FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Paternity Fraud
Paternity Fraud
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he? "By a friend of a friend who knows a guy who know someone whom it hapenned. | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he?
By a friend of a friend who knows a guy who know someone whom it hapenned. "Oh and he had 999,999 friends of yet more friends?  | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he? "It sounds a bit high, most estimates are 5-7% of kids are not raised by their biological father | |||
 | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he? "I always wonder that If the child and the man does not know the women's hardly telling everybody so what as they basing these figures on | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he?
By a friend of a friend who knows a guy who know someone whom it hapenned.
Oh and he had 999,999 friends of yet more friends? "Maybe it's like a pyramid sales scheme?  | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he?
By a friend of a friend who knows a guy who know someone whom it hapenned.
Oh and he had 999,999 friends of yet more friends?
Maybe it's like a pyramid sales scheme? "Maybe he runs one of those DNA testing labs where you can carry out those home-test kits and is trying to whip up a bit of trade with a made-up statistic.... 
What's that Sooty? It says in the OP he runs a DNA testing lab? Who'd've thought...
Mr ddc | |||
| |||
| |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he?
It sounds a bit high, most estimates are 5-7% of kids are not raised by their biological father "5-7% of kids nationally would not be far off a million. Apparently the percentage is higher in the poorer social economic groups. | |||
| |||
"Americans do not understand that even DNA cannot prove paternity 100% there is always, even with the latest developments of DNA some doubt. DNA can however prove a man is not the father of a child. Even that may be disputed as it is possible for a person to be born with two different DNA profiles in them and a sample from blood may differ from a saliva sample etc. " Do you have any idea how rare individuals with Chimera DNA are? As far as I know, only two cases have ever been discovered through DNA testing. | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he?
It sounds a bit high, most estimates are 5-7% of kids are not raised by their biological father
5-7% of kids nationally would not be far off a million. Apparently the percentage is higher in the poorer social economic groups."Seems to be about 50% in the Jeremy Kyle socio economic group... | |||
| |||
"Slightly off topic, however, should paternity testing be more routine? Should 'fathers' be made to pay for children that aren't their when they are then victims of fraud? " You mean every father and baby tested? I think that would open up many cans of worms. | |||
| |||
" You can say ignorance is bliss, however, it's a disaster for a man to raise and provide for another man's genes. Not to mention the character of the women involved." A child is a lot than a set of genes and it isn't a disaster to provide for one that isn't biologically yours. Most adoptions are very successful. What is a personal trajedy is the deception aspect which is considered, by law, to be less evil than a child growing up without enough financial support. The solution is simple, become a better judge of character. Whilst the story about the 1 in 4 kids being his isn't nice, what evidence is there that he was a particularly good partner to her? The truth is that a lot of people have flat out dysfunctional relationships that aren't good environments for children at all, irrelevant of who the biological father is. | |||
| |||
"Adoption is different, the raising of the non-biological offspring is knowing and consensual. As for the man perhaps not being a good 'husband' what exactly are you getting at there? How bad did he need to be for his 'loyal' and 'loving' wife to fuck three other men, unprotected, get pregnant by them, pass the kids off as kids and get him to pay for their upbringing? The word 'disaster' in terms of raising another mans 'genes' was pinched from Dr Robert Winston. In Mother Nature terms raising another mans genes is a disaster. For natural selection to function properly this should not happen. " You assume that every relationship is the same, that men are always the breadwinner and he didn't know his wife was having sex with other men. Loyal and loving wives have sex with other men every day (you're on a swingers site)and sometimes bare back. Clearly he didn't know the children weren't his maybe she didn't either. Its likely since swinging isn't the norm that he didn't know of her infidelity but not impossible that he did. I | |||
| |||
"Adoption is different, the raising of the non-biological offspring is knowing and consensual. As for the man perhaps not being a good 'husband' what exactly are you getting at there? How bad did he need to be for his 'loyal' and 'loving' wife to fuck three other men, unprotected, get pregnant by them, pass the kids off as kids and get him to pay for their upbringing? The word 'disaster' in terms of raising another mans 'genes' was pinched from Dr Robert Winston. In Mother Nature terms raising another mans genes is a disaster. For natural selection to function properly this should not happen. " In survival of the fittest the law is a disaster for the strong! She sounds like a disaster of a wife but that doesn't mean he was a good husband! Normally it's a mutually bad performance. How bad did he need to be? -Some men beat their wives, -Some men knock up women that aren't their wives, -Some men would rather drink and do drugs than spend time with their children. I've voluntarily raised another man's child for a number of years, it didn't bother me one bit that he wasn't biologically mine because you love the child not the child's genes. | |||
"Adoption is different, the raising of the non-biological offspring is knowing and consensual. As for the man perhaps not being a good 'husband' what exactly are you getting at there? How bad did he need to be for his 'loyal' and 'loving' wife to fuck three other men, unprotected, get pregnant by them, pass the kids off as kids and get him to pay for their upbringing? The word 'disaster' in terms of raising another mans 'genes' was pinched from Dr Robert Winston. In Mother Nature terms raising another mans genes is a disaster. For natural selection to function properly this should not happen. In survival of the fittest the law is a disaster for the strong! She sounds like a disaster of a wife but that doesn't mean he was a good husband! Normally it's a mutually bad performance. How bad did he need to be? -Some men beat their wives, -Some men knock up women that aren't their wives, -Some men would rather drink and do drugs than spend time with their children. I've voluntarily raised another man's child for a number of years, it didn't bother me one bit that he wasn't biologically mine because you love the child not the child's genes. " Would you feel the same if you had been deceived though? Thing is it is not the childs fault and it would be terrible for them to sufer. | |||
"Adoption is different, the raising of the non-biological offspring is knowing and consensual. As for the man perhaps not being a good 'husband' what exactly are you getting at there? How bad did he need to be for his 'loyal' and 'loving' wife to fuck three other men, unprotected, get pregnant by them, pass the kids off as kids and get him to pay for their upbringing? The word 'disaster' in terms of raising another mans 'genes' was pinched from Dr Robert Winston. In Mother Nature terms raising another mans genes is a disaster. For natural selection to function properly this should not happen. In survival of the fittest the law is a disaster for the strong! She sounds like a disaster of a wife but that doesn't mean he was a good husband! Normally it's a mutually bad performance. How bad did he need to be? -Some men beat their wives, -Some men knock up women that aren't their wives, -Some men would rather drink and do drugs than spend time with their children. I've voluntarily raised another man's child for a number of years, it didn't bother me one bit that he wasn't biologically mine because you love the child not the child's genes. Would you feel the same if you had been deceived though? Thing is it is not the childs fault and it would be terrible for them to sufer." Would I be pissed off - yes, especially since I don't beat, cheat or neglect my wife. If I did, I might start looking in the mirror before wondering why she went running to someone else. If I had a relationship with the child then I'd want to continue it. I do feel sorry for some of the men in the aforementioned stories because one of them had never even seen the child, which is bizzare. | |||
| |||
"Adoption is different, the raising of the non-biological offspring is knowing and consensual. As for the man perhaps not being a good 'husband' what exactly are you getting at there? How bad did he need to be for his 'loyal' and 'loving' wife to fuck three other men, unprotected, get pregnant by them, pass the kids off as kids and get him to pay for their upbringing? The word 'disaster' in terms of raising another mans 'genes' was pinched from Dr Robert Winston. In Mother Nature terms raising another mans genes is a disaster. For natural selection to function properly this should not happen. You assume that every relationship is the same, that men are always the breadwinner and he didn't know his wife was having sex with other men. Loyal and loving wives have sex with other men every day (you're on a swingers site)and sometimes bare back. Clearly he didn't know the children weren't his maybe she didn't either. Its likely since swinging isn't the norm that he didn't know of her infidelity but not impossible that he did. I " Having watched the documentary, he was the breadwinner and they weren't some weird on the fringe cult where he said "hey honey, sure, you go out and get yourself knocked up to your hearts content and yeah, I'll pay for it." They were not swingers either. In fact, if they were, her 'urges' would have probably been satisfied in a context that would not have led to three pregnancies. When it comes to 'sanctioned infidelity' or swinging, I think there is more responsibility. | |||
| |||
| |||
"So, you find out that a child you have raised and provided for isn't yours. There's the deceit of the affair, the extra marital unprotected sex. And then there's the deceit where some of your resources are used to provide for another man's offspring. So, one of the first things you'd do is look in the mirror and see what was wrong with you that could possibly justify why she did what she did? "I've voluntarily raised another man's child for a number of years, it didn't bother me one bit that he wasn't biologically mine because you love the child not the child's genes." To an extent yes, but you love your OWN genetic offspring more - mother nature just makes us that way. With your own children you see yourself in them. Physically and in character terms. It is different." Speaking from experience or theory? There aren't degrees of paternal love, you either accept the child or you don't. If you live in a house with one child that is yours and one that isn't, you don't sit there and say, hmmm I'll give child 1 80% of the love I give child 2 because child 1 isn't actually mine. If anything you usually over compensate for the knowledge and treat child 1 ultra fairly. If your relationship is so shitty that your wife or partner has cheated three times to the extent that she's actually gotten pregnant whilst cheating then yeah that would make a reasonable person question if they were really all that awesome to be with. Look some women are just nasty but if we're throwing around figures of 10% of pregnancies then there just aren't that many thoroughly horrible women out there to make up those numbers. A significant proportion have gotten themselves into that situation because they are very unhappy in their main relationship and that takes two people. I'm not justifying what they've done but I'm just curious what else it correlates with. My guess is that shitty wives correlate nicely with shitty husbands. | |||
| |||
"The first thing this guy knew about his relationship being 'shitty' was when the paternity tests came back. He held down a good job and was a good provider. In the clips shown there were plenty of pics of them all on holidays and such like with smiling faces. What she did was just wrong and quite evil. Self reflecting to justify or explain why someone crapped on you from a great height is pretty pointless. I disagree, there are degrees of parental love. You love your own biological offspring more than someone else's. If you have to 'overcompensate' as you put it to ensure 'fairness' then those feelings can't be that genuine. Accepting a child that comes as a package with with someone you want to be with is different from raising your own with that same person. Especially when you bear in mind that they will be at least past the toddler stage when you get together, depending on where you are in life generally." Anyone reading your last paragraph with experience will see the flaws in your logic. You're just not understanding the compensation comments, it's no different to having two children of your own and making a big effort to treat them equally so they don't perceive you to have a favourite. Look, 1% of the population are psychopaths and let's throw in another 1% for the habitual liars. Maybe that guy was just unlucky but there's no way you get up to 10% without including the guys who are just gullible / stupid / in denial / not a good husbands. | |||
