I have no problem with Brazilian waxes, but come on. 10 year old? That's disgusting. I'd actually advocate not marketing it to anyone under the age of consent for sexual intercourse, because they are allowing a non-doctor to handle their genitalia. And honestly, are parents seriously paying for their children to do this? Or are kids sneaking out and using their allowances? That's... vile.

As for Canada's new restrictions, I could actually understand if they said "Anyone who has a history of many sexual partners or not using protection can't donate" but a gay guy could have had two partners his entire life, or even just one! Same as a straight person. I'd rather get an organ from a gay man who's had a few partners than from a heterosexual who has slept with every person in town, without a condom.

They can test the tissue. What's more, they SHOULD test the tissue because even a child could have potentially been exposed to HIV. Less likely, yeah, but possible. And a straight person who regularly engages in anal sex is every bit as likely as a gay man to have contracted these diseases. This is just another way to shortcut and risk the health of patients who can't get an organ because a perfectly healthy donor happened to have had a couple same-sex partners in his life, as well as risk the lives of patients because you don't need to do as thorough testing on a straight person who "couldn't possibly" have gotten a bloodborne illness from their own sexual activity.

If I needed a kidney, I'd much rather it's original owner was fully tested and checked for potential pathogens than that it was screened for homosexuality.

in regards to the "yo" as a gender neutral pronoun article...

"The study, published in this week's New Scientist, found middle-school and high-school students in Baltimore, Maryland, used the word in sentences such as, "Yo put his foot up" and "Yo looks like a freak"."

If the goal of the attempt is to be gender neutral, then how does a phrase such as "Yo put HIS foot up" completely address that?

It's nitpicky, but just wondering if anyone else was confused by that. If it's just for she/he then what about him/her?

I thought the article was interesting. I've never heard the term being used as such. I wonder really just how popular it is. hmmm.

"And a straight person who regularly engages in anal sex is every bit as likely as a gay man to have contracted these diseases."

That depends on whether the straight person in question is male or female and which position the gay man in question is, right?

I heard that the risk of anal tissue tearing during anal sex is higher than the risk of penile tissue tearing during anal sex, so one's risk of catching an STD from an infected partner during that act would depend on which position one is in (and whether one is emitting more bodily fluid and taking in less, or vice versa)...

I do have a problem with brazilian waxing -- namely, it's a procedure with a relatively high risk of infection being performed with practically no medical oversight. I recall that this finally hit the news a year or so ago when a woman actually *died* from the infection (granted, she was diabetic with a weak immune system, but it shows the general problem very clearly).

An adult may accurately weigh the health risk tradeoffs vs a desired appearance before making the decision. Someone barely pubescent cannot, and frankly, I'd consider a parent pushing a kid into even a moderate-risk procedure for purely cosmetic benefit to be borderline abusive, all sexual implications aside.

Uh, why on God's green earth does that article about the Chinese woman refer to what was done to her as an "abortion" and refer to her baby as a "foetus"? Her water had broken! That wasn't a foetus, it was a baby, and what the government did wasn't an abortion, it was a murder.

ORIGINAL POST: "How girls' view of their bodies is supposedly related to how popular they believe they are. (A super scientific study featuring self-reported data!)"

This study actually looked really good to me. Based on the description, it sounds like a 2-year longitudinal study examining whether social status within a peer group is linked with weight gain. Girls who believed they were more popular gained less weight than girls who believed they were less popular.

That seems like an important finding to me. Why are the low status girls gaining more weight? Is social anxiety fueling unhealthy eating habits? On the other end, why are high status girls gaining less weight? Is it because there is tremendous pressure on girls to be thin in order to be popular, which leads to unhealthy and extreme dieting behaviors, which in the short-term reduce weight-gain?

It seems like this study has identified an important issue that demands explanation.

I wrote about books about "bad" girls for teens (Gossip Girl, A List, Clique...) on my book blog.

Isabel Allende is my hero. Her speech made me cry.

I was working at the Botero art exhibit she talked about and it was probably one of the most important events of my life.

Her message is important- educating and elevating women will at its very structure change the world for the better.

Besos a Isabel!

Mina: Still, the important variables are the actual sexual acts, whether or not protection was used, and whether or not both partners received regular STD checks/were monogamous or serially monogamous. Not the sexual orientation of the donor. The program does not exclude women who engaged in anal sex.

Lauren: that's exactly what I thought. If a woman is 9 months pregnant and on the verge of giving birth it's not an abortion, it's murder.

There's a great look at the case of Marine Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach.

Allende's speech was lovely. I've always loved her books because they're so beautifully and boldly written. In less than twenty minutes, her speech inspired my day.

The Canadian ban on organ transplants is wrong-headed, of course, not least because it assumes that all male-male sexual activity is of equal risk, and greater than other sexual activity. But at least the ban only lasts for five years, unlike the US and UK rules where getting a blowjob from another guy will ban you from giving blood for life.

A fun quote from the article about militant anti-abortion activists:

"To elaborate his view and that of others at the fringe of the anti-abortion movement, Trosch cited Nazi atrocities committed during World War Two: 'You're comparing the lives of morally guilty persons against the lives of manifestly innocent persons. That's like trying to compare the lives of the Jews in the incinerators in Nazi Germany or Poland or wherever, with the lives of the Gestapo.'"

First of all, Godwin's Law, anyone?

And second, since when do Catholic priests believe that the unborn are "manifestly innocent?" They believe in original sin. This is why babies are christened right after birth-- to keep them from burning in the eternal fires of hell if they die shortly thereafter.

@UCLAbodyimage:

The study was poorly constructed in several respects.

First, the central measure relied on self-reportage of the girls' social status with no outside confirmation of that status. Outside confirmation could have included information from researchers observing girls' social interaction or from teachers, parents, or girls rating each other.

Also, the ladder model of social groups/social hierarchy is defined without any specific knowledge of the specific communities the girls belong to. Having been in high school myself not too many years ago, I can tell you that there are generally many social groups within each community, each with its own internal system that may or may not be hierarchical, and then there are inter-group relations that likewise may or may not be hierarchical.

The fact that only 5% of the girls surveyed rated themselves as being in the lower 40% of the 10-rung social ladder indicates that either A) self-reportage likely not accurate or B) the ladder model is not lining up with girls' perceptions of their social groups.

So, there is a TINY group of girls who rate themselves as low-status, and a HUGE group of girls who rate themselves as high-status. This indicates that the weight-gain data for the smaller group may not be a large enough sample to eliminate random variation...so the weight-gain difference, ESPECIALLY at a time when girls are ALL gaining weight to at least some extent, may simply be a sampling artifact.

And last but not least...correlation does NOT equal causation. This principle has frequently been invoked on Feministing to counter bad interpretation of study results, and it's applicable here. If low-status girls weigh more, it doesn't necessarily mean that they weigh more BECAUSE they are low-status. It could be that they are low-status to begin with because they are of greater weight than their peers.

(If the low-status girls were, on average, larger than the high-status girls to begin with, then it wouldn't be too surprising that they gained more in absolute terms but the same amount in relative terms during the growth period.)

I feel quite disgusted about the Brazilian waxes. 10 years old?
According to wikipedia, some characteristic of brazilian waxes are:
-"The pain involved with this procedure can be slight or severe and can continue for quite some time."
So I don't think the children will enjoy...
-"Many women report heightened sensation after having a wax,[...], allowing for a more intense or pleasurable sensation during sexual activities"
At ten year old?!!!

What will come next? Labiaplasty for children?

Please, let them live free and enjoy their childhood before putting the burden of fashion stupidities on their shoulders!

Sometime I fear we're in a some of science-fiction nightmare:
http://www.pleix.net/beautykit.html

-"'Many women report heightened sensation after having a wax,[...], allowing for a more intense or pleasurable sensation during sexual activities'
At ten year old?!!!"

Nitpick: some kids masturbate even younger than 10 years old, and that could count as a sexual activity. It's still no good reason to wax off a kid's pubic hair, of course.

THE NAKED CAT:

"@UCLAbodyimage: The study was poorly constructed in several respects."

I agree with some of your points below, but not all. More specifically...

THENAKEDCAT: "First, the central measure relied on self-reportage of the girls' social status with no outside confirmation of that status. Outside confirmation could have included information from researchers observing girls' social interaction or from teachers, parents, or girls rating each other."

While it might be nice to get independent rating, I don't see that as necessary (or particularly relevant). I think the key aspect here is the girls *perception* of their social status. If girls perceive that they are high or low status, then this could effect them in negative ways.

It could be that objective social status (i.e. defined by social observers) could matter, too, but that seems like a different research question to me and not necessary here. Further, it is a statistical (and ethical) nightmare to have all the students do round-robin ratings of each other and you wouldn't be able to get the same kind of sample size as you do here.

"Also, the ladder model of social groups/social hierarchy is defined without any specific knowledge of the specific communities the girls belong to."

That is a really good point worth investigating - is it overall social status that matters and/or social status within one's subgroup that matters? For example, you could imagine that an ethnic minority in a predominately white school who is low in social status within their peer group would be most at risk.

THENAKEDCAT "The fact that only 5% of the girls surveyed rated themselves as being in the lower 40% of the 10-rung social ladder indicates that either A) self-reportage likely not accurate or B) the ladder model is not lining up with girls' perceptions of their social groups."

That's actually not uncommon in psychological research on these types of questions. People have "positive illusions" about themselves (e.g., most people think they are better than average drivers, for example). But even though that can't objectively be true (70% of the population can't be above the 50th percentile), whether you perceive yourself to be on the high or low end really of those scales really does matter.

THENAKEDCAT: "So, there is a TINY group of girls who rate themselves as low-status, and a HUGE group of girls who rate themselves as high-status. This indicates that the weight-gain data for the smaller group may not be a large enough sample to eliminate random variation...so the weight-gain difference, ESPECIALLY at a time when girls are ALL gaining weight to at least some extent, may simply be a sampling artifact."

That could be, but 5% of 4000 is still a signicant number of girls to help minimize that possibility. It would be useful to know why they split things up that way, and what the overall pattern looks like (i.e., is there a linear progression, where the higher popularity you have the less you gain, or is there a threshhold effect, where only the least popular show a negative effect).

THENAKEDCAT: "And last but not least...correlation does NOT equal causation. This principle has frequently been invoked on Feministing to counter bad interpretation of study results, and it's applicable here."

I would say that principle is applied selectively. For example, when a study confirms pre-existing biases (e.g., the feminism is correlated with more relationship satisfaction), people don't comment on the correlational aspect.

While it is true that correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, it is important because it points to a possible causal story, especially when you can control for the other proposed 3rd variables. Or put another way, without correlation there can't be causation (generally speaking).

To briefly reiterate the point I made in my first post, I think that the finding is interesting enough that it deserve further study to see what might be causing this link between social status and weight gain.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you at all that the study could be improved or could use follow-up. But I do think it is strong enough to be worth considering rather than dismissed with a snarky comment like "A super scientific study featuring self-reported data!", especially when other similar studies get the gold treatment here (like the feminism-relationship satisfaction study, which I also think is a good study).

"Transplant programs have been screening potential donors, but in some cases use organs from people in high-risk groups if they've tested negative for diseases. The new legislation means that practice must stop."

I'm rather confused by this statement. If someone has tested negative for a disease, why does it matter how "at risk" they are? Perhaps someone with better medical knowledge than me can enlighten?

Just to jump in and support UCLAbodyimage on one point, namely the "correlation does not equal causation" point.

This is true, and an important point to keep in mind when considering much social science research. However, this was a longitudinal study. They did not just compare student's weights and self ratings of social hierarchy that were collected at the same time. They compared the social standings and their change in weight over two years. Two years later, girls who rated themselves as having lower social status were gaining weight at a faster rate. This is stronger than a "snapshot" correlation, but still does not prove causation.

The fact that girl's and young women's social status, body image and (presumably) self esteem are often related does not strike me as provocative or offensive, rather as further indication that we need to work to change the toxic social environment these girls are brought up in. I don't see why this study deserved the casual slapdown it was reported with.

MATHGODDESS: "I'm rather confused by this statement. If someone has tested negative for a disease, why does it matter how "at risk" they are? Perhaps someone with better medical knowledge than me can enlighten? "

The reason is because even though you test negative for the disease, you might still have the disease. For example, you can have severe arthritis symptoms for many many years before tests start revealing systemic indicators of rheumatoid arthritis.

The logic here is that a) our tests aren't perfect for detecting diseases and b) there is a group that is high risk for having specific diseases, so c) let's just not take any transplants from those groups.

Referring to our Speaker of the House as "a 67 year old babe"? Intelligent, fierce, experienced, competent, strong-any of these words will do. I think Ms. Moore should stick to fiction.

mathgoddess

While the restriction against use of organs (or blood) from a male who has sex with another male (in the case of blood, even just once) IS discriminatory against gays or male-male sex for the reasons discussed above, the concern over organs or blood is that tissue and blood may be carrying diseases that current medical technology does not even know the existence of, or does not have the methods to detect or prevent transmission. In Japan in the 1980s, almost all HIV patients were hemophiliacs who received transfusions of blood product imported from the US, prior to Japan's knowledge or acceptance of the existence of the risk of transmission (Green Cross Japan had not followed international guidelines, and continued to import untreated US blood products, in a major medical scandal).

For example, we now know of CJD, the human strain of mad cow disease (BSE), but little is known about how infectious it is or all possible methods of transmission. (The US government will not even definitively state that CJD or vCJD is (or is not) caused by consumption of infected beef.)

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/vcjd/qa.htm
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/cjd/detail_cjd.htm

There are currently no definitive tests to confirm CJD infection except by brain biopsy or autopsy in an infected individual. The spread of infection through grafts of dura matter of the brain, or implanted corneas has been confirmed. It is also possible for a variant strain of CJD (vCJD) to be carried in the blood, though there have been no confirmed cases of human transmission through blood or blood products, leading to the prevention of blood donation from people in the US who have spent more than three months in countries where BSE is common.

Note the pre blood donation screenings do not ask if one refrains from consumption of beef or lamb, or is vegetarian, which should eliminate the risk. The unacceptable risk factor is spending three months in one of those countries, another arbitrary criterion, which discriminates against people who work or travel extensively abroad. In Japan, there has been one confirmed case of a man who contracted CJD, allegedly by eating beef just ONCE while traveling in a certain country. It would appear that the true unacceptable risk factor is consumption of meat from countries where infection is present (i.e., the numerous international bans on import of beef *), not travel in and of itself.

* This has led to the ironic situation of the US and Japan placing partial or total bans on import of beef from the other, because individual animals from both have been confirmed to be infected with BSE. While Japan has a more comprehensive testing program (tests 100% of animals vs. US 1%), it appears that they have not yet brought the source of infection (possible continued use of banned imported bone/meal feed) under control, and continue to find infected animals.

I thought removing pubic hair REDUCED sensation, I swear i read that a few times somewhere....

Just thought this story might be of note...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/25/wpin125.xml

I'm glad I wasn't the only one hammering nails into my desk with my head over that Lorrie Moore "editorial." Are they sure the NYT didn't accidentally swap her byline with Christina Hoff Summers'? Gah.

Anyway, I like the analysis you linked to:

In 2004, among 16-to-24-year-olds, 11.6% of boys either weren’t in high school or hadn’t graduated — but the percentage for girls was 9.0%.

So, yes, one out of every nine boys drops out, which is appalling in what’s supposed to be the greatest country in the world — but if “only� one out every eleven girls drops out, it’s not as if we have that problem all sorted out, is it?

For the moment I’m ignoring the question of whether the sheer symbolism of electing an African-American or female president would have any effect on this problem. Do we have good reason to believe that it would?

And if you go back to those statistics, you see that, yes, the black dropout rate is noticeably higher than the white dropout rate, but the Hispanic dropout rate is twice as high as the black rate. Doesn’t that mean we should have all abandoned our support of Clinton and Obama and rallied behind Bill Richardson?

Sing it! The way the Paid Media is going, they can't die off fast enough for me.

OMG. There is just so much wrong with that Chinese forced abortion case, it is hard to start.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/07/wchina107.xml
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200712060062.html

Pregnancy outside of marriage is illegal?
Minimum age of marriage is 20?
Two carloads of men breaking into the woman's home to forcibly carry her off to the clinic?
"Abortion" at 9 months, after the waters had broken?
Forced abortion despite gov't acknowledgment it is illegal?
A bribe to local officials, and paying the considerable standard fine for the "illegal" pregnancy not being enough to prevent the abortion?
Being charged for the forced abortion?
Being rendered sterile by the abortion and needing 44 days in the hospital because of her poor treatment?
This the first time courts have ever been willing to hear a case against the "one child" policy, and the media being willing to cover it?
Trying to silence the husband with a job offer?
Government officials considering their behavior justified, and standard practice?

This is so sick.

EverythingisImage asked

If the goal of the attempt is to be gender neutral, then how does a phrase such as "Yo put HIS foot up" completely address that?

Because you could just as well have said "You put HER foot up". The dialect doesn't have neuter possessive pronouns, so if the pronoun is possessive, you need to specify gender (just like in standard English).

And yeah, it's for real. Language Log explains it very well.

Yo! Yo says hi.

wait, don't popular girls weigh less because that's their job? isn't less restrictive body culture the plus side of hanging out with the freaks? what's the controversy?

and who has enough pubic hair at 10 to wax? at that age, you take what you can get!

Kmari1222: Usually it heightens sensation unless the procedure damages nerve endings somehow, which, when you're pulling hair out by the root, is very possible.

From the Chinese woman's article:Pregnancy outside marriage is illegal.

I don't know why they even have that requirement, considering that most women aren't going to want to have their one child except when they're married anyway. Any time it happens outside marriage it's going to be an accident.

I wonder if hormonal birth control is free in China. It damn well should be, since they have such strict requirements for having children.

Also, while I actually see the value in having a one-child policy (it has drastically lowered the birth rate, and would have even without the atrocious reinforcement methods), I hope they can eventually find a safe and humane way to reinforce it, and stop these atrocities. Like giving men RISUG after their wife has a child (semi-permanent male contraceptives, in testing, have fewer side effects and less risk than female ones); or maybe if we can ever come up with a reversible (in case the child dies or they leave the country) long-term, safe method to give women. Murdering a neonate mid-birth (what they did is not abortion and I'm rather disturbed that it is being reported as such) is beyond despicable, as is any forced abortion or forced sterilization after giving birth.

"Also, while I actually see the value in having a one-child policy "

While reading, I have also seen limiting children promoted as a way to reduce global warming, as generations of unborn children will not consume resources or produce emissions in a geometrically increasing manner. The one child policy has reportedly resulted in 300 million Chinese not being born, in a current population of 1.3 billion. By that reasoning, I consider the declining US birthrate (a 17% decline between a 1990 peak and 2002) to also represent a significant reduction in current and future greenhouse gas emissions.

"I hope they can eventually find a safe and humane way to reinforce it"

Acceptable examples of enforcing a one child policy without infringing on reproductive freedoms could be promoting childlessness or small families by putting a priority on social benefits for the elderly to take the burden off children as care providers (this was the policy, but has fallen by the wayside in the face of greater social costs with the increased number of elderly), or giving the childless or small families substantial tax breaks. There are a number of ways, with the funding and commitment to support them.

"Pregnancy outside of marriage is illegal?
Minimum age of marriage is 20?
Two carloads of men breaking into the woman's home to forcibly carry her off to the clinic?
'Abortion' at 9 months, after the waters had broken?
Forced abortion despite gov't acknowledgment it is illegal?
A bribe to local officials, and paying the considerable standard fine for the "illegal" pregnancy not being enough to prevent the abortion?
Being charged for the forced abortion?
Being rendered sterile by the abortion and needing 44 days in the hospital because of her poor treatment?
This the first time courts have ever been willing to hear a case against the 'one child' policy, and the media being willing to cover it?
Trying to silence the husband with a job offer?
Government officials considering their behavior justified, and standard practice?

"This is so sick."

Yeah, 99% sick. I'm not so sure the minimum age of marriage being 20 instead of 15 or 9 should be lumped in with the sick violence, though...

"I don't know why they even have that requirement, considering that most women aren't going to want to have their one child except when they're married anyway. Any time it happens outside marriage it's going to be an accident."

Most, yeah. Any time, I doubt it.

I've heard of some women getting pregnant outside marriage on purpose. They have all sorts of reasons, from "he'll marry me if I'm pregnant" to "we can't move to where lesbians can marry but my lover and I still want to be mothers" to "I'm already 40 and if I wait for marriage to get pregnant I might wait forever" to whatever. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the women in China are in similar situations and think the same things.

"Yeah, 99% sick. I'm not so sure the minimum age of marriage being 20 instead of 15 or 9 should be lumped in with the sick violence, though..."

Particularly considering most of China and the population are rural, why is the minimum age of marriage set so high? In most of the US, men and women are trusted to make their choices by 18 (21 in Mississippi, 19 in Nebraska - but why?). Chinese are basically banning pregnancy and childbirth for women under 20 (which was indeed the case in this instance; interestingly enough, the age of sexual consent is 16). I would consider that a reproductive freedoms and human rights issue: It's ok to have sex, but you can't get married, and if the woman gets pregnant, she'll be expected/forced to have an abortion, or pay a fine worth one or more year's salary. Sick.