Talk:Testicle

Could we get a source on the claim that the right testicle "usually" hangs lewer than the left one yes yes it doesnt!!!!

Show of hands I I II II -Dan 07:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Suggests random(or doesn't address) [[1]] Suggests more often the left [[2]]. A lot of sites say different things, a lot of them say those who are right handed usually have a lower left testicle, but, as you might imagine, totally unsourced..... Oogles 06:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

the other day our lecturer told us that 85% of males had their left testicle hanging lower. But again no source...Canry541 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article says "it is estimated that 21.9% of men have their higher testicle being their left, while 27.3% of men have reported to have equally positioned testicles", but the referenced article is about classical Greek sculpture, not self-reported data. The reference also has the title of the referenced article wrong. It's "Greek sculpture", not "male sculpture". 174.4.146.206 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well Image:MyTesticles.GIF is certainly... unusual, but the problem I see with this is the lack of context. I mean, I appreciate the effort the photographer took to get the correct angle, but there really needs to be more explanation and description than "Real Human Testicles" -- sannse (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why is there no mention of the common betting "scam" of portraying one's "left-nut" as a viable prize? This must be added with significant attention.

Removed subjective sadistic comments, post it again, and you'll get reported.

What sadistic comments were said? and why isnt there a section on how to treat groin hits?

As far as I know, "testicle" is a vernacular construction not commonly used in standard medical nomenclature...the appropriate singular form is "testis," while the plural is "testes."

Which is kinda surprising; often medical terms have a diminutive element (such as -cul-) absent in the vernacular. —Tamfang 04:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

True to an extent- nobody says to a patient, "ah, well you obviously have had a reactivation of the herpes zoster virus" (shingles) - but in several cases, it's best to be accurate. In this case by calling the article "testis". Testicles is part of the common vernacular, but I for one was surprised not to see a more correct medical term. DoctorReiux 10:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

A PubMed search for "testicle" yields nearly as many hits as for "testis", and many of the linked articles use "testicle" in the title. It does not seem to me that the term is wholly unscientific. Wnt (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hold on! What the heck?! This "Wikipedia" article is the first time that I've ever read of "testicle" being derived from "testimony" rather than the other way around! What I've read before, explained that men used to hold themselves by their testicles during the oath prior to telling the truth upon facing the penalty for perjury, which would be castration. That "testimony" and "testament" et cetera, were thus derived from "testicles", "testis" or whatever you're debating about. Now your article has it the other way around. Because women didn't have any testicles to loose, that's why they didn't "testify". If the article as is, means anything, than you've just flipped my world perception upside down again. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why does 'Balls' redirect here? Darthbob100 23:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think it should either, so I changed it to redirect to Ball (disambiguation), which has this page on it. -Platypus Man | Talk 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What were you looking for when you searched for "balls"?

It didn't work. I still wound up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.130.76 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Testicular size in relation to body weight varies widely. In the mammalian kingdom, there is a tendency for testicular size to be larger when the species is more likely to be polygamous than monogamous. Production of testicular output is also larger in the polygamous animal, possibly a spermatogenic competition for survival. In normal adult human males, testicular size ranges from the lower end of around 14 cm³ to the upper end larger than 35 cm³"

I think it would be useful to state if in regards to testicle size humans are considered polygamous or monogamous, referencing primate societies.

--Atpeace 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Christ. Perhaps a better picture, so we're not staring at an overweight, shaved, and pebbly basement-dweller? What, we couldn't find any free-use porn stars?

Done. I uploaded a picture of my own testicles, and I think they're quite an improvement over the last set we were subjected to (if I do say so myself).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.233.217 (talk • contribs)

I so fully agree with you, who wants to see a pale fat man, it's off turning, come one! Shandris^{the azylean} 10:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. And it is not necessary to have a photo in which the penis is so prominent. I replaced with a photo from another Wikipedia article that is cited as public domain, which shows the isolated testicles. Someone added "small" to my caption, which I find unnecessary. Xandergr8 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I vote a real picture of a real testicles belongs in an encyclopedia of Wikipedia's quality. At least somewhere even at the bottom. Maybe someone has sick testicles, and and want to see a healthy example. Regardless of tensions displaying such a picture here, it belongs here. I'm doubtful this vote will get much support though.Nastajus 22:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

If one is "lost' does the other one completely do the the job of two,i. e.,production of same amount of sperm and testosterone?

