Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oxytocin Regulates Sociosexual Behavior In Female Mice

Posted by timothy on from the take-two-of-these-and-I'll-make-breakfast-in-the-morning dept.

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.

127 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Re: This is why I only fuck other men. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  2. Oxy-what? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, did somebody mention LEGO?!

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:Oxy-what? by hawk · · Score: 1

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

      hawk

  3. As expected by russotto · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    1. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    2. Re:As expected by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    3. Re:As expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:As expected by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      "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.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    6. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re:As expected by Livius · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:As expected by russotto · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:As expected by BVis · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    10. Re:As expected by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    11. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    12. Re:As expected by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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)

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    14. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    15. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    16. Re:As expected by BVis · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    17. Re:As expected by BVis · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    18. Re:As expected by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    20. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    21. Re:As expected by BVis · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    22. Re:As expected by BVis · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    23. Re:As expected by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  4. Help for women with no sex drive? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Help for women with no sex drive? by anethema · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    2. Re:Help for women with no sex drive? by StripedCow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    3. Re:Help for women with no sex drive? by devent · · Score: 1

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

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    4. Re:Help for women with no sex drive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The summary doesn't state _how_ oxytocin was found.

    5. Re:Help for women with no sex drive? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      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?

    6. Re:Help for women with no sex drive? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Help for women with no sex drive? by anethema · · Score: 2

      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.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    8. Re:Help for women with no sex drive? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  5. Now available by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    New Axe body spray with oxytoxin.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. Polar Direction by gimmeataco · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Polar Direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The law of unintended consequences is strong. Tread carefully.

  7. Re: This is why I only fuck other men. by Artifakt · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  8. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by chuckugly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Free will is a convenient illusion.

  9. Downside by dbIII · · Score: 1

    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 :)

    1. Re:Downside by Y.A.A.P. · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

    2. Re:Downside by TuxWithoutPants · · Score: 1

      immature sex jokes make the world go round

    3. Re:Downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:Downside by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      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).

    5. Re:Downside by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      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.

  10. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  11. If you dare... by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Funny

    Browsing at -1 in this thread is fucking terrifying.

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    1. Re:If you dare... by weilawei · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:If you dare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:If you dare... by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    4. Re:If you dare... by weilawei · · Score: 1

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

    5. Re:If you dare... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:If you dare... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:If you dare... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    8. Re:If you dare... by swb · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re:If you dare... by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    10. Re:If you dare... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:If you dare... by narcc · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    12. Re:If you dare... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    13. Re:If you dare... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:If you dare... by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      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".

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    15. Re:If you dare... by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

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

      Just see.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    16. Re:If you dare... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    17. Re:If you dare... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      South America too, for that matter.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  12. Oestrous? by ShaunC · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    1. Re:Oestrous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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'.

    2. Re:Oestrous? by Zynder · · Score: 1

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

  13. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  14. Re:I disagree with the reseachers by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  15. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  16. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by visualight · · Score: 2, Funny

    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...

    --
    Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
  17. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

  18. And in other science news... by hyades1 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    It is known as "Wedding Cake".

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:And in other science news... by Livius · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:And in other science news... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  19. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    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.

  20. Re: This is why I only fuck other men. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    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.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  21. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    s/person/personal

  22. Re:This is why I only fuck other men. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  23. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  24. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by donscarletti · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  25. Re: This is why I only fuck other men. by weilawei · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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>

  26. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by weilawei · · Score: 1

    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.

  27. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's not rational about choosing tits and ass?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. Re:OxyContin!? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  29. Lego by Thanshin · · Score: 2

    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?

  30. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    reply to undo accidental mod

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  31. This is news? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    "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 ...

  32. Oxytocin by Dollyknot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  33. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  34. Re:Pest Control by storkus · · Score: 1

    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...

  35. Aspergers / Autism by garlicbready · · Score: 1

    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...

  36. New vocabulary!! by SomeoneFromBelgium · · Score: 1

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

  37. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  38. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  39. Re: This is why I only fuck other men. by Your.Master · · Score: 2

    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...

  40. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  41. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  42. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    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).

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  43. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    I knew you were going to say that.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  44. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  45. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Correct.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  46. Re:Pest Control by asylumx · · Score: 1

    there are many that consider us humans to be pests

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

  47. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by russotto · · Score: 1

    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".

  48. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

    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.

  49. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  50. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  51. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    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

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  52. Re: Your conclusions are invalid. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    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.

  53. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  54. Firefly reference by Jhon · · Score: 3

    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"?

    1. Re:Firefly reference by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      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.

  55. Re:This is why I only fuck other men. by arvindsg · · Score: 1

    I wish there was also Super Troll Mod rating

  56. Oxytocin by Dollyknot · · Score: 1
    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

    --
    It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet
  57. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by sudon't · · Score: 1

    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).

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  58. Re: This is why I only fuck other men. by Charlotte · · Score: 1

    Nice Dune reference :)

  59. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Zynder · · Score: 1

    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!

  60. Re: This is why I only fuck other men. by weilawei · · Score: 1

    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.

  61. Re:I disagree with the reseachers by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Hi there, AlecStaar!

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  62. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  63. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  64. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    TDM responded, and I've responded in turn.

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

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  65. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  66. You read in some assumptions, I'm afraid. by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  67. Re:Your conclusions are invalid. by Reziac · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?