Not a member? Sign up now
August 15, 2007
|
|
Have a question? Email erin@nerve.com. Letters may be edited for length, content and clarity.
|
I'm in a conundrum. Three weeks ago I went on a first date I was set up with through a mutual friend. We hit it off immediately and have been dating since. We've admitted that we're not each other's type, but so far we find our differences refreshing. But as of our last (otherwise great) date I discovered a difference that I find much more disturbing than refreshing. He is pro-life. I hold a BA in Women's Studies, am employed at a family-planning agency, and have marched in pro-choice demonstrations. It's one of the things I'm most passionate about.
I really think this guy is relationship material. He brings me flowers, opens car doors and makes breakfast in bed. He's successful, smart and social. We haven't had intercourse yet, and some fanatical part of me wants to withhold sex to show that I think he's a hypocrite. We have amazing sexual chemistry, and it'd be a shame to end it here. But do I have a choice? — Sleeping With the Enemy
Dear Sleeping With the Enemy,
promotion
A pro-choicer asking me if she has a choice. How's that for irony? It's like a pro-lifer telling me to 'Get a life' or a gay saying 'Stop being so gay' all the time.
People you click with are hard to find. It's limiting and naive to demand they share your politics. But this isn't some esoteric debate. Job and life's work notwithstanding, you're much more likely to get knocked up than you are to have a hands-on role in North Korea's nuclear disarmament.
I know it's early to worry about that, but maybe not. I would have bet on the Immaculate Conception before I'd bet on Nicole Richie, but seeing her talking to Diane Sawyer in size zero maternity wear, I now believe anything's possible. (Also, that Good Charlotte guy looks like he just crawled out of a grave and is very, very frightening.)
It's good that you're withholding sex, even if the reasoning is passive-aggressive. We know you're not going to change his mind (at least, in any sort of immediate fashion), so it's important that you know his position on this and he know yours. Sometimes politics sync with the personal, other times they don't. He might be pro-life in general, but pro-choice when it's his partner who's peeing on the stick and looking for the little blue lines.
Perhaps more important than his stance on reproduction are the reasons behind it. Even if you don't agree with them, do they make some degree of sense? Are they evenhanded and well-thought-out? When you debate the issue, does he acknowledge your point of view or does he act shitty and invalidating?
As someone who used to date a pro-lifer, I do believe a mixed relationship like this is possible. But I'm not you. You're you. So you decide.
| Dear Miss Information, I've been having threesomes with two women I met online. I only know them online, but they're friends and a long time ago used to date each other. They're both hot, but one ("Sarah") is much hotter than the other ("Michelle"). I've been fantasizing about fucking Sarah one-on-one when Michelle's not around. But Michelle is jealous. She says she and Sarah are a matched set and you can't have one without the other. Michelle is married; Sarah and I are not. I think Michelle's demands are immature and stupid. Can you dictate who fucks whom when you're cheating on your husband? — Wanting |
| Dear Wanting, Yes, you can. Michelle and Sarah knew each other before they knew you, and you need to honor that prior relationship. Kinkiness doesn't equate loosey-goosey boundaries and morals. If Sarah wants to fuck you that bad, let her approach Michelle and hash it out. She may be more receptive if the request is coming from a female she's known a while.
|
| Dear Second Time Around, If any of you readers see me out and about and want to say hello, please do so. The only exceptions would be if I'm at the cineplex, paying $11.50 to see something I'm already 99.9% certain will be loathsome and awful. I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize, to my sister (whom I dragged kicking and screaming), Asian-Americans, the gay community, feminists and anyone who appreciates good comedy. My only excuses are an insatiable lust for popcorn and poor impulse control. I don't see anything wrong with contacting a person a second time if you send them a message and they don't respond. More likely than not, they got your message and aren't responding because they're not interested. But fuck it. Doesn't hurt to try. People go on vacation, get in relationships, emails get lost. The only pain you might feel is in your wallet. Don't know about you, but I'd rather spend twice the dough trying to contact someone I really like than the same amount on two people I'm only halfway interested in. Second contacts should be short and sweet, like you said. Two or three lines should do it. Start with a brief acknowledgement of the previous attempt at contact, lest you look like a pussy spammer who contacts so many zillions of women a day he just plum forgot. Don't do it in a way that's guilt-mongering or accusatory. Be upbeat and casual, the same kind of restrained exuberance you'd display in a thank-you letter, post job interview. "Hi, what's up? It's actually my second time contacting you. Sorry if you got the message and aren't interested. You seemed so funny and cool I just thought I'd give it another try." Don't offer to go out as friends, and don't mention any recent changes in her profile. The second one is stalker, the first is too sad puppy. If she doesn't write back, oh well. You tried. Your online dating meet-cute ends here, but there's always the opportunity for future stories. I just had a guy contact me after not responding for two months. Readers, what do you think I should do about it? |
| Previous Miss Info |
|
©2007 Erin Bradley and Nerve.com
Commentarium (35 Comments)
About the guy who's two months slow: I don't think the lag should factor into anything. Maybe he just doesn't use the site that often. Or he's been busy. Or he tripped a while ago and got an enormous, ugly face scab that just finished healing.
Or maybe being disappointingly flaky really is his M.O., but if it is, you'll be able to tell right away.
Hi. I am a big fan of your column. I am also a seasoned (and admittedly disgruntled) internet dater.
As per your question, "I just had a guy contact me after not responding for two months. Readers, what do you think I should do about it?" I would say, give him a chance. You never know what was going on in his life when you first contacted him.
The big question here is, Is he available? You just don't know yet. See how the correspondence goes, and if both parties are participating and seem interested. You never know what will happen -- you may decide that you are not interested in him after a few messages and/or a date. Alternatively, you may both be in a place where you are open to getting to know each other. It's too soon to tell. Also, did he acknowledge the time it took him to respond, and is this important to you? Will you continue to wonder about it, and will this impede your openness to communicating with him now?
Re: the guy who wrote you back after 2 months. Talk to him if you're interested. Heck, read your own advice in this column to "should I try again" guy ;-)
Re: the guy messing around w/ hot single woman and not-as-hot married woman. What are you willing to risk? If you try to make a play for Sarah by herself, you may lose her AND your 3-ways. Play it cool, be patient. Be a hot lover and a nice guy. Eventually you will hit it off w/ Sarah, Michelle will get busted by her husband, Sarah will stop seeming so interesting, SOMETHING will happen. Why mess with it now?
I would write back to the guy who contacted you after two months. His not contacting you may not have anything to do with you. When girls write me back after a long time, I write them back. Life may have been happening, they may have been seeing somebody from the site or they may have had 8 email conversations going and just did not want to add another one. It does not matter. I don't think you can take it personally if the timing was wrong.
One time I started dating this guy before he revealed that he was a) pretty damn Christian, and b) pro-life. As a non-conformist, atheist, feminist, etc. I almost ran in the other direction, but he was sweet and I'm open-minded so I stuck it out. After several frank, open conversations ending with him saying "Hmm, I never thought of it that way..." he did eventually come around to a more pro-choice point of view, or at least one that's more sympathetic to the female, who's really the one making the decision after all.
Re: the threesome. Love your column, Erin (and the picture of you on the column is super-hot) - but I think you boffed this one big time.
First: I'd put money on that Michelle (still? again?) has feelings for Sarah. She's dodging that issue by keeping you involved; this allows Michelle (and you two) to pretend that the issue with her husband is just sexual. It may have started that way, but at this point I'm betting that Michelle has feelings for Sarah again, but isn't ready to confront that. But this explains her jealousy more easily than anything else.
Unfortunately, because she's deeply confused/in denial about what she's feeling, Michelle is making the following claim: "I'm cheating on my husband with an ex-girlfriend and some dude I met on the internet, but I FORBID the ex-girlfriend and the dude from having an independent relationship. They may only be sexually involved if it's via me, while I'm cheating on my husband."
That's an insane-seeming point of view on its face: but it's understandable in light of the theory offered above. There is no obligation on Wanting's part to honor this point of view - it's simply too crazy and hypocritical to be respected - but he may have some sympathy for it. Wanting need to "honor that prior relationship" - your friends, fuck-buddies, and ex-girlfriends do not EVER get to dictate who you can fuck. Even if they're shtupping you casually at the time: if they want the right to dictate who you do, they HAVE TO BE DATING YOU (at a minimum).
So the better advice for Wanting, I think, is to recognize that Michelle likely still has feelings for Sarah, and that's she is likely profoundly unhappy in her marriage. While this does not obligate you to act in any particular way, you ought to be sensitive to this, realizing particularly that pursuing one-on-one sex with Sarah may wreck (a) the threesome and (b) Sarah and Michelle's friendship.
If you're ok with the possibility of (a), and all things considered you want to chance it for one-on-one with Sarah, then you ought to approach Sarah alone and talk to her about the risks of it, including the possibility that Michelle still has feelings for Sarah.
i grew up catholic and identified myself as pro-life for years. i don't tell many people about it because i run in kind of punk rock crowd and know i'm in the minority on this one. i also don't think getting into an argument with my friends about how they feel about the subject will change anything but our friendship. so when i started to date a guy who was pro-choice, i kept my thoughts to myself. eventually after 3 years together i told him, and after months of agonizing over it, he confessed he would feel more comfortable if we didn't have intercourse. he loved me and respected my decision, but the thought of having a child with me, or me comprimising my views an aborting the pregnancy, was too much for him to handle. after we talked, i came to realise that i don't know what i would really do if i got pregnant. i don't know if anyone really can say for sure what they would do in some situations until it presents itself. so while i still grapple with my own view on it - i have never had to make a decision about it, thank god - we worked past that and have plenty o' sex and a great relationship.
What bothers me most about these "pro-choice'ers" is their arrogance in their "belief" and their viewing of people who are pro-life as being broken and in need of fixing. Isn't being pro-life a choice as well? Knowing that it's murder, and therefore wrong, to kill an unborn child is not a view in need of fixing. I find it amazing, yet unsurprising, that someone otherwise well educated and holding a BA is so ignorant.
What bothers me most about these "pro-choice'ers" is their arrogance in their "belief" and their viewing of people who are pro-life as being broken and in need of fixing. Isn't being pro-life a choice as well?
I'm going to assume that you aren't a troll, and actually sent this in good faith - despite the ad hominem attack ("...is so ignorant"). You are conflating "pro-choice, and I've personally chosen life" and "pro-life".
No one knows when "human life" begins, or even what exactly is a "human life". Does it begin at consciousness? At self-awareness? At the fusion of the egg and sperm? At the first heartbeat? It's a philosophical question, one we all have to decide for ourselves.
Many different people hold different beliefs about when, indeed, life begins. They are all welcome to their beliefs. And indeed, there are a large number of pro-choicers who themselves would never have an abortion, but who support others' rights to have abortions.
But then pro-lifers try to impose this belief - which is an article of pure faith, without any basis in science, rationality, or indeed anything besides religion - on EVERYONE ELSE IN THE NATION (writing from the US, here). That is an affront both to those who do not share their religious beliefs, as well as to the First Amendment to our Constitution, which forbids the legislation of pure religious beliefs.
As a pro-choice individual, I DON'T CARE what you or anyone else personally, privately believes about the personhood of a zygote. I DO CARE that people are trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the people in this country. You should care, too; because state-sponsored religion is bad for everyone, including the religious.
Oh, goody! An abortion debate in the feedback section! Just what we needed! Let me see if I can change the subject, by talking about E-mail and slow responses. We all like to think of E-mail as reliable because it works almost instantly most of the time. It's not really as reliable as we think, though. I once sent an E-mail, and some computer in the middle decided to hang on to it and not forward it on to its intended recipient right away. A couple of months later, someone must have kicked it or something, because it finally forwarded the E-mail, causing much confusion for the recipient, who thought I had sent it just then. Fortunately, I could point out that the date on the E-mail was from a couple of months ago, something the person hadn't noticed before I pointed it out, and we laughed about how silly computers can be sometimes. Anyway, don't judge a guy just because his initial response is late. If you write him back, and he takes another two months to respond to that, then forget it, his latency is too high.
I agree with MRI, both times. There, that'll save me some typing!
Actually, MRI, I am not religious or trying to "impose my beliefs on anyone", quite the opposite. I am assuming that unborn human life is still a human life worth giving the chance to live. This is an educated assumption not based on faith. While many "pro-choicers" would never have an abortion, that is not the point. The main "pro-choice" argument is that "it is my body and I can do what I want". Well, in many cases, that is not the case. People do not "own" their bodies in the United States. If you had true ownership of your body, you would be "allowed" to buy and sell body-parts, however, that is an entirely different discussion.
This is not about faith, it is about life and who has the right to end one. You are not allowed to kill an adult, regardless of their ability to survive on their own. The argument about killing the unborn should err on the side of life and not an argument over a definition of when "life begins", which is not something humans are even qualified to define. Should abortion be allowed in certain cases such as rape or when the mother's life is at risk? I believe so, but I don't think it should be put forward as a "choice" which diminishes the value of all life. It is a last resort, not a "choice".
Miss I,
Your intellect, wit and knowing sexiness is a generosity bestowed upon your readers.
So I'm frequently curious as to why your subject matter has turned somewhat LifetimeTeen of late.
The complex and unexpected that always defined the genius and pure pleasure of your writing now seems lost tracking back a quarter, or longer, of the year.
To agree with the earlier fond (a little idolatrous, perhaps? - but then who could blame him?) commentator who recently spotted you in town, yes, you are achingly beautiful and razor-sharp.
But who's writing your posts these days? And when do you return?
htd
Threesomes have been an occasional sexcapade in my life and I am with a young woman now who enjoys a sex site with me, "nastyadameve.com" featuring a couple who claim that they are an "average" pair of openminded people. We think it is much hotter than "naughtyallie.com" which seems to be overloaded with uberboobs, mostly cosmetically enhanced. Adam and Eve like alot of oral sex and it is one site where there is plenty of foreplay (naked babes teasing a guy as they pull down his briefs, playful ass slapping of bare buns, a woman sliding back and forth on her mans penis until she cums, two women masturbating Adam as Eve can hardly wait to have her man, etc) which is very arousing to us!! Highly recommended!
Great -- so we have a Right-To-Lifer who thinks that "people in the U.S. don't own their own bodies, otherwise they'd be able to buy organs." (???), some dude advertising for his website under the thinnest of pretenses, and the usual one poster who for some reason thinks the topic is always their opinion of Miss Info's writing.
Nice crowd.
I always enjoy legalistic arguments made by non-lawyers. By way of introduction, I'm a pro-choice male, if that colors how what I'm about to say is perceived. First, there is nothing wrong with legislating religious beliefs -- the laws against larceny date back at least to "Thou Shalt Not Steal." No one complains about legislating religion when we criminalize theft. What the First Amendment actually prohibits is the establishment of religion. What you can't do, for example, is create a national church and tax people to support it. The right to an abortion is not grounded in the First Amendment, but in the Ninth and Fourteenth -- the right to procreate (or not) and the right to private, non-commercial sexual conduct isn't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution, but is, by Supreme Court fiat, a fundamental right, specifically, a right to privacy in these areas. Roe and its progeny are problematic because, usually, you don't want nine old farts deciding what is and isn't an unlisted fundamental right -- in the first third of the last century, this "substantive due process" approach allowed the Court to strike down progressive legislation because it interfered with Liberty of Contract (something only a pure libertarian would argue these days). The usual way we determine things like whether stealing is forbidden or when life begins is by majority rule. The difficulty with Roe (the result of which I do agree with -- I think there is a fundamental right to privacy) is that it takes abortion out of the "majority rules" approach that applies to almost everything else. One last aside: Pro-lifers who want exceptions for rape and incest are pure hypocrites -- you don't get to kill someone just because their father is a rapist. If a fetus truly is "innocent life," you can't, logically, have ANY exceptions.
Hi Miss Manners.
It depends, how strong was the initial atraction? That and only that matters unless of course he did something horrible to you. Barring that, if that connection was there (must have been) give it a chance. To quote one of my favorite columnists "Fuck It". Remember, you are a goddess, you are smart, challenging, playful, and sexy. He will be drooling for more of you, unless of course you realize you should not be going to the trouble because he is not good enough. Keep your cool and don't waste your time if he is not completely mesmerized and stays with it this time around. There are LOTS of guys, great ones are rare!!!
Hi Miss Information. (oooops had to correct that, so apologetic!)
REM says, "First, there is nothing wrong with legislating religious beliefs -- the laws against larceny date back at least to 'Thou Shalt Not Steal.'" For someone so contemptuous of non-lawyers, that's a simplistic view of the phrase "legislating religious beliefs". No one would argue that because something happens to be a religious belief doesn't mean we CAN'T legislate it - so long as there are good secular reasons to do so. As in the case of theft: we don't have to appeal to the supernatural to understand that societies function better when they outlaw theft. The problem comes when we start legislating things which are ONLY religious beliefs; examples might be the kosher laws, or criminalizing the worship of idols. At that point we are quite clearly beginning to create a national church. My argument is simply that the question of when human life begins pre-birth is (almost always) an argument that is religious at its root, relying on conjecture about the soul. Outlawing abortion on the basis of such religion-based arguments is _exactly_ enacting laws based purely on religious belief. Which is a problem, unless you also agree that it's perfectly fine to throw people in jail for worshipping idols.
Hi Erin,
Good to see your column is getting more and more exposure on the site -- too bad I can't login anymore and can't decipher the byzantine process by which one would try and reclaim his/her membership login -- I am not so savy when it comes to customer service follow in situations like this, but that's my own problem I realize.
More importantly for the group, I had some beers and a lot of fun with Miss Information one late night at Rosemary's Greenpoint Tavern, I believe we were two flies on the wall as your friend struck up an immediate friendship with the one of the only other gentleman under 60 in the bar...I don't recall exactly, but your information-ness was fun and very nice to the stranger drowning his sorrows in a styrofoam pail of suds -- so i was wondering if Nerve still had fun parties? Perhaps a personals meet-up? I am clearly out of the loop, hope everyone's summer RULES
xo
I just HAVE to add my two cents. I find it amusing that pro-lifers think of pro-choicers as 'anti-lifers'. Because that allows pro-choicers to think of pro-lifers as 'anti-choicers', and wasn't Free Will supposed to be the greatest gift God gave man or something? Ah, maybe I'm talking out of my ass... again...
The guy dating the two chicks in "Threesomes" needs to grow up and date one person like normal people do...that and rent a porno. It's easier having a menage-a-trois vicariously through porn stars!
Did I miss something? I thought you were in a long term relationship with Ewok? If that ended I'm sorry and I hope that you are happy ... if it hasn't ended then you KNOW you can't contact this guy!
Yt8L6M Comrade kill yourselfff
Youth rock band "Ranetki" says thank you for such a wonderful blog!!!
Heartfelt thanks!!!
Thanks for the article! I hope the author does not mind if I use it for my course work...
Internet is written with the capital letter in a sentence, by the way. And hundredths are written not with a point but with a comma. This is according to the standard. And actually everything is very good!!!
This article is for professionals!!!
Of course, I understand a little about this post but will try cope with it...
Interesting. We are waiting for new messages on the same topic...
Youth rock band "Ranetki" says thank you for such a wonderful blog!!!
This article is for professionals!!!
Informative, but not convincing. Something is missing but what I can not understand. But I will say frankly: bright and benevolent thoughts...
Stupid article..!
Now you say something