<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is Food The New Sex?  Or, Of Whoppers And Whoppee</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.femmeiniste.com/2009/03/03/is-food-the-new-sex-or-of-whoppers-and-whoppee/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.femmeiniste.com/2009/03/03/is-food-the-new-sex-or-of-whoppers-and-whoppee/</link>
	<description>Uncle Karl approved since 2009</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2011 02:59:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lily</title>
		<link>http://www.femmeiniste.com/2009/03/03/is-food-the-new-sex-or-of-whoppers-and-whoppee/comment-page-1/#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>Lily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.femmeiniste.com/?p=511#comment-153</guid>
		<description>I was trying to sum up the author&#039;s point, rather than expand upon - and in doing so, was admittedly flippant.  Basically, Eberstadt&#039;s point is that without the wealth of nutritional knowledge we now have, taste buds and family recipes *were* the basis of dinner decisions.

There&#039;s no debating the fact that during the 50s, convenience foods - in cans and in the frozen foods section - rose is popularity.  Without the knowledge we now have about preservatives, sodium, etc., it&#039;s understandable that our grandmothers weren&#039;t as wrapped up in the nutritional neuroses as you see today.  (And, mind you, I say this knowing new moms who are raising only-organic babies.  Multiple moms.)

That said, I didn&#039;t want to get off on a tangent ... The whole essay was about the correlation between sex and food, and I didn&#039;t want to detract from that.  

Apologies for the flippancy!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was trying to sum up the author&#8217;s point, rather than expand upon &#8211; and in doing so, was admittedly flippant.  Basically, Eberstadt&#8217;s point is that without the wealth of nutritional knowledge we now have, taste buds and family recipes *were* the basis of dinner decisions.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no debating the fact that during the 50s, convenience foods &#8211; in cans and in the frozen foods section &#8211; rose is popularity.  Without the knowledge we now have about preservatives, sodium, etc., it&#8217;s understandable that our grandmothers weren&#8217;t as wrapped up in the nutritional neuroses as you see today.  (And, mind you, I say this knowing new moms who are raising only-organic babies.  Multiple moms.)</p>
<p>That said, I didn&#8217;t want to get off on a tangent &#8230; The whole essay was about the correlation between sex and food, and I didn&#8217;t want to detract from that.  </p>
<p>Apologies for the flippancy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linda</title>
		<link>http://www.femmeiniste.com/2009/03/03/is-food-the-new-sex-or-of-whoppers-and-whoppee/comment-page-1/#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator>Linda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:11:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.femmeiniste.com/?p=511#comment-152</guid>
		<description>I like the correlation between &#039;junk food and junk sex&#039;, brilliant.  But, I have to take exception with &#039;grandmothers...cared very much whom their neighbors were sleeping with... yet, gave little thought beyond personal preference to what they were feeding their children&#039;.  

Wait what&#039;s that noise??  My god, it&#039;s the grandmothers rising up in unison to disclaim this calumny.

I would venture to say that they had just as much, if not more of a practice predicated on a firm conviction of what was nutritionally necessary for the health and well being of their offspring. 

The problem was &#039;experts&#039; weighed in.  Eggs were good, eggs are bad, milk is good, milk is bad, fat is good, some fat is bad, and so on and so forth, etc.


People 2 generations ago spent a lot more time in their physical environment using their bodies to complete tasks or just to play.  Even today, you would be hard pressed to find the neighborhood where the children return from school and immediately hit the outdoors to play &#039;ditch&#039; or pick up anything until Mom called them in for dinner or bedtime.  And a generation before that, those same kids were getting up at 5am with their parents to work on the family farm before going off to school only to return home in the late afternoon to continue the familly chores until dinner time, then homework, then more chores, then bedtime.   

That kind of physical exursion required a great deal more calories to be consumed than today&#039;s much more sedantary lifestyles.  Add to that the development of convenience foods heretofore unheard of, enabled these same women (Moms) to finally start devoting more time to themselves.  

To claim that these women were somehow derelict in there nutritional duties to their offspring does a serious disservice to them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the correlation between &#8216;junk food and junk sex&#8217;, brilliant.  But, I have to take exception with &#8216;grandmothers&#8230;cared very much whom their neighbors were sleeping with&#8230; yet, gave little thought beyond personal preference to what they were feeding their children&#8217;.  </p>
<p>Wait what&#8217;s that noise??  My god, it&#8217;s the grandmothers rising up in unison to disclaim this calumny.</p>
<p>I would venture to say that they had just as much, if not more of a practice predicated on a firm conviction of what was nutritionally necessary for the health and well being of their offspring. </p>
<p>The problem was &#8216;experts&#8217; weighed in.  Eggs were good, eggs are bad, milk is good, milk is bad, fat is good, some fat is bad, and so on and so forth, etc.</p>
<p>People 2 generations ago spent a lot more time in their physical environment using their bodies to complete tasks or just to play.  Even today, you would be hard pressed to find the neighborhood where the children return from school and immediately hit the outdoors to play &#8216;ditch&#8217; or pick up anything until Mom called them in for dinner or bedtime.  And a generation before that, those same kids were getting up at 5am with their parents to work on the family farm before going off to school only to return home in the late afternoon to continue the familly chores until dinner time, then homework, then more chores, then bedtime.   </p>
<p>That kind of physical exursion required a great deal more calories to be consumed than today&#8217;s much more sedantary lifestyles.  Add to that the development of convenience foods heretofore unheard of, enabled these same women (Moms) to finally start devoting more time to themselves.  </p>
<p>To claim that these women were somehow derelict in there nutritional duties to their offspring does a serious disservice to them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.femmeiniste.com/2009/03/03/is-food-the-new-sex-or-of-whoppers-and-whoppee/comment-page-1/#comment-125</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.femmeiniste.com/?p=511#comment-125</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Mom Blogs - Blogs for Moms...&lt;/strong&gt;

...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Mom Blogs &#8211; Blogs for Moms&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
