Skip to content

Sarah Prickett’s Ambiguous Aside

March 9, 2011

A lot of my friends really loved this piece, and as I read it I was agreeing with them — right up to this part:

If you can’t get off on just straight-up sweat-and-vanilla fucking, you should go get professional help, and I do mean that kind of pro.

Standing alone, or in a different piece, I might take that as pretty unambiguous.  But then, it’s not fair to take it out of context.  Here’s the surrounding text:

Relax.

If you read it in a magazine, don’t do it.

If your ex-girlfriend liked it, do it.

I don’t mean whip out all your kinks at once. Let’s have a little mystery. Let’s not do anything that could land us in emergency because, just a guess, you’re not going to be in love with “the moment” when that moment is “please state your relationship to the patient” on an official form. Besides, I don’t need you to be different when you’re already this whole new boy in my bed. If you can’t get off on just straight-up sweat-and-vanilla fucking, you should go get professional help, and I do mean that kind of pro.

As for me, I’m trying not to be a whore. I’m not doing this for love or affection or anything in exchange. I’m doing it for the only reason anyone should ever have sex, which is: I want to. All I want to feel is want. And, yes, wantedness and wantonness. All that.

Make me cum. Again: you’ll know. Orgasms are like the price of heels at Balenciaga. If you have to ask, get the fuck out.

(Emphasis mine.)  There’s a few ways to take that.  The operative words are “vanilla” and “can’t.”

One way to read it might be “you sick BDSM people need to stay away from the normals.”  Using the word “vanilla” implies that she means to distinguish what she wants from BDSM.  But that would read out the part where she says “I don’t mean whip out all your kinks at once”, which would suggest she’s at least open to some things she herself considers non-mainstream.  That’s where “can’t” comes in.

Here’s a little background.  One of the ways that alternative sexualities have been pathologized within the medical community is with the diagnosis of paraphilia.  Paraphilia means a kink that upsets your healthcare provider, but that’s not how they describe it in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, the book used to diagnose mental illnesses.  Folks who have followed the history of GLBT issues are probably already aware of the DSM, and there have been major issues over sexual orientation, gender and alternative sexualities with the DSM for decades.  When folks talk about homosexuality being dropped as a mental disorder, they mean it was removed from the DSM. 

So when I hear “can’t” get off without it, I think of the DSM the way it was when I went off to college, where one of the criteria for a paraphilia was “can’t get off without it.”  I wouldn’t say I can’t get off without BDSM, but there’s some kind of non-mainstream sensation play or power dynamic in the vast majority of my sexual experience, and always was.  So when I read that I think of a history of pathologizing. 

She doesn’t say to get psychiatric help, though.  In fact, she says “I do mean that kind of pro.”  In its way, that statement is almost more problematic — suggesting that people who should stay away from her are nonetheless appropriate clients for sex workers, as if it’s the sex workers’ job to take the dangerous and the creepy off everyone else’s hands … *shudder*.  And I, of course, do not accept that seriously kinky het men are relegated to paid partners.  Serious kinks are not the sole province of men; some of my friends are exactly the seriously kinky women that seriously kinky het men might find for a consensual, negotiated kinky hookup.

But there’s a more charitable case to make for what she wrote, and what she said resonates with people I respect, so I’m inclined to give it a generous hearing.  I think Pickett may not have meant the pathologizing stuff that came across; I think she may have had a much better point.  It could be that some things — rough body play and elements of power exchange that I’ll generally call “rough sex,” though that’s a pretty approximate term — have become something that the men she’s having sex with assume are acceptable, instead of raising and talking about.  If that was her point, I’m in full agreement.  It’s a problem, and it needs to be called out.

I read something Violet Blue wrote, maybe three years ago (that I can’t find now) that spoke directly to this.  She said the rise of rough sex and sort of BDSM-by-any-other-name in gonzo porn wasn’t  a good thing: that it brought with it the physical and psychological aspects of BDSM (I’m paraphrasing here) and popularized them with a mainstream audience, but didn’t normalize all the ethical tools of negotiation and communication that should always go with that stuff. 

What Prickett may have been talking about was something I’ve heard from y0ung women about guys in their twenties in the last few years:  that some of them think they can or are even expected to slap and pull hair and say demeaning things and cause pain, but they don’t think they need to or even should ask if their partner likes this stuff.  That’s awful.  But in a sense, Prickett walks right into that by saying, “if your ex-girlfriend liked it, do it.”  If his ex-girlfriend is also my ex-girlfriend, Prickett really needs to know more information before telling him to go ahead and do whatever she liked.

My concern isn’t that some kinks are being normalized.  I am concerned that things that are dangerous are being normalized without the right safety structures.  That’s the specific concern.  But I also have a general concern, which I’ll return to.  If people are going to be slapping and choking and holding each other down and doing things that can be painful and scary and also really hot, they need to know enough to do it safely.  And they need to know how to do it consensually.  That means making sure they’re on the same page beforehand.  It may mean establishing a safeword, but those are neither perfect nor always necessary.   They’re a tool, and no more.  Read the post for more information, but long story short, “no” means “no” unless people agree otherwise, and also some people get into a place mentally when they can’t remember to safeword or become nonverbal, so a safeword isn’t a get-out-of-responsibility card.  If you’re slapping and choking, you’re topping, whether you call it that or not, and you become responsible for your bottom’s experience, from negotiation to scene to aftercare.  That may not be a statement that gets universal agreement, but that’s what I say.

As a BDSMer, I bristle at the notion that people are coattailing a lot of things on the social acceptance that has been gradual and hard-won for us, or using what I do for cover.  I’ll be blunt:  me and my geeky, kinky kind are not the same as some Tucker-Max reading dude-bro who slaps his hookup across the face to see how she’ll react, or because he really hates women and he figures doing it during sex gives him cover.  I don’t want to provide cover for that asshole.  People who do what I do have been shaving pubic hair since before it was common (it’s a lot easier to take off candle wax if there’s no hair, for one thing), but we didn’t do it so dickhead could act like it’s a rule, placing “no public hair” in the sexist canon with “no fat chicks.”  If some guys are watching some genres of commercial porn and deciding that their partners must look or act like the women they see in porn, that’s a huge problem.  I could rail against commercial porn for that — I’m not so warm and fuzzy on porn as an industry, even if that annoys some of my friends — but I can’t make the industry go away and I don’t have an easy answer.

Returning to my general concern: “normalizing” anything in sexuality is going to be wrong.  It creates the impression that each of us wants to have sex in the same way, and to get the same things out of it.   We don’t.  You’re not me and I’m not you and the only way I know how you like to have sex is to communicate with you.  Maybe that’s verbally and maybe that’s at least in large part physically, but if I go in thinking I already know what you like, I stand a really good chance of being wrong.

Porn is not a substitute for communication.  Essays are not a substitute for communication.  Education is not a substitute for communication.  There is no substitute for communication.

24 Comments leave one →
  1. March 9, 2011 10:22 am

    I think this sentence sort of says it all for a lot of young, confused guys: “that some of them think they can or are even EXPECTED to slap and pull hair and say demeaning things and cause pain, but they don’t think they need to or even SHOULD ask if their partner likes this stuff.” (sorry it’s not bolded; I don’t know if the comments support HTML).

    There’s enough bullshit swimming out there in the world, either through porn, or places like Maxim, that speak to a lot of young men about what women want. Real women tend to be conspicuously missing from these sources, but they SAY they speak on behalf of women, and I’m not surprised that a lot of young men assume those sources do so genuinely. I fell for a lot of those messages, too, until I wised up later by talking to my actual partners and finding out what they really wanted. I wonder if a mismatch in sexual activity between young het or bi women and young het or bi men is due to this confusion about what they think they are supposed to be or want in bed.

    In the case of this particular note, I got the impression that for this author, non-mainstream sexual activities were not on the table for an initial casual sex encounter. It did give me pause the way she wrote it, but I didn’t get the impression that she was trying to pathologize BDSM.

    • March 9, 2011 10:30 am

      Yeah, I think I agree that she didn’t mean to. I got the impression that what she meant was a lot better than what she actually wrote.

  2. March 9, 2011 11:00 am

    THANK YOU for working through that line of the piece. I wasn’t overly fond of the piece as a whole, though I understand why a lot of people are, but that line stopped me cold. And then you went on to articulate (in a way I can use in future conversations) the problem with BDSM play being mainstreamed without the tools and consent-talk! Thank you!

  3. March 9, 2011 12:22 pm

    I think one of the important points of this piece, which puts the problematic part more into context, is that she’s addressing guys who want a one night stand. In the one night stand situation, there probably hasn’t been enough time to really build up the sort of trust that a lot of people require for BDSM scenarios. So what she’s saying seems to be– if you can’t get off on vanilla sex, and you want an uncomplicated one night stand, find a professional who you KNOW is ready to get involved with BDSM, instead of springing it on your one night stand.

    So, I don’t think she’s saying sex-workers only for kinksters, I think she’s saying go to a sex worker if you want a one night stand with a lady you don’t know.

    Though the ex-girlfriend bit, totally. When I first read the piece, my head turned it into her saying that if your ex likes it, DON’T do it, which makes sense too in a way– her surefire magic orgasm buttons aren’t likely to be universal!

  4. March 9, 2011 12:39 pm

    I also did not like this part:

    “Make me cum. Again: you’ll know. Orgasms are like the price of heels at Balenciaga. If you have to ask, get the fuck out.”

    People do NOT always know when people have orgasms. Also, why is HE responsible for her orgasm?

    • March 9, 2011 6:19 pm

      Also why does she have to be such an asshole about it?

      Unless you’re into being disciplined, having orders barked at you is NOT sexy and can be a total mood killer – in other words, a good way to guarantee that NOBODY gets an orgasm!

      GREGORY A. BUTLER

  5. March 9, 2011 2:19 pm

    Sarah Nicole Prickett was filled with passive-aggression, a deeply unreasonable expectation that her partner was supposed to be a mind reader (which absolved her of any responsibility for actually using her words and asking for what she wants) and an all around overdeveloped sense of entitlement.

    So it didn’t surprise me that that Prickett had a bias against sexual fetishes – to her, sex isn’t about pleasure, it’s a power trip and a means for her to validate herself and bolster her low self esteem.

    The article was a reverse aphrodisiac – far from making me want to go the extra mile to have sex with Prickett one time, the article made me not want to have any sort of contact with her at all, not even a handshake!

    Thomas, I really don’t get what you liked about the article, it seemed to me that this woman’s vision of sex is 180 degrees opposite of Yes Means Yes, because she expects the men she has sex with to be mindreaders, to think exactly the same way she does and to guess what she wants sexually without her having to actually use her words and TELL THEM what she wants!

    That’s typical gatekeeper model sexuality, where women ration out sex to men who jump through hoops to “earn” it. No wonder she doesn’t like fetishes – those are the province of folks who actually LIKE sex, not those who, like Prickett, use it as a bargaining chip!

    GREGORY A. BUTLER

  6. March 9, 2011 3:47 pm

    “I’ve heard from y0ung women about guys in their twenties in the last few years: that some of them think they can or are even expected to slap and pull hair and say demeaning things and cause pain, but they don’t think they need to or even should ask if their partner likes this stuff”

    This. But more than this, it also goes the other way around in a kind of twisted way. Being a twenty year old hooking up with twenty somethings, there have been times that I feel like I am EXPECTED to like being slapped and having my hair pulled and having demeaning things said to me, and there have been times I’ve put up with these things because they’re “normal” and why shouldn’t like like them and anyway I can learn to like them so its no big deal.

    Which, thinking about it now, is actually kind of fucked up. Hmm, something to think about.

    Anyway, I didn’t like the tone of this piece. I mean, I picked up a lot of being tired about bullshit with men, which I absolutely get, but it didn’t read like someone who wants to have sex and enjoys having sex so just skip the bullshit please. It read so…. angry. Bitter, even, and those are two emotions I really don’t like associating with sex with anyone, especially one night stands. So I guess it didn’t really resonate with me that well because of that, but I can really get on board with the “Cut out the bullshit” message. I just wish it was more like “Cut out the bullshit, and lets just enjoy each other.”

    • March 9, 2011 6:24 pm

      Shora,

      It really came across to me that Prickett basically doesn’t like men and she has a passive-aggressive streak a mile wide. The whole tone of her article was that she expects men to, on the first night they are together sexually, to guess exactly what she wants sexually, exactly the way she wants it, without her having to open her mouth and explain any of it, and she will sit there quietly fuming in rage all night if he doesn’t.

      Of course, she won’t tell the guy any of this – she’ll act like she likes it, moan in all the right places, smile at him when he’s done (while she’s secretly fuming at him) and make the guy breakfast the next day, all the while she’s secretly enraged at him for not reading her mind and accurately guessing her sexual needs.

      I would never ever want to have sex with a woman like her – hell, I wouldn’t even want to share a table at Starbucks with her!

      Communication is sexy – passive aggression is not.

      GREGORY A. BUTLER

      • March 10, 2011 1:17 pm

        The piece does come across as passive aggressive, and some of the things she says do seem like things she thinks and may not communicate right away, or ever, but… I think you’re extrapolating too much about her feelings and behavior by this one post.

        What I got from her article is that it was a collection of things she has often come across in hooking up with people that she’s just…. sick of. She’s sick of the bullshit, and what she is saying, in this post, is stop feeding her bullshit and what she is expressing is frustration with bullshit. And lets be honest, I can really, really sympathize with that.

        “Of course, she won’t tell the guy any of this – she’ll act like she likes it, moan in all the right places, smile at him when he’s done (while she’s secretly fuming at him) and make the guy breakfast the next day, all the while she’s secretly enraged at him for not reading her mind and accurately guessing her sexual needs.”

        You don’t actually know this from what she wrote. None of us has any idea how much of this she is actually communicating with her partner. It might be a lot of it, it might be very little of it. It’s unlikely that this piece is actually meant to communicate to men she sleeps with what she wants, because yea, that would be extremely passive aggressive, as well as pretty ineffective.

        A lot of what she wrote really really resonates with a lot of people in a lot of ways, and there is good reason for it. And a lot of what she wrote is problematic, but it’s not problematic because she’s some passive aggressive bitchy shrew who expects men to read her mind.

      • March 10, 2011 3:45 pm

        Shora,

        You said –“but it’s not problematic because she’s some passive aggressive bitchy shrew who expects men to read her mind.”

        I wouldn’t use loaded sexist terms like bitchy or shrew, but it really did come across to me that she expected a man she just met to figure out just what kind of compliments she wanted to hear, what kinds she didn’t want to hear and what she liked and didn’t like sexually.

        I also suspect strongly that she didn’t actually use her words and say any of that, she just expected a man she just met to guess all of that, and guess right.

        In real life beyond the internet, I”ve dealt with women who think just like that.

        They can be incredibly frustrating to deal with, because apparently they were taught by society that women aren’t actually supposed to directly ask for what they want from men. So they drop hints and expect men to guess and get angry when men guess wrong (which it’s highly likely for men to do, since we’re socialized so differently from women).

        Prickett reminded me of those women – and why I avoid them like the plague.

        I’m sure her words resonated with women like that.

        They resonated with me to0 – in the exact opposite way.

        I hope I never have the misfortune of meeting Prickett in real life for precisely that reason.

        GREGORY A. BUTLER

  7. Jericka permalink
    March 9, 2011 9:02 pm

    So, as a description of what will get me into bed with someone the fist time, I suppose this is pretty good. I don’t want to hear over the top compliments or be asked what I am thinking. Those two things really throw me out of the mood. I do like being asked about other physical things, how I am feeling or what I would physically like.

    Vanilla sex, though….

    I like being held down and having my hair pulled, but, a guy trying that right away without knowing him well will set off all kinds of alarm bells in my head. I like it with people I trust, and trust is earned. The guys that I like to have pull my hair are the ones I spent 5 hours on a date just talking to. The ones that I have some idea that we are on the same wavelength because we have already covered some ground on consent and his attitude towards me as a person. If I ever feel like an object, the event is over and I am headed for the door. For me, that is partly a hotness issue, but, it is also a safety issue.

    She may have stated it in a way that is hard to take, but, for a one night stand with someone I don’t know well, vanilla is the only flavor I’m willing to do as well. If you need more kink than that, I’m willing, but, only in the context of a longer relationship than a one night stand. For a one night stand, don’t bother pulling out the floggers and the rope, because although I am into those, I’m not into it with someone I don’t know well enough.

    This falls into the category of safety, for me. Maybe if you think about it as a situation with more risk for the person being tied up, rather than an issue of “I don’t want you if…”?

  8. March 10, 2011 6:44 pm

    Gregory,

    Her words resonated with me in a positive way, and I am decidedly not a person who sits and fumes and expects men to guess what I’m thinking and get angry when they guess wrong, or don’t guess at all. Her words resonate with me because I’ve had my heart broken by the men she’s describing, the ones who fill your ears with pretty words and build you up and make you feel all special and then ignore you the next day. I also avoid them like the plague, but like the plague, they are inescapable.

    It “came across to [you]” and you “strongly suspect” that she is the way you describe, just by reading this one piece. Reading just what you have written here, and that immature and uncalled for comment you left on her blog, you come across to me as a man with a lot of privilege who would dismiss the hurt and anger a woman has experienced at the hands of sexual and romantic partners and insult and abuse her because she wrote about that hurt on her blog. What you have said in this narrow instance makes you come across to me as exactly the type of person who would use loaded sexist terms like bitchy or shrew in a space where a lot of feminists are unlikely to overhear and object. What you have said makes you come across to me as very disrespectful of women.

    I do not “strongly suspect” that you are any of those things, because you are more than what you wrote here, because the pain and bitterness you have experienced at the hands of the women you describe is likely very real and very sympathetic, because I understand that people are not strong feelings I get when I read a blog post or comment. I’m not going to liken any aspect of being in your presence to having a root canal without Novocaine, because the strong feeling I got reading that comment you left on her blog does not make me automatically assume that you are a person who deserves such an insult.

    • March 10, 2011 6:50 pm

      Clicking around the link, it is apparent to me that it is not her blog, just an article she wrote. Doesn’t change the meaning of what I said at all, but perhaps means I should pay more attention to small details xD

    • March 11, 2011 3:06 am

      Shora,

      I’m a middle aged African American construction carpenter who suffers from a couple of minor physical disabilities (I have a heart condition and have a surgically rebuilt right ankle and walk with a distinct limp because of it – and I work in an industry where people who are perceived to be disabled are the last hired and the first to be laid off) so I really wouldn’t think of myself as very privileged at all.

      The only semi privilege I have is the fact that I’m a fairly prominent radical dissident in my union. Of course, my notoriety as a leftist in a very conservative industry has it’s liabilities as well, so that’s not that much of a privilege either.

      Of course, you don’t know any of that about me, because I haven’t mentioned it here, so I do not hold it against you for not knowing that – after all, you’re not a mind reader and you’ve never met me.

      I take full responsibility for myself and all of my actions.

      I take no responsibilities for the actions of others, because I had nothing to do with them.

      I also whenever possible avoid bringing pain to others. However, I am not a mind reader and I can’t guess what triggers another person has unless she tells me.

      I wouldn’t expect other people to read my mind and guess what my triggers are unless I open my mouth and tell them, so I can’t figure out what triggers other people have without them sharing that information with me.

      In my personal life, I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with a lot of women who, thanks to the patriarchy and female socialization in our society were incapable of communicating their emotional needs and also were unable to give me a warning of the kinds of things that might hurt their feelings.

      In general, they expected me to magically guess what their needs were and what they might find triggering – a task that I found damned near impossible because I’m a very masculine oriented cisgendered heterosexual male who is a top in my sexual relationships.

      I’ve always found the perspectives of feminine oriented cisgendered heterosexual women who are bottoms in their relationships to be about 180 degrees opposite to mine – in other words, they are my polar opposites andI can’t understand their worldview unless they explain it

      I’m a very smart guy, so once somebody explains her point of view, her needs and what triggers she has that I need to avoid, I”m a very quick study. I’m also a essentially decent and caring person, who tries very hard to not hurt other people, so if you tell me not to say or do something because it will hurt you, I can 100% guarantee you that I won’t.

      However, if you don’t tell me what hurts, I absolutely cannot help you – I”m not a mind reader, and I find with women that their lives are so different with mine if I guess what’s wrong, there’s a 99% chance that I will guess wrong

      So, I’ve made a little rule – if a woman can’t explain to me, verbally, in words that I can understand, exactly what she needs to make her happy and exactly what she needs me to not do to avoid causing her any suffering, I simply cannot have her in my life.

      Sarah Prickett reminds me very much of the women I’ve dealt with who lacked the capacity to directly communicate their needs and triggers to men. I’m sure she came by that trait honestly, thanks to the way our society socialized women. I also know that I’m not prepared to play a guessing game with such women, because it causes too much suffering, to them and to me.

      Also, quite frankly, Prickett seems incredibly emotionally closed – she came across as someone who has absolutely no interest in the inner lives of the men she dates and she probably doesn’t particularly care about those men’s needs or what their triggers are.

      I’ve known a lot of women like that too – and I’ve learned through long hard experience that those are women I do not need in my life.

      That’s the message I got from her angry passive aggressive screed – and that’s why I reacted so angrily and dismissively to it.

      GREGORY A. BUTLER

      • March 11, 2011 1:50 pm

        I appreciate you sharing these details with me, especially since they are very personal.

        And you are right, I didn’t know any of these things about you, and it was impossible for me to know them based on what you wrote. Which, as I’m sure you gathered, is exactly the point I was trying to make.

