Meet The Real Biggest Losers

Cuckolded men. A lot of readers emailed me this New York Beta Times story about the State of Paternity in America today. Before reading, you should grab your Pepto Bismol, because your stomach is going to turn. Get ready to descend into the hell matrix of the unwitting beta male raising another man’s child, where torments beyond your most chilling nightmares await.

The revelation from a DNA test was devastating and prompted him to leave his wife — but he had not renounced their child. He continued to feel that in all the ways that mattered, she was still his daughter, and he faithfully paid her child support. It was only when he learned that his ex-wife was about to marry the man who she said actually was the girl’s biological father that Mike flipped. Supporting another man’s child suddenly became unbearable.Two years after filing the suit that sought to end his paternal rights, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. “I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”

Ridiculous is one way to put it. Evil is another.

Tanner Pruitt, who owns a small manufacturing business in Texas, paid child support for seven years after divorcing his wife. His daughter never looked like him, but it wasn’t until she was 12 that it began to bother him. He told the girl he wanted to check something in her mouth, quickly swabbed some cheek cells and sent the samples off to a lab. After the DNA test showed they weren’t related, he contacted a lawyer, figuring the lab results would release him from child-support payments and justify reimbursement from the biological father. But the lawyer told Pruitt his only option was to take the matter to court and that doing so might mean giving up his right to see the girl at all. It might also alert her to the truth. Pruitt didn’t want to chance either possibility, so he stayed silent and kept paying.“I spent thousands and thousands of dollars, and it hasn’t cost that biological father a penny, and yeah, I’m angry, but it would have been more harm to her psychologically than it was worth,” says Pruitt, who eventually fought for, and won, full custody.

This is why I support mandatory paternity testing (MPT) at birth. MPT would completely negate the risk of having to choose between loyalty to a child to whom the father has already bonded, and walking away to leave the child to the whore mother to raise. It’s a simple procedure that would intrude on no one’s rights or emotional well-being, similar to how the state requires driver’s tests for people who want the privilege of driving. By making it mandatory, all issues of trust are rendered moot. If it’s discovered the child isn’t his, the father is legally absolved of any further paternal or marital obligations, and is welcome to exit the marriage without having to pay one red cent to the bitch.

Any woman who even utters a peep against MPT has shown her cards. She is a filthy wretched cuntrag who wishes the system to be rigged in her favor — morality, fairness, and justice be damned. (hi anony!)

Some may question whether MPT is good for society, inasmuch as it dysgenically removes the option for women to carry the species forward by duping betas into raising and propagating alpha genes. This concern rests on a key assumption — that cheating women are making the eugenically correct choice. My suspicion, based on what I’ve heard about unfaithful whores, is that they are not. They are, instead, fucking around with assorted badboys.

Mike’s first inkling that something was amiss in his marriage was in 2000, when he was digging through a closet looking for the source of some mice. He didn’t find any nests, but he did come upon a plastic grocery bag of love letters to his wife, Stephanie, from her co-worker Rob. Confronted, Stephanie confessed to a fleeting affair but assured Mike that L., then nearly 3, was his.

If you recorded the answers of one million cheating whores at the moment when their doubting husbands questioned them about the paternity of their kids, only one woman would tell the truth to the man she married “till death do us part”. The other 999,999 women would lie. This is the juggernaut of female depravity you are up against, men. Never forget that.

CARNELL SMITH, an engineer-turned-lobbyist in Georgia, is the leading advocate for men like Mike. In 2001, after Smith’s own paternity struggle, he formed U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, to help the men he calls “duped dads.” In his most notable success, Smith persuaded Georgia lawmakers to rescind nonbiological fathers’ financial obligations, no matter the child’s age or how close the relationship. Smith then became the first man to disestablish paternity under that law.

Carnell Smith is a goddamned American hero. Step up to the Chateau gates, Carnell, you have more than earned your place at the table among the “King of the Alphas” greats.

With the scientific proof in hand, men like Carnell Smith began fighting back. A few months after Smith split up with his girlfriend in 1988, she announced she was pregnant with his child. Believing her, he signed a paternity acknowledgment for their daughter, Chandria.

Maxim #666: When a woman has incentive to lie, she will choose lying over honesty EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Corollary to Maxim #666: Treat woman like Soviet Russia — Trust but verify.

He obtained joint custody, paid her support and spent virtually every weekend with his little girl. When Chandria was 11, her mother sued to increase support. Smith decided to be tested, and the results excluded him as the father. In a lawsuit, Smith demanded Chandria’s mother pay back the $40,000 he had laid out in what he calls “involuntary servitude” and fraud. The court ruled against Smith, concluding that he had known that his former girlfriend had other partners at the end of their relationship and should have realized he might not be the father. By not exercising his “due diligence” and getting a DNA test early on, the court put the burden on Smith for not unearthing the truth sooner.

Did you get that? The court basically said to Smith “Hey, your fault for believing your girlfriend’s lies. What did you expect? She’s a woman. Women lie! So keep paying, bitchboy.”

If you are an American male, know this: Your women aren’t on your side. Your government isn’t on your side. Your law isn’t on your side. Your culture isn’t on your side. You are expendable. Your use is as cannon fodder for pointless wars, cannon fathers for bastard children, and cannon dollars for whoring sluts.

Would you die for this country that so despises you? Would you care if women who aren’t related to you or fucking you got raped? Would you care if *any* woman got raped? Orwell had it half right — a boot stamping on a beta face and high heels grinding into a beta crotch – forever.

Chandria now attends college in Georgia. She has seen Carnell Smith on the local news and on the Internet and cannot reconcile the man who seems to her so insensitive with the father she knew: attentive, seemingly proud of their relationship and eager to spend time with her. “He was what a father was supposed to be,” she says, “but when things changed, he completely disconnected. That’s just not fair. You’ve been in my life my entire life and for you to just cut that off for money, well, that’s not fair to anybody.”

Carnell Smith, if I ever meet you, beer’s on me. And I don’t buy beers for just anyone.

Chandria, if you think it’s not fair, you have but one person to point your accusing finger at — your whore mother.

For the rest of you rationalizers who think that Chandria’s bitter tears prove that rectifying paternity fraud should take a back seat to the welfare of the child, kindly redirect your effrontery at the perp who deserves it — the cheating woman. If the child suffers, the unfaithful mother should have thought of that before spreading for the thug du jour.

Child-welfare advocates say that making biology the sole determinant of paternity in cases like Smith’s puts the nonbiological father’s interest above the child’s.

You don’t say! And all this time I thought eighteen years of financial and psychological enslavement was in the nonbiological father’s interest.

Besides, society has increasingly recognized that parenthood is not necessarily bound to genetics.

Society is an ass.

“Having been involved in cases like these, I think the answer to ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband,” says Carol McCarthy, an officer of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “My own biases are going into this because I’m adopted, so I’m real into ‘your parents are the people who raise you.’ I couldn’t care less who my biological parents are. My parents are the ones who went through all the crap I gave them growing up.”

And people wonder why I have so much hatred in my heart for sophistic bitch lawyers. (hi al!)

Let’s rephrase Mizz Carol McCarthy’s quote for clarity:

“Having been involved in cases like these, I think the answer to ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the falsely impregnated wife,” says Carol McCarthy, an officer of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Patrimonial Lawyers. “My own biases are going into this because my mother who unknowingly had another woman’s fertilized egg implanted in her womb went through with the pregnancy, so I’m real into ‘your parents are the people who raise you.’ I couldn’t care less who my biological parents are. My parents are the ones who went through all the crap I gave them growing up.”

There, that should uncloud Mizz McCarthy’s mind. PS Please put your head under a rolling bus.

WHY IS IT THAT we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic?

It’s funny when smart people ask these kinds of questions as if they don’t already know the answer. It’s as if in the asking they absolve themselves of the guilt they feel for following the same amoral code that is followed by the proles and untouchables to whom they feel superior.

It doesn’t need to be answered, but I’ll answer it anyway, coyly: The reason we humans have evolved to be capable of wondering why we imbue genetic relationships with potency is because genetic relationships have potency.

Three and a half years earlier, at a federally convened symposium on the increase in paternity questions, a roomful of child-welfare researchers, legal experts, academics and government administrators agreed that much pain could be avoided if paternity was accurately established in a baby’s first days. Several suggested that DNA paternity tests should be routine at birth, or at least before every paternity acknowledgment is signed and every default order entered. In 2001 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court urged the state to require that putative fathers submit to genetic testing before signing a paternity-acknowledgment form or child-support agreement, arguing that “to do otherwise places at risk the well-being of children.”

In other words, the same care that hospitals take ensuring that the right mother is connected to the right newborn — footprints, matching ID bands, guarded nurseries, surveillance cameras — should be taken to verify that the right man is deemed father.

Good to see the CH worldview is being considered. It’s easy to be right when you hold firm to your conviction that the truth, no matter how dispiriting, is your guiding principle. For in the end, the truth always wins out —
one
way
or
the
other.

Mandatory DNA testing for everyone would be a radical, not to mention costly, shift in policy.

So was WWII. But we fought to the end. The bottom line is this: Either men have equal rights to women under the law, or they do not. As it stands right now, the courts are deciding in favor of men as being lesser citizens than women.

In other news, Barack Obama’s health care plan would ensure government coverage of mammograms for all women over the age of 40. No word on coverage for men’s prostate exams.

“I got a picture in my head,” L. [the bastard daughter] said, “that the test people would call and say they had been wrong, that he really was my biological dad and that everything I had thought before never really happened.”

Fury and unconsolable sadness
she anguishes
pain is her fate
blame needing to be cast
she searches haphazardly
when her demon
stands right before her
hi mom.

Think of the worst things women can do to men. Draw up a list. I’ll start:

Flirt with other men in front of him.
Steal from him.
Cheat on him.
Give him an STD.
Entrap him with pregnancy.
Withhold sex for favors.
Prick holes in his condoms.
Dick sandwich.
Get fat.
Disrespect his privacy and gossip about him.
Falsely accuse him of rape.
Use the rigged divorce courts against him.
Cut him off from his children.
Cuckhold him.

Of all these monstrous expressions of the female id, one rises above the rest in sheer malevolence — the act of cuckolding. Nothing else, save perhaps a successfully prosecuted false rape accusation, comes close in distilled essence of ovarian evil. Cuckoldry is slavery. It is metadeath. It is soul murder. It is the motherfucker of all lies. As men, we are beholden to guard against it by any means necessary. Today, in 2009 America, that means refusing to participate in the corrupted institution of marriage and hiding your assets overseas.

Here are the faces of society’s ultimate losers:

If beta has a “look”, these men have it.

Carnell Smith is the man in the third photo. He is a genuine American hero; a warrior fighting the long hard battle for our benefit. Send him a note of appreciation and support. A nation is saved one righteous man at a time.





Comments


  1. “It’s potentially an infringement on the right of the father should that father not wish to have paternity confirmed to have it be mandatory.”

    Congratulations, al, you’ve out-stupided Wendy Schwartz. That takes some doing, but you managed it. Take a bow.
    For the sake of argument : Make the test mandatory, but the father doesn’t ever have to look at the results (though he may at any time without informing his wife). Problem solved. Next idiotic tail-covering ‘concern’. Only exceptionally deceitful and dishonest women have anything to fear.

    “It’s an infringement on the right of the child through his/her parents if they don’t agree.”

    The child has no right to support from someone who’s been deceived into supporting them anymore than pyramid scheme hucksters have a right to your income.

    If anyone is infringing on the child’s rights, it’s the mother. She’s to blame. She chose to screw around and wants others (sucker hubby) to pay for the consequences. That’s the attitude of the depraved or morally bankrupt.

    Again, minimally honest women have nothing to fear from MPT and would welcome it. It’s only the terminally dishonest that are against it.

    Like


  2. Congratulations, al, you’ve out-stupided Wendy Schwartz. That takes some doing, but you managed it. Take a bow.

    Thanks doll. No go reread the 4th amendment and think about what is required in a paternity test.

    Like


  3. Besides, society has increasingly recognized that parenthood is not necessarily bound to genetics.

    But apparently it IS necessarily bound to the man’s wallet!

    Like


  4. okay

    Like


  5. This is a true threat to married whores.

    Like


  6. on November 19, 2009 at 2:56 pm gunslingergregi

    ””””””a boot stamping on a beta face and high heels grinding into a beta crotch – forever.””””””””

    Brutal

    Like


  7. So what would the men here do? Upfront test the day of the birth or unknown test sometime in the first year?

    Can you do it before the birth?

    Like


  8. An appropriate music video:

    Kanye West – Gold Digger: MTV Version

    Like


  9. It’s an old game, made ‘new’ by the public sanction of laws and, as always, lawyers profiting from even convoluted messes.

    The Common Cuckoo plays nature’s game of deception well.

    I just hope to add 30 or more little Firepowers to the gene pool – on somebody else’s dime

    Like


  10. It’s a simple procedure that would intrude on no one’s rights or emotional well-being, similar to how the state requires driver’s tests for people who want the privilege of driving.

    Ok, I have sympathy for these situations and think agree that no child support should be required, but this statement above is wrong. Driving is a privilege, reproduction is not. It’s potentially an infringement on the right of the father should that father not wish to have paternity confirmed to have it be mandatory. It’s an infringement on the right of the child through his/her parents if they don’t agree.

    I knew you were conservative, I didn’t realize you thought the 4A was ridiculous.

    If you want to create a regime where at the request of the father a free and prompt paternity test is given with all the attendance results you outline, fine, but mandatory testing is just as much an infringement on personal liberty and choice.

    sophistic bitch lawyers. (Hi al!)

    kisses!
    meanwhile, notice that her case is not analogous because her parents chose to raise a non-biological child.

    Like


  11. Too bad that article doesn’t have a comments section, I’d love to see the mounds of horse shit that would be coming from the (female/mangina) readers.

    Like


  12. Kanye West – Gold Digger

    [Verse 2:]

    18 years, 18 years
    She got one of your kids got you for 18 years
    I know somebody paying child support for one of his kids
    His baby mamma’s car and crib is bigger than his
    You will see him on TV any given Sunday
    Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai
    She was suppose to buy you shorty TYCO with your money
    She went to the doctor got lypo with your money
    She walking around looking like Michael with your money
    Should of got that insured got GEICO for your money
    If you ant no punk holla we want prenup
    WE WANT PRENUP! Yeah
    It’s something that you need to have
    ‘Cause when she leave yo ass she gone leave with half
    18 years, 18 years
    And on her 18th birthday he found out it wasn’t his

    [Chorus]

    Like


  13. on November 19, 2009 at 3:01 pm Ferdinand Bardamu

    Cuckoldry is slavery. It is metadeath. It is soul murder. It is the motherfucker of all lies. As men, we are beholden to guard against it by any means necessary.

    And don’t forget your original contention that cuckoldry is the female form of rape. Any woman who makes excuses for cuckoldry is the moral equivalent of a man who makes excuses for rape. Never stop shouting this from the rafters.

    As men, we are beholden to guard against it by any means necessary. Today, in 2009 America, that means refusing to participate in the corrupted institution of marriage and hiding your assets overseas.

    Preach on, brother, preach on.

    Like


  14. al,

    Driving is not a privilege in a society built around cars. Quit sucking up to ‘authority’.

    Like


  15. If you are an American male, know this: Your women aren’t on your side. Your government isn’t on your side. Your law isn’t on your side. Your culture isn’t on your side. You are expendable. Your use is as cannon fodder for pointless wars, cannon fathers for bastard children, and cannon dollars for whoring sluts.

    Brilliant summation.And strong argument for the return of the guillotine.

    Like


  16. > They are, instead, fucking around with assorted badboys.

    You make a fair point. Women who cuckold have evolved to cuckold using bio-fathers that will increase the child’s fitness. But the good of society is a different ballgame. The fitness of exploiters and attackers of society can be high (unless one executes almost all criminals as used to be done in England, or does something in between what they did and what we do now).

    Furthermore, cuckolding women might specifically choose to get genes, such as “bad boy” high-dominance low-empathy genes, that will make the child above-average in exploiting the cuckolded father. In a biological family it is not that great for members to attempt to exploit each other, because conflict between close relatives has an especially high fitness cost, and exploiting a close relative has a rather low net fitness gain. If the cuckolded father-provider is not related to the family, though, they should exploit him as much as possible without generating too much risk of him leaving.

    Like


  17. on November 19, 2009 at 3:06 pm Cannon's Canon

    this makes me want to run through a goddamn brick wall

    Like


  18. Eric Johnson,

    You are one of those idiots who reads too deeply into human shortsightedness.

    There is no reason why women cuckold other than they can get away with it! There.. I said it. Evolution is not about optimization. It is about random exploration of possibilities.

    If the direction of a change leads to death, it is ‘removed’. If not, it ‘lives another day’. But by no means is it deliberate, intentional or certain.. or even optimal.

    Like


  19. There will be no mandatory paternity testing until society deems cuckoldry to be a significant enough problem. Unfortunately, society won’t do so because it views the financial support of a child to be more important than the identity of the biological father. By the time paternity testing is done, the child is already born and will be a drain on society if some man (not necessarily the biological father) contributes to the child’s well-being. Even if there was an easy way to determine paternity while the child was still in utero, this would arguably force women into abortions because they will be faced with raising the child alone.

    Rather than mandatory paternity testing, I would advocate much more strongly for a male birth control pill.

    Like


  20. > And don’t forget your original contention that cuckoldry is the female form of rape

    Well sorta. Its certainly the best analog for rape but its definitely not a perfect analog. I think theres one thing that makes rape emotionally worse. And thats the fact that it makes the woman undesirable to other men for marriage (especially in the past), not only by potential pregnancy, but by disease.

    #1, since shes not a virgin you dont know if she had sex in the interim. Five months after being raped it would be obvious whether or not she was pregnant by it, but she also might have got pregnant right before you (potentially) marry her.

    #2, There were a lot of sexually transmitted diseases in the agriculture age (except in Australia and the Americas), and maybe a fair amount in the hunter-gatherer age too. A man made unmarriagable by such a disease should be more likely to rape, and the raped woman might contract the disease.

    Now we have medical tests that deal with these things, but they didnt used to have em.

    Like


  21. I feel sorry for the children who have to endure this.

    A large part in solving this lies in fidelity and stronger morals on the woman’s part. If she weren’t cheating and / or sleeping with multiple men at once, then this wouldn’t happen.

    I have been told by a Muslim friend that a key reason they are so strict about women’s sexual purity is because they want to protect the life of the child. They want to know who the father is. While it may have seemed hypocritical, I have to agree.

    Women should be faithful to their men; they should not sleep with more than one man at a time. There’s nothing liberating about having multiple sex partners, any of whom could potentially impregnate you if not careful.

    It sucks to preach these standards for women and not consider them for men. However, when women are “sexually liberated” they wreak havoc on the family system, and themselves emotionally and physically. Lose-lose.

    Bottom line, this is a shame for women. I’ve heard the idea spouted here that promiscuous women should be shamed – and I have to agree. It’s for the woman’s good, and the child’s good.

    Like


  22. why in the world should the “liberty” to opt out of a paternity test be considered some kind of right? we ought to inconvenience (for lack of a better word) the millions of men who may not be aware that a paternity test is an option just to indulge a few who want to live in blissful ignorance?

    Like


  23. Dude, Roissy, you gotta relax – I agree with you that the incidents you describe and cite are hideous, but youre surely smart enough to know that a few anecdotes dont an accurate description of an entire state of affairs make.

    Just because some women cuckold doesnt mean the entire female species is composed of liars and cheats – sweeping, extreme generalizations based on a few anecdotes really isnt very intelligent. Men lie too, even you – yet the women who make ridiculous sweeping generalizations about men are emotionally driven and idiotic, too.

    I just dont get the baseless misogyny – women are just people, like men, and most women are pretty shitty morally, just like men. Men cheat, women cheat – its a wonderful world. Human beings are pretty shitty, thats just life.

    The emotionally driven misogyny based on a few stray anecdotes just comes off as weak, dripping with resentment, and unworthy of an otherwise extremely intelligent blog.

    That the law is retarded in these cases is very true and should be highlighted.

    Like


  24. If you want to create a regime where at the request of the father a free and prompt paternity test is given with all the attendance results you outline, fine, but mandatory testing is just as much an infringement on personal liberty and choice.

    I agree wholeheartedly with this. Which is why the best solution is for guys like Smith and others to start up men’s advocacy groups—like they’ve already done in many cases—to educate men about this sort of thing. Soon, men choosing paternity testing should be as reflexive as women choosing the pill. We need changes in the culture of masculinity to help men realize the necessity of these measures.

    Women have an excellent sort of group conciousness. Men are generally more independent and ornery, but if we going to put a stop to being exploited we’re going to have develop some sort of group awareness or conciousness. It’s the only way forward.

    And Smith is a beta no more. The guy took on the system and won. True blue Alpha, believe that.

    Like


  25. Lucifer,
    I dont believe that. Cuckoldry and rape are paying jobs, speaking in terms of fitness. All they have do to be preserved, more or less, is make more “money” than it costs to faithfully reproduce the particular segments of DNA that cause the behavior.

    I would not have 100% confidence that they are evolved behaviors, but I suspect it. Of course, they arent even close to deterministic; they depend on environmental variables. For example whether or not we execute large percentages of convicted rapists (I’m for it personally).

    Like


  26. Yeah I agree with Glen

    Like


  27. > And thats the fact that it makes the woman undesirable to other men for marriage

    By the way, I dont mean that its emotionally worse because the woman always recognizes this fully. Rather, it reduces fitness for the reasons I gave, and therefore it *evolves* to be more emotionally distressing.

    I do believe it is probably distressing, *ultimately*, for evolved reasons and not because the victim finds it distressing for some reason that only humans and not, say, cats would understand. But understanding evolved reasons for feelings changes them virtually not at all, in my experience.

    Like


  28. In light of this article I think it’s important to bear in mind that there are many different varieties of, and methods of cuckolding. Paternity fraud is one that agitates the most, but betas being emotionally manipulated into “doing the right thing” and playing Cap’n Save a Ho by women, their families, beta male friends and feminized society only reinforce this form cuckoldry.

    These are the truly lost; the betas who willfully and knowingly enter into sharing the parental investment of children they bear no biological responsibility for. And they’re patted on the back for it. For a female of any species to facilitate a methodology of breeding with the best genetic partner she’s able to attract AND to ensure her own and her offspring’s survival with the best provisioning partner is an evolutionary jackpot.

    “Accidental” pregnancies are a cottage industry now.

    Like


  29. MPT would do more for male equality than pretty much anything else…in the long run i think. But, is that what ‘we’ want?

    Wouldn’t it be advantageous for Lotharios, as Fireproof stated, to take the cuckoo-path? If more offspring were to be a completely conscious goal (it’s not, but assuming it were)?

    Sometimes i don’t get the message straight here. On the face of it, I am all for taking away women’s ability to shaft their mates, but at the same time, if I am in that group of men who do the ‘bird-doggin” so to speak, why would it be in my interests to desire MPT. Wouldn’t it finally get to the point where all men would have their DNA on file to be cross-referenced with every contested newborn?

    Like


  30. Dear Dr. Roissy,

    1. What is the best type of man for a woman to marry? For both the man and the woman.

    It ain’t the badboy, cuz he will cheat or fuck off shortly after they marry, if at all

    It ain’t the beta, cuz she’ll be miserable the whole time, then so will he.

    Is it the Good Alpha? Does that exist?

    2. Is a woman’s attractiveness absolute or relative or both? Does Brad Pitt think that a 9/10 woman is still hot? Or is she ugly, cuz he can bang 10s on the regular?

    I believe that positive pheromones are correlated with good looks. Does that mean a 9/10 stinks to a 10/10, or do they still smell good?

    Thanks

    el chief

    Like


  31. FB

    “And don’t forget your original contention that cuckoldry is the female form of rape. Any woman who makes excuses for cuckoldry is the moral equivalent of a man who makes excuses for rape. Never stop shouting this from the rafters.”

    Yeah but he also said that he doesn’t care if women get raped.

    Like


  32. Lucifer are you aware that rape is committed very frequently by orangutans, and I think sometimes by some ducks?

    Meanwhile, cuckoldry is committed all the time, almost every year by most females, in probably at least half the birds in North America. And probably tons more animals but I dont know.

    Like


  33. Ever wonder about the OTHER reason I prefer escorts?

    //“Accidental” pregnancies are a cottage industry now.//

    Like


  34. God, I hate the chin-scratching goodness, way to skewer it “The reason we humans have evolved to be capable of wondering why we imbue genetic relationships with potency is because genetic relationships have potency.”

    I tend to agree that, aside from false rape claims, forcing another guy to pay for some other man’s child, is indeed a form of male rape. That is money and time that he could be spending on his own seed.

    Pure evil.

    Like


  35. on November 19, 2009 at 3:27 pm gunslingergregi

    ””””””””’Glen
    Dude, Roissy, you gotta relax – I agree with you that the incidents you describe and cite are hideous, but youre surely smart enough to know that a few anecdotes dont an accurate description of an entire state of affairs make.

    Just because some women cuckold doesnt mean the entire female species is composed of liars and cheats – sweeping, extreme generalizations based on a few anecdotes really isnt very intelligent. Men lie too, even you – yet the women who make ridiculous sweeping generalizations about men are emotionally driven and idiotic, too.

    I just dont get the baseless misogyny – women are just people, like men, and most women are pretty shitty morally, just like men. Men cheat, women cheat – its a wonderful world. Human beings are pretty shitty, thats just life.

    The emotionally driven misogyny based on a few stray anecdotes just comes off as weak, dripping with resentment, and unworthy of an otherwise extremely intelligent blog.

    That the law is retarded in these cases is very true and should be highlighted.
    ””””””””””

    Sweeping generalizations can easily be made because the laws apply to almost everyone and yea the law is somewhat retarded. The problem is also that law applies in a negative way to almost all men. Men are held accountable for their actions.

    Like


  36. Eric Johnson,

    The problem with so called ‘evo pysch’ is that human society, civilization and life as we know it cannot work with “jungle laws”.

    So, either find ways of minimizing our baser instincts (and their effects) or we will end up killing each other, something humans are already very good at.

    Like


  37. > probably at least half the birds in North America. And probably tons more animals but I dont know.

    I should mention that a whole slew of animals, including most mammals I believe, dont have pair bonds and male providership in the first place. So in those species cuckoldry is not possible. In those species females simply seek out the most superior male they can find, subject to the costs of traveling around and examining different ones. Accordingly, most males die virginal.

    Like


  38. Unfortunately, society won’t do so because it views the financial support of a child to be more important than the identity of the biological father.

    So true, I don’t see the government ever enforcing MPT. Keeping ANY male tied to a child financially >>>>> biological fathers. One less mouth to feed on the govt’s dime.

    And Glen – yes people are immoral, but leashing a man to care for another man’s child, UNKNOWINGLY to the man, is just fucked up and unforgivable.

    Like


  39. glen,

    impassioned rhetoric may not be the best way to answer the question, ”what is true?” but it is an effective means of rallying the troops. the only way to rouse betas from their apathetic stupor and get the legal system to treat them fairly is to highlight the out-and-out evil being perpetrated against their brethren. roissy knows this and is doing his best, i think, to help tip the scales back in his team’s favor.

    Like


  40. on November 19, 2009 at 3:31 pm Harry Flashman

    It’s because of posts like these that I am a disciple in the Church of Roissy. If there were were a God, one couldn’t but say you are doing the Lord’s work.

    I salute.

    HF

    Like


  41. Lucifer,
    Is-ought. As they say. It could be that evo-psych is harmful — its certainly conceivable. Anyway, I havent denied it.

    I’m definitely very law-and-order so if thats you too, I agree with you.

    Like


  42. Uh the cuckolding as rape meme needs to die a grisly death.

    All it does is allow apologists for adultering women to quibble and minge about how accurate the metaphor is and try to distract the issue.

    Cuckolding is dishonest, manipulative and exploitive and prima facie evidence of a complete lack of morals.

    That’s enough.

    Like


  43. “Men cheat, women cheat – its a wonderful world. Human beings are pretty shitty, thats just life.”

    In modern America, there is a huge amount of government effort that goes into managing male misbehavior and very little that goes into managing the worst parts of female behavior and some that encourages it.

    Mandatory means that men can more easily manage the psychotic behavior women will undergo when a man suggests that a paternity test be done.

    I think the rise of genetic therapies will make genetic screening routine and the cost won’t be a factor beyond that.

    Like


  44. Eric –

    Are you really likening humans to animals?

    Mind if i shoot you, skin you, then eat you?

    Like


  45. Mandatory testing would work on both sides of the fence. People are only honest when they’re being watched; mandatory testing simply keeps the honest honest. Women would be more careful with their use of birth control, as would men. Everybody wins.

    Regarding mandatory testing being an invasion of privacy, keeping the records private but available to all three parties at any time may help address the issue. Having a child is one hell of a commitment. All parties, including the woman, the man, and the child all should have access to genetic proof.

    Regarding the comparison to driving: currently, driving is a privilege, while reproduction is a right. However, citizenship is also a privilege. We already make that privilege dependent on a number of factors, and I see no problem with adding strong verification of parentage to those requirements.

    Like


  46. Making the test mandatory would probably cause a lot of unnecessary trouble for families. All you and I get in exchange for that cost is protecting hapless betas from their own choices. They can get a test if they want to, but most won’t, which will save society a lot of money.

    It seems to be in our own best interest to not advocate mandatory testing.

    Like


  47. on November 19, 2009 at 3:36 pm Marcus Aureliette

    Again, minimally honest women have nothing to fear from MPT and would welcome it.

    And do, in fact.

    I can’t see a logical argument against it. At worst, it’s just one more test added of the existing barrage of pregnancy-related tests; at best it can spare a guy 18 years of being duped into supporting someone else’s kid. The test becomes of interest only if someone is attempting to pull a fast one.

