Boots to sell OTC paternity tests.

strobe

Hey this was posted over in AH. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056165870

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23919204-boots-to-sell-patrenity-testing-kit.do

A new kit for testing paternity will go on sale in high street store Boots.

The Assuredna test, which is already available in more than 350 independent pharmacies, gives results in one to five days.

Manufacturer Anglia DNA has laboratories accredited by the Ministry of Justice to carry out tests for courts in England and Wales.

Mandy Hartley, technical manager at Anglia DNA, said: "Every paternity issue is different but, for the majority of cases, families receive the results they were expecting.

"Assuredna provides families with peace of mind so they can move on with their lives.

"Around half of all tests we conduct are related to children under 12 months, helping confirm paternity before the child has matured and is fully aware."

For the test, samples of cells are collected from the mouth of the father, child and mother.

These cotton swabs are then placed in colour-coded envelopes and posted to Anglia DNA for analysis.

Both mother and father must sign forms giving their consent for the test and include proof of identity.

The test is available to anyone aged 16 or over and costs £29.99 to buy, plus a £129 lab fee.

Before it is processed, people are told they must call an "Anglia DNA helpline" and speak with a trained member of staff to find out if the test is suitable for them.

A statement from Boots said: "The paternity test is currently available in over 350 independent pharmacies and will be available in larger Boots stores from February 1, 2011.

"Boots UK is committed to offering our customers choice. This test provides peace of mind for those of our customers who may be seeking reassurance with paternity matters."

Now personally I think this is a great idea. I was just wondering how you would react if the father of your child was to suggest to you that you use one of these when the child was born? Am I setting myself up for a gentle stabbing when I have a kid and come home from the chemist with one of these?

Ickle Magoo

I'd happily have a paternity test done because I know who the father of my kids is and I have nothing to fear nor hide...that said, I'd be slightly nervous they got our results muddled or something and caused divorce...

My husband has dark hair, dark eyes, sallow skin and our daughter was born with china white skin, bright blue eyes and a head full of blonde afro tight curls...I think if there had been OTC paternity tests available then, he would have been tempted.

Maple

Knowing how I conduct myself in committed relationships, fidelity has never been an issue for me. Were I to be in a relationship with children and my OH was to come home and request a paternity test, I'd be gutted, irate and while I know I'd have nothing to hide I'd feel that the trust in our relationship broken.

Ickle Magoo

I don't know...

On one hand it is inferring that honesty, integrity and faithfulness is open to questioning which is horrible - but the statistics regarding men unwittingly assuming someone else's kids are theirs would suggest there are a not insignificant number of women who's honesty, integrity and faithfulness can't be assumed.

metrovelvet

I think you could expect either of the above responses and both are valid. Be prepared to apologise and also for her to be hurt that you dont trust her to the extent that you think she would commit paternity fraud, which is in the long term psychological abuse to the child, the falsified father, the real father, and the extended family of both the father and the falsified father. Its worse than accusing someone of cheating or asking them for proof that they didnt cheat and fraud you.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't know...

On one hand it is inferring that honesty, integrity and faithfulness is open to questioning which is horrible - but the statistics regarding men unwittingly assuming someone else's kids are theirs would suggest there are a not insignificant number of women who's honesty, integrity and faithfulness can't be assumed.

Do you by any chance know the numbers?

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Do you by any chance know the numbers?

I deliberately didn't state any stats as I can't see any kind of consensus...there are figures of up to 30% being thrown around in some quarters and down to 3-4% in others...

I'm not sure how statistics on this are collated, if it's just a case of calculating the percentage of tests that are negatives and assuming that's paternity fraud cases or what....

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I deliberately didn't state any stats as I can't see any kind of consensus...there are figures of up to 30% being thrown around in some quarters and down to 3-4% in others...

I'm not sure how statistics on this are collated, if it's just a case of calculating the percentage of tests that are negatives and assuming that's paternity fraud cases or what....

Well see that's the thing. Some of them could be right out fraud and some of them could be women who are just not sure and need to do a test. Impossible to measure a significant number.

krudler

Jeremy Kyle is now out of a job..

strobe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I deliberately didn't state any stats as I can't see any kind of consensus...there are figures of up to 30% being thrown around in some quarters and down to 3-4% in others...

