Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sperm Travels Faster Toward Attractive Females

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the like-father-like-gamete dept.

Science 347

A new study has shown that even sperm can be superficial. Researchers found that males of many animal species, including humans, can adjust the speed and effectiveness of their sperm by regulating the amount of seminal fluid they produce during copulation. The determining factor on that amount of fluid seems to be whether the male finds the female attractive.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Research (5, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652619)

I've actually done some research on this aswell. On majority of times when I found a good clip, I had to clean my monitor. This didn't happen when the clip was bad or the women on it unattractive. Hmm, wonder where they sell speedometers...

Re:Research (4, Informative)

thesolo (131008) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652807)

Only on /. could this comment get modded up to 5, Insightful.

Re:Research (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653023)

Maybe the moderators misread it; perhaps their monitors were grimy.

HE SHOOTS! (5, Funny)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652815)

HE SCORES!

Or vice versa, if I read the article correctly...

Re:Research (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652837)

By aswell, I assume you mean aswollen. As for speedometers, try a tennis tournament with one of those really pretty Russian blondes. They use speedometers to measure the speed of serves, but they probably have to factor out all of the ongoing research.

Sperm? They Can be Superficial? (5, Funny)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653169)

Does the article posting mean this in a topological meaning? :-)

I take that to mean on the chest and face. (.Y.)

Re:Research (3, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652923)

This didn't happen when the clip was bad...

Ugh, and I thought cleaning food crumbs out of the keyboard was nasty.

HUH? (4, Insightful)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652631)

If she was not attractive, why would he even be in there? Unless of course it is right after the bars close.

Oh wait . . .

Bars = alcohol
alcohol = drunk
ugly girls = cute girls

Now I've got it.

Re:HUH? (2, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652745)

Thus: Beer Goggles leads to lower chance of pregnancy.

Perfectly logical.

Re:HUH? (5, Funny)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652773)

So you're saying that the goggles actually do something?

Re:HUH? (0, Offtopic)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652851)

So you're saying that the goggles actually do something?

*laugh* Oh sure, and I've already used my mod points!

Cheers

Re:HUH? (1)

tacarat (696339) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653473)

Thus: Beer Goggles leads to lower chance of pregnancy. Perfectly logical.

Don't you have that reversed?

Re:HUH? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652781)

Why would a (more than likely) rotund, homely, socially awkward nerd who (more often than not) smells of cheetos and flop sweat be in there with an ugly girl? I can't even begin to guess.

In other words... (5, Funny)

Ragnarok21 (413417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653141)

...drink until she's cute, but stop before the wedding.

Re:In other words... (1, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653413)

Many lives have been ruined by doing tequila shots within a physical mile of a church.

Re:HUH? (4, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653529)

Depends on your definition of "attractive". Latest pop culture trend is to find large asses "attractive". Personally, I do not find large 'booty' or 'thick' females "attractive" and thus would not "hit it".

Re:HUH? (1, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653801)

Actually, the 'latest pop culture trend' is thin girls who look like emaciated prepubescent boys. I myself prefer women who look like, well, women. I tend to think men who like women who look like little boys may be playing for the wrong team, if you know what I mean.

Too small a sample size. (4, Funny)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652647)

I, for one, find their statistics sub-par and wish to volunteer my services for further study into the effect of having sex with attractive females on sperm behaviour.

Re:Too small a sample size. (5, Funny)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652813)

Unfortunately, it will probably be a double-blind study, so you've got a fifty-fifty shot at winding up in the control group.

Re:Too small a sample size. (5, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652871)

This is Slashdot. You take what you can get.

Re:Too small a sample size. (1)

Psyber_Netik (1587819) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653689)

lolz... wtf

Re:Too small a sample size. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653401)

Unfortunately, it will probably be a double-blind study, so you've got a fifty-fifty shot at winding up in the control group.

But, in this case, if you're double-blind, who cares if you end up in the control group?

Re:Too small a sample size. (5, Funny)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653451)

*shrug* I don't mind. I've had enough of the placebo...

Thanks Captain Obvious... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28652659)

In other news, men find sex more enjoyable with a woman who they find attractive instead of a "been-around-the-block-20-times, looks like the love child of Chewbacca and Worf, old battle-axe" woman.

Re:Thanks Captain Obvious... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653641)

Mmmm... Just to put a finer point on it, my preferences are (in order of importance):

1. Healthy (no suprises, please)
2. Enthusiastic/responsive
3. Attractive
4. Experienced

If you have 1 through 3, then "been around the block 20 times" can be a VERY nice addition.

-- Posting as AC so my wife won'tAAAAH!

For animals yes,,, but... (5, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652661)

... I can see a problem with this study if applying it's conclusions to people. I imagine the amount of sperm has to do more with being extremely turned on and not just attractiveness, you can be with a beautiful girl and not be that turned on because you don't get along that well, and you can be with an average girl who you connect with on a fundamental level that turns you on way more then the prettier girl.

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28652767)

also, don't forget about anal

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (4, Insightful)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652811)

Attraction isn't just physical... "turned on" = attracted

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653181)

Attraction isn't just physical... "turned on" = attracted

LOL. Exactly my point, with equal insight, but in 7 words. Hat's off. :)

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (2, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653363)

The GP assumed attraction = physical attraction. The parent said attraction = all attractions, including psychological attraction. The parent is in agreement with the article while the GP is not. All is based off the definition of "attraction".

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (2, Insightful)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652861)

This is knows as the Hottie-Frigid paradox. The most scorching hot women are nearly certain to be lousy in bed.

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (4, Funny)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653137)

This is knows as the Hottie-Frigid paradox. The most scorching hot women are nearly certain to be lousy in bed.

Spoken like someone who has given up all hope of having sex with an extremely attractive woman. Unless she's bored, or really new to sex, it's highly unlikely that she'll be any worse at it than any other girl.

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653513)

Ehhh I wouldn't totally dismiss the statement, being a slashdot reader I'm certainly not speaking from experience or anything but I've had friends speak of such things.

It seems the pretty ones are used to all the work being done for them all the time while the other girls well they're willing to put their back into it (so to speak).

Besides why's everyone in a rush all the time!!!!

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (5, Insightful)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653441)

That's because scorching hot females who like sex move to places like hollywood or palm beach or even go into business in some way (even if it is only as a vegas show girl). And if you happen to hook up with them, they are likely to sleep around on you ( and not just women- attractive men also sleep around a lot ). Hot women have different expectations of life-- just like people who are born and grow up rich.

They also have pretty severe defense mechanisms having been hit on and flattered since they were 13 by everyone. Meanwhile, the more normal females who didn't get as much flattery are still open to it. In a way, being pretty sucks because they have trouble accepting compliments.

Never got that lucky (or unlucky?) until I was in my late 30's. And then I hooked up with a hotty who later turned out to have been a stripper back in her 20s and tho it was incredibly fun for 10 years, it ended as horrifically as you can imagine (maybe more so). Before then, I'd have a decently average hot high school sweetheart (so I missed the whole bar scene/college party scene) and then a nicely hot dancing lady who was really sweet but had terminal religious problems with me (I'm not religious-- sometimes it would be easier if I was).

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653751)

What, you didn't pray at her altar enough? :P

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (1)

evilkasper (1292798) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653611)

... At least thats what we like to believe, since the most scorching hot women will never let us test this theory.

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652961)

Seems like the same conclusion to me, if you simply expand the definition of "attractive" for human males to mean more than superficial physical features; shouldn't "sexually attractive" essentially be a synonym for "sexually arousing"? The question would always be "what does the male find attractive in females?" and while for red junglefowl this may be a simple and largely empirical matter, for humans it obviously isn't. For the human version of the study, you'd probably just have to ask the man his opinion to find the correlation, though if humans have this ability then I would expect that you would see it correlate with "sexual attractiveness" as you surmise, and not "physical beauty" which isn't necessarily the same thing.

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653327)

"Seems like the same conclusion to me"

But the idea for evolution is that prettier women/animals are "more fit", and I doubt the definition of attractiveness in the study has much depth beyond very superficial characteristics and behavioural judgements (within a range of normalcy).

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653333)

Who says that only humans experience more than physical beauty or anything for that matter.

Animals have deeper relationships than that (maybe not the little ground hogs i saw in a group orgy at the zoo once) but I know many animals use sounds, feeling, and can distigishly clearly one individual from another by memory/experiences and more than just how they visually precieve them.

What's the difference? Just because you can understand a human trying to describe an emotion doesn't mean they are special.

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653835)

Also... one can be turned on just as much by other things (porn) and it doesn't necessarily have to be an attractive female, just something that really turns you on.

Re:For animals yes,,, but... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653233)

Maybe I was smoking something before that one class but I clearly remember humans being classified in the animal kingdom.

At least I can't punch a hole in this definition to think otherwise....

"any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animal like nutrition modes"

Speed vs inner beauty (1)

indre1 (1422435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652675)

Does the speed vary depending on inner beauty too?

Re:Speed vs inner beauty (5, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652765)

You would think so, considering thats only what the sperm sees.

Re:Speed vs inner beauty (1)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652889)

I think that depends on whether or not the person truly feels a girls inner beauty adds to her attractiveness. Since a persons attractiveness is based on the observer then it's very well possible that someone could find a girl attractive based on personality, in which case the speed would depend on "inner beauty."

lol (5, Funny)

syrinx (106469) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652741)

The best part of this article is the tag "!newsfornerds".

Re:lol (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652953)

The best part of this article is the tag "!newsfornerds".

Didn't have time to read the article but I think the best part is the image they selected; I like where The Eclipse Foundation has gone with its logo. Are those white snake-like things supposed to be languages flocking to the Eclipse logo? If so, very inclusive.

Re:lol (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653411)

I was more boggled by the representation of the action in 2 dimensions...like an egg isn't spherical.

Re:lol (1)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653743)

Well, this IS useless information in my book.

hmmz (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652751)

Interesting, allthough I'm pretty sure that Santax's balls do not make that difference.

nature does its best (1)

salesbot (1524011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652785)

nature does its best to let you make beer-goggle copulation decisions

How do they know? (3, Funny)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652803)

How does a sperm "know" if a female is attractive? Or are we talking about money shots from porn films here?

Re:How do they know? (5, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652899)

How does a sperm "know" if a female is attractive? Or are we talking about money shots from porn films here?

Despite the misleading headline, they say that males seem to be able to adjust -- most likely related to level of hormones or arousal.

Nobody is suggesting the sperm "know" anything, merely that the human glandular system is complex, and this is another example. :-P

Cheers

Re:How do they know? (4, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652931)

Nobody is suggesting the sperm "know" anything, merely that the human glandular system is complex, and this is another example. :-P

Or, more accurately in this case, red junglefowl. :-P

Cheers

Re:How do they know? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653543)

Please do not end a conversation about sperm and human glands with the word "Cheers!"
That is all.

and what makes a female rat attractive? (4, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653117)

More to the point, how can the researchers assess which female rats are "babes" and which ones are fuglies.

I really hope they're not projecting their own feelings and biases into the equation here. For this experiment to have any scientific value, there must be an objective measure of attractiveness, one with a proper definition and units (including a calibration standard). Can someone please tell me, for humans, what this measurement is based on, what the units are (Helens? the amount of beauty required to launch 1000 ships - but beauty is not attractiveness) and, most important, who the calibration reference is?

Men need to know.

Re:and what makes a female rat attractive? (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653479)

For this experiment to have any scientific value, there must be an objective measure of attractiveness, one with a proper definition and units (including a calibration standard).

No there doesn't. In fact to be as accurate as possible you must use a subjective one, because if you're trying to find a correlation between attraction and seminal potency, then it would naturally be the subject's opinion of attractiveness that matters. If you tried to find an "objective" measure of hawtness (realizing part of your point is that you can't), but the subject's metric differed, then you might find no correlation when in fact they are doing exactly what you hypothesized: emitting more/faster sperm when they find their partner more attractive.

Yes this means you would invite a subjective measurement, the subject's self-reported level of arousal/attraction, but this is hardly unprecedented.

