Why online dating fails

I have used online dating sites and even run one for a while.  It seems everyone has bad experiences.  Why do so many people have bad luck with online dating sites?  The answer is simple.

Male Perspective

On average, for every 50 messages sent there's only one response.  The received responses are almost always from a model with an invitation to view their web cam or another site.  On a rare occasion, a female profile initiates communication which almost always an automated system or baiting.  (Baiting is trying to lure someone to another website with the promise of something.)  

Female Perspective

The ladies are flooded with messages containing penis pictures or one line messages with cheesy pick-up lines.  On average for her, every 50 messages received contains one response from someone reasonable.

Failure

The problem is on three fronts.   First, the site only cares about collecting fees and not making connections between people.  Many sites create fake profiles using pictures of models and change the location information on deleted accounts.   

Second, most good men will leave after a short period due to the lack of any real profiles and the expense of the site.  This leaves only the most aggressive males who have nothing better to do than send out 500 dick pictures and corny one-liners to random profiles per day. 

Third, most good women will leave after a short time due to receiving so many emails from jerks.  This leaves only the females who are there for some commercial interest such as web cams or pushing a different web site.

These three issues create an environment hostile to the normal people who come to the web site.   The business has no incentive to correct the problems while the money continues to roll in.

Ideologues

ideologues: (noun) An adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

I've had discussions on a wide range of topics and the only thing common is humans seem incredibly prone to the mindset of an ideologue.  Unfortunately, this is true in the current age of information where data is available to everyone.  It seems people are satisfied to repeat whatever their social group says and resist anything that contradicts those assertions.  I've lamented on this topic in several posts before. (See: Atheist and Beliefs, A political party)   I just didn't realize how deep this problem goes.

Solar Panel

Most people think that religion is the only dogmatic form of thought, but I've talked with people who became hostile when presented with facts about solar panels.   They couldn't handle that solar panels aren't economically feasible on a massive scale mainly due to a lack of technology for industrial power storage and the availability of the sun varies.  I argued that solar panels aren't the answer to getting off fossil fuels for reasons I've written in two articles. (See: Solar Myths. . .Again, Solar Mecca)  Why should facts be so offensive?    It's fine if you want to waste money putting panels on your home, but don't pretend that they are the solution to the energy problem.

Cannabis

Recently, I was talking with some people about cannabis.  They claimed that it should be legalized due to a wide range of benefits from smoking cannabis like curing cancer, multiple sclerosis, and HIV.  Sounds too good to be true?  They obviously had never researched the topic because when I asked for the basis of their claim they posted five links to news stories.  The titles appeared to support their claims, but they obviously didn't read the study referenced in the news story.  None of the studies supported their claims.  In this case, several of the links referenced studies that were against their position.  When I pointed this out, they tried to rationalize how I was still wrong.  All they had to do was read their own links.  They should have the courage to admit they wanted it to be legal because they liked getting high.  Honestly, I don't care if it is legal or not.  It wouldn't affect me either way because I wouldn't smoke it regardless of it's legal standing.   What I am against is unsupported claims especially claims that could cause harm to people like cannabis cures cancer and HIV.    There are some benefits in certain cases, but all of those benefits are available in synthetic pill form which makes the legalization of pot irrelevant.

Gun Control

Another common hot topic is that of gun control.  I have posted three separate times on this topic. (See: My opinion on guns, Propaganda on guns in Australia, and Assault Weapons Ban)  There are many books on the subject.   The most well known books are by John Lott titled "More Guns, Less crime" and "The bias against guns".  John Lott's work has been replicated over 25 times in peer reviewed literature.  It has never been refuted despite some unsourced claims by political websites.  I have never encountered a logical or reasoned argument against the private ownership of guns.

In fact, all my discussion on guns go like this:

1. Owning buckets is legal 
2. Putting water in your buckets is legal
3. Sometimes people leave buckets full of water unsecured
4. Some children drown in these buckets
5. I support #1 and #2
6. I hate children

In this example, I would support a ban on owning buckets if someone could show that banning buckets would save lives.    However, their proof goes like this.

1. Country A has fewer Children downing in buckets than Country B
2. Country A has low bucket ownership compared to Country B
3. #1 must be the result of #2

This is a correlation equals causation argument and conflicts with the evidence we have available.  They ignore all the other types of drowning which could be a sign of neglect on the part of the bucket owner or the parent.   They are ignorant of the history of the laws toward buckets in country A.  It's possible they never owned a large amount of buckets or even had the right to do so.

The crime rates have been falling for decades despite gun ownership going up and the increasingly common CCW permits.    This simple look at crime statistics shows that the mere availability of guns doesn't increase crimes.   Otherwise, we should expect more crime as more guns are owned.

Religion

The oldest of dogmas is religion.   I have never written much outside of a few debates because there are many books covering this topic.  The bluntest of these books is "God is not Great" by the late Christopher Hitchens.  I think the strongest argument against Christianity is covered in books by Bart Ehrman which addresses the bible from historical perspective.   Of course, another of my favorite authors on this topic is John W. Loftus.     The best argument I've seen against religion was made by Mr. Loftus as quoted below.

"Let's consider the kind of evidence believers point to for us to believe.  Philosophical arguments don't count as evidence.  They are mostly special pleading since they don't lead to any specific religious sect.  What's left?  There is no empirical evidence since we weren't there to witness the resurrection for ourselves.  There is no first hand eyewitness testimony.  The textual evidence comes from the 4th century.  There is no prophetic evidence of a resurrected Messiah, while all the so-called OT prophecies are either not predictions at all or misapplied by the NT writers. And I'm supposed to accept Christianity? Really? Seriously?  When I say there isn't sufficient evidence to believe I mean just that.  It doesn't matter if the earliest disciples had sufficient evidence to believe.  We don't know that they did.  All we have is the so-called evidence above. The kicker is that the Jews of that day did not believe this so-called evidence, nearly 8 million of them, even though they believed in God, his ability to do miracles, OT prophecy, and were there. So tell me once again why any reasonable person should believe? It simply does not add up."

-John W. Loftus

Feminism

The most controversial topic I have researched by far is that of feminism.  I started from a neutral position and researched the claims made by feminist.  What I found was the worst dogmatic beliefs resistant to the slightest glimmer of light from logic and evidence.  I have never experienced more hatred than when I questioned the feminist position.   Apparently, I am supposed to merely accept it without question even when their ideas are toxic.

Feminist are the most violent ideologues I have every seen.  When Erin Pizzey challenged common (feminist) beliefs about domestic violence she was threatened and her dog was killed.   This violence is still seen today in their protest against any ideas threatening their dogma. 

The conclusion I have come too is feminism only cares about women and female supremacy.  Feminist often quote statistics that ignore men and assert that men are responsible for the women.  I have addressed the feminist narrative in a series of articles starting with What feminist don't want you to know: Introduction.

In the end

Maybe it's just the agenda they are pushing?  The politics they subscribe too?  They already have the answers and look for facts to support it while ignoring anything that doesn't agree.  This is nothing more than confirmation bias.  Now, I understand how creationist can think they are right.  They are no worse than a self proclaimed skeptic who comes to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

My discussion usually follow the same pattern which is why I stopped trying to reason with these people.  They never provide sources for the basis of the opinion.  When asked, they do a quick Google search for relevant titles.   The links they post are normally news stories to politically leaning sites supporting their conclusion.  (The right is usually to Fox and the Left is to HuffPost) The have titles supporting their assertion, but sometimes the content contradicts their basis.   I end up wasting my time reading their links and pointing out the problems I find.   They are never willing to discuss the issues with their links.  They rationalize their position followed by name calling or switching the burden of proof to me by claiming they are right until I disprove their theory.

What evidence can you provide to someone who denies all evidence?  The answer is you don't.    You will never convince someone with dogmatic beliefs and it is best to simply avoid them.   At most, you may convince someone who is already sitting on the fence from their doubts.  No one can ever be reasoned or debated from a position they hold as absolute truth.  Debates are good to reach people who are undecided and attended the debate to gain additional information.

Solar Myths . . . again

Oklahoma recently made the news with stories like this.   Most of the left leaning news sources have picked up the story and misrepresented the facts around the law, technology, and science.  I have covered the science behind solar panels in detail in this post.    Do we have a massive corporate conspiracy by oil companies that has been hidden from the public for years and would involve both political parties?      The short answer is no.

Solar panels sound good on a bumper sticker but the technology just isn't there.  Everyone always talks about Germany, but their solar panels were installed on over 20 billion Euros of subsidies netting about 3% of their power needs.

There's no way to store the extra power so individual homes aren't allowed to feed power back to the grid. The perfect solar panel could theoretically convert about 33% of the sun's energy into power. Our best panels do about 18% but that requires perfect angels, clear skies, and being geographically located on the equator. Germany has shut down most of their conventional power plants which means they have to buy their power from their neighbors when there isn't enough sun to fill the demand. This is especially true in the winter when they sun is hidden by clouds for months. This has made their average electric bill the second highest in the EU. They have restarted some of their old plants that use oil to fill the gaps. I guess modern people hate brown outs.

The best case would be to build the solar power plants in the desert where the sun isn't interrupted by weather and transmission lines to carry the power to the consumer. This would exclude the northern United States since the available solar energy decreases as you move north.  You would still have to keep existing plants running because you can't just throw a switch and instantly get power from a conventional power plant when the demand exceeds the available supply. So you would have to build twice the infrastructure and still produce the same amount of green house gases while the consumer pays for it all.

The bottom line is "alternative" energy sources aren't economically feasible due to technology constraints. This is mainly due to the lack of industrial batteries.  Germany is a beacon of failure but no one is willing to research it. Simply throwing money at it makes people feel good but in the end we are still digging the hole at the same speed and just poorer.

In the past, Oklahoma has been like most states paying subsidies (tax breaks) to people who install alternative energy sources. Where this ties into the news story is that if a large number of individuals are feeding power back to grid then they have to make infrastructure changes to handle it because our power system wasn't designed that way.   When more power is generated than used, the power has to be dumped because it can't be stored. (It's actually cheaper to just not feed the power to the grid) The utility companies can't pay for this extra cost out of pocket and they are limited on what they can charge consumers. (The power utilities are regulated in Oklahoma)  This leaves a few possibilities which are to charge everyone more for the electric or more government subsidies.   Either way, everyone pays the extra cost for a few people to feel good about them self. The most viable option is to tax those causing the problem.

The only way we will get off the oil dependency is to pour money into science and R&D.  Unfortunately, science has been subject to budget cuts for years.    In fact, every dollar wasted on installing "alternative" energy source would be better served to be spend on science.    We must develop an economical feasible technology to replace oil.   

Right now, the most promising science to help with global warming is to remove the CO2 from the air by chemical reactions or to collect it from the exhaust of conventional power plants.   So it's possible that solar will never replace oil.

"Why do people laugh at creationist" Index

Thunderf00t has produced some amazing videos on creationist claims but lacks an index of the topic of each video.    This list will provide a short summary of each video.

1. Video 1 - Covers the claim about the grand canyon being a result of Noah's flood and water found outside the Earth.   It also includes covers the shape of the Earth's orbit and habitable zone.
2. Video 2 - This video talks about the creation of new elements from basic atoms and the moon eclipse.
3. Video 3 - A video debunking Kent Hovind's theory of how Noah's flood was the result of a comet impact.
4. Video 4 - Number 4 calculates how much water is needed to cover the Earth based on claims made by Kent Hovind.
5. Video 5 - This debunks the assertion by Kent Hovind and the bible about a canopy of water/ice existing in the sky.
6. Video 6 -The video addresses the claim by Kent Hovind that clouds can shield against radiation from the sun and the cause of aging.
7. Video 7 -This explains the basis of evolution and inconsistencies in Kent Hovind's explanation of the lack of large animals in modern times.
8. Video 8 - This video addresses the claims of creationist regarding the probability of evolution.
9. Video 9 -A video talking about quote mining used by creationists and the argument by design.
10. Video 10 - This video addresses the argument by creationist for the fine tuned values of forces of nature like gravity.
11. Video 11 - Video number 11 debunks generic creationist claims regarding Noah's flood and soul deaths.
12. Video 12 - In this episode, Kent Hovind confuses basic biological terms and concepts.  The primary focus is on reproduction and inheritance.
13. Video 13 - In this video, the Discovery Institute demonstrate their ignorance of science by claims of design.    It touches on the court case on intelligent design.
14. Video 14 - In this episode, creationist's common method of dishonesty by misquoting people. This dishonesty was particularly obvious in the dover vs kitzmiller trial where creationists simply lied in court.
15. Video 15 - This addresses creationist claims of the Cambrian explosion.
16. Video 16 - This video addresses some of the claims by creationist venomfangx regarding radioactive decay rates and radiometric dating.
17. Video 17 - This covers the value of information and the discovery of science.
18. Video 18 - The video addresses the issue of creationist censoring comments to prevent criticism and false flagging.
19. Video 19 - This one explains micro evolution versus macro evolution compared to misconceptions by creationist.
20. Video 20 - This episode addresses a creationist claim about the moon's orbit.
21. Video 21 - It goes into the religious intolerance of critics and how religion has held us back.  How important free speech is.
22. Video 22 -This addresses Ben Stein misinformation in his documentary about evolution.
23. Video 23 -This video concentrates on bad information given by Ben Stein through interviews because of his new movie.
24. Video 24 - This is a continuation of #23 regarding Ben Stein bad information focusing on his statement that 'science leads to killing people' and claims about the status of the US military.  
25. Video 25 - In this episode creationists about abiogenesis being impossible and how toxic theism can be to our society.
26. Video 26 - This focuses on how theism impacts politics through the example of Sarah Palin. 
27. Video 27 - This goes after the various absurd claims of Venomfangx.
28. Video 28 - This episode looks at claims by theist that the bible is the most scientifically accurate book.
29. Video 29 - In this episode the origin of morality is addressed with respect to arguments of Ravi Zacharias
30. Video 30 - This video follows Casey Luskins creationist claims after Intelligent Design lost in the landmark court case.
31. Video 31 - This video follows Ray Comfort starting from his fumble with the origin of bananas and addressing some of him claims.
32. Video 32 - Addressing Kent Hovind and Eric Hovind 'four questions' and attempt to contrast how science views the question with how their particular sect does.
33. Video 33 -This episode covers conservapedia and the recycled creationist claims it contains with a focus on claims made by Nephilimfree and Shockofgod as being alternative theories to science.    This includes claims on how the moon got the craters.
34. Video 34 - A deeper look at creationist Nephilimfree claims about Noahs flood which he claims flooded the Earth, caused the craters on the moon, and the comets.  Finally deposited the iridium in the imaginary 'K2' boundary.
35. Video 35 - This looks into claims that because Newton was a smart Christian that Christianity must be true.
36. Video 36 -Covering more claims from venomfangx claiming science is in the bible including sea currents, fish of the sea, washing your hands under running water, and the general fallacies of his arguments.
37. Video 37 -This one unpacks the five points used by William Lane Craig to prove Christianity.
38. Video 38 -This video details what would happen if the Earth stopped rotating or revolving based on the story of Joshua.   It also addresses biblical morality like the slaughter of children by the commandment of god.
39. Video 39 -In revisiting Noah's flood, this discusses the volcano theory that explains that the animals on the ark got back via a massive volcano eruption that threw the animals in the general direction of their homeland.
40. Video 40 - The creationist onceforgivennowfree says the question 'is your brain intelligently designed' is the new atheists nightmare.
41. Video 41 - A high level overview of the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye.  This video covers the evolution of dogs and observational science.
42. Video 42 -  This addresses the end time claims primarily from Ray Comfort.    The evidence of the end times like a lunar eclipse and the existence of the ocean is proof of Noah's flood.

The Wage Gap Myth

What feminist don't want you to know

The Myth

The "wage gap" is defined as women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns for the same work.   This has been used by political campaigns [1] as well as by feminist.  The Equal Pay Act was signed into law in 1963 which makes discrimination based on gender illegal.   This claim has been addressed and debunked for the last 30 years.     In 1981 there was a debate between Thomas Sowell and Harriet Pilpel where Mrs. Pilpel claimed that employers discriminated against women and minorities.   In fact, when you control for age and experience blacks and women actually make more than their white coworkers. [2]

Census Data

This claim is based on a correlation equals causation analysis of data contained in a report done the Census Bureau in 2010.  [3]  The source report doesn't make the "wage gap" claim.   It compares the average and median incomes of all men and women without accounting for choices made by the individuals.  This comparison gives us the .77 cent (or 77%) difference between the genders.  It is not possible to determine the cause from the Census Bureau report because the data needed to make such a judgement was not included.   The proponents of the "wage gap" merely assert the cause without providing the evidence that it is true.  In fact, most people who claim the "wage gap" don't link to the source of the figure.  They simply link to a blog or a website making the unsourced claim.

Simply put, the claim is a misrepresentation of the Census Bureau statistics.  The larger implication of the "wage gap" is if everything were equal, then a doctor would earn the same as the janitor that cleans the office.  If janitors were paid the same as doctors then why would anyone bother with the years of school required to be a doctor?   It should be obvious to everyone that such an arrangement is not practical.

AAUW

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) did a study called  "Graduating to a pay gap" initially claims a gap of 82%, but buried in the report (page 20) they claim the gap is 93% after controlling for some of the variables.  [4]   The authors of the AAUW study have asserted the 7 cents was due to discrimination by gender without demonstrating it.   It's impossible for the AAUW study to make such an assessment because it didn't examine male and female workers in the same field.  Their job classifications were too generalized where comparisons are made of male lawyers with that of female librarians.    It's likely that the remaining 7% in their report was do to problems with their methodology.

Reality

A study done by the US Department of Labor in 2009 (CONSAD) showed any gap between genders "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers."  [5]   The CONSAD report showed an unexplained gap of 4.8 to 7 cents.   The report didn't address the remaining 4.8 to 7 cents because they didn't have the necessary data to perform further evaluations.     

A Stanford study shows the wage gap to about 91% (favoring men) [6].    However, the author also notes the 9% could be explain by women typically work less hours at jobs with generous family policies. This means the any gap is explained by choices of the person.

Comparison

The only way to determine if wage discrimination exists is by comparing the genders in the same job with the same experience and work ethic.   If the gap existed then companies would save money by hiring women thus become more competitive.   If that were the case then unemployment rates for men would sky rocket as companies replaced their male workforce with females.

The difference in pay is a result of choices made by the person.   This is explained in detail by authors like Warren Farrell.  [7]   The biggest factor in pay difference is the choice of career and amount of hours worked.    Currently, only about 55% of women (75% men) are employed or participate in the work force. [8]    Women mostly choose careers involving interaction with people.  This is why women avoid careers in the science, engineering, and technology fields (STEM) where a person may spend hours crunching numbers or working with equipment.    The occupation women prefer has not changed significantly over time and is nearly identical to the 1950's.  [9]

Men more often choose careers that are dangerous or physically demanding thus paying more.  Men are the majority of all infrastructure jobs that keep civilization running like electrical engineers, waste operators, power line installers, etc.  [10] 

Equality

It seems more like the "wage gap" proponents are comparing all women against the top 1% of men while ignoring the top 1% of women.  If the goal is to achieve perfect equality then why are proponents only demanding equality in specific jobs such as corporate board rooms and STEM fields?  No one mentions quotas in highly dangerous jobs like mining and logging.  A push for equality would demand pushes for equal pay and quotas in jobs where men are the minority.   Men are often the minority in jobs such as nursing, day care, and teaching.  

A few men occupy the top 1% of our society and most women are found in the middle social classes.   "Wage gap" proponents simply ignore that men occupy most of the bottom of our society too.    Men are 92% of industrial accident deaths.  [11]    Men make up 97% of the military casualties [12] and 80% of all suicides. [13]  Men are given five times longer jail sentences when compared to women who commit the same crime. [14]     Finally, 76% of homeless people are male.  [15]

Topics

"What feminist don't want you to know"

• Introduction
• MRA
• Ideology
• Rape Culture Myth 

Further Reading

• christina-hoff-sommers - wage-gap
• http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/

Sources:

1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/equal-pay#top 
2. http://youtu.be/DUpgoayBPJc
3. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
4. http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/graduating-to-a-pay-gap-the-earnings-of-women-and-men-one-year-after-college-graduation.pdf 
5. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
6. http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/key_issues/gender_research.pdf
7.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb_6v-JQ13Q&list=PLeQE9bYJdMi_HU07FmawDYPan9lGHHq3v
8. http://economics.mit.edu/files/8754 
9. http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/20lead2009.htm
10. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0616.pdf 
11. http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf
12. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf 
13. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6217a1.htm?s_cid=mm6217a1_w#tab1
14. http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing
15. http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html

The real difference between men and women

Parody of this article

Let's say a guy named Fred, after spending $200 buying drinks for women at the local bar approaches a woman named Martha and starts a friendly conversation.  He asks her out to a movie expecting another rejection but he is completely surprised that she accepts.  On the date, he pays for everything and she has a good time. A few nights later he asks her out to dinner, the bill is placed next to him and she doesn't even glance at it.  Again they seem to have a good time. They continue to see each other regularly while he works extra overtime to pay for their dates.   He finally has a girlfriend just when his mom was starting to ask if he was gay.

And then, one evening when they're driving home, a thought occurs to Martha, and, without really thinking, she says it aloud: "Do you realize that, as of tonight, we've been seeing each other for exactly six months?"

And then, there is silence in the car.


Martha begins to ponder if his watch is really a Rollex or cheap imitation.    Obviously, it's a knock-off because he only have a 15% tip to the waitress.   I realize our waitress got the order wrong, but I'm sure she is a single mom supporting her children because of their dead-beat dad.

And Fred is thinking: She sounds upset.  Did I say something wrong? (His heart begins to race)

And Martha is thinking: I'm not sure I want a relationship with a man who can only afford a 3 star restaurant.  Do I really want to continue this level of intimacy with a guy who only drives a base model BMW?    It's probably rental since he didn't order desert.

And Fred is thinking: I'm sure she wants to break up now.   I can see it on her face.   What did I do wrong?   Maybe it the kiss on the cheek yesterday?     I'm probably going to fast for her.   She is out of my league.   I'm such a loser.

And Martha is thinking: I bet he lives in his mom's basement.   He's probably still a virgin.   My friend, Betty, found that cute doctor the same time I got with this creep and he buys her gifts all the time.   After six months, I get some lousy flowers and a cheap restaurant.  Why do I keep ending up with these losers?  I was probably too drunk to realize I gave my number to the janitor.   He probably slipped something in my drink.

And Fred is thinking: Maybe I'm just not giving enough attention?   I never should have gotten off the phone last night.   I had to get up at 4am for work, but I've gone without sleep for several days before.  These 60 hour work weeks are killing me and I fell asleep before I heard how things turned out for her friend with that fat guy.   Maybe she heard me snore?     If I skip the gym tonight then I could spend an extra hour with her.  I bet that's it.  I need to think of a way to make it up to her.
 
And Martha is thinking: I bet my cat has a bigger dick than he does.  Anyway, Bobby called me yesterday so I can dump this creep.

And Fred is thinking: If I pull a double shift tonight and come in on my day off then I should be able to afford a date at that expensive restaurant downtown.  

And Martha is thinking: I'm a fool!   Those are obviously second hand shoes!    I deserve to have a guy who will provide for me and not end up as trailer trash.  I'm a princess waiting for her knight on his white horse!     I guess you have to kiss a few toads. . .

And Fred is thinking: They won't turn the electricity off if I'm only late a couple of days.  I better get more energy drinks.

"Fred," Martha says aloud.

"Yes?" says Fred, startled.

"I had a great time tonight", she says with a thin lipped smile.

"Me too!  I thought you were mad at me" says Fred.

"Mad? No," Martha grins. "I think we are moving a little too fast."

"Did I do something wrong?" says Fred.

"No, it's me.  I'm just not ready for a serious relationship.   I've been hurt to many times in the past." Martha says.

"You know I would never hurt you," Fred says choking back tears.

"I know and you're a really sweet guy," Martha says.

(There is a 15-second pause while Fred, thinking as fast as he can, tries to come up with an idea to save the relationship.)

"I know I haven't been around much," he says. (Martha, deeply moved, touches his hand.)

"Oh Fred, It's not that, " she says. "Seriously, it's me."

"Did you not like the restaurant?  I was thinking we could try that place downtown this Friday." says Fred.

"No, the food was fine," says Martha. "I can't on Friday because I told Betty we would have a girl's night."

"Oh," says Fred.

"We can still be friends, Fred," she says.

"I'd like that," says Fred.

Then he takes her home, and she gets out without glancing back.  She sits on her couch and calls Betty.   She tells her that she finally broke it off with loser because he was really starting to creeping her out.  She ask Betty if the guy she has been seeing has some cute friends.

When Fred gets back to his place, he opens a beer trying to think of where he went wrong tonight.  A tiny voice in the far recesses of his mind keeps telling him that he just ruined the first girlfriend he's had in almost a year and now he will probably be a loner for the rest of his life.   He's been working so much and spending all his free time with Martha that he hasn't talked to his friends in months.   He feels so alone and begins to cry.

The next day Martha calls a couple of her other friends, and they will talk about how Fred was a complete loser for six straight hours. In painstaking detail, they analyze how pathetic he is, going over it time and time again.  They will continue to discuss this subject, off and on, for weeks, maybe months, never getting bored with it.

Meanwhile, Fred, working another 12 hour shift quietly wipes the tears from his eyes so that no one notices.    He reminds himself, "Men don't cry", do they?

And that's the difference between men and women.

Poem: The Ghost

I see the pouting lips
now, just a fading memory
A train wreck that rips
through the happy scenery.

A ghost that haunts my blue window.

can't stop the rain
in this dark world
The deep cuts of pain
my mind forever soiled.

A ghost that haunts my blue window.

How do I move on
eye of the ocean
my bright shining sun
time frozen without motion.

Free, I must let you be
but always will wonder
a day, come back to me
till then, soul-mates asunder

The ghost haunts my blue windows.