[It's pretty obvious that the average CollegeCandy reader has some very strong opinions. Opinions that she likes to share with everyone on the site. Sometimes with mean words. We love a strong woman (unless she happens to be charging at us with her fists raised), so we thought we'd give her a real forum to discuss her thoughts, feelings, and perspectives. Every Friday I'll be featuring a hot topic (like prepubescent fashion!) and leaving it up to you, the readers, to duke it out. So, read it and get your debate on in the comments section below!]

From basically the time I was in kindergarten, I was ingrained with the understanding that this is how the system works: you go to school, you get good grades, you go to college, you get good grades, and then one day you get a job… so your kids can do it all over again. Aside from the incredible level of depressing involved in that, it was always my inherent understanding that this was the way things would work. Then I got into college and realized that job part wasn’t exactly a guarantee with a degree. Even more disconcertingly, it turns out that sometimes, for some lucky people, it works the other way around – getting offered a job before they’ve even finished college. The question is, is it a good idea to skip ahead a step.

Now, there are many wonderful, important jobs that one can perform without a college degree, I’m not saying that, but over the last couple of years I’ve had a handful of friends who have been given offers to leave school for a job. On one side, it seems like a perfect plan – why spend all of that time and money getting a degree, (the whole point of which is to gain employment), when you can just be employed and maybe actually pay off some of those massive loans? If you can skip the boring class requirements and go right to what you actually want to do with your life, it seems like a no brainer – take the job!

Still, as awesome as the idea seems, there are some problems with it. Sure, for a while you have a job, and that’s great, but what happens if down the line that job doesn’t pan out? What if you realize that the job you thought you wanted isn’t something you really want to spend the rest of your life doing? You don’t have a degree and your only real work experience is in the job you now realize you don’t want. Having a degree doesn’t guarantee you the ability to randomly change jobs whenever you want, but in the modern world, it’s a much better basis with most career fields than not having one. Wouldn’t it be better to stick it out those few more years – after all, if they want you now, there’s got to be a reason; a reason that’s only going to improve as you get more education.

Alright, what’s your vote? If you got offered a job, would you quit school? Would you stick it out and hold on for something better in the future? Which is the smarter way to go? Duke it out!

Ah fashion, you cruel, sadistic mistress. Unrealistic body image has always been part of the package, considering that most major designers only have a vague concept of what human anatomy even looks like, but historically they have at least pretended that their designs are created for full-grown women. Well, recently, Elle Fanning has become a fashion world darling, praised for her “ballet-dancer frame perfect for Rodarte and Valentino“… did I mention she’s 12? Yeah, she’s 12.

Now, I’m not trying to get down on Elle – she’s a very pretty young girl with a healthy build for her age. There’s nothing wrong with the way she looks (and I’m seething with envy that she’s already 5-foot-6); what’s wrong to me is that her lovely figure is being held up as a pinnacle for women’s fashion when she’s not, in fact, a woman yet. That “ballet-dancer frame”? That’s also known as ‘not-having-hit-puberty-yet’. We’re talking about fetishizing a child here! And in a world where we’re supposedly embracing different body-types and where curves are supposed to be making a come back. In this world, we’re really going to discuss a little girl’s body as something that major designers think that we should strive toward? How sick is that?

But! On the other hand, as demented as I may happen to think the whole concept is, it’s not exactly new. Fashion models have been operating on the younger is better principle for years with girls like Kate Moss and Brooke Shields making a name for themselves in their early teens. 12 may be a little low on the spectrum, but it’s really just an extension of what’s been going on for years. Does that make it any better? Maybe not, but it also means it’s not likely to change.

Alright ladies, what do you say? Is Elle Fanning just another example of fashion’s waif-obsession? Is it a product of something deeper and more messed up in the industry? Or is it just the same-old, same-old? Duke It Out!

This week, in keeping with my usual studious habits, I was surfing around the internet watching cute cat videos when I came across this article which posed the question; is the first date dead? My instinctual reaction was that this is just another one of those things where people freak out because technology changes things, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder if they don’t have a point.

Looking at it one way, OK, so maybe guys aren’t asking us down to the malt shop to share a giant milkshake with two straws, but so what? There was a time in history before the whole dating idea was around, isn’t it inevitable that at some point we would move beyond it?

Is it so bad that our society might lose something that most people dread and find painfully awkward? Is it such a bad thing if we ‘hang out’ with guys instead of being stuck sitting through dinner and a movie with a dude who won’t shut up about dressing his cats up as the Justice League for Halloween? Yeah, I’d really hate to miss out on that. Should we really be mourning the fact that now our first bits of information on a guy (besides, ‘holy crap, he’s hot’) come from his Facebook page instead of rumors our friends have heard and inane conversation over cheap food, because that sounds like a step forward to me.

But, I do see their point. Looking back at high school, all of the guys I ‘went out with’ were guys in my school, who I hung out with during the school day and ultimately asked me to be their girlfriend. Really, except for school dances and stuff, I don’t think I ever went on anything that would technically qualify as a date; most of the time we just hung around together. Does that mean that I’ve missed out on some integral rite of passage? Is the idea of starting your relationship with FB and texts not kind of negating the whole point?

I don’t know ladies, you tell me. Is the first date dead? Should we miss it? Or is it one of those ancient evils like smallpox and we’re better off without it? Duke it out!

Who among us has never Facebook stalked? Anyone? Seriously, anyone? It’s easy and mostly harmless, so we all do it a little bit sometimes to see how much less awesome your ex’s new girlfriend is than you, or to find out if that cutie in you American Lit class is single (and into women). It’s not a big deal, right? But when does it cross the line? According to research, one third of women check their significant other’s web browser history to see what their partners been surfing and 1 in 10 has actually hacked into their SO’s email and personal accounts to keep an eye on them. Is this just a natural extension of our tech savvy, in-everybody’s-personal-business lives, or has technology turned us into creepy Fatal Attraction candidates?

On one side, I totally get it. You’re using your guy’s laptop and the history is right there, so easy to check; it’s the exact same allure that draws guys to want to know what we carry in our purses. It’s probably not that most of these women are checking to see if their guy is frequenting online dating sites or creepy fetish porn; more than likely it’s nothing more than simple curiosity, the same way you check out what’s on someone’s bookshelf to see what they like to read. The email thing, I have a little harder time with, but still, if there’s an insecurity there and a quick peek will make a girl feel better, then as long as the guy doesn’t have anything to hide, what’s the big deal?

On the B side, though, doesn’t that whole idea kind of undercut what relationships are supposed to be about? Trust isn’t easy by any means, and of course there’s a chance of getting hurt because of it, but is it any better to live on constant alert. Of course the temptation is overwhelming when it’s all right there on his computer and you could KNOW, but isn’t the whole point of trusting someone with your heart that you take that risk willingly? And isn’t the sneaking around and spying just undercutting all of that anyway? Aren’t you the one ruining your relationship when you do that?

What do you say? Have you done the cyber spying tango, or are you strictly an innocent until proven guilty kind of girl? Would you ever invade your SO’s privacy like that, or is it unthinkable? Have you been there done that? Tell me all about it, girls – duke it out!

Next Friday marks the start of the holiday shopping season with the single most anticipated shopping day of the year here in the good ol’ USA – Black Friday. A day when stores mark down items to ludicrous sale prices and people all over the nation line up in the early dawn hours to snag those bargains (and occasionally trample their fellow human beings). My guy refers to Black Friday as his favorite holiday – I don’t get it. So I think it’s time we talked this one out, ladies.

Is Black Friday a do or a don’t?

As I said, my man is an avid Black Friday-er, so just this once, I’m going to let him chime in. In his own words, “Black Friday is Christmas for every college student, unemployed citizen, and starving artist, If you’re living paycheck to paycheck or in debt, this is the day when you don’t have to feel like the child left behind. It’s a celebration of capitalistic consumerism, when everything is supposed to be affordable for everyone. You have the chance to redeem your self-enforced diet of Ramen noodles and buy an Xbox360. You have the opportunity to erase some of the classist line that has you treading in the waters of lower middle-class. If you’ve got the guts to go for the glory, you can achieve your heart’s desire (commercially speaking) on this day.” Yep, that’s what I live with. Love you, baby!

Now for my side: To start with, Black Friday represents a big part of what’s wrong with America. Yes, it’s a celebration of capitalistic consumerism, but why is that such a good thing? Do we really need a day specifically set aside to indulge our already materialistic natures, to glut ourselves on markdowns and stand outside stores to prove to the world that we’d choose the glamour of objects over even our own comfort and safety? Are we legitimately that shallow, and if so, should we friggin’ revel that fact?  This isn’t a class revolution, it’s class subjugation; it’s saying that what you can buy matters more than the thought you put behind it or the care you give, and that’s a damn sad state of affairs.

Alright girls, while I go bicker with my BF over our Black Friday plans, tell me what you think. Will you be standing on line the morning after Thanksgiving to grab some holiday deals? Or would you rather pay full price and stay in bed? Do you look forward to Black Friday with bated breath, or is it just another day to you? Is it really representative of a larger social issue, or have my guy and I spent too much time in liberal arts colleges?

Duke It Out!

And if you’re feeling extra fiesty, here are a few more topics to battle over.

[It's pretty obvious that the average CollegeCandy reader has some very strong opinions. Opinions that she likes to share with everyone on the site. Sometimes with mean words. We love a strong woman (unless she happens to be charging at us with her fists raised), so we thought we'd give her a real forum to discuss her thoughts, feelings, and perspectives. Every Friday I'll be featuring a hot topic (like sexy halloween costumes!) and leaving it up to you, the readers, to duke it out. So, read it and get your debate on in the comments section below!]

Photoshop has given the world some wonderful gifts – the ability to get rid of those red demon eyes you’re rocking  in pictures or erase that tequila bottle that mysteriously appeared in your hand (seriously, there must have been something on the lens, mom) before the pics hit Facebook, the power to waste incredible amounts of time laughing at crappy airbrushing, and, of course, the chance to discover what your holiday cards will look like once Jensen Ackles leaves his wife to be with you (no? Just me?). Photoshop has also committed some unspeakable horrors in the name of beauty and advertising, because we needed even more unrealistic expectations of attractiveness, right?

Recently, Rachael Leigh Cook (remember her?!) spoke out against the practice of airbrushing, going so far as to say that since false advertising is a crime and photo-correcting is essentially false advertising, then photoshopping in the media should be a crime. That’s quite a statement there, Rach – let’s go to the polls!

In one way, I’m totally with this argument; there’s no way it should be legal to airbrush a model’s skin in a foundation commercial (don’t even get me started on false eyelashes in mascara ads) because it IS legitimately false advertising. If a product/system/whatever is supposed to make your hair shiny or your skin smooth or whatever, they shouldn’t be able to just go in and make it look that way with a computer! That’s a dirty lie!

And while I hate to get all moralistic about it (hey, I get it, it’s a business and you do what you gotta do) how far can we really afford to push the perfection envelope? Didn’t women have enough body issues back in the day when it was just really hot models in pictures without all of the touch ups? This isn’t just setting an unrealistic standard of beauty, it’s setting one that is literally physically impossible for anyone, including the models in the actual photos, to live up to.

But, at the same time, if you go so far as to say photoshopping is illegal false advertising, there’s really no good place to stop. By that virtue, makeup and hair dye are false advertising, and so are push up bras and heels. In fact, almost everything we use to enhance the way we look would fall into that category, so where do you stop?

There’s also the fact that, while I think it’s reprehensible to create such a bad example for young girls growing up to try and live up to, it’s also not our place to legally mandate standards of beauty. If such-and-such company wants a model in their ad to look like she has a freakishly long neck and is missing several vital organs, well, that’s their prerogative, and we don’t really have any more right to tell them that their view of beauty is wrong than they do about ours.

Lay it one me, girls, what do you think? Is photoshopping bad, wrong, maybe even illegal? Or is it a tool for justice and good being wielded by the wrong hands? Duke it out!

[It's pretty obvious that the average CollegeCandy reader has some very strong opinions. Opinions that she likes to share with everyone on the site. Sometimes with mean words. We love a strong woman (unless she happens to be charging at us with her fists raised), so we thought we'd give her a real forum to discuss her thoughts, feelings, and perspectives. Every Friday I'll be featuring a hot topic (like gay affirmative action!) and leaving it up to you, the readers, to duke it out. So, read it and get your debate on in the comments section below!]

In the words of the immortal Mean Girls, “Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it.” It’s a time honored Halloween tradition for girls to put on their best ‘sexy’ costume and go party, right? And costume companies have certainly raised the bar on options (Sexy Elmo and Sexy Hello Kitty, really?)  but is this really a good idea or are we just promoting a sexist stereotype?

Put on your debate club costumes ladies, time to get down to business.

On one side, why shouldn’t we be hot for Halloween? It’s college after all – the time when we’re at both our physical peak and the height of our sexual freedom, so sexed-up costumes seem like the perfect idea. It really is the one night you have absolute carte blanche to wear anything you want without worrying about getting the dreaded ‘skank stare of doom’ because every other girl in the place is going to be just as scantily clad. We’re adults now, and if anything, then at the very least we should be able to wear whatever we want with impunity – without having to deal with feminist implications and what people will think. It’s supposed to be a party, right? So why shouldn’t we get our sexy on?

On the other side, though, it is kind of ridiculous. Most of the ‘sexy’ costumes out there are straight out of (some really screwed up) porn. They aren’t really about enjoying the outfit yourself (hello, it’s October – it’s cold outside!), they’re about looking good for someone else, and being someone else’s sexual ideal. Don’t we spend enough of our time dealing with that without bringing it into our candy-related holidays too? It plays into both the oversexualized girl stereotype and the idea that we need some kind of excuse to show off our bodies if we want to. It’s kind of ridiculous and seems like it takes away from the whole ‘having fun’ part of the holiday.

I mean, it’s called Halloween not Skankoween. How did it end up this way?

What do you say, debaters? Have we gone to far with the sexy costume thing? Is it all just harmless fun? Will you be sexing it up for Halloween this year?

Duke it out!

It’s no secret that getting admission to a college (especially big names like the Ivy League) is kind of a crap shoot. Sure, you need the grades, the activities, the involvement; but we all also know that sometimes you can give your application a little nudge that has nothing to do with academics. Your parents worked two jobs each to help take care of you and your three siblings and it taught you the value of responsibility and family — admissions gold. Or you spent half of your childhood in another country and had to learn the wonder and struggles of adapting your proud cultural heritage to life in the Midwest — brilliant. These kinds of things have been a leg-up in the admissions process for years and now, it turns out, there’s a brand new one that schools are actively seeking out — LGBT.

That’s right, when just a couple of decades ago many people couldn’t RISK coming out in college, now schools are trying to recruit applicants from the LGBT community and while I have no qualms about that, I gotta wonder if it’s fair.

I have a long-standing record on this column of being pro gay rights, and that’s not a streak I plan on breaking, but this is one area where I have some serious mixed feelings. On one hand, it’s great that schools are being active with the gay community and embracing their students’ sexualities as a part of who they are. It’s wonderful that they’re going to an effort to show students that they can be open, active and comfortable in their school and embracing that the challenges faced by many LGBT students are character shaping  and meaningful. Good job, colleges! It’s also not really affirmative action, so it’s not as though schools are trying to fill a certain quota; it’s just that if a good applicant comes along with the added twist of being LGBT, then it might give him or her a little boost.

No, the problem I have with this idea isn’t really about gay students getting a leg-up on the competition because of their sexuality or maybe taking a slot away from someone else based on that – though it is possible – my real problem is the implications for the gay communities within these schools. First of all, while I hate to think it, it would be a hell of a lot easier to fake a traumatic coming out story than something like, coming from a low-income family. It’s not really something admissions officers can check up on and there probably are dishonest students who would fake it or play up their own less dramatic experiences just to edge out the competition. There’s also the issue of creating an archetype for the gay student. Schools aren’t  just going around asking recruits if they’re LGBT, they see activism on transcripts with a certain expectation that it will continue – that an LGBT recruit won’t just be a student, but an involved, gay student. And while getting involved in the community is great, it puts a pressure on the student to be a certain kind of gay student – to be out and active and “gay.” There’s a lot more to an individual than their sexuality and to fit them into one little box, to put so much emphasis on who you are sexually, is kind of discrimination in reverse.

So what do you think? Should school’s look at something like sexuality when choosing students? Is being LGBT suddenly an unfair admissions advantage over straight students? Is it good or bad for the LGBT community? Duke it out!

In the mood for a good fight? Sound off in Lauren’s other battles.

[It's pretty obvious that the average CollegeCandy reader has some very strong opinions. Opinions that she likes to share with everyone on the site. Sometimes with mean words. We love a strong woman (unless she happens to be charging at us with her fists raised), so we thought we'd give her a real forum to discuss her thoughts, feelings, and perspectives. Every Friday I'll be featuring a hot topic (like don't ask, don't tell!) and leaving it up to you, the readers, to duke it out. So, read it and get your debate on in the comments section below!]

In ‘studies that make my skin crawl’ news, researchers at the University of Pecs (please excuse me while I go find a school transfer form. Pecs, here I come!) in Hungary found that most people they studied wind up in long-term relationships with a partner who resembles their opposite sex parent. Basically, that means that most women end up married to a man who physically resembles their father, which is… ick. Just ick. The question is, do we think this is really accurate, or did something go horribly awry in this study?

On the one side, the people we grow up around naturally shape some of our ideas. I, for example, come from a family of big burly guys, so if you asked me “what does a guy look like” my baseline would be 6 feet tall, 200 pounds. Since our parents are with us since, well, birth, it’s natural that their influence would be stronger still. These people shape, not only our personalities and our ideas, but also our aesthetic preferences. Maybe it’s not that we go for someone who looks like our dad, but just that we’ve learned to see our fathers as handsome and by that virtue, men who look like dad are good-looking too.

On the other side though, I question whether that really defines who we end up with. Like I said, my baseline for a guy is reasonably specific, but not all of the guys I’ve dated actually fall into that range, and I certainly wouldn’t avoid dating guy for that reason. In fact, in my experience, women are much less likely to abide by a ‘type’ than guys are, so ultimately it seems really unlikely that we all happen to end up with guys who look like our dads.

There’s also something in there that’s maybe even more disturbing than the Freudian implications of this study, which is – it suggests that the person we end up with is largely predetermined by their looks. Because I needed a nice dose of ‘you’re biologically shallow’ for the day.

What do you think? Do you go for guys who remind you of dear old dad? Do you find that too creeptastic for words? Do you have a type? The future of our relationships hang in the balance – duke it out!

[It's pretty obvious that the average CollegeCandy reader has some very strong opinions. Opinions that she likes to share with everyone on the site. Sometimes with mean words. We love a strong woman (unless she happens to be charging at us with her fists raised), so we thought we'd give her a real forum to discuss her thoughts, feelings, and perspectives. Every Friday I'll be featuring a hot topic (like flat rate tuition!) and leaving it up to you, the readers, to duke it out. So, read it and get your debate on in the comments section below!]

Last week, the Senate voted not to repeal the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy – a policy that’s essentially a band-aid for the absence of gay rights in the military. The policy, which was introduced in 1993, has essentially stood all of this time as a way of saying ‘you can be gay in the military, as long as nobody knows about it’. It looked close for a while there, but ultimately the policy stands – even though Obama actually campaigned on changing the policy and his administration is openly opposed to it – and I think it’s time we had OUR say.

As I’ve said before, I’m not unbiased on this issue, but regardless of my own personal moral compass being pro-gay rights, there are also some compelling reasons why the policy should be repealed. For starters, under this policy anyone who comes out or is outed in the military is given a dishonorable discharge, no matter how well they were actually doing their job. That means that we’re actively spending military budget on getting rid of military personnel regardless of the quality of their work or the necessity of their position, which, considering how much trouble there already is with military budgeting, seems like a massive waste. There’s also the very obvious fact that this is the AMERICAN military and if it were any other position, say, at an American business perhaps, a person could sue for being fired over their sexuality – because it’s freakin’ illegal!

Suffice to say it’s pretty backassward that our own laws don’t apply the same way to our protective body as they do to the public.

One of the big arguments against repealing the policy is the fact that it’s going to take a lot of work and since the system as it stands functions reasonably effectively, to throw a big restructuring in right now would just mess things up for everybody. Now on the one hand, I see a point in this argument, because yes, the military is doing tough stuff at a tough time and they’re doing the best job they can. Yes, massive restructuring to deal with changing policies and deal with things like housing – where do LGBT soldiers live? With their own gender? The opposite? – as well as overall attitudes and the general social unrest that major changes like this cause, would be a serious burden on the system and would likely make it work less effectively for a time.

But then again, if that’s the rationale, then there’s really never a good time to restructure anything. The military always does tough stuff at tough times and it will always upset the system to have major changes; that didn’t stop the military from desegregating in the ’40s.

OK, what do you have to say? Is ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ a blotch on our historical record? Does it desperately need to be repealed? Or has the policy been working so far so why fix what’s not broken? Should we wait for another, better, time to make a major effort like this?

Duke it out!