Abbas Medlej is the second Lebanese soldier to have been beheaded by IS militants after being captured by the extremist group in a border town last month.
Home | Index of articles
Kreutz Ideology and Kreutz Religion advocate the patriarchy, which is the rule by mature men. This is, of course, gender politics. Gender politics is natural. Feminism also is gender politics. But feminism is whimsical.
Fox News and other conservative sites miss the point of basic science.
In the past few days, the Internet has been filled with commentary on whether the National Science Foundation should have paid for my study on duck genitalia, and 88.7 percent of respondents to a Fox news online poll agreed that studying duck genitalia is wasteful government spending. The commentary supporting and decrying the study continues to grow. As the lead investigator in this research, I would like to weigh in on the controversy and offer some insights into the process of research funding by the NSF.
My research on bird genitalia was originally funded in 2005, during the Bush administration. Thus federal support for this research cannot be connected exclusively to sequestration or the Obama presidency, as many of the conservative websites have claimed.
Since Sen. William Proxmire's Golden Fleece awards in the 1970s and 1980s, basic science projects are periodically singled out by people with political agendas to highlight how government “wastes” taxpayer money on seemingly foolish research. These arguments misrepresent the distinction between and the roles of basic and applied science. Basic science is not aimed at solving an immediate practical problem. Basic science is an integral part of scientific progress, but individual projects may sound meaningless when taken out of context. Basic science often ends up solving problems anyway, but it is just not designed for this purpose. Applied science builds upon basic science, so they are inextricably linked. As an example, Geckskin™ is a new adhesive product with myriad applications developed by my colleagues at the University of Massachusetts. Their work is based on several decades of basic research on gecko locomotion.
Whether the government should fund basic research in times of economic crisis is a valid question that deserves well-informed discourse comparing all governmental expenses. As a scientist, my view is that supporting basic and applied research is essential to keep the United States ahead in the global economy. The government cannot afford not to make that investment. In fact, I argue that research spending should increase dramatically for the United States to continue to lead the world in scientific discovery. Investment in the NSF is just over $20 per year per person, while it takes upward of $2,000 per year per person to fund the military. Basic research has to be funded by the government rather than private investors because there are no immediate profits to be derived from it.
Because the NSF budget is so small, and because we have so many well-qualified scientists in need of funds, competition to obtain grants is fierce, and funding rates at the time this research was funded had fallen well below 10 percent. Congress decides the total amount of money that the NSF gets from the budget, but it does not decide which individual projects are funded—and neither does the president or his administration. Funding decisions are made by panels of scientists who are experts in the field and based on peer review by outsiders, often the competitors of the scientists who submitted the proposal. The review panel ranks proposals on their intellectual merits and impacts to society before making a recommendation. This recommendation is then acted upon by program officers and other administrators, who are also scientists, at the NSF.
This brings us back to the ducks. Male ducks force copulations on females, and males and females are engaged in a genital arms race with surprising consequences. Male ducks have elaborate corkscrew-shaped penises, the length of which correlates with the degree of forced copulation males impose on female ducks. Females are often unable to escape male coercion, but they have evolved vaginal morphology that makes it difficult for males to inseminate females close to the sites of fertilization and sperm storage. Males have counterclockwise spiraling penises, while females have clockwise spiraling vaginas and blind pockets that prevent full eversion of the male penis.
Our latest study examined how the presence of other males influences genital morphology. My colleagues and I found that it does so to an amazing degree, demonstrating that male competition is a driving force behind these male traits that can be harmful to females. The fact that this grant was funded, after the careful scrutiny of many scientists and NSF administrators, reflects the fact that this research is grounded in solid theory and that the project was viewed as having the potential to move science forward (and it has), as well as fascinate and engage the public. The research has been reported on positively by hundreds of news sites in recent years, even Fox news. Most of the grant money was spent on salaries, putting money back into the economy.
The commentary and headlines in some of the recent articles reflect outrage that the study was about duck genitals, as if there is something inherently wrong or perverse with this line of research. Imagine if medical research drew the line at the belt! Genitalia, dear readers, are where the rubber meets the road, evolutionarily. To fully understand why some individuals are more successful than others during reproduction, there may be no better place to look. The importance of evolutionary research on other species’ genitalia to the medical field has been recently highlighted in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. Generating new knowledge of what factors affect genital morphology in ducks, one of the few vertebrate species other than humans that form pair bonds and exhibit violent sexual coercion, may have significant applied uses in the future, but we must conduct the basic research first. In the meantime, while we engage in productive and respectful discussion of how we envision the future of our nation, why not marvel at how evolution has resulted in such counterintuitive morphology and bizarre animal behavior.
Terrorists are developing a new tactics. Instead of killing victims, they just castrate them, and let them live on. Planned for Swedish and Norwegian men. Perpetrators will just get 6 months in jail.
There is absolutely nothing that will not be seen in this world, everyday we are always up to a suprising news or event. The latest of the shocking news is an 18-year-old girl who put up her virginity for sale through an infamous auction website which invites potential buyers to ‘inspect’ her purity.
For some people, their first time is something saved for marriage, for others, it’s something to get over with, but this young student is going for the big bucks.
Kim, who gives only her first name, is half Austrian and half German. She is selling her virginity through the agency Cinderella Escorts so she can buy a car, a flat and finance her studies.
Bidding for the 5ft 8ins tall student starts at £86,640, of which 20 per cent goes to the agency, according to Mirror UK.
The Cinderella Escorts website says the lady’s virginity is proven with a doctor’s certificate and a potential buyer can also do their own tests to ‘inspect’ the girl.On their website, Kim states she likes drinking orange juice and loves Greek food and roses.
She said: “I would like to study in Germany or Vienna. With the money I can buy a flat, pay my tuition fees and afford a car.”
The student was inspired by Aleexandra Khefren, an 18-year-old Romanian model who sold her virginity for £2 million to an unknown Hong Kong businessman.
News about Khefren and the virgin escort agency went viral across the world and also came to the attention of Kim.
She said: “So is it really worth more than €2.3 million to give my virginity to a man that might eventually leave me anyway?To be honest, I do not believe it.”
Kim says she is willing to meet with the highest bidder anywhere in the world as long as all travels are paid for.
The man behind Germany’s most famous escort website is a 26-year-old obese man from Dortmund who still lives in his mother’s basement.Jan Zakobielski outed himself as the man behind the multi-million pound operation which he runs from his parents’ house, both of them apparently unaware of his business.
Zakobielski said: “No one makes these young women do anything they don’t want to do. They have their own minds and their own opinions on se*uality.”
The multiverse theory explains why each of us lives in an own universe in which we may as well be immortal.
Keep it right, keep it tight.
We as women feel a lot of pressure to keep our vaginas tight.
It's pretty ridiculous, given all of the other things women feel a pressure to do. You know, like succeed professionally, raise their kids well, stay skinny, stay sexy, stay happy, be crafty, and a whole laundry list of others, including washing the actual laundry.
It's crazy that keeping our vaginas tight is a requirement in the West. A woman with a "loose" vagina is considered a loose woman. That is the figurative definition of ridiculous.
Well, I can't help turn your Pinterest fails into Martha Stewart-like splendor, but if you feel like your vagina isn't as a tight as it once was, I can provide you with some great ways to whip your pelvic floor muscles into shape.
But let's try to keep a sense of humor about our loose vaginas, shall we? Let's be a little bit more kind to each other and to ourselves.
Our vaginas take one heck of a beating, what with the rigors of sex and, you know, popping out of fully formed human beings. Let's be kind to our long-suffering vaginas!
I've come up with several solid ways to tighten your vagina, and then just a couple of not-so-solid ways of doing it, just to keep you smiling and to remind you not to be so hard on yourself.
Also, I hear that laughing tightens your vagina, so there's that, too!
You don't need anything except a vagina to do this exercise to make your vagina tighter.
