The Real Alternatives To Paternity Confidence

Progressive-female horror at the very notion of paternity confidence as a legitimate male concern becomes all the more ironic when we ask ourselves what – absent the female self-policing we have been taught to call “sexual repression” – the best male strategies to obtain said paternity confidence might be.

In the absence of a clan-based social structure, see further above, there are broadly speaking four alternative strategies for men seeking paternity assurance: abandonment, guarding, swamping and hedging.

The abandonment strategy means that the man does not bother to invest any financial and emotional resources in any children supposedly born to him, on the grounds that they probably aren’t his anyway. It is hardly the case that men do not run away from their obligations also to children who are demonstrably theirs; au contraire, this is all too common. But it is intuitively obvious that if the psychological likelihood of a given man failing to support his own undoubted child is x%, then the likelihood of his failing to support a child of whose paternity he is unconvinced is going to be a lot higher than x%. Demonisation of paternity confidence will therefore tend to increase abandonment of mothers and infants.

The guarding strategy means constraining, both individually and collectively, his wife’s freedom so that she does not get a chance to have sex with any other men. The kind of marriage and society thereby created is, of course, the feminists’ number-one hate; but in accordance with their Unmoved Mover strategy of not recognising that male behaviour is a response to incentive structures, they attribute such patriarchal arrangements to an innate and metaphysical male depravity that requires no further explanation.

Other things being equal, the more children a man has with his wife, the more likely it is that at least some of them will be his. Lacking paternity confidence, a man’s third strategy is therefore to breed his wife like the Catholics in the Monty Python sketch. Contrariwise, the fewer children a woman has, the more acute becomes her partner’s need to make sure they are his; and so one might expect that the smaller families of liberal post-industrial societies would be accompanied by more intense male “guarding behaviour”. As this does not appear to be the case, the real “backlash” may still lie ahead of us; or else an upswing in the first and fourth strategies.

A man’s fourth anti-cuckoldry strategy is investment in other matings, that is, to beget children elsewhere. If some of Mrs. Smith’s children have in fact been sired by Jones, but Smith himself begets some children on Mrs. Jones, then Smith and Jones come out equal in the posterity stakes. This is probably what is really going on in those allegedly idyllic societies where the men seem cheerfully indifferent to which children are whose.

Given that modern progressive women are not only emphatically un-guardable but are also cracking down on male “infidelity” – while by no means renouncing their own right to “explore their own sexuality” – the only viable male option in such an sub-culture would seem to a variant of the hedging strategy, namely breeding in a pattern of serial monogamy. Each man would then hope to have several children from successive relationships. Since progressive women are disinclined to have several children each, however, it is hard to see how this final male strategy can do other than lead to increased intra-male competition for a decreasing number of breeding opportunities. This would explain the appearance of the metrosexual and his skyrocketing consumption of male beauty aids.

Leave a Reply