It would be great if there were totally fair options in every way for every aspect of the procreation question. But, there aren't. Right now, it's not possible - and may never be.

Opting out seems fine if the parties agree on it and there is sufficient support for the infant. If there was trickery on any side, especially like the oral sex sperm use trick, I vote that one party socks the other with a lawsuit or criminal charges, or both. That kind of crap is VERY WRONG.

Convincing a court that you shouldn't be liable for supporting an infant may be a different matter, though. They probably don't want to set any precedents for parents escaping support, so unusual circumstances like the guy who's sperm was used without his knowledge - well, I can see them deciding for the woman only to prevent a mountain of claims from subsequent parties, claiming the same thing in an effort to avoid paying support.

Ditto the 12 year old kid who fathered a child in the 'statutory rape' case...they probably don't want to set any precedents allowing escape from support, is all - so the poor people involved get shafted. The judge might say that had the 12 year old fathered a child with another 12 year old, that he would be liable for support in that instance - so even though he is underage, therefore not sexual 'fair game', he's responsible for the result since he willingly participated. (that's just my guess on the reasoning) What a mess.

It is unfortunate for men that, by the very nature of the pregnancy realities, they cannot have the final word about procreation. Because of the realities of children needing support, sometimes things aren't fair all the way around.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

It's not like you wouldn't be welcome to take over all the baby-making - be my guest. Truly.

Frankly, it bothers me that half the world could easily beat the crap out of me on a whim, but there is a limit to what I can do about that 'unfairness', isn't there?

Some things just aren't fair, folks.

Maybe there aren't any perfect answers - but I hope that we come up with better ones, soon.

Why don't these throwbacks go "nestle" into some seriously sexist country more suited to their ignorant twaddle - Saudi Arabia, for instance? There every woman can pretend to be much less than she is and play eternal cheerleader to some chest-thumping nitwit - kinda like TV's Deborah and Raymond.

1. Did the noose work better?

2. Why is this, dare we call it, "relationship psychology" in sex ed class? Isn't sex ed supposed to be about sex, reproduction and diseases?

When are these people going to catch up to the evolution of society, education and human progress? Their moronic parable sounds like the kind of advice that Bertha Butts, neaderthal cavemom and heroine of song, would have given to a fur-swaddled daughter approaching her first period.

Sure, for thousands of years women were forced into a position of weakness and need, due to the dangers of life, the inequality of society, and the prison of the reproductive system -

when you were not allowed to earn your own living, thus had to marry, or when violent Goths/Huns/brigands/whatnots three times your size regularly roamed the countryside, and you were doomed to having to fret constantly about the safety and feeding not only of the 6 kids you already have, but the one in your belly - sure, this 'pandering to the hormonal' type of advice probably made some sense.

Why do they want us to stay at the lowest point of human evolution? Because they believe that god wanted us to be that way - that god wants women to be subservient & bear many babies, and men to be the bosses - brave defenders of the helpless female. They confuse hormones and biology with divine will. No wonder the advent of birth control sent them into a despairing tailspin - when women can control their reproduction, they can control their lives. Horrors!

In the last few hundred years, society has evolved much faster than some of it's inhabitants. Hopefully, these defenders of the lowest common denominator, the prehistoric past, will eventually be selected out of the gene pool for their lack of brains and adaptability - their huge breeding families notwithstanding.

I really like the dark, creepy characters - probably because I am a dark, creepy person.

That solves that.

Fundamentalists and many of the deeply conservative types DO want to control what everyone else watches/does.

Their reasoning: they believe ANY access to sex, bad language, porn, violence, whatnot and so on will damage the community as a whole...essentially, that ANYONE being able to watch (or do)anything 'inappropriate' hurts community morals and affects everyone's life.

What they really want is the kind of totally policed community that the delightful Puritans enforced so merrily. They won't stop pushing for their 'real' aim - that of sanitizing and censoring everything in sight.