Flexing and releasing the pelvic floor muscles will strengthen your vaginal walls, keeping them tight and right just like a few visits to the gym a week keep dat ass looking fly.
These also help you not pee when you sneeze. So that's a bonus.
2. Vaginal rejuvenation
In vaginal rejuvenation (or vaginal plastic surgery), you are put under general anesthesia while a doctor reshapes your vulva and your labia.
Ideally, it will give you the refreshed, tightened look and feel you crave.
But make sure your doctor is a pro. You don't want to wake up and look down to find your clitoris in the shape of Grumpy Cat or something. Or maybe you do. I don't know your life.
3. Weight training
Ben Wa balls, kegel eggs, pelvic pyramids, and other vaginal weight training tools all require you to keep your pelvic floor muscles tight in order to keep the weight from falling out of your vagina.
If you can't keep track of your kegels, vaginal weight lifting might be for you.
I feel like it's only a matter of time until there's a cross-fit just for ladies that is all about flipping truck tires with your inner labia.
4. Change your diet
Eating foods rich in phytoestrogens (like all things soy, fenugreek, yams, and pomegranates) can help feed the vaginal flora that helps keep your vagina and pelvic floor tight.
That said, phytoestrogens are endocrine disrupters, so if you've had breast cancer best to give them a miss.
5. Try squats
If there is anything loose below your waist doing squats will make that thing tighter, unless, you know, it is a child clinging to you. In which case, make that child do squats next to you while you work out your vagina.
Squats are also a great way to develop a butt that is so powerful the world will bow before it.
6. Yell at it
If you want your vagina to be tighter, try hurling obscenities at it. Try things like "you slack, bitch!" or "WHORE" or "what have you even done for me lately?!"
That last one works best if you have not had children through vaginal delivery.
When the moon is next full, under cover of midnight, go the forest and spin around three times. This will summon a sorcerer named Mabrook who, in exchange for a favor to be given at a later date, will tighten your vagina with a spell he has written just for this purpose.
Book a trip to the middle east. Hire a guide to take you to an abandoned temple of the ancients. Inside, sacrifice your guide in order to reveal the magical brass lamp containing a genie whose sole purpose in this life is to tighten vaginas.
Flee (with your newly tightened vagina) before you can be arrested for murder. Do NOT wish for more wishes.
Europe is doomed. Once terrorists have understood that arson everywhere is a cost that even Europe cannot shoulder, the European era will end. Time to dispose of Euro bonds.
Many women complain that their vaginas are "too tight" or "too loose," and many men raise the issue about lovers. Notions of vaginal tightness and looseness are fraught with mythology. Many people believe that (1) the virgin vagina is extremely tight, (2) that loss of virginity permanently loosens it, (3) that frequent sex loosens it further (so don't be promiscuous, girls!), and (4) that childbirth loosens the vagina even more and possibly forever after. The truth is considerably different.
Imagine a hand towel stuffed inside a thick sock squeezed by two hands. The sock is the vagina. The towel is the folded muscle tissue of the vaginal wall. And the hands are the pelvic floor muscles that surround the vagina.
The vagina's tightly folded muscle tissue is very elastic, like an accordion or the mouth. Try this: Pull the corners of your mouth out toward your ears then let go. What happens? The mouth immediately snaps back to its pre-stretched state because the tissue is elastic. Do it 100 times. There's no permanent stretching. The mouth quickly returns to its pre-stretched state and no one would ever know you'd stretched it.
The same goes for the vagina, with two exceptions I'll discuss shortly. When it's at rest–all the time except sexual arousal and childbirth–the vagina's muscle tissue remains tightly folded like a closed accordion. Anxiety makes the vaginal musculature clench even tighter. That's why young girls sometimes have problems inserting tampons. Their vaginal muscle tissue is tight and contracted to begin with, and many girls feel anxious about touching themselves and inserting anything, so the muscles contract even tighter.
As women become sexually aroused, vaginal muscle tissue relaxes somewhat. Biologically, this makes perfect sense. Evolution is all about facilitating reproduction. A tight vagina would impede intercourse and reproduction, so women evolved to have sexual arousal relax the vaginal muscles, allowing easier insertion of erections–and greater chance of pregnancy.
