…and this is a 
Bad science? It's OK—just put him in charge of women's health
Category: Kooks • Politics • Reproduction
Posted on: November 16, 2006 5:02 PM, by PZ Myers
Clearly, Bush is not going to drift quietly into oblivion. Majikthise and Feministing report that his administration is appointing a certifiable kook to run the federal program that oversees family planning and reproductive health. His qualifications seem to be that he's fanatical about abstinence, to the point of making stuff up.
At the Annual Abstinence Leadership Conference in Kansas, Keroack defended abstinence (in an aptly titled talk, "If I Only Had a Brain") by claiming that sex causes people to go through oxytocin withdrawal which in turn prevents people from bonding in relationships. Seriously.
[Keroack] explained that oxytocin is released during positive social interaction, massage, hugs, "trust" encounters, and sexual intercourse. "It promotes bonding by reducing fear and anxiety in social settings, increasing trust and trustworthiness, reducing stress and pain, and decreasing social aggression," he said.But apparently if you've had sex with too many people you use up all that oxytocin: "People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual." Hear that? Too many sexual partners and you'll never love again!
I know that oxytocin is thought to have a strong role in bonding, is triggered for secretion in many situations—sex, labor, lactation, etc.—but these claims that you can have permanent depletion of oxytocin levels by too much sex? Never heard of that. I hit the physiology texts in my office; no support. I tried the online databases, and hoo-boy is there a lot of stuff on oxytocin; but nothing I could find to support those claims. Keroack doesn't seem to have published anything on this subject in the peer-reviewed literature, either—the only source cited for it is something called "A Special Report from the Abstinence Medical Council". Strangely, the only instances Google turns up of this "Abstinence Medical Council" is as the publisher of this report, and as a part of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, run by Leslee Unruh, unqualified hack (and also organizer of creepy "purity balls"). I think I'm right to suspect the source is ginned-up propaganda for a quack organization.
So there isn't any evidence for his claims. Is it logical? Oxytocin has complicated and sometimes conflicting effects, so it would be awfully hard to pin down any clear consequences of multiple partners on pair bonding without lots of data, but on the face of it, no, none of what he says makes much sense.
Emotional pain causes our bodies to produce an elevated level of endorphins which in turn lowers the level of oxytocin. Therefore, relationship failure leads to pain which leads to elevated endorphins which leads to lower oxytocin the result of which is a lower ability to bond. Many in this increased state of emotional pain and lower oxytocin seek sex as a substitute for love which inevitably leads to another failed relationship, and so, the cycle continues.
But sex increases oxytocin levels! If he's postulating that lower oxytocin levels are causal in relationship problems (I'm going with the flow, OK? I don't buy into the simple chemical explanation of complex relationships myself), then it seems to me that lots of mindless sex would be the corrective prescription.
But then he's postulating some kind of mysterious depletion or desensitization if you get too much oxytocin. That doesn't make much sense either, because women are going to get their biggest surges of oxytocin when 1) they go into labor, and 2) they lactate. If ODing on oxytocin diminishes one's ability to form a permanent bond, then shouldn't childbirth be a major cause of divorce? There are also oxytocin surges in both men and women during orgasm. Does he also counsel married couples to avoid too much sex? How much is too much? How would he know?
Yeah, he's waving his hands about interactions between endorphins and oxytocin, but seriously: he's got no evidence for what he's claiming, and it doesn't make sense to claim that brain chemistry on that level senses whether you've had sex 10 times with one person or one time each with ten people. He's making it up as he goes along.
This guy is simply not credible. It looks to me like the Bush administration is trying to throw a sop to the religious right after the defeat of the South Dakota abortion ban by appointing a reliable ideologue with connections to the insane Unruh anti-abortion/abstinence machine to a position where he can interfere with women's reproductive health. Let's hope the Democrats will show some spine and squelch this continued nonsense of using fake science to support bad policy.
Comments
I have my own theory about that: maybe programmed cell death ensues with every orgasm so that one oxytocin cell dies each time. We only have a limited number of them, you know...
Posted by: Sir Oolius | November 16, 2006 5:11 PM
Oxytocin's saaa-cred
Oxytocin's good,
Oxytocin's needed,
Abstain for your own gooood!
mmmmm...jingle-istic
Posted by: misterbowen | November 16, 2006 5:19 PM
Well... Since that does happen occasionally, I'd say us baby eating, gay atheists (can you be one w/o being the other?) are perfectly justified in our war on Traditional Marriage. That's what causes all those divorces after all: reproductive sex!
This guy is a perfect Dubyappointee!
Posted by: Michael Bains | November 16, 2006 5:23 PM
More than just the divorce issue, it would mean that mothers couldn't bond with their babies. Or is he actually using "relationship" as a euphemism for marital sex anyway?
Posted by: SEF | November 16, 2006 5:34 PM
I practice abstinence...but not by choice :(
Posted by: Boots | November 16, 2006 5:47 PM
Right now the deranged Boy Emperor is all about throwing sops to the loony right- his first moves after mouthing disingenuous cliches about bipartisanship were to announce that he'd resubmit John Bolton and several exceptionally wacko judicial nominees to the lame-duck Senate, where even the Republicans are shaking their heads over such senseless provocations.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 16, 2006 5:50 PM
I've often heard the argument put forward that these ridiculous appointees are just part of Bush placating the fundy base, and doesn't actually represent his own viewpoint on the issues of teaching good science, etc.
That argument holds no water after the last election, now, does it.
he has nothing politically left to gain by placating the fundies at this point, so what do we now conclude about why Chimpy McGrin keeps on appointing these batshit insane folk to these positions?
is he getting paid on the down-lo?
or is he really, at heart, a creobot himself?
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 5:50 PM
I think ex-genius Karl Rove is still telling him this nonsense is good politics, and he's too dumb to have any opinion of his own.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | November 16, 2006 5:52 PM
"More than just the divorce issue, it would mean that mothers couldn't bond with their babies..."
Hence the hard abstinance-only stance: having too many babies would definitely kill a mother's ability to bond with each one.
Posted by: Jenn | November 16, 2006 5:56 PM
Isn't this the same kind of line as suggesting that if a boy masturbates too much, he'll run out of sperm one day and be impotent?
Posted by: Warren | November 16, 2006 6:08 PM
No, you're not tracing the connections back far enough--it's Traditional Marriage itself which causes divorce!
At least, you very rarely find people getting divorced who weren't previously married to each other.
Posted by: Steviepinhead | November 16, 2006 6:22 PM
Well if you mean infertile instead of impotent... well damn, its not like I need a reason to masterbate more...
Posted by: Robert | November 16, 2006 6:24 PM
This isn't a sop. I'm not denying that Bush doesn't buy all the stuff he throws to the religious right, but the abstinence stuff he clearly does. They've pushed abstinence-only at every possible opportunity, even at the cost of increased teen pregnancies and abortions.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 16, 2006 6:24 PM
You mean infertile, I assume...
Wait. That doesn't work? *shrugs* Oh well... :P
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 16, 2006 6:29 PM
PZ wrote:
I for one am willing to make the sacrifice and test this proposition empirically.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 16, 2006 6:38 PM
I'd read the argument as more that bonding to too many people will make you unable to bond as fully to the last, not because oxytocin is depleted, but because... erm... it makes you wicked.
Of course, either way it's still crap.
Posted by: Evan Murdock | November 16, 2006 6:43 PM
No, I'm wrong. It's breakups which cause higher endorphins which cause lower oxytocin and thus more failed relationships.
Stick with the first one you find, kids.
Posted by: Evan Murdock | November 16, 2006 6:48 PM
You frickin' idiot.
GO RE-READ YOUR OWN QUOTE!!!
"People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual."
NOWHERE does this guy say that it can have permanent depletion of oxytocin levels by (having) too much sex?
Like any other chemical substance, from testosterone to alcohol, repeated exposures will lessen its behavioral (and sometimes neurological) impact. THAT is what he said, a lessening of impact, not a depletion of the substance in question.
But no. You have to go and read it in such a way as to make him look stupid. Grow up. You're stooping lower and lower as we speak.
Posted by: hoody | November 16, 2006 7:04 PM
This kind of nuttiness is made possible, at least in part, by our general ignorance of the biology, ethology, psychology, and sociology of human sexuality. We're so conflicted about sex that we probably know more about the love life of the crested grebe than we know about our own behavior. I'm told that HIV epidemogists are endlessly frustrated because nobody has realible numbers on how often people have sex.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | November 16, 2006 7:07 PM
Evan Murdock wrote:
Endorphins, as in the "endogenous opiates", as in the happy drugs your brain makes itself? Non sequitur, does not compute.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 16, 2006 7:12 PM
I read it the way you said, hoody, and it still looks stupid. In fact, it still is stupid. Again, oxytocin is a chemical that is also involved in milk letdown. I nursed one child for a year, another for a year and a half. For each, I nursed every hour and a half, round the clock, for the first three months, got down to every three hours for the next six months or so, then down to three to five times a day for the rest of it. According to this doofus, I should have no oxytocin response left at all. So if I have another kid, would it be SOL on the milk front because I'm now intolerant to oxytocin? That would explain how women can never have more than two or three children. Oh, wait....
Posted by: Carlie | November 16, 2006 7:13 PM
Now for the good science:
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061116_homosexual_animals.html
Somehow I get the vision of this clown and everyone around him having a heart attack over this one. lol
Posted by: Kagehi | November 16, 2006 7:16 PM
I don't write it, I just paraphrase.
