@stonefruit I worked at a sexist, horrible British company where only female employees planned and attended office baby showers. The men sort of hovered around outside to hug the mom-to-be and scrounge cake afterwards. Aside from that, the only office showers have been at essentially all-female offices (I work in magazines) so it wasn't really any issue, I never actually thought about it. But I think it would be weird at most companies to exclude employees on that basis.
@ComradeQuestion I'm a brunette, so I've never experienced the green thing in years of swimming, but vinegar actually helps remove chlorine so I would imagine not. And basically, shampoo+chlorine=double damage to your hair. Removing the lathering chemicals (at the very LEAST, switch to a sulfate-free shampoo) will be great for your hair health overall.
@yossariangirl I use Devachan's No-Poo products. I don't have to use very much, so even though they're expensive, they last a long time (I buy maybe 3-4 bottles a year, and I work out/use their product to wash my hair every day) and frankly, I'm doing this to look pretty, not because I'm a hippie. I spend no money on products (because my hair looks great), styling tools (because my hair looks great), or color (you get the idea) so I feel I can justify the cost of 6 bottles of products and a great cut twice a year. And *gets on high horse* unlike everyone who appears to be writing about this on the internet NOW, I have been doing this for 15 years, since I was 13 years old. I grew up in New York and have used nothing but their products and their cuts for basically my entire life, and literally have only distant memories of bad hair days. The only thing that ruins my hair now is if I have a date at night and I get nervous and scrunch my hair too enthusiastically in the morning and squish the curls in an effort to make them really stay.
@elephony I worked with a guy whose name was Richard Blow. I don't think he ever went by Dick, and also he later changed his last name to something else, but I am pretty sure plenty of other people thought to call him that regardless.
I read these stories now, after recently ending a relationship with a 32-year-old man who is still paralyzed with indecision about what he wants to do with his life SIX YEARS after an epic backpacking trip like this, and I genuinely wonder if it's a good idea for some people. It feels to me like traveling for too long really skews your perception of normality in a way that is pretty unsustainable for most people, and there's never anyone there telling 20-somethings that the things they want right now may not be the things they want in their 40s...and those things they want in their 40s may not be available to them if they make certain choices now. He went through basically exactly the same cycle...a 3 month trip turned into nearly a year, a brief stint back at home to earn money, another four months out with no plans to return, and then he was called home by a family emergency, and hasn't been able to make it back out since, mainly because he refuses to lower himself to do the kind of mundane office work he ran away from in the first place after having his epiphany while traveling. This means that he has no regular income, and thus no ability to travel anywhere OR start a real life at home. He totally believes himself when he says that he wants to have a family in his mid-30s, but with years of earning power forfeited, it's simply not going to be possible for him to have the kind of life he's envisioning, which is the one he was raised with, funded by two very hard-working doctor parents.
Basically, I used to think this was something I wanted to do. But after seeing what it's done to almost everyone I know who's done it (not just this guy, who's the worst-case scenario) I no longer think it's a great idea for everyone, and I think the people who insist it is are justifying their own choices in a big way. I worked as a travel writer for three years, traveling about two weeks out of every month, so believe me, I understand wanderlust, but I'm living proof that there's a way to indulge wanderlust and keep your life's momentum at the same time. I'm not saying don't go, but I'm saying if you do, spend some of the time you're not having sex with strangers and petting baby llamas thinking about what you DO want out of a career and a life, not just what you DON'T want. Even jobs and paths that are what you want will have aspects of the things you don't want--that doesn't make them the wrong choice.
@Clare Boyle@facebook I HATED Wen. I've used Devacurl for years and figured it would be comparable, but it sucked and made my (curly, dry, long) hair heavy and sticky and gross-feeling, like it was coated.
@JadeX As long as its natural oil (nothing silicone in it) there's kind of...no reason to get it all out? I basically use argan oil as a conditioner sometimes, so it's not incompatible with this. I know it's kind of gross right after you get them, but once your scalp has adjusted its own oil production, this should actually be fine.
@meg_r I'm not black but I do have that regulation Jewish curly/frizzy hair, and have been shampoo-free for like 15 years now? I don't go full hippie, since I'm not doing this for environmental reasons--I use a natural-ish conditioner (Devacurl One Condition) and comb my hair out when I have conditioner in, and not otherwise. Ignore EVERYTHING about brushing; that is for straight-haired people and your instincts are correct. I also use a little conditioner or the Devacurl gel which breaks down pretty easily to style.
@Gilgongo Oh ugh yes. First really big one I ever encountered, in college. It was like he'd unzip and get and be like, "okay, I did my part, the rest is up to you!" Even as a college freshman I was pretty unimpressed with the overall experience, to the point where for a long time I thought I preferred average-size ones. Then I met a guy with a really big one who knew how to use it, and well, we all know how that story ends.
@Bunburying It truly amazes me that that myth is still around. Men and women peak hormonally at around the same age (late teens, early 20s) for optimal baby-making purposes. Both genders lose testosterone at a fairly regular rate after that. The study that is CONSTANTLY referenced, by everyone, is a Kinsey study done in 1948, a vastly different time when it comes to sexual education. The criteria they used was total orgasm frequency including masturbation, which anyone with a body can tell you is not the full measure of sexual satisfaction. Basically--it was easier for older ladies to have more orgasms because they had had more time to figure out how to have them, and had probably learned by then not to rely solely on their partners to give them to them. And NO ONE beats teenage boys for total orgasm frequency, it would be a literal impossibility, but I don't think any man would say that the sex he's having in his late 20s is not as good as the sex he was having at 18. "Peak" is a relative term. So actually, this fits pretty neatly with that data, since this is study about how young women's partners aren't giving them orgasms, which pretty much accounted for the discrepancy in the original research! If they surveyed the same 600 people about their total number of orgasms my guess would be you'd see plenty of Os represented on the ladies' side, which is all cool and great.
TL;DR--18 year old boys have always been great at giving themselves orgasms and not so great at giving their partners orgasms. 18 year old girls used to take several years and probably a long-term relationship to figure out how to give themselves orgasms; now they probably just masturbate the next morning after sex they had for fun if they're still aroused, as part of a full and complete sex life.