commented on #Cancel Colbert: The Politics of Being Offended
My instincts on this: She was in fact trying to claim Colbert's scalp and not really making some kind of satire, believing it would make her some variety of celebrity that would potentially make her a career of some kind. Her almost-success has been almost as good, turning a basically unknown 23-year-old into someone who's getting a lot of press (for at least 15 minutes).
She got as much attention as she did because there are lots of people who would like Stephen Colbert gone for reasons completely unrelated to the joke that got him in trouble when quoted out of context. I also wouldn't be surprised if some of the Twitter support she got was paid shills, which happens all the time to make certain hashtags "trend".
Stephen's original joke was clearly just that, a joke, and the whole point was that Dan Snyder's real foundation was no more acceptable than Stephen Colbert's fake foundation. Anyone with half a brain could see that.
commented on Savage Love
The question from the person who was definitely "the other man" in a married woman's life reminds me of the old adage: "If they'll cheat with you, they'll cheat on you." (And no, open relationships aren't cheating, but screwing somebody else and hiding it makes you a CPOS).
commented on SL Letter of the Day: The Ex Files
There is one critical concept here: You can revoke consent for a sexual act anytime before, or even during, the act occurring. You cannot revoke consent after it happened.
"I thought you said you would marry me" isn't the same thing as "I took that drink you handed me and you had drugged it and raped me while I was passed out" or "You were polite all night during the date, but as soon as you got into my apartment you held me down and forced me to do it".
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Honestly Open And Unbearable or Dishonestly Open And Functional?
One piece of the puzzle which LW hasn't yet figured out: If your kids are reasonably smart, staying together for them is almost always pointless at best. Kids aren't, on average, stupider than adults (evidence: these two!), they're just ignorant. And they're observant enough that they'll know if mom and dad are mad at each other, and will be at least as adversely affected by shouting matches or mutual silent treatments as they would by the household breakup. Most of the social evils that conservatives attribute to increasing divorce rates have nothing to do with the divorce and everything to do with the dysfunctional parent(s) that foolishly decided to have kids in the first place.
Also, this guy's wife will not change her ways unless he's seriously threatening divorce. Why should she? She gets all the benefits of the marriage (whatever financial and emotional support he provides her) without any of the drawbacks (maintaining commitments and keeping him happy and sticking to agreed-upon rules). And apparently this guy is too lily-livered to realize that acting like a doormat isn't what you're supposed to do in a relationship.
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Haters Gonna Hate
The attacks on Dan Savage have a lot to do with an early definition of Victorian "morality": the unending fear that somebody, somewhere, might be happy.
This is of course a great coping mechanism for people who are miserable but can't bring themselves to make the changes they'd need to make to be happy.
commented on Savage Love
Another possible answer for GAY: This fellow is just not that into her. Possibly because she just violated her own rules, so he's busy thinking that there's no way he should trust this woman.
It's also the height of arrogance to think that just because doesn't want to bang you, they don't want to bang anyone with your anatomy. Guys used to say things like "You don't want to sleep with me? You must be a dyke!", in part to pressure women into sleeping with them when they didn't want to.
commented on SL Letter of the Day: An Easy One to Get the New Year Started
@28 Alternately: Is the big dick worth the big dick?
My basic rule on relationships: In most cases, you're going to spend more time not in bed than in bed. That means the not-in-bed part of the relationship needs to be something you enjoy and value if you don't want to be hating your partner sooner or later.
Dec 4, 2013
commented on SL Letter of the Day: A Painful Subject
There are 2 parts of the "dark kind of BDSM" that concern me:
1. You need to be ensuring that either partner can, at any time, revoke consent and end whatever it is that's happening. That's legally true for perfectly vanilla sex too: If you're going at it with somebody, and they say "stop", you're supposed to stop, right then and there, even if they previously consented to the activity 15 minutes earlier. That's why measures like safewords exist.
2. There are some kinks that cannot be justifiably satisfied, ever. There's no morally and legally justifiable way for a pedophile to completely satisfy their lust for prepubescent children. There's no morally and legally justifiable way for someone who gets off on killing innocent people to satisfy their kink (although that's an extremely rare phenomenon, it does happen, as a few high profile serial killers have demonstrated). And that sucks for whoever can't enjoy the sex they want, but it helps everyone else function.