Scientists Find Deep-Voiced Males Have Lower Sperm Counts

By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

The old joke about male sopranos having feminine proclivities may be just another cultural myth. Researcher Leigh Simmons has developed data which strongly suggests that basses have decidedly lower sperm counts. Working with volunteers at the University of Western Australia, the evolutionary biologist tested 54 heterosexual men.  He first asked 30 female volunteers to rate the men’s voices for sexual attractiveness and masculinity. Not surprisingly, men with deep voices were uniformly rated the highest in sexual allure.

Armed with that data, Simmons asked the male subjects to harvest an ejaculate sample “in the privacy of their own home.” The samples were introduced to a computer-assisted  sperm analysis system that measured the number of sperm and their propensity to swim to eggs. The results were counter-intuitive and surprising. Deep-voiced men had less sperm than their higher timbre contemporaries but their sperm was just as motile. Simmons reasons that testosterone, which helps produce deeper sounding voices, may be the culprit.

Biologist have known for years that heterosexual women typically favor masculine features like deep voices, prominent jaws and high muscle mass. The thinking is that such features fulfill the desire of  those females to find a dominant male – one who will offer the best protection for her and her family.

Simmons concludes ” that men who evolutionarily invest most of their energy into making themselves attractive to females may suffer deficiencies in other areas—in this case, sperm counts.” He also suggests that the study might support the notion that masculinity has other purposes besides sexual attractiveness. One theory is that masculinity may aid males in competing with other males. Evolutionary psychologist Laura Dane supports this theory, “It’s equally likely (if not more likely) that males, in general, have bigger and more muscular bodies as well as lower-pitched voices because they had to compete with other males for dominance and status.”  Dr. Dane agrees that more research is needed on this topic and it’s coming. “If masculine traits lead to higher dominance/status positions—even at the expense of some level of sperm quality—then the trade-off between masculine traits and fertility makes more sense,” she said.

Interestingly, heterosexual men prefer women with higher pitched voices. Research seems to suggest that men view the higher pitched female voices as presenting traits of youthfulness and fertility.

So, the research may mean that the best way for single guys and gals to get more dates is not losing a few pounds but merely a few voice lessons.

Source: National Geographic; The Telegraph

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

55 thoughts on “Scientists Find Deep-Voiced Males Have Lower Sperm Counts

  1. raff,

    If it’s any comfort, they don’t use a combine to harvest that particular crop.

    Usually.

  2. Maybe in evolutionary terms they come out on top:

    More partners=More chance of pregnancy, even with lower sperm count.

  3. Or perhaps nature is saying that the men with a bit less testosterone should be the ones having more kids nowadays, so nature can go forward with fewer of the testosterone-induced (or enhanced) problems over the long run. ?? I’m just sayin…

  4. “Otteray Scribe – I wonder if Tim Storms was included in the study”?

    I was thinking the same with regards to James Earl Jones.

  5. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    John P. A. Ioannidis

    Summary
    There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

  6. A Researcher’s Claim: 90% of Medical Research Is Wrong

    http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/20/a-researchers-claim-90-of-medical-research-is-wrong/

    Are 90% of all medical studies wrong — including nearly half of those claimed to be the most reliable? That’s the provocative claim made by researcher John Ioannidis, profiled in this month’s issue of The Atlantic.

    [Ioannidis] zoomed in on 49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years, as judged by the science community’s two standard measures: the papers had appeared in the journals most widely cited in research articles, and the 49 articles themselves were the most widely cited articles in these journals. These were articles that helped lead to the widespread popularity of treatments such as the use of hormone-replacement therapy for menopausal women, vitamin E to reduce the risk of heart disease, coronary stents to ward off heart attacks, and daily low-dose aspirin to control blood pressure and prevent heart attacks and strokes.

    Ioannidis was putting his contentions to the test not against run-of-the-mill research, or even merely well-accepted research, but against the absolute tip of the research pyramid. Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable. That article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

  7. Anyway, it’s not just Ioannidis finding this out, this result and similar has been found again and again in the last 1/2 decade or so.

