featured Slider

Impact Of Plastic Surgery Culture on Young people.

     

Christy Turlington On "Freaky" Plastic Surgery

                                      
PATRICK DEMARCHELIER

   CHRISTY TURLINGTON has revealed her thoughts about plastic surgery, disclosing why she would not consider it for herself
"Maybe I would think differently if I thought it looked good and it didn’t hurt and it didn’t send bad messages to young people," the 47-year-old supermodel confessed in an interview with Town & Country. "But I’ve never seen someone who I’ve been like, 'Oh, that’s a good idea.' It looks freaky to me."
"Being who you are, being your best self, has nothing to do with what you look like," she continued.

Whilst she expressed concern about the impact of the plastic surgery culture on young people, Turlington said that she does not hold the fashion industry accountable when it comes to health issues related to body image.
                                             
credit:PA PHOTOS

"I don’t think people get eating disorders by looking at magazines," she said. "I think there’s a much deeper set of issues around a lack of power and control, or something happening in the family."
The mother-of-two added that she would never "blame a magazine or fashion company for that", saying "People have to get over the idea that realism is being projected here."
Turlington herself sets a very positive example on the discourse of self-esteem, disclosing that she does not worry about her looks changing as she gets older.
"I wasn’t worried about ageing at 16, and I’m not worried about it at 47. It’s a fact of life," she reiterated. "It’s good that people close to me see that I’m relaxed and okay about ageing, not neurotic or worried about it. To my kids, I’ll be the mum who barely shaves her legs, who doesn’t colour her hair."

Reference: katie Berrington. published on friday 9 september 2016.


Men Have Been Terrified of Our Breasts for Hundreds of Year

The battle of the breasts in Times Square is nothing new. Here's why.

Women have a long and admirable history of doing battle with their breasts.
In 783 CE, Saxon women, including noblewoman Fastrada, famously hurled themselves bare-breasted into battle against Charlemagne's forces. Fastrada later became Charlemagne's third wife and Queen of the Franks.
In the Greenland saga, Viking woman Freydís Eiríksdóttir, half sister to Leif Erikson and eight months pregnant at the time, is said to have bared her breast and, striking it with her sword, let out a "furious cry" in an attempt to frighten off a group of attacking Native Americans. It worked.
Lady Godiva supposedly convinced her husband to lower the taxes of the medieval residents of Coventry by riding through the streets naked.





Marianne, the revered French symbol for liberty, is depicted bare-breasted in the famous painting by Eugène Delacroix, hoisting the Tricolour in one hand, a bayonet in the other, as she leads the people over bodies of the fallen.
Perhaps it is not entirely a surprise, then, that New York City mayor Bill de Blasio is so determined to remove topless panhandlers from Times Square: History (and myth) clearly tells us topless women are dangerous. Naked breasts are simply unregistered weapons that at any moment can be unholstered and directed at innocent passersby. In this case, the hordes of tourists mobbing NYC's streets.
Or you'd be forgiven for thinking so based on the wildly over-the-top reaction of NYC politicians when confronted with naked nipples.
Some quick backstory in case you missed it:
Among the many panhandlers and street performers jockeying for tourist money in Times Square are a handful of enterprising topless women—they call themselves desnudas, the Spanish word for "naked"—who are painting their (legally) bared breasts a patriotic red, white, and blue and offering to pose with tourists for cash. Last week, during the doggiest days of summer, the New York Daily News (full disclosure: I write for the NYDN from time to time) did what tabloids do when the well is running dry, and took an old, innocuous story—these women have been doing this for years now—and went on a four-day rampage. (This par for the course where NYC tabloids are concerned: Last month the New York Post beat a similar editorial warpath about a homeless man who was caught urinating in public.)
Mayor de Blasio, who presumably does have things to do in August, took note and rushed together a blue-ribbon committee to deal with this plague of terrifying topless women, going so far as to threaten to turn Times Square from a pedestrian plaza back into a thoroughfare for cars.
Over the weekend, the New York Times published a wonderfully scathing op-ed blasting the mayor for his overreaction and noting that "being shirtless in the city is perfectly legal, a privilege men have enjoyed since forever. ... Times Square is not going to hell, or anywhere near hell's vicinity." On Sunday, dozens of topless women marched in support. (The last time an NYC mayor got this up in arms about a bare breast was 1999, when then Mayor Giuliani was handed an article by, you guessed it, the NYDN about a Chris Ofili painting exhibited in the Brooklyn Museum that depicts the Virgin Mary with a bare breast made from elephant dung; Giuliani wasted no time in cutting the museum's $7 million in public funding, a decision that was later overturned in court.)
In a country where we seem unable to enact any sort of meaningful gun laws, despite continually witnessing terrible proof of their necessity, how is it that the simple appearance of bare breasts can inspire a response that one imagines should be reserved for actual weapons?
Perhaps the truth is men view breasts as a weapon of sorts—at least insofar as they signify a woman's power over her own body. Culturally, there has long been a determination to keep them holstered in one way or another, from dress codes to topless prohibitions on beaches. It's worth noting among all the joking over political overreaction that de Blasio is not alone in his fear of the nipple. Even some of the more progressive companies in America take care not to offend when it comes to this region of a woman's body: Facebook and Instagram have long supported a contentious policy of banning women's nipples from their images. Reportedly, more than 200,000 viewers complained the FCC after Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl; later Viacom agreed to pay $3.5 million to the FCC in fines.
It seems we are fine with breasts as long as they are constricted, contained, and nicely covered up―or at least, on display only in a manner that is pleasing and related to sex.
It seems we are fine with breasts as long as they are constricted, contained, and nicely covered up―or at least, on display only in a manner that is pleasing and related to sex. Even a cursory glance around the many billboards of Times Square reveals no shortage of breasts in the line of sight of these tourists the mayor is so concerned about. But those breasts are sexualized in a way that makes men feel comfortable.
As any woman who's had to deal with sideways glances when she breastfed in public can tell you, we are, as a society, a great deal less comfortable with breasts when they are performing functional, nonsexualized duties. We are even more disturbed when they don't belong to young women and/or don't appear round and full. (Maybe only Victoria's Secret models have the right to take their tops off?) Women are guilty of this thinking, too, and it's no surprise when you consider that for most of our lives, the only images we see in films, magazines, and on television depict a certain ideal.
What is the solution? As movements like Free the Nipple suggest, a generation of younger women is increasingly fed up with being bound up. Our bodies have functions beyond those geared toward sexual pleasure, and it's time they're recognized as such.
But where men's eyes (and desires) go, so does government policy. If we are in fact waging a war over our breasts, with our breasts, perhaps it doesn't hurt to have a few more ladies' nipples in the arsenal

Will the FDA's Approval of a Low-Desire Drug Make Women Doubt Their Bodies More Than Ever?

How to treat low desire in women—how to even measure it—stymies doctors and divides feminists. Molly Langmuir reports from the front lines of sex, marketing, and medicine.

I lost my virginity on prom night, of all things, but whatever embarrassment I had about the clichéd circumstances was far outweighed by my relief at having entered the realm of the sexually active. I saved the condom wrapper, and the next day, triumphantly mailed it to my best friend in California. Established right from the beginning was the following: Sex was something that I did with guys, some of whom I liked, some of whom I didn't, but that I only really talked about frankly with other women.
Over the next few years, which I spent at a liberal arts college known for its clothing-optional dorm and frequent "naked parties," I acquired friends with whom nothing sexual was off-limits. We mimicked the sounds we heard each other make through the thin walls of our off-campus housing, debated the appeal of gay soft porn (prompted by a week we were meant to be studying for exams but instead spent watching the Showtime drama Queer As Folk), and described to each other the exact locations of our clitorises. At one point, deep into a conversation about orgasms, we split up into separate rooms and raced to see who could get there first. None of this seemed weird. We were 20, then 21, then 22, with few boundaries, and friends were still way more important than boys.

I am now 35, and these women and I are spread among different cities and mostly married. But when we get together, sex inevitably still comes up, and in the last year or so, a new aspect of it has entered the discussion: a lack of desire, at least the kind that we imagine catches a person unaware, which has been likened to a hunger or a drive. The type we imagine most men feel often, and teenage boys all the time, ready to be triggered by anything from a bodacious 3 written on a blackboard to a visible bra strap.
"I could never have sex again and be totally fine," one friend said to me recently, and while at first that seemed drastic, once I turned it over in my mind, I realized that I basically felt the same way. But it wasn't that I didn't enjoy sex. I did. She did too, she said. It was just that unlike other women we knew who chased it single-mindedly, we didn't have much urge to seek it out. She wasn't worried, but I was less sanguine. Pursuing sex, and not just out of obligation, was fundamental to what I assumed it meant to be a good partner.
Was there something wrong in my marriage? Was this unavoidable, 10 years into a relationship? Were hormones to blame? On the other hand, had I ever really sought sex for sex's sake alone? When I think back to my early twenties, even then sex felt more like a product of other impulses than an end in and of itself. I'd be attracted to someone and want to be close to him, and this sometimes led to hanging out late at night, and that often led to sex—I think?
As it happens, these questions are at the center of a long-running debate that erupted last June when a Federal Drug Administration panel recommended, for the first time, the approval of a drug to treat female desire—the final vote was expected by August 18 (UPDATE: The FDA approved the drug yesterday)libanserin, as it's known, is owned by a company named Sprout Pharmaceuticals and is meant for women with a disorder that some academics and feminist activists say doesn't exist, at least as a biologl entity, but that others—MDs, equally adamant women's-health activists—believe afflicts 10 percent of American women: very low desire that lasts at least six months, prompts emotional distress, and isn't caused by medications, depression, physical illness, relationship troubles, or simply an unskilled lover (whether such factors can be decisively ruled out is, as you might expect, much contested). The lack of clarity about the condition is even reflected in its shifting name. Flibanserin was developed to treat what's known as hypoactive sexual desire disorder, or HSDD, but in the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published in 2013, this diagnosis was expanded to include women with arousal deficits and renamed female sexual interest/arousal disorder, or FSIAD (arousal is marked by physiological changes such as flushed skin and genital swelling; desire refers to the psychological wish to do something sexual).
Flibanserin works by constricting the release of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is thought to foster a sense of well-being but also to stoke inhibition, and by increasing norepinephrine and dopamine, the chemicals associated with the rush of falling in love (and taking heroin). A main measure of effectiveness for the drug is the number of so-called "sexually satisfying events," defined as acts of intercourse, oral sex, genital stimulation, or even masturbation, that a patient—"not the partner," Sprout emphasizes—deems as such. In three large-scale Flibanserin studies, the female subjects, all premenopausal and in monogamous, heterosexual relationships, were previously, on average, having 2.67 pleasurable "events" a month. Taking the drug raised that to 4.75 such interactions, though in comparing these results to the control group's, researchers concluded that Flibanserin was responsible for only 0.88 of the uptick, the other 1.2 being attributable to the placebo effect.
But what to make of this? One of the most interesting things about the dispute is that it takes place far enough into as-yet-unsettled terrain that there are no easy answers. So you consider yourself a feminist: Do you support a drug that 40 percent of the women who've tried it (in contrast to 25 percent of the control group) said meaningfully improved their condition? Or do you argue that 11 additional successful sexual outings a year don't outweigh the risks of taking a pill that in the short term can cause dizziness, nausea, and fainting, and whose long-term effects are unknown? So you consider yourself sex-positive: What then?
At the heart of the matter is what we know about how female desire works and what that tells us about how much of it women can reasonably expect. Ideally, here is where we'd turn to research, but as the Flibanserin data suggests, science breaks down when trying to quantify something as ineffable as desire. In a way, the debate fractures reality into two distinct universes, and in each, everything makes complete sense until the moment you step into the other, and then the inverse becomes true. What is undeniable, though, is this: millions of dollars, maybe billions, are at stake, along with what constitutes American women's sense of sexual gratification—or, maybe, of what it means to be "normal," if there ever can be said to be such a thing when it comes to sex.

