OkCupid is Free Online Dating.

How is this a yes or no question????

Do I approve of nude or topless beaches? Yes.

Do I approve of public breast feeding? Yes.

Do I approve of people walking around downtown naked? Hell no.

Do I approve of streaking? It's sort of silly, but it's usually all in good fun.

Do I approve of people exposing themselves randomly for exhibition purposes? Not really.

I ended up putting yes, but I'm starting to re-think that. Mostly I was remembering my experiences in Spain and how great it was to sunbathe topless. Feeling the sun all over you while relaxing on a tiny beach was one of the best experiences. I think there should be areas of public beaches that allow it. But I also am totally not ok with creepy guys (or women, for that matter) exposing themselves to random people on the street to get their jollies.

I guess I just have to chalk up this to another "when I rule the world" scenario. When I rule the world, everyone will be much more comfortable with their bodies and with nudity in general.

If scientists invented a pill that condensed a whole meal's worth of nutrition into a single swallow, would you use it?

A. Yes, often.

B. Yes, occasionally.

C. Yes, but only in an emergency.

D. No, I'd prefer to starve to death.


Ok, I understand how the first three answers could tell you about someone. Are they the sort of people who only eat to live and don't really care about food or are they the sort of people who love to eat for the sake of the flavors/textures/aromas of the food involved.

But the fourth option??? WTF? Who chooses to starve to death rather than take a pill (assuming you're not a hunger strike or similar).

Can anyone tell me the point of the final question option?

Gee, I'm posty tonight.

So, I just read a friend's rant on livejournal about spoilers. He was pissed off because of all the spoilers (both in the media and on livejournal) about Captain America (I won't spoil it for anyone who has managed to avoid the news thus far).

Maybe I'll lose whatever "fangirl" street cred I have for saying this, but I really don't care about spoilers. I just can't see the point of getting worked up into a froth about finding out the "surprise" beforehand. I'm not saying that I don't like surprises (far from it), but they aren't the ENTIRE point of reading/watching something.

Maybe it's because I'm so analytical, but I can almost enjoy something more if I know what's coming. That way I am able to enjoy putting all of the pieces together and seeing how the writers led up to the event. If I don't have to focus on keeping track of the plot, I'm allowed a little more mental freedom to enjoy the smaller details of a piece.

I mean, I can see being a trifle put out if the surprise is the entire point of a work (Crying Game, Sixth Sense, etc.), but even then you can enjoy looking for the clues throughout. Personally, I think that's actually been why so many people have turned on M. Night Shyamalan. They're so focussed on the surprise plot twist that they get frustrated if they can figure it out early in the movie, rather than enjoying the film on its own merits (or lack thereof).

However, I totally don't understand getting your knickers in a twist over the ending or a book, movie, or comic book. Life is too short to get so angry. Seriously, this guy was screaming that he was going to spoil everything for everyone from now on because he was so angry about being spoiled so many times. WTF?

Can anyone explain this to me? Why is it soooooooo important to not find out anything about a work before you experience it. Is it new criticism run amok? What's the obsession?

So I was at a faculty meeting today, and another teacher brought her nine month old baby. Before the meeting she approached the principal and I overheard this woman say that her babysitting had fallen through, and that the baby had not had a nap that day as well as having had some shots and been fingerprinted. In other words, this was not going to be a relaxed baby.

As I'm sure you can surmise, the baby squeaked and squalled throughout the meeting. The mother didn't take the baby out until at least 45 minutes into an hour and fifteen minute meeting. The baby was so loud that I couldn't hear things that were being said at the front of the meeting (we were in part of the cafeteria). People kept murmuring that they couldn't hear and turning around and staring pointedly at the baby.

Now, the faculty meeting happens once a month and one is expected to attend, but no one takes attendance. I've certainly skipped them before, and for lesser reasons than having a tired-out baby and no babysitter. I just don't understand how the need to be seen in a meeting trumps a) everyone else's ability to hear/participate in the meeting and b) the health and well-being of your child.

To me it's an affront to working mothers everywhere. They either have to pay for childcare (this woman seems to only rely on her teenaged children) or choose not to attend certain things. Granted, it's not a great choice, but it's the choice we have right now.

What I'm curious about is, would this be acceptable in any other business? I can't imagine that it would be. Even if it were a relatively informal meeting, you would be taken aside and asked to leave if your child was so loud as to stop other people from hearing what was going on, right?

PS-- I love kids; I just don't think they belong in meetings.

So, we're reading Oedipus in my 9th grade classes. We've read about half of it and I get to Jocasta's speech where she talks about men dreaming of sleeping with their mothers. This is actually the speech that Freud used for the basis of the Oedipus Complex, so I decide to go ahead and introduce Freud to them. They're only 14, so I can't go into much depth, but they need to have a general understanding.

I ask them if anyone has heard of Sigmund Freud.

A few raise their hands, but one boy waves his frantically in the air and says he knows.

"He's the one with the tigers, right?" says the boy.

It takes me a second, then I sadly shake my head.

"No, sweetie. You're thinking of Sigfried and Roy."

Moments like these are why I have stayed in the field of education.

I had two, TWO (!) married men message me today on YIM. Both of them gave me the same sob-story of how they loved their wives/weren't leaving their families, but they were going crazy through the lack of sex. So, couldn't I just consider having a "discreet" relationship with them? They promised they would make me happy and bestow all of the affection they wanted to give their wives on me.

And they didn't seem to understand why I essentially said: HELL NO!!!!!!!!!

Jesus christ, what is wrong with people? I told both of them they needed to sack up: either figure out a way to solve their problems at home, or leave and seek happiness elsewhere. Oh no, I was told, you don't understand. I love my wife, I don't want to leave her. It would just be easier if I had a little something on the side that she doesn't have to know or worry about.

I *do* understand. I have watched many friends end their marriages and I know how painful and difficult it is. I know they had self-doubt that they were doing the right thing, but they also knew it was no good trying just "not to hurt" their spouse and being secretly miserable.

These men don't love their wives; they're just comfortable with their lifestyle and don't want to go through any pain. As the wise Westley said in the Princess Bride, "Life is pain, anyone who tells you anything different is selling something." It takes fucking balls to change your life that drastically. Perhaps if these guys ever grew a pair, they would be the ones to understand.