BTW, in the study they didn't use humans or rats but red junglehens, where the metric is apparently pretty simple and uniform among males: size of the female's comb. Lots of animals have relatively simple selection criterion like this. Humans don't. So it becomes more complicated, but not impossible or invalid.

The attractiveness scale (1)

S7urm (126547) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653573)

I can't for the life of me remember the study, or who the man was that was considered the most un-appealing, but there was a study done that measure aesthetics, and then judged celebrities based on their "scientific aesthetic value" and from what I can remember of the study, it was actually based on something more than the "Schwing" factor.

Re:and what makes a female rat attractive? (1)

merreborn (853723) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653681)

More to the point, how can the researchers assess which female rats are "babes" and which ones are fuglies.

A bust:waist:hip ratio of 3 to 2 to 3 (in humans, 36-24-36)

It applies to all species. There's no debating that. It's science.

Re:How do they know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653707)

What don't you talk to your sperm? Show them a picture of the girl they are dieing for?

Fertility (4, Interesting)

Royanon (1594917) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652835)

This article was pretty interesting; for example the possible link between this and fertility rates. If there is indeed a link, it's going to come as a slap to the face for some couples having trouble. I also found it pretty interesting that sperm quality can be improved by daily masturbation.

Re:Fertility (5, Funny)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652895)

I also found it pretty interesting that sperm quality can be improved by daily masturbation.

Why? Everything is improved by daily masturbation.

Re:Fertility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653073)

Well not everything. I've been masturbating for 15 years and my penis is still 10 centimeters.

Re:Fertility (0, Offtopic)

Gabrill (556503) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653109)

Except your relationship with your mother-in-law . . . never get caught!

Re:Fertility (1)

Psyber_Netik (1587819) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653857)

Sounds like you speak from experience...

This is bad (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28652849)

Combined with this research [ucl.ac.uk] , which shows that ugly men release more sperm, the chance of conception appears to be highest when a stunningly attractive woman sleeps with an truly ugly man. Somebody please think of the children.

Re:This is bad (1)

SpasticWeasel (897004) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653859)

Ah yes, the well known William Joel effect.

From the department of duh? (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652933)

Yeah, and? It's also been established that other male mammals, including humans, can reply with something call semen displacement (circumsized males need not apply, some restrictions may apply, see mate for full rules and details) Women aren't without their biological defenses either; Concealing ovulation, various vaginal defenses, such as lack of secretions leading to a lower likelihood of fertility, etc., etc.

But really people, is it so freaking hard to just take us out to dinner, kiss our neck afterwords in an intimate and quiet environment, and actually DO the foreplay (and for those in longer-term relationships, not have it become formulaic?) Because if the sex sucks, it isn't going to matter how much scientific knowledge you have about the mating process -- it doesn't change the fact that it will still end in tears for you! *mutters* They can tell me down to the molecular level how conception works, but they can't even get the damn condom out of the wrapper and a bra off without completely ruining it...

Re:From the department of duh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653143)

> Because if the sex sucks, it isn't going to matter how much scientific knowledge you have about the mating process -- it doesn't change the fact that it will still end in tears for you!

I think you are under the misconception (ha. ha.) that 'we' think the knowledge in this article is going to improve our nonexistent sex lives. First of all, nobody is going to read the article. Secondly, those who read it anyway will do so because they like to know useless obscure stuff.

Re:From the department of duh? (4, Informative)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653267)

But really people, is it so freaking hard to just take us out to dinner, kiss our neck afterwords in an intimate and quiet environment, and actually DO the foreplay (and for those in longer-term relationships, not have it become formulaic?)

That goes both ways (especially if you're talking about a long term relationship). We guys accept the duty of keeping things interesting, but chicks have to play too if things are going to keep going well after a decade into the relationship. But I agree - Mood >> biological process. There is very little less sexy to a guy than a chick that just wants to score a baby. Ugh - I'd rather fly solo, thanks.

...They can tell me down to the molecular level how conception works, but they can't even get the damn condom out of the wrapper and a bra off without completely ruining it...

