Writes Erin Chack, in "From Kissing One Guy in 20 Years to 11 in a Month
My husband leaving nearly broke me. I tried to put myself back together by dating for the first time in my life" (NYT)(gift link, because I think it's a well-written essay).
April 24, 2026
"I kissed Bryan, a gardener, on his red leather couch. I kissed Ray, a painter, in his lofted bed and smashed my head into his ceiling fan."
"Andrew 1 kissed me at the Met in front of a painting of hell. 'Sometimes I think this is hell,' he said, gesturing around us before putting his mouth on mine.
Andrew 2 seemed confident over text but wary in person. He surprised me with a smooch on a street corner while we waited for the light to change.... Haden, a sommelier, met me to walk a friend’s dog. We kissed kneeling on the welcome mat while our hands fumbled to free the pug from her harness. Thomas, a surfer, walked me to the subway after playing pool at a dive bar. He planted one on me outside the C train.... When men asked why I was single, I told them it was because my partner of 20 years walked out on me with as much warning as one might get before an earthquake.... In return, the men were unexpectedly kind. I had heard so many horror stories about the emotional capacity of the male species, but these guys told me I didn’t deserve to be treated that way...."
Posts
118 comments:
LOL!
At some point women are going to realize that the NYT telling them to act like whores does not lead to long term happiness.
I mean they will eventually figure that out right?
That sounds gay. Like a gay fantasy.
From the 1982 song "Date Stamp" by ABC:
Everything is temporary written on that sand
Looking for the girl that meets supply with demand
It seems they never had kids. I suspect that is relevant somehow. Maybe the guy was never fully committed to the relationship? Or they are both too self-absorbed to want to have kids? In any case, it's easier to leave if there are no kids involved.
I want to be cynical here, and indeed I am to the extent that I think she ought to be more discerning before any kind of physical affection... but that sensation of a kiss from someone you're just getting to know is pretty special. It might be the only downside I can think of to a long marriage.
Truly. The first sex of a relationship is awkward as heck, by comparison. A kiss is low-stakes, arousing without being too revealing, easy to do well if you pay the slightest attention to what the other person is doing. But after thirty-five years, I know my husband's kissing so well that it doesn't really have the power to thrill me anymore; instead, it's warm, loving, reminiscent of many occasions in our long time together, and I wouldn't trade it for anything - but when I have a rare dream in which I'm being kissed by a different man, I admit to waking up with a glow.
"...but when I have a rare dream in which I'm being kissed by a different man, I admit to waking up with a glow."
You're welcome.
I am Laslo.
Is this the NYT or a teen mag? Aren't there more serious, substantive matters to cover than this one woman's dating experiences?
“It seems they never had kids. I suspect that is relevant somehow. Maybe the guy was never fully committed to the relationship? Or they are both too self-absorbed to want to have kids?”
Chemotherapy at 19 may have interfered with her ability to have kids.
I doubt the account is real as it pertains to a female. It's too gay.
Was there any probing tongue involved?
- Krumhorn
“One man gathers what another man spills.”
- Jerry Garcia
The NYTs is really good at lying to democrats and turning them into hateful spite filled losers isn't it.
The hole kissing spree was intentional. She put it on her dating profile. Probably with the intent of riding an article about it.
It's interesting. Guys on podcasts complain these days that the dating apps are very one-sided to the advantage of women. Speculation is is that 90% of the women compete over 10% of the Chads, eg. Those who are into looks maxing and finance flexing like Clavicular.
This story seems to give some Credence to that urban legend.
I got a real "88 Lines about 44 Women" vibe during that recitation of kisses.
Didn't the NYT start out as a newspaper?
Laslo, how did you know? 😁
Middle-aged women having to re-enter the dating scene is perinnel (sic) topic of magazines and newspapers. At least she isn't burdened by having small children, and seems well-to-do.
Evidently, books come out of Erin Chack's vagina (with photos).
"Chemotherapy at 19 may have interfered with her ability to have kids."
I don't see that in the article. Yes, it's possible they couldn't have kids for some reason. It's still a factor. It's the dog that didn't bark in the story.
And yes, this whole article is fluff for the NYT female readership, which is probably 90% of the total.
Polygamy without commitment with "benefits" under the RAAT doctrine. NYT is narrating a handmade tale to influence people and force social progress... one step forward, three steps backward.
Wince.
that made me wince.
Kiss and yell.
The Kissing Banditress may be having fun, but do the rest of us need to hear about it?
I had heard so many horror stories about the emotional capacity of the male species, but these guys told me I didn’t deserve to be treated that way...."
That's because the "horror stories" are just that. And we can come up with equally bad ones about the evil emotional capacity of the female species, too
Drops the chain of marriage and she hurries to get it on. I mean that's a pattern that repeats itself all over the country.
Can't wait for the post-divorce anal stories.
So, Bryan and Ray got her into their home. What happened after the kiss on the couch and the kiss on the bed?
I had heard so many horror stories about the emotional capacity of the male species, but these guys told me I didn’t deserve to be treated that way...."
That's sweet. Nice to connect with honest men. Not the typical dating app guys who will say anything in order to get you up on the red couch or loft bed.
Speaking as an ex-husband who's not a father, I think maybe having kids forces the mum and dad to act like adults, including treating each other as adults. With no kids, you are kind of in an extended teen romance, which eventually ends.
But then there's lots of moms who treat the dad as the n+1th kid, so what do I know? CC, JSM
The emotional capacity of the MFs on this blog and the alcoholic tinatrent - nonexistent.
The em-pathetic advocacy for RAAT is stunning.
I want to know more about the pug. It's always the pug that suffers. CC, JSM
I hate to pile on because she’s a very good writer but both the kindle and hardback editions of This Is Really Happening are in the 2 million range on Amazon’s best seller list. On the bright side her book is #174 in Teen & Young Adult Diseases, Illnesses & Injuries.
" With no kids, you are kind of in an extended teen romance, which eventually ends."
Exactly, JSM. Not to judge people who have no kids, there may be fertility issues as Eva Marie pointed out. (We only had one child for this reason.) But it does have an impact. Of course if divorce does happen, it's infinitely more complicated with kids.
stunned: huh?
"Steph looked handsome with his stubbly jaw and nose ring."
Guys wear nose rings on dates?
Stunned is a drive by commenter - making stupid remarks that don’t mean anything.
FullMoon said...
I had heard so many horror stories about the emotional capacity of the male species, but these guys told me I didn’t deserve to be treated that way...."
That's sweet. Nice to connect with honest men. Not the typical dating app guys who will say anything in order to get you up on the red couch or loft
She will hook up with Chad.
Then she will project her bad experiences with Chad on all men and take zero responsibility for acting like a whore.
Then she will vote for men like bill Clinton.
Universal suffrage is a mistake.
The New York Times morphed into Cosmopolitan so slowly and steadily, one hardly notices anymore.
“Universal suffrage is a mistake.”
OK, I agree with stunned about the MFs.
Thanks, Eva. Your comment means a lot to me. I spent 20 years trying to help the most endangered kids in the projects of South Atlanta, almost all pro-bono. I represented underserved patient groups and crime victims entirely pro-bono at the Georgia General Assembly for decades. Maybe TMI, but I haven't had solid food for five years because of a likely inoperable tumor growing in scar tissue in my throat from a botched radiation treatment when I was five. I was a damn good house contractor and a good teacher and ultra-distance runner for years. Now I rarely get out of bed anymore. My hands don't work well, and I'm pretty young. I used to grow 1,000 heirloom tomato plants a year. I nursed family and non-family people to their deaths. So the "choking on a tomato" story really got to me, but I restrained myself. I haven't had a tomato in half a decade, and some days I can't swallow the tiniest pill or vitamin. I've dedicated my life to others despite their politics AND to exposing those who politically exploit it. Commenting here is community, so that shook me. I'm suddenly being attacked, here and elsewhere, by someone with a recent account.
I want to thank him, or her. I needed to stop feeling sorry for myself and do something I'm very good at doing. Lukewarm is as good as cold.