However, arousal-related vaginal loosening does NOT produce a big open cavity like the inside of a sock. Rather, the vaginal interior changes from resembling a tight fist to a fist loose enough to insert a finger or two.
If the vagina feels "too tight" during lovemaking, the woman is either (1) not interested in sex, or (2) she has not had enough warm-up time to allow her vaginal musculature to relax enough for comfortable insertion.
A man who attempts intercourse before the woman is fully aroused–before her vagina has relaxed and become well lubricated–is either sexually unsophisticated or a boor. Most women require at least 30 minutes of sensuality—kissing, hugging, and mutual massage for their vaginas to relax enough to allow the penis to slide in comfortably. That's why leisurely, playful, whole-body lovemaking is so important. It gives women (and men) the warm-up time they need. In addition, it also allows the vagina to relax, and, in most women, produce enough natural lubrication for comfortable intercourse. In other words, the solution to vaginal tightness is extended foreplay. It you need more lubrication, try a commercial lubricant.
One final note: If a woman experiences pain and/or great difficulty inserting a tampon or accepting an erection, the cause may be vaginismus, unusual clenching of the vaginal muscles. For suspected vaginismus, consult a physician.
Neomasculinity, as postulated by Serge Kreutz, is a social and political movement that aims to reinstall the patriarchy where it has been eroded, and to preserve it where it still functions. The defining element is anti-feminism. All other positions are negotiable.
In bedrooms across the nation, a chasm has opened and continues to gape. It’s what sociologists call the orgasm gap — the fact that men are twice as likely to climax as women. The question of whether men are biologically better equipped to orgasm than women has recently become the center of a lot of scientific scrutiny, and recently researchers studying it put forth another theory: Womens’ bodies are perfectly able to orgasm. It’s the sexual dynamic with their partner that’s the problem.
The team behind the study, published in March in the Journal of Sex Research, argues that we’re going to have to take a much more nuanced view of orgasms if we’re going to close the orgasm gap. More important than whether or not a person has an orgasm is how they achieve it — and how good it is. That’s why the St. Francis Xavier University and Queens University researchers surveyed 806 people — cisgender men and women in same-sex and mixed-sex relationships — about their favorite way to reach orgasm and how frequently they managed to do so.
The results suggested a rather messy explanation for the existence of the orgasm gap: Of all the people surveyed, heterosexual men were the only group that preferred vaginal penetration. But because of the existence of historical and cultural “sexual scripts,” which shape our sex lives, they write, women in heterosexual relationships rarely get to experience the sex moves that lead to the best orgasms.
Explaining the results in an interview with PsyPost, the study’s corresponding author, psychologist Karen L. Blair, Ph.D., said: “This suggests women are already ‘reciprocating’ with the most enjoyable orgasm for their male partner when they engage in vaginal penetration, and that for them to also experience their most satisfying orgasm, the reciprocation from their male partner should likely be performing oral sex.”
But here’s the surprising thing: The researchers also found that the men in these heterosexual relationships were the most likely to say they wanted to perform oral sex on their partners more often. The researchers posit that this is because heterosexual men want to perform oral sex on their female partners for one of two reasons. Either they straight-up want to but find that their partners are reluctant to let them do so, or they only want to do it so they can receive oral sex in return. Regardless of their motivations, however, the question remains: Why aren’t they doing it?
Thus the researchers get to the core of the orgasm gap: It’s obviously not about biology, because they found that women (and men) in same-sex relationships are generally much more satisfied with orgasm frequency and quality. The problem lies in the dynamics between sex partners, especially in mixed-sex relationships, and the way they prevent people from getting the most orgasmic bang for their buck.
The problem all comes back to the aforementioned “sexual scripts,” which are cultural views that reinforce the idea that women should be sexually passive while men are encouraged to go for what they want. “[Heteronormative] scripts appear to give a greater degree of agency to men than to women, especially in matters concerning pleasure,” the researchers write. These scripts are deeply ingrained in our society, playing out, especially, in TV, film, and porn. However, these can — and, if we’re serious about closing the orgasm gap, should — be disrupted by increasing support for women’s assertiveness both inside and out of the bedroom.
