PERSONAL ESSAYS

Reader Feedback on "About Last Night . . .Bad Girlfriend"

grow up.
--
02/11

Maybe Carrie is hesitant about monogamy because she's afraid she won't have anything to write about in her column.
--pl
02/08

I'm sort of enchanted by the lightness of all these pieces by the writer. But when I see 'Johnny Depp' and hit phrases like 'tangibly happy' I want to move on.... and will look forward to her next piece.
--cla
01/31

Hmmm. I liked the last two installments, but with this one, Wilner's writing is slipping again. Still, it's an important subject she's covering, and she puts the idea of it across rather well.
--TJ
01/31

Find a guy who loves to eat creampies instead of that odd prude "Jack" who will enjoy being a cuckholded borfriend!
--STP
01/30

Timing figures in the compatibility equation. Jake may be right for Carrie, but she isn't [currently] right for him. She isn't ready for what he offers, what he represents. She can't handle monogamy; it's too great a burden to resist all those temptations. She wants to have Jake but also be free to fuck the doorman, finger the barmaid and blow the Bulgarian hat inspector. This isn't novel; many people keep a checking-and-savings arrangement. Depending on the parameters of the couple, Savings may suspect or be fully informed how much Checking gets done each month. As for the reality of Carrie [the character], well, what difference does it make? Real or fictional, she's a child. Her existence is defined by her wants; she's alternately puzzled and/or enraged when she can't get them. She smokes, drinks, tokes, snorts and fucks with no consequences...yet. As with all children, she'll either survive these habits or perish from them. As for Carrie the writer...she has potential, but Carrie the character may be holding her back.
--FBR
01/29

I enjoyed reading the feedback, but I noticed something. Everyone is talking about how they feel about monogamy (or not), and there is nothing at all about Jack & why he feels this way. They have only been together for a few weeks and it's only his second sexual relationship & she's talking about fucking other men... Surely it's obvious why he feels insecure? Give it time, I say.
--tdb
01/29

This has been fascinating. Wanted to add a note to S.H. - I think it's great that you've found a way to make an open relationship work and I hope it continues. In the scenario presented by this essay, however, you have a man who's made it very clear that he's not interested in an open relationship. If Carrie wants an open relationship, she should find another guy. No harm, no foul, no judgment. Wrestling with that could be interesting reading. Instead, there was a whininess that reminded me of Veruca Salt in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" - "But I want it NOW!" Past the age of, say, 18 months, no one gets everything they want, when they want it, and that goes for the monogamous, polygamous, swingers, open relationships, bisexual and transgendered. (Forgive me if I've left anyone out.) They all have their guidelines and challenges, many of which can be enough to make you wish you're single. But to try to play both ends toward the middle doesn't inspire sympathy. Apparently, it does inspire a lot of feedback that's more interesting than the work that inspired it.
--DLH
01/28

All the criticism is almost as much fun as the article! Carrie is a young woman and is on track developmentally, wrestling with her psyche. She is immature, self-absorbed, and insecure, but what girl at her age isn't? Not too many of them, or boys for that matter. Keep on writing, Carrie!
--Spif
01/28

What's with all the scrutiney towards Carrie? Don't you people have better things to do than to waste so much mind power on whether or not Carrie's lifestyle is right or wrong? Fuck, she's a writer! For all you know this isn't even an exact portrayal of her own life. And as far as monogomy goes, I think it's quite unnatural. I was in a 7 year relationship. Almost got married to the guy. All along I was wanting to experiment with girls, but he was threatened by that. He even had the fucking nerve to call me a dyke. So I remained physically faithful, only to find out toward the end that he had not only been cheating on me with many of our female friends and many I'd never met, but had also experimented with a couple of men! Fucking hypocrite! As always, I try to learn a valuable lesson from each experience life throws my way. I realized that, even though this guy loved me enough to want to marry me (and he did, I know, because he still lets me know to this day, many years after the break up) he still desired some new, unknown, excitement. That's human nature. We ALL love those tingly shivers we get with initial flirtations, touching, the first glimpse of an unfamiliar body when unbuttoning their shirt, the way they kiss, the way they smell, etc... Face it, firsts are fun, exiting, even intoxicating at times. They're better than any drug. The part of his cheating that disturbed me was just that: he was cheating. I was the one who was out of the loop. I was betrayed. I was not given the fair chance to have experienced my own sexual adventures. Now I'm in an amazing, loving and open relationship. Together we've established a few rules which make it work for us, and we are both living our lives how we feel humans are meant to. We feel that ultimate love is not putting barriers on one another. And, can I tell you how hot it is to hear the dirty details of my lover's night out while he's undressing me for, what feels to him like the first time? You see, by having other lovers, we feel new to each other over and over again. And by being 'allowed' to do what comes naturally, it only makes our feelings and our trust toward each other stronger, and hotter. And the best thing is that we're in on it together. If your best friend tells you about some hottie at the bar they want to get with, you'd encourage them. You'd like to see them get what they desire. Why should all of that change when you're best friend happens to be your significant other? (And in case you're thinking cynically to yourself that this will never last.... it's been 4 years, and we just got engaged. This, my cynic, is true love.)
--S.H.
01/28

