The other day a girlfriend was bemoaning her relationship with a guy she likes. So I told her about the advice a teacher gave the class I was in when I was at the fancy all-girls high school that my mother sent me too.

The teacher said basically that you are going to suck at dating. Then by the time you get good at it, you will get married.

My teacher was right but for the wrong reasons.

You only really get good at dating when you are with the right person, that's why you get married to them.

If you are sucking at dating, you are dating the wrong person. I say get over it and move on; and the sooner the better. Let the relationship fail, better now than when you have two kids and another on the way. Let him go.

Actually, its better to throw everything and the sink at the relationship and try to break it before commitment. Too often people go on their best behavior when they are dating. Marriages are about being there for the other when the chips are down and the shit hits the fan.

If the relationship will work it will survive anything.

So the alternative is, what, loneliness?

The worst part of loneliness is a sense of not being connected to someone else. I think it was the Hindu creation myth where Brahma was sooo lonely, he tore himself in two just to have another person to hold. And when he tore himself in two he caused creation. Are we all just pieces of each other that we want to find someone else to hold? The closest thing to finding God is being in love, I am sure. But don't worry I am not going to go all religious on you.

The best times for me have been when I have been lonely. Those were the times when I stretched myself, experimented and experienced different things. I wish I had spent a whole lot less time chasing stupid relationships. I would rather have spent my time focused on me and who I was/am and realizing my own self worth.

So before you run around moping because there is no one with you, be grateful you have time to yourself and go do something interesting, become someone other people want to be with, be amazing. Listen to people, help people, care about others. This will make your life meaningful.

Don't be defined exclusively by the relationships in your life. Don't let other people define you as inferior because you don't have someone on your arm. Mothers sometimes do that to their daughters, shoo them off to find their own men with encouragements like "Don't wait too long to find the right man".

Honestly, it is better to be by yourself than with the wrong person. At least if you are by yourself, you don't have anything stopping others approaching. At least you won't be blinkered by your attraction for someone you are wasting your time and not see other people.

Be you first.

Women just don't play well with other women. Yes we have our girlfriends and our friends with females are often extremely rewarding but when it comes to men, we like to be the one and only. We want to be special. We want to be queen of our kingdom and we don't want to be one of a series of many.
Aka in my previous post about marriage, I said I avoided men who had been previously married. My experience with men who have been previously married, they are still in their first marriage and using you as a replacement for their first wives. They are still thinking of that break up, they are just using you as a placeholder for their first wife.

Or there are those men who as soon as they catch you are already on the look out for wife N+1. By no means exclude a partner who has been married before based purely on that, just listen to him to figure it out.

We, women, live in nuclear households because women want to rule their domain, who comes in and who is out. While it may take a village to raise a child, it takes a household for a child to learn how to have a life partner.

In my post on sexist women, I had a great deal of comments on the mother/daughter relationship and why it was problematic. And this may be a source of friction for mothers and daughters, when the daughters are in their teens. Husbands suddenly feel the need to protect blossoming daughters and mothers feel threatened?

In every society, the house is the woman's domain and the matriarch of the family (the husbands mother) in Muslim societies. Men can do whatever they like outside the home.

In western societies it is the wife who is the matriarch.  Wives are status symbols of achievement for men. Its a statement that the man has been vetted and is acceptable to a woman, which will in turn makes the man a more valuable employee. The man has a presumably loving relationship with the woman he is married to and people will see him as more responsible as a result in trying to make a woman happy, he will behave responsibly.

For some reason people underestimate the importance of the building block of society, the relationships between individuals in particular peoples homes. Where they sleep, spend their waking life outside of work, how they raise their children and interact with, presumably, the people who matter most in the world to individuals. Our families are a great source of comfort, happiness, meaningfulness, and belonging. It is where much of the world is excluded.

There's no doubt human beings are primarily social. Our strength is in our ability to cooperate to get things done. And this is why we live in houses, have lots of technology and understanding, we are social beings who love communicating & cooperating.

This is also true when it comes to finding a partner. We say we fall in love and there is no point in dissecting the relationship further. But really what we are mainly looking for is companionship, someone who can and will work with us, help us, to communicate with, someone who is on our side, someone who will make our lives happier by giving us meaning and a reason for living.

Not all relationships will fulfill all those things and people draw on a whole lot of other attributes when picking a partner, like appearance, sexual attractiveness, wealth, occupation, age, education, interests, intelligence, whether they have a criminal past, gambling, or other addictions, whether they'd been married before... When I was picking a partner I had a list longer than both arms.

Yes and we get married to reproduce too, but these days we mainly want a companion to love and to be loved by us, especially in western countries.

The function of marriage, in all cultures, has always been the commitment to someone for the purposes of raising children. And of course children also give those same things that we find in a partner, a reason for living. Children make our lives meaningful too.

Originally marriage was a form of cementing alliances amongst the wealthy. But the idea of marrying for love has been something that has developed more recently. And even more recently, the idea of marrying not for the purposes of raising children at all has been admitted into the concept of marriage with gay marriage acceptable in many western countries and US states.

Love is far more important than money and the importance of love is placed at naught when compared to something like the economy. My point is love is way more important than money. Love gives us a reason to live, purpose and happiness.

If we were all chasing happiness rather than money, the 1% would give up their miserly pursuits and adopt generosity in an attempt to be happier.

Until very recently, the only function a woman really had was to get her MRS degree with her education. Women either become wives and hence mothers or nuns. I remember the despair I felt as a teenager at the prospect. My mother sent me to a prestigious private schools where she thought I would learn deportment and the kinds of things young women learn at Swiss finishing schools. Instead I learned critical thinking, that in ancient Sparta they left new born babies on hillsides to see if they survived a night in the wild. If the baby survived it was deemed fit enough to be a Spartan. We also were told to question what a day is to God. And I also learned that women could choose their own path in life.

When my mother married her only requirement in a partner was that he was wealthy and was good at making money. The only thing she wanted from marriage was children. She got everything she wanted.

She worried I would never find a husband because I was too smart and men don't like smart women. I was worried I'd end up a boring old housewife like her.

Don't marry men for money, but have a good heart, who you enjoy being with and who will help you. Of course these were some of my requirements. Yours may be different. Of course I am in the rare position of never having lived in poverty so my perspective may be skewed and perhaps I have my mothers determination to thank for that state.

Similarly, I have found men have never been put off by my brain. If anything its been an asset in separating the chaff from the wheat. If a man is daunted by my brain, he'd soon bore me anyway.

What I've found though doing research, the best men to marry are no older than perhaps 30 or 32 at the most. If they've not married and they're older than that, they either are mommy's boy, gay (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just means they prefer a different gender), or think they are too cool to marry. Check if he's been married before or had a significant relationship already. Of the two genders, men are way more monogamous, men mate once and you'll always be a comparison to his first. Men pair bond with a woman in their mid to late 20s but before their mid 30s and will be attached to her for the rest of their life.

One guy I met on his third marriage said 'our first is 40 years old this year'. 'Our' as in he and his first wife. Their marriage has been over for over 18 years, yet he doesn't refer to his kids as 'his' kids, but 'our' kids. And this is the most recent example I've seen.

Whether a man is faithful in his marriage or not, he mates for life.

When you find a suitable man, make sure he has been lightly hurt before. Why? He won't appreciate what he's got otherwise, but listen to him to make sure he hasn't already pair bonded already. If you marry a man who is older, no doubt he thinks he loves you, but once he gets you, he'll no doubt be looking for his next wife as soon as he gets you. For example Newt Gingrich or any number of Hollywood marriages.

While women are always portrayed as the major pair-bonders, not so much. They pair-bond when they are raising children, but they will move onto other men without difficulty.

Men have always been portrayed as the ones with all the advantages in a relationship and this is also been their strength. The true advantage is to women who live longer when they are not married. It is men who live longer when they are married and remain so.

While women may go onto to lose their ability to reproduce, they will always be a desirable partner because they offer companionship. They make men's lives meaningful.

Men without women are often portrayed as foot loose and fancy free are often the ones who are the big losers when it comes to divorce. Homeless people are primarily men, people who go on to get off the street are primarily women, the best employees are married men, men who are married are least likely to get involved in crime.

Don't be fooled, men need women more than women need men.

Libertarians like to pretend there is a gun at my head forcing me not to kill my neighbor. As much as I can't abide my christian neighbors, I really, honestly don't feel any desire to kill them. And my other neighbors, I am very happy are alive and my friends.

Yes the law states it is illegal to kill people and as much as I contemplate killing anyone, I know I will not and not because the government says I should not, but because I know it is what I would prefer not being done unto me - my bottom line of self-interest.

While I am white, middle class, living in a nice neighborhood where there may or may not be guns, I like not having to worry when I walk down the street that someone may randomly decide to shoot me.

In my, not so unique, part of the world, people are rich enough to, I hope, think kind of like me. Nevertheless murders still happen despite the proverbial gun of the state at their head. People are killing each other despite the government saying it is illegal. The benefit I hope is if the government is saying it is illegal to kill, it will make people think twice before killing me, breaking into my home, killing my husband and ruining my seemingly idyllic life.

I honestly don't feel coerced not to kill anyone, despite what the libertarians say. They say they'd prefer if i just decided not to kill anyone. Well I decided not to kill anyone already, but under extreme circumstances I can imagine being driven to the point of killing but only if it was to save one of the people I love, myself or someone I considered non-complicit in a life or death situation. I would also kill to defend my country or tribe, perhaps, if such a situation presented itself.

Recently a libertarian said she thought it was barbaric parents weren't allowed to circumcise sons in Germany. Personally, I have read that the country with the lowest incidence of cervix cancer was Israel thus lending support to the idea that male circumcision was a good thing. However, given Europe is beset by Muslims all wanting to perform genital mutilation on daughters, I can see why they ban male circumcision in an attempt to halt the slippery slope of perceived child abuse.

Yes I would put a gun at the head of anyone wanting to perform female genital mutilation on their daughters or "honor killings".

You may say I am being coerced into not killing someone, but I would prefer people think twice before killing me or a loved one or abusing their daughters or breaking into my home.

And no I don't think not putting a proverbial gun to their head to stop them doing it is a total deterrent. There will always be outliers in any system. We hardly know what makes people serial killers, why put people on an honor system when the current system doesn't fully stop people? You may say I am being coerced, but honestly, I don't feel the states gun at my head forcing me not to do those things that are illegal in our society because, yes I admit, I do sometimes get away with parking illegally.

FEMA was hardly at its best under the rein of W, the torturer.

I used to work at a military research institute and I cannot disclose what I did there or which one. Suffice to say I learned a hell of a lot about safety, amongst other things. One chemical I learned about was used to dissolve metals. If you get this on your skin you have an extremely limited time to get this off before it works its way in and starts dissolving your bones leading to an unavoidable and horrific death.

In libertarian world, if a disaster occurs, everyone pitches in and helps survivors. Not on your fucking life. Did anyone notice how those who rushed in to help with the collapse of the world trade center on 9/11 got no help? In Libertarian world you would be helped, I suppose, not sure who by, because all these details are mysteriously unclear. But lets say San Jose, the so-called capital of silicon valley, was leveled by earthquake, would i pitch in to help survivors? Gravely depends.

Peoples homes are full of all kinds of chemicals. Even smoke detectors are radioactive, while I can't remember what kind of emitters are used in smoke detectors, if it was crushed, I definitely wouldn't want its dust lodged in my lungs. I'm not sure how CO detectors work, but even assuming CO detectors are relatively safe, I cannot say for certain. I am not an average engineer (although kindly called so by electrical & electronic engineers), I wouldn't be able to run my eyes over a structure and determine how safe it would be to move this or that, to get pinned bodies out and perhaps I have a better eye at such things than the average, i wouldn't trust it.

As for a headquarters for R&D in Silicon Valley, not on your life. Anyone building proto-test chips, is also dissolving metals and dissolving metals is at least an acid even if its not the horror chemical I described above. The chemicals they use are none the less super dangerous, but building chips is all about dissolving metals.

If I was building a private FEMA it would work with local fire agencies to know what buildings contain what chemicals. Yes average personnel could learn what all the chemical symbols mean but without the appropriate equipment that's next to useless.

FEMA, like CDC, can access information on chemicals in use, experts on rotation, equipment and procedures. Wanna leave that to a bunch of amateurs who may or may not be sober when an emergency occurs? Even if civilians are given adequate training, who are they answerable to? Can they coordinate with military or co-operate with R&D centers?

So where do you concentrate your super skilled task force if you are FEMA? Obviously you would distribute FEMA resources but control it centrally. Deploy it when an emergency occurs but most of the time emergencies aren't occurring, fortunately. Who pays for those resources to be deployed? If this was a private organization, who would be paying for these people to be on call? Who organizes a roster? Who is paid to organize where resources are?

We try to prepare by having a (government paid for) weather bureau trying to predict when a tornado might rip through a town in the mid-west, we try to prepare by (having government paid for entities) predicting when an earthquake will hit on the west coast and we monitor for hurricanes and volcanoes (also paid for by the government). But in reality we don't know when a twister is going to wreak havoc or an earthquake.

Do we want Joe Blow having information about chemicals if he is a citizens' FEMA? Who knows, he may be a Timothy McVeigh. Libertarians will probably say they'd put in all those safe guards that will end up being exactly like the system we have in place already. So what have we gained in libertarian paradise? Absolutely nothing.

If a private organization does it, who is going to pay extra for all the profit they have to make on top of what it'll cost citizens to have the service? The same security authorizing NIST, CIA, FBI, NSA, Military clearances will be able to organize FEMA and CDC clearances. For a private organization, a separate service would have to be created to give security clearances and who knows, it may end up not being as good as the govt service, except it'll cost the tax payer more because the private enterprise will have to make a profit.

Libertarians are so naive.