Going Whole Hug
I went on four dates with this woman -- each ending in no more than a hug and a kiss on her cheek. She seemed to have fun, yet stopped returning my calls. This isn't the first time something seemingly good fizzled on me.
--Flummoxed
The woman you go out with four times and only kiss on the cheek and hug goodbye is the woman you call Mom. There's an epidemic of men who need to get the message you do: "Testicles! They're not just for decoration anymore!" It isn't entirely men's fault. Feminist academia pushed a message that caught on wide -- that men should feel ashamed for being male and that male sexuality is basically rape lite. This led some men to hold off on making moves on a woman, thinking it was the nice, polite thing to do. Some other men realized it's also a great way to spin acting wimpy as a form of respect. Now, it's possible this woman just wasn't that into you, but maybe she might've been -- a few dates back -- but found you about as sexually aggressive as a couch cushion. If things are going well on a first date, state your intentions by trying to kiss the woman. She can say no, and you should respect that, but by trying, you've told her something important: that your interest goes beyond financing her appletinis and sitting by your phone waiting for her to never call you again.
It's not really clear from the letter whether Flummoxed only tried to give the woman a kiss on the cheek each time, or whether he tried for more and was shot down each time.
Something similar happened to me recently - I went on four dates with a woman, and she seemed to enjoy them very much. Each date ended with just a hug and a kiss on her cheek. But it wasn't for lack of trying on my part - I kept getting shot down.
After the fourth date, I didn't contact her any further. Not surprisingly, she didn't contact me either.
Snoopy at November 30, 2010 5:18 PM
I basically agree w/ Amy. You've got to signal your intentions. But I have a different perspective on why men, of a certain age, are sometimes reticent to make advances. It's not exactly being 'polite'.
I'd come of age during the height of the 'rape culture' period in the 90's. An especially hysterical and vindictive form of feminism had set in that was blatantly anti-male and regarded heterosexual sex as inherently degrading to women. All sexual contact was assumed to occur along a rape continuum.
As a man, you were one slip of the hand away from the accusation that you were a sexual predator. And that accusation would destroy you, because there was no way to rebut it. The feminists had innovated a subjective standard for rape. So if a woman simply felt like she'd been coerced, even long after the fact, even not by you, it was RAPE.
The most disturbing part, for me, was that almost all of the women I knew played along. Very few women, that I remember, had the courage to speak out against the excesses of this movement. But it didn't have its intended effect. I knew that I wasn't a rapist. I had no desire to harm women, or to take advantage of them. So the conclusion that I'd come to was that most women don't like sex. They're deeply ambivalent towards their own sexuality, and fear men. That sounds extreme, but it was a logical assumption in that environment. It took me a few years of dating, and being in relationships, to shake those assumptions. Back then, I would have been the guy who didn't even try for a kiss.
And while I've moved own, and know better now, I find that I'm still on the lookout for signs of those attitudes. So it wouldn't surprise me if there are many men who are too passive because they believe that the woman is afraid of him. They're concerned that they'll harm her if they're too aggressive. She'll be traumatized.
Nick at November 30, 2010 7:04 PM
I'm 42 and agree with Nick. Remember Andrea Dworkin? The "recovered memory" phenomenon? Ugh.
D at November 30, 2010 8:57 PM
Funny that this column appeared today, since just this afternoon I turned in my final paper and gave a short presentation in my Social Problems class on this very subject.
So it wouldn't surprise me if there are many men who are too passive because they believe that the woman is afraid of him.
I definitely think you're onto something, Nick. One of the sociologists I read for research outlined four basic tenets of the elitist, academic, "hostile" feminism, and the distortion of interaction between the sexes was one of them. Men become reticent to make any advances, even when they're sure the woman would welcome them, because of that chance that they'd be slapped with a sexual misconduct charge or something similar. And I think it makes some women too quick to accuse, because the definition of what constitutes assault, harassment and discrimination is intentionally broad, like in an AAUW study that said two-thirds of college students have been sexually harassed. But their data gives equal weight to instances where a woman has to literally fight off a guy and instances where a guy just gave a quick look at her cleavage. This deeply offends me because it makes offenders out of people who don't deserve it, AND statistical victims out of people who don't want to define themselves that way. This benefits no one except for people who use these inflated statistics to further their own crackpot theories, when there are legitimate needs out there for that whole "equal rights for everyone" thing that these elitist feminist "scholars" seem to forget is the whole purpose of their movement. Or, at least it was until all the crazy-making started.
Sorry about the rant, but this just sticks in my craw. Now, maybe this girl just doesn't want to see the guy anymore but doesn't know how to tell him so, so she just lets silence and distance do it for her. I don't really think there's enough information in the letter to discern if it's that or if the guy is one of those "nice" guys who don't want to make any kind of advance for fear of criminal charges and/or litigation. But it would not surprise me at all to find out it's the latter. Especially considering his passivity when describing how the dates ended: not that he went for a kiss and was brutally rebuffed, not that he chose not to go for a kiss, but that the dates themselves just ended "with no more than a hug and a kiss on her cheek." As if neither party had anything to do with how the dates ended.
P.S. D, I second your "ugh" on Andrea Dworkin. I actually read that later in her life she denied the "all heterosexual sex is rape" allegations and claimed she was misunderstood. But "Intercourse is a synonym for violation" seems pretty clear to me.
NumberSix at November 30, 2010 9:06 PM
Well, I'm 38 and I think it's kinda rude to go on a second date and not even go for a kiss or a grope. Seriously - this poor woman must think you don't really find her attractive at all.
Every woman deserves to be treated like a sexual object when you go out with her. There's nothing disrespectful in showing her that you would love to see her naked on her hands and knees. Don't need to say it out loud, but she should at least feel like you really wanna do her.
When I was younger, I also thought it was tasteless to show a woman that she turned me on. I hardly ever picked up women. I changed my MO after my divorce a few years back and I've been picking them up left and right since. I'm in a relationship now, though, and trust me, my woman knows that I think she's sexy.
Jesper at December 1, 2010 12:43 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1791593">comment from JesperWell, I'm 38 and I think it's kinda rude to go on a second date and not even go for a kiss or a grope. Seriously - this poor woman must think you don't really find her attractive at all. Every woman deserves to be treated like a sexual object when you go out with her. There's nothing disrespectful in showing her that you would love to see her naked on her hands and knees. Don't need to say it out loud, but she should at least feel like you really wanna do her.
Gregg met me at the Apple computer store, asked me to have a Coke with him at the Farmer's Market next to it, and three hours later, walked me to my car, grabbed me and kissed me. It was totally romantic and pretty much locked me in to him in a way I never would have been if he'd just said, "Well, I hope to see you again..."
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2010 1:00 AM
Seems to be a fine line between "I wanna do ya", and groping and not taking 'no' for an answer.
I like a guy to be gently agressive with me if I'm into him, but if I'm not and he won't back off when I tell him to, that's where the line gets crossed. Some guys don't get that there even IS a line, and others get it all too well, which leads to their ambivalence. It's really sad how men and women just don't seem to be able to communicate with each other about these things.
Flynne at December 1, 2010 6:23 AM
Most women - at least those worth having - prefer men who act like men, not shy little boys. If the date (not necessarily a first meeting, but an actual date) goes well, demonstrate that you find her attractive and kiss her on the lips. If she gives you the cheek, wish her a good night and move on to the next woman.
Every single time I've had a good first date with a woman and I wanted to see her again, I've kissed her during or at the end of the date. I've actually never been rebuffed, and I've always gotten a second date. Hell, in a story similar to Amy's, one time I met a woman in a bar, had a great three hour conversation with her, and kissed her when I walked her to her car. I got her number and a date the next weekend.
It's really not that hard. You do have to be willing to take a chance on rejection, but if you're reasonably alert and pay attention to her tone of voice and body language, you can usually tell when a date's going well. A quick way to gauge her receptiveness is to try to hold her hand. If she accepts the hand, she'll usually accept the kiss. The other option is to not kiss her and get friendzoned, which is where I suspect the LW is now.
I've apparently dated relatively normal women, and have never run across anyone who took Andrea Dworkin seriously or was radicalized enough to think that a man who wanted to kiss her was a closet rapist. But I don't live in a coastal liberal megalopolis, either.
MikeInRealLife at December 1, 2010 8:00 AM
"But I don't live in a coastal liberal megalopolis, either."
It seems that makes a big difference. These kinds of radical feminist perceptions are more prevalent in liberal areas.
Most women I know have never heard of Andrea Dworkin, much less care what she thinks, and that's probably the case in most of the country.
lovelysoul at December 1, 2010 8:58 AM
It seems that makes a big difference. These kinds of radical feminist perceptions are more prevalent in liberal areas.
Definitely. If I go down south or inland a bit, these attitudes almost disappear. They also seem much less common among younger women generally. It's women over 35 who'd grown up with it, who still hold on to some of this.
The younger women I know actually have a more mature, and healthy, attitude towards sexual intimacy than they did in my day.
Nick at December 1, 2010 10:13 AM
Every woman deserves to be treated like a sexual object when you go out with her. There's nothing disrespectful in showing her that you would love to see her naked on her hands and knees. Don't need to say it out loud, but she should at least feel like you really wanna do her.
If I went out with a guy who didn't act like he was attracted to me sexually, I would assume he either a) was not attracted to me sexually (not good), or b) was too wimpy to show it (also not good).
The last thing I would ever want to do is hook up with a guy who never took the initiative with anything. I've been there, and that passive crap just doesn't cut it. I can't stand a man who sits around like a bump on a log. It just screams 'NO GAME!' 'NO GAME!' 'NO GAME!' to me.
Pirate Jo at December 1, 2010 10:23 AM
Am I the only one who thinks the woman is pretty weenie herself for not telling the guy that it's just not working out between them?
Maybe both of them need a testosterone shot.
Pricklypear at December 1, 2010 10:25 AM
My fiance and I kissed pretty passionately on our first date, but that was after hours of great conversation, where I'm sure I was sending him all the right signals. By our 3rd or 4th date, we were making out, and before we said goodbye, he took my hand and placed it between his legs to show me how aroused he was.
He must've rethought that on the way home because he called to apologize for being inappropriate, but I told him I was in no way offended. That moment still gives me a rush.
But I might've slapped a guy who did that too soon or without the appropriate signals of interest. A lot of this really has to do with guys developing the ability to read the situation properly. If she doesn't seem to be into you, you can't go in for a big wet one, but a peck on the cheek is usually fine regardless, and if a woman wants more, she'll usually move her lips towards yours.
lovelysoul at December 1, 2010 10:34 AM
"I've apparently dated relatively normal women, and have never run across anyone who took Andrea Dworkin seriously or was radicalized enough to think that a man who wanted to kiss her was a closet rapist. But I don't live in a coastal liberal megalopolis, either."
I grew up in a coastal liberal megalopolis, spent the majority of my life surrounded by coastal liberal types, and attended Ivy League schools for college and grad school. I've never met or heard of a real-life woman who accused a guy attempting a kiss at the end of a date of attempted rape. I've never heard, even second or third-hand, of such a characterization of an attempted kiss made in casual conversation, much less in any formal disciplinary or criminal proceeding.
Au Naturale at December 1, 2010 11:22 AM
I've never met or heard of a real-life woman who accused a guy attempting a kiss at the end of a date of attempted rape.
Me, neither, and I was born and raised in NYC. I have to wonder whether this supposed epidemic is the result of a few batshit people whose stories got around the Internet.
MonicaP at December 1, 2010 11:29 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1791877">comment from MonicaPAcademic feminism has seeped into our culture in a toxic way. People today who've never heard of that hideous sicko Andrea Dworkin are negatively influenced by her and her coven. My dad wasn't afraid to ask my mom on a date? Was yours? Oh, and by the way, my mom was on a date with somebody else when my dad asked her out. (I think he was tactful about that, but perhaps that's why I'm with a guy-guy and those are the men I've always been attracted to).
A Gregg (my boyfriend) story: Now, he is completely kind if you are an old lady or a guy (a friend of mine) in a wheelchair who can barely move or speak, and he's very sweet to me. But, otherwise, he's, as a friend of his called him, "Detroit-ornery." We were walking home from a local restaurant and some wacky hippie said, as he passed, "I love ya, man."
Gregg: "That makes one of us."
Hippie: "You're the first honest person who's passed here all night."
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2010 11:43 AM
I don't think men are afraid of being tagged as a rapist or anything. But I do know I've run into some pretty passive guys. My take on them is 1) if they were really into me, they would try to kiss me or 2) they're so psychologially lazy that they wait for the women to make the moves.
The second category seems to usually be men who are really good looking (and I'm not saying all good-looking men are like this; it's just this bunch were). Or, maybe because they have wealth or status and so they're used to women being all over them they don't bother trying. There's a lot of THAT I find, but not fear.
I've never heard a guy say that he was afraid to kiss a woman out of fear he'd be labelled a rapist or too aggressive. But I've heard plenty say that they don't take action when they lose interest in the woman over the course of a date (for whatever reason). You know, the woman seems a bit unstable or has a jealous boyfriend stalking her (and "hey, he's in the corner booth,") or has 30 cats or something. Or maybe she's just too shy and nervous and the guy wants someone with more confidence.
But rapist? No.
ie at December 1, 2010 12:10 PM
I thought that Dworkin business was college code of conduct propaganda. It did not make it to Japan in the seventies, honest. I think LW found himself in the friend zone.
That happened to me once, but I like to flatter myself by chalking it up to the language barrier. In a life filled with few regrets, that is possibly the only do-over I'd ever ask for. I have an idea it would have ended badly, but some experiences are worth the pain.
MarkD at December 1, 2010 12:39 PM
I wonder how may of these passive guys are children of divorce, and didnt grow up in a relativly normal household
lujlp at December 1, 2010 2:44 PM
Um. What's the question here, exactly?
Choika at December 1, 2010 5:07 PM
Yikes! I remember the hysterical anti-male atmosphere of the '90s (has it really ended?) and it caused me to shy away from the opposite sex for fear that I would cause women to be afraid of me if I didn't.
In fact I noticed feminism getting out of hand in the '80s when I was a University student overseas (New Zealand). It was like Berkeley down under.
I would add that the mainstream media constantly portrays negative images of men (rapist, murderer, pedophile, sexual harasser, domestic abuser etc.) that men end up seeing, and then they act meek around women in order to not be perceived as being like that.
MIOnline at December 1, 2010 5:43 PM
There is a lot of male passivity these days. It's frustrating because I do get what Amy's saying about "testicles."
As an aside, there were a bank of computers set up in a small library for us at work and one smart aleck set it up so that when the desktop screen came up the word "testicles" was emblazoned across it. I always went to that computer and I always laughed my head off when it came up. I would like to have found the person who did it. It's a great way to get people smiling.
But anyway, I think putting the responsibility on the feminist movement is giving them too much credit. It wasn't that powerful and from what I remember, it burned itself out fairly quickly and there are a lot of smart women out there, in journalism, who did a pretty good job of vocalizing the backlash. A good friend of mine was among them. She was one of the first who started openly writing about the problems with feminism back in the late 80s here in Canada.
There were also things like that horrible craze back in the 90s when it seemed every second daycare center was suspected of being an underground place of Satanic worship. I mean, that craziness lasted for a while and then burned out. There's probably still some residual, but I think a lot of intelligent people know to question the validity of these kind of extreme accusations and/or portrayals of others.
ie at December 1, 2010 6:23 PM
I'm guessing that you're not familiar w/ contemporary feminism.
lipsy at December 1, 2010 10:05 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1792135">comment from ieBut anyway, I think putting the responsibility on the feminist movement is giving them too much credit. It wasn't that powerful and from what I remember, it burned itself out fairly quickly and there are a lot of smart women out there, in journalism, who did a pretty good job of vocalizing the backlash.
Fantasy-land. Look up "The Truth About Beauty" + "Amy Alkon" + "Psychology Today" and see how wrong you are about the influence of feminism seeping into our culture. First read my utterly reality- and science-based piece, then read all the feminism-soaked shrews screeching about how somebody should have my head, the editor should be fired, etc.
Wimpy men use the wages of feminism's seepage and poisoning of mainstream culture as an excuse for their wimpiness. It's why they don't ask women out, don't make moves on women, and do a host of other pussyish behaviors.
Amy Alkon at December 1, 2010 10:53 PM
I think the problem is that so many of those uber-feminist ideas have wormed their way into the mainstream. Not even the extreme language, but the resulting actions. Google Columbia University's sexual misconduct policy. It completely took away the accused student's right to due process: he couldn't name his accuser to an attorney, he couldn't have that attorney present, he couldn't conduct an independent investigation, he couldn't cross-examine witnesses, and most of the time he couldn't even hear the witness testimony. That was not even ten years ago, and Brown University has a similar one in place now. Columbia revised their policy after it came under such fire, but they still have questionable tactics in place: A party is not entitled to cross-examine witnesses, though, both parties have the right at various stages of proceedings to submit questions to be put to witnesses (at the discretion of the Panel). A party is not entitled to be present to confront witnesses or to confront the other party, though every effort will be made to allow a party to watch the other party's testimony on closed-circuit television, so that he or she is aware, in detail, of the evidence that is being offered against him or her and thus has an opportunity to rebut it, in detail.
I get that they don't want either party intimidating the other's witnesses and I'm glad that they revised the policy to allow the accused student to hear witness testimony, but this strays too far from the model of legal proceedings for my taste. University proceedings aren't legal processes, but I don't believe they should have the right to flout due process (like they are now at Brown). I'm also not crazy about the use of the word "confront" in that section. It's not necessarily confrontational to allow either the complainant or the respondent to be present for witness testimony.
I also did a little reading on paternity fraud, and a Reason Magazine article says that 68% of all the child support orders in California in 2000 were default judgments (meaning the served "parent" didn't challenge). Los Angeles County apparently has a famously sloppy system for this, and 80% of all of their orders are defaults. And in California, there doesn't even need to be proof of service of the summons. So, if the summons is going to a previous address and the new tenants have never heard of you, or if you were on vacation or away from home while the deadline passed,you're screwed. And have a decent chance of paying that child support even after DNA evidence shows you're not the father.
NumberSix at December 1, 2010 11:32 PM
"Wimpy men use the wages of feminism's seepage and poisoning of mainstream culture as an excuse for their wimpiness."
Though I'm sure that's true, it's not the only excuse for it (Yes, I know you're not saying that it is).
I have a confession to make. When it comes to asking women out, I am a complete and total pussy. Only not for any of the reason's I've heard Amy mention.
I'm not just out of practice, I've never had any practice. I met the woman I'm three years divorced from when I was eighteen -- and it was her that made a run at me. I didn't have to do shit.
When I see someone to whom I'm very attracted, it invariably happens at an inappropriate time and place to approach her. It's not that I'm scared, I just can't figure out how to turn that situation around into the appropriate time and place.
Sometimes, they approach me indirectly. When that happens, I just can't seem to pick up the signals. However, once it's too late, the signals she has been sending become magically clear.
My point is that sometimes it's not a fear of rejection or anything like that, it's just that we don't know what the heck we're doing.
jonQpublic at December 2, 2010 1:21 AM
jonQ, in my opinion, there is a distinction between just being scared of rejection (or of awkwardness) and making yourself scared of rejection because you've had it hammered into your brain that it's somehow wrong to make advances. Or taking that kernel of fear and nurturing it into a great big tree that you hide in so you don't have to face any discomfort. The first kind can be overcome because you will eventually get more practice and can make yourself power through the potential awkwardness. The other two are self-fulfilling prophecies and safety padding masquerading as morals.
I think the difference is in the fact that you, for example, know you should ask her out, but don't know how to go about it correctly. It's the guy who doesn't think he should ask a woman out directly that irritates me. Amy's had more than one letter from men who are clueless as to why they've been relegated to the friendzone, when they've done everything they can to put themselves there. I believe there was even a guy whose letter boiled down to "What else can I do!?" and Amy's response was "Um, actually ask her on a date." And look out for an upcoming letter where a guy asked a woman out on her voicemail.
I think that even though the end results might be the same, motives make a huge difference in a man's ability to ask a woman out. You can't and won't change your behavior if you don't think you should (or should have to).
NumberSix at December 2, 2010 1:44 AM
Well said NumberSix. Want to go out? :)
jonQpublic at December 2, 2010 1:55 AM
Well, I have some credentials too. Three degrees and those spread across three universities in Canada. But then again, I AM in Canada AND in a French province where this sort of thing never got hysterical.
And this in a province where 16 young women were gunned down by Marc Lepine who shot them because he didn't think women should be allowed into engineering programs. It was referred to as the Ecole Polytechnique shootings.
The fact that the feminist movement kept its equilibrium in this province is a tribute to the sensibility of the population here. When there are yearly rallies commemorating the shooting, there are just as many men present.
Truly, I'm not seeing any of the hysterical finger-pointing I'm hearing described above anywhere here, and I'm intricately connected with the academic world.
I have a minor in Women's Studies from a major Canadian university. I was part of a collective of women who started the backlash in that city, against what we saw were the abuses happening in the name of feminism. I spoke out in defence of a professor who was being sacked because of his desire to start a men's studies course. I backed him up and was shunned by quite a few people at the time, including my thesis supervisor. This was in the late 80s.
I'm not interested in wading into this argument because it's obviously very touchy for a lot of people here, but I'm at least as well read as you are Amy--probably better because sociology research is my background--and I still think you're way over-reacting.
There was a recent cover of Macleans magazine up here that discussed this very issue, with the focus being on how feminists who were raising daughters were having a hard time given that their daughters were reacting defiantly with them. It was a great article and I think covered a lot of ground and did so in a very sensible way. But then the journalist who wrote it didn't have an axe to grind.
And that's the by-word here, sensible. I see hysteria on both sides of this argument, which is why I stay out of it. It's hard to convince people that monsters don't exist when their vivid imaginations have convinced them otherwise.
ie at December 2, 2010 3:15 AM
"... feminists who were raising daughters were having a hard time given that their daughters were reacting defiantly with them."
Wow. I didn't realize that I was a feminist. :)
Isn't that what all daughters do?
jonQpublic at December 2, 2010 3:44 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1792277">comment from ieCertain Canadian universities are, however, like Little Gaza.
And no, I'm not "way over-reacting," or overreacting at all. Again, look up my Psych Today piece on truths about beauty, then read blog items on it -- from young women who are HORRIFIED that I would say such things.
And sorry, but sociology is the crap data area of academia. Some do okay, but ideology is far too often a substitute for data.
And there aren't "both sides of the argument." There isn't an argument. There are women who have an agenda against men and who feel like somebody through their identifying as being oppressed and identifying other "oppressed" people (who have to be "of color," etc. to count), and who have created a religion out of victimism.
PS And I'm uninterested in "credentials" -- I don't know your work, so don't take that personally. A lot of people who have them put out "research" with extremely shoddy methodology.
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2010 3:48 AM
@jonQ: I think the point of the article is that the feminists didn't think it would happen to them; they thought their daughters would be grateful.
Amy, I don't expect you to be impressed by my credentials, I'm simply situating myself in terms of this discussion.
I have been on both sides of this issue. As a feminist, then anti-feminist and now I'm just neutral.
There's way too much in the way of hate-purveying I see happening on both sides. I've distanced myself from both groups of women because I can't stand being around such angry people. It all comes down to women hating men, women hating other women, men hating women, etc.
"Enough already" is all I'm saying. Stirring up more anger isn't the way to create forums conducive to real dialogue, real problem-solving.
This is an advice column, not a forum for me to brag about the work I do, so that's why I rarely mention it. But I follow a lot of advice columns because in a anecdotal way, they give me a peek into what's on people's minds. I follow about 10 in all.
I'm not sure what your "Gaza" reference is, but what I will say is that Psychology Today is the equivalent of People or US magazine the field. And you don't have to take my word for it. Ask anyone seriously involved in that kind of work and they'll tell you. It doesn't belong in serious libraries, but fits in well at hair salons.
Even Scientific American, which used to be a fairly strenuous publication when it came to producing creditable data, has slipped a great deal. We just cancelled our subscription to that a while ago too. Too much pandering to the lowest common denominator, which meant pandering to people looking for easy answers or to fuel for their anger.
I'm expecting to get skewered here and for no good reason...but then of course, why would anyone need a good reason to be angry these days? It's an epidemic.
ie at December 2, 2010 6:21 AM
IE I've come to the conclusion that you're just making shit up.
Mike at December 2, 2010 6:29 AM
> Yikes! I remember the hysterical anti-male atmosphere of the '90s (has it really ended?) and it caused me to shy away from the opposite sex for fear that I would cause women to be afraid of me if I didn't.
Same here.
It took a while to get rid of the programming I received in college in the late 80s / early 90s.
I finally realized that when I let myself be caught checking out a woman's cleavage, or - on a date - pushing her against a wall and kissing her, this was not "all men are rapists" stuff, but "women like men who are MEN" stuff.
Damn you, leftists, for wasting years of my life!
TJIC at December 2, 2010 6:29 AM
In defense of ie, I think people who are in areas where feminism never took hold to an extreme aren't fully aware of its damage.
I grew up in the south, for instance, and feminism barely made a blip on the radar there. And FL, the land of the silicone breasts, doesn't really have a whole lot of marching, bra-burning feminists (unless they could tan in the process).
It wasn't until I came here to this blog that I began to understand that feminism had a much more profound and negative effect. At first, like ie, I thought it was an exaggeration...that any substantial percentage of women really believed, much less followed, such anti-male rhetoric. But I've come to see that this is true, particularly in urban areas of the east coast and other pockets of elitist liberalism.
I agree that it's still a small percentage of women, but they are in a position to do a lot of damage, as they presume to speak for the rest of us.
lovelysoul at December 2, 2010 6:38 AM
"I've never met or heard of a real-life woman who accused a guy attempting a kiss at the end of a date of attempted rape."
Ditto, and I live in NYC. I am also over 35 (someone implied that was the Dworkin demographic). Stop dating batshit crazy women, and the rape accusations will stop (unless you're a rapist, of course).
Gail at December 2, 2010 7:39 AM
"IE I've come to the conclusion that you're just making shit up."
Thanks Mike, It only took you 8 minutes to prove my last point:
"I'm expecting to get skewered here and for no good reason...but then of course, why would anyone need a good reason to be angry these days? It's an epidemic."
ie at December 2, 2010 7:56 AM
... Actually, I've lived in the urban northeast my entire life, including college and law school -- and yet never knew a single woman who championed this weird form of feminism.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there must be some women somewhere who would scream rape if you tried to kiss them goodnight on a date. But there can't be many. If you keep finding them, you must be a stupendously bad chooser. Stop using "feminism" as an excuse and grow a pair.
Gail at December 2, 2010 7:56 AM
@IE I'm not angry at you, I think you're lying. One minute you claim that feminism was a passing phase that you barely remembers, the next you're at the center of a feminist reform movement with a minor in women's studies. I've noticed this tactic w/ a lot of our posts. You're like the Zelig of internet commenters.
Mike at December 2, 2010 8:13 AM
It WAS a passing phase because I spent two semesters involved in it. Out of nine years of university, I think that qualifies as a phase, a phase I grew out of quickly because I couldn't handle the anger in the classrooms anymore.
A friend of mine and I started noticing things we didn't like. We co-authored an article that got published and it went on record supporting a male professor in his bid to start a men's studies course. A few years later, while I was in graduate school, it was brought to my thesis supervisor's attention and she dropped me.
The woman I co-authored the published article (it appeared in the Globe and Mail) has become a rabid anti-feminist. I can't discuss anything like this with her anymore because I think she's gone overboard and basically just hates women.
I'm not 21, Mike, I'm 50 and I've lead a full life, gotten involved in a lot of things, have done a lot of volunteering, etc.
Sorry you live in Narrowsville, but not all of us do. We live in the real world and are engaged with it. It adds up to experience. Why don't you go out and get some. See what a real life looks like.
ie at December 2, 2010 8:36 AM
oops!
But anyway, I think putting the responsibility on the feminist movement is giving them too much credit. It wasn't that powerful and from what I remember, it burned itself out fairly quickly
gotcha
Mike at December 2, 2010 10:21 AM
What? Gotcha how?
Mike, maybe you're not reading my posts right to the end?
I spent 1/9th of my university career being involved in the feminist movement. I backed out because the anger around the issue was too much. I didn't like it. I like men and I'm friends with other women. I don't want to control them. Somehow, that meant I didn't fit in very well.
I also have a minor in film studies that I picked up afterward--switching out of women's studies-- giving me two minors and a major, which is what I needed to graduate.
The thing that's missing from this debate is the voice of reason. I don't like the demonizing I'm seeing and I'm just stating my viewpoint. The anti-feminists, who I did side with for a while, turned into political anti-Christs who were just as unpleasant as the feminists they hated. It happens.
When I was a grad student, I remember talking to a German grad student (a woman) who said something that made a real impression on me: She said "Why would anyone want to associate themselves with the feminist movement? It's like you are deliberately marginalizing yourself by doing so."
And she was totally right. Do you think I was the only woman on campus who got fed up with the whole argument, for and against? Backlash, no backlash? No, there was a HUGE, and I mean HUGE group of women who just opted out.
And they aren't in this debate because, like my German friend, they don't want to limit themselves, don't want to get involved in the hysteria (for and against, again). In other words, I ended up in the middle of the road on this issue and I was surrounded by a lot of fellow travellers. Lots. Tons. Very many. Am I making my point?
Saying that feminism had as much as power as some poeple here are claiming is like claiming McDonald's is responsible for the shaping of American culture.
Sure, McDonald's is there and it's a part of the culture, but is that how you'd like American culture to be defined in totality? With all the talented artists, writers, filmmakers, composers, inventors, etc., that you produce?
I'm trying to lend some perspective here. The perspective of women like me--and we are legion-- who think this debate belongs in dinosaur-land.
ie at December 2, 2010 10:55 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1792473">comment from ieWhen I was a grad student, I remember talking to a German grad student (a woman) who said something that made a real impression on me: She said "Why would anyone want to associate themselves with the feminist movement? It's like you are deliberately marginalizing yourself by doing so."
There's a feminist ev psych group and I'm kind of appalled, and posted that on their initial blog item when somebody suggested I join. Isn't there just science, not masculinist or feminist or any other flavor of science?
Likewise, I'm for fair treatment and equal rights for all -- human rights. I don't care if you have a penis or a vagina, just if you seem to be getting screwed -- and yes, even if you're a white guy. "Diversity" programs really aren't about diversity at all, but about whether you have skin that isn't white. Me? I don't want a diverse group of doctors at a hospital, just a good group. If you're Indian and a hot shit surgeon, cool! Same as if you're a little Jewish hot shit surgeon. When you're on the table, you don't care if the guy was some affirmative action hire -- you just want him to be Mozart with a scalpel.
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2010 11:12 AM
When I date a man a few times and he doesn't call me again, I feel hurt. And that's because rejection is like that: it hurts.
But the fact is, when that or something like it happens, I usually make the assumption that the guy just wasn't into me. I think that's the mature way to think. It's realistic and it doesn't shove off the blame onto someone or something else.
For example, I don't automatically think the feminist movement had something to do with the man's rejection of me. I also don't automatically think the WWF is involved, nor is the Triple A Auto Club, GM or Barack Obama. The guy just wasn't into ME.
I just didn't agree with your answer to the LW, that's all. I'm not sure that bringing the feminists into this parade is going to solve this young guy's problem.
ie at December 2, 2010 12:17 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1792651">comment from ieWhat I will say is that Psychology Today is the equivalent of People or US magazine the field.
I love how popular it is to diss things. It's very often a sign of immaturity and immaturity in the disser. Kaja Perina, the editor-in-chief of the magazine, has really turned it around in terms of publishing science-based stuff. No, it doesn't read like a dull, scholarly science journal -- why should it? Likewise, my work is based in solid research and my other goal, besides trying to put out the best science-based truth I can, is getting people to laugh their asses off.
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2010 3:46 PM
Men as rapists? Well, a little force goes a long way...and is kind of fun. I find if you force the issue, but deliver a good, long screw, all is forgiven.
BOTU at December 2, 2010 4:46 PM
Amy, if all I'd wanted to do was diss the magazine, I had plenty of opportunity to do it before now. You referred to or mentioned your article quite a few times, over the course of several weeks. You posted some fairly lengthy blog pieces about how some feminists were upset with you.
I didn't say anything then because I had no reason to.
I made the comments in the context of what you offered up as "scientific" proof of something. I don't think it's a reputable source and said so. I don't think it was immature of me to state my opinion, given that you brought the article up.
You might want to review the comments you made to me about Canadian universities and rate them on yor maturity scale.
ie at December 2, 2010 5:59 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1792757">comment from ieMy piece, ie, is based in evidence from studies. My observations about feminism are my opinion, but based in observations of reality. Evidence that my opinion is well-founded is easy to find. For starters, look up the pieces about my piece, which reflect that detractors have not read it with their intellect on, merely their emotions and their religion (feminism) engaged.
You say you don't want to brag about your background. What is it that you do, exactly? My friends who are professors have no problem revealing themselves here. Why are you reticent? Is it because you're a sociologist?
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2010 7:28 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1792759">comment from ieAmy, if all I'd wanted to do was diss the magazine, I had plenty of opportunity to do it before now.
B.S. You do it to demean me, and because you have to grasp at straws to do it: "You were published by a bad magazine!"
And so? Look at the article. It's solid.
That criticism -- you're published by a bad magazine! -- says a lot about you.
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2010 7:33 PM
Isn't there just science, not masculinist or feminist or any other flavor of science?
That was one of the points that the evolutionary behavioral scientist Gad Saad said that the "hostile" feminists share: the need to imbue every discipline with a "feminist perspective." And this is really cosmetic stuff, like changing wording in kids' math word problems to be more PC ("fireperson" instead of "fireman"--no word on why they can't use "firefighter" like the rest of us). And in the I-swear-I'm-not-making-this-up department, there have been feminist scholars that said DNA is sexist because we call it the "master molecule." All I can think of is that woman in Legally Blonde who wants to change "winter semester" to "winter ovester." Because the PC cosmetic bullshit will go so far in helping the women who really do face sexual discrimination, harassment and assault.
NumberSix at December 2, 2010 7:58 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1792774">comment from NumberSixGad Saad is terrific. I have his last book on consumer behavior and know him and his work from ev. psych conferences and journals.
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2010 8:16 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1792775">comment from ieThe magazine isn't the "source," I am. They merely printed something I wrote. If you were such hot shit, you'd find something in my article that's wrong, not say I published it in a shitty magazine. I'm entirely unimpressed, and in fact, you've pretty much told me all I need to know about you with such bullshit criticism.
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2010 8:18 PM
P.S. Gad Saad blogs for Psychology Today.
NumberSix at December 2, 2010 8:20 PM
I work in research, covering a broad range of topics, some social science related. Some of what I do involves evaluating publications for their merit, like do we keep them in our library or not? I don't do this alone seeing as I don't have expertise in every field. I solicit advice from experts, collate the information and make decisions based on the feedback I get.
I work for a liberal think tank and do some teaching on the side. I don't mention these things here, because I generally show up as just another commenter, as myself, and not what I do for a living.
You brought up Psychology Today magazine, I didn't. I have an opinion about it, which you obviously don't like. On the other hand, you don't seem to have a high opinion of Canadian Universities or people doing research in the social sciences. So I guess that makes us about even.
It's funny, but Steven Pinker, someone you've mentioned a few times, graduated from two institutions in this city (and Yikes, one was a Canadian university). I have some elderly friends who actually taught him in when he was in college. Guess we're not all bad, huh?
ie at December 3, 2010 2:53 AM
@Mike: before you accuse me of "making shit up" again, perhaps you'd like to collect some of the claims I've made that you find dubious and present them to me? I don't mind being challenged, but vague accusations like yours are difficult to answer. I'd like some facts please.
ie at December 3, 2010 3:03 AM
Here's another. You claim to have been involved in campus politics in Canada, in the late 80's - but everyone knows that Canada is trapped in 1982!
There were no late 80's!
Look IE, you're probably a very interesting and well intended lady - if you are a lady. I'm not going to comb through all of your posts to mount a case against you. Post your CV if you're so concerned. The reason that I'm suspicious of your claims is because your life story is a little too convenient, and it changes. Hence my Zelig remark.
For example you've just gone from claiming that your 3 Canadian degrees make you competent to evaluate scientific publications, to admitting that you simply aggregate them for an advocacy group. Having some ideologue tell you what magazines are acceptable for the library is a far cry from being an authority on their content.
I do believe that you're Canadian though. You've got that quirky mix of sanctimony and provincialism that's very typical of Canadians.
Mike at December 3, 2010 7:15 AM
You're splitting hairs Mike. I am actually competent to comment on a lot of them because I've been doing the job for so long. You get to know certain authors, stances, qualifications, etc. And if you're a good judge of good writing, it's really not all that hard to separate the boys from the men.
In other words, I'm competent in more than a few fields of study. There are a lot of people who rely on and trust my judgement.
Our group isn't an "advocacy" group; we have workers in the field as well. Why are you making so many assumptions?
The people I deal with aren't ideologues, although I take it that you would be very quick to judge anyone with a graduate degree to be one, since you don't seem to have a very positive attitude generally.
For example, some of the experts I deal with are doing the kind of research that could end up saving your life one day, so I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
"Sorry, I don't want that life-saving medical procedure because, hey, an IDEOLOGUE was the one who developed it.... Yup, I'm a man with PRINCIPLES."
As for your comments about my being Canadian, I won't answer. I have a lot of respect for Americans and I'm not here to start a cross border war. I just mention where I come from to situate myself in arguments.
For example, Lovelysoul has mentioned that she's from Florida, others have also given away their locations. I'm doing it for the same reason they are: it adds information to what we're already saying.
Go ahead, Mike. Find all those glaring inconsistencies and make sure they're as "powerful" as the ones you've listed above.(Sigh...)
You're going to start making me long for the good old days when I could come on this list and be called an evil whore by Thag.
ie at December 3, 2010 8:36 AM
It's convenient to blame stuff on feminism, but you could go back 100, 200, or 500 years and find guys with the exact same problem as the LW. Fear of rejection is practically part of the human condition. Yet plenty of people manage to suck it up and get past that, so I'm thinking it's more of a personal issue than a cultural phenomenon.
I really have to wonder how much of an influence feminism has on people, at least on my generation (Y). I don't think I would have really heard of it if it wasn't for this blog. I made some reference to feminism last week when I was home at Thanksgiving break, and my 60-year-old dad asked if it was still around. My younger sister (who happens to go to a liberal arts college in the northeast) assured him that it was, but that feminists were about as common and well-regarded as people who don't believe in dinosaurs. I've never met a women's studies major. And I could probably poll 500 of my peers and approximately 2 of them would have heard of Andrea Dworkin, one being me because I read it on this blog.
Shannon at December 3, 2010 10:02 AM
Thanks Shannon.
I get a bit peeved by all this anti-feminist stuff for a reason. My mom is approaching the end of her life. She's in a nursing home now, but for 20 months she was with me. I had had to have her placed because it's clear her condition is deteriorating.
My mom was a great role model. When my parents rented an upstairs apartment to a "divorced" woman in 1964, the local priest thought it was his business to come to her and tell her not to. (We were Catholic.)
She not only told him to mind his own business, she took care of this woman's son as if he were her own. That "divorced" woman took a lot of heat from her ex-husband's family, never mind the rest of the culture who probably assumed she was "loose" or something, and my mom championed her and took steps to keep her and her son safe. When I was an adult, this woman confided in me and told the extent of the help my mom had given her. I was amazed. I never knew.
In 1972, she was part of group of un-unionized women who went on strike at a seed factory to improve working conditions. They were being paid a lot less than their male counter-parts. That changed after the strike.
As an ethnic woman in an ethnic enclave, she was one of the first to insist her that husband, my father, put her name on the farm as a co-owner. She took a lot of shit for that, not only from other men in that enclave, but the women too. She was labelled a shit-disturber and was ostracized for it for a time.
Now she's dying and everyone is telling me how "lucky" she is to have a daughter like me taking such good care of her. It's really made me think and appreciate all the crap she took because all that crap she took made MY life a lot easier.
I didn't have to do physical labour to support myself. I went to university. And for that I'm grateful. If women like my mom hadn't had the courage to stand up to some pretty unfair people and practices I think all our lives would look pretty different.
I know that there are lunatic fringes in the women's movement. I know that there have been abuses. I wrote an article about them that almost cost me a graduate degree. And please don't say that the feminism of today is totally different. I'm sick of that bullshit too. There's a lineage here and I don't think we should just throw the baby out with the bathwater and label all feminists as out of control lunatic bitches.
I am tired of hearing the anti-feminists rabbiting on and on and on about all the ills feminism has caused. It's a distortion of the most grotesque sort and now I do say things when I encounter it. I didn't for a long time, but now it just makes me irritable.
I think in relative terms. I like to think I take situations on their own merit and not stay married to some out-dated way of thinking. I think of my mom and her peers would probably appreciate that, even if they didn't think of themselves as "feminists" (which they didn't).
Here's my bottom line: When it comes to the feminists vs. the anti-feminists, it's a tie for last.
ie at December 3, 2010 11:25 AM
"I love how popular it is to diss things. It's very often a sign of immaturity and immaturity in the disser."
ie's statement that Psychology Today is not a serious scientific publication is no different than your statement that sociology is "the crap data area of academia." I'd be inclined to agree with both of you except that as a physical scientist, I would hardly limit crappy data handling to sociology when psychology, public health, economics, political science and many others are in the house.
Astra at December 3, 2010 11:48 AM
Until very recently (I'm 38), Feminism has been the only thing in my life telling me what women want or expect from men.
Now I've been reading up on the Pick up artist stuff, which has been a huge help.
I've had women literally just sit there and stare at me instead of telling what they want/need.
So Feminism may not speak for all/any women. But they were the only ones speaking.
ErikZ at December 3, 2010 3:18 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1793162">comment from AstraI would hardly limit crappy data handling to sociology when psychology, public health, economics, political science and many others are in the house.
Sure they are, but as somebody who uses data in her work, I'll tell you that sociology is wildly likely to be ideology-driven (and I don't use public health -- often, anyway -- or poly sci studies ever)...more so than others. This doesn't mean ALL sociologists are shit-data purveyers, as I'm sure not every article in Psychology Today is wonderful. But, there's a difference in observing that sociology is rather often a factory of shit data, and the suggestion that my article is crap simply because it was in a certain magazine.
Amy Alkon at December 3, 2010 4:12 PM
Roughly 1/15th of my workload is taken up with sociology issues. And that small slice is part of about 1/3 of what I do, which is maintain a working library.
I generally don't take sides in the work I do--although unofficially, of course, I have my opinions. I come up with short lists (that's where my discretion comes into play) and then listen to what experts tell me.
And I'm just telling you we dropped Psychology Today years ago and we did so because of our experts didn't think much of it. I picked up a copy at a local hair salon, oh probably a couple of years ago, and I instantly saw why.
It's a populist magazine, so I'm sure your message got out to a lot of people.
And you clearly enjoyed provoking the feminists who read your article, right? I mean, from what you wrote on your blog, that's the impression I got.
I maintain that you are giving them too much credit. I have a lot of experience with the academic world and the few red-hot feminists that are still circulating are a pretty self-marginalizing bunch.
I even have lesbian neighbours who are both professors here in Montreal. One in business and the other in law. I don't get any feminist propaganda from them at all. Generally, we talk about our dogs, our home repairs, etc. And, yes, one of them taught a women's studies course in the 80s, although apparently she's packed it in.
Let's have some manners here and agree to disagree, shall we? I didn't respond with rancour to your comment about be a shit-data purveyor. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
ie at December 3, 2010 5:26 PM
Before you get too angry at me Amy, let me say that I think the kind of writing you do is perfect for a populist publication. And that's not an insult (not at all).
You reach more people than people who write for academic publications. And it fits in with your image of a blogger who dispenses (usually) pretty good advice and, yes, you do so in a way that is entertaining. That's why I follow you.
I disagree with you when it comes to women and feminists, that's obvious. I think you're a bit too mean sometimes. I think when you label all feminists as lunatics, you do a disservice to the long line of women, generations of them, who fought the good fight so that women like us can live the way we do today.
There's a slight edge of disrespect that I sense sometimes and occasionally I react to it. Same thing when some of the male posters get a little too disrespectful. But that adds colour to this blog, right?
And, before you label me a humourless, sexless, feminist who never gets laid (not true), I am on record on this site saying that I like Nina Hartley for all the work she's done speaking for women and sexuality. She's such a frank and intelligent spokesperson for women who like men and who like sex. And now she's turned her sights to discussing sex after 50. She's my kinda gal!
And like Shannon, I don't see a lot of the trouble you describe when it comes to the ill feminism has done. And I'm in a place where I WOULD see it if it actually existed. This is why I'm baffled by some of the comments you make about it. Maybe it's because as Mike says, I live in some provincial outpost, but I think most people would NOT describe Montreal in those terms.
ie at December 4, 2010 3:41 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1793360">comment from ieBefore you get too angry at me Amy, let me say that I think the kind of writing you do is perfect for a populist publication.
My writing is well-received by some of the anthropologists I respect most. Many Ph.D.'s just don't try to write well, or can't. It's unfortunate, and especially when it's lazy. Two very famous evolutionary psychologists, in particular, are THE worst writers. And they could have graduate students write their stuff up, or punch it up. It's laziness and arrogance. I bought their book of journal articles -- very well-known, "important" (and it is) book -- and the pieces in it are largely great, except for theirs, which are terribly written.
Don Symons, on the other hand, and my friend Catherine Salmon, are excellent writers. Their book, Warrior Lovers: Erotic Fiction, Evolution and Female Sexuality, is a little gem.
Amy Alkon at December 4, 2010 7:06 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1793376">comment from ieMaybe it's because as Mike says, I live in some provincial outpost, but I think most people would NOT describe Montreal in those terms.
Here lies the problem - you're arguing that I'm wrong about the USA - how it plays out here day to day, for young men and young women, while sitting on your ass in Montreal. All in all, this has been a waste of time I should not have participated in while in Paris (or anywhere else). Here's a deal for you: I won't tell you how life works in Montreal, and you won't tell me how it works in the USA.
Amy Alkon at December 4, 2010 7:10 AM
I'm not critical of your writing, Amy, far from it. It's just that your style is lively and is well-suited for broad appeal. And you're right, some of the graduate work I look at is so tediously over-wrought I just want to cry sometimes.
You did ask me to explain who I was and so I did. We just have very different takes on this subject, obviously. Really polemical stuff gets tiresome after a while, even if a writer has a good point.
The woman I co-authored that article with, the one who went on to become a vocal opponent of feminism, has taken up a new cause. She's bringing the same stringency to this new cause and she doesn't seem to realize that she's alienating people and marginalizing herself in the process.
I know she would say that's a journalist's right and perhaps even duty, but getting kicked off a newspaper and then a television show--as an expert commentator on her subject--isn't helping her career either. She's turned people off with her anger and rancour and now she's without a forum her work at all, apart from her blog, which is still going strong, however).
ie at December 4, 2010 12:46 PM
So, ie, have you at LEAST tried reading the responses to Amy's Psych Today piece? Even if you don't read the article itself, the responses alone will show what she's talking about.
For someone who is busy telling her that she's wrong, you sure don't seem to want to check up on the reference material she has pointed you to.
WayneB at December 13, 2010 10:38 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/going-whole-hug.html#comment-1799120">comment from WayneBThanks, WayneB.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2010 11:06 AM
Classic exchange between a man and a woman:
Woman: "All you men want is sex!"
Man: "What else you got?"
(In many cases, nothing...)
Luke Smith at December 22, 2010 3:29 AM
I almost forgot this excellent site for telling if you are a friend or rather more:
www.laddertheory.com
Luke Smith at December 22, 2010 3:32 AM
Leave a comment