Re: The sorites series is banned

1

It's a bad sign when the strongest claim you can make is that you don't think your argument is insane.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
2

It's like a slope that has been coated in oil. I call it a slicky slope.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
3

Is there such a difference between you covering the slope in oil, Heebie, and covering yourself in oil? I think not.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
4

watching porn is kinda sorta like adultery

Also, watching CSI is kinda sorta like murdering your neighbors.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
5

That said, I totally agree with Douthat. I'm not sure his analogy is helpful in any way, but I agree that hard-core porn is "enough" like adultery that one shouldn't dabble in it over spousal objection. If your spouse doesn't care if you watch porn, have at it; the same goes for sleeping around. But if either bothers your spouse, you really ought to abstain.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:12 AM
horizontal rule
6

It's like commiting adultery in your TV! Jimmy Carter would have seen this.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
7

3: I would cover one finger in oil, but I really don't see how things would escalate from there.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
8

Also, this thread.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:13 AM
horizontal rule
9

5: Brock's committing adultery in his hea-aaaa-rt.

Also he's being all crazy with the Sorites. What about just thinking about hardcore porn while you jerk off? What about reading hardcore sex scenes? &c. &c.

A general rule that "one ought to not do things that piss off one's partner, nor ought one make unreasonable demands on one's partner"; this I'm down with.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
10

I call it a slicky slope

Getting an erection on the train while imagining sex with a passenger bent over the back of a seat is what?


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
11

10- me.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
12

nor ought one make unreasonable demands on one's partner

But isn't this the crux of it? The question is really only whether "I don't want you to watch porn" is an unreasoanble demand. I say no. But I'm a moralist.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
13

5: "Things you shouldn't dabble in over spousal objection" can be a long list. In my case it includes leaving the top off the toothpaste, and speeding up to beat a red light. The connection to adultery is rather indirect.


Posted by: unimaginative | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
14

Tweety: Jacking off is clearly having an affair with your self. You should save that semen for your partner.

Jilling off, OTOH, will probably just turn your partner on, and doesn't count as having an affair.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
15

In my case it includes leaving the top off the toothpaste, and speeding up to beat a red light.

You have weird turn-ons.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
16

10: didn't Jesus clear all this up several millennia ago? Yes, that's adultery.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
17

Ross asks himself each day WWJB.

"That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:22 AM
horizontal rule
18

But I'm a moralist.

As opposed to everybody that disagrees with you? Brock you lovable troll.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
19

13: right, that's why I said the analogy was entirely unhelpful. I haven't read Doughnut's full article--just the excerpt in the post, so I have no idea what broader point he was trying to make.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:23 AM
horizontal rule
20

Actually the excerpt is the whole thing. There is no broader point.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
21

maybe married couples should look at watching porn as a therapeutic tool, as if one has mental problems (b/c without that one wouldn't make it a habit making it a problem of adultery) or in his intimate life and spouses should watch together, i mean if the wife is supportive
if not, most probably she won't care also whether one watches porn or not


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:25 AM
horizontal rule
22

I'm amused by the pains taken to identify "hardcore" pornography and "anything beyond Playboy" as the real problem, as if there we might finally encounter a sharp line.

In fairness, Douthat is hardly alone in his capacity to draw arbitrary bright-line moral boundaries at precisely the frontier of his own level of level of comfort and/or enjoyment. The only available alternatives are to be a hypocrite, a saint, or a moral relativist, and really, who wants that?

Ross only stands out for the vehemence of his condemnations, the prominence of his soapbox, and the laughable prissyness of his particular personal boundaries.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
23

12: I'm really, really reluctant to make general rules about what counts as an unreasonable demand in all relationships. I suppose if demands escalated to genuine abuse--you must fuck my friends, I get to hit you when you act up, etc.--that counts as unreasonable. Beyond that, I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't demand in a relationship.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
24

Unless 18 is somehow wittily pointing out that I misused the word "moralist", which is quite likely since I have no idea what the word means, I don't follow what you're saying, Sifu.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:27 AM
horizontal rule
25

Fontana, I'd recommend you smear your retinas with a water based lubricant instead of vaseline.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:28 AM
horizontal rule
26

24: well, pretty much, yeah. To imply that you're a moralist because you believe what you do is to imply that those who do not believe what you do are less concerned with morality, which is the fallacy Knecht alludes to in 22.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
27

23: isn't this Douthat's whole point, though? Admittedly he didn't articulate is very well.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:29 AM
horizontal rule
28

I hear if you do it right, the eyes lubricate themselves.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
29

Ross only stands out for the vehemence of his condemnations, the prominence of his soapbox, and the laughable prissyness of his particular personal boundaries.

Waaaaaaait a minute, I think I'm on to something here. Nobody has ever seen Douthat and Ogged in the same room, have they?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:30 AM
horizontal rule
30

26: hmm, I thought it would imply that those who do not believe what I do are perhaps less unduly concerned with the morals of others. I thought the word had a negative connotation. Regardless, my point is that I'm a prude.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
31

28: But I don't believe it.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
32

I wouldn't know, since my religion prohibits me from making eye babies.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:32 AM
horizontal rule
33

27: No, that is not Ross's point at all.

His point is that we are all evil sinners with no hope for redemption.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
34

26: so, in other words, if you're saying that there's a qualitative difference between somebody saying "I'm uncomfortable with you watching hardcore porn" and somebody saying "I'm uncomfortable with you watching R-rated movies" or "I'm uncomfortable with you masturbating while thinking of Jimmy Carter" or "I'm uncomfortable with you having lustful thoughts about anybody, ever", in that requesting that you stop the first is reasonable in all cases while requesting that you stop the second or third is not, then you're doing the same thing Douthat is. If you're saying that all of them are equally subject to veto by a partner then, okay, you're weird. But not a "moralist", per se, just a particular variety of Christian.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
35

"Fox News sexpert" are the only three words worth reading on that page.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
36

my religion prohibits me from making eye babies.

There's always Plan B.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
37

30: oh. Comity!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:34 AM
horizontal rule
38

WWJB?

Who Would Jesus Bang?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
39

38: I thought, canonically, it was "Bone"?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
40

Beyond that, I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't demand in a relationship.

Absent serious power issues, I am reluctant to judge what other people want or tolerant in a relationship.


Posted by: will | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:35 AM
horizontal rule
41

Who Wants Jesus Butt?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
42

Who Would Jesus Blow?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
43

The truth is, Sifu, I am uncomfortable thinking about you masturbating while thinking of Jimmy Carter.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
44

Jimmy Carter Says Yes, Yes, Yes!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
45

As always, I'll start being impressed if he calls for expelling from the conservative movement the people who profit from making and distributing the stuff he's talking about. Like the hotel porn purveying company with Mitt Romney as one of its directors. Really, he's on about things that originate among respected funders of his own cause, and until he deals with it, this is all just posturing.


Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
46

I am uncomfortable thinking about you masturbating while thinking of Jimmy Carter.

I masturbate to Brock getting uncomfortable thinking of Sifu masturbating while thinking about Jimmy Carter.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
47

I am uncomfortable thinking about you masturbating while thinking of Jimmy Carter.

You should think about them separately then, Brock.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
48

I masturbate to thoughts of Jammies, heebie, so he might be cheating on you.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
49

i started to read the SEP article on sorites and immediately feel how my attention goes all deconcentrated and it starts jumping from one sentence to another
just any deviation from 100% full scalp is various degrees of balding, if you choose the right comparison point where to start you won't start comparing one hair to two and up endlessly
imho


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:41 AM
horizontal rule
50

I masturbate to thoughts of Jammies, heebie, so he might be cheating on you.

How do you know what Jammies thinks about?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
51

38, 39, 41, 42: All wrong!

The correct answer is "What Would Jesus Blog"


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
52

Cambridge change: is it cheating? Stay tuned.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:44 AM
horizontal rule
53

You know read, come to think of it, Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn't very fuzzy.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
54

Due to a casual misreading of the post title and the first couple paras, I was looking forward to links to hott sorority pr0n.

Alas.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:45 AM
horizontal rule
55

Tangentially to 54: We know that several members of the commentariat pledged fraternities, but are there any sorority sisters in the crowd? Magic 8-Ball says "It's doubtful", but it would be interesting to know for sure.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
56

52: only if Russell gets off.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:49 AM
horizontal rule
57

Cambridge change: is it cheating? Stay tuned.

"Elbridge just underwent a Cambridge change. It's a new procedure."


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
58

Looking forward to it is enough, JRoth. Guilty.


Posted by: Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
59

It will likely not come as a shock that I made precisely this argument (porn=adultery) to the UNG once upon a time. In retrospect, I'm thinking I may have been less pissed at the sense of sexual infidelity and more at the sense that I was working to pay the bills so he could stay home and jack off at the internet. But also the thought that that shit is the image of sexuality the guy I am sleeping with is into. Frankly, an ordinary affair with an ordinary woman would have grossed me out less.

Also, the whole idea of some objective continuum of adulterous behavior is off, not just for slicky slope reasons, but because what sort of infidelities are going to be damaging to a relationship is entirely contingent on the relationship. One marriage might thrive, despite a regular, ongoing, hot steamy stud on the side. Another might be devastated by the existence of a completely non-sexual but emotionally intimate friendship on the side.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:50 AM
horizontal rule
60

There's a whole lotta stupid in the question "But is it on a moral continuum with adultery?" Yes, it is. But so is living a chaste life in which one never has a single sexual thought. It may be way the hell over at the other end of the continuum, but so what? It's on the same continuum, dammit, and because continnua are great conductors of moral ickiness, everything on the continuum is infected.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
61

I masturbate to the thought of not masturbating.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:56 AM
horizontal rule
62

It's on the same continuum, dammit, and because continnua are great conductors of moral ickiness, everything on the continuum is infected.

Is that how original sin works?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:57 AM
horizontal rule
63

Is that how original sin works?

No, that works because women are evil.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
64

No, that works because women are evil.

But original!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:59 AM
horizontal rule
65

No, that works because women are evil.

Because their existence makes men masturbate to them.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
66

The only principled way to respond to an argument like Douthat's is to make a parallel case that Douthat is kinda sorta like Hitler. Does Douthat like dogs?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
67

You masturbate to women? What are you, some kind of fag?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
68

But also the thought that that shit is the image of sexuality the guy I am sleeping with is into.

See, that's where a competent marriage counselor can help. If a knowledgeable therapist could have helped guide the two of you to a compromise over genres of p()rn that both of you could get off on...


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:05 AM
horizontal rule
69

67: What are you, some kind of fag?

Ha! Are you kidding? I masturbate in Reno, just to watch them die.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:06 AM
horizontal rule
70

You masturbate to women?

I masturbate at women.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
71

This is a lot of discussion given that Douthat's obviously correct that it's a shades of grey situation, and that the people trying to draw the bright line are those arguing against him. But whatever.


