I...I have no words.

I also don't have a gf, so you know...

I read the quote by Lisa Bonos and literally felt sick to my stomach. What kind of man OR woman for that matter, should be so cowed with fear of offending, getting it wrong, having the dating police called, etc. that they wouldn't have the balls (literally or figururatively) to take the risk?

If there are people in the world that actually exist like this, get to know the mail room because that's where you're going to build a career.

Everyday, it seems, we move to a sadder and more bizarre reality. I'm glad I'm not 18 now.

Yes. Pathetic. Real women wonder where real men have gone. Answer: Neutered by feminism. Or scared by pegging.

When I want to get laid, I just jump my wife. There's no conversation. Unless she's not up for it (a rare occurrence) in which case she'll just tell me. No means no. End of conversation.

I'm glad I'm not in college now.

I dont think you hang out with a lot of femisists, I know feminist men who are BDSM doms

It's interesting. In the 1880s-era "These Happy Golden Years," which most fans think of as very romantic indeed (though, as a preteen, I didn't understand why there wasn't more romantic dialogue, since I hadn't learned to read between the lines - or really learned to appreciate Almanzo's very generous, heroic actions, early on), Laura doesn't get her first kiss until after she gets her engagement ring, and then only when they're at her parents' door and she says to him "you may kiss me goodnight."

Yeah, yeah, out of context, it probably doesn't sound too appealing, but when you read it, it DOES work.

What you might enjoy in high school (such as being grabbed and kissed by a classmate in a dark stairwell) is not so appealing in the adult world. In the same vein, the only parties I've really enjoyed since my teens have been dinner parties, where you can actually hear people talk. (I've never understood clubbing, for that reason.)

Whomever monitors the comments at WaPo apparently isn't cool enough to know what "pegging" means.
_____________________________

Er, don't you mean "whoever"? :-)

Besides, just what ARE the rules at the WaPo regarding sexual references?

I go for simplicity. I eschew complexity in life. What is the simplest and safest way to relate to women? Celibacy. No dating. No relationships. 0$ chance of a false rape allegation, STDs, misunderstandings of any type, complicated entitlement narcissism or sexual violence towards me.

The herbivore men of Japan are very wise indeed.

Oh, and when I heard an apartment building window (in MY building) being smashed in one night, it never occurred to me not to be the one to go down and check. A bit foolish, maybe, but, as I suspected, it was some stupid vandal passing by and not a would-be burglar. (Besides, it would have been just as foolish for any other unarmed person to check, I would think.)

"Laura doesn't get her first kiss until after she gets her engagement ring, and then only when they're at her parents' door and she says to him "you may kiss me goodnight."

Lenona,this is literary fiction, not history.

In reality there was a high rate of rape, murder, shotgun weddings, out of wedlock births, adultery, desertion, poverty, abortion, and death.

Women died like flies in childbirth, but reality didn't sell well in magazines and pulp fiction. People were living that reality, they didn't want to read about it.

Those Courtly Victorian romances and etiquette books had as much relationship to reality as today's romance novels, and soap opera plots.

Lenona,this is literary fiction, not history.
_________________________________

I'm well aware of that (I found out some surprising things about Laura's real life a year or so ago), but since romance was clearly supposed to be the main part of THGY's marketing appeal, if Laura's giving permission was going to turn off her average reader (who was not necessarily a preteen reader) I would think she wouldn't have written it that way. It's also worth remembering that it was published in 1943, so she wasn't trying to appeal mainly to Victorian readers. (Not to mention that, in that book, she certainly avoided revealing something that would definitely have been a romantic turn-off even then - the fact that, at the beginning of the book, Almanzo was almost 26, ten years older than she.)
_________________________________

Those Courtly Victorian romances and etiquette books had as much relationship to reality as today's romance novels, and soap opera plots.

Posted by: Isab at January 5, 2015 6:42 AM
_________________________________

Um, don't you think it's misleading to equate etiquette books to romance novels?

Besides, if Miss Manners' column/books were useless (and she certainly takes pride in being not just modern but Victorian to a certain degree), why would her column keep selling?

ox·y·mo·ron
ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/
noun
noun: oxymoron; plural noun: oxymorons

a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).

I go for simplicity. I eschew complexity in life. What is the simplest and safest way to relate to women? Celibacy. No dating. No relationships. 0$ chance of a false rape allegation, STDs, misunderstandings of any type, complicated entitlement narcissism or sexual violence towards me.

The herbivore men of Japan are very wise indeed.

------

That is a very wise approach. My guy friends and I have often lamented that we are victims of our own biology, thinking with our little heads instead of our big heads. We could have avoided so much expense, trouble, and misery if we had just remained celibate. Some of us can. Some of us cannot. We all have different genes. My sister and I laugh about how we inherited our sex drive from our wildman dad.

"Um, don't you think it's misleading to equate etiquette books to romance novels?"

No, I was talking about the Victorian ettiquite books, which were aspirational fiction for middle class girls who wanted to dream about what it was like to be wealthy and actually posess day dresses, evening dresses, and 24 place settings of sterling silver, including pickle forks, and consume spoons.

What makes you think Victorian etiquette books didn't talk about everyday manners, just as Judith Martin's books do?

Just because many Victorian etiquette books may have gone into far more detail regarding how to deal with servants than Martin's books didn't mean they never dealt with real-life situations for ordinary people.

By the way, maybe people don't talk about "evening dresses" today, but most people understand the need to have different clothes for hard work and parties. A man doesn't need a tux to dress up, but he can't wear overalls to a dinner party either, as a rule.

"What makes you think Victorian etiquette books didn't talk about everyday manners, just as Judith Martin's books do?"

Did I say that? No, I did not. Just because Victorian Etiquette books may have contained advice that was occasionally useful to middle class individuals, did not mean that was their intended purpose.

Victorian society was highly structured and class based, it was a continuing battle of one upmanship between the very wealthy old money families and the newly rich.

Everyone who was anyone already knew what the social rules were.
Anyone not born to the manor would trip themselves up in a thousand different ways by relying on a etiquette book.

Out: Romance, and the risk it entails.

In: The written application.

On the other hand, for people whose greatest accomplishment might be a college admissions essay, just how much can one expect?

Should the written application (or verbal one for that matter) be precluded w/a 'trigger warning' just in case?

I guess the reply would as well since we can not assume only a male to female situation.

"On the other hand, for people whose greatest accomplishment might be a college admissions essay, just how much can one expect?"

And not even a good essay... just one that validates tribe membership.

"Out: Romance, and the risk it entails.

In: The written application."

Online dating is Huge with people you'd respect too.

You all missed the best quote in the article:

"As for who picks up the check on a first date, let’s obliterate the gender pay gap first, then put that one back up for debate."

Even as a hilarious double standard this doesn't make any sense. Points for honesty and fair warning for any man stupid enough to date her, I guess.

Wow kf.

How do these women find men?

>>How do these women find men?

Don't worry Ppen, US society is trying hard to wussify men so they know their place under the feminist boot heel.

@kf:

You all missed the best quote in the article:

"As for who picks up the check on a first date, let’s obliterate the gender pay gap first, then put that one back up for debate."

Even as a hilarious double standard this doesn't make any sense. Points for honesty and fair warning for any man stupid enough to date her, I guess.

Or it's a tacit admission that she won't date anyone who makes less than she does.

Two possibilities:

1) This woman, an editor at the Washington Post, expects social workers, kindergarten teachers, Target cashiers etc to pay for her dinner, even when she asks them out;

2) This alleged feminist would never, *ever* date a social worker, kindergarten teacher or a Target cashier.

You all missed the best quote in the article:

"As for who picks up the check on a first date, let’s obliterate the gender pay gap first, then put that one back up for debate."

Even as a hilarious double standard this doesn't make any sense. Points for honesty and fair warning for any man stupid enough to date her, I guess.

Posted by: kf at January 5, 2015 2:23 PM
______________________________________

I'll admit, that WAS pretty awful.

As Miss Manners has said (though not often enough) about who should pay on dates: "It is vulgar to notice how much money other people make."

Quotation of hers from a sidebar in a 1990s article:

Q: What if it's a blind date?

A: Again, someone had to set it up.

If she's ever said anything about the MRAs' complaint that "whoever invites, pays" isn't fair, I haven't heard what she said...yet.

(The complaint is that too many women, consciously or not, won't date men who don't do at least 70% of the inviting and paying. Therefore, that quoted rule isn't detailed enough to be fair in a supposedly egalitarian age.)

At the same time, though, unless you're a man casually asking a coworker to join you for lunch, it shouldn't surprise a man, IMO, when he invites a woman to a cafe, silently expecting her to pay her own way, but she doesn't realize that until the end - and things then get awkward. Even a young man invited by a male friend might not realize that - one never knows. Therefore, it only makes sense to SAY, in advance, that you are "inviting" but not treating. Why not avoid awkwardness whenever possible?

Of course, if a certain man always pays for both when he invites someone out, it's only fair for the other person, regardless of gender, either to try to do 50% of the inviting and paying (even if the latter person can't afford anything more than McDonald's - again, it's not about exact dollar amounts, per se) OR turn down at least a few money-spending dates on the grounds that it would not be fair to keep getting without giving as often.

What's annoying is when men and women who do the "inviting" just assume that ALL mixed-sex dates between adults are dutch dates unless stated otherwise and that the invitees should somehow know that. What's especially annoying is when the person "inviting" you just assumes that you like spending money for the same things he/she does, when you may well consider them to be a foolish waste of money, whether it's a cheap restaurant, an expensive restaurant, or a ticket to a performance by someone you've never heard of. (Unless I can find some REALLY compelling reviews for that musician/performer, you can bet I'm not paying for a ticket.) I would never assume that anyone wants to pay to see the same things I want to see.

I'm trying to decide just how big a bucket of cold water it would be if DH said "can I slap your ass now" whilst we were gettin' busy. It would be the end of playtime for that day, for sure.

After many innuendo-filled flirtations, at many a gathering, he finally said "ok, that's enough, let's go", threw me over his shoulder, and carted me off to the bedroom. Several clothing items were ruined that night. 12 years of marriage and 4 kids later, I STILL want him to read the signals and take me. Is that asking so much?? Ugh-"feminists"-ruining it for he rest of us.

I wonder what Lena Cuisina might say about this...

the guys who talk about celibacy remind me of what one actor said when he was getting negative comments about using prostitutes: "I don't pay them for sex, I pay them to leave afterwards". I know at least 2 guys who have lost 2 houses each to divorce. One couldn't lose the apartment because it was rented from a family member, but when I visited, the only furniture he had left was patio furniture he had moved inside. He also paid for his exes' teen childrens' health insurance for 6 months, just to get her to agree to the divorce. As if her not working and frequently passed out in a drunken stupor on the couch, while one of her kids was threatening to do violence to a girl at school and both kids were stealing money to the point where my friend had to buy a safe wasn't enough. I know the stats say that women make out worse after divorce, but I've also seen guys get taken to the cleaners. But I also have mostly divorced female friends. Pretty much scared me into celibacy too. The 1st 6 months are the hardest

At the same time, guys who are present enough to pay attention to you (and not to their own projections), pretty much know when to move and when to call it a day (or quits). No 20 questions needed.

Yes, Amy should have written "Whoever." She's a professional writer and doesn't know the difference between the nominative and objective cases. Sad.

Yes, Amy should have written "Whoever." She's a professional writer and doesn't know the difference between the nominative and objective cases. Sad.

JD, you're a dick.

Here's the deal. Times are tough. I'm working every day, seven days a week, from 5 am into the evening, writing and then reading journal articles. So when 10pm rolls around and I need to blog, I'm tired off my ass. Sometimes I swap "due" for "do." Sometimes, I write "whomever" when I should write "whoever."

The reality is, I don't know the "nominative" from the "objective." And I don't care. I was in a gifted kids class instead of taking grammar. Dumb on the school's part. It turns out I have an intuitive knowledge of grammar, through reading countless books, especially as a child.

I know whether to write "whom" or "who" based on the "he/him" test. If "him" fits, it's "whom." (The "m" is the key.)

I think it's hilarious that people think it's important to know what the "nominative" and the "subjunctive" are. Why should I know those things if I can write well without them?

Also, I have the "assassin of faulty prose" for the writing I don't do with my bleeding eyes propped open (my column and books). That would be copyeditor David Yontz, who has grammar instead of blood running through his veins, I'm pretty sure.

By the way, there's an okay way to correct people and an asshole way. You, JD, took the asshole way above. What kind of tiny little shit of a person are you that you need to try to shame people for a grammatical mistake. Do you think they learn better if you try to make them feel like shit?

PS Lenona's correction above was fine. Patrick, a number of times, has also emailed me privately to let me know when I've made an error. As has Jim P. Always appreciate notes like that. They're about wanting to help me, not wanting to knock me down.

Related: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/402368547933102546/

No hymen no diamond.

Women today are riding the c**k carocelle and with the number of guys that ran through them, their STD'd vavas are loose and gaping begging for a car to park in them. Today's women simply are not marriable. Better option is to build wealth and leave th se to their cats.