The Confession Booth: Post something very personal about yourself

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, I get it. I am not saying to jump in bed with someone you don't know. I don't do 1 night stands either. Too dangerous.

My point is, relationships rarely develop from friendships, and that is why some may be having trouble. Girls, fair or not, put us into "friendzones" and we can never escape it except for a lucky few. I am not advocating you date a friend. I am saying that sometimes we try to befriend a girl that we actually are interested in, and it has the opposite effect from what we expect.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with or marry anybody with whom I did not have the demonstrated ability to be friends in the first place.

Also, I think the friendzone is a terrible concept. In my experience women and girls have all sorts of reasons for categorizing people that go beyond and are usually much more specific and personal than this generalized model of female behavior that a lot of people seem to accept.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A lot of my friendships, particularly with other mentally ill folks, vacillate back and forth between immensely fulfilling and important and positive relationships and nearly unbearable cavalcades of mutual apologies. More so, I mean, than friendship normally does.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've been described as 'disagreeable', 'frivolous', and 'capricious' by my close friends within the past four hours. Admittedly these were qualified and specific descriptions, not statements about me ontologically.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There are people with real problems out there.

Yeah, like getting pressured into or victimized during sex, or having to interact with people who make it clear that they want to pressure or victimize.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There are people with real problems out there.

Yeah, like getting pressured into or victimized during sex, or having to interact with people who make it clear that they want to pressure or victimize.

Being hit on is not a problem. The lack thereof is a much more trying experience.

Believe it or not, this is not the case for all people in all times and places. Some people, especially those whom our society holds in contempt and traumatizes for having the temerity to be female, want to be left more or less alone, or better yet, paid some degree of meaningful love and/or respect by those around them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I rather enjoy being lectured about sex by people who have zero experience with it. I feel like I'm at the Vatican.

I think it's safe to say that most of the people lecturing you have more experience than your average Atlas poster.

But, anyway, that's entirely besides the point.  You shouldn't actually need experience to be able to understand why and how sexual harassment against women is pervasive, and damaging, and very very wrong.  You just need to not be a clueless, privileged blockhead.

1. You may want to re-read the first few pages of this thread.
2. If you define any invitation for sex ever as harassment, you're going to die a virgin. Somebody has to initiate somewhere.
3. Enjoy your self-imposed loneliness. Glad it makes you feel superior.

2. Nobody's defining any invitation for sex ever as harassment, memphis. The fact that you can't seem to figure out how to finesse that distinction isn't our fault.
3. Sexlessness and loneliness are not the same thing, unless your emotional and spiritual faculties are entirely disengaged.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm with Grumps here. I'd like to know it if the poster I'm communicating with is such a creep.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

asexual trans victimologists

I'm sorry, the only part of this characteristically awful post that made any impression on me was the sheer kickasstacularness of this turn of phrase.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Oh, so sexual harassment is acknowledging a woman's sexual autonomy. Brilliant stuff.

I am not a supporter of harassment. Persistent slimy behavior is inexcusable. However, a one time friendly advance is not harassment. It's being a functional human being. And women are more than capable of saying no if they are not interested. They are not the fragile little flowers other posters desperately want them to be. They are full members of humanity with all the power and decision making that goes along with that. And, of course, there are some scumbags who refuse to take no for an answer. That doesn't make all men sex criminals, much as others would like to believe.

So, the problem isn't so much that you and Tik necessarily disagree from first principles as that your reading comprehension is as atrocious. Good to know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...actually, you know what? Never mind.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It was, but he obviously fails to understand what precisely Tik actually had a problem with. Either that or he has a very, very, very broad definition of 'friendly advance'. I'm a mostly functional human being without ever making such 'friendly advances'--or even the more conventional, less obviously sleazy kind--and rather content as such.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Memphis, do you think if a woman goes outside dressed in a "slutty" outfit and gets raped that it is her fault for dressing that way?

I would not blame a victim of rape. Ever. At the same time, we all live in an imperfect world and need to be mindful of that fact. I wouldn't leave my front door wide open lest somebody loot my modest possessions. It wouldn't be my fault somebody stole my stuff, but it would have been wiser to be more conscious of the risks out there in the world.

Wow.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

asexual trans victimologists

I'm sorry, the only part of this characteristically awful post that made any impression on me was the sheer kickasstacularness of this turn of phrase.

Sexual trans victimologist works well too. Sort of a political application of a personal preference for kinky masochistic sex

Kinky masochistic not-sex describes more of my interactions with other people than most of said people would probably consider healthy.

And with that, we're almost back to using the thread for its intended purpose again.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Keep telling us about The Wimminfolk, memphis. It's endlessly amusing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would expect nothing more from you, but I'm glad you've found the thread. I'm sure it'll provide you with some entertainment.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm absolutely terrified to go back for my last semester of undergraduate in a few days, and absolutely convinced emotionally that I will fail even though I know intellectually that I almost certainly won't.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am moderately embarrassed by the fact that I went to a public school.

As am I by the fact that I went to a private school.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am moderately embarrassed by the fact that I went to a public school.

As am I by the fact that I went to a private school.

Can we switch?

You would not have liked my school.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am moderately embarrassed by the fact that I went to a public school.

As am I by the fact that I went to a private school.

Can we switch?

You would not have liked my school.

Would I have heard of it?

Almost certainly not.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I really, genuinely think of myself as a bad poster and person and a blight upon the forum.