May 13
happyhedonist commented on David Sedaris on The Daily Show.
my father-in-law has *three sons* with beards; he has no guns. my own father has one clean-shaven son and an arsenal. i could start my own sticker campaign, 'we are the 20%!'
May 12
happyhedonist commented on Savage Love.
For BBB: how does 'compassionate conservative' and 'intelligent' co-exist? They are one or the other, and ignoring their bigotry is going to be tough no matter how impressive their résumés are otherwise.
TSTQ has about all the advice she can handle, but here's something that doesn't get said often enough: 'clincally depressed' and 'asshole' (unlike 'compassionate conservative' and intelligent') are not mutually exclusive. You say you don't want out, yet describe an intolerable situation for living. Examining why you don't want out yet will get you farther than pushing a man who only pushes back far enough to get you off his case.
Also, @88 nailed it - that broken foot on the wedding night, hmmmm ... I see aggression and probable drunkenness. Anyone else?
TSTQ has about all the advice she can handle, but here's something that doesn't get said often enough: 'clincally depressed' and 'asshole' (unlike 'compassionate conservative' and intelligent') are not mutually exclusive. You say you don't want out, yet describe an intolerable situation for living. Examining why you don't want out yet will get you farther than pushing a man who only pushes back far enough to get you off his case.
Also, @88 nailed it - that broken foot on the wedding night, hmmmm ... I see aggression and probable drunkenness. Anyone else?
Apr 16
happyhedonist commented on SL Letter of the Day: Big Time.
Full of win. Absolutely nailed this one. 'cowardly, hateful piece of shit.' That pretty much covers it!
Mar 14
happyhedonist commented on "This is what Twitter was invented for.".
this man broke the internet. the page will not load, which actually now that i think of it is probably for the best.
Mar 14
happyhedonist commented on SL Letter of the Day: The Missing Condom.
Dan, I for one think you got this one right. 'Degrees of assault for a reason' indeed. And yet, it does not make his motives any less about power, control, lack of respect for her words/stated limits, and his total entitlement that he would get what he wanted by some means.
Which is the same way a rapist thinks, right? So, rape is a fair thing to call it. Rape is someone - almost always a guy - deciding that he can do what he wants no matter what she says/does/doesn't do/thinks/expresses/suggests/implies. That is the definition.
Who knows what would have happened if she stopped the action and checked? Would he have decided more force was necessary, and disregarded her stated wishes more boldly? Because that does happen too. So maybe her lack of desire to follow through on checking his 'ambiguous statement' had to do with her gut feeling that what she wanted didn't matter because he was a controlling asshole who was determined to have unprotected sex with her.
Alllll these possibilities, they do not exist in a void. They exist because we hesitate to call rape what it is: an act of power and control that has fuck-all in common with what sexual partners on equal footing do for/with each other. If you're not equals, it's because someone's abusing their power. Gosh, who could that be? If you said 'a rapist', you win!
More...
Which is the same way a rapist thinks, right? So, rape is a fair thing to call it. Rape is someone - almost always a guy - deciding that he can do what he wants no matter what she says/does/doesn't do/thinks/expresses/suggests/implies. That is the definition.
Who knows what would have happened if she stopped the action and checked? Would he have decided more force was necessary, and disregarded her stated wishes more boldly? Because that does happen too. So maybe her lack of desire to follow through on checking his 'ambiguous statement' had to do with her gut feeling that what she wanted didn't matter because he was a controlling asshole who was determined to have unprotected sex with her.
Alllll these possibilities, they do not exist in a void. They exist because we hesitate to call rape what it is: an act of power and control that has fuck-all in common with what sexual partners on equal footing do for/with each other. If you're not equals, it's because someone's abusing their power. Gosh, who could that be? If you said 'a rapist', you win!
Feb 28
happyhedonist commented on SL Letter of the Day: Flirting vs. Negotiating.
SUBS, if you're reading comments (and I'm sorry if you are, because there is a LOT of apology for potential rapists here) all I can say is that you don't need anyone's permission but your own to put a stop to something you don't want to do - and that goes right down to talking about it with inexperienced/might-be, might-not-be assholes. Repeat after me: "I DO NOT OWE ANYONE ANYTHING."
Nothing!
You don't owe him an explanation or even a goodbye. This is the virtual equivalent of walking out of the room when someone goes beyond your limits. That is effective communication all by itself, no follow-up chat required.
