Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 111 to 112 of 112

Thread: Worldwide, 1 in 3 men aren't the biological father to their children. Paternity fraud is an epidemic

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Online
    01-06-2021 @ 03:29 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Levantine
    Country
    Palestine
    Y-DNA
    J2
    mtDNA
    U3
    Taxonomy
    Taurid
    Relationship Status
    In a relationship
    Gender
    Posts
    29,338
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 29,828
    Given: 24,541

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Longbowman View Post
    With all respect, this sentence would shame a toddler.



    Now, I am only 26, and as such not many of my peers have children (a handful do), but I cannot think of a single person I personally know or have heard of whom I know has experienced this. I assume they exist, but I do not know them or of them. Who knows, maybe every single one is illegitimate, but I have neither proof nor suspicion in any of the cases.

    Perhaps you just live in a particularly degenerate circle, but I doubt it.

    Either way your 'argument' is 'fuck stats' which is a very poor argument. My critique was of the evidence the original argument used, as stated in my conversation with Toppo. You have side-stepped this obvious dishonesty in OP to defend the overall point and critique my integrity, which in my eyes, only casts aspersions on your own dishonesty.



    In the UK it's pseudo-ironic slang for uneducated idiot, don't read into it too heavily.



    Right, here's where you 'earn' your thumbs down.

    1) Mary is a deluded psychopath, she does not need to be countered in the same way flat-earthers and children who aver the moon is made of cheese need to be countered. Engaging with her seriously validates her and her perspective. Ignore her.
    2) Porn is always degenerate regardless of the content. True, there are more degenerate things and less degenerate things, but the degeneracy is inherent to pornography.
    3) I, and the majority of people in the UK and the western world, do not enjoy looking at the majority of the women you post. If my memory serves me well, you like fat women.
    4) Do not tell me what I like. I will not tell you you like slender, toned women. I do not believe it is true, and I do not need to convince myself you do to validate my sexual preferences (probably because mine are conventional, unlike yours). Either way it is rude.



    Alright: nothing I have ever said here has revealed degeneracy on my part. You, on the other hand...



    I read maybe 5% of the posts here, probably a lot less. I never asked to be made moderator or admin. I don't mind it - change usernames, delete threads on request, mostly, but it wasn't a goal of mine. Also, when it happened, I was 20 and in university with a lot of spare time to kill.



    Your question was not innocent, you accused me of maliciously trying to engage in subterfuge for whatever gain. The verb you used was 'pretend,' which implicitly includes malice aforethought. You insulted me and my integrity. Don't play the ingenue, it doesn't suit you.

    Your post, in case you'd forgotten:



    Inb4 'but I honestly believe you are a lying little shit, therefore I reserve the right to call you a lying little shit.' If you step into a ring don't be surprised when you get punched, degenerate.



    Feel free not to respond to my rebuttal, in that case.
    I know it's kind of an old thread, but I'll post this article that proves my point exactly:
    Five days a week, you can tune into “Paternity Court,” a television show featuring couples embroiled in disputes over fatherhood. It’s entertainment with a very old theme: Uncertainty over paternity goes back a long way in literature. Even Shakespeare and Chaucer cracked wise about cuckolds, who were often depicted wearing horns.

    But in a number of recent studies, researchers have found that our obsession with cuckolded fathers is seriously overblown. A number of recent genetic studies challenge the notion that mistaken paternity is commonplace.

    “It’s absolutely ridiculous,” said Maarten H.D. Larmuseau, a geneticist at the University of Leuven in Belgium who has led much of this new research.

    The term cuckold traditionally refers to the husband of an adulteress, but Dr. Larmuseau and other researchers focus on those cases that produce a child, which scientists politely call “extra-pair paternity.”

    Until the 20th century, it was difficult to prove that a particular man was the biological father of a particular child.

    In 1304 a British husband went to court to dispute the paternity of his wife’s child, born while he was abroad for three years. Despite the obvious logistical challenges, the court rejected the husband’s objection.

    “The privity between a man and his wife cannot be known,” the judge ruled.

    Modern biology lifted the veil from this mystery, albeit slowly. In the early 1900s, researchers discovered that people have distinct blood types inherited from their parents.

    In a 1943 lawsuit, Charlie Chaplin relied on blood-type testing to prove that he was not the father of the actress Joan Barry’s child. (The court refused to accept the evidence and forced Chaplin to pay child support anyway.)

    It wasn’t until DNA sequencing emerged in the 1990s that paternity tests earned the legal system’s confidence. Labs were able to compare DNA markers in children to those of their purported fathers to see if they matched.

    As the lab tests piled up, researchers collated the results and came to a startling conclusion: Ten percent to 30 percent of the tested men were not the biological fathers of their children.

    Those figures were spread far and wide, ending up in many science books. But the problem with the lab data, Dr. Larmuseau said, was that it didn’t come from a random sample of people. The people who ordered the tests already had reason to doubt paternity.

    Dr. Larmuseau and other scientists developed other methods to get an unbiased look at cuckoldry.

    In a 2013 study, Dr. Larmuseau and his colleagues used Belgium’s detailed birth records to reconstruct large family genealogies reaching back four centuries. Then the scientists tracked down living male descendants and asked to sequence their Y chromosomes.

    Y chromosomes are passed down in almost identical form from fathers to sons. Men who are related to the same male ancestor should also share his Y chromosome, providing that some unknown father didn’t introduce his own Y somewhere along the way.

    Comparing the chromosomes of living related men, Dr. Larmuseau and his colleagues came up with a cuckoldry rate of less than 1 percent. Similar studies have generally produced the same low results in such countries as Spain, Italy and Germany, as well as agricultural villages in Mali.


    The scientists got the same results after trying a different tack. They studied men in Flanders, a part of Belgium to which French people emigrated in the late 1500s.

    The Y chromosomes in Flemish men with French surnames, the researchers found, had the same genetic markers found in men who live today in the region of France where their ancestors originated. Had there had been a lot of cuckoldry over the centuries, the link between genetics and surnames should have been weaker, or disappeared altogether.

    In a commentary in Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Dr. Larmuseau and his colleagues argue that it’s long past time to toss out frequent cuckoldry as a myth. Studies relying on different methods in different cultures all point to cuckoldry rates of about 1 percent.

    And because many of those studies are based on genealogies that reach back many generations, he argues, these rates must have been low for at least several centuries.

    Beverly I. Strassmann, a University of Michigan anthropologist who gathered the data on paternity rates in Mali, agreed that widespread cuckoldry “was an urban legend. It seemed to have a life of its own.”

    The evidence of low rates of cuckoldry comes not just from gene studies, she noted. In species where females mate with many males, the males tend to evolve sperm that are good at competing for fertilization. The males may produce large amounts of sperm, for example, and a high percentage swim well.

    Humans, however, don’t rate in the sperm department.

    “It’s of amazingly low quality,” Dr. Strassmann said. “Half the sperm can be duds; they can have two heads; they can be defective in all sorts of ways.”

    The only way for men to have evolved comparatively ineffectual sperm, she added, was for them to have experienced high rates of paternity over time.

    It’s not that widespread cuckoldry doesn’t exist in some cultures, Dr. Larmuseau said. Some South American tribes with high rates share a belief that more than one man can contribute to the formation of a fetus.

    But Dr. Larmuseau suspects that these populations are the exception, not the rule. Humans have evolved to avoid cuckoldry, he said, because of our peculiar biology.

    Human infants are born quite helpless, compared with the newborns of other animals, and they need a lot of food over a long period to fuel the growth of their calorie-hungry brains. Mothers needed fathers to help find the food.

    “Babies really need good investment from the fathers,” Dr. Larmuseau said, “and the paternity has to be very sure in order for them to make those investments.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/s...ists-find.html
    And a recent genetic study made by Dr. Maarten Larmuseau at KU Leuven in Belgium also confirms that Cuckoldry is pretty much an old age tale that is centuries old, and that the average rate of cuckoldry or as what scientists call "extra-pair paternity" is around between 3 to 1% only, and the old and previous studies that claim that the extra-pair paternity is over 30% is based on unreliable data as explained in the article above.

    In the 19th century, poorer families living in cities in Europe had a higher rate of children who weren’t biologically related to their legal fathers. This is according to a genetic study that looked at how this rate differs for different socio-economic groups.

    It is widely assumed many men aren’t the biological fathers of their children. The rate of extra-pair paternity, as this is called, has been claimed to be as high as 30 per cent today. “They look just like the milkman,” goes the popular joke that no parent finds funny.

    However, over the past two decades DNA studies in several countries have shown the average rate is low – around 1 per cent. Maarten Larmuseau at KU Leuven in Belgium, who authored one of these studies, wondered whether there was a difference between groups.

    He suspected, for example, that the rate was higher among aristocrats in the 17th century, as there was often a large age gap between husband and wife. Extra-pair paternity is depicted in the 1664 painting Celebrating the Birth by Jan Steen, which shows a wealthy Dutch father holding his newborn child. But behind him a man is making the sign of the “cuckold’s horns”, meaning the child was fathered by another.

    Cuckold’s horns
    Larmuseau’s team identified 500 pairs of men in Belgium and the Netherlands where, according to genealogical records, each pair descended from the same male ancestor through a male lineage. Half of these ancestors were born before 1840 and the oldest was from 1315.

    The men in each pair should have inherited their shared ancestor’s Y chromosome, as it comes from the father. When DNA testing revealed a mismatch, the team tested other male descendants to narrow down when a son had been fathered by someone other than the husband. All the men were volunteers and the team didn’t test close relatives to avoid uncovering recent cases.

    “What we found was completely the opposite to what we expected,” says Larmuseau.

    The rate of extra-pair paternity among farmers and more well-to-do craftsmen and merchants was about 1 per cent, rising to 4 per cent among labourers and weavers and nearing 6 per cent among working class people who lived in densely populated cities in the 19th century. This was in comparison to a rate of around 0.5 per cent among the more well-off.

    Read more: The dizzying diversity of human sexual strategies
    What the study cannot reveal is why people were more likely to be in this situation. “We cannot give an explanation,” Larmuseau says. “We cannot interview them.”

    One possibility is that poorer women in cities were more vulnerable to male sexual violence and exploitation.

    The overall rate was still low, at 1.6 per cent per generation. But that still means a very large number of people alive today may not be aware of their biological parentage. Larmuseau says 30 million people worldwide have done ancestry tests, which suggests up to 500,000 could have made a shocking discovery about their father. Companies offering these tests don’t provide any counselling, he says.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...-in-the-1800s/
    People who spew the idea that women should always be doubted until proof otherwise is what people who have deep hatred against women like to advocate for men to be.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Online
    01-06-2021 @ 03:29 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Semitic
    Ethnicity
    Levantine
    Country
    Palestine
    Y-DNA
    J2
    mtDNA
    U3
    Taxonomy
    Taurid
    Relationship Status
    In a relationship
    Gender
    Posts
    29,338
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 29,828
    Given: 24,541

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Longbowman View Post
    With all respect, this sentence would shame a toddler.



    Now, I am only 26, and as such not many of my peers have children (a handful do), but I cannot think of a single person I personally know or have heard of whom I know has experienced this. I assume they exist, but I do not know them or of them. Who knows, maybe every single one is illegitimate, but I have neither proof nor suspicion in any of the cases.

    Perhaps you just live in a particularly degenerate circle, but I doubt it.

    Either way your 'argument' is 'fuck stats' which is a very poor argument. My critique was of the evidence the original argument used, as stated in my conversation with Toppo. You have side-stepped this obvious dishonesty in OP to defend the overall point and critique my integrity, which in my eyes, only casts aspersions on your own dishonesty.



    In the UK it's pseudo-ironic slang for uneducated idiot, don't read into it too heavily.



    Right, here's where you 'earn' your thumbs down.

    1) Mary is a deluded psychopath, she does not need to be countered in the same way flat-earthers and children who aver the moon is made of cheese need to be countered. Engaging with her seriously validates her and her perspective. Ignore her.
    2) Porn is always degenerate regardless of the content. True, there are more degenerate things and less degenerate things, but the degeneracy is inherent to pornography.
    3) I, and the majority of people in the UK and the western world, do not enjoy looking at the majority of the women you post. If my memory serves me well, you like fat women.
    4) Do not tell me what I like. I will not tell you you like slender, toned women. I do not believe it is true, and I do not need to convince myself you do to validate my sexual preferences (probably because mine are conventional, unlike yours). Either way it is rude.



