Old Crow
report this user
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.
May 6 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
@DarkHorse: "Men still rate it as important. Or maybe that isn't what billy Joel was singing about when he serenaded his up town girl."

I don't think you listened closely to that song. The narrator has fallen in love with a girl who happens to be an uptown girl, not because she's an uptown girl. To the extent that her money is an issue, it's a problem: he's worried because he knows his competition can and will buy her gifts he can't match.
Apr 29 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
@Lava: I don't know about your ex-husband. But please take it on faith that I actually have Asperger's. Nobody who knows me has trouble believing this.

@Darkhorse: I agree with the things you're saying. I think that, overall, the advantages and disadvantages of men vs. women are roughly balanced. I'd personally much rather get the deal women get than the deal men get, and I personally think that you guys are lucky, but that's for reasons that are specific to my particular situation.

I don't know if I'm one of the guys who complains a lot about not being able to get casual sex, but if I do, please take it as grumbling, not as something that's intended as thought-through, serious commentary.

@EricaP 109: I'm not the guy you asked, but as a long-term single man who'd prefer to be in a good relationship (but also prefers being single to being in a bad relationship), the main reason the women I'm interested in aren't interested in me is that I'm long-term un(der)employed. If I get a good, stable, job, I suspect a long term relationship would follow sometime in the next couple of years.

About "how easy it is for a guy to get a long term relationship with someone who wants to be monogamous" - that's perception bias on women's part. The men women tend to hang out with, not coincidentally, are also the men who are most likely to get long term relationships. Like a previous poster, I know many long-term single men. We tend to hang out together. From a woman's perspective, well, we're not in that perspective.

I once looked at Census results for whether people were in relationships. The chances of a man being in a relationship, according to that particular census (it would have been Canada 1976 or 1981, so a while ago), was 80%. Didn't matter whether he was 25, 45, or 65, it was 80%. On the other hand, the chances that a woman was in a relationship was very strongly correlated with her age. The proportion of women between 25 and 35 who were in relationships was close to 100%. The proportion of 65 year old women who were in relationships was... I forget, but it was much lower than 80%. So very different patterns.
Apr 28 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
@BiDanFan 76: For me, my inability to get casual sex has gone hand in glove with my inability to find romantic relations and not having the option of having children. These things are not coincidental, they are so closely tied together as to be different sides of the same coin. I take your point that it's a mixed blessing, but I also think that it's associated with upsides that you take for granted.
Apr 28 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
@Uggo 64: My experience was somewhat similar to yours, and for several years I concluded that I must be extremely ugly, because no other explanation, as you say, didn't make sense. (Although the "ugly" hypothesis didn't really fit the evidence well either.) But about 10 years ago a friend told me she thought I had Asperger's, and I've found that hypothesis explains my experiences, in romance as in many other things, much better than the hypothesis that I'm ugly.

I don't know about your situation at all, and this suggestion may be obviously wrong. But if you were Aspergery too it would be consistent with your experience as described in your post.
Apr 19 Old Crow commented on Savage Love.
You guys are really doing a lot of assuming about what RINGS' boyfriend thinks. It does not sound like she is saying what she means: it sounds like she is hinting. I am quite capable of missing the broadest hints, and while I am probably extreme in my ability to miss obvious hints, I am reasonably sure I am not the only man who misses what women think are obvious hints. She should ask him, directly, as Dan says.