Average Korean face

In a show in SBS(Seoul Broadcasting System) it was shown what the computer generated result of the average korean girl - in their 20s - looks like, based on several different faces of real women.
Here is the result.



Now compare this to the 3D beauty, of what koreans consider beautiful.

Its quite a difference here. Mostly it has to do with the eyes...
In the show the director of the Institute of the study of faces in Hannam University said " 68% of korean women do not have double eye lids, which is the highest percentage in the world"... when asked, then why one could see so many women with double eye lids on the street... he answered "well, that means that there are that many people who have had surgery done" source Hani jooltong.

OMG I was bleeding all this time for no reason?

Okay. Here's a shocker. no seriously, I'm also not the type to get shocked easily, but this one truly is a shock that feels like a blow to one's head.
Brace yourself-- btw I'm talking to women here, and men who are interested -- we, human females do not necessarily have to bleed (too much) during our menstruation.
I know, you're there thinking "what the f*** does that mean?!" Of course we bleed because the lining of the uterus is shed!!.. right? Or does it really have to be like that?? Thanks to Ollique's blog I've found this piece of information.

"During the days before a woman ovulates, the lining of the womb - the endometrium - thickens in preparation for a possible conception. If the egg released at ovulation passes through the womb unfertilized, the thickened endometrial tissues are not needed - and in a truly healthy woman, as in animals in their wild state, those tissues are mostly reabsorbed. What remains is expelled over a short period of time as a slight mucus discharge (2:28-29; 15:227)."

source

Apparently, other wild animals do not shed massive amount of blood as we do, but rather reabsorb the lining back into their systems (source 1), (source2).

This site argues that the reason human being, and other domesticated animals have heavier flows is due to our diet, too much protein and lack of other substances. Others consider light flow menstruation a sign of illness, or drug side effects.

However, it does make me wonder, if I can really decrease the flow of my period without becoming ill, and on top of that not have cramps, that would be revolutionary. I think I will gain at least 12 if not 24 more days of my life per year!, where I can be productive and do something other than lie in bed grabbing my tummy, due to the intolerable pain. Also then could I avoid the effort of changing pads/tampons, being scared that it will leak, which it always does!, and not being able to sleep through cuz of the heavy flow - sorry for the graphical depictions here.

I can't go too much into this, but will keep you up to date with all my new findings.

But while I'm on the topic, I would also like to introduce to you a couple of more things. While I'm on the sustainable living roll these days, here are a couple of ways to not kill too many trees and not fill our planet with large amounts of non-biodegradable waste.

Lunapads: pads made of cloth - nicer feeling - which could be reused after washing.
(they also sell those devices which allow you to pee standing up called Pstyle).

Mooncups: its the reusable tampons, so to say, made of silicon, it collects menstrual blood rather than absorbing it. Also, you don't need to change it as often because, the Mooncup will hold 30ml of fluid, which is roughly one third of the average total produced each period, which is approximately 80mL.



But of course you won't even need these if you were to not bleed...

Women decide on what to buy

says the economist...

"In America, where female consumers make more than 80% of discretionary purchases...They buy 90% of food, 55% of consumer electronics, and most of the new cars... "

the result??


we rule.

The fat meat eaters are killing our planet!!

The obese are being targeted as one of the suspects for increasing carbon emission...

"Population fatness has an environmental impact," said Phil Edwards, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "We're all being told to stay fit and keep our weight down because it's good for our health. The important thing is that staying slim is good for your health and for the health of the planet."

and for the UK

"due to the increased number of people today who are overweight, the UK consumes 19% more food than it did 40 years ago, which equates to an extra 60 mega tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year. It also included the extra transport-related emissions caused by the increased obesity."

In addition, the meat eaters are killing our earth

"Last September the world's leading authority on climate change suggested the people should eat less meat, because meat production causes 20% of global emissions."

In my opinion the whole issue with taxing or discriminating the obese or overweight - including in flights- depends how much of individual choice is involved in becoming obese. How many obese actually do choose to be obese, and when does this choice begin? What if you were "nurtured" into being obese. This is an important issue, since depending on this would we be able to consider the obese either the same as, smokers, most cases individual choice and fault, or on the other hand, disabled people, most cases not through one’s choice nor fault.

On the other hand, I think one of the best way to overcome this problem is to make the fatty foods, that lead directly or indirectly to carbon emission - expensive through taxation. Thus, encourage people to eat healthy not through the use of taxing the people directly, but making incentives to eat healthy. Making organic fresh veggies – cheaper and more accessible than what it is now, where they are the most expensive item in the supermarket.

Whereas make food products that directly produce more carbon emissions in their production process – such as meat, as mentioned in the article - and food that indirectly can lead to more costs may it be carbon emissions or health costs, due to the problems it may cause to the individual’s health – such as sweets and fatty foods -more expensive through taxation on two accounts 1) carbon emission throughout the production of the food item and 2) health implications of the food to individuals, not only in the short-term but also in the longer-term.

Of course governments will be reluctant to do this, because it is regulating the market and increasing taxes for them, which all politicians hate to do. In addition, such measures have to be done in collaboration throughout the world, since we need to regulate the whole process of food production to retail. Since world's food production is also becoming more and more globalized, the world has to work together to tackle this issue to examine/regulate the whole chain of food production, but also to make sure there will not be any competitions between countries in trying to save their own food production groups, while enforcing stricter rules on others.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more read guardian article and this on the UK and how we should think of taxing the obese for this reason

17.8 or more....

I really wanted to stop writing about penises...
seriously

however, there are so many funny stuff on line, its impossible for me to stop!!

Here is something for the ladies... so to say.

Its a dating site for those women, who can't be bothered to actually go on a date, pretend to be interested in what men have to say, when all they want is a 18cm...

7 or Better

"take the guess work out of dating"

yes 7inches is 17.8cms... (above any country's average...)
Search credits to Bundestrendscout.

female orgasm passed for tv

This is a new commercial that would be played in british telly before 11pm.
shows women of all races and classes having various sorts of orgasms from various sources.

This would never pass in the us telly.. me thinks.

Shut it men, you still do less household chores! here's the proof

I don't know how many of you men out there believe that you do your "fair share" of house chores.
Well I will tell you now... shut it, you just have no idea how many hours we women put in.
It could be the case that, when a man lives with a woman, his hours of domestic work may actually increase slightly due to the enhanced strictness of defining what "clean" is or what "liveable" actually means. However, you guys NEVER put as much hours as well do -- in average. I, as a social scientist, always believe that there is diversity between humans and people...so there could be differences depending on the guy and girl. HOWEVER, its still the woman who is and feels responsible for the daily household chores due to that they- both men and women- have seen their mothers do it all throughout their lives, or because women have a stronger idea of what a proper house should look like,i.e., no un-identified living substance crawling on the floor or in the fridge, atleast one clean shirt to be worn in the closet, at least a clean plate and cutlery to use in the kitchen, breathable air that doesn't stink of sweat and feet in the house, etc.

Still not convinced, I will use the power of statistics then.

source: European Foundation/Burchell et al., 2007.

As you can see all men- part-time, full-time (represented here as the greens), work less than woman- part-time, full-time (represented here as the blues) on all accounts. Especially notice that men working part-time still puts in less hours than women working full time.

Here is another one. Which shows how much hours men and women use weekly for work - both paid and domestic - this means house chores...

source: European Foundation/Burchell et al., 2007.

Look how even full-time employed men work (54.9) two hours less than part-time employed women (56.8) on a weekly basis due to that women do a much larger chunk of the household work. Its also interesting to see for men, they put in approximately 7~8 hours on household chores, regardless of whether or not they are employed part-time or full-time!
In cases of two full-time couple, the woman does (66.6) approximately 12 hours more work per week than the man because she does almost three times what he puts in for household work.

So Shut the f**k up men when it comes to household work and just f**king do your chores.


--- and by "it" we mean "beat your sorry ass so you do the housework" ... or something around those words.

I'm not gay, but queer

and while I'm on the topic...

Are we just misogynistic feminists?

One thing many women do while fighting for women's right is to segregate women into two groups. Us and them. They are usually women who are following the stereotypical image of women held up by male dominated society, putting all efforts into making themselves look pretty, big breasted and naive and safe enough so no man will find them physically but also mentally threatening.

Thus, some feminists take these women on as their number one enemy, for reasons that they re-enforce the false imagery of how women should be, for they take us back 30 years when emancipation was just an infant or non-existing. They/we treat these women as brainless bimbos and "large walking implants", with no character nor sense to see what they are actually doing to woman kind. Attack them, make them into worthless creatures, only then can the smart intelligent women shine...

... or is it?

If we look up the word misogyny, it is defined as the hatred of women or girls. However, prejudice against women is also considered misogynistic.
Okay then, how about feminists who critique other women that behave completely according to the patriarchal social structures.

Tanya Gold's article on Miss Great Britain is a good example of this. Although her article is bit more spiced up and rude, as it always in to get more viewers/readers interested and excited, it is not too different from what other feminists think and do, and by other feminists yours truly is not excluded. However, what we forget is that this type of attacking other women, who we believe to set us back in our fight for feminist rights, is also misogynistic. Especially when it is done in a non-tasteful way of criticizing them by being mean, suggesting that they only way they could be helpful to this world would be in the form of them being tampons - see Tanya's article for more on this reference.
In other words, we hate women, who we think hate themselves because they act like the only way to love themselves is to be loved by men by living up to this image of stupid skinny bimbos. However, even if it is indeed hatred towards women with serious self-hatred issues,(or body image issues etc), it is still hatred for (other)women = misogyny.

I am not saying these women should not be criticized, although I think it is even hard to draw a line between the feminist and non-feminist women, since it is a continuum of various rights of various dimensions. It is not like feminists can group together in harmony to begin with, we all have various ideas of what needs to be tackled and how, and it is good that we do have this diversity. It is important to critique what is being done in this society and how other women, who should really take part in changing the vision of what woman should be like, are actually enforcing the machoistic view of women's roles. However, just flat on hating them, considering them as some other creatures which one cannot even relate to, is not the way to do it. Still, being the minority - thus still the societal norm of womanhood involving lots of make up, great loss of weight, lots of plastic surgery, and no brains!, we tend to be very defensive since we need much more power to balance things out. However, to single them out as being idiotic women, will only enforce this view, making men take on views such as, "yes I respect you and your beliefs and thoughts, but the other women, those bimbos, well all they are good for is a good fuck."

True feminism should not be changing men's, world's view on myself and other similar women, but every women and everyone, even if this may entail respecting other women's choice to become bimbos and walking silicone implants.

CNBC financial advice...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
CNBC Financial Advice
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Important Things w/ Demetri Martin Political Humor

Jon Stewart hits it big... again.
This guy is a pure genius

His current mission is to make CNBC a network where one can trust to bring you honest news about the financial market, which has been lawless in the past decade.
He maintains that the CNBC reporters should take the responsibility to call out the mad crazy money deals the financial market people are making. And that the fact that they were not able to do this shows that they are siding with the big capital instead of the people. However, what Job Stewart doesn't say is that all of big media, all of TELEVISION by nature of how is structured has to side with capital. If you think about how television is produced, from which money.. its all big capital. Its much easier to call out politicians since they are not directly the hands that feed you. However, for CNBC to call themselves the business channel..its harder.
Also, its not just CNBC... its all financial media that is in on this.
anyhow for more check out this episode of Job Stewart where he interviews a commentator from CNBC.
What they are talking about - video clip - in the beginning of the interview is called
"Short selling".