I'm pretty sure those safety razors were not meant to be used on knees. There's zero give to them at all, and that's generally not a good thing when you're looking to shave a body part where the topography can change completely based on a bend or flex. >.>
@Miss-Demeanor Or shin bones. My poor sharp shin bones.
The #1 issue people have when switching from disposables to safety razor is pressure. They are used to pushing the razor(s) into their skin to get it to work. With a safety razor, you have to learn to just let the weight of the razor handle assembly itself to do the work. You do not push it into your skin, or you will literally push it into your skin.
I have shaved the tip of my nostrils and the earlobe with this razor. You just do it with a ginger touch.
This style of razor has been in use for over two hundred years, and I don't think people just now developed 'sharp curves'.
Yes, it has. Now do you know how long its been considered 'okay' for women to shave? Back while men were using straight razors and safety razors, women were expected to -pluck- hair. Its a safe bet they weren't made with a woman's contours in mind. But if you want to shave your legs with it, feel free. Let me know how that turns out for you.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Its a safe bet they weren't made with a woman's contours in mind. But if you want to shave your legs with it, feel free. Let me know how that turns out for you.
...especially when you get to those areas you can't necessarily see very easily without becoming a contortionist. 
Add me to the sensitive skin coarse hair club. 
Except on my head -- of course. There it is hopelessly wispy-as-fuck. At least it's rainbow green now?
I went with 'epilator', because it costs as much as a full body wax does around here. They do not disclose the ongoing cost in screams on the box, though, and the instruction manual needs to include: when the endorphins kick in so hard your hands are shaking, put the damn thing down and wait until later. No, later than that, too. Maybe tomorrow. Or next Thursday.
Oh fucking well.
@surreality I have one for lazy touch ups but it's not that bad. Then again, waxing for years changes things. You could always go to Sally's, they have a numbing spray.
Find someone who can get you Olaplex for your hair. It's amazing. I was platinum and then re bleached twice to get the blue out and then went back natural over the resulting sad green. I can flat iron my hair now.
People who are taking care of other people's children, who have no business taking care of children... OMFG.
When you are watching 6 kids, and you are incapable of actually controlling/managing the kids yourself, and you are using the 2 oldest children in your charge to dish out the discipline, I suppose it really shouldn't surprise me that you think it would be totally okay to have one of those kids hold down a 5 yr old boy while the other one spanks him in the middle of a public library. And if you want to call me names to those kids after I tell you that it's inappropriate to do that, and that I will get the director to speak to her about appropriate library conduct, you go right ahead.
Skype. Especially for mobile, is pissing me off. Not running at all anymore, maybe for a few minutes after a fresh install.
People that nosell legitimate arguments because they have a 60 year old anecdote. FFS, the world has changed since the goddamned 50s! Teachers have a giant shit show to deal with these days compared to back in the punic wars!
@surreality said:
I went with 'epilator', because it costs as much as a full body wax does around here. They do not disclose the ongoing cost in screams on the box, though, and the instruction manual needs to include: when the endorphins kick in so hard your hands are shaking, put the damn thing down and wait until later. No, later than that, too. Maybe tomorrow. Or next Thursday.
I can make anybody confess to anything with an epilator.
But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?
-Mark Twain
@Silver Especially if it's a guy. Seriously, epilator + lemon juice has been my go-to solution should I ever have the need to do a Jack Bauer impression.
Oh fucking well.
The shaving talk makes me so glad I am a guy who has given up on relationships.
I had the soft skin coarse hair problem as well. Mow I just get my beard trimmed when I get my hair cut and everything is wonderful.
@surreality said:
@Silver Especially if it's a guy. Seriously, epilator + lemon juice has been my go-to solution should I ever have the need to do a Jack Bauer impression.
"Let's recap the situation, my friend. You are secured to this gurney by manacles and leather restraints, and a ball-gag. This device in my hand is an epilator. Before I start asking any questions I'm going to use it on your left arm, then you'll know I'm serious. When I ask you questions after that you will be forthcoming, polite, and direct. Aggressive language or behavior means I go to work on you. Deception means I go to work on you. You are a hairy guy, so there's all kinds of real-estate here, and I have all day..."
I'd like to see THAT in a movie.
But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?
-Mark Twain
@BetterJudgment said:
@VulgarKitten I use Durkheim all the time for his insights on the sociology of religion. However, for population growth and capitalism, I'd use someone far more current and with some quantitative chops. Also, my brief look at the grab bag of sources your listed indicates that while many of them say that population growth was necessary for the foundation of capitalism, none of them say that it is necessary for the continuance of capitalism or even talk much about it at all in terms of current growth. Perhaps you could post some specific links? (I know you quoted Faris, but that's 1975 and, really, someone who makes so basic and Marxist an error as to call feudalism a "mode of production" when production was an epiphenomenon of the social institution of feudalism is pretty suspect.)
Perhaps a more physical example, then, since it seems like you were not able to access the entirety of the articles I linked to (for if you had been able, then you would see that the articles expound on the necessity of population growth over the long term).
Let's look at what has been observed in Japan, where population growth slowed, halted, and eventually reversed. Per capita incomes have risen only very slowly, government debt is enormous, households are heavy savers, and deflation is endemic. Population growth isn't a cure-all, but in the present economic situation it's likely to make the resolution of a range of problems much easier. In this instance it is necessary for capitalism. Is it the only thing necessary? Not at all, and I'll point out here that I made no claim of it being the only necessity for enhanced capitalism . @Ganymede points out other influences in their post (distribution and technology et al), so no need to go there. However, here's where I (and my research) differ from the converse school of thought: Kremer and other more recent theorists (Galor and Weil, Sorel) have stated and empirically confirmed that larger population is associated with higher population growth rates and faster technological development. Technological development, then, becomes a consequence of population growth, leads to an increase in labor productivity, per capita income and improvements in living conditions, and increased capitalism. Here is, hopefully, an article you might find interesting, as it argues both sides of the spectrum, is current, and is free to access: https://www.academia.edu/430979/Population_and_Economic_Growth
Re: Durkheim; most of the data captured in "The Division of Labor in Society," is empirical. Have you read this particular work, to know why I referenced it? In fact, Durkheim was a pioneer of empirical (quantitative) measures, though granted he is not current by any means. However, neither is Marx current and we can still apply his theories broadly to society today.
@Silver If it feels anything like waxing, then, as someone who used to live with eczema, I think it might be blissful. Not quite as satisfying as clawing my skin off, but up there with scalding. I'm so glad my skin cleared up.
@VulgarKitten said:
Population growth isn't a cure-all, but in the present economic situation it's likely to make the resolution of a range of problems much easier.
For Japan, maybe. For the United States, I doubt it. Last time I checked, the majority of theorists believe that there will be a huge economic problem in the near future as the baby-boomers become decrepit, productivity per capita drops, and we suffer another recession.
However, here's where I (and my research) differ from the converse school of thought: Kremer and other more recent theorists (Galor and Weil, Sorel) have stated and empirically confirmed that larger population is associated with higher population growth rates and faster technological development. Technological development, then, becomes a consequence of population growth, leads to an increase in labor productivity, per capita income and improvements in living conditions, and increased capitalism.
I can concede that larger populations will, by and large, have higher population growth rates and enjoy greater technological development, but I'm not willing to concede a reversal of causation, as suggested by your second comment.
Regarding Galor and Weil, this this paper by Lagerlof confirms my original criticism. In it, the author hypothesized:
"We also show that these cycles are not an artifact of the two-period life setting: allowing adults to live on after the second period of life with some probability does not make the oscillations go away. Rather, the cycles are driven by fertility being proportional to per capita income minus the parental subsistence requirement. When population is large, and per-capita incomes close to subsistence, fertility is therefore sensitive to changes in population levels."
This suggests that fertility -- or population growth -- is sensitive to the difference between per-capita income and subsistence income. Further, per-capital income flatten to subsistence as overall production reaches its demand-based limit. So, I'm not seeing population growth as a good thing at all, or that the relationships are more than observational.
That said, I don't intuitively see where population growth any causal connection to technological growth. My understanding is that technological growth is tied directly to investment into education and research. Larger populations tend to have the public income necessary to fund technological growth, but I don't think the population factor has a direct relation.
As for Japan, its country faces somewhat unique circumstances. It's difficult to suggest that any "traditional" or "general" fix would apply to it.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@Ganymede said:
For Japan, maybe. For the United States, I doubt it. Last time I checked, the majority of theorists believe that there will be a huge economic problem in the near future as the baby-boomers become decrepit, productivity per capita drops, and we suffer another recession.
You're proving my point with this. Due to the lack of population growth over the last generation or two, productivity has suffered and the economy suffers with it. Were there enough able bodies to take the place of the baby-boomers who leave the work force and become dependent on the State, there would be continued growth (to some degree or another).
I can concede that larger populations will, by and large, have higher population growth rates and enjoy greater technological development, but I'm not willing to concede a reversal of causation, as suggested by your second comment.
Regarding Galor and Weil, this this paper by Lagerlof confirms my original criticism. In it, the author hypothesized:
"We also show that these cycles are not an artifact of the two-period life setting: allowing adults to live on after the second period of life with some probability does not make the oscillations go away. Rather, the cycles are driven by fertility being proportional to per capita income minus the parental subsistence requirement. When population is large, and per-capita incomes close to subsistence, fertility is therefore sensitive to changes in population levels."
This suggests that fertility -- or population growth -- is sensitive to the difference between per-capita income and subsistence income. Further, per-capital income flatten to subsistence as overall production reaches its demand-based limit. So, I'm not seeing population growth as a good thing at all, or that the relationships are more than observational.
@VulgarKitten said:
I'm not saying this is right, or fair. <where I pointed out that it is not necessarily a good thing, just a thing that is necessary.>
I'm going to have a fair look at your link as soon as I have the time.
That said, I don't intuitively see where population growth any causal connection to technological growth. My understanding is that technological growth is tied directly to investment into education and research. Larger populations tend to have the public income necessary to fund technological growth, but I don't think the population factor has a direct relation.
As for Japan, its country faces somewhat unique circumstances. It's difficult to suggest that any "traditional" or "general" fix would apply to it.
It's not difficult to suggest. Many papers do suggest this, I pointed out one already. At this point I've got enough on my plate with RL schoolwork to go pulling up more links for you. They are there, and they are interesting, even if you don't agree with their logic. I would suggest Google Scholar, if in fact you are curious and don't have access to EbscoHost or other online research databases.
@VulgarKitten said:
@Ganymede said:
For Japan, maybe. For the United States, I doubt it. Last time I checked, the majority of theorists believe that there will be a huge economic problem in the near future as the baby-boomers become decrepit, productivity per capita drops, and we suffer another recession.
You're proving my point with this. Due to the lack of population growth over the last generation or two, productivity has suffered and the economy suffers with it. Were there enough able bodies to take the place of the baby-boomers who leave the work force and become dependent on the State, there would be continued growth (to some degree or another).
There are more Millenials than Baby Boomers as of this year. Those were two big generations that sandwiched a smaller one (Gen X), not widespread population decline that's been seen in Japan.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/16/this-year-millennials-will-overtake-baby-boomers/
The main issue with the Boomers, as I broadly understand it, is going to be increased life-expectancy, which the present system in America was not built to handle.
@Miss-Demeanor said:
Waxing is too painful for me to want do it every 4-6 weeks or whatever. And I'm not sure what the laser hair removal would do to my tattoos, so I stick to shaving. I generally use the 4 blade Venus, but I've actually been looking into trying a guy's razor. I want to see if it works a little better for being meant to be used on faces, because yes, sensitive skin.
Seriously, go for men's razors. The only thing you are paying for with a woman's razor is being a woman. Seriously, it's the same damn razor. They make it pink and frufy and call it a woman's razor and charge us more. (At least with Gilette)
@VulgarKitten said:
At this point I've got enough on my plate with RL schoolwork to go pulling up more links for you.
Dear God, don't. Fishing for relevant economic papers is more fiendish than case precedents on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. You've jogged my interest in economics again, for which I and my hardly-used graduate degree thank you.
I'm pretty sure those safety razors were not meant to be used on knees. There's zero give to them at all, and that's generally not a good thing when you're looking to shave a body part where the topography can change completely based on a bend or flex. >.>
