Jump to content

large balls WHY?


Recommended Posts

Maybe, "in the cave", group sex or women having sex with men sequentially was common.  Thus, sperm competition would be more important than later when women were treated like private property.  Penis size might have been more of a factor then too as women might have preferred somewhat larger sizes as compared to the the very  small sizes still seen in apes.

Something must explain the evolution of larger genital sizes of humans compared to apes.  At some point sperm competition must have been more important than now.  i've read that sperm seem to have chemical warfare capabilities against competing sperm.

BTW:  Pretty clear why men treated women as private property in many so called civilized cultures.  Eliminated uncomfortable competition with other men to please women, size being only one factor.  Men could "play around" competing on the side, but wanted to keep one to themselves, ignorant of other men.  Of course, they were only partially successful.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're only large compared to SOME apes: proportionately we come in between gorillas (tiny) and chimps (huge).  There is a very definite ratio between a species's degree of promiscuity and testicle size, which, as a moderately-promiscuous species, works out exactly right for us.  There is no evidence that human women have ever shown a preference for large ball size, in any culture that I've ever heard of.  Large penis size, yes, that happens in a lot of cultures, but not large balls - if anything, no offence large-balled guys, but I've heard some women refer to them as grotesque or unwieldy.  

And you're right that some species have a 'chemical warfare' sperm, but I don't think humans do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never really paid that much attention to ball size but recently was with a new friend playing and he commented on how big my balls were. His were about the size of a pecan. Mine were easily 3 times bigger than his. We measured and his were a little over an inch long and mine were over 3 inches long.

https://imgur.com/eOgCqKJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very unlikely that "humans" were ever overly promiscuous. Chimpanzees, our closest primate relative, has evolved a strategy for child-bearing and rearing. Because of their relative intelligence, chimpanzee offspring remain almost totally dependent upon their mothers for four years. Because the males do not bond with the females, but remain separate from the family unit, the female remains sexually inactive during this period because the combination of childrearing and providing food takes up all her time. Because of this, chimpanzees barely replace their population and are extremely vulnerable to catastrophic events. 

Human beings are much more intelligent and children are almost totally dependent upon their mothers for around eight years. If humans followed the chimpanzee model of single mothers and distant fathers, they would never have been able to replace their population and would have become extinct. One of the solutions to this problem was for males to link up with the female to provide food and protection, leaving the female to raise the children. The result was that human females can raise many children at once, resulting in a much more viable population growth. In social evolutionary terms, those tribes which adopted monogamy (and supported it with social and religious taboos) would succeed and outcompete those tribes which didn't. Biological evolution supported this strategy by making the female continuously sexually receptive and strengthening the sexual bonds. It was a mutually beneficial tradeoff: women gained a helpmeet in raising children, and men gained continuous access to sex. The the women had to give up sexual promiscuity as no male would be willing to invest his total time and effort supporting another's offspring. 

Edited by TinyJock
spelling error and clarifying phrase
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@topdog Chimpanzees T-dog, look at Chimpanzees. This species of ape is the most selective when it comes to testicle size. This is the female's primary selection attribute and the reason that male chimps have very large testicles in relation to their penis size and indeed body size too. I'm pretty sure the Mandrill, a species of monkey has the same selection criteria too. 

I did say "back in the primitive days of the human race men may well have been selected by the size of their balls" so you don't have to buy it because I'm not saying women did this, I said "may have" as there isn't any evidence of this, but then what evidence do we expect to find from thousands of years ago! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked at the info on chimps, and I can find nothing to say that females select for testicle size.  Yes, large testicle size is related to the promiscuity of the ape, hence gorillas being tiny and us being proportionately smaller than chimps but larger than gorillas.  I'd be grateful for a reference on this, as I said.

And I didn't say that humans were overly promiscuous: just that we're more promiscuous than gorillas (one in ten children is being raised by a man who believes he is their father, but isn't), but less than chimps, which, as you point out tiny jock, are far more so than us.  

Edited by topdog
left something out!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@overthehill Sperm do indeed have a "chemical warfare" capability against competing sperm. If, for example, you had sex with your wife resulting in ejaculation, then a friend had sex with her resulting in ejaculation 10 minutes later, your sperm having had time to become "motile" will attack the newer sperm than have not yet become "motile" to the point that a large percentage of competing sperm will be immobilised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Red Scott Red, I take everything you say here with a lot of weight. Your medical advice and knowledge of the physical body rivals medical professionals, but I don't buy into the size of balls being a factor in female selectivity of males.  If anything just the opposite.  Sure, sex and procreation are right at the top of the primal order, but so is survival, and, if the female species desires anything above all; it is security.

Would some ape man with big clanging balls have the advantage in the hunt for the mastodon?  Or would it be our buddy,  Allen 43, with the tight balls giving him the advantage of     athleticism and maneuverability in bringing home the bacon? 

My original question was about the NEED or REASON for bigger balls, not whether they were a factor in sexual selectivity. You yourself said ball/testicle size is unrelated to volume of sperm although the "Livescience" article quoted below questions that.  

I am thinking large balls are one of those evolutionary anomalies like albinism. I don't think they are an advantage in the evolutionary sense. More like a trophy for male egotism.   When was the last time a woman complimented a guy on the size of his balls?  I wouldn't know as I've only been with three, and I'm gay.

I did read this interesting study. "Men with large testicles tend to be less involved fathers than those with smaller testes."  

https://www.livescience.com/39499-big-testes-and-detached-dads.html

The article also says that men who produce more sperm have larger testes  which is extremely energy intensive for the body. The article speculates that there could be a trade off between investing energy into parenting verses mating. 

Maybe the big-balled ape man fertilized a harem of women while the small-balled guys dragged home that mastodon and took more of an interest in the kids.   Somewhat like the role of the Mahu in Hawaiian culture

 

mahu.png.1fff94a9755a05997498f01229097091.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@blueridgedad Well, number one I didn't say women ever selected men by testicle size, I said maybe they did in primitive days. So there's nothing to buy into it was a perhaps, a maybe, something to consider. 

On the topic of large testicles and sperm production, I'd already said that larger testicles = larger volume of sperm. It was the volume of semen ejaculated that is not dependent on testicle size as the vast majority is fluid manufactured in the prostate gland, a small amount from the Cowper's gland and an even smaller amount is actual sperm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, have now read a number of papers on chimp female selection of mates, notably:

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-genetic-opposites-chimpanzees.html

https://sciencing.com/chimpanzee-mating-habits-6703991.html

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/choice.html

and in terms of chimps, most agree that 1) female chimps don't generally get to choose - usually males compete and more or less force the females to mate with them.  2) where females do have a choice, they choose for genetic dissimilarity, plus usual things like strength and health.  I haven't found anything which suggests testicle size is even an issue.

Again, big balls have the advantage of producing more spermatazoa plus more 'chemical warfare' and outnumbering the competition in 'gang bang' situations.  They have the downside of being more vulnerable to attack, so most animals make a trade off between size and convenience.  That's why 'promiscuous' species tend to be bigger - they need the extra!

Of course we can theorise that prehistoric women selected for big balls, but we can just as easily theorise they selected for small, neat ones that didn't need so much support!  Or they may, just may, have not been very different from humans today, and selected caring, strong, intelligent protective mates that be useful as fathers during the long, slow, human maturation process.  Given all that can go wrong during that, especially in an environment with natural predators, they would be foolish to select on the grounds of ball size, or be very bothered about it at all, and there is no evidence that prehistoric people were more stupid than modern ones.

Ball size is just like height or dick size.  For an average to exist there have to be outlyers.  In producing a population with the evolutionarily determined average human ball size, you'll get smaller and bigger ones along the way - it's just random who gets what.  It doesn't mean anyone's selecting for it or preferring it, or it bestows any distinct advantage, any more than being extremely tall or short does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ball sac and balls are large I guess.  It is hard for me to put a cock ring on because of them.   I started masturbating at the age of 9 and did it numerous times a day starting around the age of 12.  I figured that's why my balls were big.  I wish they were smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I have big balls. They have always hung quite low until just after ejaculation on the whole. 

  I don’t wear underwear as I find it restricts them too much and makes them uncomfortable. 

  They get in the way to be honest, and they just make my small cock even smaller. 

  They are hardy though. They can be pulled and tugged and knocked gently without too much concern. 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2019 at 9:11 PM, topdog said:

there is no evidence that prehistoric people were more stupid than modern ones.

Actually, there is. IQ scores have been increasing by 10 points per generation ever since theywere first tested. It's known as the Flynn Effect:

"Research has uncovered an interesting phenomenon. On average, IQ test scores worldwide have been increasing over time: younger generations perform better than older generations. Per generation, the average IQ test scores increase by 10 points. This is called the Flynn effect, after the researcher who first documented this phenomenon.

Thus it appears that people in 1950 were a lot less smart than they are now, that is if you define intelligence in IQ scores. How is that possible? According to the Flynn effect theory, the increase in IQ scores can in part be ascribed to improvements in education and better nutrition.

In addition, people are reading more, and new technology - computers, Internet - forces people to think more abstractly. All of this leads to an increase in the IQ score.

In the meantime however, there have been studies that indicate the Flynn effect may have ended. Studies in Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom have shown that the Flynn effect has not only ended, but that there is actually a decrease in the average IQ scores. Convincing explanations for this reversal have not been found yet."

However, I've read elsewhere that the areas of the IQs affected were only in certain areas, like computation and word knowledge. Those involving what we would call judgement has not changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TinyJock said:

 

In the meantime however, there have been studies that indicate the Flynn effect may have ended. Studies in Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom have shown that the Flynn effect has not only ended, but that there is actually a decrease in the average IQ scores.

Could be  true TJ, apparently there are only two kinds of people in the UK now, Brexiteers and Remoaners. The latter will happily tell every and any one that the former are all stupid, old, selfish, incapable of coherence, an almost endless list so perhaps this contributes to the lower perceived IQ effect. The former of course realise that the latter are often, indeed mostly, self-styled liberals and democrats, many indeed being members of, or fellow-travellers with, a political organization here called, imaginatively, Liberal Democrats or LibDems, who in fact are neither, particularly if you are of sufficient cognisance to disagree with their warped views.

I'm really looking forward to our future now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, TinyJock said:

In addition, people are reading more, and new technology - computers, Internet - forces people to think more abstractly. All of this leads to an increase in the IQ score.

Forces them to think more abstractly?.  I thought they googled it and didn't think at all... its on the internet, must be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found several studies that indicate there is some correlation between fertility and the size of the testicles. There appears to be an optimal size range and usually being above or below that range reduces your fertility compared to optimal size/fertility range.; in other words in human males bigger does not equate to more fertile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello shooter,

How would you describe your  "extremely" small balls?   Are they like  round and tight and boyish  as opposed to loose and hanging?

I would assume your generously sized penis, even when fully soft, would hang lower than your balls  - is that correct?

Thank you for making the point that you don't need big balls to sire children - especially your beautiful ones.

Did you refrain from sex for a month solely for the purpose of procreation, or do you still do it because of the more powerful climaxes you get  by holding off?   I can't even keep from masturbating at least once weekly.

 

Do you wear briefs or boxers, and is that choice a result of the size of your balls?

Which brings up another topic for general discussion - Do the size of your balls determine whether you wear boxers or briefs? I may get around to posting that one too.  lol.    I myself wear briefs  and I would wear them whether my balls are small or large  ( mine are average I'd say, a decent handful)  -  just goes back to my boyhood fascination with the male crotch and  bulge.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.