Monogamy gene found in people

[Something Else]

Discussed in this article, published 2008.

Monogamy gene found in people (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5702390&page=1)

Had stumbled upon this while googling "vasopressin" + "monogamy" after my interests were piqued when a poster (at another msg board) mentioned there's a 'monogamy' gene.

Found that truly fascinating that they could determine that there is a gene for that?!

It's a quick read, but it just seems to give support that some humans are more 'hard-wired' for "pair bonding" than others.

[DuckiesDarling]

Amusing, so anyone who is incapable of being monogamous can just use the excuse "I don't have the gene" Anything to keep from taking personal responsibility.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I disagree, DD.

I don't think it is an excuse to ignore responsibility. I think it is an indication that we, as a society, need to rethink our ideas of marriage/pairing etc. If we can see that some are not genetically wired for it, then it does two things. 1. It explains much. 2. It opens us up to rethinking why we insist upon two people joining till death do they part. If we can show that some people aren't meant to be that, then perhaps they will not take those vows in the first place. Perhaps the idea of handfasting will become popular again.

I do not disparage anyone who believes in monogamy...for themselves. I do, however, think that anyone who thinks it's the only correct way to run a marriage is naive.

Pasa

[Long Duck Dong]

not sure about the gene, but I do agree pasa..... there are those that handle monogamy fine.... and others that its not in their nature to settle into a monogamy relation

the trouble in my eyes, is when one or the other partner tries to change the nature of a person.......

if we end up with a * opposites * style relationship, thats when a lot of problems arise and thats when we start to see the * monogamy is wrong * stance, so get rid of monogamy.....

personally I tend to believe that most people that want monogamy removed, are the people that are open relationship natured and want any restrictions removed that may stop them living the lifestyle of their choice....... at the expense of their own partners possible desires......
and that can be the attitude that also can lead to the * we do not agree with monogamy / monogamy is wrong, so nobody should be monogamous * stance...... and that can reveal a lot of peoples personal natures

if both partners are open or monogamous minded, then its balanced..... so the issues generally do not exist......

[mikey3000]

I think that study was done by the same people who did this one...

Medical study: Swallowing semen reduces risk of breast cancer by 40%
Quote

Study: Fellatio may significantly decrease the risk of breast cancer in women
Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 9:19 AM EDT (1319 GMT)

-- Women who perform the act of fellatio and swallow semen on a regular basis, one to two times a week, may reduce their risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent, a North Carolina State University study found.

Doctors had never suspected a link between the act of fellatio and breast cancer, but new research being performed at North Carolina State University is starting to suggest that there could be an important link between the two.

In a study of over 15,000 women suspected of having performed regular fellatio and swallowed the ejaculatory fluid, over the past ten years, the researchers found that those actually having performed the act regularly, one to two times a week, had a lower occurrence of breast cancer than those who had not. There was no increased risk, however, for those who did not regularly perform.

"I think it removes the last shade of doubt that fellatio is actually a healthy act," said Dr. A.J. Kramer of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research. "I am surprised by these findings, but am also excited that the researchers may have discovered a relatively easy way to lower the occurrence of breast cancer in women."

The University researchers stressed that, though breast cancer is relatively uncommon, any steps taken to reduce the risk would be a wise decision.

"Only with regular occurrence will your chances be reduced, so I encourage all women out there to make fellatio an important part of their daily routine," said Dr. Helena Shifteer, one of the researchers at the University. "Since the emergence of the research, I try to fellate at least once every other night to reduce my chances."

The study is reported in Friday's Journal of Medical Research.

In 1991, 43,582 women died of breast cancer, as reported by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Len Lictepeen, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, said women should not overlook or "play down" these findings.

"This will hopefully change women's practice and patterns, resulting in a severe drop in the future number of cases," Lictepeen said.

Sooner said the research shows no increase in the risk of breast cancer in those who are, for whatever reason, not able to fellate regularly.

"There's definitely fertile ground for more research. Many have stepped forward to volunteer for related research now in the planning stages," he said.

Almost every woman is, at some point, going to perform the act of fellatio, but it is the frequency at which this event occurs that makes the difference, say researchers. Also key seems to be the protein and enzyme count in the semen, but researchers are again waiting for more test data.

The reasearch consisted of two groups, 6,246 women ages 25 to 45 who had performed fellatio and swallowed on a regular basis over the past five to ten years, and 9,728 women who had not or did not swallow. The group of women who had performed and swallowed had a breast cancer rate of 1.9 percent and the group who had not had a breast cancer rate of 10.4 percent.

"The findings do suggest that there are other causes for breast cancer besides the absence of regular fellatio," Shafteer said. "It's a cause, not THE cause."

Now that's real science.:bigrin:

[Long Duck Dong]

roflmao mikey, I am not sure if I am open minded enuf to take that study seriously.......

does the website start with www.theonion????

tho I did notice it says that breast cancer is uncommon...... in fact in nz, its one of the top 3 cancers in ladies.....

[DuckiesDarling]

LOL I love TheOnion. I seem to remember something posted on here at one time about scientists identifying the gay gene.

[mikey3000]

Also Dr. Len Lictepeen? Bwaa haa haa!! I got a few years of exceptional and very regular head before I fessed up. :( But it hasn't slowed down that much, so I'm not complaining.

[Hephaestion]

There are two routes for administering drugs enterically. The drug companies often develop pills appropriately. One is through the stomadeum (mouth). The second is through the proctodeum (anus).

An honest answer of "Yes it is" to the question "You mean it's for my health?" gains both latitude and new prominence.

.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

lol And just think...These people get thousands of dollars in grants to do this kinds of reasearch. "Boss, I need 5.2 million to do a case study on blow jobs in men over 30. Just sign right here...Make the check out to me." lol
Silly Cat

[mikey3000]

um, can i join that study? please?;)

[void()]

Not meaning offense but this study of a monogamy gene being found reminds me of the one finding the God gene. I'll laugh at both. Although there is something to consider, in an idea such as invisible purple unicorns hard wiring itself into a host animal. Wouldn't it be amazing if memes were proven able to do this?

And yes, it does lead to asking of absence of particular genes in people. No it does not lend itself as an excuse. It may help in understanding motivations but not excuse the actions, especially if they are heinous.

Example:

Person A doesn't have the Y gene but adheres to good moral judgment.

Person B also lacks the Y gene and doesn't adhere to good moral judgment.

Is it due to lacking the Y gene? No. Because Person A likely realized they have self control and choice. So, lacking a gene isn't meant as instant condoning of all actions. It means only person B lacks that gene.

I often face a multitude of stereotypes. Accordingly I ought to be a suicide number, or a psychotic killer number. This is where I end up parting ways with many. I have choice. Yes nature and environment forge out so much. But we do have choice as well. Balance must be granted.

[risika413]

If this is a genetic thing, I guess I'm a freak of nature.

My partner and I have been openly polyamorous for a couple years now, it just works better for us. Just like monogamy works better for some people. Different strokes for different folks.

[darkeyes]

If this is a genetic thing, I guess I'm a freak of nature.



We are, every single thing in the cosmos, living or otherwise, freaks of nature.. isn't nature a wonderful thing?:)

[void()]

Looks at Fran with glowing amber eyes. "Freak, where? Willis are you inhaling glue, again?

*chuckles*

I think the elvish folk would argue they are the purest. Void looks over his shoulder, three times, then the other one, checking for his cunning little wife. Between you and me, lupine are much better company. Void dodges the incoming brownie onslaught.