God yes! So well put. I EXPECT you to be nice. What else do you have to offer? Hopefully a personality.

I'm 33. Last year I went on a date with a guy I met on Match. We're getting married next month. He is the nerdiest, sweetest, funniest, smartest guy I've ever met and we're perfect together. I honestly never thought it would happen. He was on Match for years. I had beginner's luck.

School supplies, office supplies - all of it. I used to ask my parents for rolodexes, notebooks and pens for Christmas. I was born to be a bureaucrat, I guess.

I had the same thought. The good news is that most people really don't want to sue their employers - they just want a healthy and safe work environment so they can do their jobs.

Both. But what the Jezebel writers posted yesterday could have represented a legal issue for Gawker (although I'm really not sure they realized that). I'd like to think they realized "oh shit, this is a real problem" before the trolls spread.

Oh god, I didn't realize they weren't blocked at Gawker. GAHHH.

I definitely encountered them and I'm not here very often. But I would assume the Jez writers had previously asked Gawker Media to address the issue before resorting to the very public throwdown yesterday. Yesterday seemed like an act of desperation by a group that wasn't being taken seriously.

I think that's great, but it also kind of annoys me that it took such a massive public protest to make this happen, when it's clearly something that could have been done a while ago. It would be nice if they did it because it was always the right thing to do.

Criticizing this asshole is about as useful as criticizing Ann Coulter. He exists to say inflammatory, idiotic things. Best to ignore.

Just have to stick with the Macchu Pichu selfies then. They say "I'm adventurous, but not really"

exactly. That's why this headline is so misleading. This is a major, potentially lifesaving breakthough that will protect women in developing countries who are with men who won't wear condoms.

The clear implication of this development is for use in the developing world, or did you completely miss that when you were dismissing its target audience as idiots "who can't be bothered to use a condom or a pill."

wow. You understand that in much of the world men won't wear condoms, right? this might be a woman's best chance to prevent HIV.

Oh that's true. And there are the industrial strength options like Certain Dri that work really well when I'm going to be dealing with some serious sweat.

I just want some damned unscented things. I don't want to use men's deodorant because I don't want to smell like my fiance. Same with shaving cream. Just leave the scent out entirely and I'm happy to use the same thing - just like I'm perfectly happy of my giant pack of gender-neutral razors I get at Costco that lasts…

Oh, wow, you spent time in India and Nepal! Thanks for working that pertinent info into this discussion!

I stand corrected!

I hate to argue with USA Today, but the EEOC thinks otherwise:

No, it's not illegal to ask those questions. What's illegal is to base an employment decision on the answers, which is why most employers won't ask, lest they be accused of discrimination. But the asking isn't illegal.

That seems reasonable. 3 stars is fair.