Index of articles
There is a new solution coming up for ugly old women. Normally they would just become man-hating feminists. But soon they can have their brains transplanted into a sex doll, and feel beautiful again.
The reason I'm asking is because I recently read an article on Wikipedia about a kind of child pornography called Lolicon. Apparently in Japan lolicon is sold inside adult stores. If adult stores here tried to sell it, I imagine they would be made to stop. This leads me to ask, are pedophiles more widely accepted in Japan?
ecoguy: I wouldn't say they are accepted, just that it is more common. Lolicon, or, the Lolita complex(being attracted to someone very young), is a much bigger problem in Japan than most other developed nations. I'm assuming the lolicon you are speaking of is anime/manga because real child pornography was outlawed in Japan in 1999. It's hard to describe Japanese culture, there have been many books written trying to explain Japanese society. It's such an incredible nation, but like any other nation, it has it's problems. You should read up on Japan or take a trip there.
yuming: Lets be honest, they are creepers but unfortunately anime fans will defend Japan to the death.
No pedophiles are not widely accepted in Japan. All you have to do is watch the news the police and the criminal justice system actively prosecute pedophiles in Japan, recently two people were arrested in Japan for sending child pornography to the United States.
Another man was arrested for molesting a kid.
There was lots of public outrage about situations like that.
Hardly an environment that "widely accepts" pedophiles.
Drawings like lolicon skirt the Japanese laws because they are drawings not real photos (which are illegal). It is often critized in Japan as well, but you do have strange people who purchase them, but again its hardly an environment that accepts pedophiles.
Americans buy into such fantasies just as much. Does it disgust you that Catholic school girl uniforms are viewed as sexually stimulating? Well, a lot of Americans (and probably Brits/Australians) fantasize about them, but in the end they are SCHOOL uniforms, and children are the ones wearing them and stimulating these fantasies.
Also, the extremely popular show "Family Guy" has an elderly male character (I believe his name is Herbert) who actively pursues Peter's son, Chris, and the show makes it very clear that the man is interested sexually in the boy, but he's a LIKEABLE character. A lot of people find the pedophile to be funny, and people from children to adults watch the show.
In both instances, though, a person who actually pursues a Catholic school girl will NOT be viewed as "living the dream" by society, and nobody would laugh if they found that a man in their community molested (or even attempted to molest) a young boy. This is true for America, and it is true for Japan, as well.
no, not at all.
those things are illegal in japan too.
anime and otaku culture are recognized in japan and the us etc now. but pedophiles are totally different thing.
i think japanese law is kinda easy than the us. but not accepted in japan either.
If you're talking the U.S., showing naked kids frolicking in the bath on TV is illegal. So what's more acceptable? Older men with younger women, or the idea that young children are sex objects and therefore shouldn't be shown naked?
stop_staring_please" not all countries consider men that want to be with young girls...teenagers...pedophiles. That is a western belief. Older men have been with younger girls since the dawn of time. Mary mother of jesus was said to have been only 15 while joseph would have been around 30.
PS: I'm not saying that I agree with it. I was simply answering your question.
and if for some reason i am mistaken then the answer SHOULD be no.
What you're thinking of is probably high school girls in their Sailor Moon uniforms..It's a comic book for men, and rarely goes beyond a fantasy level.
Is it just anime, or real people? Pedophiles are not accepted anywhere. They should be caught, jailed, and their penis guillotined.
Tongkatfitness used to sell the 1:200 tongkat ali extract of Sumatra Pasak Bumi, (www.tongkatali.org) but after having established a customer base on the reputation of Sumatra Pasak Bumi, they started selling a cheap substitute powder, still claiming it to be 1:200 tongkat ali extract, which definitely, it is not. The substitute substance may not even be tongkat ali. Many scammers sell readily available tribulus terrestris powder, claiming it to be an extract of the rare plant tongkat ali. The name of the owner of Tongkatfitness is Ryan Davies, an expert in Google massaging, and not an honest person.
