baking and reading

[threeplusfire]

I like reading the New York Times, especially the Magazine section published every week. There's a short article on how a group of scientists made some randy voles become more monogamous. Imagine, a pill for monogamy. How interesting. Strange to think that something society has always considered a behaviour could have a physical, chemical basis more than a moral one. I'm sure there are more than a few people who would just love to have that excuse.

I've always felt more monogamous than not, so my vasopressin receptors must be just dandy.

Which ties into something else on my mind. I'm somewhat surprised by how gratifying it is to be a wife, to be somewhat domestic. I'm just as lazy as I ever was, I suppose. But having someone to bake for these days makes it just that much more fun. I don't think I could be a housewife, as I would get too bored until I had some other project to occupy my time. (And children will most definitely not be that project.) I don't know what to call it - but it's different than I imagined. I never did think I would have a normal life, but I like it.

I just want to stay home and bake all week. I'm on this kick. At least it means I'm cleaning the kitchen. Tonight I'm making strawberry & blueberry shortcakes with fresh whipped cream. Maybe later I'll get to work on the chocolate meringue fingers.

Comments

Thanks a lot!

[snaxxx.livejournal.com]

I was contemplating going to bed without dinner.

Now thanks to your post, I feel a sudden urge to finish off that pint of Ben and Jerry's New York Super Chunk languishing in my freezer!

Re: Thanks a lot!

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

It's all my fault! It will only get worse when I start posting recipes. ;)

Re: Thanks a lot!

[snaxxx.livejournal.com]

Noooo!

That's okay, I have been too distracted to get up to eat.
I probably shouldn't show this to you and catelin, but this (http://bookcrossing.com/friend/antsnax) is where I have been spending most of my internet time this week!

[todfox.livejournal.com]

Holy crap! That study is really making the rounds. Since when are vole relationships considered such great models for human relationships? Every time I see that study in a new news article (and it has appeared in several) the headline is bigger -- first it was just a study about some changes in some rats but now we've extrapolated to "curing" human behavior with a pill?

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

In theory I suppose, if human chemicals responded in the same way. And isn't most science based on experiments done on rodents these days?

I wonder how hard it would be to get a human group to test that theory out on.

[todfox.livejournal.com]

We do a lot of brain science based on rodents, yes. But the problem is that human sexuality is way different than that of most other animals -- we have sex as a form of social bonding in a way that other animals don't, not just for procreation; we don't just have sex once a year when women are fertile, which makes us much different than other animals. Given this, I am dubious about the accuracy of science transferred from rodents when applied to human relationships or sexuality. A similar study carried out on a promiscuous species that is a close relative like the Bonobos monkey might be more convincing. Also, this note from an older article on vasopressin (http://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/66bed39aea0e4aa78525643500821418?OpenDocument) in the same species made it sound oh so pleasant if it does apply: they also become antagonistic toward nonfamiliar members of their own sex, possibly (Carter speculates) because of a parallel release of vasopressin -- it is structurally similar to oxytocin and is known to increase territoriality in other rodents..

Just my thoughts as a non-animal scientist who has seen this a few times now.