        Your stances on communication in relationships come across to me as absolutely 100% reasonable, and even necessary. As a feminine oriented cissgendered heterosexual woman who is a bottom in most relationships, I find that expecting any level of mind reading in a relationship is completely ridiculous and counterproductive. I also have found that expecting a significant other to read ones mind is not restricted to women; feminine, cis, hetero or otherwise.

        As it is, I think we kind of agree to a certain extent about the tone of the piece itself. There is a bitterness and weariness in the words that I hope i never experience.

      • March 11, 2011 2:03 pm

        Shora,

        Indeed, Sarah Prickett comes across as really angry and bitter and she seems to have given up on any hope for love.

        I actually can understand that very well, because I myself have given up on love – I’m 42 and have been meeting “the wrong kind of woman” for 25 years, why would it change now?

        The difference between me and Prickett is that I don’t expect others to guess my needs, and I just walk away from the women who don’t meet those needs, rather than demanding that they change.

        Of course, I’ve lived on this planet a bit longer than Prickett has, she’s only 25. Hopefully, when she’s my age, she’ll have come to a similar understanding about love (or the lack therof) and life.

        GREGORY A. BUTLER

  9. Hel permalink
    March 11, 2011 6:41 pm

    I find her saying “I’m trying not to be a whore…the only reason anyone should ever have sex, which is: I want to” really problematic. She’s using whore derogatorily, and even if she did “just” mean “people who have sex for money” that’s not ok. Plus, given the two sentiments together, there’s a very strong “controlling women’s sexuality” tone, along with, of course, judgement of others’ choices. I’m not even going to click through and read her post, cos just from your excerpt, I can tell the clueless privilege is strong with her.

  10. March 17, 2011 10:31 am

    Returning to my general concern: ”normalizing” anything in sexuality is going to be wrong. It creates the impression that each of us wants to have sex in the same way, and to get the same things out of it. We don’t. You’re not me and I’m not you and the only way I know how you like to have sex is to communicate with you. Maybe that’s verbally and maybe that’s at least in large part physically, but if I go in thinking I already know what you like, I stand a really good chance of being wrong.

    Quoted for truth. (Can’t comment more because of a crazy work week, but this is so congruent with my thinking it’s like a Cliff’s Notes version of what I’d say.)

  11. April 1, 2011 11:35 pm

    “I read something Violet Blue wrote, maybe three years ago (that I can’t find now) that spoke directly to this. She said the rise of rough sex and sort of BDSM-by-any-other-name in gonzo porn wasn’t a good thing: that it brought with it the physical and psychological aspects of BDSM (I’m paraphrasing here) and popularized them with a mainstream audience, but didn’t normalize all the ethical tools of negotiation and communication that should always go with that stuff.”

    Violet Blue: “Putting Rough Porn In Context” – my bookmark for it 404’ed, but gave me the title to find it again. Why can’t good stuff stay put on the internet?

  12. August 15, 2011 6:41 pm

    Whoa, I just found this, probably cos no one calls me “Sarah Prickett.” I’m a bit startled/humbled by your unravelling my entire piece from that one loose thread. You’re very insightful and this was super-interesting to read.

    The comments are another story. Jesus, Gregory, consider yourself lucky I don’t really go to Starbucks.

    I love men, first of all, especially the one with whom I live. I was probably hornier than I was angry when I wrote that. And you’re right: what I meant was better than what I said. I was being perhaps too flippant. In no way was I trying to say BDSM is anything but cool and the gang; only that in the context of a single night, without a lot of fore-communication, I’m not about to deal with it. Is that alright with everyone?

    • August 16, 2011 10:56 am

      You really do come across as incredibly angry, passive-aggressive, emotionally closed off and really very anti male in your post. You also come across as someone who really doesn’t like men very much and who sees sex as a bargaining chip rather than a source of real mutual pleasure.

      That may be 180 degrees opposite of who you are in real life – however, since I’ve never actually met you, I have no way of knowing that.

      In any case, if that article is in any way representative of who you are as a person, I hope I never get within 10 miles of you.

      GREGORY A. BUTLER

  13. August 15, 2011 6:42 pm

    Oh and I am so not bitter! Ask anyone IRL. I’m such a romantic about the long-term. Maybe I’ve divided my heart a little, that’s all.

Trackbacks

  1. Monday Stepback: Jennifer Egan, Andrew Shaffer, Josh Lanyon, Ana T. | Read React Review: Rethinking romance and other fine fiction

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: