Post of the week(s)! Vote now...

**helen**

Thanks for all the nominations guys - quite a few to catch up on. :thumb:

Melian has nominated Franki for this -

frankipanda wrote: »

I had a dream last night that you sent me an email telling me you had the shits, but that you'd fixed it by sleeping with some random hooker.

My brain does weird things when I'm asleep.

**Cupcake** has nominate SuzyCreamcheese for this -

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

your body actually needs a certain amount of calories just to do the basic stuff - Theres a certain amount youd burn even if you were in a coma. Its something like 1300-ish, so no, you could eat a hell of a lot more than a piece of fruit and still lose weight.
Its not as simple as you eat something you gain.
You NEED to take in a certain amount each day to stop your body pretty much eating itself from the inside, and i dont just mean fat.
To gain a pound of fat youd need to eat an excess of 3500 calories over the top of what your resting rate is, so if its purely down to worrying about gaining weight, then you can safely eat that piece of fruit and/or sandwich.

I do understand that it probably goes much deeeper than that though

G-raffe has nominate Lexi99 for this -

Lexi99 wrote: »

I much much much prefer to see my guy wearing boxers. I dunno, there's something sexier about the loose fabric and just being able to see the outline than have everything all bunched up in briefs. Plus its easier access

Skakitty has nominated Stu147 for this -

stu147 wrote: »

The issue of exclusivity is not something that I've ever discussed with a partner or potential partner, it has just come about organically and I think that is the best way. Of course your situation is slightly different due to having met on a dating site, which means that you are both actively putting yourself on the market for multiple suitors. However, I think the same basic principles of romance building should apply.

If she is interested in pursuing you and you alone then she will show that, you don't need to ask for her exclusivity. As long as your actions and intentions match hers then you will both focus on each other for as long as you are making each other happy.

Is there some way that you can deactivate your dating profile without deleting it? It would be a shame to lose all of your information in the event that this doesn't work out as hoped. If you can deactivate your profile then it would be a nice gesture, and it's something that you could mention to her. You wouldn't even need to expand on that much, I'm sure she would understand that you deactivating your profile was a statement of intent.

That might be a simple way around directly addressing exclusivity. I would never set timescales on the tying down of a relationship. As I said before, it should be an organic process. Feelings develop as the develop, and commitment follows.

You say that you have been messed around a lot before and I'm sure we all have at one point or another, some more so and some less so. Don't let that become a factor that hinders your progress. Yes you should learn from bad experiences but you shouldn't learn to fear taking chances. We get hurt in life, that's unavoidable. Your aim is to learn better ways to cope. If you close yourself off to risk then you close yourself off to opportunity. Have faith that if you get hurt again you will survive. If you can get rid of your fear then you will exude a greater level of confidence and will appear a lot more relaxed and assured.

Just my thoughts...

Hellfire has nominate Arctic Roll (1) for this -

Arctic Roll wrote: »

http://www.entitledto.co.uk

Excellent website, bung your details in there and see what it churns out.

And for how much tax you'll pay: http://listentotaxman.com/

go_away has nominated Arctic Roll (2) for this -

Arctic Roll wrote: »

Oh for crying out loud, why does every single mention of the word "feminism" lead to moany little boys wanking on about how "oh noes teh boys have it bad too!!1!2"?

The simple facts are that women are less likely to be senior managers in FTSE250 companies, they're less likely to be politicians and senior leaders and, if they do reach the top, they're likely to be paid less and worked harder than their equivalent male colleagues. Women are more likely to be in minimum wage jobs, they're more likely to experience domestic violence and they're more likely to experience sexual violence. The UK has had one female PM in its entire history, and hasn't had a female PM for over 20 years. If William was a female it would be Harry who was next in line to throne. And people try and claim there's no patriarchy anymore?

It doesn't matter how many times idiots try and claim it, women and men do NOT have equality of opportunity. It is better than it has been, in some areas, but no better in other ways. In some ways it's become worse: not only do you have the slut/frigid dichotomy, you now have an additional expectation that if you don't dress like a hooker you're somehow inferior. Female success has become far more about aesthetic appeal in recent years.

There are many reasons why girls are achieving better exam results than boys and I don't think that the education system is skewed against boys. It comes down to who is more prepared to work hard and, IME, the reason why boys don't try at school is because trying hard at school is seen as 'unmasculine' and bullying results from it. Girls do the studying and boys play football and fight. It isn't the 'feminists' creating this cultural expectation, it's men. You don't get academic achievement without trying bloody hard and the issue that too many boys simply don't try and don't engage. It isn't necssarily their fault, there are a lot of socio-economic factors behind why this happens, but it sure as hell isn't because the 'feminists' go on a Reclaim the Streets march.

Jaloux, raise your son to be hard-working and see the value of study and he will succeed. There's nothing more needed.

Franki has nominated Arctic Roll (3) for this -

Arctic Roll wrote: »

IWS, people don't really have an issue with a pay gap if the reason for that pay gap is that the person earning less works fewer hours or has a less "important" job role. However that isn't what's meant by the pay gap, what is meant is that women will earn less than men in equivalent jobs working equivalent hours. This has been proven with the recent local authority pay re-grades, with people in traditionally female roles earning less than people in traditionally male roles, even though the roles were supposedly at the same level of importance and difficulty.

The culture of presenteeism in this country counts very much against people who have commitments outside of work, or who take time off to have children or through ill-health. There is no reason why most people working ridiculous working weeks need to do that- the bank deal will still be there on Monday morning, folks- but the culture is that you work those hours so anyone who doesn't work those hours is seen as "lazy". This isn't an issue for women alone, either, with many fathers being pressurised into working instead of seeing their children grow up. There's no reason why fathers can't also adjust their working hours to suit childcare and take time off when children are poorly, except that they will be seen as weak and lazy and will lose out on promotions.

JanePerson, how is it "unfair" to structure career paths so that taking time out does not sink any hope of promotion? The best jobs should be undertaken by the most able person, not the person who has the best attendance record. Taking time out doesn't just affect parents either- lose six months of work because your car crashed and you'll also find yourself out of contention for any career progression.

Katralla nominate Scary Monster for this -

Scary Monster wrote: »

Properly coloured tights definitely ftw.

Dark navy blue ones should be shredded. Bright blue ones should be more acceptable as office wear.

Happy voting. :cool: