didn't really meet often. In my early attempts at trying to understand the female psyche I remember looking through several issues of Cosmo, found in female friend's rooms, marvelling at the little questionnaires which were supposed to open your eyes about yourself, your sexual preferences, whether or not your man was cheating and, of course, how to please him. They always looked so oversimplified and shallow; I can understand people trying to understand themselves and others, but on such a basis? One of said friends claimed they were a direct development of games girls play with each other during childhood, and that they should be treated as that: just games. I think she was right.

Ellabean, your description was the funniest thing I've read this week. Thanks for so many well-needed laughs!

it looks like it's criticizing Fox for saying something everybody already knows. But I enjoyed the original article linked from the post. Some highlights:

"While the shackles of masturbation have been loosening around our loins, it is only recently that society has started to let go of its guilt around solo sex."

Damn shackles! That's why my underwear always felt so funny.

"(And if it makes you feel even better, know that masturbation is common among other animals, like dogs, cats, horses, bulls, rats, hamsters, deer, and whales, too)."

Rats, hamsters, deer, and whales, too? Who collected the data for this research?

"[In olden times], in losing vaginal fluid, a female who took matters into her own hands was supposedly at risk for hysteria, jaundice, epileptic fits, and other negative health conditions. Of equal concern, self-pleasuring was thought to send her down the road to sodomy as well."

Why sodomy as well? I'll never understand the Middle Ages...

"RELATED STORIES: Study: Frequent Masturbation May Prevent Prostate Cancer"

Yay!

Benefits for women include:

"— Building her resistance to yeast infections.

— Combating pre-menstrual tension and other physical conditions associated with their menstrual cycles, like cramps.

— Relieving painful menstruation by increasing blood flow to the pelvic region. This will also reduce pelvic cramping and related backaches.

— Relieving chronic back pain and increasing her threshold for pain."

Is increasing her threshold for pain good?

Benefits for both sexes:

"— The safest kind of sex, keeping you free of sexually transmitted infections.

— A great form of stress relief.

— A mood booster in releasing endorphins.

— A natural sleep sedative.

— A mechanism for building stronger pelvic floor muscles, which can lead to better sex.

— A natural energetic pick-me-up."

Wow! A natural pick-me-up!

And all this, and more, from your Fox Network. If only Cosmo would talk about that...

Perhaps dick dworkin is a bit annoying in the way he puts his points; but I think I could rephrase it like this (dick, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Men behave in a certain way with respect to sex (say, they want it much more than women) -- be it biology, society, etc. It is true that the decision is ultimately conscious, but the desires are there. People's desires for a number of things often lead them to do stupid things, against their own interests. So, whenever someone says that what Edwards did is wrong (with which I think everybody is in agreement), this should also be taken into account.

It may be that women are affected differently (or so I think dick's argument would go), and thus don't really feel the pressure that men feel. They shouldn't belittle it in their explanations though.

Of course, this pressure doesn't take responsibility from his hands. As many have already said, he knew it would be bad for his career and still did it. It was stupid. So nobody is excusing Edwards of having done a stupid thing that will harm him politically.

But this is not the same as saying that "men can't be put in charge of things". What Edwards did had nothing to do with his capacity as a politician. Just like a mathematician shouldn't have a paper refused for publication in a mathematics journal just because s/he committed adultery -- this doesn't mean that the mathematician in question isn't a good mathematician; it may say something about his sex life, but not about his mathematics.

So dick's point would be, I think: people can be put in charge if they are capable of doing the job. Other problems or defects they may have in their personalities shouldn't be held against them -- only their capacity for doing the job. In Edwards' case, the only reason why his adulterous relationship interferers with his career are the beliefs of the American electorate.

Dick, have I misrepresented you?

I understand your point: you think Cavalli wasn't offending the models as human beings because he said 'For me,...'. Maybe this was indeed his intention: I don't know him, but I won't assume he likes to belittle people. Indeed we sometimes say things that sound very dismissive or even prejudiced, but we mean it in zest, in good humour, not hurt feelings.

Still, I think these were poorly chosen words. It may be that you didn't feel disrespected in your modelling job, but a part of that may be -- I hope I'm right? -- that nobody ever said something about you being just a little statue that they wanted to paint. Or if they did, it was in an obviously joking context. Now, if one of them had said it in a moment of anger, or perhaps seriously, you might feel offended. Even if he hadn't really meant it.

If Cavalli meant his words also as a sort of joke, an exaggeration for expressiveness, OK. The article didn't suggest that though. It suggested something that would make the models feel bad about themselves, more similar to what melthough was talking about. An offense. And that would be bad. He shouldn't offend people that work for him like that.

So I hope you're right and this was note the case. But the article doesn't say so.