E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise have Suri, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have Shiloh, and Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck have Violet and Seraphina. Strictly judging from the pages of US Weekly, it would appear that good-looking couples tend to have little girls. In this case, US Weekly might be on to something.
Beautiful parents tend to have more daughters than their homelier counterparts, according to a report by evolutionary psychologist Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics. Kanazawa tackled the same question in a 2007 book that covers all sorts of facets of human behavior, "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters," which he co-wrote with Alan S. Miller.
For this study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Reproductive Science, Kanazawa tracked 17,000 British babies from their 1958 births, and at age 7, their teachers were asked to rate the children on their attractiveness (yikes). When interviewed later at age 45, those who were rated most attractive were more likely to have daughters.
That might be because, as Kanazawa wrote in his 2007 book, attractiveness benefits women more than men when it comes to long-term dating and mating. Guys tend go for beautiful women when looking for something long-term, while women seek out good-looking guys for the short-term, but not necessarily for the long haul, when qualities like resources and status count for more."So physical attractiveness, while a universally positive quality, contributes even more to women's reproductive success than to men's," Kanazawa and Miller write. In an evolutionary psychologist's point of view, pretty parents pass along what will best benefit their progeny: good looks.
Of course, this doesn't explain the existence of Gisele Bundchen and Tom Brady's baby boy Benjamin, or, for that matter, the Beckham boys. And it's worth noting that Dr. Hugh Taylor, the editor of Reproductive Science, acknowledges that this is a subject that will surely push a few parents' buttons. "It is a controversial area and not the type of paper that our journal typically publishes," Taylor said in an e-mail. He adds that while the research methods were solid, the editors "do not endorse the finding of any paper we publish as true, but do want to encourage debate."
What do you think? And parents of little boys, are you a little hurt by this researcher's knock on your hotness?
Find The Body Odd on Twitter and Facebook.
Want more weird health news? Find The Body Odd on Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
My personal observation is that couples that struggle to have any children, and because of that usually only have one, tend to have girls. I know 4 couples personally where this is the case, they all have had a girl. Don't know if there's any science to back it up...just my observation.
This is the type of studies we are spending money on??? I know plenty of ugly people who have had girls..... wow that didn't cost a thing....
Ridiculous
the reason that people who have struggled to have children in the past are more likely to have girls is because female sperm are more resilient than their male counterparts.....they can handle higher vaginal acidity and survive longer than male sperm.
Yes, females are more resilient in all aspects!! We can handle anything, men are whining cry babies.... I've been in the medical field for 10 years and they are weak.
Well studies have also said that people who have children when they are older, tend to have more girls as well---hmm...aside from Katie Holmes---weren't most of the couples mentioned in the article "older" when they had girls --Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Gardner, and Ben Afflick---weren't they all in their late 30's if not 40's when they had children?
Plenty of people think Britney Spears is hot---yet she had 2 sons. Ricky Martin is REALLY hot---and he has 2 sons.....also, does that mean Julia Roberts and Jennifer Lopez are just kind of hot because didn't they both have a girl and a boy?
And considering some of the ugliest kids turn out to be some of the most beautiful people, I am guessing that might change things. And you can not tell me that teachers who are judging looks did not take into account the child's personality (which can easily sway your opinion on the "cuteness" of the child).
I can not believe they waste money on this kind of thing.
Yeah well if public perception is that a more effeminate man is attractive then sure this is true, but everybody knows it takes a MAN to make a MAN, so the fact that a little girlie man like Tom Cruise has a daughter is no real surprise to me.
hahahahaha...we know why you're "singlemom" now...get your tough ass on the front line, ya silly wench.
I think Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa has an obsession with daughters, as he has written the following other publications..
2008 - Are schizophrenics more religious?: do they have more daughters?.
2005 -Engineers have more sons, nurses have more daughters:
He also writes the following:
(2010) Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent
(2009) Why night owls are more intelligent.
(2004) Why beautiful people are more intelligent.
Yep, I put great faith in his opinion
Ridiculous..beauty is subjective...so how can a differing human opinion have anything to do with gender at birth?
I am wondering who decides which are the "good looking couples" and which are not? This seems very subjective and not scientific at all. Giving grant money for a report like this makes as much sense as the study of the affects of cocaine addiction in apes. This money would be better spent on housing, food, clothing and education for children living at or below the poverty line! That is something that would make the world a better place.
singlemom07....
So while I've been out on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan shooting, getting shot, being hit, and getting riht back out there again....
What exactly do YOU do for a living except complain, shop, and spend money?
Sounds to me like you're jealous about something and can't hack it.
very true, however, male sperm are stronger swimmers,so if you stand the female on her head after insemination, you are more likely to have a boy
Oh brother! This is sick--
I'm outraged!
Signed,
Parent of 4 boys
=•)
I'm flattered! My husband and I have 4 daughters!!!
it takes a good woman to get a man to produce a boy. i know that my mate and i were beautiful people. i am hot to trot!
This is simply a marketing ploy to sell the book!! Hello. The more we debate the subject the more likely the book will sell.... The more talk shows the author will be on and the more morning TV shows as well.....
There is no way this is scientific evidence!
this is stupid @!$%#. first of all, try to define attractive. you can't because it's different for each person. As for "doctor" Kanazawa, keep your crap opinions and theories to yourself.
This is really a study?!?...There is absolutely no scientific facts to back this up where are the genetic tests lab values etc. ...this sounds like tabloid hocus pocus crap. The gender of your child is based on the father of the childs genetic makeup some guys make more x's some more y's wether they are ugly or not.
Ok, the premise on which the study functions is this:
Western standards of attractiveness are the same throughout the entire world, and our genetic codes are aware of Western standards of attractiveness. All men are only interested in beautiful women, and not all women are intestested in beautiful men. Therefore, if the parents fit the Western standard of attractiveness, our genetic codes assess the societal norms and standards of attractiveness and produce beautiful women so that they can have a better chance to reproduce.
The fatal flaw in this premise is the assumption that our genetic codes know when a new parent is attractive according to their society's standards, and also that our genetic codes know that in U.S. culture, men are more shallow than women. These are not natural instincts; they are social parameters that exist in our circle of existence. Some cultures don't think Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes are very hot. What happens with their babies?
Other researchers have found through showing images of hundreds of people to thousands of test subjects, that there is a mathematical formula to attractiveness. The closer their face fits the ratios in the formula, the more attractive they are to a wider range of people. Symmetry is big, too. A super-high percentage of the testers found symmetrical faces to be more attractive.
Now I can tell my husband to stop stressing over whether he'll ever have a little boy. I can just tell him we only have girls because his wife is so hot. That's some data I can get behind. :)
I don't know, I'm pretty cute, my husband is gorgeous, we have 4 daughters, all beautiful...I like that study! LOL
They should be looking exclusively at the men since biology teaches us that women only contribute the X chromosome and men contribute X and/or Y. Unless they are saying attractive women have some sort of Y destroying gene so their ovaries only accept X chromosomes, then the study is patently flawed. Other ways to look at this. You are more likely to have a girl if you get pregnant early in your ovulation cycle and boys later. Maybe attractive women are only in the mood when they are more likely to have a girl? Or maybe attractive women that have boys picked a man that is putting out more Y chromosomes than X's!
It as also been studied and documented that highly orgasmic women tend to have more male offspring. Could it be that these beautiful women are just that and not able to enjoy that beauty in others parts of their lives? Maybe the ones who are not as attractive are the ones who really have it all!!!
So let see were Brad pitts and tom cruises parents ugly????
This is really stupid we have people who need help in this country and you are spending time saying girls come from attractive people and boys come from ugly parents...I always thought beauty came from within... Personality is a key factor. quite honestly I don't really think angelina is all that and more sorry!!!
Any one who has had basic 6th grade biology knows that there are more girls born in the world than boys.
Unbelievable,
Which part of this study did you pay for? All knowledge is good and understanding evolutionary change and genetic makeup and species diversity has a great deal of significance for the future of humanity.
JKH
As an attractive Democratic atheist with a tendency to stay up late, I've got to say that this Injun is on to something.
Baldman-2746126: You are mistaken. There are 1.5 boys born for every 1 girl.
Female sperm are more resilient says one commenter... I was conceived while my parents were using a diaphram and a condom with spermicidal lubricant. How is that for beating the odds?
Wow, I guess I'm homely since I have three sons.
This type of article is so ridiculous. Are we calling this science? With all the weighty subjects that are worthy of scientific minds and time, is this really necessary?
I completely agree with you! I can't believe someone wrote an entire book on this subject- what a waste of time! Who cares really!
You must have, you read the article and commented on it! :)
"good-lookingness" and "homliness" are subjective traits and gender is random. not sure the researcher's claim that "good-looking" couples produce more girls than their "homlier" counter-parts, is valid. I think the researchers are introducing their bias into this so called "research"....
Bottom line....'Good-looking couples have more daughters, study suggests' = BS
Baloney! My ex and I are both considered attractive and we produced two sons. What a waste of money and time.
Agreed..husband and I are both beautifull..but have 3 sons..so what's up with that!
Unfortunately, we have been focusing on vain research for decades. I think that as industrial nations develope into service related and commodity businesses, the people have bigger and wealthier families; thus they become vain - or in some cases, "gentlemen", ex. America and Britian.
It happens! So the question is, would you be vain and believe this stuff or would you be "honorable"- to an extent?
Daniel C.
Merry Christmas Darlings
bunch of rubbish and they give money for this?? Guess I'll have to get in line!!!
Well, my wife and I are both hot and we have 2 daughters. I'm not trying for a boy, if you catch my drift. So to answer your question...most likely yes. lol
Well I guess there must be some margin of truth in that study, after all most attractive couples I've met that have children do have mostly girls. That's proof enough if you're going to marry someone,they should be beautiful,that age old concept of marrying just for love and not looks is out the door. No one wants to admit they have ugly children,because to every parent their child's countenance is in essence as the saying goes,"only a face a mother could love",but if we were brutally honest with ourselves how many would admit they have homely looking children or just down right ugly children. How many adults would consider for a moment having had their child by another individual that was quite physically appealling,rather than a not so hot average 'Joe' or 'Jane'.
I'm the mother of 3 boys, and can't wait to share this with my husband for a good chuckle! We don't turn heads, but neither do we scare little children. I can think of friends, acquaintances and family whose reproductive experience would seem to support this theory, but can also think of the same number of instances that would refute it; one in particular where the couple should NOT have reproduced, ever, and they had - guess what! - a girl.
If this WERE true, then thinking evolutionally over thousands of years, wouldn't the majority of women, if not all women, be spectacular looking by now? As well as at least a majority of men, since all the mothers are beautiful? How would fashion magazine editors be able to choose cover models that would attract attention (and hopefully sell magazines)? Only think - an entire industry, down the drain. (Sorry - couldn't resist.)
Have hope, parents of sons - in time there will be a new study that dramatically reveals that parents of boys have superior intellects, or some such thing. And we'll be vindicated...
Guess I'm homely too since I have three boys. Too bad I won all those beauty pageants in my teens and twenties. Oh- and modeled too. Oh, and my husband was voted Most Attractive in his class favorites..... Someone just had a little too much time on his hands... Maybe now we can study something a little more important like alternative fuel sources since this is out of the way.
And they judged "attractiveness" on ratings back in the 1960's? Then this is all very subjective. Now, show me a study where they define attractiveness on something tangible and measurable, like facial symmetry, then I'll be more inclined to accept the findings. Since males determine the sex of their offspring, and women don't chose their long-term partners based on looks, this all seems a little iffy.
Yes, the attractiveness measure may well have been affected by socio-economic factors (e.g., familial wealth) that would have influenced the looks of the children (e.g., quality of clothes/uniforms, dietary choices, hairstyle/fashion).
Good point! However, due to evolution and Homo sapien sapien's 46 genes there is no standrad for any "human or beastly" features. It is up to god and your fortunes- parents, jobs, and chemical interactions- that determine your looks- I'm atheist, so padon my use if God's name.
Daniel C.
Where does this study put me?
I have two girls and two boys........kinda good looking or sorta homely?
Consider yourself 'goomely'.
4 kids, guess your hot, leastwise to the one that matters. :)
Dear Packer Fan,
I believe that would be due to the differences in male v.s. female sperm. Male sperm swim faster but do not remain active as long as the slower swimming female sperm ... a sort of tortoise & hare phenomenon. There was once a theory that the higher is in the egg in the womb the more likely it will be fertilized by a female as opposed to the lower position being reached by the quick and short lived male.
As to attractive couples having more daughters ... first of all the couples mentioned are not in my view particularly attractive ... by what standard is attractiveness being measured? A prolific family [regardless of the sex of the children] is a strong indicator that the pair find each other VERY attractive ... and in my view, a couple that expresses love and attraction for each other are the most beautiful people to behold [regardless of whether they are worthy of either the cover of GQ or Vogue] ;)
And in case anyone is interested, I have three magnificent and stunningly handsome sons [even if two of them are already balding ... where did THAT come from!].
Females don't have sperm... You might be thinking of gametes, but your point is still incorrect and confused. Trust me, I went to college. Just thought you ought to know.
I think this person means the sperm that is xx or xy all originating from the male
Actually, I think Sofka is referring to the phenomenon that sperm carrying a Y chromosome (the "male" sperm) swim faster because they are lighter, due to the Y chromosome being smaller than the X. Sperm carrying an X chromosome (the "female" sperm) are slower than sperm carrying Y chromosomes, but are less susceptible to the harsh environment of the female reproductive tract.
Oh, and I'm sure Sofka went to college too.
Supposedly, you get your disease immunities from the mother when you are in her womb. Is this it or is it the XX and XY or the gametes
norma the thinker, you are retarded
Sofka, I understood what you meant.... No need to comment on your exact wording.....Also have been taught that sexual positioning precludes the chances for male or female.
Let's see...I have a hot wife, four daughters, and six sons. I don't mind being the "homely" one in that equation!
I think you've got:
a) an army
b) a hot wife
c) let me think....mmm....a hot wife
d) no condoms
e) all the above
That you still refer to ur wife as hot a marriage and ten kids later is in itself...beautiful!
Frivolous studies like this just waste time and energy otherwise necessary to do more important things like, say, finding effective treatments for Alzheimer's. By whose standards are these people's "good looks" based on? Angelina is no beauty. Her bee-stung lips might turn heads in some Hollywood circles but certainly not in mine. Please do not insult my intelligence.
"Bee-stung lips," haha, that is a good description. Though I do not believe they are her natural lips. I saw a photo album of her throughout the years, including her childhood. As a child, she had normal lips; as a teen, she had normal lips; as an adult, she also had some pictures with normal lips, then BAM, all the sudden she got these huge ones. Her face strongly resembles her father's, and he has normal lips. All her kids have normal lips. Oh come on, she got those things stuffed somehow!! Don't tell me they just swelled up at the peak of her acting career.
@JLM-268998~
What pictures were you looking at?? Every picture I've seen of Jolie regardless of the age, her lips were exceptionally full and beautiful. I have people call the office all the time to make appts for lip plumping. After their visit, I can not tell you, but a HUGE percentage of the women ask for Angelina lips...can't say that I blame them. ;>)
Just too funny! I am no trip to Hollywood, and my husband is a nice looking man, no trip to Hollywood either, but we have great looking children, boys and girls. Maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
male sperm are faster and female sperm live longer...so the fact that we have a boy is that we have (had) sex more often when trying for a baby then (gasp!) those "beautiful" people who may look good, but only hopped in the sack once in a while...ok! :)
This is a ridiculous article.
This is just too rediculous!!!!! I have 3 girls and 1 boy.....and it ain't got nothin' to do with mommy and daddy's looks!!!!
I always thought beauty was in the eyes of the beholder...
Quite frankly, I find most of the supposed "10's" from hollyweirdo land quite ugly...taking into acccount character flaws and all...
DITTO
My theory is that boys are born to couples that have similtaneous orgasms during conception and girls to couples who have seperate orgasms or none at all. Anybody concur?......
uh...maybe you should take a biology class. Boys are born when the "winning" sperm is carrying a y chromosome. Girls are born when it is carrying an x. Simultaneous verses separate orgasms has nothing to do with it.
Angrymom- I have taken biology classes, thank you, and I know all about X and Y chromosomes, but you don't have any idea if simultaneous orgasm affects the sex of the child or not, it is my theory that it does. It is as relevent a theory as "good looking couples" having more girls, no?
I vehemently disagree. Boys are born to couples that don't cuddle after sex!!
uh...gender is random...similar to flipping a coin for heads or tails.
I don't cuddle after sex and I have three girls!!!
I had always heard that the gender of the child will be the same as the FIRST one to orgasm. So, girls are born to couples where either the man is solicitous to his mate (or the woman is crazy in love), and boys to couples where the man can't hold back or the woman ensures that her man goes first (why?).
I know a couple with three sons who state that, in their case, the "orgasm order" is the reverse, i.e., they had boys, but she 'came' first!
I bet you could apply for a grant and do a study to find out for sure!
I always come several times ...first(My husband makes sure of that) and I have a boy and a girl!
That is not true, there would be way more girls in the world then. That almost never happens. That only happens in romance novels and pornos.
if that were that were true i would have 2 boys but I have 2 girls. We always come together
You people are tacky! Who cares about your sex life....you're all lying anyway....and probably ugly to boot! Get over yourselves....I hate you all. Yes, I did read a few of the newer posts out of morbid curiosity so I must be a glutten for punishment....but, and trust me on this, I truly regret waisting part of my lunch break doing so!
Sorry for the rant Mr. Code of Honor Enforcer.....this isn't my normal posting, but I couldn't refrain.
Active Duty,
Who got your goat? lol I have seen you post in other threads, and you are always so calm, levelheaded and did I mention calm.
If you are talking about the people on here that stated that they were beautiful, that would be the beauty of the internet,(little self-ego boost for those of us who can't refute their claims), and those who talk about their sex lives like it is an excerpt from Penthouse Forum, they are probably just wishful thinking.
@luvsher2boys: Yeah, I guess it was a bad hair day or something (all 1/2 inch of it on top, and zero hair on the sides...gotta love the military haircut!). It must have been something about posts like # 13.8, the mindless droning over attractive celebrity parents, and all the other garbage replies that were made on this article. Those things coupled with the fact that this article is a gross waste of time...not to mention the funding for the study. I understand it was a "UK thing" and did not affect my tax dollars.... but the fact that the world's societies are so narcissistic as to actually conduct such a study....well, it saddens me. Have a good one, ma'am.
Active Duty Service Member
If it makes you feel better this article states "Kanazawa tracked 17,000 British babies from their 1958 births"; pretty impressive since he was born in 1962. Meaning this was actually originally a different study. He bought or was given the data from another study or even possible studies. When long term studies like this are conducted they ask a billion different questions so that as much information as possible is gathered. I know in the 50's the UK had a twin study that looked at nature vs nurture. It looked at twins identical and fraternal, raised together and apart then looked to see how similar they were in just about every way possible. I believe also in the 50's there was study being done that was studying people from all socioeconomic factors from birth to death. The scientists that actually conducted the studies have likely already published many articles about what many of us would consider real research and the participants are still probably being followed. I would be shocked if they weren't. When this study started up there wasn't much research about Alzheimer's and dementia, but if they ask as many questions as possible they can go back and look to see if there are any correlations and then more scientific studies will be conducted to see if they can find a causation for the correlation.
Aud78: Valid points, background info, and a well thought out reply. Because of your post my rage has subsided....at least that portion of it which was focused on "useless studies."
As for the people in prior posts giving the details of their sex lives, and basing the sex of their child on mutual climaxing, or whether or not one partner had their eyes open during climax (exaggerations, but not far from the truth)... I still think they are idiotic trollers.
I just try to ignore people like that. Though I do wonder if they act the same way with people they actually know. My friends are just starting to have children and I would be horrified if any of them started sprouting this sort of information. One because it's wrong and two TMI.
I must be ugly since I have two sons, who are attractive and not just by my observation either. :)
I'm in the same boat Pamela, as my screen name says it all..:)
My observation has always been, it runs in families most of the time. Sex appeal of the parents didnt seem to have much to do with it.
Guess we were a "homely" couple in 2001 (son), 2003 (son), and very attractive in 2007(daughter)...so ridiculous you have to laugh.
It is very ridiculous.And not to be conceited but I am a very beautiful woman and my husband looks like a GQ model. We have 1 son..What about David & Victoria Beckham? He is absolutely gorgeous by anyones standards and they have 3 sons..besides, does it really matter anyway?
Your problem is not your conceit, but your idiocy. If you think that citing these two examples refutes the claim that attractive parents tend to have daughters, I would say that looks is about all you've got.
I am not an idiot I was just defending myself and others that get insulted by the claim ..what do you have to insult me for? I wasn't insulting anyone!! Does it make you feel better about yourself? Get a life..
That explains everything. I have four girls.......LOL
so where do the "attractive" men come from for the "attractive" couple to have baby girls? This a completely ridiculous study.. completely objective
Good point sharylmj!!
Oh, please-I bark at the moon, admittedly, and my ex wasn't and isn't much to look at and we had 2 girls.
This article isn't scientific, its just amusing!
Lol @ sophie!
This is absolutely stupid. Any differences are purely coincidental. What a hoot.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I hope no tax payer money was spent on this ridiculous study! What a joke. I don't think Tom Cruise is handsome in the least bit and his wife is average, just has money to make herself look better and have better facials. This world is going overboard with looks, body type and fashion. Let's get back to basics here folks.. good work ethics, morals, values and you are good to go!
None of YOUR taxpayer money was spent.....unless you live in the UK!
Its better to look good than to feel good.
There are studies that measure "attractiveness" in quantitative terms for a subjective topic. There is a profile for what people in a given culture find attractive and some features are cross-cultural. Features like ratio of distance between the eyes and mouth to the nose and mouth, spacial relativity of the eyes to the other facial features, height of the forehead, etc.
These "studies" mean less and less within the construct of modern society but they might be useful as an anthropological tool to see how humans as a species have evolved, even from relatively recent times (the last 1,000 to 500 years).
Just a thought.
I have two sons. If I'd had three, it probably would have been a son also. In my husband's family, boys far outnumber girls as being born into the family. However, there are a whole bunch born into the family all from a wedded state, so we must not be that ugly. LOL Seriously, how can you judge the adult attractiveness that a child will achieve at age 7. I can't count how many super models have said (and shown pictures) of what awkward gawky kids they were.
Hmm....I'm pretty sure the DNA in sperm doesn't instinctively know that it is coming from an "attractive" couple and so only brings the x chromosome into the baby making game. If this study had shown some link between an overabundance of x chromosome bearing sperm in "attractive" (and what does that even mean anyway?) males then maybe I'd give it some credit, but come on.