@98 seandr

Who are you to resist the siren's call onto the rocks? Who do you need to be? There are beautiful women everywhere. I thought you got that. Find one that's nice to you. Find one who loves you rather than the role she's cast you in. Focus on that. Sweet fanciful Moses. They're all beautiful.
@cat in fez: If guys don't have any other words, let's work on giving them better ones

Uh, thanks, but it seems just a tad presumptuous of you to assume the roll of deciding which words we can and can not use to describe people whom we have experienced.

If you'd like to help, how about taking off your word police helmet and joining us to make this a place in which men can discuss their experiences and share notes using language that feels true to them, without being shut down by women (and some men) who seem to have become reflexively dismissive of the male perspective.

One of the reasons I'm in Dan's comment section is to learn about women from women. It'd sure be nice to think that women might be interested in learning about men from men.
@ghost: They're all beautiful.

Truth! Thanks for talking me down from the ledge, brother.
Psst. Seandr. Can she swing a hammer? Does she at least have strong hands?
Meet me up in that tree later, gimme her Facebook name.
@Seandr - Y'know... Your perspective is not the same as the male perspective. But I like your voice.

It sounded like your ex had difficulty asking for sex. And really liked you a lot. And abused you. I'm glad you threw up some barriers, no one deserves abuse. You might want to tamp down that curiosity of whether she still has the same habits and teach your wife to beat you for foreplay instead, if you miss it.
Imagine how different the world would be if people cared more about supporting survivors and preventing abuse than they care about keeping survivors from being allowed to use words that make them uncomfortable.
Did we chase NoCute off?! Man...
On the subject of how words are used by particular genders, some among you might recall a recent thread when there was some argument whether a young lady had been ‘assaulted.’ I myself am still of the opinion that a young man in that young woman’s position, having a fully-clothed partner reaching orgasm by rubbing against their fully-clothed leg, would have been (being generous here) a laughingstock had he claimed to be a ‘victim of sexual assault.’

Technically, anyone touching you without permission is assaulting you. If they touch you in an area sexualized by our culture, they are ‘sexually assaulting you.’ Because I have an ass as round and hard as an over-inflated basketball, I’ve had it grabbed in bars by a couple of women (as well as some men, but let us remember, it happened to John Shaft in the eponymous movie, and all he did was raise an eyebrow.) This did not make me a victim of sexual abuse. Some other things, many of which could have happened in my home with a woman that I could have physically overpowered, would have.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that in ‘Shaft,’ as well as ‘French Connection,’ it used to be the height of compliments to call someone a ‘shrewd cat.’ “You’re one shrewd cat, Shaft.” You don’t hear that no more. Shrewd cats, man...

My domestic situation was abusive, but not physically so. I have no problem saying that. I’m ready to listen to anyone else’s story.
Aw, a love fest. Nice to see.
You're a shrewd cat, CB.
Ghost@102. Yes.
All Women Are Beautiful.
I was a lesbian with a bi history for a while. Then I concluded that women are fucking insane, man. During the time that I wasn’t ready for a full-time relationship I stuck to dating men because I just knew a woman would take everything I had. Not a bad thing in principle but I wasn’t prepared to invest that amount of energy in part-time relationships. Then I fell in love with one of the men and now I’m a het with a bi history.

Women still make me very, very nervous.
Further to the above: I used to think that het women should be required to serve a mandatory six-month lesbian relationship just so they could grasp the insanity het men have to try to cope with. I might still think that.

I think that ‘my ex was abusive’ expresses something different from ‘women are fucking Insane, man.’ The latter more to do with high or intense emotional tone and the former more about holding someone else responsible for one's own emotions.

[This reflects my own experience and presumably my own high/intense emotional tone rather than that of all women.]
Oh Sean, I can see your point. She does sound beautiful.
Sean@103. Impressive. Nice one. Yes!
Philo, come again? Your voice isn't the male perspective.
Sean Is a man. His perspective will always come from the male perspective, because, hey yeah, he's a man..
You should have caught that one, guys. I'm not doing your job for you.
Sorry, above post ref Philo@ 106.
No Cat, Nocute's here. Hey, nocute. Sending you love.
Oh Alison, I know what you mean.
Women make me very very nervous, too. And I'm one of them.
Some powerful forces around, in female form.
Alison @113
>> I think that ‘my ex was abusive’ expresses something different from ‘women are fucking Insane, man.’ >>

Did you mean the following?
>> I think that ‘my ex was crazy’ expresses something different from ‘women are fucking Insane, man.’ >>

Because as written, I can't understand that paragraph.
@51: "In my experience, crazy people claim crazy exes. I think it's a pretty common way to shirk responsibility for how a relationship evolved. But I don't think sane people stay with crazy people."

You do realize this attempt at logic is self-contradictory? If sane people don't stay with crazy people, then OF COURSE sane people can claim crazy exes. If sane people don't stay with crazy people, they break up with the crazy person, thereby making the crazy person the ex of a sane person.
@65: "I agree that ‘crazy’ is a lazy word for describing one’s SO’s that’ve acted irrationally, and certainly here on SL there has been notice of people’s inclination to remote-diagnose"

Apparently people think "crazy" is a diagnosis word for actual mental illness, and therefore insulting to the mentally ill. This line of reasoning is, well, crazy.
Avast, as an Insano-American, I find your remarks highly triggering.
KIdding! Put it down!. A lot of people do seem to think that based on a couple of Wiki points, they can spot something like Asperger’s, these days.
In full agreement with the ‘ I think that ‘my ex was crazy’ expresses something different from ‘women are fucking Insane, man,’distinction. I mean, how many people do you know that haven’t had one or more bad actors in their dating past? As many before me have said, it’s when you keep picking them, and staying with them, that you’re the problem.
@Lava - Seandr has a male perspective, but not the male perspective. Do you think my perspective is the female perspective?

@Seandr - Would you date a woman who claimed her exes were all crazy or abusive? If you have, do you now call her crazy?

It's interesting to see who fights for the right to call their exes crazy, and why. I think it illustrates my point nicely. For the die hard "all my exes were crazy" peeps: The only common element in all your relationships is you.
That's a confusing use of words, Philo.
Each man has the male perspective because each man is a male.
@Lava - I find your words confusing about this too. The original words to Seandr were to gently point out grandiosity, being shut down by women (and some men) who seem to have become reflexively dismissive of the male perspective.
Other male perspectives are valid parts of "the male perspective" too.

I didn't pipe up, but I also think it's kind of insulting to claim men can't use the word abuse. That crazy is a more tolerated word. Certainly not by me and by the other women speaking up. And I would take a man seriously for feeling bad that his gf got off on his leg but didn't try to get him off. Definitely encourage him to speak up if it had happened recently, and leave a woman who dismissed his feelings. Or that it's ok to feel bad about it but get to therapy if he was stuck on it after years. I hear men saying they feel censored... but I don't understand what is censoring them... I don't think that asking men to call abusive women "abusive" instead of "crazy" is censoring them.
@Philo: Re: the male perspective, I can't think of anything more boring than arguing with you over a claim I never made. See if you can spot the difference yourself between what I said and what you think I said.

Every woman I've been in an LTR with has struggled with emotional issues that have caused her to act crazy towards me. We're talking crazy actions - domestic violence, freaking out when I'm not available, frightening emotional breakdowns, saying nasty abusive things - not speculative psychoanalysis. I had to laugh at Alison's "bitches be crazy", because it's literally been true for my experience, although I know it's not generally true. Of course, these relationships also had lots of positive qualities as well, enough to keep me around as long as they did.

There are generous interpretations of what that says about me, and there are stereotypes and rules of thumb. Pick whichever you like, I'm good either way.
@126, I referenced the 'Closure' thread, because people on that thread weren't just telling the woman who wrote in that it was OK to be discombobulated by what happened, as few 14-year olds are too savvy, they were calling her a victim of sexual assault. 'Sexual assault,' in our culture, is usually given as a synonym for 'rape,' unless it is further clarified. The LW said that she wasn't going to the police 'because it was so long ago,' not 'because I'm not a complete wackjob,' which adds to the perception that she has a somewhat...skewed view of actionable legalities.
I hope we'd all be nice to a confused young lad who was upset that his gf came while humping his leg, but a show of hands, who reading this would declare him to be the subject of sexual assault? Yeah. If I described getting my ass grabbed in a club as a sexual assault, I would be laughed out the door and down the street, not that I'm minimizing groping, I just don't see it as equal to a major felony that seriously can fuck your shit up, not to mention just the accusation of can likewise ruin a life.
Re crazy SO's, if it's a casual conversation, one hears it often enough, and I think most of us just translate it to 'this person brought a lot of unnecessary drama to the table,' not "they thought they were Napoleon and wore a lampshade on their head.' If that's not the end of that particular conversation, the 'crazy' part is usually fleshed out like 'started fights all the time for no reason' 'always thought I was flirting with others' 'would start throwing crockery,' all of which are easy to comprehend.
Seandr's definitely had a bad run - my own toxic marriage left me in a mindset where I was outta there like a shot if they started acting wingy.
Some men generalize wrongly about all women, and vice versa, and this isn't news. They're making their own lives harder, and will almost always find just what they expect to see.
@123: LOL. Yes.

I initially resisted the urge to word it as "This line of reasoning is retarded," to illustrate the particular mechanism of Word Policing in play here. It has been interesting over the past decade or so, watching the vocabulary evolve on various communities, where there is always some word in the process of being declared unacceptable, often on grounds of a spurious overextension of otherwise sound logic. One word gets successfully banned on good grounds, then they immediately move on to the next one, often on increasingly shaky justifications.

"Crazy" is not a medical term of art. It is a generic term to describe someone who is being irrational, illogical, hypocritical, unfair, self-centered, abusive, emotionally volatile, demanding, engaging in double standards, et cetera, et cetera, singly or in combination.

It's basically a synonym for "asshole," which is probably next on the chopping block, because after all, anuses serve a perfectly good function in bodily waste removal, and we shouldn't be insulting to innocent body parts.
Oh shit, now you gonna be hearing from the Anus-American Anti-Defamation League!
Here's the thing: If someone told me that they had a mental illness -- say, for example, someone told you they are subject to paranoid schizophrenia, but they have it under control with antipsychotics -- THAT'S when it would be rude to use the term "crazy." You don't describe people with actual mental illnesses using that pejorative term.

That's a completely different situation than describing the completely batshit things an ex or various exes did to you.
I think what we need to do is take the stigma off the word 'abusive'. People of either gender should be able to admit they were, or are, in abusive relationships without it becoming a painfully unfunny manliness joke for the guys, or a referendum how they are a terrible person who's just a lying drama queen for the gals.

The problem with 'crazy' it's that it's used so often for so many things it has no meaning anymore. It mean anything from 'my girlfriend got mad I was hitting on her sister', to 'my girlfriend won't let me leave the house without a tinfoil hat so the lizard people don't steal my dreams'.
When I refer to my first wife as "my crazy ex", I am referring to her (then) undiagnosed, untreated and out of control borderline personality disorder, though that informaiton is for people I know, not random acquaintances, where, if the subject comes up, I offer politely that she had some mental health issues and leave it at that.. Even though she lives far away now, I don't find it really advisable to lead off with her specific personal mental health information, even though I find it somehow therapeutic to acknowledge the nature of the difficulties of the marriage.
The Lizard People!
Anyone else read ‘Glass Books of the Dream Eaters?’ Very cool book. Sequel was a letdown. Hey, NoCute, did you really know Smartmouth/Weechef, or was that just a goof? She left actual LP’s in your car? What did she listen to?
@Seandr - It might be a boring subject but I copy/pasted your own words in italics. I bet you're a pretty good person, and rough to be in a relationship with.…
You can just change 4 letters in the link if I got your personality wrong. But that's my interpretation about you. And it didn't change my crush on you. Make of that what you will.
Philo, dear, lovely Philo.
There is no One male perspective, right?
No universal way of being a man, just like there is no universal way of being a woman.
All different. Still, the male will always see the world as a male, yes? The female the same.
Therefore every man , when he perceives, acts in , experiences himself-
Will Always do so from the male perspective.
Insano-American. Hey Cat.
Yeah. From the outside America is way intense. Can't stop looking at it though.
Sean @127: well. You know you are the common thread here.
Choosing hysterical women to be in your life. And yes, there are non hysterical women around. I'm one of them.
My husband did the routines. I learnt well from him, not to conduct myself that way.
So; you want free analysis? Geez. Lucky I love you.
The Mother, Sean. Look no further than your mother. With maybe shades of father or other significant people in your life. Working thru issues with those people onto these new people.
Do I keep coming back to the importance of good parenting or not?
Hey Cat. Welcome aboard.
@Cat Brother -- Ya, what's with the radio silence from noccute, hey? What if she took her new Lexus out for a joyride and banged it up somehow?

Least she could do is tell us how it runs.
Oh Philo, cool. Tell a man how you feel.
I like that.
Cat @128; touching on a real powder keg area there.
Which of course, needs to be constantly looked into.
I do feel for you guys, having some dark cloud hanging over your heads.
Then again, there are real pig males out there.
An area that needs sensitive viewing.
And Cat, please stop talking bout your
Butt. It's distracting.
Late, yes, one wonders what Madame Nocute is up to. She wrote in couple days ago talking of having spunk.
I took that as a good sign.
Alison @112 -- "Women are fucking insane, man." Word.
"A woman would take everything I had." Uh-huh.
"Women still make me very, very nervous." No shit, hey?
"Het women should be required to serve a mandatory six-month lesbian relationship just so they could grasp the insanity het man have to try to cope with." And with fewer instinctive tools, usually. Amen, sister!

I mean--you disgust me. You misogynist.

On a sobering note--"[A] woman would take everything I have. Not a bad thing in principle..." So what happens when she takes everything, and only then withdraws the affection that made you happy to give her everything in the first place? You pay handsomely for the divorce, that's what. And apologize to the kids for failing them.
Just playing with you , Cat.
Late@145. Sad, eh?
We do forget sometimes, that men have hearts,too.
Think that's why I'm just not joining another gender war battle of words. Hardens everybody's hearts.
EricaP @120
>> I think that ‘my ex was abusive’ expresses something different from ‘women are fucking Insane, man.’ >>
[A]s written, I can't understand that paragraph.

Meaning that when I generalize ‘women are fucking Insane, man’ I mean me and all the women I’ve entered into sexual/romantic relationships with, and my expectations (warranted or not) for any woman I might enter into a sexual/romantic relationship with in the future. While I take psych meds the other women didn’t/don’t so that’s not what I’m talking about. I mean bizarre disagreements and unpredictable emotional escalation.

I don’t think that all women are abusive though. That’s a label I reserve for those very special snowflakes who’ve earned it.
Cat Brother @108
Because I have an ass as round and hard as an over-inflated basketball, I’ve had it grabbed in bars by a couple of women. ... This did not make me a victim of sexual abuse.

There’s a difference between abuse (implying abuse of a power imbalance) and assault (which unwanted groping certainly is). A single grope that stops with a raised eyebrow does not constitute a criminal offense but these things are on a spectrum. Enough insistent unwanted groping, and calling the cops to remove the offender becomes reasonable.

What used to legally be termed rape (still often is) would be categorized as ‘aggravated sexual assault’ vs an unwanted grope which would be ‘simple sexual assault.’
LateBloomer @145,
I meant my psychic reserves, not my material possessions. Not sure if that was clear.
Alison, human beings are capable of being insane.
When men say women are insane, as I see it- a lot of that is because we are different. The insane stuff comes in from
A) our internal damage.
B). The different energies of men and women.
Of course this gender issue is a topic and a half. And I've only got my take on it.
But after much observations, I've concluded that there are differences between men and women. Not of the same cloth.
And that's good. That's what is wanted. The skill comes in finding ways to work with that difference.
Alison@149 - Well, yes, nobody, including me, and my ass, disputes that incessant unwanted groping, in, say, a subway car, calls for police interdiction. My point was that a term that is (largely) synonymous with 'rape' was being bandied about, in a way that would not had happened had the genders been reversed.
An unwanted grope is assholery, apologies to Anus-Americans reading this, and yes, is technically assault....but the girl in 'Closure' was down for the making out and dry humping and...I left all my care in the car and I'm not going back out for it, it's cold and rainy.

