Paul Saladino· MD
Studies in both dogs (PMID 8279095) and humans (PMID 1623716) with polyester scrotal slings (12-14 months) show significantly decreased sperm counts.
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
Studies in both dogs (PMID 8279095) and humans (PMID 1623716) with polyester scrotal slings (12-14 months) show significantly decreased sperm counts.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Polyester underwear also appears to harmful for female dogs (PMID 18393023). 12 months of polyester underwear led to decreased progesterone and apparent failure of ovulation/luteinization = unable to conceive.
by the end of 24 months there was a significant decrease in sperm count and modal sperm with an increase in abnormal forms the p value is less than .001 wow okay testicular biopsy showed degenerative changes after garment removal the semen character improved gradually to normal in 10 dogs two remained oligozoospermic meaning they had less than normal amounts of sperm insignificant changes in hormones during the study
the testicular temperature showed insignificant changes during the period the pants were worn so it wasn't heating the balls which we know is a bad thing for spermatogenesis
if you put polyester on your balls it appears to have a negative effect on sperm and hormone production independent of the fact that you're sucking your balls up near your body probably due to an electrostatic effect and potentially also due to compounds that are in that polyester