Letters to the Editor
Juliebird
Published Letters: 1768 Editor's Choice: 103
-
@Holly
[Read the article: Not lady enough]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That sentence was badly written, and I certainly didn't mean it the way you heard it. (Tucker Carlson, as he stated not that long ago, beat up a homosexual man because Tucker felt threatened by the other man's proposition. I was trying to be witty and play on that vs the typical homophobic expectation of homophobes being the object of every gay person's lust "They're following me into the bathroom!" paranoia, but I got interrupted by my kids and lost my train of thought.) My apologies.
Let me see if I can untangle myself:
A restroom is one pace where a person should feel safe from unwanted sexual aggression. Assuming the entire world is "straight," single-sex bathrooms solve that issue.
That's really a myth. Since the world is not 100% "straight," unisex bathrooms do not prevent undesired sexual attention 100% of the time. But, most of us live our entire lives never being propositioned by anyone in a bathroom, and so we feel "safer" from becoming an object of someone's sexual desire in a single-sex bathroom. The myth is pretty true for most of our personal experiences.
And, as you stated, most sexual violence in bathrooms is done by a homophobic Tucker Carlson-type beating up some poor guy unlucky enough to wink at him.
My larger point was, unisex bathrooms would not prevent the above example from happening, but would in all likelihood create an environment where women, girls and young boys (and I suppose the unwary full-grown male) could be more vulnerable to sexual predators of all types. I also see the likelihood of anyone witnessing or overhearing consensual (homo or hetero) sex acts to skyrocket. Ditto incidents of sexual harassment.
-
wow
[Read the article: Balls of their own]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Your right to swing your fist ends at someone else's nose.
.....
As an atheist I can firmly state, that if you want to infringe on the private religious communications and practices of various families, I will be more than happy to help them walk the picket lines against you."
Riiiiigggghhhht.
Everyone here is picketing chastity balls and ripping rings off of teenager fingers, harassing poor Christians and disrupting their religious and family life. Please.
People here are ridiculing the practice of pledging chastity to one's parents, in a ceremony sealed with a ring.
If you'll excuse me, no one has a constitutional protection from ridicule.
Many of these good Christian folks you're so concerned about wouldn't hesitate to "infringe on" the private medical, moral and religious communications and practices of various families. You know, those families who want to tolerate, or celebrate, same-sex marriage. Those families who want to privately practice birth control and have the audacity to ask for a prescription. And the families who heartbreakingly choose to end a wanted pregnancy, due to medical complications. A few so-called Christians have resorted to murder and terror attacks to "infringe on" other people's rights to assemble at health clinics and practice a religion that allows for abortion.
Anyone here planning on bombing "A Knight to Remember?" Thought not. But of course, we're Nazis. So it's important to check.
Atheist you may be. Rational you are not.
-
the good old days
[Read the article: To tipple or not to tipple?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Besides, how in the world did any humans give birth to healthy babies in the thousands of years during which we drank wine liberally, drank it in place of (often nonpotable) water, and never thought to research the effects?"
In years past we did many, many, many things that would be considered unsafe today. Certainly in previously centuries water was more hazardous to drink than wine. But infant mortality and miscarriage rates were much, much higher than they are today. Impossible to know how many pregnancies self-aborted due to mom's alcohol intake, vs mom getting food poisoning, vs mom getting a disease, vs birth defects, vs complicataions like preecclampsia or gestational diabetes, etc. But, alcohol must have played a part in some miscarriages and early deaths.
Personally, I could live a full and happy life without ever drinking an alcoholic beverage again, and never miss it. Take my chocolate away, or my diet coke, and I'd suffer. So, "giving up" alcohol while pregnant was easy. Limiting my diet coke consumption was difficult, especially when it really helped quell nausea. And giving up almost all sugar (I had gestational diabetes with my first pregnancy, but not my second) sucked. But, I knew my chocolate addiction wasn't worth a complicated pregnancy or a prematur birth, so it was still an easy decision. I missed chocolate, but I wasn't tempted to "cheat" and eat a candy bar.
So, I can sympathize with women who miss alcohol (and are not alcoholics) as part of daily life. For them, I suspect a small glass of wine, even daily, is not going to harm the baby. But ... I'd imbibe as little as possible. I'd not be comfortable with drinking a glass a day.
Sometimes going cold turkey is better than taking half-measures.
Probably the best approach is to work with an OB who is knowledgeable about your medical history, your lifestyle, and alcool while pregnant, who will listen to you, but won't give you carte blanche, to find the right balance for you.
-
how will BOR spin this?
[Read the article: Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am thrilled for Al Gore. Deserved recognition for honest, apolitical, altruistic work.
I'm just wondering what kind of pretzel BOR and his horde will twist this into to smear Al Gore, the left, the liberal media, and the Democratic presidential nominees.