Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

Login

Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

3 Sep 2008

Scientists find possible ''monogamy gene'' in men

Ever since scientists identified a hormone that is linked to male prairie voles forming life-long monogamous bonds (with female ones), scientists investigating whether the same hormone plays a similar role in male humans have released their first findings.

ScienceNews quips: "There's news for women who want a man who bonds instead of a James Bond: Scientists have identified a common genetic variation that appears to weaken a man's ability to emotionally attach to one partner."

Found in the grasslands of North America, male prairie voles are known to form life-long monogamous pairings and raise their young. Scientists have long studied how prairie vole bonding has much to do with vasopressin activity in the brains of male voles.
Using data from The Twin and Offspring Study in Sweden, researcher Hasse Walum and his colleagues at Karolinska Institute found that allele 334 - a gene variant that affects an important attachment hormone - may be the cause of men being prone to marital strife and less likely to wed.

Studies of male prairie voles have shown the same hormone - vasopressin - affects voles' abilities to remain monogamous. Vasopressin is released into the brain of mammals during sexual activity. The team found that men who carry one or two copies of the gene variant often behave differently in relationships than men who lack it.

The incidence of allele 334 [RS3 334] was statistically linked to how strong a bond a man felt he had with his partner. Men who had two copies of allele 334 [RS3 334] were also twice as likely to have had a marital or relational crisis in the past year than those who lacked the gene variant. There was also a correlation between the men's gene variant and what their respective partners thought about their relationship.

"Women married to men who carry one or two copies of allele 334 [RS3 334] were, on average, less satisfied with their relationship than women married to men who didn't carry this allele," said Walum in a press release.

Researchers examined the DNA of 552 sets of twins, all of whom were in a long-term heterosexual relationship - some were married and some were not - and had children. About 40 percent of the men have one or two copies of the allele. The participants were asked a series of questions about their relationship and their answers were then compared to their genetic make-up.

He further stressed that the effect of this genetic variation is relatively modest, and it cannot be used to predict with any real accuracy how someone will behave in a future relationship.

The findings are published in the Sept 2-5, 2008 issue of Proceedings of the National Academies of Science in a report titled "Genetic variation in the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair-bonding behavior in humans."

ScienceNews however also warns readers not to get ideas about a "DNA-fidelity test" as the study wasn't "designed to determine how much - or even whether - the gene in question is responsible for monogamy in humans." Researchers say they are hoping to gain more understanding about the gene which has been linked with autism - a condition characterised by problems with social interaction.

Reader's Comments

1. 2008-09-03 23:34  
bravo!!!!!
Comment #2 was deleted by its author
3. 2008-09-03 23:57  
Interesting...

I wonder how it interrelates with the research showing that gay men tend to have female brains, and lesbians male ones. Would this affect the presence of the varioation in gay men and lesbians?
4. 2008-09-03 23:58  
good job, scientists.

However, since the study was done on heterosexual male, can we assume it in a homosexual male?
5. 2008-09-04 01:32  
[Researchers examined the DNA of 552 sets of twins, all of whom were in a long-term heterosexual relationship ]

Wow.. no homosexuals at all?? Is that coincidence or??
o.O
6. 2008-09-04 08:04  
Finally . . .a CURE!
Comment #7 was deleted by its author
8. 2008-09-04 08:49  
Hahaha .... a"cure" indeed :-) ! A "cure" for what, pray tell???? Males are generally NOT monogamous ... we see it all around us and, if we are sufficiently honest with ourselves, very few of us do not play the field ..... so what's wrong with that and why do we need a "cure" ???????

Male animals spread their seed far and wide for the survival of the species. It's the law of nature. The same primal instincts that move our mammalian cousins to copulate with every female in heat also propels every male human to "conquer" and impregnate. Males are males. Straight or gay, the ONLY difference is the object of desire. The primal instincts are, more or less, the same :-)

So, why do we need a "cure"? A "cure" presupposes that there was something wrong in the first place? Is the fact that we were born with a penis and two balls "wrong" ????
9. 2008-09-04 09:01  
Its long been established that only about 6 percent of males are capable of long term monogamy (and it could be assumed that gay males are probably even less so). I've yet to meet any gay male couples who have been monogamous for any great length of time (I'm sure they exist somewhere!). Does the reader know of any gay couples who have been happily monogamous for say.. 10 years? 20 years? Longer? For those who really want to get married and live happily ever after, believing they or their partner won't stray at some point is plainly living in "la la land". The whole concept of monogamous relationships is more a result of outdated traditions & cultural/religious (ie marriage) beliefs than nature. What works for heterosexuals doesn't neccessarily work for same-sex couples.
10. 2008-09-04 10:40  
Why must being non-monogamous be blamed on (or attributed to) nature or biology (as opposed to being non-monogamous out of one's free will)? Don't many men spend long hours toiling in the gym to change 'nature' (ie. scrawny biceps, chests or whatever)? In other words, biology is not destiny.
11. 2008-09-04 10:42  
ITS SO REASSURING THAT SO MANY UNHAPPY GUYS ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT MEN ARE UNALBLE TO KEEP THEIR PANTS ON. ONLY GIVES THEM AN EXCUSE TO DO THE SAME.

MY LOVER AND I LIVED A VERY HAPPY LIFE TOGETHER TELL HIS DEATH FOR 25 YEARS AND NOT ONCE DID WE STRAY.... WE DIDNT NEED TO WE DIDNT FEEL THE NEED TO PROVE OUR VALUE IN ATTRACTING ANOTHER MAN.
12. 2008-09-04 11:30  
Haha ... asialove2, you might not have strayed BUT how can you be sure that your dearly belated bf did not ?????

Sure, no one can be absolutely sure and, of course, you'd love to give him the benefit of a doubt BUT even the saintly Mahatma Gandhi who became celibate in his twilight years told his would-be biographer in an interview that nothing is ever certain, NOT even his own perserverance to remain celibate.

The point is this : asialove2, you can either keep on living in history and pretend that your love was a bed of roses or you can start recognising your own humanity and accept the fact that even both YOU and YOUR late bf are fallible because you are both human.

Finally, asialove2, those of us who recognise the reality of male sexuality (whether straight or gay) in the context of what we see and experience are NOT necessarily unhappy BUT, on the other hand, stoically biting the bullet and getting on with our lives as best as we can. What makes your way better than ours, pray tell ???????
Comment #13 was deleted by its author
14. 2008-09-04 13:01  
What's this 'monogamy hormone' nonsense, don't get too excited, I feel that a persons principles their beliefs and attitudes play a major role in determining behavior, sure biology/genetics plays apart as we live in our physical incarnations, but when it comes to 'loyalty' whether one is in mutually agreed exclusive monogamous or polygamous relationships it's your personal principles that will dictate whether you stay true to that promised exclusivity, and what's this stupidity in holding monogamy as the only valid relationship template any way? It is often fear driven that is as in people being afraid of being lonely or deserted. And I disagree that what works for heterosexuals doesn't necessarily work for homosexuals, what works for some doesn't necessarily work for others or they can ..full stop.. It's up to each relationship type to negotiate what is workable for them, ethically based polygamy has greater benefits over monogamy as there's more pooling of individual resources and a greater support base for all and one could learn to be less grasping and more sharing with in that family structure.
Comment #15 was deleted by its author
16. 2008-09-04 15:58  
civil wars among homos? :P

some people surely want monogamy while some not... probably, some are kinda in-between ready for whatever that comes up to them. may respect and probably even support one another for the common goods.


I'm unsure of what "a cure" really meant here?
1. for being hetero and monogamous at the same time?
2. for being monogamous?
3. for being hetero?

but if not error-prone, the quotes stated clearly even the related scientists themselves decided to think that finding or a potential manipulation based on such finding may not necessarily lead to the proposed result of such usage. they simply wanted people to focus on what they exactly research instead.

the representative of such research also seemed to believe that genetic factors would only be some potential factors that may combine with later factors to reach a potential outcome.

as for marriage, there're already plenty types of marriage all through human history...
heterosexual monogamy was just the idealogical one among Europeans during the time they invaded and spreaded to other places.
polygamy used to be the norm in most places.
personally, I'm looking forwards a parallel system for different relationship types for marriage. Thus, those with different idealogies for marriage can have the best ways they want while those who don't want a marriage in their lives get no push to "fit in".
In such system, marriage won't be a predicate for adoption or progeny production among probably variably co-operating homo males, homo females and others.
that may then be more pragmatic.


17. 2008-09-05 01:09  
i think the people here that say monogamy is impossible just come across as jaded and pessimistic. it might be true that males aren't monogamous in nature, but humans change and learn and adapt based on their surroundings, culture and upbringing, and humans have shown to be capable of monogamy. sure, monogamy isn't for everyone, but for those that believe in it, shouldn't we just have more faith in our own humanity?
18. 2008-09-05 08:33  
Yup. As much as i am incapable of being monogamous, It doesn't mean I am convinced that no one else can do it. I am who i am for all the myriad of experiences and reasons leading up to this point of my life.

There will be more experiences new to me; unless my mind is closed and I am no longer receptive to new ideas; I might yet decide about things like monogamy, differently.
19. 2008-09-05 11:07  
wow, just read this article, that might explain why so many of the nonmonogamy guys I dated always had daddy issues they were trying to get over

my private banker at Citibank Gold also has a theory that monogamous couples have a lot more money and are happier and richer based on my gay bankers secret knowledge of their bank accounts . . . do real prosperity and happiness and monogamy have something in common beyond just the DNA study?

by the way, Club Deep is now reborn in Shanghai! finally their great formula is coming back right when my work schedule is starting to become more balanced! . . .its now called Club D2 at 505 Zhong Shan Road near Fuxing Road South! yeah, Deep is back in the thick of things . .. guys that know great music, and actually have capable bartenders are now coming back into the Swing of things . . . my relationship with Deep is very monogamous by the way, haven't been to another bar at all really since they closed!
20. 2008-09-05 11:29  
From my observation, the more 'attractive' one is, the less likely they are to be monogamous.( or want monogamy) That is also shown in nature with male birds being more colourful to attract as many mates as possible... he he.. Just an observation. Not a statement of fact !
Comment #21 was deleted by its author
22. 2008-09-05 14:57  
Que sera sera....watever will be will be...the future's not ours to see....que sera sera....wat will be will be....:p

23. 2008-09-05 15:18  
any 'claim' on genes that govern or influence human behaviour, like this, however interesting, doesn't really serve any purposes. For I would like to ask if eugenics would be back to rid of men who are not monogamous based on the marker on a genome?!?
24. 2008-09-05 15:58  
jupiter101 says: "From my observation, the more 'attractive' one is, the less likely they are to be monogamous.( or want monogamy)"

From my experience, the opposite is true, it seems like the "less attractive" ones have more to prove or something...

But this is like finding the "gay gene", the litmus of true acceptance is to say that we don't a need a cure or to rid ourselves of the "genetic flaw" even it can be done.
25. 2008-09-05 16:23  
In response to Kellen: I guess everybody's observation/experience/conclusion is different, BUT I do see your point and yes, I agree that to some extent what you observe happens also.

Im a believer in love, and believe if two people REALLY love each other enough, all this debate is rather meaningless.
26. 2008-09-06 13:33  
love,it seems that's far from me,i dont even know it except e love between relatives...someday i'll fall in love with someone and i believe in love ...
27. 2008-09-13 23:56  
why shouldn't there be, attractive one or not?
it's all about choices..
Comment edited on 2009-06-29 12:45:41
28. 2010-02-01 21:07  
These so called scientists are really idiots or people who have cheated and try to find excuses. Instead of doing useful research, they blame infidelity on genes. I practice monogamy and don't have casual sex. Asian scientists will never do such crappy research (please correct me if I am wrong). I would be ashamed of myself by putting my name on such thesis.

BTW, when is that cure for AIDS coming??

Please log in to use this feature.

Social


This article was recently read by

Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook

Partners

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement