It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DNA Parental testing, one of the best ever inventions for men?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: crankyoldman
I can tell you from personal experience that many people are not fathered by the father they believe to be their own. I have known a dozen people at least who were not the child of the dad the mother married. It is far more common then people think. Women will get pregnant by one they favor but marry the "better provider" man.

Make of that what you will, but it is far more common then you would think. One scientists put the number at about 15 percent. My experience says that may be right.

This is nothing new or surprising. It has been happening since the dawn of time. A basic 15 minute read of evolutionary psychology will explain the whole alpha/beta dichotomy. Women seek a good provider who they are certain will stick around and not run off chasing other women, this is the beta. But when it comes to breeding, women seek superior genes (healthy and strong) and this is where the alpha comes in. The beta is the weaker/wimpier one, but he makes a more nurturing parent and smarter provider. The alpha is stronger, better looking etc, but would not make a good provider, so all these many years of evolution have programmed women's brains to seek out the best of both worlds. Animals do the exact same thing.




posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xaphan
This is nothing new or surprising. It has been happening since the dawn of time.

And hopefully with DNA tests being so accessible these days the death bell has tolled for lying women who want to trap a man into parenthood when he is not the father.
I am surprised by the figures produced by the university in Liverpool though, I didn't think there were so many horrible women out there. I guess it's something no-one talks about usually, I do also wonder how many female friends of women who have lied about paternity know about it as well though - personal female conspiracies in every town I imagine.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand
'Horrible' being a subjective term I guess. I mean yes, it is morally wrong, but morals are fairly new to our species aren't they? At the end of the day we are just animals in clothing. Point being, we can only take so many legal measures and impose so many morals, but we will never completely remove the animal instinct.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Xaphan
Horrible meaning any woman who feels the need to lie to a man and take his money/care for her child under false pretences.
Yes, subjective, but I would be surprised if anyone (man or woman) could describe it as something nice?
Morals are of course a human construct, but any woman lying to a man about his paternity is not an unthinking animal who does not understand the construct of moral codes.

Animal instinct is of course still under the surface with us humans, but we don't claim that it is ok to eat the young of our neighbour because we are hungry - Equally, any woman who lies to a man about paternity cannot reasonably use 'animal instinct' to justify it. Perhaps you disagree or maybe I just misunderstand your point?



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

I do not believe sex to be a casual affair. It is the most intimate kind of expression that can be had between two people. Taking it for granted, is what leads to people praising a test that shouldn't even be necessary in the first place. The problem is, people would rather have sex than a meaningful conversation/relationship.

With the amount of energy exerted to have that casual sex, you could have gotten to know this person and saved yourself a lot of wasted years. This is of course assuming you're a good judge of character to begin with. I don't particularly care that two unbound individuals have sex, but those that consider it no different then say, a pleasant stroll along the beach....are daft.
edit on 3-8-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Aedaeum
We would appear to be in different mindsets and experiences then.
Sex can be casual or deeply intimate to me depending on who I am sharing the experience with.
I don't see why sex with someone 'just for the sex' is such a bad thing if it is two (or more) consenting adults respecting each other while they enjoy it together.

Any sex which is not intended to create a child is recreational, so why is recreational sex the sole reserve of people who are in a committed relationship in your opinion?

I say again, recreational sex is not the problem in itself (in my opinion) but recreational sex with someone you know you wouldn't want to raise a child with is perhaps more the issue..



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand
Sorry I should've been more clear. I don't disagree at all. I'm all for a more moral and honest society. The only point I was making is that rules and boundaries can only go so far. We will never achieve 'moral perfection'. The way our brains are developed simply won't allow it.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Xaphan
Sorry not needed

...and I agree with your thoughts on moral perfection being unrealistic, it is why I am celebrating the benefits of DNA tests which now prevent women from screwing men over financially (or otherwise) for kids that aren't theirs.
My £300 test has saved me tens of thousands in the years since I split from the woman in my OP, perhaps an example of science forcing changes to behaviour and potential moral choices?



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

The fact that sex has the possibility to create a new life, should inherently require more responsibility. Taking this responsibility for granted, to "have fun" is completely naive. When you're in a committed relationship, you know the person you're with already (I hope), therefore you're already in a position to take on that new responsibility.

As I said, "unbounded" or not, if sex is the primary focus than that responsibility is NOT taken seriously. It becomes nothing more then a pastime, which is evident considering she already had a child on the way.

Let me make an analogue. Let's say every time we burped, someone in the world would die. Let's say burping took a bit more effort then it does currently and was something extremely pleasurable. How much more responsibility would you put on yourself for someone who was already alive, then someone who is "out of sight, out of mind" (unborn) so-to-speak?

Either way, there is a life put in your hands. At what point do we take proper responsibility for that life? At what point do we understand the necessity for a life to be brought into this world through love, not lust? At what point do we realize sex is more then just a casual pastime?

Or is it already too late?
edit on 3-8-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Aedaeum
So do you only have sex to make babies then?
I have agreed that having sex with someone you are not prepared to raise a child with is something I do not do myself.
I personally think that because of the risks of pregnancy (even with contraception) I should only enjoy recreational sex with someone I have at least an idea that I could work with if an unintended child was created through sex with them.

Your 'special status' of this beautiful loving sex thing is of course something I understand, having enjoyed that in deep loving relationships myself, but your claims that sex between two people just for the enjoyment of sex is somehow bad is curious, I also do not understand the ban you appear to wish for people who are not in a committed relationship.

