The only time I've had my spoon fall into the bowl was when it wasn't a bowl, it was a saucepan.

I had no idea that it was less decorous to put your spoon back into the bowl. And I can't believe it's better to put your spoon on the tabletop or napkin then back into the bowl. Honestly, this was a very surprising post for me. I can understanding the practical reasons behind some cutlery etiquette - I've found it's easier eating soup out of a bowl than a saucepan, for example - but I don't understand the spoon thing. Am I also supposed to put my fork somewhere else? Can my cutlery ever touch the rest of the dinnerware? Or is it supposed to be a contact-free conveyance from plate or bowl to mouth?

And where did everyone else learn this sort of etiquette? JennFrank, can you advise?

I'm inclined to agree with MMBB and some of the youtubers (!) - this isn't really a trick shot. Even as a "Mousetrap" stunt, the ball rolling down the cue is impressive, but everything else is just different configurations of the same technique. I'd like to see the balls enter the pockets of their own volition.

It's not just about something innocent and practical like "looking sleepy" or "self-expression", or you'd see men doing this at comparable rates.

And that something, like wide eyes, have "universal appeal" is dubious enough (why is the appeal gendered, if it's just about eye dimensions?), it's even more questionable why the idea of something having "universal appeal" makes it somehow defensible.

Not that women subjecting themselves to disturbing little beauty rituals is inherently bad, but it does warrant a critical eye, imho.

As an Asian female, it's great when Asian women reject - or just don't care about - Western feminine body ideals. But that greatness is sort of moot if they're just loyal to their equally silly Asian feminine body ideals. I mean, great, so we aren't acting colonized. It's still gluing your fucking eyelid, though.

@Worlord - as Calpernia herself said in the comments, if she senses that the person is kind she's usually understanding.

The problem here isn't curiosity. Nobody saying you aren't allowed to be curious. The problem here is entitlement. Transgendered people, just for making a very personal life choice, are not obligated to educate you or satiate your curiosity. You are not entitled to personal information about them. They do not owe you an answer or an education. Choosing not to tell you deeply personal information about their genitalia, their sexual identity, or their medical history is not "keeping you in the dark"; it's exercising their right to privacy. If you're really that pained that they won't tell you, do a Google search and educate yourself.

@Vorpalsword - in almost all situations, you can avoid using a pronoun altogether by using the person's name. If you really need to use one, just ask the person in a polite tone - "Sorry, what's your gender identification?" and then get on with it.

@Skatanic - I'm a mostly straight girl and sometimes go to queer bars. I'm also a mostly white girl and sometimes go to Indian restaurants. It can be helpful to break down this idea of "biological gender = gender identity = sexual orientation = sexual behavior", because there's no link in that chain that doesn't fall apart for a whopping amount of people.

@Enochrewt - Let's not forget that regular old heterosexuals can have peculiar tastes too, which can be just as baffling. Sexual diversity abounds.

The Tuyo (a perfect, sleek sphere), Onye (like the Tuyo but cylindrical), Cone (a puzzling pink cone), and Lelo Nea (looks like it's made out of glossed porcelain!) are also very aesthetically pleasing picks. I would argue even moreso than the "Delight". If it's made out of translucent plastic, represents an animal (e.g. dolphin, rabbit), or only takes batteries - I won't buy it.

I'm not sure that we can rationalize everything that women do for beauty as being for evolutionary purposes. I think at this point it has more to do with the fashion and beauty industry. There's a lot of dough to be made by telling people that they need certain products to be attractive, and that attractiveness determines personal worth. (I would argue that the "personal worth" thing is tossed less often at guys, who get pummeled with "this product = get laid" ads more often.) And as North American couples marry later, have kids later, and increasingly find it okay to opt out of having kids entirely, the whole "women buy into this to get them a man to get them kids to pass their genes on" thing becomes a weaker evolutionary reason. And how does it explain fashion-conscious gays and lesbians, who generally don't produce any genetic offspring with their partners?

I used to wear heels. Religiously. Then I tried wearing sneakers for a month and never looked back. I don't get the "I'm a confident, heel-clicking woman strutting along" feeling, but I get a new "I can climb stairs, walk on a grate, traverse an icy street, run from a predator (or towards a bus), handle a slippery floor, [etc]" sense of empowerment that I actually prefer. I don't feel as feminine, but what has femininity done for me lately?

Emily Haines lyrics:

It's pathetic, it's impossible.
Like girls in stilettos.
Like girls in stilettos.
Like girls in stilettos running to run.

I like that they specify that indeed each pirate does have an eye patch. I wonder if there is pirate merchandise out there with a tiny disclaimer like, "Actual pirate does not wear eyepatch."

I'm curious how much kids (of all ages) like these toys that are aesthetically pleasing for the parents but don't seem to have much...personality. Like those very attractively designed pull-toy dogs. I mean, they look awesome, but I'm not sure I would have developed much of an emotional attachment to it as a kid. But it might be just me.

Noen - Merry Christmas!

My intention, which I think is pretty obvious when you look at my first comment, was to remark that there seemed to be a weird absence of non-sexed, non-white, non-skinny female bodies in the images that show up in the art section of BoingBoing.

Not that I thought it shouldn't have been posted.
Not that it was, or was not art.
Not that the artist isn't talented or the art isn't striking.
Not that it represents the politics of the artist.
Not that we should have a screening process.
Not that we need some kind of affirmative action.

I think there's been a pretty defensive reaction here. I wasn't knocking BoingBoing. I've read every post, usually with considerable interest, since I first laid eyes on it (quite a long time ago). I feel grateful towards it for giving me a more nuanced understanding of topics like DRM and copyright, as well as introducing me to little nerdy things like the LOLpresidents meme or the living octopus meal. I've also become a recent BBGadgets addict.

But to look at the response to my comment, you'd think I called it a racist sexist patriarchy machine or something.

I didn't.

I wasn't asking for changes, I was just remarking. I wasn't asking for changes because I see this situation as just a manifestation of larger social issues, not a social issue unto itself. And like some of you, I understand that isn't "my blog", it's the blog of other people, and they have (and should have) the right to decide what to post and what not to according to their tastes. I respect that. Just as by putting in a comments section, they've given me the right to point out that it seems like there's a weird focus on a particular female body type. And they've given you the right to call me "twisted PC police" for it.

But all right, it's evident that most of you don't agree, or you don't agree with the theoretical places where a comment like mine might go. So I'll shut up now. Hopefully on friendly terms, because I've followed some of your commentaries for awhile.

Happy Holidays, time for my grocery run.

Personally, I'd rather someone worshipped my brain than my ovaries. And I don't see any reason to 'get over' that. Beside, dudes have sperm. Sperm denotes fertility too. But you don't see BoingBoing posting pop art of thick scrotums (gladly).

That art has 'always' done anything doesn't have much to do with it. Art has also traditionally focused on white people only - does that make it a 'natural' state for art?

I too cannot speak for the artists. But I do wonder why powerful women can't have normal boobs.

And the 'twisted mind' might be the meaning of Williams' art, but I wasn't topic about meaning, I was talking about the actual images themselves. And the actual images themselves seem to show, with disproportionate frequency, skinny white busty women in sexualized poses.

I'm not saying it shouldn't have been posted. I'm saying some diversity is nice. If we're OK with sexualizing people, let's sexualize everyone at least. That way the advantages and disadvantages of being sexualized can be shared by all.

My qualm isn't whether or not it's art, what the gender or politics or intentions of the artist were, or anything. It's just with the choices that BoingBoing seems to make in the human-figure visual art it presents, which is skewed towards the "sexually objectified white women" side of things. That may be a product of the heteronormative patriarchal views of both men and women that tend to fester in comics, but BoingBoing is supposed to be pro-innovation, right? If we're into comic art, cool! Let's see if we can find some comic art that doesn't have to draw an unwieldy chest onto every female character, paint her white and make her arch like a cat.

Regarding my first comment...I promise that I won't complain idly. That one titled "Appetite for Destruction"...man, I know art is subjective, but that's pretty bad.

Sometimes I feel like a disproportionate amount of the visual art presented on BoingBoing features skinny, busty, white women. Like this, the McConnell/Fry glitter gif, the Tim Biskup, the Faesthetic, the COOP BoingBoing Tshirts, the Crehore, etc. Now, I love skinny, busty white women as much as the next girl/guy, and I will totally acknowledge that most of the stuff in the Art category doesn't have human figures at all, but it does seem like there's a weird absence of non-white, non-sexualized women (or dudes for that matter) in the imagery. It's not raking my heart over the coals or anything, but I just can't help not noticing.