    Here’s another:

    In cancer science, many “discoveries” don’t hold up

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328

    (Reuters) – A former researcher at Amgen Inc has found that many basic studies on cancer — a high proportion of them from university labs — are unreliable, with grim consequences for producing new medicines in the future.

  8. Is Psychology About to Come Undone?

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/is-psychology-about-to-come-undone/29045

    If you’re a psychologist, the news has to make you a little nervous—particularly if you’re a psychologist who published an article in 2008 in any of these three journals: Psychological Science, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, or the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

    Because, if you did, someone is going to check your work. A group of researchers have already begun what they’ve dubbed the Reproducibility Project, which aims to replicate every study from those three journals for that one year. The project is part of Open Science Framework, a group interested in scientific values, and its stated mission is to “estimate the reproducibility of a sample of studies from the scientific literature.” This is a more polite way of saying “We want to see how much of what gets published turns out to be bunk.”

    For decades, literally, there has been talk about whether what makes it into the pages of psychology journals—or the journals of other disciplines, for that matter—is actually, you know, true. Researchers anxious for novel, significant, career-making findings have an incentive to publish their successes while neglecting to mention their failures. It’s what the psychologist Robert Rosenthal named “the file drawer effect.” So if an experiment is run ten times but pans out only once you trumpet the exception rather than the rule. Or perhaps a researcher is unconsciously biasing a study somehow. Or maybe he or she is flat-out faking results, which is not unheard of. Diederik Stapel, we’re looking at you.

    So why not check? Well, for a lot of reasons. It’s time-consuming and doesn’t do much for your career to replicate other researchers’ findings. Journal editors aren’t exactly jazzed about publishing replications. And potentially undermining someone else’s research is not a good way to make friends.

    Brian Nosek knows all that and he’s doing it anyway. Nosek, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, is one of the coordinators of the project. He’s careful not to make it sound as if he’s attacking his own field. “The project does not aim to single out anybody,” he says. He notes that being unable to replicate a finding is not the same as discovering that the finding is false. It’s not always possible to match research methods precisely, and researchers performing replications can make mistakes, too.

    But still. If it turns out that a sizable percentage (a quarter? half?) of the results published in these three top psychology journals can’t be replicated, it’s not going to reflect well on the field or on the researchers whose papers didn’t pass the test. In the long run, coming to grips with the scope of the problem is almost certainly beneficial for everyone. In the short run, it might get ugly.

    Nosek told Science that a senior colleague warned him not to take this on “because psychology is under threat and this could make us look bad.”

  9. I am excepting the studies that shows Computer Aided Automatic Scream Identification (CAASI)™ of course.

  10. anon:

    “If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable.”

    *****************************

    Wow! Anti-intellectualism from you? Imagine that. Any figures on the propriety of all that talking snake, Red Sea parting, dead man walking religious mumbo-jumbo those fundie conservatives always cite in reply?

  11. Wow! Anti-intellectualism from you?

    How is that quote from an Atlantic article about John Ioannidis’ work an example of anti-intellectualism?

    How is citing an Atlantic article describing the peer-reviewed and highly cited works of Ioannidis an example of anti-intellectualism?

    I apologize for citing many peer reviewed works that suggest your deep voice lower sperm count study is probably bullshit, but I fail to see how this quote above is some example of anti-intellectualism.

    More likely, it is an example of your inability to defend your study and so sling poorly misunderstood ad hominem my way. Counselor.

    I bet that works in front of the judge and fellow lawyers, but on the Internet we expect more.

    IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO MERELY POUND ON THE TABLE.

    Perhaps you as a lawyer should learn what scientists have been discussing for most of a decade before telling other people what you as a lawyer want to think is happening.

    Here’s John Ioannidis again,

    An Epidemic of False Claims — Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=an-epidemic-of-false-claims

    False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.

    The problem begins with the public’s rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. The number of investigators—and the number of experiments, observations and analyses they produce—has also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against bias are lacking. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis is often given to single studies instead of the big picture.

    Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In health care, research is often performed at the behest of companies that have a large financial stake in the results. Even for academics, success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The oligopoly of high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding, academic careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit its needs, which also shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and even public funding.

