marriage USED to be the only way to assign responsibility for children, now we have DNA. Marriage USED to legally require and legally ALLOW responsibilities/rights to another person that otherwise didn't exist. This is no longer the case (apart from pooled property). People use the term marriage when they really mean, or should mean, ability,commitment and responsibility. Maybe we, that is to say right wingers, should start talking more clearly and directly about what they really mean. Of course some of them ARE talking about what they really mean, which is they want society to have control over peoples sex lives, and "the children" are a means to an end. Dammn those evil Swedes, Norwegians, etc. thwarting Gods plan to keep people in line by failing to allow their societies to collapse when people don't get married.

Sadly I must inform you that this is not always the case.

that happened in my high school too, only the official was male. Strangely enough he seemed to be remarkably effective in overcoming any resistance the girls had to covering their feet.

It's always been a high art, although it is true that people have more freedom now to play the game more openly.

what is interesting though is that while women are openly proclaiming their superiority in this area they are AT THE SAME TIME denying that it is true. Very weird.

or it would be REDUCED by half, or even by some multiple of two.

I could elaborate if you want

starting with the fact that both men and women are going to have to compromise to get any of what they want and that when one side cares more and therefore has to compromise more there are emotional effects. I agree with you that changes in the social structure mean that women don't need men for practical reasons as much as they used to and women have never needed men for sexual/romantic reasons EXCLUSIVELY as much as men need women. The feminist line now is that all men have to do is do everything women want and everything will be fine. Even setting aside for the moment the fact that a lot of things women want are mutually exclusive to each other it isn't true even if it were possible for men to do that which it isn't.

birth certificates, and for that matter marriages, have always been ultimately about doing what DNA now does better: Assign responsibility. As feminists are the first to note making people live up to those responsibilities worked very imperfectly in the past, and according to some the present.

yes they can get sterilized and yes they can use a condom but one is permanent and one ruins sex so accidents happen frequently. Once men no longer have to take the risk or go without will the dynamic change. I think it might. If women want a kid the man will REALLY have to want one to or it won't happen.

Then regarding you there is nothing for men to negotiate a compromise for.

and when your DNA is your drivers license, Id, credit card, everything. Of course if someone has no money, that's another matter, but anything they have will be able to be efficiently gotten. Of course some people claim the system is fairly "efficient" now.

since if men start women might stop so the pharms won't gain anything. If it did exist though it would change a lot, yeah some women only want babies but if men could take a pill they would have a better chance of finding this out before it was too late. No it won't solve the fundamental problem but it will give men more leverage in how they deal with it.

Women are a lot more peaceful without sex than men are, is what it comes down to.

and you won't. Nobody has a clue. That's why so many people are falling back on "traditional value" or on fantasy and denial.

if someone is against eating eggs laid by "companion" chickens then yes THEY should be pro life. I have never heard of ANYONE who objects to eating eggs ON PINCIPLE though, if the egg layers were treated properly.

and the more they look the more similarity they find between haumans and other mammals. Of course we can never absolutley prove what ANYTHING is feeling including another human, but we can makes reasonable inferences based on overwhelming evidence, for people AND at least some other animals.

as indicated by overwhelming evidence. I'm concerned about a doctor of medicine OR philosophy who can't get this.

you are either the perpetrator or the victim of propaganada lies

directly on both of the questions here.

that the ability to get "abortion on demand" exists though the ninth month, or the sixth month.

you knew what is was about from the tagline, so if it's not your interest why read it.

apart from the dogs or cats greater apparent capacity for social and emotional relationships as manifested in the relationship that we experience with them. With dogs at least I think you can make a reasonable case that the evidence shows that canine social relationships are of a qualitatively different nature than those of even other mammals. With cats the evidence seems less definitive. Yes all mammals bond with their mothers and most have some herd sensibility. There's a difference though between a general herd bond, yes I know they know they can distinguish individuals, and what a dog has with people which is a very strong emotional bond. Dogs have been domesticated a long time too, it may be that their relationship with humans now has evolved biologically.

Human societies do the same thing, so if you are, as you seem to be, implying that this fact says something definitive about the species in question I'm not sure what it is.

nobody would dispute that humans have abilities that animals don't have.