I watched this show when it was first on. So did some of my friends. I was in junior high and high school. We all knew the show sucked -- it kept on promising sex stuff it never delivered -- but we watched it anyway. Why? . . . Because it was a window into a world of more tolerant attitudes, access to birth control, unmarried and happy sexual relationships . . . a place where liberals existed. Liberals did NOT exist where I was growing up -- not among our parents, not among the teachers, and really not among too many of our friends either.

There was no other show on TV where you could see such subject matter, except occasional episodes of stern-warning-type shows like Room 222 or Mod Squad. "Love, American Style" was attractive because it was lighthearted. People could have sex without the world going to hell. A contrary and welcome message.

And "Love and the Single Couple" made me cry, for reasons I can't remember.

But they're absolutely right about the Horton story being read as pro-life allegory. I've thought of it as such for a long time now.

"A person's a person, no matter how small."

If you take that seriously, you are a pro-lifer. A pro-choicer could not even let the words escape her/his lips. Unless you want to twist yourself into a philosophical pretzel.

A very small person, unseen, who cannot be heard.

It's not too early to explain abortion to a child, unless you want to wait until he/she is old enough to understand the mental contortions you've constructed to justify your pro-choice stance.

"It's not a person. It's a fetus."

How complacent. How convenient.

. . . may give off a message in his story that is unintended. When Seuss wrote "Horton" in 1954, the history of feminism was that it was a pro-life movement. It was only in the 1960's and 1970's that feminism turned to pro-choice.

Seuss might well have changed his mind 30 years later, or he might have not intended a pro-life message at all. Most likely the latter -- abortion was not a hot issue in 1954. But the application of the phrase, "A person's a person, no matter how small", to the pro-life viewpoint is direct.

What nazdagg said.

Many African-Americans would agree with the sentiments that Glenn Greenwald points to as racist. As did the mostly black crowd that cheered Chris Rock on.

The first step in having a conversation is to be honest, and let others be honest too. Let a white person say what Chris Rock said. The sense of relief will be tremendous.

It's an agenda.

A discipline is subject matter. And within that subject matter all viewpoints exist. Economics, example, includes laissez-faire, Friedmanism, Marxism. Every viewpoint about wealth and money can be countered by an opposing viewpoint.

When was the last time you heard of a pro-life Women's Studies course? Or a Women's Studies professor holding that women are NOT suitable for positions of leadership?

There is nothing studied in Women's Studies that can't be studied within the existing fields of psychology, history, economics, anthropology, etc. Splitting off existing WS courses to those fields would expose the professors to a much more diverse student body and students who actually disagree with them, and would expose their scholarship to true critical peer review. This would only improve the quality of their teaching and of their scholarship.

This thought resounds in the mind of the woman who has had an abortion, whether someone told it to her or not, whether she was exposed to a prolife demonstrator or not, and no matter how much she tries to deny it afterwards, either to others or to herself, in an attempt to make the pain go away.

And to those women who say "I, a woman, did not have that thought" -- I say -- you're lying.

. . . about respect for honest pro-lifers.

A comment like that from a pro-choice person is rare and much needed.

All the excuses he has for why he forgot to bring a condom will be brought to a screeching halt when SHE pulls one out and puts it on him.

Nice try, but . . .

With a male condom he feels no friction at all. With a female condom SHE feels no friction at all. That is why you don't see female condoms selling. It's not a matter of a piddling differential in price.

There are no birth control methods that interfere as much with a woman's pleasure as a conventional condom does with a man's. Think of it, ladies: you have have to tie this tourniquet-like thing around the base of your clitoris, you feel hardly any sensation, then as soon as your climax is over you have to interrupt everything, separate, take the thing off, and carefully clean yourself in the bathroom, before returning to bed. And then, as you get excited again, you have to put on another tourniquet.

Against men who dare mention that they don't like condoms. This is why men don't like to bring the subject up, and end up being passive-aggressive about it.

How do YOU know what a man feels?