Old Crow
report this user
Oct 3 Old Crow commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: A Tweet Storm of Excellent Advice.
Maybe "friend zone" would make more sense if we called it "used for friendship" instead? Whenever I've seen this be a problem, there's always been a power imbalance in the relationship.

The "friend zone" relationships I've been in or been a witness to have all been relationships where the guy had poor social skills and low self esteem/confidence, desperately wanted the relationship (giving the woman involved a major power advantage), and the resulting relationship was a quasi-romantic relationship in which some of the boundaries that we apply to non-romantic relationships were broken (those poor social skills include not enforcing healthy boundaries).

The stereotypical female equivalent to the "friend zone" is the woman who feels "used for sex". In each case, one party desperately wanted a full romantic relationship, and the second party gave them only the parts of a relationship the first party wanted. When a woman feels used and resentful at being "used for sex", that's no more because of "entitlement" or "matriarchy" than a man's feeling used and resentful at being used for "friendship" is because of "entitlement" or "patriarchy". (The "friendship" in these relationships doesn't necessarily look much like normal friendship. I once saw a "friend zone" relationship where a young woman who didn't have a car had learned that if she called a certain guy and asked him to drive her somewhere, there was about a 2/3 chance that he'd drop whatever he was doing and drive her there. And that was their "friendship": him driving her places. She had no desire to chat with him or hang out with him.)

And the idea that "nice guys" feel "entitled" is just wrong. It's exactly the other way around. Guys who feel entitled react to a "no" from one woman by working to meet other women, because they know they're entitled to find a good relationship if they keep working at it. It's the guys who don't feel entitled who feel they have nothing to gain by talking to other women, so they react to a "no" by hanging around the woman in the hope that if she sees how nice they are, she'll change her mind.
Sep 29 Old Crow commented on Gary Johnson Is a Moron (And If You Vote For Him, You Are Too).
@85: The desperation of those of us who don't want to die in nuclear fire is there, yes. Then again, if you're familiar with Johnson, you know he privatized part of NM's prison system when he was governor. A privatized prison system is a bigger prison system (state-run prison systems can't give campaign donations of any size, much less large ones, to politicians in exchange for prison-system friendly votes.) So, yeah, by all means vote for Johnson if you think the main problem with America is that not enough people are incarcerated. That's what Johnson means when he says he's "for" "civil liberties".
Sep 29 Old Crow commented on Gary Johnson Is a Moron (And If You Vote For Him, You Are Too).
@Corydon @SoyisMurder and others
People who are actually Libertarians, such as yourselves, should vote for the Libertarians, particularly if you live in a non-competitive state like Washington. Normally there'd be no reason for Libertarians to vote for someone like Hillary, as her policies are nearly 180 degrees opposed to yours. In this particular case, I think Trump is such a fool that there'd be a serious risk of nuclear war if he became President. (Yes, he's friends with Putin, for now. But who knows how long that would last, if he became President? And if he fell out with Putin it would be personal, not business. That prospect scares the shit out of me.) And I think that is an argument for a Libertarian in a swing state to vote for Hillary, and as a Canadian who has no vote but will still be fried if President Trump starts WW III I appreciate the vote of every Libertarian who holds their nose and votes for Hillary. I'm very much aware that it's a big ask.

I think (mind reading here so I could definitely be wrong) that the people Dan is addressing are the people who say they're left-wing/socialist, and then go on to say they can't vote for Hillary because she's not left-wing and socialist enough. (A Libertarian isn't saying that.) I voted Green in the recent Canadian election (because I was living in a non-competitive district at the time), so I understand the desire to vote Green. But, if someone's claiming to be a left-winger, they sound pretty crazy when they say they'll stand aside and pass on an easy step to reduce Trump's chances of getting elected.

@LavaGirl 51: No, not shotgun weddings. "Going to Canada for a vacation" would take on a whole new meaning :D.
Sep 28 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
@BiDanFan 18: It's my understanding that testosterone has been shown (in peer-reviewed research) to make >people< (not just men) more likely to discount negative consequences of actions being considered; i.e. more likely to take risks and in particular more likely to take reckless risks.

It's probably relevant to CPOS cheating immediately after his fiancee discovered his dating app. A cautious person wouldn't do that. But young men aren't known for their caution, and that's probably strongly connected to their testosterone levels.
Sep 22 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
The Atlantic has a pretty good article on male birth control. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv…
TL;DR: there are a lot of decent ideas, but large-scale safety trials on humans are expensive and the people with the money for that don't think there's a lucrative market.

As for SNIP, my experience is that when person A repeatedly asks person B to do something important to person A, and person B repeatedly says they'll do it or would like to do it, but repeatedly doesn't do it because of *excuses*, that's almost always a situation where person B doesn't want to do the thing but fears drama if they're forthright.
Aug 9 Old Crow commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: The Rest of the Story.
@Snowday/TFL: I think the idea that sex workers are higher risks for STD's dates back to the period 1500 to well, 1950 or so (antibiotics) when syphilis was a real threat to life (not just health). That was a period when, partly as a result of the threat of syphilis, people really did wait until marriage to have sex with their first partner, and it was really plausible that someone might have only one sex partner in their lives. For most of that period condoms were made from animal tissue if they were available at all, so there was no way a sex worker could be sure of staying safe from syphilis. So sex workers had much higher exposure to STD's than "respectable" women did. And bringing syphilis back to your wife, in the days before antibiotics, would have been a huge betrayal.

Nowadays it's normal for non-sex-workers to have had sex with many people before they've met you, so they're not safe in the way that "respectable" women were in my mother's generation. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis that sex workers are more conscientious about using preventative methods (i.e. condoms) and being tested for STD's and cured of the curable STD's than non-sex worker women are. If, for example, the husband was having sex with sex workers who were conscientious about condom use, then I'd guess he was less likely to catch a disease than he would have been if he'd been having sex without condoms with non-sex-workers.
May 14 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.

Thank you for your apology earlier. Now I'm going to criticize your @202. Hopefully respectfully.

You say that you get "steamed" when men say "there's no place for us in feminism". First, it's not my job to perceive Feminism as a movement that has a place for me. If Feminism wants me to perceive it as an movement that has a place for me, it's Feminism's responsibility to make itself an attractive place for people like me. To put this in perspective, if many "women of colour" didn't feel that Feminism had a place for them, you wouldn't be angry at the "women of colour", you'd start thinking about what Feminism was doing wrong. The fact that if I replace [women of colour] with [white men] in that sentence, you blame the men, is a reflection on you, not on men who don't think Feminism has a place for us.

The fact is that Feminism does not owe people like me anything, and, conversely, I don't think we have a meaningful place in it. And those things are both OK. But if you're going to get angry because I don't feel I have a place in a movement whose members regularly use me as a synonym for "Evil" because of my genitals, skin colour, and sexual orientation, you're going to spend a lot of time being angry.

I disagree that Feminism is about equality because my experience of Feminism strongly contradicts that. I'm aware of the definition you have for yourselves. But MRA's also define themselves as being pro-equality, and you (collectively) don't take that at face value: rather most feminists I know seem to view MRA's as similar to Orcs, except with less moral ambiguity. (I had no idea that the acronym "MRA" could be hissed before I heard a feminist pronounce it!) If you're allowed to not accept MRAs' self-definition, why do we have to accept your self-definition when it contradicts our lived experience?

And no, the situation of middle class white women is not remotely analogous to that of "people of colour". There's (lots of!) objective evidence that black people in the US are worse off than white people in the US. Black people have lower incomes than white people, they have lower life expectancies than white people, they have worse educational outcomes than white people, Black men are, per capita, more likely to be imprisoned or shot by police than white men, etc. etc. etc. There may be a demographic variable where US blacks are better off than US whites, but I don't know of it. Whereas with women vs. men the stats are a mixed bag. Better off on some stats, worse off on others.

Incidentally, Ally Fogg, a columnist for the Guardian who has a considerably more sympathetic view of feminism than I do, has a thoughtful essay on why he doesn't identify as a feminist:
May 13 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
@137 NoCuteName:
"[the essay] just tells the readers that all a man needs to do to score some is to behave decently."
"But decent male human beings are able to have as much casual sex as they want"

I only skimmed over the essay, so I don't know whether this is an accurate description of it. But, as far as your quotes go as a description of reality, they're completely untrue. Completely and spectacularly untrue.
May 8 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
Sorry, the above was re 161's comment about the partiality of the British media.
May 8 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
The BBC, the main television network, is funded by the government. I wouldn't count on it to be impartial! - but it will have different biases and priorities than a private sector broadcaster might. Britain also has many privately owned newspapers, and those have a much wider variety of political perspectives than mainstream media in the US or Canada do.