    The crisis should not shake confidence in the scientific method. The ability to prove something false continues to be a hallmark of science. But scientists need to improve the way they do their research and how they disseminate evidence.

    First, we must routinely demand robust and extensive external validation—in the form of additional studies—for any report that claims to have found something new. Many fields pay little attention to the need for replication or do it sparingly and haphazardly. Second, scientific reports should take into account the number of analyses that have been conducted, which would tend to downplay false positives. Of course, that would mean some valid claims might get overlooked.

  12. Anyway Mespo, I apologize for once more pointing out the huge stench that arises from your keyboard and pervades your efforts.

  13. According to http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029271

    No other scientific papers have cited this paper Mespo, which since it has only been out six months or so may not mean much.

    There are no comments attached to the paper, so it is hard to know what other researchers think about it.

    Since there are no citations, it does not appear to have been replicated.

    All of this are factors to consider in determining the importance, accuracy, validity of a paper. Counselor.

    It has been mentioned at Improbable.com home of the Ig Nobels.

    http://www.improbable.com/2011/12/27/the-semen-quality-of-deep-voiced-men-study/

    None of this suggests this paper is false, but in light of how science actually progresses, in light of Ioannidis findings, it would seem you should be asking for a reproducibility study, pun very much intended.

  14. Mark,

    You do understand that this paper does not describe an experiment, but describes a correlation.

    And the paper itself describes how weak the association they found was, and how the sperm of the deep voiced men fell within functional parameters.

    All of this strengthens the probability this paper is meaningless.

    Oh well. Continue to pound your lap.

  15. See, the testosterone really gets used in lots of activities other than sperms finding eggs and that’s probably a part of the problem, if nature really DOES have a problem, with promoting more and more of it. If its job is to promote maleness through sperm and to further the reproductive activities of those sperm, it’s been knocking off a lot recently.

    Whoever imagined that this article would lead to any active controversy? Wow, the guys get into it at the drop of a hat. Besides which, the rest of us don’t even know which of the players have high voices!

    By the way, I liked that clip of “Amazing Grace.” I used to sing that as a lullabye. It has about a thousand verses.

  16. Wow, the guys get into it at the drop of a hat.

    I will say, I didn’t post those first three articles to emphasize that Mespo is an ignoramus. I just thought more people should know about findings that sadly, much research is total bunk, and learn why and how to be a critical thinker.

    I actually thought Mespo would appreciate that, since, unlike Gene H or Otteray Scribe, I can tell that Mespo does strive to do the right thing and it’s really unfortunate how many times he ends up screwing the pooch.

    I hadn’t quite realized Mespo’s scientific ignorance would combine with his lawyerly arrogance and accuse me of anti-intellectualism for posting results a peer reviewed and highly respected paper discussing this.

    Well there I go again, misunderestimating the heights of a lawyer’s arrogance.

  17. @Otteray Scribe1-I wonder if Tim Storms was included in the study?” Which one is Tim Storms? If it was that gravely sounding voice at the beginning, that was gross, not only the voice but that guy looked like he was going to swallow the microphone!

  18. I have no credentials but I am a heterosexual woman and the first flag for me was:

    “Biologist have known for years that heterosexual women typically favor masculine features like deep voices, prominent jaws and high muscle mass. The thinking is that such features fulfill the desire of those females to find a dominant male – one who will offer the best protection for her and her family.”

    What’s that based on – the cover of a Harlequin romance?

  19. “Malisha
    1, May 27, 2012 at 10:37 am
    Or perhaps nature is saying that the men with a bit less testosterone should be the ones having more kids nowadays, so nature can go forward with fewer of the testosterone-induced (or enhanced) problems over the long run. ?? I’m just sayin…”

    Your just saying this is another casually misandric remark.

    It’s totally fine to badmouth testosterone, because it’s the male hormone, but of course if I said anything about the estrogen fueled bitches and the harm they cause society you would twist your panties as you swiftly denounced me as a misogynist.

  20. Curious, for what it’s worth, I just stumbled across this in which a woman explains it’s not testosterone that’s the problem but her own stupid chemistry and women’s stupid decisions, but she also says in the bolded part:

    http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-05-24/the-soapbox-why-we-cant-resist-an-a-hole/

    The Soapbox: Why We Can’t Resist An A-Hole

    Apparently the male sex hormone accounts for our inexplicable attraction to assholes.

    From an evolutionary standpoint, testosterone reigns supreme—so scientifically speaking, it’s not our fault that we’re attracted to testosterone laden Bad Boys. But what does testosterone have to do with the qualities that we find attractive?

    Back in the caveman days, being an asshole was necessary for survival. Just think about the mindset it takes to hunt and kill a wild animal. A caveman had to be aggressive. He had to stay focused. He had to compete with other cavemen who were also hunting for food. He had to be confident that he could take down an animal three times his size … or he had absolutely no concept of consequences or failure. If he were sitting around talking with his caveman buddies about how they feel about the situation and how the animal feels about its imminent death and Oh my god we could be mauled by a tiger! Maybe we should just be vegetarians, he’s going to die and so are you and your little cavebabies. Thanks to natural selection, we’re genetically predisposed to be attracted to men who are aggressive, competitive risk takers with no fear of failure. To put it simply, we like assholes.

    Now fast forward to present day. The scenario isn’t all that far from what I just described. That aggressive, risky, and competitive behavior has been channeled into more mainstream behavior as, ladies, that caveman is now a go-getter. A man with ambition. A man who will focus on the goal, and pursue it with reckless abandon until he achieves it. In short, they’re highly successful due largely to high testosterone levels.

    We can also thank testosterone for those sexy physical attributes we can’t resist. Square jaw line, broad shoulders, muscular physique, deep voice … think lumberjacks, firemen, Brad Pitt, Sean Connery, the guy from the Old Spice commercials (who actually appears in a Google image search for “manly men”). They’re hot. Who wouldn’t find these guys attractive?

    And if that wasn’t enough, testosterone is also responsible for that thing we like to call “chemistry.” It’s that inexplicable attraction you have with someone. You can actually feel it when they enter the room and whether you are consciously aware of it or not, your body is on high alert and will delude you into thinking that this is husband material. There are studies showing that when women ovulate, they actually think that men with greater testosterone levels will be better fathers. That pesky male hormone and our stupid ovulation goggles are responsible for lots of bad decisions.

    My relationship with the King of Inappropriate Comments is a perfect example. I had such a hard time breaking up with him because of the chemistry. He was a big bear of a guy and even though he was about my height, he had a massive physique thanks to heavy weight lifting. He loved whiskey and steak. He was also incredible in the bedroom; so incredible, that for months I overlooked our numerous incompatibilities and his tendency to say the most downright offensive things pretty much all the time. I knew we weren’t right for each other and we had nothing in common except for sex. Amazing sex. He was uninhibited. He took charge. He thoroughly enjoyed himself every single time without fail. It made me feel incredibly sexy and comfortable enough to abandon my conservative buttoned up good-girl ways and simply enjoy myself every single time too

  21. Anon, you’re really quick to think yourself denounced. That’s not about testosterone; it’s about HMDU. More on HMDU later, but it will go on this thread. It’s Heterosexual Male Dominance Units.

    You might really like lots and lots of testosterone and so forth, Anon, but that wouldn’t change the fact that there’s a correlation between (according to Mark Esposito, although I haven’t independently fact-checked it) sperm count and voice pitch. I might say, though, that on May 7, 2012 there was a gala in NY at a place called the “St. Anne’s Warehouse” that had been, for a couple of decades, home to an arts community, and now was moving a few blocks away. The guy who plays SPIDERMAN on Broadway sang — the most mesmerizing song, I can’t remember the name of it — in a high-pitched voice. From my seat (among about 800 guests) I couldn’t even tell if it was a man or woman singing, just some thin person with moderate length hair dressed in unremarkable clothes. Afterwards, when a friend of mine went up to him to greet and congratulate him, I saw who he was, and thanked him for his beautiful performance. The image of his beautiful face (as he thanked me and shook my hand, as the stars do with fans) popped up into my consciousness just now, although I have very little visual memory in general.

    You’re too touchy, man. I don’t have to think men are all (or nearly all) perfect, wonderful, blameless, gorgeous, correct, desirable, respectable, blah blah blah blah beings for you to think I am not a man-hater. If I were a man-hater it would be well within my rights to be so. If I identified you as a woman-hater, it would also be well within my rights to do so, as long as that did not lead me to be able to deprive you of your constitutional rights under color of state law.

    I don’t know what kind of man you actually are, Anon. I’ll debate you on the point that you like to bring up about how bad so many, many women are, and it reminds me of a group of 100 questions I once wrote for a lawyer who was going to be taking the deposition of the famous (infamous) now deceased (allegedly by his own hand) Richard Gardner, M.D. of New Jersey. The questions drew him out on all his theories on the evil women who used divorce courts to do countless harm to innocent men. The questions were very ordinary at first and simply asked him to state what he had written already in black and white in his books, which he had sent for free to all the judges in the United States. Toward the end it examined him on certain cases in which he had testified, and each one of them had been a case against one of these presumed terrible women. The last few questions asked him if it was true that he had never identified these terrible behaviors in any men, and of course, he had not. A few questions asked him about prevalence and the numbers, etc. Among the last of the questions was: “Is it true then, that in your medical opinion, mothers are much more likely to be bad people than fathers are, at least in the sample that you have used in the last twenty years?”

    Yes, Anon, if you count up all the bad things done to innocent men by bad evil women, you can come up with the conclusion that women are much more likely to be bad people. And that is a conclusion that is based on the data you have used to reach it.

    (By the way, check out the autopsy report of Dr. Gardner, who is said to have stabbed himself to death.)

  22. “Yes, Anon, if you count up all the bad things done to innocent men by bad evil women, you can come up with the conclusion that women are much more likely to be bad people. And that is a conclusion that is based on the data you have used to reach it.”

    I don’t think I’ve ever said that women are more likely to be bad people.

    I’ve said gender equality is about realizing that women are equally likely to be bad people, and to stop rationalizing the truly horrible behaviors of some bitches just because you hate men.

    What you actually wrote:

    “Or perhaps nature is saying that the men with a bit less testosterone should be the ones having more kids nowadays, so nature can go forward with fewer of the testosterone-induced (or enhanced) problems over the long run. ?? I’m just sayin…””

    How you now rationalize your casual bigotry when it’s pointed out to you

    “Anon, you’re really quick to think yourself denounced”

  23. Anon, I repeat: ““Or perhaps nature is saying that the men with a bit less testosterone should be the ones having more kids nowadays, so nature can go forward with fewer of the testosterone-induced (or enhanced) problems over the long run. ?? I’m just sayin…”

    You think this is bigoted? Not at all, Anon. I think this is very complimentary to the men who have a bit less testosterone. They should, perhaps, be the ones having more kids nowadays. They’re MEN, Anon.

    If you designed a psychological test to measure “man hatred” in women, and your question was:

    “True or False: I like men with high voices,” and answering “YES” to that question put a woman high on the scale of man-hatred, AND

    also, a “TRUE” answer to

    “True or False: “I hope men with Baritone Voices have fewer children than men with Tenor Voices” put women high on the scale of man-hatred,

    I think you’d have a weird little test that couldn’t sell very well among the forensic psychiatrists of the world, if they were trying to measure misandry among the women they tested.

    Here are a few test questions I would answer TRUE to:

    “I like men who can hold long conversations without becoming indignant”

    “I like men who can make their point without calling anybody a bitch”

    “I like men who love to sing and don’t butcher a song”

    “I like men who like the same music I like best”

    “I like men who aren’t always carrying on about how the last woman they knew was mean to them”

    “I like men who can face the idea that a lot of women harbor some misgivings about their behavior, at least until they have had a chance to show their real intentions and show that they can roll with the punches.”

  24. “Anon, I repeat: ““Or perhaps nature is saying that the men with a bit less testosterone should be the ones having more kids nowadays, so nature can go forward with fewer of the testosterone-induced (or enhanced) problems over the long run. ?? I’m just sayin…”

    You think this is bigoted?”

