StarDestroyer.Net BBS

After all my years of education taking biological and behavioral courses this is the summation of tens of thousands of dollars worth of education:

"It sucks to have a vagina but every guy wants one"


eeer.. excluding gays and celibates of course..

Post count +1

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Post count +1

Seconded.

Trytostaydead wrote:"It sucks to have a vagina

Why?

Kuja wrote:Why?

Peeeeerrioooooddd......


Pppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmmssssssss......


Chhiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllldddbiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrtthhhh.......


Ssssaaaaaaaaaaaannniiittaaaarrryyyyyyy sssstttuuuuuuuufffffff......



eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeccccceeeeeettttttrrrrraaaaaaaaa......

Kuja wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:"It sucks to have a vagina

Why?

I was actually going over an article of Darwinian medicine, seems like an article I have to read for about every other damn class these days. But the vagina is very cost-inefficient and a cespool for possible infection.

Trytostaydead wrote:
I was actually going over an article of Darwinian medicine, seems like an article I have to read for about every other damn class these days. But the vagina is very cost-inefficient and a cespool for possible infection.

*kicks you in the balls*

BTW, try to pass a fully developed fetus out of your oh-so-glorious phallus symbol and then get back to me about how cost-efficient it is.

Shinova wrote:*snip*

*pounds a shotgun shell through the Space Cadet's helmet for that annoying reply*

Trytostaydead wrote:

Kuja wrote:

Trytostaydead wrote:"It sucks to have a vagina

Why?

I was actually going over an article of Darwinian medicine, seems like an article I have to read for about every other damn class these days. But the vagina is very cost-inefficient and a cespool for possible infection.

I'm sure that as long as a woman takes proper care of her vagina, it won't give her much trouble.

A Vagina is very cost efficient when you think of the potential for profits in the pornography industry as well as the industry for surrogate mothers. Plus the fact that egg donors get a shitload more than sperm donors. And the fact that a woman only thinks with her vagina for a few days a month as opposed to every day.

Kuja wrote:
I'm sure that as long as a woman takes proper care of her vagina, it won't give her much trouble.

I would go further than that. Billions of women all over the world live lives which are still, on average, longer than those of men, and do so without access to regular medical care. Furthermore, childbirth at one time was done without medical aide, in hunter-gatherer groups, by women who would have to have their children and then in some cases nearly immediately start moving on the trail again--as was the case for women in some Native American tribes.

Comments like this, even if not seriously intended, are insulting, because they propagate a feminine vulnerability based on sexual organs/function which simply isn't true and never has been.

Shinova wrote:Peeeeerrioooooddd......

Pppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmmssssssss......

Periods and PMS are certainly major annoyances. Then again, we males have anger management problems, neurotic competitiveness, and violence issues stemming from the effect of testosterone on brain chemistry.

Chhiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllldddbiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrtthhhh.......

I've seen two of those up close, and it's not a bad thing. Childbirth is a very beautiful thing. Of course, it's easy for me to say that since I didn't have to dilate any part of my body to make a 10" wide opening ...

Ssssaaaaaaaaaaaannniiittaaaarrryyyyyyy sssstttuuuuuuuufffffff......

Now you're just repeating yourself; that stuff is directly related to periods.

PS. If you post another message by pushing the keys until they repeat like that, I will have to find you and beat you with one of Hamel's razor-sharp mouldy bread sticks.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Furthermore, childbirth at one time was done without medical aide ...

Still is. My wife had our second child in our home, with the aid of a midwife. No antiseptic hospital rooms, bright surgical lights, nurses, or expensive ob-gyns in sight. And the government paid for the midwife.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Post count +1

Seconded.

If you two do that again to try to deliberately get a thread locked, I'll break your teeth.

A vagina's also good cause you don't have something that you can hit things with and suffer incredible amounts of pain as a consequence.

Shinova wrote:A vagina's also good cause you don't have something that you can hit things with and suffer incredible amounts of pain as a consequence.

..silently backs away from Shinova.. then runs away.

Darth Wong wrote: Still is. My wife had our second child in our home, with the aid of a midwife. No antiseptic hospital rooms, bright surgical lights, nurses, or expensive ob-gyns in sight. And the government paid for the midwife.

Well, if there had been complications, there would have been somewhat more of a support network than existed for our ancient ancestors. And there is also much more knowledge, even that a midwife has. Also, your wife (who certainly chose an option which is many ways arguably better than hospitals in my not so humble opinion--never had a child so I'm not the best placed to comment, obviously, but I catch the see-saw of the debate on this which sometimes pops up in feminist circles) still--and not to denigrate the pain of childbirth at all--had it much easier than our ancestors did, who managed to get along just fine: We're here, after all.

One of my cousins was born in a birthing pool. Supposedly, newborns can swim very well, even when born directly into the water.

PS. If you post another message by pushing the keys until they repeat like that, I will have to find you and beat you with one of Hamel's razor-sharp mouldy bread sticks

*malfunctions*

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: had it much easier than our ancestors did, who managed to get along just fine: We're here, after all.

That's such a relative measurement.. the infant mortality rate was tremendously high compared to today. Especially considering all the various genetic diseases not to mention just sanitary conditions that would result in HIGH mortality rates for both mother and child. And don't think that it was all in the far past either. Antiseptics, antibiotics/anit-bacterials, sterility, and dealing with genetic deficiencies is a very new concept.

Not too long ago (turn of the 20th century), you were basically doing a crap shoot with your wife's life if you took her into the hospital to give birth. Why? Because doctor's didn't know about sanitation and would constantly be putting their hands up different women's cervixes and transferring bacteria. When a guy found out what was causing such a high mortality rate he tried to tell his colleagues but was SEVERELY rebuked. But the poor guy tried so hard, yet was rejected because, God forbid, DOCTORS were killing their patients, he died an early age in an insane asylum.

Dalton wrote: If you two do that again to try to deliberately get a thread locked, I'll break your teeth.

Thirded

Seriously, I was born as a preemie, and I wouldn't have survived without
modern medical aid.

EDIT: So was my brother too.

Trytostaydead wrote:
That's such a relative measurement.. the infant mortality rate was tremendously high compared to today. Especially considering all the various genetic diseases not to mention just sanitary conditions that would result in HIGH mortality rates for both mother and child. And don't think that it was all in the far past either. Antiseptics, antibiotics/anit-bacterials, sterility, and dealing with genetic deficiencies is a very new concept.

Not too long ago (turn of the 20th century), you were basically doing a crap shoot with your wife's life if you took her into the hospital to give birth. Why? Because doctor's didn't know about sanitation and would constantly be putting their hands up different women's cervixes and transferring bacteria. When a guy found out what was causing such a high mortality rate he tried to tell his colleagues but was SEVERELY rebuked. But the poor guy tried so hard, yet was rejected because, God forbid, DOCTORS were killing their patients, he died an early age in an insane asylum.

Actually, the infant mortality rate was not as high in hunter-gatherer populations (with the exception of possible intentional infanticide), because they had a much lower ability to gain food from the land, and thus did not have the same high birthrate as agrarian societies--it was this high birthrate which produced such a high death rate. Agrarian societies grew their workers through attrition; and many of the deaths of mothers in childbirth were caused by sheer exhaustion. How would you like to have eight to twelve births crammed into your prime fertility years? Agrarian society isn't fun.

Combine that with what you indeed stated--which is true for agrarian society. You pack a bunch of people into cities with no knowledge of disease and, yes, the mortality rate for infants and women in childbirth will be high because there's already a massive disease climate in the populace.

P.S. Sanitation as a concept was developed in the late 19th century and in fact antiseptic childbirth was one of the main reasons for the huge population boom of the 20th century--allowing the survival of the majority of children that women had in urban societies. It's less relevant for hunter-gatherers where people aren't packed in remotely as closely and disease is far, far less rampant.

For which population group? And are you taking in effect sampling size?

I'm sure hunter-gatherer's have their own little heebee-jeebees as well. Depending on their geographical location, their nutrient intake.. I can see a lot of complications.. even the dosage of UV is critical.

Ah well, this is all population genetics.. and I hate population genetics (too much freakin' statistics).

Trytostaydead wrote:For which population group? And are you taking in effect sampling size?

I'm making a sweeping generalization about specific societal organizations which I contend would remain true if a detailed comparison was done. There is evidence to back this up, of course; I can generalize because all hunter-gatherer groups share the same basic organizational principles and needs; and so do all agrarian civilizations.

I'm sure hunter-gatherer's have their own little heebee-jeebees as well. Depending on their geographical location, their nutrient intake.. I can see a lot of complications.. even the dosage of UV is critical.

They hunted, they gathered, they moved. In a fairly wide range, actually. But no matter which group you studied you're not going to find more disease concentration in a single fourty-person tribal grouping than in ancient Babylon, because the tribal grouping moves every day and doesn't stay in the same place with their raw built up sewage and garbage.

Trytostaydead wrote:After all my years of education taking biological and behavioral courses this is the summation of tens of thousands of dollars worth of education:

Apparently, as Duchess has pointed out, your education wasn't complete.

Think you can get a refund?