« Previous | Home | Next »

Not Taking Know For An Answer

I have a guy friend, “Bobby,” whose wife has blurted out twice (once at my wedding reception) that Bobby and I dated in college. We actually had a one-night stand -- over 10 years ago. Word got around to my husband, who asked me if Bobby and I had indeed dated. I said no, since technically we hadn’t. I finally asked Bobby’s wife to stop talking about it, and she sort of apologized, and hasn’t spoken of it since. Still, I’m really nervous when we run into her at social functions, because knowing about Bobby would upset my husband. I can see him getting all jealous, like, “We’ve been hanging out with this guy, and now I find out that you slept with him.” He’d at least be hurt that something was kept from him (even though he specifically stated that he never wanted to be told this stuff). Worse, he might want to have the “numbers” conversation, and let’s just say I’ve lost track, and he believes sex equals love, and the only other person he ever slept with was his ex.

--Anxious

Your husband knows you were a hussy. That’s why he made it clear he never wanted to be told what you did, and with whom. And a good thing that is, since it sounds like the details of “with whom” may sometimes be limited to “#59. Ian’s friend from SF,” “#61. Jeff McSomething-Or-Other,” and “#63. Guy from plane.”

If your husband’s going to maintain his preferred picture of you as his little Snow White, you’re going to have to help him stay in the dark about Bobby and the rest of the 107 dwarves. The problem is, curiosity can make even the most sensible people stupid. If your husband catches wind of the Bobby story again, even though he knows he’s better off not knowing, he’ll probably squeeze you for answers. Even if you tell him “It was nothing,” and “It happened once, more than 10 years ago,“ and he understands that intellectually, his male brain is likely to turn it into a sexual horror film on an extremely unlimited run: “Bobby! Bigger! Better!” Of course, in your husband’s mind movie, Bobby is not just “well-endowed,” he had to be lowered onto your bed with a special crane. And reminders of Bobby will be everywhere. Your husband will be watching the news when they show some enormous missile being launched. He’ll squint his eyes a little, and suddenly, it’s anatomically correct, and what’s that printed on the side? “Bobby, Class of ‘96”?

Disclosures about one’s sexual history should be made according to a modified version of the old “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” -- with the caveat, “unless what happened in Vegas can cause big purple boils to form on your partner’s upper lip.” This does run counter to the “tell-all” model of marriage -- the mistaken notion that your spouse has the right to know everything about you, and the equally mistaken notion that it’s a good idea. Am I telling you to lie? Like a big shaggy rug. If your husband asks you about Bobby: “It never happened.” If he presses you: “It’s a rumor, and it’s wrong.” Be prepared to be just as firm in refusing to let him deconstruct the rest of your sexual past. Should you feel guilty about lying, remember, in the short run, coming clean is easier, feels better, and requires much less upkeep. In the long run, “happily ever after” works best when it isn’t hyper-focused on naked, drunk, and grope-ily ever before.

Posted by aalkon at May 22, 2007 9:24 PM

Comments

Doesn't this gal's husband have a past of his own? Let it go, man.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 23, 2007 7:16 AM

"Doesn't this gal's husband have a past of his own? Let it go, man."

"...and he believes sex equals love, and the only other person he ever slept with was his ex."

No, he doesn't have a past. That seems to be the root of the issue. Letting it go is good advice, though.

Posted by: Lyn at May 23, 2007 7:36 AM

"...and he believes sex equals love, and the only other person he ever slept with was his ex."

"Anxious" knows better, tho.

Posted by: RMc at May 23, 2007 8:46 AM

"...and he believes sex equals love, and the only other person he ever slept with was his ex."

No, he doesn't have a past. That seems to be the root of the issue.

Oops, okay - I guess I was speedreading. You are right, though - she has a past, he doesn't, and that really is the root of the issue. So he thinks sex equals love, and she distinguishes between the two. Does he think she's going to cheat on him? Does he wish he'd sown a few more wild oats himself? Maybe deep down he totally understands that you can separate sex and love, and wishes he'd tried it a time or two. Now here she has been, doing it all this time and GETTING AWAY WITH IT!

If he honestly can't imagine enjoying sex without love, then he wouldn't feel like he was missing out on anything. He's probably irritated that he walked the "high moral ground" and she, on the other hand, managed to have a lot of fun without any negative consequences.

While I agree with Amy's advice, it seems to me that there are some issues simmering beneath the surface here that may affect how he sees her and impact his ability to trust her.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 23, 2007 8:55 AM

Pirate Jo, I take issue with your speculation that he's probably irritated that she had "a lot of fun."

For lots of people, sleeping around with casual partners is not fun. Popular culture might have us believing otherwise, with shows like "Sex in the City" and those lame glossy magazines emblazoned with headlines like "Have your best orgasm! EVER!" For many, casual sex--even in their 20's, when there are all kinds of expectations for sowing one's oats--it's empty and hollow, depressing, unfulfilling, and on and on. Definitely not pleasant. Religious beliefs and externally imposed social mores aside--these feelings can arise out of a purely intrinsic, deeply embedded value system.

I get really tired of hearing how casual sex in one's young adulthood is an expected, normal lifephase activity. If that's what floats someone's boat, fine--I'm not demonizing. But I want more people to understand that if it doesn't feel good (like it didn't for me), then there's nothing wrong with them. Everyone is different.

Posted by: Wendy at May 23, 2007 9:23 AM

I think what happened with him was that it wasnt so much sex without love that he is incapable of but sex without like. If he had met more girls he liked, prior to his wife, he would have banged them all without feelings of regret. I think men like this are afraid of being hurt so they wait until they know its the love phase. By that point you are already going to pledge to be together for a long time. So...now that he has a wife he feels a pang of regret, something along the lines of I wish I had had experienced more with more girls I liked...why was I so scared?

And Wendy I'm with you but...I disagree slightly. Sex should be experienced with the lack of expectation that you are going to be together forever. This form of sex should be experienced before you are ready to get married as it prepares you for the hassle that is marriage. The reason being that after the love phase wears out in a marriage you are gonna tell yourself "Shit I should have experienced more now I'm stuck here in the long run". Those people, who fall in love but dont admit they are not ready to be in love are the ones that cheat. So I'm saying dont marry the first two people you fuck.

Posted by: PurplePen at May 23, 2007 10:03 AM

Wendy, I actually agree with you more than you probably think. Will I get flamebroiled to a crispy toast if I dare to say that men are much more into casual, meaningless hook-ups than women and would therefore be more likely to think they had missed something? Flame away ...

There are a lot of shades of gray between someone who's only had one partner and someone who's slept around like a rabbit. Most people probably fall into the "serial monogamy" category. You get involved with someone, thinking it's going to work out, start sleeping with them, and then for whatever reason things fall apart after a few months. Maybe the guy married his ex at a really young age. But in my experience, I don't know of any men aside from religious guys who only equate sex with love.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 23, 2007 10:10 AM

General question:

Isn't something like sexual-openness and general attitudes towards sex a fairly big deal and something you deal with before getting married?

He must have realized he was marrying someone with a more liberal outlook on sex. Neither person is necessarily right or wrong, but realizing that each is valid, important and needs to be respected is vital. After you get married it seems that it would be important to allow the past to fade away so long as you don't give your partner an STD (like Amy mentioned with a delish visual). Perhaps she enjoyed sex freely in the past and still enjoys sex with her husband for its raw, instinctual pleasure but with an additional emotional element.

Bottom line:

It seems strange to be dragging this issue through the mud after marriage. If both partners enter into a relationship and agree on their own expectations (like monogamy) then the past isn't an issue.

**He might be judging her wife and can't get over it (someone mentioned that I believe).**
This is a real issue that should have been worked out BEFORE getting too deeply involved. Most people talk about their sexual history a little bit, maybe not actual numbers, but enough general chit chat to understand how the other person feels about sex and his/her sexuality. This is like being a staunch Catholic and marrying a free love hippie. The two lifestyles don't mesh and no matter how much love there is it will always pose a problem.

Posted by: Gretchen at May 23, 2007 11:17 AM

PurplePen, I understand. At the time of the actual experiences I did not feel good about them; however, from my position now, with the advantage of time and a (more) mature perspective, I can see that the experiences fulfilled my curiosities and also gave me a measure of what feels bad. I am secretly glad my fiance had other women before me (but we never talk about past partners in any kind of detail; no numbers, never any names).

Gretchen, I agree that people really need to have frank discussions before marriage. I think pre-marital counseling is imperative. It seems to me that lots of people think something will explode in their faces if they talk about delicate issues, like money management, division of chores, whether or not to have children, and attitudes about sex. Better to deal with it before marriage, than ten years later when resentment and anger have developed like a cancerous tumor.

Posted by: Wendy at May 23, 2007 11:49 AM

I, like "Anxious," have "a history." I am comfortable with sex in all its varied splendor -- from the committed, "deeply in love" kind all the way down to the "good thing he's purty, because he sure ain't smart" kind. There have been times in my life when I allowed others to judge me for that. And then there I would sit, defending myself for things I did as 1) a responsible, consenting adult while I was 2) behind closed doors and 3) unattached and therefore betraying nobody. So gee -- who got hurt? what did I do wrong? I could never figure it out. Finally I stopped trying. Everybody's sex life is their own damn business. Be respectful, be responsible, and be honest and fair to the people you bring into your bed. If you did that, Anxious, then your past ain't all that dirty, and you've got nothing to be ashamed of.

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 23, 2007 3:04 PM

Daisy Jones - I agree with you totally on your main points, but I don't think the LW is ashamed. The LW seems to be on good terms with herself and past actions but her husband is the one with an issue and this issue doesn't seem to have been fully and clearly articulated on his part.

They need to lay their cards on the table - which should have been done a long time ago. I'm not married but there are still issues which may arise and my boyfriend and are ready to face them and equipped to have those conversations. Avoiding major issues like moral standards by which you live your life will reduce the chance for a successful relationship...because your relationship never really is able to develop in the first place.

Posted by: Gretchen at May 23, 2007 3:32 PM

Oh, no, Gretchen -- I get that! I don't think the LW seems ashamed of anything at all! But, unfortunately, it sounds like her guy would disagree. She seems worried that if he knew absolutely everything, he'd think she SHOULD feel ashamed. And that's shitty. She can't change her past, and it would be pointless and mean of him to ask her to hang her head about it for the rest of her life.

If I were the LW, and if this ever came up again, I would firmly remind my guy that my history and my choices made me the wonderful woman he loves so dearly today. ("...and you DO love me for me, don't you, honey?") ; )

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 23, 2007 5:54 PM

As far as the letter goes it doesn't seems to me that the husband is being unreasonable or that he has an "issue". Quite the opposite. It sounds like he knows himself well enough to know that sometimes some feelings (especially jealousy) cannot be avoided, no matter how much you try. His statement that he doesn't want to know about her past,is probably the best way to deal with these things for a lot of people. The problem is within the LW, who seems too anxious about this issue, trying to guess how her husband would react. And I think that Amy is absolutely right in her advice.

Posted by: Vladimir at May 23, 2007 6:34 PM

> the "good thing he's purty, because he sure ain't smart" kind.

Ahh, the memories...

Posted by: Marie at May 23, 2007 11:21 PM

But what if Bobby Big Stuff tells her hubby the truth after she's been spouting the lie? That'll look worse, and leave him thinking Bobby's even better in bed then he could've imagined if she's gotta lie about it. Why not just cop to it if he ever brings it up again, and remind him that he married her knowing she had a sexual history and its unfair to bring it up for interrogation now?

Posted by: Julie at May 24, 2007 1:10 AM

Did you not read the column? The point is to insist that it's incorrect. Unless somebody was there with a camera, it's his word against hers. It's easiest to tell the truth -- and that's the answer most people would give you: "Oh, just tell him" and "He's being unreasonable and he shouldn't be so unreasonable." Right. Well, that's going to work really well when it plays out in reality, after he's told. Lying your ass off is what you do because you love the guy and don't want him to be tortured.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 5:09 AM

Ha! I fell into this same type of situation. Before I married my now ex, we had the "talk". She was not too interested in my numbers, but I was totally up front with her. She said "seven" (does a baseball team count as one?). Well, I really didn't want to know anyway, so I did not press it. I was always in the "guys multiply by three and gals divide by three" camp.

Well, slowly but surely it all came out. One night we were at a party and there was a guy there she was talking to. When I asked the inevitable, she said "oh, just someone I slept with in college". Of course I was a little flustered, so she said "oh quit it! I've had lots of sex with lots of men." Well, needless to say, I started counting on my fingers and seven did not really add up with "lots of sex with lots of men".

Well, after that I found out so many little tidbits...from her sister. Seems like she lied about just about anything connected with her past. The point is I know how this guy feels...maybe he really didn't want to know, but the more she tries to cover it up the more suspicious he gets that something is not right.

Oh, and the wifey? After we got divorced her sister (who obviously hates her guts) came up with a number significantly higher than seven, actually seven times that (so much for the divide by 3 rule). I can't believe that I married someone who had to lie about her sexual past (and everything else)...but then it occurred to me that if I had known up front I probably would not have married her anyway. So that is why she lied about it.

Whats so wrong about knowing someones past? They made the choice, now why would they not want to fess up? Hey, there is someone for everyone--I'm just not the kind of guy who wants someone who slept around...I'm sure lots of guys don't care, but I do. That is MY choice, and i have the right to pick whom I want.

Posted by: mike at May 24, 2007 5:54 AM

Mike, but someone who slept around frequently and was deliberately deceitful about it with her husband is different than someone who slept around frequently and was more or less honest about her past, even though no numbers were actually said. I think that's the distinction at stake here.

I don't see anything wrong with what you want. And I'm sorry for you ex-wife's lie, but surely her dishonesty about her numbers played out in different aspects of your marriage as well? Like, if she only trying to put her best face on in order for you to marry her, then there must have been all kinds of other behaviors/traits she hid while you were dating and gradually paid out after the wedding.

Let me pose this question to you: would you want a virgin, someone completely inexperienced at relationships and you were her first at everything? I think it's common and good for people to have past serious relationships that didn't work out before finding the one that fits. I'm not talking about lots of flings and one-night stands, just relationships where people had sex.

I myself would find it a nightmare to teach a guy how to love me, how to treat me, how to act in a committed relationship, like I was Professor Higgins with Eliza Doolittle.

Posted by: Wendy at May 24, 2007 6:48 AM

Oh, and one more point I wanted to make, Mike: people change. Past behavior is not an indicator of present and future behavior.

Posted by: Wendy at May 24, 2007 6:49 AM

The guys I date now should be writing thank-you notes to those poor guinea pigs from my past who I learned from. I'm not just talking about sex, I mean how to treat people, how to be a good listener, be a better communicator, handle emotions - all of it. I feel the same way in reverse. A guy I know lost his last two girlfriends because he kept putting them last, behind other priorities, too much of the time. Guess who won't be making that mistake again?

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 24, 2007 7:10 AM

Exactly, Pirate Jo.

Posted by: Wendy at May 24, 2007 7:14 AM

Yes, a woman's 'past' is a real problem for women nowadays because of the dramatic cultural changes that have taken place in the last 20 years.

Because of that certain disaster called 'feminism,' women today are not only obnoxious, crude, rude, and dumbed down, they have degenerated sexually as well. Of course you all refer to as 'more choices' or 'more freedoms' and 'empowerment.' In my generation we had a different name for the young women of today: 'Road Whores.'

It makes me shiver when I look at teenage girls or women in their 20's nowadays knowing that statistically most of them have had as many as 17 sexual partners by the time they are 21- and that's on the conservative side. I think of all the myriad of diseases and countless organs that have been inside of her, and oh, the tatoos or 'tramp stamps' just to drive the point even further home- uh, yea real attractive. No thank you, ma'am, I have standards. And yet bizarrely, women today think more highly of themselves than ever, yet we as men are likely to be reminded of a public toilet when we look at today's women. Not exactly marraige material! I haven't met a woman who was marriage material in 15 years.

Just imagine the original feminists- someone such as Susan B. Anthony, and if she were alive today to witness the results of feminism and all of her efforts and other women with integrity and pride just like her- to see the end result was nothing but hideously dumbed whores who have more in common with public toilets than people- she would fall over from a sheer heart attack!

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 7:25 AM

Ditto that, Pirate Jo.

And Jeff, what's wrong with having sex partners when you aren't ready for a boyfriend? I had lots of sex in my 20s, and never got a disease. You can get hit by a car crossing the street, too, but you try to be prudent and take proper precautions, and chances are, things will turn out okay.

A whore is somebody who trades sex for money. Having a lot of sex doesn't make you a whore. (Not that I see anything wrong with selling your body -- like a kidney, for example -- or renting it out by the hour, if that's what works for you.)

I've always been the kind of girl who never wanted to get married because I support myself financially, and just want to be with somebody because we love each other and are better together than we are alone. When the relationship gets old and boring, you split up.

I would say if anything is "dumbed down," it's what you think passes for thinking in your comment above.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 8:08 AM

Wow, Jeff you must really know how to sweet-talk a girl. I'm shocked that, with your charm and endearing boyancy, you haven't managed to land a wife yet. Have you tried seductively slipping in the "public toilet" line to a prospective lady? Because I know that, if a guy ever said that to me, I'd just *melt.* It would be right up there with "I occaisionally enjoy having sex with children/animals." Be still, my heart.

Posted by: sofar at May 24, 2007 8:14 AM

Jeff, you may not agree with the choices every woman makes, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for women to have the freedom to make those choices. If you'd rather see the effects of feminism reversed and see those freedoms taken away, maybe you should try moving to Iran. I hear the women there don't get around too much, and judging by your "toilet seat" comparison, I think you'd fit right in with the guys, too.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 24, 2007 8:28 AM

Ah, the Double Standard is alive and thriving!

Jerry Falwell, you may be gone, but your spirit lives on and on, in the hearts and minds of many. :)

Posted by: Wendy at May 24, 2007 8:49 AM

Jeff,

You must really have gotten the shaft judging from your comments. While I have my own lofty expectations about whom I choose as far as a wife, I don't see any reason to denigrate the entire gender...all you have to remember is that there are consequences to every action, and if someone has slept with everyone in town they may have a hard time finding a mate. If they are honest. Simple as that.

As a matter of fact, the very idea that women are so free sexually these days should be tops on alot of guys lists--you don't really have to worry about being in a relationship to get as much sex as you want, and you don't have any pressure at all to get married. What could be better than that? Personally, since I know I am never getting married again, I appreciate a well experienced girlfrind. As long as she has no problems with it we can have alot of fun! So, chill out. You sound like another one of those "Americanwomensuck.com" guys.

And Wendy, I totally diagree with you on your comment above. People never really change, and the past is a GREAT indicator of future behavior, in my experience anyway. Take cheating for example: would you trust anyone who you knew had cheated on several partners in the past? Could you really? Or would it always be in the back of your mind in a little corner? The old saying "once a cheater always a cheater" is so true. If you have a crossed a moral threshold once, the cultural rules and taboos associated with that act can be torn up and thrown away. And these days, with a move away from standardized religion into "spirituality", there is no accountability for right/wrong and good/bad. So, sorry for the ramble, but what better indicator of behavior than the past?

Posted by: mike at May 24, 2007 8:54 AM

Wendy,

Loved your comment on Dr. Higgins and Eliza Doolittle...!!!

Posted by: mike at May 24, 2007 8:58 AM

Wow, Jeff. "Public Toilet."

That's the most socially and developmentally arrested, ignorant, ugly thing I've heard an adult say lately.

So you don't want a woman with a target tattoo, and you're looking for a girl who's been more discriminating where sex is concerned than not. Fine. But then you had to make with the nasty insults, and then the truth bubbled straight to the top: you think sex is at least a little bit (if not a LOT) dirty and shameful, and that means women who enjoy it -- and have previously enjoyed it with guys who aren't YOU -- are dirty and shameful, too.

I know a guy with your same problem. The instant after he has sex with a woman, his first thoughts are of anybody else who might ever had sex with her before he got there. Especially if the sex was good. (Clearly, it's not HER first day!) That, of course, leaves him with no choice but to judge her, and what else should she expect? She's obviously a filthy little slut. And, with a contemptuous attitude like that, he's just a hop and a skip from TOTALLY DESTROYING even the remote chance of a real future with her. And then he comes crying to me, wondering what the hell is wrong with the women these days.

I've started saying, "I dunno, man...it's too bad, because YOU are a CATCH, buddy...".

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 24, 2007 8:59 AM

Having sex with a lot of people suggests that you enjoy sex, and/or didn't have a steady boyfriend, and/or were able to take advantage of an opportunity to have sexual variety. Your sexuality and your ethics are two different things. Having sexual variety when it's available to you doesn't mean you'll cheat on a person you're in a relationship with.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 9:01 AM

Ah, Amy, you're so right - as usual ;-) Seriously - I don't think this is a failing of Anxious's husband so much as it is a failing of human nature.

Nobody - and I mean nobody (barring certain fetishes), male or female, wants to think about their partner with somebody else. You know it's happened, but imagining the gory details just ain't cool.

This is what I call "Pandora's Box" - you think you want to know the answer to the questions of "How many?" and "With whom?" and "How?". Curiosity is eating at you. But you really don't want that information. What purpose will it serve, other than to torment you as your imagination runs wild?

IMO, when the subject comes up in a generic way, the best answer is to not lie but not to answer. "I don't see how that possibly matters to our relationship, honey" works wonders.

In the case of a direct question about a relationship - yeah. Lie, misdirect, what-have-you. I actually have one of those situations with my husband. I have a very good friend that I've known for a long time. Shortly after a very nasty break-up we had a non-relationship-relationship. We were friends, with benefits and it helped me get past a bad spot. But we both knew that we weren't suited in a romantic way. Today, he's married with a newborn, and I'm married. I told my husband that we had been friends, gone out, decided that we were better just staying friends, and that's it. I haven't brought up the S-E-X issue and neither has he. I can assure you, though, that if he does I will lie my ass off.

You don't want your husband thinking every time he looks at Bobby "That's the guy that effed my wife." That's just cruel.

Anyway, to wrap up my novella - I agree with Amy.

Posted by: Anne at May 24, 2007 9:03 AM

How a dumbed-down whore (excuse me, slut) rationalizes, Exhibit A:

"(Not that I see anything wrong with selling your body -- like a kidney, for example -- or renting it out by the hour, if that's what works for you.)"

"Wow, Jeff you must really know how to sweet-talk a girl"

One thing is for certain & that is if you fall in the above mentioned age bracket, I won't be trying seduce anyway (ha). Don't flatter yourself.

"Jeff, you may not agree with the choices every woman makes, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for women to have the freedom to make those choices. If you'd rather see the effects of feminism reversed and see those freedoms taken away, maybe you should try moving to Iran. I hear the women there don't get around too much, and judging by your "toilet seat" comparison, I think you'd fit right in with the guys, too."

Isn't ironic that whenever women discuss their 'freedom of choice' it is always in regards to something sick like abortion or sexual. Curiously the vast majority of women do not use their 'freedom' to find a cure for cancer or anything that would actually benefit anyone other than their self-absorbed and shallow whims.

Instead of me moving to Iran, I've got an even better idea- why don't I stay and YOU and the rest like yourself get out and move to the Philippines- I hear that the sex trade business is booming over there! As Amy was implying, why give away a piece of ass when you can sell it? You would fit in so much better there. Then we here in the U.S. can get back to a real society comprised of women with dignity and self respect and intelligence. Wouldn't that be neat?

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 9:08 AM

Mike, you are absolutely right about old habits dying hard (sorry, Wendy, but he's got a point...). If a person's habits rub you the wrong way, then maybe she's just not the girl for you. Part as friends and move on.

I never plan to marry again, either. And according to guys like Jeff, that means that if I want him and his ilk to consider me a "good" girl, I'd better also take sex out of the picture until I meet a "Jeff" of my very own. Um...no. No thanks.

Your girlfriend is one lucky little chipmunk, Mike!

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 24, 2007 9:11 AM

"That's the most socially and developmentally arrested, ignorant, ugly thing I've heard an adult say lately."

Correction: Women today are socially and developmentally arrested, ignorant and ugly, thus the comparison to a public toilet. Don't like the comparison? Then get your act together and start having some self respect.

"So you don't want a woman with a target tattoo, and you're looking for a girl who's been more discriminating where sex is concerned than not. Fine. But then you had to make with the nasty insults, and then the truth bubbled straight to the top: you think sex is at least a little bit (if not a LOT) dirty and shameful, and that means women who enjoy it -- and have previously enjoyed it with guys who aren't YOU -- are dirty and shameful, too."

When you assume, you make an ass out of yourself. It's so simple even you can understand- I do not think sex is 'dirty,' but a whore or a slut is- not too bright are you? And I have nothing in common with your little friend.

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 9:16 AM

Ummm, Mike - people do change. When I was in my 20's I had so much sex, it's not even funny. Let's just say that my list would mimic Amy's tongue in cheek example pretty closely. I also cheated on a couple of boyfriends. But you know what? I was engaged for five years (age 24-29), had sex with one person (that old friend) after that, then met and married my husband 4 years ago. I haven't cheated on either my ex or my husband, and I don't plan on it and I keep myself out of situations that would allow that behavior. That makes three partners in 10 years. So, yeah. People CAN change. To say they don't or can't isn't giving them their due.

Posted by: Anne at May 24, 2007 9:18 AM

"Your sexuality and your ethics are two different things. Having sexual variety when it's available to you doesn't mean you'll cheat on a person you're in a relationship with."

...and it certainly doesn't make you a bad, filthy person the rest of the time, either.

Lovely, Amy. Well done. Thank you.

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 24, 2007 9:22 AM

I'd advise everyone not to feed the troll...

Posted by: Anne at May 24, 2007 9:25 AM

Oh. Sorry, Jeff. My mistake. You're right. Forgive me. I incorrectly assumed that you might harbor hateful, judgmental attitudes about women and sex based strictly on...um...well...on your hateful, judgmental statements about women and sex.

I'm sure the girl of your dreams is out there, sir. Right now, she is waiting with bated breath (and bucket-loads of YOUR version of self-respect) for the opportunity to meet with your approval and thereby win your favor. Golly, I hope she doesn't screw it up!

(...actually, in all seriousness, I'm sure she is out there somewhere. Maybe just not on this message board...).

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 24, 2007 9:35 AM

"Having sex with a lot of people suggests that you enjoy sex, and/or didn't have a steady boyfriend, and/or were able to take advantage of an opportunity to have sexual variety. Your sexuality and your ethics are two different things. Having sexual variety when it's available to you doesn't mean you'll cheat on a person you're in a relationship with"

As you will find discussing the issue with any mental health practioners, promiscuity is invariably the result of develomental problems or any number of other psychological disorders.

'Sexual variety' as you call it, creates chaos in a person's life and therefore creates even more psychological and life problems.

Besides- even if I were to somehow agree with you that promiscuity and slut like behavior was mentally healthy and acceptable- there remains the fact that you just can't do it nowadays- too many STD's- anyone that cares about themselves doesn't have multiple partners. That's just common sense.

Being on this comment section just further drives home the fact of what I have known all along- this idea of women being 'so much smarter' is nothing but hot air- a lie. All of you are just drunk on your own hyper-inflated sense of self confidence- too bad for all of you that doesn't replace actual intelligence.

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 9:41 AM

Sorry, Amy. True dat.

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 24, 2007 9:44 AM

Mike and Daisy Jones, I assert again, people change.

Case in point: 5 years ago, I gave no thoughts about saving for the future nor retirement plans. Now I am fastidiously squirreling away money into my 401K and looking to talk to a financial advisor about money market funds and an investment portfolio (I am clueless when it comes to growing money, hence why I want to talk to a professional).

5 years ago, I paid no attention to the salt in my diet. Now with high blood pressure, I am paying very close attention.

5 years ago I had a very bad habit of yelling at close friends and family when upset. I recognized that this was wrong and harmful to my relationships, and worked actively to stop that behavior.

These are all silly examples seemingly unrelated to what we're really really talking about--sexuality--but take the controversy of sexual attitudes and behaviors out of the picture to tone down an emotionally charged discussion and you can see that change is ***inevitable***.

Posted by: Wendy at May 24, 2007 9:51 AM

As you will find discussing the issue with any mental health practioners, promiscuity is invariably the result of develomental problems or any number of other psychological disorders.

Would you diagnose Albert Ellis with "developmental problems or any number of other psychological disorders" for having an open relationship with Janet Wolf for many years?

Or would you just call him lucky?

'Sexual variety' as you call it, creates chaos in a person's life and therefore creates even more psychological and life problems.

It's not for most people, but it works for some. Who are you to diagnose them en masse, and without meeting any of them?

You can dismiss me as an idiot because I don't fall in line with your Puritanical church lady thinking, but what's apparent here in all these comments you're making is your lack of logical rigor. If anybody thinks like the proverbial chick -- light on logic and heavy on emotion -- it's you.

Testicle check in aisle four!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 9:52 AM

"Curiously the vast majority of women do not use their 'freedom' to find a cure for cancer or anything that would actually benefit anyone other than their self-absorbed and shallow whims."

How much time have you spent trying to cure cancer lately?

"Then we here in the U.S. can get back to a real society comprised of women with dignity and self respect and intelligence."

No woman with those qualities would sleep with you anyway, so you'd be right back where you are now. A bitter, misogynistic, unattractive little creep who still can't get laid. It must be really irritating - all those women who will seemingly sleep with anyone ... except you.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 24, 2007 9:53 AM

"I incorrectly assumed that you might harbor hateful, judgmental attitudes about women and sex based strictly on...um...well...on your hateful, judgmental statements about women and sex."

*Yawn* Always the same, sad, tired 'misogynist' rhetoric. Disgusting and dangerous behavior is well, disgusting and dangerous behaviour reagrdless of who is commiting it. 'Misogynist' of course diverts the attention away from today's women's digusting behavior like a cheesy little shell game. I do not like the smell of dog shit either- that doesn't mean there's something wrong with ME.

"I'm sure the girl of your dreams is out there, sir. Right now, she is waiting with bated breath (and bucket-loads of YOUR version of self-respect) for the opportunity to meet with your approval"

That's just bizarre. You don't even know me- so why are you faking any concern for me or even assuming I'm not already in a relationship? What do I have to do with the subject? Wake up call for you: Millions of men think EXACTLY like I do & the ones that don't will end up in a miserable life with you.


Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 9:54 AM

"'Misogynist' of course diverts the attention away from today's women's digusting behavior like a cheesy little shell game."

Not true. You haven't said a word about "slutty behavior" or "promiscuity" in men.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 24, 2007 10:05 AM

...because I forgot to say this my post before, I once again agree w/ your advice, Amy...and how convenient because one of my good friends is in the letter writer's situation (her BF has quite a past as well, but she has an era). Judging from my own experiences and those of my friends, most guys have some hang-ups with their significant other's sexual pasts, ranging from "don't-ask-don't tell" to, well, for lack of a *better* example, our friend Jeff here.

The letter writer's husband seems to be of the harmless "don't-ask-don't-tell" variety, rather than of the "I better be able to put your hymen up on my mantle, woman" species.

Posted by: sofar at May 24, 2007 10:11 AM

"How much time have you spent trying to cure cancer lately?"

None, but I will bet 1 million dollars that I make more contributions to the world in a day then you will ever make in your entire life.

"No woman with those qualities would sleep with you anyway, so you'd be right back where you are now. A bitter, misogynistic, unattractive little creep who still can't get laid. It must be really irritating - all those women who will seemingly sleep with anyone ... except you."

This is what so many women always resort to when they begin to lose an argument with a man because men throw facts at them and it bcomes obvious every little feminist theory is a house of cards. This is called 'shaming language.'

Uh, you're a little late there Oprah, I already have a girlfriend with those qualities, and I'm also willing to bet she is approxiamately 1000 times more attractive than you, including her personality.

I'm actually 6'2", thin, with a thick, full head of blonde hair and blue eyes with a very out going personality and wicked sense of humor that makes women weak in the knees. Women also call me 'cute' and say I look something like McGyver or I get Robert Redford a lot.

As far as 'misogynist'- I love women- what I hate is sick behavior. Plus, why would I want to 'sleep with all those women who would sleep with anyone?' Even your insults don't make any sense! I'd sell you a clue, but I don't think you would ever figure out how to use it!

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 10:14 AM

Ugh - I know I said not to feed the troll, but I can't help it.

Jeff - shaming language? You ARE a refuge from americanwomensuck.com. Secondly - you say:

"This is what so many women always resort to when they begin to lose an argument with a man because men throw facts at them and it bcomes obvious every little feminist theory is a house of cards."

Dude - you've yet to post a single fact. All you've done is spew vitriol.

Posted by: Anne at May 24, 2007 10:22 AM

Actually, Wendy, you've got a point, and I take it.

People can definitely GROW, which is IMHO -- at the risk of coming off like the semantically fussy librarian I am -- the spot-on right word for ALL of that stuff.

Whether we're talking about growth with regard to relationships or to real estate investment, growth, maturity and experience can inspire change. Maybe not as often as they should, and probably not for everybody...but it can happen.

: )

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 24, 2007 10:22 AM

"Not true. You haven't said a word about "slutty behavior" or "promiscuity" in men."

Another cheesy shell game. We are not discussing men's behaviour on this thread, we are discussing women's behavior. Quit trying to change the subject, that only works on stupid people.

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 10:23 AM

"Curiously the vast majority of women do not use their 'freedom' to find a cure for cancer or anything that would actually benefit anyone other than their self-absorbed and shallow whims."

I would say the vast majority of men don't use their time to seek a cure for cancer, either, and a good thing that is, since unlike assembling Lego, it isn't something just anyone can do.

Why is this suddenly about women vs. men? Uh-oh...are you one of the men's movement guys who's essentially a whiny feminist with a penis? Some women did something bad to you, but why take responsibility for letting her into your life when you can blame all womankind for being brain-dead fuckbunnies?

None, but I will bet 1 million dollars that I make more contributions to the world in a day then you will ever make in your entire life.

Really? What could you possibly do to make that statement true? You don't know the person you're commenting to. Again, if you think women are light on logic, we better send somebody out there to you with a snap-on penis and set of balls, because you're thinking like you think chicks think, and then some!

And do tell us what you do that you're such a valuable member of the human race, beyond what any of us could possibly contribute.

We're waiting!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 10:24 AM

See, here's another area where you're wildly illogical and unnaccountable:

None, but I will bet 1 million dollars that I make more contributions to the world in a day then you will ever make in your entire life.

Do you 1. Have a million dollars?

And 2. Let's hear what you do, and then weigh it against the contributions of Pirate Jo.

I'm assuming she'll take a wire transfer of the funds to her bank account, but let's ask her.

And finally, if you don't want to have sex with women like me, who had lots and lots and lots of sex, don't. I'd never want a man who has a problem with a woman who has as much pleasure as she can get her little white ass on. (Or black or Asian ass, as the case may be.) My sister and I used to talk about how, if a guy has a problem with you having sex on the first date, why would you want him? Yes, there are reasons to wait...but I know the consequences of having sex soon, and I'm willing to take them.

And not to get too personal, but Gregg and I met at the Grove, and went out for a drink, and then we were supposed to have our official first date (for dinner) a week later. But, we never made it out of my house. No, I didn't have sex on the first date. I managed to have sex before the first date! And while I won't bet you a million dollars, since I'm accountable, and don't have a million dollars, nor would I be willing to wager it if I did...but I think you're as angry as you are because you'd like to have the kind of happy relationship somebody who thinks like I do (sans years of built-up resentment and sexual Puritanism) can have.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 10:31 AM

Anne -- it is hard. It's really, really hard when someone throws a dirty punch not to pop up, face him and throw one back. Hell, I know better, and I keep rising to his bait myself.

But I say we all stand up and walk away.

(...I mean, It's hard, walking away from such a handsome, intelligent, statuesque mountain of masculine desirability, moral good, and obvious happiness. But I think we gotta do it...).

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 24, 2007 10:33 AM

"This is what so many women always resort to when they begin to lose an argument"

No, I conclude that you are deeply disturbed with personal issues because there is simply no other reason for you to be so wound up about what women do with their bodies. If you're such a desirable hunk and have found the pristine virgin of your dreams, why are you getting your thong in a twist about what all those other women do? What possible effect could it have on you? People who are happy and have what they want are too busy living their own lives to mind other people's business.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 24, 2007 10:36 AM

I think you're right, Pirate Jo -- that he's deeply disturbed with personal issues. Some of these people he's criticizing (you, for example) are pretty regular commenters here. And you, for example, are a commenter I find to be logical, rational, thoughtful, and your thinking suggests you're pretty mentally healthy.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 11:00 AM

"I would say the vast majority of men don't use their time to seek a cure for cancer, either, and a good thing that is, since unlike assembling Lego, it isn't something just anyone can do."

Wow! You have REALLY steered off subject. Despite what your goofy little 'Women's Studies' have taught you, there is a difference between men and women larger than the Grand Canyon. (If you leave your house you can witness it for yourself). The vast majority of men have what are called 'interests.'

Look no further than the magazines that men read- magazines on any and EVERYTHING from A-Z. What kind of magazines appeal to women? Magazines about WOMEN- an avalanche of zines with stories and pics of WOMEN. How sick and self-absorbed can you get?

"Some women did something bad to you, but why take responsibility for letting her into your life when you can blame all womankind for being brain-dead fuckbunnies?"

That's hysterical! Again, I didn't get 'screwed over' by any woman, and of course that has nothing to do with young women today being psychotic sluts with less accountability than a dog- this is a cultural issue and of course you know that, you're just using the cheap, cheesy shell game tactic and trying to put me on the defensive- typical two dimesional female ploy and the typical delusional thinking that you know something about psychology, when all you know is some cheap 25 cent pop psychology off your sick daytime TV shows or iVillage.

Since you're JUST SO INTERSESTED in me (ha)- I've worked for 20 years as a volunteer for the Muscular Dystrophy Association- ever since my cousin died from it. I've been building guitars for almost 20 years as well- am a musician, give lessons, run a recording studio & work as a mediation for a law firm. Um, I'm sure I'm forgetting something.

What do YOU do besides think about yourself?

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 11:07 AM

"Do you 1. Have a million dollars?"

It's a figure of speech. Drop out of junior high?


And finally, if you don't want to have sex with women like me, who had lots and lots and lots of sex, don't. I'd never want a man who has a problem with a woman who has as much pleasure as she can get her little white ass on. (Or black or Asian ass, as the case may be.) My sister and I used to talk about how, if a guy has a problem with you having sex on the first date, why would you want him? Yes, there are reasons to wait...but I know the consequences of having sex soon, and I'm willing to take them."

Like sleeping with unemployed alcoholic losers? The way you talk and the way you refer to yourself is sad. You sound like trailor trash, but unfortunately, there you go, you're attitude is exactly what I'm talking about- the attitude of most young women today- even when they come from the suburbs.


Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 11:21 AM

"there is simply no other reason for you to be so wound up about what women do with their bodies. If you're such a desirable hunk and have found the pristine virgin of your dreams, why are you getting your thong in a twist about what all those other women do? What possible effect could it have on you? People who are happy and have what they want are too busy living their own lives to mind other people's business."

We have what is called a 'society' and a 'country' that is currently going down the toilet and a great deal of it is because of the women being discussed here that create single parent 'families,' spread STD's and create general havoc and chaos. It's a public health issue. I'm actually concerned about something beyond myself, unlike yourself obviously, or else you wouldn't have to wonder.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 24, 2007 10:36 AM

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 11:27 AM

"I think you're right, Pirate Jo -- that he's deeply disturbed with personal issues."

Again, I don't have any 'issues.' Are you sure you're not doing a little 'projecting?' You know statistically 94% of people who seek psych counseling are WOMEN. You don't need to be Frued to figure out why- because so many American women lead the life of a road whore today. Yes, that's what's causing them such severe psychological issues.

Sometimes it seems like so many women like yourselves are living in some warped alternate reality that has nothing to do with planet Earth. Why does common sense have to be explained to you? Why are all of you on here so clueless about just basic everyday facts and society? And oh yes, with all this whorey talk about how you enjoy sleeping with so many men- and probably all losers- yea REAL ROMANTIC- ha! Like I would ever take any advice from any of you about relationships- that's a joke.

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 11:42 AM

"Since you're JUST SO INTERSESTED in me (ha)- I've worked for 20 years as a volunteer for the Muscular Dystrophy Association- ever since my cousin died from it. I've been building guitars for almost 20 years as well- am a musician, give lessons, run a recording studio & work as a mediation for a law firm. Um, I'm sure I'm forgetting something."

I'm truly impressed. Even more so now that I scroll back through this discussion thread and see that you have devoted more than 6 hours of your valuable time composing thoughtful responses to us "unemployed alcoholic losers." Time which, no doubt, you are taking away from the noble persuits you have listed. I'd feel awful demanding any more of your selflessly given time. I know that a kind soul like you might feel guilty leaving us here in our moral decay, but we, sadly, are beyond help. Please, feel no guilt in returning to those who need you.


Posted by: sofar at May 24, 2007 11:46 AM

Wow! I had some really good comments, but as I was writing I was suddenly hit by falling hail (hell) and brimstone...jeff, you remind me of being in church when I was a little boy...! Going to hell! Going to hell! You ARE going to hell! I never thought in a million years I would ever be in any kind of forum and hear the only other guy in the thread saying the words "misogynist" over and over. Funny how it was you and not all these horrid, horrid fuckbunnies saying it!!! (that word is too hilarious!)

Jeff, you are seriously deranged and in need of help. Here you are spouting off about women's lack of morals and that they are all whores...blah, blah, blah...and yet, you would think that someone who was that concerned about morals would act like a gentleman around all of these ladies...! WTF! Instead, you come off like a woman hater just like Anne and the others stated. Go back to AWS! Listen, I'm not saying I don't have some strong opinions on some relationship related things myself, but grouping all young women as the same thing is just strange behavior!

Just cut it out and say something intelligent, or you will continue to be attacked by folks on this (very excellent!) board. You cannot win. You will be ignored eventually.

Amy, your comments, as usual, are right on the money.

Oh, and I concede the point about changing and defer to Daisy's comment about growing. I do think it is very possible to grow. Completely change? Jury is still out on that one...

Posted by: mike at May 24, 2007 12:06 PM

"Would you diagnose Albert Ellis with "developmental problems or any number of other psychological disorders" for having an open relationship with Janet Wolf for many years?

Or would you just call him lucky?"

My response again: "there remains the fact that you just can't do it nowadays- too many STD's- anyone that cares about themselves doesn't have multiple partners. That's just common sense."

"It's not for most people, but it works for some. Who are you to diagnose them en masse, and without meeting any of them?"

My resonse again: "there remains the fact that you just can't do it nowadays- too many STD's- anyone that cares about themselves doesn't have multiple partners. That's just common sense."

"You can dismiss me as an idiot because I don't fall in line with your Puritanical church lady thinking,"

Do you I start addressing you now as 'VD Buffet?' I'm not religious- I don't even go to church. The difference between you and I is that I have common sense.

Posted by: mark at May 24, 2007 12:10 PM

I'm with Jeff on this one. Casual sex is encouraged amongst young women (As a young woman, I can say this) that it has become an obsession. That's ALL girls my age talk about now and they will shun you if you're not receiving as much or more sex as they are. It's insane. They're also the same girls who have their pity parties about being dumped because they're such whores. Now whose fault is that?

I'm not saying a woman shouldn't have any choice with what to do with their bodies, not at all. But why turn around and complain that no man wants her because every guy in town has slept with her? Women who complain about not finding a good man (very common complaint) are also the same women who spread their legs for every guy they meet. Did it ever occur to them that the 'good' men are avoiding them? Probably not.

You can't blame men for having preferences.

Sometimes, it takes people like Jeff to point out the obvious trends that everybody else is too blind to see.

Posted by: Kristy at May 24, 2007 12:10 PM

*points to above post* wow. Did Jeff get a sex change in the past half hour?

Posted by: kc at May 24, 2007 12:17 PM

"I'm truly impressed. Even more so now that I scroll back through this discussion thread and see that you have devoted more than 6 hours of your valuable time composing thoughtful responses to us "unemployed alcoholic losers." Time which, no doubt, you are taking away from the noble persuits you have listed."

Oh, my Nancy Drew, it's now clear that one of your many, many talents is telling time. Once again, since you ARE SO interested in my personal life, I'll give you more of my minute by minute juicy details, cause I know you just can't WAIT. I'm out sick today.

You didn't answer my question: What do YOU do besides think about yourself?

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 12:23 PM

I'm going to speak in the 3rd person to be a bitch:

Kristy is not Jeff.

Kristy is an individual with her own thoughts but happens to agree with Jeff.

Kristy is not a diseased slut and is sick of sluts complaining to her about men not wanting them because they're WHORES.

In fact, Kristy isn't a slut of any kind.

Kristy's face cannot be seen on any of the "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs because she's not on there like 90% of college-aged women are; so I don't blame you for not knowing who I am. But of course, you'd only recognize me by what my vagina looks like, and what kind of a face I make when I throw vodka up.

Kristy is tired of being lumped into the same category as other women because of other women's' promiscuous lifestyle.

I'm sorry it's hard for some of you to accept that.

Posted by: Kristy at May 24, 2007 12:27 PM

People have different attitudes about sex. You should find somebody whose attitude matches yours.

Jeff, if you're going to toss around attempts at insults - like the junior high crack and the assumptions about my boyfriend - a little tip: the essence of humor is truth. People here know my boyfriend, who's simply a great person -- highly ethical, with a great heart, among other things, and whose mind and kind, fair approach to life I have tremendous respect for. And I don't say that about a whole lot of people.

Yes, there are costs to casual sex - as there are costs to myriad things in life. Jeff didn't "point them out" (which you say as if he invented the notion that casual sex has downsides...wow...really? Gee whiz!) Actually, I read Marti Haselton and David Buss' research on casual sex in a scientific journal -- which allowed me to say something concrete about it, based on more than just speculation. And then I put it in my column. I mean, when I wasn't too busy repeating my English classes from junior high.

Here's the bit from my column:

No matter what men might claim about respecting what’s-her-name the morning after (the companion to the female lie, “No, really! I never do this!”), maybe biology really is destiny. Research by evolutionary psychologists Martie Haselton and David Buss indicates that, for men who are players, sex on the first date is likely to be sex on the last date, because they tend to find women uglier and less hot immediately following The Big O. Unfortunately, at the exact moment the guy’s writing the woman off, she’s probably lying in bed dreamily wondering what they’ll name the children.

Accordingly, your problem wasn’t that you skipped the dating and went straight to the sex, but that you had any expectation that sex would lead to dating. Big surprise, in the cold light of day, the guy lost interest in seeing what you look like with your clothes on. Keep in mind, you’re the one who set the tone: “Free sex! For any guy who gets me drunk and beats me at pool!” What was he supposed to say? “Thanks, but I’d rather buy you 20 dinners you barely touch, reshingle your roof, and hear all about your rising sign”?

Again, there are risks and downsides to everything. What people need to do is consider them fully and decide whether it's worth it to take a particular risk.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 12:37 PM

Jeff, as for what I do besides think of myself, I don't like to advertise that stuff. And that's why I didn't blog all of the stuff I'll type in below. But, for example, my proudest moment yesterday was bringing a homeless artist I've been helping $100 for a piece of his work I sold to a lawyer I know. Most recently, I helped him get his certified birth certificate and California non-driver ID so I could help him get a bank account so he could take PayPal to sell his art, which is terrific. And then, when the bank refused to give him an account because he didn't have a credit card, I got on the phone and went up through channels and pushed it through. He told me yesterday he'd gotten a pickup and a camper shell with money from selling his art, and he's no longer living on the streets. And I had a bit to do with that, and that pleases the hell out of me.

Next question?

I may not fit into your anger and resentment-based perfect view of how a woman should behave sexually, but don't start trying to go head to head with me in any area, because I don't have to bet you shit, because I know you'll lose.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 12:44 PM

Kristy is not a diseased slut and is sick of sluts complaining to her about men not wanting them because they're WHORES.

Well, Kristy, where I agree with you in that is in having what Joan Didion calls "the courage of your convictions." She talks about how Jordan Baker in Gatsby knew she was an adulteress and didn't go running for absolution.

Likewise, if you're a libertine, you make your bed and do whatever else in it, and you sleep in it.

But, Kristy, contrary to what the belief in a big imaginary friend in the sky may lead you to believe, you aren't superior to people because you don't have sex very much.

And there are many people who have a lot of sex and aren't "diseased."

Why do you feel so compelled to put people down for choosing to not live by your code? Why not just live how you live? Or is the superiority complex thing a big part of it?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 12:49 PM

Even though the thread seems to now be more about arguing with the jeff person, I still found the article interesting and wanted to comment.
There are a mighty plethora of things both my husband and I have done in our lives that don't really need to be discussed. As long as there are no repercussions that the other would need to face or plan around, much of it's just life in the past. There is such a thing as TMI, and I have never really understood why people feel the need to use a sweetheart as cheap therapy. You feel guilty? Well, then you need to figure out why you feel guilty. Whether the confession is that you had an intimate relation with the entire Canadian hockey league, or that you were a bedwetter until college, I don't see how it's applicable to the person you're involved with at any given time. Unless it's part of important medical information, I don't see why it matters.
People live, have lived, and will continue to live their lives outside of my view. I have no interest in being judge or deity. What others do over the course of years and decades determines who they are, and makes them more interesting. Someone with no past, no opinion, no experience .... that's a sad person. Either that, or it's a baby. Take your pick, but there's no real way to relate to either of them as an equal.

Posted by: Steph at May 24, 2007 12:51 PM

I, for one, am sick with disappointment that I'll never get to see Kristy's face (or vagina) in a Girls Gone Wild video.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 24, 2007 12:55 PM

Thanks, Stef...exactly.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 12:59 PM

"I, for one, am sick with disappointment that I'll never get to see Kristy's face (or vagina) in a Girls Gone Wild video."

Me too!!!

Posted by: mike at May 24, 2007 1:00 PM

First of all, Amy, I like & respect you. I may not be an avid reader, but I have read several of your columns and you offer stellar advice that is modern and down to earth.

Second, I don't feel I am superior to this new lifestyle. I'm going to say I am more repulsed by it. Why? Because there is this thing called stereotyping and girls like me (who reserve themselves) are at the butt end of stereotyping *just* because I am a young female living in today's society. Men my age treat us ALL like whores, look at us like strippers; expecting us to "take it all off" when just going out to a club...and don't *even* get me started with what guys my age feel is the proper etiquette in the bedroom (embedded in their brains by the available porn out there; provided by girls & boys my age).

You could easily tell me, "Don't date men your age" or "choose your men more carefully". But what most don't realize is that now that it's so mainstream, it has changed everyone's attitude towards sex & relationships. I can't go anywhere without this "attitude" being shoved in my face. It's on TV (which I have stopped watching), it's in Women's magazines like Cosmo (No longer subscribe to these ideas), it's on billboards (Beer Advertisements), it's EVERYWHERE! And even worse -I can't get away from it because I have female friends who have given in to that particular lifestyle. I can't get away from it -what do I have to do? Lock myself up in a room? I know that I cannot be the ONLY female who feels this way?

Yes, I may be old fashioned, but that's because it WORKED. I can't live how I would want to because that lifestyle no longer exists -it's NOW a fantasy. So, I refuse to just accept it and conform to this new & "fabulous" lifestyle. IF that makes me "bitter", so be it. But it's not going to shut me up -just like modern females my age refuse to shutup about their numerous "flings" and drama it causes. Trust me, I can't avoid hearing about it.

Posted by: Kristy at May 24, 2007 1:09 PM

"Kristy is not Jeff.

Kristy is an individual with her own thoughts ...

Kristy is not a diseased slut...

In fact, Kristy isn't a slut of any kind.

Kristy's face cannot be seen on any of the "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs because she's not on there like 90% of college-aged women are...

Kristy is tired of being lumped into the same category as other women..."

Kristy! Judging from your personals ad here, it would seem we have a lot in common. In fact, I agree with the first half of each of your fascinating points (see above) and would use them to describe myself (in particular, the not-being-Jeff part)! It would be a shame, then, if you were to assume that I compromise my integrity/worthiness of others' respect because I do, in fact, enjoy casual sex. But since you are a person of such great integrity, self awareness, and insightfulness yourself, I'm guessing you wouldn't assume a nasty little thing like that. ;-) I am also shocked and fascinated about the statistic you cite that 90% of college women participate in GGW videos! I must be hideously remiss in keeping up with my friends' lives if 90% of them had done such a thing without my knowing.

And, Jeff! I'm terribly sorry to hear that you are under the weather. I was sick myself (pesky sinus infection) a few weeks back, and I understand how frustrating it is to sit helplessly at home while wishing you could be productively contributing to the world.
Now, I must apologize for not answering your quesiton. I was not aware it was directed at me, as it was in a post in which you addressed Amy, and answering a question not intended for me would be very rude! Now, I can rightfully acknowledge your thoughtful gesture of inquiring about my interests: I am a college student, and I work part time. In my spare time, I practice the violin, honing my skills so I can lend them to weddings and various other social events. In addition, I volunteer at an animal shelter, which, as a volunteer yourself, you can probably imagine is very rewarding. That leaves me with about 7 or 8 hours a day to sleep and engage in promiscuous sex! All the best, and a speedy recovery to you!

Posted by: sofar at May 24, 2007 1:21 PM

OK - I'll admit, I was harsh. I apologize for offending any of you. In return, Please understand where this anger comes from instead of mocking it. Some things stated may not be "politically correct", but I think that's what's wrong - "we" are so wrapped up around not offending someone that it steers us away from the actual point.

And, Sofar, any statistics that I throw out of my a** are made up & exaggerated. The best use I have for sarcasm is that I can place more emphasis on a point that I'm trying to make...or try to make you understand the level of anger. Some people may not be a fan, but I am ;)

Posted by: Kristy at May 24, 2007 1:33 PM

sofar,

What a very bright and interesting woman you are! Look very carefully Jeff: This is the type of person that would make a spectacular partner...bright, witty, clever, musically inclined, lots of interests, and likes to help people. How in the world would someone like this translate into your view of hideous and diseased slut??? You probably will never get the opportunity to be with someone of such quality who has such a fabulous life, and obviously has so much to give.

I love your posts sofar!

Posted by: mike at May 24, 2007 1:34 PM

"Men my age treat us ALL like whores" - um, like this Jeff guy you are so fond of?

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 24, 2007 1:35 PM

People will assume a lot of things about you based on others' behavior. It's called prejudice. People assume, for example, as Carl Hiassen seemed to, at a dinner, that I'm light in the thinking department because I have big boobs. (I was tempted to note that on the blog item where somebody talked about his wonderful women characters, and then just didn't get around to it.) Or people assume I'm irrational and don't have a serious career because I'm a woman and a lot of women don't. Complaining about other women's behavior isn't going to change anything. The kind of men (or people) I'd be interested in aren't those who make a lot of assumptions about people.

And I don't in my own life. Recently, I thought a friend stood me up for drinks. I e-mailed him several times and didn't hear back from him. (He was visiting in LA for an interview.) I was kind of surprised, because we'd made plans. And then just zero word. Well, I thought about it, and realized I had no reason to believe he is rude, so I figured there must be some explanation, and I'd eventually find out what it was.

Turned out he hadn't brought his laptop and he just showed up at the bar and wondered what had happened to me. And then I just scurried over and we had drinks. No harm, no foul, and a really good time...where somebody else might've gotten all pissy and sent and angry e-mail or left an angry message.

Where there's a lapse of logic in some of these comments above -- or just in the subtext -- is the notion that being sexually free means being ethically lax.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 1:36 PM

"Men my age treat us ALL like whores" - um, like this Jeff guy you are so fond of?

-We're still talking about Jeff? Time to move on & stay with the subject.

Posted by: Kristy at May 24, 2007 1:40 PM

"People will assume a lot of things about you based on others' behavior. It's called prejudice"

~ What causes this prejudice? Stereotypes? I thought we all knew stereotypes stemmed from some element of truth? The "prejudice" I've mentioned can be traced back to the cause -provided by the "Promiscuous Princesses".

I may not be able to change the way things are -but nothing will if you don't speak about such issues.

Posted by: Kristy at May 24, 2007 1:46 PM

"This is the type of person that would make a spectacular partner...bright, witty, clever, musically inclined, lots of interests, and likes to help people"

You just descibed my g/f. Thanks for all the advice, Jethro, and I'll let you know when I need more, but do yourself a favor and don't hold your breath.

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 1:54 PM

"I may not fit into your anger and resentment-based perfect view of how a woman should behave sexually, but don't start trying to go head to head with me in any area, because I don't have to bet you shit, because I know you'll lose."

Ah, isn't that cuuuute? The spunky wittle girl wants to say the loud, funny words too! Once again, as you grow older and wiser and get some actual life experience (other than having sex with your b/f in the backseat of his car) you will begin to learn that a superficially inflated sense of self confidence such as women your age have today is no substitute for actual intelligence.

I'm willing to bet the homeless man you are 'helping' has better life advice than you can give.

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 2:07 PM

WELL, since everyone has gone off into so many other areas other than the subject this thread is about, let's take a refesher. Here is my intial comment on this thread below. It's funny, from the way you all write and ramble I picture all of you with your fingers up your noses, cross-eyed, and drooling and mumbling while staring at the wall!! (HA-AH!)That's TOO funny. So, I know it's hard for you ladies to keep from rambling mindlessly into God knows what subject, but try to actual concentrate on the subject. I know you can do it! Come on girls! Here we go:

Yes, a woman's 'past' is a real problem for women nowadays because of the dramatic cultural changes that have taken place in the last 20 years.

Because of that certain disaster called 'feminism,' women today are not only obnoxious, crude, rude, and dumbed down, they have degenerated sexually as well. Of course you all refer to as 'more choices' or 'more freedoms' and 'empowerment.' In my generation we had a different name for the young women of today: 'Road Whores.'

It makes me shiver when I look at teenage girls or women in their 20's nowadays knowing that statistically most of them have had as many as 17 sexual partners by the time they are 21- and that's on the conservative side. I think of all the myriad of diseases and countless organs that have been inside of her, and oh, the tatoos or 'tramp stamps' just to drive the point even further home- uh, yea real attractive. No thank you, ma'am, I have standards. And yet bizarrely, women today think more highly of themselves than ever, yet we as men are likely to be reminded of a public toilet when we look at today's women. Not exactly marraige material! I haven't met a woman who was marriage material in 15 years.

Just imagine the original feminists- someone such as Susan B. Anthony, and if she were alive today to witness the results of feminism and all of her efforts and other women with integrity and pride just like her- to see the end result was nothing but hideously dumbed whores who have more in common with public toilets than people- she would fall over from a sheer heart attack!

Posted by: jeff at May 24, 2007 2:28 PM

"What a very bright and interesting woman you are!"
Mike, you just made my day! Hell, my week. Unfortunately for me, Jeff has found a woman with these very charms. Fortunately for him, he just got a free lesson on how to be a gentleman from you.

"OK - I'll admit, I was harsh. I apologize for offending any of you. In return, Please understand where this anger comes from instead of mocking it."
Kristy, I apologize if it looked like I pounced on you up there. I was just a bit confused (online discussions can be confusing) about what looked like a very reactionary post, as no one here had posted anything negative regarding those who have decided not to engage in casual sex. But now I get that you were retaliating more against what you've experienced from others rather than us...and this discussion hit a nerve for you.

2 of my best friends are waiting til marriage to have sex. And few things make my blood boil more than when some idiot calls them "prudes" or makes jokes about chastity belts. They have simply decided to engage in sex in a way they will find most satisfying, given their values and beliefs, and are hurting no one.

Likewise, I hate it when someone looks at me like I've sprouted a third head (I already have 2!) when they find out my approach to sex and relationships is, shall we say, colorful. Like my 2 friends, I have decided to engage in sex the way I find most enjoyable, given my values and beliefs, and am hurting no one.

So you can probably sympathise with me when I find posts where the choice to have casual sex is linked to my morality (the use of the word "whore"), health (the use of the word "diseased"), integrity (the use of the word "pathetic"), and desirability ("no man wants her" except for sex). I'm guessing you have received labels that are just as insulting, given your choices, and that's a real shame.

Posted by: sofar at May 24, 2007 2:36 PM

Jeff,

You know, you seem so angry at everybody and are calling everyone names...seems like everyone is ignoring you now, which I should be as well, but...

I bet you're lying about who you are and who you are dating. I have seen guys like you at men's groups: filty mouths, hate women, dirty, unshaven, stink, bitter, broken down, and an inch away from jail. You date women with low self-esteem that you can control easily, and treat them like shit because you cannot date anyone quality. I see your type when I laugh at the AWS site and it makes me laugh and makes me puke because you are all such worthless losers, spouting all of your religion and holier-than-thou morality (Amen brother Jeff). You will never be anything with an attitude like that. You and all of those weirdos are nothing but a joke...little men who can't handle life in the real world, so spew all of your vile BS on faceless message boards between surfing your favorite porn site. You make me sick. You would think that maybe you are just overzealous and too highly opinionated because you are mad at women, but thats not even it--you don't discriminate, you lash out even at other men. You are nothing. Go back under your rock or cave or whatever and continue your lonely and bitter existence. I hope you never have kids, and if you do they live far away.

At least Jethro was a nice, friendly guy who had lots of girlfriends (and miss hathaway!)
You are a pathetic loser.

Just wanted to say, you are a dick.

Posted by: mike at May 24, 2007 2:40 PM

What Mike said.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 24, 2007 3:29 PM

Responding in a general way to Kristy and a few others who've had bad experiences in the contemporary dating scene.

When I (female) posted a very carefully written personal ad on Craig's List, I still got a lot of guys who were only interested in sex. Some of them would pretend to be interested in my mind but would still expect to get laid after 2 dates.

I also have not had very good results picking people up in bars or casual situations, like parties or raves. Workplaces aren't great, either.

If you want to find people who share your values, try frequenting places where those values are consciously taught and practiced as a way of life.

Of course joining a church or whatever will seem like a huge time-waster if all you're looking for is a dating partner. In this case, there are probably specialty dating services around, or if not, you could start one!

Posted by: Red Ree at May 24, 2007 3:53 PM

red Ree,

I inadvertantly found some very interesting places to meet people, that I'm sure would be good to meet men too! My little boy is 6, and since he was about 2 we would go to the playground alot. What a surprise! There are single moms at the playground too! While the kids play it is the perfect opportunity to make new friends. Since most divorced dads have wednesday overnights, anyplace where they would be with their kids is a good place to be if you are looking to meet people! At least you have your children in common...as far as meeting people with similar values maybe it is a start...Other places I found for single parents: swimming pools, Whole Foods, museums, good hills for sledding in the winter, parades...the list goes on. Of course it is a very specific group...I don't hang out at singles places any more!

Posted by: mike at May 24, 2007 4:19 PM

Mike, you sound like a very decent man and I wish you luck in finding the right person for you. But be careful hanging around Whole Paycheck too much--you'll spend more there on imported chevre with sun-dried tomatoes and paraben-free lavendar lotion than on a round of cosmos at a bar. Especially if you go to The corporate headquarters Monster Store where I live. It has an ice rink on the top floor during winter :)

Amy, as I told you over email, I really admire your adherence to your beliefs in the importance of free speech. Despite some very vitriolic, very ugly (and baseless) insults tossed at you, you allow a medium for truly open discussion. I myself would not be so high-minded.

Posted by: Wendy at May 24, 2007 6:16 PM

Okay, I'm back. I was SURE I wouldn't acknowledge our good buddy Jeff again, but here we go...

Jeff, I'll bet I could actually learn something from you. And WHO KNOWS what that something might be. It's not got anything to do with sexual issues, but I'm sure you have valuable, wonderful qualities in an arena with which I have zero experience, like the construction of custom guitars.

That's the wonderful thing about surrounding yourself with responsible people who make conscientious choices...they can teach you things. But, unfortunately, you seem to lump all of the women in the world who don't operate according to YOUR STANDARDS into one big pile. Unless we think and act the way you want us to, we're all sluts, whores, the mothers of bastard babies, etc.

I do not in ANY WAY condone or endorse careless sex...you know, the kind that produces fatherless children and creates desperate circumstances and drains society as a whole. THAT'S WHY I HAVEN'T PRODUCED EVEN ONE CHILD OUT OF WEDLOCK. Nor have I had abortions. Nor have I produced children WITHIN wedlock -- when I was married -- because I wanted to know for a fact that I would be able to raise that child in the kind of two-parent home that produced me.

...But never mind all that. Here's where we differ dramatically. You seem to make ZERO DISTINCTION between responsible, safe, conscientious sexual interaction and the kind that results in unplanned pregnancies, disease, etc. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, JEFF. One can result in very bad things, and the other can...what? What does it do? WHO GETS HURT, when both of the individuals involved act responsibly?

I'm 35 years old. I waited until I moved out of my father's house, and lost my virginity when I was 20. I was NOT a teen mom, NOT a disappointment to my family, NOT a drain on society, AND I'M STILL NOT. But you know what? Now that we've established all that, I'm PLEASED to announce that as an independent adult, I enjoy adult things like sex, and I enjoy them responsibly, and with discrimination and care...but that STILL probably isn't good enough for you, is it? In your opinion, that probably STILL makes me a road whore.

And, for some reason, I'll bet you think I'M pathetic.

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 24, 2007 11:20 PM

Great letter and great discussion. It is nice to see that the "Troll" epithet didn't get slung around with reckless abandon. Adult conversation should be able to bear a wide range of views and attitudes and levels of emotional investment.

If the topic can bear another opinion: Honesty is the best policy. LW should come clean with her husband and deal with the fallout; their relationship will be stronger for having overcome the issue. Lies are always found out and the damage can be horrific.

Posted by: Martin at May 25, 2007 7:41 AM

"We're still talking about Jeff? Time to move on & stay with the subject."

No, what I'm referring to is the fact that you blame other women for men's misguided prejudices and not the men themselves. I am not sure how, exactly, you define the term "promiscuous" - the word itself sounds more like a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou judgment than an accurate term of measurement. How do you in your chaste, infinite wisdom decide where to stick the label, anyway? Number of partners? Within what timeframe? What age does a woman have to be?

Quite frankly, you sound really tiresome and whiny, and I have a hard time believing that the behavior of a few "promiscuous princesses" is really at the root of your problems with men. Even if it was, get off your high horse and stop blaming other women for the poor behavior of a few narrowminded men. If men treat you like crap on dates and don't behave like gentlemen, stop making excuses for them. It's their fault and not the fault of other women who are living their own lives the way they choose and minding their own business.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 25, 2007 8:10 AM

Here's a link to an article (written by a woman no less) that explains perfectly why everyone on this thread is hopelessly dumbed down and why you all feel being a whore with no self respect is such a great idea
http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-7.htm

Posted by: jeff at May 25, 2007 10:06 AM

Disclosures about one’s sexual history should be made according to a modified version of the old “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas”...the mistaken notion that your spouse has the right to know everything about you, and the equally mistaken notion that it’s a good idea. Am I telling you to lie? Like a big shaggy rug.

This is the single best piece of advice I've ever seen from any advice columnist, ever, and the rest of the column is fantastic.

I've never asked a sexual partner anything about her past because I know how to keep my (class of '96 SAM battery) paranoia trapped in its bottle. What's frustrating is when my lack of interest in the 300 spartans that came before becomes construed as antipathy. "Why don't you want to know anything about me? Don't you want to hear about my ex-boyfriend?" Good lord, no.

You should petition the '04 Bush and Kerry presidential campaigns for their e-mailing lists and send this column to everyone on them.

Marvelous work, Amy

Posted by: Steve W at May 25, 2007 10:16 AM

I skimmed the article and found it long on diatribe and short on examples. What was especially weird was how she started off complaining about individuals who put their own desires ahead of the interests of "society" - but then starts trashing on lefty liberals and Karl Marx. I can't stand Marxism either, precisely because it dismisses the individual in favor of collectivism. Well you can't have it both ways!

I noticed Jeff doing the same thing yesterday, after I asked him why he was getting so wound up over the behavior of other people that didn't affect him in any way. In return I got more of that nebulous "we're all part of society" dreck. Now that I see where he goes to do his reading, I can see where the inconsistency comes from.

I'm really beginning to hate the term "society." It is misapplied to all sorts of ills. All kinds of "societal" problems aren't really societal problems at all, they are simply individual problems. Polio is a societal problem. Alcoholism is an individual problem. Wealth is forcibly redistributed from those who earned it to those who didn't, all in the name of the "greater good of society." And now "society" is an excuse for minding other people's business. Sort of like seat belt laws, except you get to say "whore" a lot more often.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 25, 2007 10:29 AM

Jeff,

'Sexual variety' as you call it, creates chaos in a person's life and therefore creates even more psychological and life problems.

Not if a person thrives on chaos. (yeah, man)

I do agree with you on two points

1) No-fault divorce is generally a bad thing. For me, it too-often works to the financial benefit of the screw-up (regardless of gender). My solution would be to end the practice of merging assets in marriage and letting everyone leave with what they brought, or, alternately, the wholesale ending of State recognition of marriage, but that's probably a different discussion.

2) Modern feminism is a caricature of itself. It would be hard for me to go over to pandagon.net, read whatever Amanda Marcotte wrote this morning and feel otherwise. At least Ann Coulter only gave herself rabies when she realized it would make her rich. Marcotte has no such excuse.

However, if you type 'feminists' into the search button on the front page, you'll see that the webmaster understands this problem better than you or I, so this "whatever your women's studies professors tell you" business is more than a little misdirected.

Posted by: Steve W at May 25, 2007 10:51 AM

Well, I looked at the article. Jeff, do you have a brain of your own or do you believe every little scrap of written material that someone presents because it reflects your views? I have been to this site before. The article is from a blogger...you can't turn every piece of blogged material into doctrine. Just because someone has an opinion does not mean it is right...in fact, where are all the facts in this blog??? It is ALL opinion.

Wow, you really changed my outlook...way to prove your point...

Posted by: mike at May 25, 2007 10:57 AM

I am not sure how, exactly, you define the term "promiscuous" - the word itself sounds more like a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou judgment than an accurate term of measurement.

Let me play Devil's advocate here for a moment.

Part of the reason promiscuity is sometimes seen as so much worse in women might have something to do with access. Let me use a food analogy here. Women (even single women) have access to sex on a 24/7/365 basis, much like Americans have access to junk food on a 24/7/365 basis. Most men's relationship to sex might be more structurally similar to that of a Somalian to food: eat while the eating's good. In the context of gluttony, it is easy to see how a fat Somalian is lucky and a fat American is gross.

Of course, this is a gross oversimplification unrelated to Jeff's arguments(?), I'm sure everyone on the planet knows ten male and five female counterexamples from personal life, and this might not be the number one reason for the negative view of "promiscuity" in women, but I still think the appearance of gluttony might factor in more than most women think it does.

For me, personally: if you're a "promiscuous" female friend (or complete stranger), I'm going to care about your promiscuity about as much as I care about your shoes. If you're a sexual partner, for Christ's sake, don't tell me.

Unless it's in the context of talking me into doing something really freaky.

I suppose I should go do some work.

Posted by: Steve W at May 25, 2007 11:31 AM

If you want to stop hating feminism, read the ifeminist website.

Steve, your points are interesting, and they have the ring of truth.

I'm a single woman, close to Amy's age, who shares a lot of her opinions. I'm also not interested in marriage, and like Amy, the whole sex thing has been different for me at different times of my life. I'm 37, for crying out loud - if some guy I dated wanted to grill me about who I was sleeping with in college, his ass would get kicked.

I'm into a lot of things in life right now - training for Ragbrai, career changes, studying for an exam, working, more biking, family, friends ... and have you ever thought about how much time you spend just running errands??? The percentage of my life that sex takes up - between actually doing it and thinking about it - is so miniscule compared to everything else I have going on, I can't even conceive of anyone judging me as a person on the basis of it, let alone something that happened way back before the Ipod was invented.

On the topic of the LW, I think it's a little weird if her guy cares about something that happened that long ago. We are not the same people at 37 that we are at 27 (or 33, even) - those things are accumulated learning experiences for most of us, and nothing more.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 25, 2007 2:47 PM

Like I said last time we were hashing this out, a lot of men have absolutely no idea how many opportunities for sex women really have, and just how selective they are.

The only thing that I can think of which may come close is to think of Mick Jagger, think of all the women he has had the opportunity to have sex with. He probably indulged in about 80 percent of what was offered. Women get those kind of chance everyday, and indulge in probably 5 percent or less. Who is promiscuous in this case?

I get really frustrated with trying to explain this because a lot of guys just don't get it.

I just think they're jealous and wish they had they same unbelievable number of choices that women have.

Posted by: Chrissy at May 25, 2007 5:35 PM

Regarding the ridiculous abundance of sexual opportunities most women have, and the select few we actually take -- hell yes, Chrissy, thank you for that.

Posted by: Daisy Jones at May 25, 2007 6:42 PM

So where is all of this mindless slutdom coming from? What most women in Western society are today are really just the dregs of our society or the Paris Hilton wannabees, the Paris-ites (parasites) of our society, but unfortunately are now the majority. In case you don't know what dregs are, the word is most commonly used for example in the brewing industry. It refers to the sludge of spent yeast and waste sediment that collects at the bottom of the fermenter after the beer is removed. Essentially it is a filthy waste that fouls up beer if left in contact with it for too long. It is messy, sticky and time consuming to get rid of, and it perfectly describes this society's mindless, unaccountable whores like Paris Hilton.

By PARIS-ite I mean exactly what I say, parasites. These type of women give no benefit to society whatsoever, no benefit to their boyfriends, husbands, children, workplace or anyone else for that matter. They leech of society and tax dollars, always taking, never giving. Parasite fits these women well.

Paris Hilton is in emotional distress now, wow that's an original excuse. She's in distress because she may actually have to be punished for what she did. This incident proves American women have no accountability these days for their actions. The minute they actually have to face up to what they have done, these bizarro excuses come up. To men of course it's "Take it like a Man" Of course, this doesn't really need to be said to men since men are all for the most part taking responsibility for their actions.

Female Teachers sexually abusing little children? Why does that happen so often now? Well, it's because these women realize that their "games" no longer work on men their own age. They know that men their own age won't put up with their worthless drama queen psychosis, so they try to go after young impressionable males that they can still lure with the promise of sex. At puberty the children's sex drive easily clouds their judgement, making it very easy for these sexual predators to play their games on these children.

So why children? Well, most (definitely not all) women's minds peak at a mental maturity somewhere around high school age. Arguably this is most likely between the ages of 14-16. Males minds mature a little slower during these years, hence why you always hear that women mature faster than men, which makes sense since they usually enter puberty earlier as well.

What separates men and women however, is that most women's minds don't mature past age 14-16. Essentially they are forever trapped mentally at this age, hence why female sexual predators regress back to this physical age and act as if they are still in high school. Watch a TV show geared towards women, look at magazine headlines, listen to their conversations at work or at home. They are obsessed with the same things that they were obsessed with when they were in high school, nothing has changed one bit.

Men's minds continue to grow and mature, albeit slower than a woman's, it easily surpasses a woman's sometime in the early twenties. Men learn early on that responsibility and hard work are the hallmarks of a successful life. Sure there exist exceptions to this, men that still remain immature, but of course likewise there are some women that do mature into real adults, few as they are.

I have seen with my own eyes as myself and my friends are a decade out of college already that the females are regressing more and more, while the men are becoming more and more mature. It's amazing when some of the sluttier ones I know that are in their early thirties tell me that they are in no rush to settle down right now, but that they plan on having 3-4 kids. Surprising as it is, some of these women were biology majors in college.

Many a wise man has said that led to their own devices and decisions, women would bring down and burn all of society. This is precisely what is happening right now in our days. Gone is the wisdom of our fore-fathers. Gone is any shred of a work ethic and gone is any sense of responsibility.

Posted by: jeff at May 26, 2007 8:31 AM

Here's an hysterical blog I found that perfectly describes the diseased, sickly, mentally ill, creepy, and goofy women of America today that are the laughing stock all around the world.
http://reality2007-endofcivilization.blogspot.com/

Posted by: jeff at May 26, 2007 9:30 AM

Jeff, I really enjoyed that last post - you're SO right that I peaked mentally at the age of 16!! My degree in economics... it's just a phony from one of Boston's top schools of business. 'Cause that's the only way a woman could ever earn a degree after she plateaus two years before finishing high school.

All the women I know who are highly educated and pulling in well over six figures per year... well it's just pity-money. I'm sure this outrages you that companies pay mindless Borg females (oh wait, Borg is giving women too much credit) loads of cash and bennies when they can hardly sharpen a pencil.

Us women have it made, we're fooling all you men...men, the superior species and winners of the battle of evolution. More men like you are needed to make sure we get married at 16 and start popping out kids immediately. You should also push legislation to have tracking devices implanted in all women so that we can't leave our houses and if we eye a man other than our Almighty Husband it releases poison into our blood stream that will bring a most painful death within five minutes. Women used to have zero legal rights - no property, inability to form a contract, the husband went to jail for the wife's crimes, he paid her debt, she couldn't vote, etc. When a man beat his wife it was expected, she wasn't protected b/c, hey, she deserved it! Let's go back to those good old days!

Jeff, seriously, you are completely off your rocker. I don't expose my "tits" for cameras or have 3-ways for coke or cheat on my boyfriend. The women who do do that aren't my friends because I have certain values that wouldn't be compatible with such lifestyles. However, having sex with multiple partners doesn't equate to being a slut. It simply doesn't. I would say that a "slut" is someone who has sex with lots of of people because of low self esteem and s/he thinks that sex is the only way to secure any attention. And after, the attention dissipates immediately leaving that person feeling like shit. Then it's time for another fix.

I don't judge those people as being pariahs. I pity them. They need a shrink. But I know many people who enjoy sex but for whatever reason do not want to cultivate a relationship at this time. They have sex because it's fun and it feels good. This is a distinction you seem unable to make and I feel that it is a vitally important one.

It's true that biologically I should have about 10 kids by now. But guess what? People live longer and healthier lives, a 4-year degree is almost required to support oneself and most people realize the merits of building a small nest egg for several years before having kids. Seeing as how a person needs to save about $650/month for 18 years to pay for their child's future college education, and as college becomes even more vital, it seems irresponsible to have children if you can't support them. Then you switch jobs and you need to readjust.

That brings us up to about age 26. And at this point, a woman should already have been having kids for 14 years (most women start menstruating at 12). Anti-biology? No, evolution just hasn't caught up yet. Get over it. I wonder how you feel about the fact that men have more estrogen in their bodies than ever and this is giving some men the ability to lactate and feed their children. I'll see if I can re-find the link.

So many things have changed that make it idiotic to get married and have kids immediately. In other words, if we all did get married and have kids at 16 we would be a country with unimaginable levels of poverty. We're a developed nation: businesses need educated people. There's money in manual labor but there's a limited demand. People don't live out on a homestead and farm the land like they used to.

Go start a misogynist-polygamist cult and drink some Kool-Aid b/c I don't think you're doing any favors for the plight of all us fucked up, busted, disease-infested, ho-ass women.

Posted by: Gretchen at May 26, 2007 9:54 AM

If Paris Hilton was typical of most women, she would not attract the media attention she does. It's precisely because most women are nothing like her that Paris' latest antics make the front page. The vast majority of women are making productive use of their lives, doing "dull" things like getting an education, getting jobs, having kids, paying the bills. But who wants to read about someone who is just like them? To say that an oddity like Paris Hilton represents most women is to miss the whole point of why she gets so much attention in the first place.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 26, 2007 10:05 AM

I'm curious; would your advice have been different if the husband hadn't specifically said he didn't want to know about her prior love-life?

If people want to be deceived, that's their business. But you seem to be advocating deception even in relationships where the other party would rather have the brutal truth. I can't help but disagree. Dishonesty creates emotional distance between people, and if you're caught being willfully dishonest, even about little things, you'll destroy trust in your relationship.

Posted by: Jake at May 26, 2007 10:34 AM

I explained my reasons in my answer. I give advice for reality not the beautiful fantasy notion of how "honesty" works. That's a commonly held notion that dishonesty creates "emotional distance" between people, if the dishonesty is keeping it a secret that you're actually gay, I'm against that. But, again, what you're curious to know you generally aren't curious to know because knowing is in your best interest. In what way do you think having confirmation (in the guy's mind, in detailed specifics) that his girlfriend was a hussy before she met him will make them emotional closer or be in any way productive for their relationship? He knows who she is -- that's why he said "no details." But, again, curiousity sometimes kills the cat, and takes the marriage along with it, too.

Honesty is so overvalued in American society. And I say that as somebody who has a strong ethical system. I don't lie to people in my life for my own convenience. I do protect them when the truth isn't something productive for them to know. Which doesn't mean I'm not open about who I am. Frankly, I think people wish I would shut up sometimes.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 26, 2007 11:10 AM

And Jeff, I get out a bit (a bit more, I suspect, than you do) and when I was in Italy a few months ago, a woman I became friendly with talked at length about what Italians actually find hilariously perverse in American society: The daddy/daughter chastity balls.

I have a lot of conversations about how Europeans think vis a vis how Americans think because I have many European friends, young and old, and go often to France (I'd be there for the entire month of July, as I usually am, but I'm working day and night on a book right now, so I'll probably be there for the month of September or October instead).

Keep on speculatin', though!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 26, 2007 11:14 AM

And about that site you linked to, while I've railed against paternity fraud and other injustice to men in my column, the stuff posted there makes a clear statement:

"I went into a relationship with my head up my ass, hoped it would turn out okay, and when the woman showed herself to be the ethics-free psycho she always was, I began a lifelong hissyfit vendetta against womankind."

Did I leave anything out?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 26, 2007 11:18 AM

Golly. I just logged on and started reading, but had to stop because the long and tedious posts from poor sad little Jeff were just too creepy and stomach-turning. I mean, one knows that these woman-hating blokes are out there and it's funny, they seem to surface in just about every newsgroup, but wow. This one is sadder than most. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say weaned early and still really pissed off about having that tit yanked out of his mouth. So all women will pay, forever. And yes I'm joking but really, something sad must have happened to him to make him so darn cranky. Good thing (because of course I believe ever word of his interminable posts as gospel) he has a gorgeous birginal and no fun in bed girlfried to make him happy, cuz ain't no way homeboy is ever getting laid with that attitude. Even with his lush head of hair and resemblance to (laughing my ass off) MacGyver. Richard Dean Anderson!!!!! Does it get any better!?!??!

Posted by: Anathema at May 26, 2007 11:22 AM

Golly. I just logged on and started reading, but had to stop because the long and tedious posts from poor sad little Jeff were just too creepy and stomach-turning. I mean, one knows that these woman-hating blokes are out there and it's funny, they seem to surface in just about every newsgroup, but wow. This one is sadder than most. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say weaned early and still really pissed off about having that tit yanked out of his mouth. So all women will pay, forever. And yes I'm joking but really, something sad must have happened to him to make him so darn cranky. Good thing (because of course I believe ever word of his interminable posts as gospel) he has a gorgeous virginal and no fun in bed girlfriend to make him happy, cuz ain't no way homeboy is ever getting laid with that attitude. Even with his lush head of hair and resemblance to (laughing my ass off) MacGyver. Richard Dean Anderson!!!!! Does it get any better!?!??!

Posted by: Anathema at May 26, 2007 11:23 AM

Perfectly put!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 26, 2007 11:23 AM

Nice quote from the woman haters Amy. But really, you have to pity them. They hate all women, but they're far too icky for self-respecting "normal" homos to have anything to do with. So it's either enforced celibacy or I guess they can start their own homoerotic meshback girl-hater cult. Drinkin' Jack Daniels and jerking each other off to the Rush Limbaugh show. Not pretty to picture but who are we to question the fetishes of others. At least it takes them out of the dating pool for us regular sluts & perverts.

Posted by: Anathema at May 26, 2007 11:28 AM

"I'm gonna go out on a limb and say weaned early and still really pissed off about having that tit yanked out of his mouth. So all women will pay, forever."

Jesus that's funny. Coffee: snork through nose and onto keyboard.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 26, 2007 1:07 PM

WOW! Thank you ALL for reinforcing everything I have said beyond my wildest expectations! It's similar to studying animals in the wild. Not one of you has any correspoding intelligence to the world around you, and if all of you future cat herders are any determination to where I should invest, it's clearly in vibrator futures! (ha)

Posted by: jeff at May 27, 2007 10:59 AM

"I don't think you're doing any favors for the plight of all us fucked up, busted, disease-infested, ho-ass women."

Don't be so hard on yourself- God knows this is going to be one of the few times in your pathetic life you'll ever be exposed to someone intelligent!

Posted by: jeff at May 27, 2007 11:02 AM

Perhaps, but that person isn't you.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 27, 2007 11:09 AM

"God knows this is going to be one of the few times in your pathetic life you'll ever be exposed to someone intelligent!"

...So intelligent that that is the best come-back you have for that last sarcastic line. You do understand what "sarcastic" means, yes? The implication was that YOU feel such notions towards all of woman kind. I am no a sociopath and therefore do not hold such atrocious ideas. It is clear now that your issue isn't merely with women, but lies much more deeply than most of us imagined, Jeff. You are a narcissist who also happens to be a misogynist. Killer combo.

My life is far from pathetic, and God knows I am surrounded by a plethora of intelligent persons on a daily basis. But thanks, anyway, for drawing gross assumptions about a person whom you will never meet.

And no need to worry, I'm not that hard on myself - actually, I feel I'm rather attractive and possess many lovely qualities. Even if you don't prefer a natural blonde with a rock hard ass (because I'm pretty sure you'd rather enjoy my BOYFRIEND's rock hard ass) there is still plenty to appreciate.

P.S you might want to block MTV - news flash, "Real World" is hardly representative of what the real world and the people in it are like. If you're so intelligent how can you draw such conclusions and believe that Girls Gone Wild is indicative of how most women act?

At any rate, great segue from the letter.

Posted by: Gretchen at May 27, 2007 1:36 PM

Actually, for me, the upside of this yahoo's comments is seeing the comments in response...like Gretchen's and others' above.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 27, 2007 1:43 PM

It's similar to studying animals in the wild. Not one of you has any correspoding intelligence to the world around you, and if all of you future cat herders are any determination to where I should invest, it's clearly in vibrator futures!

This sounds like a Villain monologue in a James Bond parody at the 4-H Middle School talent show.

And what's with this "corresponding intelligence to the world around you" bit? Jeff's diatribes give me a mental picture of a guy born in solitary who learned about culture from the sexual equivalent of "Reefer Madness" videos.

Jeff, honestly, this stuff's at least as weird as anything written by the feminist caricatures you referred to earlier.

Posted by: Steve W at May 27, 2007 1:44 PM

Chrissy said:

Like I said last time we were hashing this out, a lot of men have absolutely no idea how many opportunities for sex women really have, and just how selective they are.

If this was directed to my gluttony theory, then I fully believe everything you said to be true, but it doesn't change the fact that a "promiscuous" woman is more likely to be seen as a glutton than a "promiscuous" man, even though that's probably an unfair double-standard.

I'm actually really curious how the issue of "promiscuity" plays out in gay and lesbian culture. I once had a gay roommate who simplified things by consoling a friend who felt like she was a "slut" (I don't remember why/wasn't really listening):

"We're a bunch of dudes that like dudes. F it, we're all sluts, so we really can't criticize each other for that. Being a slut's not such a bad thing."

I don't know if that's the prevailing gay sentiment or light-hearted humor from a self-described "Gay slut." I'm also not sure how (or if) it fits in to the larger question of "promiscuity" as a perceived excess of gluttony (instead of lust), but those questions might be worth considering.

Posted by: Steve W at May 27, 2007 2:21 PM

Amy - this is kinda fun...like throwing mud at the boys with cooties in kindergarten.

Posted by: Gretchen at May 27, 2007 2:38 PM

"If this was directed to my gluttony theory, then I fully believe everything you said to be true, but it doesn't change the fact that a "promiscuous" woman is more likely to be seen as a glutton than a "promiscuous" man, even though that's probably an unfair double-standard."

Well, if you only had the opportunity to eat three cream-filled donuts per year, everyone would agree that you should take advantage of all three opportunities. Enjoy them while you can! If you had the opportunity to enjoy three per day, people would tell you to definitely NOT take all you can. Hence, we have a double-standard where men are always trying to score and women are always trying to guard the net. Your gluttony theory makes more and more sense all the time.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 28, 2007 5:27 AM

There's a lot of irrational god belief behind this (and all belief, without evidence, in god, is irrational)...leading to notions by the Church that sex is sinful. This notion actually started out with economics – the daddies of girls who got around didn’t want to have to pay for the babies. Answer: Premarital sex is a sin! A sin? What’s a sin? How silly. And if there were a god, do you think it’s likely god would be so immature and ego-driven that he’d need you to sit around in church on Sunday saying, “You’re soooo kewl, god, you’re sooo kewl!”…instead of running around enjoying nature and fucking yourself silly?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 28, 2007 6:44 AM

Comment Test

Posted by: Gregg Sutter at May 28, 2007 3:54 PM

"Lying your ass off is what you do because you love the guy and don't want him to be tortured."

The interesting thing about this advice is not that it's correct (which it is), but that it's exactly what Dr. Laura Schlessinger would say (though she might put it a bit differently). Agreement between Amy and Dr. Laura probably isn't seen much more often than Halley's Comet.

Posted by: Rex Little at May 29, 2007 3:43 AM

Actually, believe it or not, that's not true. I'm just not a fundie -- in fact, see above, I think god-belief is ridiculous -- but when it comes to obligations to kids you've brought into the world, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 29, 2007 4:17 AM

I'm sorry these comments are belated, but I just started surfing the comments for this post. And some of Jeff's pseudo-psychology needs to be corrected.

Jeff said: "As you will find discussing the issue with any mental health practioners, promiscuity is invariably the result of develomental problems or any number of other psychological disorders."

Actually, its COMPULSIVE promiscuity that is a symptom of disorders. That is, people who DON'T think about the consequences of sex with multiple partners. The object under discussion here is those that DO think these things through. In your own words, stay on topic, please.

Jeff said: "You know statistically 94% of people who seek psych counseling are WOMEN."

That is actually not what I've learned in my psychology classes. Please cite the source for this statistic. Women do seek counseling more often (usually around 60% or so), but it is assumed that is because there is a social stigma attached to men requiring mental health examinations.


Jeff says: "I haven't met a woman who was marriage material in 15 years."
But Jeff also says: "I already have a girlfriend with those qualities, and I'm also willing to bet she is approxiamately 1000 times more attractive than you, including her personality."

But you don't intend to marry the poor girl. Doesn't that violate your own code of ethics? The fact that you are dating this girl and leading her on (perhaps sleeping with her as well), but you don't intend to commit to her. Thus, she's given you her body, and committed physically and emotionally to you, but you don't plan to marry her and thus leave her sullied? I don't understand - since you feel so free to tell us all about yourself, please explain to me the dynamics of your relationship.

Also, Jeff, I've noticed that you get upset when you believe people go "off-topic". I would ask that you refrain from making comments about the lack of contributions women make to society and about the fact that "men have hobbies", which makes them superior, as these comments have nothing to do with the topic of women having sex with multiple partners throughout the course of their lives, and the repercussions this may have on future relationships.

A final comment: women have hobbies, too. Or have you never seen magazines on knitting or quilting or cooking or Good Housekeeping or etcetera? I don't quite understand your argument, especially since women often read the same magazines that you do. But excuse me, as this is Off Topic, which is forbidden in the World of Jeff.

-CD

Posted by: CornerDemon at May 29, 2007 12:23 PM

Fantastic. Much appreciated. And you make a very good point -- one my friend Stanton Peele often makes -- there's a difference between drug use and drug abuse. And the same goes for sex. Enjoying sex with a variety of people and having a compulsion are two entirely different things.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 29, 2007 12:56 PM

"Actually, its COMPULSIVE promiscuity that is a symptom of disorders. That is, people who DON'T think about the consequences of sex with multiple partners"

Oh, I see, the people who DO think about the horrendous consequesces of their promiscuity such as AIDS, Herpes, and a chaotic life bursting with problems as a result of their promiscuity, and do it anyway, are the 'well-adjusted' ones. (HA) That's the most retarded statement on this thread yet, and that's saying a lot!!

Where do you study psychology? In one of those 'schools' next to the tanning salons in a strip mall?

"That is actually not what I've learned in my psychology classes. Please cite the source for this statistic. Women do seek counseling more often (usually around 60% or so), but it is assumed that is because there is a social stigma attached to men requiring mental health examinations."

You are not going to find that information on the internet because it would un-PC to state the facts about the vast difference between men and women. The 60% is pure propaganda. The 94% is actually a quote from John Gray when he was in an interview. But it doesn't matter, you'll just attack the source anyway- typical female nonsense. I've worked next door to a psychiatrist's office for 2 years and can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that at least 94% of the people who walk in there are women. I see it with my own two eyes everyday. And the 'stigma' nonsense is more feminist propaganda. Most men do not seek counseling because they DO NOT NEED IT.

You'll learn all of this once you get out into the real world.

