# Great Dads have smaller testicles



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2013/09/10/science-testicle-size-father-parenting.html

Apparently I have small testes, never really felt any compulsion to compare with other dudes though.


----------



## keeper63 (Mar 22, 2012)

I always thought I had fairly large balls, but now that I am older, not so much anymore. Can't recall whether there was a change around the time of fatherhood, though.

BTW, I have been told I am an excellent Dad!


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

hmmm, I find these "studies" quite funny sometimes.

Let me just say I would argue this.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

My husband's testicle are huge! He's a good dad. What's the point in having large testicles anyway?


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

:rofl::rofl:


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Dad&Hubby said:


> Let me just say I would argue this.


You'll argue with an MRI? Hokay.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

All I can think of is that ACDC song.....


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> My husband's testicle are huge! He's a good dad. What's the point in having large testicles anyway?


Large testicles have been _correlated_ - it's not _causal _-with greater promiscuity, and provide an advantage in sperm warfare (Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex by Robin Baker).


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

One has to be curious about starting points of size. So maybe being a nurturing father helps, after who wants to lug around two boulders between ones legs 

I need to look that article up, just wondering how they developed a control for this study. 

Two experimental groups I can see

1. Nurturing fathers
2. "Jerks" who breed and split the scene

What would be the control for comparison? Wonder how they measured size or did they just measure testosterone levels? Hmmmm

Sorry, I just wish I could attend that conference where this was presented. Would love to hear the discussions 

Scientist in the house.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

Apparently this is how the study was conducted:-

Do Smaller Testicles Mean a More Involved Father?
_
"The findings suggested a small correlation between low testosterone levels and better parenting, according to background information via the study. Findings also note that a father's testes volume corresponded with reward centers of the brain. So fathers with lower amounts of testosterone were more likely to notice a greater activation in reward centers when looking at a photo of their child."_


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Cosmos said:


> Apparently this is how the study was conducted:-
> 
> Do Smaller Testicles Mean a More Involved Father?
> _
> "The findings suggested a small correlation between low testosterone levels and better parenting, according to background information via the study. Findings also note that a father's testes volume corresponded with reward centers of the brain. So fathers with lower amounts of testosterone were more likely to notice a greater activation in reward centers when looking at a photo of their child."_


Now I need to read the Proceedings Article. The "small correlation" remark is disturbing and can be construed in too many ways in my analytical mind. I am always the skeptic. Still noted no good controls for this study, simply used each experimental group as their own control is always the problem with using humans in any study.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

Not seeing great or greater promiscuity, nor the possessiveness one would associate with the drive to plant the seed, in my H. Not even way back in the day...


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*I'll just take the small ones compared to the large ones, thank you! 











Reason being ~ because if I should ever get kicked in the groin, God forbid, at least with large ones, you're more prone to someone being better able to hit their intended target!*


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

A part of the article...



> By scanning the men’s brains with an fMRI machine while showing them photos of their children, the researchers found they could predict which fathers would be more involved in their children’s care. Men who showed more activity in a part of the brain known to motivate animals to nurture their offspring performed more hands-on parental caregiving.
> 
> In general, smaller testicles were also associated with higher nurturing-related brain activity, suggesting that men with smaller testicles were more biologically motivated to care for their children.
> 
> ...


Cosmos article


> "The findings suggested a small correlation between *low testosterone levels* and better parenting, according to background information via the study. Findings also note that a father's testes volume corresponded with reward centers of the brain. So fathers with lower amounts of* testosterone *were more likely to notice a greater activation in reward centers when looking at a photo of their child."



From all I have read about the Nature of *High Testosterone* in men, this article does not surprise me ....though I think the article should be talking more about *VASOPRESSIN* over Testosterone -though they have a unique relationship in the body of men... There are many studies on Vasopressin receptors that can predict a man is more likely to be a absentee Father.. Can google many articles, here is but one>> 'Bonding Gene' Could Help Men Stay Married -One form of DNA linked to marital bliss, the other to discord, study found  

We had my Husbands sperm count tested around age 30, he was $195,000 million.... (Normal is from 15 million to greater than 200 million sperm per milliliter of semen. One is considered to have a low sperm count if you have fewer than 15 million sperm per milliliter or less than 39 million sperm total per ejaculate)...I just looked that up. I remember 300 Million being considered *High* when I was reading back in the day.. 

I wouldn't even desire a High Test man -too much of that, he is more prone to Cheating, aggressive behavior, more masturbation, and wanting to be alone... 

Taken from another post of mine....


> I want to add some facts here, this is the book :  The Alchemy of Love and Lust : Books
> 
> *As to Sexual roles -Testosterone *:
> 
> ...



and may I add... Affect How a man Fathers his children. 

My husband does not have whopper balls..(not that I have had any to compare of course, I am just assuming -only porn gives me a clue).... Couldn't ask for a better Dad, heck, he's a better DAD than I am a Mom !! Makes me look bad... he takes more time, plays games with them, watching movies with them, helps with their homework...


----------



## VermisciousKnid (Dec 27, 2011)

drerio said:


> One has to be curious about starting points of size. So maybe being a nurturing father helps, after who wants to lug around two boulders between ones legs
> 
> I need to look that article up, just wondering how they developed a control for this study.
> 
> ...


The article says they measured testes size with an MRI and the difference in volume between the largest and smallest was three to one! Of course, volume is a function of the cube of the radius so that means that the difference in diameter between the largest and smallest was 1.45 to 1. Not quite as startling! For the sake of simplifying the math I assumed that testes are spherical.


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

People are laughing at the study but it makes perfect sense.

Of course beta males have smaller balls because their better parenting skills are the only way they can ever hope to attract a woman (not really attracting like an alpha male but providing her with a service that she needs).

Alpha males have larger testes by definition because they are more aggressive and better able to spread their seed. 

This also makes them bad fathers.

The alpha male gets the woman pregnant and the beta male raises the child (single moms who have baby daddies in jail marry safe providers who raise the alpha male's offspring when he is in prison). 

Small testes = beta male, provider, safe but not desired.
Large testes = aggressive alpha, women lust after him, he MUST leave her after getting her pregnant to continue spreading seed.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

VermisciousKnid said:


> The article says they measured testes size with an MRI and the difference in volume between the largest and smallest was three to one! Of course, volume is a function of the cube of the radius so that means that the difference in diameter between the largest and smallest was 1.45 to 1. Not quite as startling! For the sake of simplifying the math I assumed that testes are spherical.


I know how MRI's work, and measuring volume using this tool is at best tricky (I will have to read the article when I get the time, was it T1 or T2 weighted). a 1.45 differential, but what was the standard error? However the testis (singular) is not spherical so this would require a better model system to understand the dimensions from that point of view. And of course size would not necessarily pertain to T production since the greatest volume of a testis is due to seminiferous tubules where spermatogenesis takes place and very little volume of interstitial cells involved in T production.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

ntamph said:


> People are laughing at the study but it makes perfect sense.
> 
> Of course beta males have smaller balls because their better parenting skills are the only way they can ever hope to attract a woman (not really attracting like an alpha male but providing her with a service that she needs).
> 
> ...


Still skeptical. But, that is my nature. When I have the time, I will read the primary article myself.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

ntamph said:


> People are laughing at the study but it makes perfect sense.
> 
> Of course beta males have smaller balls because their better parenting skills are the only way they can ever hope to attract a woman (not really attracting like an alpha male but providing her with a service that she needs).
> 
> ...



Well that about sums it up nicely. But it's so oversimplified not to mention highly exaggerated, you can't possibly take this seriously?

My husband has huge testicles and he's a good Dad, not a great Dad but a good one. He is also VERY VERY passive. No alpha traits at all. He is the quintessential Mr. Nice Guy.

