Omar

He really likes dudes 19-27.

I'm being chased by an old, gay man. Metaphorically, so far. Please don't emulate his behaviour. It really doesn't help your chances.

>proven through studies No, for real, you don't know what you're talking about. Science doesn't prove theories to be true, it's an evolutionary process through which the least bad theories are selected.

If he had that kind of attitude he'd probably be angry and single now. IDK, seems to me that going into a talk thinking that any explanation will do and that a breakup is to be avoided at all costs is a bad attitude to have.

inb4 everyone tells us about their onesome

Yeah, I got that, but it's better than no responses haha. I've got one Saturday and maybe one Sunday (she said OK but didn't get a text from her?)

OKC report: got better pictures a couple of days ago, and I'm copy-pasting from muggi like I just don't care. I'm happy with my response rates so far. There are some girls, whom I can only really describe as weirdo chaotic neutrals, that are way more responsive to my talking to them normally, but that probably says more about me than it does about muggi's strategy.

No sheep allowed.

Tim, there's no solution to your trust problem. There's always going to be a chance that someone you date will get bored or move on. I don't mean to be rude since I don't know your circumstances, but I know that over here, you can get a job at Macdonalds while you look for work and it's pretty easy to quit. Is that an option for you?

Try to get her something from a local shop or something rather than a big brand box from Wal-Mart? [Edit] Lang, I expected much greater things from your display name history

I like the fact that I can keep it totally separate from the rest of my life. Trying Muggi's opener, and shelled out for A-list last night. We'll see what happens.

How does a girl who mentions her love of amateur gore porn three times manage to reach "reply selectively"? All I'm thinking about is where I should leave notes so my mom can find where my corpse was dumped.

Muggi, do you use any particular opener for girls who have very little info on their profile/nothing in their pics? I'm asking them to play love it/hate it as a way to get to know more about them, but it's not suuuuper successful.

Decided that I'd push to 23 year olds. Choice sample: "My self-summary my life is about goals, here are my 4 current goals: 1. to hold a massive python, boa or anaconda 2. to be eaten by a python, boa or anaconda 3. to have insects on me naked 4. to be beaten up" What the [bleep] is going on in this profile? I can relate to your appreciation of deafheaven but I don't think I can help you with your snake fetish. Sent at 9:58pm IT'S NOT A FETISH IT'S A LIFESYLE! Sent at 10:07pm sorry *lifestyle I could barely type though the white rage Sent at 10:07pm [Edit] I think I just have a soft spot for indie chicks. I need to get out of this town.

Two new girls popped up in my matches since earlier, talking to the first and waiting for the second to write something.

Does "Browse Matches" actually show you all results for your search? I think I might have hidden all of Ottawa.

No, it's only showing me girls from Montreal. Could be interesting if I was on my way there for a few days and wanted to meet someone.

I'm starting to think the "you might like" pictures on OkCupid only exist to torment me with girls from other cities. Either that, or Ottawa sucks. Yeah, that's probably more like it.

Face-heel turn! Here's a good feminist article. If you think "but not all men are rapists!" is a good objection to Brownmiller's claim that "[rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear," you should probably read it, because you don't understand the quote. Also, de jure discrimination (as opposed to de facto/privately enforced discrimination) can still exist even if on paper, every individual is subject to the same rule. For example, if the law says that the only foods that can be sold as "hummus" must contain at least 5% tahini, and only one company has been making hummus that way, there's a very good reason to be suspicious (it's actually happening, I'm not making this up). A more relevant example would be gun control: granting* that it prevents the reduction of power differentials in violent altercations and that women are typically the ones who would be getting the opportunity to defend themselves if they were allowed guns, those laws are discriminatory against women, in application if not in principle. (This is just an example of implicit de jure discrimination, not a claim that gun control, in particular, is sexist.)

Looks like I found what I was looking for. From r/OkCupid: Maybe quitting altogether is a bit extreme, but damn, dat attitude.

1) Just off the top of my head, sexual assault courts in universities in the US are still shitty. Bad for the victims, bad for the accused. Other genders are still marginalized de jure, too, and it hasn't been very long since marital rape was made illegal. 2) Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly are they responsible for? My understanding is that for all intents and purposes the whole royal family just sits there and looks nice. 2, 3) You know what? I wouldn't mind so much if everyone did all my work for me. I think it would be kind of neat if men weren't the ones who were expected to go to war in order to protect women. I mean, it would suck to an extent, because paternalism really bugs me, but I think I'd take it over being sent to kill and get killed by people I don't even know. You see what I mean? This is a little bit like saying welfare payments are paternalistic. They are, sure, but they're also free money that was taken from someone else. If you want to spend another twenty-some minutes listening to girlwriteswhat, look up her video on male disposability. 4) Lil' Wayne and Rick Ross are very happy to tell me how high status they are, and then demonstrate this with a list of things they own (cashmere socks [bleep]!). So what?

Careful with this. Yes, you need to have mental health issues in order to do this kind of thing. That's kind of like saying you need hands in order to strangle people.

No. Apartheid was legally enforced. It was comparable to Jim Crow laws. Why do you think this is the case? Are more things happening to men? Are newspapers deliberately not covering things that happen to women? Are readers less interested in what happens to women? Not a rhetorical question, just not sure in what sense you think this is evidence of sexism. And 90% of workplace injuries happen to men. Is it any more fair that men are disproportionately expected to put the integrity of their body at stake in order to get a job? Or is doing things you wouldn't do if you weren't getting paid for it exactly what working is? But the same thing is true for everyone. I don't care about my baker as an end in and of him or herself. I care about how good he is at baking bread. This is totally normal in a society with more people than you can know personally. I won't comment on Timberlake because I don't remember the song, but you'll note that Thicke hates "blurred lines," not lines. The song is about mixed signals ("the way you grab me [what way, we're not sure, but apparently such that she...] / must want to get nasty"), which, in the interest of consent being taken seriously, should not be part of the lead-up to sex. That song also contrasts Thicke to another man who tried, and failed, to domesticate the woman in question, so I'm not sure where you're seeing that coverture-esque ownership thing.

This has to be the first time I've seen that LearnLiberty video posted by someone other than me or Horwitz.

Don't you think that agreeing with such a principle contradicts support for feminism? Feminism sort of falls apart if you believe that women are responsible for their own wellbeing. You're confusing self-respect and respecting other people, i.e. politics. On a practical level, it's much better to adjust yourself to this than to try to change something that cannot be changed. In fact, out of respect for what little freedom you have, you owe it to yourself to do what you can instead of wallowing in self-pity. That's why people who refuse to take ownership for their own well-being are repugnant. But by itself, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that there's no such thing as fairness, or to a kind of fatalism. Still out of recognition of the fact that what you do is what you have decided to do, you have to take responsibility for what you do to others, whether right or wrong. Respecting other people's rights (in our case, choosing to honour women's choices) is part of respecting yourself as a moral agent.