Plastics may affect masculinity in young boys, study says

[the iron horse]

Softeners in plastics may affect masculinity in young boys, study says | Booster Shots | Los Angeles Times

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oddly enough this would probably lead to better health outcomes over their lifetimes, if they don't engage in risky masculine behaviour.

 

[Pearl]

Perhaps none of these boys will not be pushing and harassing girls since being rough does not interest them.

 

[the iron horse]

Oddly enough this would probably lead to better health outcomes over their lifetimes, if they don't engage in risky masculine behaviour.

I don't mean to be rude here, but does that risky masculine behavior include trying to stop a rape or murder?

The question, I think, is important.

After the Virginia Tech murders, I remember hearing a commentator saying that in her opinion, if this had happened a hundred years ago, the men in those classes would have shielded the women and rushed the gunman in disregard to their own safety.

My reply here, I guess , is off topic. Better replied in the "Twenty Others Stood By and Watched" thread.

 

[indra]

I don't mean to be rude here, but does that risky masculine behavior include trying to stop a rape or murder?

If you are going to get that conclusion perhaps you should also get the fewer-boys-will-rape-or-murder-in-the-first-place conclusion too.

 

[the iron horse]

If you are going to get that conclusion perhaps you should also get the fewer-boys-will-rape-or-murder-in-the-first-place conclusion too.

What?

 

[financeguy]

Oddly enough this would probably lead to better health outcomes over their lifetimes, if they don't engage in risky masculine behaviour.

A_Wanderer is Martha apparently.

 

[Knuckle]

Any chance this study was conjured up by those "global warming" fairies to scare people into stop using plastics?


(bait)

 

[BVS]

If you are going to get that conclusion perhaps you should also get the fewer-boys-will-rape-or-murder-in-the-first-place conclusion too.

Exactly!

What?

What part did you not understand?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

hasn't some "study" shown plastic bottles can cause cancer or something? (i'm not talking about the hoax about microwaving plastic.) plastic is eeeevil!!

 

[coolian2]

glass > plastic

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

true, but glass is heavy.

 

[Irvine511]

After the Virginia Tech murders, I remember hearing a commentator saying that in her opinion

yes, exactly. in her unfounded, wildly speculative opinion.

 

[INDY500]

Masculinity in young boys is threatened by far more dangerous things than plastics. Adderall and Ritalin happy teachers, counselors, sociologists, parents and physicians would top the list.

 

[Irvine511]

i think that one's willingness to run into bullets fired from a weapon that didn't exist 100 years ago is a really poor measure of masculinity.

 

[INDY500]

i think that one's willingness to run into bullets fired from a weapon that didn't exist 100 years ago is a really poor measure of masculinity.

Valor perhaps?

 

[Irvine511]

Valor perhaps?

sheer stupidity?

Cho didn't pause to reload his musket.

but this all seems quite perverse to be discussing in a paranoid thread about plastics, which begs the question as to why this theory is adopted, yet there's enormous resistance to the mountain of evidence supporting man-created climate change.

 

[INDY500]

man-created climate change.

Sigh... remember the good ol' days when it was global warming? Something a little more objective than "change."

 

[U2DMfan]

Because it is both warming and cooling, "change" fits and is actually more objective.

"Global warming" is the strawman of the Bubba contingent, it needed to be rephrased.

Look outside, it's snowin', haha, stupid global warmin'.
Never mind that the idea about what's causing it is the real issue.

It's the way people think about it, and discuss it. The only people who want to hold on to that phrase, just want to be able to easily knock it over.

Because God couldn't possibly let humans affect the weather.
Nuclear bombs that can wipe out entire cities? Fine.
But the weather belongs to God.

And also Plastic creates Gays. You guys didn't see this subtext?
We're not talking Ancient Gays, we're talking modern, Bionic Gays.
The ones that look normal and you can't spot from a mile away.
A non-bionic Gay is of the flaming variety, they are unaffected by plastic, they just made the choice to be fabulous!

 

[Angela Harlem]

I want to know when studies actually mean coincidence, not link.

 

[phillyfan26]

Who gives a shit about cigarettes when there's PLASTICS everywhere? Jesus, we're all fucked.

 

[Kieran McConville]

pets and plastics are killing the planet, guys. plastic pets are the worst.

 

[Galeongirl]

Softeners in plastics may affect masculinity in young boys, study says | Booster Shots | Los Angeles Times

That's pretty laughworthy actually. I wouldn't take that seriously.

Phtalates are banned from being in any kind of food or whatever. So how the heck would a pregnant mother eat them? They're also banned from baby toys(apparently in the US only since 2008, in the EU since 2006) so I doubt a kid would ever get a significant amount of them in their body.
Sure, they go into the environment a little from leaking out of the plastics, but that's such a small amount it can't harm a human being. Besides, there are alternatives these days which are widely used.

Swan had previously shown that some small boys and toddlers exposed to phthalates in the womb had subtle changes in the size and anatomy of their genitals.

Note the word some. Yeah, that's some reliable research! How is this proof that that's due to the phtalates, and not some random coincidence? There's been so many paradoxal reviews on this topic, I find it hard to believe this is the absolute truth.

For what Khan said, the plastic causes cancer issue is because some plastics have or can form benzene rings. Benzene on itself is highly carcinogene, but when it's in a molecule it is usually harmless. Ofcourse there are exceptions, but you wouldn't find those products in the supermarket!

And what do you find in a phtalate? A benzene ring. So yeah, must be lethal!

 

[financeguy]

true, but glass is heavy.

As a...truck?

 

[Jive Turkey]

That's pretty laughworthy actually. I wouldn't take that seriously.

Phtalates are banned from being in any kind of food or whatever. So how the heck would a pregnant mother eat them?

Exactly! Because human skin is the ultimate barrier to all contaminants! [/sarcasm]

Note the word some. Yeah, that's some reliable research! How is this proof that that's due to the phtalates, and not some random coincidence? There's been so many paradoxal reviews on this topic, I find it hard to believe this is the absolute truth.

some child bearing women over the age of 50 give birth to children with Down's Syndrome. Notice the word 'some'? how is this not just random coincidence? [/more sarcasm]

 

[mysterious_jen]

child bearing women over the age of 50 give birth to children with Down's Syndrome. Notice the word 'some'? how is this not just random coincidence? [/more sarcasm]

child bearing women over 50 eh ? sure there are lots of those naturally occuring.
Chances of downs syndrome increases naturally in mothers over 35 anyway , so thats a bad example to use.
still more likely to happen than some plastic linked gential shrinkage

 

[Jive Turkey]

child bearing women over 50 eh ? sure there are lots of those naturally occuring.
Chances of downs syndrome increases naturally in mothers over 35 anyway , so thats a bad example to use.
still more likely to happen than some plastic linked gential shrinkage

Hyperbole. The point was just because it only happens to some, doesnt mean there isnt a link. Its irrelevant what age I chose to use. I know it occurs naturally, I wasnt implying anything else. How is that a bad example? You just reiterated the point in your third sentence. And the fact that it might be more likely than the effects of plastics (I dont know that, do you? I'm sure there are different degrees to which it affects children), is also irrelevant to my point

 

[AEON]

i think that one's willingness to run into bullets fired from a weapon that didn't exist 100 years ago is a really poor measure of masculinity.

Marines stormed Iwo Jima over 60 years ago - does that give a measure? D-Day?

Also, in the American Civil war - thousands of Confederates charged, slowly, at the Union center at Gettysburg (1863) in the face of certain death. The Union also has as many examples of a "willingness to run into bullets".

That being said - I still see masculinity present in the modern fighting force, although it is mostly limited to Combat Arms - which was a discussion in the "Women in the Military" thread.

 

[BVS]

although it is mostly limited to Combat Arms

Then I really have to question your definition of "masculinity".

I think some of you have a pretty warped sense of what masculinity is, I think some of you are stuck in a world where you have to be a cigar smoking, I can say what I want who cares who I offend, don't have feelings, can't keep it in my pants, gun-toting neanderthal in order to be a man.

 

[Irvine511]

Marines stormed Iwo Jima over 60 years ago - does that give a measure? D-Day?

Also, in the American Civil war - thousands of Confederates charged, slowly, at the Union center at Gettysburg (1863) in the face of certain death. The Union also has as many examples of a "willingness to run into bullets".

That being said - I still see masculinity present in the modern fighting force, although it is mostly limited to Combat Arms - which was a discussion in the "Women in the Military" thread.

the comparison was being made that 100 years ago unarmed civilians in a university under attack by a madman wielding a semi-automatic would have run at the attacker in order to protect the women, and this was brought up as an example of masculinity and how men today aren't as masculine as they were 100 years ago.

i think the examples you point out above are more examples of "courage" rather than "masculinity."