Of course that's the case now. I'm talking about the folks who go through the prison coding bootcamp. Part of the program will need to be incentives for hiring the ex-cons. Otherwise, you're right, they'll never get hired, and they'll just be ex-cons who now know how to write C#.
Nobody wants to be in the same room with a criminal. They want them locked up and never exposed to such elements.
I hate to break this to you, but I bet a lot of your coworkers have broken one law or another. They just never got caught. Are you only a criminal if you have a record?
Presumably, there would be incentives for employers who hire the ex-cons. Obviously they wouldn't be appropriate to work in all roles, but I'm sure there's something that they could do.
Eh. I've been around the block a lot of times at this point. I'm not concerned that throngs of ex-cons might be interested to do what I do for less money. Most people, criminal record or not, would not be able to imitate what I do at any price.
Enforcement of the law is still highly selective. How many banksters went to jail?
The "banksters" have armies of lawyers to ensure that what they are doing is legal, or at least pretty close to legal.
Also, the types of crimes that poor people commit are easier to detect than the type of crimes that rich people commit. A poor person smoking marijuana and a rich person committing securities fraud could be sitting right next to each other at a coffee shop, but guess who's going to jail? The one who smells like marijuana, because how's the cop supposed to know the rich guy is committing securities fraud?
It's not really "selective" in that the cop would rather bust the weed smoker. Hell, the securities fraud is probably a felony, so I'm sure the cop would rather bust the rich guy if he could. But to the cop, it's just a dude in a suit working on his laptop. Nothing illegal about that, right?
How many open source efforts do you know of where there is only one version of the software? Forks are common and even encouraged! I name mysql because that's what's coming to mind right now, but there are several forks of it: drizzle, mariadb, Percona. I realize that the project has a semi-commercial license, but anyway, you get the idea. Projects fork all the time. Hell, there's a "fork" button right on github to make the process easier!
In the commercial software world, you don't get to just hit the "fork" button.
FYI, this article wasn't about removing the means to commit suicide from people like yourself. Since you suffer from long-term medical depression, should you make the long-run decision to take your own life, you would have sufficient time to plan your suicide. Hopefully you would not make such a decision and I genuinely wish you the best of luck in your treatment/coping--I'm just saying that this isn't aimed at people in your condition.
Instead, this method of removing easy access to suicide means is directed at people who ordinarily are not depressed or suicidal, but are temporarily so due to having suffered a trauma (or several traumas). The suicidal impulse may last only a few hours, and the person is unlikely to be thinking clearly at that time. So the idea is that if you can keep them alive until the suicidal impulse has passed, you will have saved that person's life.
So I think that this is really cool research, even if it doesn't pertain to people in a similar position as yourself. And I again wish you the best of luck.
The idea is to block the exits temporarily to thwart unplanned suicide attempts. The idea is to thwart the suicide attempt until the suicidal thoughts pass. Maybe just for a few hours until the mental breakdown subsides.
The article topic does not cover preventing planned suicide attempts.
Guns do not cause suicide. They are a convenient method when available, but if not available those determined to exit this sphere of existence will find a way to do so.
Which I think* is the point of the article.
Let's say that a person is not suicidal, but suffers some trauma that sends him into a mental breakdown and he becomes suicidal during the breakdown. Once the breakdown passes, that person probably will no longer be suicidal. So the idea is to prevent easy access to effective suicide methods, and a handgun is certainly one of those methods.
If our temporarily-suicidal example person has easy access to a handgun during his suicidal episode, he could quickly and efficiently end his life, even though the suicidal episode might have passed after a few hours or days. So if we can prevent him from eating a bullet for just a few more hours, we can probably stop him from ending his life.
This method obviously wouldn't prevent planned suicide.
* I think, because I didn't actually read the article. This is still slashdot, after all!
The common phrase that you're looking for is "belabor the point".
I guess "beleaguer" makes a modest amount of sense, but "belabor" is definitely a better fit here. Once you've finished beating others over the head with your dictionary, I recommend that you look up those two words and decide for yourself.
I don't see what the problem is. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. People have the right to decide if they want to deal with litigious people or not.
