Male career sways??

[emmir4356]

I have a question. My SO works is in the marine corps and is in artillery. My SO and I currently have no children. Literally every single couple has nothing but daughters. Out of 300 people, only one man has a son, but we believe the baby was conceived before he worked in artillery. The daughter ratio is so high, in fact, his boss just had his fourth daughter!! Artillery exposes them to toxic chemicals and on top of that, they have to run minimum 15 miles a week and a lot of marines drink a lot. Does artillery cause low sperm count perhaps?

My question is, if the maternal dominance theory and nutrition is true, why do none of these women have sons? Surely, at least one of these women have higher testosterone or a boy mom personality or eat a boy mom diet? It just blows me away that men have that much of an influence on the gender.

Does the military sway pink? My cousin is an airforce pilot and all of his coworkers have mostly girls as well. Everyone was shocked when his first born was a boy (he was conceived while in the airforce). They are now expecting a female and he comes from a family of nothing but boys and I believe he was higher testosterone. How do some men with jobs that sway pink still end up with boys?

Thanks, Atomic!

[atomic sagebrush]

Yes, we have studies that show men in some careers have way more daughters than they have a "right" to.

While I don't think there's a study on this particularly yes we have seen anecdotally that many military men (and cops and firefighters as well) have more daughters than they "should". Pilots absolutely father more girls and this has been shown in at least two studies that I've seen along the way, one of which was done in the Air Force.

Where this gets weird is that there are also fields and careers where WOMEN have more daughters (nursing, for instance, and exercise instructors) and more often (at least in what has been studied) more sons. Women with higher level education (like masters or greater) have disproportionally more sons. So while when you're looking at things from this angle it seems like wow ok dudes have all the control here, but it clearly cannot be the case because we see sets of circumstances where women are in a certain situation and they have more sons regardless of what their husband does for a career.

I'm going to answer your last question first because I think it will shed light on your other question. How do some men with jobs (or women for that matter) have the opposite gender? Well, even though it seems very one sided for you right now keep in mind that's just a random sampling and there are people who have done that job in the past that had more boys. While we do see the gender ratio skew, it is NEVER 100% or even close to it. It is very likely that over time some of those couples would have boys, they just haven't yet. That having been said what you have observed is fascinating and someone should absolutely do a study to investigate the gender ratio in the artillery but as of yet as far as I know that has been unstudied.

Now, to answer your OTHER question - why, if the maternal dom theory and nutrition is true do none of these women have sons? This convo can get a little hairy at times so please take all this for whatever it's worth, but the truth is that guys in the military, the police, firefighters, pro athletes - we also get a lot of pro athletes with all girls - are a certain type of personality...to some extent. Not carbon copies or anything, not at all, but have a lot of personality similarities, and the women they marry are also probably going to have more personality similarities. It very well may be that some of these personality similarities tend to sway pink on the WOMEN'S end. For example, literally every time I go into Cabela's, I'm the ONLY person with sons in there. Every single family in the place has all girls (and this has happened at least 2 dozen times over the course of 10 years, it's quite remarkable). Now, being an outdoorsman is selecting for personality/lifestyle and NOT career, so it is plausible to me that there's some personality factors involved in being a manly man AND being the wife of a manly man that are very likely swaying.

Then in addition, there are undeniable lifestyle similarities between one person in the military lifestyle and another. Being the wife of a military man is not easy, there are many challenges to face, the main one having to keep food on the table on a military salary, for example. This affects people's diet hugely. Military guys work long hours leaving a lot of housework and childcare to their spouses or SO and this means more stress (not to mention feeling like things are out of your control, which sways hugely pink) more exhaustion, etc. This is just the tip of a huge iceberg, off the top of my head I can think of lots of things/patterns/habits that could potentially be more common among military couples than other couples.

Long story short - you're really not just looking at what the men are bringing to the table. There are a LOT of similarities in personality and lifestyle among the women involved that are very likely also moving the needle in ways that are less obvious but are just as big a factor. Not all of that is within our control, but SOME of it is, and we focus on that stuff for our sways.

[emmir4356]

Atomic, thank you so much for the fast and informative reply!!! I really hope i am not bothering you with all these questions, I am just kind of a nerd about this stuff and would love to learn more. With the women with higher education, do you think this suggests that women with higher iq or who are more braniac type of women have more boys? I have definitely noticed this in women anecdotally but I actually see a lot of braniac men with higher education having more daughters. Like for instance, in college, I noticed my male professors had daughters but female professors had a tendency to have a boy first, or all boys.