Posted by: jeff at May 29, 2007 1:07 PM

Database Test

Posted by: Gregg Sutter at May 29, 2007 1:29 PM

Didn't anyone ever tell you that anecdotal evidence is not proof?

As a 22 year old virgin, I have absolutely no issue with other women having as much sex as they desire. It's a choice I've made, not for religion's sake, but because I haven't met anyone I liked enough yet. I approach it as a "to each their own" situation. And I can also tell you that the men in my acquaintance are far more obsessed with sex than the women. But then again, I guess that's anecdotal as well.

Posted by: Katie at May 29, 2007 1:45 PM

"... anecdotal evidence is not proof.."

Why, because you say so? Once you get out into the real world you'll begin to realize that survival is the most important aspect of your life- and I'm not just talking about basics such as food and shelter- but the survival of your whole being, and much of this revolves on direct observation.

When you enter the real world, the mental masturbation of your femarroid college professors will never even enter your mind.

Posted by: jeff at May 29, 2007 2:08 PM

You accuse us women of not being able to correctly use logic, when you are oblivious to its basic tenets. And as for being in the real world, I am a completely self-supporting person who works two jobs and is currently putting herself through school. Or did I mistake the very real world I live in for the fairy land which you currently inhabit? As a fluffy headed little girl, you'll have to forgive my confusion. And as I am completely at peace with who I am as a person, I can only wish the same for you someday.

Posted by: Katie at May 29, 2007 2:17 PM

"And as for being in the real world, I am a completely self-supporting.."

Ha, right. Rule 1: If you have a vagina, everything is free and a handout through goverment 'programs' that real people like me have to pay for. Me and every other tax payer is paying your rent, so go tell your arrogant BS to someone stupid.

"..and is currently putting herself through school"

And let me guess.. a liberal arts degree. That and 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee in the real world. I live in a huge university town and meet hopelessly brainwashed women like you everyday. You'll find very soon that an inflated feminist-based sense of self-confidence and all of your stupid opinions get you nowhere in the real world. You'll get out into the real world and see that it is full of women ALL EXACTLY LIKE YOU and you will become even more deeply confused and demoralized, then just go into permanent hunt for a sucker with a house and a good income who you'll put on a good act for, for a few years and then take his house and children, and then.. HA HA HA.. call yourself INDEPENDANT. That's hysterical.

BTW, FU.

Posted by: jeff at May 29, 2007 3:12 PM

Men grow up by fucking around with many types of women, women grow up by fucking around with men they admire (so by default they fuck less people than men). I think your problem jeff is that in the real world setting you would be scared of a beautiful woman. Women are very intimidating because they are smart and beautiful by nature. Women are as smart as men, but most men are not as physically or sexually attractive as most women. To answer the 'Left' view on sexuality of women, the truth is most women do not like participating in promiscuity. To answer the 'Right' view on sexuality of women, the truth is most women do not like having only one sexual partner in their lifetime. So my personal view on women is that 1) They find images of other women more appealing than images of men 2)They want to be fucked alot, but by men whom they admire 3)They dont want to have alot of partners but they do have plenty desire to experience more than one man. They want men with status, which a religious man usually only gets by enforcing a certain religious view. Seeing alot of the ugly Muslim fundies, I realize that they couldnt get the fine honeys they get if they lived in a secular society.

And jeff, being with upper middle class women attending university will give you the mistaken belief that all women are coddled and hand fed. Go spend some time with working class women, and your view on women will be changed.

Posted by: PurplePen at May 29, 2007 3:36 PM

jeff hates girls-girls are yucky! nyah nyah nyah...

So anyways, back to the topic of discussion.

Steve & Pirate Jo, I like the gluttony theory too. It's more to the point than what I was trying to say. It would be interesting to see what women would normally do, if they get past the brainwashing of religion and society in general - probably have quite a few more lovers in their lifetime, but know that they have to be extremely discrete about it to avoid being judged. And of course, never tell their current boyfriend anything about their sex history.

Posted by: Chrissy at May 29, 2007 3:54 PM

"I think your problem jeff is that in the real world setting you would be scared of a beautiful woman. Women are very intimidating because they are smart and beautiful by nature"

Hah! That's hysterical. Women are 'smart and beautiful by nature'- you mean like Rosie O'Donnell? Or actual physically attractive women are just SO intelligent automatically? What planet are you from? Let's see.. all the women that American women are obsessed with- Hilton, Spears, Lohan, Simpson, etc., all dumb as a bag of bricks.

Those type of women are the EASIEST. Trust me, I'm a guy.. and all it takes is.. (drum roll) ALCOHOL.. to turn what are ironically typically the most beautiful women into slobbering whores who have been penetrated by so many men that demeaning sexual acts are required to actually 'get them off.'

"Women are as smart as men, but most men are not as physically or sexually attractive as most women."

Women could quite possibly be as 'intelligent' as men, but this always becomes fuzzy because there are so many types of 'intelligence.' I've met people with I.Q.'s of 140 who make horrible life decisions- so their intelligence becomes obsolete. Most women do no choose a hard line academic profession simply because they have no interest because women are lazy by nature. Men on the other hand have invented and built everything and always will and the 'accomplishments' of women look like a speck of fecal matter on the sidewalk in comparison.

BUT.. women ARE smarter than men in some ways.. as in the areas of manipulation, deceit, fraud, backstabbing, extortion, etc.. all of the most dispicable and lowest states of humanity.

"So my personal view on women is that 1) They find images of other women more appealing than images of men"

Hah. You do, dykey, not normal women.


"2)They want to be fucked alot,"

Evidence of White Trash Exhibit A.

"but by men whom they admire"

Translation: Any shcmuck with a house or large enough bank account- doesn't matter if he's a sleaze bag used car salesman or any other variety of trash with money, cause these are generally the only guys dumb enough to fall for the average American female- as long as he has a house you can scam him for. 90% of all women marry 'up' and this is a very, very clear indication that a woman's defintion of 'love' has absolutely nothing to do with what the word really means. Women see marriage or relationships as a business proposition- like a prostitute, only smarter.

Let me bring you up to speed- this isn't 1993- this is 2007- American women are now the gas-guzzling, oil-leaking, over-sized (literally- ha!) high-maintenance 1974 Chevy Impala nobody wants.

Horrible attitude, obnoxious, unaccountable, half-ass mothers at best, half-ass wives at best, drunk on their artificial sense of self-confidence and entitlement, zonked out and mentally unstable on psych medication that actually CAUSES mental illness, obese, venerally diseased (1 in 4 American women now have Herpes) and completely boring.. overly critical and just plain WEIRD.

It's sad when you see these commercials on TV aimed at women- the only way women today can feel good about themselves is to see images of men being demeaned and called stupid by women. I rarely ever see a commercial that makes women feel good about themselves by actually depicting a real life woman who actually does something productive or truly admirable.. because there aren't any such women.

Posted by: jeff at May 29, 2007 4:48 PM

I find it particularly intriguing that you would insinuate such negative and completely illegitimate claims about a person you've never met. As for myself, I've never accepted public assistance. I'm currently an accounting major going for a combined bachelors and masters. Is that a worthless liberal arts degree? Last time I checked, it was pretty lucrative.

From what I've gathered, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If a woman does have sex, she's a whore. If she doesn't, well by golly she will eventually and then she'll be a whore. But not before sinking her claws into some poor unsuspecting man. So who does that make the more intelligent sex, if your argument is to be believed?

And as far as men being responsible for the discoveries throughout history, it would help if men hadn't so completely quashed attempts at female literacy. It helps that women weren't allowed into universities until about 100 years ago. And even then it was grudgingly. You can't refuse to educate half the population for the majority of history then cry foul when they aren't coming up with as many nifty discoveries.

Posted by: Katie at May 29, 2007 5:06 PM

How about a woman who saves new borns' lives for a living - namely a NICU docor who is in my family and is a woman? She works long hours but manages to maintain a beautiful garden and lots of time with her husband...this weekend they will be cycling in a Habitat for Humanity fundraiser. I suppose she shouldn't be a doctor because...? And she shouldn't help raise money for low-income families because (low income... there's a big problem among this socio-econ class. Funny how men will lure a woman with prospect of a future of love, marry them, knock them up then leave. Child support? Huh?? It perpetuates the problem. I suppose you blame these women? The men aren't at fault for being cowardly, uneducated whores with no sense of duty to raise a child he helped create? I already know your answer! It's the woman's fault for being alive in the first place! If she just didn't let her little egg-self get fertilzed that would solve the problems of the world!! It's a shame that unfertilized eggs can't think rationally and predict the future!)

Your generalizations are just so absurd. You are trying to argue with what you claim is "logic" when in fact you expel lose language that lacks coherence and draws assumptions about all areas of life. It is but simply an emotion-driven diatribe with quite a few grammatical errors. I guess it happens to the best of us. Grammar fuck-ups, not hate-monologues.

Maybe you've had some bad experiences with women but now I'm starting to wonder where you're finding these women you spout off about. Seriously. You must be conducting analysis of the Modern American Woman using a sample size of about 20 and the women are all at your local county jail or on a beach for MTV's Spring Break.

You speak of the "Real World" as if it is some mysterious, untouchable thing that is completely abstract to women. I think you hate your penis - you hate it because you find it to be disadvantageous for some illogical reason. Men still make more than women, the gender/pay gap is alive and well. And in case you aren't informed: to calculate a pay gap you hold ALL else constant, including but no limited to: age, hours worked, location, credentials, experience, color, etc.

Posted by: Gretchen at May 29, 2007 5:36 PM

When dogs bark at you guys, do you bark back? Jeez.

Posted by: Allison at May 29, 2007 5:57 PM

I think jeff is the president of the Little Rascals He-man Woman Haters Club.

Why do you even bother responding to him? (unless of course it's to provoke him so that he says more funny stuff!)

Posted by: Chrissy at May 30, 2007 6:04 AM

"Horrible attitude, obnoxious, unaccountable, half-ass mothers at best, half-ass wives at best, drunk on their artificial sense of self-confidence and entitlement, zonked out and mentally unstable on psych medication that actually CAUSES mental illness, obese, venerally diseased (1 in 4 American women now have Herpes) and completely boring.. overly critical and just plain WEIRD."


Oh my. Who has a horrible attitude, is obnoxious (not to mention overly-critical and just plain WEIRD), and drunk on their artificial sense of self-confidence and entitlement? Why, it's JEFF! Please, entertain us some more with your witty insights and absolute knowledge of the human female psyche. We're waiting with bated breath, Spanky. Ready? Set? GO!



(sorry, Chrissy, I couldn't resist!)

Posted by: Flynne at May 30, 2007 12:37 PM

This is one of the few times where lying is permitted....that goes for all religions...and, no, you will not go to hell.....in fact, you will save the other person from going through it.

Posted by: Rob at May 30, 2007 8:24 PM

"Child support? Huh?? It perpetuates the problem. I suppose you blame these women? The men aren't at fault for being cowardly, uneducated whores with no sense of duty to raise a child he helped create? I already know your answer! It's the woman's fault for being alive in the first place!"

Isn't it amazing that you are in fact a woman and of course, one would expect that you would at least be aware of what is even going on in American society and the legal system today in regards to family and child rearing.. but even in this area you have no corresponding intelligence to the world in which you live in. Sometimes I sincerely believe that the average dog is more intelligent that the average American female.

American women and the legal system through politicians, including the feminist lesbian organizations such as NOW have effectively bulldozed men/fathers OUT of the home. Women in the U.S. 'feel' in their psychotic, single digit I.Q. minds that the word 'father' is the same word as 'abusive.' And through a myriad of government handouts and C/S from the father who is shoved out through the standard phony charge of 'abuse,' their mental illness is supported financially. There are 26,000 books on single motherhood at Amazon.com.
http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-7977917-3992945?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=single+mother&Go.x=6&Go.y=8
This is the most obvious indication that this has all been one big 'fashion' trend and that the 'abusive' father is an urban myth. If the number of claims of abuse were based on reality, there would have to be the flashing lights of cop cars on every street corner everyday, all day long. This is sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, SICK! Men want to be part of the family- so, by the way, to then have the actual nerve to blame all this on men, why don't you GO BACK TO HELL? Go Fuck yourself, P.O.S.

Posted by: jeff at May 31, 2007 7:35 AM

"It helps that women weren't allowed into universities until about 100 years ago. And even then it was grudgingly."

And exactly how have women contributed to the world of science in the last 100 years? Barely a belch. Proof that women simply have no interest in anything outside of abortions and extorting houses and bank accounts from men through perverting divorce laws.


"You can't refuse to educate half the population for the majority of history then cry foul when they aren't coming up with as many nifty discoveries"

Again, an example of how the female mind has no corresponding intelligence to the world in which it exists. 'Nifty' discoveries?!? You mean the nifty discoveries that compose the entirety of your existence right down to how you get your food, have shelter, transportation, a phone, electricity, plumbing, on and on and on and on and on? You mean those 'nifty' discoveries? HA HA-*NEWSFLASH* If it were not for men, you and every other woman would be nothing but lesbians living in CAVES. THOUSANDS of years could go by and virtually NOTHING would happen.

In addition, a university education does not guarantee an inventive mind. Men are creative and inventive and women cannot even comprehend this process. A woman's idea of creativity is to 'decorate.'

If you do not like this, tough- it's not the fault of men you're so worthless- blame mother nature.

Posted by: jeff at May 31, 2007 9:10 AM

Hey Jeff,

Go back to your AmericanWomenSuck.com site. Why are you wasting your time here? Is it so much fun to make damn sure that everyone on this site (and probably some other folks) think you are a complete moron. All of this ranting is falling on deaf ears! Nobody is listening to you! You look like a fool and we are all making fun of you!

Sit and spin Jeff. That is all you will ever do--sit and spin and spit out all of this vile hatred toward women. Do something about it instead. Become an activist. Start a blog.

It would be easy to become like you. I can see that. As men alot of us are struggling--I am prepping myself for yet another court battle--this time my ex is saying she is going to move away with my 6-year-old little boy. I could easily become jaded and bitter. Instead, I am doing research on the statutes, looking at decisions, and getting a game plan together. I may lose. He may be moved 1000 miles away. It will break my heart. But I will not hate a gender simply because of my problems.

This topic has really gotten way off course. I would suggest that we all ignore Mr. Jeff. Writing back just revs this guy up. There has got to be another good thread to post some good comments on here.

Posted by: Mike at May 31, 2007 9:55 AM

Mike, I'm glad to hear that you are keeping a positive attitude. There are plenty of nice women in the world, and this way you won't miss out on enjoying their company by being bitter and angry.

I have enough female friends who are bitter and angry at men, and I tell them they are missing out on the nice guys.

Posted by: Chrissy at May 31, 2007 11:32 AM

Thanks, Mike. In between the replies to Jeff's idiotic and utterly irrational crap, there are very smart, interesting people posting here. Imagine if the discussion didn't have to center around debating a guy who needs some serious psychological help. (That would be you, Jeff.)

P.S. If you're going to be rude enough to call somebody a "piece of shit" because they don't agree with you, calling them a P.O.S. doesn't make it any less rude.

And a hint: "He who angers me conquers me." --Hal Matthews

Furthermore, a guy who quotes John Gray as a great wise man of psychology...please.

For the record, I have a liberal arts degree but one of the women I really respect through my net travels is Wendy McElroy. She has no degree at all. It really isn't your degree that matters in the least -- if you even have a degree. I may have mentioned this in this ridiculously long thread, but I considered getting a Masters in therapy, but Albert Ellis himself told me I knew what I needed to know and it would be a waste of time. Furthermor, nobody's ever supported me but me, save for my parents, when I was a minor, and I don't intend for that to change. I'm in a relationship because I love my boyfriend to pieces, and can't think of a person I'd rather spend a few hours with. Period. If that changes, we'll break up.