Yup, but it doesn't really need to "do the job of two". Its another useful redundancy, like having two kidneys.70.132.29.133 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

An article such as this, especially since it's human anatomy, really needs a picture, this is an encyclopedia. Other pictures added here had the penis prominent, and other irrelevant subjects such as that. I'm adding a picture with good picture quality, and with the testicles prominent so it is actually relevant to this article. Comment this message if you would like to response, thank you. Nikon307 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that there should be a picture, if available, but most of the proposed pictures are actually not of testes. They are pictures of the scrotum and should be labeled as such. I've taken the liberty to correct the caption. The cat's testis picture at the bottom of the article is in fact much more informative and should perhaps be featured more prominently. Radonir 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

is it my imagination, or has this page been defaced with computer language? It needs an overhaul I think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.252.182 (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

Are you referring to the vandalism I reverted yesterday? AvB ÷ talk 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

What nerves are responsible for causing so much pain when getting a hit to the balls? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.29.133 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

I think a section should be added to discuss the intense pain felt in the abdomen due to trauma to the testicles. (Kamelot75 14:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

I think it would be one of the nerves from the lumbar or sarcal plexes. Probably lumbar, due to the sympathetic response (increased heart rate etc).DoctorReiux 10:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

How do I treat hits to the testicles? Need to know how to speed up recovery.

Jump in the air and land directly on your heels, knees straight. It'll jar you pretty good but it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.109.240 (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

A sentence has been added to the Health Issues section regarding the nerves involved in the pain of blunt force groin trauma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.190.174 (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are there animals with an amount of testicles other than two or zero? are there ways to make your testicles biggar?

1. I seriously doubt it, but I suppose it's possible.

2. None that doesn't involve neutering yourself.

--66.29.169.1 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was told by an entimology student atr Virginia Tech that male cockroaches have four testicles.

I just removed some lines that really didn't contribute to the article. The user probably wants to join BJAODN Akira Tomosuke 08:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the evolution of the optimal temperature, how can "Protection from abdominal cavity pressure changes" play a role? It does for the fact that we evolved external testes, but that's not the subject of interest. Mikael Häggström 19:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

A request for this article was (and still is) listed under the Politics and Law section of WP:RA1. Does anyone know the reason for this? Perhaps the word teste with a silent E has an entirely different use in a legal context, and so a different article with a disambig tag would be called for. But matters of law are not my specialty. Can this get cleared up please? Thanks. Mashford 18:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Something wrong with the image under 1.2 . The code looks OK, but I can't work out what is wrong. Cowplopmorris 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fixed - it was in MediaWiki:Bad image list. Graham87 12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why is the scrotum with the testes photographed in this article of a white person? -- 67.161.150.171 21:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because it was a white person who took a picture of his testicles and uploaded it for Wikipedia, obviously. Asarelah 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I highly doubt that having a white person's testicles on Wikipedia instead of a black person's testicles is racism. Captain panda 23:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that was a particularly stupid and pointless question. How could it EVER be racism unless it specifically made an attack on those of whom it concerns? I rule =D (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

This made my day. Racism?

