kokozo
Zokajo
kokozo

This! This.

Oh wait, sorry, I think I got away from your comment a bit! My main point is that actually preferring someone over the other in the workplace based on a specific set of attributes (including race, gender, and ethnicity) is illegal. I believe that affirmative action or race quotas are exempt from this. However, ratings

That's what discrimination laws are for. Models and actors are often exempt from this, because that profession is defined as something based on their appearance. Some workplaces (like restaurants) hire their staff as models or independent contractors so that they can fire them for gaining weight, getting old, getting

Ah, am I the only one who was really turned off/disturbed by the way this article started?

You know what I love about this? How absolutely dazed he is. Way to go, ice cream thief lady!

Yes!

Agreed! Although I would add that fantasies are okay as long as the person realizes it is their problem, not mine. It's not because I wore this outfit, and it's not my fault for having a chest. Your sexuality, your brain, your imagination, your deal.

Well... Hinds himself seems to argue against his point. He doesn't seem to think that he can fantasize about women while still respecting and acknowledging their humanity. Hence the mental burqa, after which he seems pretty pleased with his ability to see women as people first. Your argument is weird and overly

This! Yes. I see what VaglnaWolf is saying, and I think this article may have made a bigger deal out of it than necessary for the sake of 'something to write about', but framing women's bodies as problems to overcome definitely icked me out. Whether or not he's saying this is the "right" thing to do, he is writing

Agreed. When I was a size 6 in Guess jeans, I couldn't find a pair of jeans in the store that would fit me, and they stocked up to 8 or 10. Mortifying. I think I cried in the change room, and I was at the bottom of the healthy BMI for my height. Ugh, these evil, evil people.

This is unfortunate and awkward, because your prom photos have a shelf life of, oh, six months if you're generous (and a little tacky). If you're going to university, your prom photos can't be your profile picture by the end of first year, since that's a reminder of your "immature", non-college self - and let's face

This is from BC, but it's similar across Canada, where I'm guessing you are also from!

I'm really curious about this too! I'm wondering, though, if liquor license laws make an exception (or just don't address) people who are literally too young to be accidentally served alcohol. I have worked in an upscale hotel lounge before, and I was told to not allow youngsters in who fit the following descriptions:

Oh, yeah, for sure! That's what I meant - I think it was a perfect example, cause it showed the necessity of the semicolon. Not criticizing your example or comment at all; intending to support it, in fact!

Perhaps there should be more plus-sized male models in advertising, but I like who she chose for this because many, many people are distinctly uncomfortable when people of majorly different sizes and/or cultural definitions of 'attractive' are together sexually and/or romantically. I think if they had both been

Beautiful! I think I have a tear. *sniff *

I don't mean to be a stickler on an internet post, but really, messing up your own punctuation while criticizing another type of punctuation is just silly. If there's ever a time to proofread, it's in a comment thread like this one.

The second one is also a fragment, isn't it? It's usually hard to eliminate a semicolon without creating a fragment, which is just bad grammar!

Are you a reader? I've found that familiarity with language is the best way to breed the type of relationship you seem to have with grammar - it's natural, rather than a knowledge of what exactly a dangling participle is, or exactly the definition of semicolon-apppropriate situations.

Yes! Thank you!