TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Paternity Fraud hits reddit

Bobsutan

May 5, 2012
15 upvotes
/r/MensRights

Here's two cases I just found today:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/t7nyh/my_stepmom_cheated_on_my_dad_and_had_a_kid_can_i/

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/t78s3/redditors_after_6_months_i_got_to_know_that_my/

Please give them some advice.

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Paternity Fraud hits reddit
Author

Bobsutan

Upvotes 15
Comments 28
Date May 5, 2012 12:56 AM UTC
(14 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/t7qbk/paternity_fraud_hits_reddit/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/paternity-fraud-hits-reddit.1022491
https://theredarchive.com/post/1022491
Top posts by Bobsutan

NEWBIES READ THIS -- Comprehensive Guide to Game

556 upvotes
June 9, 2011
/r/seduction

A simple reminder...

439 upvotes
July 14, 2012
/r/seduction

DON'T BE THAT GIRL

366 upvotes
December 5, 2012
/r/MensRights

Don't be that gal (LPS edition)

358 upvotes
December 6, 2012
/r/MensRights

Jodi Arias verdict: GUILTY of 1st Degree Murder

341 upvotes
May 8, 2013
/r/MensRights

Obama is sexist and here's why...

263 upvotes
February 15, 2013
/r/MensRights

NEWBIES READ THIS - Attraction & Approaching

234 upvotes
October 9, 2011
/r/seduction

NEWBIES READ THIS - IOIs & IODs, Qualification, and more!

205 upvotes
October 13, 2011
/r/seduction

Comments

[–]mikesteane 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Let's hear the feminist justification for not bringing in DNA testing by default before birth certificates are issued. They will oppose it, but their only argument is that if this is brought in, selfish and dishnoest women will not be able to dupe men any longer. It is an argument that disgusts most men and women alike. I want to hear them make it as often as possible, as it is one argument that, more than anything else shows the movement up for what it is.

[–]BinaryShadow 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, I've heard this one:

The rights of the child are violated when you get their DNA without consent.

Never mind MGM which is far worse than a pin-prick for a blood sample.

[–]Bobsutan[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Oh I know. I cannot believe anyone has gotten away with framing it as a women's rights issue to pick who they thing the dad should be out of all the men she's fucking, and having the gall of saying its in the best interests of the child.

[–]chavelah 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think it's just fine (and most certainly in the best interests of the child!) for a single woman with multiple sexual partners to say "Luke, I think you'd be a great dad. Would you like to be a part of this child's life?"

The part that keeps getting skipped is the part where you TELL Luke that he might not be the biological father. You can't skip that part.

[–]Bobsutan[S] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't buy it. Now Luke and mom are conspiring to kidnap the biological father's child.

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As you know, I don't think that paternal rights and responsibilities should be assigned to single men without mutual consent (biodad and biomom). One commited parent and maybe a stepparent someday is better than two parents who are at odds right from the outset.

[–]a_weed_wizard 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

paternity fraud is very common so i'm not surprised

[–]Alanna 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

paternity fraud is very common so i'm not surprised

We have no way of knowing this unless/until paternity testing is routine for all babies at birth. However, it is safe to say that it is much more common than most people think, since we know 20% of paternity tests come back negative, and those are just the ones that suspected enough to test.

[–]a_weed_wizard 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

It's actually more than 20% from the labs that come back negative. It's usually around 30% on average. Some years ~26%, some years upwards of ~34%. If rape were even 1/10th as common a state of emergency would be declared.

I would think that those who would question paternity and are willing to test no matter what would have the least chance of being played like a fool.

In any case, year after year after year of consistently getting 25%+ of paternity tests back negative with the sample size in the MILLIONS tends to give you an idea of at least how common it really can be.

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It's actually more than 20% from the labs that come back negative. It's usually around 30% on average. Some years ~26%, some years upwards of ~34%.

Citation for this?

In any case, year after year after year of consistently getting 25%+ of paternity tests back negative with the sample size in the MILLIONS tends to give you an idea of at least how common it really can be.

Agreed, just saying that stating as a flat fact like that is not correct. We can conjecture, we can make educated guesses, but we don't know.

[–]a_weed_wizard 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

http://www.aabb.org/sa/facilities/Pages/relationshipreports.aspx

They have them for several years. You'll notice a disturbingly high percentage is displayed. There is the boilerplate damage control/PR to appease "women's groups" about it not being representative of the the general population but it tends to use bad logic in that there is this idea that there is somehow a causal link between having a test done and whether or not it will come back negative. I could also put in some effort and dig up more since I'm sure they've kept these records for years and years up until 2011.

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

it tends to use bad logic in that there is this idea that there is somehow a causal link between having a test done and whether or not it will come back negative.

I agree with it being inconclusive, but why is it bad logic? It makes sense that men who have enough reason to go to the expense and trouble of a paternity test are going to have a higher rate of negatives-- they (presumably) already have some reason to believe the child is not theirs.

They also correctly mention that not all negative paternity tests belong to men who were deceived into thinking the child was theirs.

Why are there no links after 2008?

[–]a_weed_wizard 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You might notice that many of these labs also do tests for these reasons:

  • Immigration
  • Family study (people doing that "family tree thing")
  • Determining whether daddy really is daddy for the purpose of transplants for a child

These are completely unrelated to man trying to figure out if a child is really is, so it's not as if these aren't mixed samples, which again number in the millions.

There is no casual link between whether you think a child is yours and whether it actually is, though. That makes no sense. That is where the logic is bad. You don't know if there's an equal or possibly greater number of those who never get tested or never think to test who are duped. You only have the actual data that exists to work with.

Why are there no links after 2008?

I assume these are available somewhere but am having difficulty finding them.

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no casual link between whether you think a child is yours and whether it actually is, though. That makes no sense. That is where the logic is bad. You don't know if there's an equal or possibly greater number of those who never get tested or never think to test who are duped. You only have the actual data that exists to work with.

There may be no direct link between thinking a child is yours and it being yours, but that doesn't mean there isn't a link between having reason to think a child is NOT yours and it being not yours. Unless you are saying that most men who suspect that their child is not theirs are just paranoid and don't have any rational reasons to suspect such a thing, then men who have suspicions generally have some kind of evidence starting out the gate. What you're saying is like saying that if PIs discover, say, 75% of the women they investigate are cheating on their husbands, 75% of women cheat on their husbands. It doesn't take into account that you're going to have a sample size consisting entirely of women suspected of cheating by their husbands. Certainly not all those husbands will have good reason, some may have no reason at all, but I find it hard to believe that most men pony up for a PI out of sheer insecurity.

[–]Bobsutan[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

The most recent figures by the clinics and MPT supporters I've seen show negative paternity rates at 66%...when the paternity test was the result of suspected infidelity. I can't find the 66% source, but here's one citing 60%.

http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/sixty-percent-60-fathers-duped-dads-victims-paternity-fraud-42616.html#axzz1u3v8X66M

33% used to be the number of non-paternity when infidelity was suspected, but because of the increase in paternity testing in recent years due to lowering costs, the infidelity rates have been shown to be much higher than previously shown.

And here's the thing, even if you use the numbers on Wikipedia, which are IMO the low end of the spectrum, then compare that to birth rates going back over the years, for all the kids under 14 it's something like 1.2 MILLION men being decived every year, plus the kids, and very likely the biological fathers as well. That's a potential 3.6 MILLION victims of paternity fraud year after year. Using the middle of the road estimates those figures shot up to over 12M.

[–]Alanna -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Private DNA testing service BioClinics, which runs a clinic in Cardiff, found that a staggering 57% of hundreds of analysed paternity tests conducted in Wales were negative.

If you'd linked directly to the article, you would have seen it's actually 57%. At a Welsh clinic in Cardiff-- which forces me to wonder what their sample size is. I had not previously seen any number higher than 30%, certainly not as high as 60% or 66%. But, again, this is among men who already suspect that the baby's not theirs; it doesn't tell us anything about the general population.

And here's the thing, even if you use the numbers on Wikipedia, which are IMO the low end of the spectrum, then compare that to birth rates going back over the years, for all the kids under 14 it's something like 1.2 MILLION men being decived every year, plus the kids, and very likely the biological fathers as well. That's a potential 3.6 MILLION victims of paternity fraud year after year. Using the middle of the road estimates those figures shot up to over 12M.

You didn't cite to Wikipedia, but the article on paternity fraud says:

A 2005 scientific review of international published studies of paternal discrepancy found a range in incidence from 0.8% to 30% (median 3.7%, with half of the academic studies on the subject, i.e. eight, yielding rates from  2.0% to 9.6%), suggesting that the widely quoted and unsubstantiated figure of 10% of non-paternal events is an overestimate. However, in situations where disputed parentage was the reason for the paternity testing (which "inevitably overestimates population level") there were higher levels; an incidence of 17% to 33% (median of 26.9%). Most at risk were those born to younger parents, to unmarried couples and those of lower socio-economic status, or from certain cultural groups.[2]

Here are the births numbers from 2008 going back to 1960 in the United States. In 2008 there were 4248 live births. 30%-- the high end of the general population spectrum-- gives us, let's see, 1274.4 cases of "paternal discrepancy". That's a far cry from 1.2 million. Care to explain how you got that number? You can't really extrapolate these numbers out to the entire planet, considering that among the "risk factors" are living in long-term relationships instead of marriage, sexually risk-taking behaviors, and members of "certain cultural groups," so it seems reasonable to assume that the same level of paternity fraud will not be found among all populations.

Don't get me wrong, I'm for default, routine paternity testing of all babies at birth. There's no good reason not to, and we would finally have some idea of how often paternity fraud actually happens (though I suspect incidence would drop with routine testing in place). But these numbers seem high to me.

[–]Bobsutan[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Read those figures again, now add three zeroes.

4,258 represents 4,258,000

This gives us:

1995 3900000
1996 3891000
1997 3881000
1998 3942000
1999 3959000
2000 4059000
2001 4026000
2002 4022000
2003 4090000
2004 4112000
2005 4138000
2006 4266000
2007 4316000
2008 4248000

This is a total of 56,850,000 kids 4-17 years old. Based on that figure alone, using Wiki's median 3.7% rate, that gives us 2,103,450 births that are paternity fraud. That's over 2M kids being lied to, 2M "fathers" being duped, and 2M men who's kids were effectively stolen.

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That does make more sense, forty-two hundred didn't sound right, but that's what I get for posting around midnight. 2 million-- wow.

[–]nlakes 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

If you ever needed any proof the feminist movement was a hate movement, here's their official position on paternity fraud:

Even though that he is not the father, if he acted as the father in the kid's life- he should be held to be the father, as the child is the main concern. (i.e. the whore of a mother should get away with her injustice and face no accountability for her actions). If the man tries to leave, he will shamed for being heartless and the woman will be cast as a victim vicariously through the "poor, abandoned" child.

Now... juxtapose it with this.

If a woman gets pregnant, she can just kill the fetus or give it up for adoption (a unilateral decision) and should not only be free to do so, but if you shame her for it -- you're an over-privileged misogynist.

Given feminisms increasing hostility toward men, it has become abundantly apparent that women are more sexist than men. A man could never get away with shaming women for the latter whilst encouraging the former - whereas women get away with the opposite every day. Women's bigotry is applauded as "moral" because "they are an oppressed minority".

[–]lesean25 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

to be fair, I don't think anyone calls them a minority (if they do, theyre beyond being saved lol). But the rest is absolutely true.

[–]altmehere 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, this doesn't seem uncommon among feminists, which makes sense when you consider how many other words they've twisted the meanings of. 1 2

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Given feminisms increasing hostility toward men, it has become abundantly apparent that women are more sexist than men.

Why are you conflating women and feminists? I agree women can get away, socially and legally, with more bigotry than men, but that's not what you said here.

[–]GingerSoul44 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If you ever needed any proof the feminist movement was a hate movement, here's their official position on paternity fraud:

Where did you get this "official" stance from? I only ask because I didn't see any comments like this in that thread, and I can't find a consensus on the issue while searching.

[–]altmehere 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Here is one example I could find: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580398,00.html

While there doesn't seem to be much data, I don't see what other position they would take. They're not going to say "I support paternity fraud," of course, unless they're Hugo Schwyzer, but instead point to the interests of the child.

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One Time magazine article really doesn't prove much, unfortunately. Interestingly, Feminism 101 is completely silent on the issue, as far as I can tell.

Admittedly, though, quotes from that article are pretty damning.

[–]rightsbot 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

[–]filo4000 -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think you should call for forum invasions

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So says the SRS troll.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter