Comments
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.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Threesomes in a "serious" relationship are dangerous territory. It doesn't make you sex negative to realize that having a more-some with your spouse and co-parent is a far riskier proposition than having a threesome with casual hookup. Both can end badly, of course but only one risks the need to involve the attorneys and guardian ad litem. Threesomes are an ultimate fantasy for many, and I give this guy credit for being introspective enough to want to have them in an emotionally low risk situation.
Go have the threesome.
That aside, SIHAT: It seems he's been honest with you about this being FWB, no chance of deeper feelings, on his end. (When people tell you this, you should always believe them.) It sounds like you told him at some point that you'd like more, but is it crystal clear to him that you still feel this way? It feels like you're doing this because you'll take scraps and hope the sex or your perseverance will suddenly make him say "hey, I want to be in a relationship with SIHAT, she's awesome!" And that's just going to hurt.
The only three-ways I've had have been with people I was not emotionally attached to. Simply casual sex with an extra person. Once was mindblowingly hot. Once was disappointingly dull (not gawdaweful, but just not really all that fun). But I wasn't emotionally invested in any of these people, so I wasn't all heartbroken with the vaguely disappointing threesome.
But I imagine that the risks for heartache are much higher if you are already feeling some attachment for soldier boy. So I end up in the same place Dan is. Go ahead and have a threeway... with someone else.
Just my 0.02 as a woman of about her age in this culture.
He sounds like an asshole with a Madonna/whore complex. She should just enjoy the memories of that one hot night with him and tuck it all away safely in her spank-bank. Then she should lose his contact information and forget about him for awhile. Maybe go on some other dates with guys who might somehow view her as both fuckable yet respectable enough to date.
In humans sex is best employed to strengthen an already close long long term emotionally intimate trusting secure monogamous relationship.
(What used to be "marriage"...)
Using it for short term jollies greatly wastes the immense potential for true joy it can have in your life.
A 'more'some with someone with whom you have some semblance (or wish you had some semblance) of a close long long term emotionally intimate trusting secure relationship is a sure way to piss on that relationship.
You are not a bonobo.
You are capable of a much fuller richer life than the apes.
But only if you make enlightened non-ape lifestyle choices, including and especially when it comes to sex.
Good luck.
And sorry your crush turned out to be such a shallow loser.
Threeways where all participants aren't on board with everyone involved are never fun (the only bad threeways I've had were the ones when one member of the couple was obviously taking one for the team).
That to the side, he sounds like a bit of a dickhead. I don't mean that as an indictment of him. there are guys with six years in who are in much worse shape than he sounds, but the first thought reading your take on his state of mind was, "He's going back into the field. He's seen too many buddies get totally fucked up over their relationships. He's avoiding one at all costs right now." Hell, he may be emotionally incapable of having a relationship at this point.
I vote no, but @8 has the best point. But if you expect anything (even breakfast) afterwards, don't. Disappointing threeways are disappointing.
if you can't come up with a catchy name please register like all the other boring drones.
Maybe I'm reading him all wrong. Maybe he's not looking for attachments because of his career. I dunno. We're only getting one side here. But I'd avoid anyone who thought I was good enough to fuck but not good enough to keep if I did.
Damn straight. They have what she sees as fabulous sex and his next thought is to bring in other people? Stop taking his calls. And take your new sexy excitement about how good sex can be out on the town to look for some people who might actually be interested in you for more than one night.
Grudgingly, although I think the proposed scenario *could be* safe hot fun, I agree with Dan. It seems clear that SIHAT isn't gonna be able to put aside her feelings & let her body have some fun. & that's okay, it's normal to have Feelings for someone you've been flirting with for that long, in whatever capacity. & mayyyyybe SIHAT can keep bopping this boy while he's in town, & she's accepted clearly what he's said: that they are FWB & nothing more. Maybe.
The risk of involving others, though: it's just too much. If it turns out to be an un-fun experience, it could turn SIHAT (who seems pretty open-minded) off to that kind of experience for good. That's be a shame. Or, it could be massively hot fun, but then SIHAT could blame that threeway - & not SIHAT's soldier's pre-stated level of affection - for things not going more romantic w/ her armed forces guy.
SIHAT, keep your great attitude & self-knowledge..& hit up Lustlab or similar to find people to play with, while you ease off your feelings for Soldier Boy. Have the fun, lose the strings.
TL:DR, what @4 said - when people tell you there's no chance of deeper feelings, always believe them.
Only problem I had was with two guys who were a couple. The guy that brought me in whose idea it was had a mood swing in the middle of a sensational time. Weird. No idea why. Had a great hour or so and a slightly tense departure.
Three ways have to be either virtual or actual strangers (easier with gays) or the couple has to be very, very secure and know the rules.
This girl may not have a good time.
Protip: continuing to have bad experiences will not get you over this mental block.
It depends whether not getting to keep him will also include a generous side of slut-shaming. And whether he's the kind of guy who's likely to drop hints to all his Facebook buddies (some of whom may be mutual friends of LWs) about how the LW was in bed, how he fuckin' plowed that whore the way she deserved, etc. And if she goes through with this three-way, he'd be a lot more likely to consider his slut-shaming justified - after all, she was willing to do a casual three-way, so that means she's OBVIOUSLY a slut, amirite?
Best-case scenario, she goes ahead with a threesome and has a blast and they part as friends (because he's already made it clear he's not interested in anything long-term) and she's got a good experience to remember fondly. How likely is that, given his behavior already? Alternate scenario: she goes along with the threesome, and he starts ducking her calls and talking shit about her to his buddies. And it's not because he's playing a game - it's because he really, truly believes she's not worth his basic respect. But since she's already kinda got a thing for him anyway, she's crushed.
On the other hand, if she turns down the chance for a three-way, she can continue to do the long-distance FWB thing as long as she wants, and when they go their separate ways, it's no different than any other person breaking up with someone. He may be disappointed, of course, and he may seek out the three-way with someone else - but they're not exclusive anyway, so why should she care?
That said, the emotional asymmetry is bad. But it seems possible that's mostly on her--that she's the only one who knows her feelings are painfully involved.
The only thing you know about him is that he is honest. More so than most guys. He did the honorable thing by letting her know he doesn't see a long-term romantic relationship.
According to many on this board, the only acceptable times to have sex is if it has the potential to blossom into "the one." Otherwise, being honest enough to admit you care about someone, you want to keep having sex, even kinky sex with them but do not see it going the distance makes you an asshole, slut-shaming, callous, madonna-whore complex sociopath.
No wonder men pretend to have feelings to get laid.
Yes he might have been honest, but that doesn't get him off the hook. If he is at all aware of her feelings, he is just using and manipulating her even if he laid his cards on the table.
There is nothing wrong with feeling the way you feel. Don't beat yourself up for it, but control your actions. The more intimate you are with him, the more you are focused on him. Please listen to one who has been stupid that way. If you are giving your heart to someone who has openly refused it, you will not be open to seeing other great guys out there who can give you what your deserve. I lost a wonderful guy because I was too hung up on someone exactly like your FWB guy.
Look, it's neither pro- nor anti-male or female to say so. It's just the general numbers. And at some point this soldierboy realized that the math was telling him "I can have love or I can have threesomes, but I can't have both and so I will have to choose" and all he's doing is choosing. That doesn't mean that he's an asshole, it just means that he has a grasp of basic statistical probability. If a woman rationally chose a varied sex life in her youth over a man demanding commitment we'd laud her independence. He does it and readers here (here, for christ's sake) are saying he's a selfish douchebag.
@39: "he must know that to keep fucking her would be cruel". I am more sympathetic. I was placed in this situation by a FWB decades ago, and she put me in a situation where ANY choice I made (other than giving up myself to a committed relationship that I didn't want and wasn't right for me) was cruel. I'm not saying she's bad, because she doesn't sound like she is. I'm saying that he might be letting things continue as they are because he perceives getting up and walking out as even more cruel, or risks a mental breakdown of the woman. I know that I sure as hell did. In our early 20s we don't have a good grasp of the fact that compassion can be more cruel than harsh choices.
And you take what he said about himself--that he didn't think a threeway with someone to whom he had a serious emotional commitment could work--and claim that he secretly doesn't think that way, but thinks that's the way she thinks, and so he is trying to squeeze in the threeway before their coming deep commitment to each other.
Way easier to take him at his word about both the seriousness of their future and whether he thinks group sex and serious pair-bond mix for him personally.
The points for his being honest with her are nothing to the de-leveling he did when he took advantage of her feelings to get some sex.
Someone loves you and you cannot love them back? Fucking them once you know that is taking emotional advantage. Selfish move. Dick behavior.
And if he says anything along the lines of "girls who are willing to do [x] kind of sex" aren't eligible (read worthy) of commitment? Sorry, but you ARE in virgin/whore territory and you best run. I think the two together-the hot sex with the prompt follow-up proposal of a threeway- are signs that he's knowingly using this girl and already has the rationalizations in place to exonerate himself of any blame should she get hurt.
A guy I knew in college who did this wasn't just getting steady blow jobs; the girl in question did his laundry, his dishes, and would even rush to his bedside when he got a fucking cold. He and his friends played the "He's always been honest with her" card whenever I voiced my anger witnessing him use her over and over and over again. Better to be a fool in love than the dick who exploits it.
Seriously, fuck that. He was honest, and she's a big girl and made her own decision. Stop treating her as if she's some weepy twelve year old and he's a vicious exploiter. He is not obliged to be some shining knight of chivalry, forswearing his nasty, base urges. He is entitled to be honest, and he's entitled to let her make her own choices and be responsible for them every bit as she is entitled to the honesty, and the right to make her own decisions and bear responsibility for them. Indeed, responsibility for our choices isn't just a burden, it's the privilege and price of having those rights and choices in the first place. If every time a woman makes a sexual or romantic decision we are going to treat her like an exploited victim without agency we might as well ask them to hand back the fucking vote now because they aren't really adults. Problem is, they ARE adults so will you kindly get off your goddamned victimization mania and let her be a grownup?
Yes, she is an adult free to make her own decision, but she wrote in to get opinions on her decision, on which she is second guessing herself. Its not so much that people are arguing that he is a bad guy, but more so that he is bad for her. Army guy has done his due diligence, but ultimately its been the bare minimum, and in her case, with her feelings in the mix, she needs more from this guy to make a potential threesome worthwhile.
And spare me the shit that I'm infantalizing her because she's just a rational adult making choices. She's in love. People in love, all people, men/women, straight/gay/bi/whatevs, struggle with making sane choices when they have feelings for someone who cannot return them, especially when that person is someone they know as a friend. And, yes, it is often visible by the person acting like a sad sack. And, of course, we've all done it. Everyone, at at some point or another, carries a torch. And I would also say that at some point in our lives we've probably all exploited such a situation too.
But, this is pretty simple shit: someone confesses love and you cannot requite it, don't fuck them. Walk the fuck away like an adult. Don't exploit it.
And, sorry, but we live is a sexist society that gets internalized by some straight guys-not ALL, I never said all--as the virgin/whore complex. The guys who do? You spot them by their cavalier attitude toward what they can "get away with" with "those" kinds of girls. She may not understand threeways as such, but I'll bet money this guy does.
It's a real damn phenomenon. It's why it's a fucking cliche on college campuses. And it seems to me to be the best explanation for THIS specific case.
Incidentally, you're arguing with a bisexual women who has had threeways and kinky sex and whatnot, so don't give me this anti-feminist backlash bullshit just because the case in question drips of the stereotype of the poor "honest" guy who merely let the woman "make her own choices because she's an adult."
This brings us, btw, to the paradox of these kinds of libertarian arguments: "Everyone is an adult responsible for his or her own behavior" but "I'm not responsible for what I did to you because you're an adult who is responsible for your own behavior."
Oh? Really?
he is asking, and that's "pressuring" her @10
"he's trying to leverage her feelings to get her to do a threesome" @11
"I doubt that he cares that she's going to get hurt" @11
"He sounds like an asshole with a Madonna/whore complex" @11
"shallow loser" @12
"he sounds like a bit of a dickhead" (though kudos for pointing out the combat experience factor that nobody else seems to give a fuck about) @14
and at Slartibartfast @24 with too many insults to even quote, but couched in passive language
"She's already been semi-strung-along by this fella for way too many years" @25 when there is no indication of that, just a automatic victim assumption
"you're just a sex toy to him" @25 [because, presumably, men have no middle setting between "wife" and "sex toy"]
"he's so demonstrably callous" @25
"This guy's pretty much all but announcing "... I'm fine with using you." @27
"Guy sees her as easy pussy". @30
More infantilizing @35: "Yes he might have been honest, but that doesn't get him off the hook. If he is at all aware of her feelings, he is just using and manipulating her even if he laid his cards on the table."
"he took advantage of her feelings to get some sex" @44
"taking emotional advantage. Selfish move. Dick behavior." @44
"he's knowingly using this girl and already has the rationalizations in place to exonerate himself" @44 [Got that, lads? Honesty in advance is now just "having your rationalizations in place"]
"Better to be a fool in love than the dick who exploits it" @44
No offence, pb1230, but did you actually read most the posts on this thread, including your own? If we were to flip the genders we'd be hearing a shit-ton o' commentary about how he's a big boy now.
If the LW was a guy writing in about how he'd pined for a friend for many years and she was, I dunno, always calling him for a shoulder to cry on whenever a another "jerk" broke up with her? Wouldn't we say something similar? Wouldn't we tell him that he's being used and exploited, that he's the "Dick in the Jar" she keeps around to make herself feel better?
What about a letter from a guy who feels that his girl uses him for his status? His wealth? The picture-perfect life they have together? What if she is selfish, doesn't care that he's unhappy, etc. etc. "Now I ain't sayin' she's a gold-digger..."
What if it was a husband writing about how he has to conceal his porn from his wife because she thinks masturbation constitutes cheating? Wouldn't the board filled up with people calling the woman batshit crazy?
These are all gender-stereotypical scenarios too. Would we be "misogynists" if we came down on these particular women? Of course not.
You seem to have a real problem dealing with the fact that so many women have reacted to this specific situation as having a specific, familiar, and hence political context. Can you not at least admit that the virgin/whore complex is a real thing and that it might explain this scenario quite well? Or, from just from a more "human" perspective, that this man may be exploiting this woman's feelings for him?
Your sex life as described is a bit of a trick that I learned to ignore years ago: "if I am nice to/with an X, the fact that I wanna drop the shit on every other X is a-okay".
"Anti-feminist" is an interesting pejorative, but I suppose I must own it. I used to be a feminist, but gave it up: I found it was getting in the way of my egalitarianism and sense of fair play. Men are not women's nannies or wetnurses any more than they are ours. We must be decent with each other, yes. We must be honest with each other, yes. But the price we pay for those obligations and maturity is to ask people to own their decisions. The LW is, in my humble opinion, far more mature and kind and balanced about this situation that you'll ever be. I look at her and see a sad lady who isn't getting what she would prefer to have, and, frankly, I'd rather that she be happy. You look at her and see an exploited woman who is a better fit for a Wronged Woman melodrama than she is for the real and worthwhile person who wrote in.
Look, I have been in a similar situation to the LW; it is, a bias confession: it's one of the reasons I like this letter writer so much. In my own case there was ongoing emotional exploitation and brutal and cruel psychological manipulation to get what she wanted, so I'm probably better equipped than you to tell to the difference between situations which are really as you characterize them (as mine was) and ones which aren't (as the LW's is). Thing is, I respect both her and her dilemma, but I don't think that respect is best expressed by acting as if she's some soulful, sheltered Victorian parlourmaid impregnated by the heartless younger son of Manderly Manor. She has obviously grown up, so will you kindly give her the fuck credit for her and stop nailing together a scaffold for a man who has been nothing but honest with her?
There's no point in worshipping clear communication if, when you communicate, people blast you as a monster anyways.
Ah. There it is, the nub and rub, and Andrea Dworkin has entered the building. Short version of your argument: because the wider society prejudices women then in the individual dynamic we must presume that the woman is prejudiced. Which was, is, and will always be a bullshit argument in a society filled with individuals.
The soldier was, in many ways, what folks like you have been (rightly) seeking and demanding for years: honest, clear, and with demonstrable boundaries and no hint of force, menace or cruelty. And, well, because it didn't work out the way that the girl would prefer it to happen he's still fucking wrong. Good luck having me take that seriously. And, I hope, good luck on our LW take that seriously. She has got a torch for this guy, she's sad about it, and she wrote in for sensible advice, which she got: in essence, `your feelings are such that you shouldn't have any further sex (of any number of partners) with this fellow'. Kudos to the multiple posters and Dan who gave that good advice, and she is clearly intelligent and balanced enough to take it.
You, though, you're wrapping your arms around her and telling her, in effect, that he was a shit and she needs a fainting couch and a membership to NOW. For fuck's sake, treat her as the nice, sensible adult she is and the squaddie as the forthright fellow that he is rather than treating them both as political objects.
And, there are these snags called power and history. Let's say you told me a tale of a black person beating up a random white person because the latter is white. Now, I will express outrage/sympathy/support, etc. as an individual case, but that case still happens within a context of the power and long history of white supremacy. That context doesn't just "poof" go away when a particular case inverts the suffer-o-meter. ( In fact, it merely reifes the racism in an ironic twist.) Similar matters arise when discussing individual cases of straight relationships--they always happen in a context that entails power and history. Acknowledging such doesn't mean there isn't contradiction, or ambiguity, or that men's suffering doesn't "count," or that some women don't internalize it for gain, or there aren't cases where it is misapplied, and on and on we go....
... bringing me, again, to a very simple question:
Is the Virgin/Whore Complex a real phenomenon or not?
If you've ever had the fortune of being in a classroom on some kind of "privilege," it is CLASSIC for the privileged in a given context to argue that they have the cool analysis to the oversensitive "other." Well, fucking duh!!!! Of course you do! Because you CAN! Like I said in a post above, every human being as an experience of being human will at some point be exploited by someone else because they care a little too much. But when it's complicated by a hint of "I don't do 'that' with relationship material" it can be a.. shocker... wait for it... "trigger."
So bravo to you for your level head; I was just being, in contrast, an over-sensitive woman ! LOL!!! Nothing like proving the fucking point.
And, yes, I actually agree with you that this woman does not sound unhinged or distraught or anything like it, but the details suggest, to me, that she's being used and that she's being used by someone who's internalized some virgin/whore stuff. Simple. And I think Dan's right that she should spare herself further hurt.
A lot of egalitarians like me do incorporate privilege into our thinking. What we don't do is concede that it's a magic bullet which says in effect, that you're right and I'm wrong no matter what we're arguing about. And, sadly, that's how you are using it here. We were having a discussion about this man and this woman in this situation, and, when the individual dynamics of the individual situation showed clearly that she wasn't a vapid fool and he wasn't an exploitive monster, out came the privilege card, (along with the "well, society, so there!" card).
Sorry. Not playing. I do thank you, though, for showing yet again that you really aren't interested in the letter writer as a person, just as a tool in the wider gender wars and if that means you have to treat her as a baby and gather together the wood to burn a man that she likes, has been friends with for years, and has affection for and who has been honest (if not as compassionate as I'd personally prefer or do) then, well, then, sucks to be them, doesn't it? You got your women's studies merit badge.
From the letter: I have feelings for the Army guy. They're not full blown feelings, but I have carried a torch for this guy for six years. Yes, I told him I have feelings for him but he doesn't return them.
You keep mentioning her love for him, and her declaration of it to him, but that isn't what she said at all. She's into him and emotionally wants more than strings-free sex, which is far smaller than "love." You also seem to assume the declaration of feelings came just before the two weeks ago sex, while I think it's far more likely it came 5 or 6 years ago. He turned her down politely (whether for reasons specific to her or for not feeling he can give that when he's active duty and regularly deploying) but was happy to continue as friends.
Now it's possible he can see her pining her heart out and is cruelly ignoring that, but I think it's far more likely that she's been good at hiding it, hoped her feelings would fade, but they haven't and when he suggested the wb thing--in good faith, figuring it was just sexy fun between two people who liked each other--she jumped at the chance. But her feelings aren't going to fade and so this isn't a good idea for her, three- and fourways aside.
Suggesting the fwb and the threeway doesn't make him a monster who is ignoring her (nonexistent) declaration of love. It makes him a guy looking for some strings-free sex with someone he likes, who presented herself as down with that.
No way. I've experienced the kind of clusterfuck that turns into, and it sure isn't the fun kind. Proper sluts rock.
So if I understand your position: if a female confesses she loves me, and I am honest that I care for her but do not love her, even though she still wants to have sex with me (and me with her) it is my duty as a man to trump her decision? Sounds like what you want is pretty close to the patriarchy.
The emotion "I don't want to watch you with your ex, my ex, the hot hostess from that restaurant, a porn star, or anyone else" is really not a shocking or surprising one to have in humans. Whether that "watching" is an old videotape or live action group sex.
Seeker6079, omg, you are a fucking riot! Do you truly fancy yourself an "egalitarian?" To quote a popular facebook meme, equality and justice are not the same. If you hold that the only basis for analysis of relations between men and women is as individuals, you have eschewed all power and history. That ain't egalitarian; it's libertarian, with libertarianism's classic blindside.
And, believe me, I can attack feminist and anti-racist jargon and pedagogy with the best of them, but it's a lot easier to do that, apparently, than answer one. simple. question:
Is the Virgin/Whore complex a real phenomenon or not?
You think I"m the one who is simple-minded?
Have you ever heard of the psychological term "projection?"
If you need to tell everyone you're an egalitarian versus your words implying it, your ability to communicate has broken down at some point.
Your post seems pretty level, so I'm genuinely curious as to how you come to define what I see as emotional discipline with emotional breakage.
@63 - Since when are egalitarianism and individualism and justice separate concepts? Since when are individuals on the one hand and the power of context on the other natural enemies? I see them as bound together. You seem to think that one view or the other must triumph, and since you come down on what is essentially the "fuck individuals" side I have argued against that, and taking a "woman sad man bad" position in the face of the facts that the LW herself has presented I take issue with that too. (And, sorry, but what the fuck kind of feminist denies a woman her own experience? I am listening to the LW's words and her feelings, which is more than you can say.) (Shrugs.) You remind me a lot of the doctrinaire communists I used to know: people didn't matter, only Class and History mattered and you, sadly, seem little different from them in that.
This started as one woman with her head screwed on her shoulders right seeking advice about a friend with a similarly level head where their two emotional goals differed. You insist on going meta, and then insisting that meta triumphs. I take issue with that, and it is why I have so cheerfully ignored your multiple demands that I address a meta question that you insist! is central to your analysis, and will continue to ignore it. To steal a line from Tribbles, it isn't history or context that I take lightly, it's you.
Very often, judging from the number of times "omg your partner is not a mindreader" comes up here. Or the research into all the bosses who believe their employees have feelings for them, when the employees believe things are professional and platonic only. Guys who believe the waitress has feelings for them. Etc.
In person is easier to tell emotions than in writing, and what does the letter say? "I've talked to this one guy in the Army off and on for about six years. He's been in and out of the country over those six years, and is in town for now." He's gone a lot, and a lot of their interaction sounds like e-mails back and forth. And that aside, it's been six years--however she acts around him is the way he expects her to be, and I imagine she's not writing their names in a wreath of hearts. If she is, if her heart's on her sleeve and he knows it and doesn't care, he's cruel--I've said that a few times. But not mindreading that her little crush of 6 years ago didn't fade off when he said it wasn't reciprocal? I can believe that version too. If anything, it's very rare for these sort of one-sided crushes to last: time grinds them out, you can't remember what you saw, and the platonic friendship is years later sincere on both sides, even if there were a couple of rough months where you had to remind yourself not to obsess, or force yourself to obsess until you were sick of yourself and moved on.
(I think it often doesn't, even from a better starting point--you have an emotional connection, the friend part, but an agreement that it will not involve deeper emotions, and enforcing the latter on oneself can get unpleasant for people. Sex is known to cause emotional bonding, whatever declarations are made before that. Betting that the bonding will come about even while you say no strings is dumb, but so can be betting that neither of you will be hurt because you both pinky swore 'just fun, no falling in love or anything' before hooking up.)
I was among many herein who raised the *possibility* that virgin/whore may be in the mix. That's it. We're not "victimizing" her or minimizing her in the simple hypothesis of it. You should pause to consider the irony of that accusation given your rants against feminist theory as somehow inherently victimizing of individual women. Apparently feminism is more threatening to this poor woman than the guy who may break her heart even more than he already has.
You cannot even type out virgin/whore complex! Instead you have another rant about humanities academics: "meta" analysis. Newsflash, honey: ALL discussions of sexual politics require the meta. If you hate the meta, avoid fora. We all have to spackle in some meta and some assumptions in the conclusions we reach for all of these letters, and, yes, we could be wrong and more often than not probably are. We could be overreaching. But you seem to have some serious emotional issues around feminist theory given how much you've flipped out, so much so that if I worked with you (and I was a cruel asshole), I'd follow you around all day whispering "virgin/whore," "virgin/whore," "virgin/whore..." just for kicks.
I was speaking abstractly, but if you're conflating feminism with MRAs as "equally as bad", apparently you're much closer to MRAs and that "i'm not a racist and I ~can't~ be because" in thought pattern because you believe you're somehow ABOVE "seeing sex/gender".
Come the fuck on, at least MRAs and feminists are honest about their biases. Pretending to be an impartial, objective believer or Cassandra while the rest of the world is crazy only makes you look insincere.
Sorry, but you are an ideologue and it's pretty clear from the pejoratives of your argument. Some ones (depending on the ideology) are pretty predictable, and for doctrinaire feminists one of them is "serious emotional issues", for people who disagree with them. (After all, anybody who agrees with you must, ipso facto be unbalanced, especially when they won't back down in an argument, no? And if they stick to their guns they are "ranting".) It is the exact the gender flip of "hysterical women" dismissal which misogynists use. They're insulting when they use theirs, as you are when you use yours.
You want proof you're an ideologue? First, I pointed out that you didn't give a shit about the lady who wrote the letter and were obsessed with meta, and your response was to laud meta to the skies and again demand that I engage on that level. Second, You insist that he broke her heart when she said nothing of the sort.
In short, you care more deeply about proving your feminist talking points than you do in listening to what this woman has to say; you keep talking right past her own personal experience, you keep insisting on a lack of decency in this man when she clearly does not share that opinion. She exists to validate your worldview, not as a person. If I have a issues with anything it's that fundamentally unkind and unfeeling ascendancy of the political requirement over the human reality.
And, please, reread my posts. The do not speak to certainty. They speak to possibility. They also admit that I might be wrong. And *you* are the person, not me, who's making this a referendum on women's studies, feminist philosophy, and feminist ideologues. I simply said, whisper whisper, shudder shudder, that this sounds like virgin/whore to me. Then you hurl insult after insult, calling me a doctrinaire ideologue as you rant and storm like an out of control child.
As for throwing this poor woman (you deem her much more a victim than I do, do you realize that?) under my bus filled with angry jargon-obsessed feminists, when did I say I didn't sympathize with her? Or that I disagreed with Dan's advice? I even agreed with YOU that she didn't sound as distraught as I initially made her out to be. You know what that is called?: Intellectual honesty. You, in contrast, open with a rant on how women wouldn't be so accusatory if the genders were flipped but that you are the protector against all things self-victimization. You know that is called?: Being full of shit.
Again, seriously, dude I beg you: Please google projection because I have to get back to the paper I'm writing for "Feminist Autocracy 101: Is Castration Necessary?"
Refusing to be pinned down entirely and without exception into any one person or group's camp isn't a claim to being a special little snowflake. It's a simple philosophical choice, a rejection of intellectual package deals, and, I would posit, a vital intellectual necessity for a tolerant political and social culture. If I feel obliged to take one set of views as governing all others then what is stopping me from dismissing all non-matching views as worthless. Worse, if (god forbid) I gain any amount of power no matter how small, what's to stop me from wielding it against someone in the service of a set of concepts that I've already decided are Right? The statement that I am not bound in whole or in part, and that I choose for myself, is the vital, necessary starting point for me accepting that others can too.
You no doubt reserve that right to pick and choose and decide for yourself, but somehow you find my simply stating that I do as well to be deeply upsetting and "deceitful bullshit.." and worthy of semi-poetic sneers. Why such a simple reservation of the final decision on matters of thought and morality to one's own mind and conscience draws a vociferous, insulting response is something you will have to work out for yourself. Good night.
Refusal to accept categorization and the implication that you've grown beyond the affairs of mere mortals is much more in keeping with Hot Topic mallgoths than it is adults who can discuss topics through varied frameworks without pretending that they're some form of objective overseer.
Honestly, it's not even about the original topic. It's about your adoption of "anti-Feminism" that requires caricatures of Feminist thought/theory to accept.
Drop the buffoonish act and people might take you more seriously.
First, to establish an analogy is to establish an equivalence. That is the point of an analogy, to say, "ah, this thing is like the other". If you didn't want to introduce the possibility that racism was an issue why did you introduce the topic in the first place?
Second, to introduce an analogy is to, metaphorically, place one view standing beside another. To plead that in doing so that one isn't associating the two is disingenuous.
Third, you do, naturally, realize the ludicrousness of stating, in one paragraph, that you aren't at all implying that I'm a racist, oh no, but I object to being a racist analogy characterization then I must, (meaningful smile at the audience) have a complex about that, asserting obliquely that I am a racist.
Fourth, racism is a pretty damned repellent ideology. You can't just toss it on the table as you are criticizing someone, say, in effect, "oh, you're just like this" and then be shocked, shocked! when somebody takes issue.
Look, if you want to say that if I have issues with certain elements of feminist politics that makes me a racist or just as bad as a racist then kindly have the backbone to say so out loud. And if you don't, then you shouldn't have brought the topic onto the table in the first place, so kindly own your slander or stop. Frankly, you're just some ass on the internet so I don't care which. I expect, however, that you will choose the path of slander and moral cowardice.
As with undead Ayn Rand, goodnight.
I didn't imply it either.
Nor have I slandered you. You've called me a hack, an ideologue, and now a coward. For disagreeing with you.
I attempted to offer an analogy around race as a deflation/illumination technique. It can work in classes with students who stubbornly refuse to see holes in their arguments and, worse, get so caught up in righteous anger that that they not only don't listen, but misconstrue the conversation at hand. Seemed, imagine this, appropriate...
In your case, the parallel to race is indeed useful should you take a fucking breath for a second before you take your ball and go home (mwhahh!):
You are the anti-feminist equivalent of the white person who insists that he or she cannot see race and therefore is not a racist. You rant against (as UAR correctly noted) a caricature of feminists but then protect yourself from the implications of that by saying that you exist, unlike them, outside ideology.
No one does. No one can. We all read the world through self-reinforcing lenses of belief and experience.
It makes perfect sense to me that someone who says "I like doggie style with hook ups, but would never marry someone who was into that" or "I like cross-dressing with people I met on Craisgslist, but would never reveal this to someone I might date" is a walking disaster. Madonna/whore, hypocrite, begging for secret life, etc.
Saying "group sex doesn't work for me if I'm in love with someone, though I'm open to it in the right circumstances if my feelings are at the just fun level" seems totally different. You're not saying that group sex was fine for you back in the day but a dealbreaker in a mate's past (which would be hypocritical, madonna/whore, etc). You're saying that your emotions around group sex depend on your emotional attachment to the people involved in that sex, which just does not strike me as a hypocritical thing. Something to recognize in yourself, just like "under what circumstances am I OK with casual sex?" or "how do I feel about monogamy?" are good things to know about yourself as you negotiate sexual and romantic relationships.
But whether or not the LW herself likes her threesomes casual, this one won't be, for her. Because she would prefer to date him, rather than be a casual sex partner. So maybe this guy's a gentleman for not giving her any false hopes, but in any case my advice is to walk away and look for hot sex and a good friendship with someone who lives in her area and is looking for a relationship, as she seems to be.
I was reacting to the condemnation of anyone who says they wouldn't want group sex with someone they love, but casual might be okay, as equivalent to saying they wouldn't get serious with anyone who had had a type of sex they themselves enjoyed and sought out. Forms of sex that involve third parties, real or imaginary, are of necessity far more emotionally fraught (for most people) than forms that just involve two.
Does it apply in this case? You have no fucking idea. There's nothing in the letter that specifically indicates this, and as IPJ has pointed out repeatedly there are perfectly reasonable, non-sexist explanations for the stance described in the letter. So bringing it into the conversation is just projection or axe-grinding. Maybe that *is* the reason, but it's not a necessary explanation, and in the absence of any real evidence that it is the case, it is unhelpful to introduce it. There's no need to demonize or victimize either of the parties - as plenty of people have already said, it sounds like they're on different wavelengths and continuing to interact sexually (in any configuration) is likely to be both unfulfilling and emotionally painful for her. That's all that really needs to be said.
My posts express the very skepticism you claim I am blinded to by projection and axe-grinding. Go read them. I said that virgin/whore *could* be at play if the guy is saying shit about a woman's relationship-worth based on what kind of sex she's willing to engage in. I too said it's a possibility. I too said I could be wrong. I also agreed that I could have over-reached in my initial post and I agree with you that IPJ's take is fair and reasonable and thus most likely the closest to the mark.
So, it kills me that you accuse me of projection and axe-grinding when I was debating a forum poster who became totally unhinged at the mere SUGGESTION that the virgin/whore complex might be relevant. So, please, reread his posts too. They're accusatory, ad-hominem, and suggest a serious rage against academic feminism that has little to do, in fact, nothing to do, with at the topic at hand. Hello fucking double standard! The dude even accused me of calling him a racist yet I'm the one who was overreacting within ideological blinders and rigidity? Give me a fucking break.