Week in Review
Gays and lesbians have fought for same-sex marriage. Because they want to be like traditional couples. A man and a woman entering wedded bliss. With all of the legal and employer spousal benefits that come with it. Even while feminists decry the institution of marriage as enslaving women into a loveless relationship where women are cooks in the kitchen, maids in the house and whores in the bedroom.
Bradley Manning became Chelsea Manning after being arrested for leaking classified documents. Chelsea is now asking for the government to pay for hormone treatment therapy to become physically a woman. And that denying this costly treatment was cruel and unusual punishment.
So there is a lot of pressure to help people become what they want to be. And some argue that tax money should pay to help them. As well as rewrite our laws. But how far should this go? How far should we go to help people who are unhappy with their circumstance in life (see Men are funding breast implants for women they’ve never met in exchange for their attention online. That’s pathetic by William Henderson posted 4/16/2014 on The Telegraph)?
I’ve just been reading an article about a woman in the north of England whose breast implants were paid for by strangers. In just three months, 23-year-old Gemini Smith from Northumbria raised the £4,450 needed to transform her from a 34A to a 34DD, and it’s all thanks to MyFreeImplants.com – or rather, the men who use it. This is a website for women who feel unhappy in the chest department but lack the funds to change it. They create a profile explaining why they would like breast implants and why they can’t afford them, and are given a dollar for each message they receive; men are invited to buy chat credits in order to send them messages, and are offered “… direct access to thousands of women seeking friendship and your help in obtaining the body they’ve always dreamed of”.
Should the taxpayers pay for breast implants, too? As having small breasts is causing some women pain in their lives. For they don’t feel as attractive as women with larger breasts. As men tend to look at women with larger breasts. Because men are pigs. Yet these women want these pigs to look at them. And suffer pain when they don’t.
One wonders where the feminists would fall on this issue. As providing free birth control is no more necessary for a healthy life than having breast implants. But women getting breast implants are seeking acceptance based on how attractive men find them. Which runs contrary to feminism. Much like feeding women free birth control so they can please as many men as possible sexually. Placing a woman’s sexuality at the core of her being. Again, something that kind of runs contrary to feminism. And the left.
Which makes the left’s obsession with same-sex marriage puzzling. As they are trying everything within their power to help women live without having to marry a man. While at the same time they are doing everything they can to help same-sex couples do what they try so hard to prevent women from having to do.
Tags: birth control, breast implants, free birth control, marriage, same-sex marriage
Week in Review
Once upon a time I was having a conversation with a consultant. He was bald. And not in the best of shape. He looked older than he was. He started a family later in life. And one of the worst days of his life was when a waitress said how cute his grandson was. Because he looked like a grandfather. Even though he was only a father.
I had a coworker who died from a heart attack while on vacation. Running around with his grade-school-aged children. Another father who started his family later in life. It was not a problem for him. For men don’t have a biological clock ticking. So they can start a family as late as they want to in their life. But they may not live to see their children graduate from high school. Which is a horrible thing for a child.
This was something women were spared. Because they have a biological clock ticking. And couldn’t put off becoming a mother until they were ‘grandmother age’. Until now, that is (see Later, Baby: Will Freezing Your Eggs Free Your Career? by Emma Rosenblum posted 4/17/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek Technology).
LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized, and they can recite the stats about their rapidly decreasing fertility as a depressing party trick. For LaJoie, now 45, it was demoralizing to see friend after friend get married and have kids, while she was stuck at the hospital without romantic prospects.
“You feel bad about yourself, like you’re the odd man out, and somehow you’ve messed up on your path,” says Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who spent $50,000 freezing several rounds of eggs in 2006 to 2008 and wrote a book about the experience, Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It. “By freezing, you’ve done something about it. You’re walking taller; your head is held higher. And that can pay off in both your work and romantic lives.” Richards, now 43, is dating someone promising and says she’d like to thaw her eggs in the next year or so. She’s also at work on a new book and plans on finishing it before she tries to get pregnant. “Egg freezing gives you the gift of time to start a family, but it’s also, like, here’s how many years I actually have left for my other goals—what can I do with them?”
LaJoie got married soon after she froze (she told her husband about it on their very first date: “I was upfront and said, ‘This is my plan.’ He was, like, ‘OK!’ ”) and had her first baby naturally at 39. A few years later, after briefly trying fertility drugs, she thawed her eggs. The implantation worked, and her second son is 2 years old.
This is great news for women who want to conveniently work in the burden of being a mother somewhere in their busy schedules. But when you have a child at 43 you will be 51 at that child’s high school graduation. Old enough to be a grandmother. While the grandmother may be in a nursing home. Who may only see her grandchildren on holidays when they reluctantly visit her. For nursing homes are not places children want to be.
And you could be dead by your child’s graduation. For a lot of health issues can plague you by the time you turn 51. Especially when you’re having your children in your 40s. The risk of breast cancer increases with age. The risk of hypertension and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia increase with age. The risk of gestational diabetes increases with age. The risk of heart disease increases with age. As does the risk of other cancers, lupus, diabetes, pancreatitis, etc. Things not that common for women in their 20s and 30s. But more common for women over 40.
And babies have risks, too, when their mothers give birth when over 40. The risk of stillbirths and miscarriages increase with age. As does the risk for birth defects. So it’s all well and good for the mother to postpone motherhood but it’s not the best thing for her children. Who deserve young and healthy parents. Who can run with them while on vacation. And they deserve healthy grandparents to spoil them. Things you may not be able to do if you postpone motherhood until after you’re 40.
Tags: babies, baby, biological clock, child, children, egg freezer, family, father, grandmother, husband, mother, motherhood, pregnant
Week in Review
There is a connection between lower physical standards for women in the military and sexual harassment and assault of these women. Some men resent the women in the service academies because they can score higher by doing less (see Lower Standards for Women in Service Academies may play Role in Sexual Harassment and Assault posted 1/12/2014 on PITHOCRATES). For in their eyes these women would not even be there had it not been for the preferential treatment they get in the form of lower physical standards. They don’t respect them as peers. And think of them only as the weaker sex. Objectifying them. Thinking that they are good for only one thing. Perhaps thinking the only reason why some are still in the service is because they advanced through the ranks on their backs. Pleasing their commanding officers with sexual favors in return for promotions. And better duty assignments. Which leads to these horrendous acts of sexual harassment and assault.
Man can evolve from Neanderthals. And has. But you can’t take the Neanderthal out of man. Some can suppress it better than others. But some can never lift their knuckles from the ground. Figuratively, of course. And will resort to bad/criminal behavior. Women aren’t asking for this trouble. Their government just gave it to them by creating an environment where men have to do more to score as high as women score. And something like this just isn’t going to make things any better (see Seahawks cheerleader and Air Force first lieutenant Alicia Quaco by Jay Busbee posted 1/30/2014 on Yahoo! Sports).
Quaco, 25, is a first lieutenant in the Air Force. A graduate of the Air Force Academy, she had some work to do to convince her superiors that part-timing as a Sea Gal was a good use of her time.
Is she a sexy cheerleader who is also a first lieutenant in the Air Force? Or is she a first lieutenant in the Air Force who is also a sexy cheerleader. I wonder what the men who serve under her will think. Will they be thinking about the mission at hand? Or will they be thinking about that poster of her in her cheerleader outfit? With her toned midriff exposed. Her tight shorts that leave little to the imagination. Her sexy top showing ample cleavage. That gorgeous mane of blonde hair cascading down her shoulders. Those long, sexy legs. Yes, I wonder what the men who must report to her will be thinking about when they see her.
Her Air Force uniform is anything but sexy. Because being sexy has nothing to do with the mission. In fact, being too sexy may only distract from the mission. As the teenage men serving under her are little more than boys who buy Playboy and Penthouse magazines. Or magazines that are a little racier. The kind of things many have tried to limit the sale of around military installations. For they tend to demean and objectify women. Which can cause problems when men have to work with women.
Empowering women by being sexy and empowering women with careers in the military just somehow don’t go together. Parents tell their daughters not to send nude photos of themselves to their boyfriends because they will be out there in cyberspace forever. Coming back to haunt them when they apply for their first job. Or run for political office. Imagine this first lieutenant reporting one day to an international command. Attending a meeting as a staff officer with foreign dignitaries. Who may be more interested in the cheerleader officer rather than the business at hand.
If women have had to work harder to be respected in the military this cannot help their cause. For objectifying a woman in a sexy cheerleader outfit just cannot bring respect to that woman as she dons her Air Force uniform.
Tags: Air Force, assault, cheerleader, empowering women, first lieutenant, lower physical standards, military, objectify women, respect, Sea Gal, sexual harassment, sexy cheerleader
Week in Review
Conservatives and liberals see abortion differently. Conservatives sees it as killing a human life. Liberals don’t. To them a fetus is not a human life. It’s just an inanimate lump of cells. With a heartbeat. That’s why liberals, and feminists, say a woman can do anything she wants to this blob of tissue. Because it’s her body. Unless, of course, that blob is being aborted solely because it will become a baby girl (see DOMINIC LAWSON: This is the liberal legacy: killing baby girls in the womb, no questions asked by Dominic Lawson posted 1/20/2014
Ministers were much more exercised about last week’s revelations by The Independent about sex-selective abortions. A spokesman for the Department of Health told the newspaper: ‘Abortion on the grounds of sex selection is against the law and completely unacceptable…’
What we are seeing here is an echo of the much wider ‘gendercide’ that has been taking place on the subcontinent. Over the past 20 years it is estimated that about ten million female embryos have been selectively aborted in India…
The fact that a form of anti-female discrimination is involved in such terminations has led many self-professed feminists to denounce this practice and claim it is illegal. Their argument can be summed up as follows: abortion is a woman’s absolute right and concerns her alone — but not if the reason for termination is that she wants her next child to be a boy…
Their original position had been that it is ridiculous to ascribe intrinsic value to the life of the unborn child, unless it is ‘wanted’. But if he or she has no moral status during the temporary period of total dependency on the mother, why should one reason for termination be any more legal or illegal than another..?
That’s what pro-choice means, however much those who framed the law might seek to distance themselves from the consequences. Meanwhile, the Department of Health will continue to deliver lectures on the wickedness of smoking or drinking while pregnant — just in case any harm should be done to the unborn child.
This is more of that imaginary logic liberals use to justify their beliefs and policies when they make no sense. Liberals oppose any restrictions on abortion. While at the same time liberals are vehemently opposed to ‘gendercide’ and want to restrict it. A woman should be able to have an abortion if she just doesn’t feel like having a baby. But if the fetus is female the government should force her to carry her to term. This makes no logical sense. Unless, of course, you use their imaginary logic.
In their convoluted world it would be okay for a mother to abuse her unborn baby by drinking, smoking and doing heroin as long as she chose to have an abortion before the child was born. But it would be wrong for a woman to abort her baby if it was a girl because she wanted a boy. Which is probably why they don’t want to discuss this settled issue (thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court making law) anymore. Because it makes no sense even to them.
Tags: abortion, conservative, embryo, feminists, fetus, gendercide, liberal, pregnant, unborn child
Week in Review
One of the biggest things in fashion is the Victoria Secret’s Fashion Show. Where they have their long-legged models take to the catwalk dressed only in their underwear. With their naughty bits barely covered by the sexy underwear they’re modeling. The show is so popular they broadcast it on network television. As people want to see beautiful women in their underwear. And buy what they see. For they want to feel as beautiful and sexy as those long-legged models. Making Victoria Secret’s a very successful and profitable company. Unlike another company selling sexy underwear (see Frederick’s of Hollywood goes private for 27 cents a share by Tiffany Hsu posted 12/19/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).