There's a lot more asian people than whites in the world. But that absolutely, completely pales in comparison to how many more animals there are than humans, this article isn't even about humans, this is terrible from a biology standpoint 75.85.52.233 (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.183.160.2 (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

"In normal adult human males, testicular size ranges from the lower end of around 14 cm³ to the upper end larger than 35 cm³." Is there a source for this range? If the standard urological measuring equipment for adult males only extends to an upper limit of 25ml , then a testicle 40% or more larger than the largest bead on such a measuring instrument would still qualify as "normal". Even if it is normal, would it be worth mentioning at what point testicle size becomes abnormal? I'm an amateur cross-referencer, not an endocrinologist, so I have no source material or statistics to hand. I could browse around, if nobody's up to it. I can also shut up, if I'm totally off-track :-) Extenebris 11:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was reading some thing about the worlds biggest testicals were measured today and confirmed by a Dr Lee of Newcastle, UK. They belonged to a Mr Royce. Has any one got a source for this as I have trawled the web however have found nothing. It was featured in the metro newspaper today. 00.53 15 December 2007 (GMT)

Yeah this is true I've seen him get them out at a bar once and they're fucking HUGE!! that nigz got basketballs down thur fo real —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.115.83 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It might also be worth including what species in animal kingdom is known to have the largest beans... On a personal note, I just came here because I couldn't remember if it was spelled "testes" or "testies," but let me tell you, this is one great article. And the discussion page? Hill. air. ee. us. Thanks, y'all. You've officially made my day.

Oh, wait. It's there. The Right Wale. Next to the picture of the hairy dude measuring his grapes with the 'orchidometer.' OMG, there's even more pictures at the bottom. LMFAO! You don't get that in Encyclopedia Britannica! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.158.44 (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that there is a simpler explanation for why testicles are herniated in mammals but not in birds: the evolutionary divisions are so deep that they predate the evolution of high body temperatures. In early publications it was often not understood that to find a common ancestor you must go back to a time long before the first dinosaur, even long before Dimetrodon. Each group had hundreds of millions of years, if it needed them, to make gradual increases in body temperature. So the evolution of the scrotum in some mammals with greatly increased body temperatures could have occurred simply because it was easily feasible to do so (i.e. with less of a selective penalty) though in some groups it later proved feasible to place testes internally when necessary. Admittedly I have not quickly found a source to back me up on this, but I thought I should mention it anyway, because I feel like the article gives several less compelling explanations. Wnt (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don’t consider myself prudish, but I am a regular editor and a recent experience with this article highlights a problem. I was trying to find a list of sports balls to find one that was just the right diameter to use in a size comparison. I was hoping to find a list, from which I could chose ping-pong, golf, tennis, baseball, etc. I searched on “Balls” and was met with an explicit photograph of David Shankbone’s scrotum.

As it currently stands, this article is schizophrenic: its use of a explicit photograph of male genitalia means the article purports to serve at a professional, medical-style level. Simultaneously, inputing “Balls” into Wikipedia’s search field—street slang—redirects to this article. Juxtaposing these two truths in this article is not appropriate. If an innocent search of “Balls” is to take the reader to an article on testicles, then its illustrations should be old-style, hard-to-decipher hand drawings of male genitalia. If the article is to instead feature a graphic, medical-style, high-quality color photograph of a hairy human male scrotum, there should be no redirects from street slang—especially “Balls”. It is simply wrong to try to have it both ways. Greg L (my talk) 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed the redirect. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Theresa. And thanks Kusma, for redirecting “Balls” to Ball (although it now redirects to Ball (disambiguation), which is fine too). Now this article is clinical in its behavior as well as its content. Greg L (my talk) 23:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• There never has been, nor will there ever be, a photograph of any part of my naked body on any website. The scrotum is that of a professional model friend. Just FYI. --David Shankbone 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have a friend that is a professional scrotum model? --67.32.195.191 (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Also Im sure your friend is used to getting his pic made while he is nude all the time,but WHY would you,a male take a pic of your friends scrotum? --67.32.195.191 (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

David Shankbone has tiny balls in that picture. Just FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.28.69.209 (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

FYI Greg L was not "met with an explicit photograph" of balls, he was redirected to an article named "testicles" and Greg actively scrolled down out of his own free will and intention to view that photograph. JayKeaton (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gentlemen, I have observed the testicles and discovered they are constantly on the move all day, i.e., like a waterbed with some kind of slow stirring motor embedded, or better yet like a ball of dough with some invisible hands constantly slowly slightly kneading it.

So please mention it in the article! Jidanni (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there a cure for stinky balls? --67.32.195.191 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yep: 1) Quit trolling Wikipedia. 2) Get up. 3) Go take a shower. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cosmic Latte,Your a idiot. I was asking a serious question. Have you ever heard of jock itch? It can cause a odor. And who the hell are you telling me what to do? For you- 1) Don't be a smart ass. 2)Shut up. 3)You take a shower.--72.154.223.249 (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC) You are not the same person that ask the question.--66.131.190.6 (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)_Reply

Why don't you two lovers both tea bag each other and wipe the sweat from your eyes.

Mention changes in testicle scrotum appearance in older men. E.g., spots due to blood flecks: angiomas, etc. Jidanni (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are there any better images of a human scrotum? The one on the article look like it has a rash and its not the most hygienic image I've seen on wikipedia. Yami (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why human? Testicles are a pretty broad concept in biology. 75.85.52.233 (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,Can anyone aware me about the Testical size in humen body. And also i want to know that i have one left side testical of small size comparely to right one.So it will affect on Production?

Rocky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.134.195 (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Humen? Nope. I can tell you HuMAN or HuWOMAN or Hugh Grant, but I cannot tell you about humen. Buttjuice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.238.173 (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the information about testicles has been done well, but I grow tired of innuendo's that there is something wrong or inferior with testicles being outside the abdominal cavity. Phases included in the essay such as "stuck with enzymes" or "thus had to place its testes outside the body", are examples of this. Testicles are a part of a man's sexuality. They give him great pleasure and possibly play a role in alluring females. Stimulation of testicles during sex is as important as stimulation of the penis, and likely induces peristalsis of the sperm on their way to the vas deferans. The male reproductive system is as impressive and has as ingeniously evolved as the female reproductive system. A person could as easily criticize the female anatomy for being hidden away inside the abdomen, relating to diseases and injuries, which become much harder to diagnose and cure because of the location of the affected glands.Drhx (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

since this article seems to focus more on the testicles of mammals in general and not just humans, shouldn't there be more pics of animal testicles? also, why all the pics of penises and scrotums? --TiagoTiago (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

So many graphic pitures on the site? Why? Do we really need 3 pictures of human scrotums showing the same thing? And why is there a picture of the side view of an erect penis and balls? I say we delete all the pictures and just keep the diagram at the top. Also it seems to me that someone is getting a cheap thrill out of posting pictures of their scrotum on this page.Outsider2810 (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the entire "Additional images" section contributes nothing notable to the article. A reader should not have to scroll to the bottom of the article to find an image that might illustrate a relevant section. Delete the "Additional images" section. Some of the images may be useful to illustrate other sections of the article, but they should be included as part of the relevant sections. The erect penis is has no relevance to this article; remove. N.B. It's nice that someone has placed these pictures in the WikiMedia Commons, but only one is relevant to or needed for the "External appearance" section. Mtd2006 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course the "correct" image of a human testicle would be similar to that of the cat. However, there are problems in getting a willing model! I've just removed the erection. I had removed several of Emptybone's images from various male anatomy articles just before he posted that one here and decided that it would be too bitey to remove it at the same time. I did, however, warn him that at some stage it would be discussed. With respect to the other images, the only photo I think worth retaining is the first. I've not been around long enough to know why there are Galleries on some pages so can't comment on whether the Gallery is appropriate on this page or not. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me that people keep using wikipedia as a dump for pictures of their anatomy whenever possible. We don't really need a myriad of balls staring back at us. 76.104.195.190 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Done.98.23.54.79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC).Reply

"they can be shrunk by competing against their intrinsic hormonal function through the use of externally administered steroidal hormones. Steroids taken for muscle enhancement (especially anabolic steroids) often have the undesired side effect of testicular shrinkage."