How does that fit into your paradigm?


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

Anon Pink said:


> Well that about sums it up nicely. But it's so oversimplified not to mention highly exaggerated, you can't possibly take this seriously?
> 
> My husband has huge testicles and he's a good Dad, not a great Dad but a good one. He is also VERY VERY passive. No alpha traits at all. He is the quintessential Mr. Nice Guy.
> 
> How does that fit into your paradigm?


From what I remember reading your posts, you are quite sexually attracted to him and you guys have a good and experimental sex life. He has large testes and is a "good Dad, not a great Dad" so he is an alpha/large testes male.


----------



## VermisciousKnid (Dec 27, 2011)

drerio said:


> I know how MRI's work, and measuring volume using this tool is at best tricky (I will have to read the article when I get the time, was it T1 or T2 weighted). a 1.45 differential, but what was the standard error? However the testis (singular) is not spherical so this would require a better model system to understand the dimensions from that point of view. And of course size would not necessarily pertain to T production since the greatest volume of a testis is due to seminiferous tubules where spermatogenesis takes place and very little volume of interstitial cells involved in T production.


No kidding they're not spherical! I was just doing a little back of the envelope math to explain the three to one volume differential calculated by the study. Volume is deceptive. 

I'm assuming that the authors were a bit more precise. The study was out of Emory University, not Liberty University, so I expect that they were.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

VermisciousKnid said:


> No kidding they're not spherical! I was just doing a little back of the envelope math to explain the three to one volume differential calculated by the study. Volume is deceptive.
> 
> I'm assuming that the authors were a bit more precise. The study was out of Emory University, not Liberty University, so I expect that they were.


Can you tell me where you found the source where they did MRI of the testes? The original article posted by Lon suggested brain MRI. I can't find the source for the MRI study you suggest. 

No need to get snarky, but there are major assumptions to be made from assuming a spherical volume versus any other volume (I did not know you were using a differential equation) and I want to know the standard error. I am not suggesting that Dr. Mascaro is doing bad research. I just am still skeptical. I am skeptical about research that comes out of Harvard, so there really is no need to get testy. I don't know a scientist who is not skeptical. You should see what a typical science conference it like, definitely not for the weak at heart.

ETA: never mind, I see where they made the reference to testicle MRI. Hmmmm, really need to read the article.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

ntamph said:


> From what I remember reading your posts, you are quite sexually attracted to him and you guys have a good and experimental sex life. He has large testes and is a "good Dad, not a great Dad" so he is an alpha/large testes male.


We have a great sex life, ...because I love sex and I initiate, not because the man is a playa. What you have read on here is my way of trying to remain focused on positive and not dwell on negative. So without too many details I can see how you would jump to the above conclusion. I am not attracted to him and our marriage is a constant struggle. I love him, but I don't feel the passionate love everyone here talks about. I don't feel any spiritual connection, I don't feel love when we have sex, I struggle daily with trying to bring back something that was lost more than 20 years ago. There is no chemistry between us, just companionship that includes sex. I would love to feel that, which is why I keep trying.


----------



## hookares (Dec 7, 2011)

The nitwits who came up with this hypothesis probably don't take into consideration that when they do these "studies" they will get only a very selective group of men to participate. The results mean no more or less than the studies which are done to determine what an "average" penis size measurement might be.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

hookares said:


> The nitwits who came up with this hypothesis probably don't take into consideration that when they do these "studies" they will get only a very selective group of men to participate. The results mean no more or less than the studies which are done to determine what an "average" penis size measurement might be.


Genetic variants and thus one can only use each experimental group as their own control. I would not call it a bad hypothesis, I may even agree with the suggeted findings. But, it is true human studies are more questionable on the grounds that you suggest.


----------



## VermisciousKnid (Dec 27, 2011)

drerio said:


> Can you tell me where you found the source where they did MRI of the testes? The original article posted by Lon suggested brain MRI. I can't find the source for the MRI study you suggest.
> 
> No need to get snarky, but there are major assumptions to be made from assuming a spherical volume versus any other volume (I did not know you were using a differential equation) and I want to know the standard error. I am not suggesting that Dr. Mascaro is doing bad research. I just am still skeptical. I am skeptical about research that comes out of Harvard, so there really is no need to get testy. I don't know a scientist who is not skeptical. You should see what a typical science conference it like, definitely not for the weak at heart.


Differential equation? I hated those things in university. I took the easy way out and used good old 4/3*pi*r*cubed. 

This article mentions the MRI to measure testicle size. Another article mentions fMRI to observe brain activity in response to pictures of their children. 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24016988

Sorry if I came across as snarky. I thought that your response to my use of spherical volume calculation as a rough approximation of testis volume was a tad pedantic though. Of course testicles are non-regular ovoids, but I'm not going to go looking for testicle volume formulas based on multiple measurements just to satisfy the basic question in my mind which was: how much bigger would a testicle have to be in order to be three times the volume? A rough approximation was all that was called for in that case.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

VermisciousKnid said:


> Differential equation? I hated those things in university. I took the easy way out and used good old 4/3*pi*r*cubed.
> 
> This article mentions the MRI to measure testicle size. Another article mentions fMRI to observe brain activity in response to pictures of their children.
> 
> ...


Only way you are going to get correct volumes on something like the testis would be to apply differential equations. Accept apology. I should mention, I don't necessarily think this is a bogus study and often too easy to see how that can come across on TAM with the many battle lines drawn. My take on this would simply be from a scientific point of view. 

I really don't know how big is big given any normal variation if one does not consider this experimental hypothesis. But then again this is not my area of expertise. I will have to wait when the transcript comes out since it was only presented to the PNAS yesterday.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Great Dads have smaller testicles*



Faithful Wife said:


> All I can think of is that ACDC song.....


Dirty deeds done dirt cheap?


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

L O L!!!

WTF?! :rofl:


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

The study mentioned here is probably looking at specific, possible implications deriving from other studies on primate mating systems. One such article that covers the range of issues quite well and understandably is this:

http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/seminars/Fall2013/Fall13_articles/Shackelford_Goetz_CD_2007.pdf 
(Adaptation to Sperm Competition in Humans).


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> The study mentioned here is probably looking at specific, possible implications deriving from other studies on primate mating systems. One such article that covers the range of issues quite well and understandably is this:
> 
> http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/seminars/Fall2013/Fall13_articles/Shackelford_Goetz_CD_2007.pdf
> (Adaptation to Sperm Competition in Humans).


These studies are not surprising. In Hawaiian Monk Seals, the ejaculation from a males secretes an enzyme that is able to keep the integrity of that male's spermatozoa while degrading the sperm of a previous ejaculated male (considering multiple partnering during a mating season). Since most of these encounters are violent and often a male can be interrupted by another male. The stronger being the more likely to successfully pass their genetics (both by brute force and biochemically).


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Great Dads have smaller testicles*



drerio said:


> These studies are not surprising. In Hawaiian Monk Seals, the ejaculation from a males secretes an enzyme that is able to keep the integrity of that male's spermatozoa while degrading the sperm of a previous ejaculated male (considering multiple partnering during a mating season). Since most of these encounters are violent and often a male can be interrupted by another male. The stronger being the more likely to successfully pass their genetics (both by brute force and biochemically).


Just like the typical night club on a weekend!


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

Lon said:


> Just like the typical night club on a weekend!


My balls are too "small" to remember  Remember I am a dad 

But, I do thank my grandfather when I look down


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Who says alpha males can't be good dads?

Children need father figures, and father figures need alpha male traits.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

Mine are possibly smaller (never measured them why would I? I couldn't give a toss) because they get emptied so regularly.

