both in the public's esteem and in your own. You might not want to think about that, but you're going to have to face it eventually. Your contempt for women who identify themselves primarily as mothers is a little alarming, and suggests that you fear it deeply - which, to be honest, is perfectly understandable. But having a child changes your entire existence, and if you don't accept that at some level before your baby is born, I'm afraid you are setting yourself up for a tough transition. I wish you luck and happiness and a husband who identifies himself primarily as a father for a couple years.

I object to the idea that rape is never about sex. For example, coercion by familiar men (the most common form, a.k.a. "date rape") is very often about wanting sex really badly and seeing that you can get it by force or manipulation. As a child, I also witnessed a rape that fell into this category. And the scars that remain for the rape victim are often primarily sexual. The blanket assertion that "rape is not about sex" has a great deal of accuracy in a certain context, but it does not make sense in all cases.

Perhaps the real problem is our country's puritanical attempt to segregate sex and sexuality as separable components, rather than being able to recognize that sex and sexuality are just one aspect of personhood. If we had a less dualistic view of what it means to be human, we would not be having this conversation about whether rape - an act of SEXUAL violence - is about sex or not.

p.s. Tina, it is probably a dumb idea to bother trying to engage you in a rational conversation, but if you are posting in good faith and you want people to respect what you say, try speaking respectfully. I frequently disagree with some of my favorite people on Salon, but none of them are trolls.

My heart's desire just left the race, so I'm afraid that's not possible.

And, in case you didn't read my earlier posts, you don't need to convince me not to vote for Nader. I am only defending Nader supporters from 2000 against the claim that the blood of 9/11 and Iraq are on their hands because they didn't vote for Gore. And making the already oft-made point that if Democrats want progressive votes, they should try to be more progressive. They don't get votes, in many cases, not because of what they believe in but because of the fact that they refuse to actually stand up for it. They should not be surprised when some of the votes they do not get are the votes of progressives staging a boycott.

Don't fret about tina. He or she is just Broadsheet's version of Thrasher. Perhaps the same person; who knows. I highly recommend checking the mental "ignore" box.

I guess the point is that rape is an attempt at domination rather than a simple need for gratification. It is not possible to take the two apart, but when that line "not about sex" started being bandied about, it was in response to this idea that men rape because Men Have Needs and women were refusing to fulfill them, so the men could no longer help themselves. Actually, the fact is that Rapists Have Needs, and their primary need is a specifically sexual form of domination.

When I think about Abu Graib (which I do as seldom as I possibly can), this greater emphasis on the domination/humiliation than on the sex itself starts to make more sense to me. But it still doesn't make sense to take the sex part out altogether. It's just that people who make this argument are trying to distinguish the desire to rape from standard, normal sexual arousal. They are not on a continuum; they are two different things. If you think the desire to rape is really just an extreme form of normal sexual arousal, then you are pathologizing male sexuality. Still, I agree that it sounds pretty silly to say, out of the context of trying to distinguish rape from normal sexuality, that rape is not about sex. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that rape is not primarily about sexual arousal.

Obviously, I am not a Ron Paul fan. I think poverty and climate change are just as important as getting out of Iraq (the only issue I agree with him on). But the media blackout is frightening indeed. Frightening, sickening, irresponsible. There aren't enough adjectives to describe it.

I wish there were more ways to demand a change. I think voter turnout in this truly contested primary so far is an indication that people are waking up. I really hope so. But I'm afraid humans are usually too dumb to do anything to avert crises. We have a way of closing the barn door only after all the horses have left. Maybe we deserve extinction. (But if I truly did believe that, I would vote for Ron Paul to help us get there.)

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I wouldn't vote for someone to head an organization with whose existence he fundamentally disagrees. It would be like electing Daniel Dennett Pope.

but this was a lovely piece. Thanks.

If McCain gets the R nomination, a fourth candidate will probably emerge from Stage Right. That might actually be kind of nice, all those choices - almost like a democracy. But not quite.