Oxytocin Regulates Sociosexual Behavior In Female Mice

Chipmunk100 writes In a research article in the journal Cell scientists report that there is a subset of neurons that are vital in social interest of female mice for males during estrus, the sexually receptive phase of their cycle. They say that these neurons are responsive to oxytocin. The level of oxytocin rise when we hug or kiss a loved one. The BBC has an article on the findings as well, and reports that Without [oxytocin], female mice were no more attracted to a mate than to a block of Lego ... [The affected] neurons are situated in the prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain important for personality, learning and social behaviour. Both when the hormone was withheld and when the cells were silenced, the females lost interest in mating during oestrous, which is when female mice are sexually active.

Comments

This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

Women are subhuman. Take a list of Nobel laureates, remove all "peace" (even the magic negro got one) prizes and divide by zero^Wgender.

Women are manipulative whores, deriving all their power from subjugation of men with their powers of saggy tits. Women don't achieve anything by themselves. How many hard science papers are actually released by women? Nada.

Like all "special interests" groups, women have an unusual sense of entitlement. Except that unlike niggers, they had every chance to "prove" themselves through the history of mankind, not pick cotton all day long (unless they were female nigra).

The moment you don't want to buy that alligator-skin bag, a diamond ring, a status-symbol car, a kitten-fur coat, not only they spit out instead of swallowing, they pull out a gun on you and accuse you of criminal trespass. Then they miss at point-blank range. Such is the result of granting equal rights to the subhuman gender.

I'm all in favor of "separate but equal" amendment -- grant them a right to the kitchen and Valium, and for men to work their ass off trying to make a name for themselves. Praise the ones who make a difference, not the parasite with a victim complex.

"What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks "Where is my share?" A man creates. A parasite says, "What will the neighbors think?" A man invents. A parasite says, "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of god..."

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a guy and must say that is the most ignorant comment I've ever read

Re:This is why I only fuck other men.

[Teresita]

She who has the pussy makes the rules.

Re:This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should turn girls into axlotl tanks. Women are for breeding, and men are for PLEASURE. *giggle*

Re:This is why I only fuck other men.

[hort_wort]

"What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks "Where is my share?" A man creates. A parasite says, "What will the neighbors think?" A man invents. A parasite says, "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of god..."

Quoting a character based upon the writings of a woman is the perfect way to end... whatever that was. Well done.

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Artifakt]

He can't help it, Oxytocin is regulating his socio-sexual behavior. Or mice are. Either way, welcome to Slashdot, newguy, hang around for a bit and you'll see posts a lot more ignorant than that one.

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

you're a mangina apologizer.

Re:This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

These days it's, "She who has the state in her pocket makes the rules"

Re:This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the gender makeup in Washington, that does not seem to be the case.

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

#notallmen

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Trolling isn't ignorant - in fact, trolling requires you to be knowledgeable as to what kind of public statement would elicit the most heated reaction for your amusement.

Re:This is why I only fuck other men.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

We have a proverb here: men rule the world, and their wives rule those men. Or something along those lines.

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't help it, Oxytocin is regulating his socio-sexual behavior. Or mice are. Either way, welcome to Slashdot, newguy, hang around for a bit and you'll see posts a lot more ignorant than that one.

Lke those posts written by niggers like you!

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[weilawei]

First, I agree completely with you and I suspect that this is a real troll. I'm going to go a bit offtopic now.

I've noticed a trend of people using the word troll as a synonym for disagreeing (where the person accused of trolling legitimately believes their position/statements). They then complain that they get accused of trolling and it's ruining the Internet and everything needs to be censored/harmonized. I've got good friends of mine who suffer from this very same desire to censor speech they disagree with (while calling it a troll), and yet still complain that they get called trolls when they voice unpopular opinions. Perhaps if people recalled the definition of trolling, which is making a provocative statement with the primary (and only) goal of eliciting a response, instead of calling disagreeable viewpoints trolling, we wouldn't have this issue.

The word 'troll' has been hijacked. The real trolls are outnumbered by idiots who don't even know what a troll is and are too stupid to recognize one. For the record, this post is not a troll. I'm being entirely serious. The sad part is that it's driving censorship, where a well-executed troll is closer to satire: it should enrage and enlighten simultaneously for maximum effect.

Okay, I'm done. Mods, you can go ahead with the -1, Offtopic now. But if you want to keep your ability to voice dissenting views, lay off the Troll mod except for real trolls. Overrated is a better mod if you disagree. </karma_burn>

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

where a well-executed troll is closer to satire: it should enrage and enlighten simultaneously for maximum effect.

Makes me wonder... why does "Troll" have a -1 score on slashdot?

And what about the concept of "patent troll"? I can understand the rage, but I don't see the satire in their actions...

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Your.Master]

It might be closer to satire but it's not satire, it's primarily intended to elicit negative reactions. I would disagree with a definition of trolling that says that enlightenment is part of the intent.

As for patent troll, I think that's a separate derivation; it's not really the same word. Internet trolling is like fishing-trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T..., and we get a troll as "someone who trolls". Perhaps instead it should be angler.

Patent troll is like mythological trolls that live under bridges and collect tolls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Re:This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

She who has the pussy makes the food.

FIFY

Re:This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It is the husband's job to subjugate his wife. Women are nothing but emotional whores that can think of nothing other than sex, siphoning money, and playing petty social games with other women. The husband's job is to dominate the wife, eradicating as much of her baseness as possible so she can somehow pass as a human being.

Re:This is why I only fuck other men.

[arvindsg]

I wish there was also Super Troll Mod rating

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Charlotte]

Nice Dune reference :)

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, but a troll must be also be an expressed opinion which the writer does not actually believe. It is this dishonesty that earns the moniker "troll". Otherwise, an intentionally provocative statement is merely flamebait.

Re: This is why I only fuck other men.

[weilawei]

I figured that part was obvious from where I complained about "people using the word troll as a synonym for disagreeing (where the person accused of trolling legitimately believes their position/statements)".

Guess I'm putting too much faith in humanity these days.

Your conclusions are invalid.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This 'study' is invalid on its face because Free Will. It simply must not be possible that behavior is driven by causal, physical, mechanisms because that would be philosophically inconvenient. Therefore, it must be false.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ssshhh, just scroll teh Beta whitespace and click on the taboola ads.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

I'm sorry but I've had more than enough evidence that women do not have as much free will as they think. They have to fight hard the instinct (hormones, "get only the alpha male", etc) to have true free will, but they constantly lose. Never stopped to wonder why so many women choose guys that they never would choose according to the rational thought of them? And I can not tell if is something good or bad... Because at the same time that prevents women from accept only wealthy movie stars, it also makes them choose dangerous criminals (on my country is called "amor bandido" (coarsely "thug love")).

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[chuckugly]

Free will is a convenient illusion.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[epyT-R]

not just because Free Will, but for Great Social Justice.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to believe they're not going for "The Dark Master"!

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Whereas men are always perfectly rational when choosing a partner?

Spare us the closet misogyny.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[visualight]

It is heresy to even suggest that there are biology driven gender specific behaviors. Everything bad in the world is because boys are socialized incorrectly. Don't worry though, social science ( nee studies ) professors are retooling our schools as we speak!

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Jane Q. Public]

Ehhhhhh (sound of buzzer). Minus two points. Saying one thing badly does not constitute saying something else "unconsciously".

In debate logic, that's known as the "mind reading fallacy".

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Jane Q. Public]

From what I've heard, the mere availability of Oxycontin (not oxytocin) is enough to influence the sociosexual behavior of some human females.

But I have no person experience of this, so I don't know.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Jane Q. Public]

s/person/personal

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Zontar The Mindless]

I don't see how it can be taken any other way.

But by all means, let TDM clarify this for himself, rather than offer to... read his mind for us.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[donscarletti]

Whereas men are always perfectly rational when choosing a partner?

I don't think he was claiming this.

I don't really believe that anyone who is a man or even knows a man would claim that.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[weilawei]

Jane was right. If you read the post, you'll see that nowhere in there does he say men don't do the same thing. You inferred it because that's what you wanted to see.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Opportunist]

What's not rational about choosing tits and ass?

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Men aren't "perfectly" rational, but they are "more" rational than women. It's not "misogyny" that leads to this opinion, just social dynamics.

Men have a lot more social pressures that come into play when choosing a partner than women do. Classically, men want youth and beauty. But, his ability to earn a living, provide for his wife and children, social standing, etc. all come into play when his prospective mate says yes or no. Not only that, but men have to worry about whether or not they'll be divorced in a few years, which tends to limit them wanting to marry the hot, but possibly unhinged, woman they might want, in favour of the less attractive, but mentally stable woman they would be better off with.

This may sound antiquated, but even among modern, "liberated" women, you will find very few instances where a woman married below her own standing. You don't see female doctors or lawyers married to plumbers or clerks. Not to say it's impossible, just extremely unlikely. Reversed, men don't care as much.

It's not that men are perfectly rational, just that there is more social pressure on them to not follow their physical desires as much. Even then, they still might. But on the whole, men are more likely to choose the "right" decision instead of the short-term "I want it" decision. They'll choose "right" because they have more to lose if (when) things go badly.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

+1, Uncomfortably True. So much so, that I won't put my username on it. In fact I'm posting this over Tor. (Okay, to be fair, I'm posting it over Tor because I can't shut my mouth and Slashdot won't let me run my mouth more than 10 times a day despite being here for over a decade and having Excellent karma the whole time. I also never get more than 5 mod points. What's up with that?)

My male friends claim to be feminists. I do not. I'm not an anything-ist. I believe that people should do whatever the hell they feel inclined to do and the Universe will sort it out. It always has. To discriminate, either way, on the basis of anything but cold, hard facts, is bull. That includes affirmative action. I don't care if you're the minority--you can still be a discriminatory fuck.

Alright, mods, roll out the flamethrowers.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[goose-incarnated]

reply to undo accidental mod

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but when somebody starts out with, "I'm sorry but I've had more than enough evidence that women..." it's a pretty clear indicator IMO.

I'm not bothering any more with this thread unless/until TDM responds.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

But what if discriminating is what we feel inclined to do? Should we just do it and let the Universe sort it out?

Re: Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

About hot vs mentally stable.

Its very hard as it is to dont fuck other wimmen as US President (which one didnt cheat his wife). Its also hard as a hot {wo,}man to only have one partner, and harder for the partner to keep her with them, as there is more competition than for the unattractive one.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[AmiMoJo]

You are either ignorant or want to be a victim. Obviously both sexes are affected by hormones, it's just that it's not okay to attribute every decision you don't like or every behaviour you don't understand to PMT or whatever.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[goose-incarnated]

I don't see how it can be taken any other way.

But by all means, let TDM clarify this for himself, rather than offer to... read his mind for us.

You don't need to read his mind, you can read his post. He's says nothing about the rationality of men. You need to do an awful amount of squirming to read any view on men in that post.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[goose-incarnated]

You are either ignorant or want to be a victim. Obviously both sexes are affected by hormones, it's just that it's not okay to attribute every decision you don't like or every behaviour you don't understand to PMT or whatever.

I'm sorry but that sword cuts both ways - it's equally not okay to dismiss the influence of biology merely because the influence is something that you don't like. You can't always dismiss physiological effects as ignorance.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

Unluckily I fail in the requirement "needs to be human"

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

As the others realized I did not say anything about the men because the focus of the topic in this case are women. But if you prefer so, I do not think somehow that men always make purely rational decisions. But having said that, I noticed based on the evidence and simple observation that it is much easier for it to happen in females.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

As others have said, you take hasty conclusions based on nothing. I said nothing about men simply because they are not the focus of this topic (after all, the study described in the article does not say if the same thing happens in the case of males, if he said so I would have included men in the subject).

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[wonkey_monkey]

I knew you were going to say that.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

Why moderated this guy as +1 funny? What he says is true. And I would add that to be possible freedom of will you (reader of tihs post) need to know that part of your behavior is biologically determined, to be able to differentiate it from your rational thoughts and so be able to choose when to obey or not your instincts.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

Correct.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free will has nothing to do with biological urges. Eat -> defecate -> no free will? pls.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the inability of humans to do much otherwise (on average), I'm pretty sure that how it's going to happen until we extinct ourselves. It doesn't mean I like it. But I'm not inclined to shove my view down someone else's throat, so there's little else I can ask for.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn. And here I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt--that you just stuffed your foot in your mouth accidentally. Now you've gone and done it on purpose. Oh well...

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[russotto]

Of course we're 100% rational. We just start from some really dumb axioms, like "the best partner is the one with the biggest boobs and smallest waist".

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[__aaltlg1547]

I've observed that a similar dynamic applies to men. Most will ignore a smart, resourceful and mentally stable woman if she only has average looks in favor of a woman that's feckless and irrational if the latter happens to be pretty. (Even if the former is obviously interested in him and the latter manifestly isn't.)

Both are equally capable of having babies (the biological reason you're interested). The former is going to be a lot more enjoyable to be with over the long haul.

I'd be interested in seeing whether the oxytocin thing works the same in male mice and male and female humans.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Dr. Manhattan]

I noticed based on the evidence and simple observation that it is much easier for it to happen in females.

Lemme propose a hypothetical. What if you and other males are just as 'irrational' as you think females are... but you don't notice it because you take your own irrationalities as given? It's hard to judge a culture from within; how much harder might it be to judge one's own biology?

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

Good point. And so now I wait to see what will be the results of the researchers when they do the same with male rats.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

I can not be used as a basis for suspecting that I'm too much rational (and not quite human). But I also observed what men do in a similar situation and have not found the same level of divergence between what they say and their actions

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh. You totally ignored Dr. Manhattan's question and simply restated your original premise. He asked, essentially, how do you eliminate your own cognitive bias? The answer is, you can't. At best, you can *try* to take note of it.

A psychologist for the CIA, Richards J. Heuer, Jr., wrote a book entitled, The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, addressing this very issue. It's a fascinating read; download it over Tor if you must.

Evaluation of evidence is a crucial step in analysis, but what evidence people rely on and how they interpret it are influenced by a variety of extraneous factors. Information presented in vivid and concrete detail often has unwarranted impact, and people tend to disregard abstract or statistical information that may have greater evidential value. We seldom take the absence of evidence into account. The human mind is also oversensitive to the consistency of the evidence, and insufficiently sensitive to the reliability of the evidence. Finally, impressions often remain even after the evidence on which they are based has been totally discredited.

As an aside, he takes care to note that cognitive bias (which I would argue that you are exhibiting) is not the same as cultural bias (although the line is quite fuzzy this instance, and I'm not a psychologist).

Information that people perceive directly, that they hear with their own ears or see with their own eyes, is likely to have greater impact than information received secondhand that may have greater evidential value.

Case histories and anecdotes will have greater impact than more informative but abstract aggregate or statistical data.

Re: Your conclusions are invalid.

[Applehu Akbar]

But we're nerds, remember, so we get the plain and practical woman. In the long run, this gives us more success in life than those whose success was in following their hormones.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

Oh boy, another one who thinks he is the almighty smartass... I answered the question from Dr. Manhattan, dude. You just failed miserably to understand. And honestly I'm not going to spend my time trying to explain given that the tone of your reply suggests to me that you're not the least bit interested in hearing.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this "not human" one. As well as the other mental disorders...

Seriously, "dude", you missed the question. How do you account for your own biases? You're inferring an actual phenomenon from anecdotal evidence instead of data. The plural of anecdote is not data.

CAPTCHA: reoccur

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Women's intuition is socially acceptable. An irrational man isn't considered manly at all.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[sudon't]

Men are slaves to their biology, too. It just takes a different form. We are all the slaves of hormones, particularly when it comes to reproduction, (or love, if you prefer).

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the plural of anecdote is not data, then why do you people always have to beat the shit out of that drum? Shouldn't it be obvious to everyone else? We can throw "correlation isn't causation" into this same boat. Again, like clockwork, this phrase will be shouted when it's convenient to your cause. If it wasn't "real" though, then why do you constantly have to go about correcting everyone? Face it people, your "proof" is all lies and goddamned statistics...

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Zynder]

I'm getting fat from all of this hypocritical irony I've been reading for the past couple weeks on Slashdot. So you've made a stereotypical judgment about people who judge based on stereotypes? Simply brilliant! I can't get enough!

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad you've got some Dragons, Wizards, Knights and humor with you. You've just engaged one of Slashdot's biggest social justice warriors- the great Paladin Amimojo, White Knight of all Vaginas. You've got quite a long battle ahead of you...

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Zontar The Mindless]

My bad, then. Please accept my apologies.

See? Cynic I may be, but--unlike some people--I can and do admit when I've made a mistake.

Are we good now?

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Zontar The Mindless]

I should also mention that I could have just modded your original post Troll or Flamebait, but I instead decided to voice my concerns and give you a chance to respond.

Dialogue, what a concept.

Oh, and I do like the tagline. Cheers.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Zontar The Mindless]

TDM responded, and I've responded in turn.

I think you can put down the buckets of tar and feathers now. :)

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[TheDarkMaster]

Thanks. I also think that is very good when people is civilized.

Re:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Reziac]

Since it's less enjoyable, maybe that goads the male into leaving and finding another female, thus spreading his genes further than if he'd found a compatible female on the first attempt.

The next time I kidnap a girl...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to inject her with oxytocin and wait for her to beg me to rape her.

Oxy-what?

[ArcadeMan]

Hey, did somebody mention LEGO?!

Re:Oxy-what?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they said something about Rush Limbo and oxycontin. And socializing with young boys in Asia.

Re:Oxy-what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I regulate sociosexual behavior with yo mama!

CAPTCHA iimprint

Re:Oxy-what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something about elderly people dying from youth-in-Asia?

Re:Oxy-what?

[hawk]

Apparently, the oxy-stuff gets female mice interested in lego! :)

hawk

As expected

[russotto]

Saw this story, knew the comments would provide ammo for the SJWs. Way to go, morons.

Re:As expected

[sg_oneill]

"Saw this story, knew the comments would provide ammo for the SJWs. Way to go, morons."

What actually is the weird obsession with "SJWs" (as a negative?!) on this site?

Is it that offensive that people would think sexism, racism and homophobia are a bit knuckledragging and stupid?

Like woah what an insult! Next thing we'll be snearing that people are "Great guys". "Hey hear about that fireman who saved a little old lady? Pffffttttt what a great guy." "Yeah. Douchebag great guys who needs em"

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

Is it that offensive that people would think sexism, racism and homophobia are a bit knuckledragging and stupid?

The only ones promoting sexism are SJW's.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Social Justice Warriors (had to Google that one) is not that -ism's aren't stupid. It's that they inevitably feel that we should balance one -ism by doing the exact opposite -ism. It's STILL discrimination, just 180 degrees out of phase. It's politically correct and convenient to discriminate in one direction, but not the other. The problem is discrimination, period. People are people are people. If you want to discriminate, stick to discriminating by facts alone, not out of some sense of justice (practically a synonym for institutionalized revenge in this context).

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

trying to enhance one's social position by pretending to fight for a "just" cause is not a good thing. In fact, its many times worse then status quo, cos the change they propose isn't there for the benefit of the group they claim to be rooting for, or whatever.

The main motivation behind the SJW's bitching, is the implied elevation of their position and the material and social goods that come from such an elevation.
Basically, they crate drama in hopes of profiting from it.

Fuck. That. Subhuman. Shit. You want to get paid more? work more. talk is free. now stfu.

Re:As expected

[sg_oneill]

"The only ones promoting sexism are SJW's."

Yeah this is going to need a citation! Because I'm pretty sure "Stop staring at womens boobs" and "Raping people is bad" are not sexist statements!

Re:As expected

[sg_oneill]

trying to enhance one's social position by pretending to fight for a "just" cause is not a good thing. In fact, its many times worse then status quo, cos the change they propose isn't there for the benefit of the group they claim to be rooting for, or whatever.

But this isn't what the majority of people labeled "SJWs" here do at all. Seriously, give us an example or I'm going to have to file this under "tin foil hat".

The main motivation behind the SJW's bitching, is the implied elevation of their position and the material and social goods that come from such an elevation.

Uh no. It would be "social justice". Hence the pejorative title of "social justice warrior".

Basically, they crate drama in hopes of profiting from it.

I'm honestly not seeing evidence of this. Critiques of popular culture are not "bitching" or "drama". They are critiques, an artform practiced by activists and academics since the greeks first started critiquing authoritarianism.

Fuck. That. Subhuman. Shit. You want to get paid more? work more. talk is free. now stfu.

Thats great advice. The problem is statistically men aren't working more, they are just getting paid more, and thats unfair.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the equivalent "stop staring at hot guys"? We're not allowed to accept photons from a particular direction anymore? If there's no catcalling, no physical contact, no looming over the person, what's your beef? Yes, rape is bad. Accepting photons from a particular direction without impinging on another person's freedoms or coercing them isn't bad. You're arguing that women have the right not to be offended. The right to offend is more important than the right to not be offended, especially when it doesn't cross the line into physical behavior. Just because guys don't have boobs doesn't mean women aren't checking them out. If I claim that I feel threatened because a woman is looking at me, does that mean she's a potential rapist?

You're a perfect example of wanting to discriminate in one direction but not the other. And a fucking idiot with some serious blinders on. You're a sexist fuck.

Re:As expected

[AmiMoJo]

Funny, I saw this story and knew it would provide ammo for people who use phrases like Social Justice Warrior. Way to go, moron.

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

"The only ones promoting sexism are SJW's."

Yeah this is going to need a citation! Because I'm pretty sure "Stop staring at womens boobs" and "Raping people is bad" are not sexist statements!

As you wish:passed around everywhere. Nevermind who said it first, everyone's saying it now. If only the feminist movement would restrict themselves to "don't abuse women", or "equal pay for equal work" there wouldn't be a problem - the problem is that they aren't interested in that sort of thing.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats great advice. The problem is statistically men aren't working more, they are just getting paid more, and thats unfair.

Two wrongs do not make a right. You're suggesting that discrimination in the opposite direction is a solution--it's not. It's just another problem.

But this isn't what the majority of people labeled "SJWs" here do at all. Seriously, give us an example

YOU. You ARE the example. You're so caught up in your idea that politically correct discrimination is okay while politically incorrect discrimination isn't that you can't even see it.

People. Are. People. Period. Full stop. The only valid discrimination is based on facts, not on -isms. You're a sexist, but you're doing it in the PC direction, so it's okay. "Justice" is a synonym for institutionalized revenge in this context. That's a primitive tribal behavior. A better solution would be something more akin to double-blind trials, but adapted to hiring and payment practices.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're defending people who want to discriminate in the opposite direction to "level the playing field"?

Let me explain this to you: PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE, PERIOD.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The brand of "justice" that SJWs practice is primitive tribal discrimination, 180 degrees around. It's just another problem. The real solution is something else. A real solution is more difficult. A truly progressive solution doesn't require you to discriminate the other way around to get "justice" (a synonym for institutionalized revenge in this context).

Instead of throwing up your hands and saying, "but that's too hard! screw it, we'll just discriminate the other way around and call it even," how about you try to think up ways to eliminate it altogether, in all directions?

Fuuuuck. You disgust me. People are people are people. The only valid discrimination is based on facts alone--not -isms.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair your don't deal with a facist by cowtowing to his every whim. The less thsee people are exposed to viewpoints other than that of the sheltered bumper lined middle class first world they're used to the more they'll flip out when something dares to challenge their groupthink.

In light of this, provide me a studdy that without ignoring differences in negotiating style and in risk aversion says that women get paid less for the same work as a man in the western world. I'll just be at my local Illuminat- er, patriarchy clan meeting while you search.

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

Thats great advice. The problem is statistically men aren't working more, they are just getting paid more, and thats unfair.

I'll ignore everything else[1], but that statement has long been acknowledged as wrong . To be honest, if women were more valuable than men in the workplace (produced the same for less pay) the first all-female company to arise would sooner or later tower over the industry due to the lower employment costs. This does not happen - see here

[1] Discussing feelings is useless; there are no objective measures hence we come down to the argument of whose feelings matter more.

Re:As expected

[Livius]

Reverse discrimination probably has a legitimate role is encouraging a transition from an entrenched, systemic bias to an unbiased situation.

But once people become invested in crusading against their pet cause, they can't stop.

Re:As expected

[russotto]

What actually is the weird obsession with "SJWs" (as a negative?!) on this site?

Social Justice is to justice as People's Democracy is to Democracy.

Re:As expected

[BVis]

I think that both genders have a right not to be stared at if they don't want to be. The way I look at it, the way men are wired (yes, there are biological differences between the genders, shock horror) to stare more than women are, and sometimes we don't realize (consciously) that we're doing it. That happens. I've done it without realizing. The important part is how you react once you're called on it, once you're consciously aware that you're doing it, and that you've made the woman in question uncomfortable. IN MY OPINION, the appropriate reaction is to quietly apologize, make corrections to the situation as warranted (for example, if you're on a treadmill that's behind a woman in yoga pants, and you got caught staring at her behind, offer to move to another treadmill), and let her vent a bit at you if she wants to. Don't accept abuse, you've already apologized, but accepting a dressing-down for inappropriate behavior will not kill you.

This applies in the other direction, too. A man should not be objectified or stared at either, IF he does not wish it. Culturally, IN MY OPINION, men are less likely to take offense at the attention, but they have a right not to be stared at like a piece of meat. Just because he chooses not to exercise the right doesn't mean he doesn't have that right. (And that works the other way. If a woman sees that a man is staring, and doesn't object, it doesn't mean she loses the right to object in that situation or any other.)

Mankind has been locked in a struggle between the reptile brain (which is probably what started you staring in the first place without consciously realizing it) and the mammal brain (which should know better) for thousands of years. This is not to say that this struggle excuses any behavior, of course. You are responsible for your own actions, regardless of the biology involved.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that men tend not to be hypocritical enough to complain when they get the attention that they're soliciting. ...unless it's attention from ugly women.

Re:As expected

[sociocapitalist]

Saw this story, knew the comments would provide ammo for the SJWs. Way to go, morons.

What do Single Jewish Women have to do with anything?

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

I think that both genders have a right not to be stared at if they don't want to be. The way I look at it, the way men are wired (yes, there are biological differences between the genders, shock horror) to stare more than women are, and sometimes we don't realize (consciously) that we're doing it. That happens. I've done it without realizing. The important part is how you react once you're called on it, once you're consciously aware that you're doing it, and that you've made the woman in question uncomfortable. IN MY OPINION, the appropriate reaction is to quietly apologize, make corrections to the situation as warranted (for example, if you're on a treadmill that's behind a woman in yoga pants, and you got caught staring at her behind, offer to move to another treadmill), and let her vent a bit at you if she wants to.

Nonsense - looking at someone's fully clothed behind doesn't necessitate any apology. As for corrections, she is free to move to another treadmill that is not in front of me - the gym is filled with 'em.

Don't accept abuse, you've already apologized, but accepting a dressing-down for inappropriate behavior will not kill you.

I'm sorry, that's not inappropriate behaviour. She is free to leave. If you follow her then THAT is inappropriate behaviour. If she persists in staying directly in front of you and then complaining about being looked at then SHE is the problem, not you.

This applies in the other direction, too. A man should not be objectified or stared at either, IF he does not wish it. Culturally, IN MY OPINION, men are less likely to take offense at the attention,

That's the entire problem - what someone takes offense at. Just because someone was offended by you does not mean that you were offensive. By the same token, just because my wife feels neglected does not mean that I neglect her and just because my wife feels unloved does not mean that I do not love her.

Answer this question before you wade into this type of debate in the future: Why is a females subjective opinion more important than a males subjective opinion?

Re:As expected

[BVis]

Nonsense - looking at someone's fully clothed behind doesn't necessitate any apology

It does if the attention is unwanted and intimidating. People of both genders have a right to not be ogled.

As for corrections, she is free to move to another treadmill that is not in front of me - the gym is filled with 'em.

Anyone should be able to do what they want and be free from unwanted attention. Yes, she can move. Should she have to? No. Her choice. Making the choice to stay where she is does not mean she's agreeing to be stared at, it just means that you should fucking control yourself.

I'm sorry, that's not inappropriate behaviour. She is free to leave.

She should leave because someone is staring at her? Really? Do you not see how that's unfair? Reverse the gender roles; if a man is being stared at in an unwanted way, he should leave? She's paid her dues to the gym, she should be able to use the gym without being stared at.

If you follow her then THAT is inappropriate behaviour.

Oh, I see. The line is drawn when you get rapey. You can be a pig all you want, so long as you don't get rapey.

If she persists in staying directly in front of you and then complaining about being looked at then SHE is the problem, not you.

No, she is not the problem. She has the right to not be stared at. If you can't be an adult and keep your eyes to yourself, YOU are the problem. You can move. She shouldn't have to. Like I said above, the fact that she stays where she is does not mean she's OK with being stared at.

That's the entire problem - what someone takes offense at. Just because someone was offended by you does not mean that you were offensive.

Yes, it does. You can be offensive to someone without thinking you are doing so. Intent does not matter. If someone tells you you are being offensive, your first reaction should not be whether their offense is justified or not. You don't know how it feels to be them. Stop doing what they consider offensive, justified or not, and move on. This is an extension of realizing that there are other people in the world, and they have different experiences than you, and what they consider offensive is not necessarily what you consider offensive. There is no absolute, objective standard of what is offensive. When you are dealing with human emotions, there is no objective standard. You do not get to decide if someone's offense is justified. The polite thing to do is to stop it and STFU. It will not kill you to do so.

By the same token, just because my wife feels neglected does not mean that I neglect her and just because my wife feels unloved does not mean that I do not love her.

Boy, I'm glad I'm not married to you. Part of being married is understanding that the other person's feelings, however justified (or not), are more important than you're stating here. If she feels neglected, it doesn't matter if she actually IS neglected or not. It's a problem that you and she need to work on together. It's not something you can ignore because you don't think it's justified. If you can't handle that, don't get married.

Why is a females subjective opinion more important than a males subjective opinion?

It isn't. If you re-read my comment, and actually READ it instead of seeing what you want to see, you'll see that I put the opinions of both genders on the same footing. If someone feels uncomfortable because of the way someone else is looking at them, and they ask the looker to stop, then that person should stop. Male or female, doesn't matter.

You really need to grow up. Emotions are not something you can boil down to a logical core. Human beings do not work that way. If you think someone's being ridicul

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

But once people become invested in crusading against their pet cause, they can't stop.

That alone ought to tell you that shoving your beliefs down someone else's throat is bad idea. Discrimination (excluding that based on facts) has no place, reverse or otherwise.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

To clarify, while I don't believe that discrimination has any place, I'm also not going to take any steps to coerce anyone into conforming to my ideals. It's my opinion, but that's not a valid reason to institutionalize coercive practices.

Something about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.

Re:As expected

[AmiMoJo]

You illustrate the problem for women quite well. Businesses only value what makes them money, where as many women do things that don't create wealth for the company but are vital for society. Of course some men do to, so it's really a problem for both genders, but tends to affect women more commonly.

If a woman needs to finish work on time to go pick up the kids while the other men in the office can stay on and put in some overtime then from the business' point of view the men are more valuable. From society's point of view it needs children and would prefer them to be well brought up, so the job of collecting them from school is equally or more valuable than the overtime. Problem is the reward for doing this important job is less pay.

The way to fix it is to change the way business evaluates it employees. It is of benefit to men as well, either helping them pick up the kids and not get punished for it or helping them go home on time without feeling that they have to put in overtime to be valued. More over children need fathers too, and encouraging overtime just reduces the time and energy they get.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

It does if the attention is unwanted and intimidating. People of both genders have a right to not be ogled.

No, it doesn't give them a right to be not offended. Especially when that "right" tends to carry institutional weight, like going to prison. Grow up. You're such a sexist prick it isn't even funny.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

I am offended by your comments and you need to apologize, then proceed to move to another website. Unless you want to be a hypocrite of course.

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

A) No one has the right to not be offended. You don't have that right, I don't have that right and some random female who wants to jog directly in front of me doesn't have that right. If you think everyone has a right to be offended and must be apologised to, then please know that I am offended by your right to an opinion (hence, by your own fucked-up logic, I deserve an apology).

B) Just because someone "feels" offended, intimidated or ogled doesn't mean that they actually are offended, intimidated or ogled. Come back and argue this point when those things can be measured independently of what the subject feels. Until then all you're doing is pandering to whoever convinces you that they are the bigger "victim", and thus the system you propose will only reward professional victims disproportionately more.

C) You are free to do whatever the fuck you want to; however until I break a law you, and the person who "feels" harrassed, intimidated or whatever can go fuck yourselves. Courts and society agree with me on this one - it's a free country and you cannot prevent someone standing in a public place simply because your unmeasurable and unexplainable "feels" are being violated by their eyes.

(PS. I'm waiting for my apology)

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

You illustrate the problem for women quite well.

That's because I understand the problem very well; it's an economic/fiscal one, not a cultural one. The poster I illustrated the problem to did not understand and was/is convinced that it was the culture that lowered womens' pay and not simply cold hard business logic.

More over children need fathers too, and encouraging overtime just reduces the time and energy they get.

That would be great! However I have already been convinced by the courts, the social workers, the child psychologists and the offices of the family advocate that my son needs no more than every alternate weekend with me. They all agreed that it was in the best interest of the child despite all my protestations. So now I'm free to devote my energies to making more money, which I do. Which in turn skews the average male salary upwards.

Unfortunately people like the parent poster who complained that women earned less do not take into account that dads like myself are skewing up the males' average salaries, and we do so because society already told us that we're mostly not needed in the childs life and our worth and value as fathers is only measured by the amount of money we pay in maintenance. In fact, we have nothing else to do so may as well work more for extra money.

I figure (due to high divorce rate) that income from maintenance should be included in a woman's income when we are measuring average salaries. Then we get a better picture of who makes more in society because from where I'm sitting the average woman makes more than the average man simply due to the maintenance payments.

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

By the same token, just because my wife feels neglected does not mean that I neglect her and just because my wife feels unloved does not mean that I do not love her.

Boy, I'm glad I'm not married to you. Part of being married is understanding that the other person's feelings, however justified (or not), are more important than you're stating here. If she feels neglected, it doesn't matter if she actually IS neglected or not. It's a problem that you and she need to work on together.

Hang one, why is her point of view more legitimate than mine?

If you think their offense isn't justified, tough shit.

Well, tough for them - I don't have to do anything if someone is offended by me - they have freedom of association to go associate with someone else. Very tough shit - they get to put up with it or leave.

Re:As expected

[BVis]

A) No one has the right to not be offended. You don't have that right, I don't have that right and some random female who wants to jog directly in front of me doesn't have that right. If you think everyone has a right to be offended and must be apologised to, then please know that I am offended by your right to an opinion (hence, by your own fucked-up logic, I deserve an apology).

I'm sorry that you feel that way.

B) Just because someone "feels" offended, intimidated or ogled doesn't mean that they actually are offended, intimidated or ogled.

How can you possibly know that? You're telepathic?

Come back and argue this point when those things can be measured independently of what the subject feels.

You're missing the point entirely. That is not a possible thing to do given today's technology. If someone says they are offended, then they are.

Until then all you're doing is pandering to whoever convinces you that they are the bigger "victim", and thus the system you propose will only reward professional victims disproportionately more.

Being polite and conscious of the feelings of others is not the same as encouraging victimhood. You are free to say and act any way you like; similarly, others are free to call you out for it.

C) You are free to do whatever the fuck you want to; however until I break a law you, and the person who "feels" harrassed, intimidated or whatever can go fuck yourselves. Courts and society agree with me on this one - it's a free country and you cannot prevent someone standing in a public place simply because your unmeasurable and unexplainable "feels" are being violated by their eyes.

Like I said above, you are free to spout whatever nonsense you wish anyplace you wish. As are others. Others may choose to call you an asshole for what you've done. That is their right.

It's really kind of telling how you want the right to say whatever you want, no matter how offensive others may find it, but when others criticize you for your speech, you suddenly are the victim yourself. You want to be able to do whatever you want free of criticism (or, dare I say it, harassment). What makes you so special? Why does there need to be a law describing what is and isn't harassment? Can't you, you know, stop being an asshole? Or, don't, and learn to deal with the consequences of your actions?

(PS. I'm waiting for my apology)

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Re:As expected

[BVis]

Hang one, why is her point of view more legitimate than mine?