    I’d go so far as to say that a woman who’s caught trying to dupe the non-father should be charged with fraud. (Does a legal precedent for reproductive fraud exist yet?)

    Like


  48. Glen —

    First, there is no way of accurately knowing HOW MANY women cuckold, but estimations vary from 10% to as high as 33% (nearly a third) of all pregnancies. Bad money drives out good, and the catastrophic cost of cuckolding WILL SHAPE male behavior.

    Women complain that men will not marry them. Single mothers complain about this the most. This is just the fall-out from marriage all-around being a bad deal for men, with catastrophic cuckolding being among the worst.

    There is NO chance that beyond a few states (quickly overturned by the Supremes and/or Congress no doubt) MPT will ever take place, or even the ability to dis-establish paternity. Women dominate politics. Through gender solidarity, mangina pedestalization, and liberal politics. This is not going to change, and guys like Smith are akin to Don Quixote.

    What WILL change is men’s behavior. They will sensibly refuse to cohabitate, much less marry, get involved in child-raising, or spend much time/money with kids, which will be “women’s affairs.” Men will assume a 10-33 percent chance the kid is not theirs and act accordingly. Essentially moving to West African or Black Ghetto or British Chav models — ultra bad boys, or as much as possible for most men, trying to impregnate as many women as possible while avoiding responsibility for all — denying paternity, paying the min possible (think Stephen Bing and that actress, Hugh Grant’s ex) and so on.

    In other words ladies, men will become JUST WHAT YOU WANT.

    Like


  49. Mthson –

    All you and I get in exchange for that cost is protecting hapless betas from their whore of a wife’schoices.

    Like


  50. there’s two things at work here:

    contemporary feminism is really women-ism. that is, it’s less about equality than it is about enhancing female choice in a zero-sum way. it’s about increasing female choice at the expense of male choice; giving women any number of new freedoms with no corresponding responsibilities.

    the other thing is a general anti-family bias found in some leftist circles. roissy mentioned 1984 in his post, and it should be noted that a big part of that dystopian future was the destruction of the bonds between husband and wife and between parent and child. totalitarian systems maintian themselves by destorying all competing allegiances, genetic ones included.

    Like


  51. “Making the test mandatory would probably cause a lot of unnecessary trouble for families. ”

    Only in ones with deceitful adulterous wives/mothers. And they’ll be in trouble anyway, even without MPT might as well get the screaming over earlier rather than later.

    Like


  52. on November 19, 2009 at 3:41 pm Marcus Aureliette

    People are only honest when they’re being watched

    *Dishonest* people are honest only when they’re being watched.

    Some of us are honest whether anyone’s watching us or not.

    Like


  53. “No go reread the 4th amendment and think about what is required in a paternity test.”

    No search warrants necessary, no more invasive than the battery of procedures that are currently routine. What’s your point, besides trying to make it easier for the morally corrupt to financially exploit the decent?

    Like


  54. @Glen
    women are just people, like men, and most women are pretty shitty morally, just like men. Men cheat, women cheat – its a wonderful world.

    This sort of nonchalance about loose morals is what causes the decay of the family structure. Want to get divorced? Ok. Want to cheat? Ok. Someone has to have a firm hand on ensuring that marriages and parenthood remain honest institutions. With the rate of single mothers and divorce, something needs to change so there are more stable, grounded children, and therefore a more stable society.

    Yes, people cheat and lie. Fine when children aren’t involved. But not when you’re dealing with bringing life into the dishonesty.

    Like


  55. Mandatory testing would work on both sides of the fence. People are only honest when they’re being watched; mandatory testing simply keeps the honest honest. Women would be more careful with their use of birth control, as would men. Everybody wins.

    I think this is a great point.

    Like


  56. Mthson —

    Making the test mandatory would probably cause a lot of unnecessary trouble for families. All you and I get in exchange for that cost is protecting hapless betas from their own choices. They can get a test if they want to, but most won’t, which will save society a lot of money.

    It seems to be in our own best interest to not advocate mandatory testing.

    How would it cause a lot of unnecessary trouble for families? At all? I don’t understand? Unless you mean, it would increase taxes drastically, or something…?

    Weird.

    That said, cuckolding is probably not as rampant in society as some commenters would have you believe (hi whiskey!), as the 30% of paternity tests that prove cuckoldry are from a subset of men who ALREADY suspect their partners of cheating.

    Lastly, I’d modify Roissy’s maxim to:

    When a person has incentive to lie, he/she will choose lying over honesty EVERY SINGLE TIME.

    But, that’s not really revolutionary, now, is it.

    Like


  57. I’ll admit that the info on the symposium on paternity questions and the request of the MA judicial court seems to indicate the scope of the problem is greater than I was aware.

    I have the highest sympathies for Mike, Tanner, Carnell, and other duped Dads. The courts are failing them, but isn’t this really a failing of the legislature? Cuckholding is not even codified as a crime. Shouldn’t that be the first step?

    Testing on cord blood in the delivery room is not simple and it is not free. Who exactly will pay? Almost all married women deliver babies fathered by their husbands. Why insult and incriminate every women? Where is the search warrant? Where is probable cause? The spectre of Big Government barging into the delivery room to search for genetic incongruency is repugnant….especially to fatigued women who’ve just finished laboring. Private Paternity Testing already exists. As you outlined, the problem is with lack of legislation and the courts having to work without it.

    I prefer a smarter policy: link verification of Daddy ID to welfare payments. It’d be a politically viable 1st step to withdraw of subsidy of some single mothers. Even the ghetto girls claim moral superiority when they know who their “baby daddy be.” two birds , one stone. It’d be a first step to discover some misappropriated paternity and the first step to withdraw subsidy of single mothers.

    Lastly, Roissy, before you start with the ad hominems, consider that my lifetime partner count is two; words like whore, c***, etc. are meaningless to me.

    Like


  58. Cuckoldry is

    Like


  59. addendum: to clarify. any girl/woman who can not, at the very least, identify her Baby Daddy, would not be eligible for welfare.

    Like


  60. Cuckolded father finds out, files for divorce, is forced to pay child support. Has child killed.

    Right or wrong? Has this happened yet?

    Like


  61. I know the issue of MPT is sticky one legally, but as far as the family upsets go, shouldn’t be a problem. If you’ve got nothing to hide, shouldn’t be an issue. As a woman, I wouldn’t care if it were required.

    Like


  62. “Almost all married women deliver babies fathered by their husbands. Why insult and incriminate every women?”

    The whole point of it being mandatory is so that it doesn’t ‘insult and incriminate’ every woman. Again, a woman who’s baby was in fact fathered by her husband (and who knows it) should no more feel insulted than an honest shopper is by scanners at store exits. It’s a very small burden on the honest, imposed by the dishonest minority.

    Like


  63. on November 19, 2009 at 3:58 pm Marcus Aureliette

    Why insult and incriminate every women?

    How can it incriminate or insult the innocent? And is it more important to protect one honest person’s pride than it is to protect another honest person from being scammed? In the grand scheme of things, which is the greater offence?

    I’m not attacking you, nor even idly quibbling: I’m asking in earnest.

    Like


  64. (truncated earlier comment)

    It’s EVIL. You get attached to your kid more than any human being in the world. And when you discover that you were duped: you can’t just un-love the child. But you also can’t live every day of your life from now on as another man’s pissing bowl.

    I can’t imagine a more agonizing thing than what these guys were dished by their evil subhuman swine wives.

    Perhaps the best reaction upon such a discovery is to experience a few moments of temporary insanity and “discuss” things with her like you just don’t give a damn about any consequences.

    Liked by 1 person


  65. No search warrants necessary, no more invasive than the battery of procedures that are currently routine. What’s your point, besides trying to make it easier for the morally corrupt to financially exploit the decent?

    Those procedures are consented to, which is my point. If you want to make paternity testing procedures free to men, widely available, and offered, fine, just get his consent.

    If none of y’all can see the difference or the point I’m trying to make I have to question your libertarian or conservative credentials. Or at least revoke your “I’m not a hypocrite” card.

    Like


  66. Don’t forget, the numbers of 30% paternity fraud occuring where the man suspects cuckolding, and the approximate 4% of the general population that are the victims of paternity fraud… would also indicate that the amount of women trying to pull this stunt is far higher than the above numbers.

    As any married couple trying to have children knows, one boning does not usually a pregnancy make.

    For the 30% of women who get caught by men suspecting they were being cuckolded, there ought to also be a significant portion of the total (30/100% = 70% left over) wherein the woman suspected that the child might not be her husband’s, because she knew she was sleeping with another man at the time, but when the tests came back, it was actually the husband’s child all along. His sperm still swim too, you know. Granted, I have read about women being physically receptive to being impregnanted by her extra-marital lover than her husband… but still.

    If 30% of fathers who suspect they have been cuckolded are correct… I would suspect that in about 50% of the cases, the woman actually did cheat on him during the month she got pregnant – 60% of the time the interloper knocks up the woman, and 40% of the time, the husband’s swimmers win out in the “Sperm Wars.” I would also estimate then that the true numbers of the general population where cuckolding and paternal legitamacy is a valid concern, ought to rise from 4% to about 7%.

    Also, don’t forget the amount of times that a woman might have hind-brained tried to cuckold her husband in April with an interloper, but didn’t get pregnant until the month of May or June… but, the intent was still there.

    It was the University of Manchester, I believe, that did studies on “Sperm Competition.” (2 men’s sperm in one woman’s womb within 48hrs). They went through lots of things – in fact, even our bodies are designed to combat cuckolding. The shape of the glans, or the head of the penis, is designed to push further into the woman, and on the “out-stroke”, the shape is designed to pull another man’s sperm out and away from their goal. Also, the whole fixation with penis size is thought to be related to sperm competition – as in, further penetration is closer to the goal than another’s sperm. Also, if I remember correctly, semen, which is the vessel for sperm, is actively hostile to foreign sperm.

    What was really striking to me, at the time, was that among the couples they surveyed, they found that by the first 50 times a couple had copulated, “sperm competition” had occured at least once in 10% of the cases… but by the time the couple had copulated 500 times, sperm competition had occured at least once in 50% of the couples.

    Like


  67. Why insult and incriminate every women?

    I take issue with the idea that MPT would “insult and incriminate every woman”.

    There are plenty of ways we are already required to “prove” ourselves in society that are completely benign: for instance, presenting your ID to a bouncer at a club, to “prove” you are over 21. Doesn’t this imply that all of the people in line are potentially not over 21, and therefore attempting to break the law by imbibing alcohol while underage? Yeah, it does, but I doubt you’ll find many of the 21-and-overs screaming about how the bouncer is insulting them by implying they might be attempting to break the law. The only people who have to be worried, in this case, are the ones who aren’t over 21.

    Same deal.

    Like


  68. Testing on cord blood in the delivery room is not simple and it is not free. Who exactly will pay?

    What is the cost of a hospital stay for a delivery? How many thousands of dollars? Probably between two and over ten depending on length and complications.

    You’d be adding no more than 10% to the cost (a one-time bump) and probably much less. Just like you don’t pay out of pocket for the myriad of other blood tests the hospital conducts, neither would you pay for this one.

    Like


  69. Those procedures are consented to

    You sign in writing to consent to every test a hospital runs on you?

    Like


  70. The Tennessee bill mandating paternity testing summary here – http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=HB0025&ga=106

    Set to become law January 1, 2010.

    Like


  71. Seeking Alpha,

    Paternity testing costs less than 500$ today. The price would go down further, once it is used more often.

    Like


  72. Carnel Smith is a hero. He came up with the OJ’esque phrase:

    “If the genes don’t fit, you gotta aquit!”.

    On a related note back during the OJ hoopla I was too young to see things for what they were, and was shouting for OJ’s blood along with everybody else. But now that I took the MRA RedPill and saw The Matrix for what it is, I now understand OJ.

    Like


  73. i don’t like the idea of laws mandating the collection of genetic information. that’s a very slippery slope to some very unseemly things. it doesn’t need to be mandatory as much as men need to start insisting on it before they consent to being named the father.

    i understand that for married men it’s different, because they are automatically considered the legal father. that is one change i would make. give every married man the option to request a paternity test before putting his name on the birth certificate.

    Like


  74. Lastly, Roissy, before you start with the ad hominems, consider that my lifetime partner count is two; words like whore, c***, etc. are meaningless to me.

    But you’re tingling for some ad-homs, aren’t you?

    Does your husband know that you send unsolicited correspondence to a notorious womanizer who routinely calls you foul names?

    Like


  75. So what do you guys think? Upfront test the day of the birth or unknown test sometime in the first year?

    Can you do it before the birth?

    Like


  76. I would also advocate that women who are caught culkolding a guy should be required to undergo female cicumcision. So should Wendy Schwartz just on general principles.

    Like


  77. Submission for Beta of the Month:

    Matthew Larrimore of Colorado. 4 times has visited the town that’s the setting of Twilight. Stand idly by while wife discusses how vampires help her relive the beginning stages of her marriage.

    http://chuckross.blogspot.com/2009/11/husbands-suck-vampires-suck-guess-who.html

    Like


  78. “If none of y’all can see the difference or the point I’m trying to make ”

    Trying is right. As in grasping for straws.

    I have to question your libertarian or conservative credentials. Or at least revoke your “I’m not a hypocrite” card.”

    I’m neither conservative nor libertarian.

    Whether or not I’m a hypocrite, I’ll leave for others to decide.

    Of course MPT won’t happen any time soon. But I honestly do not understand how routine paternity testing every birth (to protect all concerned) is any greater violation than a woman deliberately deceiving a man into presumed fatherhood.

    Like


  79. SA —

    Unknown test sometime in the first year? That’s so sketchball. Be a man.

    Like


  80. Whats a sketchball?

    Like


  81. A ball of sketch.

    Like


  82. Feisty this afternoon Sarah?

    If you’re 95% certain the kid is yours, you would still recommend the test immediately after the delivery, knowing that in her emotional and exhausted state your wife would probably be confused and distressed by it?

    PT is still pretty rare. That’s a fact. It will be a shock to your wife if you ask for it immediately.

    Ideally you could do it during the pregnancy. Is that possible?

    Like


  83. Unbelievably, sketchball has definitions in urban dictionary and other sites.

    Like


  84. EL CHIEF–

    write some more blogs yo, you are better than 99% of these other garbage collecting retards….

    gg

    Like


  85. Problem nr one, you can’t stay to naive in this world, full of lies, you would far away been eaten if you agreed to follow the distorted belief’s of what our society teaches, feminism has bounced out of distortion, and laws are leaving innocent to be crucified.
    Problem nr 2, you cant turn evil either, you need to navigate through this path.
    If a my man would ask me, to do a MPT, i would understand and do it. I would understand his misbelief, and i would think he is smart by doing so, again, i have to be personal here, i would never cheat and never lie a big lie, but its hard to prove it on the internet, and in real life as well. I Believe that MPT should be implemented as a routine. People, men and women lie, it’s natural, sadly, and lies have been implied since ages.
    MPT keeps things clear and simple and saves a lot of despair for the sake of the children and men.

    Like


  86. roissy, i understand what you mean. but wouldn’t MPT harm the alphas?
    i mean if an alpha gets a chick pregnant he’s stuck. no more betas to take care of the kid.

    the pua lifestyle would be short lived. unless all guys used condoms.
    but c’mon who would want to keep doing that?

    Like


  87. The problem with so called ‘evo pysch’ is that human society, civilization and life as we know it cannot work with “jungle laws”.

    The entire lynch pin of western civilization is built upon the bedrock of Locke, who advocated creating a society in congruence with ‘Natural Law’. As it stands now, this is how society is arranged, except that we are lied to, and are wilfully blind about what is ‘Natural’.

    You can try to overturn at least the last two centuries of prevailing political philosophy, refute all concepts of ‘Natural Law’; good luck on that though.

    Like


  88. 😀 What are the odds I’d make my post exactly then?

    Like


  89. al–

    Ok, I have sympathy for these situations and think agree that no child support should be required, but this statement above is wrong. Driving is a privilege, reproduction is not. It’s potentially an infringement on the right of the father should that father not wish to have paternity confirmed to have it be mandatory. ***

    If you want to create a regime where at the request of the father a free and prompt paternity test is given with all the attendance results you outline, fine, but mandatory testing is just as much an infringement on personal liberty and choice.

    Unacceptable.

    Part of the idea is to not raise issues of the man having elevated levels of distrust of the particular woman. Since the best estimates are that a blended 10% of all births are not to the man the mother designates as the father, it’s a very large phenomenon.

    It’s almost certainly going up too as feminist society becomes more and more permissive about female cheating, and demands that there be less and less consequences to it, oppressive though that is to men. (E.g. no fault divorce theft. Feminist American culture now blaming the husband as more when he cheats — but also when she does. Incredibly. But truly.)

    You do have a point though. There will be (fairly rare) cases where the man REALLY doesn’t want to know, as opposed to just saying he doesn’t want to, to win some sort of pedestalling, self sacrifice “my love is strong” (idiot beta/omega) points with her. There may be cases where he suspects it’s not his child but it could be and he wants to believe it is. I still find this troubling because I have impulses of wanting to save him from his bad judgment, thinking he’ll regret it later e.g. at divorce time, which is probably significantly more likely for a man going having these thoughts and reasons for them. It’s also troubling because he’ll get so much overweighted cultural propaganda in that direction from the feminist friendly media.

    But maybe opt out would be ok. Maybe. Have to think on it more. Interested in others’ reactions to opt out.

    But opt in, as you advocate is insufficient. Sure I’d opt in, but lots of men wouldn’t, with all the propaganda there’d be not to.

    Like


  90. Mr. M —

    Were they written by me? Haha.

    SA —

    Well, don’t throw it on her the second she pops out a kid. Talk about it before. You can totally talk about this like a sane person, too, without coming across as not trusting her. If she understands (which she might), then you won’t have to worry about this — but if she doesn’t (which is likely), just explain to her that you’re a big advocate of father’s rights, and, while you obviously trust her, you feel that you need to take this step, personally, for the cause. You know, symbolically.

    Like


  91. Seeking Alpha-

    Can you do it before the birth?

    Yes. By amniocentesis. Same way sampling is done for e.g. Downs syndrome and other genetic diseases. It’s an invasive procedure though that carries some risk to the mother a more risk to the fetus. (Still low though if done by skilled doctors — it’s mostly risk of their messing up.) So it would require the mother’s consent. Unlike after birth.

    Men should put consent to routine paternity testing at birth and prior to signing of birth certificate in your prenups. Seriously.

    Liked by 1 person


  92. on November 19, 2009 at 4:32 pm sanabituranima

    “Any woman who even utters a peep against MPT has shown her cards. She is a filthy wretched cuntrag who wishes the system to be rigged in her favor “

    Or she’s a rape victim too traumatised to tell anyone.

    It happens.

    Very often.

    Like


  93. @ LILGIRL

    Probably right. I’d assume it would happen similar to the pre-nup discussion. It’s not something she’s thrilled about but she gets it.

    I guess I just don’t see the need to go through with the discussion at all if you don’t have to.

    It’s tough. I’m not really sure what I’ll do. Hah, I’m sure I’ll bring it up though right here in a couple years.

    Like


  94. “Thanks doll. No go reread the 4th amendment and think about what is required in a paternity test.”

    The test itself would not be mandatory, but a prerequisite to the listing of the father as such. 4th amendment violation? How so any more so than mandatory blood tests before marriage?

    Like


  95. > Eric –
    Are you really likening humans to animals?
    Mind if i shoot you, skin you, then eat you?

    Theres certainly people to whom I’d enjoy doing that — or at least the shooting part; I’d get that done first, and then see what kind of mood I’m in. And mine is a legal, natural, and commonplace state of mind. I only mind if you actually do it.

    Again, I am a law-and-order rightie who would execute violent criminals. That you might convince me to stop doing evolutionary psychology is possible. But its unlikely that you will stop the entire momentum of that way of seeing things, which is not going to revolutionize the world but will probably become a common reference point. Therefore, you should help prepare a right-of-center interpretation of it. Most people think it is, just in itself, more right than left. But of course thats not necessarily the way it will be interpreted.

    Like


  96. I guess I just don’t see the need to go through with the discussion at all if you don’t have to.

    Um, cuz it’s weird?

    Paternity testing forces her to be transparent — you should be, too.

    Like


  97. @ Doug

    Yes. By amniocentesis. Same way sampling is done for e.g. Downs syndrome and other genetic diseases.

    Interesting. Would it be an extra part of the amniocentesis process or could it be done without any additional trouble? Could it even be done without mothers consent (assuming she gave consent to the amniocentesis)?

    Men should put consent to routine paternity testing at birth and prior to signing of birth certificate in your prenups. Seriously.

    Presumably you can’t be forced to sign anything though, right? In other words, if you refused to sign the birth certificate until after the paternity test, you’d be within your rights, correct?

    Like


  98. I knew Roissy would get support from girls who’ve never carried nor delivered an infant. To those delightfully naive girls, I say: may I search your purse? your body? your cell phone, your blood, and your vagina ………for signs of cheating?

    why not? you’ve got nothing to hide. and while I’m at it………you will pay for my search efforts.

    [editor: such a drama queen! hey dumbass, women already have to submit to blood tests in the hospital. they seem to be emotionally ok after all that. a swab of the baby’s cheek and a sample of blood from the putative father is hardly “invasive” of the woman. we’ve been through this before dumbfuck. mpt removes the element of “insult” to the women by making the test mandatory, in the same way mandatory drug tests for prospective employees removes the personalization of insult to them. honest women have nothing to fear and dishonest women — or women such as yourself who want to enable dishonest women — have every reason to bleat lamely about so-called “insults and incriminations”. you just don’t like that an unfair power advantage to cheat and whore it up consequence-free is being wrested from you.]

    Like


  99. @ anony

    How about MPT before the man can sign the birth certificate as the father? You wouldn’t be violating her privacy, it’d be the child and the father who provide the DNA. And just like you have to get a signature notarized to prove its you, presumably you should not be allowed to sign a birth certificate without proof.

    Like


  100. How bout this: a man’s right to a paternity test at the time of birth, if he wants it, without consent OR knowledge of the woman? Anyone suggest that already? Does it already exist anywhere?

    Like


  101. “Mandatory means that men can more easily manage the psychotic behavior women will undergo when a man suggests that a paternity test be done. ”

    True, but it’s easy enough for a husband to get the test done without his wife’s knowledge. Paternity test kits are available in drug stores just about everywhere.

    If the guy gets bad news, his next step is to keep quiet about it and manufacture some excuse to move the family to Georgia. Then he waits a few months, files divorce, and demands a paternity test.

    I think MPT is a good idea but realistically it’s more likely that the feminist element will get legislation through banning private paternity testing.

    I was surprised to learn that in New Jersey, a man who is a defendant in a paternity suit is not automatically entitled to a DNA test. That’s how much power the feminists have.

    Like


  102. on November 19, 2009 at 4:41 pm СОФИЯ/sofia

    LILGRL,

    I was going to revise this too:

    Roissy Maxim #666: When a woman has incentive to lie, she will choose lying over honesty EVERY SINGLE TIME.

    …but I decided to read through your comments first, and lo and behold, someone already did the job!

    Like


  103. SA —

    As far as I know, you will always need her consent, as you will always need her DNA.

    anony —

    The only way I would be 110% ok with a paternity test (and not feel like I was being “incriminated”, if a teeny-tiny bit) would be if they were mandatory. Also, this is not about cheating — it’s about paying for someone else’s child. Cheating is not “against the law” and it’s probably not something that can be mandated as such. However, if a man discovers a child is NOT HIS and is still forced by the courts to pay child support? That’s a totally different story.

    Like


  104. If we are going to use English common law for paternity, why don’t we use it for adultery too?

    Like


  105. Sofia —

    Right. And, honestly, if people have SERIOUS incentive to lie and they tell the truth, then, well, good for them but also…suckasssss.

    [editor: in the arena of reproduction, given incentives, women are more likely to lie than men. because they lose more from telling the truth.]

    Like


  106. @ LILGIRL

    Why would you need her DNA? You’re establishing a match between yourself and the baby.

    Like


  107. LILGRL; SA —

    but if she doesn’t (which is likely), just explain to her that you’re a big advocate of father’s rights, and, while you obviously trust her, you feel that you need to take this step, personally, for the cause. You know, symbolically.

    Say: “In the case of a girl like you, it’s a very small risk. But it’s the risk of a very bad thing. Very. It a cheap and painless and simple to take samples test. Cheek swab. It’s long been a matter of policy for me, before I ever met you, and I think it should be for all men, to require it of any woman.”

    Tell her you can only afford the time and money to raise a very few kids, probably two at most, and you want them both to be absolutely certainly your own kids with your own DNA. Cause you think or rather know that DNA is real important and if you’re gonna parent in the incredibly expensive to do so in time and money modern world, you want to do if for your own little person, not someone else’s, especially since you have no reason to believe you shoot blanks.

    Like


  108. > Interesting. Would it be an extra part of the amniocentesis process or could it be done without any additional trouble? Could it even be done without mothers consent (assuming she gave consent to the amniocentesis)?

    Yes, that can definitely be done without consent.

    I dont know for sure, but I guess amnicentesis is routine now to look for Down’s, unless youre very religious and dont want it or something.

    Of course, the woman might grill the man at the time of amniocentesis. Thats less likely at the time of birth. But heres what you can do to really protect to man from an inquisition: make the results available to him for one year if he doesnt want them at birth. At one year, destroy the records.

    Like


  109. Here is how the feminists will ban the private testing: Some guy will get a private test, and the results will come back negative, but will be wrong. He’ll go off the deep end and do something violent, only to learn that he is was the actual father. Then they will use this isolated incident (or maybe one or two incidents) as an excuse to bring the whole thing to a screeching halt (sort of like the thing with foreign brides).

    Like


  110. LIL and SA —
    You definitely need consent to get the amniocentesis, of course.

    After you have that material, you can certainly run paternity testing on it without consent (thats what I meant by ot needing consent). It doesnt take a “special” kind of amnio — any amnio material that can be tested for Downs’ et al, can be tested for paternity.

    Like


  111. Anon, such a test can be done with arbitrarily high accuracy. Its basically never wrong. But I agree with you that thats a common way that bad policies arise.

    Like


  112. on November 19, 2009 at 5:54 pm Wendy Schwartz

    And no, the woman shouldn’t HAVE to give consent of the testing, but she must be notified PRIOR to the testing.

    (A woman should also have the right to know if her husband thinks she’s a cheating whore.)

    Like


  113. I think one of the best ways to get mandatory DNA testing done at birth is for duped dads to start suing hospitals for damages.

    Many hospitals have active policies where when they find out about cuckolding, they actively conceal it from the father “for the good of the family.”

    If any guy ever finds out that this occured, he ought to take the hospital & the doctors to court, and try to sue the living bejeezus out of their very, very deep pockets.

    Soon, you will see doctors demanding full disclosure of paternity so they won’t get sued.

    Society is very sympathetic to those poor, hard-done by lying mothers with their wailing child. It’s pretty hard to over-ride the impulse not to punish, even though it is morally correct.

    A rich doctor though? Nah, society loves to see those kinds of people get screwed out of their money.

    Sue the doctor, if they knew, for past childsupport payments, plus mental anguish, and general fucked-in-the-headedness. I remember correctly, a doctor has already been sued for child support in regard to a botched abortion where the child survived, lol, or a hysterectomy that didn’t take… can’t quite remember which… but I remember a doctor has already been sued for childsupport, through means of his malpractice – so the road is already opening.

    Like


  114. Eric:

    The drugstore tests are self administered, and you mail in the swabs (the so-called “peace of mind” type tests). With that much room for human error (and given how incompetent some people are), this could easily happen eventually. Hell, even the reporting could go wrong (i.e., the person who entered the result into the computer you that call could have screwed up).

    Like


  115. Seeking Alpha–

    In other words, if you refused to sign the birth certificate until after the paternity test, you’d be within your rights, correct?

    Yes.

    But that’s NOT the time to raise it. That will feel a whole lot less like “it’s just a general policy I have had since before I met you and it has nothing to do with you really. I feel less need of it from you than I would from anyone else but I’d want it from anyone.” It will feel much more to her like you have serious real world doubts if you wait until then and then “panic”. She’ll use the word.

    Raise it with the prenup. Say other men talked you into it on a men’s site.

    Like


  116. @ Doug

    Not a bad idea. It’s still being drafted, so its worth raising. How would you even include it though? I’ll have to talk to the lawyer about it I guess.

    Like


  117. fedrz–

    Many hospitals have active policies where when they find out about cuckolding, they actively conceal it from the father “for the good of the family.”

    If any guy ever finds out that this occured, he ought to take the hospital & the doctors to court, and try to sue the living bejeezus out of their very, very deep pockets.

    Soon, you will see doctors demanding full disclosure of paternity so they won’t get sued.

    This is a good idea. I can’t think of a general legal principles reason it couldn’t be successful either, esp. if hospitals do know in a substantial portion of cases.

    Like


  118. I see, I didnt know there were any mail-in ones. You could definitely have user error. Or a fake-out by another person who spots the test materials lying around.

    As for lab errors, some kinds, maybe almost all, can be essentially eliminated by doing the test twice. Even if one person mis-enters the data once per thousand cases, theres only a one in 1000^2 = 1,000,000 chance that the first and second person will both mis-enter the data on the same case. If thats not acceptable you could even do it three times.

    Like


  119. @seeking alpha,

    how about PPT and laws to codify cuckholding as a crime?

    how about linking welfare payments to a girl who, at the very least, can name her Baby Daddy.? girls who can not name the Baby Daddy are seen as major morally repugnant by most. who would defend her? I am certain both my state and federal congressmen would not. After the initial “no welfare, honey” policy begins, we move on up the socioeconomic ladder to other single moms.

    Like


  120. Wendy Schwartz

    And no, the woman shouldn’t HAVE to give consent of the testing, but she must be notified PRIOR to the testing.

    So she can hide the kid? lol. Pretty transparent there.

    (A woman should also have the right to know if her husband thinks she’s a cheating whore.)

    Again, so she can take steps to fool him? These aren’t “rights” you’re demanding — they’re privileges and advantages.

    Like


  121. Seeking Alpha-

    How would you even include it though?

    Very simple really. She consents ahead of time with respect to each birth during your marriage, and agrees her consent cannot be withdrawn except by a subsequent agreement in writing between the two of you. This is a material condition to your both agreeing to enter into marriage.

    Like


  122. ““Any woman who even utters a peep against MPT has shown her cards. She is a filthy wretched cuntrag who wishes the system to be rigged in her favor “
    Or she’s a rape victim too traumatised to tell anyone.
    It happens.
    Very often.”

    All the more reason to get it out into the open. Covering it up because she’s too traumatised is certainly not going to help anyone.

    Like


  123. At the very least, MPT should be ordered by the court in all child support cases.

    Like


  124. @ anony –

    Those are all great. And more complicated. And potentially more immoral.

    Or we could mandate paternity testing similar to how we mandate blood tests before marriage in some states or similar measures.

    As for the Baby Daddy, the idea that you’d welcome an unjust law because it could be easily passed based on the biases of society tells me a lot about you.

    Like


  125. so….to re-cap:

    -mandatory baby daddy tests

    [editor: good idea.]

    -mandatory pre-nups

    [if it weren’t for the alimony/cs racket, this idea wouldn’t need to be mooted.]

    -mandatory IQ tests before a US citizen can vote

    [the founders required property ownership. perhaps they were onto something.]

    -mandatory drivers for diplomats

    [don’t they already have those?]

    -mandatory bitch slap to those who argue the above list

    [happy to oblige!]

    cool, now we’re getting somewhere. To Anony and all else who disagree with the fundamentals behind this post: If the US hadn’t gone so soft and pathetic then the men would not have had to go so hard. (although admittedly, some of the boys here enjoy going in hard….pun.)

    [the us is a power in decline. the hallmark of all powers in decline is feminization of the culture. that is what we have now.]

    Like


  126. on November 19, 2009 at 5:06 pm Marcus Aureliette

    I knew Roissy would get support from girls who’ve never carried nor delivered an infant. To those delightfully naive girls, I say: may I search your purse? your body? your cell phone, your blood, and your vagina ………for signs of cheating?

    why not? you’ve got nothing to hide. and while I’m at it………you will pay for my search efforts.

    If you have a logical objection to their support, what difference does it make if the women have borne a child or not? Would it carry more weight to hear a mother support it? Or even more weight if a mother of triplets supports it?

    Also, you seem to be manufacturing slippery slopes out of nothing.

    Like


  127. @ Doug

    But you don’t need her consent in the first place…

    @ Welmer

    Agreed that’s an excellent minimum. Of course that won’t protect men who don’t divorce their wives, but it’d certainly be a good first step and less controversial.

    Like


  128. Politics is the art of the possible, Seeking Alpha. Political-philosophy types (like me) dont have to play that game, but those who want to really do something in reality, do.

    Like


  129. on November 19, 2009 at 5:08 pm gunslingergregi

    Think about it though the gov does need to be extricated from the personnal lives of people. Child support needs to go.

    Like


  130. Sorry Eric, no idea what you are referring to?

    Like


  131. Timmy says: “If we are going to use English common law for paternity, why don’t we use it for adultery too?”

    Bingo!

    This is the same double standard that family lawyers use to justify alimony with the “till death do us part” vow, meanwhile ignoring all the other vows like “foresaking all others, etc”.

    Chinese Menu style: Make some laws apply, and others not apply, and then make the applications to only one gender.

    Some Justice.

    Like


  132. Once a man admits paternity, if he attempts to “dodge” child support or court dates, they can then legally garnish his wages without even notifying him.

    It would alleviate most of the problems with men dodging payments, dodging the “certified letter”, dodging warrants, etc. — Wendy Schwartz

    Pretty wobbly logic there. Most men who are “deadbeat” dads are not behind by choice, but by impoverishment – often due to seasonal employment. Very few “deadbeat” dads are financially affluent – N.O.W. just lies to everyone and tries to say that all men are evil beings trying to screw over women… kinda like how a sot like you shows up and tries to turn a thread about one of the worst ways a woman can violate a man’s life, and try to make it sound like “evil men” are fucking women over by dodging their responsibilities. Knowing paternity to be 100% true isn’t going to a damn thing to help these men get good paying jobs… but, telling N.O.W. to shut the fuck and stop hindering any programs to help men pull themselves out of a hole by their economic bootstraps, most certainly would help this situation.

    Oddly, 100% assured maternity does absolutely nothing regard to improving the payment rate of “deadbeat moms”, who when on the other end of childsupport, statistically don’t pay their required support at a significantly higher rate than men.

    Like


  133. Dreamer–

    A large part in solving this lies in fidelity and stronger morals on the woman’s part. If she weren’t cheating and / or sleeping with multiple men at once, then this wouldn’t happen.

    Yes. But there being bad consequences for cheating will tend to make it go down. Removing consequences of female cheating and out of wedlock pregnancy HAS made both go way up. Cheating women used to get nothing or next to nothing in divorce and might very well lose custody to their children, unless they could come to some agreement with their aggrevied ex husband. It happened a lot less then.

    Mandatory Paternity Testing would lead to a less cheating as well. Or at least being more careful when cheating. Both actually.

    Like


  134. I love the photos at the end. I’m sure they look beta in everyday life, but the idea that they would voluntarily agree to these goofball poses is just fantastic.

    Like


  135. This would never fly, but an workable solution is as follows.
    1. Mother must name the father of child, or say unknown, before birth. This information will be made available to the father, if named, or husband either way, if married. If she’s unmarried, she can say unknown.
    2. Upon birth, paternity testing must be offered to the named father, paid for by insurance or state. Father can decline.
    3. If the named father is not the father, the paternity test must be paid for by the mother, and/or it constitutes a legally actionable violation of the marriage contract.

    A woman can name the father, and the father can decline to be tested, and they live in ignorant bliss. Probably a surprisingly popular option.

    Most likely outcome: women change their behavior, i.e. use more birth control.

    Like


  136. 4th Amendment likely wouldn’t apply, since no crime is involved, and as such no potential punishment from the state is forthcoming regardless of the outcome of the test.

    It would also have to be mandatory. A law that makes the test an option to all prospective Fathers implies that he may not in fact be the Father at all, and as such has no legal right to testing a child that isn’t his, unless that right was rolled up into marriage. That would be a great way to leverage men into marriage though.

    I’m surprised the over-the-counter paternity tests are legal. Although, they probably aren’t explicitly legal and simply haven’t been outlawed yet.

    Like


  137. Seeking Alpha–

    But you don’t need her consent in the first place…

    You might for it to be admissible in court. You also absolutely can’t count on the law remaining the same and not getting worse for men in these areas. Be sure to remind you lawyer of that btw.

    Like


  138. “I’m surprised the over-the-counter paternity tests are legal. Although, they probably aren’t explicitly legal and simply haven’t been outlawed yet.”

    They aren’t legally admissible as evidence, if that’s what you mean. If you mean you’re surprised that they aren’t illegal to conduct, I suspect that will come at some point for the reasons I specified above.

    Like


  139. Is a father’s signature required on a birth certificate in all states? Do any just allow the mother to simply assert a father, esp if no male shows up at the hospital? How do other countries do it? It’s a bureaucratic procedure with enormous moral and legal import. Which is why, my dear al, your invocation of the 4th amendment is off base. you seem to be basing it on the idea that MPT is a presumption of female guilt – the opposite of a presumption of innocence in court cases. but this isn’t a court proceeding, or a crime secne or police investigation, which is where the fourth amendment is typically invoked. It’s an official state registrar, a database, which is referenced for the state to make legal decisions and enforcement actions of enormous consequence. MPT just ensures the accuracy of this database. It’s shocking, when you think about it, that it isn’t already in force.

    NYT article a sad read, and, really, surprising in itself, in that the national paper of liberal orthodoxy actually published such a piece. Roissy’s post should be pasted into the comments somewhere on the site, or in the NYT magazine page where the article appeared.

    Like


  140. ” Lastly, Roissy, before you start with the ad hominems, consider that my lifetime partner count is two; words like whore, c***, etc. are meaningless to me.”

    What are you, a cat? No-one gets more than one life-time partner.

    Like


  141. on November 19, 2009 at 6:21 pm Wendy Schwartz

    fedrz–

    I sincerely have no idea what you were trying to say in your post, but it seems you were trying to claim that “men who just don’t pay because they don’t want to” don’t exist!!!

    There are plenty of deadbeat’s who manage to dodge paying for a good, long time by just not answering to bench warrants, not showing up at hearings that are to determine his income/support amounts, not paying on time and waiting until they actually have to come FIND them to pay what they owe.

    This isn’t something only rich or poor men. There are many men in all social classes and all races who “dodge” payments as much as they possibly can. One popular way is to REFUSE to admit paternity and then just not answer court summons to come and GET one.

    Like


  142. on November 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm gunslingergregi

    Why not Mongo?

    Like


  143. Welmer–

    At the very least, MPT should be ordered by the court in all child support cases.

    In most states there is an extreme “best interests of the child” ideology, with the man’s interests being given very short shrift. In practice it’s a best interests of the mother and child ideology. Often men are deemed to have “accepted the fatherhood role” unchanably within some fairly short period of time, often two years — never mind that the did so based on the mother’s fraud. Very serious fraud. After than DNA means nothing to their judgments on child support, outrageously enough.

    The new Georgia law is hopeful though. That black engineer is a hero to men around the country.

    Like


  144. on November 19, 2009 at 6:24 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Furthermore, the parent who IS the “full time” custodial parent can’t just “pay it when they have it” if the kid needs groceries or electric in the house can they?

    Why should a parent who doesn’t even LIVE with child get out of their responsibility just because “my job sucks and I don’t make much”?

    The parent (whether man or woman) has to RAISE them and feed them and provide shelter and clothing every single day. If they just stopped feeding them because “their job sucks”….what do you think would happen? The custodial parent does have that luxury, so why should you???

    Like


  145. If you mean you’re surprised that they aren’t illegal to conduct, I suspect that will come at some point for the reasons I specified above.

    I meant legal to conduct at all. I can swab some woman’s child and send its genetic material off to a lab, that knows who neither of us are, or what our relationship is.

    Like


  146. maurice–

    Is a father’s signature required on a birth certificate in all states? Do any just allow the mother to simply assert a father, esp if no male shows up at the hospital?

    I think they usually try to get the signature.

    In most states though marriage creates the presumption that the child is the husband’s when born during the marriage. There’s been a battle to even make that rebuttable, even when DNA testing is early.

    There was even a feminist movement in Britain to ban over the counter DNA testing. Not sure how that turned out.

    Like


  147. Just started reading your blog, which I thoroughly enjoy, although as “an independent woman”, I want to not like. I totally agree with you on paternity testing at birth. The women in this article are evil, and I fear that they are the rule, and not the exception. The woman “Stephanie” in the first case is going to hell. I am sure of it.

    Like


  148. Battered husband snaps:

    For almost 20 years he submitted in order to keep the peace. When she demanded he change his surname to prove he loved her, he agreed.

    When she insisted he not see his friends or family, he complied. When she taunted him by resuming an affair with a former boyfriend and suggested he ”grow some balls”, he swallowed the insults.

    When she said he was too smelly to use the toilet at home, he restrained himself until he arrived at work. When she refused to let him sleep in their double bed, he dossed down in the spare room on a camp stretcher.

    He was sole breadwinner but she rationed his cigarettes – just 12 each day – and controlled their money. Each week after withdrawing the housekeeping money he handed over the cash, his ATM card and receipts.

    Like


  149. “Here is how the feminists will ban the private testing”

    I think that’s a good point, but it seems to me that as long as private testing is legal in some jurisdictions, it will basically impossible to stop people from doing it.

    Like


  150. if I’m wrong on the science, apologies, but you need part of the male dna to test for paternity. Generally, if the man refuses to hand over a portion of his dna, then the state can’t seize it without unreasonably barring a warrant. Accusation of a crime is not actually material.

    [give mpt the clause that particularly stupid or beta men can opt out if they so choose. but make them go through a battery of paperwork so that the women can’t bitch to their husbands who *do* decide to go through with the test that they had the option to back out of it. iow, give the men the plausible deniability of being able to say to their wives “hey, it’s standard procedure, everyone does it, no questions asked”.]

    now, if you wish to argue this would not be ‘unreasonable’ enjoy that.

    [a cheek swab is not any more unreasonable than nosepicking. the libertards blindspot is their idiocy regarding human nature.]

    All I’m personally saying is that you should not force a man to submit to the test if he wishes to NOT have his paternity confirmed; to do otherwise, imho, infringes on his own damn choices and right to be an idiot. Easy example: some religious beliefs wouldn’t agree to it.

    [the man doesn’t have to know the results of the test. he can request the results not be revealed to him. if he wishes to do that it’s his metagrave.]

    A system that all but coerces him into agreeing to paternity testing, go to it. I’m fine with my tax dollars supporting it, just like I’m fine with my tax dollars supporting birth control. I’m also not advocating that you need the woman’s consent, bc no.

    Like


  151. Seeking Alpha–

    So what would the men here do? Upfront test the day of the birth or unknown test sometime in the first year?

    Waiting is a very bad idea. You’ll bond except maybe less because you know a test is coming up. It’s crazy.

    Right after birth.

    Further she should know about it before you’re married. It’s a disincentive to cheat. Yeah there are others, and we all want to think they never ever would of course, but add this one.

    Like


  152. this post seems somewhat contrary to the spirit of the this blog. Yes it is evil for a women to cuckold a man.

    A premise of this blog is that women innately deceive as part of their natural tendency for hypergamy. fair enough. Game is the answer to combat this

    It seems to me that the author would argue that if the man wasnt Beta and had tight enough game he wouldnt be cuckolded in the first place. Furthermore why should the government help to mitigate Beta behavior?

    Like


  153. SA —

    I don’t understand why you’re trying to be all sneaky about it. The best way to present this (assuming you don’t suspect her of cuckoldry) is to make it as transparent and “not about her” as possible. Like Doug said — bring it up early, and tell her it’s just how you feel IN GENERAL, not about her. If you bring this up, transparently, I don’t see her objecting at all.

    Look, there are cases in which she’ll cheat and cuckold him and he’ll find out and he’ll still forgive her and whatever. Fine. I don’t have a problem with people settling their own problems. What I have a problem with is when the guy is forced by the courts to pay for a child that is not his. That’s all. If he wants to pay on his own, whatever, that’s not an issue.

    Like


  154. PS- law and order, miranda, etc., highlight the 4A implications in the criminal sphere but it is applicable (especially under the Warren & Burger Courts) to more than that, such as the sanctity of your person and home.

    I was grounding my own personal feelings within the US Constitution, but it’s a philosophical point you all may or may not agree with. I don’t think women should have to have abortions or use birth control, sadly in some cases, and I don’t think men should have to have their paternity proven. The man should have a *choice* not to.

    Like


  155. I don’t think over-the-counter paternity tests will hold up in court.

    Like


  156. Sarah,

    To be clear you’re advocating lying to her but calling me sneaky, right?

    Like


  157. Just ask women if they would like to randomly select their infant after birth from the lot of them born that day. It doesn’t matter eh?

    Like


  158. “A premise of this blog is that women innately deceive as part of their natural tendency for hypergamy. fair enough. Game is the answer to combat this”

    I think that’s a good point. As I recall, Roissy said a few posts back that it’s ok for a man to lie to get laid. Fundamentally, how is this any different from a woman lying to a man in order to get money from him?

    If deception is fair in the battle of the sexes, then what’s the problem with cuckoldry? Besides, it seems to me that a smart, cautious man is very unlikely to be cuckolded.

    Like


  159. Glen–

    The emotionally driven misogyny based on a few stray anecdotes just comes off as weak, dripping with resentment, and unworthy of an otherwise extremely intelligent blog.

    That the law is retarded in these cases is very true and should be highlighted.

    Feminists fight changing these laws tooth and nail.

    Like


  160. on November 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm Marcus Aureliette

    Feminists fight changing these laws tooth and nail.

    Not all of us.

    Like


  161. anony —

    I see where you’re trying to come from, but I don’t understand you. What man would not want to know that a child was, well, his child? If he was the kind of man who’d willingly raise another man’s child, then what does it matter? If he’s not, then what does it matter? I don’t get it.

    Like


  162. Also, Georgia National Hero dude should give seminars in all 50 states. Some rich guy or foundation should pay him to do it, and hire an army of lawyers to work out all the details. How do you think the feminists succeeded in making our legal system a biased mockery of justice over the last 40+ years??

    Like


  163. SA —

    How is that lying to her? If your real reason for wanting the paternity test is because you don’t trust her (and you’re not even married yet), and you think you will be cuckolded, then tell her that. Also, don’t marry her. Jeez.

    Like


  164. Glen–

    The emotionally driven misogyny based on a few stray anecdotes just comes off as weak, dripping with resentment, and unworthy of an otherwise extremely intelligent blog.

    Utter hogwash.

    I couldn’t agree less.

    Roissy had done a tremendous amount of awareness raising among men in the 2.5 years his blog has been around.

    Further some “misogyny” to counter the rampant and feminist misandry which now pervades our culture is vitally needed. Antithesis to their misandrist thesis is part of the process of coming to a decent synthesis — which we’re a LONG way off from.

    It’s vitally important that women be knocked off their false pedestals.

    Further most of what’s called misogyny by Roissy is really anti-feminism. But not all, I’m grand. However, see above. It’s needed.

    Like


  165. @ LILGIRL

    The real reason you do it is because if there is even a 1% chance of it being true its worth doing. A good girl doesn’t make it impossible, it makes it less likely.

    What’s got you in a mood today? You’ve acting weird.

    Like


  166. Warren and Burger courts? Spawn of the devil. Mockery of the Consitution. Unconscionable legislation form the bench. Manufacturer of “rights” based on “emanations and penumbras”.

    Like


  167. Warren and Burger courts? Spawn of the devil. Mockery of the Consitution. Unconscionable legislation form the bench. Manufacturer of “rights” based on “emanations and penumbras”.

    Fuck, is that where penumbra came from? I just got off of a six week case as a juror and that seemed like some liberal bullshit.

    Like


  168. on November 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm Psychohistorian

    There’s a much, much cheaper solution than mandatory testing, though admittedly one that’s a little sloppier.

    Basically, the WOMAN is the one who needs to sign the paternity document. If she’s unsure, she needs to say so. The husband can deal with that as he will, including with a paternity test. If they can’t deal with talking about that, they shouldn’t be married in the first place.

    In the event of a future divorce, all issues (money/custody/child support/etc.) will be decided in the man’s favor should she have born another man’s child and not disclosed this fact/and or had him declare in writing that he had no problem if the child was not his.

    Not quite as effective as mandatory testing, but cheaper, easier, and almost as good.

    Like


  169. @ SA

    Well, then tell her that? I’m just saying, I don’t think the way to induce trust in your relationship is to be sneaky about it. Remember that, as paternity testing is NOT mandatory, you’re already, by asking her to do it, implying that there is the chance (even if it’s very small) that the child is not yours. I don’t think you need to pound it into the ground. If she agrees to do it, assure her that you still trust her. I assume that she’s not stupid, so she’ll realize that if you say you trust her, but still ask her to do it, you don’t trust her 1000%. But she’ll be okay with it, because you’re not pounding it into her head that you don’t trust her.

    Even with the most rational of girls, you have to appeal to emotions.

    Like


  170. @Doug
    Have to agree.

    Equalizing the field for men would give women more of what they need (stability and strong male support/leadership) and maybe less of what they think they want (freedom to screw around w/o fault).

    Making marriage and paternity less financially damning for men would actually encourage more “alpha” types and desirable men to commit.

    Like


  171. on November 19, 2009 at 5:51 pm gunslingergregi

    Yea but don’t equalize by adding laws equalize by taking away special priviledges and just let people be equal.

    Like


  172. on November 19, 2009 at 6:52 pm Wendy Schwartz

    And swabbing a child without the mother being NOTIFIED is absolutely unacceptable. BOTH parents have the right to know if someone is swabbing their child.

    The mother also has the right to know the man is sneaking around behind her back and testing their kid.

    Like


  173. @ LILGIRL

    Time to run. I’m not even saying I think you’re wrong but I’m playing devil’s advocate, so here’s one more try.

    ‘Sneaky’, in my mind, implies doing something underhanded. If you check her texts while she’s in the bathroom, you’re violating her privacy. That’s sneaky.

    It’s not a question of trust. If you’re getting the test, whether you tell her or not, you’re implying a certain lack of trust. Telling her about the test doesn’t require any greater faith on your part (she can’t say no) and thus doesn’t imply any greater trust of her on your part.

    Would any girl prefer you didn’t get the test? Probably, yes. If she doesn’t need to know, why would you tell her?

    I’ve hardly made up my mind one way or another, just thought it was an interesting discussion to have. I’ll keep in mind in the future that you take these things personally.

    Like


  174. @SA – yes, specifically Roe v. Wade. Actual language was Brennan’s, I think.

    al is fuming in her office, no doubt, too outraged to respond…

    Like


  175. In most states there is an extreme “best interests of the child” ideology, with the man’s interests being given very short shrift.

    -Doug1

    In that case, it ought to be legislated so the judges cannot tamper with it.

    Like


  176. @ Maurice

    Yea, our jury charges were, essentially… even if you don’t find a clear violation of the law, if the penumbra of the evidence suggests a violation, you should find for the plaintiff.

    Biggest load of bullshit. I was forced to vote against how I felt because that was the law.

    Like


  177. al, “It’s potentially an infringement on the right of the father should that father not wish to have paternity confirmed to have it be mandatory. “

    Obviously you’re a female. No man would ever say something this stupid.

    Like


  178. SA —

    I see what you’re saying, I do. Obviously, if you got the test (without her knowing) and then you found nothing wrong, you could go along as though you’d never done the test and act like you just trusted her all the time.

    I guess I just don’t see what the issue is with telling her, that’s all. I’m sure she doesn’t think you trust her 1000%, and I’m sure she doesn’t trust you 1000% — I do think it’s better to put these things out there and act like it’s not a big deal — just routine — than it is to do them behind her back. Obviously she’d never have to know if the test came back positive (you are the father), but she might still find out and why put yourself in that situation when it’s not a big deal in the first place? It’s nothing, after all, to be ashamed of.

    Like


  179. on November 19, 2009 at 6:05 pm gunslingergregi

    Get the test first if it comes up your not father then “ask” her to get one.

    Like


  180. “even if you don’t find a clear violation of the law, if the penumbra of the evidence suggests a violation, you should find for the plaintiff.”

    Either you misunderstood the judge, or the judge mispoke. The proper burden of proof is “preponderance of the evidence”. In other words, if it looks like a more than 50/50 chance that the plaintiff is right, you find for him or her. In civil cases, this has been true under English common law for centuries. There is nothing controversial about it.

    The “penumbra” concept from Roe, etc., is something altogether differenct (and very lame).

    Like


  181. “EL CHIEF–

    write some more blogs yo, you are better than 99% of these other garbage collecting retards….

    gg”

    Thanks gg.

    I’m working on the full curriculum for the el chief Academy For Young Alphas. Will post soon.

    Also, working on a “real option analysis” to figure out how long a woman will wait to marry based on the volatility of alpha cock she has received.

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

    Like


  182. Roissy–

    Some may question whether MPT is good for society, inasmuch as it dysgenically removes the option for women to carry the species forward by duping betas into raising and propagating alpha genes. This concern rests on a key assumption – that cheating women are making the eugenically correct choice. My suspicion, based on what I’ve heard about unfaithful whores, is that they are not. They are, instead, fucking around with assorted badboys.

    I think you’re right. Low rent badboys for the most part (though certainly not entirely). I suspect that’s what legislatures think too, which partly explains (but hardly justifies) some of their reluctance to substitute bio dad on the hook for the man she married – and then divorced. Again extremist “best interests of the child”, while the interests of defrauded men can go hang.

    Like


  183. al: “No [sic] go reread the 4th amendment and think about what is required in a paternity test.”

    Which is why the 4th amendment has caused blood tests and syphilis tests for marriage licenses to become illegal. Are you actually a lawyer, or are you just a cheating slut who has cuckolded someone?

    Like


  184. What legislatures (and judges especially) don’t ever seem to get is that this hyper-extreme “best interest of the child” approach in specific cases only encourages mnore destructive behavior in other cases, thereby putting future children in more difficult positions.

    Like


  185. The pictures of these losers on the NYTimes site are all of the same type. Fat, dorky looking genetic betas.

    Their wives/girlfriends obviously had contempt for them because they look like big fat dykes.

    Fat guys = food/alcohol dependent = mommy substitute dependent = women’s contempt = women looking for more masculine men.

    Someone should do a study on the correlation of cuckoldry and male bold type and structure.

    Like


  186. No to amniocentesis. That’s a 1-2% increase in miscarriages depending on who you’re reading, which is a lot of deaths even if not carried out widely. If I also remember correctly, it’s also not the most reliable of samples.

    It’s unnecessary when you can wait until birth.

    MPT’s great. Is the cost of $165/head according to this bill practical: http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7977690

    Derek: Men do themselves harm by saying the behaviour of their partner is completely dependent on his alphaness. Her character, social conditioning and temperament play a part.

    Like


  187. I for one vote for pre-birth mandatory paternity testing.

    I wouldn’t want to wait 9 months. I’d be pretty excited if my (hypothetical) wife was having our first child, then pretty goddam angry to find out it wasn’t mine.

    They can do it at the same time they test for Down’s Syndrome or whatever. I only play a doctor on TV.

    Who cares about the cost? The birth of a child is worth $30,000 USD to a man [1] – far more than a woman by the way. The test in volume would be a couple hundred bucks, and probably less if done at the same time as other tests.

    [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6582892/Getting-married-brings-18000-worth-of-happiness-to-men—but-only-half-that-to-women.html

    The above study shows that women are uncaring liars (cuz they lie about caring). Men actually feel things more deeply than women. This is why men write better songs, and commit suicide after breakups more often.

    Like


  188. That’s –

    male BODY type and structure.

    Bad spellers of the world need to unite and take our torches and pitchforks and get over to wordpress. We need some kind of edit feature on here.

    Like


  189. Anon

    What legislatures (and judges especially) don’t ever seem to get is that this hyper-extreme “best interest of the child” approach in specific cases only encourages mnore destructive behavior in other cases, thereby putting future children in more difficult positions.

    It isn’t that they don’t get it; they’re simply parroting excuses for women that were written up by feminists in law schools.

    There’s no doubt that divorce, female promiscuity, family discord and all the rest of the results of feminist ideology are bad for children, but feminists don’t really care about children.

    They care about their own power and privilege — that’s it.

    Like


  190. on November 19, 2009 at 6:24 pm Dave from Hawaii

    The debate of instituting MPT is rhetorical at this point.

    Deal with the reality under CURRENT conditions.

    That means all Men who have any doubts of the paternity of the child in question, should simply have a DNA test done ASAP after the birth, and WITHOUT the mother knowing about it!

    The same tactics in a divorce are just as relevant in the case of a man finding out he’s been cuckolded. Just as the unwitting husband is often completely screwed when he finds out his divorcing wife has cleaned out the bank accounts, quit her job 6 months in advance, and rang up the credit card bills to become “accustomed to a standard of living”, and filed a restraining order for a false claim of abuse…all in advance of him being served with the papers out of the blue so she can gain maximum advantage in the divorce…

    …so too should a man do paternity testing on the sly so if it is in fact true, he can plan the best possible outcome for himself in dealing with his cheating whore and her bastard child she’s trying to sucker him into raising.

    Like


  191. “It isn’t that they don’t get it; they’re simply parroting excuses for women that were written up by feminists in law schools. ”

    Eh. Not everything is a well thought out conspiracy by feminists to enslave all men (including their own sons and grandsons). Sometimes, things are just stupid. And family law/gender relations are certainly not the only areas where legislatures and judges take a short sighted approach and ignore the long term “unintended consequences”.

    Like


  192. Dave goes yard!

    Like


  193. el chief: “Also, working on a “real option analysis” to figure out how long a woman will wait to marry based on the volatility of alpha cock she has received.”

    I think you’ll find that pretty much all women discount the theta squeeze at expiry. Which is why I will never fear old age.

    Like


  194. Eh. Not everything is a well thought out conspiracy by feminists to enslave all men (including their own sons and grandsons).

    -Anon

    Who said it was?

    But do you seriously believe feminists didn’t push hard for this judicial travesty? Come on…

    Like


  195. This just in…

    Studies Suggest Males Have More Personality

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091117191052.htm

    Like


  196. on November 19, 2009 at 6:43 pm gunslingergregi

    Men probably pushed for it to based on all the sad stories that where able to be pulled out of the woodwork to base the laws for all or the guys who where like I don’t want my tax dollars to be spent on welfare mothers. Things like that. Even though tax dollars will be spent whether they help people or not.

    Like


  197. Dave — Not even that will happen.

    MPT will never, ever happen. Not ever. A female-dominated political class will never allow it.

    What WILL happen is that all men will try to the best of their ability to become NBA type men — i.e. screw as many women as possible while supporting none of them. Deny paternity, and for those proven to be biological kids support as little as possible.

    Kids will be solely women’s things like in the Black community. You already see this among the “bros” and “bro culture” is looming large here. Matriarchy ahoy!

