I doubt we're talking a Saville Row bespoke suit here. I'm guessing a couple hundred dollars plus the cost of materials--about as much as you might pay for any special occasion dress. And you're likely paying someone a fair wage, too, instead of paying for shoddy overpriced junk made in an Asian sweatshop by someone getting three cents a day and marked way up. Any local drycleaner usually does tailoring and alterations and would probably be glad of the extra business.

The original poster asks how many women keep secret the emotional trauma caused by unplanned motherhood. While certain previous commenters don't shed any light on numbers involved, they do, certainly, provide shining examples of the kind of defensiveness, fear, and insecurity that parents often exhibit toward those who themselves express doubts about reproduction. So you didn't want to be a parent, but now that you are it's the most wonderful thing in the world. Great. We're all happy for you. No one is questioning your choice. Here's a pat on the back, since you seem to need that kind of validation.

But that doesn't mean we can bury the fact--however ugly and unwelcome it may seem to you--that, for various reasons, parenting is not for everyone, and that, yes, having children IS a burden that not all women want to or can bear. I'm sorry that it's not what you want to hear, but it is the truth.

It seems to me that, if there were more sympathy instead of scoffing and condescension for women who fear the difficulties and limitations imposed by parenting, that there would be less pressure to reproduce for those who probably shouldn't--and, as a result, fewer abused, neglected, and generally screwed-up children.

(Oh, but what would become of the--gasp--human race?)

There are lots of misogynistic passages in the Bible; Lynn Harris just happened to choose one that's rather weak. Get up before the crack of dawn and make breakfast for the whole family? Hell, I'd like to see a teenager take on that task. You want an example of a truly alarming passage? Try 1 Timothy 2:12-15: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

So, let's see here. St. Paul, the most influential of the early Christian leaders, thinks that women should shut their traps in church and not ask questions or become religious authorities, but let the men teach them. Why? Because Eve was taken in by the serpent first (never mind that Adam believed her, the loser). But never fear--woman's more sinful than man, but if she breeds enough, she too can be redeemed. Lovely.

And as usual, the defenders of the faith come out in full force to make the obligatory "Christianity is actually about peace and love and social justice!" spiel. Call me crazy, but I don't think the intended readership of these Christian teen magazines are budding liberation theologists.

As someone who was both educated at a Jesuit university and taught at same university, I actually have a pretty good grasp of Catholic teachings. I donate (I admit, partly out of spite, but only partly) to a pro-choice Catholic organization and receive and regularly read two liberal Catholic publications.

I understand that recently, with the appointment of a Pope even more conservative than John Paul II, the Vatican has been tightening the reins over Catholic media publications, beginning with forcing out the managing editor of the Jesuit publication America for, among other things, publishing an essay criticizing the bishops for excommunicating politicians who vote in line with the Vatican instead of voting their consciences on abortion...as well as articles that discuss gay priests and explore the arguments for permitting condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS in developing countries. I suspect that if such media control is pervasive, Vatican-approved magazines for young women are more likely to focus on abstinence and submission...and maybe social justice, too, as long as they let the boys be in charge. Oh, and as long as they trust their future husbands to keep it in their pants and not come down with anything nasty that could be passed to them in the sacred act of procreation, since they've decreed that there's no social justice in using condoms.

We know Kansans aren't all total nutjobs, although I have a vision in my head of you all holed up in Lawrence behind a thirty-foot fence, fending off the zombie hordes...

I think a little guerilla decorating is in order. Wouldn't glistening miniature wire coat hangers twinkle nicely in the Christmas lights? I think so.

Hey, it occurs to me that you could have a hymenoplasty after conceiving--and therefore a virgin birth! This surgery could be a boon for anyone planning to raise the next great Messianic cult leader!

The dolls are cute, but, well, can't girls be tomboys and still like boys? Or, for that matter, be all feminine and girly but like girls too?

I know, I know, perpetually dissatisfied. But that's how we knock down the stereotypes and improve relations between genders.

And I'm glad I have neither cable nor good network reception.