I was under the impression that stopping one egg a month was easier than stopping a million sperm (or whatever) per orgasm. I've been led to believe for the longest time that men and scientists wanted male birth control, but that it was a more difficult problem just because of the afore mentioned numbers. If it's true that it's only politics and not science preventing male birth control, I say let's stop waiting.

"...people have a tough time getting beyond the dissonant image of a buxom bombshell with a sweetly dimpled smile climbing into a fighting cage, going for blood and loving it."

They do? Which people?

If a male mixed marital artist who was equally good looking became a sex symbol, would that be dissonant too?

Definitely agree with your final assessment: no problem here.

"...for whatever kind of poisoning infected his brain."

Rush's poisoned brain is in his head, and his head is up his ass. Hence, anal poisoning. That's GOT to be it.

After reading a few blogs that fawned over the final episode, it's nice to read a review that's much more in line with my disappointment with the finale.

I was hoping that the tying up of loose ends would provide BSG with a final opportunity to say something compelling about the human condition (maybe even like the endings of better Twilight Zone episodes, where the ending answers technical questions at the same time it asks human/philosophical questions).

Instead what we got was a refusal/inability to explain a lot of the show's key, interesting mysteries (Starbuck just disappearing is not interesting in the least in an open-ended sort of way --- it's a cop-out), and uninteresting or amateurish resolutions to the mysteries that were solved.

In a show that started off with so many atheistic characters on the one hand, and characters of faith on the other hand, who nonetheless used religion to their own ends... to have such a show end on a nubulous/Deus ex machina/"God did it" note was really, disappointingly, lame.

Just wanted to say thanks for bringing this book to the attention of Salon readers. I've long suspected there was a lot of nuance and complexity (and very little black and white) in the ethics of eating. Now you've shown me another book I can add to my reading list.

How many of you, like me, are frightened by the fact that 34% of people in this country don't get it? A good argument can be made that Bush is America's worst president. How can 1/3rd of Americans not just be OK with that, but approve of it? What does that say about America?

I know you probably meant that the 50 State strategy is not the best way to be spending money *right now*. But, as a general rule, the 50 State Strategy is a fantastic idea that should be pursued year-round, election year or no. We have to keep beating it into people's heads that they are voting against their own interests. Or, did you not read "What's the Matter with Kansas"?

Growing up in Canada, I was taught to make fun of American beer; it was supposed to be watery and bland.

I've lived in America since the late 90s, and I've enjoyed many micro-brews and shunned the crap mainstream stuff. American beer *is* good, if it's from a micro.

But on a hot muggy August evening, while I was enjoying grilled meat, someone handed me an ice-cold PBR. It was a revelation.

You know how they always talk about food and wine pairings? Well, on that disgustingly hot muggy evening with the the sweetness of BBQ sauce and the char of grilled food, PBR was a revelation. I understood the appeal of crap watery American lager. It was as natural a summer and grilled-food beer as Guinness is a winter and stew beer.

I've since tried Bud, and, well, let's just say I'll still only use it for bread-making and not drinking. But PBR is somehow a cut above. Maybe not real beer, but it has a place. It's the better Bud.

Here's a pet hypothesis for Ms Price on the enjoyment of body image.

Women who work as strippers/dancers report that contrary to what media and advertisers would have us believe, men actually like different body types when they gaze on women for purely aesthetic reasons.

I don't know if there's research showing women are the same way when gazing at men, but I'd be more surprised to find women had one ideal male image than vice versa.

However, this complesity makes things too difficult for our media and advertisers. Look at it this way: even the best media outlets think the most complicated issues can be reported to have two sides, and even the most axiomatically one-sided issues must be reported as though they have... two sides! The desire for simplicity is at work, even if the truth is not well served.

I posit that the ideal body images portrayed by the media and advertisers are unified out of this same desire for simplicity, and that the ideal being presented to us is not a reflection of who we really all find completely attractive.

Depending on how needy one is, one's body image could (if we were to use Ms Price's flexible scale) fluctuate depending on who is present, if we know his/her tastes.