Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2. It doesn't "change a man's sperm" It can change the frequency, and timing of pregnancy. The more frequent sexual relations occur, and the more random the timing, (because babies conceived at or around the time of ovulation tend to be boys) the more likely the product of conception will be a girl. OK so far?
The more sexually active a couple is, the greater the frequency of intercourse the more likely that a girl will be born. A couple who has frequent intercourse (or a man who thins out his sperm count in other ways with someone else or by himself) the more likely the implantation will occur at a time that is not ovulation. Boys are born on or very close to ovulation. The reason for that is two fold - the female sperm ( I already mentioned their properties) are slower, larger and longer lived. If a man is reducing his sperm count, along the means I have suggested, there will be a reduction in overall sperm count, but the heartier female sperm will survive.
The other reason a female is most likely to be born under there conditions has to do with the conditions inside the woman, particularly her vaginal mucosa. At most times of the month, conception actually favors girls.
One would think then, that most babies conceived and born would be female. That isn't true, obviously. One reason is that it is much easier to become pregnant just when the egg is released (at ovulation) The faster, more mobile male sperm get there first, and most frequently, a boy is born.
These are facts and not conjecture. I did not and never claim to have done any of this research.
These facts are used all the time in Gender Selection Clinics.
In fact, I have a friend who works in one (a nurse practitioner) who has observed that clients who ask for a girl (and already have boys) seem to have a certain personality dynamic, and those who ask for a boy (and already have girls) have another.
Yes this in anecdotal. I had this theory when growing up. Before I knew anything about this. I observed families around me, my own included.
My father is an aggressive, competitive business man, successful and driven. He put himself through college, and in a former Marine. In his late 70s he still runs 4 miles a day. He still likes women quite a bit.
He and my mother had three daughters. After consulting with a specialist, they timed the conception of their last child to the time of ovulation. The result was a boy.
So, the personality traits that favor girls (or boys) can be manipulated.
But most births are not manipulated. And (I am just giving the example of female birth here) men who are dominant, aggressive, with a high need for sex appear to be more likely to (with out intervention) give birth to daughters.
Um, that's under ANY conditions except for the rare hermaphrodite.
I have heard some of this about where the egg is determining whether an x or y sperm reaches it. I'll buy some of the biological reasons for getting a girl vs a boy, but I'm not buying that anyone's personality has anything to do with it, at least not to a point that it would make a statistical difference. I still haven't seen any proof of your last sentence being true.
Okay, so what the OP is saying is that aggressive, go-getter men have sex more often, which leads to more female sperm, and ultimately more female children being born. That is making the assumption that aggressive, go-getter men do indeed have sex often enough to affect their sperm count and that non-aggressive men do not. I am just not sure that is really the case. What of the assertion that aggressive, go-getter women have boys? Again, that is assuming that aggressive go-getter women have a higher sex drive than non-aggressive women. Even if they did, do their husbands not like to have intercourse with them? I think they they would, which would mean, by the OP's logic, that they would be having girls - not boys.
Edited to add: It would be more logical to make the claim that couples who have frequent intercourse are more likely to have girls and leave personality (other than sex drive, which doesn't necessarily correlate to aggressive personality) out of it. However, I still doubt if there is much (if any) statistical significance, since there are a lot of couples actively trying to conceive (thus having very frequent intercourse) who have boys.
Uhm, no that i under ALL conditions. There are no determinations of gender other than X or Y carrying sperm. That is a FACT.
2. It doesn't "change a man's sperm" It can change the frequency, and timing of pregnancy. The more frequent sexual relations occur, and the more random the timing, (because babies conceived at or around the time of ovulation tend to be boys) the more likely the product of conception will be a girl. OK so far?[/quote]
I do not think you understand biology.
"Around the time of ovulation"? There is no other point at which someone can get pregnant. Eggs typically only live for a day. Therefore there is a very finite window were conception can occur. It is not "random" at all.
So definitely not OK. The only thing that controls sex of the baby is whether the sperm that enters the egg is an X carrying sperm or Y carrying sperm. If you cannot show how any of this nonsense alters the sperm than you are just making things up. It is sort of bizarre.
Quote:
The more sexually active a couple is, the greater the frequency of intercourse the more likely that a girl will be born. A couple who has frequent intercourse (or a man who thins out his sperm count in other ways with someone else or by himself) the more likely the implantation will occur at a time that is not ovulation. Boys are born on or very close to ovulation. The reason for that is two fold - the female sperm ( I already mentioned their properties) are slower, larger and longer lived. If a man is reducing his sperm count, along the means I have suggested, there will be a reduction in overall sperm count, but the heartier female sperm will survive.
Implantation happens AFTER ovulation it cannot physically happen before. Because it does not enter the uterus (where implantation occurs) until after it comes out of the fallopian tubes (where ovulation occurs)
" Likewise, researchers have found that timing sex in relation to ovulation — such as having sex days before ovulation to conceive a boy or closer to ovulation to conceive a girl — doesn't work. "
Quote:
The other reason a female is most likely to be born under there conditions has to do with the conditions inside the woman, particularly her vaginal mucosa. At most times of the month, conception actually favors girls.
You seem to be operating under a very incomplete view of the human menstrual cycle. The only time a woman can get pregnant is when she is ovulating. This is a very narrow time frame of between 12-24 hours. What can happen is that sperm can live for 3-5 days inside a womans reproductive tract, which means that sperm from a few days can hang around and "wait" until ovulation occurs. This widens the time intercourse can result in a pregnancy to about 5 days maximum. You are grossly misapplying facts here.
Quote:
One would think then, that most babies conceived and born would be female. That isn't true, obviously. One reason is that it is much easier to become pregnant just when the egg is released (at ovulation) The faster, more mobile male sperm get there first, and most frequently, a boy is born.
These are facts and not conjecture. I did not and never claim to have done any of this research.
Not only that you do not understand the basic biology. Yes, it is clearly conjecture.
Quote:
These facts are used all the time in Gender Selection Clinics.
Uhm, most gender selection clinics use either embryo selction via IV or separation of sperm in the lab. Not the stuff listed above. So please, show any evidence that any of the stuff above has any type of scientific valididty (this would require you to show an actual study supporting that this works).
Quote:
In fact, I have a friend who works in one (a nurse practitioner) who has observed that clients who ask for a girl (and already have boys) seem to have a certain personality dynamic, and those who ask for a boy (and already have girls) have another.
Yes this in anecdotal. I had this theory when growing up. Before I knew anything about this. I observed families around me, my own included.
Anecdotal is not FACTUAL. Therefore it is conjecture. It is not a THEORY, please stop calling it that. It does not even meet the requirements to be a hypothesis. It is no more than an idea.
Okay, so what the OP is saying is that aggressive, go-getter men have sex more often, which leads to more female sperm, and ultimately more female children being born. That is making the assumption that aggressive, go-getter men do indeed have sex often enough to affect their sperm count and that non-aggressive men do not. I am just not sure that is really the case. What of the assertion that aggressive, go-getter women have boys? Again, that is assuming that aggressive go-getter women have a higher sex drive than non-aggressive women. Even if they did, do their husbands not like to have intercourse with them? I think they they would, which would mean, by the OP's logic, that they would be having girls - not boys.
The logic is flawed. Especially when you consider that human x and y carrying sperm are morphologically nearly identical. The Shettles and OPs idea is based on the idea that X sperm are larger and thus "slower" than Y sperm. Unfortunately this isnt true.
Newer studies of mitochondrial and other factors effecting sperm motility in mammals also calls into question the idea that Y sperm are "faster" than the X ones. Mostly this is not true.
The logic is flawed. Especially when you consider that human x and y carrying sperm are morphologically nearly identical. The Shettles and OPs idea is based on the idea that X sperm are larger and thus "slower" than Y sperm. Unfortunately this isnt true.
Newer studies of mitochondrial and other factors effecting sperm motility in mammals also calls into question the idea that Y sperm are "faster" than the X ones. Mostly this is not true.
I was trying to approach the OP's claim from a different angle for those that don't have the biology background. (as in, regardless of the biological aspect, the claim doesn't follow logic for other reasons.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was trying to approach the OP's claim from a different angle for those that don't have the biology background. (as in, regardless of the biological aspect, the claim doesn't follow logic for other reasons.)
