Quibble.

Oops, already did that one.

Quip.

Unless the baby in your arms is a major selling point, I'd have a primary picture of just you. Happy chubby-cheeked baby can be picture #2.
If you want people to be able to search for you by Interest, throw some commas in between your major interests so the search engine doesn't get confused.
Don't be afraid to send a nudge or a polite ice-breaking email.

One for the Religion board: quadriplegic.

I play computer games, read books, and troll internet forums. I buy the computer games on sale (50% off or bust!), I get gift cards for my local bookstore for all major gift-giving holidays, and the last one is free.
Well, free of money.

I reserve my right to "eat out" in the privacy of my own home if I want to!



As to actual money-saving tips...
Don't use your car unless you need to. Do preventative maintenance on it and your house.
If you can afford it, get things like energy-saving windows and doors (they help insulate your house so it doesn't need as much warming/cooling).
Turn off your air-conditioning when you're not home; you should be able to program it to start heating up/cooling down no more than an hour before you get home.
Look into company-, city-, or state-subsidized energy-saving options, like planting trees or getting solar panels on your house.
Start exercising more, and only eating after you exercise. This trains your body to do more with less food. (Gradually, and only to a certain degree, but it will be better than it was.) DO NOT start eating more after you exercise - have your normal breakfast/meal.
On a related note, eat slowly. This gives your body time to "feel full", and you won't eat as much. Only prepare yourself about a handful of food at a time. When you finish with that, you'll have to go back into the kitchen and make yourself more, if you're still hungry. That will give your stomach some time to digest and think about how much more it actually "needs". Your food will stretch further, and your waistband won't!

...

That is so simple... and yet brilliant. Can't believe I never noticed that before.

Two homosexuals get married. They have unprotected sex. (As married couples are wont to do.) One contracts HIV from the other.

A father and daughter get married. They have unprotected sex. (As married couples are wont to do.) One contracts HIV from the other, and gets pregnant, and has a genetically-unstable child.

Did I not already explain the difference several posts ago?

TL;DR
The consequences of one relationship are even more serious than the consequences of the other relationship.

If you want to get super-rational about it, the most cautious, then the safest avenue is to not have sex at all. Do not share any bodily fluids with anybody else. Ever. Even if they say they're virgins and "clean".
"Responsible" sex does not "all but eliminate those odds". They reduce the odds. There are plenty of flaws that mean the risk is still there. A condom has a hole torn in it. You perform oral sex instead of genital sex, and some slips. You share a needle that was dunked in alcohol for about half a second, and it didn't clean the whole thing through. With our current methods of safe sex, there are no guarantees.
The only way you can guarantee that something doesn't occur is to not do it in the first place - and most people in the world don't accept that as a valid option. Even that is not a solid guarantee, for someone in your family history could have contracted an STD in the past. Those little buggers wait for YEARS to show noticeable effects, and by then it's typically too late.

The "rational" argument (which of course is any argument if it's an actual argument, as set down by the "rational" arguers. See how that works?) only supports the prohibition of incest. It is not "responsible" to increase the likelihood of deformation/dementation/genetic instability in your own children. (And again, the problem is not only the immediate children, but the children for generations to come.) Even if one or both parties are infertile or "fixed", there is still the problem of having a romantic relationship with a member of your own family - as opposed to someone outside your family. This reduces outside social bonds and makes the pair emotionally incestuous in addition to physically incestuous. That's not healthy psychologically, either - that's the Oedipus complex on a whole other level.
Then there are issues of dependence and attachment. In a normal relationship, you have a platonic relationship with your parents and siblings; you have a romantic relationship with an outside partner; you have a filial relationship with your children. However, in such an incestuous relationship, you have platonic, romantic, and filial love with your own familymember.
And then what happens when that family member dies or breaks up with you? (Because the person being your father/mother/son/daughter is still no guarantee that they won't cheat on you, divorce you, etc.) You suffer the emotional loss of all three kinds of love at once. If any of you have suffered the death of a close family member, or been broken up with, triple the pain and grief you felt. That cannot be psychologically healthy, either.

Taking for granted that being physically and psychologically healthy is the good, "rational" thing to be.

Is your name "Damian"?

Define "improve". Some women WANT to be willing slaves. Out there somewhere is a woman who will be most turned on by your attitude and views of women, whatever personality you have.
However, I don't think you'll find that woman on a dating/flirting/mingling site. Try a dedicated sex-site.

Except for the part where homosexuality doesn't lead to demented/disfigured/genetically unstable offspring. A homosexual pair in and of themselves cannot even have children - they either have to adopt or get involved with donors and fertility science. Incest - sex and conception involving members of blood relations - does lead to exactly that kind of offspring. Even "watered-down" incest, like that which occurred between royal families of Europe for centuries, leads to noticeable (and sometimes serious) problems.

George III (the king of England during the American Revolutionary War) was half-insane. (Completely insane at the end of his life.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom#Later_life

Philip IV of Spain had a jaw so big and malformed that he had trouble speaking and eating.
http://www.antiquesatoz.com/habsburg/habsburg-jaw.htm

Royalty of many nations suffered from haemophilia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalty

--------

You can "serpentize" all you like (also, I think, called "playing devil's advocate", or "cognitive dissonance"), but any sensible person should be able to see that incest is not a good idea. Hence the need for a psychological evaluation. In my opinion, incest isn't one of those things that you should have to debate over.

I am on the side that says both parties need to first have a serious psychological evaluation, then prohibited from marrying and having sex.

On the first point, let's ignore the fact for the moment that the man is her father, and focus on the fact that he's her estranged father. Would that not be a clue to most people that the man is untrustworthy and irresponsible? If she's 18, and they have been estranged for 12 years, that means he was out of her life when she was six years old. I do not think that is a very good indicator that he will be there for any woman's children.

On the second point, there are innumerable good reasons why incest is prohibited in every society. Not only the obvious physical birth defects, but less-obvious ones like congenital INSANITY, propensity towards various diseases and birth defects, and corruption of genetic lines. Incest is not just a problem for the incestuous couple and their direct children, but every child born out of that lineage for several generations. This is exactly why maintaining a healthy - read, diverse - gene pool is important.
I'm not even going to touch the social stigma that's going to be attached to the children, and the children's children, etc.

I want to believe that Fox News made up this story, or it's some sort of extremely horrible hoax... but given the variability of humankind... I think I'd believe it.

I shall share the wisdom that was shared with me. Compare:
One wife - one mother-in-law.
Three wives - three mothers-in-law.

One wife - one time of the month.
Three wives - three times of the month. (Or three women all sharing the same b*tchy time of the month.)

One wife having babies.
Three wives having babies.

One wife spending your money.
Three wives spending your money.

One wife having a "headache".
Three wives having a "headache".
Two balls coloring blue.

--------

Polygamy may have been a necessary social practice one-hundred-plus years ago, when families needed to have a lot of children. Back in the days when children were an investment - you raise them for four or five years, then they start working on the family farm, earning their keep. Back when the head of the house didn't pull in a check every month, instead working the land and eating what was grown or was caught - when more hands were needed to plant, harvest, and hunt.
Nowadays, none of this is necessary, and so polygamy is unnecessary.

If you have to search to "find ways" to cook it... that should tell you everything you need to know about tofu!

I have seen enough profiles on various dating sites, of women why say they're "not afraid" to go after the men they're interested in, or invite him out first, or pay for dinner on the first date, etc.
All I can say is that it hasn't happened to me yet. Not legitimately (bots and scammers have contacted me first - just got one this morning). Quite a few women are willing to take things to the next step once I've sent some sort of nudge/wink/smile/opener, but I haven't yet been contacted by a woman first, who was actually interested in dating or a relationship.

I think I have to refer you to one of our technical specialists. Please hold.

Of course I knew that!

I... was just testing to see if YOU knew it!

>.>

<.<

And you have checked the profile of the person you are communicating with since then, to make sure it's still there?