So where's the moral clarity in these pictures? How about the moral clarity that John Kennedy had Marilyn Monroe snuck into the white house? How about the moral clarity of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemming? I can clearly see this being an issue debated on the ethics of if a man can be a woman or woman a man but moral clarity? Even the issue of the social agenda behind the dance company, but moral clarity is lost on this one. Like I mentioned earlier in a another comment, Fox News picking Laura to call the kettle black when she herself has bedded multiple men out of wedlock while perceiving herself to be a conservative Christian is laughable at best. To be honest all I seen in all this is nothing short of what you'd see in many Broadway plays. Donald Trump himself has done nothing in his entire life to convince anyone he's led a conservative life, he's actually made a mockery out of conservatism. The only reason conservatives got behind him is because of political gain but not because they felt aligned in faith with him. I mean really dude where were you when Donald Trump Jr came out and said one Easter Sunday when Trump was no longer in office that his dad no longer had to go to church because he wasn't president. Next time you want to compare moral clarity at least pick someone you can compare apples to oranges with.

Pesticides could have played a part in the decline of testosterones in men. Just look at the effects DDT had on women. The percentages were low in loss up until the use of plastics in everything. Just like with lead paint playing the main boogie man in childhood lead poisoning, it can never be the oil industry's contamination of the landside for decades through the use of leaded gasolines they also can't be the boogie man for low testosterones levels. Scientist are currently looking at the use of plastics in regards to their growth in popularity and increased use along with sunscreens. Sunscreens became huge during the same time period. You have to look in correlation to when the big jumps started to occur and what was common denominator(s) introduced during those times. The argument they wanted to weaken men is a failed one. Science revolves over time, there were many products used that there was during certain periods no science that could proved harmful effect. Sometimes it takes years before the harms start to unfold before questions are raised and science is used to determine causation or not. That's how the old school operated. Science is much more advanced now and rigorous testing can occur before products are unleashed onto the public....except of course when the government has a agenda, that didn't exist to the extent we see now back in the day. Overall though, back in the day, it didn't matter if you were rich or poor, neither knew any better of the harmful effects of things, asbestos, lead pipes, lead paints, all were equally subjected to it until it was proven otherwise.