Girlfriend is out of town this weekend so I will be alternating between watching football and playing Forza Horizon 3, which I got on black Friday but haven’t opened yet. If not for a doctor appointment tomorrow, I probably wouldn’t even leave the house.
I’m going to end this conversation here because while discussing/arguing with anonymous internet strangers is fun, the fun tends to run its course quickly.
With that said, it’s shitty to see how many women have commented just on this about shitty asshole guys they’ve dealt with. Given what we’ve been seeing since the great Harvey Weinstein Pandora’s Box (decent porn flick name?) opened, it’s shocking and awful the type of shit that some women have to go through.
At the end of the day, I still think that deep down, most guys and girls that are out there are inherently good people. It’s just shitty how a few (in the grand scheme of things) bad guys make it worse for both good guys (like actual good guys, not “I’ve been nice to you for years, why won’t you have sex with me?” good guys) and the women who deal with them.
Admittedly, I haven’t. But I’ve read some of Laura Kipnis’ writings (like I mentioned her book, as well as the essay that she wrote that brought Title IX charges against her) and given that she’s a feminist professor at Northwestern (and much smarter than me) and talks about third wave feminism vis-a-vis first and second wave, I’ll defer to her and take her word for it.
Well, the first one was more of a tongue-in-cheek comment and clearly no one got my humor (which tends to happen). Also, I posted the second comment during lunch, when I had much more time to elaborate. But duly noted!
So in your first situation, both the guy and the girl are drunk, but you seem to be only excusing the girl’s actions but not the guy’s. Why is it okay for a girl to have drunken impeded judgment but not for a guy? I didn’t get the vibe that one was more drunk than the other, but that both were equally hammered. As I mentioned, obviously if one party is sober or significantly less drunk than the other, it’s wrong and that goes both ways.
For your second point – doesn’t the fact that she’s playing games make it hard to interpret whether she’s literally playing games or she actually doesn’t want to hook up with you? Also, I feel like I’ve experienced this and have had friends experience this and have read about people (both men and women) playing hard to get just because it’s more fun or whatever. How do you go about finding out which of the three is your situation if there’s no clear communication?
Alright, I’ll bite. I think that is “batshit crazy” for one simple reason: you’re assuming that women have no agency and treating them like children. You’re not giving them the same level of scrutiny for their actions as men. You’re under the assumption that everything they say is good and right and everything that men say is bad and wrong. This is, frankly, sexist as fuck. First and second wave feminists would/are rolling in their grave at the thought of this.
A few examples from the above:
“If she says she doesn’t want to have sex and then gets drunk later and seems down for it, she will feel a lot better about herself and you in the morning if you don’t use her intoxication as an easy-in.”
Well…no. If both of you are drunk and she says she wants to have sex, then she wants to have sex. Why is the author implying that women are released from all forms of responsibility of self control and scrutiny for their actions when they’re drunk, but men are not? Is that not unequal and sexist? Of course, if one person is drunk, but the other is sober, that’s a different story.
“If she is playing games, that’s a lesson about the importance of being open about her feelings that she needs to learn.”
Well if she’s playing games, then maybe she shouldn’t be surprised at how men she’s playing games with react based on the clues and vibes she’s putting out. How is someone supposed to know whether she’s playing games or not? At the end of the day, only she truly knows. Maybe in addition to learning how to be open about her feelings, she should learn how her actions affect the feelings of others. Again – where is the agency and accountability for her actions?!
“If she only has sex with you because you won’t stop harassing her, it’s not because she wanted to. It’s because, unfortunately, it’s sometimes less annoying to just let a guy fuck you and get it over with than to be harassed all night.”
What the fuck is this? This totally contradicts the “no means no” mentioned elsewhere. If a man is being a persistent, and even an asshole, about having sex, she has to say no and stick to that. Saying no and then saying yes merely makes the man think that he won her over. He doesn’t see himself as a creep or pervert. He’s happy because a woman he was interested in him slept with him. Also, the above contradicts the whole Hollywood/societal thing about “fighting for the one you want” or whatever. When you have outlets on one side telling you to fight to win a girl over and outlets on the other side saying not to fight too hard, is it any surprise that some people get confused?
Finally, for those interested, I highly recommend reading Unwanted Advances by Laura Kipnis. I finished reading this a few weeks ago and it’s a great and terrifying read at exactly the author of this piece mentions: how Third Wave Feminism has robbed women of their agency and is actually quite sexist.
1. Thank fucking God I have a girlfriend and (hopefully) will never have to deal with this shit again.
2. This is batshit crazy. With the way things are going, soon a post-match message reminder on Bumble or a “sup” on here will be classified as sexual harassment.
Agreed. And don’t let her pull the “if you love me, you’ll help me pay them off” shtick. Check your state laws, but I believe that most states have ruled that you’re not liable for your spouse’s debts that were incurred prior to the marriage unless you’ve explicitly agreed to take them on.
It’s a game of opportunity cost. Say your loans are at 6% interest, but if you put that money into a mutual fund or some sort of ETF, you can get 10% return. So you can then “gain” 4% because the same money spent on investing will get you more return than the cost of paying your student loans above the minimum. The theoretical financial notion goes that you should keep investing as long as the return is greater than 6% and then you can use the excess gained to pay off extra chunks of your loan if/when the rate of return dips below 6% and you stop investing.
Agreed with you to an extent, but the big problem I see with the student debt bubble is that unlike the real estate crash, there’s no collateral. You could easily seize someone’s property if they defaulted on their mortgage, but what can you seize if someone defaults on their student loans? Sure 1.3 trillion vs. 10 trillion is much less, but that 1.3 trillion is basically not backed by any real, tangible assets.
Advertise
Market’s probably already adjusted to that.
Girlfriend is out of town this weekend so I will be alternating between watching football and playing Forza Horizon 3, which I got on black Friday but haven’t opened yet. If not for a doctor appointment tomorrow, I probably wouldn’t even leave the house.
Shuttetfly is great for this. Just got 2 scrapbooks there for some family. Super cheap and they turned out great.
I’m going to end this conversation here because while discussing/arguing with anonymous internet strangers is fun, the fun tends to run its course quickly.
With that said, it’s shitty to see how many women have commented just on this about shitty asshole guys they’ve dealt with. Given what we’ve been seeing since the great Harvey Weinstein Pandora’s Box (decent porn flick name?) opened, it’s shocking and awful the type of shit that some women have to go through.
At the end of the day, I still think that deep down, most guys and girls that are out there are inherently good people. It’s just shitty how a few (in the grand scheme of things) bad guys make it worse for both good guys (like actual good guys, not “I’ve been nice to you for years, why won’t you have sex with me?” good guys) and the women who deal with them.
Admittedly, I haven’t. But I’ve read some of Laura Kipnis’ writings (like I mentioned her book, as well as the essay that she wrote that brought Title IX charges against her) and given that she’s a feminist professor at Northwestern (and much smarter than me) and talks about third wave feminism vis-a-vis first and second wave, I’ll defer to her and take her word for it.
Well, the first one was more of a tongue-in-cheek comment and clearly no one got my humor (which tends to happen). Also, I posted the second comment during lunch, when I had much more time to elaborate. But duly noted!
So in your first situation, both the guy and the girl are drunk, but you seem to be only excusing the girl’s actions but not the guy’s. Why is it okay for a girl to have drunken impeded judgment but not for a guy? I didn’t get the vibe that one was more drunk than the other, but that both were equally hammered. As I mentioned, obviously if one party is sober or significantly less drunk than the other, it’s wrong and that goes both ways.
For your second point – doesn’t the fact that she’s playing games make it hard to interpret whether she’s literally playing games or she actually doesn’t want to hook up with you? Also, I feel like I’ve experienced this and have had friends experience this and have read about people (both men and women) playing hard to get just because it’s more fun or whatever. How do you go about finding out which of the three is your situation if there’s no clear communication?
I definitely did and I provided some feedback on it. I would submit a full response, but I doubt it’ll get published.
Alright, I’ll bite. I think that is “batshit crazy” for one simple reason: you’re assuming that women have no agency and treating them like children. You’re not giving them the same level of scrutiny for their actions as men. You’re under the assumption that everything they say is good and right and everything that men say is bad and wrong. This is, frankly, sexist as fuck. First and second wave feminists would/are rolling in their grave at the thought of this.
A few examples from the above:
“If she says she doesn’t want to have sex and then gets drunk later and seems down for it, she will feel a lot better about herself and you in the morning if you don’t use her intoxication as an easy-in.”
Well…no. If both of you are drunk and she says she wants to have sex, then she wants to have sex. Why is the author implying that women are released from all forms of responsibility of self control and scrutiny for their actions when they’re drunk, but men are not? Is that not unequal and sexist? Of course, if one person is drunk, but the other is sober, that’s a different story.
“If she is playing games, that’s a lesson about the importance of being open about her feelings that she needs to learn.”
Well if she’s playing games, then maybe she shouldn’t be surprised at how men she’s playing games with react based on the clues and vibes she’s putting out. How is someone supposed to know whether she’s playing games or not? At the end of the day, only she truly knows. Maybe in addition to learning how to be open about her feelings, she should learn how her actions affect the feelings of others. Again – where is the agency and accountability for her actions?!
“If she only has sex with you because you won’t stop harassing her, it’s not because she wanted to. It’s because, unfortunately, it’s sometimes less annoying to just let a guy fuck you and get it over with than to be harassed all night.”
What the fuck is this? This totally contradicts the “no means no” mentioned elsewhere. If a man is being a persistent, and even an asshole, about having sex, she has to say no and stick to that. Saying no and then saying yes merely makes the man think that he won her over. He doesn’t see himself as a creep or pervert. He’s happy because a woman he was interested in him slept with him. Also, the above contradicts the whole Hollywood/societal thing about “fighting for the one you want” or whatever. When you have outlets on one side telling you to fight to win a girl over and outlets on the other side saying not to fight too hard, is it any surprise that some people get confused?
Finally, for those interested, I highly recommend reading Unwanted Advances by Laura Kipnis. I finished reading this a few weeks ago and it’s a great and terrifying read at exactly the author of this piece mentions: how Third Wave Feminism has robbed women of their agency and is actually quite sexist.
2 thoughts after reading this:
1. Thank fucking God I have a girlfriend and (hopefully) will never have to deal with this shit again.
2. This is batshit crazy. With the way things are going, soon a post-match message reminder on Bumble or a “sup” on here will be classified as sexual harassment.
“For just a low cost of $199.99, you get a sick tree that’ll get you all the Christmas puss and comes with a 5 year warranty”
Agreed. And don’t let her pull the “if you love me, you’ll help me pay them off” shtick. Check your state laws, but I believe that most states have ruled that you’re not liable for your spouse’s debts that were incurred prior to the marriage unless you’ve explicitly agreed to take them on.
It’s a game of opportunity cost. Say your loans are at 6% interest, but if you put that money into a mutual fund or some sort of ETF, you can get 10% return. So you can then “gain” 4% because the same money spent on investing will get you more return than the cost of paying your student loans above the minimum. The theoretical financial notion goes that you should keep investing as long as the return is greater than 6% and then you can use the excess gained to pay off extra chunks of your loan if/when the rate of return dips below 6% and you stop investing.
Of course, but I think the underlying assumption is that if you default on student loans, you don’t really have much wages to garnish.
You don’t pay for those, you get them either from your parents or your cousin’s boyfriend’s sister-in-law.
Agreed with you to an extent, but the big problem I see with the student debt bubble is that unlike the real estate crash, there’s no collateral. You could easily seize someone’s property if they defaulted on their mortgage, but what can you seize if someone defaults on their student loans? Sure 1.3 trillion vs. 10 trillion is much less, but that 1.3 trillion is basically not backed by any real, tangible assets.
I would love to be able to buy a Lambo for 60 grand.
” Would certainly leave a trail of tears across the Dem party if she managed to be nominated”
I literally laughed out loud at this, prompting my supervisor to ask me what part of my assignment was funny. Thanks.
Can you blame Duda? How can you wear socks with sandals and NOT be pessimistic?
I hope the airline loses her luggage.