[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.