Skip to comments.
Study: Ugly Men More Fertile, Produce More Sperm During Sex
Foxnews ^
| 7/10/2009
| Staff
Posted on 07/10/2009 9:43:39 AM PDT by Red in Blue PA
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Society
KEYWORDS: beauty; fertility; sperm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
To: Buckeye McFrog
Sold by weight not by volume.
21
posted on
07/10/2009 9:49:13 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
To: Red in Blue PA
So, uhmmm... I'm neither terribly good or bad looking, but I have a great interest in gaining the ability that ugly men have.
I believe it will impress my girl.
Are there any products available to assist me in this endeavor?
Risky internet offers would be considered.
22
posted on
07/10/2009 9:49:28 AM PDT
by
End Times Sentinel
(In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
To: Red in Blue PA
Um, exactly how did the researchers determine which chickens and fish were the ugly ones?
To: Red in Blue PA
I wonder if they’ve taken into account guys like Mick Jagger and Steven Tyler, who are 1)ugly as sin, but 2) well aware that they can get some whenever they want
To: Red in Blue PA
...finally some good news.
25
posted on
07/10/2009 9:49:59 AM PDT
by
americanophile
(Sarcasm: satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language.)
To: Red in Blue PA
“Attractiveness” is subjective. Saying that “good-looking males are biologically geared to hold back their sperm” is absurd since there is no way that a person's bio systems could know that they are “good-looking”. This article has got to be one of the most ridiculous “scientific” reports that I've ever seen.
26
posted on
07/10/2009 9:50:12 AM PDT
by
Sopater
(I'm so sick of atheists shoving their religion in my face.)
To: Red in Blue PA
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. I won't argue with the data, but this "explanation" is ridiculous.
How do a guy's testicles "know" he's ugly?
27
posted on
07/10/2009 9:50:12 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: Red in Blue PA; All
“Ugly” and “attractive” are subjective characteristics assigned by HUMANS. They have nothing whatsoever to do with physiology.
I call BS on this and want to know what the author looks like. Sounds like he is using his grant dollars to troll for chicks.
28
posted on
07/10/2009 9:50:51 AM PDT
by
Red in Blue PA
(If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
To: Red in Blue PA; All
“Ugly” and “attractive” are subjective characteristics assigned by HUMANS. They have nothing whatsoever to do with physiology.
I call BS on this and want to know what the author looks like. Sounds like he is using his grant dollars to troll for chicks.
29
posted on
07/10/2009 9:50:51 AM PDT
by
Red in Blue PA
(If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
To: Red in Blue PA
Makes you wonder....
30
posted on
07/10/2009 9:50:55 AM PDT
by
Dallas59
("You know the one with the big ears? He might be yours, but he ain't my president.")
To: Zeddicus
there are indeed a whole host of issues as to exactly what the scientific method would call for in such an experiment as this.....
To: Sopater
GMTA — and at exactly the same time, too. I guess your post was one bit ahead of mine ...
32
posted on
07/10/2009 9:52:27 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: Red in Blue PA
33
posted on
07/10/2009 9:52:52 AM PDT
by
OB1kNOb
(It is impossible to convince someone of facts or truth if they don't want to believe it.)
To: Zeddicus
who had the IDEA for this study???
34
posted on
07/10/2009 9:53:10 AM PDT
by
thefactor
(yes, as a matter of fact, i DID only read the excerpt)
To: Red in Blue PA
So ... to compile data for this study, how exactly did they ‘hook up’ the ugly guys? I think a lot of grant money was recycled into the ‘personal services’ industry.
35
posted on
07/10/2009 9:53:19 AM PDT
by
Pan_Yan
(All gray areas are fabrications.)
To: americanophile
For the sake of the ladies I think we should all confess the number of children we have.
None for me.
36
posted on
07/10/2009 9:53:33 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
To: Red in Blue PA
so when they do get lucky they give it all they've got. "Hit me with your best shot! Fire Awaaay!"
37
posted on
07/10/2009 9:53:45 AM PDT
by
TADSLOS
(Sarah Palin: Sun Tzu of Politics)
To: Red in Blue PA
A study should also be done on how stupid men and women have more kids. Idiocracy. It’s not just a movie. It’s the truth.
38
posted on
07/10/2009 9:53:50 AM PDT
by
DogBarkTree
(Support The American Tea Party)
To: Red in Blue PA
“Ugly” and “attractive” are subjective characteristics assigned by HUMANS. They have nothing whatsoever to do with physiology. That is undoubtedly wrong. There are all manner of studies showing the correlation between mating success and "beauty marks" such as plumage or colors, across numerous species.
39
posted on
07/10/2009 9:54:41 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: thefactor; All
who had the IDEA for this study???
40
posted on
07/10/2009 9:54:47 AM PDT
by
Red in Blue PA
(If guns cause crime, then all of mine are defective!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
