PDA

View Full Version : Higher sex drive in rhesus negative women



firetown
09-01-17, 15:30
One of the studies I have partaken in, "Worse Health Status and Higher Incidence of Health Disorders in Rhesus Negative Subjects (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141362)", reads:

RhD negative women reported more frequently psoriasis, constipation and diarrheas, ischemic diseases, type 2 diabetes, some types of cancers, lymphatic nodes swelling, vitamin B deficiency, thrombosis, tonsil stones, too high sex desire, precocious puberty, urinary tract infections, scoliosis and they less often reported hearing loss, weight loss, hypoglycemia, glaucoma, fasciculation and warts.
Then a study by German sex researcher Werner Habermehl strongly indicated the same with women who have red hair.
I couldn't help but remember the claim by Carvalli-Sforza that all genes with a frequency of below 0.5 are bound to go extinct which would include both of the recessive genes causing red hair and being the rh negative gene. This claim is of course complete nonsense as quite a few statements by C-S seem to be questionable at best.

It seems that this makes much sense in terms of self preservation that women with certain traits are more likely to have a higher sex drive ensuring that this trait will survive and be passed on.

Angela
09-01-17, 18:55
Here we go again.

Please provide citations to studies from which you quote. Without them, we can't gauge anything about the reliability of the "study", whether the results have been replicated, etc.

Actually, I doubt a high sex drive in a woman would have been advantageous in the past, or is so even today to a certain extent. Men didn't want women with high sex drives: it made them distrust the woman and wonder what she was doing when he wasn't there. After all, women don't actually have to be interested, or get satisfaction, in order to partake in sex. They can just lie there, and many did...A high sex drive might have led you to stray if you had a fumbler for a husband, or one who was old and fat. Acting on it would get you killed in short order.

Indeed, in many African, even North African, and some Near Eastern cultures the society encourages the removal of so much of the female genitalia (so called female circumcision) that women can't experience orgasm.

Even in Europe, think about the fact that two premier novels of the 19th century, Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina, are about the destruction that befalls women who pursue sexual satisfaction outside of marriage.

As for red hair, it is indeed extremely rare outside of one place in Russia and in parts of Great Britain. It survived in the "Celtic fringe" because these places are more isolated and inbred.

firetown
09-01-17, 19:49
Here we go again
Where exactly am I going again?

Please provide citations to studies from which you quote. Without them, we can't gauge anything about the reliability of the "study", whether the results have been replicated, etc.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141362

Actually, I doubt a high sex drive in a woman would have been advantageous in the past, or is so even today to a certain extent.

I am referring to the advantage of ensuring a species or genetic trait is being kept alive. Not a better social status or whatever people might consider important.

Men didn't want women with high sex drives: it made them distrust the woman and wonder what she was doing when he wasn't there.

And that distrust kept those men from having sex with them?

After all, women don't actually have to be interested, or get satisfaction, in order to partake in sex.

Women have to be somewhat interested to ensure that IF for whatever reason their man is not "producing", they get around until someone gets them
pregnant.


They can just lie there, and many did...

see above

A high sex drive might have led you to stray if you had a fumbler for a husband, or one who was old and fat. Acting on it would get you killed in short order.

So you are assuming most cheaters were caught? I think you are extremely wrong about that. And exactly what does that have to do with how nature set things up to ensure certain traits survive before society came up with setting things up a certain way. Remember: You are judging this by monogamy and not however things were way back when before the tradition of marriage began.

Indeed, in many African, even North African, and some Near Eastern cultures the society encourages the removal of so much of the female genitalia (so called female circumcision) that women can't experience orgasm.

You again are mixing nature with man made customs

Even in Europe, think about the fact that two premier novels of the 19th century, Madame Bovary and Anna Karenina, are about the destruction that befalls women who pursue sexual satisfaction outside of marriage.

See above ... again

As for red hair, it is indeed extremely rare outside of one place in Russia and in parts of Great Britain. It survived in the "Celtic fringe" because these places are more isolated and inbred

I know about the Udmurts, have written extensively about high percentages of rh negative amongst redheads, what it might or might not mean.
But what exactly are you saying here:
That it was more frequent outside the area where the Udmurts live or the British isles before and that indeed it is going extinct?
Edinburgh has the highest gene frequency in the isles with 0.4. That is still below 0.5 meaning the gene is headed for extinction there as well.
Isolation and inbreeding again has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Angela
09-01-17, 22:25
Mike:I know about the Udmurts, have written extensively about high percentages of rh negative amongst redheads, what it might or might not mean.
But what exactly are you saying here:
That it was more frequent outside the area where the Udmurts live or the British isles before and that indeed it is going extinct?
Edinburgh has the highest gene frequency in the isles with 0.4. That is still below 0.5 meaning the gene is headed for extinction there as well.
Isolation and inbreeding again has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If we go by historical writings, then red hair was indeed more common in the past than it is today. Germans, my own Liguri, and many others were described as "red-headed" and yet the percentages among their descendants today are very low.

Isolation and inbreeding have everything to do with it when you're talking about recessive genes. Recessive genes which in a much larger population might go extinct sooner or later can be preserved in an isolated community whose founding population had a significant percentage of such genes. That's why there are so many blondes and red-heads in my father's mountains and virtually everyone is light eyed. (studied by CV, btw, for his groundbreaking study called Consanguinity and Drift in Italy.)

I'm also somewhat confused. First you take umbrage at Cavalli Sforza for saying red-heads will become extinct, and now you concede they are becoming extinct even in certain parts of the British Isles.


I am referring to the advantage of ensuring a species or genetic trait is being kept alive. Not a better social status or whatever people might consider important.

And that distrust kept those men from having sex with them?



In my opinion, you're misinterpreting how evolution works with regard to sexual traits, and how society, in selecting for certain traits, guides evolution. It's part of general social/sexual selection.

Men in traditional societies, which is basically all human societies except for Europe and Anglo countries of the 20th century, didn't choose wives for their high sex drive. (This is true at least back to the Bronze Age.) They looked for demure, shy girls, girls with a spotless reputation. Too much interest in the opposite sex, the least breath of scandal, and you stayed unmarried, or were kicked out, meaning you probably had to become a prostitute, and neither you nor your children had much chance of surviving and passing on your genes. The other important factor was wealth. No dowry, no husband. Men did, I'm sure, then as now, prefer an attractive wife, all things being equal, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you that physical beauty doesn't necessarily correlate with sex drive.

Now, if you want to say that it was otherwise among our hunter-gatherer ancestors, as evidenced by the Pygmies today, or among the Hawaiians, or perhaps even in Neolithic societies, then you may have more of a point, although I sincerely doubt it in the last case. I personally think Gimbutas over-interpreted what she saw.

Social/sexual selection also operates in the passing on or not of traits like red hair. I don't know if it was universally true, but in many parts of Europe in the Middle Ages and beyond red hair was considered a mark of a witch, and women went to the flames for it. Red haired women were also considered to be willful, and to have a bad temper, and thus not good wife material. Even my aunts had to deal with some of that, particularly because they were indeed willful and had bad tempers when provoked.

As for your article, I just read it. This is the main conclusion of the study:
"Rhesus negative subjects reported to have more frequent allergic, digestive, heart, hematological, immunity, mental health, and neurological problems. On the population level, a Rhesus-negativity-associated burden could be compensated for, for example, by the heterozygote advantage, but for Rhesus negative subjects this burden represents a serious problem."

They are so unhealthy one wonders how many viable, healthy offspring they're actually able to produce, despite the fact that there are some advantages to their condition. The paragraph which you quoted was based on self reporting by this particular group of women. This is not a randomly selected, controlled, scientific study of whether rh negative women have a higher sex drive than rh positive women. For one thing you'd have to start off by defining "high sex drive". Then you'd have to compare them to rh positive women. Even then it's all "hearsay". People notoriously lie about sexual matters. That's why most social science studies of sexuality are of limited usefulness.

I don't know how often it has to be said that you can't take what one group of people claim as scientific fact. It has to be studied scientifically. This study was not looking at this question from what I can tell, and certainly didn't produce a scientific study about it.

Oh, as to whether most women who cheated got caught, I don't know. That's not something for which there is objective data from what I can tell. What I can tell you is that in many cultures the fidelity of women is not left to chance. My grandmother in law went to visit her husband's family in the depths of Calabria. She happened to go to the post office one day, and while there a man who was also visiting from America greeted her and asked some questions about her life in America. By that night it was all over the village. At dinner time her brother-in-law came in and started screaming and carrying on. Luckily, she had been raised in Naples, a much larger and slightly less traditional environment, and she threw the platter of pasta at his head. Had this taken place in the 1800s, goodness knows what would have happened. It wasn't unknown of in certain parts of the world that men would scar their wives if they thought they got too much attention from men. That's just the way it was, and still is in large parts of the world. Just the other month I read that a woman in Pakistan was beaten and divorced because a man had walked into the kitchen and was alone with her for a few minutes. So, yes, my hunch is that most women who cheated would have been caught. In fact, a lot who didn't do it would suffer nonetheless, just for the suspicion of it.

Ed. Also, to be honest, no matter how high your sex drive might be initially, when sex meant being pregnant every year or eighteen months, and increased drudgery, with a very real chance of death every time, I think the bloom came off the rose pretty quickly, or so the old women used to say.

firetown
10-01-17, 06:37
If we go by historical writings, then red hair was indeed more common in the past than it is today. Germans, my own Liguri, and many others were described as "red-headed" and yet the percentages among their descendants today are very low.

Could be. Have not read that much material on it, except Tacitus writing about Celtic tribes. But the fact that red hair has always been pointed out in terms of it being a very unique trait led me to believe that back then it was very rare as well. Of course, back in those days tribes were still "intact" and often close to 100 percent red headed as mixing with neighbors has not yet taken place.
Similar to the Basques likely being 100 percent rh negative once or at least a tribe they origin from having been so. But possibly the majority of Europe at that time had no rh negative blood and red hair or very little, so when I am talking about percentages worldwide, I am no longer so sure that too much has changed there.


Isolation and inbreeding have everything to do with it when you're talking about recessive genes. Recessive genes which in a much larger population might go extinct sooner or later can be preserved in an isolated community whose founding population had a significant percentage of such genes. That's why there are so many blondes and red-heads in my father's mountains and virtually everyone is light eyed. (studied by CV, btw, for his groundbreaking study called Consanguinity and Drift in Italy.)

Yes, mathematically speaking absolutely. But for some reason rh null and Bombay blood are still around.


I'm also somewhat confused. First you take umbrage at Cavalli Sforza for saying red-heads will become extinct, and now you concede they are becoming extinct even in certain parts of the British Isles.

I should have put that part in " " as that is how I meant it. And again: When studying rare blood types extensively and then reading up on what he concludes, you will be surprised just how many goofs are there in his work. Sadly some of it is still hailed as truth and remains unchallenged.




In my opinion, you're misinterpreting how evolution works with regard to sexual traits, and how society, in selecting for certain traits, guides evolution. It's part of general social/sexual selection.

IMO for a large part, society works against human nature and not with it. nature always wins. my focus is not so much on how things work in society as society changes, will change, and differs from place to place.



Men in traditional societies, which is basically all human societies except for Europe and Anglo countries of the 20th century, didn't choose wives for their high sex drive. (This is true at least back to the Bronze Age.) They looked for demure, shy girls, girls with a spotless reputation. Too much interest in the opposite sex, the least breath of scandal, and you stayed unmarried, or were kicked out, meaning you probably had to become a prostitute, and neither you nor your children had much chance of surviving and passing on your genes. The other important factor was wealth. No dowry, no husband. Men did, I'm sure, then as now, prefer an attractive wife, all things being equal, but I'm sure I don't have to tell you that physical beauty doesn't necessarily correlate with sex drive.

I refuse to believe that men's desires were ever any different and what you are referring to is natural behavior modified to fit in better. No pun intended. I am not sure why you think that people valued partnerships more than today. Especially since there were no paternity tests happening and no contraceptives. I think you would be in shock if there were actual results of percentages indicating how many children on average actually were from the official father and just how many a result of random acts of passion. Which is again the nature part that I refer to in terms of producing offspring, not meaningful, fulfilling long term monogamous relationships.


Tbc ...

firetown
10-01-17, 07:03
Now, if you want to say that it was otherwise among our hunter-gatherer ancestors, as evidenced by the Pygmies today, or among the Hawaiians, or perhaps even in Neolithic societies, then you may have more of a point, although I sincerely doubt it in the last case. I personally think Gimbutas over-interpreted what she saw.



I am not sure what you are referring to, but sounds interesting. Will definitely read up on it.


Social/sexual selection also operates in the passing on or not of traits like red hair. I don't know if it was universally true, but in many parts of Europe in the Middle Ages and beyond red hair was considered a mark of a witch, and women went to the flames for it. Red haired women were also considered to be willful, and to have a bad temper, and thus not good wife material. Even my aunts had to deal with some of that, particularly because they were indeed willful and had bad tempers when provoked.



Absolutely. And again: Does it mean they stayed unmarried? Possibly. Childless? Doubt it.

Men often like "dangerous women" which they don't always want to be seen with, but are sexually more drawn to.




As for your article, I just read it. This is the main conclusion of the study:
"Rhesus negative subjects reported to have more frequent allergic, digestive, heart, hematological, immunity, mental health, and neurological problems. On the population level, a Rhesus-negativity-associated burden could be compensated for, for example, by the heterozygote advantage, but for Rhesus negative subjects this burden represents a serious problem."


They are so unhealthy one wonders how many viable, healthy offspring they're actually able to produce, despite the fact that there are some advantages to their condition. The paragraph which you quoted was based on self reporting by this particular group of women. This is not a randomly selected, controlled, scientific study of whether rh negative women have a higher sex drive than rh positive women. For one thing you'd have to start off by defining "high sex drive". Then you'd have to compare them to rh positive women. Even then it's all "hearsay". People notoriously lie about sexual matters. That's why most social science studies of sexuality are of limited usefulness.


I don't know how often it has to be said that you can't take what one group of people claim as scientific fact. It has to be studied scientifically. This study was not looking at this question from what I can tell, and certainly didn't produce a scientific study about it.



I will get into it later, but in a nutshell this is result of years of research, feedback from thousands of members and something ongoing regarding the overall differences between rh negative and rh positive individuals also pointing strongly into the direction of common ancestry. It is the main reason I have joined this forum to learn more about that and put it into a new perspective. Especially considering the types of foods and vegetation rh negative people might be most allergic to indicating strong possibilities that our origin was more likely in the regions where there is not that much for us to be allergic to.


Oh, as to whether most women who cheated got caught, I don't know. That's not something for which there is objective data from what I can tell. What I can tell you is that in many cultures the fidelity of women is not left to chance.



Why is that, Angela? I give you a hint:

Men knew they were after other women and also knew that it was often just a matter of timing to get another man's woman into bed ... or into cave ... I am not talking about how I want life to be or how my western morals have taught me to think. I am referring to reality. And nature couldn't care less about how people tried to shift nature towards their own convenience and block it when things are not going their way.




My grandmother in law went to visit her husband's family in the depths of Calabria. She happened to go to the post office one day, and while there a man who was also visiting from America greeted her and asked some questions about her life in America. By that night it was all over the village. At dinner time her brother-in-law came in and started screaming and carrying on. Luckily, she had been raised in Naples, a much larger and slightly less traditional environment, and she threw the platter of pasta at his head. Had this taken place in the 1800s, goodness knows what would have happened. It wasn't unknown of in certain parts of the world that men would scar their wives if they thought they got too much attention from men. That's just the way it was, and still is in large parts of the world. Just the other month I read that a woman in Pakistan was beaten and divorced because a man had walked into the kitchen and was alone with her for a few minutes. So, yes, my hunch is that most women who cheated would have been caught. In fact, a lot who didn't do it would suffer nonetheless, just for the suspicion of it.



And this is also religiously fueled. Which to this day impacts societies differently. I doubt in Italy you go to a nightclub seeing what you see in nightclubs in Berlin for example. Or other places where nudity and swinging are as public as can be. Talk to me about the Roman empire before Christianity. Or Greek societies before the Orthodox took over. Then you're getting a little bit closer to human nature. And not the result of a reform that you can either call divine or manmade depending on your personal choice.

Angela
11-01-17, 01:06
I refuse to believe that men's desires were ever any different and what you are referring to is natural behavior modified to fit in better. No pun intended. I am not sure why you think that people valued partnerships more than today. Especially since there were no paternity tests happening and no contraceptives. I think you would be in shock if there were actual results of percentages indicating how many children on average actually were from the official father and just how many a result of random acts of passion. Which is again the nature part that I refer to in terms of producing offspring, not meaningful, fulfilling long term monogamous relationships.

I don't understand this. Where did I say that in the past more people "valued relationships"? That's an anachronism when you're discussing sexuality in the past. Men valued fidelity in their wives because they didn't want to support another man's child, or have another man's child inherit their family property. That's what happens in patriarchies. Women were afraid of being an old maid, cast out, or, in extreme cases, killed.

Men wanted a virgin. A girl who was too "flirty" or had been alone with other men was not marriage material. You think that the town prostitute who had been turfed out lasted long, or that her children lasted very long? You think they could provide a good and healthy life for their children? They were often sent to "baby farms" where they died like flies, or to orphanages that were little better. Do you know the average life span of prostitutes in England even in the 19th century? Most of them didn't last very long, between abusive, violent men, disease, inadequate food and housing etc. What do you think happened to servant girls who slept with the employers? Even if it wasn't their choice, what happened was that they got kicked out, were not given a reference, and if they were lucky wound up in the poor house. Otherwise it was the streets.

Now, for people with nothing, no property, nothing for their children to inherit, like some of the urban poor or landless peasants, there was more "looseness" in terms of sexual behavior, at least before marriage. The girls often got pregnant before marriage but it was indeed followed by marriage. Fathers and the surrounding community often ensured it. This has also been documented in Italy. You paid the piper. All of this has been documented by church marriage and birth records. What happened after marriage was different. Was there some infidelity? Yes, of course there was, but most of it was by men, often by men frequenting prostitutes, of whom there were an extraordinary number in cities like London. It's also why so many men contracted syphilis and then passed it on to their wives.

In terms of NPEs, which includes adoptions, formal and informal, and men taking the wife's name, as well as illegitimate births, over the span of hundreds and hundreds of years there are indeed cases of NPEs, putting the accuracy of many "trees" on line seriously in question, but studies done of Europeans shows percentages per generation at about 1-3 percent. Most women have indeed been very faithful.

This is all well known from a European social history perspective, and that definitely includes northern Europe. None of what I'm relaying is at all controversial. It's all supported by numerous studies which you can easily find. Or, just read English literature of any century, not just the 19th. In fact, most of the analysis that has been done was done in England. What it's like today in Berlin is irrelevant. Up until the 20th century northern Europe was, if anything, more puritanical about sexuality.


Men knew they were after other women and also knew that it was often just a matter of timing to get another man's woman into bed ... or into cave ... I am not talking about how I want life to be or how my western morals have taught me to think. I am referring to reality.

The reality is perhaps that men are promiscuous by nature. A lot of them certainly take pride in sleeping with as many women as possible. Just because they know their own nature, for most of human history, at least from the Bronze Age, they have tried to keep other men away from their women. That's reality. We can't project modern sensibilities into the past. Nor can we extrapolate from a minority and assume that most married couples today are "swingers". That's silly.

Good grief, even in today's America, "slut shaming" is of women, never of men. It gives a man status to be promiscuous. Young girls have committed suicide because they are remorselessly bullied personally and on the internet for their sexual behavior. Maybe you don't have teen-agers? Believe me, these are discussions you have to have with teen-agers of both sexes.

As to what attracts men, beauty attracts men. If they think that there is an exact correlation between a woman's beauty and her ease of sexual arousal, they're crazy. It doesn't work like that. Interest in sex is driven by hormones and life experiences. The best looking woman in the room may or may not be very interested in sex. She may feign interest or satisfaction as it's easy to do, but the reality may be very different. Also, in my experience most men don't want a woman who is willing to go with any reasonably attractive man of her acquaintance. Real life is not like porn films. Also, as applied to red heads, I guess it's culture dependent. From what I was told, the red hair was considered attractive enough, but freckles were considered ugly. My poor aunts spent hours putting buttermilk on the exposed parts of their bodies. Then, as I said, there was the stigma that they were probably willful and bad-tempered.

To get back to the actual topic, I don't know whether rh negative women have a "stronger" sex drive than rh positive women. Neither do I care. What I do know is that a claim by some rh negative women that they have a "higher sex drive" than other women is proof of absolutely nothing. That is not how a scientific study of this specific hypothesis should be conducted.

Also, whether or not we like it, social norms influence evolution. It's called social/sexual selection. It's real; it exists, whether we like it or not.

That's about all I have to say on the subject. You're free to believe as you wish.

@Tomenable
How old are you anyway? If you disagree with something I state have the guts to post a response instead of sniping from the sidelines with thumbs down for my every post. And they call women passive aggressive!

Fire Haired14
11-01-17, 06:28
It seems that this makes much sense in terms of self preservation that women with certain traits are more likely to have a higher sex drive ensuring that this trait will survive and be passed on.

No one consciously thinks about the survival of their traits.

Maciamo
11-01-17, 09:39
Then a study by German sex researcher Werner Habermehl strongly indicated the same with women who have red hair.
I couldn't help but remember the claim by Carvalli-Sforza that all genes with a frequency of below 0.5 are bound to go extinct which would include both of the recessive genes causing red hair and being the rh negative gene. This claim is of course complete nonsense as quite a few statements by C-S seem to be questionable at best.

I agree with you. The 0.5% threshold is indeed nonsense, as it doesn't take into account regional variations. The Basques are known for having high frequencies of Rh- (20-35%), while red hair is also well above 0.5% (5-15%) in Northwest Europe and the Volga-Ural region. But if we look at the worldwide frequency, both are under 1% and perhaps under 0.5%, especially since people of European descent represent an increasingly small portion of humanity with the booming populations in Asia and Africa. That doesn't mean that Rh- and red hair will go extinct.


If we go by historical writings, then red hair was indeed more common in the past than it is today. Germans, my own Liguri, and many others were described as "red-headed" and yet the percentages among their descendants today are very low.


I have explained in The genetic causes, ethnic origins and history of red hair (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/origins_of_red_hair.shtml) that the reason why red hair has been disappearing in the southern half of Europe is natural selection due to the difference of sunlight. While red hair is beneficial for vitamin D production in northern climes, especially in very overcast regions like the British Isles, Belgium and Norway, it offers no benefit under the 45th parallel and actually increases considerably the risk of skin cancer. People have only known about UV rays causing skin cancer for about 3 or 4 decades. In the past, peasants would have been working in the fields without protection, and most would have exposed their skin to direct sunlight in the heat of summer. Needless to say that red-haired people would have suffered regular sunburns and developed deadly melanomas early in life, decreasing their chances of passing on their genes. Melanoma is one of the types of cancers that most easily metastasizes, and therefore one of the deadliest.

Maciamo
11-01-17, 10:09
As for your article, I just read it. This is the main conclusion of the study:
"Rhesus negative subjects reported to have more frequent allergic, digestive, heart, hematological, immunity, mental health, and neurological problems. On the population level, a Rhesus-negativity-associated burden could be compensated for, for example, by the heterozygote advantage, but for Rhesus negative subjects this burden represents a serious problem."

They are so unhealthy one wonders how many viable, healthy offspring they're actually able to produce, despite the fact that there are some advantages to their condition.

Please go easy on him, Angela. Mike has his own blog about Rhesus negative and has researched the subject extensively for several years. He is also co-author of the paper you quoted in PLOS, so I don't think it's very helpful to patronise him about what the conclusions of the study. Besides, considering that about 16% of Europeans are Rh-, your comment could be seen as offensive by many forum members.



Oh, as to whether most women who cheated got caught, I don't know. That's not something for which there is objective data from what I can tell. What I can tell you is that in many cultures the fidelity of women is not left to chance. My grandmother in law went to visit her husband's family in the depths of Calabria. She happened to go to the post office one day, and while there a man who was also visiting from America greeted her and asked some questions about her life in America. By that night it was all over the village. At dinner time her brother-in-law came in and started screaming and carrying on. Luckily, she had been raised in Naples, a much larger and slightly less traditional environment, and she threw the platter of pasta at his head. Had this taken place in the 1800s, goodness knows what would have happened. It wasn't unknown of in certain parts of the world that men would scar their wives if they thought they got too much attention from men. That's just the way it was, and still is in large parts of the world. Just the other month I read that a woman in Pakistan was beaten and divorced because a man had walked into the kitchen and was alone with her for a few minutes. So, yes, my hunch is that most women who cheated would have been caught. In fact, a lot who didn't do it would suffer nonetheless, just for the suspicion of it.

I have always wonder why Italian men were so much more possessive, jealous and untrusting of their wives than say, northern Europeans. I think it may have something to do with the level of trust in general in society. I observed a certain degree of correlation between the level of corruption in a given society and the level of trust between individuals. Scandinavians are possibly the least corrupted people on Earth, but also some of the most sexually liberal and trusting. Within Europe, Italy suffers from one of the worst corruption problems and generally Italian people don't trust each other much. This is also reflected in the high jealousy and possessiveness between sexual partners. I think it's mostly cultural though, as I don't think Americans of Italian or Scandinavian descent differ that much from one another. There may be some underlying genetic differences, but cultures tend to trump them.

Trust in society also tends to be inversely correlated with genetic diversity. Italy has possibly the highest genetic diversity of any European country, but also the lowest trust level between individuals, especially outside the family. Scandinavia and Finland have the lowest genetic diversity and the highest level of interpersonal trust. It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. In very homogeneous groups like Mesolithic tribes, the survival of one's genes also depended on the survival of other tribe/family members. In a country like Finland, where 5 million people descend from a few related tribes of few thousands people 1000 years ago, everyone is relatively closely related, which fosters trust. Italy, Greece and Balkanic countries suffer from the opposite extreme, and people tend to trust far more family members than strangers.

Anyway, at the age of DNA tests the consequences of unfaithfulness are much less serious than they used to be. If a woman's cheating results in pregnancy she will not be able to hide it anymore, and they husband could divorce and/or sue her for having carried another man's child. That's the main reason why it has always been worse for women to be unfaithful than for men. This is an almost universally accepted distinction that bypasses geographic, cultural and historical boundaries. That is deeply ingrained in human nature because men do not want to raise another man's child without knowing it. But that distinction is now obsolete and there shouldn't be any difference between a man and a woman cheating. I am not saying that cheating isn't seriously damaging for the health of the relationship and mutual trust. It is still a personal deception (unless couples have an open relationship).

Angela
11-01-17, 15:46
Please go easy on him, Angela. Mike has his own blog about Rhesus negative and has researched the subject extensively for several years. He is also co-author of the paper you quoted in PLOS, so I don't think it's very helpful to patronise him about what the conclusions of the study. Besides, considering that about 16% of Europeans are Rh-, your comment could be seen as offensive by many forum members.

We review papers here all the time, Maciamo. If we think there are flaws in the paper we say so. If we think the conclusions aren't supported by the data, we say so. That's standard operating procedure. Are we supposed to treat this particular paper differently because one of the authors has joined the Board? (A fact I wasn't aware of until pretty late in the game, as it happens.) This paper doesn't prove what he says it proves, not, at least, in proving that rh negative women have a higher sex drive. Imo, if he can't take criticism of his work he shouldn't proffer it. However, I already stated that there was no point in further discussing the issue. We disagree, period.

The rest of your statement is a mystery to me. Where, precisely, did I "insult" rh negative people? He says rh negative women have a "higher" sex drive than other women. I said he hasn't proved it, and that you can't base conclusions like that on a questionnaire. You have to do a real scientific study with, at least, a precise definition of "higher" sex drive, and a comparison with non rh negative women. As to the rest of the discussion, he maintains that this higher sex drive is selected for, while I maintain it is selected against, in women.

That's higher sex drive in general, in all women, in Africa, Asia, as well as Europe. I never discussed rh negative women at all. How could I be insulting rh negative women for being more highly sexed when I don't believe he's proved it? Who says I think being highly sexed is a bad thing in and of itself anyway? I actually think it's a good thing. That doesn't mean society has seen it as a good thing, because it hasn't. Nor does being highly sexed necessarily correlate with promiscuity, I assure you. He has absolutely mis-characterized the discussion.

Also, none of this discussion has anything to do with the 20th century. It has to do with evolution over the course of millennia, when all women were expected to be faithful, including Scandinavian women. Is the claim now that in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries it was absolutely ok to be unfaithful to your husband in Scandinavian countries?

I'm also getting somewhat weary of singling out Italians when this discussion arises. Perhaps I too should claim that I am being insulted. I think there's more validity to that by far than to the OP's claim. Italians are not the only people in the world who exhibit sexual jealousy. Special treatment for "crimes of passion" existed in a lot of European countries. I assure you that male and female sexual jealousy both, and the violence it can sometimes engender, is alive and well in the U.S. It takes up a lot of the criminal dockets in the court system. It's human.

Still, if we're going to be stereotyped (indeed, we often stereotype ourselves), I guess I'd rather be stereotyped for that than for having a totally promiscuous, every sexual act is acceptable society.

Angela
11-01-17, 16:33
This is some more work product by Mike Dammann, when he was interviewed by Chris "Freedom Power", on "real truth" radio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zND_NDIvQHM

He ties rh negative blood to Atlantis (which is really Britain, for your information). Other videos tie it to aliens and the Illuminati. He subscribes, indeed, to every conspiracy theory in the world, including one where children in Pennsylvania are being experimented on by the government, with special experiments being conducted on superior rh negative children.

This is someone we're supposed to take seriously?

Perhaps, when someone's posts repeatedly come up as awaiting moderation we should take their internet reputation seriously.

firetown
11-01-17, 18:04
We review papers here all the time, Maciamo. If we think there are flaws in the paper we say so. If we think the conclusions aren't supported by the data, we say so. That's standard operating procedure. Are we supposed to treat this particular paper differently because one of the authors has joined the Board? (A fact I wasn't aware of until pretty late in the game, as it happens.) This paper doesn't prove what he says it proves, not, at least, in proving that rh negative women have a higher sex drive. Imo, if he can't take criticism of his work he shouldn't proffer it. However, I already stated that there was no point in further discussing the issue. We disagree, period.
Any criticism that is genuine and constructive is more than welcome. Starting with "here we go again" seems to indicate you having something against someone which has not a thing to do with our study. Highjacking this thread also is not welcome. As you did.


The rest of your statement is a mystery to me. Where, precisely, did I "insult" rh negative people? He says rh negative women have a "higher" sex drive than other women. I said he hasn't proved it, and that you can't base conclusions like that on a questionnaire. You have to do a real scientific study with, at least, a precise definition of "higher" sex drive, and a comparison with non rh negative women. As to the rest of the discussion, he maintains that this higher sex drive is selected for, while I maintain it is selected against, in women.

The study is done based on the desires indicated by rh negative women vs. statements made by the controls. "Do you have a higher sex drive?" is what you assumed we asked. I hope you understand that this type of silliness deserves no reply. And it is quite offensive to assume that this is how our data has been collected.


That's higher sex drive in general, in all women, in Africa, Asia, as well as Europe. I never discussed rh negative women at all. How could I be insulting rh negative women for being more highly sexed when I don't believe he's proved it? Who says I think being highly sexed is a bad thing in and of itself anyway? I actually think it's a good thing. That doesn't mean society has seen it as a good thing, because it hasn't. Nor does being highly sexed necessarily correlate with promiscuity, I assure you. He has absolutely mis-characterized the discussion.

This is contradictory to having an issue with me "singling out" rh negative women for it. As you have wrongfully claimed without even trying to understand the study.


Also, none of this discussion has anything to do with the 20th century. It has to do with evolution over the course of millennia, when all women were expected to be faithful, including Scandinavian women. Is the claim now that in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries it was absolutely ok to be unfaithful to your husband in Scandinavian countries?

I'm also getting somewhat weary of singling out Italians when this discussion arises. Perhaps I too should claim that I am being insulted. I think there's more validity to that by far than to the OP's claim. Italians are not the only people in the world who exhibit sexual jealousy. Special treatment for "crimes of passion" existed in a lot of European countries. I assure you that male and female sexual jealousy both, and the violence it can sometimes engender, is alive and well in the U.S. It takes up a lot of the criminal dockets in the court system. It's human.


You are the one who has brought this unimportant Italian storyline into this thread. I am somewhat interested in the Liguri, but not social norms created by insecure men oppressing societies and going more or less against human nature. This is about human nature. Not "your people" or whatever you are interested in. This thread is created by me about what I am interested in or, as you so politely claimed in your PM .. "I am obsessed by".


Still, if we're going to be stereotyped (indeed, we often stereotype ourselves), I guess I'd rather be stereotyped for that than for having a totally promiscuous, every sexual act is acceptable society.

You ever wonder if some of the comments you make are stereotyping yourself?

Maciamo
11-01-17, 19:27
We review papers here all the time, Maciamo. If we think there are flaws in the paper we say so. If we think the conclusions aren't supported by the data, we say so. That's standard operating procedure. Are we supposed to treat this particular paper differently because one of the authors has joined the Board? (A fact I wasn't aware of until pretty late in the game, as it happens.) This paper doesn't prove what he says it proves, not, at least, in proving that rh negative women have a higher sex drive. Imo, if he can't take criticism of his work he shouldn't proffer it. However, I already stated that there was no point in further discussing the issue. We disagree, period.

The rest of your statement is a mystery to me. Where, precisely, did I "insult" rh negative people? He says rh negative women have a "higher" sex drive than other women. I said he hasn't proved it, and that you can't base conclusions like that on a questionnaire. You have to do a real scientific study with, at least, a precise definition of "higher" sex drive, and a comparison with non rh negative women. As to the rest of the discussion, he maintains that this higher sex drive is selected for, while I maintain it is selected against, in women.

You are of course free to criticise any paper. My objection was not about the sex drive thing, but this particular sentence:

"They are so unhealthy one wonders how many viable, healthy offspring they're actually able to produce, despite the fact that there are some advantages to their condition."

That could be perceived as offensive to people who are Rh-. What you are saying implies that they are so unhealthy they should have gone extinct long ago. That's not very kind, and obviously not true if the Basques manage to maintain up to 35% of Rh-.

It's also the general tone of your replies which I found rather more aggressive than it should have been. That being said, I sometimes have bad days too.




Also, none of this discussion has anything to do with the 20th century. It has to do with evolution over the course of millennia, when all women were expected to be faithful, including Scandinavian women. Is the claim now that in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries it was absolutely ok to be unfaithful to your husband in Scandinavian countries?

I'm also getting somewhat weary of singling out Italians when this discussion arises. Perhaps I too should claim that I am being insulted. I think there's more validity to that by far than to the OP's claim. Italians are not the only people in the world who exhibit sexual jealousy. Special treatment for "crimes of passion" existed in a lot of European countries. I assure you that male and female sexual jealousy both, and the violence it can sometimes engender, is alive and well in the U.S. It takes up a lot of the criminal dockets in the court system. It's human.

Still, if we're going to be stereotyped (indeed, we often stereotype ourselves), I guess I'd rather be stereotyped for that than for having a totally promiscuous, every sexual act is acceptable society.

I was making some general observations about faithfulness. I didn't say that the Scandinavian way is better than the Italian way. I actually understand better than Italian jealousy than Scandinavian nonchalance toward sex. I am a natural monogamist and have never cheated on a partner in my life, and would never accept it on principle. I don't trust people very easily either. Genetically I see myself as a blend of ancient Scandinavian (Germanic) and North Italian (Italic/Roman and Alpine Celtic) more than anything else. Culturally I am probably more Italian than Scandinavian, as a native French speaker who is also fluent in Italian (but not in any Scandinavian language).

Angela
11-01-17, 21:12
You are of course free to criticise any paper. My objection was not about the sex drive thing, but this particular sentence:

"They are so unhealthy one wonders how many viable, healthy offspring they're actually able to produce, despite the fact that there are some advantages to their condition."

That could be perceived as offensive to people who are Rh-. What you are saying implies that they are so unhealthy they should have gone extinct long ago. That's not very kind, and obviously not true if the Basques manage to maintain up to 35% of Rh-.

It's also the general tone of your replies which I found rather more aggressive than it should have been. That being said, I sometimes have bad days too.




I was making some general observations about faithfulness. I didn't say that the Scandinavian way is better than the Italian way. I actually understand better than Italian jealousy than Scandinavian nonchalance toward sex. I am a natural monogamist and have never cheated on a partner in my life, and would never accept it on principle. I don't trust people very easily either. Genetically I see myself as a blend of ancient Scandinavian (Germanic) and North Italian (Italic/Roman and Alpine Celtic) more than anything else. Culturally I am probably more Italian than Scandinavian, as a native French speaker who is also fluent in Italian (but not in any Scandinavian language).

I'm sorry if that statement came across as insulting to the Basques or any other rh negative people; that certainly wasn't my intention. However, did you read the list of diseases which these authors claim are more common in rh negative people? It seemed to me that any reproductive advantage that might accrue from the supposed "higher sexuality" of their women would be offset by other factors like disease.

If I sounded unduly "aggressive", it's because it was clear to me from the beginning that this was a rehashing of a well known internet meme, "fake news" in my opinion, tied to the most outlandish conspiracy theories, to Atlantis, aliens and God knows what else, and totally lacking in scientific merit. I just didn't know the OP was one of the authors. I really have nothing further to say about rh negative, so I'll excuse myself from this thread. Imo, the claims made by the OP aren't worthy of consideration. Other people can draw their own conclusions.

As to attitudes toward sexuality, in this as in other things I think we're very alike. I too am a natural monogamist. Once committed, once having given my oath, there's also the fact that my own self-respect demands both that I keep that oath and that my partner keep it as well.

Oh, I was taken to task by PM for supposedly saying or implying that a strong sex drive in women correlates with infidelity or promiscuity. I never said any such thing. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. It seemed to me that it was the OP who was making that claim. To be clear, there is no such necessary correlation. Of that I'm sure.

firetown
11-01-17, 21:50
I'm sorry if that statement came across as insulting to the Basques or any other rh negative people; that certainly wasn't my intention. However, did you read the list of diseases which these authors claim are more common in rh negative people? It seemed to me that any reproductive advantage that might accrue from the supposed "higher sexuality" of their women would be offset by other factors like disease.

If I sounded unduly "aggressive", it's because it was clear to me from the beginning that this was a rehashing of a well known internet meme, "fake news" in my opinion, tied to the most outlandish conspiracy theories, to Atlantis, aliens and God knows what else, and totally lacking in scientific merit. I just didn't know the OP was one of the authors. I really have nothing further to say about rh negative, so I'll excuse myself from this thread. Imo, the claims made by the OP aren't worthy of consideration. Other people can draw their own conclusions.

As to attitudes toward sexuality, in this as in other things I think we're very alike. I too am a natural monogamist. Once committed, once having given my oath, there's also the fact that my own self-respect demands both that I keep that oath and that my partner keep it as well.

Oh, I was taken to task by PM for supposedly saying or implying that a strong sex drive in women correlates with infidelity or promiscuity. I never said any such thing. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. It seemed to me that it was the OP who was making that claim. To be clear, there is no such necessary correlation. Of that I'm sure.
Nice try Angela. There is no such thing as Atlantis, fake news, aliens, outlandishness and such in the study I have posted so you will not come off better wrongly accusing me of such a thing. As for taking you on by PM ... I hope you will not claim that it was me, cause if you do, I would appreciate you posting a screenshot.
My post about promiscuity was in reply to you stating about behavior of women who may not be able to perform and my thought expressed was that women with high sex drive might have back in the days before "western morals" took over acted upon that and gotten it from someone getting them pregnant instead. You seem to like to mix things. So my suggestion is to keep this scientific. Not about how you think I should spend my time on how men violate women as you have advised me in private. Or whatever else you think I should be interested in.

This is my subject of interest. Would it be possible for you to not sidetrack the topic and allow those who are interested to chime in on subject?