Man these are fun comments. I agree with ME that this article offers nothing but a fairly puerile examination of the character's emotions and motivations. Also, JLE--that was a beautiful and scathing criticism. SNAP! Anyway, my take: This essay failed to lend any air of gravity to the issue of monogamy, mostly because the writer is unwilling (or incapable) of offering psychological analysis with any depth beyond that of a fifteen year-old girl stuck trying to form an image of herself as one of the cool kids. This essay, as others pointed out, comes off as nothing but a very hackneyed exercise in representing archetypes of old-fashioned monogamy and 21st century hip sexual liberation. BORING. Someone below pointed out that Carrie and her narrative persona are not the same thing. I think we should bear this in mind, but that doesn't mean we cannot criticize the psychology of this essay as being silly. And this is styled as a "personal essay", so it is presented as true. It's worth bearing this in mind lest we get too caught up in the academic notion that the narrative voice is not the author--sometimes this is true, sometimes it isn't. I actually wrote a long (if superficial and casuistic) essay on this topic in my weblog, which I love to promote in the Nerve discussions -- http://lavation.blogspot.com/2004_01_04_lavation_archive.html#107368325256661660 - it's about authorial anonymity, truth, and the personal essay. It's v. v. pretentious, I'm sure you'll eat it up. Anyway, the article had one good joke, the thing about women being "little". I think Carrie has some promise as a writer but she's yet to really work over these essays and make them serious literary examinations of personal psychology; they seem quickly scrawled out journal entries that are hit and miss. This was a miss. And no, MO, I don't expect this to be Nabokov but IMO Carrie is pretty lucky to get such detailed criticism from such a wide audience. Some of these criticisms (like mine) can be pretty vicious, but we aren't trolls for the most part--some of these criticisms have more interest than the essay itself.
--NK
01/28

good article- i agree with the persona comments made by other readers. here is just a general comment... unless you have a psychological problem, stemming from years of sexual abuse, being slutty is just one behavior that is important for some of us to delve into. you puritans can put on your own hairshirts and pass judgement upon yourselves! the new and upcoming human development theories are stating that adolescence actually trails into the 24th year. (this is now the assumed time when the brain is fully developed) i agree with some others who have written feedback that you can't force yourself to not gush silky fluids in your panties upon seeing a scrumptious being... if you are trying to force yourself, it's unnatural. the point here is, until we slutty characters are developmentally ready to come to terms with the idea of being monogomous or not--(happening after 30, or at least after adolescence), we must practice safe sex and get all the kissing, fucking and fisting out of our system or we will have deep regrets and sorrow when we're menopausing. not to mention the resentment we will have for our loyal partner while ruining lives! monogomy is better when you are in full realization that the guy at the bar can't hold a candle to the person who loves you. for some of us, it takes lots of random fucking to make it to this place.
--mrh
01/28

I hate hate hate being a prude, honestly, but why does Nerve let all this Pro-Drug stuff in here?? Does living in NY REALLY mean that everyone is doing coke and smoking weed (OK, the weed I don't really care about). Like the "Sex on Drugs" I Did it for Science article, and all the story's where people casually snort coke in the corner. Dude. I think maybe if you didn't make it look like everyone there thought it was ultra trendy and hip, I wouldn't mind. My dad died from a cocaine overdose. Another guy shot himself on our couch while on Heroin. I love Nerve, and I hate having these memories pop up everytime I am enjoying a story. Keep Sex and Drugs seperate, unless it REALLY matters to the plot. Possible?? Probabaly not, but as long as you know it bothers someone.
--GDE
01/27

