Ivies don’t care about consent

They are only the ‘top’ places because they have their pick of the top IQs (let’s ban GPA, IQ in different wrappings, if I’m wrong).

nytimes.com/1995/01/15/magazine/the-great-ivy-league-nude-posture-photo-scandal.html

Blackmail material (obviously) and “elite” eugenics.

Sounding an ominous note, Hersey declared that the photos “had nothing to do with posture . . . that is only what we were told.”

Don’t trust authorities.

Hersey went on to say that the pictures were actually made for anthropological research: “The reigning school of the time, presided over by E. A. Hooton of Harvard and W. H. Sheldon” — who directed an institute for physique studies at Columbia University — “held that a person’s body, measured and analyzed, could tell much about intelligence, temperament, moral worth and probable future achievement. The inspiration came from the founder of social Darwinism, Francis Galton, who proposed such a photo archive for the British population.”

Never actually did it though, and would’ve made it voluntary.

And then Hersey evoked the specter of the Third Reich:

“The Nazis compiled similar archives analyzing the photos for racial as well as characterological content (as did Hooton). . . . The Nazis often used American high school yearbook photographs for this purpose. . . . The American investigators planned an archive that could correlate each freshman’s bodily configuration (‘somatotype’) and physiognomy with later life history. That the photos had no value as pornography is a tribute to their resolutely scientific nature.”

It seems nobody was allowed to object.
Why?
Some of them must have tried.
Anything that could be used as blackmail is illegal.
This is why you teach children modesty, it actually protects them.

Open changing rooms are creepy, bring back cubicles in schools.

This is why No must be respected where bodies are concerned.

If the government/college/institution owns your body in practice, they can do anything they want with it.

“From the outset, the purpose of these ‘posture photographs’ was eugenic. The data accumulated, says Hooton, will eventually lead on to proposals to ‘control and limit the production of inferior and useless organisms.’ Some of the latter would be penalized for reproducing . . . or would be sterilized. But the real solution is to be enforced better breeding — getting those Exeter and Harvard men together with their corresponding Wellesley, Vassar and Radcliffe girls.”

They didn’t exclude Hillary so they weren’t selecting for fitness.

I almost feel sorry for her.

This was the original conformity experiment.

What became of the photographs?

As for the last question, Hersey thought there’d be no trouble locating the photographs. He assumed that “they can probably be found with Sheldon’s research papers” in one of the several academic institutions with which he had been associated. But most of those institutions said that they had burned whatever photos they’d had. Harley P. Holden, curator of Harvard’s archives, said that from the 1880’s to the 1940’s the university had its own posture-photo program in which some 3,500 pictures of its students were taken. Most were destroyed 15 or 20 years ago “for privacy scruples,” Holden said. Nonetheless, quite a few Harvard nudes can be found illustrating Sheldon’s book on body types, the “Atlas of Men.”

This is why you have legal rights to your likeness and people in photos have to sign model releases as to their use.

For scientific studies, you’re told the full extent of why it’s done beforehand and can say no. Data is usually anonymous.

What a despicable violation of male dignity, those published photos are.

They started when photography was very expensive so… I smell blackmail material. At the time, only prostitutes were photographed nude. Some examples are online, if you look, they’re surprisingly dignified, closed legs, partially exposed breasts, very artistic. We’re told what the Daily Mail posts everyday is normal when it’s clearly softcore porn and more risque than the former underground postcard photos. Now of course children are told that hookers are “porn stars” and to emulate them by producing amateur child porn with ‘boyfriends’, much healthier. Men are told taking photos of their anatomy is, far from shameful, something to be proud of because…. having one is an accomplishment? Reasoning unclear but men are doltish on this topic. They’ll complain about sex scandals and ignore their pixelated part in them.

Stopping prosecution of minors for making child porn of themselves was part of the pedo move to eradicate ‘age of consent’ and make them porn ‘stars’. Prosecute all makers of child porn, including the minors themselves, it’s the only way. They wanted to be mature, they knew it was wrong.

Radcliffe took posture photos from 1931 to 1961; the curator there said that most of them had been destroyed (although some might be missing) and that none were taken by Sheldon.

“missing”

Somatotypes are BS, too generic and almost entirely about ways men put on fat.

Kibbe is a detailed respectful system of female anatomy and proves nothing.

Sheldon believed he could assign every individual a three-digit number representing the three components, components that Sheldon believed were inborn — genetic — and remained unwavering determinants of character regardless of transitory weight change. In other words, physique equals destiny.

He didn’t look at the brain because he was an idiot.

Galton looked at the brain. Be like Galton.

Nonetheless, in the late 40’s and early 50’s, Sheldonism seemed mainstream, and Sheldon took advantage of that to approach Ivy League schools. Many, like Harvard, already had a posture-photo tradition. But it was at Wellesley College in the late 1920’s that concern about postural correctness metamorphosed into a cottage industry with pretensions to science. The department of hygiene circulated training films about posture measurement to other women’s colleges, which took up the practice, as did some “progressive” high schools and elementary schools. (By the time Hillary Rodham arrived on the Wellesley campus, women were allowed to have their pictures taken only partly nude. Although Lanier assumes that Sheldon took the Rodham photo, Wellesley archivists believe that Sheldon didn’t take posture photos at their school.)

Allowed?

ALLOWED?

ALLOWED?

Of all the times to channel Emma Watson, I’m mortally offended by this.

Students are not guinea pigs, you can’t abuse them. These are people.

Yes, even Hillary. This would be enough to mess anyone up.

Lanier also filled me in on the cause of Sheldon’s downfall: his never completed, partly burned “Atlas of Women.” In attempting to compile what would have been the companion volume to his “Atlas of Men,” which included hundreds of nude Harvard men to illustrate each of the three-digit body types, Sheldon made the strategic mistake of taking his photo show on the road.

Equally offensive and intrusive, those men had rights!

What happened was this: In September 1950, Sheldon and his team descended on Seattle, where the University of Washington had agreed to play host to his project. He’d begun taking nude pictures of female freshmen, but something went wrong.

The cult sprang a leak?

One of them told her parents about the practice. The next morning, a battalion of lawyers and university officials stormed Sheldon’s lab, seized every photo of a nude woman, convicted the images of shamefulness and sentenced them to burning.

That’s called mob justice.

“Take off your clothes, stand in front of the camera, don’t ask where it goes and don’t tell your parents” – Ivy Leagues.

The angry crew then shoveled the incendiary film into an incinerator. A short-lived controversy broke out: Was this a book burning? A witch hunt? Was Professor Sheldon’s nude photography a legitimate scientific investigation into the relationship between physique and temperament, the raw material of serious scholarship? Or just raw material — pornography masquerading as science?

Did she get a medal? I hope so but you say nothing so I guess no.

Forcing teenagers to undress for photos is borderline pedophilia – how many freshies would’ve been below 18?

They burned a few thousand photos in Seattle. Thousands more were burned at Harvard, Vassar and Yale in the 60’s and 70’s, when the colleges phased out the posture-photo practice.

“posture”

then why include the genitalia? why not wear underwear (as doctors permit) or black it out or provide modest coverings?

“posture” my arse

You should’ve hanged the bastards. Making porn of your children for decades.

But thousands more escaped the flames, tens of thousands that Sheldon took at Harvard, Vassar, Yale and elsewhere but sequestered in his own archives. And what became of the archives? Lanier didn’t know, but he said they were out there somewhere.

So he kept the ‘nudes’ but we’re gonna act like that’s normal?

To Elderkin, Sheldon was no mere body-typer: he was a true philosophe, “the first to introduce holistic perspective” to American science, a proto-New Ager. Elderkin became Sheldon’s research associate, his trusty cameraman and a kind of private eye, compiling case histories of Sheldon’s posture nudes to confirm Sheldon’s theories about physique and destiny. He also witnessed Sheldon’s downfall.

Wouldn’t happen to involve the Frankfurt school, would it?

The Bonfire of the Nude Coed Photos in Seattle wasn’t Sheldon’s only public burning,

Clear sign the photos were non-consensual…..

Elderkin told me: “He went through a number of furors over women. A similar thing later happened at Pembroke, the women’s college at Brown.” In each case, the fact that female nudes were involved kindled the flame against Sheldon. Toward the end, Sheldon became a kind of pathetic Willy Loman-esque figure as he wandered America far from the elite Ivy halls that had once housed him, seeking a place he could complete the photography for his “Atlas of Women.”

Entitled, much?

And why didn’t the women agree without college pressure? Hm?

“That’s how I found out about the burning at Pembroke,” Elderkin recalled. “I was trying to get someone at Brown to accept them, and he said, ‘That filth? We already burned the ones we had.’

The hippies hated this guy.

The hippies.

For all their faults, they did value liberty and telling the Man NO.

Down a dimly lit back corridor of the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, far from the dinosaur displays, is a branch of the Smithsonian not well known to the public: the National Anthropological Archives.

In 1987, the curators of the National Anthropological Archives acquired the remains of Sheldon’s life work, which were gathering dust in “dead storage” in a Goodwill warehouse in Boston. While there were solid archival reasons for making the acquisition, the curators are clearly aware that they harbor some potentially explosive material in their storage rooms. And they did not make it easy for me to gain access.

Hang on, did they reach out to the subjects and offer to return the photos?

In Box 43 I came across a document never referred to in any of the literature on Sheldon I’d seen. It was a faded offprint of a 1924 Sheldon study, “The Intelligence of Mexican Children.” In it are damning assertions presented as scientific truisms that “Negro intelligence” comes to a “standstill at about the 10th year,” Mexican at about age 12. To the author of such sentiments, America’s elite institutions entrusted their student bodies.

Try to replicate it before dismissal. Yawn.

Appeal to incredulity doesn’t work on IQ. You could easily debunk it with one study… unless it’s true.

Finally and most telling, I found a letter nearly four decades old that did something nothing else in the files did. It gave a glimpse, a clue to the feelings of the subjects of Sheldon’s research, particularly the women. I found the letter in a file of correspondence between Sheldon and various phys ed directors at women’s colleges who were providing Sheldon with bodies for the ill-fated “Atlas of Women.” In this letter, an official at Denison University in Granville, Ohio, was responding to Sheldon’s request to rephotograph the female freshmen he had photographed the year before. Something had apparently gone wrong with the technical side of the earlier shoot.

Sure it did.

But the official refused to allow Sheldon to reshoot the women, declaring that “to require them to pose for another [ nude posture photo ] would create insurmountable psychological problems.”

Surely the women also had a say? Apparently not.
Never trust a PE teacher.

Insurmountable psychological problems. Suddenly the subjects of Sheldon’s photography leaped into the foreground: the shy girl, the fat girl, the religiously conservative, the victim of inappropriate parental attention. Here, perhaps, Naomi Wolf has a point. In a culture that already encourages women to scrutinize their bodies critically, the first thing that happens to these women when they arrive at college is an intrusive, uncomfortable, public examination of their nude bodies.

Inhumane.

An affront to Christian modesty especially.

Negatives. Full length views of nude freshmen men, front, back and rear. Includes weight, height, previous or maximum weight, with age, name, or initials.

Sick.

Negatives. Made in 1950. Full length views of nude women, front, back and rear. Includes height, weight, date and age. Includes some photographs marked S.P.C.

Twisted to force innocent women into this especially.
People would resent their dog being treated like that.

There were also undated photos from the Oregon Hospital for the Criminally Insane (which I could not distinguish in any way from the Ivy League photos). All told, there were some 20,000 photographs of men — 9,000 from Yale — and 7,000 of women.

If you needed further proof that ethics was not a concern.
It is likely a sexual sadist, who likes the idea of forcing people to pose for photos.
They won’t allow it in the DSM because among certain types, it’s so common. Those types pay to keep it out so it can’t be used against them in court and they can’t be studied.

In flipping through those thousands of images (which were recently transferred to Smithsonian archives in Suitland, Md.), I found surprising testimony to the “insurmountable psychological problems” that the Denison University official had referred to. It took awhile for the “problems” to become apparent, because, as it turned out, I was not permitted to see positive photographs — only negatives (with no names attached).

Trauma is common among the innocent.

Predators try to minimise this but basic rights to dignity are on the books for good reason.

But the faces of the women were another story. I was surprised at how many looked deeply unhappy, as if pained at being subjected to this procedure. On the faces of quite a few I saw what looked like grimaces, reflecting pronounced discomfort, perhaps even anger.

The monsters encouraged and condoned this.
This is ritual sexual humiliation and overt scientism.
Why would they want fresh teenage women, the vast majority of whom would be virgins?
Considering the tribal beliefs about photos, one could assume a creep might consider it a theft of innocence. Odds are those women had never been nude in front of anyone before….

Most unusually –

WHY were the faces necessary?

There’s no logical reason to photograph the face.

And since the bodies don’t finish developing until the 20s, teenage photographs are scientifically invalid.

This would have been known at the time.

But what about the perpetrators? What could have possessed so many elite institutions of higher education to turn their student bodies over to the practitioners of what now seems so dubious a science project?

Why did they make it compulsory and on what grounds?

Still no answer.

It’s a question that baffles the current powers that be at Ivy League schools.

Like the mysterious correlation between Asian teachers and cheating, even at Eton?

The response of Gary Fryer, Yale’s spokesman, is representative: “We searched, but there’s nobody around now who was involved with the decision.” Even so, he assures me, nothing like it could happen again; concerns about privacy have heightened, and, as he puts it, “there’s now a Federal law against disclosing anything in a college student’s record to any outsider without written permission.”

Uhuh.

Breastfeeding? Not natural, not better

I can’t believe how far this SJW influence has come.
They will happily ruin people’s lives for the sake of politics.
Breastfeeding is the definition of natural, it’s a condition of being mammal, and every reasonable study conducted has proven it is better.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pediatrics-journal-says-to-stop-calling-breastfeeding-natural

A new article in the journal Pediatrics is calling on health professionals to stop saying thatbreastfeeding is natural, arguing that doing so gives the impression that natural parenting practices are healthier. The authors have started a public campaign to end the positive use of the word natural, claiming that it is associated with such “problematic” practices as home birth, homeschooling and the rejection of GMO foods, and that natural parenting movements are interfering with vaccination efforts.

In the article, Unintended Consequences of Invoking the “Natural” in Breastfeeding Promotion, Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill, Medical Ethics and Health Policy researchers at Penn Medicine, wrote:

Building on this critical work, we are concerned about breastfeeding promotion that praises breastfeeding as the “natural” way to feed infants. This messaging plays into a powerful perspective that “natural” approaches to health are better… Promoting breastfeeding as “natural” may be ethically problematic, and, even more troublingly, it may bolster this belief that “natural” approaches are presumptively healthier.

They are generally healthier than what humans can come up with artificially, because evolution. EVOLUTION. For example, natural pesticides turned out to be better than DDT. Say sorry to the parents and deformed children who trusted expert opinion. Not close enough to pediatrics? How about thalidomide? What about the cancer risk of hormonal pills including birth control? Future fertility side effects and miscarriage/abortion risk?

Not even real doctors. Ethicists. Who have no problem with trashing the Hippocratic Oath on abortion, euthanasia (both eugenic operations) and still-living organ donations.

They removed this line from the modern oath: “Nor shall any man’s entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.” Vaccines (esp. adjuvants) and abortion/chemical contraception, right there. n.b. It is little-known that hormonal ‘birth control’ doesn’t stop you from getting pregnant, it stops you from staying pregnant. No wonder it’s meant to be temporary (just a few short years) or there are serious fertility risks.

The Japanese did better in the 16th century. “You should not kill living creatures, nor should you admire hunting or fishing. In our school, teaching about poisons is prohibited, nor should you receive instructions about poisons from other physicians. Moreover, you should not give abortives to the people.”

What about making the ethicists financially accountable for this BS? Would they say it if millions of people could sue them for being wrong? Why can you sue the doctor but not the person they’re taking expert advice from?
Think I’m kidding? What about the toxins that can find their way into baby formula and are seldom recalled? What about how you’re not supposed to use tap water to mix it up, but they never actually tell you that, so your baby gets poisoned/OD’d with fluoride when it doesn’t even have teeth? What about the bonding and the microbial protection from the mother’s skin-to-skin contact? Can these people be sued for the consequences of their orders? Make no mistake, they are trying to order people about what to do in their own personal (medical) lives, they’re even trying to order around doctors, despite being less qualified.

Where’s the accountability?

What nobody is supposed to know about vaccination

http://farmwars.info/?p=14166

Long but interesting.

…Common sense may be out of vogue, but its value remains even when we have lost our ability to use it. The idea of putting disease organisms into the body through hollow needles (Laibow, 2005), bypassing all of the normal defenses of the human organism like the gastrointestinal and respiratory systems and the skin, in order to make us healthy and resistant to the disease being injected, should not be something we just believe without question. Especially when the results start to appear, which they have now done for hundreds of years in unmistakable patterns. The epidemics started and spread by vaccination, which began early in its history, with vaccinated individuals infecting others around them, should have shown us the reality of the situation. And in fact, the practice was banned many times (Humphries & Bystrianyk, 2013), but always re-started by the government groups and their medical association partners that stood to gain the most in money and power by the reinstatement of vaccination programs. We have to realize that the worst thing that could possibly happen to the medical industry, which in America now takes in more than $3 trillion dollars per year from the nation’s rampant ill-health, would be health itself. And vaccinations are there as one element of the system in place to make sure that never happens.

Live attenuated vaccines have proven contagion, unsure about others.
This becomes fatal when you consider people visiting or working in cancer wards/clinics are often compelled to get vaccinated with deadly diseases, to be allowed around the immunocompromised cancer patients.

Vaccine promoters are quick to point out that the injection of disease organisms into the body produces a response in the form of the appearance of “antibodies” in the blood. That is undeniably true, though the name is arbitrary and may be misleading by design. The fact is that the presence of “antibodies” does not mean the person will not get the disease they are being injected with. This happens commonly, and is listed as a “side effect” on many vaccine inserts that patients are not supposed to ask for or read (Blaylock, 2013). In addition, many people without detectable antibodies to a disease exhibit immunity to the disease anyway. If you point out this logic that calls the entire theory of vaccination into question, you will most likely be attacked, and labeled as “anti-science” by the huge money interests you are questioning. Medical doctors who persist in making this point can lose their licenses (Humphries & Bystrianyk, 2013). This is about intimidation and power, not about any real science….

The common retort is: If getting vaccinated makes YOU safe, why do you care what WE do?
It exposes their insecurity. They know as well as us that it isn’t airtight.
Herd immunity is a myth. It used to be a low-ball figure, over the decades it’s crept up to about 98% – beneath the error rate for those it would theoretically help. Medicine often works on greatest need, greatest benefit – forcibly injecting foreign bodies without consent (a medical intervention on par with other procedures) into 49/50 people is completely unethical. There is no excuse for it.

Britain changes BMI standard to reflect race reality

http://newobserveronline.com/racial-differences-confirmed-once-again-as-britain-sets-new-bmi-standards-for-asians/

The whole thing is good.

The reality of race has been confirmed once again with the news that the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has changed standard obesity measure threshold for Asians and other “ethnic groups” living in that country.

According to new rules set out by NICE, Asians and “other ethnic groups” (whites, as readers will know, in the eyes of the establishment, are not an “ethnic group”) must be extra careful about their weight because they are prone to diseases like diabetes.

The new target brings the UK in line with Indian and World Health Organization recommendations and says that a 5ft 11in (1.8m) Asian man should weigh below 165 lb (75kg).

According to the official guidance on the NICE website, Professor Mike Kelly, Director of the Centre for Public Health at NICE, said that the “point at which the level of body fat becomes risky to health varies between ethnic groups.

“Healthcare workers should apply lower thresholds to people from black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups than to those of white European descent….

I can hear the chanting now. Biology is racist.

It’s like, but would you rather they die because you dislike the truth?

I think the latter would be more racist, don’t you?

The dangerous practice of empathy

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3779826/pdf/emss-52147.pdf

An important role for the medical humanities is to stimulate imaginative insight into the
lives and experience of others through literature and other art forms. The idea is that such
exposure will develop “empathy” as an attribute useful in clinical practice. Those interested
in medical humanities have promoted the importance of this concept, and the “practice of
empathy” has become an icon of the growing medical humanities movement in the USA and
the UK. US physicians have even gone so far as to adopt empathy as one of the accredited
“skills” required by the American Council for Graduate Education. However, another crucial
role of the medical humanities is to provide a critical watching brief on the way in which
medicine can highjack complex ideas, confining and defining them in its own terms, and
changing their meaning and impact. I would suggest that this has happened with the notion
of empathy and that it is worthwhile examining the concept and discussing whether it makes
sense to regard it as a clinical skill at all. I am not sure that empathy, in the sense of
emotional identification, is possible. I also query the way that empathy has become an object
of measurement among some physicians.

Similar to pathological altruism.
It inhibits the logical conduct required of the role. Imagine a surgeon getting the shakes because he fears the patient will scar.