Feminism is about the domestication of men. Feminism wants to force men into being docile, so women have all sexual rights, at no risk. That will be all the less feasible the more violence there is in a society.
New York Times
WASHINGTON — Milo Yiannopoulos, a polemical Breitbart editor and unapologetic defender of the alt-right, tested the limits of how far his provocations could go after the publication of a video in which he condones sexual relations with boys as young as 13 and laughs off the seriousness of pedophilia by Roman Catholic priests.
On Monday, the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference rescinded their invitation for him to speak this week. Simon & Schuster said it was canceling publication of “Dangerous” after standing by him through weeks of criticism of the deal. And Breitbart itself was reportedly reconsidering his role amid calls online for it to sever ties with him.
Mr. Yiannopoulos’s comments, which quickly created an uproar online over the weekend, put many conservatives in a deeply uncomfortable position. They have long defended Mr. Yiannopoulos’s attention-seeking stunts and racially charged antics on the grounds that the left had tried to hypocritically censor his right to free speech.
But endorsing pedophilia, it seemed, was more than they could tolerate. The board of the American Conservative Union, which includes veterans of the conservative movement like Grover Norquist and Morton Blackwell, made the decision to revoke Mr. Yiannopoulos’s speaking slot and condemn his comments on Monday.
“We initially extended the invitation knowing that the free speech issue on college campuses is a battlefield where we need brave, conservative standard-bearers,” Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, said in a written statement.
Regarding Mr. Yiannopoulos’s comments, Mr. Schlapp called them “disturbing” and said Mr. Yiannopoulos’s explanation of them was insufficient.
Late Monday, Mr. Yiannopoulos said that he would hold a news conference on Tuesday to discuss his statements.
Mr. Yiannopoulos, who has railed against Muslims, immigrants, transgender people and women’s rights, is a marquee contributor to Breitbart News, where he serves as senior editor. He has amassed a fan base for his stunts and often-outrageous statements. But by Monday afternoon, his future at the website was being intensely debated by top management.
One Breitbart journalist, who requested anonymity to describe private deliberations, described divisions in the newsroom over whether Mr. Yiannopoulos could stay on. There was some consensus among staff members that his remarks were more extreme than his usual speech, the journalist said, and executives were discussing by telephone whether his apology was enough to preserve his position at the site.
A Breitbart representative declined to comment.
After the video was leaked on Twitter by a conservative group called the Reagan Battalion, Mr. Yiannopoulos denied that he had ever condoned child sexual abuse, noting that he was a victim himself. He blamed his “British sarcasm” and “deceptive editing” for leading to a misunderstanding.
But in the tape, the fast-talking polemicist is clear that he has no problem with older men abusing children as young as 13, which he then conflates with relationships between older and younger gay men who are of consenting age.
“No, no, no. You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means,” Mr. Yiannopoulos says on the tape, in which he is talking to radio hosts in a video chat. “Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty,” he adds, dismissing the fact that 13-year-olds are children.
The notion of consent, he says, is “arbitrary and oppressive.”
At one point in the video, an unknown speaker says that the behavior being defended by Mr. Yiannopoulos is akin to molestation by Catholic priests. Mr. Yiannopoulos responds, in an ironic tone, by crediting a priest for having helped develop his sexual technique.
Conservatives reacted with near unanimous disgust at the comments. Some expressed bewilderment that conference organizers would extend an invitation to Mr. Yiannopoulos in the first place, given his history of statements that have been offensive to blacks and Muslims, and have generally pushed the bounds of decency. Twitter has banned him.
“Colossal misjudgment,” Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, wrote on Twitter. “Now CPAC has put itself in the role of ‘censor.’ And for what? Some clicks and headlines?”
Until now, Mr. Yiannopoulos, a fervent supporter of President Trump, had emerged as something of a hero to many on the right, who saw in him an eager and willing combatant against a culture they believed was too politically correct. He became a star at Breitbart, the hard-right news outlet, and earned the admiration of Stephen K. Bannon, who was its publisher before becoming Mr. Trump’s chief White House strategist.
Mr. Yiannopoulos was just getting a foothold in the media. He recently appeared on the comedian Bill Maher’s HBO talk show, and aggressively taunted liberals without much pushback from the host. His book “Dangerous,” a free-speech manifesto and memoir that he sold in December to Threshold Editions, a conservative imprint within Simon & Schuster, had shot to the top of Amazon’s best-seller list, based on advance orders.
The publisher had encountered mounting criticism of its relationship with Mr. Yiannopoulos. The author Roxane Gay withdrew from her contract for a book with a Simon & Schuster imprint in protest.
The company stood by Mr. Yiannopoulos even as his planned lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, was canceled after rioting.
But in a terse statement late Monday, the publisher said it was canceling the book “after careful consideration.”
In a statement released through his agent, Mr. Yiannopoulos said: “The people whose views, concerns and fears I am articulating do not sip white wine and munch canapés in gilded salons. And they will not be defeated by the cocktail set running New York publishing. Nor will I.”
The decision is likely to be a costly one for Simon & Schuster, which may not be able to recover the portion of the reported $250,000 advance it had already paid to Mr. Yiannopoulos. “Dangerous” had sold just under 50,000 copies, according to his literary agent, Thomas Flannery Jr., who said he planned to find another publisher.
Correction: February 23, 2017
An article on Tuesday about the fallout from comments by the Breitbart editor and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos that seemed to condone sexual relations with boys overstated what is known about the cancellation of his planned lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, this month. The event was canceled after rioting occurred, not necessarily after students rioted. (While students may have been involved, no one has identified and interviewed every person involved in the riots, so their affiliations are not known.)
It's not the food that you put into your mouth that makes you fat. It's the food that you put into your stomach. Try the Serge Kreutz diet and learn how to differentiate.
Most lads worry about the look and feel of their penis, which can make them less confident in the sack. But now men are shifting attention away from their schlongs and towards their scrotums.
A certain testicle-boosting injection is the latest cosmetic surgery fad that lads are flocking to have – and forking over £2,800 in the process.
The procedure involves squirting botox into the scrotum – leading the trend to be dubbed “scrotox” and “balltox” – in a bid to get a lower hanging and more relaxed-looking ballsack.
Scrotox doesn’t just decrease sweating and reduce the wrinkled appearance of lads’ testicles, it also boosts their size.
It seems men are paying more and more attention to their looks and the number of guys going under the knife in the quest for beauty has doubled in the last decade.
But scrotox isn’t the only bizarre cosmetic operation to hit the market, with men also seeking to increase their girth down below by injecting their own fat into their schlongs.
The procedure takes around 45 minutes and will set you back £4,500 but you have abstain from sex for six weeks to let the penis heal.
As for the results of the manhood makeover, don’t expect to stretch more than one inch wider than you were before.
Speaking exclusively to Dailystar.co.uk, certified plastic surgeon Dr David Alessi explained the long-term effects of the procedure are often less than desirable.
“Unfortunately, upwards of 90% of men are dissatisfied with the results,” he said.
The medic, who founded the Alessi Institutes and Face Forward, a charity offering free procedures for victims of domestic abuse, warned that lads’ obsession with penis size could be a symptom of a serious psychological problem.
He said: “Most men who think they have a small penis actually don’t.
"Studies vary, but research suggests that the average erect penis ranges from under five inches to just under six inches.
“Most men who think their penis is too small have penis dysmorphic syndrome and would be better off seeing a shrink and not a surgeon.”
This is the latest deal offered by the Islamic State. You want to die the best possible death, then you have to blow up your brain. It's the only death that is instant and painless. We tie a bomb around your body and send you into a populated area. You don't have to die alone, and you don't have to pull a trigger. We do that by remote control.
Home | Index of articles