15 comments

[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 41.3 ms ] thread
While it's easy to laugh at, this does seem like legit scientific research to me. Given the importance of sexual activity in the animal kingdom, where it influences everything from social organization to evolution of the species themselves, I'd think we want to understand it as much as possible.

(Edit: My comment, and especially the "while it's easy to laugh at" intro, was prompted by the original submission title, which had a sarcastic "your tax dollars at work" comment.)

My comment, and especially the "while it's easy to laugh at" intro, was prompted by the original submission title, which had a sarcastic "your tax dollars at work" comment.

wow, it's amazing how people with certain political belief are willing to sacrifice every last bit of intelligence to promote it, even on this site!

The phrase, "Your tax dollars at work" is a common joke to make fun of any government programs which seem silly. It doesn't necessary imply that the speaker is making a political statement.
The biggest issue I have with this paper is that it doesn't seem to properly consider the possibility that this behaviour isn't an evolutionary adaptation at all.

I mean, this same behaviour is also exhibited in humans, where it is apparently not an evolutionary adaptation, but rather an unintended consequence of the twin evolutionary benefits of high sex drive and manual dexterity. Why should squirrels be any different?

I suppose the thing to do would be to get a large population of squirrels and somehow prevent some of them from masturbating, and then see whether the rate of STIs was lower in one group than the other. Not sure how you could stop them, though, without attaching some kind of device that might impact negatively (or positively) upon their mating opportunities (nobody wants to mate with a squirrel with its arms taped up, or do they?)

The curious part to me was the possibility that masturbation reduces the chance of STI. How does that work?
In the context of masturbation following intercourse, it probably has a flushing effect (which presumably would reduce the risk of infection reaching the testes and possibly causing infertility--post-coital urination supposedly has similar benefits).
I always wondered why I had to pee afterwards.
"All 20 of the males observed masturbated to ejaculation and consumed the ejaculate."

I genuinely don't understand either point.

"For organisms that rarely urinate, masturbation may serve a similar function to postcopulatory urination, as a more thorough mechanism to clean vital reproductive tracts after mating than just external genital grooming. Consuming the ejaculate may prevent moisture loss."
But then wouldn't you just get any potential STIs in your mouth?
It is fascinating to contrast this article with the claims of http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1477915.
This seems tailor-made for an Ig Nobel Prize...
this is something you gotta upvote before even reading it