Achieve the Four Modernizations.

6:25 AM yesterday IPJ commented on Savage Love.
@3: I think the snooped on, or inclined to snoop, should break up--I like Hax's distinction that if you feel like you have to snoop, the trust is already shattered to an extent that it likely can't be repaired even if you find nothing.

But there is a balancing act between offering each other zones of privacy in which we don't deliberately snoop, and being careful about putting things in those zones which we know would hurt our partners (usually applied to things like flirty IM chats with exes) even if we believe they will never see them. I'm thinking of an LL letter in which a woman left her super-secret journal perched on end on the bedside table, and one morning it was lying flat! A number of commenters noted that bumping the table was the most likely explanation, followed by a critique of her pointedly writing her super secret thoughts each night while sitting across from him, then carefully arranging it in a place of prominence--if she wanted her boyfriend not to be curious, a little more discretion in using and displaying it would help. Here, I could see a scenario in which he occasionally writes things as a way of clearing his head and she couldn't stand the thought, and also one where he is clearly mad at her, says things are "fine," and then goes off to write in his journal, IM with someone, etc, all while glaring. That she eventually wonders what's in the conversation being angrily shielded from her would be pretty human, even if I still feel the correct answer would be for her to break up with him.

So I do take Dan's point about things that cannot be unsaid or unread: if you let them out of the inside of your head and leave them on the bedside table, your FB chats, or poured out verbally when you didn't realize your partner could hear you through the vent, you don't get to stuff that back into the box of things they should convincingly pretend never happened.
5:59 AM yesterday IPJ commented on SL Letter of the Day: Legal Highs.
@13: Someone who has a glass of wine with dinner on Friday, and another on Saturday, is not going to be an identical companion to someone who smokes a joint on each of those occasions.

One reason I support legalization is that while alcohol can be used in a culinary sense, where the point is not to get high and the person stops cold any time they start to feel an effect of the drug, that is not how it's actually used. The flip side of that is that someone can drink without ever displaying the negative "hey, I'm drunk, I have had a thought of great humorness!" behavior that is less fun for your companions, but that's not true of drugs that are taken just to alter your mental state.

Maybe if his trusted companion of more than 2 decades abruptly 180ed her stance on his pot use (which is the timeline you assume) and declares it so negative she's thinking of leaving, it's because something about how it affects him is now different.
Jul 8 IPJ commented on SL Letter of the Day: Legal Highs.
@8: I agree. Time is short: if it's important, do it.
Jul 8 IPJ commented on SL Letter of the Day: Legal Highs.
@4: Actually I think illegality is a strong argument: If you felt very strongly that the speed limit along a nearby stretch of road was too low, your partner would be perfectly reasonable to tell you to stop ranting about it and just slow down, because the speeding tickets and higher insurance and possible lost license are not worth whatever you gain doing 50 in a 35 mph zone. Even if they agree with you that the limit should be 50 mph.

Lousy companion when stoned is a real possibility. People are allowed to object that their partner is annoying as fuck when drunk and they don't want to live with it; same with stoned or any other drugged state: usually not fun to deal with if you're not high on the same drug. (Also the new shrink, the could quit any time I want I just don't want to, and the use down 90% (if he were getting baked once a week before, he'd now be down to once every 2-3 months, so I'm guessing once a week is a comically low estimate of his baseline use) all suggest more background to his wife's anger.)

If you're right and she did recently flip from tolerant of his smoking to ready to divorce him over it, that suggests he consider WHY she is abruptly threatening to leave if he doesn't clean his act up, almost like there are a lot of other issues and one of them has focused on pot as the One Thing.
Jul 8 IPJ commented on SL Letter of the Day: Legal Highs.
Both pot letters follow the format "Partner and I have disagreed about Large Issue from day one. Large amount of time has passed and we are, surprisingly, still in complete disagreement. Why don't they agree with me yet?" How hard is not marrying each other in this case, if you feel it is a dealbreaker? Or if not, accepting that in 10 years odds are you will still be in firm disagreement on Large Issue? The passage of time does not bring all people around to your position, even if all of your positions are obviously the only possible reasonable positions.

Jun 21 IPJ commented on Savage Love.
@303: No one has suggested making street harassment illegal; many have suggested making it something that is socially frowned on, at least pushing social morés in that direction.

Allen, however, appears to have a victim mentality.
Jun 21 IPJ commented on Savage Love.
@301: You raised a specific example, that someone telling their subordinate about a desire to tip them over the desk and have at their virgin asshole was not something any sane person would take exception to unless they're some sort of permanent victim. Generalize that specific example to any sort of "I'm thinking about fucking you," including your "nice tits" above. You are the one who expressed this as something one might direct to a subordinate.

When I ask if this "any reasonable person wouldn't take any exception to this" claim of yours applies to people whose mild displeasure might cause you problems, all of a sudden you appear able to keep all those workplace urges to comment on the tits around you under wraps. A full 180 on what any reasonable person might visibly react to in a negative manner. Which suggests you don't believe a damn word you're saying. (And that 298 is onto something.)

This isn't "do you give or take assignments" or "do you give or take criticism" from this person. It's "do you expect they will stand there and smile, because all sane people would realize this is quite witty and laugh, or at worst shrug it off and not otherwise react." If you wouldn't comment on a new client's tits when your boss introduces her, then you know damn well it's not appropriate to your co-workers, subordinates, or women who are engaged in activities like "trying to drink their coffee in a coffee shop."
Jun 21 IPJ commented on Savage Love.
@279: & then dudes are gonna drop in, tell women how they're wrong, or how they need to grow a thicker skin or how men can't help themselves, what with women dressing all slutty.

It's my hope that part of his column next week will be a quote of his directions, followed by quotes from Allen et al explaining how this is all about them and women are bitches who aren't in touch with their sexuality and secretly are asking for it, without further comment.
Jun 20 IPJ commented on Savage Love.
@242: In cases of sexual harassment in the workplace, it is not the employer getting upset because of tangible harm done to their business.

Golly is that interesting. No detriment to the office functioning, client satisfaction? Have you considered printing this up and distributing it to clients? I would expect you to have the nerve to stand behind it, after all.

Ever try that "I'd love to flip you over the desk and have at your virgin asshole" line on a client? I mean, if the only problem is your client having some "emotions" about it, and it's actually quite a humorous proposal, you should have the guts to try it on people who can make your life difficult, not just people whose paycheck you control. If you believe that no one should get upset about that, or take any action because they're upset, let's see you live that belief.

@242: You don't like a certain "attitude" so you're going to make it illegal.


No, seriously, show me the legislation that prevents you from having thoughts.

A shift in cultural morés in which people once said "racial mixing is immoral and anyone who does it should be stoned" or "joking about how you want to flip your secretary over the desk for some anal rape is all in good fun" and now those sentiments might get you in trouble may be a reason to pout, just as the judgment that your favorite style of tie is now fuddy-duddy might. But it hardly equates to arresting you, shipping you to a re-education camp, or even forbidding you to say it. It just means your employer doesn't want to hear it at work--directed at management, or your subordinates, or your co-workers, or clients--and your family and friends don't want to hear it and will get up and leave if you start. You can buy a sandwich board that reads "I'm a real man!" and walk down the sidewalk if you like, and no one will stop you.

You have free speech. You don't have freedom from any consequences of that speech.
Jun 20 IPJ commented on Savage Love.
@230: You can be non-monogamous and be a cheater.
I've noticed several letters, from both sides of a couple, in which they tried to respond to cheating by opening the relationship so it wouldn't be cheating any more, and the cheater immediately figured out how to be still cheating under the new rules.

I often see people cheating because they just don't want their partners to have the choice of sleeping with other people. They hide what they are doing because they just cannot deal with the thought that their partner might want to do the same thing!
This is an interesting point, and I suspect very true.

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy