It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study Links Gene Variant in Men to Marital Discord

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Study Links Gene Variant in Men to Marital Discord


www.washingtonpost.com

Men are more likely to be devoted and loyal husbands when they lack a particular variant of a gene that influences brain activity, researchers announced yesterday -- the first time that science has shown a direct link between a man's genes and his aptitude for monogamy.

The finding is striking because it not only links the gene variant -- which is present in two of every five men -- with the risk of marital discord and divorce, but also appears to predict whether women involved with these men are likely to say their partners are emotionally close and available, or distant and disagreeable. The presence of the gene variant, or allele, also seems predictive of whether men get married or live with women without getting married.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Science can save your marriage. All you need to do is get a genetic test to see if your potential partner will be loyal. So much for pre marriage counciling.

The finding set off a debate about whether people should conduct genetic tests to find out whether potential mates are bad marriage prospects. Several independent scientists called the discovery remarkable and elegant but disagreed over whether such information ought to be used in making personal decisions about love and marriage.


I wonder how this fits in with the old theory of males being predisposed to wanting many mates for procreation and this being hard wired from the early days of man kind?

Was this study conducted by male scientists looking for an infidelity excuse? Maybe female scientists will find a gossip gene or nagging gene?

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2/9/2008 by VIKINGANT]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
This is wrong..

We as animals are prone to go screw anything that walked as long as they look like Britney Spears or something...

But reality is, most animals are multi partners.. So this study is crap..

The only reason people think 1 person relationship is good is because of their crack ass religion... Anyone who agrees wit it needs their head checked.. How the hell can you believe in something that isn't real, exp how they trash God in the bible.. You don't believe God you will be smited.. whatever...

You people can believe what you want.. In the end its you who are screwed in the end... Open your mind and see things some do, instead of being the many and follow the crowd.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Well, it's an interesting study. to be honest, I'm not ready to put too much weight into it, though. As Vikingant so brilliantly pointed out,



Was this study conducted by male scientists looking for an infidelity excuse?



It comes down to choices, as far as I am concerned. If you promised your partner you wouldn't cheat, then don't. But don't go blaming your genetic makeup that you aren't a person of your word.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Oh great! Now the government will require DNA testing before issuing a marriage license...

Wait a minute! You don't need a license to get married! It's actually a legal contract, registered with the government to receive their aid AND OBEY THEIR REGULATIONS!

The marriage application is nothing less than begging the government to regulate the marriage anyway...People need to start thinking outside the box & start taking responsibility for their own lives instead of begging the socialist government to do it.

What do you think "Common Law Marriages" are for anyway?


[edit on 2-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


If I were single, I still might demand a genetic screening before I accepted a long term commitment.



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I do not like where this is going.

Imagine the implications if screening for these genetic differences became an acceptable thing in the dating scene.

I can say for sure that there is always a temptation to have a one night stand with other women... but my loyalty is with my Fiance and I will not dishonor that.
But that's not because of any genetic deviance, that's discipline. Knowing that no matter how attractive other women are, they don't have the history or proven loyalty and affection that the one your with has, and reminding yourself of that every time you get your eyes stuck on a slender waist line.

Seeing as I have such temptation, I am willing to bet I have one of the easily "persuaded" genes.
But my discipline prevents me from ever cheating.
And I'm quite glad it does too... I'm reminded of why I do it every time I walk in the door and am greeted with loving arms.

(Aside: This discipline also makes it impossible to persuade me financially, or trough threat.)



Screening for this gene would eliminate the chances of other men like myself from having what I have.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Settle down, Gentlemen -

No one, and nothing, is remotely suggesting that DNA testing for this gene is going to be a precondition for a marriage license, although I have to say I don't think it would be such a bad thing for most women to have that in place (irony) as we, as a sex, consistently show poor judgement in being able to distinguish between the two, now scientifically genetically distinguishable, types; i.e. Good Guy -- Bad Guy.

Cheers!
TWISI



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I heard a report this evening saying that phsycologists feel this report can do alot of damage to relationships with clams of "The genes made me do it!"

Personally I think it pretty darn silly. Like johnsky said. If you love the person you will discipline yourself and benefit from the rewards of that.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Johnsky has the right attitude for certain...He's governing himself. Sort of like saying, "Just because I'm on a diet doesn't mean that I can't look at the menu."


But it's the discipline to remain on that diet is what counts! I'm merely indicating that an issue like this should not ever be left to the hands of government to make that same decision for everyone, regardless of individual, personal discipline.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   
This is not surprising at all. I suppose that there has been some benefit to the survival of mankind due to this variant, but then again maybe not. Why, for example, would the mountain voles have the variant and the plains voles not? Sometimes I think that chaos and happenstance take hold and variations that occur remain, even if without purpose as long as the person/organism is "survivable". One day the variant could become a crucial factor in survival when the environment changes.
As for the guy with the crazy wandering eye gene, my experience has been that sometimes they are the most lovable (even if only for a short time). Go figure!



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alora
If I were single, I still might demand a genetic screening before I accepted a long term commitment.

And that would be your choice & I'd respect it as your choice. Just as, if it were me that you demanded for screening, it would be my choice to refuse & walk away.

My point is that people can't let this decision fall to the government to dictate...It should be & always remain as individual choice.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
so the guilt of ruining my first marriage by sleeping with my mother inlaw might be misplaced as a gene might have made me more prone to stray...me 17 yrs + gene +36 yr sexy mother inlaw = not my fault



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
the only link between a man's genes and his brain, is whether he keeps his "jeans" buttoned or not



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
It is stupid to think that a "gene" made you do it. Next thing they will be using "genes" as a reason why people committed murder or stole or lied. The simple fact is we all choose to do what we do.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I think this sounds like a way for people to not take responsibility for their own actions. Same with the argument of their being a "fat" gene...that doesn't mean you should be fat, it might put you at a disadvantage, but that doesn't make it right...the same applies here. If you aren't ready to commit to one person, then don't get married.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Is there a test to determine weather or not my potential wife will become a nagging whiny bitchy self centered little c**t like mot American women become after they get a ring and a little security??



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
It also seems like there should be an identifiable gene that causes the placement of a wedding band on a woman's finger to be the equal of pulling the ripcord on an inflatable life boat: In less than a year, a once-slim, svelt lady turns into a mound of misshapen flesh. I'll bet pretty much everyone has seen that particular phenomenon...


[edit on 4-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
It also seems like there should be an identifiable gene that causes the placement of a wedding band on a woman's finger to be the equal of pulling the ripcord on an inflatable life boat: In less than a year, a once-slim, svelt lady turns into a mound of misshapen flesh. I'll bet pretty much everyone has seen that particular phenomenon...


[edit on 4-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]


I knew there was a reason your one of my friends...lol

Yes yes yes.. I agree 10000%

American women have been born and raised in the corrosive negative world of feminism. They can't help but think like a feminist and view the world like a feminist.

So they have learned to always emphasize the negative things about men, never the positive. In any given opportunity...

instead of saying "he's protective" they'll say "he's oppressive"

instead of saying "he's smart" they'll complain "he demeans my intelligence"

instead of saying "he's hard-working" they'll say "he's obsessed with work"

instead of saying "he's confident" they'll say "he's an ego-monster"

The bottom line...every one of your qualities will be spun as a NEGATIVE, not a positive.

Of course, they don't do this when you are dating. All women put up a good face early on. Later, after a few years of marriage, suddenly the real woman will emerge, and you will subjected to negative diatribes about you, day in, day out, like a constant weight on your shoulders.

So when you marry a feminist, you will slowly change to become the bad man that she sees. All the negative aspects of you (which you've probably learned to suppress and minimize) will suddenly start to crop up again. Eventually you'll say "well, # it, if she's going to attack me for a bad habit anyway, I might as well indulge in it."

She will bring out the worst in you.

And of course, she'll be happy, because then she can scamper off to her feminist-asshole friends and say "SEE! We're right! Men really ARE as bad as we've said!"



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Supe04 said it right. You decided to cheat. I understand miss hot pants was irersistable, but you didn't have to commit the act. Same thing as a person who murders. He/she did not have to start murdering people.

Genetics is being used to nullify responsibility all too often. This does very little to cure the problem.

You create your own future, that's what you need to put your attention on. Not your genes.

Troy



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join