fallingOff

I think there will be negatives in that world too. The whole thing is too big for me to even reflect on. I'm not a cyberpunk.

I see a number of advantages to de facto anarchy, Hunter Moore getting offed is only one.

That's ridiculous. Here's a real source:

http://blogs.chapman.edu/press-room/2013/08/12/research-on-w...

The self-reported study indicates that around 40% of women split the costs of dating, and 44% of men say they would end a relationship if the costs were not shared. This is increasingly true of couples in their 20s. Your statement that "anything else is just two people hanging out" irks me and is not true for 2/5 of couples (in the US, I presume)

I'll relate my own situation. I am an American living in Cambodia. I started dating a local girl about a month and a half ago, and we split the expenses for everything. She has a relatively good job by Cambodian standards, but I have to be very cognizant that she has less money than I do, so we choose restaurants and activities that both of us can afford. She is clearly proud of being able to pay for herself, partially I think to distance herself from the stereotype of Cambodian girls marrying for money and/or being prostitutes.

If we decide to get married, then sure, my money is her money and vice-versa (and who knows maybe she'll end up being the breadwinner). But as far as dating is concerned, I will forever take a hard line on splitting the costs (or at least contributing in amounts proportional to our income) and if a girl isn't down for that, I'll find someone else.

I expected to hear period pieces, but instead the performer played Baroque and Classical era music.

Evidence? Not sure what you mean by "heavy sexuality"... rape porn, sure, I'm inclined to agree, but anal sex, scat, orgies, etc. I'd need to see some proof. I saw all that when I was 8-9 years old, and anecdotally I have a healthy sex life now that is free of any destructive fetishes (or really any fetishes in general).

Looking through the list of P&G brands, I can say that I haven't bought anything from them in years, even when I lived in the US.

I do agree though that boycotting every company that engages in questionable behavior would be near impossible. It's better to change the system, but if in the meantime you can avoid giving money to the most heinous companies then why not?

In the sentence above, "because" is followed by an adjective phrase. Prepositions are never followed by adjective phrases, so "prepositional because" is a misnomer for this new construction and does not fully describe its range of uses. I have no suggestions for a better name though...

I've never heard this construction in speech, but maybe I don't hang out with enough nerdy internet types.