Wednesday, February 6, 2013

The sluts in spite of themselves

Apparently the French and German governments have concluded that their female citizens are too helplessly slutty to face the mere possibility that they may be having children with men who are not their husbands:
If those samples were found in the post by officials on their way to foreign laboratories, the French men who sent them could theoretically face a year in prison and a 15,000 Euro fine. This year the ban was challenged but the French Government decided to uphold and maintain the anti-paternity testing law.

The reasons for which the Government said the ban should remain were related to the preservation of peace within French families. According to some online articles, Germany, has also banned (or plans to ban) paternity testing for similar reasons.

The argument against allowing paternity testing in France is directly opposed to the argument for allowing it almost everywhere else. While French Authorities believe that paternity testing can cause friction within families, some fathers find that getting rid of any doubt relating to their relationship with their child can help strengthen the bond they have with them, instead. 
As one woman mentioned on Twitter, the French argument completely misses the point.  If the child doesn't belong to the father, there is no family in the first place!  Notice the pattern: evil is always opposed to the truth and inevitably seeks to hide its actions from everyone.


56 comments:

BlackJack said...

It's just about time for the remnant to let it all burn.

taterearl said...

France will have Sharia law soon enough. Then the whores will be mercy killed.

Anonymous said...

Bring on the Apocalypse!

Joe Blow said...

Well, you have to protect these women. They're the weaker sex, you know.

Except when you make them 11Bs and send 'em into combat. Then they kick ass! Grrrrrlllllpowr...

What Lola wants, Lola gets, apparently.

whoism3 said...

I think it's time to invoke the "in the best interest of the child" here..

The childs medical history and inalienable right to know his paternal lineage should trump the facade of family stability.

Especially as it was so well said.. there is no family. Only the illusion of one.

Michael Maier said...

It took me a while reading the link to realize there is actually a flipping LAW against this testing.

So open adultery in France is okay but ID'ing your own spawn isn't? I can't even wrap my brain around the idea that this law could be passed at all.

But functionally? OK, you can't mail the test in. Well, the country looks to have only a five hour drive to get out of for a quick lab visit.

But I am starting to conclude that the distinction between evil and stupidity just really isn't all that useful at all.

Stingray said...

The childs medical history and inalienable right to know his paternal lineage should trump the facade of family stability.

But only women know what is best for the children and you don't think like a woman. ;) It is not best for the child to know who is real father is because if the wife/gf cannot lie and pass off the child as someone else's. The child then faces the possibility of the man rejecting him and breaking up the family. It's SO WRONG!

The man must suffer and the children must thrive! The women take no responsibility and everyone who's anybody is happy!

whoism3 said...

"and everyone who's anybody is happy! "

Until the child needs a blood transfusion or has a history of cardiovascular disease on the fathe... err... secret santa sperm donor's side.

Stingray said...

Until the child needs a blood transfusion or has a history of cardiovascular disease on the fathe... err... secret santa sperm donor's side.

More evidence you do not think like a woman. HOW DARE YOU! Cognitive dissonance hurts!

Anonymous said...

One of the proffered reasons for anti-paternity testing is to preserve family unity.

But if a guy paying child support has enough of a question in his mind to want a paternity test, isn't there friction already?

I presume this anti-testing law works against men, i.e. a man has a question about whether he really is the daddy, so he swabs himself and the kid and sends it to a lab and gets his answer.

Does this also work against women too, i.e. she is barred from establishing paternity by testing the man (men), even if the man (men) agree to be tested?

deti

Michael Maier said...

Deti: "Does this also work against women too, i.e. she is barred from establishing paternity by testing the man (men), even if the man (men) agree to be tested?

I'd bet money "compelling state's interest" covers protection for that sort of testing.

ray said...

If the child doesn't belong to the father, there is no family in the first place! Notice the pattern: evil is always opposed to the truth and inevitably seeks to hide its actions from everyone.


exactly

no dad = no family

all the governmental, legal, academic, and informational elements of the west are merely shadow-puppets of collective female power . . . and, indeed, of any individual female's personal power

this is seen most clearly in the mega-feminist obama government, but the other nations of the west clearly ride the same beast

they like it, too

a lot

it pays, and it's pompy

the Bitchfest Beatdown never stops in these nations, but hmmm no, i just cant figure out why guys suddenly in u.s. history would be shooting up schools and offices, and withdrawing themselves from any contact with societies that prey on them

it's all such a Mystery!

hey i know! let's all spend forty more years pretending none of this is going on!

how oh how oh how could such things ever ever happen? gee lets convene some more Task Forces, and obviously we should take all the guns away from Those Evil Males, and put the Sheriffs in the classrooms and workplaces

well done Sis!

