I think you are exactly right...the problem is that I have trouble detaching my thinking from my penis, and I would bet that a lot of other men have the same problem.

Well, in the heat of the moment its hard to hear anything other than the most immediate message, which is "nope, we're not going to have sex!" It's a bummer, no matter what the meta-message is.

I also am one of those women who comes with strings, in almost every situation. I have a good friend who I find very attractive and flatter myself by thinking that maybe finds me attractive sometimes too, but nothing has ever happened between us because we *both* know that our friendship would come to a miserable end if we moved beyond the occasional shoulder-bump as we walk down the street together. He has his reasons, and I have mine, but there they are and there we are.

It still sucks.

But please, Kumar is an Indian (from India) NOT an Asian-American! Did you truly understand everything you saw?

Kumar is American (i.e. not from India). His family is from India. India is in Asia. Kumar is, as Americans are so fond of describing ethnicities, Asian-American.

All I can do is echo the first poster: are you familiar with the scientific method? Controlled studies? Clinical trials?

Not one thing about this is odd.

The crime against humanity is the successful transformation by industry of healthful natural foods into heart stopping poisons through the addition to or adulteration of chocolate.

I think the point of the study is try and find out if it's worth it to develop a way for women with Type II diabetes to partake of the benefits of chocolate, minus the sugar that they can't process. Unsweetened chocolate is pretty inedible (unless you're an expert at making mole, I guess).

It never said the chocolate would be unsweetened. I'm guessing it'll have Splenda in it or some other artificial sweetener.

That was sort of my point. They're looking to create a dietetic chocolate that retains all the benefits of chocolate plus some additional ones (although on behalf of all the people for whom soy is potentially toxic, can people please hitch their cart to come other horse? Enough. Really.)

Parenting IS a choice. Why should taxpayers subsidize that particular personal choice and not all the others?

Because "fuck you buddy, I got mine!" is not a sound social structure.

The good of a civilization is served by ensuring that babies and small children are kept safe from harm, provided with good nutrition, and are provided with avenues for good mental development because without those things they will become a burden on society -- which will pay taxes to provide them with nutritional intervention, speech therapy, special education, etc. when those early primary needs are not met, and at a much greater cost and over a longer span of time.

Dispense with the begrudgery, will you? If you don't want to be part of a society that attempts, at least, to take care of everyone by dispensing risk and benefit more or less evenly then secede and form your own nation where it's every (wo)man for hirself.

By the way, I don't drive for 8 months out of the year so can I prorate the amount of taxes I pay? After all, driving is also a choice. And, since I didn't choose to have kids (yet) can I also get a refund on all those taxes I've paid over the years that support the local school system? That would be pretty sweet, since I'd rather use the money to go to France for a couple of weeks.

In an ideal system, everyone should get an equal amount of leave time to use however they want.

My company does just that: we call it "vacation".

We also offer FMLA for people who need to take time off to care for family members, whether those family members are days old or several decades. One (un-childed) member of my staff took a week to care for a dying grandmother.

PTO to care for new children is an investment in the social fabric. PTO to send me to Europe for an extra month on top of the four weeks I already get is not. America as a whole will not benefit from my consumption of steak frites, vin rouge, or sandwich saucisson et beurre, but it will benefit from my other staff member staying home for a month to nurse and care for her newborn daughter. Her newborn daughter has perfect nutrition, no separation anxieties, and is looked after by her own mother (and grandmother, because mom is staying with her mother for the duration, so mom is healthier and better-rested than she would be if she couldn't spend her time with extended family) 24 hours a day instead of a daycare provider. Because of this, the likelihood that her daughter will have to have interventional therapy of any kind -- which as I stated would cost taxpayers far more than 4 weeks of maternity leave -- drops dramatically because of this.

It's a fairly basic economic equation: pay n now for adequate parental leave, or pay 4n later to make up for what could have been avoided had babies' needs been met appropriately in infancy. I choose the smaller sum, myself, because if I pay the higher sum later, then I won't be able to afford to eat those salami and butter baguette sandwiches on Pont Neuf.

My cornhusk kitchen witch that I have dangling from a cupboard knob suffices as a charm for my own kitchen, although I also have a Brigid's Cross above the lintel just in case.

Great story, though.