I do think mostly we're all agreeing on the casual use of 'crazy' and what we take it to mean. I know when a woman describes a former relationship as 'abusive,' I wonder, maybe I don't ask, 'DId he hit you?' where I might not automatically wonder that if a guy says that about a woman. If a guy says his gf was violent, though, it's not a mind-blower; there are plenty of physically abusive women, some who came to it as a defense mechanism, some who are just jerks who found they could impose power that way and get away with it.

I read a long time ago that there's nothing so much like the extreme right wing as the extreme left wing. There's also nothing so much like the rationalizations of an abusive man as those of an abusive woman.
I don't necessarily agree that women are crazy, though that's a disagreement of interpretation rather than facts--I think we're observing the same phenomenon but seeing it differently.

I don't agree that abusive women do it because they have mental health issues, and I suspect our inclination to see it that way ties into the way we're not supposed to see women as having agency. I don't think they're insane, I think they're responding rationally to a certain set of incentives. I understand why the mind revolts at this possibility, because we're deeply invested in our illusions about women.

I think people--any kind of people--will usually take from you anything they can make you give.
I think people doing this will convince themselves that they have a right to do so.
I think people doing this will also try to convince everyone else that they have the right to whatever price the market will bear, so to speak.

I further suspect that the reason this perspective is rare is because, to the eye trained by our culture, it's unacceptable to see things this way. Far easier to see women as helpless forces of nature than as people who make decisions, when that would mean acknowledging that they--just like men--sometimes choose to hurt people just because they can.

Approximately fifty percent of the shittiest people on this planet are women. Because women are people. They have no better excuses than the other fifty percent, even though our society works very hard to pretend otherwise.
@150 -- That's how I took it.
@153 "sometimes choose to hurt people just because they can." Yes, and because they feel pain themselves, and hurting someone else often helps relieve that emotional pain.

I like David Schnarch's term "normal marital sadism"…

"Realize you’re living with an emotional terrorist. Someone who occasionally (or frequently) does things knowing it will hurt someone else, and feels entitled rather than guilty. Someone who can be vindictive, punitive, and withholding. After you realize you have to deal with this kind of person day after day, you can turn your attention to your mate's flaws too."
@128 Shrewd Cat - I agree with most except:
they were calling her a victim of sexual assault. --The letter writer called herself that. A couple people agreed I think. Interesting consent arguments.

'Sexual assault,' in our culture, is usually given as a synonym for 'rape,' unless it is further clarified. --In my experience it means unconsensual advances.

If I described getting my ass grabbed in a club as a sexual assault, I would be laughed out the door and down the street --This is just horrifying I don't know what to say.

I hope you are around people to whom you can completely express yourself these days. I like your posts.
‘Schnarch’ sounds like a Seuss character that plays the whang-whongler.
Carry on.
Mr Alan - You raise an interesting point of terminology. Have there been multiple Mrs Alans?
Mr E.. Trying to create % for what sex the bad guys are, do we need to go there?
And women are helpless and have no agency, when did this fallacy float?
Okay. ::takes a big breath:: I'm going to actually return to the column. I believe that SAWN is biting off - let's say a pot roast - in one go when he should be focusing on a single mouthful. For the moment, let's forget about the lack of sex, the boring morass he's stuck in, and her clingy nature, both for financial and emotional reasons, let alone the constant manipulation. And let's forget about professing to being in love. And having two families to satisfy by getting married. Ugh to that.

What SAWN needs first of all is to get a good night's sleep. Every night ... or at least every weeknight. In whatever voice works (feh to the "tone" issue, too), he must convey to his gf that this is a non-negotiable requirement of his. He's not saying it to be difficult; it's just a matter of biology and being able to function in the real world, not coincidentally the world wherein his ability to earn a living allows her to go to school without worry.

He can present it as a win-win situation. While he's sleeping, she can do her homework. And he'll be in far better spirits after a few good sleeps. IF she cannot accede to his most minimal request, then she definitely has NO respect for him. And, then, he'll have a clearer view of whether they have any future together. From thousands of miles away, even I say NO.
@155: I like it too, though I have a few issues there:

"I specialize in working with exceedingly difficult couples, especially those with long-standing marital and sexual problems who previously failed in treatment."

I'm not sure "normal marital sadism" is actually normal, as opposed to being normal for the kind of couples he sees. It reminds me a little of asking a homicide detective how safe sex work is, so I'd take his statements with a little bit of a grain of salt.

Except that he seems to also describe therapists as basically terrible people, and his sample of therapists seems much more likely to be representative than his sample of other people.

This part sounds familiar to me, though:
Most of all, the unwritten rule is therapists do not confront women—especially about cruelty. If anyone gets confronted, it is usually the man. I’m not saying women are more cruel than men, society is just more loath to see it in women.

I don't just mean sadism, though. If someone's hurting you because hurting you gets her what she wants--if she can always win arguments by being cruel, and so can always get her way by starting an argument--then it's not irrational behavior on her part, and it's not really even sadistic.

And if a person is less likely to be confronted about cruelty just because of their innate characteristics, they're more likely to be cruel--people tend to use the licenses they're given. I mean, if I didn't want anyone murdered, making it a law that on Tuesdays, left-handed people are allowed to murder people is making a bad choice. And you can bet that on Tuesdays the murder rate's going to go up--and saying this isn't accusing lefties of being evil, just normal.

@159: "Trying to create % for what sex the bad guys are, do we need to go there?"

Yes, we do. The prevailing narrative is that, of the nasty people from whom other people need protection, 100% of them are male. That's bullshit. The people who pretend they're being reasonable claim it's 99% instead. That's still bullshit. I do not accept that men have some kind of original sin and women do not, or that women somehow magically lack the capacity for evil.

"And women are helpless and have no agency, when did this fallacy float?"

It's typically called "patriarchy," and I don't know when it started. Partly because I'm not a creationist, so I'm aware that it's an emergent property. It benefits those in power when they need men willing to die for their continued advantage, it benefits women when they want to do something nasty and get away with it, and it benefits men who want to treat women like property and get away with it, and it "benefits" men who want to feel heroic. So it's not hard to see how it came to be such a common belief, but I can't even guess when it might have started. My guess is some time around the same time as agriculture, but that's just a guess.
Tone can absolutely be cutting, violent, dismissive, disconnected etc without being loud. The direct solution would be for him to write that he needs 9? hours asleep with a sharpie on paper and stick it on the fridge. No tone problems in writing voila.

Eud's tone is angry, bigoted, preachy, violent, and dismissive in the last post! And all without being loud. Ranting or yelling doesn't have to be high in volume, it can be present in silent posts.
No tone problems in simple statements, I meant. Writing "this is all bullshit" or off topic critical essays etc is still yelling/ranting in writing.

Hi, Philo. Thanks for the kind words. My speech and expressions are relatively unencumbered where I'm at, though it's in the heart of a very red state (SC), so I might have to think on that.
I just can't quit you, 'Closure' thread...
Consent arguments, yes...a major point, at least for myself, was the whole idea of consent in that episode the LW mentioned. Myself, and several other males, made the point explicitly that no young man dry-humps to orgasm as a deliberate act, that in fact jizzing your pants is unintentional and mortifying, weapon-grade gossip if it gets around school. We were young guys, we know. Several other posters, none of whom (I'll bet a shiny new quarter and the lives of Rick Santorum's kids) were male, explicitly said that he did it on purpose, ruthlessly using her for his pleasure, and thus she was the victim of assault.
If the 14-year old boy mentioned had, I don't know, held her face down on the bed while dry-humping her buttocks, I and every other guy on here would have joined in his condemnation and need of an ass-kicking. I would have thought that hearing that his orgasm was actually an accident, like ripping a huge fart in front of the class at the blackboard, might have detoxed that memory for her. Would have liked to hear her commentary on that thread.
Towards the end, it was apparent that nobody was changing their mind, so it was on to the 'Coming Clean' thread.
'Sexual assault' – of course I can't posit what it means for any one person, but my point is that the commonly perceived meaning is different, or I should say, not as broad, as the legal definition, Finger-poking in the chest is assault, but if I referred that as 'I was assaulted...'
No need to be horrified by the ramification of my ass-grabbing; I thought it was a dick move, or at least a little forward when done by girls, but...I think it would be wrong to trouble the authorities with news of it. If it had been my boss at work or a co-worker, well, yeah, whistle up the police or at least HR.
“And the Schnarch laid the Whangler of Wongs on his knee
And proceeded to play it with ear-splitting glee,
To the young men of Whoville he cried as they danced,
'When you dry hump her leg, please don't blow in your pants!'”
It's hilarious that when I write that men and women are equally likely to commit misdeeds, Philophile calls me a bigot. There is a bigot here, Phil, and it's you.
Just waiting to see what this bloody cyclone is up to. Big no happening here. And it's not clear where it's gonna hit land.. May come closer to down where I am. Wtf?
So , you know. If I suddenly go out of contact. Loved you all .
Enjoyed the journey.
And what's Dan's story? Where's the weekly?
Everything's gone whacky.
There once was a quoter of Seuss
Whose claims of consent were no use
Cried the others with glee,
"Why can't he just see
If there's jizz in his pants it's abuse!"
Mine’s better.
Anyway, I’d like to see the relevant statute. And/or, have someone answer the question, which has been dodged like a rabid badger, ‘If the girl comes on his leg without explicit permission, a much more likely and not-uncommon thing, was the boy an abuse victim?'
Philo @162. Right on girl.
I saw Mr Es post and didn't even want to go there.
Cyclone has hit up nth. 285 km winds. We will get the rain. The creeks already up. In for floods.
Mr E. I do see you are working thru stuff here, and some of it makes it hard to meet you.
This anger you carry, Is serving you how? Of no use. Let it go. Put the past In The past. Yes, you were hurt. Deeply .
You have shared that hurt. People here, generously sat with you, while you shared it.
Time to transform that hurt.

Cat, that was a thorny issue with that girl. What girl of 14, doesn't know what it means when a 14 yr old boy is making out and on top of her?
14 yrs old. What self control of his dick is anywhere in a kid that age.
Big issue. These rape charges, for every missed communication. For clumsy boys, well, being clumsy.
Takes the focus off the real story.
The real rapes and sexual abuse.
@170, no argument here. That point was made by several women on the thread, who had endured actual rape, and didn't think much of some suburban whitebread rec-room makeout session being positioned like that.
If the guy had just stood up, mumbled an excuse about leaving the iron on, and fled the room, no 'trauma.' Says quite a bit.
Hey, stay dry, or at least above running water out there! How's a cyclone different than a hurricane, btw?
Before I get jumped on. Not saying a 14 yr old boy can't control his impulses. Isn't responsible.
Really, though. The kid was on top of her.
Leaving the iron on, Cat- might not be the most believable excuse.
Think Hurricane and Cyclone are the same. Big fucking circle of energy. Should have seen this fucker from the space shots.
Well, yes, consensually on top of her. If he'd been holding her down I'd lead the charge to bust his balls. He could control being on top, did not control his prostate erupting.
And the fart-in-front-of-the-class analogy is accurate; a young man would pretty much rather say anything than be caught out like that. But wait, I think we're agreeing.
Are you on the coast? Too late to take a boogie board out? I hear Patrick Swayze's looking for that one killer wave.
@168;Cat. did he notice this girl
Was rubbing against his leg? Did he stop her from doing this? Did he have prior understanding re what a girl rubbing on his leg was about?
Yes. No. Yes. answers.
Then no, as I see it, it wasn't abuse on the boy. See, question addressed.
"no young man dry-humps to orgasm as a deliberate act" --It makes sense that most men don't intend to come in their pants. Idk maybe something like peeing your pants since there's fluid. As for whether it was intended at the time it happened... I'm not sure. I know what it feels like to deliberately hold back and fail. That embarrassment is hard to mask, I thought the LW would have picked up on it. Shame and regret look different than testing boundaries. It really could have happened either way but I think 99% chance you're right. And if it was testing boundaries, that's maybe on par with the kind of assault you were talking of, grabbing butt or inappropriate lewd remarks that cops would laugh at. So clearly she needed a therapist but there were also people who said she had zero reason to be upset. This other extreme is unreasonable as well. He might have been a horny kid who cared more about getting off than thinking about her feelings for a minute. That doesn't feel good, even if you can't prosecute it. On men or women. I know some women think it's ok to get off like that and stop but I think it's jaded, I haven't heard any good justification except it didn't bother their partner (cause he didn't know).

I also think, since either could have happened either way and it was so long ago, the only value left is to practice asserting her boundaries. And good communication so that she understands what her lover has in mind when they start sex and can talk about what she liked or didn't, or was curious about afterward. Should have stuck that in the column but the extreme views took over.

@Eud- Thin line between love and hate. That line concerns the number of positive results from your interaction. The intensity, the importance, of the loved and hated is the same.
Poor Patrick.
No, not on the coast. Just inland enough. Twenty minute drive to the coast.
Cyclone has hit land, cat 5. Biggest. No news yet of the damage. Now cat 3. And coming down coast. So my area may still see some big action. The rain . That we are seeing already.
Once again, mods, we need a quick thread lock while there's a spirit of general bonhomie.
No? Well, we did get 'Coming Clean' up to 500, ahh, my sudsy seductress of swing(ing hammers.)
Oh Cat, you just can't keep going there.
Find a new obsession. One more easily achieved.
Good thread.
LW. It just sounds like a lot of work, to get things right with this girl. Like nearly every bloody area of the relationship, sounds done.
Both of you brought it to this point. Learn from
This, walk away, grieve- cause you will, as you should- and find a woman with whom you can actually work, along the way.
Relationships have to give each person their truth, every second of every day- or they die.
And yours, dear LW, is dead.
@163: So, calling bullshit by its proper name is a tone violation and therefore verboten? Good job making Eud's point for him.
Back to Letter Writer: dude, you need to assert certain boundaries, because there are certain things in this relationship that, if they aren't dealbreakers already, they are well on their way to becoming dealbreakers. The fact that she gets uncomfortable when you state your requirements is not her get-out-of-jail-free card, because you're _already_ pretty goddamned uncomfortable from not getting these needs met.

1) Sleep needs. Sufficient sleep is a lot like sufficient food. You can get by with less than you actually need for a little while with no permanent ill effects, but you simply can't get away with it long term. People can be made to suffer health consequences and even DIE from lack of sleep. Then there are the more immediate deaths, like falling asleep behind the wheel of the car on the commute home.

It's also like food in that having someone consistently interrupt your sleep is rather like having someone consistently walk up to the table and clear your plate while you are only halfway through your dinner. It's FUCKING ANNOYING. If she does it regularly, she should _expect_ that you are fucking annoyed at her. And you are in a bad mood the next day from lack of sleep, just as you would be in a bad mood from being constantly hungry because your girlfriend keeps swiping your plate before you're done eating. She should not be surprised that you are in a bad mood.

And if she can't wrap her head around that concept, she is too stupid to be with you.

2) Sex needs: if she is the one who wanted monogamy, then she had better be the one making sure that your sex life is satisfying to both of you. If she can't be bothered to even want sex with you, then she doesn't _get_ to be bothered when someone else expresses interest in enjoying what she doesn't even want. Especially when the relationship used to be open and she is the one who closed it down.

3) Housework: Unless she is in school or doing homework for it eight full hours a day, same as you are at work eight full hours a day, she doesn't even get to expect a 50/50 split on the chores. I don't believe in splitting the chores as a function of income disparity (because otherwise she would be basically your full time maid on top of being a student). But there are a certain number of hours of work necessary to keep a household running, and the fact that some of them bring in income and some of them don't is irrelevant. If she has more free time hours than you do, then she gets to use some of hers proportionately, so that both of you get an equal share of the overall work and an equal share of leisure time. If you are earning all of the money and still doing more than 50% of the chores, AND still getting less than 50% of the leisure time, you are getting royally screwed.
@LavaGirl: The Mother, Sean. Look no further than your mother.

Very well, let's a have a look at mom. Mom's a German-Lutheran midwestern tom boy, grew up on a farm, total daddy's girl, went all the way out to San Francisco for nurses training, got a taste of the big city. She's easily the most emotionally straightforward, low maintenance woman on the planet. It's not just me that thinks so. Everyone of my crazy girlfriends/wives has been perpetually astounded by how easy it is to be with her.

She married a man who was extremely kind and extremely charming (my dad), but who nevertheless suffered from emotional demons courtesy of a cold, violent, alcoholic father who mostly ignored him. My mom was his emotional bedrock. She loved him for his charms, and she forgave him for his weaknesses.

He used to tell me, "Sean, you're just like your mother."
@Philophile: I bet you're a pretty good person, and rough to be in a relationship with.

Good person? Meh. But rough to be in a relationship with? No. My relationship history may well be luck of the draw, since I haven't been in that many LTRS. Otherwise, I think the problem - if it's really a problem, and I haven't decided it is - is that once I fall in love with a woman, and she gives herself completely to me, I'm just really good at forgiving and/or forgetting.
Having had two abusive ex-girlfriends whom I have described to others as crazy, I'm not as hung up on the semantics of the term as others posting here. I can see both sides to the argument myself.

The reason for my post is to address Mr E. and his statement that because women are half of the population they account for half of the shittiest people on the planet. That argument can be made if we are only talking about interpersonal relationships in developed countries that grant women equal rights. I agree that women have the capacity to be as shitty as men in their intimate relationships.

What I can't let stand is the notion that any minimally informed person could believe that statement about the planet as a whole. ISIS and Boko Haram and Al Qaeda and the Taliban are all overwhelmingly male dominated movements whose primary goal appears to be the control and subjugation of women (and of course the elimination of queers). Lest the argument be made that Islam is different, you simply need to look at the treatment of women in largely Hindu India to dispel that notion.

If we leave the treatment of women out of the equation - the fact is that nearly all of the wars in recorded history have been started and pursued, oftentimes barbarically, by men.

I don't dispute that in individual relationships women can absolutely abuse their partners physically and emotionally. I've seen it myself, and not just in my own relationships. But the sad reality is that the overwhelming majority of physical and sexual abuse is perpetrated by men on women and oftentimes other men.

So yeah, women can be abusive assholes. But half the shittiest people on the planet? Pick up a newspaper and educate yourself on the shitty things men are doing all around the world that affect entire populations and try to say that again with a straight face.
I think the point is that half the world's shittiest people are women, but that fact can be disguised if only men or only women have the power to act on their shittiness, or to act on it in ways that extend beyond the immediate domestic sphere.

Now we get to have an interesting debate on the meaning of the word ‘shittiness’!
@185 I think the point is that most people are shitty when they can get away with it. Even when women are terribly oppressed, if they can find someone weaker (a child, a dependent sister), they will treat that weaker person abusively.
Alison and Erica P -

I hear you, but I don't agree. Men and women are different. Personally I have no qualms pointing out that as a population, women are in fact more nurturing and empathic. We simply don't have the levels of testosterone that men do, nor the deeply ingrained societal expectations that we act "like real men", i.e. strong and aggressive. It's an unfortunate fact that over my lifetime, society as a whole has gotten coarser - women right along with men. My hope is that the trend reverses and we all end up in a more civilized (dare I say, feminine) would be a shame if we all just became shittier more aggressive people.
Of course individual women can still be shitty but I'm talking in general terms. I strongly disagree with Mr E's claim that the universe of women is equally as shitty as the universe of men...

And seriously Erica? Most people are shitty when they can get away with it? I think maybe you need new friends.
Also note that the idea of girls and women being bearers of superior virtue is Victorian. Before that women were dim, feeble, easily corruptible, lacking all the important virtues, caring about all the wrong things and the occasion of sins and temptations of the flesh. We were sexually insatiable, and if not controlled we would suck all the life force out of men. (I think something like this is the basic cross-cultural position of women, but certainly European.)

In Victorian England we exchanged sexuality for virtue. We became chaste keepers of the home, keeping men focused on their duty. These days in industrialized countries we’re still virtuous but we don’t have to pay for it with chastity any more and we don’t need men to act on our behalf so any more. Hence the emblematic Buffy The Vampire Killer.
I'd advise him to say in response to her waa-you-yelled-at-me crap: "I don't care if my yelling is making you uncomfortable. Because you need to be made uncomfortable. This relationship has turned into a rut that is making me very unhappy and if we can't fix this than I am going to dump you. I've had it with you always avoiding the conversation that we need to have by yelling at me for yelling at you. If you won't give up this tactic and have a real conversation, this ends TONIGHT." And if she falls back on making him the bad guy again, he should keep his word, and dump her on the spot.
I suspect you haven’t spent much time in a closed harem or hanging out with southern baptists.

