DON'T DATE GUYS WITHOUT PETS...

     I've been off and (mostly) on dating sites since 2011. Since it takes me a while to even get a date, I go through a lot of profiles and start picking up on their nuances. One off-hand observation I've made was that a lot of women on Plenty of Fish were dog owners and I wondered if, in contradiction to the "Crazy Cat Lady Hypothesis", dog ownership meant a woman was more likely to be single.

     Now because I'm me, I wanted some numbers to back up my claim before making a silly status update on Facebook about it. Yes, I'm that weird. I will spend hours poring over random profiles of women for the sole purpose of making sure my bad jokes have at least some semi-solid backing to them.

     What I found surprised me. But first, while I'm having trouble pinning down exact numbers, The Humane Society of the United States says that 62% of American households have at least one pet (of any kind) and the American Veterinary Medical Association states 36.5% of U.S. households have dogs and 30.4% have cats. Since that combined total is greater than 62%, I'll take it there's some overlap there.

     My idea was to go through random public profiles of women (ones you can see without signing into Plenty of Fish and OKCupid) and see whether I would reach 100 dog owners or 100 cat owners first.

     It took a while, but after going through 313 female Plenty of Fish profiles, I got the following results:

Dog owners: 100

Cat owners: 45

Owned both: 12

Owned other kinds of pets: 12

Owned no pets: 144

     So dog owners reached 100 first, but as you can see, my off-hand observation was correct: there were more dog owners represented than cat owners and by a large margin too. The results should skew around 1/3 dog, 1/3 cat, and 1/3 no pets but dogs and petless are overrepresented by a lot.
     Continuing, I did the same thing for the men. Even though I'm prohibited from owning a pet in this apartment (much to my lonely chagrin), I counted myself as a cat owner because I would surely be one. I then continued with random male profiles with the object, like with the women, of reaching 100 dog or cat owners before quitting.

     However, I had to quit because petless men ridiculously outnumbered the pet owners. I quit searching after I hit 200 petless men. Of the 283 male profiles viewed, these were my results:

Dog owners: 47

Cat owners: 21

Owned both: 5

Owned other kinds of pets: 10

Owned no pets: 200

     So, despite the huge overrepresentation of petless men, dog owners still outnumbered cat owners by over 2 to 1.

     I then moved on to OKCupid to see what would come up. For both sexes, I reached the quit point of 200 petless. OKCupid users appear to be less likely overall to have pets. OKCupid also has an option for liking or disliking animals. For the sake of this experiment, I considered the liking/disliking of animals to be the same as having no pets. Personally I like dogs, but I really would never consider owning one (even though miniature dachshunds are freaking adorable...and cat-sized). No, the user had to actually HAVE a dog/cat for it to count.

     For women, I went through a total of 295 profiles and got the following results:

Dog owners: 59

Cat owners: 29

Owned both: 7

Owned no pets or only liked those animals: 200

    Again, besides the huge petless contingent, dogs ownership outnumbered cat ownership by just over 2 to 1.
    For men, I went though a total of 252 profiles and got these results:

Dog owners: 25

Cat owners: 19

Owned both: 4

Owned no pets or only liked those animals: 204

     Only on OKCupid did male pet ownership appear to correlate with national statistics though I wonder if it would've continued the patterns already shown had I pressed on to reach 100 dog or cat owners. I just was not interested in spending that many hours to get to that number.

My hasty conclusions?

IS THIS ME...OR JUST ME NOW?

     Sometimes I just wish someone I date would take me aside and convincingly tell me in a manner I would no way misinterpret as hurtful that I shouldn't date...that it's not for me because dating/being in a relationship isn't me.

     I want to be told that I am meant to be alone because that is who I am. The intent wouldn't be that of a sad ending, but rather an ending appropriate for a mind like mine. That I'm not meant to be pinned to a single soul. That my duty lies in helping others and that I cannot be that man if I am obligated to another solely. Yes, I will be lonely at times but it will not be for naught. Yes, I will be horny at times but there's a way for dealing with that. Yes, I will long for a human touch but it will turn out it is that yearning which allows me to be at my best. A rationale for my life...

     I'll admit I, at times, wish prostitution were legal and that I would not feel guilty in partaking. I want to believe that at least some of these women are doing it because they genuinely enjoy and are not otherwise trapped in a cycle of despair or abuse from which they cannot escape. It's difficult overlooking the power of reproductive urges. They're so selfish...so needy...so wanting... If I didn't feel them at all, my life would prove much more bearable. I wish it didn't feel so intoxicating, the desire to feel wanted at that raw, animalistic, sexual level...

     I also admit I have a difficult time even imagining being in a relationship. It's weird. I can envision the companionship angle of it...the day-to-day stuff, but not the romance...not the wooing. Those latter aspects feel so unlike me. I love caring for other people in tangible ways but I have no desire to solicit a person to care for.

    Eh, I don't know...

IF YOU COULD ONLY HAVE ONE IMPRACTICAL SUPERPOWER, WHAT WOULD IT BE?

      Hmm... I like this question because while the power manifested could still be awesome to have, it must ultimately have little value and/or application.

      I guess I'd go with the ability - I don't even know how to put it - to project a terrifying image and sense of dread into a person...but only if we accidentally touch one and other. In other words, neither of us can be expecting to touch one and other. Generally I see this happening when someone bumps into you or maybe lightly grazes your hand when giving them change or something to that effect.

     As for what image to project? I'd want something with the visual impact of the Eye of Sauron and since I lack creativity, let's just say I want the power to project the Eye of Sauron and a deep sense of dread into anyone who accidentally touches me.

I see you

     The best part is. A person, after having touched me so and in their fear, might wish to touch me again to see if it were true. Only this time they will get nothing. A look of bewilderment on us both perhaps? Even if they tried sneaking up on me later to touch me, it wouldn't work because the toucher knew they would touch me...it only works when it's accidental for both. Likewise, if I felt inside the possibility that I might touch the person I'm looking at, it also wouldn't work. Only if it is genuine...

     And seriously, what other purpose would that serve? What benefit would it convey? What practical use could such a power ever have?

LINE OF THE DAY, part XXXVI

      I've been reading the comments section of this article for quite some time. Yes, I am a long-term Simpsons fan but unfortunately I lack the articulateness with which to defend my love for a show I've been watching since before they were a show. Remember, The Simpsons used to be a series of shorts between sketches on the Tracey Ullman Show back in 1987-1989 before getting their own 30 minute show which debuted in December 1989.

      As far as events go, the debut of the Simpsons has stuck with me to this day. I still remember where I was and how excited I was to see it. I remember staying up late on school nights to watch their shorts on Tracey Ullman while not even caring about the comedy sketches in-between. I have been with the show since I was Bart's age and from I've heard, the show will be ending next year when I will be Homer's age (he's 37, in case you don't know).

      My commitment to The Simpsons perhaps reflects my commitment in other areas of life. So if there's some girl out there who worries about her potential man's commitment to a relationship, let my undying love for the Simpsons be a reflection of how I handle the ups and downs of any interaction we have in life. When I care about something/someone, I never stop caring.

      Anyways, lapsed fans and other types of haters love to spew venom on their once beloved show whose golden years have long since passed. I wish I could remember which episode I heard the commentary in, but I remember vaguely Matt Groening talking about the way we view a show depends on when we first started watching it. The Simpsons, running for as long as it has, cannot remain the same show forever. Yes, the early seasons have a lot more heart to them. I know this. I've been watching them with my Best Friend again recently.

      But the show could not have remained that way. And for those who loved the Simpsons when it had heart, of course they will be disappointed by the increasing cartoonishness of later years. But that increasing cartoonishness was inevitable as the series progressed past its 200th, 300th, and now past its 500th episode. The show may have close to 600 episodes by the time it is capped.

      For me, personally, the Simpsons is divided into two, maybe three, eras. There's the rerun years and the saw-it-only-once years. When the show was new, repeats of older episodes were common. To this day when watching older episodes I can anticipate gags, I remember which gags were used for commercials, etc. But as time went on (probably starting in 1998), episodes repeated less because Fox had a greater pool from which to select, and then, starting in the early 2000s, TV came up with this idea of not airing repeats anymore and the weekday hour of Simpsons repeats on Fox went away so I would only see new episodes once and not become familiar with them later. I can't anticipate their gags. I kind of even forget I have seen them.
     The early episodes were ground into my memory via repetition. The newer ones are largely ephemeral.

      I'd give the Simpsons a third era. Starting around 2010, I noticed the quality of the episodes suddenly changed for the better. I've very much enjoyed the last five years of the Simpsons and wished they would be repeated as frequently as the first ten years so I could enjoy them as thoroughly.

      Anyways (again), it's always nice to have someone defend what appears to be a universally derided episode of the Simpsons. The Principal and the Pauper was an episode that fans consider a fuck-you to them. Principal Skinner was made out to be an impersonator, the "real" Principal Skinner is installed, and at the end of the episode everything goes back to normal. The show was funny and I personally enjoyed the ridiculousness of the episode's ending because, let's face it, the show is a cartoon. I think what pissed people off is that there were reminded they were watching a cartoon. But I like Artemis Strong's defense better:

Geez, [The Principal and the Pauper]'s like one of my all-time favorites. It finds so much joy in creating a point-of-no-return scenario, then rigidly enforces the cartoon/sitcom rule that things always return to stasis.

It wasn't the first time they did that same joke, nor the last. It's sort of the mirror of the recurring gag where they remind you of how full and outlandish the Simpsons' lives are if you consider them in terms of the combined plots of all the episodes.

After I posted this, I gave it more thought and I realized another reason this episode appeals to me is that on the surface it seems to be trashing fans' investment in a character they've come to know. But underneath it, I think it is an affirmation of this love the fans have for even a supporting character like Skinner.

What the episode says is that it isn't important what Skinner's (or any of the characters') backstory is per se, but who that character has been in the time the audience has known them. We grow to love their personalities, not the ins-and-outs of their biography.

We return to these people week after week because of their deeper character, not their characterizations. It's irrelevant whether his given name is Armin or Seymour; what makes Skinner Skinner is his unrelenting stuffy rule-following in the face of Springfield's general chaos.

What this episode confronts is the sort of paradox of having a weekly show like this. There is a desire to have the characters be involved in adventures and conflict that reveals new things about their character, but an aversion to having said development contradict characterization too much. This episode crosses that line, revealing the deepest--and in my opinion most touching--aspects of Skinner's character, but also scuttling the characterization of Skinner as the Mamma's Boy.

So the show has its cake and eats it too, responding just how a fan would, wanting to erase what it had just seen and never speak of it again.

It's a nod to the artifice of continuity and canon, as well as their import.