Sperm production study

[Keith&Co.]

So there's this study about male sperm production.
It was listed in a trivia book i just bought, but i found a more direct link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/18/the-effect-of-porn-on-male-fer/

The summary is, looking at porn with two guys and a woman can make your body produce more sperm. The theory is that seeing competition for a mate makes the body work harder to secure limited reproductive opportunities. At least, that's the theory held by people who accept the theory of evolution as having some relevance to human biology.

The first thing i thought of was to wonder how The Faithful would interpret this finding?

If we're supposed to be married and monogamous, as so many of the Faithful keep telling us, why would the body be designed like this? If evolution is wrong, then there's no biochemistry explanation for the response, it's something God had a reason for adding to the basic programming.
And with that, he also made it so there was the same response to any woman, not just the one we're married to and expect to have kids with.

What for?

If the mate is sleeping around, does anyone really think God wants us to have a better chance at fathering kids on the slut?
And if we're supposed to be monogamous, why does the body clearly respond to any woman as a possible partner?

 

[Malintent]

It's even more comlex than that... There are actually 3 types of sperm produced.
runners - these guys go straight for the egg
attackers - these guys go after competing sperm and clump around them to disable thier ability to reach the egg
blockers - these guys clump together and only allow similar genetics through their blockade

a study I've heard about relates to the counts of each type of sperm before a mate goes away on a business trip, while she is gone, and after she gets back. Before she leaves, there are mostly runners. While she is gone, there are more attackers building up. After she returns home, more blockers.

 

[rousseau]

It's possible that we are 'supposed' (kind of) to be faithful, and the body was designed for polygamy as well.

Ultimately, biology only cares about sperm making contact with an egg .. but making monogamy a requisite of human life has caused the evolution of stable societies. In biological terms the social process is nonsense, but if you take away the value judgments you have about marriage and relationships as an institution they then represent a socio-biological phenomena that has led to a decrease in infant mortality and more stable societies. That's not by accident and is an offshoot of biology as well.

The argument that we "should" be monogamous is then only correct depending on context. If someone is arguing that we should be monogamous because God said so .. that's a dumb argument, but if someone says we should be monogamous because that's the most stable way of forming a partnership, then they may be on to something.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I'm sure that before the fall all sperm were runners, duh.

 

[vipertaja]

I'm sure that before the fall all sperm were runners, duh.

All i know is they knew how to behave and were all vegetarians, even the ones with sharp teeth.

 

[RavenSky]

It's even more comlex than that... There are actually 3 types of sperm produced.
runners - these guys go straight for the egg
attackers - these guys go after competing sperm and clump around them to disable thier ability to reach the egg
blockers - these guys clump together and only allow similar genetics through their blockade.

Like little warriors... or football players

 

[Bronzeage]

So there's this study about male sperm production.
It was listed in a trivia book i just bought, but i found a more direct link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/18/the-effect-of-porn-on-male-fer/

The summary is, looking at porn with two guys and a woman can make your body produce more sperm. The theory is that seeing competition for a mate makes the body work harder to secure limited reproductive opportunities. At least, that's the theory held by people who accept the theory of evolution as having some relevance to human biology.

The first thing i thought of was to wonder how The Faithful would interpret this finding?

If we're supposed to be married and monogamous, as so many of the Faithful keep telling us, why would the body be designed like this? If evolution is wrong, then there's no biochemistry explanation for the response, it's something God had a reason for adding to the basic programming.
And with that, he also made it so there was the same response to any woman, not just the one we're married to and expect to have kids with.

What for?

If the mate is sleeping around, does anyone really think God wants us to have a better chance at fathering kids on the slut?
And if we're supposed to be monogamous, why does the body clearly respond to any woman as a possible partner?

This study would have a lot more validity if it studied the sperm count of the two guys in the video, rather than a voyeur whose sperm are destined to spend their motile life wriggling in a hand towel.

 

[bigfield]

It's even more comlex than that... There are actually 3 types of sperm produced.
runners - these guys go straight for the egg
attackers - these guys go after competing sperm and clump around them to disable thier ability to reach the egg
blockers - these guys clump together and only allow similar genetics through their blockade.

Like little warriors... or football players

Brings a new meaning to "wide receiver".

 

[Jokodo]

It's even more comlex than that... There are actually 3 types of sperm produced.
runners - these guys go straight for the egg
attackers - these guys go after competing sperm and clump around them to disable thier ability to reach the egg
blockers - these guys clump together and only allow similar genetics through their blockade<snip>

While sperm competition as such is certainly real, this specific hypothesis could not be confirmed.

This type of sperm specialization became known popularly as "kamikaze sperm" or "killer sperm", but most follow-up studies to this popularized notion have failed to confirm the initial papers on the matter

Here's one such study that failed to repeat the initial findings: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/197/

It's possible that we are 'supposed' (kind of) to be faithful, and the body was designed for polygamy as well.

What does this even mean?

Ultimately, biology only cares about sperm making contact with an egg .. but making monogamy a requisite of human life has caused the evolution of stable societies.

In what sense is monogamy "a requisite of human life", and how would this be a condition for stable societies?

In biological terms the social process is nonsense, but if you take away the value judgments you have about marriage and relationships as an institution they then represent a socio-biological phenomena that has led to a decrease in infant mortality and more stable societies.

In what sense is the social process "nonsense" in biological terms? How do you figure that marriage has a causal role in stabilising society? To me this sounds more like the conservative talking point about the family being the basic building block of society than anything related to biology or sociology. In fact, sexual polyandry can improve infant survival. From a game-theoretic perspective, if several males have a non-zero chance of being the father of the infant, this destroys the biological incentive for infanticide, with obvious fitness benefits for the females but under some conditions even the males. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347209000955

That's not by accident and is an offshoot of biology as well.

The argument that we "should" be monogamous is then only correct depending on context. If someone is arguing that we should be monogamous because God said so .. that's a dumb argument, but if someone says we should be monogamous because that's the most stable way of forming a partnership, then they may be on to something.

Or not.

To the extent that human females are monogamous (there's some debate about how rare polyandry actually is; while there are very few societies where it's the dominant mating strategy, it is a widely accepted option in many more, see e.g. here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-012-9144-x), the reasons may have more to do with immunology than with building stable societies: (pre-)eclampsia, a condition in which essentially the mother's immune system tries to prevent the embryo the last stage of embedding, and which is responsible for a high proportion of infant (and mother) deaths. Familiarisation with the father's sperm makes it less likely, which improves the fitness value of getting pregnant from a male who's sperm you've been exposed to before without any recourse to how it ostensibly helps build societies: It means that you and your kid are less likely to die at birth.

Here's a paper on pre-eclampsia and how it might have influenced social/mating structures; although I do not buy their interpretation of the responses being in the form of conscious decisions by tribal councils noticing the correlations between certain behaviours and infant mortality, the effects of pre-eclampsia might be enough to bias innate behavioural tendencies: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0897.2002.1o043.x/full

 

[rhutchin]

So there's this study about male sperm production.
It was listed in a trivia book i just bought, but i found a more direct link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/18/the-effect-of-porn-on-male-fer/

The summary is, looking at porn with two guys and a woman can make your body produce more sperm. The theory is...

"Theory," I suspect , in this case, means "guess."

Perhaps the body shifts into sperm production when sex is desired/anticipated.

 

[Angry Floof]

So there's this study about male sperm production.
It was listed in a trivia book i just bought, but i found a more direct link to the study here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/18/the-effect-of-porn-on-male-fer/

The summary is, looking at porn with two guys and a woman can make your body produce more sperm. The theory is that seeing competition for a mate makes the body work harder to secure limited reproductive opportunities. At least, that's the theory held by people who accept the theory of evolution as having some relevance to human biology.

The first thing i thought of was to wonder how The Faithful would interpret this finding?

If we're supposed to be married and monogamous, as so many of the Faithful keep telling us, why would the body be designed like this? If evolution is wrong, then there's no biochemistry explanation for the response, it's something God had a reason for adding to the basic programming.
And with that, he also made it so there was the same response to any woman, not just the one we're married to and expect to have kids with.

What for?

If the mate is sleeping around, does anyone really think God wants us to have a better chance at fathering kids on the slut?
And if we're supposed to be monogamous, why does the body clearly respond to any woman as a possible partner?

God made it difficult on purpose as a test. What would be the fun in issuing commands on behavior that biology already supports?

 

[rhutchin]

God made it difficult on purpose as a test. What would be the fun in issuing commands on behavior that biology already supports?

The command to Adam and Eve was to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,.." and God created them with the ability to do so. Sounds like good design to me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, of course you think it's a good design. Like the residents of Peaksville, Ohio, you're forced to approve of the design.
I was just wondering if you could maybe explain this particular aspect of the design. To justify why the design doesn't seem to match the rules Anthony God established.

 

[James Brown]

So God created Adam and Eve, but his design works even better when it's Adam, Eve, and Steve.

Yeah, that will play in the Baptist church down the street.

 

[rhutchin]

Well, of course you think it's a good design. Like the residents of Peaksville, Ohio, you're forced to approve of the design.
I was just wondering if you could maybe explain this particular aspect of the design. To justify why the design doesn't seem to match the rules Anthony God established.

The design has worked well. We have many people today attesting to the soundness of that design.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The design has worked well. We have many people today attesting to the soundness of that design.

Yes.
Except where many people attest to the weakness of the design, or the errors, or the ways it could at least be improved. But other than that, it's a good design for a trial-by-error system.

Now, any chance of an actual answer?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey, you know? Never mind.
I guess avoidance is the answer i expected.

 

[rhutchin]

Hey, you know? Never mind.
I guess avoidance is the answer i expected.

I guess I didn't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?

If the design purpose was having children and people are having children, it works.

- - - Updated - - -

The design has worked well. We have many people today attesting to the soundness of that design.

Yes.
Except where many people attest to the weakness of the design, or the errors, or the ways it could at least be improved. But other than that, it's a good design for a trial-by-error system.

Now, any chance of an actual answer?

What weakness? Are you referring to the later mutations that have been degrading the design or the original design?

 

[doubtingt]

Thanks for this thread. My first thought was "Aren't the odds that conception will go to the first male to ejaculate in the woman so high that "competing" sperm is of little use?"
I then realized that I don't really know how long it takes sperm to reach an egg or how long sperm can live in the fallopian tubes and wait for an egg to be released (which made me embarrassed about how many basic and practical things I am ignorant of).

Apparently the answers are that they can reach an egg in 30 minutes. This seems to imply that if an egg is already there, then the odds are high that the first copulator will win the race. But sperm can live in the tubes and wait for around 5 days, meaning that if an egg is only released after multiple copulators have their sperm waiting, then such competition "behaviors" between sperm would determine the "winner".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, there's all kinds of ways the reproductive system competes.
The design of the penis scoops out any sperm that's already there, which may be why it takes more than a few strokes to splurt, and the last bolus of ejaculate contains a spermicide to deter any follow-ons batting clean-up.

If I was designing the system, though, i'd have made it very clear when she was fertile. Maybe a dot on the forehead, fuchsia for fertile?
Or, knowing some of my friends, a dot on the base of her spine.

Or better even more yet, when they're legally married, they both develop matching dots. And you just can't get preggers without the dots matching....