One more thought I'd throw into the mix: It's amazing to me that so many people presume to tell Ms. Mayer how the company she leads can be most productive.  No, I'm not playing the "sexism" card (i.e., "they're doing it because she's a woman!") -- but I am noting that, as a working mom herself, one might assume that Mayer would be about as sympathetic to the competing needs of work and home.  If she made this call, one would suspect there had to be a real need for it.

So it seems like all -- or almost all -- of us agree that the skit in question isn't worth being the object of Christians' offense.  But what about the stuff that really is? Even if we "expect" it, is it always retrograde and hopelessly uncool for Christians to eobject should the material itself warrant it?  Obviously, people, I am not talking about conveying offense by seeking to censor those who offend (or cutting off their heads). 

So funny!  That's the one detail about WHT that my five-year-olds remember, too!

Thank you for all the food for thought in the comments.  Just a few notes as I read through:

1. Dating vs. courtship: Courtship is geared toward marriage; dating should, in essence, be seen as pre-courtship -- a time to meet and become acquainted with a variety of interesting people. In my view, "dating" has more in common with "courtship" than it does with "hanging out" or "hooking up" (the latter two require no planning or commitment whatsoever).

2. Cheryl Yeoh: It's not clear whether she's one of those unfortunate women who are either hung up on "rules" for dating or obsessed with money -- or whether The Times is simply portraying her that way. The point is that women should have enough self-respect to insist on some minimum standards.

3. If we are going to play the "blame game," there is plenty  to go around. IFor every pathetic, selfish man-child who wants nothing but sex, there is a selfish self-obsessed woman who wears her resentment of men on her sleeve.  In fairness to Bill Bennett and Charles Murray, they may well be focusing on the need to "man up" because they are men themselves.

In California, we lived near the Huntington Library and Gardens, where the coyote population occasionally would swell.  One morning at 9:30 a.m., I encountered a coyote standing at the bottom of our driveway, watching me without any apparent fear as I drove.  Especially because I had two-year-olds (and a supremely precious Westie), I was concerned.  Directed by local authorities to call the local Humane Society, I was told that we should learn to "share" our space with "wildlife," which was, after all, "there first." (!!) I told the HS employee that when the coyotes were paying the level of local taxes that I was -- in part so that I didn't have to carry mace just to take my children and dog for a walk -- I would consider "sharing" space with them.  Until then, the humans should have right of way.  Sometimes I still can't believe the conversation really happened.

I agree with much in the comment directly above.  This part of it, however, piqued my interest:

Setting aside the condemnatory word "libertine," we could agree that such sex is nonetheless fundamentally "different," couldn't we? In the latter case, a couple has made a firm and formal commitment to each other -- before God and the state -- that simply doesn't exist in the former.  As such, sex-within-marriage represents a whole different level of love and commitment than sex in a committed relationship (and given the different level of public opprobrium visited on those who cheat in a relationship vs. those who cheat in marriage, I think my distinction is more widely held than many of us acknowledge).

My husband -- rather a skeptical guy by nature, especially when it comes to politicians -- happened to run into Gov. Perry in the American Airlines frequent flier room in Houston, and was very impressed.  He insisted that in person, Gov. Perry came across as intelligent, personable, knowledgeable and a natural politician, far different than the image of him that emerged during the 2012 campaign.

Fake John Galt: I am not sure why you think tradition-minded women would be good allies of mine.  You see I do not want “women in the kitchen bare foot and pregnant” nor do I want to put “Baby in a corner”. 

I'm amused, amazed and more than a little appalled that there's a man out there who seriously thinks "tradition-minded women" want anyone to be "in a corner" or "in the kitchen bare foot [sic] and pregnant" (unless she wants to be, of course -- then have at it!).   In my view, tradition-minded women simply acknowledge that children and society as a whole benefit when both men and women are confident and secure enough to acknowledge that they often have complementary strengths and complementary needs -- and then work together to meet them.

Thank you -- all of you -- for sharing your thoughts on this. My goal is not to "blame" men, or "blame" women.   The fact is that there is enough responsibility to go around.  

I continue to be amazed that some women try to equate empowerment with developing the capacity to have sex "like a man." As I pointed out in my book, "Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!)" it's not clear what's so empowering about little girls on their knees sexually gratifying little boys in school stairwells.  

Rather, female empowerment is claiming proudly the strengths and positive attributes that are distinctly feminine, and trying to use them in ways that improve oneself, men, and society in general.  What's often sniffily dismissed as "traditional morality" has the advantage of helping women get what most of them want most -- and encouraging socially beneficial male behaviors while curbing some of the less attractive ones.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how that's a bad thing.

Rob -- I'm pretty sure that lefties would let us spend our allowance on pot.  Just not cigarettes.  Because smoking is bad, except when it's not.

Ha! I never thought of it that way.  In a sense, disarming the population is somehow regularizing the notion that the police -- and only the police -- are responsible for our personal safety.  Just another way liberalism removes agency from the individual and transfers it to the state . . .

And -- to pile irony on irony -- there's an actual, textual guarantee of gun rights in the Second Amendment, while abortion rights are grounded in the "right to privacy," which has itself been "rooted" in the First Amendment, or the Fourth, or the Fifth, or the Ninth, or the first part of the Fourteenth or (my personal favorite!) in the penumbras formed by the emanations of various constitutional guarantees.

Also, just keep in  mind that a choice between Dartmouth and Harvard is one many would be grateful even to have!  She really can't go wrong -- and if you've raised an independent thinker (as I'm sure you have), going to Harvard would be a character-building experience.

Being a conservative in a sea of liberals not only gave me stellar insights into the liberal mind, it also forced me to think through and refine my positions.  Liberals miss that opportunity -- and frankly, I think that's often obvious in the way they debate (or don't!).

What an honor and pleasure it is to have the opportunity to post on this site -- and interact with its members!  Many thanks, Rob, for the gracious introduction.  I'm delighted to be here!