Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 567 Editor's Choice: 40
-
Sactorob, I sense a contradiction.
[Read the article: Do you have to be gay to tell another guy his eyes are pretty?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope you won’t take this as an attack, because I don’t mean it that way. But you seem to make it pretty clear in your letter that his looks attract you, and you could be interested in something happening, but he seemed from afar to have that “I’m too good for mere mortals” attitude, in addition to not being up front about his sexuality. When he said you had nice eyes, your response was
I take such words to be mating words. Therefore, his words rattled me, and it took me a little while to compose myself. I don't want Mike talking to me like that unless he's sexually interested in me, in which case he and I can discuss it and go from there.
You go on to say
Mike might find it fun to keep people guessing, but I like affairs of the heart to be black and white: Either Mike and I will be friendly co-workers or we'll be more than that, but we won't be some strange thing in-between.
Hence, you were pleased with the response, would consider persuing something, but you need to know if he’s actually making a play for you.
Now you say
I just really, really don't want guys at work telling me that I have "pretty eyes" and touching me except maybe for a brief pat or tap on the arm or shoulder. I want those boundaries in place -- to protect my heart if nothing else!
and after he “manhandles” you,
I DON'T want sexual intrigue at work. I don't want to even have to try to figure out what, if anything, is behind such overly intimate actions.
Your positions in the letter to Cary and in the letters columns strike me as totally different. Maybe you’ve gone through a sea-change and just don’t want to deal with this at work. I dig that. But that doesn't seem to me the statement you made to Cary, nor was it dealing with a boundaries issue you seemed to be asking about. Am I misreading your initial post, or what?
By the way, as I read in his actions a lot of game playing (and, yes, I can only conjecture his personality on the basis of what you wrote, while you are in direct contact with the actual person), I think sending the link was a mistake. It's game-playing, too, rather than a blunt statement, or complete refusal to interact socially—another kind of blunt statement.
I hope things go well for you, but I'm not sure a link and an assumption that you can "say it without saying it" will have the effect you desire. Particularly considering the vast difference between your initial letter (which he will likely read) and your responses here (he may not even bother with Cary's response, let alone the letters column).
I have a feeling this response may offend you. I don't mean for it to. I'm just confused by the difference.
-
I do think we need to keep in mind
[Read the article: Ann Coulter gets what she deserves]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Elizabeth Edwards was engaging in a political act. This wasn't about the "southern manners" she alluded to. It wasn't about "the mother of the boy who died" speaking from the heart. This was about coming out forcefully against an opponent.
She's entirely right, of course. And Coulter is odious and basically full of shit. (She'll ride that "you're trying to take away my freedom of speech" for another year, if my impression of her is correct.) But Edwards's call was not about gentility in political discourse, or a more humane approach from media pundits. She was working to make a strong stand where her husband didn't, or couldn't, and I'd be very, very surprised if, whatever she says, this move wasn't discussed thoroughly with his campaign people beforehand.
-
Yes, Tom, but remember
[Read the article: I dream of Darcy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]how much interference and control Burney was subjected to by her father and her husband. She was not free to pick any topic she liked, or to deal with any topic as she chose. Which is probably why she published Evelina without their knowledge. She would have dearly loved to be a playwright, and contribute to the then-booming genre of Restoration comedy. But the theater and the subject matter were forbidden that lady by the men in her life.
It strikes me that Austen, who was influenced by Burney's writing, may have had that knowledge in mind when she made her own choices. She was very lucky, and in a very unique position, to be born into a family that supported her efforts and attempted no interference with her artistic expression. Almost any husband of the time would likely have changed all that. And there might have been no potential mates who suggested they'd be exceptions to the norm.
I'm not saying she definately chose spinsterhood as a way to maintain her freedom. We really can't know what the truth was in terms of her marital aspirations, considering the little material available to us. But I think that choice is more of a possibility than you suggest.