Hey now, it was eight very strong questions!

Ouais, ça serait une bonne occasion de pratiquer mon français - c’est trop rouillé !

I love this

We don’t need no water, let the motherfucker burn

I’m blue (da ba dee da ba da)

It’s super old-timey

Welp I don’t have children and it would be highly weird if I went around forcing other people’s kids to go play free-range so…

Man why you gotta do us like that Oatmeal

You gotta 1) invest in nice brushes and nice makeup with good formulas and 2) trust the process! It always looks heinous until it doesn’t.

Serious question, have you considered the trades? It seems that jobs like electrician, plumber, auto mechanic, etc are a lot more secure than white collar jobs are right now, especially STEM. I know at least where I live (Philly exurbs) there’s a shortage of electricians, with only 2 going into the trade as 5 retire. You get paid during your training and through the union you get healthcare and a pension. Something to think about.

True, but kids aren’t free-range anymore the way they were when I was growing up in the '80s & '90s. It didn’t used to matter if you had a small backyard if you had a big neighborhood to roam. But from what I understand, kids aren’t allowed to just get on their bikes and go explore like they used to. Larger yards give kids a place to play, to get some fresh air and exercise instead of being indoors glued to a screen.

“What we’re witnessing isn’t just inequality — it’s a systematic transfer of wealth from the working class to the ultra-wealthy,” says economist Dr. Thomas Piketty, author of “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.”

Aka, a trickle-up economy.

Thanks, Reaganomics!

I mean, before the stupid challenges it was Jackass; before that it was America’s Funniest Home Videos. Dumb entertainment has always existed.

Three hamberders in a trench coat

Ooh, ‘boil the billionaires’ has a nice ring to it

A couple of things:

1. I’m not the ‘park or embankment’ person, I was just using your response to that person to point out why cold-approaching someone for their digits is a bad idea.
2. I’m 43 and married, not sure why that should be relevant? Never meant to imply it was about you; I was using the ‘general you’.
3. The whole point is quality over quantity, which is why it’s in both parties’ interest to chat a bit first and see if there’s potential. It’s a small investment of time and effort to see if there’s anything there that’s worth pursuing. Some guys seem to think it’s a numbers game - that if you just shoot your shot (again, the general you) with a bunch of women, some percentage of them will land. That’s a recipe for frustration. I would never just give my number to a guy who asked for it out of the blue, and I’d reckon most women wouldn’t either.
4. You keep talking about limited locations, but I disagree that they’re limited. Look for women where people go to socialize - bars, live music, book clubs, hobby events (e.g., group hikes if you’re a hiker). And this is the perfect venue to casually chat with the woman and feel out the situation.

I don’t know what to tell you man. There are people all through this thread telling you it’s not as dire and impossible as you seem to think it is.

OP’s parents are in their sixties; they probably were born in the mid '50s to mid '60s and started dating in the '70s/'80s. Courtship probably didn’t factor in unless they’re Mormons or something.

Edit: I re-read and realized OP said his parents are almost 60, meaning almost definitely started their dating lives in the '80s.

If you walk up to random people in a cafe, park, or embankment (really?) and ask for their numbers

So I think this is the disconnect. This isn’t window shopping; you’re trying to connect with another human being. You need to take the time to talk with her, see if she shows interest by engaging and encouraging the conversation, and if there’s any commonality or chemistry between you.

Then, if you think there could be something there, offer to give your number rather than ask for hers. It will help her feel safer with you, and she can choose whether or not to accept and if she takes it, she can choose whether or not to follow up. It puts the onus on her to move things forward.

The social expectation was that the man approaches, but now enough women have said that isn’t acceptable in so many situations that it’s no longer safe to do so in practically any situation.

AKA, “A, B, and C aren’t appropriate, so D through Z aren’t safe either!”

Dude rather than accept some much-needed constraints, you’re having a hissy and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

the idea of a mainstream American politician saying “we don’t need to buy all that stuff” makes me feel strangely positive

He’s only saying that because he’s chronically unable to admit when his idiotic ideas don’t pan out the way he expected. He’s also wildly out of touch with the average American household’s finances. People have seen their grocery bills skyrocket and their 401ks take a nosedive. The concern will be “am I able to pay my mortgage and afford groceries this month?”, not “how many dolls can I buy my kid?”

It’s insulting. He fundamentally doesn’t understand that people are struggling financially and his tariffs will make it measurably worse. He’s famously bereft of empathy and doesn’t know what it means to struggle, and will probably never bother to really learn.

And I agree that we could all embrace a more conscientious mode of consumption, but please don’t kid yourself into thinking that’s what Trump is saying. He’s the king of conspicuous overconsumption; moderation isn’t in his personal lexicon.