Saturday, April 13, 2013

Better than one in a million, anyway

Why do those who write about Game tend to overestimate the prevalence of cuckoldry over the course of human history? Fairly recently, Roissy did just this without seemingly even realizing it. Commenting on a study showing a misattribution rate for putative biological fathers of around 1% in Germany, he deftly claimed that he wasn't surprised they were so low (!), and in fact would've estimated contemporary rates to be even lower:
I’m not here to argue that the 1% figure is wrong. In fact, the 1% figure is higher than I assumed. Look at it this way: That recorded 1% cuckoldry rate is more than 30 TIMES the US recorded rape rate of 0.03%. ... 
A flaw in assuming present-day cuckoldry rates align with historical cuckoldry rates is the fairly recent widespread availability of contraceptives and abortion. How many women who sleep with interloper males are using birth control? Probably most, and more so if those women are higher SES.
Mentioned in the comments of the post he linked to is research from geneticist Bryan Sykes showing an estimated non-paternity rate of 1.3% per generation in England extending all the way back to 1300 AD, and one of our national treasures, Gregory Cochran, mentions that similar historical results have been found in the Irish and among the Boers. While Roissy reasonably presumes that women of higher socio-economic status do a better job of keeping extramarital dalliances from producing living evidence of their cheating than prole women do, Steve Sailer asserts that it's likely those with surnames that survived over several generations (including Sykes, the surname the eponymous Bryan Sykes used on the way to concluding an estimated 1.3% cuckoldry rate) were more put together and orderly--that is, of higher SES--than those that did not survive the test of time.

So if today's upper class women are better at avoiding procreation from affairs than lower class women are when, prior to modern contraception, non-paternity occurred in fewer than 1-in-50 births, well, it has been--for at least a millenia, anyway--a marginal phenomenon, and it continues to be so today, perhaps even more fringe now than it was in the past.

Another prospective reason PUAs overestimate cuckolding rates may be due to selection bias, with susceptibility to Game tactics and class being inversely correlated to some extent. That old bugaboo the GSS shows that among married or formerly married women, those on the lower half of the class structure are more likely to cheat on their husbands than those on the upper half are (14.7% of those in the lower/working classes to 11.1% of those in the middle/upper classes, n = 10,778). And of course marriage rates are lower in the lower/working classes than they are in the middle/upper classes. Infidelity rates are presumably higher among those in unmarried relationships than they are among those in married relationships, so the overall class gap in cheating rates is likely wider still.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY, CLASS(1-2)(3-4), SEX(2)

8 comments:

Dan said...

Strong points.

Game for men is foolish in my opinion.

Why?

(1)
Men are able to increase their market value a lot just by trying hard. Get a good education, a good career, make money and save it, work out and become buff, be willing to be a provider. And then just go for it, with confidence in your honest worth, even if you shortish and not handsome (me).

Women can't fake youth, beauty and fertility very well.

(2) The 'toward marriage' market features *much* higher quality women than the 'whatever you find in a bar' market. The 'toward marriage' women are more virtuous, less likely to have a disease, less slutty, don't represent the rejects, have a higher average IQ, have higher social status, are better-bred and are less likely to have a feminist chip on their shoulder. What else?

It is no wonder game types have a low opinion of women when they swim in such polluted waters, so to speak.

Anonymous said...

and are less likely to have a feminist chip on their shoulder.

No. That's backwards. Lower class women overall are the least likely to have a feminist chip on their shoulder, with the middle class and the underclass as equally feminist. The upper class is slightly more feminist in some instances, less in others.

Underclass --> Lower class --> Middle Class --> Upper class

Dan said...

Marriage is definitionally antifeminist.

If you date with the open objective of finding a wife, feminists will flee. Which is a feature, not a bug.

i am swpl chick, hear me grow barren said...

with susceptibility to Game tactics and class being inversely correlated to some extent.

Most deliberate game-using men are urban SWPLs picking up highly educated yuppie girls. Smart chicks fall for game hard.

JayMan said...

Excellent post.

Anonymous said...

I like how Dan says game is foolish for men then proceeds to tell men to bribe women with resources and set himself up for victimhood when the women who were never attracted to begin with walk away with half their stuff. The mind of a loser knows no bound.

goodspeed said...

This is nice and all, but what about the fact that women are reluctant to divulge things about them selves that would lower their value? Remember the study that showed how women would tell an interviewer that they only had 2.4 sexual partners on average but when they were hooked up to a lie-detector the average jumped to 4.4.

chris said...

"Marriage is definitionally antifeminist. "

Google "Marriage 2.0"

Here's a couple examples;

http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/the-morality-of-marriage-2-0/