I, Sandwich

Green is in, and presidential candidates are obviously jumping on the bandwagon to make sure they look environmentally friendly; after all, with gas prices over $4 per gallon in some parts of the country, voters are looking for a president who will ease the pressure at the pump and in their wallets.

The Republican Party has generally not been very green-loving in the past. The Reagan Administration set forth to get rid of many of the powerful legislative initiatives passed in the 1970s, the Bush Administration is constantly in the lap of corporate America and trying to sneak around rules and regulations (not that the EPA hasn't been leaning right and getting caught trying to find loopholes for him), and now McCain has stepped up to the plate.

Although not as far right as conservatives would probably like him to be, McCain is still a Republican but is trying to be somewhat between Republican and Moderate to get more voters in November. Although his environmental stance isn't in sync with most Republicans, it still reeks of the conservative cologne. A plus is that he recognizes climate change as a problem; a negative is that his solution is coastal oil drilling, a gas-tax holiday, nuclear power plants and being coincidentally absent from votes in Congress concerning stricter fuel economies for motor vehicles.

Oil drilling is not the answer to ease high oil prices now, considering that drilling on the coastal region would not reap any rewards of usable oil for about a decade. Plus, it doesn't solve any problem concerning our dependence on a polluting fossil fuel. All drilling would do is put us into a false sense of security for a few years about the availability of oil - too bad that doesn't address the toxins that oil is still putting into the environment. And a gas-tax holiday is ridiculous - shaving 18 cents off the price of gas between Memorial Day and Labor Day is laughable, would increase demand (which is NOT what we should be aiming for) and is another band-aid to the energy problem that will quickly lose its stick.

Nuclear power plants - 45 new ones in 20 years is McCain's brilliant plan. According to Resources for the Future, a nuclear power plant these days would take about $2 billion and five years to build, not to mention the toxic waste created from them. We stopped building nuclear power plants in the 1970s because of safety concerns, and although France is a country who swears by nuclear power, they are also a smaller country than the United States. We have a large span of population to power, and taking that $90 billion and investing it into clean technologies like solar and wind power would be much more useful.

But what about clean coal technology? Sorry, but I will never buy the idea that coal is going to be burned cleanly. When you burn coal, you are putting not only carbon, but other dangerous toxins like mercury into the atmosphere. Carbon + water = sulfuric acid (acid rain). Mercury + rain + bodies of water = mercury-laden fish. Yum! Not to mention all the coal mining that goes into producing coal, which ruins ecosystems and causes health problems for those people living close to areas of coal mining. When will we get off this fossil fuel kick and realize we need to invest in actual clean technology?

I also enjoy that he is absent from votes about stricter fuel standards, of which the United States has pitiful ones. In 20-some years, we have gotten more fuel efficient by 1.6 miles per gallon. Seriously? We have phones the size of playing cards that are also computers and mp3 players, but we didn't manage to figure out how to make those cars more efficient while using fuel. Something tells me that the whole fuel-efficiency thing got tossed out the window for a while because oil was a lucrative business back when we lived in the area of cheap oil - why encourage drivers to buy less?

Well, now the time has come for the environment to actually make it to the political arena for debate, and John McCain proves that he is still a Republican at heart, completely clueless as to what is needed to solve an energy crisis. When there is a flood, you don't add more water to make it go away, and the same goes for our problem with oil. More oil is not the answer. More coal is not the answer. Capeesh?

I was reading Leroy Siever's "My Cancer" blog on NPR today, which is a blog he updates each day concerning his battle with cancer. One of the posts asked people to finish the sentence "My cancer ..." and the responses were really interesting.

I noticed more people thinking of cancer as a positive thing rather than a negative thing, often teaching life lessons and leading people to live life to the fullest. There were some who disagreed with cancer as a positive, cursing it or saying that the lessons people learn are life lessons that shouldn't be attributed to cancer as a hero.

We all essentially have a death sentence - none of us is going to live forever, and we all live life assuming we'll make it to our own centennial. What diseases like cancer do is turn that estimate around into a more defined number, often more premature than we would have predicted.

We put things off until later, assuming we'll have time tomorrow or in the future to set aside for what there is no time for today. But when people find out they have cancer, that spare time that lives in the atmosphere disappears, and we are forced to make decisions without that guaranteed span of time in the future.

I wonder what would happen if we all lived as if we had just gotten the news that we might have cancer. I wonder how the way we deal with the everyday, with people, with problems, with life would change if tomorrow was taken away and today was the only option.

I think people would treat each other better. People wouldn't end conversations on bad circumstances, people would say how they felt rather than keep it bottled up for a different time. I think we'd try to get to know each other better rather than make superficial attempts. I think we'd try to hurt each other less because apologies wouldn't be a given.

I think people would do what they wanted to do rather than what they were expected to do. People would enjoy hobbies or jobs they really liked rather than living a life of monotony. People wouldn't hesitate to try something because there might not be an opportunity for a second attempt.

This is not an advocation of living in fear, afraid that there won't be a tomorrow so that's the reason you don't take anything for granted. Life should not be lived in a fashion so that fear intimidates you into action. But rather, everyone should live with the realization that life is not limitless, and I think that's what sets in when cancer takes over. We sub-consciously always know there is a possibility life is not infinite, but with a diagnosis such as cancer, the sentence of life gets a period whereas before the words ran on endlessly without punctuation.

People often ask, what would you do if you had X amount of days to live, or someone you know had X days to live? People might have a million different ideas bouncing through their heads of what they would cram into their last moments. What if we were at a point where the answer would be that nothing would change - we are living life in a manner which is fulfilling already.

This is not an attack but rather a curiosity of mine. I am guilty of taking life for granted, and I feel as though I should live life in a manner that takes advantage of the opportunities today rather than assuming they'll still be there tomorrow.

There needs to be a balance between planning for today and tomorrow, e.g. saving money instead of blowing it all because you're carpe dieming it, and going to college as a prequisite for a job in the future. But I just wonder how life and interactions with people would be different, or even if they would change at all, if people lived not only planning for tomorrow, but embracing today.

Miley Cyrus, one of many young celebrities put under a microscope for every action she takes, is currently being lambasted because she is 15 years old and her back was shown bare in one picture of a photo spread. See the photo by clicking here.

The media are of course spinning the entire thing out of control by calling it a "topless" photo - even though she is in no way revealing herself to not be covering her top half. She is surrounded by a silk sheet (or something of the like) which looks to actually be covering her front but allowing her back to show. I think people seeing her back is the least of her worries. Considering some of the dresses she has shown up in to red carpets lately, perhaps people should be glad she is in an artistic and tasteful photo shoot and not surfacing in more candid pictures featuring her flashing the camera her bra.

But so is the scrutiny of life as a child star, because you have to live your life and make your mistakes for everyone to see. I don't think this particular Vanity Fair photo shoot is risque at all, but I think people need to simmer down and stop acting as though they understand what it's like to be a 15-year-old girl who is idolized by millions of young people as well as teenagers, more and more.

Britney Spears was just 15 years old when she came to the scene baring her midriff and talking about getting hit one more time, and Christina Aguilera wasn't much older when she was asking someone to let the genie out of her bottle, or some such sexual innuendo. Although Aguilera has seemingly gone through her skankalicious phase and came out with a career in tact, a marriage and a baby (and minus those hideous facial piercings), Spears did not have the same luck. We saw what the spotlight did to her, the constant attention from everyone else doling out criticism rather than advice about her relationships and mothering abilities.

I'm not saying she is great at it, but I'm saying everyone wanted a piece of her from an early age because she was the frontrunner in a new craze, much like Miley is. Why not applaud her for a tasteful shoot where she obviously isn't trying to flaunt herself or be "topless?" She could look like Spears did on the cover of Rolling Stone, clad in a bra and boy shorts. I've never been in Hollywood, but it seems like it forces people to grow up fast because they start their careers as teenagers, with people guiding them for lucrative goals rather than to nurture them.

I guess I'm just sick of everyone pointing the finger. Because as a society, we eat this stuff up. We point at Miley and say she's the problem, but we are addicted to hypersexuality because sexuality is so repressed in this country. Sex sells, and that's because people are so eager to find an outlet for it because they can't express their sexuality in everyday life without being ridiculed. So why not blame the 15-year-old Disney star for doing a photo spread that obviously sold in the eyes of Americans because it's so "taboo."

I'm not sure if that last paragraph made sense - I guess in any other country, the picture wouldn't have been that big of a deal because you could look past the shock value and see that isn't meant to be pornographic. Or maybe I'm just not hip with the times anymore, and it really IS pornography. Perhaps my idea of what's overtly sexual is different than the mainstream.

Or maybe people just enjoy complaining and thinking that they know what's best for other people's children. I will agree that the photos that surfaced of her showing her bra to a web cam and baring her midriff while lying on some random guy are questionable - celebrity or not, if my mom saw pictures like that I wouldn't see the outside for months. But I think amidst that scandal, people are nitpicking at what wouldn't have caused a stir simply because they are bored and need to make news.

I think I'll try a PB&J now.

I'm excited to announce that I'll officially be spending the summer in California! While this may be of little interest to you, especially because I try to keep my blog as not always about my personal life, I had to share it with the world.

I'll be interning at Terrain Magazine, an environmental magazine that is small but is at the center of environmental progressivism in Berkley, Calif. Since my brother lives in San Francisco, I'll be able to crash with him while one of his roommates is in South America for the summer.

It still hasn't hit me yet that I'm going to be spending my summer in a totally different place, but I'm excited for the possibilities. San Francisco seems like a city that I would really enjoy, plus I can get a taste of it without having to sign a contract to stay there for a long time. I know my brother, and he can show me around town so I won't be completely lost.

There is just something refreshing about going to a new place, even if for a few months, where no one knows who you are, and the people are completely diverse and different from the people you're normally around. Ohio can be a suffocating state - it's easy to get comfortable, be surrounded by people exactly like you, without exploring other parts of the country or the world.

California is somewhere I have been before when my dad used to live there, but this is a whole new experience. I'll be on my own, working for a living in a big city. I also get the opportunity to visit lots of beautiful places, hopefully Yosemite, Oregon, and lots of other pretty places. I love the beach, the sun, and people with open minds, so this will be an ideal location.

I'm going to miss all my friends, especially the ones from Mentor who I only see over the summer when everyone is home. I'm going to miss my family, another set of people I rarely see aside from a weekend every month or two while I'm at school. But it's an opportunity I can't pass up - get an internship somewhere new and exciting, or get an internship in a place I'm comfortable in?

So if you need me, I'll be in a sunny location writing about the environment among people who actually might listen or understand what I'm trying to do, as opposed to a good percentage of the people around here who think I'm a crackpot tree-hugger. But I can deal with being a crackpot tree-hugger, too.

But I have to go two months without Chipotle :(

I might not survive!

So I've been contemplating change lately. Not change in the general sense, but rather a person's ability to change. I hear the word thrown around like change is somehow easy, and I really don't think it is. I'm not going to say I don't think people can change, because I think that's something that is incorrect. But I think for someone to change their ways would be an arduous process, and I don't think it's something that happens on a daily basis.

I remember when I was graduating high school, and I was under the impression I would go to college with a different outlook than I did in high school. I didn't want to be the shy one who was afraid to start conversations; I wanted to be the person I was after I got to know people - sarcastic, conversational, comfortable with myself - right upon meeting them. I thought it would be easy to change my personality a bit to match the person I wanted to see myself be - then I got to precollege. At orientation, I was the same quiet, shy person who didn't really know how to talk to people without worrying about the conversation turning awkward. Damn it, I thought, I'm starting college the same way I started high school!

Eventually, I realized trying to be that extroverted person just wasn't comfortable for me. It wasn't the person I was, and it was then I realized that change wasn't easy. Not only wasn't it easy, but it wasn't really necessary. What's so wrong with being shy? It's the way I have always been, and it's the way I live my life. I have lots of great friends, and I have never been one to enjoy lots of friends but rather smaller groups of close friends, and that's what makes me happy.

People often spend much longer being trying to be someone who they aren't. Or they are outwardly someone different than they are on the inside. I don't know how many people I've known who have "changed" their self-destructive ways only to fall back on them later in life at a different time. It makes me wonder: Do people really change, or do they just get better at hiding their faults or the personality aspects they don't want others to see?

Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but when someone tells me they can change I am highly skeptical. Changing one's lifestyle is changing a lifetime of routine and takes a lot of motivation and ambition. It's why criminals often end up back in jail - a lifestyle of crime to make a living is what they are used to, and if you make more money selling drugs or scamming people than at a minimum wage job, what's the motivation to change? I think it takes a lot more energy than people think. A diet will help you lose weight, but you have to change your lifestyle completely to really become a healthier person. I'm struggling now because I really want to live a greener lifestyle, and I still find myself falling into old habits like reaching for the trash when something should be recycled or leaving the water on when I'm washing dishes.

I wonder if we can ever fully change, but rather instead of changing we are merely subduing old habits. Often alcoholics, even when recovering or sober for a number of years, still refer to themselves as alcoholics because although they have stopped drinking, the urge hasn't been eliminated. I would be interested in taking a class on child development - I've heard mothers say that the way babies act in the womb often mimic their personalities, e.g. babies that move around a lot and never sit still act that way after birth as well. Then it gets into the whole nature vs. nurture debate and that's a whole different blog, but it speaks to how ingrained we are in our ways and that could make it that much more difficult to change.

Sure, we change our style - the clothes' style we choose, hair style, hair color - but who are we inside often seems to stay the same. I don't really have an answer as to whether people really can change, but I often find myself skeptical that they can. I'm interested to hear other opinions, but I find myself thinking people don't change, but rather the way others perceive them or the way they want others to perceive them changes. But the person on the inside remains static.

I'm such a Debbie Downer.

A constant theme on all my TV shows today (can you tell I'm bored on spring break?) has been plastic surgery. First they were talking about Botox on The View, then they were talking about plastic surgery which alters ethnicity on Dr. Phil. Things such as Asian people getting folds surgically added to their eyelids or a guy wanting to get a nose job, and his parents thinking it's a slam to his Italian heritage.

Plastic surgery is constantly a heated debate because a lot of people think that it is simply a cover-up for a deeper problem. People have low self-esteem for some other reason, so getting some plastic surgery fixes the outer problem without addressing the inner problem. The irony in this debate is that the plastic surgery debate itself often focuses on the outer aspects, whether or not people need to alter their appearance, rather than the societal views of body image which influence one's decision to go under the knife. It's not just that someone wants a nose job - it's that someone yearns to have a nose that society deems attractive.

Another interesting thing is that the people arguing that plastic surgery is unnecessary are often the people who aren't physically unattractive according to society's definition of beauty. I think it's a motif in arguments about most everything - people who have never seen poverty think people should be able to just lift up their boot straps and find a job without a problem; people who have never been discriminated against don't understand why people think there is oppression, etc. It's easy to say, "I've never experienced this, but I imagine it isn't that bad." I often do this with food - I make judgments about how good or bad it is based on pre-conceived notions. But hey, I thought sushi was gross and I said I didn't like it until I tried it for the first time - it's not really that bad, I'd eat it again.

Should people get plastic surgery? It doesn't matter to me. If it makes someone feel better to alter their looks, then go ahead. I think it's dangerous, and I don't think I'd ever get plastic surgery, but that's just me. People can change the exterior, but it doesn't mean the person on the inside has changed. Some people might say that if you get rid of certain features you are doing your ethnicity an injustice, but I don't think I'm qualified to discuss that. I don't really have a distant ethnic background or features, so I don't really know the implications of plastic surgery - I do know that even among people of different ethnicities, there is a lot of debate and disagreement.

What worries me are the reasons behind plastic surgery. People feel like all they have to offer are their looks, and we are becoming a society more associated with a fast life style. We don't have time to do anything - we can't get to know people, we only have time to take a quick glance at them and use their exterior as a first impression. Because of a reliance on the physical, people often don't feel comfortable with their looks. I often mention this, but seriously, look at what the video of Kennedy and Nixon's presidential election did for Kennedy, someone who was behind in the polls until his televised debut. The more we are bombarded with these images, the more we rely on them to define what is attractive and what isn't.

And then of course there is the fact that what is "attractive" is what is associated with what is good. It's the same reason you psychologically might find a meal unappetizing before tasting it simply because of its presentation. It's the reason you might pass on a house without looking at the inside because outside it looks visually unappealing. One of my friends is living in a house next year that looks like a cardboard box, literally, but she contends it is really nice on the inside. The rent on the house is low because few people really want to live in it, presumably because of the exterior.

Shows like Extreme Makeover have always bothered me because they continue the stereotypes about what is beautiful and what is not. People have bags under their eyes, they HAVE to be removed. People have a slanted nose, it MUST be straightened. What kind of a world would it be if people stopped looking at their imperfections so much because those same imperfections were mimicked in the public eye? For some, a nip or tuck does solve their problems and it makes them happier. But what if that happiness came without a price? And what about the people who risk the surgery and have complications? Or the people who get the surgery but find that they are still unhappy even though they are visually pleasing?

I think it's a lot more complicated than anesthesia, surgery, recovery, and BAM - instant gratification. Is it as simple as getting rid of a few wrinkles to avoid looking old, or is it more that we don't want to deal with age so we get rid of the visual reminders? Is it as simple as some people are born without the right genes, or is it more that we are far too stringent in how we judge and define which ones are the right ones? We have become so dependent on the surface that we are reluctant to delve deeper or do anymore than just wade in the water.

Two and a Half Men is a great show.

I feel as though I may have written about this sometime before, but I feel like I need to write about it again because it's something that has been on my mind lately. With all these talk about the mortgage crisis and loan trouble in the United States, I realized the entire topic completely glazed over me. I had no idea really what they were talking about, and I saw a commercial today talking about home equity and found myself wondering what it even meant.

In college, we take classes about history, English, math and so much more. But what I haven't learned are the necessities of living on my own. What is home equity? I have no idea. Retirement plans? No clue. Stocks? Bonds? CDs? Mutual funds? HUH?! These are things that I think are really important financially, but I am a journalism major people, and I don't have a knack for understanding the business world. So while my ability to recite the Associated Press stylebook works at a job interview, I would have no idea how to deal with my finances.

I just think it's interesting, because college is meant to prepare you for the "real world," but it gets you ready for the job aspect, and past that there is no training. I'd like to take a class in Reality 101, where I can learn what to expect from real-life scenarios so I don't get swindled because I'm clueless on what is a good interest rate, what is good for your credit, etc.

I am being distracted by America's Next Top Model, hence my train of thought was derailed. Oops!

I was watching The View today (obviously), and it was an entire show of nothing but hot topics - my favorite. One of the topics was concerning Barack Obama and how on a radio show he referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person" who was afraid of people she did not know, specifically referring to an earlier comment about his grandmother being afraid of black men. Of course, Elisabeth Hasselbeck got very upset at this statement, telling the panel that she didn't agree she was one of those typical white people. Sherri Shepard said she often noticed white people being scared of her on the street, adding a comedic twist of course, and Whoopi then asked Elisabeth if she would be scared if she saw a group of six young, black men standing on a street corner. Elisabeth immediately said she would not have any reaction to them.

Bullshit.

The issue of race is something that needs to be discussed in an open forum, and people are so easily offended that it's hard to get to the nitty-gritty issues of this problem. White people are afraid of offending black people by saying they do react differently to white people than black people, but yet they don't want to be stereotyped as the "bad guys" because they think it will show them in a negative light.

What I think everyone understands is that it isn't anything personal - it's a societal institution that needs to be changed. When someone assumes I'm going to steal something because I'm younger, do I think it's annoying? Yes. Those people don't know me, they assume something based on my appearance. But do I understand where this feeling comes from? Of course - young people are the stereotypical age group to be stealing, and I can't say with certainty that some of my peers aren't thieves.

But when Elisabeth claims that she doesn't feel any differently, I think this is her not wanting to receive media backlash. Of course her comments would be taken out of context, misinterpreted, and made to probably make her look like a racist. The fact that people are so easy to point the finger at a person rather than an ideology, a history, a socialization, makes people reluctant to be honest. It's easier to think in a concrete fashion and blame someone you can see rather than something you can't. It's why men are afraid to say what they feel in a women's studies class or in a feminist discussion - they are afraid they will be seen as the spokesman for patriarchy, an outlet for women to vent their anger and frustration because there is not one specific culprit for women's inequality either.

An open discussion of these topics requires people not to be afraid of being uncomfortable, to feel emotions, to be honest. People are afraid of offending other people, and that's only natural. You don't want to hurt any one's feelings because you want other people to know you aren't attacking them or judging them on a personal level, but race and issues like it are close to people's hearts and minds. All members of the discussion need to have an open mind and be willing to listen, understand and analyze not only the issues at hand, but where they originate and why they exist.

Do I think Barack Obama should be chastised for making this comment? No. He is being honest and speaking from his experience. It's actually refreshing to hear something like this rather than the G-rated, sugar-coated and public-friendly press releases or speeches that tip-toe around the issues.

Yes, the title of this post is actually from the text of a bumper sticker that is anti-Hillary Clinton. In this primary race, even presidential race, it has been commonplace to call her a bitch, which for some reason always rubs me the wrong way. I don't support Hillary, but I also don't understand why she earns the title of "bitch," to the point where people want to create bumper stickers about it.

Yeah, people are going to say it's all in fun. They are going to say that people like me take things too seriously, that it's just a joke, etc. But beyond the laughs I think there is a serious thought that it's OK to label Hillary as a bitch - that it's OK to point to someone's gender as the biggest flaw of their campaign.

I wonder what the response would be if people started making racially charged bumper stickers about Barack Obama. I'm going to postulate that the response would not be pleasant. I'm sure that no doubt, there are people on both sides of the gender and race issues debating vocally and via their votes how they feel about each candidate, but people are really going to the trouble of manufacturing assaults like this?

I guess it's a dream for me to hope that people would look at a person's platform to find ways to attack them. Hillary is evasive, lacks a certain charisma, and loves the big oil companies. I don't know if that merits her to be a bitch - does Obama become an asshole because he has a platform of change without a lot of concrete and viable plans, or because he doesn't have a lot of Washington experience? I don't think so.

I think because Hillary has been in the spotlight so long, people feel like it's more acceptable to make jabs at her. I think that's why you'll find her parodying herself on SNL whereas Obama doesn't need to - people have their preconceived notions of her because she has been around for years and has an affiliation with a former president. Obama is a fresh-face, although there is that rumor he is really a Muslim terrorist who is going to take over the White House.

With a public life comes scrutiny, but I call into question the motives of simply labeling her a "bitch." I think that with a presidential race which is so close, it's tough to find differences between these two candidates because their platforms are similar. So how do we separate them? We dig past the political into the personal; we begin to attack them for other reasons. Is this justified? On one hand we are electing a president as a total package and often what's personal is political. On the other hand, we are electing a president - shouldn't we see that as electing a person and not simply electing a woman or a black man.

Either way, it still just rubs me the wrong way. Side note: so do people who don't use their turn signals - seriously, it's for the best I don't have missiles attached to my car because people act like they aren't driving machines that could injure people if improperly operated. My nearly four hour drive home always makes me bitter, though.

I came across an article today in Bitch magazine by Shira Tarrant called "The Great Cover-Up" about how people accuse feminists of encouraging aggressive sexual behavior. Tarrant spoke about Wendy Shalit urging women to go back to modesty as a form of empowerment and how this doesn't solve anything within the feminist movement, but rather furthers the double standard that men can dress however they want without judgment while women must worry about what their clothing conveys about their personality and self.

This is something I often ponder, and I agree with Tarrant. I don't think feminists urge sexual promiscuity, but rather they say women should be able to be sexual without social repercussions of being labeled a "whore" or "slut," whereas a man doing the same receives no such social punishment.

The argument for modesty would be a little more concrete if those feminists or women argued that both women and men go back to a life where sex was taken more seriously and wasn't taken so lightly. I'm not saying I agree with this opinion, but I would respect it more as an argument. If you want only women to be modest while men continue to gallivant around having as much sex as they want without any negative response, you are not progressing the feminist movement anywhere at all. I can understand a strive for equality, and if you want everyone to be equally more modest, then I can understand that as an opinion without a double standard.

Tarrant said Shalit also said something about how some people had to buy Amish clothes because no stores have modest enough clothing - I am calling shenanagins here. I can't think of a place where you can't buy a turtleneck or long pants that are conservative. Maybe at Forever 21 this could be tricky, but at a store like JCPenney or Kohls, it's definitely possible.

Personally, I think we are a society afraid to publicly knowledge sex as a way of life. I don't think people should be having sex in the streets, but when judging people for the way they live their lives sexually is just as bad as someone judging you based on your gender. I know people who are sexually promiscuous of both sexes who are really great people, and I know some who are really crappy people. I also know people who aren't sexually promiscuous and are great people, and some who are crappy.

What people need to focus on I think is the intent of the sexual activity. If you are having sex to fit in, for self-confidence, peer pressure or because you are just too drunk to know what's going on, then having sex is not a healthy way to deal with those problems. If you are comfortable with your sexuality and simply enjoy living that lifestyle and, of course, do so safely, then what is the harm there? What about being modest? Why is there a value system attached to the amount of skin which is shown? Of course there are limits, I'm not going to wear underwear to a funeral, but who decides that the girl with cleavage is "bad" and the girl with a big wool sweater is "good"?

I feel like this is such a retrograde - people should be able to wear what they choose and what they feel comfortable in without this superficial judgments. Especially in a fight for equality, women should not be suggesting that women should be held accountable for how they dress and the message it conveys while men are not. This also goes back to the way in which we perceive body image, where the media have created a hypersexualized woman as the woman every man wants, whereas a guy doesn't necessary have to show more skin to be considered sexy. But the same goes with that argument - do we argue that men should be objectified more, or do we stamp out all kinds of objectification?

I think being hypocritical here is not going to solve any problem. The issue is not a simple one, but claiming that women need to be modest and men have no rule concerning dress code seems absurd. FREEDOM OF OPPORTUNITY is what I preach on a daily basis - you can be conservative, outlandish, whatever, I don't care - but you should have the freedom to dress however you choose. Of course someone is going to say well why don't we walk around nude, and that concerns cultural norms. In Europe, nudity is a lot more acceptable than it is here. It depends on the culture, and I'm not asking everyone to be comfortable with that. But when the private parts are covered and kept private, who is going to make the rules about what is not enough clothing? You? Me? My cat?

People need to realize that someone's outward appearance doesn't necessitate certain lifestyle choices. I know people who are quiet and dress modestly and they are sex fiends. I know people who dress "skanky" so to speak but don't randomly hook-up with people. And feminist ideology doesn't encourage any behavior but the opportunity to behave in a way without social repercussions, which still exist, as evidenced by Shalit's book. Why should men and women be held to different standards? And if you answer that with some comment about me getting into the kitchen, I will spatula you to death.