Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sperm Travels Faster Toward Attractive Females

Posted by samzenpus on from the like-father-like-gamete dept.

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.

25 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. HUH? by arizwebfoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:HUH? by jo42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

    2. Re:HUH? by jhfry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, some men will take an ugly woman over no woman.

      Of course most of this research was done with animals... that way no feelings were hurt when the men rated their partner as unattractive.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
  2. Thanks Captain Obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Thanks Captain Obvious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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!

    2. Re:Thanks Captain Obvious... by nametaken · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cute, but they didn't report that sex was "more enjoyable". They reported that "sperm travels faster".

      So maybe not so obvious, huh?

  3. For animals yes,,, but... by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

    1. Re:For animals yes,,, but... by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:For animals yes,,, but... by GPLDAN · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    3. Re:For animals yes,,, but... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:For animals yes,,, but... by Bigby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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".

    5. Re:For animals yes,,, but... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  4. Re:Research by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

  5. From the department of duh? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:From the department of duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > 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.

    2. Re:From the department of duh? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?)

      Apparently it's really freaking hard for most guys, based on the difficulty many women seem to have in finding guys that meet those criteria. That said, it's apparently also really freaking hard for many women to show the same level of respect for men's similarly simple expectations.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    3. Re:From the department of duh? by girlintraining · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We guys accept the duty of keeping things interesting

      And that's half the problem. It's not supposed to be a duty, it's supposed to be something you do because you care about the other person.

      There is very little less sexy to a guy than a chick that just wants to score a baby.

      Most of my female friends would have less endearing things to say about that behavior.

      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.

      Here's a girl tip: You can learn to take one off (and put one on, although the mental imagery here is frightening) by just going to the store, buying one, and then trying to clip/unclip it around your knee while sitting on the floor or bed. Bend your knee at about a 45 degree angle, and practice that way. You think it's easy for us? Please. And that Fonzie-level-cool maneuver -- my girlfriend can do that (even through clothes) and it's a nice treat. I still have to take hers off with both hands. *grumbles*

       

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:From the department of duh? by gnick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe "duty" was a bad choice of words, as it's not a chore. But it is stressful for the guy and something that we're pretty well saddled with whether we like it or not. Hopefully, we like it. If not, we have to cowboy up and take the responsibility on anyway. The problem is that some women put the responsibility entirely on the guys and expect us to cater to them without putting out much if any effort on their own.

      Still, even though I know how to work a bra and am proficient in their operation, it's still often more fun to just playfully "demand" that it be removed. (Although, since I'm in a long term relationship - 10+ years married w/ kids, the bra is usually gone long before bed-time). There are plenty of fun foreplay games to play other than showing off brazier maneuvers.

      OK - mod-bomb me. I can't even fathom how this post relates to TFA =). Again - WTF is this discussion doing on slashdot?!?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  6. Doesn't make sense by nysus · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

  7. if you are talking ejaculate volume by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  8. and what makes a female rat attractive? by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:and what makes a female rat attractive? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 enemies of Democracy are
  9. Re:In other words... by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

  10. It's true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Less attractive chicks are, on average, better in bed than more attractive chicks. By a significant margin

    The conclusion should be pretty obvious - people don't like to work unless they have to, and the uglier the girl is, the more she has to.

    This message spoken by someone with a large enough sample size to draw a statistically significant conclusion.

  11. Every guy knows this by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More arousal and longer buildup means more ejaculate. Also a factor is the time since last orgasm. There are also various medical conditions and anomalies that can have an effect there too. I'd say that arousal probably has the least to do with it out of those three factors.

    And either way, it's not the sperm deciding to travel faster when inside an attractive woman, it's that they can travel more easily when they are in more seminal fluid which is released in larger quantities in certain situations.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org