Infidelity 'is in the genes' (SCIENCE VS. MORALITY ALERT)

BBC News ^ | October 30, 2002 | BBC News

[MadIvan]

Women with steady partners may still be tempted to sleep around - but mainly on certain days of the month, say researchers.

A BBC documentary to be broadcast on Wednesday explains how human sexual instincts are so strong that some women's preferences may alter significantly while she is ovulating.

While her partner might be a better bet to bring up children and support her, another man might carry genes which mean healthier, stronger children.

Serial cuckold

Morgan Wise, a train driver from Big Spring in Texas, found this out when his youngest son was found to have cystic fibrosis, a devastating lung disorder caused by a single faulty gene.

Both mother and father must carry the gene to produce a cystic fibrosis child, and Morgan duly went for a gene test to confirm he was a carrier.

The test proved negative - effectively proving that he was not the child's father.

He told the BBC: "The doctor said: 'You are not a carrier of cystic fibrosis.' I couldn't believe it."

There was worse to come. Subsequent DNA tests revealed that not one of Morgan's three sons was fathered by him.

I want to what he got out of the divorce settlement, hopefully he got everything including a pint of his ex-wife's blood - Ivan

One in 10

However, researchers suggest that this is by no means an isolated event.

One study suggested that one in 10 children are being raised by men who are unaware that they are not the children.

A study at the University of Stirling seems to pinpoint the instinct which might tempt some women to stray around the time of the month they are fertile.

Two groups of female volunteers were picked.

One was tested during their ovulation, the other at another point in her cycle.

Each was shown a computer image of a male face which they could adjust electronically to make appear more or less masculine, using features such as the thickness of the neck and the squareness of the jaw.

While the group not ovulating tended to prefer their men with slightly more feminine feature, at the point of ovulating, the women strongly preferred their men masculine.

This, say scientists, is down to instinct - while more feminine features might signify a man with less testosterone who is more likely to prove a steady partner, the stronger features they preferred at ovulation might indicate a better set of genes, producing a stronger or healthier child.

[MadIvan]

I don't like the assumption that lies at the heart of this article: that just because our instincts may lead us a certain way, that we are obliged to follow them. If we are, then we are no better than animals. Or Bill Clinton.

It's a human instinct to pro-create. Genuine love narrows this desire to one person.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[mamarainsberry]

But the real father of all the children lived in the same trailer park so what the heck.

[potlatch]

It's a human instinct to pro-create. Genuine love narrows this desire to one person.

True words, Ivan, and MORALS.

[VOA]

I want to what he got out of the divorce settlement, hopefully he got everything
including a pint of his ex-wife's blood - Ivan

To the contrary.
There is now a sea-change occuring in family/divorce law here in the USA.
To this point a common-law presumption of paternity (e.g., if the man functions
as a father...he legally is one) has held precedent in this sort of case.

But this gentleman's case, along with many others, are being cited as this medieval legal
standard is pushed aside due to the realities of DNA proof of paternity.
A few states (Ohio is one) have just started enacting laws that will give men
more latitude in using DNA testing to make courts pay attention to their paternity
(or non-paternity).

If I recall correctly, the fellow from Texas ended up in trouble, because he was forbidden
to let his kids know that he was not their father (so much for our First Amendment
when a judge goes on a power trip).
I guess the frustration got to be too much one day and he committed the sin of
telling the kids the truth...and at the same time saying he'd stick by them.
But after he was hit with penalties by the judge when the ex-wife complained about this...
he's (understandably in my book) been less involved with the kids (way to go Judge!).

Oh, and the ex-wife lover...no pursuit of him for child support payment...only from
the duped husband.
Yep, justice, based on the intersection of medieval common law with feminist's insistence
that men always and only pay up.

[struggle]

You are correct sir. I slept with a different woman just after beginning to date my wife, and told her about it, because I couldnt hold it from her once she became a Christian. Now that we are married, I could never do such a thing to her again and I curse myself every time I remember how I hurt her. Its funny that God and woman forgives, but a real man can never forgive himself for what he has done. The thing that really disturbs me about this post is that they make adultry seem so flippant. Yeah, women sleep with other men, kinda thing. Temptation is strong, but marriage is until death.

[RWG]

It's a human instinct to pro-create...right, but with whom and when may be in the genes notwithstanding genuine love which most girls know nothing about.

[Desdemona]

Women like this give the rest of us a bad name....

It's bad enough the number who are serial marriers.

All the male cynicism...well, I still have my dog, anyway.

[Mr. Silverback]

I don't like the assumption that lies at the heart of this article: that just because our instincts may lead us a certain way, that we are obliged to follow them. If we are, then we are no better than animals. Or Bill Clinton.

My wife, the lovely Rambette, put it this way:
"Sure, genetics counts for a lot, but YOU have veto power."

I would add this: Each of us is dealt a genetic hand of cards. Like poker, the cards we're dealt are less important than what we do with them. If you're dealt a pair of twos and nothing else, you can start cheating to make up for it, or you can play honestly and to the best of your ability. Moral choice has veto power.

Just for purposes of clarity, that "YOU" is in the general sense, she wasn't talking to me specifically. ;-) I'm a good boy.

[Mr. Silverback]

Wait a minute, I'm confused...does this mean Bill Clinton was ovulating when he had Monica up to the oval office?