I think Carrie is experimenting. I think she's experimenting with two opposing ideas about herself -- and kind of working on reconciling them: one, that she's a hopeless incorrigible sex maniac, and two, that she actually likes being with someone who cares about her. She's engaged in a struggle to integrate herself. I think it's great.
--FN
01/27

Hey Carrie. Save the drama.
--PJ
01/27

I think this essay reveals a truth underlying Carrie's first (or second?) Nerve essay, "I, Slut," about the pitfalls of adopting "slut" as one's conscious persona. As much as Carrie warned against doing that in "I, Slut," we now see that she's still very much enmeshed in that exact syndrome. (Not that that's a surprise; "I, Slut" was a very good essay and wouldn't have been as good if it had been written by someone who didn't have intimate firsthand experience with the phenomenon and all its pros and cons). And THAT is why I think she wants to cheat so much. Not because she can't help wanting to fuck everything that's cute. Not because she's "naturally nonmonogamous," as some of you have suggested. It's because she doesn't feel like she's been slutty enough. Because she still feels inferior to girls who have fucked more guys than she has. Because she goes out to Lit and sees other girls racking up notches on their bedposts while her number remains the same. Because she was shy once, and other girls weren't, and she still remembers what that feels like, and she still hopes that she can black out that feeling with lots of Maker's Mark and weed. And it feels frighteningly similar to those days when she goes out to Lit and sees other girls doing that stuff while she sits on the sidelines. The proof is in the line about threesomes, where she says she's never had one and thinks it's something she ought to do, or something. It reminds me of the part in "I, Slut" where the slut-persona girls count how many nights in a row they can sleep away from home, and Carrie laments "all that counting." But here she is, worrying about not having checked off "threesome" on her checklist. She doesn't like "monogamy" because she's afraid it's uncool, and therefore she's uncool. However, lest you think I'm criticizing Carrie for all this, I'm not. She has a point. Slut-as-persona is very seductive, with good reason. Especially in NYC, in your 20s. If I lived in the Lower East Side and worked as a columnist at Nerve, I'd be afraid, too.
--jle
01/27

Is he pretty? I'm pretty. Are you suuuure he won't make out with boys? What if their sideburns are exceptionally even?
--kyan
01/27

True to your heart, bullshit. The question is, can he flip an omelet without breaking it? If so, stick to that one like the delicious carmelized crust on a crem brulee. If not, drop him like a ton of past-sell-date pate bricks.
--Ted
01/27

Short dark hair and a red sweater? Couldn�t you at least go for a girl who wasn�t channeling Betty Boop? Kisses, and always remember to zujh. Zusjh? Whatever.
--Crsn
01/27

Honestly, I�m appalled that you keep the bed next to the wall. That�s shitty feng shui, AND it minimizes the visual space in the room. Have you considered hammocks? They�re not just for scurvy-ridden sailors anymore!
--Thom
01/27

Carrie � have you considered that some shared Salsa lessons might be just what you need to bring you and Jack closer together? And if it doesn�t work out, there�s nothing like a hottie Latino guy to get you over an ugly breakup!
--JAI
01/27

Some people shouldn't be in monogamous relationships. Carrie could just be one of those people. No harm in it. If you have to force yourself to be monogamous, that should be a sign that it's Not Your Thing.
--KAC
01/27

Yet another article about "I don't know what I want" syndrome. I'm not interested in reading about spoiled women who mistreat men and think that it's cute. If the roles were reversed, we'd never hear the end of the moaning and whinning about what a dirty bastard the cheating, lying, non-commital male was.
--PWC
01/27

