The other day I was updating my profile settings and it struck me that it said I'm interested in "girls who like guys" although I'm in a happy relationship *knock knock knock on wood*.

I thought OK, this is a bit weird, I don't wanna give the impression I'm looking on the side, so I looked for an option that would say I'm not looking for anybody. I didn't find it, so I changed it to looking for "anybody" and for friendship only.

Now when log in, I see these beefcake pictures of the sexy guys on this site and I feel a little alienated. So, back to wanting girls only. :-)

I used to see the bar on my profile saying it was 96% complete for a long time. And that I should post a long post to my journal or that I should write my own test. I did both and I got to 100%. Sincerely, I expected something would happen. Like a new cool capability or a witty message, in which the OKcupid staff are so good... nothing. As far as I have noticed. Just the 100% shown in the now full progress bar. I'm a little disappointed, I must say. :-/

Do you believe in fate?

• Yes.
• No.

Yes but also that it can be altered. :-)

Do you think children should be allowed to play with toy guns?

• Yes.
• No.

This is so hard to tell.

On one side, no. Kids should not learn to aim guns at people (which is what they'll do when they have one). Handling a gun must come with a feel of responsibility and playing is not that. Using a (fake or not) gun as a toy makes one feel about using the gun as something adventurous, imagine shooting people and having fun of it.

On the other side, if there are toy guns available and a kid sees it (and other kids playing with them) and starts craving for one... it's better to let him or her because else the above mentioned undesirable phenomena will only be strengthened.

How interested would you be in knowing the details of a partner's sexual history?

• Very interested.
• Somewhat interested.
• Not interested.

I find the answer options here a bit flat. I would be very interested but I'd not insist that I must be told if she did not want. And I expect to have the freedom not to say what I don't feel like saying but at the same time that I can share anything I feel like sharing.

So, in the scale offered here, "very interested" fits me best because I'm always very interested in anything that concerns my partner (particularly a new one :-) ) but I feel that this option bears a notion of force, so I'll answer "somewhat interested".

I saw examples of "you tell me everything about all your past sex partners or we're through" and I hated that and I certainly don't want this question to present me as such.

Is it possible for your partner to be too ambitious?

• Yes.
• No.

Yes, in the sense that their ambition would blind them or took a higher priority than love. Then it would be too much in my eyes. But in the absolute value, no. And definitely not in the sense that "you must have lesser ambitions than I do".

Do you consider astrology to be a legitimate science?

• Yes.
• No.

What a question.

Astrology used to be a legitimate science with great prestige for centuries. But recently, science has adopted the positivistic approach. There are no proofs in astrology. It is a science in the sense that it has a broad theory, it has branches, one can devote one's life to studying it and it has wide methodology.

But the results, the ends, those need interpretation and intuition. The positivism has wiped these from science. And in a sense, it was a great leap ahead. It reduces the possibility of mystification and misleading via would-be scientific results. If every result can be objectively verified, the space for manipulation is much smaller.

But the Universe and life offer things to discover that cannot be objectively verified. And those often tend to be interesting and relevant for life. Astrology deals with those. So as long as we nod at the restriction that all scientific must be objective, then no, astrology is not a legitimate science. But it features many genuinely scientific methods and properties.

I'm picking the yes button.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Do you agree with this statement?

• Yes.
• No.

Literally, no, I don't agree. But I sympathize with the thought. I'd just say "they prevent people from reaching them" rather than "they don't deserve them".

Assuming you have reached the point where you exchanged real contact information, would you be comfortable if a potential match had a background check run on you?

• Yes.
• No.

Actually, it would raise her in my eyes.

How important to you is being with family during holidays?

• Very important.
• Somewhat important.
• Not important.
• I have no family.

Or maybe it should read: How important to you is being without family during holidays?