| |||
""Anyone reading your last paragraph with experience will see the flaws in your logic. You're just not understanding the compensation comments, it's no different to having two children of your own and making a big effort to treat them equally so they don't perceive you to have a favourite." Yes, it's very different. The two children are your own, so why would you teat them differently anyway? Why compensate for what does not need compensating for? It's not so much about logic, rather more to do with feelings and emotions primarily caused (especially in the female case) with the secretion of oxytocin - otherwise known as the bonding hormone. I stand by my point, you love and bond with your own kids more than you ever can with someone else's. We will have to agree to disagree on this since we will go round in circles. What I won't do it tell YOU what people with 'experience' may or may not make of what you post - bit patronising really. "Look, 1% of the population are psychopaths and let's throw in another 1% for the habitual liars. Maybe that guy was just unlucky but there's no way you get up to 10% without including the guys who are just gullible / stupid / in denial / not a good husbands." Can you clarify this for me, are you saying that it's okay that the women did what they did if the guys fall into these categories? My main initial point is that paternity testing should be very readily available so that fathers that are the victims of fraud a. know about it and b. have possible recourse through the courts if they have paid maintenance for offspring that are not theirs." Yes I can clarify that it's not ok, just like I said earlier "I'm not justifying it". But the obvious implication of headlines like 1,000,000 bastard children is 'DANGER this could happen to you' and I'm giving lots of statistical reasons why it's not so likely if you aren't a shit partner to be with. I have no objection to people getting paternity tests if they want to, I'm just pointing out that it's better not to get yourself in that situation to start with. I didn't think that would be so contentious. It's not something I'm going to add to my worry list tomorrow. | |||
"You have unprotected sex with someone; they get pregnant; you cough up or demand a paternity test right away? When men realise that the safest way to prevent this is to wear a condom, they won't have to be subject to such bribery... Whilst I do not condone the fraudulent actions of some, people really need to start taking responsibility for their actions... ...this entire country seems composed of people with the inability to admit that they are wrong, they made a mistake, that they are culpable, that the circumstances of their life are due to their actions.... ...everyone seems to have someone to put the blame on (the system, their partner, their family, their school, whatever....) Its time people stood up and took responsibility. If a paternity test is demanded, it should be at the cost of the one contesting paternity and not the fucking tax-payer.... phew that was a weird rant...." Well said.  | |||
"You have unprotected sex with someone; they get pregnant; you cough up or demand a paternity test right away? When men realise that the safest way to prevent this is to wear a condom, they won't have to be subject to such bribery... Whilst I do not condone the fraudulent actions of some, people really need to start taking responsibility for their actions... ...this entire country seems composed of people with the inability to admit that they are wrong, they made a mistake, that they are culpable, that the circumstances of their life are due to their actions.... ...everyone seems to have someone to put the blame on (the system, their partner, their family, their school, whatever....) Its time people stood up and took responsibility. If a paternity test is demanded, it should be at the cost of the one contesting paternity and not the fucking tax-payer.... phew that was a weird rant...." This | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he? "He watched 2 episodes of Jeremy Kyle and multiplied up from there  | |||
| |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. " Have you not seen Jeremy kyle?? 9/10 woman say they 100% sure they know baby is theirs and 8 of them are nor x | |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. " If I go into a pub and demand a pint but refuse to pay then I don't get the pint. Same principle should apply. | |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. If I go into a pub and demand a pint but refuse to pay then I don't get the pint. Same principle should apply." haha i like it | |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. " Sounds a lot like two people that shouldn't be having children together in the first case. | |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. Sounds a lot like two people that shouldn't be having children together in the first case. " They should pay 50/50 coz she will want money off him more then likely x | |||
"Slightly off topic, however, should paternity testing be more routine? Should 'fathers' be made to pay for children that aren't their when they are then victims of fraud? You mean every father and baby tested? I think that would open up many cans of worms." Just to trigger some challenging thinking and not in any way meant nastily as this is a very tricky subject, but would you say the same thing in an analogous situation for the women? Say that at the hospital all the babies were shuffled, so there was a 5-7% chance that the baby that Mum went home with was not her child, but the hospital insisted it was? Would you insist on a test or would that be opening up too many cans of worms? | |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. Sounds a lot like two people that shouldn't be having children together in the first case. They should pay 50/50 coz she will want money off him more then likely x" its not all about the money.. | |||
| |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. Sounds a lot like two people that shouldn't be having children together in the first case. They should pay 50/50 coz she will want money off him more then likely x its not all about the money.. "
Let's all remember there is a child involved.
What must it feel like to know that your Mum might have cheated on your 'Dad', potentially lied about it and committed fraud, and now you Dad is threatening to sue because he doesn't want to have anything to do with the cost of bringing you up. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. Sounds a lot like two people that shouldn't be having children together in the first case. They should pay 50/50 coz she will want money off him more then likely x its not all about the money..
Let's all remember there is a child involved.
What must it feel like to know that your Mum might have cheated on your 'Dad', potentially lied about it and committed fraud, and now you Dad is threatening to sue because he doesn't want to have anything to do with the cost of bringing you up."Oh yes, as long as the poor deceived man keeps paying up that's okay then. | |||
| |||
"Not that this has ever affected me personally but if there was a potential massive saving involved, I would consider paying for a paternity test a possible great investment. Nearly 18 years of possible maintenance or forking out for a test. If your suspicions are realised then you're much better off." There is a much easier solution you know... | |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. Sounds a lot like two people that shouldn't be having children together in the first case. They should pay 50/50 coz she will want money off him more then likely x its not all about the money..
Let's all remember there is a child involved.
What must it feel like to know that your Mum might have cheated on your 'Dad', potentially lied about it and committed fraud, and now you Dad is threatening to sue because he doesn't want to have anything to do with the cost of bringing you up.
Oh yes, as long as the poor deceived man keeps paying up that's okay then. "to elaborate, guess i aske the question from expereince.. im 100% sure my child is his, but he refused anything to do with her until i proved he was the father. I dont see why i should have to pay to proove something i already knew.. and no its never been about CSA.. i just wanted my child to have a father figure. 6 years on thankfully he's come to his senses and they are slowing building a relationship. I still do not recieve a penny from him | |||
| |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. Sounds a lot like two people that shouldn't be having children together in the first case. They should pay 50/50 coz she will want money off him more then likely x its not all about the money..
Let's all remember there is a child involved.
What must it feel like to know that your Mum might have cheated on your 'Dad', potentially lied about it and committed fraud, and now you Dad is threatening to sue because he doesn't want to have anything to do with the cost of bringing you up.
Oh yes, as long as the poor deceived man keeps paying up that's okay then.
to elaborate, guess i aske the question from expereince..
im 100% sure my child is his, but he refused anything to do with her until i proved he was the father.
I dont see why i should have to pay to proove something i already knew..
and no its never been about CSA.. i just wanted my child to have a father figure. 6 years on thankfully he's come to his senses and they are slowing building a relationship. I still do not recieve a penny from him "I agree, you should not have had to pay. However, due to the testing the matter is now settled. If he had doubts then he can no longer. The future for them looks better. | |||
| |||
"And that is? " Just make sure your wife only fucks you and black men. Problem solved. | |||
"I remember when I was a kid my mum saying that two women down our road had babys by other men, and someone I knows last kid looks completely different to her other two and is more intelligent. " My children all have the same father and the youngest is totally different in looks to the other two. Perhaps people should refrain from idle gossip. | |||
"I remember when I was a kid my mum saying that two women down our road had babys by other men, and someone I knows last kid looks completely different to her other two and is more intelligent. My children all have the same father and the youngest is totally different in looks to the other two. Perhaps people should refrain from idle gossip." well, people are bound to notice these things. | |||
"I remember when I was a kid my mum saying that two women down our road had babys by other men, and someone I knows last kid looks completely different to her other two and is more intelligent. My children all have the same father and the youngest is totally different in looks to the other two. Perhaps people should refrain from idle gossip. well, people are bound to notice these things." And it gives them the right to spread rumours that could destroy the lives of innocent kids? | |||
"I remember when I was a kid my mum saying that two women down our road had babys by other men, and someone I knows last kid looks completely different to her other two and is more intelligent. My children all have the same father and the youngest is totally different in looks to the other two. Perhaps people should refrain from idle gossip. well, people are bound to notice these things. And it gives them the right to spread rumours that could destroy the lives of innocent kids? " I don't remember telling anyone except my husband. | |||
| |||
"What about those fathers who demand DNA but refuse to pay for it? When the mother is 100% sure its his.. Sounds a lot like two people that shouldn't be having children together in the first case. They should pay 50/50 coz she will want money off him more then likely x its not all about the money..
Let's all remember there is a child involved.
What must it feel like to know that your Mum might have cheated on your 'Dad', potentially lied about it and committed fraud, and now you Dad is threatening to sue because he doesn't want to have anything to do with the cost of bringing you up.
Oh yes, as long as the poor deceived man keeps paying up that's okay then. "As Clive James once said, no amount of careful writing will overcome careless reading. | |||
"I have been bringing up two children (the youngest two) who are not biologicaly mine. They are now 16 and 11 years old. I feel no different towards them than the others. Being a parent isn't about making someone pregnant, it's about much much more. Once you have ebonded with a child it is for life, no matter who ''donated'' the sperm." I believe the difference here is between informed choice and being deceived by someone who claims to love you, in a way that utterly changes your life. | |||
| |||
"And that is? Just make sure your wife only fucks you and black men. Problem solved. " | |||
"Both are the product of extramarital affairs. She is now an ex but i still consider the boys my children." Because you recognise that children are young people that just want to be loved and not status symbols, trophies or objects to relive your own childhood through. | |||
"Both are the product of extramarital affairs. She is now an ex but i still consider the boys my children." As they are, there is more to being a father than sperm donation, however, that doesn't alter the huge wrong done to you by your ex. | |||
| |||
"Americans do not understand that even DNA cannot prove paternity 100% there is always, even with the latest developments of DNA some doubt. DNA can however prove a man is not the father of a child. Even that may be disputed as it is possible for a person to be born with two different DNA profiles in them and a sample from blood may differ from a saliva sample etc. Do you have any idea how rare individuals with Chimera DNA are? As far as I know, only two cases have ever been discovered through DNA testing. " Yes even though there are two distinct types of chimmerism the have been around been thirty to forty cases of human chimerism documented since 2003. This is believed to be only a tiny proportion of the true numbers as no deep research has gone in to the subject. | |||
"I used to work in a genetics research lab. We were trying to find the genes that caused certain medical conditions. We would analyse DNA from both parents and the child, to look for the genes inherited that could carry the condition. I only did the lab work, not the statistics on the results. But my boss (who's job it was to do the statistical analysis) told me they would always get the mum on their own and ask confidentially if the child was truly the dad's biological offspring. If they said no, we would remove their results from the study, but not tell the father. However my boss still had to factor in a certain % that would lie about paternity, or women who simply didn't know the dad wasn't the father! I can't remember the % now but it was high enough that I was shocked at the time. From memory, it was higher than the 5% quoted here!" | |||
| |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he?
It sounds a bit high, most estimates are 5-7% of kids are not raised by their biological father "So if 14 million kids in country then 1 million not got their own dad...seems about right then? | |||
"I used to work in a genetics research lab. We were trying to find the genes that caused certain medical conditions. We would analyse DNA from both parents and the child, to look for the genes inherited that could carry the condition. I only did the lab work, not the statistics on the results. But my boss (who's job it was to do the statistical analysis) told me they would always get the mum on their own and ask confidentially if the child was truly the dad's biological offspring. If they said no, we would remove their results from the study, but not tell the father. However my boss still had to factor in a certain % that would lie about paternity, or women who simply didn't know the dad wasn't the father! I can't remember the % now but it was high enough that I was shocked at the time. From memory, it was higher than the 5% quoted here!" I read a book written in the 1980s which amongst other other details stated along the following lines. At the height of the UK AIDs epidemic. A hospital carried out the following survey. When a pregnant mother or mother with a new born child was admitted for Aids testing they also tested the male partner. They found that 1 in 5 children's DNA did not match the nominated father's. The study was stopped and not rolled out. | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he?
It sounds a bit high, most estimates are 5-7% of kids are not raised by their biological father
So if 14 million kids in country then 1 million not got their own dad...seems about right then?"If he's defining kids as anyone under 18 then yeah | |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he? "Because he doesn't know which kids are the 1m, he just knows there would be that many based on the prevalence | |||
| |||
"Most people involved in the 'testing' process, or some other medical process where paternity issues were looked at, were shocked by the prevalence of female 'cheating'. What is worse is that they then try and pass the offspring off as belonging to the husband/long term partner with a view to gaining access to the resources he is providing and will continue to provide thinking all the kids are his. There aren't many deceptions worse than this. My main point on this is that fathers have a right to know whose kids are theirs, and which ones are someone else's. The kids also have a right to know that their biological parent is out there. Interestingly, some animal biologists have studied the female ovulation cycle and these 'offences' appear to be committed at the time when women are most fertile. Their hormone system causes them to seek and respond to males with Alpha characteristics, or, strong genes, which is what women normally seek - these preferences are driven by the 'lizard brain' or that section of the brain that governs life sustaining functions. So, when in this zone, the woman will respond to men with characteristics mother nature has told them are desirable in a partner. Attraction is not a choice here. Women seek strong male genes and then resources. Men seek youth and fertility." There is no section of the brain that does this or that. It's a common myth perpetuated by people that don't understand neurobiology, at best some sections are more dominant with certain types of thought. There's also no such thing as 'women' do this or 'men' so this. There are just biases and these have a standard deviation which you need to understand. Attraction is always a choice because we have a conscious and sub-conscious brain. Everything you've said in this entire thread is flawed by the fact that you don't seem to recognise the conscious has the ability to overrule the sub-conscious which is responsible for the biases you are talking about. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Disagree, there is a preponderance to types of behaviour based on gender. Yes, the are exceptions to every rule, but that does not mean that the rule does not generally apply. Fab is a classic example. When to comes to the reproductive act, women have to be far more selective and choosy since they are have a nine month pregnancy to consider and are the primary carer. Men, on the other hand, need to spread their genes as far and wide as possible. That is why, on FAB, the ratio of single guys to couples is huge and single females are the smallest group on here, numerically speaking, by a mile! Broadly speaking, men and women have different attitudes to sex. There was a great hidden camera experiment undertaken on a University Campus where and attractive male and an attractive female had a script where they approached members of the opposite sex and asked for sex. Guess the result? 9 out of the ten guys would have slept with the girl and NONE of the girls would have slept with the guy. And this is in age of female liberation and gender being described as a social construct. It isn't, it's biology. Sorry, but there are sections of the brain that have been identified for the performance of specific functions. Hippocampus - memory Temporal lobe - language Frontal lobe - higher functions such as reasoning. AMYGDALA (lizard brain): Lying deep in the center of the limbic emotional brain, this powerful structure, the size and shape of an almond, is constantly alert to the needs of basic survival including sex, emotional reactions such as anger and fear and attraction. The list goes on, unless the medical community is talking bollocks. So, perhaps it's you that needs the neurobiology lesson. Attraction is also not a choice. Whether we act on it or not it is, but the base emotion is not. If it was purely a choice it would be easy for people to reject those that are not good choices and move on. Bad boys would never get a look in and 'nice' boys would always be chosen. However, certainly in the early stages of human life, the reverse is true. The conscious can override the subconscious, but if all it took was knowing what the right thing to do was everyone that wanted to give up smoking would be able to stop because the rational brain would triumph over the addiction centres of the brain. As for 'men do this' and women do that', when it comes to reproduction the specific and defined gender roles lead to typical behaviours for both. There are exceptions but the general rules apply. " I said there are biases and that's what they are. They aren't rules and exceptions, they are probabilities of behaviour. Historically women had the potential for a nine months pregnancy, are you really suggesting that the conscious knowledge they are using contraception can't override that? The medical community isn't talking bollocks, you are just misrepresenting what they and I are saying. There are regions of the brain that can be dominant in some thought processes but you should look at the studies of people with brain damage and see that the brain can use other parts if it needs to and some brains are just wired differently anyway. Hence there is no universal "this section of the brain does this". | |||
| |||
| |||
"what does he base the figure of 1,000,000 on? If the men don't know how does he? "Extrapolation from the DNA test results would probbaly the source | |||
| |||
"Probabilities of behaviour/biases or a predisposition to behave a certain way. Same thing. I don't see where we disagree here, other than semantically perhaps. "Historically women had the potential for a nine months pregnancy, are you really suggesting that the conscious knowledge they are using contraception can't override that?" It's late, please explain your point there. "The medical community isn't talking bollocks, you are just misrepresenting what they and I are saying. There are regions of the brain that can be dominant in some thought processes but you should look at the studies of people with brain damage and see that the brain can use other parts if it needs to and some brains are just wired differently anyway. Hence there is no universal "this section of the brain does this". There are regions of the brain where specific functions take place. In the case of severe trauma some of the functions can be re-routed to preserve life but there will be a cost. We remember a documentary on brain injury where a guy involved in a car accident essentially lost his ability to empathise and therefore a good portion of his personality, because during the accident the areas of the brain responsible for these functions were damaged. He did not return to 'normal' because the brain was not able to process empathy emotions elsewhere. It couldn't so it didn't. It did, however, keep him alive. " We're not very far apart, but your implications are different to the post I took exception with. So there are genetic biases but they have a standard deviation. That means that the people falling outside the ranges are not breaking any rule or acting un-naturally, their behaviour is to be expected. Just that the majority will have a bias towards acting in a certain way. When a woman is deciding to consent or not, if she's using conception then she isn't going to be adding a lot of weight to the reproductive traits of the father. She's probably more interested in how good the recreational sex will be. The final point about regions depends at what level you are talking. If you are talking high-level things then sure there are regions that are dominant. But some pseudo scientists start talking at a really low level that is unproven and frankly bollocks, like "this is the region of the brain that decides if you like or pepsi". It's also bollocks when people come out with statements like 'you can't love another man's child as much as your own because of hormone levels / brain patterns / whatever'. All you can say is that there's a male bias towards your own children but as I say, there's a probability distribution around that which people fall outside of. Those people won't even have the bias and even those that do have the ability to consciously override it. Some will be successful at that, some won't, some won't try. | |||
"It does seem alarmingly high. The worst 'fraud' a man can ever be a victim of." . Noooooooooooooooooooooo I once defrauded of nearly a third of a pint by a miserable landlord who insisted on being a stickler for 12pm last orders | |||
| |||
| |||
"Probabilities of behaviour/biases or a predisposition to behave a certain way. Same thing. I don't see where we disagree here, other than semantically perhaps. "Historically women had the potential for a nine months pregnancy, are you really suggesting that the conscious knowledge they are using contraception can't override that?" It's late, please explain your point there. "The medical community isn't talking bollocks, you are just misrepresenting what they and I are saying. There are regions of the brain that can be dominant in some thought processes but you should look at the studies of people with brain damage and see that the brain can use other parts if it needs to and some brains are just wired differently anyway. Hence there is no universal "this section of the brain does this". There are regions of the brain where specific functions take place. In the case of severe trauma some of the functions can be re-routed to preserve life but there will be a cost. We remember a documentary on brain injury where a guy involved in a car accident essentially lost his ability to empathise and therefore a good portion of his personality, because during the accident the areas of the brain responsible for these functions were damaged. He did not return to 'normal' because the brain was not able to process empathy emotions elsewhere. It couldn't so it didn't. It did, however, keep him alive. We're not very far apart, but your implications are different to the post I took exception with. So there are genetic biases but they have a standard deviation. That means that the people falling outside the ranges are not breaking any rule or acting un-naturally, their behaviour is to be expected. Just that the majority will have a bias towards acting in a certain way. When a woman is deciding to consent or not, if she's using conception then she isn't going to be adding a lot of weight to the reproductive traits of the father. She's probably more interested in how good the recreational sex will be. The final point about regions depends at what level you are talking. If you are talking high-level things then sure there are regions that are dominant. But some pseudo scientists start talking at a really low level that is unproven and frankly bollocks, like "this is the region of the brain that decides if you like or pepsi". It's also bollocks when people come out with statements like 'you can't love another man's child as much as your own because of hormone levels / brain patterns / whatever'. All you can say is that there's a male bias towards your own children but as I say, there's a probability distribution around that which people fall outside of. Those people won't even have the bias and even those that do have the ability to consciously override it. Some will be successful at that, some won't, some won't try. " "So there are genetic biases but they have a standard deviation. That means that the people falling outside the ranges are not breaking any rule or acting un-naturally, their behaviour is to be expected. Just that the majority will have a bias towards acting in a certain way." Firstly, not genetic biases, gender based behavioural influences. Secondly, we would also disagree. To use your words - acting outside the ranges - would be acting or behaving outside the norm. If it was normal it would inside the 'range' as you put it. What pseudo scientists are you talking about? When it comes to '' or 'pepsi' the taste bud in the mouth send the signal to an area of the brain that processes the taste response. Again, we personally know a guy knocked off his pushbike that can now only taste strong cough medicine because the area of his brain responsible for processing taste preferences was damaged. We stand by the comment, areas of the brain are responsible for specific functions. If you have a source for that being 'pseudo science' please quote and we'll have a look. The point re loving your own genetic offspring, from our personal experience we would probably agree with sadly. And it is based on nothing more than that. As far as we are aware there is no formal study on the matter. Recently, someone we know locally split from his wife and he had a biological child with this woman. What this woman could not do was accept his son from a previous marriage. In other words she could not accept another woman's genetic offspring. This has caused the marriage to fail. Of course there are success stories of stepfamilies getting along just fine but mother nature designs us to focus on the furtherance of our OWN genes. Richard Dawkins book, The Selfish Genes, is very illuminating on this point and a fascinating read. | |||
"It does seem alarmingly high. The worst 'fraud' a man can ever be a victim of." Ever seen those documentaries on death row false convictions... | |||
"Probabilities of behaviour/biases or a predisposition to behave a certain way. Same thing. I don't see where we disagree here, other than semantically perhaps. "Historically women had the potential for a nine months pregnancy, are you really suggesting that the conscious knowledge they are using contraception can't override that?" It's late, please explain your point there. "The medical community isn't talking bollocks, you are just misrepresenting what they and I are saying. There are regions of the brain that can be dominant in some thought processes but you should look at the studies of people with brain damage and see that the brain can use other parts if it needs to and some brains are just wired differently anyway. Hence there is no universal "this section of the brain does this". There are regions of the brain where specific functions take place. In the case of severe trauma some of the functions can be re-routed to preserve life but there will be a cost. We remember a documentary on brain injury where a guy involved in a car accident essentially lost his ability to empathise and therefore a good portion of his personality, because during the accident the areas of the brain responsible for these functions were damaged. He did not return to 'normal' because the brain was not able to process empathy emotions elsewhere. It couldn't so it didn't. It did, however, keep him alive. We're not very far apart, but your implications are different to the post I took exception with. So there are genetic biases but they have a standard deviation. That means that the people falling outside the ranges are not breaking any rule or acting un-naturally, their behaviour is to be expected. Just that the majority will have a bias towards acting in a certain way. When a woman is deciding to consent or not, if she's using conception then she isn't going to be adding a lot of weight to the reproductive traits of the father. She's probably more interested in how good the recreational sex will be. The final point about regions depends at what level you are talking. If you are talking high-level things then sure there are regions that are dominant. But some pseudo scientists start talking at a really low level that is unproven and frankly bollocks, like "this is the region of the brain that decides if you like or pepsi". It's also bollocks when people come out with statements like 'you can't love another man's child as much as your own because of hormone levels / brain patterns / whatever'. All you can say is that there's a male bias towards your own children but as I say, there's a probability distribution around that which people fall outside of. Those people won't even have the bias and even those that do have the ability to consciously override it. Some will be successful at that, some won't, some won't try. "So there are genetic biases but they have a standard deviation. That means that the people falling outside the ranges are not breaking any rule or acting un-naturally, their behaviour is to be expected. Just that the majority will have a bias towards acting in a certain way." Firstly, not genetic biases, gender based behavioural influences. Secondly, we would also disagree. To use your words - acting outside the ranges - would be acting or behaving outside the norm. If it was normal it would inside the 'range' as you put it. What pseudo scientists are you talking about? When it comes to '' or 'pepsi' the taste bud in the mouth send the signal to an area of the brain that processes the taste response. Again, we personally know a guy knocked off his pushbike that can now only taste strong cough medicine because the area of his brain responsible for processing taste preferences was damaged. We stand by the comment, areas of the brain are responsible for specific functions. If you have a source for that being 'pseudo science' please quote and we'll have a look. The point re loving your own genetic offspring, from our personal experience we would probably agree with sadly. And it is based on nothing more than that. As far as we are aware there is no formal study on the matter. Recently, someone we know locally split from his wife and he had a biological child with this woman. What this woman could not do was accept his son from a previous marriage. In other words she could not accept another woman's genetic offspring. This has caused the marriage to fail. Of course there are success stories of stepfamilies getting along just fine but mother nature designs us to focus on the furtherance of our OWN genes. Richard Dawkins book, The Selfish Genes, is very illuminating on this point and a fascinating read." If you have a bias that means 70% of people will act a certain way then there's nothing un-natural about 30% not acting that way! That's exactly what probability means. It's natural for some people not to want to reproduce at all. It's natural for some people to want one life partner they are monogamous with and it's natural for others to want many partners. The latter is the most probable based on a random sample but it doesn't make the other un-natural. The sample variation is natural!!! The pepsi- thing - you are not biologically programmed to like pepsi or , it's much more socially influenced which is why marketing soft drinks works. I can't pretend to be interested in anecdotes about a woman with jealousy issues. There's no way of knowing whether they are biological or social and it doesn't violate my point either. Yes there is a bias in most people towards there own children. But natural variations will mean some people don't have the bias and of those that do, some will be able to override it. The fact that you know someone that couldn't is to be expected in a given sample. | |||
