... any situation wher one partner strikes the other one. The situation described here is certainly an emotionally charged one, but to start physically attacking someone when no physical attack has been made against you MUST be considered criminal. As discussed, if the make had come in on his wife with two men and started beating on her with a guitar, there would be NO question he had committed a criminal act, and NO ONE would be asking for leniency.

There is NEVER an excuse to physically attack another person who hasn't physically attacked them. If its never acceptable for a man to hit a woman, why in the world are we even debating whether its ever acceptable for a woman to hit a man? If one spouse hits the other, domestic abuse is occuring ... there is no need for anything more complex than that.

One of the main problems in ANY discussion of "teen pregnancy" is how that term is defined. "Teen" can be just as easily used to describe a 13 year old unmarried girl in middle school, as it can to a 19 year old married woman in college.

So if there is an increase in teen pregnancy, does that mean that there is a rash of single mothers in middle school? Well, not necessarily of course. We aren't given any details on where the increases came from, in what demographic. Would an increase in married 19 year old women getting pregnant be a problem? It would certainly be registered as an increase in "teen pregnancy" but is that indicative of a serious problem that needs to be addressed?

Before I decide if this is a serious problem or not, I need to know what demographics the increase came from. If we ARE seeing an increase in 13 year old unwed middle schoolers having babies, thats a serious issue ... but nothing in this report indicates thats the case.

Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton offered something of an apology almost immediately, telling reporters aboard Air Force One, "The President made an offhand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics.

Yes, it was an offhand remark, but to argue that it "was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics" is patently false. The whole POINT of the joke he was trying to make is that his bowling is so bad, its worse like someone in the Special Olympics. The joke DEPENDS on the fact that he is "disparaging" the Special Olympics. A far better statement about this would have acknowledged that Obama realized the joke depended on that disparaging depiction, and that it was a stupid thing to say, with no justification.

To say that it was never intended to disparage the Special Olympics is false at best, and outright lying at worst. The joke depended on disparaging the Special Olympics. Obama, and the Press Secretary should acknowledge that.

There is a fallacy in AIDS prevention that is maddening for me. The fallacy is that promiscuity increases your odds of contracting the virus, and that is frankly not true without some serious qualifications.

There is NO RISK of getting AIDS if I have sex with an uninfected person. The risk isn't small, or minimal ... it is ZERO if the person I am having sex with isn't infected. No matter how many uninfected people I have sex with concurrently ... one, two, ten, or a thousand ... as long as they are uninfected, my odds of getting AIDS are still ZERO.

The issue in AIDS transmission isn't in having sex with more than one partner. The issue is having sex with even ONE partner that you don't know is clean and uninfected. Having sex, even with multiple partners, is not increasing your risk in ANY way, if you ensure all those partners are clean when you have sex with them.

The danger with AIDS, and with all STD's isn't in having sex with multiple partners. The danger is having sex with strangers, or with people you can't trust. I am polyamorous, and while I use condoms, I also never have sex with someone whom I don't know, and whom I haven't discussed STD's and testing with already. By the time I am in bed with them, I know there is NO risk, because we've already talked about our health status in an honest way.

It seriously annoys me to hear people say that multiple partners increases your risk. That is patently NOT true, unless those multiple partners are also strangers whose sexual history and health you don't know. Having sex with any number of healthy, uninfected people is perfectly and completely safe ... the danger doesn't come from the number of people you sleep with, but rather from whether you know them before you hop into bed with them.

We should report this accurately. There is never a danger from having sex with dozens, or even hundreds of uninfected people with whom you've discussed the issue of sexual health, but there is GRAVE danger in having sex with even one stranger whose health you know nothing about.

This stuff is actually REALLY good in this form ... bordering on sublime. It clarifies the message, and Seely and Peyer have nailed the rhythm perfectly.

Looking forward to part 3 :)