Once upon a time I made fun of Bill Simmons for claiming to be a sportswriter, or really any sort of writer, when all he ever did was watch television and react to it, but now that joke has blossomed into a garden of parasitic flowers, making somebody, somewhere, a living.
I am not a crackpot.
I'm kind of famously out of touch with society's standards, but I'm not sure I've ever lived in a time where producers wouldn't be scheming to have Ms. Sweeney on display in any many scenes as they could fit into the story. Is there not a straight and unbroken line from Monty Python's 'Summarize Proust' denouement to SNL's recent Hooters sketch,* featuring Ms. Sweeney?
Lots of people who look different are hot, but did we ever think her type wasn't hot?
(I'm aware that the fashion industry favors thin-ness, but isn't this more about the technical demands of displaying clothing for sale, rather than what they think the culture at large considers hot?)
* I don't watch SNL very often at all -- not even once a year, but stumbled on this one. Seemed awfully lazy writing, but Ms. Sweeney is plenty attractive, so who cares.
I'm working on losing weight in a fairly deliberate way just right now. A doctor friend gave me some of those new diabetes drugs that a pharma rep had given him. Turns out my interest in eating exceeds the dissuasive powers of these chemicals. So far.
There are articles about overweight people who suffer from anorexia. The sufferers have all the symptoms of starvation - hair falling out, not getting their periods, etc - except without getting thin. I think this is way more common than we acknowledge, and the people often get treated extra-horribly by the medical staff who refuse to believe that they're starving themselves. However, the articles generally do not explain the CICO of it. There must be occasional binges!
From looking at articles like this, https://jeatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40337-022-00720-9
it seems that we're talking about "atypical anorexia nervosa".
In layman's terms, if you do extreme stuff to lose weight very quickly, it is bad for you in a lot of ways, and it is still bad for you if you do extreme stuff to go from "obese" to "normal" very quickly, rather than (as typical anorexics do) to go from "slightly overweight" to "really underweight" very quickly. The trouble is that AAN has only been in the manual for a couple of years, and before that doctors took the approach that "weight is normal, patient can't be anorexic".
I guess I'm a liberal because of busty brunettes? I've never thought of that as woke before.
We said that thin and white wasn't automatically beautiful and we collectively decided that that was enough, and that we'd willed those new beauty standards into being. .... The cracks were always going to start showing again eventually. I think they're beginning to show now, and that's why the internet just cannot get over Sydney Sweeney's perfect tits.
This writer lives in another reality from me. Sure, *some people* insisted on non-thin, non-white beauty standards, but the reason they had to insist so loudly and persistently was because the overwhelming majority of Americans ignored them or disagreed. Did she not live through the media ascendancies of Scarlet Johanssen, Jennifer Lawrence, Margot Robbie, and a half dozen others?
Maybe if the columnist had more interesting thoughts and expressed them in a more coherent way she would have attracted attention even when she wasn't thin.
The syndrome is "losing accustomed dominance equals undergoing oppression."
If they're building bike lanes, that's telling me I'm bad for driving.
If they're talking up ethical non-monogamy, that's telling me I'm bad for being monogamous.
If a Williams sister is on a magazine cover, that's telling me I'm bad for being attracted to hourglass blondes.
Etc.
Which, if enough people including the author are getting that scoldy message, maybe that does indicate some communications problems with the messagers. But I still think it's wrong.
I think it was probably this article about atypical anorexia that I formed that gripe on. It's paywalled though, so I'm not sure how I read it in the first place, nor can I make sure it's the same article.
5 Senator Britt just delivered a very cold shower to those of us who share your [non-political] sentiments.
It's more about the attempt by others to make Sweeney a "non-woke" champion but the author does begrudgingly give some credence to it:
Maybe, just maybe, it is true that we've been banging on about it all in a way that has become off-putting to many. Maybe not everything always has to be very complex. Maybe it's not some terrible crime for us to be products of our environment, and to not always want to endlessly question what we want and self-flagellate when it doesn't conform to our ideological goals.
Or at least credence to, that message has got out if only inadvertently.
I agree people beating themselves up over, say, who they find personally attractive is a muchness to be avoided, and does in fact happen. Occasionally.
The main reason I thought to guest post this essay here is that it reminded me of ogged making fun of liberals for pretending not to be attracted to conventionally attractive women, or however he phrased it back in the days of yore.
Overall I think Minivet is correctly identifying the dynamic, which is that bien pensant liberals, informed by feminism and anti-racism and whatever else, have, indeed, insisted that beauty exists beyond Sydney types*, and that anti-liberals experience this as scolding behavior, and also as a denial that Sydney types are beautiful.
I don't think it explains why she, in particular, is being hailed for it. And she is being hailed in a way that ScarJo**, Robbie, et al weren't. Last Monday there were a few different essays from rightwing sites (I think Byron York, of all people, wrote one?) proclaiming her as a sign of victory. I mean, it's mostly a story about the insane persecution complexes of conservative men, but as the block quote says, it still may mean that they're winning in some sense. We liberals have joked a lot about "getting" the NFL and casual sex and whatever else in the national divorce, but it may be that conservatives have gotten busty blondes.
* boy, one should not initialize this young woman.
** who, coincidentally, played Sen. Britt on SNL's cold open the other night. She did a pretty good job, and the writers did as well, in particular calling out her 100% BS anecdote about sex trafficking
Related to Sen. Britt and SNL, an interesting essay about why fundamentalist women babytalk like that.
I don't think it explains why she, in particular, is being hailed for it.
Could just be random. A poster hitting on an idea another picks up. Doesn't take a lot to spread a stupid meme through right wing social media, especially if it lets you post someone's cleavage.
Maybe (high speculation) also a love-bombing to suggest to her she can carve out a niche as the right-wing hot actress? Which Gina Carano tried; didn't work out very well for her.
16: I think there has been a real yearning on the right for an anti-Brittney, which does not explain her specifically but she is certainly right look, right time.
18: Yes. For a while they had their sights set on Taylor Swift, which is why they felt so betrayed when she turned out to be a lib.
The underlying problem is that young women are overwhelmingly and increasingly liberal.
Oops I actually meant anti-Taylor Swift and ended up at Brittney! I am a very with it older-American.
Re: Sydney Sweeney, the last thing I saw her in was Anyone But You, and was left with the impression that it was very equal-opportunity about cheesecake/beefcake. Lots of her cleavage, yes, but also lots of Glen Powell's abs, and I think there was more male nudity than female. I feel like that's progress, even if not of the type anyone was expecting.
I did wonder if I had missed something. I don't track the fever swamps of the right all that closely.
IMO part of the problem with diet and fitness and maybe beauty writing is scale-- there's a huge demand for new writing about this that's not unpleasant to read, so average quality is low. There's also economic reality-- preparing healthy food takes more time in the US than buying premade laden with salt, fat, and sugar, because that's the cheapest way to make food that tastes good. Making your own also requires a kitchen.
I don't know how to think in personal terms about the aspirational aspects of the avalanche of writing and images. I like Bourdieu and Sontag for writing about aspiration for consumers and for producers of images, both would have been pretty interested in the neverending reflexive aspects of Insta/TikTok . Both kind of abstract though, I think not a great response to HGs interest to bring them up. Understanding how the feature embedding of conventionally hot compares to the equivalent for non-human images might be interesting-- the dynamically generated AI images that are starting to displace reality maybe have some hints. For beauty and race, Beyonce's recorded a couple of country tracks, are people writing about those?
I haven't really connected with the deep interest in images of models and conventionally beautiful actresses-- OK, great photo, but wouldn't they take forever getting ready before heading out for something? Head-turningly attractive in my limited experience is not a recipe for easy to be with, especially if she enjoys dressing the part or leaning in to superficial interest. Creative or insightful types for me. There are a handful of former models who write pretty thoughtfully about their lives-- Brooke Shields and Paulina Porizkova.
Oh I liked the personal part of the OP essay a lot, less so her thoughts about mass media.
The OP reminds me of a guy I knew in graduate school. We weren't close, but saw each other most days for a couple of years. Then I didn't see him for a year or so. Then, without so much as an email to me, he lost over 100 pounds. Then he ran into me and I had to ask him who he was.
25 Especially in light of how well Poor Things did at the Oscars.
I looked up that book Fascinating Womanhood (mentioned in my link in 15) on Amazon and jumped to the one-star reviews. Feminists / exvangelicals have definitely not found it: those reviews are all complaining about it being "watered down" from the one they remember by removing Biblical references and other outdated material.
Another: "In my opinion, the first few chapters (remember, I did not read the book all the way..it just disgusted me) seems very new age woman worship..and how to make a man fall for you."
The way to a man's heart is through his stomach, unless you have a rib spreader.
I just feel like the content isn't as fascinating as it could be.
24.last: Paulina Porizkova is quite a good knitter, though I really don't know her work as a model. In what I guess is pertinent to that and these articles, I'm both heavier than I'd like to be thanks to plenty of steroids and spending a lot of time on the couch recovering from illnesses and surgeries and one of those surgeries was a breast reduction. I'm trying to choose a sweater pattern for my next project and I have absolutely no idea what's going to look good on my body because it's not the same sort of body it used to be when I was knitting for it. It's a very weird and alienating feeling.
As a title, "Fascinating Womanhood" sounds like a manual for pickup artists.
"You may fascinate a woman by giving her a piece of cheese."
I am a very with it older-American.
I am not with it and had not previously heard of Sydney Sweeney. Also, I thought "buxom" and "thin" aren't overlapping categories?
Anyway, political movements that rely on keeping adherents and recruits in a regular state of agitation have a lot of incentive to tell people they should simultaneously feel scolded and also they shouldn't feel scolded because if they saw things the right way, they'd know the scolding was unjustified. Just about anything can be put through the agitation pipeline.
"Head-turningly attractive in my limited experience is not a recipe for easy to be with"
I dunno, these two seem pretty orthogonal to me. The Selkie is both, and I have known plenty of women (and indeed men) who would fit into all four of those quadrants.
Also, I thought "buxom" and "thin" aren't overlapping categories?
I think in the context of the former the standards for observing the latter are relaxed.
Little in the middle but she got much back?
I like Amia Srinivasan on this stuff. Her writing tends to get folded under the "Right to Sex" essay she wrote about incels, but she has a lot more on the politics of desire and its malleability or lack thereof.
I'm reminded of the moral panic about lesbian dating sites a few years back. You might remember the crisis, as presented by some BBC and Guardian writers, was that lesbian spaces were being invaded by trans women who would politically pressure cis lesbians into dating them, even though the cis lesbians Did Not Like Penises. Of course on review it turned out nothing like this was happening, but it's definitely the case that queer spaces (among others) can contain a lot of felt pressure to align one's desires a certain way, and that way lies resentment and dudgeon. I feel like it's a pretty commonsense position to say a) interrogating what you're personally into is fruitful and worth doing (and might lead to more fun in your own life), and b) you can't stipulate the outcome of that interrogation in advance.
Interestingly, I hadn't seen the article linked in 15, but I did read another one that also cited Fascinating Womanhood.
Also, weirdly: our local community radio station is having a fund drive, and today they had a young woman who I assume is part of the development department join a DJ on air, and my god, she sounded a LOT like this. Not quite the baby talk voice, but the breathiness, the careening affect from a little emotional/panicky to really excited and peppy. I wondered if she was raised in fundie circles and has now escaped to working for liberal, public radio, but doesn't even know that her voice is jarring in this new context.
I am also not familiar with who this Sydney Sweeney person is, but it sounds like maybe I should find out?
The jarring thing to me is how many women sound like Terry Gross when they are on the radio.
BTW, I have a question about Kelly Johnson: how old is she? I looked a couple places and didn't find an answer (she graduated LSU, so it must be public info when that was). In the picture in 15, she looks quite young, while he looks weird for his age: he would've been ~27, he's dressed kind of like a teen, but he's wearing a Rolex-type watch and has politician's hair. For a sec, I thought they genuinely were in HS, but he certainly wasn't.
Anyway, after the Britt appearance, I saw part of a joint Johnson interview, and Kelly looked a little weird, like maybe she'd had work done? Which I suppose wouldn't be surprising, and I think it threw me because he still looks young (despite being a little older than me). But if she's over 50, then a little cosmetic surgery wouldn't be at all unusual.
44 There's a Seinfeld episode on that.
We watched White Lotus, but I didn't learn her name until she was on SNL a week ago.
A funny thing about the Sweeney blowup is that, a few days before her SNL appearance, I came across an offhand joke about her that I didn't get because I'd never heard of her. I went to her Wikipedia page, nothing made it obvious why the joke worked, so I moved on.
Turns out the joke was predicated on her being sexy in that kind of obvious way, but the picture on her Wikipedia page doesn't make her look like a busty blonde at all--if anything, it's the opposite.
Resentment & Dudgeon is one of the TSR titles that Wizards of the Coast did not pick up.
It says ... something that I didn't consider watching White Lotus until I saw an article in the LA Times about Aubrey Plaza being in the second season. But I still haven't watched it. I'm currently really into tv and movies that I only half pay attention to while working on other things.
On the OP: Talking about appetite sounds like willpower blaming, but it ought not to be. One of the things that's really interesting about testimony of people taking Mounjaro etc is how it's suddenly much easier for them to keep to a diet, and many of them are experiencing it as a positive. It's something that we know --- appetites differ -- but for me, and it seems them, it was hard to really grasp. Like -- oh, that's what people meant when they said they stop when they're full? That's what it's like to have cookies in the cupboard without eating them? Or conversely --- oh, this is nothing close to what I think of as willpower.
I think we ought to think of appetite like pulse rate or blood pressure. It's not really under conscious control and it is so very hard to eat much under one's natural appetite.
On #2: what ajay says in 4. Usually the person is losing weight, but the diagnostic criteria for AN include being seriously underweight. As I understand it rapid weight loss isn't great for anyone, but it's unlikely to be fatal in someone who has AAN.
As to
51 My experience so far with Mounjaro is that it doesn't seem to be affecting me that much. I'll be done with it in April and will start Ozempic. Maybe that'll be different.
There's a role for self-discipline: since I learned I was diabetic, I've stopped eating sugary things. Not having a second serving of salmon, though, that's what's hard.
50 I liked Plaza in White Lotus enough to look up her name.
We just watched The Signal on Netflix this weekend. Highly recommend.
I too had never heard of Sydney Sweeney until she showed up in the Discourse recently.
Paulina Porizkova is quite a good knitter
Also, one degree of separation from a FPP.
BTW, I have a question about Kelly Johnson: how old is she? I looked a couple places and didn't find an answer (she graduated LSU, so it must be public info when that was).
Per their wedding announcement in the Shreveport Times, she graduated 1995, same year he did. If she was 22 then, she's 51 now.
I have been puzzled by the atypical anorexia thing -- that is, is it possible to be in an equilibrium where one is both eating so little that it is causing significant health problems, and also not rapidly losing weight? Some things I've been reading suggest that this is possible, and I can't really wrap my head around it. Losing weight fast enough to cause health problems while still at or above a normal weight, that seems perfectly reasonable (not reasonable as a thing to do, but as something that could easily happen, sure). But starving at a stable weight, less so.
Could it be time-based? Like someone starves themselves for a week or two, enough for the body to start kicking into emergency mode, then they briefly binge to make up for it, then another round of starvation for piling-on health effects while weight doesn't drop overall?
10/58: I used the copy-paste trick on the paywalled article in 10, and it does seem to be predominantly ajay's explanation - they go from a high weight to normal or slightly overweight - but not always:
In that 2013 edition, a new diagnosis appeared -- atypical anorexia nervosa -- after health care providers noticed more patients showing up for treatment with all the symptoms of anorexia nervosa except one: a significantly low weight... Unlike those diagnosed with anorexia, people with atypical anorexia can lose significant amounts of weight but still have a medium or large body size. Others, because of their body's metabolism, hardly lose any weight at all. To the outside world, they appear "overweight."
But then the metabolism thing accidentally belies CICO:
When a human body is starved for long enough, it undergoes a complex series of biological, metabolic and hormonal changes to ensure its own survival. Every system moves to conserve energy, and the body begins to mine muscle and fat for glucose to keep the heart running and the brain functioning. The metabolism slows, which is why some people can eat very little and hardly lose any weight.
I have little trouble avoiding sugary things if I'm drinking too much. If I'm not drinking too much, then I want sweets. Depending on how it's prepared, I usually want salmon.
I assumed it was 59: if the body is in starvation for two weeks at a time, then a binge, and then back to starvation, there could be 5-7 thousand calories in that one binge, but your body is still massively screwed up (as well as the mental misery of being trapped in this kind of illness.)
But yes!! That's what I want explained in the articles, and I feel like the author is thinking that if they discuss the possibility of occasional binges, they will invite the reader to dismiss the seriousness of the anorexia.
Could it also be rabbit starvation?
Probably not, but that's my favorite bit of medical stuff I know.
58 &c: Some years ago there was a spate of articles (like this one), about how people who lose a lot of weight end up with a drastically slowed-down metabolism, such that even though they eat very little and exercise for hours a day, they still gain weight. Confusingly, the end of the NYT article linked above quotes researchers who say that people are prone to eating way more calories than they realize, which seems to undermine the thesis of the article. I'd be interested to know exactly how the researchers measured the subjects' resting metabolism, but it's not clearly explained.
Speaking of thin white women, did they kill Kate Middleton too?
The Royal Family plays a long game
https://x.com/cnviolations/status/1767477356208205968?s=46&t=nbIfRG4OrIZbaPkDOwkgxQ
I have been puzzled by the atypical anorexia thing -- that is, is it possible to be in an equilibrium where one is both eating so little that it is causing significant health problems, and also not rapidly losing weight?
Maybe the way to think of it is that anorexia is not "bad things because you are eating fewer calories than you need". It is "bad things because you have recently lost weight far too fast". I'm sure a lot of typical anorexics have a stable weight, but they're still ill.
I would certainly not rely on anything the NYT writes about eating disorders.
Haven't the Russians been running this op for decades? Wasn't that Anna Kournikova's whole thing, she represented a restoration of traditional beauty norms in women's sports?
I hadn't heard that name for about 20 years, but on looking her up I found she's still alive, she's retired from tennis with back problems, and she was (among other things) doing USO tours in Afghanistan.
69: If I had a nickel for every time I was doomed by a puppet, I'd have two nickels - which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice.
71: I think inflation porn has thrown off the reference point for many people.
Is everyone getting scam calls for Medicare supplemental insurance that seem to be somewhat AI? It's a new thing for me*. I miss the Hindi calls.
*I am well over a decade from being eligible.
"I'm still middle-aged!" he shouts into the wind.
One sure gets a lot of Medicare mail. Some little bit of which has to be paid attention to.
I don't get Medicare mail. I'm still middle aged. I get Blue Cross mail.
51.2 is well put. Our nuclear family is all in different places on appetite, but mostly in the middle: prone to junk food or sweets, but not to the point where treats need to be hidden. The big exception is that Kai is pretty literally compulsive* about sweets, but he may yet outgrow that; when Iris was little, she'd literally sneak spoonful of sugar from the container, but now AFAICT they're reasonably balanced (although they eat worryingly little and have lost weight at college, but also eat healthy and have started cooking at school, so who knows?).
But anyway, the point is that none of this is really about willpower. Even when I eat when I shouldn't, I rarely eat much--the craving is sated pretty easily, and it has nothing to do with virtue or self-control. I've known people who barely cared about food at all, and ones who couldn't stop until the bag of chips was empty. It's just a thing, but it's hard not to valorize.
*I mean, he's diagnosed ADHD, and he has literally asked us to hide sweets from him
I gave up sweets for Lent and it is really hard because my stomach isn't letting me drink. Maybe I'll buy some chips?
I had a period of mostly inadvertent weight loss when I first started house-sitting out here at Xmas. Mainly because the house was not full of *my* favorite forms of comfort food. I was purposefully slow about stocking up on my shit, but it is pretty much my native food ecosystem at this point. Total loss of 12-15 lbs. , but we shall see upon return home.
And per usual, I was annoyingly hungry during periods of the day-- but aided by having a relatively full activity sxhedule.
Five degrees of separation from the primary source, but I imagine this will come out eventually anyway if it's true, so: Kate had surgery for a perforated colon caused by the sexual proclivities of the prince.
I would like to visit England again someday so maybe this comment should self delete in 12 hours or so.
Everyone already knows the royal family is prone to sharp penises.
That wouldn't explain anything! Why would that stop her from being photographed months later?
You can delete that one too if you're worried about how it will look without context.
Anyway, it's probably just a cold sore or new nose.
Why would that stop her from being photographed months later?
She couldn't be arsed to do it.
84 so like father, like son then.
84 seems to have been written by someone who has never had sex, or talked to anyone who has ever had sex.
Or with firm beliefs that the sexual proclivities of the prince are out there enough to create risks of injuries that are highly implausible in any more conventional set of sexual practices. I mean, there are things you could do that would risk perforating a partner's colon, they're just things that very few people would be interested in, and that would require equipment not generally used for that sort of purpose.
There's equipment regularly used for perforating colons?
92, 93 There could be two princes involved at once here IYKWIMAITYD
What ever happened to The Spin Doctors?
92: A truly novel sexual injury.
First the Queen and now Kate Middleton. Meghan and Hilary Clinton have a lot to answer for.
91: it does have a kind of middle school, kid brother sound, yes.
91, 99: Back in the Vince Foster suicide days, I was in professional contact with a couple of Washington journalists who were seriously looking into the rumor that Foster was having an affair with Hillary. What I said at the time was that the existence of this rumor carried no probative weight whatsoever. Given the nature of human beings -- and particularly the nature of political reporters -- this rumor was absolutely inevitable regardless of the facts.
And this is the same as 84. It's exactly the sort of story people make up in situations like this.
Yeah. I didn't want to ruin a good joke by being responsible though.
If only the son of the British head of state had the same decenxy and respectability as the son of the US head of state, eh?
I always forget. Did he start fucking around on his wife with his sister in law before his brother died, or did he wait till after the funeral out of respect?
According to Vanity Fair, it was after his brother died. Of course Hunter is not a paid public official as you know. Not that there's any real basis to accept the stuff about William even tentatively.
85: I thought by reputation they are dull pricks.
Had this from someone who knew one of Phil's bodyguards: Charles and Camilla both preferred anal, and that when Charles attempted it on Diana on the wedding night he got thrown out of bed.
I heard Joe Biden's first wife crashed the car deliberately out of guilt at not being able to stop Joe abusing Hunter and Beau. She couldn't bear the thought of him getting at her daughter too, when she was old enough.
You know, people with a republic don't get this weird about the local autocratic family.
There's probably other reasons for having a republic, but obviously good governance isn't one of them so it's probably not worth getting into.
Can't imagine Americans getting weird about the Clinton's!
That was mostly deliberate lies told for profit by the likes of Farwell.
Wait is Ajay actually upset about tabloid style rumors about the royals? I thought most people agree that the job of the royal family is deflecting criticism from the other inbred dipshits who have actual power over national policy.
The improbable sex injury theory is really improbable though.
I think there was a bit in Wolf Hall where someone came up with a salacious anal sex rumor about Anne Boleyn and her brother. People just can't leave the ermine alone.
The palace probably doesn't want to announce they killed their second princess of Wales in a row is all.
People just can't leave the ermine alone.
I guess I learned a new word for butthole.
Some people get weirdly defensive about anal, I don't judge.
I can't make it make sense. Like, if she is badly injured or comatose or had an emergency whatever --- how is not Injured and Ill Princess Mother not great PR? Candlelight vigils for miles.
I wonder if they actually learned a hair from Meghan and she's taking a mental health break.
I'm sure everything is very relaxing for her right now.
Same on 119. I fundamentally don't care, and you know, they're people, so there's a limit to how unpleasant anyone should be about them, but the disappearance from the public eye is just peculiar in a curiosity inspiring kind of way.
Also, any story involving speculation that anyone is having an affair with the Marchioness of Cholmondeley is clearly a put-on.
It's not that hard to pronounce. Mar-shun-nes.
Some people get weirdly defensive about anal, I don't judge.
Well, of course not. You live in the Middle East.
From a reproductive standpoint, there is a similar effect.
Or Marcia Ness.
Of the Loch Ness's?
What onan did is pretty far from current usage of "onanism" anyway.
In Pennsylvania, between Intercourse and Blue Ball there's the hamlet of Early Withdrawal.
Where is that relative to Bird-in-Hand?
Nearby. Neither have seen much population increase, so they're small.
Do any of those places have ten righteous people? If not they're angling for an airstrike.
I haven't been closer than Frankin & Marshall.
133: Hush, hush, nary a word, Christopher Robin is bashing his bird.
How close were Franklin and Marshall?
Franklin at least was a committed heterosexual.
Franklin at least was a committed heterosexual.
That was before they changed the DSM.
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
Franklin & Marshall was the first coeducational college in America, serving both men and women in an experimental curriculum.
While timorous knowledge stands considering, audacious ignorance hath done the deed.
serving both men and women in an experimental curriculum.
MORE LIKE AN EXPERIMENTAL CURRY-culum IYKWIM.