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. 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.”

  2. “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.

  3. 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.

  4. “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!

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. “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.

  9. “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.

  10. 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.