The purpose of feminism is to destroy male sexuality. It's either you or them. Hope you get that message.
Medical records released. Stalin had a micropenis.
Following the high-profile case of Anthony Weiner, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices have successfully prosecuted another case under the Project Safe Childhood initiative.
A former Secret Service officer has been sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release, for conducting sexual conversations with a minor and attempting the exchange of explicit images.
Lee Robert Moore, 38, of Church Hill, Md., pleaded guilty March 1, 2017, after Delaware State Police with the Delaware Child Predator Task Force had sexual chats online with Moore, at times when he was a work, and were requested to send him explicit photos while posing as a 14-year-old girl.
As part of the investigation, law enforcement found Moore maintained social media profiles for similar behavior, including the sending of sexual images, with a 14-year-old girl in Texas and another 17-year-old girl in Missouri.
Moore was assigned to the White House by the Secret Service at the time of his 2015 arrest, and was terminated from his position as he was held in custody since that time.
Project Safe Childhood was launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to use federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals exploiting children via the Internet, as well as identify and rescue victims.
Most European women have gang rape fantasies, because their vaginas are so big that there is space for two or more dicks.
About 500,000 women in the United States have undergone genital mutilation. Surgery can restore some of their genital functions.
Can women who have lost the ability to experience sexual pleasure due to female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) ever regain it?
For some women, surgical treatments offer hope.
Dr. Marci Bowers is one of a few gynecologic surgeons who performs clitoral reconstruction surgery on women who have undergone FGM/C.
She primarily treats women who have undergone type 2 FGM/C, in which part or all of the external clitoris, labia minora, and sometimes labia majora are removed.
For many women who have undergone type 2 FGM/C, sex can be unpleasant or even painful.
“It can really diminish the desire for sexual contact,” Bowers told Healthline. “And after all, that’s kind of what it’s meant to do. It’s meant to control women’s sexuality.”
Clitoral reconstruction surgery can potentially help improve sexual function by repositioning the internal portion of the clitoris that remains intact.
“The surgery is really simple in its design,” Bowers explained. “It’s meant to uncover the clitoris, bring it forward, and then suture it into place so that it can be accessible during sexual contact.”
“The operation takes less than an hour,” she added. “The two keys to it are removing the scar tissue and releasing the suspensory ligament, which is the key component in allowing the clitoris to come down.”
While all surgeries pose some risks, Bowers reports high success rates.
“It works virtually every single time,” she said. “The woman’s [sexual] feelings are overwhelming improved when this is done.”
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 200 million girls and women who are alive today have undergone FGM/C.
About 500,000 of them live in the United States.
FGM/C includes any procedure that intentionally alters or injures female genital organs for nonmedical purposes.
It is performed as a cultural practice in many communities around the world, particularly in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
In the United States, performing FGM/C on a minor or transporting them to another country to undergo the procedure is a federal crime.
Last month, the first federal case involving FGM/C was filed in Michigan.
Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, an emergency room physician, stands accused of performing the procedure on two 7-year-old girls.
Charges have also been filed against Dr. Fakhruddin Attar and Farida Attar, who are accused of assisting Nagarwala. Attar owns a medical clinic in Michigan where the procedures were reportedly performed.
While all three defendants are members of the Dawoodi Bohra, a Muslim sect based in India, FGM/C is a cultural practice that crosses religious lines.
“If it was a Muslim or religious practice in general, then all Muslim women would have to undergo it, and that’s not the case,” Haddijatou Ceesay, a program coordinator for Safe Hands for Girls, a nonprofit organization led by survivors of FGM/C, told Healthline.
FGM/C is practiced by members of some Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities.
FGM/C is widely considered a human rights violation.
It has no known health benefits and many risks.
In the short term, it can cause bleeding, infection, and even death.
In the long term, it can lead to many chronic health problems.