Anonymous said...

Holy shit, marriage is only for flaming manginas in those countries. Even a Blue Piller with romantic notions about women has to balk when the government explicitly encourages cuckoldry.

Martel said...

I think this epitomizes feminism's hostility to Truth better than anything (and considering how loony they can get, that's really saying something).

Anonymous said...

Michael Maier:

"Compelling state interest" for discrimination against men wanting a compulsory test to either establish or disprove paternity; but allowing women to get the same test to confirm or rule out paternity in a man (men).

"Compelling State interest" would get you past violating the Equal Protection Clause which I think right now is "Important state interest." No question that the "important state interest" would be provisioning for the child.

What about the child's rights to know who his/her father is? I can see children through court guardians filing lawsuits to establish or disprove paternity. Why?

to know if s/he has biological predispositions to certain diseases or genetic abnormalities.

to know his/her genetic makeup for other reasons, including financial support and inheritances.

The US Supreme Court has said that the right to live with one's family and to know who one's family is, including a child's right to society with his parents, is a fundamental right. And children have those rights, too.

deti

Pepper said...

Is this law a "thought crime"? I guess not - yet. Thinking, "who's your daddy" is so far legal, it's just when the men act on it that they can get 1 year in jail and a hefty fine...

But you know, this "law" is cutting it pretty close (to being a "thought crime")...

One has to wonder, don't these French government officials want their legitimate children to receive an inheritance...silly me, there I go spouting off about dated ideas such as "private property" and "paternity"...

Will Best said...

I had to put my head down on my desk and take a minute with this one.

So the state prevents a man from determining that his wife's child isn't his, because he would legally not have to support the child. And this is against the economic interest of the state. Why would any man marry? He would be better served waiting for the paternity suit from the woman before he committed to anything.

Martel said...

Will: Great point, but these people know nothing of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Yet.

Martel said...

Then again, this could be a feature and not a bug. Discourage males from marrying, hence more unwed mothers needing state support to survive. Actually, seems pretty Cloward/Priven.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/prison_officer_busted_after_becoming_4ZhIf3tJtlVHPoikYZIEdI

Doom said...

I do know I will check every child that comes out of any women who claims me as the father. I won't advertise that I am doing it, I will just do it, if married. If one should fail, he or she will be put up for adoption or I will be in the market for a new wife, perhaps both. I don't trust any woman, regardless of her nationality. Before it was office co-workers and bosses it was the milk and mail man.

Daniel said...

Whew. That at least gives me a few more years of ignorant bliss. I'd hate to find out I was France's daddy.

Novaseeker said...

Mandatory cuckolding, full stop.

If this doesn't make it clear that being a husband in France is tantamount to being a state-enforced cuckold slave, I don't know what would.

Ha said...

One of the proffered reasons for anti-paternity testing is to preserve family unity.

So divorce is illegal, right? To preserve family unity?

Why would any man marry?

Because every Frenchman thinks he's going to be planting a cuckoo in another man's nest, not raising a cuckoo in his own.

mmaier2112 said...

Deti: My point - and I don't know actual Frog law on this issue - was simply that I would guess that IF a woman and/or the French authorities want to compel a man to be the legal father via this sort of testing, that it would be legal to do so. That's it.

Admittedly I'm two beers and a Jäger shot down at this point so I'm not sure if we're actually arguing or not.

Toby Temple said...

I propose a new law:

A woman who identifies herself as a slut or whore must be sterilized. This way she can have sexual intercourse with any man she desires without the possibility of conceiving a child.

taterearl said...

"A woman who identifies herself as a slut or whore must be sterilized."

Women hardly ever identify themselves as that. Things like that just happen to them...over and over again.

Stilicho said...

Dear France,

Who's your daddy?

Anonymous said...

It's so tragic, how these poor life choices keep getting inflicted on these lovely young women.

Pepper said...

I've been thinking...men for the next generation or two don't need wives, they need renegades (female of course). Someone to be the Bonnie to the man's Clyde. Someone to help all guys everywhere SOCK IT TO THE MAN!!! Amen? Preferably a Bonnie that knows how to cook...

MaMu1977 said...

