Posted this in MPSIMS and got narry a response, so trying again here.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0004/08/text/national10.html
So what do the rest of you think? When they finish the Human Genome Project will they be able to isolate the floozy genes?
Is it on the X chromosome?
There’s got be an allele on the Y.
Slut genes? I doubt it. Socialisation and the shaping of perceptions to sexuality and their experiences are far more likely to contribute to the extent of one’s promiscuity.
Using twins doesn’t establish conclusively that “an interest in casual sex” is genetic. I believe that sort of thing IS genetic in that we all feel the urge to reproduce. It’s society that holds us back from indulging whilly-nilly.
But I digress. The study would be far more interesting if it focused on twins seperayted at birth. Then it could establish whether these identical twins have similiar attitudes and indulgences towards sex or whether it was the environemt they were exposed to.
No prizes for guessing which theory I’m gunning for.
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
Slut genes? I doubt it. Socialisation and the shaping of perceptions to sexuality and their experiences are far more likely to contribute to the extent of one’s promiscuity.
Using twins doesn’t establish conclusively that “an interest in casual sex” is genetic. That interest occursnaturally after all. It IS genetic in that we all feel the urge to reproduce. It’s society that holds us back from indulging whilly-nilly.
But I digress. The study would be far more interesting if it focused on twins seperated at birth. Then it could establish whether these identical twins have similiar attitudes and indulgences towards sex or whether it was the environment they were exposed to.
No prizes for guessing which theory I’m gunning for.
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
I believe genes do have some influence in this, probably more than we realize. I once heard something to the effect that men inherit this from the mother’s side.
In my case, even though I may be happy with a woman, I would still feel the urge to chase others and my maternal grandfather was renowned for this. It is nothing cultural or anything, it is just the way I am wired.
I have a cousin who is on the other end of the spectrum. He is happy with his wife and does not have the least interest in any other women (I wish I could be like that). His maternal grandfather was also a family man.
This may be just coincidence but I do believe we inherit to a great extent our sexual inclinations. I have not chosen to be heterosexual or to feel the need to fool around. I also believe homosexuals do not choose it but are just wired that way.
While your maternal grandfather may have had a libidinous eye, having it in common with him doesn’t necessarily provide proof of genetic bonding. Rather I’d suggest that it may reflect a similiarity that’s common to most human beings - the urge to procreate.
The sexual urge is a strong one and within us all. Some people have lower sex drives that have biological basis but I’m yet to find any solid scientific eveidence linking this to family genes. The vast majority of people experience lust but how we’re socially conditioned and, more importantly, how we react to this conditioning defines our behaviour.
Don’t feel bad if your eye wanders (though you may feel bad if the hand follows 
). Fantasising is natural after all. And who’s to say what’s truly in your cousin’s mind? He may indeed have a strong belief in love and therefore able to keep the lust demons at bay (if not vanquish them altogether) which is socialisation. He may have a reduced sex drive. Then again he may just hide it better.
Who knows what lurks in the libido of man?
Peace.
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
Actually, part of the Y chromosome is actually homologous with the X chromosome. If it were located on the homologous portion of the Y chromosome, it could be confused with a somatic gene. All that’s assuming that such a gene even exists.
IMHO: since humans are sexual beings, the real thing stopping us from sex are what is acceptable by this society. I would think “sluttiness,” therefore, is influenced more by the environment than by genes.
I spent many years of my feckless youth trying to get into the genes of sluts…
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three days, 21 hours, 55 minutes and 35 seconds.
156 cigarettes not smoked, saving $19.57.
Life saved: 13 hours, 0 minutes.
I would imagine that children that see a successful marriage exhibited by their parents are the ones least likely to cheat outside their own marriages.
Likewise, looking to the Kennedy’s as an example, of the father having cheated prolifically on his wife and so did all of his sons, with spectacular media attention not slowing them a bit.
Or, it could be all coincidence. That there are always people who are satisfied and happy with what they receive in life, they then tend towards faithfulness. Others, dissatisfied with what they believe they **deserve **, keep searching to fill that void they feel inside themselves, believing satisfaction is right around the bend in their lives.
But, ‘sluts’ through their biological makeup? I don’t think so.
“Please Disregard the Following.”
Couldn’t this just be more of the measurement of the opportunity for sex being genetically related? That is, the good looking identical twins had more opportunity for sex and the identical ugly twins got nothing. This would show up in the study as if the identical twins had very similar attitudes towards sex (casual or otherwise).
[
But I digress. The study would be far more interesting if it focused on twins seperayted at birth. Then it could establish whether these identical twins have similiar attitudes and indulgences towards sex or whether it was the environemt they were exposed to.
**
[/QUOTE]
whatever
originally posted by um that other person?
sorry forgot name or didn’t do it right.
**[
But I digress. The study would be far more interesting if it focused on twins seperayted at birth. Then it could establish whether these identical twins have similiar attitudes and indulgences towards sex or whether it was the environemt they were exposed to.
**
[/QUOTE]
whatever
**
[/QUOTE]
krish–my reply was tongue-in-cheek, so to speak…
But, your reply left me scratching my head. What are the homologous regions between the X and Y exactly…
Hell, I always thought slut jeans just meant they were tight enough to induce camel toe.
647, while I recognized that the post was tongue-in-cheek, it represented a common misconception that the X and Y chromosomes are completely different. While there are genes on the Y chromosome not found on the X and vice versa, a portion of the Y chromosome does share common genes with the X chromosome, called the homologous region.
My sister always wanted to have twins and name one “Chastity” and one “Slut” to see what happened.
Seriously, though. Reports like this irritate me. You could pick just about anything you can think of, do a study, and “prove” that it’s due to a gene. These initial studies are not worth much until they have been repeated and investigated many times over. Of course, try telling that to the media. “Hey! Sex gene! We have a leading story!”
Don’t instantly dismiss it, though. A special on The Learning Channel a while back told the story of twins separated near birth who reunited on the old side of middle age. They’d had no contact at all, and actually didn’t even know about the existance of one another until shortly before circumstances brought them together.
They both held their coffee cups in a particularly goofy way, and both used the same hard-to-get brand of toothpaste.
Weird, mundane stuff like that that pushes the envelope of coincidence makes “the slut gene” more believable to me.
“We are here for this – to make mistakes and to correct ourselves, to withstand the blows and to hand them out.” Primo Levi
Oh, sure. I didn’t mean to imply that it was impossible. In fact, personally, I’d be surprised if there were no genetic influence on the sex drive. I’m just saying that it’s too early to tell if this study is significant.
I tend to agree with mipsman’s theory that the “butt ugly gene” is far likelier to influence the number of partners in ones lifetime than the illusory “promiscuity” gene ever could.
I believe that we inherit some of it. Being bisexual does seem to run in my family. I don’t, however, believe that my familial inheritence comes only from the genes that were passed on. I inherited some of my parents’ mindset too. I inherited an acceptance of ‘alternative’ lifestyles and existences. I inherited the ability to look at a woman and go “whooooooo yum” without being afraid that I would be going to the Christian hell for it.
If you wanted to, you could try to tie genes to just about everything. Do we want to? Already, children who are even mildly different are being stamped as ‘wrong’. A child who is chronically depressed should have help, but if a child happens to like drawing with black crayons, they are immediately sent off for ‘testing’, possibly to be medicated. I don’t know if I like where gene research is headed, when I hear questions about behavior being related to genes. ‘Fixing’ the human race frightens me.
-Elthia