And most of you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. We get fantastic little pissy quotes like this one:

//It's a given in the book that what you want -- what WOMEN want -- is junk food, sweets, chocolate, and deep fried stuff. Oh -- and loads of sodium.//

Yes. That is a given. You know why? Because the human body--including WOMEN's bodies--has evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to crave high-energy, high-calorie foods. Until very recently, being fat was not a problem that our species had to contend with.

Other commenters have gibberish like this:

//processed, chemical, foods will make you lose your looks and bring illness to you. It's devoid of minerals and vitamins and the "chi" that natural foods brings to give us health and energy.//

First, this nonsense about "fake" or "chemical" foods. Newsflash: EVERYTHING IS A CHEMICAL. Your precious whole, "natural" foods are full of "chemicals" like dihydrogen monoxide, aldohexoses, and complex poplypeptides.

Second, if your food doesn't contain enough vitamins and minerals, a simple daily multivitamin will fix that problem easily.

Third, chi is new age nonsense. You write that, //There needs to be more food/nutrition education in this country ESPECIALLY if are going to have national health care. I don't really want to be paying for people who purposely give themselves chronic disease by eating this stuff.//

Please, next time you get ill, go to your local alternative medicine practitioner, or get some homeopathic remedy. That way, you'll avoid the scary evil chemicals, and when you the placebos don't work and you die, the rest of us won't have to pay your high healthcare bills incurred by continued acceptance of garbage pseudoscience.

Everyone who has commented on this thread so far needs to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemophobia

And then stop thinking of food as some sort of big moral test where you get to show what a good, enlightened person you are for eating only whole grain breads from Trader Joe's and drinking only overpriced "fair trade" coffee shipped thousands of miles to your local alternative coffee shop.

Does this mean guys in their early-to-mid-20s will stop being passed over ("They're too immature," "Older men are so much more romantic!" "Older guys really know how to please a woman") so quickly? We may not be able to drop $300 on dinner, but if we knock you, at least the kids won't turn out defective.

"And to the poster who suggested oral sex when no condom can be found: many STDs including gonorrhea can also lead to infections of the mouth and throat. Oral sex is not safer than other forms of intimacy without a condom."

This article was about pregnancy, yes? I've never heard of anyone getting pregnant from oral sex, have you?

Also, oral sex is marginally safer than vaginal or anal sex: http://www.sfcityclinic.org/stdbasics/stdchart.asp

Really? Because I do. Has this smart, successful woman never heard of a damn condom? Sometimes being in charge of your sexuality means saying, "Sorry, we shouldn't do this if we don't have a condom. Maybe we could just do oral."

You seem to be making the argument that if lots of people make stupid, irresponsible choices, somehow it's improper to criticize those choices. I disagree. Millions of people watch American Idol, it doesn't change the fact that that show is terrible and watching it is stupid.

This is a two-way street, ladies. Being responsible for your own reproductive choices also means taking the blame when you act irresponsibly.

If you want to be treated like a big girl, it's time to start writing like one, alright?

Let's practice:

You say "yucky," but we can try some grown-up words like "objectionable," "obnoxious," "insulting," or "unfortunate."

Now you try some exercised at home!

Another chance for Salon readers to feel morally and intellectually superior and sit around patting themselves on the back. Don't forget to mention how horrible the army is and how all soldiers are violent thugs that don't appreciate wine and jazz like you do.

"The promises of transparency were undercut, just a little, by the fact that the orders Obama had signed weren't posted on the White House Web site by the close of business Wednesday. In fact, the text of Tuesday's inaugural address didn't show up until sometime after lunch Wednesday."

Jesus, really? After 8 years of an administration who didn't want anyone to know what they were really up to, ever, you're going to give the Obama team a hard time because they couldn't get their website updated quickly enough ON THE FIRST FREAKING DAY?

Can we all chill out and wait like, a week, before we decide whether we're satisfied with the Obama administration or not?