Like a protective layer between you & your relationship stink. (By Alessia)
Deanna sent me this gem from a vintage 1950’s magazine called Quick: Supreme Frankfurter Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter responded negatively to a request to marry a couple saying, “A Supreme Court Justice does not have the authority to marry people. Perhaps it is because marriage is not yet considered a Federal offense.”
Continuing my support of men who “get it,”, today I salute Men Can Stop Rape, Inc. (MCSR), an international organization that mobilizes men to use their strength for creating cultures free from violence, especially men’s violence against women.
MCSR provides agencies, schools, and organizations with direct services for youth, public service messaging, and leadership training.
Our Mission
To mobilize men to use their strength for creating cultures free from violence, especially men’s violence against women.Our Vision
To institutionalize primary prevention of men’s violence against women through sustained initiatives that generate positive, measurable outcomes in populations throughout the world.A World Leader
Since its inception in 1997, MCSR has led the call to redefine masculinity and male strength as part of preventing men’s violence against women. In 2007, MCSR was named the United States Changemakers winner in the competition to identify the world’s most innovative domestic violence prevention programs, sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.A Comprehensive Approach
In contrast to traditional efforts that address men as “the problem,” MCSR’s pioneering Strength Campaign embraces men as vital allies with the will and character to make healthy choices and foster safe, equitable relationships. Our youth development programming, public education messaging, and leadership training together constitute a unified and comprehensive campaign that has been launched in states and cities around the country.
Give MCSR your fingers — not the finger! Help Men Can Stop Rape with their upcoming mailing:
DATE: Wed, August 5
TIME: 5:00 – 8:00
LOCATION: 1003 K St NW
Ste 200MORE: MCSR needs your help for our upcoming mailing! We’ll provide dinner, you provide your invaluable stamp-sticking, envelope-stuffing skills. Please RSVP (email cporter-borden (at) mencanstoprape.org) if you can attend. We greatly appreciate your help!
For more information, visit the MCSR website, or contact them directly:
Men Can Stop Rape, Inc. (MCSR)
1003 K Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20001
E-mail: info@mencanstoprape.org
Phone: 202.265.6530
Fax: 202.265.4362
The August 2009 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine, has a feature story (beginning on page 154, after the book reviews?!) on how the laws against domestic violence aren’t enforced. The piece, titled “Why Didn’t They Stop Him?” (by Phoebe Zerwick, photographs by Mary Ellen Mark) is an excellent one — and long overdue.
Not only did I pitch this story roughly 6 years ago to Oprah, but the horrible especially because it’s true story of the ordeal of Vernetta Cockerham which resulted in her daughter’s murder is really only half the story.
Every time I start to blog about Oprah and her ignorant stance on domestic violence (she thinks it’s as simple as leaving), I get so infuriated I have to quit; I have 7 posts in draft to prove it. And this one will be short so that I can finally get to posting something without getting so outraged or ill that I cannot continue.
For the past 6 years I’ve contacted Oprah by every means I could find: via her website’s online form, via email, via phone messages at Harpo, and even spoke directly to producers of the show — who told me the half-dozen books and another half-dozen studies on the subject weren’t enough; call back when I published my own book.
Grrr — I’m in the middle of a battle for my own safety & that of my children; the book, and 1 million other things, will have to wait.
Wait for the day someone wants to open their minds to the realities — before another woman &/or her child(ren) dies.
Yes, Oprah, I told you about the Massachusetts study in 2000 which said that as many as 60-80% of restraining orders are not enforced; and I have the personal experiences to prove it. Running from my abuser kinda kept me a bit too busy to write that book.
Yes, I told your staff about the U.S. Department of Justice study that same year which said that arrests were only made in:
47% of the cases in which the victim reported being raped
36% of the cases in which the victim reported being assaulted
29% of the cases in which the victim reported being stalked.
I especially went into great detail about what happens when children are involved in domestic violence cases.
And I emphatically stated how all of this not only results in victims having a loss of faith in the system, how it not only results in keeping victims with their abusers, but how it is further abuse of victims by the system & how it impacts the children involved.
I even offered to put myself at further risk by going on-air to discuss this.
So, while I applaud you for finally getting to the truth of some of the matters involved in domestic violence, Oprah, I wonder why it took you so long? Especially when you had 6 years of my nagging.
I wonder how much longer it will take for you to heed my voice and take up the other issues I have brought to your attention?
And I wonder how many more women & children will suffer & die during that time.
But I guess death just sells more that saving lives, doesn’t it; don’t worry, continue to ignore us, and you’ll have more deaths to put on the cover of your publications.
Oprah, and staff, be prepared for more calls & emails from me.
Last month, AskMen.com (50,000 AskMen.com readers) & Shine (19,000 respondents over a four week period) conducted its second annual online survey, where real women and men answered questions on such topics as online dating, money, careers, soul mates, marriage, romance, cheating, etc.
One area where men really weighed-in differently was the matter of weight gain. Seems fatty-fatty-two-by-four will be kicked out of the couple’s door — by (surprise!) males.
An overwhelming 70% of women responded to “Would you dump a boyfriend if he became fat?” with “No, his appearance does not affect my love for him.” But 48% of men said they would dump their girlfriend. Shocking? No. Superficial? Yes.
While 75% of US men (just a few points off of their male counterparts in the UK, Canada & Australia) and 63% of the women believe marriage “is a necessary institution, and one that I will participate in to help preserve,” there’s something funky going on… I guess marriage as an “institution to preserve” only applies to skinny folks — for men, anyway.
But perhaps most upsetting to me were the results regarding divorce (as in “she’s too fat to remain with me”). When asked, “Do men get screwed by the courts in divorce?” 83% of the men said “Yes.” I guess I’m not surprised to hear men continue to whine about their victimization (as if!), but the women? While the 44% who said, “No, men and women generally get fair and equal treatment,” may seem comforting, look closer and you’ll see that 40% also said “Yes” — 40% of women believe that men are victimized by divorce courts.
Ugh.
I guess these women aren’t really listening to their friends’ divorce stories.
Yet 35% of these whining & irrational men who believed they are treated unfairly by divorce courts say prenups are “Not at all important.” Isn’t that a dumb reaction, to not protect yourself from what you (irrationally) fear?
But that’s only part of the story, really; just look at the questions & results:
For Men:
How important is it to you for your future wife to sign a prenup?
35% Not at all important
33% Not very important
22% Somewhat important
10% Very important
For Women:
Do you want your future husband to sign a prenup?
73% No, I will marry a man who I trust enough to not need a prenup
11% Yes, but I won’t risk jeopardizing our relationship by asking him to sign one
9% Yes, I won’t marry him unless she does
7% No, I’m out to steal his money
And that sexist difference in the survey questions & responses may be the most telling thing of all.
Women too insecure to ask for a prenup? But not the big strong he-man. (He’s just too dumb not to ask, even when he thinks the male created & controlled courts are out to get him because he has a penis. A-duh.) Women asked a question in which they are offered the golden opportunity to self-identify as gold diggers? Where are the men’s sugar daddy responses? And that confusing typo (see 9% female response) — for a minute there I thought they were actually including lesbians. Yeah. Right.
If such sexism was ignored or thought “cute” by the female respondents, then no wonder they themselves are sexist enough in their thinking to believe that men have it bad in divorces.
I do believe now we know why this is called The Great Male Survey; Long Live The Great Male.
*yawn*
Last night’s Royal Pains gave me a royal pain in my donkey. Normally I love the show (especially the MacGyver-medical stuff), but last night…
UGH.
One of the plots in this episode (titled Crazy Love) revolves around a “passionate Latino couple” from Caracas. (I’ll spare you my diatribe on the stereotypical ick of that — and most of the hour long show’s plot — and just get to the part that makes me want to slap Royal Pains with a fine.) “Passionate Latina” Sophie (played by the lovely Roselyn Sanchez), discovers that along with paying for her boob job, her adoring husband (who is having financial troubles and so fears his beautiful wife will leave him) has had a GPS device implanted in her without her permission. This is discovered when she’s having an MRI and the device tries to pop through her chest (incredibly gross!), and gives her radiation poisoning.
We never see Sophia upset (though the concierge doc, when confronting the husband with moral & medical outrage, tells the husband to “give her some space now” — and Divya, when asked by the doc how Sophia is doing, says, “She just keeps saying (in mocking Spanish accent), ‘Why me? Why me?'”). When Sophia lays in the hospital bed, recovering from the surgery to save her from the radiation poisoning, her sheepish husband shows up at the door to her room and asks if he may come in. Sophia says yes; he says he’s so sorry. Sophia’s reply?
(Get ready for it, because it’s so infuriating!)
Sophia’s reply to her controlling spouse who has had her secretively implanted with a GPS device so that he can track her, to a man who nearly killed her with such abusive behavior, is… “I didn’t know you loved me so much.” And then they kiss so much that everyone leaves the room.
Ho-ly crap.
Didn’t anyone during the writing, acting, editing — any part of making this show — violently puke at the idea of even suggesting a happy, sexy, “forgive & forget” reaction to the discovery that a man has violated his wife by secretively implanting her with a tracking device?!
I guess it’s all a-OK because he was stressed over money & insecure; isn’t that the excuse we so often offer abusers? We see the incidents (at least the reports) increase during times of economic down-turns, and we study those connections, but do nothing about it — other than use it to justify, to excuse the control & violence. Here, in this show, literally.
And they didn’t even leave it at that!
This lovely-dovey stuff makes Divya covet such passion for herself with her (presumably arranged) engagement. Barf barf barf barf barf.
Isn’t one woman mistaking love for abuse enough? No, you had to show us another woman craving it, thinking that’s the secret sauce missing from her happiness sandwich.
Knowing all this, doesn’t it make the episode’s title of Crazy Love wildly inappropriate? You’re going to inform us that you can check for blood type matches in a jiffy using a silver tray, but you’ll pass along the dangerous mythinformation that love = control? Bad math, bad science, bad idea.
Shame on all of you at Royal Pains. I sentence to you to a fine of $60 million to, payable to two different abuse & crisis centers (each receiving $30 million) — one organization specifically helping Hispanic women.
And don’t ever do this again. I want to keep watching your show — but if you ever do this again… Well, let’s just say that I doubt you’ll be responding to me with a “I didn’t know you loved me so much.”
I know you’re probably sick of Jon & Kate + 8 talk, but…
I just don’t get why people keep on calling Kate Gosselin the bitch when it’s so obvious that Jon’s a passive-aggressive jerk. Well, I got it at first; passive-aggressives always make the other person look like the bad guy — and that public perception combined with the private hell that is living with a passive-aggressive spouse will drive you crazy. It truly is a special kind of hell.
I know; I’ve lived it.
And I wish people — especially now that they know all the BS Jon’s done (the dating, the spreading rumors about Kate, the complete self-absorption) — would just stop blaming Kate.
I’ll admit that I’ve been a fan of the show for years, but I’ve been complaining about Jon since I first saw it. In fact, that’s why my husband often won’t watch the show with me; he hates to hear me bitch about how lazy Jon is, about how Kate has to plan & do everything because Jon can’t or won’t initiate anything that’s not about his selfish needs.
Arg! I really dislike that man — and those like him.
So when I spotted this at a rummage sale recently, I had to snap it up. The vintage metal trivet, now on my wall, reads, “If more husbands were self-starters the wife wouldn’t have to be a crank.”
It’s funny because it’s so true.
And serves as a little reminder of reality for all who enter my home. But Kate, if you want this, contact me and I’ll send it to you, darlin’. I am so understanding of & sympathetic towards you & your position.
Have you seen these screaming headlines yet:
Is your boyfriend/husband HAIRY and you are sick of it?? Now Casting
and
Can you imagine if we saw headlines & programs dedicated to calling women ugly? If we saw casting calls announcing how husbands who were sick of their wives looks could get help — as if it were acceptable?
The media would have a field day, bringing on expert after expert to discuss female body image pressures & concerns & how this sort of valuing females for their looks was abusive. But do it about men? Oh, that’s fine.
Not.
Even if women are taught to be more (self) conscious about their appearance and so are (often) more obsessed with make-overs etc., even if these shows are aimed at a (materialistic & superficial) female audience who wants to see men transformed back to some snazzier (more romantic novel looking) version of themselves, these sorts of shows are just plain mean.
Double-standards flipped back to bite the sexist stereotypical hand that feeds them BS are not what equality & respect are about. Physical makeovers and unrealistic romantic notions are not the stuff that gets you through a healthy, longterm relationship. And dragging your mate in for a show which wants to make him less hairy because “you are sick of it” or pronounces him “ugliest” is a sure way to run your relationship off of a cliff.
If you’re really considering such a thing as being on such a TV show, just ask for a divorce, you shameless bitch. Don’t prolong the guy’s agony, don’t encourage shows like this — and don’t let me hear about it. I have rolled-up newspaper; will travel.
You know the old joke, “I must be a mushroom because people keep me in the dark and feed me BS,” right? So when I heard about ABC’s Dating In The Dark, I was suspicious. My verdict? The bad news is that the new reality dating show is unremarkable. But then again, the good news is also that it’s unremarkable.
As far as dating reality shows go — or any reality TV shows, actually — it’s rather refreshing to not watch a show and find yourself becoming pissed off at the exploitation of flesh (Dating In The Dark had the option to take peeps and bare or topless bods, and it didn’t take the usual sleazy route), irate at the mythinformation presented by “experts,” or screaming in anguish at the cruelty of manipulating people’s feelings.
OK, so some of the latter occurs, but that’s just part of dating; people put themselves out there and get rejected.
I don’t want to pick on people (even if those people have put themselves out there for such attention), but I have to say that Christina had attention-seeking bitch written all over her from the get go & so her decision not to continue to see Seth (who is a charming & attractive guy) because he wasn’t GQ cover material wasn’t at all surprising. In fact, by the time we got to her moaning in pain & hurt at the self-discovery that she was the kind or person who would dismiss a caring man who would be there for her — one she had a connection with — just because he wasn’t what the Greeks chiseled in stone, I was peeved. “Why,” I wondered, “would a person put herself on a show about proving appearances don’t matter when she so obviously (and callously) did?” Then the answer came to me: Because she’s not just a conceited bitch who thinks she’s prettier than she is — she’s an attention-seeking bitch who wants to pretend she’s nice and so puts herself on a reality television show.
But honestly, that’s about as typical (and icky) as the show gets for the genre.
There are no freaky-mean twists (like after telling the 6 participants that how they’d paired them off based on pre-show screening compatibility was a joke & tricking them into making then breaking the bonds they were making), no overly suggestive hype — in fact, most of this just proves what most confident & sane people will tell you about dating:
* Chemistry is important; but that’s not all about looks
* People have weird ways (both the down-right odd and the charming versions) of evaluating people, some of which are not suitable for happiness
* “Good looks” are in the eye of the beholder — and while we all see the same thing/people, we sure don’t “behold” the same way.
* Most people need to be directed towards potential mates because they would otherwise continue to make the same dating mistakes, write-off potential relationships for silly reasons (armpit sweat on a shirt, think a guy is too handsome (intimidating), etc.) — so trust your family & friends to set you up!
* Some people are self-centered & mean; but if you close yourself off to protect yourself from the jerks, you’ll also prevent yourself from learning more about yourself and from discovering other nice people.
All basic stuff, yes; but not unhealthy. And lately, I feel like the world, especially reality TV shows and stupid dating experts, spends too much time ignoring the basic good stuff. But still, it was confusing.
And at the rate the hour long show clipped along, I became even more confused…
With 6 contestants/participants (3 female, 3 male) and ready to see each other about 1/2 way through, I wondered how this could be a series. Were we going to keep them in this living arrangement, force them to continue dating, mate & raise children, get divorces, find new loves, all via furtive visits to the dark room?
But no, Dating In The Dark offers 6 new participants each week.
I’m not sure if I will watch more shows or not; but I won’t suggest a boycott, nor will I make faces at people who say they do watch the show.
Once again, supposed experts shoot their mouths off, using salacious headlines and fear to label & manipulate women; this time the horrible deeds are being done by Robert Siciliano at Single Minded Women.
In the article, Siciliano paints single mothers as easy prey for sexual predators:
…the one under-discussed, over looked and “it can’t happen to me” aspect of being on the dating scene is your personal security, and that of your children. In fact, online dating is one way pedophiles find their next victims (through unsuspecting single mothers looking for love and perhaps a male role model for their children).
While the supposed security expert infuriates me with his depiction of single moms as so eager for love that they’d sacrifice their own children, it’s only going to get worse:
As the saying goes, “water seeks its own level” which means unhealthy, insecure people seek each other out; this often leads to destructive relationships. But what’s worse is insecure people often seek out destructive, unhealthy and sometimes violent people. We’ve all read the story, the single woman or single mom who couldn’t break the cycle of always settling for less, and winds up a statistic.
Healthy, conscious, right minded people don’t settle for less and can sense “bad” from a mile away. They are secure, and often are aware of their personal security as well. When something doesn’t look or seem right, they pay attention to their senses and get themselves out of what may become a dangerous situation. They cut their losses and chalk it up to a learning experience. Others get deeper into destruction.
There is a clear parallel here between what would be considered a healthy potential mate, and a predator that has nothing but bad intentions. The good guy actively pursues what he believes to be his heart and does things to romance his potential mate. The bad guy does the same thing but in the name of personal gain, manipulation and evil. Predators will target anyone who will give them their time and attention. Often a smooth talking good looking guy, who is a predator, may win over the attention of a healthy and conscious woman, but she will soon see there’s something wrong with the guy. Whereas an unhealthy woman who is unsure of her personal security will settle for less and in some cases put her and her children at risk. Sadly, sometimes loneliness trumps consciousness.
Sadly, sometimes it’s media-hungry experts who consciously prey upon the fears & insecurities of the humans they pretend to be helping.
The real “clear parallel” that Siciliano seems to be operating off of is his non-documented notion that single mothers are single parents because they are “unhealthy,” “insecure,” “destructive,” & therefore somehow more likely to put their children at risk.
Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s his first bit of helpful (and tainted) advice (page 2):
First make sure you have a healthy strong mind and your self esteem is in order. Read as many self help books as possible, go to weekend empowerment retreats, associate with friends that are goal oriented and have their life in order, shred any baggage you may have and most importantly, “know thyself”; which means to understand oneself is to understand others as well.
Like all self help books are full of sound advice. *snort* Like those with real (not author-imagined) mental health issues are able to trust their way to “health” through a book alone — or trust their friends (doesn’t that “water seeks its own level” business apply to friends too?)
The rest of his advice for dating safely online is fine; rather generic and based on the commonsense advice your friends give you (and not unlike what mom told you in the years before the internet & other tech gadgets), but his message gets lost in the fear-mongering & victim blaming.
If there is any connection (and I’ve not yet ready any study that indicates this) between single moms’ children being at risk from pedophiles and/or sexual predators, I’m willing to bet that this has less to do with the single mother’s poor self esteem than it does with access to the children.
Just as biological dad has access to his own kids, step-dad or mom’s boyfriend is there to watch the kids while she works, runs errands, etc. In both cases (as with uncles, other family members, clergy, etc.), these males are (eventually) trusted to be alone with the children; trust being something the criminal works hard to gain. It’s a matter of single mothers working, meaning a higher rate of absenteeism from home; not something necessarily borne of an “unhealthy” single mom putting her children at risk for the sake of her own loneliness.
Are some pedophiles using dating sites to target victims? Sure they are. Just like rapists are. But targeting victims isn’t new. Before the internet and dating sites, those willing to commit sex crimes against children were trolling parks, volunteering to coach or otherwise be with & supervise children, etc. looking for victims. (I they wanted adult female victims, they knew what they were looking for & did their best to find the situational windows to take advantage of.)
Like Celeste Moyers, the director of the Safer Online Dating Alliance, said two years ago (when Good Morning America covered this “story”), “If someone wants to do harm, that person will find a way to do it.”
“People are caught off guard,” she said. “Even the smartest savviest online dater can be a victim of sexual assault.”
So why is this fact buried in most of the coverage of this issue — and absent from Siciliano’s salacious story?
Because it’s preferred to blame the victim — and the victim’s mother — rather than to hold the victimizing, criminal pedophile responsible.
Shame on Robert Siciliano for playing up & preying on the fears of female single parents, for labeling them “unhealthy” for not being married, for blaming them for somehow increasing the potential victimization of their children.
I spotted this casting call at RealityWanted:
Looking for married couples to throw down on a nationally syndicated court show!
We give you a $500 appearance fee each, airfare, hotel & $70 each for food.
Now I ask you, what married couple is going to “throw down” (whatever that means — I hope it’s not violent!) for a grand? I mean, there’s not even the pretense of help.
All they say is that it’s for a “syndicated court show,” so is the “throw down” a divorce? Or what? …With such little information, I think it’s safe to say that whether it was your intention or not, simply suggesting you & your spouse “audition” is probably going to result in the end of your marriage.
Dear Wizard of Oz,
After hearing of your kind generosity towards straw men, lions, tin men, and stray girls & their little dogs, I was wondering if I might be granted a penis — just for a few days. And I’ll return it unused, I swear!
I just need one penis, no matter how small, to get into casting for VH1’s Tough Love 2 Men’s Panel, so that I can access & confront the Evil Witches (the show producers) & Their Flying Monkeys (Steve Ward).
If necessary, I will pour water on them.
It’s not for selfish reasons that I ask; I have to protect women, you see. And I’ll need a penis, no matter how small (a penis is a penis, after all), to get in.
So please, dear Wizard of Oz, temporarily give me a penis. I have the brains, the heart, the courage — and I know how to get back home.
Sincerely,
Alessia
Good Witch In Training, of Relationship Underarm Stick
I was understandably distraught when I read Christina Hoff Sommers’ Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship, in which she finds fault in Berkeley law prof Nancy Lemon & her widely used textbook, Domestic Violence Law, saying:
False assertions, hyperbole, and crying wolf undermine the credibility and effectiveness of feminism. The United States, and the world, would greatly benefit from an intellectually responsible, reality-based women’s movement.
I’ve not read Lemon’s book, but naturally I agree — false statements are not good & undermine the very causes I hold dear.
But so do false accusations about such work, and Sommers isn’t as pure as any ethical now in my book — she’s got an agenda. OK, so maybe we all do — but hers is not exactly pro-female. Sommers is (white hetero male) conservative and she’s well-connected, meaning her false assertions, hyperbole, and crying wolf greatly undermines the credibility and effectiveness of feminism because her voice is deemed worthy & given lots of media push.
This weakens Lemon’s book and therefore weakens educational & societal concern over the validity of domestic violence, diminishing the issue of violence towards women, and, because Lemon is a woman (and I gather a self-proclaimed feminist), such attacks by Sommers discredit Lemon and female authors (at least those who identify as feminist and aren’t conservative foundation teat-suckers & ass-kissers of the patriarchy), turning the “conversation” in general into a feminist bashing event.
All very horrendous & vomitous indeed.
But thankfully, Tenured Radical rides to the rescue.
Just go read it — now! — and see how deeply sucking (figuratively & literally) Sommers is — and how Tenured Radical gets to the truth of the very historical facts Sommers questions.
You may not feel “all is well,” but it’s good to know that others are in the battle.
I try to help by magnifying & spreading the corrected word.
G, aka ToxicShockTaco, commented here about some stupid comments she’s read & frustrating conversations she’s had online which prompted her to write this blog post. Following her links, I found the usual victim blaming mentality which serves to excuse criminal acts; things which shouldn’t surprise me because they are so commonplace. But still, like G, I can’t help but feel compelled to say what I can in hopes that there’s a chance to educate.
Among “Jimbo’s Jems”:
So, I guess if a girl decided it would be cool to smear raw ground beef all over herself & walk inside a pen full of hungry lions, getting eaten alive wouldn’t be her fault either, eh?
Or, on a more plausible note, if she thought it would be cool to walk into an outlaw biker bar & strut around half naked, she wouldn’t be considered to hold one shred of responsibility for anything that happened to her there, either.
Right?
OK, don’t you love how he compares himself & men in general to a predatory beast? And how he thinks sex = food?
Yes, the sex drive is biological, like hunger; but they are neither equal in need nor imperative. And even when it comes to hunger, humans — even the male ones who joke about the 5 second rule for food on the floor, would consider the possible consequences of eating raw (or even cooked) meat they just stumbled upon.
If I were a man, I’d be insulted that you forfeit male ability to exercise self-control. As the mother of a son, I’m angry. How dare you say that penis or testosterone equals inability to control one’s self! As if being male limits a person to some sort of reptilian, reactionary response — of a violent nature yet!
Even the comparison to “outlaw bikers” is ridiculous.
First of all, the very word “outlaw” means criminal, so obviously, the matter of safety is an issue for anyone — and if he meant Outlaw with a capital “O”, well, I’m not sure that violence towards women is in the bylaws… And in either case, I don’t think I’d toss around that implication lightly. (Frankly, I suspect, Jimbo is just throwing around pejoratives, playing with fears &/or negative opinions of bikers; my personal experiences with bikers of any sort, including Outlaws with a capital “O,” have been nothing but respectful — in fact, they have been the first to back me up when a drunk jerk hasn’t backed-off when told to.)
Secondly, with regards to his questions/accusations that a woman “strutting around half-naked” in any sort of a bar believes herself free from the responsibility of the actions of others, let me help Jimbo out here. Such a woman may be risking legal actions such as “indecent,” “disorderly,” and “harassment” — not to mention just plain rude — depending upon what exactly “half-naked” is, what the location is (strippers, for example, are more than 1/2 naked and they are not allowed to be assaulted or raped), and other situational issues. But yeah, she’s not responsible for what other’s do.
Jimbo continues:
Because as we all know, a woman should be able to wear anything she damn well pleases with no thought to the possible consequences, and any consequences she may suffer, will never be considered to be even partially her responsibility, even though she engaged in behavior that expopsed her to risk to begin with.
Right?
No, of course not. A woman shouldn’t be outside wearing a bikini in temperatures 40 degrees below zero. A woman should not violate dress codes at the place of her employment. A woman should not wear clothing soaked in gasoline, even if she’s not standing next to a burning building. And there are countless other situations in which women should follow rules of safety & convention. But “scantily dressed” or even “nude” does not mean that she has put herself in the path of sexual danger — the criminals stalk her down on her path, regardless of how she is dressed.
In case you can’t see the difference between sexual assault & the to-be-expected dangers of my particular examples, let me make them clear for you. In the case of bikinis outside in winter, the elements are not controllable, so humans must dress for the weather or risk threats of exposure to the cold. In the case of employer dress codes, the employee has agreed to the dress codes and risks loss of job if they do not comply. In the case of wearing gasoline-soaked clothing, well, frankly, there’s no reason to wear it and it would be risking burns & death from a spark from anything anywhere along with other health issues — all immutable laws of science which can & should be avoided by not being an idiot. However, in the case of being “half-naked” or whatever, becoming a victim of sexual crimes is not dependent upon immutable laws of science or medicine or legal contracts — it is based upon the actions of another, something one has no control over, outside of societal agreements & norms (which criminals are willing to break, no matter how the victim is dressed or acts) or, after the fact, courtrooms.
In any other area of life, all people, both men & women, are considered responsible for their own safety & well being. If you have unprotected sex with strangers & get aids, it will be considered your fault for engaing in risky behavior. Drive without your seat belt & get injured in a wreck, even your insurance company will successfully argue in court that you share some of the responsibility for your injuries. But when it comes to fashion choices & how a gal presents herself in public, whether by dressing in skimpy, revealing clothes or posting sexually suggestive pictures of herself online, suddenly reponsibility goes out the window & it’s a ghastly social faux-pas to even hint that she may have brought something on herself by the choices she made.
OK, so my other examples should make most of this clear, but…
Are you, Jimbo, saying that if a woman is raped by a stranger who doesn’t use a condom & ends up with HIV or AIDS, that she is at fault? Maybe that’s not what you intended, but I’m pretty sure it’s implied there somewhere.
Even if it’s not, when a person consents to sex with anyone, stranger or not, condom use or not, this act of sex cannot be be compared with rape in any way because rape is by definition lacking consent, you freaking idiot!
Ditto the seatbelt. Use or non-use of a seatbelt is a matter of consent. And when a woman dresses skimpy, the only thing she is consenting to is being dressed skimpy. She is not consenting to sex. In fact, the question hasn’t even come up yet.
Assaults, rape and other sex crimes are without consent. Which means she said “No” or was unable to say “Yes” by virtue of physical or mental state, and what she had on or off is absolutely meaningless. At this point of “no” or inability to give consent, any action or continuation is solely the act & responsibility of the rapist/attacker/criminal.
He is the perpetrator, she the victim; and he carries all the blame. Period.
So yes, it is “a ghastly social faux-pas to even hint that she may have brought something on herself by the choices she made,” you misogynistic twit.
Furthermore, when talking about rape, do not condescendingly refer to females as “gals.”
Of course stalking or raping a woman is criminal & morally wrong. But that doesn’t mean that it’s just perfectly OK for women to exacerbate their chances by making themselves a target.
How do we, exactly, “exacerbate our chances” of making ourselves targets of crimes which are perpetuated by criminals who hate women? That is the million dollar question. But this has nothing to do with, as you ignorantly believe & argue, the dress, talk or actions of women/potential victims, attractive or not. Simply by opting to remain ignorant (because you refuse to read the actual information, studies &/or statistics), you show no concern for the realities and safety of women and are exposing yourself as a danger to women.
More from Jimbo:
I don’t think most women really understand what the sight of an attractive, nearly naked female does to a man with an active libido. Most men can control themselves, but some just can’t. And those guys have eyes, too.
This is the belief system which exposes you as a man afraid of women. You believe women have “power over men,” rendering men, if they are not already unable to control themselves, powerless to T&A. I guess in your fear of the big bad women, you see on the horizon nothing but a future of weakness, pity & self-loathing for you & your gender and so you think men have the right to take what they want to ward this off. But, Jimbo, that’s not a man.
In another comment, Jimbo wraps up his philosophy:
You make it sound like I’m somehow excusing the act of rape, when I’m not. But I will state categorically, any woman who goes out to nightclubs by herself or even with another girl or group of girls, dressed in an ultra short, tight-fitting skirt with a plunging neckline showing off a lot of cleavage & wearing what Amy Winehouse referred to in song as “Fuck Me Pumps”, then spends the evening hanging out & flirting with strange men, is putting herself in a dangerous situation. And if something bad happens to her, while it might not be technically “her fault”, SHE BEARS A PORTION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY for doing all the things that put her in that situation.
So let me recap too.
By removing any of the responsibility from the person who committed the crime, you are excusing the perpetrator of that crime.
By placing any percentage of the responsibility, no matter how small, on the part of the victim, you are blaming the victim.
Here’s the math, Jimbo: The person who commits rape is 100% responsible.
Of course, I’m aware that Jimbo, if he reads this or G’s post, will just sneer. He’ll likely dismiss this post with his usual rhetoric, “It’s a total lack of a sense of humor & an air of deathly self-seriousness that all feminists seem to have in common.” Or maybe he’ll just call me a “fat old hag” — because that’s the other usual attack. *yawn* (Even if I was, it wouldn’t make me any less right, pinheads.)
But maybe, just maybe, we can reach a few more enlightened folks who at least want to believe that males can & should control themselves & their predatory instincts.
Whether they do or not, they are 100% responsible for their actions.
The following was written by Tenured Radical after the May 2009 campus shooting at Wesleyan, but it sums up so much for me and others (some of which wonder if the US flag flies for women too) that I had to share it:
But can I say one thing? I am sad, but I am also angry. I am sick, sick, sick of men beating, brutalizing and killing women and children, of boys brutalizing their girlfriends, of fathers raping and killing their wives and daughters. All these years after second wave feminists first raised this as a fundamental problem in our culture during the 1970s, the media, the police and our judicial system still treats each of these things like an isolated incident of individual pathology. And there seems to be no organized feminist movement left to insist, in contradiction to this vapid construction, that the hatred of women by men is a systemic cultural and political problem in the United States. I am sick of men who think they acquire ownership rights to women because they fall in “love” with them, men who think that “love” entitles them to do whatever the hell they please to keep women under their control so they can “love” them even more. I am tired right now and have nothing eloquent or intelligent to say on the topic, but if this short rant feeds your feminist outrage too, go to this post by Historiann about the Loyola University tragedy, where Daddy decided that his life wasn’t worth living and then imagined that the rest of the family would be better off dead too, a not uncommon scenario. I end with a quote from Historiann’s post:
Just curious: how many women and children (especially girl children, as in this case–2 women and one girl were the victims here) have to die before someone notices? One woman is accused of a child murder out in California, and that’s all we hear about all day long. But husbands apparently have carte blanche when it comes to murdering the women and girls who lived in their homes?
What’s your guess, friends? (Are you holding your breath?) If 2,100 women and children are killed simultaneously on live television by their male partners and fathers, even if it’s not by jetliners crashing into buildings, do you think anyone will notice then?
I have mixed feelings about AshleyMadison.com, the “married dating & affairs” site… With a trademarked tagline of “Life is short. Have an affair.” they’re really putting the “tery” in adult dating sites. The adultery dating site even guarantees “an affair to remember.” While I suppose divorce court, public shunning, and loss of respect from your own family are all things you’d remember (literally protecting the guarantee), what the guarantee actually does is offer your money back if you don’t err, have an affair.
According to this article (page 2):
It’s free to become a member and to create a profile and search others. But to chat with another member, a user has to buy credits– $49 for 100 credits (it takes five credits to initiate a chat; subsequent back-and-forth chats are free). For the Affair Guarantee Membership it’s $249 and the Web site will refund your money if you don’t have an affair in three months. “If somebody had a genuine, sincere message and sounded like a nice person, I would send a message back,” she says. “You had to really weed through those who didn’t want what you wanted.”
(And don’t you just love the idea of a person screening requested messages for affairs for “genuine, sincere & nice” people to cheat with?)
Obviously, the whole idea is disheartening. But these people are going to break their vows with or without AshleyMadison.com — and if that means there are less of the lying cheats on other dating sites and social networks, then that’s a good thing. And hey, at least these like-minded cheaters are being honest with one another; they are all saying they are just there to get inside one another’s pants.
Then again, I suppose AshleyMadison.com has its own liars… People who aren’t married who just want a lay. But again, let them stick to fishing in that dirty water with the other pond scum — refreshingly honest pond scum.
Have you ever wondered if your mate would stray if given the chance? Do you question if you should trust he or she? Have you been dating for a short period of time and question how committed they are to the relationship? Instead of going the mature route, why not put them to the test with hidden cameras — and then broadcast it on television?
Pitman Casting is now casting men and women for a new relationship gameshow which will test your mate’s intentions with the help of hidden cameras.
Mmm, sounds exploitative and humiliating; but if you’re into that sort of a tasty bitter dish, email photos of you and your mate as well as a paragraph about your relationship to: castingmate@gmail.com
Tell ’em Alessia of Relationship Underarm Stick sent you (and sure, tell ’em I mocked it too lol).
Vittorio at Toronto Men Unite, a blog encouraging “open and honest discussion” about “the problems many men face in the ‘trenches’ of modern dating,” writes the following in Why Men Lose Interest After Sex:
Many women mistakenly believe that the only reason guys lose interest after sex is because they gave it up too soon. While this is true sometimes, there are other reasons as well. One reason is that the men only wanted to have sex one time, and then move on. So witholding sex will not change this outcome.
Another reason is, men lose interest because the women have difficult personalities. Let’s look at this one more closely. Some women have difficult personalities, and guys will put up with them until they get the sex, and then they will bail shortly after. If these women had sex after one date or several dates the result would have been the same – the men would have ditched them regardless.
Sometimes, these women mistakenly assume that the solution is to hold out on sex even longer the next time. It never occurs to them that they are the problem.
Yeah, that sure sounds like women are the problem — why won’t we just understand & accept that, despite what they tell us on dates, that all men want is sex. Even if that sex is with a woman with a “difficult personality.” What are we women, stupid or something?
But why would we consider the problem is “us” when men play such games?
If all a man wants is to get laid, why doesn’t he walk up to a woman & say so? “Hi, I’m Bob and all I want to do is screw you.”
He doesn’t do it because he’s afraid of the, “No way, Jose,” response. So he decides to lie to get his lay. And then complains about what happens.
*snort*
Worse yet, he uses the “cycle of f***-and-dump,” as he calls it, as a way to explain women and their “difficult personalities” — of course, he neatly leaves out any responsibility from men in their creation; this is all something that just happens to women. It is to be expected:
If the cycle of [f***]-and-dump continues, it can feed increasingly neurotic behaviour. These women can become increasingly demanding before and after they have sex with a man, needing constant attention and affirmation from the men that they will stick around. This of course has the opposite effect, driving the men away, which in turn can further compound the problem, causing the women to further “ratchet” up their efforts. The result is an insanely demanding woman who pulls out all the stops, even by going so far as screening men right away to make sure they can provide all that she needs, so that she doesn’t “waste time”. It’s a sick cycle.
You’re right, Vittorio; it is a sick cycle. But it’s not neurotic; it’s a learned self-preservation mechanism. And it begins with men who pretend to want more than sex.
If you want to break the sick cycle of “neurotic cock-blocking,” why not stop the “f-and-dump” cycle? Be honest, admit you’re just after sex and take getting shot-down like a man.
Vittorio finishes up his post with the following advice to men:
As men, you need to trust your instincts. If a woman shows signs of insecurity and possessiveness at the beginning, she is most likely a time bomb ready to explode. So cut your losses early.
Me? I say first of all that males need to act like men, be honest and face the rejection. And second, women, follow your instincts; if he shows signs of being a dawg, he probably is a dawg and block him accordingly. And feel free to be as neurotic as you like about it. You’ve got my permission.
On the other hand, when an honest guy actually says he justs wants sex with you, please praise him for his honesty. Your praise need not include putting out (unless you’re already agreeable!), but at least throw the guy a bone for being honest about the fact that he’s only in it for the bone.
In the journal Personality and Individual Differences (Volume 47, Issue 2, July 2009, Pages 145-149), T. Joel Wade, Lauren K. Butrie & Kelly M. Hoffman present findings of a study on the male perceptions of women’s opening lines. The study, dissected in further detail at PsyBlog, reveals that men prefer women to be very direct — to the point of being boringly blunt. Ladies should ask a man to dinner (#1) as opposed to asking him if he’s busy that weekend (#6); ask him if he’s got a girlfriend (#2) rather than ask about what shows he’s watched (#5).
But the most surprising finding, at least to PsyBlog, was this:
The only surprise is the low ranking of funny or sexual humour. Men don’t seem to appreciate the lewd come-ons suggested by gender stereotypes. This relatively low rating for a jokey approach is another thing shared by both sexes. Previous work by Bale et al. (2006) found that women weren’t particularly impressed with men trying to be funny, despite what we are often told. It seems opening lines are a serious business for both sexes.
This is not surprising to me or readers of this blog — remember when I told you that men, no matter what they say, do not want sexually aggressive women? But it’s interesting to note for another very important reason…
Remember all that commotion & conversation about Steve Ward’s stupid & misogynistic comment on Vh1’s Tough Love? You know, where supporters of Ward’s and those who blamed the victim in the name of Women’s Safety alike declared that Ward’s statement that Arian “would end up raped if she kept talking like that” was accurate and well-intentioned?
These people believe(d) that his (sometimes even admittedly inept) scare tactic was a tool to get Arian (and others) to “wake up” to reality. Of course, they forget that rape is not an act of “misunderstanding” and “misplaced lust” but one of violence; but we’ll ignore that for now and just look at how this study is more proof that Steve Ward is the tool.
Men (and women too), do not find frank sexual talk and humor to be an arousing come-on; it’s actually more of a turn-off.
So there, ladies and gents, you have more proof that wildly sexual talk is less likely to inspire a man to think she’s into him than if she has asked him out to dinner.
And, just to be clear, asking a man to dinner is not a signal for rape. (Heaven help me if any of you argue that point!)
No word, still, on just how direct a woman has to be to communicate that No means No.
So I am still left badgering the point that society needs to condemn acts of sexual violence. We’ll need to say it loud and clear, of course.
Perhaps by way of introduction. “Hi, I’m Alessia and sexual assault and domestic violence are not acceptable.”
I think I’ll get that made on a t-shirt.
I know many people don’t like reading about “stuff like this” — it’s too depressing &/or too upsetting, but the 72nd edition of the Carnival Against Sexual Violence has been published.
You should read it because 1 in 6 women (and 1 in 33 men) will be a victim of sexual assault in their lifetime — and if it’s not you, you will know someone who has been a victim. The issue matters now, before you or someone you love is assaulted; it matters because ignorance and avoidance of the issue helps perpetuate the violence.
Every relationship has its disagreements. The Fair & Square Pillow provides a daily reminder about how to deal with them and one another. (Perhaps you should get a pair of them and settle things with a — fair & square — pillow fight. *wink* )
And, if the relationship is doomed, remind yourself (or cheer your depressed girlfriend) that this too shall pass with this greeting card by David Shrigley for Polite Cards. (I just love this one!)
There’s a whole heck of a lot of good relationship stuff on Twolia; I thought, just in case you never leave Relationship Underarm Stick, that you should see some of it…
Twolia now has a new relationships blog where you can make your own post — sort of like a forum. It covers not only dating & marital relationships, but friendships & relationships with family members & coworkers as well. Go check it out.
Over at Kitsch-Slapped, Deanna’s done the research on a sad story of romantic misfortunes that took place in the late 1940’s.
Deb Amlen (her book, It’s Not PMS, It’s You is due Spring 2010 from Sterling) has answered a letter about sleeping with your professor over at Miss In Your Business.
Survived all your relationship stink, and now you’re getting married? Congrats! Now see what you need for your wedding over in the Twolia Shops.
Married, single, divorced, whatever your situation, music tells your story. You know… Without breaking up and making up, there might be no music… So check out the music on Twolia — I’m digging Bri Anne Michelle and Ellee Ven’s Dangerous Diversion. (Yes, I can enjoy pop-country & hip hop too; how about you?)
Don’t get me wrong; I love being married. But sometimes I miss the little things about being single…
Thirteen Reasons To Enjoy Being Single
1. Everything in your home is yours — and remains yours — until you die.
2. You can come home after a long hard day, strip off your clothes, leave them where they lay until you feel like putting them in the laundry pile, take a long uninterrupted soak in the tub, get up and walk around naked — all free of any complaints. Or being accused of “teasing” when you aren’t in the mood.
3. Your career is the only one that matters.
4. Breakfast can be the last slice of blueberry pie — ala mode, if you wish. Or left-over Chinese take-out. No one is there to take it — or judge you.
5. You dress for yourself — and you don’t need to justify your quantity of shoes, either.
6. Lunch can be a trip to the mall.
7. Dinner can be a bowl of cereal in milk — snarfed down the minute you walk in the door because you skipped eating lunch.
8. Your closet is yours & yours alone; the only need to squeeze things in is because of your last “lunch.”
9. No annoying in-laws or significant other family members &/or friends of your partner to put up with. (Just the annoying coworkers to deal with now — and see #2.)
10. You can sleep alone in the center of the bed, in one snoring, drooling pile, without being outed for it.
(Don’t worry, you can still have sex. Just kick him or her out; one person can easily avoid the dreaded wet spot. Better yet, have sex at their place and let them worry about avoiding the wet spot.)
11. In fact, you can sleep wherever (and whenever) you wish, including the couch, after another bowl of cereal, watching your favorite movie.
12. Things are where you left them — including the toilet seat in the down position.
13. You will always like & trust the person you live with. (You!)
I do a lot of talking here about the fact that men need to take responsibility for their personal roles in rape and violence against women — this includes making a loud vocal stand against such crimes & attitudes. So I figured it was about time to show some of the men who are doing such work.
To debut the series saluting men who care, the work of the White Ribbon Campaign, the largest effort in the world of men working to end violence against women (VAW):
In over fifty-five countries, campaigns are led by both men and women, even though the focus is on educating men and boys.
… Wearing a white ribbon is a personal pledge to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women and girls. Wearing a white ribbon is a way of saying, “Our future has no violence against women.”
We do not think that men are naturally violent and we don’t think that men are bad, however we do think all men have roles and responsibilities in ending violence against women. The majority of men are not physically violent. Researchers tell us many past cultures had little or no violence.
At the same time, we do think that some men have learned to express their anger or insecurity through violence. Far too many men have come to believe that violence against a woman, child or another man is an acceptable way to control another person, especially an intimate partner.
By remaining silent about these things, we allow other men to poison our work, schools and homes.
The good news is that more and more men and boys want to make a difference. Caring men are tired of the sexism that hurts the women around them. Caring men are also concerned with the impact of this violence on the lives of men and boys.
All images shown here are posters belonging to the White Ribbon organization; go get yourself some & spread the word while supporting the cause.
For more on the White Ribbon Campaign:
The White Ribbon Campaign
365 Bloor St. East, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3L4
Phone: (416) 920-6684 | Toll Free: 1-800-328-2228 | Fax: (416) 920-1678
Email: info(at)whiteribbon(dot)ca
Charitable Registration 14105 0708 RR0001
You can also keep up with them at Twitter. (I am.)
Variety announces that the U.S. arm of British shingle Shed Media has won the contract to produce Jerry Seinfeld’s upcoming NBC reality show The Marriage Ref. You can read the Variety article to get the skinny about which producers got in bed together (or at least rubbed elbows) to solidify the deal — sans pilot; me, I’m just more interesting in the show’s concept: Seinfeld’s plan isn’t to play Dr. Phil to your relationship arguments, but to mock you. Maybe even mock some sense into the two of you.
The official logline is, “Jerry Seinfeld is back and in the producer’s chair for a funny and revealing series about the unpredictable and hilarious institution we call marriage. Married life takes center stage as celebrities, comedians and sports stars candidly comment, judge and decide who’s right and who’s wrong in real-life disputes between real-life spouses.”
If that sounds intriguing… But you’re tempted to dismiss the pitch as, well, a pitch, Broadcast reports the following juicy gossip details:
A tiff with his wife Jessica prompted Jerry Seinfeld to create The Marriage Ref. The comedian was entertaining at home and asked one of his guests to “referee” the argument, stumbling upon the show’s central concept.
The studio show will be recorded in front of an audience and hosted by the Marriage Ref – a comedian who has been signed but not yet named.
VT of the couple rowing is played into the studio and three celebrity guests debate the rights and wrongs of the argument before the referee has the final say. The emphasis is on comedy, with silly prizes awarded to the ‘winning’ member of the couple – such as a golden vacuum cleaner if the row is about cleaning.
If you’re interested in airing your hysterically dumb but true arguments to an NBC audience (while comedians take whacks at you like a piñata until silly prizes spill out, yet!) casting is open until July 10th:
“The Marriage Ref” casting team is searching the country for outgoing and opinionated couples in long-term relationships, willing to appear on national television, who have a long standing argument or issue that must be resolved. No problem is too small!
Is there an object, a person, or a habit (e.g. computer, pet, a friend, the remote control) that is a third wheel in your relationship and causes a problem?
Or does your partner have an annoying obnoxious habit or item that causes fights?
Whether you argue about parenting, pets, fashion, money, in-laws, weight, housework, chores, communication, neatness, jealousy, past history, friends, sex… Whatever you argue about, we want to hear from you. Tell us why you absolutely NEED a MARRIAGE REF to weigh in and decide who is RIGHT and who is WRONG.
…we want to hear what absolutely makes you nuts when it comes to your partner!
(Don’t forget to tell ’em Alessia of Relationship Underarm Stick sent ya!)
Hi Alessia,
I’ve been happily but stressfully married to my husband for 5 years. I say “stressfully” because my job takes me away from home & to other countries for weeks & even months at a time. As a result, we’ve had to really work on communication and our sex lives long distance.
Recently my husband confided that he’s been using phone sex services to help, umm, bridge the gap in sexual loneliness and frustration while I’m way. I honestly didn’t know what to say…
I’ve got really mixed emotions — and logical reactions — to this. On one hand, he’s not physically cheating, just masturbating; and I totally understand his needs because I certainly use a lot of batteries in my hotel rooms. I know he watches/downloads porn, and that doesn’t bother me at all. But on the other hand, he’s interacting with another (other) women. And because phone sex is all we have for long periods of time, I feel more than a bit jealous. But then I go back to the facts, which are that with time differences etc., there are weeks when not even that is possible…
Alessia, can you help me figure this out so that I can understand myself well enough to communicate with him?
Thanks so much!
Kate
Dear Kate,
First of all, the matter of what is or isn’t cheating is something that the two of you must decide on. It’s one of those areas that couples think is “so obvious” that they often don’t discuss it; but then you’ve got a relationship — and in this case, because you are married, a commitment — based on assumptions. You know what happens with those.
(At this point, the cheating guidelines are like the horse already out of the barn; but I have to mention this need to clearly define your idea of “cheating” and coming to an understanding & agreement with your partner about the issue for other readers.)
So now you find yourself in this ambiguous situation; so let’s deal with that.
Since you said that you don’t mind his use of adult materials, at least while you’re away, I’m going to believe that you’re not just jealous in general for his *ahem* affections. Porn usually upsets women more than erotica… Since you’re OK with his use of porn I have to say that personally, I don’t find paying for professional phone sex providers much different than erotic stories. Other than the ability to shop for the specific character you want and the ability to “write your own stories” with an interactive person, as opposed to a static erotic text or audio story, what’s the harm?
There’s no shared fluids; and because she’s a professional, she likely isn’t at all considering running off with your man like some girl in an IM or chat room. He’s just a guy paying (or helping to pay) her bills.
That’s no different than the girl in the films & photos, right?
So I’m gathering your personal reaction of jealousy & discomfort comes from two fear-filled places.
One, a fear that because she is real (not a fictional character that only exists & remains fixed in a written or read story) that there is the potential for your husband and the phone sex girl(s) to talk about other things…
For example, if he’s calling one of these women to discuss his bad day at the office, his loneliness without you, etc., rather than telling his buddies or family members, then perhaps there is more to their relationship than “just sex.” If he’s growing dependent upon one phone sex provider for something more akin to a relationship — and that’s at the expense of your relationship as husband & wife — then you might want to establish clear boundaries. Remember, though, do not accuse him of such emotional dependence or infidelities out of your fear; tell him of your concerns and establish whatever boundaries you have regarding them.
The second fear is likely that of performance anxiety.
We women can be very insecure creatures. Just as some of us take our man’s lusty delight of a swimsuit model’s figure and turn it into fear that we will never measure up to that standard, you could be feeling that you will not be able to “give good phone sex” as well as a professional phone sex operator. Since phone sex is one of the few ways that you and your husband can remain sexually & romantically intimate while you travel, this fear is likely increased. But remember, you have lots of things the phone sex girls don’t, including the fact that he knows (and therefore can “see”) your body (always a great asset for turning men on), you have an intimate knowledge of his body & emotions (you know the buttons to push), a history to build on (“remember that time we…”), and the power of longing (he misses you!). Phone sex girls don’t stand a chance against you!
I suggest that you consider these issues for awhile and ask yourself not only how much they apply to you, but if these issues were removed, how much of a non-issue would his use of phone sex services be?
And once you have those answers, yes, communicate your thoughts, needs, and fears to him. And listen to his. I suggest you long distance lovers do this via email so that you have time to carefully word what you have to say so that you are asserting your concerns without being attacking and accusatory. Plus, then you can save your precious phone time for *ahem* more fun conversations.
Let me know how it goes!
Alessia
These guys (&/or gals) aren’t “new,” but they might be about to get a new name. Grrl Scientist reports that Dr. Michael Linden, a German psychiatrist, wants to get a new diagnosable and treatable mental health disorder listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) — the “bible” of mental health.
Named Post-Traumatic Embitterment Disorder (PTED), Dr. Linden notes that PTED is similar to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), where mentally healthy people are functioning fine — until a triggering event destroys their core values and shatters their basic beliefs, and folks with PTED feel wronged, humiliated and that some injustice has been done to them.
“Embitterment is a violation of basic beliefs,” Dr. Linden explains. “It causes a very severe emotional reaction. We are always coping with negative life events. It’s the reaction that varies.”
Perhaps the most dangerous thing here is the externalization. For while these people suffer from major depression, dysthymia, and anxiety disorders, these people do not feel there is anything wrong with them — at least not anything they can (or should have to fix). Again, according to Grrl Scientist:
“These people don’t have the feeling that they must change, but rather have the idea that the world should change or the oppressor should change, so they don’t ask for treatment,” Dr. Linden points out. “They are almost treatment resistant. Revenge is not a treatment.”
…Dr. Linden suggested that loving, normal individuals who suddenly snap, killing either their family or coworkers and then themselves may actually be suffering from post-traumatic embitterment syndrome.
In many ways, all of this sounds like every abusive, controlling, person I’ve ever met. Continually managing “what others do” rather than focusing on what they can do themselves — as dismissing the rest.
I would be very interested in learning more about PTED… Meanwhile, girls and boys, be very concerned if you have these people in your lives. Perhaps getting this disorder recognized will be helpful in getting these people the treatment they need — and making relationships safer in general.
Image via.
Engaged? Getting married? Want to get a free smoking-hot hair makeover for yourself, your Maid of Honor, and one of your Bride’s Maids?
44 Blue Productions is now casting for a new show called Big Tease, a special (not a series) in which the best of the best hairstylists from Style Network’s two-time Emmy nominated hit show, Split Ends, will compete for a huge money grand prize and a magazine cover.
For more information, contact 44 Blue Productions at reception@44blue.com.
The June issue of Cosmo has a cover screaming the usual predatory scare tactics about love, lust, sex and how not to be a fatty. But buried on page 44, the pickle-sized beef patty on an obnoxiously condiment loaded burger, is the meet of the issue.
Is It Ever Okay To Stay If He’s Hit You? is an article prompted by the Rihanna/Chris Brown situation (another topic I should sink my teeth into, eventually), and it discusses how even a shove is dating violence.
While the one page (large font & image laden) article isn’t bad, it barely covers the subject of dating & domestic violence past the surface stuff. However, given Cosmo‘s poor & even dangerous presentation of such serious issues, I suppose I should count my lucky stars that the topic even made it into the glossy — even if it, as it usually does these days, took a celeb situation to warrant any coverage at all.
But I’m not thrilled.
Not just because it’s skimpy coverage, designed to provide assistance in gossiping about Rihanna and her “shocking” decision to “take Chris back.” But because it’s buried on page 44 — and the issue isn’t even put on the cover.
Yeah, I know that the domestic violence issue, like rape, is a downer and that it won’t make copies fly off the news stands like Best. Sex. Ever. (I know this from writing Relationship Underarm Stick.) But is it too much to ask that Cosmo give attention where attention is due and at least try to look like it gives a damn about the safety of women? More in-depth — and accurate — articles, please; and load the cover with ’em when you run ’em.
Because while the chicks who read this stuff are probably the least likely to be drawn to important personal safety information, they are probably the most in need of it.
At first glance what I’m about to post may seem to be back-peddling on my stance regarding rape (the lengthy debate of which you can follow with these posts); but keep reading, because I think what I’m about to share has a lot more to say about society than what’s presented…
CNN reports on a recent study, lead by Jennie G. Noll of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio, published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics titled Childhood Abuse, Avatar Choices, and Other Risk Factors Associated With Internet-Initiated Victimization of Adolescent Girls. From CNN’s report:
“Results indicated that abuse status was significantly related to online sexual advances, which were, in turn, related to offline, in-person encounters,” the study says.
The authors say there was no direct link between abuse and offline encounters, but that a history of abuse puts girls at greater risk.
Looking at the girls’ avatar choices, the authors found that girls who present themselves provocatively in body and clothing choices are more likely to have had online sexual advances.
That risk is tied not just to an avatar, but to the overall image a girl projects online, they say. On sites that don’t use avatars, such as MySpace or Facebook, simply compiling suggestive photographs or narrative descriptions can increase girls’ vulnerability, they say.
“Those adolescents who may be unaware of how their appearance might be perceived may not, from a developmental perspective, possess the social sophistication necessary to field and ward off sexual advances in ways that protect them from sexually explicit suggestions,” the study says.
“This may be a particularly important lesson to convey to female adolescents who are especially vulnerable to exploitation and victimization, such as those who have been victims of childhood abuse,” it says.
CNN ends their report with the mandatory, “watch your kids!” mantra.
“Caregiver presence was associated with significantly fewer reports by adolescents of online solicitations,” the study says. “As such, the importance of parental monitoring of adolescent Internet use cannot be understated.”
I’m not against such things; I not only believe in such parental involvement, I participate in it with my own children. But, as Diana Hartman notes, this bland bit of advice might actually be counter-productive when it comes to adolescent victims of abuse:
While the study found “caregiver presence was associated with significantly fewer reports by adolescents of online solicitations,” it is also important to note that 62 percent of females under the age of 18 were abused by someone known to them. Furthermore, in more than half these cases the biological father was the perpetrator.
Hartman ends her fine post with this sentiment:
Instead of studying the girls, the authors might seriously consider the best way to treat them.
I agree — but equally important, where’s the study &/or training of would-be victimizers and exploiters?
Once again, the behavior of victims & potential victims is what is scrutinized and therefore held accountable rather than that of perpetrators.
It’s easy to dismissively wave your hand at such a thought, to poo-poo me with a, “Where are we going to get honest perps from?” But that poo-pooing only leaves us with more of this shit.
We keep identifying victims, defining their behavior as risqué and risky (and doesn’t that just stink of judgment and victim blaming), regurgitating that information to dictate behaviors of potential victims (mainly women), and through it all, we turn a blind eye to the culprits — the very people who need to stop/be stopped.
You might not think this has much to do with adults online &/or adults dating, but honestly, yesterday’s adolescents are today’s adults; has that much changed? I don’t think so.
And today’s adolescents are the adults of tomorrow; are we educating them for the creation of a better world tomorrow? I don’t think we’re doing that either.
This retro ringer tee from Vintage Vantage is sure to remind our fellow citizens to march to the same beat for women’s safety — or, at the very least, piss off the male chauvinist pigs who are still sore that Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs. And those men, my friend, are not good dating material.
All that for $10? What are you waiting for?
PS I have no explanation for what appears to be panties on the model’s head.
