Not a surprise at all, given the uber beta-ness of the American male after years of government-condoned anti-male feminism.

McCain/Palin will win handily on the votes of submissive, undereducated men voting with their dicks, controlling, traditional women who see another chance to dominate their husbands and disaffected Hillary spinsters who will vote for Palin using their dried out, unused vaginas as opposed to their brains.

The genitocracy will reign supreme, and liberal feminists will seethe at the thought of a domineering, angry Republican woman winning the White House instead of a domineering, angry Democrat female. Pantsuits will flutter in the wind in defeat across the land as lesbians and dried out, menopausal pre-crones cry and wail for the feminist gynocracy's loss.

How can the sterile anti-female feminists of the American Left not hate Palin's fecund, proletarian, blue-collar energy?

Imagine the barren, 42-year-old Women's Studies PhD trying desperately to get pregnant after she divorces her oppressor patriarchal husband. Seeing the fecundity and raw, feminine prowess of the sexual, brood-enhanced Palin must be devastating.

Will you enjoy your sterile later years when your blog posts and cats help you cope with hot flashes? Not really, and the thought of Palin's large, extended family keeping her company in her old age just makes it worse.

Feminism = sterile anti-feminine misery post-hotness

Justice is served.

No man should get married anywhere in America. Enjoy your cats and hysterectomies, ladies. You made this bed, you sleep in it!

Whoop tee doo. Let the feminist mythologists and their ilk prosper and fluorish.

No sane man should marry in California.

Looking forward to the flurry of uber beta Herb and angry feminist bitch emails!

No, estrogen is at work, the same hormone that leads women to drown their children, slaughter their boyfriends, and get away with it in exchange for a slap on the wrist.

Joan has editorial control. Quit blaming the liberal men.

Joan Walsh needs to take control and act like a man instead of blaming men like a woman.

Wow. No wonder we men of America are less and less inclined to get married.

And one of these periodically insane monsters may just end up a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Terrifying.

Is "Asehpe" a Ya̧nomamö word?

He's 2. You're his dad. You're responsible for him and his behavior.

Start acting like a parent.

According to your post, we should censor any off thread comments.

Again, why not just say you are for censorship and leave it at that. That at least would be honest.

Your subjective read of the thread re "relevancy" is not the same as everyone else's.

If you don't like a comment, here's a piece of advice: ignore it.

We have freedom of speech in this country, and if you talk to a Republican or a feminist these days, you realize the First Amendment is under threat from both extremes of the political spectrum.

If you are concerned about politeness, then perhaps you found a stark article about a young woman's casual promiscuity offensive.

Or is politeness a standard only applied to men, and not women? That certainly seems to be the case where the Vagina Monologues feminists are concerned.

I don't agree with your thesis of "all expression is equal, but some is more equal than others".

Censorship is censorship, and feminist censorship seems the most pervasive and insidious as the above article on the UK situation indicates.

Thank God for our Constitution. That is what separates us from our English former masters.

You're right. We shouldn't censor anything on this blog. Thanks for supporting my position re: no need for censorship.

Equating sex-positive, earthy heterosexual expression with a woman being "brutalized" is completely wrong and distorted.

Again, your anti-hetero stance is wrong, hurtful and damaging. Keep your book-burning impulses to yourself.

The exuberant references to Ms. Clark-Flory's sexuality you seek to censor are part of a whole spectrum of sexual behavior that you should embrace, and not suppress.

Censorship is a sad product of small minds. Hopefully you will open your mind and your heart to stronger, earthier expressions such as those you refer to in your post, and embrace them instead of seeking to stamp out free expression.

hahahahahahaha!

There are several places on the planet where polygamy is legal, too. Why don't we enact legislation to make it legal in the U.S.? As long as everyone is a consenting adult, what does it matter?

There are several contractual situations which are, by law, between two parties and the government. If the State decrees it so, then, by law, it is involved in a contract.

The larger question is why is the government is involved in marriage. If marriage were privatised, then everyone would be free to marry whomever they wanted, within a context of adult consent. Polygamous marriages and gay marriages, for instance, would then be legal.

There are several contractual situations which are, by law, between two parties and the government. If the State decrees it so, then, by law, it is involved in a contract.

The larger question is why is the government is involved in marriage. If marriage were privatised, then everyone would be free to marry whomever they wanted, within a context of adult consent. Polygamous marriages and gay marriages, for instance, would then be legal.

You mean like a man-hating, sexist feminist posting in response to an egalitarian humanist on Broadsheet?

I look forward to a man posting a video about a study on female sexuality in a website about men's issues.

Marriages are not standard business contracts. They are THREE way contracts between two people of the opposite sex and the State, that's why a marriage license is required for a marriage to be recognized legally. The state in which you are married governs certain terms and conditions of one's marriage and the state in which one divorces imposes certain terms and conditions on one's divorce, as well.

No such requirement exists for business contracts between two individual private parties.