I have started similar threads in the past and was accused of trying to sound like I knew something about something I knew nothing about. So I will say at the start, I know nothing beyond just being a casual observer of life and what I have read online in reports here and there.
I know that it is quite common in many social animal species for a dominant male to display higher levels of testosterone than the more submissive males, as is evidenced by many physical traits such as richer darker manes in lions or larger muscle development, posture, aggressiveness etc. Once these same dominant animals are defeated they assume a submissive roll and loose some of the testosterone driven physical traits they may have possessed.
More and more I am reading about lower levels of testosterone in younger men. Could this be because women are selecting men who tend to be more mainstream and stable as opposed to aggressive rebellious types who are not so successful? Or could it be because we are assuming more submissive rolls in society and are lacking the stimuli that produces testosterone? I personally feel that some of us falsely equate our manhood to our positions in society and even more often are jobs.
I watched a TV show a few years back about this group of lions that lived in a huge ancient volcanic crater. They had a bit less competition for mates and there was plenty of food to go around so males tended to maintain leadership of their prides for longer periods. Their manes were rich and very full and almost black in color as long as they maintained leadership, once they were defeated the mane would lose its luster and if they were defeated too many times the mane would almost disappear. These same lions were often confronted by larger animals such as water buffalo and elephants and forced to retreat and give up ground. This seemed to have no effect on their testosterone levels as they kept things in the proper perspective realizing that elephants and buffalos were just part of nature they had to deal with.
Is it possible that man has failed to keep things in the proper perspective and realize that jobs and traffic are just part of what we do and should have no effect on our manhood? Are these outside forces the equivalent to elephants in our lives? Or, because our ability to provide affects the stability of our relationships jobs will likely always have this effect on us. Or lastly jobs and social pressures have no effect on our testosterone.
The problem isn’t testosterone levels, it’s the stress that drives down the testosterone levels.
Watch this movie: Stress: Portrait of a Killer. It really explains exactly why our social environment for those on the bottom rungs of society are killing those near the bottom. It also gives a good reason “Why all those poor young men are buying fake gold watches at $500 a pop to look rich.” Bring on the lower rungs of society causes the stress, which causes all kinds of physical or psychological problems. The reason you see the lion and the water buffalo who’s top dog be awesome is because he doesn’t have the stress hormones constantly making it hard to grow and be awesome. And, the higher rung males who aren’t top dog can take out their stress on the lower run males, so they reduce their stress.
You can’t watch the movie from that link, but I encourage you to find a legal, supporting PBS way of doing so.
One way to increase levels of well-bring and to bring down stress is to give our young men a way to feel empowered in some form or fashion in their lives. If they feel like they are at a top rung in something, their stress levels will go down and they will feel better. Then good hormones go up, bad ones go down.
I would also suggest that part of the problem is the lack of physicality of our society. We don’t go out and play, we don’t get together and go be physical. Us males don’t go out and work off that steam and get the body moving. We do too much sitting on our butts watching TV, playing games and looking at our phones.
I went from a guy who playing WoW for 4-12 hours a day, to working out 1-3 hours a day, quitting smoking and eating healthy. My socio-economic status is unchanged in those 5 years, as is my lack of romantic involvement, my job and about everything else. Boy howdy do I feel a million times better. I still playing plenty of games. In fact, I played 5 hours last night. I tempered that with 3 hours of working out today.
Precisely the kind of answer I was looking for. I believe we are more mechanical than we like to believe. A healthy social life, love life, a means for creative expression etc are all important in generating the multitude of chemicals and hormones pouring through our brains and bodies at any given time. I am just baffled that medicine doesn’t key into the chemical aspect more than they actually do. Knowing exactly what chemicals or compounds of chemicals are doing what are not as important as knowing what activities simply generate the right kinds of chemicals.
I’ve seen people try to blame feminism for declining testosterone and sperm counts over the last however many decades, but that seems kinda silly to me (or it means dudes are super sensitive). I’d lean more towards water pollution and endocrine disruptors, similar to what causes the feminization of some fish.
I’ve no answers, but if you’ll tolerate another question…
I’ve been wondering if the decline in testosterone is partly behind the (apparent) increase in aggressive posturing by suburban men. This is only anecdotal, but I see a marked increase in marketing things to men by how “tough” it makes them.
It was part of the reason I started the thread in IMHO about the motorcycle gang “pretenders” I see so often here in suburbia. It seems to me that auto makers are working hard to make their vehicles look aggressive (just look at the front grill of any new pickup). Yesterday morning I saw an ad for a lawnmower that almost dripped testosterone out of my TV. It was called a Bad Boy Mower, hawked by a hottie in shorts who was nearly orgasmic over it, and their slogan was “Mow with an Attitude!” Seriously? We guys now need to have tougher lawn equipment than our neighbors?
Maybe it’s just me, but I think the marketing of benign things as “aggressive” has gotten ridiculous. I wonder who’s buying them and why. I realize masculinity has always been used in ads, but it’s now become silly.
Having trouble finding recent and reliable cites, but there have been concerns about the amount of estrogen and related compounds in our drinking water from both industry farms and due to estrogen excreted by those on hormonal contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy.
I’m also searching for a study I read that indicated that women on oral contraceptives tend to choose more “settled” men for partners as the progesterone in some pills mimics the state of pregnancy and the nesting instinct.
I am almost done reading the book “Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better”. The authors posit that societies with higher income inequality tend to be more “masculine” than societies with more equality. Assuming this relationship is true, then it totally makes sense that Americans are more masculine (or that we put on a more “masculine” show) now than in the past.
Another anecdotal data point: Every other commercial on the radio seems to be advertizing low-testosterone and male sexual-enhancement products. I keep waiting for my local NPR station to announce that their programming is now underwritten by Boners R Us. The thing I find strange is that it’s all being geared not towards old guys, but guys in their 20s and 30s. Way to make single guys totally worried about their “manhood.” Especially considering that it’s this demographic who is more likely to be un- or underemployed, so they’re feeling especially insecure about their status in the pride. If you can’t get a good job, you can’t get a woman. If you are lousy in bed, you can’t get a woman. If you can’t get a woman, you aren’t a real man. If you ain’t a real man, what good are you???
People keep referring to emerging contaminants in our drinking water. These are things like personal care products, hormones and drug compounds (especially caffeine), and antibiotics.
While these substances are concerning, they are only represented in trace amounts in our municipal drinking water supplies.
Pesticides also have endocrine effects, and their widespead use makes them a cause of concern. Drinking water supplies are monitored extensively for a suite of pesticides and other organic toxics, however. It’s not a perfect system, but it is protective.
What isn’t protected very well is groundwater. If you live in an area with heavy agriculture and you are on well water, you really need to get your water tested routinely. You can’t rely on taste to tell you something’s wrong.
Hormones and toxic substances in our food (Bisphenol A and pthalates) are way more worrisome to me than what’s in our drinking water.
How much is really known about what stimulates production of testosterone? From what I can find on line I would say very little. I suspect our natural opiates, hormones and other chemicals we produce all play a part in testosterone production. How successful we are at managing our perceptions of forces beyond our control I would think might be a good starting point.
Some source material.
And is not just in America
Some interesting regional and group variations:
An article (pdf) that may be of interest to the op’s hypothesis. Testosterone levels do seem to be effected by mating status and to impact rates of monogamy by males (according to that article).
No answers to offer either. I’m betting on synergistic effects of synthetic chemical with hormonal effects but I have no support for such a position.
http://www2.oakland.edu/biology/lindemann/spermfacts.htm
The average sperm count fell from 113 million sperm/ml of semen in 1940 to 66 million/ml in 1990.
The results, reported in the journal Human Reproduction, showed the concentration of sperm per millilitre of semen declined progressively by 1.9 per cent a year throughout the 17 years – from 73.6 million sperm per millilitre in 1989 to 49.9 million/ml in 2005
So sperm counts may have fallen from 113 million/ml down to barely 50 million/ml. Plus quantity of ejaculate is also down, as is the quality of sperm.
As to the culprit, I would assume it is a mix of lifestyle combined with all the phytoestrogens in our diet and products. But I have no idea.
As far as stress of lack of equality, the decline supposedly is happening across the world. France was the source of the second cite, and France has a very low Gini coefficient as well as a society that seems to be designed to make life less stressful (35 hour workweek, good social safety net, laws to protect employment, etc).
Stress does not seem likely to hold as Japan and Hong Kong (especially Japan) have had as much stress over this time period (or more) and Asian males there have not seen the same decline as Asian males in America. Diet though is significantly different for Asian descent Americans and those of similar descent in Japan and Hong Kong. If anything though more phytoestrogens in Asia (soy products in particular). Synthetic compounds in highly processed foods and in the meat feed supply that might have hormonal effects … that is more here.
I would like to see a study done on men who perceive themselves winners in this rat race we live in. A lion will face a direct threat to his pride from another lion and he will win or loose the fight. A man is faced with the knowledge that his mate can see better lifestyles than he has to offer on every front. Magazines, the computer, TV, the workplace etc. His only defense is to push himself to be as successful as possible or become submissive to an unaproachable , indirect but very real threat or challenge to his relationship. It can be challenging to keep these things in perspective and still maintain our self confidence in all areas, which I contend affetcs the production of testosterone just as it does in many other animal species.
An old study that somewhat addresses that. They looked at chess players and found winners to have higher testosterone levels.
Another more recent study you may find of interest, reviewing the feild.
Not saying I buy it, but passed on for your interest.
You’re confusing the lion with your namesake, which can win fights due to its loose skin.
Me muhseff - ah blame evverthang on them TIGHT-ASS JOCKEY SHORTS
Society has psychologically CONDITIONED ME to desire these tight jockey shorts - now, probably, since I am already sixty - TIME and Nature have conspired to drive down my testerone level - and I know not of the low levels of the younger guys - it is a shame if it exists to the levels discussed here
A recent C&W song went “I may not be as good as I once was - but I’m as good ONCE as I ever was”
Shit.
I aint eben as good ONCE as I once was…
I do not know much of lion’s manes and how dark and full they should be
For some reason I never could adjust to the roomier boxer shorts, and of course once they came out with SuperHero jockey shorts like Green Lantern and Batman - I had to have those even if there was not a pair really big enough for me
I may not have a big dark mane or be as good once as I once was, but I’m walking around with Green Lantern under muh jeans and maybe that makes up for something somehow…