Boots to sell OTC paternity tests.

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.

Scanlas The 2nd

iguana wrote: »

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.

Not to be mention the scientific benefits down the line from being able to determine biological family trees with more certainty.