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
72

68: the knowledgeable therapist being presumably engaged the day of the wedding.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
73

71: except that if you follow that to its logical conclusion, Douthat is therefore arguing that touching your mother's toe, as it were, is equivalent to adultery.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
74

I don't think you have to be "a variety of Christian" to feel "I'm uncomfortable with you watching hardcore porn" is a reasonable and sympathetic stance. I agree Douhat's lines and categories are not helpful, but I'll support Di and Brock to the extent that watching porn risks affecting intimacy in the opinion of many people, who would be distressed to know their partner did it.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
75

Di: A lot of women's objections to their partner's porn habits are like that, especially feminist women. "This is what you think of me?" "This is what you want me to do?" Behind all of that is often just a visceral anti-porn feeling.

Like I said, though, I won't make any blanket rules on whether such objections are reasonable or unreasonable.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
76

Looking around, I think that it's possible to have a good marriage with many degrees of openness. But trust and good faith are essential-- even a little bit of distrust or resentment amplifies problems.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
77

74: I didn't say anything of the kind, but anyhow!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
78

70: I masturbated two women.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
79

KR solves the Unfogged font o/0 lookalike conundrum that had previously stymied n()()bs like me.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:11 AM
horizontal rule
80

71: I think some people are arguing that it's not a shades of grey situation, or that, to the extent that it is, it's trivial because any two things can be connected--the Celts and yogurt--and any weaknesses disguised as shades of grey. The physical person is an important part of adultery.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:12 AM
horizontal rule
81

79: "pr0n": solved!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
82

Behind all of that is often just a visceral anti-porn feeling.

I've got this.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
83

71: I am refuted with an eye-roll! I'd flick you with my finger but that would be on a continuum with battery. Come on, baa, the slippery slope stuff is tired.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
84

76: But trust and good faith are essential-- even a little bit of distrust or resentment amplifies problems.

My wife says this a lot, but I don't believe her and wouldn't give her the satisfaction of letting her know I think she is right if I did.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
85

but I'll support Di and Brock to the extent that watching porn risks affecting intimacy in the opinion of many people, who would be distressed to know their partner did it.

So, for some, would finding out their partner was a long time con man who swindled the old and the desperate. That doesn't make such swindling of the downtrodden--or such "fucking the downtrodden," if you will--like adultery.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
86

You know what'd be fun, though? A slippery pope.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:15 AM
horizontal rule
87

What would be interesting is a discussion of the differences between using pornography, paying people to perform for you personally, and so on; how the nature of mass media renders porn impersonal in a way that might affect its relationship to adultery; whether the intuition that paying prostitutes to make out in front of you is more wrong than looking at porn is just getting at the greater likelihood of escalation in the first case or whether there's some other difference.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
88

it's a shades of grey situation

Sure, but the question remains: is turquoise a shade of grey? is pink?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
89

86: Pope Lubricious IV.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
90

the slippery slope stuff is tired

But, look, I still haven't clicked through the link, and I'm not going to, but he can't possibly be arguing that one must consider hardcore porn and adultery to be equivalent, and must oppose one if you oppose the other. He's just saying that it may be as reasonable for a spouse to be upset by one as it is to be upset by the other. I'll say again that his analogy isn't terribly helpful, but I don't think he wrong about this.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
91

A slippery pope on a rope!


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:19 AM
horizontal rule
92

79, 81: KR wins a coveted Unfogged MacArthur "young genius" grant. Free Posting Privileges for a Year! Give it up for Knecht ladies and germs!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
93

whether the intuition that paying prostitutes to make out in front of you is more wrong than looking at porn is just getting at the greater likelihood of escalation in the first case or whether there's some other difference

This is an interesting question. I blame capitalism.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:20 AM
horizontal rule
94

Click through the link, Brock, and you will see that the post in its entirety is sticking Sanchez with an uncharitable interpretation and then objecting to it on tedious sorites grounds.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
95

Guys, please don't give these popes any more ideas.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
96

87: that is interesting, and brings up the question of whether e.g. paying HOT WEBCAM SLUTS to do ANYTHING YOU WANT THEM TO is closer to the former or the latter.

I think, in fact, that it should be possible to develop an accurate taxonomy of masturbatory hijinks, ranked by absolute inappropriateness. This could be turned into some sort of wall chart, with a magnetized bright line (LEDs? Battery powered?) that could be affixed at an agreed upon point.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
97

And I think the answer is just likelihood of escalation.

Although, we could add strip clubs to the analysis. There you have in-person titillation, but no chance of escalation. Equal to paying two prostitutes, equal to porn, or somwhere in between?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
98

91: Hmmm, so maybe the wild bear can stick the pope up his ass after all. Who knew?


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
99

he can't possibly be arguing

There probably are arguments that are too fatuous for Douthat to make, but since others have made those arguments, Douthat exists on the same continuum and is therefore roughly the same sort of fool.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
100

Be careful not to drop the pope.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
101

I think, in fact, that it should be possible to develop an accurate taxonomy of masturbatory hijinks, ranked by absolute inappropriateness.

And then on the y-axis, destructiveness of intoxicating substances, for a whole plane of hijinks.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
102

97: so maybe the wall chart would need to be two dimensional, with a line down the middle of actual adultery ranked from "wrong" to "really super duper wrong", (we could call this line "bone of contention") and various non-adulterous masturbatory activities arranged in relative proximity to given regions of the central line.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
103

Hmmm, so maybe the wild bear can stick the pope up his ass after all.

I think a pope-on-a-rope is more like a tampon.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:26 AM
horizontal rule
104

And then a 3D z-axis where we chart the degree of pwnage!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
105

Dear Sir:

The committee believe that you are incorrectly using the similar slang syllables "oi/oy."

"Oy," as in "Oy vey ist meir, there the goyim go again appropriating our perfectly good in-group terms," is a common Yiddish expression of woe.

"Oi," as in "Oi you septic bastard, come back so I can bash your head in," is an interjection common among the more energetic class of the British Isles, meant to engage the interlocutor's attention.

Please ensure that the next time you wish hegemonically to appropriate some marginal identity that you do so with due respect for its folkways and customs, you uptight honkey.

Sincerely yours,

The Linguistic/Ethnic Studies Collective


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:27 AM
horizontal rule
106

101: so 2-dimensional may not be enough! We might be talking about an N-dimensional inappropriateness field, with the vectors of maximum inappropriateness determined on a case-by-case basis by means of principal component analysis, and described with a "bright manifold" limning the inappropriate/appropriate border.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
107

I continuumed adultery in my porny, porny heart.

"Pictures of Zbiggy, made me feel so wonderful...".


Posted by: Jimmy Carter | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:28 AM
horizontal rule
108

This could be turned into some sort of wall chart, with a magnetized bright line (LEDs? Battery powered?) that could be affixed to one's nipples.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
109

discussion of the differences

Depends on the attitudes of the spouses, I'd think. Just as sometimes an emotionally intimate friendship is a problem and sometimes not.

Less theatrical than sexy or heartpouring hijinks is stubbornness or insecurity; stubborn behavior can be interpreted very differently, leading to misinterpretation of motivation. It's hard to prove innocence for thoughtcrime.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:30 AM
horizontal rule
110

A grassy field of inappropriateness? Sign me up.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
111

FL,
1. I will agree that slippery slope args are, in general, tired. That the world is more shades of gray than black and white is not news.
2. That said, denial of slippery slopes is equally tired, especially by people with an ax to grind.
3. Douthat is not the ax grinder here, but rather the noter of other's ax grinding: to whit, the "nothing to see here" (if I may) theory of pornography. So, so surprised to see this view articulated by libertarians, by the way.
4. But the eye-rolling tone was obnoxious, and I apologize.

Sifu,
is equivalent to adultery = Not Douthat's point, not what he said.


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
112

Yikes, this is bad. I thought "oi" was an acceptable alternative spelling of "oy" that was orthographically identical to the British Isles "oi." But now Slol tells me this is not so.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:31 AM
horizontal rule
113

And I think the answer is just likelihood of escalation.

I think it's the immediacy of the person there. To me, at least, it's a bit the distinction between buying something that may well have been made in a sweatshop and owning a sweatshop for the purpose having clothes made. Or watching Faces of Death for entertainment vs. watching a killing as a member of an audience.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
114

106: We might be talking about an N-dimensional inappropriateness field,

Don't forget the "How good did it make you cum*" axis.


*I invoke situational non-deprecatedness.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:32 AM
horizontal rule
115

watching Faces of Death for entertainment vs. watching a killing asof a member of an audience for violating the analogy ban.


Posted by: Wrongshore | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
116

He's just saying that it may be as reasonable for a spouse to be upset by one as it is to be upset by the other.

Yes, but that's not a very interesting point to be making. The more relevant question is whether any individual spouse (and in my case, my spouse) is as upset by one as by the other.

Also, I don't see the point of this "it is reasonable for a spouse to get upset about x" line of inquiry. If my wife is upset about something, it doesn't matter whether it is, in some abstract sense, reasonable for her to be upset about it. The point is that she's upset, and we have to work that out between us, in a very non-generaliseable way. It does no good whatsoever for me to say "Four out of five spouses would not have a problem with this."


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
117

114: with ogged gone, all that was deprecated is reprecated.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
118

116: "most spouses agree: boning your sister is a perfectly good idea!"


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
119

Principal component analysis only works if you're drawing samples from a single distribution. Errant spouse may be lewd one day and paranoid the next.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
120

111: aw, shucks, baa.

In addition to 87, another interesting question is whether the mass-media vs. personal point is relevant to Wilkinson's non-transitivity claim. My irritation with Douthat is that these interesting questions are not at all obscure and he could have said something about them, instead of making what I think is a sophomoric point about how some things can be lined up in a series.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:36 AM
horizontal rule
121

Shorter Ross:

Anything more than what I do is wrong!

I've read that book before, checked the index, even went to see the movie, but not the sequel.

I get it, we all draw the line for ourselves and if someone wants to explain his reasons then that is fine too. The problem is when that someone pretends he has some bigger authority instead of "I draw the line here so anything more is simply wrong."

From a human psychology standpoint I will point out that if Ross suppresses the normal human tendency to sometimes go beyond his line, in imagination if nothing else, he will build up an obsession, ironically making himself even more perverse than a regular guy. See "Republicans," for example.

For normal people I say accept the occasional "indecent" thought or feeling. Control your actions. Those thoughts and feeling will pass.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
122

119: so you would need a sample period, and then you would want to recalculate your vectors on every new sample. Unfortunately, since spousal inappropriateness cannot be assumed to have the Markov property, the data storage requirements will quickly become prohibitive. Only Moore's law can save human relationships!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
123

113: And I think the answer is just likelihood of escalation.

