Sorry to get on the soapbox here, but I can't let some of this stand as "fact." A lot is being left out of this debate. I do not think either sociology or biology has solved the "nature/nurture" debate. Not all animals rape to get sex. Many animals have complex mating rituals. There are many successful mating strategies, rape is only one. Nature is full of biological diversity, it's not one thing or the other. And I don't know where the child molesting, old woman raping and bestiality comes in, since that isn't procreation based. It is violence based and power based, which is related to procreation/survival. But violence and power is only ONE procreation strategy. There's seduction, sneakiness, hormonal cues, and some animals just have sex all the time. Others aren't in the mood at all for most of their lives. And as far as bestiality, I dunno. Dogs sometimes try to hump cats, but sometimes, even when the opportunity is there, they just don't. Not in the mood I guess. And men aren't the only beasts. As for the hard wired nurturing mommies, if she doesn't want the baby, a woman can kill it very easily, and some do. Even primate societies couldn't survive with the level of violence your estimation of "natural" behavior would engender. The brakes aren't just goody goody, they ensure survival of the species. How can a human population survive without consequences, consequences come from your fellow humans whom you need to survive. Higher primates have many types of social rituals, not all of them violent. It's a balancing act. Primate observers have observed the most horrific violence in those societies, and yet it does not happen all the time, why? Because in a species that needs to live together as a group to survive, there are ALWAYS consequences of some sort. Even primates do not do violent things to their friends, because they do not want to get away with it, the relationship meets other needs they have besides their sexual urges. Yes sex is a powerful urge, but it is not the only urge. Survival doesn't just depend on sex--you have to survive and your offspring have to survive for your species genepool to continue. How could we survive if every person was trying to rape and pillage every other person? That's illogical. Human life without consequences is an oxymoron. Imagining a "natural" life for humans where there are no consequences has never existed and never will. It is actually unnatural. Human existence is social, and social behaior is built on consequnces. What those consequences are is a varied as the human genepool. Violence can be counter productive to survival in the long run, which is why violent events in nature are only part of the picture. Animals are violent, but not all the time. You can rape and pillage some people some of the time, but you can't rape and pillage all the people all the time indefinately. And I know enough decent men and women to know that some are just decent to the core, hardwired that way. Whether it is in their genes or what is still somewhat of a mystery and will keep the biologist and psychologists up to their ears in grant money for many years to come. Sorry, but there is just as much evidence to suggest that our hardwiring also includes compassion, a very valuable survival mechanism, in addition to violence. Humans are social animals. As long as we have societies, there will be a need for compassion. It exists in primates right along with the violence. They have the whole spectrum available to them, and so do we. Luckily our brains give us lots of survival tactics, thousands more than even the smartest primate. The biggest problem with violence is if you live by the sword, you die by the sword, while the sweet quiet guy lurking in the corner canoodles your conquest and passes on his genes to the future. Consequnces or not, he doesn't rape because he doesn't have to.

Henrik was due to visit last christmas, but with family coming, and my husband having passed a little over a year before, re-thought the idea, and needed to consider my children. He called and I relayed this back to him, and he wasn't too happy. He said he was really looking forward to visiting, didn't expect me to pay for the ticket, and doing any work would only be me requiring to pay for what was needed. I let him know I didn't think my family would be comfortable with his being here, to which he became annoyed and left me pi**ed off. We haven't spoken since, whereas he was calling almost monthly. I still think of him and what might have been a friendship or maybe more. Please tell me I need to 'GET OVER IT'(said by Cher in one of her movies). Would love a dinner, movie, etc., with a male other than my son! Dating sites? Don't want an older man, and that's what the choices would be for someone my age. Am I doomed to be alone the rest of my life? I'm a very young 71 year old! Single cruises anyone? I would love to take a river cruise to Europe !

I have laughed until I have tears in my eyes! Everytime I think about ML exercising her ARMS while driving, Chris driving with one eye, and Nancy with her leg accross the hump - well! I drove around the bloc a few times to get the feel of it, then went to get my hair done! (Its only 6 blocks). I won't do that everyday, but it's nice to know I can get around if I need to. Steph, there is no chance of me doing extra house work, sick or well! It took me a long time to figure out if I kept my house tidy it would not be such a pain to clean up! But still, I know my mom would be so dissappointed in me, lol. She was a neat freak. I have a question about medical care, so I think I'll ask it here. Have any of you heard of Concierge Care Physicians? They limit their patients, charge a yearly 'wellness fee' and are more accessible to you for care. My primary care doctor is going this route. His yearly fee is $1500! I read a disscussion about this on another board, and this seems to be the going rate. Even though I have high blood pressure and cholesterol, I have had great success with the very first meds I tried, so I only go to the doctor once a year for my physical. I just cannot see paying $1500 a year. So I guess the search is on for a new doctor. Ok the rant is over, lol

@Carl Arnold, welcome to the cooking forum! And if you really are a person trying to join in, and not trying to drive traffic to some outside website (why I mentioned no link, but sometimes there's a post that's sort of on topic, and the link comes later), you really are very welcome. As Sherry said, we have problems with bots. Your post was overwritten—very beautifully—for this kind of message board. Your follow up was more normal in tone, but unfortunately the new AI is capable of it all. That said, while we do run to older females in traditional families, we try not to exclude our younger, male, non-binary, non-traditional, unique and diverse posters, and it's right to call us out when we fail in that. Your point about cooking roles being more dependent on individual skills than gender is on topic, and an important POV, no matter how many of us have experienced the calcified classic gender roles in the title of the post. I bought a little table top barbecue last year, and have a littler freestanding one that's cute, but harder to use, and generally too small. I'm not really into outdoor cooking, and don't live in a climate where it's necessary. My little barbecues make my menfolk snicker. They have big and bigger gas grills to cook on...but really only for outdoor parties. I don't get the point (it not being an outdoor kitchen for all cooking in too hot and humid for indoors weather). I think barbecues should burn charcoal and aromatic wood chips to be worth the bother. I use a chimney starter. Barbecues are bad for the air quality, however, so mine are minimally used. The ”outdoors” cooking for us is not a gender thing determined by cultural norms, just a combination of attitudes and druthers that fall that way, informed by weather and circumstance.