User talk:Puellanivis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] OI and osteoporosis

Hi Puellanivis,

The hereditary osteoporosis you were talking about may or may not be OI. OI is a specific disease caused by collagen mutations that lead to collagen of decreased quantity or quality. What you describe could be best called idiopathic osteoporosis. There are many genes that can result in decreased bone formation or increased bone resorption (usually by causing an overabundance of osteoclasts.

Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) is a marker of bone formation, which does usually go up with increased resorption, creating a high bone turnover state. High bone turnover is also seen in Paget's disease of the Bone (which can be genetic/inherited or idiopathic). In most cases, these conditions can be helped with bisphosphonates, by either preventing excessive resorption (if this is the root cause), or by retaining the little amount of bone formed (if poor bone formation is the cause).

The genetic cause of a family disorder is idenfied using family tree analysis and positional cloning to work out what chromosomal region is shared between affected family members. Many genes affecting bone and other systems have been identified is this way. Usually, this method is only effective with large family trees with multiple affected and unaffected individuals.

I hope this is helpful. Dr Aaron 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. It helps to sign your postings with four tildes.

[edit] Gilbert's Syndrome

I posed a question for you on the talk page of Gilbert's Syndrome. Heathhunnicutt 00:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you've replied on your user page. By the way, estrogen is called a C18 hormone because it contains 18 carbons, I thought.

Ooo... thanks, I was just going off memory when I called it a C16, but I have corrected that on my page. --Puellanivis 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your hypogonadism and low testosterone levels -- I wonder if you have considered that this may be an effect of GS in your case? The increased levels of estrogen (the estrogen is not broken down by the UGT as rapidly) affect the regulation of testosterone and leutenizing hormone during puberty. It is interesting to note that one of the few other body tissues which express the UGT1A1 gene (and thus produce UGT) are cells which line the bladder. Heathhunnicutt 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As I look at it, GS likely wouldn't explain the low LH and FSH, my estradiol levels were not unusually high 19 pg/ml in a reference range of 8~43 for a male. (13~498 for a premenopausal female) My FSH levels were 1.8 MIU/ML in a reference range of 2~18 for males, and 2~10 for females, so my FSH is low despite presumed gender, and the same for my LH, 1.5 MIU/ML out of a reference range of 2~9 for males, and 2~13 for females. My testosterone levels were 231 ng/dl total, and 31.9 pg/ml free, out of reference ranges listed by my healthcare professionals of 250~1100 and 35~155 respectively.
It's fairly clear to me that my hypogonadism is secondary, as the LH and FSH are both low, thus it does not appear that my gonads are incapable of producing hormones (as also attested by size of my gonads and primary sexual organ) they just never seem to have been told to produce enough androgens to have a significant impact anywhere else in my body. I have little more body hair than a female (armpits, sparse arm hair, sparse upper thigh, although with a full goatee area, but sparsish side beard growth), most of the other effects I've already discussed, although, I still look fairly boy-like, I have noticed. The virilization of my jaw and brow seem essentially only close to what eventually occurs in older women. I had also remembered that while thinking I was a guy, I always tried to wear a beard, because I looked fairly sexually-undeveloped without one.
I'll be sure to post information on my user page when I get the second round of lab tests, and we can see what kind of effect the estrogen has had so far. Oh, another odd hepatic process that seems to work very well in me, is the processing of alcohol. While I become drunk fairly quickly, I then kind of plateau, then seem to process it fairly quickly, and rarely have I ever had a hangover. Never a pounding one that would make me question if there is a God, rather at worst it has only ever been an icky feeling. Normally, I even wake up earlier than usual, and seem unusually prepared for the day. (Especially compared to other people, who were less drunk than I was.) --Puellanivis 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saluton!

Vi shajnas tre interesa kaj inteligenta virino! Kie mi povas legi pri IoVeb?

--Sonjaaa 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (www.kisa.ca)

Bedauxrinde mi ne skribis multon pri IoVeb. Mi klopodis una tempo iniciati Viki, sed neniu kontribuis. Sed al http://snowgirl.dnsalias.net/~cfoesch/IoViki/doku.php mi havas la Viki. Vi povas tie sercxi kaj kontribui, si vi volas. --Puellanivis 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] estradiol/lordosis behavior in male mammals

male lordosis behavior is normal in bighorn sheep. [[1]] [[2]] There are better descriptions of the bighorn sexuality/gender system in Biological Exuberance and Evolution's Rainbow if your interested, I believe the one in the former is more detailed, but its been awhile since I've had my hands on a copy.Velps 05:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning maintenance

Hi Puellanivis. Thanks for the clear message about maintaining meaning on the linguistics article. [3]. I am not an expert on linguistics but its my habit to make articles comply with NPOV policies on neutrality and to collaborate with others in doing so [4]. I suggest this version:

"Many linguists would agree that the divisions overlap considerably. Though the independent significance of each of these areas is not universally acknowledged, area has core concepts that foster significant scholarly inquiry and research".

Does this still maintain the meaning? Other suggestions are welcome AlanBarnet 09:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, so far, all of the edits I have seen seeking to enforce WP:WTA on the Linguistics article have, through a mechanical process of applying policy, mangled the sentences that the edits were attempting to fix. Instead of properly applying a policy in a meaningful way, the policy is thrust upon an article for the sake of complying with WP:WTA.
In particular, I would not have had to copy-edit so many of the fixes, if they had simply been re-read after dropping the "Words to Avoid". This is becaus the sentences either lacked proper structure, form, or in the particular case of this suggestion, are not even grammatically correct.
I ask you to please, re-read this sentence: "Though the independent significance of each of these areas is not universally acknowledged, area has core concepts that foster significant scholarly inquiry and research." I personally cannot see any reason to permit that sentence in the article, as it is non-grammatical, and even nonsensical, all simply in a mechanical attempt to avoid the phrase "Regardless of ...", which you will note, is not part of WP:WTA.
As for WP:NPOV, I feel that my edits represent all linguists equally. Notable from the only changes you proposing being replacing "A, but B" with "A. Though B". Regarding this change, such a change could not represent any change in NPOV, as it is semantically equivalent, but does introduce a break in the flow of the paragraph.
Also proposed is the removal of "Regardless of any particular linguist's position", which I feel, could not possibly represent a POV statement, as it refers to an arbitrary linguist, and thus all linguists. POV asside, in order to produce beautiful prose for this paragraph, the second statement, must tie in to the meaning of the first statement.
The idea with my edit, is that it doesn't matter which of the two equal independent clauses mentioned previous are the case, the third clause will applies. As such, I do not see how a logical form of "P, but Q. Regardless of P or Q, R." Could be interpreted as anything but NPOV, but I am entirely open to discussing how you feel that this statement would be a POV statement, so that something appropriate, meaningful, and attractive is put onto the page. --Puellanivis 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. This is not an easy problem to solve in this particular case. I'm going to give it some more thought. Oh I did present you with a grammatically incorrect version and here is my correction: "Though the independent significance of each of these areas is not universally acknowledged, each has core concepts that foster significant scholarly inquiry and research". I'll consider more alternatives though. AlanBarnet 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's a still a break from removing the "but"... the two sentences are directly related showing a contrast. I don't see any reason to seperate them. "But" is not a WP:WTA. In fact, I made careful to ensure that my edit did not contain any Words to Avoid. Now, one thing I would like to ask, are you actually objecting over the NPOV status of the sentence, or are you just bothered by the actual words being used? --Puellanivis 16:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a good article. I'm actually just trying to fit WTA suggestions to articles. I will be reporting on any instances where suggestions make the writing impossible. Unless we come up with a solution here - this may be a case for mentioning on the WP:WTA article. AlanBarnet 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hej!

Jag såg av din infobox att du har lärt dig svenska och det gjorde mig så nyfiken att jag måste fråga, varför? Aaker 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, det är litet lustig. Jag hat en vän till mig, och hon är från Sverige. Hon har vet att jag kann tala tysk, och japansk, och hon har slåt vad att jag kunne inte lerne svenska i en månad. Jag har inte försöka på 2 månader, mar i en vecka har jag lernt svenska. Jag behöver dock en lexicon/ordbok på många ord, mar jag kann förstå mig på svenska bra.  :) --Puellanivis 02:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Vad kul! Det är alltid roligt när andra vill lära sig ens språk! Aaker 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hej

Hej, kul att du har börjat lära dig svenska! Actually, I write about this edit [5]. You deleted quite a number of well respected sources, may I ask you why? As there isn't one single linguist of Germanic languages who has supported Wiik's wild ideas, I don't see a place for them in the article. You won't find long sections about Erich von Däniken in the all fields about which he has come up with theories, and Wiik's ideas have not received any wider acceptance than von Däniken's. The idea with Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that it should be an encyclopedia trying to give as accurate information as possible. There are many fields in which experts don't agree, also within linguistics. In these cases, it's obvious that the conflicting theories should all be mentioned. However, if there's general agreement among experts that an idea is completely wrong, it's not included. The article about the Earth does not suggest that it might be flat nor that the sun goes round it, even though these ideas were once accepted. Wiik's ideas were welcomed and reviewed when they appeared, but rejected when his evidences were deemed to be wrong and the result of not knowing the field. All this and more can be found in the article by Finno-Ugric linguists that you decided to delete from the page. JdeJ 06:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The links were not in English, and did not identify that they were in a foreign language. If you can find an English translation of the sources, that's great.
Sorry, there's no logic at all here. It's true that articles aren't in English but you replaced them with two other sources, both of them also in Finnish! Both Wiik and his opponents are Finnish academics writing about the Finnish language, so it's only natural that they write in Finnish. What I don't understand is why you complain about me using sources in Finnish and then insert two sources in Finnish yourself. I'll look for some source in English though. JdeJ 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The links that I may have added were there from other people before. I was reverting your edit, not changing the content. I understand that some sources are going to be in Finnish during this debate, however on an English wiki, if we can't read your sources, then the sources are of little worth, as you could tell us that they say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster were real. --Puellanivis 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If you have a problem with flying spaghetti monters, how can you support Wiik? ;) No, of course you're right about this one. As I said, I'll look for sources in English. In the meantime, I'll remove the two sources by Wiik as well. They are just as much in Finnish and much closer to the flying spaghetti monster. JdeJ 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Earth article does state that people thought it was flat:
In the ancient past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth, with the Mesopotamian culture portraying the world as a flat disk afloat in an ocean. The spherical form of the Earth was suggested by early Greek philosophers; a belief espoused by Pythagoras. By the Middle Ages—as evidenced by thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas—European belief in a spherical Earth was widespread.[104] Prior to the introduction of space flight, belief in a spherical Earth was based on observations of the secondary effects of the Earth's shape and parallels drawn with the shape of other planets.[105]
The detail is mentioned with sufficient evidence to dismiss the claim. Some may be tempted in an uneducated and naive manner to assume, hey, it could be a Finno-Ugric language. Having the details spread out, that a professional linguist is already attempting to advance that theory, and all his pitfalls. I think that's a valuable detail that should be included in the article. --Puellanivis 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't delete in entirely, I just shortened it down. I can be mentioned, bizarre though it is, I just don't know why it should be such an extensive part of an article for which it has almost no relevance. JdeJ 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No relevance? It's an explanation for what culture/language could have been the Germanic substrate. The detail is necessary to present Wiik's argument, and his criticisms. --Puellanivis 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's not. Wiik never delivered any proof. Anyone could say that any language is the substrate of any other language, but without bothering to present any proof at all, it's not likely to be taken very seriously. Wiik certainly wasn't. JdeJ 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CherryOS

Maybe you should learn how to spell, expert programmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.163.36 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't take offense to this, if you're trying to offend me. If you look at my edits, I make a lot of typos, and spelling mistakes, but then I don't presume myself to be perfect, so it doesn't bother me, when it's pointed out that I'm not perfect. In fact, I can spell, and spell in quite a few different languages, which is part of the primary problem why I can't spell English correctly anymore... English's spelling is screwed up. Learn any other language (except Irish Gaelic) and you'll see a better spelling system than English. In fact, Chinese ideographs work better than English spelling does often times.
So, why yes, thank you, I actually am not perfect. :) --Puellanivis (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Mimzy Talk page

