The wonders of evolutionary biology and their practical aspects

[Anonymous]

Porn is good for you!

At least, this is what this paper says:
Kilgallon, S.J. & Simmons, L.W. (2005). Image content influences men's semen quality. Biology Letters, 1(3), 253–255. (Link to article)

In most animal species, females are known to be fairly promiscuitous and do not hesitate to mate with several males in order to reproduce and pass on their genes. At least they're sure that those are their genes! Evolutionary-speaking, males had therefore to adapt to this behaviour and become more competitive when they become aware that their own genes may have problems to be passed down the line, and that some bastard may get there first.

This has been documented in many non-human animal species, but good old Homo sapiens had not been investigated... until some Australian evolutionary biologists decided to roll up their sleeves and take a closer look at this (un)interesting phenomenon.

The paper, published last year, examined the quantity (volume) and quality (density and motility of sperm cells) of ejaculates of male humans when submitted to various visual stimuli -- i.e., different kinds of porn! Yes, that's no joke!

I'll spare you the details and experimental protocols, but the conclusion was fairly clear: porn improves the fertility of men. When confronted to images showing a certain 'mating competition' (get my drift?), the human male adapts his production of reproductive cells accordingly. Other factors have been shown to improve the quality, like a moderate consumption of coffee, whereas others have a deleterious effect, like carrying a mobile phone on your belt.

Many among you will think that this is yet another piece of useless information and that science should deal with more serious topics. And you may very well be right. But think about this: next time your missus catches you surfing porn with a cup of coffee next to the comp (and finds your mobile in the bin), you'll have a perfectly valid and scientifically-proven excuse! 

"No, love. I'm not surfing porn. I'm improving my potential for fertility!" 

 

[JackKnife]

Porn is good for you!

"No, love. I'm not surfing porn. I'm improving my potential for fertility!" 

Ha ha brilliant post Mav'! 
What about the relationships between porn and women fertility? 


Anyway, never forget that

 

[Anonymous]

What about the relationships between porn and women fertility? 

I'm don't know, but they sure prefer a smelly caveman to a perfumed prat. Check it out. 

 

[JackKnife]

I'm don't know, but they sure prefer a smelly caveman to a perfumed prat. Check it out. 

The most funny is that women are not supposed to have the control or even the conscience of such processses since it's purely hormonal. 

 

[Anonymous]

Who are we to even pretend that we can understand women? 

 

[Anonymous]

A nice tread, once again, Mav.
Here comes a female point of view: Whatever enhances the quality of sperm should be hailed.

...women are not supposed to have the control or even the conscience of such processses since it's purely hormonal.

Indeed, some men are sexually attractive without being necessarily good looking by some silly aesthetic standards (some even have an anesthetic effect ). So it must be something else - and I have to say that some women are quite aware of the smell of skin, sweat and such things in men. The problem is that they can't resist anyway - hence the hormonal thing...

 

[Albie]

But think about this: next time your missus catches you surfing porn with a cup of coffee next to the comp (and finds your mobile in the bin), you'll have a perfectly valid and scientifically-proven excuse! 

"No, love. I'm not surfing porn. I'm improving my potential for fertility!" 

So excuses such as:

"Is that your mobile?"

"Yes it is, it's still in my pocket!"

Won't wash any more?

 

[JackKnife]

I'll spare you the details and experimental protocols (...)

No, it's important to know how science can grow and knowledge increases. Look at the authors at work in their laboratory:

The power of the spirit against mystery of the universe....

 

[Onhell]

Easy to see where this thread is heading...

 

[Raven]

Easy to see where this thread is heading...

To a Nobel prize for award-winning research?

I'll be a guinea pig!

 

[Genghis Khan]

Hormones or not, I still find it weird when my girlfriends sniff my sweaty shirts.    Since women seem to prefer stinky smells to cologne, I suppose this proves that over-the-top prepping that women do is actually to please us men.  Thank goodness for societal pressure. 

 

[Onhell]

you mean thank god for male domination. It is sick and ridiculous all the crap women do to "please" men.

as for theh sweaty smells. Research shows women are attracted to the.. uh... body odor of men that are the most different genetically from themselves. In other words, if you don't like your mates "natural" scent you were tricked by the perfume companies!

 

[Genghis Khan]

That's not quite how far I've meant it Onhell. 

I certainly do not respect men who force, intimidate or coerce women in any way into dressing to a man's expectations... and if you were thinking that I like to see women being degraded by wearing skimpy clothing and giggling like ninnies -- I'm appalled.  What I was actually refering to is the apparent fact that women spend more time trying to look their best then men are.  As my woman constantly reminds me with a hurried annoyance and a stern look: "We do this to please you men" every time I gently hint that the process of getting ready could go faster.  Personally, I think women look better without make-up or when wearing a minimal amount.  I do prefer when my lady dresses nicely to outing occasions (and so does she), which takes longer then putting on a suit and a tuxedo.

Besides, the modern metrosexual seems to be ensuring that for some roles are changing or equalizing.  But that's a topic for another thread... 

As for the scent point you made... I'm well aware of all that.

EDIT: To drive the point home so to speak, I'll leave this simple question to all the guys here.  Who would prefer if women would stop shaving their legs?  (Yes, I know there are cultures that do no conform to this, but the 'Anglo' view on beauty is spreading).  And don't give me the "well if societal standards would be different, we'd be used to it" round-about way to slip out of the question.  I think that ever since WWII, women started shaving their legs.  Personally, I like it.  Any women or men here that care to disagree, be my guest.

fftopic:  OH, WELL!

 

[Onhell]

But they ARE coerced by "societal pressures". They don't have to be yelled at or beaten or threatened. Just pick up ANY magazine, even sports magazines and look at the ads. look at the women in the ads. ALL of them are 1. thin (and not necessarily "healthy" thin), MOST are white, and 90% of the time they are in some seductive pose even if they are just selling tires. Look at any WOMAN's magazine and look at their articles and ads... hardly food for thought. More like a bible on how to be attractive and in the west it means trying to emulate a body type only 8% of women "naturally" or rather, genetically have. What about the other 98% that range from not so slender to flat out fat?

So I know you didn't mean it "like that", but unfortunately that's what it means anyway. Like you mentioned, a man who apparently cares about hygene and aesthetics is a "metro sexual", instead of what he should be, a clean, well groomed guy.

 

[JackKnife]

More like a bible on how to be attractive and in the west it means trying to emulate a body type only 8% of women "naturally" or rather, genetically have. What about the other 98% that range from not so slender to flat out fat?

It leads to a total of 106%. Kind of sizeable vital statistics...he? 

 

[Genghis Khan]

But they ARE coerced by "societal pressures". They don't have to be yelled at or beaten or threatened. Just pick up ANY magazine, even sports magazines and look at the ads. look at the women in the ads. ALL of them are 1. thin (and not necessarily "healthy" thin), MOST are white, and 90% of the time they are in some seductive pose even if they are just selling tires. Look at any WOMAN's magazine and look at their articles and ads... hardly food for thought. More like a bible on how to be attractive and in the west it means trying to emulate a body type only 8% of women "naturally" or rather, genetically have. What about the other 98% that range from not so slender to flat out fat?

I was referring to clothes and make-up demonstrated by the fact that I used the word "prepping" as in "getting ready".

But since you bring an interesting point to the table, I'll comment on it.  You're right that women are tought to be obsessive-compulsive in their dieting habits.  If I have a daughter, I'll try my best to ensure she has a healthy self-esteem which does not require unrealistic standards to feel self-fulfillment.  I think conversations about beauty, the body and self-image need to take place before puberty, especially with girls in our society.

So I know you didn't mean it "like that", but unfortunately that's what it means anyway. Like you mentioned, a man who apparently cares about hygene and aesthetics is a "metro sexual", instead of what he should be, a clean, well groomed guy.

I think that the term means slightly more.  The Urban dictionary shows what the majority of people think of this term.  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metrosexual[sub]1[/sub] A British man, Mark Simpson, coined the term.  He used it to show that male concept of masculinity is changing mainly due to increasing consumerism.  Not surprisingly, consumerism was also one of the key reasons women started shaving their legs.  Whether a man practising higher than average "hygiene and aesthetics" should be labeled "a metrosexual" or be simply viewed as "a clean, well groomed guy" will partially depend on history and the degree of acceptance of this phenomenon by the majority of society.  It is important to note that "metrosexual" maybe a "90s" label but it is not entirely new, rather it's principally a neologism of the 19th century term "dandy". 

[sub]1[/sub]Aside: I'm having trouble making a short link, i.e. without using url parameters.

 

[Onhell]

Ah! point well taken. Companies have figured out that men are willing to buy the same crap as women if they market it towards them. Like "body sprays" such as "Tag" and "Axe", Hand and face moisterizers etc. Notice that similar to the women ads for these products, the goal is to attract the opposite sex. There is this one ad for a face cream of some sort and the guy is telling you about it and out of nowhere this woman's hand comes out from under the screen and starts caressing his face, followed by a second hand a few seconds later at which point the guy's voice changes as he starts breathing a little harder. WTF?! I don't know if it is true, but I wouldn't doubt this correlates to the rise of the so-called "metro-sexual".

So things are not becoming equal in a good way. Men are begining to be just as sexualized and objectified as women instead of doing neither to either sex.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Ah! point well taken. Companies have figured out that men are willing to buy the same crap as women if they market it towards them. Like "body sprays" such as "Tag" and "Axe", Hand and face moisterizers etc. Notice that similar to the women ads for these products, the goal is to attract the opposite sex. There is this one ad for a face cream of some sort and the guy is telling you about it and out of nowhere this woman's hand comes out from under the screen and starts caressing his face, followed by a second hand a few seconds later at which point the guy's voice changes as he starts breathing a little harder. WTF?! I don't know if it is true, but I wouldn't doubt this correlates to the rise of the so-called "metro-sexual".

Don't get me started on the "Tag" commercials.  I bet Americans receive same or similar commercials as Canadians.  If your "tag" commercial ends with women jumping, and nearly raping the man and then a vocal tag line: "warning not responsible for side affects such as being hit on by moms, mom's friends..."  It was funny the first time, but since the product has had a zillion versions of the same formula, I just want to roll my eyes.

So things are not becoming equal in a good way. Men are begining to be just as sexualized and objectified as women instead of doing neither to either sex.

Yes, but you have to wonder if either sex does not want it.  I mean self-love is nothing new in the western world.  I remember from my history classes the orgy the Europeans had over the fur of the beaver during the colonization of North America. 

Now strictly about moi, in case anyone is wondering.  I have nothing against all those products, colognes, clothes, etc.  I don't use them.  I am kind of lazy when it comes to grooming unless it is for a special occasion or for my sweetie.  This reminds me of an article I've read some time ago in one of men's magazines.  Most heterosexual men say that they go to extra lenghts in grooming because their significant others expect it.  Men will do many things for sex.   

The only real problem I have with sexualization is with circumstances involving children.  Female 'role models' like Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears are doing more to damage young girls/women view of themselves and their relationship with boys/men than they probably can imagine.    By having such Teen magazines as '17' (I don't even know most of their names) and other Hollywood trash magazines, this huge media industry is guaranteeing a future market.  Parents play a huge role too, I can't stress that enough.  Absentee fathers are probably the biggest influence in developing and changing this self-absorbed behaviour.  I know of a young girl.  She is very intelligent, polite and a model student and daughter.  Yet, her clothes are almost as bad as that of Brittany Spears during a concert.  Her daddy is not around.

 

[Onhell]

Don't get me started on the "Tag" commercials.  I bet Americans receive same or similar commercials as Canadians.  If your "tag" commercial ends with women jumping, and nearly raping the man and then a vocal tag line: "warning not responsible for side affects such as being hit on by moms, mom's friends..."  It was funny the first time, but since the product has had a zillion versions of the same formula, I just want to roll my eyes.

yes it is the same one

Yes, but you have to wonder if either sex does not want it.  I mean self-love is nothing new in the western world. 

I'm guessing you mean if either sex does not want to be sexualize/objectified? As In some people do? If that's the case I must say that those who do (want to) either have bought the lie they've been raised in (Like the girls that dream of appearing on playboy) or passively accept their oppressed roles. Honestly, do you want to be thought of as an object equal to a car, a boat or a plane? All of which are refered to as "she" by BOTH men and women, and are no different to a chair as far as in all are THINGS. Also, why would anybody want to be purely desired for their sex? Do they not have a brain and feelings? to be sexualized is to be relegated to the status of a tool... all you are good for is to look pretty, be admired and fornication. I think those who want that, either male or female, doesn't really know what it implies. 

  Most heterosexual men say that they go to extra lenghts in grooming because their significant others expect it.  Men will do many things for sex.   

That is called slaved mentallity. My girlfriend learned long ago that "the sex card" doesn't work on me, because I don't have a girlfriend to get "free" sex whenever I want, but a companion and an equal. Men should care for their appearance because they want to, not because they want something in exchange. (Key word here being SHOULD, because of course most do it for sex anyway hehe).

Parents play a huge role too, I can't stress that enough.   Absentee fathers are probably the biggest influence in developing and changing this self-absorbed behaviour.

completely agree.

 

[Anomica]

Parents play a huge role too, I can't stress that enough.   Absentee fathers are probably the biggest influence in developing and changing this self-absorbed behaviour.  I know of a young girl.  She is very intelligent, polite and a model student and daughter.  Yet, her clothes are almost as bad as that of Brittany Spears during a concert.  Her daddy is not around.

I agree that parents' roles are huge, but the jibe about absentee fathers isn't as simple as you make it sound. I have lots of examples around me with 2-parent families, single-parent families and "extended" families (where grand parents play a large role in the child rearing together with the parents) and the kids in these different families differ just as they should since they're individuals. But if there is a "negative parental effect" in the way the kids (mainly girls) dress, it's not because the fathers are missing, it's because the mothers dress in a similar way, or - which is more likely - the girls' role models (friends, peers and older girls outside the family) set the standard to emulate. What I read into your view on absentee fathers is the father figure as a punishing figure who raises his daughters through fear and punishment. I hope that's not what you meant?

There are many reasons why fathers are absent, one of which is the legal system that still discriminates against men in custody cases, and many divorces end in a bitterness where co-operation around the children seem to be impossible. That causes issues with the children - identity, role-model confusion and lots of other issues. But to be honest, when you were in your teens, how much did your parents influence the way you dressed or behaved among your friends?

The responsibility of the sexualisation of western society lies with us, the parents, and the media - the images of air-brushed super models and air-headed tv "stars" (from reality shows etc) with bleached hair and silicone breasts dreaming of a musical (?) career or free booze (or pantyless stars) are todays role models for young girls. As a parent, I have to fight the images flooding my children every day and try to give the the self confidence and self esteem to believe in themselves and not fall for the media image. What I find really concerning is that teen-age boys seem to have a 50s view of women which is also a result, at least partly, from the media image of women as something that should be seen but not heard.

Shaved legs? Hmm...yes please I admit, I too have fallen for the female ideal that the media fed us. But I draw the line at full-body waxing and such. My wife is a midwife and she sees many women between 15 and 25 and almost all of them are waxed without a single hair on the body below the head. Why? Why do women want to look like 10-year old girls?


Wow, talk about off-topic