A friend of mine keeps arguing that men have a predetermined sperm count for their entire life (the same way females have a limited number of eggs -- note that this is not about decreased sperm count which occurs at older age). Could anyone fix me up with some academic references that could settle this once and for all?
Are you not instead in a bit of a pickle jar? A pickle seems too small to contain you.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 2:20
use google scholar;
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 2:38
Boku no Pico
Name:
MyCuriosityHasBeenPiqued2011-12-04 2:55
men have a predetermined sperm count for their entire life (the same way females have a limited number of eggs -- note that this is not about decreased sperm count which occurs at older age)
I don't see how a male's total lifetime sperm count can possibly be predetermined... mainly because you can't predetermine the lifespan of said male. If a male dies at 15 yrs of age, he probably produced less sperm than a male who dies 50 yrs old.
However, I think it's likely that given certain variables (and given enough knowledge about how those variables relate to one another), you can determine a man's sperm count, at any point during his life. (That might be an interpretation of "for their entire life.")
The question should really be, "Has the medical community advanced their understanding of the human body to the point that they have identified, not only which variables affect the quantity of sperm produced per mL of seminal plasma, but also how those variables interact in order to produce said quantity?" The answer of course, is NO. None of us (humans) knows the equation by which we can determine what a man's sperm count will be at a given point in his life. We only know how to collect and count it after the fact.
Although, there are always exceptions, right? If a man has azoospermia (let's say a man with Klinefelter's syndrome) and produces no sperm, then I guess his lifetime sperm count was predetermined from birth. :P
Anyways, now that I've ranted... scholarly articles? What would you even look for? The best I could find would be exceptions to the rule... genetic/microbiological causes of azoospermia. How would you support your claim?
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 3:36
That hypothesis doesn't account for body modifications, such as testicular removal (or addition... just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it can't be done in the future).
I mean, think about it --- tons of men die all the time, and although select vital organs are donated to other people, their balls are just buried or cremated. What a waste. What if a survivor of testicular cancer wants a replacement? Or what if an average guy with two healthy, functioning testicles just wants some extra ones just for the hell of it?
Testicles should be harvested for organ donations when a man dies. Then the remaining living men can have even more balls. Think about that.
Name:
Anonymous2011-12-04 4:12
Hmmm. Hitler has only one ball, so he might be still alive, making his sperms in the double the normal time.
Men produce sperm regularly and women start with a fixed number of eggs on a monthly cycle. Women goes through a biological change ie Menopause whereas men do not and can continue having children provided the sperm motility is high enough. Even if the sperm is not able to impregnate naturally IVF is still possible. Therefore the theory men have a fixed number of sperm is incorrect, ie Men continue to produce sperm constantly if this wasn't the case there would be very few children due to the constant fapping men do.
>> Women goes through a biological change ie Menopause whereas men do not and can continue having children provided the sperm motility is high enough. Even if the sperm is not able to impregnate naturally IVF is still possible. Therefore the theory men have a fixed number of sperm is incorrect...[o] A friend of mine keeps arguing that men have a predetermined sperm count for their entire life...
The question doesn't have anything to do with having or not having children, whether through IVF or naturally. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you had faulty logic / your support was a non-sequitur.