Again, it all comes down to mood. I find the best way to remove a bra is to make sure that things are moving smoothly and then say, "Lose the bra". Beats even the 1-handed Fonzie-level-cool maneuver and, assuming that the environment is right, can actually warm things up. (Of course, that is not always appropriate and a guy should be prepared to adjust.)

On topic, though, I can personally testify that a guy who is thoroughly turned on and has been for a while will, um, launch much more thoroughly and with more velocity than somebody who's just going through the motions.

Wow - WTF is this discussion doing on slashdot?!?

8==C=O=C=K==S=L=A=P==D ~~-_ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653283)

Let's have a little less nagging and talking and a little more sucking and fucking, K?

I don't know what is with you women. It should be enough that I liquored you up enough to let me cram my hand down your panties and tickle your clit.

Just get wet and shut the fuck up.

While we're at it ... put your face in the ground, and your ass in the air, bitch.

Alright. I'm done.

You might want to grab yourself a towel...

Wonder if this will work. (5, Funny)

wilburx (1147939) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652939)

Don't worry, I don't need to pull out because you're ugly.

Doesn't make sense (2, Insightful)

nysus (162232) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652955)

Then why is the world full of so many ugly people?

Re:Doesn't make sense (2, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653135)

Ugly people mate, too. They just mate with other ugly people. In other news, ugly men produce more sperm. Hot guys know they'll be donating a bunch of sperm to a bunch of willing ladies, while ugly guys apparently know they won't be getting many chances, so they've got no reason to hold some swimmers in reserve.

Ah, the wonders of nature.

Re:Doesn't make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653183)

In the UK it was reported as ugly men, due to getting laid less, shoot more sperm, increasing chance of copulation in the rare times they get sex. Attractive men, getting laid more often, have low sperm counts per encounter because they're spreading the seed around.

Re:Doesn't make sense (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653761)

"Then why is the world full of so many ugly people?"

Because the heritability of beauty is not 1 to 1, you can have beautiful people have ugly children and vice versa.

So, can beauty contests be settled... (1)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 5 years ago | (#28652979)

with a sperm race? With betting! A perfect blend of OTB and Miss Universe.

Some sperm will even find you in a pool.. (5, Funny)

Nukenbar (215420) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653041)

That is, if you are a 13 year old [dailymail.co.uk] "virgin".

Re:Some sperm will even find you in a pool.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653791)

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." -- Mark Twain

Re:Some sperm will even find you in a pool.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653867)

This is the funniest thing I have heard all day.

if you are talking ejaculate volume (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653071)

in the animal kingdom and in humans, you need to talk about testicle size

testicle size is a very good indicator of how monogamous females are. for example, chimpanzee females are very promiscuous. therefore, male chimpanzees have huge testicles. why? well, if the idea is you have to leave some offspring in this world, the only valid route you can take to ensure that with promiscuous females is to have a huge ejaculate load, to literally flood out competing males' sperm

it follows then that attractive females, with more frequent mating possibilities, require more "output" to ensure your reproductive success. so, biologically, it may not be a matter of aesthetic pleasure leading to greater sperm volume, but simply a matter of fear: you need to dump a huge load to make sure your sperm outcompetes all the other mating opportunities an attractive female can command

Re:if you are talking ejaculate volume (4, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653711)

...you need to talk about testicle size

And testicle count. A common misconception is that human males only have two, when they actually have three. This is because the center testicle is hidden in a fold of scrotum between the other two. Women who are interested should check this out with their husbands and boyfriends tonight.

Evolutionary bias? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653099)

I wonder what the evolutionary mechanics are to this. Why race to an attractive woman's egg more than an unattractive one? Seems that from a male perspective, it doesn't matter who the recipient is as long as the generic material is transferred, so men should always give it 100%. So we then arrive at the idea that men hold back on ugly partners. Now, why put yourself at a competitive disadvantage for unattractive women? What kind of evolutionary penalty is there? Does our reproductive system recognize that prettier people make for more successful future generation's mating? This would I believe be a new discovery in genetics and evolution. That our selves are organized just not for the immediate generation but successive generations as well.

Additionally, what does this mean for intercultural, interracial dating, where different societies find other societies' traits as attractive or repugnant?

Any other ideas on why giving it your all might not produce a favorable genetic distribution?

Re:Evolutionary bias? (1)

tabrnaker (741668) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653433)

maybe because we're just cogs in the genetic program? It's all about creating the perfect dna, not multiplying for no reason. Evolution has direction.

Re:Evolutionary bias? (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653519)

What I suspect is meant by an attractive woman is someone with nice hips and ample breasts, meaning the appropriate qualities for child-bearing. However, because of humanity's appreciation for aesthetic qualities other factors may come into play. I also think that popular culture was twisted what men find attractive so that guys end up going for woman who are overly plasticky or, at the other extreme, thin as toothpicks.

I think there is probably a general template for what is considered attractive, but certainly there are specific characteristics that are more appealing in some cultures. And again, I think popular culture has turned beauty into a caricature.

Re:Evolutionary bias? (1)

wasabii (693236) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653559)

Because there is a finite amount of sperm. This is about allocation of sperm. Allocate more sperm to attractive females, where attractiveness is established by ability to care for offspring. Strong body. Upright posture. Features which hint at youth, etc. The genes which then cause you to do the allocation are promoted more strongly.

First Post! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653185)

Ah shit. Premature again...

More Seminal Fluid == Male Thinks Woman is Hot? (3, Funny)

StaticEngine (135635) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653247)

Thus, Peter North thinks every single woman is a total babe.

Another study has attractive MALES releasing less (2, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653315)

Coincidentally(?) another study (American Naturalist) claims more attractive MALES releasing fewer sperm (they don't mention any correlation as to the attractiveness of females). Not quite the same thing but related.
Found this article at ScienceDaily.com, a great website by the way. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090709095425.htm [sciencedaily.com]

Re:Another study has attractive MALES releasing le (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653831)

All this shows is that females clearly are trying to destroy the human race by picking the weaker of the litter ;p

The more important subtext of this study (0, Offtopic)

raddan (519638) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653371)

is that men will have sex with women that they don't find attractive.

Of course, this fact may only be surprising to you if you are not a man.

I saw, I came... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653385)

I conquered?

In other news... (1)

MJMullinII (1232636) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653443)

attractive people seem to have more dates!

More at 11!

Re: Sperm Travels Faster Toward Attractive Females (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653465)

!newsfornerds vs. !clevertag

Tag Wars!

Nice Icon (0, Offtopic)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653467)

I cant believe ./ has that graphic, but not the Ubuntu graphic

are we missing something ? (2, Interesting)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653489)

Is there something more fundamental here? From the study, if it is true that ejaculation is better if the man finds the woman attractive and/or is highly turned on and it is more likely that the man is more turned on with a new girl (assumption ofcourse) than the same boring spouse that he sleeps with every night, does this mean that man was fundamentally a creature of instinct than commitment and that for better reproduction he should mate with more females than be married to one or something like that ?

Doing the Dog (3, Interesting)

Tihstae (86842) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653583)

In my younger days, quantity was more important and I would often "do the dog". This had several advantages. They were eager because they didn't get much attention paid to them. So not much work (or money) was needed to woo them. They would also be eager to please and would do things that the hot girls wouldn't (think swallow). Now I find that there was another great reason for doing the dog. My swimmers weren't as eager and it saved me a lot of child support money.

Yes, I am old enough to remember going bareback and not worrying (or even knowing) about AIDS. It is a different world now.

Re:Doing the Dog (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28653693)

It took me three tries to realize you weren't being literal.

Knew that all along (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653613)

Isn't that discovery already demonstrated eloquently in bukake porn?

From the article: (5, Funny)

drunken_boxer777 (985820) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653659)

"Males may alter the velocity of sperm they allocate to copulations by strategically firing their left and right ejaculatory ducts, which can operate independently," they explained.

"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire one ejaculatory duct or two?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya?"

OPE (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28653865)

"I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.........But I... I do deny them my essence." - General Jack D. Ripper

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?