Yeah, it's a copy of that.

report this user


just another angry feminist


  • What piece of art would you steal?: Soft Construction with Boiled Beans: Premonition of Civil War
  • Pot or Coke
  • Dan Savage or Charles Mudede
  • What book have you read the most?: Wuthering Heights
  • I hate living in Seattle or I wish I lived in Seattle

more »

May 6 shurenka commented on SL Letter of the Day: Donald Sterling—Racism-Frosted Cuckold Fetishist?.
@18 " I still wonder if we should be at all concerned that it is apparently "okay" that the content of a private conversation, covertly recorded, in your own home, now justifies the confiscation of your property and the loss of your profession?"

Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences. If you have truly abhorrent views, best keep them well hidden. FOS only protects against government action, like imprisonment, not non-gov't organizations or people deciding that they no longer want to pay you or associate with you or promote you. This isn't a new thing--the new idea is that people should expect their intolerant, abhorrent views to be tolerated as just another harmless instantiation of diversity and not, you know, called out as bigotry.

If it was illegally obtained he can take legal recourse. Doesn't mean the rest of us should try to "unhear" what he said because he still remains a racist douchebag.
Apr 29 shurenka commented on SL Letter of the Day: Friendly Fire.
Even if the first couple were gay I think Dan's answer would have remained the same. The issue is not the fact that "straight people are more neurotic" but the fact that one partner feels threatened for a legitimate reason; hiding time spent with a "friend" and buying expensive gifts would make almost anybody raise an eyebrow, gay/straight/bi/etc. On the other hand, presumably in the case of LW2 the friends don't even live in the same city. They hooked up once, there was some sexual attraction at one point maybe, but now they are platonic. As a bi women I have exes like that and my partners have never really been threatened because I was always on the up and up and it was obvious there was nothing going on between me and my friends.

It's obviously different as others have said if there is a legitimate reason for them to be spending so much time together--co-parents, etc. But lying and "nice gifts" are still a red flag.
Apr 26 shurenka commented on SL Letter of the Day: The Wedding Party.
@16, I agree.

It sounds like the LW has serious, serious issues, but as someone who has issues with emotional regulation myself, I can say the family did actively try to sabotage her by doing everything to rub it in her face that they didn't like her and to make her feel as isolated as possible. It sounds like she is not in therapy or she would have mentioned it I assume. As of now, she is not treating her issues and her husband has no idea how to treat them either. If she doesn't get help, this marriage is doomed.

I am also tsk-tsking because it's unreasonable to expect to be able to throw fits in front of your SO. Especially, as I'm guessing she also expects him to be 100% attentive and supportive of her when she does this, and to go back to normal immediately when she calms down. If she has ERD or a similar disorder, that might be cathartic for her--but she should know that it is draining and cruel to others.
Jan 16 shurenka commented on Savage Love.
Surprised nobody thought that maybe MUM's "friend's" husband is asexual.

He wanted kids and was willing to engage in sex up until that point, then no more. Only the real wife would be able to know whether it is likely that her husband is a gay closet-case, someone who has a very severe madonna-whore complex, or is asexual. If sex was passionate up until the point of kid #2, I'd strongly suspect either an affair and/or he's no longer attracted to her (because of baby weight etc).
Dec 17, 2013 shurenka commented on Savage Love.
@10 nocutename, your story/advice was spot on. It can seem crass to think of people using "leverage" in a romantic relationship. But ultimately if something is a real dealbreaker, is damaging your self-esteem, you shouldn't put up with it. Otherwise you run the risk of feeling less self-respect later for having put up with a shitty situation so long.
Dec 17, 2013 shurenka commented on Savage Love.
For PODAQ, I wonder if she's communicating feeling strung along to her boyfriend. Or if she's just been dropping hints that she wants to be married and have kids and is silent when he expresses ambivalence.