The problem is that you're trying to decide who's right. Who is right is not important when you're talking about a long-term relationship. If you go through every interaction with your wife based on what YOU think is right or not, you're going to have a bad time. People (men AND women) are irrational, illogical, emotional beings who can't be corraled into binary logic.

Well, tough for them - I don't have to do anything if someone is offended by me - they have freedom of association to go associate with someone else. Very tough shit - they get to put up with it or leave.

No, you don't have to do anything. You are free to be as big an asshole as you want. Just don't be surprised when you get called out on it. They are free to 1) not leave and 2) call you a self-centered, rude, obnoxious, offensive asshole. If you're OK with that, well, go on with your bad self. Just don't claim victimhood when they do.

Re:As expected

[AmiMoJo]

Regardless of how broken your society is with regards to understanding a child's need to see its father, you missed the point. Being a parent is a valuable "profession", it provides a valuable service to society, and yet isn't factored in when considering an individual's pay.

Essentially, parents are expected to provide high quality labour for less than free, because not only is it unpaid but it also reduces their earnings from work. The result is that people either don't have children (see Japan for why that is bad), or put work first and are bad parents, or just lose out financially and are less able to provide for their children. Of course, becoming a parent is a choice and a labour of love to some degree, but the current situation is unarguably bad for all involved.

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

No, you don't have to do anything. You are free to be as big an asshole as you want. Just don't be surprised when you get called out on it. They are free to 1) not leave and 2) call you a self-centered, rude, obnoxious, offensive asshole. If you're OK with that, well, go on with your bad self. Just don't claim victimhood when they do.

I never claimed victimhood, I never claimed that my "feels" were infringed or that my rights were violated. You claimed that if someone else feels like a victim I should apologise. I claimed that until I break a law there's nothing you can do and thus there is nothing for me to apologise about

And, to be fair, the only obnoxious assholes in real life (the ones that get called that to their face, that is) are those like you, who believe that everyone else should pander to what is their idea of right and wrong, and not what society already decided upon in legislation. None of the large number of women I deal with daily have ever needed me to apologise for the way they feel. None of the literally hundreds of people I deal with face-to-face have ever called me anything but professional.

Face it, if it really is wrong of me to stare at some ladies behind, there'd be a law about it. Luckily for both of us, no court convicts based upon how a person felt, only facts are taken into evidence not feelings.

I'm afraid I'm going to side with western law and modern civilisation on this particular point - consensus being that your feelings are your problem, not mine. Until I break the law, they remain your problem.

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

Come back and argue this point when those things can be measured independently of what the subject feels.

You're missing the point entirely. That is not a possible thing to do given today's technology.

Well if you cannot measure that something exists why the hell are you asking me to apologise for its existence?

If someone says they are offended, then they are.

I've already said that I'm offended by you having the freedom to express an opinion - by your logic you must now apologise for exposing me to your opinion and run away and express your opinion elsewhere. I mean, that's exactly what you said must be done if you've offended someone, right?

The problem, which you are obstinately refusing to see, is that asking people to accept that they did wrong when they did no wrong is, in a cute act of recursion, wrong in and of itself, hence if you followed your own rules you run in circles forever. Just because *your* morals say that it is wrong doesn't mean that the person you are talking to shares your morals and also views it as wrong. The only arbiter is the law.

Re:As expected

[BVis]

I'm afraid I'm going to side with western law and modern civilisation on this particular point - consensus being that your feelings are your problem, not mine.

And I think that's what you need to work on. If you can't be concerned with the feelings of others, well, you're part of the problem.

Re:As expected

[BVis]

I've already said that I'm offended by you having the freedom to express an opinion - by your logic you must now apologise for exposing me to your opinion and run away and express your opinion elsewhere. I mean, that's exactly what you said must be done if you've offended someone, right?

No, what I said was quietly apologize and then be quiet. Arguing over who has a right to be offended, like we're doing right now, is a waste. I think your reliance on the law to be the end-all and be-all of acceptable behavior has some pretty disturbing possibilities, as well as being massively impractical.

Re:As expected

[goose-incarnated]

Regardless of how broken your society is with regards to understanding a child's need to see its father, you missed the point. Being a parent is a valuable "profession", it provides a valuable service to society, and yet isn't factored in when considering an individual's pay.

I agree both that parenting is a valuable profession and a valuable service, however society (yours and mine) doesn't currently have a high correlation between valuable services and high pay. Why are you expecting that society in general would make an exception for this valuable service/profession?

Essentially, parents are expected to provide high quality labour for less than free, because not only is it unpaid

Maybe in the past, but courts have decided that even in the even of a pre-nup a woman who gave up a career to stay at home will still get paid. Legal precedence trumps everything else, and there's more than enough legal precedence showing that a woman will get paid in the event of divorce IF she gave up a career.

More interestingly, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why (or not, as the case may be) maintenance payments aren't taken into account when averaging women's earnings. Surely, due to it being income, it should be counted as income? And if it is, then the average women is actually earning more income than the average man.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

I still feel offended by you, and your presence is making me afraid for my well being. Please apologize and leave slashdot.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Respect and personal boundaries, along with etiquette are important, however I reject the notion that my natural drives that occur around a female I find attractive is something I should make apologies or feel ashamed of.

In the gym anecdote, the woman has no expectation of not being observed. If this bothers her she should toughen up some, deal with it or work out at home where she does have privacy.

You would have a very hard time convincing me that there isn't another option, that the woman loves being looked at (omitting drooling mouth breathers invading her personal space or as you put it, getting "rapey") and as you may or may not know, women tend to give guys shit as part of the mating dance, including but not necessarily limited to comments like "What are you looking at there?" She may or may not have a sense of humor, and may or may not be offended by my response, usually something like "I am looking at your breasts". She asks a question, gets an honest answer.

Yes emotions are not logical, but logic can explain emotional responses. Ask any older person with Aspergers, they will tell you in detail.

I know this is /. and there are a lot of geeks that have less than a clue about women or social behavior or mating and gender issues. Just working to be a ray of light in the dark. You have to agree, all things being equal that if a woman fixes herself up, she wants to be admired, and barring the guy being creepy, rude, inappropriate or "rapey" No guy should ever think that looking at an attractive woman is "wrong" morally or socially or something he should be ashamed of ever, and I am not interested in arguing about that last point, because that is a personal prerogative not something someone can decide for another person.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretending that you have no idea what an SJW is and completely pretending you aren't white knighting for nonexistent vajajay isn't fooling anyone here, O'Neill.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why do you white knight for change? The women already had it made staying at home and taking care of these essential resources but that wasn't good enough for them so they had to get "real" jobs. You ask them to work but oh they can't because little Timmy. Well, look, if you loved little Timmay as much as you say you do, then stay the fuck at home and take care of him. The only reason humans exist is to make more humans. That is the ultimate job, but as usual, for females, it just isn't good enough.

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is something that corroborates Goose's idea that the only people who tend to be called assholes in real life act much like you do. You just HAVE to have the last word/post in a thread. You already said all of this is a waste, you did your apologizing, so take your own advice and go on. Your OCD will not, however, let you ignore this post so you'll have to type something. Even if it's a "fuck off"

Re:As expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Saw this story, knew the comments would provide ammo for the SJWs. Way to go, morons.

What do Single Jewish Women have to do with anything?

Apparently, with no husband or children to care for, they get seduced into becoming Social Justice Warriors.

OxyContin!?

[Anonymous Coward]

OxyContin regulates sociosexual behavior in Rush Limbaugh. What?

Re:OxyContin!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Asociosexual behaviour.

Re:OxyContin!?

[Opportunist]

I kinda knew it had to be something like that. I mean, let's be honest, someone spewing vitriol like that usually just needs a good blowjob.

Re:OxyContin!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I kinda knew it had to be something like that. I mean, let's be honest, someone spewing vitriol like that usually just needs a good blowjob.

Try listening to the show, and not to commends made by people who don't listen to the show.

Oxytocin levels too high?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage is the perfect way to cure that.

Help for women with no sex drive?

[Gaygirlie]

There are a lot of women out there who have very low or no sex drive and nothing seems to work, so I can't help but wonder if oxytocin would be useful in this area. Especially in a relationship the woman wouldn't be the only one reaping the rewards as the partner would likely also be quite happy with increased sexual activity around the house.

Disclaimer: I admit to being totally ignorant of what oxytocin really is or what it does and I have no idea if it would work the same in humans.

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[anethema]

There are several -Genuine- treatments (read: Aphrodisiacs) in trials right now.

The main promising one right now is PT-141 (Bremelanotide)

The main downside is it must be injected which will skeeve a lot of women out. It does work on men AND women though.

From their site: " In a recently completed Phase 2B clinical trial, bremelanotide 1.25 mg and 1.75 mg doses significantly increased sexual arousal, sexual desire and the number of sexually satisfying events, and decreased associated distress in premenopausal women with FSD. Efficacy was seen in both women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) and combined HSDD/female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD)."

Since it is currently just in trails and unscheduled, you can order it right now from research peptide sites.

Let's say a friend's wife has tried it, and she was as horny as a 18 year old boy for about 2-3 days. It is genuine arousal, not some blood flow modifier etc like Viagra.

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice tattoos. (Wait, was I supposed to harass you somewhere else? Or is here okay?)

It's an interesting idea, but we'll need human trials to get a real sense of if it translates into humans.

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[StripedCow]

Wikipedia states it (Bremelanotide) was found as a side-effect of a tanning agent.

I genuinely wonder... is this how research works in neurology? Do we even have a basic understanding that could help us design such drugs, or are we just dependent on whatever side-effects come out of drugs from other fields?

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[devent]

Your comment is funny, because the very article for this thread is about neurological research.

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary doesn't state _how_ oxytocin was found.

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe they call it the "Barbie drug", allegedly it not only makes women horny, they also lose weight, get tan and makes eye lashes grow longer

How's that for a miracle drug

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[HeckRuler]

No, that's how discovery works. People are mucking about doing something and notice something else happening. "Hmm, that's interesting". The science part is often narrowing down a) What's happening, b) what's causing it, c) how to get it to happen by itself.

A lot of people seem to think that there's a science shovel, and if you pay a scientist enough money to dig long enough, that eventually they'll hit pay dirt and have a geyser of science flowing out. (That's why they wear labcoats and goggles, obviously)

And honestly, who cares what lead to it's discovery?

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[Rich0]

Wikipedia states it (Bremelanotide) was found as a side-effect of a tanning agent.

I genuinely wonder... is this how research works in neurology? Do we even have a basic understanding that could help us design such drugs, or are we just dependent on whatever side-effects come out of drugs from other fields?

Well, if you want another data point viagra was originally being developed for blood pressure I believe, and they found a side-effect. I believe propecia is in the same boat as well.

Happens all the time, not that this is necessarily the norm.

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[anethema]

Actually the "Barbie drug" is Melanotan II. I believe it was the peptide that PT-141 was derived from. PT-141 has no tanning or weight loss, just hornyness.

Re:Help for women with no sex drive?

[bhiestand]

And honestly, who cares what lead to it's discovery?

Me me me me me me me!!!! And anyone else who is interested in making more discoveries.

No, that's how discovery works. People are mucking about doing something and notice something else happening. "Hmm, that's interesting". The science part is often narrowing down a) What's happening, b) what's causing it, c) how to get it to happen by itself.

True, but I think the point is that it could work differently. If we had a more thorough understanding of neurology, we could pinpoint the precise electro-chemical reactions that need to take place. Then we could follow these pathways and determine precisely what was preventing them. Then we would search for the type of chemical/drug/gene that would have the desired effect, AND we would have a pretty damned good idea what other side effects that treatment should have (or how to prevent them).

I'm not saying biology is there yet. Just that I hope to see that in my lifetime.

How many?

[Anonymous Coward]

So there's more than one neuron? There's now two? Wow, well fuck me! I had no idea my chances were better than I expected.

Now available

[PPH]

New Axe body spray with oxytoxin.

Polar Direction

[gimmeataco]

Personally, I'm kinda curious if this could lead to pest control solutions by reducing breeding.

Re:Polar Direction

[Anonymous Coward]

The law of unintended consequences is strong. Tread carefully.

Re:Polar Direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Imagine mice dry humping all your walls, eventually it'll be worse than termites. - naug

Downside

[dbIII]

A body spray is not going to work unless they get some of your skin in their mouth. By then you don't need it :)

Re:Downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. I sometimes use body spray so I don't smell like I've just been stuffing my penis in another man's poopchute. It can get a little stinky sometimes, with all the poopies and stuff. But you wouldn't understand. Breeders would never understand the love a man can have for a boy. Age doesn't matter if you are in love. I'm 36 years old, and I've had sex with boys aged 5 to 73. I am not ashamed of this. I am also not a pedophile, as any psychologist can tell you, because I am gay. I also do not suffer from any mental diseases. :) I love the DSM.

Re:Downside

[Y.A.A.P.]

Actually, Oxytocin is destroyed in the gastrointestinal tract in humans. It's normally administered via intravenous injection or nasal spray. So, body spray could actually be useful for getting it to work on people.

However, it doesn't have the same effect in humans as it apparently does in mice.

In humans, Oxytocin creates and/or promotes social bonding. It does not create a sexual response in humans, but levels of it become heightened during and after sexual activities.

So, people can drop the immature sex jokes (or waste their time and keep posting them) as using it on the opposite gender won't automatically cause them to want to have sex.

OTOH, it could be used to make people like each other. World Peace drug, anyone?

Re:Downside

[TuxWithoutPants]

immature sex jokes make the world go round

Re:Downside

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot, give me that stuff, I'm heading to the bar.

Re:Downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Biggest point would be Humans are sexually active almost continously, not at certain times of the year. It makes sense for a hormone to work differently in species with very different reproductive behaviours.

Re: Downside

[Anonymous Coward]

It also causes protective impulses in women and aggression towards perceived threats to the pair bond. Maybe not so much world peace.

Re:Downside

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, people can drop the immature sex jokes (or waste their time and keep posting them) as using it on the opposite gender won't automatically cause them to want to have sex."

Hint: boring killjoys moaning about harmless fun aren't that popular with the ladies either.

Re:Downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Would a box of lego work better for humans than it does for mice then?

Re:Downside

[cascadingstylesheet]

Actually, Oxytocin is destroyed in the gastrointestinal tract in humans. It's normally administered via intravenous injection or nasal spray.

It is actually available in a pill form now, but you have to get it specially compounded. I'm only aware of one pharmacy in the US that does it (though there may be more by now).

Re:Downside

[Anonymous Coward]

So for some reason you have a mental database of pharmacies in the US? Ok.

Re:Downside

[Rich0]

Actually, Oxytocin is destroyed in the gastrointestinal tract in humans. It's normally administered via intravenous injection or nasal spray.

It is actually available in a pill form now, but you have to get it specially compounded. I'm only aware of one pharmacy in the US that does it (though there may be more by now).

Is there any bioequivalence or clinical data that suggests that it actually works? Or did some compounding pharmacy just throw it into a pill and start selling it?

Compounding pharmacies are both useful and necessary. However, of late some have earned a reputation for just being end-runs around regulations designed to ensure that the drugs we buy are both safe and effective. The fact that they can throw some stuff in a pill doesn't mean that it works.

Normally if you want to reformulate something into a new form you need to do a bio-equivalence study. That means giving somebody either the accepted or new versions of the drug and measuring the concentration of the drug over time in their blood, to demonstrate that it is absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted in a manner similar to the original. If that is the case, then it is very likely that the new form is just as safe and effective as the original. It isn't THAT expensive to do these kinds of studies (compared to full-blown clinical trials), but you know how cost-cutting goes. That compounding pharmacy in New England couldn't be bothered to clean the mold off the ceiling.

Re:Downside

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just gonna say what everyone else here hasn't had the compassion to tell you: It isn't working, you're not fooling anyone. If you want the stench to go away, you'll need to take a real shower with some real soap.

Re:Downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he does. He's a cascadingstylesheet!

If you dare...

[Sasayaki]

Browsing at -1 in this thread is fucking terrifying.

Re:If you dare...

[weilawei]

You must be new here. This is an average day on Slashdot. Possibly even more civil than usual. You ought to try browsing at -1 all the time.

Re:If you dare...

[Anonymous Coward]

shoulda been here ~10 years ago

Re:If you dare...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the anger and hate, it's interesting to note as an aside that traditional gender roles are on the rise. And I mean that bilaterally.

Men are increasingly distrustful and dismissive of women -- adopting a superior tone in a fashion that seems almost historic.

Women in many cases are outright dismissing feminism and embracing traditionally female roles.

I see this literally everywhere *except* New York and a couple of other cities.

It's an interesting social dynamic. And along with it comes a parallel rise in vindictive hate speech like you see here. But it's important to note that there is a widespread rejection of feminism out there. Some radical and hate fueled, some more level headed. But feminism is headed for the dustbin of history either way.

I predict a generation of women that get pregnant at the age of 20 and outrage aging feminists.

Re:If you dare...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all gnaa, nambla, goatse, ooh unless it's a hosts file, then it's apk. I love apk, the rest are usually militant Homophobes, vast right wing libertcrian closet queries with a penchant for horrifically graphic homoerktic fecal fan fiction along the lines of propaganda copy. "You wouldn't try anal sex would you? Wouldn't want to wind up like that nice ghostse boy, why I bet he can't even stand up in the McDonald's lobby without making a spectacle of himself." - these aren't hand gestures under the bathroom stall closet cases these are swirling-our-bare-toenairs-in-unfounded-public-restroom-bowls fudge squishd for the toesies pure head case closet queries.

Then there's the scriptospiracy nuts, these are the script kiddies that patched together the existence of the bad wolf, they sound crazy till you start checking their references and you realize the government has completely cooked there fucking brains because they knew too goddamned much and thought "anonymous cowarda" was enough of a cover to start leaking state secrets like a Russian power plant leaks radiation.

Some of us are all that and still learning English as a second language.

Others are posting from federally run maximum security state of the art experimental psychiatric facilities for the criminally insane and chemically resilient. There's the snitches that didn't want the stitches who became state's psychiatric bitches. The guinea pigs and then the off balance bigs, volunteered for clinical trialsi and guys on the juice that can't come down.
A lot of these guys will tell you tin foil hat will work but most of us know that'll only make you feel better due to the placebi effect.