    I suspect MOST women will be perfectly happy with this — a few kids with different bad boys, excitement and domination, and not having to put up with beta men who they HATE HATE HATE later in life. Most Black women are perfectly happy with their lives, after all, and the men in them.

    Like


  198. > I meant legal to conduct at all. I can swab some woman’s child and send its genetic material off to a lab, that knows who neither of us are, or what our relationship is.

    The problem with banning anything is, is it enforceable? I’ve worked in a bio research lab before as a student, my opinion is that it would be easy to do paternity testing illegally.

    Also, there is no way you would be able in a democracy to give harsh sentences for men who ordered testing. People wouldnt stand for that. It just isnt “lurid” in the way of prostitution or especially drugs. Its not intuitively a crime. You might not even be able to get tough sentences for those doing the work.

    Like


  199. ::Also, there is no way you would be able in a democracy to give harsh sentences for men who ordered testing.

    That’s not what they mean by making it illegal. They mean they would legislate to shut down the industry that sells them over the counter in the drugstore and performs the test by mail order for a 100 bucks.

    Like


  200. anony–

    Almost all married women deliver babies fathered by their husbands.

    Even in cases of high male confidence that they are the fathers, in about 3% of cases they aren’t. In 10% of cases overall they aren’t. (30% of commercial DNA lab testing shows the named dad isn’t, but that’s not a representative sample.)

    Like


  201. on November 19, 2009 at 6:52 pm Dave from Hawaii

    Whiskey, I’m talking logical strategy for men RIGHT NOW under the current regime.

    You think you’re being cuckolded? Play along with her…as soon as her head is turned, get a swab of baby’s cheek, and get the test done ASAP without her knowing any better.

    No matter how bad the laws are screwed towards men…

    …if he knows the truth, and she doesn’t know that he knows, he will than have the element of surprise to plan his actions to minimize his damage and maximize his chances of escaping liability.

    Like


  202. on November 19, 2009 at 6:53 pm gunslingergregi

    ””””’Also, there is no way you would be able in a democracy to give harsh sentences for men”””””’

    Think about that for a second.

    I mean whats the big deal about drugs yet dealers are given harsh sentences. All they really doing is conducting business. So what.

    Like


  203. oh for goodness’ sakes, some of you are nutty. I all but wrote something similar to this:

    [give mpt the clause that particularly stupid or beta men can opt out if they so choose. but make them go through a battery of paperwork so that the women can’t bitch to their husbands who *do* decide to go through with the test that they had the option to back out of it. iow, give the men the plausible deniability of being able to say to their wives “hey, it’s standard procedure, everyone does it, no questions asked”.]

    and now I’m lacking in logic or having emotional fits in my office or somehow a morally bankruptcy cheating slut because I don’t think the state should be able to coerce it?

    And I’m surprised all you vaunted, logical, well-reasoned, brilliant MEN can’t see the difference between a marriage license and mandatory paternity testing.

    PS- CJ.Warren actually had a very interesting career.

    Like


  204. al “And I’m surprised all you vaunted, logical, well-reasoned, brilliant MEN can’t see the difference between a marriage license and mandatory paternity testing.”

    Of course you are surprised: you are a dumb whore.

    Like


  205. “And I’m surprised all you vaunted, logical, well-reasoned, brilliant MEN can’t see the difference between a marriage license and mandatory paternity testing.”

    That’s because you’re deliberately misstating the analogy. The question is whether there is a meaningful difference between a state recognized marriage license and a state recognized statement of fatherhood on a birth certificate. To get the former, you submit to a blood test. To get the latter, you would submit to a paternity test. They aren’t dead on point, but nothing is ever dead on point. I believe the linked article suggested that Tennessee has already adopted this, and it kicks in in 2010, so presumably people there don’t find this to be a 4th amendment violation. We’ll see if anybody challenges on that basis. Wouldn’t surprise me, but I think judges would have to be pretty predisposed to dislike the test in order to distinguish these two types of testing requirements.

    Like


  206. > In 10% of cases overall they aren’t.

    True, but that number probably doesnt apply to middle america.

    Like


  207. Doug see this paper with a mountain of data compressed into one table:

    http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/A/Kermyt.G.Anderson-1/papers/worldwidepatconf.pdf

    I havent scrutinized this issue and cant say that this paper gives the True Impression. But its liked by Razib Khan which is not without meaning.

    Like


  208. I cant remember where but I’ve also seen that these numbers vary strongly with class. So, adding up all the USA papers that were accepted by these authors, nonpaternity averages more like 1.8% “when confidence is relatively high”. If we believe what I seem to remember, then it is going to be a good deal lower than that if one isnt in the underclass.

    Like


  209. on November 19, 2009 at 7:30 pm personal trainer

    Im living proof to never marry. My x threatened our oldest daughter (13 at the time) with a knife 6 months after we separated. I was given a PFA for a weekend! HA! She then threw both girls (11 and 13) out of her house that I paid for leaving her boyfriend that she cheated with me on and our 6yr old son at the time.

    2 years later she petitioned family court to move the boy a thousand miles away from his father and his 2 sisters.

    She won, fabricating various job applications, claiming she could not get a job and had another job where she wanted to locate. The judge told me that since I had the girls, he was permitting her to take the boy.

    I appealed to the SUPREME court and lost every appeal.

    My son 10 years later has -0- social structure, has been ignored and confined to his room where he plays halo and world of war craft. The girls are college grads, close to top shelf and doing extremely well…I lost everything. My career as an executive and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fees…I did my best to live up to my responsibilities as a parent…She owns 2 houses, I live in an apartment…

    Fucking cunt should be dead.

    Like


  210. All the sources cited in that article are pretty dated (some as old as the early 1950s, and almost none in this century). I bet the rates have gone up accross the board.

    Like


  211. on November 19, 2009 at 7:34 pm personal trainer

    OH….srry….My point was how evil this woman is…

    My son at 6 had to go in front of the judge for the relocation hearing. I never knew just what happened until he told me later next year when he came up for his spring visit.

    Upon picking him up at the airport, on the way home he looks at me and says:

    Dad I told that man that I wanted to live with mom because Mom told me that if I wanted to live with you then I would never see her again.

    Like


  212. http://jadedvideo.com/?q=cuckolded

    http://www.cduniverse.com/browsecat.asp?style=ice&cat=15901

    speaking of cuckolding…it’s like it’s own genre of porn these days…

    Like


  213. Theyre mostly 80s and 90s.

    Like


  214. Eric Johnson,

    The real numbers will never be known… this debate has been going on for quite some time already. If you average in all of the studies that have been done, you will arrive at approximately 4% of the general population.

    Also, the destruction of the family, and the rise of women’s hypergamy being the controlling factor in society, directly causes a larger underclass to appear in society… so, it would be fair to speculate that once general society descends into the ghetto lifestyle of thug-fucking, paternity fraud will rise. It did in Soviety Russia, where everyone was dirt poor, and abortions, gold digging, “oops” pregnancies and so on were already rampant before the beginning of WWII. (Stalin reversed many of their anti-family policies in 1942, in order to try and strengthen their country against Nazi attacks… Gorbachev partially attributed the collapse of the USSR to these family-destructive policies causing too much damage before being reversed, in his book “Glasnost”.)

    Like


  215. Wendy Schwartz–

    Mandatory Paternity Testing would also resolve a lot of problems with “deadbeat dads”. Once a man admits paternity, if he attempts to “dodge” child support or court dates, they can then legally garnish his wages without even notifying him.

    Single sluts who get knocked up, usually consciously or subconsciously on purpose, by men who want them to either abort the preganancy or give the child up for adoption should have to pay child support, and they’re not bullshiite feminist “dead beat dads” for not wanting to. She wanted the kid he didn’t. She could have kept her legs closed as much as he could have kept his pants zipped; and more because it’s probably an “oops” pregnancy. Besides all but one of the many reversible forms of female birth control are within a woman’s sole knowledge and control. At most unwilling father who’d abort if they could should have to pay welfare levels of support if any only if the woman would qualify for it, and only for long as it would be allowed — as a political compromise.

    It’s outrageous that in feminist America women are extracting child support=alimony from men at outrageously high percentages of his after tax (tax home) income, without providing any ongoing wifely services in return, including regular best efforts sexing. Yeah that’s ALWAYS been the traditional bargain in virtually every society, and in all the highly successful one.

    The same should apply to women who leave marriages without egregious male fault. Slapping a few times would not constitute such egregious fault. It didn’t historically, before second wave feminism. It should be up to a father how much he pays to support his children. Women should have babies with men accordingly, and chose well.

    Such changes would greatly lower out of wedlock births and divorce rates as well. Women leave marriages almost 2.5 times the rate at which men do.

    Like


  216. A cheek swab is all it takes for a paternity test.

    Cheating women can look on the bright side: there is a father to the child somewhere, so paternity can be correctly assigned to him and child support can be elicited from the same. The “bad boy” she is cheating with might decide that the best option is to marry the cheating woman, and they can become a family together. The cuckolded man can go out single again and look for a woman who will remain as faithful to him as he is to her.

    Everybody could benefit in the long run if the testing was done very soon after birth (cheek swabs are no risk to newborns).

    Feminists and women everywhere in the West complain about men “being afraid of commitment”. Fair laws like MPT would lessen one concern men have who are considering marriage. Women don’t understand what a big financial risk a marriage is for a man legally at this time. Each reform (like assumption of joint custody with no child support in case of divorce) that could make the marriage laws fair would lessen concerns men have going into marriage, and make the same men more willing to commit******

    ***** Also, for the ladies, if divorce laws didn’t just nail men, some of those wealthy men you gals are interested in would have much less to fear when considering marrying a regular gal. A stewardess, nurse, waitress, or hairstylist might have a much better shot with a millionaire businessman if these laws changed. One of the biggest reasons rich men end up marrying wealthy women, or women from wealthy families, is because those men can never be certain that a regular gal is in love with them, or their bank account. If the laws were reasonable and this fear was eased, you might be suprised how many rich guys would be all to happy to marry salesgirls who treated them warmly.

    Note: This post was the first time Ive ever seen the phrase, “filthy wretched cuntrag” as a hyperlink.
    The humor here is a big reason people keep coming back. Roissy usually sneaks something genuinely funny into almost every post.

    Like


  217. The cuckolded man can go out single again and look for a woman who will remain as faithful to him as he is to her.

    Which whill unfortunately result in him finding another duplicitous harpy no doubt.

    Like


  218. You all forget that there are women out there who end up paying for their men’s out-of-wedlock babies, or even their men’s in-wedlock babies, if the child-support payments a biological father is obliged to pay are determined as a portion of their combined incomes rather than his income alone.

    I suspect you could probably find women among the above group who agreed that these laws, when the man pays for a child who turns out not to be biologically his own, are unjust.

    Meanwhile, would-be male philanderers who insist that men’s cheating does no harm to their wives ought to remember that the above issues affect betrayed wives too. I don’t think the two are exact parallels, since a woman in this situation isn’t being duped into loving a child as hers who is not in fact her own, but the financial burden on such wives is still heavy, and unfair.

    Like


  219. federz, without thinking that the underclass will shrink anytime soon, I do think the cultural influence of the underclass will.

    I take this site’s predictions of sexual dystopia with a grain of salt. Courteousy of Audacious Epigone and Ron Guhname, the GSS delivered a thumpin’ to Roissy’s and Whisky’s worldview of supersluts on the rise and dysgenic breeding for male and female sluttiness. That only goes as far as you trust surveys. I assign them a value between 0% and 100%. Probably not as close to 100% as some of those criticizing Roissy as empiricists.

    Heres a second caveat to criticisms of Roissy. One of the best scholars in the paleo-sphere is the non-paleo Jason Malloy. Hes a big believer in elite emulation. He points out how women in backward rural South America brought their total fertility down from, I dont know, maybe 5 children to 2.5 as soon as they got TV and started watching soap operas depicting elites. They also named their children with names from the soap operas. Well, the DC slumming supersluts denounced by Roissy are bigtime elites, and “Sex and the City” and other shows denounced by Whisky are elite shows. Its quite possible that the “sexual dystopia” warned about by Roissy could be brewing now, and visible to culture critics but not yet to empiricists. But people often feel social doom, its part of human nature in many individuals (definitely including me) — there is a good reason for empiricism.

    Like


  220. @Glen

    It is a big problem. Upwards of 30% of all children born today are not being raised by their biological father. That’s an epidemic by any standard. The only reason it seems like it’s no big deal is because it’s not given the attention it deserves. Most people are completely ignorant of paternity fraud until it happens to them.

    Like


  221. Tough titty, kid

    Like


  222. on November 19, 2009 at 7:59 pm Dave from Hawaii

    without thinking that the underclass will shrink anytime soon, I do think the cultural influence of the underclass will.

    Bah. You got it exactly backwards.

    Our current “cultural influence” is directly responsible for expanding the underclass in the first place.

    The more libertine the societies sexual mores become, the more bastardy and adultery and divorce become accepted and promoted…the larger the underclass will continue to expand and grow.

    Like


  223. @Marcus

    “I’d go so far as to say that a woman who’s caught trying to dupe the non-father should be charged with fraud. (Does a legal precedent for reproductive fraud exist yet?)”

    Absolutely they should be charged with fraud when women knowingly file for child support against men they know are not the father. Furthermore, no wages should be touched until paternity could be established. I think that mandatory testing for child support BEFORE money can be taken from the man would negate a lot of the fraud that happens. If they know they aren’t getting a payday from a provider beta then they wouldn’t try to defraud them in the first place. Makes sense to me….

    Like


  224. I would follow the Primal Blueprint in a situation like that. What would Grok do? Turn on discovery channel where you can see the answer

    Like


  225. Its quite possible that the “sexual dystopia” warned about by Roissy could be brewing now, and visible to culture critics but not yet to empiricists. But people often feel social doom, its part of human nature in many individuals (definitely including me) — there is a good reason for empiricism.

    -Eric Johnson

    Yah, it’s OK when only a few guys out of a hundred will get royally fucked by our judicial system.

    How about we levy a 50% life tax on all quant geeks because they are annoying to many people? I mean, it wouldn’t matter much, because they are in the distinct minority…

    Don’t you people have any concept of justice?

    Like


  226. Well I didnt say anything about elite or middle class influences (here, “the 60s”). I agree that they contributed to the underclass thing, along with events like the opening up of chinese labor and other bargain high-quality labor, which was a tough day for low-skill americans. Although many think that mechanization technology (and rising productivity) has been more important than world trade as a cause of reduced demand for low-skill labor, and there is good evidence for this, like the dwindling number of american steelworkers, who now make a way bigger total amount of steel than they made when they were much more numerous (see Cosma Shalizi’s blog on this).

    But the underclass will probably grow, more things will have been tried fruitlessly, and middle america will probably be less interested in and tolerant of gangsta rap values. The radicals will be fewer and radicaler. The polite veneer on intitutions will continue inertially to blame “oppression” for the underclass, but fewer will believe it. Toughness on crime will get even tougher, no one can afford for NYC or LA to become like Detroit. Since we already have waaaaaaaay more people in jail than we did in the 80’s, we are already pretty tough on it. Tougher than this will be no joke.

    Like


  227. “That’s not what they mean by making it illegal. They mean they would legislate to shut down the industry that sells them over the counter in the drugstore and performs the test by mail order for a 100 bucks.”

    It’s illegal (in theory) to watch movies without paying the proper fee to the copyright owner. And yet it’s trivially easy to download movies illegally or to buy them on the street.

    It’s also illegal (in most of the US) to hire a woman to have sex with you. And yet it’s extremely easy to go to a massage parlor; craigslist; and get a prostitute.

    I doubt that paternity tests would be much different, especially since one can expect the cost to come down.

    Like


  228. on November 19, 2009 at 9:43 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Doug1 you are obviously an abuser. Why dont we just whip up a law where if you dont want the baby you can just push the woman down the steps for “birth control” You make me sick. Thank GOD you’re part of a dying breed.

    Like


  229. on November 19, 2009 at 9:06 pm Marcus Aureliette

    The same should apply to women who leave marriages without egregious male fault. Slapping a few times would not constitute such egregious fault.

    Yeah, good luck with that.

    Like


  230. I doubt that paternity tests would be much different

    They wouldn’t be. Notice how many people pay for entertainment legally, and notice how many men will actually regularly pay for a prostitute. Taking away the legal, easy, commercial OTC method would still significantly impact most mens options. It’s not realistic that nearly all fathers become criminals; regardless of how innoculous the crime.

    Like


  231. > It’s not realistic that nearly all fathers become criminals

    Most men dont want paternity tests in the first place. Most americans actually are “criminals” beyond driving above the de jure speed limit: for example, 50% have smoked pot. Yet they are terrified that their kids will become loser addicts, so support for legalization is a rather surprisingly lower 35% or so.

    Bryan Caplan claims democracies give populations what they want. As far as I know he is right. Apparently the only standing policy that probably has a strong majority against it (ie, more than a few percentage points above 50%) is affirmative action. (A caveat is that polls on this subject are particularly sensitive to polling methodology.) The current wars dont count because they arent really a declared permanent or semi-permanent policy; affirmative action basically is, de facto.

    And thats the way these sausages are made. Since people arent terrified that their kids will smoke a paternity test and get addicted, good luck getting tough sentences for them — good luck getting employers to treat them more seriously than a speeding ticket.

    Like


  232. BB should be raped.

    Like


  233. If the typical woman today had any insight into how paternity fraud is viewed by virtually all men, they would never even try to defend it. Not even a little bit. The fact that so many clearly do not “get it” adds to the mountain of evidence that un-enlightened women simply have no conscious awareness of their own sexual instincts.
    I mean, arguing against the fact of the evil that is paternity fraud does them no favors. Mens attitudes are not going to change by 1 mm and women just appear stupid and malignant when they try. But so many of them do.
    That their basic programming is to fuck one kind of guy and nest-build with another should no longer be in doubt. Otherwise they would understand intuitively that tricking a guy about fatherhood is fully equivalent of her being raped. Except rape rarely in practice produces an unwanted pregnancy and P. fraud never misses its target.
    But they DO NOT and apparently CAN NOT intuit this.
    Guys, draw your conclusions.

    Like


  234. Glen–

    “The emotionally driven misogyny based on a few stray anecdotes just comes off as weak, dripping with resentment, and unworthy of an otherwise extremely intelligent blog.”

    Misogyny? You used that a few times in your post above. I am of the firm conviction, any man who uses that word to ridicule men is a faggot, beta, mangina of the highest order.

    Kill yourself homo!

    Like


  235. Eric–

    Yes I know Razib from GNXP.

    Theyre mostly 80s and 90s.

    I suspect the rate is going and going to be going strongly up for reasons similar to why provider betas are having a harder time than ever getting laid in their twenties once out of college and working in big cities.

    I agree though that the problem is largest in the underclass. But I strongly suspect it’s growing among the college educated for the reasons state.

    All these slut girls in the cities who wait until 31 or 32 to get married and then marry way down in sexual excitement from the guys they were casual and fling banging in their 20s are going to permanently settle down, not cheat, and not lust after alpha impregnation. Yeah they’d rather have predominant access to two salaries than full access to one and 1/3 esp. cause of housing but hey no fault divorce payouts for female cheating if caught and if he sacks up after he catches her is no great worry either.

    Like


  236. on November 19, 2009 at 10:01 pm unlearning genius

    @Roissy,

    dude, go easy on the “I, beta men, your savior has arrived” posts.

    Here is a simple summary advice “Guys, girls, real life is not well policed .. you are on your own .. sometimes you are the bird that shits and sometimes you are the statue that gets shat on .. Just try to be the bird most of the time .. AND do not hate or get emo about it .. it is just life”

    Like


  237. Eric Johnson–

    Bryan Caplan claims democracies give populations what they want. As far as I know he is right. Apparently the only standing policy that probably has a strong majority against it (ie, more than a few percentage points above 50%) is affirmative action.

    This is flat wrong. Pressure groups and lobbyists get all sorts of things through that most people don’t want. All over the place. Business but also environmentalists and so on.

    An even bigger factor especially on wide reaching stuff like all the anti male feminist legislation is that feminists lie about it and the media buys their lies without any investigative journalism at all, or at most a tiny amount that smothered by the weighting of the predominant message, and/or tied up in endless complications. The media is a huge media. The media is left liberal and with the exception of Fox and some magazines and online of course, and gives feminism enormous respect and deference. Even radical feminism to an extent. They sure don’t much go after it.

    I wasn’t opposed to VAWA when it was going through. I sort of thought it was unnecessary but wasn’t especially against it. I had no idea how much it made men guilty until proven innocent, and on an on. Done that one here a number of times. Point is I had no idea at the time. If I didn’t, who did? Same was true of the dead beat dads campaign.

    I was against the equal splitting of “marital property” no matter how much the man earned, from the get go, because that one’s pretty simple and requires little press digging to learn the truth about. But there there were prenups.

    The whole no fault thing also came in rather stealth. It was sold as no fault to GET the divorce, rather than no fault meaning a cheating wife could get lifetime alimony.

    Press soft peddling and covering up/ not exposing is HUGE in the move to the left on lots of stuff but especially on the feminist agenda.

    Like


  238. Senator G.A. Hardaway the man who introduced the Tennessee Paternity testing Bill, said this:

    Hardaway contends it’s every child’s right to know their father. He said it’s a struggle he sees everyday.

    “Just because we have adults who want to live a lie, lie to each other, the child shouldn’t suffer,” he said. “The emotional trauma that children go thru when they finally realize that they’ve been living a lie, it’s unforgivable.”

    And that right there is how you get MPT as law. No one gives a shit about male rights. But everyone is all about the best interests of the child. So thats what you must exploit. Frame MPT so it is in the best interests of the child. Then criticise all those who object to it by saying they are acting selfishly and not thinking of whats in the best interests of the child.

    Now that I’ve told you Americans how to make the Tennessee MPT become law in other starts, get off this blog and quit all this circular arguing and go and pester your local member. And remember, MPT is in the best interests of the child. If you really want MPT then go and make it happen.

    [editor: you’re right breeze. that was an excellent reframe by the senator. i wonder how good his game is?]

    Like


  239. unlearning genius

    @Roissy,

    dude, go easy on the “I, beta men, your savior has arrived” posts.

    Here is a simple summary advice “Guys, girls, real life is not well policed .. you are on your own .. sometimes you are the bird that shits and sometimes you are the statue that gets shat on .. Just try to be the bird most of the time .. AND do not hate or get emo about it .. it is just life”

    Stupid, naive comment.

    Life IS policed. You go through a divorce, and you’ll learn just how policed you will be. There’s nothing random about court orders that allow the state to seize your assets and put you in jail if you don’t comply.

    These guys who got cuckolded could GO TO JAIL for not paying their ex-wives for cheating on them — even when everybody knows that they didn’t father the children.

    If you think that’s just like getting randomly shit on by a bird, you’re a damned fool.

    [editor: this comment was incisive and funny at the same time. win.]

    Like


  240. welmer

    +1

    Like


  241. Married women who bear another man’s child should not only lose child support from him as soon as it’s discovered by DNA testing, she should also lose any right to any part of his assets at divorce, and have to disgorge any she has received. And obviously no alimony as well. The whore.

    Like


  242. the political threads have allowed me skip over, scorn, or just be a little bit critical instinctively of some commenters on days like today. it’s easier to sense whiny indignation when i can profile for it.

    Like


  243. Welmer +2

    Like


  244. on November 19, 2009 at 10:50 pm unlearning genius

    ” Better for the kids if all that mess is alleviated the moment a child is born.
    [editor: unbelievable. you made a useful comment. the seas have parted!] … ”

    Aw .. Roissy and Raine finally copulated? .. after the e-bukkakhe spectacle of the past few days … you kids bring a chuckle to the old man .. a knowing chuckle ..

    Like


  245. No shit!
    __________
    Wealthy men give women more orgasms
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5537017.ece

    Scientists have found that the pleasure women get from making love is directly linked to the size of their partner’s bank balance.

    They found that the wealthier a man is, the more frequently his partner has orgasms.

    “Women’s orgasm frequency increases with the income of their partner,” said Dr Thomas Pollet, the Newcastle University psychologist behind the research.

    Like


  246. WHY IS IT THAT we imbue genetic relationships with a potency that borders on magic?

    WHY IS IT THAT women view birthing their own genetic children, rather than adopting already born children, with a potency that borders on magic?

    Like


  247. Wendy Schwartz

    And swabbing a child without the mother being NOTIFIED is absolutely unacceptable.

    You should be shot.

    I’d do it in a heartbeat if I didn’t have prior agreement.

    Dave from Hawaii’s suggestions were excellent.

    Like


  248. And no, the woman shouldn’t HAVE to give consent of the testing, but she must be notified PRIOR to the testing.
    (A woman should also have the right to know if her husband thinks she’s a cheating whore.)

    And no, the man shouldn’t HAVE to give consent to his wife cheating on him, but he must be notified PRIOR to her cheating.
    (A man should also have the right to know if his wife is a cheating whore.)

    And swabbing a child without the mother being NOTIFIED is absolutely unacceptable. BOTH parents have the right to know if someone is swabbing their child.
    The mother also has the right to know the man is sneaking around behind her back and testing their kid.

    And aborting a child without the father being NOTIFIED is absolutely unacceptable. BOTH parents have the right to know if someone is aborting their child.
    The father has the right to know if the mother is sneaking around behind his back and aborting their kid.

    Like


  249. “Doveryai, no proveryai!”

    Like


  250. on November 19, 2009 at 11:53 pm Marcus Aureliette

    WHY IS IT THAT women view birthing their own genetic children, rather than adopting already born children, with a potency that borders on magic?

    Is that a dig at people who have their own children instead of adopting?

    Given the reverence with which guys here talk about their genetic legacy, women are hardly the only ones interested in birthing their own genetic children. That said, if a couple wants to have their own kids and can support them and raise them properly, why shouldn’t they? Assuming that passing on their genetic legacy is important to them, why should they pass up the opportunity to raise their own progeny in order to raise a stranger’s?

    I’d be curious to know if one sex or the other tends to push for adoption. My own (very small) anecdotal experience suggests that women don’t seem to find the prospect nearly as off-putting as men do.

    Like


  251. Marcus Aureliette,

    It was a reframe. Women regularly repudiate men’s insistence on fathering their OWN genetic children. Turn the tables. Equally trivialize women’s insistence on giving birth. Simply ask women: “Why not adopt instead?” Women STFU pretty quick.

    Like


  252. Bad reframe. I’m all for adoption and I know many women (and men) who are. Totally different situation.

    Like


  253. DCLXCI “Equally trivialize women’s insistence on giving birth. Simply ask women: “Why not adopt instead?” “

    I liked the suggestion above; why not just take home any old kid from the maternity ward? Why bother with all that intrusive footprinting, wristbanding crap? After all, it’s way more intrusive to mark a kid up with potentially toxic ink than it is to take a cheek swab.

    Like


  254. Wealthy men give women more orgasms
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5537017.ece

    Scientists have found that the pleasure women get from making love is directly linked to the size of their partner’s bank balance.

    They found that the wealthier a man is, the more frequently his partner has orgasms.

    LSB came.

    Like


  255. Eric, my problem with AE and so on is that their conclusions run opposite what both Charles Murray finds in his initial research on WHITE Working and Middle Class women (40% and 20%, respectively illegitimate births) and what Theodore Dalrymple observed in White Britain during his lifetime — from Working and Middle Class WHITE WOMEN (leaving the issue of race aside) changing over 40 years from very low illegitimacy to over 50% today. Even his educated and professional nurses were bad boy abuser chasers.

    Add to it the prevalence of shocking photos of Chav Britain, exclusively WHITE British women drunken like Hogarthian prints, men too, lying in vomit, and filth, and I take little comfort in the conclusions of AE and Guhame, any more than I trust the “hockey stick” graphs of global warming when I see no evidence in my lifetime of AGW.

    Put it this way, if AE and Guhame are right, how come Roissy can pick up chicks in the way he does left and right? How come Chav Britain exists? Why does Dalrymple cite his personal observations and data? Why does Murray find his conclusions?

    From the personal inspection of the GSS data (not using the webtool, actually downloading it) I can say many observations per year per classifications (i.e. White Male age 34) can run to 3 or 4. THAT is too small a data sample to draw any conclusions from, moreover the GSS conclusions run counter to all the empirical evidence seen with our own eyes.

    [Dave in Hawaii — exactly right for men married NOW, but my larger point is that few men will be willing to marry, certainly not men women would desire (those with options). Why should they?]

    LA is already becoming Detroit, and NYC is too. I live in SoCal. LA’s property owners are screwed (like NYC’s) and they know it, it’s Detroit time.

    At any rate, I see few men women would actually want to marry doing so. Rather, simply spreading their seed.

    Like


  256. on November 20, 2009 at 1:17 am Marcus Aureliette

    DCLXVI:

    My apologies; I misunderstood what you were attempting to do.

    Like


  257. LILGRL

    Bad reframe. I’m all for adoption and I know many women (and men) who are. Totally different situation.

    Yes. Swapping the sexes equals a bad reframing.

    Women prefer adoption over having their own children? Stop the presses….

    Totally different situation? In one case the man prefers a genetic legacy. In the other case the women prefers a genetic legacy. Yes. A totally different situation.

    Like


  258. on November 20, 2009 at 1:22 am Marcus Aureliette

    And swabbing a child without the mother being NOTIFIED is absolutely unacceptable.

    Why, though? It doesn’t harm the child, it doesn’t harm you, it doesn’t harm anyone, and may, in fact, end up being helpful. Both parents bring a child into the world; both are equally entitled to any and all genetic data pertaining to that child. Neither should need the permission of the other for that.