What stands out for me in your letter (because I'm a woman, and Dan is not) is that *your gut feeling here* is that he seems likely to make you do something you don't want to do. It may not be a legitimate threat, sure. It may be a clumsy error on his part. BUT WHO FUCKING CARES, when you consider also that we live in a world where women are raped every day, right? (Jesus, Dan. Way to overlook women's reality there.) Really - what good does it do *you* to presume that it some clumsy move on his part and not an actual threat, when your guts are screaming at you? I really don't see any reason why this *relatively small possibility* is the primary basis for Dan's reply. He might not be a rapist (yet), but what do you gain by assuming that, compared with what you stand to lose? Women are raped, often, and without justice ever being served, this is the world we live in - and it's supported by exactly the attitude in this column and in a lot of the comments.
Ironically, the same commenters would probably pull similarly apologetic-to-rapsits garbage out if you did meet this bozo - even to give him the chance to explain himself. 'Well, she should have known! Geez! What kind of rube meets a guy from the internet who sounds threatening?' Right.
So? Ignore these ignorant fuckers who insist (in some fashion or another) that you should talk this through, or give him some chance to explain himself, or what.ever.the.fuck. You owe him nothing, and your guts have important information for you. Listen to your guts, they have a lot more stake in this than anyone else yammering here, jesus h.
More...
Nothing!
You don't owe him an explanation or even a goodbye. This is the virtual equivalent of walking out of the room when someone goes beyond your limits. That is effective communication all by itself, no follow-up chat required.
What stands out for me in your letter (because I'm a woman, and Dan is not) is that *your gut feeling here* is that he seems likely to make you do something you don't want to do. It may not be a legitimate threat, sure. It may be a clumsy error on his part. BUT WHO FUCKING CARES, when you consider also that we live in a world where women are raped every day, right? (Jesus, Dan. Way to overlook women's reality there.) Really - what good does it do *you* to presume that it some clumsy move on his part and not an actual threat, when your guts are screaming at you? I really don't see any reason why this *relatively small possibility* is the primary basis for Dan's reply. He might not be a rapist (yet), but what do you gain by assuming that, compared with what you stand to lose? Women are raped, often, and without justice ever being served, this is the world we live in - and it's supported by exactly the attitude in this column and in a lot of the comments.
Ironically, the same commenters would probably pull similarly apologetic-to-rapsits garbage out if you did meet this bozo - even to give him the chance to explain himself. 'Well, she should have known! Geez! What kind of rube meets a guy from the internet who sounds threatening?' Right.
So? Ignore these ignorant fuckers who insist (in some fashion or another) that you should talk this through, or give him some chance to explain himself, or what.ever.the.fuck. You owe him nothing, and your guts have important information for you. Listen to your guts, they have a lot more stake in this than anyone else yammering here, jesus h.
Feb 28
happyhedonist commented on Another Law-Breaking School Board Blocks Formation of GSA.
@11 I think the word you're looking for is 'predictable'.
Feb 22
happyhedonist commented on Savage Love.
for Bridezilla's sister: "Oh, did I say Columbus Day weekend? I confused it with Veteran's day! *That's* the weekend I couldn't make it in the next two years. Silly me."
Watch her reschedule the wedding to Veteran's day, and then watch her squirm when you offer to show up in whatever pantsuit she picks out.
Then no-show the wedding. Because that is exactly what bigoted douchehounds deserve.
Watch her reschedule the wedding to Veteran's day, and then watch her squirm when you offer to show up in whatever pantsuit she picks out.
Then no-show the wedding. Because that is exactly what bigoted douchehounds deserve.
Feb 18
happyhedonist commented on Are Theo's "Fair Trade" Chocolates Unfair to Seattle Workers?.
@55, thanks for clarifying.
@56, it really does not matter a flying fuck in what exact manner the company discouraged the formation of a union. Employee unions and collective barganing are *the only effective tool* that the labor side has in improving working conditions, so how union suppresion happens is immaterial. What is relevant is that management *does not want* an equal relationship with labor, and *that itself* is illegal, immoral, and counter to any possible definition of fair trade.
If a company is billing itself as fair trade, that company must *actively encourage* collective bargaining. Anything else - from indifference to suppression - is fraudulent in a free trade model, full stop.
@56, it really does not matter a flying fuck in what exact manner the company discouraged the formation of a union. Employee unions and collective barganing are *the only effective tool* that the labor side has in improving working conditions, so how union suppresion happens is immaterial. What is relevant is that management *does not want* an equal relationship with labor, and *that itself* is illegal, immoral, and counter to any possible definition of fair trade.
If a company is billing itself as fair trade, that company must *actively encourage* collective bargaining. Anything else - from indifference to suppression - is fraudulent in a free trade model, full stop.
Feb 18
happyhedonist commented on Why Middle-Aged People Walk into Traffic.
Thanks, Dominick. Again with the refreshing, pro-pedestrian angle. It really is not reasonable to just cut off the fucking sidewalks (for months!) as if they are optional! I do not understand why this is standard practice, and it really needs a solution. What. the. fuck.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
