• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Why Men Cheat

ramonmercado

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
58,322
Location
Eblana
Perhaps this is a little reductionist.

Why Men Cheat
By Constance Holden
ScienceNOW Daily News
2 September 2008

Like meadow voles, some men just don't seem to be built for monogamy, whereas others, like swans, mate for life. New research hints that some of the difference might be due to a single genetic variation.

The gene in question, AVPR1a, governs a receptor that regulates the brain's production of vasopressin, a hormone that contributes to attachment behavior with mates and offspring. A few years ago, scientists found that when they added extra copies of the AVPR1a gene to the brains of promiscuous meadow voles, the animals began acting more like monogamous prairie voles, spending more time with partners and grooming offspring. A similar role for the AVPR1a gene has been observed in chimps and bonobos.

Might such a simple switch be found in humans? A team led by Hasse Walum of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, sequenced the AVPR1a gene in about 500 pairs of adult same-sex Swedish twins, all of them married or cohabiting for at least 5 years, and their partners. One variation of the gene was particularly common; about 40% of males had either one or two copies of a version--or allele--of the gene known as "334."

Although not simply an analog to the polymorphism found in prairie voles, allele 334 seems to have a similar effect on the stability of human relationships, as measured in interviews and questionnaires. The tests included a Partner Bonding Scale containing items that reflect affection and cooperation, such as "How often do you kiss your mate?" and "How often are you and your partner involved in common interests outside the family?"

Scores on the test were significantly lower for the men carrying either one or two copies of allele 334 than for those without it, the researchers report online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The highest score possible is 66; those without the allele scored an average of 48, whereas carriers of one copy of allele 334 scored an average of 46.3. Carriers of two 334 alleles had the lowest scores of all, averaging 45.5. Although the score differences seem small, Walum says they are statistically significant. (No connection was observed in females.)

More striking were the answers to questions as to whether the men had experienced a marital crisis or threat of divorce during the prior year. More than one-third of carriers of two 334 alleles said yes, compared with only 15% of those with no 334 allele. What's more, 32% of those with two alleles were unmarried, compared with 17% of those who didn't carry the allele. Evaluations of the relationship by the men's partners tended to correspond with assessments reported by the men themselves.

The behavior appears to be somewhat heritable. Because the researchers were dealing with a population of twins, they were able to separate genetic and environmental influences. They found that about 28% of the behavior could be chalked up to inheritance, which is similar to what other studies have estimated for the heritability of marital satisfaction and of divorce.

Larry Young of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, whose team found the association between the vasopressin polymorphism and pair bonding in voles (ScienceNOW, 9 June 2005), says that assuming the finding can be replicated, it shows how a brain system developed early in mammalian evolution has been retained over the millennia and continues to play "a critical role in social relationships in both rodents and man." Geneticist Simon Easteal of the Australian National University in Canberra adds that "the effects of the ... polymorphism may be greater than these results indicate" because the study didn't cover single men, who presumably are less inclined to fidelity than those in relationships.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 2008/902/1
Click to expand...
 
Well it's a new chat-up line - for vole-lovers anyway,

"Hi! Meadow-vole or Prairie-vole*?"

Why not print it on T-shirts. :)






. . . and advertise them in FT. :(


*In my unscientific way, I wondered if the fate of these animals was related in some curious way to their names:

Prairie Vole = I A Ripe Lover!

Meadow Vole = Male Vow Ode!

or Lo Me Wed Ova!

or Aw Do Love Me! :D
 
A working day too long when everything goes wrong
And a boss who don't know I'm alive
I once had a notion I'd get that promotion,
but now I barely survive

A wife too demanding with no understanding
Of why I stay dead on my feet
A dimly lit tavern, a willing young woman
Are some of the reasons I cheat

The hair that I'm losing and a women who's choosing
To lay sound asleep by my side
The bills they are mounting that's when I start counting
On someone to help sooth my pride

A lady that knows me, affection she shows me
and a smile so easy and sweet
The dreams that I've buried, the load that I've carried
Are some of the reasons I cheat

My children keep on growing, my age keeps on showing
Like all of my old friends I meet
So I'm getting older my life's growing colder
Just some of the reasons I cheat
Yes I'm getting older my life's growing colder
Just some of the reasons I cheat

_ Randy Travis
 
More likely than genes, though it seems to belong to someone called Randy Travis. You he? Otherwise attribution needed as nod to copyright.

This genes stuff reminds me of the gay genes thread.

"You straight?"
"Straight as a die!"
"How long you in for then?"
"You want me to pull out now, dude?" :p
 
What a load of nonsense! This sounds like an excuse for being unfaithful and dishonest.

"Oh, I might be a lying, cheating slime-ball but it's genetic ... innit!"

As a human, we have a choice for our social behaviour (within reason) and the genetic map isn't a Papal Indulgence for any blip on the scope.
 
Sorry James.

I thought everyone would know it was Randy Travis
 
Surely it is just animal instinct for males to want to, ahem, procreate with 99% of women they see?

I can't quote figures but in the natural world I'm sure far more species are polygamous than are monogamous. Infact Im sure I read somewhere that very, very few species are 100% monogamous.

It is a natural male instinct to want to spread your seed and keep your species alive, it is only through the emergence of Christianity and ancient civilisations introducing laws to effectively enforce monogamy that it has become the socially accepted norm.

We're being forced to act against nature! It's just not right! :)
 
Yeah,

I read somewhere that even today 60% of human societies are polygamous.

Now the really interesting question. Why do women cheat?
 
plusk said:
Yeah,

I read somewhere that even today 60% of human societies are polygamous.

Now the really interesting question. Why do women cheat?
Click to expand...

Cos they are much better at lying about it than men.
 
Nah,

That explains how they get away with it - but why do they do it?
 
Men and women, we're only human. Monkeys really. All we're good for is procreating and throwing crap at each other. :lol:
 
As well as over breeding and throwing poo we are also exceptionally skilled at:
Destroying stuff by accident
Destroying stuff intentionally

And I think women cheat simply to get one up on a partner than has annoyed them or let them down. In my life I have had four wives yet I have never been married ;)
 
Women probably cheat just as much as men, they just keep quieter about it. There is also a cultural approval for cheating men but not cheating women. Kings were expected to sleep around and have official mistresses, sleeping with a female member of the royal family was treason and could lead to both the men and women being executed. Men are expected to be 'Jack the Lad' and have a go at any pretty women that passes them by, women are supposed to be the Angel in the Home, and love only their man.

Personally, I think both stereotypes are a load of balls
 
michelleeb1970 said:
Women probably cheat just as much as men, they just keep quieter about it. There is also a cultural approval for cheating men but not cheating women. Kings were expected to sleep around and have official mistresses, sleeping with a female member of the royal family was treason and could lead to both the men and women being executed. Men are expected to be 'Jack the Lad' and have a go at any pretty women that passes them by, women are supposed to be the Angel in the Home, and love only their man.

Personally, I think both stereotypes are a load of balls
Click to expand...


Hear hear! I entirely agree. There is a terrific subconscious social pressure on men to conform to the 'horny, can't keep it in his pants' image, and on women to conform to the 'devoted wife and homemaker' image. Blame the Victorians, who creatred the entire 'Angel in the House' notion of women as the sweet saviours of beastly men. It's a concept that just ends up disempowering all of us, men and women alike.
 
Women cheat more then men do nowadays...If I find the link I'll post it. But its just a stereotype that Men cheat more.
 
I've long been unconvinced by this alpha male reductionist argument that men cheat because, well, they can't help themselves. It's nonsense.

One could equally say that most men are not terribly confident or attractive, and generally find it harder to find someone willing to have sex with them than an average-looking woman would. As a result, if and when such a man does find a woman who is willing to be his partner, he going to want to hang on to her at all costs.

I don't know what the figures are but I would not be at all surprised to find that as many, if not more, women than men cheat on their partners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top