Welcome, Guest

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentAuthorellenclarke81
   • CommentTimeApr 29th 2006 edited

    permalink
   According to matt ridley's 'the 'red queen' a DNA study was carried out a few years ago in the UK that threw up the unexpected news that one in five UK residents are not genetically related to their 'father.' ONE IN FIVE people! Thats a lot of affairs.
   so i thought it would be funny to hear from anyone who has suspicions about any of their friends or siblings. or perhaps sometimes you look at your father and wonder about yourself?! chances are that several of you are cuckholds.......
   
   i personally have always been dubious about the surprising redness of my little brother's hair - no one else has red hair that we know of. Thankfully red hair is coded for by a recessive allele so i dont have to call my mother a slag outright.........
2. •  
     CommentAuthorDanieru
   • CommentTimeApr 29th 2006 edited

    permalink
   Ha ha...
   
   I have no doubt that my siblings are of both my parent's creation, not least because me and my brother, who is seven years my younger, look and act remarkably similar.
   
   I spent my early youth in a tiny village where everyone had a relation to everyone else, the amount of inbreeding was, and still is, ridiculous there. Other than this I have never sat and considered my friends' genetic origins. Sperm coupled with female desire is surely one of the most potent substances in the universe.
3. • CommentAuthorwhat?
   • CommentTimeApr 30th 2006

    permalink
   most of the animals once admired for their monogamy have been shown, through genetic analysis, to be promiscuoius. fath no more, no trust, and love but the shallowest lie.
4. • CommentAuthorEndymion
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2006 edited

    permalink
   I've reached the age when I am as old as my father was when I have clear memories of him, and it is those memories that look back at me out of the mirror when I shave!
   
   Interesting study, tho'. It would be interesting to know the ages of the father/child pair to see what period the finding relates to. Would any of us be surprised to find that there was greater promiscurity in the '70s than, say, the 50's? And perhaps more children resulting from 'cuckolding' in the '70s than the '90s when women had a much firmer grip on their fertility.
   
   And of course presumably this is the result Darwin, and Dawkins, would have predicted. Monogamy is only beneficial to the gene when the presence of the father assists the survival of the off-spring. In modern society where the survival of the off-spring is anyway more or less guaranteed by society itself DNA benefits from mixing with as many partners as possible so in the absence of an Alpha male (and how many of us would classify our fathers as that?) our mother's genes are going to encourage her to spread it about a bit!
5. •  
     CommentAuthorDanieru
   • CommentTimeMay 7th 2006 edited

    permalink
   Mankind's most successful Alpha Male?
   
   Genghis Khan:
   

   "The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms" - Source 1 - Source 2

6. •  
     CommentAuthorDanieru
   • CommentTimeMay 7th 2006

    permalink

   ACCORDING to some accounts, a lot of men are bringing up children unaware that they are not the biological father. The figure of 10 per cent or more is often bandied about for the proportion of children involved, but how well does it stand up?
   
   To find out, anthropologist Kermyt Anderson of the University of Oklahoma, Norman, dug through studies going back to 1949 that reported what fraction of purported fathers could be ruled out by blood, genetic or antigen tests...
   
   ...On the basis of this analysis, Anderson says that the 10 per cent figure "appears inflated". The real number is elusive without a systematic study that tests paternity regardless of whether a man has doubts. The paper will appear in Current Anthropology.
   
   New Scientist