The FDA's headquarters are on the border of DC and Maryland, in an office park where, as the day begins and ends, floods of people rush through doors that lead to sprawling buildings with warrens of rooms and displays of products the agency has helped pull from shelves over the years: "Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup," a drink for colicky babies that mostly contained morphine, for one. The rest of the time the campus, as it's known (it's so gargantuan that buses shuttle visitors in from a parking lot half a mile away), is so void of humans as to feel practically apocalyptic.
Before the meeting in June, a more general session was held here last October for the FDA to hear directly from patients about how much risk they'd consider acceptable in a sexual dysfunction treatment. All the major female-desire stakeholders were on hand—and the scene was more media circus than scientific meeting, or drug-company drama as performance art.
There were the pharmaceutical reps in sleek suits, looking like something out of Men in Black, and the doctors, many of whom had enough conflicts of interest to stock a pharmacy. Before addressing the panel, the speakers had to list their conflicts; one's list was so long, I quit counting after 20. Though whatever you might assume that means should be measured against this: In June, some of the same doctors returned to testify to the need for Flibanserin or something similar, and when they described what it was like to have patients implore them for a drug to boost their libido and have nothing to offer, at least two began crying.
Around a dozen carefully done-up patients were there too, flown in by drug companies to detail their anguish at having low desire. They described "duty sex" and taking so much topical testosterone, "I smelled like a guy and my girlfriends were attracted to me," one said. (Or as Barbara Gattuso, 66, lamented to me later, "You don't feel like a woman. You feel like something has been torn out of you.")
And then there were the activists, some ardently for, others ardently against, a female desire drug. The vibe was fraught. In between sessions, the antidrug camp huddled together, whispering angrily. One woman put on headphones to drown out a certain MD whenever he spoke—that was how angry he made her—and another complained about a patient who'd shown up in red patent leather heels: "What was she saying with those shoes? They scream sex."
Across the room, the patients were also huddled and equally irate. "That lady, I could kill her—I don't need to fix myself up here," a thirtysomething woman said, gesturing to her head. She was talking about psychiatrist Rosemary Basson, MD, the director of the Sexual Medicine Program at the University of British Columbia, who'd just told the panel that 90 percent of women referred to her clinic for low interest or arousal either screened positive for depression or were taking antidepressants, which can dampen libido, the implication being that FSIAD was best addressed psychiatrically.
One way to understand the split between the activists is to understand the historical divisions in the women's movement. In support of the drug, roughly speaking, are so-called "equality feminists"; they tend to be first or second wavers who have deep roots on Capitol Hill and see this as the latest in a long line of straightforward battles against gender bias in medical research. It's a history that stretches back to at least 1990, when one audit of the National Institutes of Health found there were just three gynecologists on staff—and 39 veterinarians. These women have coalesced behind a campaign called Even the Score, which is partially financed by Sprout and two other pharmaceutical firms and is animated by the "gross disparity" between the number of medications for male and female dysfunction. As Even the Score chairwoman Susan Scanlan put it in a booming voice at the FDA, "There are 26 drugs for men and 0 for women!"
This undoubtedly sounds absurd, not to mention sexist (which the FDA categorically denies), and Even the Score gathered more than 60,000 petition signatures protesting the situation. They even put out an online spoof of a Viagra commercial (hashtag: #womendeserve) featuring a sultry lady reclining in a beachfront cabana. "What the fuck," she says. "Are we really so far behind that we don't think women have the right to sexual desire?"
The position of Even the Score and the drug companies is that FSIAD has a strong biological component. They like to talk about studies such as one published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2005 that tracked 447 postmenopausal women with low desire and found that for those on a low dose of oral estrogen, a testosterone patch increased their sexual activity by 79 percent. (A few preliminary studies have implied hormone therapy might be effective for premenopausal women as well.) They also bring up published research that has used fMRI scanning to compare the brains of women with and without HSDD. In one such report, 36 women watched erotic movies; those with HSDD appeared to have less activity in the entorhinal cortex, the area of the brain where we lay down emotional impressions, leading the investigators to hypothesize that subjects retained few pleasurable memories of sex, leaving nothing to spark its pursuit. (Though it must be emphasized that brain-imaging research is still in its early stages—in a notorious example of the limits of the field, Dartmouth scientists used an fMRI machine to find cognitive activity in a dead fish.)
On the other side of the activist divide are those who might be called, in old-school parlance, the "difference feminists." This camp tends to focus on the ways in which women's sexuality is unlike that of men. The 26–0 cry is misleading, they contend, because 9 of the 26 male medications are Viagra variants intended for arousal disorder, namely erectile dysfunction, which, compared to low desire—women's number one complaint—is often relatively simple to resolve by increasing blood flow. There are no drugs approved by the FDA to jump-start desire for either women or men, they point out. (The remaining 17 are all testosterone-based formulations, which are sometimes prescribed for low libido for both sexes, but this is an off-label use.)

He Needs “Space?” Here’s What to Do

 
What’s going on in a man’s mind when he says he needs “space”?
 
Is that code for “it’s over”?
 
And what about when you DO give him space and he comes right back…only to (you guessed it) need more space again? Should you really put up with his hot-and-cold act?
 
I’m going to tackle this frustrating behavior in today’s email and tell you exactly how to handle it when your man asks for “space” (because, let’s face it, at some point almost all men do).
 
*******************************************
Question From a Reader:
*******************************************
 
“Hi Matt,
 
Received your newsletters. Brilliant, thanks. Quick question: I was with a guy for 3 years (2nd relationship for both of us, late 40s). He was hesitant all along and called it off several times but always came back after a couple of days when I gave him space.
 
He asked me to marry him earlier this year, but after 3 days he panicked (his word), and broke it off entirely. It's now been 3 months, and I have not contacted him once, but he contacts me every week and is friendly, his words and body language show attraction, but he does nothing about it.
 
I'm friendly and warm, and don't talk about my feelings, just basically treat it like a new relationship. He insisted it was over for him, but he can't seem to walk completely away.
 
What's going on in his head?
 
What is the best thing for me to do?
 
We had a great relationship, got on so well, passionate about each other up till the last minute. The only problem was his occasional ‘doubts.’ There is nobody else involved.
 
Would so appreciate your advice.
 
Linda”
 
*******************************************
 My Response:
*******************************************
 
Hi Linda!
 
First of all, thank you for taking the time to write in.
 
What went wrong here is that you failed to make clear what was acceptable behavior early on. In fact, by allowing your guy to stick around for as long as you did, you showed him just how much he could get away with.
 
One thing I always teach in my seminars is this golden rule:
 
MEN WILL ADHERE TO THE PARAMETERS YOU SET THEM.
 
Let me explain that. When men first get involved with a woman, they are constantly testing and finding out how much they can get away with. That means it's entirely up to you to show them where the boundaries are.
 
It's the same thing with men and their mothers. If a guy's mother showers him with love and affection, and doesn't ask anything in return, this is the dynamic the mother will set up for the rest of their relationship. Then the mother wonders why her useless son never helps out around the house or surprises her with gifts. It is because he knows what he can get away with.
Now apply this to your relationship.
 
This man was able to completely call the shots in your relationship; you let him choose whether it was on or off, and always allowed him to come back in when he wanted you back.
 
So very early on he learned that your boundaries could easily be compromised, without him having to actually go to the trouble of changing his indecisive ways when it came to commitment.

Right now, he sees that he can have all the fun of being in a relationship with you (flirting, meeting up with you etc.) and without actually having to commit. He's learned that he can get away with it.
 
So what should you do now?
 
I recommend putting distance between the two of you. You have to make him feel that if he wants all the fun of being with you, he'll have to commit fully.
 
You don't get snippy about this. All you do is coolly back off from him and make sure that you are very sparing with how much time you give him. But (and here's the important bit), you make the short times you spend together incredible, and have as much fun as possible.
 
That way he sees that if he wants to have that amazing time with you and be a significant part of your life he will have to commit more. By not giving him much time, you show that you're not willing to emotionally invest in someone who is only messing you around.
 
So as you can see, you can actually control what your man thinks by the way you react to his behavior. The boundaries you set for him early on will define how he thinks about your relationship.
 
I hope this helps; let me know how it works out!
 
Matt
 
*******************************************
 
So, as you can see, understanding what men think and getting inside their mind can be simple when you have a guide to help decode their behavior.
 
