Haweney u dhalatay Mareykan oo sida,uurka cunugii,18-aad,sawir
Maanta oo ahayd maalinta hooyooyinka aduunka waxaa warbaahimta caaalamka hareeyay hooyo u dhalatay dalka mareykanka kana soo jeeda gobolka Arkansas, hooyadani oo lago magaaacabo Michelle Duggar ayay waxay sidaa cunugii 18 aad ayadoo horay u dhashay 17 ciyaala dhamaantood aay garabtaagnaayeen manta.
Hooyadan oo 41 sano jir ah ayaa cunuga ugu weyn ubadkeeda waxa uu jira 20 sano halka kan ugu yarna uu yahay 9 billod jir
. Sheekada inteeda layaabka badan ayaa ah in dhamaan carruurtaan ay magacyadoodu ka bilowdaan xarafka (J) lana kala yiraahdo, Joshua, Jana, John, Jill, Jessa, Jinger, Joseph, Josiah, Joy, Jeremiah, Jedidiah, Jason, James, Justin, Jackson, Johanah, Jeniffer.& kuwo lamid ah.
Qoskani ayaa waxay ku nool yihiin guri dhan 7,000 squre foot.
Iyadoo gurigasna loo sameeyay dhamaan waxyabaha ay qoys ahaan u bahanyihiin,sida qalabka ay ilmuhu ku ciyaaraan oo kala gadisan,goobaha dabasha,barxad ay kubada ku ciyaaraan,meelaha lagu ordo & kuwo kale oo badan.
Hooyada iyo aabaha ayaa aad ugu farxsan farac ka beermay adiga oo arkaya in meelaha qaar ay si wadajir ah u mushaaxayaan ayaga oo is bar bar taagan,lakin arinta dhinaca soo jiidashada leh ayaa waxay tahay dad badan ayaa aminsanaa in dadka reer galbeedku aysan dhalin ama dhalikarin inkabadan labo caruur ah qoyskiiba.
Hadii aad u bahantahay in aad ka bogato qisada qoyskan booqo websitkan oo ah mid ayaga u gaara lana yiraahdo
Internet dating is proving a much more successful way to find long-term romance and friendship for thousands of people than was previously thought, new research shows.
A new study of online dating site members has found that when couples who had built up a significant relationship by e-mailing or chatting online met for the first time, 94 per cent went on to see each other again.
Perhaps surprisingly, the study, by Dr Jeff Gavin, of the University of Bath, also found that men were more emotionally dependent on their ‘e-partners’ than women, and more committed to the relationship.
Old-fashioned romance isn’t dead, however: among the survey’s findings were that exchanging gifts was the best way to ensure commitment in the relationship.
Dr Gavin’s research comes at a time when the numbers using internet dating agencies have steadily increased: around six million Britons are now believed to have signed up.
Dr Gavin, with Dr Adrian Scott of the University of Bath and Dr Jill Duffield of the University of the West of England, carried out an online survey of 229 people, aged 18 to 65, who have used UK internet dating sites, asking them about their main relationship that they had had online. Dr Gavin’s paper will be read at an international psychology conference next month.
The research showed that:
94 per cent of those surveyed saw their ‘e-partner’ again after first meeting them, and the relationships lasted for an average of at least seven months, with 18 per cent of them lasting over a year.
men online were significantly more likely to be committed to the relationship than women and were more dependent on their ‘e-partner’.
the more the couple engaged in simultaneous online chat before meeting rather than simply e-mailing one another, the more they were found to depend on one another emotionally and the more they understood one another.
those who exchanged gifts before meeting had a more committed and deeper relationship.
the more the couple talked on the telephone before they met, the deeper the relationship.
Dr Gavin, of the University of Bath’s Psychology Department, and his co-authors, found that people using the internet rarely used webcams, which allow computer users to see one another, because they preferred the greater anonymity of writing and using the telephone.
