Sperm Travels Faster Toward Attractive Females

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.

Comments

HUH?

[arizwebfoot]

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?

[jo42]

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".

Thanks Captain Obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

[nametaken]

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

So maybe not so obvious, huh?

For animals yes,,, but...

[blahplusplus]

... 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...

[Andy Dodd]

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

Re:For animals yes,,, but...

[Chris Burke]

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...

[Maxo-Texas]

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:Research

[Sponge Bath]

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

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

From the department of duh?

[girlintraining]

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?

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

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.

if you are talking ejaculate volume

[circletimessquare]

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

and what makes a female rat attractive?

[petes_PoV]

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.