Historical extra-pair paternity (cuckoldry) may be lower than previously believed.

[deleted] · 2019-12-27T18:18:25+00:00

People really believe this meme that around 50% or something of men unknowingly raise kids that aren't theirs? Lmao.

It reminds me of when Rollo Tomassi was surprised that women are not working against the male birth control pill. Lmao, that guy doesn't understand women at all. Women would LOVE to have the men take birth control pills instead of having to do it on their own.

TRP is clown world. It is men that are usually forceful, coercive and manipulative. There are literal studies that show that men are more likely to be psychopaths and narcissists than women, yet TRPillers are convinced of the opposite.

abaxeron · 2019-12-27T20:39:17+00:00

I am stunned by women and wks in this thread pretending that 1% of children being a result of cuckoldry is somehow acceptable.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2019-12-27T17:42:23+00:00

most of civilization revolved around controlling womens ability to follow the impulse to do this, so that would really account for it

diffdedbed · 2019-12-27T19:05:26+00:00

As someone who believes that evolutionary psychology explains a lot of human behavior, I find it frustrating when people who do not understand it beyond a surface level try to use it to justify their opinion on a topic. Its far more complex than just "genes say do this."

Your genes say "have sex" to you, its 100% genetic, there is no other reason beyond it, we are evolved for a sex drive and only the most extreme fool would argue against that.

That same evolution has "lets have sex with multiple people too", this can be as old as sex itself as a drive really. We share genes with creatures we branched off from in the 100's of millions of years ago.

Where people really don't understand evopsych is that we also have reason. A man may want to sleep around while married. A woman may want to screw the hot neighbor who works from home. I know men and women who did both, and it fucked up their lives despite no extra kids. Imagine if they did? We are smart enough to have sex and avoid pregnancy which is far harder to hide than just sex.

So since humans figured out where babies come from, we have tried to have our cake and eat it to. As far back as the early 1000's there has been a saying in Europe (which I assume is no longer used).

Si non caste tamen coute which means "if not chastely at least cautiously".

Basically if you are going to fuck around, be smart about it. Even abortion was a thing there and it was often ignored when suspected/discovered.

So while some early paternity studies have been as high as 20%, 1-5% seems more likely to me, but that doesn't say anything about the evopsych aspect of this, at all. Genes don't make you think "I must have superior babies" your genes just make you think "I gotta get me some of that!". In the past it would be more babies, today, outside of a handful of people who don't care/think about it, its an affair with birth control and at worst an abortion.

Both of my cheating friends now have a lower quality of life because they were busted, I'm sure I have other friends who haven't been busted. We take that risk because of our genetic programming. The fact that those risks are rarely fruitful genetically doesn't matter, our genes don't have absolute control there. Also what % does it need to be, to be a genetic element? I honestly don't know its been way too long for me since I did the math for these things. Maybe 1-5% is enough, but I think we call agree that cheating is more than 5% (its estimated at 20%).

rus9384 · 2019-12-27T21:10:06+00:00

What I wonder is if cucked men who suspected they are cucked still counted as fathers in genealogical trees.

statusincorporated · 2019-12-27T21:19:47+00:00

The dual mating hypothesis has suffered several heavy salvos as of late with several meta-analysis finding no significant difference in what women are attracted to during different phases of their cycles.

TRP is not based on science....which is why I laugh when they say 'we're just reporting how the world works.' No you aren't, jabronis.

looks are the main determinant of STM.

behavior only matters after repeated interactions over a long period of time. so TRP's behavior this and that only works for LTRs anyway --- if you count those behaviors as attractive: spoiler alert --- they aren't.

AutoModerator · 2019-12-27T17:37:33+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Workaholiconew · 2019-12-27T19:03:27+00:00

The first Research. (Larmuseau et. al., 2019)

That is true, as the research shows, EPP was, in the years between the 14 hundreds to the 19 hundreds, was relatively rare (1.6%, page 2) compared to the rest of the world and even other 'traditional western' countries.

However you seen to forget that in this genetic research also seem to have found that:

EPP rates are on the rise since the aproximate 1930's, for all strata, i.e. since the early beginnings of the sexual liberation movement. (Page 3, Figure 2A)
That women who are in the worse strata of society, tend do EPP more. Which is predicted by the evolutionary psychology theory on which women "looking for better genes" would do more so if they are see more men who are higher than herself. (Page 3, Figure 2B)
That women seen to also do EPP more related to population density. Which is predicted by the TRP community in that women would be more willing to cheat the more exposed she is to higher valued men. (Page 3, Figure 2C)
That in no point the authors proposed the data were against the evolutionary psychology theory, and even used it in into this study (you seen to propose it in your reddit post)

For the second Research (Larmuseau; Matthijs; Wenseleers, 2016)

Equally, this research again consider mostly historical events of previous to the sexual revolution. And does put a dent on the theory of evolutionary psychology as women did not seem to cheat as much as they were predicted to considering the last 400 years or so (1% on average per generation, page 327).

HOWEVER, In this research you seen to forget that:

Evo psychology predicts what humans would desire to do if possible. What one desires and what one is capable of are 2 very different things. Case in point. Evo Psychology predicts that many would have the desire of eating enough to survive, many in history were also not able to achieve it. And way more than just 1% per generation in the last 400 years.
Societal mechanisms which were mentioned in the text which objective was to impede the above mentioned desire, have been eroded for last few decades. (329, second paragraph)

Conclusion

It is contentious to say the least, to say these researches disprove the evopsy theory, as it works with consequences, like children, instead of actual desire, but it does prove 2 things.

Women did not, or could not behave as predicted what would be their desire by evopsy, be because it is the theory is wrong or, (what is more probable), they couldn't behave as predicted before the sexual revolution without heavy (sometimes lethal) punishment. It is seriously contiguous to say it is incorrect.
The period in which humans started eroding the societal mechanisms which controlled women sexuality, lead to a higher and increasing incident of EPPs. Which follows the traditionalist theory predictions.

Edit:I would be more careful what you publish to disprove someone, as it can and probably will be used against your ideas if the person is willing to read the articles, and your hypothesis seem to be incorrect or imcomplete.

Edit: Grammar, non native english speaker.

noNooodleArms · 2019-12-27T20:16:08+00:00

LOL I just posted something along these lines.

amwfhunter · 2019-12-28T07:57:27+00:00

If I had a kid I would secretly test the kid's dna. Personally I think women who do this should be shot to death.

Dora_Bowl · 2019-12-27T17:56:19+00:00

I would probably guess most theories in evolutionary psychology are incorrect, so this does not really surprise me the data shows otherwise.

Title	Historical extra-pair paternity (cuckoldry) may be lower than previously believed.
Author	AntifaSuperSwoledier
Upvotes	8
Comments	77
Date	December 27, 2019 5:37 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/ege3xc/historical_extrapair_paternity_cuckoldry_may_be/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/historical-extra-pair-paternity-cuckoldry-may-be.303223 https://theredarchive.com/post/303223

Comments

The first Research. (Larmuseau et. al., 2019)

For the second Research (Larmuseau; Matthijs; Wenseleers, 2016)

Conclusion