Comments

404
LW, I wish I knew how to quit you. I am obsessed with this thread, and its potential length, breadth and girth.
405
404 see 397
406
The kind of hate it takes to deny "rocket surgery" is English is mesmerizing. That's today's lesson for me.
407
@ 406 Rocket surgery is properly formed English, syntactically. Unfortunately, it's semantically lacking, to say the least.
408
aardvard, attitude, principessa, ricardo, seeker, you guys are too funny. I quit reading this post at about comment 200 but picked it back up at the end here. Thanks for the laughs.
409
i like rocket surgery

Dog's dog dogs Dog's dogs. theres your syntax and semantics.
410
@ 407 --- Part of the standard Mental Status Exam:

"Do helicopters eat their young?"

----presents a similar disconnect between syntax and semantics....

411
410! werd 408. this thread is going to be my new blog.
412
@ 410 - I'm pretty sure someone here is going to ask you if they do or not.
413
And I can only guess what you're going to blog about, 411.

Thanks 408---I haven't had so much virtual fun since the circus wedding in I,Anon. Kudos in particular to 301 and 302 who made me laugh out loud.

414
Well, do they?
415
I'm not sure if they do 412. In my experience nursing instructors do....
416
@414, yes. Yes, Mike, helicopters do eat their young.
417
@ 415-416 (concerning 410 and 414) - He may not always make much sense, but he's reliable in his own way. We have to give him that.
418
Just checking in after a few days to see if this thread had hit Godwin's Law yet....

Yup.
419
All right Sloggers, who Godwinned in here????

Don't make me come in there!
420
feminazis ahoy
421
I did! But if someone calls herself "Alemana" and holds such drastic "black and white" views, she's kind of inciting it, me thinks (Oh no, I've just blamed the victim! What a horrible person I am!)
422
I had wondered about that Alemana tag too, Ricardo.

Should we ask her if she has a little moustache? Likes leather? Has a failed career as a painter behind her?
423
@ 422 - If we do that, she'll get us to 500 all by herself...
424
@421-423, OMG, I so wasn't going to go there, but I was thinking it. I have to wonder.

But, aardvark, please don't use the term "feminazis". Quoting Rush Limbaugh is an automatic disconnect for me. It's not cute, funny, or original. It's not even thinking. You can do better than that, I've seen it. Go ahead and take the other half of your brain from behind your back.
425
Well, do we want to go to 500? Are there rules on how to achieve that? Like, can I start posting the O.E.D, entry by entry.

Or did I break the rules by asking? (I would be happy to stick with 400, but somebody WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS absolutely SPOILED that for the rest of us, because he just HAD to go and GODWIN all over the place......)
426
Well, where's you-know-who? She would easily get us to 500 by making two or three posts in one go. Personally, I think porn would be a good conversation starter here.
427
425 name names honey. lets go out on a date tonight and thatll get it well over 600 by midnight
428
@ 424 - Actually, I'm the first one who used that term in this thread, so don't blame aardvark (he's just a copycat!). But in my defense, I was quoting another site where the author, a woman, was saying "at the risk of being called a penis-bashing dog-faced psycho feminazi...", which seemed to apply particularly well here.

I had no idea Rush Limbaugh had coined the term feminazi. I stopped listening to him... the first time I heard him, really. After about 12 seconds.

I'm terribly sorry. Won't do it again.
429
@ 426 - Yeah, let's talk about female-degrading S&M porn.
430
getting quiet in here. last people at the party. everyone else passed out or went home. 2 girls, 2 guys left. its when the fat girl goes home with the annoying perv. ricardo i guess you're going with the princess, ill take the cocksucker
431
429----You into that Ricardo?

You know, Ricardo--you and I have something in common. We've never tried to have sex with a woman. I wonder what it's like.....
432
@ 430 You can take them both, I'll find myself a gayer thread to cruise. The night is still young!
433
Just a goddam minute, Ricardo---we were enjoying your company! Should we pick a different kind of porn? I'm kind of fond of your choice at 429, but hey!, I'm willing to watch whatever you want to watch.

And as for you, aardvark---why is it (some) men think "cocksucker" is such a handy epithet? One would think a cocksucker was a good thing---why do you use it as a put-down?
434
@ 431 - No, just trying to jump-start the conversation. Figured you-know-who would want to voice her opinion on the subject. I prefer actual sex to porn, anyway.

And as far as sex with women goes, I don't actually wonder what it's like. I've had plenty of descriptions from straight guys who insist on talking about their sex life even when they know you're gay (the same guys who go pale and make for the toilet when you dare mention - not even describe - anything related to gay sex). That's pretty much the only time they treat gays as "just one of the guys", when they want to brag.

Then again, having oftentimes been surrounded by groups of girls (sisters, friends, colleagues) who considered me "just one of the girls" in matters of sex, I also extensively got the female viewpoint on heterosexual sex.

Could probably write a book on it, really.

So you could say my curiosity on the matter has been thoroughly satisfied.
435
@433 it is a term of endearment. why do you think id be putting you down? bitches, hos and cocksuckers, all things i love.

@434 i live with a lesbian couple. i treat them as one of the guys when talking about ladies. they dont mind too much. but i wouldnt talk to a gay dude about women. duh. meatheads.
436
@ 433 - Re: cocksucker - Men are not supposed to show appreciation, love, affection, because they'll look weak. How many men, straight or gay, say the most horrible things about their spouse (I had a friend whose BF called her "ugly"), then give the bullshit excuse that it's their way to show affection? Too many men I know, anyway.

So using "cocksucker" as a demeaning term is really about showing that you REALLY appreciate the cocksucking, but need to feel like you're not under the cocksucker's spell, so to speak. When in fact you are.
437
Why is anyone confused about the perfectly common phrase "it's not rocket surgery"? It's a slang expression meaning "it's not that difficult." It's derived from combining "rocket science" and "brain surgery," which are two complex and difficult fields of human activity. It's perfectly correct English, with completely clear semantics and syntax, though it is colloquial and humorous.
438
@ 435 - Some people - a LOT of people - can't actually get it into their head that if you're mostly like them (in this instance: a male), you can still have different tastes.
439
Oh, Ricardo, thanks. That makes perfect sense. I can't tell you how long I'd puzzled over that one.

Men slay me---and they think women are hard to figure out. Hmmm.
440
@ 437 - What makes it humorous is precisely the fact that it is NOT semantically valid. i.e. you can't perform surgery on a rocket since it's not an animal (or a part of one).

Trust me, I'm a linguist.

