I have read documents showing the percentage to have been twice that in the 1970´s. when more people were married.

Now its much harder to collect stats covertly so who knows what the numbers are.

Anyhow I think the law has or is about to change to recognise the daddy on the spot rather than the biological daddy as the father.........much more civilised dont you think

Harry actually looks like Diana's side of the family... sadly.... didn't I read somewhere that old yo yo knickers met Hewitt after Hazza was born?


The real question is this..... do any of you actually believe these statistics? They interview like a thousand people FFS! Thats hardly a scientific bloody approach is it... and I thought you were all brilliant scientists... *rolls eyes*

I remember a London publican decorating his pub and serving all his customers after time, getting ready to celebrate his wife giving birth to their first child. They were a white couple, running a pub in darkest Hackney.

When the call came from the hospital he left a barman in charge and all the drinks were free until his return.

He never came back and was never seen again.

His wife came back to the pub a few days later and proudly showed off her baby. It was black and beautiful.

Yeah. I'd be none to pleased to find out I'd raised a cuckoo. A lot of women get a taste for unprotected sex with another breeding partner once they have bred with their husband.

Interestingly enough, it's a common trait we share with animals. For example, in sparrow colonies, a huge % of the chicks are fathered by the top male, and the females have to be careful not to cuckold their partner too much, because if the brood smells(?) too different from what they should, he will simply walk away and leave her to get on with rearing them on her own.

Weeellll, it's like anything else, isn't it. A statistical report on its own has only so much validity. It's when you have a lot of such reports, and compare them all that they start to have real value.

It's like when you want info on something. You 'ask' various sources. Friends, people in that line of work, papers, TV, the news, and so on.

All these sources have different standing, ie how much you would trust them, and a wise man compares them all to each other.

In this case, the nickname yo-yo knickers seems apt, the fact that both children look so radically different, (again, not proof, but indicative), that the MG looks so much like a known donut dunker, and finally that so many have made the connection. Also look how often one reads of females that after the first child's birth, the libido vanishes, to be miraculously reignited when an apparantly better catch comes along.

All mere threads, but put together, many threads make a rope.

Is that one of your scientific factuals?

.....or maybe picked up from personal experiences more like ?

Just observation of a lot of people. I've seen this effect quite a lot of times. It's similar to the H M McCartney effect where she quits as soon as her meal ticket is stamped.

I'm well aware you don't like this sort of observation. I wonder why?

Because its all in your head and nobody elses..........
you cannot generalise about women the way you do...........
it smacks of misogyny and makes you look small.

Ah yes. When you don't like the message, and can't bring to bear an intellectual arguement to counter it, what's left?

Ah yes. Abuse the messenger.

Dear god, we have a woman who complains a man is generalising about women. That is a lot funnier than your usual attempts. You are obviously improving.

Pointing out a common pattern between animals and humans is a valid point.

Animals commit adultery, prostitute themselves, lie, mug and carry out organised warfare, deliberately get pregnant by lovers, rape and rob.

Why would you want to claim that your sex is above such connections?

Oh yes. Generalisation is permitted. You have to prove that any generalisation is invalid.