obfuscator

did you make that flowchart in paint? We should start a funding campaign to buy you visio.

I think tinder is a lot different from normal "text game" or what have you because there's already a strong undercurrent of sexual expectation. No experience with it personally, but I suspect Muggi will have some useful advice. At any rate, glad to see you're still putting yourself out there are not being afraid to try stuff. The more you do it, the easier it gets...and as you said you even might start to enjoy it :P

Psychologists hate him! Try this one simple trick!!

Happiness will be irrelevant anyway when cthulhu makes his triumphant return, we will all bask in his misery

Only a matter of time before this gets split off into a new topic that promptly dies.

What is "boting"?

latvia

Got snow here now. Probably won't stick around though.

Why are you looking to move? That has a large bearing on which country would be better. Weather wise, it varies massively throughout Canada. If you move to Toronto, that's one thing. Edmonton would be completely different. It'll be my first time in Toronto since landing and even then, the airport isn't -actually- in the city anyway. We're not spending a whole lot of time there, maybe getting dinner then checking into our hotel. I look forward to spending my actual Christmas holiday in Toronto though. It will be really cute with my pals. Bit of a weird question but is there anywhere in Canada that I can buy Yorkshire puddings from? I want to make as close to a British Christmas dinner as possible. I have an Anthropology final in two weeks' time. Kind of crazy how quickly the time has gone but I look forward to dropping my modules and changing them up next semester. I am due a change-up I think. I'm starting to get a little bit bored. There's probably a British specialty store somewhere. I'd also think one of the more expensive grocery stores might have it as a kind of novelty item.

Quebec city and Montreal are both really cool. I suppose Toronto is too, but I've spent so much time there it's lost its novelty.

25000 is just an arbitrary number. I'm more concerned by the tight deadline (end of year). It's forcing the government to make some questionable decisions (Ralph Goodale even suggested refugees could be screened in Canada instead of prior to arrival). I admit I'm also perplexed by people positing that we have a moral obligation to take refugees running from the atrocities of ISIS, but no such obligation to try to prevent the atrocities from happening in the first place. Personally I think neither thing is a moral obligation, but I can understand if you think both are.

Source? Realistically nothing will change, they are already involved in the coalition fight and they can't exactly invade ISIS.

Uhh, the USSR was governed by the Communist party. So yes, in name, it was a communist country.

I don't deny there are plenty of ways to be involved in politics. However, your comparison specifically dealt with voting decisions, not political activism. How would you recommend someone vote to not be, as you say, "at fault" for the current situation? When I said North Americans, I was referring to the western world section of North America; so yes, in large part Mexcio does not apply. You're also correct in saying that it's not necessary useful to just say "it could be worse". However, when you're specifically comparing two countries that are miles apart in terms of quality of life/individual freedom, it's a useful point to bring up that such a comparison isn't fair or realistic. Incidentally, the latter half of my post wasn't directed at you.

This strikes me as somewhat unfair. You say the two options are the same (I don't disagree) and voting for them is bad. You also say not voting is bad. So, what other option is there? I also have to say that although the US is far from a perfect place in general, it's quite silly to suggest that it's anywhere near a place like South Africa. Oddly enough it seems to be mainly North Americans who don't realize how good they have it making these ridiculous assertions.

It's only dramatic because he makes it so.

Good find. Basically agrees with what wikipedia said: women were relatively well off compared to other cultures of that age, but equate that with the freedoms and privileges enjoyed by the modern western women is ludicrous.

I've read that as well, and haven't seen any factual evidence to support that. Wikipedia (a much more reliable source) shows that viking women had somewhat more autonomy than the average woman of a thousand years ago, but that's not what's being contended.

Source or I call complete BS.

No, it's because society can get away with making fun of men in a way it can't with women

Hahahahah the vikings didn't remotely care about womens rights compared to today

I think it's basically the same thing as friendship Adaquately and accurately defining romantic attraction has been an incredibly difficult thing for the aromantic spectrum for a long time, because it's kind of ephemereal. Friendship is the same, though, really. Like, what is a friendship? It's going to look and feel completely different for different people. Yet, you personally can generally say when you're friends with someone vs. being an acquaintance. Same with romantic relationships: a person can usually tell when they're romantically attracted to someone, and that's what it takes to be so. For you two, part of that is a sexual attraction, and you won't feel romantic attraction without it, which is fine and fairly common, but definitely not universal. Anyway, the best definition I've seen in the past few years of being in the aro spectrum is this: So if you're going out on a date with someone you met on Tindr, you are trying to get to know the person relatively intimately (over a series of dates, anyway) without having any sort of rapport to serve as a foundation on which to build that intimacy. Romantic attraction, then, is the desire to obtain that intimacy with another person. If the only reason you would want to seek that intimacy is if you want to have sex with the other person, then that's a necessary component to you feeling romantic attraction. An alternate way to look at this definition is as a desire to get to know someone more emotionally intimately than they would a friend. Like, you have your best friends and closest friends and there's a level of emotional intimacy and sharing you have with them, and a romantic relationship would be a level beyond that. You want to have more of an emotional connection with the person, and you want to have more involvement and power to solve emotional issues with that other person than you would with a best friend. This makes a lot more sense for people who would only want to date friends/people they know than for those doing online dating or meeting people at bars, but it still applies to the latter group. One thing this definition doesn't touch on is that romantic attraction generally implies/requires a level of commitment. If you enter a romantic relationship with someone, especially a serious one, you're usually saying you are going to be with this person for a long time and you're going to put in a lot of effort to make sure the relationship keeps going even when both internal and external pressures threaten to break it up. I.e., you'll move with your romantic partner/travel to visit them with some regularity if they move, whereas if you moved to another city solely because your friend did so, that would be kind of weird. So, summary, romantic attraction without sexual attraction is all of the above things, but without wanting to bone them. It's a desire to get to know someone in a deeply emotionally intimate way without a necessary corresponding desire to want to have sex with them. And, again, for some people that doesn't make sense, as the only way they'll have that desire for someone is to want to have sex with them. Everyone feels all attractions (romantic, sexual, platonic, etc.) differently, and understanding that is key to understanding the different types of orientations. Yeah this doesn't make any sense to me lol. This all just sounds like either platonic friendship or sexual attraction I have several male friends exactly like this. I wouldn't consider that romantic

Just ask him to get his balls removed, then you'll be in the same boat

We'd moved on from that point. As I said, my last point was much more specific and didn't really deal with bathrooms at all. Yes, I don't disagree that societal preference for women (and men) has changed a lot over time (in fact I said as much already). Fashion and behaviour are to some extent fluid and follow from the current social climate at the time. But sexuality is still fundamentally based on emphasizing sexual characteristics as attractive.

This is completely untrue. Female breasts are a secondary sex characteristic that have a great deal to do with reproduction and sexual attraction. As I mentioned earlier, there is ample evidence of early human cultures viewing breasts sexually as well as other animals doing the same thing. I'll also take issue with saying we've "oversexualized the female body". Men are sexualized as much as women, it's just in different ways: male sexuality typically is attracted to female fertility which is demonstrated by body composition, whereas female sexual attraction is more nuanced and involves things like power additionally. I'm sure I've posted this video before, but it's spot on: Society would certainly be different if nudity was commonplace, but once again the nurture aspect of sexual attraction is extremely small compared to the nature aspect. The nurture side deals more with things like fashion and personality, which make up a small percentage of what drives sexual attraction.