And then there is the other option -- self-control. "Poor" women (left-lib codeword for minority), are not animals. They are just as capable of controlling their mating instincts as "rich" women (left-lib codeword for white). They are adult human beings with full moral agency and have the ability -- should they choose to use it -- to keep their knees together and their feet on the floor until they meet a man who is willing to offer them commitment and support. Even more shocking, the men in question are not animals either. They are also adult human beings with full moral agency who have the ability -- should they choose to use it -- of keeping their pants zipped until they're ready to commit to being a husband and a father.

Very few college students are under 18. They are not toddlers in need off their teddy bears and blankies. If an adult in college isn't mature enough to cope with college then that adult has no business being in college at all. Pets are great. My college allowed small, caged animals -- though they eventually had to ban snakes because irresponsible snake owners continually defied rules about keeping them securely caged and not terrorizing snake-phobic roommates and hall-mates. But whether or not a college allows pets is absolutely none of the federal government's business.

The thing that Stuart95 completely fails to grasp is that political expedience is one of the worst possible guidelines for making decisions about moral issues such as whether or not to permit people to kill helpless, innocent, babies for the crime of being inconvenient to their mothers or whether or not to endorse, applaud, and celebrate perversion rather than endorsing, applauding, and celebrating normality while tolerating perverts who keep their perversion quiet, unobtrusive, and non-disruptive.

Tough luck, fellows. Its your job to know these things and you're responsible for them anyway.

My tax dollars at work.

"I don't know what the circumstances were here....I frankly don't have the knowledge of those facts," Then you should be fired for your incompetence and poor leadership. Its your job to know what's going on in your department and to make sure that the only things going on are the things you intend to be going on.

Why do they think that, "We're such lousy managers that our low-level employees get away with doing anything they want to do," is a valid excuse? If they did know of these things they're guilty of impeachment-worthy crimes. If they didn't know of these things they're guilty of impeachment-worthy incompetence.

There are no "pros" and can be no "pros" to rewarding people for breaking our laws.

PS -- There is nothing "isolating" about being a homemaker living in a house with some land. Such a woman is free to engage in any hobby she chooses. She can garden, write, keep chickens or horses, engage in creative cooking, do photography, breed dogs, take full advantage of parks, museums, and local historical sites, or pursue genealogical research. She can do volunteer work or take continuing ed classes. Not to mention old-fashioned chatting over the fence with the neighbors. Add internet access and she can live-chat with people around the world who share her interests and hobbies. Being locked into an office with the same 5 people every day is isolating. Homemaking is freedom.

Why on earth would any sane person want to live dense-packed like sardines into apartments and condos? We spent 13 years in rental houses with landlords telling us what color we could paint our walls, what plants we could grow in the flower beds, where the garden could be IF we were allowed to have one at all, ... You think people should aspire to this life instead of trying to get away from it ASAP?