I am a landlord, and I check all applicants against court records. Win, lose, or draw, any applicant who has been involved in 3 or more civil cases is rejected. I don't want to deal with people who can't seem to figure out how to settle disputes without getting the courts involved.
Why? The posters on the gonewild subs have to post a photo of themselves with their reddit username, date, and subreddit name to show that they are posting photos of themselves to that subreddit. Seems like a good policy to me to avoid that whole revenge porn thing.
I know quite a few people who have started using GPG via the Enigmail plug-in for Thunderbird lately.
There are several problems with this solution:
1. The "quick" start guide would be very difficult to follow for someone who isn't sufficiently motivated. The only people I know who use GPG are people who are buying illegal narcotics off of the darknets. I'm not saying that using GPG means that you're a criminal. I'm just saying that they are the ones who are motivated to learn GPG because their freedom depends on it!
2. It puts annoying shit in your email message. The PGP headers and footers, the signature, the attached public key. That's annoying for people to receive if they don't know what it is.
3. It breaks search. How can I do a server side IMAP search of all of my email if the emails are encrypted?
4. To be useful, you need to publish your public key. To publish you public key, you need to publish your email address. Welcome to spam city.
5. To be secure, you need a secure passphrase. To sign an email or read an email, you need to type in your passphrase. This is super tedious.
I'm on board that email should be more secure, but Enigmail is not the answer. It's just not. When I want to secure my web browsing in transit, I type "https". I can tell my mom to make sure the URL says "https". Most chat programs use encryption by default now, no effort required on the part of the user. Secure email needs to be as easy as secure web browsing or secure IMing. I should be able to tell my mom how to use it in less than 60 seconds--that's how we'll know we've arrived.
I'm actually liking the way the mailpile is solving this. It's not ready for mom yet, but it's a step in the right direction. Local webmail. Stores email unencrypted so search works, but it's really easy to access GPG sign/encrypt. I don't think IMAP search works, and I have no idea how it works with mobile. But anyway, it's less shitty than Enigmail/Thunderbird.
I'm sure it depends on the person. There are some people who are going to complete school irrespective of pot use and there are some people who will drop out irrespective of pot use. There are still others who might have finished school had they not become a stoner, but unfortunately, their drug use pushed them into the dropout category.
Personally, I was in the first category: I was always going to complete school, and my drug use did not change that.
If "yourself" is someone who doesn't know how to make interesting online dating profiles, then you're not going to have much luck. There are 1,000,001 ways to present yourself. You're the same person for all of them. It's just that some will generate more interest than others.
There are plenty of cisgendered women who have a more pronounced Adam's Apple. Personally, I think that you can tell the best by the person's gait. Adult cisgendered women's hips make a very specific movement that comes from the pelvic area's development to accommodate childbirth. Transwomen won't have that, or they'll try to fake it, which looks very comical.
Of course if you still aren't sure, the absolute easiest way to tell if someone is trans is to "accidentally" refer to them by the opposite-gender pronoun. If they don't react, they are cisgendered. If they absolutely lose their fucking shit, then they are trans.
Women do like engineers. Engineer = stable + money. You've not found dating success which has given you a negative attitude, and unfortunately, the negative attitude will further hurt your chances. Women also kind of like men that they enjoy being around.
I am not personally an engineer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I will provide you with an algorithm for dating so that you know how it's done.
1. Find female human that is attractive to you. Where you find her is unimportant. Maybe it is at work or standing inline or at a singles function or online. Or maybe someplace else. Who cares?
2. Smile and strike up a short conversation with her about something you suspect you might share a mutual interest in. Context should give you an idea. If you're in line at the grocery store, you could ask her how she likes that particular brand of health pellets that she has in her cart. If it's online, something from her profile that you also like. That type of context.
IF (she isn't trying to escape the conversation && she doesn't say anything that disqualifies herself) {
Ask for her number. (if she says no, don't throw a tantrum.) } ELSE {
close out the conversation gracefully
GOTO 1 }
3. Call that evening and ask her out on a short get-together (coffee, a walk through the park, something low-commitment)
4. During the get-together, see how the conversation flows and how you both are enjoying each other.
IF (she doesn't appear to be trying to escape ASAP && you are enjoying your time with her) {
Ask her out on a more substantial date and/or try to hook up with her } ELSE {
Gracefully tell her that you had a great time but that you don't see any further dates in the future or just do the "Fade away" (i.e. don't call her anymore).
GOTO 1 }
Hopefully you can take it from here.
By the way, you should be asking out a lot of chicks while you're single, and definitely should be executing this pseudocode in parallel until you're exclusive with anyone.
The best trick is for parents to actually supervise their children.
What kind of rank stupidity is this? I suppose you also wonder why we have so many 18-year-old "adults" who aren't able to function independently on even the most basic level.
Kids need "independent time" to learn problem solving skills, interpersonal skills, and to build confidence in their abilities to do things on their own. They can't develop these abilities if they've got a mommy or daddy drone buzzing in their ear 24/7.
Question - if you didn't have the same values but still respected each other, shouldn't it still be "all good"? Same as with friends and family (and some really, really annoying co-workers)?
Answer: Sometimes!
With friends, family, and coworkers, I'd say that most differences in values can be bridged by mutual respect because in most cases, we can live and let live. For example, let's say that I value leading an active lifestyle, and a coworker values a sedentary lifestyle (and has the health problems that accompany this). As long as this coworker is competent professionally, those unhealthy lifestyle choices shouldn't matter to me. I can respect the things that matter to me, the professional skills, and shrug my shoulders at the lifestyle choices.
With a spouse, it isn't always possible to bridge a values gap with mutual respect, because values dictate actions, and differing values often require differing actions.
If one spouse values traditional medicine and the other alternative medicine, what do you do if your kid gets sick? I guess you could take them both to an MD and an alternative healer person, but what if they both tell you that the other's advice would be harmful? It's one thing if each spouse can choose a doctor/healer for themselves, but how do you choose for the kids?
If one spouse believes corporal punishment is an important way of disciplining children and the other thinks it's child abuse, how do you then discipline your kids? You can't very well both beat and not beat them!
Or if one values religion and the other is an atheist. Do the kids do all of the religious milestone events, attend worship activities, etc.?
Or if the husband wants to live in a breadwinner/housewife-style household, but the wife wants to work outside the home. She can't very well do both, so how do you bridge that gap with mutual respect?
I guess the point is that with differing values, we can bucket them into "things that affect me" and "things that do not affect me". With non-nuclear-family/friends/coworkers, really most things fall into the "do not affect me" bucket. But with spouses and kids, that "things that affect me" bucket is all of a sudden looking mighty full, and mutual respect often isn't enough to bridge the gap.
There are plenty of guys who complain that they've got to pay for dinners, entertainment, etc. just in the hope of getting lucky, and that it would be cheaper to visit a hooker. But they don't, because they still hold onto the dream of "finding the right one."
So I'm probably the wrong person to comment on finding "the one" because I found my wife quite randomly, at age 20. In other words, I never had to struggle with the prospect of turning 30 or 40, having never found "the one".
But I will say this: "the one" is going to have to share most of the same values with you. So if wining and dining chicks isn't these guys' thing, they shouldn't bloody do it. They should go Dutch. They should alternate who pays. Whatever, but all I'm saying, is that if you be someone you're not while you're dating, you're going to attract someone you don't want.
it might be more practical to realize that the "right one" isn't going to stay with the same figure, the same hair color, the same likes (people evolve)
My wife and I are definitely not the same people that we were when we were 20. We don't look the same, we don't act the same. We don't like the same things. But who cares? We have the same values and we respect each other, and we actually like each other as people. Who gives a shit if our hair is greying or if one of us doesn't have much hair anymore?
I'll overlook that, because it's probably not intentional.
Good instincts. I (and I think most?) use "Dude!" is a genderless interjection. But looking at your sig, I can see why it might have hit you the wrong way, so sorry for any offense it might have caused. None was intended.
"The man is just along for the ride"
I would hope he's along for more than that. Come on, let's have some emotional involvement, rather than using each others sex organs as a form of mutual masturbation:-) Unless you're Charlie "I don't pay hookers for sex - I pay them to leave" Sheen.
By "along for the ride", I meant "becoming a father against his wishes". Presumably the sex itself was about some sort of intimacy or affection. Just not about procreation.
Regarding Charlie Sheen, I get where he's coming from. Since he's a celebrity, I'm sure he has problems with women being over-persistent with him. But even as your average Joe, I would also argue that men don't pay for sex, and neither would we need to. Sex is very easy to find--all that is required is to stay at the bar long enough and to drop your standards low enough. There is no reason to pay for just the sex part.
So why do men pay a ton of money to go to hookers then if we can get sex anyway free of charge? Simple. Good hookers provide way more than just sex, and a hooker who just puts out her cigarette, lies down and spreads her legs like a starfish, and says, "Oh, OK. Let's get this over with," isn't going to make much money.
A good hooker remembers what music her client likes and has it playing when he arrives. She says he's happy to see him when she opens the door and gives him compliments for an hour straight. She talks to him and listens to him and tells him she wants him. They have sex and she tells him it feels great, compliments his technique. She helps him clean up. They talk and flirt some more. She spent an hour focused only on him, made him feel like a king, and when he leaves, she tells him she can't wait to see him again, the first true thing that she's said the entire time.
And she's there whenever he wants to see her, but she doesn't bug him in the meantime. She doesn't show up at his office. Doesn't call his wife. Doesn't text him at inopportune times.
And that, my Internet friend(s), is why men "pay for sex".
Slashdot Mirror
There are incentive for NOT hiring them.
Of course that's the case now. I'm talking about the folks who go through the prison coding bootcamp. Part of the program will need to be incentives for hiring the ex-cons. Otherwise, you're right, they'll never get hired, and they'll just be ex-cons who now know how to write C#.
Nobody wants to be in the same room with a criminal. They want them locked up and never exposed to such elements.
I hate to break this to you, but I bet a lot of your coworkers have broken one law or another. They just never got caught. Are you only a criminal if you have a record?
Presumably, there would be incentives for employers who hire the ex-cons. Obviously they wouldn't be appropriate to work in all roles, but I'm sure there's something that they could do.
Eh. I've been around the block a lot of times at this point. I'm not concerned that throngs of ex-cons might be interested to do what I do for less money. Most people, criminal record or not, would not be able to imitate what I do at any price.
Eventually, some of these "low-rate bottom-of-the-barrel" coders will get better, same as you were once not so hot at what you do today.
And presumably they will expect a higher compensation at that time, which is commiserate with their improved skill level.
I worked for peanuts before I knew what the hell I was doing. That was then, this is now.
Enforcement of the law is still highly selective. How many banksters went to jail?
The "banksters" have armies of lawyers to ensure that what they are doing is legal, or at least pretty close to legal.
Also, the types of crimes that poor people commit are easier to detect than the type of crimes that rich people commit. A poor person smoking marijuana and a rich person committing securities fraud could be sitting right next to each other at a coffee shop, but guess who's going to jail? The one who smells like marijuana, because how's the cop supposed to know the rich guy is committing securities fraud?
It's not really "selective" in that the cop would rather bust the weed smoker. Hell, the securities fraud is probably a felony, so I'm sure the cop would rather bust the rich guy if he could. But to the cop, it's just a dude in a suit working on his laptop. Nothing illegal about that, right?
How many open source efforts do you know of where there is only one version of the software? Forks are common and even encouraged! I name mysql because that's what's coming to mind right now, but there are several forks of it: drizzle, mariadb, Percona. I realize that the project has a semi-commercial license, but anyway, you get the idea. Projects fork all the time. Hell, there's a "fork" button right on github to make the process easier!
In the commercial software world, you don't get to just hit the "fork" button.
FYI, this article wasn't about removing the means to commit suicide from people like yourself. Since you suffer from long-term medical depression, should you make the long-run decision to take your own life, you would have sufficient time to plan your suicide. Hopefully you would not make such a decision and I genuinely wish you the best of luck in your treatment/coping--I'm just saying that this isn't aimed at people in your condition.
