I have to assume that the "absolute separation" of "structure and function of the human alimentary and reproductive systems" applies to oral sex too, right? The mouth was designed for speaking and eating, not all this naughty stuff.

Someone please tell the heterosexuals....

There are probably more heterosexuals, in absolute numbers, who have anal sex than there are gay men. (Admittedly, a random gay man is more likely to have anal sex than a random heterosexual man, but if you want to get the message out, go where the numbers are.) It's worth noting, too - since it's almost never mentioned - that not all gay men have anal sex, or have it every time they have sex. All in all, I think that a lot of anti-gay essayists spend a lot more time thinking about anal sex, in all its many and varied combinations, then many gay men I know. Most gay men have day jobs.

There's nothing wrong with a doctor wanting to give people accurate medical advice about how to minimize the risks of various sexual practices. But when it's combined with "escape from homosexuality" ministries and "male-plug/female-plug" vocabularies, then you can be pretty sure that you're dealing with a zealous anti-gay bigot using medicine - along with religion and "protection of the family" - as a light cover over his real opinions.

And anybody who doesn't think his narrow views spill over into restrictive attitudes towards female sexuality hasn't paid attention to the undeniable link between homophobia and sexism.

He is a perfectly appalling, and perfectly predictable, choice for surgeon general.

> What's the difference between gov't saying that drinks

> need condoms and gov't saying you should call to

> report fathers holding their daughters hands?

What's the difference? Well, in one case the lives and reputations of innocent fathers are destroyed.

In the other case people who wish to spike drinks are temporarily inconvenienced. No innocent people are harmed.

You would think that this would make a difference to you, *if* you were actually concerned with innocent people being harmed. If, instead, you are actually concerned that "feminists" aren't having their opinions slapped down fast enough, please mention this specifically in your post, so people will know what you're talking about. Also, try to quote actual feminists behind the policy you're complaining about, and demonstrate that they're feminists. That might make your point.

You might also take the time out to notice that the woman who wrote the original article - presumably a feminist - did *not* support the drink-condom plan. This might lead you to question your monlithic view about what all those crazy feminists are doing to society (that is, men). Or it might not.

Reading anonymous:

Tracy Clark-Flory,

You seem to make an adequate criticism of their hypothesis, but in jumping to the conclusion that yours is right and theirs is wrong, you are very much non-scientific.

Critique their research or their conclusion, but at least they went out and gathered the data.

What have you done apart from acting smug and assuming it is nurture?

Let's be reality based.

one would conclude that TCF actually insisted - "smugly" - that the preference was based on nurture. But, rereading her article, I found she said no such thing.

Bad reading comprehension, anonymous? Reality-overwhelming assumptions about "feminists"? Or just a non sequiter?

As for your "dare": you forgot to say "double-dare with sugar on top." What are you, 12?

Feminists are inclusive and non-judgmental. Women promote peace and do not start wars. Women do not have the mean ambition that men do, and do not step on each other or fight.

Women are sweetness and light. Women are victims. Women do not engage in violence. Women do not accuse other people falsely.

Women would save the environment if they were in control.

Women would cure cancer, stop hunger, and color coordinate the world.

Because they have Magical Vaginal Peace Rays.

So take that back about Germaine Greer.

What strange, perverse pleasure do you get from creating a strawman (well, strawperson) feminist - attributing comments and beliefs that are not shared by the vast majority of feminists, including Germaine Greer - then making fun of your fantasy feminist?

You're living in an odd little world of your own, where you can spout your sarcasm regardless of what people in the real world are actually saying, but I have to assume it makes you feel good.

"begged a key question" -- That's not begging the question, except for illiterates such as Broadstreet

Broadstreet Feminism: Evo Psych is wrong except when flattering to wimmen.

Broadstreet Feminism: The words are oppressing us!

Anonymous -

The person who wrote that the study "begged the question" was not Catherine Price, or anyone at Broadstreet, or at Salon in general. It was Roger Highfield, science editor of the Telegraph, whose article the Broadsheet post was commenting on. Nor did HIS phrase suggest in any way that Evo Psych was wrong or right, or that women were oppressed by the "words" or his article or of the study. He was just rasing a question that the study's hypothesis brought to mind (his mind).

In other words, as you moved from the "begging the question" quote to your denunciation of Broadsheet, every step of your journey was based on a falsehood or misreading.

You seem to be living in a fantasy of your own making, in which you can draw (sarcastic, negative, mean-spirited) conclusions from certain words, utterly disregarding both who wrote those words and what those words mean. Is it fun there?