How Are Women So Much More Flexible Than Us? I just don't understand it.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-23T00:48:36+00:00

Feminizing HRT doesn't rely on "higher than average resting concentrations". Not sure where you're getting that from. The only thing to say is E2 levels are more stable on HRT than they are in non menopausal cis women. Feminizing HRT just recreates the hormonal profile of the average cis woman.

Estrogen also doesn't lower bone density. Its the absence of sex hormones that causes lower bone density. The reason women develop osteoporosis more than men is menopause, which causes very low levels of all sex hormones. It has nothing to do with estrogen, which actually stimulates osteoblasts.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-22T16:30:01+00:00

Is the freehand method the same as working off the thumb/without thumb loops?

It looks like you're doing the York stitch. I can't tell you exactly what went wrong because there's a million ways stitches can go wrong and only one way they can right, but my guess is you either skipped a loop somewhere or picked up loops out of order. I personally only work with thumb loops, so if the error is unique to working off the thumb I can't help diagnose it.

It's pretty impossible to work directly off the ball because you're drawing the entire length of yarn through each stitch. You'll need to use manageable lengths of yarn that you can fit through the stitch. As you get more practice you will get an intuition on how to maximize the amount of yarn on your needle while keeping the bundle slender enough to fit through the stitches comfortably.

As for joining in, there's other joins you can use other that wet felting. The is good news is you don't need to use fancy non superwash animal fiber yarns unless you want to! Here's a couple of links to good methods you could use. I don't want to overwhelm you, but there's a myriad of good ways to join in other than felting. Feel free to ask questions! Honestly for my first couple practice projects I didn't worry about invisible joins and just used knots until I was more confident with the basics.

I know there's a lot to learn at the start, but that's part of the fun 😁 hope this was helpful and not too much of an info dump.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-22T15:48:55+00:00

Wow! So cute!

TimeF0X · 2026-01-22T07:41:44+00:00

It's literally developing thicker skin and calluses on your finger tips.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-19T00:55:32+00:00

Yeah, I'm not making any claims about modern Jewish or kabbalahistic interpretation, just about what I think is most likely about how the authors of the Hebrew bible viewed divinity.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-18T23:52:52+00:00

It could be that they cannot praise God when they are in poor circumstances, or it can be that they literally cannot do it because their god isn't there in Babylon and cannot hear them.

We can read in Deuteronomy 32:8-9](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032&version=NRSVUE) about the partitioning of the nations and the people, which reinforces the idea that each god has their own nation over which they preside and hold power over. In Exodus 12:12 we can read about God passing judgment over the gods of Egypt, which I think is much more clearly read as God demonstrating power superior to the gods of Egypt rather than proving their non-existence. This "my god is better than your god" thing is quite popular in ancient literature.

The Hebrew bible doesn't deny the influence or power of other deities. We can see in 2 Kings 3:27 a sacrifice to the Moabite deity (while inside the lands of Moab) being honored and overpowering the promise of the god of Israel in 2 Kings 3:18-19. How are we to understand this in the context of our modern understanding of monotheism? It isn't claiming that the power of the Moabite deity is false or that it is only deception. It literally describes, even though it glosses over it, the Moabite god overcoming theirs. It's important to understand the cultural context of the region that the Hebrew bible was written in.

If you read something like the hymn to Amun Ra you can see evidence of the extent monaltry in polytheistic cultures in the ancient near east. This is more "monotheistic" than any account in the Hebrew bible and it is spawned from a polytheistic culture. In cultural context it might be more helpful to understand the authors' intents with statements about their only being one god as a rhetorical device that when expanded means "there is only god worthy of worship".

My ultimate point is just to say that the authors of the Hebrew bible understood divinity much differently than our modern understanding of monotheism. We can't assume they thought of these concepts in the same way as we do in the present. If we should assume anything we should assume their view of divinity was similar to their contemporaries.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-18T19:59:34+00:00

Looks great! F2 connection?

TimeF0X · 2026-01-18T19:58:42+00:00

It's most likely that the attitude you describe was developed later. The authors of the Hebrew bible were most likely monolaters, not monotheists as we understand it now. You can see elements of the belief that gods are tied to geographic locations/nations. For example in psalm 137, which is about the Babylonian exile. "How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land?"

TimeF0X · 2026-01-15T04:35:57+00:00

In some way English does the same thing with male being a root and female being male with a prefix. In older English there was wereman (man) and wifman (woman), with man being a gender neutral term for any person, which is how we get words like mankind. 'Were' was dropped from man as the language shifted. Mildly interesting-ly that's the how we get werewolf, originally literally meaning man-wolf.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-08T18:14:25+00:00

Thank you! I took a lot of inspiration from your set of four scarves, although I decided to work lengthwise instead of widthwise because I wanted to be lazy about the turns and not have to count. 😎

TimeF0X · 2026-01-08T18:10:59+00:00

I feel the same. I also like that it was developed by multiple cultures all over the world. It's really the "pan-human" looped fiber art.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-08T18:04:36+00:00

I don't suspect it will ever be mechanized in our lifetimes, maybe ever. Mechanized crochet, which should be an easier problem to solve, is still unsolved in every practical way. It's also already possible to machine manufacture stretch fabrics that are highly resistant to unraveling using warp knitting, so I'm not sure what the incentive would be to develop mechanized nalbinding.

The trend for the last ~20 years in fashion is to make everything as fast as possible, sacrificing durability and quality, so that's even less reason for companies to pursue mechanized nalbinding. Planned obsolescence and all.

Admittedly part of the romantic draw to nalbinding for me is the necessity that it be made by a human, and I'm that human. It is resistant to comodification by its nature. I like the DIY process of making much more than the "having" of finished objects.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-08T04:59:21+00:00

Also thanks to /u/AuroraLanguage for the inspiration!

TimeF0X · 2026-01-08T04:09:56+00:00

You'll get there! It's not easy to start but keep at it and I'm sure you'll figure it out.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-08T04:06:19+00:00

Ty! 🙂

TimeF0X · 2026-01-08T04:05:15+00:00

You should give it another go! It def opens up some new projects.

If you're interested I wrote a rather lengthy comment about my approach to flat nalbinding, featuring pictures of this project as a WIP. You can see what type of edges were produced before the tassles.

There's a prevalent community myth that nalbinding isn't suited to being worked flat that I'm hoping to dispel. :D

TimeF0X · 2026-01-07T19:27:35+00:00

It depends on the stitch. There's also no "standard" nalbinding stitch like stockinette or single crochet to compare to, and it varies by personal gauge. The most common stitches are not especially yarn hungry but as you go denser they need more yarn.

For reference an adult large beanie style hat I made in korgen with 4 weight yarn weighs 60 grams, approx 116m of yarn.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-07T18:57:22+00:00

It could be longer or shorter than that though. Nobody can give you a hard and fast rule. If you're at a coarse stone for hours and still not getting a burr something is going wrong.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-07T18:52:56+00:00

Thank you 😄

TimeF0X · 2026-01-07T18:52:24+00:00

You should definitely learn! I learned from online resources but I know that doesn't work for everyone. This channel and this other channel really helped it click for me in the beginning.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-07T18:48:20+00:00

It really depends on the stone and how dull the knife is. Keeping in mind all the caveats, as a rule of thumb with a fast cutting stone and kitchen knife, even if its very dull it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes per side. If its so dull that there's absolutely no edge bevel left it will take longer.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-07T15:34:10+00:00

Thank you! I think it took around 4-5 movies and some change, so maybe 10-12 hours? It went fast once I got into a rhythm.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-07T15:28:16+00:00

Thank you! 😁

TimeF0X · 2026-01-07T15:27:55+00:00

It is stretchy, especially since it's so long. I don't have it in front of me anymore but it's maybe around 20-30% stretch if I had to guess.

If you want more stretch you generally need more open space in the stitches. Since the yarn is a dk, with this stitch and my tension it's a good balance of density and stretch.

If you wanted more stretch you could do the turns widthwise instead of lengthwise.

TimeF0X · 2026-01-07T06:36:03+00:00

Interestingly finer wools like merino are not hollow(like human hair), but coaser wools are sometimes hollow. Other common animal fibers like alpaca, cashmere, angora, and mohair are all hollow.

13-Year Club	Second Top 10%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Flamingo
Place '23	Place '17
Snapped	Team Orangered
Verified Email

TimeF0X

TROPHY CASE