@105: "Telling her that it's her duty so she should have sex would be coercion.”
Well, no, it's not a battleship bridge, nobody's going to the brig for dereliction of duty. If one partner cuts off the sex where it existed before, and this is pointed out as something that might sink the relationship, neither is this coercive, unless any and all relationship rules are coercive.

In Highland Games, that sport for guys who stood 6'2 in the fourth grade, there's a 'sheaf toss' event where you throw a sheaf over a tall bar with (I think) a pitchfork. About ten years ago, there was a fair amount of controversy over a new throwing technique that went against orthodoxy. The new technique's defenders said, hey, there's nothing in the rules says we can't do this, to which the other side replied, and the rules don't say, 'You can't stand on a giant box before throwing,' but you can't do that either.
There are 1001 rules and regs in any relationship, many of them, like 'keep yourself reasonably well-groomed and don't smell bad' being implicit. If your partner told you that he was swearing off showers, and animals don't brush their teeth, it's unnatural, so now he won't either, most people would consider this grounds for ending the relationship. And this would not be coercive, unless everything's coercive. We had a situation we both agreed to, you broke the rules, so this is what happens.
I had one partner who'd try this jiu-jitsu on me all the time, often in tandem with the 'you can't point a finger at someone else without four fingers pointing back at yourself,' which has the same intellectual heft and aim of derailment via schoolyard semantics. She'd act out/go apeshit, and when I started pointing out that I refused to live my life in this state of drama, she'd accuse me of 'trying to control her,' the answer to which is always, No, you're telling me what you want to do, and I'm telling you what I'm going to do.

 ..”the real question is... are you advising in her best interest, or are you advising people to do what you'd like them to? The latter will usually be dumb advice. “
By 'you' I presume you mean the husband, I don't know these people and past some intellectual curiosity don't care if they fuck, stay celibate, or become Scientologists...Well, hopefully we all always advise others in their best interests, though it's certainly hard to keep some self-interest from creeping in there. It doesn't sound like a stellar marriage for either of them, though as many have noted we never have all the facts.

BDF @ 102
cmd78014 at yeah who. Please write your title in here right after you send, just in case there are any BDF wannabees.
That said, interested others who want to reach out are welcome to do so. Nothing but friendly chat required.

Alison [108] - if you want to stay in a collaborative marriage with this man, you will need to find some way to reconnect with him sexually.
This is interesting. I don't think it's been proposed before now. Regrowing genuine sexual attraction to her husband, I mean. It sounds pretty hopeless, after years in a sexless habit, but maybe some low stakes mutual masturbation could turn into some interest in that solid needy cock again.

Undead - [109] he's not happy, and she feels guilty because of this
My first reaction is that guilt tripping is not fair play. My second was that maybe some attraction could be rekindled out of the platonic affection? I don't know why I think that watching videos of him having fun boning other women while he gives her oral and jacks it would be helpful. I suppose I need to sober up.

CatBro [110] - I think we might have different ideas about coercion? My take is that rules can be freely agreed to, or imposed by physical force or manipulation. Whether one is under reasonable threat of harm, or has been deliberately misled, can be debated. I'm not sure if it's more common to assume that a marriage will always contain sex, or to assume that the habits in your relationship won't change suddenly. But I argue that the latter is a more realistic prediction. I've seen more exceptions to the former.

I liked your story. But again, the status quo for this marriage is sexlessness...

By 'you' I presume you mean the husband
Errr, no. You seem to be arguing that LIBIDOS have sex with her husband even though she doesn't want to. I just don't know why.

And for the record, I think that Dan started chipping away at a vein of gold, with his ideas about how she could help her husband find a new girlfriend. It seems they were both happy with a sexless marriage and extramarital partners, when hubby had a girlfriend. But she doesn't even say why that ended. Irritating letter. Good night.

@rubyhawkins Holy shit, get it girl!

@93 I disagree with your statement that consent is on a spectrum. Consent is a binary, it's there or it is not. There can be ambiguity in determining whether it is there, but it either is or is not. In your examples:
You initiate sex because the potential partner does not consent.
You initiate sex even though the potential partner does not consent.
The first one is rape (or will be if the initiating partner doesn't stop.)
The second one becomes rape unless the potential partner consents.
All your other examples are consensual. Consent is not diminished by the consenting partner's reasons, unless, of course, the consent is given under duress.
With the kink community slogans, "safe, sane and consensual," and "risk-aware consensual kink," i.e. SSC and RACK, the "consent" part is the firmest and most useful part. The questions "is it safe" and "is it sane" are judgment calls and may vary depending on who is doing the judging. But "is it consensual?" Either the parties consent or they do not. There is no spectrum, there is no ethically muddled middle. And in cases where one of the parties can't tell if the other party consents, that's time to stop and make sure. The consent is there or it isn't.

Squidgie @115: I think both views are correct. Consent is either there or it isn't, but enthusiasm is on a spectrum. There's "oh, all right, if you insist" and there's "hell yeah." "Oh, all right, if you insist" is still consent, which SHAT does not understand. Saying, "Well, I don't want to have sex with a partner unless they're at 'hell yeah'" is a fine policy to have. Saying, "My drive is far higher than my partner's, and therefore, I really appreciate their occasional 'oh all right, if you insists" is also a fine policy to have, particularly if the alternatives to having such a policy are cheating or breaking up. People assign their own values to the different options available. So long as the binary consent is there, it's up to the two people involved how much enthusiasm they'll accept as a minimum.
The point is that pushing for an "oh, all right, if you insist" is an asshole move, at minimum. "I don't feel like it" is a final answer and should be taken as such.

What #117 said.
Bi, you on FB?

@116 It is something that I have observed. Also, logically, I don't see how it could not be true. Is consent there? The answer is yes or no. "Maybe" or "I can't tell" = not enough info so that's a no. Can no change to yes with persuasion? Yes. At what point does persuasion become assholery and then coercion? Those are more nuanced questions. But Consent either exists or does not exist.
A person's reasons for having sex consensually might be "OK if you pay me" or "OK if you do the laundry" or "OK because then you won't sulk all day" or "OK because I said I would every Sunday morning." All those are still consent. (On the Sunday morning example, consent still needs to be present in the moment. Consent can be withdrawn.)

Agree with Squidgie here. Consent is consent. If coercion by someone else is involved, then that is not consent.
Enthusiasm around consent is different again.

@115 - Consent is a binary, it's there or it is not. There can be ambiguity in determining whether it is there, but it either is or is not.
@119 - "Maybe" or "I can't tell" = not enough info so that's a no.
You're starting to contradict yourself, the last statement is a personal judgement. One might also assume that a lack of "no" is enough consent, and still be on the right side of the law.

And "yes" does not always mean consent. If you knock someone out, ask them if they want sex, then manually nod their head for them, that's illegal. If someone agrees to sex after being slipped roofies, that's illegal. If someone agrees to sex after being threatened with a broken arm, that's illegal. If someone agrees to sex after being threatened with divorce... even though divorce is arguably more painful than a broken arm to most married people... it's legal. But I don't see how to call this ethical. This is the point I think SHAT was trying to make. You can also convince someone that sex is their duty with statements like "No one will ever stay with you unless you have sex with them every week, whether you like it or not." It's untrue (asexuals can have happy sexless marriages). It's misleading others to act in a way you want them to, it's coercive.

If a man rapes his daughter sometimes while growing up, she turns 16 thinking that she might as well say "yes" to everyone because her "no" will never be respected... is that "yes" consensual? God I wish I never knew this happened in real life. At least it didn't happen to me. That is #8 on my spectrum. And I didn't say she was raped by anyone but herself. And perhaps the people who taught her that her "no" doesn't matter.

I also agree that sex trade is consensual (#6). I think it's a grey area because you can hurt yourself by agreeing to unwanted sex (see #7 and #8). I think it's unquestionably ethical to choose if the alternative is starving. (See: SLLOTD about hooking up with a GRINDR random for rent money.)

That's...quite a leap you made there, Philo, from busting someone's arm to saying you'll divorce them, 'threatening them with worse than a broken arm' is sophistry that's unworthy of you. You keep going from threats of harm/physical force to one side saying, this change of affairs is not right, as though they're one and the same.
We're back to 'if you tell the other person in a relationship anything that's against their wishes/will hurt their feelings, and ask them to agree or move on, that's coercion,' which means every relationship is nothing but a bundle of coercion.
If breaking someone's arm is bad, and divorce is worse than that, would you go on the record against being against divorce, period, if the two parties have grown apart? Because anyone who says ‘Keep doing X and I’ll divorce you’ is worse than spousal batterer?
And really, your point at #112, Come. On. Yes, relationships change, so if your husband stops brushing his teeth and they turn green, you can complain, and he can bounce back with, Hey, baby, change is a constant in the universe! And make with the finger-guns.

“You can also convince someone that sex is their duty with statements like "No one will ever stay with you unless you have sex with them every week, whether you like it or not." It's untrue (asexuals can have happy sexless marriages). It's misleading others to act in a way you want them to, it's coercive.”
I haven't read the LIBIDO thread for awhile, and we seem to be bouncing from that to this here letter. All except for RubyHawkins, who apparently has this shit on lock.
The people who say 'I want to be in a relationship that includes regular sex' are not the same as those who say 'Most people want to be in a relationship with regular sex;' the first is a potential partner, the second could be a concerned best friend, or most of the internet, or your local Catholic priest.
That 'most' people want this is not untrue because asexuals exist, anymore than pasta-lovers are a myth because of celiac disease. Asexuals, and true sufferers of celiac, are a small minority, and as such, need to disclose to those with whom they hope to share congress, either in the sack or at the table. An asexual may not like the fact that s/he has a hard time finding someone for a monogomous relationship, but the fact that most people like fucking doesn't make it coercive (“Oh, you're one of those sex-wanters, you people think you can tell everyone what to do.” )No, but we can tell people what we will and will not take in a relationship, and they not liking our preferences doesn't make them put-upon, coerced, or battered.
I wouldn't be surprised at some religious types hitting their non-sex-wanting partners with 'but it's your duty, laid out in the Good Book!,' at least I've seen this shit in movies. But for the vast majority of us, it would be a lot less 'you have to fuck someone whether you like it or not, because DUTY with a big D' and more, 'I'm going to fuck someone, which I assumed would be you, as was spelled out in the start of this relationship. If don't want to fuck anyone, or at least not fuck me, then the relationship will change.'
If you think this is coercive, please spell out relationship rules/agreements that you don't think are coercive, that don't involve sex.

Squidgie @119: "consent still needs to be present in the moment."

I can consent to getting on a roller-coaster, then withdraw consent in the middle of the ride. My prior consent is still valid, obviously.

Similarly, I can enthusiastically agree to have someone tie me down and beat me past the point where I'm begging and pleading sincerely for it to stop. Legally, my partner is on shaky ground, trusting that I'll be happy with the scene after it's over. But ethically, my partner is on solid ground. It's known as "consensual non-consent" and it works, between people who know and trust each other.

Cat @118: Of course, who isn't? (Am I going to reveal my identity? Fat chance, I can only speak so frankly here because I'm anonymous.)

Squidgie @119: "Is consent there? The answer is yes or no. "Maybe" or "I can't tell" = not enough info so that's a no."
Exactly. Or, ask for a more direct answer. But don't proceed until you have one, and it's yes.

#124 - Can always send it to bodyarchitects@hotmail.com, as a few others here have.
Always open to grooming tips.

CatBro - I don't think that divorcing someone is bad. Or that expressing yourself, or explaining your plans, is bad. I didn't say that asexuals are common. That's an army of straw men you pulled out. I said that threatening someone else to get your way is bad. Deceiving another to get your way is bad. It's a different tactic to appeal to someone's interest to make the sale, which I find to be ethical (good).

I think the manipulation tactics in #122 are worse than anything Marcelina said on this comment board. "Come. On." is supposed to be an argument? Even Eudaemonic had his female defender (EricaP)... and me, saying that I appreciated his perspective, but calling people who disagreed with him shitstains all the time was unappreciated and inappropriate. Marcelina got a bunch of (all men and one part-time woman) mocking her perspective. Which happened to overlap with mine in many areas... she was just more aggressive about it. I'm not sure I remember a man being kind to her. Certain men must battle female aggression to the death, apparently. Like they believe that female aggression in particular will rip society apart at the seams and must be mocked constantly so it doesn't spread...

I'm beginning to think this place is full of douchey men who can't figure out how to live a happy life without dealing out shit to women. Ciao.

@126 Philo: there are indeed representatives from the Douche Guild here (CatBro ain't one of them), same as there are reps from the Bitchy Broad company, but I don't think it's the majority in either case.

As for DCMC, I question her usage of the phrase 'the kid', as some others have. I can see it being endearing, although perhaps only to her, and not the man. I can also see it as being a way to distance herself from him. I get that as we get older, those who used to be our age peers now seem quite young (I remember the first time I referred to some college students as 'kids', then gasped at how matronly I sounded). But he's 29, not a child.

I wonder if her concern about how he would handle a break-up is a deflection from wondering how she herself would take it. There may be something comforting and grounding to DCMC about being the foundation that her sometime companion runs to each time. I could imagine enjoying the feeling that no matter who he tried to pair up with, she/the situation became inferior to my thoughts and advice, and my attentions in bed. Perhaps she needs to really examine how she would feel at losing him, more so than assuming it would impact him so greatly that it could last a lifetime. Being an 'auntie' in his life may not be her wildest dream.

#126 – Actually, you explicitly said that 'threatening someone' with divorce was worse than breaking their arm. So just letting them wake up one morning to their walking papers is better? And you used asexuals as an example of how people could be happy in sexless marriages, as though that were a perfectly viable option. You comb your hair, I'll comb mine, and we'll see who's got more straw sticking to them, 'right?

Deception is indeed bad, but I don't recall anyone here ever advocating for it. And I don't recall which Manipulation Tactics (must start a manual) I laid out in #122.

Marclina was hooted off this board for being an intellectual lightweight, who was the flip side of the 2001 Conservative coin that said, “You don't support our President? You don't want to go to Afghanistan/Iraq? Well, then, you're a terrorist-lover, and you wanted those people to die in the towers on 9/11;' she just called everyone who disagreed with her a manspainer and rape apologist (and every other epithet she could remember from undergrad thrown in the tumbledryer with a sheet of Bounce,) including some female victims of actual rape.
And she did it for the same reason Republican wankers did what they did in '01 thru '08, and back in the first Gulf war: because she found out early that calling someone a really awful name generally won her the argument, at least as long as she stayed in an arena where the onlookers would dogpile those who disagreed with her. I have every expectation that Marcelina is in one of those places now, and is much happier there.

One of the reasons I keep coming back to SL, is that the contributors had as little tolerance for her bullshit as they did for SeattleBlues, and LovesChild, and whatever ponce came between those two. Eud got out of line, and he got got, and Marcelina saw that her usual grade-school rap wasn't cutting it, and fucked off, and good riddance to her.

Whatever she's doing now, which I expect includes being genially despised by her superiors the way Southern slave owners didn't like mosquitos but appreciated how they kept The Help in check, and loathed by anyone working under her, I'm not expecting Marcie to rip society apart at the seams. Rather, as I've previously stated, I expect Rush and Michael Savage and all those of their ilk cream their jeans at giving her a chance at a microphone, and presenting her as the face of Feminism/Leftism/Whatever they Don't Like-ism, same way the Mongols would toss a diseased body into a city they wanted to capture. For she is a manifestation of the Devil's Toilet, and no good can come of her sooty flush, you mark my words, son.

'Come. On.' is about the politest way I can respond to someone trying to equate setting boundaries in a relationship with breaking their partner's bones. If you keep trying to equate people trying to hold their partners to agreed-upon rules with physical violence, which is of a piece with the Divine Ms M's “I got my ass grabbed, so I know what it's like to be raped!” then you will indeed be happier with her on whatever forum she currently inhabits.

BDF @124 [being on Facebook]

Of course, who isn't?

I'm not!

CatBro - Oh my god. Wrong again! I compared the threat of divorce with the THREAT of arm-breaking. If you disagree about which would be more painful, go ask a bunch of married people whether they'd rather divorce or break their arm and post the statistics. That would actually be a convincing argument. Of course I think you should just divorce if you're really unhappy and the misery can't be resolved. OF COURSE I think divorce is a shitty thing to use as an ultimatum. Ultimatums are shitty last resorts. They may work when negotiations have failed with a weak person or country. With about the same effectiveness as threats of violence. If it's not used in defense from a brute, it's simply bullshit of the unskilled brute. "Best defense? No be there."

I fucking hate arguing with idiots. Apparently you can't even tell I tried to drop the subject multiple times because I'm fucking annoyed by constant miscommunication. Or you just don't care, causing me pain is fun sport. Fuck off douchebag.

I'm not going anywhere. I try to post my own analysis every week, I am not going to stop enjoying crunching social problems because you're here. If you don't like it you can leave. Or continue your attempts to annoy me. And I'll continue to say fuck off. And we can bore everyone else to tears with pointless bullshit.

@126: And yet it was Eudamonic freaking out on you as Marcelina attacked others regularly. Would that not suggest that the issue is more her framing than the position taken?

Anyway, doesn't really matter towards the topic at hand.

Ultimatum or Consequences or coercion? So much is in how it's framed.

We cannot live a consequence free existence. If we break someone's arm or cheat on them, they will divorce. Long before we married, my husband laid down the consequence: if I cheated he was gone. So was that coercive? I don't think so. If he was an alcoholic, I'd say get treatment or I am gone. Because he doesn't get to live a consequence free life and decisions he makes impact me. And I will walk. Is that coercive? Nope. He has a choice. Me or the booze. And I have a choice: him or other penises. I don't get both.

And as a person who has divorced, I'd take the divorce over the broken arm. Lol.

@127 agree on your read of lw's use of the word kid. After reading her letter, I felt very bad for her. She sees the writing but really likes the guy.

@121. Philo. Convincing someone thru rational argument, is not coersion. The original LW did ask Dan if he thought she should fuck her husband even though she wasn't sexually attracted to him. His response was because the LW wants to keep her marriage.
Suggesting that she fuck her husband occassionally, in order for this to be achieved ie keep her marriage, is in no way coercion.

Adjusts Prinz-nez, looks over table at BiDanFan "Uh-huh, and when did you, yourself, find that your relationship with Philo had taken a downward turn? Collecting data, here.”

PHilo, you seem to be coming from a place of some pain, think we’ll table this ‘till tomorrow.

CatB; I didn't find Marcelina any where near as offensive as Mr E's loopy rants or Hunter's sexist perspective. Took forever for Mr E to get the hint. Though I'm sorry he's gone altogether. Hunter still continues.
Marcelina, a lot of the time I saw her point. I saw no reason for her to go. You guys/ mostly men, just flipped out at her and drove her away.

And I don't see Philo is in pain, rather she responded appropriately to your post telling her to go elsewhere. In other words, pull your head in.

Maintenance sex doesn't mean gritting your teeth through sex you are repulsed by out of a sense of duty. It's not the same as duty sex. Depending on what the problem is, if the problem is low libido, it's about making an effort to create anticipation before the event and mentally getting yourself in the mood. If the problem is that the chemistry has faded, it might be about mentally enjoying a great fantasy about someone else while having sex with your spouse. It's never great sex but it's not necessary bad either and if it keeps your spouse happy and you get some mild enjoyment out of it, why not?

Cat @136: I am reassured by the fact that the rare individuals I've irretrievably butted heads with on the board are the same individuals that the majority of other posters have also come to see as irrational and confrontational. Always good to have vindication of an it's-not-me-it's-you. To answer your question, my relationship with she-who-has-demanded-that-I-ignore-her never recovered from an early "It sounds like you were raped a lot" in response to my assertion that it's much easier to seduce men than women. Since being told to "get on my way," I've mainly just enjoyed my weekly tubs of popcorn as she manages to alienate a new poster each week without ever seeming to realise that maybe she's the problem. "Apparently you can't even tell I tried to drop the subject multiple times" was a particular source of mirth... it's really easy to drop a subject, just don't type a response! Anyway, yeah, I sussed a long time ago that her arguments make no sense and therefore aren't worth engaging with.

Lava @137: I may have used more conciliatory language with Ms M than some of the men did, because I wasn't being directly attacked, but I'd like to be on record as one of the team of folks who didn't appreciate her sex-negative lecturing and expressed this to her.

I think that some of the value of the board would be lost if it were just a chamber set up to echo Dan, but at the same time, those people who can't engage in a discussion without a "Fuck off, douchebag" aren't adding a thing.

All that said, even Mr E and Ms M did, as Lava notes, have some valuable insights, mixed in with their hatred towards their respective other halves of humanity. If only they could have expressed them without name calling or refusing to accept that differing opinions may also be valid.

LavaGirl, I really don't think Marcellina was driven away by anyone. She delighted in repeating the same viewpoint over and over again and had no interest in the opinion of anyone who didn't agree with her, particularly women who didn't agree with her. That probably did become tiring for her, it certainly wore me out a bit.

Last PS: This is why I don't put Hunter into the same category of troll. Although some of his posts may be as nonsensical as Philo's (the Kid is a closet case?? wtf?) or as sexist as Eudaemonic's ("had your morning rape yet?"), but he never directly attacks anyone.

BiDanFan, "sex-negative lecturing" is perfect. Of course I didn't say it that well!
I remember trying to offer a more positive take on some porn and its uses in healthy relationships, and some examples of really good porn being produced from some makers, and being totally condescended to.

@#140 wasn't Marcelina the poster who would not shut up about her book The Orgasm Diet? Or was that a different poster?

E was always frustrating to me because he had intelligence and insight but even the slightest hint that a man might be wrong about something, or responsible for harm done to a woman, and the MRA bullshit spewed out.

And didn't he once claim that a woman cheating was the same thing as her raping a man?

Diagoras @139: Exactly. Maintenance sex is for when your partner is horny and you are neutral on the subject. It's not for when your partner is horny and you are actively repulsed by the thought.
It's odd that there is so much objection to maintenance sex, and much less objection to, say, maintenance cleaning-the-bathroom.

MsAnonymous @145: Marcelina was what I'd term a radical feminist, who had done extensive research on the harmful effects of porn and worked with rape survivors, experiences that convinced her that All Porn Is Evil and All Misjudged Advances Are Sexual Assault. These perspectives, as you'd expect, didn't go over very well with us Savage Love readers, most of whom enjoy porn and/or sexual contact beyond making out.

E often claimed that a woman cheating -- or even a woman in an open relationship asking for retroactive permission to do what the terms of her relationship allowed her to do, with permission -- was the same as rape. And called people lying shitstain rape apologists if they disagreed. And bit their heads off if they offered sympathy because he'd obviously been cheated on and was still smarting from it, which he denied. Horrible piece of work.

msanonymous @140, no that was someone else with a very similar username - Marcela? Or something like that anyway. I remember who you're talking about.

@148 yeah I think I got them mixed up. I'm not sure the person I was talking was a person, they may have been a bot.

I saw Marcelina differently. And I don't believe she warranted the treatment she got.
Anyway. I'm sure there are no bad feelings between CatB and I/ me. We scorpios occassionally turn their tails on each other.
What is Dan's show like? No wonder he is more AwoL these days.

In the case of E. and P., there may be a chemical explanation. Both frequently start out with a perfectly rational, calmly phrased comment, then gradually become more argumentative and less rational as the day wears on. Eventually, almost inevitably, they become enraged and strike out with ad hominem or ad feminam attacks. It seems that they gradually lose their ability to objectively consider the validity of any comments that counter their own opinions, and instead feel personally attacked by them. They feel cornered, therefore they fight back.

I'm sadly familiar with the pattern, coming from a family where alcoholism is both chronic and multi-generational...but a decline from rational thinking to blind rage can also occur when prescribed anti-anxiety or anti-pain meds wear off, or when an individual has an unmet need for same. This is all PURELY CONJECTURAL AND HYPOTHETICAL on my part, I certainly don't mean to slander people I know nothing about, but it does fit a pattern I've had the misfortune to witness since childhood among people very close to me.

M. didn't fit that pattern. She was just one of those dog-on-a-bone types who won't let anyone confuse them with facts that don't fit their pre-conceived opinions. For a woman who cared so deeply about rape and rape culture on both a scholarly and personal level, she seemed not to understand that claiming rape or rape-like victimhood for nearly all women makes it easier for society to discredit and ignore the emotional and physical trauma that actual rape victims endure. And while most rape victims are female, more than a few boys and men get raped too. Those are the most likely to get swept under the rug by the victims themselves, by their families, and even by the authorities.

E.'s comments equating sexual infidelity with male rape were totally inane, but he was right in pointing out that available rape recovery and domestic abuse services are vastly skewed toward helping female victims, while ignoring male victims or pretending that male rape isn't as serious an issue. It is.

@145: "E was always frustrating to me because he had intelligence and insight but even the slightest hint that a man might be wrong about something, or responsible for harm done to a woman, and the MRA bullshit spewed out."

I just recall him preemptively whiningand throwing titty fits that "women would be treated better" whenever the LW was a man who was a shitty person.

I always liked how he would talk about his wife and penis regularly as a cisdude but became incredibly angry whenever someone discussed his maleness, to the point where he claimed (whenever convenient) to be a cis-woman whenever he believed it would give him some moral high-ground or authority on the matter being discussed.

He never sounded well put together for very long, sadly.

@151: "he was right in pointing out that available rape recovery and domestic abuse services are vastly skewed toward helping female victims, while ignoring male victims or pretending that male rape isn't as serious an issue"

If you enjoy creating a scenario from whole cloth, yes.

Do you think that RAINN will turn you away for being a man? These statements say more about you than they do services.

The frustrating thing about that MRA drek is that men aren't taken seriously because of other men and machismo/homophobia, and no amount of externalized misogyny is going to change that.

It's not about solving anything to them and changing the toxic male culture, it's about cheap shots on women.

If it was people doing the right thing and standing in solidarity versus "WELL MEN GET RAPED TOO" and trying to minimize another's experience because they think this is some zero sum game, he and the rest would make much more strides for their gender.

Instead we have the usual uninsightful rants.

My understanding is that nonparents and noncustodial parents have little or no access to domestic violence shelters. Not because nonparents are disbelieved or belittled, but because there are so few resources that they are reserved for those with the least flexibility. If I need to escape to save my life I might be able to sleep in a bus station. If I try that with my two year old though, they will be taken into foster care.

Capricornus, the chemical explanation fits with Philophile, who used to post about commenting-while-drunk. I always thought that Eudaemonic sounded like he had PTSD, where as soon as he detected a threat he couldn't see anything else.

@131 The difference is that I tried to be helpful for Eudaemonic, when I believed it wouldn't cause offense, as well as calling him out when he blew his top. I thought he was interesting. He didn't seem to like me, even though we are similar in some ways. But I miss Eudaemonic. EricaP liked him too. In case he is still scanning the comments for his name, I found a link he might find somewhat useful, even though it's not completely geared for him:
http://www.intpexperience.com/survival.p…

The difference is that I don't think any men liked Marcelina despite the excessive aggression and occasional obliviousness. So it seems it is more easily forgiven from men than women. Unless it is meant to provoke her to come back, perhaps...

@133 I agree. And I should have clarified.. "divorce from your current spouse or break your arm"... bet your answer will change...

I've told BDF and CatBro to fuck off. That's aggressive. BDF got it right after she ignored.. not for the first time.. my request to please stop writing to me. Very polite reasonable explicit request. Completely ignored. So I'm getting in trouble with the sewing circle for shutting that bs down. CatBro... at least 4 times this week.. addressed me to argue against things that I don't believe, and refused to address my clearly stated confusion.. I don't know why he thinks married women should have sex when they don't want to.. he doesn't seem to be arguing in their best interest.. rather that it's a wife's duty.. like he wants to define marriage for everyone.. so annoying, and also ignored my attempts to drop it.. so he can fuck off too.

I think it's polite to reply to people who write to me. It's difficult when they get very demanding.

I can probably see SHAT's pov also because my wishes have been violated in the most intimate way of sexual assasult, and I have little tolerance for people who don't respect reasonable requests, like dropping subjects, or to stop harassing me. Eudaemonic was better than BDF at ignoring me, once we started ignoring each other. I don't care if some of y'all don't like me. Not everyone is going to like me. I don't like everyone here. I care when people think it's fair game to be condescending jerks or explain my position wrongly or tell me to stop posting or write angry things to me for no apparent reason. It's my right to shun the people I don't believe treat me well, or who seem impossible for me to communicate effectively with. Whoever thinks that is unreasonable can certainly fuck off. And if they are so angry they take it out in posts to me, I'll tell them to fuck off when I can.

Undead @154: "The frustrating thing about that MRA drek is that men aren't taken seriously because of other men"
Indeed. See the post @18 for an example of a man dismissing the issue of male rape.

The other eminently frustrating thing about Mr E was his tendency to throw "you're a sexist!" bombs at people, with absolute certainty that "they wouldn't say that if the subject was a woman." Actually, I'll amend, the frustrating thing was his unwavering belief that he could read minds. Whether that was to assign sexist motives or to accuse posters of lying. I tried to be sympathetic but eventually gave him up as a lost cause. I hope wherever he is, he is getting the help he needs.

"I don't know why he thinks married women should have sex when they don't want to.."

And that's the difference of opinion. She wants to emptionally, she just isn't attracted to him physically.

How she reconciles that, either by letting the husband go and pursuing a more directly chaste relations with him or through making him happy and thus fulfilling her desire to connect with him.

If you start from the premise where she's being forced, of course the tone will be highly negative. The wife does not start from that position, commenters here have ascribed that mindset to her.

I don't blame anyone for empathizing with her and feeling obligations, but the words she used were more open to advice and interpretation. And, again, she's free to change the nature of her relationship if she feels uncomfortable at any time.

@159: The true sadness beyond all the insults and lies he threw out was that his need to "prove he had it worse" was so counterproductive to his cause, he must know how the bro-ing out has nothing to do with protecting men, just the usual lashing out with a flimsy excuse.

Do these people ever volunteer at shelters? Do they ever phone bank for crisis lines? No, that might disabuse their perspective on how men and women are always treated differently in suffering, much better to spew hatred on Internet blogs.

Whew, quite the goulash, here.
DarkHorse #133 – your apologetics towards the arm-breaking coercers who have rules in their relationships makes my gorge rise. J/k.
Lava #138 – Philo, not myself, referred to 'her pain,' and how nobody was making allowances for it. She ended a post saying she wasn't liking SL these days, then with a dramatic
'Caio,' you could practically picture the scarf flip,
and since none of us regularly put end-tags on our writing, a reasonable person might conclude that she was taking off from these parts, or at least threatening to. And maybe not a bad plan for her, given her current state of mind(s).
Marcelina was the small-town bully who got to the big city, found that she wasn't as tough as she thought. As has been noted, more than a few women, not just men, were hurt and offended by what she wrote. And like most bullies, she could take it, not dish it out, so she fucked off, presumably to some Jezebel sub-thread where her schtick presumably works like it did when she was taking Evil White Males 101.
And yes, you and I are cool.

Bi#140 – Well, it's interesting, how some people come off. I was reading old threads yesterday, and the Philo of back then is not the Philo of today (and those who dwell within her.)
SeattleBlues was a cranky conservative who stirred shit, played Hopscotch with his reasoning, and probably did engender some real hate, as policies enacted had he been in charge would have sent many on this board quietly away to camps, if not up against a wall.
Marcie/JarJar was a bog-standard extreme acolyte of a stream of thinking I decline to call 'feminism,' she didn't make anyone hate her, and Philo's grandiose suggestion that anyone's worried she'd bring this Whole Thing Down like Tyler Durden has a strong whiff of the mouse crawling up the female elephant's leg, stopping halfway, and saying 'Don't worry baby, I'll be gentle.'
Marcelina was never a strong enough presence to cause 'hatred,' 'disgust' would be the most accurate term. That, and a fervent hope that she wasn't on your side when things got rough. I expect she's in a job that gives her authority but requires no real character, like parole officer.
Philo,...whew. It's the Internet, so it's forever, y'all can check it out, seems like she's changed, Two Years Ago Philo is not the current model.
Now, her thoughts and points caper and dance like imps in a Bosch painting. If anyone NOT Philo cares to make a convincing case that saying you'll divorce someone for their actions is worse than breaking their bones, I am all attention.

Capricorn #151 – Yeah, that's kind of like what I was thinking, as I shared a household with someone like that for two years and change, and the argument rhetoric seems familiar. And when these people feel cornered, whether it's in a dark alley or whether it's about who's turn it is to take out the trash, they just have one speed, and they feel like their life itself is at stake.
And finally..

Philo – #130 – Your pain, causing me sport, well...Unless this thread got switched to Philo's Ails and Travails, none of this was about your pain. Repeat after me, on a chromatic scale...”Me Me ME ME ME ME ME,' is kind of how you're coming across. If discussing the problems of others none of us know is causing you pain, why are you still here?
Sorry if you've got pain, but it's not like you've been bleeding buckets and the rest of us are callously ignoring you. If you got to 3 years, 364 days, and boyfriend said, “Honey, I thought we agreed on who was gonna do the dishes tonight,” and you busted a plate on the floor hissing, “How dare you try to coerce me! What's next, breaking my arm? Hot wax on the nipples?” and boyfriend started edging towards the door, feeling for his keys and wallet by hand while not making eye contact...
Well, that sort of thing does make a person cranky, but most people kick a trash can around the block or something, as opposed to expecting strangers on the other side of the country to make allowances.

As far as being boring, I've been called a few things on SL, most recently by you I guess, but 'boring writer' hasn't been one of them yet. If you are finding your own writings lagging, you might start delaying hitting that 'post' button and get a trusted friend, and 'kill your darlings' as the man said. The Voices are notgiving you real good material, these days, you're kind of regressing to undergrad like your homegirl JarJar, and that shit doesn't make anyone want to click a link.

I'm happy to blip over your future contributions, but you're taking the same chance we all are posting in public, you bust out some weak-tea shit and you might well get called on it. So, butch a bit up, please step out of that barrel of self-pity you're apparently marinading in, accept that Marcelina was both low-caliber and high-bore, and take the pills the nice man gives you.

#152 – Eud would occasionally pretend to be a woman? No shit, I'll have to read that.

I don't recall Eudaemonic ever pretending to be a " cis-woman."

I don't remember the exacts, but less explicitly so much as retreating/pretending to not be male when he felt his perspective was being called out for a stereotypically male attitude, then belligerently demanding to know how someone "knew" he was a guy. Nobody knows you're a dog, after all.

Which really was only a concern for others because he tried to speak with such a ridiculous authority (instead of his own perspective) and spoke so overbroadly about what he knew male/female to be.

Anyway, enough discussion of trolls past.

CatBro - Yeah, I think it's painful to even glance at the nonsensical bullshit you address to me this week. And you know it. And keep doing it anyway. Because you're a douchebag who doesn't give a flip about my happiness compared to your own obsessive need to write my name before a bunch of stupid bullshit about voices and the shitty women you dated and the women you dislike on this board. Anger management, dude. And kindly fuck off.

@160 If you start from the premise where she's being forced, of course the tone will be highly negative. The wife does not start from that position, commenters here have ascribed that mindset to her.
LIBIDOS started with some explanation that she had lost attraction to her husband, and how it had worked for them so far. I remember her exact question. "Should I force myself to have sex with him anyway?"

I think that Dan wasted space mocking SHAT's letter because he has a similar intolerance for female aggression. He could have simply considered the underlying request.. draw the line more clearly between duty sex (doesn't matter if you don't want it, you gotta do it) and ethical sex trade (trading sex for X may make you happier because Y). Appeal to the interests, rather than play on the fears, of those who petition him. Emphasize that healthy women, as well as men, demand a satisfying sex life, and show them the tools to get there. Emphasize that sexual rejection causes pain, especially to women, who have typically experienced rejection less than assault. (And on the flip side show no tolerance toward women assaulting men, who are less prepared to deal with sex assault than rejection.) That actually sticks out the most to me now, that LIBIDOS might not be able to see that rejecting her husband's advances might feel cruel to him, she seemed somewhat aware but confused about that point, since it hadn't been a problem before hubby lost his girlfriend. If you can't muster some compassion for your partner's pain, the relationship is not worth time or energy anymore. Or maybe just state outright that the current problem with the marriage was her husband's pain, and Dan's ideas involved looking for ways to alleviate it without causing LIBIDOS undue pain.

@166: Well, I certainly can't argue with a request to rephrase the answer. Dan has a casual & glib tone in many his responses... I didn't see it as specific to her scenario, but what you suggest sounds reasonable enough.

Philo @166. I didn't see Dan was doing anything but outlining the truth to shat. Talking about sex in any other
situation( sex trade) is appropriate here, how? And I read Dan was very clear in his response, initially as he is now.. I'm perplexed why the whole freak out about it by shat and others.
Pragmatic concerns in marriage is not a new concept.

Mr. Ven, I've been meaning to ask you what you think of the new Prudie, Mallory Ortberg?

Nocutename @172, I know you didn't ask me, but I like her. I wasn't sure at first, but I enjoy her as the new Prudie.

@173: I like her a lot, The Zoo. Today's column had a very Dan-worthy letter and she handled so differently than Dan would.

@174: Seriously, today, when the Brock Turner sentence and his father's letter are all over the Internet, and I found out two days ago that my younger daughter was molested repeatedly from ages 6-11, I can't stand to read this kind of shit. Fuck the fuck off, fucking asshole.

I mean Hunter, I tried. I tried to just ignore you and your stupid know-nothing bullshit and chalk it up to feeding the troll if I responded. I know you get some gleeful hard-on from stirring things up and your tiny, shriveled misogynist thing that passes for a soul delights in pretending that we don't live in the world we do. But even for you, this post represents a new low. Have you paid any attention to this case at all, you fucktard? Are there any women--have there ever been any women--in your life you care about at all? Your absence of empathy and your pigheaded obliviousness makes me sick. And if your comment @174 represents not merely obliviousness but malice disguised as humor, you are the most pathetic excuse for a human I've seen on this forum, and that includes Marcelna, SeattleBlues, Eudaemonic, Loveschild, the Period-Troll, and all the rest.

@178: He really had to express pride at that particular rape joke, like someone grinning as they shit their pants only less clever.

Also so very sorry to hear of the earlier post.

Ms Cute - (Very sorry, but carrying on as usual,) Well, of course my favourite advice columnist must be the fictional Miss Cassandra Jones from Downton Abbey, whose column is a huge hit in Edith's magazine and, when Edith insists on meeting in person, turns out to be the Dowager Countess' butler, Spratt.

Ms Ortberg, lacking Ms Yoffe's capacity for making the truth sound like a polite lie (which would be a valuable skill if she were doing it deliberately), is an improvement. She generally seems to display a reasonable level of sense, and does not come across as self-universalizing. I will admit to being somewhat shaken by her How Many Male Novelists joke (totes okay when it's women doing it?) - but have formed the impression she's an opportunist and not particularly more sexually biased than most, though more so than those I knew when I was socially active.

@undead hell my problem with the 'men get raped too' and 'men can be victims of domestic violence' is that far to often it's used as a weapon against women, and more than that as a response to a claim no one is making.

People who argue this don't want to help male victims, they want to take the help that is available from women. That's it. If they really cared then they'd want more funding to go to DV programs and for the programs to also help those in gay relationships, or poly relationships, or people who are being abused by their family.

And sadly men are going to get more crap from other men about being assaulted or being in an abusive relationship than they are from women. And yes I know there are asshole women out there, spare me.

@174 Hunter what the ever living fuck?

What point are you even trying to make? Are you drunk? Come back when you sober up.

@181: "The newsworthiness of the story is how mild the sentence was, not how harsh." Yes, thank you ever so much for enlightening me. Silly me, I thought the furor was over how long the poor dear boy would have to rot in hell for the piddling offense of sexually assaulting a woman behind a dumpster, oops, I mean for both of them drinking too much.

@183: Exactly. These people hide behind rape victims like a shield, only interested in men who suffer so far as they can serve to win internet points.

Hence why their "activism" begins and ends with them berating women that "men matter too", as if anyone spoke otherwise, as if rape culture doesn't end up with men on the receiving end as well as the giving.

But that requires empathy and not treating victims of any gender like props.

@184: He makes these creep comments all the time, set your expectations lower.

Hunter- conversations here often get personal. Ordinary folks share their histories, relationships, desires, joys, failures, and more.

Reading others’ stories without sharing much if any about yourself, and later yelling what often comes across as semi-abusive-crap-at-best, is not what we need on this thread.

I take full responsibility for befriending you when I first joined, as well as failing to notice your ongoing abusive shtick earlier.

@undead Yeah hunter is basically E without that intelligence that occasionally made E worth talking too.

Who let the cats out?

Rowrr Rowl! Rowl!

Nocutename @176, I'm so sorry. I hope the molester is already long gone from your family's life.

@176 @nocutename I'm so, so sorry about your daughter.

@176 nocutename: I, too, am really sorry to hear about our daughter, hope that the molester has been brought to proper justice, and that you and your family can find peace and be able to move onward and upward. Sending heartfelt hugs, positrons, and VW beeps your way.

Shame on you, Hunter! Your atrocious choice of words this week in particular is inexcusable.

@192, re: nocutename @176: Excuse me! I meant to type "your daughter"---D'OH!
But I'm sure you knew what I meant.

Ohhh, brother. And Griz hasn't had any alcohol yet today.

Philophile, that really is an immature comment. Are you sinking to the level of describing women expressing themselves as "catty"?

Years ago I worked in a male-dominated team in an investment bank. The men, although they wouldn't have admitted it, loved gossip and bitching about other people and passed a lot of time that way. However, if a woman ever contributed to the exchange it would be met by cat noises. It was so belittling.

NoCute @176, my heart goes out to you and your daughter. It is a parent's worst nightmare.

MsAnon @183 and Undead @186, those are very broad and sweeping generalizations. I am one of those pesky people who say "Men get raped too," and I have worked for many years to support mostly female, but occasionally male rape and abuse victims as a volunteer and as a non-profit board member. Contrary to your conjecture, I actually AM trying to increase public and private funding to provide additional support services for victims of domestic violence and rape; the two are often flip sides of the same coin. I sadly agree with MsAnon that mainstream heterosexual culture and our strict societal definitions of what constitutes "manly behavior" are the main reasons that male rape and domestic abuse tend to be silent crimes. It’s not some vast feminist conspiracy, as the MRA adherents would have it.

I absolutely do not want to take available help away from women rape victims in order to serve men. Women are statistically more likely to be victims of abuse and rape, and the physical injuries they endure are statistically more severe. Mental and emotional injuries are harder to evaluate, but my take is that people are people and in my experience working with victims, women and men are probably roughly equivalent in the amount of PTSD and long-term emotional trauma they suffer. I might give men the slightest edge in that regard, only because many (not all) women are able to get sympathy and unconditional support from their close friends and family following a rape or domestic abuse incident, whereas men who summon up the courage to tell their story are either not believed, or are urged to forget about it and move on by well-meaning friends and relatives. Their not-so-good friends and relatives pelt them with crude sex jokes, homophobic remarks, and utter contempt for their weakness. As long as male rape and partner abuse are treated by society as either a joke or a myth, it follows that victims will be viewed by themselves and others as unmanly - whereas female victims are at least allowed to maintain the dignity of their gender identity. But this comparison is between various shades of truly awful, and being raped is terrifying and soul-searing for any human, regardless of gender, race, orientation, age, or any other social discriminator you want to list. It's not a competition anyone wants to win.

Here's what I actually want for male victims, contrary to your speculation. I want a man seeking help in a desperate situation to have access to the same social services that a woman could tap under similar circumstances, and I want to see him get the same sympathy and respectful treatment from the staff and volunteers. I don’t want to see him get turned away, or helped while simultaneously being subjected to bad attitudes and dismissive comments, due to pre-existing gender biases and assumptions. You have both dismissed that concept as ludicrous, it couldn't possibly happen. (But it does. I have seen the stony, almost hostile expressions in rape crisis centers where I’ve worked; I’ve heard the snide comments and crude nicknames that pop up, whenever a male victim comes in.) You also worry that men are trying to "take the help that is available to women," which I have also heard expressed as men trying to steal a piece of a limited funding pie that was intended for women and women only. Unfortunately, yours is a prevailing attitude in many (not all) rape crisis centers and in domestic abuse shelters across the country. I can’t change that attitude everywhere, but I’m doing my best to build better support services in my own community and in my state. Ideally I will open a few more minds with this comment thread, and those individuals will be able to pay more attention to improving rape and domestic abuse services for all victims, regardless of gender, in their own corner of the world.

Oh nocute. Sorry to hear. Hugs to you both.

I don’t know how many of you caught it, but earlier this afternoon Savageville time The Stranger screwed up and published what seems to be next week’s, ie tomorrow’s column. I’m not telling what’s in it, but I will tell you that after my very first read I thought it’s pretty lame despite the catchy title.

There were already three responses and our very own very beloved Ricardo was the very very first.
By the time I was writing and posting what I thought is going to be number four the page disappeared, just like one of those retouched Soviet official pics after another general was executed.

It went something like… “Looks like the authorities decided to speed things up in order to avoid a multi car collision on the slog highway.”

And now that we’re all stuck together, exchanging insurance information and pretend to be semi-civilized while the tow trucks are on their way…
philo, please…

Hunter @174: I know it was you who came up with that utterly abhorrent line. My post @143 uses it as evidence that you can be every bit as sexist as Eudaemonic. And after being told off, you're now bragging about it? Wow. All it "powerfully showed" was how boorishly insensitive you can be to rape victims. And well done, you're the first poster since Eu who's made me literally shake while typing a response. Well fucking done.
(That's sarcasm, as you may be too tone-deaf to realise.)

MsAnonymous @183: "@undead hell my problem with the 'men get raped too' and 'men can be victims of domestic violence' is that far to often it's used as a weapon against women, and more than that as a response to a claim no one is making."

Indeed. It's used to derail a point. "Women have no right to complain about this problem because men have it too, and WE'RE not complaining, are we?" Never mind that men aren't complaining because patriarchy doesn't allow them to, at least not without compromising their so-called manhood.

Capricornius @194: Kudos for doing what you are doing to help male victims. I hope, though, that your message isn't "Men get raped too" but "Men get raped." It's important, because the first phrasing detracts from women's experience, and the second phrasing puts forward the problem of male rape as a problem in its own right, rather than just another way for men to compete with and take away from women. Words matter. I agree completely that men suffer from "secondary victimisation" in ways that women don't -- for instance, people saying a guy is "lucky" if he reports being raped by a woman. Whatever choice words people may say about a female rape victim, "you're lucky" is pretty much never on the list.
Shout out to all of the rape survivors, of all genders, regardless of how traumatised they were or weren't.

CMD @197: I saw it just as I was about to go to bed, and decided to come back in the morning. Oh well! I have work to be getting on with, and a couple of e-mails to reply to anyway. :)

199 cont: Seriously, Hunter, my patience has run out. I saw you as someone who thinks he's funny but occasionally hits an offensive bum note. I can accept that, but generally those sorts say "oops, I went too far there, I'm sorry to have caused offense," rather than bragging about the offensive "joke" they just made. If you really see that comment as clever rather than a travesty, then there's no hope for you. Goodbye, troll.

Mx Wanna - I hope that it was not Mr Savage's Annual Penance, his column of all gay/SSM LWs that usually appears at about this time of year. Last year, if it had not been for my Serial Complimenter, the comments thread would likely not have reached triple digits. (Whether the selection of letters constitutes a deliberate attempt to keep the comment count low in order to require the ditching of the custom is open to interpretation.)

To save everyone else from looking it up:
Hunter's "Had your morning rape yet?" comment was removed. Someone -- not me -- must have reported it, and Stranger staff agreed it was too offensive to remain on the thread. Hunter's reaction? "A 5 word question, so much upset."
Gee, I don't understand why people who've had their bodily autonomy stolen from them in one of the most brutal, invasive and repulsive ways imaginable don't have more of a sense of humour about it!
Were you surprised when the "You deserve rape" sign-wielder had his head bashed in? Hello, that's how funny that sort of thing is. Normally I don't condone any sort of violence, but I made a donation to that girl's legal defense fund. She's a hero. Sadly, all we can do on the board is try to hit Hunter with the clue-stick, but that hasn't worked.

And I shut up now, really.

@195: Did you read my post?

It's not a broad, sweeping generalization. People who use "men get raped too" as a reason to be anti-feminist, as a rhetorical tactic are not sincere, and they are not good.

@204: "Then I achieved my goal"

Yes, we know you're pondscum.

Pondscum @204: "Then I achieved my goal"
Of alienating the one person who was in your corner. Again, I say well fucking done.

Ms Fan @200 - Very even-handed of you. One might also mention the difficulties of definition. What has counted as rape or sexual assault has often been established with the deliberate intention of excluding or minimizing male victims (at least of female perpetrators).

BDF @200 - You're right, I never thought about it like that. I was tone-deaf to the overtones that many people will hear when I say, "Men get raped, TOO," even though I don't mean it in the way they are interpreting it. I'll try to stick to "Men get raped..." in the future, and see if that works better at getting my real message across.

And speaking of tone-deaf...Hunter @204, I recognized what you were going for with your original post. I even managed a cynical grin. You wanted to underscore how ridiculous it was for anyone to claim that we live in a rape culture, and you feel that you succeeded because of the big kerfluffle that followed - in a true rape culture, the general reaction would have been an indifferent shrug of the shoulders, or my own cynical grin. Unfortunately, you went way too far over the top with it. You caused too much collateral damage, and now you seem to be taking a cruel delight in the fact that so many people became upset and hurt. It's not OK to fire off a handgun in the middle of a crowded room to demonstrate that Florida's self-defense shooting law is insane and detrimental to public health, and it's not OK to trivialize rape and its victims on a chat board to demonstrate that we don't really live in a rape culture. My analogy is a bit of a stretch, but hopefully it will help you understand what really happened, as opposed to what you wanted to happen. If you don't feel an apology is due, then don't bother to apologize - but It's time for you to at least stop picking the proverbial scab.

Undead @205: I did read your post, but too late at night and apparently much too quickly. Rereading it this morning, I see that you and are coming from mostly the same place, and your comment was more in line with that of BDF @200. My apologies for leaping to the assumption that you were applauding the comments of MsAnon @183.

Venn @202, maybe the lack of commentary on SS-exclusive columns is because some of the frequent posters don't have enough knowledge or experience with SS relationships to justify a comment. I certainly don't make it a point to boycott columns that deal with SS-exclusive material, but unless the discussion meanders into the more general field of human emotions, psychology, and sexuality, I don't have a lot of perspective to offer - and I'm not one to post for the sake of posting, or to show my strong support for the LGBTQ community. However, I rely on SL to further my sexual education and to enlighten me on subjects that I probably wouldn't have thought much about on my own. I hope Dan will continue to publish SS-exclusive columns because I learn a lot from them, and I'm probably not the only straight person who feels that way. I'm sure you would agree that quality counts for more than quantity when it comes to the comments page (says the person who struggles and fails to create more compact posts).

@209: All good. My snark comes from a good place, I really do think that more volunteering on the Internet spods' end (versus the slacktivism of Reddit and blog comments) would give more empathy to these people than participation in the pseudoskeptic community and self-ascription of fighting for "men". They're fighting for a particular ideology, if they wanted to do the most good, they'd have nothing to gain by dismissing existing allies in equality as "SJWs" or the like. But, again, equality ain't the goal.

And regarding the cynical "jokes", he continues proudly heckling people who have been abused / had family abused.

You do yourself a disservice to give that a charitable read, he knows what he's doing here.

@ NoCute 176 - Words fail me. I can't start to imagine what your daughter and you must feel. That is so disgusting. I'm so sorry.

And here goes He Who Shall Not Be Named feeling all smug and clever about his truly, profoundly, disturbingly offensive comments (of which I'm only aware through other people's comments, as I've stopped reading his - and the other thread hijacker's - a while ago). And he dares assert that we don't live in a rape culture after Brock Turner's sentencing - and the judge justifying it because he worries about the impact a longer sentence would have on that turd!!! On top of BT's father's comments!!! What more proof does he need?

@ 202 - It was/is going to be much worse than that, Venn. As CMD sayd, "it's pretty lame despite the catchy title". Indeed, my comment had to do with the fact that it had been published early, as there was not much else to comment on.

I meant "said" of course.

Venn @202: We did have an all-queer-women thread last week, if that counts?
I wonder how many letters Dan gets, and how many end up on the cutting-room floor. I know I've sent a few letters that weren't published. Then again, they were problems that weren't terribly significant. I know the re-running of letters is probably to save Dan time rather than a lack of questions.

Undead @210: When the heck did SJW become a bad thing. Something else that makes me very sad.

Hunter is pointing to outrage over a six-month jail sentence as evidence that we don't live in a rape culture. Conveniently overlooking the fact that a six-month sentence was passed as a response to three convictions for a "major felony" committed by "the lowest of the low" is, hello, EVIDENCE OF A RAPE CULTURE.

Does your house have to be literally falling down with no wood left before you consider that you have a termite problem? Or is the fact that your house is partially infested with termites enough to make you call an exterminator? Here, eat this hamburger; it's only partly covered in mold, so it's fine, right?

I was finally able to logic Hunter out of his ridiculous, baseless theories on women's hair, but that strategy doesn't seem to be working here.

@216: By its nature SJW is pejorative and dismissive. It's a quick way to skim a post and see who's an irrational ideologue, though.

Where would we be without those Brave Internet Warriors willing to get outraged over Outrage Culture and tell the direct and indirect victims of rape what is worthy of their concern?

@204: Hunter, I'm going to link you to a few articles related to the Brock Turner Case:

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/06/brock_tu…

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/ashleigh…

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/06/college-…

http://jezebel.com/you-wont-see-brock-tu…

https://mic.com/articles/145425/one-twee…

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/artic…

and finally, satire:
http://www.theonion.com/video/college-ba…

You sound like a climate-change denier or an evolution-denier (both of which I'd have no trouble believing to be true, and I'm sure you'll proudly enlighten me) when you spout shit like this: "Our culture is not a rape culture. Rape is a major felony. As I've said before, rapists are considered the lowest of the low in our culture. It is a gross insult to say our men and women are promoting rape.

When I pose a question suggesting a real rape culture, people here fall apart; it's too awful to contemplate, too awful to mention."
But I'd just like to ask you what you think a "real rape culture" is? Are you suggesting that if people aren't convicted of a "major felony" it isn't really "rape?" In any case, Turner was convicted on 3 counts--so the jury was convinced it was real sexual assault (he also got caught in the act). The "rape culture" here is the one in which the judge thought that serving the recommended sentence (only 6 years of the possible 14 ) would be too damaging to the rapist, and gave him the merest slap on the wrist. Read the victim's statement or listen as a CNN anchor reads most of it aloud for you.

@218 in continuation because I inadvertently hit a wrong key:

The sentence and the reasoning behind it, the letter that Turner's father wrote, the way the victim was questioned in court, THOSE ARE ALL ILLUSTRATIONS OF RAPE CULTURE IN ACTION.

Either you're truly an absolute fucking idiot, or you're willfully ignorant and court stupidity. Ir there's a alcohol-or-drug impairment issue here. The fact that you don't reexamine your own biases and stupid hurtful inaccurate comments but just dig in deeper leads me to believe it's all those things. Seriously, if you were in front of me, I'd spit on you.