May 15
maddy811 commented on SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands.
@78 Well, of course they're not the same situation, but it seems pretty clear from the way she describes the wife and her desire to have pictures for "fantasy" (i.e. comparison) that this is a revenge scenario and, as such, that it isn't about the feelings she has for her "friend," but really about her unresolved feelings of resentment toward women she sees as threatening.
May 15
maddy811 commented on SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands.
I went to a small high school and had this persistent thorn in my side, a girl who, for whatever combination of bad luck or conscious choice, was interested in the same things I was and became seriously bitter (starting in, not kidding, second grade) that I was naturally better at all of those things. Years and years of jealousy and pointless games. My mom was a waitress, and she was so pathetic that she would even take friends to my mom's workplace to mock her as she worked.
She, of course (of course!) was "madly in love" with my high school sweetheart and tried the exact. same. approach by contrasting what a good and game "friend" she was to what a boring person I supposedly was.
He and I, like high schoolers do, broke up shortly after leaving for the same college. One evening in the spring semester of my freshmen year, I returned to my dorm room to find a voicemail from this girl telling me that she was on campus to visit him and that she was about to sleep with him.
I remember thinking, "Holy shit, you're not only pathetic, you're batshit fucking CRAZY!!!"
But to carry this kind of need for revenge for 14 fucking years????
HOLLLLYYYYYY CRRRAPPP!
Thanks, Dan, for calling her on this. This is some seriously cruel, revenge-seeking shit that isn't about hot sex, fantasy or friendship; this is a chick with some serious (and seriously pathetic) high school baggage.
More...
She, of course (of course!) was "madly in love" with my high school sweetheart and tried the exact. same. approach by contrasting what a good and game "friend" she was to what a boring person I supposedly was.
He and I, like high schoolers do, broke up shortly after leaving for the same college. One evening in the spring semester of my freshmen year, I returned to my dorm room to find a voicemail from this girl telling me that she was on campus to visit him and that she was about to sleep with him.
I remember thinking, "Holy shit, you're not only pathetic, you're batshit fucking CRAZY!!!"
But to carry this kind of need for revenge for 14 fucking years????
HOLLLLYYYYYY CRRRAPPP!
Thanks, Dan, for calling her on this. This is some seriously cruel, revenge-seeking shit that isn't about hot sex, fantasy or friendship; this is a chick with some serious (and seriously pathetic) high school baggage.
May 3
maddy811 commented on SL Letter of the Day: Mr. Wonderful.
I have never used "Girrrrlll" or "Girlfriend," in my life, and I probably shouldn't, but this occasion seems to call for it.
Girl? It's called enabling.
Girrrrll? It's called the honeymoon cycle.
Girlfriend? It's called an abusive man beating you down emotionally until you see yourself in the precise negative terms he's created for you to control you.
And, Girlfriend (ugh), it's you thinking that if you just fix the sex (or get a dog, or stop hanging out with your friends so much, or stop talking to your family about him, or have a kid, or any other ultimatum he gives to blame you for his inability to deal with his own failings), and then, "poof," he'll stop drinking.
This is textbook abuser/enabler dynamic bullshit.
Textbook.
Wait a sec. Now that I think about it, this LW is essentially saying, "Can you help sex stop hurting for me so that I can cure my boyfriend's alcoholism?" Maybe I should have tried my hand at "Bitch, please."
Girl? It's called enabling.
Girrrrll? It's called the honeymoon cycle.
Girlfriend? It's called an abusive man beating you down emotionally until you see yourself in the precise negative terms he's created for you to control you.
And, Girlfriend (ugh), it's you thinking that if you just fix the sex (or get a dog, or stop hanging out with your friends so much, or stop talking to your family about him, or have a kid, or any other ultimatum he gives to blame you for his inability to deal with his own failings), and then, "poof," he'll stop drinking.
This is textbook abuser/enabler dynamic bullshit.
Textbook.
Wait a sec. Now that I think about it, this LW is essentially saying, "Can you help sex stop hurting for me so that I can cure my boyfriend's alcoholism?" Maybe I should have tried my hand at "Bitch, please."
Apr 29
maddy811 commented on SL Letter of the Day: Mixed Signals.
@54 There likely are, if Greg Behrendt had any say in the matter. That dude turned his one line ("Maybe he's just not that into you") from Sex & the City into a book deal and a talk show and a rom-com. I'm sure he had t-shirts too.
Apr 29
maddy811 commented on SL Letter of the Day: Mixed Signals.
Personally, I think "don't feed the troll" harangues are themselves a form of trolling. They remind me of lefty activist meetings plagued by endless debates about who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't. In that vein, if Dan says, rightly, to run! run! run! from the mixed signals, I would say, similarly, run! run! run! from any group that claims itself an "ally" of some other group. Oh the fucking handwringing...
Apr 17
maddy811 commented on SL Letter of the Day: Big Time.
I dated this guy during my sophomore year of college. Privately he was mad about me. Publically he told everyone I was stupid and worthless because I was chubby. In rooms with other people, we would call me a basset hound (I'm actually cute as all hell--blonde, baby-faced, some serious T-and-A curves from a lifetime of dancing and sports), that fucking me would be like "fucking a nerf ball" that "I couldn't seduce an elephant," etc.
I told myself that he deserved my pity and I held out hope that over time the truth would win out.
It never did.
When he learned after my senior year that I had applied to graduate school, he told a mutual friend that I should have consulted him first because if he couldn't get in, I sure wouldn't. I was at the top of our college class, won countless awards, earned two complete degrees, and got a full fellowship to graduate school. He was a B student and a mediocre writer. It never occurred to him that I might have been intelligent.
He never saw me as a person. He only saw the self-hatred he projected onto me because he couldn't deal with the body type that turned him on.
It was the most hurtful relationship I've ever been in, but the upside is that it taught me to pay very close attention to what potential dates and even friends do or do not say about women's bodies. The tiniest whiff of fat phobia (which, yes, is not a matter of preference but a matter of presumptive contempt) and I break things off and don't look back. There's a big difference between not being sexually attracted to a certain body type and presuming than any fat person is a worthless, incompetent, stupid and lazy second class citizen.
More...
I told myself that he deserved my pity and I held out hope that over time the truth would win out.
It never did.
When he learned after my senior year that I had applied to graduate school, he told a mutual friend that I should have consulted him first because if he couldn't get in, I sure wouldn't. I was at the top of our college class, won countless awards, earned two complete degrees, and got a full fellowship to graduate school. He was a B student and a mediocre writer. It never occurred to him that I might have been intelligent.
He never saw me as a person. He only saw the self-hatred he projected onto me because he couldn't deal with the body type that turned him on.
It was the most hurtful relationship I've ever been in, but the upside is that it taught me to pay very close attention to what potential dates and even friends do or do not say about women's bodies. The tiniest whiff of fat phobia (which, yes, is not a matter of preference but a matter of presumptive contempt) and I break things off and don't look back. There's a big difference between not being sexually attracted to a certain body type and presuming than any fat person is a worthless, incompetent, stupid and lazy second class citizen.
Apr 10
maddy811 commented on Two Year Old Shoots Mother In the Stomach With Significant Other's Glock.
Are we really feeding trolls?
You hear these kinds of anti-gun control arguments daily by people who insist that they are debating in good faith, particularly arguments that more guns make people safer, that teachers should be armed, and that one can point to any other kind of weapon to somehow prove that gun availability isn't the problem. Given that there are local governments arming teachers and mandating gun ownership in every home (just happened in Georgia), this is bigger than the trolls.
There's a difference between refuting common arguments and taking the bait of someone whose only goal is to aggravate people. Saying Dan has a double standard on murder? That's some trolling bullshit. But these arguments about gun control are much more widespread than that, especially given that so so many Americans do not understand the intent and history of the 2nd Amendment.
You hear these kinds of anti-gun control arguments daily by people who insist that they are debating in good faith, particularly arguments that more guns make people safer, that teachers should be armed, and that one can point to any other kind of weapon to somehow prove that gun availability isn't the problem. Given that there are local governments arming teachers and mandating gun ownership in every home (just happened in Georgia), this is bigger than the trolls.
There's a difference between refuting common arguments and taking the bait of someone whose only goal is to aggravate people. Saying Dan has a double standard on murder? That's some trolling bullshit. But these arguments about gun control are much more widespread than that, especially given that so so many Americans do not understand the intent and history of the 2nd Amendment.
Apr 10
maddy811 commented on Two Year Old Shoots Mother In the Stomach With Significant Other's Glock.
@23 Have you ever read any parenting books? Check bathing in the index and you will undoubtedly be directed to a page that inevitably has a huge box on the page with caps and icons-a-plenty warning you of how quickly a toddler can drown in just a few inches of bath water. As a parent, you are reminded over and over and over that you cannot turn your back for a second when you are bathing your toddler. It's right up there with the proper installation of a car seat and the superiority of breast milk to formula.
So let's go to the obvious fucking point: Bathtubs are not designed to kill people.
So if you can be reminded to death about the hazards of a bathtub, why is it so so crazy to advocate that any gun owner have to have said gun registered, have completed sufficient safety training (including documentation that guns are secured from children), and, importantly, have to carry liability insurance (just like cars) as a strong disincentive against recklessness?
I get so tired of these bullshit arguments about "well, you can kill a person with a hammer so let's outlaw those too," or "well, a child can swallow drano so let's focus on that." Try telling that shit to families who've lost children because of a gun accident. If you could look such a parent in the eye and tell them that to their face, then, and only then, would I believe you were sincere rather than just saying whatever you need to to convince yourself you're on the right side of this argument.
You're not. The adults in the room are. Ya know, the ones who don't delude themselves into thinking that the can take on the U.S. government or who imagine themselves Rambo in the unlikely event of being face to face with a home intruder or school shooter.
And the adults are sincere in these reasonable policy demands: outlaw military weapons, make all guns harder to get, safer to own, and make owners liable for preventable accidents. And, if you want to take the risk of having guns in your home, that's your business, but it's my business to say that I don't want them in mine and that I shouldn't have to live in the Old West where "peace" is maintained only because everyone knows everyone else is armed to the teeth.
More...
So let's go to the obvious fucking point: Bathtubs are not designed to kill people.
So if you can be reminded to death about the hazards of a bathtub, why is it so so crazy to advocate that any gun owner have to have said gun registered, have completed sufficient safety training (including documentation that guns are secured from children), and, importantly, have to carry liability insurance (just like cars) as a strong disincentive against recklessness?
I get so tired of these bullshit arguments about "well, you can kill a person with a hammer so let's outlaw those too," or "well, a child can swallow drano so let's focus on that." Try telling that shit to families who've lost children because of a gun accident. If you could look such a parent in the eye and tell them that to their face, then, and only then, would I believe you were sincere rather than just saying whatever you need to to convince yourself you're on the right side of this argument.
You're not. The adults in the room are. Ya know, the ones who don't delude themselves into thinking that the can take on the U.S. government or who imagine themselves Rambo in the unlikely event of being face to face with a home intruder or school shooter.
And the adults are sincere in these reasonable policy demands: outlaw military weapons, make all guns harder to get, safer to own, and make owners liable for preventable accidents. And, if you want to take the risk of having guns in your home, that's your business, but it's my business to say that I don't want them in mine and that I shouldn't have to live in the Old West where "peace" is maintained only because everyone knows everyone else is armed to the teeth.
Apr 5
maddy811 commented on President Romney.
@18 "Going to have to be?"
Why?
Anyone who knows about social security knows that it's in surplus now and will be for some years (is it 2023 or 2033, I cannot remember) and then when it isn't able to make 100% of its obligations, there's a very simple fix: raise the payroll tax cap on the rich.
It only "has to be" means-tested because the GOP is determined to privatize it.
The CPI is a poison pill, just like the legislation that financially crippled the Post Office was a poison pill, just like Medicare Part-D was a poison pill, just like No Child Left Behind was a poison pill..