To hoody: that was my interpretation at first, as well (though I'd like to say that I presented it rather more politely) but following the links makes it clear that it's wrong. And regardless, he still looks stupid either way. What do you think "diminish the power of oxytocin" means?
Posted by: Evan Murdock | November 16, 2006 7:26 PM
This is simple minded nonsense. Alcohol tolerance is acquired becuase of induction of ADH in the liver. Stop drinking alcohol, and the tolerance disapears. In the absence of evidence, it is stupid to assume there is any long term tolerance for oxytocin.
Moreover, sex is not the only activity that induces oxytocin release. Breast-feeding also does. So does breast-feeding cause mothers to become unable to bond later?
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | November 16, 2006 7:58 PM
Gaack, and this on a day when I read a GAO report that says the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), responsible for running one of the major federal abstinence-until-marriage education programs, informed the GAO they didn't keep close track of any impact the program might (or might not) have on STD levels because that wasn't one of the objectives.
Posted by: Jud | November 16, 2006 7:59 PM
Like any other chemical substance, from testosterone to alcohol, repeated exposures will lessen its behavioral (and sometimes neurological) impact. THAT is what he said, a lessening of impact, not a depletion of the substance in question.
whatever, your point is small and tedious compared to the larger point of this making no sense either way if you know anything about how hormones and neuroreceptors work.
for example, do you have the slightest clue how much stimulation it takes to permanently disable pain receptors?
it's an absolutely absurd idea no matter how you slice it, and obviously you wish to slice it such only to goad PZ, and not because you have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
That pretty much just makes you a Troll, now, don't it Hoody.
so... what else is new.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 7:59 PM
` Interesting.... Sex every day has just the opposite effect for my relationship! Of course, I'm different than most people, so I guess that doesn't count. Grah.
Posted by: Spoony Quine | November 16, 2006 8:05 PM
This guy sounds like the Bizarro Wilhelm Reich.
Posted by: just john | November 16, 2006 8:05 PM
The body generally doesn't become addicted to its own substances because of feedback control systems. Suggesting that such a thing DOES take place in a specific circumstances is therefore an extraordinary claim and requires specific support.
This guy has no such support for his claim - thus his argument is invalid.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 16, 2006 8:10 PM
hoody comparing external substances to hormones produced in the body is hilarious.
My question.
If I have sex with 1 person 1000 times do I have less oxytoxin than if I have sex with 1000 people 1 time?
How simple minded must this fellow be?
Posted by: GH | November 16, 2006 8:28 PM
How simple minded must this fellow be?
exactly the right level of simplemindedness that GW can promote him to this post.
reminds me of the interior secretary under Reagan. Watt, was his name, IIRC...
so many dim bulb jokes...
ahh, the memories.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 8:33 PM
reminds me of the interior secretary under Reagan. Watt, was his name, IIRC...
so many dim bulb jokes...
ahh, the memories.
Ah, yes...and the Limekiller/Opus ticket for the Meadow Party in 1984.
Posted by: MAJeff | November 16, 2006 8:43 PM
It's just another example of why GW is not just going down, but going down in a ball of flames.
Posted by: dale | November 16, 2006 8:55 PM
Hoody, of course we read it. What we didn't read: Any evidence that he didn't pull these conclusions directly out of his ass. The quoted material is from "A Special Report from the Abstinence Medical Council," which I am disinclined to believe is all that peer-reviewed.
Anyone who thinks having loved and lost makes people less capable of love needs to get out more. It sounds suspiciously like a fake-science (1) version of those "what decent man will have you after you've lost all your petals?" shticks the abstinance-only crowd keeps coming up with.
(1) We ought to have a word for that type of jargon-laden "truthiness" used to convince rubes that some claptrap has scientific validity--for example, IDers blathering about flagellums and the fossil record, or this Keroack's highly improvisational riff on the neurochemistry of oxytocin for sexophobes.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 16, 2006 9:08 PM
1(a) There already is a word :- it's called lying. Alternatively ...
1(b) Frenchify it for pseudo-sophistication :- "faux-science".
1(c) Baby-language it (Buffy-style) :- "sciencey version", "sciencified version", "sciencificated version"
Posted by: SEF | November 16, 2006 9:33 PM
Maybe praying will elevate those lower oxytocin levels.
Posted by: mr K | November 16, 2006 9:42 PM
Well, see, a woman's woman-parts includes the oxytovaries, which at birth contain a set amount of oxytocin particles....
Posted by: Jon H | November 16, 2006 9:46 PM
If this guy *is* correct, then it suggests that freaky Duggar lady with the 16 kids is really just a junkie who keep popping them out hoping for one last oxytocin fix. The last 10 or so kids are probably just unwanted byproducts of her addiction.
Posted by: Jon H | November 16, 2006 9:52 PM
There's more on Keroack, his background, and his absurd claims at Talk to Action: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/11/16/3345/1636/Front_Page/Dr_Just_Say_No
His metaphors are as good as his science:
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 16, 2006 9:56 PM
Oxytocin is part of the POSITIVE feedback loop in childbirth - more contractions, more oxytocin, more contractions... It's also supposedly responsible for orgasm. Therefore... maybe it's a positive feedback loop in sex, and makes you want to have more sex, and then even more sex...
Wait, is he suggesting that eventually I'll run out of oxytocin and I won't orgasm any more?
Sounds like the Abstinence Agenda, alright...
Posted by: lobsterlily | November 16, 2006 10:26 PM
I recall Allan Bloom making exactly that argument against rock & roll in The Closing of the American Mind. Rock is too moving, you see--it induces strong and passionate and primitive feelings, unlike classical, which is safely boring and intellectual. The young people, they overload their emotional circuits on a constant diet of jungle music, burn out, and spend the rest of their lives as emotion-dead zombies.
IIRC he credited Plato for coming up with the idea. Can't let your citizens feel too much--it's dangerous.
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 16, 2006 11:20 PM
I recall Allan Bloom making exactly that argument against rock & roll in The Closing of the American Mind.
amazing he wrote that in 1987, considering all the anti rock and roll 'tudes i thought had died out in the 70's.
but, there is commonality to all of the projections and delusions shared by folks who publish drivel like that, eh?
"get off my lawn, ya damn slackers!"
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 16, 2006 11:27 PM
amazing he wrote that in 1987, considering all the anti rock and roll 'tudes i thought had died out in the 70's.
Hey, Bloom was a neocon. He championed positions that died out before Christ. And I mean that literally--Bloom pretty much thought Plato's Republic was an instruction manual for the ideal society.
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 16, 2006 11:56 PM
It's sad how wound up some people get at the idea that other people are having more fun than them. If only they knew this really isn't a good solution.
Posted by: junk science | November 17, 2006 12:10 AM
Well I don't know the answer to what you discussing. But I can give you reasons hy people divorce.
1: One or both of the people have problems, such as drugs, alcohol, health problems.
2: The woman is being hit by her husband.
3: The woman did a Loraina Bobbette on her husband.
4: The man pulled an OJ.
5: You had your spouse wacked by the mob: Either because you couldn't stand them or money reasons.
6: One or both of them have cheated.
7: One or both of them are bums.
8: You've fallen out of love with them.
9: You realized that you don't love them as much as you thought you did.
10: You hate each other.
11: You've both chosen to go your seperate ways.
12: When you got married, the two of you were children and didn't know any better.
13: You ran away ith your secretary to Tahiti.
14: You accidentaly got your ife pregnant and you never anted kids in the first place.
15: One of the parents abuses or mollests your children.
So my advice is, before you ever get married. Ask yourself: "Do I want to be with this person for the rest of my entire life?" "Do I want to be esponsible for this person, no matter what future decisions we may make?" "If we should ever, by mistake or plan to have children, am I ready to take on that esponsibility?" "Am I ready for a family, and the financial situations that will occur?"
Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 17, 2006 12:19 AM
The man pulled an OJ.
that's also known as summary dissolution of the quickest kind.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 17, 2006 1:34 AM
Ichthyic-
I don't understand anything you just said. Unfortunately you will have to clarify that for me in ENGLISH please. :)
What you probably mean in english is, what I said doesn't make any sense, or it sounds like crap to me.
I realized that one didn't make any sense after I had already posted it. So it was to late by the time I realized I had made a mistake and there was no way for me to fix it. I do apologize for my mistake.
Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 17, 2006 2:01 AM
oh, okeedokee.
a summary dissolution is the type of divorce when both parties agree to settle assets out of court; it streamlines the process considerably.
it's like a "no fault" divorce.
the reference to OJ of course being, if you murder your wife, that's an even more streamlined version of a summary dissolution.
sorry, I live in CA, where divorce terminology was invented ;) ... so it's an automatic assumption others would know what a summary dissolution is.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 17, 2006 2:18 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. I live in Nevada, but I'm from Missouri, where I grew up with, rednecks and hippies. :)
Although I'm 14yrs old, never been married. :)
I'm getting ready to start college to become an R.N Specialized in Anesthesiology, this fall.
Anyway I probably won't get around to replying to your next comment tonight, because i really need to get some sleep. I've got a long day tommorrow so I'll check back as soon as possible.
Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 17, 2006 2:34 AM
Victoria:
You left out "the man is being hit by his wife" as a reason (it happens fairly frequently, though men are much less likely to seek help and, I would hypothesize, somewhat less likely to be seriously injured). Good call on recognizing that child molestation isn't just men, though. [Disclaimer: Gender bias in these things has been a pet peeve since I was informed around age 11 that no, what was happening to me wasn't sexual harassment under school policy, since they defined sexual harassment as exclusively behavior of males toward females.]
Speaking as a girl's father...I would hope not.... x.x
Speaking as a girl's father... *gently but firmly relieves Victoria of the methamphetamines* it's for your own good, kid. x.x Yeesh. You, Skatje, various other people...I don't understand teenagers who are that...driven? Maybe "committed" would be a better word... ;/
Icthyic:
Since you seem to know something about divorce laws, am I correct that a no-fault divorce requires the consent of both parties?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 17, 2006 3:23 AM
So my advice is, before you ever get married. Ask yourself: . . .
Wrong questions, kiddo. The long-term one is: "What kind of ex-spouse is this one going to make?"
Posted by: Molly, NYC | November 17, 2006 6:13 AM
I can well imagine that sex with members of the Bush administration (or, for that matter, the sort of people they would seek out as partners) could permanently degrade your ability to love. In fact I suspect it's actually symptomatic.
Posted by: Alex | November 17, 2006 6:19 AM
Since you seem to know something about divorce laws, am I correct that a no-fault divorce requires the consent of both parties?
er, not that I make a habit of it, or anything, but yeah, that's my understanding (I've had friends and family use this before).
Me, I've managed to stay a bachelor for 40 + years now.
the regrets are less than the positives, so far as i can tell.
or maybe i should say the regrets of being a bachelor are less than the regrets of the married couples I've known?
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 17, 2006 6:21 AM
Anyone who says that classical is safely boring and intellectual obviously hasnt read much history of music. At a variety of concerts, from the 18th century to "The rites of SPring", there have been outraged member sof hte audience, fainting women, uproar and riots.
Posted by: guthrie | November 17, 2006 8:57 AM
Pseudoscience
Crackpottery
Truthology
Woo
Astral projection
Scientism
It's depressing that this phenomena is so common that hundreds of words exist to describe it.
Posted by: wintermute | November 17, 2006 9:02 AM
I and some friends of mine attended an abstinence speech done by a woman who works for a Natural Family Planning clinic, held by our college's Right to Life chapter, a few years back now. To give you some idea of our stance, my friend Cathi took a birth control pill about halfway through the speech :).
Anyway, among the many ridiculous things the woman said was that when you have sex with someone, there's a chemical reaction, and you become permanently bonded to that person on a chemical level. I think she also said that it happened through kissing. Anyway, my skepticometer lit up several shades of red. She proceeded to say that it was like tape, and the more you had sex, it was like sticking tape to things and peeling it off, so it wouldn't be as sticky. Thus, when you finally settled down with someone and you'd both had premarital sex, your bond wouldn't be as strong as if you'd saved yourself.
The only logical explanation I had for this was that after 18-plus years of pent-up sexual energy and fluids, the combination of tightness and various sticky substances may increase the chance of being bonded together for a longer period of time than desired, but the idea of a chemical reaction sounded horrendously wrong to me. So, I looked it up after the speech, and discovered oxytocin, which made her speech slightly less insane, yet the facts (naturally) undermined her position, as sex increases oxytocin levels. As I recall, oxytocin is also produced when children breastfeed, bonding them to their mothers, which suggests that for a real long-lasting relationship, you should marry mom.
On a slightly less related note, this woman was pretty hilarious. She said that genital warts and cervical cancer were caused by the Human Pappivera Virus, which sounded more to me like some sort of pasta. Also, she was against birth control, because it can't possibly be healthy to "stop a body's natural processes." She passed out question cards, and read questions from each one. When she received mine, she saw her quote about no good coming from stopping natural processes, and a list similar to the following: "immunosuppressants for transplant patients, anticoagulants, pain relievers which inhibit pain receptors," and about half a dozen other examples compiled by me and my two friends. The look on her face after she read that and couldn't come up with an answer was priceless.
Posted by: Tom Foss | November 17, 2006 9:36 AM
Sorry for the double-post. One other nutty thing this lady said was that the more you had sex with one (the first) partner, the stronger the chemical bond became. Since this is pretty similar to what this guy's saying, it sounds like it's become a standard talking point. She was careful (or clueless) not to say the name of the chemical, since a quick search proved her wrong, but this guy appears to be more cavalier (probably because he knows no one he's talking to will do the search).
Posted by: Tom Foss | November 17, 2006 9:40 AM
Well I can attest to the BS nature of this fellows stance from a personal perspective. I married my HS sweetheart(at 24), the only girl I dated during my youth and refrained from sex for years. Essentially thinking it inappropriate before marriage due to religious upbringing(she was the same). We married, had sex, pretty good sex actually. She ended up having multiple affairs with multiple people.