I feel like I'm kind of in her position--in a situation which bothers me a lot, but doesn't bother my partner as much (and ultimately only he can change it). And, for better or worse I haven't yet come to the place where I would leave because of it. In such circumstances it's very tempting to make an ultimatum but once you do, if you go back on it, then you just look like a manipulative asshole (and you've hurt the relationship). So she needs to make sure, if she forces the issue, that she is ready to walk away. But only she can know whether his ambivalence is likely to resolve or whether he is stringing her along.

Also, 35 is hardly "old" to be a parent.
Dec 6, 2013 shurenka commented on SL Letter of the Day: LGBT&P?.
I personally don't think that the difference between "orientation" and "structure" is more than a social construction.

In the old days, before orientation was a "thing", more important was one's role... That is, a gay man who bottomed was considered womanlike or deviant while the man fucking him would be considered "normal". It was considered understandable that a man could be lured by the charms of either a woman or feminine man ("fairies"); and the "fairies" were considered to be basically transgender women. Only gradually did the concept of a sexual orientation, based on what sex of person you were physically attracted to, develop. That is not to say that people who were only attracted to one or the other sex didn't exist before that, but it is not clear whether they conceptualized themselves in the same manner as a gay or straight person would today. (To those interested in the development of the concept of sexual orientation, I'd recommend Gay New York by George Chauncey).

The thing is, for some people, orientation might be at the core of their sexual identity. For others, especially bisexuals, other factors may be more important, such as BDSM or a kink or the structure of the relationship. This is just as, for some people they define their sexual orientation by their partner's gender identity, whereas others couldn't imagine dating a trans* partner because, well, they can't get past dating someone with parts they aren't attracted to. (I.e., sexual orientation is in and of itself a problematic term, because it is unclear whether it refers to attraction based on physical sex, or gender identity.)

Sep 13, 2013 shurenka commented on Age of Consent.

Clarifying on my previous comment: yes there was a strong congressional response to Rind's paper, but there is no evidence to suggest that lawmakers refused to read the paper "because pedophile". Lawmakers rarely read the full copies of any papers or even bills presented to them, relying on summary. At the time, continuing to now, there were valid criticisms of Rind's paper of sampling bias and what variables were looked at (notably not PTSD). Undoubtedly some people rejected the study because it conflicted with conventional wisdom, however the study was not without its flaws.
Sep 13, 2013 shurenka commented on Age of Consent.

My faith in Congress is as dim as the next person's, but what evidence do you have to suggest that that is the response of lawmakers with regards to age of consent? Also, this article didn't exactly raise any scientific evidence to promote a lowering of the age of consent -- it basically was just a longwinded way of saying "your mileage may vary". Which, great! But as @4 pointed out, the law cannot account for every exceptional individual in this case. There must be a fixed number, and if there's not hard evidence to suggest a different number, the age at which most people actually become independent seems to be reasonable.
Sep 13, 2013 shurenka commented on Age of Consent.
So this article's argument is... societies have disagreed about this therefore we can't know anything? Or is it that we should take lessons from cultures and countries hundreds of years old, even more deeply entrenched in racism and sexism than today? Strong intellectual rigor, there!

Tellingly, this article fails to even *mention* Romeo and Juliet laws, which protect minors from having sex with others within 3 years of age, when both are over 14. Statutory rape laws hardly punish adolescents from exploring their sexuality, but they prevent adults from preying on them during a vulnerable time.

The power differences between an adult and an adolescent can be significant; the adult will have more financial resources and worldly experience to draw upon. The 16 year old partner will simply be much easier to manipulate, control, blackmail, and emotionally coerce -- even if consent was given initially.

Yes, the age of 18 is somewhat arbitrary; some people older than 18 are arguably not mature enough for sex while some younger are. But it's done to protect the majority of people from harm, even if the precociously mature 16 year old will have to suffer the -- gasp -- truly terribly fate of waiting a whole 2 years to bone someone outside their age group.

I recommend those who laud this article to search for "A “Predatory Teenage Girl” Speaks Out" to get the other side of this story.

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