PUMA party members care about themselves, and that's it.

Screw the DNC, and the party - it's all about them.

Screw male victims of domestic violence, children of divorce, and traditional families, it's all about the feminists.

Same constituency, same thinking.

Thanks for bringing McGeriatric into power, morons. Now, go back to blaming men, as you usually do, and refusing to face reality.

She is a war-mongering, Old Guard bitch. We don't need to be in Iraq and we don't need to bomb Iran.

We need change, and the Hillarator/Billary is not going to change anything.

Shut up and go home, menopausal Hillary-bitches.

Go home before you hand over the election to McCain.

I'd like to see a competent, non-warmongering POTUS with some fresh ideas.

Hillary would not be the one to fulfill that role.

Get over the "sexism" canard, hard-core feminists. You are part of the problem, not the solution.

Kind of like the boys forced to pay child support to their female molesters here in America.

Oh, but that can't be true....not feminist, so never mind.

He is sexually assaulted, and then forced to pay his child molester assailant for 18 years.

I know it's a male life that's affected, Tricijad, and that counts for very little to people like yourself.

"However, besides the financial injury, did this young man lose his liberty, or his autonomy? How is this remotely like being forced into a marriage without any say?

And what we're fighting here is culturally accepted in some parts of the world. What you're talking about, at least the molestation portion of it, is condemned and prohibited by law. Sorry, I don't see the parallel."

Female sexual predators rarely get sentences even approaching something commensurate for their crimes. They should be sentenced just as harshly as male pedophiles.

Also, their crimes are rarely condemned, but more often than not made fun of.

She was not agreeing with me.

Again, the sad attempt to minimize injustice to a child because he's male.

Let's try to be adults about this and point out that both children will suffer.

Is the girl on the hook (or her parents on the hook) for 18 years of payments to her rapist? No. The boy is not married to his rapist. Apples and oranges, and both are horrific situations.

Seen through the feminist lens, however, any suppering of the boy is minimal compared to just about anything happening to a girl.

That perspective is harmful and sexist, and unfortunately all too common, as you have illustrated.

No one has a "right" to be married. Your statement about the law is solipsistic.

Marriages are not standard business contracts. They are THREE way contracts between two people of the opposite sex and the State, that's why a marriage license is required for a marriage to be recognized legally. The state in which you are married governs certain terms and conditions of one's marriage and the state in which one divorces imposes certain terms and conditions on one's divorce, as well.

No such requirement exists for business contracts between two individual private parties.

I look forward to a man posting a video about a study on female sexuality in a website about men's issues.

You mean like a man-hating, sexist feminist posting in response to an egalitarian humanist on Broadsheet?

There are several contractual situations which are, by law, between two parties and the government. If the State decrees it so, then, by law, it is involved in a contract.

The larger question is why is the government is involved in marriage. If marriage were privatised, then everyone would be free to marry whomever they wanted, within a context of adult consent. Polygamous marriages and gay marriages, for instance, would then be legal.

There are several contractual situations which are, by law, between two parties and the government. If the State decrees it so, then, by law, it is involved in a contract.

The larger question is why is the government is involved in marriage. If marriage were privatised, then everyone would be free to marry whomever they wanted, within a context of adult consent. Polygamous marriages and gay marriages, for instance, would then be legal.

There are several places on the planet where polygamy is legal, too. Why don't we enact legislation to make it legal in the U.S.? As long as everyone is a consenting adult, what does it matter?

hahahahahahaha!

The exuberant references to Ms. Clark-Flory's sexuality you seek to censor are part of a whole spectrum of sexual behavior that you should embrace, and not suppress.

Censorship is a sad product of small minds. Hopefully you will open your mind and your heart to stronger, earthier expressions such as those you refer to in your post, and embrace them instead of seeking to stamp out free expression.

Equating sex-positive, earthy heterosexual expression with a woman being "brutalized" is completely wrong and distorted.

Again, your anti-hetero stance is wrong, hurtful and damaging. Keep your book-burning impulses to yourself.

You're right. We shouldn't censor anything on this blog. Thanks for supporting my position re: no need for censorship.

Censorship is censorship, and feminist censorship seems the most pervasive and insidious as the above article on the UK situation indicates.

Thank God for our Constitution. That is what separates us from our English former masters.

If you are concerned about politeness, then perhaps you found a stark article about a young woman's casual promiscuity offensive.

Or is politeness a standard only applied to men, and not women? That certainly seems to be the case where the Vagina Monologues feminists are concerned.

I don't agree with your thesis of "all expression is equal, but some is more equal than others".