And once you apply these principles to your relationship you will be astounded by the results.
 
I go into this as much as possible in my emails, but in order to achieve the “holy grail” of relationships – that is, long-term love – you are going to need a “deeper dive.”
 
If you’re like Linda and COMMITMENT is your ultimate goal, you need my Keep the Guy training program.
 
This 11-module video program contains the same content that I deliver in my live seminars and will give you all the tools you need to create a passionate, lasting relationship with the man of your dreams.
 

 

The 30 Things Every Woman Should Do Before She Turns 90 (Or Even 89)


Feral, unsubtle adventures.





We don't get to choose the color of our eyes, or the epoch we live in, or the planet we are born on. But we can choose our moments.
Hail, women! Let's make the best of them with…
THE 30 THINGS EVERY WOMAN SHOULD DO BEFORE SHE TURNS 90 (OR EVEN 89)
1. RUN FOR OFFICE
Throw your hat in the ring: city council, state senate, Congress. Or do you want to spend your one beautiful and prized life letting the male race go on deciding what's good for us?
2. SPEND A WEEK IN THE WILD—ALONE
Yes, the "outdoors," that lovely spot you hike through in between exiting a cab and entering Bergdorf Goodman. But if you venture deep, deep into the outdoors—where the trees are the celebrities and the birds run the Twitter accounts—it becomes the place where you strip away branding and status, where looks and money mean nothing. Go! Strap on the boots! Forty-nine bucks a night for a cabin on Airbnb! Anyway, when was the last time you were alone—without a smiler, liar, flatterer, chatterer, schemer, or texter within miles? Go to the woods! You'll live an adventure tale so gripping that you may discover where you really live, and what you live for.
3. BE HEADSTRONG ABOUT SOMETHING—THEN NEVER GIVE IN
Bubble with bonhomie as often as you choose, but when it comes to the goal you're most passionate about—ending racism, saving the dolphins, getting your kids through college—be a demon. Stubbornness and perseverance are what brought Marie Curie two Nobel Prizes, not "liking" every goddamn thing about rocks.
4. DIVE OUT OF A PLANE
Climbing on the scales and being publicly weighed—while wearing your shoes and a jumpsuit—is the terrifying part. Soaring two and a half miles up in the air, jumping out the plane door, and plunging at 120 miles per hour toward your death—then salvation? That's the fun part.
5. TELL FORTUNES LIKE MR. ROCHESTER IN JANE EYRE
You love turning the tables on fate, right? For No. 5, there's no need to dress up, no need to hang a sign. Weirdly, if you simply tell people you're "good at telling fortunes," 90 percent of them will reply: "Oh? What's mine?" Then, when you say their future looks "spectacular," it can actually have a greater effect on their prospects than 50 pep talks.
6. LEARN TO CODE
Or I'm afraid your next job will go to someone who knows Miss Ruby-on-Rails.
7. SHOOT A QUIVER OF ARROWS AT YOUR ENEMY
Yes, yes, we must not go around shooting at people. But to hell with being politically correct. Pin a photo to a tree and shoot the bugger.
8. DO NOTHING (IT'S AN ART! IT'S A SCIENCE!)
Reading the massive research explaining why your most inventive ideas arise when you're futzing around is a waste of your time. Doodling a tulip with your 40 gel pens is not.
9. SWIM NAKED (IF YOU CARE TO) IN THE WORLD'S FIVE GREAT OCEANS
And if you splash like a water nymph through the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Arctic, and Southern Oceans and want extra credit, gold stars will be awarded for skinny-dipping in the Amazon, the Nile, the Mississippi, and the fabled rooftop pool of the Four Seasons Hotel Seattle.
10. IF YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE CHARMING LUNATICS WHO INSISTS ON TIDYING UP, DO THIS:
Clutter is your art, your history. Clutter is the museum of your soul. So do what the Louvre does. At 6 P.M. every Monday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday (9:45 P.M. on Wednesdays and Fridays!), go through your museum and throw out all the boring people.
11. EUTHANIZE YOUR EGO
There will come a time in its life when your ego will take such a thumping that you must drive it to the country, lay it gently on a blanket, and let it look up at the Milky Way. This will help it put things into perspective. Then send it to the second star to the right, and straight on till morning.
12. TAKE A CELEBRITY TO BED
Twenty-two years of Ask Eeee letters tell us that almost every woman in America gets two or three chances to leap into the begonias with a famous person. Take yours! It's delicious. (And even more delicious to be criticized for having done it! Ha!)
13. DANCE THE HABANERA IN HAVANA
Cleopatra went to Rome. Julia Child went to Paris. You go to Cuba!
14. BECOME A MINISTER, WICCAN PRIESTESS, PROFESSIONAL CELEBRANT, ETC.
Though the illustrious Hunter S. Thompson carried his Ordination Certificate ($5 at the time) from the Universal Life Church in his wallet, he was most fond of his Minister's Parking Permit. Yes, you can help people in prison, visit the sick in hospitals, and marry your friends (see No. 15), and you can also get a small tax break!
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
15. SAVE THE FUTURE OF THE HUMAN RACE
You may think you're just setting up two friends on a blind date. But what if they fall in love? What if they go forth? What if they multiply? It means you'll have had a hand in the creation of the next generation. So with the future of mankind at stake, be a yenta! Fix up your friends. Mazel tov!
16. GO WITH YOUR LOVE UP THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL (OR DOWN THE PACIFIC CREST TRAIL)
Or both, eh? It's less dangerous than sitting home every weekend.
17. DON'T BE SO SURE ABOUT THAT
"I want to beg you as much as I can, dear sir," says Rilke in his Letters to a Young Poet, "to try to love the questions themselves." Quantum physics has proved that nothing on this earth is certain. Your success may turn into failure, your failure may turn into success; everything you see, including this beautiful ELLE, changes, so in the end, it's your courage to carry on, dear lady, that counts!




