-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Interesting discussion that includes effects of birth control chemicals
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
Excellent book. I bought copies for Kristin and both of our girls when Dr. Hill's book first came out.
It made me glad Kristin first came after me when she wasn't on hormonal birth control. Dr. David M. Buss's team at the University of Texas (The Evolution of Desire) is directly and indirectly responsible for most of the research backing up the mate-switching hypothesis. That all these people are 'evolutionary' biologists and psychologists does weaken some of their conclusions, but there is no doubt that their research on the effect of hormones on mate choices is significantly confirmed; it explains, for one thing, why something like 30% of children born to married women are fathered by alpha males with whom women cheat on their beta male husbands.
It is ridiculously high. A figure I heard from a genetic testing / geneology expert is that all forms of "non-paternity events" as she called them (not only cheating, also adoption without ever telling the child so they genuinely believe they are a blood descendent, grandparents taking a grandchild as their child, a generous man marrying a pregnant woman and claiming the child as his own, etc) occur once every 20 generations in a given bloodline - ie 1/20 or 5%. That's still a lot, as it's enough to mean that in any genealogical line, by the time you go 500 years back you're probably wrong. But it includes a lot more than just cheating, yet it's still nowhere near the insanely cynical figure of 30%.
That figure seems a might high.
Reference please @Keith Martin.
"Mate choice copying" is expressed in poly.
Also like the comment that women's moral values do not scale beyond the family. This is true. Women as a group tend to view their moral choices through the lens of family which is why when they are making decisions about foreign relations (other countries) they focus on children, aid for families, education, and health care to the exclusion of broader social good in the form of individual civil rights. Women often favor obviating individual civil rights in favor of family-centric social goals.
The problem is that obviating civil rights ends up causing more damage than good. But if it's "for the children!!" then they can't find it in them to even discuss negative outcomes.
Also like the comment that women's moral values do not scale beyond the family. This is true. Women as a group tend to view their moral choices through the lens of family which is why when they are making decisions about foreign relations (other countries) they focus on children, aid for families, education, and health care to the exclusion of broader social good in the form of individual civil rights. Women often favor obviating individual civil rights in favor of family-centric social goals.
The problem is that obviating civil rights ends up causing more damage than good. But if it's "for the children!!" then they can't find it in them to even discuss negative outcomes.
Last edited:
That figure seems a might high.
It's funny; I'll have to beg y'all's indulgence while I wait around for the next time that that research shows up. The funny thing is that, in between when I wrote that here and when I came back here just a little while ago -- sometime during late morning -- I ran across yet another reference to it and almost appended a link to my earlier post.
But this is nothing new, and, despite how shocked I was when I first encountered it myself, looking into it inspired me to accept and embrace it. No doubt: it includes a truth that most men are bound to find appalling, and I don't even think it's a matter of conscious intent on the part of women -- to cuckold their partners. Instead, it's mostly just biology that translates into natural selection passing along the DNA and traits of the kind of mates women yearn for when they're ovulating -- whereas, in the post-ovulatory phase, women are (a) most likely to accept marriage proposals and also (b) most likely to have sex with non-alpha men they perceive to be more boring in bed but more stable and dependable (and also more easily controlled).
My 30% going from beta to alpha was probably a bit of hyperbole, but not by percentage; instead, it's probably the case that I'm over-emphasizing the extent to which women cheat with alphas (especially given that men are not just alphas and betas -- I refer everyone to my earlier Meat thread entitled "WHY SOME PEOPLE GET MORE SEXUAL PRACTICE THAN OTHERS, or What the H E Double Hockey Sticks Kind of Alpha Males Are These Biblical Families Patriarchs?," which, oddly enough, doesn't show up in results anymore when I search for it) but not at all over-emphasizing the extent to which women's actual cheating leads to fertilization being accomplished by non-marital sexual partners. It's in that range, and what has been taught in the past (before the Mormons unleashed ancestry.com on the world, which was augmented by 23-and-me) has been turned on its head; in fact, I believe what I was reminded of this morning was that it's actually 30-something %.
This doesn't mean that married women have 30% of their sex with extramarital partners, but it does mean that married women have 30% of their most wild, deeply-penetrating sex that is most likely to lead to conception while they're ovulating and with non-husband lovers.
This should be a wake-up call to all of us to not rest on our laurels in bed just because we believe we own our women.
Wait….. the level of excitement has a say in whether she gets pregnant?
On the over 30% of children born, I’m not going to find just one study very compelling.
If you were to say of the women who cheat on their beta husbands, 30% of the resulting pregnancies are from alpha males, I would think that would be low.
I missed this comment. Whoever wrote it had an amazing insight. The cynics in the manosphere claim women have no morals or are amoral. They’re looking at women’s morality as though it should line up with men’s morality.
But these two moralities operate in two entirely different although juxtaposed arenas. Brilliant. Obvious in retrospect but I hadn’t made the connection.
Yes, it is a brilliant way to state it.
I’ve observed that women are nurturing, and that doesn’t pan out as well when dealing with the law side of society.
Now put the rest of God's Design together and realize that the differences between men and women are not at odds with each other but that they complement each other.
The man has his senses aimed at the dangers outside of the family and the woman has her senses aimed at the dangers inside the family.
If we do it right then our families are safe from all threats.
But you can't do it right if you're trying to pretend that men and women are equal in all things because that's just not true.