web
counter
 

How Fatherhood Turns Men Into Ninnies

By Dr. Pisaster | Posted Under Pajiba Dirty Talk | Comments (25)



Interview- Will Arnett Up All Night, On Screen and Off.jpg

Testosterone! The man-molecule! You’ve probably read by now about the study published in this month’s PNAS and reported on by the New York Times that found a link between fatherhood and levels of testosterone. Given how much we identify testosterone with manliness and virility, the results of the study could be seen by many as either a good or bad thing. The news reports are all working hard to spin it as a positive (via the “men evolved to be caring nurturers,” interpretation), while acknowledging that some men will look at the loss of testosterone as an unequivocal negative.

First of all, let’s review what testosterone actually is (and isn’t). Testosterone is a hormone that, like most hormones, has many functions. Although we think of is as a “male,” hormone it is present in both men and women. Men have higher rates, on average, but women tend to be more sensitive to the hormone. In men, testosterone is produced in the testes, although production levels are controlled by the pituitary gland. In utero and at puberty testosterone plays a large role in the development of what we think of as typically male characteristics. In adults, testosterone is involved in sperm development and muscle growth and may have an effect on libido, but it also plays a role in decidedly unsexy bodily functions, like platelet aggregation (an important part of blood clotting) and maintaining bone density. The thing about hormones that we tend to forget, though, is that they generally don’t act alone. Sperm production, for instance, is regulated not just testosterone, but also follicle stimulating hormone, inhibin and gonadotropin hormones and involves the hypothalamus, and pituitary gland on top of the testes (and those are just the parts we know about - the process is not completely understood).

In other words, saying that testosterone is responsible for any aspect of “maleness,” is an extreme oversimplification and while the levels of a single hormone may have an effect on certain things, it’s never as simple as “testosterone does X.” Furthermore, while we may equate testosterone with virility more isn’t necessarily better. Abnormally low levels of testosterone will cause negative effects such as loss of sperm production and shrinking of the testes, but too high levels will cause negative side effects such as…loss of sperm production and shrinking of the testes. The ideal level of testosterone (if such a thing could be said to exist) is really a moderate amount, although the range for healthy males is fairly broad. Testosterone levels vary from person to person and for a healthy male could fall anywhere between 350-1200 ng/dl. Those levels also tend to drop as men age.

Okay, now that we have that background: onto the research. The study involved 624 men from the Philippines who were involved in a longitudinal nutrition study. The men answered a questionnaire and gave saliva samples (measured at waking and before bed, because testosterone levels vary throughout the day) in both 2005 (when their mean age was 21.5 years +/- 0.3) and again in 2009 (when their mean age was 26 years +/- 0.3). This allowed the researchers to compare testosterone levels not only between men who were fathers and those who were not but also in the same man before and after becoming a father. The participants came from a region of the Philippines were fathers were generally involved in daily care of children. The researchers hypothesized that men with higher testosterone levels would be more likely for find partners and have children and that, conversely, men who spent significant time with their children would have lower testosterone levels. In other words, while high testosterone levels may enable men to start a family, those levels would in turn drop once that family came into being.

The men were divided into four groups. The men in Group 1 (n=83) were partnered and fathers at the beginning of the study, in 2005. Group 2 (n=257) were not partnered or fathers in either 2005 or 2009. Group 3 (n=46) became partnered between the two time-points of the study but did not have children, and Group 4 (n=162) became partnered and had children between 2005 and 2009. All of the men experienced a decline in testosterone levels between 2005 and 2009, but the decrease was most dramatic for Groups 3 and 4. Men in Group 3 experienced an average drop in testosterone levels of 10% for AM levels (those measured in the morning) and 32% for PM levels (those measured in the evening). New fathers, on the other hand, experienced a drop of 26% for the AM measurements and 34% for PM. Strangely, the men who experienced the least decline in testosterone were those who were partnered and fathers at the beginning of the study, although those men had lower testosterone levels, which may indicate that they had experienced a drop before the study began. Testosterone levels were also correlated with the age of the men’s children and the amount of time they spent interacting with them. Fathers of newborns experienced a dramatic drop in testosterone levels, while those with older children experienced significantly less of a decrease. The results remained significant even when accounting for other factors such as lack of sleep (newborns aren’t just cute, they’re exhausting too). Testosterone levels also decreased more for men who spent a significant amount of time with their children, though the differences were less dramatic than those based on the children’s age.

The study results are interesting, and the fact that they looked at changes in men over time (as opposed to just differences between men) makes it easier to control for external factors. The researchers are able to say, for example, that the lower testosterone levels of men who spent significant time with their children was not due to men with lower testosterone to begin with choosing to be more involved with childcare, since those men’s initial testosterone levels were not on the low side (in fact the partnered men with children had higher initial testosterone levels than the unpartnered men). However, the small sample size and the fact that there are essentially only two data points per individual mean that the margin of error is fairly high and the evo-psych explanations for the data that many sites are reporting on are, as usual, stretching what can reasonably be concluded. Does having children lower men’s testosterone? It would appear so, based on this study and previous ones, but whether this change is permanent and how it affects fathers in general is hard to say given how muddy the relationship between any individual hormone and physical and mental traits tends to be. Lowered testosterone will not necessarily make a man more nurturing, although it could improve his health (high testosterone levels correlate with numerous health issues) and make him less aggressive or prone to risky behaviors. Considerably more data is needed, however, to understand the relationship between fatherhood and testosterone levels.

(Headline provided by Ninny Father, so don’t take it out on Dr. Pisaster. — DR

Dr. Pisaster has a doctorate in biophysics, not actually anything sexy. She does however enjoy having sex, reading about sex, and talking about sex. Especially when she’s had a little whiskey.












I'm the Intimate Stranger, Your Problems Will Be Mine: 5 Actors Who Seem Like They Might Be as Crazy as the Characters They Portray | 5 Shows After Dark: 9/15/11











Comments

I experienced my first encounter with ED approximately a year after becoming a father. Coincidence? I think not.

Posted by: Juicy Weatherbee at September 15, 2011 5:19 PM

This was an interesting one. Thanks as always, Doctor!

Posted by: DarthCorleone at September 15, 2011 5:56 PM

Here we go again, another study to justify the coming sissyfication of men. Trust me, my old man didn't lose any testosterone, unless it was a ghost in some boxers that would crack my brothers and me upside the head when we got sideways with him. My old man was old school, so am I.


Posted by: Pookie at September 15, 2011 6:28 PM

All of this stuff can be traced directly back to porn. You had two ladies going at it, then one of them pulls out a strap-on. After the lady pulls out the strap-on, what use is a man? Man become obsolete when the strap-on is introduced, he is disrespected and marginalized. And now you have these dubious studies which suggest that man is impotent. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, then man is reduced to being a prop. He has been mentally castrated long before the physical castration has taken place.

Posted by: Pookie at September 15, 2011 6:59 PM

Keep banging that drum, Pookie. maybe someone will bite.

As always, Dr. Pisaster, well done. I haven't seen the press on this, but I can imagine the wild speculation they're making, as with anything related to sex and science.

Posted by: John. G. at September 15, 2011 7:17 PM

Keep banging that drum, Pookie. maybe someone will bite.

As always, Dr. Pisaster, well done. I haven't seen the press on this, but I can imagine the wild speculation they're making, as with anything related to sex and science.

Posted by: John. G. at September 15, 2011 7:17 PM


John I’m not trying to make someone bite. I could care less if anyone responded to my comments. I said that society has turned man into gatherers when he was once hunters. It was your choice to attack me instead of writing your own thoughts about the article.

Posted by: Pookie at September 15, 2011 7:26 PM

Maybe John G. was being a hunter by attacking and you should praise him for being old school.

Posted by: Juicy Weatherbee at September 15, 2011 7:48 PM

Porn isn't the issue for men lowering their testosterone once they become dads. I wouldn't even say porn is the problem with men becoming sissies. Porn is simply the by product of what's called the Peter Pan syndrome. We are spoon feeding ourselves so much that we eventually think getting sex in the laziest format is ok.

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2011 8:07 PM

Last year I ran 3 marathons in 4 months. I finished two rounds of P90X. I wore tailored dress shirts that fit me like a glove.

Then I slipped one past the goalie, and I now have a 5 1/2 old baby boy. I am tired ALL ... THE ... TIME. I have run maybe 6 times this year. I have no time to work out. I`ve gained 12 pounds and lost a depressing amount of muscle tone. I no longer wear fitted shirts.

If my testosterone has dropped, it is more likely because of the decrease in my physical fitness due to sleep depravation, stress, and general lack of time. I would wager that I would lose the same amount of testosterone (if indeed I have) over the same period of time, were I to have the same lack of sleep, fitness, and time (and un-lack of stress), regardless of if I had a baby or not.

Posted by: The Mega Sage at September 15, 2011 8:41 PM

I’m tired of you fucking guys breaking my balls whenever I make a comment. You don’t have to comment on every goddamn comment I make, though it is your right to do so. My comments are my thoughts at the time that I write them, most of them are nothing but conversations that I have with myself. Most times the conversation has ended as soon I write them, it is annoying to come back and have to defend my thoughts. So, from this moment going forward consider my comments conversations that I am having with myself.

Posted by: Pookie at September 15, 2011 9:06 PM

Pookie, maybe you focus too much on your balls, whether others are "breaking" them, or if all of them are being turned into girly balls. I didn't know there was a conspiracy against you. I just reacted to your knee-jerk, male-rights bullshit with the same level of contempt I show anyone who displays this regressive nonsense.

Posted by: John. G. at September 15, 2011 10:18 PM

pookie, i could be wrong, but i have always assumed your comments were tongue in cheek, off the cuff and enjoyed them.

on the article, i love how the author's conclusion is that lowering testosterone probably doesn't do anything fem-positive (like nurturing) but could reduce some fem-negative attributes (aggression and risk taking).

I mention this because regardless of the techno babble about hormone soup that she provides, it still came down to identifying male traits caused by male testosterone and framing them in a negative way (less testosterone equals less negatives, but no positives. men sized up any way at all are, as Dustin would say, ninnies)

there are countless positive ways of looking at aggressiveness and risk-taking, but the media is relentlessly narrow and negative in its views of any attributes that may actually be biologically male(not that we are different except when it is convenient).

and hey Doc, last time i commented i was pretty mild with a valid complaint, and it was my first comment in at least 6 months, and it irked you so much that you mentioned me by name in your next week's column(go professional journalism!), so, go right ahead, snigger or knock anything i am saying, i'm getting used to the notion that I am not supposed to disagree with anything women say, and i get that there is 60 years of concentrated, doctrine building, government lobbying, media guiding effort bearing down, but I am gonna call shit where i see it, just like your grandmother rightfully did--and she sounded bitter and shrill too but that did not make her wrong.

Posted by: idleprimate at September 16, 2011 12:14 AM

Dr. Pissasster, you might want to check the name of your column and compare it to your comments.

even better, look at the names of your headlines, and ask yourself if you have an agenda.

Posted by: idleprimate at September 16, 2011 1:24 AM

Hey Dr. Mrs. Lady Pisaster? I love your columns from the depths of my black, masochistic heart. Please tell me you've got some smackdown coming for idleprimate, with his patronizing condescending ass. He reminds me of these kinds of guys: http://mramarmoset.tumblr.com/archive

Don't bother with Pookie though, that's just too easy.

Posted by: Rest In Peace at September 16, 2011 4:42 AM

there's always some easy humour, like calling anyone cunt--easy. shuts down listening too. but i guess that's what people do. that's ok, life is going to change, get harder, so one day it may seem moot, all this crying.

Posted by: idleprimate at September 16, 2011 6:19 AM

GOD, RIP, those are hilarious, why just the other day, we used to laugh at other groups who spoke up about hate. fuck i miss the days of porch monkeys and bobble-head barbies. they were so much easier than looking in my pockets and finding no rebuttal.

can you make me some of those about gay marriage or abortion?

no? oh, i see certain people should be shunned, maligned and slandered and no one should question this. as long as i can still sell t-shirts on the basis of fucking someone, i don't care who.

Posted by: idleprimate at September 16, 2011 6:45 AM

weirdest word salad ever

Posted by: Rest In Peace at September 16, 2011 6:48 AM

If they're conversations with yourself, Pookie, how come we have to see them? Keep your nonsense in your head.

Posted by: Juicy Weatherbee at September 16, 2011 11:43 AM

Oh, idleprimate, not you too.

You really think there's some kind of agenda against men? Really?

Posted by: John G. at September 16, 2011 12:12 PM

Don't feed the trolls! Don't feed the trolls! Don't feed the trooooooollllllllllllls!
(except Pookie, if you really want. We've been feeding him so long around these parts he's practically a pet.)

Posted by: dr. pisaster at September 16, 2011 12:14 PM

actually, i do not need to think of an agenda. i live in canada, where a rabid insane woman who declared all sex to be rape also wrote our family court law.

so, i guess, i am just a troll who you need not acknowledge at all.

Posted by: idleprimate at September 16, 2011 12:37 PM

and doc pisaster, you seem to think in a scientific way, what do you see when you look back over the columns you have written here?

if it were just headlines, we could blame rowles. but it is headlines and your attitude, opinion and stance, none of that scientific.

Posted by: idleprimate at September 16, 2011 12:45 PM

Pookie, if your mouth wasn't open all the time we wouldn't put things in it; so qui'cher bitchin'.

On topic, this was a bad article written about a bad test. Why did you bring this to our attention anyways?

Posted by: Salad_Is_Murder at September 16, 2011 2:17 PM

coz it matter to her, duh.

Posted by: idleprimate at September 16, 2011 3:49 PM

Jesus dude, just shut up.

Posted by: I mean, goddamn, dude. at September 17, 2011 10:03 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time