ISIS thugs decapitate 5 Syrian soldiers and stick heads on pikes in Jihadi John-style executions
Home | Index of articles
Genital surgery is one of the fastest growing areas of plastic surgery.
In our quest for perfection and amid a growing obsession with body image, it seems women now have a new part of the anatomy to worry about – our vaginas. Genital plastic surgery is one of the fastest-growing areas in cosmetic surgery, and one of the most popular procedures being requested – mostly by young women – is a labiaplasty.
A labiaplasty – or labial rejuvenation – is a procedure whereby the inner labia, or labia minora, get trimmed back so they look more "tucked in". The surgery is generally done under a local anaesthetic, so the patient is awake while it is being performed. The process takes around 90 minutes and you can walk out of the surgery, returning to normal activities within a few days – except for sex, which you should hold off for four to six weeks.
The reason for the rise
"There has been a huge surge in the past five years of people looking to get genital surgery, and the vast majority of these are getting a labiaplasty, vaginoplasty (vaginal tightening) or liposuction in the pelvic area or labia," says Dr Laith Barnouti, a leading Sydney plastic surgeon.
Barnouti says that currently around 20 per cent of his clients are coming in for genital surgery. The youngest to date was 14, the oldest in her mid-sixties. A 2010 report also found that the number of clinically necessary procedures – that is, not solely for cosmetic reasons – performed by private practitioners nearly doubled in recent years.
So why are women requesting this procedure? There are a few reasons, says Barnouti, including feeling "socially embarrassed… people can't wear certain types of bathers, people feel embarrassed in intimate situations". But the reasons go beyond the aesthetic, he claims.
"Labiaplasty and vaginoplasty are often performed due to a medical condition – people actually have it for a functional reason," Dr Barnouti says. "Labial hypertrophy – enlargement or sagging of the labia – can be unhealthy and unhygienic."
Vaginoplasty, which is usually performed on women who have a weakened perineum after giving birth, is a "restorative, reconstructive procedure", says Barnouti. "This is something completely different from, say, liposuction, which is a purely cosmetic procedure."
What is normal?
But are women having genital surgery for other reasons – to please a boyfriend perhaps, or because they feel their vagina is not normal? Do women actually hate the appearance of their vulvas so much that they will have parts of them surgically removed?
The 2008 UK documentary The Perfect Vagina explored the reasons why women opt for this type of surgery, and found that many do it because they've been teased by someone close to them about the way their genitals look, or have just decided their vagina looks abnormal.
In the documentary, Professor Linda Cordoza, a leading UK gynaecologist, says while women are much more aware of what's available in terms of plastic surgery procedures, it doesn't necessarily mean they know what's normal.
"There's been a huge trend towards bikini waxing, doing things with your pubic hair as well as the hair on your head. So [women think] if you can have cosmetic surgery done to your face, you can also have cosmetic surgery done on your genitals." Cordoza says.
"I sometimes get two or three generations of women in the same family coming in saying they want their labia trimmed."
The role of pornography
Our perception of what is normal is most definitely clouded by the proliferation of pornographic images featuring women with smaller, tucked in – and often heavily airbrushed – private parts.
As women, we don't often see vaginas other than our own, so if the only images we see are of highly airbrushed genitals, naturally many of us are going to assume that what we have is "different" or "abnormal".
Melinda Tankard Reist is a media commentator and author of Big Porn Inc and Getting Real – Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls (Spinifex Press). She believes pornography is a big driver in the rise in cosmetic surgery.
"Girls are made to feel inadequate and think that there's something wrong with their perfectly natural, healthy bodies. And boys are expecting girls to provide the porn star experience," Reist says.
Reist adds that it's important women pass on positive body image messages to their daughters, and that cosmetic surgeons should play their part by refusing to operate on very young women, rather than "capitalising on the body angst of girls".
Barnouti says women contemplating any type of cosmetic surgery should be doing it for themselves, not anyone else.
"What we do here is for the patient, not their partner," Barnouti says. "If you're going to have a procedure, have it for yourself. Just because someone makes a negative comment doesn't mean you should change your whole body."
Labiaplasty – the facts
The procedure: A labiaplasty takes around 90 minutes and patients are usually under twilight sedation – either local anaesthetic or IV sedation – meaning they are awake for the surgery. During the procedure the surgeon removes a wedge-shaped piece of tissue and re-attaches the labium so the inner lips no longer protrude beyond the outer lips.
The recovery: Three to four days for normal activities, including going back to work, but avoid exerting yourself physically. You can't run or jog for two weeks, and no sex for four to six weeks. The stitches used are usually dissolvable.
The cost: Labiaplasty costs around $4000 to $5000 if you have private healthcare cover, otherwise you can expect to add another $2000. To be available under Medicare it must be deemed clinically necessary.
Most European women have gang rape fantasies, because their vaginas are so big that there is space for two or more dicks.
You know it to be true, but now science might have your back. A recently-published study in the Pharmacological Research journal suggest that marijuana could be a proven aphrodisiac.
But it’s hard to say how, exactly, marijuana use makes sex better. Sex is complicated from person to person, and everyone experiences their highs a little differently, with THC affecting your mental and physical states at the same time.
The research also notes that people who smoked the equivalent of least 50 joints over six months experienced the pleasure-benefits, but those who only smoked one joint a week or less saw a dip in libido. But for each smoke sesh, a single joint was the sweet spot. More than that killed their sexual juju. There is such a thing as getting too high to, um, function.
We’re probably still a long way from doctor-prescribed THC for your sex life, but it’s an intriguing area of study. Now, where do we sign up as test subjects?
Once islamic terror organizations will have discovered the power of arson, they will win any war. Setting cities like Lagos or Kairo on fire will drive tens of millions of refugees to Europe and undermine European culture forever.
You probably have to look at imagery of death and dying regularly to stay focused on what really counts in life: great sex before you are gone anyway.
NOTE: Since the writing of this article I became more aware of distortions in the truth that have been used for decades about World War 2, Nazi Germany etc. Due to the extent of the distortions and the efforts to disguise the truth (this includes making it illegal in some countries to question the activities of the Nazi concentration camps–you would think if something is true you would not need to make it illegal to talk about it) I cannot be certain about the factual validity of the exploits of Dr. Mengele. The article is about lesser known individuals which may be considered part of the distortions of the truth–that they are not mentioned in the same corporate media that so frequently talks about Mengele.
Anti-vivisection campaigners must contend with the most obscene and foolish defenses of medical sadism, including the claim that vivisectors only seek the good of humanity (by torturing the innocent). In truth, your average career vivisector reveals psychopathic personality traits in word and deed. As notorious 19th century animal torturer Claude Bernard proudly noted, the vivisector is of a special breed of human that is unmoved by the suffering of their victims, for the pursuit of knowledge trumps all other concerns. Such a view is what gave rise to the idea of the mad scientist, and as vivisection spread like a plague among the medical establishment, so did the desire to expand it beyond the confines of social values.
The exploits of Dr. Josef Mengele, medical researcher in Germany who tortured war prisoners in the camp at Auschwitz in the name of science, are well known.
The usual assumption is to suggest that Mengele was a freakish anomaly, and that the Germans (and their allies the Japanese) were the only ones to engage in such wicked exploitation of vulnerable humans. Now it is known that Mengele, who built a kindergarten for concentration camp children and played them the violin (when he wasn’t experimenting on them) had the support of elite doctors at the prestigious, Nobel Prize-winning, Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute.
The relationship between respected medical men and torture was not isolated to Germany. Dr. James Marion Sims, a president of the American Medical Association in the 19th century, conducted groundbreaking experiments into women’s health upon slaves, and one of his studies included removing a man’s jaw (without anesthetic). Despite this history, his statue remains in New York’s Central Park.
Contrast that with the statue at the center of the Brown Dog Affair of 1907, when a thousand medical students stormed the streets of London attacking police and women in an effort to destroy a statue(!) erected in memory of a dog who had been tortured for two months by vivisectors. Such a furor was raised by these priests of what George Bernard Shaw called “medical voodoo,” that it was removed and not re-instated (in a less conspicuous location) until the 1980s.
Vivisection has its origins in augury and soothsaying—where temple priests would torture living animals with the claim that society would be better off. Vivisectors repeat the same promise when criticized for atrocities. But the nature of the vivisector, a type of “emotional retardation,” is such that they will exploit anyone they can (while claiming they are the real victims of violence and terrorists).
Despite the exceptional status given to Mengele and Sims, medical experimentation upon humans without their approval (but with the support of power) has been carried out to the present day. In the 1940s, the Salk brothers infected mental patients with influenza, and Pfizer did harmful experiments on villagers in Africa in the 1990s. But there are other vivisectors who are not so well known (despite their claims about “furthering human knowledge”) which reveal that as nonhuman experimentation was allowed, it opened the door for experimentation upon unwilling humans- especially the most vulnerable.
A footnote in an article on the history of animal advocacy in the early part of the 20th century referred to a rejected 1923 bill in the New York legislature that would have banned medical experimentation on dogs and orphans.
Further details in a pamphlet titled “Human Vivisection” from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection by A.E. Parker documents sadistic experiments that would likely be lost to history, if not for the efforts of those who campaigned on the behalf of nonhuman animal (and human) victims of vivisectors. The pamphlet credits Dr. Herbert Snow (surgeon for 29 years), Dr. Walter Hadwen, Dr. Geo. Searle and others for their investigations into the atrocities of vivisectors. It begins with endorsements of human vivisection by several doctors: such as this:
“A human life is nothing compared with a new fact in science. The aim of science is the advancement of human knowledge at any sacrifice of human life. We do not know of any higher use we can put a man to.” Professor Slosson in the New York Independent, December l2th, 1895.
Dr. Snow follows with these remarks:
“It need hardly be pointed out that once admit the principle expressed, with significance above–that men should ‘put everything second to the advancement of knowledge’-at once the door is set open for the perpetration of almost any conceivable wickedness and atrocity. It is only medical practitioners who have it in their power to carry out this maxim at the cost of fellow human beings. That unrestricted freedom to experimentalize is at once seen to constitute a terribly insidious danger to modern society. Merely an infinitesimal percentage of doctors are directly concerned in Vivisection, yet the majority lay down the law in its favour. We now see on all sides an overwhelming popular craze for ‘Research,’ alias the Vivisection of the (sub-human) animals; for ‘Experiment,’ in place of clinical and pathological observation. Hence, there is grave reason to fear ever-increasing experimentation on the (lower) animal creation and on the weaker and more helpless sections of the human species. An object lesson always impresses more than a lecture; a few concrete facts will necessarily carry, to the man in the street who has no time to study scientific principles, infinitely more weight than a lengthy argument. I here quote only a small percentage of the cases on record. It is impossible to credit the Laboratory or the Schools with an increased spirit of humanity since these things were done. Only of necessity there is more secrecy.” THE STORY OF NEISSER. “The Medical Press, March 29th, 1899, records the inoculation with syphilis of 8 healthy children without the consent of their parents, by Professor Neisser. Symptoms of the disease were developed in 3. A fourth was seen 3 years after the inoculation with a cerebral tumour, its direct result. The Times, January 15th, 1901, reports that the Disciplinary Court of Breslau had fined Neisser 300 marks for publishing his account of the experiments, not for the experiments themselves. In March, 1906, Neisser attempted to lecture at Stettin, but was hooted off the stage. On June 27th, 1911, the West London Medico-Surgical Society held its annual Conversazione at Kensington Town Hall. Before them Professor Neisser delivered the Cavendish lecture and was presented with the Cavendish Gold Medal for his researches and experiments. Not a syllable of protest against these proceedings appears to have been uttered by any association, or by the current medical journals.
(2) Mr. LANDIUS, speaking in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, April 29th, 1913, refers to 146 children recently inoculated with syphilitic virus, (*by Dr. Hideyo Noguchi)“through the courtesy of the various hospitals in that city.” He also mentions 8 children experimented on by spinal puncture – all died – and 15 children in St. Vincent’s House, Philadelphia, whose eyes were tested with Tuberculin, and states that some had been totally blinded.
(3) Dr. EMMET HOLT, Professor of Children’s Diseases Columbia University, New York, read a paper at the Twentieth Annual meeting of the American Pediatric Society’ (May 26th, 1908) giving details of 1,000 Tuberculin tests he had made on young children in hospital; 615 tests were on the eyes of babies, whose hands were tied during the first 12 hours, to prevent any rubbing of the eye. Dying children, were similarly tested.
(4) Dr. RODERMUND OF MILWAUKEE, in the Medical Brief, April, 1906, reports experiments on 17 youthful persons. ” I sprayed the poison of diphtheria, smallpox, etc., into the nose and throat.” ” Of course I could not let the patients know what I was doing. I was supposed to be treating them for cataracts of the nose and throat,”
Experiments upon Children and Lunatics. Dr. Walter HADWEN, J.P., of Gloucester, in the Abolitionist for January. 1914, draws attention to the ” fact that experimentation upon” the lower animals must of necessity lead to experiments upon the human species,” and gives examples upon children ; and in the same journal for March, 1916, writes of the (‘atrocious work carried on in the United States,” quoting from the Journal of Experimental Medicine, February, 1916. which is published by the notorious Rockefeller Institute. It contains a gruesome article by Dr. Udo J. Wile, from the University of Michigan, Dr. Hadwen describes that he “bored holes in the skulls of no less than 6 helpless lunatics, who were confined in the Pontiac State Hospital, using apparently only a local anaesthetic for the incisions into the scalp ” (many of us know how useless local anaesthetics are for deadening pain in most cases.)” Then a long nozzled syringe was inserted through the trephine hole into the brain of each, and a syringe full of brain contents was severally extracted.” This was used for injecting into “the two most sensitive organs” of several rabbits, and “the poor tortured ” creatures died in the course of several weeks. Dr. Hadwen adds : “‘The author of these outrages publicly ‘expresses his appreciation’ of ‘many laboratory courtesies extended- to him’ by fellow ‘vivisectors, and specially thanks Dr. Edmund Christian, under whose hospital care the poor lunatics were placed,’for the facilities he placed at his disposal ! ‘ ”
In connection with this it is well for us to remember that the American Vivisectors are welcomed over here by our own medical men, and that the Rockefeller Foundation, in 1920, gave the ” enormous sum of (US) $1,205,000 to University College Medical School and the College ” -and Vivisection is carried on there ! Abolitionist, July,1920. H. SELTER, of Leipzig, also injected ” small amounts of tubercle bacilli ” into healthy children (Deut. Med. Woch., July I7th,1925.) “Nine children developed larger or smaller nodules………one child died of influenza pneumonia .”Starry Cross Oct. . 1925,
The Lancet, June 27th,1925, refers to an “experiment in prophylaxis against tuberculosis in infants “–in 1921 and 1924 by Dr. Calmette, of the Pasteur Institute, who experimented on over 1,000 young children, and it throws serious doubts upon the supposed proof and results. Coming from the headquarters of orthodox medicine this is very welcome to anti -vivisectionists. The Obserzter November 2nd, 1924, relates that the Arbeiter-Zeitung states that ” an experiment with a new kind of serum was attempted on 36 children at a babies’ home near Vienna, with this fatal result: Six of them died of diphtheria toxin poisoning-and demands a strict examination into the case.” ” A Vienna cable to the Christian Science Monitor, June 30th, 1925, contains the announcement that the Minister of Social Welfare has issued a decree forbidding the use of toxin antitoxin as an inoculation against diphtheria. ‘The decree is an inner departmental one, based on a report of Professor Pirquet, and was sent to the Serotherapeutic Institute of Vienna. It is a strange anomaly that while one Government forbids a treatment of this kind on account of its danger, other Governments do all they can to encourage its use. (See also British Medical Journal September 26th, 1925).
Our own Ministry of Health is much to be feared in this direction, but we are glad to note that the L.C.C. has decided against the use of the test for London School children. Abolitionist, August, 1925. Work house Schools are not exempt, unfortunately; 329 pauper children under the charge of the Holborn Guardians and several hundreds at Manchester, Edinburgh and Bristol, were thus exploited. (Abolitionist, April, 1922)
Dr. Hadwen describes the Schick test as “a blood poisoning process” and as “human vivisectional experiments ” on pauper children.
(2) ‘Dr. A. T. BRAND, in a review of his recent book on Cancer (1922) is quoted as follows :
“It is most important that much should be done in experimental inoculation, and it is even more necessary that such experiments should be made on the ‘genus homo.’ No doubt there would be- a great outcry from the shrieking sisterhood of both sexes; but they should, of course, be simply ignored, for science must be permitted to pursue the calm and even tenor of her way, undisturbed and undeterred by the vapourings of irresponsible cranks.” One wonders if he would be the first to submit to inoculation with this terrible disease?’
One must take note of his reference to “shrieking sisterhood of both sexes,” which reveals a patriarchal contempt for emotion, and typical psychopathic belligerence to critics.
Francis Payton Rous, based at the Rockefeller Institute and editor of the Journal of Experimental Medicine, speaking in defense of Salk’s experiments, wrote to co-vivisector Thomas Francis:
“It may save you much trouble if you publish your paper… elsewhere than in the Journal of Experimental Medicine. The Journal is under constant scrutiny by the anti-vivisectionists who would not hesitate to play up the fact that you used for your tests human beings of a state institution. That the tests were wholly justified goes without saying.”
An investigation by the government watchdog, the state comptroller, has revealed that researchers in 10 public hospitals administered drugs, carried out unauthorised genetic testing or undertook painful surgery on patients unable to give informed consent or without obtaining health ministry approval.At one hospital, staff pierced children’s eardrums to apply an experimental medication yet to be approved in any country. At another, patients with senile dementia had their thumbprints applied to consent forms for experimental drugs…They should be stripped of their licences to practise and they should be prosecuted. If you don’t show by example that the medical profession does not accept this kind of conduct the phenomenon will go on and on.”It’s not an isolated phenomenon. It spread through different institutions.”The state comptroller, Eliezer Goldberg, found that patients were often not properly informed about the experiments they were agreeing to and, in some cases, not told at all….
A compassionate person may wonder at how such things could be-that a doctor would be in fact, a sadist. In fact, the medical profession is among those attractive to people with anti-social behavior, since it offers authority and for those without a moral compass, much opportunity to cause suffering and be paid handsomely for it.
One may consider these people (the psychopath next door) as “emotionally impaired,” and due to the long history of denouncing compassion as an illness or a weaker trait, merciless behavior is not only tolerated but celebrated if it is on the side of power. No doubt that if Nazi Germany had triumphed, Dr. Mengele would be seen as Dr Sims was, a benefactor of humanity.
That armies are mad up of men is something that has to end. Draft women into combat troops. Expose women to the same kind of dangers that men have faced throughout history. Hard labour for female convicts!
Having a designer vagina is now a medical procedure available in Nairobi.
It costs a pretty penny to tighten things down there.
At Avane Cosmetic Dermatology Clinic & Medical Spa at Yaya Centre in Hurlingham Nairobi, Dr Pancholi Jr explains that patients are first examined before being booked for the procedure.
Says the doctor: “It will cost Sh80,000 per session to undergo vagina tightening surgery, and clients undergo four sessions to complete the process. The total cost ranges between Sh250,000 and Sh300,000.
Vaginoplasty or cosmetic vaginal surgery is for women who not only desire maximum sexual pleasure, but wish to also have a vagina with an appealing look. Dr Alfred Murage, a consultant gynaecologist and fertility expert, explained that “there are several types of cosmetic surgeries that women want performed on them and one is vaginoplasty.”
Dr Murage defined it as “the cosmetic vaginal surgery aimed at tightening up a loose vagina. It is commonly combined with labiaplasty, which aims to change the appearance of the vaginal lips (labia) to a cosmetically appealing look.”
According to the doctor, there is a rising trend in surgical requests for designer vaginas. He says requests for vaginal surgical rejuvenation have become more frequent among high-profile career women looking for heightened sexual sensitivity, arousal and pleasure, while others just want to change the outward look of their private parts.
However, he warns that women should not expect miracles, since the surgical tightening of the vagina, after changes that come with childbirth and age, cannot guarantee heightened sexual response.
“Sexual desire, arousal, and orgasm are an interplay of complex mechanisms that include emotional, spiritual and interpersonal factors; and not just aesthetics. In addition, women’s genitals have a wide range of natural appearances, and no single look can be labelled as better or more appealing,” says the medic.
He notes that even though it can improve a woman’s self-esteem, confidence and sexual performance, risks still abound - such as infections, permanent changes in sensation, pain and scarring. Vaginoplasty, like any other invasive medical procedure, can go wrong and therefore going for it blindly could cause regrets in future.
Feminist rule in Europe makes second-generation male Muslim immigrants suicide bombers. They die for sexual justice. Why do Western politicians call suicide bombers cowards? To sacrifice one's own life is the ultimate in courage.
Food Safety News
BY NEWS DESK | MAY 26, 2017
An apparently healthy US consumer has died after consuming a standard dosage of Coverflo, an instant coffee marketed as a “natural herbal” aphrodisiac. In an urgent effort to prevent further fatalities, the is now a recall nationwide. An FDA investigation found that this alleged tongkat ali, like many others originating in Singapore, contains uncontrolled amounts of prescription drugs chemicals for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.
In recent months, more than 20 men have died in China, India, Southeast Asia, and Africa after consuming fake tongkat ali that actually contained uncontrolled amounts of homelab-fabricated prescription drugs. All item originated from Singapore, where the mixing of prescription drugs into food supplements is not illegal as long as they are sold abroad.
The internet retailer Amazon has been flooded with Singaporean products claiming to be tongkat ali by distributors such as "Pure Science Supplements" and "RealHerbs". Another Singaporean outfit for what is claimed to be tongkat ali was named "Herbolab".
Caverflo.com posted the recall of 25-gram packets of “Caverflo Natural Herbal Coffee” Thursday with the Food and Drug Administration.
“Caverflo.com has received a report of an individual death after use of the coffee. Caverflo Natural Herbal Coffee may also contain undeclared milk.”
The product is a combination of instant coffee and natural aphrodisiacs, according to the Caverflo website, but the recall notice warned the product can interact with prescription medications. Also, people who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk could have an allergic reaction if they consume the instant coffee.
“These undeclared ingredients may interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs, such as nitroglycerin, and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels. Men with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates,” according to the recall notice.
The company distributed the instant coffee direct to consumers nationwide via internet sales from August 2016 through February this year. Caverflo is notifying customers of the recall by email.
“Consumers that have Caverflo Natural Herbal Coffee which is being recalled should stop using (it), discard (it) and contact their doctor,” according to the recall notice.
30 percent of all Chinese men suffer from a certain medical condition which actually is a birth defect, and which is called a micropenis (less than 1 inch). This is why the Chinese are so good in making money. They have to be good for something.
95 percent of the victims of work accidents are men. Because women are cowards, and just want to rule from behind.
San Diego Free Press
DECEMBER 26, 2016 BY SOURCE
Maybe the real problem is a lack of positive paths to manhood
It wasn’t supposed to turn out like this. We were said to be approaching the demise of a certain type of swaggering, predatory masculinity: let’s call him Homo Obnoxious.
As men like Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, Anthony Weiner, and Billy Bush scrambled unsuccessfully to find cover in the old-boy bastions of privilege, Homo Obnoxious appeared to be lumbering around like a dinosaur under the weight of his own cultural baggage. His habitat was shrinking: it seemed as if men who defined themselves by devaluing women, putting down men who didn’t think like them and treating sexual relations — and most everything else — as power-tripping performances might be ready for mounting in a Museum of Masculinity Past.
Books like Hanna Rosin’s The End of Men hailed an era in which women, and men of a different mold, would rapidly pull ahead in every arena. In The Future of Men: Masculinity in the Twenty-First Century, Jack Myers heralded a seismic shift in human relations. “We are entering a new age of female dominance and a reshaping of the male psyche, the male libido, and the male ego,” Myers wrote. “This is the new reality, and it will gain greater and greater momentum. Nothing in the history of humanity can prepare us for this newly upside-down world.”
