Fertility Plummeting In Western Males

[Kav]

Less testosterone won't necessarily mean more feminine.

More oestrogen may do though.

No..? 

[Grazza]

1 minute ago, Fierce_LiNk said:

So, you're not the least bit concerned about the validity of it? You're just happy to roll with any set of numbers thrown in front of you and come to your own conclusions, which aren't necessarily linked?

 

I don't see any reason to doubt it, whereas those who are pro-depopulation have welcomed it.  It backs up my existing beliefs just as it suits your prejudices.

 

1 minute ago, Fierce_LiNk said:

Well,  testosterone is just a part of it. Masculinity is not a synonym for testosterone.

 

Not a synonym, but I already said one is caused by the other.  You're just being pedantic now.

 

1 minute ago, Fierce_LiNk said:

Ok, then what is your definition of "men being more feminine"? And how does this link to the findings of this study?

 

I already said, "having less testosterone".  Men's fertility is falling, just as testosterone levels are falling.  I am suggesting, yes suggesting, this may be linked to something in the environment either affecting the ability of the testes themselves, or something we consume such as chemicals or hormones,  It's a leap, but not a giant leap.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/health-testosterone-levels-dc-idUKKIM16976320061031

[Grazza]

Just now, Kav said:

Less testosterone won't necessarily mean more feminine.

More oestrogen may do though.

No..? 

 

Good point.  Less testosterone basically means oestrogen has a free ride.

[Rummy]

I fucking hate trying to reply to this on my phone. I can sorta see your point and originally misconstrued it @Grazza. I think a big issue here is the suggestion of cause and effect - some are thinking you're suggesting a cause when you're suggesting the effect.

IE. Rather than saying more feminine behaviour in men is chasing this, is this causing the more feminine behavour in men?

 

Interesting food for thought. I know the issue of medication/drugs in the West getting into water is another speculation of cause for issues like this - but again is it cause, effect, or just a separate correlation factor that does not mean causation?

[Daft]

14 minutes ago, Grazza said:

I genuinely don't understand why you'd think my argument being correct would need evidence of more acute cases in gay communities or in drag queens.  I am not saying dressing up as women lowers testosterone.  It's something that affects all Western men indiscriminately.

 

As for women, I'd say those who are good at sport do probably have higher testosterone levels than those who aren't.  I don't think that's new or controversial.

Okay, let me try and understand. You are saying that lower testosterone is leading men to be more feminine on a sociological and cultural level? If that's true, wouldn't the reverse be true to an extent – not that dressing as a woman causes lower testosterone – but with a community where acting effeminate is not abnormal, that there would be a notable increase in men with lower levels of testosterone?

I dunno, I feel like I'm missing something here because it reads to me like you're saying sperm count, testosterone and masculinity have direct correlations.

And that's a straw man argument about tomboys; you don't need to like sports to be a tomboy.

And when did sport become a masculine trait? 

I don't really understand.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Daft

[Fierce_LiNk]

4 minutes ago, Grazza said:

 

I don't see any reason to doubt it, whereas those who are pro-depopulation have welcomed it.  It backs up my existing beliefs just as it suits your prejudices.

 

 

Not a synonym, but I already said one is caused by the other.  You're just being pedantic now.

 

 

I already said, "having less testosterone".  Men's fertility is falling, just as testosterone levels are falling.  I am suggesting, yes suggesting, this may be linked to something in the environment either affecting the ability of the testes themselves, or something we consume such as chemicals or hormones,  It's a leap, but not a giant leap.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/health-testosterone-levels-dc-idUKKIM16976320061031

You're succumbing to something called "confirmation bias" now, which is where you've got your own set of beliefs and have altered the findings of the report to suit your own beliefs. You just openly said you're not questioning it.

Out of curiosity, I looked at the BBC report of the article and read the following:

Quote

Many previous studies have indicated similar sharp declines in sperm count in developed economies, but sceptics say that a large proportion of them have been flawed.

Some have investigated a relatively small number of men, or included only men who attend fertility clinics and are, in any case, more likely to have low sperm counts.

There is also concern that studies that claim to show a decline in sperm counts are more likely to get published in scientific journals than those that do not.

Another difficulty is that early methods of counting sperm may have overestimated the true count.

Taken together these factors may have created a false view of falling sperm counts.

 

If there is something there, then further studies should be conducted to validate or invalidate it. That's true science. The second line of that line is a bit damning, however. It's not a representation of a population, only an extremely small sample. Again, I'd love to know what the numbers were pre-1970s and how the information was gathered. If we're going to talk science (which is what we are doing) then it needs to be looked at scientifically.

[Grazza]

3 minutes ago, Daft said:

Okay, let me try and understand. You are saying that lower testosterone is leading men to be more feminine on a sociological and cultural level? If that's true, wouldn't the reverse be true to an extent – not that dressing as a woman causes lower testosterone – but with a community where acting effeminate is not abnormal, that there would be a notable increase in men with lower levels of testosterone?

I dunno, I feel like I'm missing something here because it reads to me like you're saying sperm count, testosterone and masculinity have direct correlations.

 

 

Regarding the last part... I definitely am.

 

I do see your point, but I don't think this is massively linked to the gay community.  I'd like to know what homosexuality is, scientifically, but until we do, it's a bit of a mystery.  What we do know is that people have always been gay (about 10% of the population?), whereas the lowering of masculinity I am suggesting has happened dates back to the 1970s (from what we know).  I have never considered gay men automatically feminine, but I see what you're saying about acting effeminate not being unusual amongst the community.  I don't know - perhaps part of that is throwing off the shackles of what society expects?

 

3 minutes ago, Daft said:

And that's a straw man argument about tomboys; you don't need to like sports to be a tomboy.

And when did sport become a masculine trait? 

I don't really understand.

 

To be fair, you used the term "tomboy", which I don't really understand.  I was just trying to be polite by steering it towards sport.  Sport is definitely masculine though.  The more testosterone and muscle you have the better you are at it.  Competitiveness, hand-to-eye coordination etc.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful conversation anyway, Daft.

[DriftKaiser]

The problem for me is that the data from this study between 1973 and present is not enough to make an accurate conclusion cos Homo Sapiens have been roaming around the world for over 300,000+ years. Also we need to remember that the human lifespans have been extended further thanks to the medical advancements we made since 18th century thus it could have played a role in the decrease of the male fertility as well.

It could be anything from the environment or our ever-changing lifestyles or the stuffs we consumed/injected into our bodies or we are evolving to be more efficient with our jizz.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited July 26, 2017 by DriftKaiser

[somme]

With a world population of seven and a half billion and spiralling out of control then perhaps a fall in fertility is a good thing. We can't sustain the current growth and most people would probably disagree with a 'child limit' like China used to have. 

Also, as a gay man, I can probably answer a few questions. For starters camp and/or effeminate men are actually in the minority in the gay community. But you're much more likely to assume a camp man is gay than one who is not camp. Most gay men hide quite well as they're not overly effeminate and so people don't assume they're gay.

 

[Rummy]

27 minutes ago, Daft said:

Okay, let me try and understand. You are saying that lower testosterone is leading men to be more feminine on a sociological and cultural level? If that's true, wouldn't the reverse be true to an extent – not that dressing as a woman causes lower testosterone – but with a community where acting effeminate is not abnormal, that there would be a notable increase in men with lower levels of testosterone?

Your logic ties the two very well together and I can't presently pick it apart to say it's wrong. In my head I feel it's assuming a counter-correlate relation and the only example I can think of against that is this: say in an ecosystem food source increases - this leads to an increase in that predator's(or omni/herbivore) population but an increase in Omni/herbivore population wouldn't neccessarily lead to an increase in food source etc.

To second - is there NOT a notable increase in men* with lower levels of testosterone? Like...I'm not saying there is or isn't either way but exactly that - unless you can say there isn't more than you can say there is - they both currently stand valid. Essentially until someone actually assesses either and/or the other?

 

*I earlier typo'd this as 'me'. I thought it was amusing to leave.

[Glen-i]

All I'm gonna say is that I have to agree with @somme about it being a blessing in disguise when overpopulation is a big problem.

Then again, I'm known to scream like a little girl when I get really excited. I'm also quite camp, so... *shrugs*

Either way, I'm blaming Laptops.

[Jonnas]

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I just wanted to say a couple of things:

1. The lower sperm count seems to be limited to "western" regions, so the reason for the decrease in fertility can stem from a multitude of specific reasons. High stress levels, nutrition, or even frequent use of cell phones (I recall infertility being one of the many things cell phones were blamed for. Because they're stored in your pocket, you see). If there are concrete causes, I think we can ascertain them, and change our behaviour accordingly (like when we collectively found out tobacco is unhealthy).

2. To say that this could lead to the end of humanity is ludicrous. The highest birth rates nowadays come from Asia and Africa, and the same study claims those are unaffected by this sperm count decrease. So, if you think that this condition could help mitigate overpopulation... it won't do much, I'm afraid. Europe and North America already have declining birth rates due to lifestyle changes, that is, the increasing tendency for fewer people to marry and/or have children (and even if they do, they're unlikely to have more than 2 children), as opposed to previous generations where families with 5+ children were more common. And that's before I take birth control into account. Meanwhile, the populations of China and India keep growing without much issue.

Also, it's so eurocentric, to hear "decreasing fertility in Europe, Australia and North America" and immediately decry "end of humanity as a whole" Sheesh, Daily Mail.

3. Replying to Grazza's point about masculinity, I think that sort of thing is far more social than biological. The definition of masculinity and femininity, much like attractiveness, vary greatly according to time and place. For example, "worrying about attire and appearances" or "acting overly emotional" are behaviours that have been associated with masculinity and femininity alike at different points in time, but there's no reason to believe those changes in perception were caused by changes in biology (or fertility rates, for that matter).

[Grazza]

Good post, @Jonnas , thanks for that.

 

6 hours ago, Jonnas said:

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I just wanted to say a couple of things:

1. The lower sperm count seems to be limited to "western" regions, so the reason for the decrease in fertility can stem from a multitude of specific reasons. High stress levels, nutrition, or even frequent use of cell phones (I recall infertility being one of the many things cell phones were blamed for. Because they're stored in your pocket, you see). If there are concrete causes, I think we can ascertain them, and change our behaviour accordingly (like when we collectively found out tobacco is unhealthy).

 

Yep, exactly.  This is what I wanted to get at in the first place, and must have worded it badly to cause so much controversy.  In my book it's likely to be either radiation limiting the performance of the testes, or oestrogen in the environment (eg. contraceptive pill) overloading the testosterone.  I simply think we should take the problem seriously, find the cause (as you say) and address it.

 

6 hours ago, Jonnas said:

2. To say that this could lead to the end of humanity is ludicrous. The highest birth rates nowadays come from Asia and Africa, and the same study claims those are unaffected by this sperm count decrease. So, if you think that this condition could help mitigate overpopulation... it won't do much, I'm afraid. Europe and North America already have declining birth rates due to lifestyle changes, that is, the increasing tendency for fewer people to marry and/or have children (and even if they do, they're unlikely to have more than 2 children), as opposed to previous generations where families with 5+ children were more common. And that's before I take birth control into account. Meanwhile, the populations of China and India keep growing without much issue.

Also, it's so eurocentric, to hear "decreasing fertility in Europe, Australia and North America" and immediately decry "end of humanity as a whole" Sheesh, Daily Mail

 

Totally agree.  Great points.

 

6 hours ago, Jonnas said:

3. Replying to Grazza's point about masculinity, I think that sort of thing is far more social than biological. The definition of masculinity and femininity, much like attractiveness, vary greatly according to time and place. For example, "worrying about attire and appearances" or "acting overly emotional" are behaviours that have been associated with masculinity and femininity alike at different points in time, but there's no reason to believe those changes in perception were caused by changes in biology (or fertility rates, for that matter).

 

Well, I slightly disagree here, although it depends on the subject.  Flower arranging is an example of something I'd argue that's purely about creativity, but society has wrongly classed as feminine.  I do think men are biologically less emotional though.  I have read that testosterone suppresses tears... Of course, it's not enough to subdue crying in extreme circumstances, but I'd argue that men genuinely do not get as upset about minor things.

 

I really don't want to get dragged into all this again, but as I say, that was a great post.

[Jonnas]

1 hour ago, Grazza said:

Yep, exactly.  This is what I wanted to get at in the first place, and must have worded it badly to cause so much controversy.  In my book it's likely to be either radiation limiting the performance of the testes, or oestrogen in the environment (eg. contraceptive pill) overloading the testosterone.  I simply think we should take the problem seriously, find the cause (as you say) and address it.

I don't think there's a way for oestrogen to seep into a person's biology from the outside (and I don't know if it's associated with infertility in the first place), so I don't think that's the cause. It's likely to be something else (considering even too much heat on the testicles can affect a man's fertility, it's bound to be something we don't expect)

1 hour ago, Grazza said:

Well, I slightly disagree here, although it depends on the subject.  Flower arranging is an example of something I'd argue that's purely about creativity, but society has wrongly classed as feminine.  I do think men are biologically less emotional though.  I have read that testosterone suppresses tears... Of course, it's not enough to subdue crying in extreme circumstances, but I'd argue that men genuinely do not get as upset about minor things.

Just to clarify something about my "emotion" statement: I didn't just mean displays of sadness and sensitivity. Feeling of aggressiveness and rage are also associated with men (hence the "hot-blooded male" type that often pops up in fiction).

Edited July 30, 2017 by Jonnas

[Grazza]

12 hours ago, Jonnas said:

I don't think there's a way for oestrogen to seep into a person's biology from the outside (and I don't know if it's associated with infertility in the first place), so I don't think that's the cause. It's likely to be something else (considering even too much heat on the testicles can affect a man's fertility, it's bound to be something we don't expect)

 

No, probably not.  I admit I am confusing the matter, but for me the culprits for feminisation are:

 

* Contraceptive pill in drinking water.  We do know it's causing fish to change sex.  If it's not us drinking the water that's doing it, it might be us eating the fish.

* Soya - many say this hugely feminises men, and it's in most "confected" foods such as cake and chocolate bars.

* Increased radiation.  Now this is my personal hunch.  Despite what the data says (about the '70s), I think there has been a huge spike since Wi-Fi became ubiquitous.  I don't think it's about keeping phones in pockets (although it's a good theory).  For me it's more likely to be the Wi-Fi hotspots you see everywhere you go.  We just don't get a break from it.

 

12 hours ago, Jonnas said:

Just to clarify something about my "emotion" statement: I didn't just mean displays of sadness and sensitivity. Feeling of aggressiveness and rage are also associated with men (hence the "hot-blooded male" type that often pops up in fiction).

 

Yep, agree - aggression isn't masculine.  It's like those people who feel they have to crush your hand when they meet you.  It's doesn't make them more masculine, it's just something they've convinced themselves they have to do.