    Like


  259. on November 20, 2009 at 1:50 am incurablesanity

    All I can think of is how many times I’ve heard the idea “If you don’t want to be responsible for a child you shouldn’t have had sex with her” directed at men. It is a risk that men must take into account whenever they have sex. However what responsibility is there for women who get pregnant? It is entirely their choice to go through with it, they can get help supporting said child in almost all situations it seems (if there isn’t a beta provider they go for a pregnancy test to get the biological father to pay child support). Women clearly don’t want to accept that there are consequences to their actions, particularly impulsive ones in the bedroom.

    I certainly agree that society should be doing a lot more to protect the rights of fathers. Right now the notion that the father figure is replaceable in a child’s life and loyalty to him is not necessary destroys so much of the stability of our culture. If men must be more responsible than women then they deserve more power. Period.

    Like


  260. whiskey

    …… his initial research on WHITE Working and Middle Class women (40% and 20%, respectively illegitimate births) and what Theodore Dalrymple observed in White Britain during his lifetime — from Working and Middle Class WHITE WOMEN (leaving the issue of race aside) changing over 40 years from very low illegitimacy to over 50% today.

    Don’t assume White mothers=White babies.

    What percentage of out of wedlock births to White women in the US/UK involve a non-White, mostly black, father?

    How does that factor into the changes over the past 40 years? A huge percentage of black males in the UK have children by White females.

    Those numbers are increasing in the US as well.

    Like


  261. If the “best interests of the child” are paramount why are fathers sent overseas into military combat? Is the potential of making a child an orphan in the best interest?

    If the “best interests of the child” are paramount why are fathers sent into prison to serve multi-decade sentences? Is the stigma of having a convict for a father less than the revelation their mother is a slut?

    Like


  262. @Doug1

    Very simple really. She consents ahead of time with respect to each birth during your marriage, and agrees her consent cannot be withdrawn except by a subsequent agreement in writing between the two of you. This is a material condition to your both agreeing to enter into marriage.

    I have to say, that sounds like the kind of advice given by one who’s never married. (No intended slam here; I ejoy your posts.) Whereas in reality, it’s never that straightforward. In practice, anything disadvantageous to the woman and mutually agreed upon before marriage suffers from a sort of “marriage amnesia”–an incurable disease triggered, I hear, by the ingredients inside the frosting of wedding cake. In other words, by the time you’re both ready for kids, she’ll have blocked-out the entire contract.

    But seriously, perhaps the more effective reason to put this into a pre-nup would be to serve as a kind of warning shot, to set a frame. For the typical couple, the birth of a child is not a time for legal wrangling and to remind on the finer points of the pre-nup. It would sort of kill the mood.

    Simply after the kid pops-out, yet well before any statute of limitations kicks-in, do the darn paternity test on your own. (Or announce you’ve done it, if that’s your thing and if you need another warning shot.)

    In addition, I have to wonder that if a court can rationalize the ass-raping of these NYT article guys like this, then the same court is likely to value the pre-nup clause on this topic the very same: nice try sucker; time to pay up.

    Like


  263. @Orthodox

    2. Upon birth, paternity testing must be offered to the named father, paid for by insurance or state. Father can decline.

    …to which 90% of beta males would voluntarily and honorably decline in order to preserve the sanctity of the wife/mother.

    And so the problem goes on.

    Like


  264. @ z

    Feminists and women everywhere in the West complain about men “being afraid of commitment”. Fair laws like MPT would lessen one concern men have who are considering marriage.

    Good point. But I suspect that for many women, the complaint that men are afraid of commitment isn’t made in response to the many betas who would willingly commit, but rather to the fewer alphas who won’t. The complaint is not about the 95% of men that would willingly settle down but only the top-5% who have more plentiful dating options and don’t dare (and not because they fear cuckolding).

    But even this anti-cuckolding benefit would need to overwhelm a clear disincentive among alpha’s to enact MPT. For example, what male interloper wants to find himself pursued by a positive MPT result after a short-term romp with a woman in an LTR and to whom he wouldn’t otherwise commit?

    On this last point, I fear that most politicians, those men in power and authority to enact and enforce laws related to MPT and male rights slightly more resemble the 5% who could be financially harmed by MPT, who might find their sex life (and wallet) cramped by it.

    Don’t hold your breath on the law. Spread the news. Make it socially acceptable to do. Get the MPT on your own. Swab the cheek and you, like most guys, will rest at ease.

    Like


  265. MNL

    Everything I’ve read and heard about prenups is that they are not worth the paper they’re written on, regardless whether both parties have signed with legal counsel. Judges either outright disregard them, or find another way to compensate, i.e. punish the man financially. Anyone with actual experience with this should really comment, because IMO it offers men a false sense of security.

    Like


  266. on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 am The Fifth Horseman

    I am a relatively calm and peaceful person.

    But this is the ONE thing over which I would shoot people. If a firearm were not handy, I would use a knife and slash the cuckolder’s throat. I mean it.

    I wonder why Sodinis are so rare?

    Regarding child support, I would happily go to a country that does not extradite to the US, and live in a small hut for the rest of my life. Better that than such dehumanization.

    Like


  267. on November 20, 2009 at 3:44 am The Fifth Horseman

    anony HAS cuckolded her husband! She admitted it months ago.

    No wonder she comes out of the woodwork on any cuckolding thread!!

    Like


  268. on November 20, 2009 at 4:05 am The Fifth Horseman

    Women have a poor understanding of cause and effect, for the most part.

    If they had a better understanding, then they would see how the act of cuckolding can turn mild-mannered Bob the Accountant into a machete-wielding madman.

    Cuckoldry is WORSE than rape, since the man is losing his resources ON TOP OF his dignity and soul. A woman who is raped only loses the latter – not her resources.

    Like


  269. on November 20, 2009 at 4:13 am The Fifth Horseman

    And swabbing a child without the mother being NOTIFIED is absolutely unacceptable.

    Wrong. It is perfectly acceptable, and the fact that you disapprove proves that a lot of women will get found out.

    You tried to cuckold a guy, except that he was smarter than you, and left you holding the bag as a single mom with no future romantic prospects.

    Justice.

    Like


  270. Yes. Swapping the sexes equals a bad reframing.

    Please. That’s not at all what I meant. Lupo had a better reframe:

    I liked the suggestion above; why not just take home any old kid from the maternity ward? Why bother with all that intrusive footprinting, wristbanding crap? After all, it’s way more intrusive to mark a kid up with potentially toxic ink than it is to take a cheek swab.

    Adoption as a reframe of cuckoldry is stupid.

    Like


  271. Just want to add to this excellent post.

    Not only are the guys raped financially, they will also lose their best reproductive years, what am I trying to say?

    Simply; in most cases these men do not find out until they are pushing over 40+. If they would have found out 10 years ago, whilst pushing 30, they could have spend those ten years looking for a women who wasn’t a braising lying cheating fucking whore of the highest order.

    Not only is the kid robbed of a father through lies from a creature who has no concept of moral values or repercussions, the man also has probably lost his best dating potential years, where he could have impregnated a hot young filly and had a real kid and not some lie from a manipulative selfish whore.

    Goes to show you perfectly the lengths women will go to, to live a lie, tow a beta male for financial rape and lie to the ones she supposedly loves!

    How can the women even state to the kid “I love you”, whilst knowing the man around the house isn’t her father, it is sickening the lengths some women will go to, for selfish reasons.

    Like


  272. Underlying all of this moral degeneration is the impact of steadily increasing prosperity. We saw it in the 1920s too, with the “Roaring Twenties” then followed by the austere thirties.

    As society becomes richer, it becomes more exuberant and less mindful of future risks. People load up on debt, hedonism and relativism. It reaches a point of total degeneration at about the same time as the stock market peak.

    And then the crash. Then new mores set in, of frugality, reserve and dignity.

    All of the degenerate feminist behaviour we bemoan is only possible because of a huge perceived surplus capital in society that government can appropriate and hose into wimmin’s studies programs. Welfare queens and the black ghetto matriarchy can only exist when there are tax dollars to loot from the productive class. Long maternity leave, New Girl economy and so on can only exist while government has cash to spunk onto worthless non-jobs in education and administration, and cash rich female consumers have the exuberance to spend all the spare dollars on shoes and Sex And The City DVDs.

    This is all temporary. It’s enabled by a 40 year expansion of national wealth that is now sharply retrenching.

    As cities fail to pay their fire departments, companies rationalise staff, gangsta rappers can’t get low interest loans to buy bling – as the economy contracts all of this hideous excess is reined in.

    And then the patriarchical society with the beta provider at it’s backbone will reassert itself. Western society will pass this monumental shit test imposed upon it by the feminists.

    The one great thing about economics is: If it can’t happen, it won’t.

    We are not doomed to follow Rome into dissolution. This is the last death throes of the matriarchy. We have reached Peak Feminism.

    Like


  273. Who the fuck cares about betas? If they weren’t retards they would trust no one and would have had a DNA test done. It is their own fault for finding out later and having to pay child support. They totally deserve their fate since they made the first mistake of marrying, second having a kid and thirdly trusting someone with their future by not testing. That’s three mistakes. I knew all this when I was 15… most of these guys look over 40. Are average Americans really this stupid? People should learn from the mistake of others.

    Like


  274. I agree that it’s not immoral for a man to DNA-test his putative child without the mother’s knowledge or consent. How can it be immoral when it doesn’t harm anyone?

    I think what’s really going on is that as a practical matter, most men will be a lot less inclined to do the test if the mother will know about it.

    In my opinion, most feminists instinctively resist any practice or policy which increases mens’ power, knowledge, or options in their relationships with women. Even if the only women who are harmed are women who deserve to be harmed.

    Like


  275. on November 20, 2009 at 7:05 am Epoxytocin No. 87

    @ Seeking Alpha

    Biggest load of bullshit. I was forced to vote against how I felt because that was the law.

    Dude, really? Really?

    ALL jurors have the power of nullification. ALL of them. You are never, ever, ever, ever compelled to “vote against how you felt”, ever, at all.

    Jury nullification is not well-known, and the courts do their best to keep it under wraps. In fact, the Sixth Circuit has gone so far as to actually uphold courts’ right to explicitly lie about it.
    But you still have the right.

    Incidentally, for all of you guys out there looking to be dismissed from jury duty – just wait until voir dire, and say (in a really loud voice) that you know what jury nullification is and will explain it to the rest of the jury. You’ll be out of there before you know it.

    Like


  276. pithy poignant and perspicacious…another classic chateau post.

    One of the reasons I love this blog is this: even the hard hitting, abyss staring, vision clarifying, roissy posts like this have seasoned the hard reality with the joy of the one or two unexpected lol statements that make it fun to read… in this one the crime in the list that made me laugh out loud…

    “…dick sandwich…” omfg, roflmao!

    Props from one of your lurker fans!

    can a roissy 501c3 to protect men from cuckoldresses be far behind?

    Like


  277. dick sandwich.. roflmao

    Like


  278. Hang on. Did this Tennessee MPT bill go through or not?

    If so then, considering that we all think this is something of a huge deal, what Tenessee statistics should we be tracking in the future to assess its impact?

    What will the effect be on the rates of divorce, marriage and illegitimacy?

    If a case is going to be made in the future for this to be rolled out then sympathetic quants need to be all over these questions like syphilis on a 17th c. French alpha’s garlic baguette.

    Like


  279. on November 20, 2009 at 8:30 am Wendy Schwartz

    What all of you are failing to realize or admit is that we dont WANT you, your money, or your dicks. We are perfectly happy raising our children without you and wouldn’t have it any other way. We pick those of you who are suitable with qualities we would like in our son or daughter and use you for your sperm. It doesnt matter what sort of father or man you are because you will never know the child. Its a shame you’re too dim to realize that. But then again what do I expect from men such as you.

    Like


  280. What’s the scope of this Tennessee law? All newborns? All those born in Tenn hospitals?

    Yes, I could google it, but I’m not that motivated, just bored and lazy, thank you.

    Like


  281. Besides, society has increasingly recognized that parenthood is not necessarily bound to genetics.

    Uh, no it hasn’t, in the least. The elites are certainly pushing that attitude through the courts via homosexual marriage, in the quest to destroy the traditional family, which is the foundation for Western Civ, their ultimate target. But “society” wants nothing to do with that, as evidenced by the fact that it gets rejected every time the population of a state (even liberal ones like Maine) gets to vote on the subject.

    Like


  282. on November 20, 2009 at 10:40 am incurablesanity

    @ Wendy Schwartz

    Who is this “We” you speak of? I’ve never met a woman who didn’t want to have someone with her to help raise her children. Or would turn down child support. And on top of that children who grow up in dual parent households tend to be much healthier mentally. So even if you just view men as sperm that’s not how kids tend to view their fathers. Heaven help any male child born to you. Growing up being told all he will ever be good for is sperm sound like abuse to me.

    Like


  283. @ LR

    Are you that detached from reality? Do you not read the papers, watch the news, or pay any attention to current events?

    Hey-Soos Christo…..you may be the exception, but most women DO care about the money. They care plenty. What are the statistics of women who decline child support? Slim I would imagine.

    I know personally several guys who pay exorbitant amounts of child support even though their baby mammas make double or triple their salary. This is not anecdotal, it’s the fucking way it is.

    Hell, a good friend of mine had his ex wife (who is an exec at UPS) tell him his piddly 1200 dollars a month for 2 kids did nothing but pay for her Mercedes and her new hubby’s country club membership fees.

    Like


  284. These posts generate so many comments – just wondering Roissy, do you read roughly all of them or skim through most of them or what?

    Like


  285. You should be shot.

    I’d do it in a heartbeat, if I didn’t have prior agreement.

    Dave from Hawaii’s suggestions were excellent.

    I’m sorry, of ALL the things I say you think that me saying “The mother has a right to be NOTIFIED if her baby is being swabbed” is deserving of a hysterical threat like that??

    I sincerely hope, Doug that you TRY doing exactly that someday because if the child turned out to NOT be yours and you took it, swabbed it, and ran tests without the mother’s permission…..that mother can file a LOOOOOONG list of charges against you. Have fun in prison, they REALLY like woman-beaters and guys that mess with kids in there……

    Seriously, Doug what makes you the most disgusting and ignornant commenter here is that you appear to be at least intelligent enough to KNOW better than to say things this ridiculous and stupid.

    I can only imagine what tiny teeny part of your brain decided that it “makes sense” to steal babies and run tests on them without the mother’s knowledge. The father in NO WAY has MORE rights than the mother has and you just want to come up with another reason why “women are evil”.

    The only things I’ve ever heard you extol are beating women, intimidating women, dodging child support and paternity, and NOT doing your job as a man or a human being.

    Like


  286. I know personally several guys who pay exorbitant amounts of child support even though their baby mammas make double or triple their salary. This is not anecdotal, it’s the fucking way it is.

    It BLOWS MY MIND that you type this and probably mean it. Of COURSE they should pay more!!!!! Whichever parent has custody (mother or father) has to pay for a home, electric, groceries, school, transportation, daycare and/or a babysitter, health insurance, school schools, and of course actually CARING for the child.

    The non-custodial parent has the easy job whether you care to admit it or not. All they have to do is take the kid once in awhile and then send a check in the mail just like paying your cable.

    Again, the non-custodial parent wouldn’t HAVE that “extra income” if they were made to pay a few hundred $$$$ a week in daycare like the custodial parent does just to GO to work. Grow the fuck up, seriously. You owe it, you pay it, or you take the full responsibility of raising the child if you don’t like it. Wahhhhhhh, those men have it so easy they should be on their knees thanking the Gods everyday.

    Like


  287. The New York Times Magazine publishes:

    1) a lengthy article

    2) by a female writer

    3) on the subject of gender politics

    And this article publicizes real cases of injustice against men?

    That’s un-possible! This alleged article contradicts everything I have learned about the mainstream media from reading single-issue blogs that inform me about the character of the mainstream media.

    The ideological model I carry in my head predicts that the New York Beta Times would only publish articles that serve the interests of the femi-Nazi overlords who rule my world. If this ideological model does not align with reality, then why am I such a paranoid wreck?

    This article does not exist.

    Like


  288. Who is this “We” you speak of? I’ve never met a woman who didn’t want to have someone with her to help raise her children. Or would turn down child support.

    The “we” I speak of is my sister and myself. I have always lived alone with my son until recently when my sister and I FINALLY found a home large enough to merge our families into one (which is awesome because we’ve been looking FOREVER).

    I assume you are serious when you say you’ve never met a woman who doesn’t want child support…..but I find it hard to believe that I’m the only woman alive that sees the many benefits to NOT collecting support including but not limited to:

    1. NOT spending my days in and out of court because of some dumb-ass man that I don’t even speak to anymore

    2. As long as he’s NOT paying, he has pretty much NO leg to stand on legally

    3. As long as he’s not paying he can’t ask for visitation, ask for rights, or even admit he’s the “father” WITHOUT getting slapped with ALL 6 YEARS of payments missed thus far.

    4. And most important of all, I don’t have to worry that he EVER comes near me or my son because until he “re-admits” paternity (and he won’t because he’d have to pay)……he has no rights to my son at all. (But only because I made sure he’d HAVE to go get a paternity test to prove he’s the father since I didn’t list him on the birth certificate, didn’t use his last name at all, and have no legal documents SAYING he’s the father).

    Basically, what I am saying is that if you’re dealing with a former abuser, a dangerous man, or a “loose cannon”…..NOT collecting/seeking support really IS the best option to keep an unwanted ex out of you and your child’s life.

    Any responsible mother would choose that option and just make up for the difference in $$$ by working harder or working more….whatever the case. It seems pretty simple to me and I genuinely AM surprised that more mothers DON’T seem to understand that “freedom from the ex-asshole” comes ONLY in being “free from him financially”.

    If you are financially independent of ALL exes, current bfs, or husbands you are ALWAYS able to leave them at any time without any further interference from them.

    The sad truth is that most men ONLY care about NOT having to pay……very few care if that means never seeing their child again. THAT is what you count on to keep your “motherly freedom” from men.

    Like


  289. @incurablesanity

    It’s the kids of mothers like LR that will be making our laws, serving in our military, and putting socialists mooncrickets like Nobama in office someday. One more reason I dread the future of the country I fought and risked my life for.

    Like


  290. Hitman–

    Except I hate Obama, am not a liberal, and have “dog in the fight” regarding Feminism or other women whatsoever.

    If it were up to me, the US would get a REAL leader who understands that more the United States “polices the world”, lets foreigners in, and continues to allow this melting pot between the races, the US will be gone altogether in a short time.

    As far as I’m concerned the French can take Lady Liberty right back to their own country because we are definitely tired of being given “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free….”

    And would like them to be “given” to some other country from now on so that we can worry about our own people and the useless illegal immigrants should be shot AT the border without question. I’m a huge fan of BIG walls, lots of Military “barriers” and immediate shootings of dirty illegals who try to come and live off of Welfare that most real Americans don’t even qualify for.

    Like


  291. I really really do hope MPT becomes the standard, because every man who has tried the “its not my baby……but I’m gonna ALSO refuse to take a paternity test” ploy is going to be SOL once this happens.

    As for deadbeat mothers, they should be punished JUST as harshly as deadbeat fathers are. (and in my opinion a “deadbeat mother” is even WORSE because I sort of expect more from women/mothers).

    Men aren’t capable of “having full custody and raising a child alone”…..but deep down I REALLY wish that courts would award “automatic custody” to fathers instead. There would never EVER be a complaint about sending a check in the mail ever again.

    Even when I work 12 hour days in an unairconditioned, sweaty, dangerous shop…..it’s still like a vacation on a tropical beach compared to the responsibility of actually raising a child.

    Like


  292. @ Epoxy

    Well shit. Didn’t know that. Although kind of surprised at your reaction…

    Dude, really? Really?

    … that you’d be so surprised that a trader and economics major wouldn’t know about an obscure juror right that is not well known and that judges are allowed to lie about.

    Like


  293. on November 20, 2009 at 11:41 am Peter says "Roadhouse"

    Cap’n save a hoe!

    Like


  294. Of course we need MPT. The logic is cut and dried. If there were 10% of non-maternity cases due to hospitals mixing up babies what the fuck do you think women would be doing? All calm and rational and “oh, well, biological ties are irrationally important to some” and bullshit like that? I think not.

    Anyway, the tide is turning on this one. TN is the start. There will be others. This is coming, because it is only fair.

    Like


  295. Dave from Hawaii has it right. Any father would be a fool not to DNA test his purported children.

    I’ve had this conversation about paternity testing with quite a few women. Every single one of them is adamantly against it. This is why optional paternity testing at birth is a joke. Very few men will have the balls to insist on a paternity test before signing the birth certificate.

    Like


  296. I should add – a friend of mine was cucked. Found out only because he paternity tested when the kid was 2. Brutal. The biological father is not interested in stepping up.

    My friend divorced his whore wife. But he couldn’t bear to cut ties with the kid, and still spends time with the boy.

    Like


  297. […] tip: Roissy in DC) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Who’s Your Daddy?Maury Povich Making the […]

    Like


  298. Is the board united that cuckolding should be a crime, rather than merely frowned upon. Personally, I think it deserves a very long prison sentence. At the bare minimum it’s fraud.

    Like


  299. I believe it should be considered criminal fraud, yes.

    Like


  300. Some random thoughts:

    “Lady” Raine said “We pick those of you … with qualities we would like in our son or daughter and use you for your sperm. ”

    So, you picked a man who was an alcoholic, abusing, deadbeat for the father of your child? All the more evidence that women should NOT have the legal nor moral authority to decide who reproduces.

    I would go one step further than MPT. I would say that if the husband/boyfriend is not the father, he cannot, BY LAW, adopt the child until 1 year has passed. That way, he has time for his head to clear, and his emotions to subside.

    Remember this… one of the ways that a prenup can be abrogated is if the woman was “pressured” into it. A man who just found out that a child wasn’t his, is most certainly under pressure.

    And Roissy is right. Any woman who is bothered by MPT is an absolute cheating, cuntrag whore. She has something to hide. MPT has NOTHING to do with the woman. It has EVERYTHING to do with the “Father” and the child.

    Notice that the “daughter” of the guy who discontinued all contact with her doesn’t blame the whore mother AT ALL. This should tell you everything you need to know about how amoral women are, about how they are guided not by what is right, but by their FEEEEEELINGS.

    As to all you guys who go on about “biology” pushing women to cheat, realize this: 60 years ago, a woman didn’t DARE cheat. She realized that she would be out on her ass, and other men and women would ostracize her. She didn’t cheat because the costs were too high. Society made it that way, and we were better off for it. If it was “biology”, then they would cheat no matter what. How can you verify what I am saying is true? TALK TO SOMEONE WHO LIVED IN THE 40S AND 50S. Were there exceptions? Yes. But they were…… exceptional.

    Women shouldn’t have choice over reproduction. For when they have that choice, they ABUSE IT. History shows this time, and time, and time yet again. But ignorant people continue to ignore history.

    I think welfare should be limited to married couples, widows/widowers, and orphans. I also think there should be “male abortions”, in that males should be able to decide that they are NOT going to support the child in any way, shape, or form, and cannot be compelled to do so under the law.

    A good rule-of-thumb should be “follow the money” whenever asking any questions about public policy.

    Like


  301. A quick question: Did I comment some infraction that my comments are now “moderated”, are all comments now moderated, or is this just a screw up in the comments?

    Like


  302. No marriage means no cuckolding. And no divorce too.

    Men, don’t ever marry.

    Like


  303. on November 20, 2009 at 2:10 pm Wendy Schwartz

    OMG AH HAHAHAHAH you guys are actually calling “cuckholding” a CRIME???

    Cuckolding in itself is not only imaginary, but is yet ANOTHER excuse for lazy, undiscipline, unmotivated blamers to play VICTIM and have an excuse for contributing nothing to the world and being irresponsible and useless in general.

    You are the same kind of people who get fired….then blame their BOSS for “having it out for you”…..who get a girl pregnant….then blame HER for “not MAKING you use a condom”……who’s wives divorce them…..then blame HER for “just not loving you enough”……who get their kids taken away by Social Services…..then blame the Government for being so “skewed toward the mothers”…….

    Blame. Blame. Blame. It couldn’t POSSIBLY be that you are mentally weak, easily influenced by what others tell you, and are actually RESPONSIBLE for making your life what it is……No I guess that’s a crazy idea for some of you to wrap your minds around.

    People who are assaulted, beaten, raped, and murdered are not given a “choice” so I really truly DO hope that you are a REAL victim of a horrible crime and see if you still agree.

    (And I think real victims of rape, murder, molestation, and assault would hardly agree that you are the “victim” of anything except being a fucking loser.)

    Like


  304. the name says it all…

    and yeah, don’t marry

    Like


  305. on November 20, 2009 at 1:51 pm Marcus Aureliette

    LR: …We are perfectly happy raising our children without you and wouldn’t have it any other way….

    You don’t speak for all women, LR, nor even most of them, I suspect. I’ve never been one to jump aboard the Bash LR train and I’m not going to start now, but please don’t attempt to appoint yourself womankind’s representative.

    There are still women who believe that children are a result of having a deep, abiding relationship of love and teamwork with the man who is their partner for life, NOT that men are merely sperm- (or cash-) donors for the sake of acquiring a child (or anything else.) We don’t all see men as a means to an end, nor children as an end in themselves.

    Like


  306. Novaseeker,

    Disclaimer: while I’m not in favor of anything mandatory, I do support paternity testing, and think that the women who allow other men to unknowingly raise and support their children are doing something horrible.

    But if cuckolding was taken to a criminal level, what about something similiar?

    What about the married men that keep two families, or keep a mistress and their child, or the men that have accidental babies with an affair and financially support those children?

    Yes, it’s their offspring.

    But they are legally bound to one woman. They are diverting their funds to other children, children conceived through going outside their marriage. Their legal offspring are now being given less financial support, less time devoted to raising.

    Should that be criminal?

    Should the wife be allowed to sue for the amount of money that her (probably now ex-) husband gave to another child?

    Like


  307. As much as MPT, we need more and more men to demand paternity tests at birth. I will with any woman I’m with – and if she has a problem with that, I know she’s considering being a whore. If you have nothing to hide there’s nothing wrong with it.

    If a bitch cuckolds you and you’re still paying for the kid, the last thing you do is take it. More important than legal rights, which in US are feminist and anti-male, is your own moral code. Your own pride as a man. There is NO WAY a bitch and a kid that ain’t mine would ever get ANY money from me. NONE. Whether that means I have to leave the country, quit my job, etc., it will never happen.

    I will also tell any future wife of mine that there will be NO divorce. And when I tell her I will have a look that could kill. She will understand that I’m fucking serious. I’m Catholic and that will be my excuse, but really it’s to keep the bitch in line…there are really no advantages for men in marriage. So do these things, and make the bitch qualify herself to you if she wants that expensive ring.

    Like


  308. Incidentally, for all of you guys out there looking to be dismissed from jury duty – just wait until voir dire, and say (in a really loud voice) that you know what jury nullification is and will explain it to the rest of the jury. You’ll be out of there before you know it.

    SRSLY.

    Like


  309. aliasclio–

    You all forget that there are women out there who end up paying for their men’s out-of-wedlock babies, or even their men’s in-wedlock babies, if the child-support payments a biological father is obliged to pay are determined as a portion of their combined incomes rather than his income alone.

    No clio the custodial parent=mother’s income isn’t genuinely taken into account in the vast majority of states at all, including NY. It’s an enormous and deliberate feminist lie, or deception. Oh it’s asked for in forms and it’s plugged into the equation. In both the numerator and the denominator. Her income is mathematically cancelled to the multiplicative quantity of 1. It matters nada.

    No matter how much income the two combined make a fixed BEFORE tax percentage of it (generally 20-25% for one child, but in some states more, and half again for a second one (are we grocking where the alimony portion comes in yet)) is deemed NECESSARY for the support of the child, and the woman is deemed automatically to be contributing that amount. If her income double in the second year, that will have zero impact on the extractions from him.

    In a few states with complex computerized formulas (or anyway one’s which are readily available for inspection) which are modeled on the net, such as in California, the woman’s income is genuinely taken into account but only to a VERY small degree. It’s almost as if some lawmakers responding to male outrage that the mother’s income didn’t matter at all and increases in it would reduce his burden whatsoever responded just BARELY enough so that they could say that no, now the woman’s income doesn’t cancel out. So now her’s can double and his extractions might go down 1 or 2%. I’ve played with the online model, but several months ago.

    Like


  310. on November 20, 2009 at 2:50 pm Passing through

    Consider those photos.

    Better-looking sportsmen more likely to win
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18176-betterlooking-sportsmen-more-likely-to-win.html?full=true

    Like


  311. The Fifth Horseman,

    Now you are wondering why sodinis are so rare. That is change I can believe in.

    Like


  312. Doug:

    I think you’re arguing against a point she didn’t make. She’s saying that the cheated upon wife may end up paying (indirectly) support to the mistress if the combined income of the husband and the cheated upon wife are taken into account.

    Theoretically true, but as a practical matter, the guy who does this is usually making the money (and the wife not), and if that guy is making a lot of money she still has a good financial deal on the whole notwithstanding community property concepts in some states.

    Like


  313. Poetry,

    I don’t think that those two situations are substantively similar. In a cuckolding scenario, the question is whether the man has ANY material obligation at all to a child who is not his offspring. In the “extracurricular activities” scenario you presented you’re insinuating that the man is delinquent unless he provides ALL his resources to the children (and presumably the wife) of his current marriage.

    He can’t be held delinquent as far as material obligations to the children of the current marriage are concerned, any more than a faithful man who fathers a second child by the same wife can be considered delinquent in his support of the first child. He can’t be held delinquent as far as obligations to the children outside the current marriage are concerned, any more than any non-custodial parent.

    I am not implying any kind of moral sanction of that kind of behavior.

    Like


  314. Anonymous,

    I was trying to think of the male version of that situation. Someone else bearing the man’s child without his legal partner knowing, and having that have a financial impact on the legal household. If you can toss out something that you think would be more similiar to the cuckolding, but with a negative impact on the female, then that would be great.

    If we treat marriage simply as a contract, no emotions involved, in my mind it’s simply a religioous sanction of reproduction and a legally determined of distribution of funds within the family unit.

    So if the man beings to divert funds out of his legally bound union to other, non-sanctioned offspring, it is almost as though he is stealing from his own family, from his children. If he spends time with his illegal offspring, or spends extra time at work in the attempt to make enough money to support that extra offspring, then he is “stealing” time from his legal offspring. Is that neglect? I think it could be argued as such.

    I don’t think it’s a matter of all of his funds or all of his time, but the violation of the marriage contract. Men aren’t packmules.

    But, yes, if you can toss out a situation closer to the cuckolding, that would be interesting to discuss. At least to me, anyway.

    Like


  315. No clio the custodial parent=mother’s income isn’t genuinely taken into account in the vast majority of states at all, including NY. It’s an enormous and deliberate feminist lie, or deception. Oh it’s asked for in forms and it’s plugged into the equation. In both the numerator and the denominator. Her income is mathematically cancelled to the multiplicative quantity of 1. It matters nada.

    All right, Doug1. I’ll take your word for this for the moment until I have leisure to check it out. I do know feminist sources aren’t always reliable in such matters.

    But you left out an important implication of my comment: the fact that adulterous men who father children out of wedlock and are “caught” and held legally liable for it deplete resources that ought to be concentrated on their legitimate families. Yes, the perfidy of adulterous women who deliberately become pregnant is partly to blame for this, but my argument here is with your casual attitude to male adultery. Its potential impact on legitimate families is not quite the same as that of women, but it can still be severe in both its practical and emotional consequences.

    Like


  316. Dear Dr. Roissy,

    1. What is the best type of man for a woman to marry? For both the man and the woman.

    It ain’t the badboy, cuz he will cheat or fuck off shortly after they marry, if at all

    It ain’t the beta, cuz she’ll be miserable the whole time, then so will he.

    Is it the Good Alpha? Does that exist?

    2. Is a woman’s attractiveness absolute or relative or both? Does Brad Pitt think that a 9/10 woman is still hot? Or is she ugly, cuz he can bang 10s on the regular?

    I believe that positive pheromones are correlated with good looks. Does that mean a 9/10 stinks to a 10/10, or do they still smell good?

    Thanks

    el chief

    This is a very pertinent question El Chief. I’d like to see Roissy’s take on it.

    Like


  317. “I was trying to think of the male version of that situation”

    Here’s how I see it:

    A scummy woman will try to (fraudulently) get a financial commitment from a man without actually bearing his child.

    A scummy man will try to (fraudulently) get a woman to bear his child without committing to her financially.

    Thus, the male equivalent to cuckoldry is arguably lying to a woman to get sex from her and hopefully impregnant her. So to me, it’s completely wrong for a man to falsely pretend that he and a girl have a future together in order to get sex. (Of course it’s not as bad now that there is effective birth control and abortion. But still.)

    Like


  318. on November 20, 2009 at 5:01 pm Wendy Schwartz

    If a bitch cuckolds you and you’re still paying for the kid, the last thing you do is take it. More important than legal rights, which in US are feminist and anti-male, is your own moral code. Your own pride as a man. There is NO WAY a bitch and a kid that ain’t mine would ever get ANY money from me. NONE. Whether that means I have to leave the country, quit my job, etc., it will never happen.

    Nothing like running like a pussy-bitch to show what a MAN you are.

    I will also tell any future wife of mine that there will be NO divorce. And when I tell her I will have a look that could kill. She will understand that I’m fucking serious. I’m Catholic and that will be my excuse, but really it’s to keep the bitch in line…there are really no advantages for men in marriage. So do these things, and make the bitch qualify herself to you if she wants that expensive ring.

    I don’t think you would EVER have to worry about being married or a woman wanting to bear your babies. For ANY reason.

    *Jack’s mother pulls him by the ear and drags him away from the computer screaming “I’m goddamn tired of you living in my basement!! Get off your ass and get a job!”*

    Like


  319. Sabril,

    The issue I have with that comparison is that it’s lacking a legally binding agreement between two people and it does not involve a third party.

    Like


  320. @ Seeking Alpha

    … that you’d be so surprised that a trader and economics major wouldn’t know about an obscure juror right that is not well known and that judges are allowed to lie about.

    Actually – yeah. Most people I’ve met who do know about nullification fit almost exactly your profile (educated, working in primarily male industries, etc).

    Also, I guess we just have different personality types. I’m the type who, on my first jury duty, basically applied the principle of jury nullification without actually knowing about jury nullification (“Damned if I’m going to vote against my sickening gut feeling… no matter what”).

    Like


  321. on November 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm gunslingergregi

    Well poetry that is why you talk about shit like that before marriage. So you both know what the expectations are.

    Like


  322. on November 20, 2009 at 5:47 pm Wendy Schwartz

    I don’t want to hear a single argument from the men stating that the BIBLE says you can cheat but your wife can’t.

    It does NOT say that first of all (christ you people are like my mother)…..

    Second, unless you follow all the OTHER commandments (and you don’t) then using the BIBLE as an argument in your favor is just plain old ridiculous.

    More importantly the Bible has been picked apart, rewritten, re-interpreted, and changed so many times…..it’s about as good as checking a Danielle Steel novel for your “guidelines”.

    *I don’t feel the need to mention that the Bible is just a brilliant fictional work written by man*

    Like


  323. “The issue I have with that comparison is that it’s lacking a legally binding agreement between two people and it does not involve a third party.”

    Why are those things relevant? It’s wrong to break a promise; but it’s also wrong to defraud somebody.

    Like


  324. on November 20, 2009 at 5:02 pm Epoxytocin No. 87

    but yeah, i was being a bit over the top there, huh.

    i blame the general tenor and topic of the thread. loaded topic and all.

    Like


  325. on November 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm gunslingergregi

    Naa epoxy doug sent an innocent to jail insead of sticking with guts. lol

    Like


  326. Clio–

    but my argument here is with your casual attitude to male adultery. Its potential impact on legitimate families is not quite the same as that of women, but it can still be severe in both its practical and emotional consequences.

    I don’t have a casual attitude towards male adultery. I just don’t have an entirely prohibitory view about it.

    I think male infidelity that results in pregnancy and child support obligations outside the family are not ok at all. I think that is a seriously bad thing to do to a woman one loves. If a man has a couple of kids I really think he should get a vasectomy.

    I also think though Clio that men should have Roe reproductive rights as well. If women can chose to Plan B, abort, or give the child up for adoption post coitus, then men should be able to as well. That’s particularly the cases since I’ve become utterly convinced that most female out of wedlock births are really consciously or semi or unconsciously intended. How else explain the increase from single digits out of wedlock child births in 1960 and a 12% American rate in 1972, to about 40% today? These are babies than women want and men don’t, overwhelmingly. Men shouldn’t have to pay for them.

    Personally I’d like to see welfare made a truly short term safety net only, more to reduced reproduction down amongst the competitive losers in society than to save money. But as a political compromise, men however duped by oops babies could be made to pay welfare levels of support for women that would qualify for it, for so long as they would.

    (I’m aware that a good portion of single mother bio dads / baby daddies can’t afford welfare levels of support at current American child support before tax rates, cause these men are so poor or totally unemployed, so they should only pay the current system amount, which actually sometimes may be unjust. But that’s way far afield of gender equity issues and into welfare ones really, or mostly.)

    Anyway, what I’m saying is that if married men didn’t have to pay oops sluts/gotcha fraudster women ridding on chivalrous male and feminist female coattails “dead beat dads” pay up, but the slut was on her own, such slut out of wedlock births would go way down.

    Clio, I think that if a woman wants to get a man to pay or help pay for her child and herself she should be married to him. I’ll grant you there’s an issue when men leave women without any female fault, but instead as we’ve been utterly falaciously propagandized to believe usually for a younger, hotter woman, there’s a fairness issue for the divorced woman if she doesn’t get money from her ex in property or support for awhile if he earned way more than she and practically forced her to work less or not at all. But that’s a tiny part of the current reality. Tiny, tiny, tiny.

    Men getting screwed over in divorce by women who want to go out hunting for new men, take the children with them, and demand a huge amount of his money, and ongoing support for the children he’s had stolen from him is by far the predominant story.

    Like


  327. on November 20, 2009 at 5:35 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””””””The Fifth Horseman
    I am a relatively calm and peaceful person.

    But this is the ONE thing over which I would shoot people. If a firearm were not handy, I would use a knife and slash the cuckolder’s throat. I mean it.

    I wonder why Sodinis are so rare?
    ””””””
    Because killing people is not that easy to do. It is a final thing that cannot be taken back or repaired or be brought back in time. Hence the government using this overall weakness in men to enslave them until yea you revolution and killing will be the cool thing to do again.

    Like


  328. Clio

    Are you aware that in the Bible adultery means a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband, only? Married men can only commit adultery in the Bible if they have sex with a married woman, and then their offense is against her husband.

    That’s clear as day in the Old Testament. It’s not changed in the New Testament.

    Yes there have been subsequent Church efforts to parlay Jesus female equality statements into adultery equality, but he never says so, as reported in the Gospels. It’s a constructed later churchmen theory.

    Like


  329. The Christian churches clearly did prohibit polygamy. But that went principally to inheritance, during most of their existence. I.e. they didn’t prohibit concubinage etc. Actually the Catholic Church was soft on polygamy for quite awhile to draw in unbeliever chieftains (with the lure that Christianity could make them kings), but clearly the effort was to move to one legitimate wife with inheritance rights only to her offspring.

    There was little serious effort to stamp out male infidelity, ever, until under SOME of the strict Protestant sects. Others embraced polygamy even, e.g. the early Anabatists at the siege of Munster, since the New Testament says nothing different about adultery at least at all directly than the old.

    Like


  330. Guns,

    I plan on it, should I decide to get married. I also plan on having a very solid prenup drawn up as well.

    Sabril,

    Those things matter to me because I want a social/legal balance in the comparison. It wasn’t a morality discussion as much as a legal one.

    Like


  331. Poetry–

    I plan on it, should I decide to get married. I also plan on having a very solid prenup drawn up as well.

    There are prenups, and then there are prenups.

    What do you want your prenup to provide – the highlights I mean, not any legal structuring or language?

    It is you understand unusual for non rich women to want prenups. Given how much the feminist American divorce law system currently favors women, with it going ever more that way each year, particularly in your state, California.

    Like


  332. Guns,

    Honestly, I’m not sure. Given that I’ve yet to take any major steps towards marriage, I’ve not looked into it.

    But I think getting a pre-nup is a sign of love and respect for your partner. Because people change with time, with experience, with stress (children, medical issues, etc), and divorces happen. It’s being overly idealistic, nearly lying to yourself, that you won’t change, that you’ll always be so in love, so happy, that your spouse won’t cheat on you, etc.

    But protection of their property, the finances, is a major one for me. I’m not one to take what is not mine, it feels incredibly wrong, so what we have going in (percentage-wise), we have going out. Making sure child support payments (if that comes into play) are reasonable, along with visitation, holidays, and the like.

    I’m waivering on the adultery issue, if it dissolves property rights. If my spouse is going to cheat on me, he’s going to cheat on me. I don’t date stupid men, so I doubt I’d marry one, which means he’d likely get away with it. I’d hate for him to feel legally trapped to me, but then there is that whole honesty thing, admitting you no longer want the other and a divorce is wanted, instead of skulking about. But I’m a fan of having outside parties come into the bedroom upon occasion, so it makes things even more gray.

    Basically, I’m going to find out everything that can be done to make a divorce as equal, respectful, and controlled (meaning not messy) as possible. Probably naive of me, but I was raised with Disney morals.

    Like


  333. PoF,

    I remember reading (so, feel free to debate its validity) that any language contained within a prenup wrt children (custody, support, etc) is not honored at the time of divorce proceedings.

    Also – interesting stance to take.

    Like


  334. on November 20, 2009 at 7:05 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””””””’But I think getting a pre-nup is a sign of love and respect for your partner. Because people change with time, with experience, with stress (children, medical issues, etc), and divorces happen. It’s being overly idealistic, nearly lying to yourself, that you won’t change, that you’ll always be so in love, so happy, that your spouse won’t cheat on you, etc.””””””””””

    Well I did do gun prenump with the 1st wife but yea on the second I won’t go through another divorce. There would no longer be a point in continuing to play the game.

    Like


  335. Doug1,

    query–would it be possible to contract away the no-fault divorce option before marriage? basically, spell out not the dispostion of property etc, but spell out grounds for divorce and exclude no fault and irreconcilable differences for example? or would that be thrown out. i’m trying to think of a way to make a “covenant marriage” type option. i think they have that in some state?

    Like


  336. on November 20, 2009 at 7:13 pm gunslingergregi

    Yea dana there is a way.

    Have you seen natural born killers.

    Its a crazy fucking idea but you can have a covenant between the two people who are getting married enforcable by either party.

    Like


  337. on November 20, 2009 at 7:16 pm gunslingergregi

    Without any need of paperwork or some other persons involvement in any way.

    Like


  338. on November 20, 2009 at 7:17 pm gunslingergregi

    It is how it can be when men and woman are actually equal he he he

    Like


  339. Mr. M,

    I hope that isn’t the case.

    I’m a bit odd, so odd stances are usually the ones that make most sense to me.

    Guns,

    Is there a way to set the convenant so we can have a Highlander-esque duel at the end, attempting to lop each other’s heads off with swords, screaming “There can be only one!!!” ?

    Like


  340. on November 20, 2009 at 7:25 pm gunslingergregi

    Sure you can make whatever covenant you want to with the man you get with if he agrees why not.

    Like


  341. MPT sounds almost useful in theory, but as a Libertarian I could never support the idea. It would require even more government, more bureaucracy, more tax-money to support, and just generally violates the ideas that individuals cannot be coerced to do anything via force or threat of force against their will (self-defense excepted).

    Better to get the government completely out of managing *anything* to do with families, relationships, marriage, parent/child relationships, etc. Marriages should simply be private contracts where the parties involved can set whatever terms they want, including terms regarding paternity testing, cuckoldry, etc.

    Like


  342. In my case if I completly overstep bounds probably wake up looking at my intestines while knife was then plunged into my heart. Everyone has preferred methods.

    he he he

    Like


  343. Epoxytocin No. 87: thanks for that breakdown on Jury nullification. I had never heard of this before. This is something that the word needs to be spread on.

    Like


  344. fuck bitches

    Like


  345. Just to state the obvious:
    No man should trust any woman.
    Marriage for men is a form of involuntary servitude.
    Hookers, girl friends, strippers, are all far cheaper than a wife. And more fun.
    If you feel “incomplete” without a wife, get a life.

    This paternity disgrace is just an example of the exploitation of men by women. Women exploit men in many ways, often aided by the law. Think about Social Security and health care.

    Find them and fuck them. Why is that so hard to remember?

    Like


  346. [editor: you’re right breeze. that was an excellent reframe by the senator. i wonder how good his game is?]

    It was more than a good reframe. It was the key to forcing this into law in other states. If people on this blog are serious about changing the law to be more fair to men then they’d go and start doing something. However, I suspect most people here are keyboard jockeys.

    @ Cliff et al: The law applies to all babies born, regardless of parental relationships, consent etc. It goes into effect in Jan 2010.

    Like


  347. Also, here is the link somebody posted above, where I took the info from. It is nice and simple:

    http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=HB0025&ga=106

    Like


  348. Doug1 – my comments are in bold; yours in plain text

    Are you aware that in the Bible adultery means a married woman having sex with a man other than her husband, only?

    The NT and the Fathers clearly took adultery by women far more seriously than adultery by men, but it’s more complicated than that. “Fornication” meaning unlawful sexual intercourse, was forbidden to both sexes by the Old and New Testaments, and the latter makes the scope of fornication far wider. Remember Jesus’s saying that a man who looks at another woman (no mention of whether she was married or not in that passage) with lust has committed adultery with her.

    Married men can only commit adultery in the Bible if they have sex with a married woman, and then their offense is against her husband.

    Not true. They can commit adultery if they remarry after divorcing their wives, except in the case of their wives’ prior adultery. But the passage in Matthew 19:9 which condemns divorce goes on to add that an adulterous woman could not remarry after her husband “put her away”. So the Church took this to mean that their marriage remained valid and thus the husband thus deserted could not remarry either.

    That’s clear as day in the Old Testament. It’s not changed in the New Testament.

    Yes, it is. The OT and NT are quite dramatically different on questions of polygamy, marriage, and divorce.

    Yes there have been subsequent Church efforts to parlay Jesus female equality statements into adultery equality, but he never says so, as reported in the Gospels. It’s a constructed later churchmen theory.

    I would be wary of speaking of “constructed later churchmen theory”. It requires far more learning than most of us possess to tease out what is a late addition to the NT. But it is true, on the other hand, that what it does say and what the Fathers say would not satisfy most feminists today, so you’re sort of right.

    on November 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm Doug1
    The Christian churches clearly did prohibit polygamy. But that went principally to inheritance, during most of their existence. I.e. they didn’t prohibit concubinage etc. Actually the Catholic Church was soft on polygamy for quite awhile to draw in unbeliever chieftains (with the lure that Christianity could make them kings), but clearly the effort was to move to one legitimate wife with inheritance rights only to her offspring.

    Where do you get this stuff, Doug? I don’t doubt that some early pagan converts were manipulated into conversion by soft-pedalling the Church’s condemnation of polygamy. But aside from trickery, there may have been legitimate practical reasons for this. What would happen to the multiple wives of such men, and their dependent children, once the men had converted? In any case, though, the early Church also held that a Christian person of either sex married to an unbeliever who subsequently abandoned them might then remarry (later repudiated by the Council of Trent, btw, which didn’t want to encourage Catholic spouses to leave Protestant ones). That fact suggests that polygamous pagan marriages were not taken with great seriousness by the Church, certainly not regarded with the kind of tacit acceptance you suggest.

    There was little serious effort to stamp out male infidelity, ever, until under SOME of the strict Protestant sects.
    Once again a half-truth. Yes, male infidelity, above a certain social level, remained common throughout the centuries. So for that matter did female infidelity, once women had conceived an heir. Nevertheless men who were unfaithful to their wives with prostitutes or “light women” were guilty of the sin of fornication at the very least – and it was a mortal sin that prevented them from taking communion. If they had relations with another man’s wife they were adulterers. If they seduced virgins, they offended both God and the women’s fathers. If they abandoned women with whom they had contracted a marriage, they might suffer very unpleasant punishments – consider Peter Abelard, lover and secret husband of Heloise, whose family mistakenly believed that he had left her. Among poorer people, infidelity and the chance of pregnancy it carried was a serious risk for men to take.

    Others embraced polygamy even, e.g. the early Anabatists at the siege of Munster, since the New Testament says nothing different about adultery at least at all directly than the Old.

    Most of the new converts to radical Protestanism were not scholars and thus not skilled in biblical exegesis, or they could not so have misunderstood the NT.

    Like


  349. Looks like my attempts at using bold to distinguish my passages and Doug’s didn’t work. Sigh. Well, if any one cares to attempt to decipher it, good luck. Had to try.

    Like


  350. It’s funny that this thread happened at almost the same time as another thread on a feminist blog, where, of course, they have a different point of view. They take a man to task for not sticking by his wife while she decides to raise her rapist’s child, which makes him THE WORST PERSON THAT EVER LIVED.

    http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/duty_vs_desire/

    Like


  351. on November 21, 2009 at 1:38 am Virginia Gentleman

    On the one hand, I’m not necessarily opposed to a no-testing regime. Why’s that, you ask? Because it might be amusing or otherwise fun to make the kid my own, imparting my own values and the like, while the biological father got cut out completely, or some other sort of mean-spirited parading of what, for all intents and purposes, shall never be available to him. On the other hand, the kind of guy who’d get involved in such a scheme to begin with probably wouldn’t be affected by a deliberate and pointed campaign to re-engineer their progeny with my values, etc. Bother!

    In the end, paternity testing, whether mandatory or not (and a patent refusal on the part of the husband to support third-party children, coupled with a quick-strike divorce on the grounds of adultery) sounds like a patently good idea. That there might be some sort of psychological detriment to the child is irrelevant in my opinion; the law of the Commonwealth may consider the best interests of the child to be paramount, but hey, I might be able to talk my way around that.

    What about something like an affidavit of birth? Some sort of pre-birth affirmation under oath of the lineage of the child, and then it’s tested after the birth; if anything comes up, you’ve at least got something that might go towards fraud. Similarly, what about some kind of trust for the child support to go into, overseen by a trustee? There’s probably only so much you can do there, but it might prevent the immediate misappropriation of funds intended for a child.

    Like


  352. on November 21, 2009 at 6:20 am Epoxytocin No. 87

    i don’t think this bill was passed. it appears to have been tabled, last considered on 4/29/09:

    http://www.statesurge.com/bills/hb0025-tennessee-478503

    the other major piece of evidence that it wasn’t passed is the stone silence across the whole internet (try googling hb0025, hardaway, tennessee etc). while i don’t doubt that the MSM would magically fail to notice such a bill, there’s no way tge hysterical feminist bleatosphere would be at a loss for words.

    Like


  353. “Toughness on crime will get even tougher, no one can afford for NYC or LA to become like Detroit. Since we already have waaaaaaaay more people in jail than we did in the 80’s, we are already pretty tough on it. Tougher than this will be no joke.”

    “Welcome to Manhattan Island Maximum Security Penitentiary. You now have the option to terminate and be cremated on the premises. If you elect this option, notify the Duty Sergeant in your Processing Area.”

    Incidentally, I wouldn’t advice talking about Jury Nullification in a loud voice while in the jury pool room. This could get you thrown in jail for contempt of court. (Jurors *have* been sanctioned for educating other jurors about the principle.)

    The safe way to do this is to answer the question, which you WILL be asked, of whether you can vote based on the evidence and the law regardless of whether you agree with the law by saying, “Of course not. I could never vote to convict someone under a bad law.” You can say this loud enough for other jurors to hear, but don’t be snotty about it. Even at this late date, just that sentence, delivered politely won’t get you found in contempt – and if it does you can stick it to the judge later – but communicates the issue clearly. I guarantee you the prosecutor (or plaintiff’s attorney) will use a challenge on you.

    Like


  354. We don’t all see men as a means to an end, nor children as an end in themselves.

    Neither do I. However, it’s wonderful to live in a time that allows ME to decide when I want a baby, how many babies, who’s baby I want, and NOT have to “check with” a man to do it.

    It’s what men (allegedly) have always wanted. Every man whined and cried about having to “go to work, be providers, and miss their kids growing up”…….

    Now that women can “go to work, be providers, have babies, and NOT get married” men are STILL complaining. That is why I think it’s silly to take a man’s opinion into consideration at ALL when deciding whether or not you want kids.

    No matter WHAT women do, men will either cry that they have TOO MUCH SAY, too MUCH responsibility……or cry that they have NO SAY and not ENOUGH responsibility……

    So it’s best to pretend like they don’t exist at all when making life decisions. And it’s hardly “crazy” to suggest that ALL women (whether married or single) make SURE that they are financially (and mentally) capable of caring for whatever children she bears completely alone before having children in the first place.

    If a woman has children with her husband KNOWING that she can ONLY afford to raise them as long as she and her hubby STAY married, then she deserves whatever she gets when the man fails to be a “good provider” like he promised.

    It’s the same reason men want prenups. You shouldn’t EVER “count on” being with your hubby or being able to rely on him in ANY way because you NEVER KNOW what he’s going to turn into. (And let’s face it, deep down 99% of men are lazy, unorganized, whiny, weak, and easily thwarted if their egos are so much as bruised. They give up really easily on everything in life and have NO PROBLEM laying around the house and “playing victim” for as long as they possibly can get away with it.)

    Like


  355. And again, this “Biblical” argument makes you men look even more stupid.

    There is no “argument” about the Commandment: thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.

    That means that even THINKING about fucking someone else’s wife is a sin. Let alone acting on it.

    Furthermore, Alias Clio is right. “Fornication/Adultery” in the Bible is considered ANY man/woman having sex with a person who is NOT their husband/wife. Specifically, if you are not married…..and have sex with someone…..you are committing adultery AGAINST your FUTURE husband/wife.

    There is NO allowance for men in the way of adultery. If you sleep with ANYONE who is NOT your wife, you are committing a mortal sin in the eyes of God. Period.

    So stop trying to pretend you’re doing what is “religiously acceptable” because you are not and clearly don’t have even the most basic understanding of the Bible and it’s interpretation.

    Like


  356. […] talks about our terrible paternity […]

    Like


  357. Wendy Schwartz–

    I sincerely hope, Doug that you TRY doing exactly that someday [dabbing a cotton swab on the inside cheek of a baby I’ve been told is mine and whom I supporting as mine] because if the child turned out to NOT be yours and you took it, swabbed it, and ran tests without the mother’s permission…..that mother can file a LOOOOOONG list of charges against you.

    You’re a self parody. Utter delusion.

    woman-beaters and guys that mess with kids

    More ridiculousness. Made up out of whole cloth.

    Like


  358. on November 21, 2009 at 1:52 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Joel–

    I’ll share a personal story as an example: Recently, a guy who is “interested in me” started trying to chat me up, call, etc. He is a “normal” guy with a decent job and is in his early 30’s.

    He wanted to “come hang out with me”…..without ever even taking me on a proper date!!!!!

    I told him in exactly these words “Any woman with sense in her head expects a man to take her on a proper date before she’d even CONSIDER letting him just ‘hang at her house’ and hope to get laid.”

    He was all indignant of course and said “Well you don’t even answer my texts and show any REAL interest me…..why should I keep going out on a limb and TRYING so hard if it gets me nowhere?”

    [editor: this dude sounds like a total beta. what he needs is asshole game to get in your sewage trap. you’d open right up then.]

    At this point I knew he was a dumb ass not worth even GOING on a date with and said “You haven’t ‘tried’ at all until you’ve taken a woman on a proper and respectful date. If that’s an idea that is foreign to you, then there is no reason for you and I to continue talking at all.”

    [respect must be earned. i’ve got news for you, wendy. as you get older and uglier, you’re going to find fewer and fewer normal men willing to take you out on a proper and respectful date.]

    Needless to say, I stopped talking to him and after about a week he started texting me again all like he didn’t know WHY I stopped answering him……it’s an example of the entitled and lazy men this generation breeds. And I have no interest in those……..

    My point was that guys of my generation (20s-30s) have been raised to take ANY chance they can to blame women, society, or whomever else for their “shortcomings” as men.

    I should have specified I suppose, but real men like my father are gone. Men nowadays think “having a job” is something they should be EXTOLLED for….as opposed to something that every person who is an adult SHOULD do. (Sort of like mothers who shriek “I take CARE of my babies!!” and think it’s an achievement…..when in actuality it’s what you are SUPPOSED to do as an adult).

    Like


  359. on November 21, 2009 at 1:58 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Doug–

    Don’t pretend I made that up. There are PLENTY of your posts that include (but are not limited to)

    1. extolling the virtues of “intimidating and getting physical with” women

    2. stating that a father should “only contribute to raising his children when he WANTS to” whether physically or financially.

    3. That even a “good wife” who stays home and raises your kids doesn’t deserve a dime if she “gets old and ugly”. You say that YOUR kids are HER problem.

    4. That men shouldn’t have to EVER pay child support no matter HOW irresponsible and sexually deviant they are.

    5. That women should slave over their men, clean up after them, raise his babies, and ask for NOTHING in return except “being with you”…..(lmao….which is soooo ridiculous)

    6. And of course extolling the virtues of cheating on your wife, adultery in general, and even impregnating as many women as you can and NOT caring for them.

    None of those things are even RATIONAL, let alone intelligent or moral and that is what makes you so ridiculous is that you condemn “feminists” for the decline of family values….and yet everything YOU stand for is the reason that Feminists exist in the first place.

    Congratulations, Douchebag.

    Like


  360. on November 21, 2009 at 2:14 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Concerning your “edits” there……

    I would never and HAVE never allowed a man to pull the old “why don’t I cook you dinner at YOUR house” for a first date bullshit. Are you kidding me? Are there REALLY women who still fall for that ploy?

    Besides, he would have had to do better than THAT because I’m already seeing Eric and now I just got back in touch with an old friend, Tim (who is a childhood friend and a guy I’ve always adored and respected)……

    Meaning if that douchebag wanted to “stay in the competition” he really dropped the ball. Men will ALWAYS compete to be with me. Not because I’m beautiful, not because I’m rich, and not because I’m brilliant. I’m none of those things.

    It’s because I don’t give a fuck about them, their money, losing them to another woman, or “being alone” if they were to displease me (and subsequently make me leave them). Any man who has met me and spoken to me knows that I’m clever, sarcastic, witty, smart, confident, motivated, and completely self-sufficient.

    [editor: and doggone it, people like me!]

    Apparently that IS enough to make men “fall all over me”. I don’t care what the reason for it is……I just know it’s always been that way and seems to be getting MORE constant as I grow older!!!! Trust me, R-Dog……no one is more surprised than I am. It’s sorta like Christmas Morning every morning.

    [more like boxing day for you. tell me, what do you think is the number one trait men look for in women?]

    Like


  361. “Almost all married women deliver babies fathered by their husbands. Why insult and incriminate every women?”

    What idiot wrote this? We routinely test every pregnant women, WITHOUT her permission, for:
    1. HPV
    2. Syphilis.
    3. Gonorrhea.
    4. Group B strep.
    5. Hepatitis
    6. Herpes.