Either way, I am glad that DNA tests now allow me and other men to enjoy sex without the risk of having to raise someone else's child because a woman lied.
edit on 3-8-2014 by grainofsand because: Typo



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand



As I said, "unbounded" or not, if sex is the primary focus than that responsibility is NOT taken seriously. It becomes nothing more then a pastime, which is evident considering she already had a child on the way.


I wish you would read what I said.... I said nothing about it being "bad" if you're unmarried (unbounded). I said you need to know more then the hair color of the person you're having sex with; that's what it means to take responsibility. Like I said, I do not believe there is such a thing as casual sex, because you are taking a life in your hands. You didn't even address my analogue.

You can assert the idea of "casual sex" all you want, but casual refers to a lack of concern/seriousness. The fact is, creating life is anything but casual. In fact, sex in and of itself can only be technically described as procreation, so asserting the idea of "casual sex" is taking sex out of its natural context.

This imaginary "ban" that you think I'm putting on casual sexual relationships, would be taking proper responsibility for the act of sex, realizing that it is not the same as playing golf... If you don't understand this, then I'm afraid we are at an impasse.

It saddens me that your opinion only changed after you lost years of your life. This is a perfect example of mankind's decadence and, dare I say, perversion of natural processes. Though of course this all falls under philosophy, which brings up the debate of whether if something is considered "natural" that any other state is "unnatural". The problem is the subjectivity of our reality. Wrong is right and right is wrong, if I believe it to be as such. But then of course, who defines what is wrong or right? See the problem?

In the end it doesn't really matter what I say since we make up our own reality. We're all living a lie that we've crafted for ourselves every moment of every day.
edit on 3-8-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Deleted because not everyone enjoys my sense of humor
edit on 3-8-2014 by Iamthatbish because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aural
Pretty sure best invention is not sleeping with someone you shouldnt trust to begin with. Even if it was condoms its not unknown some people to poke holes in them.


My lil bro has a son he adores because of this. Guess how he found out the pysco mom poked a hole? He went over to his friends house cause his girl was there chatting with his friends girlfriend. I guess it wasn't obvious this man was home. So, when my lil bro got there his friend comes out and says tell him what you just told her... after much jaw dropping I have a nephew I adore as well.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Aedaeum
I have only referred to recreational sex, it is you who brought the term 'casual sex' onto the table. Our definitions are different s'all,
Oh, and I don't get this...


It saddens me that your opinion only changed after you lost years of your life.

What years did I lose???
I have absolutely beautiful memories of bringing a little man up to age 7 when all his other potential father figures (and father) were poor losers compared to me, yes that makes me really happy when I think of how his start in life was as good as my own son's.

...I'm just glad that a DNA test allowed me to make that informed choice.

*Edit*
I've loved the occasional times we've all bumped into each other in a street and lil guy has said "Hiya [my name]!", and if I bump into him as a 20 something with a load of moody looking boys in a shady street in the future I shall feel safe.


edit on 3-8-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The op has asked if the paternal DNA test is a good thing for men. The answer is yes it is. Far too often, the situation that is described here is that a woman, who is or is not pregnant, gets with a man, lies to him, ends up pregnant and then has the child. The woman then turns around and uses said man to take care of a child that is not his, and that he had no part in its making.

While it is commendable that the OP was willing to care for said child, though the reality happens to be, that it is not his responsbility at all. Far too often, women think that they can do this and entrap a man for their own selfish purposes. And this is one way to prove if the child is or is not.

So the answer is yes, it is a good thing.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
While it is commendable that the OP was willing to care for said child, though the reality happens to be, that it is not his responsbility at all.

It is not commendable really, just a natural and basic care for a new life. I loved his mother by the time she gave birth and already knew that even if he wasn't my child I would still do everything I could to give him a beautiful start in life.
It was nothing to do with thoughts of responsibility, just raw love for a new life.

*Edit*
I am glad that a DNA test enabled me to make an informed choice for those seven years of my life

edit on 3-8-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Jerry only does the weird folks and trailer trash. Maury's the one who does the DNA.

Source: watching these shows to remind myself how funny stupid people are



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: grainofsand

Men lie to and say it wasn't them. I'd call it a win-win


Ya, but in the US the law generally sides with the woman if I am not mistaken. Other countries are different. Some backward countries give the women no rights at all, not even to her children. I think it is horrible that women attempt to trick men into believing they are the father, when the women knows good and well this is not true. And sometimes it is even worse considering she may have been cheating on a guy when she got pregnant to begin with. I don't know how common that is though. And it is just as bad when they tell a guy they are on birth control. I can only think that they would do this because they want to trick the guy into getting them pregnant. Horrible. So always use protection, because you never know. At least if you don't know a person very well anyway. No, I changed my mind. Use it all the time. Unless you want to have kids that is. And even then, use it anyway. Wait, well maybe not then.



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
In 5th grade, we had some really graphic sex education. We even got to watch a video of a young teenage girl giving birth the natural way (no epidural). That video scared the crap out of me, and to this day I have never had unprotected sex (32 now), even when I was drunk off my ass. Out of the thousands of times I have had sex, never once has a condom broke, I am not sure how that happens to so many people, maybe they were not educated about how to put it on properly, or are not good at foreplay or something.

Most of my life I only had sex with girls I loved, after that not working out for me at all, I had quite a time of having friends with benefits. These days I am celibate, I just don't trust myself anymore. I keep falling for users, and casual sex ends up being with psychos lol. Can't win



posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus
Funny thing about the pill, being sick can somehow render the pill useless. That is how I got here. Mom got pregnant before me, and had a miscarriage, and they were scared to try again. After a bout with the flu mom got pregnant and asked the doctor how it was possible on the pill, he told her it was getting sick, the immune system ramped up makes the pill not as effective. Luckily I made it here intact



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join