Too Drunk To Fuck*

Crossposted from Yes Means Yes Blog.
There’s a running joke between my spouse and me: “one is not enough, and three is too many.” It’s a joke about threesomes, but not about the number of people. It’s a joke about one that got away.
Before I get to the story, I’ll say this: I feel like I can’t tell other adults much about reasonable alcohol use. I have a skewed perception of what that is. Both my parents had alcohol problems, and in my early teens I decided I didn’t drink, and that remains true. For lots of reasons, I don’t think I can drink in moderation, and the consequences of being correct are too high to test the hypothesis. My wife can and does drink socially, knowing that she always has a designated driver, and is well acquainted with, for her, the difference between alcohol as social lubricant and drinking to suppress judgment. It’s a distinction other folks draw for themselves, and one I only see from a distance.
So. We were out of town with a group of my wife’s school friend from all over the country. This was a long time ago, before the demands of renovating a fixer-upper and raising a brood of small children. Shannon was newly free from a bad marriage. I flirted with her constantly, and she had told my wife she liked the attention, all the more so because of the thrill that came with knowing that I was entirely serious and potentially available. We made a week of it, and we were with Shannon just about the whole time.
By the night of the big dinner, Shannon was hinting that she was going to cash in the pile of rainchecks with my wife and I. She was nervous, but she was grinning ear-to-ear. After the first Long Island Iced Tea, she was loosened up. Her marriage at a young age had stifled her. She had missed a lot. As the years went on, she didn’t feel attractive or fun or sexy anymore, and in her (then) early thirties, she wanted to make up for lost time. After the second Long Island Iced Tea, I was pretty convinced that she had decided. She was clear-headed and lucid. She was sounding like she was coming back to our room with us. She was crossing a personal Rubicon: the churchgoing “good girl” was going to have a little fun on her own terms and take the ride that was on offer. My wife and I were nodding – though she’s always said she wasn’t entirely sure Shannon had quite committed, and I’ve always been sure that Shannon had made up her mind. We had seen this coming a long way off and had talked about Shannon many times. We had navigated the MFF waters with friends before and we could work with whatever kinds of play she wanted.


She ordered another round, and as the third, tall Long Island Iced Tea worked its way from stomach to bloodstream to brain, Shannon stopped being a woman in full control of her faculties and became someone drunk enough to blame it on the booze. My wife and I looked at each other with pursed lips. On the way home, Shannon needed help to walk a straight line, and we brought her back to her room, and left for ours. She wasn’t throwing up, she wasn’t unconscious, the whole night was not going to be a blank … but she was drunk.
I don’t think any of us were confused about what she wanted. I don’t think she was confused about what she wanted. She wanted a threesome with us that night. She had months to think about it. But when the hour was at hand, she didn’t want to do it sober. Maybe she felt self-conscious about her body, which was not the stick-thin athletic form that walked down the aisle years before. Maybe she was nervous about sex with friends, or about the dynamics of a threesome with a married couple. Maybe she started to feel the eyes of the rest of the table on her, and whether real or imagined sensed them wagging judgment fingers at her for doing something she had always believed that only other people did. She never explained. We never asked. She missed her window; since then every time we’ve seen her she’s been in a committed relationship.
My wife and I talked about it after, though. Sober, whatever mental block she had got in her way, and she wouldn’t take the leap that she pretty clearly wanted to. Drunk, we wouldn’t do it. She was just drunk enough that we couldn’t really call it “enthusiastic participation.” She needed more than to take the edge off. She needed to have an excuse, to hold it at arm’s length, to be something other than a full participant. For my wife like for me, sex is interaction with a partner. Neither of us wants a partner with diminished capacity, because ze just can’t give much back. And for me, and for us, it’s what the other partner brings to the table that adds to the fun. If that person isn’t really with us, the additional body adds nothing to the experience.
(Over the years, we’ve had more potential fun than I can count go out the window for so many different reasons. People got in relationships and suddenly turned monogamous, or their new partners didn’t want them hanging out with bad influences anymore, or they moved away, or just decided that it was a good fantasy but they didn’t want to try it for real, or my wife or I got uncomfortable with the dynamics, or somebody was part of hers or my professional circle and we distrusted their abilities to keep their mouths shut … and lots of other things. Some things look like they’re going to work out until they don’t.)
This is an anecdote, not a fable. I can’t distill a simple set of principles or wrap it up with a neat line-drawing exercise. That’s what happened and what we did; make of it what you will.
*Obviously the title is a Dead Kennedys reference. The sharp-eyed may also notice that I lifted phrases from Holly Hughes and Seamus Heaney. If I’ve lifted anything from any other authors, it was unintentional.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

31 Comments

  1. A male
    Posted October 7, 2009 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for being brave enough to come on about this, and the responsible handling of this situation.

  2. Anonymous
    Posted October 7, 2009 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

    Okay. You did the right thing. Good. It doesn’t make you a hero, because that would be unbearably sad. However, do feel free to spread your post around to teach everyone else a lesson they sorely need.

  3. jayjay323
    Posted October 7, 2009 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    Thomas,
    as you link to the post about “enthusiastic consent” I wrote last week, I’d like to comment on what you wrote here.
    From what you write here, it seems to me the stories aren’t exactly comparable, the woman in my story may have been about as or even a bit more drunk than your friend, but she wasn’t hesitating a bit, she was the sexual aggressor, not a theoretically enthusiastic, yet practically hesitant participant looking for the other party to make the decisive step in a game she seems to have felt overwhelmed by without alcohol, which is my impression of what your friend in the story seems to have felt.
    From what you write, it seems you were certain about what she wanted, but did not want to do it *on her terms*. It wasn’t so much that she did not consent (knowing she needed the alcohol to get to that point) but that you didn’t consent to leaving her any possible excuse for possible cognitive dissonance, which is fair enough and certainly a good way to go by – but, again, that’s about *your* principles, not her possible lack of consent.
    As for this -
    “She was just drunk enough that we couldn’t really call it “enthusiastic participation.”
    - what if she – like the woman in my account – had been enthusiastic. What if the alcohol had made her enthusiastic instead of merely less hesitant? What your sentence above seems to call for is not merely enthusiasm, but *qualified* (completely rationalised) enthusiasm.
    And while that’s a good principle, it probably won’t help to clarify the question of *how* qualified enthusiasm needs to be.
    So, turning this around – since *you* weren’t satisfied with the qualification of her enthusiasm, would you possibly see you story as a matter of lack of consent, had your wife and you had that threesome with your friend? And if so, would you call that rape?

  4. Eresbel
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 2:01 am | Permalink

    This story sums up my reservations I had about the previous post regarding enthusiastic drunken “consent”. (Consent being in quotation marks because it was being debated, not because I wanna be a jerk.)
    I was surprised by the outpouring of feminists who said the woman was consenting. Clearly, consent is not so clear. If a drunk woman says yes and is happy with herself the next day, we rally behind her – yes, she’s in full control of her faculties. But if she says yes then realizes it was a mistake afterwards? She was being taken advantage of, at the least.
    I agree with Thomas’ distinction between drunk and tipsy. I don’t think consent is possible when drunk.

