4 out of 5 U.K women have poor hygiene

except for those in escort/sex trade business where hygiene is mandatory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11427875/Four-out-of-five-women-dont-shower-every-day.html

 

Four out of five women admit they don’t shower every day, and a third say they can go for three days without washing their body.

The personal hygiene of Britain’s fairer sex – or the lack thereof – has been laid bare in a survey of 2,021 women aged 18 to 50 for skincare range Flint + Flint.

It also found that almost two thirds can’t be bothered removing make-up before they go to bed, and one in eight own up to not brushing their teeth before they sleep.

When it comes to washing in the morning, only 21 per cent of females take the time to shower or have a bath every day, with 33 per cent admitting to leaving it as long as three days from wash to wash.

Sixty three per cent admit to not removing makeup before going to sleep after a night out, with 35 per cent of those citing time as the reason.

The fear of having to get up in the morning means they get straight into bed and don’t have time to waste washing off the night’s excess.

And a shocking one in three have gone as long as three days without washing or wiping their face or body at all.

Time constraints mean that despite knowing the importance of skin care and general hygiene, 57 per cent of UK women admit to opting for a quick freshen up with wipes before bed.

Despite this, of the 2,000 plus women surveyed, 92 per cent claim to understand the importance of a skin care regime and recognised that life-style factors such as lack of sleep (76 per cent) and dehydration (61 per cent) can impact on their skin.

 

Similarly 89 per cent said they would like to improve their body hygiene but blame evening and morning tiredness for their lack of showers or baths.

Flint + Flint owner Maxine Flint said: “I understand the appeal of a lie-in but skipping a morning wash is both anti-social for the people around us and unhealthy.

“We are talking about routines that literally take minutes out of your day. It’s true that today’s pace of life is fast but surely as a nation we haven’t become too busy to wash.

“We were alarmed to hear about the number of women not looking after their skin by following basic skin care regimes.

“It is so important to clean your face daily and moisturise to slow down the ageing process.”

“Furthermore, the majority of women know the importance of following a skin care routine but they still aren’t doing it.”

 

 

links for single men in the U.K

 

http://www.britishescortsdirectory.co.uk/

 

http://www.escort.co.uk/uk_escorts.html

 

The premier online community for Patrons and Providers of Adult Personal Services in the UK

http://www.punternet.com/forum/

https://www.escortdirectory-uk.com/

 

http://www.londonescortguide.com/

#college and #university creating Jihadists

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/moshe-phillips-and-benyamin-korn/poverty-doesnt-cause-terrorism/

 

 

Between 1996 and 1999, relief worker Nasra Hassan interviewed nearly 250 Palestinians who either attempted to carry out suicide bombings, or trained others for such attacks, or were related to deceased bombers. She reported (in The New Yorker): “None of [the bombers] were uneducated, desperately poor, simple-minded, or depressed. Many were middle class and, unless they were fugitives, held paying jobs…Two were the sons of millionaires.”

The attacks on September 11, 2001, focused new attention on the causes of Islamic terrorism. The New York Times reported that the personal details concerning the hijackers had “confounded the experts.”

“They were adults with education and skill, not hopeless young zealots,” the Times said of the attackers. “At least one left behind a wife and young children…They were not reckless young men facing dire economic conditions and dim prospects, but men as old as 41 enjoying middle class lives.”

In 2002, Prof. Alan Krueger of Princeton and Prof. Jitka Maleckova of Prague’s Charles University studied the lives of 129 Lebanese Hezbollah terrorists who were killed in attacks on Israel. They found that as compared to other Lebanese, the Hezbollah members “were less likely to come from poor families and were significantly more likely to have completed secondary education.”

That same year, the Muslim writer Hala Jaber spent four days with Fatah’s Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, which organized a number of suicide bombings. She found that their members were “educated [and] middle class.”

In 2004, Prof. Alberto Abadie of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government undertook a study of terrorists’ motives. When he started, he thought that “it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty.” By the time he was done, he had concluded that there is “no significant relationship” between the economic conditions in a given country and the rise of terrorists there.

 

 

#College and #University culture created Jihadi John

The daughter of one of Jihadi John’s victims said her family will not rest until there is a bullet between the killer’s eyes as his identify was revealed for the first time today.

The Islamic State executioner was today named as Mohammed Emwazi, a university graduate from London who was able to flee to Syria despite being on an MI5 terror watch list.

Emwazi, of Queen’s Park, west London, was allegedly spoken to three times in one year by police and security services in Tanzania, the Netherlands and Britain.

The 26-year-old, who studied computer programming at the University of Westminster, is said to have travelled to the Middle East three years ago and later joined ISIS.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2970161/ISIS-executioner-Jihadi-John-identified-London-man-Mohammed-Emwazi.html#ixzz3StNbfizG

 

 

related

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8560409/Universities-The-breeding-grounds-of-terror.html

Universities: The breeding grounds of terror

The evidence that British student campuses have become hotbeds of Islamist radicalisation is overwhelming, says Anthony Glees. It is time to get tough on those who refuse to believe it.

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/10/mesa_and_iiit_islamists_infiltrating_academia.html

Majority of Quebecers against presence of mosque in their neighbourhood, poll suggests

Two-thirds of Quebecers support the city of Shawinigan’s decision to block potential modifications to zoning rules to allow the construction of a mosque, according to a new poll.

The poll completed by SOM for Cogeco Nouvelles suggests 65 per cent of Quebecers agree with the city’s decision to turn down organizer’s requests for a zoning change, while 24 per cent are not in support. The rest of respondents abstained from sharing their opinions.

The results also suggests nearly the same number of Quebecers do not wish to have a mosque built or moved in their neighbourhood. Sixty-four per cent of people polled said they “mostly disagree” or “completely disagree” with the proposition.

Most of those who said they were opposed to the presence of a mosque in their neighbourhood mostly live outside of Montreal, are older than 55 years old and most did not complete post-secondary education programs.

Meanwhile, the 28 per cent of people in favour mostly live in the Montreal region, are between 18 and 34 years of age and obtained a university degree.

It’s important to note that building or creating a mosque or other building for religious purposes — like a church — is illegal in most residential neighbourhoods because of bylaws regarding zoning.

In Shawinigan’s case, a zoning change would have been required because the mosque was to be created in a semi-industrial zone. The city did, however, state that it remained possible to open a mosque in nearly 60 other sectors of the city that are open to religious activity.

The SOM poll for Cogeco Nouvelles was completed online between Feb. 20 to 22, 2015. A total of 1,240 adult Quebecers were polled in French and English. The maximum margin of error is of 3.1 per cent, or 19 out of 20 times.

Majority of Quebecers against presence of mosque in their neighbourhood, poll suggests

BDSM AND WEIRD SEX GAMES ARE PAR FOR THE COURSE AT ’50 SHADES’ DEFENDANT’S CAMPUS

Grind on a balloon on a guy’s lap to learn … something

The University of Illinois-Chicago student facing jail time for acting out50 Shades of Grey scenes on a sex partner isn’t an outlier at the school.

The College Fix found campus-sponsored activities over the years that celebrate BDSM activities and encourage students to participate in weird sex games.

Freshman Mohammad Hossain was charged with “sexually assaulting a 19-year-old female student,” according to the Chicago Tribune. On Monday, Judge Adam Bourgeois released Hossain on $500,000 bail.

“He would say that it was consensual,” public defender Sandra Bennewitz argued in court, referring to Hossain’s sexual activities with the unidentified woman, a previous “intimate” partner.

The alleged assault involved tying up the woman, striking her with a belt and punching her several times, according to the Daily Mail. Hossain told police they were “re-enacting scenes from 50 Shades of Grey.”

Unlike the oft-heard campus rape narrative of a victim who is inebriated during sex and only much later reports it as rape to campus authorities, Hossain’s partner told him to stop “and began shaking her head and crying,” Assistant State’s Attorney Sarah Karr told the court, the Tribune said.

When she struggled to free her arms, Hossain held her arms behind her back even as she pleaded for him to stop, and he held the door shut when his roommate interrupted their encounter, Karr said. The woman called police after telling another person what happened, she added.

Media reports of the court appearance suggest that Hossain and his partner did not decide on a “safe word” to use during their encounter, a standard recommendation for BDSM activities.

Condom education encourages the most reckless way to put it on

While the alleged assault occurred in Hossain’s dorm, he is hardly the first member of the UIC community to try his hand at BDSM.

For example, the school hosted a 1998lesbian health conference” that included a presentation on “Leather/BDSM in the Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Women’s Community.”

A sociology Ph.D. student at the university gave a 2012 presentation in her department entitled “Beyond Whips and Chains” about BDSM.

And every year, the university’s Wellness Center and Center for Research on Women and Gender host a “Safer Sex Fest.”

The first festival in 2010 included some bizarre games, according to The Argus, an independent campus newspaper.

One game included a female trying to pop a balloon on a male student’s lap “using different sexual positions” in order to “condition participants to use a condom,” which one observer said didn’t make sense, The Argus said.

 

more at

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/21422/

Hillary Clinton is no feminist champion

BY ASHE SCHOW | FEBRUARY 26, 2015 | 5:00 AM

 

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-is-no-feminist-champion/article/2560713

 

Hillary Clinton appears to be running as some kind of champion of feminism in her unannounced bid for the presidency.

The trouble is, she’s no champion for the cause.

If we take a ride back 20 years to the 1990s, Hillary was involved in the most orchestrated and vicious victim-blaming campaigns against women in recent history. She spent years defending husband Bill from accusations that he raped, sexually assaulted or groped women. And even after he admitted publicly that he cheated on her, she stood by him.

Why? The answer points to politics.

Because while Hillary made her own way in the world during the 70s and 80s at a law firm, those doors opened for her after Bill was elected Arkansas attorney general. Prior to that, she was teaching criminal law at the University of Arkansas-Fayetteville. Now, that could have led to her work at a prestigious law firm and then higher office (worked for President Obama), but her upward trajectory really started because her husband’s name was elevated.

 

Her career continued to take off as Bill’s did. When he was elected as attorney general and they moved to Little Rock, Ark., she was able to get a job at a prestigious law firm with political influence. When Bill was elected as Arkansas governor, Hillary was appointed to an influential committee and made partner at her law firm, which also began bringing in big name clients because of her marriage to Bill.

When Bill became president, Hillary, as first lady, began positioning herself as a policymaker. No amount of scandal on Bill’s part was going to keep her from that goal.

When the Clintons left the White House, they bought a mansion in New York for the sole purpose of allowing Hillary a state address to run for senator. When former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani pulled out of the race due to personal and medical reasons, he paved the way for Hillary to run for Senate without difficulty. She won re-election easily without a strong competition from Republicans.

Her failed bid for the presidency in 2008 was the first time she was involved in a tough race. She was appointed secretary of state after she lost, in part to bring unity to the Democratic party following her contentious primary against President Obama.

The most that can be said about her “accomplishments” was that she “achieved” them by being married to Bill. That’s not exactly the feminist way of being your own, empowered woman.

And if you look at how she acted during her career, there’s not much for feminists to be excited about.

I mentioned earlier how she attacked the women Bill cheated on her with, which in today’s society where we must always believe the victim is a huge no-no.

And beyond that, she is now speaking out against the gender wage gap when she had her own wage gap while she was a U.S. senator.

Feminists will have to hold their noses in order to vote for Hillary (which they’ll do, of course, lest there be an evil Republican man in the White House), unless they completely let go of their principles.

You know who should be a feminist role model? Jenny Sullivan Sanford. She was a successful investment banker before she met and married her husband Mark. She was his campaign manager and major funder for his congressional and gubernatorial campaigns. Essentially, shegot him elected and not the other way around.

And when Mark cheated on her, Jenny didn’t stay by his side to play victim or because she needed to further her career. No, she left him because she didn’t need him to secure her future.

That’s a feminist hero, not someone who calls women who had an affair with her husband “trailer trash” while excusing his boorish behavior, pays women less than men and used her husband’s influence to further her own career.

Feminist Stupidity Daily: Ideological Aggression and the Kafkatrapping Game

http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/25/feminist-stupidity-daily-ideological-aggression-and-the-kafkatrapping-game/

 

“Once a woman is singled out by a men’s rights group such as A Voice for Men, the misogynist Reddit forum The Red Pill or even just a right-wing Twitter account like Twitchy, she is deluged with hatred.”
Michelle Goldberg, Washington Post

 

Because I’ve been busy offline the past few days, the stupidity has been piling up, and I need to clear away some backlog. Let’s start by checking in at the repository of amateurish nonsense, Everyday Feminism:

7 Ways to Lovingly Support Your
Gender Non-Binary Partner

(Why is your partner “gender non-binary”? Is there a drastic shortage of normal human beings on the planet? Are you so desperate you’ll date any doomed weirdo that shows up?)

Thinking Critically About Who Pays for the Date
The primary dating script, as advertised by American pop culture (most notably, romantic comedies), supposedly serves as a map to help us navigate romantic love’s rough, rough terrain.
However, in a society that privileges different types of people over others, that map is filled with hazardous roadblocks for some and traffic-free highways for others.
One of the most significant factors in determining who gets assigned which roles from the dating script is money. . . . When we spend it, how we spend it, and who is spending it all come under scrutiny in this classist society.
Consequently, who pays for the date (and the contract that payment supposedly creates) is usually rooted in assumptions about gender and sexuality that deserve a lot more scrutiny. . . .

(Yeah, thinking critically about gender assumptions in classist society. Good luck getting a first date. A second date? No way.)

5 Ways to Deal with Misguided
(But Well-Intentioned) Allies

We’ve all been there. Whether it’s a self-proclaimed “male feminist” making sex-shaming comments on a Facebook post or the “LGBTQIA-friendly” straight ally unwittingly making transphobic slurs at a party – the misguided ally is nearly impossible to avoid.
It’s not that the misguided ally is a bad person. We know they don’t want to hurt us. But they do.
And then, often times, they hurt us even more by choosing to blame to us for whatever awkward experience ensues as opposed to taking accountability.
Though these instances are irritating, their irritation is nuanced. They often facilitate in safer spaces becoming unsafe, which, in turn, expedites the increased formation of identity-exclusive spaces.
And while having spaces just for marginalized people themselves (spaces specifically for people of color, or trans folks, or for women-identified people) isn’t inherently wrong, they often end up being centered around healing from the harmful microaggressions of “allies.” . . .

Do you understand what’s wrong here? These feminist zombies are so desperate they’re scraping around for “gender non-binary” partners, but then it’s time for a lecture about who should pay for the date “in this classist society.” And, although I can’t imagine who would want to be an “ally” to these obnoxious losers, if you do want to be their “ally,” that means you’ve got to watch every word you say, because you can’t make any “sex-shaming” comments or “transphobic slurs.”

Where do they get the idea that the rest of us have nothing better to do with our lives than to scrupulously avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of Special Snowflakes? Hypersensitive political correctness is just a game for moral narcissists — More Progressive Than Thou! — who sit around congratulating themselves on how “inclusive” they are.

Do I seem irritated? You’d be irritated, too, if you’d been reading Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape, a collection of articles edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti. This is a very bad book written by very bad women, among them the execrable Stacey May Fowles, whose essay begins thus:

Because I’m a feminist who enjoys domination, bondage, and pain in the bedroom, it should be pretty obvious why I often remain mute and, well, pretty closeted about my sexuality.

Yeah, but you had to write a 3,000-word essay about it, didn’t you? Other contributors to Yes Means Yes include Kimberly Springer, a Ph.D. in Women’s Studies whose essay is entitled, “Queering Black Female Heterosexuality,” and Kate Harding, a “fat-acceptance” blogger who provides an essay called, “How Do You F–k a Fat Woman?” My favorite (and by “favorite,” I mean most wretched) of the whole collection, however, is “Reclaiming Touch: Rape Culture, Explicit Verbal Consent, and Body Sovereignty,” which asks the question: “Can we really draw a sharp line between sexual assault and unwanted nonsexual touch?” Most people would have no problem answering “yes” to that question, but here we encounter a feminist claiming that a hug between friends is an act that should require Explicit Verbal Consent.

My first instinct when I read craziness like this is to investigate the source. It is my common-sense suspicion that crazy ideas are usually the product of crazy minds, and in this case we’ve hit the Big Jackpot of Crazy. The author of the “Reclaiming Touch” essay is Hazel/Cedar Troost, who uses the “gender-neutral pronouns” ze and hir. What kind of crazy is this? Let’s read the “about” page at Hazel/Cedar’s blog:

This is a blog by a Chicago transsexual queer/woman who’s tired of making herself as small as possible to fit the demands of trans misogynistic feminism and trans activism.
It’s also a blog about gender theory & activism (simultaneously feminist and trans), misogyny (trans & NOS), transphobia, anti-racism, intersectionality, sustainability, privilege, language & terminology, power, body sovereignty, gender/sex self-determination, radical politics, “radical” politics, bad allies, accountability, BDSM, violence (domestic, intimate, sexual, emotional, physical, stranger, hate, racialized, institutional, systemic, and more), disabled, fat, & survivor politics, healthcare, and whatever else ze feels inspired to write on.

To translate: “Stay away from me, normal people!”

Aggressive weirdness — an insistence that the ordinary behaviors of normal people are oppressive — has become increasingly characteristic of the feminist fringe. If you greet a friend with a common gesture of affection, your hug might be “unwanted touch” that violates their “body sovereignty,” while your expectation that people are either male or female could infringe their right to “gender/sex self-determination.” And if you point out how strange these attitudes and behaviors are? You’re obviously some kind of hater.

What feminists and their allies are doing here is creating a landscape covered with opportunities for Kafkatrapping:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping” . . .
The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

Activists manufacture opportunities to accuse others of moral failing, and if you cooperate with them — if you attempt to be an “ally” of these progressives who continually produce demands that you acknowledge your guilt — then you must “become complicit” by routinely accusing others of these political sins. This is why feminists have manufactured a “rape epidemic” hysteria on college campuses. Using phony statistics and false accusations to mau-mau politicians into enacting bad legislation, feminists provoke criticism, and then demonize critics — e.g., George Willand K.C. Johnson — whom they brand “rape apologists,” so that critics are accused of being pro-rape merely because they point out errors in feminist arguments or flaws in policies that feminists advocate.

“With enough fear, you can manufacture a crisis, and a crisis gives you ‘an opportunity to do things . . . you could not do before,’ as President Obama’s former chief of staff noted in his famous remarks about not letting a crisis ‘go to waste.’”
Hans Bader, Minding the Campus