Woman who had sex with identical twins told it is 'not possible' to identify dad | Hacker News Reader

Woman who had sex with identical twins told it is 'not possible' to identify dad

news.sky.com

19 pointsqingcharles63 comments

From reading it appears all parties are invested in the outcome of children. So this becomes interesting for other reasons.

What is the current state of the art in this type of testing? Why is a definitive result too far off but also too expensive?

You need to find a genome change if it exists which requires whole genome sequencing. so its a money question and doesn't guarantee a result

And even if a genome change exists, it may not show up in the offspring depending on which version of gamete they're derived from.

With identical twins, the genome is identical since both twins derive from the same fertilized egg.

I'm not sure how future advancements can overcome that issue.

There can be very small mutation which you might be able to find if it happened.

Epigenetic changes might be one possibility, they are sometimes passed down to children and are responses to environmental adjustments. We don't know most of the rules around them however nor what can be passed down and to what extent but potentially in the future we should know more.

If I understand correctly, the current outcome is that the twin remains on the birth certificate but his legal rights granted by paternity have been suspended?

I understand the reasoning that the inability to prove a positive does not suffice to prove a negative but clearly his presence on the birth certificate is a positive claim that has been ruled invalid - shouldn't it then be removed, at least temporarily?

Hash collision

>>A woman who had sex with identical twins separately "within four days of each other"

Amazing.

Why?

And why do we evaluate this on something like hn?

Are you shaming a person for having sex or?

Right? Good for her/them, assuming everyone was consenting.

Not really, no.

Sex has consequences like these people are seeing.

Consenting people can still make mistakes and ruin relationships where if they had exercised better judgment they wouldn't have had problems.

A child has one biological mother and effectively two biological fathers.

A significant portion of the population have zero of one or both groups known.

The child will likely be just fine.

The sex part is a bit shame worthy I'd say.

But the part where this woman cannot identify the father is definitely worth shaming.

Consenting adults can have sex with each other. There's zero shame in that.

And though having these two partners was unwise for this reason, it's not really a matter of shame so much as one where we should just find a practical solution that doesnt mess with the kid.

No birth control is 100%. We live on a planet were very rare situations are getting published as 'news'. So the fact that you read this news, doesn't tell you anything shameful at all. You are just biased and don't even realise it.

And no you are not allowed to shame other people for their decisions if its not clear that there is a kid getting abused in any way. People are adults and not yours to criticsize if it doesn't affect you or a 3th entity which can't protect itself.

Its your personal opionion you can easily and should keep yourself.

I'm biased against this and you're biased towards it.

And your opinion is just as worthy of being kept to yourself.

It's not that you're against shame you just don't want your bad behaviors shamed.

Nope our viewpoints are not the same like a coin with two similiar sides.

I let people do what they want to do without projecting something onto them based of my values. So my viewpoint is openness.

Yours is the complete opposite. You project your values onto them. You are forcing something which doesn't affect you onto others. You want to control them.

Its like people who have a religion/believe say you also have to believe while i say i'm not allowed to push you into something like this.

And in my eyes this is not bad behavior at least not from the information i have. I would be concerned if and only if the kid would grow up without any parent.

"Amazing" is not necessarily a judgment, could in fact be congratulations or even judgment-free entirely just amazing story.

I mean, 4 days and then she hooks up with your twin brother. Yes, I am shaming her.

Maybe everyone was aware and consenting.

Interesting bias to blame the woman. How do you know that the second twin wasn't taking advantage of their identical looks to convince the woman it was the same man she had slept with the first time? She may not even have been aware that he had an identical sibling.

Oh, I blame everyone who was aware.

If one brother was pretending to be the other I blame him more.

A person expressing wonder at a surprising situation does not require shaming.

And yes, I think when a person finds themselves in a situation like this they should be examining their life choices.

I don't know why it's on hn though.

"they should be examining their life choices." based on your world view though. We became a very boring race only optimizing our lives for work. No alien race would look at us and think we are smart spending so much time doing things which do not add value to our society just because we can't organize ourselves better.

Just because we conditioned ourselves like this, doesn't mean its right or wrong.

And this article doesn't give us enough insight to even judge.

Birth control is not perfect. 99% is very little in comparision to the amount of sex happening in a population of 8 billion people.

Exactly. This whole "no shame" society has gone a bit too far.

When I first read the headline, I thought it's about a woman who had sex with her own identical twin (and somehow that means their father cannot be identified).

So I was almost disappointed when I read it properly.

It'd be about the same Jerry Springer style

This feels like purely a legal question. The child is equally related the twins both genetically and seemingly in other relationships.

Flagged? The chat looks pretty innoccuous.

Yeah, no idea why this was flagged.

Oh wow, if they break up, who has to pay for the kid then?

Rage farming with no scientific interest. Sad to see this upvoted to front page.

There is an interesting question - how can we prove paternity or other DNA based questions with identical twins (full sequencing looking for mutations?) and if we can't, how do we handle legal responsibilities in this sort of case?

There's a lot of good material to discuss here.

no there isn't but i appreciate your amusing stupidity. this is a good example of the state of exception that most people with common sense intuitively understand.

Considering outcomes of children that grow up in a single parent scenario are well-known to be much better when it is the father rather than the mother, in the interest of the child, I would propose splitting custody between the two fathers, leaving the mother out.

Yeah probably because our patrichary is shit and woman earn a lot less money than man do which makes it easier for the man to pay for baby sitter, nanny, education etc.

Perhaps we fixup our society instead of blaming it to a woman?

No clue why you are getting downvoted. It's well documented that women earn less. It's well documented that children are expensive. It's well documented that social safety nets are inadequate to assist in raising a child.

You've literally just stated some objective facts and suggested we fix some of those challenges.

Money isn't the only factor of why the single fathers produce better outcomes for their children.

Show your work, provide a source.

you bring an interesting perspective

Thanks, appreciate it.

Ah yes other factors of misogynistics like potential men seeing a single mother as an issue why potential woman might not.

Btw. its also a lot harder for man to get the sole custody which means that only the most motivated and well suited men even achieve this probably also with an expensive lawyer.

I assume they are getting down voted because their statement is emotional and seemingly unsupported (seems to ignore child support). After accounting for child support, they should have similar resources. We can further investigate this when comparing to intact families - single parents of either sex have wealth gaps with intact families, yet outcomes in single father families tend to be close to the outcomes of the intact families. We would probably need more research into the topic to find concrete causes, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in that.

I would have a lot more money even with child support just because I earn so much more than my wife.

So in avg man earn more and have more carerse because they do not stay at home for the children.

Also guess who normally gets custody? Yeah the mother. So having a man getting custidy is not normal at all. This skews the data massivly.

So as long as we are not experts here but a group of men earning above avg, we might not stereotype and dismiss genders.

"I would have a lot more money even with child support just because I earn so much more than my wife."

That depends on the state, especially looking at after tax income due to the tax treatment on both sides.

"So having a man getting custidy is not normal at all. "

I agree there could be bias there. I think if we looked at households with deceased parents and then controlled for income, that would present a good elimination of bias.

There should be a cap in all states of child support. And independent of this, the person with a lot more income can do things the other person can't like getting a nani.

And lets be honest here: A single father is so rare that this alone raises eyebrows and questions. Ironically more like positive reactions and dismissive ones against the woman.

Most states do not have a cap.

I don't agree that the rarity may present bias.

Independent of a cap, you don't pay 100% of your salary you pay a percentage. So at the end of they day, the afther still has more money left.

In texas there is a cap at $11.700 which will be $2k. Plenty of money left on the father side to provide better to the child.

And if you don't agree on the bias thing, how about you also bring up anything which supports your argument? Thats how an argument works.

Also you do know that there are 80% single mothers vs. 20% single fathers? 1970 it was btw. only 1%

If a man doesn't want to care for a kid, he doesn't has to while a mother has to. which elads to a wider spectrum of woman having to care for a kid.

Funny enough, i can't ven find a proper source for kids growing up better with a single father.

But i found this: "Children in single-father families exhibit worse behavior, and are slightly disadvantaged in terms of cognitive skills compared with children living with a single mother (Downey, Ainsworth-Darnell, and Dufur 1998)."

"So at the end of they day, the afther still has more money left."

Maybe, maybe not. Oftentimes the formula used ends up making a near even pre-tax split between the parents when the lower earner gets custody. The higher earner also pays the income taxes on the support payment, potentially leaving them with less after taxes. That could be different when factoring in alimony and when the higher earner gets custody.

"In texas there is a cap at $11.700 which will be $2k. Plenty of money left on the father side to provide better to the child."

Texas is an exception and not the rule. It's a major reason people like Elon move/live there.

"If a man doesn't want to care for a kid, he doesn't has to while a mother has to."

This isn't true. Either parent can abandon kids. Both parents have fought for custody in courts. The increase in single father households is a reflection on reduction in gender roles and court bias.

"(Downey, Ainsworth-Darnell, and Dufur 1998)"

That's old and from a time when single father homes were very scarce (by your own admission). Here is an article with multiple studies cited that are more recent.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-single-father-households-...

> Considering outcomes of children that grow up in a single parent scenario are well-known to be much better when it is the father rather than the mother

I've never heard this and would be very interested in a source.

Just google it.

Better outcomes all around when the father is the only parent as opposed to when the mother is the only parent.

The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion. Why should anyone else have to do the work that he/she/they didn't bother with?

"Why should anyone else have to do the work that he/she/they didn't bother with?"

Because they are curious (consistent with the culture of this site). They would also be more likely to trust their own sources, I assume.

Trusting sources because they are your "own" is just asking for bias to be ingrained.

Yet it's well known that if you want someone to change their mind it's most likely to occur if they think it's their own idea/doing. You're more likely to argue with me than if you just read sources you found and independently came to the conclusion.

Not the same person, but here's something. Just to note, the income portion mention might be lacking additional investigation as child support is typically not accounted for in income numbers.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-single-father-households-...

The buried lede in that link is that mothers who don't have custody of their children are more likely to remain in close emotional contact with their children than fathers are when in the same position. So children living with dad still benefit from having both parents involved in their upbringing. Which undermines OP's assertion that this child would be better off without their mother around.

Yes, involvement from both parents seems to be the major factor regardless of sex. There is likely additional research needed on why fathers disengage more when the mother has primary custody. With a majority of single parent households being headed by mothers, it seems another area ripe for research is how unlikely it is that the majority of fathers are disengaged to create such a large effect on the whole single mother cohort. Likewise, with the way custody tends to be grated in court, you would expect single father households to have a higher percentage of unengaged mothers due if it was determined that the mothers were the lesser choice for child welfare. I would guess looking at outcomes where one parent died would mostly control for that support mechanism.

[citation needed]

April Fool's?

This is actually well known.

What the fuck? Leave the mother out of her own child's life? Because statistically there is a marginal difference, which may not even apply here, because population wide numbers aren't a good indicator for specific cases?

Your approach is inhumane.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com