It is true that simulated sex acts require neither kissing nor caressing, and that is what the young lady wad presenting for. Consider me appropriately chastened.

That young lady was just demonstrating her flexibility! (even with bouncing and music...) Sheesh.

Oh, it's a whole thing lately -- I'm utterly against homosexuality, but I'm not mean or hateful about it, I just don't want to see or hear about it ever, so I'm not a horrible homophobe. Those people are mean and hateful, which is not me. So I am not that. Still, no homos, though.

On another message board I frequent one of the posters put up a long screed about how Anderson Cooper damaged his credibility and impartiality by coming out publicly, and is now desperately flailing about for a legitimate reason that gay people should remain silent about their personal lives unlike their straight counterparts that other posters can't immediately shoot down as a hypocritical double standard. It's almost entertaining to watch.

I'm not used to reading Jamaican comments, so I wonder if I'm missing some shorthand. I'm also not well versed (har har) in religious comments, so that's no doubt contributing to my confusion. But the comments on my sister's rebuttal by and large make no sense. They seem to depend on you already knowing what side they're on, what side you're on, and anything else they could have to say.

I pointed out that one of the criticisms of her argument was a straw man argument, and she suggested I make it there on the piece itself, and hells no. Not to abandon you, baby sis, but I'm askeered af those there waters. I don't know the rules and I don't know the terrain. I wouldn't know where to start in order to shore up my position.

Matt,

I know you put "almost" in that sentence there, but the quite obvious double standard makes me incredibly uncomfortable. I don't think I have any patience for it any more.

Who are the people that are still talking about this [link] to this day? And can we take up a collection to get them lives of some sorts? Because that's pretty sad. I also never heard the explanation "her man likes it that way" before either, and that's ridiculously sad that anyone thought there needed to be one. And after all that, he didn't even put a ring on it. Or maybe that's why they're not married...because he's obviously a disturbed man, who's turned on by perverted and sick things.

And I thought I'd asked this here but I can't find it...is Jeremy Renner a recognisable name? Judging by asking around at my office he's an "oh, that guy", but I'm being assured he's ridiculously famous because he was in that movie everyone saw, Hurt Locker. Which, okay, which everyone? Critically acclaimed is not the same as commonly viewed.

No way.

What exactly is it people are talking about here [link] ? Cause I admit I'm not the best of judge of haircuts, but honestly the hair style does not look that awful to me.

Do you mean the picture of Julia Roberts, Typo? Because the comments weren't about her haircut, but her underarm hair.

is Jeremy Renner a recognisable name?

Not quite yet--his biggest successes have been in ensemble movies, and even if The Avengers is the Biggest Movie Ever, most people on the street are only going to know that RDJ & Samuel L. Jackson are in it. They won't be able to name Ruffalo, Evans, or Johannsen. Or Renner.

After the Bourne movie comes out, if it does well, he might get more recognition. But your average person (i.e., someone who hasn't seen The Avengers three times in the theater, and fully expects to see it again if they do the extended/DVD release) probably won't know his name. Unless they're actually a Hollywood geek, and saw The Town (where Renner was apparently really good).