Possible Monogamy Gene Found In People

Calopteryx sends in a New Scientist summary of research from Sweden pointing toward the existence of a gene that influences monogamy in men. (The article doesn't mention women, and the study subjects were all men at least 5 years into a heterosexual relationship.) "There has been speculation about the role of the hormone vasopressin in humans ever since we discovered that variations in where receptors for the hormone are expressed makes prairie voles strictly monogamous but meadow voles promiscuous; vasopressin is related to the 'cuddle chemical' oxytocin. Now it seems variations in a section of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in people help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands."

Comments

George Clooney dubs it:

[Kingrames]

The pussy gene.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Anonymous Coward]

The pussy gene is typically found in people with XX chromosomes and prominently displayed in XXX movies.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Sponge Bath]

Of course.
Those in monogamous relationships get sex on demand and home cooked meals!

All my married friends tell me that.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[megaditto]

You joke now, but once they come up with a DIY test kit for "multiple cunt personality" genetic, guess what type of men will get all the pussy?

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[nawcom]

do not post here again. Horrible.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[KGIII]

They lie to you. Oh man do they lie. They probably do it so that you will join them in their misery, misery loves company and all that.

Anyhow, now that there's a gene for it and I obviously don't have it, I have a scientific excuse. ;)

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Foobar of Borg]

Those in monogamous relationships get sex on demand and home cooked meals! All my married friends tell me that.

[spews drink onto keyboard]

Thanks, Sponge Bath! I needed a good laugh today!

[remembers "buy roses to placate angry spouse" is still on "to-do" list]

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Or rather : in different circumstances monogamy may provide an evolutionary advantage. If you intend to wage unceasing war ("live off the land" (and the passersby)), for example, monogamy would be a bad idea, since lots of men will die, leaving behind women, even though some limit would be good (say you expect 50% of the men to be involved in war, then you should allow 2 women to one man, if you expect between 75 and 90% of your society to be dedicated to war, then 4 women to 1 man seems appropriate (and obviously only to men who can afford not to be on the frontlines, who should basically stay away from women, except the occasional rape of a succesful raid) (then again, in war, are limits like these really going to be respected ?). If you allow without limit (or allow polygamy + concubines) then clearly you expect to do nothing else than warfare, and marriage means nothing except for inheritance.

In peace, you'd need to prevent men remaining behind alone without partner (because for every extra woman one man has, another has to do without, 4 women to one man would become 75% of men without contact with women in extremis, realistically, say 50% of men, 4 women + unlimited (and exclusive) concubines would mean something like 999/1000 of men without partner, in some cultures that is normal, or was normal not too long ago), as that will certainly not be helpful in helping them build instead of destroying society, therefore in a peaceful setting, you'd want monogamy.

The fact that genes start expressing it is not very surprising. Polygamous cultures are known for being more than a little agressive, and genes are how humans adapt to their environment. If the environment or the culture changes to be less suitable for agriculture (or the culture doesn't know, or incorrectly conducts agriculture, e.g. predatory agriculture, or not doing anything about overpopulation, or ...) the genes will adapt to become less monogamous.

If raiding is basically impossible, for whatever reason, building things will become important, and monogamous relationships become an evolutionary advantage. Certainly after 10 generations the effects will be very noticeable.

Since this gene will very much influence how agressive people are against "other tribes", it is one of the prime parameters that will determine the layout of the resulting society, and may introduce all sorts of limits (e.g. agressive societies will never have any population density for obvious reasons, which can easily translate in a very low maximum population limit)

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent must be sad that he has not met anyone with mythical XX chromosomes.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Anonymous Coward]

being a married man with few years of personal experience I can tell you two things:
1. being married in no way limits you to monogamy. That is good so because sex on demand does not work 100% either.
2. modern women cannot cook so if you want to eat a decent meal you either cook, get a well cooking lover (that would be a man then) or go to a restaurant - I took first option.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[ArmyOfAardvarks]

>>Those in monogamous relationships get sex on demand Although it will be 50-75 pounds heavier than before the wedding. >>and home cooked meals! On the weekends when you head to your parents for dinner.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Mr. Slippery]

In peace, you'd need to prevent men remaining behind alone without partner (because for every extra woman one man has, another has to do without

Only if you're assuming one man per woman. No reason for that; there're lots of poly women out there.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[durnurd]

See: Denobulan Species

They seem to have worked it out just fine.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Crazy Taco]

They lie to you. Oh man do they lie. They probably do it so that you will join them in their misery, misery loves company and all that.

Actually it's not a lie. Like everything, there are of course exceptions, so I'm sure some people do lie, but I get all of the above. And my wife is wonderful. I love being married. So yeah, if you wanna delude yourself out of the fun, go ahead... but consider the fact that you haven't tried being married, so how would you know the truth? Married men are inherently credible when talking about this issue, and unmarried men are without credibility, for the following reason: all us married men have been both single and married, and I personally can say that after trying both, marriage is far superior.

Anyhow, now that there's a gene for it and I obviously don't have it, I have a scientific excuse. ;)

Sorry, but as a creature of reason and logic (which your appeal to science shows that you are), you are still without excuse. Anyone who claims reason has the tools necessary to rise above base animal instincts and live differently. Whether this alleged gene actually is proven to be true or not, the "serial non-commiters" still have no excuse to use the women around them.

As humans, we have to rise above this non-commitment, because regardless of a specific gene, societies in which commitments are made and upheld are inherently more stable and peaceful than those in which no one can trust anyone's word. As humans, our goal should be to form stable societies that are best for us, not to follow our genetic dispositions.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[KGIII]

Err... I *was* married. Me? I'm an animal. Which, honestly, is why I *was* married. I wouldn't tell someone not to do something like getting married unless, of course, I'd already tried it. I have faith, someday you'll probably be in the same boat as I, statistically it is quite likely that you'll be divorced too.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is the USA the most sexually prudish of the Western States when it is such a genetic melting pot of cultures? I think culture is a far prevalent here than genetics.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[renegadesx]

You just have the wrong XXX movies ;)

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[tyrione]

Have no fear. With the rate of obesity growing you'll have a harder and harder time in finding this Gene.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[budgenator]

Dude, you have to tell us what Planet your from and how to get there!

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[DrCode]

Err... I *was* married. Me? I'm an animal. Which, honestly, is why I *was* married. I wouldn't tell someone not to do something like getting married unless, of course, I'd already tried it. I have faith, someday you'll probably be in the same boat as I, statistically it is quite likely that you'll be divorced too.

I'm still married, and I don't doubt your assertion. In my (cynical) view, the main reason I see for marriage is to provide a stable home for kids when they're most vulnerable. It's probably why so many marriages either end or become stressed at around the 5-year mark.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they already found that on chromosome 21?

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[interstellar_donkey]

Um, with all due respect, you're way off. It's like the old joke says, "Why is it women are smiling so much on their wedding day? Because they'll never have to give a blowjob again"

This article makes me feel good. Despite my wifes inability (her story) or unwillingness (makes sense to me) to have sex every single night, I still have no desire to cheat on her. I always thought that it made me a sucker, but it turns out I have the sucker.... er, monogamy gene.

Just remember, married man myth number 1: Once you're married, you'll never have to masturbate again. Oh ho! That's, um, not true by a long shot.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[interstellar_donkey]

Yeah. It's funny because it's so far from the truth. I don't get sex every night, and my wife doesn't cook. She leaves that to me.

It kind of begs the question "What, exactly, are wifes good for?" I still have yet to figure that out.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[KGIII]

My mum and dad lasted 42 years, over 9000!!!!, but she died recently so that ended that run. The folks up the road from my parents have been at it for 60 years as of last month.

Cynic aside, I wish you the best of luck. I think it might be genetics. I really do. If you have the monogamy gene and she has the opposing nuturing current fold without roaming gene (for lack of a better term) and you have enough differences and enough comminalities then you should be all set.

I am actually married again. I neglected to mention that earlier. She's sleeping. She is always sleeping. Go figure? Either way I'm just ranting.

We spent 6 months doing a bit over 25,000 miles around the globe. In a car. On a whim. I figure if you can last that long in that close a proximity you can live together and stay happy enough to get through the trouble spots. There *will* be troubles.

Meh... Just rickroll her every time she gets pissy.

Oh! I have some LEARNED experience. You probably already know it.

Listen. Communication.

I have three rules. Open, honest, communication. That's it. She has dozens. I have a point, I think...

Listening != hearing
Admitting wrong > being right
if $relationship == happiness echo 'why?';

If this one doesn't work I'm never getting married again, every five years I'm just going to buy someone a house in exchange for sex, cooking, and cleaning.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[zobier]

As humans, we have to rise above this non-commitment, because regardless of a specific gene, societies in which commitments are made and upheld are inherently more stable and peaceful than those in which no one can trust anyone's word. As humans, our goal should be to form stable societies that are best for us, not to follow our genetic dispositions.

Except that we're talking about monogamy, not commitment. It is possible to be in a committed relationship, have sexual relations with more than one person and not be dishonest about it. Since we're talking about logic, reason and whatnot. It is also quite possible to have a stable and trusting society where this behaviour is not taboo.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[zobier]

Polygamy does not necessarily imply polygyny, some cultures have relationships with multiple husbands and wives.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The disadvantage of that is that children do not have fathers, at best someone who "probably had something to do with it".

Obviously families are impossible in that sort of situations. Meaning the man cannot live with his children. (Except if the woman (temporariliy ?) switches to monogamy)

Of course, temporarily is a relative term, since we're talking 20 years or so + 2 or 3 for each additional child. So if you intend to have 4 kids, we're talking 30 years.

So in practice "temporarily" will be rougly equivalent to "until death", at the very least until pension, and after 30 years, will you really want to separate ?

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Tom]

If you intend to wage unceasing war ("live off the land" (and the passersby)), for example, monogamy would be a bad idea, since lots of men will die, leaving behind women, even though some limit would be good (say you expect 50% of the men to be involved in war, then you should allow 2 women to one man, if you expect between 75 and 90% of your society to be dedicated to war, then 4 women to 1 man seems appropriate (and obviously only to men who can afford not to be on the frontlines, who should basically stay away from women, except the occasional rape of a succesful raid)

A very short look into history tells us that this is bullshit.

Men's part in reproduction is pretty small, and throughout history has been solved by giving them a few days off every few months so they can go home, have fun with their wives and (hopefully) produce the next generation of soldiers.

Especially in ancient times, very few wars were fought far away from home, and even fewer lasted more than a month or two. We know that from the customs of those people (see Frazer's books, for example).

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[indifferent children]

"What, exactly, are wifes good for?"

When you sit down at the end of the month and ask yourself, "Where did all of my money go?", you only have to think of one person, instead of a long line of hookers, waiters, dates, hardware and hobbies.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You're thinking of ancient European wars, which occured "sporadically", and were very rare. Several generations could live without seeing war. The majority of time was spent farming. The muslims, on the other hand, who were always at war (there isn't a single time in muslim history with 10 years of peace, and it's hard to find even 1 year of peace, though it does exist), and spent their ENTIRE time raiding their neighbours, the men, sleeping in mobile tent camps, were constantly at war, never home, and not too bright strategically at all : they often lost (e.g. these are the people who lost with a 200-to-1 advantage against the Jews).

In that situation women obviously all want a man that was a commander of the defending forces, not a soldier of the attackers (and they want a man that is a lot older). He'd be present, and might actually live to see his children (and, hopefully, help).

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Tom]

You're thinking of ancient European wars, which occured "sporadically", and were very rare. Several generations could live without seeing war.

Actually, no. I was thinking predominantly of ancient Africa and tribal wars. Those kinds of wars were extremely common, there'd be one every other year or so.

In that situation women obviously all want a man that was a commander of the defending forces, not a soldier of the attackers (and they want a man that is a lot older). He'd be present, and might actually live to see his children (and, hopefully, help).

That's not about the point we discussed at all, and is equally valid for a primitive farming society where starvation was a real and present danger. Even during wartime, more people died in Europe of malnutrition than died in any actual battles. It took WW1 to change that, and WW1 increased casualties by at least one order of magnitude compared to anything seen before. That's why they called it "The Great War" afterwards and until WW2.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[vertinox]

So yeah, if you wanna delude yourself out of the fun, go ahead... but consider the fact that you haven't tried being married, so how would you know the truth?

Feh. I've lived with a girlfriend plus 3 years and I don't like it. Of course we're not officially "married", but I realized I can't personally live with another person. I can be monogamous, but sometimes I just want to be alone for extended periods of time.

The problem with marriage is that its a hit or miss situation. Had you married someone who turned out bad you'd probaly feel different about marriage.

So my personal rule is that you should live with someone 5 years before you marry them. If you can still stand them after that then you should go ahead. Otherwise your just wasting everyone's time and the crap you have to deal with divorce.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not a lie.

Oh, it totally is. Married for 8 years. Love my wife dearly, sure, but let me tell you the loving comes infrequently at best. Don't even get me started on the lackluster cooking. Is it worth it? Sometimes. Sometimes not. I don't think we're built for long term relationships. Marriage licenses should expire after five years if you don't renew them. That way, after five years, if you both decide you'd rather not be together anymore then you just stop being together. There's no messy divorce. There's no hard feelings. There's just moving on. Seems hard to imagine, but if it became the standard I think marriages that stayed together would be happier.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Zaatxe]

They also found out that this gene causes a painful disease: "onegina".

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Anonymous Coward]

XXX movies.

Movies about "female" Russian weightlifters? Bleah.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[jythie]

Though what this piece did NOT go into is the differnce between people who can't commit, people who are monogamous, and people who are poly

Unfortunatly researchers usually don't bother to figure out the differnce between group 1 and group 3, and in fact many who display group 1 behavior are actually group 3 and are QUITE capable of long term commited relationships,.. when the relationships are poly structured rather then mono.

So the problem isn't 'rising above non-commitment', but one of finding out what commitments actually WORK for various people.
 

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[arth1]

Anyhow, now that there's a gene for it and I obviously don't have it, I have a scientific excuse. ;)

Screw that. Now that there's a gene for it, what can we do to suppress that gene, and have our future society become more like Gor?

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[zobier]

What do you mean, in the situation of true polygamy with multiple husbands and wives the children have multiple mothers and fathers -- everyone lives together. Parents don't have to be biological parents.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[shawb]

Or if you are powerful, you simply wage war to take out the competition providing more mates for yourself. And by the competition I meant the men you sent to war, not the guys you are attacking. Promise your soldiers 60 virgins in the afterlife if they die in battle, and allow the returning heroes access to women in such a fashion that the total number of females available to the ruler is greater than if the society was monogamous. If 2/3rds of the army dies, you can offer an average of two wives per returning hero, and still have 1/3 of the women that would have been wives of the now dead soldiers to add to your harem.

And to expand your harem further, just make deals with the leaders of other powerful nations to keep the competition from trying to claim part of your harem back.

This behavior has been shown time and time again across many species... polygynous (many women -> one man) groups tend to show increased levels of aggression to outside groups, and the greater the level of polygyny, the greater the level of aggression.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[KGIII]

Expiration after five years?!? Fucking priceless! Man that was a beautiful idea. I wish I'd thought of it.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[cavebison]

"... the "serial non-commiters" still have no excuse to use the women around them."

That's a value judgement. A relationship which ends with one person not wanting to commit is by no means the definition of "using" someone.

I'd also say that human beings are animals _capable_ of reason but also subject to instinct, emotion, habit, hormone, etc. Try using reason to rise above abject fear. Can you use your reason to "rise above" the love you feel for your wife? I'd wager most of the things we do and decisions we make are mainly due to influences other than reason. Think about it.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[cavebison]

"In peace, you'd need to prevent men remaining behind alone without partner (because for every extra woman one man has, another has to do without, ..."

Uh, this implies women are required to be monogamous. An oft-desired outcome in times long past, but if you're talking about a modern civilisation it's hardly realistic.

Re:George Clooney dubs it:

[Tailsfan]

lol good one

Disablites Act

[JohnHegarty]

Anyone want to start suggesting a relevant text for the update to the americans with disabilities act

Re:Disablites Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps the non-discrimination act?

Re:Disablites Act

[Adriax]

"No really babe, I've got a mutation in my monogamy gene. I HAVE to sleep around, or I'll die."

Re:Disablites Act

[Gat0r30y]

Wait, for the poor dudes who can't sleep around right?

Re:Disablites Act

[DriedClexler]

You know, we may joke about this, but it's serious. People who are socially inept are certainly discriminated against, but the legislatures and Congress don't seem to be in the same hurry to pass laws against such discrimination. Which in turn, is due to a public that is indifferent to the suffering of such people. And no, it's not something that's easy to change: people are are socially *competent* don't realize that some things come naturally to them but not others.

(And yes, I know you can say that being socially inept can hinder the "synergy" in groups and therefore this "discrimination" is totally justified. But then, the fact that the current group is white racists doesn't suffice as a reason not to hire blacks, does it?)

Fortunately, when oxytocin is available through a prescription, problems like this can be treated.

Re:Disablites Act

[The End Of Days]

The day nerds become a protected subspecies is the day I give up on humanity.

Re:Disablites Act

[tcolberg]

"No honey, it's not what it seems! She's the physical therapist for my genetic handicap!"

Re:Disablites Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that make it 'the end of days' for you?

Re:Disablites Act

[CogDissident]

So you're saying that we should make it a legal requirement for PR departments to hire people who are socially inept and will harm the company more than help? Or to put other people who would infact reduce productivity more than benfit it (by causing harassment lawsuits due to comments made to female co-workers, or due to reduced communication because the weird guy in the cube down from you keeps distracting you)

So, you think we should make laws that not only reduce a company's productivity but also force them to hire liabilities? Smart plan that. Next thing you know we'll have laws making it so we have to hire people and keep them even if they sleep all day, because its a disorder and they "have" to sleep through the workday.

Re:Disablites Act

[iamhigh]

Bullshit. Companies are a group of people working together to get things done and make a profit. If I have to hire every moron becuase there is a scientific reason why they are a moron we are all in trouble. I read "what to expect when your expecting" for obvious reasons... the author says something about how pregnant women face discrimination when employers wonder "will she be able to perform" or "will she come back after". She said that was wrong. But 2 pages later she talks about how if you can't handle all your responsibilities, just ask for help from others. And she makes it seem like you very well will not be as productive at work (she even says not to volunteer for things). So bitch about how it isn't fair, but then give me all the reasons why I SHOULD feel that way. IF YOU SUCK AT SOMETHING, YOU DON"T HAVE A "RIGHT" TO DO IT!!!!!! Especially just because science can explain it. Damn you, I lost a mod point for this!

Re:Disablites Act

[DriedClexler]

What I'm saying is, once you deem certain groups to be protected classes that you can't discriminate on the basis of (since they didn't choose to be that way), you are logically obligated to extend the protection to the class of socially inept people.

Look, I "get" that not being socially competent hurts productivity. I made that very clear and sufficiently addressed that in my previous post: You could say the same thing about blacks. What if the current employees were white racists, and seeing a black person at work harms their productivity? Does discrimination become okay then? What if the clients don't like seeing blacks? What if the clients are fundamentalist Muslims who don't like seeing women in the workplace when they visit? I hope you get the point.

In fact, your very own prejudice is showing in your framing of the issue. Why does "socially awkward" equate to a liability? Are nerds more likely to steal from the employer? (You could conceivably argue any non-perfect employee to be a liability.)

And why would a socially awkward individual be more likely to engage in sexual harassment? You notice that sexual harassment immediately becomes non-harassment the moment the recipient deems it welcome (modulo a few exceptions but you get the point). So you could just as easily say that it's the recipient's fault for not finding the nerd attractive enough to like whatever awkward thing he (naively) said.

(Part of being socially awkward, keep in mind, is that the boundaries aren't as obvious to them as they are to others.)

Why do you frame the problem as being the nerd's rather than the female co-worker's? Bigotry. "Cause ... cause ... of course it's the nerd's fault ... that's just the way we've always done things ..."

Next thing you know we'll have laws making it so we have to hire people and keep them even if they sleep all day, because its a disorder and they "have" to sleep through the workday.

Nope. The result of expanding the set of people who are "protected class" members is that more and more employees will shift to "contract worker" status. In fact, that's the (gradual) result of *any* such employment law. Extending it to socially inept nerds is just more honest and equitable about the whole thing.

Re:Disablites Act

[thtrgremlin]

You are making some major assumptions. I know way too many sexually repressed men / women in monogamous relationships with propensity for violence / disturbing behavior. I beg to see the reverse. Usually men / women that are sexually satisfied by their partner(s) are less likely to make unsolicited advanced, not to mention the maturity and experience gained through multi-tasking intimate relationships in a open, healthy, and socially acceptable way.

And from experience, it is just as hurtful for a mono to find out their partner was lying about being mono as it is for a poly person to find out someone they love isn't really poly. It is all about trust and honesty vs deception.

Re:Disablites Act

[marhar]

"No really babe, I've got a mutation in my monogamy gene. I HAVE to sleep around, or I'll die."

"I'm OK with that."

Re:Disablites Act

[Xtravar]

Fortunately, when oxytocin is available through a prescription, problems like this can be treated.

I keep misreading that word as "OxyContin", and it's so much more entertaining that way. And in the case of your post, accurate as well.

Re:Disablites Act

[budgenator]

Oh yeah nerds in PR are going to hurt the company a lot more than the narcissistic PHBs in management will.

Re:Disablites Act

[V!NCENT]

You read it wrong. He points at people with autism.

Which is quite strange though... because in my honest opinion autism is bullshit. Autism is not a social defect. In fact, everyone here with 'autism' that came to /. and comment here are engaging on the purest form of social activity.

First of all, as we say it in dutch, 'kinds of people searching same kind of people'. This means that you are already trying to become part of a group that's at least somewhat like you, no matter in what way that might be, or at least share your interests. Secondly, you are responding to other people and they respond back to you. This means you are engaging in social activity.

What might hinder people with autism is that they don't receive social signals. That is because you are missing receptors for social signals in your brain. It can be easily overcome though. It's like hardware video acceleration in your computers graphics card; If you don't have hardware acceleration then you must install a software accelerated program and run it. If you don't automatically know when someone is smiling, like many people with autism have, but can learn that a mathematical curve A means J and curve B means K than you can learn that a particular shape of someones mouth can represent a particular emotion. You can learn what types of emotions there are and when you know that you can read out peoples mental state (angry, happy, hollow).

After you did that you can use that for social interaction. Social rules change with the times and are not hardwired to your brain so everyone needs to learn them, even those without autism. So what you need to do is face your fears (it's the only way you can overcome fears) and trial&error what people like and what they don't like.

If you live in the Netherlands and close to Amsterdam I am willing to learn you all about it, for free.

I have been quite autistic in the past (until the age of 12 I have avoided social interaction and have only been playing with toys, computers and consoles). I couldn't understand hints and sarcasm. And one day when I've had it with sitting behind my computer all day out of getting bored and was slowly learning everything I could from social interaction. Right now I am among the most popular guys in my class and got a lot of attention from girls.

Re:Disablites Act

[biryokumaru]

'kinds of people searching same kind of people'

It's not terribly important, but it may interest you to know the common English saying is: "Birds of a feather flock together."

Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't evolution sided with either monogamy or polygamy? I mean even if there is only a one percent difference between the successor rates should that have not been reflected by now?

Re:Hhhmm,

[fictionpuss]

Dawkins argues against this. You're talking about genetic evolution competing with social evolution via memes and reproducing at a much faster rate.

Re:Hhhmm,

[EnergyScholar]

Just as a guess, which strategy works better (from a 'survival of the genes' perspective) probably varies in different circumstances. This would explain why neither gene sequence has dominated.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Vectronic]

You gotta fuck it out of the system first, and there is a hell of a lot of people on the planet, plus it could be on the rise in one country/area, or in decline in another.

You also have to factor in things like society, which can promote monogamy one decade, and not the next, and many will listen to that rather than themselves which would eventually promote one or the other, even if only in small strains, unless there was a food/water shortage, etc.

Re:Hhhmm,

[moderatorrater]

No, because there are situations where both are extremely valuable. In an environment where men are getting killed quite frequently, polygamy makes the most evolutionary sense. In an environment where men and women die at roughly the same rate, then monogamy makes sense, since this allows the man to concentrate more fully on one woman and her offspring. With one wife, men can have more than 10 kids quite easily. With multiple wives, having ten kids per wife is a huge drain on resources.

Thus, in a situation where the men tend to hunt and fight with local tribes while the women do the gathering and take care of the babies, polygamy makes sense. In our current society, monogamy makes more sense.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Millennium]

Shouldn't evolution sided with either monogamy or polygamy? I mean even if there is only a one percent difference between the successor rates should that have not been reflected by now?

If monogamy or the lack thereof were genetic and there were an evolutionary advantage to either strategy, then you're right: that should have been reflected in the general population.

Since it doesn't seem to be, that would seem to indicate that perhaps there is no evolutionary advantage to either side. With no advantage, there is no pressure for humanity to tend in one direction or the other. That could yield a pattern closer to what we are seeing now.

Re:Hhhmm,

[dkleinsc]

No. It shouldn't have, because either strategy can lend itself to evolutionary success for men.

If you're a powerful man, polygamy is an excellent strategy. You want to be impregnating every woman you can get your hands on, and you can by force and/or intimidation (among other motivators). Genghis Khan is an exemplar of this (at least according to one study that something like 6% of the world's men are his descendants). With that many kids, you don't need to invest very much in making sure each kid survives long enough to reproduce.

If you're a powerless man, then your best strategy is monogamy: you aim to have one woman who you reproduce with, and devote lots of time and energy into making sure that those kids survive. This leads to the nerds who will love a woman forever and stick with her through sickness and health.

If you're somewhere in between on the power scale, then the strategy seems to be pretending monogamy while having at least one mistress on the side. The theory here is that you get the greater number of kids and genetic variation from having more partners, but a fallback position of the kids from your "monogamous" relationship. Hence middle-management types cheating on their wives.

Re:Hhhmm,

[bonehead]

In our current society, monogamy makes more sense.

Until you see the hot little redhead that just moved in across the street from me. Then polygamy starts looking pretty damn good again.

Re:Hhhmm,

[geekgirlandrea]

Because which strategy works better would depend on what strategy everyone else in the local population is following. You end up with an stable equilibrium proportion where both strategies work equally well, all things being equal, but if you perturb it slightly the one becomes slightly more advantageous than the other and reproduces faster until the equilibrium is restored.

Re:Hhhmm,

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Interesting question. The answer, though, is more interesting still: various flavors of "not necessarily".

The adaptive value of a trait can and does vary depending on its environment and the environment is different depending on how common the trait is. For traits having to do with deception, you tend to see some sort of equilibrium. Typically, a naive and honest population does better than a dishonest and suspicious one, because they don't waste resources on deception and deception detection. If, however, a lone cheater shows up in a naive and honest population, the cheater will do extraordinarily well. This will cause cheating to increase in frequency, and will create a selective pressure in favor of being able to detect cheaters. Sometimes, the cheaters tip the balance, and a naive and honest population becomes a suspicious and deceptive one, sometimes cheater detection is good enough to wipe out the cheaters, and often the two traits find an equilibrium point. The suspicion required to eliminate all cheaters will be too costly to be adaptive; but cheating will only work sometimes, and on a limited scale.

With the possible exception of simple deleterious mutations, traits are not absolutely better or worse, their value depends on their environment, and their environment depends in part on them. Just looking at the values of the traits at the beginning isn't good enough, you need to use a game theory approach, and look at the value of the traits across repeated rounds.

Re:Hhhmm,

[joelwyland]

No, it wouldn't. Neither has shown itself to be the clear winner. I'd assume that women are more likely to choose a dependable monogamist as their mate. However (and please forgive the potentially bad imagery), the "shotgun" approach to mating with women will make up in volume what is lost in a lower individual success rate.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

according to one study that something like 6% of the world's men are his descendants

And none of his descendants are women?

Re:Hhhmm,

[conspirator57]

"If you're somewhere in between on the power scale, then the strategy seems to be pretending monogamy while having at least one mistress on the side. The theory here is that you get the greater number of kids and genetic variation from having more partners, but a fallback position of the kids from your "monogamous" relationship. Hence middle-management types cheating on their wives."

Rationalizing your behavior? :p

Re:Hhhmm,

[Beorytis]

Well, none of his female descendents have his Y-chromosome to prove it.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Hatta]

And the women, they're looking for a powerful man to knock them up, and a nice dedicated man to stick with her and raise a family.

Re:Hhhmm,

[dkleinsc]

No, I (like most /.ers) am at the powerless end of the scale.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Thiez]

Only on slashdot would that comment be modded both informative and insightful.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Oligonicella]

And, just where did they get Genghis Kahn's genome to make sure?

Re:Hhhmm,

[shaitand]

'With one wife, men can have more than 10 kids quite easily.'

Clearly you are part of the problem.

Re:Hhhmm,

[shaitand]

'If monogamy or the lack thereof were genetic and there were an evolutionary advantage to either strategy, then you're right: that should have been reflected in the general population.

Since it doesn't seem to be,'

Who is making that assumption? Monogamy is pretty rare in the general population.

Re:Hhhmm,

[megaditto]

I think you might be wrong there.

In a welfare/socialist society, polygamy and promiscuety make more (evolutionary) sense for men.

Which would you rather be: 1) the guy that sleeps around with lots of women and gets lots of kids, or 2) the guy that stays with a single woman and gets taxed to death to support all the single mothers, left over from the first guy.?

Re:Hhhmm,

[moderatorrater]

Clearly you are part of the problem.

Because I know that a man can have 10 children? Or because you're assuming that, because I said that, I support the practice, when in reality I never said anything for or against having that many children?

Re:Hhhmm,

[Missing_dc]

"Monogamy is pretty rare in the general population."

I'd have to agree with that, at 32, I have been with 147 women, most of them in semi-long term polyamorous relationships,(often with my partners hooking up on the side). Not a single one of them was a virgin before me.

It seems that for the most part, this generation does not care about monogamy.

(or maybe FSM is good to me)

Re:Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

Genetics is becoming the new astrology. Seriously. It's a good analogy too, sure stellar bodies affect our natural worlds, and sure genetics affects our bodies and minds, but I have not seen any proof that theses genetic changes are significant to human behavior on a day to day level.

Sure an animal living on instinct, slave to the chemicals sloshing around in it's brain pan, has it's mating style dictated by genes, but humans are just a little smarter then that.

I used to be a Beta male and used to pursue monogamy through out high school and early college for exactly the same reason you describe. Then I started working construction, got buff and learned how to quote "play the field" and have done things that belong on Tucker Max, not /., but I changed and I didn't need gene therapy to do it, why? because I think, and I can rationalize and weigh consequences against rewards, so while I may feel guilty for sleeping around, I know it's way funner than having to put up with some cow.

Humans are led by their frontal lobe and will ignore all those little subconsciouses chemicals in favor of what ever is easiest. I'm sure this gene might have an affect, but I'm sure on full blast the best difference it would make would be to cause a guy to buy his wife flowers after he cheats on her. Smoking a cig has a stronger kick.

The reason the gene is still around and hasn't gone one way or the other is because it's just genetic kruft that doesn't matter.

Re:Hhhmm,

[4D6963]

I love your unidimensional, over-simplifying and almost manichean way to portray categories of people. I don't even recognize myself as a nerd under your definition. The way you talk about it it sounds like a handicap.

Re:Hhhmm,

[sm62704]

Social evolution drives genetic evolution. Even if you live to be two hundred, unless you procreate you're an evolutionary dead end. If you are afraid of women you won't procreate. If you are percieved as butt-ugly you won't procreate. No matter how smart you are, if you have asperger's you're probably an evolutionary dead end because we are social animals and have a certain "mating dance" (that I unfortunately suck at).

My friend Linda has had fourteen kids, thirteen still living. She's not that smart and neither are her kids, a few of whom are in prison right now. However, I only have two kids, one of whom is doing pretty good. However, Linda has six times higher chance of her genes surviving than I do.

Actually her chances of gene survival are higher because I doubt Leila will have any kids, and Patty may not either. Linda's already a grandmother and even great grandmother several times, but she's ten years younger than me.

Again, social evolution drives genetic evolution. If you don't get laid, you lose the evolution game.

Re:Hhhmm,

[shaitand]

'Because I know that a man can have 10 children? Or because you're assuming that, because I said that, I support the practice, when in reality I never said anything for or against having that many children?'

Actually you did.

'With multiple wives, having ten kids per wife is a huge drain on resources. '

Meaning that having ten kids per wife with one wife is not a huge drain on resources.

Besides, your statement breaks down. The more wives, the more resources. 10 kids take a fixed amount of resources, if you only make each wife take care of one you will have eased her burden vs having 1 wife tend 10 children. In your example you are comparing 10 children to 20 or more.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I should also mention that it doesn't have to involve deception, or even social behavior at all, for this sort of equilibrium to arise.

Take the sickle cell gene. In malarial regions, it is quite nice to have one, because it confers a measure of malaria resistance. Having two means Sickle cell disease, pain, and early death.

In a hypothetical population in a malarial region without the sickle cell gene, being the lone carrier of the gene is great. You are more malaria resistant than anybody else. If everybody has a copy, though, then 25% of your children will inherit two copies and get sickle cell disease. Somewhere between those two states is the equilibrium condition, where the value of malaria resistance is balanced by the risk of sickle cell disease.

Re:Hhhmm,

[shaitand]

You actually keep count? I stopped trying a long time ago. You have to make up small numbers for the females anyway.

Re:Hhhmm,

[sm62704]

Dude, that's Star, you don't want to mess with her. Her friend Margaret took the money our of my wallet while she was sucking my dick.

BTW the link is even less SFW than this comment.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Belial6]

Actually, what you WANT is irrelevant. Which is more likely to produce the most offspring that are the most likely to reproduce in great numbers, the monogamist that sticks around to raise his 10 children, or the polygamist that has 20 children, and lets the state support them.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Mr. Slippery]

Which would you rather be: 1) the guy that sleeps around with lots of women and gets lots of kids, or 2) the guy that stays with a single woman and gets taxed to death to support all the single mothers, left over from the first guy.?

How about 3) the guy that sleeps around with lots of women and has no kids?

Effective birth control exists. Use it.

Re:Hhhmm,

[number6x]

"...I have been with 147 women, most of them in semi-long term polyamorous relationships,(often with my partners hooking up on the side). Not a single one of them was a virgin before me.

How did you manage to find 147 women who were never virgins before you?

Weren't they born virgins? How did you get to do them before they were even born? Who did them before you did before they were even conceived?

I don't think that you mean what you think you mean.

Re:Hhhmm,

[fictionpuss]

Ah - but do you as an individual care more if your ideas survive you, or the static strands of DNA which identify you less uniquely, and which you had no choice in defining anyway?

Evolution is, as you say, a game - but you do get to choose at which level you want to play it.

Re:Hhhmm,

[ZorbaTHut]

That's pretty entertaining, since it almost exactly describes my shift from monogamous to polygamous. I'm going to have to remember that one.

Re:Hhhmm,

[thtrgremlin]

to you

Re:Hhhmm,

[Logi]

Actually, whether monogamy or polygamy is the optimal strategy may depend on what percentage of the rest of the population follows which strategy.

Perhaps polygamy would be beneficial in a completely monogamous society (they'd never see it coming...), but monogamy beneficial in a completely polygamous society (no.. can't see how.. which frightens me.. where is my girlfriend anyway?).

So, the proportions of those two strategies encoded genetically would tend towards an equilibrium where the strategies are equally beneficial. If either goes above the equilibrium point, then the other becomes advantageous and will increase in the population until the equilibrium is reattained.

That's the mathematics of it. The rest is just some really messy details.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Caraig]

What you're describing seems to be, unfortunately, the whole precis behind the movie Idiocracy.

Re:Hhhmm,

[rrohbeck]

Don't forget that cheating messes up the picture. This isn't an either-or, there's a whole spectrum of behaviors.
10 or so percent of DNA paternity tests come out negative. Clearly humans follow a very mixed strategy.

Re:Hhhmm,

[russotto]

Ah - but do you as an individual care more if your ideas survive you, or the static strands of DNA

Neither; since the world doesn't want either one, I'm only too glad to deny it to them. I'm only sorry I don't believe in an afterlife of the sort where I'd be able to look down and laugh at the end result of policies and behaviors that result in the slick stupid people being the ones reproducing and having their ideas accepted.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Enki X]

Let's say there's a one percent difference between the success rates of a person with blue eyes as opposed to any other color? If that logic holds then we'd be doomed to genetic homogeny...

Re:Hhhmm,

[Onan]

Genetics and their influence on natural selection are usually more complex than a first glance implies. It's very rare that a gene will dictate exactly one trait, in all circumstances, without any linkage to other traits.

A great recent example was a study of homosexuality in men. You would think that this would be reproductive disadvantage, and so should have been bred out of all species, right? But it turns out that the trait is not so much gayness as androphilia. In males who possess it, it can manifest as being homosexual. But in their female relatives, it can manifest as a greater attraction to men and sex with men, thus leading to higher reproductive odds, thus balancing out the reproductive disadvantage it presents in males.

Complexities like this are a lot of why our behaviours, even sexual behaviours, are not all uniform. Different traits are more effective in different circumstances, so diversity is a strong overall strategy.

Re:Hhhmm,

[dkleinsc]

It's definitely a simplification and generalization, because I'm not going to be able to fit the tons of books on the subject into the space of a /. post. Also, the generalizations are made to argue the point that polygamy and monogamy are both successful evolutionary strategies, hence both are present in the human genome.

Also note that this is strictly evolutionary stuff. Monogamy is great for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with perpetuating your genes.

Re:Hhhmm,

[thtrgremlin]

Agreed. However, monos are a lot more uncomfortable with the idea of poly versus the other way around. Monos have a much stronger need to feel normal. For all the jealousy and mistrust that seems to plague mono relationships, there are many more words that are used to describe those who are poly in a negative way. While I haven't experienced it myself, I have read about a lot of criticism those in poly relationships to be more politically correct, often going as far to pull out the old "think of the children" argument. Yeah, cause living in shame and fear of their own bodies and mind must be WAY healthier than having an open, non-discriminatory outlook of people. Political Correctness? FAIL

Re:Hhhmm,

[JebusIsLord]

Sounds like he's been getting with THOSE girls - you know the ones. I think they loose it in the womb or something.

I see what you did there, but seriously you gotta think; 147, all not first-timers? Come on, dude! Get some quality into that mix! Bar sluts are so whatever.

Re:Hhhmm,

[thtrgremlin]

What???

polygamy is [wanting] to be impregnating every woman you can get your hands on

really? For me, the number of women that I find myself compatible with is so far and in between that I like to keep them very close. I think you are naming a male sterotype, but it doesn't apply to this poly male.

If you're a powerless man, then your best strategy is monogamy

Wow, again, going to have to disagree. If you are powerless then you should be grateful to get your hands on anything you can and try to mate as quickly as possible before someone else better comes along. In monogamy, where life bonding is assumed to be natural, women are only going to seek suitable mates, i.e. not you (just kidding, it was just too easy to pass up)

[Monogamy] leads to the nerds who will love a woman forever and stick with her through sickness and health.

And couldn't that be more readily assured if you had and her had other close intimate loves such that if one of you dies the other is not left alone to fend for themselves? How selfish and to think that you could be and insist to be everything to someone when in reality that isn't mortally possible, among other reasons.

Hence middle-management types cheating on their wives

I believe studies have been more inclined to show that men 'cheat' more often than women in dating relationships, while the reverse is true for married couples. Remember, when a guy cheats, it is because he is an asshole, and when women cheat, it is because their husband is an asshole. :)

Re:Hhhmm,

[thtrgremlin]

And the women, they're looking for a powerful man to knock them up, and a nice dedicated man to stick with her and raise his family.

There, I fixed it for you.

Re:Hhhmm,

[thtrgremlin]

Damn, now you got it stuck in my head...

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood

Re:Hhhmm,

[thtrgremlin]

I would completely agree if your context was crime stats. While I think cheaters, i.e. con artists, and cheaters i.e. lying to a partner, have many things in common, there are significantly different factors at play when it is a mutually consensual poly relationship.

Re:Hhhmm,

[dlenmn]

Since it doesn't seem to be, that would seem to indicate that perhaps there is no evolutionary advantage to either side. With no advantage, there is no pressure for humanity to tend in one direction or the other. That could yield a pattern closer to what we are seeing now.

Or it could be that it's a mixed strategy equilibrium in which case it makes sense for a certain percentage of people to be monogamous and the rest not to be.

Would one non-monogamous guy be at an advantage in an otherwise monogamous society? Possibly -- he'd be able to father more children that way. Would one monogamous guy be at an advantage in an otherwise non-monogamous society? Possibly -- since everyone else doesn't really stick around to take care of their kids, his children would be better cared for and thus more likely to survive.

If those two statements are true, you'd expect some sort of mixed strategy equilibrium.

See:

Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (the book -- I haven't read the article of the same name).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory)#Mixed_strategy

Re:Hhhmm,

[ksd1337]

Well, as humans, there are cultural and social barriers that we have put up for ourselves. This could be why we don't see which system could be better in terms of evolution.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Perf]

And the women, they're looking for a powerful man to knock them up, and a nice dedicated man to stick with her and raise a family.

The powerful man can be replaced with a $5.00 turkey baster.
A little more difficult to replace the family man.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

In our current society, monogamy makes more sense.

Until you see the hot little redhead that just moved in across the street from me. Then polygamy starts looking pretty damn good again.

I'd bet a cast iron skillet across the head would change your mind. If not, the Ginsu kitchen knife might be persuasive. :-)

Re:Hhhmm,

[Prune]

This is bone-headed thinking. The most likely implication is in fact that it is advantageous that at least a fraction of the population to be polygamous, but not all of it (too much competition--there can only be several alpha males in a group sort of thing).

Re:Hhhmm,

[Prune]

It's refreshing to see a sensible post like yours among all the bullshit responses I read on this article.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

Then of course there are interesting female strategies. A gal should want to marry a guy who will stick with her, help raise her kids, and generally be a great and supportive guy. But maybe he's not the one to have all the kids with, and quite possibly she doesn't even realize this on the conscious level. Thus the stereotype of doing the milkman, or the occasional "what happened?" sudden, brief attraction to some guy and it's not coincidence that she was fertile and a baby came of it. And now the cuckolded husband ends up raising a kid who isn't his (though he may never realize it). Women have programming for this sort of thing too, it just works differently.

Re:Hhhmm,

[budgenator]

some have argued that in a hunter-gatherer society there is an advantage to having the men pre-programed to fall asleep after an orgasm and the woman wide-awake and wanting another.

Re:Hhhmm,

[budgenator]

So you don't think that Poly couples don't have Rules for their relationships, or that violating the rules don't result in serious damage to the relationship?

Re:Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

Nature v. Nurture v. Will

Evolution does *not* explain complex social behaviors regardless of whether said behaviors are advantageous.

In the Nile farming is a more advantageous behavior than hunting/gathering because of the environment. It does not logically follow that this caused the hunters to die out.

Likewise, their might be genetic links that cause some individuals to be more amours than others, but their tenancy towards monogamy or polygamy is much more routed in their social structure and ultimately, their individual choice.

Re:Hhhmm,

[ceoyoyo]

There are many, many examples of strategies that are only evolutionarily stable if certain other strategies are present in the gene pool. It's quite possible that balanced or oscillating situations are more common than strategic uniformity.

Re:Hhhmm,

[ceoyoyo]

It sounds very much like a breeding/rearing choice (or however Dawkins put it). The evolutionarily stable strategy in most cases is indeed a balance between the two. If everyone is polygamous then nobody knows whose kids are whose. The monogamist male who also at least tries to enforce monogamy in his partner, has the advantage because he's less likely to spend his time rearing other people's kids. The monogamist female has an advantage because her mate has more confidence that her kids are also his kids, and is more likely to help raise them.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Xaemyl]

You mean the one with the eye-patch and the clubbed foot?

Re:Hhhmm,

[ShakaUVM]

>>Genetics is becoming the new astrology. Seriously. It's a good analogy too, sure stellar bodies affect our natural worlds, and sure genetics affects our bodies and minds, but I have not seen any proof that theses genetic changes are significant to human behavior on a day to day level.

Yeah, especially evolutionary psychology, which is what this article essentially is.

Basically, the process works like this:
1) Find some social phenomenon
2) Invent some evolutionary explanation for it (you can make up a story for anything, and it's fun!)
3) Survey a bunch of people and find some gene that a majority of them have.
4) Type up a paper, and end it with QED.

A scientist is you!

Personally, I think the entire field is full of bullshit. Everything from road rage being explained as territorial behavior to blondes "having more fun" because lighter hair makes them look more youthful has been proven, in essence, by a guy pulling something out of his ass.

I think this interview with Feynman explains my opinion of pseudo-scientific nonsense like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZcpTTjjXY

In a nutshell, it's hard to know something, and people who claim they know something without doing the work to prove they know something are just practicing pseudoscience.

Re:Hhhmm,

[j-pimp]

Only on slashdot would that comment be modded both informative and insightful.

You must be female, and have little interaction with males.

Re:Hhhmm,

[TheCarp]

As someone in an open relationship (never liked the term swinger), I find your arguments really missing the point.

10? 20? No way, not even close.

I wonder why it is that we are stuck talking about 2 possibilities. One a guy who sticks around with his woman, and one who sleeps around wrecklessly and is free as a bird? Can't we imagine more than a binary choice?

How about a harem or more close to a tribal relationship with multiple men and/or women? Children could be raised communally within the group allowing more ability for members of the "tribe" to divide up labor and thus have more personal freedom (one more place where the total is more than the sum of its parts).

Or how about the case where one is in a main relationship, where they might have children, and several side relationships, or just play at parties, which don't result in children.

Thats closer to the real situation that I tend to see evolve in relationships where people who are non-monogamous and honest about it.

Frankly, being in an open relationship, despite all the hype, isn't usually very different on a day to day basis from being in a more traditional one.

-Steve

Re:Hhhmm,

[sm62704]

Evolution has shaped me to want to survive - not just my ideas, but ME. Most people outside this crowd here (and lately it seems quite a few here) have nothing concrete to give to the world.

My dad was an electrical lineman. In the forty years he did construction and repair of towers and poles and assorted hardware, in two hundred years nothing he did will remain, except having and raising my sister and me.

We remember Plato and a few others of his time, and some of their ideas, but the vast, VAST majority of people of his time left nothing at all, unless their genes survived.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are constantly at war, you end up with fewer men than women, so polygamy makes sense - monogamy would leave many women childless, and you need to repopulate as quickly as possible. As we have become more peaceful our gender ratio has approached 1:1 and society has subconsciously adjusted towards monogamy.

(also early Mormons probably had more women than men - I couldn't find any data, but most young religious movements that grow by recruiting have more women - so polygamy would make sense. As the ratio becomes more even it makes sense to switch to monogamy)

Re:Hhhmm,

[fictionpuss]

Okay, but humanity has moved to a different plane of evolution. Assuming no great catastrophe, in which case all bets are off anyway, the Slashdot archives will remain. Meaning that all our inanity, including this example, will be preserved.

Now when Google Meme Search is invented, or something similar, and you can trace back ideas to their origins -- then it's quite possible that your memes will outlive your genes. Assuming you contribute good memes.

Of course, we could also use it to persecute the asshat that invented the "in soviet russia" meme. And that might be an altogether more positive use for the technology.

Re:Hhhmm,

[sm62704]

When my youngest daughter was twelve she was a "Jazz Jackrabbit" addict. She "met" one of its artists on the internet. The fellow was a mcgrew fan; I had a fairly popular Quake site. She came to me wide-eyed one evening, saying "Dad, did you know you were famous?"

So... between the Springfield Fragfest, my K5 "Paxil Diaries", and my slashdot journals, you're saying I'm immortal, too? Sorry, I remain a skeptic.

As to the Soviet Russia meme, you can blame Arte Johnson and Yakov Smirnoff.

Re:Hhhmm,

[fictionpuss]

I'm following trends. Right now it takes a lot of effort to follow the various threads of someones online (and indirectly offline) existence. It's getting easier by the day though. Sooner or later the process will be automated, with all the myriad of privacy concerns that goes with it.

Maybe it's sci-fi, but I believe that's going to provide a compelling historical archive. Not quite the Pepys diaries - but if we assume our future generations will continue to outnumber us, then I am confident these words will be parsed by human eyes again if not after decades then after centuries of lying unseen in the Slashdot archives.

As for the meme-tracking - cheers!

Re:Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

Jealousy and mistrust can exist in a relationship. My argument is that when certain issues are taboo to be discussed, lines of communication are broken. Once communication breaks down, the rest of the relationship can follow, or at least one partner can feel shameful for not feeling the way they are supposed to not realizing what they are experiencing is normal.
 
A good argument for monogamy is that it is a lot less complicated, and I would be the first to agree... however, words like 'traditional' and 'conservative' can be very loaded word. The "I want a traditional / conservative" relationship is easily heard and difficult to understand. I believe many times couples agree to be monogamous without really talking about fine points of what that means. I would like to think that with some experience and open communication more couples would find that they can be very satisfied with each other without nearly as many restrictions as they had each assumed. By contrast, I have also seen couples where monogamy meant not allowed to have any other friends.
 
When rules and trust in a relationship are broken, it can be very hurtful. I would hope for most that hurt feelings means talking more about what two people need and want from each other. Poly relationships often have complex rules that are simple to understand, versus the traditional simple rules sometimes difficult to interpret. I have seen many poly relationships not work, but oddly enough, it is less often for lack of understanding what was going through their partners head.

Re:Hhhmm,

[thtrgremlin]

Hmm... Sorry, don't know why it posted anonymously.

Re:Hhhmm,

[greyhueofdoubt]

Hypothetical question:

Would you allow your wife to be impregnated by a man who was genetically superior to you (however you want to define 'superior': better eyesight, better looks, no heart disease, hates emacs)?

Everything else would stay the same. You'd raise the child like it was your own. Your wife would never see the other guy again. But you could almost guarantee that your child would grow up to be healthier and more attractive than you (and happier as a result).

I have (corrected) terrible vision, genes for cancers, bladder stones, heart disease, hypertension, depression, alcoholism, alzheimers... While those genes have not expressed themselves yet, I would feel more than a little regret by bringing a child into the world with those little time-bombs.

OTOH, a child sired by another man would be a daily living reminder of my own inferiority, even if it's not my fault.

-b

Re:Hhhmm,

[bonehead]

No, that's the grandma three houses down.

Re:Hhhmm,

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there are 4 stategies:

1) Lots of females, with 1 primary female and her family. The other females have "bonus" children; you don't invest in them, but some will prosper anyway. You invest in the primary family. All tyrants do this. Genghis Khan had a primary female and family. The dictator of North Korea (who has his pick of every female in the country, sadly) recently got married! This is the ideal, have-your-cake and eat-it-too strategy.

2) Monogamy only. If you don't have lots of power in some form, this is the second-best strategy (of course a certain amount of fooling around on the side takes place).

3) Promiscuity only. This is not a great choice, stereotypes aside. It is selected by men with few resources (poor) whos simply can't invest in a primary family. Of course this is also sometimes a temporary choice by men who obtain a primary mate later.

4) No sex at all. Obviously the worse choice, usually only "selected" by men with no other choice to select from.

A whole new round of testing

[TXISDude]

I see a whole brave new world of testing before pre-nuptials . . . But, if I have a defective gene, will that qualify me as handicapped under something like ADA? Will there be a high risk pool that I will be forced to "date" out of? So many questions . . .

Re:A whole new round of testing

[Anonymous Coward]

God I hope so. It would rock to be able to weed out the women that are insanely monogmous. I just wish they found a test to find the ones that are the nymphos or find a way to do gene therapy to create nymphos. too many women are incredibly uptight about sex and should be into it far more than they are.

The pretty barbie that dont put out is a crime against nature. but then I love the average girl that is extra freaky and cant get enough... Those kick the shit out of a extra pretty girl any day. I'll take a flat ass that puts out over a perfect ass you cant touch every time.

Re:A whole new round of testing

[joelwyland]

After reading your post, it's clear to me why you are having trouble finding a woman who is willing to let you touch it.

Re:A whole new round of testing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, those monogamous chicks you can't touch?

I love 'em. They're too rare imo.

Re:A whole new round of testing

[discards]

Studies show that monogamous, long-married men live on average something like 5 years longer than single men. We used to attribute this to the fact that you have someone caring for you and someone to grow old with, providing more emotional stability.

However, I wonder if this gene actually has something to do with it, i.e. Could people with the monogamous gene live longer simply because they have the gene?

Re:A whole new round of testing

[philspear]

Does it have anything to do with the phrase he coined: "insanely monogmous"? Spelling aside, how are you insanely monogamous? Isn't that a little like saying someone is "Extremely not on fire?"

Re:A whole new round of testing

[Artifakt]

I just looked around - I'm in an air conditioned office, no sources of ignition around me, sitting cool and comfortable and extremely not on fire... No wait, Bob just lit a cigarette, so I'm down to thoroughly not on fire... No, Bob's running around with his tie in flames right now, so I guess I'm moderately not on fire... Whoops, dodging a flaming Bob, but I'm still marginally not on fire...

Re:A whole new round of testing

[philspear]

I'll note that at no point were you "insanely not on fire." Were you "insanely monogamous" during this sequence of events though or just moderately monogamous? I ask because of the cigarette, maybe you and Bob did something to lower the level of monogamy you've got going on and that's why he lit up.

Re:A whole new round of testing

[thtrgremlin]

Well, then it might make you happy to know there was a report recently (article, whatever) showing how if more women were promiscuous, it would reduce STI transmission rates. Everyone cheating with the same nympho means 3 hops for everyone to be infected including their partners. However a much wider "distribution network" would not only track STI transmission rates better for a variety of reasons, but the number of hops would dramatically increase, adding latency and more time to catch anything going around before it became epidemic.

Re:A whole new round of testing

[budgenator]

but you can change Puritan Barbie into Nympho Barbie just by squirt of oxytocin in the nose, of course it will only act for a short time you have to work quick.

Re:A whole new round of testing

[budgenator]

Not being on fire is only extreme after being on fire.

Re:A whole new round of testing

[Tom]

He probably just wanted to stress "monogamous". However, there are extremists in all circles, and the same way that polygamous people were at times treated as lunatics or even killed, some of the extremist polygamous of today think that theirs is the natural way and monogamous people have some kind of mental problem.

Re:A whole new round of testing

[Artifakt]

It's never insane to not be on fire. On the other hand, I stuck through 23 years of monogamous marriage, and my ex-wife and I have been faithful to each other for four years since the divorce, AFAIK (I'd remarry her, but we seem to be doing much better now that we don't have any promises or obligations to). That's definitely insane. Fortunately from the fire standpoint, her name's not Bob.

And the Slashdot Gene

[MyLongNickName]

which renders someone unable to get any at all.

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[smittyoneeach]

And with this post, the discourse, if not the intercourse, was won.

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[pilgrim23]

Honestly; would ANYONE want to cuddle a meadow vole?
Too much time, large research grant on their hands...

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[lena_10326]

And like winning the lottery twice, the slashdot men that do marry are quite unlikely to find another. A predisposition for involuntary celibacy is a predictor for monogomy.

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Oxycontin? Vasopresin? Fuck that shit. I find smack and the occasional gram or two of shitty south-London coke make a far more effective cure for the misery of every-day life as a fucked up computer nerd with no life outside work. (Disclaimer: heroin is bad for you. If you become addicted to it, you will undoubtedly wish you had never tried it in the first place -- unless you get a golden hit first time, and never get through that saggy-lidded, vacant smile coton wool floaty bit to the shivers, cramps, insomnia and depression waiting for you on the other side, well "good luck to you" say I. I just bought a book on global warming that's really convinced me that the best thing we can do is to remove ourselves from the planet as painlessly as possible.) Anyway, for more tips on "how to hold down a well-paid corporate job whilst battering your brain with Class A drugs once a month, reply to this post. Junkie Hacker is waiting for your call!

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[Dogtanian]

Anyway, for more tips on "how to hold down a well-paid corporate job whilst battering your brain with Class A drugs once a month

Yeah, apparently a relatively high proportion of GPs are smackheads, but manage to get away with it because they have access to a clean and reliable supply of heroin.

reply to this post. Junkie Hacker is waiting for your call!

Yeah, go on then. Though I'm willing to be that it's probably not as much fun as a real life "Matrix meets Trainspotting" fantasy which- to be fair- you don't seem to be hyping it up as anyway, but could have...

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[thtrgremlin]

A predisposition for involuntary celibacy is a predictor for monogomy.

I believed that strongly, and still do to a point. In my observation, the reasons people are mono are very unnatural and usually have more to do with immaturity and self image. Most people have a very hard time becoming comfortable enough with themselves to even be with one person at a time, let alone manage multiple deeply intimate relationships. But this study shows some people are just born that way and can't help it.

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the clinginess gene...

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they should fix it.

I went with these guys, and I went from involuntary celibacy to voluntary get-girl-when-I-want-to guy.

www.askromeo.com

I couldn't recommend them more!

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[Zaatxe]

Hey, I'm a slashdotter and married for the third time already!

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[lena_10326]

Hey, I'm a slashdotter and married for the third time already!

I recommend playing lotto.

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[Zaatxe]

Hey, I'm a slashdotter and married for the third time already!

I recommend playing lotto.

Now I'm glad the GGP didn't make a "being struck by a lightnging bold twice" analogy!

Re:And the Slashdot Gene

[MadMidnightBomber]

Well, someone's never taken 5 E's and sat in a field while they wait for them to kick in.

Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[starglider29a]

In the early 60's we got birth control pills, which (some say) facilitated women being promiscuous. Now, we have 'husband control pills'

What happens if we miss a day? Do we take two then next and use alternate husband control methods. -- Sarcasm transmits across TCP/IP as well as it does other media

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong way around. The gene controls whether men get the receptors necessary or not. That means it may be possible to create a pill for men to ignore the compulsion. Which, I guess, is pretty good news for us, even if it's absolutely terrible for women.

But seeing as vasopressin is also used to control water content of our bodies, taking such a drug would likely risk kidney failure, strokes, and other really nasty side effects.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[thermian]

In the early 60's we got birth control pills, which (some say) facilitated women being promiscuous. Now, we have 'husband control pills'

What happens if we miss a day? Do we take two then next and use alternate husband control methods.

Well to be safe you'd need to avoid monogamy for at least a month after missing a pill...

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[jellomizer]

It may be cheaper then a divorce.
However like most genes they give a tendency not the actual action. Men can be monogamous for life, even without that gene, because of free will, cultural norms, religious beliefs, finding an other woman is much to hard, etc... Also the inverse can be true men with the gene could be a lying cheating guy, while the gene may make him connect to one it doesn't stop him to try for others.

Dangers I can see is taking a genetic test say before marriage and men without the genes will just be dumped on the spot.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Anachragnome]

Hate to kick the barstool out from under y'all, but Jeebuz, you folks act like a gene sequence removes all thought from the equation.

I don't sleep around because I love my wife and extra-marital affairs have a tendency to remove MARRIAGES. Quite frankly, it is my head, and the thoughts within, that decide my actions, not the genes passed on to me. Genes may have some effect, but if the result is not acceptable to the thinking part of me, they are simply over-ridden.

 

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[starglider29a]

See... she has him on it already, and the poor blighter doesn't even know it.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Mr. Slippery]

Genes may have some effect, but if the result is not acceptable to the thinking part of me, they are simply over-ridden.

The point is that the genes determine, or at least influence, what the "thinking part" of you find acceptable.

You are not consciousness inhabiting a body. You are consciousness generated by a body. The nature of that consciousness is determined by the nature of the body. The nature of the body is determined by genetics and by environment.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[sckeener]

Congrats on the impossible to prove otherwise post!

There is no way to prove that your genes are not influencing you.

However since identical twins separated at birth have many mental similarities, I'm going to go with gene's influence you more than you know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htm

statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of that likeness. In the most widely publicized study of this type, launched in 1979, University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard and his colleagues have chronicled the fates of about 60 pairs of identical twins raised separately. Some of the pairs had scarcely met before Bouchard contacted them, and yet the behaviors and personalities and social attitudes they displayed in lengthy batteries of tests were often remarkably alike.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Anachragnome]

I see your point.

At one time it may have been the DOMINATE influence, but I like to think that in this day and age, society and KNOWLEDGE have a greater effect then they used to.

After all, it is our level of intelligence (and more importantly, the ability to act upon it), that has raised us to a higher realm of existence (debatable, I know).

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[forsey]

Well put, wish I had some mod points for you.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[thtrgremlin]

Ok, before this gets too out of hand, don't be a victim of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. All women love great dick. ALL of them. The difference is that men are more easily satisfied by ANYTHING with a hole in it, while women actually have to hunt something out. Women not only love to fuck more than men, they do it a lot more too. There is just a large subset of men that wish they could get a women to even touch their dick and can't. Why is it hard for some to find a good woman? They are all out getting laid. ESPECIALLY the hot nerdy chicks. Blizzard-style is just like doggy-style, except there is a laptop on her back and another on the floor. Hurray for technology (I have a 'close' friend who has sworn on her life never to be mono again, and this is her favorite position. I love nerds.)

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Anonymous Coward]

... unless you are somehow made up of said genes and they influence how your "free will" and all operates.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Anubeon]

Wow! I'm quite appalled by the tone of the responses I've read thus far. Thus story seems to have solicited an extraordinary amount of childish machismo posturing. To be honest I expected much better of my geek kith, certainly better than the antics usually reserved to brain-dead jocks and (equally brain-dead) politicians. All I have to say to such childish imberciles is that 'men' whom measure their masculinity by way of bed post notches and a yard stick seem deeply insecure and are leagues away from the self-assured alpha males they profess to be. Such men-children are utterly pathetic. Especially considering that a good number of you probably haven't seen the light of day (i.e. ventured out of mothers basement) much less a woman in many a year. And as far as Anachragnomes comment; Our survey said Bravo!!!

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Theaetetus]

childish machismo... geek kith... brain-dead jocks... childish imberciles... self-assured alpha males... men-children

Your complex is showing.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Anonymous Coward]

Genes may have some effect, but if the result is not acceptable to the thinking part of me, they are simply over-ridden.

Ah, but what if the gene influences the meme that controlls monogamy?

Oh wait, you are talking about free will, aren't you ;)

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Anubeon]

Hmm, my complex you say? Note I'm not the one engaging in a futile and immature pissing contest in a vain attempt to prove my 'manhood' to complete strangers a world away. Additionally by way of clarification I did not intend the term 'self-assured alpha male' to be interpreted in its pejorative as you seem to have inferred. The archetypal 'Alpha male' is confident and self-assured (positive traits by my reckoning) needing little if any approval. Thus I was trying to point out the irony in a group of 'men' attempting to exemplify their macho credentials thus flagging themselves as decidedly non 'Alpha' in character. Note again that I not point have I professed to being an 'Alpha male' in fact I'll state for the record that I consider myself a clear cut 'Omega male' and I'm damn proud of it! ;)

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[starglider29a]

Sorry, the story isn't really all that interesting if taken seriously. Which is true of most articles on slashdot... and most posters ;-)

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Anubeon]

Please! This story is plenty interesting. Although I suppose I am a little biased given my professional interest in chemical biology and genetics.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[starglider29a]

I rest my case ;-)

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[DutchUncle]

>>extra-marital affairs have a tendency to remove MARRIAGES.

The point is that perhaps you (and I, feeling similarly about my own wife) care as much about the idea of staying married because of genetic factors. No better or worse than saying you tend to have whatever hair and eye color you happen to have because of genetic factors.

So, like a strawberry-shortcake fanatic would have trouble getting along with a strawberry-allergic companion, it's just a matter of making sure people's tastes are compatible.

Re:Great!!! [whatever] Control pills

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's postulate that your thoughts determine your actions. Given that your genes determine how you'll think, you're still governed by your genes.

At a more exact level, your basic brain architecture - determined by your genes - will tend to govern which impulses you get, including how strong each type of impulse is. Which impulses you've previously followed and how you attributed those actions (especially whether you attributed them to your own volition or to external coercion) will determine how you think. And - your "thoughts" do not have complete control over how you act - it's just one of the impulses to action, one that even seem to get depleted over the short term, like a muscle get tired (in psychology-speech, it's called "ego depletion").

Gene also known to recede

[dedazo]

When confronted by large quantities of beer protein.

Re:Gene also known to recede

[reverseengineer]

There might be some truth to that, actually- ethanol suppresses vasopressin (also known as antidiuretic hormone) secretion, which is why alcoholic beverages tend to have a noticeable diuretic effect in addition to their disinhibition effects.

Not always a gene...

[Leomania]

In my case, it's a "Martha" that has the greatest influence over my monogamous inclinations.

Re:Not always a gene...

[MyLongNickName]

Does she take your balls out of her purse every once in a while to let you know what they look like? ;)

Re:Not always a gene...

[jbeaupre]

Knowing our cat missed his (always looking for them), we put a pair of 1/4" galvanized nuts on his collar. Didn't have brass ones to give him. But he seemed just as happy.

Gave us a laugh every time we'd hear him jingling down the hall. And luckily my wife never suggested we do the same to me.

Interesting story...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a guy from Africa who is married, but he told me that if it were legal in my country, he would have NO LESS THAN FOUR AND UP TO TEN (10) WIVES. I don't know if his wife knows about this...and he flirts with other women a lot. I couldn't understand why anyone could possibly want so many wives (he says "Yes it is more stress but also more benefits"), but now it's pretty obvious his monogamy genes are totally missing.

Re:Interesting story...

[shaitand]

I would prefer to have no wives and just have sex with 10 different women each week.

Re:Interesting story...

[rs79]

"Yes it is more stress but also more benefits"

I'm a big fan of authoritative observations. So it is huh?

Just out of idle curiosity, what contries is polygamy legal in?

Besides Swaziland that is:
http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINL148259220080901

Re:Interesting story...

[Anonymous Coward]

basically any islamic country

I think

[ArhcAngel]

I think my monogamy gene is recessive.

how about...

[elvesrus]

letting women be 'people' too?

Re:how about...

[conspirator57]

I was just going to comment on what a lot of misogynists these arm-chair evolution experts are, but you did it for me. Thank you.

Also, for all people, apparently "self discipline" and "ethics" and Dawkins-forfend "morals" (because we believe in Archons, not gods these days.) is for nothing. It's just an excuse on a platter for people to be completely self-indulgent regardless of the consequences to themselves or others. Feh!

Re:how about...

[sm62704]

Unless you're referring to something in TFA (which I haven't read yet), that was a pretty misandrist statement.

Now it seems variations in a section of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in people help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands.

Seems you don't want to include men as people, since they didn't study the gene expression in women. However, they should - surveys show roughly 50% of men admit to affairs, but over 75% of women do.

Unfortunately for me I have the monogamous gene while my ex-wife had the "slut" gene.

Re:how about...

[shaitand]

There is nothing hateful about wanting to have sex with multiple women, quite the contrary.

This discussion is gender centric because the study was.

Further finding not mentioned in the summary

[thermian]

They also found that geeks tended to possess just half of this gene, which researchers postulate may explain their lack of ability to get a girlfriend.

i don't believe it

[circletimessquare]

monogamy in general seems to be a mirage

there are of course places in the world where polygamy is openly accepted, but in places where monogamy dominates publicly, everyone is polygamous in secret

and i am talking about men AND women. male polygamy gets more attention only because male polygamy is more public, male sexuality full of more bravado. women are just better at keeping secrets

and it makes perfect sense for men and women. men for for the obvious ability to spread more genes, and women for access to more resources, or simply to get better genes in secret than the genes of the publicly acknowledged mate (it has been speculated something like 10% of children before the era of genetic testing were raised by fathers who weren't really their genetic fathers)

i think that any gene that regulates vasopressin simply regulates how discrete or not discrete a male is going about being secretly or openly polygamous

there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what

Re:i don't believe it

[DoofusOfDeath]

monogamy in general seems to be a mirage

Are you saying that it doesn't exist, or that it's just rarer than we pretend?

Consider that if ~ 50% of married people are adulterous, then there's a huge fraction (~ 50%) who are monogamous.

Re:i don't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because your girlfriend cheated on you doesn't mean all of humanity is unfaithful to their significant others.

Re:i don't believe it

[Millennium]

there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what

Unless, perhaps, there is not. You make many assumptions based on this core idea that polygamy is some kind of natural tendency, and you have some interesting hypotheses to back it up, but the data doesn't seem to back you.

Re:i don't believe it

[FireStormZ]

"there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what"

There is the matter of quality over quantity. If you spread your genes so far and wide that they are doomed to die or be at a disadvantage because they are lacking in support is that better than fewer more cared for who will almost certainly themselves go on to breed.

Re:i don't believe it

[Altus]

Just because someone has the desire to be non-monogamous does not mean that they cheat on their significant others.

Re:i don't believe it

[owlnation]

I completely agree. Concepts of love have varied greatly from culture to culture and historically throughout the same culture.

The Hollywood/Hallmark monogamous view of love is a relatively modern invention. Historically people have tended to marry for practical reasons, and dowry was a big factor in the west (and still is in many cultures). Marriage has historically been a business transaction, not an emotional one.

This "study" is just yet another example of correlation-does-not-equal-causation -- an ever more frequent trend in so-called "science" research.

I don't believe a word of it either.

Re:i don't believe it

[Das Modell]

I've never had the slightest interest in anything except strict monogamy.

Re:i don't believe it

[courteaudotbiz]

I go exactly in your line of thinking. Basically, humans are animals that can think (sometimes it's good, sometimes not...). So for a specie to survive, it has to reproduce as much as it can, and this is WHY sex is fun and gives great pleasure. You imagine where humanity would be if sex was not fun?

The only reason why monogamy appeared is because of jaleous, unconfident males who could not accept that their mate go elsewhere and find more satisfaction in a relationship. So monogamy is no more than a social behavior, not genetic in our case. On the other hand, it COULD be possible that some genetics link two "animals" together, since according to some studies, 90 percent of birds are monogamous, while 7 percent of mammals are. (By the way, aren't we mammals?) It is still not proven that genetics has something to do with monogamy, since it is still considered a social evolution rather than something inherited.

Re:i don't believe it

[Amouth]

no.. but it doesn't mean that alot of humanity wants to be unfaithful.. or would be if they could get away with it.

we do it all the time with other gene's.. for example i have several genetic diseases that if it wasn't for the advances in medicine would render me dead before i was 1 year old.

Re:i don't believe it

[Gat0r30y]

I've never had the slightest interest in anything except strict monogamy.

You sir, lack imagination.

Re:i don't believe it

[MozeeToby]

While I disagree with the GP post, I can't really agree with you either.

If you spread your genes so far and wide that they are doomed to die or be at a disadvantage because they are lacking in support is that better than fewer more cared for who will almost certainly themselves go on to breed.

The answer, is yes if you can have both. If a man can have many anonomous affairs with little to no cost as well as raise a traditional and stable family, then they are genetically better off to do so. Of course, you can argue that there are risks involved in adultery, such as your wife leaving you and so on.

Re:i don't believe it

[Das Modell]

How does this have anything to do with "imagination?" There are many reasons why I don't like polygamy, and if you can't deal with that then tough shit. Go cry in the corner.

Re:i don't believe it

[geminidomino]

I agree. My interest is to be monogamous with my girlfriend and her hot best friend at the same time.

Re:i don't believe it

[Das Modell]

That would be polygamy.

Re:i don't believe it

[oyenstikker]

women are just better at keeping secrets

You've never met a woman, have you?

Re:i don't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

Then of course there's those of us like myself who never want to have kids. In my eyes, my 'gene'... or at least a close enough approximation... is being continued by other members of my family/relatives. I wonder how I figure into those equations and statistics.

Re:i don't believe it

[marxmarv]

They call that "polyfidelitous" in my circles.

Re:i don't believe it

[sm62704]

I don't lack imagination; I was an art major, I play guitar, I write (caution: my /. journals are mostly NSFW), yet I was faithful to my ex-wife for the 27 years we were married, despite great temptation. It wasn't religion that kept me faithful, it was love - I knew how much her infidelity hurt. I've since had multiple partners, but I'd trade all those sluts and whores for one faithful woman.

You can't buy love. You can't even buy cuddling. But you can buy sex.

Re:i don't believe it

[Killjoy_NL]

--- You imagine where humanity would be if sex was not fun?

Then it's just like the documentary "Married with Children" ;)

Re:i don't believe it

[Mr. Slippery]

Consider that if ~ 50% of married people are adulterous, then there's a huge fraction (~ 50%) who are monogamous.

Only if those all of those ~50% of married people are on their first marriage, and never had pre-marital sex. Even then, we can only say they've been monogamous so far.

We're not counting "serial monogamy" as a genuine form of monogamy here. After all, screwing your mistress tonight, your wife tomorrow, and your mistress again on Friday is just a very rapid form of serial monogamy...

Despite the perversions introduced by religion, the number of people who are truly life-long monogamous is rather small. According to the CDC, men 30-44 years of age report a median of about 7 sexual partners in their lifetimes; women, about four.

Re:i don't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

you were tempted. You have an imagination according to the GP.

The GP was implying that if you were never ever tempted, if you never had the slightest interest, then you lack imagination.

You were tempted, you exercised self control, that's not what the original poster in this thread said though.

Re:i don't believe it

[russotto]

I'm pretty sure you can buy cuddling, it's just that the price is higher. Ask Donald Trump.

Re:i don't believe it

[vux984]

We're not counting "serial monogamy" as a genuine form of monogamy here. After all, screwing your mistress tonight, your wife tomorrow, and your mistress again on Friday is just a very rapid form of serial monogamy...

No its not.

The two intimate relationships clearly overlap. "serial monogamy" is pretty much defined by the relationships not overlapping, not just the sex not overlapping.

Only a complete idiot would argue that having a wife and mistress on alternate evenings is 'serial monogamy' not 'polygamy'. Indeed by that logic the only way one could ever be polygamous would be if they had a threesome.

Re:i don't believe it

[DoofusOfDeath]

Despite the perversions introduced by religion

What do you mean?

Re:i don't believe it

[Mr. Slippery]

What do you mean?

I mean that religion has often perverted the human sexual drive for it's own ends.

Matthew 19:12: "...and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake."

"Chastity...the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions." -- Aldous Huxley

The idea that if you have sex outside of the teachings of religion X, you'll anger god(s) - that you'll be sent to the Region of Thud if you and your lover don't get a permission slip from a priest - is a perversion.

Power over sex is tremendous power over people.

Re:i don't believe it

[DoofusOfDeath]

I mean that religion has often perverted the human sexual drive for it's own ends.

I don't think you even need to stop there. It seems to me that if a religion is false, than anything it asks of people is unreasonable, from self-castration down to wasting Sunday mornings.

Personally, I think the question of whether or not some religion is actually true is a pretty interesting one. From your tone I'm going to guess you've already decided that none is, though.

I was curious about the Matthew verse you quoted, and if there were any interpretations that seemed plausible and didn't make Matthew sound like a nut-crusher. I did come across this, if you're interested. Not a great article, but it's something I guess.

Re:i don't believe it

[budgenator]

The 10% is assumed, actually a British study shown the percentage is lower for the 1st and last child and much higher for the middle children.

Re:i don't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

Wooosh.

Re:i don't believe it

[Mr. Slippery]

Personally, I think the question of whether or not some religion is actually true is a pretty interesting one. From your tone I'm going to guess you've already decided that none is, though.

That's making a whole lot of assumptions about the definition of religion, what (if anything) it means for a religion to be "true", and what my opinions on the subject are.

I have been giving the matter much consideration here.

On the specific topic of religion and sex, I'm working in a chapter about that. Suffice it to say I'm taking a rather different tack than Matthew.

Re:i don't believe it

[ReedYoung]

I've never had the slightest interest in anything except strict monogamy.

You sir, lack imagination.

Or:
You, sir, lack focus.
Or:
You both have different preferences which are both legitimate, but you, sir, lack manners.

Re:i don't believe it

[ajlisows]

Your statement seems to assume that everyone engaged in a marriage/long term relationship cheats on their spouse. I had a fair amount of sexual partners prior to meeting my current wife and exactly one since meeting her.....when I was a 20 year old in college. 11 Years later (Six of those married years) I can certainly say that I have never been "Polygamous in Secret". While I may be a nerd, I've had ample opportunities. I simply chose not to take advantage of those chances. Perhaps as I grow older and my wife starts to lose some of her appeal I will change but I've found it to be easier and easier to suppress the "Sewing your wild oats" feeling with more interesting propositions in the past than I am likely to experience in the future. As for my wife....if she's in/has been in a "Polygamous in secret" relationship I probably will never know. However, I'm reasonably certain she has not. Loyalty in all forms being pretty rare in the world today it seems to make sense to reciprocate what you truly believe to be someone else' loyalty to you.

Re:i don't believe it

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Well, what you say goes against a lot of scientific observation on other animals. And why is there too much incentive to spread genes no matter what? If a species has no trouble surviving, then they don't need to breed as much.

Re:i don't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he doesn't want to be a hypocrite and let his wife/GF screw other guys.

Re:i don't believe it

[Das Modell]

No. I was expecting a serious reply and didn't get one. Tough shit if you can't deal with that.

Re:i don't believe it

[TheCarp]

I would say rarer than we pretend.

Just look at the numbers for cheaters. Most of the people I know get in monogamous relationships, however, most guys I know have cheated on a partner at some point, and the overall numbers bear out that many people (men and women) "cheat".

I had a late night chat with a good friend of my gf one night recently. She told me how she was jealous of our relationship but gets too jealous and couldn't do it. Yet, this same girl cheated on her last bf, and did with many before him.

Of course, its not about jealousy for us, its entirely about love. I know my girl likes some excitement and variety. It is, for me, about allowing my lover to have what makes her happy. 99% of the time, we sleep right next to eachother, and have sex just the two of us. To be upset with her for sleeping with someone else just seems petty to me.

-Steve

Re:i don't believe it

[Theaetetus]

According to the CDC, men 30-44 years of age report a median of about 7 sexual partners in their lifetimes; women, about four.

I can't imagine that there could be anything odd about these numbers from a self-reporting study in a society where men are praised for having more sexual partners and women are reviled for it.

Personally, I've had ten billion sexual partners. You don't know them. They were from Canada.

Re:i don't believe it

[shking]

> I've never had the slightest interest in anything except strict monogamy.

You sir, lack imagination.

Nah. He's just recognized that one partner is much better than none at all.

Re:i don't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

Faggot, go cry in a corner.

Re:i don't believe it

[Das Modell]

I guess you were unable to deal with it.

Re:i don't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy are you off-base on a number of things.

Birds vs. mammals: Completely irrelevant. What matters is: does the male invest in the raising of offspring. For most birds, yes. For humans, yes. For most other mammals, no.

Both genders shape the other heavily by their choices. Try talking to a woman sometime. You will discover they HIGHLY prize commitment. The idea that males dreamed this up is beyond absurd. Of course there are benefits to monogamy for males, also.

Almost all human behavior is strongly influenced by genetics. There is now an enormous body of scientific background on this. The people resisting this knowledge are the human-egoist types ("we people are far too great to be dictated to by our lowly genes!")

Easy to spot the folks without the gene...

[scott792283]

just watch Jeremy Kyle.

That is good, but this one would be more helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands.

Now if they could find the gene that will help determine whether a woman will still put out after you get married...

I guess this means....

[Anonymous Coward]

The LDS is a church for mutants.... :D

Jumping the gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait until after you've had sex to make that call.

gene therapy and evolution

[sckeener]

I heard about this a few years ago...I wonder how long it'll be before spouses are asking science to do gene therapy to fix their loved one.

grrr...as much as I believe cheating is bad for everyone involved, there has got to be evolutionary reasons why their are differences and fixing everyone to one type sounds like a dumb idea as a species.

Re:gene therapy and evolution

[plasmacutter]

overspecialization leads inevitably to destruction of a species.

One of the reasons we've been so successful across the globe is we ourselves are generalists, and we specialize only in our tools.

if we start to breed out the "jocks", "nerds", "heretics", or "conformists", we will start to have problems.

Diversity is important, even if it leads to disagreement.

Re:gene therapy and evolution

[garett_spencley]

Cheating is only a problem when it involves lying, sneaking around, secrets etc.

It's not my place to tell couples how they should be managing their relationship. However, if done for the right reasons (ie: not in an attempt to fix something that's wrong, but to heighten something that's already great) opening up a relationship can be extremely healthy and beneficial. There's obviously a number of important steps: communication is vital. Open and honest is the only way it works. No secrets. No lies and a sharing of one's desires and feelings that might otherwise be kept secret in a closed relationship for fear of hurting the other or making them jealous. It's not always easy to make the leap from being exlusive to having your partner tell you every intimate detail of their sexual encounter with another person. For me and my wife it was very gradual and started out with us only playing with couples together. Eventually we made the transition into a completely open relationship and it's very liberating. Heck, it's nice just to be able to be open about finding other women attractive. Something that a lot of relationships forbid due to insecurity issues etc.

Monogamy obviously has several social advantages, but humans have natural urges that aren't easily suppressed and too many relationships seem to have problems even accepting that the partner would ever even fantasize about being with someone outside of the relationship. That doesn't seem healthy to me.

Re:gene therapy and evolution

[tirerim]

Cheating is bad, but there's no reason why satisfying a polygamy gene has to involve cheating. As long as both parties know what the other is doing and are okay with it, then everyone can be happy (even in cases where one of them wants to be monogamous and the other does not, though that certainly does create issues). That said, TFA doesn't actually say anything about the influence of the gene on the men being monogamous; in fact, the study didn't investigate whether they were faithful at all. Rather, the gene seems to influence the men's level of commitment to a relationship and the quality of the pair bonding.

Oxytocin?

[ThanatosMinor]

That's not the cuddle chemical we used when I was in college

Re:Oxytocin?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.. I think it was "Oxycontin"

Re:Oxytocin?

[shaitand]

*sighs* Drugs have really gone downhill. Even pot has a better high than Oxycontin.

Re:Oxytocin?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're referring to MDMA, it actually causes the release of oxytocin, so maybe it was...

Junk Science

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

These studies are usually more dubious, and of less value than an average humanities paper. Should we really be calling them science?

Junk Science is a problem. A big problem. The media loves these trite little findings, but dubious correlations based on statistical quackery, and experimental fecklessness will ultimately drag the standing of science further and further into the gutter. Maybe that's not the case for this particular study.... But I doubt it!

There are far worthier projects that professionals could be spending their time and money on. Maybe they won't get your study featured next to the horoscopes and crosswords in every daily rag across the globe, but they will be of benefit to the progress of humanity. If this means that you as a scientist will actually have to do some real work investigating genomes of pathogens or plants instead of interviewing people about their feelings and feeding their swab data into a matlab script, then my heart bleeds for you.

Re:Junk Science

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Does something about this particular paper raise your suspicion, or is it just a chance to take a swipe at a general phenomenon that annoys you?

While this paper looks rather preliminary, it looks like a sound test of expectations developed through prior research in animal behavior and genetics. A good deal of "hard" work poking at the gene and its effects in animals already exists, isn't it perfectly logical to attempt to apply the existing data to humans?

Re:Junk Science

[oldhack]

This looks like the bogus psych "experiment" that we had to "volunteer" for to get cheap humanities credits back in the school. Here's the recipe:

1. Pull out of your ass two variables you fancy.
2. Draw out correlationship.
3. Make a guess what that may mean.
4. There is no step 4.

There is no step 4 because actually trying to determine linkage between the variables are so far off our knowledge/ability that no one expects you to take the next step, not to mention everyone else is doing the same sorta thing and getting plenty grant money/publicity anyway.

Actually, tell me if I'm wrong - I just pulled this post out of my ass reading only the story headline. :-)

Re:Junk Science

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I've pulled a few of those experiments as well; but I don't think that this is one.

My understanding is that the basis of this research is some work with voles. Certain vole species are monogamous, others promiscuous. Scientists have characterized what they believe is the genetic difference driving this behavioral difference in otherwise similar species(and they are relatively confident; because they've been able to manipulate vole behavior through genetic engineering(paywall, sorry, just because we almost certainly paid for that research doesn't mean we get to see it)). This study examines the same genetic difference between humans, and looks to see if there is a correlation between that genetic difference and human behavior.

Re:Junk Science

[Artifakt]

Working with closely related vole species which share a lot of environmental adaptations, but respond differently to one specific chemical? Sounds like a fair way of getting a doubleblind test environment and generating multiple control groups to help assure the results are meaningful and some other hypothesi can genuinely be discarded.
Unfortunately, any experiment where the researcher starts with genetically engineered voles also sounds like the last phrase in the proposal should be "Bwaa-haa-haa-haa ... and then I shall rule the world, as is my right!" Just something about genetically engineered voles I guess.

Oh great.. one more test to take!

[Pontiac]

Now your GF/Wife will want you to take the "Cheating bastard" DNA test too.

Re:Oh great.. one more test to take!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now your GF/Wife will want you to take the "Cheating bastard" DNA test too.

Why? To weed out nice guys with greater accuracy?

Re:Oh great.. one more test to take!

[sm62704]

Surveys show that roughly half of married men admit to having extramaital affairs, but 75 of married woman do. So either woman are more dishonest with their husbands, or a lot more honest with researchers.

Men I know would lie the other way on the survey and say they cheat when they can't. I suspect that woman are lying and 75% of them cheat.

Re:Oh great.. one more test to take!

[Kozz]

Surveys show that roughly half of married men admit to having extramaital affairs, but 75 of married woman do.

*citation needed

Re:Oh great.. one more test to take!

[IKILLEDTROTSKY]

What! by all twelve of them?!?!?!

Re:Oh great.. one more test to take!

[Plutonite]

Like the other poster said, citations badly needed. Men and women do not equate in sexual terms at all, and they cheat for very different reasons usually. Men are far more physically oriented (see media, advertising, popular clothing..etc) because men have almost always dominated the resources available by physical force, so their pick is determined by the physical characteristics of the possible mate more than all the other things (personality, wealth..etc). It is the male who was expected to provide for the family, protect the offspring, care for the pregnant female and so on. Other species have a different equation when the female is more physically able than the male, but that is not the case with us.

As for the polygamy part, it is of course far more beneficial for the man. The female will usually not gain from sexual activity with another male if she is already active with the first one at the same time, even if the second male is a better choice for whatever evolutionary reason. She will likely cause trouble and be deserted, because other feelings that evolved to counter cheating (jealousy..etc) will cause the primary male to kick her ass, whereas the other way round women can be a lot more forgiving even to this day despite the same feelings of jealousy being present to give them and their offspring a better chance.

Statistics taken from anonymous surveys are not going to include as big an ego-factor as you seem to think.

Re:Oh great.. one more test to take!

[ShadowRangerRIT]

The Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, cites a study by Laumann et al. (1994) which found that the percentage admitting to at least one act of extramarital sex are 25% of men and 15% of women. And even then, less than 4% admitted to doing so in the previous year, so most of them weren't in active extramarital affairs. A number of other studies cited in the same link show percentages of roughly +-5% for both genders. In other words, GP is pulling statistics out of his ass.

Re:Oh great.. one more test to take!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would pay good money to a dating service that would guaranty it served only people who had the monogamy gene and high levels of the cuddle chemical (provided the claims were backed up by auditing from an independent lab). Laugh if you want, but someone could make a lot of money off of this if the research continues. Naturally I would submit to testing too if they found a way to test for similar genes in females but I know how I am wired so I am not worried. For some of us it's not about god/religion, it's about wanting someone you can really count on for the long run (yes, polygamy people, I heard you can sometimes find that too and go you, but most women don't like to share). Most single women would pay big money for a way to find those men who are not "dogs".

Re:Oh great.. one more test to take!

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy, stop chasing "mr. exciting", stop believing societies b.s. that you have to wait to be asked out.
      This should improve the odds tremendously.
Mr exciting who walks up and is so charming, etc. the first time he meets a girl is obviously well practiced (think about it), and it's kinda hard to get that much practice if you give a damn about the feelings of others and/or could care less what they think of you.
      Also it's guys ladies put in the 'just friends' category that they should re-evaluate. EVERY time I've met or heard about a couple where after 30-50 (or more) years happy together one dies the lament isn't over loosing someone with a hot body or great bedroom skill or any such, it's "I've lost my best friend".

Re:Oh great.. one more test to take!

[ceoyoyo]

And men will want their GF/fiance to take the "threesome curious" test. There's always a silver lining.

so is cheatin' genetic, too?

[jollyreaper]

Definitions

Polygamy: one too many wives

Monogamy: see "Polygamy"

Ooooh oxyTOCin

[Anonymous Coward]

I somehow misread that as 'oxycontin' and thought "Aw, Rush Limbaugh just needs a hug!"

No Monogamy Gene

[eebra82]

I seriously doubt that humans were holding on to each other for lifetimes before the dawn of religions. After all, the whole idea of staying together forever and ever is all taken from a few books that people wrote hundreds of years ago.

Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible? And if love existed, who's to say that it lasted for long periods? I remember reading an article that stated that "love" is a chemical reaction that lasts roughly six months, given or take a couple of months. I guess it's enough time to bond and mate.

Maybe this "monogamy gene" relates to something totally different, but has altered effects because of traditions that have grown with religions?

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[t0rkm3]

Hrmmmm...

As far as I can tell, from literature in polygamist cultures, the jealousy gene is 100% present in females and males of the species. Therefore, it would seem that a barter system would evolve. The higher your wealth is above the mean of the society that you live in, the more likely that you will be able to entice potential partners into a 'mutually beneficial' relationship. The wealth assuages the greater portion of the jealousy, while other services alleviate the remainder.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[blueg3]

Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?

In short, because our young are vulnerable after birth, require a fairly large energy investment, and are few in number.

Monogamy actually appears in a number of different animal species.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[ikkonoishi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-selection#K-selection

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?

Because, if he did, he would soon find himself dying a slow painful death.

They didn't have antibiotics 10,000 years ago. They didn't even have condoms (at least not the kind that could reliably prevent the transmission of STD's).

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[WhiplashII]

So, in essence, you believe penguins are religious...

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[vux984]

Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?

Lots of reasons...

Inability to find good mates... Ideal mothers for your children would reject you knowing that you wouldn't provide for them?

Low chance of offspring surviving... mothers would be unable to care for your children, and unable to find mates willing help them?

Societal acceptance... e.g. The other men would stone him? Stone the women he cheated with? Stone his offspring?

Monogamy exists in nature. There are reasons for why it works where it exists.

And if love existed, who's to say that it lasted for long periods?

Indeed. Monogamy isn't necessarily 'till death to we part' in modern society at least it simply means not cheating on your partner. It is entirely possible to marry, raise a child, separate, marry someone else, and even raise another child, all within the confines of monogamy.

Hell when I was a teen, most of us were pretty monogamous; its not that we all married our first crush, but rather that our teen years were a succession of monogamous relationships of varying lengths, some quite brief, and punctuated with periods of being 'single'.

And yes some people who were supposedly 'in a relationship' cheated, and when caught it carried a stigma, one that I would say definitely impacted their dating prospects in the circles where it was known that they cheated (applied to both males and females).

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[db32]

Wrong place to ask that question my friend...

Though I must say it brings an interesting connotation and often overlooked piece of the Apple logo (just one bite missing...)

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[lena_10326]

Evolution is going to produce all viable permutations. It's not surprising to me there may be segments of people who are predisposed to monogamy and those who aren't. I don't think you can determine which is better or which guarantees the survival of the species without evidence.

Also, I don't think it's valid to ignore the technological aspects of different time periods. Primitive cultures experienced a greater number of infant deaths, so they may have had a stronger incentive to enter polygamous relationships. In today's period, we have technology (medicine) to reduce deaths, but technological advancement is also part of our evolution so one cannot discount current trends when they're influenced by our technology evolution.

But then consider you can argue that survival of the mother in harsh environments necessitated monogamy so there would have been a strong incentive to form stable marriages.

Those thoughts are contradictory, so I don't think issuing value judgments pro or con for either case make any sense without the evidence or considering the climate and mortality rates.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Prien715]

I seriously doubt that humans were holding on to each other for lifetimes before the dawn of religions.

I suppose since male and females of about the same age being buried together would be the only evidence left and since ceremonial burial is an indicator of religion, you certainly couldn't be proven wrong.

But what about the word "romantic" which has its roots in "Rome". I can't think of too many Greco-Roman gods known for monogamy....

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Oligonicella]

You have no idea what you're talking about. You have neither any idea of when the dawn of religion was nor of what societies looked like prior.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Goalie_Ca]

I feel ripped off because my "love" only lasts about 5 minutes.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Colonel Korn]

I think you don't understand that this gene is supposedly something that improves the likelihood that a man will remain monogamous. Instead, you seem to think that the claim is that the gene forces monogamy in any social or cultural situation. It's not.

In addition, a few specific points:

I seriously doubt that humans were holding on to each other for lifetimes before the dawn of religions. After all, the whole idea of staying together forever and ever is all taken from a few books that people wrote hundreds of years ago.

Monogamy isn't a purely religious (or Judeo-Christian, as I suspect you think) phenomenon. It was an important concept in many ancient cultures as demonstrated in surviving texts and art, and archaeology of cities as old as ÃatalhÃyük (~7000 BC) show pretty good evidence for regularly occurring monogamy.

Many wild animals mate with a single partner for life, as well, and they're not doing it because of a book.

Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible? And if love existed, who's to say that it lasted for long periods? I remember reading an article that stated that "love" is a chemical reaction that lasts roughly six months, given or take a couple of months. I guess it's enough time to bond and mate.

There are a lot of reasons not to screw around as much as possible, just as there are non-religious reasons not to steal, kill, or generally be a nuisance. Most people in human societies work under a Nash Equilibrium, maintaining order for common benefit, despite the possible personal benefit associated with breaking the equilibrium.

Also, the love is a six month chemical imbalance story wasn't expressed very well in the mainstream media. Replace "love" with "infatuation" and you get a sense of what was really being said. Personally, I think that infatuation doesn't have much to do with love at all. A lot of people don't agree with this and feel that the relationship is over after a few months once the unfamiliarity is gone, and that's an idea largely spread by fictional and especially Hollywood romance stories, but I think that these people are wrong.

Maybe this "monogamy gene" relates to something totally different, but has altered effects because of traditions that have grown with religions?

And here you come up with the idea that maybe the researchers should suggest that the gene has some effect that doesn't force monogamy in all cultural and social contexts. If you had read even the summary (based on your post you must have only read the title) you would know that they're way ahead of you, making much less dramatic claims than you think, claims that fall within the range of your suggestion.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some other non-primate species that mate for life, so it's not strictly related to religion or primates. Though I do tend to agree with you that there's probably no gene responsible and it is instead related to human traditions.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[dprovine]

You do not understand evolution well enough. There are many possible reproductive strategies which can be successful. One is to spread one's genes far and wide, in hopes that others will care for the offspring. But another is to supervise all your offspring yourself: you'll have fewer of them, but you can better ensure that they all reach adulthood.

In the case of creatures which reach adulthood quickly, such as cockroaches, the first strategy is obviously a much better one. But in the case of humans, who reach adulthood slowly and are highly vulnerable until then, the second strategy may work as well as -- or better than -- the first in some cases.

The notion that there is "one best" strategy for all species in all ecosystems is, speaking from an evolutionary perspective, overly simplistic.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?

Because he would rather come home to a woman he could screw every single night than women who won't have sex with him because she just found out that he had been screwing someone on the side?

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[sm62704]

Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?

Did you not even read the summary? I was faithful to my ex-slut for 27 years until the pain of her continued affairs became too much and I divorced her. This was despite repeated advances by her so-called "friends", who she'd obviously been bragging about the size of my penis to.

I remember reading an article that stated that "love" is a chemical reaction that lasts roughly six months, given or take a couple of months.

You're confusing lust with love. A man with the monogamy gene will be faithful because he wouldn't want to hurt the woman he loves. It's possible that a man without this gene is incapable of true love.

Some species of animals are nearly 100% monogamous and mate for life, while other species are not monogamous at all. Other species, like the voles mentioned, vary withing subspecies.

We are nothing but complex chemical reactions. Thought, speech, feelings, love, even movement are only chemical reactions.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[compro01]

As others above have stated, it pretty comes out to a quality vs. quantity matter. The man has a fixed amount of resources (where resources could be food, shelter, social status, money, etc.), so it becomes a matter of "have lots of kids with lots of mothers, and hope that by sheer probability that at least some of them will survive to reproduce" or "have a few kids with one mother and concentrate my resources on those few, virtual guaranteeing they will survive to reproduce.".

Which of those will be most advantageous (will result in more children surviving to reproduce) varies on the resources available and other externalities, which would explain why neither has "won out".

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Blimey85]

The other men would stone him? Stone the women he cheated with? Stone his offspring? What is this? Berkeley in the 60's? Damn stoners!

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like the sort of answer I would expect from someone with limited experience when it comes to relationships...

"Get all the sex you can!!! That's the secret to true happiness in life!!!"

There's a lot more to happiness than just sex (although it certainly is an integral part of it). Some of the greatest joys in life come from having a family.

Additionally, I can't believe this study is being given any serious consideration by anyone. It's a ridiculous, non-scientific, and utterly preposterous idea!

Take a group of people that DO meet X criteria, find a gene that they have in common, then take a group of people that DO NOT meet X criteria and find that they lack the gene, or have a different gene.

Who would rightly state that among the millions+ of possible criteria X, it is "THIS ONE!"

Also, predisposition != actual behavior

They can only base the experiment on actual behavior, because people are not puppets subjected to the will of our genetics. We have free will.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?"
 
  Because the other guys are doing the same and since you're posting on /. I'm going to assume they're stronger then you. So the best option is to find a honey and make her yours, and to stick around to raise your kids. I don't think forever is the right word, more like 13 years.
 
  My guess is the guys who wrote religion were as weak as the guys who write code today and thought it would be a nifty idea to keep others from grabbing their girls, or in the case of catholics, boys.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Logi]

You've got that completely backwards. We've evolved to use a huge number of beneficial strategies. One such strategy is monogamy in relatively peaceful times, and so when we made up the various religions, we put monogamy in there.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Mr. Slippery]

Monogamy actually appears in a number of different animal species.

Not so much. The idea that many animals "mate for life" seems to be romantic wish fulfillment on the part of scientists. It's being contradicted more and more by DNA evidence which shows that, for example, the Papa Bird that Mama Bird shares the nest with, is often not the Baby Bird Daddy.

As researcher David Barash explains:

...the only animal species I know of in which we can be really confident that monogamy is a lifelong activity, is a peculiar flatworm that lives as a parasite in the intestines of fish. And in this one particular species, the two individuals meet while they are still adolescent, and their bodies literally fuse together, and from then on of course they remain altogether true to each other, until death do they not part. But the reality is that as we look at other species, the more we look at them, the more it is revealed that they do engage in what we call 'extra pair copulations'.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar! it's just all an evil conspiracy by aliens that want to enforce their evil philosophy upon all of us. They actually kidnap every human on the planet to brainwash them in becoming more monogamous. Usually, we don't remember anything but sometimes the memory erasure doesn't work. Their goal is to prevent us from gaining true knowledge (as polygamy is obviously the Solution to all the world ills: world hunger, diseases, war, financial crisis,). They have created the evil religions to continue their brainwashing.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Caraig]

It's possible that a man without this gene is incapable of true love.

Define 'true love,' please?

And quoting Hallmark cards doesn't count.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a great reason women are monogamous.

Men however have no limit on the number of times they can inseminate a woman (well, okay, our sperm count drops after a certain number of times a day, but we're not 'down for the count' for nine months after a successful frolic). Rather than putting all our eggs in one basket, biologically, we're better off impregnating every female we can to spread our genes.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Artifakt]

And most people lived in small isolated groups, often without enough contact for an STD to spread from one group to another before it instead wiped the first group out.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[bjourne]

Let's say that we go 10,000 years back. Why would a man not screw around as much as possible? And if love existed, who's to say that it lasted for long periods? I remember reading an article that stated that "love" is a chemical reaction that lasts roughly six months, given or take a couple of months. I guess it's enough time to bond and mate.

Because while he was away from his woman she might as well also screw around as much as possible. So for every time he is cheating he must consider the risk that the female does the same and gets pregnant. The outcome might be to only try and screw the hot ones but to leave the ugly be.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Prune]

> "because our young are vulnerable after birth, require a fairly large energy investment, and are few in number"

I call bullshit. Let's say that the probability of a child surviving drops fourfold if the father does not remain in the relationship for a length for, say, beyond one year after birth. Note that then the father simply needs to impregnate at least four women instead of sticking around with one long-term in order to make up, genetically, for his absence during child-rearing. For more attractive men (better genetically), or more powerful ones, impregnating four women as opposed to one is far from a tall order.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Prune]

> "Ideal mothers for your children would reject you knowing that you wouldn't provide for them?"

That's why you can fake attachment.

> "Low chance of offspring surviving... mothers would be unable to care for your children, and unable to find mates willing help them?"

I call bullshit. Let's say that the probability of a child surviving drops fourfold if the father does not remain in the relationship for a length for, say, beyond one year after birth. Note that then the father simply needs to impregnate at least four women instead of sticking around with one long-term in order to make up, genetically, for his absence during child-rearing. For more attractive men (better genetically), or more powerful ones (in old times, also translating to better genetically), impregnating at least four women as opposed to just one is far from a tall order.

> "Societal acceptance... e.g. The other men would stone him? Stone the women he cheated with? Stone his offspring?"

Silly, unfounded speculation.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

It is entirely possible to marry, raise a child, separate, marry someone else, and even raise another child, all within the confines of monogamy.

That would be serial monogamy. For a while there, monogamy meant that a couple stayed together until one of them died. And even then, except for extreme circumstances (like that he couldn't possibly take care of the infant and kids himself), there was a proper period of mourning for the deceased spouse before shopping around for somebody new. In that way, it was much more like other kinds of religious vows, in that it was a fairly permanent, devotional commitment. That said, there were a lot of drunken husbands who deserved to get kicked out of the house on a permanent basis, and this was not condoned (or practical for a variety of reasons that end up forming a whole new topic).

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[MellowTigger]

I seriously doubt that humans were holding on to each other for lifetimes before the dawn of religions.

When "lifetime" means death by age 30, then lifelong fidelity becomes much easier to achieve.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[vux984]

That's why you can fake attachment.

Yeah, because that works so well.

I call bullshit. Let's say that the probability of a child surviving drops fourfold if the father does not remain in the relationship for a length for, say, beyond one year after birth.

"Silly, unfounded speculation." to use your words. We could just as easily speculate that the probability of the child surviving drops 100 fold or 1000 fold, if the 'family unit' is just mother + child. Depends entirely on the culture and environment.

Note that then the father simply needs to impregnate at least four women instead of sticking around with one long-term in order to make up, genetically, for his absence during child-rearing. For more attractive men (better genetically), or more powerful ones (in old times, also translating to better genetically), impregnating at least four women as opposed to just one is far from a tall order.

Only from the males perspective. The women, on the other side, would see a fourfold increase in the chances of their offspring not making it, and unlike the male, they have no way to balance it back out. So why would they choose to mate with the male who leaves them? Sure the FIRST one might fall for it... but the 2nd? 3rd? and 4th? Provided they know his strategy is to leave they will reject him and choose a mate that will help ensure the child survives.

And as for the whole 'stoning' thing... assuming that there is roughly a 50/50 male female distribution, then at least 3 males have been denied the chance to reproduce by the dominant males strategy. So they get together, and decide their best strategy at reproducing is eliminating the dominant male. With 3 on 1 the pretty-boy is dead.

Remember jealousy is a part of our genetics too, and easily interpreted as part of a procreation/survival mechanism.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[syousef]

Why would a man not screw around as much as possible?
In short, because our young are vulnerable after birth, require a fairly large energy investment, and are few in number.

As a new father I have to say I concur! Well that, and the fact that my wife's got a black belt in Karate.

(I kid, though she does really have a black belt)

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

Only from the males perspective. The women, on the other side, would see a fourfold increase in the chances of their offspring not making it, and unlike the male, they have no way to balance it back out. So why would they choose to mate with the male who leaves them? Sure the FIRST one might fall for it... but the 2nd? 3rd? and 4th? Provided they know his strategy is to leave they will reject him and choose a mate that will help ensure the child survives.

Or, they could mate with the guy who will leave (he likely is the alpha and clearly superior), then sleep with a lesser man, get pregnant, and pass off the child as the beta's. That way, everyone wins (except the beta).

And as for the whole 'stoning' thing... assuming that there is roughly a 50/50 male female distribution, then at least 3 males have been denied the chance to reproduce by the dominant males strategy. So they get together, and decide their best strategy at reproducing is eliminating the dominant male. With 3 on 1 the pretty-boy is dead.

Divide and conquer works well here. All the alphas have to do is scare the betas into submission by severely beating one of them, then the rest will know their place.

Besides, if your theory was correct, we'd see it in other primate societies, but the alpha model wins out.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Are you suggesting that many other animals got their relationship behaviors by reading The Bible, too?

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[incognito84]

I remember reading an article that stated that "love" is a chemical reaction that lasts roughly six months, given or take a couple of months. I guess it's enough time to bond and mate.

Six months? What a ridiculous number. It can take as little as ten minutes on prom night.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Anonymous Coward]

(...) before the dawn of religions. After all, the whole idea of staying together (...) hundreds of years ago.

ouch, you must be from New World, sir

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Tom]

That all depends on your theory regarding pre-history human society.

One theory says we lived in closely-knit tribes. In that scenario, it is possible that essentially everyone fooled around with everyone else and the kids were raised as a group effort. It might not even have mattered who the father was.

But if you think pre-history man was not so different from us, then family might have been the unit, not tribe. In that case, sex defines relationship and it becomes very important who sleeps with whom. In addition, if the raising of kids is a project for a couple, then staying together until they're at least a few years old is absolutely necessary for survival.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Tom]

Hell when I was a teen, most of us were pretty monogamous; its not that we all married our first crush, but rather that our teen years were a succession of monogamous relationships of varying lengths, some quite brief, and punctuated with periods of being 'single'.

Many people - both from the religious right and the polygamous circles - don't consider that actual monogamy. The term "serial polygamy" is one I've heard used. It's interesting how all those things rely on very fine details of definitions of words.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[sm62704]

If you want a definition see a dictionary. But for an explanation from one who has experienced it, true love is the love of a parent for his or her child. Most people would die for their children.

The love of a child for their parent is true love.

Note not all parents do, in fact, love their children (and those who don't have something badly wrong with them), and some people hate their parents. That is perhaps the saddest thing that can possibly be.

Oddly, the quote at slashdot a while ago was Oscar Hammerstein, "Love isn't love 'til you give it away". Another quote I don't know the author of is "absense is to love as water is to fire -- a little quickens, much extinguishes".

The band Nazareth said "Love hurts" and indeed it does. I say a man can punch me, hit me, kick me, bite me, shoot me, stab me, break my bones, but only a woman can hurt me.

Shakespeare said "it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all," I think Shakespeare was a fucking idiot for saying something that ignorant.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[TheCarp]

Hell when I was a teen, most of us were pretty monogamous; its not that we all married our first crush, but rather that our teen years were a succession of monogamous relationships of varying lengths, some quite brief, and punctuated with periods of being 'single'.

Much more so than in the past. I think my friend's grandmother said it best "Its strange for a single girl your age to have just one boyfriend". Yes, an 80 year old woman said that.

In fact, when I was in the hospital last year, I was openly dating two girls. My parents knew one of them, and were shocked when the other came to visit in the hospital. When my mother asked "What about Betty?" later, I said "What about betty?" and my grandmother nodded her head and said "thats right, there is no ring on his finger"

Frankly I think people are very confused these days, partially because we have a society where people grow up having monogamy pushed on them but... thats it. Nobody learns how to date or have a casual relationship, so we fumble and figure it all out on our own with no mentoring (generally).

So you have teenagers who hold hands once and decide "I guess we should be boyfriend/girlfriend now". This carries on into our twenties, I will point at my GFs best friend who met a guy at a concert, hung out with him for one weekend after, and then immediately was calling him her boyfriend.

What ever happened to dating? I mean, seriously, doesn't anyone else think that skipping the entire casual dating phase right into going steady is kind of a juvenile mistake?

Shit, Betty and I practically lived together before we were willing to put any label on our relationship. As far as I can tell, we have one of the few really healthy relationships that I have seen.

-Steve

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Cor-cor]

I seriously doubt that humans were holding on to each other for lifetimes before the dawn of religions. After all, the whole idea of staying together forever and ever is all taken from a few books that people wrote hundreds of years ago.

Let's say that we go 10,000 years back.

Did you not see 10,000 B.C.? Eh, can't really blame you.

I guess technically that was 12,000 years back, but it seemed to go on at least long enough to fit into your timeframe.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[DanielLC]

It's because of the way our emotions work. There are voles with similar thoughts about relationships. If you take members of that species, some are happy keeping one partner for their entire lives. Others, not so much. They each feel different emotions different amounts. Some feel the monogamy emotion stronger, others don't.

I'd be willing to bet that what this gene they found does is make it so people like monogamy better, like the alternative less, or both.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[DanielLC]

Whoops. I just RTFA. It talks about voles. Anyway, according to TFA, this sort of thing happens to voles too, and voles presumably don't have religions.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Prune]

The Anonymous Coward that replied already crushed your attempt at a comeback, but I'll add my 2 c as well:

> "Yeah, because that works so well."

Many alpha males I see can actually pull it off very well.

> "We could just as easily speculate that the probability of the child surviving drops 100 fold or 1000 fold, if the 'family unit' is just mother + child. Depends entirely on the culture and environment."

These numbers are ludicrous, and you clearly are unable to make a common sense order-of-magnitude estimate. But EVEN if it were 100-fold, it's still less effort for an alpha male to get 100 women in a year's time than help support a pregnant woman and then her and a child. And it has nothing to do with culture; we're talking about ancient hunter-gatherer societies (though modern day alpha males are at least as "productive"; I know several that do dozens of women every year).

> "Only from the males perspective."

That's sufficient for my argument.

> "The women, on the other side, would see a fourfold increase in the chances of their offspring not making it, and unlike the male, they have no way to balance it back out. So why would they choose to mate with the male who leaves them?"

Now pay attention here. It's actually very simple, and has been discussed in books such as Sperm Wars (written by a biologist, don't get confused by the title): the male's alpha genes would result in her male children having similar behavior as him, and thus spread not only his genes but hers as well.

> "And as for the whole 'stoning' thing... assuming that there is roughly a 50/50 male female distribution, then at least 3 males have been denied the chance to reproduce by the dominant males strategy. So they get together, and decide their best strategy at reproducing is eliminating the dominant male. With 3 on 1 the pretty-boy is dead."

The AC already answered this nicely, and I'll add that obviously these "get-together's" don't work out because the alphas remain dominant to this day. Moreover, the term "pretty boy" is misleading, since while that helps, it's not a necessary component of being alpha. Alpha is much more about behavior, and is why if you get good enough at emulating a true alpha male, you actually start getting laid a lot more even if you're not pretty and not rich etc. This is the basic premise of much of the modern PUA movements, for example.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Prune]

> "Or, they could mate with the guy who will leave (he likely is the alpha and clearly superior), then sleep with a lesser man, get pregnant, and pass off the child as the beta's. That way, everyone wins (except the beta)."

I actually remember studies about this. Good stuff. It's why I forced myself to overcome my betaness.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[vux984]

These numbers are ludicrous, and you clearly are unable to make a common sense order-of-magnitude estimate.

Watch march of the penguins sometime. The environment pretty much gaurantees 100% mortality if either parent fucks up on their responsibility. There are plenty of human examples of nearly as harsh a life... such as desert nomads or inuit.

But EVEN if it were 100-fold, it's still less effort for an alpha male to get 100 women in a year's time than help support a pregnant woman and then her and a child.

He has to get them all pregnant, not just copulate with them. Good luck getting 100 women pregnant in a single year. Hell, many hunter gatherer groups probably didn't have 100 suitably aged females available.

And it has nothing to do with culture; we're talking about ancient hunter-gatherer societies (though modern day alpha males are at least as "productive";

It has a great deal to do with 'culture' and the structure of the 'society'. just because they are 'ancient hunter-gatherer' types doesn't tell us the degree to which this sort of alpha male behaviour will be accepted by the group. Lions and Wolves for example are both 'hunter tribes' and both have alpha males, but the 'sleeping arrangements' are entirely different.

The AC already answered this nicely, and I'll add that obviously these "get-together's" don't work out because the alphas remain dominant to this day.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention:

We have court ordered paternity tests, child support laws, wage garnishment. I would consider this a case of the 'betas' have gotten together to force the alphas to commit resources to support their offspring.

Exactly who do you think it was that did that? The alphas? It was all part of their master plan to be coerced into paying for his abandoned offspring?

The legal system in general, from the courts to the police to the prisons clearly represents the 'beta' placing constraints on 'alpha dominance'. Sure the 'betas' haven't wiped them out, but they aren't even really trying to. If breeding out aggression were the point, their would be sterilization for convicted criminals, their offspring, and perhaps even their siblings.

Finally, "PUA" stuff is hardly 'alpha male' in any real sense; its more like learning interrogation techniques... reading body language, a bit of psychology, etc.

I know several that do dozens of women every year).

I do to. And a lot of them are little chickenshits when push comes to shove; hardly what I'd call 'dominant alpha males'.

I also know several that could do dozens of women every year, but don't. They have the same ability to read women and flirt etc; they can get almost whoever they want; but have no inclination to take advantage of it beyond securing the woman they want.

Finally alpha male behaviour as a strategy for procreation is doomed in societies with advanced birthcontrol, and a high percentage of women utilising it.

Its not at the point yet, but may well soon be as birth control prices drop, effectiveness increases, and utilisation increases, that to have any chance of having a child, it will need to be planned. 'Aplha male' strategies at that point will be entirely ineffective and vestigial. Not only will they have to attrack and seduce the woman, but will also have to convince her to choose to conceive.

Couple that with the legal framework that forces him to pay child support if she does have the child. I hardly see the alpha male 'sleep with everything that moves strategy' being particularly viable in the future.

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[Prune]

> "such as desert nomads or inuit"

Humans evolved in the African savanna, completely different conditions. Recent developments over the last tens of thousands of years cannot have a significant impact; evolution in humans has been on far larger time scales.

As evidenced by studies of foraging societies surviving into recent times, smaller bands conglomerate seasonally to groups of around a hundred individuals, and also raiding other bands for women has been observed in some. Also, as I said the number 100 is an overestimate. The 4 I used as an example initially is a closer estimate.

> "It has a great deal to do with 'culture' and the structure of the 'society'."

Unless that culture has been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years, it has not resulted in any evolutionary impact, and is irrelevant to this context as behavior is hardwired--Pinker and other evolutionary psychologists have established this quite nicely. The only culture that matters is that of ancient foraging societies, as anything else is a recent invention.

> "Exactly who do you think it was that did that? The alphas? It was all part of their master plan to be coerced into paying for his abandoned offspring?"

There is no "plan". There is sexual selection.

> "The legal system in general, from the courts to the police to the prisons clearly represents the 'beta' placing constraints on 'alpha dominance'. Sure the 'betas' haven't wiped them out, but they aren't even really trying to."

Again, recent development; it has had no impact on the gene pool.

> "If breeding out aggression were the point, their would be sterilization for convicted criminals, their offspring, and perhaps even their siblings."

Way to try to equate alpha with criminal and aggressor. Defensive because of a feeling of inferiority?

> "Finally, "PUA" stuff is hardly 'alpha male' in any real sense; its more like learning interrogation techniques... reading body language, a bit of psychology, etc."

If your view of PUA stuff is limited to Mystery and other typical indirect methods with their routines, or NLP, then yes, but that is a very limited view. These are just making change on the surface and is just the subset of PUA stuff more well known due to media spotlight on Mystery's show or Strauss' book etc. It's the worst possible approach to things.

> "I do to. And a lot of them are little chickenshits when push comes to shove; hardly what I'd call 'dominant alpha males'."

Perhaps a third category then--the shameless manipulators. The indirect method PUAs generally fall in that category, though some people I'm sure do it naturally. But I see no reason to think this could have had any effect on evolution since that category does not make sense in a primitive foraging society.

> "Finally alpha male behaviour as a strategy for procreation is doomed in societies with advanced birthcontrol, and a high percentage of women utilising it."

It might be at some point in the future, but it's still not the case to this day. Sperm Wars gives an estimate that at least 10% of people are not fathered by the person they think is their biological father. Moreover, female behavior helps this explicitly, since women that carry out infidelity tend to be with their lovers rather than their husbands mostly at times when they're ovulating. Thus the sexual selection continues until birth control is truly consistently used and failsafe.

> "I hardly see the alpha male 'sleep with everything that moves strategy' being particularly viable in the future."

There is very little natural selection occurring in an industrialized human society, and eventually the effects of sexual selection will wane as well due to birth control, as noted. But there is no significant selective pressure to revert existing behaviors either, so alpha males will remain unless there is stronger selection against them, and I simply don't see that--there is too much inertia in hardwired human beh

Re:No Monogamy Gene

[vux984]

As evidenced by studies of foraging societies surviving into recent times, smaller bands conglomerate seasonally to groups of around a hundred individuals, and also raiding other bands for women has been observed in some.

100 individuals. Men, women, children, and the elderly (to the extent you could become elderly). Hardly a harem of a 100 fertile women.

Unless that culture has been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years, it has not resulted in any evolutionary impact, and is irrelevant to this context

You keep returning to the actual circumstances of human hunter gatherer tribes, and that's fine, but its missing the point. My original post was on the more abstract 'what reasons would promote monogamy in a hypothetical hunter gatherer tribe society', not necessarily the particular hunter gatherer society we descended from. I have no dispute with the premise that alpha male strategies were in effect and successful in our past, both ancient and recent.

However, its not hard to imagine a hypothetical situation where that would not be true.

Way to try to equate alpha with criminal and aggressor.

There was no try. Alphas are more aggressive. And violent criminals do tend to have more alpha personalities.

But that's not to say beta's can't be criminals too; you don't have to be an alpha to be a criminal.

Perhaps I should have clarified that sterilization be carried against 'criminals with a pattern of violent aggressive behavior'.

Defensive because of a feeling of inferiority?

Is this some sort of feeble attempt to exert dominance over me? Or are you just being a dick for no reason? Either way it reflects poorly on you and your arguments.

There is very little natural selection occurring in an industrialized human society, and eventually the effects of sexual selection will wane as well due to birth control, as noted. But there is no significant selective pressure to revert existing behaviors either...

Maybe. But consider that the wealthier and more successful you are the fewer children you have in our current industrialized societies (including wealthy alpha males doing dozens of successful women)... that suggests we are effectively selecting for traits that the 'breeders' have ... not that you can select for 'lower class' and 'uneducated' and 'inability to use birth control effectively' but you can select for 'low focus' 'low drive for personal success' 'lower intelligence' and so forth...

Its not that 'successful people' don't reproduce, but that they reproduce less.

Once a cheater, always a cheater?

[Manip]

So does this research suggest that the old saying "Once a cheater, always a cheater" is actually true?

Re:Once a cheater, always a cheater?

[Anonymous Coward]

You got banned from WoW too?

More excuses

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. That's all we need is to lend scientific creedence to all the assholes of the world who will say "I can't help myself, I was born this way!" :p

Exciting news.

[JPMallory]

Does this mean we may be able to finally develop a cure for monogamy?

Re:Exciting news.

[o'reor]

Keep reading Slashdot. Switch back to celibacy. That's a cure.

;-}

Sorry baby, I'm a cheater, `cause it's in the DNA.

[houbou]

Will he/she buy that? Maybe there should be a cheater test kit. :)

gene is AVPR1A , not "rs3 334"

[Anonymous Coward]

The gene is here : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=gene&TermToSearch=552

From the absract :

Pair-bonding has been suggested to be a critical factor in the
evolutionary development of the social brain. The brain neuropeptide
arginine vasopressin (AVP) exerts an important influence on
pair-bonding behavior in voles. There is a strong association
between a polymorphic repeat sequence in the 5 flanking region
of the gene (avpr1a) encoding one of the AVP receptor subtypes
(V1aR), and proneness for monogamous behavior in males of this
species. It is not yet known whether similar mechanisms are
important also for human pair-bonding. Here, we report an association
between one of the human AVPR1A repeat polymorphisms
(RS3) and traits reflecting pair-bonding behavior in men, including
partner bonding, perceived marital problems, and marital status,
and show that the RS3 genotype of the males also affects marital
quality as perceived by their spouses. These results suggest an
association between a single gene and pair-bonding behavior in
humans, and indicate that the well characterized influence of AVP
on pair-bonding in voles may be of relevance also for humans.

Regardless, the chances of finding one polymorphism that correlates highly with monogamy and another form correlates highly with promiscuity is pretty good. That is ... if you are searching through hundreds of thousands of mutations.

Correlation is not causation.

Need a bigger samples size, folks (bonferonni? beefaroni? )

Can you say, enforced family values in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone wanna bet that in the US that eventually someone will propose neutering anyone without this gene and some politician will suck up to it and possibly get this passed?

Materialism gone amuck

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the whole problem with having a materialistic view of the world. "Morals just come from our genes so they HAD to fool around...."

Baloney.

Danger? What danger!?

[starglider29a]

Dangers I can see is taking a genetic test say before marriage and men without the genes will just be dumped on the spot.

Heck, I could see men DEMANDING such a test, for the very same reason.

Re:Danger? What danger!?

[jellomizer]

Good point.
Woman: I know I can change him.
Guy: Nope I have genetic proofs that you can't.

This could upset the universe. But it would be interesting to watch.

There is a theory, the reason why geeks have a hard time getting a girl is because Girls always want guys they can change... Most Geeks while may have quarks they don't have huge personally flaws (Perhaps because many don't have a personality), thus making it harder to change a geek. Thus we don't get the girl.

Well, I Don't Have It

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . seeing as how I've cheated on two wives, the latest incident being with my second wife's best friend last Saturday night.

If there's a Hell, I'm going to it.

interesting...

[Coraon]

Being polygamous I wonder if I have this gene...hehe I know my wife her girlfriend, and my two other partners don't. ;)

Re:interesting...

[SMS_Design]

Until you're married to multiple partners, you're not polygamous. Perhaps polyamorous?

Re:interesting...

[sesshomaru]

Don't blame the grand-parent, the article refers to a "monogamy gene" but I doubt prairie voles are getting married. (If I'm wrong, please post video of a prairie vole wedding, because that sounds neat.)

So, he's misusing "polygamous" the same way the article misused "monogamous."

Re:interesting...

[need4mospd]

Your Second Life account doesn't count.

Re:interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

The article use monogamous correctly. Check the dictionary. The comment you responded to is correct. Look up polygamous too, if you don't believe me. No prairie vole weddings required.

Re:interesting...

[sesshomaru]

In social anthropology, polygamy is the practice of marriage to more than one spouse simultaneously. Historically, polygamy has been practiced as polygyny (one man having more than one wife), or as polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), or, less commonly as "polygamy" (one person having many wives and many husbands at the same time). (See "Forms of Polygamy" below.) In contrast, monogamy is the practice of each person having only one spouse. Like monogamy, the term is often used in a de facto sense, applying regardless of whether the relationships are recognized by the state (see marriage for a discussion on the extent to which states can and do recognize potentially and actually polygamous forms as valid).

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

It's irrelevant what the dictionary says in this case, because the etymology is obvious.

Re:Sorry baby, I'm a cheater, `cause it's in the D

[Anonymous Coward]

Already have that, it's called "hot sister".

Damn that love thing .....

[tinkerghost]

One researcher found that the overwhelming contribution to the increased rate of divorce is the modern concept of marriage for love instead of position/wealth. The current divorce trend is simply the end result of a curve started in the years following the civil war.

So if these conservatives want to go back to an idyllic time with low divorce & happy families - I say bring back arranged marriages.

Re:Damn that love thing .....

[Anonymous Coward]

That really depends on how you want to define happy.

Re:Damn that love thing .....

[sckeener]

Arranged marriages wouldn't be enough. One would have to restrict grounds for divorce and it would be best if one of the couple were a stay-at-home.

Divorce rates correspond nicely to the rise in women's wealth...people have options to look around when they have resources. Also the rates of women cheating are rising.

Re:Damn that love thing .....

[ceoyoyo]

Or public shaming, beating, or the death penalty for divorce. That would do it too.

Re:Damn that love thing .....

[Tom]

It isn't that simple. Those rules were also from different times where, for example, position and wealth were less flexible. In 1500 by the age of 25 you were what you'd be the rest of your life (minor career progress not considered) and by 20 you would know what that'd be. At 15 you had maybe 2 or 3 options left, mostly depending on whether you'd inherit the farm or whether the guild would allow another master of your craft or not.

So when you married at 16 or 17, you knew who and you could plan a life. Even scaling up for changes in life expectancy, longer schooling, etc. - when you marry at 20-25 today, you largely don't. You're probably still in university or you just started your career, and it all could turn out either way.

With that much uncertainty, arranged marriages are quite a bit more complicated than they used to be, because neither party knows what will be in the bargain.

Re:Damn that love thing .....

[ShakaUVM]

Reference?

But I doubt it. You can't control for the "modern concept of marriage for love" in any practical sense, so any conclusion based on the same would essentially be pulled out of his ass.

To the contrary, you can look at things such as the divorce rate before and after no-fault divorce laws were passed, and observe a spike. This happens across all the states that passed such laws.

Paul A. Nakonezny, Robert D. Shull, Joseph Lee Rodgers. "The Effect of No-Fault Divorce Law on the Divorce Rate Across the 50 States and Its Relation to Income, Education, and Religiosity." _Journal of Marriage and the Family_ (May 1995): 477-488.

bold?

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

That's not the style we used when I learned about emphasis in English.

Bah.

[i love pineapples]

Call me when they find the gene marker for "couldn't get a date if her life depended on it." That's the one I (and ostensibly a big chunk of the Slashdot population) need gene therapy for.

Re:Bah.

[sexconker]

You just revealed on slashdot that you:

Are a female.
Need heel getting a date.

Possible trap.
Guaranteed comedic gold.

Re:Bah.

[i love pineapples]

I don't know, man, I have revealed my gender on slashdot many times throughout the tenure of my membership. I don't have any offensive body odor, am not overweight, am unoffensive looking (picture on blog,) and last time I checked, lack a penis. According to the legends I should be neck-deep in my choice of pasty white men, but alas, nada. WHAT AM I DOING WRONG, SLASHDOT?

Re:Bah.

[sesshomaru]

That's easy. The legends are wrong.

Re:Bah.

[Killjoy_NL]

You look ok, so I dunno what you're doing wrong, maybe the men are just wrong?

Re:Bah.

[not-my-real-name]

A lot of people like to talk big, but are terrified of the real thing.

Re:Bah.

[needs2bfree]

I agree. It should be much easier.

sudo apt-get search date
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package date

Same thing happened when I went looking for a girlfriend too.

Re:Bah.

[needs2bfree]

I nominate this post for the Ask Slashdot section.

Re:Bah.

[ceoyoyo]

Two things spring immediately to mind:

1) you live too far away
2) "unoffensive looking?"

If you're ever in my area and you can tell me how hot you are and mean it, drop by. I'll take you sailing. Unfortunately I'm not pasty.

I Have A Gene For Every Dysfunction

[tunapez]

Rather than practice self-control and personal responsibility I will digress to carnal desires and blame the Human Gene. Ain't sentience grand?!?!

knock-outs

[Lust]

And in other news...a population of MONOG gene knock-out mice has just moved to Utah.

Well that

[antifoidulus]

and fear of herpes :P

Re:Well that

[marxmarv]

and fear of herpes :P

Why worry? 1/5 of Americans have it and most don't know it.

Confucius say

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Confucius say "Smart businessman sell disease to man and cure to woman."

Stereotype much?

[Ioldanach]

"commitment-phobes or devoted husbands"

Nothing like adding a little judgmental stereotyping in there, eh? I'm a polyamorous, male, and live with my wife of 8 years, my other primary, and have a secondary in another location, all well aware of each other and all also poly. (Plus my kid, and my o.p.'s 3 kids, & some of wife & o.p.'s other relationships) My longest running relationship of spans 15 years.

Of course this might confuse the average slashdotter (who, the stereotype says, has no women in his life), but still, monogamy and commitment are orthogonal issues.

Re:Stereotype much?

[Rob the Bold]

Of course this might confuse the average slashdotter (who, the stereotype says, has no women in his life), but still, monogamy and commitment are orthogonal issues.

Confused and pissed off. Possibly because you poached his women.

Re:Stereotype much?

[Ioldanach]

Nah, each of them has one or more additional significant others.

Re:Stereotype much?

[Altus]

yea, your not likely to get all that far explaining this here in this forum.

I know that I do not tend toward monogamy (despite the decade and a half spend trying to pretend differently) and yet I don't sleep around. I don't troll bars looking for horny women and I don't jump into bed with strangers. What I do is form long term committed relationships with more than one person.

Unfortunately when people read about this, what the imagine is the guy who is at the bar every night taking home a different women. Now its possible that both that guy and I lack this same gene (or not) but we both make very different choices about how we live our lives.

It would be a lot more interesting though if this study was applied to women as well. As it stands now this just sounds (to most people) like misogyny backed up by science, but if you had a study of both sexes you wouldn't have people talking about men cheating or having harems... you might have people talking about polyamory.

If we were monogamous

[AP31R0N]

If humans were meant to be monogamous, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be a given and a non-issue. Non-monogamy would be something lesser beasts do and would strike us as odd and curious behavior.

Asking humans to be monogamous is like asking a cat to NOT chase a mouse. "Did you SEE her tits? Of COURSE I hit that. I'd be gay if it didn't!"

Marriage is a system invented by men with power to make alliances and to manage inheritance of power. The whole love thing is very 20th century.

Re:If we were monogamous

[not-my-real-name]

The whole love thing is very 20th century.

I'm afraid that you may be a few millennia out, unless you missed a "B.C.E." there.

Re:If we were monogamous

[Anonymous Coward]

If humans were meant to be monogamous, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be a given and a non-issue.

Thats not true... humans love debating the current standard situation, playing with social norms and pushing the limits.

Re:If we were monogamous

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Meant? That implies something other than just the current theory of evolution. Besides, many humans do in fact see polygamy as something lesser beasts do. As for your tit's comments, I guess that you may simply be a horny teenager or someone who never grew up? Nice troll, but it's very flawed.

I got your "monogamy gene"

[192939495969798999]

yo, I got your "monogamy gene" right over here! ... right over here with the paternity tests Maury uses.

Re:I got your "monogamy gene"

[ceoyoyo]

Hm. Maury just got a new lease on life. The paternity tests were getting old, but now he can do genetic cheating tests!

Elelphan-titus

[davidsyes]

Hmmm, on the front page of:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14641-monogamy-gene-found-in-people.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn14641

That's elephant style in that case.

As for monogamous men in hetero relationships... what the hell kind of study is that? No hetero women and not homosexuals (that claim to be in a 5+ years relationship) in polygamous relations study? Is this report going to be used to bolster neo- or social conservative agenda? I wonder if the study and report were tailored to satisfy obtaining federal and other donor dollars.

Hell, if they KNOW they are after a certain gene, or a suspected gene, then it should not be a problem to increase the study pool to as wide as affordable (if 100 hetero males, why not 50 hetero males, 25 hetero females, 25 gay males and 25 glaysbian females, and abstract data from that. Of course, it would be better increase the pool to 500, and even 1000, then, at the end of the study or of a 5-year period, then draw DNA/gene/blood information from a decent/sensible spectrum of the pool, not just some shit that'll be MWASP oriented, or pro-patriarchal.

(Admittedly, i did NOT yet RTFA... and I HOPE the article is more enlightening that the slashdot summary... and if any readers find the summary out of whack, then whack the responsible parties for not vetting the article...)

Re:Elelphan-titus

[Altus]

From what I can tell the data that this study was based on was collected for a different study. They said that they were not able to ask the men if they were faithful in their relationship becasue the study was already done by the time they discovered this correlation.

It might be used as the basis for a new study though. Hopefully one that will cover both men and women.

Re:Elelphan-titus

[PPH]

The new study could look at some other aspects of monogamy. It appears that this study has identified a gene that makes some men stick around and raise the children. But if one looks at mating strategies in animals, some of the best ones for propagating your genes are to hang around the edges of a pack as a bachelor and impregnate females when the dominant male isn't looking. They don't have to expend the energy that the dominant male does to remain in power.

In human relationships, it would be interesting to see how much energy (i.e. child support) a monogamous male expends supporting his own children, children of a previous marriage, children concieived by third parties, etc. vs. energy expended by commitment-phobic men who knock them up and move on to the next one.

must be on the X chromosome....

[goffster]

monogamy is basically forced on men because
it improves social order.

Marijuana and vasopressin correlation

[AltImage]

I have read that marijuana inhibits vasopressin levels. A bit of googling seems to reenforce that notion. So are potheads less faithful?

Re:Marijuana and vasopressin correlation

[Kozz]

-giggles-

Yeah, you know, I was just reading and... sorry, what were we talking about again?

Please pass the cheetos!

Re:Marijuana and vasopressin correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're asking "do stoned hippy chicks put out?" my initial reaction is "duh".

On the other hand, there's no scientific basis for that position.

I'll need a grant, some ( ahem ) research assistants and some barry white albums. Expect an initial summary of findings in about six months.

Re:Marijuana and vasopressin correlation

[PPH]

Yes, but it inhibits other things necessary to complete the act as well. I base this on remarks made by a number of the women in Amsterdam's red light district who have remarked at how little the coffee shop patrons overlap with the RLD ones.

I remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

when my grandpappy traded his big old mahogany monogamy for a new stereogamy

Finally...

[TehCable]

...Maury Povich will have a new DNA test for his show. Yes, Laquisha, Tavon is a cheater, and after this commercial break, we'll find out if he's the father of your baby too.

Dead married people

[paperninja]

From the article:

To see if the same mechanism is at work in people will mean using tissue from post-mortems to map where vasopressin receptors lie, to see if variations are linked to the number of copies of RS3 334.

So basically at this point they have a rough idea that maybe vasopressin is involved in social interaction, though dissecting a lot of dead marmosets is a lot easier than being able to dissect a lot of dead married people. That seems like a difficult problem to solve. How would you even phrase that question? "Hi, I noticed that your husband of 34 years just died. Mind if we cut up his brain?"

It's too bad the articles doesn't mention how the test subjects were selected, or how different socioeconomic/childhood qualities may have affected the test subjects. Did the men have parents that stayed married their whole life? Were the ones that had a problem with relationships come from divorced families?

eharmony listing

[tedgyz]

So is "Genetically Monogomous" going to be incorporated into eharmony profiles?

Re:eharmony listing

[PPH]

Like the reports people get in Gattaca on potential partners' genetic makeup.

Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fixed)

[thtrgremlin]

It will still be as it always has been, swingers. Couples in strong committed relationships that enjoy all life has to offer in the range of ways life has to offer with other couples by far have the most sex due to the consistency and trust built. Be it between friends and other couples, this will always beat out the single individuals fighting for themselves.

As far as the DIY kits, no need. Good swingers have been trained to sniff out Oxytocin most of their lives, and as for the monos out there, they prefer to be in denial anyway while their partner is off with someone else. Until one gets pregnant / gets someone pregnant, then there is the fake "shocked" reaction followed by the all too real divorce. :)

Seen it too many times. 1 in every 2 people is poly meaning if your mono, chances are your partner is not.

btw, happily married, and and I do most of the cooking for all of us :)

yeah, riiight. Marriage is misery, my friend :(

[echtertyp]

Marriage is the worst thing that can happen to you. Worse than a car accident, in most cases.

you don't figure in any statistics

[circletimessquare]

you simply die off

your genes left you with a diminished desire to carry on. ok. that simply means you don't carry on

and, following your line of reasoing, if your genes are represented in your family/relatives, this diminshed capacity to carry on will be reflected in low offspring output there as well, such that you and your genetic imprint will simply utterly fade from existence

enjoy extinction, you lose at the darwinian struggle. you are unfit

Re:you don't figure in any statistics

[linuxrocks123]

Well you're going to die off when the human race dies off anyway. I personally don't get any satisfaction from my mutated genetic code being around as long as possible; I'd rather have a good life while I'm here. But if you want to let your pop science interpretation of evolution define the meaning of life for you, be my guest. I just hope you don't act like a sociopath and then say "evolution made me do it!111!!".

Re:you don't figure in any statistics

[Shajenko42]

I heartily concur. My genes are using me as a vehicle to spread themselves, and I won't be cooperative if they want to cause me detriment.

Re:you don't figure in any statistics

[TheCarp]

Actually, not true at all.

Lower rate of offspring has extreme advantages in our society.

Think of it this way... you and your wife have 3 kids, age and die. Now, if your 3 kids, each have kids, thats 9 grandkids. So when you die, your estate is broken up between 3 people, who have to share it amongst, really, 15 people (counting spouses).

Now, if you have 3 kids, and 2 don't have kids...

You die, your resources go to 3 people, one of whom shares it amongst 4, the other two keep their own. They are more free to help the family (like you in old age before you die), they will die with no progeny, presumably leaving their estate and any insurance policy to their siblings.

Overall, there is a big advantage to having less children/grandchildren. Your genes might not care, but you will, and so will your progeny.

There is even some thought that the fact that second and following born sons have a higher tendancy towards homosexuality might be an evolutionary advantage as it increases the overall resources available to the family.

-Steve

Mahogany gene?

[dwiget001]

The gene that keeps giving wood. Yes!

Treating Problems...

[thtrgremlin]

I completely followed you up to the oxytocin prescription part. You mean a drug to suppress this poison that has kept Americans from joining the rest of the world in sexual freedom and expression, right? I think religion has done enough damage to oppress women and healthy expressions of sexuality we don't need drugs to assist them. Here is proof that people are naturally multi-faceted; some being naturally poly, and others being naturally mono with likely a middle ground; and you see it as a opportunity for genetic cleansing. Shame on you. How about allowing people to join together as they please with a society and law that allows different groups of people to participate in community in equal ways? People know what their natural disposition is, and if you need to give your partner a test or drugs to fix them, maybe you should take a closer look at your communication and trust issues in your relationship. What I would hope from this study, as people have been joking around, is that people could be more honest about their predispositions (little different from being gay) in order to find appropriate partners INSTEAD of continuing to pretend to be something someone else told you you were supposed to be.

Sadness: Homosexual in a marriage with a MOS because they are "supposed to be". Sadness: Two homosexual men or women that are attracted to each other that can't express their affections for fear of reprisal if the feelings are not mutual. Sadness: Two naturally poly people in a relationship trying to pretend they are not, or that something is wrong with them.

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[russotto]

Seen it too many times. 1 in every 2 people is poly meaning if your mono, chances are your partner is not.

This is slashdot. Which means that a lot of those non-polys ain't mono, they're zippo.

A place where this gene might be absent:

[mckinnsb]

You don't have to go 10,000 years back (as a previous poster stated) to see where this gene might be disadvantageous. Try a mere 120(ish). I read a artistic biography about Paul Gauguin in my Psychoanalytic Approach to Art class (it was one of those classes that I took just to call 'bulls$hit' but ended up learning something) and he described at great length the sexual practices of the people of Mataiea village.

Essentially, the people of the village were grouped into four "sections". You had:

• the fertile, productive males, who were deemed capable of producing offspring.
• the fertile, productive females, who were deemed capable of producing offspring. Note that more women were considered capable by fraction when compared to the men.
• the males and females who were NOT considered capable of producing offspring, either because of a) behavior or b) physical problems. Gauguin, when he landed in Tahiti, was considered a member of this group because his actions were deemed incredibly effeminate. (I guess the wig , clothing, and makeup didn't help much.)
• the old.

Every night, a particular woman was selected (or several), and the able, fertile males - for lack of a better expression in a public forum - "had at her." All at once.

The idea behind this was that this would ensure that the woman would be impregnated after a time, and that the most fertile male sperm would "compete" for the egg, ensuring that it was the most fit to be born. Also, the men would never know which children were explicitly theirs - and the women would never know who the real father was - so the community as a whole would raise the child.

To (most) Western standards, this is pretty gross. To Gauguin, it was fascinating. However, you could see how a "monogamy gene" would not be advantageous in such a circumstance. The book - and Gauguin's writings - seemed to indicate that more 'sensitive' men , who may possess this gene, were thrown in the third group because they were not considered true "men". (Homosexuals were also in this group, for the record.)

Also, in closing, I'd like to point out that this society landed itself absolutely nowhere. Most successful empires/expansions of human civilization relied on monogamous culture - after all, you needed an heir to hand a crown to, and the wars between siblings were already bad enough without having to choose which *mother* produced the rightful heir. (Although, that happened regardless).

Re:A place where this gene might be absent:

[ShakaUVM]

>>Most successful empires/expansions of human civilization relied on monogamous culture - after all, you needed an heir to hand a crown to, and the wars between siblings were already bad enough without having to choose which *mother* produced the rightful heir. (Although, that happened regardless).

Mm, I'd disagree with this. Polygamous societies tended to have lots of single, horny, angry young men running around, which provided a great pool for an army led by someone with an expansionist mindset. The various Muslim empires were arguably some of the most successful expansionists of all time, and even the Jews were polygamous. The Romans, of course, were nominally monogamous (with the same sort of double standard we see today), and most modern empires have all been monogamous, mainly due to the expansion of Christian culture, which encourages but does not necessarily require monogamy (cf. Luther or St. Paul).

Re:A place where this gene might be absent:

[mckinnsb]

Yes- but when you speak in terms of long-term stability of those expansions, most of them fall flat.

Re:A place where this gene might be absent:

[ShakaUVM]

The long term stability of, say, the Ottoman Empire was certainly the equal of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire didn't fight in World War I.

Sure, at least by the end, only about 10% of Ottoman families were polygamous, but it was still en vogue for the higher ranking Ottomans to have a harem by the start of WWI.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lxrJn7xIZC4C&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=ottoman+polygamy&source=web&ots=Qpa7420AK5&sig=XdGbKOIR_fC8G5UKrWWKDCu16zw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[hobbit]

1 in every 2 people is poly meaning if your mono, chances are your partner is not.

And 9 in 10 people don't statistical independence, which means that if you do, the chances are exactly the same for the next guy as they ever were.

Glancing over the summary I read that as...

[DirtySouthAfrican]

"and the study subjects...men at least 5 years into a heterosexual relationship."

Monogamy is great! I want to promote it!

[Tetsujin]

If I had one of those monogamy genes, I'd want to help it thrive - so I'd go find a bunch o' girls and get 'em pregnant...

One Wife and 10 Kids?

[EgoWumpus]

Are you for real? That means the woman would be pregnant for seven and a half years. How does that make sense in modern society? A better question; how does that supposition fit with the data? It doesn't. In high-resource societies people tend to have fewer children.

Let's turn to resources; you're saying that ten children with one wife isn't a drain on resources, but with ten wives it is? Who is watching these children? Teaching them? Is the wife suckling the youngest while helping the oldest with their homework? In truth, we outsource a lot of the work modern families can't handle on their own. You're probably spending as much money on that outsourcing as you would on ten wives.

Polygamy and monogamy are not mere game theory concepts. At best, I think you can call them guesses; I guess that if I sleep around, my genes will survive. That is probably still true in a non-violent society, even if in a violent society there is a definitive advantage to it. Much like it's still useful to walk, even in a society with wheelchairs.

Vasopressin - predicting promiscuity huh, really

[Anonymous Coward]

vasopressin is used to help kids not wet their bed. So do bed wetters make loyal husbands, or promiscuous ones? Or no effect at all.

Levels of the hormone regulate the saltiness of blood. So maybe a simple blood salinity(osmality) test would let us know how true our husband will be. But do the salty guys stick around, or the non salty?

It might not require a DNA sequencing to test people.

Oh great.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mormons.

Semantics

[Caraig]

Can we at least get terminology correct? I know the original article calls it the 'monogamy gene,' but, as a bunch of geeks, we can aspire to better accuracy than that.

Monogamy: One spouse
Polygamy: Multiple spice -- er, spouses

Monamory: Loving (and/or boinking) one person
Polyamory: Loving (and/or boinking) many people

I think what the article is referring to is better termed 'monamory.' I don't think it's terribly wise to equate 'marriage' with 'having reproductive sex with' since the two are quite separate.

Re:Monogamy is great! I want to promote it!

[Specter]

Oh great...NOW my mod points expire. Somebody mod this up.

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Read this, and several other similar posts by other weird people. WTF are you guys smoking? I get it that you have chosen yourself a lifestyle that's different from the norm and that's cool, but does it ever occur to you that the social environment you live in skews your perception of what is common in relationships? I'm sure most men might fantasize about having multiple partners and many wouldn't mind actually trying; hell, me and my wife might go for it, if we somehow get bored of regular sex some time. But forming a steady relationship with more than one person? I honestly can't see the appeal. Since I'm posting, another thing that pisses me off are the fucktards who go on with the same tired jokes about no sex in marriage, "modern women" can't cook, etc. If you're just aiming for the +1 funny mods, stop right now. This shit is older than old people and hot grits in soviet russia. If you're actually serious, you have failed spectacularly at picking a partner. Enjoy your shitty lives; you have no business in making sage remarks about what it's really like.

bad assumptions

[thtrgremlin]

This is to most of the responses to the thread as they all seem to have a revolving theme: Poly means guy with many monogamous wives. I think this is a terrible premise because it is such a poor reflection of poly in the United States, or a lot of places. Of the poly families I know, blood lines are much less important than the sub-community, or whatever you would call it, work together. There can be structural hierarchies in terms of who has final say over a household or such, but the ways in which love is shared in boundless. While there are no children in my household, I do know 'big families' that do, and the children are between normal, healthy to very open-minded with mature outlooks on relations and majority of the tine go on to have monogamous relationships in their adult lives (but not always) as I have seen. A disproportionate number of them seem to become C-programmers, but I have my own theory on that.

This trend for people to couple, isolate themselves, then expect a federal government to take care of their family problems is issue. People see the benefit and necessity of the 2 earner income. why not the three earner income, or the 2 earner with a full time at home parent? My ideal: a steady earner, the risk seeking earner, a full time parent / educator for the kids, and a housekeeper / chef. Each play a vital role in balancing the others out and allowing them to be most successful at what they WANT to do. Sure there would be issues to figure out and some role swapping would be bound to take place, but each would have the opportunity to do what they wanted. Leave the kids with someone you love and trust, no money for babysitters, stable income, with substantially lower risk if want to switch to a higher paying job with less security. Who needs a welfare state in that situation? I think you can see where I have gone with this.

Re:yeah, riiight. Marriage is misery, my friend :(

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster didn't say anything about marriage. He just said "monogamous relationships."

"Living together in sin" qualifies as a monogamous relationship, and it very well may include frequent sex and home-cooked meals. In fact, remaining unmarried in such a relationship could be quite fulfilling for both partners while avoiding the marriage tax penalty and other legal complications.

Furthermore, each partner will feel free to leave should things turn sour (rather than trapped by a contract and economic devastation from an expensive divorce). This could cultivate a much healthier state of mind (while avoiding the "I don't have to work so hard to please you now, because we're married!" mentality) which will keep the couple together even longer than if they got married.

I am curious to know, however, why you think marriage is misery. Worse than a car accident? In what way? Is it because your spouse pulled a bait-and-switch on you, becoming someone entirely different once the contract was signed? Sounds to me like you just picked the wrong person....

Thank God for science

[Slur]

Scientific study has now shown that people are likely gay from the time they're born due to differences in brain structure.

Science has discovered that Toxoplasmosis makes women more promiscuous and men more foolish.

Through statistical surveys we know that a vast number of people suffer from addiction, organic maladies, and depression.

Now through the science of genetics we are able to see a correlation suggesting why some humans may desire to be more liberal in the distribution of their DNA.

I find it amazing all the factors that go into making humans be who they are, to make and accept the choices they do, and how much of it is determined by prior conditions. As human nature is being illuminated by science, I find it deepens my appreciation of this human condition, to realize the aspects of our nature that we have to work with, and how one part of us can want to stay committed to one path but be struggling with other aspects of our nature that draw us elsewhere.

And so it also strikes me how much the imagination plays a part in outlining the whole human experience and determining whether we overcome our sometimes outmoded natural impulses.

Polyamory

[Anonymous Coward]

... can be seen as a possibility beyond cheating/being monogamous.

Or is moral speech that much ingrained?

"The article doesn't mention women"

[Lost Penguin]

That's because there is no monogamy gene in women!

to be more serious...

[thtrgremlin]

Most of my experience comes having been in normal relationships. I have many friends in normal relationships. I highly doubt that as many of them are as miserable as I perceive, because that would just hurt way too much to accept. However, most of the problems I see in relationships are very similar, and for some, I speculate many, letting go of this fantasy of the ideal codependent relationship we have grown up idealizing causes more problems than it prevents. But people get into relationships for all kinds of reasons, and every relationship is different. I have learned from them all, and they have all contributed to me being a better person. I have one partner I am legally married to, coming previously from a mind set of never wanting to get married for a variety of reasons. We have the relationship we want with each other, but how that impacts the natural way her or I develop natural relationships with other people isn't suddenly limited by "oh, by the way, i'm married". Anyone else I am in a relationship with I do my best to help them understand the relationship I have with my wife, not that it is so difficult, it is just a popular topic of conversation for me. I don't expect to find another woman that compliments me as well as my wife, but at the same time, I never expected to find someone as wonderful as her ever before. I am very grateful to have her in my life and being poly doesn't come from a place of thinking she isn't good enough. We just find wonderful people to be wonderful, and looking brings tremendous rewards, emotionally and sexually if things are right. Any we know this because we managed to find each other.

But forming a steady relationship with more than one person? I honestly can't see the appeal.

and I completely understand. One thing that may give some insight is that the relationships between different are never exactly the same, concurrent or otherwise. The important thing is that there are many people, even if a few (like more than linux and mac users combined, few) that are very torn up inside and feel broken because they love multiple people, and want multiple steady relationships, but think they have to pick one person to love or share a part of their lives with to be seen as normal. I have known just as many people to say that the reason they aren't gay is because their parents wouldn't approve, and the same goes for poly. Sometimes issues are really divided between normal for one person that makes them happy, and normal that is oppressive and hurtful. Neither are wrong, just incompatible. Most important thing in any relationship? Honest and open communication, from worst fears to greatest fantasies. Just be where you are for the right reasons.

Re:to be more serious...

[Anonymous Coward]

That last paragraph pretty much describes my situation. I identify as poly, but have been too scared to really tell many people. My family doesn't know, a few close friends heard me talking a lot about it about two years ago, and since then I've not mentioned it to anyone. I've been single since then and intentionally not looking because I have this belief that what I want is wrong in this society and that even if I did manage to find anyone who would "put up with" me being poly, they wouldn't be happy in that situation. The other possibility is that they'd be poly themselves, but that would require me to have some way of finding other poly people without outing myself first. And then, how would I explain it to my parents, coworkers and friends if they found out? Much easier to just not look and stay single, which is extremely unfortunate, but it helps with keeping the rest of my life as stress free as possible.

For the record, I'm a male in my mid-twenties and I've been in 6 monogamous relationships, none long term, and never once felt comfortable in them, even if I really liked the person I was in them with, it was the entire concept of the relationship that just felt wrong somehow. Now I get to hope like hell that this 'post anonymously' button works..

Re:to be more serious...

[thtrgremlin]

I identify as poly, but have been too scared to really tell many people. My family doesn't know, a few close friends heard me talking a lot about it about two years ago, and since then I've not mentioned it to anyone.

"Hi, I am hetrosexual and I only want to be in a relationship with one person at a time, and the lord is my savior". Can I assume not a lot of people go around saying that kind of thing? For the most part how you love and who you love is your own personal business. There is no reason to come out of a closet if you have never been in one. If, per chance, you have close friends you trust, and you have pretended or lied about who you are for a long time, then there may be reason to "clear the air". My advice would be not to bring it up unless you have a reason, and if you don't feel comfortable talking about something in particular, don't. May leave people wondering, but you won't be lying.

I've been single since then and intentionally not looking because I have this belief that what I want is wrong in this society and that even if I did manage to find anyone who would "put up with" me being poly, they wouldn't be happy in that situation. The other possibility is that they'd be poly themselves, but that would require me to have some way of finding other poly people without outing myself first.

Well, here is the best part. There are more people like you than you think. Date, and see where things go. most first date conversations often revolve around past relationships or other dating experiences. Also, casual dating is fun. Without jumping straight into "I want to see other people" on the first date, let it be known that you have many friends, male and female, that you are very close to in whatever way the truth applies. I am under the impression most women appreciate knowing that you have your own life. Most women want to date a person, not an empty shell. If your date is not comfortable with the idea of you having close female friends, take that as the first sign this probably isn't your sole mate or soul mate.

Don't settle for someone willing to "put up with" poly. As with seeking any relationship, make friends and see where things go. Allow the relationship to develop as you discover how much you two seek the same goals in like and would be compatible to work together on those goals. If you allow time or labels to lead your relationship, it is very unlikely to work out, no matter what you seek. I would bet it would not be long before you meet someone hoping to come out of the closet too, and poly double dates are the best! (Just make sure your friends date is enjoying themselves as much as you are ;)

And then, how would I explain it to my parents, coworkers and friends if they found out?

Well, things usually "come up" when there are questions, usually revolving around whether or not you or your partner knows what the other is doing. To the normals out there, when questions come up regarding things my wife is off doing with someone, it is most always a response revolving around the theme of "They are close / friends" or "I know, he/she is really cool / I trust him/her", "I hope she is having a good time" or the brain-twister for the ever inquisitive, "I have my own relationship with my wife with which I am very happy and satisfied / I am busy with xyz and can't be bothered at the moment, why should I be the one to stop her from having some fun?". Much more than that is rarely necessary. Much more is usually because you have captured the persons interest.

When my now wife and I started living together, it was in a big house with a lot of people. One of my best memories was when we were having a movie night. Parking lot filled with couches, and a big screen draped over the back of the house. My wife went on a date (very casual) as she was in more of a mood to club than watch the movies we had planned. I met a neighbor that came over, and through the cour

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[fbjon]

The problem with polyamorous relationships is that the number of relations that need to work increase dramatically. With 2 people it's just two relations. With three, it's already 6 relations. With n people, it's n!. Hence two is the optimum that gives the most payoff for the least amount of work, not taking into account temporary arrangements (affairs).

No, that's another gene...

[Perf]

Of course. Those in monogamous relationships get sex on demand and home cooked meals!

All my married friends tell me that.

No.
Sex-on-demand is a different gene, as is home-cooked-meals.
As evidence, look at all the people stuck in starving, monogamous relationships.

In some relationships, you find two people in love. In others, you find two people just trying to screw each other.

Paternity Test and No Mention of Women

[sandysnowbeard]

That's because there is no monogamy gene in women!

1) Indeed, it doesn't.

2) And so I'd like to take this opportunity to encourage all the male slashdotters out there to get paternity tests when you have kids.

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[Anonymous Coward]

The only non-poly i've run into recently is Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate.

Re:yeah, riiight. Marriage is misery, my friend :(

[DrCode]

Marriage is the worst thing that can happen to you. Worse than a car accident, in most cases.

Heh, no kidding. My last car accident resulted in no injuries, wasn't my fault, and the insurance paid to have my car fixed. But even if I had to pay it myself, it was only a couple $1000. My wife can easily spend that much on herself in a month.:-(

"correlationisnotcausation"?

[Atario]

I'm having a hard time with the standard tag we're seeing here: "correlationisnotcausation". What is that supposed to mean -- that maybe the gene and the behavior are both being caused by a third, unseen thing? What could cause both a gene difference and a behavior difference, such that the gene difference doesn't cause the behavior difference?

Re:"correlationisnotcausation"?

[ceoyoyo]

Whenever someone says "correlation is not causation" as a dismissal you can immediately put them in the "don't know what the hell they're talking about" category.

Correlation != causation means you've got something that is either interesting (causation) or more interesting (double causation by an unknown factor).

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Affairs imply that there's something illicit going on. Why can't two people in a relationship see one other person each without having a factorial expansion in problems? If my wife is also sleeping with some guy, 1) I don't necessarily have to be friends with him, though I agree that'd certainly make things much easier, and 2) he doesn't have to know or care about the girl I'm sleeping with (though if it's a closed polyamorous situation, it's a bit different).

I mean, my friends aren't necessarily my wife's friends, and her friends certainly aren't friends to my friends. Why does this change if some of us are sleeping with others? :P

Finally!

[espiesp]

Finally!

I can claim it's what's in my GENES that make me the way I am, instead of what's in my JEANS.

Whatever...

[Talkischeap]

So like...

Get back to me when they have proof of such a gene, meanwhile my two girlfriends are calling me to the bedroom.

Only because they want me to fix something, and that... is real life with two women.

No brag, just fact, the "honey do's" never stop, but I love it!

New Profile

[PMuse]

SWF 23 seeks SWM with sense of humor, mid-six figures, and no RS3-334.

uh oh.

[dogdick]

I dont have that gene.

Tomorrow's revelation will be :

[Anonymous Coward]

The discovery of a Monotheism gene ! A-ha!

(Oh, and never trust someone who separates an "Ah" from its "ha", Son)

How and where'll they test for it, though? Certainly not voles. Which animals, then? Ants? Lemmings?

Or will this be a new niche for genengineered mice ?

Hmmmm..... ;-)

Oh Lord

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to effin' go Science. 80 years from now our great-grandsons will be forced to stick an index finger in a gene-sequence identifier before they can get to second base.

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[fbjon]

Technically, nothing has to change at all. But it will anyway, unless you go in to the relationship with the full understanding that you are not completely devoted to each other. Presumably, you don't want the other to leave you for some other person, so the amount of trust it takes is enormous. Not impossible, just difficult.

Correlation is not causation

[sepelester]

Will all correlationisnotcausation fascists please shut up? I mean, where do you draw the line? Somewhere science has to be science and even though there are valid cases where you would play the correlationisnotcausation card, you've got to stop somewhere, don't you think??

Biased studies yield bogus results

[Wolfger]

"help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands"

Because, you know, there's no middle ground. All devoted husbands are monogamous. Swingers and polyamorous people are purely fictional. </sarcasm>

Using who?

[Anonymous Coward]

the "serial non-commiters" still have no excuse to use the women around them

That's funny, I thought they were using me.

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[rogerbo]

huh? with two people it's one relationship between A and B.

With 3 people it's 4 relationships. A with B, A with C, B with C and A with B with C.

yes its complicated, but not quite as bad as you say.

Recessive gene?

[Ant2]

Just guessing, but it's probably a recessive gene.

Correlation IS causation

[Anonymous Coward]

The tagging is just tarded. By which other mechanism could the this correlation occurr? Nothing could have changed the mens genome.

Nope, genes win every time.

[Anonymous Coward]

and your thoughts are generated in a neural net built according to...GENES! Genes win, no matter how you look at it. If you had all chimp genes and were in a chimp womb, you'd be promiscuous for sure.

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[Laurence0]

I think GP meant that with two people, A has to like B and B has to like A. Two relationships.

With three people:
A>B
A>C
B>A
B>C
C>A
C>B

Just because A likes C doesn't mean C likes A. If it was that simple, we'd have a lot less stalkers!

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[mdwh2]

Actually, it's a quadratic relation (triangle numbers), no factorial...

But, you are assuming group relationships - poly relationships include all sorts of arrangements (the simplest would be A in a relationship with B, B in a relationship with C, but where A and C aren't in a relationship). I don't see it as a "problem" as such - obviously one should only enter into any given relationship if the benefits outweight the drawbacks. Otherwise by this reasoning, monogamy is a "problem" compared with being single...

Hence two is the optimum that gives the most payoff for the least amount of work

I'm not sure how you can come to that generalised conclusion - obviously the optimal number of relationships depends on the person. Some people even prefer zero relationships. Also it depends on circumstances - for example, if you're living together, then that relationship requires a lot of time and committment, but other relationships might require les (e.g., dating someone, or maybe a long distance relationship where you only see each other occasionally). Someone might have more than one relationship of that nature, whilst still spending less time and effort on them than someone living together with their monogamous partner.

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[mdwh2]

unless you go in to the relationship with the full understanding that you are not completely devoted to each other.

That's a fallacy - devotion is not detracted from by being non-monogamous, anymore than it is by having friends, or spending time on Slashdot...

Presumably, you don't want the other to leave you for some other person, so the amount of trust it takes is enormous.

As much as I would love to brag that poly people are capable of "enormous" amounts of trust, I don't think this is true. People leave monogamous relationships all the time, so you still have to have that trust. Moreover, you are missing the fundamental point that with poly, they don't have to leave you! That's only the option in monogamy - so I would argue that in fact, it's more likely with monogamy, because the person has to leave you if they find someone else and decide to choose them over you (which sometimes can happen as a result of short term infatuation for the other person, even if long term they'd otherwise remain devoted to you).

I think what you really mean is you have to trust that the person won't suddenly switch to monogamy with someone else - well indeed, just as it's also bad if you're monogamous and the other person suddenly decides not to be.

Re:Study shows 1 in 2 people are monogomous...(fix

[fbjon]

You're right, it's not factorial, but rather... hmm, n*n-1? Or more simply, number of partner pairings * 2. That gives a multigraph with two edges between every partner. I realised that it's not clear what a poly relationship means, so with relationships I'm talking about some kind of "full" relationship.

If A and B are in a relationship, and also B and C are, but A and C are not.. that means that only B is in a poly relationship and A and C just have to approve of it. I would call that a semi-poly relationship, since not everyone is involved with each other. In particular, A and C would hardly consider themselves to be in a poly relationship. In any case, in "work" I'm also including the energy spent finding suitable partners. So to build a relationship between two people you first have to find one other person that you like, and who likes you. A relationship between three involves finding two people who you like, who like you, and who like each other, since if they don't like each other, you have a problem. Four people.... you get the idea.

Even if we take your example, A and C still have to approve of each other even if they're not in a relationship. Let's call that a half-edge, which would give 5 edges versus 2 in a mono relationship. And finally, even though everyone in a group are fine with each other, jealousy can still easily spring up and wreck things, greedy as we humans are.

In this way, a monogamous relationship is not just the the simplest workable relationship (which is obvious), but the simplest with a sizeable margin. My argument is that this margin (2 vs. 6 edges (or 2 vs. ~5)) is larger than the (total) benefit in most cases. That doesn't mean poly relationships are in any way impossible or a bad idea, it's just infeasible most of the time, or for most people, or for extended periods of time.

Re:Monogamy is great! I want to promote it!

[Tailsfan]

That is very backwards logic