"I think the businesses that bring these men in should also be accountable for not providing opportunities that keep them busy outside of work."

"They should check their employees before hiring (if they don't already) and get rid of those who commit ANY kind of aggression toward women or men. Their social responsibility goes beyond the gate or the door. Maybe the answer is for the towns like Williston to heavily tax the companies so that they can afford to police the men the companies employ. If business doesn't see itself more broadly as a player in the overall health of our society, government needs to step in."

That's a reader comment at the NYT article about all the single men working out in the oil fields of North Dakota, which we've been talking about over in this earlier thread. Please go to that thread to talk about the article more generally. I'm opening up this new thread for discussion of the proposition that business should be responsible for the after-work activities of their employers, that the tendency of men to go out after work looking for female companionship calls for the heavy taxation of business, that individuals looking for sexual relationships in their own free time ought to be conceptualized as an issue of collective "health," that overall societal health requires big "players," and that if businesses don't want to see themselves as the players, they leave a gap that government must fill.

"More email. 'Tell me something.' That's the subject line. He's like a stalker."

I say, and Meade says, "Who is he?" and I say, "He's a man named Barack Obama."

Here's the body of the message:

Millions of Americans are stepping up for this campaign right now.

I want to know if you're one of them:

http://my.barackobama.com/In

Barack

my.barackobama.com. My Barack Obama? If you click on the link, the URL turns into a normal barackobama.com, so that feeling of going to a special place with your email boyfriend/stalker is lost. But there is a social media effect — a little Facebook icon and next to it the notation "[2 names of actual Facebook friends of mine] and 27,600,417 others like this." Arrayed beneath that notation are little thumbnail photos of some of my Facebook friends — people I know — smiling for whatever reason and not because they anticipated their image being appropriated for a campaign fund-raising web page.

The email said "Millions of Americans are stepping up for this campaign right now," and then when I clicked, I saw people I know, snagged from Facebook. And the President of the United States wants to know if I'm "one of them" — which gives me a whole "Freaks" vibe. I picture all my Facebook friends going one of us, one of us, one of us...

Gooble gobble.

Colleges are asking incoming students to declare their sexual orientation.

"Sexual orientation is a part of diversity and cannot be ignored, said Robert Anderson, chair of the Academic Senate of the University of California system.

It's for their own good. The university has services it wants to provide. All the government's intrusions into your private life are for your own good. You will be given what is good for you, so come on now, tell us all about everything.

ADDED: When I started college, at the University of Michigan in 1969, the freshman were all given a test — various multiple choice questions — and it produced a number of different scores, one of which was not revealed to the students (although we figured out the code and were able to read our scores). This score purported to place everyone on a spectrum from very masculine to very feminine, and perhaps the authorities imagined that they could identify the homosexuals.

What were the questions? — you may wonder. Famously, one question was do you prefer cooked or raw carrots. In my family, we only ate raw carrots, so I'd always regarded cooked carrots as gross. I suppose that made the University regard me as more of a lesbian. I seem to remember a question that asked what would you rather do, where one option was to take apart a clock and then put it back together again. I don't know what the other choice was, but I suspect that clock project skewed a lot of the boys gay.

Trent Arsenault — devoted sperm donor, virgin father — hounded by the FDA.

Here is a man who has — as I read this truly fascinating article — devoted himself to sperm donation for altruistic, religious reasons. He gives the sperm, only to couples, and he maintains a rigorous health regime designed to produce the best quality product.

And I use the word "product" to highlight the fact that the FDA has filed a "cease manufacture" order against him.

Although sperm is neither a food nor a drug, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research regulates those who traffic in it, enforcing frequent and comprehensive tests designed to curb the spread of communicable diseases and genetic disorders. Historically the agency has focused only on traditional sperm banks, not private donors, but Trent was unprecedentedly public about what he was doing. When the FDA first contacted him, he had naïvely signed a piece of paper confirming that he was “an establishment.” In August 2010, using that as a pretext, the FDA sent three agents to his house, where for several days they interviewed him and copied his records. Trent had by then made 340 donations to some 46 different recipients. The scrutiny was time-consuming and stressful; he didn’t have a lawyer and worried than he might land in prison.

By November, the FDA determined that Trent wasn’t screening for diseases nearly often enough, and it issued its cease-­manufacture order. Trent replied that he wished to contest it. He wasn’t charging money, as he explained, and he was helping people. He knew that he was celibate, that he was disease-free, and that he took extraordinary measures to safeguard his DNA. He considered his relationship with his recipients to be “intimate.” Why should the government regulate what he was doing, when anyone, with who knew what health issues, could walk into a bar and have a one-night stand? A government-accountability public-interest group, Cause of Action, agreed, seeing the FDA action as a ringing example of regulatory overreach, and filed a brief on Trent’s behalf. “We questioned him as to the parameters of his relationship with recipients,” Amber Taylor, the chief counsel for Cause of Action, says. “We took away that he’s a very generous, helpful person who sees people in need who could not have children without some form of assistance, who are often lower income or underserved by the fertility-medicine industry.” Trent is currently awaiting a decision by the FDA on whether to grant him a hearing, and in the meantime, the cease-manufacture order has been suspended.

