Hot wives looking hot sex Clewiston Hot wives looking hot sex Clewiston Register Login Contact Us

Need a nasty bitch that can host

Lonely Older Women Seeking Free Phone Chat Sex Mature Looking Casual Singles


Need a nasty bitch that can host

Online: 15 hours ago

About

Last time I went I won a good chunk of change and I need to go back up there to cash nasry or play some more if you want. Seeking a Black Haired Lady Hosst a good seeking 5'10 70 Housewives looking casual sex Easton Pennsylvania old Caucasian male in very good non-smoker or drinker. Just seeking to chat My wife is out on a date with her boyfriend and I would like someone Need a nasty bitch that can host chat with until she gets home. Waiting for 2 or 3 gentlemen for a night of fun Hello mans, waiting for 2 to 3 gentlemen for 1 night of fun. Someone to text with, possibly hang out.

Jan
Age:44
Relationship Status:Single
Seeking:Wants Real Sex Dating
City:Chambersburg
Hair:Red
Relation Type:Any Females Up For Chat


Need a nasty bitch that can host

Rutledge TN Bi Horney Housewifes

Ok, so here goes, this is my 2nd time posting this hoping to meet some more people. Maybe see the new Halle chick flick this weekend followed by getting mans to buy us some drinks at the barclub. Hello, my name is and I am 33 years old, but i still get carded for cigs.

Our females m4w Hey Our Females. You should be drama free and confident. Executive in town waiting for SWF I'm in town on Tuesday (Aug 30) and would like to take a SWF out to dinner at the Tilted Kilt. Guy m4w I am 19 yr. I havnt noticed a ring, so I guess you are not married, but a gal that pretty with such a friendly manner is dating someone I am sure.

Think only the religious right is anti-science? How about the spiritual left? To be alive as an organic organism on earth, you must have access to water.

On most land areas, water availability varies from month to month and year to year. As a result, the form and number of living things is greatly limited. In the Amazon rainforest, however, getting water is not a problem, and every surface is covered with layer upon layer of life forms living on top of each other. Germinating in the ground and growing in utter darkness for a long span of time is a difficult task for a tree seed to pursue successfully, but I didn't think they had much choice based on my experience living in the northeastern part of the US.

In the rainforest, however, many enormous centurial trees began their existence with a head start of feet or more toward the sun. The life cycle of these strangler figs, as they are called, is startling to anyone who imagines Mother Nature to be a harmonious place, especially for greenery.

The fruit of the strangler figs is a favorite of rainforest monkeys, who swallow the small watermelon-like seeds. Later, they defecate a pile of seed-containing dung that becomes trapped in a corner between two branches of another tree high up in the forest.

The warm dung acts as potent fertilizer and the seed germinates into a rootless vine with appendages that slowly crawl up and down along the trunk and branches. When the downward appendages hit the ground, their tips turn into roots which absorb larger amounts of water from the mud and distribute it to the rest of the fig organism. The appendages themselves now begin to expand sideways as they wrap themselves around the inner tree's trunk and major branches.

Eventually, the original tree is engulfed and disappears. The fig tree, with its hidden hollow center, has killed and taken the place of the host that brought it to life. A walk through the Amazon or any other rainforest in Central America, Asia or Africa will provide you with abundant seemingly-static snapshots of each stage in this slow lethal process.

The strangler fig is not the exception but, rather, the rule of the jungle. Nearly every tree is weighed down by vines of different kinds that grow to enormous sizes.

Old vines are themselves encrusted with other vines which are themselves encrusted in moss and fungus. Leaves are eaten by caterpillars or destroyed by leaf-cutting ants. External termite nests, some larger than a person, hang from most older trees, themselves dotted with holes drilled by birds to eat insects living within. Heavily weighted and weakened branches struggle for survival, but eventually lose and break off.

It's not a good idea to wander off the trail into the thick undergrowth, our guide Ramiro tells us; if you're not bitten by a hidden venomous snake, your ankles will be attacked by marauding toxin-injecting ants, or your exposed hands could rub up against poison-covered plants. It's fine to go swimming in the river, he says, unless you're a menstruating woman or otherwise bleeding, in which case, hordes of piranhas will eat your flesh - down to the bone if you don't get out of the water while you can.

Shallow lakes may be piranha-free, but they sprout leeches, which attach to your limbs and suck out your blood. And the air itself is thick with mosquitoes that stick a dirty needle-like proboscis through the exposed skin of any hot-blooded animal they can find.

Sometimes they carry a hitchhiking protozoan killer that slides into blood cells to feed and reproduce wildly; the blood-borne offspring are picked up by other biting mosquitoes, leaving you behind to suffer from malaria and possible death. Everywhere you look, organisms suck the life out from organisms beneath them, just as they are consumed by organisms on their own backs.

Ramiro sums it up in one of the many pithy aphorisms that cross his lips each day, "life in the jungle is fast and short. It is not just other living things that can cause pain and suffering among human beings and other animals. Mother Earth herself can be entirely capricious and uncaring. Once upon a time, there was a forested paradise as big as the United States with an abundance of trees, including giant shade-providing acacias and hackberries, and verdant green shrubbery and grasses.

Dotting the countryside were freshwater lakes and rivers with an abundance of fish. Along the shores, and in the shallows, antelopes, giraffes, elephants, and hippopotamuses lingered.

Occasionally lions and tigers came out of the forests and made their presence known. Sophisticated civilizations of people were here too, raising cattle, hunting wild game, and planting crops.

On the rock walls, they painted pictures of themselves engaged in these and other common activities. Throughout this vast homeland, for hundreds of generations, life was good.

Then, over the course of a few centuries, the unthinkable happened. The forests were becoming less dense, and the lake shorelines had receded drastically.

By the time the grandchildren of the old men had grown up, the rains stopped completely, the lakes and rivers dried up, and the verdant forests dissolved into a vast desert of sand covering up all the villages. The gods must be angry, the people thought, because we did something wrong.

Most perished, but a few escaped through migration to the northern coast, and others walked into an eastern river valley where water from a distant source continued to flow. But kept alive in the stories told by mother to daughter and father to son, from every subsequent generation to the next, even until our present day, is the legend of God's eviction of disobedient human ancestors from the ancient Garden of Eden.

The foundation for the story just told is not a fairytale, or a warning of the ecological devastation that will descend upon the earth if human beings don't mend their ways.

In its broadest strokes, these events really did unfold - in the place we call the Sahara, now the largest and driest desert in the world. Between 13, BC and 3, BC an era named the African Humid Period by earth scientists , the climate and ecology of the Sahara was radically different than it is today.

The African Humid Period occurred when the Northern hemisphere was both maximally tilted and maximally close to the summer sun. Hotter air from the north forced sustained intense heat to cover the Sahara at ground level. Hot air is less dense and rose more quickly sucking heavy Atlantic rain clouds in its stead.

Rain initiated the growth of green life, which absorbed the sun's heat more effectively than bare ground. As forests grew, they retained more heat and humidity, causing the rains to become more intense.

These Eden-like conditions lasted for almost 10, years. And then, as the earth continued to cycle through natural changes in orbit and spin, the entire system collapsed. Less midday summer sunlight in the North produced less heat, which led to weaker winds, which led to less rain, which led to a thinning of the forest, which led to a lower capacity for heat absorption, and so on. Whether the green Sahara was the inspirational source for the Biblical Garden of Eden, we'll never know.

What I find most remarkable about this fascinating story is that it is practically unknown outside specialized fields of climatology and anthropology, although scientists have been writing about it for over 40 years. In contrast, everyone knows about Ice Ages of the past, which are no more dramatic than a green Sahara. The distinction seems to be that the Sahara's past reveals a truth modern people don't want to hear: Mother Nature can be a nasty bitch.

Post-Christian western cultures, in particular, want to believe in a Mother Nature that is feminine and benevolent, always promoting her biosphere in positive ways. Life will thrive unless, according to Greenpeace International, foolish human beings persist in " The retreat of the glaciers, which led to the blossoming of human civilization, is consistent with this view. A once-upon-a-time green Sahara wiped out by natural - not human-induced - climate change doesn't fit the whole-earth spiritual picture, and does not become incorporated into the public consciousness.

What if biotechnology could be deployed to sustain and expand a self-regenerating Sahara forest that could benefit humankind in many ways? Ecological alterations of such large magnitude - whether natural or human-induced - always have effects on other regions of the globe. Computer modeling will help future societies determine whether a green Sahara would be better or not for humankind and the biosphere as a whole.

The ultimate question, though, is who should we trust to make such future choices: Mother Nature, without our help, turned gigantic vibrant ecosystems into lifeless deserts. Mother Nature, without our help, "ruined ancient civilizations and socio-economic systems.

Who or what benefits from the massive and perpetual orgy of organic churning and decimation that is Mother Nature? Certainly not the individual victims; which includes the vast majority of plants and animals in the rainforest and everywhere else. Few survive long enough to die "naturally" from old age. Even many of the so-called "top-of-the-food chain" predators like the elusive Amazonian jaguar, that walked past our tent one night, are done-in by tiny parasites or same-species competitors.

