Yeah, it hurts a lot but it looks so much more painful for men. I think all we can do to top that is having a limb severed or give birth. And yeah, boob punching hurts too. Especially during that time ;_;
Yeah, it hurts a lot but it looks so much more painful for men. I think all we can do to top that is having a limb severed or give birth. And yeah, boob punching hurts too. Especially during that time ;_;
Um, yes, I do know that. My nephew tries to punch me in the testicles because he knows that works well on his brothers. It does not work well on me because I do not have testicles. He does not understand that girls do not have testicles. That is why he tries to hit me in them.
Alternatively, no, I do not know that. Your queer UK slang is foreign to me. Nads means gonads means genitalia. Bollocks might be some sort of cattle. idk
Hurts much more to get a boobie punch. :kaocry:
Too hot = sterility, apparently. I think that's why chicken pox are dangerous for an adult man to catch; the fever it brings is severe and lasts for a while, which can result in inflammation and sterility. Or so I've read!
Because to make proper, viable non-deformed sperm, your testes have to be at the right temperature. Slight change either way will make them turn out deformed. If I recall correctly, nearly half of male sperm are deformed, however it serves a reproductive utility. The deformed sperm acts like a buffer in the acidic environment of the vagina, thus protecting the viable sperm from being destroyed, giving it more of a chance to successfully create a zygote.
Well duh, our system requires room temperature; I just said that.What I meant was that reproductive organs used to be entirely internal, so there is likely some beneficial reason for sperm to have evolved that way, to require room temperature, to begin with. Which is what I don't know.
EDIT: Actually, TSoL, that might be the answer: this evolution would allow for having a system which produces both viable sperm and the deformed "buffer" sperm, which would (presumably) increase the likelihood of fertilization.
Yeah, I figured you knew the previous part, but I'm just long-winded and sometimes like to give a preamble to what I say. Sorry if it came off the wrong way. :s
My point was more of the buffer-thing.![]()
I Get You now Alie!
bollocks is an old word for them, older than testicles.
The word has a long and distinguished history, with the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) giving examples of its usage dating back to the 13th century. One of the early references is John Wycliffe's Bible (1382), Leviticus xxii, 24: "Al beeste, that ... kitt and taken a wey the ballokes is, ye shulen not offre to the Lord..." (any beast that is cut and taken away the bollocks, you shall not offer to the Lord, i.e. castrated animals are not suitable as religious sacrifices).
The OED states (with abbreviations expanded): "Probably a derivative of Teutonic ball-, of which the Old English representative would be inferred as beall-u, -a, or -e".
The Teutonic ball- in turn probably derives from the Proto-Indo-European base *bhel-, to inflate or swell. This base also forms the root of many other words, including "phallus".
From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, bollocks or ballocks was allegedly used as a slang term for a clergyman, although this meaning is not mentioned by the OED's 1989 edition. For example, in 1864, the Commanding Officer of the Straits Fleet regularly referred to his chaplain as "Ballocks". It has been suggested that bollocks came to have its modern meaning of "nonsense" because clergymen were notorious for talking nonsense during their sermons.
In 1977, Professor James Kingsley, a famous linguistics professor at the University of Nottingham, had accredited the word to be used in the early eighteenth century with the Roman Catholic Church priests. His studies show that the actual word "bollocks" means either a 'priest', or 'rubbish spoken by the priest'. Often, there were priests in the early eighteenth century who generally spoke rubbish, which is how the term "bollocks" became associated with verbal diarrhoea. The conviction came from the fact that Professor James Kingsley himself was a reverend and had been doing linguistic history research all his life
Unfortunately, all of this is bunk because they're Brits.The word has a long and distinguished history, with the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) giving examples of its usage dating back to the 13th century. One of the early references is John Wycliffe's Bible (1382), Leviticus xxii, 24: "Al beeste, that ... kitt and taken a wey the ballokes is, ye shulen not offre to the Lord..." (any beast that is cut and taken away the bollocks, you shall not offer to the Lord, i.e. castrated animals are not suitable as religious sacrifices).
The OED states (with abbreviations expanded): "Probably a derivative of Teutonic ball-, of which the Old English representative would be inferred as beall-u, -a, or -e".
The Teutonic ball- in turn probably derives from the Proto-Indo-European base *bhel-, to inflate or swell. This base also forms the root of many other words, including "phallus".
From the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, bollocks or ballocks was allegedly used as a slang term for a clergyman, although this meaning is not mentioned by the OED's 1989 edition. For example, in 1864, the Commanding Officer of the Straits Fleet regularly referred to his chaplain as "Ballocks". It has been suggested that bollocks came to have its modern meaning of "nonsense" because clergymen were notorious for talking nonsense during their sermons.
In 1977, Professor James Kingsley, a famous linguistics professor at the University of Nottingham, had accredited the word to be used in the early eighteenth century with the Roman Catholic Church priests. His studies show that the actual word "bollocks" means either a 'priest', or 'rubbish spoken by the priest'. Often, there were priests in the early eighteenth century who generally spoke rubbish, which is how the term "bollocks" became associated with verbal diarrhoea. The conviction came from the fact that Professor James Kingsley himself was a reverend and had been doing linguistic history research all his life
I wonder if it has to do with mammals being warm blooded. Reptiles use internal fertilization but have a much lower body temperature. It doesn't explain about birds, unless it's an evolutionary divergance.
I would imagine a knee to the groin would be painful to either sex, considering how many nerve endings are there. The diagram on the right details the proportion of brain tissue that processes sensory information from each body part. This also explains why a paper cut is so painful, since you damage a lot of nerve endings that are close together.
Doesn't hurt for me unless I'm sparring in taekwondo and someone just really feels like beating me up for no reason. Then it hurts, obviously.
Era Vulgaris
"My life's a chip in your pile. Ante up!" ~Setzer, FFVI
"Knights do it two-handed!" ~Drunkard, FFV