“This study shows that online dating can work for many people, leading to a successful meeting for almost everyone we surveyed,” said Dr Gavin.
“Given that the most successful relationships lasted at least seven months, and in some case over a year, it seems that these relationships have a similar level of success as ones formed in more conventional ways.
“We found that men tend to be more committed to the online relationships than women, possibly because the anonymity of writing gives them a chance to express their emotions more readily than in real life.
“We also found that people are shying away from using webcams because they feel it’s important not see their partners for some time – there is something special about text-based relationships.”
Dr Gavin believes that the reason that using the telephone and online chatting indicates a deeper relationship is that these are methods of simultaneous communication, whereas e-mails are more formal.
Of the relationships, 39 per cent were still going on at the time of the survey, and of these 24 per cent had been going for at least a year, and eight per cent for at least two years. Of the relationships that had already ended at the time of the survey, 14 per cent had lasted over a year, and four per cent had lasted over two years.
Notes to editors: The 94 per cent success rate (the percentage of those who went on to meet more than once) refers to the most significant online relationship that the respondents had, not to all their online relationships. Of the 229 people interviewed, 90 per cent had met their most significant ‘e-partner’, and of these 94 per cent went on to meet again.
Dr Gavin is an authority on internet dating agencies, having published several papers on this subject. For further information and interviews, please contact Tony Trueman in the University of Bath press office.
Queens of the Stone Age
Have scholars given the cavewoman a more passive image than she deserves?
By Laura Miller
Mar. 21, 2007 | The lifestyles of the female and prehistoric are a surprisingly frequent topic of conversation, especially when you consider that Paleolithic women didn’t have corporate careers to abandon in favor of becoming stay-at-home moms or the disposable income to buy Jimmy Choo sandals. As with their educated upper-middle-class sisters of today, people think they understand exactly how prehistoric women lived, even though these notions often turn out to be more cartoon than reality. And I mean that literally, since single-panel cartoons in the New Yorker featuring shaggy cavemen in one-shoulder bearskin outfits dragging their consorts by the hair probably represent the sum of what most of us know about the lives of our (very) distant ancestors.
We’ve been talking about “cavewomen” a lot because in recent years the way people lived back then has become a justification for how people behave now. Dare to challenge any aspect of traditional sex roles, and someone will inevitably pipe up to explain that these matters were all settled back in the Pleistocene era and trying to change them goes against nature, evolution and the sum total of all human knowledge, little lady. It’s astonishing, really, how well-informed the average person writing letters to the editor or posting comments to Web forums is about Paleolithic societies.
Actually, what’s astonishing is how much the members of the peanut gallery think they know about such things, considering how few sureties real paleoanthropologists will swear to. “The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory,” by J.M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer and Jake Page, promises to lay out everything the most current research has established about archaic women, and the truth is that it’s pretty thin gruel. The authors can point out some embarrassing mistakes made by past experts and suggest some intriguing alternative interpretations of various facts and artifacts, but even so there’s a lot of padding and extraneous material in this book’s 300 pages.
The truth is that we can prove very, very little about how prehistoric people organized their social groups, especially when it comes to sex roles. We have bones, some tools and the remains of dwellings and other structures, but these can’t tell us for sure who brought home the bacon or wore the pants, to use two inappropriately modern figures of speech. Sometimes these finds can’t even tell us for sure who was who; one of the unsettling revelations in “The Invisible Sex” is that Lucy — the famous Australopithecus afarensis whose 3.3 million-year-old fossilized remains were discovered in 1974 by archaeologists in a remote valley of the Awash River in Ethiopia, could possibly be a Luke instead. The leader of the expedition who found “her” says that the identification of the remains as female is not much more than an educated — and possibly biased — guess, based on the relative smallness of the bones.