“Girls and women can end up with painful periods, difficulty urinating, a really difficult time having sex,” Ceesay said. “A lot of them end up having a lack of sexual sensation. It can cause infertility, difficulty giving birth, and obstetric fistulas. It can also lead to PTSD, depression, and anxiety for some.”
Given the wide-ranging effects that FGM/C can have, Ceesay suggested that multiple types of care and support are often needed.
Dr. Jasmine Abdulcadir, a gynecologist in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University Hospitals of Geneva (HUG), Switzerland, agreed.
Abdulcadir operates an outpatient clinic for women who have undergone FGM/C. She also conducts research and acts as a WHO consultant.
“If you want to promote sexual health, you need to focus not just on a woman’s genitals, but on her whole person. On her mind and body,” she told Healthline.
Although Abdulcadir has conducted clitoral reconstruction surgeries on some patients, she warned that more research is needed on the safety and efficacy of the procedure.
She added that surgery is not always the best approach.
“We do a lot of health education and counseling because many of the women who request clitoral reconstruction still have a functional clitoris but don’t realize it,” she said. “Many of them don’t know much about their own anatomy, and after being exposed to messages about the negative effects of FGM, they assume they can’t experience sexual pleasure.”
She suggested that the needs of many patients are better met through education and counseling, rather than surgery. For those who do undergo surgery, additional follow-up care may be needed.
“A multidisciplinary approach is really important, not only for deciding whether surgery is needed, but also for providing follow-up care,” she said. “The genital pain caused by reconstructive surgery can recall the pain of genital cutting and traumatic memories from a woman’s past.”
To help prevent future cases of FGM/C, Abdulcadir and organizations like Safe Hands for Girls emphasize the importance of community education.
“Turning survivors into advocates of ending FGM is a huge thing that we’re working on,” Ceesay said. “For a lot of them, it gives them a sense of inspiration and empowerment, knowing that they’re able to help stop the next generation from going through what they went through.”
Feminists have institutionalized violence against men through the legal systems of all Western nations. But women cannot win the violence competition. The more violent societies become, the more women need protection. And the more they need protection, the quicker they will abandon feminism. Rich men should invest their money in fostering violence in all societies. Then they will end up with their own harems. No feminists inside there.
For ornithologist Richard Prum, manakins are among the most beautiful creatures in the world. He first started studying these small South American birds in 1982, and he’s been privy to many of their flamboyant performances. One species has a golden head and moonwalks. Another puffs up a white ‘beard’ and hops about like a “buff gymnast.” Yet another makes alarmingly loud noises with its club-shaped wing bones. Each of the 54 species has its own combination of costumes, calls, and choreography, which males use in their mating displays. To Prum, this is a great example of “aesthetic radiation,” where a group of animals has evolved “54 distinctive ideals of beauty.”
That’s not a common view among evolutionary biologists. Most of Prum’s colleagues see outrageous sexual traits as reliable advertisements. The logic goes that only the fittest manakins could coordinate their movements just so. Only the healthiest peacocks could afford to carry such a cumbersome tail. Their displays and dances hint at their good genes, allowing females to make adaptive decisions.
But Prum says that view is poorly supported by years of research, and plainly makes no sense when you actually look at what birds do. How could there be adaptive value in every single minute detail of a manakin’s plumage and performance? And why have some species replaced certain ancestral maneuvers (like pointing one’s tail to the sky) with new moves (like pointing one’s bill to the sky) that surely provide no better information? “It’s clearly arbitrary,” says Prum. “I wrote that in a 1997 paper, but the reviewers hated it. They said you can’t claim that unless you falsify every adaptive hypothesis we can imagine. And if you can’t find an adaptive explanation, you haven’t worked hard enough to discover it.”
That struck him as absurd. Worse, it’s stubbornly cold. It’s a theory of aesthetics that tries to shove aesthetics under the rug, implicitly denying that manakins and other animals could be having any kind of subjective experience. It has even crept into our understanding of ourselves: Evolutionary psychologists have put forward poorly conceived adaptive explanations for everything from female orgasms to same-sex preferences. “These ideas have saturated the popular culture. In the pages of Vogue, and in cosmetic surgery offices, you read that beauty is a revealing indicator of objective quality,” says Prum. “That’s why I had to write the book.”
