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."

Comments

First post, for the umpteenth time

[cgomezr]

I just can't help it.

Re:First post, for the umpteenth time

[Samantha Wright]

Richard Dawkins?

Re:First post, for the umpteenth time

[jayme0227]

So, he or she has cheated on you for the umpteenth time and their only excuse is: 'I just can't help it.'

If he or she is getting anywhere near "the umpteenth time" it's not a them problem, it's a you problem. If it happens once, forgiveness is certainly acceptable. If it happens twice forgiveness starts to become questionable. If it happens a third time, what the hell are you still doing with this person? Send them packing for Christ's sake.

Obviously this argument is based on the assumption that you have a moral objection to your significant other sleeping with other people. If not, then cheerio mate, say hello to your wife for me.

Re:First post, for the umpteenth time

[jcaldwel]

This gene may be a good example of a "selfish gene." People who are promiscuous would tend to pass on their genes more frequently.

Re:First post, for the umpteenth time

[Chris Burke]

Why do so many people say that? In essence you're saying once is okay.

No, they're saying once is within the realm of reason to forgive someone that you really love and want to stay with.

They aren't saying cheating once is acceptable, they are saying forgiving once is acceptable. As in, they can accept someone forgiving their SO for cheating, once. And forgiving the great disrespect that cheating shows is not easy, and is not in any way saying it's "okay".

I've dumped women over once.... Screw that. I'm not that open-minded or forgiveness oriented.

You might feel differently if you weren't just dumping a girlfriend, but rather divorcing a wife and mother of your kids who you fully intended to spend the rest of time with and otherwise love with all your heart.

Or not. Maybe that's what you meant by 'dumped'. That's fine. But not everyone feels that way. Some people really do feel it's worth giving someone they love the chance to re-earn the lost trust and to show that they have changed.

And I can readily sympathize. But once the event repeats, and they demonstrate that they aren't going to change and once again violate trust before it is even re-earned, then it becomes quite hard to justify.

LIttle comfort

[Locke2005]

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!

Re:AIDs will cure that

[potat0man]

Yeah, because cheating spouses never come back home again and spread disease back to their faithful spouses...

Try again.

Wait a minute!

[natehoy]

Are you saying that people can't keep it in their jeans because it's in their genes?

Knock it off with the oversimplification already.

[Khopesh]

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. ...

He or she has cheated

[cerberusss]

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.