You must log in or register to comment.

Bifferer t1_isfyl6w wrote

That’s why it is called screwing


GullibleDetective t1_ishj57t wrote

And why they are the drill that pierces the heavens


SurealGod t1_isic4r2 wrote

More like Si-moan


GullibleDetective t1_isicxju wrote

As long as you belive in the Kamina that believes in you


Bigred2989- t1_iskmml3 wrote



GullibleDetective t1_iskoue9 wrote

It's definitely the owen Wilson wow phrase of the show/Manga (I've only watched English dub)

I loved the who the hell do you think I am kiiiick


sloppyredditor t1_isfokt8 wrote

TIL my penis has a rifled barrel


getyourcheftogether t1_isfwzzw wrote

Well, your urine comes out like it's rifled


DigNitty t1_isgqhsj wrote

Men actually do have a small flesh nodule in the urethra that causes the urine to spiral. Women don’t. It makes the stream more even.

My speculation is you can pee quieter, and less messy.


Pipupipupi t1_ishj6ma wrote

Unless you just ejaculated, then it's a full on sprinkler system.


M1L0 t1_ishl8h9 wrote

Got me lookin at my dick now


ReachFor24 t1_isj4k2p wrote

My speculation is that the spiral cleans out the urethra, especially post-ejaculation. It's why it's a lot less common for men to have UTIs than women.


JustinTruedope t1_isj5p4q wrote

That’s not why lol, might be a small contributing factor but it’s primarily due to the length of the urethra (and thus the ease for pathogens to “climb-up” to the bladder


saenskur t1_isg1jlp wrote

r/sounding are just a bunch of muzzle loaders then


scorpyo72 t1_isg5yxl wrote

Why do you persist in reminding me that sounding is a thing?


saenskur t1_isg6aoi wrote

There is no peace of mind, only chaos and regret.


2ekeesWarrior t1_isg7sbv wrote

It's why men get less frequent UTIs. Spiral stream cleans the piping better


G1CUL t1_ishqye9 wrote

No. Fewer UTI's is because your urethra is a foot long. A woman's is only a couple of inches. Way easier for contaminants to get in


Newbielurker t1_isgvtq3 wrote

My wife was wondering why I hum the James Bond theme when we’re having sex. It all makes sense now


ouyin2000 t1_isg712r wrote

Gives a new meaning to 'drilling' your partner.


goltz20707 t1_isfqew0 wrote

All bacteria and protists with flagella propel themselves by spinning the end, not wriggling. They use proton-powered rotary motors.


SaintUlvemann t1_isgnvv3 wrote

Eukaryotic flagella aren't helical, though. There are multiple types of flagella. Description:

>Bacterial flagella are helical filaments, each with a rotary motor at its base which can turn clockwise or counterclockwise. ... > >Archaeal flagella (archaella) are superficially similar to bacterial flagella in that it also has a rotary motor, but are different in many details and considered non-homologous. > >Eukaryotic flagella — those of animal, plant, and protist cells — are complex cellular projections that lash back and forth. Eukaryotic flagella and motile cilia are identical in structure, but have different lengths, waveforms, and functions.

...and diagram.

That's why the rotary motion is a surprise.


LostFerret t1_isgypue wrote

Rotary motion is not a surprise. See paper from 1901

More work building on this with self powered nanomachines


SaintUlvemann t1_ish61aq wrote

Right, but assuming you are referring to page 370 of the first link, this is the reason they gave for this spiral motion:

"The Flagellata and Ciliata are as a rule asymmetrical in form. One of these organisms, as, for example, Loxodes (Fig. 2), or Paramecium (Fig. 3), when it leaves the bottom and starts to swim freely through the water, cannot go in a straight line, but owing to its lack of symmetry continually swerves toward one side, so that it tends to describe a circle."

This is not a disputation of how the cilia or flagella beat, but rather a description of the effect such beating has on an asymmetrical object. This does not apply to sperm cells since, in terms of their form, they *are* symmetric in shape, apart from the shape deformations caused by the flailing of their flagellum itself.

In contrast, the paper we're talking about purports to have found that sperm cells fundamentally do not even beat back and forth in the first place; they only beat in one direction, and then they continuously rotate the mass of the entire "head" of the sperm, in order to keep themselves moving forward.

That's different than what your paper shows.


LostFerret t1_ishybgl wrote

Ah, sorry, didn't realize that second paper was paywalled. Fhe first paper focuses on form generating asmety in cilliated swimmers, the second paper extends that to asymmetry in either form or force and classifies swimmers as pushing (posterior flagellum) or pulling (anterior flagellum).

Both papers present the idea that any asymmetry in the swimmingof unicellular swimmers will produce circular or irregular patterns unless balanced by regular rotation linked to those forces. This is further explored in that more recent paper.

We expect EVERY eukaryotic, unicellular swimmer capable of helical / straight lines to follow this behavior, its just the way that the physics of swimming work at low reynolds numbers. Honestly, it would be way more surprising if we found a unicellular swimmer that did NOT spin while swimming.

So while sperm bodies may be somewhat symmetrical (im not sure if this is actually the case? There are a ton of weird fuckin sperm out ostracod sperm for a trip..i dont know the range of human sperm morphology), the force they are producing is definitely not. To counter this asymmetry they rotate the entire cell, not just the head. This creates a helical procession that lets the sperm swim relatively straight.

We've known that euk. Flagellum don't beat in a single plane for a while, so im surprised we hadn't picked up on the asymmetrical beat pattern of human sperm until now. The imaging is pretty cool here though, I'd love to get my cells on that scope though they're tiny compared to sperm.

The title of this post is hot garbage tho, i was so happy to see you post about the prot/euk flagellar difference.

I think this is just a case of silo'd science. I only found those two papers because im working with weird non-animal cells and the modelers im collaborating with had some questions we couldnt answer so i did a very thorough literature search. They do bacterial motility modeling and hadn't seen the paper despite it being directly related to one of their theses. Human research, especially sperm research, is pretty isolated so it's likely the researchers who published the new paper didnt know it exists.


schizboi t1_isj3d7p wrote

Love the sources, doing the lords work here thank you


SaintUlvemann t1_isjfsoh wrote

Ah, thanks for that: that second one was paywalled, yeah, and ostensibly my institution doesn't have a subscription. I'd even written something saying so, but, I lost it 'cause of whatever bug it is leads comment text to go missing after copypaste, was too lazy to rewrite.

>I think this is just a case of silo'd science.

Yeah... I'm pretty sure a pretty core chunk of my thesis is essentially just a case of me speaking into the silence of missing knowledge, created by siloed science... a siloed science silence, if that ain't too pretentious.


on_ t1_isgj777 wrote

That’s pretty amazing cause nature doesn’t like to evolve in rotary thingys. I think in macro world there’s only one insect specie that has a rotary mechanism? Our lives would be better if we as humans had segway wheels instead of legs.


goltz20707 t1_isgjupk wrote

Protista “motors” are constructed at the molecular level, with (in the case of human sperm) 16 proteins in a ring. One proton per protein rotates the ring by one protein, so 256 protons are required per rotation. Scaling that up to the macroscopic level, even just to the size of a small insect, would require a very complex design. I can’t see such a design evolving naturally — it would take deliberate “intelligent design”.


bubliksmaz t1_ish4a8y wrote

It's not the complexity that precludes certain things evolving - organisms are fucking complex enough. It's the fact that evolution needs to happen in tiny incremental steps, each of which are beneficial to the organism. For legs, that's easy: First they're just fins for swimming, then maybe they're used to drag ones body across a short stretch of very shallow water, then they gradually take more of the weight to make locomotion more efficient. For a wheel and axle... nah.


goltz20707 t1_ishbsqj wrote

I guess what I meant is that a protein-proton motor that uses things like van del Waals forces and molecular mechanical mechanisms to create motion cannot work at the visible scale. I agree that complexity is no barrier for evolution—look at clotting factor chemistry—but I can’t imagine an incremental path to “wheels”. (I will admit it may be possible.)


nsaisspying t1_isiyuq1 wrote

Have you read the book Climbing Mount Improbable?


kommandeclean t1_islbffo wrote

Sort like humankind's intelligence, it will require some "intelligent design" to bestow upon us intelligence inside an organ .. psstt.. you are right crazy to think that.


goltz20707 t1_isligjz wrote

If you can convince me that you even come close to understanding proton-pump biology and why that cannot, cannot possibly scale past the molecular level, I’ll consider your argument.


kommandeclean t1_ism1l7u wrote

Your crude attempt to humiliate me tells me that maybe your brain is an example of failed scalability of intelligence in neural networks.


goltz20707 t1_ism3fpr wrote

I apologize. I should know better than to escalate an argument like this. If it’s put you into a depressive spiral like it has me, then I doubly apologize. Antagonism was not my intent.


dogfish83 t1_ishw888 wrote

I’ve been watching modern videos on molecular biology and it’s way better than when I was in HS, so I am really into this right now. And the rotary concept has been my primary thought. How hard would it be to make artificial molecular rotary motors I wonder…


Antares30 t1_ish0rwn wrote

Intergalactic proton-powered electrical tentacled advertising droids!


V6Ga t1_ishyhba wrote

I tried to sing this to the Beastie Boys song, but could not make it work.


VerumJerum t1_ishabl3 wrote

It makes sense, considering how relatively viscous fluids are on that scale. Even water is like honey to bacteria.

Besides, we humans ourselves have shown how effective propellers are.


symbioticHug t1_ish00vw wrote

TIL that this fact is dubious - the research paper this fact is based on has been retracted since May 2021:


apollyon0810 t1_isj5u15 wrote

Also…. We can SEE them under a microscope.


ringobob t1_isjmurd wrote

We see a mostly 2D image that is difficult to discern side to side movement on a plane vs a more complicated movement in 3d space that, when seen from above, looks like side to side movement on a plane.


Chewyninja69 t1_isjk4uc wrote

…and yet it’s not removed. Good to see the “mods” doing a good job and removing stuff like this….


ringobob t1_isjm6ym wrote

Dubious isn't quite right, based on the text of the retraction, they found evidence, it just wasn't conclusive on its own.


Redsawx t1_isjzkdb wrote

The editors comment says readers found an issue in the paper. Any idea what it was? I read the paper, and although this isn’t my field it wasn’t obvious to me what caused the retraction.


myeff t1_isfoc9n wrote

> Sperm was first discovered in 1677 – but it took roughly 200 years before scientists agreed on how humans are actually formed. The “preformationists” believed that each spermatozoa contained a tiny, miniaturised human – the homunculus. They believed that the egg simply provided a place for the sperm to grow.

So, when a kid looked exactly like their mom it was just a coincidence? I'm kind of amazed some of them thought that.


Deedledroxx t1_isfrmi5 wrote

>preformationists” believed that each spermatozoa contained a tiny, miniaturised human – the homunculus.

I'm gonna inject my homunculus in you


revolverzanbolt t1_isg1zei wrote

I did not realise sperm were big enough that you could see them with 17th century magnification.


54B3R_ t1_isgnpib wrote

The microscope was invented and sperm was one of the first things that was put under the microscope


RealisticDelusions77 t1_isgtmmt wrote

There's an urban legend about a morning biology lab in high school. The teacher had the students scrape their mouths and try to identify cells with a microscope, supposedly there's a few different types in the mouth.

One girl had blown her boyfriend before school and asked the teacher why her cell was different than everyone else's. The teacher looked and awkwardly said "That's a sperm cell."


shaving99 t1_ishq151 wrote

It's because she had a bracelet that said she was down with that.


GriffinFlash t1_isgp35s wrote

Wait, the first thought after inventing the microscope jack off to it?


54B3R_ t1_isgpk80 wrote

>It’s a bright day in 1677, in the city of Delft, and Antonie van Leeuwenhoek is making love to his wife. But moments after he shudders with orgasm, he hurries out of bed to grab his microscope. After all, he’s not just spending time with his wife: he’s running an important scientific experiment at the request of the Royal Society in London.

>Leeuwenhoek has already gained quite a reputation at the Royal Society for his observations of microscopic things, and has—with the Society’s urging—looked at a lot of bodily fluids, including blood, milk, spit, and tears. This time, the plan is to see what’s inside semen.

>He quickly collects his sample from his wife, places some on a pin on the microscope, and lifts the device toward the sun “before six beats of the pulse [have] passed.” When he peers through the lens, he becomes the first person to see living sperm cells.


awfullotofocelots t1_isgnrt3 wrote

The guy who discovered them was apparently a Dutch amateur who took an interest in lensmaking as a hobby. Possibly had lenses that could magnify 500x.


megapuffranger t1_ishid7v wrote

Ok sure it’s not a tiny human but sperm is still kinda weird. Doesn’t anyone else find it weird we shoot out little moving things that look for something to impregnate? It’s fucking weird… not gonna stop me from shooting it into a napkin but… it’s weird man… like describing sounds like describing an alien species.


Newbielurker t1_isgwkjg wrote

Originally, like thousands of years ago, childbirth was just some magical thing women did. There was no real connection to the role fathers made- this only came about really with farming. But once they realised that “hey, my black bull’s calves are all a little black, no matter what the cow looks like. I wonder if that’s the same for humans” they went all to the other extreme and declared males are the source of all life. So you had stories of gods ejaculating tk make the rivers, the rise of explicitly male gods who create life with women only being used as incubators (Zeus birthing a child out of his head, and in Christianity god impregnating the Virgin Mary only works theologically if Mary is only an incubator) So once they were able to see sperm it was easy to assume they were little people because you by this point had a few thousand years saying males were solely responsible for children being born


bubliksmaz t1_ish4kge wrote

Fuck no. Even primitive animals are aware of who their offspring are, it's critical to the basic evolutionary function of ensuring their survival.


Newbielurker t1_ish671k wrote

Eh…that’s certainly a theory.

On the other hand, plenty of reptiles and fish and even small mammals will eat their children. Cuckoos literally have a breeding stategy which works only because the birds whose nests they drop their eggs in don’t recognise the children they raise aren’t theirs.

And there’s also some tribal cultures who for a long time believed that a child would have multiple fathers and would encourage a woman wanting a child to have sex with multiple men to get the best features of all of them.

We’re not naked individualists desperately seeking the survival of our own genes. Most species and for most of our existence (we’ve only had the idea of personal property/inheritance for around 4% of our existence as Homo sapiens) we’ve been tribal. Therefore the idea of “I have to know who my kids are so my genes survive” is a modern idea applied to most species when really most species are more cared about “I have to know who my tribe is so my tribe can survive”


pitchypeechee t1_ishnfkw wrote

Do you mean we as in every single human culture or maybe there are some who figured it out earlier than others?


Newbielurker t1_ishsosh wrote

Well we definitely didn’t discover it prior to the spreading of Homo sapiens out of Africa. So that’s still about two thirds of our existence as a species spent as a collective.

The big shift from “our tribes survival” being the focus to “me and our family’s survival” being the focus really came about as farming, and domestication of animals lead to physical investment in possessions that provide long term value - this created a need to find someone to pass onto, and being closer to seeing how animals breed lead to awareness of our own ways of breeding. Some societies made this adjustment later than others, and some have barely made that adjustment at all


G1CUL t1_ishrr4v wrote

I heard that 2/3 of children born are not those of the mother's husband 😆


Newbielurker t1_ishsy9d wrote

I think I’ve read the same thing, but if I recall correctly there’s a few clarifiers needed.

Two thirds of paternity tests show not the mothers husband. This is not a representative study of all parents- because most don’t seek paternity tests unless there were doubts already. And apparently two out of three times doubts were warranted


KamikazeArchon t1_isinmvy wrote

Your clarifications are correct, but also, the 2/3 is the other way around. 2/3 of paternity tests are "positive", confirming the paternity to the mother's husband/partner. 1/3 are "negative".


bubliksmaz t1_isj90cf wrote

Excuse me, brood parasitism only works because both bird parents go to great lengths to provide for their offspring, because they think they're theirs. Making this happen is the result of a stupidly complex evolutionary arms race.

Why do you think humans specifically would not have the ability to recognize this when all of our ape and primate relatives do? Yes, like many other apes we live communally and thus have an interest in ensuring our tribes survival, as a means to securing our offspring's survival.


Newbielurker t1_isjcpir wrote

I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to argue here.

Are you trying to say that all apes, many living in non-monogamous societies, have the ability to recognise which child is their's, and this is a skill human beings have as well, and we just have things like paternity tests for no reason?

And that in turn, apes are only tribal insomuch as it supports their own individualistic needs to preserve their own bloodline....despite male apes outside of human beings largely not having active roles in raising children beyond mating source

What makes you think animal societies are so individualistic?


bubliksmaz t1_isjfy41 wrote

Oh come on, don't try and move the goalposts like that. Your original point was that early humans had no concept of fatherhood, no connection between the fact they had sex with a person and the baby that popped out 9 months later.

>Originally, like thousands of years ago, childbirth was just some magical thing women did. There was no real connection to the role fathers made- this only came about really with farming. But once they realised that “hey, my black bull’s calves are all a little black, no matter what the cow looks like. I wonder if that’s the same for humans”

This is patently false. Apes have more complex social structures than what you are implying. Take gorillas for instance, where only the silverback is permitted to mate with the females of the group, and if he is ousted the new leader will kill his infant offspring.


Newbielurker t1_isjim4g wrote

Did you read the article you just link to me?

" A new silverback leader is likely to kill the infants in the group, sothe nursing females will stop lactating and their reproductive cycleswill restart. Murdering the young of other males thus makes it possible for the new silverback to sire children of his own."

So its not Gorillas recognising which children are their's and which are not at an innate level that human beings don't have - otherwise they would be wiping out children at any age. It's about having the urge to mate as soon as possible, something harder to do when a new mother is nursing a child. It's a more simpler thought of "I want to mate, and have not had the opportunity to mate before"- something your own article states, rather than "I must wipe out the alternative bloodline to preserve my own" which is fairly complex.

Thanks for sharing the article, because it reminds me at something I was hinting with when I mentioned smaller mammals before. I've seen a similar thing with rabbits. A male rabbit gets a female rabbit pregnant, the female gives birth, and then the male will try to kill the babies to get the female rabbit ready to mate again.

Now, if I'm following your line of thinking - that behavior would not make sense. The rabbit has created the next generation of rabbits. It's not trying to get rid of a rival rabbit's bloodline - it's his kids he's killing! Unless of course, the rabbit's desires aren't as complex as "I must preserve my bloodline for future generations" - and more "I want to mate"

Gorillas are a big more complex I recognise, hence their reluctance to kill their own offspring if they do not have the urge to mate currently (And Gorillas fertility periods I believe are more restrained than rabbits) - but I wonder why you think rabbits will kill their own offspring almost immediately to start mating again if, as you said earlier, primitive species like rabbits both are aware of who their offspring are and have a basic evolutionary function of ensuing their survival. (Source for information on rabbits)

And while we're up, here's an article detailing the many barriers preventing animals from linking sex to pregnancy

It even gives another explanation for why silverback gorillas are likely to wipe out infants if not because of recognising that sex leads to pregnancy.

One more interesting piece of reading - key details - Mountain gorilla males, who tend to spend more time babysitting and caring for children than most ape species - have little or no interest in whether the children are their's or not, but all males focus on caring for the children.


ooouroboros t1_ishb0yk wrote

Its possible early people regarded jealousy as related to sexual access rather then to passing on one's 'blood'.


ooouroboros t1_ishakcg wrote

forget about calves, it was extremely 'obvious' to see childbirth as being like planting a seed in the earth in order to bring about life.

Semen was the seed, the woman was the earth the seed grows in. It makes enough sense to believe even if it turns out to be wrong. People to this day colloquially refer to men 'planting their seed'.


atomicalexx t1_isgwmwz wrote

People still seem to perpetuate that belief today. The number of "I was the fastest sperm" memes I've seen blow my mind


Eborys t1_isfogbn wrote

“I’ll try spinning, that’s a good trick!”


ThePreciseClimber t1_isiqudh wrote

There's a joke here somewhere about Anakin's mother's miraculous pregnancy.


Gabi_Social t1_isfnews wrote

They must be knackered after wiggling for 350 years. No wonder my sis and her husband couldn’t get pregnant.


jimtrickington t1_isfnvq2 wrote

Well, at least there is a reason why the husband cannot get pregnant.


Gabi_Social t1_isfokj4 wrote

Yeah, I think it’s more a figure of speech than a scientific miracle.


BreakfastBeerz t1_isgpp5g wrote

Another interesting thing about them, they don't actually "swim" like they are commonly depicted. It's not a race upstream to the egg. Sperm are mobile, but their movement is entirely random, they don't know what they are looking for. They just move around and eventually one of them finds the egg. It's actually tiny muscle contractions in the lining of the female reproductive system that move the sperm up to the egg. Kinda like a bunch of blindfolded sheep getting pushed through a field by a shepherd.


koka86yanzi t1_isg9dg9 wrote

My little torpedos instead of my little swimmers… feels weird


[deleted] t1_isfnt29 wrote

I had the best spin out of a billion others. Hah!


KypDurron t1_ish2hj0 wrote

> they roll as they move forward like a spinning top

I don't think you know what "roll" means.


Aggravating_Anybody t1_isi3bnu wrote

While I completely understand there is science at work here…

How the fuck are you going to say they ROLL like a SPINNING top????????????




obadillo36 t1_isfp2i8 wrote

I thought it said sperm whale lmao


Kar_Cunto t1_isfkx8m wrote

explains why i love battle tops


Xiaxs t1_isfq9g0 wrote

I've heard it described as a screw and it seems like a really fun way to swim regardless who or what you are. Maybe faster too.

All I need is a tail...


SoIcyMicrowave t1_isgf7x3 wrote

Wish I could see an animation of this or something.


jimmyjone t1_isg2msl wrote

Tumblers better than pumpers


pinkpugita t1_isgqi95 wrote

Can't this be recorded via a powerful microscope? Since almost all sperm depictions make them move like eels.


BirdEducational6226 t1_ishkiix wrote

TIL we've known about sperm swimming around for ~350 years.


disgruntledvet t1_isgk6bh wrote

I thought they all just called for an Uber


TheDanny942 t1_isgp99f wrote

So “rollers” may be more appropriate than “swimmers” huh? 🤔


whatsit2yah97 t1_isgspml wrote

Gives a whole new meaning to “getting screwed”


Pastulio814 t1_isgxdvu wrote

The spin is key to life? Arigato, Gyro.


Oddoctopode t1_isgxl4i wrote

Its like a bullet through a gun barrel.


dbto t1_ish09r6 wrote

Can confirm- feels more likes spinning top than side to side


[deleted] t1_ish2md7 wrote

Makes sense. I tend to roll off the bed rather than wiggle my arse from side-to-side..


Exevioth t1_ish4cue wrote

“Your drill is the drill that will pierce the ovum, semen.”



frealfr t1_ish5s4p wrote

Evolved from dandelion seeds.


Laxxboy20 t1_ish75hx wrote

>Sperm was first discovered in 1677 – but it took roughly 200 years before scientists agreed on how humans are actually formed. The “preformationists” believed that each spermatozoa contained a tiny, miniaturized human – the homunculus.

TIL the origin of homunculus


FlyingSteel t1_ish91y4 wrote

A top is the wrong analogy - a top’s motion is perpendicular to its axis of rotation.


Pr1ebe t1_ishauhh wrote

I used to work in a lab and I thought it was so crazy looking at them on a slide, when they lose motility + moving the slide around using the microscope, they get a little bit of momentum and tend to just keep rolling. They have that oval looking look that you typically see, but as they roll you can see that they are pretty flat. I always thought they were like a 3d oval, round all around. But they are almost flat ovals


Vilkenman t1_ishbv76 wrote

I'm trying to understand this... the sperm rotating the tail around themself... like a spinning top while moving ?

Really, I can't picture it... "rotating around itself whilst its tilted axis rotates around the centre", so... is the tail spinning around it in a plane or a full 360 degree.. then how can you tell its axis ?

I think i'm just stupid..


Andrewop t1_ishfebf wrote

Just like a spinning top


No_Marzipan_1068 t1_ishhi35 wrote

Have you heard that drinking sperm makes you young?


No_Marzipan_1068 t1_ishhol7 wrote

When you apply the sperm all over your face, it will make your skin tight and removes your wrinkles


G1CUL t1_ishsgoo wrote

Smells a bit like pool chlorine. Why??


rugbat t1_ishkoow wrote

Is this why I get so dizzy after sex?


Nadaesque t1_ishkus3 wrote

You are probably wondering, why should I care about this?

Well, it makes a great target for male contraception. This spinny bit is the only spinny bit in humans. The problem with male contraception meds is that most of them really fuck with your desire to have sex in the first place -- it's a problem a lot of meds have, seeing as how nature re-uses bits over and over in the body, inadvertently hitting something else -- but this, this is a great target to hit.


V6Ga t1_ishyaiz wrote

Interestingly the tails only wiggle to one side, and the apparent back and forth motion is from seeing a 3d motion in a 2d plane.


Aequitas05 t1_ishz9nq wrote

Peppy Hare: “Do a barrel roll!”


adavi608 t1_isi4o7l wrote

So I drill mom, and then the sperm drills her egg? Ok.


Fartmatic t1_isil5v4 wrote

When I was a sperm I had a lot to learn


RedSonGamble t1_isioq5p wrote

Imagine how dizzy they must get!


bleepyballs t1_isipe49 wrote

Could the direction they spin be linked to left/right handedness?


Furitaurus t1_isiqyzb wrote

No wonder some of them swim in circles; they’re fucking dizzy!


Majestra1010 t1_isishei wrote

[photon torpedo sound enters the chat]


PicardTangoAlpha t1_isj05j9 wrote

Is it true the first notochord mutated from a sperm cell that did not drop its tail?


Sailorboi2000 t1_isj6qrq wrote

Do you think a gay sperm can notice the difference between a vagina and a boy pussy and spin out again as fast as it can? 😊


ikesmith t1_isj9exs wrote

Thanks, next time I have sex I'll make sure to yell LET IT RIP, when I'm about to climax.


ikesmith t1_isj9gak wrote

Thanks, next time I have sex I'll make sure to yell LET IT RIP, when I'm about to climax.


Kamanomummy t1_isjgs1r wrote

The Phrase "Let's Beyblade" just got a new meaning everyone!


Howard_Scott_Warshaw t1_iskltq5 wrote

Anyone else read this as "sperm whales were through to move....."

Boy was I confused for a good 15 minutes, imagining a whale corkscrewing it's way through the ocean.

Anyway, here's Wonderwall.


7secretcrows t1_isl9lm4 wrote

My spermies don't wiggle wiggle They roll


Sandvich1015 t1_isrxvi9 wrote

are you saying that the urethra has rifling like a gun to cause sperm to spin?


TesserTheLost t1_isg8ugu wrote

This makes sense to me. I always wondered how they would be strong enough to "swim" through such a thick medium for a long time, makes sense that they just corkscrew their way in.


Dawnawaken92 t1_isgh895 wrote

Imagine every time you cum. Instead it's just one big sperm and you have to kill it or becomes ur clones.


akaMONSTARS t1_isgldhn wrote

I’m gonna start calling jacking off as Popping tops


Warm-Alarm-7583 t1_isgm5kw wrote

Drilling depth achieved Captain.

Commence drilling soldier.


Frozen-Rain t1_isgr0tt wrote

So it’s like a beyblade lmao


CaptainBaoBao t1_isgahie wrote

FYI sperm is the French for Cum.