Berkeley, California
report this user
10:46 AM yesterday nocutename commented on Savage Love.
@284: Mr. Ven, my comment @273 was in response to seandr @232. I myself offer no suggestions of how to restore one's masculinity once it has been eviscerated. I just wondered if according to seandr, all infidelities are emasculating, and if so, should they all be met with the choice of "fuck other people in return" or "DTMFA."
7:05 AM yesterday nocutename commented on Savage Love.
Alison, yes there's something inherent in the "being-played-for-a fool" angle of "unwittingly-raising-another-bird's-chicks" that might be fueling the emasculation attendant to cuckoldom. Though of course, the mark of a cuckold is horns, making the man goat-like, as opposed to a bird-related image, which is odd, because goats are also associated with Pan, Bacchus, Dionysus, all the wild drinking/sex/debauchery gods. And certainly, no one's putting anything over on them and they're hardly emasculated figures. So you would think that the horns would be reserved for the man who is cukolding the wife--the (presumably) extra-virile guy who has turned the poor schnook into a cuckold without his knowledge.
6:32 AM yesterday nocutename commented on Savage Love.
seandr, now that we're tackling "manhood" "masculinity" and "emasculation," I want to address a comment you made @232. You said:
"Probably because he identifies as masculine. It's how I'd feel if I were in his shoes. It's a sickening feeling. Made the letter difficult to read, especially the mindfuck of the visit with his wife and her boyfriend where she left him out of the loop.

If he's interested in preserving his masculinity, he needs to start fucking other girls, or he needs to walk away from this woman. Or both."

I know you often have your tongue in your cheek, but this sounded sincere to me, so I'm going on that assumption. Do you really think that the only way a man in this situation--a wronged husband who's been cheated on--can preserve his masculinity is by either fucking other women or leaving his marriage? Did you mean that in only this case, or is that your standard response to all cases of infidelity wherein the wife is the one who cheats? In a hypothetical more straightforward case of infidelity, would you consider that the man had only those two courses of action if he wanted to regain his masculinity--if indeed you think that any act of infidelity not mutually agreed upon in advance by both man and woman has an emasculating effect? What happens if a wife cheats, gets caught or confesses, exhibits great remorse, and the two talk it through, come to a renewed closeness ,and re-establish monogamy? Under that scenario, do you still see the husband as somehow emasculated? And if so, is the only cure for emasculation to "fuck other girls, or . . . walk away from" the woman who cheated?
Nov 22 nocutename commented on Savage Love.
@257: Yes! That's what i see too, but not being a man, I didn't feel like I had the credability to note that
Nov 22 nocutename commented on Savage Love.
@240: Philophile, that was a very eloquent post and I agree with you about the inherent misogyny in much male identity. But I also see things in shades of gray, and think that there is intentional or even just conscious misogyny and there is unconscious or deeply-rooted, maybe even reptile-brained misogyny gender essentialism, too, and the two probably frequently coexist.

I don't know about you, but one of my favorite things about sex when sex is really good, is the way I experience feeling reduced to my most female and feminine essence. I feel quintessentially feminine--and I love that feeling, which I only attain through sex--not because I feel disempowered, or weak, or fragile, or in any way less than. Rather, I experience my essential femininity in an associatedly gender-neutral value system: it isn't better than being masculine or worse than being masculine, but it's profoundly distinct from feeling masculine, and even very distinct from how I generally feel in a non-sexual situation, in which I don't always have a sense of feeling so very gendered at all. This feeling feminine doesn't feel "gendered" at all, as a matter of fact, because it's not so much performative in nature, nor cultural, nor somehow learned. It isn't behavior; it's essence. When I feel feminine, which I do through good sex, I feel distilled to my core essence--an essentially feminine thing.
I don't think I'm explaining this well, but it's the best I can do. At some point, like Virginia Woolf said, Words Fail.

Anyway, that feeling of feminine-essence, associated with sex, is a key aspect of my sense of self, as anything associated with my sexuality and sexual identity contributes hugely to my sense of core self and self identity. If that feeling were challenged, as I think it could very well be, though a kind of sex or sex-related experience that went against my sense of self-sexual identity, I could see feeling profoundly adrift, identity-wise. That feeling of being cut loose from an established and perhaps cherished part of that self-definition would indeed be unnerving.

I think we need to differentiate between learned behaviors and responses and those which might be reinforced by culture and learned behavior--sure--but which are rooted in something reptile-brain-deep, and which it it might not only be useless to try to change, but which it might be somewhat desirable for people to retain.

I'm all for taking good hard looks at how we follow some old and undesirable cultural scripts, of trying to change even entrenched behaviors if they're at odds with our conscious value systems. That's what I, as a feminist, think we should all do all the time. But I'm also going to cut myself and others some slack for the ways in which culture taps into what I think are some pretty deeply-wired roles and responses. It's why I don't feel guilty for my submissive sexuality, but why I wouldn't want to be with someone who wanted me to be submissive outside a sexual context, and why I need the person I'm with to recognize my submission as a gift to him and not something just anyone gets from me under any circumstances. It's why I don't waste time worrying that I have to turn in my feminist card because I like to be humiliated during sex. It allows me to separate the sexual behavior of my partner from his non-sexual behavior so I don't either inadvertently date a misogynist or think my non-misogynist partner is anti-feminist.

It seems to me that some part of CUCK's sense of self is contributed to by his sexual self-identity; that sexual self-identity was challenged by a sexual pattern that CUCK doesn't like or want to be associated with. This sexual self-identity may be rooted in old, deep misogynism, its true, but that misogyny isn't necessarily part of CUCK's conscious belief or value system just because it exists in his reptile brain. I think trying to challenge that core part of his sense of self identity--his essential masculinity is pointless: impossible to change and unnecessary to be changed for him to still be a feminist.
Nov 22 nocutename commented on Savage Love.
Hunter, I'll probably regret asking, but what are "Dbirds?" I've seen you refer to them before.

Still Thinking, I consider you a regular. It's a shame when you feel discouraged from posting because of hostility here.

LavaGirl, Philophile, it is weird for you to judge that men shouldn't feel emasculated by others or that feeling emasculated is a response that you don't think carries as much weight as being dehumanized. I'm a woman and I can understand how unnerving or upsetting it would be to feel emasculated if I were a man. I don't think it's an act of misogyny for a man to feel his core identity is realized in his manliness. LavaGirl, you have often championed what sounds like gender essentialism, so I guess I shouldn't be particularly surprised that you think that people;s sense of gender or self or worth can be affected by what others do to them or think of them or what they think others think of them. But I think whether good or bad, a lot of our sense of self-identity, or self-worth, is tied to how other people perceive us or our perception of how other people perceive us. It's all very well to say we shouldn't let that happen or we should rise above it, but for practical purposes, it's as useful as people telling BAD that she she should just get over her feelings. It doesn't generally work that way.

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that men can feel both dehumanized and emasculated--the two are not mutually exclusive, and I can easily see not only why feeling emasculated would be an uncomfortable, or even devastating feeling, but also why CUCK would feel that way in the circumstances.
Nov 20 nocutename commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: An Easy Call for a Former Call Girl.
@152: No, i don't think that men who have gone to a professional for sex should disclose that fact, unless both parties are playing a version of "tell me every detail about every single sexual experience you've ever had." Why should they?

I also think that no sex worker or former sex worker should be compelled to disclose that information, but given that now we're talking about a job or employment background, it might have more opportunity to come up.
Ultimately, I think people should put all that stuff out there, because if you're someone who did sex work--whether from choice or necessity--and you have no guilt or shame about it, it behooves you to know if you're dating someone for whom that is a Big Problem. Helps you weed out.
Anything that you have reason to think might be a relationship-ending issue should be raised and dealt with before moving in together.
Nov 20 nocutename commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: An Easy Call for a Former Call Girl.
@150: I'm not sure how much slack straight men who pay for sex get cut by straight women in our society. There is a question on OkCupid about if it were legal, would you pay for sex and another one thats asks if you have ever hired a sex worker and a third that asks another variation on the theme and a lot of women have set their acceptability of a "yes" answer low. I think a lot of women view "the kind of man who'd go to a sex worker" as a creep or a pig or someone who doesn't respect women, or someone they can't trust not to cheat on them.

Then there's also the (straight) man who seems to think it's a referendum on his manhood or something to "have to pay for it."
I think we can safely say that our culture looks down on both the sellers and buyers of sex.
Nov 20 nocutename commented on Savage Love.
@166: Ricardo, if you don't know what Eudaemonic writes in his rants, then I don't know that you're the best person to comment on them. You can--and have--offer advice to skip them, but to tell people to "get a fucking life" because they don't like being verbally abused . . . well, sure that's a way to deal with it. I prefer to live in a more civil world, and I'm not quite sure why that seems either so unreasonable or so threatening or such an over-the-top expectation.

I usually find your posts to be thoughtful and respectful and I don't understand why you're defending verbal abuse. It isn't necessary. True, it's not going to kill any of us to be called a shitstain by a stranger, but neither is it the only way one has of expressing oneself and I don't think it's unreasonable or censorious to ask people to treat others with some sort of minimal, baseline respect.
As to my comment @ 160 - "So the Powers That Be apparently agree with you that being called a "rape apologist shitstain" for daring to express a different opinion about a letter is a perfectly legitimate way to behave"--I don't see how you interpret that as sinking low on my part. My point was that I've had a comment deleted before--a comment in which I did what others before me had done with no problem, and which someone did in this comment thread with no problem, and which was designed to be helpful and inoffensive and then a poster can call anyone whose viewpoint differs from his own things like "rape apologist shitstain" and that's allowed to stand and I honestly find that action and inaction on the part of the Slog moderator baffling and disturbing.
Nov 20 nocutename commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: An Easy Call for a Former Call Girl.
I'll chime in by saying that PTSD is no excuse for being abusive--especially when you have proved yourself capable of being able to express yourself reasonably.

I don't think you can equate Vennominon's literary references and personal acronyms--or Philohile's song lyrics, or CMDWannabe's references to clothing, or LavaGirl's very frequent non sequiturs--with Eudaemonic's abusive rants. Eudaemonic's insults aren't quirks, and I don't think attacking other people who've done nothing to you with vile language is ever appropriate or acceptable. And all JibeHo and I and, I presume, others are calling for is more civility of address, not a banishment, nor the suppression of ideas.