There are a number of island/nation states in the Carribean, all of which have different cultures. Jamaican, Haitian, and Puerto Rican middle class culture do put premiums on marriage. I have no idea were the Quebec lady came from, but she can not speak for all people from the different islands on the "shacking up" issue. Severel of my friends from different middle class island cultures (Haitian, Jamaican, Aruban, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Dominican) took real umbrage to the assertion that shacking up (cohabitation) is the norm in their countries. Some working class people in a few geographic areas will. But in the words of the economist of the group "Middle class people in the Carribbean are as likely by class to marry, and in some groups more likely, than the same class subgroups in the US and Canada".

So Caribbean culture as a term really should not apply. We just don't know what nation she is from. It's norms should not matter anyway (I come from a culture that says your mate should be the same or lighter skinned- I ignored it, and thank God for that!). He wish for commitment is far more important than any cultural norm.

Whether it's a woman with 5 kids, or a man, they both need to be kicked to the curb if they just move in while claiming they are not "serious" about the LW. The combo of the stealth move in, the guilt trip, and the previous uncommitted relationship all are neon signs "WILL NOT RESPECT YOU" "LOSER". Self respecting people don't move in with someone they are not serious about, regardless of gender.

I know the Supreme Court upholds dress codes as long as both genders have to meet them, but there are religious exemptions to the codes (headscarfs and Rastafarian dreads are two examples; beards on Muslims in the military is another).There's also physcial exemptions (disability, allergy, etc). Black women, for example, can be forced to relax their hair in some districts, and not in others. Lipstick seems problematic, given the allergy issue and that there is no male comparable item (tie to heels, bra to undershirt, etc). Makeup is not considered part of a dress code according the US Labor Department handbook I have, because of the dermatological issues (IDEA and 1st AMendment) unless it is part of a "costume" (like Snow White at Disneyworld). I hope that the appellate courts will use the IDEA issue to kill this off. A lot more people have sensitive skin these days, and avoid makeup for that reason. Forcing them to wear it would cause physical discomfort, as well as scars, plaques, and bumps.

Most of the people going to casino in my area are elderly females. I've taken people to the FREE bus the casino provides (and it gives them 5 bucks in quarters for free), and SEEN who gets on the bus. But there's also academic studies to back that up.

Most of the BIG addicts are male, but there's asignificanct amount of women. There are female card counters out there as well as men. Casinos are not male dominated environments in reality, just on TV.

The thing is, you only make money in the card games (some would say only at black jack), and not the slots. People playing the card games seriously are not drinking; they don't want anything to dull their concentration (especially if they are counting). The slots are dominated by elderly females. It's this mindless game that is tied to the drinking. If the makeup is about appeasing guests on the slots (the biggest moneymaker in a casino), it appears that there's a disconnect. That's why Harrah's tried to drop the whole thing.

This was stupid. But I'll point out that 9th Circuit is the apellate court with the worst record for being upheld at the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court has not been kind to it's decisions or analysis in a number of cases.

We will see this again.

The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that schools can limit speech that causes discipline action and disrupts the ability to teach, maintain a classroom, or limits the ability of other students to learn. This principle was affirmed in 2000. (the Marilyn Manson t-shirts as free speech)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm

http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1190

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/6th/983869.html

The language the young men used was disgusting. Since they emailed it, and from a little further research, used school computers, they were the stupid one.

If we as parents don't demand that teenage boys learn to treat girls with respect and not defame them by falsely claiming that they (according to a another article) would give oral sex to anyone, are sexually diseased, promiscious, etc, then we have failed our jobs. I really want some fathers to go punch out a few of these guys.