Of course she needs to take care of her kid. And single mothers who don't have the dads stick around DO. Are you saying they don't? Saying that it's a 50/50 deal makes me misandric? I'd say the opposite. Children need a father in their lives, imho, and the world would be a better place if more men stepped up to the plate. it's *getting* better, but it needs work.

I don't know what women you've met in life, but I assure you, I ain't one of them. Neither are many. Have you ever thought that your selection and choices are messed-up and you're honing in on the WRONG chicks? I hooked up with a great guy, a real, 100% geek, while nearly all of my friends decided to moon over the Bad Boys. I get jealous looks from them, especially from the single mother demographic, but I don't say, "Yea, men are assholes," but "Well, you made the choices."

It's not being PC, that's not how I meant it. Of course we're different. It still stands, though; a lot of men would see this form of contraception as an intrusion. Most men I know are really good people, but get squeamish about body issues, even if it's their own. That's only one set of experiences from one person, but... yea.

My husband watched my c-section, though. He doesn't fall into that category, lol.

One time discomfort? What do you think boobs are, detachable?

And seriously, I don't know what your mom or girlfriend or babysitter did to you, but your martyr complex needs some attention. Do you honestly think all women get by on their looks and bodies, even when it comes to jobs (that, might I add, women get paid less than men in most cases, even when they work just as hard) and working on relationships? That's a crock. Maybe SOME do, but tons of men are just as asshole-y.

I've worked hard for everything I have. I made the right choices in almost every area, and while life isn't perfect, I'm not about to blame an entire race, sex or demographic for the crap in my life. I could sit here myself and complain, whine and make blanket statements about men, how my daddy cheated on my mom, broke up their marriage then left us in the lurch never paying a cent for my upbringing, or how half the guys I tried dating were only in it for the sex, whatever else. But... see, I don't do that. I'd rather take a scientific view, wherein I don't judge an entire people based on a small, insignificant set of personal experiences. Try doing that for yourself.

And may I add: by "stupid-ridiculous body issues" I meant an upheaval of your body's system. Getting boobs is a Big Deal. Try being a sixth grade girl with D-cups then get back to me.

I have DOUBLE-Ds, honey. E-cups when I was pregnant.

Perhaps, but for a married couple who don't want any more kids, or ANY kids altogether, it can be beneficial to their love lives if one or both uses oral contraceptives. And really, MOST women (though not all, unfortunately) understand that birth control pills don't prevent STDs, but we take it anyway AND condom use is encouraged.

What is this, this putting his wallet in involuntarily? Are you talking about the woman getting pregnant and the man having to pay child support? Well... um, if the man in this hypothetical situation was raped for that there sperm, then sure--he shouldn't pay a red cent. If he wasn't, then he needs to re-enroll in his sixth grade health class to learn that when you stick your junk in a vagina, it may produce a pregnancy.

Seriously. This argument is so old and so tiresome. If you get a woman pregnant, that's your kid. You need to take care of your kid. Is that too hard a concept to grasp?

I thought they could do a reversal for those who changed their minds? Either way, I think more and more men are evolving past their insecurities with body issues and it MAY catch on. Hoping so, anyway. Having more and more options on the table involving both sexes in preventing pregnancy, especially if either the man or woman can't DO oral contraceptives (as it was for me, previously stated) is a must, imho.

I get this strange, uncanny feeling that it won't catch on. From my own experience and opinion, men get squicked-out when it comes to changing one of their body functions. Women are "meh, okay," when it comes to oral contraceptives (in SOME cases--me, it didn't work out at all) simply because they have to put up with major, stupid-ridiculous body issues over their entire lives (menstrual cycles, D-cups, pregnancy, menopause--just to name a few) while a man's changes are more subtle, quicker, and easily controllable (facial hair, voice changes, etc.). It'd be nice to, as Samwise says, 'Share the load,' (har har) but it'd take some time and re-thinking of roles.

I bite my tongue when using a free service with ads.

But come now, 'conversation starters'? Just because I'm broke doesn't mean I'm dumb. Just say, "We're putting ads on this shit, deal."

Assuming you didn't compensate the producer of the images, you in no way contributed to the market of child pornography.

If I create a product, any product--let's say a new toothpaste, and no one buys it, I don't make it anymore. I don't pour my money into a fruitless venture.

To make child porn, you need money. Even just a little. To distribute/sell it, you need money. You make up for what you spent in how many people buy it. If no one bought it, you couldn't continue making it. You might still sexually molest kids, but perhaps not as many, and in private. Therefore, if someone go to a website and pay them to download child porn material they produced, they're not just contributing to that market, they ARE that market. They're the reason it's being made. In the end, it is the people who are there to have it sold to that hold a shitton of responsibility.

But yea, I'd hope that someone's history is looked up before assuming that *one picture* means they're a pedo. I'd think that investigators look into the entire person, and would be able to tell that it was an accident.

They are, and the problem with that sickness is that in most cases, they escalate. Many, if not the majority, of sexual offenders start small (peeping into windows, stealing women's underwear) and move on to do much, much more (violent rape, murder). I'm not saying we should give a person 20-to-life for peeping, but more needs to be done with a peeper, or in this case, someone who likes looking at naked children.

And what about the kids IN the pictures/videos? They aren't fictional, they're real people who are being victimized. I agree with the idea that using fictional people/characters doesn't hurt anyone and there's nothing illegal about it (I myself write fiction involving 16-17 year old high school characters, some of it sexual), but the fact is, if you're someone who likes actual, real kiddy-porn, you're the reason it's being made. You're their market. Those kids are being hurt and degraded because someone out there wants to watch kids being raped. And while I don't want to say that watching child rape unequivocally leads to committing child rape, the chances that it WILL happen are much more likely. It's already an unhealthy, dangerous start, and after a while a pedophile needs something more.

You're on LJ, eh? As am I. And I have written. Oh yes. ;)

I never said we shouldn't expect higher standards from them, that's not the issue presented (at least by me). Their behavior should be top-notch and respectable. Have I said that's not true, or even bring it up?

My reasoning when it comes to officers not being videoed resembles why an FBI officer or informant shouldn't be exposed to the media. Yes, it's different, but it's the idea that cops are more reviled than respected, unfairly in many ways. They're prone to attacks, along with their family and friends, by someone wanting revenge for whatever reason (their son getting arrested, etc.). The less you bring up their name and image, the better. In that, I'm not saying that any unlawful actions made by a cop and captured on video shouldn't be hidden or thrown under the rug. I'm talking generic filming, wherein the cop isn't doing anything wrong--perhaps sitting in a restaurant, standing on the sidewalk, filmed specifically to expose him/her.

Maybe I've just watched 'Red Dragon' too many times, but...

When it comes to the protestors, I'm always on the fence. We have the right to protest, but even if only one guy or girl is causing trouble, police have to take some action. The way I see it, you'll have 99 good people and 1 bad; 45 people see that 1 bad doing stuff wrong, while the other 54 don't. The police step in; the 45 step aside, but the 54 think that police brutality is going on when they see them trying to apprehend the 1. They jump in, those trying to get out of the way knowing the police are justified get hurt anyway, chaos reigns, the whole story isn't said. The people against the protestors claim they're dirty hippie bastards, the protestors (there or not) use the perceived brutality as a weapon.

But the story's never going to be straight without clearly unedited, time-stamped footage. With many protestor's vids, they start when the shit goes down. If the police can produce something better and get the details correct, good. The problem when it IS the police's fault is that like hell they're going to reveal the videos they may have taken.

But I think the police are justified in taking video, and that people have to understand that there's some differences when it comes to filming them. The regular Joe or Jane captured on film at a protest are less likely to receive death-threats or face other dangers than a cop whose badge number, car, etc. is visible. If the cop is acting out of order or illegally, film them; if they're just standing there, there's no reason to film them.

This can be argued over and over until the end of time, but no one really wins.