Men are more likely to be physically violent in a way that causes damage or harm, but I don't know that they’re more violent overall. In my personal sexual/romantic history women may or may not have been physically violent but men never have been. Seandr has had similar experiences.

Men are more likely than women to participate in very dangerous activities like hunting and combat. It’s common for women in their communities to actively humiliate and shame men who try to shirk the danger. This arguably makes women shittier than men: they want someone/thing killed, but they want someone else to be the one to put their body on the line. (See analogies in football and cheerleading.)

In a time of hardship or famine, statistically children survive best if they are cared for by their own mothers. They are much more likely to die if cared for by fathers, aunts, grandmothers or sisters. This suggests a special bond with the mother or with the primary caregiver from infancy; it doesn’t support a sex link.

I was eavesdropping on a women’s health board a while back and the topic of buying breastmilk on Craigslist came up. Defenders of the practice asserted that it was safe because women with diseases transmissible through breastmilk would not sell their breastmilk. A studier of the practice took blood samples from women volunteering to donate breastmilk through a hospital. They were told not to bother if they had a blood-borne infection and that their blood would be tested. Upon testing, the rate of blood-borne diseases among women volunteering to donate (not sell) breastmilk to a hospital was identical to the rate in the general population. Opponents of the practice of buying breastmilk on Craigslist saw this as evidence that buying unscreened milk is not safe. Defenders of the practice of buying breastmilk on craigslist? They said it was safe because women are virtuous and would not sell their breastmilk if there was a risk they had an infection. In the face of explicit data to the contrary, they asserted that because women are empathic and caring and would never hurt anyone that no woman with a blood-borne infection would ever sell breastmilk. Very weird.

Until you define ‘shittiness’ in a way that can be measured and quantified, and then go out and measure and quantify it, this is just a meaningless ‘Yes they are!’ ‘No they aren’t!’ argument. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the shittiness rate, so if you want to assert something difference it’s up to you to bring the data.
Alison - I'm just curious. Do you agree with Mr E's "equally shitty" proposition?

I find it interesting that his hypothesis went unchallenged. No one asked him to define "shittiness" in a way that can be measured and quantified...
Wondered where everyone had got to.
Sean @183.
This mom, not the Mom I'm meaning. The Mom of Sean, when he was a boy.
So. This attraction to women, who are hysterical and beautiful? The beautiful a big part?
@188, I wouldn't keep friends who were shitty to me, so they aren't (they can't get away with it). Family, on the other hand...
Which gender acts shittier? Damn, we could bang on that drum all day....
For myself, the best bosses that I’ve ever had, who’d go out on a limb for you, back you even if you fucked up, pay you what was due, and keep their word, were all women. Also, the worst bosses I’ve ever had, who’d lie to your face about what you’d be paid and when, compel you to work for free, and just generally stooge for a corrupt management team, were also women.

Where did this leave me? Just that I couldn’t assume behavior on the basis of gender. Sucks when life doesn’t fall into those little boxes, but there you go.
Aaaand, looks like it’ll be another 200+ comment thread! Wooooooo! (fires rocket launcher legally obtained at South Carolina gun show in air.)
Oh. Hi Cat. I'll add to the numbers. Though, what was the question again?
No. There is no shittier sex.
A problem does exist, however. With Power. Physical power. And other things. Like creativity. What is it with creativity? Do men charge there, because of women's wombs being the ultimate creator? I'm fascinated with the creative powers each sex generates.
Funny you mention the boxes. What Mr E was talking about on Epic Thread.
Well, sure, more men are able to exert physical power in assholish ways, than women. Women, though, can get guys to exert physicality on their behalf...I still remember, back when Myspace was a thing, this girl in my town, on her Myspace profile, talking about the characteristics of her dream guy, one of which was, if she came to him crying, he’d only ask “Tell me whose ass I have to kick.” That mentality still provokes a thunderstorm of pain and rage in my head.
I’m unaware of guys being assholes d/t women’s creativity.
Boxes, pods,...I was watching an instructional dvd on rehabilitative training the other day, the narrator talked about how intelligent people always put things into ‘buckets’ so that they can think about them better.
JibeHo @192,

Without a definition of “equally shitty” I have to be agnostic.

My perspective is that human beings make the choices that are available to us and the tougher one’s life is the tougher it is to not make self-serving choices at the expense of others. I like to think of myself as a nice and good person and was shocked to discover at a difficult period of my life that the only thing keeping me from hiring a thug to break a certain musician’s fingers and torturing their cats was the knowledge I would be caught and go to prison and then the certain musician would have won and I wasn't going to give them that satisfaction. Good and nice people don’t think that way and yet there I was. So now I think of being good and nice as a privilege.

The adage ‘power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely’ also has relevance here.

I didn’t address Eudaemonic and ask him to define “equally shitty” for several reasons. I think it’s a useless idea, neither right nor wrong, so not worth following up. I fundamentally disagree with his cynical and depressed view of all of humanity as venal — I know people motivated by joy and hope, who take genuine pleasure in seeing others flourish. Eudaemonic would perceive any challenge to the idea of ‘equally shitty’ as an attempt to shut him down and maintain the dominance of the cultural discourse that assigns moral right to women, and that’s a dead end. And finally it’s the null hypothesis and since I can’t challenge it I didn’t.

I do object to any form of biological essentialism. There be dragons.

    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

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