While there are reasons to hypothesize that the pill might occasionally (and indeed very rarely) prevent implantation - note that no evidence of this actually occurring exists last I checked - it's certainly less likely than the same happening during (A) normal unprotected sex - a rather large percentage of fertilized embryos fail very early - and (B) NFP, which operates primarily by killing fertilized embryos.

You see, Natural Family Planning, which "pro-lifers" hold up as an alternate form of birth control, as it is normally practiced, involves having sex during times when the embryo is still viable but the uterus (probably) won't accept implantation. If slaying single-celled embryos is murder (and I don't accept that statement at all), then NFP is far, far worse than the pill.

Definitely get couples counseling. If he won't go, go by yourself. Maybe I'm channeling Dear Abby here, but I think that's really your only option. There's not enough information in your letter - and quite possibly in your knowledge - to say exactly what's going on.

I don't believe the story. I think the husband shot the lover and the woman made up the "I said 'he raped me'" tale to protect the husband. His rant at the time makes more sense in that context.

...I also agree that that's at least manslaughter on the man's part.

I'm more sympathetic to the woman. If her story is true (and I don't even think it is) then she said it to protect her own life. Clearly a mortal threat was involved!

So, she's ignoring reality and calling it "leadership". Wow, that sounds exactly like something the Bush administration would claim.

Because he was a Democrat.

OMG, Salon is partisan? Say it isn't so!

It's always amusing when a politician gets pilloried for stating something that's obviously true. "Well, yeah, but you can't say it!"

There really IS more to life than money. You think you've learned that lesson, but you haven't. You don't respect this guy because he isn't interested in what you call "making the most of himself" but what really means "making as much money as possible". Don't feel bad - growing up with that message sets in very, very deeply. But don't throw away your love in favor of a little extra money, either.

This has got to be one of the stupidest partisan screeds I've read on Salon. It's like, maybe if Sean waves his hands enough, we won't notice all the huge, gaping holes in his argument.

Really, author, your argument boils almost entirely down to "Proportional representation has meant that Hillary can't steal this primary election despite the popular vote (and thus the vaunted Will of the People) being against her". I think maybe I'll cite your article next time I have to make the argument that proportional representation is better - that, and of course the 2000 election!

So, guys want a whole woman or the closest approximation they can get, while women are perfectly happy with a vibrating rod. What does that say? Imagine what they'd say if the shoe were on the other foot!

Of course, at least one guy just wants a picnic table...

The important thing, as I see it, is for women to make their own decisions sensibly and by inalienable right, then follow through as carefully as possible.

Hah! I wish I had an inalienable right to choose to have sex. The choice that should be inalienable is only the choice to say "no" - "yes" requires a partner, who should also be able to say "no"...

Guy here. Would never consider the mere reading of a book to be a make or break criterion. Espousing the views therein is a whole 'nother matter...

Most politicians screw their entire electorate rather than just a few of them. I'm more concerned about their public actions than their private proclivities.

We've had bubbles before. We've had credit crunches before. Interestingly, we've never had so much available capital globally to deal with it. It will be dealt with. -- msgkings

At this point we've had multiple major bubbles without a period of particularly substantial prosperity between them. That worries me on a more fundamental level; are we just playing whack-a-mole? Is all this capital invested in playing market manipulation games (inflate something's value then get out before the crash - profitable, doesn't require actually accomplishing something valuable because that would be work, risky) something we can actually do anything about?

At least the dollar is finally dropping (another bubble, in a sense) so we should be able to compete in the global market at a more realistic assessment.

When you add up the costs of treating all of the diseases, disabled, and ADDs, etc. it's astronomical. We cannot afford these costs.

Of course we can. We might just have to not spend quite as much on killing people.

It's not who opens the pickle jar, it's what she does with the pickle. ;)

One-size-fits-all answers are never very reliable, what's true for one relationship is probably not true for another. I suspect there are far more women who drive men off by telling them what to do all the time than women who don't give their men enough to do.

700,000 people, not 7,000,000, but the $78 is about right.

With $55,000,000 coming from 7,000,000 people we're looking at an average donation of about $78. I like that. Plutocracy, yes, but populist plutocracy nonetheless.

It's striking to me how certain the author seems to be of his conclusions, many of which could not be described as empirically verified.

Perhaps all counseling is fraudulent. Just because a counselor was married doesn't mean they were in my marriage. I think it's more fraudulent to arrogantly suppose that your marriage is all that much like mine.

You're a counselor because you're trained to be a counselor. That education and training IS your qualification, not your own experiences which can never be quite the same.

I'm a secular humanist who wants to have lots of babies. Now if I can just find a willing partner...