Your Body, Your Baby (Non-Rational Interlude)

[This is the latest installment in a series.  My initial paternity testing idea is here, this is my response to the more rational arguments against it, and this is a post inspired by a comment that just might help women understand why this is such a big deal.  I’ll explore the more controversial aspect of my proposal in further detail after I’ve recovered from the fallout caused by the easy part.]

When I defended my paternity idea in the comments, my supporters and I did well in how we defended it dialectically .  Rhetorically, we fell short.

Effective rhetoric requires an extensive understanding of the feminine thought process.  It’s essential that we use logic and reason to come to correct conclusions, but we must also understand that logic and reason are NOT how most people reach theirs.  For this we need rhetoric.

Correct or not, when we view feminine traits like solipsism and hypergamy with an emphasis on whether or not they’re good or bad, it limits our rhetorical effectiveness.  As ridiculous as the Hamster in a given female may strike you, if you want to alter that Hamster’s behavior, it’s important to first simply acknowledge its existence without respect to how stupid it is.  When you focus less on if it’s good or bad and more on how it simply is, your ability to alter it expands exponentially.  When you understand and accept it, it becomes putty in your hands.  If you demonstrate that you understand where she’s coming from, you can show her why she’s wrong in a way that affects her behavior on a deeper level and increases her trust in you.  You don’t always have time to do this, but if you do it when you can, the next time you yell “Hand me the spatula dammit!” she’s more likely to comply without question.  When you always have a good explanation when it’s requested, the less somebody will always require some sort of explanation.

Furthermore, in and of themselves, feminine traits are no more good or bad than masculine traits like aggression.  The problem with modern society is not that we have so many women who are being so damn female, it’s that their traits are celebrated and amplified while ours are denigrated.  Things are out of balance, which means that the modern manifestation of femininity is largely negative.  As we call attention to this, it’s important that we don’t forget that the problem isn’t women, it’s Girls Going Wild with nothing to constrain them.  (In a comment On the Rock, seriouslypleasedropit expounds on this.)

In my earlier posts, Deti, me, and others attributed the female resistance to widespread paternity to a visceral subconscious attachment to Alpha Fux/Beta Bux (AFBB) to which even the best of women are susceptible.  Way deep down, even women who exemplify the best of femininity prefer to have the option to get away with cuckolding their husband, regardless of if they would never actually exercise such an option themselves.  There’s something very deep going on, and men can only vaguely grasp it.

However, in our eagerness to point out the irrationality of feminine resistance to my idea, we failed to recognize that, not unlike other female traits, there might be something positive going on, too.  Rational?  No.  Not pure evil?  Perhaps.

Any woman is free to correct my reasoning here.  I’m not one of you, so I can’t be sure, but I’ve “seen through” plenty a woman before, so I just might be able to do it again.

My most articulate and persistent opponent when I originally expounded upon my idea was Stingray.  Stingray objected on behalf of men who wouldn’t want the test (see here, here, here, here, here, and a couple of other places).  In all fairness, she also objected to on the basis of Big Brother collecting our DNA, but her primary argument was that men would object to this setup.

Are there men who would object to my scheme?  Certainly.  Would they object with the vehemence that makes a devout Christian who’s given up profanity want to revert?  Unlikely.

Indeed, their most likely objection would be on the grounds of DNA databases, but other objections would undoubtedly inspire more annoyance than righteous indignation.  If a man trusts his wife, he won’t particularly give a damn either way.  He’ll do it just to get his name on the damn birth certificate.

But that’s not how she would want him to feel.  She would like to think that he would punch several orderlies on his way to the doctor to give him a piece of his mind for requiring him to express doubt in his wife’s fidelity.  An attractive woman knows that she has ample opportunity to cuckold her husband.  It never crosses the mind of devoted wife to follow through on it, but she’s still aware she could.  This reflects a deep and abiding loyalty on her part to her man, and a man declining to take a paternity test tells her that he appreciates and understands her loyalty to him.  She could, but he knows she wouldn’t.  Declining to verify paternity undoubtedly verifies this bond of trust that means so much to a woman; it proves that he understands how much she loves him.  I bet that when SSM and Stingray offered paternity tests, the casual dismissals of their husbands genuinely moved them.

My scheme prevents men from having the chance to do that.

This is one of those situations like anniversaries in which things that deeply matter to a female mean relatively little to a guy.  If he makes a big deal out of their tenth anniversary, it’s because he knows she wants to make a big deal out of it.  Left to his own devices, he’d probably forget altogether.  Women sometimes interpret this as indifference to her; I reply that we’d be just as likely to forget our own birthdays.

I expressed it poorly, but I do understand that in addition to the AFBB instinct, resistance to widespread paternity testing reflects a genuine desire to increase intimacy with their husbands, not just an opportunity to screw them over.

Nevertheless, I support my initial proposal.  The costs of fraudulent birth certificates to both the supposed father and the child are simply too great.  We have the chance to prevent them, so we should.

I wish that things were different.  I would prefer to live in a time in which hypergamy largely stopped with wedding vows.  Cuckolding damages men in every era, but in a world of unlimited sexual opportunity, serial monogamy, divorce, and child support, it’s far worse.

I want to live in a world in which men lucky enough to find valuable women like Stingray can express their trust unreservedly, but there are too many women who seem like Stingray to their husbands but aren’t, and those women have too much power over their husbands.  It saddens me that the genuine desire for trust of the good woman sounds identical to the pleas of the harlot, so much so that we’ve got to limit our trust in the good women so that the harlots can’t do so much harm.

Stingray and others like her have every right to feel exactly as they do:  it’s downright sad that things have gotten to this point.  Romance is dead.  The fairy tales have been replace by post-modern horrific romantic comedies.  If a man says “Honey, I love you and trust that you would never do anything like that” it can destroy him today like it never could have destroyed him before.

As sentimental as a part of me still wants to be, we live in a world chews up sentimentality and spews it out the window at the cute little kid on his tricycle.  Trust, loyalty, devotion, and love still mean something, but in this rotten world of ours, the capricious whims of a family court can mean even more.

So we’ve got to see the world for what it is.  The faithful wife has every right to feel indignant with the state making it more difficult for her husband to express trust in her, but I simply don’t see any other way out.

This crap has got to stop.

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

18 Responses to Your Body, Your Baby (Non-Rational Interlude)

  1. Pingback: Your Body, Your Baby (Part 1) | Alpha Is Assumed

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

  3. Shameful says:

    The gov dna database is a moot point, they have been collecting that in western world for decades. So it is litterally just if the guy wants 100% verification or not. Hey some guys have a cuckhold fetish so might not want to know. The legal battle we should be looking at is not making the test mandatory, but making sure it is admissble in court and breaks any chance of child support. That fear alone might keep a few legs closed, that when divorce comes as a matter of course dna test is done and no more beta bux.

  4. deti says:

    “Trust, loyalty, devotion, and love still mean something, but in this rotten world of ours, the capricious whims of a family court can mean even more.”

    Heh. Feelings matter. Results matter more.

  5. M3 says:

    “Left to his own devices, he’d probably forget altogether. Women sometimes interpret this as indifference to her; I reply that we’d be just as likely to forget our own birthdays.”

    I think you nailed it with this post. And yes.. i’ve reached the point where i intentionally try to forget my own birthday now. Over the top displays of preplanned affection mean nothing to me, only what happens in the here and now on a constant basis.

    365 consecutive days of hearing ‘you’re awesome’ is worth so much more than one grand gesture of an anniversary outing. if i know it is REALLY important to her, ill indulge it if it suits me. but it won’t hold the meaning to me that it does to her.

  6. M3 says:

    I’d like to add a similar thing happens in reverse, tho im not sure how to apply it contextually.. simply stating the same dynamic.

    A lot of women as of late (girlfriend included) will remark at how how fit and sexy (hawt) i look. I enjoy hearing it as i was never accustomed to this in the past, but something funny happens depending on how i would respond.

    If i do my usual ‘awww, im not that fit.. Arnold is fit’, i will usually get even more validation in spite of the fact im actively rejecting the initial assumption.

    If i were to answer in a manner that i do not normally do, such as ‘yeah im frickin fit, hawwt and sexy and i know it’ it’s possible (and im speculating here) that i would be told to not let my head overinflate, keep my ego in check, stop being so vain, etc…

    or

    the huge ego stroking and vanity might be so alpha awe inspiring, she eggs him on further, getting wet in the process. Take your pick.

    A woman who actively asks a man if he would like a paternity test right away lowers his guard, is being validated for any concerns he might be having and will wave off the idea with reaffirmation about his partners validation of his concern.

    The $64 question is, how would she react if he takes her up on her offer?

    My gut feeling tells me it would be telling him to stop being so vain.

    As for the DNA thing.. it doesn’t bother me as much as it should. If someone can show me a plausible way how government could abuse such a system (DNA database for paternity) i’d like to hear it. We already have so much information attached to our social security/insurance numbers and health records with our doctors already, the addition of one extra bit of information seems almost irrelevant at this point.

    • Martel says:

      I’ve seen both responses from women in similar situations. I’m sure there’s a pattern to which they’d choose when, but I have no idea what that would be.

      My default response to that sort of thing now is that if she was relatively matter-of-fact or in a playful mood when giving the compliment, I play up my ego. If she seems really touched or sincere, I go with humility (unless it seems like it would work to bring things back to playfulness by praising myself).

      If anyone of either gender has any thoughts on this, it’s a good question.

      But regarding the paternity test, if she was offering it as a bluff, PANIC. If not, I bet she’d try to hide it but would feel hurt.

      No matter how much she says “you don’t need to get me anything for my birthday”, just try acting as though she meant it.

  7. sunshinemary says:

    M3, I’ve thought about the same thing. For me personally, I would have been fine with my husband accepting my offer to DNA test our children, but I seem to have a slightly different perspective on these things that many women do. It is possible that if a woman offered and the man accepted, that she would feel sort of hurt that he accepted. Martel’s plan side-steps that awkwardness, so it’s probably a good thing.

    I have a question, though. What if no one wants to be tested to claim the kid, so he gets no father on his birth certificate? This brings up complicated legal issues surrounding things like this:

    1. Would the not-named father be able to access the child’s medical records? School records?
    2. Would the not-named father be able to sign legal documents on the child’s behalf, or even little things like school permission slips? What about if the child is special needs – would this not-named father be allowed to come to IEP meetings? Parent-teacher conferences?
    3. What about inheritance rights? If the father refuses the paternity test and thus is not named on the birth certificate, can his child still inherit his property upon his death?
    4. What about if the mother and father are no longer together and there is no father named on the birth certificate? Does this child then become the tax payers responsibility? The incentive for men to refuse paternity tests as way to keep themselves OFF the birth certificate and thus not responsible for financial support or physical custody would be pretty high.
    5. Would the state be allowed to force someone to claim paternity for a child and force that man to take a test? What about the child? Does he/she have any rights in all of this? Would he/she be allowed to sue for paternity upon turning 18 and force the presumed father to claim them?

    I think Martel’s idea has a lot of merit, but there would be enormous legal problems almost immediately.

    • Martel says:

      I’ve thought all of these things through and will answer all of them. However, it’s gonna be a few days or so. Not only is my brain full of other topics (go Hugo Schwyzer!), but I don’t want to be known as the paternity site.

    • M3 says:

      SSM

      Although unpalatable.. it’s already a precedent that criminal cases use DNA to convict or exonerate people of certain crimes.

      I may be completely innocent of a crime, but if a witness states that i was at a scene where DNA evidence is plentiful, the state can compel me to give a sample for the sake of expediency so as not to hold up the wheels of justice. I can sit there and claim to be innocent, not having been at the scene and not being a criminal.. but the law can’t take my word for it. It has to investigate. The quickest simplest method before charging an innocent man and going to trial is to compel me to give a sample to strike me off the list.

      The same could be applied to this. The state requires a dad to be named. If the woman says that i had sex with her, then there is a chance i may be the father, even if i did in fact not have sex with her. The state should be able to compel a DNA sample from the named father if no man is offering to be tested. If the mother refuses to name any potential fathers to step up to the plate, then she waives any right to state support or programs.

      I haven’t really given this stuff much thought at the present moment since im currently engaged in other duties.. but i think if you locked 12 lawyers in a room for a few days, they’d hash something out within the confines of the law.

      If 12 lawyers aren’t available.. a thousand monkey’s and typewriters could be Plan B.

      • Martel says:

        In criminal case, you’ve got a point. However, my plan is for voluntary paternity testing, it’s just that the state can’t declare that you’re the father until you prove it.

  8. Stingray says:

    This reflects a deep and abiding loyalty on her part to her man, and a man declining to take a paternity test tells her that he appreciates and understands her loyalty to him.

    It would be remiss of me to say that this might be part of why I am opposed to this. That likely is part of it. But there is something more going on from my end and it may be right or it may be wrong. It is simply is what going on. When a woman marries a man she trusts and respects, she will change herself for him. In my case, I went from a pretty dingy co-ed to being far more open to honest intellect (to give you an idea, when I met my husband I was INFP. I am now ISTJ. Take a wild guess what my husband is). I didn’t do that on my own. My husband took the time to teach me that my feelings on something mean little to nothing. He opened my eyes and while I still fail, I know have the knowledge to see my failures and try to reason past them. He gave that to me.

    He has also taken the time to talk to me about the law and how he sees it. These things are very important to him and by extension, very important to me. We recently had a family discussion regarding Fredrick Bastiat. This is where the basis of my argument comes from. Bastiat argues that the purpose of the law should be to promote justice. Never to prevent injustice.

    This man who has taken the time to not only love me but teach me has my loyalty. Me arguing this is an extension of that.

    Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

    If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

    Now, are laws for women being used to prevent their perceived injustices? Absolutely and they are wrong. We would be better served by abolishing these laws than by promoting more laws that are being used to prevent more injustice.

  9. The Navy Corpsman says:

    Sure, this crap has to stop. Paternity testing might even save a few thousand men from 18-25 years of child support, lies, deceit, and even divorce itself, if a woman can actually control her hypergamy, her imperative for AFBB, and her hamster.

    Problem is, you’re conflating 1950s women with 2013 women. 1950s women had 5000 years of social ostracism, adultery shaming, financial penalties and non-judicial punishments to shape their thoughts. See what 50 years of ‘freedom and equality’ can do ? Do you really think a little bit of embarrassment will stop most women from listening to their hamster wheel squeeking? Moreover, I cannot fathom that any level of government would actually criminalize paternity fraud, and enforce it. I can, however, see a large increase in the welfare rolls, as DNA paternity tests start to invalidate female claims. Oh sorry, ASSISTANCE, not welfare. Forgot my PC manners.

    As for abuse of a DNA database, check your local listings for NSA phone records, email and other violations of your civil rights. If you cannot see a potential for abuse, I fear for your naivete. Do you think cops would like to eliminate 99% of all other males in a city of one million, while they investigate a murder?

    “We found your DNA at (fill in the blank) and a crime was committed. We’d like to talk to you for 39 hours without a bathroom break.”

    @ Mrs. Stingray:

    Government (2013 style) does NOT exist for the rights of individuals, it does NOT exist for the rights of a group, a majority or even the People as a whole. Government (2013 style) exists to keep itself alive and in power, and ideally in its own collective mind, extend that power. Theoretical governments are great, but we all have to deal with reality, not theory. The weakest link ALWAYS applies.

    @ sunshinemary

    Let us simplify your points to one question in point 5:

    What about the children?

    Presumptive paternity for married men has existed for nearly as long as exclusive mating has. Remove that presumption by mandatory proof, and the injury done to cuckolded (married) men now shifts to the children produced by that cuckoldry.

    Whose fault is that? Oh wait, sorry… fifteen yard penalty for violating hamster rights.

    Can we solve this by simply allowing the putative father, married or not, to accept responsibility without accepting paternity? Think of the love! For the cases where no man will accept either responsibility nor paternity, we seem to resurrect Maury Povich, a veritable smorgasbord of potential fathers for forced DNA analysis. Make no mistake, mandatory means mandatory… if a man is named as the father, he WILL be forced to submit a blood sample, just ask Keanu Reeves. I suspect virgin births will become rather more common, insofar as no male was present at conception. Wow, think of the database that will be created with as many as ten or twenty males per birth registered.

    Finally, women aren’t going to stop going for tingles, and AFBB, just because it was proven that they already have done so. I agree, this crap must stop. But the only crap that WILL stop, is that men cannot be forced to pay support for children that are not his blood. In the end, that is worth having a law mandating paternity tests.

    The Navy Corpsman

  10. slwerner says:

    ” Way deep down, even women who exemplify the best of femininity prefer to have the option to get away with cuckolding their husband, regardless of if they would never actually exercise such an option themselves. There’s something very deep going on, and men can only vaguely grasp it.”

    As an example of what you’re getting at, it might be worth bring back up Melanie McDonaugh’s (conservative Catholic) argument that DNA testing is a bad thing because it disempowers women:

    ” Now, a cotton-wool swab with a bit of saliva, plus a small fee, less than £200, can settle the matter. At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with.”

  11. Pingback: Be a low-maintenance wife. | Sunshine Mary

  12. slwerner says:

    Shameful – ”The legal battle we should be looking at is not making the test mandatory, but making sure it is admissble in court and breaks any chance of child support. That fear alone might keep a few legs closed, that when divorce comes as a matter of course dna test is done and no more beta bux.”

    This harkens back to my point about protecting men (even those who have no clue or no desire to find out at birth) from the court-ordered financial liabilities for children who are not really theirs in the event of the mother seeking to have a court impose such obligations upon him. Note, this extends well beyond issues of divorce, and can also be matters in which a woman names a man as the father of her child at any point in the child’s life (even after that child becomes and adult). In such cases, there is no Statute of Limitations as to when the establishment of a man’s paternity can be made, and he be made legally financially liable.
    The missing corollary to this establishment of paternity is that there are hard-and-fast time limits for a man named as being the father to legally disestablish paternity – as in the infamous cases of women picking names out of phone books, and unaware (and not properly notified) men being declared the legal fathers (for support purposes only, of course) by judges when they failed to respond and pay for the testing to disestablish the claimed paternity.

    There should be no statue of limitations on disestablishing paternity, and there should be no child support orders without DNA testing-based establishment of paternity.

    sunshinemary – ”What if no one wants to be tested to claim the kid, so he gets no father on his birth certificate? This brings up complicated legal issues surrounding things like this”
    It’s already happened – to one James Rhoades (heavily discussed back on Glenn Sacks’ old blog – here’s and archived link to the OP: http://www.zoominfo.com/p/James-Rhoades/1274280973)
    That situation, as you are alluding to, brings up important legal issues which are largely being overlooked (sorry, a bit of snark here, but a Birth Certificate is just a piece of paper certifying the live birth of the child – as his or her ID document, which just happens to include the names of the putative parents. It is NOT a legal record which could be used to establish matters such as rights to custody nor child support. Many, many men end up paying child support for child on whose Birth Certificate they are not listed as being the father. This concern over BC’s is a Red Herring, I’m afraid). In the end, the legal issues boil down to being a matter of whatever the mother say’s, unless a man acts quickly.

    This is why so many of us would wish to see the matter taken out of the hands of the oft-unknowing and ill-informed, and simply made a matter of normal new-born testing. If the paternity of all babies were to be established by testing, then real fathers (whether they are the named father, or not) would have some measure of legal protection established for them – even if only the legally recognized “standing” to petition the court.

  13. Alphadog@aol.com says:

    Good to see the chicks here making sense.

    That’s why the femi-nazis hate them. Over 100 comments about SSM’s post at Free Jinger last time I checked. Lots of hate on FSTDT too. Those chicks are freaking crazy.

  14. Ton says:

    Cuckold is not rare. Women are unfaithful beyond most peoples willingness to believe

    #1) friend was arguing with his wife, she threatens to leave, he says leave me my boy and get. In her rage she let slip the boy was not his. DNA, proves this to be true, but the boy is 6 & my friend is on the hook for child support. Only have 2 years to question paternity in NC

    #2).trooper goes home on mid tour leave, knocks it out with his wife and returns to Iraq. 9 months later this White couple have a non White baby. If she would have been knocked up by another White guy, my trooper would have never known

    #3) Friend of mine recently divorced and has his ex wife tell him she only married him because she was pregnant and knew he would marry her vs the other possible father. Alpha fucks beta bucks

    The idea this is rare don’t pass the real life test.

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