Plastic turns your willy inside out.

[Faggot.]

Apologies for how late this is, but I've been on my iPod as of late, and had no copying facility. Maybe I has been eating some phthalates or something.

Source.

Chemicals in plastics alter the brains of baby boys, making them "more feminine", say US researchers.

Males exposed to high doses in the womb went on to be less likely to play with boys' toys like cars or to join in rough and tumble games, they found.

There are many different types and some mimic the female hormone oestrogen.

The same researchers have already shown that this can mean boys are born with genital abnormalities.

tl;dr:

1) Certain chemicals can cause a hormonal imbalance and 'feminise' boys

2) Main chemical in question is phthalates, which is banned in toys, but still used in flooring and furniture, etc..

3) Suppresses testosterone.

What do we think? The research is - if you'll excuse me - still in its infancy, as are the subjects, so, do we question the results? Anyone on board with this train of thought? Do you think this is some of the first decent empirical proof for an environmental/pre-dispositional theory on sexuality? Does this prove anything? If true, would it be useful for pro-homosexuality lobbyists? Good for the cause? Bad? Do you care? Liberal media spinning? Storm in a teacup? Pro-homosexuality manipulative propaganda?

Any thoughts, really.

[Joker]

I think there is something in this whole, boys getting more feminine and girls getting masculine. Plastic is a cause I have heard of before.

[»Silver«]

apparently, plastic seems to be the cause of all bad things...so I wouldn't be surprised

[Stoicism]

For their to be a correlation between plastic intake and sexual orientation, there would have to be a connection between testosterone levels and sexuality, which I don't believe there is. Or there might be. I really don't know . Basically the stereotype of gays being effeminite doesn't serve as empirical evidence.

[Gemini VI.V.XCV]

I've been hearing about this lately.

[Doggy Style]

Hmm this would explain why a cousin of mine is a male cheerleader in the waiting. He was buried in plastic toys since birth. And he complains and cry's when a soft McDonald's plastic ball hits him in the shoulderblade from 5 feet away.

[AAASAS]

Im sick of hearing about these fem things. Homosexuality does not constitute femininity, this is a nature versus nurture case where nurture wins. Yes we have a predisposition towards things, but I had the option to play with barbies as a child, and I passed and went for the hot wheels, yet I'd take a cock over a snatch any day.

[Ewan]

When I was younger I played with boys' toys and with girls' toys. Toys are toys - if I could have fun with them, I did.

I also played bulldogs in the street, fox and hounds, a rather violent game called "scrooge" and other such "rough and tumble" "boys'" games (of course, the girls played too...). As well as all that I read voraciously, even at times when everyone else (including the girls) were doing some sort of sporting activity.

I don't think there's a "feminisation" of men per se, but rather people in general are realising that it's stupid to box people and activities off into "masculine" and "feminine" because what, exactly, makes that so?

Although maybe this does have some kind of truth to it. I don't know. It's not like I've done the research. I kind of disagreed with the whole "more brothers = more chance of gay" thing, though. That's mostly because of the gays I know, all of them have been the first born child, including myself. (Except my uncle. He was the seventh born and there'd been five male births before him. So. Uh.)

[Luke]

Femininity ≠ Homosexuality.

The link is definitely interesting. But I think it shows in more feminine guys, whatever the sexuality, rather than just in homosexuals.

[Faggot.]

It's fairly interesting that this news comes just a few days after this story broke. It's not been a good week for men and plastics.

I've been looking further into this story, and I've found some mildly interesting facts about it:

1) It is based on a questionnaire.
2) The law banning phthalates in toys comes into force in February.
3) The idea is that the P'tates affects the production of testosterone prior to the boys being born. Some regions of the brain might be undersized or malformed by mother-baby exposure (through cosmetics, etc.).

So, as of yet, there's not really much to draw from this whole affair, but it is interesting. I mean, 75 years of exposure may have contributed to the increased malformation of genitals in CAH girls, or the rise in androgyny. It might not, however, have had any noticeable affect whatsoever.

Alarmingly though, the tests did also indicate that P'tates might have an effect on the width of the boy's penis, but not the length. Got a thin dick? Ate plastic when you were young? Mum wear lots of makeup? Blame her.

It's all rhetoric at the moment, and I don't really place much belief in a simple questionnaire. I did read an interesting point, though:

If there is any uncertainty, it seems moral to err on the side of safety even if the known effects at this point are completely benign.

Be interesting to see what happens. I don't put much stock behind the banning of the chemical from children's toys though; it's a morally safe step, but it's also a completely token-gesture. If there is exposure in-utero then why are we pretending to care that much? If the chemicals abound in furniture, carpets, upholstery; things we encounter, breathe in, sit on, every single day, why are we only banning them in kid's toys? Hmm.

[Arrexu]

If its such a common chemical found in toys, flooring, furniture etc, then surely we would see alot more femine boys around?

Its not plastic, its just a phase society is going through. In the 60's everyone wore baggy, brightly coloured clothes and hugged trees. In the 80's everyone had disgusting facial hair and a fondness for clothes that you'd normally find in the darkest corner of an Anne Summers shop.

And now everyone is "emo" or "scene", its now a cool fashion to wear girls tight jeans, tshirts with pink, grow your hair long and floppy swept to one side etc. Means its a bugger for us gays to tell who is queer or not, cos they all look queer. But i doubt its because chemicals are turning their willys into vaginas and making them love the cock. Its just a "cool trend".

Also, nobody goes and plays "rough boys games" anymore because of Mr Xbox and Mrs Playstation. Computer games > running around in real life.

[Zomm]

My first thought:

If its such a common chemical found in toys, flooring, furniture etc, then surely we would see alot more femine boys around?

What do we think? The research is - if you'll excuse me - still in its infancy, as are the subjects, so, do we question the results? Anyone on board with this train of thought? Do you think this is some of the first decent empirical proof for an environmental/pre-dispositional theory on sexuality? Does this prove anything? If true, would it be useful for pro-homosexuality lobbyists? Good for the cause? Bad? Do you care? Liberal media spinning? Storm in a teacup? Pro-homosexuality manipulative propaganda?

Any thoughts, really.

I think the problem with stuff like this is that people take these results/findings for granted without really knowing or understanding the tangible science behind it. This isn't yet what I would call "empirical science" - that's the stuff that's printed in text books and widely accepted/peer reviewed by a substantial amount of professionals. This is just new research and (I think) shouldn't be taken seriously until either the kinks are worked out or it's counter-proved to just be more bogus, which in the latter case it should only be taken seriously to remind us not to get our bags in our bunch over every article we read.

I dont really think it's good or bad - it only creates speculative buzz. The findings are "interesting" at best. The study obviously has some holes in it as the doctor in the article says that the subjects studied were young and that the decreased "masculine play" (which I'd also like to know what constitutes as "masculine play" and why they think this is directly due to the of exposure of phthalates while in the womb) only might lead to other feminized developments later on. As Alex pointed out, their behavior could also just be explained socially as our society begins to change and also poses the question that if this is such a commonly found chemical in plastics, wouldn't we be a lot more likely to run across feminine boys?

Im sick of hearing about these fem things.

Me too.

[Neverender]

You know, I've been talking about the PCBs for years, and no one listened to me. BUT LOOK AT YOUR ANUS/SCROTUM SITUATION NOW!

Seriously though, I have issues with plastic in the first place. Oh plastic, so convenient, so disposable (but not really), and yet you cause me all sorts of guilt between the claims of feminizing and oceanic pollution. And yet I can't seem to bring myself to bathe in the dank, sticky environment that is the bottle depot, where you would be reprocessed and turned into a nice Christmas toy. I suppose my only redemption is the knowledge that I'm being ripped off with a horrific recycling fee every time I buy a case of Dasani.

YOU SEE! THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CONTEMPLATE THE WORLD. Nooo good can possibly come from it.

[Veiled]

I just find this hilarious because right now, I'm on this site, procrastinating, instead of writing a paper on the harmful effects of PCB's, for my science class, taught by my gay teacher.

[Koukla]

It's interesting, I suppose. The information gained has a lot of limitations. There were probably a lot more factors within the first four to seven years of the children's lives that contributed to which toys they would favor. And they did not follow up on everyone in the already-small group, which would make their findings not as representative they could be and of course, the evidence is entirely too weak to come to solid conclusion. As for proving something, science never proves anything.