JovialMicrobial

joined 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 days ago (4 children)

I'm married to a man the same height as me. Absolutely zero regrets. He's kind and funny, and my favorite person.

The only thing I'm slightly jealous of is that I might not be able to wear my husband's ribcage as armor should I outlive him the way that women with taller husband's can. But that's life! I love my husband more than I desire widow armor.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I think both kinda sound equally weird because we for a lot of words like astronaut, the astronaut is already assumed to be male unless otherwise indicated. So male astronauts or man astronauts both sound clunky and kinda weird, and the weirdness translates over when you start indicating the astronaut is a woman by saying "woman astronaut" or "female astronaut."

The English language, and historical baggage just kinda fucked us on this one. We used to add 'ess' to the ends of words to indicate gender, but that was dropped outside of the use of waitress or actress for the most part. Not sure why that stopped, but I'm sure it's interesting and I'm going to go look it up later.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Okay, this is off topic, but when did the media start photoshopping Trump's hard water stained hair from yellow to white? I almost didnt recognize him.

Also, people need to realize that Trump goes through scape goats like paper towels. Need a group to blame for something? Choose from a list of people white supremacists hate.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Really? Because I recall the first woman hung in Salem for witchcraft was hung because being unable to say the Lord's prayer in english(she spoke gaelic) means you're a witch.

I wonder which one is canonically correct? Can the devil say bible words or not? Or is it specifically the lords prayer? Because if that's it then we can prove we ARENT the devil.

I hate religious rhetoric so much. My brain hurts now trying to make it make sense.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

My old early 2000s Ford focus that had manual windows and locks died a few years ago. I miss that car, but towards the end every door handle broke and only the back passenger door opened from the outside... which means I always I had to leave a window down(no key hole on that door) or climb through the trunk.

Unfortunately Ford decided to make car doors using a tiny piece of plastic that holds the wire that moves when you pull the handle. When that breaks the handle goes limp and does nothing. But you can't just replace that piece of plastic... nope. You have to buy a whole new internal mechanism.

Like i said that car died finally, but I'm still salty about the doors. Those broke one at a time about 5-10 years before the engine went. Anyway, sorry about the rant. I loved my not electric windows and doors, but never expected that issue with it down the road.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That guy sucks for keeping wild animals without the proper certification and training resulting in no medical care for the animals.

At the same time I'm also skeptical of how the state handled it because I feel it's important to remember that policies and how situations are handled can always use improvement.

For example, how did the investigator get bitten? Were they wearing proper protective gear and following procedure? Was he or she properly trained to detain animals like a squirrel? If the state is going to send people to confiscate wild animals a bite incident is a big fucking deal and there should be an internal investigation as to how that happened. For both the future safety of the employees and animals.

This whole situation sucks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Do people really buy new phones every year? I keep mine for a minimum of 4-5 years and always have. I had one for so long that it was no longer supported and I was forced to upgrade.

I guess I just never paid attention to how often other people get new phones, but every year seems excessive.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh wow.... that's way worse than I thought.

Yet another ridiculous antiscience crusade preying on people's insecurities and desire for easy answers and solutions.

And there's gotta be grifters pushing this bullshit and profiting off it via books, online classes or YouTube channels. There always are and they're always really fucking weird.

Anyway...Thanks for taking the time to explain! I really appreciate it!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Hope you dont mind my random internet culture question...but whats the deal with the anti fapping guys? I dismissed the whole thing as meme and didn't pay much attention and missed something.

I thought prostate health and it's relation to regular ejaculations was common medical knowledge so I'm confused as hell.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago

The part in Drop Dead Fred where Elizabeth's best friend's house boat sinks and she gets rich off the insurance payout. That's not how that works unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I wanted to find that article before I responded to you, but like I said it read about 10 years ago and not having much luck finding it.

But yes wetnurses were available to all women because not all women can produce breast milk.

If one poor woman's baby is starving it was not uncommon for a friend or sister to fulfill that role to help them. Women were pregnant more frequently due to no birthcontrol. So a woman lactating was more common. However they weren't hiring a wet nurse in the same way the wealthy were, and if a poor woman could feed her baby she would. A rich woman(almost) always hired a wet nurse regardless of her ability to produce milk.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I read once that it had more to do with not seeing wealthy women's nipples. For example wealthy women would hire a wet nurse to breast feed their babies. It was a way to show off wealth and social standing. So the hired help in the form of a wet nurse could show her breasts, but her wealthy employer would not because its beneath her.

So not showing breasts, even for the purpose of breast feeding became affiliated with wealth and power, whereas the inverse was true, showing breasts meant you could not afford to keep them covered.

And that's not even including the influence of brothels and prostitution.

Let that cook for however many hundreds of years, mix in religion and you get whatever the fuck we have now.

It was an interesting theory and seemed to make sense to me. I'll have to try to find the article later. I read it maybe 10 years ago so it might take some looking.

view more: ‹ prev next ›