Letters to the Editor
Anonymous_Too
Published Letters: 147 Editor's Choice: 2
-
@AKA Smith
[Read the article: Lust in translation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Makes no matter; a man like that would have raped some woman sooner or later. You are not responsible for his misogyny. You did not create his ugliness. He was a bad man.
You're assuming that he was a habitual rapist or otherwise bad man. That's a mistake. You're also assuming everyone was calm enough to make sensible decisions at the time. That's not true either. Once someone's heart rate goes over 100+ beats per minute, sense isn't in his repertoire. That doesn't make him bad, that makes him human. We even tend, as a species, to become more aggressive after simple exercise.
You've never met either of us. My social skills are bad now, but they were even worse then and I was a heck of a lot prettier. The man in question wasn't an American. We hadn't spent much time together at that point. He couldn't have known that there was something wrong with me. He found out later and felt like crap, but by then, the damage was done.
My point is this: women aren't being indirect. They're following a set of social norms that keep them safe in high-tension situations. Saying no directly doesn't mean that a woman deserves rape. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that indirect communication is less likely to rev an already aroused man's heart rate beyond a point where he can think straight.
I violated a social norm. Rape isn't an appropriate punishment for that, but it gives a hint as to why that norm is in place.
Another thing I've noticed while trying to navigate this mess is that "I wish women were more direct" isn't always direct communication, either. It often means, "I wish the women I wanted were interested in me." Women being direct isn't going to fix that problem.
-
Spoiled?
[Read the article: I'm really a self-actualized being, but my family is all messed up]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was reading a while ago about how some men are able to benefit from marriages that are destructive to their wives. As I was reading this, I could see how that might happen. The LW's wife drinks. Their son has a problem. Clearly, not all is right in this little ecosystem.
The LW? He's just fine. His dreams have come true. His needs are being met. He's getting what he wants.
This isn't always good for us.
Not getting what we want is often the only thing that forces us to start paying attention to the rest of life outside our own navels. Not getting what we want can force us to take a closer look at what we have, and reconfigure our values accordingly. Not getting what we want can give us a reason to push a bit harder, run a bit leaner, try something new.
Our definition of being spoiled revolves around getting what we want so often that we come to expect it. I've also never seen a definition of self-actualized that matches the LW's description of himself. "...everything I ever wanted I already have."? That sounds spoiled, not self-actualized. The people I know who are most self-actualized are those who have come to everything they ever wanted. Those who get what they want tend to be a bit difficult to deal with, because their expectations become everyone else's problem.
People say the son is spoiled, but I'm more curious about the father. I strongly suspect that this is one of those cases where the man thrives at the expense of his wife, and I can't help thinking that that isn't good for the kids, either.
I wish I could write to the LW's wife and tell her to stop giving him what he wants in his domestic life. I would love to know what would happen if she did, if Mr. Self-actualized showed a less evolved side of himself. It's sad, though, that he's thriving while she's risking her liver at least, if not her cardiovascular health. The study I read specifically mentioned damage to women's hearts. Ironic, yes, but mostly horrible.