Slashdot Mirror
One Night Stands May Be Genetic
An anonymous reader writes "So, he or she has cheated on you for the umpteenth time and their only excuse is: 'I just can't help it.' According to researchers at Binghamton University, they may be right. The propensity for infidelity could very well be in their DNA. In a first of its kind study, a team of investigators led by Justin Garcia, a SUNY Doctoral Diversity Fellow in the laboratory of evolutionary anthropology and health at Binghamton University, State University of New York, has taken a broad look at sexual behavior, matching choices with genes and has come up with a new theory on what makes humans 'tick' when it comes to sexual activity. The biggest culprit seems to be the dopamine receptor D4 polymorphism, or DRD4 gene. Already linked to sensation-seeking behavior such as alcohol use and gambling, DRD4 is known to influence the brain's chemistry and subsequently, an individual's behavior."
I just can't help it.
Somehow telling my wife, "Hey, it's in my DNA, I just can't help it!" doesn't make her any less pissed off...
And actually, these are very desirable genes, since they apparently also make you a world class football player, basketball player, soccer star, or golfer!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Why didn't they notify me when they were searching for their test subjects?
From my experience it must run in the y chromosome.
The propensity for infidelity could very well be in their DNA.
Millions of years of evolution at work.
And being one of the few species attempting monogamy why are we surprised when it frequently doesn't work out?
Hang out at casino bars more often.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
I'm honestly not sure. Are we more than our genes? Do those tests mean anything, or do they mean as little as your average personality test?
almost all sexual activity is genetic in some way - with very few exceptions that are the gifts of sentience, my personal favorite being bdsm xD the need to propagate the species and compete for mating partners/territory is fairly well understood - why apply it specifically to 'one night stands'? im sure anyone with that DRD4 gene seeks risk/impulsive behavior, and to those of us who have had the ONS as dane cook puts it know that most of the time it is more exciting than a typical sex act with a committed partner.
Spoiler alert! Every thing is genetic.
Everything everyone has ever done was determined by their genetics; that doesn't make infidelity less despicable.
Isn't this the same derivation that make people liberal as well? http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20101027/3003/researchers-find-a-liberal-gene.htm
The reward system combined with a propensity toward addiction makes the behavior addictive.
In Liberty, Rene
Yeah, because cheating spouses never come back home again and spread disease back to their faithful spouses...
Try again.
While having a lock on a gene is good, gene-centric explanations of one-night stands exist for decades. For a layman's presentation, see Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene", chapter Battle of the Sexes. It explains why sexes actually formed - as the different strategies of packing more nutrients into your gamete or take advantage of the packers - and works its way up to 'faithful' and 'cheating' mating behaviours. It also predicts stable configurations made up partly of 'faithful' and partly of 'cheating' reproductives. Won't go into detail here, it's all there.
Research suggests one-night stands are responsible for new genetics.
Tell me, is it also normal for all your one night stands to take $400 out of your wallet as they sneak out of the room when you're in the shower? Because that always happens to me. ;(
You use a condom with your wife? Ever go down on her after brushing your teeth? Do you know who she slept with before you? Has she ever had a blood transfusion? I've had dozens of sex partners, used a condom and other safe sex practices (including no oral if there is any suspicion of a cut or scrape in the mouth) every time. Who do you think is really more at risk?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Already linked to sensation-seeking behavior such as alcohol use and gambling, DRD4 is known to influence the brain's chemistry and subsequently, an individual's behavior.
Although it probably (ironically) makes for a good conversation starter, this is largely the same thing as saying people who drink and gamble more have more hangovers but less money, and that it's because of their genetics. Sure, it relates to the gene, but the gene doesn't cause you to go out and bone. Behavior is a choice, and what this study says is that people who drink and gamble are more likely to get it on, perhaps even with each other.
Moreover, it strikes at the heart of a larger obsession we have with genetics, and by "we" I mean of course "the money-hungry media and those without a bachelor's training in science." There's a wonderful book Dread by Philip Alcabes, and one of the points he makes is that we need to stop talking about genetic predisposition by group. Yes, Sickle Cell Anemia has a higher occurrence among black people, but you're not more likely to have it just because you're black. Genetics is one of the most powerful tools we've discovered and it's only becoming more useful, but so much of its use is built upon correlation and statistics, which doesn't translate well down to the average citizen who would love to abdicate responsibility for at least one of the myriad issues in his/her life.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Hey, I never said there weren't innocent casualties in evolution. Don't look at me, I'm just telling it like it is.
Life is not for the lazy.
This provides an interesting physiological backstory to the evolutionary equilibrium between R versus K mating behavior.
R == cuckoo behavior, impregnate as many females as possible; K == hang around and diligently raise your (or the cuckoo's) young. It is a biological free-rider problem.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Oh, me SO horny yeah !!
You want shorttime ??
Twenty dolla !!
Can't help it, baby !! It's in my DNA !! Yeah !!
Are you saying that people can't keep it in their jeans because it's in their genes?
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Leave it to a slashdot editor (you know, the whole never getting laid thing) to confuse "one night stand" and "infidelity."
Whale
Yes, yes and one day we will develop big brains that will allow us to control our base urges and rise above being mere animals. And, yes, I have friends who are recovering alcoholics, so I'm sympathetic to the underlying issue. Still, poor impulse control is what usually gets you into the trouble you can't handle...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
More like you're telling it like your moronic moralistic pea-brain wishes it was. You do know people with STD's reproduce just as successfully as people without them? And that people who have more sex, that is to say, the promiscuous, reproduce at a much greater rate than monogamous people?
Since when is it news that something may be the case? It's like saying: you know, the fact that you fuck around so much may be genetic but it may also be because you just don't know what you like in a woman yet, or you you might be a sex addict, or you are a teenager or you get horny every time you see your middle finger, or you just don't know anything better to do with your life.
-- Cheers!
It seems to me that it's simply another example of positive emotional feedback. Humans seem to have quite a tendency to get addicted to anything that feels good, or at least feels good to that particular individual. That seems to be where the distinction lies. I suppose most people tend to gravitate towards something that requires less effort, alcohol or drugs. But there are people truly addicted to things like work or exercise. I know of exercise fanatics who've had their spouse leave them because they were so fixated on it. My old boss's wife almost left him because he did nothing but work. He spent all his free time at the office; doing what I don't know but he was always there. Whether or not someone else is directly harmed by the activity is irrelevant.
That this particular case involves sex I'd say is largely irrelevant. Of course, the big factor here is that you're engaging another person. So it isn't simply wanting to do something but convincing someone else to do it with you. This is the sort of thing that requires self-confidence and to some extent, experience. And, judging from people I know, it wasn't a conscious decision. They simply enjoyed being with other people. But at some point they ended up in a relationship. Those urges, however, never went away so when they found themselves in a situation where they could cheat they did so. Hell, being in a relationship probably made it easier. Because from their perspective there's nothing to lose. There's more to lose from following through with the affair. And from the perspective of the other individual there must be something desirable about this person for them to be in a relationship.
And the headline doesn't fit the summary. One night stands are a totally different thing than infidelity. That's simply being able to screw someone and dump them the next day. That's one of those things that people seem to have to work up to. And in my experience someone inevitably ends up getting hurt. But that's another story.
I have trouble not eating too much, and I don't doubt that's genetic also, looking at my ancestors. That doesn't keep me from gaining weight if I don't behave myself. I can't use genetics as an excuse for not taking care of myself, and neither can these people. Get a grip!
The media does not understand basic research. In this case, we see its obsession of finding genes for behaviors; it almost never works that way.
Genes aren't smartphone apps; you can't just say "there's a gene for that."
Genes are more akin to code than to building blocks. A gene is more like a function than it is like a brick or mortar, and we have very little understanding of how genes interact with each other.
I'd like to give a "bravo!" to the authors for making the paper an open-access journal article. I know that's a hard sell to publishers. The full paper is available to all without registration.
The paper itself explains the high chance that this is overblown:
It is also important to sound several notes of caution. First, a consistent challenge in genetic association studies are that of third variable confounds, or unmeasured variables that are causally responsible for the observed finding but are associated with the measured variables thus generating a spurious association. ...
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Actually... Since AIDS doesn't kill until ample time has been given for reproduction, it is not likely to eliminate the trait.
Learn about Photography Basics.
Finally! Science has proved that DNA has freed me from taking responsibility for my actions and my lack of self control. Score!
I told her to get off the dopamine but she just couldn't put it down. I came home one day and her bags were all packed. She was off to hollywood to get herself jacked....up on that dopamine I know that for sure. Well the last I heard of her she was strung out on the floor... givin her all for dopamine you know that's for sure..(insert cheesy 70's country song here)
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
So this means that if you have a one night stand with someone, it might be worth having a bit of a go with their sister - or mother - or daughter? [Change to our preferred genders as appropriate]
"Cats like plain crisps"
"speak not then of inconstancy,
of broken hearts and vows,
if I should, by some miracle be
this livelong minute true to thee,
'tis all that heaven allows"
(Byron?)
As a male, I really like how the summary starts with "He or she has cheated". It doesn't paint infidelity as a typical male thing. I'm sick of the rosy picture in which this society paints our women. The most conservative statistics say that close to 50% of females admit to sexual infidelity. And yes, women are horny and have fun but not with their partner although in a different way from men, and yes, women frequently strike out at their partners, and not simply in self-defense; in 24% of violent American marriages, the woman is the only abuser. I vividly remember the Teen mom lashing out episode of the MTV show Teen Mom, where she throws a few jabs and a right hook in her boyfriend's face.
They're humans, just like men.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
don't forget the full head of hair!
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Don't bother trying to explain the difference between groups. Chances are they didn't bother doing a multiple test correction. The article implies 100s or 1000s of tests, so you'd expect to find 5 or 50 "statistical significant" differences. The article makes no mention of correcting for that fact, and epidemiologists are well-known for being ignorant of it.
hay baby come to butthead it's genetic or something
Multiple ladies is in my DNA... and my DNA is in multiple ladies
"I can't help it." usually equates to "I have no self-discipline." The longer that fact goes ignored, the worse it becomes. Very few things are truly involuntary. Such as projectile vomiting.
__________________________________
Free your mind - Flush your toilet
Media reports also love to conflate "we've uncovered the root cause of X to be Y" with "X is not the person's fault--it's the fault of Y".
The problem with this logic is that, unless you believe in the supernatural (e.g. souls), every single action a person takes is ultimately understandable in terms of causative factors (genetics, childhood, upbringing, opportunity, diet, exercise, lifestyle, job, friends, etc.). This is just a generalization of our understanding that everything in the universe has a cause that can in principle be understood, though of course in practice many systems are so complex that they are intractable. (Again, unless you subscribe to a not-logically-consistent worldview.)
Such thinking of course raises serious questions about "free will", and while that is an excellent topic for philosophy debates, we need to acknowledge that for things like morality, justice, law, and social order to have any meaning at all, we must accept that people are responsible for their actions, even though those actions have, of course, root causes that are ultimately external to the person in question. I'm not saying it's obvious where to draw the line between "not their fault" and "their fault"... What I am saying is that using something crude like "we've found a gene/chemical/influence that causes/increases-the-incidence-of/predisposes action X" as the dividing line for responsibility is ridiculous, since the inexorable march of science is just going to put more and more behavior into that category as time goes on.
So, please, please, please... mainstream media, get over your silly fallacy that explanation negates responsibility.
If males and females were sexually monogomous, they would run the risk that their mate was infertile, or shared the same recessive gene with them; and they would eventually be replaced by whichever members of the species were inclined to sort of hedge their genetic bets.
That's also why males and females react differently to perceived evidence of sexual infidelity. When a male cheats, the risk to the female is primarily that he'll find his "fling" to be preferable and pair bond with her - thus abandoning the original female. When a female cheats though, the risk to the male is that he's spending a great deal of time and effort to ensure some *other* male's genes make it to the next generation. So when cheating happens, it would be effective if females were more likely to forgive it as long as the male was otherwise attentive, and males to be far less likely to be forgiving.
Most of us are here because we're the descendents of couples which behaved in the most effective ways for them to pass alone their genes; probably long before there was any such animal as humans. And certainly long before there was any such thing as "The Jerry Springer Show", which is why it's so easy to picture monkeys throwing chairs at each other once they'd run out of poop.
"Nine out of ten children infected with HIV were infected through their mother either during pregnancy, labour and delivery or breastfeeding Without treatment, around 15-30% of babies born to HIV positive women will become infected with HIV during pregnancy and delivery and a further 5-20% will become infected through breastfeeding. In high-income countries, preventive measures ensure that the transmission of HIV from mother-to-child is relatively rare, and in those cases where it does occur a range of treatment options mean that the child can survive - often into adulthood. This shows that with funding, trained staff and resources, the infections and deaths of many thousands of children could be avoided."
and
Sexual transmission does not account for a high proportion of child infections but in some countries children are sexually active at an early age. This is potentially conducive to the sexual spread of HIV among children, especially in areas where condom use is low and HIV prevalence is high. In sub-Saharan Africa 16% of young females (aged 15-19) and 12% of young males reported having sex before they were 15 in 2007. In Lesotho, these figures are 16% and 30%, respectively; in Kenya, 15% and 31%. The lower the age of first sex, the higher the lifetime risk of HIV infection. This is because early sexual debut is often associated with older lifetime partners, higher rates of coerced sex and lower rates of condom usage.
Children are also at risk of becoming infected with HIV through sexual abuse and rape. In some parts of Africa, the myth that HIV can be cured through sex with a virgin has led to rapes, sometimes of very young children by infected men - although whether or not this is a significant factor in child sexual abuse in the region is disputed. n some cases, young children are trafficked into sex work, which can put them at a very high risk of becoming infected with HIV.
Condoms alone will not break the cycle for those that live on to procreate. It's a shortstop preventive measure now, but not sustainable (condoms are not cheap and inconvenient to use) Education, communication, and maintaining a monogamous relationship will solidify safety long-term for a nation (and the world). IE cultural change will be required, or evolution will force it upon them.
Life is not for the lazy.
Duh. I thought we'd already figured this out.
The whole point of the species is to continue the species. It stands to reason that some people would be wired to go out and spread their DNA as much as possible to help it continue.
Hey, I never said there weren't innocent casualties in evolution. Don't look at me, I'm just telling it like it is.
No, you're not telling it like it is. Your view on evolution is ancient and overly simplistic. Evolution isn't survival of the fittest. It's the death of the unfit and unlucky.
I pity the poor souls that have a genetic predisposition to have one night stand.
I've always had two, just like God intended: One on the left, and the other on the right side of the bed.
Who would have though the impulsive sexual behavior was genetic?
Innocent casualties from the aftermath are genetically at risk *and* unlucky. However, those that put themselves at risk is a form of survival of the fittest. It take intelligence to form a cause and effect relationship. Those with the capacity of intelligence and to make less risky decisions can become winners in the game of life.
Then again, stupid people tend to bread more. A race of Quality vs Quantity I suppose.
Life is not for the lazy.
Such gene studies actually may help some people in deeply religious communities, especially when it comes to homosexuality and such related stuff. If you are gei, then you may not certainly be *evil*, *tainted* or *dangerous to society*. Of course, nobody cares, if the society is keen for example even blaming Harry Potter fans for witchcraft etc. On the other hand, for example, if someone proved that pedofilia or murdering is caused by some genes, then nobody would be happy to accept this as force majeure. Still, I doubt anybody can blame a set of genes to excuse cheating his wife. :)
GM: Roll 1d4 for Save vs. One Night Stand.
Player: Hey, why would I want to save vs. That
GM: Ok, don't say I didn't warn you.
Make America grate again!
Strangely, the gene is found mostly in Y chromosome.
As always, 'science' has given us yet another excuse to continue doing the debilitating things we do. Soon we'll be able to blame even the most heinous crimes on our genes! By the way, this isn't news, the apostle said almost 2000 years ago, "For I know that inside me dwelleth no good thing". The sinful nature of man is inherent and genetic. The Bible tells me so.
I can't believe nobody has posted today's XKCD, it's highly applicable: http://xkcd.com/830/
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
So how many geeks here are recollecting that you can get DNA from a drinking cup, or a strand of hair, and are thinking of collecting samples of their various acquaintances of the apposite sex, and then sending them in for analysis to find out which of them are genetically promiscuous?
Plenty of people don't have any longterm commitment to a sexual partner, especially when they're young. Some of them have one night stands. Some are celibate between longer (than one night) term exclusive relationships. But probably most of them have one night stands. That's not infidelity.
Nor is it genetic. One night stands are mostly determined by what the other partners want or are willing to accept from the person, not the person's own genetics.
An interest in fidelity or infidelity might be genetic, but of course the other people have a lot do do with it.
Once again, a very narrow set of new and interesting data about genes is exaggerated to say something wrong about broad human behavior.
--
make install -not war
Well, when you consider that for the last 50 years, the education system & the separation of church & state crowd has gone out of its way to remove all instance of morals, religion from the school systems, couple that with the breakdown of the family and you are seeing what happens. Rampant unwed mothers, kids without fathers, anything goes and this is what happens...doesn't surprise me one bit.
"there's an epi-gene for that"
For decades people seem to be continually astonished whenever evolutionary psychology 'discovers' a new feature of human behaviour that is explained by evolutionary psychology. Humans have a diversity of behaviours - whether mating behaviour or other kinds - because there is no single ideal strategy.
Also someone should point out to the 'researchers' that not all one-night stands are one night by design, not all are cheating, and not all cheating takes the form of one-night stands. Plus with modern technology for contraception, prevention of transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases, and determining paternity, the one-night stand isn't the high-risk behaviour it might have been when we were foraging societies living on the savannas.
I've always had two, just like God intended: One on the left, and the other on the right side of the bed.
So in other words you were left right out?
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
I have one-night-stands all the time. They just don't happen to involve physical partners.
Table-ized A.I.
And don't forget: It's not your fault. It's genetic.
If there is anyone to blame it's your parents.
It's not cheating if you have permission.
It's not like we have to worry about whose offspring is whose these days. At least not if you hang out with responsible intelligent adults. So what's the deal with wanting to OWN your spouse's body?
Sure, monogamy is great for awhile. But when you've been married 15 years and plan on staying married forever, and always coming home to the other, why not give each other the freedom to have some fun?
Are you really that jealous and insecure?
Operator, give me the number for 911!
I mean, that's what condoms are for, right? To keep things from getting too genetic?
I find the "nature vs nurture" debate annoying. If genetics wasn't a basic part of our behavior, then lizards could be taught to be Islamic.
Ever see an Islamic lizard? No?
Oh, wait! They don't have the genetic predisposition that enables the type of intelligence necessary for belief in Islam! Obviously, there's a genetic component to behavior....
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
There are these things called "condoms" which are not only useful as contraceptives.
Yes, they're not 100% safe, but then again, life in general isn't safe, either.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There shouldn't be a second time let alone an umpteenth time. A person cheats, then they should be dumped. I couldn't care less if it they were genetically predisposed to be more likely to cheat.
Lots of people stay in a relationship NOT out of love but out of convenience. Taking a stand is hard. You are basically saying "fuck this relationship I invested so much time in, I choose the bitterness of being alone with no sex over false comfort". Maybe it helps you to sleep through the lonely cold nights, but many just don't want to.
I agree with your stance. I rather take the hurt now then spread it out. But many choose not to. Their choice.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I've always had two, just like God intended: One on the left, and the other on the right side of the bed.
So in other words you were left right out?
Just like God intended.
Somehow I doubt that "my genes made me do it" will cut any slack with my wife. I know that if she said it to me, I'd be following through on the divorce regardless.
I'd like to know where you got that idea from.
A lot of the time a person who cheats is broken, and has poor coping skills. They feel the best solution to a bad situation is to cheat, rather than discuss it.
I can see the politically correct future already...
Wife: Did you sleep with him?
Husband: No of course I didn't! Not that there's anything wrong with homosexuality or infidelity...
now for the mods to decide if it's flamebait, funny or maybe even insightful.
Sorry for the lack of cites, but these are old, crusty memories.
The reason people assume men are unfaithful and women are not is partly cultural, and partly due to quite a bit of research that turned out to be flawed.
Old marriage laws viewed wives and children as property. Female infidelity was frowned upon because it resulted in confusion over which of your pieces of property was supposed to inherit your stuff when you die. The law didn't give a crap about male infidelity because of this, and that view is reflected in most of the major world religions. This in turn leads to a widely-held cultural view that male infidelity is acceptable but female infidelity is not, which invariably leads to the perception that men cheat and women don't (because women have to become much better at hiding it or face the wrath of society).
The other side of this coin is research that showed that male infidelity rates are higher, and there's plenty such research done that showed such results. This would have served to reinforce the view that men cheat more than women even among those who know to place more stock in empirical data. Then someone did an infidelity study in which the researchers went to great lengths to assure the respondents of anonymity. They of course found a higher incidence of male infidelity than in the other studies, but they also found a higher incidence of female infidelity than the other studies. Much higher. They found that men are slightly more than 50% likely to cheat on a spouse at least once in their lives, while women are slightly less than 50% likely to cheat on a spouse at least once in their lives. The difference between these two numbers was less than the margin of error for the study.
This shows not only that the other studies were flawed, but it revealed a number of other things. For one, women are much more likely to lie about infidelity (possibly due to the social pressures I mentioned above). For another, women and men cheat at about the same rates.
To get back to the topic of discussion, a genetic link to fidelity makes sense. There are genetic advantages to both fidelity and infidelity when viewed at the population level. Infidelity results in greater genetic diversity, while fidelity results in more stable homes in which to raise children (and human children take a lot more time and effort to raise than other mammals). At the population level, higher genetic diversity reduces a population's vulnerability to disease (with insufficient genetic diversity, a single disease could wipe out the whole population). On the flip side, greater fidelity produces more productive adults for the population.
I agree. This is also not just simplification, but a kind of "thought stopper". If you can say "I can't help myself from cheating, it's in my genes!" then what makes it unacceptable to say "I can't help myself from raping, it's in my genes to have sex!", and so on. To quote Richard Dawkins:
"Genetic causes and environmental causes are in principle no different from each other. Some influences of both types may be hard to reverse; others may be easy to reverse. Some may be usually hard to reverse but easy if the right agent is applied. The important point is that there is no general reason for expecting genetic influences to be any more irrevocable than environmental ones." (The Extended Phenotype, p. 13).
In other words, being genetically predisposed to something doesn't make you helpless to prevent yourself from doing it, and doesn't serve as a catch-all excuse to justify anything you like.
Not to be a complete cynic here, but this kind of science is inherently weak. They are probably just looking at the dopaminergic system responsible for risk taking behavior and reward. Nothing more. I don't think anything new has been discovered here, but the scientists have succeeded in making science tablet-worthy. Where was this published? In PEOPLE magazine?