As someone who's actually *lived* in Germany, I can tell you that this rule is

1: totally unenforceable

And

2: urban focused

Rural German women, by and large, are (IME) sluttier than urban women. However, the rurals are almost Japanese in their ability to avoid shame. If Bettina spends 3 months hopping on cocks and discovers that she's pregnant, she is far more likely to get an abortion than to carry to term if she's a country girl. Likewise, Bettina will have no problem dragging her beau to the clinic if she knows that "Horst" is the only man in her life (almost any serviceman will tell you the same. FWIW, our German national/American GI cuckoldry rate was about 2%.) You'd think that it would be opposite (urban girls have better access to healthcare, education, etc.) It isn't.

Thales said...

I detect a business opportunity here. At what price could one sell paternity testing from the back of a van?

Neologism du jour: "back-alley paternity test."

MaMu1977 said...

Part 2

The rurals understand one thing that the urbans tend to ignore (or were taught to ignore, or were never taught in the first place)-reputation matters. Rural German men have essentially ceded all matters of childbirth to women. Rights *and* responsibilities. Therefore, rural women *know* that sluttishness will leave them in the "pump and dump" file forever (in all arenas, not just sex.) In a small town (I lived in a city of about 50,000), news/rumours spread like wildfire. If Bettina is seen dragging more than two men to the local hospital, it's over for her. Her sexual continence bleeds over to her business acumen, ability to rationalise, and more. She'll lose customers, clients, jobs, housing, opportunities for advancement, because the predominant thoughts about her will always include a disclaimer, "If she couldn't even figure out who the father is, how can I trust her with money. If she's willing to make her sexuality a spectacle by advertising her sexual partners to the world, how can I trust her with my secrets." Even a dumb German man will say, "What's the point of legal abortion if you're going to ignore that solution to your problem?" Rural women, despite (or, perhaps, because of) having all of the material and legal advantages of their urban counterparts, are far more likely to *use* them.

Pepper said...

@ MaMu1977...

Sounds...systemic. And exasperating!

MaMu1977 said...

Part 3

However, urbanites are just as stupid in Western Europe as they are in America. They leave the carousel later, they alpha chase longer (rural girls hook up with "alpha" guys for weeks but will dump him if he acts like he's moving on, urban girls hunt an "alpha" guy forever) and they delude themselves into believing that they're too precious to leave. Germany's post-natal marriage rate is high for the reason posted above. Have 2 children (urban) or 3-4 (rural), get the snip, get married. If she pops up pregnant, get divorced and pay 15% of your total salary (adultery w/pregnancy=no alimony). Rural-conservatives understand the value of money, urban-*liberals* don't. The law is being pushed to assuage the burden of city-dwellers, not country girls (who, even when raised in towns, can see how things become products become money.) And funnily enough, urban German men have and will *continue* to travel to smaller towns under assumed names to verify paternity. It's easy-borrow a friend's ID, paste your picture above his, take the baby from München to Garmisch, do test. They get liberal points (taking care of the kids) while living conservative (making sure that the kids' health concerns are met.)

Pepper said...

@MaMu1977

This sounds very complicated. I have "heard" (never having been to Germany) that the social fabric/values are really existential. In your experience, is Germany particularly messed up because of the war, or maybe they are just on the "cutting edge" of all of Europe philosophically? Heck, maybe all of Europe operates like that? This trend, substitution of material compensation for social connections, is disturbing...

MaMu1977 said...

I forgot the best part: inheritances. In Germany, you can find plenty of family-owned businesses that have been in existence since the Revolutionary War. A father may have responsibility for his "son", but nothing is stopping Grandpa from disinheriting one child and giving the business to a different child or a cousin... So, if a woman is looking for an "upgrade", she knows (now) that blood has to match. There's nothing stopping Mattias Grunbauer from passing down prime farmland or a 300+ year old print shop-turned-bookstore/picture gallery to a newly favoured child (if the "proper" heir's children are not to his liking) or flat out taking a grandson or granddaughter to a hospital and saying, "I'm getting old and I'm making a will. This business has been in the family for over 10 generations. I want to keep it that way."

@Pepper
Primeval life favours the strong, civilisation (even at the micro level) favours the smart. A woman who is unable to prove her fidelity to a specific man is an idiot. Idiot genes can't be passed on to the next generation. It's the main reason *for* the double standard (promiscuous man= stud, promiscuous woman=slut.) Any woman who isn't a blithering idiot knows that it's easier to raise children with a second set of eyes/hands/etc., so what sense does it make to risk creating children with dubious paternity (remember, famine/drought cycles *still* limit food production for over 50% of all of the world's people.) In modern times, when a known father can be the literal difference between life and death (I've posted my story about the two leukemia victims in a different post on-site), a woman whose dalliances may result in the child's possible organ donor being in a different city or farther appears even stupider in contrast.

Pepper said...

"A woman who is unable to prove her fidelity to a specific man is an idiot", especially, "when a known father can be the literal difference between life and death". Agreed. And in this day and age with literally all legislation written with the sole purpose of destroying the nuclear family, and the white patriarch specifically, the situation is complicated if not totally chaotic.

As for family planning in this era all one can do is take it slowly? establish the person's character well before any serious emotional or material investment is made. The best things in life are earned. I think VD reminded us the other day that respect is earned. Nothing worth having in life is handed to us.

Every generation has its challenges. Obviously one of ours is how to find good people with which to associate. But they exist. Readers of this blog are a good example.

chris said...

If I were a Frenchman, this would be the straw that breaks the camels back and finally ensures that I would never marry or cohabit with a woman. Just knock'em up and hit the road.

chris said...

"If I were a Frenchman, this would be the straw that breaks the camels back and finally ensures that I would never marry or cohabit with a woman. Just knock'em up and hit the road."

And automatically deny paternity of course.

MaMu1977 said...

@Pepper

White people (in America, at least) are just the last line, not the focal point. Self-sufficiency for women will *always* equal dissolution of familial bonds, regardless of race. It took the creation of man-free housing projects/council estates to create a true underclass in America and the UK. When women (black in America, lower class in England) were only being given *money*, marriage was still seen as a superior ideal (nothing days "safety" like your very own pair of extra arms/bullet catcher torso.) But when the social engineers chimed in with the addition of "Free housing, but only for husbandless women and their children, and we'll keep the bad men away as well!", *that's* when women began to forego marriage in droves. It's all about the fragmentation of the family through diminution of people into *units*. Lower class women were given the bowl of pottage ("Free house! Free food!"), middle class women are given 30 pieces of silver ("You can do it all *without* that man! Now put those papers in Pile A into the separate Piles B, W and RD so that you'll earn enough money to get 5" heels! Aren't you *glad* that you spent $85,000 in college fees to learn how to divide paper? You're a part of something now!")

MaMu1977 said...

And when family bonds are dissolved, population plummets. Example: America's black population was at 16% of the total population in the 60's (and had been at 16% of the total population since the Civil War, when slaves and freedmen accounted for 6 million of the country's approx. 35 million person population.) Now, in modern times, *despite* the fact that our liberal immigration laws have enabled millions of black people into America, black people make up *12.5%* of America's population.

To be clear
There are over 1 million Jamaicans in America alone (with over a million descendants.)
There are close to a million non-Jamaican Caribbean-born people in America (with over a million descendants.)
Prior to the War on Terror, there were over a million African-born people in America. Since then, another 1.5 million have been given entrance to this country (with the concurrent million-plus descendants and "family unification" antecedents.)

Yet, even when Latin immigration is taken into account, our percentages continue to drop (if it wasn't for immigrants, black people would number <10% of total pop.) Why/How did this happen? Black*families* create more children than "independent black women" and "'gotta get mine' black men. Fatherless men embrace criminality, which leads to death (IOW, assume that 10% of black boys will never live long enough to become fathers and 25% will run out of time to do so.) Fatherless girls embrace the "thugs", until damages like up high enough to convince them to give the "duds" a chance (who proceed to ignore them and lower the population even more.)

MaMu1977 said...

The same thing is happening to white people. In the same way that every black American man who can't/won't toe the racial line eventually finds himself living as far away from his own kind as possible, white men will do the same thing (black men began to embrace MGTOW in the 70's, for the same reasons that Spearhead posters and other androsphere writers do now), white men are joining the bad fight. Ruby Ridge and Waco were preceded by black separatist compounds. "Game" (modern sense) cribs liberally from Iceberg Slim and Donald Goines. Black had Bloods and Crips, whites have Juggalos (many of whom as just *waiting* for a reason) and Harley-Davidson can't keep hogs in stock because of the resurgence in biker interest. Black men were chided for their lack of interest in education, now white men achieve degrees at a double digit drop differential from their female counterparts. People like Sailer, Half Sigma and even our esteemed blog admin complain about the Why's of the decline, while inadvertently downplaying the How's and Who's. It has nothing to do with innate (natural) differences, it's all about nurture/engineering. It's always been about what is "required" for the elites.

It's the way of the world: when women are given equal rights, they press for independence. When they gain independence, they agitate for supremacy. If they're given the boost, they orient themselves towards the "best" men in their purview. When men are given the choice of most resistance (fight their way through women to gain success) or least resistance (subjugate the betas), they check out of civilised society and begin the decline. Name a culture and it happens. Greece, Rome, Qin (China), Heian (pre-samurai Japan), Mali/Songhay, Vikings, *now*... This isn't new, it's been calculated to the 30th degree.

Toby Temple said...

"A woman who identifies herself as a slut or whore must be sterilized."

Women hardly ever identify themselves as that. Things like that just happen to them...over and over again.


We will start with all the female participants of Slut Walks.

Pepper said...

@MaMu1977:

I am a simpleton. I am not being sarcastic, that is just kinda how it is, and also why I hop online...in the hopes of learning something. However, if civilization favors the smart, and so many people are acting foolishly, then the ones who value civilization are the ones who should be seeking each other out and forging bonds, social or otherwise, right? All of the civilizations you mentioned have left a remnant. Were those remnants just lucky, or the smart ones? And, if we are to believe in history/science/Darwin...something...isn't it the survival of the fittest that lives to put its genes into the next generation? In this case, the smart ones? It's the shortsighted among us who are being lured into the pit. We who are fortunate enough to see are not eating the pottage.

I know this may sound really dumb, but religious people have a chance to weather this storm. The trends are disturbing and accurate, I don't want to minimize them. This is the way of man, certainly...suicide. But religion gives man a reason to exist, and the religious will not commit suicide. I believe they will fight, they will die, but they will also leave a posterity. Am I oversimplifying?

MaMu1977 said...

@Pepper

To become a king, a man needs thousands if not millions of subjects. Creating an environment in which every human being is a social "island", then compounding it by preaching and promoting the idea of negligible education ("soft" subjects), is a good step towards the establishment of a dominant class. If "civilisation" involves the currently approved trends

Men: attend school, graduate, work until death
Women: like men, with the addition of breeding
Children: attend schools that emphasise these ideas.

Then it has no place to go but downwards. Broken homes create broken people. At best, they create baseline humans/units of production. A family self-limits, a breeding creche (which is what results when divorce and single motherhood are abetted in a culture) exists to consume and produce (and will always denigrate to mass consumption/minimal production values.)

Religious people may be a step ahead of the curve (something tells me that Islam could do *wonders* if they could exist in non-blighted lands), but it always follows the same cycle.

Women fall back in bad times
Women surge ahead in good times
Women crowd out men in good times, then demand concessions in the name of equality
Men fall back due to innate ideas of chivalry/womb preservation
Men drop out
Women fall apart
Lather, Rinse, Repeat

LL said...

For your amusement.

Anonymous said...

This post is priceless. Where can I find out more?


Visit my blog post :: Louis Vuitton Handbags

Anonymous said...

I was recommended this website by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as no one else know
such detailed about my problem. You are wonderful!
Thanks!

my blog post; toenail fungus remedies

Anonymous said...

Hello Dear, are you genuinely visiting this web site
regularly, if so then you will definitely get fastidious
know-how.

Also visit my webpage :: how white can your teeth get

Anonymous said...

It may be of interest that Australia is considering doing the same thing. From the country that brought you mandatory naming of sperm donors when the resultant children turn 18 because every child has a right to know his/her biological father comes the proposal that men should not know if their children are biologically theirs.

Anonymous said...

I comment whenever I like a article on a site or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the discussion.

It is a result of the sincerness communicated in the post I read.
And after this post "The sluts in spite of themselves".
I was moved enough to post a thought :-) I actually do have a few questions for you if it's okay. Is it simply me or do a few of the remarks appear as if they are written by brain dead people? :-P And, if you are posting at additional places, I would like to follow everything fresh you have to post. Would you list every one of your public sites like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

my page Abercrombie

Anonymous said...

This post will assist the internet viewers for creating new web
site or even a blog from start to end.

Feel free to surf to my blog ... venapro

Anonymous said...

Heya i am for the primary time here. I found this board and I find It really useful & it helped me out much.
I am hoping to present something again and aid others like you
aided me.

Stop by my web page Louis Vuitton Outlet

Anonymous said...

Everything is very open with a very clear explanation of the
issues. It was truly informative. Your site is extremely helpful.
Thanks for sharing!

Here is my site :: Sac Louis Vuitton

Anonymous said...

Today, while I was at work, my sister stole my iPad and tested to see
if it can survive a twenty five foot drop, just so she can be
a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now destroyed and she has 83 views.
I know this is totally off topic but I had to share it with
someone!

Feel free to visit my blog post Nike Free

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.