TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Your dad might not be your dad
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Your dad might not be your dad

From scotsman.com

quote:

Thousands of families living a lie ABOUT one in 25 fathers might be unknowingly raising another man's child, new research has shown. Opening the "Pandora's Box" of false paternity was necessary because of increased use of DNA profiling and genetic testing in organ donation and criminal investigations, scientists who led the research said. Professor Mark Bellis, of John Moores University Liverpool, and his team examined a wide range of international studies looking at estimates of paternal discrepancy between 1950 and 2004. They found that the number of cases where a man was not the biological father of his child ranged from 1 per cent to as much as 30 per cent. Experts have generally agreed that the rate is below 10 per cent, with a 4 per cent rate meaning that about one in 25 families might be affected, the study said. But the researchers, writing in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, said that increased use of genetic testing for diagnosis, treatment and identification was likely to boost the rates of paternal discrepancy. Prof Bellis said that as genetic testing was now widespread, it was important to realise the true number of people who might be affected by the results and to provide support. He said: "The Pandora's Box is open now by the introduction of genetic testing. "Thousands of people use these services to find the truth out. We do not know the exact numbers of people with different fathers, but that does not mean it is not important to know how many people could be potentially affected." There are about 20,000 paternity tests carried out in the UK each year. David Blunkett, the Work and Pensions Secretary, underwent a paternity test which showed that he had not fathered a child by his former lover Kimberly Quinn. However, the actress Liz Hurley proved that the billionaire Steve Bing was the father of their son, Damien. Crucial Genetics based at the Southern General Hospital in Glasgow is an accredited paternity testing centre. It carries out about 3,500 paternity tests a year at a cost of �399 per test. Max Hamilton, the company's business development manager, said the number of tests has "definitely increased" since it was set up in 2001. He said most tests were to determine paternity for legal reasons during a divorce. Others are for medical reasons, or simply for "peace of mind". He continued: "There is no uncertainty in what we do. It is 99.9 per cent accurate." The company takes DNA from the mother, father and child and requires permission from all three parties. The tests are either taken at the clinic or sent to a medical professional. However, many paternity tests available on the internet or through less reputable companies do not bother to gain permission from all those involved and even offer home-testing kits. These tests range from about �100 and are often sent away to laboratories in China or the United States. One Parent Family Scotland is often left picking up the pieces after a paternity test. Ian Maxwell, the deputy director, said people needed to know the practical implications of such tests - the financial responsibility of the real father and his right to see the child, as well as the psychological impact. Many of the families needed counselling to deal with the results, he said. "Once you find out whose the child is, it is only the start. If you have tested positive as a parent or a child, you have all sorts of issues to cope with," he added.

So assuming that we're about 20 active participants in here, that means that there's a 56% chance that at least one of us has the wrong dad. Hmmm.
To me, what matters is who raised me, though. I don't get the fuzz about biological ties.

Wow, thats cool. Who knows, perhaps my dad is some uber rich guy with a large aparment waiting for me on manhattan

no but really, i wouldnt abandon my dad that raised me for anyone.

i've been wondering about this myself.

...but i'm pretty sure i'm Cyrus King's dad. there, i said it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i've been wondering about this myself. ...but i'm pretty sure i'm Cyrus King's dad. there, i said it.

I think this mostly applies to people below a certain income level...

It applies to all income levels, all ethnicities and socio-economic groups and races.

There is a very well-known and understood evolutionary principle here that many don't know about.

From the evolutionary point of view, it makes a lot of sense for a woman to bear one man's child but raise the child with another man. It gets her the best of both worlds: security/protection provided by the "nice, stable guy" and the superb genes from the "hot bad boy."

She gets the good DNA for her baby and the stability/financial income at the same time. If you read any book on evolutionary psychology, you'll see this phenomenon explained.

While this fact is 'shocking' to some - err - members of academia, it's common knowledge in many small towns where everyone knows what's going. In big communities it's not as obvious.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd It applies to all income levels, all ethnicities and socio-economic groups and races. [quote]There is a very well-known and understood evolutionary principle here that many don't know about.

If it's so well known, why don't many people know about it? Fuck me if I've ever heard stats like that, though I'd be curious to see the specific data/sample populations that were used in the good doc's studies. Call me a skeptic.

quote:

From the evolutionary point of view, it makes a lot of sense for a woman to bear one man's child but raise the child with another man. It gets her the best of both worlds: security/protection provided by the "nice, stable guy" and the superb genes from the "hot bad boy."

Is it really that pervasive? I mean I know there is a high divorce rate in this country, but I never realized so many women were cheating so early. I'm going to have to lock my wife in the attic!

quote:

She gets the good DNA for her baby and the stability/financial income at the same time. If you read any book on evolutionary psychology, you'll see this phenomenon explained.

Phew. Lucky for her I'm a 1-stop shop for all-of-your-Freudian-Id-fart needs and desires! I am curious about the book, who is the author? Is it a factual document or a theoretical explanation using corollary data as supporting evidence?

quote:

While this fact is 'shocking' to some - err - members of academia, it's common knowledge in many small towns where everyone knows what's going. In big communities it's not as obvious.

So you're really saying that there is a lot of incestral inbreeding in small, isolated, likely rural or simply isolated as fuck like eskimos, so they have a very small pool of genes floating around for a lot of ice fisherman....

Or maybe Utah.

But up top you said:

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd It applies to all income levels, all ethnicities and socio-economic groups and races.

So is there a big exception to the rule here? Or is the exception The Rule?

Motherhood is a certainty, fatherhood is a possibility

I'd be pissed right off at my mother though if it were the case.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd It applies to all income levels, all ethnicities and socio-economic groups and races. There is a very well-known and understood evolutionary principle here that many don't know about. From the evolutionary point of view, it makes a lot of sense for a woman to bear one man's child but raise the child with another man. It gets her the best of both worlds: security/protection provided by the "nice, stable guy" and the superb genes from the "hot bad boy."

You do know this doesn't make sense, right?

It doesn't make sense to people who don't understand evolution.

Read any book, this one for example:
"Introducing Evolutionary Psychology"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846

You can be denial all you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference. Reality is what it is.

"...Both males and females use long-term and short-term mating strategies. For males, the short-term mating strategy involves having sex with a woman and then abandoning her to look after the baby.

But females also derive advantages from casual sex. An ancestral woman who was already in a long-term relationship might have had casual sex wiith other men and then passed the resulting children off as her partner's.

This "cuckold strategy" gets a woman the best of both worlds: A diverse mix of genes from her various lovers -- and the resources of her doting partner..."

BTW an American doctor unexpectedly discovered this in the 50's at a hospital in a well-to-do, influential neighborhood. He was so shocked by the results (remember, we're talking the 50s) that he filed them away forever (they were re-discovered recently).

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd It doesn't make sense to people who don't understand evolution.

I do understand evolution, but the reasonings you've been mentioning are extremely flawed, it's almost like religious science: you don't find something and get to a conclusion, you find something to get to a pre-conceived conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd You can be denial all you want, it doesn't make a bit of difference. Reality is what it is.

I'm not denying it, by the way, I just believe the causes are different. There are loads of psychological explanations for that, but not in an evolutionary sense. It's known, for example, that women tend to cheat if they don't feel secure in the relationship.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd "...Both males and females use long-term and short-term mating strategies. For males, the short-term mating strategy involves having sex with a woman and then abandoning her to look after the baby. But females also derive advantages from casual sex. An ancestral woman who was already in a long-term relationship might have had casual sex wiith other men and then passed the resulting children off as her partner's. This "cuckold strategy" gets a woman the best of both worlds: A diverse mix of genes from her various lovers -- and the resources of her doting partner..."

This cuckold strategy fails to cover a few points:

• The man who engages on extra-marital/casual sex doens't have any warranties on how safe the child would be.
  
• The woman who engages on extra-marital/casual sex has to cope with the risk of being rumbled and losing support for both the bastard and the legit children.
  
• The man who engages on extra-marital sex has the risk of being confronted with the legit spouse - in that case, neither of them wins regardless of the results.
  

There's a big difference between reading scientific literature and talking out of your ass like you are doing.

But hey, you can believe whatever the heck you want to believe for all I care. Fine by me. All others can educate themselves by reading books and scientific studies that use the scientific method as opposed to random psychobabble and pseudo-examples from a Western civilization that is as young as a thousand years.

"Culture" has nothing to do with evolution because it appeared only at the very last moment.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd There's a big difference between reading scientific literature and talking out of your ass like you are doing.

Great arguments there.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd But hey, you can believe whatever the heck you want to believe for all I care. Fine by me.

I thought we were debating but, if you're so easily threatened, all right. I was looking forward to learning and sharing, but I guess I found the wrong person. Never mind, then.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd "Culture" has nothing to do with evolution because it appeared only at the very last moment.

Oh, really?

Barkow, Jerome; Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (1992) The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and The Generation of Culture ISBN 0-19-510107-3

I'm out.

You see now why by Jewish law the mother's religion is the one that matters?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i've been wondering about this myself. ...but i'm pretty sure i'm Cyrus King's dad. there, i said it.

heheehheeheh.... youre sooo cute!

he he he

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd It doesn't make sense to people who don't understand evolution.

"You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."

Re: Your dad might not be your dad

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic From scotsman.com So assuming that we're about 20 active participants in here, that means that there's a 56% chance that at least one of us has the wrong dad. Hmmm. To me, what matters is who raised me, though. I don't get the fuzz about biological ties.

Well, my parents are both dead, so reckon that's that. I must be in the 44 percentile then.


[[[smoke]]]

crazyness!!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira You do know this doesn't make sense, right?

It's widely accepted everywhere.

look at another example. take it to caveman times.

guy #1 is handsome but a bad hunter. guy #2 is ugly and a great hunter. guy #1 just has sex with all types of women because he's hot. But still bad at hunting. guy #2 isn't as hot, but is great at hunting, women only want him for his great hunting skills though.

Being handsome/pretty = great health (before society taught us what's handsome and what isn't)

So the woman might get a kid who has great health and he might be a great hunter because the dad is kind of married to the girl.

i knew a girl who had her parents and when she became 18 her mom told her that the person she considered as her dad wasn't her dad but he raised her simply because the mother cheated on her husband and became pregnant but as the guy with who she had sex didn't want to have a kid she came back with her husband and told her husband the baby was from him

Now that story is punk rock, hsbd, what did the girl do after her mother told her that?

quote:

Originally posted by *InVeRs3* It's widely accepted everywhere.

Let's ignore these argumenta ad populum, shall we?

quote:

Originally posted by *InVeRs3* look at another example. take it to caveman times. guy #1 is handsome but a bad hunter. guy #2 is ugly and a great hunter. guy #1 just has sex with all types of women because he's hot. But still bad at hunting. guy #2 isn't as hot, but is great at hunting, women only want him for his great hunting skills though. Being handsome/pretty = great health (before society taught us what's handsome and what isn't) So the woman might get a kid who has great health and he might be a great hunter because the dad is kind of married to the girl.

Hmm... although I do understand where you come from, this scenario is quite intriguing:

First of all, health. If the guy is a bad hunter, he probably has to count on others to get his food, so he would be dependent on them and, as he was not doing his job - now, what would this slacker be doing to the community? - he wouldn't probably get the best chunks of food (if he got any food at all). The chances of being healthy are quite low.

Also, beauty, or hotness is influenced to some extent to wealth and social success:

• In pre-industrial societies, having a muscular physique and tanned skin was attractive, but signified that the man had to work in the fields all day, and was consequently likely poor and uneducated. Having pale skin and/or a fatter physique was considered highly attractive, as a symbol that the man was rich or educated enough to avoid manual labour in the field.
  
• In industrial societies, having a pale body was considered unattractive, as it was a sign that the person worked in a factory and lived in dense, polluted urban areas with weakened sunlight. Being tanned and muscularly-defined instead of fat or undeveloped muscularly became attractive, as a symbol that the man lived in the countryside, which was far healthier than the cities, and performed "good honest" agricultural labour as opposed to working shifts in a factory.
  
• In post-industrial societies, being pale and/or fat or especially thin is may be viewed as a sign that the person has little regard for his physical state or health. Having tanned skin is viewed as naturally attractive, and as a potential sign that the person takes foreign holidays. False tans, however, can be the subject of humour. Having a fit or muscular physique is considered highly attractive, as a sign that the person takes care of his body and health, and has the time, money, and self-discipline to frequent a gym. However, having especially large, highly-developed muscles is viewed by some as naturally unattractive, and possibly indicating undesirable aggressiveness or obsession with muscles. In recent decades, a backlash against social stereotypes of male physical attractiveness has increased variation in physiques, hairstyles, fashion trends, etc, often as an expression of individuality in place of conformity to arbitrary stereotypes.
  

my dad is my dad i am as ugly as he is

good points lira, now i don't know my stance on this.

quote:

Originally posted by *InVeRs3* good points lira, now i don't know my stance on this.

Well, there's this thread with points of view from many TA's about adultery, mainly focusing other approaches.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira

You DO realize you're pitting your point of view against studies?

Gee, logic VS empirical science, what's going to win I wonder.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.