Interesting Article about Marriage

[Legion]

I stumbled upon an interesting article that I wanted to show you guys.

http://dontmarry.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/mommys-little-secret/

I have always been against marriage (for social and economic reasons), so I will admit to a certain sense of satisfaction when I read this article. What do you all think about this? Are you surprised?

NOTE: I simply found this online through a google search and make no claims that this is scientifically valid.

EDIT: And I just now realized how old this article was... Ah screw it, I still want to hear your opinions and thoughts.

 

[Hermetic Alchemist]

I've done research in the fertility world and this is a well known 'fact'. For those that haven't read the article, 10% of children born to married couples are not the biological children of their 'father's'

One caveat however. The 5-15% number is extremely dependent on socio-economic class.

It should also be noted that the 'hard' figures (rather than anecdotal evidence) are done with certain self selecting populations. So while these figures are certainly accurate, it cannot necessarily be extended to the entire population of the US (let alone Europe, or other cultures!)

 

[Bryson]

Interesting article.
I think we have less self control than we assume, and I think it's worse with women, as their fertile cycle make them more vulnerable when they're ovulating. Years ago i read this ''PUA'' article and i was shocked: http://www.bristollair.com/2008/inner-game/nature-reality/the-truth-about-women/
I think the risk is always there, but we have to learn how to minimize it. We can't be happy without taking chances.

The first step is finding a women that respects you and is not too impulsive.

Second step is making sure the sex is good.
While this might not apply to every women, I read that when they are ovulating they want rougher sex, which makes sense. Some men are too judgemental about that, so their spouses end up outsourcing the task. In the end, everybody is happy: she satisfies her biological urges, he keeps thinking his lovely spouse wife is a puritan.
...as long as he doesn't find out, of course.

 

[Trebuchet]

I read both of the articles posted so far. The first one isn't that old. Five years isn't enough time for things to have changed much, so probably most of it still holds true. Regarding the false paternity article in the original post, I think there are several things going on here.

1. Some people are not faithful. Duh. We knew that. So who were the real biological fathers? We don't know, but I bet a lot of them were married themselves. Personally, I don't have any respect for fooling around, but I live in a world where it happens.

2. Some people don't know anything about birth control. I live in the US, where "abstinence only" is a common way of teaching birth control. No statistics, techniques, or physiology in those classes. Stupid, stupid, stupid. It is very clear that this leads to a lot of teen pregnancy and sexual irresponsibility. When those girls marry, why would anyone expect them to understand the consequences or risks of sex? The article didn't say, but I'd love to see how often false paternity occurs in couples that grew up with "abstinence only." (Just to be clear, yes, I am saying that if someone is going to fool around, they should use effective birth control.)

3. As the Alchemist pointed out, these statistics aren't comprehensive. Drawing conclusions about the children in your own neighborhood, or their mommies, is fraught. Since it is a topic likely to be kept as a close secret, the statistics are hard to compile. But interesting.

The original question is about marriage. I'm married. I like being married. But I can understand why someone else might not want to marry. And no, I wasn't really surprised.

Regarding the second article, about picking up women, this too has a sampling error. The author only pursued women who were in a place to be picked up. He didn't try seducing women who were in the book store, or walking their dogs, or at the dentist. He picked them up in bars, and generalized to all women. I have no doubt his techniques for getting women into his bed are successful. Richard Feynman described the same thing. But I very much doubt they would work on anyone who didn't want to be picked up.

 

[Bryson]

Regarding the second article, about picking up women, this too has a sampling error. The author only pursued women who were in a place to be picked up. He didn't try seducing women who were in the book store, or walking their dogs, or at the dentist. He picked them up in bars, and generalized to all women.

The credibility of the article could be questioned, but he mentioned he could pick up girls on the streets. In fact, some of the most skilled guy prefer this approach, as they consider women have their ''shield'' lowered on situations they aren't expecting to be approached.
You could argue he went for the women that seemed more promiscuous, and that would probably be right.

But I very much doubt they would work on anyone who didn't want to be picked up.

Interpreted restrictively, your statement is right, as ''want'' sometimes isn't a conscious decision. But sometimes ''the body'' wants. And, from that point, providing the seducer is skillful and the conditions are optimal, things may happen even if people didn't consciously wanted that in first place. I think INTPs are more deliberate about avoiding those situations, so i understand if you don't relate.

 

[Trebuchet]

The credibility of the article could be questioned, but he mentioned he could pick up girls on the streets. In fact, some of the most skilled guy prefer this approach, as they consider women have their ''shield'' lowered on situations they aren't expecting to be approached.
You could argue he went for the women that seemed more promiscuous, and that would probably be right.

I reread it and you are right. He did say at the grocery store.

Interpreted restrictively, your statement is right, as ''want'' sometimes isn't a conscious decision. But sometimes ''the body'' wants. And, from that point, providing the seducer is skillful and the conditions are optimal, things may happen even if people didn't consciously wanted that in first place. I think INTPs are more deliberate about avoiding those situations, so i understand if you don't relate.

I don't know how deliberate I am about avoiding such situations. I mean, I go to the grocery store (though, to be sure, not bars). Back in college, I met a player like this guy, and he did get a pretty good kiss out of it, but the clothing stayed on.

Now, I believe him when he says he gets a lot of sex, including with women who are "taken," and it is clear that he no longer respects women, which is probably part of how he manages all the sex. If he thought of them as more than just a way to satisfy his lust, or if he considered them honorable, he would have a harder time being Mr. Player. But it is anecdotal, and not exactly a scholarly study of the female psyche. Clearly he is selecting for people who want to be selected.

But, equally clearly, there are enough women who want to be selected that it is easy to picture Mr. Player as the actual biological father of a lot of kids. Ick.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Which poses the question; is there a "player" gene? It would explain several things. (although it may just be a component of nurture)

 

[shoeless]

everyone lies, everyone cheats, everyone fucks. the circle of life. i honestly think that's a reflection on human condition and not so much the institution of marriage. either way, it's not that marriage by itself is a bad thing, it's that people do it for the wrong reasons and with the wrong people.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

everyone lies, everyone cheats, everyone fucks. the circle of life. i honestly think that's a reflection on human condition and not so much the institution of marriage. either way, it's not that marriage by itself is a bad thing, it's that people do it for the wrong reasons and with the wrong people.

I agree. People have the tendancy to marry for reasons that are not conducive to a long term relationship.

 

[Bryson]

Now, I believe him when he says he gets a lot of sex, including with women who are "taken," and it is clear that he no longer respects women, which is probably part of how he manages all the sex. If he thought of them as more than just a way to satisfy his lust, or if he considered them honorable, he would have a harder time being Mr. Player.

Agreed. He probably does a fine job rationalizing that he is just giving them what their husbands aren't.

But it is anecdotal, and not exactly a scholarly study of the female psyche.

Yes. Even though he has a lot of empirical evidence to support his beliefs, he isn't impartial. We can extract some truths from extreme point of views, but we must take them with a grain of salt.

But, equally clearly, there are enough women who want to be selected that it is easy to picture Mr. Player as the actual biological father of a lot of kids. Ick.

So true.

 

[scorpiomover]

I really don't know why anyone is surprised at this.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Read Sarah Hrdy's book Mother Nature.