I think it's unlikely that the colonel bumped the junior guys because of his rank. People going on leave have a lower priority for transit than those traveling for official business - I'm betting that the colonel was traveling for business purposes, and that's what the bumping was all about.

I've sort of been in this situation as one of the men. I was in the Navy when I was the LW's age, and I and my buddies used to hang around one of the watering holes near the base. We got to know some of the other regulars there, and among them was a girl our age who had casually dated a couple of the guys in my outfit. So one night, half a dozen or so of us were there, and she was there with one of her friends. We had all had a couple, and for some reason we decided to go back to someone's house and drink some more. She and the friend come along.

We get to this guy's house and it's immediately clear that the friend is not comfortable with the situation. She's standing off to the side, arms folded, looking at her watch, etc. I was not too surprised to see that she had left after an hour or so. By this point everyone was fairly drunk but not to the point of staggering or slurring their speech. Even at that age, I was not much of a party animal, and I was getting ready to go when I saw the girl with an arm around two of the guys, and they were taking turns kissing. I didn't think too much of it at that moment, but as I was headed home, I thought, hmmm.

The next day, I found out that, yes, she had done the deed with both of them. A few days later, I went out to lunch and ran into the girl and we sat down together. I was looking for a way to subtly suggest that maybe getting drunk with a bunch of Navy guys wasn't the smartest thing to do, and said something to the effect of "hey, how come your friend ditched you the other night". Wrong thing to say. Her comments were a lot like some of the folks in this thread - words to the effect that she was a grown woman and could make her own decisions about who she was going to have sex with. She made the same point some folks further up the thread made - if she was a man and had hooked up with two good-looking women, the response would have been high-fives all around. Evidently, she had already had this conversation with several of her friends and was not interested in hearing it again from me.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that I don't think it's healthy to assume that men are insatiably interested in sex, and women are only interested in fending off sex. Sometimes, everyone just wants to have a good time. The difference in this story and "Jan's" is that this girl wasn't drinking so much that she literally didn't know where she was, and drunk-dialing her friends to come and find her. That, in my opinion, is where the real problem lies.

Geez, where to begin with this article? Here are a couple examples of foolishness:

1) Yes, I understand that we like to write headlines to be provocative, so people are more likely to read the article. But, please. The fact that Hillary would be winning if the rules were different does not, obviously, mean that she SHOULD be winning. Who SHOULD be winning is a question that's in the domain of pure opinion.

2) The fact that Hillary beat Obama in several big states, does not, obviously, mean that Obama can't beat McCain in those states. It's all but inconceivable that places like California and New York will end up in McCain's column, no matter who the Democrats nominate.

3) It's ludicrous to suggest that the results for Michigan and Florida be counted as is. Obama did not appear on the ballot in Michigan, and your suggestion that a nation-wide ad buy that happened to also play in Florida is the same thing as campaigning in Florida is ridiculous.

I'm not opposed to printing articles that are strongly slanted toward one candidate... but Salon and the author should expect to hear about it.

I'm totally down with anger at "scientists" who make sweeping generalizations about gender roles. There's tons of that crap going on with so-called "evolutionary" explanations of why men are hunters, while women are gatherers, etc. But I'm really baffled at your anger at this particular study. These seem to be statements of fact: high testosterone is correlated with a) having more boys, and b) having certain personality traits. The conclusion that you can estimate the likelihood of a certain woman having a boy based on her personality traits seems kind of straightforward, at least if the researcher's data is good. What exactly is the problem?