    Maybe nature is saying women with huge tits are fat slags and shouldn’t be having kids that they will probably mistreat and bring up poorly. Maybe nature is saying that women with huge sloppy lipped vaginas have bred too much and we shouldn’t be giving them welfare. Maybe breast cancer is nature’s cure for estrogen.

    Do you think that is bigoted and asinine?

    We usually / currently tend to think harshly about people who judge others for aspects of their lives they were born into and cannot change.

    And then there is the whole problematic aspect of how you write “testosterone-induced problems”. This is certainly a very pointed view of testosterone. Perhaps if you had a history of writing about the estrogen-induced problems that society faces it would be easier to understand you are writing one element in a balanced and wise portfolio of critiques of humanity.

    But since that’s not your history, it’s reasonable to assume your remarks are just casual bigotry in which you criminalize men for their biology understanding that no one will call you on your bullshit.

  25. There is little doubt you were born that way, anon, but formative experiences probably played a role as well.

    Your consistent persistent misogyny leaves little room for doubt.

  26. What Gene and Malisha said. I no longer waste time with trolls, so just ignore the stench and move on. Dealing with trolls is kind of like trying to argue with a sullen teenager who is functionally incapable of learning, but has a ready made crude–and often sexist–insult anytime directly confronted. Meh!

  27. Maggincat, Tim Storms is the bald guy. His voice only sounds gravelly if you have inexpensive speakers. Laptop speakers will not reproduce his low range, and the $25 set of speakers on my office computer will not do the trick either. My home computer is hooked to top-end Klipsch speakers and they do the job adequately. Tim Storms is in the Guinness book of world records for having the lowest bass register of any singer in the world. You cannot even hear his lowest notes–his lowest note can only be recorded with special microphones and seen on an oscilloscope. Actually, he has a very smooth voice and the widest vocal range for a male. IIRC, his range is eight octaves, five of those below middle C. That is also in the Guinness Book of World Records. Curiously, his normal speaking voice just sounds like a good radio announcer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Storms

  28. Dealing with trolls is kind of like trying to argue with a sullen teenager who is functionally incapable of learning, but has a ready made crude–and often sexist–insult anytime directly confronted.

    Personally, I’d rather deal with a sullen teenager capable of learning than with an obvious fraud that defends scientifically bogus theories like Otteray Scribe’s Computer Aided Automatic Scream Identification (CAASI). You either should have known better or you are a fraud and a liar.

  29. See folks, trolls are like the scorpion in the fable; it’s just their nature. Thank you anon for taking the bait just as I knew you would. You really make it far too easy, which takes the fun out of it.

  30. but has a ready made crude–and often sexist–insult anytime directly confronted

    And this is the point isn’t it? In many of her posts Malisha (and others here) often throw in casually bigotted remarks, Malisha’s towards men.

    You either don’t notice them, or you smirk with a trained “you go grrl” grin, and move on.

    When the genders are intentionally reversed, suddenly you wake up and notice, woah, that’s offensive!

    But instead of understanding the point that one remark was serious as it was casual and the other a bitter parody intended to make the point sharply, instead you are so sick, society so twisted, that in the name of gender equality, you complain about the second instance and not the first.

    Casually sexist remarks directed towards one gender are not on the road to gender equality.

  31. “See folks, trolls are like the scorpion in the fable; it’s just their nature. Thank you anon for taking the bait just as I knew you would. You really make it far too easy, which takes the fun out of it.”

    Yes, I confess, you’ve certainly been busy laying traps for me. First by supporting bogus junk science in the courtroom, then by white knighting for misandry. You’re quite the clever one Otteray.

  32. Off Topic;

    The Frog of War
    When biologist Tyrone Hayes discovered that a top-selling herbicide messes with sex hormones, its manufacturer went into battle mode. Thus began one of the weirdest feuds in the history of science.
    —By Dashka Slater
    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered

    Excerpt;
    DARNELL LIVES DEEP IN the basement of a life sciences building at the University of California-Berkeley, in a plastic tub on a row of stainless steel shelves. He is an African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis, sometimes called the lab rat of amphibians. Like most of his species, he’s hardy and long-lived, an adept swimmer, a poor crawler, and a voracious eater. He’s a good breeder, too, having produced both children and grandchildren. There is, however, one unusual thing about Darnell.

