«DNA testing van with the slogan “who’s your daddy” on the side: Milanich’s case is that this notion of fatherhood is actually very recent, stemming as far back as the discovery of DNA and the availability of commercial testing.»
For most of human history most mothers were terrified that they had invested a lot of effort to raise sons yet their legal grandchildren were genetically fathered by the sons of other women so they imposed strict conditions on the women their sons would marry: they had to have a chaste attitude, be virgin at marriage and this had to be checked physically by them to avoid their sons paying to raise (at least as the firstborn) the genetic grandchildren of another woman. Typical mother statement in the past: "I will disinherit you/die of heartbreak if you marry that slut".
As a result even in the UK 95% of brides were still virgins at marriage in the 1950s which shows how obsessed mothers were to prevent their investment in the success of their own sons to be exploited by the mothers of other men and how likely they thought it would be otherwise (having been young and horny themselves...).
«The website for 23andme warns user that they can both “discover relatives who were previously unknown to you,” and “learn that someone you thought you were related to is not your biological relative”. In this sense, France has banned private DNA testing on a constitutional level, in order to protect the social relationship between fathers and children.»
That "social relationship between fathers and children" simply means that provider husbands must always pay to raise any sons their wives decide, as it is their unconditional right, to have with other men.
Anyhow the usual progressive rationale for forbidding genetic testing "without the consent of both parents" (wonderful euphemism) has always been to protect wives from widespread possibilities of domestic violence (wonderful euphemism).
One of the most ancient sayings is the basis of much of human society "the mother is always certain and the father never" which has existed for millennia for some reason (mothers of male children know very well why).
«A 2005 paper by sociologist Michael Gilding focuses on the phenomenon of “rampant misattributed paternity”, the urban legend that a large number of babies are fathered by women’s affair partners - for which he explains there is extremely limited evidence,»
The evidence is plentiful (especially older evidence from the less progressive past) but nowadays it is carefully hidden usually in extremely convoluted jargon because open discussion of it is career-destroying. The results that I know from primary sources are that the average is 20% but quite different depending on the status and income of the husband: for richer husbands it is as low as 5% and for poorer ones it is 40%, and the reason is that strong independent women carefully optimize the risk profile of making their own paternity choices.
However now that in "progressive" countries most women have zero or one children and so many are unmarried things are somewhat different from the past when they had 2-4 (it was usually children after the 1st or the 2nd where women exercised at will their unconditional right to choose who would father their children).
«That "social relationship between fathers and children" [(wonderful euphemism)] simply means that provider husbands must always pay to raise any sons»
That "always" is regrettably too strong: in many cases the legal parent is richer than the natural father, but where the natural father is richer I guess that many mothers will, as it is their unconditional right, choose to give their consent to revealing who is the natural father, "for the social relationship between natural fathers and children" and "in the interests of the child" (another common wonderful euphemism).
«the usual progressive rationale for forbidding genetic testing "without the consent of both parents" (wonderful euphemism) has always been to protect wives from widespread possibilities of domestic violence.»
In some countries it is a criminal offense for a medical professional to (without the consent of the mother) to tell a child or act on the information that their natural father is not their legal parent, even if this means that the child will not be aware or treated in time for genetic conditions that their natural father has but their legal parent does not have; protecting the mother from potential domestic violence takes absolute priority.
Excellent work on multiple levels; my only comment is that after the quote from Fuentes about women you could have appended the fact that he is (allegedly / from what I read / if I recall correctly) a virgin
This bulk of this post should be framed as an example of how western civilization became so stupid it thought *this* about fatherhood.
«DNA testing van with the slogan “who’s your daddy” on the side: Milanich’s case is that this notion of fatherhood is actually very recent, stemming as far back as the discovery of DNA and the availability of commercial testing.»
For most of human history most mothers were terrified that they had invested a lot of effort to raise sons yet their legal grandchildren were genetically fathered by the sons of other women so they imposed strict conditions on the women their sons would marry: they had to have a chaste attitude, be virgin at marriage and this had to be checked physically by them to avoid their sons paying to raise (at least as the firstborn) the genetic grandchildren of another woman. Typical mother statement in the past: "I will disinherit you/die of heartbreak if you marry that slut".
As a result even in the UK 95% of brides were still virgins at marriage in the 1950s which shows how obsessed mothers were to prevent their investment in the success of their own sons to be exploited by the mothers of other men and how likely they thought it would be otherwise (having been young and horny themselves...).
«The website for 23andme warns user that they can both “discover relatives who were previously unknown to you,” and “learn that someone you thought you were related to is not your biological relative”. In this sense, France has banned private DNA testing on a constitutional level, in order to protect the social relationship between fathers and children.»
That "social relationship between fathers and children" simply means that provider husbands must always pay to raise any sons their wives decide, as it is their unconditional right, to have with other men.
Anyhow the usual progressive rationale for forbidding genetic testing "without the consent of both parents" (wonderful euphemism) has always been to protect wives from widespread possibilities of domestic violence (wonderful euphemism).
One of the most ancient sayings is the basis of much of human society "the mother is always certain and the father never" which has existed for millennia for some reason (mothers of male children know very well why).
«A 2005 paper by sociologist Michael Gilding focuses on the phenomenon of “rampant misattributed paternity”, the urban legend that a large number of babies are fathered by women’s affair partners - for which he explains there is extremely limited evidence,»
The evidence is plentiful (especially older evidence from the less progressive past) but nowadays it is carefully hidden usually in extremely convoluted jargon because open discussion of it is career-destroying. The results that I know from primary sources are that the average is 20% but quite different depending on the status and income of the husband: for richer husbands it is as low as 5% and for poorer ones it is 40%, and the reason is that strong independent women carefully optimize the risk profile of making their own paternity choices.
However now that in "progressive" countries most women have zero or one children and so many are unmarried things are somewhat different from the past when they had 2-4 (it was usually children after the 1st or the 2nd where women exercised at will their unconditional right to choose who would father their children).
«That "social relationship between fathers and children" [(wonderful euphemism)] simply means that provider husbands must always pay to raise any sons»
That "always" is regrettably too strong: in many cases the legal parent is richer than the natural father, but where the natural father is richer I guess that many mothers will, as it is their unconditional right, choose to give their consent to revealing who is the natural father, "for the social relationship between natural fathers and children" and "in the interests of the child" (another common wonderful euphemism).
«the usual progressive rationale for forbidding genetic testing "without the consent of both parents" (wonderful euphemism) has always been to protect wives from widespread possibilities of domestic violence.»
In some countries it is a criminal offense for a medical professional to (without the consent of the mother) to tell a child or act on the information that their natural father is not their legal parent, even if this means that the child will not be aware or treated in time for genetic conditions that their natural father has but their legal parent does not have; protecting the mother from potential domestic violence takes absolute priority.
Excellent work on multiple levels; my only comment is that after the quote from Fuentes about women you could have appended the fact that he is (allegedly / from what I read / if I recall correctly) a virgin