Beside chastity belts my favorite is the myth of the flat earth.
I know you can't teach third graders quantum mechanics, but I wish they at least wouldn't have taught me wrong stuff that became ingrained into my mind at an early age.
Decades later I heard on the radio "The traditional model of friction has been proven incorrect for many materials" and I thought, I knew that in middle school.
frictional force = normal force X coefficient of friction
The experiment used blocks with hook-and-eye screws. You dragged them across the surface linked in a chain, then again stacked, in twos and threes. The result came out nothing like a linear relationship.
By an ideal linear friction, you should have measured the same force on all experiments. But reality is way more complex, and sometimes the ideal model won't give you even a first order approximation.
Your teacher shouldn't have used wood blocks (unless he wanted to make a point), metal ones would give better results.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction#Dry_friction
Saw this myth repeated on one of those John Walsh type cop shows the other day.
The trouble is that microwaves work mostly by heating liquid water. Ice is not liquid water and absorbs microwaves relatively poorly. The already melted parts tend to heat up faster while the still frozen parts heat up very little. This, in addition to the limited penetration, is how you wind up with food that is napalm hot on the outside and still frozen in the middle. If you are trying to defrost something or cook it from frozen, you are much better off using a lower power setting. The peak power output is actually the same, but it gets turned on and off (you can hear it cycling) so that the warm areas of the food have more time to transfer some of that heat to the still cold areas through good old fashioned conduction. Incidentally, this is the same reason that the instructions for many pre-made items tell you to let them sit for 1 or 2 minutes before taking it out of the microwave.
So does the magnetic field only penetrate very close to the skin, or are all the water molecules inside the food being excited, resulting in the food being cooked indeed from the inside?
Its easy to write sophomoric puff pieces about how we had it all wrong. Just assume an Aristotelian posture of black/white 'facts' and show its actually grey. Voila!
It sounds that chastity belts are more of a long running trope than an actual thing, which sounds about right.
But, art imitates life imitates art especially when rule 34 gets involved. Once this idea was uploaded into the medieval blogosphere, joke or not, it almost certainly became real.
As the final paragraph notes.
Of course, the fact they /could/ make such things doesn't change the fact they /didn't/ in reality make such things.
For women, it's a fantasy about male cruelty and control.
Seems misogynist and like some uninformed male opinion not based on actual research or talking to women. Other than that one line, yeah, it sounds good. Actually locking women in an iron chastity belt would have horrifying health consequences. That doesn't mean people wouldn't do it anyway. Historically, women sometimes had ribs removed to accommodate the fashion of wearing a corset. But I haven't seen medical references to the serious medical problems this would cause. So I can readily believe this was a joke, not a reality.
> Seems misogynist and like some uninformed male opinion not based on actual research or talking to women.
What people want in sexual fantasies doesn't have to align with what they want in a relationship. BDSM is a testament to that.
It seems misogynist to me because it seems to assume that women universally view men as cruel and controlling. The framing makes a very sweeping assumption about both All Men and All Women.
I struggle with how to express this, but it implicitly disregards female agency and the complexity of female psychology or sexuality.
I was sexually abused as a child. I have certainly had fantasies that I found disturbing at the time. In my teens, I would fantasize about the Russians invading and taking over my high school. In my fantasies, I would end up with some Russian officer based on the virtue of knowing 2 dozen words of Russian.
In my twenties, I did a lot of therapy. I ultimately concluded this was a rescue fantasy. It expressed how grim-dark my life felt in my teens and how trapped I felt at the time. It expressed my fear that there were no nice men and there was nothing but evil in the world. But it placed me in protective custody of a powerful figure as the least worst answer I could imagine.
In reality, I got married at age 19 to another 19 year old. He was something of a knife covered nutcase and he ultimately joined the army, which effectively extracted me from my hometown and whisked me away from my abusers. A "nice" young man would not have been able to help me. A previous attempt at a relationship to a nicer man resulted in him being chewed up and spit out by the situation.
So I have a history of both a fantasy life and real life experience of being attracted to men who aren't "nice." In neither case was it really what it appeared to be on the surface. No white knight could possibly have saved me. So I sought out an honorable dark knight.
Any degree of intrigue I have with something like a chastity belt would be rooted not in vilifying men as cruel and controlling but in trying to imagine some means of finally feeling washed clean of the stigma of the abuse I endured. I am 50 years old. It happened long ago and far away. There are people who still judge me as a bad girl or dirty girl because of the crimes and failings of other people. Some things are incredibly hard to wash off.
If you look at female fantasies as an outsider, as a man who sees his own frustrations with women, perhaps they look pretty condemning of men. But if you treat women as human beings, you have to wonder what's in it for them. You have to ask what they are getting out of it. And that results in a very different conclusion about why a specific unpleasant image might interest them.
It still strikes me as a not great thing to say, even with that context added.
"Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."
Your off-topic comment overwhelmed and ruined the thread, and provoked users to flag a fine story about medieval and 18th century history.
Please don't post things like this. Their awful effect is predictable.
Please don't flag interesting discussions just because you personally don't like them.
In germany every child, mother and father has the right to get a paternity test. If any party refuses to give his/her consent to a paternity test you have to get a court order and that will replace the missing consent.
It is illegal to get a paternity test, when one of the parties doesn't consent and you don't get a court order. The order is just a formality, very cheap and you don't need a laywer. This formality exists, because in germany it is generally forbidden to get a genetic fingerprint of a person without his/her consent.
Edit: In Germany a father has to accept fatherhood. If the mother denies a paternity test, he is not liable for child support. A court will usually order a paternity test if a father refuses to accept fatherhodd or the mother denies a paternity test.
So if you are in doubt - the only thing you have to do is claim that you doubt and the full support of the state will be with you.
The US is similar: although there are kits you can buy off the shelf the results are for personal knowledge only and can't be used in legal proceedings. If you want to use a paternity test in court you need a court ordered paternity test from an accredited lab.
The "labs lobbying" comment was kind of tongue-in-cheek: making fun of the "crazies" being paranoid about "crazy feminists"...
The real reason's probably more about bioethics: no dna profiling of people who don't consent without a court order (and children being too young to consent, you need a court order for a paternity test).
> No, I have to label abusers as cheats, who played the game and when it starts to cost them, try to evade the consequences.
What do you even mean by this sentence?
Until there are male birth control measures on a par with the pill/IUD there is a gender gap in terms of reproductive control.
>there is a gender gap in terms of reproductive control.
We should consider real world use and here they have a rather high failure rate. For me they have failed 100% to protect unwanted pregnancy in a real world setting.
The fact is, imagination or not, condom means less sensation for a lot of us : Bill Gates is financing research to produce even finer condoms to help facilitate its acceptance.
I think people who down-voted me, read more in my comment than what I was saying. Less sensation doesn't mean you should take the risk of a STD (I sure don't).
Then simple penetration with just. feel. better. (for both parties) and getting creative will be a fun thing rather than a requirement.
In my experience a massive failure rate (it's a good job that I do tend to sleep with people who's 'life goals' are aligned with mine) this combined with hugely reduced sensation means that that I'd rather take care of myself than use a condom.
The most popular sex trope of the day was probably 'the wayward nun' and 'the mischevious monk'. Plenty of people have written about sexual misconduct in the clergy - probably far more than was actually happening - because of the inherent naughtiness of the chaste getting away with lascivious behavior. Then there's just the stories in general of religious or political figures being objectified and chased after like veritable Ricky Martins, and of course, always gallantly rejecting all these people trying to fuck them all the time. Sir Gaiwan and the Green Knight, a poem from the 14th century, does much with the trope of Knights as manly men who are constantly being lusted after and rejecting random women's objectification of them, and has plenty of bondage jokes, apparently.
One of my favorite stories is from a book on the history of flagellation. There was some traveling monk who got called on by a woman while he was passing her house, and she was asking him for help or something, so of course he went in with her - while her husband was away - but only to help, of course. Once inside, she throws herself on him, trying to fuck him for like a good four hours, him rejecting her advances the entire time of course. Finally he succumbs. (Awwww, poor monk!) And as a result of her wickedness, he flagellates her for another couple hours so she can pay for her sins. When the husband comes home to see his wife beaten & flogged by this monk, the monk tells him the whole story. The husband's response? Thank god you beat & flogged her! Now she won't have to pay for her sins in the afterlife!
The Handbook of Medieval Sexuality goes over some other common examples of 'unusual' sex documented in the middle ages, such as homosexuality, cross-dressing/gender role change, prostitution, contraception, castration, etc. And sure, we had to wait 'til the 17th and 18th century to see famous examples of kinky personalities such as John Wilmot and the Marquis de Sade, but you have to assume there were others rejecting the puritan attitudes of the day before them.