A link between the size of a father's testicles and how active he is in bringing up his children has been suggested by scientists.

continues at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24016988

I don't know, could be total bollocks.

I'll get my coat.

Scientific proof that manly men don't mess with nappies. I knew these New Daddies were girly men all along. Some of them even wear makeup, s'truth. Saw one the other day downtown, pushing a baby carriage, carrying a "man bag" and wearing fucking eye liner. Probably had cojones the size of almonds.

This story makes some evolutionary sense. Men have two competing evolutionary imperatives acting on them. One is to be a good provider and parent. The other is to impregnate as many females as possible. The latter of these two imperatives will likely be served by having larger testes and so be able to produce more sperm. However, this will also likely be linked to higher testosterone levels, which tend to increase aggression and reduce empathy, both of which are then heading in the wrong direction, arguably, in terms of being a good parent.

Given that variation exists in humans on lots of different traits because of the varied evolutionary history and selection pressures on our ancestors, it would not surprise me at all to see such variation in testes size for males for all of the same reasons of variation in evolutionary history and accompanying selection pressures.

laklak wrote:Scientific proof that manly men don't mess with nappies. I knew these New Daddies were girly men all along. Some of them even wear makeup, s'truth. Saw one the other day downtown, pushing a baby carriage, carrying a "man bag" and wearing fucking eye liner. Probably had cojones the size of almonds.

Too true mate, before the female got the vote men had balls like a bull, but now they have testimonials like a very small field mouse.
I hope them old biddys at the old farts club do not read this post.

pensioner wrote:

laklak wrote:Scientific proof that manly men don't mess with nappies. I knew these New Daddies were girly men all along. Some of them even wear makeup, s'truth. Saw one the other day downtown, pushing a baby carriage, carrying a "man bag" and wearing fucking eye liner. Probably had cojones the size of almonds.

Too true mate, before the female got the vote men had balls like a bull, but now they have testimonials like a very small field mouse.
I hope them old biddys at the old farts club do not read this post.

Yep. Giving them the vote was the beginning of the end, letting them drive cars just finished the deal. Once they get the artificial wombs up and running they'll just exterminate us. Not the worst thing, we won't have to listen to them complain any more.

laklak wrote:

pensioner wrote:

laklak wrote:Scientific proof that manly men don't mess with nappies. I knew these New Daddies were girly men all along. Some of them even wear makeup, s'truth. Saw one the other day downtown, pushing a baby carriage, carrying a "man bag" and wearing fucking eye liner. Probably had cojones the size of almonds.

Too true mate, before the female got the vote men had balls like a bull, but now they have testimonials like a very small field mouse.
I hope them old biddys at the old farts club do not read this post.

Yep. Giving them the vote was the beginning of the end, letting them drive cars just finished the deal. Once they get the artificial wombs up and running they'll just exterminate us. Not the worst thing, we won't have to listen to them complain any more.

You sexist pig you, I like it.

I'm told you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, likewise you can't make a Gender Neutral Non Patriarchal New Male from an old chauvinist pig. Like Popeye said, I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam.

I must admit, I was expecting more people boasting about the size of their clackers. But I suppose there's still time.

laklak wrote:I'm told you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, likewise you can't make a Gender Neutral Non Patriarchal New Male from an old chauvinist pig. Like Popeye said, I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam.

This post of yours is so profound It brought tears to my eyes, Plato would have pleased with that one, you know that Greek twat.

Fallible wrote:I must admit, I was expecting more people boasting about the size of their clackers. But I suppose there's still time.

That time has long gone for me and Lak, why do you think we sound so bitter?

The sample size was 70. (Men, not balls). We must distinguish between science and silly newspaper articles about meaningless studies.

someguy1 wrote:The sample size was 70. (Men, not balls).

So, 140 then

Big balls only buys you a lot of tickets, it does not mean that you genes necessarily make it to the next generation. "Guarding" mates and your own young helps too, especially with social species that are K-selectionist. Big balls also means high steriod production, which can also be bad for you and your offspring. So big balls, while a decent evolutionary strategy, is far from perfect and there are easy counters.
If you want to know some of the downsides of big balls, go ask an antechinus. But be quick, because those dudes only last a single season. Personally, I think changing a few nappies is more preferable to intense sperm competition, and unlike antechinus, we have a choice.

The article isn't just saying that naturally smaller 'balled' men make better fathers, while the bigger balled men just go around uncontrolled - it says that (or adds that) during parenthood and while engaging with the baby a man's testes shrink, due to the lower testosterone production perhaps, and they find their emotional attachment grow.
Damn you oestrogen, for all the shitty nappies!

Ironclad wrote:The article isn't just saying that naturally smaller 'balled' men make better fathers, while the bigger balled men just go around uncontrolled - it says that (or adds that) during parenthood and while engaging with the baby a man's testes shrink, due to the lower testosterone production perhaps, and they find their emotional attachment grow.
Damn you oestrogen, for all the shitty nappies!

Indeed, as if males were just bags of testosterone!

pensioner wrote:

Fallible wrote:I must admit, I was expecting more people boasting about the size of their clackers. But I suppose there's still time.

That time has long gone for me and Lak, why do you think we sound so bitter?

When you sit on the loo and they hit the water it's the beginning of the end.

laklak wrote:

pensioner wrote:

Fallible wrote:I must admit, I was expecting more people boasting about the size of their clackers. But I suppose there's still time.

That time has long gone for me and Lak, why do you think we sound so bitter?

When you sit on the loo and they hit the water it's the beginning of the end.

I can tuck mine in my socks when I'm stood up, does this mean I'm fucked?

someguy1 wrote:The sample size was 70. (Men, not balls). We must distinguish between science and silly newspaper articles about meaningless studies.

I'm fairly sure most of us aren't treating this too seriously.

I'm still wondering how they measure them properly. Do they weigh them, use calipers (shudder) or some sort of Archimedes displacement method (using warm water of course otherwise it just wouldn't work).