I'm not sure how statistics on this are collated, if it's just a case of calculating the percentage of tests that are negatives and assuming that's paternity fraud cases or what....

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well see that's the thing. Some of them could be right out fraud and some of them could be women who are just not sure and need to do a test.

The only indept examination, the one the figures of 30% and 3-4% that get quoted from is this one I believe. Published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, August 2005.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733152/pdf/v059p00749.pdf

The figure of 26.9% is the median for tests that were deliberately sought by people where there was a dispute over paternity. The conclusion is that this will obviously be above the rates in the general population. The figure of 3.7% is the median for parental discrepancy that was discovered 'by accident' when medical tests were conducted by doctors and hospitals for reasons apart from a question of paternity which turned up the results or when blood was given etc. These are thought to under represent the rates in the general population. General population rates are estimated to be somewhere between 4 and 10%.

Ickle Magoo

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well see that's the thing. Some of them could be right out fraud and some of them could be women who are just not sure and need to do a test. Impossible to measure a significant number.

Are women who aren't sure who the father of their child is likely to be a significant number? l wouldn't have thought so...

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are women who aren't sure who the father of their child is likely to be a significant number? l wouldn't have thought so...

Well, I guess you would have to measure the percentage of dna tests done against the amount of women who gave birth in a year, for a start and see how big that number is first. And then break that down between those who had dalliances and weren't sure and those who just lied and then those who had boyfriends, babydaddies, and husbands who just didnt trust them and wanted a dna test.

seenitall

TBH, I think that this test should be mandatory for new-borns, just like all the congenital blood testing, hearing testing etc. that they undergo at the moment. Just a small addition to the checklist. It excludes any justified "You bastard, how can you not trust me?" huge argument/divorce starters that are going to commence now. As for the unjustified ones - I couldn't care less about how they cope with it, tbh. Paternity fraud is despicable.

Misticles

The irony!

I just saw the last posters name and that was exactly what I was thinking.

Is there anything that Boots will not sell in the coming years??

I can see how it can alleviate some pressures from hospitals but something like this should be left to professionals not a DIY kit.

krudler

Misticles wrote: »

The irony!

I just saw the last posters name and that was exactly what I was thinking.

Is there anything that Boots will not sell in the coming years??

I can see how it can alleviate some pressures from hospitals but something like this should be left to professionals not a DIY kit.

it is, you just take the swab, a lab analyses them and give the results, its not like you pee on a stick and its says "you the baby daddy!" on it

krudler

krudler wrote: »

Jeremy Kyle is now out of a job..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt2i0ts-uck

Expect to see scenes like this nationwide.

I really admire Boots lately. First they introduce the morning after pill and now they're doing this. Finally Ireland is beginning to move forward!

metrovelvet

I think its very telling that the demand for the MAP and paternity tests have grown to such an extent that now a mainstream franchised chemist is selling them. "Hi, can I have a pack of Nurofen and a paternity test? Throw in some condoms and some MAPs, and can you tell me where the Q tips are?"

strobe

seenitall wrote: »

TBH, I think that this test should be mandatory for new-borns, just like all the congenital blood testing, hearing testing etc. that they undergo at the moment. Just a small addition to the checklist. It excludes any justified "You bastard, how can you not trust me?" huge argument/divorce starters that are going to commence now. As for the unjustified ones - I couldn't care less about how they cope with it, tbh. Paternity fraud is despicable.

Yeah, I would agree completely with this.

liah

metrovelvet wrote:

"Hi, can I have a pack of Nurofen and a paternity test?"

A winning combination if I ever saw one :pac:

It's amazing that they're introducing all of these and yet condoms are still relatively expensive!

Malari

Anyone else thinking of disgruntled teenagers trying to do this test on their parents so that they can scream "you're not my dad" at an appropriate juncture in a fight with the folks? :pac:

Maple

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are women who aren't sure who the father of their child is likely to be a significant number? l wouldn't have thought so...

I'd say it happens more often that we'd like to think. There are so many variables, type of contraception used, where in cycle sex took place, length of cycle etc.

I know of three different friends who had sex with two different guys, one week to ten days apart, hand on heart had they been pregnant they wouldn't have been able to swear who was the father.

Ickle Magoo

krudler wrote: »

Jeremy Kyle is now out of a job..

