Something that's been posted on the NG forums, and I thought I'd share it here. According to this study around 10% of children aren't really fathered by who they think. It's pretty mind-blowing TBH...

 

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.aspx

 

PS - wrong forum, please move to molestar's if possible

To be honest I was expecting a bit more (10-20% bracket). And wait till it's so cheap and common so that it will become a standard part of newborn child examinations.

I also was under the impression it was higher... I look so like my dad I couldn't doubt it!

In France paternity tests are banned without a court order because of this (and the fear of subsequent divorce).

 

 

I'm surprised someone was brave enough to post a link like that on a public forum.  Usually the conversation devolves from there into labeling people as sexist and the conversation gets shut down.

I'm surprised someone was brave enough to post a link like that on a public forum.  Usually the conversation devolves from there into labeling people as sexist and the conversation gets shut down.

 

You mean the Non Grata forums? I don't think anything would get shut down there

In France paternity tests are banned without a court order because of this (and the fear of subsequent divorce).

 

 

I'm surprised someone was brave enough to post a link like that on a public forum.  Usually the conversation devolves from there into labeling people as sexist and the conversation gets shut down.

That's quite interesting what you've said. Anyway I believe no law will stop this, once such test become easily attainable. Some of the people will be eager to know the truth, no matter how it's called by others.

ITT, evidence that 10% of people are still catered by a milk man.

Don't forget about a postman and a salesman.

Hmm. I can't say what percentage I was expecting, but 10% is pretty high imo

Not shocked at all.  Lonely housewife syndrome (yes, I can create a syndrome, it's simple - see?).  Obviously the full 10% isn't from that sample size, but I'm sure quite a few are.  It's depressing in a way, but a human's true nature is to be polyamory, religion is generally what keeps people from 'straying' I suppose, also I've read that it was sort of part of our evolution to alleviate infanticide (instinct out of jealousy from another partner's child).  Personally, I'm not very religious, but it's a make-up of my moral code to remain monogamous.   

Edited August 1, 201313 yr by DevastationStation

I think it's not exactly religion or morality, but rather law of nature. Animal's (males specifically) in general don't really like to raise offsprings that aren't theirs.

If we are not above the beasts, we lose our humanity. Genetic or not, I find the disloyalty, betrayal, and promiscuity disgusting. Even if we might be descendant from ape, there is no reason to revert to being one.

I think you misunderstood me . I said that even animals (males in general) are not fond of raising young that aren't their. Our feelings towards disloyalty, betrayal, etc derive mostly from the law of nature and not from our moral rules.

 

Obviously there are exceptions, like some specific species of apes that tend to be extremely immoral (if we can call animal in such way).

It's just of late that I've heard genetic causality as an excuse for various deviations so often that I intrinsically suspect when people publish these things they're shooting for a justification for unethical behavior.

In England this problem has been suspected of for so long that it has long been a presumption of law that the children of a marriage are legitimate. Primarily this is to reduce protracted disputes concerning the division of estates after death. 

Though in UK healthcare it is presumed that the "father" of an unborn child is as related as the man next door in some circumstances.

 

I saw that reserach that suggests Monogomy evolved as a way of reducing infanticide. It's certainly a very interesting argument and certainly not one I'd throw out of the window. You see many species where you have a single male to multiple females as a way of reducing infanticide... there's no reason why we couldn't have developed monogamy as a higher order species (Monogamy is also not unique to humans, though the refasoning in some subjects has less clarity).

 

I do agree with Maelstrom. In modern western society a relationship is presumed to be monogamous unless agreed otherwise, to not uphold such an agreement as the individual within the relationship is more than a small black mark on a character.

I think as a species we have a tendency towards monogamy. Whenever I watch a documentary about people living in non-monogamous relationships (like a guy with multiple wives) or very open relationships (like swingers), I get the feeling that deep down, these people are not happy with the lives they're living. Sure they always say they're "open minded" and it's their "chosen lifestyle", but it's pretty obvious they're actually jealous when their partner is with someone else.

In general I think you're right. Monogamy is predictable and safe (which is what most people wants). That's why people would like to have their chosen partner only for themselves. When a men sees his woman in relation with someone else he's no longer sure who'll be a father of her child. In the opposite situation there's a fear of being left alone (which translates to lower chance of successfully raising up her children). Apart from that there are other factors, like when you treat someone as the most important person in your life, you want that feeling to be returned (relations equality). However it does not stop people for constantly looking for a genetically better partner (or in case of males any suitable partner).

This is racist.........

just kidding. stay classy san diego