“The hole kissing spree was intentional. She put it on her dating profile. Probably with the intent of riding an article about it.”
I have had a few great hole kissing sprees, but the purpose was not to write an article.
Temujin: take a look at the floorplan of the Times building if you can find it. It's delicious imagining David Brooks descending from the editorial floor through the gender-crazy hoi-polloi below, as his horse and carriage wait for him outside.
Gail Collins must have to help him. I don't know what else she does. Thomas Friedman uses the helicopter pad on the roof. It's probably like Dawn of the Dead in there.
Oh, great. Dating as (future) clickbait.
Men of NYC, beware! Remember the hot/crazy/WRITER matrix. Proceed at your own risk.
Eva Marie said...
“Universal suffrage is a mistake.”
OK, I agree with stunned about the MFs.
Do you think women who act like this or the men they are fucking should be allowed to determine the future direction of the country?
Reminds me of a visit to the dog park.
"The emotional capacity of the MFs on this blog..."
It's a gift, if more widespread, would make all our lives better and stupid mistakes rare.
“I had heard so many horror stories about the emotional capacity of the male species, but these guys told me I didn’t deserve to be treated that way...."
Sheesh, that line is still around? I think male dinosaurs used that one.
Tina, your comments are very similar to Michael K’s. Lots of living there. A book would be wonderful.
" but these guys told me I didn’t deserve to be treated that way..."
They all used the same line, and it worked every time.
You get what you settle for, whether you deserve it or not. It's got nothing to do with deserving.
“I had heard so many horror stories about the emotional capacity of the male species, but these guys told me I didn’t deserve to be treated that way...."
Damn it, they stole my line!!!
@Achilles:
First, the facts: Women voted at 67% turnout in 2024 compared to men’s 64%, AND there are 9 million more registered women voters than men. So spare me the complaints about “universal suffrage” and tell men to get their asses out of their gaming chairs, register, and vote.
Second, I’ve tried motivating guys to vote. The most common response? “What’s the point? Nothing changes.” Congratulations, Einstein, by calling universal suffrage a mistake, you’re doing Betty Friedan’s work for her and giving millions of men the perfect excuse to stay home.
Third, even with this built-in female turnout advantage, Democrats still have to rely on cheating.
Remove those advantages, and conservatives would dominate at the polls.
The fix is simple: Get more men to vote, demand ironclad election integrity with voter ID, citizenship checks, and same day voting. Also shrink government so individual votes actually matter again. Whining about suffrage gives you whatever stupid thrill it gives you, but fixing male apathy and restoring trust would actually work.
We need universal courting. No "benefits" without meritocracy. Oh, and #HateLovesAbortion. RAAT is misogynistic.
I’m not done.
I’ve noticed a clear pattern in the comment section. When a man does something stupid or incompetent (Gavin Newsom, Al Sharpton, Chuck Schumer, etc.) the criticism stays focused on that individual. You never hear “This is why men shouldn’t vote” or “Men are the problem.”
But let a woman make a mistake or say something dumb, and the reaction is immediate: “This is why women shouldn’t vote,” “What’s wrong with women?” “Poor men have to suffer these idiots.”
Worse, the women who get hit with this treatment are relatively powerless - low level officials, activists, magazine writers!
Meanwhile, genuinely powerful, consequential stupid men dominate the headlines daily, and the same crowd stays strangely quiet about male incompetence and stupidity.
Now I’m done.
Eva Marie is right. We have an ample surplus of men who don't vote. I work with a lot of conservative contractors. None of them vote. Go to your DMV or county commission and get a fistful of voter registrations. Have the conversation and show them how to do it ASAP. They have to sign and mail it. Then literally pick them up during early voting and take them to the polling station. It's called GOTV. Democrats get billions to do it. We can easily beat them with no money involved.
And thank you, Eva Marie. The conservative movement would be nothing without us. I spent years on the road, giving speeches. The women did the work, you guys.
Nobody so far has commented on the author stating she was blindsided by this sudden split, but not whether infidelity was the unspoken reason. My guess: husband comes out of closet, decides to be gay, ditches wife to move cross-country.
Certainly since the 80s with patricia shroeder remember her and the years of the prog nitwit murray boxer moseley braun talentless hacks have been thrust in our face see hillary and kamala
Eva Marie said...
I’m not done.
I’ve noticed a clear pattern in the comment section. When a man does something stupid or incompetent (Gavin Newsom, Al Sharpton, Chuck Schumer, etc.) the criticism stays focused on that individual. You never hear “This is why men shouldn’t vote” or “Men are the problem.”
But let a woman make a mistake or say something dumb, and the reaction is immediate: “This is why women shouldn’t vote,” “What’s wrong with women?” “Poor men have to suffer these idiots.”
Worse, the women who get hit with this treatment are relatively powerless - low level officials, activists, magazine writers!
Meanwhile, genuinely powerful, consequential stupid men dominate the headlines daily, and the same crowd stays strangely quiet about male incompetence and stupidity.
LOL.
So when 20% of men and 60% of women act like whores we aren’t talking enough about the Gavin newsomes and bill Clinton’s.
The “powerless women” must never be criticized!
This highlights the communal nature of women’s thinking patterns. If Eva points out that a lot of men act badly men don’t feel the need to defend him. But if someone points out how women act and how that is corrosive Reeeeeeeeee!!!!!!
Now to be fair bill clinton shouldnt have been an answer to any question, that was the flipside
Eva Marie, ref you're "I'm not done" speech - Yes, some important points there.
I think one reason men in these comments jump onto derogatory generalizations about women is because we get derogatory generalizations about us all/every day from every institution we interact with. Many of us really believe that there is a deliberate campaign to push us out of any job that a woman can conceivably do, for instance. Or to use female brain chemistry only, ever, as an excuse ('she was driven to tears! What would you have her do'), while using male brain chemistry only, ever, as an aggravating factor ('He was driven into a rage! Put him under the jail for a hate crime!').
And the Prof has been kind to us with things like the Althouse Theorem: any news piece comparing women and men will always cast the difference as favorable to women. So we know she at least somewhat empathizes with us.
So many of us lads use these comments as a safe space to counter-insult womankind. Kind of like a black standup comic throwing out stereotypes about whites. They think it's a small price to pay to make up for 1619; we think it's a small price to pay to make up for the 19th.
As for bullying the lowest-ranking women: These are the ones who bully us men. The tip of the spear. The grabby wives, the babymamas looking for splooge stooges, the HR people, the diversity seminar leaders, the judges, the accelerated-promotion bosses, etc, etc. It's almost more just to critique them hard than to critique woman politicians up in the clouds.
But it should be toned down a bit, you're right. There are lots of male-based crappy governmental, commercial, and cultural practices. The genius of the Framers came from their realizing men are always going to be dicks, and designing a system that keeps the various dicks in dynamic tension. So many of the evil Dem politicians are doing their version of machismo. That should be called out. Etc.
Hope this helps. CC, JSM
Achilles, what a lovely strawman you're slapping around!
Eva Marie was very clear in her critique: no matter how stupidly a man acts, no one says, "See? There's the problem with men! Why did we ever support universal male suffrage without a property ownership requirement [or whatever]?"
Whereas when a woman does something stupid, you and your ilk go straight there: "This is what the 19th got us."
People who think as you do on this subject treat every stupid woman as representative of all women (and ignore the women who don't do stupid things); they don't extend the same... courtesy, let's say, to men. Would you care to address that specific critique?
I'll help: maybe you want to make the case that women disproportionately do stupid things that ought to cost then their right to vote. Make that case!
I enjoyed the essay. I wish her luck.
As opposed to every magazine tv commercial movie tv programs that attack men
Hahaha, john mosby, crossed in the ether! For whatever it's worth, I am a big fan of men, having purposely married one and produced two sons with him. So I get what you're saying - and as I've said before, sometimes I'm tempted to throw in with the Repeal the 19th crowd when a woman in public life does something particularly egregious.
But no one, ever, talks about removing the franchise from men as a class. And even in the most male-bashing circles (well, maybe not the MOST - I don't hang around with those people so I can't say), it is possible for men to win at least conditional approval. And get a job, and enter a relationship, and keep their franchise. They have to keep quiet while their sex is badmouthed, or better yet, agree with the bashing, but they can escape standing as avatars of their sex.
Dang it, I just want us to embrace the Dream of judging all by the content of their character. Why is that so hard?!
Well we cant have nice things, the institutions wont allow that
Trump is a blunt instrument because the wet noodles of the last 30 years werent getting (the right things) done
Jamie said…
Dang it, I just want us to embrace the Dream of judging all by the content of their character. Why is that so hard?!
Because people want to be judges by how they feel they have done.
They don’t want to be judged on what they have actually done.
There are whole industries in the US that are just complete scams and nobody wants to talk about that. Anytime you start talking about actual accountability their are a lot of people who should have been plumbers or mothers who get a smidge upset when someone points out our country gives wealth and status to a whole host of worthless white collar bullshit.
John Mosby, you have nothing to fear. I do expect more from you.
Tina, please elaborate. What don't I have to fear? CC, JSM
20/60 refers to which statistic, Achilles?
@Jamie (and others),
But no one, ever, talks about removing the franchise from men as a class.
Well, no one does among conservatives. But, among the feminist Left, the idea that the world would be a much better place if women ran it instead of all the male brutes who run it now, is a just a truism for the movement. This line of thought goes waaaay back. In the 19th C American women's suffrage movement, the idea that women were "the angels of the household" and that, if given the vote, they would bring that feminine sense of care and concern into the public sphere was featured as a prominent argument for suffrage.
@Jamie (yet again!)
but that sensation of a kiss from someone you're just getting to know is pretty special.
Wait! Isn't there a song about that?
Jamie said...
Achilles, what a lovely strawman you're slapping around!
Eva Marie was very clear in her critique: no matter how stupidly a man acts, no one says, "See? There's the problem with men! Why did we ever support universal male suffrage without a property ownership requirement [or whatever]?"
Whereas when a woman does something stupid, you and your ilk go straight there: "This is what the 19th got us."
People who think as you do on this subject treat every stupid woman as representative of all women (and ignore the women who don't do stupid things); they don't extend the same... courtesy, let's say, to men. Would you care to address that specific critique?
I'll help: maybe you want to make the case that women disproportionately do stupid things that ought to cost then their right to vote. Make that case!
Why make that case? You wont accept that is the case I am making anyways.
Even though it is.
I have clearly said on numerous occasions we should castigate men like Bill Clinton and that he should be in jail because he is a rapist and a traitor.
I have also said on numerous occasions that a majority of women voted for a man they knew was a rapist and that a super majority of college educated women voted for a man they knew was a rapist.
The NYTs glorifies women acting like whores and who knowingly vote for rapists.
I will note the women on this blog have no qualms about saying things about all men and they seem to love to paint all men as being like Newsom or Clinton even when it is clear that a majority of men are completely different than those 2 men. Do you know that 40-50% of men never get to have children and this has persisted for millennia? Women are always bashing men for the actions of ~20% of men.
So don't get all whiny when men don't spend 20 extra words qualifying that they feel like 30-40% of women are being made to look bad by the other 60-70% of women. Especially when the 30-40% of women even on this blog spend most of their time upset when we talk about reality.
Eva - 3:05 -
You nailed it.
The left must laugh their asses off - when morons like Achilles and his ilk scream about women voting.
Newsum is a nuclear strength inept moron. Hey all men - you own him! Got that, all men. Esp. you, Achilles.
Achilles whines more that most women. No voting for you.
“Eva Marie is right. We have an ample surplus of men who don't vote. I work with a lot of conservative contractors. None of them vote. Go to your DMV or county commission and get a fistful of voter registrations. Have the conversation and show them how to do it ASAP. They have to sign and mail it. Then literally pick them up during early voting and take them to the polling station.”
Hee—yeah, we’ll get right on that. What else is our time for?
Meanwhile, wouldn’t it be easier just to convince women not to vote? Why don’t you work on that for a while?
No one is saying that the sexes can't complain about each other. That is as old as time.
Stop saying "women shouldn't vote" - you sound like a leftist and a moron.
Lets focus on single women they seem to be the prepondèrance of the problem
John Mosby: white men have been discriminated against since1964.. White women too. Eva Marie is objecting to someing quite reasonable without impugning white men. This stop the female franchise stuff is garbage talk. We need to align by beliefs, not identities, which you always seem to do. But did you ever speak out against the trolls who want to literally disenfranchise women? You don't seem the type who would let that pass for anyone. But maybe you didn't see the thread. No foul there, but she is being told that women don't deserve the vote.
That's all.
She's an ally of disabused men. She could use some voices from men acknowleding her commitments.
As Rush said illustrsting absurdity by being absurd
Smiling: I said that, not her. Get your quotes right. And it's actually not time-consuming.
Smiling jack?
What is it with your obsession with women not voting? You like losing or something? are you a leftist?
dribbles of Hasan Piker(d) and his fat rich white commie Greenwich village upbringing with a pony.
or was that the rich white leftist commie Weather Underground self-loathing pony killers?
I think it's important to mock the white left.
Also, Althouse, giving a platform to defamation of character is also actionable.
Jamie said--- "I just want us to embrace the Dream of judging all by the content of their character"
As Mike Rosen used to say "Best to take people one at a time."
Achilles case for repealing the 19th amendment can be made very simply by just pointing out that Kamala Harris would be President now if only women's votes were counted. It doesn't matter how virtuous the sexes are in their nonvoting lives: the case for repealing the 19th is that clear majorities of womenvote for terrible candidates, and they do it more often than men do.
But hasan piker doesnt catch one hundredth the flack of anyone
narciso - that is changing. Soon.
Fat rich white leftist radical pony boi - who wants everyone he disagrees with - killed - is going to be the new face of the corruptocratical SPLC party.(D)
If anyone should be canceled but like his punk uncle he still floats up
Jeff - don't be an idiot.
If you really want extremist leftwing democrats to win - go with your "Repeal the 19th amendment" hot garbage.
"Repeal the 19th amendment" is a super gift to the left.
I'd say to the idiots who think "Repeal the 19th Amendment" is a good use of time and energy - you should just go full Kristol and be done with it.
Triggernometry had Andrew Wilson on a few days ago. I am not familiar with him or his works, but he is apparently a Christian Nationalist. And his flavor of Christian Nationalism includes traditional manliness and a dislike of women's suffrage.
His argument for denying women the vote is kind of circular, though: Every country that took the vote away from women just did it. No muss/fuss, no fight back from the women, just one day they share power, the next day they don't.
The Triggernometry guys didn't press him on it, I think because he had a lot of other stuff to cover. I guess he's saying women don't deserve to decide what government does because, when they're pushed out of it, they don't fight? I think there are a lot of men who wouldn't fight for the franchise. Does that mean we shouldn't vote either? Do we have a poll fight, instead of a poll tax, where I have to beat the election judge's kung fu before I'm allowed in the booth? I couldn't follow his logic, because I don't think he had any.
But anyway, there's a difference between Achilles's serious belief in hanging Susan B Anthony's corpse and the occasional jabs by other commenters along the lines of "silly woman - you voted for an anti-eviction law, and now a squatter took over your house! Repeal the 19th!" etc.
Tell you what, the next time the Prof posts a story about a splooge stooge getting a raw deal in court, you are free to lambaste all us men for thinking with our weiners. Propose a constitutional amendment to replace us all with turkey basters. Etc. CC, JSM
“Tina Trent said...
Smiling: I said that, not her. Get your quotes right. And it's actually not time-consuming.”
That’s a straight copy/paste of your post. And it’s a lot less time-consuming not to.
Morgan freeman voice affluent white woman would vore themselves into burkas in europe and america
LOL! Really surprised to see the word "whore" being used so many times in response to this article. The author is anything but! She chose her partner at FOURTEEN! Got all the way to her mid 30s being intimate with ONE man. Good lord, this is the most chaste woman I've run across in a long time. Merely kissing men makes a woman a whore? What is this, 1950? I'm used to seeing any mention of cannabis bring out the stuffy conservative cranks - but kissing?
Some of Trump's super-supporters have a superman complex. All will be well - if only women can no longer vote, and all the super hero men will rely on nothing to get out the vote. No work/ all superhero miracles.
So how does one fix new york illinois or even your state of colorado it looks like goose had been cooked and placed on a platter
"I kissed Bryan, a gardener, on his red leather couch. I kissed Ray, a painter, in his lofted bed and smashed my head into his ceiling fan."
And honestly, dear diary, I smashed my head into his ceiling fan many times before I was finished!
narciso - well -refusing to vote / banning vote by gender, is not the way.
CO's problems are many. The Colorado GOP is a hot mess. Both Dems and the R's are underwater in polling. Dems are driving away business. Dems are all Madmani lite. Insane policies - hide behind Trump hate and abortion. Even tho abortion up until birth is codified in CO's state constitution.
CO has over 300,000 mail in ballots without an owner. Yet they go out. Our current horrid SEc of State is totally corrupt and she lives on MSNBC. Jena Griswold left voting passwords out in the open - but one party rule saved her.
The class of kissing may go to infidelity, to promiscuity. It's something to celebrate, cherish in a narrow, personal context.
Women have always had equal rights under the Constitution. It's odd that the 14th would suddenly introduce sex as a distinguishing factor. Perhaps it's related to the original compromise that allowed slavery to be Diverse, Equivocal and Inclusive.
john mosby said...
Triggernometry had Andrew Wilson on a few days ago. I am not familiar with him or his works, but he is apparently a Christian Nationalist. And his flavor of Christian Nationalism includes traditional manliness and a dislike of women's suffrage.
His argument for denying women the vote is kind of circular, though: Every country that took the vote away from women just did it. No muss/fuss, no fight back from the women, just one day they share power, the next day they don't.
Andrew's argument is more direct.
Women depend on men to protect them. All of women's rights depend on the suffrage of men. Men are the only people who can actually fight to defend society. Women shouldn't be allowed to send men to war.
That isn't the line that I take.
I personally think the only people who should vote are people who have an active stake in the future.
Military service. Employer of 10+ people, like you actually write their checks. Married couples who have 3 or more children.
No man-childs playing video games in daddy's basement. No single moms. No girl bosses in HR or government bureaucracy. Nobody on welfare or disability or social security unless you actually stayed married and raised enough kids who actually work to support it.
The real problem that the women on this blog have is they cannot accept the poor outcomes that have been the result of the 19th amendment and they cannot honestly discuss what a complete failure universal suffrage is.
They will not actually discuss the issues I bring up and they get all huffy and mad. I find it sad that Jamie accused me of creating a straw man. Sorry/not sorry that ~60% of women make you look bad.
But the fact that you defend them just proves my point. You cannot have honest discussions without getting mad and letting emotions control you.
ALP said...
LOL! Really surprised to see the word "whore" being used so many times in response to this article. The author is anything but! She chose her partner at FOURTEEN! Got all the way to her mid 30s being intimate with ONE man. Good lord, this is the most chaste woman I've run across in a long time. Merely kissing men makes a woman a whore? What is this, 1950? I'm used to seeing any mention of cannabis bring out the stuffy conservative cranks - but kissing?
First it is almost certain the woman in this story does not exist.
Second women never go "kiss a dozen men on the couch."
Everything about this story is a lie.
But the goals of this story are clear. The NYTs wants women to act like Harem girls. They want women to go fuck Gavin and Bill for 20 years, get mad that Gavin and Bill beat them up and never marry them.
Eventually they "settle" for a man sometime in their early 30s then go cheat on him and divorce him because they are no longer able to pair bond. Then they take half his paycheck and his house.
People who act like this shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Sorry Achilles, but you’re the one who didn’t discuss my reply to your 19th amendment post. Having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if the advocates of 19th amendment repeal weren’t a wholly owned subsidy of the Democrat Party. That issue plays right into their hands. Congrats in helping to elect more Democrats.
subsidy = subsidiary Bad spell check
You can't make this up.
Eva Marie said...
Lets deal with this then since whiny woman thinks she made some arguments:
I’m not done.
lol
I’ve noticed a clear pattern in the comment section. When a man does something stupid or incompetent (Gavin Newsom, Al Sharpton, Chuck Schumer, etc.) the criticism stays focused on that individual. You never hear “This is why men shouldn’t vote” or “Men are the problem.”
That is because those men represent about 10-20% of men. And I also don't think they should vote.
But let a woman make a mistake or say something dumb, and the reaction is immediate: “This is why women shouldn’t vote,” “What’s wrong with women?” “Poor men have to suffer these idiots.”
If it was just "a woman" you would have a point. But be fucking honest for once in your life. College educated white women are not just "a woman." There are millions of these fucking idiots and they are the source of many problems we have right now.
Worse, the women who get hit with this treatment are relatively powerless - low level officials, activists, magazine writers!
You have to be fucking kidding me. There is no group that has been given more in the history of the world that women who were born in the United States. You are the most coddled demographic in the history of the world. You have been given freedom and wealth that was never earned or even close to deserved.
Meanwhile, genuinely powerful, consequential stupid men dominate the headlines daily, and the same crowd stays strangely quiet about male incompetence and stupidity.
Again you are being just a flat out liar here. This is a disgrace and a bunch of whiny bullshit. Nobody here is more adamant that these men belong in jail or should be executed than me.
But if I point out these men are only in power because WOMEN VOTE FOR THEM you get mad at me.
You are the problem. You are the reason those men are in power and people like me who actually fought for women's freedom are not.
I actually joined the Army and reason 1a or 1b was to free women in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then I come back here and I have to listen to coddled snotty shits like you complain when I point out that women make poor decisions.
Eva Marie said...
Sorry Achilles, but you’re the one who didn’t discuss my reply to your 19th amendment post. Having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if the advocates of 19th amendment repeal weren’t a wholly owned subsidy of the Democrat Party. That issue plays right into their hands. Congrats in helping to elect more Democrats.
LOL
Tina Trent said...
John Mosby: white men have been discriminated against since1964.. White women too. Eva Marie is objecting to someing quite reasonable without impugning white men. This stop the female franchise stuff is garbage talk. We need to align by beliefs, not identities, which you always seem to do. But did you ever speak out against the trolls who want to literally disenfranchise women? You don't seem the type who would let that pass for anyone. But maybe you didn't see the thread. No foul there, but she is being told that women don't deserve the vote.
That's all.
She's an ally of disabused men. She could use some voices from men acknowleding her commitments.
I don't want to "disenfranchise" women.
I want to disenfranchise everyone who acts stupidly and does not have a stake in the future.
But people like Eva cannot be honest.
I like this. You don’t respond to me directly but you do in your replies to other people’s posts. To each his own.
All the best.
Achilles: you are far better than this. We're on the same team. I respect your service, unless you're one of those guys whom hates that saying, which I also respect. We are on the same team. Don't let their identity politics separate us.
I finally read that Times piece. It was OK, but no purgative for their tidal wave of crap aimed at white men. So does one encourage it? I don't think so. It's less than a sop in a tidal wave of socially powerful hate.
Eva said:
Sorry Achilles, but you’re the one who didn’t discuss my reply to your 19th amendment post. Having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if the advocates of 19th amendment repeal weren’t a wholly owned subsidy of the Democrat Party. That issue plays right into their hands. Congrats in helping to elect more Democrats.
Achilles is a super hero reality/ know it all / and yes - more than likely a Romney democratic.
Achilles -
Do you want to repeal the 19th Amendment or not?
Yes or No?
Kiss her tenderly. If she likes her tenderly kissed, you can try other locations.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.