Weigh in and tell us if you forgive or not forgive this True Confession.
"This relationship is killing me — I am sorry I don't love you anymore. I know we have been together for three and a half years, but I just can't do this any longer. You are a good guy, you're just not right for me. I hate hurting you but I can't stand you at the same time. Please make this easier and leave me. I'm going to push you away until you do."
From the crazies who brought you The Obama/McCain danceoff, it's Governator Ahh-nuld Schwarzenegger himself as the Songinator! Gospel music, '60s folk songs, German nationalist music — there's nothing this guy won't tackle! (May I request some Kraftwerk and Rammstein?) In any case, because his performance is reminiscent of this character's, I fully sympathize with the children who run screaming from the room during his lullaby.
I’ve read/heard that women can achieve different types of orgasms (clitoral and vaginal). I’d never really thought much about this and I enjoy a healthy sex life with my boyfriend. However, I’ve recently become friends with a group of girls at work and this subject came up. My boyfriend is able to give me orgasms, which are great, but never through sex. He is the only the third man I have ever been with so I am pretty inexperienced. One girl at work in particular has mentioned that she definitely believes there is a difference, and that vaginal orgasms are significantly more satisfying. She even called clitoral orgasms ‘immature’, amongst other things, and the other girls all seemed to agree.
I would like to know from other women, who are more experienced, if they think there is a difference between clitoral and vaginal orgasms too, and if so, is one really all that better? I guess my follow up question is, (depending on the answer to the first question) do you have any suggestions or tips to share so I can try to have a vaginal orgasm?
[EDITOR'S NOTE: To read more GROUP THERAPY, click here or submit your own question here.]
A dentist has sued two people for posting negative reviews on the online review site Yelp, accusing them of libel. The reviewer stated that her son felt "light headed" after a visit thanks to laughing gas, and was given fillings that contained mercury. While the dentist agrees that the fillings were mercury, she says that the parents should have read the disclosure form they signed. The dentist is now suing because she doesn't want "lies to be posted on the website" about her.
This isn't the first time someone has been sued for something they posted on the Internet. Last week another Yelp user was sued by a doctor, and a model recently sued Google for negative comments posted on a Blogger-hosted blog. Considering the often casual nature of online reviews, I can't help but think suing someone for something they posted would be like suing a person for casually telling a friend that a hairdresser gave them a bad haircut. Then again, a one-star review could really hurt a person's ability to make a living.
Under US law, websites that publish third-party reviews cannot be sued for that content. Should the law protect the reviewers, too?
Timothy Geithner, the man who wants to spend trillions of dollars in taxpayer money as the next US Treasury Secretary, forgot to pay his own taxes. No, it didn't just slip his mind one year when he was living under a rock leading up to April 15 — from 2001 to 2004 Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in taxes while working abroad for the International Monetary Fund.
Thanks to Obama's transition team's super detective work, Geithner realized his mistake and apparently paid the years-late taxes days before Obama publicly tapped him for the job. The drama doesn't stop there. The transition team also disclosed the fact that Geithner hadn't realized that in 2005 his housekeeper's legal immigration employment documentation lapsed for the last few months she worked for him. Do these spots on Geithner's record make you question Obama's choice?
News broke yesterday that President-elect Obama plans on signing an order to close Guantanamo Bay perhaps as early as his first day on the job. Well today, the Pentagon cast a potential shadow on the plan, announcing that 61 ex-Gitmo prisoners have "returned to the fight." The Pentagon's spokesperson said: "The overall known terrorist re-engagement rate has increased to 11 percent" from 7 percent.
The Pentagon's assessment previews the challenges Obama will face while trying to close the controversial prison. While some detainees present a clear danger, the US admits that others, such as 17 dissidents kept at Gitmo because they could face death back in China, should be released.
Last night on the Rachel Maddow Show an Air Force major who defends detainees in Gitmo's US military tribunals said: "Americans would expect that the military commission would focus on high-level terrorists, people responsible for 9/11 and other serious terrorist attacks against the United States. In fact the early focus of the commissions has been on child soldiers, drivers, foot soldiers."
Do you think the Pentagon's 11 percent terrorist recidivism rate for those released from Guantanamo is enough to justify the prison, or should the US close it ASAP? And, to see the clip from last night's Rachel Maddow Show, read more
Paul Smith
Isabella Oliver
Charles Anastase