@Statham maybe this will help: http://newyork.seriouseats.com/2013/07/where-to-eat-near-times-square-new-york-nyc.html
@Danzig! @Lauren_O'Neal Ah, interesting. Errol is the overachiever of the family, then. He could have hidden all those bodies in his nasty little rabbit warren and never been found... but instead he had to show off.
Ok two things that have been bugging me all day:
1.) I think we can safely assume that creepy Errol killed Dora Lange, even though it wasn't explicitly spelled out in the finale. I'm still struggling with the "why" though -- most/all of the evidence (photos and that video) about the culty people indicates they like to prey on children. Why this woman?
2.) It's also not clear to me why Dora's body was posed and displayed the way she was. Like creepy underground cult functions for [some really long period of time] and then basically does the equivalent of sending up a flare for the police saying "come find me!" Did creepy Errol just go extra-insane that day?
It is entirely possible I'm missing something really obvious here, so please tell me if I just fell asleep during some vital moment or something.
@mlle.gateau The first book ends with Salander rescuing what's-his-face from the evil Nazi brother, in fact. And there's a brief moment in the book, but I believe not in either movie, where evil Nazi brother attempts to sexually assault what's-his-face. Larsson doesn't spend a lot of time on it, but I think it's an efficient demonstration of the idea that rape is about power, not sex.
Given that Larsson wrote the novels for his own enjoyment and died before they were published, I'm a little more willing to let him off the hook for the obvious middle-aged dude wish fulfillment aspects of the plot. I'm sure we would all like to fall in love with a beautiful, mysterious stranger; many of us might choose to express that a little differently in a work intended for publication than in our own journals or other private writings.
@Divert Here are a couple of reasons why women don't buy sex:
1.) No scarcity. Plenty of dudes giving it away for free, so no need to purchase it. Historically, this hasn't been the case for women and sex -- women's sexuality has been much more closely regulated by legal, religious, and social systems.
2.) Social pressure. Men who buy sexual services from women (or men) may get a little side eye, but women who do so will be seen as pathetic, unfuckable, etc. Women may chose to forgo purchasing sex rather than risk the social consequences of doing so.
3.) Safety. Many women would not feel physically safe purchasing sexual services from a stranger, especially since the transaction generally takes place privately.
4.) Risk. Related to points 2 and 3, women generally assume more risk from a sexual encounter, including the risk of pregnancy, STDs (receptive partners are at higher risk for HIV, for example), loss of social standing.
You'll note these are all, essentially, market conditions, not qualities inherent to women. Market conditions can change; women could become 50% of the consumers of sexual services. (I would guess that women consume pornography, which for the most part avoids these issues, in much greater numbers than we consume "in-person" sexual services such as escorts, strip clubs, massage parlors, etc.)
In economic terms, in the marketplace for sexual services, women and men are not substitute goods for the vast majority of customers (some bisexual men being the exception, perhaps.) That is, if the price of buying sexual services from a woman increases, consumers will not simply shift their consumption to buying sexual services from men. Men cannot enter this market in large numbers because there's little to no demand for their services.
@klemay there are plenty of men in sex work, it's just that their clients are men. I suspect this is an issue of demand, not supply. Women and men, both selling sexual services, cannot substitute for one another, because the client will tend to prefer one or the other based on his sexual orientation. Men literally cannot crowd women out of this market because the demand is not there for them, by nature of them being men.
On Talking to Heather Doney and Rachel Coleman About Child Abuse, the Quiverfull Movement and Homeschooling Policy Reform
Fascinating interview. Not sure I've read anything here, or elsewhere, that convinces me that homeschooling should be legal in anything other than extreme circumstances (a family that lives in the literal middle of nowhere being the obvious example) though.
I mean, there is a reason why there are certain qualifications you have to meet to be a teacher. It's an actual learned set of skills, and to think that the average mom and dad can do it without training is just absurd.
(and yes, I recognize that public schools have their problems, some more than others, which is why I'm reluctantly okay with homeschooling, at least in theory.)
I just... think this campaign is so boneheaded. How exactly does dancing turn into measurable change? By all means, dance if it makes you feel good, don't let me stand in your way, but let's not kid ourselves about this.
Also, to expand upon a point the author raised, Ensler did not take it well, to put it mildly, when it was pointed out to her that indigenous women in Canada have been marching in support of MMIW (missing and murdered indigenous women) on 2/14 for years now: http://chiefelk.tumblr.com/post/49527456060/an-open-letter-to-eve-ensler
In short, go home, Eve Ensler, you're drunk.
@Rookie (not the magazine) (not that there's anything wrong with that) I would say probably you can redeem points without buying anything? I've never done that, but I have redeemed a free perfume certificate thinger, without buying anything, without issue.
I use the smashbox primer pretty regularly, and it's a solid product. It's the only primer I've used, though, so no idea how it compares.
cackling SO HARD at this.