I can assure you I am way more bonded with my current wife than I ever was with my ex-wife. I find his thinking bizarre.
Posted by: Chance | November 17, 2006 9:57 AM
I hate to be a grammar pedant, but the issue isn't whether classical music was safely boring, but whether it is. It's been the domain of the staticly conservative for quite a while now, and I don't believe riots have been an issue for ages.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 17, 2006 10:04 AM
Why would Bush not appoint some idiot to this position. After all, he gave us Mike "you're-doing-a-helluva-job" Brown, a retired horse shit shoveller, to run FEMA. And we're still living with the legacy of that genius down here.
So a guy who pulls such "scientific" tidbits out of his arse should really surprise no one.
Posted by: Umilik | November 17, 2006 10:28 AM
Last summer I went to a talk by Larry J. Young of Emory University who has spent the last decade or so studying the neurochemistry of social bonding, primarily in prairie voles. He was giving an overview of the role of oxcytocin and vasopressin in pair bonding. Prairie voles mate for life while their almost genetically identical cousins the Mountain vole is very promiscuous. However, Dr. Young was very careful to distinguish between PAIR BONDING and SEXUAL FIDELITY. While male and female prairie voles preferred to hang out with only one partner (grooming, eating, etc) both were observed having sex with others when primary partner wasn't around.
Is there any peer reviewed research on the relationship between sexual activity and social bonding in humans?
Posted by: Carol | November 17, 2006 10:53 AM
Carol: it seemed to me that someone once proposed (it might have been "Naked Ape" man Desmond Morris, but I could be wrong) that pair bonding in humans developed as a result of the fact that human females lost their ability to exhibit overt signs of ovulation (many other primates still have swellings or color changes etc around their vulva preceding ovulation). In other words, the male needs to be around and engage in frequent sexual acitivity since he never knows when his mate is ovulating. At least that seems to have been the the gist of it as far as I remember.
Posted by: Umilik | November 17, 2006 11:36 AM
Oh my freaking lord. His Powerpoint presentation on the subject of oxytocin and sex is online (via Feministing). The only excuse for it is if his talk consisted of saying "...and this slide shows a bunch of complete crap" before every image. It looks like it was composed by a deranged 14 year old.
http://www.abstinence.net/pdf/contentmgmt/EricKeroackPresentation2003.pdf
Posted by: Carlie | November 17, 2006 3:26 PM
Yikes!
Do you need others to trust you more?
Could you sell more, love more and accomplish more if people trusted you more?
Liquid Trust is the world's first atmosphere enhancement spray, specially formulated to increase TRUST in YOU.
Scientists have recently discovered a chemical that increases levels of trust in people. For the first time, you can have the world in the palm of your hands...It all starts with Trust.
...
Imagine
Getting whatever you ask for
People trust what you tell them
Having a competitive edge over others
These things are possible. The key is Oxytocin. When people trust you, doors are opened that were always closed before.
There are different ways of increasing the Oxytocin levels in the people you interact with. Scientists say that simply touching someone who you are talking to, makes them produce Oxytocin. When that happens, they start to form a very strong bond with you. They trust you.
Liquid Trust gives you the added edge by releasing Oxytocin into the air around you. When you walk into the room, almost immediately, people will have a different feeling about you. Their Oxytocin level is rapidly rising. Throughout the day, Liquid Trust is working for you.
http://www.verolabs.com/
Posted by: George | November 17, 2006 3:57 PM
What about masterbation? If masterbation also causes the loss oxycotin, I'm in serious trouble!
Appointing this guy is such a position is like have Micheal Brown in charge of FEMA.
Posted by: George Arndt | November 17, 2006 4:18 PM
I'm thinking George Bush uses this Oxytocin stuff, to generate trust at meetings.
"Invade Iraq? Of course, Mr. President!"
[but Helen Thomas obviously lacks the receptors needed to react to his Liquid Trust.]
There's a whole sleazy world out there on the Internets where people discuss how to mix these products up for maximum benefit so they can go around spraying themselves every few hours. It's kind of sad.
I'm glad I'm not dating anymore.
Posted by: George | November 17, 2006 4:31 PM
I came here from Talk 2 Action, and I was very saddened that his talk proved that there's a frowny face in my ganglia...
Posted by: Thursday | November 17, 2006 9:52 PM
zkyrth- rlly dn't knw ht y mnt by yr lttl sttmnt:
(Spkng s grl's fthr... *gntly bt frmly rlvs Vctr f th mthmphtmns* t's fr yr wn gd, kd. x.x Ysh. Y, Sktj, vrs thr ppl... dn't ndrstnd tngrs wh r tht...drvn? Myb "cmmttd" wld b bttr wrd...)
