Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Studies Prove Cuckolded Fathers Are Rare In Human Populations
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."
Who cares if it ain't yours?
He/she might end up being easier to raise because he/she would have less chances of having the same genetic bugs than yours.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
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.
Maybe in some cultures, men usually don't end up raising children who aren't their own. But that's not true across the board and I suspect the study is biased and cannot be trusted. Let's be honest, most affluent men find stable relationships and don't end up raising children who aren't their own. But among men who aren't affluent, they are far more likely to have many sexual partners. It's just a cultural thing and we've all seen it. Money makes for a stable lifestyle, stable relationships, and a stable home. The truth is, if you're white, you probably are relatively affluent, probably don't have as many sexual partners, and probably aren't raising children who aren't your own. But if you're black, you're much less affluent, and are far more likely to have children with many women, not even knowing how many children you've fathered. Some other guy gets stuck raising those children. There's probably a genetic link here, that the genes that affect race also affect one's sexual promiscuity. Even among affluent blacks, such as NBA players, black men tend to father children with many women. They don't end up fathering all of those children in most cases; instead, some other guy ends up raising a child who isn't his own. Statistics and genetics provide a lot of support for these statements. I suspect the choice of populations sampled in this study greatly affected the results, and a more random sample would have resulted in the authors reaching a different conclusion.
And yet remarkably common among the Republican establishment.
So in other words, pretty much the entire publishing caste, as well as the majority of the population, does not understand selection bias. That is a serious problem, but it's hardly surprising. An awful lot of the scientific studies that someone trumpets around as a confirmation of their pet worldview suffer from similar problems.
In many European countries, paternity tests are illegal. Seriously, importing a home paternity test has the same legal status as trying to import opium poppies. Surely if cuckoldry is so rare, then there is no need for these laws.
Recently, a French journalist was astounded by the fact that in America, paternity testing is 100% safe and 100% legal. He stated that such ideas are inconceivable in France. That puts a whole new twist on the popular American conception of French people as free-spirited and open in every way when it comes to sex and relationships.
Left unsaid is why a woman would do this to the man she loves. Why would she go outside of her relationship and deliberately allow herself to be impregnated by another man, one she does not love? The whole thing is baffling to educated people. More research is clearly called for...but I bet it won't happen.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In other news only 1% of your ancestors didn't reproduce!
Never mind that common sense will tell you 100% of the people you descend from did. :Science:
The study only proves that cuckoldry in non-promiscuous societies without contraception was rare.
It does not show that cuckoldry in our current promiscuous society is rare. Infidelity no longer carries any penalties for women thanks to no-fault divorce.
Until now...
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Don't you ever talk to me or my wife's son ever again!
...or rather Thea Merlyn :)
What I'm unclear about is how all of this relates to the Cuckservatives I've heard so much about lately.
First of all, what is a "Cuckservative"?
Second, why doesn't this article mention Cuckservatism and Cuckservatives?
Third, are Cuckservatives affected by this matter?
Fourth, what is the remedy if Cuckservatives are affected?
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 yours.
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.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
For your information, paternity tests are banned in France, except in criminal law cases. That's because experience had consistently shown that app. 12% of kids are from a different biological father than what their papers show and have known themselves. In order to protect the grandeur of the glorious french nation, authorities promptly banned paternity tests as soon as such study results came out.
Now you know what french women are, they are a hare lot, without the a.
One must wonder if islam is a more honourable system than freemasonry?
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.
-Styopa
She tells me one thing, he tells me another!
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?
Submitter says cuckoldry is "rare" and "Larmuseau came up with a cuckoldry rate of less than 1 percent," with a link, but if you actually on the link it says 1-2% (from the abstract).
::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.
Who cares when Govt. sponsors cucklodery through divorce rape.
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 said altruism behaviour). You just happen not to be the actual vessel passing around the genes).
- That's why adoption is a works very well with humans (the nearest child without parents is highly likely to be related to you. by raising the child, you increase the number of copies of your gene in the pool).
- That's why we evolved grand-mothers (in most species, genetic defect that manifest after the end of the reproductive life aren't much selected against: by the time the age-related disease sets in, copie of the gene have already been passed. In most speice of apes to which we are closely related, senility is the normal way of things, nearly all ageing apes get senile. Not so in humans: senility are some specific diseases, but lots of individuals age nicely without getting alzheimer's, parkinson's, etc. because then these ageing individuals can help taking care of their grand-kids, and again helping more copies of their genes survive (including the beneficial gene that help in late age) even if they are not anymore biologically able to pass themselves first-hand).
- That's saddly why we evolved "uncanny valley" (it also helps forming a genetic ground for xenophobia: if it looks almost like, but a little bit of what you've used to see while growing up, chances are that it comes from a different pack/tribe to which you aren't related to and is a competitor that you need to kill with fire).
(NOTE: I'm not condoning xenophobia in any way. I'm just giving explanation why we did evolve such a stupid behaviour and "uncanny valley" might be the mechanism supporting it. It only explain, not justify. We must understand these mechanism and adapt to the fact that modern highly mobile and interconnect civilisation has grown to the point where "pack/tribe" covers about a dozen billion individual spread on a whole planet surface, and we must all stick together if we want to have a chance at surviving as a specie at whole)
And countless other example of special behaviour in humans that might seem counter intuitive in the first place, but start to make sense once you look at them through the lens of small pack/tribes/extended families (situation in which we've spent most of our evolution time).
