Skip to content

Not quite, no

I read — Lord forgive my search history — that testicle size corresponds with animal fertility.

It’s more closely related to the female propensity to shag around in that species. Being able to drown out the sperm of male rivals works. Of course, this is also relative to body size, but gorillas have smaller than bonobos, with humans in between.

The classic case of this being Soay sheep. Similar, at one point, to mainland cousins, they’ve been wild for centuries now. Which means that the rams haven’t been culled as wethers etc. The competition for access to ewes has meant the rams that do successfully procreate are those with the Buster Gonads…….an inheritable condition.

Oh, and it’s also possible to run this back the other way. Testicle size is a good guide to the long run female propensity to shag around in that species…..

11 thoughts on “Not quite, no”

  1. Entertaining to note that both your references were written by women.

    Perhaps we blokes’ll evolve chimpanzee type balls, given their obvious attraction to the opposite sex?

  2. Dennis, Your Guide To True Love

    Most horses are very well endowed, but that does not necessarily make them sensitive lovers.

  3. I saw a programme the other week on whales, and one species – can’t remember which – has 1 ton testicles, to make Buster Gonad totally green with envy. The commentary said the females are very promiscuous, which tends to support the theory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *