Genetic Studies Prove Cuckolded Fathers Are Rare In Human Populations 282
HughPickens.com writes: A common urban myth is that many fathers are cuckolded into raising children that genetically are not their own -- a fear fueled by the paternity tests that have become a standard staple of gossip magazines, talk shows, and TV series. Now, Carl Zimmer reports at the New York Times that our obsession with cuckolded fathers is seriously overblown as a number of recent genetic studies have challenged the notion that mistaken paternity is commonplace. 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: 10 percent to 30 percent of the tested men were not the biological fathers of their children. There's only one problem with these previous studies: the results didn't come from a random sample of people. The people who ordered the tests already had reason to doubt paternity.
In a 2013 study, Dr. Maarten H.D. Larmuseau 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 [chromosome] somewhere along the way. Comparing the chromosomes of living related men, Larmuseau 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 observed low EPP rates challenge the idea that women routinely 'shop around' for good genes by engaging in extra-pair copulations," concludes Larmuseau . "The (potential) genetic benefits of extra-pair children are unlikely to be offset by the (potential) costs of being caught, particularly in such a long-lived species as humans with heavy offspring dependence and massive parental investment."
In a 2013 study, Dr. Maarten H.D. Larmuseau 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 [chromosome] somewhere along the way. Comparing the chromosomes of living related men, Larmuseau 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 observed low EPP rates challenge the idea that women routinely 'shop around' for good genes by engaging in extra-pair copulations," concludes Larmuseau . "The (potential) genetic benefits of extra-pair children are unlikely to be offset by the (potential) costs of being caught, particularly in such a long-lived species as humans with heavy offspring dependence and massive parental investment."
No, they have second marriages instead (Score:5, Interesting)
They have kids with the high testosterone alpha males, and then some of them go on to do menial work, turn out to be aggressive, or they simply grow tired of each other after some years. But their first choice is usually some animalistic notion of "good genes".
And then later when they're older and wiser they marry the type of beta male they had friendzoned before, because they're more peaceful, less risk-taking and often smarter and more successul.
Read: Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors, by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.
Re: (Score:2)
And the general rule remains the same: In any group of people with about the same amount of sexually active males and females, the average number of heterosexual partners has to be the same for males and females. There is simply no point to play the blame game here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What can happen is that the balance between males and females itself is disturbed, for instance because of a war, where many males fighting as soldiers or warriors died, or because of a famines which seem to affect male children more than female children, or because you have a very troubled neighborhood with many males being prisoners and thus without any contact to women. And it can happen that there are a few entitled alph
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. But for some reason, there are not 50 men per woman in the world, the actual ratio is quite close to 1:1. So why do you ignore the 49 other women?
The ratio is not 1:1 in war-torn areas, and the GP did say "Africa".
(No axe, just saying that historically, the numbers of men:women were less than 1:1).
Re: (Score:2)
We were doing that merely 100 years ago during h firs World War. Asking our male kids to climb out of a trench to face certain slaughter, to the tune of millions.
Re: (Score:2)
Today, kids, we are going to learn the difference between the mean and the median...
Re: (Score:2)
Today, kids, we are going to learn the difference between the mean and the median...
The difference is only 1 (in the exponent).
Re: (Score:2)
the average number of heterosexual partners has to be the same for males and females.
The mean, yes, but not the median. In this case, the mean is worthless.
One man can impregnate 100 women whilst 99 men remain celibate. This produces a mean of 1 sex partner for men, but it clearly is not representative.
Re: (Score:2)
And have a much more vivid imagination.
Ah, the fantasies of the beta male.
Re: (Score:2)
they had friendzoned before
Fun fact: women don't put men in the friendzone, men put men in the friendzone[*].
Being friends with an awesome person is not a consolation prize. If you want to be a friend then actually stick around and BE a friend[+]. If you want an relationship instead of a friendship and she doesn't, well, then tough and now you have to go elsewhere, find other people to pork and don't hang out.
