Tomas: What is the cutoff for describing children as “x” amount of months?
One year. That's it. After 12 months, counting that high gets complicated. "She was born in December of 2011, so that would make her a full year this PAST December, and then you add one, two, three, four, five... wait... Do I start counting new months at December, or is that wrong? Sixteen months? Is that correct?" After the kid hits a year old, it's a year old. No one gives a sh#t what fractional age they are after that. The only reason parents keep track beyond that is if the kid demonstrates some cognitive skill that's, like, a month ahead of the curve. FULL SENTENCES AT 17 MONTHS GUYS! It doesn't matter. Your kid can still grow up to be a moron, while Little Johnny Paste-eater over in the corner won't speak until age four but will then become President of the World Bank.
Kids grow at their own pace, but there are deranged parents out there who refuse to accept that. They need the kid to be ahead of the curve right away, even though it means jack sh#t in the long run. I'm not above this, by the way. I remember my first kid took a while to start walking and I feared that she would NEVER walk. She'd just never figure out how to use her legs and feet properly and she'd spend the rest of her life dragging herself around the house, pulling soup cans out from under the sofa because her withered gimp legs were of no use to her.
This has never happened to anyone, ever. Anyone who has working legs and a functional brain learns to walk eventually. But when you have your first kid, there are all kinds of irrational worries like this that pop up in your brain. Is the baby walking? Is it cooing? Is it eating? How does it compare with other 15-month-olds? You're constantly measuring their progress. First-time parents are really annoying like that.
Matt: If, for the rest of your life, you had to choose between eating only food that was uncomfortably spicy (say, a couple of notches above your normal tolerance for the pain of spice) or completely bland, which would you choose?
Picking spicy food pretty much eliminates dessert, unless you're one of those people that likes to pretend that spicy desserts are fun to eat. I bought a chocolate bar once with chili flakes in it and I was DESPERATE to like it–to let people know I was really into hip, spicy desserts. Instead it was just a chocolate bar with mouth fire as a side effect.
We still live in an age of people trying to prove their manhood by liking spicy foods. There are still four billion vanity hot sauces out there, and almost all of them unnecessary because we already have Frank's. Spicy food is great, but you can eliminate spicy food and still have ice cream, eggs, steak, chicken, bacon, every part of a Thanksgiving meal, pizza, and more. So you gotta take bland food. You don't need every goddamn meal to be a test of your masculinity. Also, the pooping. My God, the pooping.