Can you explain the outdoorsmen thing? Do you think manly men have more daughters? Very interesting!!

If I am not mistaken (and correct me if I am wrong) would you say the more busy, active, type A, adrenaline junkie men tend to have daughters (based on the careers you listed, which all seem to attract that personality characteristic?)

I am so fascinated by this stuff, the women and I on base want to do a study on the artillery. What we do know is that lower sperm counts are associated with it, perhaps swaying pink.

I really appreciate your help and what you are doing on your site. A lot of the military women are fascinated with your site and want to buy your TTC for boy plan. Hopefully it would work despite their husbands career!

[polaris.kai]

Yes, we have studies that show men in some careers have way more daughters than they have a "right" to.

While I don't think there's a study on this particularly yes we have seen anecdotally that many military men (and cops and firefighters as well) have more daughters than they "should". Pilots absolutely father more girls and this has been shown in at least two studies that I've seen along the way, one of which was done in the Air Force.

Where this gets weird is that there are also fields and careers where WOMEN have more daughters (nursing, for instance, and exercise instructors) and more often (at least in what has been studied) more sons. Women with higher level education (like masters or greater) have disproportionally more sons. So while when you're looking at things from this angle it seems like wow ok dudes have all the control here, but it clearly cannot be the case because we see sets of circumstances where women are in a certain situation and they have more sons regardless of what their husband does for a career.

I'm going to answer your last question first because I think it will shed light on your other question. How do some men with jobs (or women for that matter) have the opposite gender? Well, even though it seems very one sided for you right now keep in mind that's just a random sampling and there are people who have done that job in the past that had more boys. While we do see the gender ratio skew, it is NEVER 100% or even close to it. It is very likely that over time some of those couples would have boys, they just haven't yet. That having been said what you have observed is fascinating and someone should absolutely do a study to investigate the gender ratio in the artillery but as of yet as far as I know that has been unstudied.

Now, to answer your OTHER question - why, if the maternal dom theory and nutrition is true do none of these women have sons? This convo can get a little hairy at times so please take all this for whatever it's worth, but the truth is that guys in the military, the police, firefighters, pro athletes - we also get a lot of pro athletes with all girls - are a certain type of personality...to some extent. Not carbon copies or anything, not at all, but have a lot of personality similarities, and the women they marry are also probably going to have more personality similarities. It very well may be that some of these personality similarities tend to sway pink on the WOMEN'S end. For example, literally every time I go into Cabela's, I'm the ONLY person with sons in there. Every single family in the place has all girls (and this has happened at least 2 dozen times over the course of 10 years, it's quite remarkable). Now, being an outdoorsman is selecting for personality/lifestyle and NOT career, so it is plausible to me that there's some personality factors involved in being a manly man AND being the wife of a manly man that are very likely swaying.

Then in addition, there are undeniable lifestyle similarities between one person in the military lifestyle and another. Being the wife of a military man is not easy, there are many challenges to face, the main one having to keep food on the table on a military salary, for example. This affects people's diet hugely. Military guys work long hours leaving a lot of housework and childcare to their spouses or SO and this means more stress (not to mention feeling like things are out of your control, which sways hugely pink) more exhaustion, etc. This is just the tip of a huge iceberg, off the top of my head I can think of lots of things/patterns/habits that could potentially be more common among military couples than other couples.

Long story short - you're really not just looking at what the men are bringing to the table. There are a LOT of similarities in personality and lifestyle among the women involved that are very likely also moving the needle in ways that are less obvious but are just as big a factor. Not all of that is within our control, but SOME of it is, and we focus on that stuff for our sways.This is so crazy! My hubby and I were both military police but now I'm out so I'm just a spouse. This makes so much sense lol

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[atomic sagebrush]

no trust me I love these kinds of questions and would much rather talk about this stuff than "should my cutoff be 3 days or 2" (even though I don't mind explaining that again and again)

I actually DO NOT think it's "high IQ". Not at all. I do not think in any way that boy moms are smarter or better or more functional than girl moms (sometimes I get accused of that)
I think it is a combination of having a very high level of drive and motivation, and attention to detail/being a control freak that both pushes women to excel in certain arenas And it very well may be a chicken egg kind of thing where the pursuit of the higher education/career choices is actually in and of itself swaying blue. I linked you to a post about the Maternal Dominance Hypothesis in another thread but just in case for anyone who doesn't see that, I have a horrendously long explanation here https://genderdreaming.com/forum/gender-swaying-general-discussion/33517-maternal-dominance-hypothesis-priviledged-daughter-hypothesis.html

I do find super manly men (with some exceptions) do seem to have more daughters. Particularly when being a manly man is very important to the way they tend to define their self-worth if that makes sense. But let me also point out that there are also LIFESTYLE things that often go along with that sort of self-definition that may sway a lot. It's just a lot of causes and effects that are all tangled up with each other.

When it comes to Type A men, the answer is - it depends on their wife. I think there are some Type A dudes who marry Type A women and then they have GOBS of boys (I'd put my husband and I in this category for sure). And then there are definitely Type A dudes who have more laid back wives and have girls, laid back dudes with driven wives who have all boys, and every possible combo therein. The truth is we can spot some trends but just can't say for sure since no one is talking about this stuff unfortunately.

But let's not lose sight of how most people's families are - majority of folks have BG or GB or BBG or GBG or GGB - it's pretty unusual for people to end up with these big all one gender family that some of us on this site have!

:agree: we do see the lower sperm count and lower sperm quality associated with more girls conceived - but the good news is in many cases that is FIXABLE!

Yes by all means send them my way - and while I do appreciate purchases as this helps me to do this as my full time job rather than having to work outside the home (and being unable to answer any questions in that case) I help everyone even regardless of their ability to pay. So no one needs to feel like if they can't buy a plan they can't show up and have me help them. I know military families are in many cases on a strict budget and everyone is welcome. :)

[emmir4356]

They said they would buy a plan! I will likely buy one in about a week when my next paycheck comes :)

For pilots, is it only fighter pilots or all pilots in general? He is not a fighter pilot but he is an airforce pilot :)

It's interesting, someone asked this on Quora and I was very intrigued by one of the responses. When asked if pilots father more daughters, someone said,

"I’ve heard numerous anecdotes that the G in “G-force” actually stands for “girls,” and statistically, the data does seem to show a correlation: about 60% of children born to these flyers are girls.

This paper on PubMed suggests that fighter pilots and astronauts are more affected, while commercial pilots and the regular population see more normalized ratios. G-forces are suspected by some, and scorned by others.

The theory I’ve heard that makes the most sense to me has nothing to with G-forces, and a lot more to do with the personalities of these kind of men: Type-A, aggressive, highly-successful individuals, who, not coincidentally, have a lot of sex. Frequent sexual activity is also linked to a higher ratio of daughters."

Do you think its true that frequent sexual activity sways pink? Shettles method book stated this. Now, we know that the timing thing is bullshit but do you think shettles was right about the active sex life thing? This seems to go against the one attempt you recommend, so I guess the active sex life is untrue.


Also, do you have the study about how womens career sways? I can't find it on google and would love to read it! Do you think women working in management or who are executive directors for example sway blue? I have also noticed that SAHM heavily sways girl.. thoughts? Thank you SO SO much Atomic! You are my hero :)

[atomic sagebrush]

I don't have the study in front of me but it was fighter pilots (prob the same study they're referencing, though there's another one too) and I'm not totally convinced it is the G forces either. Lots of variables.

Re frequent sex - there are other people who theorize that lots of sex sways blue (and use this to explain the heightened gender ratio after wars...men get home and start having lots of sex and have boys). This is all very speculative and in many cases scientists speculate largely based on their OWN assumptions rather than any facts. (like for example, we don't know that men coming back from war even DO have an unusually excessive amount of sex, nor do we know that fighter pilots do either)

Based on our observations, what we find is that BOTH things can be true. There is a certain kind of couple in which they have sex daily all thru the entire menstrual cycle. So when they plan to try and conceive, they stop using protection, but the man has been releasing daily or even more than daily (and in a fair number of these cases, the woman is not particularly interested in sex most of these times, and in several cases that I've come across the woman had never had an orgasm) and so they end up having attempts in the fertile window after many days of what we call "frequent release". This can lower sperm count quite dramatically and may sway pink, even though 3+ attempts in the fertile window can sway blue.

Often, these same couples do the absolute WORST thing they could possibly do when swaying blue - they continue to have that daily sex, but then the fertile window opens and they stop having sex and have only ONE attempt on what they hope is O Day. So then not only is the hubby depleted but they end up with only one attempt, and it may not even be on O Day (even though timing doesn't sway anyway)

But far more common among the people with all GIRLS (I'm talking 90-10) are the couples who very rarely have sex at all. They have sex once a week, once a month, even once every 6 months - and both parties are mostly ok with that.

The vast majority of the people with all boys have regular sex every couple days most of the time and then when they're trying, they have a lot of sex in the fertile window.

The overall trend I see is that couples with all girls are less sexual than couples with all boys but it's just a trend with plenty of exceptions.

I couldn't find the studies in a reasonable search for them so I'll have to go up to my library and look them up by their specific name, remind me if I don't get to it. I even know the scientist who did the study but I seem to be getting every other of their studies and not the ones I'm looking for. :/

Re SAHMs - that's actually not what I find. I think there's a large socioeconomic factor coming into play - most women are not able to stay at home and this selects for a financial bracket that is likely higher. I know scads of all boy SAHMs (and indeed, my reverse story of my experience at Cabela's is going into Costco over the years and every woman in there has this pack of boys in tow and we're all fistbumping each other as we pass, LOL).

[atomic sagebrush]

also, if you would like to hear it, I can explain how we learned the one attempt sways pink

[emmir4356]

Yes, I would love to hear!! Thank you for that information, atomic. I am in love with this website and how informative you are. With the part where you said 90-10 have all boys with not much sex, did you mean girls or was that correct? Just clarifying because the next paragraph seemed to indicate that boy moms are more sexual. Just checking :) looking forward to hearing about the one attempt! I totally believe in it, I have an older brother and my mom said it was multiple attempts for him but for me I was a one hit wonder lol and they were not trying at all. My mom has also recently lost her dad the month before so she was super depressed which sways pink so all this makes so much sense. On top of that her and my dad were about 35 which seems to sway also :) your theory makes much more sense than Shettles!

[atomic sagebrush]

yes that is exactly what I meant, so sorry. I got interrupted a couple times while writing that reply and sometimes I'll be thinking about "people who want boys" and write the wrong thing.

It is very very very common for me to have those with many girls show up here and tell me that they don't have sex but once every few weeks. Practically unheard of among those with many boys.

[atomic sagebrush]

Oh and if you'd be so kind bump this for me as I have some stuff I have to do today, and I'll come back first thing tomorrow to fill u in about how we learned the one attempt sways.

[lad]

Commenting so that I get notifications on updates to this thread! Sooo interesting.

[emmir4356]

I pressed the button with the quotation mark and plus sign, does that mean bump? Sorry I am new to this site.

[emmir4356]

Interesting, so I wonder if couples who have been together longer tend to have more girls, as frequent sex goes down the longer you are together...

That actually kind of makes sense for the military thing too. Military couples are often apart a lot.. the men work long hours and often are too exhausted and also I think the fact that the military is hard on marriages so sex may be happening less because of that too. I also kind of theorize that men with jobs that are high stress and low pay (fire fighters, cops, military) like you mentioned sway pink.. perhaps the high stress lowers sperm count and even the low pay makes it seem as though times are hard.

The reason I mentioned SAHM is that so many women here on base are stay at home moms. Like you mentioned, military pay is low and I wonder if that feeling of powerlessness sways pink because they are relying on one income, that tends to be low?

Very fascinated with this stuff. Part of my questions are also because I am helping my younger cousin write her senior thesis on gender ratios and factors that influence it. Since your site seems to be so much more successful than Shettles, i figured I would ask some questions to help her get some ideas. I will be buying a plan soon, very excited about it!!

[polaris.kai]

I love this thread lol! So fascinating to think about all this stuff. Hopefully we can have a boy despite me being a sahm military cop wife Haha! Something interesting though is I was pregnant before this deployment and had a girl. But all the wives who got pregnant after their husbands deployment are having a boy! Must be the return from war thing ;)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[atomic sagebrush]

I pressed the button with the quotation mark and plus sign, does that mean bump? Sorry I am new to this site.

just posting again in the thread bumps it up to the top of my rotation.

[atomic sagebrush]

I love this thread lol! So fascinating to think about all this stuff. Hopefully we can have a boy despite me being a sahm military cop wife Haha! Something interesting though is I was pregnant before this deployment and had a girl. But all the wives who got pregnant after their husbands deployment are having a boy! Must be the return from war thing ;)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You guys, please don't read so much into any of this stuff.

It is diet, exercise, lifestyle, and number of attempts. Don't start down this rabbithole of worrying about these uncontrollable things because in most cases they are a)completely speculative and b) are not in our control anyway. Especially for blue swayers, stewing over the uncontrollable elements and despairing over them is really not the way to go.

Focus on what you CAN control.

[atomic sagebrush]

Interesting, so I wonder if couples who have been together longer tend to have more girls, as frequent sex goes down the longer you are together...

That actually kind of makes sense for the military thing too. Military couples are often apart a lot.. the men work long hours and often are too exhausted and also I think the fact that the military is hard on marriages so sex may be happening less because of that too. I also kind of theorize that men with jobs that are high stress and low pay (fire fighters, cops, military) like you mentioned sway pink.. perhaps the high stress lowers sperm count and even the low pay makes it seem as though times are hard.

The reason I mentioned SAHM is that so many women here on base are stay at home moms. Like you mentioned, military pay is low and I wonder if that feeling of powerlessness sways pink because they are relying on one income, that tends to be low?

Very fascinated with this stuff. Part of my questions are also because I am helping my younger cousin write her senior thesis on gender ratios and factors that influence it. Since your site seems to be so much more successful than Shettles, i figured I would ask some questions to help her get some ideas. I will be buying a plan soon, very excited about it!!

All this stuff is just speculation. Fun to talk about, but not that informative for our purposes unfortunately.

:agree: about the stress. I didn't even get into any of that in my explanation but yes absolutely - stress on both the man and the wife worrying about things she cannot control can potentially sway pink.

:agree: about being a military wife and having those challenges and concerns. Absolutely could potentially sway pink.

My point was more that this doesn't necessarily translate beyond that because a LOT of people who have the luxury of being SAHM are pretty well off.

Happy to answer all the questions you have!! just as long as everyone understands that at the end of the day, these are all just speculative and to do what works for most people most of the time. You'd be surprised how many times this type of thread is the genesis for people telling me, "well I decided that doing diet and exercise is too hard, so I have decided to sleep with a recording of gunfire playing in my ear to cause stress because that will then sway pink" or something along those lines (thankfully never that particular scenario LOL but things like that). So people who are looking for reasons not to do the hard parts of swaying often seize on these types of threads to try to find some shortcut with absolutely no observable support behind it while skipping the things that do work but are harder to implement.

[atomic sagebrush]

Oh and if you'd be so kind bump this for me as I have some stuff I have to do today, and I'll come back first thing tomorrow to fill u in about how we learned the one attempt sways.

So. When we started this journey all the way back in 2010 (and I'd been researching swaying on a different site for 2 years before that) no one had ever guessed that number of attempts might sway. We thought timing (though I was already quite skeptical of timing since I have so many timing opposites), ph, frequency, supplements, antihistamine, etc. all the old school stuff - at least had SOME control over outcome.

On the other sway sites, their approach has been historically to tell people "if you do not do all these things and continue on till menopause not conceiving, your sway will fail." This was never a good approach for me because a) it creates massive amounts of misery for people as they waste YEARS, in many cases years, plural, out of their dwindling fertile window only to in many cases get boys anyway (and in a heartbreaking number of cases, end up with fertility problems, even ending up with NO BABY at all after spending thousands of dollars on medical treatment for an entirely avoidable problem had they only not tried to sway for 2-3 years) and b) ends up CAUSING failed sways because for every person who continues swaying for a long time, there are many, many others who give up after 6-9 months and stop swaying all together, even doing things to boost their fertility, and get more boys that way (or in some cases, girls, when blue swayers decide "I've gained so much weight, I hate it, I'm going to go on a crash diet" and then they get pregnant after losing a bunch of weight) In some cases, this situatiton was so stressful that people ended up having mental breakdowns and even getting divorced.

So that's what I brought to this site right at the start - a heartfelt belief that we could NOT continue with this same mentality, that we had to put a premium on getting people pregnant quickly so we could protect people's health, their sanity, and their sway.

With me so far? LOL! Sorry, but without the backstory this makes a lot less sense.

As a result of all that, what I did was I had people do the "old school" sway tactics (because at that time, remember, we had no idea what was swaying really) and then add attempts to get pregnant. That made sense - after all, we were doing everything that was said to work, and then just

Well, it worked great for blue (80% success rate for 2 years running) but for pink, it was our worst results of the site. 58%. And it made NO SENSE because at the same time, we could see the LE Dieters were getting WAY better results than the old school dieters. It was baffling and people were starting to lose faith in the approach.

But, right from the start I had determined to track our results differently than the other sites so we could actually SEE what was working. On the other sites, anyone who deviates from this big long list of supposed "must dos" is not included in the results (unless they have a successful sway, in which they are ALWAYS included in the results LOL) and I had been told by several people that they had actually fibbed and exaggerated what they'd done for their sways so they could be counted in the statistics. And people who were honest about what they wanted to do for their sway were often bullied into shutting up.
There was no way to tell by individual sway tactic, what was really working, and since the system encouraged dishonesty and also because anyone who didn't do EVERY tactic never got to report their results.

Instead, we had EVERYONE post their sways, even if they didn't think their sways were that great. Even if they just did a few little things, we had them post their sways. This enabled us to track the individual tactics - if a person only did timing and aspirin, we could SEE what happened to someone doing timing and aspirin, and it really helped us be able to isolate individual tactics to see if they worked at all.

So after a year or so of disappointing results, but while accumulating that data set (in addition to observations I was making on my own on this site and elsewhere), we finally had enough results to analyze. Just by the grace of God we had tracked number of attempts, I don't even remember why we did, but it was undeniable - the results with one attempt were 70-75% (they varied a little by the month and also whether or not someone did jump and dump or Clomid) and the results with 3 attempts were only 43% and this is WITH otherwise good sways. 2 attempts fell right in the middle at about 60%. Sway tactics, even tactics that we know from scientific studies are completely ineffective, that were exclusively done with one attempt were in the 70-75% range and sway tactics that weren't done with one attempt were lower. The one attempt HAD TO BE SWAYING.

In addition to that, I could look at all those other things that we had thought were swaying - frequency, jelly, antihistamine, the herbs (the herbs in particular got TERRIBLE results), and they didn't seem to be doing anything. We calculated the inverses and found the same people got boys and girls with and without them. We had a statistician analyze the results and she came to the same conclusion - most of the stuff that the old school sway sites were recommending did nothing, and of course as I already mentioned, because people who go on too long not getting pregnant often panic and give up swaying or even sway blue to get pregnant quickly, they were even undermining sways since they all cut odds of conception hugely.

So armed with this information I immediately did an about face. I put emphasis on the one attempt and had people drop the other stuff. Immediately, I mean within a couple of months, our results improved and have stayed up ever since (and this is like 8 years ago now). Some of the tactics we used originally like the herbs and limiting sodium, we've completely given up on and our results have stayed high, even improved.

Over the course of time, our stats on one attempt as more people have done it, have declined. This is because there are a lot of people who will show up, insist they have to try right away, and I have them do the one attempt. Others refuse to do diet and exercise and only do the one attempt. But this doesn't mean one attempt doesn't still work. We know it works because of that previous experience, we basically did an experiment and saw the results on one attempt, and we know it works even though our numbers aren't showing it so clearly right now.

The only things that truly seem to work for women to do for swaying are LE Diet longer than 12 weeks, cardio exercise 60 min a day 4-7 days a week, Clomid or Femara if you can get them, and the one attempt.

(we have branched out over time with the one attempt to include every 4 day method but we still have people start with the one attempt.)

[emmir4356]

I have some theories about the one attempt and I’m curious what you think atomic...

With one attempt, there’s less sperm available than if you have multiple attempts, and lower sperm count=pink. This is probably also best for couples whose men have higher sperm counts. I wonder if the body recognizes lower sperm and the egg attracts the x sperm?

Another theory is that it prevents women’s testosterone from getting too high. Frequent BD will raise women’s testosterone which sways blue.

Third, with less sex, it tricks the body into thinking that times are hard. Sex is a biological need and cutting back is a form of stress in the body, swaying pink. Frequent exposure to sperm raises testosterone?

Very interested to hear your thoughts. I wonder why so many woopsie babies are girls, I guess because they are more likely to have only one attempt because they weren’t trying to get pregnant. Have you noticed surprise babies are more girls?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[emmir4356]

LOL, it is probably because when you get home from deployment, the "times are good" aspect of boy swaying comes into play. Women are happier, and let me just be real, when my SO got back from deployment earlier this year, lets just say dtd was at a high lol, as it is for most couples post deployment. I think that aspect of it sways blue, but again if you follow diet, lifestyle, attempts, etc. that may negate it.

[atomic sagebrush]

I have some theories about the one attempt and I’m curious what you think atomic...

With one attempt, there’s less sperm available than if you have multiple attempts, and lower sperm count=pink. This is probably also best for couples whose men have higher sperm counts. I wonder if the body recognizes lower sperm and the egg attracts the x sperm?

Another theory is that it prevents women’s testosterone from getting too high. Frequent BD will raise women’s testosterone which sways blue.

Third, with less sex, it tricks the body into thinking that times are hard. Sex is a biological need and cutting back is a form of stress in the body, swaying pink. Frequent exposure to sperm raises testosterone?

Very interested to hear your thoughts. I wonder why so many woopsie babies are girls, I guess because they are more likely to have only one attempt because they weren’t trying to get pregnant. Have you noticed surprise babies are more girls?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I tend to go a different way with this because as I mentioned before I am very very far from sold on the testosterone angle.

We know that sperm have some sort of primitive mechanism in which they communicate to coordinate some of them always being dormant and others being awake to fertilize an egg. Once sperm lose their cap and wake up (capacitate) they are super hyper, swim fast, and don't live very long, while the sperm that are still dormant have a cap, live much longer, and swim more slowly. Many sperm die without ever capacitating. So I believe it to be plausible that something having to do with maternal environment and/or presence of another batch of sperm encourages mostly X sperm to wake up and Y sperm to stay dormant, or vice versa.

Either additionally or along with that, I suspect that more sperm at the egg may give some advantage to Y sperm vs. X somehow, because they do have very slightly shaped heads and ~may~ swim with slightly different styles. Maybe the slightly smaller Y sperm gains an advantage if there are many sperm, slightly bigger X if there are only a few. While some research does indicate that the egg does preferentially select HEALTHY sperm, we have no evidence that it selects by gender because there aren't any obvious external differences between the two - in fact, X and Y sperm, for much of their development, are the SAME CELL wearing the same skin on the outside and thus probably don't have any externally different features. But anything is possible and it may be theres some other mechanism.

The egg can't be detecting lower sperm counts though because regardless of how many sperm are deposited in the VJ, it's such a hard trip that only about 50-200 sperm ever make it. There's no way for the egg to know how many sperm were in the VJ to begin with - whether it was a lot of attempts, or just one big attempt, if a guy has high sperm count or whatever, it only knows the very few sperm out of hundreds of millions that show up at the critical moment.

I do not believe AT ALL that this boils down to testosterone either male or female. There's just too much data that indicates otherwise such as Clomid raising testosterone in women yet leading to the conception of more girls, and men who are taking wegihtlifting supplements that raise their T levels very high, also having more girls.

Yes, we absolutely find that more oopsie babies are girls but the catch of that is sometimes when people have oopsies, they're actually having a LOT of sex either using protection or pullout. We find that a lot of protected sex, but with protection, and then one attempt, still sways pink. And additionally (and I think I mentioned this in more detail elsewhere) there's that large minority of pink swayers where they have sex every single day and still have girls, likely because the husband's sperm count is lowered from daily sex and possibly a hostile female reproductive tract. So I don't think it has anything at all to do with the amount of sex per se and more to do with the amount of sperm on hand.

Overall, we assume that the reason for this (and this assumption/observation dates back to Darwin himself) is that if there's a man around all the time, boys have a much better chance of surviving to adulthood (in the wild world in which human beings evolved) and if there's not a man around, girls have a much better chance because they don't need the same level of protection that male offspring do.

So this notion confuses the issue even more so because the absence of a man away at war and then his return (sometimes just on shore leave, acccording to some researchers) should not be enough to "convince" the woman that her hubby is back to stay. I don't think it can possibly be "just a bunch of sex" because a) we do have that group of girl parents who have sex all the time and still have girls and b) because it doesn't make sense with the "men returning from war" theory because the woman's body wouldn't know that her male protector had returned.

We won't know till someone starts doing some actual testing rather than just speculating and no one seems interested unfortunately.