Umm, not so much, no. God forbid I passed the screening - can you say
way too much commitment for a frigging first date? Besides, if you
can't decide how you feel about me without looking up my credit history,
I'm not going to bring myself to care what you think once you do.
-Jer

Gotta say, I go for passion and fun over dependability any day. I'm the
responsible, down-to-earth one, I like flaky, joyous, artist types. (
c;

-Jer

Alright, I'm game. My shout out is for Toadleystoned, Sexygrad21, and
Tiana in Spokane. I'm single and bored - let's go grab a drink!

Much love to all of the sexy ladies who live too far away for me to
vulgarly proposition. You know I'd vulgarly proposition you if I could.
( c;
-J

Aww, one word answer? ( c;

Vanilla icing - though chocolate's good too.

Would you rather be single or in an unsatisfying relationship?

Greeneyes - love the name, btw.
-J

Hard. Very, very hard. That said, I know a few couples who made it
work. Basically, I'd say if you're under 25 or you've been dating less
than a year it's probably a lost cause. Also, there's a time limit,
you've got to reunite eventually (periodically?) or it won't last. Even
so, people are infinitely varied - I'm sure it works sometimes.
-J

Friend of mine sent me an invite.

Do you like skinnydipping?

I'm guessing he's 10 and trying for cyber-sex.
-J

Of course, then we have to elect the appointer. Democracy is a terrible
system. It's a shame no-one has thought up a better one yet. This is
why I label myself as a liberal or an anarchist varyingly. I don't
think anarchy is a working system, but I do think that power structures
have to be upended periodically to shake the corruption out.
-J

Not at all. In my experience, women are FAR more raunchy and graphic
when they talk about sex. Sure, I've heard guys brag about "tagging
that booty", or whatever, but girls will give you inches, positions,
embarassing noises, and what they thought of it all. No comparison.
-J

I have a friend right now who would like to be more, and I like her, but
she's just too heavy for me. What can I say, I'm a little guy. So
there's me being shallow in spite of myself. At the same time, I'm
skinny and stand only about 5'6", so most of the women I've dated
haven't exactly been all over me at first sight. In other words, I've
definitely benefitted from women not being shallow. And then, I know
that people become far more beautiful when you start to love them. It's
complicated.
-J

Okay, I'm just going to put this one up here and see if anyone else
feels this way - why is it that some girls will be all over you right up
until you reach the bed, and then lie there like they've suddenly been
paralyzed. I mean, damn, aren't we past the "lie back and think of
England" period yet? I understand insecurity, but few things are a
bigger turn-off than your partner suddenly going limp (if not
unresponsive). Anyone else had this experience?
-J

Toughie. I'm fond of quite a few things. I'd probably go with reading
or playing pool as my current top choices.

How important is height to you?
-J

Heck of a lot of info, Dontlook, thanks for sharing.
-J

You should totally do it. Peace Corps members are in high demand all
over the world right now. Peace is not really in vogue at present. You
could easily be in Bolivia or Argentina or Mexico or someplace in a few
months doing one of the most impactful things you'll ever do. I'm
currently an Americorps*VISTA (basically the domestic Peace Corps), with
a bunch of friends in the corps, and I'd give it my highest
recommendation. Great way to get money for school, too.
-J

Same thing happens with girls. My theory is that when you're in a
committed relationship, it's attractive. At least one other person will
vouch for you, you're the opposite of desperate, there's little risk of
entanglement (after all, you're already entangled), and rejection is
assumed and therefore easier not to take personally. Not that that
makes this phenomenon any less annoying, just my take on it.
Congratulations on the baby!
-J

Ah, yes, party-interchangeable knock-knock jokes. Now that's
enlightened political discourse. Or rather, that's the sort of
pointless demagoguery that encourages the ridiculous aspects of a two
party system while excluding all fact, logic, and rationality. Very
impressed. No really, I am.
-J

Well, like most affiliations, I think what causes a person to identify
particularly with one or the other political party tends to fall into
three categories: strong familiarity, overriding issues, or because it's
easier than thinking. In my case I self-identify as a Democrat not only
because I was raised in a very political environment (DC), but because I
do see strong and, to me, important differences between the parties.

I have friends who declare their party affiliations over different
reasons. My Russian Orthodox friends, for instance, vote Republican
because of the abortion issue. I, for my part, vote Democratic because
I am strongly in favor of gun-control, limiting corporate powers,
international outreach, and social services, all of which are partisan
issues.

In answer to the well-deserved question of "how can I tell who's
candidate is who's?", that's a more complicated issue. While "tree
huggers" are obviously dem and "red-necks" are obviously rep, most
candidates are forced by political realities to position themselves as
moderates. Personally, I would heartily endorse anyone who cares to
make an informed, educated decision, regardless of who they vote for.
At least they voted.

That said, my vote will always be in favor of carefully reasoned,
intelligent, compassionate dialogue, a position far more commonly held
(to my mind) by the Democratic candidate. I could here begin a tract on
radicalism and the flaws of the two-party system, but I'll stop there
for now. Hope that helps. ( c;

-Jer