Before someone "clever" decides to go all pedantic on me: you can, of course, perform surgery WHILE YOU ARE ON a rocket... but it's not very hygienic. But the rocket cannot be the beneficiary of the surgery, merely its location. Hence the humor of this absurd expression. (absurd in the good sense, as in the works of Eugene Ionesco, Boris Vian, etc.)
441
Black Rose ---it was a new one on me...I had been really perplexed by Mike Leung: his posts were so screwy and so all over the map, and his English was so strange---almost like he was using Babblefish to translate. So, when I saw "rocket surgery," I pounced on it. On the other hand, the rest of that post was non-sensical also. Ricardo, what was your diagnosis of our Mike and his linguistic constructions?

(I kind of liked it that he said I wasn't a decent person---I try hard to project my fundamentally indecent nature in my posts....)
442
438---Actually, Ricardo, I think you're being too kind here. My sense is that a lot of straight men will tell gay men about women in order to keep their own sub rosa homosexual panic in check.
443
Holy shit...I leave the board for a day and look what happens!!!

Looks like I've got some replying to do! I apologize in advance if I miss anyone's question.

But, I should disclose now, even though I guess it's going to disappoint you all: I really don't have a problem with porn. Doesn't really do much for me, but I believe consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as no one is hurt and no one who's not into it is forced to be involved or watch. If that includes having sex on camera for money (or pro bono*, for that matter), it's all fine by me. As a wise man once said, whatever lifts your luggage!

I do kinda wish mainstream porn focused more on making both parties happy (and not just the girl cartoonishly getting off on whatever the guy does), but hey, I also wish supermodels didn't look like they were dying, and that's a long way off too...

*Inspiration: from now on, can we all call amateur porn "pro boner"? Brilliant? I think so...
444
Addendum: upon further reflection, when I said "both parties," I should have said "both or all parties."
445
@ 441 - Either he's using a drug I don't know (and would like to try, as I've stated), or he thinks a lot faster than he can type. I can't say that English isn't his first language, but I can't say that it is. The mental confusion seems to equal the linguistic one.

There are signs that he knows English quite well, but writes like he speaks : "The kind of hate (that) it takes to deny (that) "rocket surgery" is English is mesmerizing. That's today's lesson for me." He drops the relative pronoun, which non-native speakers have a hard time learning to do, but in writing, it would be more common to drop it only once, for the sake of clarity: "The kind of hate it takes to deny that "rocket surgery" is English is mesmerizing". Then again, would a native speaker use "mesmerizing" here? (You tell me, I'm not a native speaker).

He also masters the "dummy do", which is notoriously difficult for NNS. : "Well, do they?" (you have no idea how hard this is for so many NNS, as it's pretty characteristic of English and English only.)

On the other hand, he has a hard time with number: "civil rights doesn't get a midlife crisis".

But you know what? Most native English speakers couldn't write a proper English sentence if their life depended on it. When I was studying English grammar as part of a TESL course at university, the top 10 students in the class were... the 10 NNS. Native speakers came up with sentences like "animals have tails so that they can build things like beavers." I kid you not. Beavers, I learned, are things, not animals. (The themes of the exercises were always voluntarily stupid so we'd focus on grammar instead of meaning.)

My conclusion: he has spent too much time on threads all of his life, he favours (dubious) metaphors over syntax, thinking that he'll have more impact that way, and he doesn't bother re-reading his posts, which often sound more knee-jerk than thought-out. He's probably a native or near-native speaker, but a young one. A true child of the Internet.
446
oh shit
447
Doesn't disappoint me at all 443 that you don't have a problem with porn. I don't either. I think it's a mistake to think it's anything but a representation of fantasy, specifically the fantasy of the viewer who selected it.
448
Oh stop bitching 446, if it were up to YOUR efforts we'd NEVER get to 500!
449
445---Well, the linguistic analysis is helpful to me, because it helps point out the mental confusions----the use of mesmerizing was really odd. And the way that this presumably male persona turned on me for supporting the patriarchy, using language that I associate only with Dworkinists, I couldn't figure out at all. And then there was that famous sentence: "You can do nothing about this, but you should only do so knowingly."

I also thought the sentiments expressed were so variable as to be the products of more than one poster, possibly starting with the original Mike, and then one or more sock puppets.

Or maybe it was all aardvark, trying to run up the count, and to get on my good side so maybe I'd give him some? Where did you go, my little anteater?
450
@ 442 - Maybe, but that's no more prevalent than girls who can't accept it if I say that for me, although I can appreciate their esthetic beauty, women have the same power of sexual attraction as a piece of furniture. They just can't believe that there's not a single part of me that's sensitive to their charms. Is it ego or "homophobia-light" ? I don't really care, but I do find it amusing. And I don't say that to demean them, it's just how I feel: I have no sexual attraction for women whatsoever. Period. I've always had a lot of women in my life, but for a million other reasons than sex.

Guys being guys, I'll stick with my theory about bragging. Their telling me about their conquests does reveal that they can't believe I am really different, but that's because they were raised to think that they are normal, and so everyone in their group should like the same things they do. It has more with a lack of imagination than with homosexual panic. And in the end, the need to show off is much more widespread among males (100%) than homophobia, in my experience.
451
@ 449 - "You can do nothing about this, but you should only do so knowingly" - You should only choose to do nothing about it knowingly. It sounds like he's deliberately trying to look cleverer/cooler than he is by using shortcuts to make us wonder what he means.

And remember, the Internet is a brilliant tool to find some information very fast about something that someone else mentioned (like Dworkin), then applying it to what you're saying to try to show off (see my post @ 450). It doesn't mean you've analysed it. All of his comments (that I've read) have a rather superficial, cut-and-paste feel.

OK, time to go now. Have a nice weekend everyone.
452
I would like to point out that while can't perform surgery on a rocket you can perform surgery with a rocket. The downside is that the patient pretty much always dies.
453
@Dianessa #294: Yes, I definitely think she should tell her friend. A big part of it is what #1 wrote, and several others after her, that Dan's advice of don't-say-anything-because-no-one-will-believe-you-anyway is incredibly fucked up, and has a lot to with why sexual abuse victims of any degree are so afraid of coming forward.

A bigger deal for me, though, is the fact that she has some legitimate reason to fear this guy won't respect the new girl's boundaries (since he violated hers), so she has an ethical obligation to alert the friend in case he might do the same thing to her. I could of course forgive her if she doesn't have the courage to, but it's pretty clear that it would be the right thing to do and in the friend's best interest as well.

Purely in the interest of strategy, I think telling her starting with... "This happened and it made me very uncomfortable and afraid" and then telling the details, will probably be more effective. I really wish the girl wouldn't shut down at the sound of the word "molested" (or "assaulted"), but it's probably best to build the case up to that.
454
@Rophuine, #319:

Here is where you're going wrong--you're thinking of Dan over all the letter-writers NOT the political causes. You see, neither I nor Dan have a problem with a guy who's like "Why can't I get my girlfriend to wear a Winnie-The-Pooh costume and fellate me while I shit and then rub it in her hair?" Yeah, the guy's stupid, but he's not trying to hurt anyone. You're averaging Dan over a wide variety of positions (I mean intellectual positions on political/social issues, just to clarify!). HOWEVER, each and every time someone says or does something terrible: tries to deny gays the right to marry, fires a schoolteacher for their private sex life, hides their prom from a young lesbian, etc., he "flies off the handle" (in the best possible way). You see, each and every one of the people I've sparred with are advocating REALLY FUCKED UP viewpoints about sex and consent. I wish they were universally recognized as such, but think of this--in most of the country, the viewpoints that we Savage Love readers universally revile and go Ra-Ra-Ra!! when Dan trashes them, are considered perfectly acceptable and reasonable.

Similarly, the polite-homophobic-Christian who wrote in is totally unaware of what an asshole she is, and Dan went off on her anyway. As for "learn to read" in #179, well, for one thing that's not particularly strong language for a comment section. But to get at the meat of the matter, I thought you were referring to my comment in #158, because what you said makes no sense in regards to either #155 OR #156. #158 was the only one that even mentioned rape and club groping in the same post, and the other two were PRO groping anyway. Also, just so you know, and since you asked again, saying "if that's rape, then I've been raped lots of times" is an incredibly asshole thing to say. I have since realized you didn't mean it that way, so I backed off, but let me unpack it for you:

1) There is a very common misperception that feminists love to "cry rape" (another phrase you used earlier, which will earn you the asshole treatment *very* quickly!), and lots of trolls on feminist blogs hear women complaining about street harassment or groping, and say "oh, there the feminists go, crying 'RAAAYYYPE' again! Those feminazis will call just anything rape!" Which is nonsense--they called street harassment and groping "street harassment" and "groping." (n.b.: this also comes from a willful misinterpretation of the phrase "Rape Culture," which refers to a pattern of seemingly mundane behaviors & beliefs in society, which are NOT rape themselves, but put women in a place where they are fearful of rape and/or strengthen the social attitudes that lead to women being raped.)

2) The lazy comparing of guys getting touched by girls to girls being assaulted ignores some really basic stuff about how likely a girl is to fear for her safety, not to mention just HOW OFTEN we have to deal with it. Just the sheer frequency can make it really fucking annoying! A lot of this is cultural, of course--I'm not saying real girls can't be predatory creeps, just that society doesn't give you such a reason to fear them. I go into the cultural reasons more in post #272.

Another thing, the dudes you describe are basically exactly what Thomas McAulay Millar calls the "social license to operate." More here:

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/200…

The short version is that something like only 6% of guys actually rape people (I'm talking about rape, because I have no idea where to find data on guys who sleazily feel up their exes!). This is tiny compared to the number who will voice pro-rape attitudes, so why do these guys do it? Well, they're socialized to do so, but, like you describe, they have the basic human decency that prevents them. The big problem with these guys, and why they do deserve a pretty stern talking-to, is they are basically the ones that encourage the small number of real rapists and tell them it's okay. They wouldn't do it themselves, so they're like the guy much earlier who called the bf "icky" but "normal." I think they're kind of invested in the idea that they, as men, have the right to do what they want with women, even though they themselves have some basic empathy that holds them back. They're the ones who are still friends with the rapist even after there have been accusations made. Also, they shame victims into silence: maybe without meaning to, but if they endorse these beliefs, in comment sections, on juries it makes it really difficult for women to come forward and get justice. So, even though they're not directly hurting anyone by raping them, they are enabling damage, which is especially concerning because the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by repeat offenders. So, when a guy would never rape someone themselves, but excuses a suspected rapist, he plays a small part in making it much more likely to happen again.

Another thing is, and this is just a theory, I think these guys have a lot to do with the borderline-predatory behavior. The guy who will endorse the victim-blaming attitudes that it's okay to get with someone as long as they don't say no might never actually get someone drunk, but they may do some more minor things--grind up on a girl at a club, take purposeful advantage of "ambiguity," feel up a colleague on the subway, which aren't rape, but they certainly are shitty for women to deal with nonetheless.
455
Another thing, for everyone saying "She just had to say no" and "He had no KNOWLEDGE that she wasn't consenting," etc., here is an absolutely fantastic article about why that's all bullshit:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs…

Read The Whole Thing. But, as a teaser: it shows transcripts from interviews from a bunch of young men who talk about how in their own romantic lives women communicate disinterest in sex to them, and even more interestingly, ALL the young men are very shy and incapable of directly saying "no" THEMSELVES!!! But, when you ask about a hypothetical rape situation, all of a sudden their beliefs COMPLETELY change, and not only do they insist the girl say "no," they're describing situations where "no" isn't enough!
456
Here's the thing - he sounds like a creep, but I also know that when I am in a sexual relationship with a guy, I welcome erection-rubbing and between-the-legs touching. How did he have access to you when he thought you were asleep? Were you in bed together?

It's difficult to create physical boundaries with someone with whom you had a long-term (SIX YEAR) sexual relationship. How soon after the breakup was this? I don't know how molesty this is, as opposed to a case of misread signals.
457
@pastaefagoli #323:

Yes, it IS how the world really works. Read the link above to see how people REALLY ARE reluctant to say "no." Also, people have erotic acts that are not quite sex ALL THE TIME, and mostly people understand each other that there are boundaries and it doesn't automatically lead to sex. In the '50s they called it "heavy petting." Here are a few examples of very sexually explicit activity NOT directly leading to sex, or only doing so later when the desire moved completely to that point:

"At the flattering and fair persuasions of Mannox being but a young girl I suffered him at sundry times to handle and touch the secret parts of my body which neither became me with honesty to permit nor him to require"

"Francis Dereham by many persuasions procured me to his vicious purpose and obtained first to lie upon my bed with his doublet and hose and after within the bed and finally he lay with me naked and used me in such sort as a man doth his wife many and sundry times but how often I know not."


Care to guess who this is? Catherine Howard (Henry VIII's fifth wife), confessing her affairs as an adolescent in the 1530s. Dude. The 15-fucking-30s. So, I can safely say that FOR CENTURIES people have engaged in really, really erotic activities without actually intending to have sex. And you say people don't interact in the way I describe?

Another thing, I MYSELF interact in the way I describe, and it works just damn fine, thank you very much. It works because I've been lucky enough NOT TO BE TARGETED BY A RAPIST, not because "biology is biology" and once things get to a certain point there's no stopping them (cough...bullshit...cough).

I've made out with a variety of guys all alone, in their houses or hotel rooms, taking off various articles of clothing, and have had encounters that have run the full range from just-kissing to doing everything-short-of-sex, depending on the mood and how I felt about the guy. None of these guys actually thought any of this would *automatically* lead to sex, and none of them seemed particularly surprised that there were feel-things-out encounters that may have led the way to sex ON LATER OCCASIONS. I'm pretty sure if I was the only woman in the world who did this, someone would have told me by now. And another thing, none of these guys raped me. Not because I was "careful" or "didn't put myself in that situation"--I REALLY ENJOYED THOSE SITUATIONS, and I have a right to enjoy them--they weren't rapists.

I am not holding on to the identity of a victim--YOU ARE endorsing beliefs that make us victims all the time. What kind of self-defeatist, passive nonsense is it to say "people say and do things to each other that are unwelcome or make them uncomfortable all the time"?! Talk about being a helpless victim! No, I'm saying THIS GUY WAS BEING A FUCKING DOUCHE TO ME AND I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO POINT THAT OUT AND ASSERT THAT IT IS NOT OKAY AND NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS SHIT. I had very rational reasons for not picking a fight with him about it at the time, but that doesn't mean I was a "victim" about it. No, I told people about it (and I later read him the riot act about it!), asked for advice and support. You know what else? Because my friends are decent people, none of them EVER asked why I was in "that situation" or if I had led him on.
458
Also to pastaefagoli: you know that whole thing about "if she goes over to his house of course he's expecting sex," and "she should be clearer about her boundaries"?

You know what, once I was on a first dinner-date with a guy (we'd had coffee-dates and a secluded picnic with a good deal of making out), and he invited me back to his house to watch a movie. I wasn't sure if it was just that or more than I wanted, so I said (like you people are always telling us girls to do!) "I'd love to, as long as there isn't anything else implied." You know what? He got pretty upset with me. He acted like I was being way too direct, and why-would-I-think-that-from-him, and wasn't even reassured when I said I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. When there was a lull in the conversation five minutes later he brought it up AGAIN and said "I still can't believe you said that."

And then people have the nerve to say "Why don't women just be clear about their limits?" Yeah. Fucking try it and see how you're treated. I can't tell you how many times I tried to assert limits with various people and got no end of mockery, criticism, and complaining.

(End note to that story--we did end up going to his place to see a movie, and then we made out a lot, but didn't have sex, and then he took me home. So, like I said above, it IS perfectly possible to respect someone's limits!)
459
Another thing to add to all the people who say...but why were they sleeping together?!?

Consider this: I shared a hotel room with Subway Guy LOTS, probably like at least 20 times. We did a lot of traveling for a volunteer organization that had a very limited budget. But, for all that being-asleep-near-each-other, nothing sexual EVER happened. He said something the first time kind of wistfully/reproachfully about "YOU have made it clear that nothing's going to happen" (btw, my being so clear NEVER involved a single word about it!) and I just thought laaaaame but wasn't threatened, but he was perfectly trustworthy and platonic all the time.

Now, I didn't feel comfortable sharing a bed with him (just because I'm a more private person than that generally), so since I was 18 and he was 37 he was the one to get the bed and I always got the floor or the rollaway cot if it was a single room. Now, what if once I decided I wanted to sleep in a real bed (assuming he was comfortable with it too) without shelling out money I didn't have for my own room? Would that be an invitation to be assaulted in my sleep? Or maybe women deserve to decide what they personally are comfortable with, and not be deemed fair-game to assault based on society's arbitrary standards?!

As a side note, one time I finally said, "You know, you've gotten the bed every time we've travelled for four years. This time it's your turn to sleep on the floor." He complained to me about how sore he was for DAYS. Dick.
460
@325, a skeptic and a cynic:

I notice that while you pay lip service to "doesn't excuse inappropriate behavior," You're pretty damn passive about it. It's almost like it makes it less of an issue for you, and you're not as concerned.

Just from my own experience, Subway Guy was 37-42 in the time I worked with him, while all the guys in their 20s that I made out and/or slept with never seemed to have a problem with understanding these things.

Age *might* be an issue (although at least in some places, young men are more likely to be brought up with egalitarian values nowadays), and in that case, instead of being all, "Oh, well..." shouldn't we instead say: "Young people need to be taught to treat each other right! All this abstinence-only bullshit is just letting kids perpetuate myths about pregnancy, STDs, and consent, and young people deserve to be educated openly and honestly to protect themselves and their partners in all aspects of healthy sexuality."
461
@460 That is because unlike you, I can not determine, from what was actually written, whether anything inapproriate did in fact occur. I need a lot more information, context, history, and background. She doesn't say and I don't know whether the actions she says she finds offensive were typical and acceptable behavior during the course of the six year relationship. She talks about remaining friends, was that FWB, who knows?

I would never use molestation to describe the interactions between legaly competent adults. I reserve that exclusively for the interaction between predatory adults and minors or incompetent adults. About which I am far from passive. No means no, but she didn't say no, just displayed passive indifference. That led me to wonder whether she was too young and/or inexperienced at the time to know what was inappropriate behavior. Many people regret their passivity only after the fact.
462
When I come home from work, first thing I do is kiss my wife. Without asking first. Sometimes, if the kids aren't in the room at the time, I even squeeze her ass. Without asking first. So, apparently what I've been doing is molesting her -- daily, hell, sometimes several times a day -- for the past 21 years? Sexual battery, because I failed to ask before touching?

Yes, I know, you've already been through the arguments about how that sort of behavior is reasonable within a well established sexual relationship. Problem is, you all seem to like illustrating your examples with incidents involving random strangers on a train. This situation is a hell of a lot closer to a well established sexual relationship than it is to a random stranger scenario.

What I see here is a situation where a well-established sexual relationship -- six years, right? -- was terminated abruptly, but very fuzzily. To paraphrase: "I feel so guilty for cheating on you, I have to break up with you. But let's still be friends, okay? We can still go dance together in the thick of the dance crush? We can still sleep in the same bed?"

What he was doing was continuing with behaviors that would have been appropriate within their previous well-established relationship. I would be willing to bet that "that awkward period" was the first month or so. He probably was thinking that maybe she was getting over being wracked with guilt over cheating on him (or maybe, if he was the one who dumped her, he was getting over being cheated on, seeing how cordial she wanted to keep everything) and thinking maybe she was receptive to picking up where they left off. (Yes, people do this all the time.) Eventually, however, he seemed to have gotten the message that he was no longer welcome -- despite her never actually TELLING HIM -- and he STOPPED of his own accord.

That's mighty thin gruel on which to justify labeling him a deviant and a threat to every girl he meets.

Only two years later, when he has an opportunity to have a relationship with a friend of hers, does she consider starting a whispering campaign to paste him with the label "molester." Way to ruin his life. Great way to also short-circuit any angry talk about your cheating coming out and possibly affecting your friendship with this other girl, by preemptively morphing the guy you cheated on into the monster in the situation.
463
@ aardvark 328 & 346

You know what's REALLY fucking tiresome? Guys who brag about **wanted** sexual contact from women and mockingly use rape terminology to demean women who've had to put up with very unwanted and coercive actions from men.

Yeah, this girl made a guess as to what would be okay with you...AND IT WAS OKAY WITH YOU. This does not fit the definition of "unwanted" sexual contact **at all** so please don't insult women by implying it is. Now, the girl didn't seem to know you very well (as I gather from your writing) so she may have been somewhat irresponsible in not knowing for sure what you wanted. Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of the men-must-always-want-sex belief, and women should be taught to care about their partners' desires too. If you'd woken up to her rough-riding your dick, or pegging your ass, you might not have been as enthused. Or, what if you woke up to one of your *guy* friends wanking you off? (assuming you're not bi, of course)

So, just to be safe, she should have "tested the waters" a bit with whispering seductively to you went to sleep something along the lines of "hey stud, if you're lucky you might get some hot action to wake you up tomorrow..." if you respond eagerly (as I imagine you would), she has a go-ahead. Plus, in the meantime you get some fodder for your wet dreams--everyone's happy! If you know each other & your desires well enough, you're free to operate on whatever level of implied consent works for BOTH of you (that's both of you, mind you, not only your opinion of what counts as implied consent).

Or, if you're really into getting awoken with a handjob, why not tell the girl you're with? In the ethical sense, you'll be giving consent, and in the practical sense, you'll likely get more, um, morning pick-me-ups, than you would if you just waited around for a girl to think of it on her own. Here's what that totally-repressed anti-sex feminazi Dan Savage said about those who wanted to get some sexual satisfaction while asleep:

2. Your kink, FIP, barely moves the needle on my kink-o-meter. If you're having a hard time communicating your interest in fondled-while-asleep sex, just memorize this: "I enjoy getting fondled up while sleeping."
464
A skeptic and a cynic: that's because you and your wife already know FOR SURE that kissing her is okay with her. See post #189. We've been over this already.

Here's a really big fucking clue that what he did was not typical: SHE'S REALLY UPSET AND WRITING IN FOR ADVICE ABOUT IT. I'll let you in on a little secret--you don't get some wild vindictive thrill in writing a letter to Dan Savage that probably has about a 1% chance of being published, and even then your ex-bf will be anonymous, and the majority of the commenters will victim-blame you for everything you did anyway (and it's NOT because it's unclear--people have written in describing being RAPED, and Dan affirmed in no uncertain terms they were raped...a girl who said no over and over again, as many times as she could, and pulled her pants back up every time her ex pulled them down, and then was so browbeaten she gave up. There were SIX HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR comments debating whether it was "really" rape. Again THERE IS NO SUCH THING as "unclear." People who dislike women, or who are obsessed with insisting that rape doesn't exist in real-life situations, will jump on ANYTHING to say it's unclear.)

WTF? She was too young to know what was inappropriate? Does that somehow make it okay??? Can we al just rape 3-year-olds then?! Look, LOTS of people are too shocked to do anything in the moment. Lots of people who have even been victims of violent rape take YEARS to process what happened to them.

And if the fact she was "passive" is what makes you think she's young, read posts #157, 158, 170, and 195 again. Reread them over and over and fucking over. Sometimes people don't know what to do when put in a difficult situation. It's part of being human.

This is why the standard MUST BE "Yes Means Yes." Getting off on someone displaying "passive indifference" IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Why would anyone think it was? Why would anyone confuse passive indifference for consent?
465
shit, I got half of avast confused with a skeptic and a cynic. Sorry!
466
Okay, for the rest of a skeptic and a cynic: I think she's using "molested" because he was creepy and pervy and going after her when she was helpless. It's a perfectly fair term to use, and it's also THE CORRECT DEFINITION ACCORDING TO THE DICTIONARY.

You're saying I-find-this-chick-less-credible-not-because-I-can-think-of-anything-valid-to-challenge-her-argument-but-I-still-don't-want-to-admit-she-has-a-point-about-being-touched-non-consensually-so-I'll-discredit-her-because-she-used-a-word-correctly-actually-but-differently-than-I-use-it.

Dude. This is bullshit.
467
avast (and I know who you are this time!), first: learn to read. The story I shared did NOT involve some random stranger on a train. HE WAS A VERY CLOSE AND TRUSTED FRIEND, and he took advantage of me when I was vulnerable.

Next, what the fucking fuck do you mean "this situation is closer to an established relationship." Read that sentence over and over and then please metaphorically blow your brains out. "Is closer to"? Is there some magical line that an interaction between two people crosses when all of a sudden consent functions the same as in a relationship? Do all relationships have the same rules for consent? Shall we call in a tribunal to rule for each pair of people (who may or may not be a "couple") if the situation between them justifies one touching the other WHO DOES NOT WANT TO BE TOUCHED? Who decides what is close enough to a relationship to justify explicit contact? Here's a radical idea: SHE gets to decide if he can touch her. Because it's HER FUCKING BODY and she as a right to have it treated the way SHE wants. Furthermore, she is an individual, and what she wants may not be the same as what you want or I want or anyone else wants.

A final thing: I absolutely promise to you......holding this creep accountable for molesting his girlfriend will in no way stop you from kissing your wife. Really. It's okay. I promise. (I'm taking a flying leap here and assuming your relationship is fairly functional and that your wife wants to be kissed.) Your wife IS consenting to kiss you. When you kiss your wife, you're not taking advantage of "mixed signals," you know FOR SURE. You've gotten to the point where you are ABSOLUTELY SURE without words that the contact you share is desired by both of you (again, for the love of humanity, I'm hoping you are actually reading those signals correctly and not taking her for granted--that's not a comment on your marriage, but some bad husbands do). You don't have to let a bunch of girls get abused by selfish, intimidating pricks so that you can kiss your wife. Your wife will kiss you anyway.
468
avast, I forgot to click "More."

It doesn't matter what he thinks might be the situation that he might be reading might imply that she might be into doing something. It is HIS responsibility to know FOR SURE that sexual touching is okay BEFORE HE TOUCHES HER. If he misreads the signals IT IS HIS FAULT FOR BEING NEGLIGENT. If she were interested in touching him sexually, she would have to know FOR SURE that it was okay with him.

His "best guess"? That's not good enough! Letting guys get by on what some might claim is a "best guess" is what lets everybody from pathetic creeps to sick monsters prey after vulnerable people and look for opportunistic situations where they can exploit people and then count on people like you who will go to ridiculous lengths to try to find what the justifying "gray area" was.

If there is a "gray area" THAT MEANS YOU CANNOT INITIATE SEXUAL TOUCHING. All systems must be "go" before you do something, anything, to someone else's body. If a situation is "gray" make it a clear yes BEFORE you do anything that could really hurt somebody.

Aaaaaand another thing: why do you think this would HELP with the cheating history? She wrote this letter SPECIFICALLY because she is afraid the cheating means she won't be believed (just like you're not believing her). This won't short-circuit any cheating talk (which seems to be public knowledge anyway!): if she's brave and does the right thing warning the other girl, she's setting herself up for A LOT of vitriol about her past actions (which were wrong, absolutely, but in no way mitigating of what he did). She was afraid to confront him at the time because of the cheating--which if you think about for a minute, you can understand, right? She was feeling guilty, if she asserted herself about his inappropriate touching she was afraid she was going to get all kinds of grief about her cheating on him, and she was in a fragile state and couldn't handle it at that time.
469
Seeker in 212 brings up a good point. Feminists stopped insisting that lesbianism was a righteous political choice when they learned that it meant, by definition, no men to do the approaching. They stopped shaving their heads and spurning soap when they realized that men won't approach ugly women or privilege their opinions above anybody else's. And they gave up their crusades against BDSM and porn when they found out how instrumental those could be to a good, deep dicking.

So guys, when you find out that a woman is a feminist, recognize that she's likely to pull this "I changed my mind after the fact so it's retroactive molestation" shit. Any bets on how long they'll hold out if that happened?
470
Catherine effing Howard?

Alemana, you do know that the testimony in question came from a period when she was trying to save her neck from the block, right? If she had said the truth, which was (in the modern vernacular) "hey, I was horny and I fancied those lads and it was fun" [which fits with pretty much all of the other evidence about that doomed woman] then she would have been pretty much killed on the spot.

She said those things to try and save her life, to present herself as a shamed victim of others rather than a participant in her own sexuality as to deflect the wrath of the aged, evil, twisted, oozing-sored, rage-filled sack of jealousy and entitlement that she was married to. Catherine Howard was what we'd call a party girl: she liked men, she liked sex, she liked being fancied and she hated restrictions on those activities, even from an early age. (You might want to read a biography which details gleeful efforts of her and the other girls living with her in her teens to escape their guardians gimlet eye to have it off with boys in their quarters.) She was a fun time, by all accounts, and she deserved to live a long and libidinous life. Instead, she was killed because her sexuality was, at law at the time, treason to the king, her husband (and they threw in a disturbing retroactivity to it, too ... she was also being charged with sexual acts done before she even met Henry as if they were post-marital adultery). The fact that she fluttered the fan at the end to try and save from having her head chopped off is not evidence that she was molested and couldn't say no, it's evidence that she was rightly terrified but retained enough wit to say those things most likely to deflect her husband's murderous rage. She knew the game, but, sadly, her husband was both sore loser and referee.
471
Alemana, I think that one of the reasons that you're driving so many people nuts -- including me, now -- is that you are equating "I doubt this story" or "there are grey zones" with "you are supporting the rape culture". That drives people like me crazy: I recognize the rape culture; I recognize the thousands of subtle ways that women are put down and both psychologically and physically abused, I recognize that the chances of an accusation being false are tiny. But to say that in recognizing these things I'm magically prevented from using my judgment, from recognizing areas of uncertainty, or from realizing that some women, like the rest of us talking apes, can on the odd occasion tell a story that isn't true, is just absolutist nonsense.
472
And it drives *me* fucking nuts that she thinks she is entitled to use personal insults if someone disagrees with her. This is actually a form of violence.

As for this BS about how it doesn't matter if it's a stranger or a person you've slept with for SIX years - this is what is really absolutist. Human beings are not fucking math equations, and it does fucking matter who the person coming onto you is: a total stranger, a person you met an hour ago on a bus, your boss, your relative, your colleague, you best childhood friend, your partner, your ex-partner, etc. etc. If it's really all the same to some people here, for most of us sane human beings the reactions would vary greatly in all these cases, and pretending like it doesn't matter is quite stupid.
473
Alemana

If you can't keep your posters straight, don't post.

You keep on making these accusations and over the top statements based on extremely limited information.

The folowing is a general statement and not case specific.

All cheaters lie, she is a cheater, therefore she lies. Simple logic. As she implies, none of her "friends" would believe her if she went public. That really does say something about her credibility with them.

I take no position on her accusations. As I have repeatedly stated, there is not enough information to make a judgment. You, however, take her statements as gospel truth. You really need to see Roshomon.
474
473, I've been thinking of Rashomon this entire thread.

Also, nobody really has highlighted this, but why does the LW talk about going public? If she really needs to warn this girl, why not just approach her privately? Is she so radioactive in this circle that she is being shunned?
475
Seeker @ 470, Catherine Howard is an excellent example of why it's OK to question. Alemana, no offense or anything, but the Tudor period is a special interest of mine, and Seeker is 100% correct.

I would point out, Seeker, that the point of trying her for *premarital* acts was that as the bride of Henry VIII she had denied any prior sexual experience---a matter of supreme importance, since it affected the succession. You see the same pattern in the Hawaiian royalty, except that instead of demanding virginity from those marrying the king, they simply sequester the bride for one year before the wedding.

There was a letter in Dear Prudence a few months ago where an adult woman was writing in about her guilt over lying about molestation during her childhood as a way to extricate herself from a miserable home situation. Anybody see it?

Being skeptical is not necessarily a bad thing.

(that oughta put us over 500, easy)
476
Seeker & attitude deviant,

You seem to have misunderstood my comments about Catherine Howard. I in no way implied she was molested. At all. (Frankly, I don't think she does, either...a lot of the description I read as the typical man-takes-woman frame of the time.)

I used her as an example of people engaging in erotic behavior to show that a given situation leads to different levels of intimacy, depending on all sorts of factors, so it is totally insane for people to think, "Oh, being in this situation definitely shows you want sex," or "Any reasonable person would assume consent to sex at that point," or "You shouldn't put yourself in sexually explicit situations if you don't want sex--that's just how the world works" or "Feminists are encouraging women to be unclear and put themselves in gray areas." Guess what? People don't need feminists to encourage a full spectrum of sex play. The world has been working that way FOR CENTURIES. We're just saying that if a party tries to take advantage of an erotic situation (which, again, people get into ALL THE TIME without having sex), they should be held accountable.
477
A skeptic and a cynic--oh, you're going to doubt a woman's assertion she's been assaulted based on her sexual history? That's like the oldest misogynistic trope in the book!

As Dan says, a spectacularly high percentage of people cheat in relationships. That does not mean they are pathological liars in all other aspects of their lives. And it means they still have a right to sexual autonomy.

See my comment to Michelle in #263--these are people in an advice column, and like any advice column we can only go on what they tell us (and we'll never actually meet them, so there's no reason to be sure we have every exact detail on their sex life), and all we can say is whether or not the situation AS DESCRIBED is okay or not. To say, "oh, bit it might have happened differently" is just an infantile evasion, and gives cover to those who straight up say that his actions were acceptable. Also, all the "more information" people need is nothing that would actually make it okay for him to do what he did.
478
puddles, btw, you've completely failed to address my points in #249 and #256.

And, what you're failing to understand is that this discussion is about UNWANTED sexual contact. If it's unwanted, it doesn't matter who that person is, they have no right to touch you. Period. And, "she didn't say no" is insufficient to claim it was wanted or assume he has the right to do what he wants to her body. He has to obtain *clear* permission (and the only way to be absolutely clear is verbal--if he "misreads" anything else he's responsible).

The fact that *some* people might like to be touched by an ex is no excuse for this douchebag to touch her WHEN SHE DOESN'T WANT IT. All that matters is that SHE wants it, because it's HER body. He isn't entitled to take some hypothetical scenario and apply it to her to justify his actions. He needs to know if she, as an individual, is interested in that particular sexual contact at that time.
479
@seeker 471: but, saying "there are gray zones" IS supporting rape culture. You see, every single time someone is raped or assaulted in a lesser way, people compulsively look for the "gray zone" that makes it okay. Of course there are gray zones in how people interact with each other. The thing is that a gray zone must be converted to POSITIVE, ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT before anything goes on. In some stable relationships, you may be absolutely sure without verbal consent, but the point is you have to be absolutely sure. If someone misreads a gray zone and hurts a person, the instigator is absolutely 100% responsible unless they had clear verbal consent.

And, this isn't about being skeptical--really, every single letter in Savage Love could be lying or hiding in some way. The fact remains, though, that the people who are defending this letter say that it's okay to touch a person who doesn't want to be touched, and that it's okay to try to get back with an ex by refusing to stop rubbing an erection on her and touching her explicitly while she's asleep. All of this "were they in the same bed?" "what kind of concert was it?" "were they FWB?" are all distractions from SHE DID NOT WANT TO BE TOUCHED. End of story. All we can do to apply this letter to our own lives and our social expectations is say "Is what I'm reading an acceptable way to treat a person? How would I react to a person who treated a woman that way in my circle of friends?"
480
More to avast at 462:

Additional reasons why I very strongly dislike your "This situation is a hell of a lot closer to a well established sexual relationship than it is to a random stranger scenario."

First off, you do know that the VAST majority of rapists are known to their attackers in some way, right? (Don't have data on all degrees of sexual assault, sorry...) That all to frequently in the real world people DO get raped by their partners in established sexual relationships? And most commonly by acquaintances? Throwing out the "random stranger" red herring as the standard for non-consensual contact is INCREDIBLY insulting to the vast majority of women who were abused by people they knew. And, for that I say, fuck you!

Also for how stupid "closer to" is: when I confronted Subway Guy about how inappropriate his actions on the subway were, he defended it by saying his ex-college-girlfriend-from-20-years-ago's husband thought that I was interested in him. I shit you not. Really, his standard for "reasonable consent" to touch my body was the opinion of a guy who lived 3,000 miles away from me and had only met me three or four times in my life that we were just staying with to save money while traveling to a conference...not, you know MY opinion about my body, it being mine and all.
481
Alemana, I'm sorry, but all physical contact does not start with a written contract. My boyfriend didn't successive questions asking for consent..may I kiss you? may I put my hand on your boob over your shirt? may I put my hand on your boob under your shirt? may I unhook your bra? no! he went along at the same pace I was, and if I moved his hand away, he didn't put it back. we often initiate sex without signing waivers, or asking or anything. Life exists in context, nothing is black and white.
482
Alemana, your position on rape culture can be summarized as "Accusation = Truth, 100% of the time" and to posit otherwise is to support the rape culture.

I don't accept that. You do. Or positions are too far apart to be reconciled.
483
Caralain, please read post #189 again, and stop the strawfeminist crap. While you're at it, read 468, 478, and 479.
484
I'm sure someone's pointed this out already, but it's really impossible to make a judgment call, not knowing what she was wearing at the concert.
485
Seeker, this isn't a trial by jury. It's an advice column. There's nothing in it for her if we believe her. He is in no danger of having his life impacted if we believe her. All we can do is ask, "Is this situation described okay?" You'll notice that the vast majority of posters defending this guy ARE NOT saying she's lying, but are saying either:

1) It's okay for a guy to try by touching, including touching someone when they're asleep and refusing to stop grinding against her.

2) If she didn't react the right way she's at fault.

3) If they were in a certain situation it would be okay for him to do what he did.

4) It's okay for a man to touch a woman as long as she wants if she is too uncomfortable to try to get him to stop.

5) Its her fault for not being "clear" enough with him.

THAT'S FUCKED UP.

No one here is "doubting her story"--they are specifically IN FAVOR of what happened to her, occasionally only a limited set of circumstances, but they still think it's okay to touch someone who doesn't want to be touched. Not acceptable.
486
Doot, I sincerely hope you're being satirical!!

But I'm pretty sure you're wrong, actually. As far as I can recall (and I'm not going to read them all again), that little piece of victim-blaming hasn't come up yet. Weird.
487
Love Smoked Salmon, #353:

That makes no fucking sense. The later activity is irrelevant. It only matters if the physical contact was wanted AT THE TIME IT OCCURRED. My point is that your exes were behaving in ways that were desired (and, I'm willing to bet, invited): if they were wrong, and touched you without your consent, they should be held responsible. But, it seems like they were acting in situations where they were damn sure it was okay.
488
I mean he had an erection at the concert so presumably she gave it to him.
489
@ attitude deviant, #364: Men are supposed to comport themselves in my world by showing a genuine interest in the desires and well-being of their sex partners. Women are supposed to comport themselves in my world by showing a genuine interest in the desires and well-being of their sex partners. It's not that hard.

You're calling me tone-deaf because you're believing a lot of strawfeminist caricatures and not actually listening to my position. Read post #189 again, and many others.
491
Milbury, #371:

All your advice that she should "stop doing this" and "stop doing that" is basically telling women they can't live full lives for fear they'll be assaulted. What if she just wanted to go to the damn concert? Did you think of that? What if she likes the music? Do you think she should miss out and withdraw from life, or maybe we should focus on telling men that WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN SOCIETY WITHOUT YOU ASSUMING THAT YOU GET TO TOUCH THEM OR FUCK THEM.

Do you see how you're putting all the burden on her to make herself unavailable? Why not tell him NOT TO TOUCH HER VAGINA UNLESS IT'S OKAY WITH HER. There's a really easy way to tell if it is--wait till she wakes up, and ask.

There's nothing wrong with make-up sex, guilt-sex, or stupid-sex. They are all consensual sex. Do not confuse those with someone taking advantage of another person, or of trying to get to those types of sex through coercive/non-consensual means. Even if you don't like any of them (and I don't either), the fact that some people engage in them still means that they are entitled to make their own decisions.

For reversing the genders, you're assuming that the man is okay with the woman rubbing up against him. If he's not okay with it, it's wrong. Don't touch people who don't want to be touched. Why is that difficult?!

Who the fuck are you to claim my situation involved a virtual stranger? He was a very close friend, as I've said before. And, prior sexual contact DOES NOT make what the boyfriend in the letter did okay. Men do not get blanket access to touch someone just because they've fucked them before. SHE gets to decide what level of intimacy is okay to touch her body, not you.
492
@Puzzlegal, 373. Read post #189. I don't know why everyone seemed to miss it, either?! It even says all your happy relationships with your positive non-verbal consent are fine BEFORE the post gets cut off with the "More" link. Even the casual reader should see it.

Feminists are not trying to take away your happy relationships. We're happy for your happy relationships. We are NOT happy with other people getting used when they don't want to be. We are NOT happy with those people claiming that the happy relationships around them justify the assumptions/excuses they make for hurting others.

The fact that she's writing in and upset means there's an incredibly high likelihood that what he did was not okay.

Also, the basic principle is the initiator of sexual contact MUST BE SURE. As long as you're sure--and CORRECT--that sexual contact is okay, go for it. If the initiator is wrong, s/he is responsible. When an objection is made, "she didn't say no" or "there were SIGNS, man!" are not adequate defenses. ONLY if there is a clear "yes" then that initiator can say, "it was consensual." "I thought it was consensual" isn't good enough.
493
10$ says that Alemana masturbates herself to sleep every night with some pretty hardcore rape fantasies.
494
Puzzlegal #374, thanks for your concern about the asshole friend, but you're missing the point: I didn't have a chance to say no in those situations. Others with him I did. So, it was definitely clear BUT HE CHOSE TO BELIEVE IT WAS UNCLEAR at the time. Again, he CHOSE to ignore the negative signs I was giving. In my experience all the "misunderstandings" are people choosing to ignore negative signs and try to make the situation unclear to give them an excuse. Read here for more: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs…

I was trying to show that putting all the burden on the recipient of contact makes it possible to take advantage of vulnerable people. Even if they're only vulnerable for one subway ride home, IT'S NOT OKAY.

Also, please keep in mind that Savage Love letters are often edited for length. I, as you may have noticed, am not. There may have been a lot of other factors that got edited from her letter, or she didn't include them so it would be concise. We do know she didn't want to be touched. That's all we need to know.
495
Alemana, seriously, why do insist on victimizing women? We don't have to be weak. We can and should be assertive about our desires and preferences. What you're saying is basically it's wrong to insist that we should say no. That it's okay for women to be weak and helpless. But it's not okay because it puts us in danger. This attitude is not beneficial to us, women, in any way. Life is fucking hard, and to go through it *everyone* has to be strong. Are you saying that it's okay for women to be so weak they can only hope men will act decently towards them? Is *this* what you're saying? This is what I find so hard to understand: how can you be a feminist and give so little credit to women?

When I say the LW should've said no, I'm not saying it because it would've been better for the guy. I'm saying it because it would've been much, much better for herself. Just think about it, if she had only addressed this with him immediately or at least shortly after the incident, she probably wouldn't have spent two years thinking about it, going over it again and again in her head. Think of all the suffering she could have avoided.

And Alemana, I failed to address your other posts because I don't like it when strangers on the Internet call me an "illiterate fool" or "idiot". No matter how much you disagree with me, it doesn't give you a right to insult me. You might have better luck getting other people to take you seriously if you'd stop insulting them at every opportunity. It's debate 101.
496
By the way, if you go to a supermarket, and the cashier tries to cheat you out of an extra $10, and you notice this, are you going to say something? Or are you going to just fume inside and quietly give them the money anyway? Of course if, say, somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you to give them all your money, you're gonna do it and nobody's gonna blame you. But in the former situation, if you don't say anything, it's stupid, right? Of course, the cashier would still be in the wrong and an asshole, but still. It's your responsibility to care for your own well-being and look out for the assholes everywhere you go. If you are waiting for the world to turn universally good and decent, you're in for a huge disappointment. If you can't stand for yourself even when the stakes are fairly low, do you really think it does you any good? Who cares if the cashier is in the wrong? You've still lost your $10.
497
In a shamless attempt to get this thread over 600 if at possible, I was asked an interesting question last night. If you did phone sex work, would it squick you out to be "Daddy's Little Girl" and pretend you're 4 or 5 years old, talking in a baby voice, if that's what the client wanted? I posit that it could keep a "Gold Star Pedophile" from harming a real child, but my friends both seemed to think the escalation from calling a phone sex line actress to harming a real child was inevitable. Thoughts?
498
Or shameless, either way.
499
customer is always right.
500
deet
501
Alemana and puddles need avatars.
502
500! Woo hoo Dan, hallejuah. Dude, just look at your turd of a SLLOTD!
503
hallelujah, that is!
504
Hey lady! Please stop speaking on behalf of women, you're making us all look like victims with no sexual authority. I for one refuse to walk the streets afraid of rape, despite all the catcalls.

WAIT!! Catcalls= verbal molestation. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK TO ME UNLESS I GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO SPEAK TO ME. In fact, alemana, you're verbally molesting me with your various insults and I demand you stop, you CREEP.

Also, I'd like your job, you obviously get boatloads of free time.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.