Like commenting about watching a bear get "poped" vs. commenting about it from your work computer.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:41 AM
horizontal rule
124

What would be interesting is a discussion of ...how the nature of mass media renders porn impersonal in a way that might affect its relationship to adultery.

I think, too, that it's interesting to consider whether this sense is changing where the evolution of the internet. Generation Awesome! has been wired virtually since birth and is probably a whole lot more likely than the Boomers to view interactions over the internet as genuinely personal interactions rather than purely impersonal media. Does that make internet p()rn seem less impersonal, too?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
125

Anything more than what I do is wrong!

Tripp, this bears basically no relationship to what Douthat wrote. Are you serious, or just polemicising for fun?


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
126

122: . Only Moore's law can save human relationships!

Or maybe cellular automata, it's a New Kind of Morality!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:43 AM
horizontal rule
127

Douthat omits the well-known rule of intent. Conservatives can watch as much pr0n as they want, as long as they don't enjoy it.


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:44 AM
horizontal rule
128

Although, we could add strip clubs to the analysis. There you have in-person titillation, but no chance of escalation

I am told by a source who I'd consider reliable on this subject, if few others, that the chance of escalation is non-zero.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:44 AM
horizontal rule
129

Less impersonal and less private simultaneously. The youngins will exchange or better post pron playlists to gauge affinity. Maybe they already do.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
130

Generation Awesome! has been wired virtually since birth and is probably a whole lot more likely than the Boomers to view interactions over the internet as genuinely personal interactions rather than purely impersonal media.

This I do not buy. I would argue that Generation Stupids is, in fact, less likely to characterize internet interactions as being equivalent to real interactions.

It also elides the distinction between actual interaction and passive viewing, but that is much a different question.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:45 AM
horizontal rule
131

126: the Pr0nularity!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:46 AM
horizontal rule
132

90: "He's not saying their equivalent. He's saying they are equally objectionable!"


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:47 AM
horizontal rule
133

116: MAE, sure, every individual and every relationship are different. That's a trivial point too. As for the "more relevant question", the answer is definitely "yes", plenty of individual spouses are as upset by one as by the other. I'm sure, in some cases, more.

And I'd say that it, in real-world relationship dymanics, it actually matters quite a lot to many poeple if "four out of five spouses would not have a problem with this."


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:48 AM
horizontal rule
134

If my wife is upset about something, it doesn't matter whether it is, in some abstract sense, reasonable for her to be upset about it. The point is that she's upset, and we have to work that out between us, in a very non-generaliseable way.

Such an utterly important concept, sadly understood by far too few people.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
135

127: Conservatives can watch as much pr0n as they want, as long as they don't enjoy it.

Exactly, per 114 if the value on the "How good did it make you cum"* axis is zero, all bets are off, none of the other axes come into play. You can do anything, no slippery slope, nothing. Just get'er done!

Can be generalized to the G-rated "Did you enjoy it axis?"


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:49 AM
horizontal rule
136

Exactly, per 114

Yeah, I know, but the value-added is in the link.


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
137

128: well, it depends on the club. But you're right. It was a hypothetical--you aren't supposed to question the facts in a hypothetical. Didn't you go to law school?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
138

four out of five spouses

I usually answer "good luck with any of them, then" when I hear this.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:51 AM
horizontal rule
139

118: 116: "most spouses agree: boning your sister is a perfectly good idea!"

OK, you're right the "while you watch" results weren't quite so positive.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
140

If my wife is upset about something, it doesn't matter whether it is, in some abstract sense, reasonable for her to be upset about it.

One of the most irritating recurrent squabbles I've witnessed was where the boyfriend felt that buying flowers was irrational, and the girlfriend really wanted him to buy her some goddamn flowers once in a while. I don't think he ever caved.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
141

it doesn't matter whether it is, in some abstract sense, reasonable for her to be upset about it

I think this is false in important ways, because it affects, say, whether I'm warranted in being annoyed by her being upset.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
142

Right. You have to be compatible with your spouse at least in some sense, or the two of you may just be incompatible. But that doesn't tell us very much either.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:55 AM
horizontal rule
143

buy her some goddamn flowers

See, because "buy some goddamn flowers once in a while" is a perfectly reasonable request.


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
144

141: because it affects, say, whether I'm warranted in being annoyed by her being upset.

Holy shit, FL, talk about your slippery slopes.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
145

143: See, because "buy some goddamn flowers once in a while" is a perfectly reasonable request.

Yet it is not insane to consider it the equivalent of prostitution.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:59 AM
horizontal rule
146

145: what if you only pay to have the flowers bloom in front of you, but don't actually bring them home? What if it's a botanical garden that charges admission, but the flowers have already bloomed?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
147

Where does buying raffle tickets fall on the infidelity spectrum?


(link arguably nsfw)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
148

145: They're on the same continuum, that's for sure.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
149

(link arguably nsfw)

That's a strong argument.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
150

warranted in being annoyed by her being upset

Depends on whether the mean spouse would be irked by what is so obviously a minor foible in an otherwise optimal parter. So she's justified in claiming nightly headache or whatever. But you're both content in knowing that your methods are statistically sound, which more than compensates for the screaming bouts over disorderly loading of the dishwasher.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
151

because it affects, say, whether I'm warranted in being annoyed by her being upset.

This is a reaction commonly referred to as "defensiveness" and is problematic because it makes your reaction to her being upset more important than the fact that she is upset. Far better MAE's response -- to acknowledge the upset first and validate the important of not wanting the other person to feel upset. If the initial upset was "unreasonable," you'll likely get to that in the process of working through it together. Getting pissed off at someone for feeling upset because you don't think they have any right to feel that way, well, that's not going to help anyone.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
152

149: right, I meant "potentially." Got me again, Sifu!


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:04 AM
horizontal rule
153

152: no, I meant, you're right. It's very NS. I love you, Brock! You are very accurate and correct in your statements!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:07 AM
horizontal rule
154

There are all sorts of issues about the pragmatic advisability of a reaction vs. its warrant here, but the short version of this is that there's a big difference between "oh, the partner is annoyed, and I see her point" and "wow, she's annoyed at some minor goddamned thing that's really not a big deal" in the long-term health of a relationship.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
155

Getting pissed off at someone for feeling upset because you don't think they have any right to feel that way, well, that's not going to help anyone.

Well, it's not going to help your marriage/relationship. But it does help you if what you enjoy feeling righteous.


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
156

what


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:09 AM
horizontal rule
157

Oh, look at Sloly McHebrew jumping to the emotional higher ground.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
158

It's called self-knowledge, grasshopper.


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
159

153: I was going to say I don't think it's "very" nsfw, but I just realized I accidentally included the wrong link in my comment. I haven't actually clicked the link in 147. The url suggests it might, in fact, be quite nsfw.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
160

Next on Fox 21!
When Moral Philosophers Get Married!

"I fail to see how your unwarranted reaction to my warranted reaction to your unwarranted action helps your argument. Please clarify."


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
161

There may be a generational divide here, but I don't think it's about internet-based interactions, I think it's about pornography.

My impression of pornography is that it's something that enables me to masturbate more efficiently. It isn't something that substitutes for adultery. Ideally I would not be masturbating in a relationship, but this ideal situation has not happened yet, possibly because I've never lived together with a lover.

Masturbation taking the place of actual sex is a different problem for a relationship. Not very similar to adultery.


Posted by: Auto-banned | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
162

If the hat fits, sensei. A pet peeve of mine is the idea that we can't assess irritation, anger, or other emotions in terms of whether they make sense, because that more or less games the emotional system by awarding strategic advantage to people who are prone to emotional outbursts. This is why I admire Ogged so much for not apologizing to people who are crying.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
163

McHebrew

I believe that when the Israeli-Palestinian debate is resolved, Israel will have an undivided Edinburgh as its capital.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
164

161: Ideally I would not be masturbating in a relationship, but this ideal situation has not happened yet, possibly because I've never lived together with a lover.

The last clause is superfluous and easily deducible from the first two.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
165

A pet peeve of mine

Dude, I totally share this pet peeve. Experience tells me that explicating it in the heat of the moment does not improve relationships, is all.

The tip-off is when you're listening to yourself talk and you realize you sound just like Mr. Spock.


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
166

enables me to masturbate more efficiently.

Wow.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
167

Seriously, if all her friends say, "OMG! I can't BELIEVE he would even think of doing that!!!" and all his friends say "Well, my wife would NEVER let me get away with that", it's very, very different than if all her friends say "Yeah, my husband does that all the time. Men are dogs." and his friends say "She's actually upset about THAT?! Dude."

These may not matter to everyone, but it matters a lot to the vast majority of people. People seem to be (implicitly) disputing this, which I find crazy.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:19 AM
horizontal rule
168

enables me to masturbate more efficiently.

I'd like to see the time/motion study on that.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
169

I would like to endorse 105.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
170

165: O my overanalytical brother, I feel your pain.

I feel compelled to note that I'm not as much of a jerk in person.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
171

159
(1) What we have here is a master of understatement.
(2) I haven't clicked the link either because I'm at work, but really, how do you make that mistake?
(3) What link did you mean to include, then?


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:22 AM
horizontal rule
172

167: that's a much better way of putting it.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
173

it matters a lot to the vast majority of people

I'll just note that this comment was left by the same person who doesn't know any independents willing to vote for Obama.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:25 AM
horizontal rule
174

There's some sense in 162.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
175

I don't disagree with anything in 167, but at the same time it has been my experience that "Most people would say you're wrong about this" is rarely a winning line of argument.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
176

most people the lurkers


Posted by: sam k | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
177

175: of course. Did someone suggest otherwise?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
178

enables me to masturbate more efficiently.

My Indian manservant masturbates for me.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:30 AM
horizontal rule
179

And now that "fuck raffle" is in my google search history, I figure I may as well head to the beach for the rest of the day.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
180

174: There's some sense in 162.

Yes, but it is a strawman. No one is saying that you cannot "assess". It is the actions that you subsequently take, what you do in the face of that assessment that matters and is under discussion.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
181

My Indian manservant masturbates for me.

Do you watch? If so, is that equivalent to adultery?


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
182

180: Indeed. And, pragmatically, when someone is having an unreasonable emotional outburst, reacting to is by noting that it is an unreasonable emotional outburst is far more likely to escalate rather than defuse the outburst.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:35 AM
horizontal rule
183

what you do in the face of that assessment that matters and is under discussion

It is? I think we're having different discussions. Who are you having this discussion with?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
184

I may as well head to the beach for the rest of the day.

Watch out for the fishdicks.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
185

In ancient China, it was not permissible to touch a sister-in-law in any way, though liberals like Mencius argued that you could touch her in order to save her life, for example if she were drowning. He didn't say anything about whether you could have sex with her afterward, though, but that would seem only fair, if she were good-looking.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
186

183: It is? I think we're having different discussions. Who are you having this discussion with?

I had nearly the same reaction to 167. Hmmmm... but at least now we are having the same discussion!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
187

105 is important and necessary.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
188

re: 182

Oh sure, but that FL is also right that [regular/consistent] unreasonable emotional outbursts* often do constitute a 'gaming' of the emotional system. I'm sure we all know histrionic individuals who disproportionately get their own way, or get pandered to by people who care about them partly because of the fear of upsetting them.

As a pragmatic matter, you're right of course, trying to raise this at the time is just asking for trouble.

* of course, I'm betting there's no-one here, including myself, who isn't or hasn't been prone to the occasional one, either ...


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
189

183: Because I assumed (possibly incorrectly, but I do not think so) that FL's I think this is false in important ways, because it affects, say, whether I'm warranted in being annoyed by her being upset. implied a spouse-detectable behavioral component to any possible annoyance rather than just the updating of some internal tally of "warranted annoyance".


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
190

there's no-one here, including myself, who isn't or hasn't been prone to the occasional one

No. All my reactions are entirely rational and proportionate. Everyone else is insane.


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
191

pragmatically, when someone is having an unreasonable emotional outburst, reacting to is by noting that it is an unreasonable emotional outburst is far more likely to escalate rather than defuse the outburst.

I clung to FL's view of this matter until I wised up. I still have not completely internalized Di's view, but I've come to understand that I won't ever fulfill my plan of celebrating my 50th anniversary with Fleur if I cling dogmatically to the Dr. Spock approach.

I have a great analogy for this, but I'm turning over a new leaf on observing the analogy ban.


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
192

wait, HOW do you put vaseline on your retinas? I can't reach mine.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
193

188: Intellectualization and emotion, which is the game and which the reality? Aka 2500 years of accumulated bullshit rules our view of the world. (And not badly I will admit, scientific method, liberal proceduralism etc., it works for me most of the time.)


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
194

Agree with Stormcrow in #193.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
195

we all know histrionic individuals who disproportionately get their own way, or get pandered to by people who care about them partly because of the fear of upsetting them

But you can choose to push back against those individuals, even at the risk of alienating them (unless they hold power over you), or you can choose to avoid associating with them all together. A spouse is different. "For better or for worse" includes "indulging the occasional emotional outburst or irrational demand". There are limits, of course, and sometimes the balance of costs and benefits favors ending a marriage (e.g. when the partner is manipulative or abusive). But as long as preserving the marriage is an objective, there is no alternative to bending your will in the face of some emotions that you don't share.


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
196

Oh sure, but that FL is also right that [regular/consistent] unreasonable emotional outbursts* often do constitute a 'gaming' of the emotional system.

Absolutely. But, of course, the gaming works best (at least in the cases I'm familiar with, if you give the person justification to escalate the outburst. Although. A person committed to gaming is often pretty adept at finding justification in just about anything. My revised theory:

A person who is upset, apparently unreasonably, is either (1) genuinely upset, possibly/probably for genuine and valid reasons that may be different or deeper than the ridiculous reason initially expressed, or (2) is gaming the emotional system (because they enjoy a good fight? know they can manipulate you this way? are psychopathic bastards?). Much is to be gained by acknowledging and validating the former's upset, working through it, etc. The latter should probably just be shot. In the groin, perhaps.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
197

I'm betting there's no-one here, including myself, who isn't or hasn't been prone to the occasional one, either

What are these "emotions" of which you speak, Nattar?


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
198

so if you're getting it on and watching porn are you committing adultery on each other while you are having monogamous sex with each other? That's pretty sweet. I bet it makes the sex more exciting.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
199

OT: via Alex at Illegiterati, an awesome new Christian email service to notify your doomed loved ones once they've been left behind by the rapture.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
200

196

Can I add (3) genuinely upset, but only for the ridiculous reason initially expressed, and unwilling to abandon being upset for reasons of a) embarrassment or b) irrationality?


Posted by: F | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
201

199: Awesome!

This occurs when 3 of our 5 team members scattered around the U.S fail to log in over a 3 day period


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:12 AM
horizontal rule
202

193:Disagree with stormcrow in 193, it was better on the veldt with the hunter gatherers. 50k human years a total waste.

Alltough I am grateful Stormcrow turned the thread to politics.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
203

200: You can -- but I would note that 3(a) seems like a likely (inevitable?) response where the immediate reaction to the initial upset was "OMG, you are being so fucking stupid!" and that 3(b) seems really just a nuanced version of 2.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
204

199. deep pwnage from the archives


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
205

It's the deep pwnage that hurts the worst.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
206

This occurs when 3 of our 5 team members scattered around the U.S fail to log in over a 3 day period

Seems pretty risky to be handing over power of attorney over your assets on trigger of three unknown people failing to log in over a single five-day period. Suppose one dies, one's on a weeklong bender, and one is stuck in a North Dakota blizzard. Suddenly your ne're-do-well nephew has got title to your house.

Then again, the target market for this service is presumably not given to careful analytical consideration of major life choices.


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
207

199: It's good to be apprised when the rapture happens, so you can know it's safe to loot the houses of your rich Christian neighbors.


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
208

I feel enough comity in the air for me to veer off topic and suggest to FL that he needs to get himself one of these.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
209

(More info.)


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
210

It's the deep pwnage that hurts the worst.

Experiencing pain from deep pwnage is not unusual, especially the first time. But a caring partner, by observing a few simple rules, can help you minimize the discomfort and learn to enjoy whole new vistas of commenting pleasure.


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
211

Further to 193, I rewrite Di and F's three possibilities from the other perspective:

A person reacting intellectually to an emotional situation, is either (1) genuinely reacting to the world in the way that they always do for principled reasons, or (2) is gaming the emotional system via intellectualization or (3) intellectually reacting to this particular situation because they are unwilling to confront the underlying emotions of the specific situation or its broader context.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
212

by awarding strategic advantage to people who are prone to emotional outbursts.
if you choose the point which sets a standard of a major hysteria, then all other minor emotional outbursts would look minor, so the person enjoyng the outburst is relieved from stress
and the person who chose the starting point of the comparison in perspective is not harmed emotionally too, win-win and no advantages on the each side coz the situation has reversible roles
the same principle would work on the solution of the sorites paradox, for example the heap argument, how 10 thousand grains wouldn't make a heap, it's a perfect heap, and the smallest heap begins with three grains, the heap of three reaches the threshold when the individual grains enter the other quality of being the part of a heap, as a grain is the smallest unit of the heap and is in an orderly state by itself, but when it begins to make heaps with others it enters another, chaotic state and the heap of 3 or 10 is not the same as the heap of 11 or 10 thousand, by mass, shape, volume etc though there could be two heaps of 10, but b/c the individual grains are not exactly the same copies of one, there are still some differences between two heaps of 10, so, chaos
just have to choose the point when a grain is in the grain and the heap state simultaneously from where to start to count heaps and grains
it entertains me to think about paradoxes


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
213

210: But were those rules observed in this case I ask you.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
214

It's good to be apprised when the rapture happens, so you can know it's safe to loot the houses of your rich Christian neighbors time to stand on their lawns and taunt them for having failed to make the cut.


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
215

193 is fucking brilliant. I have read volumes by Frankfurt School philosophers and never seen this basic point so well expressed before.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
216

204: I dispute pwnage on account of raptureletters.com's inferior layout and youvebeenleftbehind.com's superior well of hilarity.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
217

This occurs when 3 of our 5 team members scattered around the U.S fail to log in over a 3 day period

This is the first time in my life I've been seriously tempted to go on a kidnapping spree. It's a curious feeling.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
218

To apply the heap paradox to pron: How many naked body parts does it take to be pron? If one masturbates to a naked ankle, does that make it a heap o'pron or just a fetish? Is one naked breast pron or does it take two? Is gay pron pron if one is a straight man? Straight woman? Jewrry Falwell? [FTM, if one masturbates to a Campbell soup can, is going to the grocery store adultery? Or just a Hebro-Palestinian dweller in reunited Edinburgh?]

Sorites, so wronges.


Posted by: DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
219

baa has a point above. The sorites paradox wouldn't be a paradox unless there was something to the slicky slope. The ability to watch a hot 19 year old getting double-teamed any time you like really is different than occasionally catching a glimpse of your neighbors ankle.

But I want to know is, which is worse, adultery or fantasizing about your wife before she gained twenty pounds?


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
220

216: Were I a hacker of sufficient skill, I would crack the customer database of youvebeenleftbehind.com and email all its members to let them know that the rapture occurred six days ago.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:57 AM
horizontal rule
221

Whether something is pr0n or not depends on prurient interests, intentional attitudes regarding arousal, etc.; we can't cash it out in terms of naked body parts without committing a naturalistic fallacy.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
222

3(a) seems like a likely (inevitable?) response where the immediate reaction to the initial upset was "OMG, you are being so fucking stupid!"

Personally I find the most awkward cases to be where I can rationally understand I'm being so fucking stupid about x, cognitively agree that everyone would be better off if I wasn't being so fucking stupid, and still have the ole lizard brain going nuts with whatever dumbass emotion it's fixated on. Awkward, I guess, because they reveal that one is not in fact a grown-up, or something.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
223

a Campbell soup can
yesterday i warmed up a Cambell soup without can, but in a deep plate in the microwave oven and got almost an explosion
when i warm water in it, it seems to me, water expands


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
224

we can't cash it out in terms of naked body parts without committing a naturalistic fallacy

So sayeth the pre-eminent cock theorist of our time.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
225

The ability to watch a hot 19 year old getting double-teamed any time you like

Your link didn't work, PGD.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
226

Awkward, I guess, because they reveal that one is not in fact a grown-up, or something.

Not at all. Even grown ups can get emotionally flooded and need to cool off sometimes.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
227

221: the presence of strong empirical regularities in human prurient interests allows this true and interesting point to be elided in practice.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
228

Wander over to your local Barnes and Noble and page through some of the featured books in the Romance and Urban Fiction sections, or the vampire ones - all primarily aimed at women. Should guys be upset at women getting hot and bothered off of those porny depictions of sex? How is watching porn different from reading it, and does it matter if it's called porn? Personally, I'd be a hell of a lot less upset at a girlfriend getting off on porn than on a fantasy about a friend.


Posted by: tkm | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
229

the pre-eminent cock theorist of our time

Mouseover?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
230

229: While Brigitte Mouseover has without a doubt made some very important contributions to the field of cock theory, I wouldn't put her in the pre-eminent spot, no.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
231

229: Doesn't anyone read the archives anymore?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
232

215: Actually I rather like Hillary Clinton.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
233

229: The phrase has a history 'round these parts, one which even the most fervent redactionists cannot erase.


