Originally posted by headbang8+Jul 10 2004, 02:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (headbang8 @ Jul 10 2004, 02:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Max@Jun 25 2004, 12:25 PM
orchidometer
Max,
That marvellous orchidometer chart certainly helps to get a better handle on ball size--thanks for tossing it our way. Sadly, I'm off the chart. Bigger than the "25" shown. And it's a damned inconvenience.
Orchidometer? What a curious name...
hb8 [/b][/quote]
headbang:
"Orchidometer" after orchis, the Greek name for the testis. Flowering orchids were so named, so the OED says, because of the testis-like shape of their tubers. Something to think about when you next see one in a buttonhole or a stem vase.
Like you, I am right off the chart. Since the medical condition of macroorchidism begins at the 95th percentile according to one site I visited, ie at 25ml, I suppose I ought to be worried. But so far the only problems I get with them relate to the inconvenience, as you say. Mine ache a lot, and if I don't wear the right clothes I can quickly get sores on them and on my thighs. But if everything is supported, they are ok, even though they have always seemed to demand a lot of attention. But that may be all in the mind.
Calculations of volume do increase in an alarming way, if like me you are significantly more than twice the average in any dimension (ie length, depth, breadth), you are going to be 10 or 12 times the volume of the largest "bead" on the orchidometer. I find this almost impossible to accept, but there it is. The medics have always commented on it, on occasion they have given me a pretty thorough examination, but pronounced me ok (at least in this respect!
.
On the arcane subect of orchidometers, I can't make up my mind whether this report in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) medical report was filed on 1st April:
An edible ball measurement device