I'm not sure I buy that women have the legal right to force medical clinics to participate in unethical fertility treatments. That's not HER choice regarding her own behavior, it's something she's asking someone else to do.

Like a lot of the other posters, I've seen first-hand what happens to early preemies. I won't pretend that I think these women have made an ethically sound decision. I wish their children well, but I think the mothers are insane.

Reading the news does not require journalism experience. It simply requires that the person who does it be able to read. I didn't see any suggestion that the woman would be required to go out and find the news, just read it.

Yeah, the stunt is pretty gross, but it's gross not just because it objectifies women and implies that pretty women are dumb, but also because it highlights the ridiculous egos of news show talking heads.

AKA Smith, I agree that legislation is not the best approach for dealing with poor reproductive choices.

What I would like to see is the medical profession policing itself - which it has done for quite some time. Not law, simply guidelines and ethical standards enforced by the AMA (and whoever else handles fertility clinics), not the legislators.

This is a touchy subject, obviously, because really evil bad people are hanging around listening waiting to pounce if we leave the door open a crack. "But if you outlaw women doing things to harm their unborn children, such as trying to carry 6 babies and taking crack during pregnancy, doesn't that mean you can also jail women for not consuming the right foods during pregnancy, not working out enough, working out too much?" Well, to reasonable people, this is a ridiculous argument, but it's important to remember we aren't dealing with reasonable people. The extreme right REALLY DOES WANT TO HURT WOMEN. It really, really doesn't care about unborn babies, except as an excuse to put limits on women's freedom. Therefore the majority of people who are in fact reasonable need to be careful about what they say, and especially what they write into law.

Like Marxism, polyamory is nice in theory - it seems as if it should work. However, I'd be more willing to accept it if I'd ever seen it work. Even the people interviewed in the article couldn't make it work - there was constant drama, people getting mad and leaving, people coming back.

The problem with love is that humans have an infinite amount of love - but not an infinite amount of time. Time spent with one person is not time spent with another. At some point you have to say, "No, I'm too busy with someone else to be with you," to someone, and that someone, no matter how good-natured they may pretend to be, feels hurt or left out or just plain pissed.

Okay, so there are these polyamorists who aren't just making up clever excuses not to grow up and behave themselves - they're completely unlike all the polyamorists I've ever met, and in fact completely unlike all PEOPLE I've ever met, in that they are immune to jealousy and self-justification. Okay, I'll buy that.

I said this before, but I don't think I was very clear about it. Someone needs to stand up for double-entendres. They are DOUBLE entendres as opposed to single-meaning obscenities exactly because they allow naughty thoughts to be expressed in such a way that children can't understand the naughty meaning and puritans can't reasonably take offense.

The letter writer is obviously of the same ilk as the people who tried to ban the Chuck Berry song "My Ding-a-ling."

The local crab shack sells t-shirts with the motto "I've got crabs." No one is offended by them.

It would seem this is a casual office, since t-shirts with slogans are allowed in the first place. Some offices are casual. My boss, who has many more millions of dollars than most people, was wearing a teenage mutant ninja t-shirt when he picked me up from the airport for a job interview. In such an atmosphere, wearing a "Kitty not happy" t-shirt is not unprofessional. What's unprofessional in such a setting is pretending work grade school and caring about what other people's t-shirts say.

It's not unusual for movies to preserve the secrecy of the ending by shooting multiple endings, so cast members can't leak the ending.

Never having worked as a therapist, I'm a little confused, because the LW seems to be in trouble because she's already violated the ethics requirements of her profession - what I understood them to be, anyway.

Isn't it true that a therapist is required by law to report criminal activity, even when it was revealed in confidence in a therapeutic situation? I've been told by several different sources that this is true.

Further, isn't it unethical to work in an office with someone with whom you have a past history without telling others about it? If the new hire was the LW's nephew or her ex-boyfriend or the guy who holds her mortgage, wouldn't she be not only within her rights but obliged to say, "I don't feel it's appropriate for me to work closely with this person because of our previous relationship."

(Just noticed, I'm assuming the LW is a woman, and the letter doesn't say - for the sake of verbal clarity, I'm going to leave my letter as is.)

Wonder if Trump is going to teach these ladies that nice girls don't marry for money?

Re: the sex-dream study. I loved this!

Orgasms were described as being experienced by another dream character in 4 percent of the women's sexual dreams, but in none of the men’s dreams.