Adam and Steve

    For some reason, one of the biggest arguments in the ever-growing "Gay Debate" is that the Bible says "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," ultimately saying that God originally created man to like woman and vice versa, so that's the way it should be today. Now you could possibly argue that I'm looking into this argument too literally, or that this argument is actually referring to the Bible as a whole condemning any atypical, non-heterosexual relationship. And though I hope to discuss all major Bible passages saying that eventually, for now I'll just take on the argument as I see it plainly. However, if you are particularly interested in that right now, I definitely recommend watching this video, as it remains one of my greatest inspirations today.

     But all that being said, let's dive right in, for there are quite a few points to be made.

     The first point to be made is that Eve was made from Adam and for Adam to be his ideal partner. It was God's will that they each be made to be together forever. The main reason (other than companionship and possibly God just being nice) being that they were destined to someday repopulate the earth. And obviously, this is something that could only be done by a couple made of a man and a woman.

     So of course Adam and Eve had to be straight; if they were meant to have so many children, they would have to at least like each other. That only makes sense. However, to follow the story of Adam and Eve today would mean that the main purpose of any couple should only ever be to reproduce and populate the earth. And based on that argument, there is no worth or purpose in infertile couples, or even in living as a single person.  Not to mention that argument would undermine the lives of all asexual or eternally celibate people, or anyone unwilling or unfit to bear and raise children. Because if the first people were born to reproduce and be married, then all people should. However, this is obviously not what the Church teaches by any means, and it's not a moral belief many people have today.

     You could still that the point wasn't them having children, but them being romantic at all. That the point was that if a man should want a relationship, it should only be with a woman. The problem with this is that it only works because Eve was created with the sole intention of being Adam's one perfect companion. They were created to be perfectly suitable for one another. But this is the same for any gay person. God created them uniquely to like someone of the same gender because that's who they were meant to be with.

     Granted, there are exceptions with this, like if a straight girl fell in love with another girl, or a gay man falling for a girl, or anything of the sort. Just to clear this up before anyone misunderstands. The point is, if God created a soul mate (if you believe that) for someone, then it was his intention that you be with them. Regardless of gender. Adam and Eve was by no means of love story, but if you want so badly to treat it like one, this is the point to be followed: God makes people companions. Whether it be platonic or romantic, humans are a social being and that's what God wanted. We should not shun love where we find it, no matter the form. And we should never deny anyone the love that they have found, even if it isn't a love just like what you or anyone else has experienced.

    But all of that serious argument aside, the story of Adam and Eve isn't a true one anyways. The Bible is so figurative that a lot of it isn't actually real. This could easily have been made up by someone the day before the first edition of the Bible was written up. Maybe they were a hetero-elitist who thought of course the first humans were straight. But God is God. He can do whatever he wants. Who's  to say the first humans weren't both girls. Maybe God gave one the divine power to impregnate the other, and then she gave birth to a son and God just said "well that was a lot of work. On the next batch of generations, let the male kids do it. Save me time to do other God things." The thing is, you weren't actually there. So stop bringing Alicia and Eve into it.

Importance of Life

     Before stating any opinions on this topic at all, it should be understood that I'm not going to talk about the importance of life as a two-sided argument of pro-life verses pro-choice. In a common debate, those are typically the two sides, but it's not really that simple. The typical Republican would be considered pro-life, being that they tend to be against abortion in at least most forms. However, most Republicans are also for the death penalty. And by their own standards, shouldn't life being considered from conception until natural death? Pro-life, by its definition, would mean being for all life. So to take that stance would mean being against not only abortion, but also against war, nuclear weapons, and the death penalty. For an easy example, take a look at the Republican Mitt Romney. He did say no to abortion, but he also certainly did say yes to war. So the title pro-life would not be accurate, but rather he (and most Republicans) would be simply anti-abortion.

     Of course, it would unfair to deny any form of near-hypocrisy (I use this term very lightly) in the democratic party, being that they can argue with abortion, but are usually against killing criminals via the death penalty. The difference, however, is in the wording of "pro-choice." Meaning that, in regards to abortion, you aren't necessarily for it, but don't believe in taking the option away from people.

     But of course, the words "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are merely terms. And words don't matter, it's the opinions and actions. For this reason, I'm not going to come right out and say I'm on either side.

     Getting definitions out of the way, we can break the argument down to a series of varying beliefs, because, again, that's all that's relevant in the end.

     War: there aren't too many people that genuinely like war. Some, sure, but most people tend not to start wars out of boredom. There's some reason for them. Not always good. The two solutions are typically to fight back until peace can be made, or give up and be conquered or killed. Fighting probably isn't the best option to begin with. But talking it out and listening to each other often isn't practical and doesn't work out too well either. So do I like war and killing and violence and think it can solve things? No. Nor does the end of a war ever equal the end of a struggle. But sometimes wars happen, and they aren't ideal, but can be effective, or the only option can be fighting back. It's not about liking it, it's about understanding it and what the goal ultimately is, and then having a plan to achieve that goal. And that I can understand. World peace isn't happening any time soon. I've accepted this. Moving on.

     Death Penalty: contrary to popular belief, the death penalty is actually a lot more expensive then life imprisonment, and more complicated due to the amount of trials involved. Because death is permanent, so that's not something you should get wrong. However, people have been killed and then later found innocent. And then what?

     Some say if the crime is horrid enough, the punishment should fit it. If someone kills 50 people, they also deserve to be killed. This is an ancient way of thinking of justice. I disagree. Perhaps I assume people can always be better than they are; that they can change. For the same reason, I don't necessarily believe anyone should be put in jail for a hundred years, with no chance of getting out do to significant change or successful counseling. No, not everyone will get better, and if they can't then they shouldn't be freely roaming the streets. But, if it's been 40 years and they actually have improved significantly, why not give them a chance to live a free life, provided they're still willing to leave prison after all that time and it's a decision approved by all their doctors or therapists or officers watching them.

     With the death penalty, there is no chance for that. There's no going back. It's justice without a chance or hope for someone found guilty and takes away their entire right to life.

     Yes, people can be terrible. But then it becomes hypocritical for someone to judge and decide they deserve to die. So give them a lifetime of being confined and monitored to make sure they can't do anything terrible again. If they can't change, they stay there forever and that's it. But give them an opportunity. Deciding they must be killed is neither practical nor just.

     Abortion: this is not an issue of yes or no to abortion, but rather if it should be allowed or not. This cannot be a circumstantial thing. You can't say it's only allowed in cases of rape, or within the first month, or if the baby could not survive, or if the mother's life is at risk. These things are impossible to judge or monitor. How are you going to pinpoint exactly when a child was conceived or if there is any chance they could survive or not? And we already have a big enough debate over what just rape even is. How do you only allow it for certain people with absolute proof, and then make a 15 year old who couldn't prove they were raped and cannot support a child or afford to carry it, carry it to full term. There's too many different circumstances, and you can't just pick certain ones. You allow it or you don't. And because there are so many times when this is necessary, we have to allow it, or we're potentially holding back people from what they could do without a child. You can't stress the worth of all people, and then take away the right's and dignity of women. 

     Many would say that adoption is always the best option. And it could be, but only with high adoption rates and knowing that the child actually gets a good home, which we don't. It could be just as bad as the child's birth parents if they couldn't financially or emotionally be in a place to care for another life. Furthermore, carrying a baby to full term could put horrible stress on the mother. It could be a constant reminder if she was attacked, or it could force a bond with someone she knew she could never keep, or just cause terrible depression. Even if her life wasn't physically in danger, mental danger can be just as bad, and that's not something any doctor could easily gauge.

     In any case, the world is not under populated and we are not in dire need of any child that could possible ever live, no matter the cost. I'm not going to say kill off all babies because they aren't doing anything but weighing us down. But if you have to choose between 10 cells who could not ever survive or a mother who could have to go through the hardest time of her life if she had to carry a child, are they really equal?

     Some would say yes. It's an opinion, fine. And maybe this is just me trying to "live in the now," but it might be better to worry about those currently alive. Like how it's impossible to just think the future will be great, and then do nothing at all to make that happen. What's important right now is what's happening right now.

     You could say just limit abortion to a certain term. The problem there is determining when someone has met their cut off date. See: the Arizona law that makes a girl pregnant weeks before she's pregnant, to close the gap and make it harder to get legal abortions. If a baby is carried to full (or nearly full) term, however, and could at that point survive just fine, at that point I would probably recommend putting it up for adoption. And never force a mother to keep it. But then, never force them to do anything for that matter.