    He’s female.

    Genetically, Darnell is male. But after being raised in water contaminated with the herbicide atrazine at a level of 2.5 parts per billion—slightly less than what’s allowed in our drinking water—he developed a female body, inside and out. He is also the mother of his children, having successfully mated with other males and spawned clutches of eggs. Recently he was moved to an atrazine-free tank and has turned lanky, losing the plump, pincushion look of a female frog. But last March, when UC-Berkeley integrative biology professor Tyrone B. Hayes opened him up to take a look, Darnell’s insides were still female. “He still has ovaries, but there’s no eggs in them,” Hayes told me the next day as we stood watching the frog, who swam over and inspected us soberly, then turned and flopped away.

  33. anon:

    “Anyway Mespo, I apologize for once more pointing out the huge stench that arises from your keyboard and pervades your efforts.”

    ***********************

    I have to wonder why with all the foolishness you see in my posts, you continually read, scrutinize, and persistently comment on them. I’d like to think it’s Einsteins’ classic definition of insanity but given the topic at hand, it must be love.

    Ah, to be the desire of trolls everywhere; my life’s wish fulfilled!
    LOL

  34. Anon, Anon, Anon…

    “Maybe nature is saying women with huge tits are fat slags and shouldn’t be having kids that they will probably mistreat and bring up poorly. Maybe nature is saying that women with huge sloppy lipped vaginas have bred too much and we shouldn’t be giving them welfare. Maybe breast cancer is nature’s cure for estrogen. Do you think that is bigoted and asinine? We usually / currently tend to think harshly about people who judge others for aspects of their lives they were born into and cannot change. And then there is the whole problematic aspect of how you write “testosterone-induced problems”. This is certainly a very pointed view of testosterone. Perhaps if you had a history of writing about the estrogen-induced problems that society faces it would be easier to understand you are writing one element in a balanced and wise portfolio of critiques of humanity.”

    Well, I’m not trying to write a balanced and wise portfolio, Anon, but if I were, I would want it “peer reviewed” by reviewers I thought had the credibility to give me good feedback.

    “But since that’s not your history, it’s reasonable to assume your remarks are just casual bigotry in which you criminalize men for their biology understanding that no one will call you on your bullshit.”

    Guess what, Anon, anybody who wants to can call me on anything I say. Not only is that not a problem, but that is the fundamental piece of my humor. What I have been doing on many of these threads is developing a good stand-up act and so far, there are about a dozen contributors who have had some fun with it. Then sometimes I do get serious, too. I get serious about the Zimmerman case, for instance. But about poor men who get insulted when I comment on sperm motility or voice range when singing “Amazing Grace”? Are you serious? Because if you are, perhaps you should check into some neurotransmitter adjustments, beyond the run of estrogen OR testosterone.

    PS: Anon, my kid is a male, and has been so since he was born. And he has a nice baritone voice and a helluva great sense of humor. All his girlfriends have appreciated him, and none of them have had kids with him, and that’s quite all right with him AND THEM and ME. And if he knew how bent out of shape you were getting, he would probably say to you, in a nice deep voice, “chill, man.”

  35. “Anyway Mespo, I apologize for once more pointing out the huge stench that arises from your keyboard and pervades your efforts.”

    ***********************

    I have to wonder why with all the foolishness you see in my posts, you continually read, scrutinize, and persistently comment on them. I’d like to think it’s Einsteins’ classic definition of insanity but given the topic at hand, it must be love.

    Ah, to be the desire of trolls everywhere; my life’s wish fulfilled!
    LOL

    Your real question mespo is why you took offense at what I wrote.

    I posted nothing about you, and only posted well respected articles about flaws in modern scientific studies, and not only did you take offense at that, but you then interpreted that as anti-intellectualism of all things. (Note that not even the junk scientist Otteray Scribe questioned any of that aspect of what I wrote.)

    You aren’t usually this much of a dumbass.

    Why would you do this?

    That should be your real question.

  36. What I have been doing on many of these threads is developing a good stand-up act and so far, there are about a dozen contributors who have had some fun with it.

    Hmm. I haven’t detected much humor at all in what you write, usually I detect some well written comments that are often insightful, often way off track, and often contain unrecognized bigotry.

    I’ll try to seek out that humor quotient, seriously, I like to believe I have a pretty good sense of it myself.

    Glad to hear some of your best friends are men.

  37. “Otteray_Scribe,

    What Gene and Malisha said. I no longer waste time with trolls, so just ignore the stench and move on. Dealing with trolls is kind of like trying to argue with a sullen teenager who is functionally incapable of learning, but has a ready made crude–and often sexist–insult anytime directly confronted. Meh!”

    Hey I understand, if some twerp had caught me, a forensic psychologist endorsing obvious junk science, I’d certainly be slinging ad hominem his way and shoveling as much shit as I can to distract everyone else.

    I mean, jeez, talk about embarrassing!

  38. Elaine,

    That sure explains a lot of the posts on this thread. I’m just surprised a frog can use a cell phone or the Internet.

  39. Why are the higher pitched guys more like to have an affliction for other males? what if a male hairdresser discloses he isn’t really gay?

  40. Anon, if you haven’t come across humor in my comments, you’ll need to ask for some supplements; you may have an imbalance. And as to your being the judge of my bigotry quotient, sorry, you’d have to recuse on that one.

    Thinking about my alleged man hatred this morning (I wonder why you think it is good that some of my best friends are men? I’ll have to ask them about that one) I came to this conclusion:

    I think about 2/3 of all men I have met or dealt with in my life are sub-standard, according to my own standards. This does not include anyone under age 18.

    I think about 1/2 of all women I have met or dealt with in my life are sub-standard, according to my own standards. Again, no persons under 18 included.

    On that basis, I would imagine it is pretty easy for a woman I consider pretty much “good enough” to hook up with a man I consider pretty much “not good enough” and I have seen it way way too many times.

    But considering the odds, what can I say?

    That doesn’t mean that a great guy cannot hook up with a terrible gal. In point of fact, my father-in-law was a great (enough) guy who hooked up with my mother-in-law who was about 30,000 turtles down the line from his mark on the standard. She drove him to suicide. I blame her, not him. But that wouldn’t cause me to hate any women other than her. And I considered her a bitch.

    See, there’s how I think of it.

    And before you get all worked up about the 2/3 for men and 1/2 for women, here’s why: Men are brought into a culture that doesn’t take their shortcomings as seriously as it takes their sisters’ shortcomings. It’s a simple answer and it explains a lot. It doesn’t explain any particular case, but it can explain the general disproportionate assaholism of the sexes.

  41. “That doesn’t mean that a great guy cannot hook up with a terrible gal. In point of fact, my father-in-law was a great (enough) guy who hooked up with my mother-in-law who was about 30,000 turtles down the line from his mark on the standard. She drove him to suicide. I blame her, not him. But that wouldn’t cause me to hate any women other than her. And I considered her a bitch.”

    See, this is my point exactly.

    I have repeatedly said, that I don’t blame all women for the behaviors of these bitches.

    But I do blame feminists for ignoring and rationalizing bitch behavior and then declaring it an act of misogyny to point out bitch behavior.

    Anyway, I am terribly sorry to hear about your father-in-law.

  42. “Deep-voiced men had less sperm than their higher timbre contemporaries but their sperm was just as motile.”

    That is because we only need a few to get the job done. More than one is superfluous in any event.

  43. Wow. There’s a LOT of assumptions and silliness in this comment thread. Mostly with anon and continuing comments.
    I think, personally, if it hadn’t begun we wouldn’t have such a problem with the ending, hm? Just a philosophy student here.
    A good chunk of the issues I see here are with the assumption of
    a) sexist views in a subject matter, and the resulting backlash
    B) the misuse of wonderful vocabulary resulting from some psychological thinking process
    C) the argument of different opinionated views using facts to try and justify them when opinions are just that – opinions, and until proven completely and made fact, they are not wholly fact.
    Therefore, shut up.

Comments are closed.