What most people in Western society believe today is that the benefit accrues to the "ecosystem as a whole. You don't have to look far to discover how this concept is taught and reinforced from early childhood. The first page of the first chapter of the Prentice Hall Ecology textbook used by my son's 5th grade class focuses on a tender story of ants and aphids opposite a full-page picture of their peaceful lives together:.

The aphid responds by releasing a drop of a sugary substance called honeydew. The ant eagerly licks up the honeydew. Then the ant gently picks up the aphid in its jaws and carries it to another leaf.

There the aphid is added to a 'herd' tended by ants. The ants take care of the aphids in exchange for meals of honeydew. Educated adults are also bombarded with a holistic image of life on earth. In , the scientist James Lovelock used an understanding of atmospheric chemistry to argue for the recognition of the biosphere as a "unified self-regulated organism," christened Gaia from the earth-mother goddess of Greek mythology with component parts that work together symbiotically for the good of the whole.

If Gaia is used simply as a value-neutral metaphor to describe the entire complex network of symbiotic interactions over the history of our planet, no evolutionary biologist or ecologist would complain. But when Gaia moves from the science sphere to the public sphere, it becomes translated into something entirely different.

The problem begins with the popular meaning of the word symbiosis. Scientists use the word broadly to describe any biological interaction between species that provides benefit to one or both. Parasitism - in which individuals from one species gain a benefit at the expense of another's life or longevity - is, by far, the most common form of symbiosis. To the public, however, symbiosis is considered to be a synonym for community and cooperation among individuals.

To get a sense of how common this vision is at a university not known for attracting students with counter-culture beliefs, I placed the following question on an anonymous survey of Princeton undergraduates: Can a species, an ecosystem or another grouping of multiple organisms have a unified spiritual soul? The possible answers were: The results surprising to me imply that even in America, where traditional Christianity is still a powerful force, highly educated young people are attracted to the post-Christian worldview of a unified "Mother Nature" that is more than a metaphor.

Can we really determine - from our perspective as potential component parts - whether the whole biosphere, or even an isolated ecosystem, behaves like a single organism? Is it possible that each species in the rainforest really is analogous to a nerve cell or ant whose work and activities serve the goal of something that only comes into existence through the proper functioning of the much larger whole?

One way to approach this question is by comparing the actual design of ecosystem networks with the design of other types of biological networks.

Three wholly different levels of biological organization are observed in nature.

A Nasty Mother | The Scientist Magazine®

The truth is, part of what makes women appealing can also make them terrifying. Their emotional volatility is either fascinating or distressing, depending on how it's expressed, yes -- but also on how it's taken. Every woman's got her moods. Most men are by turns charmed, bewildered and blindsided by them.

Here are some hints to help you keep your cool when I'm being a red hot bitch:. Don't resist it I cannot overemphasize this one. Resistance is the most common reason my being a bitch gets us into all kinds of trouble and not the fun kind instigated by tequila and a hot tub. In case you're wondering what this means, it includes saying things like, "Calm down," "Would you just relax? When I'm pissed, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, it's happening. Wishing it wasn't or telling me to stop isn't going to work.

It's similar to attempting to stop a tsunami. Is you telling the big bitchy wave to stop being a big bitchy wave going to work? But if you accept that the wave is happening and grab a surfboard, you'll get farther and be in for a hell of a ride. I know how complicated women are -- trust me, I'm living proof of this. But if there's anything I've learned about men, it's that the more I'm accepted for exactly who I'm being in this moment, the more I change and morph and melt into something more accepting myself.

Have I ever been a bitch forever? Have you ever known any women who was? Meryl Streep from Devil Wears Prada doesn't count. Emotions don't last forever, no matter what they are.

That's why they're called e-motions -- energy in motion. There is no permanent state, particularly when it comes to women. We can switch from ecstatic to melodramatic in an instant, and be ready for tiramisu right after. By the way, do you think that's easy? A lot of the time it's exhausting. You should try being on this roller coaster of emotion, not just being around it. When I'm being a bitch, we're in Emotion Land. We left Logic Land long ago and as much as you may lament its absence, that ship has sailed right on over the tsunami.

I may be crying hysterically 'because' you forgot to call, or sniping at you 'because' you forgot to buy the right kind of milk. But it's not really about that. In other words, it's not really about what it's 'about.