     And while I'm on this topic: should Church-run hospitals be forced to give abortions? If it's strictly run by the Church, no. Simple as that. Same as the principle that churches should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings. If we're separating Church and state and have religious freedom, let them do what they want. The choice should be theirs whether they say yes or no. But, this is religious freedom. Just as a church shouldn't have to perform an abortion, the Church should say no to all abortions because that is their belief, even if not everyone else's.

     In summary: everything is circumstantial. The number of circumstances are way too plentiful to say yes or no either way. And it's not fair to try. Deciding either way isn't an easy task and it's nearly impossible to try to put yourself in that situation. The woman would be going through a lot, they do not need someone limiting their options or judging them or constantly monitoring their progress and telling them how much time they have to make a decision. It's a hard enough thing to begin with, and you can't decide for them, so don't try to.

For this topic more than any, I'm sure a lot of you will disagree with me. As always, you're allowed. This is me voicing my opinions, you're free to voice yours. It's only fair. However, just know that my mind's set. This is a topic where I'm sure many would love to change it. By all means, comment away if you want, but just know that, well, this is it and I'm not trying to start a debate in the comments. But, again, I can't stop you from speaking your mind, if you want to, so go ahead.

Gun Control

     Since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary schools last month, there has been a new spark in the debate over gun control laws. Some people would argue that America's gun policies should make guns more readily available. This would make it so that, in the event of another killer attacking an office or school, there could be a worker there with a gun ready to take them down. Or even, on a smaller scale, people should be allowed to have guns even just in their homes as a self-defense tactic to be used against burglars, armed or otherwise. We'll call this argument "Side One".

     Still, many (myself included) would argue the opposite: that mass murders occur because guns are already too easily available for anyone. And that even if a person does not go out and legally buy their own gun, it's still too easy to get one. We'll call this argument "Side Two".

     A major argument Side One is that people will kill with or without a gun. That a gun can be stolen, (regardless of the fact that most guns used in shootings are obtained legally) even if laws are strict, and that we should be prepared for this. Or that, even without guns, people can just kill with other weapons, such as knives. And it'd be easy to shoot somebody at long range if they're using a short range weapon, so we need guns for protection. If we didn't have guns, people would just find a new way to kill, and it'd just become harder to keep ourselves safe.

     The fears of people with these views do make perfect sense. However, they lose validity when we can just look at other countries that are already way ahead of us. One excellent example is Australia.

     After a mass shooting in 1996, Australian lawmakers had had enough, so they revised their gun laws. They didn't make it impossible to ever own a gun. Instead, they just made a more thorough process that any adult would have to go through to get one. This includes the need for a license,  only given if a person has a significant reason for a gun (not self defense) and has secure storage for the gun (so to prevent easy theft). In addition, each firearm has to be registered. Different firearms may only be owned if a person has a specific license for it.

     The reason this is relevant to America to even just consider is because Australia has not had a single mass shooting since that law took place 17 years ago.  Of course, violence did not completely disappear. But homicides in general did drop by 59%, and suicide dropped by 65%. And there was no increase in either home invasions or violence not involving a firearm. So as it appears, they didn't suffer any sort of backlash from their new laws.

     It is important to remember that America and Australia are two difference countries, with America being much more violent. Australia had 11 mass shootings in the entire decade preceding 1996. Meanwhile, the US has had 18 in just the past year. This isn't counting the thousands of deaths by guns that aren't considered mass murders (about 12,000 just in 2006).

     But Australia isn't the only example we have. In Japan, the laws are much more strict, including a mental evaluation and a class with an exam. They've only had 11 murders by firearm in 2006.

     The point here is that studies show that less guns means less murders. And that even with our differences, we have to change something. And since stricter countries already have set such a fine example, why not consider following them? What we have to lose is what we are already losing-- hundreds of lives lost to violence every year. If we could stop it, shouldn't we try stopping it in a way we know has worked? It has been proven that if it's more difficult to get a gun, people are less likely to kill, no matter what. So I say that we do make it harder. And that people with guns have them both registered, and kept somewhere safe so that it is impossible for any person that is mentally unstable or has a bad history or just should not have a gun in their possession to ever get a gun or to ever have any opportunity to take anyone's life, including their own. Tragedy can be prevented, so I think it's only necessary to take the steps to do so. 