    Alright: nothing I have ever said here has revealed degeneracy on my part. You, on the other hand...



    I read maybe 5% of the posts here, probably a lot less. I never asked to be made moderator or admin. I don't mind it - change usernames, delete threads on request, mostly, but it wasn't a goal of mine. Also, when it happened, I was 20 and in university with a lot of spare time to kill.



    Your question was not innocent, you accused me of maliciously trying to engage in subterfuge for whatever gain. The verb you used was 'pretend,' which implicitly includes malice aforethought. You insulted me and my integrity. Don't play the ingenue, it doesn't suit you.

    Your post, in case you'd forgotten:



    Inb4 'but I honestly believe you are a lying little shit, therefore I reserve the right to call you a lying little shit.' If you step into a ring don't be surprised when you get punched, degenerate.



    Feel free not to respond to my rebuttal, in that case.
    Oh, and the guy's claims in the video that women are most likely to cheat on their partners which women prefer different sorts of men during different parts of their menstrual cycles is bogus according to this recent study:
    The idea that women are cyclical cuckolders bites the dust
    The attractiveness of men’s faces is not related to ovulation

    Science and technology
    May 10th 2018 edition
    May 10th 2018
    ONE of the more intriguing findings in the field of evolutionary psychology over the past two decades has been that ovulating women are more strongly attracted to men with faces that have pronounced masculine characteristics, such as wide jaws and heavy brows, than to men who do not have such traits. Other research suggests men with highly masculinised faces have strong immune systems, a desirable trait in children, but also tend to form weaker long-term bonds with romantic partners, and are thus more likely to desert and leave the mother, both literally and metaphorically, holding the baby. Logic therefore suggests that a woman’s ideal evolutionary strategy is to mate with such men in secrecy, while duping less masculine (but better bonded) males into believing that the resultant offspring are their own—thus garnering reliable help in raising them.

    Nearly a dozen experiments have yielded results which seem to confirm this theory, yet sceptics have criticised many of these studies as flawed. Some had small sample sizes (many with fewer than 40 participants), so their results are statistically dicey. Some determined ovulation dates by asking women to report when they last menstruated. These are problematic both because cycle lengths vary and because women are often unsure about when their last cycle concluded. Some measured women’s hormone levels only once, rather than several times, and then compared how different women at different stages of their cycles responded to faces, rather than comparing how the same women at different stages of their cycles responded.

    To try to settle the question once and for all, Benedict Jones of Glasgow University has run an extensive study that tries to eliminate these flaws. The result, as he reports in Psychological Science, is that he has found no compelling evidence that women prefer different sorts of men during different parts of their menstrual cycles.

    Dr Jones and his colleagues arranged for 584 heterosexual women who were having their menstrual cycles monitored to look at male faces that had either had their male features exaggerated or had had them minimised. This large number of participants meant that the issue of a small sample size yielding potentially unreliable results would be dealt with. To dispatch the problem of estimating women’s hormone levels from self-reporting their position in the menstrual cycle, Dr Jones arranged for all of the women to have their saliva sampled and analysed for hormones between two and 15 times during the experiment. To make sure he was comparing like with like, he had his participants come in for between two and 15 weekly test sessions, so that the same women’s preferences for masculine men at different points of their menstrual cycles could be compared directly.

    As for the revealing of the faces themselves, women were presented with a paragraph asking them to imagine they were looking either for the type of person who would be attractive to them in a short-term relationship, like a one-night stand, or a long-term relationship, such as marriage. They were then shown a pair of faces (one more masculine than the other) and asked to rate which was more attractive.

    All told, Dr Jones found that women’s masculinity-preference scores were not related to their reproductive cycle. Specifically, he and his colleagues could not find any statistically significant relationship between the levels of any hormones and preferences for more masculine faces. The idea that evolution encourages women to engage in cyclical cuckoldry was certainly an intriguing one. But, as Benjamin Franklin put it, one of the greatest tragedies in life is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal facts.
    https://www.economist.com/science-an...bites-the-dust

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-26-2019, 02:55 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-30-2019, 05:19 AM
  3. The Cuck Father Epidemic
    By The Lawspeaker in forum Gender Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2018, 05:06 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-18-2017, 09:30 PM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-26-2017, 08:03 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •