificate if he chooses. I don’t give a flip what the wife’s opinion is on the matter at all. As far as I’m concerned, it has nothing to do with her at this point.

      • sunshinemary says:

        Actually, cuckolding really isn’t that common. This is one of those manosphere myths. David Collard (Julian O’Dea) tried very hard toward end of his time in the sphere to explain this to people. He is a PhD scientist, had some kind of post in the Australian government, and has quite a few published research articles in scholarly journals. He laid out the research and the science, both present and historical, that cuckoldry is around 2-3% for married men. Some of this played out on my old blog, but the men from the sphere simply ignored it and continued to claim the cuckoldry is “very common” and that there is “good chance” that a man’s children are “quite possibly” not his own.

      • Martel says:

        If he chooses to be on the certificate and he’s NOT the actual father, he’s unintentionally defrauding his kid.

      • Martel says:

        @ SSM: It may be a myth regarding its frequency, but if you follow the links in my post where I say “I don’t necessarily agree” (near the top) the consequences for those rare exceptions can be excruciating.

        Furthermore, with all the stuff the newly unplugged learn about women, you can’t blame us for being a bit paranoid. I’ve literally been propositioned to impregnate a woman who wanted her kids to have my eye color instead of her husband’s.

        We all admit that it happens, and it probably happens less than most red pillers think it does. But it DOES happen, and when it does it’s absolute TORTURE for the cuckolded male. Nothing could be more humiliating than being forced by the legal system to pay for a kid that another man created by banging your wife after your wife leaves you, and women have been known to taunt their exes about it.

        Maybe it doesn’t happen much, but this would make it happen even less.

      • Stingray says:

        Defraud implies deception and fraud itself. Both of which, by there very nature are intentional.

        Furthermore, with all the stuff the newly unplugged learn about women, you can’t blame us for being a bit paranoid.

        I can’t blame the men for being paranoid even a little bit. The dishonor is unimaginable. There are better ways to go about this than forcing a man to choose testing or adoption. The women who commit this fraud should be punished severely. You had a post before saying that there is no perfect option, only better options. I just think there has to be better options for men than having to make a choice like this, especially since the number is so low in marriage. Outside of marriage, I’m not a big fan of child support then.

      • sunshinemary says:

        Martel, I agree with you. Even 2-3% is unacceptable. I think your proposed solution is quite sound.

      • Martel says:

        @SSM: Thanks for your agreement.

        Although 2-3% sounds negligible (and depending on the methodology of the study,it could be more than that, but I’ll grant your point for the sake of argument), when you translate that to a number of people it’s actually quite a lot. And you can add to that another few percent who aren’t quite sure who would be able to rest more easily if they knew.

        But also important is the amount of women banging guys who aren’t their husbands who don’t necessarily get pregnant as a result. A tangible, concrete, in-your-face consequence for this might reduce how much this happens.

  15. donalgraeme says:

    The opposition to paternity testing from women is something I view as further evidence to support some kind of “feminine imperative.” The vehemence of the opposition suggests that there is something deep seated, subconscious which resists the idea of men being able to establish with certainty the issue of paternity. Considering what Rollo has written on female sexual strategies and their menstrual cycle and such, I dare to say that AFBB might be ingrained into female nature.

    • Martel says:

      I think you’re right. Don’t get me wrong, I think Stingray is the sweetest thing since caramel, but even women who would genuinely NEVER cuckold their husbands feel oddly comfoted by the idea that if they really wanted to they could.

      Rollo’s post on professional moms will be heavily referenced in Part II. There’s a hell of a lot more at work here than sweet single mom/predatory player.

      • Stingray says:

        Eesh, Martel. I have ZERO problem with the paternity test. The wife should have nothing to do with this decision in anyway. It has NOTHING to do with her. Not a damn thing. I have a problem for the MEN who would not want anything to do with it.

        Every single opportunity should be given to any man who would want to have this done at any step of the way in the child’s life for him to obtain the results of this test. If the wife won’t consent, he is completely off the hook for EVERYTHING involving the child unless he chooses to.

        I said yesterday that a man should be able to test easily and in private and that should be readily available to him. That I agree with everything you had said except his own choice to opt out.

        but even women who would genuinely NEVER cuckold their husbands feel oddly comfoted by the idea that if they really wanted to they could.

        I can never prove it, but nothing like this ever crossed my mind. I really don’t give a flip about the mothers thoughts on this. It’s got nothing to do with her and it’s something she probably will never understand. Is it really that inconceivable that there are men out there that would rather have the choice to make for themselves?

    • sunshinemary says:

      And to be clear, this is married men. Cuckoldry is uncommon in marriage. Among unmarried couples, I believe it is probably somewhat more common.

    • Acksiom says:

      Girls, imagine there was a 1 in fifty chance you’d go home with the wrong baby from the hospital — 2%. All birthcare providers, for some sci-fi reason, cannot be compelled to use some kind of tracking method, and, well, that’s just the way it is!

      Sorry, girls, but you have no other options. The hospitals simply have too much status for you to be able to compel them to behave “more” professionally.

      You have to get your kids tested on your own. . .but if you do, and the hospitals find out about it, they’ll probably punish you for it. You’ll suffer socially, be ostracized, lose positions, maybe even get sued, maybe even have your children taken away from you and your marriages broken up.

      It’s because culturally, the hospitals are supposed to be in charge of the children, don’t you see? So of course their needs trump yours completely. They know best, so all the weight of society’s power and authority comes down on their side over yours.

      And anyways, it’s not like it really matters if they’re really your own biological children, is it? You can and should love them just the same, and if you find out years too late to actually have other real children of your own, you loved those, and they loved you back, right? So what’s the difference, really?

      After all, you still know for sure you really do have biological children out there somewhere. . .

      . . .unlike we guys whom you’re telling it’s “not really that common”.

  16. Stingray says:

    I really miss cursing sometimes. 😉

    • Martel says:

      I’ll reply to your previous comment here.

      I’m sure that it’s never crossed your mind, but part of the red pill is the recognition that a lot happens within every woman of which she may be only dimly aware. These are drive, they’re very deep, so deep you may not even feel them.

      My respect and liking for you are EXTREME, but you’re still a woman, and as such I know I can’t entirely trust you to completely understand your own self. You strike me as the type of woman I hope I find somewhere, but as moral as you are, as elevated as you are above most other women, there’s some forces at work in you that require external controls. You might not have been tempted, but plenty of other women are, and it’s hard to tell the difference. Unfortunately, we have to operate under the assumption that NAWALT rarely applies.

      Under my plan, men have the option to raise the children as their own in every respect, they can have the church recognize them as the father, and in just about every other way they’ll be “Dad”. However, because we can be certain who the father is, then we should refrain from creating potentially fraudulent really important government documents on behalf of the child.

      Ironically, families in which the dad declines to get tested might be more likely to stay together. He’ll be less likely to leave his wife because if he does, he’ll have no rights to the kids, and she’ll be less likely to stray because if she does she gets no child support.

      • Stingray says:

        but you’re still a woman

        I get that, Martel and I fully realize that we are arguing from this place first and foremost as it cannot possibly be avoided. Because of this I usually refrain from these types of discussions. Being female precludes my arguments and I don’t hold a grudge against anyone for this. It simply is what it is. I should have stayed out of this one as well as I do know better.

        I’ll only say one more thing on the matter and then I will bow out.

        then we should refrain from creating potentially fraudulent really important government documents on behalf of the child.

        And you also remove the choice from the man to have these documents available to his children without subjecting himself to something he might be adamantly against.

  17. MargeryM says:

    “As we harp on “deadbeat dads” while praising “heroic single moms”,”

    Don’t forget the “heroic” women that opt out of motherhood via abortion or adoption; options denied men.

    The man on my birth certificate is not my biological father.
    I have never met nor do I know for sure who my biological father is.
    The libertarian in me also doesn’t like this idea but the person who lived with the ramifications of this sort of thing sees that it is a real need.

    I plan on posting about this on my own later so I think I will spare you the rest of my thoughts for now.

    • Martel says:

      I’m about 90% sure that the dude on my grandmother’s birth certificate is not my biological great-grandfather.

      You could say that hasn’t directly affected me, but it has. It caused some severe problems a few decades back and distorted my grandmother’s psychology. In turn, this gave my mother some sever problems. She did her best, but it messed with me.

      I look forward to your post.

  18. Pingback: Your Body, Your Baby (Rational Interlude) | Alpha Is Assumed

  19. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/07/31 | Free Northerner

  20. Pingback: Your Body, Your Baby (Non-Rational Interlude) | Alpha Is Assumed

  21. Anon says:

    Or you could be careful and only have a child with someone you trust.

  22. Pingback: Paternity testing chimeras. | Sunshine Mary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s