This may be true for married couples who started dating when they were teenagers. Since you brought it up, I'd be curious to see what proportion of the couples in the study fall into that category. I have a hunch that it's a pretty small percentage, though.

While it's true that there is some stigma against (e.g.) a college freshman or sophomore dating someone who's still in high school, I don't think many people in their right mind would object to a 2-, 3- or even 4-year age gap once both partners are at least 20.

EDIT to add: I don't think 17-year-olds being afraid to date 15-year-olds even registers on the top ten reasons "why people are increasingly lonely." Your take comes across as very high school-centric.

I'll be making pan pizza with Muenster cheese for that nice melty-buttery goodness with the caramelized edges all around. Not quite Detroit style but close enough. I don't have a lot of patience when it comes to pizza dough, so I'll be adding a couple tablespoons of vital wheat gluten flour to strengthen the dough, and let it rise in the same pan I bake it in.

Sauce is homemade, I just blend a can of San Marzano tomatoes with baked garlic, olive oil, and dried basil.

Probably gonna top it with sauteed mushrooms and red peppers and feta cheese.

"Considers" ≠ "Counts"

"Tom counts a yellow Corvette among his three sportscars" would be a perfectly natural statement in an article where Corvette ownership is relevant. In this article, parenthood of a transgender child is relevant.

By "illegal," do you mean the player is not allowed to choose the race for their character? Or do you mean the race is outlawed within the setting, i.e. Orcs would have no legal protections and are persecuted by the law?

The fact that the sales description lists the Bill of Rights separately from the US Constitution logically implies that "The US Constitution" isn't meant to include its amendments in the context of the book's contents.

The writer of the headline wants us to assume that Trump cherry-picked the 13th and 19th amendments to be excluded, when that's obviously not the case. The 11th through 27th Amendments were all left out.

I'm not sure I follow your meaning.

"Wanting to have sex with someone else who is attractive" is "a normal human emotion," as the commenter above you acknowledged. I don't think anyone would deny that there's a fundamental biological mechanism at work there.

Being outraged that a performer you've never met (who has no personal obligation to you) is in a relationship, and then having your outrage justified by an apology? That's not the same. That's not just biology. That's culture. It's the result of taking the "biological reason" - or "normal human emotion" - and wringing it through a targeted marketing campaign and culture of idolatry designed to cultivate unhealthy parasocial relationships for the sole purpose of extracting profit.

Thanks! My "subscribed" feed seemed to be the same as "all," but logging out and logging back in fixed it for me.

Kind of misleading headline. She went out of her way to explain to the interviewer that it had nothing to do with marijuana and she was going to treat it as though he had asked who would be fun to be around, like who she would get a pedicure with or something like that.

To recap - a podcast host asks her who she would smoke a blunt with, she pointedly reframes the question, The Hill picks it up and runs a headline implying that she wants to smoke a blunt with Dwayne Johnson anyways.

Fuckin' tragic. Not the cancellation; the expansion was never going to be more than a soulless cash grab anyways. I mean the takeover (read: theft) of ZA/UM in the first place. I get depressed every time I think about it.

The headline made me think this was something shady, but it's actually pretty cool. A teeny-tiny little incorporated community out in the wilderness with a decades-long tradition of voting at midnight, so they can be the first in the nation to announce their results.

This isn't a "news story from a credible source," this is a blog post about a Twitter thread and it offers absolutely no context or insight.

What is the protest about? Why is the U.S. Secret Service involved?

The LAPD put out a statement saying they're aware of people exercising their first amendment rights by protesting, and that they'll be on site to ensure public safety. That seems pretty damn reasonable to me. I don't trust the police either, but if you're going to immediately draw a connection between this event and horrific police brutality, please give me something more substantial than "they worded a tweet awkwardly."

"Oniony headlines" lose their impact when they're placed at the top of inflammatory fluff pieces.

edited for clarity

What a child. The correct response to a grown adult asking for a fist-fight is to laugh in their face and mock them for their temper tantrum.