Slang is regional, and readers of Jezebel come from a wide range of places. An explanation is a good idea when using a slang word that isn't already commonly used on the site. Like some other people in this thread, I thought it was a variation on "nodding off".

The thing is they should be allowed to have photographs taken as agreed, without giving up their privacy the rest of the time. It shouldn't be all or nothing.

Because 'modest' seems to refer to any old fashioned restrictions on women's behaviour.

Telling poor people not to have children is classism. What exactly do you think classism is?

We live in a culture that sees violence as the solution to a lot of problems. It gets inside you even if you don't agree with it.

It's hard to respect or tolerate someone's beliefs when those same beliefs stop the person from respecting or tolerating you.

I don't think harassing women online is not the reverse of holding a door open for someone...

Docking and cropping are illegal in Australia unless it is for therapeutic reasons, and the dogs are just fine with their natural ears and tails.

If the article is true about her life up till now, I think she is a victim too. It appears that there is only one known victim at the moment, and his family may not want to share enough information to make an article focused on him. I agree with your point in general though.

Sometimes people don't have the money to replace all of their clothes when they gain weight.

It isn't necessarily that simple. You could have courses that negatively affect some body types more than others, such as courses that favour strength over flexibility or vice versa.

By the account given it wasn't a desired abortion. In this case pro-choice is supporting the pregnant person's desire to continue the pregnancy. Trying to make her abort against her will is anti-choice.

Does she come from a well to do background where she would have learned about the difference between an accountant and an investment manager? I'm sure she knows the difference now though!

Is swimming something that interests you? It avoids the sweat issue.

You question has no relevance to this case.

If she was hacking people's computers and adding the file to get them charged with possession of child pornography this would be a very different case.

The entire point of these laws is to protect the children being photographed - not people who own websites. Charging a child with a felony and labelling them as a sex offender for distributing a photograph of themselves is not a reasonable response.

It shouldn't be a crime for children to upload naked pictures of themselves. They should be immediately taken down, and any adult who downloads or distributes them should be charged. But the child shouldn't be prosecuted. That's why we only prosecute the adult in cases of statutory rape - the child isn't responsible.

The entire point of these laws is to protect minors from being taken advantage of. It doesn't make any sense to prosecute her for taking advantage of herself.