You can find other similar behaviour in other animals that live in groups, from cats (not very social animals, but still can live in colonies) all the way up to ants and bees (all these kind of behaviours turned up to eleven. to the point where only 1 single individual - the queen - actually passes here gene around actively, and every other last one in the colony is indirectly helping more copies of their genes indirectly by helping their siblings - which makes even more sense when your do the mendelian genetics maths on their peculiar reproductive cycle)
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.
On the other hand, if the kid isn't yours, chances are high (back in the pack/tribe era of human evolution) that it comes from another individual of the pack to which you're related. By raising the kid, you're still helping passing more copies of your genes around. You just happen not to be the actual individual who inserted these specific copies of the gene into your mate.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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 what some call "extelligence")
At that point, in the long term, what matters most is science and society. Not genetic traits.
Still in the meantime, we're animals carrying genes that evolved during million of years before the invention of the internet.
We're bound to carry some left-over instincts.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It's all in the mouseover text, but we (should) know that here.
*** Research funded by the Maury Povich show.
If husands and wives were faithful to each other we wouldn't be talking about this.
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.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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 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)?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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 general case, I think that stability in relationships is the basic value people would be advised to adhere to. (This is especially important among gay males who have a higher risk of sextually transmitted infection.) There are clear evolutionary and practical advantages.
It’s nice to see that there’s at least a persisting trend in society to stick to one sexual partner, evidenced by the low rate of “mystery father” children.
There's some truth to the notion that monogamous species are attracted to two types of mates: alpha, and provider. This is due to monogamy evolving only when two parents are needed to care for the offspring in order for it to survive. There's also evidence that the female in the monogamy will often attempt to be seeded by an alpha in secret. If her provider mate finds out he will abandon the nest. Yes, I'm mostly talking about birds. While humans have evolved monogamy as well, we have this pesky little thing called "a high level of consciousness". This makes it very difficult to throw around generalisations and make assumptions.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
EU? US? Australia? Japan?
But more importantly, how does it account for major behavior change?
3-4 centuries ago people may have had one partner. There was MAJOR stigma to be unfaithful. Also, punishment was really bad too. Now Female can have easily 30-40 partners in life time. Don't you think it will have effect?
Study is not relevant to this day and age.
I read years ago in barking up the wrong tree (when the site didn't suck) that it's both higher and lower. That is that if the "father" suspects it's not his, it more likely isn't. But if the "father" doesn't suspect it most likely is his. I guess missed the whole cuckoldry flap, but then again I guess I don't get enough of my science information from celebrity magazines.
"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. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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 (for instance, to control which school district the child(ren) are educated in) to the hours you work (because someone has to be there to supervise them over large parts of their lives) to what furniture and equipment you outfit your home with, to the vehicles you choose, and so on and so forth.
Not saying you can't raise a kid for 15k/year. Sure you can. But you almost certainly won't. Even if you think you are, it's probably just that other taxpayers are footing part of the bill for you.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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 may arise from parenting. Immortality isn't one of them. The illusion of immortality might be, though. If you are really careful not to think too clearly about it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
With the latest increase in sissified men, wait until women look for other men for reproduction only
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.
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 tends to cluster together such that if one kid isn't biologically the father's, it's likely the siblings are too, but I see no reason to think that.
The measure would be better called a false paternity rate or something similar, not a cuckold rate. Or am I missing something obvious?
That said, the commentary that, in the general population, paternity is rarely an issue is correct.
But it could be a close relative. Also, CI is the confidence interval. And clustering effects can indicate in-family adoptions of underage children in terms of "your mom is actually your older sister and your mom is your grandma" or similar things.
Remember, the study with the lower percentage is from Belgium. Different regions of different countries have different rates. You can't really compare other countries or regions with yours, in terms of correctly identified parentage. This is well known in the community of researchers.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
" The people who ordered the tests already had reason to doubt paternity."
We all have reason to doubt paternity, my friend. Every one of us.
I love to see all you assholes talking about "cuckholding" like you even bothered to look up the definition. Spoiler alert, it isn't a catch-all term for swinging, cheating, polyamory, or even enjoying watching your partner bang other people. Ten years ago, we saw similar discussions and judgmental attitudes about homosexuality even on Slashdot. Of course, Slashdot was "far too enlightened" for that kind of bigotry, but now it's totally okay because the pendulum of public opinion hasn't fully swung for anything other than homosexuality. I'm sure all you brave souls will be rushing to talk about how enlightened you are just as soon as non-binary relationships are accepted by the majority of society in about 10 years.
If you have trouble understanding this, ask yourself why that many men who distrust their partners and have the testing done to confirm their suspicions are much higher than a random distribution. There isn't any question as to who the mother is when the child is born.
Actually all it proves is that around 1% were accepted into the families and lived long enough to have children themselves. Historically discovered extra marital children would have often resulted in the expulsion of the mother and the child, or worse
We never get to marry cute young girls.
Women decreed this.
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
>Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
Also getting with a grown ass woman is probably adultery as she was probably another man's woman whom she sinfully left (women cannot leave the man) or you took from.
Nope, Flamebait. But close enough.
As well as my father (obviously, that's who I got it from) and my paternal uncle, etc. At the risk of offending sensibilities, how do they correct for a relative cockolding, since they only look at the Y chromosome? And in a typical little village 400 years ago, there might only have been 5-10 or so unrelated Y chromosomes floating around.
Perhaps technically that should not really be consider cuckolding though. If they are your genes, does it matter how they got there?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
if you think your wife is a whore there is 30% chance of it being true
The fact it relies on well documented family tree means this study is also not a random sample.
Maybe adulterous women only bear daughters.