It's not that it has nothing to do with the milk; it's just that it's more about something else. In fact, I may not even know exactly what's wrong myself. The best way for you to deal with this is to stop playing the game of "fixing what this is 'about,'" and start listening for what it's really about.

The more you can hold off on shaming me for being upset over something 'illogical,' the more we can work as a team to figure out what's really going on. Are you like, daaamn, look at those waves flood over the boardwalk, or those cars floating down the street, or that empty house get torn up by that hurricane?

Holy Sharknado, this is amazing! Pretend my storm is an actual storm, and you get a front row seat which, incidentally, some people would pay for. Witness it the same way you would a tempest -- it swirls and rages, lessens and worsens, and eventually dissipates. Because the things I'm saying and the way I'm acting isn't 'the truth. The range of meanings has expanded in modern usage.

In a feminist context, it can indicate a strong or assertive woman. The word bitch is one of the most common curse words in the English language. Timothy Jay, there are "over 70 different taboo words," but 80 percent of the time only ten words are used, and bitch is included in this set.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary , the term bitch comes from the Old English word bicce or bicge , meaning "female dog," which dates to around CE.

It may have derived from the earlier Old Norse word bikkja , also meaning "female dog. In ancient Greece , dog was often used in a derogatory sense to refer to someone whose behavior was improper or transgressive.

This could include shamelessness or lack of restraint, lack of hospitality, lack of loyalty, and indiscriminate or excessive violence, among other qualities. Franco argues, a "persistent symbolic connection" developed between dogs and women in Greek literature that expressed and reinforced women's subordinate position in society and their supposedly inferior nature. There may also be a connection between less literal senses of bitch and the Greek goddess Artemis.

As she is the goddess of the hunt, she was often portrayed with a pack of hunting dogs and sometimes transformed into an animal herself. The earliest use of "bitch" specifically as a derogatory term for women dates to the fifteenth century.

The early applications were to a promiscuous or sensual woman, a metaphorical extension of the behavior of a bitch in heat. Herein lies the original point of the powerful insult son of a bitch, found as biche sone ca. Bitch remained a strong insult through the nineteenth century. A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore, as may be gathered from the regular Billinsgate or St Giles answer--"I may be a whore, but can't be a bitch.

It was not until the 20th century that feminism began to reevaluate the term and its appropriation. In the s, bitch became once again a common insult used against women. The term bitch became more popular in common language during this era. Between and , the use of "bitch" in newspapers and literature more than doubled.

He used it to represent favorable qualities such as ferocity, edginess, and grit. The word "bitch" during the twenties meant "malicious or consciously attempting to harm," "difficult, annoying, or interfering," and "sexually brazen or overly vulgar". In modern usage, the slang term bitch has different meanings depending largely on social context and may vary from very offensive to endearing, [3] and as with many slang terms, its meaning and nuances can vary depending on the region in which it is used.

The term bitch can refer to a person or thing that is very difficult, as in "Life's a bitch" or "He sure got the bitch end of that deal". It is common for insults to lose intensity as their meaning broadens " bastard " is another example. By , Elton John had a hit single 4 in the U. It was, however, censored by some radio stations. Bitchin' arose in the s to describe something found to be cool or rad. Modern use can include self-description, often as an unfairly difficult person.

I'm the bitch in the house. Generally, the term bitch is still considered offensive, and not accepted in formal situations. According to linguist Deborah Tannen , " Bitch is the most contemptible thing you can say about a woman. Save perhaps the four-letter C word. During the U. On CNN's "Out in the Open," Rick Sanchez characterized the word without using it by saying, "Last night, we showed you a clip of one of his supporters calling Hillary Clinton the b-word that rhymes with witch.

Rick Sanchez of CNN went on to comment: Obviously, the word that's used here is very offensive. In the context of modern feminism , bitch has varied reappropriated meanings that may connote a strong female anti-stereotype of weak submissive woman , cunning equal to males in mental guile , or else it may be used as a tongue-in cheek backhanded compliment for someone who has excelled in an achievement.

A Bitch takes shit from no one. You may not like her, but you cannot ignore her Bitches are not pretty Bitches seek their identity strictly thru themselves and what they do. What I find most remarkable about this fascinating story is that it is practically unknown outside specialized fields of climatology and anthropology, although scientists have been writing about it for over 40 years. In contrast, everyone knows about Ice Ages of the past, which are no more dramatic than a green Sahara.

The distinction seems to be that the Sahara's past reveals a truth modern people don't want to hear: Mother Nature can be a nasty bitch. Post-Christian western cultures, in particular, want to believe in a Mother Nature that is feminine and benevolent, always promoting her biosphere in positive ways.

