5 ms·

Why do human testicles hang like that?

56 points by nreece 17y ago

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
lionhearted 17y ago
I love Scientific American. > Now, I know what you’re thinking. “But Dr. Bering, how do you account for the fact that testicles are rarely perfectly symmetrical in their positioning within the same scrotum?” In fact, the temperature regulating function governed by the cremasteric muscle can account even for the most lopsided, one-testicle-above-the-other, waffling asymmetries in testes positioning.
Mz 17y ago
To sum it up: Air Con-ditioning. (But you knew that.) In other news: "With a keen enough eye, presumably one could master the art of “ reading” testicle alignment, using the scrotum as a makeshift room thermometer . But that's just me speculating." This might be a neat party trick at a nudist camp, but I imagine it would tend to scream "fag" if you are male or "tramp" if you are female. As a WAG: Not likely to catch on.
DanielBMarkham 17y ago
With a keen enough eye, presumably one could master the art of 'reading' testicle alignment, using the scrotum as a makeshift room thermometer . But that's just me speculating. Not the kind of skill you'd want to brag about -- assuming you are a heterosexual male, that is.
- Mz 17y ago
  I beat you to essentially the same thought by about one minute.
  - Mz 17y ago
    I thought it was a funny coincidence. Someone want to explain why that's an offensive observation? Does it need a smiley face or something? (Serious question)
    - gloob 17y ago
      I'm not really certain, since I didn't vote you down, but I suspect that whoever did didn't find is offensive so much as they found it unfunny.
      - Mz 17y ago
        It's all good. I was just wondering what the issue is since I assumed my initial joke would be the problem rather than this remark. A woman cracking jokes about male genitals in a 98% male forum has to be skating on some extremely thin ice. :-D Which is part of why I found it funny to see someone else make an extremely similar remark to mine. Presumably, they are male (at least the odds are good, given the forum). Since they got upvoted and I got downvoted, obviously there is some subtly that's lost on me. Thank you.
        DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        Beats me why we got down-modded. It was an odd quote, and didn't fit in with the rest of the article (which I thought was very good, btw) Plus it set off all sorts of sophomoric jokes at least in my mind. It didn't fit. It was appropriate to point it out -- even in a slightly humorous fashion. A smiley might have helped, but who knows? Like you said, it's all good.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      People are generally sensitive to gay jokes (aka there's no reason it's something a homosexual male wouldnt want to brag about it either)
      - Mz 17y ago
kurtosis 17y ago
This article never answered a very basic question: so evolution exiled man's balls from the body because sperm are temperature sensitive - but why didn't sperm just evolve to be less vulnerable to high temperatures? Anyone have a clue on this one?
- noelchurchill 17y ago
  I would imagine it makes more sense for them to dangle out because it gives the body more ability to adjust the temperature as needed. If your body is too hot then they dangle low, if it's too cold outside then they huddle up close. If they were inside the body then this temp control wouldn't be available!
- zck 17y ago
  Well, evolution doesn't have a "why" reasoning. It's not like there's a committee looking for the most efficient design. It may have been more complicated to evolve sperm to be more heat-resistant. Doing so may have even necessitated some bad effects (e.g., low mobility or less chance of fertilization). The dangling testicles may, through random chance, have evolved first, and once that happened, any changes in sperm's heat-resistance were pointless, so they weren't selected for. With evolution, there's no "why", unless you count "it was evolutionarily beneficial, so it was selected for". But even that doesn't explain everything, like genetic drift.
  - theblackbox 17y ago
    The "why" is a whole world of debate in and of itself, and is in fact a problem with the language used to convey scientific understanding. From Wikipedia: Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. What happens is that ideas are often conveyed using teliological phrases, such as "the sparrows migrate to africa in the winter month so as to find abundant food sources and rear the next generation..." or "testicles reside outside of the body major in order to benefit from a reduced temperature...". The problem is that these make sense to us, although they are _very_ incorrect. The teleological concepts of "so as" or "in order to" are the whys and they are very tricky beasts. So, for utmost correctness one would prefer to say: "the sparrows migrate to africa in the winter month finding the abundant food sources needed to rear the next generation..." or "testicles reside outside of the body major benefitting from a reduced temperature..." It's a very subtle issue, and one that is compounded by the popularity and ease with which we talk about biology and evolution in particular. Ernst Mayr wrote some spectacular essays on the subject, he's one of my heros so forgive me for the blatent plug! He claims that a formal understanding of the errors of telology must permeate the sciences, and most especially biology (he was a philosopher of biology), so as to clear up the ambiguities that can lead one to think there is an end or purpos (telos) to evolution. Even now it is still quite common for people to think of it in terms of progress and constant betterment instead of just simple and blind adaptation.
philwelch 17y ago
I always figured they were different heights to protect them from getting squeezed together by our thighs.
patrickgzill 17y ago
It is believed that early Pacific Islanders were able to navigate long distances by reading the changes in the long swell as they sailed the Pacific; for instance, an island will have a "reflection" in the swell. Longer but rambling explanation: http://www.passengerplanet.com/softwarm.html http://www.passengerplanet.com/softwarm.html
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
BerislavLopac 17y ago
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that our ancestors lived in water at some point. :)
imajes 17y ago
sciam blogs tend to be a little less than awesome... one of the problems i have with this piece: " If it were true, we would expect to see scrotal testicles becoming increasingly elaborate and dangly over the course of evolution, not to mention women should display a preference for males toting around the most ostentatious scrotal baggage. “With the possible exception of colored male scrota among a few species of primates,” write Gallup and his colleagues, 'there is little evidence that this has been the case.' " Clearly this refers to us chaps having scrota that we could either puff up like a balloon or flatten out to wave around like a fan, or even change color (like so many of the mating displays of the wild). However, the author fails to recall the time of Shakespeare (and, in some cultures, still today), in which men would wear a codpiece to promote their wares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece (interestingly, Codpiece is from the middle english 'cod' which means, scrotum) I bring this up not to be pedantic, but because it's important to say what we mean. In this instance, the author's language suggests he isn't aware of the codpiece and, well, for scientific american - this feels like poor journalism. Better to say what you actually meant, if writing for the sake of oratory confuses the intent.
idleworx 17y ago
I refuse to participate in this discussion

56 points by nreece 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

lionhearted 17y ago

I love Scientific American. > Now, I know what you’re thinking. “But Dr. Bering, how do you account for the fact that testicles are rarely perfectly symmetrical in their positioning within the same scrotum?” In fact, the temperature regulating function governed by the cremasteric muscle can account even for the most lopsided, one-testicle-above-the-other, waffling asymmetries in testes positioning.

Mz 17y ago

To sum it up: Air Con-ditioning. (But you knew that.) In other news: "With a keen enough eye, presumably one could master the art of “ reading” testicle alignment, using the scrotum as a makeshift room thermometer . But that's just me speculating." This might be a neat party trick at a nudist camp, but I imagine it would tend to scream "fag" if you are male or "tramp" if you are female. As a WAG: Not likely to catch on.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

With a keen enough eye, presumably one could master the art of 'reading' testicle alignment, using the scrotum as a makeshift room thermometer . But that's just me speculating. Not the kind of skill you'd want to brag about -- assuming you are a heterosexual male, that is.

Mz 17y ago
I beat you to essentially the same thought by about one minute.
- Mz 17y ago
  I thought it was a funny coincidence. Someone want to explain why that's an offensive observation? Does it need a smiley face or something? (Serious question)
  - gloob 17y ago
    I'm not really certain, since I didn't vote you down, but I suspect that whoever did didn't find is offensive so much as they found it unfunny.
    - Mz 17y ago
      It's all good. I was just wondering what the issue is since I assumed my initial joke would be the problem rather than this remark. A woman cracking jokes about male genitals in a 98% male forum has to be skating on some extremely thin ice. :-D Which is part of why I found it funny to see someone else make an extremely similar remark to mine. Presumably, they are male (at least the odds are good, given the forum). Since they got upvoted and I got downvoted, obviously there is some subtly that's lost on me. Thank you.
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        Beats me why we got down-modded. It was an odd quote, and didn't fit in with the rest of the article (which I thought was very good, btw) Plus it set off all sorts of sophomoric jokes at least in my mind. It didn't fit. It was appropriate to point it out -- even in a slightly humorous fashion. A smiley might have helped, but who knows? Like you said, it's all good.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    People are generally sensitive to gay jokes (aka there's no reason it's something a homosexual male wouldnt want to brag about it either)
    - Mz 17y ago

kurtosis 17y ago

This article never answered a very basic question: so evolution exiled man's balls from the body because sperm are temperature sensitive - but why didn't sperm just evolve to be less vulnerable to high temperatures? Anyone have a clue on this one?

noelchurchill 17y ago
I would imagine it makes more sense for them to dangle out because it gives the body more ability to adjust the temperature as needed. If your body is too hot then they dangle low, if it's too cold outside then they huddle up close. If they were inside the body then this temp control wouldn't be available!
zck 17y ago
Well, evolution doesn't have a "why" reasoning. It's not like there's a committee looking for the most efficient design. It may have been more complicated to evolve sperm to be more heat-resistant. Doing so may have even necessitated some bad effects (e.g., low mobility or less chance of fertilization). The dangling testicles may, through random chance, have evolved first, and once that happened, any changes in sperm's heat-resistance were pointless, so they weren't selected for. With evolution, there's no "why", unless you count "it was evolutionarily beneficial, so it was selected for". But even that doesn't explain everything, like genetic drift.
- theblackbox 17y ago
  The "why" is a whole world of debate in and of itself, and is in fact a problem with the language used to convey scientific understanding. From Wikipedia: Teleology (Greek: telos: end, purpose) is the philosophical study of design and purpose. What happens is that ideas are often conveyed using teliological phrases, such as "the sparrows migrate to africa in the winter month so as to find abundant food sources and rear the next generation..." or "testicles reside outside of the body major in order to benefit from a reduced temperature...". The problem is that these make sense to us, although they are _very_ incorrect. The teleological concepts of "so as" or "in order to" are the whys and they are very tricky beasts. So, for utmost correctness one would prefer to say: "the sparrows migrate to africa in the winter month finding the abundant food sources needed to rear the next generation..." or "testicles reside outside of the body major benefitting from a reduced temperature..." It's a very subtle issue, and one that is compounded by the popularity and ease with which we talk about biology and evolution in particular. Ernst Mayr wrote some spectacular essays on the subject, he's one of my heros so forgive me for the blatent plug! He claims that a formal understanding of the errors of telology must permeate the sciences, and most especially biology (he was a philosopher of biology), so as to clear up the ambiguities that can lead one to think there is an end or purpos (telos) to evolution. Even now it is still quite common for people to think of it in terms of progress and constant betterment instead of just simple and blind adaptation.

philwelch 17y ago

I always figured they were different heights to protect them from getting squeezed together by our thighs.

patrickgzill 17y ago

It is believed that early Pacific Islanders were able to navigate long distances by reading the changes in the long swell as they sailed the Pacific; for instance, an island will have a "reflection" in the swell. Longer but rambling explanation: http://www.passengerplanet.com/softwarm.html http://www.passengerplanet.com/softwarm.html

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

BerislavLopac 17y ago

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with the fact that our ancestors lived in water at some point. :)

imajes 17y ago

sciam blogs tend to be a little less than awesome... one of the problems i have with this piece: " If it were true, we would expect to see scrotal testicles becoming increasingly elaborate and dangly over the course of evolution, not to mention women should display a preference for males toting around the most ostentatious scrotal baggage. “With the possible exception of colored male scrota among a few species of primates,” write Gallup and his colleagues, 'there is little evidence that this has been the case.' " Clearly this refers to us chaps having scrota that we could either puff up like a balloon or flatten out to wave around like a fan, or even change color (like so many of the mating displays of the wild). However, the author fails to recall the time of Shakespeare (and, in some cultures, still today), in which men would wear a codpiece to promote their wares: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codpiece (interestingly, Codpiece is from the middle english 'cod' which means, scrotum) I bring this up not to be pedantic, but because it's important to say what we mean. In this instance, the author's language suggests he isn't aware of the codpiece and, well, for scientific american - this feels like poor journalism. Better to say what you actually meant, if writing for the sake of oratory confuses the intent.

idleworx 17y ago

I refuse to participate in this discussion