On the one hand no one's ever died of suppressing the urge to play around for the sake of keeping a promise to one's mate. You could also say that in the grand scheme of things placing so much emphasis on defending your freedom from the parameters your partner imposes is egotistic, immature, and spoiled because you're pitting a good, healthy, loving relationship against "just sex". Which is more valuable? It's a no-brainer, right? But, people, WHY do we disrespect sexual freedom so much? We don't deign to give it any real value or weight. Why does the desire to be sexually unfettered immediately earn the dismissive, condescending labels of emotional immaturity, selfishness and self-absorption? Why don't you view it as an emotional need and adult preference, like Jake's preference for monogamy? Perhaps somewhere deep down our values still hold the stamp of puritanism and sex-hating. Sex-hating has taken gentler forms lately. Sex is longer "bad" per se; it's sanctioned and even glorified so long as it's "sanctified" within a loving monogamous relationship. However, if you're still looking around despite getting it good with a mate, you must be undisciplined, right? You're just weak against the temptations of the flesh, right? I agree with eva, the poster below: monogamy is an emotional choice that's good for some but not for others. There are more important things in the world than sex, certainly. I just think we're giving sex, and ourselves, too little credit. If you care to discuss this topic further, e-mail me at lycosferos@hotmail.com . We could also chat via IM - my aol address is priapismedic@aol.com
--YK
01/27

Good point, mm. While Carrie�s writing isn�t flawless, I think it�s compelling, often BECAUSE it depicts someone confused and frequently immature (which yes, I can relate to, apologies to those who are rational, ethical and measured in your every move). I�d be very surprised if this weren�t calculated on her part, I think she�s bright enough to understand the character she�s presenting, and to have reasons for this presnetation. I�m interested in hearing what reactions Carrie�s writing and antics (fictionalized or otherwise) provoke, and think there�s much to praise and to criticize, but those of you who use this as an opportunity for berating her personally are (tactlessness aside) exposing yourselves as gullible and myopic readers.
--gjn
01/27

ok, enough carrie bashing. her writing is amusing to read, whenever i pop over and it makes me smile from time to time, and thats what its there for. she shouldnt even be critisized because its an article for a magazine, its not fucking nabakov. for what shes supposed to be doing, shes doing a pretty good job of it. what i would like to read next time is more sex stuff. thats what i come in here for, erotic smut. so carrie, if youre reading this, next time try to put in a sentance like, "...and then he licked me till i had a 4 hour multiple orgasm...." or something to that effect.
--mo
01/27

A little reflection and self-analysis can go a long way. Reading Carrie's articles is like listening to my own thoughts circa age 18. Although I agree with some of the comments concerning Carrie's need to grow up, most of them seemed rather tactless. Further, I wonder if it occurred to anyone that Carrie may write this column under a persona, i.e., the negative feedback expresses precisely the emotion she is attempting to evoke.
--mm
01/27

I think it's not a matter of being a bad or good girlfriend or boyfrien but 1800 romance vs. 22nd centry liberation. It's rather sexy if a person can love just one. Old fashion thinking for the new. great essay! made me paused for just 1 second.
--EDZ
01/27

Could this get more tedious? That was the last article by this woman I'll read until a few years have passed.
--mr
01/27

It really bothers me when women say stuff like "kissing girls doesn't count." If you don't like them, you probably shouldn't be kissing them, and if you do like them, then it counts. All of this contributes to straight mens' attitudes about bisexuality and lesbianism, which in many cases are stuck at the "oooh, cool, two (pretty, femme) women kissing...." Please don't encourage them.
--AH
01/27

See, I actually think that the writing is pretty good : I enjoy it -- it's the character behind it that's so annoying. Get OVER yourself.
--ml
01/27

I can so relate to this feeling. Carrie -- it does not go away. It never does. I've been married for 11 years and was "bad" four times over that span, twice with women and twice with men. I'll be "bad" again, if the opportunity presents itself. It's something I know about myself. It's something my partner denies about me to herself, too. You'll never escape it -- and it pretty much is all about your ego, too. Meditation helps, but nothing will cure you of yourself. Hang in there.
--TH
01/27

you're not a "bad girlfriend." you've simply hooked up with a guy who believes in monogamy. you don't. why does that automatically make you the bad one? sounds like you're setting yourself up to "cheat" and then you can beat the shit out of yourself for that, too. get while the gettin's good. he sounds sweet but he doesn't sound like the one for you.
--kz
01/27

I relate to Carrie's writings even though I am a Golem made entirely of Mung bean paste. Dance, Golem, dance!
--MBG
01/27

After I submitted my last comment and read the others, I felt the need to add that I can completely relate to Carrie's writing DESPITE the fact that she seems to be the total opposite of me...I think that that says something.
--RS
01/27

I LOVE your articles! The writing is great and easy to relate to...just thought I'd let you know.
--RS
01/27

i agree with the comment below. sometimes it seems like the people who write the intensly negative feedback think that carrie has no feelings. she gets the most extreme negative feedback of anyone.
--LML
01/27

Carrie's writing inevitabley spawns negative feedback wherein readers rant on and on about her incompetence as a writer, self involvement, etc. If her writing is so annoying to you, why do you bother to read it each month? Why are you so angry/disgusted/put-out/contemptuous? Not that feedback shouldn't include negative comments, but I'm fascinated by the intensity and vitriolic nature of the comments regularly thrown at Carrie.
--jk
01/27

As someone in a functional open relationship, I'm rather insulted by the idea that not wanting to be monogamous makes one a "bad girlfriend." Among other things. Also, the whole "girls don't count" thing really just sticks in my craw, but hey: I actually like girls, and get sick of the assumption that it's all for show.
--LDN
01/27

So the revelation you came up with after all this is that monogamy is a choice? You have to be one of the more frustrating superficially self-referencial writers I've ever encountered. You are clearly intelligent, but one of the things most writers possess, an accute questioning eye for their own behavior, seems to completely elude you. One column after offering your best and most promising column, you resort to the following observations: "You could fuck me all day and take me out to dinner, and I'd still flirt with the cute waiter while you were in the bathroom. That's how it goes. If I find someone attractive, I want to mess around with them, simple as that. It's not so much infidelity as it is greed. And pragmatism: if your relationship collapses, why not have a blue-eyed, nineteen-year-old painter as backup?" Pathetic. If you're not even willing to explore your own behavior beyond giving yourself a blanket "Get Out of Jail Free" Card, you shouldn't waste our time with it. You seem to be capable of much more in your writing. And the answer to why you seemed so hell bent on fighting for the right to f*ck someone else, even if you didn't really want to, is very easy to answer. You care more about yourself than you do anyone or anything else in your life. It's not about the right to sleep with someone, it's about someone putting parameters on you that your fighting against. Hopefully you will figure this out, because this column was a step in the wrong direction.
--ME
01/27

hey, can i get nina's number?
--ns
01/27

C'mon now Carrie. If you were my fuck buddy i couldn't stop you. if you were my GIRLFRIEND i'd feel just like jack.
--jmj
01/27

uhh...all this is so EGO. Monogamy isn't simple, but the problem is that you Americans call it Monogamy with a capital M, like it is something out of 7th Heaven. Why not grow up and realize that being exclusive is something that most people prefer, but some don't, and then settle for what you, and your partner want in your relationship. Jack's preference is an emotional need, like any other, he is not representing something Boring or Conservative. Maybe things would be better if Carrie left puberty? "uh..i rilly rilly wanna fuck around, but now he says that i can't? do i really have to make a consideration to another person? what a novel concept. Let me explore that some more.." Having a boyfriend won't make you boring. Bying that notions is truly adopting the whole bible belt notion of Relationships and Monogamy. It's all to do with mental lazines, and Carrie's selfabsorbed musings were a little tedious before jack came into the picture.
--eva
01/27

if you have to force it, it probably isn't worth forcing
--akl
01/27

If your not happy with someone move on. If you want to fuck around fuck around. Don't expect any man with a scrap of self respect to hang around with you for too long though.
--ajh
01/27

i think this persons right. carrie - don't settle!
--
01/27

this was a little upsetting, not least because it brought up a lot of issues i've been trying to figure out for myself. i'm starting to think that maybe monogomy isn't the only way, that maybe its not a question of being "able" to be faithful or not, that maybe instead its a question of happiness. what makes me happy is the freedom to make the decisions that affect me, to sleep with whoever i want to sleep with and date who i want to date, without it having to be allowed by my partner. who says that monogamy has to be the default for romantic human relationships anyway? why aren't we questioning this more?
--m
01/27

send feedback on "About Last Night . . .Bad Girlfriend"

back to "About Last Night . . .Bad Girlfriend"