NEXUS Posts
Flaser wrote...
IEAIAIO wrote...
Mr.TifaLockhart wrote...
Who can be blamed for this?The parents,the girl herself,the media? I blame the media for shit like Teen Mom and 16 and pregnant.And also the girl herself for not thinking straight for what ever reason.
It is no one's fault but the girl and guy who had sex. We live in an age where it is very easy to both get information about sex and birth control (be that the pill or condoms). There is no excuse for being uninformed or unprepared. I find teen pregnancy to be about the stupidest mistake to make.
Excuse me, but a person's action can't be reduced to his sole responsibility. Yes, it's the person who takes the actions and he *is* responsible for them... however not solely him.
The environment one acts in, and the decisions that created that environment also take a great part.
...and on this note, I can't agree. Sex education in America is often dismal, and attitudes toward birth control even more so. With the rise of religious fundamentalism and its penetration of everyday politics by the way of the neo conservatives are to blame for a lot of this.
Teaching abstinence (from sex) and downplaying the importance of birth control, preventing teens from easily obtaining birth control methods... these were all on their platter and have contributed to the problem.
Exactly...the right-wing has been trying to defund Planned Parenthood--which is possibly THE best place to get contraception ever. Yes, kids can find information about contraception everywhere on the net, but the actual access to that contraception is spotty and possibly expensive.
I don't think that TV shows glamorize having a baby, or that if they do, that it has a significant effect on teen pregnancy. In fact, the teen pregnancy rates now are the lowest in decades (source).
The Prez already dealt with the "Mind altering=Automatically bad!" issue, so I'll focus more on the side effects and benefits of lithium.
The clinical dosages of lithium used to treat psychiatric disorders--400-1800mg, more or less, depending on age, weight, metabolism, severity of symptoms and other factors--are very close to the toxic levels, which is why people on lithium treatment can get the bad side-effects that Fpod listed. What is the amount of lithium they want to put in the water supply? Assuming they want to get it to the levels of the naturally lithium-rich waters mentioned in the study, that would just be 123mcg per litre. 123 MICROGRAMS vs 400-1800 MILLIGRAMS. For the computationally challenged, that's comparing .125mg to 400mg. If you drink two litres of the lithium-rich water a day, you would only be getting about .0625% of the lowest clinical doses. Yes, it is THAT small.
Why add lithium at all if the levels will be that low? They only want to put a tiny dose because that is all that is necessary to have a beneficial effect. Too much and you can cause hypothyroidism and the other bad side effects--there are actually areas along the Andes where this is a concern, seeing as they have large lithium reserves that leach into the groundwater there. But again, this is with dosages closer to the clinical and toxic levels, not to the levels they want to use for tap water. We already have data about the long-term effects of drinking lithium-rich water. Is there a higher incidence of the side effects in areas with naturally lithium-rich water? Are there more accidents due to slower impulses? Is there a higher incidence of lithium allergies? The literature I've read so far does not make any mention of this, and there have been no concerns about lithium levels in tap water thus far, as long as it does not reach the toxic levels like in the Andes. There is also no concern about eating lithium-rich food where the lithium levels are much higher than in the water. Some sources also say that lithium has an RDA of about 1mg. So I believe the point about bad side effects for doses that small is moot.
Now, what about the benefits? There have only been several studies examining lithium in tap water, and from what I have read so far, they were done in Texas, Japan, Austria, and Britain. The one done in Austria is pretty good, as they also took into account socio-economic factors and the availability of mental health providers and still found that lithium had an effect on suicide rates. However, we cannot base policy on just those four studies, no matter how convincing they are. Correlation does not equal causation after all, and there may be other extraneous factors affecting suicide rates (weather, perhaps).
What about lithium not found in tap water? There have been many other studies about that. Here is an article listing some of the benefits of lithium. (The site itself is a bit wacky, but I did look at the of the works cited, and they are legitimate.) Lithium may very well be part of the essential trace elements that our body needs to function, much like zinc or selenium.
If more studies are done and they show that the benefits of adding lithium to tap water outweigh the drawbacks, then I would not be opposed to it. Yes, you can filter or buy bottled water if you are concerned about crap in your water supply...but honestly, what is the point? With fluoride, for example, many of the tap or pitcher filters don't take out any of it, so you still end up drinking it. Lithium is a lighter element, so I bet less of it gets removed through filtration processes. Distillation is the only process that removes EVERYTHING and leaves 100% H2O. But I just have to remind you folks that tap water is tested more regularly and is more regulated than bottled water (source). Plus, you know, you'd be contributing to waste by buying bottled water. Tap water is taken very seriously by the EPA, so whatever goes in it will be subject to much review.
The clinical dosages of lithium used to treat psychiatric disorders--400-1800mg, more or less, depending on age, weight, metabolism, severity of symptoms and other factors--are very close to the toxic levels, which is why people on lithium treatment can get the bad side-effects that Fpod listed. What is the amount of lithium they want to put in the water supply? Assuming they want to get it to the levels of the naturally lithium-rich waters mentioned in the study, that would just be 123mcg per litre. 123 MICROGRAMS vs 400-1800 MILLIGRAMS. For the computationally challenged, that's comparing .125mg to 400mg. If you drink two litres of the lithium-rich water a day, you would only be getting about .0625% of the lowest clinical doses. Yes, it is THAT small.
Why add lithium at all if the levels will be that low? They only want to put a tiny dose because that is all that is necessary to have a beneficial effect. Too much and you can cause hypothyroidism and the other bad side effects--there are actually areas along the Andes where this is a concern, seeing as they have large lithium reserves that leach into the groundwater there. But again, this is with dosages closer to the clinical and toxic levels, not to the levels they want to use for tap water. We already have data about the long-term effects of drinking lithium-rich water. Is there a higher incidence of the side effects in areas with naturally lithium-rich water? Are there more accidents due to slower impulses? Is there a higher incidence of lithium allergies? The literature I've read so far does not make any mention of this, and there have been no concerns about lithium levels in tap water thus far, as long as it does not reach the toxic levels like in the Andes. There is also no concern about eating lithium-rich food where the lithium levels are much higher than in the water. Some sources also say that lithium has an RDA of about 1mg. So I believe the point about bad side effects for doses that small is moot.
Now, what about the benefits? There have only been several studies examining lithium in tap water, and from what I have read so far, they were done in Texas, Japan, Austria, and Britain. The one done in Austria is pretty good, as they also took into account socio-economic factors and the availability of mental health providers and still found that lithium had an effect on suicide rates. However, we cannot base policy on just those four studies, no matter how convincing they are. Correlation does not equal causation after all, and there may be other extraneous factors affecting suicide rates (weather, perhaps).
What about lithium not found in tap water? There have been many other studies about that. Here is an article listing some of the benefits of lithium. (The site itself is a bit wacky, but I did look at the of the works cited, and they are legitimate.) Lithium may very well be part of the essential trace elements that our body needs to function, much like zinc or selenium.
If more studies are done and they show that the benefits of adding lithium to tap water outweigh the drawbacks, then I would not be opposed to it. Yes, you can filter or buy bottled water if you are concerned about crap in your water supply...but honestly, what is the point? With fluoride, for example, many of the tap or pitcher filters don't take out any of it, so you still end up drinking it. Lithium is a lighter element, so I bet less of it gets removed through filtration processes. Distillation is the only process that removes EVERYTHING and leaves 100% H2O. But I just have to remind you folks that tap water is tested more regularly and is more regulated than bottled water (source). Plus, you know, you'd be contributing to waste by buying bottled water. Tap water is taken very seriously by the EPA, so whatever goes in it will be subject to much review.
Sultry saddle is pretty good, actually. Although I think I've heard it called "side saddle" rather than that.
For me, never. Hate the little brats. YMMV, though. But the soonest I can have kids (thanks to loooong term BC that I am not touching) is by the time I'm 29.
Bumping this because a whole month without sex toys talk is boring!
I recently got a pair of el cheapo vibrating nipple clamps. They're basically a pair of bullets with the regular nipple clamps attached. They were a bit of a disappointment to me because the vibrations didn't transmit well to the clamp part. The clamping part is good, and the vibrating bullet part is good...it's just not so good in tandem. I suppose I can just treat them like rather heavy nipple weights, or use it for clitoral stimulation--it seems to work marginally better that way.
