Monday's Most Active Posts

Yesterday's most active thread was the Gaza war thread which I discussed yesterday. So, I'll skip that one today. I am sorry to say that the next most active thread was about the British Royal Family. Worse even, a second BRF thread is also on the list today. The first of the two was titled, "Petty royal family" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster says that she was reading an article about a lawsuit that Prince Harry is pursuing and was bothered that the government of the United Kingdom had refused to provide security for Harry. In light of the threats Harry faces, the original poster finds this decision to be petty. One issue with this post is that the original poster did not provide any sort of link to help clarify precisely what she is discussing. Moreover, despite the obsession with the Royals that characterizes many participants of these threads, few seem to know much about Harry's security dispute. Even the original poster misstates the facts. The basis of the dispute is the security arrangement established for Harry during his UK visits. Rather than around-the-clock full security such as that provided for full-time working royals, he is provided with security that is tailored to his specific needs and his perceived risk. Harry is appealing that decision in a quest to receive full security protection. In addition, he recently lost a bid to pay for police protection himself. Most of those replying seem to know few of these details. Several posters argue that Harry or King Charles should pay for Harry's security and consider Harry's security to be an unnecessary public expense, especially at a time that the UK is suffering with economic difficulties. A number of posters want government-provided security removed for all royals, forcing family members to pay for security themselves. Those familiar with the details of Harry's security concerns point out the shortcomings of private security such as not being able to carry guns and not having access to police intelligence about threats against him. Other posters point out that under the current arrangment Harry will receive police protection with all that entails when the circumstances require it. Much of this thread is devoted to comparing the type of protection provided to Harry with that provided to other celebrities or politicians. In particular, posters describe the type of security provided to the children of US presidents. All in all, this was not the worst BRF-related thread that I've had to read, but that's probably the best that can be said about it.

The next two most active threads were ones that I've already discussed, the thread about the woman in Texas being denied an abortion and the thread about Elise Stefanik questioning Ivy League presidents. Skipping those, the next most active thread was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum and was titled, "Extremely practical gifts most people would appreciate". The original poster says that she is looking for such ideas and offers her own suggestion of an first aid kit for cars. This is a timely thread given that many posters are probably in the midst of purchasing gifts. However, threads like this that are mostly just lists of items are difficult to summarize. So, you will have to read yourself if you are interested. Many of the suggestions had to do with household items such as flashlights, toolsets, quality scissors, or an electric kettle. Items for cars were another popular category including not only the first aid kit suggested by the original poster but jumper cables or portable car starters. Apple AirTags were suggested repeatedly. One category of suggestions about which there was considerable dispute was decorative items. Some posters thought that decorative items make good gifts, but others strongly disputed that idea, saying that decorating is highly personal and people have different tastes. One poster suggested that any such gifts would go directly to the thrift store. For those of you still seeking gift ideas, you might find a good suggestion in this thread. One warning though, a few of the posts were likely not meant to be serious. For instance, I would strongly advise against giving a toilet plunger for a gift as one poster recommends.

The next most active thread yesterday was titled, "If your husband is flirty with other women" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster asks whether others are embarrassed or bothered if their husbands flirt with other women or make slightly sexual comments. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of those responding would not be happy about their husbands flirting with other women. Some posters argue that a husband who flirts will likely be a cheater. Others simply consider it to be disrespectful. There is somewhat of a gray area in cases where posters have husbands who are particularly charming and whose normal behavior might be considered flirting. Those guys are normally given a pass. Similarly, simply being more attentive towards an especially attractive person is forgiven in many cases since that is not considered to reach the level of actual flirting. A number of posters describe their own experiences of having married men flirt with them and how this was unwelcome. One poster who has a flirty husband mentioned that she has to remind him before parties to pay attention to her rather than other women. One of the male posters who responded found this to be controlling behavior. Another poster said that women frequently flirt with her husband and he responds by embarrassing them, something they both enjoy. Other posters were divided about whether that was appropriate behavior or not. Along those lines, much of the discussion was not about flirting husbands, but rather women who flirt with husbands which is really another topic. This led to a number of posts about how to tell if a women was flirting or not. Some posters tried to make distinctions between various types of behavior, differentiating simple flirting from activity meant to "hit" on someone. One poster defined "flirting" as "giving non-sexual compliments in a way that shows special attention without any intention of moving forward." He said that he and his wife both enjoy light-hearted flirting as defined that way.

The last thread that I will discuss today is the second British Royal Family topic. Posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum, the thread is titled, "Willam and Kate’s Christmas card 2023". The original poster linked to an article on the "Town and Country" website that was entirely about the "Wales family Christmas card 2023". The card is a simple black and white photo of William, Kate, and their three kids, all dressed casually. The card received a positive response from many posters. There were nice comments about the children, especially about how much they have grown and gotten tall. A few posters criticized the length of Kate's hair, suggesting that it should have been shortened. There was some criticism that the family had not dressed formally for the photo. Some posters mocked the photo as resembling something that might have been taken in mall photo studio. Other posters complained that the photo was not "Christmassy" enough and was too simple. One poster suggested that this was intentional and that, given current economic problems in the United Kingdom, the family did not want to highlight extravagance. As these threads tend to do, there were lots of off-topic divergences. One poster fixated on alleged racism of members of the Royal Family, causing a bit of a tiff among posters. You might think it strange to go from discussing the clothing choices for a family portrait to arguments about the appropriateness of asking about the skin color of an expected baby. If so, you are not familiar with BRF discussions on DCUM where it is perfectly natural for the subjects of a photo to be described as a "beautiful family" in one post and as "racist colonizers" in the next.