Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

He's cheating on U: And it may not be his fault. A new 'Cheating Gene' Found.

-Ariel-

-Thandzilla-
Platinum
I thought I'd hoist something up not Xmas related, just to shake things up for a minute or two. Basically cliff notes first. A substantial proportion of dudes gotta run game on their SO's, cause they are genetically predispositioned to being unhappy in relationships, and cause of this lack of bonding/intimacy, they gotta keep themselves stimulated, feel the immediacy of life by hitting it with hawtage that ain't her.

Some dude's are just predispositioned to be not be able to keep it in their pants more than others, this study suggests. There is a cheating gene. Specifically the AVPRIA gene coded for by the 334 allele, some dudes have one copy, some dudes have 2 copies, increases the probability they are not gonna be happy in long term monogamous relationships.

The AVPRIA gene codes for vasopressin, and its irregular production appears to decrease the feeling of intimacy between dude and his chica.

This gene pawns dudes into being unhappy and needing to escape the pain, by nailing other chics. So is it really their fault?

Basically dudes who had two copies were 50% more likely to cheat and that the women who were with them felt much more distant, unloved, unappreciated than dudes who had no copies of these alleles. The dudes who had only one allele had a higher chance, I forget the number of cheating, but not nearly as dudes with both copies.

In a study done on 554 twins and their relationships, they found that men who had two copies of the were 60% more likely to be unhappy in their relationships. Also, the dude who only had one copy of the allele, had a 34% higher chance that they would be unhappy in relationships. The numbers are kinda compelling when compared to 15% of men who had no copies of this gene.

What is telling is that 4 of every 10 men have atleast one copy of this gene. Women who were with men who had no copies felt closer, and more intimate, trusting, and loved by these men. They were basically just happier.

So according to this logic, if U have the allele 334, or even worse 2 copies, which fucks up vasopressin levels, which is also associated with obsessive compulsive, autism, and borderline personality disorder, then U are have a higher disposition to not be happy in a long term relationship.

I have my own take on this, but no need.

Can we blame those who are just really just self medicating against their own nature by running game on their SO? I mean, the self always need security and pleasure, and its the lack that causes deficiency.

Any takers?
 
Genetic variation in the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair-bonding behavior in humans — PNAS

The actual study link is posted above. I found this bit interesting in the introduction:

Primate social organization is often characterized by bonded relationships, and recent analyses suggest that it may have been the particular demands for pair-bonding behavior that triggered the evolutionary development of the primate social brain (1).


I always find it interesting that people will pick and choose which human character traits are nature and nuture to suit themselves.

Women are not off the hook either, they think that polymorphisms in the oxytocin gene also allow for variations in pair bonding.
 
So we've discovered another predisposition -- we probably have thousands (or more) of them. But predispositions do not necessarily have to translate into actions.

I think all this predisposition research is going to fuel our bailout-crazy, victim-based society. Can't hold a job because you're a drunk? It's ok, you have the alcohol gene so here's a check. Can't hold a job because you can't get along with co-workers? It's ok, you have the antisocial gene so here's a check. Can't get off the X-box and your mom's couch to find work? It's ok, you have the x-box addict gene so here's a check.

We need to be educating people now that predispositions don't force anyone to do anything.
 
So we've discovered another predisposition -- we probably have thousands (or more) of them. But predispositions do not necessarily have to translate into actions.

I think all this predisposition research is going to fuel our bailout-crazy, victim-based society. Can't hold a job because you're a drunk? It's ok, you have the alcohol gene so here's a check. Can't hold a job because you can't get along with co-workers? It's ok, you have the antisocial gene so here's a check. Can't get off the X-box and your mom's couch to find work? It's ok, you have the x-box addict gene so here's a check.

We need to be educating people now that predispositions don't force anyone to do anything.


There is a study to prove this as well, it is outlined in Matt Ridley's book called Genome.

It was a study of young men, either from NZ or Aus who had a gene that predisposed them to violent/criminal behaviour.

It was found that the combination of both a 'bad' environment and the genetic polymorphism was required before any variation in criminality was observed.

It is never JUST the genes, nor is it ever JUST the environment, it is complex interaction between the two.
 
If one man and one women were stranded on a island. After a few years he would build a raft and float off the island or die trying , in search of some new pussy.

thats why the professor never sailed off gilligans island he had two chicks mary ann and ginger to bang .
Its in mans genes to have multiple sex partners
 
If one man and one women were stranded on a island. After a few years he would build a raft and float off the island or die trying , in search of some new pussy.

thats why the professor never sailed off gilligans island he had two chicks mary ann and ginger to bang .
Its in mans genes to have multiple sex partners

Erm, no it isn't.

It may be true for some, but it isn't true for all.

You can throw women into that mix as well, some will be monogamous for life, others have the genetic need for polygamy.

You can't fit anything about human behaviour, biochemistry, physiology, psychology into these nice little boxes marked X.

Nothing is ever black/white, either/or.

People would love it to be that way as our primitive brains are set up to process information as stereotypes/schema, but it isn't how nature operates.
 
There is a study to prove this as well, it is outlined in Matt Ridley's book called Genome.

It was a study of young men, either from NZ or Aus who had a gene that predisposed them to violent/criminal behaviour.

It was found that the combination of both a 'bad' environment and the genetic polymorphism was required before any variation in criminality was observed.

It is never JUST the genes, nor is it ever JUST the environment, it is complex interaction between the two.

And that will possibly be used to pave the way for relative treatment of criminals. "It's not his fault. He's got the criminal gene and it was activated by a rough childhood."

We need to establish criminal (and other behavioral) absolutes as opposed to seeing everyone as some degree of victim.
 
So we've discovered another predisposition -- we probably have thousands (or more) of them. But predispositions do not necessarily have to translate into actions.

I think all this predisposition research is going to fuel our bailout-crazy, victim-based society. Can't hold a job because you're a drunk? It's ok, you have the alcohol gene so here's a check. Can't hold a job because you can't get along with co-workers? It's ok, you have the antisocial gene so here's a check. Can't get off the X-box and your mom's couch to find work? It's ok, you have the x-box addict gene so here's a check.

We need to be educating people now that predispositions don't force anyone to do anything.

Men are as good as their options is what chris rock said right lol..
 
Top Bottom