Tuesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Do women expect a ring at 1 year?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that his one-year anniversary of dating his girlfriend is coming up and he is being pressured by friends and family to propose to her. He is not ready to take that step and feels thats one year is not enough time to decide to make such a commitment and doesn't understand the rush. Apparently the only question that the original poster has is the one in the title of his thread. I don't think any of those responding believed that there is any sort of one-year cut-off at which the original poster would be expected to make a decision. Rather posters emphasized that what is important is what his girlfriend wants. Many posters said that the urgency to get married was strongly correlated to age. Several pointed out that women who plan to have children don't want to waste their fertile years with someone with whom they had no future. Therefore, a younger couple would not necessarily need to make a decision about marriage right away. But that would change with age. The original poster explained that his girlfriend had said she is not in a rush to get married but that she wanted to have children at 30. She is currently 28 and he is 35. One poster quickly did the math and pointed out that if they got engaged now and had a wedding in a year, his girlfriend would be nearly 30 by the time she went through pregnancy. Therefore, it is probably time to think about making the commitment. The point that posters kept emphasizing was that the original poster should think about his girlfriend's needs. It would be really unfair to string her along if he doesn't plan to marry her. In addition, several posters warned that at his age, the original poster might not be able to find anyone better than his current girlfriend. The original poster didn't find that argument convincing and seemed to be certain that he could easily find another girlfriend equal or better than his current one. For no apparent good reason, he argued that it is older women, not older men, who have trouble finding new relationships. The original poster repeatedly pointed out that he is Catholic and neither he nor his family believe in divorce. Therefore, marriage is a very important decision because it will be for life. Frankly, there is something that seems a little off to me about this poster. To hear him tell it, he and his girlfriend are on the same page and the only issue is pressure from others. He describes his life as being completely on track according to his personal goals. So, after being assured that there is not a one-year deadline as he claimed to fear, I am not sure what was left to discuss. The original poster, however, found plenty to discuss, posting over 60 posts in the thread. A significant number of his posts were anti-woman, starting with his views on older women and continuing to his claim that many women expect a man to be their provider and the failure of posters to understand this explained the "many unhappy bitter women on this thread". I very much suspect that this poster is a troll, though I don't have any evidence beyond my intuition to support this suspicion.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Titled, "Crazy NYT article on the lab leak theory for COVID", the original poster linked to an opinion essay in the New York Times that described evidence suggesting that the origin of COVID-19 may have originated in a Chinese research lab, the so-called lab leak theory. The original poster seems to find this article convincing and criticizes Democrats for not "Trusting Science!". The original poster concluded by arguing in favor of cutting all economic ties with China if more evidence pointing to China is discovered. I have not read much of this 15 page thread, but I read enough to get the gist of it. Like everything about COVID, the origin of the virus has been highly-politicized. Many, like the original poster, seem to believe that conservatives who initially blamed China have been proven correct and that Democrats, who were more reluctant to take the lab leak theory seriously, have been proven wrong. The lab leak theory has been buttressed, posters such as the original poster argue, by science. But the conservatives original finger pointing at a Chinese lab was not based on science. Rather, they followed the lead of former President, current cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump and a gaggle of politicized non-scientists. Even in this thread, one of the most cited sources is not an eminent virologist, but rather comedian Jon Stewart. As more authoritative sources weigh-in to suggest that the lab leak theory should at least be considered, many liberals are starting to come around. Obviously, I am not a scientist and my knowledge in the area of communicative diseases is very limited. But I am not ready to join the lab leak parade. From what I can tell — though obviously I could be missing something — those with the strongest credentials in the field still favor the origin of COVID being from animals rather than a lab. Dr. Alina Chan, the author of the Times essay, is a molecular biologist, but she is not a virologist. Moreover, she has become sort of the poster child for the lab leak theory, receiving a ton of positive press. The New York Times has previously profiled her very laudably. The Times itself has a checkered history regarding how it has addressed COVID. It is not clear how much of the attention paid to Chan is due to her knowledge rather than her celebrity status. So my immediate reaction is to take her essay with a grain of salt. In her essay, Chan makes much of a 2018 grant proposal that describes research that would create viruses with a feature shared by the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus. But, as Chan notes, the proposal was not funded and there is no evidence the research it proposed was ever conducted. Perhaps it is because of holes in the theory of this sort that Chan and the New York Times describe her findings as "evidence" rather than proof. Nevertheless, many in this thread seem to consider Chan's essay as conclusive. Certainly, the origin of COVID, including the possibility that it was the result of a lab leak, should be investigated and the chips should ultimately fall where they may. But I suggest a cautious approach with regard to forming conclusions.

Next was a thread titled, "Kicked out of every activity and summer camp we’ve ever tried" and posted in the "Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities" forum. The original poster says that she has a five year old son who is not violent but is very hyperactive and, because of his inability to stay on task, has been kicked out of every program in which the original poster has enrolled him. Because of the stress this is causing the original poster, she is on the verge of simply giving up and not looking for another program for him to attempt. She asks if others have given up in this manner. The problem that the original poster encountered in this thread was that she simply wanted to know if others had given up. Those responding, on the other hand, were determined to offer advice about how her son should be treated. They had questions about his previous evaluations, what medication he had been prescribed, and on and on. The original poster didn't want to have such discussions. The result was a lot of posts being reported to me and the original poster becoming frustrated. Responses were all over the place. Amidst all of the questions about medications and various treatments were posters disagreeing about the child's past care or with each other. Some posters had suggestions for additional medications while others oppose medication altogether. Some posters had ideas for how to handle summer camps, others advised not to consider summer camps because they were not equipped with the resources to handle the boy. At one point the original poster asked one of the previous responders, "You honestly think you can do better on an anonymous board than what our psychiatrist who is an MD and has actually seen our child for years can?" The answer, unfortunately, is that in many cases the posters in the forum do believe exactly that. To her credit, the original poster stuck it out and has still been posting this morning, maybe a little discouraged but still seeking advice. Her goal seems to be to get her son prepared for kindergarten. She had hoped that a summer program could help with the preparation. But, that is not turning out to be the case since every program ends up asking her son to leave. As a result, the original poster is turning much of her attention to just how things will go in kindergarten. She has a bit of comfort in the knowledge that a public school can't kick him out. Moreover, she seems to have some hope that he may receive better support services once he is in school.

Today's post started with a thread in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum and it will finish with a thread in that forum as well. Titled, "Dating and splitting costs", the original poster, who is presumably married, said that she has not dated in 20 years but has heard from friends that couples routinely split the cost of dates these days. She says that she probably would not have gone on a second date with a guy who expected her to split the cost of the first date. Based on the responses, older posters mostly expect the man to pay, at least for the first few dates. The older male posters say that this is what they do and the women say this is what happens on their dates as well. Among those who are younger, splitting the cost is more common, but far from universal. A fairly common practice is for the man to pay on the first and second dates, but for the woman to offer to pay for drinks, dessert, or the tip and maybe picking up the tab for the occasional date eventually. In addition, some posters describe being sensitive to the financial situation of the male. For instance, one poster said that when she started dating her now husband, neither of them had jobs or much money and it would not have been fair to expect him to pay for everything. Some of the mothers who responded said that they teach their daughters to expect to pay at least half of the bill because "the door of equality swings both ways." Similarly, another poster stated, "It’s patronizing to women when men assume they need to be taken care of." There is an uncomfortable undercurrent in this thread, and sometimes even on the surface, of an implied linkage of paying for a date and sex. As one poster writes, "If he’s asking me out on a date, he’s not looking for friendship" and clearly says that a guy would be doing himself a disservice by expecting her to pay. One incentive some of the woman say they have to pay is to avoid exactly this implication. The original poster seemed to suggest that splitting the bill is a new trend, but several posters argued that even 20 years ago with the original poster was dating, there were women who split the cost. Therefore this is not really a new trend. More than one poster said that she used to split the check or, more commonly, rotate paying. As with the original poster, several of those responding said that guys had always paid for them and they would not expect anything less. Some of the male posters contended that they were more than willing to pay for the first few dates, but they strongly disliked the sense of entitlement of some women, presumably like those just described. Some of the posters were the mothers of sons and had a great deal of pride in announcing that their sons were quite capable of paying, not only for a meal but dessert and an Uber as well. They insisted that their sons would never allow a woman to split the check with them. But other posters responded that such an attitude would turn them off and not lead to additional dates.