lostnscared Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 link removed Anyone else think it's a pretty stupid study lol? Link to comment
guynextdoor Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 I think its always a 50/50 chance. Doesn't matter how attractive you are or which position you tried. Flip a coin... Link to comment
Sparkly Eyes Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 I definitely think it's a stupid study, if we can even call it that. Link to comment
petite Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 And who exactly decides which couples are attractive? Ridiculous. Link to comment
guynextdoor Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 And who exactly decides which couples are attractive? Ridiculous. LOL totally agree! Link to comment
thejigsup Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 When I got pregnant, I was a long legged blonde who wore a size five. I was girl-next-door pretty, the typical California Girl type. My brother's wife weighed over 300 lbs. and wore thick glasses. I had a boy. She had nothing but girls. So much for that theory! Link to comment
twentiesgirl86 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 I think it's dumb, it doesn't matter what the people look like. A lot of girls I went to High School with had good looking parents, and they weren't good girls. Link to comment
greywolf Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 How do you scientifically calculate attractiveness? Link to comment
elcie Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Also.....what does it mean if you have a boy AND a girl like I do.......was I ugly when I had my son.....then became more attractive, so had a girl next time.....HA HA! Link to comment
teabee Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 In an evolutionary psych course I took, we learned about how weak pregnant women (I can't remember if this was defined by weight and health assessment or what) would be more likely to bear girls than women who were stronger and healthier during pregnancy, possibly because bearing a strong son confers an advantage to the child, but bearing a small, weak son would be a disadvantage for a male. I wish I could remember the finer points about how this actually took place with the fetus because it was quite fascinating. I guess it could work for beauty too, since that is a trait that you'd think would give females a selective advantage. And it didn't say that all attractive couples have girls, just that it was more likely, so you can't exactly say, "Well I looked like this when I had my son/daughter so obviously the study is false." Link to comment
lostnscared Posted July 2, 2011 Author Share Posted July 2, 2011 Yes but what are they basing attraction on? Attraction is so subjective--so while these "experts" may have said that molly sue was attractive at 7, another person--an onlooker--may not think Molly Sue was so attractive. I think attraction is too hard to measure, and it's bizarre that this study would have any accuracy to it, when your allowing other people to DEFINE what is attractive, therefore using that criteria to make the claim. It's been proven that the male determines the gender of the baby--male sperm lives shorter, female sperm lives longer. It's also been determined that ovulation and other factors CAN have an influence on the sex you have. But how attractive one is? LOL. I'm sure we all know of celebrities like Katie Holmes, Jennifer Garner, etc who are attractive(I guess lol) and had girls. But in the general public I'm sure we can say it's a toss. I just can't look around me and say that out of ALL the people I know that had girls and boys, the ones with girls were more attractive--so far that just has not been a true observation, if anything I've noticed the opposite(my attractive friends tend to have boys in larger numbers). I don't know I just think this study is an attempt to spread some crazy agenda and make women feel bad or ugly if they can't produce girl babies. Your saying that weak woman have girls, and strong woman have boys? LOL. I mean these sort of studies just are bizarre to me. Link to comment
Moontiger Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Certain aspects of attractiveness can be scientifically proven and studied, such as facial symmetry and various rations of different parts of the the body and/or face. Othere aspects are completely subjective. I think this study is rather silly and would not with stand serious peer review. Link to comment
teabee Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 No I said it's more likely. Even if that means a 3% increase in more males being born to physically strong and healthy women, that would be statistically significant. As for attractiveness, I'm not sure how they operationally define something that subjective in studies. Don't ask me Link to comment
metrogirl Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 I had only one girl and a bunch of boys..... Link to comment
teabee Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 I had only one girl and a bunch of boys..... I'll try to find a study for you suggesting that women who give birth to one girl and a bunch of boys are smarter, stronger, and sexier than other women Link to comment
Capricorn3 Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 I'll try to find a study for you suggesting that women who give birth to one girl and a bunch of boys are smarter, stronger, and sexier than other women Would that mean that some studies will suggest that women who have one son and a bunch of girls are dense, weaker and not sexy? Link to comment
metrogirl Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 I'll try to find a study for you suggesting that women who give birth to one girl and a bunch of boys are smarter, stronger, and sexier than other women Thank you.... the study should have my picture readily available as everyone knows that I am superwoman! Link to comment
Sparkly Eyes Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Did you guys even read the study?! It says: Kanazawa found that while the children who were rated as attractive -- 84 percent of the sample -- were equally likely to have a son or a daughter as their first child, the unattractive children were more likely to have sons, the Daily Mail reports. So if anything, the title should say that "unattractive couples are more likely to have sons" instead of the opposite (they are not the same thing). Attractive couples are EQUALLY likely to have sons or daughters. Also, only about 16% were considered unattractive. If you read the actual study you read that their attractiveness were rated by their TEACHER at age 7, not even by very many people, lol. Seriously, this is not a valid study by any means! Link to comment
sjustine Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 I agree this is a pretty stupid study. Last time I checked, sperm weren't capable of complex thoughts, lol. It just depends on the sperm that fertilizes the egg, whether it carries an X or Y chromosome. I don't think they analyze the attractiveness of the two people..... Link to comment
tiredofvampires Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I don't understand this at all. It doesn't make sense. Because the sex of the child is determined by the X or Y chromosome borne by the sperm. The sperm coming from the male, of course. So how would a sperm know what the health status of the woman is whom it's trying to impregnate? With sperm, it's purely a who-gets-there-first (to the egg) game. The whole thing is completely ludicrous. During meiosis -- when the egg is first fertilized, and the chromosomes from the father and mother do a pairing and exchanging of DNA to form a recombined hybrid -- any number of genes are mixed and matched from both lines. This includes recessive genes that show up on neither parent, so you could have a kid with lots of traits that have not been visible on either parent. It's really like reshuffling the deck randomly. So you could end up with any combination of anything. And the sex is determined by that X or Y before the cell even divides once. Also, Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa wrote a racist, sexist article in Psychology Today about why Afro-American women are "scientifically" physically less attractive than other women. The magazine ended up pulling the article and offering a public apology. (What the hell were they thinking??) What a load. He's an academic fraud. Edit: oh, I just read your post, sjustine. Didn't know someone else had brought that up, but yeah. Link to comment
metrogirl Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 So my ex husband and I are not ugly as sin? lol whew..... Link to comment
teabee Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Ahh so the explanation must have had something to do with how a particular sperm "wins". Can't find the study I mentioned about health/strength of the mother influencing sex of the baby because I no longer have my notes from that course, but it was legit research (not a study in a magazine, a study done in a university and published in a journal). So I googled around for an explanation, and maybe it has something to do with this: Article Source: link removed And I suppose that could potentially interact with other factors in a woman's body, making a female or male baby more likely. Link to comment
tiredofvampires Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Ahh so the explanation must have had something to do with how a particular sperm "wins". Can't find the study I mentioned about health/strength of the mother influencing sex of the baby because I no longer have my notes from that course, but it was legit research (not a study in a magazine, a study done in a university and published in a journal). So I googled around for an explanation, and maybe it has something to do with this: Article Source: link removed And I suppose that could potentially interact with other factors in a woman's body, making a female or male baby more likely. You know, I actually sat for about 10 minutes cogitating about the matter, wondering about just what you're saying -- what could influence the X's or Y's chances in a woman's body that remotely relates to her being less or more physically hearty? The composition of her vaginal secretions? It completely stumps me. First, you'd have to assume that being less physically hearty overall changes chemical conditions in a woman's body that directly relate to sperm motility. Then you'd have to assume that those changes would favor Y chromosomes, to "load the deck," so to speak, in favor of a boy. Then you'd have to assume that this is a measurable factor, and that they indeed measured this reliably, regardless of what a woman's particular "weakness" involved. It just seems like such a longshot. I'd be really interested to read the original paper. Link to comment
teabee Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Something to do with nutrition maybe? No idea at this point. But just because you or I don't understand it doesn't make it unreasonable. I'll email the prof and get more info; I'm curious too. I also paraphrased the study with my own words. Physically healthier may not be the exact concept, and I don't know how it was measurably defined. Link to comment
tiredofvampires Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Something to do with nutrition maybe? No idea at this point. But just because you or I don't understand it doesn't make it unreasonable. I'll email the prof and get more info; I'm curious too. I also paraphrased the study with my own words. Physically healthier may not be the exact concept, and I don't know how it was measurably defined. Well let me know when you find it -- I'm a research buff, too! (and I love evolutionary psych) Link to comment
.thumb.jpg.2d93ce2472f26b01a1e185382ba0b64e.jpg)
.thumb.jpg.707652b1f845175b2f35e03ba7f1673e.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.