Sex vs. Gender

    So I went through a bit of back and forth over what to write about today, but this has kind of been in the back of my mind for a while, so I figured I'd go for it.

     In today's modern world, it seems as if people use the terms "sex" and "gender" interchangeably. And I suppose it does make enough sense, because they are, in most cases, the same for a person. But they aren't always. So here's another slightly educational rant pertaining to the highly underrepresented trans* community.

     Side note: the reason the * was adopted into the word trans was to make it more all inclusive towards any person living outside of a birth-given sex of male or female. More on that in a moment.

     Can you recall the first time you used or saw either of the above terms? From kindergarten, children begin to learn about what boys and girls typically act like, and that they should mostly be friend with people of their own gender. It's almost a natural thing. But when your five, you aren't going to use any real terms. Boy or girl, that's definition enough.

     One distinct memory of my own use of the word "gender" was when I was about ten. I was reading some book about urban legends aloud with my brother. At one point, the book talked of a curse that would occur anytime two people of opposite sexes stood in one particular place together. But at age ten, "sex" is a funny word, so I verbally changed it to "gender." Even as a teenager, most people's maturity levels don't allow that to be used in everyday language. Which I think is part of the reason why the world "gender" was so over-popularized.

     The problem, again, is that as people began saying "gender" more, it almost lost it's significance in comparison to "sex", so now they are viewed as equals.

     Or really, maybe it isn't even modern language that led to them being used equally, but ignorance. Not necessarily at anyone's fault, but there's just a general lack of common knowledge on the topic. Again, the reason why I write this now. Because it's a new age, and a time for learning.

     So just for a more accurate basis, I'll put the actual definitions of each word here, before I interpret:

Compared to:

     So in simpler terms, sex is a binary system based purely on physical anatomy. Gender is more of a group of people acting in one particular way, be it feminine, masculine, both, neither, whatever. In most people, sex and gender correspond, and that is fine.

     It is not fine for people who are not cis-gender (sex and gender do not correspond). This is when their gender is what matters, and sex doesn't.

     Go back to the definition of gender now for a moment. This is a personal identification. Now it's definitely possible for a feminine male to still identify as male. But for some people, it just isn't. A person's whose sex is technically female can relate and feel a lot more comfortably living as a male, because that's their gender. And this is where it becomes an issue on respect more than anything. Gender doesn't even have to be an outward thing. People can look many different ways. This is where, if someone confides in you that they prefer pronouns that vary from their sex, then use those pronouns around them. Or if you aren't sure, ask them not what their biological sex is, but what they would like to be called.

     Another point is that not every person even has a gender, such as gender-nonconforming people. Some people also may take on multiple genders, or change according to their mood, or whatever. Again, here it's usually best to ask what pronouns they'd like, rather than use the wrong one. Because that could just lead to depression, dysphoria, or anxiety. Or, if it'd it just be awkward to ask, just avoid gender-specific terms altogether.

     Which leads to my final point: why does English still not have an official gender-neutral pronoun? Many people are fine with using they/them, and that's okay. The only problem is that grammar hasn't caught up with the popularity of those pronouns for individual persons. Meaning, "they" is still seen as a plural term. Which it technically is, I suppose. Many people also like to use ze/zir, but because those aren't as popular, many have trouble remembering them and can again fall into using incorrect pronouns. These are just little things that bother me about pronouns. Also, saying "he/she" is another binary term, and it just doesn't read well in papers. Another reason for a new word.

     Still, the world is progressing. I have to keep reminding myself this, but it is. For example, the University of Iowa has started listing "transgender" as a gender option, alongside "male" and "female." Which is a huge step with people who may identify differently. There are also some doctors who, when registering patients, specify that when they ask a person's sex, they actually mean their sex, purely because of their difference hormonally and physically.

     Anyways, the main point I wanted to make was that sex and gender are not always the same, so don't always assume they are. And you should be respectful of this, because neither sex nor gender are chosen things, and it isn't easy when they don't match up. So be mindful, be kind, and remember that everyone has the right to self-identify, but no one has the right to put them down for that.