  5. Spiffy McBang
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 3:58 am | Permalink

    But Thomas’ post actually holds the seeds of the argument many people were making in favor of the woman in jay’s post being a consenting individual. Thomas and his wife are acquainted with their friend, know where the line is between her being lubricated but sensible and definitively drunk, and chose (wisely, we would agree) not to take her to bed when she reached the latter point. However, the dynamics of friendship played a major role in what the right decision was for that situation; as Thomas said, it was the fact she couldn’t bring herself to take part sober, not that she was wavering about wanting to do it at all.
    That’s how some people are. If somebody wants to go out and get fucked up, down, and sideways, but needs to get blind drunk to bring herself to do it, she has that right. In jay’s case, there’s no way to know if the girl in question has gone out and gotten ripped so she wouldn’t be afraid to act assertively. She could do it routinely, or even purposely gotten herself loaded for the specific reason of having the nerve to try and take someone home. You may not think it’s likely, and I wouldn’t disagree, but the odds are certainly better than zero percent.
    Therefore, if you say that girl could not consent to sex no matter what her actions, you’re saying any guy who takes her up on her extremely amorous behavior is committing rape. In that case, no guy should take a girl home who is that drunk. If that were to happen (which is obviously an ideal and not plausible, but for the sake of argument), are you comfortable with the fact you would be forcing women to stay relatively sober if they wanted to go out and get laid without scaring off the guys?
    Obviously guys taking advantage of drunken women who don’t actually want to do anything with them is a problem. But the theoretical solution of “drunk = no consent, period, no exceptions” is too draconian. People need to be free to screw up, and we need to focusing on protecting them from assholes, not themselves.

  6. Thomas
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    First, Dominique is right. Anyone who wants a cookie for mere decency sets the bar for themselves too low, and I didn’t post a personal story for cookies. I posted because, like I said, alcohol perplexes me and I don’t have easy answers, so I just kind of threw a story out there to spur discussion.
    That Shannon was — and is — my friend both does and does not matter. It matters because we had a history with her and could guage where she was better, both in terms of interest and intoxication. It doesn’t because whether she’s a friend or a complete stranger, she’s a person who is going to have a morning after and a day after and a life after. Even if she was perfectly clear in her own mind that it was consensual, I wouldn’t want her walking around wishing she hadn’t gotten drunk and wishing she had done something different.
    I said I don’t have any easy answers, but I do have thoughts, and I’ll probably comment at more length later. I think if she was drunk and really pushing us, we would have done the same thing. If she didn’t want to do it in her right mind, we were not into it.

  7. jayjay323
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    Thomas,
    “I wouldn’t want her walking around wishing she hadn’t gotten drunk and wishing she had done something different.”
    that’s fair enough, but, as I said above: that’s about conditions for *your* consent, not for her’s. If you said it was about *her consent*, it would, essentially, amount to denying her the freemdom Spiffy McBang eloquently put below as this -
    “People need to be free to screw up, and we need to focusing on protecting them from assholes, not themselves.”
    There’s a world of difference between saying – “I know you want this but I have a feeling you’re gonna feel differently tomorrow morning and I would not want to do it while *I* feel this way” – and saying, “look, I know you believe you want this, and it certainly looks that way to me, but I don’t think you’re able to think for yourself right now, and if I did what you’re suggesting, I’d have raped you (despite your being enthusiastic now).”

  8. jayjay323
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Eresbel,
    “If a drunk woman says yes and is happy with herself the next day, we rally behind her – yes, she’s in full control of her faculties. But if she says yes then realizes it was a mistake afterwards? She was being taken advantage of, at the least.”
    Why would you rally behind her if she’s happy the next morning? Why would *THAT* indicate she *was* in full ocntron of her faculties when she made the decision earlier?
    I don’t really understand what her feeling the morning after have to do with her ability to consent in the moment? If she wasn’t able to give consent it would be rape regardless of whether it made her happy and she came ten times and madly, deeply fell in love with her partner and walks on Sunshine without a hangover the next day. But if she was able to consent in the moment her feelings on the next morning are completely, entirely, irrelevant to that question.
    If people have the right to make decisions for themselves, that also entails the right to make *BAD decisions*. It does not entails the right to go back in time and make a better decision upon realization that the initial decision wasn’t that good…

  9. Thomas
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    “that’s about conditions for *your* consent, not for her’s. ”
    The reason I started the OP by saying I don’t have anything like an objective view of alcohol use is that I have a hard time separating these two things. I have trouble defining a universal rule for who is too drunk to consent and instead have only been able to make personal judgments about who is too drunk for me. Those things overlap a lot.
    About the right to make bad decisions, that sort of begs the question. We all have a right to make bad decisions, including the decision to get drunk, or the decision to have sex we otherwise would not. But there’s a degree of meta- in there. If we make a decision, and that decision results in us not being able to bring our faculties to bear on subsequent decisions, is it really an exercise in agency to make bad choices while under the influence? Of course, in part, it is because we still hold folks accountable for much of what they do when drunk. But stepping in to protect others from bad decisions when drunk isn’t the same thing as doing it when sober, either. We stop our friends from driving or getting on a jet-ski or skiing when drunk, not because we don’t trust their judgment but because their judgment is impaired. Is it more paternalistic to say, “hey, what are you doing? You’re too drunk for this!” when the subject is sex?

  10. Thomas
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    I want to respond further to this:
    “would you possibly see you story as a matter of lack of consent, had your wife and you had that threesome with your friend? And if so, would you call that rape?”
    I said before that I have a hard time separating those things, and my tolerance for intoxication in my partners stops me from doing things even where I’m not sure whether I think consent is valid.
    Obviously, one way of talking about this is to draw out hypotheticals, and ask, “would that be rape.” Logically, that’s a valid kind of discourse.
    However … I remember the mammoth rape threads on Alas, A Blog about four or five years ago, and those series of endless, “if I did this … would it be rape?” In fact, in a pretty direct way, my Yes Means Yes essay is a product of those threads.
    That particular exercise bothers me, and bothers lots of folks. It can come across as a series of elaborate fantasies in what men can get away with that won’t be called rape. It can sound predatory, like the boundary-testing behavior that actual rapists engage in to see how their targets react to encroachments and violations.
    So, for that reason, I’m not going to be drawn into issuing a series of “rulings”, as it were, on hypotheticals about whether consent is valid. That conversation has a bad history. If that means that I will continue to substitute “I’m not comfortable” when I can’t figure out “can she validly consent” … well, in practice I would always do that anyway.

  11. jayjay323
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    Thomas,
    “We stop our friends from driving or getting on a jet-ski or skiing when drunk, not because we don’t trust their judgment but because their judgment is impaired. Is it more paternalistic to say, “hey, what are you doing? You’re too drunk for this!” when the subject is sex?”
    I think this is, again, the first of my statements in the last paragraph of my comment above. And that is absolutely ok. About the difference of jet-skiing and sed – good example. We wouldn’t say “hey, last night, you wanted to jet-ski, which was a really stupid idea, but you were drunk, so *YOU DIDN’T REALLY WANT TO DO IT WHEN YOU TRIED TO GET ON THE THING*”. Which is essentially what questioning enthusiastic drunk consent is doing. And that would be just as patronizing with respect to the jet-ski example as it is with respect to sex. It’s not about protecting people, but it’s about explaining how they cannot want what they seem to want *at the time*.
    Again, I’m all for being careful in this respect, and that includes not wanting a woman I have sex with to potentially feel bad about it afterwards (for her, but also for my own feelings). But since, by definition, she’s another human being, there’s only so much I can do to ensure that without the ability to read her mind, which means that, while I may not let her on the jet-ski, I would let her have sex if she really wants it.
    I have a female friend who called one morning and complained to me – “how could you let me kiss that guy last night?” I replied that she was so determined to kiss that guy last night that there was really nothing I could have done apart from hitting her over the head with a baseball bat to keep her from doing it, which, ahm, would have been problematic in other ways. So, well, there’s a point at which I respect my friend’s determination to make bad decisions and I don’t consider it *my* problem anymore.

  12. Thomas
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    See, I think I just disagree with you. A friend of a friend wanted to have a go with a bouncer who weighed about 300 and wore motorcycle club colors, and I physically dragged his ass away. Did he *really* want to fight that guy? No! Not in any meaningful sense. It was not something he wanted to do, except that his faculties were impaired, causing him to misjudge the risks and rewards. If he really wanted to fight that guy, he could have gone back to that bar sober some other night. But he didn’t, because if he wasn’t drunk, he didn’t want to do it. But in that moment, he was really, really certain.
    People do things impaired that they really want to do only because they are impaired. They start fights, drop into runs they would know they can’t handle, and have unprotected sex. They “want” to do all these things, but wouldn’t if they were not impaired.
    Not every opportunity is still available the day after, but a lot of them are. (Even for Shannon — I know that she got more or less what she was looking for with some other folks on another occasion. My wife and I more than a thousand miles away at the time, but she had fun.)
    Your friend in the other thread could have given that woman his number and said, “I’m really interested, but you’re really hammered. If you’re still interested in the morning, I am too.” And if she didn’t call … that would tell you a lot.

  13. jayjay323
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Thomas,
    “If that means that I will continue to substitute “I’m not comfortable” when I can’t figure out “can she validly consent” … well, in practice I would always do that anyway.”
    but even here it’s a hypothetical, it’s your assumptions about the validity of her consent. In the other thread, there was a commenter asking about mental conditions and medication. What about eating oysters? What about cyclical hormonal shifts? In the end, there really is nothing you can do but defining your own set of rules (which you do) which work for you.
    But that, in a very individual way, is not that different from discussing other hypotheticals in a more abstract discussion. People come from different places, in fact, I doubt there will be a lot of people discussing consent on a feminist board if they’re really only interested in how to legally get a girl drunk and get the drunk girl while avoiding criminal implications. They may be better served by reading through precendences in a law library.
    I think much of the need for this kind of debate comes from people who are not confident about their ability to always make the right call, to make the right rules for themselves, even though they are much less likely to ever be in that situation, in my opinion. And this is probably also partly about male sexual shame.
    In my case, all this is, well, really much of a hypothetical – although I’m really quite successful with women (to the extent that my CEO asked me to chat women up for him, seriously) and quite regularly get into situations like the one I described in the thread, I’m still worrying about how and when to even kiss women (as per this thread – http://community.feministing.com/2009/09/how-to-kiss-a-girl.html) and, well, though people, including women, around me probably think that I’m getting as much sex as Don Juan, I’m am still a virgin at 30. So, well, lack of practical experience with determinations of this kind certainly add to a personal need to be certain – just to explain where I’m coming from.

  14. jayjay323
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    Thomas,
    why do you think that “really wanting” only equals “sober wanting”? What about things like “people tell the truth when they’re drunk” – if people are inhibited by assumed or real conventions, getting drunk is their way to possibly actually do what they “really want”. I don’t know your friend, but maybe his reward was the moment in which he didn’t think about risk and reward when he went for the bouncer? There are a lot of people like this.

  15. Thomas
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    I assume it for the reason I just said — that I just don’t believe that some midsized non-tough-guy wanting to go a round with a biker at a bar isn’t *real*. Someone wanting to have sex in a bathroom stall with a stranger when drunk may or may not be real. I’m saying you can’t tell. It sounds like you’re suggesting I should have let him get beaten to a pulp. Apparently, to you in some theoretical way that makes sense. But to me, in the real world, that’s not how I’m going to treat people.

  16. jayjay323
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Thomas,
    “It sounds like you’re suggesting I should have let him get beaten to a pulp. Apparently, to you in some theoretical way that makes sense. But to me, in the real world, that’s not how I’m going to treat people.”
    no, whether to do something about it in the real world or not is a judgment call that only you were able to make in the situation. What I suggested was that – yes, theoretically – there is no “realness”-difference between wanting things in various states of intoxication. Sober wanting may be less problematic due to enhanced rationalization abilities, but it’s certainly not inherently more *real* than any other wanting, and – possibly – lack of inhibitions even increases the “realness” aspect of wanting.
    It’s the “I want something now regardless of the consequences” vs. “carefully weighing all possible consequences, I have decided that I want this now”. Is the former not real? I think it is, even in the real world. Whether I’d allow my friend to indulge this realness by getting beaten up or whether I’d infringe upon his right to get beaten up in that situation is a different question.

  17. Thomas
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    JayJay, your link did not work but I found your post. That sheds a lot of light. While you say that therapy has somewhat helped your sexual shame issues, it is obvious that you’re primarily jousting with internal hang-ups. I can’t imagine that you would even remotely be comfortable with a partner whose judgment is impaired, since you can’t bring yourself to kiss a woman who has made her interest clear.
    In any case, we have the same problem: patriarchy. Why would people who want to have a particular sexual experience either decline to initiate, or want to self-medicate in order to overcome inhibitions? Because of a culture that tells people — especially and most punitively women, how and when to be sexual and how and when to not to be sexual.
    Women are people, with sexualities of their own, that they ought to make their own decisions about. But instead, the social messaging about “appropriate” sexuality for women is extremely heavy handed and contradictory — in fact, it admits of no right answer, and there is almost nothing a woman can say about her sexual self or behavior that isn’t going to get her criticized by someone. (The same is not nearly as true for, for example, cis- het- ablebodied white men, but is increasingly true the farther one gets from the top of the privilege pyramid.)
    JayJay, interrogating the circumstances of when alcohol impairs consent is not of any practical use to you. If you need a partner who will literally run her body against yours and ask you to come to the bathroom for a semipublic quickie before you feel comfortable, doing that with someone drunk will only make you feel worse and less sure of yourself. You need to find spaces where clearheaded folks are forthright about sexuality, and to keep working with the therapist until, when you know that a partner wants sex with you, you can internalize that.

  18. Thomas
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    I don’t agree. I don’t think that inhibition due to sober reasoning can be compared to disinhibition due to intoxication. I am saying that sober wanting is real wanting. You’ve explained why you don’t think so, and I find your reasoning unpersuasive.

  19. jayjay323
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    Thomas,
    “I can’t imagine that you would even remotely be comfortable with a partner whose judgment is impaired, since you can’t bring yourself to kiss a woman who has made her interest clear.”
    sure, I agree, and I think I’ve said so above.
    “Because of a culture that tells people — especially and most punitively women, how and when to be sexual and how and when to not to be sexual.”
    I agree.
    (The same is not nearly as true for, for example, cis- het- ablebodied white men, but is increasingly true the farther one gets from the top of the privilege pyramid.)
    I don’t find such a pyramid particularly useful. I’m a cis-, het-, ablebodied white man, and *I* am ashamed about my sexuality. And I know quite a lot of others who are equally ashamed about their sexuality. Whatever the reason, and there are many, including a double bind that made me ashamed of both wanting sex *and*, certainly afer a certain point of time, *not having sex*. I think there’s a legitimate discourse about the negative effects of slut shaming, but have you seen a non-Steven-Carell based discourse about male “virgin-shaming”. I haven’t. Even some of my closer female friends, some of whom were previously quite interested sexually, usually weren’t anymore when I told them. In many ways, a “not a real man” kind of attitude is palpable in some of those discussions. I’ve learnt how to deal with this, mostly, but I still would like to point out that that is a real problem, and affecting real people, even though it’s probably not mapped on your privilege pyramid. Just saying.
    “JayJay, interrogating the circumstances of when alcohol impairs consent is not of any practical use to you.”
    Not for me personally, I agree.
    “If you need a partner who will literally run her body against yours and ask you to come to the bathroom for a semipublic quickie before you feel comfortable, doing that with someone drunk will only make you feel worse and less sure of yourself.”
    Again, agreed. But, believe me, I’ve also managed to run away in such situations.
    “You need to find spaces where clearheaded folks are forthright about sexuality, and to keep working with the therapist until, when you know that a partner wants sex with you, you can internalize that.”
    Two good points. I don’t know theses spaces. If you know any, let me know… In clubs – where I’m, again, very successful at initiating contact with women up to the point where it’s getting ‘dangerous’, women usually do drink, and not rarely quite a bit. You’re right that I need to learn to be able to *internalize* the wanted bit, not just *rationlize* it (which, in a way, is the core of the argument about realness I made above, the other way around). That’s probably the difference that gives you the confidence in your judgement and makes me ponder about this in the abstract.

  20. Canlord
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    I don’t like you. I’ll bet you’re a privileged 20-something white girl living in suburbia.

  21. Anonymous
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    shows what the fuck you know about me or my life. you think personal attacks make you superior? don’t think so. YOU are much more fucking likely to be privileged than i am, given that i make 0 fucking dollars a year

  22. ActuallyIHateChocolate
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    What the hell? How about we DON’T make personal attacks?

  23. Canlord
    Posted October 8, 2009 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    So you don’t work, and yet you have a computer, access to the Internet, and enough free time to hang around here bitching about petty, mostly imagined instances of “sexism” and “misogyny”?
    Wow, you sound even more privileged than I thought.

  24. Anonymous
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    you are outing yourself as an asshole male who has no idea about what most of us experience in real life. I use public computers, since I don’t have my own. I’ve been traumatized out of jobs and work. I am disabled, you fuckhead- and it’s largely because of what MEN have done ot me. So fuck off.

  25. Anonymous
    Posted October 10, 2009 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    by labeling references posted by women on this forum, which was created for US and not for MALE ASSHOLES, as quote mostly imagined instances of “sexism” and “misogyny” unquote, you are clearly showing the classic traits of the privileged ableist male asshole. I am disabled you fucking abusive harasser.

  26. Canlord2
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Hahaha, alright, privileged girl. I love how you use the word “male” as though it’s supposed to shame me or something.
    You’re disabled? I’m sorry to hear that, but forgive me for doubting that “men” were responsible for said disability. I doubt you because, like another poster named Gopher, you have a history of vicious, irrational attacks and seem to see misogyny around every corner. Grow up, moron. Furthermore, disabled people can still be privileged. I say again- you don’t work, and yet seem to live in relative comfort. That’s a hell of a lot more then most people (including men) can say. So you know what? You fuck off. You think you have some kind of monopoly on oppression and discrimination because you’re a woman? Don’t make me laugh. I can tell you right now that you have it better than 80% of the people in the world, 40% of which are men. You are an arrogant little white girl who thinks she knows what hardship and discrimination really are, but in reality you’re just a paranoid, pathetic little asshole.
    It should be noted that I only use these personal attack due to Dominique’s multiple uses of the word “asshole” to describe my person.

  27. Thomas
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Hey, asshole, men in the women’s movement ought to dialogue with feminist women, not try to shout them down and shut them down. Dominique has something to say. All the women here do. You should listen.

  28. Canlord2
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, she doesn’t get a free ride because she’s a woman. That’s not how it works. I did listen- which is why I’m able to make a coherent reply- and I disagree with almost everything she says. Strongly.
    I’m not trying to silence her any more then she’s trying to silence me.

  29. ActuallyIHateChocolate
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    You feel harassed because she called you an asshole? Report it as a personal attack, pick up, and move on. Don’t comment on an intelligently made comment she made only to discredit her idea because of your assumption of how she lives her life. Her quality of life has no bearing on the validity of what she has to say.
    You’re arguing that because she’s “privleged” she can’t complain too much about whats fucked up in her life. This may be news to you, but people who live in what you perceive as comfort have every right to be just as angry about sexism as anyone else. How cozy her bed is has no bearing on to what she’s been through or what she’s allowed to be offended by.
    You think that because she’s able to get online she doesn’t deserve to express her opinion? That sounds pretty ignorant to me.

  30. Canlord2
    Posted October 11, 2009 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    When did I ever say I felt harassed? I honestly don’t care- I’m just explaining why I attacked her in my own post.
    I’m not saying those in a privileged position cannot make judgements on social issues, but again, I’m merely responding to her assertation that I’m “an asshole male who has no idea what we go through”. If that’s true, and on that basis my opinion in invalid, so is hers.

  31. instrumentjamlord
    Posted October 12, 2009 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    “Okay. You did the right thing. Good. It doesn’t make you a hero, because that would be unbearably sad. However, do feel free to spread your post around to teach everyone else a lesson they sorely need.”
    Gratuitous snark. Very tasty.
    Honestly, what was the point of that?

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

210 queries. 0.812 seconds