Search Results: new study

I use Redman time to time and I didn't get it and all the people that i mow for that smoked , never got it. So, I told people that my theory was tobacco users didn't get Covid and those people said you may have something because I don't know of any either. Now the study came out proving I was once again right.

So a new 'nice and quiet girl' joined my gym and we got to talking (she approached me).. one day she told me she liked me a lot and was jealous when I spoke to other women. I'm quite popular at my gym and talk to almost everyone.

Currently I'm going through some studies so haven't got time to date but told her as soon as my exams are over and I get a better job, I'll be more in the position to.

Since then I've been really observing her and she only ever talks to men. She even initiates conversations. You can tell she has a more relaxness around males. She never talks to other women. Usually gives them evils. She doesn't try to make friends.. and in conversation bitches about female customers at work etc. Never a good thing to say about women.

Would you date or pass?

• https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/chemical-hair-straighteners-study-black-women-rcna54126

From the Article:

Racism kills, and a new study on the potentially harmful effects of chemical hair straighteners has shown the paradox many nonwhite people face when forced to conform to white beauty standards.

Late last week, the National Institutes of Health released findings from a study that suggested women who use chemical hair straighteners could have a higher risk of developing uterine cancer than those who do not use them.

As NBC News reported:

Women using chemical hair-straightening products are at a higher risk of uterine cancer than women who reported not using them, a new study by the National Institutes of Health found. Researchers noted that Black women may have a higher risk because they are more likely to use such products more frequently. A group of researchers with the NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences looked at the hair care habits of more than 33,000 women and found that those who used chemical hair straightening products at least four times a year were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer.

Studies like this are precisely why activists and lawmakers have been demanding full passage of the Crown Act, a federal bill that would ban discrimination based on hair style and texture.

A study was just released stating that by the year 2030, over 52% of women between the ages of 23-44 would not be able to get married and would not be able to have children as a result. With so many younger women nowadays not being able to successfully find love/marriage with someone who is willing to commit and have children, is it time to legalize plural marriage in America by at least allowing it to be an option or alternative for those who choose? Whether it’s something the rest of society agrees with or not in their personal life, or whether a person would or wouldn’t be involved in plural marriage themselves, is irrelevant. The question is simply this… Is it consistent under equal application or equal protection of the law that government should no longer unconstitutionally prohibit the legal practice of plural marriage, aka polygyny? The way it is currently with the anti bigamy laws, it seems very hypocritical and it can be argued that government is applying protections of law only to certain groups who cry for equality the loudest! So to recap, if a man is already married to one woman and she gives permission for him to be in a second or third marriage to an additional woman in each marriage, assuming they are all of legal age and everyone consents without duress of their own free will, why shouldn’t he and the new wife be able to also show up at any county courthouse in America and request an additional marriage license? US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in his own dissenting opinion regarding the LGBTQ legal marriage decision made it clear from a legal standpoint on how the court would most likely rule should a case for plural marriage ever be brought before the court when he said “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”