In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Really Permanent Advertising | Main | Taking Chances »

November 01, 2006

Early Puberty

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Puberty is now hitting many girls by the age of 8. Scientists wonder why.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at November 1, 2006




Comments

In 1979, the medical journal The Lancet described an outbreak of breast enlargement among hundreds of Italian schoolchildren, probably caused by estrogen contamination of beef and poultry.

Ah, to have been a schoolboy then! I've never heard big boobs described as symptoms of an "outbreak" before...

Posted by: Agnostic on November 1, 2006 11:15 AM



It's either watching too much TV or Global Warming, isn't it?

Posted by: dearieme on November 1, 2006 12:13 PM



Agnostic -- I've never heard "outbreak" used that way before, but I'm going to start using it myself from now on.

Dearieme -- Or maybe pasteurized milk, or too much websurfing ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 1, 2006 12:20 PM



On pretty much the other end of the lifespan spectrum, it's been said that dead human bodies don't rot as quickly as they used to because of all the preservatives in food. It may be an urban legend, however.

Posted by: Peter on November 1, 2006 12:38 PM



By age 8, almost half of African-American girls and 15 percent of Caucasian girls start developing pubic hair

Ironic, isn't it? Pubic hair is appearing among little girls even as it is rapidly becoming extict (albeit via deliberate intervention) among adult women.

Posted by: Peter on November 1, 2006 12:47 PM



Those who undergo early puberty don't enjoy it much. We ought to be protecting and promoting those wonderful Peter Pan years when we're unfolding, exploring, defying Captain Hook and not afraid of crocodiles. Running in near-genderless packs was great fun and a source of life force. Esp. if you were young enough to go home to Mom instead of some demanding girlfriend or boyfriend.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on November 1, 2006 12:52 PM



I reckon I might cop a lot of heat from this one, so here goes;

I work as a family physician and my colleagues and I all have noticed the same phenomena.
From my own observations it seems to appear that girls from more "strict" families seem to entery puberty later than girls from more "relaxed" families. Also the girls from more strict families tend to dress more conservatively than girls from the other group.

Now it is well known that children who grow up in emotionally damaging environments actually have growth retardation; in other words the environment a child grows in effects their growth.

Is it possible that the more sexualised environment a child grows in, the earlier the entry into puberty? I think it would be worthy of future study.

Posted by: The Social Pathologist on November 1, 2006 3:47 PM



Well, our household is definitely of the messy l1iberal variety, and we gave our daughter plenty of freedom. She reached puberty at 16 and a half.

Posted by: Lea Luke on November 1, 2006 5:11 PM



Of course, no-one considers the environmental impact of female hormones from birth-control pills exiting the human body and entering the environment, getting into the food chain, the water table, etc.

Posted by: anon on November 3, 2006 10:58 PM



What I find interesting is that, after reading the article -- which presents quite plausible real chemical reasons for early puberty -- The Social Pathologist responds by crafting some sort of Lysenkoist theory that liberal thoughts somehow confer puberty on children.

Posted by: anon on November 5, 2006 2:29 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?