PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

The Australian Medical Association figure about 1 in 5 children born were fathered by some other male than the one claimed by the mother. (I know...damn lies and statistics).

You would think the mothers could be more accurate wouldn't you....? Anybody got any good stories on this topic?

No only to say that this statistic is not officially confined to australia

and to say that there are rumours that my mum's father was actually her 'father's' brother !

W

Aaah, that's a beautiful start.....

Very gracious of you Mr Swim to share this with us........Anybody else in the room.......?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mikka on 2005-03-28 07:30 ]</font>

Could you explain this a little further please Stardust.... I'm struggling to understand the gap between the truth and the stories presented.

(This is not intended as personal by the way. I know I fathered my children. I trust the results from the DNA test of my first born).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mikka on 2005-03-28 07:50 ]</font>

-Daddy, daddy, what's the difference between visit and visitation?
-You see my son, when we go to your grandmummy - this is a visit. But when your grndma comes to us - this is a visitation

I first read about this phenomena in a popular socio-biology book. In very broad terms the idea is that the female seeks out the secure, stable, protective male as long-term support, but actually chooses to breed with the dynamic, aggressive, strong independent male as this will produce more 'dynamic' and successful offspring.

Makes sense, biologically speaking...Thanks Spirit....

What's the book? Sounds like good reading. Was this Desmond Morris? Have I started this topic B4?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mikka on 2005-03-28 08:16 ]</font>

no offense but that's stupid. any creature like a human that overwhelmingly behaved like that would long ago perished as the males would be the demise of all the females and offspring. human babies are far too fragile. the "bad males", being the main ones to procreate(while the stupid "good males" watched over their children) would soon be the main type(as the "good" traits would not be passed on). "bad men" have always been an abberation and never able to stand against the overwhelming numbers of "good men". that is why the "bad men" in this day and age have worked so hard at making "bad" fashionable, to camouflage their presence and normalize it. of course as i said it's a stupid theory and stupid behavior so the stupid go along with the idea. man(or in this case woman), being a herd animal, goes along with a bad idea if enough other people around him are doing it.

but, it's not because of "natural selection"...darwinism is a racist lie........eugenics is another.

there are no shortages. no mass murder is needed. don't be so greedy. (just reminders)

One in five is hardly overwhelming........ but why do you think this figure is as high as it is, if not for some primal procreative need?

how accurate is that figure? sounds high, but many of y'all aren't properly husbanding your wives(look up the word "husband").......

these things are all about bad ideas(unlike some other creatures, people often do things based on "ideas"). certainly some of it is the physical need to procreate, but damn, 1 in 5 that's some real horniness.....i'll better 9 out of 10 of the 1 in 5 have girlfriends with bad advice....well, that and soap operas.......



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-03-29 03:32 ]</font>

On 2005-03-29 00:08, garyb wrote:

but, it's not because of "natural selection"...darwinism is a racist lie........eugenics is another.

Darwinism is the only rational explanation for the genetical transformations of species.
What instead can be regarded as an anti-scientific over-simplification is the attribution of social behaviour variations under the strict genetical influence. In this case environmental factors like life experiences in early age, education and culture have the absolute prevalence.

It's also easy to find, all psychologists of any school admit it, that a parental relation of a cetain kind has a strong tendency to replicate itself through generations, but this is due to the "building" of personality in a dialectical context.

Naturally, this over-simplification of the mechanisms pushes many scientifically uneducated people to stick in opposite parties of "all is in the dna" or "evolution is bullshit".

We should understand that Darwin has been a genius whose theories came from rigorous observations, and he "never" thought in the terms of the aberrating "social darwinism" as a consequence of genetical selection, but he merely described the only acceptable mechanism that allows adaptation of the species and explains their constant transformations.

So much it is a clever theory, that it's well adaptable also to the existence of influences beyond the genetical.
Culture and technology have permitted the survival and reproduction of individuals that in ancient times would not survive, for the lack of immunological resistence or for an extreme muscular weakness, but today those are not decisive elements anymore in the "wealthy" countries, where a new criterium for selection is in the technological capabilities, hence the geometrical acceleration of technological progress.

Naturally the image of muscular strength and physical efficiency didn't loose any of the elements of sexual attractiveness, why do you think so many "non pulsarians" spend so much time with body-building and fitness?

Maybe y'all are too busy husbanding other people's wives........

What shall he have that kill'd the deer?
His leather skin and horns to wear.
Then sing him home;
The rest shall bear this burden
Take thou no scorn to wear the horn;
It was a crest ere thou wast born:
Thy father's father wore it,
And thy father bore it:
The horn, the horn, the lusty horn
Is not a thing to laugh to scorn.
Shakepeare - As You Like It, I iv ii

- an old cuckold song

just felt like getting a bit of music in the thread

Acutally, Alfonso that was quite an intelligent response. There are probably many factors.....emotional immaturity at the time of marriage, life experience, primal needs, boredom, cultural and social factors....

If the figures are true, and they have been presented as such... by an organisation with credibility... that's a lot of dishonest relationships. Between both adults, and their children.

nimrod, the father of governments that rule with random acts of violence and the founder of religion was said to be like 15 feet tall and unbelievably powerful. people wanted to be like him since he got what he wanted. but as david showed one of his relatives, intelligence and a well placed rock beats brute strength every time. indeed, since you like evolution and fossil evidence, in ancient ethiopia, it has been discovered that there were two groups of hominid creatures at one point. one was called africanus another robustus. the bigger, stronger creature has been shown to be an evolutionary dead end. indeed, the smaller more frail creature eventually displaced the bigger creature completely.

it is NOT survival of the fittest. it is the survival of he who fits best, who serves a purpose with all the other parts of the environment. not survival of the strongest, but survival of he who cooperates with his environment. this world is not a conquest, but a whole. darwinism will destroy this world if unchecked as it assumes objectivity in it's observations, removing the subject from it's environment.

Garyb, one in five is hardly an overwhelming statistic. It's not a figure that would thereby "breed out" the "good males". And it may be that some of the "bad males" are "good males" in other situations

And exactly the same sort of thing happens in troops of bonobos and chimps...

(Mikka, sorry about no book reference. I've got a small library of socio-anthrolpolgy/biology/paleoanthropology books now in storage for yet another house move...)

On 2005-03-29 03:42, Mikka wrote:
that's a lot of dishonest relationships. Between both adults, and their children.

you got that right.

On 2005-03-29 03:49, Spirit wrote:
Garyb, one in five is hardly an overwhelming statistic. It's not a figure that would thereby "breed out" the "good males". And it may be that some of the "bad males" are "good males" in other situations

And exactly the same sort of thing happens in troops of bonobos and chimps...

no doubt.
i just took issue with the explanation of genetic advantage to that behavior.

On 2005-03-29 03:47, garyb wrote:

it is NOT survival of the fittest. it is the survival of he who fits best, who serves a purpose with all the other parts of the environment.

This is exactly what Darwin said.

I dunno but in germany ervery 9th child is a cuckoo one