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:

[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:

[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)

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 . . .

And the Slashdot Gene

[MyLongNickName]

which renders someone unable to get any at all.

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

[starglider29a]

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

Gene also known to recede

[dedazo]

When confronted by large quantities of beer protein.

Not always a gene...

[Leomania]

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

Oxytocin?

[ThanatosMinor]

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

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: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.

Exciting news.

[JPMallory]

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

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. ;)

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...