Life will thrive unless, according to Greenpeace International, foolish human beings persist in " The retreat of the glaciers, which led to the blossoming of human civilization, is consistent with this view. A once-upon-a-time green Sahara wiped out by natural - not human-induced - climate change doesn't fit the whole-earth spiritual picture, and does not become incorporated into the public consciousness.

What if biotechnology could be deployed to sustain and expand a self-regenerating Sahara forest that could benefit humankind in many ways? Ecological alterations of such large magnitude - whether natural or human-induced - always have effects on other regions of the globe. Computer modeling will help future societies determine whether a green Sahara would be better or not for humankind and the biosphere as a whole. The ultimate question, though, is who should we trust to make such future choices: Mother Nature, without our help, turned gigantic vibrant ecosystems into lifeless deserts.

Mother Nature, without our help, "ruined ancient civilizations and socio-economic systems. Who or what benefits from the massive and perpetual orgy of organic churning and decimation that is Mother Nature? Certainly not the individual victims; which includes the vast majority of plants and animals in the rainforest and everywhere else.

Few survive long enough to die "naturally" from old age. Even many of the so-called "top-of-the-food chain" predators like the elusive Amazonian jaguar, that walked past our tent one night, are done-in by tiny parasites or same-species competitors.

What most people in Western society believe today is that the benefit accrues to the "ecosystem as a whole. You don't have to look far to discover how this concept is taught and reinforced from early childhood. The first page of the first chapter of the Prentice Hall Ecology textbook used by my son's 5th grade class focuses on a tender story of ants and aphids opposite a full-page picture of their peaceful lives together:.

The aphid responds by releasing a drop of a sugary substance called honeydew. The ant eagerly licks up the honeydew. Then the ant gently picks up the aphid in its jaws and carries it to another leaf. There the aphid is added to a 'herd' tended by ants. The ants take care of the aphids in exchange for meals of honeydew. Educated adults are also bombarded with a holistic image of life on earth.

In , the scientist James Lovelock used an understanding of atmospheric chemistry to argue for the recognition of the biosphere as a "unified self-regulated organism," christened Gaia from the earth-mother goddess of Greek mythology with component parts that work together symbiotically for the good of the whole.

If Gaia is used simply as a value-neutral metaphor to describe the entire complex network of symbiotic interactions over the history of our planet, no evolutionary biologist or ecologist would complain. But when Gaia moves from the science sphere to the public sphere, it becomes translated into something entirely different. The problem begins with the popular meaning of the word symbiosis. Scientists use the word broadly to describe any biological interaction between species that provides benefit to one or both.

Parasitism - in which individuals from one species gain a benefit at the expense of another's life or longevity - is, by far, the most common form of symbiosis. To the public, however, symbiosis is considered to be a synonym for community and cooperation among individuals.

To get a sense of how common this vision is at a university not known for attracting students with counter-culture beliefs, I placed the following question on an anonymous survey of Princeton undergraduates: Can a species, an ecosystem or another grouping of multiple organisms have a unified spiritual soul? The possible answers were: The results surprising to me imply that even in America, where traditional Christianity is still a powerful force, highly educated young people are attracted to the post-Christian worldview of a unified "Mother Nature" that is more than a metaphor.

Can we really determine - from our perspective as potential component parts - whether the whole biosphere, or even an isolated ecosystem, behaves like a single organism?

Is it possible that each species in the rainforest really is analogous to a nerve cell or ant whose work and activities serve the goal of something that only comes into existence through the proper functioning of the much larger whole? One way to approach this question is by comparing the actual design of ecosystem networks with the design of other types of biological networks.

Three wholly different levels of biological organization are observed in nature. At the bottom, specific interactions among genes and protein molecules give rise to the emergent property of dynamic life within each single cell.

In network language, each type of molecule can be viewed as a node and each type of molecular interaction as a connection. Animals are also made up of cells, but a higher level of organismal life emerges when multiple cells interact with each other to form a brain that produces a mind of some kind.

ABC's The View hosts are under fire from Melania Trump's chief Unidentified sources have become the majority of the voices people hear about Words are important, and accusations can lead to severe consequences. . Not going to happen, sound like your the only hateful bitch; don't watch the show!. Women are, simply put, nasty to each other, especially when she feels threatened. ignored for reasons you can't understand or have an explanation for, Lauren is a Guest Host on RogersTV, SiriusXm, and The Mediation. A Bottom bitchs find weak male hosts to latch onto in the work place usually a to have to hear about it for the next 2 months even though none of us will ask.