Reality check: Homo Obnoxious is moving into the White House. The world is upside-down, but not for the reasons Myers anticipated.
The president-elect is signaling to boys across the country what it means to be a successful man. He gets more thuggish with each passing day, appointing knuckle-dragging members of his tribe to run the country. Meanwhile, alt-right dudes who cope with masculine anxiety by proclaiming superiority over women and people of color are feeling validated, enjoying influence they could hardly dream of a year ago. As one self-identified “neomasculine” blogger put it, “I’m in a state of exuberance that we now have a President who rates women on a 1-10 scale in the same way that we do and evaluates women by their appearance and feminine attitude.”
Yikes. But before we concede that toxic masculinity has suddenly reasserted itself as the dominant force in the cultural universe, let’s pause to take a breath. Let’s admit, for example, that although arenas of male experiences differ depending on where you live and how much money you have, Homo Obnoxious was never just a creature of any one party, class or region. The truth is that he is nurtured at every stage of an American boy’s journey into manhood, and without trying to understand what our society does to promote his development and how boys and men might be persuaded to reject his allure, he will continue his rampage across the land.
Let’s take a look at three breeding grounds where Homo Obnoxious cuts his teeth.
So many have a story like mine. It was a day soon after I had transferred to a new public high school in North Carolina. Two popular senior boys — baseball stars on a winning team — approached me across a crowded stair landing. I smiled, then felt rough hands shove me against the wall as the two sang obscene lyrics in my ear. That was not the last or the most violent encounter I had with Homo Obnoxious-in-training during my education.
Aggressive misogyny, of course, permeates many school sports teams, as the recent case of the men’s soccer team at Harvard illustrates. There, at America’s most hallowed university, a spreadsheet compiled by male players portraying members of the women’s team in degrading sexual terms was brought to light. A student explained the commonplace nature of the behavior to the New York Times: “I think Donald Trump is so extreme that we like to believe that these extreme incidents of sexism and discrimination are, like, isolated to him,” he said. “But it’s important to recognize that they’re just as rampant in our generation.”
Responding to recent revelations of decades-long sex abuse by both faculty and students at St. Georges, a New England prep school where Billy Bush was an ice hockey star, a former student described the warped sexual atmosphere and lack of guidance from adults in a letter to the rector of St. Paul’s, another elite prep school where a tradition of predatory sexual competition bred danger:
“I went to St. George’s School in the ’80s and am a heterosexual, success-oriented, competitive guy. I remember being self-conscious about my not getting any action while some of my male friends got tons. I felt less-than, like a loser when it came to girls and sex…Nowhere in my development …did any adult ever reinforce in me that it is all right to go at your own pace, that sex isn’t competition. The cultural norm was that sex was another place to be competitive, where you could be classified as a winner or a loser.”
Let’s think about that. When competition is the preferred mode of group interaction, it’s no wonder boys end up stuck with obsessions about the number of their sexual encounters and a tendency to degrade the objects of their pursuits.
In A Bigger Prize: Why Competition Isn’t Everything And How We Do Better, Margaret Heffernan discusses the destructive role that competition plays in American education and how it turns kids off of many potentially valuable collaborative activities. A large percentage end up not wanting to participate anything, including sports, in which being the winner or loser is everything.
Heffernan points out that if we teach kids that success is all about individual performance, they grow up to be what she calls “heroic soloists.” In relating to others, they tend to focus on what’s in it for them, suppressing the instinct to be generous or share credit or empathy. Our president-elect, steeped in the values of self-interest capitalism and competition in everything from football and beauty pageants to reality TV tournaments, is the epitome of a heroic soloist — one who has been rewarded richly in celebrity, power and money.
Teaching kids the value of creative collaboration and offering rational guidance on sexuality or gender relations at school has to be a part of cultivating a different path to manhood. American sex education, for example, if it is taught at all, often consists of either shaming abstinence lessons or alarming medical discussions of STDs and pregnancy, with little acknowledgment of the need to develop compassionate ways to express sexuality or the importance of challenging sexual stereotypes in media and culture. It doesn’t have to be that way; in a New York Times op-ed, Pamela Druckerman highlighted how topics like the complexity of love are openly discussed in French sex-ed, while Dutch teachers work to inculcate respect for people who don’t fit traditional sexual and gender molds.
If they don’t have blueprints of masculinity that allow for confidence and strength without domination in the playground and in the classroom, boys grow up thinking that a hero is somebody who is in everything solely for himself. This does not mean that we send male students to re-education boot camps, as certain right-wing pundits have warned is the true agenda of coastal elites. It means that adults take it upon themselves to guide students, whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity, in imagining ways of being men that are not destructive to themselves and others. It means not shaming them because they are male, but rather encouraging them to develop pride in characteristics and values that are socially beneficial, like putting others before themselves, honesty and strength in caring and self-restraint. That would be a start.
When I arrived at the University of Georgia in 1988, a sophomore from my hometown issued a helpful warning not to ever hook up in a certain popular fraternity house. The guys, I was informed, videotaped girls through holes in the walls and watched the tapes together on Sunday morning. This foreshadowing of the age of digital shaming and abuse was my introduction to the group norms associated with Greek life. Some misogynist rituals were performed under the radar, but others were out in the open and normalized, from parties where lists trashing women in sexual terms were posted on walls to “mixers” with sororities in which fraternity guys inscribed phalluses and misogynist phrases on the T-shirts of freshman girls.
There is nothing wrong with guys wanting to hang out, share common interests and form lasting social bonds with one another. But as young men begin to leave home, there aren’t enough opportunities for them to do this in a way that breeds healthy, socially responsible attitudes and behavior. Beyond the sports field, college fraternities are another place where antisocial activity is too often the norm, a lot of it targeting women. The “Animal House” frat image grounded in the degradation of women, based on fraternity life at Dartmouth in the 1960s, has been ascendant for decades, linking manliness to out-drinking peers and egging them on in sexual exploits. (Was Donald Trump in a fraternity? Of course: he was a Phi Gam at Fordham.)
The negative image is based in reality. On alcohol consumption, a U.S. Department of Education’s Higher Education Center survey shows that 75 percent of fraternity members engaged in heavy drinking, compared with 49 percent of other male students. Some — including many college presidents — have argued that since the drinking age was raised to 21, alcohol consumption has gone undercover, causing students to associate drinking with transgression and pushing it far from the supervision of older adults and more open social events. Lowering the drinking age, they suggest, might bring alcohol back into a more normalized atmosphere where students mix with older adults in supervisory roles, thus obviating the need for secretive binge-drinking and its attendant hazards and regression.
Some say fraternities should accept girls, and in a few cases, colleges have banned frats altogether, arguing that they are obsolete. At Amherst in Massachusetts, where fraternities were prohibited in 2014, students and faculty have discussed ways to create social groups that get rid of some of the destructive things associated with fraternities while providing the cohesiveness and sense of belonging that make them attractive, like residential communities with selective membership centered around a particular theme.
This is all well and good, but how likely is it to spread into regions of the country far flung from elite coastal universities? Places where fraternities have emerged as a way of attracting less affluent students to college with the promise of bonding and bacchanalia, to be translated into fundraising dollars after graduation?
College men — and young men who don’t go to college —need to have positive narratives that allow them to feel good about being men and being men together. Challenging sexual assault is important, but they need to learn much more than “no means no”: they need guidance in emotional honesty and intimacy, the challenges of navigating relationships and masculine ideals to strive for in which cultivating large numbers of women as hookups and drinking into oblivion are not the marks of masculine status. Beyond this, they need to see that life offers them more than the prospect of being a loser in the workforce that awaits them when schooling is done, and they also need opportunities to see that work in areas like caregiving, for example, are rich in positive masculine values. When a male nurse can be viewed as stronger and sexier than a Wall Street parasite, we will have gotten somewhere.
Popular culture reflects a hunger for a vision of masculinity that rejects Homo Obnoxious. Jesse Pinkman, the young meth cook in the TV series Breaking Bad, illustrates the despair of recession-era young men without decent job prospects who search for status, meaning, and self-worth. There’s a lot wrong with Jesse, but in his evolution as a character we see his growing resolve to form intimate, caring bonds with the women in his life and the men in his posse, too. The blockbuster franchise Fast and Furious shows the need for even the most testosterone-driven men — racecar drivers in this case — to develop respect and lasting relationships with the men and women in their social group.
These fictional guys hunt for alternatives to a brutal, global capitalist system that casts them as losers. They want to find the dignity that dissolves when we mire them in student debt, consign them to dead-end jobs and say, Oh well, globalization happens. If we continue to do this, they will bond together in ways that can quickly become dangerous to society as a whole, and they will look for outsider narratives that offer something more that the empty promise of upward mobility currently on offer from politicians who think that the paltry social safety net and worker protections currently in place are over-generous (politicians from both major parties). Sometimes, in the case of the white supremacist groups that have begun to creep out of the woodwork, that something will be very scary.
There has been a lot of recent research on how online porn and video games are helping to inculcate alienation and destructive patterns in boys and young men. Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo’s book Man (Dis)Connected): How Technology has Sabotaged What it Means to be Male provides insight onto how Homo Obnoxious gets his brain wired.
Zimbardo discusses how young male brains can become shaped at a cellular level in ways that inhibit their social development through excessive time spent on gaming and porn, even losing their ability to read the social cues of face-to-face contact. Many, he points out, are drawn to these realms as a seemingly safe and easy way to gain a sense of achievement that may not be available in the winner-take-all competition of school and the workforce. These virtual worlds are tailored to provide an addictive system of goals and rewards that produce guys who are afraid of intimacy. They end up eschewing real-world experiments that might result in rejection, and real-time spontaneity that leaves them disoriented and frightened. Drained of self-confidence, they search for narratives of manhood that provide at least the simulacrum of power and dignity.
Some go on to find self-help, intellectual and political forums online collectively termed “the manosphere.” Some of this has merged with the recently designated “alt-right.” In the more benign forums, we find guys like mild-mannered Brian Begin, co-founder of Fearless Man website, who invites guys to join a brotherhood of men who have learned the secret of confidence and self-love. A shy video gamer who found himself working in a miserable office cubicle and unable to talk to women, Begin eventually threw away his games and launched a self-help journey that revealed to him he needed to learn to “feel” — to experience emotions at a deep, visceral level and connect to others despite fear of rejection. Although Begin’s quest for dignified masculinity rests in part on the fantasy of making piles of money and dating beautiful women, his hunger for self-esteem and the experience of genuine emotion seems real, as does his impulse to see women as something other than a collection of body parts. He doesn’t want to be a nervous “beta” male, and while much of his rhetoric is traditionalist and half-baked, he is on to something in pointing to the critical need for connection. In his workshops, the first thing he does is to hug the men who participate.
Unfortunately, much in the manosphere openly promotes the far more noxious stuff, like sexual predation in the pickup community, where guys give each other creepy tips on “mind-controlling” women and duping them into sex. Other sites, like Mensactivism, boil with anger at feminists and take a paranoid stance against what they imagine is an epidemic of false rape claims and women who will take advantage of them at every opportunity. Mensactivism buzzes with articles like “Men are the downtrodden sex” and blogs expressing hope that a Trump presidency “could radically change colleges’ response to sexual assault.” In these sites, loneliness and fear are vented as rage — the rage that comes when people don’t know what to do with their suffering.
Yet for all the bluster and bullying on such sites, you don’t have to dig far to find clues to what is bothering these young men so profoundly at their core. The blogger who likes Trump’s rating system for women asks a series of questions in a meditation on so-called neomasculinity, which despite its name, is mostly a throwback to outdated myths of male superiority: “What code of morality or principles should guide men in their daily lives? Is there a deeper life meaning that can help us set better goals?” The answers he comes up with may be bitter and sad, but the questions themselves are not stupid, and they point to a lack of compass to give direction. Online, the lost boys find each other, making up the missing codes themselves out of a mixture of bravado, hurt and bitterness.
The road ahead
When I sat down to write this article just after Trump’s election, I felt angry and confused swallowing the reality that the country is going to be led by a man who brags about sexual assault. But gradually, I’ve come to feel something else, a sense that the Trump election may in part be a sign that a giant population of American men — particularly the Trump voters but also men across regions and classes — are in turmoil, and that most are looking for a way out. If we simply shout them down and disparage them, we can be pretty sure that the worst among them, the already-committed members of Tribe Homo Obnoxious, will gain strength, not lose it. Some are likely already too far down the road of hate for redemption, but I believe these are a small minority. The rest are struggling, watching, looking for signs, searching for stories that might give them a sense of a more positive path ahead.
Over Thanksgiving, I attended Sunday services at a conservative Southern Baptist megachurch in Raleigh, North Carolina, partly because I wanted to hear and see for myself what men in that context were thinking and talking about it — men who were the most likely in town to have voted for Trump. If I were to believe the assumptions of some of my liberal friends in New York, where I currently live, they would be spewing racial hatred, misogyny and homophobia — a seething collection of “toothless rednecks,” as one New Yorker put it on my Facebook page.
That’s not what I heard. The sermon was delivered by a young minister with the demeanor of a kindly basketball coach, one who was not afraid of emotions and wept at times as he spoke. His message, it seemed to me, was tailored to deliver balm to the heart of hurt manhood. God was the benign father and Christ was a brother — even a lover — who valued those gathered so deeply he would give his life for them. Men were presented as the ones who went out into the world while moms stayed home, a 1950s trope to be sure, but they were also asked to give up their self-centeredness, their narcissism. The minister urged them to see power as something that could be used to confront their own shortcomings, to serve and protect others. The solo adventurer was not vaunted here. Trump was not the emblem of the kind of masculinity valued here.
As much as I reject his outdated gender framework, the minister appeared a man with whom I shared some basic concerns—about the allure of consumerism, for example. He was not an alien, but a person trying to confront the ills of modern society, many of which bother me as much as him, though our emphasis and answers are different.
Men are confused, and how could they not be? Ever since the 1950s brought women into the workforce en masse, and the Pill released them from reproductive shackles in the ‘60s, a profound change in human relations has been happening in painful fits and starts. In the grand scheme of history, a few decades is an incredibly short amount of time to adjust to such a cataclysm. No wonder we’re still flailing about trying to figure out how to cope. Identity, expectations, culture and hormones are a complex dance. Social construction is a dynamic process, and hardly linear.
And let’s face it: Hillary Clinton’s election was not likely to bring a great gender renaissance in America, or any kind of renaissance for that matter. If Clinton were on her way to the White House, there is much reason to believe that ordinary men — and women— would see little improvements in their lives. That would be the case as long as those in charge are stuck in paradigms of dysfunctional capitalism and neoliberal blindness. Anger would continue to fester, and many working-class white men, in particular, would become even more entrenched in their reactionary rage.
As America’s boys see Trump acting out, some will feel their own worst instincts validated. But for others, the idea of “being a man” might mean distancing themselves from his kind of behavior. I do believe that men—and women—are less likely to assert power by denigrating and dominating others when they have a sense of real agency in their lives. It may not be helpful to talk about the end of men, or the rising dominance of women, but rather to remember that for all of us—men, women and transgender—our ability to manifest prosocial behavior depends a lot on having a sense of power and purpose in our lives. Growing inequality, the gig economy, strangling oligopolies, widespread poverty, a shrinking middle class, and government policies geared to appease the rich do not promote this outcome.
For those who reject Donald Trump, figuring out how to achieve a better life for everyone in our society instead of condemning “deplorables” is, in my opinion, a more productive way to go. The co-creation of a more peaceful and fulfilling world requires our most dedicated efforts in imagination, connection and listening to those who do not share our particular vision. Homo Obnoxious will only have the last word if we forget our common humanity.
It is only a question of time until butea superba will be outlawed in the Western World. In some people, it can cause hypersexualization that can last for weeks. And it can easily be added to food to improve taste. Imagine a Thai restaurant breeding hundreds of super horney women prowling for any man they can get, and that for weeks on end.
As a follow up to my last article about the possibility of immortality through computers, I thought it would be good to discuss all the incredible feedback and expand on the possibility of immortality/life preservation even further.
Incase you missed it, I discussed the possibility of immortality by uploading ones mind onto a computer/robotic system. After posting that and receiving the mass of feedback both supporting and critiquing the concept, I began to think even more about the possibility of preserving ones mind beyond the lifespan of it’s bodily limits.
Certainly moving ones mind to a computer may seem possible, but many brought up the great point that I touched on at the end of my previous article. Even though a computer may have your memories and function as you do, the transfer of your ‘consciousness’ might not actually survive. Simply leaving a copy of you that has not preserved your true self. The reasoning behind this is that a brains function is not only reliant on a type of copiable coded information, but also on a very intricate chemical/physical structure that only the human brain has. We can’t be sure if a consciousness requires this physical and chemical make-up to exist, but assuming it does, uploading onto a computer does not seem like a true way of achieving “immortality”. It’s simply passing along your likeness to a machine.
So continuing with the assumption that our brains are so unique that a consciousness can’t exist without them. How do we live forever? Many would just stop there and say we can’t, but anything is possible within the laws of the universe (which we aren’t even close to fully understanding). So let’s figure out a way to preserve our minds without a computer…If your consciousness relies on a body to exist, what do we need? Notice how I said ‘a’ body. Not ‘your’ body. Theoretically, the mind only requires a means to exist, i.e. a brain and something to keep that brain alive (pumping blood and oxygen to it). The actual existing of a consciousness all comes down to the processing, analyzing and storing of information/data. So this means that we don’t need OUR specific body/brain to exist. Granted our bodies are made according to our DNA which does have a big impact on who we are; our actual consciousness is relatively separate. The French philosopher René Descartes, famous for his quote “Cogito ergo sum. (I think, therefore I am)” had the opinion that our thoughts, personalities and minds are mostly divorced from our bodies.
Descartes and other dualist philosophers propose that while the mind exerts control over our physical interaction with the world, there is a clear delineation between body and mind; that our material forms are simply temporary housing for our immaterial souls. – Scientific American
With that said, a recent study has shown that our minds actually are connected to our bodies. Suggesting that our state of mind can actually change the build up of our DNA based on how we use it.
he body and mind appear inextricably linked. And findings from a new study published in Cancer by a Canadian group suggest that our mental state has measurable physical influence on us – more specifically on our DNA. – Scientific American
The study shows that in breast cancer patients, practicing mindfulness meditation and attending support groups actually preserves the length of our DNA’s telomeres. While there are no specific diseases caused by shortened telomeres, people with cancer and similar diseases tend to have shorter more withered ones.
While mind/consciousness may have an affect on your DNA, this doesn’t mean we need our specific body to survive. This just means that our mind has an impact on the body it is utilizing. So where does this leave us when it comes to preserving our consciousness?
Well…it leaves us with a few options. We either need a fresh body/brain to transfer our current consciousness to, a fresh brain that can exist without a body, or we need to be able to keep our existing brain from deteriorating. Perhaps putting it into a machine that can keep it living and functioning.
Let’s start with the first option, a fresh body/brain. With all the recent advancements in the growing and 3d printing of body parts and organs, it is inevitable that we will eventually be able to successfully generate a perfectly engineered human body. It’s just going to happen. We can currently grow limbs and multiple different functioning organs using a receiving patients own cells. This means that there is no chance of rejection. It’s only a matter of time that we will be able to print a fully functioning human body and brain.
We can take cells from you, create the structure, put it right back into you, they will not reject. And if possible, we’d rather use the cells from your very specific organ. If you present with a diseased wind pipe we’d like to take cells from your windpipe. If you present with a diseased pancreas we’d like to take cells from that organ. – Anthony Atala
We obviously don’t know when this technology will advance to the bio engineering of full human bodies, but there is no doubt in my mind that it will be possible. So what happens when we can grow a complete, functioning human body and brain? Well, we need a consciousness to insert into it. Theoretically, inserting ones mind into a new brain would work. Bringing the person being transferred to life in the new body. The only factor we don’t understand at this point is the physical transferring of the consciousness. But it’s not hard at all to imagine there being a way to move the electrical signals that make up your consciousness/ mind to a new brain that has been constructed using your cells. But it’s currently not understood how. This is where companies like Humai come in. Leading me smoothly into the second option of having a machine that can contain a human mind and keep it alive and functioning.
We’re using artificial intelligence and nanotechnology to store data of conversational styles, behavioral patterns, thought processes and information about how your body functions from the inside-out. This data will be coded into multiple sensor technologies, which will be built into an artificial body with the brain of a deceased human. – Josh Bocanegra, Founder of Humai
Obviously facing significant challenges, i.e. resurrecting a deceased brain and wiring it up as to control a silicon-based machine; Josh Bocanegra and Humai aim to make all this a reality. Popsci was able to interview him and discuss some of the challenges facing the process.
Our mission is fairly simple to understand but obviously difficult to execute. We’ll first collect extensive data on our members for years prior to their death via various apps we’re developing. After death we’ll freeze the brain using cryonics technology. When the technology is fully developed we’ll implant the brain into an artificial body. The artificial body functions will be controlled with your thoughts by measuring brain waves. – Josh Bocanegra
While this may sound like what I discussed in my last article, it’s actually quite different and nixes out the problem of only creating a copy of your likeness. Josh Bocanegra wants to develop a silicon based robotic body, and then insert/connect the actual human brain to it.
This would not require any movement of ones consciousness, just a system that can keep it alive and functioning. Pretty much like the heads in Futurama. Then the only problematic factor is combating brain age/decay (my third point), which Josh claims will be possible using nano and cloning technology to repair cells.
As the brain ages we’ll use nanotechnology to repair and improve cells. Cloning technology is going to help with this too. – Josh Bocanegra
Does this sound like a viable option for sustained life if not “immortality”? With no actual transferring/copying of the brains consciousness, there is no possibility of the resurrected brain being a copy. It will HAVE to be that person, assuming the brain wakes up.
We believe we can resurrect the first human within 30 years. – Josh Bocanegra
First tests will have to be done on a recently dead person, as we still do not know if freezing a mind for a long period of time will actually preserve ones self without memory and function loss. If we were to transplant a brain from a recently deceased person into a machine possessing all necessary elements to keep the brain alive, why wouldn’t it work? If it’s transferred within the 6-10 minute window before the brain begins to die, there is no evidence to show that it wouldn’t work. Long term freezing doesn’t seem far fetched either, with certain surgical procedures keeping people in a clinically dead state for over 30 minutes with no negative effects.
During certain surgical procedures, patients are routinely held in a clinically dead state at temperatures between +12°C and +18°C for 30 minutes or more with no brain electrical activity and later wake with memories intact. Retention of memory has also been proven in other large mammals after cooling to +10°C, three hours of clinical death at +3°C. – Cryonics Wikipedia
While this is all still in it’s very early stages and mostly speculation based on evidence at hand, there have been such great advances in bioengineering that some of it seems extremely plausible. While the actual transferring of someone’s mind (whether it be to a new body or computer) seems to have it’s flaws until we full understand how the mind functions. Preserving/moving a brain to a body and or machine seems more plausible than ever. The first human head transplant is on schedule to take place in 2017. The doctor who is planning on attempting it already has a willing patient. He has successfully fixed severed spinal cords in mice and has even made a successful head transplant with a monkey.
Once we’ve successfully transplanted a human head, we will begin to better understand the signals sent from the brain and how to reconnect them. This will in turn lead to the possibility of connecting a brain and/or head to not only a new body, but a machine, as Humai hopes to do.
So what do you think? Will we be able to grow a human brain/body and succesfully transfer someones mind to it, or will we need to create a machine and attempt to preserve our current mind. Is Humai’s claim of 30 years too human resurrection on a machine too ambitious? Let us know.
As long as you can fall in love again with a beautiful young woman, you will never die. That is the power of butea superba.
Home | Index of articles