The first time a man brought up the subject of shaving to me, it was as a hypothetical, at a party, and he wasn't even my lover. I replied with the "infantilization" argument, and he assured me that was not what turned him on.

While I shave my legs & underarms, I don't need to do it often (convenient genes).

Wax scares me. I've always kept things trim, and again, convenient genes kept this to a minimum.

My last boyfriend confessed that seeing me shaved was a fantasy of his.

I did it as a surprise and discovered that in the heat of the summer, I felt far less sweatty.

I kept it up for quite some time.

Eventually, the boyfriend asked if I would grow it back again. The fantasy had gone the other way.

This is what I don't get about the "boys need action" argument:

In the past (100, 200 years ago) when men focused on the education of their sons, these boys were asked to read books, to sit quietly, to behave themselves, and study.

They may have practiced sports, they may have had rough-and-tumble activities outside the classroom, but classroom learning always involved quiet, reading, and discipline.

Why is this considered beyond the capabilities of modern boys?

If test-organizers like gender, race, age, and other statistical facts, why don't they put those questions at the end?

Instead of answering the questions up front, save them for the moment after "pencils down".

I saw this article.

They are turning down models with a BMI of less than 18.

The MetLife chart used by a large number of doctors shows a "healthy" BMI between 20-25.

The article gives the math for how they calculate BMI.

A 5'9" model would have to weigh 121.5lbs or less to be turned away.

That's still scary-thin in my book.

I kind of want to vomit.

I won't even dignify the "she was asking for it by leaving the house" comments by responding.

I like to think that our modern world, with its skin-bearing, varying hemline, unisex, white-after-Labor-Day attitude toward clothing is a reflection of the progress we have all made at being able to live together on the planet. The argument that women should remain covered because men can't handle the temptation reduces those men to compulsive savages. This argument is usually raised by religious groups, who are allegedly following holy books of conduct that use morality to regulate impulsive behavior. Shouldn't that be enough? Shouldn't the rape of a woman be cause to punish the perpetrator, who seems to have forgotten all the religious laws telling him that the public will not tolerate his behavior?

Or do they think the religious and civic leaders do not have enough power?

I've listened to men make libido jokes or comments my entire life, but not one of them has ever expressed an actual lack of control over his behavior or choices.

I'm sure most self-respecting men would be insulted if they were told that they couldn't be trusted to avoid committing a violent, criminal act at the mere sight of a stranger with a bare head (or face, or elbow, or knee).

What will it take for them to say it, in public?

Obviously, women should be treated with respect, and victims shouldn't be blamed for violence committed against them, but with stories like this one, it sounds like religious leaders don't think very much more of their men.

Has anyone else seen the Todd Field film that deals with a community where a former sex-offender lives? Very interesting morality questions....

The scene at the community pool is particularly scary, for the opposite reasons you'd expect.

While I don't think there should be an objection to feminine dress, there is a difference among young students today. My sister is an RN, on the job less than 10 years (still looks 16 herself!), and she recently complained about how the new medical students wear their scrubs. Apparently, there is a trend in rolling down scrub pants to show hip-bones, and to imitate low-rise jeans.

My sister has always loved not having to think about work clothes, and loves having her job provide her with comfortable clothes that allow her to do her job without having to worry about putting on a runway show, or being judged on how feminine or professional she might look. The new students coming in are turning this uniform into a more skin-showing "personalized" statement.

I don't know if I could take a young doctor seriously if I was staring at her navel.

If the study was based on watching women tennis players in championship games, did the winners of the game choke to the same extent as the losers? Yes, he was counting errors and missteps, but we have to assume that one woman's misstep led to an other woman's victory.

The whole thing is lacking sense.

How dare you?

What we learned from "the Producers" is that the traditional Broadway musical is basically dead, unless you're mocking it. "Spamalot" tried a little too hard, and the Broadway mockery fell flat on the Python-loving audience.

"The Drowsy Chaperone" hit the nail on the head. A group of Broadway veterans wanted to do a very traditional show, and gave it a context where it could be mocked for the parts that are out of date, but enjoyed for the parts that still convince us to pay the money to go: singing, dancing, costumes, laughs.

It's a shame that one of the best shows to open on Broadway in recent years has been overlooked yet again in this article.