Science explains why ugly males still exist

[JoeE]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25759989-5011761,00.html

We give it our all, because there might not be another chance!


WOMEN wanting to get pregnant should find themselves an ugly man, new research suggests.

Scientists have found attractive males produce less sperm during sex.

Researchers think good-looking males are biologically geared to hold back their sperm in each encounter to increase their chance of impregnating more females.

But unattractive males know they are not going to bed so many females - so when they do get lucky they give it all they've got.

The findings from the University of Oxford and University College London are backed up by studies of chickens and fish, but researchers think they could well apply to humans too.

"Human attractiveness is complicated and influenced by a number of factors including cultural preferences," said UCL researcher Sam Tazzyman.

"Nonetheless, ejaculate size and sperm quality are likely to have been moulded by similar forces, like attractiveness and the number of sexual partners, that are important in other species."

Reporting the findings on the university's website he said: "The more attractive a male is, the more females will be willing to mate with him, reducing the value of each mating to him. This means it is optimal for him to contribute fewer sperm per mating."

"Although this reduces fertility per mating, it maximises the number of offspring he sires overall.

"Less attractive males secure fewer matings but value each of them more highly, and by allocating more sperm to each mating make the most of their meagre opportunities.

"This leads to the rather paradoxical prediction that matings with attractive males may be less fertile than those with unattractive males."

[19bernardo87]

Well, I suppose that's comforting. :)

[Chuuie]

so if i want to avoid getting knocked up, spread my legs for the comely ones :) wow this really helps out the geeky boy population, doesnt it?

[Patch]

Force of will determines chance of pregnancy?

Excuse my skepticism...

[Khrutch]

That could possibly be the dumbest thing I have ever read, like, ever. There goes one minute of my life I’ll never get back.

[NickT]

Science is trying to help me get laid with items like this. Thanks science!

[WhindamPryce]

I'm printing this out and taking it with me to the bar next time. :)

[c. page]

i'm kind of curious how they determined which were the attractive fish and chickens, and which were the ugly ones...

[Patch]

i'm kind of curious how they determined which were the attractive fish and chickens, and which were the ugly ones...

The attractive ones made the males buy dinner. The ugly ones went dutch.

[Ryudo]

That was one of the stupidest articles I've ever read.

[19bernardo87]

Not to mention that this study was probably funded and carried by less-than-attractive people. :cool:

[Corwin: Bear Fighter]

I can personally attest to this.

[Ben]

Also, lower quality males, since they're going to be uglier anyway, can shift energy away from things like attractiveness and put them towards producing more sperm. It's funny that I was just reading about this stuff today, but it was more about what small body size male insects might do in species where smaller males are at the disadvantage.

[Kedd]

so if i want to avoid getting knocked up, spread my legs for the comely ones :) wow this really helps out the geeky boy population, doesnt it?

I think you have that backwards

"This leads to the rather paradoxical prediction that matings with attractive males may be less fertile than those with unattractive males."
Us below average guys are baby makers. We'll get you knocked up and then you'll never be rid of us...or our ugly children

[c. page]

I think you have that backwards

Us below average guys are baby makers. We'll get you knocked up and then you'll never be rid of us...or our ugly children

oddly enough, i've noticed that when two really attractive people have kids, the kids are not always guaranteed to be cute.

while i've seen some gorgeous people with hideous parents...

[Wigner's Friend]

It's rape isn't it?

[Ryan Elliott]

That could possibly be the dumbest thing I have ever read, like, ever. There goes one minute of my life I’ll never get back.


That was one of the stupidest articles I've ever read.


What a surprise. :-|

[Andrew]

What a surprise. :-|

:lol:

[Ben]

What a surprise. :-|Hey, you'd be cranky, too, if you were surrounded by so much sperm.

[Ryan Elliott]

:lol:

http://crowemovies.tripod.com/casablanca/casa31.jpg


Hey, you'd be cranky, too, if you were surrounded by so much sperm.


:)

[Spidey616]

Well this explains Moe Sizlack ;)

[Caley Tibbittz]

Ugly males still exist because my dad was ugly.

[Hock]

i'm kind of curious how they determined which were the attractive fish and chickens, and which were the ugly ones...

