Polish girlfriend may be pregnant - what girls from Poland think on having a child without marriage?

without trust, Maf, there is no relationship

I'm sure hospitals provide blankets for births :)

Anyway, that doesn't really answer the question but it sounds as though you'd like to ask your wife but might stop short of actually doing so - wise man. I must say it's rather depressing. Must be your German blood that makes you so suspicous and officious! 'Darlink, I em so srilled about zis baby but I must ensure zat it is of my blut stock. You vill of course understend zis requirement and zen after test results are confirmed, ve vill rejoice from sree sirty on Friday evening till seven ze following morning'.

oh reeeeelllllyy?

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010327/I-went-without-electricity-days-didn-t-eat-Fury-man-forced-pay-child-support-13-years-girl-s-never-met-despite-DNA-test-proving-s-not-his.html

telegraph.co.uk/men/fatherhood/i-was -tricked-into-raising-another-mans-son-now-i-cant-even-see

dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1126795/My-mother-lied-17-years-Daughter-paternity-fraud-case-reveals-moment-real-father.html

How do you propose to prevent cases like these? DNA tests at birth would have spared some people a lot of unnecessary pain.

I was referring to the idea that a husband would ask his wife to prove that he's the father of her baby. I stand by the remark that it's extremely depresssing. I also think it's depressing for a couple who've been in a long term relationship for a few years and who consider themselves to be happy together.

I've seen relationships where the couple obviously have issues and there have been infidelities in the past on one or both sides, so I could understand it in that case but I think that paternity tests becoming the social norm is not a desirable thing.

However, in a case where a woman is seeking child support, then yes, I think she should have to prove that the man is the father of her child. That should be a legal requirement.

Ideally, she should volunteer, even insist if he's reluctant. It's the moral thing to do if she's asking him to shovel 18 years of resources into the child.


Human nature can be very depressing. Nonetheless, it is what it is and as long as spome women are willing lie about paternity, honest women should not mind proving their honesty.

In the case of a married couple they are jointly supporting that child and in many cases the woman puts in more resources than the man as she is usually the child's primary caregiver and generally works outside the home contributing financially, whilst also doing most of the housework, shopping, cooking etc. Your view is a very cynical one Maf and not shared by most married couples or parents.


I think the average guy would be bewildered and somewhat unsettled by his wife insisting that she wants to prove he's the father of their child. It would be considered very odd behaviour.

Sorry but if a women knows the child is fathered by her partner/husband as she never had sex with anyone else during the relationship why is it a ''moral' thing to volunteer a DNA test? I would agree with that statement if the women didn't know who's the father but not in a faithful relationship.

If my long term partner asked for DNA test I would do them without a word of complaint but I would seriously consider if I should stay in that relationship.

Why should the man support the child at all if it's not his? If it isn't his, he has the right to know that before making the choice about whether to spend 18 years worth of money on it.


That's why it needs to be a legal requirement, so that it's just a matter of course.


So that he knows too.


Then how do you propose to stop women from taking money from men who aren't the fathers? Do you have a better way to separate the female cheaters from the good women besides DNA testing?

Or is this a problem you think needs solving?

What about the other way, doesn't a woman have the right to know that her partner has fathered another woman's child? It does work both ways....

He should know by knowing what kind of women his partner is. And they usually do deep down. I love it when a man chooses sexy, crazy and a bit slu**y girl and then is suprised she's not a home maker and quiet, faithful companion (women do the same by choosing the dangerous bad man and hoping they can change them)

Plus I think you become truly a parent by being there for the kid more than by genetics so even if the kid is not genetically connected the father is the guy that takes care of them.


If there is a custody case or child support case than the relationship is already dead, isn't it? But in a normal relationship creating a family such thing is just silly.

So, if you have a three year old and the hospital contacts you and says your baby was switched at birth with some other woman's you wouldn't care?

You'd just say "She's his mother now!" and leave it at that?


So you think it's okay for a woman to pass off the result of a fling as her husband's kid as long as they're a "family" or he doesn't find out?

To be fair I would rather not know. I read about such cases and the knowledge usually brings only misery.


No, it's not but that's not what I'm about. To me such request would mean lack of trust and absolute ignorance of my character. Sorry but I don't see why such thing should be customary for normal relationships. My point is that if you can't trust your partner or they can't trust you there is no point in staying together. That's why I would really think about staying together if I was asked about DNA tests.

The best reason to make them routine and normal for everyone. If it's a normal part of registering a birth then no one (except for cheaters) need feel awkward.

I doubt it will ever become a part of registering a birth. You know why? Because most ppl don't see the need and the government won't be spending thousands on a test that will usually confirm what the parents are saying.

Let me ask you something: do you also make your partner take regular tests for veneric deseases? After all if you can't trust her maybe she's cheating and that way infect you with something...(of course it's not a real question and I don't want to make it about you but more to understand your stance that seems absolutely weird to me)

I _really_ dislike cheaters of all kinds and would rather they were not allowed to wreck havoc on decent peoples' lives. I'm willing to accept some level of discomfort to help achieve that - remember, DNA testing would affect men who cheat just about as much as women....

I dislike cheaters as well but:
- I think ppl usually know/suspect when they are cheated on
- I think what you're doing is 'wylewac dziecko z kapiela'. There is no reason to make all ppl take tests when they have no reasons to or maybe even don't want to know (did you think about that possibility?)

- if someone shares such views and don't trust their partners they should have the guts to say that's the case so the other person knows where they stand (and like me think about the point of staying together)


You are saying that as if it changed anything. It goes both ways-if I weren't able to trust my partner without tests I wouldn't see the point in staying with him

Not to mention that such requirements would give companies/ government access to everyone's DNA. Not something I would like.

Yeah. And I'm not sure I really care about the issue that much since I decided long ago to not have children myself. My position is partly an informal experiment and what I've found very consistently is that women don't care about the reproductive fate of men.

There's no concern that a man might spend years dumping financial assets into a genetically unrelated child (even indignation that he should care).
This is important because if a man were sure to find out soon after birth that child was not related then he could sever the relationship and try again with someone else.

Just a question: Who is victimized the most by polygamy?


What are the chances that your partner could deceive you into raising another woman's child and make you think it's yours?

Let's play celebrity paternity fraud!

Who does Chelsea Clinton look more like, Bill Clinton or Webster Hubbell?

Who does Obama look more like? His supposed biological father or a friend of his mother's family Frank Marshall Davis?

Who does Prince Harry look more like? Charles or James Hewitt?

Are there Polish examples of well known people who more like a friend or co-worker of the mother than the father?

Very wise with those attitudes. Anyway, quite frankly dear I don't think you need to worry about getting many offers if that's an example of your charms. And you've always seemed to be one of the more normal people on this forum, but scratch the surface and oh what lurks beneath, woe is me. I suppose we all have our 'issues' but really, there's a limit. Now, I've hunted high and low for mine but I appear to have mislaid them somewhere :))

Have you considered having the snips? It's probably the best course of action just in case some crazed female gets a look in your Swiss deposit account book and goes into action on you.

Yes, human nature can be very depressing.

But in sum total, I'm a realist and long ago realized that women are no more "faithful" by nature than men are (though the motivations tend to differ). But that's one bit of equality that women don't seem to be too anxious to publicly claim.

Of course it's not in human nature to be monogamous but it's in the best interests of survival of our species for the female to mate with a male who can support her through pregnancy and weaning of her offspring beyond infancy. In the natural order of things, that would be a few years as I'm quite certain that 'early' woman continued to feed her child with breast milk for a few years as it was an easily available source of nourishment when other food was scarce. Women for that reason tend to settle more readily with a single partner who appears to fit the bill, ie physically healthy, able to impregnate her and able to provide thereafter. At some point her primitive self may see another male who appears to be a better option so off she goes.

The male on the other hand is compelled by the forces of nature to mate with as many females as possible at any time, in order to ensure the survival of our species. It's not the best design because it means that in theory one male equals many pregnant females for whom he cannot provide, thus the phenomenon of the female needing to find a male to be provider for her and the young, regardless of whether it's his or not.

Our society has advanced rapidly in terms of science and technology but our natures remain very primitive and haven't in any way caught up with our other advances. We're all still very much in the cave in our deepest selves and our behaviours often reflect that.

However, I do think that monogamy also arises not just from the need to create family units for survival, but because humans have a need for companionship and emotional closeness, ie love. We also have a need for pure fun, we have that playful side and if we meet another person whose company we actively enjoy and who meets that need, we tend to bond with them.

That's just one strategy, there are others. Some women separate the impregnaters from the providers.


This often seems to be the primary (mostly subconscious) goal of some women and not a coping strategy. See Mildren Baena, who fosted off Arnold Schwarzenegger's son has her husband's for 13 years before going for the big payout from the big man himself. Or see the woman in an article I linked who had herself impregnated with her ex-boyfriend's sperm while hubby paid the bills....


That's only a viable strategy for a very small number of men (R selected) they are mostly sociopaths (and very attractive to many women). Other men pursue different strategies by either demonstrating provider ability or emotional affinity hoping to benefit from long term bonds rather (aka K selection).

At their basest the sexual.... urges of both men and women are pretty horrible and depressing (in diffeent ways). The job of civilization is to harness and re-focus those urges into productive avenues, but that's and idea that's mostly been lost in the west though the results can hardly be described as very desirable.

But that's a rarity Maf. Most women do not choose to get pregnant by men with whom they do not forsee a relationship whilst simultaneously deciding to trick another man whom they earmark as the provider. You'd hardly argue that it's a common practice.


Now, Hollywood is an open asylum. You don't really expect anyone there to behave normally do you? It attracts the worst kind of people who are calculating and mercenary in the extreme. I've no doubt that many of the women who pursue celebrities do so with the intention of having a child by that man in order to secure their own financial future.


Normal women would abhor such practices. I don't consider that normal behaviour at all. There's no way one can say that it is. It deviates from the norm considerably.

The bottom line Maf is that if you meet a nice girl :) she's very likely to be exactly what she appears to be and if you've been together a couple of years and she tells you she's pregnant, it's more likely than not that it's yours. Most men are the fathers of the children living in their homes and calling them Daddy and that is a fact. Anyway we could go on about this until we're green in the face and still hold different views. But hey, thanks for sharing your unique world view. Careful now, down with that sort of thing (ie women passing off other mens' babies as somebody elses and that type of thing etc)

not on a first pregnancy, no. However we are just like animals, and the day that a woman is most fertile, is the day she will seek sex.

That is why approx 20 per cent of us are not our father's children..:)

+1

But that still leaves 80 per cent of us who are.


And that's good enough for me!
By the way Roz where did you get the 20 per cent figure from? That wouldn't be some class of an aul American statistic would it? Mind you don't start heading down the Polly route :D