Frederick’s of Hollywood Group Inc. is going private after years of financial struggle…
Frederick’s consists of 112 retail stores, a catalog business and an online site. Earlier this month, Lynch said the company’s earnings for the first quarter ended Oct. 26 “reflect certain marketing and inventory challenges” that have been “associated with the financial limitations of the business over the past several years.”
For the quarter, Frederick posted a loss of $7.3-million, or 20 cents a share, compared with a loss of $5.2 million, or 13 cents, for the same quarter a year earlier.
Revenue slid 12.1% to $19.7 million while same-store sales fell 11.7%.
Why is Victoria Secret’s successful and Frederick’s of Hollywood going private? Well, if you browse both of their websites you will notice one company tends to have sexier underwear than the other. Frederick’s of Hollywood. Which sells things like peek-a-boo bras and crotch-less panties. As well as other sexy accessories for the bedroom. Things most women would never wear under their clothes when going to work. While picking up her kids from school. Or grocery shopping. As they are just a bit too sexy for any activity outside of the bedroom. And definitely things that are not appropriate for broadcast television. Which is why the networks don’t carry a Frederick’s of Hollywood Fashion Show. Even though it would have stellar ratings.
Contrary to public perception based on the Democrat war on women, women aren’t having sex all of the time. Other things are important to them. They may want to feel sexy and may wear a sexy but practical lingerie set under her clothes at work. Things she can wear every day. But there are only so many times that she can wear peek-a-boo bras and crotch-less panties. Definitely not at the office. While picking up her kids from school. Or grocery shopping.
Frederick’s of Hollywood carries some naughtier things. As women get busier in their lives with their careers and families there’s less time for the naughty kind of fun that Frederick’s of Hollywood caters to more so than Victoria Secret’s. So part of their business is a niche market. A niche women don’t want to spend that much time in. So they probably prefer shopping at a Victoria’s Secrets with their boyfriend or husband so she doesn’t have to listen to him urging her to get the more naughtier items. As he may enjoy the Democrat war on women more than her. And is thinking about sex all of the time. And wished she did. As the Democrats would have you believe by making birth control and abortion the only issues women should care about during an election.
Tags: Democrat war on women, Frederick's of Hollywood, sexy underwear, underwear, Victoria Secret's, war on women
Week in Review
Objectifying women is bad. For it dehumanizes a woman. Makes her a thing. And not a person. Then again, some are now saying that objectifying women actually humanizes them. For when we see women in pornography we ascribe them feelings. Feel empathy for them as they writhe in sexual ecstasy. And feel compassion for them as they end a sex scene in the classic porn ending. Which is why men watch pornography, I guess. To feel closer to these women. And lament that they can’t ask them how they feel. And what they’re thinking. At least according to a Yale professor (see New York Times Op-Ed Finds the Upside to Objectifying Women. What a Relief. by Amanda Hess posted 12/3/2013 on Slate).
What do we think about when we think about naked people? In the New York Times this weekend, Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom says that it’s time to rethink the theory of objectification. The feminist argument is that when people are depicted in sexualized contexts, “the objectifier (typically a man) thinks of the target of his desire (typically a woman) as a mere thing, lacking autonomy, individuality and subjective experience.” Bloom argues that the objectification process is actually more complicated: While focusing on people’s bodies as opposed to their minds does decrease our perceptions of their ability “to act, plan and exert self-control,” he writes, it can actually increase our perceptions of their capacity to “feel pain, pleasure and emotions.” When we look at people in a sexual context (or catch a peek at them without their clothes on), we’re less likely to ascribe them agency, but we’re more likely to ascribe them feelings. That could actually inspire greater empathy toward the objectified party—a silver lining to the focus on flesh…
To Bloom, the findings are hopeful. “Part of the effect of nudity that our study found is morally positive—it’s usually a good thing to be more attuned to someone else’s ability to experience,” he writes. Bloom’s interpretation of human psychology could even make us feel less bad about ourselves for watching porn. “It’s not literally true that women in pornography are thought of as inanimate and unfeeling objects; if they were, then they would just as effectively be depicted as unconscious or unresponsive, as opposed to (as is more often the case) aroused and compliant,” he writes. Looking at naked people can “trigger disgust, fear, and hatred,” Bloom says, but it can also “elicit empathy and compassion.”