The book in question, which publishes tomorrow, is The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World—and Us. It’s a “natural history of beauty and desire”—a smorgasbord of evolutionary biology, philosophy, and sociology, filtered through Prum’s experiences as a birdwatcher and his diverse research on everything from dinosaur colors to duck sex. Through compelling arguments and colorful examples, Prum launches a counterstrike against the adaptationist regime, in an attempt to “put the subjective experience of animals back in the center of biology” and to “bring beauty back to the sciences.”
The central idea that animates the book is a longstanding one that Prum has rebranded as the “Beauty Happens hypothesis.” It starts with animals developing random preferences—for colors, songs, displays, and more—which they use in choosing their mates. Their offspring inherit not only those sexy traits, but also the preference for them. By choosing what they like, choosers transform both the form and the objects of their desires.
Critically, all of this is arbitrary—not adaptive. Songs and ornaments and dances evolve not because they signal good genes but because animals just like them. They’re not objectively informative; they’re subjectively pleasing. Beauty, in other words, just happens. “It’s a self-organizing process, by which selection will arrive at some standard of beauty all by itself, in the absence of any adaptive benefit—or, indeed, despite maladaptive disadvantage,” says Prum.
The Beauty Happens idea isn’t an anthropomorphic one; Prum’s arguing that animals have evolved to be beautiful to themselves, not to him. It’s not a new idea either. A century ago, geneticist Ronald Fisher wrote about extreme traits and the desire for those traits co-evolving in a runaway process. “But [Fisher’s hypothesis] has been viewed as a curious idea that’s irrelevant to nature—that’s the status in most textbooks,” says Prum. He’s on a mission to re-emphasize it, and to show that aesthetics and beauty aren’t mushy subjects that science should shy away from.
It’s been an uphill struggle, partly because the arbitrary nature of the idea is so distasteful to some. Prum recalls discussing his ideas with a “well-respected, center-of-the-road, evolutionary biologist,” who took it all in and said: But that’s nihilism! “That’s when I realized that I had a marketing problem,” he says. “This is what fills me with joy to study, what literally gives me goosebumps in the office, and when I express it to my colleague, he doesn’t have a reason to get out of bed in the morning.”
The originator of these ideas—Charles Darwin himself—suffered from similar problems. In The Descent of Man, he put forward an explicitly aesthetic view of sexual selection, in which animal beauty evolves because it’s pleasurable to the animals themselves. And despite the book’s title, Darwin spent many of its pages focusing on the choices of females, casting them as agents of their own evolution and arguing that their preferences were a powerful force behind nature’s diversity.
Darwin’s contemporaries were having none of it. They believed that animals didn’t have rich subjective worlds, lacking the mental abilities that had been divinely endowed to humans. And the idea of female animals making fine-grained choices seemed doubly preposterous to the Victorian patriarchy. One scientist wrote that female whims were so fickle that they could never act as a consistent source of selection. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolutionary theory, also rejected Darwin’s ideas, insisting that beauty must be the result of adaptation, and that sexual selection is just another form of natural selection. In a feat of sheer chutzpah, he even claimed that his view was more Darwinian than Darwin’s in a book called Darwinism. “I can still remember wanting to throw Wallace around the room when I read that,” says Prum, who accuses the man of turning sexual selection into an ‘intellectually impoverished theory.’”
That legacy still infects evolutionary biology today. Consider orgasms, which Prum does at length in a later chapter. “There’s an entire field on the evolution of orgasm that’s devoid of any discussion of pleasure,” he says. “It’s stunningly bad science, and once more, it places male quality at the causal center.” For example, some researchers suggested that contractions produced during female orgasm are adaptations that allow women to better “upsuck”—no, really—the sperm of the best males. Others theorists suggested that female orgasm is the equivalent of male nipples—an inconsequential byproduct of natural selection acting on the opposite sex. Both ideas trivialize the sexual agency of women, Prum says, and completely fail to engage with the thing they’re actually trying to explain--women’s subjective experiences of sexual pleasure.
“It should come as no surprise that science does such a poor job of explaining pleasure because it’s left the actual experience of pleasure out of the equation,” he writes. That is, when biologists think about mate choice, whether in manakins or people, they focus only on the outcomes of the choice, and neglect the actual act of choosing. The result is a sexual science that’s bizarrely sanitized—an account of pleasure that’s totally anhedonic.
His counter-explanation is simple: women preferred to have sex with men who stimulated their own sexual pleasure, leading to co-evolution between female desire and male behaviors that met those desires. That’s why, compared to our closest ape relatives, human sex is much longer, involves a variety of positions, and isn’t tied to fertility cycles. It’s also why female orgasm isn’t necessary for actual procreation. “It may be the greatest testament to the power of aesthetic evolution,” Prum writes. “It’s sexual pleasure for its own sake, which has evolved purely as a consequence of women’s pursuit of pleasure.”
By his admission, this is speculative. He hopes that his book—which also includes hypotheses about human bodies, cultural standards of attractiveness, sexual identity, and more—will spur more research that’s grounded in an appreciation of aesthetics. But he also notes that there are other species in which experiments have confirmed the power of female choice.
In 2005, a woman named Patricia Brennan joined Prum’s lab with an interest in animal genitals—and in ducks. Most birds don’t have penises, but male ducks have huge, corkscrew-shaped ones that they extrude into females at high speed. But Brennan showed that female ducks have equally convoluted vaginas, which spiral in the opposite direction and include several dead-end pockets. Why?
Duck sex is intense and violent. Several males will often try to force themselves onto a female, and they use their ballistic penises to deposit sperm as far inside their mates as possible. But Brennan, by getting drakes to launch their penises into variously shaped glass tubes, showed that a female’s counter-spiraling vagina can stop the progress of her partner’s phallus. If she actually wants to mate, she can change her posture and relax the walls of her genital tract to offer a male easy passage. As a result, even in species where 40 percent of sexual encounters are forced, more than 95 percent of chicks are actually sired by a female’s chosen partner.
I wrote about Brennan’s work back in 2009, and I’ve since heard it repeatedly called “that duck penis study.” But really, it’s a duck vagina story. It’s a story of females asserting their agency, even in the face of persistent violence. “And when females get sexual autonomy, what do they do with it?” says Prum. “They make aesthetic choices, and the result is this aesthetic explosion over time.” By retaining their capacity to choose, female ducks force male plumage, displays and songs to continually evolve to court those choices. Sexual autonomy is an evolutionary engine of beauty.
“That research was transformative for me,” says Prum. It’s one of several reasons why The Evolution of Beauty is an explicitly feminist book. It’s disdainful about the male biases that characterize much of evolutionary psychology. Instead, it consistently centers female choice and repeatedly draws on feminist scholarship.
“If you say anything about a feminist science, you get a lot of negative blowback immediately,” says Prum. “But this isn’t a science that accommodates itself to feminist principles. It’s about the discovery of feminist concepts in biology itself.” By his reckoning, freedom of choice isn’t a matter of ideology. It arises from evolution, and it shapes subsequent evolution—and it’s about time that biologists recognized that.
“It’s a sad thing that, given the promise of evolutionary biology, we’ve really failed to lead culture in any meaningful way, whether in thinking about racism, sexism, or economic disparity,” says Prum. “We’re just hanging at the rear end. And there’s a real prospect for that to change because of all the power of evolutionary theory to be relevant to people and people’s lives.”
On some men, butea superba extract has a profound effect after just few dosages. It can kickstart testosterone tone for weeks on end. Users should watch out for signs of testosterone overdrive such as deep heartbeat with the slightest sexual thought.
Index of articles