# Is sexual attraction genetic?



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

Science suggests that there could be many genes that deeply influence sexual attraction that are not necessarily visible. Companies offer tests to determine a couple's sexual chemistry. Please share thoughts and links.


> A new study reveals that a cluster of genes, involved in immune function among other things, could predict how sexually attracted a person is to a partner and how likely a woman is be faithful to her mate. Couples in which the individuals had dissimilar versions of so-called major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes had the greatest sexual compatibility.


MHC genes predict sexual attraction.
Rhesus-minus phenotype as a predictor of sexual desire.
DNA love connection.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Mark R said:


> Science suggests that there could be many genes that deeply influence sexual attraction that are not necessarily visible. Companies offer tests to determine a couple's sexual chemistry. Please share thoughts and links.
> 
> 
> MHC genes predict sexual attraction.
> ...


I don't have any articles to share on this topic but logically, attraction/sexual desire are based on many factors that are genetic in nature, so there's no possible way to say that it's not at least partially based on genetics. Having said that though, the discovery of epigenetics has also shown that we are not just the sum of our genes and that our experiences do truly make us unique, even among twins or hypothetical clones, etc.

I guess I'll pull up a few articles on epigenetics.









Epigenetics, the misunderstood science that could shed new light on ageing


The study of the epigenome came with claims that trauma could be inherited, but now researchers are more excited about its potential to measure the risk of disease




www.theguardian.com








__





Identical Twins Carry Lifelong Epigenetic Signature Reflecting Early Genomic Events


The signature encompasses 800 sites and hints at how monozygotic twins might develop, though the researchers say more functional studies are needed.




www.genomeweb.com












Epigenetics: The Science of Change







www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

@Mark R Oh also, your third link is broken. I forgot to mention that in my first post.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

Scoobyscoob said:


> @Mark R Oh also, your third link is broken. I forgot to mention that in my first post.


Thanks. It is fixed now.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Mark R said:


> Thanks. It is fixed now.


Interesting article. I'm not sure I'd want to be matched with someone that way but for people who do then that's fine. That way if it doesn't work out, the couple really will only have no one to blame but themselves, hahah.


----------



## SummerBreasts (Jul 28, 2020)

I would say it's genetic. I didn't choose to be gay, nor is there any anomaly in my upbringing that would suggest anything unusual.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Probably, yes, just like any preference that we have. I think the universe is deterministic in the sense that everything that we do, say, like, dislike, fear, etc, has a cause, even if we don't know that cause. Some of it might be random, specifically what traits/genes we do inherit from our parents/lineage and what traits we don't inherit, but it is very likely that it can all be traced down to…something, even if we don't know what exactly for sure. We just generally don't know the totality of our circumstances, of our causes. But there is a cause for everything.

Sexual attraction is no different, and whatever the traits that turn you on and turn you off are, there are causes for every single one of them. If that's a character trait that you don't like and turns you off, well, it's not directly sexual but it turns you off, so it's valid. You get the jist of it. My take is that all of that is written in your genes.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

I think the interesting thing I am taking from this is that women are able to detect genetic incompatibility, but men aren't. This means that women should pay attention to what they sense about potential sexual relationships and men should listen with out taking things personally or arguing against what the woman senses logically. This could also explain some of the female dissatisfaction in certain relationships. This may apply to only heterosexual couples. Most likely, male/male relationships are free of such concerns. I have no idea how female/female relationships are affected. For relationships involving a non-binary member, it would depend if either in the couple genetically inherited this female sixth sense.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

*I personally believe that who we are is a very fascinating/complicated/nuanced interaction of nature and nurture, genetics, even what we're exposed to in utero, etc 

*

My parents are still together and obviously love each other. There were a few rough patches that I remember from childhood, but overall they obviously cared about each other --were/are attracted to each other-- love/love each other. I have never been attracted to the type of person my father is, either in personality or looks, but clearly my mother was/is. (Don't get me wrong, he's great and I love my father, but I do not have that whole Freudian being into people like my father thing.) Nor am I attracted to people like my mother, in personality or looks, but clearly my father was/is.

I do realize that genes go back further than just my parents so it's impossible to say for sure if I share any of my preferences with any of my ancestors. I am bisexual (I don't really think that's a "preference" as I was in denial for ages and also tried to pray and reason it away, and such). I do know for a fact that my parents absolutely aren't bisexual. They really just couldn't understand that one. (My mom really tried to understand, but no, it was just inconcebible to her.) I have a large extended family, and as far as I am aware, everyone is straight (granted that's statistically unlikely, sure).

sure that's anecdotal, but I can't really go quiz long dead ancestors about it.

Edit: *genes are cool though. I recently had a genetic test that informed me that as an adult I've entirely lost the ability to digest lactose. It's in my genes, and yet my siblings, parents, grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles no one else has that.* *My brother did have a different milk issue as a child, but he can consume it now. So clearly that came from someone, but no one I've met, and no idea how long ago they lived or whatever. *(And before someone gets witty, yes, I know I'm for sure I'm father's kid. I look just like him.)


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I think it’s a combination of Nature & Nurture


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm really obsessed with human evolution biology right now because of Robert Sapolsky. You may find this interesting?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

I didn't click the links but if it's relative to complementary immune systems, yes, I've read about this and find it fascinating.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

This Wikipedia article supports that it is the human female detects genetic compatibility based on smell.


> Studies have shown that body odor is strongly connected with attraction in heterosexual females. The women in the study ranked body odor as more important for attraction than “looks”. Humans may not simply depend on visual and verbal senses to be attracted to a possible partner/mate.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

But that's just attraction, that's not genetic compatibility. I don't think genetic compatibility can be successfully predicted unless we also take time to see what the result is.

I can tell from experience, as a male, that scent is super important for me too. Not perfume nor cologne. If a woman is fresh out of the shower and I like her scent it drives me mad. It's very likely that it's a pheromones thing.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

Some factors are, some are not. That's true for almost any aspect of human behaviour. Deep down we're just animals trying to convince ourselves that we're not animals.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

Lonewaer said:


> But that's just attraction, that's not genetic compatibility. I don't think genetic compatibility can be successfully predicted unless we also take time to see what the result is.


Genetic compatibility is a component of attraction. A woman can think a man named Chad is a great provider and protector. She can admire his character. She can rate him a 9/10 in looks and personality. If his genes have an incompatibility, she will think that something is just wrong about the way he smells and she won't be interested. Women interviewed in these cases will say, "Chad smells like my brother."


Lonewaer said:


> I can tell from experience, as a male, that scent is super important for me too. Not perfume nor cologne. If a woman is fresh out of the shower and I like her scent it drives me mad. It's very likely that it's a pheromones thing.


Scent is important to males too. The male sense of smell might help us detect when women are most fertile or something like that. It is very likely that what men detect things women don't. Still, I don't think it is as common that males would blacklist potential sexual partners because of smell alone.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Nature + Nurture


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

> how likely a woman is be faithful to her mate


What even the fuck is this wording lmfao. Are the researchers a bunch of Incels cuz that's how they phrased this. Should just have replaced woman with Stacey lmfao.

Apparently wanting to fuck Chad or Tyrone is in Stacy's genes. Who knew!


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

If all other things were equal than I would say it would come to genetics. But rarely are all other things equal.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

circle_of_power said:


> If all other things were equal than I would say it would come to genetics. But rarely are all other things equal.


The research is pretty clear. Incompatible genetics leads to bad sex, cheating, and broken relationships.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

SummerBreasts said:


> Not normally. But as has been pointed out already, the phrase is sexist.


No it isn't. The phrase is as neutrally descriptive as possible, it just happens to be unflattering towards women. "Unflattering" is not "sexist". You don't say that about the idea that maybe women are better at detecting compatibility, which implies that men are worse at it. Nor when studies describe how men are on average more physically violent than women are. You don't say anything about those (I'm pretty confident), yet, it's a statistical fact, that happens to be unflattering towards men, without being sexist. And if you still think that "unflattering" is "sexist", then in that case sexism is perfectly ok.

So it isn't sexist, and that doesn't make OP an incel, that's pretty ignorant thing for you to just go there without knowing wth you're talking about. Stop it. Get some help.


----------



## SummerBreasts (Jul 28, 2020)

Scoobyscoob said:


> I think the toxic redpill movement does stem from militant feminism who have framed sex and gender equality in terms of necessarily being men vs women. Which is why I believe 90s and 00s brand of feminism has fallen way out of favor by most women (and men) today. Being politically divided isn't too big of a deal, it's just politics but making gender equality about being men vs women solves absolutely nothing regarding gender equality but causes harm to both women and men who want gender equality but not framed as being men vs women. Also, what you're referring to sound like pheromones. Both men and women emit them and plays a fairly moderate role in terms of innate initial attraction. Although scent itself is deeply ingrained in human brain and a person smelling good can positively affect how people will behave toward them and the opposite for someone who smells bad. That's also something you have control over with scents, colognes for men and perfumes for women, etc.


Oh I'm not a woman hater. Are you?


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

SummerBreasts said:


> Oh I'm not a woman hater. Are you?


Insisting are we ?

I already answered, learn to read.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

SummerBreasts said:


> Oh I'm not a woman hater. Are you?


I never said you were a redpiller or incel. Why so defensive if you're confident you're not. Also, you and your buddy on the previous pages were the ones bullying the OP by calling him and calling "the researchers" incels.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

SummerBreasts said:


> Oh I'm not a woman hater. Are you?


Also, no I'm not a misogynist. I was insulting you and that other guy on behalf of the OP because of your behavior in this thread.


----------



## SummerBreasts (Jul 28, 2020)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Also, no I'm not a misogynist. I was insulting you and that other guy on behalf of the OP because of your behavior in this thread.


Goodness. That was a lot of words to just say no.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

SummerBreasts said:


> Goodness. That was a lot of words to just say no.


I also wanted to explain why I said what I did rather than just leaving that up for interpretation.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Also, no I'm not a misogynist. I was insulting you and that other guy on behalf of the OP because of your behavior in this thread.


A lot of problems in this world are caused by people stepping in and 'defending' people that might not need defending. 

Insulting people over something you don't have a personal stake in might be a bridge too far for most people. 

As a bystander I would usually advise people to try and ease tensions rather than grow them. People that are already in a situation can usually manage getting a discussion out of control without help. Breaking the escalation is a lot harder and people often need help with that. Might be a more rewarding way to spend you time, although it's up to you of course, it's your time to spend as you see fit.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Drecon said:


> A lot of problems in this world are caused by people stepping in and 'defending' people that might not need defending.
> 
> Insulting people over something you don't have a personal stake in might be a bridge too far for most people.
> 
> As a bystander I would usually advise people to try and ease tensions rather than grow them. People that are already in a situation can usually manage getting a discussion out of control without help. Breaking the escalation is a lot harder and people often need help with that. Might be a more rewarding way to spend you time, although it's up to you of course, it's your time to spend as you see fit.


I wasn't defending anyone, I was calling out two people who I felt needed to be called out. You may not have a problem with bullying but I do.

Oh, I see a bridge too far for 'most people'. Is that where 'most people' get mad at me for getting involved in something I had no personal stake in, so in return make some vague threat about also getting involved in something 'most people' don't have a personal stake in? Aside from the massive hypocrisy of going after the second person who 'raised tensions' in this thread, how about 'most people' lecture someone on not getting involved to the person with no 'personal stake' who started 'raising tensions' to begin with.

You should be talking to SilentScream on how to not be an asshole and to not get involved in something he/she has no personal stake in. Because everything you've just told me I'm just going to shrug off if you're not even going to lecture the person who deserves to be lectured on how to not be an asshole and to not get involved when no 'personal stakes' are involved.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> I wasn't defending anyone, I was calling out two people who I felt needed to be called out. You may not have a problem with bullying but I do.
> 
> Oh, I see a bridge too far for 'most people'. Is that where 'most people' get mad at me for getting involved in something I had no personal stake in, so in return make some vague threat about also getting involved in something 'most people' don't have a personal stake in? Aside from the massive hypocrisy of going after the second person who 'raised tensions' in this thread, how about 'most people' lecture someone on not getting involved to the person with no 'personal stake' who started 'raising tensions' to begin with.
> 
> You should be talking to SilentScream on how to not be an asshole and to not get involved in something he/she has no personal stake in. Because everything you've just told me I'm just going to shrug off if you're not even going to lecture the person who deserves to be lectured on how to not be an asshole and to not get involved when no 'personal stakes' are involved.


I didn't really read the history of all of this, I mostly responded to you stating that you were "insulting a person on behalf of someone else". 
Maybe you were overstating things for dramatic effect, my point was mostly that the behaviour you were describing was not helpful. 

Do with that as you will, I don't have any stakes in this.


----------



## Kelly Kapowski (Apr 26, 2018)

Drecon said:


> A lot of problems in this world are caused by people stepping in and 'defending' people that might not need defending.


One could also argue a lot of problems in this world are caused by people _not _stepping in and ignoring/allowing poor behavior.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Drecon said:


> I didn't really read the history of all of this, I mostly responded to you stating that you were "insulting a person on behalf of someone else".
> Maybe you were overstating things for dramatic effect, my point was mostly that the behaviour you were describing was not helpful.
> 
> Do with that as you will, I don't have any stakes in this.


Well if you had started from page 1 you'd see I wasn't the one to start the problems in this thread. I wasn't overstating anything, especially not for dramatic effect. I responded as harshly as I thought I should, to end all the insult hurling that was already going on. Also, the bullying stopped, whether it was because of me or not so you couldn't really it wasn't helpful. Anyway, I consider what happened here to be about a week in the past by now and not really something worth bringing back up when it comes to forum drama. 😛


----------