Or to rephrase (since Matrix symbology seems so popular in this sort of topic):
Do not try to escape
Re: (Score:2)
So you recommend both parties be honest about expectations and what is likely to happen in the future? Something like [dude bro]Hi, I am only being nice to you on the off chance you agree to copulation? [lady friend] I will probably never copulate with you, but will allow you to believe there's a slim chance so that you will help me move and fix my tech toys when they break. Is that what you think would be best, oh wise arc
Re: (Score:2)
So you recommend both parties be honest about expectations and what is likely to happen in the future?
If everyone was honest about everything then things would be great.
On the other hand no one has a duty to explain things to you. If the answer to the question "oi love, fancy a shag?" is "no"[*], then the person saying "no" does not have a duty to explain the "no"ness in any further detail.
Is that what you think would be best, oh wise architect?
Well, no because the two people are being asshats. Hanging arou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you recommend both parties be honest about expectations and what is likely to happen in the future? Something like [dude bro]Hi, I am only being nice to you on the off chance you agree to copulation? [lady friend] I will probably never copulate with you, but will allow you to believe there's a slim chance so that you will help me move and fix my tech toys when they break. Is that what you think would be best, oh wise architect?
No, just don't remain friends with shitty people who try to manipulate you using sex. And for your part, don't be a jerk who uses friendship as a pretext to try to sleep with someone. Also, many adult friendships involve a component of playful flirtation with no real sexual intentions implied. Learning to tell the difference between playful banter and real sexual overtures is just part of being a social human being. If this is too hard for you, then maybe forgo friendship with the opposite sex altogethe
True... (Score:4, Interesting)
Selection bias (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, selection bias: enabling people to convince themselves they are most definitely, unquestionably and unarguably right since the dawn of civilization.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:2)
It's all in the mouseover text, but we (should) know that here.
Was Rare (Score:2)
Tell that to Thea Queen! (Score:2)
Put it to rest (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets put this awkward question to rest and do a paternity test on children immediately after they're born. If the mother lies on the birth certificate saying that the father is so and so and the test says otherwise then the husband is free to leave the wife. While taking the majority of the resources (and house) if he so desires
The crime of paternity fraud is on the same level as violent rape and should be prosecuted as such. There is no greater shame than knowing that the child you've been raising isn't
Re:Put it to rest (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of at least three things that would bring me greater shame than knowing the child I've been raising isn't mine.
Who says it's about shame?
Somebody needs to explain (Score:3)
the radical difference between these results and bloodbank studies - which have universally agreed with the results from paternity tests despite having a random sampling.
It also does not factor in Kinsey's findings about adultery and child-conception which strongly supports the idea that most children conceived from affairs would be conceived with somebody closely related to the legal husband, that is to say, somebody likely to share his Y-chromosome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Somebody needs to explain (Score:2)
There is an entire chapter devoted to them in Science of discworld but I dont have a link handy.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine had a child with her neighbour. Her husband didn't know.
She didn't know until he was 14.
She figured it out when she learned about pregnancy complications due to blood type. The doctors didn't say a word about it despite her complex pregnancy and its impossibility with her husband.
Point is that it was common enough that the doctors didn't even feel the need to inform the mother.
Of course (Score:2)
The myth only had currency because it's "supposedly scientifically proven" result was so contrary to what one would guess at a gut level.
That, and it speaks directly to the deep-seated fear men have (since women started concealing estrus) of being cuckolded.
Cuckoldry vs mistaken paternity (Score:2)
Cuckoldry is not the same as mistaken paternity. Especially not now that birth control is common, but even in the past women had substantial control on what time of month they were unfaithful. The face that the mistaken paternity rate is only around 1% does not imply that cuckoldry is not *much* higher.
Also, the 1% result was for the average mistaken paternity rate per generation over the past 400 years or so. I wonder how it has changed over time?
Re: (Score:2)
Since the practice is named for the cuckoo bird, and the bird isn't having interspecies sex, but is tricking other birds into raising cuckoo offspring, I don't think we can say that children have nothing to do with it.
What's going on with these numbers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
::sigh:: I can answer my own question here. In the "results" section it gives, "rate of 0.91% (95% CI: 0.41-1.75%)." Note to submitter: this does not mean less than 1%. This means 1-2%, as given in the abstract. This is part of why abstracts exist - to give results in an unambiguous manner, so that they're not misinterpreted. Maybe it's not a big deal here, but it can be sometimes.
Wow, this much hubris and you don't understand confidence intervals worth shit. The most likely value is 0.91%, that is to say it's more likely <1% than >1%. With 95% confidence it's between 0.41% and 1.75%, so it's almost certainly below 2% but it may be as low as 0.5%
Apples to Oranges (Score:2)
The first study is studying modern day cuckolding.
This new one is very clearly studying cuckolding over the past 4 centuries.
These are not really the same thing. And the differing results are not mutually exclusive.
DNA testing (Score:2)
All these nerds fantasizing about banging the hot blonde MILF next door, and nobody points out that DNA sequencing was a labor-intensive, manual, thus *extremely* expensive process in 1970, and that technological growth [wikipedia.org] reduced the human labor required per sequencing, thus making DNA paternity testing a viable option after 1990 by reducing the number of wage-labor hours paid out per sequencing (cost, thus price)?
Stable relationships still an important value (Score:2)
Some ultra liberal people scoff at the idea that we should stick to certain core values in society. They even go so far as to question some pretty fundamentally held beliefs about murder and paedophilia.
I’m not one to dictate what people do. I think everything should be questioned, even if it’s “fundamentally held.” I don’t think that your values have to be “Christian.” (Christianity at large has some pretty messed up ideas.) And while I favor monogamy, in the
Re: (Score:2)
Who let David Brooks in here?
*Snip* *Snip* (Score:2)
A friend of mine was dating a woman who said to him one day, "I'm pregnant and it's yours." He said, "Yeah, well, I had a vasectomy years ago." And that was all she wrote.
Definition of "cuckoldry rate" (Score:2)
The various links seem to define cuckoldry as a father raising a child that isn't his, but the study is measuring children who have a father that don't have the expected father. Common sense tells me that's not the "cuckoldry rate." Fathers can have more than one child, but children can't have more than one father. I mean if 1 in 100 children have this unexpected paternity, if a father has three children, wouldn't it seem likely that he has about a 3% chance of being a cuckold? Maybe the false paternity ten
Re:Who cares if it ain't yours? (Score:5, Insightful)
While that is idealistic and noble you will find that the vast majority of people care very much so. The thought of raising someone else's child typically has associations of infidelity. Society in general is monogamous even if most humans do cheat on a partners at least once at some point in life.
Perhaps all genetics have "bugs" yours might not be worse than the unknown and there is an advantage of knowing about such "bugs". Even if yours are severe the adopted might be worse. No real guarantees.
I believe that from inception humans are born to compete. To be better. From the fertilization of an egg to achieving anything in life. Sure there is a lot of bias and corruption and some unworthy humans have a head start in a position of privilege that it seems plain unfair.
So most humans, as vessels for our genes are often very precious about us and what is our and of our own. The way you live, where you live, who your parents and grandparents are (genetically) shapes you as a person and your offspring.
There are particular sets of difficulties when a child is known to be of a different parent. From social stigma to tendencies to biological/genetic differences that one parent's ego can find extremely challenging.
While many women would choose to adopt, especially if they cannot have children of their own many men will give serious consideration to changing their to one that is fertile rather than adopt or at least have a surrogate mother as they want the child's gene to be of their own.
We are not in the group because we love the group. We are in the group because we love ourselves. The group helps protect us, has economies of scale and sense of community. We would save our children first and foremost.
While you may not care and I applaud you for the often believed enlightened position I care. I believe the vast majority of people care.
Re: (Score:3)
Adoption is a great example of a child having an upbringing that is likely superior to the one she would've had biologically, and it makes sense that a woman would seek the security of her best mating even after she was pregnant with the child of an inferior mate.
Most importantly, there are seven billion virtual copies of you and your gene set... your genetic outcome is not as special as your ps
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, when you look at it as a probability problem - the odds of somebody having exactly your DNA is on the order of a hundred trillion to one, considering only about a hundred billion people have ever lived - I must therefore conclude that it is unlikely to impossible for you to exist. Since the same math applies to all people, they must all be products of my fevered imagination and can therefore be safely ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
The unique traits that any single individual passes on are 50% diluted each successive generation, rendering them to hereditary noise within just a few hundred years. The general pool of humanity will produce a virtual double of you at regular intervals in case the environment calls f
Re: Who cares if it ain't yours? (Score:2)
When you are unable to ignore the products of your imagination ... is that not delusional ?
Re: Who cares if it ain't yours? (Score:4, Insightful)
The personal issue with being a cuckold is that child is not yours and could be taken away from you. Adoption, while not perfect, gives legal rights in the matter.
Re: (Score:3)
most humans do cheat on a partners at least once at some point in life
Cite?
Re:Who cares if it ain't yours? (Score:4, Insightful)
... your dna is broken.
Re: (Score:3)
Your DNA cares. You serve largely to pass it on, and if the kid isn't yours, and you pick up on the clues, you're probably hardwired to reject the little mite.
There is more to it, of course, but that would all seem to make sense from a DNA/evolution point of view.
Re: (Score:3)
In the grand scope of things, your DNA is basically diluted to nothing after a couple of generations.
The ideas and values you imprint on the kids you raise have a much greater chance of surviving and creating a legacy for you.
That's not to say that you should ever accept your spouse banging other people without your consent, but the DNA argument is somewhat flawed.
Re:Who cares if it ain't yours? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the grand scope of things, your DNA is basically diluted to nothing after a couple of generations.
The ideas and values you imprint on the kids you raise have a much greater chance of surviving and creating a legacy for you.
In the grand scope of things your ideas and values are also diluted to nothing in a few generations as well. The ideas and values of the society you live in probably have a much greater effect than you do on your great grand children and you can forget about much beyond that. But it doesn't really matter, unless you're someone especially famous (like king tut or a president), you'll be completely forgotten in about 5 generations and even if you are someone famous, you're still stuck on this little blue dot that is going nowhere fast and everything you are will disappear into nothingness and the universe doesn't care.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, of course. Heck, I don't even know the names of my great-great-grandparents, not to mention what they did in life or even where they lived. We pass down some information through the generations, but it gets severely diluted.
Of course, you can either see this as reason to be the best person that you can while you live, or as a reason to be a hedonistic self-centered shitlord. In a hundred years, all will be forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
In the grand scope of things, your DNA is basically diluted to nothing after a couple of generations.
Nope. I'm a guy. My Y chromosome is not going to get diluted to nothing after a few generations as long as those generations include males.
genes versus memes (Score:2)
yup.
it's the whole idea of Dawkins that we're slowly evolving from a situation were we animals are only vessels to help our DNA make sure there's more copy of it in the next generation,
to a situation where life helps evolve something much larger than the individuals: culture civilisation.
We evolved speech, we evolved passed knowledge (oral tradition and teaching).
We evolved writing, we evolved stored knowledge (litterature and reference).
We evolved communication, we evolved shared knowledge (internet and wh
Evolution in societies (Score:3)
There is more to it, of course, but that would all seem to make sense from a DNA/evolution point of view.
Yup, there IS more to this.
The thing is, we didn't evolve as loners.
We did evolve living in small packs/tribes of more or less related individuals. (Or extended families a little bit later in history).
That adds a lot of complexity to the scheme.
- That's why we evolved altruism (the individual you're helping is most likely to be from your tribe, and you're likely to be related to it. By being nice to people, you *are* actually helping passing around more copy of your genes (including the genes that shaped sa
Re:Who cares if it ain't yours? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have, so far, not rejected my adopted child.
And if your argument is that adoption vs cuckolding is different because of consent, your DNA is far smarter and more sentient than mine.
Metaphore (Score:2)
Actually, your DNA doesn't give a shit. It's an encoding of a bunch of molecules - don't think it cares too much about anything
Look up the word "metaphore" in wikipedia, it might help.
DNA has not high level volition on its own.
But group of gene which produce a trait or a behaviour that is more likely to help have more copies of the DNA in the next generation are, over time, more likely to proliferate in the general population.
(Darwinian genetics)
Metaphore... hmmm. (Score:2)
"Metaphore" is not in Wikipedia. I assume it is an agent or bearer of a specified thing that has self-referential characteristics. Is that what you meant to convey?
Inquiring minds want to know. Well, at least, one does. :)
Re: (Score:3)
The reward for 'successfully propagated genes, is a winner at evolution' is often pretty unimpressive from the perspective of the individual(in situations where dying horribly to save your children or other genetic kin is evolutionarily advantageous, often downright lousy); so 'yeah; but that's not an adaptive strategy!!' is largely irrelevant when choosing between plans. You'll be dead inside a century regardless of whether your genes f
Re: (Score:2)
Cost of kids (Score:2)
Well, for severely minimal standards of "raising", as in "I didn't let the kid starve or go naked", it might. Otherwise, it's absurdly optimistic. If you meant "at some time in the past", sure. But as of recently, today and into the future? No. And of course there are many indirect monetary costs as well; choices made because one has children, rather than in the direct raising of a specific child. These can range from the house you buy and where you live
Re: (Score:2)
I can only agree. We had to use donor sperm for my wife to get pregnant as my little swimmers are lazy bums. I must say there are quite a few defects in my body that I'm only too happy not to pass along.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand where this person is coming from. He is considering himself superior than other people, this is the quote from the same author:
I am the alpha male you dummy. It's OK if my wife carried, out of our 7 children, say 2 or 3 from other guys because I was too busy procreating 50 or more kids with other women.
Here is the link [slashdot.org] if you want to see his quote for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, if that's the way he thinks that's his prerogative. Personally, I look around and see a whole lot of average and only very few exceptional specimens. Without proper genetic manipulation, the mind yet triumphs over the body, value-wise.
Teaching objectiveness and proper thought processes is valuable no matter the genes the child carries. I would have adopted as well, only my wife wanted to experience pregnancy and there actually aren't that many adoptable children in this country it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
At what price? And anyway, that's not the point. I'm not saying I want the best. I'm saying I don't have a problem with not being the biological father, especially considering my known flaws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who cares if it ain't yours?
So you have no reservations about an alpha male copulating with a desirable female before you do, and then leaving you with the emotional and financial burden of his conquest (in the form of offspring)? I'm sure every guy who has ever ejaculated in a woman who wasn't his wife has at least once thought "This could cause complications.....but that's ok, some schmuck will come along and pick up the pieces." You're ok being that hypothetical schmuck?
That would be more accurate if you change the bolded parts to "Someone else's wife".
Re: (Score:3)
You and your personal DNA would seemingly benefit from disseminating that seed as often and as widely as possible. The clear winner? Children from good homes and stable situations.
There are billions of near copies. Any individual's DNA, lost forever to humanity, is not a tragedy... no matter our inflated self-worth.
Re:Who cares if it ain't yours? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah you're knocking women up and giving the an unwanted surprise, just because you are thinking 'my genes'. How nasty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the "alpha male" notion may be a bit simplistic, human groups do tend to fall into dominance hierarchies. We aren't chimps, but the way we organize our social groups isn't a hundred miles from how chimps function. Inevitably, all human organizations will follow similar patterns of leadership and deference, with one degree of competition or another from lower ranking individuals who think they deserve a spot at the big table, or even to be at the head of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about thinking deeply. FYI: thinking about sex is not the same as having sex, no matter how much or deeply you think about it.
Instinct or idiocy (Score:2)
To whatever extent that observation is true, instinct (or idiocy) is all it can be. Because children in no sense confer immortality. They, and their offspring, aren't you, won't act like you, and after just a couple of generations, subsequent offspring will pretty much forget you even existed, or even if they are vaguely aware of it, simply won't care.
There are many rewards that m
Re: (Score:2)
Even if your promiscuous-poor-people-and-negroids theory pans out; it only implies an increase in cuckoldry if that promiscuity leads to incorrect assignments of paternity and paternal obligation. You could be so enthusiastically promiscuous that even your heterozygotic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
earning potential
That is not a genetic trait but education and skills.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand the entire "alpha male" thing, I spent my summers working on a farm or in a metal shop so physically I was stronger and faster than many of the so called jocks. I even played football, basketball, and ran track for a season when I was in school. I was never really considered a geek or a nerd although I certainly had the grades, and didn't enjoy sports. I'm nonviolent in general but am only a push over so far, I've been in a bar room brawl before.
The supposed "alpha male" is usually just a
Re: (Score:2)
I think this kind of laws cause a much bigger issue with alimony than cheating.
Basically on a country where paternity test is banned, any woman can just go and claim that have a kid with some target and take the alimony with no contesting whatsoever because it's illegal to prove otherwise.
Re:This must be why paternity tests are illegal (Score:5, Informative)
The posting was misleading. Paternity testing is not illegal in France, but it's regulated and needs either the consent of both (presumed) parents or a court order (which seems to be the same as where I am, in the UK). If there's a dispute over child support payments then a court order would be the way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
The posting was misleading. Paternity testing is not illegal in France, but it's regulated and needs either the consent of both (presumed) parents or a court order (which seems to be the same as where I am, in the UK). If there's a dispute over child support payments then a court order would be the way to go.
I might be wrong, but the info I got was that once someone signs up as the father when the child is born (in or out of wedlock), then that man is on the hook regardless of what any paternity test says.
This sort of [wikipedia.org] supports my belief - "This is partially due to the official desire to "preserve the peace" within French families, with the French government citing psychologists who state that fatherhood is determined by society, rather than biology. "
So, yeah - no point in paternity testing if you're still o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I always wondered about that. I would have thought that the "right to a family" life in the ECHR would trump that French law.
That said I think the French law is the exception rather than the rule in Europe.
Re:This must be why paternity tests are illegal (Score:5, Informative)
That is incorrect. Paternity testing is legal in France. Permission must be obtained from the person being tested (or their parent in the case of a child), or it can be forced via court order. So the only real difference is that you can't legally just grab some hair follicle off your partner's hairbrush and get them tested without their knowledge or consent.
Re: (Score:2)
That is incorrect. Paternity testing is legal in France.
It's legal but ignored - at birth, whichever man signs the form that says he is the father is on the hook for child support even if paternity testing later reveals he is a cuckold. So, the sane thing to do in France is to contest every birth.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a reference for that? I couldn't find anything, but then again I don't speak much French so it's hard to search.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a reference for that? I couldn't find anything, but then again I don't speak much French so it's hard to search.
It's hard to find a non-french reference, but here's a pretty detailed english explanation of *all* a child's paternal rights (not just the bit you wanted to know) - see link [reddit.com]. Note that the link itself has a link to the original french document, but you'll have to use google translate on it.
Wikipedia also says "This is partially due to the official desire to "preserve the peace" within French families, with the French government citing psychologists who state that fatherhood is determined by society, rat
Re: (Score:2)
The link doesn't support your assertion. It says something quite different.
If marries, the husband is by default considered the father but can ask his wife to agree to a paternity test, and if she refuses get a court to order one, and absolve himself of all responsibility. The only contentious parts are that he can't simply take his wife's hairbrush and order the test himself without her permission or a court order, and that in some cases if a considerable amount of time has passed the interests of the chil
Re: (Score:2)
The link doesn't support your assertion.
Well, it was not a blanket assertion - see here [slashdot.org] where I hedged my bets with "I might be wrong".
in some cases if a considerable amount of time has passed the interests of the child might take precedence.
That bit is why I said "So, the sane thing to do in France is to contest every birth."
Can you explain why it's unfair?
I never said it was. I said the best (legal) option is to simply contest paternity of every child. The best (non-legal) option would be to simply order the home-test kit, do the test secretly and only contest if the home-test gives you reason to believe that you might not be the father.
Re: (Score:2)
I see. Well, that's hardly an unusual position, legally speaking. In most cases contesting something earlier gives you a better chance of prevailing. The longer after the fact the harder it is to overturn the status quo. Most civil law works that way, everything from pure business contracts to consumer law to financial rules.
So how would you propose changing the law to make this better? Allow secret paternity testing? European lawmakers are not keen on allowing any kind of secret genetic testing.
Re: (Score:2)
So how would you propose changing the law to make this better?
I do not propose to change it (meaning, paternity testing laws). Any replacement would probably be much worse than the current set of laws. The best option is what I stated above - secretly test, and test again, and then only when you're sure you dispute paternity and/or file for divorce (if married).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"In many European countries, paternity tests are illegal"
That is what is technically known as bollocks.
Re:This must be why paternity tests are illegal (Score:2)
Left unsaid is why a woman would do this to the man she loves.
Well, given that the test says that on the whole women don't in fact tend to do that, why would they need to say anything about it?
The whole thing is baffling to educated people.
Not really. It's baffling to people who don't have that kind of sex drive perhaps, but plenty of educated people cheat. In quite a lot of ways, humans are not built to be monomagous. Many societies expect people to vully monomagous. These things clash and the results are
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that the test says that on the whole women don't in fact tend to do that, why would they need to say anything about it?
TFA didn't say that: it said that, over the last 400 years women didn't do that. TFA didn't give any numbers for the present (say, 20 years or so? Single generation?).
In quite a lot of ways, humans are not built to be monomagous. Many societies expect people to vully monomagous. These things clash and the results are, well, predictable.
Humans generally do serial monogamy. However it is only recently that societies stopped punishing infidelity, so who knows what the current state of cuckoldry looks like. This study certainly didn't release the numbers (if it did, I missed 'em). For the majority of the previous 400 years infidelity on the part of the female was punished.
Re: (Score:3)
Humans generally do serial monogamy.
Not entirely clear. I mean we certainly do to some extent, but the penis is kind of shaped like a cylindrical squeegee making it somewhat effective at removing other men's sperm, so it appears that non manogamy is in our very recent evolutionary history.
However it is only recently that societies stopped punishing infidelity
There's a reasonably good chance that from an evoloutionary point of view that it's only recently that it started being punished.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, it seems you are confusing actual cuckoldry, and suspected cuckoldry. The stated point of those laws is to address complications from the latter, not the former.
As for my country's stance on those tests, it stems more from a rejection of genetic testing in general as an invasion of privacy, than specifically paternity issues. For instance, it's widely believed in France that 23andme's services are illegal (even though they're not). Th
Re: (Score:2)
It's not true. Paternity testing is legal in France, but it's regulated. What the linked article described as inconceivable in France was a mobile testing van that does the tests without either the mother's permission or a court order.
Re: (Score:2)
If they'd posted a link to something in English, more people would have realised that the article doesn't support their (incorrect) claim, and where's the fun in that?