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
234

I agree with 167.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
235

232: Now you're just pandering.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
236

The ability to watch a hot 19 year old getting double-teamed any time you like

Man, I think I just decided I want a job on Capitol Hill after all!


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
237

||
Tim Bray demonstrates he doesn't read Unfogged:
"In fact, they gave me a screen-grab picture [of my colonoscopy] and by running it here I could have out-goatse'd goatse but there are bounds of good taste even for a blogger."
|>


Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
238

baa,

Anything more than what I do is wrong!

Tripp, this bears basically no relationship to what Douthat wrote. Are you serious, or just polemicising for fun?

I was imprecise. What I was trying to point out is this.

Douhat is saying (unless I get it totally wrong) that porn is on the same moral continuum as sex with a prostitute.

To that I say "well duh, but so what?"

He seems to be adding the idea that "for this reason reasonable (or non-crazy) people can see these two things as equally wrong."

My short response should have been - "Bah. Normal people thing anything they want to do is OK and anything more than that is wrong. People are rationalizing, not rational."

People also think when they are wrong it was a mistake or accident and when someone else is wrong it was a moral failing, but that is besides the point.

So In my opinion Douthat made a trivial point and then tried to use that in an attempt to make rationalization look rational.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
239

234: I agree with 167.

Shock!

235: 232: Now you're just pandering.

Yes, yes indeed I am.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
240

Reading the threads in the results from 233 is a good demonstration of the fact that this site used to be funny, even though one of them already complains about decline.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
241

Grammar policing that killed the funny, Ben.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:49 PM
horizontal rule
242

THE REFERENT OF "THAT" IS UNCLEAR

YOU WILL BE ELIMINATED


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
243

I think I just decided I want a job on Capitol Hill after all!

Washingtonienne doesn't work there anymore, Knecht.

(I found Cutler's book in a bargain bin for three bucks the other day. I haven't read it yet. Maybe I won't.)


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
244

228:

Wander over to your local Barnes and Noble and page through some of the featured books in the Romance and Urban Fiction sections, or the vampire ones - all primarily aimed at women. Should guys be upset at women getting hot and bothered off of those porny depictions of sex? How is watching porn different from reading it, and does it matter if it's called porn? Personally, I'd be a hell of a lot less upset at a girlfriend getting off on porn than on a fantasy about a friend.

tkm, I have called Romance Novels "porn for women" for many years but the thing is that in real relationships in this area a global concept of right and wrong just isn't very useful.

And I shouldn't have to say this but of course anything that involves minors is wrong and anything that involves exploitation is wrong.

Between two consenting adults it doesn't really matter who is 'right' and who is 'wrong.' What matters are the feelings involved and resolving those conflicts satisfactorily. That is really the most important thing in resolving emotional conflicts.

Look, I know my wife has feelings and I care about those. I also have my own feelings and needs. To take a silly example if my wife forbid me to go swimming because of a childhood accident or something maybe I agree cause I don't really like swimming or maybe we have to work on it because to stop swimming would be a big loss for me.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:53 PM
horizontal rule
245

242: the referent of "you" is unclear. That will be corrected!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
246

MEANING, OF COURSE, THAT IT IS UNCLEAR WHAT THE REFERENT OF THAT MIGHT BE, THAT WE DO NOT KNOW, OF THE MANIFOLD POSSIBLE REFERENTS, WHICH ONE IS THE ACTUAL REFERENT, AND NOT THAT THE THING WHICH IS KNOWN TO BE THE REFERENT IS UNCLEAR, AS FOR INSTANCE MIGHT BE THE CASE WITH THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE OF SENTENCES: "DO YOU SEE THE WINDOW OVER THERE? THE ONE SPATTERED WITH MUD? I WANT YOU TO CLEAN THAT.".


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
247

To take a silly example if my wife forbid me to go swimming because of a childhood accident or something

How can you -- at this turbulent moment in unfogged's history -- call swimming accidents "funny"?

For shame!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:55 PM
horizontal rule
248

247, instead of "funny", is "stupid".

246: the referent of that that referred to as lacking a clear referent is unclear.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:56 PM
horizontal rule
249

Just so's you know, ben: Originally it opened with `twas, but editing it left the ambiguous referent. I was about to fix it but couldn't resist leaving it for you.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:57 PM
horizontal rule
250

Douthat is therefore arguing that touching your mother's toe, as it were, is equivalent to adultery.

that depends on how it were. Were it good for you?


Posted by: peter | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
251

Another real-life example. I think I mentioned that my wife is a gifted actor and a brilliant director. When we were younger I had a pretty tough time watching her act a love scene with someone else. Yes I know all about "it means nothing" and "it is just acting" but I still had strong feelings of jealousy that I had little control over.

On the other hand there are very few roles for young women that do not involve romance. Very few leading roles anyway. And I also, now and then, got the chance to play such a role too.

So who was right? Who was wrong? How should I have felt? How should she have felt?


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 12:59 PM
horizontal rule
252

Washingtonienne doesn't work there anymore, Knecht.

Was she getting double-teamed? My understanding was that she was doing the guys sequentially and the orifices alternately.


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
253

Relationships are neither possible nor desirable. Thus, in a relationship, beither histrionic emotional behavior not calm rational behavior is acceptable.

Bible verse for today:

The Dude: Just take it easy man. Walter: I'm perfectly calm dude. The Dude: Yeah, waving the fucking gun around. Walter: Calmer than you are. The Dude: Just take it easy. Walter: Calmer than you are.

Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
254

Tripp, you're not Norm Coleman, are you? It all fits now. Hollywood wife, lives in Minnesota, crazed.....


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
255

So who was right? Who was wrong? How should I have felt? How should she have felt?

Kissing another actor as part of a role is on a continuum with having sex in a pornographic film. So really, she might as well have been getting reamed by a well-hung stud on a Vivid Video production.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
256

For shame!

As an aging actor who still tries I think it has been sufficiently proven that I have no shame.

As the father of four teens (well, one is post-teen but still) I also, as they insist on reminding me, have very little dignity. Or humor.

Call me fat though. That still hurts pretty good.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
257

251: Easy, you should have filmed them and secretly masturbated to them later.

Actually, it is good to have some overarching really awful thing to be guilty about to put these little quotidian occurences into perspective. You know, like you're killing the whole fucking planet or something.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
258

And I also, now and then, got the chance to play such a role too.

Now I'd pay good money to see Tripp the Young Woman!


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
259

Tripp, you're not Norm Coleman, are you? It all fits now. Hollywood wife, lives in Minnesota, crazed.....

I did say I was getting in to the GOP convention. So what do you say big boy, ready for some toe-tapping fun at the MSP international airport?


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
260

259: Won't your wife be jealous?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:08 PM
horizontal rule
261

Is your wife hot, Tripp? I'm potentially interested in learning some "acting".


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:09 PM
horizontal rule
262

Now I'd pay good money to see Tripp the Young Woman!

I did play a woman in "Greater Tuna." She wasn't all that young though. But still pretty hot, if I say so myself.

My favorite role, though, was being the only guy with five woman in "Five Women Wearing the Same Dress." That was a most excellent time indeed.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
263

Was she getting double-teamed?

I don't recall her saying so specifically, but she was very bipartisan.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
264

I submit to you all that masturbating to this is much worse than adultery. So much worse that it's not even on the same continuum.

(The link is safe for work, but not safe for the soul.)


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
265

259: Won't your wife be jealous?

I said I care about her feelings!

That's why she doesn't need to know.

And Walt - I think my wife is hot. How much money you got?


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
266

I have no doubt that the thread has moved on, but the real and obvious problem with this sort of bullshit argument is the idea that the harm in adultery or pornography is towards the *spouse*. And that once the commitments you've consciously and deliberately made have been honored, you're morally free and clear!

God sometimes I hate people.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:13 PM
horizontal rule
267

I once played a girl in the middle-school drama club favorite Sure as You're Born.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:15 PM
horizontal rule
268

B,

I did add, in 244, that exploitation is wrong as well. We can add the effects from the objectification of women as well.

It is a shame those are not always assumed and agreed to.

The subject is similar to the subject of polygamy. In theory between adults it may be fine but if it involves exploitation or minors it is wrong.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:21 PM
horizontal rule
269

I once played a girl in the middle-school drama club favorite Sure as You're Born.

Were you hot? (Assuming the girl was of legal age of course.)


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
270

I used to watch pornography until my wife took away my pornograph.

(Trying to ease us back onto the humor track.)


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:27 PM
horizontal rule
271

the real and obvious problem with this sort of bullshit argument is the idea that the harm in adultery or pornography is towards the *spouse*

I'm having trouble understanding how "adultery" fits into this sentence.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
272

271: Not to speak for B, but it fits to me in the sense that, like pornography, the harm in adultery extends beyond the harm to the spouse.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
273

Sorites, so wronges.

I know arguments by degrees are wrong...but they feel Sorites!


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
274

272: extends to who?


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:34 PM
horizontal rule
275

Were you hot? (Assuming the girl was of legal age of course.)

The woman who applied the stage makeup told me I would make a beautiful girl. In view of the fact that dressing up in a skirt and makeup in deep Redstatia in 1983 was already tantamount to wearing lavender ruffled blouses and pursuing a career in hair styling, this ostensible compliment was more disquieting than flattering.

Also, I would have been barely pubescent, if at all, at the time.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:34 PM
horizontal rule
276

Also, I would have been barely pubescent, if at all, at the time.

So, definitely hott.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
277

like pornography, the harm in adultery extends beyond the harm to the spouse

According to the Napoleonic Code, IIRC, adultery was a crime because of the harm inflicted on the cuckholded husband. For a married man to have sex with an unmarried woman was not considered adultery under civil law.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:36 PM
horizontal rule
278

274: I think...society?

No, I have no idea.

As far as I can tell, all of the harm in adultery is done to the spouse, and none of the harm, if any, in pornography is done to the spouse. But who knows what the truly sensitive answers are.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
279

a mobile president on rushmore is great! should always open the links which i don't do sometimes
i think i got why it hurts that ogged left, it's b/c it feels like rejection
so maybe watching porn is indeed adultery


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
280

274: The kids, perhaps. The "other man/woman," at least in some cases.

On the other hand, we shouldn't fail to to acknowledge the benefits of adultery, particularly for those like Will whose very liveihoods are greatly enhanced by it.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
281

The difference between hiring a prostitute yourself (to masturbate in front of you), going to a strip club, and/or watching porn is in the degree of intimacy. Duh.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
282

Adulterous marriages make fucked-up houses for kids to live in usually. Lucien Freud or other people with open rather than dishonest and furtive arrangements likely excepted.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
283

The difference between hiring a prostitute yourself (to masturbate in front of you), going to a strip club, and/or watching porn is in the degree of intimacy. Duh.

In the first two cases, the possibility exists that you will engage in actual intimacy with the person you are watching. In the third case, no such possibility exists.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
284

"actual" s/b "physical"


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
285

As far as I can tell, all of the harm in adultery is done to the spouse, and none of the harm, if any, in pornography is done to the spouse.

I have the opposite intuition -- that in porn there is real potential for harm to the spouse, because the sexual connection and resulting emotional bonding might be disturbed. (This would be relationship-specific but I can totally see it happening). But there's not a lot of harm beyond the relationship (assuming the pron producers are legal, etc.). In adultery you have potential harms spilling every which way...other families, etc.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:47 PM
horizontal rule
286

none of the harm, if any, in pornography is done to the spouse

This, of course, is nonsense. To the extent the porn industry is exploitative of women (and I think that's a given, no?) and to the extent porn itself is degrading to women generally and contributes to their objectification in society at large, consumption of porn by a man harms his wife by supporting the exploitation, degradation, and objectification of women generally and, more directly, by communicating to her his acceptance of the exploitation, degradation, and objectification of women.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
287

I used to watch pornography until my wife took away my pornograph.

Silly old man. Generation Awesome has never even seen a pornograph. They grew up with the Internet! C'mon, tell us about the hott telegraph sex you used to have ("DON'T STOP DON'T STOP DON'T STOP")


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:49 PM
horizontal rule
288

283: "Intimacy" means more than "sexual penetration."


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
289

287: Knecht is a funny, funny guy.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
290

286 is like the Nicene Creed of sex-negative feminism: recited by rote at least 10,000X as often as it is rationally defended.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
291

Oh, damn it. Di gives me a compliment and I kick her in the shin? I rescind 290.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:53 PM
horizontal rule
292

271: The spouse isn't in any way actually harmed by their partner fucking around; they're harmed by finding out about it.

Also, the person with whom the cheating is happening is often as harmed, or more harmed, than the spouse, inasmuch as he/she can't *help* but know about the spouse, is far more likely to deal with the cheater's unavailability, etc.

I'm talking about emotional harm here, obviously.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:54 PM
horizontal rule
293

I guess I need to remind myself that we're talking about pornography in reality, that is, an industry that exploits people, rather than pornography in theory.

I don't want to sound like a BS-er here, but the only kind of pornography I consume consists of things made by random people who show all signs of being actual couples honestly enjoying themselves. That seems OK, and that's become my image of pornography in general, which is not even close to correct.

Although who knows what percentage of it was originally intended for personal use only, and then uploaded to a website without the woman's permission. Even if it was, they were enjoying themselves consensually at the time.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:55 PM
horizontal rule
294

284 to 288.

I see where this thread is going. Goodbye everyone.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
295

290: What's the Kirchliche Dogmatik of feminism?


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
296

283: Whatever. There's the "potential" for intimacy in walking down the street. Anyway, intimacy doesn't mean orgasm or even necessarily fucking. If X watches a pornographic movie, the interaction is between X and a video tape. If X goes to a strip club, the interaction is between X and the stripper, mediated by the rules, bouncers, other strippers, etc. If X hires a prostitute, the interaction is between X and the prostitute. Escalating degrees of intimacy, and I think that this is why these things would tend, in order, to bother people increasingly.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
297

Oh, if only ogged were here to save the blog with a swimming post!


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
298

Fatman, most reputable pornographers require actors and actresses to sign affidavits attesting that they are fun-loving people who really enjoy it. So there's really nothing to worry about.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
299

268: Right, I think that's a separate and different issue from "does it harm your spouse" (to which I think the answer is no, not really).


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:01 PM
horizontal rule
300

Fatman consumes only organic, free-range, artisanally-produced pr0n.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
301

299: I'd guess that typically it does, but it doesn't have to.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:08 PM
horizontal rule
302

286 is like the Nicene Creed of sex-negative feminism: recited by rote at least 10,000X as often as it is rationally defended

I'll cop to the feminism part. But, contrary to what UNG may have told you, I am in fact very much in favor of this sex thing.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
303

302: perhaps pornography-negative feminism, rather than sex-negative ...


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:12 PM
horizontal rule
304

292

"The spouse isn't in any way actually harmed by their partner fucking around; they're harmed by finding out about it."

This doesn't make any sense, if your spouse is distant and inattentive because they are having an affair you are harmed even if you don't know about the affair.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
305

303: that I'll cop to completely.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
306

Di gives me a compliment and I kick her in the shin?

Perhaps it's just your way of communicating to her your acceptance of the exploitation, degradation, and objectification of women?


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:14 PM
horizontal rule
307

304: But what if you have one of those spouses who overcompensates for his guilty conscience by being extra attentive, buying you nice things, etc.?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
308

305: I think the former is often (intentionally) mischaracterized as the latter.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:15 PM
horizontal rule
309

307: you play it for all it's worth?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
310

The spouse isn't in any way actually harmed by their partner fucking around; they're harmed by finding out about it.

Not true at all. Many people subtly withdraw sexual and emotional intimacy from their spouse when they are having sex with someone else. Especially (though not only) if they're lying about it. I'm sure some people don't, but it's obvious that it happens. This whole "monogamy" thing is about more than habit and custom.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
311

pwned! By Shearer, no less.

what if you have one of those spouses who overcompensates for his guilty conscience by being extra attentive, buying you nice things, etc.?

Being patronized by someone who's lying to you is soooo hot! Although, you know, depending on what you want from the relationship it could work.

287 is classic.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:20 PM
horizontal rule
312

Douthat has an updated post:

My point here, to be clear, is not that regularly watching hard-core pornography is exactly the same thing as committing adultery. My point is rather that there's a consistent continuum here - as opposed to the sort of inconsistent continuum that Will accuses me of mustering - that links the varying ways that a person who's committed to sexual monogamy can find sexual gratification outside of marriage. And I think that regular consumption of hard-core pornography is closer to the actual adultery end of the continuum (insofar as it involves actual-existing other people and actual physical acts) that it is to the "occasionally entertaining sexual thoughts about that cute girl on the subway" end of the continuum, and as such it's not "insane" to see morally meaningful similarities between porn-watching and cheating on your spouse.


Posted by: lemmy caution | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
313

310, 311, etc. was what I meant in 301 but was too lazy to spell out.


This is why it's best to be open about extramarital sex. All the upside, none of the lying, alienation, and sneaking about. Hell, that's pretty much why it's best to be open about everything.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:23 PM
horizontal rule
314

311: But if you don't know you are being patronized...


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:24 PM
horizontal rule
315

I think it should be ("DON'T STOP STOP DON'T STOP STOP DON'T STOP STOP")


Posted by: lemmy caution | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
316

314: Why then you shouldn't worry your pretty little head about it, sugar.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:26 PM
horizontal rule
317

if your spouse is distant and inattentive because they are having an affair you are harmed by their distance and inattention, yes. Not by the fact that their genitals are doing Things You Don't Know About, in and of itself.

Many people subtly withdraw sexual and emotional intimacy from their spouse when they are having sex with someone else.

And many people withdraw intimacy even when they aren't having sex with someone else. And many people have sex with others because they're seeking intimacy that's fading a bit from their primary relationship.

It's a li'l more complicated than the "Cheating is Bad" rule really acknowledges.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
318

312: Ah, so basically Douthat's point is that *any* form of sexual gratification that's "outside marriage," meaning that doesn't involve both married partners and only both married partners, is wrong.

It's a viewpoint.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
319

I've heard of being unable to take a compliment, Knecht, but I never really knew what they meant until now...


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
320

Tripp, you're negotiating your wife's rate? What kind of shitty feminist are you?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
321

The Obama campaign finally released a statement on the FISA compromise:

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
via MY
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
322

And many people withdraw intimacy even when they aren't having sex with someone else. And many people have sex with others because they're seeking intimacy that's fading a bit from their primary relationship.

Well, sex and intimacy are bound up in ways that increase the incentive to fix intimacy problems with someone when you are dependent on that person for sex as well. Sex also heightens intimacy just on its own. It complements lots of things that are needed to keep a relationship going.

Non-monogamy isn't bad, but it's complex and potentially risky, more for some people / relationships than others. Cheating is sort of bad insofar as lying is bad.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
323

It's a viewpoint.

Neither a nuanced, nor particularly informed one, it seems.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:37 PM
horizontal rule
324

So, does the FISA compromise make illegal surveillance legal in the future as well as the past, or only in the past?


Posted by: Ardent reader | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
325

Obama is dead to me. I am not enjoying my current feeling of helplessness mixed with rage.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
326

I used to watch pornography until my wife took away my pornograph.

"Ovular isn't even a word."


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
327

You'll only take away B's sexual freedom when you pry it out of her cold, dead cooch.

She's very wholesome, you know. A blonde 4H cracker. Don't want to mess with her. Not a weenie liberal at all.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
328

322: PGD has the most sensible and nuanced views on love, intimacy and sex of any person I know who isn't getting any.


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
329

289: 287: Knecht is a funny, funny guy.

Oh yes, yes he is! I like funny.

Veering off the tracks for a moment I am very thankful that I have never 'strayed' because it allows me the freedom to discuss these things with a clean conscience.

Restriction leads to Freedom. Who knew?


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
330

322.1 is, of course, correct. 322.2 is, I think, oversimplified. Monogamy, too, is complex and potentially risky, after all.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
331

Non-monogamy isn't bad, but it's complex and potentially risky

Relationships are complex and potentially risky. If one or both of you are going to do it, far better above board than below.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
332

237: 4H girls are known to give it up.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
333

327 is also, of course, correct, but B won't tell you that.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
334

323: Well, I don't think so, no. Presumably Mr. Douthat does. Or else he thinks that nuance is for weenies.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
335

322: I myself am definitely monogamy-oriented, but I'm not convinced by the argument that monogamy increases the incentive to improve intimacy because you are dependent on the sex. That dependence on a single person to fill your sexual needs can, in the face of unresolved intimacy problems with that person, create some really fucked up feelings about your sexuality. Do I have sex with this person who has nothing but contempt for me because otherwise I'm never, ever going to get to have sex? Do I come to view sex as a distasteful, repulsive act because the only person I could have sex with is someone for whom I have nothing but contempt? It's not that easy.

I am very emphatically convinced that it is not healthy to depend upon a single person for the fulfillment of all of your needs for emotional intimacy. Logically, I could see how this would translate to sexual intimacy, as well.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
336

331: Meh. If one person is going to cheat, lying about it might well be the best thing. It really depends. I suspect that having a Serious Affair, or even being a Serial Adulterer, is not the kind of secret that's easily kept from a reasonably attentive partner, but the odd lapse? In general, probably best kept to yourself.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
337

So, in sum, every path you take is rife with the potential for disaster and catastrophe. Too, too true.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
338

334: Oh I agree, I don't think he believes that. But the linked article isn't any sort of competent defense of the position.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
339

333 gets it exactly right, by the way.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
340

315: lemmy, I think Knecht's version involved a telegraphic pornographic rape fantasy.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
341

What kind of shitty feminist are you?