I demand citation for this (from the idiot who wrote it) and if none can be produced, I recommend it be purged from the article. Steroid use can cause the testicles to ascend, not shrink. If you want citation for that information, check any number of medical case studies documenting the effects of anabolic steroids (and others) on the testes. What should be in this article is that hormones such as estrogens and progesterone will shrink the testes and that the possible ascent of the testes caused by steroids can be reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.76.51 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article on testicles used to note that they are sensitive to "impact and injury". Coming to check today, I noticed it had been changed to say that they are "sensitive" to "groin attacks" and links to an article on that too.

I deleted the whole "groin attack" line and encourage someone more savvy to restore the previous version or something similar. Reason? While it is true that getting hit in there can hurt very much (doh) there is no reason to emphasize that issue as if getting hit in the testicles was somehow a health issue comparable to some sort of infection. The testicles can be hurt in a number of ways just like any other part of the body. To emphasize that testicles are "sensitive to groin attacks" makes no sense and draws the reader's attention to violence for no sensible reason. It seems to be making a medical issue out of a violent act and equating it with things such as infections and accidents. It's like writing that vaginal health issues may involve "bacterial infection, prolapse and rape". See the point? What this article thus seemed to imply is that getting hit in the testicles is somehow 'natural' and appears quite demeaning and sexist IMO.

Even if it was a 'medical' issue, the chances are most testicular injuries are not caused by human violence.

--GiraffeOfPlains (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unless I've completely and utterly misread, I think this sentence is jokey vandalism "Under a tough membraneous shell, the tunica albuginea, the testis of amniotes, and some teleost fish, contains very fine coiled tubes called seminiferous tubules."

I'm not expert enough to go about changing it, but thought I should highlight.

Unregistered User 17:07 14 February 2009 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.32.126 (talk)

This sentence is in fact correct even though it seems to read differently. The tunica albuginea in amniotes does indeed contain seminiferous tubules. However, thank you for alerting us to the potential of interpretative problems. Will think about some way of re-wording the sentence to clarify. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not being a medical professional I am not sure whether or not an explanation of the above terms more appropriately belongs in the article on sperm or in this one, but I think possibly either/both articles would benefit by such an explanation (which it seems difficult to find on the web) if anyone's up to it. (And/or Wiktionary needs these definitions as well.) Thanks! --Tyranny Sue (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02783.x is not a good source, since it claims that testis &c. comes from the 14th century or later, while in actuality the word is attested in Cicero's writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.69 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nads: A drawing of some big grey ass balls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldversionisbetter (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should make this page semi-protected. Vadalism is obviously prevelent in this article. I for one, think that this page, of ANY other one on Wikipedia, should be semi-protected. Just a thought. Flightx52 (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have yet to recieve a reply, it was just a suggestion. Vandalism is not tolerated. 

We all know that. Lets try and reduce it as much as we can on an article of this caliber for vandalism. Dont you all think? Flightx52 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Herostratus, besides URL's did you see any other problem with these edits you reverted? Pass a Method talk 07:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Books are not usually good source, since they're not usually fact-checked. In citing a book, we are (unless we have reason to believe that it has been fact-checked) relying almost solely on the reputation of the author (and, sometimes but often not, and if so to a much lesser extent, the publisher). My information on Thomas Blizard Curling is limited, and while he seems to be well-regarded he died in the 19th century and it's hard to get much information on him, and I have no proof or confidence that he's not just repeating something he believes to probably be true without having actually made sufficiently rigorous investigation. As to the other, not sure what the "Reverso" dictionary is but even if reliable, dictionaries are tertiary sources and so not usually acceptable. Herostratus (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Herostratus about not using bare urls, per WP:Bare urls. I pointed this out to Pass a Method before. I don't agree that books are not usually good sources to use, however. Most references on Wikipedia are book references, since they are scholarly sources, which are usually preferable to news or website sources. They aren't usually preferred for medical topics unless they are "academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher" (per WP:MEDRS), but, just like other sources, which consist of one or more authors, whether a source is reliable depends on the author/publisher. What we should typically stay away from are self-published books. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply