What next?

Harmful chemicals found in many sex toys

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- A report released Friday by Greenpeace Netherlands reveals that many plastic sex toys have high concentrations of phthalates, a toxic chemical softener.

Greenpeace reported that a wide range of sex toys, including vibrators and dildos, contain hazardous levels of phthalates, which is used to make plastic more soft and flexible.

Researchers reportedly tested eight sex toys for phthalates, finding that seven of them contained dangerous amounts of the chemicals -- which are said not to biodegrade well and can be hazardous even in small amounts.

Three years ago, research into children's toys such as teething rings turned up similar levels of the chemicals. Toy manufacturers were forced to come up with alternatives, since phthalates can be ingested through direct contact with sensitive tissue.

Greenpeace said the research indicates exposure to the chemicals can disrupt the body's ability to regulate hormone production. The chemicals also reportedly can damage reproduction, and cause liver and kidney defects -- and possibly cancer.

via Feministing

Yes, now it appears that sex toys can make you sick and infertile.  That's right - have an independent sexual identity and you. will. be. punished.  I swear, someone rigged this.  (Also, we clearly have no freaking idea what plastics really do to us over the long run.  She says, drinking from a diet cola bottle.)  How can one check on the safety of anything one happens to own?  Just toss anything that isn't made of silicone? 

And speaking of Feministing...

A couple of people commented or emailed about Friday's post saying that they thought it was great that the Nike ads showed a woman confounding the other people's expectations and that maybe I was missing the point.  And I thought fair enough, it's a perspective, maybe I am missing the forest here.  I have been known to get all het up.......

And then I read about one of the women at Feministing's adventures in sexism. She was invited to be part of a group of bloggers meeting with former President Clinton, and has been attacked in a variety of ways for being inappropriate apparently just because she stood near the man and wasn't wearing a burka.   It's interesting reading. 

And that's why the Nike ads upset me - they frame the question in terms of 'being pretty and still capable' rather than bypassing prettiness as relevant.  Fuckability first!

Nike didn't pick Sharapova because she is the best player, the most aggressive...they picked her because she is the most conventionally attractive of the top players.   Just imagine the same ad running with Roger Federer instead....it's ridiculous.  Because culturally, men are not seen as "handsome and...." anything .  Their accomplishments make them sexy, rather than their sexiness making their accomplishments (sort of) palatable. 

Um, I'm not sure this is a knitting blog anymore.  Or only, anyway.  I don't knit fast enough to keep fresh fiber going all the time...and more and more, it isn't knitting that moves me to words. 

I just felt I ought to mention it. 

Comments

[Marcy, Not Blogless]

I'm with you all the way, Juno. This has been a major peeve of mine for as long as I can remember. Men don't have to be attractive and capable--just capable. Their clothes, their haircuts, their personal attractiveness is not something that is mentioned when talking about, oh, say, a male news anchor. Can you imagine? "Dan Rather took the anchor seat today wearing a dark blue suit with a tiny stripe, crisp white shirt, and attractively-pattened blue and yellow silk tie.' Can you imagine the uproar if the tables were turned in all things??? Ok. I'll stop now. Grrrrrrrrrr.

[Melanie]

Damn, I'm going to have to find the report, but they asked a bunch of scientists/researchers and they calculated you'd have to be using these toys for hours a day to get dangerous levels of exposure. And frankly, if you're using toys for hours a day, phthalate exposure is the least of your problems.

Here's a link to some more science-based stories: http://www.stats.org/stories/greenpeace_sex_sept12_06.htm and another from the National Academy of Sciences on general population phthalate levels: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/8/prweb427269.htm

[Rachel H]

Reading about Feministing's little adventure just now made me sad. How will we get this right if women keep attacking each other over the 'right' way to be a feminist? Or even just a woman for that matter.

[Gina]

I come here for a dose of whatever Juno's dishing up -- be it spinning, knitting, dating, or pondering. I dig it all.

[rock chick]

I find this to be an absolutely titillating alternative to prescription birth control.

[Kellee]

Oh sure. Tell me this AFTER a little birthday shopping spree at...um....er....hey, how about that spinning the other day, huh? What pretty fiber you have, my dear.

[Sarah]

I'm glad you mentioned it. Your last post catalysed the crystallisation of my vague annoyances about body shape, fitness and the difficulties I have finding comfortable exercise gear in my size. According to my scales I'm well within the appropriate weight range for my height and age. According to the fashion industry I'm too fat to be fit. I'm with you, all the way.

[Martha]

Okay, wait a minute--who wants their sex toys soft and flexible? I have to admit, I have pretty much zero experience in that department (too much information?) but it seems to me that soft and flexible is exactly the opposite of what one might be looking for in such an appliance.

[lanea]

Holy crap! That just sucks. I hope no one suffers any actual physical harm.

This shit is why I hate plastic. It's everywhere, and there are no alternatives to it so much of the time, and we have no idea how much trouble it's causing us until we've already been using it for long enough to be in trouble.