By th wy wgn sd 'm 14, nvr bn mrrd. Wht mnt ws: Bcs, 'm 14 nd 'v nvr bn mrrd, whch mns rlly dn't hv ny grnd t spk f th rsns, tht ppl gt dvrcd.
S n sr 'm nt gnrnt ngh t gt mrrd, 'm knw vry wll tht 'm nt rdy. knw mny ppl wh'v md sch mstks nd 'v lrnd frm thm.
By th wy sr, m gng t cllg ths fll, t bcm n RN spclzd n nstslgy. d nt l bt sch thngs, spclly my dctn. 'v lrdy spkn t th Cmmnty Cllg f Sthrn Nvd, nd thy'v lrdy pprvd my trnscrpts.
knw vry bn nd prcss f th hmn skll nd spnl clmn. 'm stll wrkng n th rst f th skltn.
f y d nt blv m sr thn y prbbly dn't blv tht lv t rd nd stdy: vltn, Physcs, strl Prjctn, Slf Hypnss, Hstry nd nythng ls tht hv ccss t.
ls lv msc, Frnk Sntr, lvs, Hnk Snw, Hnk Wllms Snr, Cnwy Twtty, Grg Jns, Krs Krstffrsn, Tny Tckr, Lrrtt Lynn, Th gls, Qn, Th llmn Brthrs, Lng Jhn Hntr, Chrl Dnls, Lynnrd Skynnrd, Jm Hndrx, Mssssp Mss Chr, Jrry L Lws, Jhnny Csh, Bb Sgr, rc Clptn, Ld Zppln, rsmth, Cmmdrs, rth, Wnd nd Fr, Brry Wht, Mrvn Gy, Ht nd th Blwfsh, Th Bch Bys, Wll Nlsn, Mrl Hggrd, Jhnny Pychck, ln Jcksn, Th krdg Bys, th Jdds...lng wth mny mny thrs tht wld tk m frvr t nm ff.
ht rp nd ll tht nw crp tht kds nw dys lstn t. Prsnlly whnvr my fw fml frnds strt ctng lk lttl whrs thnkng tht thr mprssng mn. whp thr ss fr ctng lk tht nd tll thm f s thy mmm 'd smck thy hll t f thm nd th bys wh wr lkng t thm. Sr, mst kds nw dys dn't hv ny rspcts fr thr wn bds, thy hv n mrls r dgnty fr thmslvs, cn't stnd t whn s chldrn ctng lk tht.
'v sn kds wh bsltly ht thr prnts nd hv th nrv t css thr prnts t. Sr ths prnts lt thr chldrn dsrspct thm lk tht. 'm ll fr spnkng yr kds whn thy ct lk lttl mrns.
Prsnnlly lv my prnts, my brthr s 15 nd wr bst frnds. w g vrywhr tgthr. W gt n trbl nd hlp ch thr gt t f t. r prnts r strct. Thy dn't lt s wlk dwn th strts nlss wr tgthr, y nvr knw wht knd f pdphls r wtng fr y, thy dn't lt s g hng rnd crnrs wth ths dts smkng. r prnts lwys knw whr w r, wht wr dng nd wh wr wth.
wldn't wnt ny thr prnts n th wrld, f vr wk p nd my mm hndd m pck smks nd my dd tld m t g st n th crnr nd pss thm rnd. 'd sht myslf.
Gd prntng s, y dn't wt fr yr kds t mk th mstk f tkng drgs r smkn. Y thrtn t bt th sht t f thm wth yr blt f y vr ctch thm dng smthng tht stpd. Tht'll scr th hll t thm nd kp thm frm dng t. :)
S hw ws vrybdy ls's dy? :)
Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 17, 2006 10:03 PM
Nope. Your kids will simply make sure you don't catch them. You've just torpedoed any chance that they'll ask you for advice before engaging in risky behaviors.
Posted by: Anton Mates | November 17, 2006 11:08 PM
f y dn't lk tht n, thn jst whp yr kds ch dy nd tll thm thts fr whtvr thy'v dn tht y dn't knw bt nd nythng thy plnnd n dng r vn thght bt dng ltr. :)
Tht slvs tht prblm.
Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 17, 2006 11:12 PM
"If you don't like that one, then just whip your kids each day and tell them thats for whatever they've done that you don't know about and anything they planned on doing or even thought about doing later. :)
"That solves that problem. "
It solves the problem right up until the moment your sixteen year old daughter goes into labor with the pregnancy she's been hiding from you for nine months, and both mom and baby die in unattended childbirth.
See how well that works?
Posted by: Kidnap | November 18, 2006 12:38 AM
Kidnap--Seriously man, thats what you get from my comment. Don't take everything so seriously. It was a joke. I don't really expect people to beat their kids. I'm sorry I even said it now. You just made me feel really bad. I apologize that you took my comment seriosly.
Posted by: Victoria Fox | November 18, 2006 12:50 AM
I never said I didn't believe you and I don't have a position on your marital status, except that it's appropriate to your age. What I was getting at was the "college at 14" part. That can't have been easy, and my own experience suggests it would leave little room for much of a non-academic life and produce a grueling degree of stress. It's not that I think you're being untruthful, but rather that I think that anyone who's that committed, frankly, should be. ;/
This is also where the methamphetamine reference came from; "chemical assistance" in the form of stimulants, is one plausible explanation for such a disconcerting energy output. (You wouldn't, by any chance, happen to drink a lot of coffee, would you? x.x)
[EDIT]Err, yeah, what anton said.[/EDIT]
And quit calling me sir; I'm barely 150% of your age. ^.^
*gags, dumps more or less the entire Blind Guardian, Iced Earth, Nightwish, and Savatage catalogues on Victoria*
I find the formulation of that perspective somewhat immature but agree with the basic premise. Excessively revealing clothes are tacky and crass, and more to the point serve little to no purpose in keeping the wearer warm or protecting against scrapes and similar environmental hazards.
This, unfortunately, I plainly can't agree with. I maintain, as I have since I first struggled for the words to express it sometime in elementary school, that every authority can and must be questioned--the ones worth following will have reasonable answers. While a child's parents are properly authority figures, they are deserving of as much respect as their behavior proves them worthy of, and simply being the child's parents does not mean they should never be challenged, nor that they are always right. I have already committed to using reason as well as firmness in raising my daughter, and even now, when she has little if any understanding of what I'm trying to explain, I make a habit of always telling her *why* I'm stopping her from doing something, taking something dangerous away from her, or making her do something. The alternative position, the belief that it is necessary to break a child's will (and, in the process, the child's psyche) in order to obtain respect and obedience, and the use of threats of force in place of reason (rather than as a last resort--spanking is appropriate, for instance, for discouraging a child from running into the street if appeals to self-preservation fail), is appalling and incomprehensible to me.
It's good for a parent to be involved and appropriate to intervene if a child is endangering themself, but good parenting means raising a child to be able to deal with and live happily in the real world. If the main reason a parent gives a child for not smoking or doing drugs is "because I'll punish/hurt you if you do", perhaps this will keep the child from actually engaging in the behavior in the short term (though experience and observation suggests that in many cases it's just as likely to teach the child to hide it better rather than stop), but then what happens when the child turns 18 and can no longer be punished by the parent (and perceives, correctly or otherwise, that being punished by the law is unlikely)? Beyond that, teaching children that the use of intimidation and threats of violence is an appropriate way to influence the behavior of others seems like a very bad idea, and this is the message that the preferential use of corporal punishment sends.
Incidentally, statistically speaking, children raised under the authoritarian parenting style you seem to be describing tend to have considerably higher incidence of self-destructive behaviors, criminality, and psychological disorders as adults than children raised in an authoritative fashion (what I describe). I don't, unfortunately, have links on hand...
The thing is, comments like that seem a lot less amusing when you realise that there are people who actually think like that.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 18, 2006 9:52 AM
Azkyroth-
I understand your point. By the way, I've never been spanked except once when I was 6yrs old. I don't even remember what I did. :) Usually we just get things taken away like the: internet, tv, books, roller blades. I haven't done anything to get stuff taken away in I don't know 5yrs now.
But I fully understand your point. May I ask how old you are?
By the way I don't drink coffee. Maybe twice a week I drink a starbucks frappucinco, but that's it. I'm just the kind of person that loves to work and study, I also can't stand a junky house. So I'm usually elected as the person to clean, even when I had nothing to do with it. Oh well thats life, overall I'm happy with my life and wouldn't change it for the world. I can't wait to get a job it's going to be great. You must not have read my old posts, so here they are:
I'm 14yrs old, I've graduated high school and I'm starting college in the Fall. My mother homeschooled me. I can pass my ACT's and SAT's. On my free time I'm studying Genetic Engineering, Evolution, and Charles Darwins On The Origin of Species.
I read everything, I love to learn. When I start college this Fall, I'm going to study to be an R.N and specialize in Anesthesiology. I'm going to the community college of Southern Nevada.
I already know all the bones and processes of the skull and spine. I actually know all the bones of the skeleton and where their located. I chose to be what I want to be. Nobody ever told me I had to read, or that I had to go into the medical, I chose to do it.
I'm currently reading every book I can find on Evolution, Genetics and Astral Projection. Next week when I go to the library I'm checking out some books on Quantum Physics, and Space Anamolies.
I've read To Kill A Mockingbird, Grays Anatomy(the long version). I've read everything from Shakespeer to Edgar Alan Poe. I've read Newton