"Americans now in their early 20s are two and a half times as likely to be abstinent as Gen Xers were at that age; 15 percent report having had no sex since they reached adulthood."
" In 2005, a third of Japanese single people ages 18 to 34 were virgins; by 2015, 43 percent of people in this age group were,"
"One of the most respected sex studies in the world, Britain’s National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, reported in 2001 that people ages 16 to 44 were having sex more than six times a month on average. By 2012, the rate had dropped to fewer than five times. Over roughly the same period, Australians in relationships went from having sex about 1.8 times a week to 1.4 times. Finland’s “Finsex” study found declines in intercourse frequency, along with rising rates of masturbation""
Why is this happening? There are loads of explanations from social media to junk food to a huge decline in testosterone:
"Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year"
We have bred a generation of frustrated but weedy men who go on protests rather than get laid. All is explained.
My theory is that tinder has ruined the thrill of the chase. It's genuinely such a piece of piss to get laid in a big city these days for men and women. It takes a profile on tinder or hinge and then a slightly reasonable level of bants and paying for the first date, or skipping it entirely and inviting them over.
I really do believe that the ease of that has just made it boring. The initial hard work in getting a gf is part of the foundation of a relationship. As of today, there's basically no work required. Also, sex is better when you know the person well, sex with a stranger from tinder is a fleeting joy and ultimately quite depressing when one thinks about it for longer than a few minutes. That dawned on a lot of my formerly single friends a few years ago and almost everyone is either married or on the way to it. People in their early twenties are realising these things now but they don't have the tools to go out to a bar and get laid, they will have to learn that again before sex becomes fun and interesting again.
Another explanation I have heard is this: the reliance on very visually-oriented dating apps means that the less good looking young men don't ever get a chance.
In the past uglier men could reply on charm, luck, wit, money, status, to make up for goofy teeth. They would still get their opportunity in the bar, or at the party, when they met the girl for the first time: the girl would see past the spots and hear the jokes
These days they don't get that chance, as women just sweep left. Gone.
This means that a small subset of very good looking men get lots and lots of girls, and a large subset of unhandsome men get nothing.
This is a real problem. Incels are unhappy people. It's a kind of polygyny and polygynous societies tend to be unstable and eventually violent
Houellebecq has constructed a world view out of that notion.
"Americans now in their early 20s are two and a half times as likely to be abstinent as Gen Xers were at that age; 15 percent report having had no sex since they reached adulthood."
" In 2005, a third of Japanese single people ages 18 to 34 were virgins; by 2015, 43 percent of people in this age group were,"
"One of the most respected sex studies in the world, Britain’s National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, reported in 2001 that people ages 16 to 44 were having sex more than six times a month on average. By 2012, the rate had dropped to fewer than five times. Over roughly the same period, Australians in relationships went from having sex about 1.8 times a week to 1.4 times. Finland’s “Finsex” study found declines in intercourse frequency, along with rising rates of masturbation""
Why is this happening? There are loads of explanations from social media to junk food to a huge decline in testosterone:
"Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year"
We have bred a generation of frustrated but weedy men who go on protests rather than get laid. All is explained.
My theory is that tinder has ruined the thrill of the chase. It's genuinely such a piece of piss to get laid in a big city these days for men and women. It takes a profile on tinder or hinge and then a slightly reasonable level of bants and paying for the first date, or skipping it entirely and inviting them over.
I really do believe that the ease of that has just made it boring. The initial hard work in getting a gf is part of the foundation of a relationship. As of today, there's basically no work required. Also, sex is better when you know the person well, sex with a stranger from tinder is a fleeting joy and ultimately quite depressing when one thinks about it for longer than a few minutes. That dawned on a lot of my formerly single friends a few years ago and almost everyone is either married or on the way to it. People in their early twenties are realising these things now but they don't have the tools to go out to a bar and get laid, they will have to learn that again before sex becomes fun and interesting again.
Another explanation I have heard is this: the reliance on very visually-oriented dating apps means that the less good looking young men don't ever get a chance.
In the past uglier men could reply on charm, luck, wit, money, status, to make up for goofy teeth. They would still get their opportunity in the bar, or at the party, when they met the girl for the first time: the girl would see past the spots and hear the jokes
These days they don't get that chance, as women just sweep left. Gone.
This means that a small subset of very good looking men get lots and lots of girls, and a large subset of unhandsome men get nothing.
This is a real problem. Incels are unhappy people. It's a kind of polygyny and polygynous societies tend to be unstable and eventually violent
You're probably right. There's a lot of 4-7/10 guys who struggle on tinder that would eventually get girls on nights out etc...
In general social media and the internet haven't been good for dating and marriage. Social media couples irritate me a lot.
Last sentence: that has led to me unfollowing or blocking so many people.
The etiquette of social media seems to be very widely misunderstood.
"Americans now in their early 20s are two and a half times as likely to be abstinent as Gen Xers were at that age; 15 percent report having had no sex since they reached adulthood."
" In 2005, a third of Japanese single people ages 18 to 34 were virgins; by 2015, 43 percent of people in this age group were,"
"One of the most respected sex studies in the world, Britain’s National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, reported in 2001 that people ages 16 to 44 were having sex more than six times a month on average. By 2012, the rate had dropped to fewer than five times. Over roughly the same period, Australians in relationships went from having sex about 1.8 times a week to 1.4 times. Finland’s “Finsex” study found declines in intercourse frequency, along with rising rates of masturbation""
Why is this happening? There are loads of explanations from social media to junk food to a huge decline in testosterone:
"Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year"
We have bred a generation of frustrated but weedy men who go on protests rather than get laid. All is explained.
My theory is that tinder has ruined the thrill of the chase. It's genuinely such a piece of piss to get laid in a big city these days for men and women. It takes a profile on tinder or hinge and then a slightly reasonable level of bants and paying for the first date, or skipping it entirely and inviting them over.
I really do believe that the ease of that has just made it boring. The initial hard work in getting a gf is part of the foundation of a relationship. As of today, there's basically no work required. Also, sex is better when you know the person well, sex with a stranger from tinder is a fleeting joy and ultimately quite depressing when one thinks about it for longer than a few minutes. That dawned on a lot of my formerly single friends a few years ago and almost everyone is either married or on the way to it. People in their early twenties are realising these things now but they don't have the tools to go out to a bar and get laid, they will have to learn that again before sex becomes fun and interesting again.
That's a part of it, maybe, but I think the total explanation is much deeper and more complex. And you are ignoring that astounding drop in testosterone, which is born out by personal observation: young men today seem nicer, more polite, less belligerent than my generation, the aggressive ones really stand out. Young men are also much more averse to risk (risk taking is a signal of testosterone) - that explains the drop in drinking and drugging maybe.
All of this can be seen as good, perhaps, but it makes for less exciting partners for women?
I agree that young men are all ridiculously nice these days, it's weird. I thought maybe unleaded petrol might be part of the story there. Isn't the real reason that people are having less sex simply that they're pairing off later? The best way to have regular sex from a young age is to be in a long term relationship or marriage.
In my experience it was being in lots of short term relationships (consecutively, not concurrently), at least when I was that age. You get variety and a lot of sex that way and you get a good chance of meeting your future wife as well (which I did in my final year).
The variety and lots of sex? Yes, I remember that.
When was CHAZ renamed to CHOP? Was there some issue over cultural appropriation or something with the original name?
I think they were worried about the legal implications of "autonomous" - and with good reason
Here is their heavily armed "warlord" begging medics to come in and save a shot black guy who is dying in their peaceful utopia; but the medics are too scared, for the very good reason that the warlord has just refused entry to cops, with violent intent
On today’s much-discussed subject of Ash Sarkar, I have to say I like her. Yes, many of her opinions are barking, but on a personal level she seems a lot of fun.
I reckon of all the people who are mostly famous for being on Twitter she would be the best for a night out.
Her twitter bio once stated she ‘f*cks like a champion’. Now deleted. I wonder if that’s what attracts so many men of a certain age !
She is unquestionably hot.
There is always something satisfying about bedding a stridently left wing girl. They often turn out to be the most submissive.
I love this site. You won't get stuff like this anywhere else.
It's also absolutely true. I've encountered it too often in my life, and heard it from too many friends, to regard it as coincidence.
I can't work out which causes which, however.
Is it because these women are so shouty, forceful and determined in real life that they yearn to be tied up, spanked and generally bossed around between the sheets?
Or is it because they are so ashamed of their innate sexual submissiveness that they become hardened feminists fighting for equality in daily life?
There is a similar phenomenon in men, of course. Often very powerful men harbour a secret desire to be dominated, to let go of that power and be told what to do by a tall, severe lady in shiny black boots and a leather bra.
*stares at several Tory ex chancellors*
I'll take your word for it. I don't have a sufficiently large sample size from which to draw statistically significant inference. Your last paragraph sounded heartfelt.
No, I prefer to wield the pillow rather than bite it.
I'd pay to read a "match report" following an encounter between a right-wing international bestselling author, and Ash Sarkar.
When was CHAZ renamed to CHOP? Was there some issue over cultural appropriation or something with the original name?
I think they were worried about the legal implications of "autonomous" - and with good reason
Here is their heavily armed "warlord" begging medics to come in and save a shot black guy who is dying in their peaceful utopia; but the medics are too scared, for the very good reason that the warlord has just refused entry to cops, with violent intent
On today’s much-discussed subject of Ash Sarkar, I have to say I like her. Yes, many of her opinions are barking, but on a personal level she seems a lot of fun.
I reckon of all the people who are mostly famous for being on Twitter she would be the best for a night out.
Her twitter bio once stated she ‘f*cks like a champion’. Now deleted. I wonder if that’s what attracts so many men of a certain age !
She is unquestionably hot.
There is always something satisfying about bedding a stridently left wing girl. They often turn out to be the most submissive.
I love this site. You won't get stuff like this anywhere else.
It's also absolutely true. I've encountered it too often in my life, and heard it from too many friends, to regard it as coincidence.
I can't work out which causes which, however.
Is it because these women are so shouty, forceful and determined in real life that they yearn to be tied up, spanked and generally bossed around between the sheets?
Or is it because they are so ashamed of their innate sexual submissiveness that they become hardened feminists fighting for equality in daily life?
There is a similar phenomenon in men, of course. Often very powerful men harbour a secret desire to be dominated, to let go of that power and be told what to do by a tall, severe lady in shiny black boots and a leather bra.
*stares at several Tory ex chancellors*
I'll take your word for it. I don't have a sufficiently large sample size from which to draw statistically significant inference. Your last paragraph sounded heartfelt.
No, I prefer to wield the pillow rather than bite it.
I'd pay to read a "match report" following an encounter between a right-wing international bestselling author, and Ash Sarkar.
Why is the Israeli embassy shown on that map? It's not mentioned in the text of the Daily Mail article.
I've no idea why the Daily Mail has done that but I did see an excellent interview the other say, with an ex-Israeli military intel guy, who said that Epstein was working for the Israelis, and was killed by them (with inside help)
Epstein, the handsome charming Jewish boy from NYC, was given lots of money to set up the world's biggest honeytrap, to get kompromat on some of the richest, most powerful men in the world.
The deal was: Invite them for golf with a certain Prince (or whoever); It seems legit. Then promise them a "fun time afterwards", wink wink, but say no more. Then get them drunk and in bed with an underage girl, and get it all on multiple cameras.
Suddenly you have leverage over US presidents and Silicon Valley trillionaires and anyone else. Huge but stealthy power for Israel
The link is Robert Maxwell, who first met Epstein then introduced him to his daughter
I've no clue if it is true but it is one of the most plausible, overall explanations for the weird saga of Epstein, that I have heard
You should sell that idea to a novelist, Eadric. It would make a good plot for a spy thriller.
For fictional insight into our present situation I think that "The Day of the Locust" ( Nathanael West, 1939) has much to recommend it.
Catch 22 for me.
That was my favourite book when I was 17.
15 in my case. So, you know ...
Have you tried reading it again when you're older? Like a lot of books I liked as s teenager (eg On the Road) it didn't have the same magic.
No but I bet I'd also be slightly disappointed if I were to. It appealed particularly to my male adolescent brain. Quite a few things did that don't anymore.
A least the Tories showed an actual man with his kid in their Father's Day ad, unlike Labour, who are implying that all black fathers run off and leave their kids with a "carer"
The replies to the Tory tweet are absolutely awful and vile though - seemingly a lot of them are from Tory voters.
Really? There were 3 individuals who made dodgy replies.
Most of the rest were from non Tories criticising Tories for being racust
Why is the Israeli embassy shown on that map? It's not mentioned in the text of the Daily Mail article.
I've no idea why the Daily Mail has done that but I did see an excellent interview the other say, with an ex-Israeli military intel guy, who said that Epstein was working for the Israelis, and was killed by them (with inside help)
Epstein, the handsome charming Jewish boy from NYC, was given lots of money to set up the world's biggest honeytrap, to get kompromat on some of the richest, most powerful men in the world.
The deal was: Invite them for golf with a certain Prince (or whoever); It seems legit. Then promise them a "fun time afterwards", wink wink, but say no more. Then get them drunk and in bed with an underage girl, and get it all on multiple cameras.
Suddenly you have leverage over US presidents and Silicon Valley trillionaires and anyone else. Huge but stealthy power for Israel
The link is Robert Maxwell, who first met Epstein then introduced him to his daughter
I've no clue if it is true but it is one of the most plausible, overall explanations for the weird saga of Epstein, that I have heard
Interesting. It's been said of Epstein that his liking for underaged girls was far less of a secret than the source of his money.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
No because you’d be accused of implying that Boris can’t do that
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
That is the single most unfortunate political ad I have ever seen
I think it manages to insult almost every demographic in the country
Is the adult a man or woman, on my first view I thought it was the mother and was just confused. The graphic is absolutely terrible.
I think they've been so over-sensitive and UberWoke they've tried to make the "father" look asexual, or non-binary, or whatever it is, but they've ended up with an image that looks like a black mother with her child who has been abandoned by her black father: on an ad "celebrating" Father's Day
So they've ignored all white people, insulted all black people, patronised all trans people, and seriously pissed off mothers and fathers alike, of all races.
And they got the apostrophe wrong
It just looks like a black father with his daughter.
The piece of graffiti in the frame reads "No Cops Allowed".
(sorry for the obvious observation - I see it is displaying again)
So CHOP is a kind of woke version of Passports to Pimlico?
I don't think they are going the microstate route, à la Frestonia in Notting Hill. Neither Christiania in Copenhagen nor Metelkova in Ljubljana are in any way cool places in my book, but that kind of outcome in Seattle would be far preferable to another Waco.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
No because you’d be accused of implying that Boris can’t do that
Not being sure how many cards he will receive must make it an exciting day for Bozo.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
No. It's like All Saints' Day.
COD has it as Father's, presumably as the day dedicated to the father one happens to have.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
No. It's like All Saints' Day.
COD has it as Father's, presumably as the day dedicated to the father one happens to have.
Yes it’s Father’s Day, even though that is counterintuitive. You can argue it is a day for an individual - your father. I’d rather it was plural possessive, but it just isn’t.
That is the single most unfortunate political ad I have ever seen
I think it manages to insult almost every demographic in the country
Is the adult a man or woman, on my first view I thought it was the mother and was just confused. The graphic is absolutely terrible.
I think they've been so over-sensitive and UberWoke they've tried to make the "father" look asexual, or non-binary, or whatever it is, but they've ended up with an image that looks like a black mother with her child who has been abandoned by her black father: on an ad "celebrating" Father's Day
So they've ignored all white people, insulted all black people, patronised all trans people, and seriously pissed off mothers and fathers alike, of all races.
And they got the apostrophe wrong
Sir Keir needs to distance himself from this. This is the first massive blunder of his leadership - a real test of his judgement, courage and authority.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
No. It's like All Saints' Day.
Well, it's illogical. I know logic doesn't apply to names - demotic use and all that - but it speaks of confusion.
It's a silly idea anyway so I suppose a silly spelling is kind of appropriate.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
No. It's like All Saints' Day.
COD has it as Father's, presumably as the day dedicated to the father one happens to have.
That is just outrageous. To the barricades, Comrades!
"Americans now in their early 20s are two and a half times as likely to be abstinent as Gen Xers were at that age; 15 percent report having had no sex since they reached adulthood."
" In 2005, a third of Japanese single people ages 18 to 34 were virgins; by 2015, 43 percent of people in this age group were,"
"One of the most respected sex studies in the world, Britain’s National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, reported in 2001 that people ages 16 to 44 were having sex more than six times a month on average. By 2012, the rate had dropped to fewer than five times. Over roughly the same period, Australians in relationships went from having sex about 1.8 times a week to 1.4 times. Finland’s “Finsex” study found declines in intercourse frequency, along with rising rates of masturbation""
Why is this happening? There are loads of explanations from social media to junk food to a huge decline in testosterone:
"Studies show that men’s testosterone levels have been declining for decades. The most prominent, a 2007 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, revealed a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, with average levels declining by about 1% per year"
We have bred a generation of frustrated but weedy men who go on protests rather than get laid. All is explained.
My theory is that tinder has ruined the thrill of the chase. It's genuinely such a piece of piss to get laid in a big city these days for men and women. It takes a profile on tinder or hinge and then a slightly reasonable level of bants and paying for the first date, or skipping it entirely and inviting them over.
I really do believe that the ease of that has just made it boring. The initial hard work in getting a gf is part of the foundation of a relationship. As of today, there's basically no work required. Also, sex is better when you know the person well, sex with a stranger from tinder is a fleeting joy and ultimately quite depressing when one thinks about it for longer than a few minutes. That dawned on a lot of my formerly single friends a few years ago and almost everyone is either married or on the way to it. People in their early twenties are realising these things now but they don't have the tools to go out to a bar and get laid, they will have to learn that again before sex becomes fun and interesting again.
So nothing to do with people suddenly becoming more religious - and reverting to 'chastity before marriage'?
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
No. It's like All Saints' Day.
COD has it as Father's, presumably as the day dedicated to the father one happens to have.
Yes it’s Father’s Day, even though that is counterintuitive. You can argue it is a day for an individual - your father. I’d rather it was plural possessive, but it just isn’t.
Modern Father's day is in part modelled on Mother's day, which was created by Anna Jarvis.
In 1912, Jarvis incorporated her own association, trademarked the white carnation and the phrases "second Sunday in May" and "Mother's Day". She was specific about the location of the apostrophe; it was to be a singular possessive, for each family to honour their mother, not a plural possessive commemorating all mothers in the world.
Maybe I'm misreading it, but that tweet doesn't seem to be saying children have lower infectivity -- it just says they're more likely to be asymptomatic. So a child could catch covid at school, but because asymptomatic they don't get identified as the household's "index case". They pass it to a parent, who does get noticeably sick, and so gets tested. Then contact tracing looks at who's been in contact with the parent, which is a group that obviously includes the child. Child gets tested, but by this point their immune system has mostly cleared up their asymptomatic infection and they show as having a low viral load. If they'd been tested the week before their parent caught it rather than the week after the results would likely have been higher. (Haven't read the stuff the tweet is a response to.)
That's my reading too, and that because kids are largely asymptomatic, they are being overlooked as the index case, with further implications that they role in the spread is being underestimated.
Quite. My (poorly expressed) question was - do we have any conclusive evidence which refutes the idea that more children might be unidentified index cases ?
That is the single most unfortunate political ad I have ever seen
I think it manages to insult almost every demographic in the country
Is the adult a man or woman, on my first view I thought it was the mother and was just confused. The graphic is absolutely terrible.
I think they've been so over-sensitive and UberWoke they've tried to make the "father" look asexual, or non-binary, or whatever it is, but they've ended up with an image that looks like a black mother with her child who has been abandoned by her black father: on an ad "celebrating" Father's Day
So they've ignored all white people, insulted all black people, patronised all trans people, and seriously pissed off mothers and fathers alike, of all races.
And they got the apostrophe wrong
It just looks like a black father with his daughter.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
No. It's like All Saints' Day.
COD has it as Father's, presumably as the day dedicated to the father one happens to have.
Yes it’s Father’s Day, even though that is counterintuitive. You can argue it is a day for an individual - your father. I’d rather it was plural possessive, but it just isn’t.
Yes, it cannot possibly be plural but I still don't see where the 'possessive' comes in. I think it's simply a misspelling that we've all become so accustomed to that it now 'looks right' and so it is right through demotic usage.
What a shame. I was so enjoying the fun at the expense of Labour and its Father's Day card. I was going to point out mischievously the resemblance between the Father and the Robertson Gollywog, but I suppose I just have to let it rest.
On today’s much-discussed subject of Ash Sarkar, I have to say I like her. Yes, many of her opinions are barking, but on a personal level she seems a lot of fun.
I reckon of all the people who are mostly famous for being on Twitter she would be the best for a night out.
Her twitter bio once stated she ‘f*cks like a champion’. Now deleted. I wonder if that’s what attracts so many men of a certain age !
She is unquestionably hot.
There is always something satisfying about bedding a stridently left wing girl. They often turn out to be the most submissive.
I love this site. You won't get stuff like this anywhere else.
It's also absolutely true. I've encountered it too often in my life, and heard it from too many friends, to regard it as coincidence.
I can't work out which causes which, however.
Is it because these women are so shouty, forceful and determined in real life that they yearn to be tied up, spanked and generally bossed around between the sheets?
Or is it because they are so ashamed of their innate sexual submissiveness that they become hardened feminists fighting for equality in daily life?
There is a similar phenomenon in men, of course. Often very powerful men harbour a secret desire to be dominated, to let go of that power and be told what to do by a tall, severe lady in shiny black boots and a leather bra.
*stares at several Tory ex chancellors*
It’s an theory, whether fictional or not, curiously identical to that expressed by SeanT.
When was CHAZ renamed to CHOP? Was there some issue over cultural appropriation or something with the original name?
I think they were worried about the legal implications of "autonomous" - and with good reason
Here is their heavily armed "warlord" begging medics to come in and save a shot black guy who is dying in their peaceful utopia; but the medics are too scared, for the very good reason that the warlord has just refused entry to cops, with violent intent
That is the single most unfortunate political ad I have ever seen
I think it manages to insult almost every demographic in the country
Is the adult a man or woman, on my first view I thought it was the mother and was just confused. The graphic is absolutely terrible.
I think they've been so over-sensitive and UberWoke they've tried to make the "father" look asexual, or non-binary, or whatever it is, but they've ended up with an image that looks like a black mother with her child who has been abandoned by her black father: on an ad "celebrating" Father's Day
So they've ignored all white people, insulted all black people, patronised all trans people, and seriously pissed off mothers and fathers alike, of all races.
And they got the apostrophe wrong
Sir Keir needs to distance himself from this. This is the first massive blunder of his leadership - a real test of his judgement, courage and authority.
You jest, I am sure
It's an obscure internet ad released on a lazy Sunday, few will notice
However it is a sign that Wokeness might be a problem for Labour in future: in their effort to satisfy everyone, and tick every PC box, they might end up infuriating most of the country
Comments
158 cases is over 10% of current UK daily positive tests
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53131765
Austerity 2.0.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8445039/Security-guard-tells-scene-Reading-triple-murder-suspect-Khairi-Saadallah-arrested.html
His brother "Mo" thinks his arrest is racist.
i mean just because he slaughtered 3 people who were sitting around drinking beer and injured others ... jeez
The etiquette of social media seems to be very widely misunderstood.
Fun times.
(only kidding!
Any tax cuts/reliefs should be better targeted - the Treasury doesn't have an unlimited pot of money.
If so, then no doubt we will be seeing the fallout between No 10 and 11, as predicted this week by Philip Collins in Times.
(sorry for the obvious observation - I see it is displaying again)
So CHOP is a kind of woke version of Passports to Pimlico?
Most of the rest were from non Tories criticising Tories for being racust
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
I missed this clip earlier.
It's a silly idea anyway so I suppose a silly spelling is kind of appropriate.
OK, maybe that would be a bit OTT.
Night all.
NEW THREAD
https://web.archive.org/web/20080514130408/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=c942370c-cdbb-43b2-af59-71ad4b546854
My (poorly expressed) question was - do we have any conclusive evidence which refutes the idea that more children might be unidentified index cases ?