Modest Mango

Funniest juice box ever!

Good Point!

Jesus' family dynamic was totally nontraditional, and he turned out all right.

Denial's Not Just a River in Egypt

Magdalena Kwiatkowska might want to check Snopes for stories like this, because you can't get pregnant by swimming in a hotel pool. But that's what she claims happened to her 13-year-old daughter.

"The mother is adamant that her daughter didn't meet any boys while she was there."

Um, sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Icy Stare

And South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford officially wins the douchiest person of the week. Not only did he lie about his whereabouts (giving hiking a bad name), cheat on his wife, skip out on his family on Father's Day, but he also used taxpayer money to fund his gross affair.

"Sanford on Thursday did say he'd pay back an undisclosed amount for the nine-day trip to Brazil and Argentina for which taxpayers paid $12,000 last year. That includes $8,687 for Sanford's plane ticket, and $453 in lodging. Project manager Ford Graham's ticket was $1,910."

Okay, you want to mess up your own family life? Whatever. You're a douchebag. But using taxpayer money to pay for it? Now you're douchebag of the week.

People can say that he's human and fallible, but when you have an affair, there are hundreds of little choices you make along the way. It's not like making one small mistake. It's making hundreds of mistakes. At no point did he ever stop and think about the consequences of his actions. And now with the taxpayer money thing, he's proven himself to be untrustworthy as a family man and as a governor.

Not cool, Sanford. Don't even try to give us that mournful look!

Is Vanity Fair Hiring?

Four words:

Private island.
Johnny Depp.

What more do you need to know about this article?

(Okay, he talks about playing Dillinger and other stuff. But seriously, like you needed that as a reason to read this.)

Lynne Truss Would Agree

A grammar lesson, care of Texts From Last Night:

(703): fucking a dude
(703): i mean: fucking a, dude
(703): wow, that comma made all the difference there

The comma--the condom of punctuation.

Girl Power

I wanted to see Up before commenting on this article. Not necessarily because Up has anything specific to do with the open letter to Pixar, but I figured I should see the latest film before making judgments about what Pixar is doing/should be doing.

(Plus, Up is amazing!)

Basically, Linda Holmes would like Pixar to feature more girls in their films. Not just as side characters, like Dory or Colette or even Helen/Elastigirl. Characters with their own adventures and problems. (Not that these female characters don't have problem and aren't well-rounded characters. They're just not the central figures in their stories.) She claims "the story is never 'a girl and the things that happen to her,' the way it's 'a boy and what happens to him.'" I feel like this is a fair point. When I was little, I loved watching movies/reading books about thoughtful, strong, creative, smart, etc. girls.

Still, I'd also say that Pixar should make a 'girl movie' just because I want a girl movie. I think Pixar isn't out for boys or girls. I think they just try to make good movies, and it just so happens that the ones they've made feature male characters. When you try to force a characterstic on a story/character, it doesn't turn out well.

For example, check out the trailer for the new 2D animated Disney movie, The Princess and the Frog. It's supposed to bring Disney back to the era of classic, musical full-length animated films, but it doesn't look right. I think they were too focused on making sure the African-American angle was right, but forgot that classic films like Beauty and the Beast weren't about one characteristic. It wasn't like "Oh, we need a brunette girl, let's develop one." It was more about the character of Belle herself. So I might be too hard on the Frog movie, but it doesn't seem like a cohesive, engaging story yet. You can't force characterstics on a character and hope it all comes together. The story should be more organic. And it seems like that's the case with Pixar and the boys. I'm sure that someone will come up with a great Pixar movie about a girl and her adventures; but I hope it's the right story, not just a movie about a girl because they feel like they need one.

Also, I kind of don't like how people knock the princess characters nowadays. When I was little, I never thought of Ariel or Belle as "the princess." They were stronger characters than that. Ariel was basically an anthropologist, and Belle loved reading. Those are the characteristics I remember. The princess thing was just because their stories are fairy tales, and that's how fairy tales end. I didn't aspire to be a princess and wasn't freaking out over ball gowns. So what's wrong with princesses as long as they're strong characters in their own rights? Belle didn't aspire to be a princess; it just kind of happened. She was definitely one of the "girls in Band-Aids" that Holmes thinks should be featured in a Pixar movie. Why can't a girl be a princess and have adventures? And I think, even though parents may worry, little girls get that.

Of course, I also didn't grow up in the era of the Disney Princess brand. My association with the characters extends to the movies and dolls and backpacks, not to an enormous Disney subculture.

So Pixar, keep doing your thing--making good movies. And hopefully soon there will be a movie about a girl and her adventures. But mostly, just concentrate on quality and don't try to squeeze in gender.

Is Your Calculator Pink and Sparkly?

When I was in fourth grade, my class was split into two groups. On some days, the Red Group would do math when Blue Group had Computer class, and then the groups would switch. Even though it was never explicitly stated, we all knew what this was about (aside from the fact that our school only had a handful of computers). Kids in the Blue Group needed more help with math so, with all of them together, our teacher could focus more on their needs. Kids in the Red Group got the basics pretty quickly, so they could practice more advanced math. (Long division? OMG!)

You might not guess it now, but I was in the Red Group. In elementary school, math came pretty easily. (It all ended in Calc, when I argued with my teacher about why I didn't trust the theorems and equations he gave us.) And out of our basically 5o/50 boy/girl class, 90% of the Red Group was female.

So what happens to girls and math? Why has no woman ever won the Fields Medal? In 2005, Harvard President Larry Summers went so far as to say that "biological differences could explain why fewer women became professors of mathematics."

Apparently, Larry is wrong. A report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that "gender inequality, not lack of innate ability or 'intrinsic aptitude', is the primary reason fewer females than males are identified as excelling in mathematics performance in most countries, including the United States." It's not about 'natural talent' as much as the opportunities available for girls, and the attitude that society has towards girls who exhibit a talent for science or math.

I can definitely see how that would be true. Female math/sciencey friends have mentioned how difficult to can be to be a woman in a traditionally male field. Guys may not take you seriously or think that you're just filling the girl quota. And I expect that attitude gets even worse in the workforce; not being taken seriously can lead to fewer promotions and major projects. That's not to say that all male mathemeticians feel that way, but in general it seems like a lot of pressure on female professionals.

Hopefully studies like this will help more women succeed in math and science, and then get more girls involved in these fields. Maybe math-girls could even go to Harvard and tell Larry to shut the hell up.

New Battleplans

It's no secret that the GOP needs to revamp their image and find a new way to energize their voters. That energizing force used to be against gay marriage. But is that an issue that's starting to do them more harm than good? Recently, several states have legalized gay marriage, including Iowa. (Who saw that one coming?) This suggests that more people are open to the idea of marriage not just being a man/woman institution.

(And if we're going to go Biblical on this idea, how sacred is divorce? Shouldn't all heterosexual couples have to adhere to strict definitions of marriage if we're going to exclude homosexual couples? Shouldn't everyone have to get married in a church? But that's beside the point.)

The real issue for the Republican is the youth vote. Younger Republicans don't have the same problem with gay marriage that older Republicans do.

"In the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, released on Monday, 31 percent of respondents over the age of 40 said they supported gay marriage. By contrast, 57 percent under age 40 said they supported it, a 26-point difference. Among the older respondents, 35 percent said they opposed any legal recognition of same-sex couples, be it marriage or civil unions. Among the younger crowd, just 19 percent held that view."

It's a numbers game. It used to be that Republicans had to bring up gay marriage and abortion and voters would show up in droves. Now, it's not a hardcore issue, especially since there are bigger issues at stake, like the economy.

Former Republican New York mayor Giuliani, who doesn't support gay marriage, thinks the party needs to stop 'harping' on the issue if they want to get ahead for the next set of elections.

"The Republican party does best organizing itself around economic issues and issues of national security."

Obviously I'm pro-gay marriage, but I think it's also just a smart move for the GOP to distance itself from intense, anti-gay marriage sentiments. People are becoming more and more accepting, and if the GOP takes too strong a stance, they'll lose voters. Especially when we have issues to worry about, like the economy.

So is this a sign that in fifty years, people won't like anything of gay marriage? Is it going to be like interracial marriage forty years ago? Who'd have thought?

I'll Grope You, Brotha

This is actually kind of upsetting for me. I love Desmond's storyline with Penny on Lost, and I don't want to think of actor Henry Ian Cusick as a molester. Apparently he's been charged with sexually harassing a woman who worked on the set of Lost.

"The lawsuit filed Friday in Los Angeles alleges that Cusick, who plays Desmond Hume on the show, fondled the woman's buttocks and breasts and kissed her on the lips in October 2007. The lawsuit claims she reported the incident to her supervisor, but was simply told to avoid the actor. She states she was fired 12 days later in retaliation for reporting the alleged abuse."

Not so classy, Des.

Again, I hope it's not true because I love his character and if he were that skeezy, it would ruin that little part of Desmond in my brain. Not to say that you can't like someone's work beyond who they are as a person, but it does leave a bad taste in your mouth regardless.

Howl Your Shirt Off

It's an awesome day for the internet!

The werewolves are challenging Edward Cullen to a shirt-off. So far, the wolves are winning.

But seriously? Are they just going to have every production photo be of guys without shirts on? Of course, that does sound like a good marketing scheme. And I'm glad that it's not another half-naked chick. (Seriously, Vanity Fair?)

Also, I guess this actually figures into the novel--the werewolf part, not the Edward part. They get overheated and can't really transform with their clothes, so the idea is that they end up shirtless a lot. But add Edward to that, and it's just marketing.

One thing I do like: the actors--Chaske Spencer, Alex Meraz, Kiowa Gordon and Bronson Pelletier--all have Native American heritage. That's not to say you can't have an actor play across cultures, but I'm pretty sure Native American actors aren't offered a lot of roles.

Oy Vey

Okay, Pope Benedict. I get that the church doesn't exactly get behind contraception. But seriously? Condoms are not the answer in Africa's fight against HIV? In what ideal world is everyone going to practice abstinence. That's like saying people should just not shoot each other--then we wouldn't need gun laws. You need to live in reality, in which people have sex.

Not to say that handing out condoms is the answer. People need sex education. (Having sex with a virgin does not cure AIDS.) People need the opportunity to practice safe sex. People need to live without fear of getting raped.

Again, I understand that the church does not promote extramarital sex or contraception in general. But I think it's ridiculous for the pope to say that abstinence is the answer. He'd be better off just saying the church wants to help people in Africa get clean water/food/end violence.

The Twinkie Monologues

Raising kids is tough. Not only do you have to love them, but you're also responsible for their major brain-development-learning-period. You've got to teach them counting, animal names and sounds, and oh yeah, names for their genitals.

The Guardian tackles the issue of the vagina. What should parents teach little girls to call this body part? The author, Annalisa Baribieri, is looking for "something that wasn't too twee, euphemistic or overly anatomical."

Some suggestions she got: twinkie, zizzi, tweenies, nenette, patatina, toshie, and sparkly bits.

Is it just me, or do these sound like names of tiny fuzzy bear-like stuffed animals?

I don't understand why kids need different names for their genitals. We don't make up names for other body parts. Having cutesy nicknames only confuses kids (especially when every family has a different term) and only underscores the fact that genitals are 'weird' and 'other.' What's wrong with simple, medical terms like vagina and penis? When I was growing up, those we the words we used. I remember being three and thinking about them as words--they weren't too complicated or whatever. They are what they are.

And honestly, how old are girls going to be before they can say 'vagina?' Seven years-old? Ten? Forty-five? Why not be honest with them so they can just use one word for their entire lives?

Don't be afraid to say vagina.

Smart Is Sexy

When I was in fifth grade, I had my first sex ed class. It was part of our science curriculum, so the woman who had, for the passed few months, been talking about gravity and the animal kingdom was suddenly using words like 'penis' and 'intercourse.' Needless to say, there was a lot of giggling. Even so, my middle school was fairly good about sex ed. We touched on the subject every year or so, with basic scientific and emotional information. Since it was a Quaker school, things were fairly liberal, so our book actually covered issues like HIV, checking yourself for breast cancer, and masturbation. At one point in seventh grade, all the girls in my class got to hang out in the science room with our female teacher and talk about body image concerns and menstruation. It was actually kind of nice and mature.

But not everyone gets that, especially now that we're older and getting tons of sexualized images from society. What's normal? What's going on? What's risky? What are other people doing.

Enter Sex Appeal.

It's a new website for discussion/education/fun articles about sexual health:

"Sex Appeal is a site for people in their 20s to learn, discuss, and share sexual health information. Our mission is to promote sexual communication and understanding through education and open dialogue.

Sex doesn’t have to be serious but sexual health does."

In our 20s, it's good to have an outlet to learn and discuss these issues--from gynecologist appointments to the redefinition of sex to sex in the political sphere. Of course, alongside less serious issues like condom ringtones and how to maneuver relationships in a more sexualized era. Check out Sex Appeal for both the serious and the humorous. It'll be updated regularly.

Plus, founder/managing editor Julia is pretty up-to-date about sexual health issues. She's taught HIV/AIDS education in Malawi and India, conducted sexual health communication research in South Africa, and works for the Boston University School of Public Health. She's got the answers to your questions!

I'll be blogging there regularly as well. Make sure to check it out!

Those Kids Today

It's one of those big fears that never goes away. Kids are having sex! All over the place! All kinds of sex! Without protection! With multiple partners! Your child will turn into Juno! Except not as funny!

But it turns out that teenagers today are actually not having as much sex as they've had in previous generations, despite recent alarm about teen sex/pregnancy being on the rise. Of course, if you're a parent I'm sure you'd rather your child didn't have sex at all, maybe until he or she turned 45. So even statistics like "47.8 percent as of 2007, according to the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, down from 54.1 percent in 1991" might not look fantastic. But even so, it goes against the recent fears about kids having more and more sex in risky situations.

That said, teens today are engaging in less "relationships" and having more casual encounters that might not lead to a full-blown relationship. Take that as you will. I think that, as long as teens are safe, that's not as much of an issue. (After all, how long do high school relationships even last?) But sometimes emotional triggers can make those encounters way more complicated--no matter how old you are.

One note I found interesting:

"The latest rise in teenage pregnancy rates is cause for concern. But it very likely reflects changing patterns in contraceptive use rather than a major change in sexual behavior. The reality is that the rate of teenage childbearing has fallen steeply since the late 1950s. The declines aren’t explained by the increasing availability of abortions: teenage abortion rates have also dropped."

Maria Kefalas, Associate Professor of Society at St. Joseph's University, claims, "This creeping up of teen pregnancy is not because so many more kids are having sex, but most likely because more kids aren’t using contraception."

Another reason why 'Abstinence Only' education doesn't work. If teens are going to have sex, they're going to have it. Better that they know about contraception and use it the right way. But again, it looks like more teens are waiting until their late teens or 20s to actually have sex anyway. Maybe because they're more aware of consequences or less inclined to feel pressured by their peers about the sex issue.

It's not exactly a turn back to Puritan values. Of course, even in previous generations that were supposedly "waiting for marriage," most people still had sex before that. So it's not like teens today are having a lot more sex anyway than their 1950's counterparts. Hopefully they just have a better sense of what sex means and how to protect themselves.

No sex is good sex?

I've always been a big fan of the Dalai Lama. I saw him speak a few years ago to a crowd of thousands in DC. He spoke about the joy of understanding religion as medicine -- each ailment has its own cure, and some folks don't need as much as others. The message sat well with me and made sense. He seemed like a very wise religious leader and I felt thankful to have heard his words.

But he's gone and gotten himself knocked down a peg on the old wisdom meter with this most recent statement. Apparently, according to his holiness the Lama, sex is for losers and celibacy is where it's at. The spiritual leader recently told a group of reporters that bumping uglies leads to "fleeting satisfaction and trouble later."

I want to get behind this message, like I have before, but I've got just one eensy little problem. Ain't this guy pretty definitively celibate? I mean, if he's followed his path strictly, he shouldn't have ever gotten down with the nasty. So really, with all due respect, how can he be an authority on this issue? Sure sure sure, he has lots of FRIENDS who've done it. He's heard stories about the anguish of love gone wrong, but really, he's no better suited to be doling out MY lovelife advice than the 14 year old down the block who knows a guy who knows a guy who did it with this older girl and it went bad so he's gonna wait.

Seriously Dalai. What's your plan here? We stop procreating? You're not even telling kids to wait til marriage like the fundamentalists do. You're actually claiming we just shouldn't do it at all! That's absurd. What are we supposed to do about the future of our culture? Or maybe that's your plan... I oughta think about this one more.

Don't get all shaker on my ass dude. Just go back to telling me I can be ecumenical. I liked you way better back then.

Was It Good For You?

There are some awards writers salivate over: the Pulitzer; the National Book Award; the Booker; the Nobel Prize in Literature; the Newbery; the Printz. When we're not practicing our Oscar acceptance speech (because seriously, who doesn't do that?), we're trying to emulate Faulkner's Nobel speech.

I wonder what kind of speech the winner of the Literary Review Bad Sex in Fiction Award will give.

This year, they've got some gems. An example from Alastair Campbell's novel All in the Mind:

"He wasn't sure where his penis was in relation to where he wanted it to be, but when her hand curled around it once more, and she pulled him towards her, it felt right...Then as her hand joined the other on his neck and she started making more purring noises, now with little squeals punctuating them, he was pretty sure he was losing his virginity."

It's like 'Oops, where's my penis?' Also, if he doesn't really know what's going on, how is it that she's having a good time with this? Somebody's a Sally Albright.

Granted, sex writing is really difficult. It either sounds silly or overly dramatic or awkward or gross or a combination of the above. So it's hard to call writers out as bad just because their sex scenes didn't really work. But I'm glad we do call them out because, hey, it's hilarious.

The rest of the shortlist:

James Buchan for The Gate of Air
Simon Montefiore for Sashenka
John Updike for The Widows of Eastwick
Kathy Lette for To Love, Honour and Betray
Alastair Campbell for All in the Mind
Rachel Johnson for Shire Hell
Isabel Fonseca for Attachment
Ann Allestree for Triptych of a Young Wolf
Russell Banks for The Reserve
Paulo Coelho for Brida

I'd like to widen your panniers . . .

Hello all! This is Catherine, and I am honored to be a guest poster here at Lady Faces! Hope you enjoy my post!

It seems like the sexy halloween costume industry has gone wild. It seems like any girl can wear underwear and attach the appropriate accessories to make herself "sexy [anything]". First there were sexy animals (cats, mice, etc.). Then sexy occupations (nurse, firefighter,etc.). Then fantasy figures (witch, devil, etc.). Now the sexy costume industry reaches far beyond that. Check out these finds:

Sexy Marie Antoinette - Yeah, the guillotine is hot.

Sexy Sherlock Holmes -Come hither, Watson.

Sexy Hogwarts Student- Move over Hermione!

Meet George Jetson (for whom a sexy costume apparently doesn't exist), Jane, his sexy wife!, Sexy daughter Judy! (His boy Elroy is also apparently not sexy.)

To ruin your cartoon memories even more, we have Sexy Wilma Flintstone and Sexy Betty Rubble.

The most frightening TV sexy mama, which will surely scar you is Sexy June Cleaver. Yes, that's right.

Then there's the ever baffling Sexy Guitar(?).

Another one that baffles me is the Sexy Annie. Which Annie is this referring to again? It certainly doesn't resemble everyone's (including FDR's) favorite optimistic orphan. Nor does it look like a certain sexy Hair-Color-Princess-Girl. Who then?

Finally my favorite. The Sexy Puritan. That's right, a representative of the most fun-loving and sexy crowd of people who ever lived. Perhaps they could have at least called is a Hester Prynne costume?

Seriously folks, don't try to make Puritans sexy. Or cats or Vikings or Dorothy or pumpkins. They just aren't.

The Harrys and the Sallys

It's the age-old question: Can men and women just be friends?

I have a new question: Why are we still asking that?

Maybe it's because I went to a high school that had only recently gone co-ed, so most of my friends were guys. Maybe it's because my only sibling is a brother. Or maybe I just think it's ridiculous to assume that men and women are just inherently unable to separate sex from a relationship.

Unlike Harry from When Harry Met Sally, Rabbi Schmuley (from the above article) doesn't think men and women can't be friends. He just has rules. Some of them make some amount of sense--Don't share secrets that you wouldn't share with your spouse--but others seem kind of silly: "You can't go out to late night dinners together. You can have lunch together in a public place, but you should not order alcoholic beverages. "The embers of attraction really can grow in situations like that, and suddenly it's not so innocent, it's not just friendship anymore," Rabbi Shmuley says." Am I going to suddenly fall for a guy just because we're having a drink? Maybe it's not appropriate to have a dinner with drinks--which feels intimate--with a friend of the opposite sex, but why are these 'embers of attraction' necessarily even there? Just because a guy's a guy doesn't mean I'm attracted to him.

I think, as younger generations get older, this won't be a question we have to ask as much, since we've grown up having guy/girl friends who are just that--friends. But whenever I see it, I still see it as an anachronistic issue.

Pearls of Wisdom

Dorothy Parker, why couldn't we have lived in the same era so we could have been friends?

"Too fucking busy, and vice-versa."--Dorothy, in response to her editor demanding belated work while she was on her honeymoon.