Interestingly, the same week this article appeared this article was published (see ‘She wanted to be a superstar’: Never-before-seen photographs of Linda Lovelace, aged 24, reveal her attempts at becoming ‘a legitimate actress’ by Sadie Whitelocks posted 12/4/2013 on the Daily Mail).
Despite the two movies making her a household name, Lovelace later spoke out against pornography in speeches to universities and governments.
‘When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped,’ she boldly stated in a 1986 official inquiry into the sex industry. ‘It is a crime that movie is still showing. There was a gun to my head the entire time.’
For her old friends in the business, though, she was labeled a traitor; they sneeringly coined the term ‘Linda Syndrome’ to describe former porn stars who later try to disown their seedy careers.
The exhibition’s photographs reveal, even before Lovelace made Deep Throat II, that she was keen to get out of the adult entertainment industry.
If you’re unfamiliar with the film Deep Throat you can look it up on IMDB or Wikipedia or some other online source. Suffice it to say that this movie objectified Linda Susan Boreman (who was Linda Lovelace). And then some. Sadly she passed away in 2002 after a serious auto accident at the age of 53.
Boreman would probably not have agreed with this Yale professor. Of course, she might have done so only because she wanted to disown her seedy career in the adult entertainment industry that objectified her. But it does beg the question why is Yale studying naked women? A bastion of liberalism. And feminism. I mean, this is the kind of thing you would expect to read in Playboy. Not in a paper from an Ivy League university. Then again Playboy has a special relationship with the Ivy League. Putting out a few pictorial specials objectifying women of the Ivy League. Maybe they’re planning a return to Yale. And this is just to make the coeds comfortable in shedding their clothes in front of the camera. So we can study their nude bodies. Feel empathy for them. And compassion. As we study their nakedness. For socio-scientific purposes, of course.
Tags: adult entertainment industry, Boreman, compassion, Deep Throat, empathy, feelings, Ivy League, Linda Lovelace, Lovelace, naked people, naked women, objectifying women, Playboy, pornography, seedy, sexual context, Yale
Week in Review
Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election in part because of the Republican ‘war on women’. Which started when George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney out of the blue if he wanted to take away women’s birth control. The next thing we knew there were women who said college girls couldn’t afford their birth control and needed the state to buy it for them. Then this snowballed into Republicans wanted their women barefoot and pregnant. And were going to turn the hands of the clock back to 1950 for women everywhere if Mitt Romney won the election. The left warned women that this was the worst thing that could happen to them. For they knew what women wanted. Birth control. And abortion. So their lives could revolve around their vaginas. Becoming sexual objects. To please a lot of different men. While avoiding the disease of pregnancy.
As it turns out, though, avoiding the disease of pregnancy could have some side effects (see Premature baby steroids ‘may raise risk of ADHD’ by James Gallagher posted 11/22/2013 on BBC News Health).
Steroids given to help premature babies develop may also be slightly increasing the risk of mental health disorders, say researchers…
Being born too soon can lead to long-term health problems and the earlier the birth the greater the problems.
One immediate issue is the baby’s lungs being unprepared to breathe air. Steroids can help accelerate lung development.
However, the study by researchers at Imperial College London and the University of Oulu in Finland showed the drugs may also be affecting the developing brain.
A premature baby has a lot more health risks than one carried to term. We’re doing things after the birth to help these children. Is there anything we can do to help before the birth. Well, we can try to reduce the number of premature babies. So what exactly causes babies to be born premature? According to the Mayo Clinic (see Premature birth) there may be a lot of factors including but not limited to the following. Smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol or using illicit drugs. Some infections, particularly of the amniotic fluid and lower genital tract. Some chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure and diabetes. Multiple miscarriages or abortions.
There are other risks. But what’s interesting about these risks is that they grow greater with age. A married woman having her children in her twenties will have smoked fewer cigarettes, drank less alcohol and used fewer illicit drugs than a woman in her thirties or forties. She will have had a less active sex life which will reduce the number of infections in her lower genital tract. She will be less likely to have high blood pressure or diabetes than a woman 10-20 years older than her. And she may have fewer abortions than a woman who waits until she is in her forties to start her family. For these reasons women having a baby when they are over 35 have a greater risk of having a premature birth.
Whenever there is another gun death the left says we need new gun control legislation. To take guns away from law-abiding gun owners. Even if it saves just one life. Well, we can have more healthy babies if women choose to get married and start their families while in their twenties. For it is what’s best for the children. Instead of trying to have a career first and then start a family later in life. And perhaps more would if the left wasn’t telling women that a woman should be strong, independent, enjoy her sexuality and use free birth control and abortion to avoid what they call the disease of pregnancy.
Tags: abortion, babies, baby, birth control, children, disease of pregnancy, Mitt Romney, premature babies, premature baby, Republican, war on women
Week in Review
According to a recent Gallup poll approximately 40% of Americans call themselves conservative. While only about 21% call themselves liberal. So there are approximately twice as many conservatives as liberals. You wouldn’t believe that by watching television these days. Or listening to the political discourse. Where liberals talk as if they are in the majority. And conservatives were just some lunatic fringe. But we should remember that 40% number. For it may be very relevant these days (see When It Comes to Female Bosses, Women Can Be Their Own Worst Enemy by Alexander Abad-Santos posted 11/11/2013 on The Atlantic Wire).
According to a poll from Gallup, 40 percent of the women say they prefer a male boss, 27 percent prefer a female one, and 32 percent have no preference. On the other hand, 29 percent of men polled prefer a male boss, 18 percent prefer a female one, and 51 percent had no preference.
The ideal number we all want is 100 percent to say gender doesn’t matter. Preference for a female boss is obviously a step up from no one wanting a female boss (in 1953, 66 percent of people polled preferred a male boss), but it’s not the ideal. The unavoidable question then becomes: Why don’t some women like it when women break the glass ceiling? In fact, there appears to be high demand for articles by women about how terrible it is to work for women. As Elizabeth Spiers wrote of the furious reaction to Sheryl Sandberg and Marissa Mayer, “Everyone applauds when they shatter that glass ceiling. Then they pick up the shards, and start cutting away.” It is often women who perpetuate the dumbest stereotypes about working with women.
This is probably why 40% of women prefer a male boss. For here we have a poll showing what women feel like. And 40% don’t like working for women. Instead of accepting this is what women mean we blame them for perpetuating a dumb stereotype about working for women. As if they said something they did not mean. Had this poll said, say, 75% of women prefer a female boss they would be lauding the poll. But because it says something they don’t like then, well, these women are perpetuating a silly stereotype.
In today’s business world some feminists are not satisfied with some women in the workplace. Because some prefer working for a man as noted. While some may go on maternity leave and decide to remain at home and be a full-time mother. And women are doing a lot of other things that feminists frown upon. Leaving a very narrow range of acceptable behavior for the woman in the workplace. Perhaps this is why women prefer a male boss. Because with them they can let their guard down. And not worry about everything they say or do. Especially if they are working for a card-carrying NOW feminist. For doing your job well may not be enough. Especially if you’re a conservative woman. J mean, just imagine if your feminist boss heard you say you were pro-life. Or voted for George W. Bush. Twice.
Maybe the 40% of women in this poll are conservatives. And the majority of women bosses are liberals. For they chose a career over being a stay-at-home mother. Which is more of a conservative thing. Perhaps this is why 40% of women polled prefer working for a man. Because men in business tend to be conservative. And conservative women prefer working for a conservative.
Tags: conservative, female boss, feminist, liberal, prefer a male boss, stereotype, woman in the workplace
Week in Review
The left say the Republicans have a war on women. Because they want to restrict abortion. Make women pay for their own birth control. And other heinous anti-women behavior. Such as encouraging them to marry instead of having casual sex with multiple partners. The left says Republicans want to turn women into the housewives of the Fifties. Having sex only with one man and getting pregnant when they do. Instead of a woman exploring her sexuality. And enjoying it. That’s how uptight Republicans are.
Of course, the left’s idea of a liberated woman probably pleases men more than women. Once upon a time men married one woman and either stayed with her or had ‘discrete’ affairs on the side. Then the Sexual Revolution came along and women were just giving it away. Short shorts. Miniskirts. Going braless. Men just loved the women’s movement. As women no longer wore shape-hiding dresses but revealing clothing showing all of their curves. Then the ladies took it up a notch. Bare midriffs. Low rise jeans. And thongs. Allowing women to wear tight clinging dresses without showing any visible panty lines. Or showing some thong riding out the back of their low-rise jeans for the men to see just to be super sexy.
Of course when we ask why women want to wear tight and clinging dresses or low-rise jeans there is but one answer. They want men to look at them. To see them as a sexual object. It has to be. For they sure aren’t doing it for the comfort. Or the hygiene (see Why Your Thong May Be Bad For Your Health by Ellie Krupnick & Rebecca Adams posted 10/15/2013 on The Huffington Post).
Many thongs, particularly the sexy lacy kinds, are made of non-breathable materials, as opposed to cotton. “We should all always be wearing all cotton underwear,” Dr. Ghofrany advises…”When patients say [to me], ‘But the crotch is cotton,’ my response is that the layer outside the crotch is not, thus making the cotton less breathable and thus allowing more moisture to be trapped and more possible imbalance leading to infections.”
Plus, even if the entire garment is cotton, the skinny shape creates an inherent risk. “The patient’s vulva is much more ‘exposed’ to whatever they’re wearing,” Dr. Ghofrany explains, “and given the increase in leggings and ‘skinny’ jeans, all of which have Lycra, Spandex, etc., there again is trapped moisture.”
Lastly, the thin band of material at the crotch tends to move around, possibly transferring bacteria from one spot to another. As Dr. Rabin tells, us, “If you have a little bacteria — E. coli is the most common bacteria in the colon — in the back part of the fabric and you’re physically active, that material may move. All it has to do is move an inch or two and it’s next to the vagina or urethra. That thong may be depositing colonic bacteria into your vagina or urethra.” Yikes.
Infections can occur when the balance of the vaginal environment, including the moisture levels from vaginal secretions, is thrown off, says Dr. Ghofrany. The most common? Yeast infections and bacterial infections, mainly bacterial vaginosis. The extra bacteria usually manifests with increased discharge, which leads to what Dr. Ghofrany calls the “vicious cycle of thong use”: the increase in discharge leads to an increased use of panty liners, which leads to even more trapped moisture, which leads to more infections and more discharge.
Thongs also carry the risk of external irritation. “I see more patients with skin tags on their vulva and near their rectum, in the exact distribution of the thongs,” Dr. Ghofrany tells us. “I sometimes will be mid-pap and ask a patient, ‘So you wear thongs a lot?’ And their response is always ‘Ya! How can you tell?’ And it’s because of the skin tags, small ‘piles’ of soft tissue that occur from the skin being constantly rubbed in the same spot. These happen traditionally at bra lines and neck lines, and now increasingly at thong lines!”
Infections? Bacteria? E. coli? Bacterial vaginosis? Vicious cycle of thong use? Skin tags? Piles? That’s a pretty steep price to pay to be sexy for men. But in our highly sexualized world where the left has sexualized women this is how women feel good. By being sexy. To, of course, please men. Yet it is the right that has a war on women. Go figure.
Tags: bacteria, bacterial vaginosis, cotton, E. coli, infections, low rise jeans, moisture, piles, Republicans, sexual revolution, skin tags, thong, tight clinging dresses, underwear, urethra, vagina, vicious cycle of thong use, vulva, war on women
Week in Review
Talk about your war on women. Here’s a salvo from the New York Times. That reported on a study that said today’s women are fat because they don’t spend enough time cleaning, cooking, and doing laundry (see Does Less Housework Really Equal a Larger Waistline? by Lylah M. Alphonse posted 2/28/2013 on Yahoo! Shine).
A New York Times article about a study that links U.S. women’s expanding waistlines to the fact that they do less housework has sparked a wave of outrage online, where readers decried the piece for being sexist.
“Attn ladies, maybe if you put a little more time into housework you wouldn’t be so fat,” tweeted Taylor Lorenz as she shared the article, entitled “What Housework Has to Do With Waistlines.”
“Are you kidding? You just completely discredited yourselves as a newspaper,” commented Agnes Shugardt on the New York Times Facebook page. (Danielle Rhoads-Ha, director of communications for the New York Times, told Yahoo! Shine that since the outcry is over the study, and not the way the article was written or reported, the newspaper had no comment on it.)
It’s tempting to use a sexist expression here for comic relief. But we shan’t.
Once upon a time women were angry that men didn’t appreciate how hard housework is. Which it is. And probably was the reason why women outlived men for so many years. For as men got softer working office jobs women continued to work hard. And remained strong. So women were justifiably angry when men dismissed housework as simply resting on the couch eating bonbons while watching daytime television. With a little dusting thrown in. Now women are mad because their careers are not perceived as physically demanding as doing fulltime housework. Which they aren’t. For anyone given the choice would opt to work in the office during the day instead of doing housework. For housework is backbreaking thankless work. Few appreciate a clean toilet enough to keep it clean. Unless you’re the one that cleans it. But one thing certain about housework is that it burns the calories. Better than any gym membership can.
Women, even ones who manage their homes instead of big businesses, are also less physically active now than they used to be. In 1965, women spent an average of 25.7 hours each week cleaning, cooking, and doing laundry. By 2010, women were spending an average of 13.3 hours each week on housework. Like their male counterparts, women who worked outside of the home are spending far more time sitting down in front a screen at the office these days, but Archer and his team were surprised to find that even women who stayed home were spending more time watching TV—16.5 hours per week in 2010, up from about eight hours a week in 1965…
Given the way technology has changed housework, it’s unlikely that more housework would make much a difference for either gender, though. Old-fashioned vacuum cleaners were clunky and hard to push, requiring a lot more physical energy to use than today’s lightweight models, and bending and stretching to hang laundry on a line in the 1960s burned more calories than transferring a load from the washer to the dryer.
Both men and women are getting softer these days. Thanks to a higher standard of living. And quality appliances at affordable prices. Pity there’s a downside to all this convenience. It’s putting us in an early grave.
Yes, women were healthier before they left the house to pursue a career. And slimmer. As were men. If you want to see just how skinny we were watch an old movie. Where all the leading men were skinny. And borderline malnourished. Or sit in an old theater. The seating is pretty tight these days. For we were a lot skinnier in the old days. Not only gut-wise. But shoulder-wise, too. For if you sit in a theater that was built close to a hundred years ago you’ll be sitting with your shoulders pressing into the shoulders on either side of you.
We’re eating more and exercising less. This is why our waistlines are expanding. Especially for women. For stay-at-home moms run a never ending marathon. When they give that up to pursue a career they have to join a health club to make up for the exercise they once got for free. Which they will eventually quit. As most people do. Because after a hard day at the office the last thing anyone wants to do is exercise. They just want to go home and plop down in front of the television. With a relaxing adult beverage. Also not good for the waistline.
Tags: careers, cleaning, cooking, doing laundry, expanding waistlines, fat, housework, office jobs, women
« Previous Entries