>New-age Scientist - April 1, 2006
>
>Genes blamed for fickle male romance
>by Billy Connolly
>
>According to a study published this week, up to 45% of the
>differences between men in their ability to be romantic might be
>explained by their genes.
>
>Its findings suggest there is an underlying biological basis to a
>men's inability to be romantic. Whether that basis is anatomical,
>physiological or psychological remains uncertain, says Professor
>Barbara Cartland of the twin research unit at Dear Abbey's Hospital
>in London, UK, who carried out the study.
>
>"But it is saying that it is not purely cultural, or due to peer
>pressure, or to differences in upbringing or religion," he says.
>"There are wide differences between men and a lot of these
>differences are due to genes. Or it may be that some of the
>respondents have just told us what they think we wanted to hear."
>
>Mixed results
>
>Cartland's team asked more than 6000 male twins to fill out a
>confidential questionnaire about how often they behaved romatically.
>They received only 37 complete replies, which included answers from
>3 pairs of non-identical twins and 2 pairs of identical twins. The
>men's ages ranged from 19 to 83.
>
>Only 24% of the men reported always experiencing romantic feelings.
>Though there is some doubt about this finding, as an analysis of the
>handwriting of most of these particular responses show signs of
>coercion. Another 12% reported ocassional vague romantic
>inclinations, while 64% never achieved it at all, or seemed not to
>understand the question. The study also involved a similar
>questionaire filled in by the female partners of the men, asking
>them to report any romantic displays by their men. Oddly, the women
>reported significantly higher incidences of male romance than the
>men themselves, indicating that many males may be simply faking.
>The discovery of a genetic basis for the (in)ability of men to be
>genuinely romantic raises questions about its evolution. One theory
>is that it is a tool for mate selection, the idea being that males
>unable to bring females to orgasm are able to compensate by
>elaborate and time-consuming courtship which provoked riotous
>laughter in early female hominids. (A pre-human variation on
>safe-sex perhaps?)
>
>Another theory is that romance was eliminated from the male
>gene-pool at the dawn of human civilisation. Some linguists go
>further, suggesting that words for the concept were only invented
>about a thousand years ago, so the whole idea may have been
>concocted in order to confuse women into believing they were getting
>something out of their relationships with men under feudal social
>relationships.
>
>Cartland says the findings challenge the notion that the failure to
>achieve romance represents "male emotional dysfunction", an idea
>popular in the columns of women's magazines and day-time TV talk
>shows, keen to sell remedies for this so-called disorder. "What
>definition of 'normal' could possibly justify labelling 75% of men
>(possibly 100%, if truth were told) as 'abnormal'?" she asks.
>
>Even if struggling to achieve romance is nothing unusual, Cartland
>says it might nevertheless be possible to find bilogical ways to
>satisfy women's fantasies about men. Though hundreds of genes could
>be involved, "that doesn't mean we couldn't, or shouldn't,
>genetically engineer future generations of men to behave, if this
>was taken more seriously as a problem", She says.
>
>Next week: Flouride - Survey of poultry finds that 78% of chickens
>report dramatically reduced tooth decay.