Reply #38: Oh good grief... you are SO right. Isn't the "data" irrelevant (or

[sohndrsmith]

at least not meaningful in any way, on any level) unless the question asked is somehow measured against something verifiable (like voting records/trends, etc.)...

I'm not really as grumpy as I sound - it's just so silly to me... Wonder why this odd woman O'Donnell (sp?) picks this particular deadly sin (lust?) over the other six. It's a physical process (not unlike a sneeze, now that I think about it) in response to signals from hormones, the brain, what have you... (not unlike eating because the body signals it's hungry... or drinking because the body signals it's need for hydration).

Why are we (well, some of us <g>,) so obsessed with imposing moral levels to so many things - seemingly for no other reason than to feel superior by demeaning or labeling those who disagree or practice outside our "code" of "goodness" as bad and _wrong_.

What makes it all the more obviously ridiculous is the glaringly high percentage of the "moral" elites (ha) who are found to practice nothing they so bullishly preach. What's up with that?

Okay, rant over.. : ). But then again - how sad is it to think that women may be, in these times, uncomfortable with honesty on this issue (which I agree is the reason for the discrepancy - even if it wasn't such a goofy study to begin with).

17? Hah! What a cynic you are.... hee. I'd say maybe 6. On a bad day... : )