The biological damage of raising a child that is not his is much more than a rape victims because at least she is investing in a child that is half hers…. if he never figures it out and all his children are impostors then then he is as biologically dead as if you had killed him.

Biological harm isn’t actual harm (though it is predictive of how harmful something will be experienced as by the victim).

Consider a long-term fraud that costs the victim their livelihood, something that took many years to build, and then consider a violent assault from which the victim eventually recovers physically. We consider the latter more reprehensible; we sanction the offender more forcefully, blame the victim less (people avoid reporting fraud because they’re ashamed to have fallen for it; this isn’t a problem with aggravated assault), and in general consider it to be a greater crime.

If, when sex is added to the equation (sex-based fraud, sex-based violence), your perception of the relative severity of offense changes, isn’t it possible that it’s due less to majestic principles of philosophy, and more due to a propensity to consider violence done to female bodies to count less, and fraud perpetrated on male egos to count more?

While I agree with you that I don’t think less of a man who has been cuckolded, historically it has been considered shameful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Order-cuckoldry-ca1815-French-satire.jpg
This picture shows cuckolded men growing horns. In fact, I once heard that it is where the whole make-devil-horns-on-your-classmate thing in photographs came from.

Historically and culturally, that’s still a very provincial viewpoint, at least as far as the “shameful” character of a man’s being cuckolded is concerned. As Paul Veyne writes in A History of Private Life concerning the Romans:

A woman was like a grown child; her husband was obliged to humor her because of her dowry and her noble father. Cicero and his correspondents gossip about the caprices of these lifelong adolescents, who, for example, might seize upon the absence of a husband sent to govern a remote province in order to divorce him and marry another. These women’s antics nevertheless had real consequences for political relations among the nobility. Needless to say, it was impossible for a woman to make a fool of her lord and master. Cuckoldry (as we know it from Molière) was not a part of the Romans’ conceptual universe. Had it been, Cato, Caesar, and Pompey would all have been illustrious cuckolds. A man was the master of his wife, just as he was the master of his daughters and servants. If his wife was unfaithful, the man did not thereby become a laughingstock. Infidelity was a misfortune, neither greater nor less than the misfortune of a daughter who became pregnant or a slave who failed of his duty. If a wife betrayed her husband, the husband was criticized for want of vigilance and for having, by his own weakness, allowed adultery to flourish in the city — much as we might criticize parents for overindulging or spoiling their children, allowing them to drift into delinquency and thus making the cities unsafe. The only way for a husband or father to avoid such an accusation was to be the first to publicly denounce any misconduct by members of his family. The emperor Augustus detailed the affairs of his daughter Julia in an edict; Nero did the same for the adultery of his wife, Octavia. The point was to prove that the man had no “patience,” that is, connivance, with vice. People wondered whether the stoic silence of other husbands deserved praise or blame.

Because deceived husbands were aggrieved rather than risible and divorced women took their dowries with them, divorce was common among the upper class (Caesar, Cicero, Ovid, and Claudius married three times), and perhaps also among the urban plebs.
Juvenal tells of a woman of the people who consults an itinerant soothsayer about whether she should leave her tavernkeeper husband to marry a secondhand clothing merchant (a prosperous profession in a time when the lower orders bought their clothing used). Nothing was more alien to the Romans than the biblical notion of taking possession of the flesh. Roman men did not hesitate to marry divorced women. The emperor Domitian remarried a women he had divorced, who had subsequently married another man. For a women to have known only one man in her life was considered a merit, but only the Christians would undertake to make such fidelity a duty and attempt to prohibit widows from remarrying.

Here’s a starting point: the size of the martial arts/self-defense industry that caters to women. The overwhelming reason, when you ask such women carefully and cut through the rhetoric about exercise & fun, is that they fear abuse and sexual abuse such as rape in particular.

From reading articles about African wars, I understand rape can be much more violent than simply open wounds encouraging infection – sterility and death are live possibilities.

And I guarantee you 100% that paternity tests for every baby would result in some men who are outraged to discover that they don’t actually control their wives assaulting and murdering the women who cuckolded them.

Or maybe it would make women more likely to be faithful?

I guarantee you though that the abortion rate would go up, as well.

Successful cuckoldry in fact doesn’t favor the jealous man but favors the cad – the man who impregnated a woman he probably knew was spoken for, and who probably contributes nothing to the 20 year project that is the raising of a child – over the dad – the man who contributes, probably significantly, to the child’s upbringing. And yet, biologically, somehow the dads have survived – at least in certain societies. Perhaps because they do provide something that women want, that satisfies them, emotionally or in some other way. In the balance, “dad” is still the better evolutionary strategy. If you want to, trust but verify; get a paternity test, but don’t tell the Mrs. – unless the answer is the wrong one.

It’s interesting though that our last two Democratic presidents have been fathered by cads, not dads. I’m not suggesting cads are smarter or make better leaders. Perhaps it’s the combination of having “game” and a lack of scruples. Casually bedding women means telling the women what they want to hear. Winning votes means telling the voters what they want to hear.

As for the choice between cuckoldry on the one hand and rape of me, a man, by another man? Well both involve being dominated by another man – in one case one who is stealing your partner’s affections, perhaps because you can’t satisfy her in one or several ways, and in the other by a man who is physically present and using physical force to dominate you, another man. Both are pretty shameful. At least in the case of rape I’m not being lied to for some number of years and being robbed, as well – which isn’t to say I’d prefer the rape.

What’s clear though is that society has not treated this as the problem it is. Society does not respect the cuckold, even to the point of not respecting his rights. He is often expected to pay for children that aren’t even his. He is derided by many for leaving children when he discovers he is not the father.

Also the victim of rape gets away from the perpetrator usually. The victim of cuckoldry is continuously victimized by the criminal in question. What’s worse is that if he never figures it out and all his children are impostors then then he is as biologically dead as if you had killed him. At least the rapists don’t sterilize their victims.

The males consent to have sex with is partner is conditional. When those conditions are violated then the consent is no longer in effect. At that point the woman really is raping the man if rape is consent based.