I'm worried that something about motherhood changes this in your own perception. Because I have many strong independent friends who became "nathansmom" or whatever after their kid was born, and seem to have lost all semblance of an identity apart from their child.

I wonder if their kids know any different? If you have an attentive and caring parent, does it really matter if she's just not that into you?

More likely that his mistress/soul mate realized she was with a creepy old man whose success in life was mostly due to his now-ex wife who bankrolled and managed his political career, and without her he's just another loser.

Or...are we the same person? Whoa.

I would love to read it. I'm very open minded, but I gotta be honest - this is so foreign to me I can't imagine how it works. I'm really glad it does work, but I just can't wrap my tiny brain around it. Please write something about it!

I picked up one bridal magazine right after I got engaged, thumbed through it, freaked out, and haven't looked at one since. And no Pinterest either. And hey, I managed to plan a wedding and (mostly) keep my sanity!

So, I met my fiance on my very first Match.com date. That was it for me. We were perfect for each other, and getting married next month. He was on it for years trying his luck. Everytime I see a post like this I thank my lucky stars (and him) for saving me from the hellscape that appears to be online dating.

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.

Does anyone recall reading a YA book called "The Girl in the Box?"

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."