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.
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.
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
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?
However, since the study was done on heterosexual male, can we assume it in a homosexual male?
Wow.. no homosexuals at all?? Is that coincidence or??
o.O
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" ????
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.
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 ???????
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.
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.
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!
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.
Im a believer in love, and believe if two people REALLY love each other enough, all this debate is rather meaningless.
it's all about choices..
BTW, when is that cure for AIDS coming??
請先登入再使用此功能。