The biased guessing in a lot of old-school anthropology comes in for some pointed ridicule in “The Invisible Sex.” The scientists of generations past — and the magazine and book illustrators and museum diorama designers who translated their theories into images — had a fixation on the idea of prehistoric man as a mighty hunter, working in teams to bring down large, dangerous animals like mammoth and bison. A painting from the National Geographic archives (reproduced in this book) pictures a fivesome of well-developed and scantily clad Paleoindian studs battling the fearsome great short-faced bear, a predator the authors describe as “capable of bringing down any prey except perhaps an adult mammoth.” This sort of fairy tale, along with scenarios in which bands of doughty hunters chased herds of mammoths off cliffs and returned laden with meat to camps of grateful women and children, “appear now to be mythmaking on the part of the paleoanthropological community,” they explain.
Of the fictional short-faced bear hunt (an example of the now-discredited Clovis First theory concerning the reputedly rapacious initial settlers of North America), the authors write: “That any group of humans armed with only spears would ever attack such a creature is of course ludicrous. They would instead have exercised all their wiles to stay out of the way of such a profoundly dangerous killer. Yet, the very reverse image leaped into the imaginations of people who had convinced themselves that these supposed first Americans were preternaturally gifted hunters, capable of feats now known only from the special-effects department of Hollywood.”
Their point is that, like Hollywood action films, many early conceptions of prehistoric life were fantasies, the work of anthropologists caught up in a thrillingly macho vision of our forebears that owes more to Conan the Barbarian than to the archaeological record. That vision rarely featured women, and when they did appear it was only to sit around awaiting the next delivery of mammoth steaks, for which, it was implied, they would trade their sexual favors or perhaps the handful of nuts and berries they’d rustled up on the side. So seductive is this “theme of man the hunter” that it prevailed when the remains of a diminutive new species of the genus Homo were discovered on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2004 (and promptly labeled “hobbits” by the press). An artist’s drawing of the creature depicted it as bearded fellow holding a spear and carrying a freshly slain giant rat slung over his shoulder — despite the fact that the chief find was a female.
Adovasio, Soffer and Page are not proponents of any New Age feminist theories about the distant past. They take pains to point out that there is not a shred of evidence to support the theory, advanced by the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, that many Neolithic societies were matriarchies devoted to Goddess worship. But they argue persuasively (if somewhat disjointedly) that the anthropologists and archaeologists of the past were invested in the conventional sex roles of their time. This often rendered them blind to the implications of some of their finds and uninterested in the crucial roles (apart from the merely reproductive one) that women probably played in prehistoric communities.
The evidence scientists use to construct theories about those communities falls into roughly three types. They look at fossils and artifacts; they observe contemporary hunter-gatherer cultures (or in some cases, other primates) and, more recently, they analyze the DNA of living humans to trace the distant origins of certain genetic mutations. Each method has its strengths and drawbacks, and sometimes the truth hides in plain sight.
Take, for example, the mute testimony of the modern human pelvis, which is narrower than the pelvis of both the chimpanzee and the australopithecine. Great apes like the chimpanzees enjoy a short, relatively easy childbirth (we’re talking 20 minutes) because their wide pelvises can easily accommodate their infants’ small skulls. On the other hand, their wider pelvises prevent them from walking upright for very long or very quickly. In humans, all the advantages of having a bigger skull and brain collide with the advantage of the small pelvis that makes our speedy bipedalism possible. A human infant’s head is exactly the size of the birth canal, making labor a tight squeeze. As a result, human infants are born prematurely, with unfinished, semi-collapsible skulls, and they have to rotate as they move down the birth canal, sometimes as much as 180 degrees, so they can be born facing backwards.
“Women are the only primates in which the baby is born facing the rear,” the authors explain, and this in turn makes them the only animals that “seek and get assistance in the birth process.” Other primates, whose infants face forward at birth, can assist their own labor without the risk of pulling against the natural curve of the infant’s spinal cord. The human need for midwives, and the improved survival rate in the offspring of women who enlisted them, would have selected for the “special sociability” of human beings in general and human females in particular, the authors suggest. Perhaps the exchange of midwifery services can even be seen as the basis for the evolution of human society beyond a nuclear family.
The sophisticated social organization of human communities has enabled us to conquer the planet, and language is the killer app of human sociality, the ability that distinguishes us from all other animals. The problem is that it’s more or less impossible to determine when or how language began, and the language chapter in “The Invisible Sex” is largely taken up with a debate between Adovasio and Soffer over whether it came about quickly or slowly, judging from the emergence of artifacts associated with symbolic thinking. But it doesn’t, and can’t, tell us whether women and their “special sociability” played a leading role in the development of language. As in several other parts of “The Invisible Sex,” the authors stuff in a bunch of general anthropological information to fill out the places where nothing specific to women can be deduced.
Much more interesting are the chapters that teasingly take on those “lithocentric male scholars” who convinced themselves that Paleolithic societies put a special premium on stone tools. Fiber artifacts are perishable, a perfectly reasonable explanation for previous generations of archaeologists to focus on stone spearheads and knives. But the authors of “The Invisible Sex” feel that focus puts undo emphasis on weapons and the “man the hunter” theme. Adovasio is an expert in what he calls the “extremely unsexy field of perishable artifacts — basketry, cordage, weaving and so forth,” items that in existing hunter-gatherer societies are usually, but by no means always, made by women.
In a particularly winning example of the value of a shift in perspective, Adovasio and Soffer made a study of such stone figurines as the famous Venus of Willendorf, generally considered to be a fertility totem of some kind created roughly 25,000 years ago. While the bulging breasts and belly of the statuette attract the most attention, Adovasio and Soffer instead examined the back of the head, which is covered with what most observers have identified as braids or a headdress. The authors maintain that it is in fact “a woven hat, a radially hand-woven item of apparel that was probably begun from a knotted center in the manner of certain coiled baskets made today by Hopi, Apache and other American Indian tribes.” Most photographs of the figure don’t bother to depict it from that angle, but the one included in “The Invisible Sex” reveals that this head covering looks exactly like a basket.
The authors go on to point out that, while the figure is faceless and generally — if carefully — rendered, the hat is, by contrast, extremely detailed. It is intricate enough that it could possibly have been used as a pattern for making such hats. “The carver,” they write, “had to have spent more time on just the hat than on the rest of the entire figurine.” Yet, surprisingly enough, they were one of the few scholars to pay any attention at all to the hat or to observe that many of the other Stone Age “Venus” figurines dating from around the same period had some minimal carved garments, as well. They write, “One British scholar who studied the Venuses in his youth never noticed any clothing because, he recalled, he ‘never got past the breasts.'”
What the Venus of Willendorf’s hat (and similar headgear on other statuettes) might mean remains undetermined, but surely the sum of anthropological knowledge has been increased by someone pointing out that it seems to have been very important to the carver. A professor named Elizabeth Wayland Barber has asked fellow scholars to consider the significance of string, a technological development that “had profound effects on human destiny — probably more profound effects than any advance in the technique of making spear points, knives, scrapers and other tools out of stone.” Try to imagine getting along without it, and without “snares and fishlines, tethers and leashes, carrying nets, handles and packages, not to mention a way of binding objects together to form more complex tools.” Lightweight baskets enabled nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes to carry a collection of possessions with them instead of just what they could hold in their hands. And further down the line in the “Fiber Revolution” came woven and sewn clothes, which made it possible for people to survive in colder climates. The skilled work involved in making these technologies, which most people associate with women, were absolutely essential.
Even the mighty prehistoric hunter of myth, legend and natural history museum dioramas has to cede place to the weaver. Although meat eating was indeed a significant aspect of prehistoric life, many anthropologists now believe most of the meat was scavenged or came from small animals (and insects) rather than large game. People might have occasionally finished off a disabled mammoth or bison when the opportunity arose, but the creatures they hunted were rabbits, foxes and other small mammals. Solo hunters of small game need not have been male; in fact, primatologists in Senegal recently discovered a population of chimpanzees who sometimes make spearlike tools to hunt with, and so far the only chimps spotted doing it have been adolescent females. But bagging small prey one by one wouldn’t have been very efficient. Catching many of them at once became possible with the use of large woven nets.
Net hunting as it is still practiced in tribal cultures is not the province of crack teams of spear-wielding he-men. It’s a group activity, with everyone, including children, participating in beating the bushes, holding the nets and clubbing the prey. Every member of the community plays a crucial role in this form of meat gathering, including the people, often women, who make and repair the nets. In the opinion of the authors of “The Invisible Sex,” this hunter-gatherer lifestyle was most likely a more sexually egalitarian sort of community than the agricultural ones that followed.
Many paleoanthropologists believe that women began the domestication of wild plants while men were probably responsible for the domestication of animals. The invention of agriculture made the glories of human civilization possible, but it was not such a good deal for women or anyone else who wound up on the bottom rungs of increasingly hierarchical societies. Remains of women from Neolithic agricultural communities show that they worked harder and suffered more malnutrition than their hunter-gatherer ancestresses. Populations exploded when the availability of “soft carbohydrate weaning foods” meant that women stopped lactating sooner after a birth and therefore got pregnant more often, another debilitating strain.
Before she got too clever for her own good, the cavewoman probably had a lot more clout than we give her credit for. Today’s women, three-quarters of whom work outside the home, aren’t fighting nature, human or otherwise. They’re just getting back to where they once belonged.
Dear Nomads, I have lately noticed that all of our ladies, whether young or old have adopted a habit of wearing high heels eventhough some of them have a hard time walking on them, including myself,
So any ideas as to what have created it, did it become a fashionable style, don’t they know that it has some connotations to it as this article indicates,
The western style of living, wuu ka waaley dadkeena in the diaspora, alloow noo naxariiso
High and Mighty
The vampish appeal of high heels
By Anne Erickson
The quintessential high-heel moment happens in the finale of the movie Grease. Good girl Sandy decides to transform herself into a bad girl. She trades her full skirt and sweater set for skin-tight pants and an off-the-shoulder T-shirt. But more importantly, she trades her flats for a pair of red mules with towering heels.
Her somewhat reluctant boyfriend, Danny, sees Sandy in all of her newly sleazy glory and falls to the dirt, groveling lustfully. She flicks a cigarette to the ground, squashes it out with that dangerous-looking shoe, and then mock-kicks her man in the chest with the same spike-clad foot.
Dancing and singing commence (Grease is, after all, a musical), but we all know what Sandy and Danny are doing as the credits roll…
High heels often play a supporting role in life’s more suggestive scenes. “They’re the most dramatic fashion a woman can wear,” says Bruce Gray, an L.A. artist who sculpts 6-foot-tall spike heels and curates an online homage to these sexy shoes (www.highheelmuseum.com).
The most recent crop of slim stiletto heels all send the same message. It doesn’t matter what age you are. When you slip into a pair of these, you’re temporarily trading the good girl for the vamp.
Stilettos for 20-somethings: The woman credited with being the ‘mother’ of high heels, Catherine de Medici, was only 15 when she followed a courtesan’s advice and wore them during her 16th-century wedding to create the illusion of maturity.
Some things never change. This season’s slim stilettos are very grown-up, and quite a departure from the funky platforms of the past. Roman-style straps that climb up the leg will add some playfulness to this look. Even the King of Chunky Heels—Steve Madden—has a skinny-heeled sandal with gladiator straps this summer.
Stilettos for 30-somethings: You’ve been around long enough to avoid that “I’m playing dress-up with mommy’s shoes” look. And you probably know how to walk in these babies by now. If you want a break from being a mommy yourself, slip into something red. “Red is always the best color for high heels,” says Gray, who favors a fire-engine shade for his oversized shoe sculptures. Calvin Klein has a red stiletto with a thin ankle strap that’ll get a lot of attention if you wear it out for the evening. If you buy these and you have a daughter, I guarantee she’ll steal them for her own dress-up adventures.