So the guy with big goolies isn't getting serviced that often.


----------



## VermisciousKnid (Dec 27, 2011)

drerio said:


> Only way you are going to get correct volumes on something like the testis would be to apply differential equations. Accept apology. I should mention, I don't necessarily think this is a bogus study and often too easy to see how that can come across on TAM with the many battle lines drawn. My take on this would simply be from a scientific point of view.
> 
> I really don't know how big is big given any normal variation if one does not consider this experimental hypothesis. But then again this is not my area of expertise. I will have to wait when the transcript comes out since it was only presented to the PNAS yesterday.


You could always plunge the testes into a full graduated cylinder of water, remove, and measure the amount of water displaced. 

Given that an MRI sees "slices" of structures within the body I'm surprised that it doesn't have software that automatically computes volumes. That kind of graphics processing is becoming ubiquitous these days.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

VermisciousKnid said:


> You could always plunge the testes into a full graduated cylinder of water, remove, and measure the amount of water displaced.
> 
> Given that an MRI sees "slices" of structures within the body I'm surprised that it doesn't have software that automatically computes volumes. That kind of graphics processing is becoming ubiquitous these days.


Actually MRIs can calculate volume, but different weighted images vary in the sensitivity of how much error you can accept in such a small structure. I just need to see the transcript.

Has to do with densities of tissues.

Again, I can't dispute the results, but even the second hand source suggested "small" correlations. I just want to understand what that means.


----------



## Ikaika (Apr 23, 2012)

I don't necessarily distrust news articles that report on scientific findings. However I have seen enough over or under inflating the interpretation of data to at least take a step back. 

I will consider a tempered approach to assume this to be possibly valid, but will verify it when it comes to publication.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

So getting up in the middle of the night makes you a great dad. I didn't get up in the middle of the night with my oldest. I worked a 12 hr shift followed by 4 hour of school. I transferred my studies into a career that allows me to live in a top 5 school district. Does that make me a lesser dad? I guess if my balls were smaller I would have worked a little less. Studied a little less. Made a little less. Give my children a little less opportunity. I would have been there to change their diaper at 3 am. I guess that would have made up for it. SMH


----------



## Unique Username (Jul 6, 2013)

I find the article and the thread simply amusing !!

70 is a REALLY small sample.

Correlation does not equal causation.


I think the new Masters & Johnson show coming to Showtime toward the end of September will be very interesting. (hopefully they do a truthful account of their research and not just use it as an excuse to have sex yet again on a cable show)


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

WyshIknew said:


> Mine are possibly smaller (never measured them why would I? I couldn't give a toss) because they get emptied so regularly.
> 
> So the guy with big goolies isn't getting serviced that often.


I guess I'm an outlier then. I've been emptying them at least daily since 13, and they haven't shrunk in the 30 years in between.

But big nuts aren't a good thing. They're too dang easy to bump.


----------



## Wiltshireman (Jan 23, 2013)

Unique Username said:


> Correlation does not equal causation.


Too True,
A simple example often quoted is.

Two events can consistently correlate with each other but not have any causal relationship. An example is the relationship between reading ability and shoe size across the whole population of the United States. If someone performed such a survey, they would find that the larger shoe sizes correlate with better reading ability, but this does not mean large feet cause good reading skills. Instead it's caused by the fact that young children have small feet and have not yet (or only recently) been taught to read. In this case, the two variables are more accurately correlated with a third: age. 

You could change shoe size for testicles and get an equaly stupid answer.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Great Dads have smaller testicles*



RandomDude said:


> Who says alpha males can't be good dads?
> 
> Children need father figures, and father figures need alpha male traits.


I think the kind of "good" the article is referencing is the nurturing and child rearing traits that are all too often attributed to "mother figures"

That is what I kind of find disturbing about the tone of the whole article, that male-centric roles are generally considered bad and female-centric ones considered good when it comes to raising children.

So if this article said "emotionally nurturing fathers have smaller balls" I could find more agreement with the article, because in todays world, alpha male traits are mainly social status and influence which leaves little time for the nesting, nurturing and beta traits required to raise an infant.

And more importantly, truly great fathers (and mothers) do what it takes to provide the best possible environment for their children, and a truly integrated man will step up to the role of great father while willing to relegate his high testosterone ways to the backburner when needed.


----------



## Want2babettrme (May 17, 2013)

Lon said:


> CBC News - Great dads have smaller testicles, study suggests
> 
> Apparently I have small testes, never really felt any compulsion to compare with other dudes though.




I'll check. Just have to go look in her purse. I wish that was funny, but it's not.


----------



## WyshIknew (Aug 18, 2012)

larry.gray said:


> I guess I'm an outlier then. I've been emptying them at least daily since 13, and they haven't shrunk in the 30 years in between.
> 
> But big nuts aren't a good thing. They're too dang easy to bump.


Ha ha, no I mean that despite what I've read on the internet, my balls _are_ larger when I'm randy because I've gone without for a couple of days. And conversely when I've had a couple of good emptying sessions they shrink.

And it's not just me, my wife will say that they feel swollen and need emptying.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Want2babettrme said:


> I'll check. Just have to go look in her purse. I wish that was funny, but it's not.


Since you are going in her purse anyways, just take them back.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Lon said:


> I think the kind of "good" the article is referencing is the nurturing and child rearing traits that are all too often attributed to "mother figures"
> 
> That is what I kind of find disturbing about the tone of the whole article, that male-centric roles are generally considered bad and female-centric ones considered good when it comes to raising children.
> .



Exactly.


----------



## larry.gray (Feb 21, 2011)

larry.gray said:


> But big nuts aren't a good thing. They're too dang easy to bump.


Do you have any idea how gross and cold it is when they dangle into the water when using a public toilet?

Yeah, big isn't necessarily good.


----------



## Boottothehead (Sep 3, 2013)

My ex had pretty big ones, and he was a terrible parent. I guess there are exceptions to every rule.


----------



## Unique Username (Jul 6, 2013)

If this were true, though

then we need a testicle measuring chart and maybe an apparatus to measure testicle size before dating 

bahahhaha 

still - this research (and the article even moreso) is really flawed but certainly ammusing


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

Huge balls or small balls, each one of us men has the God given ability to choose either humanity or animality. You can't be a man without being a real human being FIRST.


----------



## clipclop2 (Aug 16, 2013)

There was also a study that said men with larger testicles are more likely to be unfaithful.

I guess it takes a large pair to admit to cheating in the first place! 

Men with no testes must be the best fathers of all... No wait... That can't be right....

Maybe men with smaller ones make fewer babies. By having fewer babies you don't have to spread your awesome fatherhood skills over a wide area. So maybe they need a "weighted" measurement....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## morituri (Apr 1, 2011)

"Studies" often tend to be presented as nothing more than today's fodder for the sensationalism machine cravings for more eyeballs.


----------



## ntamph (Apr 23, 2013)

clipclop2 said:


> There was also a study that said men with larger testicles are more likely to be unfaithful.


Of course. Bigger penis = more alpha. Penis size is an accurate measure of manhood.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

So I have huge balls a girthy penis but average length.

Am I supposed to be unfaithful, because I've never cheated.
A bad father, even though I know I'm a great father.
A good father...

This whole thing has created a serious identity crisis in me......


----------



## Goldmember357 (Jan 31, 2012)

Generally speaking this is true. Science explains why


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Great Dads have smaller testicles*



Dad&Hubby said:


> So I have huge balls a girthy penis but average length.
> 
> Am I supposed to be unfaithful, because I've never cheated.
> A bad father, even though I know I'm a great father.
> ...


Sorry,  atleast take some solace you are just following your biology )


----------



## KingofIstatements (Jul 30, 2011)

Kobo said:


> So getting up in the middle of the night makes you a great dad. I didn't get up in the middle of the night with my oldest. I worked a 12 hr shift followed by 4 hour of school. I transferred my studies into a career that allows me to live in a top 5 school district. Does that make me a lesser dad? I guess if my balls were smaller I would have worked a little less. Studied a little less. Made a little less. Give my children a little less opportunity. I would have been there to change their diaper at 3 am. I guess that would have made up for it. SMH


This statement is solid gold.
At least here in America, our society could do a much better job of preparing our young men for what it logistically means to be a great father. Adhering to my matriarchal, feminist anti-1950s upbringing that a "good dad" is softer, always ready to help out hasn't gone very well. 
The energy I've put into helping out around the house and "making things easier for her" has just been absorbed into the vortex of Facebook and a decrease in efficiency (Ex: 'Folding the laundry' actually = holding a towel for a half hour while glued to some crappy show about polygamists on the TV.)
And once you start giving without regard to personal career maintenance and development, its never enough- Took one day off from work for family stuff last week? Then you can swing two this week, right?
When I reflect over the last few years it seems astonishing to me that I've been able to cobble together and make enough moderate advances in my career to keep my family afloat. I can only attribute that to sheer talent, in spite of punctuality or attendance.
It doesn't even have to be a gender thing. During the first pregnancy is a great time to figure out roles. Is the SAH parent doing it because they are adequately prepared, and really want to do it? Or is it because their choice of a degree in left-handed underwater basket making somehow ended up derailing them from a career track?


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Great Dads have smaller testicles*



KingofIstatements said:


> ...And once you start giving without regard to personal career maintenance and development, its never enough- Took one day off from work for family stuff last week? Then you can swing two this week, right?
> When I reflect over the last few years it seems astonishing to me that I've been able to cobble together and make enough moderate advances in my career to keep my family afloat. I can only attribute that to sheer talent, in spite of punctuality or attendance.


I can definitely relate to this. I was guilted for going to work every day, and how dare I not take a sick day when the wife and baby were at home sick, rather than use those few precious days for when I'm actually sick (and how dare I complain about having man flu when I actually go to work feeling like crap and spreading my germs to all my coworkers).

Yes 10 hour days were easy compared to having to take care of home and baby while addicted to 16 and pregnant. I guess that is why I was the one that did all the diapering, cooking and attending to the baby when I got home (and how dare I not clean up the dishes and mess I made plus the mess that accumulated while I was at work trying to stay awake). My goal was simply to not get fired, so I suppose I succeeded, despite being the one up all night rocking a baby that only wanted to keep suckling like he did all day to pacify him, while my health was literally deteriorating.

Yes I have a lot of saved up resentment from those years, my career definitely got derailed, life could have been a lot different had I chosen to start a family with some body that had a better attitude and goals that were closer to mine.

But I adapted, my career is not my focus, I choose to coparent rather then pay her to and visit on weekends (not like that is the wrong choice for those who do that), got a job with better hours, more security, good benefits (gov't) the work is not fulfilling, but it allows me to have a close parental role with my son, I do double duty as father and mother when I have him, and bachelor when I dont. I dont know if that requires more testosterone or less, I know it results in me appearing less manly, but I dont have regrets about this decision, if being a better father means smaller balls, I will take the smaller balls, even if that means I earn less and have to be up at night coddling my little man, putting nice notes in his lunch, laundering our clothes etc. Because he certainly isn't going to learn about being a man from the kind of guy that would put up with his mother.


----------



## Aerith (May 17, 2013)

Ok, that's just :rofl:

If Great Dads have smaller testicles, then I suggest that Great Mums have bigger breasts. 
They have better chances for breastfeeding and building a stronger bond with the child...

Good parenting is about personalities and not about sizes.


----------

