Drop it, you put words in my mouth, and then directly stated I had faults in my logic based on your made-up quote. If that isn't a jab at intelligence, then I suggest you refrain from making jabs at my logic.
http://www.armyrotc.vt.edu/PT/appa.pdf
http://www.the-aps.org/press/archives/01/30.htm (I prefer this one. It shows I've been thinking incorrectly, muscle mass ratios are closer than I thought, it's strength ratios that are huge.)
I still don't get how society would not encourage woman to work out. Western societies all stress women to be thin. The best way for a woman to achieve that is to exercise, and with their low level of testosterone, they won't bulk up. So, they'd strengthen muscle, while remaining thin and fit.
And that's fine. Argue that all you want. But no one has told me how to get past the logistical problems that would arise from having a woman in a combat situation. There's only going to be a handful, you can't make changes for women a standard thing, you'd need to narrow down supplies to very specific locations.
Men and women with higher testosterone levels are more aggressive and have more of a sex drive. Healthy men do have a higher sex drive than healthy women.
http://www.neoteny.org/a/estrogen.html
Explains that androgens are the libido hormone for women as well as men. Boost the level of testosterone, you boost the libido.
And I'd like to see a source that supports the idea that birth control pills decrease the risk of infections. All the sites and books I've looked through make it very clear with a very bold warning that the pill offers no protection against infections. It wouldn't make sense if it did. The pill pretty much fools the female body into thinking it's pregnant. It has little effect on the birth canal, which by design, is not a hospitable region for pathogens anyway. However, there are pathogens that manage to survive. The thickening of cervical mucus and the halting of ovulation would do little if anything to aid in the prevention of urinary or reproductive tract infections.
http://www.armyrotc.vt.edu/PT/appa.pdf
http://www.the-aps.org/press/archives/01/30.htm (I prefer this one. It shows I've been thinking incorrectly, muscle mass ratios are closer than I thought, it's strength ratios that are huge.)
I still don't get how society would not encourage woman to work out. Western societies all stress women to be thin. The best way for a woman to achieve that is to exercise, and with their low level of testosterone, they won't bulk up. So, they'd strengthen muscle, while remaining thin and fit.
And that's fine. Argue that all you want. But no one has told me how to get past the logistical problems that would arise from having a woman in a combat situation. There's only going to be a handful, you can't make changes for women a standard thing, you'd need to narrow down supplies to very specific locations.
Men and women with higher testosterone levels are more aggressive and have more of a sex drive. Healthy men do have a higher sex drive than healthy women.
http://www.neoteny.org/a/estrogen.html
Explains that androgens are the libido hormone for women as well as men. Boost the level of testosterone, you boost the libido.
And I'd like to see a source that supports the idea that birth control pills decrease the risk of infections. All the sites and books I've looked through make it very clear with a very bold warning that the pill offers no protection against infections. It wouldn't make sense if it did. The pill pretty much fools the female body into thinking it's pregnant. It has little effect on the birth canal, which by design, is not a hospitable region for pathogens anyway. However, there are pathogens that manage to survive. The thickening of cervical mucus and the halting of ovulation would do little if anything to aid in the prevention of urinary or reproductive tract infections.
omnia mea mecum porto