Petal arranger.
Not FLOWER arranger. Just the petals.

It's gonna be big. You just watch.

"REF! RED CARD! That's a FOWL!"

I like cake and pie.
But Cake is the True Way.

Vengeful Spirit, Book 29 in the Horus Heresy series.
It's really starting to feel like they're just milking the series for as many books as they can publish, now. The quality of writing by all the different authors gets annoying sometimes.
But, hey, Primarchs!

You could use some more Interests (maybe your favorite book or movie genres, or restaurants you like to eat at), and a few more pictures about you. Maybe showing off your guitar or performing karaoke or something.

As for cooking, given my personal life experience, I have to agree that women do it better. At least until I figure out what "reduction" means...

As to "a world without women"... It seems to me that homosexual relationships would become the norm, and no males would really think twice about it (no more than we do now seeing a couple together). Homosexuality is mostly a social stigma, so an all-male society would probably get used to it sooner or later. If, in fact, it actually came up. In the prison-b*tch scenario, we ARE talking about criminals, who are used to using violence and force to get what they want. In spite of CrystalFairy's naysaying, I don't think that's how things would look on an average day.

But anyway. There aren't many things that females categorically do BETTER... (Though I stand by the cooking thing. For now.) Though by the exact same token, I don't think there are many things males categorically do BETTER... The only real importance gender has in the world is a person's role in procreation. (Though people attach all sorts of other traits to gender. Like cooking skill. >.>) Other than that, in modern Western society, people have the opportunity to try just about anything, and even if one gender isn't famous for doing something, there's always going to be the exception to the rule.

If I really needed her to give me her time and attention, and I made that need clear, then she should be able to free up the time to help me. However, the actual need situation doesn't come up all that often, and is kind of relative. It is relative in the importance of what each person is doing. It's about determining priorities. If I "need" help moving furniture, but she's at work, that's not an actual "need". However, if we had a date planned, and she's off partying with her friends instead, that's something she can afford to ditch; if we were in a valid relationship, then the date should be a much higher priority than partying.

In cases in which I would truly need her, like a medical emergency/drive to the hospital, then that should automatically assume top priority no matter what situation she would get pulled out of. This is assuming that we're far enough along in the relationship that she would now be my first medical contact.

I also have to make that need clear. The phrase "I need you to..." gets thrown around a lot, and usually means "I want..." or "It would be nice if..." For example, if I do need a ride to the hospital, but I tell her, "It's really no big deal" while I'm bleeding all over the floor, then that's my fault for not making the situation clear, or making her think it's nothing serious. There's putting your partner first, trying to make their lives easier in every respect, and then there's just pointless masochism and dangerous levels of self-sacrifice.

Baconloose, starring Kevin Foot.

Cast member of Reptar On Ice.

That's how I interpreted it.

Though come to think of it, I'll take either kind of taco... I've just gotta have something to munch on.

A woman looking for "a partner in crime" pops up a lot, too.

Here's one survey. Not sure how useful the replies are, but this is what I have observed:

http://mingle2.com/topic/424548

Skipping over three pages, but making up for it in sheer length and density of post...

Too long; didn't read - oppression of females is not quite as bad as it's made out to be.

I can understand the misandrist perspective if a woman has been treated badly by several men in her personal experience (I don't want to name names, but one begins with an "E" and ends with "-stelle".)
However, it is the pro-feminist misandrists (and thank you for that term, I've been looking for it since college) who want to blame the modern me and my kind for the crimes of different men in ages past, who annoy the hell out of me. That is completely nonsensical, and I doubt the intellectual powers of people who make these kinds of arguments. Now, if you want to blame me for the way I've been treating you now, that makes sense. (Though I hope I haven't been and never will be blamed for behaving like that.)

I have only seriously looked at history through the field of literature, but I bet if you went a few hundred years in the past and asked the woman on the street if she thought she was "oppressed", you'd get a serious and complete "What?" in response. Any reasonably accurate look at Western history for the past few hundred years will reveal plenty of instances of equal and empowered women. I am amused by the all the historical examples that feminists and misandrists "discover" and wave over their heads like it's some great big revelation. It seems to me that those examples couldn't be found if they weren't there to be found in the first place. If women were so viciously oppressed, where did all these examples of equal or empowered women come from?

Sure, the argument goes "Only a tiny fraction of women ever achieved real (political, economic) power!" That's because only a tiny fraction of the entire population achieved real (political, economic) power! Only three or four queens in English history, you say? That's because there're only one or two rulers on the throne at a time! And most of those got there by killing off the royal before them, so be careful what you wish for!
Only eleven (11) of the hundred (100) senators in the United States are women, you say? That's because there are only one hundred (100) senators out of the 300,000,000 citizens in the United States. 11 women out of 300,000,000 are pretty good odds, considering. Some of them have been in power for a god-awful long time, when you realize that each term is only 4 years - Diane Feinstein of California has been an incumbent Senator since 1992.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/biography

Have women been oppressed? Yes, of course. But in most eras of history they were oppressed right alongside the men. Serfdom. Slavery. Even classic chivalry put certain constraints and prohibitions on both parties. (REAL classic chivalry, the feudal rules of social conduct, not just opening doors for people.) In classic chivalry, women could order the executions of men who had wronged them. (I think "E" would like reading up on this - I point her to the Arthurian story of "The Loathly Lady".) Just like "feminist", a lot of older terms and concepts have been bastardized by common use and popular media.

You women and your mechanical replacements! No wonder we males can't get dates!

Anyway, for me... The words that keep popping up in my relationships are "talkative", "cute", and "just the right amount of crazy". I may have gotten the words "witty" and "smart" a couple times, and I remember one female complimenting me on my creativity once.

Wait, wait - Bollywood makes action flicks? Every one I've ever seen is a hugely-choreographed romantic musical.

Well, damn.

I had read a day or two ago the report that he was hospitalized, but I had thought it wasn't anything TOO serious - obviously the doctors thought so, too, otherwise he wouldn't have gone back home.

Well, damn.

First of all, that assumes that everyone on the planet is well-practiced at kissing, which I don't think is true. Second, it assumes that people can't learn to do things new ways, which I think is a disservice to their intelligence. Thirdly, it puts all the pressure on the other party, which I think is usually goes bad ways in a [romantic] relationship. This could be an issue of communication, and if you're choosing not to communicate when something bothers you or isn't pleasing to you, that's your own fault.
To draw a parallel to the BDSM thread, it's like not using your "safe word" even though you remember it.

So if even the "trailer park of the galaxy" doesn't want you...
And this after we let you into our homes... our hearts... next to our cats...

--------

But, yeah, intolerance! I've never quite bought into the idea that "showing intolerance towards the intolerant is intolerant". If someone is being rude and mean just for the sake of being rude and mean, I don't see why I should treat them any differently. The Golden Rule says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So if someone is treating me meanly and rudely, obviously they want to be treated meanly and rudely.

If someone does not kiss you the right way, it is your responsibility to show them how it's done properly!
If they still can't take a hint, but you like them in pretty much every other respect... there ARE other things to do than kiss.
On the lips.
On the face.
Do I really need to go on?

Where does "plain" cookies-and-cream fit in??