i have yet to meet the man who does not ask for that

as near as i can tell theres ONE study indicating barbies MAY damage body image, which is sort of my point... heres ONE followup study that found different.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2991547/
there simply are not enough studies for anyone to claim studies have made the end-all to this, so simply put "nope google says you are wrong" is not a valid shut down. if there were overwhelming studies and scientific consensus i would ABSOLUTELY agree, i am not one to argue against proven facts. in all the articles i pulled up i could only find references to two studies, the first one that i assume you are talking about, and the second one that i just liked. the second one found no change to body perception but did find girls who played with barbie instead of the other toy ate less when fed after, but it did not say if they ate a healthy amount or if it was too much less, which i think would have been an important fact in this issue but oh well.

omg but what if theres a fire and you cannot get to your keys?

because the house would come down.

but.. codes... fire laws...

i think being as its a police officer and probably working and thus having to report it complicates the matter. i mean i would HOPE him being all "he was protecting the child" will keep the dog safe, but i have lots of doubts about how that will play out.

you can find a study that proves anything. you can find a study that disproves anything. body issues come from what we do to REAL women's bodies not dolls and cartoons, it comes from MESSAGES we send with our words and expectations and double standards. we can post links on both sides of this issue all day. example: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/23/moms-daughters-influence-body-image/2690921/ i would also point out that the study referenced by the articles supporting the "barbie is bad" side has a conclusion that is wishy washy at best "MAY damage girls’ body image, which would contribute to an increased risk of disordered eating and weight cycle." emphasis mine. there are far far far too many confounding factors to account for in this form of study as there is no way to remove the girls entirely from society to test the theory properly, or to remove societal influences they were already exposed to growing up.

its something i am very worried about in the near future as i already dislike being touched AND am super ticklish. someones going to get throat punched and i will have no control over it but will still be responsible. blargh.

most women are about as happy with strangers grabbing their belly as men would be able random men touching their balls. which reminds me to start searching amazon for shirts that say shit along the longs of "dont fucking touch me"

yeah i always found math relatively easy... granted once you don't use it and forget it its hard again, but i feel like if i re-learned it it would still be easy to relearn and use again...

am pretty sure this is a ringneck snake.... non venomous.. also, that is a myth. here i brought a source. http://www.livingalongsidewildlife.com/2009/10/are-bites-from-baby-venomous-snakes.html

all the people against gay marriage are starting to say shit like "its not that im against the gays getting married its just that..." its like anyone who is against the tides.. "I'm not anti vaccine BUT.." "im not transphobic i just think that..." "i'm not against feeding poor children but what about.."

god yes i am so stupid for confusing two female queens with the same damn name! stupid stupid me! i must know all the names and histories of all the damn monarchies of countries across a damn ocean!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/barack-obama-n-word-race-relations-marc-maron-interview/
of course he said it the same way people say things like "don't call people retarded" but it seems we're supposed to afraid of the word the way we are of he who must not be named.

ick factor is not really relevant, its about disease prevention

we call that "experienced"