The first thought I had after reading the comments in Tracy's entry was: CIRCUMCISION. Was the comment in the entry supposed to be ironic or something? Isn't the answer so completely obvious?

My take on male circumcision is that it will (and is) decreasing as a practice. A lot of new parents are opting out and not as many doctors are routinely performing them. My understanding was that doctors used to believe that circumcision lead to less infections and that it was done as a preventative measure and had very little to do with what a newborn's future sex partner might prefer. Did new parents even have a say in whether the procedure was done? Since recent studies have proven that circumcision does not increase infections or STDs (although there is varying results relating circumcision to HIV infection rates) the medical reason to perform circumcision has evaporated. I liken this to the belief in the 1950s that babies should not be breast fed because formula was better for babies. We now know better. So the practice will change.

However, the whole "designer vagina" trend is just baffling to me especially if there is no medical reason to have it done. That a grown woman would feel that much pressure to take the risk of permanently damaging herself because her labia don't look like what she thinks they should? Are these women really being pressured by their lovers into getting this surgery? Or are they so influenced by "porn culture" that they think trimmed up vaginas are more attractive or are they just insecure and suseptible to dubious marketting practices of cosmetic surgeons? Is this just part of the American obsessions with "cleanliness" and perfection (shaving, waxing, body and vaginal deodorants, breasts that never sag, cellulite creams, teeth whitening).

I actually blame this on the left wing godless sexual deviants. If people waited until marriage to have sex with the lights out, there would be reason for this type of surgery. No one would know that they are different types of private parts since they wouldn't ever see any, nor should they. Everyone should just pray more instead of spending time watching porn or having sex with the lights on.

(That last paragraph was sarcasm.)

Are there any decent role models male or female around these days? Celebrity culture is all about the lifting up and tearing down of people that probably should never have been lifted up in the first place (Britney, Lindsay, Paris). How about sports figures? How do you get past the drug abuse, gambling, baby daddies and violence? (Michael Vick, Bary Bonds, Tom Brady, Ray Lewis, Rae Carruth) Politicians? Puh-lease. I guess there are still a few Republicans holding out on Bush as their man. Hell, even astronauts have taken a tumble. Musicians as role models are a complete joke, especially considering a lot of them don't even have musical talent anymore. Do you really want your kid modelling themselves off of R. Kelly or Lil Kim?

I'd say the best source now are probably fictional characters like Harry Potter or American Girl series. Then again, they aren't real people with real problems.

Maybe it's the lack of distance between fans and their "heroes" that's the problem. Celebrities used to be able to more easily control what was known about their personal lives, now we have snapshots of a passed out Lindsay Lohan circulating the internet and even making it onto the evening news.

There's an interesting article in this week's Newsweek about the rise of the Beta Male. Jim from The Office and Al Gore leading the list.

Re Goth Boys: Back in the day I found nothing hotter than a guy in black eyeliner and a skirt. They were so much sexier than any khaki clad frat boy.

Historically speaking,(high status or status seeking) men were just as fashion driven as women, maybe even more so. This really changed with the rise of the professional middle class in the Victorian Era when gender roles were very rigidly enforced and probably culminated with the 1950's IBM man in his very conservative dark suit, white shirt and dark tie (another time when gender roles were rigid). Both eras are very similar in what you wore reflected your class (blue collar vs white collar) and the separation of the female sphere (ie home and hearth) vs that of the masculine. Middle and upper classes women's clothing were very restrictive in both eras, corsets and large skirts for the Victorian woman and white gloves, dresses and hats for the 1950's.