Tell an opinion you have that is in the strong minority

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm asexual

What does that mean exactly?

I grew up in a small town and married a guy I love. I'm not aromantic, I genuinely did fall in love, and still am in love with my husband. After a few years of having no interest in sex and finding it a bit repulsive, with no interest in being sexually touched, I figured it was just the usual "getting to know my body" stuff. Then I had a few years of thinking possibly I was lesbian, and finally came to realize that I'm just not sexually attracted to people. My husband has had other sexual partners, which I okayed (no need to ask further questions about that.) Basically, I don't like sexual contact. It's not obvious or anything, and I masturbate occasionally (don't know why I have no problem with that. Confuses me somewhat, still) It really isn't a big deal in my life, and I think it's more common than it seems. I can't quite define it, but I don't really mind it. Just is.

I have a few serious questions to ask you.
Where you ever sexually abused?
Did you grow up in a strict and religious household that viewed sex as repulsive?
Do you think that you and your husband were never sexually compatible?
Have you ever had sex with another person to see if you like it or not? The reason I ask this is because you seem to have no problem with masturbating. So, I wouldn't say that you're asexual. You don't seem to like sex with your husband. Do you think that his technique just doesn't do it for you or are you just repulsive about the act of sex itself?

The answer is no to all but the last (yes, I met my husband several years after losing my virginity) Apparently, says my therapist, there are asexual people who masturbate. I'll go to the internet to further explore this, just never bothered.

Totally agree. I just am not that geared up for sex anymore and I'm mid 30s. Masturbate periodically but it's just a release/boredom thing. I could go without. Some people just aren't as wired for sexuality as others/most. It's not a sign of trauma or ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm asexual

What does that mean exactly?

I grew up in a small town and married a guy I love. I'm not aromantic, I genuinely did fall in love, and still am in love with my husband. After a few years of having no interest in sex and finding it a bit repulsive, with no interest in being sexually touched, I figured it was just the usual "getting to know my body" stuff. Then I had a few years of thinking possibly I was lesbian, and finally came to realize that I'm just not sexually attracted to people. My husband has had other sexual partners, which I okayed (no need to ask further questions about that.) Basically, I don't like sexual contact. It's not obvious or anything, and I masturbate occasionally (don't know why I have no problem with that. Confuses me somewhat, still) It really isn't a big deal in my life, and I think it's more common than it seems. I can't quite define it, but I don't really mind it. Just is.

I have a few serious questions to ask you.
Where you ever sexually abused?
Did you grow up in a strict and religious household that viewed sex as repulsive?
Do you think that you and your husband were never sexually compatible?
Have you ever had sex with another person to see if you like it or not? The reason I ask this is because you seem to have no problem with masturbating. So, I wouldn't say that you're asexual. You don't seem to like sex with your husband. Do you think that his technique just doesn't do it for you or are you just repulsive about the act of sex itself?

The answer is no to all but the last (yes, I met my husband several years after losing my virginity) Apparently, says my therapist, there are asexual people who masturbate. I'll go to the internet to further explore this, just never bothered.

Totally agree. I just am not that geared up for sex anymore and I'm mid 30s. Masturbate periodically but it's just a release/boredom thing. I could go without. Some people just aren't as wired for sexuality as others/most. It's not a sign of trauma or ignorance.

Yeah, PP here-I feel like masturbation can serve purposes other than fulfilling sexual fantasies. It's a nice thing to do, it's relaxing. Like drinking too much wine or eating chocolate.

[Anonymous]

I really, really like smoking weed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really, really like smoking weed.

Is that a strong minority? Cause I really, really like smoking weed.

[Anonymous]

Leggings (out of shape/fat individuals) and sandals (ugly feet) are not for everyone.

[Anonymous]

I really don't care if my kids go to college. If they want to set out without an education, who am I to stop them? I'd rather not pay several hundred grand for something they'll resent, party away, and not care about in the end. If they regret not going, then I'll be there to support but not rescue them.

[Anonymous]

I think private tuition for college is only worth it if your kid can get into a top 10 (maybe top 15) school; if they can get into an ivy or Stanford, Chicago/Caltech/MIT or the like -- I can consider parents doing everything possible to make it happen.

But what I really don't get is the parents (who are not independently wealthy) killing themselves to make sure that their princess can go to her dream school -- Boston U or Babson or Middlebury or whatever. I say if you can't make the cut for the top 10, go to your in-state school. The education offered is no different and the name on the resume just doesn't mean anything once you get below a certain level. If you're an engineer from MIT or a finance grad from Wharton/UPenn -- that stands out in some circles and often for life; but your typical person and hiring manager cannot tell you whether a chemistry degree from Maryland is any better or worse than one from Boston U.

Now if the parents are independently wealthy -- do whatever you want. I just don't see killing myself or letting a kid take out HUGE loans bc they can imagine themselves on a certain campus -- I guarantee they'll be fine on some other, cheaper campus as well.

[Anonymous]

http://mashable.com/2015/01/23/hony-fundraiser-brownsville-brooklyn/?utm_cid=mash-com-fb-main-link

Anonymous wrote:I think Humans of New York on Facebook is stupid, and the cult like following of that site by my friends is ridiculous. They feel so good and uplifted by commenting on other peoples' tough lives -- as if they even understand -- and truly think their words of encouragement are SO important.

nm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really, really like smoking weed.

Is that a strong minority? Cause I really, really like smoking weed.

Word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think private tuition for college is only worth it if your kid can get into a top 10 (maybe top 15) school; if they can get into an ivy or Stanford, Chicago/Caltech/MIT or the like -- I can consider parents doing everything possible to make it happen.

But what I really don't get is the parents (who are not independently wealthy) killing themselves to make sure that their princess can go to her dream school -- Boston U or Babson or Middlebury or whatever. I say if you can't make the cut for the top 10, go to your in-state school. The education offered is no different and the name on the resume just doesn't mean anything once you get below a certain level. If you're an engineer from MIT or a finance grad from Wharton/UPenn -- that stands out in some circles and often for life; but your typical person and hiring manager cannot tell you whether a chemistry degree from Maryland is any better or worse than one from Boston U.

Now if the parents are independently wealthy -- do whatever you want. I just don't see killing myself or letting a kid take out HUGE loans bc they can imagine themselves on a certain campus -- I guarantee they'll be fine on some other, cheaper campus as well.

100% agree. Every word. No kid of mine is going to Davidson or University of Richmond. NFW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really, really like smoking weed.

Is that a strong minority? Cause I really, really like smoking weed.

Word.

+1000

Best of all are weed gummies. Legal in my state. One of those and I'm in heaven, especially if there's sex involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think private tuition for college is only worth it if your kid can get into a top 10 (maybe top 15) school; if they can get into an ivy or Stanford, Chicago/Caltech/MIT or the like -- I can consider parents doing everything possible to make it happen.

But what I really don't get is the parents (who are not independently wealthy) killing themselves to make sure that their princess can go to her dream school -- Boston U or Babson or Middlebury or whatever. I say if you can't make the cut for the top 10, go to your in-state school. The education offered is no different and the name on the resume just doesn't mean anything once you get below a certain level. If you're an engineer from MIT or a finance grad from Wharton/UPenn -- that stands out in some circles and often for life; but your typical person and hiring manager cannot tell you whether a chemistry degree from Maryland is any better or worse than one from Boston U.

Now if the parents are independently wealthy -- do whatever you want. I just don't see killing myself or letting a kid take out HUGE loans bc they can imagine themselves on a certain campus -- I guarantee they'll be fine on some other, cheaper campus as well.

100% agree. Every word. No kid of mine is going to Davidson or University of Richmond. NFW.

+1. Add to this -- I also wouldn't pay out of state tuition to go to a state school in another state because a program is marginally better. If we're still living in Maryland by the time DCs are 18, they are going to UMD. I don't particularly care if Penn State or Rutgers has an undergrad business school or engineering school or whatever ranked 10 places higher than UMD and frankly I don't think hiring managers care either because they don't keep rankings memorized; I think they look at a resume they see -- ok -- big northeastern state school, how well did applicant do there. Now if they can get themselves into a Wharton undergrad or Sloan (MIT) business school then that's a different ballgame and I'll do what I can to make it happen bc those schools do open doors to different kinds of jobs at higher salaries and offer different types of mobility over the years -- I've seen it time and time again. Same thing with fields like engineering -- Caltech, MIT etc. are show stoppers -- otherwise state school like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

College in general had gotten so damned unaffordable that it makes economic sense to do community college to 4 year state school. And that's if you want a 4 year degree. I'm certainly not planning to push any other institutions to my girls. And I graduated from a very well respected private school. Sadly, in less than 20 years, the cost to attend my alma mater has more than doubled. No way am I encouraging that nonsense!

I don't know if my girls will be the kind of student I was, anyway. My first struggles with school because of ADHD. Her daddy barely graduated high school, but he has done very well for himself after a stint in the military and getting his degree part time. We don't want our girls in the military, but the part time schooling while they work is not a horrible solution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think private tuition for college is only worth it if your kid can get into a top 10 (maybe top 15) school; if they can get into an ivy or Stanford, Chicago/Caltech/MIT or the like -- I can consider parents doing everything possible to make it happen.

But what I really don't get is the parents (who are not independently wealthy) killing themselves to make sure that their princess can go to her dream school -- Boston U or Babson or Middlebury or whatever. I say if you can't make the cut for the top 10, go to your in-state school. The education offered is no different and the name on the resume just doesn't mean anything once you get below a certain level. If you're an engineer from MIT or a finance grad from Wharton/UPenn -- that stands out in some circles and often for life; but your typical person and hiring manager cannot tell you whether a chemistry degree from Maryland is any better or worse than one from Boston U.

Now if the parents are independently wealthy -- do whatever you want. I just don't see killing myself or letting a kid take out HUGE loans bc they can imagine themselves on a certain campus -- I guarantee they'll be fine on some other, cheaper campus as well.

100% agree. Every word. No kid of mine is going to Davidson or University of Richmond. NFW.

+1. Add to this -- I also wouldn't pay out of state tuition to go to a state school in another state because a program is marginally better. If we're still living in Maryland by the time DCs are 18, they are going to UMD. I don't particularly care if Penn State or Rutgers has an undergrad business school or engineering school or whatever ranked 10 places higher than UMD and frankly I don't think hiring managers care either because they don't keep rankings memorized; I think they look at a resume they see -- ok -- big northeastern state school, how well did applicant do there. Now if they can get themselves into a Wharton undergrad or Sloan (MIT) business school then that's a different ballgame and I'll do what I can to make it happen bc those schools do open doors to different kinds of jobs at higher salaries and offer different types of mobility over the years -- I've seen it time and time again. Same thing with fields like engineering -- Caltech, MIT etc. are show stoppers -- otherwise state school like everyone else.

+2. The hand-wringing I've seen on this forum about DCs potentially attending a state school is ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think private tuition for college is only worth it if your kid can get into a top 10 (maybe top 15) school; if they can get into an ivy or Stanford, Chicago/Caltech/MIT or the like -- I can consider parents doing everything possible to make it happen.

But what I really don't get is the parents (who are not independently wealthy) killing themselves to make sure that their princess can go to her dream school -- Boston U or Babson or Middlebury or whatever. I say if you can't make the cut for the top 10, go to your in-state school. The education offered is no different and the name on the resume just doesn't mean anything once you get below a certain level. If you're an engineer from MIT or a finance grad from Wharton/UPenn -- that stands out in some circles and often for life; but your typical person and hiring manager cannot tell you whether a chemistry degree from Maryland is any better or worse than one from Boston U.

Now if the parents are independently wealthy -- do whatever you want. I just don't see killing myself or letting a kid take out HUGE loans bc they can imagine themselves on a certain campus -- I guarantee they'll be fine on some other, cheaper campus as well.

100% agree. Every word. No kid of mine is going to Davidson or University of Richmond. NFW.

+1. Add to this -- I also wouldn't pay out of state tuition to go to a state school in another state because a program is marginally better. If we're still living in Maryland by the time DCs are 18, they are going to UMD. I don't particularly care if Penn State or Rutgers has an undergrad business school or engineering school or whatever ranked 10 places higher than UMD and frankly I don't think hiring managers care either because they don't keep rankings memorized; I think they look at a resume they see -- ok -- big northeastern state school, how well did applicant do there. Now if they can get themselves into a Wharton undergrad or Sloan (MIT) business school then that's a different ballgame and I'll do what I can to make it happen bc those schools do open doors to different kinds of jobs at higher salaries and offer different types of mobility over the years -- I've seen it time and time again. Same thing with fields like engineering -- Caltech, MIT etc. are show stoppers -- otherwise state school like everyone else.

+2. The hand-wringing I've seen on this forum about DCs potentially attending a state school is ludicrous.

I just wonder about the end goal? All that pressure, stress, worry..... Over what? So your child gets into an Ivy. Then what? Are you going to continue to worry and fret and pressure your kids over the perfect major and GPA. And then? Grad school, a job in the perfect field making tons of money? And then? Your kids get married, end up in high pressure (but high paying) jobs, never see their own kids, but as soon as they find out they are pregnant they'll start searching for perfect daycare/nanny so that Jr. can get into a great preschool to assure entry into a top private so that he can get into an Ivy .....and it starts again.

I have three in college. One at an Ivy simply because she is wicked smart. Two at state schools. My Ivy kid is studying Special Ed. She'll never be rich but it's her passion. At some point you have to back off and let your kids choose their paths. Most of the people on this board are miserable regardless of HHI. Is that really what you want for your children?

It really is ok if your kid goes to a state school, even a mediocre one. Life does not always need to be a competition.