18. MAKE A SECRET CHILDHOOD DREAM COME TRUE
Your Auntie Eeee was raised in a country schoolhouse, across from a graveyard, high in the hills of Indiana. Since the age of four, I've yearned for playmates. So this summer (one of the best of my life!) I built a mobile game called Damn Love—it's posh, evil, and hilarious. You try to beat your friends at breaking up a (fictional) couple in love. Download it for free at—Lord! I never thought I'd ever write these wor

19. TAKE A PRIVATE CABIN ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS
There are magical journeys and magical trains, but this is the most shimmering fantasy train in the world—the thing seems almost more cinematic than real. If you are a nonmagical woman and still want to get high, ride the Peruvian Central Railway—the highest (13,000 feet!) in the world. A doctor is on board to administer oxygen.
20. BUY NO MORE JUNK FOREVER
The cheap bullshit you possess, kumquats, possesses you.
21. STOP TRAFFIC WITH A TWO-FINGER WHISTLE
Let lesser mortals drunk with self-importance call Uber. We'll hail taxis by blowing high notes like Miles Davis.
22. MAKE OUT AT A DRIVE-IN MOVIE
The greatest invention of woman is kissing. The stupidest invention of man is virginity.
23. CLIMB MOUNT KILIMANJARO
"Change Your Hair Color," "Achieve Your Ideal Weight," and "Get in Shape" will not appear on the "30 Things Every Woman Should Do" list, because when you summit Kilimanjaro, you'll return a completely different woman.
24. RELIVE YOUR FAVORITE SUMMER
For a weekend, you will not think, sleep, or eat 2015. Instead, you'll wear the same clothing you wore your favorite summer, eat the same food, watch the same movies, listen to the same music, go to the same places, talk on the same phones, date the same boys or girls, post selfies on the same platform (interoffice mail?), and, to utterly regain your youth, follow Oscar Wilde's advice and repeat your follies.
25. LEARN CPR
Then please move next door to Auntie Eeee, who lives in No. 2 on the No. 16.
26. STOP APOLOGIZING FOR NOT HAVING KIDS
(Or for having kids, right?) To the concerned half-wits who ask, say: "I'm ecstatic just the way things are." Why should your happiness be subject to the opinions of others? In a moment the half-wits will be gone from Earth. And in another moment, Earth will be gone too.
27. FOR 24 HOURS, BE A JAIN NUN
Follow the five Mahavratas: No hurting living creatures. No lying. No boffing. No stealing. No attaching. It's like falling into a vat of honey in another universe.
28. RESCUE A DOG
Like Mr. Hoss, a pup who weighs in at 75 pounds (and his smile weighs in at about 7,000!). He's an English Bulldog mix rescued from a kill shelter in Georgia and is now up for adoption at TheLastResortRescue.com. By the by, when you visit your local shelter or ASPCA, give the cats a kiss. They're the ones running the Genius Bar.
29. KEEP A WABI-SABI STATE OF MIND
Once you're steeped up to the eyelids in wabi-sabi—the philosophy that celebrates beauty in things imperfect and impermanent—you will find an old woman more beautiful than a young one, and an unconventional woman most interesting of all.
30. THE UTTERLY FABULOUS "30 THINGS EVERY WOMAN SHOULD DO" ROAD TRIP
On this trip, we'll pack up and go only to places named after women. Hello, Bertha, Alabama! Yo, Helena, Montana! 'Sup, Sigourney, Iowa, and Magdalena, New Mexico? Here we come! See you on the road, darlings!

Rita Ora's Hairstylist Shares the Secret to Flawless Color


Try this genius mask mix.

Like a mood ring, Rita Ora's hair color fluctuates depending upon how she and longtime hairstylist Chris Appleton feel. I know what you're thinking: Yeah, that's because they're wigs. Well, not so, according to Ora. "This is my hair. I don't wear wigs," she captioned a recent Instagram featuring said not-wig blowing in the wind. And we believe her. But even if she does, we're pro-fake and this isn't a wig witch hunt. I digress. When it comes to taking risks with Ora's natural hair, Appleton says, "You can't be too afraid of it.​" Last night at the Teen Choice Awards, the fearless pair experimented with a rosy new hue to complement Ora's all-red look.
"Rita loves to be blonde so I wanted to keep the whole feeling in that world. I left the first four inches of hair blonde, then worked two colors through the mid-lengths and ends," says Appleton, who mixed Manic Panic pink with a few drops of conditioner for the lengths of hair, and lilac plus conditioner for the tips. "The conditioner dilutes the color and gives a semi-permanent effect," he says. "Sorbet colors are fun and don't have to be a commitment. The key is to keep them glossy and shiny looking."
Appleton's secret to keeping Ora's evolving color super shiny? A turbo-charged mask recipe: six pumps of Shu Uemura Essence Absolue, two scoops of Kérastase Résistance Masque Force Architecte, two scoops of Oribe Gold Lust Transformative Masque and one scoop of coconut oil.

A Woman Stood in London Blindfolded in Her Underwear to Encourage Body Acceptance

"I'm standing for anyone who has struggled with an eating disorder or self-esteem issue."

Jae West is a member of social awareness group The Liberators International, who just did something truly incredible to promote body acceptance. After stripping off her clothing in the middle of the busy streets of Piccadilly Circus, she stood in her underwear, blindfolded, with pens in her hands and a sign reading: "I'm standing for anyone who has struggled with an eating disorder or self esteem issue like me... To support self acceptance, draw a [heart] on my body."
Just to restore your faith in humanity, don't worry, Jae didn't have to stand there for hours before someone actually stepped up to the plate. After a few minutes, someone reached out and took a pen. "The feeling of the felt pen was on my skin was one of the most overwhelming feelings of relief, gratitude and love that I've ever felt," wrote Jae on her blog. "I just burst into tears."
After that first heart, others flooded in, with loads of members of the public chipping in to show their support.







Jae says she decided to do the experiment after being inspired by Amanda Palmer, who has previously stripped naked and allowed fans to draw on her body. She felt "truly inspired by her vulnerability and courage," so she chose to explore the idea herself, having been passionate about encouraging positive body image after experiencing an eating disorder in her teens and early twenties.
Jae now hopes that her video will inspire others to look at their bodies more kindly and treat them with the love and acceptance the public showed hers. She says: "If everyone could know and appreciate how beautiful they are from childhood I think this world would be a very different place."