Jump to content

PETA claims eating chicken can make a kid's dick small


CETME
 Share

Recommended Posts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting from your article: "Nonetheless, it does seem like the video was intended as a light-hearted jape."

I was surprised and horrified that there is research which shows that Phthalate exposure is causally associated with ano-genital malformation in unborn males, as well as other undesirable outcomes. The research I am reading on the subject indicates that ambient levels of the chemical species, just in the environment, can be enough to cause malformation.

Even though PETA's suggestion is jovial, I am left wondering whether they have a point, given that Phthalates are found as an additive in plastics and shampoos, and it is known that microplastics, especially those from shampoos, accummulate in the environment and probably enter the food chain.

So if the Phthalates concentrate up the food chain, then this could mean that eating flesh could exacerbate exposure.

I think that would make an interesting study.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true though. I ate a chicken leg once and my dick fell off :v 

 

in all seriousness though, PETA is probably exaggerating at best, but there may be some merit to it seeing as how Phthalate and BPA products have been linked to health problems in children 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, willow said:

It's true though. I ate a chicken leg once and my dick fell off :v 

 

in all seriousness though, PETA is probably exaggerating at best, but there may be some merit to it seeing as how Phthalate and BPA products have been linked to health problems in children 

PEtA always exaggerates, but there's always a grain of truth on some of the things they blow out of proportion.

If you aren't exposed to Phthalates by eating meat or drinking milk, then you are most likely exposed through it by heating or reheating food with plastics that contain Phthalates. Or solvents. Or Perfumes. Even pesticides contain a degree of it. Even Sex toys.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

PEtA always exaggerates, but there's always a grain of truth on some of the things they blow out of proportion.

If you aren't exposed to Phthalates by eating meat or drinking milk, then you are most likely exposed through it by heating or reheating food with plastics that contain Phthalates. Or solvents. Or Perfumes. Even pesticides contain a degree of it. Even Sex toys.

Yeah. I actually watched a documentary on this a few weeks ago and I think the part that really fucked me up about it was that the corporations get away with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Alexxx-Returns said:

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news but... most of what I eat is chicken and I don't even HAVE a penis! May god help us all.

This is just so sad, you ate so much chicken that you don't have a dick anymore. Fucking carnists smh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jerry said:

wut O.o

I ate tons of chicken as a kid. If the PETA claims were true, I'd have nothing down there.

 

You should read the research they quoted. It shows that exposure in-utero to Phthalates, before birth, can cause ano-genital developmental flaws in males, such as a reduced ano-genital distance (this is more important than penis size because it is a proxy of fertility) as well as a reduced mass of the tested and size of the penis.

Phthalates are found at relatively high concentrations in our ambient environment because they are commonly used in industry, being present in many toiletries and plastics.

PETA mused that that Phthalates may concentrate up the food chain. If they do, then it would stand to reason that pregnant women who consumed foodstuffs with lots of phthalates in may increase exposure in-utero.

Of course, even if this were true I don't think it is an argument which would demonstrate that pregnant women should avoid eating flesh, because that's such a good source of nutrition for the developing foetus. It may show that pregnant women should take great care to avoid other sources of phthalate exposure.

 

Another interesting question is whether the frequency of hormones and hormone-like chemical species industry has exposed developing foeti to might explain the perceived greater abundance of gay people today. Maybe there have always been this many gay people, and they have remained hidden, or maybe the action of these superfluous chemical species in-utero is causing developmental flaws to the mechanisms that generate libido; it has already been demonstrated that the abundance of anthropogenic hormones in the environment affects the sexual expression and development of fish, which have become more likely to develop ovarian tissue, instead of testes, in the last few decades.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

You should read the research they quoted. It shows that exposure in-utero to Phthalates, before birth, can cause ano-genital developmental flaws in males, such as a reduced ano-genital distance (this is more important than penis size because it is a proxy of fertility) as well as a reduced mass of the tested and size of the penis.

Phthalates are found at relatively high concentrations in our ambient environment because they are commonly used in industry, being present in many toiletries and plastics.

PETA mused that that Phthalates may concentrate up the food chain. If they do, then it would stand to reason that pregnant women who consumed foodstuffs with lots of phthalates in may increase exposure in-utero.

Of course, even if this were true I don't think it is an argument which would demonstrate that pregnant women should avoid eating flesh, because that's such a good source of nutrition for the developing foetus. It may show that pregnant women should take great care to avoid other sources of phthalate exposure.

 

Another interesting question is whether the frequency of hormones and hormone-like chemical species industry has exposed developing foeti to might explain the perceived greater abundance of gay people today. Maybe there have always been this many gay people, and they have remained hidden, or maybe the action of these superfluous chemical species in-utero is causing developmental flaws to the mechanisms that generate libido; it has already been demonstrated that the abundance of anthropogenic hormones in the environment affects the sexual expression and development of fish, which have become more likely to develop ovarian tissue, instead of testes, in the last few decades.

Huh, this reminds me? 

Does a fish have a penis?

In all my years as a kid, fishing, cleaning and eating fish, I can't say I ever notied a fish penis.

Or even fish boobs.

I did see nests of eggs, though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fossa-Boy said:

Huh, this reminds me? 

Does a fish have a penis?

In all my years as a kid, fishing, cleaning and eating fish, I can't say I ever notied a fish penis.

Or even fish boobs.

I did see nests of eggs, though...

Fish have a variety of solutions to reproduction.

Some fish are broadcast spawners which squirt their sex cells into the water directly from their cloaca, a united uro-genital opening.

Other fish are more specialised and have internal fertilisation, whereby the sex cells are transferred, usually from male cloaca to female cloaca, by a specially adapted set of claspers which are usually contrived from derived pelvic or anal fins.

female-shark-and-male-shark-with-clasper

 

Fish are a 'grade' of creatures, not a natural group. Hence all land vertebrates are highly specialised types of fishes. So you are an example of a fish which does have a penis.

Not even all mammals have conventional penises though; the Echnidna has a quadru-bifid penis which ends in 4 separate heads, which alternate in use bilaterally and others, such as the Platypus, have a cloaca.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saxon said:

You should read the research they quoted. It shows that exposure in-utero to Phthalates, before birth, can cause ano-genital developmental flaws in males, such as a reduced ano-genital distance (this is more important than penis size because it is a proxy of fertility) as well as a reduced mass of the tested and size of the penis.

Phthalates are found at relatively high concentrations in our ambient environment because they are commonly used in industry, being present in many toiletries and plastics.

PETA mused that that Phthalates may concentrate up the food chain. If they do, then it would stand to reason that pregnant women who consumed foodstuffs with lots of phthalates in may increase exposure in-utero.

Of course, even if this were true I don't think it is an argument which would demonstrate that pregnant women should avoid eating flesh, because that's such a good source of nutrition for the developing foetus. It may show that pregnant women should take great care to avoid other sources of phthalate exposure.

 

Another interesting question is whether the frequency of hormones and hormone-like chemical species industry has exposed developing foeti to might explain the perceived greater abundance of gay people today. Maybe there have always been this many gay people, and they have remained hidden, or maybe the action of these superfluous chemical species in-utero is causing developmental flaws to the mechanisms that generate libido; it has already been demonstrated that the abundance of anthropogenic hormones in the environment affects the sexual expression and development of fish, which have become more likely to develop ovarian tissue, instead of testes, in the last few decades.

Oh. I should have indeed. SweatFox.gif

I did hear about similar researches before, like hormones in meat, or pseudo-estrogen in plastic bottles. I would assume it'll only get problematic if the substance is bio-accumulative in the long-term, or has the time to interact significantly in the body before being metabolized or eliminated, if at all.

I am one of those who believe sexual orientation is formed mostly if not exclusively during a critical timeframe in the early stages of brain development. From that point it just seems logical to me that any exposure to hormones or hormone-mimicking substances can influence the development of the specific brain structure that forms sexual orientation.

But as a whole the mechanisms behind sexual orientation are quite complex. I've even read that homosexuality may have been an evolutionary advantage at some point. Not by directly passing genes but by contributing to greater survival of offspring within a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

Fish have a variety of solutions to reproduction.

Some fish are broadcast spawners which squirt their sex cells into the water directly from their cloaca, a united uro-genital opening.

Other fish are more specialised and have internal fertilisation, whereby the sex cells are transferred, usually from male cloaca to female cloaca, by a specially adapted set of claspers which are usually contrived from derived pelvic or anal fins.

Fish are a 'grade' of creatures, not a natural group.

Quote

 

OK, but what type is @#00Buck ?

I used to catch bass, I think they are the first, squirting kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...