I think it's important to point out, as a longtime reader of both Broadsheet and Olivia Judson's blog (when it's not "taking the week off"), that this post is well-meaning, but ultimately in poor taste.

Olivia's bog is a science blog, not a political blog. I understand that at institutions like Salon, at times like this, politics invades everything. But let's not slime a great science writer for using the "science" of voting as a narrative tool for an otherwise interesting and informative essay.

Seriously, it's the kind of misreading I'd expect from the RNC, not a thought out place like Salon. Certainly not on Broadsheet.

This stuff is not as hard as everyone seems to want to make it.

I understand why everyone wants to fall back on cultural standards and societal cues to know how to act; I just don't think it's necessary. Like a growing number of 20-something males, I've learned that if you approach people with respect, these things are easy enough to sort out between consenting adults.

I think what I'm trying to say is: there never was an obligation for feminism to provide a dating guidebook. Nor should there be an expectation. Are we trying to say, "Sure, we [powers that be] will accept feminism, equal rights and all that includes, but only on the condition that you're clear about what you want so that we can [with our shriveled cave-man, really-just-tools-for-seed-sowing minds] can understand the new rules." I feel like this sort of article reenforces that notion.

Maybe other people my age feel the burden and baggage of tradition and traditional roles more than I do. But I can tell you that when you approach people with honest respect and conduct yourself continually with such respect you:

a) Are able to date more or less as often as you want with overwhelmingly—though luckily the future of indie-rock, not exclusively—positive results.

b) Find that each relationship you're in is a little bit different from the last in meaningful, often educational ways.

and c) Learn that traditional gender roles are good for a whole lot less than you thought they were.

And the best part is, it does not not matter whether you become "a husband, a co-parent, a sperm donor, a relationship, a threesome, or a temporary place to live," it's no body's business but your own.

I'm really not 100% sure what the point of this law is, or what end-result it's trying to achieve. Is it trying to make john's demand more information about the business dealings of sex workers before agreeing to pay for sex? Are they trying to put pimps out of business?

Let's be real: violence against sex workers is a serious problem that doesn't get the attention it deserves. There's plenty of real life evidence that no manner of law will stop prostitution, as long as there are people willing to pay and provide, there will always be a sex industry. With that fact in mind, any prostitution law that doesn't take into account the safety or well-being of sex workers is poor policy.

A better way, it can't be stressed enough, to deal with dangerous johns (which do exists) and controlling pimps and dealers (who also do exists, though are in no way as common as dangerous johns) is to open up a dialog with sex workers.

This is happening: in Toronto, you can stroll along Church St, between Carlton and Gerrard and see poster for a local police anonymous tip line for what they call "bad dates." Essentially, it's a number that sex workers can call to leave a description of a problem, a license plate number or any other information they may have without having to appear in person. It's a line designed specifically for sex workers with an eye towards protecting them.

Of course, that's just a start, but I think it's a good one. If we're going to step-up the criminalization of john's, we might as well go after the ones who deserve to go to jail.

Let no one say that Glenn Greenwald wasn't willing to acknowledge progress, or at least good intentions, when he saw it.

I particularly like the appeal to stay vigilant. It the early days of a presidency (or, more relatable, any new job) it's easy to be idealistic. Without constant intellectual support and open discussion about the government's commitment to those ideals, it'll be easy to slide back to where things were. If I learned one thing from the past 8 years it's that there are a lot of people with a lot of money who don't considered the bill of rights to be all that important.

Obama looks to be off to a good start, but he's still got to work with a Democratic congress with a real (sincerely shocking) weakness for right-wing fear-mongering.

Now, will someone please send Omar Kadhr back to Canada?

I mean it! This one is out-of-the-park.