"""A new study says that in utero exposure to certain plastics can make boys "less masculine." So many problems with this, so little time."""

That's really interesting (the study found that males exposed to these chemicals played less with boy-typical toys. previous research had shown that the chemicals interfere with the effects of testosterone on the body - for example males exposed to these chemicals develop smaller penises).

There are now a series of studies that find:

A) Males exposed to higher levels of testosterone prenatally prefer "boy typical toys".

B) In controlled experiments with several species of monkeys, male juvenile monkeys prefer boy typical toys over girl typical toys (e.g., trucks vs. dolls).

C) Girls with CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia, i.e. atypically high exposure to testosterone prenatally) are more likely to prefer boy-typical toys, despite the fact that their parents try to actively socialize them as female-typical.

From an evolutionary perspective, of course, this makes no sense. Obviously there were no trucks or dolls in our ancestral history. Perhaps there is something about the stimulus properties of the toys (shape, size, movement style) that taps into some other evolved predisposition, which then gets wildly exaggerated by social norms and pressures bent on differenting boys and girls to an extreme degree.

Alternatively, the effects could be even more indirect. Boys with more prenatal testosterone exposure may end up being attracted to playing with more rough and tumble boys. These boys may be particularly drawn to media and cultural messages that focus on toys that involve movement, power, etc. (e.g., trucks).

The other message I get from this new study is that extraneous chemicals are influencing biological processes. I wonder how long it takes before someone seizes on this study to start the handwringing over whether or not our boys today are "masculine enough".

""I keep hearing about "female Viagra," but never seem to see it anywhere...""

I'm sure it will be coming soon. With all sorts of positive and negative social consequences. There are treatments for low sexual desire now (e.g., testosterone injections for women), but many women don't like the side effects (e.g., facial hair).

I dunno, I kinda want that phone...

I think it'd be a good conversation starter, not to mention she's smoking hot with that fuller figure.

There is a women's extenze. I've seen it on commercials.

That is a creepy phone!!! I wonder if (and who) actually brought it!!!

I hate that they seemed like there was no reason for a "viagra for women". As a woman who suffers from low libido I'm offended that someone else should be able to tell me what level of sex drive I should have.

I really hope this moves forward, my relationship is excellent and taking this medication wouldn't "mask underlying issues" but help to strengthen our relationship since the only issue we have is our sex life.

The thing I've read about phthalates is that they might make boys' genitals more female-like, which isn't good. I've never heard it makes boys not want to play with guns (which isn't a bad thing). I think they also don't know about the long-term effects of phthalates. But they're in everything. From shower curtains to placemats to whatever. It's kind of scary.

I think it is a real problem that plastics, along with herbicides, disrupt the endocrine systems of living things (including humans). The fact that that it is because these pollutants act like female hormones is our bodies doesn't make it okay.

This damages the environment by declining the population of animals such as frogs. Furthermore we have the right to be free from the effects of pollution, whether its because we want to have higher testosterone levels, or any other reason.

Those doctors pissed me off. "Low sex drive is normal" and "people might rely on a pill instead of dealing with issues" ? Give me a freaking break.

I don't hear any of those arguments about viagra. No, men have a RIGHT to their erections! Oh my god! The penis is down, Scotty! Fix it now! Must have massive amounts of annoying commericals so every single man out there can get it up!

I guess they think a pill to increase a woman's sex drive is unnecessary, because women don't have sex drives. We just lay there because it's our duty and we want children, right? Gag.

I hope this drug works. That would be awesome.

Female Viagra... coming soon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8363743.stm

the plastics and masculinity study had my head exploding with issues. so much so that i didn't know where to begin, so didn't begin!

i don't know why my comment didn't show up before.

the female viagra is under trial and approval.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8363743.stm

RE: plastics in utero affecting the 'masculinity' of boys

I actually had an argument with a friend via email when he sent me THIS similar study: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/6418553/Why-boys-are-turning-into-girls.html

I thought it was ridiculous. I agree that males turning into females regarding reproductive organs is a serious problem, but this study had some far out crap in it, including these gems:

"Research at Rotterdam's Erasmus University found that boys whose mothers were exposed to PCBs and dioxins were more likely to play with dolls and tea sets and dress up in female clothes."

oh noes! boys are playing with DOLLS AND TEA SETS??? what will we do now?

And this one:

"The contamination may also offer a clue to a mysterious shift in the sex of babies. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls: it is thought to be nature's way of making up for the fact that men were more likely to be killed hunting or in conflict."

This article offers no basis for this statement, and I have read that boys are more likely to die in infancy and is a more likely theory as to why more boys are born but there are more women than men in population today. Seems way more reasonable an explanation as to why this is happening today, versus the way we lived thousands upon thousands of years ago.

There is some good information in the article regarding the harmful affects of these chemicals but the way some of it is presented is just insanely ridiculous to me. I also have to ask myself: if these chemicals are so harmful to boys, I find it hard to believe they are not harmful at all to girls. so where is the mention of the affects of these chemicals to girls? If it is affecting reproductive systems in boys, it must have some affect on hormones or reproduction in girls. Why is the whole focus on the harmful affects on boys, and only mention women in the sense that they PRODUCE THE BOYS? If there is a good reason, I'd like to hear it. (in my mind, I'm thinking if these chemicals cause less masculinity and increased femininity in boys hormones/bodies, then it is probably causing a hyper-femininity in girls which should be a cause for concern as well)

I keep hearing about "female Viagra," but never seem to see it anywhere...

Why would you expect to see a drug which is still in the clinical trial stage? It has to pass all the trials before you can find it in the pharmacy.

pthalates study:

the thing that bugs me most about this is that pthalates actually DO cause serious harm when it comes to reproductive development. they can cause early puberty and breast cancer, brain and nervous system issues, and a ton of other problems. and jeana is right, they are virtually ubiquitous. but this article chooses to focus on something so absurd that it trivializes the whole issue. if i knew nothing about pthalates, i would probably read that and think "well, if that's the worst they can do..."

the fact that this chemical possibly messes with something as socially constructed as gendered divisions of preference and behavior is SO much less important to me than seven-year-olds growing breast buds and getting their periods and thus being at higher risk for a whole host of BAD consequences from violence and early sexual experience to reproductive cancers and neurological disorders. COME ON.

Yeah, thaat whole "plays with trucks" definition of masculinity is stupid, but I do have some real concerns about the endocrine system effects of those hormones and chemicals. And those are also found in the study.

Unless we are going to throw out biological definitions and say that, any old chemical cocktail is just fine, no need to worry about hormone dsorders or infertility any longer?