Comments

1

DRINKS is still a massive mess. These aren't the only two guys she's driven to drink.

Anyhow, there's a 0% chance she dumps this guy, she doesn't appear to have ever exercised her own agency within a relationship before, I don't know how she'll start now. She'll just be obnoxious until this guy dumps her "out of the blue" like her ex-husband did, rinse and repeat. The next guy is bound to be a d-bag too.

2

@1: Wow! You have such interesting insight and strident assertions regarding this situation about which you know almost nothing. Let me give that a try: "Sportlandia had some bad experiences with women at some point, almost certainly because of his own shitty, pompous attitude. He's now decided, in typical deflecting fashion, that women in general exhibit the same negative traits he falsely perceived in his former partners. And now he spends his time writing out his poorly reasoned assumptions in whatever online forums he can find. It's sad, but he's an asshole, so who cares?"

3

UGH, LW, DUMP the controlling, slut-shaming, gaslighting POS right away before he does something more abusive. Change your locks and phone number, block him from all social media. Get a restraining order if he refuses to stay away. Protect yourself, this dude is bad news!

4

"Honey, I have been thinking this over and I want you to know that I overreacted, after some consideration I think it's great that you are hanging out with my Ex. Now I won't feel the least bit bad when I dump you because you two can just jerk each other off over your shared love of being massive dickweeds. Bye forever."

5

Oh, look, Sportlandia's trying to justify men's bad behavior by blaming it all on the woman based on no evidence outside of his own deluded imagination. Again. SHOCKER!

Seriously, dude, get a new schtick. We're all pretty aware that you're a misogynistic jerk who believes that men can do no wrong unless a woman forces them to, so you can stop proving it on Every. Single. Thread. It gets old.

6

Huge red flags. This guy is abusive, and the abuse will only escalate. Run.

7

"You're either an idiot or an asshole or, more likely, both. Don't ever contact me again."

8

More evidence for my theory that serial monogamy makes sense for some people. It makes sense for people to be in sexual relationships with others, one at a time. What gives it a bad name is the prevalence of people who put up with shit and continue terrible relationships instead of breaking up, leading to the very confusing (to me) phenomenon of serial marriage and divorce. Why in the world is LW still with this person? Probably the same reason she was ever married to the sort of person who would go meet up in a bar with his exwife's boyfriend years after a divorce. I mean, cmon. What a group of terrible people.

LW should've dumped this guy a long time ago. The fact that she didn't shows extremely poor judgement. I hope she does so now, and moves on, maybe some more time alone, maybe just in casual relationships, until she gets her head screwed on better.

Luckily this guy lives in another city which should make it easier. He also sounds persistent and a violator boundaries, so take precautions. I highly recommend one phone call and text that is very clear and to the point- practice it with a friend ahead of time- and then NEVER speaking to him or seeing him again. No drama, no letting him back, no discussing endlessly, no seeing his point of view. Tell him to get out of your life forever and then never speak to him again. Ever. The End. Goodbye.

9

@1 'Driven to drink'? Do you mean me reading that post Sportlandia? The only time drinks are mentioned is when the LW talks about her boyfriend going behind her back with her ex. Nothing in the letter indicates that either man has an alcohol problem, or that it's the LW's fault.

LW avoid guys like Sportlandia and you're soon to be ex. If he thinks you're suck a slut why did he date you? Maybe the problem isn't you but him and he can work that out with his therapist after you dump him.

10

When controllers lose their control, they sometimes express their rage via violence. If LW has any inclination to upgrade her living situation, she might think about moving to a nice new apartment for a fresh start.

11

This is the DTMFAiest DTMFA that ever DTMFAed.

12

To be safe, I recommend murder.

13

@2 yes but if he makes nasty predictions about women that ever come true, he wins. A prize. A souvenir. A highly collectible bobbledick statuette.

So you can see it's worth the cost of being nasty and wrong for the rest of the time.

14

I can't believe this story! Girl are you for real??? Dump this creep A.S.A.P! shudders

15

What gets me is how often people of any gender stay with terrible partners. I know that a) loneliness is bitch and 2) getting out isn't always easy and 3) finding another partner is easier said than done. But still - if you are unhappy, the first thing you should do is remove from your life people and experiences that make you unhappy, if you possibly can. After that, your world will be different, including in positive ways you didn't anticipate, and you go forward from there. It's the only way toward greater happiness - trying to fix or stay in a shitty relationship really isn't an option.

16

Excellent answer, Dan.
Good responses @11 and @12, too.

17

@12: I do so like the way you think, Fenrox.

18

@12 I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

19

@blah blah blah, blahblahblah.

20

Sportlandia, you do go on about agency. When this is about neurotic choices.

21

Change your locks before breakup and already be at the place where you will spend the next few days- out of town or with friends/family he doesn't know how to find.

22

This is weird to me. After a week of running re-runs is Dan just going to dial it in with letters that are so obvious he's basically dialing it in? I mean, nobody who reads this column wasn't screaming DTMFA by paragraph 2.

23

There is so many levels of wrong with the whole "meeting the ex for drinks" shit he pulled. Soon-to-be-ex boyfriend seriously needs counseling. Years and years of counseling.

24

Sportlandia, you should comment less.

25

@22, I'm grateful Dan choose to run this letter. It's obvious to many Sloggers & maybe many middle-age ppl that her soon to be ex is a controlling, abusive, scary person & that the situation won't improve. It's almost even crystal clear to the LW. But she needs Dan's insight, permission, whatever, to move on & now she has it. It can't always be adult baby, scrotum-inflating or cuckolding runtimes. 😉 I wish I'd written to Savage Loce when I was in a terrible abusive relationship in my 20's/early 30's. Maybe I would've had the courage to leave sooner.

LW, if you're reading the comments, plz take 21's advice, &check in frequently w/ ppl for awhile after that, too.

25

After two terrible partner choices (that we know about...I’ll bet my left nut that there were plenty more) DRINKS continues to show an astounding lack of understanding relationship basics. OF COURSE she should DTMFA this current idiot, but my true sympathies go to the next idiot she chooses, as the law of averages says he MIGHT be some unassuming schmuck who doesn’t have a clue what he’s getting into. There’s one constant in this story of nails-on-a-blackboard relationships, and it’s you, baby. Get single, and then get help!

26

Ugh. Sorry for typos in 24. Long day.

27

LW, exit this relationship asap, tell this controlling man that seeing you’ve been such a slut, and all, that it’s best you withdraw from his life and that he never contact you again. In other words, tell him to fuck off mate. Unless you do suspect he could get violent, then only say those words in your head.
Sportlandia is right in that you will properly keep repeating this pattern with men, Donny is also right, in that you need help to strengthen your self esteem.
Do some therapy before entering any new relationships, once you kick this tool to the curb. Find out why you attract and then stay with men like these two.

28

Probably.

29

"that if I’d just not been such a slut when we met he’d trust me more. (I KNOW.)"

This could have been the whole letter. If that's not DTMFA material, I don't know what is. Super uncomfortable with the "I know" at the end there. I'm with @25 and @27, this is definitely a therapy situation before LW tries to date again. There is some real internalized damage in this letter and the situation will repeat unless she learns to value herself.

30

LW, in the event you ever read the comments:

Insecurity isn't the most accurate word to describe a partner who repeatedly accuses you of cheating or calls you names. I've had plenty of partners who struggled with insecurity for various reasons. They were honest about it without being judgmental or cruel. They also recognized that their emotions were their own emotions to manage and did not blame me for "making them insecure" via my past or present actions.

Without more context, I can't really say whether your boyfriend should've talked to your ex-husband. But I would expect that he was already aware that you do not talk to your ex-husband, and thus that you didn't necessarily want your ex-husband to have information about your current life.

Regardless of his motivations when he talked to your ex-husband, his response directly communicates that you can't trust that he will stop. Your boyfriend directly stated that he doesn't think you deserve to have any influence over when or how he talks to your ex-husband... and he stated that AFTER being told that he'd caused you pain. He prioritizes his autonomy more highly than he prioritizes how you feel and/or your relationship.

I regret to say that I think it is safest to assume that any information you've ever told your boyfriend might be information that your ex-husband now knows, and that anything that happens from this moment forward might become something your ex-husband knows.

If you date someone in your own city, it's significantly less likely that they'd become best buddies with your ex. It's also typically much cheaper and more convenient. ;)

31

The way I see it, this odd mystery is the result of 1 of 3 scenarios

1- You have the misfortune of attracting clingy, toxic jags who see the fact that you are Bi and consider it suspect anytime you are associating away from them, whether it be with men or women or mixed company. In their minds you are always looking to cheat. DTMF.

2- You actually have had issues with monogamy, and you only dated this guy because latched himself to you and pressed all the right buttons to get you to open up and develop feelings. In which case, he knew what he was getting into + his insecurities have made him toxic to your well being and the relationship. Handing out with your ex under any circumstances (unless they work together and he found out after initial hangout) DTMF

3- (This is unlikely but possible) He seeked out your ex and snooped to find out if monogamy was a recurring issue for you and rubbed it in your face when the ex (whos word can never be fully trusted) confirmed his pre-conceived worries. Still, DTMF, because your relationship was dead the moment he decided to do that.

No matter what, you need to end it.

32

Added #4- With all that said, I can honestly say I would be saying DTMF if the genders were reversed and this was a woman seeking out an ex wife to find out what kind of person DRINKS was. I can't say that may be the truth for all respondents though.

33

Who else started shouting "DTMFA!!!" whilst reading the second sentence of the letter?

34

@22: Dialing it in? Nope. Responding to a genuine letter. And I'm allowed to take a week off now and then. Sheesh.

35

Okay, so. He is controlling and he slut shames her. She KNOWS. But she didn't DTMFA, why? It took him going behind her back to do some background investigation to find out what kind of partner she is, when she already knew what kind of partner HE is? Yes, you're off base -- for even thinking about staying with this guy. Get thee to therapy and find out why you thought any of this behaviour was acceptable. You KNOW, now do!

Dan, I for one think you deserve a vacation! My only quibble is the re-run tag line being hidden at the bottom of the re-run letters. Please get onto your staff about sorting that out! I know you get more ad revenue if we read the letter first and then find out it seemed familiar for a reason, but it's pissing the regulars off. Thank you, and hope you had a fantastic break!

36

@2 and @4 win the thread. EmmaLiz @8 sums it up: "What a group of terrible people." She also makes a good point about the absurdity of staying in a bad relationship because... why? Because society is so biased in favour of people being in relationships? Because of the ubiquitous tropes about how all you need is love to work out any problems? She doesn't even say that she loves Mr Controlling. I don't see this as "serial monogamy," I see this as someone who is still too damaged to recognise patently unacceptable behaviour. Is she punishing herself for her entirely justified, and entirely her decision, post-divorce slut phase? DRINKS, there are men out there who won't punish you for a slutty past, trust me on this. There are those who are slutty themselves and/or who appreciate a woman with experience. Do not think you EVER need to put up with someone who slut shames you. That should be an instant DTMFA.

I agree with those commenters who say she may be in danger. And @32, it's sad that you feel you need to pre-emptively justify yourself against the misogynists on the board. Of course a woman who was controlling and slut shaming should be DTMFA'd too.

37

It’s not hidden Fan, it’s in plain view, just at the end of the letter, not the beginning. Regular or not, none of us pay for this service. If we can contribute by opening the page, I’m fine with that.

38

Well, two things I know for certain: The LW should DTMFA, and Sportlandia should tape a red flag to his head to save women time and just avoid him all together.

39

@11. Mtn Beaver. Yes

@22. Pete. I thought Dan gave a subtle answer. He didn't say, 'OK, DTMFA because he met your ex behind your back'. He said, 'you don't need a reason to DTMFA. And anyways, the slut-shaming would be enough. The accusations of cheating would be enough'. Why did the LW, even in the past, want to be in a relationship with her bf in any sense? She gives no indication. She doesn't want to be in a relationship with him.

40

@25. Eva Hopkins. Good comment.

/break/
I don't dislike Sportlandia's comment. OK, it's provocative. My inference as to both the relationships DRINKS talks about, with her husband and her ex, is that it sounds like a mistake that she got into them in the first place.

41

Sporty, see Donny @25b for how to make a point about agency without being a misogynistic shithead.

42

Yes Harriet, Eva’s comment @25A is true.
One can get caught by patterns and that’s what this awlful man has done. He’s found how to hook into this LW, and she needs to unhook herself and find out where she got the idea she could be treated this way.

43

L-dub... step 1... run away from this loser and never look back. This is a totally appropriate ghosting scenario, imo. Just ditch. Step 2... if the next significant other is anything like the last two, start dealing with your (likely significant) problems.

44

The real idea she got is not so much "that she can be treated this way" but that she is not allowed to say no. That she has to have a "good reason" for not doing anything anyone asks of her.

So, yes, DTMFA, of course. And when doing so, do not justify your decision. In a situation like this - you don't have a lease together, you don't have a mortgage together, you don't have kids together - "I just don't feel like seeing you anymore" is reason enough.

For those of us who have spent our lives making excuses, and putting other people's desires over our own, this is difficult to do. But once done, you learn something - you learn that it's not as difficult as continuing to do things the way you have been. The people who make you pay for saying no, are the people who were making you pay anyway, one way or another, for making excuses, justifying, weaseling, and all your other strategies you used to avoid just saying no.

All you will have lost is something or someone who wasn't making you very happy anyway.

45

I completely agree with everything Dan said. And ditto every word BiDanFan said @35.

I think that DRINKS seems pretty f-ed too. Honestly I think everything /else/ the BF did is even worse particularly given that it's pretty understandable why the BF would want to understand this LW better (but be too f-ed up himself to ask instead of unforgivably going behind her back).

I think that can be true while it is also true that the BF thoroughly needs to be dumped. Perhaps after their dysfunctional relationship ends they can both get more healthy.

46

"I don't see this as "serial monogamy," I see this as someone who is still too damaged to recognise patently unacceptable behaviour. "

Yes BDF that was the point I was trying to make though clumsy I guess since you did it in a sentence.

I am off on a tangent I'm sure, but I was thinking about how the phrase "serial monogamy" is kinda an insult. The implication is that this is what a person does who can't do actual monogamy but also can't step up to poly or monogamish or whatever alternative. In fact I see nothing wrong with choosing to be with one person at a time. Less drama and effort for some of us. I also see nothing wrong with choosing to break up with your one person whenever it starts to go south (assuming you aren't in a situation in which there are some real responsibilities to one another), and then finding another person to be monogamous with. This is dating, probably the most common arrangement anyway right?

So what's the problem? The problem isn't being serially monogamous. The problem is being serially unable to break up or serially looking for the norm- I'd say inertia except that so many of these people seem to actively push for marriage and commitment.

We know this woman has had experiences with both bad relationships and breaking up. Yet she stays with this guy anyway even after he becomes a controlling insulting asshole. Then when he does stuff so extreme as to be worthy of a good outrage story, she writes to Dan, still needing someone to actually tell her to break up. I think at the core of it, the problem is society telling us relationships are a failure if you don't make them work. And still, there's the slut shaming- she knows it's wrong (she even says I KNOW) but she must be shamed by it on some level b/c she didn't immediately walk out the door and never speak to this asshole again when he said it. Dude is insulting her for sleeping around- what's the alternative to that? Find one person, stick to them. It's the same ball of wax. People feel they are a failure if they can't make relationships with THE ONE work. And she's already one marriage down, probably felt some pressure to not "fail" again.

So I say, let's embrace serial monogamy if people want that with the clarity that the serial part means you are going to break up a bunch. That's normal- gives you the permission you need to leave without having to write Dan. Takes away that feeling that you are failing at anything since you are doing exactly what you set out to do- move from one relationship to another. Makes you less vulnerable to slut shaming because the moment it falls out of someone's mouth, you can demonstrate your deliberate life choice by making that asshole one in a series- see you succeeded in remaining serially monogamous by dumping another asshole.

I think deeper down that this is of course that humans need to share their lives with others to have meaning, and it is hard to create that network for yourself in a world in which family and marriage no longer provide it, so I'm more sympathetic than I sound, but goddamn these people just sound terrible.

48

"I think that DRINKS seems pretty f-ed too. Honestly I think everything /else/ the BF did is even worse particularly given that it's pretty understandable why the BF would want to understand this LW better (but be too f-ed up himself to ask instead of unforgivably going behind her back)."

Curious, I can't disagree with this hard enough. Where to start?

First thing is probably just a matter of opinion, but I accept that from time to time an intimate partner might say something out of line or act in an insecure way. If it's a pattern though, it's abuse. If it's done in public or in front of specific others to humiliate a person, that is simply part of the abuse. He's showing controlling and obsessive behavior at the least by going to the ex, more likely he's also trying to humiliate her, open up raw wounds. So you can't say everything else the BF did is worse when it's all the same thing- it's an escalation of abuse.

But second, let's play at your "understand this LW better" scenario. Remove the abusive context. This is just a nice guy who wants to know you better. So he wants to have drinks with people who you have removed from your life and have not spoken to in years? No. If someone asks to do that, this is not a way to get to know someone better. It's similar to asking to watch someone take a dump or asking to read someone's diary- it's prying into someone else's private life. Only it's even worse than that because it's also ignoring the person's choice to remove those people from their life and then dragging them back in. It also assumes that you think the ex has anything to tell you that the person you are with could not already tell you, which even at its most generous interpretation means that you are validating the ex's perspective in things. How in the world could that be healthy for the current relationship? All around, this is a shit show. On top of that, any ex who would actually do this- meet up with an ex partner's new partner- a total stranger- years later to have drinks and talk about the common person between them likewise has something wrong with them in the first place. These two guys should run off together. This woman should stay out of relationships for a while.

Also they have known each other years. YEARS of friendship and dating. It is not understandable that he would feel there are things he needs to do (outside of the interactions with her and the events/people of their current life) to get to know her "better".

So would it be worse for him to honestly ask "hey can I go have drinks with your exhusband who has been out of your life for years so that I can find out more about you, ah it's sweet, I swear I just want to know you better?"

I mean, I suppose that's slightly better than just doing it anyway but only because it is the exact same thing as saying "hey I'm insane and you better run run run away".

49

I don't know why there is so much victim blaming on this one. Pretty much everyone has been in at least one shitty relationship. And her BF sounds like an ambulance chaser, pressuring her to get in a new relationship right after the divorce, then clinging onto her until she did date him. People like that want someone broken so they are easier to manipulate and control. She definitely needs some time out of relationships to work on herself. And when it comes to breaking up with assholes, less is more. Don't even try to justify it to him, just tell him the relationship isn't working for you anymore, block his number etc., and make sure you have people you trust close at hand in case he does more crazy shit.

50

Two thoughts:

1) We'd be better off if we just stopped responding to Sportlandia. He'd disappear if no one responded. Let's just do that.

2.) All I can think of is that Commander Cody song: "Son you gonna drive me to drinkin' if you don't stop drivin' that hot . . . rod . . . Lincoln."

51

@49 I think it's because she had SOOOOO many warning signs beforehand.

He pressured her to date him in spite of her not wanting to. I was friends with my now wife for a decade before we dated but at no point did I pressure her to date me. Cuz that's messed up.
Shaming her for her past. Only d-bags do this. Unless someone's past led to STDs or severe emotional trauma, it's their business, not yours.
She's bi and he's not the type to let her explore, in fact calls her a slut. I get that some people can be bi and be monogamous but that doesn't seem like what she wants.
Constantly accusing her of cheating. This would need to happen maybe twice and I'd be out the door.

At a certain point, when someone overlooks warning sign after warning sign, we doubt her ability to be rational and act in her self-interest. Something is happening in her that likes the chaos and drama of the relationship. Otherwise, she'd have been done 2 years ago. Or really, she never would've started. No one is saying she's a bad person but if your house keeps getting robbed and you keep leaving the door open, my sympathy is limited.

52

@48 EmmaLiz "Curious, I can't disagree with this hard enough."

I agree with everything you said. I guess I'm making the mistake of putting myself into the picture. Because I once upon a time (was messed up enough myself to) have GF's who (like my read is of the LW) were /really/ messed up; and in those painful dysfunctional nightmares, I've wished I knew some way to make everything better, or at least to bear it better.

Your post focuses me on that this woman's BF is not in any way or to any degree me, thanks.

I was and am just saying I relate a bit to the pain he must be in. And that's the sense in which I said (in that paragraph of mine you quoted) that the other stuff is "even worse". (I was quite specific that it too was "unforgivably" bad.)

As you elaborate upon "it's all the same thing". So why wasn't it all the same to her (why did she stay with all the other unforgivable crap)? Maybe because this last thing shines light on his pain (that perhaps I'm improperly projecting from my own life) in this relationship with her a way that doesn't feel good to her?

54

@49

I don't know if it's victim blaming. She's clearly in an abusive relationship and doesn't really seem to know it. Or she knows it but feels helpless. Abusive relationships can poison's someone's mind so maybe we should be more sympathetic. But it just comes across as such an obvious case of LEAVE ALREADY that it's like you just want to throw your hands up in the air and ask her what the hell she's thinking.

@Curious

We don't know enough about her to know why she put up with this and didn't see the behavior for what it is. One suggestion is that abuse can alter the way a person perceives reality. It usually looks really obvious to everyone on the outside but looks different to someone inside it. Like being in a cult or being a Republican. Divorces likewise can be discombobulating- it's why it's typically good advice to get out on your own for a while after a divorce because you aren't thinking too clearly, and this bf has been there from day one. My own take is that our society pressures people to value themselves as failures or successes depending on whether or not they have good jobs and long lasting relationships. Really these are the two things we see as "success" right? So she's had one failed marriage already, now worried about another. My evidence for this is that this is also the issue on which the guy is insulting her- calling her a slut, claiming that she can't stick to a relationship. She must be vulnerable to those sorts of insults or she'd have left right? But who knows. Maybe she's stupid. Maybe she's desperate. Maybe she's lazy. Maybe she has her own set of problems that she has not mentioned. We don't know. She doesn't mention love or good sex so I don't think it's that.

Regarding his behavior (why it's all the same) and your sympathy-

I don't see what bf pain there is here for you to identify with in the first place- seems weird to me that that's your reading of this. The bf was clingy, then abusive, and an insecure liar. Whatever might cause him to act that way could perhaps deserve sympathy if he were the one writing in asking for help. But he's not. The victim of his behavior is the one writing in. So I think it's a little weird that you are identifying so much with the bf's pain. I don't see what all this pain is- we know nothing at all about him or his motivations. All we know is that when he's called on shitty behavior- which would be considered wildly out of line by basically anyone- he deflects and acts like he did nothing wrong. What's wrong with just having a drink with someone? What's wrong with wanting to know you better? Now in this case, I might likewise be projecting my own feelings on the matter, but to me this sort of "aw shucks, what's wrong, what are you so mad about?" play at being stupid and innocent is the absolute worst sort of spoiled rotten abusive manipulative bullshit ever. It literally makes me violently angry when guys do this shit. (Note: women probably do some version of this too, but I've never dated women so I've never experienced that and this conversation is referring to a man). It's EXACTLY the sort of thing that a "nice guy" "I'm just trying to be your friend when everyone else is so wrong for you" would pull. So it's been his MO from the beginning. That's why it's all the same bullshit. Maybe you can elaborate on what you see as being "in pain" here vs just being a spoiled manipulative little shit.

55

@54 EmmaLiz
"Maybe you can elaborate on what you see as being "in pain" here..."

Nothing, really. I'm simply inferring pain (for me to relate to) from who the letter leads me to believe they both are.

56

DRINKS: I can do whatever I want with whoever I want, and you have no place to be upset about that.

Also DRINKS: How dare you spend time with someone I don't like.

This specific issue inclines me to believe that OP is not just a passive subject that all these bad relationships happen to.

More generally I do get the boyfriend's take where this one issue really gets under your skin, but you feel that you're not allowed to express it. (And to be fair, if the commenters here heard that someone did split up with someone else because they couldn't get over sex history, there'd be a lot of rage.) But if something annoys you that much and you're prevented from expressing it, what results is the sort of toxic drip feeding we're seeing here.

In a better world he'd be able to own his emotions, say "this bugs me too much, I don't think I can handle it", and peace out. May not be ideal, but it's much better than aforementioned toxic drip feeding. Since DRINKS's boyfriend cannot or will not do this, it's on her to pull the plug.

57

As everybody else has said, DRINKS, you will need to accept that he does not understand and won't understand. You cannot convince him. After you break up, his version of events will be that you constantly cheated on him and that you were controlling over who he spent time with. And just in case you needed to hear it, his version of events IS NOT TRUE. But you may have to accept that you can't convince him otherwise.

The wonderful thing about breaking up with him is that you don't have to give a damn. Dump him. I'm sure he has good qualities, but there are men who have good qualities without also having a heaping dose of awful qualities.

Be safe. Change your locks and, if you can do so, consider moving.

Before you date again, please practice being kind to yourself and to practice only letting people stay in your life (even as "friends") who are also kind to you. You deserve so much better. You deserved to be loved, and you deserve a guy who's thankful that you enjoy your sexuality so that you and he can enjoy your sex life together.

58

Agony @44, could be both. Not being able to say no, and she has life patterns which have allowed men to treat her so disrespectfully.
It’s her life patterns around intimate behaviours she needs to change. This can be done thru one on one or group therapy, a support group and deep self reflection. Her boundaries are not firm, her sense of what she has to put up with are hazy.
No I won’t stop responding to Sportlandia.
His rage is unpleasant, then I assume for a lot of white people, black rage is unpleasant.
I’m not excusing his attacks on women.
I find a mob of people giving vent to their own rage and piling on one person much uglier than his outbursts.

59

We have s resident sexist older man on the weekly thread, he’s been writing rubbish for years and years. I’ve never seen the same vitriol directed at him, as I see Sportlandia get.
My twenty eight year old son,good at his job, a hard worker, kind when he’s not losing it, strong in body and has a hard time around women. His response is to blame the women, or his parents, rather than look inside and see his patterns are the problem here. I apologise to all my kids for the fuck ups, did the best I could with what I had. Now though, it’s up to them to heal damage done.
Sportlandia is still relatively young, in our culture anyway. Men of forty, seems old when you’re there.. so young from where I sit.
Cool it Sportlandia.

60

@56 ChiTodd, you're missing the whole point. They were NOT together when she was sleeping around. He knew she wasn't even interested in him during that time.

Now that they are together, he's constantly accusing her of cheating when she's socializing normally.

Whether or not he has the right to meet her ex husband is not the point. He's making her feel like there's something massively wrong with her, when the problem is him.

61

Uh, Chi- I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting, but I'm pretty sure it's absolutely the norm that people don't seek out the friendships of their current partner's ex spouses. It would be different if the two were friends prior or if they had some on-going connection. But they met after the divorce and the LW has had zero contact with the ex in the years since then. It is absolutely acceptable for her to say her boyfriend should not hang out with her exhusband and it's disingenuous of you to present that as "you can't hang out with someone I don't like". It's weirdo behavior for a current partner to seek out an ex from your past, and it's even weirder to the point of crazy-obsessive to say you did it because you wanted to "get to know you better". Yikes. That's some fucked up shit.

As often happens here, I'm just amazed at what some commenters' interpretations here. If you guys live in a world in which current lovers seek out your exes behind your back to get to know you better, then I'm just so fucking eternally grateful that I'm not out dating.

62

@60: "Now that they are together, he's constantly accusing her of cheating when she's socializing normally.

Whether or not he has the right to meet her ex husband is not the point. He's making her feel like there's something massively wrong with her, when the problem is him."

I think I explicitly said just that. I'm not going to rag on DRINKS's boyfriend for having conflicted feelings, but the onus is on him to handle them well. He isn't, the relationship is not healthy, and someone has to pull the plug. Since DRINKS is writing, it's on her to step up and be that someone.

I'm just disagreeing with two points. That associating with an undesirable is a major flaw on its own, and that DRINKS's boyfriend is bad for simply having his feelings.

63

EmmaLiz @46: I'll pick up your tangent. To me "serial monogamy" means a person who is rarely if ever single. I've never seen it as implying someone "can't do monogamy" or can't do non-monogamy (which I've rarely heard used as an insult, oh they just can't be poly... eh?), but that they can't do singledom. As soon as they are out of a relationship, they are into the next one. They don't take time to enjoy their own company or play the field, like DRINKS did, so she is not a serial monogamist. A serial monogamist might line up their next partner before breaking up with the current one, or just immediately get serious with the first person they date post-breakup. But I've never heard the term used the way you see it, to imply they can't do LTRs, or that they fail at relationships generally. To me, the negative implication is that the serial monogamist is needy, settling for Mx Right Now instead of waiting for a better match.

I don't quite follow the rest of your post, because you seem to have a different understanding of "serial monogamy" than I do, but as it's a tangent I'll move on.

"And she's already one marriage down, probably felt some pressure to not 'fail' again." Yup, I agree with that. The sunk costs fallacy, coupled with stigma against divorced people, extra incentive to "make it work" once she committed to this dirtbag.

Larry @51: "I get that some people can be bi and be monogamous but that doesn't seem like what she wants." I beg to differ. She had a phase of sowing wild oats after the end of a serious (and seriously fucked up) relationship. That does not prove that she wouldn't be happy to return to monogamy after getting it out of her system. If his view was that she couldn't be faithful, he shouldn't have pursued her.

ChiTodd @56: Surely you've got that backwards?
Mr DRINKS: You need to answer the phone instantly and invite me with you wherever you go, otherwise you must be cheating.
Also Mr DRINKS: Since when do I need your permission to meet up with your abusive ex and gossip about you?
There is indeed a huge hypocrite here, but it's him, not her. Where do you see her saying "I can do whatever I want with whomever I want"? That was when she was single.
Also, this is not a case of someone finding out their partner had a slutty past and dumping them. Mr DRINKS knew all about DRINKS's post-divorce shenanigans and still pursued her. Again, if her promiscuity was a dealbreaker, he shouldn't have got involved with her.

Lava @58: Oh please. Sporty may have black rage but what he is expressing here is male rage, against women. You can't excuse misogyny because someone comes from a racial minority background. And no, 40 is not young; and where have you been, people tell Hunter off every single time. Hunter's posts just seem ignorant, while Sporty's are full of hate, hence the different reactions.
So Sporty gets to rage against women but we don't get to call him out? What a world.
Sporty is not your son, and I suspect he does not want your motherly protection.

64

Could be BDF, but I've always heard people talk about "serial monogamy" as if it were hypocritical. That a person isn't really monogamous because they have a series of monogamous relationships. The implication here would be that they need to settle down with one person to be truly monogamous or else admit that monogamy is not their thing. If it just means that they don't have periods of time in which they are single or date outside of a committed relationship, then that's not what I'm referring to. But I've never heard it used that way. Granted I could have been misunderstanding.

Lava, Sporty is nearly 40, not a young man. He also has very rarely ever said anything about race regarding his own experiences, his worldview, or the women he dates, etc. So your 'black rage' thing seems to especially come out of nowhere. I mean, the world is weird, here I am defending Sporty, but if you are trying to paint him as an angry young black man in need of coddling, instruction and mothering, that seems a) not to be true, and b) really insulting.

The reason Sporty gets more response than Hunter in my opinion is much simpler: 1) he posts more frequently, 2) he sometimes engages in discussions honestly, not just trolling, 3) he plays the victim and pretends all "aw shucks why you mad" which is more infuriating, 4) he seems to want to punish women, not just insult them. Hunter just comes on from time to time and says the same impersonal stuff. In short, Sporty may be a misogynist but he's not a troll.

65

Lava, how come when the topic is adults having sex with teens, a 16 or 17-year-old is close enough to being an adult (especially if the teen is Dan) that you tear into people for suggesting that it's not the best idea for an adult to have sex with him/her, but when the topic is Sportlandia's misogyny and relentless woman-bashing, we should give him a pass because at nearly 40 years-old, he's too young to be held responsible for his actions?

66

I've rarely been more sad to have missed SL comment drama as it's happening as I am reading this comment thread. I'm not entirely sure what that suggests about all of you or me, for better or worse (beyond the fact that I've not been checking my usual Internet haunts because this sinus infection has been kicking my ass for the past five days).

Once again, I find myself agreeing with Sporty's denotative assessment @1 (though I'd use different phrasing, more similar to EmmaLiz @8, who is expressing the same ideas per my read); someone who actively points out that ze knows what ze's describing is fucked up and still won't ACT on that knowledge is something of a mess. The final sentence demonstrates that Sporty recognizes that the men are to blame - they're douchebags; he also, with rather aggressive and uncharitable phrasing, points out that DRINKS has a demonstrated pattern of opting to date/marry douchebags, which is very much on her. (If you want to pillory him for that, you might as well set up a stocks for Dan, who frequently observes that callers/LWs are the common denominator. And, having dealt with far too many people who insist on willfuy ignoring overt red flags, despite having them pointed out by others and even recognizing them themselves, I can understand the frustration, though I'll agree Sporty tends to focus this on women and use misogynistic tropes.) Try to find a therapist who can help you be less of a mess and act on your recognition of obvious red flags, DRINKS?

@25: It's obvious TO HER: she says it IN THE FUCKING LETTER, TWICE, THE SECOND TIME IN ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS! ("I know")

People can only be helped if they wish to be helped. Reaching out for advice might be a good sign? DRINKS, if you're looking for external validation because you can't/won't trust yourself, you have it. I still recommend therapy, so very, very much; perhaps learning to trust how you feel is something with which a therapist can help you.

67

BDF @41. Shame on you! Your advice to Sporty is totally unfair. You invite him to "see Donny @25b for how to make a point about agency without being a misogynistic shithead."

You know, it's easy for Donny to make points without being a misogynistic shithead because Donny is NOT a misogynistic shithead. Sporty, on the other hand, is an extremely shitty misogynistic shithead, making it basically impossible for him to follow your unhelpful advice. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Schmacky @2: Nailed it!

@11 and 12: Good points, especially about murder.

68

How come nocute, you only address me when you want to have a go at me. Been that way since I joined here.

69

@68: I'm sorry, Lava; how is my asking you a question "having a go" at you?
How is my pointing out an inconsistency or a contradiction indicative of having a go at you?
Or, more to the point, what would you prefer me to talk to you about?

Don't commentors here do things like this all the time? Why do you want to enter into some sort of catfight with me? I mean, other people have less-than fawning interactions with you, and somehow that's okay.
I don't know or really care why you've designated yourself Sportlandia's champion. I do think it odd that you see me pointing out a self-contradiction as me gunning for you.

70

Hi, LavaGirl, how are you? Read any good books lately? Any plans for the coming weekend?

71

Also, I'm curious to see how Sportlandia, who is always on about the ways in which we rob women of agency and thus responsibility for their actions and words, feels about having his apparent misogyny defended on the grounds that he's
1) black
and
2) still a child.

I hope he appreciates the effort.

72

Lava, as I recall, there was a time when you carried on a very public flirtation with Hunter. You know, before you decided along with the rest of us that he is a troll. Are you trying to relive that with Sportlandia?

73

@42. Lava. Exactly. The LW has to take a step back and ask why she gets into relationships that play out badly. All she says about her ex-husband is that he 'destroyed' her by requesting a divorce. OK, so the ex isn't the focus of the letter, but it sounds to me as if she had little clue the marriage was going so badly, or understanding as to his motives.

74

@67. dcp. There is not much difference in degree of sympathy to me between Donny's post @25 and Sportlandia's @2. Donny may be exasperated at the LW for her own sake, which could be why his message comes out as unsympathetic or giving summary instructions. And true, Sportlandia's post has an unnecessary garland of gender politics.

Sportlandia is one of my favorite posters. The reason for this is that I don't know what he's going to say. There's a Savagista party line, which I would subscribe to, with some tweaks; there's a second-generation concern for female agency or autonomy, for men recognising women as fully human in relationships; there are the more sectional righteous or rightful worldviews of certain commenters e.g. a line on particular gay-male sexual ethics you get from e.g. LukeJosef. I anticipate what all these people, what people espousing these positions, are going to say. Maybe if I were more familiar with MRA and blue/red pill rhetoric (I don't know which color the pill is), I'd be able more to preempt Sportlandia; but, if he is the mouthpiece for conventional ideas, he's also my exposure to them. Plus, very often his views are insightful and compassionate.

75

On the one hand, wow women might be people. On the other hand, I got me some lulz.

76

EmmaLiz @64, different interpretations I guess. Perhaps it's my own lens that has me seeing serial monogamy as inability to be single, rather than inability to commit to monogamy. Inability to commit perhaps, but I've never understood it to mean they would rather be non-monogamous. People who follow this pattern seem very happy to be monogamous, and even happier for their partners to be so. I see them as people who have to be in a relationship because they can't handle being alone.

NoCute @65: Bingo.

John @66: Tough love does not involve telling a victim that she drives the people who abused her to drink. Duuuude. Yes, the common denominator is her; no, she did not make these men abuse her; no, she is not a hopeless write-off of a human being. Therein lies the very significant differences between Sporty's post and EmmaLiz/Donny/me making similar points about her poor choices.

Lava @68: The majority of comments are disagreements with other commenters. NoCute makes a good point. You going to take it on board?

NoCute @69: Congrats on the lucky number! Particularly since the ho-hum weekly thread never got there.

Harriet @73: She didn't say that he destroyed her -by requesting a divorce-. She doesn't explain what about their relationship was destructive. I am therefore reluctant to conclude that she always picks irrational, controlling men, or that she always etc. She picked two bad apples. There may be a pattern, there may not; all we know for sure is that she could have, and did, see the red flags with this one, and ignored them, and is continuing to ignore them, and for that she needs an intervention. It's interesting that both you and Sporty read an "out of the blue" element into "he left me." I don't think that's clear. By "he destroyed me" she may mean that the relationship was abusive, which would explain why her self-esteem is so poor that she put up with her boyfriend's abuse. I agree with you that there is hardly any information here, so we can't really assume anything. But based on who she is now, I doubt that their marriage was idyllic and that the only bad thing he ever did was leave.

Harriet @74: Really? I always know what he's going to say. He occasionally comes up with something that shows he has some empathy. Toward other straight men.
You do have a point that he is a window on the ugly world of how some incel/red pill/manosphere types think. Those types tend to keep their putrid views to themselves on Facebook and in real life, so this is really the only way I get a reminder that such hateful men are out there. And I suppose he makes me feel fortunate that I have far better men among my friends and lovers.

77

Further to serial monogamy: EmmaLiz, I agree that some people just seem to have a short attention span, as we've seen in this column. If you get bored after two or three years, better to own that and embrace your serial-monogamist self, not make inextricable commitments like moving in or marriage, or staying unhappily with someone you've fallen out of love with. I guess this is more your "serial monogamist" understanding -- not that they can't do monogamy, but that they can't do long term? I understand "monogamy" as meaning exclusivity rather than longevity, but if by "monogamous" you mean "mating for life," then yes, I can see how you formed your view of "serial monogamy" as "not real monogamy." To me, monogamy means that if you're in a relationship, you don't want other partners besides, whether that's over the course of three years or thirty. Short-term monogamy is still monogamy to me.

78

Ms Cute - Have you been reading Dr Barreca (again)? I have a feeling she may have had an influence in the rise of Ironic Misandry, given the way she was so openly pro-female revenge to the point of advocating jury nullification (which reminds me that I have jury duty next month; I wonder if admitting to a deep and abiding fondness for Rumpole would get a prosecutor to excuse me for cause). That was a shame for me, as I remember her co-authoring a Sunday newspaper column with a right-winger who was a mediocre chess player, and she won the column almost every week. But I could not tolerate advocacy of damage to innocent property, which is probably why I've never driven off a bridge or into a wall - not that I don't deserve such a fate, which I suspect many of the assembled company would cheer if they learned of it, but that I could never do such a thing to my poor car, which deserves better treatment.

79

I'm vaguely inclined to agree with Ms Hopkins about LW, but, recalling how some of my bridge players keep asking the same question week after week when they already know the answer, I shall add the caveat that she should do all she can to avoid a repeat of this question.

80

@78: Oh dear, Mr. Ven: I'd never heard of Dr Barreca! When I Googled the name, I see a male soccer player and a woman, Gina Barreca, who's apparently often a guest on Oprah, and who discusses gender and politics. I assume that's the Dr. Barreca you refer to, but I still don't know what in my comments directed you to her. I don't think I advocated for any kind of gendered revenge; or if it seemed that I did, that was inadvertent.

HOWEVER, I have wanted to talk with you about how you feel about Andrew Sean Greer's latest book, "Less," which I just finished.

81

@76. Bi. OK, it's 'red pill'. 'Take the red pill' [deep monsters like voice]. It's a laughable conjecture--that the world is shaped by powerful and unchallangeable assumptions to any group's detriment--or otherwise it's a banality, the ordinary banality, about capitalism, patriarchy or inherited power/privilege.

Re the LW, there are many ways a man could 'destroy' (or 'DESTROY') a wife apart from leaving her. I had the sense that 'destroy' was something he did, or that happened, in the process of their split. Of course, the destruction could also have gone in within the marriage, through e.g. abusive patterns of behavior, as you say. The LW gives no sense she has any appreciation of why her husband left her, no sense she can think her way inside his position--but, then again, she doesn't have to, since the letter is about the intrusiveness, vindictive and persecutorial mindset, unmanaged insecurities and slut-shaming of her current partner. She says she was married one and a half years and in a relationship seven with her ex; my read on this was that her thought was he shouldn't have married her if he was going to break up the marriage so quickly. Or that he was under an obligation not to leave after their making such a commitment in terms of time. But of course again, there are other reasons she could have given us this information (at whatever level of conscious intention)--e.g. she wanted to show that it was reasonable for her to fuck around as a way of recovering her self-confidence after her breakup.

Speaking generally, I'd say it's good to be able to think yourself into your romantic partner's position; and perhaps I'd say this to the LW more than to some other people.

82

Harriet @81: There really is next to no information about this marriage. I get the sense, both from her naivete and admittedly from projection, that she is quite a young divorcée. Perhaps the divorce happened soon after the marriage because they made the mistake of thinking getting married would fix their problems? It's all speculation and not really relevant to her current problem. No doubt the marriage and its traumatic ending contributed to her current psychological issues, but she can go into more detail with the therapist many of us have strongly advised her to see.

83

@54 "I don't know if it's victim blaming. She's clearly in an abusive relationship and doesn't really seem to know it. Or she knows it but feels helpless. Abusive relationships can poison's someone's mind so maybe we should be more sympathetic."

Yeah, this is the same kind of "god I want to shake you can't you see what you're involved in" you see in abuse targets. It can be so hard to be a good friend that you actually aren't able to keep it up. But that's fundamentally our own human failing.

Abuse and other mindfucks can turn someone just plain humanly unsympathetic. We're all human and maybe we just can't do the sympathy. But they're a person in a bad situation and we ought to do what we still can, right?

Casting shame on someone is probably always bad. The ones who need it won't get it. And the ones who do, shame about your present life is corrosive of personal agency towards change. One might think it should be positively motivating but it empirically isn't. So we ought to do our best to avoid laying blame that carries shame.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

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


Add a comment
Preview

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