Instead, this method of removing easy access to suicide means is directed at people who ordinarily are not depressed or suicidal, but are temporarily so due to having suffered a trauma (or several traumas). The suicidal impulse may last only a few hours, and the person is unlikely to be thinking clearly at that time. So the idea is that if you can keep them alive until the suicidal impulse has passed, you will have saved that person's life.
So I think that this is really cool research, even if it doesn't pertain to people in a similar position as yourself. And I again wish you the best of luck.
The idea is to block the exits temporarily to thwart unplanned suicide attempts. The idea is to thwart the suicide attempt until the suicidal thoughts pass. Maybe just for a few hours until the mental breakdown subsides.
The article topic does not cover preventing planned suicide attempts.
Guns do not cause suicide. They are a convenient method when available, but if not available those determined to exit this sphere of existence will find a way to do so.
Which I think* is the point of the article.
Let's say that a person is not suicidal, but suffers some trauma that sends him into a mental breakdown and he becomes suicidal during the breakdown. Once the breakdown passes, that person probably will no longer be suicidal. So the idea is to prevent easy access to effective suicide methods, and a handgun is certainly one of those methods.
If our temporarily-suicidal example person has easy access to a handgun during his suicidal episode, he could quickly and efficiently end his life, even though the suicidal episode might have passed after a few hours or days. So if we can prevent him from eating a bullet for just a few more hours, we can probably stop him from ending his life.
This method obviously wouldn't prevent planned suicide.
* I think, because I didn't actually read the article. This is still slashdot, after all!
Should we begin divesting from Canada's corporations?
If it were up to the University of California, we'd be boycotting ourselves!
Presumably the phone would lock itself down after 2 or 3 failures entering the unlock pattern.
I won't beleaguer the point
The common phrase that you're looking for is "belabor the point".
I guess "beleaguer" makes a modest amount of sense, but "belabor" is definitely a better fit here. Once you've finished beating others over the head with your dictionary, I recommend that you look up those two words and decide for yourself.
A google search of Lindsey Stone shows the images that she wanted to suppress,
Was it the middle finger pic from the Tomb of the Unknowns?
You just never know what will rile up the Internet Mob these days.
I don't see what the problem is. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. People have the right to decide if they want to deal with litigious people or not.
I am a landlord, and I check all applicants against court records. Win, lose, or draw, any applicant who has been involved in 3 or more civil cases is rejected. I don't want to deal with people who can't seem to figure out how to settle disputes without getting the courts involved.
Why? The posters on the gonewild subs have to post a photo of themselves with their reddit username, date, and subreddit name to show that they are posting photos of themselves to that subreddit. Seems like a good policy to me to avoid that whole revenge porn thing.
I know quite a few people who have started using GPG via the Enigmail plug-in for Thunderbird lately.
There are several problems with this solution:
1. The "quick" start guide would be very difficult to follow for someone who isn't sufficiently motivated. The only people I know who use GPG are people who are buying illegal narcotics off of the darknets. I'm not saying that using GPG means that you're a criminal. I'm just saying that they are the ones who are motivated to learn GPG because their freedom depends on it!
2. It puts annoying shit in your email message. The PGP headers and footers, the signature, the attached public key. That's annoying for people to receive if they don't know what it is.
3. It breaks search. How can I do a server side IMAP search of all of my email if the emails are encrypted?
4. To be useful, you need to publish your public key. To publish you public key, you need to publish your email address. Welcome to spam city.
5. To be secure, you need a secure passphrase. To sign an email or read an email, you need to type in your passphrase. This is super tedious.
I'm on board that email should be more secure, but Enigmail is not the answer. It's just not. When I want to secure my web browsing in transit, I type "https". I can tell my mom to make sure the URL says "https". Most chat programs use encryption by default now, no effort required on the part of the user. Secure email needs to be as easy as secure web browsing or secure IMing. I should be able to tell my mom how to use it in less than 60 seconds--that's how we'll know we've arrived.
I'm actually liking the way the mailpile is solving this. It's not ready for mom yet, but it's a step in the right direction. Local webmail. Stores email unencrypted so search works, but it's really easy to access GPG sign/encrypt. I don't think IMAP search works, and I have no idea how it works with mobile. But anyway, it's less shitty than Enigmail/Thunderbird.
I'm sure it depends on the person. There are some people who are going to complete school irrespective of pot use and there are some people who will drop out irrespective of pot use. There are still others who might have finished school had they not become a stoner, but unfortunately, their drug use pushed them into the dropout category.
Personally, I was in the first category: I was always going to complete school, and my drug use did not change that.
Maybe I should try staying at a Holiday Inn Express though....
Meeting women in a hotel certainly would make some things more convenient now, wouldn't it!
The age old advice still stands: be yourself.
If "yourself" is someone who doesn't know how to make interesting online dating profiles, then you're not going to have much luck. There are 1,000,001 ways to present yourself. You're the same person for all of them. It's just that some will generate more interest than others.
Tip: look for an Adam's Apple.
There are plenty of cisgendered women who have a more pronounced Adam's Apple. Personally, I think that you can tell the best by the person's gait. Adult cisgendered women's hips make a very specific movement that comes from the pelvic area's development to accommodate childbirth. Transwomen won't have that, or they'll try to fake it, which looks very comical.
Of course if you still aren't sure, the absolute easiest way to tell if someone is trans is to "accidentally" refer to them by the opposite-gender pronoun. If they don't react, they are cisgendered. If they absolutely lose their fucking shit, then they are trans.
Women do like engineers. Engineer = stable + money. You've not found dating success which has given you a negative attitude, and unfortunately, the negative attitude will further hurt your chances. Women also kind of like men that they enjoy being around.
I am not personally an engineer, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I will provide you with an algorithm for dating so that you know how it's done.
1. Find female human that is attractive to you. Where you find her is unimportant. Maybe it is at work or standing inline or at a singles function or online. Or maybe someplace else. Who cares?
2. Smile and strike up a short conversation with her about something you suspect you might share a mutual interest in. Context should give you an idea. If you're in line at the grocery store, you could ask her how she likes that particular brand of health pellets that she has in her cart. If it's online, something from her profile that you also like. That type of context.
IF (she isn't trying to escape the conversation && she doesn't say anything that disqualifies herself) {
Ask for her number. (if she says no, don't throw a tantrum.)
} ELSE {
close out the conversation gracefully
GOTO 1
}
3. Call that evening and ask her out on a short get-together (coffee, a walk through the park, something low-commitment)
4. During the get-together, see how the conversation flows and how you both are enjoying each other.
IF (she doesn't appear to be trying to escape ASAP && you are enjoying your time with her) {
Ask her out on a more substantial date and/or try to hook up with her
} ELSE {
Gracefully tell her that you had a great time but that you don't see any further dates in the future or just do the "Fade away" (i.e. don't call her anymore).
GOTO 1
}
Hopefully you can take it from here.
By the way, you should be asking out a lot of chicks while you're single, and definitely should be executing this pseudocode in parallel until you're exclusive with anyone.
Good luck!
The best trick is for parents to actually supervise their children.
What kind of rank stupidity is this? I suppose you also wonder why we have so many 18-year-old "adults" who aren't able to function independently on even the most basic level.
Kids need "independent time" to learn problem solving skills, interpersonal skills, and to build confidence in their abilities to do things on their own. They can't develop these abilities if they've got a mommy or daddy drone buzzing in their ear 24/7.
Question - if you didn't have the same values but still respected each other, shouldn't it still be "all good"? Same as with friends and family (and some really, really annoying co-workers)?
Answer: Sometimes!
With friends, family, and coworkers, I'd say that most differences in values can be bridged by mutual respect because in most cases, we can live and let live. For example, let's say that I value leading an active lifestyle, and a coworker values a sedentary lifestyle (and has the health problems that accompany this). As long as this coworker is competent professionally, those unhealthy lifestyle choices shouldn't matter to me. I can respect the things that matter to me, the professional skills, and shrug my shoulders at the lifestyle choices.
With a spouse, it isn't always possible to bridge a values gap with mutual respect, because values dictate actions, and differing values often require differing actions.
If one spouse values traditional medicine and the other alternative medicine, what do you do if your kid gets sick? I guess you could take them both to an MD and an alternative healer person, but what if they both tell you that the other's advice would be harmful? It's one thing if each spouse can choose a doctor/healer for themselves, but how do you choose for the kids?
If one spouse believes corporal punishment is an important way of disciplining children and the other thinks it's child abuse, how do you then discipline your kids? You can't very well both beat and not beat them!
Or if one values religion and the other is an atheist. Do the kids do all of the religious milestone events, attend worship activities, etc.?
Or if the husband wants to live in a breadwinner/housewife-style household, but the wife wants to work outside the home. She can't very well do both, so how do you bridge that gap with mutual respect?
I guess the point is that with differing values, we can bucket them into "things that affect me" and "things that do not affect me". With non-nuclear-family/friends/coworkers, really most things fall into the "do not affect me" bucket. But with spouses and kids, that "things that affect me" bucket is all of a sudden looking mighty full, and mutual respect often isn't enough to bridge the gap.
There are plenty of guys who complain that they've got to pay for dinners, entertainment, etc. just in the hope of getting lucky, and that it would be cheaper to visit a hooker. But they don't, because they still hold onto the dream of "finding the right one."
So I'm probably the wrong person to comment on finding "the one" because I found my wife quite randomly, at age 20. In other words, I never had to struggle with the prospect of turning 30 or 40, having never found "the one".
But I will say this: "the one" is going to have to share most of the same values with you. So if wining and dining chicks isn't these guys' thing, they shouldn't bloody do it. They should go Dutch. They should alternate who pays. Whatever, but all I'm saying, is that if you be someone you're not while you're dating, you're going to attract someone you don't want.
it might be more practical to realize that the "right one" isn't going to stay with the same figure, the same hair color, the same likes (people evolve)
My wife and I are definitely not the same people that we were when we were 20. We don't look the same, we don't act the same. We don't like the same things. But who cares? We have the same values and we respect each other, and we actually like each other as people. Who gives a shit if our hair is greying or if one of us doesn't have much hair anymore?
"Dude!"
I'll overlook that, because it's probably not intentional.
Good instincts. I (and I think most?) use "Dude!" is a genderless interjection. But looking at your sig, I can see why it might have hit you the wrong way, so sorry for any offense it might have caused. None was intended.
"The man is just along for the ride"
I would hope he's along for more than that. Come on, let's have some emotional involvement, rather than using each others sex organs as a form of mutual masturbation :-) Unless you're Charlie "I don't pay hookers for sex - I pay them to leave" Sheen.
By "along for the ride", I meant "becoming a father against his wishes". Presumably the sex itself was about some sort of intimacy or affection. Just not about procreation.
Regarding Charlie Sheen, I get where he's coming from. Since he's a celebrity, I'm sure he has problems with women being over-persistent with him. But even as your average Joe, I would also argue that men don't pay for sex, and neither would we need to. Sex is very easy to find--all that is required is to stay at the bar long enough and to drop your standards low enough. There is no reason to pay for just the sex part.
So why do men pay a ton of money to go to hookers then if we can get sex anyway free of charge? Simple. Good hookers provide way more than just sex, and a hooker who just puts out her cigarette, lies down and spreads her legs like a starfish, and says, "Oh, OK. Let's get this over with," isn't going to make much money.
A good hooker remembers what music her client likes and has it playing when he arrives. She says he's happy to see him when she opens the door and gives him compliments for an hour straight. She talks to him and listens to him and tells him she wants him. They have sex and she tells him it feels great, compliments his technique. She helps him clean up. They talk and flirt some more. She spent an hour focused only on him, made him feel like a king, and when he leaves, she tells him she can't wait to see him again, the first true thing that she's said the entire time.
And she's there whenever he wants to see her, but she doesn't bug him in the meantime. She doesn't show up at his office. Doesn't call his wife. Doesn't text him at inopportune times.
And that, my Internet friend(s), is why men "pay for sex".