Anyway, does anyone else have any new toy reviews they can share?
I recently got a pair of el cheapo vibrating nipple clamps. They're basically a pair of bullets with the regular nipple clamps attached. They were a bit of a disappointment to me because the vibrations didn't transmit well to the clamp part. The clamping part is good, and the vibrating bullet part is good...it's just not so good in tandem. I suppose I can just treat them like rather heavy nipple weights, or use it for clitoral stimulation--it seems to work marginally better that way.
Anyway, does anyone else have any new toy reviews they can share?
That does look tasty--I love fried bananas of all sorts, so this recipe is right up my alley. I'd love to try that with cream cheese, actually.
Circe wrote...
[color=#ff0080]Uwaaaah neko -glompsnuggle- ❤ ❤ ❤ The flower is a bit too much for me, but it's still cute : ) Do you wear heels or are you a flats girl mostly? P.S. How's the pain? Gone?[/color]
I totally love everything about that shoe! Especially the spiderweb on the sole. <3333 spiders.
I have about 50-50 flats and heels, but I prefer wearing about 2-3in heel on a regular basis. For some reason, I trip a LOT when wearing flats. =_=
The pain is totally gone! In fact, in spite of the doctorly advice against overexerting myself, teh bf and I went dancing yesterday at an Hourglass event. That was really fun--trying to get teh bf to do freeform dancing was teh lulz. And holy hell, I did not know I could still be so bendy.
Oh, hahaha. I should post more shoes for Circe-puu.Like this one. It's sooooooo pretty.
Mr.TifaLockhart wrote...
TeaAnyOne wrote...
Me and Mega Milk!Spoiler:
Too bad you don't have the bust for the shirt LOL.Nice picture BTW.
Most girls don't even have the bust for that shirt, much to my consternation.
*contemplates wearing beach balls under my Mega Milk shirt, just because*
tooge3 wrote...
Went to the beach.The result was this: Me being buried
Spoiler:
Being buried is fun!
Unibee wrote...
If it's for a fling or a really casual relationship then a condom for sure. I'm definitely STD conscious so it's better to be safe than sorry.I would never jump into the pill. I was on it for a few months and the sex is great but my body usually doesn't have that much hormones in its system. (Trust me, I'm usually a very very chill person) But when I'm on the pill I go crazy with emotions, so there's definitely an annoying aspect to being on the pill. But I guess the great sex balances it out. Nevertheless, I would never just decide to go on the pill. I would wait a few months and a few sex sessions. Once I establish that he and I are going to stay together for a while then I bring up getting tested. Once we both get tested and we're fine then I'll gladly go on the pill.
I also wanna point out that there's a way to have sex with a condom and have it feel amazing. I went to a sex seminar hosted by my college and we did this experiment. Basically we had to pair up and put on rubber gloves. The first time we just attempted to rub each other's hands with the gloves on, it did not feel nice. The second time we put lube on the gloves and started rubbing. It felt better. The third we put lube IN the gloves and rubbed. It felt really awesome. So after I bought a bottle of lube and tried it in the real scenario and it worked great! So just a little tip for you guys. (BTW Don't overdo it with the lube cause putting too much on will make it slip off mid-fuck. A small squirt will be more than enough.)
Oh yes, lube makes everything awesome, even condomless sex. Especially if it's a warming/tingling lube.
If there is a zombie outbreak I'll probably be one of the first to fall to it (shit immune system). So uh...good luck trying to kill me, eh?
Saphaer wrote...
animezero wrote...
I said central time, so when it's 6 in Cali is when we're supposed to lolCalifornia is on PST or GMT -8, it is currently 3:23 PM PST. Central is CST or GMT -5, it is currently 5:22 PM CST.
We're actually on DST, so it's +1 for all the timezones affected. West Coast is -7 and central is -4...but yeah, the time is correct.
Darkside M&Ms, mmmmmm. The pretzel ones are good too. I always eat the green-coated ones first, so I suppose that's my favourite color.