Stilettos for 40-somethings: Did you know that high heels make your booty protrude by about 25%? Don’t believe me? Stand up right now, put your hands on your upper butt, and go up on your tiptoes. Pretty amazing, huh? Add some sex appeal to slacks for the office with a slim pair of black Chanel pumps boasting a thin, metal heel that’s the opposite of corporate casual. And if you wobble on those three-inch heels, steel yourself with this knowledge: Bruce Gray has a pair of non-platform, 7-inch heels in his possession. “Most women can’t even wear them, they’re just too high.”
Stilettos for 50-somethings: Of course any podiatrist would advise against wearing high heels in the first place, but Gray disagrees. “Most people in the know say you shouldn’t be wearing them all the time, but for special occasions it’s okay.” If comfort is a priority, look for a pump instead of a strappy sandal, and just wear these sexy beasts for short stints. Helmut Lang has a pump that’s plain, black and pointy as heck. And, unlike some sandals, you can slip these off under the table where no one can see!
Teenager Dumped By Chat-Room Girlfriend
CYBERSPACE — Joey Passmore is alone. The 14-year-old Internet enthusiast recently lost his cyber-girlfriend and computer soulmate, LUV_U2, and he’s not sure how to deal with the confusing new emotions that have begun to stir inside him.
“I don’t understand,” moped Joey. “I gave her my love, my devotion, and the IP’s of some private FTP sites. ”
Joey, 14, never met LUV_U2 in Real Life™. They met online almost two months ago, but were committed to each other after only a few short chat sessions over a two-week period.
“Something clicked right from the start,” said Joey. “I admit, I found her choice of avatar sexually attractive, but there’s more to her than just that. I would show up in the #lookN4love chatroom on Undernet, and we would share the time together, while we did homework, watched ‘Mad About You’ repeats, and played PopCap games over the Net.”
“I thought we had something special,” continued Joey. “I would send her e-cards, and links to special poems that were written for people like us. I even photoshopped our avatars together on a Martian landscape–way romantic. But then that one evening, she came into the IRC channel and was really quiet. I knew something was wrong.”
Joey has been unable to talk about his break-up with family members and even considered selling his computer, and joining the school volleyball team, just to get away from the pain. At fourteen, break-ups are awkward to deal with. This was Joey’s first romance and he believes his few friends at school would only laugh at him if he mentioned it to any of them.
“Those guys at school would only want to know how far I got, like did she send pictures of her tits, or something like that,” said an angry Joey. “They wouldn’t understand it was so much more than that.”
His only source of closure has been a couple of Internet love forums that he has bookmarked on his web browser.
“I posted a message on a message board for heartbroken individuals who were recently dumped,” said Joey, sobbing quietly, “but the only response was from some joker who asked how I knew it wasn’t a man I was dating. How cruel can you get?”
“We were at that stage in our relationship where we were almost ready to exchange ICQ numbers, a huge leap in commitment,” said Joey, wiping his nose. “Someday I had hoped we could swap actual snail-mail addresses, maybe even a photo, and then, who knows after that? I guess she got scared. I don’t understand.”
Joey isn’t sure he can trust cyberwomen anymore, and is afraid to reveal his true self online to another. He may find escape by interacting only with girls he knows from school, church, and his neighbourhood. But that would mean meeting them and Joey isn’t ready for social encounters yet.
“I may never be able to cyberdate again,” cried Joey. “I’ve been hurt once, and now I may never be able to use that same alias. ”
Joey almost deleted the chat logs he had with LUV_U2 in a fit of anger. “I was hurt, and I wanted to hurt. But now, those lines of text are the only thing I have left to cherish,” said Joey. “The smilicons we shared were special, but now I may never smilicon again.”