Surely reason enough to delight in OTC paternity test kits.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely reason enough to delight in OTC paternity test kits.

Oh Big time. The sooner that guy gets off the air the better.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely reason enough to delight in OTC paternity test kits.

But now my daytime TV will be ruined What else will I watch to feel better about myself? Ah schadenfreude! Gotta love it.

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

But now my daytime TV will be ruined What else will I watch to feel better about myself? Ah schadenfreude! Gotta love it.

There's always loose women....some quarters would have you believe half the population think it's the only show on TV worth watching.










:pac:

kerryman12

I'd say it happens more often that we'd like to think. There are so many variables, type of contraception used, where in cycle sex took place, length of cycle etc.

Just on this point I remember watching a C4 depatches program several years ago. This particular episode was about infidelity in long term monogamous relationships. One part of the program dealt with research carried out over a number of years on female infidelity in particular. The research seemed to indicate that of the women who were unfaithfull a significant number did so at a time of the month where, they were more likely to concieve - and in many cases not use contraception.
The conclusion being suggested was that weather it was on a subconcious level or not many of these women were looking for the best possible partner from a procreation stand point and were unhappy with their current partner.

One of those useless points that has stuck in my mind.

Scanlas The 2nd

kerryman12 wrote: »

Just on this point I remember watching a C4 depatches program several years ago. This particular episode was about infidelity in long term monogamous relationships. One part of the program dealt with research carried out over a number of years on female infidelity in particular. The research seemed to indicate that of the women who were unfaithfull a significant number did so at a time of the month where, they were more likely to concieve - and in many cases not use contraception.
The conclusion being suggested was that weather it was on a subconcious level or not many of these women were looking for the best possible partner from a procreation stand point and were unhappy with their current partner.

One of those useless fact that has stuck in my mind.

I was watching a program on the Discovery Channel where studies were done showing that the group of females in nightclubs/pubs that give out the most sexual signals were women who were in the fertile phase of their cycle and who were in relationships and who were out without their boyfriend/husband. So I'd say the non paternity thing happens more often than people think.

Ickle Magoo

Any chance of linking to the studies? I'm always wary of programmes that are trying to paint women as predatory philanderers out to ensnare fathers for their children out-with their marriages because it's something I've just never seen going on in real life - perhaps I lead a very sheltered life.

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Any chance of linking to the studies? I'm always wary of programmes that are trying to paint women as predatory philanderers to ensnare fathers for their children out-with their marriages because it's something I've just never seen going on in real life - perhaps I lead a very sheltered life.

Its also Britain. The frustrating thing about discussions on this site is people refer to the US and Britain for stats and the stats are totally taken with no cultural context.

kerryman12

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Any chance of linking to the studies? I'm always wary of programmes that are trying to paint women as predatory philanderers to ensnare fathers for their children out-with their marriages because it's something I've just never seen going on in real life - perhaps I lead a very sheltered life.

Yea I know what you are saying. Its so long ago now I cant remember any more details.

kerryman12

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its also Britain. The frustrating thing about discussions on this site is people refer to the US and Britain for stats and the stats are totally taken with no cultural context.

would that really have significant impact?

I am not so sure

LittleBook

seenitall wrote: »

I think that this test should be mandatory for new-borns, just like all the congenital blood testing, hearing testing etc. that they undergo at the moment. Just a small addition to the checklist.

This, I could cope with.

maple wrote: »

be in a relationship with children and my OH was to come home and request a paternity test

This, I could not.

I'd do the test, but I'd never be able to look at my partner the same way again.

Count Duckula

metrovelvet wrote: »

Its also Britain. The frustrating thing about discussions on this site is people refer to the US and Britain for stats and the stats are totally taken with no cultural context.

Hey, I'd like to point out that we over the Irish Sea are not so different from you that our women go out preying on horny young men to steal their seed whilst their husbands sit at home weeping because none of their children are really theirs.

Studies like this are always a bit iffy, because you can come up with arbitrary numbers like "10%". That makes it sound like, in a loving relationship, a child has a 1/10 chance of not being the father's, when in actuality that's not the case. That 10% will encompass all sorts of irresponsible parents who have multiple partners and never use contraception, leaving themselves in a bit of a mess. I'd like to think that reasonable people wouldn't do that - by all means have some fun and casual sex, but for goodness' sake stick a rubber over it.

British women are not inherently more likely to go out cheating on their boyfriends and husbands just because they're made to sing God Save the Queen in school!

metrovelvet

Count Duckula wrote: »

Hey, I'd like to point out that we over the Irish Sea are not so different from you that our women go out preying on horny young men to steal their seed whilst their husbands sit at home weeping because none of their children are really theirs.

Studies like this are always a bit iffy, because you can come up with arbitrary numbers like "10%". That makes it sound like, in a loving relationship, a child has a 1/10 chance of not being the father's, when in actuality that's not the case. That 10% will encompass all sorts of irresponsible parents who have multiple partners and never use contraception, leaving themselves in a bit of a mess. I'd like to think that reasonable people wouldn't do that - by all means have some fun and casual sex, but for goodness' sake stick a rubber over it.

British women are not inherently more likely to go out cheating on their boyfriends and husbands just because they're made to sing God Save the Queen in school!

Maybe they are maybe they arent. Its important to know though where the stats come from, whether parts of Africa where promiscuity is pretty normal, north Africa where it is pretty Muslim, the US where there are serious consequences for paternity fraud, or multi cultural Britain [I wont mention temple bar on a friday night or Crete]. The context is important because you cant take a sample out of one nation or culture and then apply it to another and expect greater understanding.

Scanlas The 2nd

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Any chance of linking to the studies? I'm always wary of programmes that are trying to paint women as predatory philanderers out to ensnare fathers for their children out-with their marriages because it's something I've just never seen going on in real life - perhaps I lead a very sheltered life.

The study I mentioned was discussed on the Discovery Channel in a program that I think was called "Human Sexuality".I think the anthropologist Helen Fisher was involved in the study. I'd google it and find the link but I'm in work.

Count Duckula

metrovelvet wrote: »

Maybe they are maybe they arent. Its important to know though where the stats come from, whether parts of Africa where promiscuity is pretty normal, north Africa where it is pretty Muslim, the US where there are serious consequences for paternity fraud, or multi cultural Britain [I wont mention temple bar on a friday night or Crete]. The context is important because you cant take a sample out of one nation or culture and then apply it to another and expect greater understanding.

But if - as some people are suggesting - studies show that perhaps this infidelity occurs sub-consciously as a result of increased fertility owing to the cycle, then it would be a biological matter and not a cultural one. If indeed a significant proportion of women are going out without their partners and eyeing up other men (something I must admit I am very unsure of without solid evidence backing those claims up), I would think that it would be quite consistent over all countries and cultures, barring of course those which are particularly oppressive to women to the extent that even a biological urge would be suppressed owing to a simple lack of access to other men or even the outside world.

LittleBook

Misticles wrote: »

The irony!

I just saw the last posters name and that was exactly what I was thinking.

Is there anything that Boots will not sell in the coming years??

I can see how it can alleviate some pressures from hospitals but something like this should be left to professionals not a DIY kit.

Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not sure what the big deal is as regards it being OTC in Boots .... other than the fact that it's cheaper which is probably more related to the fact that they use a UK clinic.

Paternity testing is readily available in Ireland, the fact that it's available OTC doesn't take away the need for it to be sent off to a lab for the test to be concluded.

Ickle Magoo

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The study I mentioned was discussed on the Discovery Channel in a program that I think was called "Human Sexuality".I think the anthropologist Helen Fisher was involved in the study. I'd google it and find the link but I'm in work.

Whatever you do, don't be googling human sexuality while at work - could get ye into a whole heap of trouble!

Helen Fisher is a very well respected biological anthropologist - I'd be interested in seeing what she said and what statistics were stated...was that part of the Science of the Sexes series I wonder?

LittleBook

Count Duckula wrote: »

But if - as some people are suggesting - studies show that perhaps this infidelity occurs sub-consciously as a result of increased fertility owing to the cycle, then it would be a biological matter and not a cultural one. If indeed a significant proportion of women are going out without their partners and eyeing up other men (something I must admit I am very unsure of without solid evidence backing those claims up), I would think that it would be quite consistent over all countries and cultures, barring of course those which are particularly oppressive to women to the extent that even a biological urge would be suppressed owing to a simple lack of access to other men or even the outside world.

No. Even if it's to be credited, the study referred to (of women in bars and nightclubs!) claims that the women who "give out the most sexual signals" were out without their partners AND in a fertile phase of their cycle.

That could easily be because these women are less guarded (in comparison with single women who are possibly in their fertile phase) because in their minds they are "taken" and don't worry about giving off signals as much.

There is nothing sub-conscious about infidelity. Biologically speaking I could be as horny as hell right now and drunk off my face with my partner currently in a different country, doesn't mean I'd do anything about it!

metrovelvet

Count Duckula wrote: »

But if - as some people are suggesting - studies show that perhaps this infidelity occurs sub-consciously as a result of increased fertility owing to the cycle, then it would be a biological matter and not a cultural one. If indeed a significant proportion of women are going out without their partners and eyeing up other men (something I must admit I am very unsure of without solid evidence backing those claims up), I would think that it would be quite consistent over all countries and cultures, barring of course those which are particularly oppressive to women to the extent that even a biological urge would be suppressed owing to a simple lack of access to other men or even the outside world.

Eyeing up other men. One thing. Infidelity. One thing. Paternity fraud another.

If you live in a country where you can get stoned to death for infidelity, no matter how much your ovulation sends out vibes, I think you would likely control yourself.

If you can go to prison for paternity fraud in one country and not in another, im sure that can affect the stats.

Scanlas The 2nd

Count Duckula wrote: »

But if - as some people are suggesting - studies show that perhaps this infidelity occurs sub-consciously as a result of increased fertility owing to the cycle, then it would be a biological matter and not a cultural one. If indeed a significant proportion of women are going out without their partners and eyeing up other men (something I must admit I am very unsure of without solid evidence backing those claims up), I would think that it would be quite consistent over all countries and cultures, barring of course those which are particularly oppressive to women to the extent that even a biological urge would be suppressed owing to a simple lack of access to other men or even the outside world.

I might not be the case that women are going out to eye up men. It could be the case that the hormones that are released make them behave in a certain way which tends to catch men's sexual interest. Then it could be the case that when the men make a move the women just tend to feel more receptive to their advances and one thing leads to another.

Stheno

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think its very telling that the demand for the MAP and paternity tests have grown to such an extent that now a mainstream franchised chemist is selling them. "Hi, can I have a pack of Nurofen and a paternity test? Throw in some condoms and some MAPs, and can you tell me where the Q tips are?"

The article in the OP does point out that there are already 350 independant chemists selling the kits.

LittleBook wrote: »

Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not sure what the big deal is as regards it being OTC in Boots .... other than the fact that it's cheaper which is probably more related to the fact that they use a UK clinic.

Paternity testing is readily available in Ireland, the fact that it's available OTC doesn't take away the need for it to be sent off to a lab for the test to be concluded.

Neither am I, the OP quotes an article from the this.london.co.uk website, and states that the kits will be sold in larger stores. Boots sold the MAP otc several years ago prior to doing so in Ireland, so I'd no be so sure we will see these in Ireland any time soon. That said there are no prescription only issues to be overcome.

Scanlas The 2nd

LittleBook wrote: »

No. Even if it's to be credited, the study referred to (of women in bars and nightclubs!) claims that the women who "give out the most sexual signals" were out without their partners AND in a fertile phase of their cycle.

That could easily be because these women are less guarded (in comparison with single women who are possibly in their fertile phase) because in their minds they are "taken" and don't worry about giving off signals as much.

There is nothing sub-conscious about infidelity. Biologically speaking I could be as horny as hell right now and drunk off my face with my partner currently in a different country, doesn't mean I'd do anything about it!

The signals were subtle and subconscious though. Also if that were the case the "taken" women who were out with their boyfriends/husbands wouldn't worry about giving out sexual signals too and would give out more signals than when out without their boyfriend/husband (as they would have even less reason to feel gurarded). But that's not the case, the women in relationships out without their boyfriends/husbands were found to give out more signals than when out with their boyfriends/husbands.

seenitall

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The signals were subtle and subconscious though. Also if that were the case the "taken" women who were out with their boyfriends/husbands wouldn't worry about giving out sexual signals too and would give out more signals than when out without their boyfriend/husband (as they would have even less reason to feel gurarded). But that's not the case, the women in relationships out without their boyfriends/husbands were found to give out more signals than when out with their boyfriends/husbands.

That's just human nature, regardless of the gender, I would have thought. Really, what do you think, do men give out more subtle, subconscious, flirty signals when they are out WITH, or WITHOUT their girlfriends? Common sense tells you which it is more likely to be, doesn't it? It is surely much less fun to behave flirtatiously while you're being scrutinised by himself/herself!

Scanlas The 2nd

seenitall wrote: »

That's just human nature, regardless of the gender, I would have thought. Really, what do you think, do men give out more subtle, subconscious, flirty signals when they are out WITH, or WITHOUT their girlfriends? Common sense tells you which it is more likely to be, doesn't it? It is surely much less fun to behave flirtatiously while you're being scrutinised by himself/herself!

Yeah I fully agree and think that's fairly obvious, you don't really need studies to realise that. Littlebook doesn't seem to think so that's why I made the point. Littlebook made the point that women who are "taken" would give out more signals as they would feel less guarded.

What the people doing the study found shocking was that women who were in relationships gave out more sexual signals than single women.

BengaLover

Someone on the other hand could use one of these kits in an underhand way to try to get out of a sticky situation..
And what about the very rare but confirmed condition where the mothers DNA doesnt match the childs...

seenitall

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Yeah I fully agree and think that's fairly obvious, you don't really need studies to realise that. Littlebook doesn't seem to think so that's why I made the point. Littlebook made the point that women who are "taken" would give out more signals as they would feel less guarded.

What the people doing the study found shocking was that women who were in relationships gave out more sexual signals than single women.

I don't see how LittleBook's and my point contradict each other. Attached men/women out on the town, enjoying themselves, flirting with the opposite sex. They could well be "less guarded because they are taken", in addition to not having their OH in tow. Fits well with the bolded bit too.

Scanlas The 2nd

seenitall wrote: »

I don't see how LittleBook's and my point contradict each other. Attached men/women out on the town, enjoying themselves, flirting with the opposite sex. They could well be "less guarded because they are taken", in addition to not having their OH in tow. Fits well with the bolded bit too.

Littlebook's point I believe was that "taken" women would give more signals than single women due to feeling less guarded. The point I made I believe was that if you are just take feeling less guarded into account then a woman out with her boyfriend would give more signals, which would contradict the study. Women do give signals (my opinion) when out with boyfriend/husband a lot too though.

Anyway just to reiterate the results of the study shown on the discovery channel, women who are in relationships, in the fertile phase of their cycle, have a boyfriend/husband, out without them give the strongest sexual signals. Taking this into account I think paternity tests should definitely be more easily available.

iguana

I would very much like it if paternity tests were done routinely for all pregnancies from about week 17 of the pregnancy, when there is enough foetal DNA in the mother's blood for paternity to be established with a blood test from her and a swab from the "father." I think that pretending a man is a baby's father is a huge violation of both the man and the child and as it's preventable it should not happen. If it was being done in bulk by the state it wouldn't be a huge outgoing.

The thing is if my husband asked for a paternity test from me, I'd be upset that he didn't trust me. Whereas if everyone had the test done as a matter of course I wouldn't mind as it's no more a question of my behaviour as the routine HIV test all expectant mothers are given.

seenitall

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Littlebook's point I believe was that "taken" women would give more signals than single women due to feeling less guarded. The point I made I believe was that if you are just take feeling less guarded into account then a woman out with her boyfriend would give more signals, which would contradict the study. Women do give signals (my opinion) when out with boyfriend/husband a lot too though.

Still can't see the contradiction you are talking about. Unless LittleBook suggested that the only reason for an attached person acting more flirtatious is "being less guarded". It is only one element of it, but feasible IMO. The other is feeling freer without the presence of the OH.

Your second point is completely mixing apples and oranges and has been addressed by LittleBoook already. Subconscious flirty signals when out on the town, do not infidelity equal, otherwise every other person walking around would be a result of paternity fraud. So I find your "conclusion" to the results of this study far-fetched to say the least, not to say offensive to most women who are attached and occasionally go out on the town.

Siht happens, and people cheat, but correlating that study of human social (not sexual, unless they have studied just how many of these women end up cheating) behaviour to paternity testing is ridiculous.