Well asymmetry is unnatractive, and with fish weak floppy fins are unatractive while shiny scales are sexy. And with chickens if their comb stands up straight that is HAWT while if the are losing feathers... well that's the equivilant of being bald.

[King of Mars]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25759989-5011761,00.html

We give it our all, because there might not be another chance!No wonder my wife got pregnant so quickly after going off birth control. Seriously, it was, like, three or four tries and that seed was planted! I thought it was a testament to my sheer manliness and virility. Now, I find out it can be attributed to the fact that I look like Quasimodo's uglier, younger brother. Thanks for that info, JoeE!

[WillieLee]

This sounds like some hippie nonsense Ben would be interested in.

[dasNdanger]

"...But unattractive males know they are not going to bed so many females - so when they do get lucky they give it all they've got...Less attractive males secure fewer matings but value each of them more highly, and by allocating more sperm to each mating make the most of their meagre opportunities..."

This makes me feel so sorry for ugly guys... :sad: I just wanna mother 'em all now. Poor fellas.


das

[Ben]

This sounds like some hippie nonsense Ben would be interested in.
Hippies study sociality, not sex.

[TIP]

My son TAP wept!

[Jef UK]

Force of will determines chance of pregnancy?

Excuse my skepticism...

That's not what it's saying at all.

Although there's nothing wrong with skepticism.

[I AM GROOT!]

So how much sperm does an ugly guy release when he pleasures himself to pictures of Angelina, Scarlett, etc.? :-?

[adam_warlock_2099]

What a surprise. :-|

On this board? Where 8 hours of some people lives are spent arguing whether the latest H4H cover is hentai porn or not?

Surely you jest with your surprise Mr Elliott. Everything else on this board is well worth reading.

[adam_warlock_2099]

So how much sperm does an ugly guy release when he pleasures himself to pictures of Angelina, Scarlett, etc.? :-?

Not as much as a picture of Bettie Page.

[cmoney]

That could possibly be the dumbest thing I have ever read, like, ever.

I suspect it probably isn't.

[Jason California]

That was one of the stupidest articles I've ever read.


Do you think you send yours out in bursts?

[Ryan Elliott]

I suspect it probably isn't.

I would hope he reads his own posts.

[Supajoe]

I would hope he reads his own posts.

:lol:

[Ryudo]

What a surprise. :-|
Cute.

But based purely on a scientific standpoint, it's ridiculous to think that they can base human behavior on chickens, and fish.

[Garth]

Hippies study sociality, not sex.

Hippies just have lots of sex?

[Ryan Elliott]

Cute.

But based purely on a scientific standpoint, it's ridiculous to think that they can base human behavior on chickens, and fish.

why thank you! I'm so glad you noticed, I've been using a different eyeshadow lately.

[Ryudo]

why thank you! I'm so glad you noticed, I've been using a different eyeshadow lately.

Yeah, I noticed the Bat-cowl was a dark green rather than a black. :)

[Ryan Elliott]

Yeah, I noticed the Bat-cowl was a dark green rather than a black. :)

It IS summer after all. Well, ta!

[Ben]

Cute.

But based purely on a scientific standpoint, it's ridiculous to think that they can base human behavior on chickens, and fish.That's 100% wrong. You basically sound like all the sociologists and pick at scientific research into human behavior without understanding the principles being tested.

Humans are animals. We've evolved through the same processes that every other organism has evolved. This study is far from ridiculous on scientific grounds.

[Ryudo]

That's 100% wrong. You basically sound like all the sociologists and pick at scientific research into human behavior without understanding the principles being tested.

Humans are animals. We've evolved through the same processes that every other organism has evolved. This study is far from ridiculous on scientific grounds.

Hmm... maybe you're right! I guess I'll do more reading on the subject when I get some time. Thanks for the explanation!

[19bernardo87]

That's 100% wrong. You basically sound like all the sociologists and pick at scientific research into human behavior without understanding the principles being tested.

Humans are animals. We've evolved through the same processes that every other organism has evolved. This study is far from ridiculous on scientific grounds.

I dunno... chickens don't have sex for pleasure, for instance.

I'd actually be interested in seeing the paper, or at least a list of the peer reviewers and which journals published it.

Does anybody even know the name of the paper and the authors?

[Ben]

Hmm... maybe you're right! I guess I'll do more reading on the subject when I get some time. Thanks for the explanation!Also, most people's view of animals like chickens and fish are pretty limited, possibly because they just view them as food. But they're not just robots that walk (or swim) around following some hard-wired instinct. They make complex decisions, learn and change their behavior based on experiences, etc. Depending on how social they are, they would form bonds with other individuals and would thus probably feel emotions like love and friendship. They'd also feel fear, anger, everything humans do. We, as humans, are not qualitatively different from anything else. The main thing that seems to set us apart as unique is that our social behavior is more complex than other animals. We don't have unique social behavior. It's just more complicated. But we might just think it's more complicated because WE'RE humans and know and understand all the intricacies. If we were able to live as a fish or a honeybee for a few years, we might think differently.

Anyway, blah blah blah. WillieLee should make fun of me now.

[WillieLee]

That's 100% wrong. You basically sound like all the sociologists and pick at scientific research into human behavior without understanding the principles being tested.

Humans are animals. We've evolved through the same processes that every other organism has evolved. This study is far from ridiculous on scientific grounds.

I think it's ridiculous because the dude in the study posts pictures of himself drinking on his bio page.

[Ben]

I dunno... chickens don't have sex for pleasure, for instance.How do you know this? You don't think chickens have orgasms?

And if you're saying "Chickens have sex just to reproduce, while humans also do it just to feel good sometimes." Well, I think that's wrong. Non-procreative sex in humans has plenty of known functions -- pair bonding, practice, etc.

I think the only things humans do just to get the sensory response is drugs.

[19bernardo87]

How do you know this? You don't think chickens have orgasms?

And if you're saying "Chickens have sex just to reproduce, while humans also do it just to feel good sometimes." Well, I think that's wrong. Non-procreative sex in humans has plenty of known functions -- pair bonding, practice, etc.

I think the only things humans do just to get the sensory response is drugs.

Honestly, Ben, I'm gonna disagree with you there.

Just the way we choose partners, marriages, etc. Sexual selection is a whole lot different for humans than it is for other animals.

I'm extremely skeptic about this study, and requesting to see the paper before changing my mind I think is the right attitude.

[WillieLee]

Also, most people's view of animals like chickens and fish are pretty limited, possibly because they just view them as food. But they're not just robots that walk (or swim) around following some hard-wired instinct. They make complex decisions, learn and change their behavior based on experiences, etc. Depending on how social they are, they would form bonds with other individuals and would thus probably feel emotions like love and friendship. They'd also feel fear, anger, everything humans do. We, as humans, are not qualitatively different from anything else. The main thing that seems to set us apart as unique is that our social behavior is more complex than other animals. We don't have unique social behavior. It's just more complicated. But we might just think it's more complicated because WE'RE humans and know and understand all the intricacies. If we were able to live as a fish or a honeybee for a few years, we might think differently.

Anyway, blah blah blah. WillieLee should make fun of me now.

Oh Ben, you know I love you. But just think how difficult your job would have been if bees had dance clubs.

[Ben]

Honestly, Ben, I'm gonna disagree with you there.

Just the way we choose partners, marriages, etc. Sexual selection is a whole lot different for humans than it is for other animals.

I'm extremely skeptic about this study, and requesting to see the paper before changing my mind I think is the right attitude.As someone who has studied sexual selection in animals and humans over the last 13 years, I don't see how it's so fundamentally different. How is it different?

[Magnum V.I.]

How do you know this? You don't think chickens have orgasms?

And if you're saying "Chickens have sex just to reproduce, while humans also do it just to feel good sometimes." Well, I think that's wrong. Non-procreative sex in humans has plenty of known functions -- pair bonding, practice, etc.

I think the only things humans do just to get the sensory response is drugs.

Animals have been known to get high or drunk when they can, gorging themselves on fermented fruits and such. But they don't have any such way of cultivating it so badger drug use is typically smaller than humans.


I thought the only things human could do that animals can't is produce art.

[Ben]

Oh Ben, you know I love you. But just think how difficult your job would have been if bees had dance clubs.http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=75854

[Ben]

Animals have been known to get high or drunk when they can, gorging themselves on fermented fruits and such. But they don't have any such way of cultivating it so badger drug use is typically smaller than humans.


I thought the only things human could do that animals can't is produce art.I'm sure an artist said that!

Depends on what the definition and function of "art" is.

[19bernardo87]

As someone who has studied sexual selection in animals and humans over the last 13 years, I don't see how it's so fundamentally different. How is it different?

I'd think there are more factors that play a role than just looks for instance. Other species of animals which are "uglier" may not mate as often, so I can understand the need to maximize their reproduction.

However, looks is not the entire story for humans, I'd assume more so than to other animals. I yield to your expertise here, but isn't there a theory that proposes a selection towards intelligence, especially early on which explains our big brain? Would then dumb people be "ugly"? (which would make me ugly squared?)
Also, money and success... we have much more complicated social networks, which increase the number of factors which a female may consider in other to choose a mate.

But, most of all, we are by large monogamous. Most of us will only have children with one partner. Therefore, whether you are good looking or not, once you are settled down, there should be little reason to see differential sperm production (unless it's a lingering vestigial trait, I guess).

[WillieLee]

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=75854

Any fool can bust a move but you need to have skills to pack the house.

[Ben]

I'd think there are more factors that play a role than just looks for instance. Other species of animals which are "uglier" may not mate as often, so I can understand the need to maximize their reproduction.

However, looks is not the entire story for humans, I'd assume more so than to other animals. I yield to your expertise here, but isn't there a theory that proposes a selection towards intelligence, especially early on which explains our big brain? Would then dumb people be "ugly"? (which would make me ugly squared?)
Also, money and success... we have much more complicated social networks, which increase the number of factors which a female may consider in other to choose a mate.Mate choice is often based on more than one factor in animals, too. And even when it seems like it's based on one factor like, say, body size, that trait usually correlates with a lot of other things. In many species, females (or males) are choosing mates based on a variety of factors that possibly correlate with many other indicators of suitability and might have to trade-off their interests in these different preferences in order to pick the best overall mate for them.

But like I said, you're just arguing we're more complex. Ok, we might be. We're certainly all aware of all the complexity of humans. That doesn't mean you can pare it all down to simpler terms. The mating biases and trends in humans are just as simple and easy to understand as they are in other species.

Many animals have very complex social networks. Not necessarily as complex as ours, but that is just another example of us just being "more complex." Unless you can show how being more complex makes us fundamentally different and makes these principles inapplicable, we're just like any other animal.


But, most of all, we are by large monogamous. Most of us will only have children with one partner. Therefore, whether you are good looking or not, once you are settled down, there should be little reason to see differential sperm production (unless it's a lingering vestigial trait, I guess).Actually, we're not quite monogamous. In general our mating systems range from serially monogamous (one partner at a time, but more than one over a lifetime) to polygynous (men have multiple partners). There's lots of cheating (buzzword in science for this is "extra-pair copulations"), so even if a dinky male is settled down with a chick, if there's a likelihood of her cheating on him with another male (of better quality or not), he should up his sperm count.

The hypothesis that it's a "vestigial trait" is a valid one and would be a non-adaptive explanation for this phenomenon. However, if there's evidence that increasing sperm count in shitty males is adaptive and does benefit those males, that hypothesis seems less likely to be true.

[Magnum V.I.]

I'm sure an artist said that!

Depends on what the definition and function of "art" is.

:lol: Probably.

But I have yet to see a rational animal discussion on the topic of Plato's Republic.


I have yet to see a Bee Composer conduct a Symphony.

But who knows really?

Animals never have these conversations!


That we know of....:shifty:

[Ben]

Any fool can bust a move but you need to have skills to pack the house.
I swear I started a thread about how you can turn a flask into a dance club by putting a bunch of male bees in there (because they all start buzzing around trying to get out and some try to mate with each other...), but I can't find it now. It was back in 2005 I think. Did the board crash in summer 2005?

[WillieLee]

As someone who has studied sexual selection in animals and humans over the last 13 years, I don't see how it's so fundamentally different. How is it different?

Did they ever explain how they came to these conclusions? All I can see is that this guy likes partying with his bros.

[WillieLee]

I swear I started a thread about how you can turn a flask into a dance club by putting a bunch of male bees in there (because they all start buzzing around trying to get out and some try to mate with each other...), but I can't find it now. It was back in 2005 I think. Did the board crash in summer 2005?

Before my time. I was just thinking of your thread about not understanding why people go to bars.

[Ben]

:lol: Probably.

But I have yet to see a rational animal discussion on the topic of Plato's Republic.


I have yet to see a Bee Composer conduct a Symphony.

But who knows really?

Animals never have these conversations!


That we know of....:shifty:I would just classify that as "more complex." Animals have conversations. Animals exchange information. I would argue that art and literature is just an exchange of information. It's just "here's what it's like to be alive." By comparing notes, we learn how others act and feel and behave, so we can better navigate through our social environment. It would also help us learn which other humans are more like us, are more compatible with us, would make good mates, etc.

This is all speculation on my part, but it does show that depending on what you hypothesize the function of art to be, it doesn't necessarily make humans that different from other animals.

Also, a tangent but relevant -- I don't think humans are any more aware of our inevitable death than other animals. Any animal that changes its behavior based on perceived risk of death (predation, starvation, etc.) is "aware" of death.

[Ben]

Before my time. I was just thinking of your thread about not understanding why people go to bars.
I have noticed that when I have a gf, I have very little interest in socializing, esp. with dudes. If I'm going to hang out with friends, I'd prefer it was with my more attractive female friends.

I didn't have much interest in bars when I was single and in college, but then I did a lot of dumb stuff that didn't get me laid back then.

[Magnum V.I.]

I would just classify that as "more complex." Animals have conversations. Animals exchange information. I would argue that art and literature is just an exchange of information. It's just "here's what it's like to be alive." By comparing notes, we learn how others act and feel and behave, so we can better navigate through our social environment. It would also help us learn which other humans are more like us, are more compatible with us, would make good mates, etc.

This is all speculation on my part, but it does show that depending on what you hypothesize the function of art to be, it doesn't necessarily make humans that different from other animals.

Also, a tangent but relevant -- I don't think humans are any more aware of our inevitable death than other animals. Any animal that changes its behavior based on perceived risk of death (predation, starvation, etc.) is "aware" of death.

I would argue that we are, but that we refuse to acknowledge it.

But then this would lead to an existential question and really, I'm just waiting for the next dick and fart joke.

[WillieLee]

What about pants Ben? Animals don't wear pants. Except for that asshole Lancelot Link.

[Ben]

What about pants Ben? Animals don't wear pants. Except for that asshole Lancelot Link.:surrend:

[Ben]

I would argue that we are, but that we refuse to acknowledge it.

But then this would lead to an existential question and really, I'm just waiting for the next dick and fart joke.We behave as if we're aware of death. Depending on how long one (subconsciously) thinks one's going to live, their behavior and longer-term planning will be different.

[Magnum V.I.]

We behave as if we're aware of death. Depending on how long one (subconsciously) thinks one's going to live, their behavior and longer-term planning will be different.

:sad: I believe I'm going to live to be a million but my wife tells me otherwise.


Do you think she's planning on having me killed!? :scared:

[costello]

So my low self-esteem helps produce more sperm, even though I jack it three times a day?

[dasNdanger]

Honestly, Ben, I'm gonna disagree with you there.

Just the way we choose partners, marriages, etc. Sexual selection is a whole lot different for humans than it is for other animals.

I'm extremely skeptic about this study, and requesting to see the paper before changing my mind I think is the right attitude.


As someone who has studied sexual selection in animals and humans over the last 13 years, I don't see how it's so fundamentally different. How is it different?

Beer goggles! :D

Makes a world of difference...




das

[19bernardo87]

I thought it was well accepted in cognitive sciences that we are far more aware of our mortality than other animals (as an extension of highly evolved self-awareness not found in other species).

From my little knowledge of game theory, isn't cheating minimized in the human species since we are able to keep record (memory) and pass on the information (through language, etc) more easily than other species? Then again, one could argue we are also more mobile, so the punishment is not as drastic since a cheater can prosper in an environment where the game is not repeated often, but I still see our species as one of the most monogamous there are. Certainly more so than fish and chicken.

Ben, quick question, what's the closest to a "marriage" that can be found in the animal kingdom?

[costello]

obvious answer: praying mantis.