At the moment, I'm at the Human Behavior & Evolution Conference at William And Mary (on my own dime) to hear various studies presented by anthropologist, ethologists, and evolutionary psychologists from around the world -- and criticized and talked about by those in attendance. (If your methodology isn't solid, you're going to get fucked up the ass in post-presentation discussion here.) My column is actually very data-based, when applicable, unlike the tripe "Doctor" John Gray, who has a degree from some mail-order university, puts out.

Stay tuned for new work from the conference to be posted on my blog. UCSB's Steven Gaulin spotted me this morning and ran over to tell me that he (and, I believe, his grad student) just came up with a new finding on waist-to-hip ratio (men's preference for women with an hourglass figure) that he'lll be presenting on Friday morning. That's originally work by Dev Singh of U Texas, whom I just adore, and had breakfast with, along with a few others, and who did the first work, identifying the male preference for a high waist-to-hip ratio (across 34 or 37 cultures, can't remember which). That means it's "culturally invariant," meaning it isn't caused by watching too much TV or reading magazines, for example, since people in cultures without TV have that same preference.

What this tells me is what I tell women who read my column: If you want to attract men, wear an outfit that has a waist. And if you don't have a great waistline, affect one, like Joan Crawford did. (She had a very boyish body, but wore big sleeves to give the impression of a nipped-in waist.)

Jeff is a jerk, and a troll, and very convinced of his own genius (a fan club of one) and I think everybody here feels at least a little sorry for him, while wishing most passionately, he'd go the fuck away.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 31, 2007 11:56 AM

"I could easily become jaded and bitter. Instead, I am doing research on the statutes, looking at decisions, and getting a game plan together. I may lose. He may be moved 1000 miles away. It will break my heart. But I will not hate a gender simply because of my problems."

"There are plenty of nice women in the world, and this way you won't miss out on enjoying their company by being bitter and angry."

As usual, neither one of you 'gets it.' This is not as simple as some little individual character issue of just certain people. This is a cultural, political and legal issue. All three perpetuate each other and none of the areas will be resolved until all three are addressed and drastically changed. The hate from the feminists organizations that have created these laws and mainstream acceptance of all of this is where you need to point the finger of bigotry. But I will say this, the silence of the average woman is deafening. Their silence is acceptance of the status quo.

And Mike, you are only beginning to enter the nightmare world of 'anti-family' court, so afterwards when you know what you are talking about, then you will be able to speak intelligently about these issues.

You are still in the naive stage wherein you still believe that all the world operates on the basis of right and wrong. When you go to court over your daughter, you'll discover that as a man and a father, you have less rights than someone accused of murder. They are going to treat you like a piece of trash.

Play time is over for you, buddy! HA! Get back to me when you know what you're talking about, idiot.

Posted by: jeff at May 31, 2007 12:02 PM

"My column is actually very data-based, when applicable,"

That is certainly extremely dubious at best, but the real question is: Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Or is that going to be sometime in the future? Like most female writers, unfortunately all of your emphasis is on presentation and decorum with little or no substance or nothing truly original- which begs the question.. then why even bother writing anything at all? It's the price you pay when you put the cart in front of the horse.

"unlike the tripe "Doctor" John Gray, who has a degree from some mail-order university, puts out."

(snicker) OK- whatever- I don't even care. I quoted him as saying that 94% of people that seek counseling are females and then you pretend that he's my idol or something.. whatever, I don't even care about John Gray & besides, anyone in the psych field will verify that as well. But I will say this- he's sold millions of books and got rich and you haven't done CRAP.

Posted by: jeff at May 31, 2007 3:25 PM

That is certainly extremely dubious at best, but the real question is: Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Or is that going to be sometime in the future? Like most female writers, unfortunately all of your emphasis is on presentation and decorum with little or no substance or nothing truly original- which begs the question.. then why even bother writing anything at all? It's the price you pay when you put the cart in front of the horse.

Jeff, I'm really sorry for you -- that you can only feel like a man if you diminish other people with statements that have no basis in reality.

Why do you bother posting here? Can't you try some other way to feel less like a tiny loser?

You're rude, irrational, and constantly make statements that have little basis in reality. Shoo. I'm sorry you can't get fucked, or got fucked over instead of getting fucked, but you might try taking personal responsibility for your life instead of raging like an incoherent eight-year-old here, and totally bringing down what could be an intelligent discussion.

You're what's known as a troll -- a guy whose life is so pathetic he needs to be the center of attention on a website, and can only do so by being rude and idiotic and claiming his rudeness and idiocy is gospel, and everyone else is a drooling moron.

You're pathetic. Please leave.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 31, 2007 3:53 PM

One more thing: Because somebody is popular doesn't mean they're good. I'm now in over 100 papers and I'm working very hard on a book my agent's taking to publishers in a few weeks. I could be in many more papers if I wrote less controversial and less funny stuff. I'm not willing to compromise, because my main motivation in life isn't being rich and famous -- as much as I do value the power of money. FYI, I'm not rich, but I'm very comfortable, and I'm ethical in how I pay my assistant, and when I finish my column every week, I'm usually satisfied with the quality of my writing and the research that went into the column. If I meet my standards I'm happy. FYI, If money were my main motivator, I'd write advertising or sitcoms.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 31, 2007 4:04 PM

This is hysterical:

"I'm now in over 100 papers"

"Because somebody is popular doesn't mean they're good."

"I'm sorry you can't get fucked, or got fucked over instead of getting fucked,"

"(I) only feel like a (wo)man if (I) diminish other people with statements that have no basis in reality. Can't (I) try some other way to feel less like a tiny loser?"

The way you conceptually contradict yourself almost immediately is straight out of the George W. Bush foot-in-mouth/double-speak technique. This always indicates an almost non-existent level of reading comprehension as well.

Explain to all of us again exactly how you got a job as a columnist. It's clear that it wasn't for your writing ability or intelligence.

Give someone a little 'favor'... hmmm?

Posted by: jeff at June 1, 2007 7:01 AM

I'm now in 100 papers means I earn a living doing what I do.

I don't have "a job" as a columnist. Editors value my writing so they pick up a column I write independently and run it in their papers.

Jeff, I'm so sorry you have nothing to do but come on my site and piss on the drapes, but please find something.

And the observation about you getting fucked over and not getting laid is based on the venom against women, other commenters here, and me, when a person who doesn't have some agenda from being deeply wounded would likely just make cooly rational arguments and not get so personal.

The level of vitriol in your comments here -- over mere ideas and statements from others -- suggests there's something deeply wrong with you. Please go to AlbertEllisInstitute.org and consider seeing a therapist in your area. You might also get the book, Control Your Anger Before It Controls You.

And please leave. This is my site, and you're making it unpleasant and stupid with your comments. I'm all for people disagreeing with me -- that's why I don't, as several commenters have requested, ban you. But, look at how Crid and Radwaste, on my blog, tell me I'm an idiot. They're polite and rational, even while they're suggesting I'm a drooling moron about some issue. That's fine. I'm fine with disagreement. But, you're a mass of unresolved issues projectile-vomiting your ugliness on the rest of us. Go fix yourself. Don't come back until you do.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 1, 2007 7:30 AM

"And the observation about you getting fucked over and not getting laid is based on the venom against women, other commenters here, and me, when a person who doesn't have some agenda from being deeply wounded would likely just make cooly rational arguments and not get so personal."

Strictly day-time TV/amateur pop psychology. I dated a real therapist for two years- needless to say, she wasn't anything like you.

I didn't get 'personal' with anyone on this thread until they became personal with me. I made a statement in reference to the current trends involving the state of 90% of women in the U.S. today, and since is was accurate in it's extremely unflattering truth, I was personally attacked. This is a classic female tactic- not mine.

It is really all very simple- you get what you give & you the others do not like it when you receive what you give, because you have the deep delusion that you are above reproach simply becasue you are in possession of an extra hole.

Thanks for all the concern, and I know how insane it makes you to learn that I am actually doing great and my life is quite well adjusted, with a wonderful g/f and a great career with no addictions or character flaws. That does not fit neatly into your Sesame Street version of the world.

Ironically, if you passed me by in public you would turn and look back and start playing with your earring, etc., and in your tiny, narrow presumption of how the world is suppose to operate, never dream in a million years I am the one of this thread.

You and the others have wasted all of this time and gone off into ditches and a million other directions and made a multitude of flawed assumptions that have absolutely nothing to do with the original topic- all because as typical American mainstream females, you cannot take critism and are raised to never be accountable for your actions- thus coming to the point of feeling as if being a 'whore' is a great idea. No accountabilty is how a society of people like yourselves arrive at a collective stupidity and insanity, no longer able to conceive what morality even is.

As for me? Well, I may not like the smell of dogshit either, but that certainly doesn't mean there's anything wrong with me.

Have a great weekend on your gay little blog- I'll be out enjoying life and the great outdoors with my girlfriend, far away from dumbed-down, delusional whores. Byyyye.

Posted by: jeff at June 1, 2007 9:05 AM

I told myself not to get into it again, but I can't help it. Amy, you need to ban this guys IP...he is one of the worthless pieces of shit that are members of AWS--a vile, woman-hating group of little pussies who can't have they're way so they all sit around and cry about it to eachother.

Jeff, it must be terrible not being a real man. Just the fact that you have to come on here and insult people says alot about you as a person and as a human being. You might think you are clever with all of your double-speak and all of your witty little comments, but you look like a sad case. You have nothing better to do than insult someone who obviously has a better job than you do, is doing what she loves, and feels compelled to help people via her blog.

Since there is no way to verify what you actually do, what you look like, or what your girlfriend looks like for that matter, we can only go by your comments that you are probably a fat, sweaty pig with a blow-up doll and a stack of porn for a girlfriend. Guys like you are all over the 'net, like Amy said you are nothing but a troll, and I'll add with a small dick that only gets action from your fist.

You are so full of yourself, why not provide all of us with some evidence of all of your claims? It's because you can't. Go shave, take a shower, lose about 100 pounds, get a haircut, and get off of AWS for an hour a day and join the human race. You know its the truth don't you...

Go ahead and flame me. You worthless scumbag.

Keep your eyes open people. This is what makes this society such a joy to live in--worthless pukes like this. Stay away from them because while they talk big they are scared little boys who got pushed around on the playground, got divorced later in life, and now carry the banner for all the woman-haters in the world.

Loser.

Posted by: mike at June 1, 2007 9:37 AM

From Jeff's last post:

"I didn't get 'personal' with anyone on this thread until they became personal with me. I made a statement in reference to the current trends involving the state of 90% of women in the U.S. today, and since is was accurate in it's extremely unflattering truth, I was personally attacked. This is a classic female tactic- not mine."

From Jeff's first post:

"In my generation we had a different name for the young women of today: 'Road Whores.'"
"And yet bizarrely, women today think more highly of themselves than ever, yet we as men are likely to be reminded of a public toilet when we look at today's women."
"...to see the end result was nothing but hideously dumbed whores who have more in common with public toilets than people..."

Now maybe I'm just overly sensitive, but hearing the majority of young women, or, my mistake '90% of women in the U.S. today' described as 'road whores' reminiscent of public toilets and 'hideously dumbed whores' does, in fact, strike me as getting personal.

Why am I even commenting on this? As Mike says, Jeff in no way meets my definition of a real man. A real man to me is someone like the fictional Atticus Finch, or like my father, or like my husband. Not someone who gets off on trying to feel superior to 51% of the human race. I can only imagine his views on non-white non-Christians. Frightening.

Posted by: Kimberly at June 1, 2007 7:27 PM

And Mike, you are only beginning to enter the nightmare world of 'anti-family' court, so afterwards when you know what you are talking about, then you will be able to speak intelligently about these issues.

You married her. Why did you, with all your professed great genius about women and life? The therapist Nathaniel Branden told me that people tell you what they're about -- if you're willing to listen. Apparently, you weren't willing to listen.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 2, 2007 4:25 AM

And regarding Mike, he seems rather rational to me, which leads me to believe that even if he has a very bad experience in family court, even if the system proves to be very unfair to men (as it too often does -- a subject I've written about in my column), I suspect that he won't make the leap that all women are evil, etc., etc., which shows a lapse in logic.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 2, 2007 5:06 AM

Kimberly, I went over and checked out the "American women suck" website, and now I know who does Jeff's thinking for him. It is hilarious! They are a bunch of angry losers who are finding themselves obsolete in a world where women can get jobs and don't need to put up with some creep to pay the bills. Of course if you point out what angry losers they are, they say it's a "classic female tactic," although I think most men would call them angry losers, too.

They make no sense at all. On one hand they wail and gnash their teeth because women have stopped caring about having families in favor of making money. In the next breath they complain that women are trying to raid their wallets. (Like these guys have any money anyway - whatever.) But which is it? Are women evil and immoral when they make their own money, or when they stay home having babies and use their husband's money?

They are also big fans of importing brides from other countries. Of course when those imported brides get jobs and green cards they will dump the jerks.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at June 4, 2007 11:04 AM

They are also big fans of importing brides from other countries. Of course when those imported brides get jobs and green cards they will dump the jerks.


That's called "peotic justice" Pirate Jo! :)

Posted by: Flynne at June 5, 2007 5:49 AM

Went to the site Pirate Jo, and Eww! You're right, I'd be shocked if Jeff wasn't a proud member. Love the "Logic" part where they try to invalidate any criticism. Lovely site, just lovely.

Posted by: Kimberly at June 5, 2007 11:40 PM

Allright, this has got to be the funniest site name I've seen in a while. Advicegoddess? If anyone marries this loser woman, he's an idiot, LoL. :P

Jeff, I totally agree with your sentiments. American women these days are way out of control. The trick is to do much better than these immature 2 year olds and then spurn them. The best response that I've found for many of these skanks is to just say "Didn't your daddy teach you to respect men"" and they ALWAYS shut up!

To be fair, us American men are equally responsible for this abhorrent behavior from the women. Too many fathers are irresponsible and useless themselves. Many of my male coworkers are total jerks who need to be taken out and horsewhipped into being civilized men. All they're interested in is sex from the girls at work. They're equally pathetic in my eyes.

Posted by: Captain Kirk at July 14, 2007 8:13 AM

It seems, now that Jeff's been banned, he's got his friends carrying his water for him.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 14, 2007 9:46 AM

Okay Amy, what's your story? Man hating lesbian? Obese? Or simply penis envy? I really would like to know why you're this way. Jeff does sound too upset and makes some vitriolic remarks but you have some major chips on your shoulder. Let me help you :-)

Posted by: Captain Kirk at July 14, 2007 6:03 PM

I just read most of this post, and unless I missed it, I am surprised that not one person seemed to think it was wrong for the woman that wrote the letter to answer her husband with "no, we never dated" when asked about the guy. The husband didn't want to know details, but when asked directly about a particular guy I think an honest answer was in order.

I think the original question was partially driven by guilt. She knows that she was wrong for saying "we never dated" (which is a bogus loop-hole in my opinion) when she knows she slept with the guy. I am far from a female-basher, but I don't really understand how women think it sounds better to say "I didn't date that guy, I just slept with him."

She should have been honest when the question came up the first time, but now she has woven a web and she is afraid of being caught in her own lie.

Posted by: Tyler at July 16, 2007 8:52 PM

I also wanted to comment on something else mentioned above.

I know that sex does not equal love, but I don't think that separating the two should be considered a victory for feminism. Probably funny hearing this from a male, but considering sex "special" or "meaningful" shouldn't be a bad thing in my book. If sex has been reduced to the same level of importance as drinking a cup of coffee or eating ice cream, then I don't think that is a good thing for anyone.

I don't think it makes you "puritanical" just because you only have sex in a committed relationshio and hope to find a mate that places a similar importance on it.

Posted by: Tyler at July 16, 2007 8:59 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)