And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddla their thumbs and toes.......

Re:If you dare...

[Sasayaki]

I can't say I disagree, and I have a few opinions about that (some of which are fairly popular and well received, others not so much). Recently I've been trying to understand more about Feminism and it's been a fairly rough learning process which has probably cost me some friends, but I'm still pushing on with it. I see a lot of good there, but I'm also seeing a lot of bad, too.

I think the main problem is... there is no Pope of Feminism, so anyone can adopt that label and claim to represent it. This makes it hard to judge the intentions of that person because while most Feminists are genuinely committed to reaching true equality, some are not, and those happen to be the loudest, most confrontational, most aggressive ones who also tend to be the ones most vocally claiming to represent Feminism.

And some of those people are remarkably bigoted.

As a movement, in general Feminism makes some really excellent points, some of which have caused me to rethink a fair few important parts of my life and my own behaviour -- and that's good. Some self-reflection and introspection is an important part of living a healthy life and I really recommend it for everyone.

The problem is, it just seems like no matter how much we agree, whenever I speak to anyone who describes themselves as a "radical feminist" (the self-described part is important) it inevitably becomes a negative experience for me. This is surprising for me because of how much we agree on.

For example, I acknowledge there is a power imbalance between women and men, favouring men. It's hard for me because, as a man, I can't control how other people act, only myself. So I do my part and treat women equal to men. I have a female gym trainer, female IT head, female editors for my books and I have both female superiors and subordinates in almost all aspects of my life, as well as a large number of female friends. I treat them as I would men in their respective positions -- as cool people to hang out with, as people to follow my instructions or give me instructions respectively, or people who fix the errors in my books. Women are worthy of praise and criticism equally, and when I develop a negative opinion of someone, it's because they're incompetent, or rude, or any other attribute that's not related to their gender.

That just doesn't seem enough for the self-described "radical feminists" I meet. Whenever gender issues come up, we can usually have a great discussion -- up to the point I bring up anything that might be described as favouring men over women, even when women aren't the "cause" of it (such as the male suicide rate being twice that of women, and the suicide rate amongst trans* people twice that again). When this happens, even raising the point immediately puts them on the defensive. Suddenly I'm trying to deny that there's problems for women. Suddenly I'm the 'straight white cis guy with an opinion'; which seems to be the enemy. There's an expectation of bad faith there that means that anything I say that's not overtly stating that women are an oppressed slave-like underclass with no rights is seen as a misogynistic attack.

Ultimately, this kind of behaviour undermines the often good, legitimate points that feminism makes, making it easy to dismiss the whole movement. For feminists (male and female) who don't self-apply the "radical" term, I can almost always have a good, positive, helpful discussion with them about a broad range of issues and I usually come out feeling that there's a genuine move towards acknowledging that life is sometimes shitty for a lot of people irrespective of gender, colour or creed and that we should all work towards fixing the inequalities in our society together, as a species, and that makes me really happy.

Discussions with self-described radical feminists, though, usually end with me getting angry that my (smaller, less critical problems) are dismissed quite casually, and then as the anger fades, unable to shake the nagging feeling that the "quest for equality" is a sham and that instead

Re:If you dare...

[weilawei]

Most accurate description I've seen of Slashdot's seedier side in a while.

Re:If you dare...

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's a common reaction to hearing viewpoints with which you disagree. Where's the "Science, bitches!" crowd now? Remember, science is always right and if it tells us we need to radically restructure our society and change cherished modes of thinking, then that's just what has to happen and anyone who disagrees is a denialist.

Re:If you dare...

[AmiMoJo]

If you really want to help then the first thing to do is stop focusing on the "radical feminists". Talk about the issues, not the individuals you disagree with.

I'd also say it's worth looking at men's liberation too. Most guys are horribly repressed, obsessed with living up to the ideal of the "real man" rather than being happy with themselves. Women got past that in the 60s when they rejected the 1950s housewife ideal.

Re:If you dare...

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a women's studies class in college. It was a survey course (a "101" type course). For the record, I'm a man.

It was horrifying.

The amount of outright anti-male propaganda flying around was bone-chilling. Those women really were crazy.

In their minds, all men are dangerous. All sex is rape. The entire world is structured to repress females (despite them having absurd advantages in our society). And every single accomplishment or positive facet of "maleness" is discounted as being an unfair achievement earned through female exploitation.

It was nothing short of cult like. If you disagreed, you were shouted at and intellectually dismissed. There was no discussion. There was only conformity.

And from what I understand, it's like that at just about every campus in the USA.

That's my take on feminism.

Re:If you dare...

[jez9999]

For example, I acknowledge there is a power imbalance between women and men, favouring men.

That smells like a crock of shit to me. Please list examples in Western societies today where there is a power imbalance between the genders. Including ones where women are given preferential treatment.

Re:If you dare...

[swb]

There's an expectation of bad faith there that means that anything I say that's not overtly stating that women are an oppressed slave-like underclass with no rights is seen as a misogynistic attack.

You're not acknowledging their victim status. They want to claim victim status because it exempts them from responsibility for their status.

There are a lot of thoughtful women who have claimed to be feminists and even some who would claim the title radical feminists, but in my experience those that hold tightest to radical ideology often are the least personally secure. By embracing a victim mindset they are able to find excuses and people to blame for their status in life.

You seldom find successful women who claim to be feminists, let alone radical feminists. They make take extra offense at boorish behavior by men which seems fair, I think a lot of men aren't aware of how boorish they can be, but the victim ideology doesn't resonate with them because they don't feel like victims.

I'd like to see Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Sheryl Sandberg or Marissa Mayer engage with a radical feminist. You may disagree with these womens' ultimate success or skill as corporate leaders (ie, Carly killed HP, or other memes) but I doubt any of them would cast their failures as the result of gender bias.

Re:If you dare...

[drinkypoo]

That smells like a crock of shit to me.

That's just the smell of De River Denial.

Please list examples in Western societies today where there is a power imbalance between the genders.

Politics.

Including ones where women are given preferential treatment.

The only ones of which I am aware are Maternity leave (more common that Paternity leave) and alimony.

Re:If you dare...

[jez9999]

Politics.

Women can vote too. Apparently they're voting for men. Or maybe not as many women are willing to put in the time and effort to be high-ranking politicians. Either way I don't see any "power imbalance". Women have equal opportunity.

The only ones of which I am aware are Maternity leave (more common that Paternity leave) and alimony.

Yeah quite. Rather unfair to men, isn't it? Especially alimony, which as I understand it in the US is basically a free monthly payment to a woman when she decides she wants to end the marriage.

Re:If you dare...

[drinkypoo]

Women can vote too. Apparently they're voting for men. Or maybe not as many women are willing to put in the time and effort to be high-ranking politicians.

Are you really this ignorant of how politics works? Do I really have to explain the influence of the media, and corporate money? This stuff isn't new.

Re:If you dare...

[narcc]

I can't argue with people like you. You're beyond reason.

Let's try something different: On the issues at hand, where do you think society will ultimately end up? On which side of history do you want to find yourself?

I suspect that you won't want tell your grandchildren that you bravely denied the problem and fought against gender equality.

Re:If you dare...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Are we talking Western politics, or American politics? They're vastly different things.

Re:If you dare...

[drinkypoo]

Are we talking Western politics, or American politics? They're vastly different things.

The direction the money comes from changes, but nothing else differs.

Re:If you dare...

[Sasayaki]

Please list examples in Western societies today where there is a power imbalance between the genders. Including ones where women are given preferential treatment.

Well, there are a few places. For example: I write in speculative fiction, especially sci-fi, and it's hard for female sci-fi authors to be taken seriously in that field. The reverse is true in other fields (I write paranormal romance under a female pen-name, because nobody will buy romance written by a man), but that is one example of where men and women are given preferential treatment based on their gender, where I've observed the difference first hand and been affected by it. In this case, based on potential revenue, it's probably better to be a best selling romance author than a sci-fi author, but romance is a heavily crowded market and it's hard to stand out whereas sci-fi is a lot more niche-y.

There's a fair number of other instances, too. For example: women in the military must face challenges that men in the military just don't have to worry about to the same extent. That's not to say that male servicemen aren't sexually assaulted, both by their own side, by allies, and by opposing forces, but it happens to a lesser degree. Female soldiers, sailors and airmen are much more likely to experience violence, sexual violence, and harassment simply because of who they are. However, that said, reporting structures for male victims tend to be a lot thinner on the ground, there's a social stigma against male victims that isn't present for female victims, and because it happens more rarely is less likely to be taken as truthful. Again, it's not a situation where it's always 100% bad to be a woman, but as an overall trend, it's less advantageous.

The role of women and men in our society is a complex, nuanced one where we can't just simply boil things down to a soundbite, where there's no consistent narrative and the only thing that is known for certain is that "problems exist".

Re:If you dare...

[Sasayaki]

It wasn't about hearing something I disagreed with at all, just turn on -1 and see.

Just see.

Re:If you dare...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Except that Europe has a long and active trend of elected female leaders.

Re:If you dare...

[SuiteSisterMary]

South America too, for that matter.

Oestrous?

[ShaunC]

OK Brits, any other vowels you feel like tossing in there?!

Re:Oestrous?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK Brits, any other vowels you feel like tossing in there?!

It's actually a pronunciation guide for Australians, who feel the need to use every vowel all the time.

For reference, 'NO' in Australian is actually pronounced 'NEAAOOOOUHH'.

Re:Oestrous?

[Zynder]

I've heard Apple UK is putting out the iOestrous next month....

I disagree with the reseachers

[Anonymous Coward]

The system in the brain and nervous system in fact are not tied or regulated by individual neuro-chemicals at all. The behavior and CNS processes might make use of some form of the oxytocin pathways, but by no means does that mean psycho-sexual behavior is regulated or controlled by those neuro-pathways or neuro-chemicals.

The reason is you can actually damage any part of an animals brain. You can knock out feelings, behaviors, nerve impulses, pain, emotions, thoughts, because it causes damage. When you disrupt the oxytocin pathways, it does not mean anything but the fact that the part deadened there was impacted heavily by that particular route in the brain.

A trick about the brain is many other behaviors and cognitive functions were also probably impacted but the researchers made absolutely no attempt to try to trace or reverse engineer that there. And in fact, without studying the brain as an entire universe of complex magnetic, electromagnetic, electro-chemical building and signaling processes, our researchers are not truly observing what is going on or how brain function is altered.

We have the same problem in the mental health drug field; We claim depression or psychosis is tied to this chemical or that, but we have no evidence of it and the drugs were found to be more or less general nerve inhibitors and nerve pathway disruptors for their method of action. We found that you can knock out any pathway by blocking connections and receptor site activation, or by otherwise dysregulating the neuro-chemical pathway, and achieve all sorts of tranquilizing effects that damage behavior and function out of a someone, resulting in new personality, new behavior, and extreme brain damage, because the person is only operating with part of their brain in tact.

I have a belief that the brain is far more complex than running one system all on a certain pathway and that these researchers haven't uncovered shit.

http://www.obamasweapon.com/

Re:I disagree with the reseachers

[Zontar The Mindless]

Where's that -1, Nutjob mod when you need it?

Re:I disagree with the reseachers

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't allowed to mod your own posts!

Re:I disagree with the reseachers

[Zontar The Mindless]

Hi there, AlecStaar!

Need this for the male nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, we need to consider giving oxytocin injections to the male nerds among us since they always find the Lego block more attractive than a potential female mate.

(Somebody call up Pfizer and see if it comes in 55 gal. drums.)

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

High concentrations of oxytocin found in larger than average sums of money.

OK it works on mice, but what about humans

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I tip an arrow to shoot at a woman with this stuff?

captcha: antics

And in other science news...

[hyades1]

Biologists have now discovered the most powerful oxytocin suppressant on Earth.

It is known as "Wedding Cake".

Re:And in other science news...

[Livius]

Which is why there no-one ever gets engaged after being a guest at a wedding.

Re:And in other science news...

[hyades1]

We may have to think this through. Who, after the traditional wedding feast and midnight nibblies, is hungry enough to rip open the nice little box and scarf down their piece of wedding cake?

A cynic might suspect that people inclined to such behaviour might be...how can i put this gracefully..."girthful". Excessive "girthfulness", of course, introduces another factor into the social mix: the so-called "Beer Goggles Effect". I think you'll agree that under such circumstances, rational analysis becomes difficult.

MOM, billys being bad!

[Anonymous Coward]

Punish him!

Lego

[Thanshin]

Without [oxytocin], female mice were no more attracted to a mate than to a block of Lego.

And... How attracted are female mice to blocks of Lego?

This is why I only fuck other men.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just upset about Beta.

Mice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the mice. I'm pretty sure Oxytocin Regulates Sociosexual Behavior In Female Humans.

Correlation/causation? I don't really give a shit. Getting my dick wet is just a proxy for acknowledgement that I'm a desirable person to have in their lives. It took me a long time to realize I cared more about someone wanting to give me a BJ than I actually cared about getting a BJ. Maybe that's because the majority of physical contact I was exposed to during child hood was physical abuse? Don't worry about it: when Ebola is done feasting on our internal organs, we can resume the human exponential growth party. If it kills 1 out of 2 people it'll only take us ~20 years to get back to complaining about oil prices. In the meantime: I'm gonna go paint watercolor pictures of sunsets and write love sonnets to Florence Nightingale*. My therapist tells me that artistic expression stimulates Oxytocin release(which I've heard brings all the sluts to the yard).

*If you thought she was a good nurse, you should see her actuarial work on viral pandemics. That girl knows how to get NASTY!

This is news?

[Ihlosi]

"Well-known social/sexual hormone regulates social/sexual behavior."

Err ... okay. I'm sure you can do a lot of research into the finer points of oxytocin action, but that it is an immensely important hormone affecting all kinds of social behavior has been known for quite a while ...

Oxytocin

[Dollyknot]

In terms of mammals, is a fascinating neurotransmitter, because it's effect is different for males and females, get a room full of females and spray oxytocin in the air and all the females start being nicer to each other. Get a room full of males and do the same thing and the effect is different, all the males start being more competetive, here is the astonishing thing, it make the males more monogamous. When a female breast feeds the nerves in her nipples send signals to her limbic system, which starts producing oxytocin which alters her behaviour.

Re:Pest Control

[storkus]

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it: there are many that consider us humans to be pests, and would like nothing more than for us to stop breeding to reduce the population down to a tenth or less what it is now.

Then again, if oxytocin in humans (and other primates, I assume) results in bonding rather than sex and (more distant assuming) peace, then what do you suppose is happening right now where people will kill you over any slight and trolls rule the online world? Perhaps, the conspiracy theorist would say, there's an anti-oxytocin running around in the world right now, either uncontrollably (like the estrogen-analogs) or deliberately. Something to think about...

Aspergers / Autism

[garlicbready]

One of the things I've read about is that individuals with Aspergers may have different than normal levels of oxytocin

http://www.autism.org.uk/livin...

New vocabulary!!

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

Don't say "my wife ignores me as if I were a block of Lego"
but say "her oxytocin levels are getting low again"

Oxytocoin?

[Anonymous Coward]

I misread this as "Oxytocoin". Man, ANOTHER new cryptocurrency to fit some particular specialised application that only a handful of people actually have a use for? How many of them do we need?!

What else produces oxytocin

[Anonymous Coward]

lactation and nipple stimulation. though rubbing her nipples will land you in jail if she's not into you yet...and if she's breast feeding. well, EWWWW!

Re:Pest Control

[asylumx]

there are many that consider us humans to be pests

Many what? Other humans? Aliens? This doesn't make any sense.

News?

[glrotate]

Haven't we known this since the '70s?

Firefly reference

[Jhon]

Wasn't this the basic plot of Serenity? They tried to make some type of "peace" drug and ended turning the population that didn't outright die in to "Reavers"?

Re:Firefly reference

[RyoShin]

Yup. http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/...

[T]he Alliance tried to chemically modify its populace to be peaceful. This worked perfectly; it eliminated violence, but in the process it had a fatal side effect. The inhabitants lost all ambition ;they stopped doing any work, stopped talking to each other, stopped reproducing and eventually stopped even feeding. For 0.1% of the population it had the opposite effect and caused extremely violent behavior, beyond mere psychosis but animalism. The "survivors" of Miranda were the Reavers who started to menace the Rim planets.

Glaxo-Smith-Kline

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt GSK will throw several Million $ and 10k workers into getting their next date-rape drug to market before the Christmas rush.

Ha ha

Re:Pest Control

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you that the wasps and hornets I kill when working on a job site consider humans to be a pest, despite them making their nest in the nice convenient wooden structure that was clearly built for them.

captcha: gassings

Oxytocin

[Dollyknot]

I have a hypothesis, that if it can be proven is dynamite. When a female mammal breast feeds her young, the nerves in her nipples send signals to her limbic system, this then starts excreting oxytocin into her cerebral fluid and changes the way she feels.

My hypothesis is, the human foreskin contains around 20,000 nerve endings and they connect to the brain, in rougly the same area, as the nerves from the female nipples and like the nipples, make the male limbic system excrete oxytocin, this changes the male collective psyche, when done as a cultural practice.

The amazing thing about oxytocin is, it makes males behave more monogamously.

I've read somewhere or other, that before the diaspora, it was concidered, if you were Jewish to have more than one wife was ok. We all ready know that in islam, polygamy is considered ok.

So if the circumcised male has less oxytocin in his cerebral fluid, we have a major cause for behaviour in societies, where the majority of males are circumcised.

I have studied this subject for a good few years now, and have collected a lot of materials which you can study here http://dollyknot.com/circ.html

Lego-what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they fucking misspelled "Legos"....

Re:Pest Control

[Anonymous Coward]

The don't think anything because they don't "think"

It nerd! It's a plain!

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's SJW Paladin White Knighter Amimojo. He wasn't even talking to you, yet you have to swoop in to defend radical vagina in all of its forms. pathetic.....

You read in some assumptions, I'm afraid.

[Dr. Manhattan]

I didn't propose that males would necessarily be irrational in the same way as you think females are. It could easily manifest in different ways or even diferent domains. But even in the same domain... what of the many men who damage their family relationships and careers because they manifest a lack of Johnson control?