The part where he outsources his own personal responsibility to women is a good start. Are you sure you know what it means?

Her hemline doesn't cover the knee, and she's wearing leggings w/o a skirt that covers her knee. Same issue, multiple technical violations really. It's absurd - she looks more than appropriate and covered up, even for a conservative school like BYU.

Agreed, man. Sounds like the opposite of fun!

The skirt doesn't cover the knee - and she's wearing legs that aren't covered by a skirt or dress that covers the knee (lots of 'covers' in there!).

I agree, dood is lame. Did I imply otherwise?

I agree with this - did I imply otherwise?

Really? The skirt doesn't cover the knee, and she's wearing leggings (without a skirt or dress that covers the knee over them): [services.byuh.edu]

First: This guy is a condescending misogynist with no sense of personal responsibility.

Not that I'm a doctor, but those sound like they could be symptoms of Aspergers or autism.

If Tebow and Chris Brown start hanging out together, I'm going to throw something.

Just because a procedure is legal and (sometimes) available, does not make it convenient.That word doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

Sometimes they are required, sometimes they are not. Which is why it should always be a decision made between a patient and their doctor.

And what do you do if you can't afford $60 out-of-pocket minimum for birth control? If you say "go to Planned Parenthood," I suggest you take a gander at a map of their locations before suggesting all women are easily served by PP.

"It was actually the fear of women getting pregnant and leaving that kept many employers from hiring female candidates..."

SO wish I still had my star, so I could promote you! A million times yes.

An organization that calls themselves - OUT LOUD - the moral authority of this country, yet harbors, hides and assists priests trying to avoid persecution for sex crimes, needs to be exposed for their hypocrisy.

For starters, distinguishingme's suggestion below would be nice:

It's a joke. At no point was I picking on "you" - I was picking on us Americans. Juxtaposing the notorious trope of "Americans think Canadians is dumb despite evidence or lack thereof" with the idea that "Canadians think Americans are dumb... and there's evidence, so maybe we should pay some attention?" is funny.

So, you're saying the only reason a man striking a woman is seen as deplorable, is because he's bigger than her? So it's OK to hit someone so long as they're of equal or greater strength/size?

How does he reconcile this with military directives that include harming women? Not all, but many, orders include killing men, women, kids... how are soldiers able to overcome those instincts in those situations?