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

Oxy-what?

[ArcadeMan]

Hey, did somebody mention LEGO?!

As expected

[russotto]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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.

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: 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: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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

Oestrous?

[ShaunC]

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

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?

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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".

And in other science news...

[hyades1]

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

It is known as "Wedding Cake".

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:Your conclusions are invalid.

[Opportunist]

What's not rational about choosing tits and ass?

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?

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: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.

[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: 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: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.

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"?