In my marriage our sexual history was disclosed over many years. I would run a mile if some man asked me to numerate my intimacies with others.
Oh yes, well, there was that cute singer once who I took home after the gig. His name was Phil. I was also seeing another guy called Phillip. Half way thru the Nite the guy says to me,
It's Phil. know, I say , it's Phil. Yes you got it, the other Phil was at the window.
I don't think I ever told my husband that story.
I wouldn't move in with a man after a few months either. Not ever really.
I did in my youth. This LW is not young, neither is the guy, so bit fanciful on both their parts.
This guy is an idiot. Old time patriarchal idiot. Oh, it takes your soul.
Go fuck yourself. She decides what takes her soul, not him.

Generic @98 - While the research you cite is interesting, I'm wondering how you think that fits with this situation. The research is about the perceptions and emotions of the two parties engaged in a sex for money transaction, but the LW's BF isn't (and wasn't) a customer.

Many people have one-night stands with people they just met and will never see again. I guess I have a hard time seeing how someone with a lot of notches on their bedpost from stranger sex is any different from someone who is paid to have sex with strangers.

Another somewhat related thought - if you think about it logically, it makes sense that the population of guys who've paid for the services of a sex worker is exponentially greater than the population of female sex workers. I wonder what the commentariat would consider the appropriate time frame for a guy to disclose to a potential partner the fact that he's paid for sex. Also, what level of disclosure would be acceptable? Number of times? Amount paid? Protection used? Where and how the sex worker was found?

So many questions...

@98: Pretty much. It's a mistake to date people who don't see sex the same way you do, and the difference between a normal person and a person who's sold sex is pretty stark.

It's a lot bigger than the divide between monogamous and nonmonogamous people, and almost nobody thinks that's a distinction that doesn't matter and doesn't need to be discussed with long-term partners.

I don't approve of prostitution, but it's clear that the fact that the LW doesn't disapprove of prostitution is a dealbreaker for her boyfriend, so he should stop being such a coward and say goodbye instead of passive aggressively begging LW to do it for him.

JibeHo @101: yes, so many questions..

JibeHo @ 98
"While the research you cite is interesting, I'm wondering how you think that fits with this situation. The research is about the perceptions and emotions of the two parties engaged in a sex for money transaction, but the LW's BF isn't (and wasn't) a customer."

It's true that the current BF was not a customer. That's not the point. Putting his bad behavior to one side, it seems to me as though he is having trouble identifying with the LW. She is someone who put herself on the market and enjoyed it. Maybe he feels that this is proof of an attitude towards sex that he cannot understand, and this makes the prospect of getting close to her terrifying. After all, sex is very personal and very important. There are entire columns devoted to giving advice on the subject.

Your point about one night stands and other NSA sex occurring without monetary payment doesn't invalidate the argument. People have sex for a variety of reasons: some good, some bad. Whatever the reason, sans cash, the reasons are personal, and have personal meaning. With cash, the reason is commercial.

I am with the majority on this one. These two should split ASAP.

@98 Generic and @Eud:
@ Generic
You keep saying Sex is: and then putting your personal definition of personal (intimate) and important. For many people, sex is a variety of things, depending on who you're doing it with. With a partner, it could be love. Or maintenance. Or connection. With a one night stand it could be ego validation, physical release, or status seeking. The odd thing about sex work is that while a lot of the reasons for sex can be selfish or egotistic or damaging or otherwise "bad" in our moral view, the for cash reason is somehow different. It can be consensual and enjoyable and not hurt or use anyone, and as such, much better "morally" then a lot of the sex people are having, but because it is also commercial, it's worse? This doesn't make sense.

And to Eud:
Do you believe that sex workers don't have partners? Or fall in love? Or struggle with unrequited affection or broken hearts? Because it seems like you think that if a person can see sex as a for-profit thing, they automatically ONLY see it that way. That's not true. They see sex with their partners just the same as anyone. It's that it can also be something else, with a different person, which is not different than a person seeing sex as just solely physical with a bar hookup and transcendent emotionally with a spouse. Just like anything else, context matters. Massage therapists don't feel the same way about their work as they do rubbing their lovers feet after a long day. A chef can hate their job or love their job and feel vastly different emotions about feeding their family. I don't think the person that feels so "different" or abnormal about sex in your statement is the sex worker. I think it's people who see money as so base a motivation that its addition to sex is somehow so much worse than the other selfish reasons people have sex.

I would also argue that the sex workers I know have a healthier respect for sex and their bodies than the majority of people sleeping around. They tend to be more diligent about protection and more discerning in their partners than the average drunk at a bar hookup, which the majority of us have done/are doing. I just don't get why sleeping around in college or in our twenties, thirties, forties, demonstrates more respect for sex and feelings than sex work. Most of us have slept with people whose names we've forgotten or never knew, whose feelings we didn't consider and who made little impression on us emotionally.

@106:
"You keep saying Sex is: and then putting your personal definition of personal (intimate) and important. "

This doesn't seem true. Quotes, please.

"The odd thing about sex work is that while a lot of the reasons for sex can be selfish or egotistic or damaging or otherwise "bad" in our moral view, the for cash reason is somehow different.

Did you read #98? It's not odd. It was explained well, and in some depth.

"Because it seems like you think that if a person can see sex as a for-profit thing, they automatically ONLY see it that way."

I don't know why it seems that way to you, but I also don't know where you're getting any of what you're claiming other people here are saying. Quotes, please. Are you participating in good faith?

It cannot possibly be that hard for you to see that some people see the category [things you do for money] as being completely separate from the category: [things you do as a display of love (or at least attraction)] and that's been explained several times now.

This is not an argument about whether or not the sex workers you know are good people. They are not at stake here. And if other people don't want to date them, they are allowed not to date them. You're trying to make this "Pro Sex-Worker versus Anti-Sex-Worker," and it isn't.

Some people see sex one way, some people see it other ways. One of the ways is incompatible with sex work, or with dating a sex worker. Basically, other people have preferences, even if you'd prefer they didn't. That's life.

@97: "In theory, it's a great incompatibility filter. Unfortunately, in practice, I can't say I've avoided many problems because of it, as the reactions I got fell into two categories.

I think a lot of its utility comes before it actually happens--like when you're getting to the time where you usually want to share everything and hear everything, but you find that you either don't want to know the other person's history, or aren't comfortable sharing your own. For me, that's the useful filter: Right then, that's when I know it's strictly short-term.

Of course, that's as a straight guy--our relationships have their own issues (hoo boy do they ever), but it tends not to have that same competitive aspect (usually). It's also probably skewed by the fact that maybe 80% of my partners were philosophy majors, and we're a weird bunch.

The rest were mostly theater majors, and they're an even weirder bunch.

In calendar mode, I'd tell LW:

That's no lover; that's a vanity thief.

@ 109 - Perhaps I'm too upfront right away (and I do mean right away), so guys don't know how to react and resort to their default strategy: "lie so you'll get laid". Then we have a nice time, they want to stick around for more, and get tangled up in their own web of fibs and fabrications.

It's true that in the gay scene, short-term means 20 minutes in the park, so maybe that changes things a bit in relation with your experience.

@111: Oh. Yeah, what I was describing basically never happens before the second or third month. "Short-term" in my context usually means anything between one night and a couple of months; probably an average of a week or three, maybe.

I'm not saying I wouldn't open up about it if it came up earlier than that, necessarily, but I don't think it ever has.

...actually, now that I think about it, it kinda came up earlier than that once, but that was different (on the third sort-of-date, she asked how many women I'd slept with, and I knew right then we were done).

Euadaemonic @112,

You mean because you got that feeling that answering would get you into trouble? That she wasn’t actually curious, her ‘correct’ answer was something like one or two?

@113: Exactly. I was pretty sure saying anything higher than three was going to end things (and it did).

Pro tip: People who talk about a "slut/stud" dichotomy are lying or deluded.

@ 113 - I can't answer for Eud, but I suppose that if someone asks you that question in the first few dates, it's because it's of great importance to them that you have not had more than x number of partners. It's one of the basic questions for that person, who's trying to find out if it's worth their time to pursue this, or else it wouldn't come up so early. It would be quite different if it came up in casual conversation a few months down the line.

So if a guy pays for sex, does that taint him in the same way that it taints the woman he pays the money to? Cuz there's a helluva lot more guys who've paid for sex than women who've charged for it.

If commercial sex is a deal breaker for most "normal" people, than either there are hundreds of thousands of guys who'll never have a long term relationship again, or there are a whole lot of guys who are lying about their sexual histories to get what they want...

@115: To be fair, I've had a couple of girlfriends who seemed to be trying to find a way to ask the question with plausible deniability, but as far as I recall it was always an attempt to see if I was the kind of guy who'd freak if I found out that they'd slept with more than two partners, too.

@116: Is it your opinion that most straight women are willing to date men who've been sex workers? They are not.

The male equivalent of sex work is not hiring a sex worker. The male equivalent of sex work is sex work.

I think I have whiplash. How did Eud @47 go from requiring full disclosure of all of the specific details of his potential partners previous sex life to Eud @112 who dumped a woman after the third date when all she asked for was his "number"?

Also, how does he @102 say something as patently offensive as "the difference between a normal person and a person who's sold sex is pretty stark" without facing a shit storm? I seem to recall he schooled us all on his particular definition of "normal" in the last few days, so I'm curious how he means it in this context...

Also, are the guys that bought that sex abnormal too?

@118: "How did Eud @47 go from requiring full disclosure of all of the specific details of his potential partners previous sex life to Eud @112 who dumped a woman after the third date when all she asked for was his "number"?

Right, I'd briefly forgotten who you were. Sorry. To answer your absurd question: I didn't, because you're lying about what I said. Again.

@119 You didn't answer my question :)

Come on Eud - what about the Johns? When and what should THEY disclose?

Eud @112 "...actually, now that I think about it, it kinda came up earlier than that once, but that was different (on the third sort-of-date, she asked how many women I'd slept with, and I knew right then we were done)."

I said you dumped a woman after the third date because she asked you your "number". Where did I "lie"?

Insightful and witty? We must inhabit different realities :)

He specifically said that sex workers aren't "normal". I thought you were more progressive than that Allison...

@124: "I said you dumped a woman after the third date because she asked you your "number". Where did I "lie"?

Right there. "I told a lie. Where did I lie?"

I can't tell if this is all an act, or if you're just an astonishingly stupid person who thinks she's putting on an act.

Huh. How witty and insightful!

@ 127 - Read again: Alison draws a clear difference between the insightful and witty Eudaemonic (which he very often is) and the one whose PTSD (not my diagnosis) gets going.

Oh I know what she was saying, it's just that I have a whole different take on Eud's "witty and insightful" side. But then again, I'm a cynic.

Ricardo @130,

I can't make a diagnosis either. I just personally find it a more satisfying way to frame his wildly varying inputs than "troll."

@ 132 - Yes, I figured that much, but you know, some people take these things so seriously, I didn't want to upset anyone.

I'm going to post this thought on two threads because it is relevant to both. From my perspective, Eud has a negative influence on the SL boards because people are (rightly) afraid to incur his wrath. That makes him a bully, if not a troll.

In this thread we have posts @132 and @133 in evidence to show that he affects how other people express their opinions. In effect, he shuts down debate and silences other voices. That would be my definition of a troll AND a bully. YMMV.

@JibeHo, the woman dumped him for having too high a number. Wasn't that clear at @114?

As for whether sex workers are "normal," well, I was going to argue about that but decided the statistical connotations of "normal " make it a hard battleground. I'm too kinky to be normally my sex worker friends are probably also a standard deviation away from the norm in seeing sex work as an option.

Edit: I'm too kinky to be normal.

@ 134 - Do NOT take my post @ 133 as evidence of what you affirm. It isn't. It was a joke, inspired by my belief that YOU would probably twist PTSD into something to use against Eud. And you did.

@ 134 - And FYI, I am not afraid to incur his wrath. This is a comments thread, not real life. He has no power over me whatsoever, he will never hurt me in any manner. If you feel threatened, then I'm sorry to say, but there's something really wrong with you.

Correction to 137: I meant "that you would probably twist what I said into something to use agains Eud." Not PTSD in particular. It's late.

Ricardo @135 - You're right. In light of @114, it seems I did read @112 incorrectly. Now how easy would it have been for Eud to just say hey, you need to look at what I said @114 and that should clear things up. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, but instead @128 he went straight to calling me a stupid lying liar.

Sorry, I meant EricaP @135

@JibeHo, and how easy would it be for Mr. Venn to explain his references and spell out his phrases instead of figuring that we'll keep track of his personal acronyms?

People are who they are. Eudaemonic was traumatized by the events in his past and it makes him a difficult poster. But he's not trolling for attention -- he is trying to advocate for his cause, to the best of his current ability. At least that's how I read it.

@ 142 - Erica, I once again wish to state how much I admire your wisdom.

@Ricardo, well, I was flamed a lot five years ago here, while I was working out my personal issues in the comment thread. So I have a personal stake in encouraging other people to stick around and work out their issues here.

@ 144 - Not only that - Perhaps because you've thought about them, discussed them and tried to see their every aspect in order to work them out, IMO you always provide fair and objective perspectives on pretty much everything (more than most people here anyway, myself definitely included).

Ricardo @139 - Now I'm more confused. I'll post your comment @137 with your correction @139 for clarity.

"@ 134 - Do NOT take my post @ 133 as evidence of what you affirm. It isn't. It was a joke, inspired by my belief that you would probably twist what I said into something to use against Eud. And you did"

I have no idea what that means in light of your comment @133. It's not that big a deal, but I wanted to respond to you and I'm confused.

You and I may not agree on a lot of things, and you might agree with Eud on many things, but you do tend to treat people with respect. I will strive to do the same. Every once in a while I will speak up if I feel I have something to add to a conversation or if I feel like a comment needs to be addressed. That's why I spoke up here. When Eud said that sex workers aren't normal, but evaded my question about Johns, I got frustrated. I should have left his comments about disclosure alone - especially since I was wrong, but my question about Johns was valid. But because I mentioned his disclosure issues in my post, he used that mistake as subterfuge to avoid answering my actual question.

I think that treating sex workers and the men that pay them differently is a HUGE double standard, and I'm still not satisfied as to the reasons it exists...

Unless it is simply that the women are whores, and the men are merely horny?

Erica - You do seem to cut Eud a lot of slack based on his PTSD for wont of a better term. The thing is, being the victim of abuse does not give you the license to treat anonymous people you'll never meet and don't know, like shit. He routinely calls people stupid lying rape-apologist shitstains. To me that invalidates a lot of what he says. I am a survivor of years-long sexual abuse as a child - does that give me the right to heap abuse on others? Of course not. So it especially galls me when he calls ME a rape apologist. It gets to me. Ricardo is probably right - I shouldn't worry about what some anonymous creep says on these boards, but as you may know, it's hard not to take it personally when it's directed at you.

I'll chime in by saying that PTSD is no excuse for being abusive--especially when you have proved yourself capable of being able to express yourself reasonably.

I don't think you can equate Vennominon's literary references and personal acronyms--or Philohile's song lyrics, or CMDWannabe's references to clothing, or LavaGirl's very frequent non sequiturs--with Eudaemonic's abusive rants. Eudaemonic's insults aren't quirks, and I don't think attacking other people who've done nothing to you with vile language is ever appropriate or acceptable. And all JibeHo and I and, I presume, others are calling for is more civility of address, not a banishment, nor the suppression of ideas.

@JibeHo
> I think that treating sex workers and the men that pay them differently is a HUGE double standard >

Yes, it is. But that double-standard is part of our culture. So guys can reasonably expect to get cut slack in our society (for biased reasons) if they pay for sex, whereas women (and men) who admit to selling sex face a huge penalty (for biased reasons).

Many more people will refuse to marry someone who sold sex than will refuse to marry someone who paid for sex. That bias sucks, but it's real.

@150: I'm not sure how much slack straight men who pay for sex get cut by straight women in our society. There is a question on OkCupid about if it were legal, would you pay for sex and another one thats asks if you have ever hired a sex worker and a third that asks another variation on the theme and a lot of women have set their acceptability of a "yes" answer low. I think a lot of women view "the kind of man who'd go to a sex worker" as a creep or a pig or someone who doesn't respect women, or someone they can't trust not to cheat on them.

Then there's also the (straight) man who seems to think it's a referendum on his manhood or something to "have to pay for it."
I think we can safely say that our culture looks down on both the sellers and buyers of sex.

NoCute - Do you think that men who have paid for sex (not counting lap dances!) should disclose that fact? And if so, when? It seems to me that there are an awful lot of gainfully employed sex workers in this country, so the number of Johns must be pretty high. And if you're right that most women would reject a guy out of hand for paying for sex, how do you think these guys are in relationships? I assume they just lie about it.

Eud's rants and name-calling trouble me, but not as much as JibeHo's self-satisfied needling and seemingly deliberate attempts to misunderstand him--which I hope are not as disingenuous as they appear. It seems, JibeHo, that you start with the assumption that Eud is insincere and has nothing of value to say. It's the only way I can make sense of your responses to him. But while I can do without Eud's abusive language and his accusations of lying, I have never found him insincere, and you seem to go out of your way to interpret him as such. Despite what you may think, he does frequently have valuable observations to contribute, and I for one appreciate his point of view because often he is the only one to challenge assumptions or privilege that others aren't able to acknowledge or even discern. He has obviously thought through a lot of issues and presents them here as consistently as anyone else is able to, fallible human beings that we are. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions is a different issue and has nothing to do with his sincerity or consistency. There is no give and take and far too much abuse on his hot button topic, but on other topics I have seen him shift or modify his views in exchanges with other posters.

Meanwhile you seem to be trying to initiate some kind of bizarre high-school shunning, or what the hell was the point of that comment @134? Posted on two threads no less. I feel like I was being invited to agree what an awful, awful person Eud is. We're all grown ups here, we can make up our own minds about other posters without your help. And speaking of rude, I find it weird to be discussing Eud as if he's not in the room. Hello, Eud.

I’m interested that JibeHo is so chivalrously interested in getting abusive commenters off her forum for the protection of others. JibeHo drove me off the forum and it took me many months to recover my composure and return. Eudaemonic has never come close to driving me off the forum.

Thanks for the feedback Late and Allison. I'm not sure if you'll care to read my reply, but I'll come back tomorrow to try to defend myself. For now I have a happy hour to get to.

Damn, didn't get a mention @149.
Must lurk less.
And I agree @151, society looks down at men who pay for sex, pretty much anyone connected at all to the sex trade.
And yeah, re 114, the slut/stud dichotomy is often repeated, and a little too pat, especially because (in my experience) it's mostly women who apply these badges, not the Unified Patriarchy or something. Well, the Patriarchy does call women sluts, and as to their treatment of studs...see, now you've got me thinking of John Ringo's bullshit, and I have to pour bleach in my ear and hope some gets to my brain.
There was a study awhile back reported on in Salon (I think) that showed, in college-age women, negative attitudes towards promiscuous behavior were strongly correlated with class; nothing negative stuck to upper-crust girls who slept around, girls from humbler backgrounds were sluts and hos.

Not to rehash the 'who's sluttier' topic all over, but women have the pussy, they have the power over who gets laid, and if no guy who was known for sleeping around got any action, or was treated like a guy who was known to regularly visit prostitutes, well, things would change fast.

@152: No, i don't think that men who have gone to a professional for sex should disclose that fact, unless both parties are playing a version of "tell me every detail about every single sexual experience you've ever had." Why should they?

I also think that no sex worker or former sex worker should be compelled to disclose that information, but given that now we're talking about a job or employment background, it might have more opportunity to come up.
Ultimately, I think people should put all that stuff out there, because if you're someone who did sex work--whether from choice or necessity--and you have no guilt or shame about it, it behooves you to know if you're dating someone for whom that is a Big Problem. Helps you weed out.
Anything that you have reason to think might be a relationship-ending issue should be raised and dealt with before moving in together.

@JibeHo I'm not a fan of E but he does make good points. And you're focusing on his words without looking at the context. Which in the situation with the numbers was that the girlfriend had an arbitrary number of partners it was 'okay' to have and E went past it. And Ricardo listed some of the reasons why this problematic mainly because I've never seen that question except as an attempt to guilt/shame your partner.

I apologize for the length in advance…

First I wanted to address Allison directly: When I sat down on Saturday to see if I could come back here to explain where I’m coming from and perhaps find some common ground with people who have a hard time with my point of view, I was rather surprised to find that you had written a fairly nasty personal attack on my character on another thread. With the exception of some heated exchanges I had with Eud a while back in which I stooped to his level (to my immediate regret) and called him a few choice names, I try to refrain from making ad hominem attacks.

I understand where you’re coming from, since I now know that you feel that I single-handedly drove you from the comments board. From what I remember, I challenged your first-hand lesbian experience that “bitches be crazy”. Being a lesbian myself, with loads of perfectly sane friends, I took offense. Vocally. My intention wasn’t to drive you away though, and I am genuinely sorry that I responded to you in such an extremely heavy-handed and over-bearing way. I felt guilty when you left because I sensed that I had probably caused your absence. This might not mean much coming from me, but I’m very happy you're back.

Anyways, when I posted my very first comment ever here on SL, I had been a reader for at least a half a dozen years. I enjoyed reading Dan’s advice of course, but I also looked forward to reading the views of the commentators. There are such a diverse group of people who contribute to the comments section, and while I didn’t always agree with what everyone had to say, I enjoyed the dialogue.

And then Eudaemonic showed up one day and started posting fairly prolifically. Maybe it’s his hard-to-miss avatar, but I fairly quickly got a sense of what type of person he seemed to be. On many subjects his positions are interesting and engaging, but I began to notice that on other subjects his positions were absolutist and intransigent. When other posters would engage with him on those subjects, he would almost immediately resort to name calling and insults and he would write ever longer posts sometimes solely for the purpose of calling whomever he was disagreeing with lying liars, bigots, shit stains, stupid, and you know the rest. I think anyone who has been on these comment boards for any length of time can predict which subjects raise his hackles.

Frankly, after watching from the sidelines for a couple of months and noticing that people were shying away from commenting lest they become a target, I spoke up. I took an unpopular position, I didn’t articulate my viewpoint very well, and under the onslaught, I retreated from the conversation. I’m sure many people came away from that conversation with a negative view of me, but the most significant consequence of that first experience was that I became an easy target for Eud. In fact, ever since that very first day - Eud has taken every available opportunity to discount what I have to say by calling me some variation of a stupid lying bigot. I think a few others have had similar experiences with him.

So while I still read the comments for the wide-ranging and insightful views of some very interesting people, my Eud radar is always on. There are subjects that I think I could add a comment to that might actually be of value to someone because of the experiences I’ve had, but for the most part I keep quiet to avoid the inevitable shit storm. Many of you may judge me for being intimidated by some anonymous poster on the internet, but the fact that Allison cites me as her reason for staying quiet for months on end tells me that even the strongest and most articulate among us can be silenced by a stranger.

My intention isn’t to stop Eud from posting or from offering his unique perspective. I respect his right to express his views, just as I hope that my right to express my views is respected. What I don’t respect is his seeming inability to disagree with anyone on his hot button issues without immediately responding with hateful and very personal vitriol.

I find it discouraging that I’m getting a hard time for needling Eud, while he is free to hurl actual insults at other people without reproach from some of you. The fact that you like his voice, or that you value his voice over others, or you give him a pass because you imagine that his assholery is due to some unhealed trauma in his past is frustrating. We’re all human. We all have pain in our pasts. On the other thread, when he was spewing his “you’re a stupid lying rape-apologist” crap, others pointed out (it wasn’t just me) that using the term rape to describe any despicable thing done to you by another person emotionally or physically, is insulting to actual victims of sexual assault. As a survivor myself, I find that when he co-opts that word it pushes one of my most sensitive buttons. It causes me actual emotional distress. After he really got going throwing his rape theory and rape apologist accusations around - I found I couldn’t stand by and not say anything. So I did. His response to me was typical. Pretty much an “oh, it’s you, you lying bigot. I and everyone here should ignore your voice and your opinion.” And then he was off again, calling more people rape-apologist shit stains.

I know that people form their own impressions of other posters colored by their own personal histories. I wasn’t trying to raise a posse to take out Eud - I thought that I saw proof of my theory, writ large on two simultaneous comment sections, that Eud quiets other voices. I felt compelled to say something. I suppose that I keep hoping that by pointing out his effect on others, he might rethink his own voice and show others more respect and courtesy. After reading some of the comments posted by others, I agree that that is a ridiculous goal, and I should just stop pissing in the wind. I will try my best to resist the urge to be the Eud police. I can only hope that he will afford me the same courtesy.

Oh, and Allison, I’m actually more of a recreational stoner. Cheers!

I hear what you're saying and understand why you're saying it JibeHo, and thanks for the response. It's been a bit of a raw week all round. I think you and I see a few things a little bit differently, which means I'm going to end up disagreeing with you on some points.

Just wanted to say, regarding what you posted about yourself @148, I'm so very sorry to hear that. It's shitty and it's unfair and you shouldn't have had to deal with that. It's just so depressing how many regular female posters have something similar to share.

Thanks LateBloomer. We're not a very exclusive club unfortunately.

For what it's worth, JibeHo admitted, in the very first thread she posted in here, that she only signed up in order to make sure that the Party Line got questioned less; she felt that too many people were talking about men as if they were humans, rather than objects that it's morally acceptable to rape, abuse, and lie about.

To people who are upset when I point out that they're going beyond rape apology and into rape advocacy?

I'll stop calling you a rape apologist the minute you stop supporting rapists. Don't like being called a liar? I'll stop calling you a liar the minute you stop lying. Up to you.

Me @159 "I will try my best to resist the urge to be the Eud police. I can only hope that he will afford me the same courtesy."

JibeHo,

While I've read enough to know that Eudaemonic is being exceptionally vitriolic this week, in general I can deal with him by not reading anything he writes once he's been triggered. Even when I read it I don't engage. Like you say, anything else is just pissing in the wind.

Harm-reduction is accomplished by the community noting harmful statements and explaining why they are harmful and not-cool. Other readers will then understand that the person behaving like a deranged asshole is not supported by the community, will feel more safe and will be given more critical tools. These statements do not need to be addressed to the PBLADA themselves because they are not for that person's benefit.

From the outside, this approach is indistinguishable from tacit endorsement in an established community once everyone has said their piece and started ignoring the PBLADA so it's a good thing when new people jump into the fray now and again.

Allison - I got confused trying to parse your last paragraph.

JibeHo,

Let's say that A, B, C, D and E form part of an online community. All post several times a week. Once a month E is triggered and lashes out and calls everyone a vile liar.
> The first month, A, B, C and D defend themselves.
> The second month, A and B defend themselves and C and D make general statements about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
> The third month, A and B make general statements about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. C and D change the subject.
> The fourth month, A, B, C and D all change the subject.
> The fifth month, F and G start following the community and are startled to note that generally sensible people A, B, C and D all act out of character by ignoring E's spewed bile. It looks like E has some special bullying privilege within the community and maybe the community actually agrees with them.
> The sixth month, F is too worried about being targeted to dare start posting anything at all. G on the other hand sees an opportunity to show people how it's done and starts posting and defending themselves. A, B and C make statements in strong support of G. D makes guarded statements in support of E.

Without G stepping up to stir shit in the sixth month, the fifth month will remain the status quo. A, B, C and D all know what they think privately but nobody else does.

Does this help?

Since I'm a very visual learner, I must admit - I had to draw that diagram on paper.

I'm curious, in your second to last paragraph - are you're saying that new poster G is the one who stirred up the shit in month 6 by defending him/her self? And are you also recommending that members of the old crew (ABCD), who know that recriminations aren't going to stop the onslaught, should retreat in silence because they realize the futility of the struggle?

I want to be clear - I come in peace. I'm genuinely interested in understanding where you're coming from.

Our biggest advantage is that this is an old thread. We probably have it (mostly) to ourselves.

New poster G stirred shit relative to what would have happened otherwise in month six. A, B, C and D are by now too tired/bored to attempt to engage with E so E's lashing-out gets no reinforcement or engagement and eventually fizzles. A, B, C and D accept this arrangement because they are satisfied that they are among friends: the four of them all agree that they share certain values important to them that are being rejected by E.

By engaging with E, G continues and probably escalates the bile-spewing. G also switches things up enough to recruit participation by A, B, C and D, because things are now more interesting for them. Also, they may feel the need to care for G because they know how it feels to be where G is.

I'm not recommending anything. I'm just saying that from the outside, in Month 5 someone without the backstory doesn't know whether A, B, C and D think E is cute and special, or whether they are just burnt out. New blood in the community will make it clear.

Recalling the confusing paragraph that the last two long comments are trying to explain:
From the outside, [non-engagement] is indistinguishable from tacit endorsement in an established community once everyone has said their piece and started ignoring the PBLADA so it's a good thing when new people jump into the fray now and again.

That's a very interesting take on the what's happened and unless you correct me, I'll assume that I'm G in this scenario.

I think much better in the morning, so if you're interested in continuing the dialogue, I'll be back then. I hope you are.

I think your theory is nice - in theory. One problem with the silent approach is that some bullies don't stop bullying just because they are ignored. Some get louder. E's rage doesn't always need to be watered in order to grow.

The other problem I see with it is that many times E will just pick out an opinion he doesn't agree with on the thread and then go after that person and their point of view. How do you stop that?

If the old-timers just shake their heads and ignore E, the vile statements stand unchallenged and their vulgarity implicates everyone on the board.

I don't think there is a good solution that can come from anyone other than E, and I'm not sure he isn't pleased with what he's wrought :(

JibeHo,

You agree with everything I said.

Well then, I guess we're done here...