The kind that has four kids to put through college?

Now how much money you got? If you tell me that I'll tell you where you got your shoes.

Deal?


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
342

322: Non-monogamy isn't bad, but it's complex and potentially risky, more for some people / relationships than others.

Fixed.

(I say this as one who endorses and practices monogamy, of course.)


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
343

Sorry. Yggles neither provided the full text, or as far as I could see, a link.

Glenn Greenwald does more, Update VII.

How much "better" the full statement is I leave to your judgement.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
344

Cheating is sort of bad insofar as lying is bad.

The key here is what is defined as 'cheating'. And for people who aren't going to be monogamous, what sort of things they're expected to tell their partner about.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
345

monogamy life isn't bad, but it's complex and potentially risky, more for some people / relationships than others


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
346

I think that regular consumption of hard-core pornography is closer to the actual adultery end of the continuum (insofar as it involves actual-existing other people and actual physical acts) that it is to the "occasionally entertaining sexual thoughts about that cute girl on the subway" end of the continuum

Speaking for myself, I find fantasizing about actual people to be far, far closer to adultery than porn consumption. Sometimes I feel a little guilt over masturbating [to porn] when I could conceivably be trying to get it on with my wife, but in practice there's no competition - we're married with children, and we have about as much sex as we can, regardless of whether I may have jerked off recently. But issues of fidelity and emotional intimacy play no role at all in my porn life.

But thinking about another woman that I see around? Creepy. We've got a cute neighbor right now who's pretty much the first other woman I've thought about in that way, but I always get creeped out before my fantasy goes anywhere. My fantasy life is pretty much limited to past GFs (or near-misses) - safely impossible due to direction-of-time constraints, and not exactly news to Wife ("You mean you're sexually stimulated by ex-GF Y!? Oh. I guess I knew that.").

Not that I'm announcing any of this to her, but it's pretty clear in my mind.


Posted by: Jimmy Carter | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
347

322: I myself am definitely monogamy-oriented, but I'm not convinced by the argument that monogamy increases the incentive to improve intimacy because you are dependent on the sex. That dependence on a single person to fill your sexual needs can, in the face of unresolved intimacy problems with that person, create some really fucked up feelings about your sexuality. Do I have sex with this person who has nothing but contempt for me because otherwise I'm never, ever going to get to have sex? Do I come to view sex as a distasteful, repulsive act because the only person I could have sex with is someone for whom I have nothing but contempt? It's not that easy.

Wow. You must be female. So much thinking.


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
348

4H girls are known to give it up.

So do math team girls (no links, sorry).


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
349

337 represents my evolved views, and replaces 322.2. I'm going to go read Ecclesiastes now.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
350

I commend to Mr. Douthat the German aphorism "Appetit darf man sich draussen holen, aber gegessen wird zuhause" ("Whet your appetite whereever you please, but eat your meals at home.")


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
351

346:

But thinking about another woman that I see around? Creepy.

Jimmy, that feeling will pass. How's your brother Billy doing? Is he OK?


Posted by: Tripp the Crazed | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
352

Wow. You must be female. So much thinking.

Indeed. You can only imagine how helpful all that thinking is to the theory of actually having a sex life.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
353

I endorse 325.

I don't know which is worse - the bitterness in my mouth over his move on this, or the bitterness in my mouth over not venting at certain people with whom I may have discussed Mr. Obama's positions and prospects in the past.

I think I need to go chew on a bag of sugar.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
354

350: But is it okay to imagine the fast food up the street while eating your home-cooked meal?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
355

344: Exactly. That, and the silliness of the idea that there is generally correct prescription that will fit all relationships.

B, I see what you're saying about better to lie about it, but ime it seems much of the time people can't handle doing that without it becoming an issue in other ways in the relationship. Hard to know what least-harm path is (and this is relationship specific).


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
356

From the link in 332:

I came *this close* to losing my virginity to one of the national winners in the youth swine breeding program

I thought that Emerson said that swine only get artificial insemination?


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
357

But is it okay to imagine the fast food up the street while eating your home-cooked meal?

It makes the home-cooked meal seem all the better (I would hope).


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
358

I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
359

358: pretty much right on schedule, afaics.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
360

354: If you're going to fantasize, wouldn't you prefer something that's not so fat and greasy?

Think high-end cuisine: complex, presentable, just the right size, and implaceably international.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
361

360: I prefer to fantasize about things that I know aren't good for me...


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
362

360 to further mangle the analogy, then: fast food is a bad quicky with an ex?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:11 PM
horizontal rule
363

362: A cheezy ex, with extra fries.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
364

I prefer to fantasize about things that are fatty and greasy.


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
365

Why throw the ex in there, soup? You just ruined the whole damned fantasy. I guess I'll have to try fantasizing about high-end cuisine, now.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
366

@354 It certainly is okay to do so. To throw in another german aphorism "Die Gedanken sind frei".
The real question is whether one still enjoys the homecooking.


Posted by: Tiny Hermaphrodite | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
367

363: You are skiting dangerously close to ruining cheese fried for me with that comment. I would never forgive you for ruining cheese fries.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
368

But is it okay to imagine the fast food up the street while eating your home-cooked meal?

Yes, but you mustn't attend any potluck dinners. And asking for seconds on dessert is never polite.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
369

368: "And for goodness sake, slow down. If you keep stuffing yourself like that, you'll wind up choking."


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
370

368: "And for goodness sake, slow down. If you keep stuffing yourself like that, you'll wind up choking."


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
371

(Sorry, didn't mean to take seconds there. How rude!)


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
372

"Sorry, I guess my eyes were bigger than my stomach."

"You gonna' finish that?"


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
373

358: I think that, personalities aside, Stras, McManus, and I have attained a degree of objective unity.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
374

"Well, they say hunger is the best spice."

"I'm hungry enough to eat a horse."


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
375

"Did I say you could be excused?"

"Eat your vegetables, then we'll talk about whether you get dessert."


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
376

Waste not, want not.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
377

"Well of course it's not hot anymore. You expect me to have a hot meal on the table the very moment you finally decide to show up? You oughta be thankful I'm not sending you to bed with no supper!"


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
378

(It says something meaningful, I'm sure, about my relationship with food that I am finding the present direction of this thread far more stimulating than the p0rn stuff.)


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
379

Going into a new restaurant with questionable hygiene? Best order the meal cooked sous vide.


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
380

There are children starving in China.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
381

"I'd like you to think about all the hungry people right here in this very country who could be fed from what you leave on your plate."

"It doesn't taste like your mother's? Well I'm not your fucking mother! So you'd better just get used to the fact that I cook the way I cook!"


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
382

Cook your own damn dinner. I'm tired.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
383

And asking for seconds on dessert is never polite.

Oh please, a good chef always has a bit extra, just in case.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
384

"Sure you used to go get carry-out to eat every night, but you're not in college anymore!"


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
385

Do I look like a short-order cook?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
386

You're always on about the entree. Have you ever thought about getting the tasting menu?


Posted by: Chopper | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
387

You're always on about already the entree.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
388

+ italics


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
389

-- "Do you remember the first time I cooked for you? I was so nervous you wouldn't like it. I drank like a bottle of wine to calm my nerves, and then I ended up barely being able to get dinner on the table."

-- "Yes, I remember. To tell you the truth, it was pretty awful. I was so hungry when I left, I stopped at the place down at the corner and got a late night snack."


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
390

389 just made me sad.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
391

"I like wine more nowadays. Anyway, I'm drinking more."


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:45 PM
horizontal rule
392

I swear to god my patience for the New High Cholesterol lifestyle (avoiding super cholesteroly foods, deliberately exercising more) lasts about two fucking months. And the end result is that all I want to do is lie around eating blue cheese bacon burgers.

No wonder diets don't fucking work.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
393

390: Sorry to have pushed those buttons, Di. I'm gonna quit now.


Posted by: KR | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
394

Guy once asked me:"McManus, is everything you say a quote from something." Of course, it was ridiculous flattery + ignorance, but if you look around wide & deep enough, you learn that originality is not only overrated but rarely necessary.

Shorter:Wish I said this:

Rolling Stone Gathers No Mas

The Donk can't do anything; her influence on "policy" is nil; her Congressional majority goes on and votes for the Dictator anyway. Who's the fuckin' nihilists, here? There are certainly precedents for spending an eternity on a task that will never reach fulfilment, but bending eternally to the receding water or pushing forever at the heavy stone are meant for punishing the wicked dead, not that I necessarily object to watching Good Liberals go heaving boulders up a hill.

It would be one thing to argue that reactionary nut jobs like yours truly are wrong in our diagnoses and prescriptions, but arguing instead that we are impotent sophists, all the while standing atop the vast, steaming pile of Netrootsian inefficaciousness--incapacity being the principle characteristic of blog--now that takes a pair of brass ones, as my grandmother likes to say. The people that Digby et al. claim as representatives of their political aspirations won't do a goddamn thing that Digby et al. request. As for me, I'm proud to be a whiner, and it is the nature of the whiner to be proudly ineffectual. On the other hand, to claim status as an activist while failing in virtually every political endeavor is to put on the clown hat and become purposefully, almost magestically ridiculous.

I think I have been banned from Crooked Timber


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
395

389 was pretty hilarious. And on the flipside of what Chopper said in 386:

"I'm only making one thing for dinner. You get to choose what it is, but only one!"


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
396

392: Seriously, I know I get to be a pain-in-the-ass proselytizer on this, but did you get the thyroid checked? I still have bitter, bitter memories of extremely strict dietary and exercise regimes which proved both useless (before the thyroid problem was treated) and unnecessary (after the thyroid got fixed). (Though, the High Cholesterol Lifestyle did provide me with a new and welcome appreciation for beans, high omega-3 fish, and red wine, so there's that.)


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
397

393: Oh, no, don't apologize for that! Calling me a sex-negative feminist, yes, but 390 was not apology material!!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
398

And with that, I'm heading out to grab some fast-food....


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:01 PM
horizontal rule
399

396: Yep, we did a total blood thingamajigy and my thyroid is fine.

MMMMMmm, fast food....

Really, I just need to go grocery shopping. But it's so hot! And I'm so lazy, I'm having a hard time motivating PK to put some damn clothes on.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
400

And asking for seconds on dessert is never polite.

That is the single most immoral thing yet written in this filthy, sinful thread.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
401

I left town for a week and a half, right?

And I come home to find that Mr. B. has stocked the house with jolly ranchers, jelly bellies, m&ms, marshmallows, and chocolate chips. This in additio to the usual stock of one-lb chocolate bars in the cupboard.