Rape Culture, Part I

     With the now past election of 2012, there were quite a few statements passed around about rape: what defines it, what should be done about it, what to do when pregnancy results from it, etc. The most notable was most definitely the great quote of Todd Akin stating that, from what he understands, "if it's legitimate (or forced, as he later revised) rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." Now obviously, that isn't true. Because that would be to say that is a woman was truly raped, pregnancy would be impossible. So in other words, if pregnancy does occur, that would mean that it was totally consensual and the rapist can be free.

     And I know that that probably wasn't exactly what Akin was saying. But that kind of makes you think of another point. There seems to be a bit of a debate going on now about consensual verses non-consensual  is it rape if there's no signs of struggle. Or if it is right to say a woman was "asking for it" by the way she dressed or acted, or her relationship with the rapist, and the like. And then we also have these rape cases being brought to attention, which leads to a surplus of information and tips on how to prevent rape. Because obviously, rape is a terrible thing that no one (man or woman) would ever want to go through. So we have all these warnings about being careful at night, or not traveling alone, and not talking to strangers or drinking from a cup a stranger gave you. There's so much focus on how not to get raped. And yet, you hardly ever hear about trying to stop a rapist.

     Statistic time: according to the American Medical Association, rape is considered the most under reported crime today. It's estimated that up to 60-75% of rape cases go unreported. Meanwhile, only about 25% of reported cases result in arrest. To put that in numbers, in 100 cases, only about 40 will be reported. And then of that, only 10 people will be arrested, from the original 100. That's a terrible ratio. And what's being done about it? Sure, awareness is up. People know that rape's a thing. People share ways to prevent it, though those are targeted mainly at women, ignoring the fact the men can be raped, too. And then, as far as I've seen, so little is being done to prevent rape from even being a thought. Only 1/10 rapists are ever caught. And men (because women are seldom acknowledged as being able to rape) are rarely told why not to rape. Because, maybe that's silly. Because isn't it easier to teach a person to run, than to teach a person not to fire a gun?

     Now still, telling someone not to do something won't really stop them every time. But the thing is, what if it can save even one person? If a person hears from 10 of their friends that all people deserve even just basic respect? And that one person actually listens? Then I say it counts as a success.

     So what solution would I recommend, I'm sure you wonder? Well, probably just a little more conversation. Did you know that studies have been done on children and exposure to racism? Well, it's obvious that children can easily learn prejudiced values from parents. However, they aren't much better having completely "color-blind" influences either. The best way to stop racism is to simply say "some people are different. And that's fine." Because we don't all look or act the same, but that makes us no less equal.

     But I don't mean to stray to far from the point here. I merely state that little quip to show how talking and explaining things early can really affect the future.

    Now there is no way to make parents be more involved in kid's lives, to ensure they learn good morals. And a lot of times, huge assemblies at schools (such as ones against underage drinking) don't work. We try anyways, but that's not really the best approach. And I don't think we've found the best answer quite yet. But maybe it can go back to our school system. Maybe we can subtly teach kids to treat people fairly. But not in a lecture-y way, and without the whole "treat others as you would like to be treated" cliché. If I hear an argument enough times to memorize it, it's probably not very effective.

     A new age is upon us. I truly believe that the world (or at least a nice couple of prominent countries) is becoming a lot more progressive.

For instance (and I have strayed away from the main topic again. Bare with me please), there is one preschool where everything is entirely gender neutral, which means kids are less focused on stereotypes and don't think of certain things as weird, like most parts of the world. Which would in turn lead to less bullying for people who don't act a certain way.

     Now stereotypes and rape don't really connect. I'm not saying they do. But maybe if all schools were more all-inclusive and really made it known from a young age that no one is better than anyone else, we wouldn't have as much violence or hate crimes or rape later on, because there wouldn't be an overwhelming need for someone  to prove that they are stronger or more powerful than everyone else.. Young minds are extremely susceptible to believing what people tell them and then keeping those thoughts, so it really is crucial that certain morals be implanted early.

     Now of course, certain parents would disagree and argue that that would be a terrible idea. I'd fully expect that. But the younger generation is statistically more acceptable than those older than them. So I definitely think that if we started a push for mild educational reform (or really just better anti bullying policies nationwide) now, in 100 years time crime rates will go way down.

     But I don't have enough to say about our education system to go into the rant that it deserves separate from this. Feel free to comment if you wish. But that's all for now. Talk to you all again next post.

*Side note: I realized as I finished writing this that I left out a few more points, but that don't exactly flow with where I headed with this. So look out for a part II, coming soon.

Uganda

     At my school, we each have a laptop which we pretty much use all day long. And then being a person of the 21st century, I also use it after school and into the night. So I have 24/7 access to the internet, and I use that. During school, when I get bored, as I often do, instead of being a normal teenage and reading funny things online, I like to read up on the news. Mostly LGBT news. And by mostly I mean entirely. I like to be up-to-date with things going on around me, because I care. And since I do this everyday, I'd like to think I'm pretty well informed on things. For example, one huge story has been the recent and still on-going  progress of the so-called "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda. However, it only today really occurred to me that...well, absolutely no one is talking about it. People on tumblr live for this stuff, because everyone there (including me)is convinced that they are a civil rights activist. And I've seen nothing on youtube or facebook or anything. Not even the generic news on my schools webpage. Absolutely nothing. In a modern world full of "signal-boasts" on the internet, they really missed something huge here.

     So I'd like to take a moment now to educate at least someone. I'll even include sources for you. Because this is something people should know is happening in our world. There are places out there way less progressive than America. And those places matter and effect us, too.

     The basis of the bill is, by its name sake, to kill off all gay people in Uganda. Actually, no. It would potentially kill anyone even perceived as gay. Anyone who commits any gay act (and complete intercourse is not required) will be killed, or suffer a lifetime imprisonment. Citizens will be encouraged to turn in any law-violators, and in exchange be spared their own lives. An ultimatum, so one partner will want to turn in the other if they are both in danger. You can read more of the specifics of the law here.

     And worst thing about the lack of awareness about this law is that it is set to be voted on and decided this week. Why has no one mentioned this? And it's not like this doesn't concern us. For one, Uganda’s Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, not only wants this law in place by the new year, she also hopes that this law will spread to all of Africa. An entire continent where, in order to become more pure than this western society, all people who seem to commit homosexual acts will be killed. No, a continent-wide law is not set yet. But these are the early stages where we need to stop it.

     A second thing is that America and our companies here could go and protest this, but we don't. Citibank is a huge company in Uganda, yet they refuse even to go through with a petition  to stop marketing there. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins actually condones the bill.  So the people that are really informed with what is happening, aren't doing anything.

     So I'm making this post as a final effort to raise any awareness at all. It won't do much, but I can't just watch this happen and hope it works out. America needs leaders to speak out against injustices in the world, not just our country. Well, the time for that is now.

Victoria's Secret Fashion Show

     So today someone asked me my opinion on the Victoria's Secret fashion show that happened last night. Now fashion shows aren't really my thing, so I didn't watch it. I don't have a huge thing against them, I just don't care. Still, I figured it'd be fun to try to make a post about it.

     The biggest problem with these shows would be the argument that they seem to objectify women. So I'll just kind of focus on that (rather then talk about male pageants or what you'd see on shows like Toddlers in Tiaras).

     Many people would argue that fashion shows like this are just used to… flaunt women, if you will. Having that one incredibly specific body type walk around in "too-few" clothes for the enjoyment of others. But to say that would also imply that it is all done for the enjoyment of men. Which would be the objectifying element of these shows.

     The thing is though, these shows aren't just done for men, and the purpose of fashion shows aren't purely misogynistic. While it could be (and probably is) completely true that some men watch these for some alternative reasons, that isn't the show's actual purpose. And judging just by the amount of female people I have heard talking about the show in excitement the day before it aired, I don't think that creepy men are the main demographic. Rather, most people who are genuinely interested in watching watch it because they have an actual interest in the clothes. After all, it is a fashion show.

     And in any case, the models that are there all consented to it and want to be there. No one forced them into the outfits. And modeling isn't really an easy business, so with a show that size they must have worked extremely hard to make it there. To degrade someone would mean that you are lowering their strength, quality, dignity, or intensity. But models have to be fierce. For them, being on stage is empowering. So even though there certainly are people out there who only see them as pretty objects there solely for the viewers pleasure, the models see themselves as much more.

     Still, some people aren't comfortable with the whole notion of fashion shows. And that's fine. To them, I really just recommend not watching. But if people are genuinely happy modeling, or people really enjoy seeing all the outfits, then more power to them. This is where you really have to respect everyone's opinions: if you like it, watch it; if not, don't. It should honestly be that simple.