How do you spell 'mentally ill'?

Catherine, this thread is playing itself out, at least for me, but I'd like to leave you with this the next time you're tempted to take an obscure story about the fringiest of phenomena and apply it to a broader movement:

From Dudesheet, circa 1968

RISE OF THE “BRA BURNERS”

[Recap of Miss America Protest]

When I come across things like this, I have two reactions. First, I laugh -- I mean, isn't it hard enough to demand equal rights without worrying about whether your breasts are being oppressed? And second, when is the feminist movement going to hire an image consultant? There are plenty of reasons to question the status of women in American society, and many women are definitely denied the rights and benefits available to men. But to make a big deal about wearing a bra – not because of comfort or style, but because some scheming men might want your chest to look a certain way -- is just to give fodder to people who already think of feminism as a joke.

Then again, if you want to combat feminist stereotypes, you also probably shouldn't let people publish portraits of you in the newspaper that label you as manhaters and make it look like you're a just a bitter and angry woman. Oops. Too late. [Insert picture of angry, ugly braless woman at a rally for women's rights].

While the idea of being a predator is certainly alluring, I much prefer a wholesome, realistic term to describe my diet. Meat makes up a part of it, yes, but I really like vegetables and fruits.

The doctors who say we weren't built to eat meat and that it's killing us are just not looking at the teeth of other animals. We have canines for tearing flesh, and our stomachs are designed to digest both animal and plant material. My cat, on the other hand, is a meat eater. He can't digest plant matter. Deer and cows are plant eaters, because they can't digest meat. But BEARS! Bears and dogs... we have molars for plants AND canines for meat, just like bears and dogs!

Now, we weren't originally predators, either. We were scavengers. We ate animals we found dead already to get us through the difficult task of wandering the African continent for a million years before we left and spread throughout the world and started making arrowheads, spears, and knives.

To insist we weren't built for meat is to deny our entire history as creatures of the Earth. While I respect a person's right not to eat meat, and even admire their moral consistency, I resent constantly being mislabeled and scorned by holier-than-thous who can't seem to live with themselves without rewriting the history and biology of our species to guilt everyone to their cause.

The realist and intellectual in me shudders with revulsion.

DurianJoe,

I think what you and other vegan reactionaries are missing is that the curious thing about the article Ms. Price mentioned is the provocative and mystifying phraseology quoted in the piece. I think we all agree that each individual is free to single out or eliminate any potential consenting adult sex partner for any reason one sees fit to imagine. What made the vegan aspect funny and sad simultaneously were the statements from the adherents. Stuff like, “I would not want to be intimate with someone whose body is literally made up from the bodies of others who have died for their sustenance” make vegans look like the ham-fisted—I mean cauliflower-fisted—buffoons many suspect vegans to be. I know it’s hard to face up to the fact that the biggest obstacle to whole-scale acceptance of the vegan lifestyle is the vegans themselves.

If your jokey bra burning parody was really on the mark you would have included crazy statements from the bra burners. The fact that you didn’t (or couldn’t) once again confirms the assumption that vegans are joyless, witless and completely boring.

It's clear that you think you are really smart, but maybe this is something to ponder. Take care.

I made my point. As for you, you come across as a humorless pain in the ass. You make all omnivores look bad, you know that?

Adios,

only occurs when other people's opinions about them are more important then their own opinions about themselves.

DurianJoe,

We all have personal tastes and sexual desires. To some that means age, race, looks, etc. For some people it means what their partners eat. Great, I'm with ya.

The difference is that I don't need to go around my everyday life issuing a policy statement or making a proclamation like the town crier about what type of people I am attracted to.

Some of these "self-rightous" twits are simply wearing their private feelings on their sleeve to create some type of conflict. Perhaps they feel more important by acting exclusive. No conflict, No drama. Drama queens are a bore.

(and..(ahem..!)..here at whoar..having been vegan for about eight years..and vegetarian for a lot longer..

(that also means no leather..etc etc..)

(hey..!..i/we’ve got vegan dogs..!..out there..!..eh..?..)

i can attest to that ‘finding phsically attractive ..but not wanting to get physically close to’ opinion expressed above..

every day i delight in looking at the many beautiful women ‘out there’..

but that appreciation only goes so far..

and if they have bits of animal skins on their bodies/feet..as most do..(yech..!..)

do i want to unzip the knee-high leather/animal skin boots she is wearing..?

the lust in me dosen’t even get an opinion..

the physical turn-off of having to touch/fondle(?) leather/animal skins to ‘get there’..ensures that..

and don’t get me started on the turn-off of contemplating some deep tongue action with a person who uses that same orifice to masticate/consume the flesh of (formerly) sentient beings..

(shudder..!..)

(and yes..!..i am very aware that this narrows my ‘options’..to a (for now) very small segment of the population..

(sigh..!..)..and this must be at least part of the reason i take every opportunity to urge people to ’see the light’..

and to just..”leave those animals alone.!”..

phil..