And she deserves credit for slouching forward so that the belly roll shows. If she stood up straight, she'd have a slight pooch, but nothing to be ashamed about on the beach.

From the article:

Ernest Greene on the problems of using condoms in porn:

"over two hours of intercourse in various positions with constant stops and starts during which male performer’s erections rise and fall"

Sounds like good, prolonged sex to me, not just porn.

Condoms are best suited for guys who thrust in the same position and in the same manner, for a short time, and then ejaculate. In short, bad lovers.

The article is steeped in the stereotype of liberals as affluent latte sippers.

The comments too.

In truth, unionized workers still vote Democratic by a large margin. So do people with lower incomes.

I stopped reading him almost right away because he makes fun of his readers. Often he condemns his reader's hangups, then castigates their attempts to transcend them. I don't care if you want to be kinky, unconventional, blunt -- a sex column that punishes frustrated people calling for help is not a welcome addition to the universe.

Funny, ha ha. Until he aims his guns at YOU.

1. The rap on liberals as being spineless is unfair. They confront obstacles conservatives never have to face. It's always easier to take the side of the rich and powerful. That way you get more things "done"; in fact, you don't have to do anything at all. Just sit back and let them beat up on the weak, which is what they would do in the absence of laws or government. But if you side *against* the rich and powerful, it will be a constant struggle to get what you want done.

2. Democrats have to fight not only Republicans but a compliant media owned and controlled by conservatives.

3. Democrats just don't have the votes in Congress to pass a liberal agenda. Remember -- there are less than 50 *liberal* Democrats.

Let's stick with Obama and see what he can get done. Any rollback at all on the horrors of the Bush years, I count as a success.

1. Instead of lying back, being put under, and having a doctor extract the baby (sorry, fetus) (sorry, embryo), the woman does it herself. She pops a pill, inserts something, and then poops the baby-fetus-embryo into the toilet and flushes it. Sounds like a heavier deal to me. Don't look down!

2. According to the Times article, it fails 1 time out of every 50. If so, you'd better get to an abortion clinic a.s.a.p. -- IF there's even one in your state.

Don't change the subject.

To say Chappaquiddick was an "accident" (Amanda Marcotte) is ridiculous. We don't know how Ms. Kopechne died but he quite deliberately (not accidentally) walked away from her and didn't report it -- and you can't excuse us for drawing the obvious inference.

Let's be objective. Kennedy had an admirable record of public service, and I agreed with him on just about everything, but to have him praised by feminists with a straight face as "a true champion of women's health and rights" just makes me hurl.

There's much to ponder from Amy's post, some wrong premises I think, but she deserves credit for pointing out that a man has less say in, and less control over, contraception, while having absolutely *no* say in what happens when the contraception fails.

. . . a lifetime of emotional and financial responsibility if the woman happens to decide to keep the baby -- no matter *what* he thinks.

Though the PSA is jokey and cute and I don't really mind it. I see who it's aimed at.

Many of us who grew up in conservative homes never were allowed to discuss or ask about these things and still don't know how to talk about it, let alone with our kids.

And you don't really have to be explicit -- or at least not overly so (which I think is what the PSA's talking about). For such parents that might be too much to ask. I grew up O.K. without being told *anything* (and my wife and I talk about sex so casually that we regularly gross our kids out). Give them the basics and they can find out the details on their own.

A more interesting question is:

What if a white performer today put on blackface and did a dead-on impersonation of a gangster rapper? Would that be any more demeaning than the rapper is himself?

"An even more interesting question is:

What if a white performer today put on blackface to impersonate the first Black President of the United States on a popular Saturday Night comedy program? Oh, wait...."

If while impersonating the President he used the n-word, talked coarsely about ho's, and threatened to shoot his brother rappers, there would be no question that it would be offensive. But since that hasn't happened, or even close, your question is not very interesting.

Q: "What does GAY stand for?"

A: "Got AIDS Yet?"

I laughed when a friend told me this joke in 1982. I wouldn't laugh at it today. Yet then, as now, I was not a homophobe, nor unsympathetic to people with AIDS.

Possibly the difference is the scope of the epidemic was not known then, or how awful the disease. My point is, times change, and we shouldn't too harshly judge what people did and felt in the past, just as I don't judge my 1982 self unfavorably.

. . . than those middle-aged joking conservatives who, probably as you read this, are in their bathrooms masturbating to that clip.

. . . but this is about the worst possible direction to take.

. . . because no matter what they say, secretly girls LIKE being tied up and abused like that . . .

Facts are for men. Inability to make choices (as to whether something is true or not) is what women do.

"consider the nail hit on the head"!