Puella, I removed a block of text you had contributed to The Last Mimzy's Talk page. It doesn't appear to be a discussion of the article itself, which is what the Talk page is limited to. Nothing personal: just wanted to clean up the page.
Jim Dunning | talk 06:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you may feel that way, however I was discussing the film and content as much as the respondee was discussing it. He states that scientific observations are well represented, and I am aloud to show that there is a fundamental disagreement between factual science, and the information that he posits. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi Puella, can I add my apology here too, I am a new Wikipedia user, taking it very seriously and wanting to follow all the rules correctly, and Jim had been showing me the ropes and welcoming me to Wikipedia. I should not have reverted your part of the discussion without notifying you. Only in part was my reason because Jim is an established editor, but the simpler reason I didn't go to you first is also because his posts have a little 'talk' button and I didn't know how to contact you. I very much enjoyed our debate, it is not forgotten, and also it was paradoxical. You said

I'll just copy in the statement that shows a contradiction with what you say, and what reality is. Emphasis is given to indicate where the link to my talk page is.
“ In the future, please do not delete material that other members have provided to a talk page, unless there is a very good reason for it. Your edit changing your comment to "Thanks, Jim" reverted out all of this comment, which is a necessary critical point of view of the statements that you make in your comment. On Wikipedia, it is considered extremely rude and inappropriate to simply delete a point of view that conflicts with your own. (This exempt the revert prior to that, which removed the long debate, which was certainly justified.) --Puellanivis (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC) ”
Your statements continue to contradict real fact. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC) (look! there it is again!)

"if some gene was causing direct damage by turning it off, or on, then that gene would have duct tape put over it with a sign 'do not touch' "

You are an expert in programming, and also know something about genetics, linguistics and other topics; I hope to understand your motivation for making intellectually provocative points. Some people say a gene is like a programming instruction. If you had been one of the designers of Windows Vista, and had written in an article, "If an instruction makes Windows Vista crash, why isn't there duct tape over that instruction saying 'do not execute this instruction,' " I would be equally intrigued.

There are such duct tape statements for functions. Everyone says to not use strcat. Windows as well has a number of deprecated instructions that cause severe problems. As such, a windows program should never issue an interrupt 20h, because that's the interrupt to exit the current .COM file, and it is very very dangerous to do while in an .EXE. Basically, in computer science if there is an instruction or sequence of instructions, or function or subfunction that causes severe damage to various things, there is a big note on the information for that entity that says: "DO NOT TOUCH!" Most people don't get the message, but the fact still remains that if they use those statements in spite of the warning, that they will produce undefined behavior, which may include the cpu lighting on fire, or demons to fly out of your nose. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thinking also...the gene is not the basic genetic unit (it is the nucleotide) so people who believe in 'genes' -- and not everyone does -- must accept the concept of a damaged gene, analogous to how a programmer sometimes has a corrupted .exe file. So your concept of putting duct tape over a gene is like saying, if a .exe file is corrupted, put duct tape over it. Your concept of having a 'backup' of the human genome, taken from a single individual (with only the genes present in that one individual!) is also interestingly provocative.

Examples of just such "duct tape" stated by you which are in computers. Specifically, many of these fundamentally necessary files are protected as well as can be, by marking them Hidden, Read-only, and System. If that's not coving it in duct tape three times, then I need a new analogy. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, combining your ideas something interesting does emerge. The idea of having a backup of a gene. If certain genes are always one of a number of types, the idea of having the data for a gene on a hard drive (they would have file sizes, like 512 Kb for instance) and downloading a fresh gene, having it inserted somehow, might actually be a valid medical strategy. So from two very paradoxical and provocative scientific statements, by combining them, one can come up with a useful and original idea.

See retrovirus, it already exists, and has been used by some people experimentally to repair genes that are causing a severely devastating consequence from the gene's failure. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the film, that is exactly the type of thing the film was doing. It wasn't striving for accuracy, it was striving for originality, just like you do! So your post did belong associated with the film in my mind, I'm not sure where in Wikipedia your ideas belonged, maybe here, or maybe not it is up to you, and I don't know enough about the rules to know if you are allowed to have your original research ideas on your own page. You are welcome to delete my post to you here, reiterating your own ideas, I don't know enough about Wikipedia yet to know if it is appropriate to have a disucssion about the science which you thought should be included along with the discussion about the responses to the film here. My thinking is maybe yes. 82.26.91.4 (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy constraining talk pages against Original Research. They are suggested to remain on topic of the article. While the information you present above is accurate, and possible, that is not what is being described in the movie. The movie describes these genetic flaws to be occurring because of indirect effects of our pollution, and poor environmental care. This is much different than simply inserting new genes for new features. --Puellanivis (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I accept your point that there was a talk button on that paragraph, I actually didn't see it, sorry. Also "There is no Wikipedia policy constraining talk pages against original research," is new to me and I accept that too, though it seems strange.

Appreciate learning a bit about machine instructions...

Also, of course, I knew that the idea of genetic repair is different than indirect effects of pollution. I was saying, that your thoughts made me think in broad terms about genetic repair in ways that weren't intended to be precise.

The combination of an Intel processor and a tear from a childs teddy bear was, perhaps more closely, analogous.


82.26.91.4 (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, I understand your position a bit better now. :) --Puellanivis (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The unbearable "bear" of the Slavs ;)

Hello! I'm afraid the article is wrong in stating that the etymology of Russian "medved" ("bear" from Proto-Slavic *medvědь) is "the one who knows where honey is." All etymological dictionaries I have consulted so far (including Dersten's and Varmer's) state rather clearly that the term once meant "honey-eater" and has a nice parallel in Sanskrit /madh(u)vád-/ "honey-eater", from Proto-Indo-European */medh-u-h1ed-i-/ (PIE */medhu-/ "honey, mead", PIE */h1ed-/ "to eat").--Pet'usek [petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say which article. Sorry for that! --Pet'usek [petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom] 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, that's some helpful information, and I've added it to the page. You can always also modify the article yourself as well! --Puellanivis (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning on Hillary Rodham Clinton

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tvoz |talk 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG! I totally didn't know about the 3RR rule!... no, seriously, I know about the 3RR rule, and I know what I'm doing. I'm putting factual, sourced, and verifiable information into a webpage. These contributions do not represent my person opinion on the matter, but rather represent the sources presented. Frankly, I'd vote for Hilary over anyone as long as she puts national healthcare on the agenda. Unsolicited support given to her, even if it's from an organization widely recognized as a terrorist organization, is appropriate for her article, and gives an international (world) view on the election rather than constraining the article to just the USA. Who becomes President of the USA is a major concern for many foreigners, even terrorist groups. If the information were different, then I would have made my contribution in another way. Simply because the information represents what appears to be a pro-right-wing, I think readers are capable enough to distinguish solicited support, and unsolicited support.
Please do not attempt to warn me about the 3RR, because right now you're getting really close to violating the WP:NCR policy. By pointing this out into my face, even before I have done the action is stupid. I believe there was a movie about catching murders before they made their move? God.... Oh! Minority Report that's what it was. I knew that there was some widely distributed parable that is available to you to understand that punishing, indeed even warning a person before they commit a crime, is again stupid. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Hate crime appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think you should read the linked policy, again. Specifically, "WP:UNDUE". We do not need to give equal weight to information that is patently false. I was looking in the pro's for hate crimes, and didn't see any patently false information. Do not try to "rules lawyer" me, or go and do something stupid like make a big spectacle to support your point of view on policies. --Puellanivis (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign to erase leaders on woman page

Hi. I'm writing to you since you had some interest a few months back on the women leaders. There has been a campaign to deem them superfluous and to blank them off the screen. Then, the parties involved declared a "consensus." (I restored the deleted material.) Thought you'd be interested, Cheers, Dogru144 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article I thought you'd find interesting

As you're a feminist, I thought that you might find interesting the comments of Simon Doonan a fashion trend-influencer, if I can use that word. He decries "porno chic" in society.

BTW, I read of your physical condition, and I wish you the best regarding that. Regards, Dogru144 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor deleted the article with a redirect. I am including Doonan's commentary decrying pornography chic, from the article, for your interest:
In his latest book, Eccentric Glamour, he has decried porno chic in Western society in general. Interviewed for an article for the New York Daily News, he said, "There are two horribly worrying trends! Celebrities are becoming so gun-shy that there is no diversity, no sense of fun on the red carpet. There's no experimentation - which is incredibly important to fashion." On "porno chic," (the second trend) he said, "Imagine if you said to people 20 years ago that in 2008 a significant number of women would be going around dressing like porno stars with fake hooters and butt cracks showing? No one would have believed you." Regards Dogru144 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that I'm a feminist, but I'm also a realist. I understand that pornography serves a purpose in our world, it's simply one that sex-closed American culture tends to deem as so wrong as to be unmentionable. Take the word for "panties and bras" themselves, in a more formal etiquette I've seen them called "unmentionables". The issue is such to the point that when I was telling a story about having my panties accidentally exposed to a camera, which was then sent out to hundreds if not thousands of people, my boss immediately jumped upon it suggesting that it was "sexual conversation". It was a conversation about embarrassment that happened to involved the exposure of something intimate that I wouldn't have like to have share that wide... actually, that's the definition of embarrassment itself!

As a feminist, I believe that women deserve the right to do whatever they want, without there being some negative connotation placed upon it simply because a girl is performing that action. Take simply your quoted comment itself, "women... dressing like porno stars with fake hooters and butt cracks showing". What happened to the men? Aren't men dressing much more provocatively? I'll tell you that they are, and well, some of them are HOT... it's an enjoyable thing to look at. There is nothing wrong with sex, it's the American culture that confines it so much into "we can't talk about it."

I had a friend in high school, and when she told a teacher that she would like to grow up and be a stay-at-home mom, the teacher decried her. She was like, "how can you waste your talent like that..." and blah blah. The point is, that it was her choice to make about what she was to do with her life. Because any other person might see it as a "waste", is entirely besides the point. Feminism is about women having self-determination. We needn't be told how to dress, what to do with our lives... what difference is a tyrannical oppression by society by insisting that they may not work outside of the home, and a tyrannical oppression by society that insists a woman must work outside of the home. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it is "benevolent" or not.

I've talked with my boyfriend about porn before, because he has a lot. I told him quite straight forwardly that I was fine with it. He will sometimes want to do stuff, and I won't be there, or I won't be interested myself. As such, if he has pornography available, then he's less likely to go out, get another girl and get some disease and bring it back to me. Monogamy is hard, if not impossible, by allowing polygamy in his fantasies it makes it easier for him to be monogamous in real life. We can't treat our fantasies as if there was something wrong with them, even if my boyfriend told me that he fantasies about raping me... that would be concerning, but as long as it's fantasy, it's fine. It's an outlet.

Now, let's ask ourselves, if we went back 20 years, and ONLY 20 years, would people really be that surprised? I mean, we're talking about 1988... they'd probably tell you that they're dressing that way already! People have a sense that every generation is dressing more provocatively than the last. It's natural, and it started ever since we could show our face to someone besides our husbands.

Feminism is about freedom, and freedom means the right to do anything we want as long as we accept the consequences for those actions. Telling us that we can't dress like porno stars is just as wrong as telling us we have to veil our faces to everyone but our husband. Do not mistake Feminism for Misandrony... there is a difference. One says we deserve real Freedom and the other says that Men deserve to be Punished. As such, anything entirely masculine, or of masculine interest should be discouraged, punished, or beaten out of people. Pornography, prostitution, boozing around, talking about women like objects... They are not the tools for oppression of the female gender... it's the attitudes of the people that do that. Now, just remember this, in every area where prostitution is allowed, not just tolerated, but allowed, has a lower violent sexual crime rate against women. Granting us freedom is what gives us power. The freedom to think, to act, to make our own choices. The second we start saying "we know better than you, and so you cannot do XY." We're destroying a person's rights... this happens all the time with women, because people think we need to be "protected". Bullshit, we're thinking human beings capable of making our own choices the same as any man! We don't need people to tell us we can't do something because it's "bad for us". It's our choice it's our consequence. Ultimately it's our life. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

Hiya. I noted your change to the journal article title on the BBL page. I have no feelings about what formatting to use, although I do have a preference for consistency. Since the Archives of Sexual Behavior uses APA formating, that's how I formatted references that were in it. I'm open to suggestions, however.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

APA sounds like a good formating to use. However, I don't think that they would un-Title Case a journal article, would they? If I screwed up some punctuation in the revert, my bad. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)