It's usually about someone trying to kill me or family members dying. The latter are especially disturbing as they feel completely real. I usually call my folks first thing in the morning to make sure they're OK, and then I'm upset for days afterwards.

The nightmares occur at least once a week, so I don't think it has anything to do with my cycle.

Perez has been calling her that for years, it started long before her affair with Getty. I believe it has to do with her well-documented promiscuity. He also calls Jake Gyllenhaal "Gyllenho", so I'm not seeing the double standard here. If anything, there is far less proof of Jake's promiscuity than there is of Sienna's.

He has cruel nicknames for all celebrities he arbitrarily dislikes, and flattering nicknames for the ones he likes. And he doctors most pictures so that people have sperm coming out of their mouths and/or coke coming out their noses.

I think his website can be a fun read on a slow day if you don't take it seriously (Perez certainly doesn't take himself seriously). I have zero compassion with the celebrities he profiles, because they are all publicity whores and provide him with the material.

Women who cherish their privacy and reputation don't canoodle naked on a public beach with their married lover. Sienna has only herself to blame for the slut-shaming.

He bribed the right people. This is how things are done in Russia.

"I'm guessing the judge's logic is that sexual harassment drives women out of the office and into the home, where they can fulfill their true calling as baby incubators"

That's certainly not what he meant. In the former Soviet Union (where I was born and lived until age 9), there were virtually no stay-at-home mothers. After having a baby, a woman hands it off to her retired parents or in-laws, or, failing that, day-care, and goes right back to work. I don't think this has changed much in the last 15 years.

What he most likely meant is that women don't put out without "a little coaxing" from men. This was a wide-spread belief when I lived there in the 80's and early 90's, and probably still is.

I can see where you're coming from, but I maintain that pilates is a great place to start for the very unfit/overweight. As most of the exercises are done lying down, there is absolutely no stress on the hips, knees, or ankles, so it's one of the safest activities for overweight people. Pilates strengthens these joints, which prepares them for higher-impact activities such as jogging (and helps the person lose more weight, with a lesser risk of injury).

And - I cannot stress this enough - pilates is never humiliating. The atmosphere in a studio is very relaxed and the instructors are supportive and encouraging. In a beginners class, *nobody* gets everything right and everybody has a good laugh at themselves. Everyone has some kind of physical limitation - joint injuries, osteoporosis, pregnancy, limited range of motion, low energy levels after chemo, excess weight - and does the best they can. So if you're overweight and interested in pilates, don't put it off until you've lost weight - do it now.

Have you ever done yoga or pilates? In a dedicated studio, with qualified instructors? I'm not a small girl myself (I wear a size 8/10), nor am I very athletic, and I can do it. Of course it's not easy, but it's not supposed to be. You can only change your body by challenging yourself, and you'll be surprised by what your body is capable of.

Pilates and yoga can be done by virtually anyone; pilates especially was designed as a rehabilitative method (that's why most of the exercises are done lying down). A good teacher will assess your level, and start you off with a safe but appropriately challenging regimen, so you can reap the benefits without hurting yourself.

I hope that people who are interested in trying one of the two methods aren't deterred by the misconception that they have to already be in good shape to do it. They'd be cheating themselves out of a wonderful experience.

It's supposed to read "you will look and feel amazing", apologies for the unintentional valley-girl-ism.

rampart is right that resistance training won't help you drop pounds, but it will make you leaner, ie. reduce your girth - isn't that what most people are looking for? My preferred form of resistance training is equipment-based pilates, and while I haven't lost an ounce since I started doing it, I've lost inches from my waist and thighs. I've also become stronger, improved my posture and increased flexibility, none of which I could have achieved with cardio.

I'm not knocking cardio, just saying that 55 minutes on a bike five times a week won't get you the best results. Substitute three of those sessions with pilates (or vinyasa yoga, or low-weight high-rep weight training followed by stretching), and you will look and feel like amazing.

What bugs me most about the religious belief that women need to "cover up" so as not to provoke a man's sexual interest (not only in Islam, but also in the more conservative movements of Judaism), is that it implies that men have no control over their sexual urges. Are we seriously supposed to believe that man, the most enlightened of beings (according to the same religious texts), will lose all self-control with a glimpse of a woman's face/hair/collarbone? If I were a man, I'd take great offense at that. And even if this were true, why should a woman be punished with discomfort for a man's character flaw?

I completely agree with Nona: why should a man only respect me if I cover up everything but my eyes? Am I less worthy of respect if I prefer comfortable and weather-appropriate clothing? Covering up for "respect" is absolute BS, and kudos to the French government for their ruling.