Or not ...

"Rampant Misattributed Paternity : The Creation of an Urban Myth" by Michael Gilding at the Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

LOL - What "gentlemen" we

LOL - What "gentlemen" we have here, gallantly intervening to rescue to virtue of Canadian womanhood.

The data is American, but I don't see any compelling reason why human behaviour would be substantially different north of the 49th.

I do

And so, I'm sure, do others - we are rapidly descending to their level - but we're not actually there yet.

And, thanks for that OilbertaRedTory. I think we agree on several things.

It's not a question of

It's not a question of "descent" or "ascent". It's a question of sexual mores and human nature. Infidelity and fidelity are hard-wired into our natures (whether we act on it or not). How much cultural output alone is devoted to this basic human dilemma? Both genders pursue both fidelity and infidelity using strategies that are at once different and yet strikingly similar. I doubt there are huge national variations, but I'll bet you there are variations by social class and ethnicity (un-p.c. tho that may be).

The new Roman Empire

Quick, before someone else thinks of it, Garth, you should write The Decline And Fall Of British Columbia.

Geeez, how come we can't convince Campbell to throw some real sex-orgies for us depraved BCers, since I'm told he'll do ANYTHING to get elected?

Sex-orgies are much more fun, Garth, than shopping at Wal-Mart.

???

Did anyone else read OilbertaRedTory's link?

You guys are falling for an urban myth.

Yeh I read it Frank

And I agree, it's an urban myth - and even if it weren't, putting all the blame on 'women' for the situation is absurd.

SIG

Geeez SIG, usually you're so thorough, so I can't understand how you missed the following:

Abortions
Same-sex marriage
working mothers
trial marriage
sex education in schools
suggestive women's clothing
Atheism
teaching evolution
giving condoms to children
enabling drug use (insite)

And oh yes, something for all of us......
Circuses - as in Olympics

Gwest said: "putting all the

Gwest said: "putting all the blame on 'women' for the situation is absurd."

Did someone actually say that? Where?? I totally missed it. Oh, I get it - you're just huffin' 'n puffin' again.

Infidelity is a complex thing, and usually is about much more than sex. Men and women do it - and both need another man or woman to carry it out. There's only one Virgin Mary, and she wasn't Canadian.

Oh not all, but this

Was essentially a poke at women and an excuse for men..well, 'hetero' men at least ...now wasn't it?

And that's where you started.

No huffing, no puffing, just a little quoting - the huffing and puffing are your department my friend.

But since the 'study' is an urban myth anyway - who cares?

Don't start cutting 'n

Don't start cutting 'n pasting, Gwest. You always kill these threads as soon as start all that choppin' & recitin'. Everyone here can read, and they get my point. So what - the two genders deserve each other. Neither gets my sympathy, but you really need to save all that Virgin Mary veneration for church. Women can sometimes do their fair share of cheating & lying, so when it comes to dirty tricks pulled on the other gender I don't see any point in setting either one above the other.

nightbloom

THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS - I just brought them back up from the beginning of the thread in response to your little 'personal' dig at moi.

I'm actually not surprised you'd like to disown them.

The fact is, you didn't make a discernible point - and my repeating the bafflegab you laid down at the start of this thread simply proves it.

You were, as always, dumping on every woman 'except' the Virgin Mary and, I suppose, the sainted Sarah....

You slurred women in general - and the coterie of imagined cheating wives out there who are, according to you, cuckolding their husbands with alacrity.

But I'll leave the thread to you, I'm just not interested...except to say, unless all them cheatin' hearts are getting visits from the Holy Ghost there are MEN involved in those cases too.

I didn't "slur" or "dump" on

I didn't "slur" or "dump" on anyone, Gwest. I stated a scientifically verified fact, which you can debate with facts which demonstrate otherwise, if you can find them (which another participant did, citing an Australian study). But if you're not able to do that then spare us all the huffin' 'n puffin' and the cuttin' 'n pastin' and move along.

I disagree

And I offered your own words as evidence.

Can't be much clearer than that.

But don't be upset, it's all you ever do - you're probably not even aware of it by now.

Snark is your middle name my friend and we love you for it.

Not find 'em, hardly. And you should read what Frank wrote about 'em too.

Cheers dude.

Gwest, stop trying to make

Gwest, stop trying to make every thread in which we disagree all about me and my alleged motivations, and stick to the subject matter, and the substance of the arguments, the way that everyone else has. It's tedious for everyone when you start acting as some kind of thread-nanny or Tyee policeman. You always pull this whenever you encounter another viewpoint.

You were sticking to the subject matter?

Um...I'll just say I disagree.

Yes. I don't know why you

Yes. I don't know why you would suggest otherwise at this point, except that you seem to enjoy these rondos. The subject matter (or part of it) was the predilection of people to cheat on their partners, and the suggestion that the incidence of this goes up in times of economic downturn. I cited figures demonstrating that cheating was always higher than we thought; OilbertaRedTory disagreed rationally, whereas you started imagining slurrings and dumpings and Virgin Mary sightings right here in Canuckland. The fact remains that both genders err, cheat, and have lapses in judgment and moments of personal weakness; the U.S. numbers on misattributed paternity indicates that infidelity is far more prevalent among women than is generally assumed (since it's generally assumed that men are the dogs and women are incarnations of Snow White). Since science has established the 10% rate of paternity (in the U.S.), and since we know these kids are not immaculately conceived, the conclusion is obvious.

nightbloom

I did no such thing.

What I reacted to was your patented method of slamming women - you do it all the time.

In fact, I don't know which of your two hobby horses you prefer riding - demonizing women and defending men or attacking an imagined left-liberal clique you claim is destroying life as we know it.
You don’t very much like it when someone isn’t as impressed with your offerings as you obviously are yourself…

I think, and there's a considerable amount of evidence to support it, that the 10% figure is bogus and the whole study, in my view, is questionable in the extreme.

As for the Virgin Mary, YOU brought her up - along with the Roman Catholic Church - not me. If you bring these things to the table, don’t expect that no one will call you on them.

So please, no more facile lectures nightbloom, look to your own over-the-top pronouncements before you start raging at someone else. If you don't want people to react, don't say outrageous things....

And, this is, so far as I know, a place where anyone can post their thoughts and react to others' thoughts as they see fit.

I try not to violate the commenting code of conduct but there are times when it is difficult.

The suggestion that hard economic times lead to infidelity is another piece of nonsense, as the New York Times report cited above, it's much more likely to be the result of Viagra and Internet porn.

IN fact

In your post you state you cited a study - in fact, you did no such thing.

You mentioned a study - no citation was included - in fact, the best evidence (looking at some 67 relevant studies) shows that the range of variability extends from median rates of actual non-paternity (determined from blood or DNA exclusion tests) of 2% to 30%, respectively, with much variability across the studies.

I'd say we know virtually nothing about the matter and that your musings are speculative at best.

You two going back and forth...

That was hilarious....

Fii, i totally agree. dunno

Fii, i totally agree. dunno why he does this to these threads every time. He needs to make his point 'n move on. Now he seems to want to start a diversion on the Roman Catholic Church (?!?). Go figure.

So you didn't write this nightbloom?

If you ask me, the only genuinely consistent positions are the two extremes - i.e. Roman Catholic "natural law" views of sex, and alternately the totally libertine views of sex (represented, of course, by pre-epidemic gay men). Everything in between is pure contingency and make-it-up-as-you-go-along (not that there's anything wrong with that....but let's not pretend there's a consistent value system there).

Somebody been using your p/word again?

'tip o the hat Fii - glad you enjoyed it!

The P Word

Can someone pls tell me what Gwest means by the "P" word--?

Re. natural law morality and post-modern libertinism being the only genuinely cohesive positions, you'll just have to accept that as my own point of view and move along. Everything else in between is Aristotelean compromise. That doesn't make it wrong, but it *does* make it fungible and contingent.

Now can we please MOVE ON??

pass word nightbloom

Password...you said that I brought up the RC Church, remember?

In fact you brought it up.

There are lots of cohesive positions - not just the ones YOU decide are normative.

I was ready to move on ages ago my friend.

Did you forget this:

Um...I'll just say I disagree.

That was 12 hours ago ole buddy and you could have left it right there....seemed like a good idea to me.

But, as always, because you have such a high opinion of your own opinions you don't know how to disengage - I'll just repeat what I think is my conclusion, a pretty sad one, I'll admit, but nonetheless I think that's about the size of it....

The suggestion that hard economic times lead to infidelity is another piece of nonsense, as the New York Times report cited above, it's much more likely to be the result of Viagra and Internet porn.

We're obviously ovrcome by lust,

Internet porn causes infidelity, Garth? Geez, I always thought it was the result of us finally being allowed to see the erotic paintings and potteries from Pompeii, along with photographs of those salacious carvings on the old Hindu temples which glorify the Yoni.

But we still can't seem to get the penises back on the Totem Poles or the African carvings.

And regarding the contribution of Viagra to infidelity (and don't forget the Pill, abortion, and the easy availability of condoms), EVERYONE knows the rot began with the cheap automobile and the rise of drive-in movies. It's been downhill ever since, Garth.

Hehe - good post, ME2.

Hehe - good post, ME2.

Maybe so ME2

Wouldn't argue about any of those things...the point is, it's surely NOT the economic downturn or the rejection of Judeo Christian values or the immorality of married women...

Which was, as you've obviously discerned, the point I was trying to make.

Chuckle!

Back to the original

Back to the original premise, I think the current situation is very polarizing, like 911. This is more than about money and property, which have a way of growing sharp teeth and turning on people who've acquired them. If one is comfortably poor, at least it feels clear who friends really are and why.

I think interpretations of 911 could be so different on either side of a middling sort of relationship, it must to some have seemed as if an axe came down, suddenly, out of nowhere. Now it's Pipelineistan.
How many couples can warmly agree? This is passionate toaster hurling stuff.

And then, there's a growing awareness of STDs and STIs, not just HIV, and the little bells ringing that being a couple, especially a couple over forty, doesn't prevent the spread of anything. The utter hypocrisy of going on and on about young people using condoms baffles me. And this goes so far beyond any one relationship and health, it's about the ricochet effect of STIs and personal responsibility every step along the way.

No, not so GWest.

Nice try, Garth, but my intention was merely to gently advise that your bombast was showing - again.

ME2

Why thank you ME2.

So you think the economic downturn leads to infidelity too?

I can remember, as surely you can too, the halicion days of the last four years of the 20th century when the conventional wisdom held that rising incomes, business success and the expandind global economy was leading to the dissolution of marriage and, wait for it, increasing rates of infidelity.

We've now had the suggestion that it's the rise of women's power and idependence, the sinking economy, the rising economy, the influence of the media, advertising, drugs, video games, 911, the abandonment of Jesus Christ, internet porn and practically every thing else anyone can imagine.

And you talk about my bombast...I'll take that with a gentle grain of salt and, as I said, a chuckle.

Just wait for the next time nightbloom has an opportunity to dump on left-liberal academic feminists and you'll see what bombast really is my friend.

I guess you're not as perceptive as I thought you were....

Gwest, you really should

Gwest, you really should stop importing 'drama' from other threads. No one here has mentioned women's empowerment or academic feminism as a factor in infidelity. You're imagining things again. Try to be a little more pleasant to interact with.

As I said, infidelity is a very complex thing, which can arise as a result of a lot of different things, and is often not just about the sex. Both men and women cheat on each other (and need another man or women to do so), and the relative incidence of infidelity between the two sexes is probably not as disparate as sexist stereotypes would have us believe.

No question about the cheating

But that doesn't exactly square with your first post, does it?

remember this:
...cheating among hetero women was *always* up...?

I do.

As for the other stuff, please, don't be so bashful about your record. I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed who your favourite hobby horses are.

I consider everyone's posts here as part of a narrative that's actually extremely revealing - it certainly has been in your case. In fact, that aspect of your posts is usually far more interesting than the content of what you offer.

Cheers my friend, don't be so shy about your reputation, you've been very explicitly establishing it here for anyone with the wit to follow along.

Have fun, that's it for me on what has been pretty much of a 'nothing' thread.

If it's been a "nothing"

If it's been a "nothing" thread it's because you haven't actually engaged on anything that's been uttered here, and have been going in cirlces. You've also imported warped interpretations and baggage from other threads. That loud 'whooosh' you're hearing is the point coasting over your head yet again.

Once again nightbloom

I disagree. You started off with your usual pet point of view and virtually no one else, apart from me, commented at all.

In fact, as Fii noted, the only signs of life the comments ever sparked here were as result of our exchanges.

She thought it was hilarious, remember?