It touches on several different areas... if we’re being descriptive, you could call it anatomy. I'm pretty sure we're talking about tertiary sexual characteristics here.
This might be a bit of a tangent (maybe it isn't, but certainly not directly), but I have a feeling prosopagnosia is more common in women.
Belief, in a general sense, can act as a protective buffer for mental health, but it can also weigh heavily on the psyche and increase the likelihood of psychological issues. In some cases, it might even serve as a symptom of an existing condition. What actually matters is the substance of what one believes, rather than whether they follow a specific formal religion or any other organized creed. The same logic applies to atheists—claiming God doesn't exist is just another form of dogma.
If therapy hasn't moved the needle, maybe the kid isn't the only one struggling here. It’s possible the entire family dynamic is out of whack. Holding onto a bowel movement is essentially an attempt at impulse control. Why would someone be that terrified of letting go? We could speculate—maybe they're harboring aggression toward a parent that they don't feel safe expressing, so they choose rigidity over losing control. Or, if there's pain involved, they might interpret it as a punishment, viewing their own bodily functions as some sort of sign that they're doing something wrong (again, purely hypothetical). There's also the chance the parents are just too rigid, overly strict, or haven't built a truly close connection with the child... There are plenty of other angles to consider. This needs a professional to sit down and break it all down systematically—and ideally, sooner rather than later.
It might be worth seeing a pediatric psychiatrist, especially since this has been dragging on for a while. And honestly, it wouldn't be surprising if the whole family needed to jump into therapy or at least a structured counseling session together. You have to de-escalate the tension surrounding the issue before you can actually start fixing it.
By the way, the clinical term for this is enkopresis. I don't think anyone has mentioned that yet.
I was thinking about how men tend to have more prominent brow ridges, stronger jaw muscles, and more squared-off jawlines. Even the angle between the nose and the forehead, or the shape of the upper lip, tends to differ—not to mention facial hair, which isn't a negligible factor. (I recall a study suggesting that men with these more pronounced masculine traits were more frequently found in leadership roles and saw faster advancement, like moving up the ranks in the US Army. One theory was that this plays into how men perceive dominance among themselves. It might not be directly linked to our topic, but it shows these features carry weight.) 0>> 0>>As for beards, just because a specific experiment didn't find a link doesn't mean women aren't looking for them. In fact, a beard might actually be one of those evolutionary drivers that conditioned women to be more sensitive to detecting these specific physical characteristics. 0>> 0>>Maybe it’s getting complicated. Think of it this way: throughout human history, there was far more hunger than plenty. Because of that, we evolved to favor satiety over enduring starvation (which explains why everyone struggles with dieting). Even now, when food scarcity isn't an actual threat, that instinct to seek out heavy, sugary, calorie-dense foods remains—even if it leads to obesity. 0>> 0>>In the same vein, women likely still read these cues from faces. Even if the amount of vital information we need to process has decreased, the conditioning remains. We've only had culture for a relatively tiny sliver of our evolutionary timeline—maybe 70,000 years—which might have influenced things slightly, but the biological groundwork is deep. 0>> 0>> 0>> 0>>It would be interesting to see if those same differences show up in children's faces. 0>>
I’m curious if there's any measurable difference in facial recognition speeds between genders—does the data actually hold up? I'd also be interested to know if sexual orientation plays a role in how quickly people process faces. My guess? Men tend to display secondary sexual characteristics more prominently through their facial structure; a man going through puberty undergoes much more dramatic shifts in his features than a woman does. When men look at women, they're likely focusing on entirely different critical cues. And let's not forget a factor we often overlook: historically, men have relied heavily on facial hair as a clear signal of being a sexually mature adult ready for partnership and offspring.
The issue with evolutionary psychology is that it's notoriously difficult to prove through controlled experiments. You hear the exact same criticisms leveled against Freud. That’s just the nature of these fields. Plenty of people find these theories intuitive, but we lack the rigorous methodology required to make them scientifically airtight. That doesn't mean the theories aren't valid, though.
stormywalker17 said:I have been struggling with depression for quite some time now, and honestly, it’s been an exhausting journey. I’ve been admitted to psychiatric wards on a few different occasions, but the treatments they prescribed just didn't seem to touch the surface; if anything, I often felt even worse after being on them. When I was last discharged from the facility, a close friend of mine suggested I try some 2mg Subutex for my depression, and I have to admit, it actually provides some relief. However, there is a catch—whenever I try to stop taking it, I become incredibly irritable and deal with this pervasive physical pain that just won't quit. I was wondering if anyone here might have a recommendation for a medication that works in a similar fashion but without such harsh side effects.
Thanks in advance
Yeah, I know—go see a doctor! It's not unusual for antidepressants not to work on the first try, but you just switch medications, and the next one might work perfectly fine since there's such a huge variety out there. Looking for "one-size-fits-all" fixes isn't necessary, and frankly, it isn't smart—they aren't really solutions at all. 🙂Not in the long run, anyway. Sorry. Subutex is substitution therapy for heroin addicts. It probably feels like it's "taking the edge off," and since you're dealing with anxiety, it might seem like it's working. But it is absolutely the wrong tool for this job. You're just inviting new problems, and then things will get seriously difficult. 🧐 Just go to a doctor, no hesitation! 🙂
A "normal" psychological profile is really just an idealized blueprint—it’s more of an educational benchmark than something you'd actually find in the wild. It basically serves as a way to define a "middle ground." Most people fall somewhere within that broad spectrum, and honestly, that's enough. You don't need to hit the bullseye perfectly. That would be an illusion.
Medication is much like operating heavy machinery, or handling firearms! If you know what you're doing, you can manage them safely throughout your entire career. But if they end up in the wrong hands, things get dangerous fast.
Listing side effects is intended for people who are assumed to be conscious, grown-up, and capable of critical thinking—otherwise, they’d need someone else to do that heavy lifting for them. Besides, you always have the option to just be reckless and take full responsibility for it!
So what if someone takes it while they're already high, or drinking, or even huffing paint?
That’s a textbook example of irresponsible behavior. No one can step in and help you there if you don't have any self-discipline to begin with. Instructions aren't designed to raise children; they're meant for people who can actually look after themselves.
And just to clarify, I wasn't talking about 1000:1 dosage ratios; I was referring to the frequency of a specific side effect at its mildest level within the general population (say, 1 in 1,000).
It's also worth noting that experiencing a side effect doesn't necessarily mean something catastrophic is happening. It might, but it isn't a guarantee. That makes the actual probability of something terrible occurring relatively slim. You're statistically more likely to get into a car wreck—yet everyone still loves their cars! It's all about your mindset.
Fighting just for the sake of fighting? Yeah, that's a waste of time. If someone actually identifies a real issue—and honestly, sometimes it really is a matter of basic human dignity—then they absolutely have every right to push for a solution. Now, what kind of "fight" that turns into is a whole different story. Even love can be a struggle in its own way. My point is, it doesn't always have to be fueled by frustration. It's mostly about how much skill you bring to the table.
Look, when we're talking about medical marijuana, it’s mostly used for palliative care—specifically for patients facing terminal diagnoses. In those cases, the long-term risks like potential addiction or cognitive issues down the line don't really matter much, since they aren't expected to be around that long anyway. I'm oversimplifying here, but that's the gist of it.
And then there's the whole business of working with dreams, hallucinations, or sudden insights. Either the system is built to account for that, or it’s practically pointless. Maybe that's just another purely practical reason why it doesn't work.
In my opinion, it really comes down to finding that sweet spot between mental stability and physical health. When it comes to raising a kid, you want someone mature and self-aware—someone with a solid set of principles who can actually handle a little frustration without melting down. And obviously, they need to actually give a damn about the child; we aren't talking about people who are totally checked out. Honestly, sometimes fathers end up being better suited for this role. I agree that these factors should definitely be on the table during divorce proceedings if that's the situation. Sometimes, the person best equipped to step up isn't even the biological parent... anything can happen. At the end of the day, substance matters way more than just checking a box.
So what am I supposed to do now? Demand they abolish the male gender entirely?!
And why not just ask for nothing at all— not from women , nor from men?! I guess that’s just what happens when you’re actually a satisfied individual, regardless of gender.
They’re legally required to list those side effects, even the ones with a 1:1000 chance of happening. It’s just how they cover their bases. It doesn't mean every single thing on that list is lurking around the corner waiting for you.
Nicole Barrett76 said:I find myself pondering a singular, perplexing question regarding antidepressants: if these medications function by preventing the reuptake of serotonin, does that not imply that our bodies are constantly depleting their supply? If such a rapid depletion occurs, how on earth can we possibly replenish those levels given the abysmal quality of the food we consume in America today?
They aren't actually stopping the production; they just prevent the serotonin from being sucked back up (after it’s released into the synaptic cleft and does its job, it usually gets reabsorbed). By blocking that reabsorption, you're essentially making sure it stays active on the receptors longer. It isn't some uncontrolled, one-way drain on your system. I'm oversimplifying here, but hopefully that makes sense.
Valium and Celexa are more for when you’re having trouble actually falling asleep, rather than staying asleep through the night. For that particular issue, Paxil is usually a better bet.
William Hernandez14 said:How safe is modern medicine, really? Just look at the last couple of years. Between accidental overdoses and fatal drug interactions, we've lost people like Diana, A. N. Smith, her son, H. Leadger, Jack... and others. Some cases might be outliers, but to me, this feels like unintentional killing or a game of Russian roulette😲. I find myself wondering if pharmacology is actually reliable enough—at least, as much as I'd like it to be.🙄👎
As long as you're under a doctor's supervision, it's safe. And those examples? They aren't coincidences. In my opinion, it's just clever PR; they died from something much more "embarrassing."