"Is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy healthy for a relationship?"

Absolutely. If you know about and are okay with the fact that he looks at porn, but don't care to be reminded of it or exposed to what he actually looks at, what's wrong with that?

Seriously, is this answer too simple and easy to accept? I've maintained very healthy and happy relationships on a "he has his porn, I have mine" basis.

As a hetero male, I sometimes looked at porn. I always found it, somehow, a frustrating experience. Finally, I figured out that the sexiest thing around was a really smart woman who liked me. And the last place in the world where I'd find her was in porn. That finished my interest in porn.

Well you know, it doesn't have to be one or the other. I wouldn't choose to keep eating hamburgers forever and never have a steak, but once having a steak I wouldn't swear off hamburgers either.

If you're going to formulate an argument against bestiality, try doing so without appealing to disgust. Disgust is not in itself a justifiable basis for outlawing something.

Consent? A red herring. Animals consent to sex with each other all of the time (and if they don't, there are a lot of animal rapists that should be locked up), and the primary reason that we outlaw sex with children is that they will be harmed physically and emotionally. Do you honestly think that a dog or a horse is going to be scarred for life because it was persuaded to fuck a human? Animals are not children.

Americans are horribly inconsistent in our ideas about how to treat animals. You can torture cows, pigs, chickens, etc. in factory farms before killing them, but you can't give sexual pleasure to a horse (and honestly, if there weren't pleasure in it, I think it's clear the animal wouldn't do it). You can kill and skin a mink and make it (and several others) into a coat, but you can't sleep with Rover when you get home.

Am I endorsing bestiality? Hell, no. I don't understand the appeal of it in the slightest, and thinking about it too much disturbs me. But I also recognize that my own disturbance provides no meaningful clues about how to act or what perspective to take. It's an unreliable emotion which causes non-moral questions to suddenly have a moral valence (treatment of homosexuals, Jews, women, and people in mixed race relationships in the past comes to mind). It is to be distrusted.

I don't need all of the answers. I need characters who are actually believably curious, rather than going through experience after experience, and watching each other do the same, without exchanging information. It happens, occasionally....like, once per season. But most of the time even when one bothers to ask, the other will refuse to answer. When Jack was locked up in the bear cage at the Others' camp, and asks the Australian airline attendent (blanking on her name) what is going on, she replies "It's complicated."

On the forums at Television Without Pity, if someone asks for an explanation of something happening on Lost, the answer is frequently a bitter "It's complicated." That non-answer sums up everything that is wrong with this show.

The Democrats will not stop the drug war which is destroying the country and causing us to have the greatest proportion of our population in prison than any country in the world, and are decided flimsy about leaving Iraq. The Republicans for the most part are enthusiastically supporting being in Iraq (don't even talk about the drug war), and even "doubling Guantanamo."

How can you honestly think about voting for anybody but Ron Paul? He represents curbing Leviathan, which no other candidate has any intention of doing-- they will just continue to throw money around, albeit in slightly different directions. The Dems will tax us more while the Repubs will simply drive us further into debt. We need to put on the brakes for a bit and take some stock, find out some ways in which America has been going disastrously wrong, and Ron Paul is just the man to do that. You don't support everything he stands for? Fine, but consider that perhaps the Democrats haven't been opposing the increasing power that Bush has been giving the presidency more than they have because they can see their guy using that power in the future. Paul has shown by his extensive congressional record that he is committed to not abusing government power in that way-- liberty is his primary concern.* I see no reason to believe that that will change if he becomes president.

*Except concerning immigration, which bothers me greatly. However even taking that into account, he still comes out far ahead of everyone else.