February 17th, 2007, 08:50 AM
I posted a while back about a study that looked at attraction and dna similarities. It concluded that even when the study group had no idea of the similarity/differences between their genes and those they were to pick as "most attractive" they were more likely to be attracted to those with more differences in dna. It suggested we could be biologically wired to find less attraction in not only those we know as family but even those we don't if they are too similar to us genetically, even when not conscious of that make up.
I posted a while back about a study that looked at attraction and dna similarities. It concluded that even when the study group had no idea of the similarity/differences between their genes and those they were to pick as "most attractive" they were more likely to be attracted to those with more differences in dna. It suggested we could be biologically wired to find less attraction in not only those we know as family but even those we don't if they are too similar to us genetically, even when not conscious of that make up.
Senate Member
Posts: 6,500 
February 17th, 2007, 09:09 AM
Familiarity often breeds contempt too....
The experience of living with someone during the "formative" years might fixate one's desire level to outright repugnance..... brothers and sisters - may love each other in the traditional sense - but may know far too much about each other to have any future wish to cohabitate any longer than necessary..... but
The "taboo factor" has to do with genetic replication more than society's condemnation I think, because to combine two creatures from the same gene pool may produce not so fortunate babies....whether nature is responsible for the attraction indicator I don't know of any actual proof done by scientific study. It would however be a wise deterrent if it were working against any of us "falling in love" with a related sibling.
Anyway Fried (er Freud) and his sexual teachings are mostly a crock of his own personal unmet desires.
Familiarity often breeds contempt too....
The experience of living with someone during the "formative" years might fixate one's desire level to outright repugnance..... brothers and sisters - may love each other in the traditional sense - but may know far too much about each other to have any future wish to cohabitate any longer than necessary..... but
The "taboo factor" has to do with genetic replication more than society's condemnation I think, because to combine two creatures from the same gene pool may produce not so fortunate babies....whether nature is responsible for the attraction indicator I don't know of any actual proof done by scientific study. It would however be a wise deterrent if it were working against any of us "falling in love" with a related sibling.
Anyway Fried (er Freud) and his sexual teachings are mostly a crock of his own personal unmet desires.
February 17th, 2007, 09:23 AM
Studies often bring up more questions than answers. They also often come to different conclusions. Here is one:
Opposites attract, genetic study finds
By Jamie Talan
Tribune Newspapers: Newsday
Published December 13, 2006
The term "opposites attract" has new meaning in a lab at the University of New Mexico, where scientists have discovered that women are more attracted to men who are genetically dissimilar to them. After studying 48 romantic couples, researchers found women were more apt to find their partners less sexually desirable and more likely to be unfaithful if they shared similar sets of certain genes.
The genes studied are called major histocompatibility complex, or MHC. They're part of the immune system responsible for recognizing things not part of the self, thus alerting the troops to fend off foreign invaders. MHC genes, it turns out, also are responsible for how a person smells, and how another person will interpret that smell.
Give these scientists a man and his T-shirt and they can tell whether a particular woman will be more attracted to him--merely based on a whiff of the T-shirt he wore and the genes in his MHC complex.
In this study, published in Psychological Science, Christine Garver-Apgar, Steven Gangestad, Randy Thornhill, Robert Miller and Jon Olp found that the genes did guide behavior. They genetically typed 48 romantic college couples who had been together an average of two years. They asked the women a series of questions about their sexual responsiveness toward their mate--and their unfaithfulness in the relationship.
Thornhill said they were interested in a woman's response to their main romantic partner and whether their MHC genes could help provide intimate details of this relationship across the menstrual cycle. The team's earlier work showed that women's sexual preference changes across a menstrual cycle.
The main question was this: Does your partner turn you on? They also asked the male partners about the female's sexual receptiveness to confirm their partner's response.
Then they looked at three MHC genes, each with two different varieties, and compared each partner's genetic makeup.
The more similar, the less sexually responsive they were to their partners. They also were more unfaithful. The genetically similar women reported more attraction, interest and fantasy toward other men prior to ovulation. When they were not in that phase of the cycle, they showed no sexual interest outside of their partner.
----------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed
Studies often bring up more questions than answers. They also often come to different conclusions. Here is one:
Opposites attract, genetic study finds
By Jamie Talan
Tribune Newspapers: Newsday
Published December 13, 2006
The term "opposites attract" has new meaning in a lab at the University of New Mexico, where scientists have discovered that women are more attracted to men who are genetically dissimilar to them. After studying 48 romantic couples, researchers found women were more apt to find their partners less sexually desirable and more likely to be unfaithful if they shared similar sets of certain genes.
The genes studied are called major histocompatibility complex, or MHC. They're part of the immune system responsible for recognizing things not part of the self, thus alerting the troops to fend off foreign invaders. MHC genes, it turns out, also are responsible for how a person smells, and how another person will interpret that smell.
Give these scientists a man and his T-shirt and they can tell whether a particular woman will be more attracted to him--merely based on a whiff of the T-shirt he wore and the genes in his MHC complex.
In this study, published in Psychological Science, Christine Garver-Apgar, Steven Gangestad, Randy Thornhill, Robert Miller and Jon Olp found that the genes did guide behavior. They genetically typed 48 romantic college couples who had been together an average of two years. They asked the women a series of questions about their sexual responsiveness toward their mate--and their unfaithfulness in the relationship.
Thornhill said they were interested in a woman's response to their main romantic partner and whether their MHC genes could help provide intimate details of this relationship across the menstrual cycle. The team's earlier work showed that women's sexual preference changes across a menstrual cycle.
The main question was this: Does your partner turn you on? They also asked the male partners about the female's sexual receptiveness to confirm their partner's response.
Then they looked at three MHC genes, each with two different varieties, and compared each partner's genetic makeup.
The more similar, the less sexually responsive they were to their partners. They also were more unfaithful. The genetically similar women reported more attraction, interest and fantasy toward other men prior to ovulation. When they were not in that phase of the cycle, they showed no sexual interest outside of their partner.
----------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...ationworld-hed
House Member
Posts: 2,761
Location: California
Location: California
February 17th, 2007, 09:30 AM
Oddly enough I saw a study recently that said a woman giving birth over the age of 40 was more likely to have a child with health problems than a woman giving birth to a baby conceived with her cousin. It seems to suggest that our disgust with such relationships isn't really because of genetic issues or we'd be equally disgusted with older mothers.
Oddly enough I saw a study recently that said a woman giving birth over the age of 40 was more likely to have a child with health problems than a woman giving birth to a baby conceived with her cousin. It seems to suggest that our disgust with such relationships isn't really because of genetic issues or we'd be equally disgusted with older mothers.
