"It sucks to have a vagina but every guy wants one"
![Very Happy :-D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
eeer.. excluding gays and celibates of course..
Moderator: Edi
Peeeeerrioooooddd......Kuja wrote: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.Kuja wrote:Why?Trytostaydead wrote:"It sucks to have a vagina
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.
*pounds a shotgun shell through the Space Cadet's helmet for that annoying reply*Shinova wrote:*snip*
I'm sure that as long as a woman takes proper care of her vagina, it won't give her much trouble.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.Kuja wrote:Why?Trytostaydead wrote:"It sucks to have a vagina
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.Kuja wrote:
I'm sure that as long as a woman takes proper care of her vagina, it won't give her much trouble.
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.Shinova wrote:Peeeeerrioooooddd......
Pppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmmssssssss......
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 ...Chhiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllldddbiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirrrrtthhhh.......
Now you're just repeating yourself; that stuff is directly related to periods.Ssssaaaaaaaaaaaannniiittaaaarrryyyyyyy sssstttuuuuuuuufffffff......
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.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Furthermore, childbirth at one time was done without medical aide ...
If you two do that again to try to deliberately get a thread locked, I'll break your teeth.DPDarkPrimus wrote:Seconded.Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Post count +1
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.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.
*malfunctions*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
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.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.
ThirdedDalton wrote: If you two do that again to try to deliberately get a thread locked, I'll break your teeth.
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.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.
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.Trytostaydead wrote:For which population group? And are you taking in effect sampling size?
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.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.
Apparently, as Duchess has pointed out, your education wasn't complete.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: