True, I have not been to Turkey or Lebanon, but it doesn't sound like you have been to Malaysia.

"Tolerating the minorities," isn't the phrase that I would use to describe the social setting in Malaysia. I would call it; multi-ethnic groups living in harmony since the nation of Malaysia was formed in the 1960s. Malaysia is also the only nation in which a western power, Britain, defeated an insurgency (though it took them 10 years to do it).

The multi-ethnic groups of Turkey and Lebanon have never lived in harmony, and both nations have long running active insurgencies. I have only seen Turkey and Lebanon in pictures, but I know both countries are both very beautiful, but neither can really claim to be very safe, where as Malaysia is a safe place to travel everywhere in the country, and I have never met a tourist (that stayed away from drugs) that had a bad time in Malaysia.

I would say Malaysia in on par with South Korea, or at a level equal to most Eastern European nations

Score one for affordable health care, but unfortunately we suffered a defeat when Dubya vetoed a bill that would have used a tax increase on cigarettes to pay for health care for children of families that make less than $80,000 a year. At best you can say the Conservatives are holding their warped values over America's health concerns, at worse you can say the Conservatives despise non-profit efforts to make poor and middle class Americans healthier.

To Robert Franklin; the age of consent in Maryland is 16, so it would not be considered statutory rape.

To anonymous 02:37 PM; you wrote, "According to the California Supreme Court -- It's Rape!" Source that please, because I can't find such a precedent in California law anywhere.

My opinion on the Maryland is case, as Broadsheet had reported it, is that it would not be rape based solely on a complaint of 5 to 10 seconds, but there may be other pieces of evidence, such as his skin under her nails or his semen inside of her, that would certainly cause me to give the 16 year old a guilty vote if I was on the jury. With only the 5 to 10 second complaint, I would give the 16 year old the benefit of doubt, and assume that he didn't at first understand, misinterpreted her, or she simply spoke too softly. This case could go either way depending upon the testimony and evidence.

Upon reading the baltimoresun.com article of the 2006 conviction being overturned, I came across this line in the appeals courts decision; "if she consents prior to penetration and withdraws the consent following penetration, there is no rape."

I have severe issue with that line, because it basically says a man (or woman) can be as abusive as he (or she) wants once he (or she) has gotten inside of a woman (or man) after that woman (or man) has given consent.

In my opinion if the woman (or man) says "stop", or gives some other expression that consent is no longer given, then the man (or women) penetrating must immediately back off. I can understand 5 or 10 seconds as possible miscommunication, but he (or she) must come out (no pun intended) if consent has been withdrawn at any time during the intercourse. Most of the time I am sure a woman would say stop in the middle of intercourse to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

"But it ultimately really IS about women criminalizing the natural MALE sexual response, and further isolating the two sexes from understanding each other and our needs."

I have a hard time believing any woman would want to have anything to do with your sexual needs, let alone try to understand them.

No Brightstar65 the issue is about consent, and whether a woman (or man) can retract consent during intercourse. 5 to 10 seconds isn't even the issue, the issue is; why didn't he stop when she told him to? I am willing to accept miscommunication as an explanation, but only if she didn't scream at him, scratch him, physically fight him in some other way, wasn't subdued, and wasn't drunk, and only if he didn't blow his load inside of her after she told him to stop.

"Beauty is only skin deep" and "Your face is your fortune."

I don't see those ideals as a contradictions. When my asked by my then girlfriend now wife, what did I consider beautiful (she was hoping I would list celebrity names), I answered: When a man is scoping out the chicks at a club, he doesn't go for the chick with the biggest breasts, tightest ass, or best looking legs, they go for the woman's who's face says "I am all that," regardless of how she looks. It wasn't the answer she wanted to hear, but then I said; at the club last night your face was the one that said to me, "I'm all that."

The sexiest people in the world, are the people who project the most confidence and certainty in their demeanor. I often ask men whether they would prefer a frigid super model or a fun, below average looking, woman/girl, and they always say "the super model," but when I see their long term girlfriends/wife, they obviously chose the later.

Personally I look like a balding garden gnome (without the facial hair), but my personality, sense of humor, and confidence has carried me far.

Your facial expressions and your emotional projects are always going to be what people will hold as higher importance, and I think is what your mother was trying to say when she said; "Your face is your fortune."

A side note: The most beautiful woman I ever met was a woman who had been badly burned as a child, but despite her facial scars, she still commanded a room whenever she walked into one.