    And, some others I don’t remember right now. The only thing we ask permission for is HIV testing, thanks to the gay men, who in their desire to be left alone and just live and let live, don’t let straight men routinely test pregnant women for HIV without much additional expense and paperwork, and, then she can decline the test, putting the infant at risk. Thanks live and let live gay men. But, that is a somewhat different topic.

    So, are we insulting all pregnant women, and their husbands, by doing this testing?

    Imagine if the hospitals 3% of the time gave the wrong baby to the mother? Would the feminists find anything wrong with that?

    Such narcissism! Yet, they are totally comfortable with their beliefs.

    BTW, I visited the link about the man who left his wife after she refused an abortion of her “rapist’s” baby. All men considering marriage should read blog sites like that. If that doesn’t turn you away from marriage, you are hopeless. Once you marry, in the eyes of many women, they own you.

    Like


  362. Or, imagine if IVF clinics, 3% of the time, got the wrong woman’s eggs and impregnated her with another woman’s eggs but her husband’s sperm. Would the feminists have a problem with that?

    Like


  363. L.R.

    Woman have never had to check with a man to have children. They just go get pregnant anytime they want.

    It is the men who have to persuade a woman if they want to have children.

    Again, the narcissism is ever present.

    BTW, your description of 99% of men may be accurate for the men with whom you hang out. However, the men I know are hard working, married, successful professionals who have in almost every case never been divorced and supported their wives while they raised their family. And continue to support their wives as they get older.

    Roissy is so right about you (and many other women.) You love as*oles.

    Like


  364. on November 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Well, I certainly hope the answer is “looks”. That’s all I care about in a man so I’d expect the same in return.

    Apparently, I make an attractive impression on men that meet me (given that you’ve seen some of the guys that like me and cannot deny they’re “young and attractive” in all senses of the word)……

    I have no idea why men are attracted to me (seemingly more often than I deserve) and I don’t care “why” or “how”…..I just know I’m lucky and whatever it is…..it works for me.

    Like


  365. on November 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm Wendy Schwartz

    For example: If every time you ate a red jelly-bean, you won a million dollars…..would you refuse to eat jelly-beans until you figured out how and why????

    Nope. You’d just make damn sure you ate a red jelly-bean everyday and wouldn’t give a fuck WHY you’re getting the million dollars for doing it.

    Like


  366. on November 21, 2009 at 3:45 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Joel–

    What you don’t seem to understand is that I would NEVER talk about my son’s (natural) “father” in front of him. Would never tell him that his father was “awful, abusive,worthless,…..”

    You have no idea what kind of “mother” I am based on my view/opinion of other adults, nor by the way I treat them or view the world.

    You speak of all these “awful things” I’ve done to my son, but none of those things are true. I am strict on manners, good behavior, and respecting other adults. He answers “Yes, ma’am” and “Yes, Sir” when being told something by an adult (even when his friends giggle at him for doing so).

    I do not EVER talk about adult matters in front of him (including talking shit on his dad or about other men/women/adults.) because children should never EVER be influenced by adult dramas and adult bitterness. I have never even MENTIONED his real father in his 6 years on this earth and never would unless he asked me. I find it abhorrent that there are couples (especially married couples that are divorcing) who regularly talk shit on the other parent to or in front of their children.

    I AM offended that you accuse me of that. I take being a parent very seriously. My son is required to have good marks in school, good manners (no elbows on the table), good grammar and speaking skills, a hard work ethic, and most importantly DISCIPLINE.

    I do not coddle and exhault my son for things that he SHOULD be doing like so many parents these days do. I engage him in “guy stuff” as often as I can (and I have an excellent arm to throw a ball anyhow) and do not tolerate “whining, crying, blaming, or cajoling”.

    I teach him old-fashioned chivalry (he opens doors for ladies, already) but also old-fashioned manliness (no tears unless you need to go to the ER).

    I don’t bring “random men” around my son EVER for ANY reason because I know it’s traumatizing and confusing for children and leaves a negative lasting impression.

    I have never even allowed a man to “babysit” for an hour so that I can run to the store or something.

    You can call me names ALLLLLLLLL day and talk about what kind of person I am….and you’d probably be right…..but my son is a different story. I am a good mother and know I’m raising a good man. I have no doubt in my mind that I made the right choice in leaving his abusive, alcoholic, poor excuse for a”father”.

    I teach him what is important in life.

    1. Education
    2. Family
    3. Discipline
    4. Motivation (hard work)

    Like


  367. on November 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm Wendy Schwartz

    And before anyone asks, no I do not “hit” my son.

    However, I WILL put him over my knee and bare-ass spank him with my mother’s old wooden spoon (she likes to pass things like cookware down for some reason) if he does something REALLY bad or dangerous.

    Otherwise I typically implement “military style” punishment. IE: make him clean, do physical exercise, and apologize in writing to whomever (if it’s something regarding disrespecting someone) he offended.

    Like


  368. L.R.,

    A beta is surprised when a woman writes him off without getting to know him. He thinks his good personality and good intentions will make a favorable impression on most women. An alpha, of course, expects very different behavior in women.

    You are likely a fun person to talk to and do things with, since you sound intelligent, a free spirit, and not ignorant, and are attractive enough, but the reason many men on this blog site find you so not to their liking has nothing to do with your independence. Being men, and having been boys, they understand the pain you are inflicting on your son.

    They hate you for that.

    I hope you are reading about the potential impacts of improper mothering by neurotic single mothers (I think you sound neurotic.) on their only sons (no siblings to ease the impact and help socialization.)

    I recall there was a serial killer in CA whose mother always told him, as he grew up, he was worthless, just like his absent father. (Actually, like his father, he was big and good looking.) Those good college girls would have nothing to do with trash like him, she would say. He grew up very angry. So, he started killing coeds. Finally, he killed his mother, his anger left him, and he turned himself in to the police, and spent the rest of his life in prison.

    Be kind. Don’t be too judgmental.

    Like


  369. on November 21, 2009 at 3:17 pm attention whore

    All men have a feminine aspect and all women have a male aspect. Being biologically male does not mean you have to be a massively testosterone driven goon; because if you are? You’re just a massively neurotic pathological disaster. Then again, you’ll probably end up with an equally unbalanced female and you two can destroy each other and no one will really give a crap.

    Like


  370. Doug1

    Others embraced polygamy even, e.g. the early Anabatists at the siege of Munster,…

    Speaking of Munster, Herman Munster was a total Beta. He looked like an Alpha – a big green, neck bolt having muthafuckin Alpha. And yet, total Beta.

    But Grandpa was Alpha. Especially when he was younger back in Transylvania.

    Like


  371. […] New York Times had an article on paternity testing which has already been commented on by our own Roissy and Female Masculinist on their respective personal blogs.  The men in the NYT article are all […]

    Like


  372. The New York Times Magazine publishes:

    1) a lengthy article

    2) by a female writer

    3) on the subject of gender politics

    And this article publicizes real cases of injustice against men?

    That’s un-possible! This alleged article contradicts everything I have learned about the mainstream media from reading single-issue blogs that inform me about the character of the mainstream media.

    The ideological model I carry in my head predicts that the New York Beta Times would only publish articles that serve the interests of the femi-Nazi overlords who rule my world. If this ideological model does not align with reality, then why am I such a paranoid wreck?

    This article does not exist.

    lol, no doubt.

    Like


  373. @LR

    No matter. Your child is without his father and he’s raised by a single mother. Perhaps with the help of several ‘uncles’ along the way. It does not matter how superb a mother you deem yourself to be.

    The insidious effects will become clearer as he grows up. Usually, he either becomes feral, or ends up as a mangina. The latter option is not too bad; look at Obama.

    Like


  374. Wrong. I openly AVOID LTR with men or “dating” men. That is why I only “date” men if I only were to see them like once a month and not really talk in between.

    He has never been “confused by uncles” because I don’t bring strange men around him. He has several “Uncles” yes….but they are all actually REAL Uncles. He has his grammy and pop-pop who stop by at least once per week and live about 2 miles away. And he LIVES with his 4 cousins who are like his brothers AND his natural Aunt and Mother.

    My son has PLENTY of loving family around him at all times and none of them are “strange men”. I go very long periods of time without dating or even having sex with anyone at all. It’s much easier for me to stay focused without all the nonsense of a romantic relationship.

    Like


  375. Yes, spunk my son would have been MUCH better off living in a shithole like Allentown with his drunken, piece of shit, abusive father who shoved me ONE DAY after I got home from the hospital with our newborn son in my arms when he did it. All because I “tried to leave our bedroom” and he didn’t want me to.

    A man who will hit a pregnant woman and shove her while holding your newborn, is a man who will hurt a child and abuse him as he grows up, too. There was no fucking way that I was going to allow that to happen to him and my choice was to either kill that asshole right then and there in cold blood……or leave.

    Yes, that’s how it went down the last time I spoke to/saw that man. Want to tell me again how much better off he’d have been with dear old “daddy”?????

    Like


  376. “Cuckoldry is slavery. It is metadeath. It is soul murder. ”

    Roissy, have you never fucked a married woman?

    Like


  377. on November 22, 2009 at 3:01 am attention whore

    The biggest losers are anyone reading this blog including me if i continue…..a truly incredible waste of time. Roissy as usual continues to astound me with his profound lack of intelligence, in the true meaning of the word. Such is my fascination.

    Like


  378. attention whore:

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

    See you next week.

    Like


  379. We should have:

    * MPT at birth at the latest
    If MPT finds husband is not father, he doesn’t sign or automatically voids signing birth cert. He can override if he is whipped enough.
    If MPT finds husband is not father, he should be able to file for immediate divorce with the PT as evidence.
    If MPT finds husband is not father, he should be able to sue for costs of support during the pregnancy including emotional duress.
    If MPT finds husband is not father, woman is barred from requesting child support for the child in question from him or from a court doing so on her behalf. duh

    * Relentless legal action against hospitals, doctors and nurses who have for many, many years had a policy of not disclosing lack of paternity to fathers (they knew because of non-compatible blood types between baby and father).

    * Media exposure of any current/former hospital staff who is willing to go on record with the practices of hiding lack of husband’s genetic paternity. Remember this has been going on for many years based on blood type testing.

    * If MPT is rejected/shouted down, offer instead that a law should be created that requires hospitals create a policy of randomly shuffling babies in the nursery and making sure that 10% are given to another mother rather than their genetic mother (without either mother’s knowledge). This would be the equivalent of what men are currently subject to (my guess is that it is much higher than 10% – maybe 16%-19%).

    * Allow for and encourage (perhaps a charity could be created to pay the legal costs for legal action) filing of fraud and other civil actions against women who received child support from men who were not biological fathers.

    * If at any point prior to a child turning 18 (or legal age) a husband finds he is not the father, immediate divorce should be allowed without alimony.

    * MPT results should only be disclosed to the husband or named father, not the mother. The husband/named father can choose to disclose if desired.

    Anything less than the above does not “level the playing field” between men and women in terms of knowledge of the true paternity of a child and fairily bearing the costs of raising children.

    Women protest “Why should men be allowed to see the results and not the mothers?” Ah, because the women _know_ who they slept with, or at least that they did have sex with someone during the time in question but the man she is binding to a lifetime of financial, emotional and genetic costs does not.

    PS: Don’t get excited by my “Name”, I am a dog.

    Like


  380. Roissy, would you mind terribly, putting all your interactions with Wendy Schwartz on a completely separate page? It’s annoying to have to scroll past it all.

    Like


  381. I should have said, ALL POSTS by, or having anything to do with Wendy Schwartz, by anyone.

    Like


  382. Lmao @ LR thinking she’s a good mother

    Like


  383. It’s not “thinking”, Cloud. There is no doubt in my mind or anyone who knows me that I am a superb AND excellent mother.

    Sorry, but it’s not that hard to be a good parent if you WORK at it. That’s why men are incapable of raising children.

    Like


  384. Couple of points….as this thread is all over the place.

    I was the first to post this in another thread.

    RE: Muslims (dont get any ideas….)

    Yes, they were onto this 10 centuries ago. There is a whole process from a “purity downpayment” ie, dowry that a Groom’s family has to pay the wifes family (can be the Grooms familys house) AND the Brides virginity is the collateral. On the wedding night, the Mothers wait outside the room to see the blood proof and the stained laundry is hung next morning in public.

    If this Virginity is not proven, death is the usual outcome ie, Honor Killings. There are videos all over the web of this….the most out of India (home of IT geniuses) where self immolation (fire setting) by female relatives is the standard.

    So while we all call the Muslims heathens/barbaric it apears they were geniuses on this front, not to mention creating Harems, Concubines, and belly dancing to tide one over till marriage.

    RE: These Sad saps/beta

    If any sane man was confronted with this, he could easily move to another country and instantly be a Prince given his money/education and not pay a dime. Money can be transferred electronically in seconds and a host of nations from eastern europe to south america to carribean would provide you with a sound bank account and 20 something natives to soothe you.

    These guys are gluttons for punishment. A firstclass ticket and a wire transfer ends all this pain.

    Re: Socio-economic hurdles.

    The Insurance / Medical / Housing / Banking complex does not want this data to get out.

    With just blood types of parents, they can run complex probability tests that show with 66% probability which kids bloodtype is mathematically possible, given parents type, age, zipcode, etc. So with out even consent / dna they would out 30% of the bastards.

    BUT……..who would pay that hopital bill, or new granite counter tops, ss appliances, and minivan. NOT that husband.

    So they supress this data, knowing it will crush the economic cycle. Plain and simple.

    The Black man knows this.

    And they have plundered the treasury via the welfare mom. There is one black dude who has 15+ kids via 15 + welfare moms and he is under 30. Google it.

    Dumb like a fox.

    Like


  385. whats the actual definition of a dick sandwich?

    Like


  386. […] Roissy takes on a story about cuckolded men. […]

    Like


  387. “Child-welfare advocates say that making biology the sole determinant of paternity in cases like Smith’s puts the nonbiological father’s interest above the child’s.”

    WHAT THE F*CK?!?!?!!!!?

    Law supposed to be based on TRUTH, not interests. Who the f*ck cares about anybody’s interests? It’s a simple question of right/wrong, true/false.
    Is it his child? No? Then he should not pay.
    Anyone who disagrees should not wake up tomorrow, and that includes all the activists, lawyers and judges involved.

    The anglosphere is soooooooo f*cked up it’s beyond comprehension.

    Like


  388. What El Chief said (Nov 19, 3:24pm):

    > Is it the Good Alpha? Does that exist?

    Yup, sure does. The heroic standard of “being a man” (basically what John Wayne would gladly portray in a movie) that libtards say is “unrealisistic” and not “authentic” today (i.e., not fun). Of course, the “responsible” component turns-off the Alpha-seekers (it’s a “drag,” not “edgy”) and the “confident” component turns-off the Beta-exploiters (not a “doormat”). For women with a Dudley Do-Right fetish it’s okay, but otherwise… Roissy, what sayeth ye?

    Like


  389. Re: feminists banning otc tests, Germany has already banned anonymous DNA testing under the guise of “preventing genetic discrimination.” You CANNOT get your child a paternity test without his mother’s consent. Feminists were massively in support of this law when it was proposed…gee, wonder why?

    So yes, sadly, it CAN “happen here.”

    Like


  390. How about adding it to the pre nup?

    Any sensible person now needs a prenup spelling out exactly things like this.

    Marriage needs to be a contract with defined obligations and penalties and forfeitures for violations. It used to be that society (especially judges) knew the obligations but now they are so screwed up, you have to spell them out or face unknown risks.

    Like


  391. on November 22, 2009 at 4:28 pm Reductio ad absurdum

    Suppose that we agree with the proposition that the overriding consideration should be what is best for the child.

    I therefore propose that, in cases of paternity fraud, we simply pick a man at random from the street in front of the courthouse, and compel him to pay child support until the child reaches the age of majority. That way, the child’s welfare could be assured, and any incidental unfairness would be, of course, negligible in comparison.

    It would be just as fair as the current system — more so, in fact, since the deceived man has already been victimized by the wife’s deception.

    Like


  392. on November 22, 2009 at 4:38 pm Reductio ad absurdum

    “Having been involved in cases like these, I think the answer to ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband,” says Carol McCarthy, an officer of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

    Just so.

    I would like to add that:

    I think the answer to ‘Did I consent?’ is irrationally important to rape victims.

    I think the answer to ‘Where is my property?’ is irrationally important to those who have been robbed.

    I think the answer to ‘Was that election fair?’ is irrationally important to disenfranchised voters.

    I think the answer to ‘Did working here give me cancer?’ is irrationally important to former asbestos workers.

    Like


  393. I teach him old-fashioned chivalry (he opens doors for ladies, already) but also old-fashioned manliness (no tears unless you need to go to the ER).

    You should rethink this. You are teaching him to put women before himself and before men? Where exactly is he going to find a woman that will not take advantage of his chivalry as an adult?

    Chances are, he will grow up with the gruff exterior you expect of him around you. He will be seeking ‘real intimacy’ in his partners; as in actively seeking to find someone he can be a beta-male bitchboy for. I know a ton of guys like this. All machismo up front; pussy-whipped over night. Crying in their beers six months down the road if they are lucky. Married to once nurturing harpies if they are not.

    Like


  394. Every smart man should buy a DNA test kit and get their newborn tested within a week of birth (without telling their partner)….. if the law allows this.

    Knowledge is power to act accordingly.

    Like


  395. Mr. C’s idea sounds reasonable. If a poor test result comes back – then you take legal steps to get a legal test taken – you wouldn’t have to say you’d had the first one done would you?

    Like


  396. I have to say I wouldn’t be offended at being asked to take the test. I would know beyond a shadow what the results would be and I believe I’d be able to understand the fears my mate would have -especially in light of all the deception many other men have experienced. To me it would add to trust, not take away. I know their will be women and maybe some men who think I’m pandering to the men here – but not the case. It just doesn’t ring alarm bells for me.

    Like


  397. There’s no reason why anyone should be “alarmed” at the idea of MPT, but I think it’s so beyond ridiculous to suggest allowing tests to be done without the mother’s knowledge.

    I’m not saying she should have to give CONSENT, but a mother deserves to know ANY and ALL tests that are done to her child (why would paternity be any different).

    If men want to get all ball-grabby and demand PT at birth, then they should at least be able to admit to their wives and girlfriends that they think they are cheating whores.

    I can honestly say that no matter WHAT the test was, if some dude thought he could “steal some DNA” from my baby without my knowledge, I’d make sure I sued him for every possible thing I could.

    Besides its’ the same as “stealing sperm” from a man without his knowledge or consent. Why should babies be any different?

    Like


  398. The law simply could never allow for men “secretly stealing samples” because what if after “taking a sample” it’s NOT their baby???

    Think about the litigation!! Basically you would be allowing random men/strangers to take DNA samples from women’s babies whenever they want without her knowledge????

    Ummm, yeah see how that turns out.

    Like


  399. What if a lifetime adoptive dad WANTED his children to think of him as the “real dad” and then BOOM in swoops “biological dad that’s a total stranger” and has the right to swab and prove paternity to all those kids that “adoptive dad” raised since their birth????

    Nope, there’s no way that “incognito testing” would ever be allowed. That’s a good reason why it shouldn’t be.

    Like


  400. MNL wrote:

    “@Orthodox

    ‘2. Upon birth, paternity testing must be offered to the named father, paid for by insurance or state. Father can decline.’

    …to which 90% of beta males would voluntarily and honorably decline in order to preserve the sanctity of the wife/mother.

    And so the problem goes on.”

    __________

    Exactly. The problem with MPT, for betas (which by definition make up the majority of the male population), is that the women **that the betas want** will give sex to the beta only on condition that he decline the MPT. It’s a step further on the same path as to why many betas get married (even in this modern age of de-stigmatized cohabitation and out-of-wedlock children). Because betas are picky. The women they want won’t put out without a commitment, then she won’t put out without a ring on her finger — and if MPT comes into being — she won’t put out unless the beta somehow agrees not to do the testing. And the beta, unable to stop himself from beta-ily beta-izing in the manner that betas have beta’d since time immemorial, will agree to it.

    And yes, the women who cuckolded their husbands in this article are evil. But I don’t think MPT is going to give anything other than illusory relief to beta men.

    [editor: freedom from 18 years of indentured servitude to bastardy is a little more than “illusory relief”. leave it to a woman to say such a retarded thing.]

    Like


  401. […] here, and HT to Roissy, who supports mandatory paternity testing at birth, as do I. After […]

    Like


  402. Roissy:

    You misunderstood my point. If MPT were the law, so long as men were given the chance to decline, then most men would decline simply because their woman would insist on it.

    [editor: you misunderstand every point. justification for making paternity testing mandatory rather than elective rests on the fact that men have a plausibly deniable excuse when their wives question their husband’s/bf’s “devotion” and “trust”; they can simply tell their wives “sorry, honey, but it’s the law”. there is no good reason offered by anyone against MPT that i’ve heard. you just don’t like that a pillar of female reproductive power can so brusquely be wrested from you with a simple cheek swab.]

    A man who would stick to his guns and tell the woman that he’s going to get paternity testing in the event that any woman gives birth to his claimed child, even if that means the woman will leave him — or more likely, will not spread for him to begin with — is likely already an alpha.

    [this is an assinine argument. there are plenty of betas who would love to be assured of their paternity and would not crumble like month old feta cheese under a scowl from their lovely wives. and if a wife is gonna scowl, then really, that’s all the information a man needs that she may be hiding something from him.]

    So it’s largely a wash in the end — betas will meekly decline the DNA test to hang on to the woman they want, and some of these women will turn out to be faithless evil cuckolders.

    [i stand by my assessment. you are a retard on this matter. time will tell if you’re a retard in general.]

    Yes, a few men will be spared the trauma and injustice of 18 years of supporting another man’s child, but I would venture that they would be very, very, very few in number.

    If there were no option to decline (Constitutional violation, anybody? Illegal seizure of one’s person? 4th Amendment, hello?),

    [are routine genetic blood tests done by hospitals to screen for diseases a constitutional violation? think mcfly.]

    then it would make it harder for betas to have sex with the women they want. In the end, it’s still up to the man to make sure he picks the right woman, one who isn’t lying to him to get his money, just as it’s the woman’s burden to make sure a guy isn’t lying to her just to get sex.

    [if a man “lies” to a woman to get sex, all she is out is a potential relationship and some hurt pride. if a woman lies to a man to get resources to raise another man’s child, that man is out 18 years of time, money, and emotional commitment. can you really be this fucking dumb?]

    So before you jump to call my comment retarded, take a breath and apply your powers of comprehension, ‘kay? Thx.

    [no matter how much time and energy a man spends to pick the right woman, there is a chance she will cheat and get impregnated by another man. mpt gives him peace of mind, just like strict laws against rape give women peace of mind that rapists will be taken off the streets and locked up.]

    I’m thinking that a way to address the problem is that, so long as a man is forced to pay support for the non-biological child, he can also have a right to sue the mother and the biological father at some point, maybe when the child is older (some point to be determined by the court), to recover the money. For sure, the woman is on the hook to reimburse him after the child reaches adulthood; her wages can be garnished, assets seized, etc. And if she has a problem with that, she can go after the biological father. (And so can the non-biological father).

    Like


  403. Roissy:

    What’s to stop any man TODAY from telling a woman upfront that he will seek paternity testing in the event she claims to be pregnant by him?

    [editor: you’re conflating issues. stick to the subject at hand.]

    Why press for the government to make paternity testing the “default” and to have men take the affirmative step of declining the test if he wanted to opt out?

    [why? because it’s fair, it’s just, and it’s good. silly little concepts that most women couldn’t care less about, apparently.]

    (This is how vaccination regimes work.) Because it would let betas off the hook? So betas can tell their women, “look, it’s not that I don’t trust you, honey, it’s the government that’s making me do it!”

    [so your true colors show. you have a problem with giving betas the tools to “get off the hook” of 18 years of slavery. you are a loathesome cunt.]

    Truly MANDATORY (no opt-out) will never happen, so stop wasting time fantasizing about it.

    [point one: there is hardly more than a tiny tiny percentage of men who would demand an opt out from MPT. these men deserve whatever hell comes their way. point two: any considered opt-out, as with many similar opt out programs, wouldn’t be simple. it would require filling out a lot of paperwork and hurdles to jump over. in this way, the plausible deniability mechanism remains in tact. “forget it, honey, i’m not going through a barrage of tests and paperwork to keep them from swabbing my cheek.” point three: you are transparently disingenuous. if you cared for the rights of men, you would weigh the minor inconvenience of mpt against the hugely greater crime of false paternity and acknowledge that the men’s lives that mpt saves (and yes, i do mean their lives, in the darwinian sense) outweighs the tender feelings of a few feminist omega males who weep bitter tears at the thought that their cheek will be swabbed. point four: the mpt would be mandatory, but men who didn’t want to know the results would be free to request that they not be shown the records. the important thing is that the gene testing for paternity is on record.]

    And as I said, even if it were truly mandatory, that would just make it harder for picky betas to get with the women they want.

    [you’re flailing. badly.]

    Also, my feminine feelings are hurt by your assessment that my comment is retarded. If you keep hurting my feelings, then you won’t get a chance to have time tell whether I’m “retarded in general” because I won’t come back. Neener neener.

    [my heart will go on.]

    You know I love you.

    [how hot are you?]

    XOXO

    [fuckies!]

    Like


  404. Roissy asked: “are routine genetic blood tests done by hospitals to screen for diseases a constitutional violation? think mcfly.”

    Answer: No because the parent(s) CONSENT to it. Duh!! There’s no law that requires genetic blood tests, or that you even have to give birth in a hospital.

    [editor: incorrect. most states have MANDATORY blood screening tests, regardless of parental consent.

    http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/medical/newborn_screening_tests.html ]

    Like


  405. Roissy said: [if a man “lies” to a woman to get sex, all she is out is a potential relationship and some hurt pride. if a woman lies to a man to get resources to raise another man’s child, that man is out 18 years of time, money, and emotional commitment. can you really be this fucking dumb?]

    No, the woman can be out much more than a potential relationship and hurt pride. Depending on the magnitude of the lie, she can be left pregnant — which is a trauma on the body and can leave life-long injuries or other ill effects — and alone, without resources once he skips town.

    [editor: there’s this little thing called contraception. and another little thing called abortion. oh yeah, and yet another little thing called working for a living. and let me remind you that even when a woman is impregnated by a runaway cad, the kid IS STILL HERS! when a man is cuckolded he’s raising someone else’s kid.]

    Yes, there are child support laws, but those laws aren’t 100% effective. Do you have any figures on how easy (or hard) it would be for a man to skip town and disobey family court orders without consequence? Seriously, it’s an honest question.

    [there is no comparison in malevolence between a man “lying” for sex (whatever the fuck that means) and a woman lying about paternity. none. is this getting through to you motherfucker?]

    Like


  406. One last bit — I don’t care whether MPT is law or not.

    [editor: for someone who supposedly doesn’t care you sure sound like you care.]

    YOU are the one assuming that I was opposed to it.

    [you write like lawyer scum. you argued against mpt. you didn’t argue both sides like an unbiased 3rd party.]

    I stated that I think it’s not going to make a meaningful difference in the end, and I stated my reasoning behind that opinion. See, that’s why I don’t care whether MPT is law or not — because it won’t make much difference either way.

    [oh, i think it will. your reaction to it suggests i’m right.]

    Again, my speculative opinion. You have a different speculative opinion. Interesting that you are so quick to assign bad-bad-female motives to me and read what isn’t there.

    [your arguments against mpt are so laughably weak they could only have come from someone with bad motives.

    ps a lot of men think women should stop bitching about rape so much. what do you think of their arguments?]

    Like


  407. on November 23, 2009 at 2:25 am attention whore

    Tupac Chopra

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
    See you next week.

    Is it next week yet?

    Like


  408. After I read this post and some others of Roissy’s about cuckoldry and today’s society, I came across a website that agrees with some of your points that I thought you might find interesting:

    [quote]
        If a woman and her children don’t need a man to survive, she can choose a man who is handsome and charming, but likely to leave after copulation. In other words, she can choose a “cad” and, if she can do so without diminishing the survival chances of herself and her children, she is more likely to do so. The handsome, charming cads then have more offspring and pass their alleles for cad-like behavior on to their sons. 15
        On the other hand, if she is not capable of providing for herself and her children, she will have to be more practical and chose a man who is likely to stick around after sex and take care of her and her children, a “dad.” (Chu, 2007). Clark Gable for thrills, Joe Sixpack for bills. Of course, it would be nice if Joe Sixpack were also young, healthy, romantic, and had good genes, 16 but those qualities mean nothing if he does not provide for her and her children. Today, a woman can choose a man who can not, or will not, help her survive and the welfare state will force that man and other people (taxpayers) to provide for her and her children, but before the welfare state a woman who unwisely chose such a man would have a life of poverty and an early death.

    It has been suggested that women select men for intelligence (Ananthaswamy, 2002), 17 and that may have played a significant role in man’s evolution towards higher intelligence. Intelligence, as we shall see (Chap. 14), correlates well with wealth, so intelligence is a way to identify men who have, or are likely to acquire, the resources needed to care for a woman and her children. 18 High status men are also likely to have access to more resources, and so high status is a strong magnet for the ladies. (Pollet, 2007). But since women today have less need for the resources of men, many women define “high status” less as having money and power 19 and more as being “cool,” i.e., having currently-fashionable clothes, language, and behavior.
    [/quote]

    http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap5.html#Back14

    Like


  409. Would you support the Obama health care bill if it included Mandatory Paternity Testing for all eligible health plans? I other words you would have to pay a fine if your health plan doesn’t require Mandatory Paternity Testing.

    I hear they are bidding for votes. Now is the time to tack on provisions you want or get stuck sucking…

    Like


  410. Roissy, this thing about pretending you don’t know what “lying for sex” means has got to stop. There are all kinds of morally clear-cut lies a man or woman can tell in order to get sex, beyond merely presenting themselves in the most favourable light possible. They can pretend to be single when in fact they’re married or cohabiting; they can pretend to have no children or fewer children; they can pretend to be interested in a long-term relationship when in fact they are not; they can pretend to be disease-free. Most such lies are not only inherently wrong because they are lies, but they may well injure the deceived party and make any future relationship impossible.

    Like


  411. “Lady” Raine—

    Your lame attack on me by thoroughly mischaraterizing my views primarily on child support isn’t worth responding to in itself, but I’ll use it as an excuse to summarize my current thinking primarily on child support=alimony.

    First though, no “Wendy Schwartz” unlike the father of your child, I’ve never beaten up a woman nor do I advocate roughing them up for merely mouthing off at me, as apparently he did you.

    E.g. on a Roosh thread linked here where a guy grabs a woman by the hair in a bar after she first shoved him from behind and then poured a drink on him, where Roosh said she deserved it, I counseled to instead throw a drink’s contents directly into her face. But said I didn’t consider the guy’s actual reaction totally outrageous and certainly not actionable. btw, LA police watching the security camera footage Roosh embedded ending up agreeing with me several days later, on the non actionable.

    I do however think that the feminist hysteria about men merely return slapping a woman (when she isn’t 8 moths pregnant or carrying an infant in her arms, unlike your babies father) is just that hysteria, and that it should never have been criminalized. It’s not something I do or recommend but I also don’t think it’s at all a big deal when there’s no injury.

    I think it’s outrageous for mere no injury slapping (or the tiniest of transitory mark or bare bruise from it) to lead as it does under VAWA if the woman calls the cops to his having to move out of the house he may be entirely paying for, as a result of an automatic, no hearing, her say so, minor act. You’re damn right I think that’s outrageous. Everyone should think so who’s even remotely fair minded and knows what really goes on now.

    As for child support, no I don’t think unmarried sluts who have “oops” or “gotcha” babies out to be able to get the state to extract very high after tax percentage levels child support that feminism lobbied through in the 90s, when the gotten bio-dad never wanted those kids in the first place. I’ve become convinced that the vast majority of out of wedlock pregnancies these days, up to 40% of all births now from single digits in 1960 and 12% (heavily among blacks) in 1972, and intentional, girls just lie about it to look better to others and themselves. Sex doesn’t translate into pregnancy sooner or later these days what with the more than 10 methods of reversible birth control, all but one of which within the woman’s sole knowledge and control, but the last reductive of sexual pleasure. Girls even have three methods of avoiding motherhood after coital act and any genuine “forgetting” about birth control, Plan B, abortion, and adoption. Girls that have babies these days want them. Men should have post coital choice too, or Roe for men. No men shouldn’t be feminism forced to support babies they never wanted, and said so if given a chance to.

    In general I believe that women should have to provide wifely services to men including most definitely regular and good sex on an ongoing basis to get their babies supported by the biodad. That was traditionally always the trade. Yet feminists have through outrageously high levels of after tax child support created an entitled nothing in return domestic matriarchal regime where a majority of American children are growing up without fathers in the house, and men dragooned into paying for it. Only very rarely because they left the marriage for no compelling fault reason. In general I think it’s outrageous that feminism has made marriage a one way contract, which obligates the man for 18 years or a damn long time, and in some states for life with lifetime alimony, but the woman not one iota. She can leave the marriage at any time with child support at inclusive of alimony levels and meanwhile not have been providing him any sex at all if she didn’t feel like it, in return for all his support while married. No enforced promises from her and in fact the possibility under 2nd wave feminism of marital rape even if no brutal force was used (which I’m of course against) ; more enforced promises from him than ever before, including outrageous levels of after tax percentage child support=alimony on a no fault basis. Damn right I against that “Lady” Rain.

    I certainly think that any man who did want the children and then leaves the marriage for no compelling reason, such as the wife cheating and being unwilling to stop and resume good full emotional and sexual and loving relations with her husband after contrition, has a duty to continue to support them. I certainly would my own. However I think there should be true joint custody as the default unless either parent is manifestly unfit or doesn’t want custody, and no child support paid to the mother in that case; instead directly for the child’s needs.

    Finally so long as women do get custody, I think that child support=alimony should be at lower after tax percentage levels. Such as e.g. the current before tax rates (often 20 to 25% for one child) should be applied to take home pay instead, i.e. on an after tax basis. Further I think mandatory, paid to the mother child support should be capped at some reasonable low middle class rate, basics only, and never extend a woman by unwilling child support into the upper middle class or higher. Divorce women should be expect to work and quickly, particular when they’re the deserting ones. I think the cap should be at something like $2000 a month for one kid, and another 1000 above that for each additional. Basic child support, not feminist matriarchy creating child support, whereby a man supports the woman at sometimes rich levels and equal to his own (or higher if she earns close to him) even when she’s giving nothing back in return.

    I think many fathers who make good money would want to supplement this strongly by paying a lot of the kids’ expenses directly. That of course would require that the woman actually provide fulsome visitation and on a flexible basis that accommodates the father and not just herself. As it is states spend almost no money or attention enforcing visitation and it costs fathers a fortune to get them through endless court appearances to do even the meager enforcing they sometimes finally do. My solution would change that.

    So you’re damn right I’m against the current feminist child support regime “Lady” Raine. Any sane self respecting man and fair minded woman should be.

    As for male adultery, I’ve said that what I believe in is a limited and discrete arrangement only down the road in a marriage, and only if the man is taking care of business at home (and that probably only alpha are gonna be able to swing this). I have said I think male adultery is FAR less inherently destructive of the marital bond than female adultery is, and that the primary destruction from male adultery is unjustified American female hysteria about it (induced in first wave feminism).

    Like


  412. Roissy–

    ps a lot of men think women should stop bitching about rape so much. what do you think of their arguments?

    To take the substance of this apart from why you said it above, what many men think women should stop doing with respect to rape is pressing so hard to greatly expand the definition of it.

    They’re doing so fundamentally to try to tame alphas, or near alphas (greater betas etc.). “If you’re not nice after your conquest, we’ll maybe charge date rape and probably be able to make it stick if we do, or at least put you through the ringer cause of the accusation. Therefore, you’d better ask us out again after you screw us when we’re tipsy, or at least not brag about it in a put down way.”

    That’s the motive. More power grab.

    Like


  413. It is unjust to require me or any other man to support illegitimate children in a society with abortion on demand.

    Why is the sexual act an act of implied consent to parenthood and 18 years of involuntary servitude for a man while at the same time conferring absolutely no responsibility from the woman?

    She has complete freedom to terminate the pregnancy at any time, even against the father’s will and without his knowledge or consent. However, should she CHOOSE to keep the child, again without the father’s knowledge or consent, he is FORCED to pay for that decision.

    There is no amount of sophistry that can explain away this power imbalance. It is tearing at the root of our society. Women, like Wendy Schwartz, get a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY when they choose to keep bastard children. They think the coercive power of the state will successfully compel men to provide for them and their children.

    This is just not the case. In earlier western society, bastard children were entitled to NOTHING. That insured, if not chastity, a population that was CLEAR EYED about the prospects of raising a child out of wedlock. Marriage was the only way a legitimate child ENTITLED to his father’s estate could be produced.

    Like


  414. DCLXVI–

    Of course Doctors have to test all pregnant mothers for ALL STD’s that affect pregnancy. It’s part of their oath. They are required to provide the best healthcare to both the mother and the baby. Not testing would be a violation of that oath.

    Second, you fucking dullard….it’s “Strep B” that causes blindness in babies, that ALL doctors test for, and has NOTHING to do with gonorrhea.

    Between your 35 and 37th weeks of pregnancy you will be tested for Group B strep or GBS. Group B Strep is a type of bacteria that one to three women carry in their vagina. These bacteria, though benign to women in general, may pose serious and potentially life threatening consequences for your baby during birth.

    However, with proper screening women who test positive will be treated with an antibiotic during labor to prevent passing these bacteria on to their baby.
    Most women who test positive for Group B Strep or GBS will deliver a normal and healthy baby. Without adequate diagnosis and treatment however, babies exposed to Group B Strep during the birthing process may face potentially life threatening side effects.

    Like


  415. ….To clarlify. Doctors do not have to “have consent” for simple things that are directly relating to “saving a person’s life”. A doctor will run any and all necessary tests to save the life of mother and baby.

    They don’t “ask permission” to do an ultrasound, bloodwork, or a pelvic exam because it’s part of their job in “keeping you healthy and examining all possible risks”.

    They also can test your blood for drugs without your permission. Stop trying to compare “necessary testing” to random paternity tests.

    STD tests are conducted to ensure there is no danger to the mother and the baby. That is their job. They don’t just “test” for paternity because it does not affect the baby/mother’s health.

    Stop grasping for loose connections. They aren’t there.

    Like


  416. Roissy asked: “are routine genetic blood tests done by hospitals to screen for diseases a constitutional violation? think mcfly.”

    Answer: No because the parent(s) CONSENT to it. Duh!! There’s no law that requires genetic blood tests, or that you even have to give birth in a hospital.

    [editor: incorrect. most states have MANDATORY blood screening tests, regardless of parental consent.

    http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/medical/newborn_screening_tests.html ]

    Doctors also assume ALL women are lying whores. ALL women have gonorrhea. So they put silver nitrate in the newborns baby’s eye’s to prevent blindness from the mother’s LIKELY gonorrhea. The docs don’t even bother asking the mother about her sexual history. They know from experience. Women are pathological lying whores. It’s official medical opinion.

    “Gonorrheal conjunctivitis was once a prominent cause of blindness in the newborn, the infection being transmitted during delivery. Routine use of silver nitrate solution in the eyes of every infant at birth has largely overcome this problem. ”
    http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/gonorrhea

    Like


  417. The docs don’t even bother asking the mother about her sexual history. They know from experience. Women are pathological lying whores. It’s official medical opinion.

    Rum? Slumlord?

    Lucifer?

    Please explain.

    Like


  418. It is scary that some commenters desire to legislate, or use the courts to hack at the physician-patient relationship. or the hospital-patient relationship.

    Physicians owe duties of truthfulness and privacy to their patients, but the husband is not the patient. There exists no physician-husband contract. Since the physician-patient relationship is a professional (and not a personal ) relationship, the duty applies only to information about the patient’s medical condition and treatment.

    To my understanding, the duty to patient privacy has only been violated in the context of credible threats of homicidal behavior from psychiatric patients.

    As a husband, you also have medical privacy rights that you may not desire to be shared by your wife.

    As a parent of the newborn, the father does have parental rights and responsibility , and I think this may support the argument for disclosure of misappropriated paternity to the father by the hospital. I’ve never known this to be addressed in practice.

    @Tupac,
    yes, some newborn treatment is state legislated and done without consent, in deference to the possibility of STD infection.

    Like


  419. Paternity testing is not for the health of the mother.

    No one is advocating testing the mother.

    The fact that a physician has to protect the woman’s privacy doesn’t extend to the kid after he is born.

    A father has every right to make medical decisions for his child.

    A child and his father should have the legal right to know whether they are related.

    Like


  420. The people who say parenting is more than a biological relationship are EXACTLY right.

    In the case where a man is not the biological father and was deceived into believing so, he should bear no financial cost and be entitled to reimbursement for anything paid.

    But if he and the child have formed an emotional bond amounting to parenthood, he should nonetheless be entitled to reasonable visitation privileges for the sake of him AND the child.

    Currently, the law is 180 degrees from reality. It enforces child support payments but those payments do not necessarily confer visitation rights.

    Women overwhelmingly receive custody and, along with it, child support, tax deductions, tax credits, the car, and the house. One judge in Colorado bragged that in 25 years on the bench he never once gave custody of a child to the father. This is nothing short of criminal!

    A friend of mine was granted custody of his daughter mainly because the mother was a wortless drug addict. Before a visitation and custody hearing, a social worker visited his home. She found out he was in the military and she wrote an unfavorable report. The judge, based on that, awarded full custody to the mother. The poor guy found out about the custody change on his wedding day to his new girlfriend who was a great mother to the girl.

    I love your idea of MPT. It would remedy the wrong baby taken home too. I also believe in mandatory pre-nups for every marriage. Make sure most points of contention are discussed up front.

    Like


  421. “””….To clarlify. Doctors do not have to “have consent” for simple things that are directly relating to “saving a person’s life”. A doctor will run any and all necessary tests to save the life of mother and baby.

    They don’t “ask permission” to do an ultrasound, bloodwork, or a pelvic exam because it’s part of their job in “keeping you healthy and examining all possible risks”.
    “””

    You are speaking out of your ass and are 100% mistaken.

    Every one of those tests are taken under the legal authority of Implied Consent- at any time the patient can revoke that consent and the Doctor would be able to legally perform the tests- if they did it would be Battery; they could be charged, arrested and have their liscence revoked.

    Not that this matters in any way since Paternity testing isn’t about the health and well being of the child or mother- its about the State determining who is legally obligated to provide for the upbringing of the child, to make sure they’re sticking the correct man with the Bill.

    Like


  422. Tom Leykis discussed this topic yesterday on the Patt Morrison show (on NPR):

    http://scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2009/11/23/whos-your-daddy-no-really-who/

    He was a guest on the show.

    Like


  423. Has anyone read the response to the New York Times article over at Feministing? It’s amazing.

    Like


  424. on November 25, 2009 at 3:43 pm Cannon's Canon

    i scrolled down just to drop off that feministing link.

    MY HEAD ASPLODE!

    Like


  425. Puma

    Tom Leykis discussed this topic yesterday on the Patt Morrison show (on NPR):

    http://scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2009/11/23/whos-your-daddy-no-really-who/

    He was a guest on the show.

    I liked the points on retaining the Parker/Madoff funds
    “for the children”

    good weapons.

    this shit should’ve died with Bill Clinton’s semen on Monica’s dress.

    mout

    Like


  426. on November 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm The Fifth Horseman

    Oh my god. The monsters at Feministing say that Carnell Smith is a ‘heartless ass-hat’.

    Feminism is pure evil. Evil on par with Al-Qaeda or Nazi Germany.

    It will end in much the same manner.

    Like


  427. The Fifth Horseman Wrote:

    “Oh my god. The monsters at Feministing say that Carnell Smith is a ‘heartless ass-hat’.

    Feminism is pure evil. Evil on par with Al-Qaeda or Nazi Germany.

    It will end in much the same manner.”

    —————————————————–

    Cursory review of the article shows to me that they are trying to turn this into a racial issue instead of one females lying about paternity. They do protest a bit too much……

    Like


  428. on November 28, 2009 at 1:50 pm Cannon's Canon

    yes, an article about a black MRA is overtly racist media coverage

    Like


  429. the LA Times is featuring this story about a dysfunctional family that keeps getting welfare for more and more kids:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-child-death29-2009nov29,0,7023900.story

    Like


  430. Feminists are passive-aggressive.

    Like


  431. I did the math:

    About 4.2 million births per year in the US, so even at 10% non-paternity, which is the generally accepted rate, (but it could be as high as 30%) that’s 420,000 men and children being lied to per year. About 4% of the 10% of PD cases the men find out, so of the remaining estimated 6% that never know that’s roughly 4,284,000 American men with children under the age of 18 unknowingly raising some other man’s child. I think it’s fair to say the men and kids are victims year after year as they’re living a lie. Not to mention how many men who are fathers but don’t know and are being defrauded of their right to parenthood.

    Like


  432. pls check out this wonderful male friendly site
    it is pro male and antifeminist
    http://www.angryharry.com

    Like


  433. You need to do a story on “Foxy Knoxy as Maneater”: A modern day witch has been caught.

    Many in the Liberal Press are dismissing this murder as ‘Railroading of an Innocent abroad’ like some Henry James novel…..or Anti-Americanism.

    A few censored NYT blog comments are accurately casting her as a Socio-Path unable to stop smiling at her kill, female and male.

    She is a tumor on American Womanhood and in her most benign form has exposed a rotting foundation that is spreading unchecked far and wide in the USA.

    As many know, the “Jr. Year Abroad” has been a genteel fixture of young ladies seeking mediteranean lust for generations going back to Jackie-O. Most went, studied a bit, and slept alot with older Professors, young playboys and just swarthy locals who made their squeaky clean red-necks back home look bland. Then after sowing said wild oats, they came back and settled back in the USA, with none the wiser.

    None of this matters, except when the socio-path enters. Her shakles thrown off, she destroys at will. Cloaked in the novelty of the exotic, uninhibited American, she is the Blackwidow as Butterfly.

    Beware, her Myspace page is the Miss Jekyl/Hyde, that many game-players here engage on a daily basis and ‘know’. These are the women who endear rage, wrath, and fury in civilized man.

    Her herpes sores erupted only when trapped, revealing her rotting soul. Many more infest our society, not condemned by an ancient paternalstic society that will not accept a praying mantiss godess.

    Heed the warning: You have seen a witch.

    Like


  434. on December 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm Good on the Feminist Bitches

    One of the only things I like about you is that you hate gender feminism

    Like


  435. on December 6, 2009 at 2:51 pm Wendy Schwartz

    BTW, your description of 99% of men may be accurate for the men with whom you hang out. However, the men I know are hard working, married, successful professionals who have in almost every case never been divorced and supported their wives while they raised their family. And continue to support their wives as they get older.

    Of course most of the men I know are single. Why would I be hanging out with and dating “married men”? Idiot.

    Furthermore, “having a job and supporting your kids” is something a Black Ghetto Momma screams on “Jerry Springer”…..NOT something that any man/woman deserves to be exhaulted for. All adults are supposed to have a job, raise their kids, and support their spouse. That’s not something that entitles you to a damn thing in this life. That’s the BARE MINIMUM. That does not mean that you are a “victim” of anything just because you are a “nice guy” and got dicked over by women/life/society. That just means you’re like everyone else. Waaaah.

    That’s literally doing the bare minimum. Like I said…..be a competitor in this world, get ahead, be cut throat…..or expect to get run over. Stop crying victim.

    No, I don’t love assholes…..I love men who realize that they need to do MORE than have a job and be a “nice guy” to get my attention. Guys that are willing to do whatever necessary to get ahead in the world. Who realize that their JOB as a MAN is to work 2 jobs, 3 jobs…whatever it takes…..and STILL doesn’t complain. THAT’S a real man.

    Like


  436. on December 6, 2009 at 1:53 pm The culture can STILL be saved

    DESTROY big government
    Make marriage a private institution with ZERO fees

    Get marriage out of the government completely

    Husband & Wife as a truly personal and valid concept
    That’s the only way

    Get the government out of it completely
    SAVE it at the LOCAL level

    As a foreigner I think it’s possible for relationships to go back and it IS occuring in America

    The big cities like Washington D.C. , New York and what not may be infesting with gender feminism and liberalism but paleo conservatism and classical liberalism is growing in the suburbs

    The cities are gone to me anyways )=

    Right now Americans are fighting back
    The culture is starting to reverse itself

    The counter culture has become the culture and everybody knows that

    Like


  437. on December 6, 2009 at 1:56 pm Giving the Middle finger to '' Lady '' ( she ain't no Lady ) Raine

    ” joel
    L.R.

    Woman have never had to check with a man to have children. They just go get pregnant anytime they want.

    It is the men who have to persuade a woman if they want to have children.

    Again, the narcissism is ever present.

    BTW, your description of 99% of men may be accurate for the men with whom you hang out. However, the men I know are hard working, married, successful professionals who have in almost every case never been divorced and supported their wives while they raised their family. And continue to support their wives as they get older.

    Roissy is so right about you (and many other women.) You love as*oles. ”

    Joel I agree with you
    Shoot the feminist bitches

    Like


  438. […] seems that my spirited discussion of resolving the ultimate betrayal through mandatory paternity testing made the rounds on the […]

    Like


  439. Roissy: The point a lot of people miss re: child support is that it’s nothing to do with paternity and everything to do with responsibility.

    If a man knowingly and intentionally makes a woman pregnant, it’s right that he should support her through her pregancy and support the child that results, because he is responsible.

    (Likewise of course, if a woman knowingly and intentionally becomes pregnant by a man it is right that she should support the man through the pregancy and support the child that results 😉 )

    Your definition of “paternity” can be as fuzzy as you like; it doesn’t matter. Child support is about taking responsibility.

    Like


  440. […] tip: Roissy in DC) VN:F [1.7.9_1023]Rat­ing: 0 (from […]

    Like


  441. if you are a loving father or intend to become one one day. Show your support for men like these, support fathers for justice. You might be young and care free now, but one day your children may be the only thing that brings you pride and happiness.

    Like


  442. this character is funny-

    “It’s because I don’t give a fuck about them, their money, losing them to another woman, or “being alone” if they were to displease me (and subsequently make me leave them). Any man who has met me and spoken to me knows that I’m clever, sarcastic, witty, smart, confident, motivated, and completely self-sufficient.”

    You do realise that you are only safe let alone self sufficient because of the beta state? and beta police force and beta military?

    In times not far gone by, an Alpha like me could rape you and eat your children with little fear of retribution, i certainly wudn’t be hanging round to commit to that old ass. Females would have to form large groups together just to achieve any kind of success, so your main worry would actually be the other females beating you and stealing your shit to provide for their bastard children instead of yours. In fact you’re best chance for survival would be an intelligent beta male(or 2 or 3) who valued your feminity and or/looks (definately not your sweet persona) sticking by you.

    Luckily we’re past that stage, money exists now and more importantly betas have created enough wealth and surplus money in the world for that money to have an actual value and be able to purchase things. Thus you can survive. But please remember how much you owe it to men, especially the Betas.

    Like


  443. […] and that is being cuckolded.  Men see cuckolding as the ultimate violation and betrayal, yet there is an entire movement among ‘feminists’ to enshrine a woman’s right to c….  These misandrists even want to outlaw the right of a man to test the paternity of a […]

    Like


  444. Last year I got a vasectomy, and I was uttelry suprised that, in this day and age when my wife could abort my child w/o informing me (and the doc by law required to help her lie to me by omission), to find that to get a vasectomy my wife had to sign a waiver, granting de facto *permission* for me to get snipped. If she didn’t sign, no snip.

    Nuts, since I don’t have the authority over my potential children that shes has over my actual unborn on (hell, mke that the born ones too).

    Anyway, in reality it was fine since my getting the big-V was a joint thing, and since I feel that the marriage contract was in fact about our family together (i.e. joint offspring) then I think her waiver was good, in the same vein as truth-in-lending laws.

    In the same manner a mandatory paternity test at birth (with *criminal* penalties for tampering with test results) would also be ‘fair’.

    Like


  445. on January 2, 2010 at 11:27 pm gunslingergregi

    Wow newscraper that is some wild shit. Deserves a post.

    Like


  446. Newscraper: I heard the same thing from someone else but…..they went to another doctor and they didn’t require spousal consent.

    It seems that it depends on the doc you go to.

    Word of advise: If one doctor requires your spousal consent, go find another doctor…or lie about it.

    Like


  447. Some BS is floating on here. Most guys who are stuck with child support for non-genetic children are because they signed a support agreement WITHOUT getting a test first. Once you sign the agreement, you are on the hook.
    In Pennsylvania once you sign the divorce with the child support in it nothing gets you off the hook. This is supposed to be to protect adoptions but that’s BS. Signing the adoption papers is a acknowledgment of responsibility, done freely.
    No state that I know of that the male finds out BEFORE the divorce that he’s not the father and doesn’t accept responsibility sticks the man with permanent support but I might be wrong.
    I’ve never heard of any guy finding out after getting stuck with permanent support getting the kid murdered to get out of it. Of course maybe some guy sent the test off himself with a different name and knowing the court system ad it done but nobody’s gotten caught for it yet.
    The thing is the only way I guy can be sure about kids is to send off the test and have it done. If he doesn’t want to be considered the biggest “asshole ever” by the wife he has to shell out $300 to $400 himself in secret at the time of the kid’s birth.
    Most “Beta” males aren’t in high dollar jobs so that’s a financial strain any time and just when you’re having a kid is expensive enough.
    But the lesson every guy should learn here is this; get the paternity “kit” and ship it off to a lab after the birth of all kids. No need for it to even be in your correct name because no court is going to accept the test as valid without court supervision but you’re only looking to get the results for yourself.
    If you find out it’s not your kid the first thing on your divorce plans is court supervised DNA tests and getting out from “temporary child support” while the divorce is finalizing.
    So the two most import things to do before beginning or ending a divorce is “Prenup” and “DNA test for Paternity”.
    She won’t get half your stuff (Prenup) or alimony and you don’t get stuck with child support (DNA Test) for some other guy’s kid.

    Like


  448. Oh baby give me one more chance….
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1249315/John-Terrys-lover-Vanessa-Perroncel-tells-ex-partner-Wayne-Bridge-I-want-back.html
    Not technically a cuckhold, because they were ‘on a break’ or whatever. But a useful example.

    Like


  449. Drogba Luckily we’re past that stage, money exists now and more importantly betas have created enough wealth and surplus money in the world for that money to have an actual value and be able to purchase things. Thus you can survive. But please remember how much you owe it to men, especially the Betas.

    Oh, this is brilliant. Arouse a feeling of concern for safety, a need for a protector, put your group forth as the protector, and arouse feelings of gratitude.

    If I become a political leader I’ll have to remember this one.

    Maybe I’ll even create a ministry of propaganda to help with creating more of these emotional ploys. Brilliant.

    I’m not shitting – these ploys work, and I congratulate you, sir.

    Like


  450. Drogba

    Luckily we’re past that stage, money exists now and more importantly betas have created enough wealth and surplus money in the world for that money to have an actual value and be able to purchase things. Thus you can survive. But please remember how much you owe it to men, especially the Betas.

    Oh, this is brilliant. Arouse a feeling of concern for safety, a need for a protector, put your group forth as the protector, and arouse feelings of gratitude.

    If I become a political leader I’ll have to remember this one.

    Maybe I’ll even create a ministry of propaganda to help with creating more of these emotional ploys. Brilliant.

    I’m not shitting – these ploys work, and I congratulate you, sir.

    Like


  451. Doug C – it’s a huge problem, being enslaved by women who isn’t putting out to you anymore, and possibly to her kid who isn’t even yours, while her whims are backed by the full force of the state.

    If I were to defend against it, I’d add a few tools to the arsenal that you didn’t mention. You mention paternity tests and prenups – good. That’s working within the system.

    I’d also keep the bulk of my savingsin places that are invisible. I’d also work to have options in terms of financial income. Having one sole income stream that is easily garnished is putting your life and trust in the hands of the state. It’s a very weak position.

    Financial freedom is difficult, if not downright illegal, but it is prudent.

    It’s always prudent to have options. It’s hard to lose a war if you can manoever easily.

    Like


  452. Any argument always comes down to: “If you don’t do this, I will do this”.

    You can forestall arguments if she knows that she can’t “do this”. If she knows you will just leave for another country if she brings about alimony level child support, she’s less likely to try for that.

    A great deal of arguments are won before they are even started. It’s about positioning yourself such that they are forestalled.

    Like


  453. @JR “give every married man the option to request a paternity test before putting his name on the birth certificate.”

    The problem here is the inevitable weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth of adulterous whores trying to convince their husband he isn’t a cuckold. In discussions of this issue, men from states that do provide this option regularly attest to being gamed out of seeking their right: the nurse asks if he wants a paternity test in front of the entire (maternal) family. The Nurse asks the wife if her husband wants a paternity test (in his absence!!) and on and on. Of course, there are 4th amendment concerns here if and only if the wifes genetic material is required for the test (this is sometimes the case, but rarely so).

    A better (but considerably less practical) solution than MPT would be a society wide institutionalization of the paternity test gift: honest wives and good mothers would be expected to present her husband with a positive paternity test (based provably on his genetic material) as a post birth gift to her mate. Can anyone think of a more romantic gesture that a woman could make for her husband?

    Like


  454. on February 19, 2010 at 3:16 pm Aspiring2bAlphA

    Add to the list of worst things a woman could do to a man:

    Military wives cheating
    Military wives using the rigged divorce system

    Fucking cunts.

    Like


  455. […] amazing is the completely and totally hateful way in which these women, who are overwhelmingly the ones filing for no-fault divorce, treat their […]

    Like


  456. I could not agree more with the many suggestions put forth in the article. Mainly……
    a) All women who cuckold their husbands should be publicly shamed.
    b) All babies should be paternity tested soon after birth.
    c) Husbands found not to be the father of their wife’s children should be able to leave the marriage with no financial penalty to themselves.
    d) In cases where the husband is found to be not a child’s father after divorce, he should be able to sue his ex-wife for fraud and reclaim any monies paid to her in terms of child support.

    Further, I would like to see cuckolding made a crime. Let’s see if the threat of being tossed in prison encourages wives not to spread their legs for the next guy they meet.

    Like


  457. […] to male promiscuity to three reasons, since the biggest reason why men are wary of sluts – paternity certainty – doesn’t […]

    Like


  458. It’s funny, I was in favor of mandatory DNA testing for years, until about 15 minutes ago, reading your blog. Then suddenly I recognized myself not at the shlub who would get taken for a ride by these women, but as the dude who would father the kid on the sly! In fact, there’s a slight chance that’s already happened.

    So I’ve got to withdraw my support of mandatory DNA testing. If you’re a tool and get used by a woman, that’s on you. In my state, a DNA test is required if requested by either purported parent, so I can adequately protect myself simply by knowing the laws. The chumps who get rolled by these chicks can be left to swing as far as I care.

    Like


  459. Fucking Bitches and Whores.

    Get a prenup, gentlemen.

    Like