How many teen mothers have to drop out of high school to give birth? How about teen fathers?

Giving birth to a child in unfavorable circumstances puts women at a far greater disadvantage than the men impregnating them. If a woman is trying to support herself while going to school, for example, she would have to take time off work and college to give birth and provide for the first few months (at least) of the child's upbringing. The impact this has on the course of a woman's life is profound. If the father is absent, the woman must rely on either familial or government support to survive these trying times. Even if the father is present and supportive, the woman is deprived of the empowering ability to provide for herself as well as the option to better her future.

A man doesn't have to make a choice between survival/ self-sufficiency and childbearing. Women do.

"if a woman doesn't want to be pregnate... she should probably not have sex."

By this reasoning, people should only have sex when they want to produce a child. Or does that just apply to women?

Try again.

Playing with the wiimote exacerbates my carpal tunnel and reminds me of arcade games without the fun of being in an arcade. It's a cool concept, but the whole thing seems pretty gimmicky.

My experience with facebook:

"So-and-so is taking a shower!"

"Do you want to add UselessApplication to your profile?"

"Some_One_xxx added a new picture!!"

... times one thousand.

And then I received text messages from facebook after I canceled my account.

facebook:social networking::aol:isps.

Oh yeah, and the poke function makes me want to stab myself in the corneas.

Maybe I can explain this better.

Q: Is sex with a robot hooker cheating?

The word "cheating" under other circumstances usually refers to circumventing rules in order to benefit oneself. Applying this to a relationship would mean stepping over established boundaries to pursue something one wants, but the other person probably wouldn't approve of. Therefore, a true definition of cheating varies according to the terms of a particular relationship, and is highly relative. In my argument, I stated that it was my personal reaction to the question, based on my feelings concerning monogamy and my own relationship with my partner. That said, I will further explain my views on this topic.

"There is no possibility of emotional involvement with a robot. Therefore, sex outside of my relationship with a robot hooker is not cheating."

People are emotional creatures, and will attach emotional ties to just about anything. Ask car enthusiasts how they feel about their showroom vehicles, and you'll find sentiments bordering on romantic devotion. Humans personify inanimate objects all the time, as well as animals incapable of human reasoning. Take that tendency toward anthropomorphism and extend it to lifelike robots, who can walk, talk, and imitate human behavior even down to simulating human intercourse. Since we're debating a hypothetical future situation, I don't believe it is too farfetched to suppose this advanced robot hooker is indistinguishable from a human to all five senses. Is it still "just a machine?"

The above line of reasoning also implies that the only qualifying factor in cheating is the possibility of emotional attachment. As I said earlier, behavior can only be considered unfaithful if it breaches the terms of a relationship, which vary. However, I think it's reasonable to say that sex with another person based purely on animal lust is still being unfaithful to one's partner. Providing for emotional and physical needs go hand in hand in monogamous relationships. Falling in love or falling in lust (or both) with another person would be a breach of monogamy.

So, when talking about relations with a robot hooker, we have two of the ingredients needed for infidelity: lust (most definitely) and emotional attachment (possibly). To address the next issue:

"But! It's just a bunch of plastic and metal! It's like a blow up doll, or a vibrator, not a human!"

The key difference here is, again, the similarity to a human being. Part of the reason infidelity is so hurtful is that it knocks down the self-esteem of the partner being cheated on, creating feelings of inadequacy. I don't think any woman would worry that her partner found his blowup doll more physically appealing than her. Would a man feel shamed by a vibrator's stamina? The personal use of sex toys is a far cry from having sex with a humanoid robot.

I have no qualms with the personal and/or shared use of sex toys in a relationship, but only to a certain extent. If a person engages in self-pleasure to the consistent exclusion of his/her partner, they are not being considerate of their partner's needs and feelings. Same with the robot hooker, even if you do classify it as a merely another sex toy, it's primary purpose is to provide gratification to one while purposefully excluding the other.

"My partner should be happy I'm not crawling with STD's and fucking his/her cousin."

This method of justification makes no sense. A healthy relationship is not one that stops just short of worst-case-scenario. That's the great thing about being in a western, unmarried relationship -- if you're not happy, you can leave.

Then you would be left without transportation and a sexually frustrated mate.

Sounds like a win-win situation to me!

First reaction: I'd rather my significant other have sex with me. Copulating with a robot designed to emulate the female form would be personally insulting and a little bit weird. I guess if a guy's single, it'd just be another one night stand / high-tech masturbation session, which is cool I guess.

I suppose it would take some of the mess out of sex?

To address "toaster" points:

- emotional attachment: Having sex with another person without an emotional attachment is still cheating

- vibrators: These are usually tools that the couple can use together, whereas a sexbot seems geared toward one side only

- "partner should be happy that I'm not... [insert horrible alternative]": As if being in a relationship is so necessary to survival that one must put up with distasteful behavior

If someone feels that they need to go elsewhere to supplement their sex life, maybe they're involved with the wrong person.

Along those lines, do you think Satan was a philosopher? He may have been the first. Think about it -- he questioned his existence and his belief system while all the other angels just accepted God's sovereignty and rules. When he sought to share his ponderings with humans, they were all punished by the original Authority Figure. Without Satan, we'd all be running around naked in paradise Eden, not eating apples. "No apples?!" you say? Beats Jesus for "most influential" by 10 million.

Joe adds to the diversity as well as the content of this site. I don't share his opinions on most subjects, but I appreciate having someone to disagree with. The fact that he's a point whore doesn't bother me.

"Oh, implacable march of human societies! Oh, losses of men and of souls on the way! Ocean into which falls all that the law lets slip! Disastrous absence of help! Oh, moral death!

The sea is the inexorable social night into which the penal laws fling their condemned. The sea is the immensity of wretchedness.

The soul, going down stream in this gulf, may become a corpse. Who shall resuscitate it?" - Victor Hugo

Although Hugo's referring to victims of the penal code, I think the sentiment applies to anyone forgotten or tossed blithely aside by mainstream society. Would you fault a drowning man for losing his footing? For lacking a life-vest?

To condemn an individual for missed opportunities or an irresponsible youth is cruel; to assume that these are the primary causes of homelessness is unreasonable. Excluding the voluntary nomad, people become homeless because their wages are low and housing costs are high. Many people living without a permanent residence already have jobs that are insufficient to meet their needs. As for the chronically homeless, how are they supposed to work their way up out of poverty without an address, a telephone number, transportation, food, clean clothing, a set of teeth...? With an estimated 3.5 million people experiencing homelessness a year, shelters, government housing, charities, etc. still aren't adequate to address the needs of all the people living without a permanent residence.

If you say that homelessness is caused by drug abuse, dropping out of school, and low personal expectations, realize that these are also products of poverty, which is a difficult cycle to break. Sure there are anecdotal accounts of people rising above their circumstances, and there are also stories of individuals with every educational and financial opportunity available to them falling into ruin. On the whole though, I think it's a lot easier to talk from above the poverty line than below.