The trick, I suppose, is to be sufficiently successful as to be self-sufficient without being so successful as to threaten the male's sense of dominance and control. Talk about a balancing act.

While I don't agree with the exact philosophy, I think there's a certain dark logic behind it. Online dating isn't quite like regular dating: people have virtually unlimited options available to them, and if you want to attract someone's attention and convince them you're worth giving a chance over all the other…

Unfortunately, we'll still have to deal with their crustacean spawn scuttling around making a fuss for generations to come.

That seems far too...productive for a Republican strategy. More likely they'd just try and come up with newer and even more inventive ways to marginalize minorities.

Here's a list of previous uses for you that might help.

It's generally meant to refer to issues pertaining to the whole family, to my knowledge: as in, issues discussed when the whole family gathers 'round the kitchen table.

Of course, it's still exclusionary toward those with alternative dining arrangements.

I should further add that all of this applies solely to competition against other males: the thought of being outperformed by a woman does not even enter consideration from the start, except perhaps in heavily academic (and not particularly profitable) fields, such as the arts or certain sciences. Any man or boy who…

There's this sort of cultural/professional assumption for men that success, itself, is not an achievement. You are expected to succeed. Anything less than succeeding is automatically a failure, and your succeeding is only notable if you manage to do so to a degree far beyond your competitors. A "second place is still…

I think it's more that they think they should be more successful than their partners, which is a deeply-ingrained notion.

Yeah, I just started reading the article, and I was waiting for the punchline. I was expecting this to be some sort of elaborate parody and I got...nothing.

To someone, you will be the hottest person on earth.

No, it's definitely a message that's out there. I don't know if it's the prevailing wisdom, but it's certainly at least close to it. You hear it over and over again: men are supposed to care about looks, women about personality (or money).

Does that even count as being superficial, though? If someone doesn't meet a woman's bare minimum for physical attractiveness or is otherwise not to her tastes, there's really no reason for her to give them "a chance."

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as it's not the only thing you care about.

Falling under the umbrella of those it's not generally recommended for due to the risk of a reaction, and having been flattened for a month by the flu earlier this year, I find myself greatly appreciative of every additional vaccinated man, woman, and child.

That seems perhaps a touch overly...optimistic.

Answers. They'll go through hundreds or even thousands of questions, some with quite extensive answers, with a high match rate with mine, but have entire profile pages that amount to only a couple paragraphs. They'll say they travel, but never where. They'll say they love reading, but not what. They'll say they watch…

Depends on where you are, I think. In some places (usually major cities and population centers), these are low. In others, it's the norm, or above average.

Demographics skew the numbers, I think. On one hand, you've got a considerable number well above the average concentrated in the high population, diverse, large urban areas, and then you've below average numbers everywhere in between, and so you end up somewhere in the middle.

I've run into that problem a few times. They seem interesting, it looks like we'd be a decent match, but there's so little in their profile that I'm grasping at straws when it comes to specifics because they're so vague about their interests.