@onenight : Thank you for your addressing all these points, and I'd like to explain a bit more on why I proposed this classification... and pose a final question.
I agree with you completely on the lack of consistent data and research into adult testicle variations. This is understandably the result of the priorities that physicians have had in studying testicles, mainly that teens were at the expected testicular size benchmarks for healthy development. There really seems to be very little explanatory data as to why some men have healthy testicles that range up to 4 times or so the size of the average. If we were to extrapolate to penis size, that would be the difference between an average 5ish-inch penis and a 20-inch penis. Which is physically improbable, if not completely impossible.
I agree with you that using a coin (especially since quarter-size coins seem to be universally available) is much easier than expecting men to post their self-measured orchidometer app results, or suggesting people go online and buy physical orchidometers... or make clay models of their own balls, like I did. My thought was: why not take advantage of that availability go a step further with 2 or 3 coins as an expanded visual reference? Why not a (multiple) quarter test? Mostly as a fun exercise.
You are also completely right in that neither the orchidometer, nor any source create categories providing ranges from S to L (or beyond): the only working size categories seem to be something like "normal," "below normal," and "above normal." But why not create one, then? Even if it is just mostly for fun on a site like this. I am a social scientist and believe that everything can be measured and categorized for a better understanding of the world around us, however imperfectly. I see it more as a work in progress, and definitely not a clinical criteria.
My first step was to take the statistical approach to come up with more nuanced categories, but that is also indeed problematic. If we take the percentiles and standard deviations calculated by the orchidometer app, but these only reveal the statistical probability of given volume ranges. If we take the Tomova et al. data, that would mean that 68% of men (±1 SD) have testicles between 12–21ml (taking the left-right average), 16% are below that, about 13% have 21–25ml (between +1 to +2 SD), and only 2.5% would have testicles above 25ml. By that measure, testicles of over 30ml (+3 SD) would be present in only 0.15% of men.
A strictly statistical approach wouldn't really capture the full realm of possibility of abnormally large testicles (in terms of the statistical "normal distribution"), which is why I decided to suggest -1 SD (12ml) as the "low medium" and the mean as "medium" (along statistical lines), but created somewhat more fluid categories for "high medium" (which should technically not be the 97% percentile) and the range to XXL. It's really meant to make more sense of the ranges within that top 3% of balls, not just call them "abnormally large", while at the same time giving people a sense that they are not inadequate because there are balls out there that are 4 times their own.
My final question is: in your experience and research, if you were to devise a scale, however imperfect, what would be your cutoffs for each category? I am very curious as to the feedback, which is why I shared my proposal.
S
M low
M
M high
L
XL
XXL
View media item 11942911
I agree with you completely on the lack of consistent data and research into adult testicle variations. This is understandably the result of the priorities that physicians have had in studying testicles, mainly that teens were at the expected testicular size benchmarks for healthy development. There really seems to be very little explanatory data as to why some men have healthy testicles that range up to 4 times or so the size of the average. If we were to extrapolate to penis size, that would be the difference between an average 5ish-inch penis and a 20-inch penis. Which is physically improbable, if not completely impossible.
I agree with you that using a coin (especially since quarter-size coins seem to be universally available) is much easier than expecting men to post their self-measured orchidometer app results, or suggesting people go online and buy physical orchidometers... or make clay models of their own balls, like I did. My thought was: why not take advantage of that availability go a step further with 2 or 3 coins as an expanded visual reference? Why not a (multiple) quarter test? Mostly as a fun exercise.
You are also completely right in that neither the orchidometer, nor any source create categories providing ranges from S to L (or beyond): the only working size categories seem to be something like "normal," "below normal," and "above normal." But why not create one, then? Even if it is just mostly for fun on a site like this. I am a social scientist and believe that everything can be measured and categorized for a better understanding of the world around us, however imperfectly. I see it more as a work in progress, and definitely not a clinical criteria.
My first step was to take the statistical approach to come up with more nuanced categories, but that is also indeed problematic. If we take the percentiles and standard deviations calculated by the orchidometer app, but these only reveal the statistical probability of given volume ranges. If we take the Tomova et al. data, that would mean that 68% of men (±1 SD) have testicles between 12–21ml (taking the left-right average), 16% are below that, about 13% have 21–25ml (between +1 to +2 SD), and only 2.5% would have testicles above 25ml. By that measure, testicles of over 30ml (+3 SD) would be present in only 0.15% of men.
A strictly statistical approach wouldn't really capture the full realm of possibility of abnormally large testicles (in terms of the statistical "normal distribution"), which is why I decided to suggest -1 SD (12ml) as the "low medium" and the mean as "medium" (along statistical lines), but created somewhat more fluid categories for "high medium" (which should technically not be the 97% percentile) and the range to XXL. It's really meant to make more sense of the ranges within that top 3% of balls, not just call them "abnormally large", while at the same time giving people a sense that they are not inadequate because there are balls out there that are 4 times their own.
My final question is: in your experience and research, if you were to devise a scale, however imperfect, what would be your cutoffs for each category? I am very curious as to the feedback, which is why I shared my proposal.
S
M low
M
M high
L
XL
XXL
View media item 11942911
Last edited:
