Science Sunday: Do Our Genes Make Us Do It?

-->

Mistress and Slave continue our efforts to find a little privacy as we cope with our newly crowded house.  Sex in the morning, before we hear our little “Divas in training” up and about is one way.  Then yesterday, before Mistress headed to our swim club, and I went to stop by to check out my grandkids, we discovered that our kids had suddenly disappeared.  I was able to coax Mistress into a few moments of worship before she went on her “sun worship” mission.

“Do you mind just sliding my bathing suit aside, Slave…..”

“Of course not, Mistress….”

For once she did not have to suppress those little sounds of delight as I went about my business.

But today’s entry has a higher purpose than simply the play-by-play from here in our re-infested nest. I am reporting on an intriguing summary of recent scientific research that suggests there may be a genetic explanation for a woman’s impulse to cuckold her mate.  In this morning’s NY Times there is an opinion piece (Infidelity Lurks in Our Genes) by science writer Richard Friedman about how genes may pre-determine what he describes as “infidelity”, but presumably also incorporates the contractual right to enjoy the company of an occasional “side dish” that Mistress enjoys.

We have long known that men have a genetic, evolutionary impulse to cheat, because that increases the odds of having more of their offspring in the world.

But now there is intriguing new research showing that some women, too, are biologically inclined to wander, although not for clear evolutionary benefits. Women who carry certain variants of the vasopressin receptor gene are much more likely to engage in “extra pair bonding,” the scientific euphemism for sexual infidelity.

Brendan P. Zietsch, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, Australia, has tried to determine whether some people are just more inclined toward infidelity. In a study of nearly 7,400 Finnish twins and their siblings who had all been in a relationship for at least one year, Dr. Zietsch looked at the link between promiscuity and specific variants of vasopressin and oxytocin receptor genes. Vasopressin is a hormone that has powerful effects on social behaviors like trust, empathy and sexual bonding in humans and other animals. So it makes sense that mutations in the vasopressin receptor gene — which can alter its function — could affect human sexual behavior.

He found that 9.8 percent of men and 6.4 percent of women reported that they had two or more sexual partners in the previous year. His study, published last year in Evolution and Human Behavior, found a significant association between five different variants of the vasopressin gene and infidelity in women only and no relationship between the oxytocin genes and sexual behavior for either sex. That was impressive: Forty percent of the variation in promiscuous behavior in women could be attributed to genes. That is surprising since, as Dr. Zietsch points out, there are so many other factors that are necessary for promiscuous encounters, like circumstance and the availability of a willing and able partner. Although this is the largest and best study on this, it’s not clear why there was no relationship between the vasopressin gene and promiscuous behavior in men.

The article goes onto describe tests conducted on two variations of the vole “family” that may confirm this genetic impulse to stray from the marital bed. It turns out that Montane Voles are prone to have a wandering eye, while Prairie Voles are relatively monogamous. Until the evil scientist begins his experiment:

In the monogamous prairie voles, the vasopressin receptors are close to the brain’s reward center, but in the philandering montane voles, these same receptors are mostly found in the amygdala, a brain region that is critical to processing anxiety and fear.

So mating for the prairie voles activates the pleasurable reward pathway, which reinforces mating and promotes attachment and thus monogamy. For the promiscuous montane voles, sex has little effect on attachment; any vole will do.

It is even possible experimentally to take a home-wrecking montane vole and make him behave like a family-oriented prairie vole. Using a virus as a delivery vehicle to transmit the vasopressin receptor gene, it’s easy to artificially boost the number of vasopressin receptors in the brain’s reward center, and make a male vole behave monogamously. The story for female voles is similar except that it is oxytocin, not vasopressin, that triggers monogamous behavior.

Of course, all of this potential for genetic manipulation has Slave’s imagination running wild:

1)  Could you make a potential spouse undergo a genetic test to calculate the likelihood that they would or would not take up with other lovers during the course of a marriage?

2)   If you feared a spouse was “cheating” could you order up a cocktail of “vasopressin” or “oxytocin” to get them back in line?

3)   And, even more deviously, suppose your wife had her eye on some guy who was married and annoyingly anonymous.  Could you spike his drink with a batch of genetic material that would make him more likely to loose his inhibitions?

All of this also made Slave wonder if there is a genetic explanation for what makes Slave enjoy it when his hot Mistress falls into the arms of another guy.  Do you think male Montane Voles get off when their female mate reports back on her encounter with another male Montane Vole? I guess I should have taken more science classes in college.

On "Straying".

I thought I would take a break from the day to day sexual antics here at the UCTMW World HQ and flashback a bit, inspired by a post a few days back by Sin on the subject of men and their proclivity to “stray”.

Sin’s theory was that men crave “variety”, which may be supported by the old biological imperative to sow those dna particles wide and far.

Of course, Sin’s not the only one talking about this subject. The recent public meltdown of a certain New York Congressman got tongues wagging on the subject “what is it about these guys”.

The New York Times had an article Sunday, linked here http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/fashion/scholars-discuss-weiners-behavior.html?_r=1&ref=anthonydweiner, which trots out some experts to speculate on why the male political class tend to get caught with their dicks twisting in the wind. As one “expert” opines, “Most people who get as far as he’s gotten are high testosterone people … Along with that ambition comes a high sex drive.” Another Prof claims that “men, particularly successful men, have an evolutionary history of polygamy.”

Of course, for folks like Mitt Romney, that history is only a generation or so removed.

But, Mick, you ask, isn’t this kind of boring?

Next you’re going to be talking anthropology, and we’re going to look elsewhere for our fun.

Okay, lets get a little more personal.

Let me talk from personal experience.

Back in the day – I’m talking late 60’s up until I discovered Molly  in 1988– Mick was a bit of a Wiener, so to speak. But of course that was before Twitter. I didn’t do my talking by text message. I did it the old fashioned way, one slap and tickle at a time.

When Mistress and I had our own crisis abut my fidelity, which led to my signing the contract that gives title to this blog, I found the need to consult with a psychologist here in River City.

I picked a woman I had dealt with in a professional capacity. Someone who specialized in sexual matters. But a grandmotherly type who I knew who call things straight and not tell me what she thought I wanted to hear.

One of my first “homework assignments” was to prepare a list of all the women I’d had sex with in my adult life.

I figured this would be easy, but as I started writing, I started remembering, and the list got longer. And longer.

It made for an ugly pattern.  While a few were one or two night stands, most were real relationships, extending for months or even years, and overlapping with other relationships.

I traveled more for business in those days. So there were women in Chicago. New York. DC.

You get the picture.

Am I sounding like Rif Dog?  Well there was some of that to it, but I was not nearly as swaggering-ish about it. And that was before anything like Ashley Madison which facilitated off-line hookups.

Man, I had to work to find these “opportunities”. And I worked to keep them alive.

Keep in mind that most of these encounters happened during the time I was involved with or married to my first wife. With the one exception that Molly knows about, I’ve stayed “on the wagon” during my involvement with her, since 1988.

So what explained my proclivity to “stray” in those days?

At the time, I had some bad examples for “heroes” in politics and popular culture. JFK.  James Bond. It was cool to make oneself available to the ladies, wasn’t it?

And my father had modeled some of this behavior. Think Don Draper, but in the insurance business. I’d seen some evidence of his straying when I was a teen.

Of course, I had a rather cocky attitude: If a woman came onto me, who was I to deny them the opportunity to be with the one and only Mick Collins.

I suppose my marital life was a tad dull. Certainly not like with Molly. But is that really an excuse? Couldn’t I have worked harder at bringing some adventure home?  Of course I could have.

When I went over the list with my Psychologist, she rolled her eyes a bit. The phrase “sex addict” came up. But she seemed to back away from that diagnosis. It seemed that while I had a high count, she’d seen a lot worse. And that fact that most of mine were actual relationships discounted that diagnosis.

After some session she focused on the type of relationship I had with my Mother. She was distant, self-absorbed. Not particularly affectionate.  (Think Rose Kennedy here).

Was my need  to seduce other women  fallout from my  desire to find the affection that my Mother supposedly denied me? And practice made perfect. I had become a bit of a seduction machine, apparently sending off signals that made the next conquest all the easier than the one before.

Mingle that with the higher testosterone that may have come with the territory – after all I was apolitical activist, though I never pulled the trigger on running for office myself – and you have a toxic mix.

The good part about my time with the Psychologist is that I had a better idea of what led to this behavior. That more clinical understanding helped me back up and see the harm and anxiety I had caused others – particularly Molly, but my first wife too, and some of the women on that list.

And it also helped me admit what a reckless, inconsiderate asshole I had been.

No one wants to be an asshole, right?

So Sin, at least or me, it was a bit deeper than “variety”.