The man is weird.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
402

But it's so hot!

I thought it was always perfect there.

That's not even snark, I'm serious - the mere suggestion that weather might not be 72, non-humid and sunny 360 days a year is an invitation for guffaws from the SoCal contingent.

Anyway, I'm off to bike to the Indian store with Iris for curry leaves and black mustard seeds.

PS - AB just learned that she and her best friend from college and post-college have the same bike , which is also the same as B's - Trek meetup!


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
403

I, too, have a Trek, a hybrid. I am very happy with it.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
404

Live long and prosper, Emerson.


Posted by: Merganser | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
405

And I come home to find that Mr. B. has stocked the house with jolly ranchers, jelly bellies, m&ms, marshmallows, and chocolate chips. This in additio to the usual stock of one-lb chocolate bars in the cupboard.

If you'd watch more Simpsons, you'd be properly familiar with German stereotypes.

You married Uter.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
406

But John, do you have the same girl's bike that we ladies have?

I wouldn't blame you if you did; it's an awesome bike. But I would be somewhat surprised.

405: Oh, I know it.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:34 PM
horizontal rule
407

Also, in re. weather, my little apple widget tells me it is currently 77 and the projected high is 82. Which, y'know, I like hot weather and all, but I'm working on a laptop here.

Jesus, I need to just go yell at PK to get some fucking clothes on so we can go to Foster's Freeze and then buy some damn groceries.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:35 PM
horizontal rule
408

No, I have a real bike.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
409

Are you complaining about 77 being not hot enough, or too hot?


Posted by: Ardent reader | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
410

77 is like January weather here, Ardent. Must have been the former.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 5:09 PM
horizontal rule
411

410, 411: Knowing this thread was about pornography, I scrolled back up to comment 77 and found no link. How am I to know if it's hot or not?


Posted by: ed bowlinger | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 5:59 PM
horizontal rule
412

I refuse to believe it's 77. It's freaking stifling.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 6:34 PM
horizontal rule
413

Funny. I also initially thought 77 was a comment number.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 6:43 PM
horizontal rule
414

It's like 83, 84 now. Sans a/c, I might add. Bleah.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
415

Whatever. It's in the 90s here and I biked back from the train station wearing a heavy, big-ass backpacking backpack. And you don't see me complaining.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
416

I totally *do* see you complaining.

I'm impressed, though. My fitness/biking/global warming jones quailed in the face of the heat, and I took the car. I didn't turn on the a/c, though.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
417

No you don't no you don't no you don't, 'cause I can't see you, so you can't see me.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:15 PM
horizontal rule
418

I can see the complaints, however, which are textual in nature.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:17 PM
horizontal rule
419

What! I never need to complain about matters—oh, textual. No, I have no textual complaints either.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:19 PM
horizontal rule
420

Move to Hawaii, B -- the only state in the union without either hot or cold weather. Also, before going to bed, look carefully under all 17 feather ticks to make sure that there isn't a pea under there somewhere.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
421

If you have textual problems, TV tells me that you have several pharmacological options.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
422

Shut up, John. It's HOT.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:23 PM
horizontal rule
423

Jesus fuck, B, it's that hot here in the subarctic.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
424

Right, but you people mostly probably have air conditioning, do you not?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
425

416: I didn't turn on the a/c, though.

Satan wept.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:28 PM
horizontal rule
426

PK bitched about having the windows down and the wind mussing his hair.

I can't wait until he's 16, really I can't.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:30 PM
horizontal rule
427

221: Benjamin, Benjamin, Benjamin - my point was that pron is so freakingly subjective and/or culture-centric that it's impossible to set a brightline standard and say "This is pron". There are places that the average American movie poster would be considered hard core. There are things - especially for fetishists - that, whilst certainly arousing the prurient interests of the viewer, fail your " intentional attitudes regarding arousal" standard because most of us don't get off perusing Home Depot catalogues or watching Faces of Death III. Or Barney.

If a closet Plushie gets a hard on /wet on for Barney, have they committed a sin?


Posted by: DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
428

Dear God, B, a/c for heat in the 80s? Are you sure PK hasn't surreptitiously set you on fire?


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
429

It's 79 indoors. And I bicycled 35 or so miles yesterday in the hot 80 degree sun. And I'm a senile alcoholic.

The reason I'm so healthy? No relationships, no sex life. B is burning up internally due to her indulgence of her hormones.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
430

If a closet Plushie gets a hard on /wet on for Barney, have they committed a sin?

Dear god, yes.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
431

When I was a boy, back when a nickel was worth a nickel, a tight sweater or a flash of lacy underthings was pron. And we liked it. Barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
432

fail your " intentional attitudes regarding arousal" standard because most of us don't get off perusing Home Depot catalogue

Unsurprisingly, I don't think those things should be considered pornography.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
433

Ooh, maybe it's menopause!

No, seriously, it's hot. Everyone's griping about it. IT'S NOT JUST ME.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:37 PM
horizontal rule
434

431: But kids today...


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
435

CURRENT CONDITIONS 88.3. C'mon. That's hot, you fuckers.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
436

You're dying of lewdness, B. Cotton Mather would hang your lewd ass in a New York minute, if he weren't dead. And he'd make you listen to a two hour sermon first.

A two-hour sermon about your lewd ass. Count your blessings.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
437

I have a nice way of highlighting the bright side of things, don't I?


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
438

It's a damn good thing he's dead, then.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:40 PM
horizontal rule
439

About 300 years dead. Your lewd ass is safe.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
440

Synthetic Fiber Mather handles the heat better.


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:42 PM
horizontal rule
441

That's nonsense. I'm totally wearing a "coolwick" sports bra, and it's just as sweaty and gross as any other.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:43 PM
horizontal rule
442

Sweaty boobs are not fetching, B. Best not mention them.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:45 PM
horizontal rule
443

You know what helps wick moisture away? Wool. You should be wearing a scratchy wool bra.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:46 PM
horizontal rule
444

Yeah, I desperately want a scratchy wool bra. Screw that.

The gardenia in the garden is blooming, though, so I stuck a blossom in my hair. So I feel sweaty and gross but I smell lovely.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:47 PM
horizontal rule
445

So how do we reconcile the lewd ass with the egregious wholesomeness?

How, indeed! We may have a devil-child, fox-fairy, changeling or a succubus here.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
446

Or maybe just a straight up witch.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
447

442: Speak for yourself, John.

Mmmm, gardenia.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
448

447: Perv.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:49 PM
horizontal rule
449

It's amazing how strong the gardenia scent is, I'm telling you.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
450

I used to have one in a pot on the back porch until some hateful motherfucker stole it. God, I love that scent. Fussy plant, though; needs attention.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
451

Jesus, you might as well buy an airline ticket down to Manteca where B lives. La belle dame sans merci is irresistible. Better you than me.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:54 PM
horizontal rule
452

Anyone ever feel really fucking alone?

Yeah, me either.


Posted by: b | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
453

The one in our yard grows by the patio, but I think it's not usually humid enough here, b/c it only puts out a few blooms a year.

I think that, after I finish making this melon soup for dinner, I am going to propose that we embrace the decadence and go to the beach until bedtime. What's the point of living here otherwise?


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
454

not sure how that signed "b." 'Twas me.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 7:57 PM
horizontal rule
455

Bi Kotimy would be the Latin equivalent.


Posted by: Ardent reader | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
456

I'm sorry I mentioned Cotton Mather.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
457

I'm sorry, lowercase b.

Majuscule B, with regular water and feeding, you should be able to get more blooms. Pain in the ass, I know, but maybe you could get PK to take an interest in it.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:01 PM
horizontal rule
458

DK, want a little kid who'll try to be as PHYSICALLY CLOSE TO YOU AS POSSIBLE? Currently he's sticking his fucking hand in my armpit.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:02 PM
horizontal rule
459

Going to the beach is wholesome. Melons are on the very short list of Manichaean-approved foods. You're still a devil child, though.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
460

Isn't he a little young to have a fucking hand?


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:07 PM
horizontal rule
461

with regular water and feeding, you should be able to get more blooms

I'll let the gardener know.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
462

458: I'll take it.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
463

I feel confident this may in fact be the only sin:

If a closet Plushie gets a hard on /wet on for Barney, have they committed a sin?

Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:10 PM
horizontal rule
464

462: Great, I'm packing him up as we speak.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
465

Awesome!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:16 PM
horizontal rule
466

BphD, if it's so hot, maybe you can try to put on some wet with cold water tee or top, it's really refreshing


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
467

Uh huh. I'll be getting right on that and posting pictures any minute now.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:43 PM
horizontal rule
468

Awesome!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
469

(A cold, wet scarf around the neck really does help. I think it's something about having the cold so close to the carotid, so it carries the cooled blood through the system. Or maybe someone just told me that and it was a very effective placebo effect. Either way.)


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 8:53 PM
horizontal rule
470

OT: Netflix has the top 2% of telephone customer service I've ever experienced. Based in Portland, apparently.

On topic: Di, I hear ya. Although at least you're not being sent on business trips to remote Kentucky, huh?


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:00 PM
horizontal rule
471

470: Thanks. Although, at the airport in KY, I had the best beer I have ever had in my entire life, a bourbon barrel ale available only in the Lexington area. And... When you start getting sentimental about a beer, it's clearly time to take a deep breath, get some sleep, and get it together.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 9:11 PM
horizontal rule
472

455 was impressively quick.

88.3 is pretty warm.

Some fucker stole Iris's bike helmet from on top of a power transformer (where I stupidly left it). WTF??

But the Indian dinner I made was fantastic.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 10:33 PM
horizontal rule
473

bourbon barrel ale available only in the Lexington area

I had a bourbon porter at Toronado a while back that was excellent.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:19 PM
horizontal rule
474

Unsurprisingly, I don't think those things should be considered pornography.

Some significant others would disagree with you.


Posted by: DominEditrix | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:30 PM
horizontal rule
475

I didn't think anyone ever stole bike helmets. I always just leave mine hanging loosely on the handlebars.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-20-08 11:44 PM
horizontal rule
476

that's what you think b. have you looked recently? like in the last 10 minutes?


Posted by: academic lesbian | Link to this comment | 06-21-08 12:15 AM
horizontal rule
477

If it's gone, I know who I'm gonna blame.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-21-08 12:22 AM
horizontal rule
478

Sorta OT:

I was thinking about certain bawdy Beastie Boys lyrics and musing that, if only the PMRC and Tipper Gore had possessed the power that the Hays Code did, there could have been a real flowering of creativity in risque hip hop in the 1980s. Instead, you got to say any banal profanity you wanted as long has you put a silly little sticker on your album.

I guess that really doesn't have that much to do with pron or hotness.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 06-21-08 6:41 AM
horizontal rule