Slashdot Mirror


Testosterone Tumbling in American Males

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo is running a story about a study that concludes that testosterone levels are falling across all age groups among American men. It says 'The testosterone-fueled American male may be losing his punch'" I leave it to you all to draw your conclusions about this, but I still wonder what my hours of laptop-fu does to me.

597 comments

  1. because... by dexomn · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's all being sold in shops in WoW.

    1. Re:because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...America has lost it's balls!

    2. Re:because... by strangeintp · · Score: 1

      The answer is plain and simple: the feminists have won. Think about when the feminist movement took off. There are definitely documented cases of psychosomatic coupling. Could it be that the feminisation of America (and who could argue that *that* hasn't happened? Separately from whether that is a good thing or not) has resulted in a populace whose mindset provides negative feedback into the testosterone-producing homunculus?

  2. So it's a good thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that I'm already a lesbian.

  3. Too Many Wussified Liberal Males by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wah wah wah, boo hoo, illegal war, peace with terrorists, legalize gay marriage, etc, etc...

    1. Re:Too Many Wussified Liberal Males by owlnation · · Score: 1

      But don't worry, your President has enough spare to act as a donor for all who need it.

    2. Re:Too Many Wussified Liberal Males by Austrosearch · · Score: 2

      Interesting. Actually I figured the decrease of testosterone explained alot regarding why Americans are afraid to pick their balls up from off the floor and fight for their liberty.

    3. Re:Too Many Wussified Liberal Males by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet it is people like Tilman, a democrat that went to Afghanastan, who was opposed to the current set of republicans. While nearly all congressional and white house republicans who avoided serving this country are the same ones that send us to war. All in all, you are full of crap.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:Too Many Wussified Liberal Males by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Nearly all the Democrats voted to go to war too. I love how the Democrats have successfully gotten everyone to forget that in this election. Guess that's what happens when you have collusion with the media to push your stories, like the Foley scandal, and making sure the media doesn't call you on your hypocrisy by pointing out your support for Studds (who actually did sleep with an underage page).

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    5. Re:Too Many Wussified Liberal Males by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Democratic party is inherently opposed to war (at least when you take into account how many military conflicts we entered into under Democrats in the White House). The issue is more that groups like MoveOn.org and others are gaining more and more power within the party, largely due to the amount of money they bring in. Let's not forget how easily Pres. Clinton's Iraq regime change mantra was forgotten and/or excused away.

    6. Re:Too Many Wussified Liberal Males by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      I agree, and that's why you sometimes hear conflicting positions within the party. Unfortunately, if you criticize these big money guys who are taking over, they will chase you out of the party. Look at Lieberman.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    7. Re:Too Many Wussified Liberal Males by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the contrary. It's due to the US sending all its most gung-ho testosterone-head nuts to die in stupid wars in faraway countries. Why don't you go join them, you sound like you want to? Then the rest of us can survive and breed with your women and produce actual viable offspring who might have more worthwhile ambitions than to go die just to impress.

  4. Any link to... by merreborn · · Score: 1

    rising obesity?

    1. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA:

      The reasons for this trend are unclear, said researchers at the New England Research Institutes in Waterdown, Mass. They noted that neither aging nor certain other health factors, such as smoking or obesity, can fully explain the decline.
    2. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Girls are getting fatter and guys don't want them and are losing their drive.

    3. Re:Any link to... by malsdavis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article suggests a link is likely (although they don't quote an exact study into such). I think though, the drop in testosterone is among the least of fat people's worries.

      I don't understand why people go on and on so much about diseases like Aids in Africa when there is a disease killing millions here in America also, the only difference being it is caused by lack of self-control rather than a virus. Yet so many people treat obesity like it's no big deal unlike other diseases. I can understand Walmart not giving a crap about obesity (after all, the disease makes the company billions) but surely everyone else must be concerned that their obese friend/colleague/themselves/relative is going to die decades before they're meant to. Would people ignore their friend/colleague/themselves/relative's disease so much if it was Aids?

    4. Re:Any link to... by steinnes · · Score: 1

      To add to your point of "the disease makes companies billions", it's worth a mention that a lot of companies try and perpetuate this disease -- with food additives, the most common being sugar and of course monosodium glutamate (MSG). Most people who suffer from obesity do so due to excessive consumption of calorically dense, but nutritionally poor foods, some even "enhanced" with the insulin response inducing agent MSG, which AFAIK is the only substance currently used to make lab rats overeat and become obese.

      However on the original topic of lowered testosteron levels, I personally believe xenoestrogens, plastic and soy derived specifically, are among the top candidates for this reason. Another very possible reason could be the current (hopefully declining) trend of fat avoidance. A good balanced diet should contain a healthy amount of saturated, monounsatured, and polyunsaturated fats, while staying strictly away from trans-saturated fats (such as can be found in abundance in all hydrogenated vegetable oils). A reasonable healthy fat intake is apparently one of the factors involved in keeping a healthy hormone profile. I reccommend reading the following:
      Xenoestrogens: the naked truth
      fats lipid hypothesis

      I'm sure this isn't news to many here, but the battle for our health, and even our masculanity still rages on -- we need to curb the food industry, and support regulations to reevaluate common ingredients as new research becomes available.

    5. Re:Any link to... by Frangible · · Score: 5, Informative

      Quite probably, yes. Adipose cells make an enzyme called aromatase, which converts testosterone into estrogen for the fat cell's use. (estrogen actually makes fat more metabolically active, so it's not really a bad thing per se) This, however, has the effect of lowering free testosterone in the body as a whole. If you lose fat, your testosterone levels WILL increase.

      However, keep in mind humans are the only animal species that actually get overall, most of their testosterone from DHEA rather than free testosterone in the blood. In addition to stimulating androgen receptors directly, DHEA is also metabolized by local tissues into testosterone (and estrogen) as needed. So free testosterone is one part of the picture. Androgen receptor sensitivity and density also matter, but I'm uncertain as to what factors dynamically affect those in adults.

    6. Re:Any link to... by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, more like the incessant pussification of the male race and the metrosexual trend. The government should mandate that those who have low testosterone for no good reason must watch movies like Commando until their testosterone level rises to acceptable levels.

    7. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. its called the pussification of the american male. men are not allowed to be men anymore. we have to all be cleanly shaven, dressed in the right clothes ( some even wear womens jeans ), get manicures, wear pink shirts etc... that is taking its toll. its like taking a lion and caging it - its just not right. Mans rough edges is what makes him man. thankfully, there are women out there who like real men and not nsync lookalike fags.

    8. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obesity isn't contagious and it doesn't leave as many orphans as untreated AIDS sufferers in Africa do. It may be a problem in the U.S., but that doesn't make AIDS in Africa any less scary. There is also a cure for obesity: exercise and a reformed diet. Let us know when there's a cure for AIDS, k?

    9. Re:Any link to... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      You don't understand why AIDS gets more attention than obesity? Tell, how many causes are there of AIDS? Okay; how many hundreds of causes lead to obesity?

      Many people seem to think people only get fat because they eat too much when it relates more to their individual metabolism which is different in everyone so methods that work for some can actually make problems worse for others. The obesity problem is much more complicated than you lead on.

      HIV/AIDS can be fought with simple education, obesity, not so much. Body chemistry is a complicated field of study of which we are only beginning to realize how the human body works. Attacking something peripheral like AIDS is easy compared to something tightly integrated with all vital organs like obesity. The thyroid gland being enlarged or otherwise malfunctioning whether through subluxation or through some chemical cause can lead to obesity with normal caloric intake. If the body metabolizes everything into fat then you will get obese. Then of course the muscle you build will be the first to go when you reduce your caloric intake to lose weight.

      Of course since I brought up the spine we'll take it with a grain of salt and realize that it's still an evolving science which is why there isn't much progress.

      This of course is in addition to fast food and other foods high in fat. Ordinarily red meat is one of the most nutritious foods you can eat but then yes, overconsumption will lead to obesity but that problem can be easily solved through education and a varied diet.

      Another problem is largely cultural with the mixing of starches and meets, the ole meat and potatoes mentality which is actually quite bad for us.

      In short, obesity is a very complex problem with new singular solution unlike HIV/AIDS. So I say, yes, help the people with HIV since there are things we can do about that and yes, educate people so they make better decisions about what they eat but that will not stop the problem alone.

      One more thing I'll add since I was an overweight child. I became overweight because I was underweight to my doctor at the time told my parents to feed more food to help me gain weight. Unfortunately this didn't stop so I spent the high school years and college years working through the problem. I'm mostly successful but there is so much conflicting information out there because of varying causes for obesity that I'm not sure how much I blame people for getting fat.

      BTW, my solution was to eat more food more often to increase my metabolism which is the opposite of conventional wisdom towards weight loss.

    10. Re:Any link to... by katsiris · · Score: 1

      "... the only difference being it is caused by lack of self-control rather than a virus. "

      I think you just answered your own question. Also, a lack of testosterone and/or a bit of glutonny and excess are slightly different than a terminal disease.

    11. Re:Any link to... by Gigaflynn · · Score: 1

      yep, exactly, exxcess fat creates eastrogen. its to do with the fact that women put on weight when their preggers

      --
      "Neo, follow the white rabbit"
      "Can i eat the white rabbit?"
      "No, there is no spoon to eat it with"
    12. Re:Any link to... by koreth · · Score: 1

      No argument about the wisdom of eating a healthy, balanced diet, but MSG has been a common food additive in Asia for quite a while. It is used frequently in Chinese home cooking; it is not just a restaurant thing there. Why is China only recently starting to experience an obesity problem? I don't think the evidence supports laying the blame at the feet of MSG.

    13. Re:Any link to... by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      One big reason for this, don't laugh, is the lack of breast feeding in America. We (not my family) give a baby an bottle of man made slop and expect the child to get all the correct nutrients as if they were cattle. My kids were breast fed and are as slim as rails, tall and muscular, with more energy to burn then a small super nova. We did nothing different in their diet after weaning, they eat the same breakfast, lunch and dinner we do, cheerios, tuna sandwiches and chicken for example.

      IMHO the worst thing a mother with the ability to breast feed can do is to use formula!

      Do some reading if your expecting!

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    14. Re:Any link to... by shma · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why people go on and on so much about diseases like Aids in Africa when there is a disease killing millions here in America also, the only difference being it is caused by lack of self-control rather than a virus.

      The reason is because one is caused by a lack of self control and the other is caused by a virus.

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    15. Re:Any link to... by aonic · · Score: 1

      The thing is, obesity isn't contagious. If it were, i think people would be a lot more worried about it.

    16. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a cure for obesity! Just don't eat like crap. It's as simple as that. Throwing in a bit of exercise also helps, but isn't even required.

      I don't understand why people go on and on about obesity like it's a disease when there are more deadly ones out there like smoking.

      There isn't a single person in a developed country than needs to be obese. You can go into a book store and buy the cure for $20 if you don't know how to eat right. Maybe buy another one on exercise if you've got another $20. Then you just have to do it. But it's up to you.

      Once you've got AIDS you're pretty much screwed no matter how hard you're willing to work to cure yourself.

      Curing obesity simply involves changing ones lifestyle. How often do americans like it when the government tries to legislate their lifestyle? Seems to me people are pretty angry and passionate about this gay marriage thing.

    17. Re:Any link to... by mar1no · · Score: 1

      Why mention Wal-Mart? Surely you aren't implying they be held responsible for people gorging on unhealthy foods. Just as you wouldn't hold a gun store responsible for what a customer does with their gun.

      --
      "you sonofabitch i didn't know!"
    18. Re:Any link to... by steinnes · · Score: 1

      Well, it's solely to blame of course, used sparingly it's just like many other chemicals we ingest, mostly harmless. However it's effect on the insulin production of the body is notable, and that causes your blood sugar to lower faster after eating something containing MSG, thus you get hungry again sooner. I'm not saying it should be outlawed, just saying there should be regulations against putting it into babyfood, etc ;-)

    19. Re:Any link to... by steinnes · · Score: 1

      Uhm, yeah I was going to say "it's not solely to blame" ... I should use preview more often, doh!

    20. Re:Any link to... by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      And yet couldn't you argue that almost(but by no means all) cases of HIV are caused by a lack of self control? If you can't keep your pants on or put a little piece of latex on your genitals before going at it, wouldn't you call that a lack of self control?

    21. Re:Any link to... by unknownideal · · Score: 1

      "surely everyone else must be concerned that their obese friend/colleague/themselves/relative is going to die decades before they're meant to."

      HAH. I do not associate with fat people.

    22. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Many people seem to think people only get fat because they eat too much when it relates more to their individual metabolism which is different in everyone so methods that work for some can actually make problems worse for others...
      And yet there is not a single case of obesity that hasn't been cured by eating a lot less.

      A bit of elementary application of energy conservation:

      Some individual does x joules of work per day. If he eats food which, when burnt, releases y joules, where y<x, he will lose weight. x varies with an individual's thyroid operation, size, proportion of muscle, etc., but we always have x>>0, so y can be set to ensure sufficient essential nutrients (vitamins, minerals, essential fatty and amino acids) without setting y>x.

      I used to be fat. I now eat a restricted diet, and am of reasonable weight. The change happened when I realised that all I had to do was decide to change my diet. That was all. Having reached adulthood, it was my choice and would be my fault if I didn't change.

      Everything else is a fat man lusting after a hamburger, refusing to ignore his hunger, and then blaming "society". And the worst advice you can give to a person in need of self-improvement is to tell him that it's not his responsibility.

    23. Re:Any link to... by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      It is maybe a bit much to pick one specific chain out and say they are responsible for obesity, but I did only use them as an example rather than state that their the cause. However I do think they definitely have a lot to answer for, the Walmart business model involves encouraging people to buy food in larger quantities than they need. They (and others like Bestbuy) actively encourage people to "buy in bulk for a longer time frame", with the business model succeeding so well largely on the simple truth that most people won't then have the self-control to eat their super-economy sized tub of ice-cream over a period of 2 weeks like they had initially planned.

      To use your analogy, it is like having a gun store which encourages criminal gun use and sells guns to criminals in an area with a high gun crime rate (Walmart encourage bad eating habits and has absolutely no problem selling super-sized ice-cream to obese people). Sure, you can't blame all the gun crime on that gun store but that doesn't mean it isn't a near certainty that the store is part of the problem and personally I think Walmart and BestBuy (along with their peers) also have a lot to answer for regarding the state of the nation's obesity problem. ...so what do they do? rather than change their business models and stop selling large quantities of fatty foods to already fat people, they start selling diabetic supplies (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=13 5355). Personally I think that is so immoral it's probably worse than the case of the gun store described above.

    24. Re:Any link to... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Many people seem to think people only get fat because they eat too much
      That's because it is a logical and factually correct conclusion. You cannot get fat unless you consume more calories than you burn. This is basic physics, here. No matter what your metabolic issues might be, obesity is always caused by consuming a consistent surplus (i.e. "too much") of food. Granted, there are many issues related to metabolism and the hunger drive that make it more difficult not to do so, but you cannot deny that obesity is the direct result of simply eating too much.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    25. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't understand why people go on and on about obesity like it's a disease when there are more deadly ones out there like smoking"

      I get your point (and I totally agree with it), but I think your looking at it all wrong with the above line. Obesity is far worse for your health than smoking. Not only that but Obesity kills your early to mid-life standard of living far more than smoking does. Smoking is a bit more like Russian roulette, their are many people in their 80's who have smoked all their life and never had a problem, others die in their 30's and 40's. Obesity on the other hand is more of a slow death sentence, their are very few examples of people living into their 80's (and only a statistically small percentage live into their 70's) who have at some point in their life been clinically obese.

    26. Re:Any link to... by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      I think there is definite difference though.

      Few people knowingly sleep with HIV+ people and basically no-one would have that "hot night of passion" if they knew it was going to give them HIV (and hence Aids). Eating super-size McDonald's meals when your already over-weight however, is definitely going to contribute to making you obese.

      The difference being that moderately fat people know that fact but still eat purely because they can't control themselves, the vast majority of people who get Aids do so because they 1) underestimate the risk, 2) think "it won't ever happen to me" or 3) take the risk and are just plain unlucky.

    27. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet couldn't you argue that almost(but by no means all) cases of HIV are caused by a lack of self control? If you can't keep your pants on or put a little piece of latex on your genitals before going at it, wouldn't you call that a lack of self control?

      Not if it's because of lack of knowledge, no.

    28. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...you're sort of right. I don't consistently consume a surplus of calories. In fact, recently, I have consistently had a calorie deficit. Yet I am obese. How is this possible? Well at some point I did consume a surplus of calories. I gained a bunch of weight, and I have been stuck in the mid-200's at 5'11". So the next person you look at an obese person and think "he must be shoveling food into his face constantly" remember that you don't know which direction he's heading.

    29. Re:Any link to... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Thank you for completely ignoring my case where I actually eat more than I did before which jump started my metabolism so my body burns more calories. You're statement of physics leaves out a lot of variables much like Newtonian physics. Yes, for general rules of thumb it works for a lot of situations. Try to send someone to the moon with that rule of thumb.

      You're statement is simply inaccurate at best. I consume twice as many calories as I did when I was overweight but I'm losing weight. This is common as well. My chiropractor was the first to suggest this approach so naturally I was skeptical since I'm skeptical of chiropractic care.

      So I'm sorry to say you are either incredibly shortsighted or don't understand metabolism. My sister had an enlarged thyroid which is a common problem among the women in my family. It's a hereditary condition. It causes her metabolism to halt to a relative standstill so she gained a lot of weight and couldn't had a diminished capacity to produce adrenalin. She recently got out of surgery for her condition and she's improving a lot eating the same amount of food.

      Please try to realize this problem is no where near as simple as you think it is. Desk jobs are big cause of a low metabolism since people sit at their desk and snack commonly. I guess we all should work in construction or should move furniture in our off times so we get the exercise we need. It is a cop-out as everyone can make time for exercise but it is natural when you have a desk job to feel tired after sitting on your ass all day.

    30. Re:Any link to... by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      I was breast-fed and I'm still overweight. There might be a correlation, but that's certainly not a major factor. Before you ask or accuse, I'm not morbidly obese and panting from the effort of moving the keyboard from the desk to my lap. I helped roof a couple of houses over the summer as well as helping to build a shed. Not obese, just fat. It's most likely the healthy diet you give your kids instead of the breast-feeding. When I was living with my mom all we had were microwave dinners and the occasional sack of fruit. Now that I'm living alone I eat a fuckton of vegetables and fruits with sparing amounts of meat. I've lost about 10 pounds since I moved out.

      --
      SRSLY.
    31. Re:Any link to... by monteneg · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure your arguments about Aids are any different than what applies to overweight people. How many overweight people getting a super sized McDonald's meal think they're going to end up on insulin and/or dialysis?

      I'd say a bigger difference between the two is that in Africa AIDS kills you in your 20s/30s and leaves your kids as orphans, whereas obesity usually won't kill you until your kids are grown up.

    32. Re:Any link to... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Who was suggesting it wasn't his/her responsibility to do something about it? You're use of math to sound smart only accomplishes the opposite as you make a highly flawed assumption that the same math applies to everyone the same when it simply does not.

      When I lift a 30lbs weight I do not burn the same number of calories as when you lift the same weight. I can pretty well guarantee it because I can pretty well assume we eat different diets at different times.

      As for your first assumption you ignored my case which is a common one as well. I eat more, I eat 5 meals a day now and I'm losing a lot of weight. They are smaller meals spread throughout the day to keep my metabolism high.

      Happy you were able to diet successfully. I am not on a restricted, I am just reasonable with my food and creating a habit that is more healthy than only eating lunch like I used to. I can even still drink a soda during the day if I like.

    33. Re:Any link to... by illegalcortex · · Score: 1

      A sample size of one is a bit small to be drawing these conclusions. Might as well conclude that your kids are thin because you have brown hair.

    34. Re:Any link to... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1
      Obesity is far worse for your health than smoking.

      Smoking tends to lead to weight loss (as nicotine is a stimulant). And obesity became an epidemic in the US only recently, around the same time that smoking became demonized and smokers were increasingly restricted and penalized by smoking bans. Coincidence?

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    35. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have to all be cleanly shaven, dressed in the right clothes ( some even wear womens jeans ), get manicures, wear pink shirts etc...

      Huh.

      Who is it, exactly, that is forcing you to get manicures, wear pink shirts, wear women's jeans, and look like nsync? I may just not know the sort of women you are trying to romance this way. I feel for you, though, I really do.

      Personally, I tend to associate lots of testosterone with a lot of pretty stupid behavior, so we may all be better off if it's on the decline.

    36. Re:Any link to... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      What BestBuy are you talking about? The only bestbuy I know sells computer/electronics products. I don't seriously see how they could be blamed for making people fat. Oh, they sell TVs, which people sit in front of and get fat. They also sell MP3 players which people may use while going for a jog.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    37. Re:Any link to... by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      Argh, I meant Costco. I have a peculiar habit of often getting those two companies mixed up. I remember I once started driving towards Best Buy when I actually wanted CostCo.

    38. Re:Any link to... by Draknor · · Score: 1

      Thank you for completely ignoring my case where I actually eat more than I did before which jump started my metabolism so my body burns more calories.

      GP didn't completely ignore your case, although it did present an oversimplified version, perhaps. Conservation of mass says that if you input more than you output, you have to gain weight. Of course, its not fair to focus only on the input side of the equation. What you output (in terms of waste & energy from metabolism), has a lot of dependencies, including what / when your inputs are.

      You may be consuming twice as many calories now and losing weight -- but what else has changed? Are you eating the same types of foods (calories from a twinkie do not have the same metabolic impact as calories from a whole-grain granola bar, etc) Are you exercising more? From your previous post it sounds like you are eating more often -- maybe 4-5 smaller meals instead of 2-3 bigger meals? Has your lifestyle changed? Has your stress level changed? Has your age changed? All of these can have an important impact on your metabolism, so it's not fair to say simply eating more made you lose weight. That may be the end result, but that's just as short-sighted as saying eating less makes you lose weight -- both are over-simplifications.

      My experience is that there are a lot of ideas about diet, but no one really thinks of the full picture, probably because everyone with a diet idea usually has an agenda (either supporting a particular industry - eggs, beef, dairy, etc -- or they've got a million hot new diet books or pills or shakes to sell). Simple methods that work over time don't seem to get much press (ie eat a balanced diet, with a little of everything and not too much of any one thing, and exercise regularly).

    39. Re:Any link to... by feepness · · Score: 1

      I can understand Walmart not giving a crap about obesity (after all, the disease makes the company billions) but surely everyone else must be concerned that their obese friend/colleague/themselves/relative is going to die decades before they're meant to.

      Walmart has friends/colleagues/relatives?

    40. Re:Any link to... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      I agree with you completely. I was specifically arguing that the weight problem is a complicated issue unlike the HIV/AIDS problem. There is no one solution and there are a lot of variables to consider which is why obesity is such a problem.

      I shouldn't say the HIV/AIDS problem is simple either but it is a fair sight simpler than the original topic.

      I argued that because there was so much conflicting information from the sources you specify that obesity is such a problem. It has a lot of causes so it needs to be seen as something that isn't a disease, but a symptoms of other diseases/conditions. Some people lack the self control and take in regularly more than their body can use. Some people lack the hormone receptors to acknowledge that they are full. There are hundreds of causes that lead to obesity.

      For the record, I take in twice as many calories but you're right, I eat better food, I exercise more, I don't drink as much, I try to sleep more regularly although that's proven quite difficult as my body doesn't seem to want to work that way. I get in a routine and then my body jolts me out of it with insomnia for a month. Fun stuff and they all play a part.

    41. Re:Any link to... by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      My wifes been studying to be a dula so we've been immersed in that culture of a more nature child :-) I have over the last 10 years paid a lot of attention to the people we know/meet a have talked with them about bottle vs breast feeding. It just seems that those that were breast fed where slimmer.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
    42. Re:Any link to... by Shai-kun · · Score: 1

      When their preggers what?

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    43. Re:Any link to... by Salvance · · Score: 1

      Some would argue that AIDS is a disease caused by lack of self-control as well ... I guess the cause and seriousness of either disease are a matter of perspective

      --
      Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    44. Re:Any link to... by anicca · · Score: 1

      I don't see how retching will help build testosterone levels..

      --
      A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both. Dwight D. Eisenhower
    45. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen to that!
      Arnie's thighs are positively delicious in this film
      Not to mention that is bulging biceps make me positively weak in the knees!.
      Yum! Sign me up!

    46. Re:Any link to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I said "some individual does x joules of work per day", not that x is the same for all -- the point is that it is always much greater than zero, so one method of losing weight that will always work is to eat fewer calories per day than you burn to maintain life. As you imply, everyone has different requirements; despite what your great-grandparent post states and almost every piece of food packaging suggests, there is no "normal caloric intake". Your metabolism may slow down initially, but eventually the law of energy conservation will win. If good exercise accompanies a good diet, loss of muscle mass shouldn't be much of a problem either.

      I agree that there may be better methods for some, such as frequent, small meals, where "better" may mean easier on the weak-willed, or better for improving metabolism or reducing stress on the digestive system. Planning an appropriate weight loss regime is well advised, but every fat adult has the first method to fall back on - you suggested that the problem was partly "cultural", which suggests we have a culture of forcing adults to eat fat. We don't: McDonalds exists because adults choose to buy from McDonalds.

    47. Re:Any link to... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      "There is no one solution and there are a lot of variables to consider which is why obesity is such a problem."

      But there is a very simple solution which will work for everyone. Eat less food or do more excercise.

    48. Re:Any link to... by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      If the problem is glandular then this approach will not result in a healthy form of weight loss. Yes, technically ingesting fewer calories should result in weightloss but how many on which days is necessary to accomplish the day? It's Monday, I can probably have 3,000 calories today and burn it all, tomorrow I may be doing the exact same activities and only burn 2,000. It all depends on my individual body chemistry and it varies from day to day, hour to hour.

      Also, starving yourself to lose weight is known to cause other problems like an inability to cope with stress, over production of adrenalin to keep you going and several other side effects of that weight loss can occur. Who cares if someone lost 100lbs if their heart is about to give out from the stress of losing the weight?

      More exercise is generally just a good idea for everyone so we can at least agree on that. Although, if you're starving and exercising like a lot of anorexics then you may only be damaging your muscle tissue because your body isn't getting what it needs which is food.

    49. Re:Any link to... by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you that many people who get AIDS/HIV suffer from a lack of self-control as well as being very bad gamblers (risk vs. reward), the problem in Africa is especially tricky because rape is so prominent over there what with all the crazy guerilla-war-fare-take-all-the-women-and-rape-all- the-horses stuff going on.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    50. Re:Any link to... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I suspect this may be a case where correlation does not imply causality. It's entirely possible that children who were breast fed came from families that cared more about health over convienence and instilled those beliefs in their children.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    51. Re:Any link to... by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

      To be honest I have never gone looking for the studies myself but http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=&safe =off&q=breastfeeding+study+obesity&btnG=Search seems to have a lot of information.

      My opinion, from watching and talking to friends using bottles, is the children are getting fed far to much overly rich formula. Lets face it sticking a warm bottle of food in a kids mouth is more convenient then whipping out a breast and with our societies prejudices it can be difficult in public. Friends also tell me how they use the bottle as a pacifier and I have to wonder how many children are getting a bad start with over eating. Correct me if I'm wrong, I frequently am, but it's difficult to get rid of those fat cells once they are created?

      There are studies ( just goggle breastfeeding and studies) also showing relationships between illness and lack of breast feeding (both for the child and the mother) as well as social issues.

      I wonder if we loose bonding skills and other social skills for the lack of breastfeeding or conversly do we reinforce them by breastfeeding. If so do those lost skills also contribute to obesity ?

      Maybe its time to look closer at what was meant to happen by the very biological/genetic nature of women having a built in milk factory?

      BTW If your new to all this, expecting, diapers are costly enough but wait till you price formula, what a racket they have!!!!

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  5. Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by embeejay · · Score: 1

    After all, we don't need to hunt wild animals to survive anymore.

    1. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by William_Lee · · Score: 1
      After all, we don't need to hunt wild animals to survive anymore.

      Spoken like a true /. milquetoast.

    2. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhh... diets high in animal protiens are already linked to lower testosterone and higher estrogen levels. I would say, if anything, meatier American diets are likely the culprit.

    3. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by benzapp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh yeah, all those vegan pussies are just so ripped and sexually potent... Not to mention them chinese who eat nothing but rice and a few pinches of fish.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    4. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's an answer to the question:
      Are We Not Men?
      We Are Devo!

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    5. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by JakusMinimus · · Score: 1

      uhhh... diets high in synthetic hormones are already linked to lower testosterone and higher estrogen levels. I would say, if anything, meatier American diets are likely the culprit.

      there, fixed!

      --

      You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
    6. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      I'd think it has more to do with our food supply, population levels, and pollution. Testosterone being a sex hormone, it's quite possible that it goes down as a species survival response when there are too many people everywhere you turn. Or it could be that the food we eat today is of such low quality, that our bodies are giving up. Or there's a testosterone limiting pollutant that's pervasive in our air/food/water.

    7. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by benzapp · · Score: 1

      No, but it does lead to intellectual laziness and a propensity for moral superiority, a feminine trait necessary for the indoctrination of small children.

      You can look up the statistics yourself, you lazy bastard.

      http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php ?theme=8&variable_ID=193&action=select_countries

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    8. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny
      Doesn't low testosterone lead to vague and racist over-generalizations?

      You're thinking of beer.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by chucklinart · · Score: 1
      After all, we don't need to hunt wild animals to survive anymore.
      No, but we do need to mate. Testosterone can be handy for that.
    10. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... because these days, meat animals are pumped full of hormones.

    11. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by EinZweiDrei · · Score: 1

      [Preface: I normally make it a point not to get riled up over the internet, but I frankly can't stand this kind of crap.]

      I encourage you to go to www.mikemahler.com and never say "vegan pussy" again. Or the website of any one of many vegan strongmen, marathon runners, or bodybuilders. I myself have been vegan for five years, almost, and I'm willing to bet that I could give you a run for your money in, among others, a one-armed pushup or cardiovascular endurance contest. [7 with each arm, approximately 5 miles run a day.]

      Implying that veganism dooms one into being a scrawny wimp is like implying that omnivorism dooms one into being overweight -- anecdotally supported, but wholly wrong.

      Good day, sir.

      --
      Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
    12. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by benzapp · · Score: 1

      It's funny, you're the one promoting anecdotal evidence. See my previous post in this thread. Orientals have a lower than average testosterone level, and a correspondingly low intake of meat. That is an valid argument.

      As well, especially for women, there is a strong correlation between insufficient dietary intake of cholesterol and a variety of mental illnesses. Your limited understanding of human biology probably leaves you believing consuming cholesterol is bad (it's necessary for humans, and all primates). You probably don't even know that cholesterol is the second largest component of your brain after water, or that it is fundamentally what differentiates cell membranes in animal cells from cell walls in plants. You probably didn't even know that human breast milk is over 20% cholesterol for many months after pregnancy.

      And there is the honest to goodness argument you can't ignore: being a vegan bodybuilder is absolutely impossible without modern technology. These people are taking vitamin B12 supplements and are taking free-form amino acids.

      If you want to fill your body with industrially manufactured crap, be my guest.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    13. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by EinZweiDrei · · Score: 1

      Yours was an anecdotally-based generalization. Thus my anecdotal evidence was valid for the purpose of a counter-example. Anecdotal was all I was shooting for.

      As for that long string of tangential straw-man attacking [When did cholesterol enter into the discussion?], I have nothing to say.

      And I'll be the first one to admit that a 100% strict vegan diet depends upon a certain level of development. However, so do most of our diets these days. Really, as long as we are not out there farming, foraging, and hunting and trapping our own food, we are all sons of bitches. And I mean that -- all of us.

      One wonders, too, about the level of "manufactured crap" in your own diet, friend benzapp.

      --
      Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
    14. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by benzapp · · Score: 1

      As for that long string of tangential straw-man attacking [When did cholesterol enter into the discussion?], I have nothing to say.

      There are more successful male vegans because women require significantly more cholesterol than do men. Actually, women store cholesterol as part of the uteran wall to aid the rapid growth of a new fetus, as every single cell requires cholesterol to be manufactured. Given our large brains, humans are composed of more cholesterol than any other mammal. Much depression is caused as a negative feedback mechanism to further additional cholesterol consumption. Nearly 25% of American women will be on an antidepressant at some point in their life. Low blood plasma levels of cholesterol are currently the only known biological indicator of suicidal depression. Children fed formula instead of breastmilk, with the only substantive difference being one contains cholesterol and one does not, have an appalling rate of development disorders.

      The point here is that obviously eating meat has nothing to do with gaining muscle. A horse is a lot stronger than you and eats nothing but grass. It is our brains that make us special, and it should be no surprise that the dumbest animals are the ones that are strict vegans.

      Every ethical choice is not without it's consequences. You should be more concerned with your own kind, than Bambi. There isn't a single vegetarian primate, what the fuck makes you so special?

      Really, as long as we are not out there farming, foraging, and hunting and trapping our own food, we are all sons of bitches.

      I don't think so. I purchase all of my food from an organic food co-op. We have many excellent relationships with local farmers. It is much easier than you think.

      One wonders, too, about the level of "manufactured crap" in your own diet, friend benzapp.

      Actually, none, unless I'm travelling and don't have a choice. But when I do eat manufactured crap, I don't suggest it is the most ethical course of action possible. There is a difference.

      Meanwhile, I'm going to go home and drink the blood of a nice fawn I slaughtered this weekend. I'll be thinking of you.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    15. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by EinZweiDrei · · Score: 1

      I love you.

      --
      Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
    16. Re:Maybe it's just a sign of evolution by benzapp · · Score: 1

      I hate you.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
  6. Weenies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You americans are all a bunch of girly men! Little panzy girls! Ah!

  7. I for one.... by tloh · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...welcome our new metro-sexual overlords?

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    1. Re:I for one.... by tloh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On a less lame note, does this mean young geeks are dealing with less of the aggressive bully types? And on a slightly more serious note still, I wonder if any study has been done on the role of male sex hormones in the sociobology of humans. It is a generally acknowledge (though AFAIK not yet understood) fact that women who live in the same dwelling eventually develop synchronized menstrual periods. But with regard to males, I can only think of examples in the animal kingdom where territorial males would deposit their own scent to "mark their territory"...... I'm sure someone else can come up with a better joke on that note than I could.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    2. Re:I for one.... by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or... could it be related to the increasing use of growth hormones in our food supply (for example female growth hormones
      used to increase milk production in cattle)?

      --
      Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
    3. Re:I for one.... by Perp+Atuitie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not a study, but some interesting stories about testosterone and the lack of it as told by those who lived through some heavy changes. A This American Life radio broadcast you can listen to here.

    4. Re:I for one.... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      I think it's funny that "metrosexuals" are regarded as effeminate. Most of that type are in excellent shape, and the reason they spend so much time on clothes, hair, etc. is to attract women.

      Really the "metrosexual" type is a return to form for the male of the species. Until fairly recently in historical terms (say, a century and a half or so) men who could afford to do it were expected to put on a display just as much as women were. The idea that caring about how you look is somehow "unmanly" is almost surely a temporary phenomenon.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:I for one.... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Outstanding post, tloh. But the sentence, They noted that neither aging nor certain other health factors, such as smoking or obesity, can fully explain the decline.

      leaves much to be desired. Indeed, the rates of obesity have been rising steadily over the past several decades, and there is a correlation between obesity ad lower testosterone rates in males. Also, this outfit that did the research has enjoyed a relationship for a long time with the FDA, and that in and of itself is highly susect.

    6. Re:I for one.... by students · · Score: 1

      Some women are attracted to effeminate men.

    7. Re:I for one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think it's funny that "metrosexuals" are regarded as effeminate.
      Do you also think it's funny that water is regarded as wet? You must be a really happy guy to get a chuckle out of the obviously true.
      Most of that type are in excellent shape, and the reason they spend so much time on clothes, hair, etc. is to attract women.
      They are also extremely effeminate. If it works for them, who's to argue, though.
      Really the "metrosexual" type is a return to form for the male of the species. Until fairly recently in historical terms (say, a century and a half or so) men who could afford to do it were expected to put on a display just as much as women were. The idea that caring about how you look is somehow "unmanly" is almost surely a temporary phenomenon.
      Putting on a display doesn't have to mean acting like a woman, nor has it typically meant that historically. You either don't know what a metrosexual is, or you are delusional.
    8. Re:I for one.... by TheRon6 · · Score: 1

      You fool! The metro-sexuals won't become our overlords... this is just an evil plot so the human race will become weak enough for the Crab-people to take over!

      --
      Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
    9. Re:I for one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think it's funny that "metrosexuals" are regarded as effeminate. Most of that type are in excellent shape, and the reason they spend so much time on clothes, hair, etc. is to attract women.

      The definition of effeminate does not concern the intentions of the effeminate person.

      The idea that caring about how you look is somehow "unmanly" is almost surely a temporary phenomenon.

      What? Because something is a modern invention (if it even is), suddenly it's a "temporary phenomenon"? You must've lost your sense of your logic when you when all effeminate.
    10. Re:I for one.... by Servo · · Score: 1

      Isn't FABULOUS!?

      --
      A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    11. Re:I for one.... by Acer500 · · Score: 1

      I was lead to understand that is the case in Japan?

      Actually I read it here in Slashdot, in a discussion on Blood Elves in WoW :P

      The relevant link was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishonen

      --
      There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    12. Re:I for one.... by Digi-John · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you want to hear from people incredibly lacking in testosterone, just listen to This American Life. You don't even have to pick a specific show, just tune in any time to hear effeminate men whining.

      --
      Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
  8. Logical conclusion by suso · · Score: 0

    1. Testosterone drops in males.
    2. More females born as a result.
    3. Evolution in females to ensure survival.
    4. Single gender species results.

    I've thought about this since I first saw that STTNG episode with the single gender species.

    In some ways I think that homosexuality may be some evolutionary precursor to this.

    Interestingly enough, I just had a baby girl last month. I've also noticed that almost all of my co-workers have daughters. This is of course anecdotal evidence, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

    1. Re:Logical conclusion by JWW · · Score: 1

      Testosterone really has nothing to do with whether a child is a girl or a boy, it has more to do with having the drive to even procreate at all.

    2. Re:Logical conclusion by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      But what happens if #3 doesn't happen?

    3. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gender is determined by whether you have a Y chromosome or not, not by the levels of hormones in your parents. Males have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, while females have two X's, and each parent gives one sex chromosome to their child, so the child is XX (female) with probability 1/2 and XY (male) with probability 1/2.

    4. Re:Logical conclusion by suso · · Score: 1

      You're probably right. I still have this theory that we may be heading for a single gender species. I'm misappropriately applying this finding to back it up. Probably not a good thing since I'm no biologist.

    5. Re:Logical conclusion by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Informative

      What does testosterone have to do with the gender of the child? The gender is a result of chromosome combination. The woman contributes XX, and the man XY. Depending on whether your "X" or "Y" chromosome gets used, the resulting child will be male or female.

      Interestingly, spermatozoids carrying the "Y" swim faster, and can be told apart from the "Y" ones that way.

    6. Re:Logical conclusion by laffer1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      In 100,000 years we die out and get replaced by cats.

    7. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Testosterone has nothing to do with homosexuality either. Just look at all the big hairy muscle bound bears.

    8. Re:Logical conclusion by mkavanagh2 · · Score: 1

      listen to this man

    9. Re:Logical conclusion by bcat24 · · Score: 5, Funny

      But cats already rule the world; we just don't want to admit it. Behind every evil genius is an even more evil cat.

    10. Re:Logical conclusion by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, "Y" spermatozoids are faster, but "X" ones live longer. So, if by the time they're inside and no egg is there to be fertilized, chances are that "Y" ones will die, and "X" will win if an egg is released afterwards.

    11. Re:Logical conclusion by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the record, there's no data that suggests a correlation between testosterone levels and homosexuality. In fact, physicans once tried to "treat" homosexuality with testosterone injections, and the subjects just became more homosexually active.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    12. Re:Logical conclusion by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 2, Informative

      What I've heard, testosterone is related to sexual drive. I know some mid-age women that have been treated with testosterone to cure their lack of interest in sex, and it works. Like the parent said before me, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. At all.

    13. Re:Logical conclusion by AusIV · · Score: 1

      I've not seen many biologists suggest that we're moving towards a single gender species. I've heard several suggestions that the Y chromosome will eventually fade out of existence, but that another chromosome would likely replace it as the sex determining chromosome. The resulting species would be more feminine, but there would still be differentiation.

    14. Re:Logical conclusion by Quantam · · Score: 3, Funny

      Admit it: you just want an excuse to watch lesbian porn

      --
      You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
    15. Re:Logical conclusion by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Funny

      since when do I need an excuse?

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    16. Re:Logical conclusion by gripen40k · · Score: 1

      Apparently because males have one y and one x chromosome, and females have two x chromosomes, the male y has no 'pair' in order for it to regenerate and repair off of. Therefore, in some wayyyyy distant future the y chromosome will have degenerated to the point that it can no-longer be able to store the right info you need to grow from an egg. So in a sense, males will eventually die out, as long as we don't figure out a way to stop the y from degenerating. Of course, evolution may take it's course and we will develop some kind of environmental sex determination, like reptiles that determine sex from incubation temperature. Anyways, here is an article that talks a bit about the Y chromosome and degeneration.

      --
      Har?
    17. Re:Logical conclusion by Kandenshi · · Score: 1
      eh, it's not quite that clear for some people.

      Go poke around google for information on androgen insensitivity syndrome for some information on people who have an XY genotype, but are thought of as women by most people, including themselves.

      To quote the wikipedia article:

      Complete AIS
      People with CAIS are girls or women with internal testes, 46,XY karyotypes, and normal female bodies except for shallow vaginas and lack of ovaries, uterus, menses or fertility. Gender identity is female.


      *clip*

      Adult women with CAIS tend to be taller than average, primarily because of their later timing of puberty. Breast development is said to be average to above average. Lack of responsiveness to androgen prevents some usual female adult hair development, including pubic, axillary, upper lip. In contrast, head hair remains fuller than average, without recession of scalp or thinning with age. Shallowness of the vagina varies and may or may not lead to mechanical difficulties during coitus. Although the testes develop fairly unexceptionally before puberty if not removed, the testes in adults with CAIS become increasingly distinctive, with unusual spermatogenic cells and no spermatogenesis.

      By clinical reports and information from support groups, women with CAIS are at least as likely as other women to have a female gender identity and to be attracted sexually to men.
    18. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried to write my response with male lactation but all I did was gum up my keyboard. Dang it, where did I put my testosterone?

    19. Re:Logical conclusion by eno2001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My theory on homosexuality is that it is a natural population control mechanism when an environment begins to exceed it's carrying capacity. I would suggest that is real study were done, you'd find less homosexuality in environments where there are plenty of resources and a small population. Contrary to that, I think you'd find abundant homosexuality in ares where resources are scarce and overpopulation is a problem. (Note: I'm not talking about "out" homosexuality, because cultural pressures are often contrary to natural and normal behavior) Of course I believe in a firm biological basis for sexual preference. I also believe that there are two kinds of sexual preference, which most people tend to not want to think about. I think that the "bi" population of married women who occasionally have "lesbian" encounters is a perfect illustration. I put the "lesbian" in quotesd because these women are not lesbians as they don't have any romantic interest in women at all. They might like their female sex partners a lot. They might even go as far as saying that they love them. But they won't leave their husbands for these women. Therefore this behavior is a completely different thing when compared with real lesbians who truly have no romantic+sexual interest in men. But, to add more complexity to the mix, take the segment of the true lesbian population who DO have a sexual, but non-romantic interest in men. Typically this sort of relationship is sadistic in nature and part of the BD/SM culture. These lesbians might want to be involved with a submissive man's wife in both a sexual and romantic nature. They might also want to submit the male member of this threesome to homosexual acts. In this instance the lesbian has no true interest in the male at all other than to humiliate him. Another segment of the population are the "straight" men who get involved in secret sexual relationships with other men. One or both men might strongly assert that they are "straight" and excuse the homosexual interaction as just "horsing around". If you look at it from the perspective of pure sexuality, these men are interacting in homosexual activity which implies that they are homosexual regardless of what they may say. If you look at it from the romantic+sexual perspective, these men have no desire or longing to have a romantic relationship at all. From that perspective, they are "straight". All of this illustrates that human beings all fall somewhere on a continuum of sexual identity. All societies put too much focus on the sexual behavior as being intertwined with romance. The way I see it:

      1. You have sex for pleasure which can be had in any combination of genders, any number of participants, any marital status and has no romantic value whatsoever.
      2. You have sex as a symbol of romantic love, which can also apply to any combination of genders, participants and marital status, however it most traditionally is between two people of the same or opposite sexes.
      3. You have sex as a "quick fix" anitdote for boredom, which can occasionally be same sex gratification with a huge guilt complex to follow if you confuse sex with romantic intention
      4. You have "handshake sex" which is simply quick sex with no strings attached. A fairly difficult kind of sex to truly engage in as most people apply the strings no matter what they say on the surface
      5. You have minimal sex romance where the involved partners love each other on a higher romantic plane and may or may not indulge in sex, but may very well be same or opposite sex partners (This is typically the type of relationship that is headed for marriage)
      6. You have maximal sex romance where the involved partners are extremely romantic and sexual in nature, may be of the same or opposite sex and they engage in a variety of sexual and romanti endeavors together (polyamory, swingers, open marriage, etc...)

      Most people don't like this sort of complexity and shy away from it, but I firmly believe it's inescapable and has a true bilogical function in terms of a self-regulating environment. We are merely cogs in the machinations of the sexual realm. With that view, I say that anything goes, and you should just go with the flow...

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    20. Re:Logical conclusion by jagdish · · Score: 1

      Cats? I always thought Lizards rule the world.

    21. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you do realize other species that have been around for a long long time, also have sex chromosomes? There is aboslutely no biological basis for saying they will all go away in the future. BTW, IAAB (I am a biologist).

    22. Re:Logical conclusion by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Indeed it is anecdotal. For example, I'm part of a 6 person I.T. unit. Of the 6, 5 have children.

      5 boys, 2 girls.

      We do get a lot more estrogen into us than ever before. And lets not forget soy products while we're at it.

    23. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that writing and you only got a 2

    24. Re:Logical conclusion by realityfighter · · Score: 1

      Gah, this is getting confusing.

      Testosterone DOES play a big part in sex selection. The Y chromosome only has one gene on it - the gene that tells the fetus to produce a lot of testosterone. Testosterone is the signal that tells the fetus to develop male traits. Every fetus is capable of becoming male, depending on this signal. The testosterone used in this stage of development comes from the fetus itself. The mother's testosterone level does not influence the sex of her child, because her blood does not enter the womb. I think it goes without saying that the father's testosterone levels make no difference at all, since his bloodstream is in a different body.

      Some fetuses have a testosterone insensitivity that keeps the fetus from fully developing into a male child. This does not appear to be a complete immunity to testosterone, since the resulting child does not have completely female traits either. Again, this testosterone is being created by the fetus itself, not by either parent.

      --
      A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
    25. Re:Logical conclusion by jesuscyborg · · Score: 1, Informative
      Gender is determined by whether you have a Y chromosome or not
      Actually gender is more correctly defined as how you perceive yourself psychologically, while "sex" is what's between your legs. The terms were defined as such to resolve ambiguity back in the 19th century to better describe intersexed, homosexual, and transsexual people.
    26. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As a biologist, may I just say there is no evidence backing up this 'theory' of yours reguarding overpopulation and homosexuality.

    27. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      > Testosterone really has nothing to do with whether a child is a girl or a boy, it has more to do with having the drive to even procreate at all.

      In other words, the less testosterone I secrete, the simpler my life gets. I'm OK with that.

      (Every engineer should have a mistress and a wife. First you tell your wife you're spending the night with your mistress. Then you tell your mistress you have to spend the night with your wife. Only after you have done both of these things will you have enough time to yourself to get back to the lab and do some useful work!)

    28. Re:Logical conclusion by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene, Chapter 7, "Family Planning."

      There is no such thing as group selection.

    29. Re:Logical conclusion by Xaroth · · Score: 1

      My theory is that there is an increased amount of public discourse possible now, due to social and technological changes, and that rates of these traits have been more or less the same throughout history (though the expression of the behaviours may have been suppressed somewhat in especially repressed areas/timeframes). The fact that people are more aware of something now and also discuss it more now does not automatically mean that it's more prevalent than it was in the past.

          The same also applies for people who say "There's just so much more war and trouble in the world now than there used to be!", who somehow gloss over everything before they came of age (whenever that time period may have been). They weren't aware of the tremendous amount of strife going on in the world prior to gaining an understanding of it, and the media certainly wasn't up to snuff for the earlier part of their lives for the older segment of the population that feels this way.

          Of course, I've drifted off topic now a bit. I'll bring it back on track in closing by indicating that I feel it much more likely that increased obesity rates are causing a decrease in the amount of free testosterone in the body (as indicated by other posts in this thread) than to think of some elaborate ill-defined system wherein the population as a whole is reacting to the environmental stress of overpopulation. Not that the latter doesn't occur - increased aggression in response to overpopulation is well documented in rats, for example - but more that I don't think we're anywhere near the levels of environmental stress required to trigger such a change, if such a change were even a possible outcome of that. The population simply isn't dense enough, nor resources scarce enough for that population to effect such a change. If it ever gets to the point that the majority of Americans are fighting it out in the streets for food, I'd be more willing to accept your theory as relevant.

    30. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since evolution is a continuous, not discrete, process, the degeneration of Y will not lead to the disappearance of sex chromosomes. It might sound a little surprising, but is actually well-founded.

      Imagine that Y degenerates to the point at which the only meaningful (non-intron) sequence on it is the SRY - Sex-determining Region of Y. SRY is the primary determinant of human gender, the testicles are actually all caused by SRY. At this point, any further degeneration will create females incapable of procreating, so the "SRY-less" trait will not propagate.

      Therefore, SRY will be preserved by pure natural selection. At some point, the degenerate heterochromosome will be included into some autosome, which will therefore become the new sex chromosome. That is actually happening sometimes with other species.

    31. Re:Logical conclusion by Teresita · · Score: 1

      suso wrote: 1. Testosterone drops in males.
      2. More females born as a result.
      3. Evolution in females to ensure survival. 4. Single gender species results.
      5. ???? 6. ...profit!

    32. Re:Logical conclusion by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 3, Informative

      The terms were defined as such to resolve ambiguity back in the 19th century to better describe intersexed, homosexual, and transsexual people.

      Way to "revise" history. The usage of the word gender to describe someone's personality as opposed to their biological sex was invented in the middle of the 20th century. It is technical jargon used by social scientists and psychologists. I'm really tired of seeing people "corrected" when they use gender as a synonym for sex. When the the Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists "sex" as a definition, it's good enough for me. Stop trying to impose what you were told in your Humanities electives on the rest of us.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    33. Re:Logical conclusion by todd10k · · Score: 1

      ohh hot damn if i had mod points.

    34. Re:Logical conclusion by kronocide · · Score: 1

      It's true, I saw that episode of Powerpuff Girls too.

    35. Re:Logical conclusion by sci50514 · · Score: 0

      The amount of estrogen like substance in soy product is too low to have any effect even if you eat nothing but soy products. Just check out China. It is the most populous nation and a Chinese consume more soy product than an average American. FYI, Asians has being eating soy products for millenniums.

    36. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, the presence of a Y chromosome is not sufficient to determine someone's sex. There are people who are immune to their own androgens, and despite having a Y chromosome, they are (infertile) women.

    37. Re:Logical conclusion by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Natural selection doesn't favor the group--it favors individual genes. Homosexuality would never be an evolutionary adaptation for one simple reason--the "gay gene" doesn't reproduce itself. Where resources are scarce and overpopulation occurs, natural selection itself happens at a higher rate: organisms better adapted to collecting those scarce resources survive and reproduce, organisms worse adapted die.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    38. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overpopulation is a problem... Where exactly?

      We have hardly scratched the surface of the earth.

    39. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only by freaks. Why should the mutants you mention be allowed to impose this political correctness on the rest of us just to make themselves feel normal? Let's face it, nature messes up sometimes! ;)

    40. Re:Logical conclusion by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      So I guess you didn't catch the news that even the Olympics no longer uses tests for whether a person is XX or XY as the determinant for sex ... they had one case where a woman was found to have XY chromosomes, and STILL ended up having a child.

      Sex != Gender. Get over it.

    41. Re:Logical conclusion by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      You left off #7 - "Hall sex" - where you pass each other in the hallway and go "F*ck you". "Yeah? Well f*ck you too!"

    42. Re:Logical conclusion by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Ok Anonymous Biologist, try reading up on what happens to rat populations when there is rampant overcrowding and the food supply starts running out.

        Rats turn gay.

      Makes perfect sense really. If there aren't enough resources available in a controlled population, nature should scale back reproduction. It does this by turning the rats into rump rangers. Of course it's only a percentage, but when rat populations get stressed, they get 'sssuper'.

    43. Re:Logical conclusion by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      [...]they had one case where a woman was found to have XY chromosomes, and STILL ended up having a child.

      Link please. I think I would have heard of a biologically male human giving birth. There are times when an individual can have two X chromosomes and one Y chromosome, but in that case, it usually ends up looking more like a male (they are called "double-X Y males") and is not able to give birth.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    44. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, I knew I should have gotten a cat instead of a dog.

      Here's a hint for those looking into the evil overload/genius business: never listen to your girlfriend.

    45. Re:Logical conclusion by Crunchie+Frog · · Score: 1
      In 100,000 years we die out and get replaced by cats.

      Is this what one of the earlier posters meant by pussification?

      --
      --- Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
    46. Re:Logical conclusion by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 1

      No, the evil cat isn't behind the evil genius. It's usually in front. On the evil genius's lap. Purring. Evilly.

    47. Re:Logical conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there is. They observed it in bacteria cultures about a year ago.

    48. Re:Logical conclusion by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Point being, how would you define 'biological' sex? Is it chromosomes, presence (or absence) of specific reproductive organs, an ability to procreate, a certain hormonal ratio, or a certain genetic sequence?

      If you say 'chromosomes', then you've answered wrong: 1 in 25,000 people have chromosomes from the 'wrong' sex, and are sexually functional to varying degrees (there was a story on this on NPR two weeks back, 'Story of the Day' for 2006-10-16 according to my podcast subscription). If you say, 'ability to procreate', then, well, all those men taking viagra would disagree with you. If you say genes (not chromosomes, genes), we still haven't figured out the exact sequence have we.

      In the absence of a clear biological definition, I'll happily settle for a mix of psychology and physiology as an answer, if only to clarify things for myself. I'm wondering why you find a construct accepted by well-over half a century by social scientists and psychologists unacceptable.

    49. Re:Logical conclusion by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Homosexuality would never be an evolutionary adaptation for one simple reason--the "gay gene" doesn't reproduce itself.

      It might if genes can be transmitted horizontally. If you can induce a fertile male to express your genes then you get the benefit of passing on your genes and somebody else raises your offspring.

      Why is the prostate so close to the rectum anyway?

    50. Re:Logical conclusion by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      That only works if the fertile male in question has your genes. In other words, if he's your brother. And yes, we are adapted to help our kin survive and reproduce, although I don't see how buggery assists in that endeavor.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    51. Re:Logical conclusion by stan_freedom · · Score: 1

      My wife bought a book that used this method to improve the odds of having a boy or girl. We wanted a girl since we already had a boy. Using the formula in the book, she kept me at bay for a week, waited for the magic date, and said "Go". Nine months later, we had a girl. Maybe it worked, or maybe we were just on the right side of the coin flip.

    52. Re:Logical conclusion by spxero · · Score: 1

      To quote from this movie...

      "Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina!"

    53. Re:Logical conclusion by joelpt · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not a biologist but there have been studies which do suggest a biological basis for a homosexuality-overpopulation correlation.

      For example here's a study showing that sons with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual.
      http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/27/10486538 10591.html

      "If Blanchard is right, then clearly, as average family size decreases, so will the incidence of male homosexuality."

      It certainly makes sense as a "naturally selected" evolutionary outcome. As a geographical region became overpopulated with humans, those families and communities which produced fewer offspring would be less likely to overpopulate or overwork the land. Those communities whose mothers and daughters produced too many offspring would be less likely to survive into the next generation. So, mothers who were more likely to produce homosexual offspring (at least sons) after her firstborn would present an evolutionary advantage, and her genetics would be thereby "selected" in future generations.

      Similarly it would be an evolutionary advantage, as a mother, to still produce able-bodied sons to work for the community, but not necessarily to have all those sons procreating all the time.

    54. Re:Logical conclusion by lpq · · Score: 1

      Dictionaries are "descriptive" as much as "prescriptive". If the language didn't change, how would we discuss new ideas and new technologies?

      Ah -- I see, that's the point: if you don't allow new terms into the language, you believe you can prevent change and circumvent discussion about issues for which there are no words to describe (as you don't allow for the new terms). " Brilliant! "

      Near as I can tell, even Microsoft has discovered that maintaining compatibility with those stuck in the "DOS-mentality", isn't possible while providing upgraded ways of doing things and attempting to correct insecurities (or flaws, "misunderstandings") present in the older Operating Systems.

      If we can't keep 100% compatibility in OS development, how is it logical to expect 100% /backward/ compatibility with older English usage? Should we all still be speaking Latin or Sanskrit (or whatever)? Where do you want to freeze language?

    55. Re:Logical conclusion by NetHead026 · · Score: 1
      But cats already rule the world; we just don't want to admit it. Behind every evil genius is an even more evil cat.

      Of course. Unbeknownst to you he has already set up us the bomb.

      For great justice, indeed.

  9. Natural selection? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I wonder how representative it is across recent immigrands and Mayflower Americans...

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:Natural selection? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's see: the article says "Americans" One would presume this would be in comparisson to other countries?. Well, America is more a continent then a country. Comparing the USA to say Germany would give you somewhat weird results. Also, is there a breakdown by: ethnicity, other genetic factors, enviornmental or climate conditions, or Hat size? I could go on. "America" is a all inclusive non-homogenious term. The ONLY malady we all share in common is the IRS.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:Natural selection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supposedly, NYC males have a higher level of testosterone than the general population.

      I'm not making this up. But I can't recall where I read this, which also means squat if somone wants to verify it or look at how the study was conducted. (The statement (not the study) was made, I think, in either a Scientific American article where they make those little comments or highlights, or it was in Men's Health Journal or similar.)

      As to why they do, it was not mentioned (again, I haven't seen or read the study). With NYC, it could be the immigrant population, or it could be only that city was looked at; maybe population density (competing for females, more interactions with other males causes feedback that boosts production).

    3. Re:Natural selection? by gerbalblaste · · Score: 1

      howsabout a rtfa. Its not compared to other countries but historical data about testosterone levels.

    4. Re:Natural selection? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      I think it was a comparisson to America males of today with American males of the past. I wonder if the Age of BabyBoomers has any effect on this?

      --
      We are all just people.
    5. Re:Natural selection? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1
      Supposedly, NYC males have a higher level of testosterone than the general population.
      Well of course. NYC is full of hot chicks.
    6. Re:Natural selection? by kevmo · · Score: 1

      The article only measured people in the older age groups (50+). It would have been more thorough imo to measure all age groups.

    7. Re:Natural selection? by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      The article says it's a Boston study, not across America. My wife, who does population studies, wondered if lifestyles correlated to higher education could be a factor.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    8. Re:Natural selection? by d_strand · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but probably not the way most people think. Educated people generally have healthier lifestyles e.g. exercise more and eat better, which makes them less likely to be overweight than the average joe. This together with the fact that fat tissue produces oestrogen in humans makes the conclusion fairly straight forward. Fat people == more effeminate because of more oestrogen. Simple.

    9. Re:Natural selection? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      I did, time or location; same argument; no accounting for any inherited or enviornmental factors. but it does make great copy on a s low news day

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    10. Re:Natural selection? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      "The ONLY malady we all share in common is the IRS."

      Wrong ... I can think of two others.

      Congress
      Lawyers

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  10. stress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Testosterone levels drop in stressful situations, and in chronically stressed individuals. I'd put my money on the increasing level of stress encountered in a social system that is increasingly becoming a means for the powerful to remain on top.

    1. Re:stress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, that comment makes no sense. The conclusion at the end of your sentence doesn't match the beginning of the sentence. You should fill in the blanks and repost.

  11. At this point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    The testosterone-fueled American male may be losing his punch.

    At this point, I think it's really more of a "forceful slap" than anything.
    1. Re:At this point by Night+Goat · · Score: 1

      Now that is funny. I wish I had mod points.

  12. Obvious Reson by turgid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What whith the ubiquity of pr0n, avaliable readily for free and without embarrassment on the Intarweb Tubes, the testosterone no longer has a chance to build up in the male body.

    Can I have a PhD please?

    1. Re:Obvious Reson by lewp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you suggesting that I'm fapping my way to femininity?

      Makes sense.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    2. Re:Obvious Reson by value_added · · Score: 1

      What whith the ubiquity of pr0n, avaliable readily for free and without embarrassment on the Intarweb Tubes, the testosterone no longer has a chance to build up in the male body.

      Can I have a PhD please?


      An alternate theory is that we'll start growing breasts, and routinely have sex with ourselves in the shower. No need for pr0n.

    3. Re:Obvious Reson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me see. Breasts, check. Sex with self, check. Shower... OK, perhaps you're onto something.

    4. Re:Obvious Reson by chgros · · Score: 3, Informative

      What whith the ubiquity of pr0n, avaliable readily for free and without embarrassment on the Intarweb Tubes, the testosterone no longer has a chance to build up in the male body.
      Interesting? You don't ejaculate testosterone, you know. I'm no specialist, but I don't see why there would be a "build up".

    5. Re:Obvious Reson by turgid · · Score: 1

      And I don't see why facts are pertinent to a discussion on slashdot. I thought I might get a "funny" but instead I got an "interesting."

      /me ducks.

    6. Re:Obvious Reson by nebosuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ejaculation converts testosterone in to dihydrotestosterone, which, coincidentally, is one cause of male pattern baldness.

      In short, over-spanking the monkey will lead to lower levels of testosterone by converting it into DHT, and perhaps leave you bald to boot.

    7. Re:Obvious Reson by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      What does porn have to do with anything? Are you saying testosterone gets lowered from watching porn, or from masturbating?

      What is the difference (in terms of semen content) between having sex and jacking off?

      If a man has sex with his girlfriend multiple times a day, does he also lose testosterone?

      I don't see the point you are trying to make.....

    8. Re:Obvious Reson by turgid · · Score: 1

      You find me a wife or girlfriend who is not on performance-enhancing drugs who will do it more that four times a day, and I'll give you a dollar.

    9. Re:Obvious Reson by Profound · · Score: 1

      I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
      Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

    10. Re:Obvious Reson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ejaculation converts testosterone in to dihydrotestosterone, which, coincidentally, is one cause of male pattern baldness.

      In short, over-spanking the monkey will lead to lower levels of testosterone by converting it into DHT, and perhaps leave you bald to boot.


      So, masturbating is going to get you bald palms?

    11. Re:Obvious Reson by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      Loss of essence.

      Let me guess, compulsory folate in vegemite?

    12. Re:Obvious Reson by Malc · · Score: 1

      "You don't ejaculate testosterone"

      Not so, according to these articles in New Scientist and the BBC

    13. Re:Obvious Reson by rbarreira · · Score: 1
      From the first link:

      The study, which is bound to provoke controversy, showed that the women who were directly exposed to semen were less depressed. The researchers think this is because mood-altering hormones in semen are absorbed through the vagina. They say they have ruled out other explanations.

      I guess the scientists needed a definitive way of convincing their wives...
      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    14. Re:Obvious Reson by maharvey · · Score: 1

      two dollars!

  13. Just adapting to the environment by Znort · · Score: 0

    With WOW who needs testosterone ?

    Znort

  14. lack of excercise and obesity by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    testosterone drops in a body that doesn't excercise (true for male and for the much smaller amount the female has), it drops in an obese body and moreover body fat produces a female-hormone like steroid

    1. Re:lack of excercise and obesity by lixee · · Score: 1

      I recently discovered a supplement that goes by the name of ZMA. It is a non-hormonal (plain magnesium and vitamin B6) and gives an substantial testosterone boost. I cannot recommend it enough. Side effects include wild vivid dreams along with a propensity to wet yourself at night.

      In case you wanna know more http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459250

      --
      Res publica non dominetur
    2. Re:lack of excercise and obesity by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Nice try, but no. If you read the article, you'd see:

      "This analysis deals with men who were born between 1915 and 1945,"

      The "obesity epidemic" doesn't exactly apply to men in that age range.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:lack of excercise and obesity by tloh · · Score: 1

      Note to self: going to gym regularly to try picking up girls may have additional health benefits.

      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    4. Re:lack of excercise and obesity by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      oh?, tests were done in late 80's, late 90's and then recently, for 40 year olds and up obesity has been a growing problem (and diabetes too) just as with other age groups, and decreasing physical activity.

    5. Re:lack of excercise and obesity by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

      You mean i get liquid explosion?

    6. Re:lack of excercise and obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      body fat produces a female-hormone like steroid

      So that explains these breasts I'm developing...

    7. Re:lack of excercise and obesity by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 1
      From TFA:
      The reasons for this trend are unclear, said researchers at the New England Research Institutes in Waterdown, Mass. They noted that neither aging nor certain other health factors, such as smoking or obesity, can fully explain the decline.
      --
      There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
    8. Re:lack of excercise and obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or may carry additional health risks?

  15. The only good news here... by Lank · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that I guess I'm not alone! Now I can point to this study and tell my girl, "See? It's happening to all the guys my age -- you're not cool unless you have a reduced libido!"

    --
    Gotta get me one of these!
    1. Re:The only good news here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait you actually have a girlfriend?

      That's not fair I'm having the opposite problem!!!

    2. Re:The only good news here... by Alexandra+Erenhart · · Score: 1

      Bah, I have an U.S. citizen boyfriend (I'm south american) and he's got a perfect libido, and he's a geek. I don't know about you guys...

    3. Re:The only good news here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a U.S citizen male geek and I have a south american fiancee.
      small world

  16. Testicular cancer by Skiron · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having being diagnosed, and having surgery and chemotherapy for this (like Lance Armstrong et al), there is a worrying trend. There is no known cause of this cancer scientifically proved, but after getting this cancer, and speaking 'hear say' to consultants, doctors. etc. one theory is that estrogen (oestrogen), the female hormone, is being dumped into the environment from products (baby products, nappies etc.). This chemical doesn't break down in nature - so drinking water, cows milk, fish, meat... all contain this bumped chemical up that would not otherwise be there. Too see how bad it is, there are even scientific reports of fish changing sex in estrogen rich rivers - do a google on this. This is not a subject to laugh at.

    1. Re:Testicular cancer by The_Abortionist · · Score: 0, Funny

      I believe in that theory as well.

      It's clear that young women today have bigger tits than the previous generations. And now we know that the level testosterone is dropping to almost nothing in men.

      I am not gonna say that it's a left-wing conspiracy, but I do think that this could also explain the increase of leftist mentality that has been slowly happening over the last decades (ie just not as a reaction to Bush).

      Just like Romans used lead in their aqueducts, we seem to be poisonning ourselves. Hopefully the results will be different for us.

      --
      Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents.
    2. Re:Testicular cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hopefully the results will be different for us.

      Bigger tits and mood swings for everyone?

    3. Re:Testicular cancer by NFN_NLN · · Score: 2, Informative

      I indeed found several articles on: "Estrogens are changing the sex of fish". In fact here is a link to a pdf. The dude on the cover looks like he must have drank a lot of estrogen laden water himself, hahhaha. http://www.cualum.org/coloradan/Dec2005/troubledwa ters.pdf

    4. Re:Testicular cancer by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      You're very right about the food. Rising hormone levels in "artificially produced" human nutrients have a variety of effects that can be noticed by the layman, and I don't think it's just estrogen. Do you notice how alarming the number of adolescent boys with "boobs" is? They can also happen to be unusually tall, and have various quirks in muscular/bone structure..etc. If you go to a more rural area (say, farmland in Upper Egypt)where dependency on artificial input to the agricultural process is much less, and the food is produced locally, you will find the boys to be very "well formed" whether they are tall/strong or not.

      I hope your treatment is successful.

    5. Re:Testicular cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Petroleum based chemicals can mimic estrogen. Increased environmental content of these chemicals is one theory for a rise in cancers among women and men.

    6. Re:Testicular cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      I find that hearsay anecdote somewhat hard to believe. For starters, estrogen *does* break down in nature, especially in an acidic environment. Pills have expiration dates (which I'm told really means the pill is at 90% or less of it's original strength), and more than 80% of the estrogen in a pill is destroyed by the stomach before it's even absorbed. It is for that reason that I take mine sublingually - very little gets destroyed that way, it doesn't have to be processed by the liver multiple times, and it saves me money by requiring much lower doses than I'd otherwise need.


      Besides, if the presence of low levels of estrogen as might be found in consumeables could cause testicular cancer, then virtually every transsexual, myself included, would come down with it before the testicles are removed during SRS, simply because of the (comparatively) massive amounts of estrogen being taken.

    7. Re:Testicular cancer by yabos · · Score: 1

      It's very scary indeed. The amount of people on HRT is increasing I believe as well. Now we're relying on synthetic testosterone to give us normal test levels :(

    8. Re:Testicular cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, we don't have oestrogen or nappies in America.

    9. Re:Testicular cancer by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      Hopefully the results will be different for us.

      Bigger tits and mood swings for everyone?

      Do these jeans make my ass look fat???

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    10. Re:Testicular cancer by dances+with+elks · · Score: 0

      Apparently Beer has a high oestrogen content, after too much you talk shit and can't drive

      --
      Will wash cars for karma
    11. Re:Testicular cancer by wenchmagnet · · Score: 1

      So it was Saidar that was polluting Saidin!

    12. Re:Testicular cancer by johansalk · · Score: 1

      Haha. Indeed. I didn't care for your post much till I opened the PDF and saw the picture and caption; "... in front of his mobile laboratory at Boulder's wastewater treatment plant, is one of a string of David Norris' students who have worked on gender-bending chemicals". If you ever wanted empirical proof! I bet previous members of this postgrad string "found themselves" all of a sudden after graduation and are now working at Queen Mother or Supersuzi's.

      What's even more amusing is the picture of the grinning professor; "Having worked at CU for 40 years, enthusiastic professor David Norris, right, has no plans for slowing down. "People ask me when I am going to retire, and I say, 'I'm having more fun than I have ever had.'" Yeah, I bet you are, dirty old man.

    13. Re:Testicular cancer by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I am not gonna say that it's a left-wing conspiracy,
      Yes, you are...

      but I do think that this could also explain the increase of leftist mentality that has been slowly happening over the last decades
      See?

      I can read your mind!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. two thoughts by jonpublic · · Score: 1

    the article states that lower levels of testosterone are linked to diabetes, so could higher levels of diabetes in the population be a factor in the lower testosterone?

    what about the higher levels of artificial hormones in the environment? could all the estrogen we are dumping make us less manly?
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/03/03 01_040301_genderbender.html

  18. Don't worry by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Health-related news is almost always wrong. It'll get contradicted in another study next year.

    Remember when everyone got that bird flu? (I was coughing up feathers for weeks.)

    1. Re:Don't worry by 0racle · · Score: 1

      What if the contradicting study is the wrong one?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Don't worry by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Then there will be another study in 2 years that contradicts that one and confirms the original study. That will be followed by a few more with various other conclusions.

    3. Re:Don't worry by kfg · · Score: 1

      That is exactly right, but people do not understand statistics, so they do not understand this.

      It isn't even a question of either one being right or wrong, they are simply data samples. There is variation in all data samples. If multiple tests show the same results one must inherently strongly suspect that some form of error/bias has crept into the process. Someone is fooling themselves (see n-rays or Martian canali), or us.

      What one expects of multiple tests is that they form a cluster of results.

      Where results are marginal they will cluster around the null point, but our current cultural bias for "positive" results and general health neurosis means that it is only the positive results that draw attention/get taken seriously, even after the expected negative results supporting a null effect come to light.

      Deep in our cultural hearts we want fat people to suffer for their sins of gluttony. Since we can no longer sic the old style demons on them, we will produce new ones.

      Statistical analysis, however, is only applicable to situations in which we are ignorant of causes and only allows us to make predictions about the group. They mean little or nothing at all when applied to individuals; and the more we know about that individual the less they apply, because we are not ignorant about that individual.

      Give me a random sample of 1000 people and can I tell you with fair accuracy how many will die of a heart attack in the next 10 years, but not which ones.

      There is only one area where Americans, as a culture, are more neurotic than they are about hair and fat - sexuality, particularly male sexuality; and its secondary characteristics.

      Expect a slew of studies showing marginal (or outright doofey) results showing that American men are either girly men or violent rapists.

      Some "researchers" will "show" and believe both at that same time. These people are not scientists, they are nutballs; they need treatment, not grants.

      KFG

    4. Re:Don't worry by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think that's the case here. I've been hearing about this for years myself; it's been under the radar for quite a while.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    5. Re:Don't worry by bigberk · · Score: 1
      Remember when everyone got that bird flu? (I was coughing up feathers for weeks.)

      Ha ha. But the 'news' with bird flu was NOT that you're going to get it for sure, but rather the chance of a major global infection is rising and such an outbreak would be far more serious than your average flu. I think the general population lacks an understanding of 'risk', probably because they are terrible with math and statistics. Anyway, nothing has changed on the bird flu story - the risk remains, obviously, whether or not CNN is running a headline.

      News, like research, isn't black-and-white in its message or final in its conclusion. New research findings reveal new facts as they are currently known, which can change in the future. This research about testosterome illustrates a potential problem. So what do you do about this, we then see if other research follows up with the same research findings or if there are contradictory resutls. Also one should ask, what have past research (if any) found? Is there a trend?

      Basic science stuff, boy

    6. Re:Don't worry by Kohath · · Score: 1

      The point isn't that the research is wrong. The point is that the news is wrong.

      News is so highly edited, dumbed-down, packaged, and selectively reported that it fails to represent the research (as it stands in the context with all other knowledge and research on a subject). The news is essentially wrong. And sometimes the research is wrong too.

      Health news is a burden on people. It's false information and we'd be better off without it.

  19. Endocrine Disruptors in the Environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The drop is probably caused by endocrine disruptors in the environment. That's also probably the reason I'm transgendered.

    Endocrine Disruptors

    Enjoy losing your reproductive fitness, humanity. But hey, keep blaming it on weirdos and declining moral values; I'm sure that will fix the problem.

  20. It's in the water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what TV has told me, this is linked to water-purification:
    stuff like the (female) oestrogen hormone and even prozac are hard to filter out of the water, so that stuff gradually builds up.

    The oestrogen affects males (that's right, girlfriends *giggles*) and prozac kills off freshwater-mussels -- there's a clam joke in here somewhere, I'm sure.

    1. Re:It's in the water by Ninjaesque+One · · Score: 1

      Now, we shall have no bivalvial recourse when we finally all lose our libidos! The oysters will all be dead! Hmm. Also, happiness of clams not related to clam survival.

      --
      Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
  21. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by trakwebster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Common plastics used to package convenience foods have estrogenic side-effects. If you buy cabbages and beets and bread in paper bags, and stuff in cans, that's great. But buy and store cabbages and beets in plastic bags, plastic refrigerator cartons and it's like getting a little dose of estrogen. Buy microwave dinners in plastic, sitting in plastic-lined little plates, and it's like getting a little dose of estrogen. Buy bread in plastic, soda in plastic, milk in plastic-lined cartons, meat wrapped in plastic, orange juice in plastic, eggs in plastic cartons, and frozen fruits in plastic bags -- Get your Estrogen here, boys!

    --
    == buddha is as buddha does ==
  22. Diabetes by Stickerboy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Obesity is linked to increased risk of diabetes, diabetes is associated with lower testosterone levels. The article has it wrong - low testosterone does not cause diabetes, it's the other way around. Hypogonadism is a well-known effect of diabetes.

    There's your link.

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Diabetes by cnettel · · Score: 1

      On the other hand (which I guess was the grandparent's original intent), wonn't human casthrates, just like many other mammals, frequently develop obesity, or at least a significant shift in the distribution of fat, compared to healthy/normal males?

    2. Re:Diabetes by Stickerboy · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia castrated young boys tend to keep their slight build. I don't really know much about castration, since you don't see it very often anymore.

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:Diabetes by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      But they also statistically live longer, so I would presume that even if it did lead to obesity it doesn't also lead to increased diabetes or other obesity related diseases. Sorry can't really find any links - http://www.you.com.au/news/371.htm is the best I can get (its down the bottom of the text).

    4. Re:Diabetes by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      > I don't really know much about castration, since you don't see it very often anymore.

      What are you talking about? I see unix all the time.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Diabetes by Thangodin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Michael Jackson may be a reference point. His voice never changed, he never developed secondary attributes, and his baby had to be fertilized artificially, so there was some medical intervention at work there. Plastic surgery was probably not the first elective surgery he went through. I suspect that this is the root of most of his psychological problems. That's why I tend to give the guy a pass for a lot of his weirdness--the decision would have been forced on him by his father.

    6. Re:Diabetes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do. Castration is fairly often used as a means to slow down prostate cancer.

      http://www.cancerpage.com/articles/default.asp?id= 3&subarea=Your_Treatment

    7. Re:Diabetes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FTL(ink): "... diabetes investigator is quoted as saying "Too many times people with diabetes have gotten the short end of the deal."

      Gotta love medical punsters.

    8. Re:Diabetes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I know this is Slashdot, but stop making things up :)

      Michael Jackson has gone through puberty - most of the plastic surgery occurred post-Thriller. Take a look at pictures from around that time, and notice the difference.
      He can also grow facial hair, his voice HAS changed, and he has developed the musculature etc. typical of a male post-puberty.

      The baby thing has more to do with his overall weirdness - he only wanted a surrogate, he didn't want a wife. (The marriage to Lisa Marie Presley was more likely to have been one of those typical Scientology stunts they do occasionally to make it seem their wacko celebrities approach normal).

    9. Re:Diabetes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somebody mod this up. we don't need unfounded rumors about michael jackson... the truth is weird enough already.

    10. Re:Diabetes by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rumour has it that Michael Jackson was going to star in Face/Off 2 - but he sneezed and nobody can find his nose.

    11. Re:Diabetes by Garrett+Pennell · · Score: 1

      I know he's a child molester, but fertilizing a baby? Mike's dropping to a new low.

      --
      If you need me to fix your CPU, send me an internet and I'll get right back to you. Thanks.
  23. Cure ... by foobsr · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a web-page of NYUMC suggests, Tai Chi may be of help.

    Quote: Enhanced Endocrine and Immune System
    One study found that tai chi was associated with increased blood levels of a number of hormones, including thyroid hormone, testosterone, and estradiol. Another study found that tai chi was associated with an increased number of T cells (cells involved in the immune response).


    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    1. Re:Cure ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      This is probably true of just about any form of regular exercise.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Cure ... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      First of all, it would be impossible to do a double-blind study on this topic, so take the data with a ginormous grain of salt. Secondly, is there any reason this would be the case for tai chi and not for every other form of physical activity?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:Cure ... by greese1 · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how wearing silk pajamas and prancing around will make you more manly.

    4. Re:Cure ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      so take the data with a ginormous grain of salt

      That holds for any research. Imagine the infeasibility of studies cancelling the effect of belief-systems. Or think (of) Kuhn.

      Secondly, my guess (position, point of view ...) is that the advantage of Tai Chi over common exercise is that it targets the whole system, not just specific components, and that you can practice effortlessly (no sweat, no red faces etc.).

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    5. Re:Cure ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      If so, the better.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    6. Re:Cure ... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      increased blood levels of a number of hormones, including thyroid hormone, testosterone, and estradiol

      So, how would this help?

    7. Re:Cure ... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Double-blind studies do not need so much salt. The "hard" (physical) sciences don't usually need anything close to the salt the soft (social/psychological/macrobiological) sciences need.

      Not all sciences are subjected to the same amount of subjectivity. The more subjective data is, the more salt you need.

      And what's this business of belief-systems? Sure, people who have "faith" that gods/demons/faeries/ghosts influence our lives can't really test to see if that is the case. But a scientist doesn't bother himself with "magic." He only tests the natural world. Magic and supernatural "belief-systems" are beyond the scope of science. They are also, in all likelihood, insane. Yep, 80% of the world is insane.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    8. Re:Cure ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Both, testosterone and estradiol are present in both sexes. It is a question of balance.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    9. Re:Cure ... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      might help or not, taijiquan is way cool. too bad i am now too fat and too lazy to go on practizing it.

      --
      Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
    10. Re:Cure ... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Yes, my friend, that was my entire point. Given that it is a balance, how does an increase in both help anything?

    11. Re:Cure ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      I tried to outline that there is no such thing as "truth" - which is part of my belief-system.

      You, on the contrary, seem to believe that the "natural world" exists independently of its observer.

      Finally:
      Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
      A.E.


      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    12. Re:Cure ... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Dude, what if we all actually live in the Matrix? Whoa.

      But seriously, philosophers haven't put that question to rest yet? I thought pretty much everyone agrees that we will never be able to "prove" that the universe isn't some kind of illusion. But that doesn't matter, and bringing it up amounts to philosophical masturbation.

      When we are discussing science, such as "does stimulus X cause biological response Y?" we axiomatically assume the universe exists, our senses are not cheats, we are not insane, etc.. Doing otherwise would just be pointless.

      Also, as a scientist, I like to avoid even using the word "believe." I prefer to say I have "a high degree of confidence" in a model which has withstood significant scientific scrutiny.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    13. Re:Cure ... by Darby · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how wearing silk pajamas and prancing around will make you more manly.

      Well, it's like the old joke about not having to outrun the bear, just your friend.
      It all depends on what you're trying to be more manly than. Prancing around in silk pajamas might not make you more manly than you already are, but compared to some people even doing so would probably still leave you more manly than them ;-)

    14. Re:Cure ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      philosophers haven't put that question to rest yet?

      As I recognize it, it's more the physicists that are unrestful these days.

      we axiomatically assume the universe exists

      An axiom might be seen as a part of a belief system. And what about dark energy?

      Also, as a scientist, I like to avoid even using the word "believe.

      "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
      A.E.


      All that is not to say that I do not appreciate your position as practical in order to cope with routine processes, I myself did so for long years.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    15. Re:Cure ... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The term "metaphysics" lends a false sense of respectability to that particular piece of philosophy. It has nothing to do with the science called "physics." The only people who think physics is in some sort of epistemological crisis are crack-pot opportunist new-age "thinkers" like Dr. Wayne Dryer, who misappropriates quantum physics to support his comforting (and profitable) delusions.

      Also, with your philosophical background, you have no doubt studied formal logic. You will recall, then, that when reasoning, if an assumed axiom leads to contradictory conclusions, that axiom is necessarily false. Good science of course follows this logic, so good science does not have "beliefs" in the strictest sense. If you set out to demonstrate a "belief" and the opposite happens, you conclude that the belief must be wrong. Therefore, a scientist does not have beliefs in the sense of the term you keep using.

      Think of a proof by contradiction. Obviously, though you assume something to be true, and reason based on it, it is not part of a "belief system."

      One more thing: Einstein wasn't always right. Same with Newton. The further ahead we get with science, the more obviously wrong the superstitions of the past seem to have been. And with very rare exceptions, all the scientists of their day shared in part of those superstitions. Only recently, in the era of Darwin, Daniel Gilbert, Richard Dawkins, et. all, is a world view unencumbered by superstition becoming main-stream.

      And I still don't understand what this great insight of yours is. The universe might be an illusion, and we can never prove otherwise? YES. EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU. We just don't waste time pondering unanswerable questions. Don't play vocabulary games. A "working assumption" might be called a "belief" by the uneducated. But a student of science and philosophy knows that scientific assumptions can be overturned, and so are not belief-systems.

      Has some author convinced you to change your world view? Perhaps you are trying to convey some point I could more easily analyze with a book in hand?

      Oh, and thanks for better conversation than I can ever seem to find locally in Ohio. Isn't the internet wonderful?

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    16. Re:Cure ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      The term "metaphysics" lends a false sense ...

      Now it is my turn to say "Dude" - I know - but back to the matrix as well. More seriously, I think that all the sciences are in an epistemological crisis - in short and very mundane (but also related to belief systems of sorts within which the scientist has to promote his issues) - due to funding policies. Regarding physics, I have observed a strong bias towards "big bang".

      if an assumed axiom leads to contradictory conclusions

      This of course happens if you try to inject a new one into an already existing system which is thought to be consistent. But what if you aim at a revolution? BTW, I believe :) that defining axioms cannot be false, only, as you said, contradictory.

      The further ahead we get with science, the more obviously wrong the superstitions of the past seem to have been.

      I am all with this, my point is that this will hold in the distant future as well - thus - there is no truth.

      And I still don't understand what this great insight of yours is.

      Not an insight - more a nuisance. According to my perception, empirical sciences these days market themselves as "giving proof" - not evidence. Besides, I did not argue that the universe is an illusion (though exclusively created by the senses and instrumentation that we use), but that the instance that we perceive is depending on the means of measurement - this seems trivial, but it is obviously not.

      vocabulary games

      To me, "working assumption" vs. "belief"(-system) is different levels, the first touching day-to-day activities, the second - say - epistemology related issues (or maybe - the vision that the scientific community - if such an entity may be postulated - has). Though, admittedly, I like to play those games. If it comes to overturning - there was a time when (western) societies believed in religion, which is not the case anymore, but gaines ground again, especially in the US.

      Has some author convinced you to change your world view?

      No, I always thought up the world at first and then found supporting references (much easier and saves a lot of time :) - well, this indeed is a result of personal experience linked to practicing Tai Chi (yes, I was a real hard-core scientist who believed that it would be possible to create a purely silicon based AI to pass Turing). The main turning point came when I realized how much socially induced predetermination is shaping life (and thus science as well, as the actors are individuals). Secondly, on the basis of a "new" somesthetic perception, I analyzed the medical treatment that I received over the years (e.g. braces, spectacles, treatment of lacerations etc.) as well as the effects of impaired posture (30yrs@kbd) - keeping in mind that western medicine is rated science and thereby reinventing osteopathy (which is in rather low esteem here). The bottom line is that I became aware that quite a mighty set of biases of sorts determined my life.

      Isn't the internet wonderful?

      Yes, indeed. But believe me, it is not much better here if you are a phased out academic, though I live in a town with 1.75mio inhabitants (Hamburg).

      CC.

      P.S.: Realizing that I am a little out of practice with regard to writing properly, I shall see whether I can find a paper that depicts my position.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    17. Re:Cure ... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Coming from a medical family, there is not much respect for osteopathy or "eastern" medicines which do not withstand scientific scrutiny. The one exception, of course, is the placebo effect, which certainly is a real phenomenon.

      And it sounds like you have something like 30 years on me in terms of existing (or thinking you do :-). Perhaps I will realize your doubts, or perhaps I will continue to dismiss the reasoning as valid but of no value.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    18. Re:Cure ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

      Here I have a quote (from here) that puts my views in a better language.

      "The most legitimate beef that I think the humanities have against engineers is the latter's tendencies to take the categories in which they work for granted, and to not see their own thinking and practice as part of a social and historical process - that they are too wed to the propositional value of statements and not aware of all the other elements that create discourse. Not to mention the lack of sophistication about aesthetics and conscious experience."

      You may substitute "engineers" for "scientists".

      there is not much respect for osteopathy or "eastern" medicines which do not withstand scientific scrutiny

      At least if it comes to day-to-day practice, you may observe that there is not much scientific behavior involved. My wife has become bipolar about ten years ago, and treatment was nothing more but a trial and error process.

      Secondly, you might consider that, especially within the context of medicine, strong financial interests lead to the invention of cicumscriptions of conditions of ill health that in turn lead to zillions of prescriptions. Metabolic Syndrome comes to mind, depression as well.

      That you accept the placebo effect (to which "western" medicine preferably retracts to especially when it comes to acupuncture being significantly more effective than pharma-treatment (e.g. pain) to me introduces at least incompleteness into your (scientific) system of thoughts: your set of theories must be incomplete, as, though an effect can be observed, there is no explanation within the accepted framework.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  24. Science or Society by Desert_Scarecrow · · Score: 1

    True, as an earlier poster pointed out, obesity and lack of exercise drop testosterone levels. What I would like to see is a study focusing on behavioral habits to see if there is any link there. As a member of our military reserve on my second deployment, it really irritates me how touchy-feely the civilian world is. One example: I got sent to "sensitivity training" at an old workplace because during a supposedly anonymous survey (hah), I answered that I did not feel it was important to use the words please and thank you when dealing with my coworkers. You know, if I am going to give you money to work for me, I am going to assume that means that you'll work for me, and that I won't have to ask you nicely every time. But that's beside the point. I really think that our society is taking away the things that make men men -- we're being turned into metrosexuals :( This isn't a healthy thing. DS

    1. Re:Science or Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I got sent to "sensitivity training" at an old workplace because...I answered that I did not feel it was important to use the words please and thank you when dealing with my coworkers. if I am going to give you money to work for me, I am going to assume that means that you'll work for me, and that I won't have to ask you nicely..."

      Wow, you sound like quite an asshole. Just the sort of arrogant dick that makes me hate my job and far less likely to be productive at work. If this a-hole effect is directly attributable to testosterone levels, then perhaps these declining numbers aren't so bad after all..

      Guys like you should stick to stuff like killing people for a living instead of polluting the civilized working world with your caveman sensibilities.

    2. Re:Science or Society by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you joking...?

      Saying please or thank you most certainly does make you a man. Not saying them, makes you a pig. Take for example your Army's much vaulted hero, John Wayne. As an archetype he is most decidedly rich in testosterone, most certainly a man's man, and most certainly a gentleman too. Can you imagine him not saying please or thank you, because I can't.

      If you are serious, and I'm not convinced you are, I think perhaps you have a little too much testosterone, and too little education (maybe you think book learnin is for girls too huh?). Being masculine and tough doesn't mean you need to behave like an animal, nor does it mean you need to go a-guntoting and a-killin and a-whuppin some good ol boys. You can be not only tough, strong and manly but also kind and compassionate at the same time.

      And I think your concept of economics may be flawed too. Just a guess, but you may find your employees work a little better when you treat them with courtesy, you may also find that if you continue to treat them rudely that one day they may just turn and sabotage your operation. Just a thought...

    3. Re:Science or Society by Spiked_Three · · Score: 1

      we're being turned into .... but whether or not that is good or bad is up for debate. Ignoring the current debate on evolution v Intelligent design, and assume for argument we evolved, isn't this just part of evolution? The questions remains as to which is the stronger species, the muscle bound marines, or the evil inventing scientist who might make muscles irrelevant (ie they are smarter and will come up with a scientific advantage).

      We (the US) will probably have another significant evolution event in 2 more years. There is a good chance we will have a democratic woman president. If ever there was a time for north korea and iran to invade the US, it will be then. I wouldn't bet $.50 on which side will win.

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    4. Re:Science or Society by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But that's beside the point. I really think that our society is taking away the things that make men men

      If you think that treating others rudely is what makes a man a man, that's a damn shame.

      Some feminists are quick to claim the many of the world's problems are due to men being in charge. Really though, the problem is that there are few actual men, and a hell of a lot of boys in adult bodies, running things.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Science or Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because obviously testosterone lowers IQ...

    6. Re:Science or Society by hwangeruk · · Score: 1

      John Wayne's real name was Marion, even more proof that testosterone levels are dropping. Besides, John Wayne was in his fifties even in his twenties, I'd have no problem beatin the crap out of the old chuffer. (Ah, my anger and violence levels feel somehow reassuring right now :-) )

    7. Re:Science or Society by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1

      The grandparent will probally be wondering why his employees are unwilling to stay late, work extra hours, and why they leave as soon as they get a better offer. In the non-military world, you need to show basic human descency or else you're going to get employees that won't do a damn thing more than their employment contract says they will do. If on the other hand, you're nice to them, you'll find your employees liking you more, which will lead to having loyalty, and them being willing to give the extra effort.

    8. Re:Science or Society by donweel · · Score: 1

      I think there is a vested interest in reducing the numbers of Alpha type males. Look at the image portrayed by television characters, as well as movies where the male characters are wimpy and the females are strong alpha types. This paves the way for marketing coups like selling SUVs to women. Also alpha males don't hang out at Macdonalds or by Honda civics. A normalized population is much easier to manage and control, sell things to, so lets make females more masculine and males fore feminine. Double your money sell the same products to males and females. Metrosexuals don't question the rules. How ever a real man knows when to say please and thank-you, hold the door open for the ladies etc. Look at how polite men where in renaissance days but if you insulted them they would challenge you to a duel and cut you to pieces in the street.

      --
      Many a long talk since then I have had with the man in the moon; he had my confidence on the voyage. Joshua Slocum
    9. Re:Science or Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is significant evidence that not only does testosterone level influence behavior, but behavior influences testosterone level. Exercise is well known but engaging in traditionally "masculine" behaviors has also been shown to have a positive effect on testosterone levels in vivo. Previous research attributed the higher levels of testosterone in people engaging in such activities to predisposition, however crossover studies indicate that this is probably not the case.

      Take home message: You want to be a man, then act like one. Nothing wrong with civility, however America is training a nation of pussies.

      Of course, the presence of estrogen analogues in the environment could certainly be playing a role as well, as estrogen is the primary feedback mechanism for the production of testosterone in the pituitary.

    10. Re:Science or Society by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Saying please or thank you most certainly does make you a man."

      No, it makes you a gentleman. Neither does not saying them make you a man.

      Being a man means being ready to set yourself in front of danger to others. Does not matter your physical shape or civility. He who ducks out from the line and allows others to take the brunt is not a man.

    11. Re:Science or Society by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      Like all the chicken hawks running America?

    12. Re:Science or Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, exactly like that.

    13. Re:Science or Society by molafish · · Score: 1

      The reason why all the cowboys have gone is because American men have been trained by over protective parents. In my tainted view of the world, I can see this in many different aspects of the culture. Take for instance almost every consumer product commercial nowadays which portrays the 'typical' dumb male husband trying to upgrade an appliance or do some other household task. He always fails miserably, much to the chagrin of the powerful in-charge woman, who must either do it herself or call a professional in. I cringe. Sometimes men do have too much pride, and cannot admit when they do not know what they're doing. But, we're not stupid, and we don't need sensitivity training.

      Parents who fail to discipline children or never allow Johnny to bruise his knee 'raise' Johnny to be over-sensitive adults. Johnny *needs* to learn from his mistakes and suck up his tears and carry on. If mommy or daddy comes at every cry, then Johnny never learns to fend for himself. I am NOT saying that children should be unsupervised, told to 'grow-up', no sympathy, etc. There is a time for weeping and there is a time to refrain from embracing. What I'm saying is that moderation is needed.

      Masculine behavior is suppressed in American culture now, and that may be why the testosterone levels are dropping. Perhaps natural selection is causing an undesireable state of affairs with the American male population?

      America needs to stop being brainwashed. I often wonder what would happen if a war came about (with a draft) and American males needed to climb cliffs like those at Omaha Beach. Could we perform like our grandfathers? I don't know, not with the current stock of boy-men...

    14. Re:Science or Society by rgaginol · · Score: 1

      So you feel that everytime you ask a subordinate to do a job it must be wrapped in faffy, beat around the bush, useless trivialty? What a joke. Someone can be rude while still saying please and thank you - tone is far more important then faffy pleasentries (http://www.incoming.com/WebModules/QueueTips/Ques tion.aspx?ID=182/). Personally, I hate anyone who has a dislike for me, but isn't strong enough in character to discuss it with me and instead uses pedantic and facetious use of words and tone to mask their true attitudes.

      So many companies spend so much money on PR and image marketing I think you'll find your average pundit nowadays is sick of faffy pleasentries and just want people to get to the damn point. A poo wrapped in gold foil is still a poo, and a bad message will always have bad content to it. A company notice to all employees that X number of jobs from section Y are going to be cut with niceties around it will still leave people jaded - regardless of the niceties around it.

      Also, you're thinking that a typical person will sabotage a workplace simply due to the fact that they're not receiving please and thank you everytime they get asked to do a job. If I was an employer and saw any kind of resentment build up simply due to a straight talking attitude, that person would be gone in a second - a good workplace should leave emotion at the door so people can concentrate on the business problems.

      Bet you also love those fake emotion morning teas which seem to push everyone together into a pretense of getting along. Marketing and engineers in the same room - yeah, theres an environment of great buddy friendships.

    15. Re:Science or Society by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Take home message: You want to be a man, then act like one. Nothing wrong with civility, however America is training a nation of pussies."

      So, instead of whining, bitching and moaning about how his coworkers and superiors have issues with his manners and attitude, OP should grow up, be a man about it and at least suck it up and deal with it? Yes, I couldn't agree more.

      Manners and civility are what separate men from boys. There's acting like a man and there's being a man, and all too often the two are mutually exclusive. Every wonder why some people insist that an armed society (where everybody else has the potential to kill anybody else with little notice) is a polite society?

    16. Re:Science or Society by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Being a man means being ready to set yourself in front of danger to others. Does not matter your physical shape..."

      So that your infirm presence in harm's way can jeopardize other people?

      "... or civility."

      Often it is the lack of civility that causes the potential for harm to begin with.

      At least among mammals, the males and the females of any particular species have different outlooks on fighting stemming from their different roles. When males fight, it is often with each other in an effort to impress a potential mate, and as such neither participant is all that willing to fight to the death ("He who fights and runs away lives to reproduce another day"). When one male has a clear advantage over another, the weaker one will usually concede defeat.

      The females, on the other hand, when required to fight are more often fighting to protect their young, and will therefore fight with disproportionate force whenever possible, without mercy and to the death. In short, they don't have the "surrender instinct" that males have.

      Even among humans, if you have conversations with police, bouncers, or anybody else that has had to work security for a meaningful amount of time, they'll generally tell you that they have more problems with women than men. Men tend to know that they're beaten once they're on the ground, tend not to pull guns when threatened with nothing more than fists, etc. And even in areas like international diplomacy, some have suggested that the Falkland Islands War wouldn't have happened if Margaret Thatcher had been a man (yes, I've heard the joke already).

      So, your "always, at all costs, no matter what" attitude is actually more womanly than manly, and can be seen as a symptom of the reduction of testosterone in the US today.

      A real man doens't always "step up to the plate," he knows when not to step up no matter how much he wants to.

    17. Re:Science or Society by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Interesting theory, but I don't think it really holds much water. Advertising and marketing types might prefer a homogenized society where men and women all buy the same products, but I don't see evidence that they're able to actively change that?

      If this was the plan, you'd think they'd start with the small children - stopping such things as selling Barbie dolls and bright pink and yellow ponies to the girls, while selling action figures and race car toys to the boys. Instead, I see advertisers trying quite hard to market completely different types of toys to males and females.

      On the other hand, I think the womens' rights movement has been pushing for women to gain acceptance doing more traditionally "male" things. When it comes to trucks, for example, I run into more women than men who are really impressed with or excited about buying one. It's almost to the point where guys buying sports cars end up only impressing other guys, vs. the women they still *think* will dig their ride.

      You've also got the rise of the 1-parent families to thank for some of this. It's hard to really be a traditional "man's man" when you're raising a child by yourself, which happens more and more nowdays. And by contrast, women raising kids by themselves find themselves having to learn to tackle things like repairing broken plumbing or electrical work - because there's no man in the house to do it for them.

    18. Re:Science or Society by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      you do realize that metrosexuals actually excercise because they want to look good.

      metrosexuals are not the lazy fatasses, they are the physically fit guys

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    19. Re:Science or Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Someone can be rude while still saying please and thank you - tone is far more important then faffy pleasentries...
      A poo wrapped in gold foil is still a poo...

      The irony! She is overwhelming!

    20. Re:Science or Society by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      And a thought interestingly devoid of Testosterone.

      I think you'll find that people will work hard for you for years on end, whether or not you say please or thank you. If you're a hard-assed sumbitch. I have assembled many a hard-core team of technologists for many a company because I am a hard-ass. I accept no excuses, I give no apologies. Why do people, men in particular, work harder for me than my competitors? Because I am harder on myself than I am on them. The people that work for me see my unrelenting dedication and they feel motivated and inspired... Add in some leadership opportunities and your collection of gaggle-fucks turns into a smoothly operating machine of efficiency and efficacy.

      Want to learn how to be man, a motivator, and an inspiration to others? Be a Marine.

      The problem is that panty waisted people like you come in and demand that I dry your eyes and give you your blankie before I give you a task. I am not your Mommie. If you don't have the fortitude to swing it... don't bitch at me, go take up knitting.

    21. Re:Science or Society by nCnt++ · · Score: 1
      Men tend to know that they're beaten once they're on the ground,...

      I think it is more likely that each of the contestants, on some level, is thinking that 'OK, we are both guys and are both capable of seriously injuring the other, so it is better that we both find a way to back off without coming to blows.'

      --
      Have you ever noticed the best /. comments are long and the best Chuck Norris jokes are short?
  25. Mod down: Generalistic Political Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Go to Lucianne.com or something and do your trolling elsewheres...

    1. Re:Mod down: Generalistic Political Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously. Go to iamafag.com or something and do your limp-wristed gay liberal whining elsewheres...

    2. Re:Mod down: Generalistic Political Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, cos I see you saying the same thing when the right wing is likened to the nazis.

      it's only shill because it's against what you believe. fucking faggot.

    3. Re:Mod down: Generalistic Political Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but likening the neocons (with their tendancy to reduce civil liberties and centralize power) to historical fascists is reasonable because there's truth to it. Traditional conservatives aren't so bad -- at least they still believe in personal liberties[*]. The neocons are f'ing scary.


      [*] - Except the personal liberties they don't believe in (abortion, sexual behavior among consenting adults, etc); that's still a big improvement on attacking freedom of the press, privacy rights, the Freedom Of Information Act, etc.

  26. pesticides and fertility by robbo · · Score: 0

    I'm not an expert but fertility has been declining precipitously in N. American males and it's more prevalent in rural areas. The working hypothesis is that pesticides play a role (rural inhabitants have much higher exposure), as some have the effect of mimicing estrogen. Declining testosterone is probably part of the same effect.

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
  27. USA: land of fags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science proves it!

  28. Seemed pretty obvious to me by cryocide · · Score: 1

    Have you seen what some guys are wearing these days? It's like they're trying to compete with girls for the "most traditionally feminine" award or something.

  29. the question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is this a bad thing?

  30. Personally interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I was diagnosed with low testosterone six months ago, but don't know what caused it. I exercise regularly, and wonder if the long-distance cycling I do is tough on the 'equipment'. I also had radiation treatment for lymphoma in that area five years ago. That seems more likely, although the doctors took pains to make sure everything was shielded properly. I'm 40 years old. The important thing to know is that low testosterone can cause mood disorders, lack of focus, depression, and other symptoms. It's worth seeking treatment if your levels are abnormally low.

    1. Re:Personally interesting by maetenloch · · Score: 1

      Endurance sports can definitely cause a lowering of testosterone. Add that to being 40+ y.o. and possible radiation exposure and you've got several risk factors. I suspect that with additional reseach, doctors will decide that most men over 45 could use testosterone replacement therapy. The current 'normal' levels of testosterone are 300 - 1000 ng/dl. This is a ridiculously wide range that includes men from 18 to 80. A lot of men over 40 are in the 300 range and are considered normals despite the fact that they suffer from low testosterone symptoms.

  31. Heh by elined · · Score: 1

    I guess America is becoming progressively less honky...

  32. Important implications for the military by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    Soldiers will soon demand all their weaponry be color co-ordinated with their uniforms and the massively expensive development of an assault handbag. Enemies will initially be engaged with cutting criticism of their weigh/dress sense or design of thier formations and many soldiers will be just too emotionally distraught to engage the enemy unless they can take them dancing afterwards.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:Important implications for the military by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      "it's NOT a handbag, you insensitive brute, it's my assault MANPURSE! Booohoooohoooooo *sob* *sob*"

    2. Re:Important implications for the military by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      No need to spend lots of money on an assault handbag. Just talk to Margaret Thatcher.

  33. I knew there'd be hell to pay... by rifftide · · Score: 1

    if this country didn't start taking World Cup soccer more seriously.

    1. Re:I knew there'd be hell to pay... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      You ever see the hair on those European teams? Soccer players aren't exactly symbols of masculinity...

  34. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by LearnToSpell · · Score: 2, Funny

    My steaks are wrapped in plastic, but I eat them raw, so it's ok right?

  35. Geeks rule! Jocks Sux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    The way it was meant to be

  36. lack of female companion will do it too by r00t · · Score: 1

    Testosterone levels rise if you get a girlfriend or wife, and drop if you lose one.

    Women no longer need to live with men. We invented no-fault divorce, child support, heavy equipment, locks and police, and so many other things to eliminate the need for men. Men have become useless, so women kick us smelly slobs out of the house. We are obsolete.

    I suppose that could be a particular type of stress.

  37. Blame MTV! by Mike+Savior · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's all that crappy emo music that's hitting it big. The guys are becoming even more fragile than us nerds! (And scoring twice the women, still)

    --
    space is pretty cool.
    1. Re:Blame MTV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only twice as many? Apparently you're not working hard enough at being a nerd. Average guy scores about 6-10 times as many as me!

    2. Re:Blame MTV! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moe: The whole modern world's got a swishifying effect on kids today. And their MTVs and their diet sodas ain't gonna set 'em straight, neither.

    3. Re:Blame MTV! by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 1

      Twice of nothing is still nothing.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    4. Re:Blame MTV! by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      Twice of none is still none. :(

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    5. Re:Blame MTV! by noigmn · · Score: 1

      I'd actually say the guys are just underdeveloped mentally, emotionally and socially. When looking like some guy off MTV and saying the right things gets you further than being yourself, you're bound to end up with a society full of fragile idiots.

      And I'd say the women who go for them are probably a bit messed up too. I know if I was female I'd be looking for some slashdot nerds :).

      --
      Slashdot is powered by your submission.
    6. Re:Blame MTV! by alphamugwump · · Score: 1

      Divide by zero and you get infinity...

  38. George Carlin: scientist by rbochan · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's just further on into the pussification of America.

    --
    ...Rob
    The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
  39. Simple evolution by iamacat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you fight you are put in jail, if you ask someone out at work you are fired and sued, if you are perceived to be an insensitive clod who wants to sit in a bar rather than wash dishes, you are unlikely to get married or have an offspring - thanks also to birth control/abortion. The evolution is selecting against "manly men". Maybe it's time for the society to wake up and move away from extremes.

    1. Re:Simple evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > evolution is selecting against "manly men".

      And why are you complaining my feline friend? Don't you like pussy?

    2. Re:Simple evolution by bmajik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe it's time for the society to wake up and move away from extremes.


      I think that's exactly what's happening. I think that over the last 1000 years Western Society has moved away from the model of "women as property of the most violent male" and "rape to procreate", and that these extremes are best left behind.

      I don't think that's what you meant.

      The selection criteria of today are clearly different than they were in the recent past. Women have some basic right-of-refusal and thus the selectivity criteria is no longer "he killed the most bears" or "he fought off the most other cavemen before raping me". It's a bit more like "he has the most money", "he went to the best school", "he got me the most drunk" -- whatever.

      Additionally, men with normally ineligible genetic material can still procreate via IVF and other assisted conception procedures. In unaltered evolution, aggressive potent men would continue to dominate the genepool, but that's not what is happening, and so it is unsurprising that these traits are becoming irrelevant.

      In 200 years unassisted procreation will be rare, which will help people build the kind of society that Aldous Huxley and others wrote about.
      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    3. Re:Simple evolution by iamacat · · Score: 1

      I think that over the last 1000 years Western Society has moved away from the model of "women as property of the most violent male" and "rape to procreate", and that these extremes are best left behind.

      Agreed, so is the other extreme. A society should acknowledge that it's natural for a healthy young man to approach women for sex, even at work, in a political institution or for a fee. Agreed, a woman should always have a right of refusal and there should be some gentleman code to avoid stalking.

      Additionally, men with normally ineligible genetic material can still procreate via IVF and other assisted conception procedures. In unaltered evolution, aggressive potent men would continue to dominate the genepool, but that's not what is happening, and so it is unsurprising that these traits are becoming irrelevant.

      Why would anyone willingly pass defective genes to their children? There is always an option of using donor egg or sperm, genetic therapy and of course adoption.

      In 200 years unassisted procreation will be rare, which will help people build the kind of society that Aldous Huxley and others wrote about.

      Yeah, and we can also start a nuclear war and make living outside a fallout shelter rare. Should we strive towards either outcome?

    4. Re:Simple evolution by daigu · · Score: 1

      I was waiting for some kind of "God save the males" when you switched it up and played the "manly men are a ridiculous stereotype" card. But for all that is holy, can you explain how birth control/abortion has to do with anything - much less getting married or having offspring? It's not the quantity; it's the quantity, my friend, and you only need to have one or two children to pass on your genetics.

    5. Re:Simple evolution by iamacat · · Score: 1

      It enables women to have affairs with wild men they find attractive and then marry and have children with spineless men which are currently considered ideal in our culture. If you have 20 children it's likely that at least 4 survive and you had at least twice more influence on genetics of the next generation of humans than a father of 2.

    6. Re:Simple evolution by bmajik · · Score: 1

      Additionally, men with normally ineligible genetic material can still procreate via IVF and other assisted conception procedures. In unaltered evolution, aggressive potent men would continue to dominate the genepool, but that's not what is happening, and so it is unsurprising that these traits are becoming irrelevant.

      Why would anyone willingly pass defective genes to their children? There is always an option of using donor egg or sperm, genetic therapy and of course adoption.


      Because while it is not clear that some, all, or any male-factor infertility problems are genetic in nature (apart from Y-chromosome deletion, which represents an edge case in the male factor infertility problem), it is likely that some are. But, even if you knew for _sure_ that any male offspring you had would also have fertility problems, if modern medicine can work around it for you, it can work around it for your offspring, right?

      The goal of procreation isn't to create a perfect genetic society, is it? And even if you beleive that there is a moral directive or impetus to not conceive children that are at risk for "birth defects", its a different ball of wax when an individual has to decide - "will i attempt to have offspring or not?", isn't it? Who has the sense of social justice to "bow out" of the procreation game? And on what criteria should they do so?

      Regarding adoption and egg/sperm replacement programs, the desire for a biologically related offspring is understandable, if not instinctual. And the donor concept is unsettling to me, even if there is no rational basis for it, the notion of having some other persons sperm in your wife "Feels" somewhere between 50-99% like some other man fornicating with her.


      In 200 years unassisted procreation will be rare, which will help people build the kind of society that Aldous Huxley and others wrote about.

      Yeah, and we can also start a nuclear war and make living outside a fallout shelter rare. Should we strive towards either outcome?


      I wasn't making a pro-position statement, just stating what I suspect the outcome will be. You can safely assume that I beleive a future where the government breeds conditioned babies is undesirable.

      Since writing this post originally, i've thought a bit more and i beleive there is a counter-effect in play. Affluent westerners tend to not have children anywhere near as often as they have sex, so the overall impact on the genetic makeup of homo sapiens may not be severe as much as originally thought. (see the earlier article about the homo sapiens species split paper).
      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    7. Re:Simple evolution by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Don't you think those cultural artifacts might just be the result of decreasing testosterone, not the cause? Being as its likely that an increase in environmental estrogen - induced by plastics - are likely the cause of this decrease in testosterone (at least in part), it seems likely to me tha this is the case.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    8. Re:Simple evolution by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Informative


      I think that's exactly what's happening. I think that over the last 1000 years Western Society has moved away from the model of "women as property of the most violent male" and "rape to procreate", and that these extremes are best left behind.


      What the fuck, man?

      You're reading too many "women's studies" books or something. Western society was never based on these principles. You are seriously fucking twisted.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    9. Re:Simple evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plastics?

      Try all the birth control getting put into the waste water supply, cleaned, and then consumed by guys.

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529765/p osts

      "Although wastewater treatment plants remove contaminants, they aren't equipped to remove estrogen, so the hormone is released into waters and attaches to sedimentary particles" Kelley said

    10. Re:Simple evolution by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "If you fight you are put in jail,"

      What nets you some hours of community service and maybe some counseling today would have gotten you hard labor a century ago.

      "if you ask someone out at work you are fired and sued,"

      Before women had the ability to defend themselves from unwanted advances, they had these things called "fathers" and "brothers."

      "if you are perceived to be an insensitive clod who wants to sit in a bar rather than wash dishes, you are unlikely to get married or have an offspring - thanks also to birth control/abortion."

      Before birth control there were shotgun weddings (again, those fathers and brothers).

      All of the behavior that you seem to believe is "manly" is far easier to get away with today than it ever was. And yet the crime rate has skyrocketted and our prisons are filled with young men that would have been swinging from the gallows a century ago, coinciding with this demonstrable drop in testosterone.

      The problem isn't that it's harder to be a "man" today, it's easier. The problem is that the behavior you associate with being "manly" just plain isn't. What you're describing aren't symptoms of manly pride and confidence, but rather boyish insecurity, looking for something to prove.

    11. Re:Simple evolution by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Having actually read history, Western society believed in the principle of "women as property of the most violent male" from the Romans to the 20th century. Roman society was very literally built on it(one or the largest Roman myths that wasn't just a Greek invention was the kidnapping of every Sabine woman) and rape was a minor crime in America until the 1850s and in Europe until much later.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    12. Re:Simple evolution by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I'd agree, the other traits of high testosterone, such as anger, irritability, ravenous libido, and prone to excessive violence are systematically being weeded out of the gene pool. Like another poster said, women now choose their mates and the law helps keep many "manly men" in Jail so they don't procreate. Our society has progressed from valuing the strong but violent hunter, to praising the bureaucrat that keeps affairs in order to provide for the offspring.

    13. Re:Simple evolution by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, a man with normal levels of testosterone will get into conflicts, make sexual advances and will not be especially interested in house work. I am not suggesting that murder or rape should be tolerated, but neither should the other extreme of expecting guys to be domesticated and docile. Besides causing health problems and impotence, low level of testosterone means our society will lack risk takers who are necessary for progress and defending the rest of the population against psychos. A case in point is NASA abandoning moon missions and all but stopping shuttle flights because of a single accident - an unavoidable occurrence for something inherently dangerous like space flights. Russian space agency has no such issues.

      By the way, I am not an anthropologist, but I would guess in the olden days most people met at work, because they were like working on the farm all the time. Either that, or the society had arranged marriage and said fathers and brothers were most probably not looking for males with low testosterone levels. And notice that a shotgun marriage doesn't stop you from having an offspring unlike birth control/abortion.

    14. Re:Simple evolution by iamacat · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think a society can thrive when populated exclusively with bureaucrats?

    15. Re:Simple evolution by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Like it or not, a man with normal levels of testosterone will get into conflicts,"

      But the kinds of conflicts you are talking about are happening more often (on a per capita basis) than they were in the past, even though there was more testosterone in the past.

      "A case in point is NASA abandoning moon missions and all but stopping shuttle flights because of a single accident - an unavoidable occurrence for something inherently dangerous like space flights."

      Life is cheap. Space shuttles are expensive. Shuttle flights didn't stop because they ran out of volunteers.

      "but I would guess in the olden days most people met at work, because they were like working on the farm all the time."

      A century ago the United States was more urban than today (no cars to commute from the suburbs, no "white flight," etc.). People were around a lot more people with a lot more opportunities for the "manly" conflicts you list off.

      "Either that, or the society had arranged marriage and said fathers and brothers were most probably not looking for males with low testosterone levels."

      We're talking about the United States here, not Japan. Women of a century ago lacked property rights and the like, but that doesn't mean they weren't independent and self-assertive enough to, say, fight for sufferage.

      "And notice that a shotgun marriage doesn't stop you from having an offspring unlike birth control/abortion."

      But the husband became "domesticated" by threat of death, expected to support the child rather than run off and father more with other women. And women at the time were less likely to put out until they got something substantial on their finger, at least nothing that could cause pregnancy; in many ways women are more pliant than they were a century ago.

    16. Re:Simple evolution by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Did those history pamphlets you read also talk about how it wasn't the most violent male, but the richest and/or most socially well off male that had more ability to marry a "good" (rich, beautiful, etc.) wife? Did they mention that, in the strictest sense, women were not "property", as they couldn't be sold off or divorced, and that the man was as equally shackled to the woman as the woman was to the man? Did they mention that it was indeed a social contract, but one which was mutually beneficial and necessary for survival?

      It may also come as a surprise to you that in colonial America, and even up until the religious reformations of the mid-1800s, women were not only treated better and with more esteem than they have been throughout the entire 1900s, but they were on equal economic standing with men in many regards (with females taking many of the tradescrafts which are traditionally thought of as "male" - gunsmith, blacksmith, etc - hell, the most prominent colonial gunsmiths were women).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  40. Pussification of the Western Male by Yonder+Way · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kim du Toit explained this phenomenon some time ago in this essay. I think he hit it right on the head.

    1. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That guy has some serious issues with women and it sounds like he is trying way too hard to be "manly." I'd lay money on him being very attracted to men:)

    2. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with many of Kim du Toit's points. IT'S OKAY TO BE A MAN.

    3. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by multiplexo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Kim du Toit is a douchebag who purchases firearms as a way of compensating for his small dick, he is revered and idolized by guys who don't even have the balls to purchase firearms as a means of compensating for their even smaller dicks.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    4. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While that is certainly flamebait, it's also THE FUCKING TRUTH, man.

    5. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Kim du Toit explained this phenomenon some time ago in this essay. I think he hit it right on the head.

      Careful, I called it feminization here on slashdot 6 or so months ago and got modded to oblivion.

    6. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by kronocide · · Score: 1

      "[B]ecause women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger..." LOL Yes, everyone who is not a suicidal, gun-tooting idiot does that. What a muppet.

    7. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by moe.ron · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well this is getting off topic I think, but...

      For a man's man, Kim sure feels the need to censor himself quite a ####### lot. What the #### is up with that? Either find an eloquent way to say what you're trying to say, or just fucking say it, but having all these ####'s in place of fucks and shits makes him look like an uneducated pussy.

      Pardon my ####'s, but what the fuck is this:
      When women got the vote, it was inevitable that government was going to become more powerful, more intrusive, and more "protective" (ie. more coddling), because women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger.
      I am supposed to believe that the women voters in this country are to blame for our heavy handed, civil rights trampling, fear mongering, war-hawking government? That all the men voted to live dangerously and with uncertainty, and the women were all like, "No, we need a large, over powered, fascist government to protect us".

      Well that and this:
      Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do? You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen? It's a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.
      Is he seriously trying to rationalize rape and alcohol abuse by saying those actions are simply unavoidable, natural expressions of the human male? What about self-control, integrity, and discipline?

      Oh, and:
      Donald Rumsfeld ... He's a Real Man. No wonder the Euros hate and fear him ... We'd better get more like him, we'd better become more like him, because if we don't, men will become a footnote to history.
      Umm...what? I'm sorry but the argument that being assertive and aggressive is an appropriate replacement for being intelligent and diplomatic does not hold water with me. You can't use Rumsfeld as an example of what people should be like until you can prove that Rumsfeld isn't a complete idiot. People fear Rumsfeld because he is irrational and has the world's most powerful military at his disposal. So many people have died unnecessarily as the direct result of this man's actions and we're supposed to be more like him?
    8. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      For a man's man, Kim sure feels the need to censor himself quite a ####### lot.

      Haha, yeah I noticed that too while reading him. He's a real man according to republican standards, he can hunt but not use curse words, I guess we can say he's not being pussified by women but by his religion. On that side he's his God's bitch. I think he's got points anyways.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    9. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by Bastian · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I see someone else modded this post insightful, which is interesting. I would have modded it funny; the essay didn't really go anywhere so I can't see how it was meant to be anything but a satire of the attitudes of men who lack the backbone to define themselves however the hell they want and instead must cling to "safe" ideas like the manly man.

      And then I start surfing the rest of the site, and it becomes clear to me that this guy might be serious. But I really can't tell. Everything seems like a caricature of the archetypical man-child, but nothing goes quite overboard enough for me to be entirely sure.

      But I think I'm going to stick with thinking this is really meant to be a joke. Or maybe Kim du Toit isn't joking, just pretending. He wants us to take him seriously, because he's trying to ride on Ted Nugent's coattails.

    10. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Informative
      And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified fighter pilot,..

      Frankly, I haven't seen any information to indicate that. All I'm aware of is that AWOLIE/DESERTER Bush trained on the standard "vomit comet" at Lackland OTS, but never actually flew any jet fighters, period.

      This is typical historical revisionism (the entire essay, that is). Reminds me of those times back in the late '60s and early '70s (back in the old 20th century) when I was classified 1A (draftable, that is) and the women in Human Resources told me I should be a man and go enlist to fight in Vietnam. Of course, I waited until I was actually drafted - I'm no imbecile, after all.

      Then, upon my return, those same women told me they didn't want to hire any "baby killers."

      The essay's author, Kim du Toit, failed to mention what branch of the military she/he served in? I recall from my family history that my ancestors were among the minority who actually participated - and some died - fighting in the Revolutionary War. My, how easy it is for those who are exempt or draft dodgers to judge the rest of us......

    11. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Super post, moe.ron! Donald Rumsfeld, a real man! That's hilarious. From what I heard, the reason he never got above Captain in the Naval Reserve - despite all his many political connections - was that his fitness reports always labeled him a giant pussy (a pejoratively used term which I always felt should be used only in the most positive sense by those of us - heterosexual men - that love it so).

      This clown who wrote that essay certainly sounds like he's never been in combat - I know few who have ever revelled in it - and I would be the first to say I was quite scared and could have easily forgone the experience. (And the next idiot who labels the world's biggest wussies, Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld and (small-sized) Dick Cheney to be tough, will personally get a private visit from this American.....

    12. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by LordNimon · · Score: 1
      I am supposed to believe that the women voters in this country are to blame for our heavy handed, civil rights trampling, fear mongering, war-hawking government?


      Yes, because it's the voting, middle-aged soccer moms who want everyone to "think of the children" when passing laws.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    13. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by feepness · · Score: 1

      I am supposed to believe that the women voters in this country are to blame for our heavy handed, civil rights trampling, fear mongering, war-hawking government? That all the men voted to live dangerously and with uncertainty, and the women were all like, "No, we need a large, over powered, fascist government to protect us".

      Not that I think we should roll back the vote for women or anything... but all the biggest supporters of Church (capital C there) that I know are women.

    14. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      I am supposed to believe that the women voters in this country are to blame for our heavy handed, ...
      Look up prohibition, see whose wonderful idea that was. Then ask yourself that question again.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    15. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      He's an athiest. Surprise!

      Curse words are ####'d out because of a farangle with a potential employer who thought his views were too radical to employ him; you think women and minorities have problems with descrimination, oh boy. Try being a prominent firearm owner who doesn't buy the establishment's "political correctness" as something good.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    16. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Who do you post as over there?

      He banned me last spring for saying he was making appeasement arguments about Muslims...

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    17. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Frankly, I haven't seen any information to indicate that. All I'm aware of is that AWOLIE/DESERTER Bush trained on the standard "vomit comet" at Lackland OTS, but never actually flew any jet fighters, period.
      He was assigned on flight status for the F-102 at Ellington. You don't get assigned to fly a plane unless you've actually been instructed on and demonstrated that you can fly that plane. Whatever else about his "military career" is laughable (and most of it is), chimpy was undoubtedly a trained jet fighter pilot.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    18. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      He's an athiest. Surprise!

      Ha! Indeed! :-) he's still republican tho?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    19. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by Superfarstucker · · Score: 1

      That's a good piece of comedy. Haven't laughed that hard for a week.

    20. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      How the flying fuck does blanking out cuss words change the ideas? All this proves is that the guy is an idiot. If he were that worried about his views getting him fired, he would use a pen name.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    21. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Prohibition was a result of war. Who were we fighting World War One against? The Germans. What are the Germans famous for? A little drink they call bier. That was the reason for prohibition. It was racism, just like every other drug ban out there.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    22. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      "How did we get to this?"

      We got to this because 80 million people were shot by guns, blown up by artillery, mangled by machines, starved to death, or otherwise shredded to bits in two world wars.

      For 50 years, small groups of men had the power at any time to incinerate every human being on earth.

      They still have that power.

      As we have seen, more are acquiring that power.

      So really, the species has little need for the high testosterone types. What war hasn't already killed, society will breed you out.

    23. Re:Pussification of the Western Male by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      You don't get assigned to fly a plane unless you've actually been instructed on and demonstrated that you can fly that plane.

      Negative. During my time in the active duty USAF (same time period) I witnessed several similar "political assignments" to air wings where the varmints were not qualified - and never flew.....I've seen the picture of him beside the F-102, but until I've ever heard of read of anyone that can actually vouchsafe for him flying it, I stand by what I posted.

      There is simply far too much of a fictional - media creation-type of biographical info - written about him to believe in anything without verification. Same holds true for G. Gordon Liddy and H. Ross Poiret, media creations all....

  41. closer to home.... by tloh · · Score: 1

    ....suddenly, the "OMG! PONIES!" April Fools gag on slashdot takes on a whole different meaning...

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  42. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    if you stop licking the blood and body fluid off the wrappers you'll alright

  43. But not in the White House! by phliar · · Score: 1

    Thank God for this adolescent raging hard-on White House, who have pledged the preserve the sanctity of our precious bodily fluids! Now with Martial Law!

    --
    Unlimited growth == Cancer.
    1. Re:But not in the White House! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those electrodes on your willy should get your testosterone going...

  44. Estrogen in the water? by DebateG · · Score: 1

    Elevated estrogen and estrogen mimicking substances have made it into our rivers and streams, causing signs of hermaphroditism in fish. Scientists have discovered a wide range of other drugs in our drinking water, from pain killers to birth control pills to antidepressants. High levels of rocket fuel toxins have been found in mothers' milk. My city still uses lead piping to transfer most of its water, and they alkalinize the water to reduce lead levels to "acceptable" levels, even though scientists have pretty much shown that the only acceptable lead level is no lead at all.

    It's not entirely clear what, if any, effects these substances have on developing children. Personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry and remove these contaminants from my water.

    1. Re:Estrogen in the water? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Scientists have discovered a wide range of other drugs in our drinking water, from pain killers to... antidepressants.

      I know I always feel better after a tall glass of water. I guess that explains it :).

    2. Re:Estrogen in the water? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      My city still uses lead piping to transfer most of its water, and they alkalinize the water to reduce lead levels to "acceptable" levels

      Use of lead isn't exactly a *new* phenomenon though. If anything, less lead is used for drinking and eating applications today than 100 years ago. I'd be more worried about plasticizers leaching out of those new-fangled plastic water pipes :D

      -b.

  45. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Informative

    yup, google estrogen and "nonyphenol" or "bisphenol A" (there's others too) heating in microwave ovens likely increases the dosages, never thought of that until now. crap.

  46. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to start adding testosterone to the water supply to counteract this bloody oestrogen. Next thing we'll see not only more retarded testosterone-hyped men, but also more chicks with dicks. It's a win-win situation if you're into that kind of stuff.

  47. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's true!

  48. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by Cherita+Chen · · Score: 2, Informative
    "...and it's like getting a little dose of estrogen."

    Here's the obligatory link to more info on the estrogen-plastic issue.

    In light of this revelation, it is important to note that according to research, the amount of estrogen one would ingest from plastic doesn't compare to the rate of testosterone aromatization in a young healthy male (let alone a steroid laden jock). The bottom line is that a body needs both estrogen and testosterone (though amounts do differ between M&F).

    --
    I'm not fat, just big boned...
  49. Ahhh by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    Genetically enhanced food at its best...

    1. Re:Ahhh by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Another bio-ignorant poster.

  50. Drugging boys to death? by hsmith · · Score: 1

    How about the fact the goverment (schools) drugs young boys? (ADD treatments, ect). I am sure this has NOTHING to do with it at all.

    Add in hormones in foods, obesity, no exercise. call me fucking shocked that testosterone is on the slide.

    1. Re:Drugging boys to death? by chucklinart · · Score: 1

      Not sure that ADHD drugs would have that effect, but they certainly could be a factor. Maybe the same neurochemicals that cause boys to be "wild" (and get diagnosed as ADHD) also help them build up balls.

  51. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for mentioning plastic. I have heard also in general, many man-made chemicals appear in the body as estrogens, including pesticides. One link that has been made in other studies, that I haven't seen posted yet as I'm scrolling down reading comments, is studies of polution and the sexual effects on wild-life animals. There also in some populations are dramatic declines. They could be our dying [dead?] canary in the mine warning of imminent danger for us. Maybe I can find a link via quick google search:

    http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Basics/chapters.htm
    http://www.holology.com/hormone.html
    http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/environmentalscienc e/casestudies/case7.mhtml
    http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasticizers/Out- Of-Diet-PG5nov03.htm

    Anyways, that's just a sampling. I think it's already a pretty well known issue. Not saying there's not other possible contributing factors. But this is being studied and there's quite a few references attached to some of those articles. Have fun. Who needs to reproduce anyways? We have genetics. We can clone! Muwahahahaha.... :-)

  52. Hormones and fertility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In related news, Slate ran an interesting story about "What's Really Behind the Plunge in Teen Pregnancy?".

  53. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Informative
    Common plastics used to package convenience foods have estrogenic side-effects.

    Indeed, polycarbonate - which is in pretty much everything - is made from a chemical originally used as a synthetic estrogen, bisphenol A. Bisphenol A will leech from polycarbonate food or drink containers, especially ones cleaned with very hot water, or with bleach. (Some plastics are safer: #1 PETE, #2 HDPE are fairly safe from leaching and are easy to recycle, #4 LDPE and #5 PP are also said to be safe for food storage.)

    Many other chemical pollutants are also xenoestrogens. And there's also the widespread use of hormones in animal farming, as well as medical uses which means excess amounts being urinated out and ending up in the water supply.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  54. Not enough time to build up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between less and and less physical activity, not being alowed to be men (not policially correct) and masturbating more and more
    there is no way for it to build up. It is just easier to masturbate anymore than to have to put up with waiting for the partner to want to have sex or find other partners more.

  55. i know... by sad_ · · Score: 1

    ...of at least one american where this doesn't appear to be a problem.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  56. I prefer to just flip them off!... by arcite · · Score: 1
    I could break a fingernail with a slap!

  57. Look to Africa for solutions by bogaboga · · Score: 1
    I think the reason why our testosterone levels are reduced across all age groups is because we use lots of hormones, [unnecessary] medications, artificial products in our food stuffs.

    On a recent trip to East Africa, the food I ate over there tasted different and better! The bananas and all other fruits had a good aroma to them. Contrast that with the fruit section of most of our supermarkets and you'll hardly smell any presence of fruits nearby!

    In the part of East Africa I visited, monkeys smell these fruits from miles away and come to have a feast. There were also lots of men in their sixties who had kids as children. They told me they were still sexually active. In America, such a man would most probably have to utilize the blue pill! This might also explain the fact that despite the scourge of AIDS, the population in Africa is still growing exponentially. Pollution also plays a hand in my opinion. If you differ, get a white wet and hang it outside. You'll be surprised about what color it would become after a few hours. Reason: Pollution, period.

    1. Re:Look to Africa for solutions by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      There's indeed a lot of pollution outside!

      All of use should remember how lucky we are, safely spending our time behind the computer in the basement of our parents..

      Ehmm.. I mean.. ehm... *runs*

    2. Re:Look to Africa for solutions by will_die · · Score: 1

      The smell of most fruits is caused by rot, same as fish and meat; just that fruits smell pleasing to the nose. Since most supermarkets need to transport from a distance and sell for more then 2 days they are picked unripe.
      For some fruits you can speed up the rotting and create a really nice smelling and better tasting(usually caused by have the sugars concentrated or other substances being turned into sugars) product.
      The other option would be to skip the large supermarkets and get fruits from your local farmers market. You will get fresher products but the selection will be alot less.

  58. wild at heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have my own theories on why this is happening. The out-of-control femininization of men (metrosexualization). The lack of strong male influences on children (single mom families). The move from field to factory (strength and skill gives way to repetition and button-mashing). I think this should be required reading for men: http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Heart-Discovering-Secre t-Mans/dp/0785268839/

    1. Re:wild at heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul"

      What kind of a fucking book title is that you worthless, effeminate freak?

      Go ang get yourself a real mans book!

  59. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  60. You confound testosterone and sperm. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    > I leave it to you all to draw your conclusions about this, but I still wonder
    > what my hours of laptop-fu does to me.

    You confound testosterone and sperm.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:You confound testosterone and sperm. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new metrosex overlords!

  61. No, the good news here... by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Funny

    is that there are still some of us left with unreduced libidos, who are capable of stepping up and picking up the slack. I'm willing to score with your girlfriend or with any other attractive women who share her problem, working round the clock if that's the kind of unflagging effort necessary to keep up the American birthrate.

    No need to thank me. The chance to service my country is all the thanks I need.

    1. Re:No, the good news here... by Firehed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Translation: for the love of God, I have a four-digit slashdot ID. I really need some.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    2. Re:No, the good news here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to thank me. The chance to service my cuntry is all the thanks I need.

      There, fixed that for you.

    3. Re:No, the good news here... by Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

      What? Karma?

      --
      Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
    4. Re:No, the good news here... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Another translation: three-digit slashdot ID, and only twenty off from being satanic. I should know better than to add "at slashdot" to the end of my Y! searches for "define: needing some" by now.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    5. Re:No, the good news here... by Mathieu+Lu · · Score: 1

      My slashdot UID never stopped me from getting married and having offspring. :-)

  62. It shows! by zecg · · Score: 1

    Certainly, people have wussed out significantly between 6.06 and 6.10 releases of Ubuntu - the problems with upgrading that many report must be due to lower testosterone!

    --
    .i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
  63. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by SnowZero · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly we need to start adding testosterone to plastic. Then we can have male and female versions of soda bottles. The companies can charge extra for the "man's drink bottle" to offset the extra expense, as men won't want to be caught with the "women's drink bottle"[1]. I think I had better patent this...

    [1] this logic might not work on male Mac users.

  64. Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... the brain's response to all the negative pressures of using testosterone. I mean the aggressive male is in decline. When I was in school getting in a fight was a boys will be boys will a minor slap on the wrist. But now hurting people's feelings is a serious offense cause they may sue someone. The further pussification of america.

    I think one problem could be the estrogen present in cow's milk because of the hormones they are giving the cows. But as far as being fat being the cause of declining testosterone, meh. Theres a lot of people who aren't aggressive because of their parenting and just don't seem to have that tendencies to begin with. I'm overweight and I've played football. The most aggressive players are typically the ones that are a little overweight.

    1. Re:Could it be... by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      I would hate to be your kid. Comes home with a black eye and your response is, "Damn I've got an pussified American son."

      If being an asshole is part of having a healthy amount of testosterone, then go sit in traffic all day and enjoy your testosterone.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    2. Re:Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Comes home with a black eye and your response is, "Damn I've got an pussified American son."

      No. That would be if he came home without a black eye.
    3. Re:Could it be... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      The further pussification of america.

      Yeah, 'cause you're such a big man, posting as AC.

      I'm guessing you were one of those schoolyard bullies who thought that beating the shit out of people on a regular basis was all in good fun, and maybe now that you're grown up (er, relatively speaking) you've realized that your victims didn't see it that way. (And this being Slashdot, there's a good chance that one of your erstwhile victims is reading your post ...) If you're like most fatso aging ex-jocks, maybe one of these days you'll get stuck in a dark alley with the skinny little geek who grew up to be a weightlifter, and get the chance to learn exactly how much fun it was.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Could it be... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Amazing what kind of dumbass conjecture can get modded insightful. The article didn't give any conclusions, and unless you're researching the topic, the most accurate thing you can say is you don't know.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    5. Re:Could it be... by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      I think you have it wrong, back in the day if a kid comes home with a black eye his dad says, "You got your ass kicked? Come here and I'll teach you to fight." My Old Man's Old Man taught him to fight, my Old Man taught me to fight, and guess what? When I have a kid I'll teach him to fight. Part of living a full life is to feel the ups and the downs, if you had no painful moments in your life wouldn't you be bored? Wouldn't we all just live out our lives waiting to die?

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    6. Re:Could it be... by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      That still won't change how much testosteroine you and your kid will have.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
  65. **cries** by peterfa · · Score: 1

    Oh, I promised myself I wouldn't cry. **sniffs**

  66. John Wayne was an actor, not a hero. by Animats · · Score: 1

    vaulted (sic) hero, John Wayne

    John Wayne was not a hero. He was an actor who played heroic roles.

    He did not serve in the military during WWII; he got a draft deferment.

    Great actor, yes. Inspiration to many, yes. Hero, no.

    1. Re:John Wayne was an actor, not a hero. by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      s/John Wayne/John Wayne's characters/ and the original point stands.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  67. This has been known forever....it's our food by y0bailey · · Score: 1

    I read a study about this like 4000 yrs ago, and basically it is due to us frying the shit outta everything we eat. I can't remember the exact details, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but basically something with the vegetable oil we fry everything in has an interaction with testosterone and ends up making it go bye bye. So the people who suggested obesity aren't so far off. How do you get fat? Eating shitloads of calories, most of which come from fried food. Want your sperm and your sex drive to stay alive, skip the fast food drive through and steam up some vegetables with a small portion of fish, chicken, and occasionally beef. Excuse me now I need to go grab some McyDee's

    1. Re:This has been known forever....it's our food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and ...This latest contribution to the obesity debate comes in an article by Sheldon H. Jacobson of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and his doctoral student, Laura McLay. Their paper, published in the current issue of The Engineering Economist, calculates how much extra gasoline is used to transport Americans now that they have grown fatter. The answer, they said, is a billion gallons a year.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/weekinreview/29k olata.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

      Fat americanos cause global warming! :)

  68. it started long before that by losec · · Score: 1

    with duke nukem where you would often find testosterone ampuls..

  69. As the risk of serious mod hits...... by Allnighterking · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who read the title and immediately thought of Dick Cheney?

    --

    I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.

  70. arn't there by Truekaiser · · Score: 0

    chemicals that react the same way estrogen does?

  71. Marriage decreases testosterone! by inkwiztor · · Score: 1

    Actually- Testosterone declines with marriage. One of the more interesting researchers
    out there has written several papers on why scientific productivity declines
    with age. One of the hypotheses which is looking pretty good is that with
    marriage there is a decline in testosterone, and in keeping with Geoffrey Miller's
    "The Mating Mind" ideas that testosterone leads to various displays such
    as technical virtuosity- there is then a corresponding decrease in scientific
    production (at the topmost levels). This raises another question- isn't marraige
    becoming less common?

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstit ute/pdf/SKanazawa/EHB2000b.pdf
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstit ute/pdf/SKanazawa/JRP2003.pdf

    Some of his other publications-
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/methodologyInstit ute/whosWho/profiles/s.kanazawa@lse.ac.uk.htm
    Wiki
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

    --
    "A beginning is a delicate time for making certain that the balances are correct..." So go see "Mahdi" O'Reilly's
    1. Re:Marriage decreases testosterone! by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      This raises another question- isn't marraige becoming less common?
      Can't really draw any solid conclusions from that statistic, as it only addresses the social ritual, not the actual male-female pairbonding it represents. Has the pairbonding decreased, or only the ritual? I tend to think that people simply aren't bothering to engage in something that has become little more than a superfluous legal contract. Folks nowadays are more likely to conclude that the only useful purpose for marriage is that it automatically grants certain legal conveniences that are useful when raising children.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  72. 'cause liberals have no balls by Dmack_901 · · Score: 0

    Did they cite any information about testosterone levels in Liberals vs. Conservatives? I wouldn't be suprised to see the anti-war movement literally make us weaker. Heck, look how many liberals have never even fired a gun.

  73. Unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you happen to live in the middle east, I suppose.

  74. The testosterone avg. in american males is lower? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened? Did Chuck Norris renounce his citizenship?

  75. Oh I get it now by retro128 · · Score: 1

    Aha, so THAT'S why everyone is so afraid of their own shadow that they'd rather live in a police state than face the astronomical odds of being blow'd up by a terrorist.

    Just read this before visiting Slashdot. I feel a LOT safter knowing that armed police in full riot gear are patting down those violent schoolkids, don't you? Terrorists are lurking everywhere!

    --
    -R
  76. Then again... by Travoltus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    higher testosterone levels, going by your admission, also led to people dying. I was witness to a kid being bullied and knocked down in a school fight and he cracked his head on the concrete ground. He spent days in the hospital and came back to school with his head all mummified. Others have died in that situation. The lawsuits that come of that are spectacular - and in case you're grumbling about lawyers right about now, well now, someone has to pay those medical bills, and it might as well be the testosterone-poisoned bully who, in this case, had knocked the other kid down. Of course, you'd say the kid who got knocked down deserved it because he was weak, or that his head injury is his problem, and no one else's. That's fine and well - he'd typically come back with a knife, a bat or even a gun, and even the score. See: Columbine. Inner city schools are plagued with that behavior. That's why the so-called "pussification" is going on.

    When you take this he-man testosterone rah rah rah bullshit to the leaders-of-our-nation level, you get the threat of nuclear war. Or Bush. Of course you would say nuclear war is so 1960s. Tell that to the people who lived back then. Also do consider moving out of New York, and soon - that's target numeral uno for some terrorist with a suitcase nuke. Some testosterone poisoned man is absolutely positively going to try to blow that city up over a *certain* religious dispute we're all familiar with.

    So what'll it be? Pussification, or skyrocketing crime and/or mass annihilation?

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Then again... by jesuscyborg · · Score: 1
      I was witness to a kid being bullied and knocked down in a school fight and he cracked his head on the concrete ground
      I can vouch, it happened to me and wasn't fun :(
    2. Re:Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I, for one, welcome the pussification of the American male.

    3. Re:Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      testosterone poisoned? I have noticed that men are becoming less accepted in american society, but what we need is more real men to be good examples for boys growing up. If you look at the men portrayed in television, they are not something I, as a guy, would want to be. I think the lack of strong male role models, both as parents and in culture causes some people to face gender identity problems or to desire to crossdress.

    4. Re:Then again... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      I agree with your sentiments.

      But then again. Keep using your anti-bacterial soap, and when the real bad bacteria comes for you, you'll be even worse off in the long run. Pussification is a bad thing if you're the only one being pussified.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    5. Re:Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      umm..."So what'll it be? Pussification, or skyrocketing crime and/or mass annihilation?"

      You absolutely positive that shouldn't be an "AND"?

      Are crime rates not getting steadily worse every year? Were they not considerably better 40 years ago?

      And how in the sam hell did we get from "Columbine" immediately to "inner city schools". Dear lord, the mean streets of Littleton Colorado!

      damn straight this is the pussifcation of America. 20 years ago, if someone beats you down at school, you toughen up. Partially thanks to the dadgum estrogen levels in males, people behave emotionally and irrationally without any logical thought (see: "women"). You ask them about it later, they have no clue how it escalated to that point.

      Times are getting worse in the US, not better. My family has been in the US since the early 1700's, but I fear I'm going to be the last that calls this place home. Am going to move to Australia, where even government bodies (see: John Howard) can actually speak their minds. Everyone is so quick to blame the government, because they want a scapegoat. Why does noone look inward? Laws are being passed every year with the aim of allowing more "freedoms" for everyone, but all they end up doing is make it easier for someone to be sued if their mean words "infringe" on someone's rights. You think that's the fault of the government? Congressmen pass bills very rarely directly for their own personal gain, but do so because it wins them votes next election year.

      Aside from technological advancements, who here would be dumb enough to say times are better to raise a child in 2006 than they were in 1956?

      This is one thing we certainly don't need. 50 years ago, if a bully picked on you, you toughened up, learned how to stand up for yourself. Nowadays you either shoot up a school, or sue someone. Tell me, which is better.

    6. Re:Then again... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean. I can hardly go to the mall before some woman comes at me out of nowhere and asks me directly if the woman who owns me knows that I'm out of the house, and she's going to call the police and report a loose man in the mall. Or maybe it's just because I forgot my pants.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    7. Re:Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Are crime rates not getting steadily worse every year?"

      Er, no? At least not violent crime. Drug crime? Yes.

      http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime
      http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#serious

      I don't disagree with the rest of your post, just the crime part.

      If I had to make a guess I would say that the news has gotten worse at a rate that far outstrips crime. When the big story was church burnings the number of church burnings was down. The rash of stories about violence in schools after Columbine? Yep, statistics said school violence was down (mind you the magnitude of violent actions, different story).

      Our news sources are biased toward whatever makes people watch and read the news. If you ran a news network you would do everything you could to shove terrorism and pedophilia in the public's face too.
      What is on the rise? The lack of critical thinking. The inability to make decisions on complex issues. Maybe for the reasons you list.

    8. Re:Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By shooting people you do show that you can stand up for yourself. That is "good" violent male behavior. It seems silly to arbitrarily draw a line and say that is okay, and character building, to have your skull cracked on the pavement by a bully, and then say it's "wrong" to shoot up a school. After all, past generations that were manly, extolled the virtues of warfare. If today's youth decide to turn schools into a battlefield we might get another Patton of MacArthur out the deal. Tell the parents of the jocks whose brains end up on the gym floor, it is in the best interest of the country.

    9. Re:Then again... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I think the lack of strong male role models, both as parents and in culture causes some people to face gender identity problems or to desire to crossdress.

      Two points:

      1. gender identity has nothing to do with "how you were brought up" - its governed by one small area of the hypothalamus, which is either masculinized during the first trimester or not, depending on the functioning of the gonads. You can start by reading here for more info.

      2. Crossdressing is a totally unrelated activity, and most male cross-dressers are aggressively attached to their penises. Whether there is a biological underpinning is unknown.

    10. Re:Then again... by DeadChobi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By shooting people you do not show that you can stand up for yourself. Further more, you're comitting a grievous logical fallacy by equating a punch to a shot. There's a huge difference between punching someone and shooting them dead, and if you can't see the difference there's something seriously wrong with you. If you lose a fistfight at school, tough shit. You don't go get a gun and come back the next day. There's no honor in that.

      You have a completely wrong-headed idea of why the past generations fought as well. None of the men involved in the wars of our past generations extolled the virtues of warfare. If you asked any or all of them, they would all tell you that war is hell. But in at least one of the wars of the past generation, most everyone involved felt that they had to fight in order to preserve an ideal. In WWII, when the Nazis swept across Europe and the fascists took power, America fought to preserve the idea that people have to have the freedom to choose and to think for themselves.

      There's danger in being able to think for yourself and being able to choose, but life without danger is life unlived. It's a shame that the America of today is slipping into a safe, clean, peaceful police state. I'd much rather have a little anarchy and dissent in the streets and the schools and be able to decide for myself what is safe then to have Big Brother decide for me. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

      It's certainly not manly to start a fight, but it is manly to defend yourself. At the same time, we all have to stick up for and preserve our ideals against whatever odds prevail. To give up the idea of freedom for the theatre of security is a fool's gambit. I would discourage my children from starting fights, but encourage them to stick up for others, with violence as a last resort. Sympathize with the parents of the children injured in fights, punish your children for taking the fight too far, but don't tell them that all forms of violence are evil and must be supressed. In the last, you encourage them to be victims, and the victimization of society is leading to its dysfunction.

      --
      SRSLY.
    11. Re:Then again... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      I agree with your argument except for one slight inaccuracy: Columbine occurred not because they were bullied but because one of the members was manic-depressive and the other fit the clinical description of a psychopath. However, being bullied is the cause of many other school shootings.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    12. Re:Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people who fought in pistol duels (ambushes really in the old west) throughout history would disagree with you about how using a gun does not show that you can stand up for yourself. But this is beside the point, I'm not talking about stupid "honor"; I'm talking about raw, unfeeling Darwinian evolution. The whole 'survival of the fittest', 'what ever doesn't kill you makes you stronger', 'don't be a crybaby, suck it up and deal' mindset of the "the pussification of America" poster is what I was referring to. It is indeed arbitrary to say that, the whole bulliying/sucking it up and "dealing" culture is okay, but the new shooting or lawsuit cultures aren't. Evolution doesn't care how you take care of business. Who cares if we have a society were all the 'strapping examples of masculinity' who routinely beat up people, are either killed by one of their victims or are sued into oblivion? If they can't adapt to today's world they deserve to die out like cavemen.

      The "pussification" poster thought that was a problem. What problem? By that whole uncaring "rugged man" logic, you SHOULD tell the families of the slain bullies to "take it like a man" and "get over it". There is a double standard at play. Even it the victim of the bully brought a camera and set it up to document the crimes committed by the bully, to use as evidence in a lawsuit against him and his family, instead of shooting him; "pussification" poster would still have a problem with it. Why can't the high-testosterone people "suck it up and deal" with the fact that they will be sued of killed in todays world?

    13. Re:Then again... by flyneye · · Score: 0

      I can appreciate your frank opinion,I would also suggest there may also be environmental causes.
      I had this past year learned that plastics toxins in conjunction with the water we drink increase estrogen levels.My water comes in a glass and my coffee in a ceramic mug.Its kind of inescapable really.Water lines,jugs,bottles,etc.
                I suppose I've no terrible worry though.I have a subgeniis natural share of testosterone,praise Bob! My woman is grateful!
                In support of your opinion ,however, I recall a conversation G.Gordon Liddy reportedly had with a French friend of his regarding Frances passive role in its Nazi occupation.
      His friend said something to the tune " When we were children before the war,If we fought,mother would say,stop it, you should be ashamed,you should protect pierre,play nicely.Meanwhile in Germany,Mothers would tell their children,You are strong,the world is yours if you will reach out and take it."
                Perhaps if you got in touch with your masculinity,rented a John Wayne movie,allowed yourself to be guilt free about having testicles,you wouldn't stress like an old woman about
      kids fighting,like rain its always been and you can't do anything about the rites.
      History repeats and the species is still propagated by the most likey to survive.So with a passive attitude in one hand and the study that says women prefer cavemen the two weeks after their period and sensitive girly-men the other two weeks,don't be surprised to find your ol' lady mounted by a marine during her fertile cycle.Either that or quit stumping for hillbillary and the democrats in a geek forum.If you think geeks don't have testosterone,you've never had a subgenius.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    14. Re:Then again... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "most male cross-dressers are aggressively attached to their penises"

      Uh, nearly all male humans are very attached to their penises, and if anybody tried to change that they shouldn't be surprised if there were signs of aggression.

      --
    15. Re:Then again... by Travoltus · · Score: 1

      What you left out of all that was right after we beat the Nazi's, we spent 40 years playing "duck and cover" because testosterone-poisoned men had their fingers on the nuclear button.

      Now it's biological weapons.

      The world you want to go back to is full of horribly imbalanced concepts of "manliness". Feel free to chase the good old days, Biff, but I'm betting on society marching on without you. I'll give you one thing - I am concerned about marching too far away from your kind. The Eloi effect is just as bad as the nuclear annihilation effect.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    16. Re:Then again... by flyneye · · Score: 0

      LOL, We have always made war,nothing is changing,society is an illusion of convenience.
      would it make you feel better if we threw rocks at them instead of nuke?
      The men are here to stay,you should feel more protected than threatened, mary.
      Testosterone isn't a poison its a natural hormone produced by the bod.
      Like I said,the cure for your worry is to strap on your cajones and go on down to the gun range to pop off a few bricks.The exercising of your will to protect your loved ones and yourself should have you back to a strong energetic virile potent fecund man in no time.If not "get into the kitchen and rattle them pots and pans"!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    17. Re:Then again... by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      who here would be dumb enough to say times are better to raise a child in 2006 than they were in 1956?

      Black people (espcially, but not limited to, those in the formerly-segregated South)? Parents with gay children? Japanese Americans? American Indians? Pacifists? Parents who don't want their children to die from smoking-related diseases. Parents who don't want their childrens' IQs to fall from environmental lead poisoning, or suffer other poisoning (the EPA bans are not really 'technological advances'). Parents of daughters who want their child to have a wide choice of careers and financial independence? Let's just cut this short and say, "almost everybody except rednecks."

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    18. Re:Then again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "almost everybody except rednecks."

      You are forgetting that Lynard Skynyrd (or however it is spelled) didn't come out untill the 70's....;)

    19. Re:Then again... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      "Of course, you'd say the kid who got knocked down deserved it because he was weak, or that his head injury is his problem, and no one else's." Nobody has said that having aggression does not mean beating the crap out of people and unprovoked aggression has always been punished. But if a five year old punches another five year old its a time out offense not a criminal act. Overreaction is seriously stunting masculine development in boys today and despite what many will tell you masculinity is not a bad thing. "That's fine and well - he'd typically come back with a knife, a bat or even a gun, and even the score." Thats also a load of crap did we have school shooting in the 50's like we have today? Hell did we have school shootings in the 80's like we do today? I was a very small kid (late bloomer) and got the crap kicked out me / picked on pretty frequently and I was *never* tempted to bring a gun/knife/bomb to school to get even. I even did what my teachers told me and did not fight back. One day my mother told me to hit the kid back. I still get to crap kicked out of me but he waled away with a bloody nose and never touched me again. To tie gun violence to people getting their feelings / body hurt is baseless. "That's why the so-called "pussification" is going on." This pussification is part of the problem, years and years of kids not acting on their hormones, getting beat up and telling the teacher about it instead of fighting back builds up. You find me a study that places school violence at the same level 40 years ago as today and youll have a leg to stand on. This is happening because 90% of the teachers think masculine = bad. We have dropping graduation rates among boys, an extremely disproportionate number of them (as compared to girls) being declared as suffering from ADD and drugged up. We have men less likely to stand up and start a family, instead they just father a bunch of bastard kids and, if the mothers are lucky, drop off child support money. Right now society if failing little boys and young men and are reaping the benefit in under performing boys and dysfunctional adult males not ceasing to live like little kids well into their twenties. "When you take this he-man testosterone rah rah rah bullshit to the leaders-of-our-nation level, you get the threat of nuclear war." And when you pussify men you get Neville Chamberlain appeasers which leads to .... nuclear war.. You're whole post is based upon the premise that people are no better than their hormones and that masculinity is a bad thing, Maybe you should focus on the fact violent crime (including school shootings) was lower 50 years ago when testosterone levels were higher in men.

      --
    20. Re:Then again... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      gender identity has nothing to do with "how you were brought up" - its governed by one small area of the hypothalamus, which is either masculinized during the first trimester or not, depending on the functioning of the gonads. You can start by reading here for more info.

      Thank you for stating a theory as fact... It is knot know how much of gender identy is due to nature and how much is nuture but thanks for playing..

      --
    21. Re:Then again... by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Funny
      I, for one, welcome the pussification of the American male.
      Well, I for one would prefer their PONIFICATION!!! OMG cats are SO cruel!!!
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:Then again... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know.. I made it to adulthood. But I totally sympathise with these shooters every time.

      You have some 185 pound "jock" picking on someone and ruining their life for months. The school does *nothing* about it. In some cases other jock's join in.

      I saw it. I lived it a bit, but even tho I wasn't aggressive- I was 6'5" and when I snapped (as I did 6 times from kindergarten bullying to 10th grade bullying in high school) I kicked the crap out of them so badly (choking one unconcious basically-- I was never much for "punching" as much as "killing") that I didn't get picked on again.

      For all the 5' kids picked on by jocks, they have no hope of winning and are going to have years of their life ruined by these sub-neanderthals. I *completely* understand why they shoot their tormenters. The gun is the only way they have to equalize the odds against someone twice their size (and who *still* often has 2 to 3 other thugs to help because the bullies are fundamentally cowards).

      It's sick to go kill a bunch of helpless kids. It's not even all that irrational to go kill people that have been torturing you for months and nothing is or can be done to stop them.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    23. Re:Then again... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Actually, the psychological theories of gender identity disorders of the last 60 years have pretty much fallen by the wayside when it comes to practical applications, because they produced no better results than placebos.

      We now know that gender identity is 100% governed by nature, not nuture. The seminal research by John Money at Johns Hopkins, that claimed to prove the opposite in humans, was finally exposed as 20 years of falsified data and fraud. The actual test subjects proved the exact opposite - that nuture had NO effect on gender identity in humans.

      Try to keep up with the times. You're obviously looking at outdated material. The nature/nuture theory of gender identity is settled - its nature, and only nature.

  77. Need to laugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is not a subject to laugh at.

    I am sorry that you have this disease. I would suggest you develop a sense of humor about it, though - even laugh at it. Folks who have a sense a humor, even about the disease that might kill them, show a much greater ability to cope and in many cases beat the diease.

    Take care and good luck.

    1. Re:Need to laugh! by Skiron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure... two years (nearly) since diagnosis. I didn't think my post was _not_ about laughing? I joke, get by and sometimes my humour flies over the heads of people I am talking to... I just meant that the subject as a whole should not be laughed at, as it is a real issue that will affect a lot of posters on here in the near future - not the jests on here (everything in life has to be laughed at). I mean, it _is_ slashdot, after all ;-)

  78. I knew it! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    Our American Testosterone is being STOLEN BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS who come to this country and take all our testosterone away from our middle class. As usual, whenever things get worse for the middle class, it is because the illegal aliens are benefitting somehow.

    You might think that 700 mile fence is going to help, so that you can confiscate the testosterone from the illegals at the border and return it to where it belongs: American middle class testicles. Well the joke's on you. They don't carry it out of the country with them. They stay here to live and work, and they put the testosterone in envelopes and mail it home to their impoverished effeminate families in the Third World.

    1. Re:I knew it! by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      You sarcasn if flying miles beyond the target. The point is that American way of life, way of life of super-rich, indulgent, decadent country that leads to the breed of incapable, weak, whiny little undermensh like we are becoming today.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  79. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by mustafap · · Score: 1

    >young healthy male

    Are there any of those left in the usa?

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  80. Red Meat by AVryhof · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's because people keep bitching about how unhealthy red meat is.

    What happened to the days when a guy could fix his car in his garage, build something in the basement, then eat a nice big juicy steak with a potato for dinner, then go watch the news about a war?

    This war on terror isn't a real war, there's no good healthy warmongering in it...it's all about "protect the children" rather than my bombs are bigger and faster than yours.

    We need to stop stomping out countries on the verge of becoming competitive world powers. We need another cold war, where men can be paranoid until they're real men.

    We also need a new generation of muscle cars, and more lumber yards cropping up, these "home centers" make me want to puke.

    In the infamous words of George Carlin, later repeated by Denis Leary and others (which I will poorly misquote)... A man needs to sit home eating red meat and watching the war on TV!

    Real men drink Pabst blue Ribbon beer, and punch holes in the wall to prod their ego.... and thats what a real man is... Flesh, Blood, Muscle and ego!

    Now I'm off to play with my dollies.

    1. Re:Red Meat by MacDaffy · · Score: 1

      It's probably the growth hormones in that red meat (and poultry and dairy products) that is tipping the scales.

    2. Re:Red Meat by LandruBek · · Score: 1

      Obligatory quote from Blue Velvet:

      FRANK BOOTH: What kinda beer do you like?

      JEFFREY BEAUMONT: Heineken.

      FRANK BOOTH: Fuck that shit! Pabst Blue Ribbon!

      --
      $META_SIG_JOKE
    3. Re:Red Meat by Lumpy · · Score: 1


      What happened to the days when a guy could fix his car in his garage, build something in the basement, then eat a nice big juicy steak with a potato for dinner, then go watch the news about a war?


      Actually I restarted my walk down that road... I am building a sportscar in my garage, have an electronics lab in the basement, eat a modified Atkins diet, but instead of being a pussy and watching war I set up a sattelite reciever to get a brazillian soccer channel and have become hooked. Soccer players and rugby players make american football player look like downright wimpy pussies. The game is far more manly energetic and incredible!

      Now I am growing hair everywhere like mad except the top of my head and my scrotum as tripled in size! I also swear far more and am more prone to fits of rage... HOOYAH!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  81. I wish I had less by Inda · · Score: 1

    I wish I had less testosterone.

    Male pattern baldness started at around the age of 21. 11 years later and I have to keep my remaining hair length at 2-3mm so it doesn't look stupid. I'm not Patrick Stewart yet but give it a few more years and I'll be baldly going where no man...

    Does it really bother me? Not in the slightest but if I'd the choice I'd have put off the recession for ten years.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    1. Re:I wish I had less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not alone. Welcome to the 'bald before thirty gene' club.

    2. Re:I wish I had less by yabos · · Score: 1

      Actually it has more to do with genetics than testosterone. If you are prone to male pattern baldness you can have normal test levels and still lose your hair. Lots of people cycle steroids and don't lose any hair because they aren't genetically inclined for it. If they are then yes they can lose their hair and the higher test does cause it but only if you have the genes for it.

  82. Wild theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember a few years ago a friend of mine once tried to explain to me of a study he was reading, that detailed the dangers in the then-new technology of plastics recycling. The study claimed, apparently, that the recycling process releases harmful chemicals in the atmosphere that interferes with male testosterone production in humans.

    Of course I didn't give the claim much thought at the time due to the lack of supporting evidence or case studies with the theory. Yet since the researchers measure this medical study from the period 1988 to 2003, it is likely the finger could point to any introduced technology or manufacturing process sometime during that period. Plastics recycling is only one of hundreds of new manufacturing processes introduced within that period.. it could really turn out to be anything. We simply can't know yet.

    Since the study only focused on men living in a particular region, the Boston area, and gave no indication as to the details of the habits or lifestyle of the men, I wouldn't put much faith into the results of it at this time.

  83. Birth-Control -- Re:lack of excercise and obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care how much you exercise or how skinny you are, if you continue to drink water that's laced with birth-control hormones, weird things are going to happen. Females don't metabolize all of the hormones, and water-treatment totally skips it altogether, so every pill-popping, patch-wearing, ring-inserting woman is contributing to a growing and accumulating pollution of our waters of the very hormones that's stripping our manhood. Steroids anyone? :)

  84. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by sk8king · · Score: 1

    So, everyone enjoy your Nalgene bottles. Polycarbonate...nalgene and all the knockoffs. It is funny that Brita water is supposed to filter your tap water, but the container it is stored in is polycarbonate.

    Also, beware of plastic baby bottles. Some of them are also polybarbonate. And what do you usually put in a baby bottle? Warm milk. Give the baby's an extra dose of hormone before they're a year old.

  85. Fu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that you call it "laptop-fu" suggests it won't matter anyway.

  86. Tyler_Durden_here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...we are a generation of men raised by women..."

  87. Another real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    "... the brain's response to all the negative pressures of using testosterone. I mean the aggressive male is in decline."

    The other possibility is the males' levels of testosterone are dropping because they are biologically less able to produce it than they were in the 1980s. The Testosterone level in a male goes in parallel to his level of zinc intake. If you are a male who is zinc deficient, you are going to lack testosterone too. A decline of zinc in the American food supply or a changing American diet which contains less zinc rich foods like beef is going to lower the males' average testosterone level. Low zinc levels causes anorexia in females, which also seems to have worsened since the 1980s.
    1. Re:Another real reason by mikeron · · Score: 1

      ZMA

  88. It's a feminist conspiracy by caluml · · Score: 1

    It's a feminist conspiracy - they're adding something to the water supplies to make us weak and pliable. We must rise up, and overthrow our oestrogen-enriched masters (who are actually mistresses).

    1. Re:It's a feminist conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are our mistresses, would we be complaining? :)

  89. Purity of Essense by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's why I only drink grain alcohol and rain water.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Purity of Essense by SilentOneNCW · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up for Dr. Strangelove reference.

    2. Re:Purity of Essense by Digi-John · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it was only about the 4th reference so far.

      --
      Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
  90. nuisance by bcrowell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having a high testosterone level is a hormonal nuisance, sort of like when women get cramps during their period, or hot flashes during menopause. I'm 40 now, but I still remember what it was like being 15-25. Thank God that's over with! It's no fun when the presence of a nubile female gives you an erection that hurts, and lasts as long as she's nearby. I have my own personal list of embarrassing things I did under the influence of testosterone, and I'm sure every other male past puberty has a similar list.

    As an individual, this whole thing is also a nonissue, because natural differences in hormone levels bewteen one man and the next are probably huge -- much bigger than the effect being claimed.

    What's really scary about this is not the effect it's having on adult males (and the rest of society), which may be positive. What's scary is:

    1. We don't know what's doing it.
    2. Whatever's doing it may have other, unknown, effects on us (men, women, and children).
    3. The development of a fetus is very sensitive to the presence of hormone-mimicking chemicals in the environment, which could be what this is. I can't imagine anything more sad than having a kid born with a serious birth defect -- it makes the teenage hormonal suffering seem pretty meaningless by comparison.
    1. Re:nuisance by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You can be comfortable with your lower T. Me? Glad mine is still active at 56. Once can learn to not get the boner with simple concentration.

      "What's really scary about this is not the effect it's having on adult males (and the rest of society), which may be positive."

      Bzzt! That's a scary thing too, chum.

      "I have my own personal list of embarrassing things"
      I'll take the embarrassment and a working dick, thank you.

    2. Re:nuisance by Helish · · Score: 1

      Embarrassmetns are only embarrassing if you make them that way. I'm young and when my dick is up it means that I should hit on that girl and get her into bed and not run towards porn and jerk off.

  91. Ignorant cynicism by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    > "...If you ask someone out at work you are fired and sued..."

    Okay, leaving aside the (big, possibly invalid) assumption that this and the rest of the behaviors you've mentioned are even partly related to testosterone, and leaving aside the fact that evolution doesn't work over the incredibly small timescale of 3 generations anyway, let's focus on your office romance claim. I'm picking on this one because the bizarre, untrue Slashdot view that office romance between coworkers inevitably ends with the male being fired really grates on me sometimes, such as now...

    "44% of office romances lead to marriage"
    http://www.amanet.org/press/amanews/workplace_dati ng.htm

    There ya go. Marriage, in case you didn't know, quite often leads to children. As in, you know, evolutionary success.

    Ouch ... cold hard statistics don't support your cynical worldview, where aggression is the only way to success, Libertarianism is the One True Way, and evolution works over a Lamarckian timescale!

    What are you going to do now, Slashbot? Explode??

    ---
    P.S. sorry for the flames but your post just really got under my skin off for some reason. I don't know if it was the ignorance, cynicism, or something else, but we're both pseudonymous Slashdot posters so I figure it's cool to just respond like I did...

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    1. Re:Ignorant cynicism by iamacat · · Score: 1

      and leaving aside the fact that evolution doesn't work over the incredibly small timescale of 3 generations anyway

      Then why do doctors drill me about family history of heart disease, diabetes and cancer during a health check up? We may not spawn off new species quite so fast, but degeneration certainly can happen fast when breeding individuals with the same defects.

      "44% of office romances lead to marriage"

      That may be, but only in cases a guy actually dares to ask someone out. Given the risks, he is likely to be more determined than when asking a girl out elsewhere. ...where aggression is the only way to success...

      A society needs some healthy-aggressive individuals to initiate change and oppose evil-agressive individuals. ...Libertarianism is the One True Way...

      I think Libertarianism is stupid, because today's society is too complex to function without some regulation. My freedom to start a burger joint is gone if McDonald/Burger King/etc have an oligarchy and I can not get comparable prices on raw components.

      P.S. sorry for the flames but your post just really got under my skin off for some reason. I don't know if it was the ignorance, cynicism, or something else, but we're both pseudonymous Slashdot posters so I figure it's cool to just respond like I did...

      Well, I consider expressing your opinion strongly an integral part of masculinity and overzealous flamebait moderations a sign of dropping testosterone among slashdot readership :-)

    2. Re:Ignorant cynicism by volsung · · Score: 1
      and leaving aside the fact that evolution doesn't work over the incredibly small timescale of 3 generations anyway

      Then why do doctors drill me about family history of heart disease, diabetes and cancer during a health check up? We may not spawn off new species quite so fast, but degeneration certainly can happen fast when breeding individuals with the same defects.

      I think the reason your doctor asks you that is because you are likely to know the health history of your immediate ancestors. Any genetic health problems they had could possibly go back many, many generations, but you might not know that. Not only just because you don't have records, but also the average life span was much shorter until the last 4 or 5 generations, so a lot of diseases might not have had much time to show symptoms until the last couple hundred years.

    3. Re:Ignorant cynicism by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      > Then why do doctors drill me about family history of heart disease, diabetes and cancer during a health check up?

      This has nothing to do with evolution; it has to do with finding out what your current genes are. Evolution deals with the change of genes over time; the reason doctors care about your parents genes is because they _aren't very different_ from yours.

      > That may be, but only in cases a guy actually dares to ask someone out. Given the risks, he is likely to be more determined than when asking a girl out elsewhere.

      Your previous post implied that evolution selected against asking coworkers out. I said this can't be true since it leads to marriage 44% of the time, which has a causal relationship with the likelihood of reproduction and therefore evolutionary success. With odds this good, evolution could only select against office romance if it caused someone to be 45% less likely to reproduce, which is absurd. You mention "risks", so I'll mention that despite the frequent, kookish Slashdot assertions, asking a coworker out is not sexual harassment, nor is it considered as such.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    4. Re:Ignorant cynicism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "44% of office romances lead to marriage"

      All that means is that 54% of offices romances led to the man being fired and having his life ruined. Over half. Besides, that study was done only on managers who, despite being absolutely and completely useless in most cases, do hold petty fiefdom power in most corporations. So those 44% that did work out were only because the women were petty, gold-digging feebs. Besides which, those managers likely to ask a woman out were probably of the ultra-violent high testosterone knuckledragging variety of males. No one who has worked in a corporation can truthfully say anything different.

    5. Re:Ignorant cynicism by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      > All that means is that 54% of offices romances led to the man being fired and having his life ruined.

      Are you asserting that 2% (only, which is absurd) end with amicable breakup, or are you just an idiot who can't add?

      Wait ... don't tell me ... just an idiot?

      In any case your post doesn't deserve any more of my time than what it has taken me just now to post these words. If you reply to me with the same quality post I will probably ignore you.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  92. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    but too much anabolic steroid supplements makes the testicles shrivel or atrophy, however. big beefy muscles today, raisin nuts tomorrow...

  93. Puff Puff PAAAAAAAAAASSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok i think our parents puffed way too much in the 70s

  94. Cats do rule the world! by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
    Yes they do. They use their secret bio weapon -- toxoplamosis
    see here

    \begin{obligatory_overlord_quote}
    I, for one, welcome our new furry and cuddly overlords
    \end{obligatory_overlord_quote}

  95. ..or increased longevity? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From the article, it sounds like this study only considered old men, and not males in general. Could it be that today's better health care disproportionately helps low-testosterone people? Again from the article:
    Testosterone is the primary male sex hormone and plays an important role in maintaining bone and muscle mass. Low testosterone levels have been linked to health problems, including lowered libido and diabetes.
    So maybe the average lower testerone just results from diabetes patients and others living longer.
  96. Old men have lower Testosterone?!?!? by Ididerus · · Score: 1

    Um, did anyone notice TFA focuses on men aged 65 and older? I think we should do a corollary study on wrinkles and white hair among infants.

    Quote:
    "...when the elder subjects were about 70 years old, and the youngest about 45."

    --
    I'm fighting The War on Drugs!
    1. Re:Old men have lower Testosterone?!?!? by Joebert · · Score: 1

      I just noticed that too.

      The article wasn't written or submitted by Captain Obvious by any chance was it ?

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    2. Re:Old men have lower Testosterone?!?!? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      The article wasn't written or submitted by Captain Obvious by any chance was it?
      Completely misrepresenting TFA is all in a day's work for a Real Slashdot Man.

  97. A few nits and an alternate theory by DumbSwede · · Score: 0

    I see a couple of problems with your theory. While times of scarcity might decrease fertility overall so subjects can concentrate all their energy on a few offspring likely to survive, it doesn't in mamalian species change gender roles. Some fish and lizards can change sex due to environmental clues to maximize their reproductive chances, but this isn't homosexual behavior as it still leads to reproduction. In general without predators prey species expand until mass starvation ensues rather than going homosexual for the good of the heard. While it increases stress on the rest of the population (call it the tragedy of the reproductive commons) individuals are driven by evolution to maximize their own reproductive chances or at least very close relatives. While there is hive behavior, individual hives fight just as selfishly for reproductive advantage over other hives as individuals do in non-hive species.

    At the risk of seeming to be a crank I wrote a paper on possible evolutionary adaptive features to homosexuality in my Slashdot.org journal recently. Here is an alternate explanation for the persistence of homosexuality in the human population: Submissiveness's Role in Sustaining Homosexuality as an Evolutionarily Adaptive Trait

    This essay it has nothing to do with hormone levels, though lower testosterone levels could possibly trigger passivity. Whether passivity could cause lower testosterone levels I have no idea. It is often easy to confuse cause and effect in these cases, and simplistic analysis often leaves out confounding variables.

  98. Men know what men like. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In ancient Sparta it was quiet common for fellow warriors to have sexual relations with each other. Also there was widespread society encouraged pederasty with young boys. This was thought to be essential to the training of good warriors. And there is little doubt about the fighting capabilities of the ancient Spartan warriors. So maybe the real solution to the so called "Pussification of the Western Male" is some good old fashioned buttsex.

  99. And we can call them Tasticles by arcite · · Score: 1

    Who wouldn't want to lick a fresh, cold, hard, Tasticle on a stick on a hot day to refill their manhood? Anyone? ;)

  100. Phasing out of the macho Western male by VanessaE · · Score: 3, Informative
    Amazing as it may seem, I actually RTFA, and I can't say I believe the study to be particularly accurate (too wide of an age range, baseline measures taken too recently, too small and too localized of a sample, etc), but that's not why I decided to resond to this. Rather, I'm responding to Kim du Toit's essay (the article YonderWay pointed to). My step-father is the very model of the macho hard-liner type that's seemingly called for in the essay, and he is, by far, NOT the sort of man this world needs more of. I call BULLSHIT on the entire essay, save for one or two positive things (opening doors for a lady is never a bad thing), and almost every man that Toit claims responded to him in agreement.


    Toit mentions wanting to take a .45 to his TV every time he sees some particular Cheerios commercial, just because it takes a tone of the father correcting his nutritional mistakes at his wife's suggestion. He then goes on to make nasty remarks about how he sees the gay community as trying to change the overall male population into something more woman-friendly. I couldn't stomach too much more of that essay, and gave up trying to pick out other good examples of his point of view. I believe in free speech, but as far as I'm concerned, you can take that be-a-"real"-man-and-fuck-everyone-else's-feelings attitude - and anything like it - and shove it as far up your ass at it'll go. That attitude has done nothing but hurt people, myself included, and that's where I draw the line on freedom of speech.

    I am the wife of one such "pussified" (as Toit puts it) man. My husband has diabetes and many of the usual complications that come with it, one of which is low testosterone (less than half the "normal" amount). You know what? I'm GLAD his attitude is the way it is. If anything, the reduced testosterone level has served to soften the hard shell he says he used to have. He's well aware of my feelings as well as his own, and he's not afraid to show them. He loves me deeper than words can describe, and I love him equally. He loves nature, cares about his and my health, and...well, you get the idea. I don't expect I'd find any of this in the macho type Toit is trying to rally.

    The way I figure it, the average Slashdot user is getting close to that time in their lives when they feel the desire to find a mate and maybe start a family. For the group of you folks who fall in line with Toit's attitude, face this fact: After hundreds of years of you men telling us women to shut up and get in line, your type is being phased out, whether you like it or not. The world does not need your crap anymore, nor does it need the sterotypical southern belle attitude some women used to have, either. Rather, all need to move away from the extremes toward some common, middle ground where men AND women can be happy.

    1. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by kronocide · · Score: 1

      Hear hear!

    2. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After hundreds of years of you men telling us women to shut up and get in line, your type is being phased out, whether you like it or not.

      You say that as if it were true.
      I believe the vast majority of women would agree.
      Except when it comes to actually choosing a man.
      That's when they drop the 'nice' guy like a hot potato and go with
      the guys who slap them around, mistreat them, etc.

      Until you can explain that, the rest is wishful thinking on your part.

    3. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well the nice guy thing is easily explained by the doormat theory which goes something like this: "Most guys try so hard to be the nice guy that they end up a doormat, and no one wants a doormat." Ironicaly I think the doormat problem is generated in part by the modern pussification movement. There's a fine line between nice guy and doormat just like there's a fine line between real man and pig. Most people unfortunately don't know where those lines are.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    4. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by metlin · · Score: 1

      One crazy Slashdotter linking to a chauvinist nutjob does not constitute the whole community.

      Most of us tend to be quite well balanced in our thinking (and maybe a little "pussified" according to Kim Toit), thank you very much. :)

    5. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      As cute as your ideas are, the population of the world - and yes, even the United States and most of Europe - disagrees with you. How is that, you ask?

      The Western world is eliminating itself and its culture by lack of population replacement. Male dominated cultures such as the Mexicans/Latinos, inner-city blacks, and Muslims are all out-reproducing whites and those who claim to hold to your ideas. Why?

      In short you - the Western woman - have caused this to be the case through your liberation and lack of child bearing. You might have experienced the freedom brought on by massive population growth during the baby boom, but your granddaughters (if you have any) will not.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by CAIMLAS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ding ding ding!

      I was a door mat for quite a while, then somehow managed to edge into "nice guy" territory. Tired of not getting laid, I started acting like a prick, and started getting some action. Pig? You betcha. Then I realized I was being a pig, and started manning up, and I've not had any problems since. Granted, I've not been such a whore either.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    7. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by cptnapalm · · Score: 0

      There are far too many comments for this to ever get read, but I think you are correct.

      I've seen statistics where the probability of a divorce shoots up when the wife makes more money than the husband. This is typically passed off by saying that women no longer need to stay in a marriage they find constricting as they have money of their own. While that is primarily just justify-what-women-do-at-all-costs, it does nothing to explain why it happens at all income levels. The modern western man finds himself in financial competition not just with his peers, but also with his spouse.

      In the current Western climate, there are only two roles which are made available to males. Either you can be the asshole or the "nice guy". Romantic comedies are noteworthy being the purest expression of them in a cultural context. Women watch these and it isn't that they want the nice guy, otherwise they wouldn't finish last, but they want their overbearing jackasses to be a bit nicer. Those guys who actually perform the nice guy role are, of course, still girlfriend-less in the real world.

    8. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 1
      Toit mentions wanting to take a .45 to his TV every time he sees some particular Cheerios commercial, just because it takes a tone of the father correcting his nutritional mistakes at his wife's suggestion.
      I believe it was the suggestion that the father was stupid, not the idea of taking a suggestion from a woman. Personally, I have no problem with suggestions. However, implying that your spouse is stupid, particularly in front of your children, shows a tremendous amount of disrespect towards someone you love. It is not a gender issue. I would never consider doing that to my wife.

      For the group of you folks who fall in line with Toit's attitude, face this fact: After hundreds of years of you men telling us women to shut up and get in line, your type is being phased out, whether you like it or not.
      Most men I know wouldn't tell their women to get in line and wouldn't stand for a woman telling them to do it. For that matter, the men I know wouldn't stand by and watch another man tell another woman to get in line, either.

      The world does not need your crap anymore, nor does it need the sterotypical southern belle attitude some women used to have, either.
      My family is Southern (specifically, from Mississippi). I assure you that their "Southern Belle attitudes" are merely unflappable manners. I have no idea what insult you are trying to throw here. My family wears their manners as a badge of honor.

      My mother sent me to an etiquette course in 3rd grade (along with the rest of my class) to teach me how to be a "Southern gentleman." It involved a five course meal, complete with holding doors for the girls, seating them first, and standing when the girls left the table. Personally, that sounds like teaching boys to be respectful to girls.

      Do not confuse "Southern" with "redneck." The two are not synonyms, especially when describing how they treat other people.

      Rather, all need to move away from the extremes toward some common, middle ground where men AND women can be happy.
      I would contend that mutual respect is that middle ground you describe. I would further contend that mutual respect includes humoring men who enjoy sports, competitiveness, hunting, etc. instead of suggesting that these hobbies are a bad thing. Unfortunately, these hobbies are considered "macho" by many people.

      In summary, I agree with the spirit of your argument, but I would like to suggest that the "macho" you describe does not describe a man. It describes an asshole, and yes, Toit is probably one of those.

      --
      There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
    9. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Notice how all of those are too poor to even afford condoms and birth control. Also note that those people are in much harsher conditions and the harsher the conditions the more babies you want to pump out so that at least some of them have a chance of surviving.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    10. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I believe in free speech ... that's where I draw the line on freedom of speech.

      Then you do not believe in free speech. Free speech means allowing people to say whatever they want as long as no direct harm results from it (such as the classic 'yelling fire in crowded movie theater'). That it offends your precious sensibilities? Too. Fucking. Bad. You either agree that speech should be free, or you don't. There is no "line", no partial free speech. It exists or it doesn't.

    11. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1
      Toit mentions wanting to take a .45 to his TV every time he sees some particular Cheerios commercial, just because it takes a tone of the father correcting his nutritional mistakes at his wife's suggestion.
      I'm shocked that you totally missed the reason that Toit hates this commercial. The problem with the commercial was the following line, uttered by the wife, in front of their children: "Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother." My wife would never say that about me, ever, and doubly so not in front of the children. Obviously, I would never say something so disrespectful about my wife, either. And the husband had no respect for himself, either. Probably because his wife wouldn't let him have any. Please tell me that this situation does not characterize your relationship with your husband.

      I'm GLAD his attitude is the way it is. If anything, the reduced testosterone level has served to soften the hard shell he says he used to have.
      Well, that's just great. I'm glad you found a man whose "hard shell" was eliminated by a terrible disease. I don't know why you can't just use lingerie like every other woman in order to accomplish the same thing. I'm guessing you would find the results to be much more pleasing.

      The way I figure it, the average Slashdot user is getting close to that time in their lives when they feel the desire to find a mate and maybe start a family. For the group of you folks who fall in line with Toit's attitude, face this fact: After hundreds of years of you men telling us women to shut up and get in line, your type is being phased out, whether you like it or not.
      I hate to tell you, but I have not observed this to be true in practice. Most women want men who are strong and rough-around-the-edges in public, and strong, but accessible in private. All of the women who I have met who claim that the "walking vagina" is the man of the future tend to be man-hating, fat, ugly, women's studies majors who wonder why their lives are so bad. I'm sure you'll excuse me if I'm content to let them live in their own little world of male emasculation--I'm not interested in them and their "blame-the-men-for-their-failures" attitudes, anyway.

      The most successful couples that I have seen consist of a strong man and strong woman, working together as a team. These are the types of people who wouldn't belittle their spouses, and indeed wouldn't let their spouse belittle him or herself. They support each other as teammates in life.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    12. Re:Phasing out of the macho Western male by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's by the way, the typical woman behavior. I want it (e.g. free speech), but I don't.

  101. And, obesity and diabetes linked to... by fuego451 · · Score: 1

    the increased use of high fructose corn syrup in consumer products around the early to mid 70's.

  102. Parasitic Castration by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    There is a phenomenon in nature known as parasitic castration. Parasites like their hosts to invest in them, not in the offspring of the hosts. So parasites frequently castrate their hosts -- sometimes literally -- sometimes chemically. The mechanism isn't important -- the effect is: Reduce the number of children the host has so there is more investment in the parasite.

    What might be this parasite in the present circumstance?

    If you answer this you likely will find the causes of other "inexplicable" phenomena negatively impacting males fertility -- possibly even autism spectrum disorders.

    1. Re:Parasitic Castration by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      You wisely make the point at the realistic ignorance of ecobiology and evolutionary biology. Many things transpire in our genomes which we are still unaware of - or only recently becoming aware of. Well said!

      But might not the recent inclusion of soy have something to do with such low counts? And the fact that these were, after all, Bostonians, a dandified breed if there ever was one.....

    2. Re:Parasitic Castration by Baldrson · · Score: 1

      Of course... soy milk or many other toxins might be candidate causes. The point I'm making about mechanism not mattering is precisely that any of these "causes" may be ultimate OR proximate.

    3. Re:Parasitic Castration by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      There is a phenomenon in nature known as parasitic castration. Parasites like their hosts to invest in them, not in the offspring of the hosts. So parasites frequently castrate their hosts -- sometimes literally -- sometimes chemically.

      Lyme disease? Which may be more widespread in the Northeast than AIDS, depending on whom you ask. One of the symptoms is testicular pain, and long-term sufferers frequently have low testosterone (and thyroid hormones to boot, which makes things worse). All I really know is that when I was infected, the last thing on my mind was sex.

      -b.

  103. oh this explains a lot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    including why there is an increasing number of gay men out there. There must be an increasing level of testosterone in women though for them to turn lesbian. Must be that whole evolution thing that will eventually wipe out the species because we won't be able to breed with each other anymore. And here I thought humans were at the top of the evolutionary chain and thus must always exist. Does this mean that a lower animal will somehow surpass us in 1000 years thereby proving evolution doesn't work as we expected?

    1. Re:oh this explains a lot... by kronocide · · Score: 1

      This has obviously failed to explain anything whatever to you.

      * There is not an increasing number of gay men "out there."

      * Evolution will not eventually wipe out the species. Evolution selects for reproductive qualities, and can not select against them.

      * There is no such thing as "the top of the evolutionary chain." Maybe you're thinking of the food chain. Even if there was such a thing, it would not imply that man "must always exist." That is a nonsense conclusion.

      * If "lower animals" "surpassed us" in 1,000 years, it would indeed be a problem for evolutionary theory, but not in any way you are aware of.

  104. What me worry. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    Health-related news is almost always wrong. It'll get contradicted in another study next year.

    If it is, it will be buried on page 2411c of some extraordinarily obtuse journal (as if the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism isn't obutse). But more importantly, I can't find TFA (the real one, not the yahoo'd blabber). If it's in this month's issue of the JCEM, I sure can't see it).

    I really hate that since you cannot ask simple questions like "is the methodology of testosterone testing consistent enough over several decades to allow you to compare said results?". I sure the hell hope so, it's a basic enough concept, but I have seen some of the more speculative articles kinda miss some real basic points.

    Sigh. So if anyone has enough free time to find the actual link, enquiring minds would like to know.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:What me worry. by chesapeake · · Score: 1

      The article can be found at: doi:10.1210/jc.2006-1375.

      It can be found at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=17062768&dopt=Abstrac t

      For what it's worth, this study only includes men from Boston. From their abstract:

      Results: We observe a substantial age-independent decline in T that does not appear to be attributable to observed changes in explanatory factors, including health and lifestyle characteristics such as smoking and obesity. The estimated population-level declines are greater in magnitude than the cross-sectional declines in T typically associated with age.

      Conclusions: These results indicate that recent years have seen a substantial, and as yet unrecognized, age-independent population-level decrease in T in American men, potentially due to birth cohort differences or to health or environmental effects not captured in observed data.

    2. Re:What me worry. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      Thanks, at least they appear to control for sample degradation / assay changes (although the manuscript is a bit sparse on this). I do wish they would not "epub" these sorts of articles before they get out into circulation and can be reviewed by the medical community at large. I often learn more from the letters to editor about a particular article than by the article itself.

      But that doesn't bring in the headlines.... I guess everybody should get their 15 seconds of fame.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  105. Its the Liberalism, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is all about the feminization and homosexualization of the American male. Pop culture now routinely attacks anything that looks, smells, or acts like a strong, straight, father, head-of-household man. Its not surprising that this shows up in measurable, physiological testing.

  106. This article. . . by Hamoohead · · Score: 1

    . . .is a little too sensitive for me.

    --
    "If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
  107. I suspect it may have to do with mobile phones... by alchemist68 · · Score: 1

    I suspect that there may be a correlation between mobile phones and the observed decline of testosterone. Testosterone is produced in the testes (Wikipedia is your friend). Of course, I have no evidence to support my hypothesis. Where do most men wear/place a mobile phone on their bodies? Mine is in the FRONT POCKET of my jeans/shorts. I've seen other people carry them on their belts. My point is, most of us place these low amplitude microwave emitters right by our 'nads. I seem to recall many years ago that state highway patrolmen had issues with infertility from sitting by the road and waiting for law-breaking speeders, waiting with the radar gun between the legs and 'nads. Those radar guns are microwave emitters and detectors.

    Let's all take a bow and accept our Darwin awards!

  108. Comfortable lifestyles by edis · · Score: 1

    - that's it. Muscles for what, punching keys?

    --
    Servant of karma
  109. Now lady... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
    The way I figure it, the average Slashdot user is getting close to that time in their lives when they feel the desire to find a mate and maybe start a family.

    Don't go stirring this up around here. You're just gonna confuse these kids. Nobody's going to move into somebody elses parent's basement. Next you're going to recommend that they take showers and brush their teeth.

    Don't go there. You'll be modded all to hell.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  110. Laptops and heat dissipation by SonicSpike · · Score: 1

    I read a report a while ago (yes I am lazy, if you care Google for it) where there was a theory that sperm count will drop with prolonged laptop usage. The reason? The heat from the laptop warms the testicles and slows sperm production.

    I realize that semen |= testosterone but I think it was worth noting.

    --
    Libertas in infinitum
  111. You are seriously confused. by Generic+Player · · Score: 2, Informative

    Baby products and "nappies" don't contain estrogen to be dumped into the evironment. The reason beef contains so much estrogen is because we inject young steers with estrogen to make them grow more. It tricks their bodies into growing at a much faster rate like it did as a fetus and young infant.

    1. Re:You are seriously confused. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      No, you are confused. OP overstated it a bit, but you're confused.

      Plastics by nature contain estrogen as polycarbonate is chemically similar to an artificial estrogen. As most baby products are made from plastics, including the liners and various other parts of baby diapers, they put a great deal of estrogen into the environment.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    2. Re:You are seriously confused. by Generic+Player · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, they don't put any estrogen anywhere. Chemicals which are superficially similar to estrogen are not estrogen. If you want to make the claim that those chemicals are just as bad as estrogen, that's another issue entirely. But the claim was that they are causing estrogen to be found in everything, and its simply not true. Trying to claim plastic has anything to do with estrogen in meat and milk is ridiculous.

  112. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by yabos · · Score: 1

    No, they're all in Iraq /ducks

  113. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by nametaken · · Score: 1


    Aren't those Nalgene bottles made from polycarbonate?

    We used to use them backpacking, now they're sold on every college campus in the country.

  114. Missing testosterone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of my missing testosterone is on the rag laying on the floor next to my computer ;-)

    1. Re:Missing testosterone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave your girlfriend out of this discussion...

  115. Bad news for guys by riversky · · Score: 1

    It means more divorce, more women having affairs, less sexually satisfied women who will seek out the men who acutally can give orgasms to them and are not pussies....They will become a super race of dominant men evolved more highly because they will be the only ones women want to be with.

  116. It's Apple Computers' fault by maxrate · · Score: 1

    Apple has persuaded too many straight males into buying MacBooks - The white model, not the black one, not because it's cheaper either - it's just 'more cute'. Guys are turning into sissies.

  117. there is already something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good morning, worthless scum! I'm your senior drill instructor and from now on you will address me as "sir"! From now on you will not use "I" to refer to yourselves, because that word is reserved for female sheep! Now let me see your war face!

    1. Re:there is already something... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      From now on you will not use "I" to refer to yourselves, because that word is reserved for female sheep!
      No and fuck you, sir!

  118. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    Aren't those Nalgene bottles made from polycarbonate?

    Yes. They're also made by a company that supplies vivisection equipment, so I never bought one, but Nalgene and many other brands of drinking water bottles are made from polycarbonate. I'd suggest a Sigg instead - aluminum with an enamel lining.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  119. First I was worried, but by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then I realised a few things:

    I may not excercise much beyond walking the mutt around the block, but playing
    games that up the adrenalin levels and has even forced a girlfriend or two to
    leave the room, saying "Too much testosterone for me".

    So deathmatch may not be a full contact sport, but the chemical effects are similar.
    Guys being guys; talking smack, killing their friends virtually and having a blast being
    assholes. Good times.

    Quote:I leave it to you all to draw your conclusions about this, but I still wonder what my hours of laptop-fu does to me.

    I'd ask two questions:

    When was the last time you did something that made you say "Hell, yeah" or do/say something non-PC or trash talk.

    When was the last time you used a chainsaw (doom 1/2/3 sorta counts, electric chainsaws don't) or any power tool?

    If it's been more than a month or so, LAN party and make some noise, buy a fucking overpowered tool for your needs, go to a gun range, paintball war, BB gun and shoot *SOMETHING*, FFS.

    Or, hell, if that's too much, too soon and you're worried your missing your favorite cooking
    show or some shit, at least go out an BBQ something. Men don't cook unless there is fire or danger involved, eh? Plates, knives and forks and eat.
    If you are worried about place settings or matching whateverthefuck... it's hopeless, so just take one of those Sony batteries that needs a recall, short the contacts and place down your trousers where your balls might be located and wait. It'll all be over soon.

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    1. Re:First I was worried, but by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Every well-bred petty crook knows that the small concealable weapons go to the far left of the place setting.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  120. one possible cause... by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not: the urine of women who use hormonal birth control. I read about an environmental study in the Pacific Northwest somewhere, where it was shown that sewage, dumped into a river, had estrogenic effects on male fish. The culprit? Synthetic estrogens, which are excreted in the urine of women who take hormonal birth control. Wastewater eventually makes its way into rivers and streams, which feed back into the reservoirs from which we get our drinking water. Not that this is conclusive in any way, but it's definitely something that's being looked at.

  121. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

    raisin nuts tomorrow...
    At least they're not ordinary raisins. They take the blah out of bran.

  122. It's all about politics by thethibs · · Score: 0, Troll

    This phenomenon is a result of the political left-shift in American coastal states during the time that the under-loaded men were in their formative years.

    As many have observed, leftisch women have higher testosterone levels than their men. This transference could well be psychosomatic.

    It's interesting that these researchers are taking data collected in Boston and generalizing it to the American male population. We're going to guess that they live in Boston. It's not a big leap to suggest that the same study done in Montana could have very different results.

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
  123. Lots of possibilities, but all related to greed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Increased fat increases estrogens. Plastics leech pseudo-estrogens into liquids. Air pollution has had associations. Hormones and estrogens in the water supply and food supply....

  124. Alternative theories by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1
    My theory on homosexuality is that it is a natural population control mechanism when an environment begins to exceed it's carrying capacity. I would suggest that is real study were done, you'd find less homosexuality in environments where there are plenty of resources and a small population. Contrary to that, I think you'd find abundant homosexuality in ares where resources are scarce and overpopulation is a problem.
    It's difficult for me to understand how this would work as a selective pressure. If resources are scarce, it isn't a winning strategy to stop competing for them. That's a recipe for extinction; as more straight people also compete for these resources, the gayness would disappear from the world rather quickly.

    The presence of homosexuality in a population may or may not enhance the probability of its survival. The reason we see gay people could just be related to the fact that for centuries societies forced people to get married and procreate regardless of their sexual orientation. Ordinarily homosexuality would be considered a genetically fatal trait in animals, but not if social pressures replaced sexual orientation in directing people's reproductive behavior. This could be tested by looking at cultures around the world and their histories of social attitudes to marriage. Personally, I suspect you wouldn't find anything because it seems these gay people are everywhere and no ethnic population has failed to produce them, despite all protestations to the contrary. But I don't really know.

    It may just be that no matter where you live, being gay doesn't really prevent you from procreating at all- there's usually much more pressure for a gay person to have straight sex than the other way around in any culture, and if you ask gay people if they've ever done it, most of them have, and it's normal for them to successfully procreate even if it costs them money. So we may be incorrectly assuming that this homosexuality is going to be a fatal genetic trait in whatever individual gets it, just because of our mechanistic thinking. Everybody gets drunk one night, etc. and gay people have children regardless of our assumptions simply because there are motives for procreating that have absolutely nothing to do with one's sex drive. One might need a tax dodge, for example.

    It also may be that the presence of homosexuals in a population enhances its chances of success. Even though this can be a fatal trait on an individual basis, on a collective basis it can present a survival advantage. If you express the genes, as an individual, you obviously are less likely to procreate. But it may be that if you carry them without expressing them, or they run in your family, your reproductive fitness is enhanced over that of someone who doesn't carry them at all because nobody in their group does.

    The presence of childless people in your population is usually a good thing for you. They are unencumbered by their own children and can help you with yours. Or they can handle odd careers particularly suited for the childless, like those in the military, or the priesthood. From a survivalist perspective, if someone in your group is going to take care of some weird job that needs doing, and he is not going to be having kids of his own because of it, you certainly don't want him snatching up and "wasting" one of your women- that means fewer wives for you. YOU are more likely to survive and pass on your genome if you carry genes which do not have a high probability of being expressed but that do trigger homosexuality when they are expressed.

    If that were the case, then the selective pressure here would be operating via kin selection, which directs the evolution of worker bees and worker ants, where expressing a phenotype doesn't enhance your reproductive success, but does enhance it for people related to you with genotypes similar to your own. This may be partly why the genes involved in determining homosexuality do not appear to follow simple rules of heritability.
  125. Lumberjacks by eraser.cpp · · Score: 1

    The majority of the world's testosterone was held inside the nation's lumberjacks. With machines replacing these mighty beasts it's no surprise that the horomone is now in short quanity.

    1. Re:Lumberjacks by armchair99 · · Score: 1

      It wasn't machines that led to their demise...it was girlified metrosexual environmentalists.

  126. You are right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Come Mr. Bigglesworth!"

  127. Summary says it all by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    I leave it to you all to draw your conclusions about this, but I still wonder what my hours of laptop-fu does to me.

    I think we can safely conclude that you don't have the balls to express your own conclusions.

  128. estrogen by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Funny

    Estrogens are to blame for this behavior.

    No, not the natural estrogens that women produce, but the man-made estrogens present in pretty much every product you can purchase today: soda bottles, laundry detergent, hand soap, gasoline - pretty much anything that is derived from petrolium in some way. These estrogens (IIRC) block the production of testosterone as well as the natural production of estrogen. In women, it contirbutes to fuglyness (hairy lips, etc.) and things like ovarian cancer; in men it contributes to femininity and general lack of testosterone.

    And let me be the first to say: this is why there are so many liberals.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:estrogen by torstenvl · · Score: 1

      Liberals tend to have more testosterone than conservatives, if for no other reason than the general age difference (younger people tend to have more testosterone and be less conservative). Also, gay men tend to have the same and sometimes more testosterone, and larger hypothalmuses, than straight men.

    2. Re:estrogen by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, just perhaps, there are so many liberals because we're tired of this shit in our homes, and that, contrary to the slandering, we don't want to want to live in teepees and tree houses to get away from it?

  129. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Yep. Same goes for shampoos, soaps, gasoline itself, and probably 90% of the materials within your reach (carpet? wall paint? furniture coating? clothing? glasses?).

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  130. Wait a second wait a second by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1, Interesting

    USA what? Theres something fishy going on here. Whats this?

    BEIJING, Oct. 28 (Xinhua) -- More than half of Chinese middle-aged men show symptoms of depression, irascibility, aching joints, excessive sweating as well as a fading interest in sex because of a lack of testosterone, a recent health survey suggested.

    Are testosterone salesmen shilling the world now? I call shenanigans...

    1. Re:Wait a second wait a second by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      How is that redundant, dipshit? The article is about the US, the one linked is about China, yet they were released on the same day.

    2. Re:Wait a second wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How is that redundant, dipshit? The article is about the US, the one linked is about China, yet they were released on the same day.


      It's probably because you posted the same exact thing two other times in this thread. I, of course, correctly moderated only the second and thread postings as redundant, but whoever moderated this one was surely trying to get the same point across.
    3. Re:Wait a second wait a second by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      It's probably because you posted the same exact thing two other times in this thread. I, of course, correctly moderated only the second and thread postings as redundant, but whoever moderated this one was surely trying to get the same point across.

      So the fact that I mentioned I was multiple posting IN THE POSTS means you didn't bother your arse to read the posts? Excellent moderation, genius. Let me know the username sunshine, and I'll return the favour.

  131. Oestrogen in the water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember reading a paper last year stating that oestrogen levels in water had increased, and that quite a large chunk of this was attributed to the rise in use of the female contraceptive pill. This does have a few interesting side-effects in the male population drinking said water.

  132. SHENANIGANS by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Exactly... Theres something fishy going on here. Whats this?

    BEIJING, Oct. 28 (Xinhua) -- More than half of Chinese middle-aged men show symptoms of depression, irascibility, aching joints, excessive sweating as well as a fading interest in sex because of a lack of testosterone, a recent health survey suggested.

    Are testosterone salesmen shilling the world now? I call shenanigans...

  133. SHENANIGANS by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Already posted this a couple of times but this is really really odd... Theres something fishy going on here. Whats this?

    BEIJING, Oct. 28 (Xinhua) -- More than half of Chinese middle-aged men show symptoms of depression, irascibility, aching joints, excessive sweating as well as a fading interest in sex because of a lack of testosterone, a recent health survey suggested.

    Are testosterone salesmen shilling the world now? I call shenanigans...

  134. Tagging Beta by blantonl · · Score: 1

    Whomever tagged this story as "balls" should get a +5

    --
    Lindsay Blanton
    RadioReference.com
  135. Re:Any link to...SOY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also remember that almost everything now contains Soy in various forms that is loaded with estrogen type hormones. It's no surprise testosterone is plumeting. Men begin to grow breats and become more docile. This is not by accident.

  136. Smooth chests by torstenvl · · Score: 1

    Our social norms have veered toward preferring men who have less hair on their chests, and therefore less male hormone.

    Natural selection, that's all. Move along, nothing to see here.

  137. There are two types by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two kinds of angry people - explosive and implosive. Explosive is the type of individual you see screaming at the cashier for not taking his coupon. Implosive is the cashier who remains quiet day after day and then finally shoots everyone in the store... --Anger Management

    Higher levels of testosterone tend to lead to more explosive angty outbursts, whereas lower testosterone leads to more passive implosive outbursts. This isnt an either or thing, everyone is a bit of both. The problem I think is that schools as far as punishment go favor the the more passive people. At a young age a bit of roughhousing is perfectly normal but while in school any type of this activity (which can be in the form of bullying or somewhat overaggressive behaviour in sports) is extremely discouraged due to parents likely suing the school.

    I'm wondering if some of the decreased testosterone levels come from the neurological response to rewarding passive or implosive anger and punishing aggressive anger.

    Theres another corollary to this, the punishment of pushing and shoving at an early age leads the aggressive people to focus more on name calling and other forms that can hurt the other person just as hard but don't lead to immediate punishment. The problem with this is that the implosive people tend to internalise all the name calling until they snap and go over the edge.

    I think explosive anger is much easier to deal with then implosive. Most explosive people tend to enjoy contact sports and once they discover sports or some outlet other than physical harassment are able to do just fine. Implosive anger is much more of a problem cause theres no outlet other than the final snap such as shooting up the school.

    I think the problem is no school system will acknowledge explosive anger is not a behavioural disorder and its just a part of human nature. Its much easier to zero tolerance those who bully and suspend them rather than identify those kids who have more explosive aggressive tendencies and steer them toward possible outlets.

    And yes I am more of an explosive anger person. I was the fat kid at a young age and still am overweight. I played football and other sports. Yes I was teased and got into fights as a kid. I will say tho that being more aggressive than passive is more ideal simply because passion for any particular goal requires some aggressiveness to go for it.

  138. Bostonians bunch of pussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or maybe it's all those femmy biotech folks in Boston who make up the study, who replace those good old irish and italian ball busters. That's sample selection bias. No PhD for you.

  139. Re:Any link to...SOY by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    SOY! SOY! SOY! Soy makes you strong! Strength crushes enemies! SOY!

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  140. Labor demographics by Heembo · · Score: 1

    Just less people doing physical labor and more doing jobs like protecting IP in court!

    --
    Horns are really just a broken halo.
  141. Don't see it by tigerhawkvok · · Score: 1

    Running IE7 on WinVista build 5744, and I don't get any phishing error messages...

    --
    Blog
    1. Re:Don't see it by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 1

      .. this one is losing his eyesight

  142. Re:The testosterone avg. in american males is lowe by cptnapalm · · Score: 0

    Actually, Chuck Norris is the reason we still have any testosterone. He makes up for the West Coast all by himself.

  143. Maybe it's "tail between the legs syndrome"? by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 1

    There are correlations between football teams winning the final and more babies being concieved in the winner's hometown right after the victory. I suspect men get a testosterone boost when their team does well.

    Now look at how Team America's adventures have gone in the last few years... bitch-slapped by Osama, humiliated in Iraq, lost all their fair-weather friends.... is it any wonder their eyes are lowered and their tails are between their legs?

    --
    Software patents delenda est.
  144. bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He has a point for a while, especially when he says the "man show" is a parody of men and male behaviour, then he starts talking about golf swings and action movies, making him into a parody of himself.

    It's idiots like that who give men a bad name

  145. Here's the original journal article (free) by nbauman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Chicks dig it when you read the primary sources.

    BTW, always ask who paid for the study. In this case, it's the National Institutes of Health (not the Testosterone Salesmen of America). That's why they have to post the manuscript free online.

    http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ jc.2006-1375v1

    This version published online on October 24, 2006
    Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, doi:10.1210/jc.2006-1375

    A population-level decline in serum testosterone levels in American men
    Thomas G Travison*, Andre B Araujo, Amy B O'Donnell, Varant Kupelian, and John B McKinlay

    New England Research Institutes, Watertown, MA, USA

    Context. Age-specific estimates of mean testosterone (T) concentrations appear to vary by year of observation and by birth cohort, and estimates of longitudinal declines in T typically outstrip cross-sectional decreases. These observations motivate a hypothesis of a population-level decrease in T over calendar time, independent of chronologic aging.

    Objective. To establish the magnitude of population-level changes in serum T concentrations, and the degree to which they are explained by secular changes in relative weight and other factors.

    Design. A prospective cohort study of health and endocrine functioning in randomly selected men of age 45-79 y. Three data collection waves: baseline (T1: 1987-89) and two follow-ups (T2: 1995-97, T3: 2002-04).

    Setting. An observational study of randomly selected men residing in greater Boston, MA, USA.

    Participants. Data obtained on 1374, 906 and 489 men at T1, T2, and T3, respectively, totaling 2769 observations taken on 1532 men.

    Main outcome measures. Serum total testosterone and calculated bioavailable testosterone.

    Results. We observe a substantial age-independent decline in T that does not appear to be attributable to observed changes in explanatory factors, including health and lifestyle characteristics such as smoking and obesity. The estimated population-level declines are greater in magnitude than the cross-sectional declines in T typically associated with age.

    Conclusions. These results indicate that recent years have seen a substantial, and as yet unrecognized, age-independent population-level decrease in T in American men, potentially due to birth cohort differences or to health or environmental effects not captured in observed data.

    Real nerds read the meeting abstracts:

    5th World Congress on the Aging Male, Salzburg, Austria, February 9-12, 2006
    http://www.kenes.com/aging/aging5/index.asp

  146. PCB by nukeade · · Score: 1

    I read long ago that when mothers were exposed to PCBs, it led to male children being more feminine--some symptoms being the base of the penis located closer to the anus, or a smaller penis size overall. It's possible that what we're seeing is the ramifications of PCB buildup in our environment--they take forever to break down.

    ~Ben

  147. Seen in South Park, CO,... by ArielMT · · Score: 1

    ... A group of metrosexual rights activists paraded through the town center chanting, "We're here! We're not queer! But we're close! Get used to it!"

    --
    It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
  148. Modern urban life.... by katorga · · Score: 1

    There is no biological need for testosterone in the modern urban environment. Promiscuity is at levels that allow any male to "mate" almost constantly, without effort, and without the need to "win" the right to mate from other males. There is no responsibility to raise or even have any offspring to male good provider traits are not necessary to display to females. Life in affluent western countries is so antiseptically "safe" and without risk that aggression has no place and is in fact frowned upon by females.

    Transplant this study to a riskier environment and I bet the outcome is reversed.

    1. Re:Modern urban life.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Promiscuity is at levels that allow any male to "mate" almost constantly, without effort, and without the need to "win" the right to mate from other males."

      That is just not true. Firstly, I dispute the "any". If you're a fugly guy it's not happening. Secondly, yes, there is a culture of promiscuity but it is a niche culture, only a small fraction of people "mate constantly". If every man decided he wanted some we wouldn't all fit in the singles bars.

    2. Re:Modern urban life.... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Population density is increasing. If there were a population density anywhere near this high in the olden days of cavemen it would signify severe overpopulation. The response to overpopulation? Mate less. How do you make someone mate less? Make them want to mate less. How do you make someone less likely to want to mate? Lower testosterone.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  149. Corn Syrup and Soy by Mr+Bubble · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it a coincidence that our processed foods became inundated with huge amounts of corn syrup and soya fillers starting in the 80's?

    --
    "The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
  150. Re:Diabetes/MJ by cogno64 · · Score: 1

    future world news-flash "techno-testosterone deficit, a malady of the 21st century, contributed to problems of the species in reproducing itself without cloning....... luckily still can exercise the brain

  151. testosterone by klept · · Score: 1

    Ok I didnt see anybody post this. But did it ever occur to you guys and girls that the lack of tes in American men, may be due to the lack of interest in American women. And why would American men lack interest in American women? Well, maybe because they have become too much trouble with today's social norms, attitudes, laws, etc.. Please dont flame me. I get along with American women. But my contact with them is superficial. Well, at least superficial practically all of the time.

    1. Re:testosterone by not-enough-info · · Score: 1

      At first glance my gut reaction is to think points in your post are stupid. But then I look at Japan's falling birth rate and many of the social parallels (albeit in a much more advanced state of disconnect) and start to worry about this country.

      --
      ---k--
      </stupid>
  152. Re:Diabetes/MJ by cogno64 · · Score: 1

    let's hope that michael jackson, e.g, captain eo - does not reproduce by cloning

  153. You know, I'm glad I have a daughter by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    and not a son.

    If someone attacks her, she can expect society to defend her pronto.

    People like you REALLY make me glad I had a daughter.

    And my point about Littleton/Columbine is, the mean streets of urban America actually came to the quiet streets of Colorado, for a day. :)

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  154. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by Helish · · Score: 1

    Testosterone is controled by the amount of estrogen in the body. When the body detects higher levels of estrogen, it thinks that the testosterone levels have increased and drops the testosterone production, since testosterone breaks down to estrogen and the body thinks that the testosterone levels where too high. There are drugs out there that block estrogen receptors or limit the break down of testosterone into estrogen. But a much simpler solution would be to limit the amount of estrogen consumed.

  155. We DO need more Real Men. by TerranFury · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But "real" isn't the swaggering jock: He is exactly like his counterpart the flamboyant "metrosexual" (how I detest that word -- but it communicates): He is affecting a style of behavior that is not truly his own. I have no respect for him.

    Do not be like Napolean, who fought wars to make up for his small stature. It takes the bigger man to show restraint. Master yourself before you seek to master others. Violence is weakness.

    Du Toit is correct that the TV-sitcom "man" is weak, hen-pecked, and impotant -- as are too many real life men. But this is not because they do not drink enough beer, and it is not because they do not watch enough football. It is because, chained by guaranteed sex to relationships they do not want, they do not have the strength to hold their principles above their libidos. Restraint is strength.

    Take a punch. Stand tall. Do not strike back, but speak clearly: "You will leave now."
    Meet a girl. She is drunk, and on top of you. Quietly say, "no." Put her to bed. Close the door behind you.

    Whence disappeared "to be a man?" Strength. Respect. Honor. Real men are not pigs. Real men are good men.

  156. Helps me and others by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    as a testicular cancer survivor, I ran on one engine for about 15 years but dropped subnormal last year.

    drive dropped to nothing, performance dropped enormously, thinking got very muddy, started having night sweats, reaction speed was low.

    Hormone replacement therapy has fixed me-- in fact rolled back the clock to perhaps my 30's. doing well in sports- no night sweats- drive up- thinking clear- wit fast again- performance good- and lust back.

    You need to do prostate health stuff tho (saw palmetto, zinc, etc). HRT + prostate cancer currently is bad.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  157. Modern "white" tooth fillings proven male harmful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern "white" tooth fillings proven male harmful! Bis-GMA based materials contain Bisphenol A, a known endocrine disrupter chemical.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A

    Really. The composite filling popular in recent years is highly effective at dropping testosterone levels in animal tests and in humans.

    A recent modern replacement is less harmful but not as widespread.

    Also, high frustose corn syrup (practically non existant before 1972) has resulted in a phenomenon of weight increase due to the bizarre effect of fructose on blood chemistry, and the extra fat helps create more female hormones and drop male testosterone.

    Soybeans, forced on many since the 1970s, has lots of estradiol, a known testosterone killer.

    the list of things that chemically castrate males, in our environment since mid 1970 is staggering.

  158. Grouped by race by yoprst · · Score: 1

    I'd love to have the data they collected grouped by race. The more detailed racial subdivison, the better...

  159. Re:Science or Society? Or... Marion? by X'16435934 · · Score: 1

    O, PUHLEEEASE!
    (There. I said it. And probably just lost 100 ml of Testosterone,too!)

    But SAY...
    Isn't John Wayne's REAL name "Marion"?

    I rest my case.

    - Eccsad Essemal

    --
    - Ecsad Essemal
    The Hexadecimal TV-REMOTE!
  160. One word: by PrayingWolf · · Score: 1

    masturbation

  161. possible causes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of reduced testosterone include: depression, stress, obesity (aka metabolic syndrome, syndrome X). Seems to me there's a little bit of all of those around lately....

  162. And in 100K years humans will be like blobs. by master_p · · Score: 1

    This is natural...as the need for hard work that exercises the body is reduced, men will have less and less testosterone. In 100,000 years and if we have not yet extinguish ourselves, humans will be reduced to blobs mostly occupied by the brain, and physical reproduction will take place in a machine. In a short period of time, caucasian man will be replaced by african and asian man...but in the end, those people will too be assimilated.

    A question though: does this reduced level of testosterone affect blacks and hispanics?

  163. Why - by mkw87 · · Score: 1

    It's quite obvious, we need to stop interacting with the French so much. It's rubbing off on us.

    --
    Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
  164. Bald and loving it! by withears · · Score: 0

    All you low-testosterone hairy "men" can just kiss my hairless butt.

    I've got ALL the testosterone - and the ladies LOVE IT.

    Enjoy brushing your mane, nancy boys. Bwahahahaha!

  165. All your babes are belong to us! by clovis · · Score: 1


    What??

  166. Can't say we weren't warned... by Brynosaurus · · Score: 1

    The alligator dicks are shriveling up /
    Soon they'll all be through /
    Yeah, the alligator dicks are shrinking fast /
    And it will happen to you ...
      - David Rovics, "The Alligator Song"

  167. Let Maddox Cure You by __aawdrj2992 · · Score: 1

    Maddox is going to make this all better. http://alphabetofmanliness.com/

  168. Boston != America by stonewolf · · Score: 1

    The article is based on data on men in the Boston area. Boston is one town in the northwest US. It is an old industrial town and Boston harbor has a reputation as being horribly polluted. It is not a representative sample of the entire US.

    I've been to Boston on business more times than I can remember. There are a lot of things to love about the Boston/Cambridge area. Not to mention that I have 10th and 11th great grandfathers buried just out side Boston. But speaking as someone who grew up in the western US and live in Texas by choice, Boston is one of the most foreign places I visit. I gave up trying to dress correctly for Boston. You have to be a native to understand the rules. (How many shades of black are there?) And, well what can I say, never ever ask for salsa or for a Hawaiian style pizza in Boston.

    Boston is its own unique reality and is not representative of the rest of the US.

    Stonewolf

  169. That's due to your special case by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    That's because your ID is a special case...

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  170. Re:Lots of possibilities, but all related to greed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
    Plastics leech pseudo-estrogens into liquids. Air pollution has had associations.

    I vote for plastics above anything else, since air pollution has been on the decline in the US (due to de-industrialization and better pollution controls). Could we also possibly be seeing the deleterious effects of radioactive fallout from nuke tests as well as accidents like Chernobyl. This crap peaked in the late 50s/early 60s, so the last two generations - people up to around 45-50 yo - were born after this. And we know that radiation effects often "skip" a generation since genetic damage becomes amplified with each generation. So people born in the 80s might be paying for the sins[1] of their grandfathers in the 50s.

    -b.

    [1]- Disclaimer: not any kind of religious nut here. But aboveground nuclear testing *was* a sin against nature and the people who were exposed (don't think the fallout was confined to Nevada and Utah - hot spots extended as far as upstate NY and Vermont). In a just world, the people who decided to test nukes above ground would face a firing squad for crimes against mankind.

  171. Hahaha by Krojack · · Score: 1

    HAHA.. I say its all the people pushing "its ok to be gay" idea around. If you look at the general American male society 50 to 60 years ago then look at it today, Its obvious why someone would say this. Men are slowly fading away into sissy men.

    Don't goto the barber shop where they run the vacuum though your hair when done. Goto the beauty parlor where you can also get a pedicure!!

  172. thats why i moved to canada by chimericalburst · · Score: 0

    content of email just sent to ladyfriend: (slashdot link) thats why i moved to canada. lets fuck.

  173. Obviously overcompensating by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    He's obviously overcompensating for having a girl's first name and a French last name.

    - Jim Danger McManly

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  174. Since when does "gender" mean "sex"? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1
    I've always thought of the word "gender" as a grammatical construct and "sex" as a classification for humans. I wouldn't refer to a human being's "gender" any more than I would refer to a noun's "sex".

    That just sounds weird to me.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  175. To pick a nit by complexmath · · Score: 1

    the technical term is "gender identity," not just "gender." The use of "identity" clearly conveys, to me, that chromosomes are not at issue.

  176. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

    I'd like to know how many of them are in ducks.

  177. Do you have any kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A wife? A good job? You sound like a punk kid to men like me who've actually succeeded in all the major and most important tests of manliness. More than likely you're going to mate with a tree at 60mph one of these days. Hopefully not mine.

  178. Idiot People project their desires into their vote by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    Fucking moron. It's the pussification of america that's RESPONSIBLE for George Bush getting into office. Men can't be men any more, and women, many of whom WANT a strong man around (like daddy used to be when they were little), will vote for a complete dickhead because that's what they psychologically identify with. Strong men are what make strong communities, and make people feel safe. So men need to be involved in their communities (instead of sitting on their asses indoors watching tv/playing video games/writing blogs) and they need to be ALLOWED to be men.

    And BTW, the pussification isn't just a MEN problem. Men have turned into women, and women have turned into children. Children have turned into tyrants, because they no longer have any idea what a proper adult behaves like, do to this rampant pussification.
    Women in this country are titanic cowards now, terrified of taking any initiative or standing up for themselves with others, relying instead on backstabbing and conniving. Laws written to correct genuine harrassment in the workplace are now being used by cowards to commit harrassment, which I can testify is not fun. I was told by my boss at the time I'd be fired if any more 'inappropriate comments' were made or _even reported_.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  179. MacArthur? Patton? by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    I'll happily bet a week's pay there were never any shootings at any of the schools MacArthur or Patton went to, except maybe accidental shootings on the rifle range at West Point or something. People in those days may have had fights, but they knew what the limits were. Where'd they learn them? From strong, 'testosterone-poisoned' parents who were _involved_in_their_lives_ instead of spending way too many hours working for some dickhead corporation, or sitting in front of the tube, wasted.

    Parallel case: rhinos were showing up dead at one of Kenya's national parks. With their horns intact. Not shot. Turns out they were killed in fights with adolescent male elephants. These males were dripping with hormones and secretions from a condition called must (spelled musth on wikipdia). The parks went and got full-sized adult males from another park and let them loose and the younger males immediately went out of must, went into it less often, and had the condition for shorter periods while the adult males were around. And the rhinos quit getting killed.

    Our society needs to recognize that local action is the only one that's truly effective for social problems; we can't rely on big government to do everything for us. Government's job is to keep corporations from getting too much power and destroying our lives and environment. (Which obviously they've royally screwed up on lately.)

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  180. Not this shit on the French again. by jonskerr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The French didn't just fucking lie down and puss out. They fought the meanest army in the world, who had just spent several years building up to it and practicing on Poland, when they were battle hardened and armed with the best weapons on the planet. Fuck armchair generals watch too much fucking Simpsons.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
  181. Re:Sex, Gender and Other Definitions by aebrain · · Score: 1

    Gosh, where to begin. I've had to become knowledgeable about this in the last 18 months due to being a bit strange biologically, and here's a simplified summary of what I've found out.

    It's simple for most of us - we either have 46xy chromosomes, a male body, and a male gender identity, or alternately, 46xx chromosomes, a female body, and a female gender identity. Some of us are Gay, some Lesbian, some straight, some bisexual, some asexual, but that's beside the point.

    First, I'll start with the hundreds of different syndromes that collectively are called Intersex Conditions. What is Intersex? A practical definition is that the body is neither wholly male nor female. Some definitions insist that the condition must be present at birth to be "truly" Intersexed, others require both male and female characteristics to be present. Depending on your definition, 1.7% of the populace are Intersexed, but in only 1 in 1000 is it noticeable, and causes a problem.

    Now to Genetic Sex. 46xx equals boy, 46xx equals girl, right? Not necessarily. From Nature :

    But in most cases of anatomically complete XX men -- who have functional testes, but without a Y are infertile -- SRY is involved. For this reason, it has long been called the gene that defines 'maleness'.[1]

    But now Giovanna Camerino of the University of Pavia in Italy and colleagues have found another gene that is equally important to the process.

    The team studied a family in which four brothers were each XX. None carried the 'male' SRY gene. Instead, the team reports in Nature Genetics [2], they each have a mutation in a gene called RSPO1.

    See what I mean? Then there's conditions like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, where a 46xy girl results. For real biological weirdness, look at 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (5ARD) syndrome, where a child who appears to be a girl until puberty becomes a boy afterwards.

    I say "girl" and "boy" because that's what they look like externally.

    But gender - or gender identity if you like - appears to be a consequence of brain morphology. Just as there are Intersex conditions that can give people cross-gendered genitalia and secondary sex characteristics, it's possible to have a cross-gendered brain. Most are familar with how exposure to the drug Thalidomide causes foetal deformity of the limbs - though many have limb deformities without exposure. But few are aware of the effect of the drug DiEthylStilEstrol, a drug commonly administered to pregnant women in the 50s, 60s and 70s. A 5 year study of DES-sons showed that 1 in 5 had some degree of Gender Dysphoria - basically, they thought like girls, they had girls emotions, and a male body felt terribly uncomfortable to them. Their brains were female, and we now know from dynamic MRI scans, autopsies, and examination of individual brain cells that male and female brains are far more different that we'd believed even ten years ago.

    So in addition to the obviously Intersexed, there's the people who have Congenital Neurological Intersex, or Harry Benjamin's Syndrome, or Transsexuality.

    How and why do I know all this? I had one of the really odd conditions. Until age 47, I was thought to be a male with partial androgen insensitivity, slight hypogonadism. Then weird stuff happened, and my body rapidly feminised - something I'd dreamed of but knew was medically impossible. Turns out it's not, I know 7 other cases now of women with HBS who have spontaneously feminised between age 40 and 55. There's at least 3 different mechanisms that can cause it. Being a Geek Girl, I blogged about it as it happened, of course.

    Neither Gender nor Sex are easy things to determine for a tiny minority of

    --
    Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
  182. Ditto, lol! by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    I love watching guys like that talk their big game.

    You hardly ever see them showing up to do anything that actually counts. Except, of course, getting your change wrong at the gas station.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Ditto, lol! by flyneye · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When faced with your fears you retreat to imagination to comfort yourself.
      You just confessed to not counting,anthropologically speaking.
      Your philosophy counts against your future survival,looking at it that way.
      Just develop some will and rise above.
      No one passively excelled at anything.
      No one ignored history and lasted long either.
      From a nurturing womanly view,fighting kids are upsetting,but thats their job.anthropologically speaking.Nurturers,.
      Men are still,hunter gatherers.
      Falling outside this necessity lessens your chances to produce progeny,especially progeny that have a chance because your recessive behaviors are inherited and taught.
      I won't say that there aren't other affecting factors,but at its base,it is irrefutable.
                You're welcome,no I don't mind picking up the slack,yes,I have a woman and children,have defended them and you.I am a self made man and work for myself.
      I find it funny,strange and interesting to speak to those less motivated to live or think individually.( I did notice your talking points were all just regurge-cliche so you evidently haven't thought out your position to its ends).I enjoy people of all walks of life despite their self imposed destructiveness.
      In the morning the lion knows if it isn't faster than the slowest antelope it will go hungry.The antelope knows if it isn't faster than the fastest lion it will be catfood.
      either way everyday you've got to hit the ground running with all the will you can muster.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  183. Re:Idiot People project their desires into their v by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    Strong men have been obviously despised enough that they're being pushed aside by history.

    As for women... thanks for the misogyny. They've turned into cowards and children, eh? I bet you definitely don't get laid.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  184. OMFG by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    Your post reads like a line straight out of "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe does Talladega Nights"...

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:OMFG by flyneye · · Score: 0

      and you post like "bonzo does goatse.cx"

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:OMFG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was pathetic. You sound more like Bonzo, except stupider.

  185. Re:lack of excercise and obesity AND PLASTICS by nametaken · · Score: 1


    Wow, that's disturbing. Not so much the rabbit restrainer, but the idea that every boy scout and college kid in the country is being regularly dosed with synthetic estrogen.

    Creepy.