I am in favor of the new security limitations.

I say this after leaving Denmark on Saturday, being subsequently delayed (3pm flight was wheels up by 7:30) because of the new security measures and only arriving in California 48 hours after my original arrival plans. Once we were in the states, the security was a joke compared to the individual hand search we got of our carry-on in Europe. When we left Denmark, we got a clear bag and equally clear rules on what could go in said bag. Most of the people in line ignored these rules and that's what caused most of the delay. I was impressed with the individual attention to the carry-on screening process (full disclosure: I hate carry-on and think, besides business travellers and mothers, it should be less not more). My bag was inspected and accepted (with my lip balm, not lip gloss) within 15 seconds. The family of four in front of me who had not heeded the instructions took at least 5 minutes. The process entailed the agent picking up items in your bag and asking if you needed it for the flight; most items in most people's bags were removed and placed in personalized cardboard boxes that would appear alongside baggage. It is amazing what people think they need on a plane (especially since 90% of this flight was asleep within a half an hour after the after-dinner drinks were served).

Once on board, it was so strange to see this huge jet with all of its overhead bins empty. When we arrived in Seattle, we were greeted with armed customs agents checking everyone's passport at the arrival gate.

We originally had just one more direct flight home, but because of the delay, we had two more legs home. Our carrier doesn't fly domestically, so we got alloted to standby on another airline and had to spend the night in each respective city. Where we were flagged by TSA at each security check. In Seattle, we were patted down. We were running late and I asked the guy if he could pat me down in order to avoid missing our flight. Unlucky on both regards. In Salt Lake, we got the "sniffer" machine with no pat-down. I also saw the TSA guy flip through our National Geographic magazine as part of the security check.

We didn't have a TSA guard at the gate for either of the first flight in the U.S. So I don't know who was checking for banned items. The second flight, there wasn't one when we first crossed the gate, but we were returned to the terminal because of a delay (story of our life by that point). The second time we got up to board there was a TSA agent. But he must not have been there for long, because there was a couple who came aboard with hot cups of coffee. The flight attendant was shocked; I wasn't.

Notmyname writes, "AS LONG AS the people involved are doing it because they want to do it, not just to please others."

And how, exactly, would you (do you) tell the difference between the two? Is it based on what they do/say or what you interpret their behavior to mean for them?

And why the problem with desiring to please others? Is this only a problem when it involves sex? Because there's the rub....

Surely the desire to please others involves all sorts of desire to do things (like teaching, loving, caring, nurturing, etc), but when it gets anywhere near sex, for some reason it is wrong/exploitative/etc. Why is that?

I think most of the reasonable criticisms of polygamy listed so far can be equally applied to monogamous marriage. The most compelling theme seems to be the lack of 'choice' that some women may face in these arranged marriages. I'm sure we can all think of someone in our own lives whose monogamous marriage 'choice' is less than clear (for both men and women). It would be great to say that everyone should enter into marriage with a clear head and unlimited choices, but I think if you apply the much-touted 'reality' to such a consideration, it will quickly become obvious that 'choice' is a much more complicated concept than we let on.

I'm for polygamy not because I want to see more child brides, but because I think it would be one way to drastically change the household as we know it. As long as the two-parent heterosexual monogamous marriage is the norm, there's only going to be so much social progress.

Money, education, and career seem to be things we're assuming will make us 'better' parents. Not to detract from the real fact of being able to feed yourself and your child(ren) and not to romanticize poverty, but these things aren't the end all be all in being able to raise and support children.

I read on a discussion board somewhere where 30-something mothers were speculating about having children at that age vs. having children at age 19 or so. They specifically spoke about their lack of energy and how 19 year-olds are physically much better choices to have a baby that only sleeps for two hours at a time. I had never thought about that before (because, like many of the posters here, I assumed that older is better) and thought it is an important consideration to thinking about when is the "right" time/age to have children.

I can remember being able to sleep for 3-4 hours a night at age 19; now, I need at least 6 to be able to function. Will my job /education/pay help me out with that when I have children?