I'm sure that, after this high-profile article, the FDA will back off. But let's talk about the legal issues here. Does Arsenault have a right of privacy in his relationship with the couples he assists? "He describes himself as a 'donorsexual,' with all of his libidinal energy channeled in service of others." Consider that he has 15 — and counting — children through this activity, which had deep religious and emotional meaning to him:

Many of the recipients who have successfully become pregnant have maintained contact with Trent; the lack of anonymity has always been part of his appeal. They send him ultrasounds and arrange to have Trent meet the child. He has a bag ready to go containing his own old toys, which he gives away, and items he uses to observe childhood development....

Trent sits at his desk and pulls up Facebook, where he clicks through photographs of many of his biological children....

Even if he were to stop donating—which he would do immediately if, for instance, he learned that one of his children was autistic or had another genetic problem—Trent says he would stick with his extreme health regimen. “I want to be alive for the children. They will want to know about me. It may not be until they turn 18, or later in life, that they decide they want to meet me, so I want to be in a good capacity to meet them.”

Quite aside from whether he has a constitutional right of privacy with respect to these intimate relationships, why does the federal government have power over his activity? Because it regulates the sperm bank business and this is like the way it can regulate growing one marijuana plant even one that isn't intended for the commercial market? But marijuana is a commodity, and — as the Supreme Court said in Gonzales v. Raich — "the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."

Be it wheat or marijuana... or sperm?

"This holiday has felt a bit like one last long, deep breath before we plunge into 2012."

"This time next year, I don't want us to have any regrets."

Another example of email from the Obama campaign that has a creepy, too-personal tone. That's supposedly from Michelle Obama.

Deep breaths... plunging... no regrets...

Back off!

"If I don't call you."

Subject line on email from Barack Obama.

In case you don't understand what death is.

The government is here to help.

In the email: "From: Barack Obama Subject: I want to meet Ann."

Kind of creepy, no? It gets creepier:

Ann --

Two years ago, I met 10 of you.

10 of me? An army of Althouses — is that really what you want?

Actually, as his "10 of you" locution suggests, his view of me is completely generic. He wants me to give $3 and be entered in a raffle be one of 3 winners of trips to Las Vegas (of all places) to meet him. That's not what I call "want[ing] to meet Ann."

"I want to meet three supporters like you backstage at a rally in Las Vegas." I don't think you even what to meet "supporters like [me]." That would be sad.

Click to read the whole email.

Ann --

Two years ago, I met 10 of you.

Just before I accepted our party's nomination in front of 80,000 people in Denver, I spoke with 10 grassroots supporters who had won a trip to meet me backstage.

I still remember the time we spent together -- because these are the people, like you, who stood with me in 2008, and got me through the tough fights since.

But we face another test on November 2nd that will say a lot about our future -- and I need you by my side again.

A Supreme Court decision I strongly disagree with has shifted the balance of power in our elections from folks like you to giant corporations. Their massive spending on attack ads could have a real impact on who represents you at all levels of government. Only supporters like you -- and all the work you are doing -- are standing in their way.

This may be our toughest fight yet.

So next week, just 11 days before the elections, I want to meet three supporters like you backstage at a rally in Las Vegas -- one of the last big rallies of this campaign.

Will you make a $3 donation now to be automatically entered to win a trip to be at my side at the rally in Vegas?

This movement has always been about more than me. It's about change, and the kind of future we envision for this country.

The folks I met backstage in Denver told me they wanted health reform, a clean-energy economy, and a resolution to the war in Iraq. They wanted a new kind of politics, and a new kind of leader.

It was their hope and expectation that together we would move beyond the status quo, that we would counter the special interests and corporate influence in Washington -- that we would do what was right and necessary for all Americans.

With your help, we have made historic progress, but there is much left to do -- and it will not happen without your involvement. I need strong allies in Congress who will stand with us in the tough fights ahead, and I need you to give it all you've got through November 2nd to make sure they can.

Your donation today will provide critical support to our Vote 2010 campaign as we reach out to millions of voters who will decide the closest races across the country.

It will determine if we pass this test, and win our toughest fight yet.

Please donate $3 or more to be automatically entered to win a trip to Las Vegas to meet me backstage:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Backstage

I hope to see you out there,

President Barack Obama

P.S. -- Making a donation automatically registers you for the sweepstakes. You may also enter the sweepstakes without making a contribution either online or via text message -- click here to enter online or here for instructions on how to enter via text message. No minimum contribution is necessary to be registered.

No purchase or contribution necessary to enter. Void where prohibited. You can enter the contest without making a contribution by clicking here. Only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents over the age of 18 who are residents of the 50 states or D.C. are eligible to enter. Entries must be received by 11:59 p.m. on 10/15/10. Three winners will receive one round-trip ticket within the continental U.S. to Las Vegas, NV; hotel accommodations for one; and a meeting with President Obama at a rally event on 10/22/10 (approximate combined retail value $1,200.00). Odds of winning depend on number of entries received. Promotion is subject to Official Rules, available here, including restrictions on eligibility.

"Americans Like Big Government: They just don't really know it yet."

That's the line.

And, of course, part of Big Government is to feed us that line. It's part of the scheme of getting us to like it. Sometimes government sounds like a creepy stalker....