Er, wait... did the cat get fed?? 100% reasonable to be fed up in that situation, but seems horrendously unfair to let a cat go hungry for it.

Ick, I just accidentally clicked on 'like' for Joao's post when I meant to click the post above it. Anyone know if it's possible to cancel that? Not the end of the world, I suppose, but I found Joao's post unnecessarily judgemental and unpleasant in tone and really don't want to have a 'like' vote on it.

I'm kind of skimming through as this is a long subthread, but this seems to have gone off in a completely different direction from sgoch's original objection.

The article to which sgoch was objecting was one in which DNL advised would-be wingmen to go as far as making out with someone they're not attracted to, pretending they actually do feel attracted to them, *for the purpose of keeping them out of the way so that the wingman's partner can better make a move on the person's friend.*

That isn't just a case of making polite friendly conversation with someone when you don't want to because you've ended up in a social situation where the two of you are thrown together. That is encouraging someone to deliberately trick a person as a means to an end. It's encouraging the "wingman" to see the "target's" friend as an obstacle in the way of the "wingman's" friend getting laid. It's icky and reprehensible and I'm really surprised to see DNL linking back to it.

(On top of that, it's also darned creepy in the context of those particularly hideous PUAs who basically advise getting a woman away from her friends as one of the first steps in order to rape her in order to get sex. Ick.)

I hadn't clicked on the link, but I'm glad sgoch called DNL out on it, and I sure as hell hope he edits that old post. Or, better yet, rewrites it, since the whole idea behind it (seeing women as 'targets', calling dibs on them, seeing their friends as nothing more than obstacles in the way of getting laid) is just so... ugh.

Ick. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong. *Demanding* something sexual of another person, whether it's cuckoldry or the missionary position, is sexual abuse.

Marty, just to point out: It's not an 'open-mindedness' issue or something that's specifically a problem for women. It's about whether polygamy is one of their sexual preferences or not.

Someone who is not polygamous is likely to have a very hard time with their partner being with other people. They may, at the same time, be entirely open-minded about the general fact that some people prefer open relationships. That's not the same thing as wanting one for yourself. I'd prefer to see 'open-mindedness' as an idea left out of personal sexual choices altogether.

(which may well be what you meant as well, but just clarifying)

Dr Nerdlove, I've got to disagree with your answer to Too Well Adjusted.

Their difference of opinion on ever reproducing wasn't a 'potential' end to the relationship - it was a *definite* end. A disagreement over something that fundamental leaves the relationship without a long-term future. And, while it certainly isn't wrong to go into a relationship knowing it's destined to be short-term only, it also isn't wrong to decide that that isn't what you want. That's what TWA decided... and this woman claimed that this totally reasonable decision of his must mean that he had 'serious issues' and an inability to enjoy the present moment. Bollocks to that.

What actually seems to have happened here is that his decision interfered with *her* ability to enjoy the present moment (she wanted to go out with/have sex with TWA, and suddenly that was off the table for her) and, instead of taking this like an adult, she threw a hissy fit and made it into an attack on his character that had him doubting himself. If the genders were reversed and this was a case of a man criticising a woman who wouldn't sleep with him/date him, I think it would be blindingly obvious that it was uncool behaviour. It isn't cool this way round either.

TWA, whether you have difficulties sufficiently enjoying the present moment, or what issues you have and how serious they are, is something it's ultimately down to you to answer for yourself. However, your decision not to get into a relationship with built-in expiration in no way counts as evidence towards those things being the case. You made a decision that was right for you, communicated it clearly, and stuck to it. The fact that it didn't suit this woman is her problem to deal with, and she was totally out of line in trying to make you think it was indicative of character flaws on her part. I hope you've since gotten past it, that you find someone who's better for you, and that she grows up a bit.

Straightforward in our case as my daughter wanted to be either Spiderman or The Incredible Hulk. Our local Sainsbury's had a Spiderman costume - job done. It has a mask, so it'll be interesting to see how many people assume she's a boy when wearing it. My son is going for Harry Potter.

Looking at the pictures you've posted, there seems to be way more sexualisation of costumes in the US than in the UK. I haven't seen anything like that over here (thank goodness).

Do give her our best wishes, please, Universe, and tell her we understand completely and will look forward to seeing her when she gets back!