"Means-testing" is just a cover for "find a way to kill it" and, in the GOP's case, find a way to make it look like it was the Democrats who did so. Again, this is about the GOP being able in 2014 and 2016 to tell the elderly over and over: "Obama shot Santa Claus" or "Obama wanted to shoot Santa Claus and we stood united against him."
We seem to forget that the GOP is brilliant at two interrelated things:
1. deliberately break government programs that work so you can continue to run for elections on the principle that government cannot work; and
2. shift the ideological goal posts further and further to the right so that a self-identified "moderate Republican" (Obama's own words) is consistently framed as some variation (take your pick) of left-wing radical. That way you'll end up, I dunno, trying to kill a health care bill proposed by the Heritage Foundation that you've convinced people is the exact oppose of what it actually is: instead of requiring the insured to purchase private insurance, no no no, it's really "a government takeover of health care." Even Orwell couldn't make this shit up.
And I don't think Obama falls into their trap, or has some superior chess game that we politically naive purists cannot see, or is so so hamstrung by the GOP's obstruction that he cannot follow his progressive heart. (What incentive do they have to cave at this point, especially given their successful efforts at gerrymandering, taking over state legislatures, and nationwide ALEC-inspired efforts to suppress the vote?) Unlike others, I take him at his word: he is a pro-business, pragmatic-obsessed, centrist, moderate. That is how he's governed and that is how he will continue to govern.
In short, count me among the furious.
More...
Why?
Anyone who knows about social security knows that it's in surplus now and will be for some years (is it 2023 or 2033, I cannot remember) and then when it isn't able to make 100% of its obligations, there's a very simple fix: raise the payroll tax cap on the rich.
It only "has to be" means-tested because the GOP is determined to privatize it.
The CPI is a poison pill, just like the legislation that financially crippled the Post Office was a poison pill, just like Medicare Part-D was a poison pill, just like No Child Left Behind was a poison pill..
"Means-testing" is just a cover for "find a way to kill it" and, in the GOP's case, find a way to make it look like it was the Democrats who did so. Again, this is about the GOP being able in 2014 and 2016 to tell the elderly over and over: "Obama shot Santa Claus" or "Obama wanted to shoot Santa Claus and we stood united against him."
We seem to forget that the GOP is brilliant at two interrelated things:
1. deliberately break government programs that work so you can continue to run for elections on the principle that government cannot work; and
2. shift the ideological goal posts further and further to the right so that a self-identified "moderate Republican" (Obama's own words) is consistently framed as some variation (take your pick) of left-wing radical. That way you'll end up, I dunno, trying to kill a health care bill proposed by the Heritage Foundation that you've convinced people is the exact oppose of what it actually is: instead of requiring the insured to purchase private insurance, no no no, it's really "a government takeover of health care." Even Orwell couldn't make this shit up.
And I don't think Obama falls into their trap, or has some superior chess game that we politically naive purists cannot see, or is so so hamstrung by the GOP's obstruction that he cannot follow his progressive heart. (What incentive do they have to cave at this point, especially given their successful efforts at gerrymandering, taking over state legislatures, and nationwide ALEC-inspired efforts to suppress the vote?) Unlike others, I take him at his word: he is a pro-business, pragmatic-obsessed, centrist, moderate. That is how he's governed and that is how he will continue to govern.
In short, count me among the furious.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
1. 14 years and
2. Your supposed "friendship."
These kind of torches, kept lit by *both* parties, are pretty much all you need to make educated guesses about emotional maturity and capacity for genuine affection. I'm left feeling genuinely sorry for this "amazing" wife whose husband has been stringing along a woman since high school who still thinks like an adolescent girl. Case in point: wanting a photo so you can compare your body to hers.
A women's studies grad student could devote an entire dissertation to that single sentence.
Dan's focus was, rightly, on the woman's baggage, but now I'm left thinking about what a dick the guy is for keeping her around all this time--is it just the ego stroke? If he wanted her, wouldn't it have happened by now? Perhaps the negotiation over accessories is just the latest obstacle he's throwing up to having to seal the deal.