Sunday, January 16, 2005

About the post about last night

The funny thing about the internet is how people will write stuff that they would never say directly to someone's face. I know what people have been saying about me at other blogs. So I know how people have been calling me "stupid" and "mental" and "clueless" and that my posts are "embarassing to read."

I've ignored this stuff until now, but some people have sunk to a new low with respect to certain comments written to my second previous post. I thought about removing the whole post with all of its comments, but I decided to keep it so there's a permanent record of how some men are misogynists still living in the 18th century, or maybe they wish they were living in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia where their attitudes towards women would fit in fine.

I don't think anyone would have had any complaints about my post had I ended it by giving the guy a chaste peck on the cheek and then removing my virgin self from his presence. Well sorry, that's not what happened. And I doubt he'd care very much if people found out I wrote about him. His buddies would probably congratulate him on his "conquest" and they'd make a bunch of gorilla noises and go drink some beer.

If I were a guy and wrote about "getting lucky," no one would call me a "slut." If anything, people would get mad at me for "bragging."

People have accused me of trying to be this person or that person. Well I'm not trying to be anyone other than myself. And if you don't like the way I am then that's too bad for you. If you don't like me then don't link to me and don't read my posts. If the only women you want to link to are virgins until they get married, then fine go ahead and do that, but good luck finding any.

I was going to write a post about the new SAT but there's no more time today for that. Tomorrow I'll get back to politics blogging.

35 comments:

Old Blind Dog said...

Good for you! Don't let the bastards get you down.

Phil said...

Interesting.

But if you will note, my comments were not chastising you at all, and I don't have a blog that I would "delink" you from.

I would just like to get a piece, that's all. And since you appear to be "easy," well, how about a "date" this Saturday, beautiful?

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey said...

No moral judgements here, and total agreement on the whole double standard thing. But I did want to let you know that casual sex gets old quickly, and it's much more fun to wait until you're already in love with someone before jumping in the sack. You've only known this guy two weeks, how comfortable could it really have been to get naked and intimate with a virtual stranger? Plus guys tend to place less value on anyone or anything if it's "easy", so this sort of behavior is not a good recipe for a LTR (which you may not be looking for now, but one day you will and ingrained patterns of relating are hard to break, and reputations get around). I realize that a girl's got needs, so my advice would be to invest in some good masturbation tools and hold out for an emotional connection before sex.

Brian Macker said...

You say, "I don't think anyone would have had any complaints about my post had I ended it by giving the guy a chaste peck on the cheek and then removing my virgin self from his presence."

If you were referring to my comment to your prior post then you have misunderstood it. I think that is a reasonable interpretation since you state that you don't think anyone would have complained. Not that my post was really a complaint. It was intended as advice. Advice that would be good for a man, too. If some young male blogger had commented on the stupidity of his female date, how his date thought she was gods gift to men, that he slept with her, and that made her a hypocrite, I would have given him the same advice. Except I would have told him to talk to his mom.

Nor would I expect his mom to give him a lecture on chastity, STDs and the like. More on how being indescrete can lead people not to trust you. That is self distructive behavior. A reputation is something that both men and women should value for what should be obvious reasons.

I don't personally care about your virginity. Might sound funny coming from an atheist but I was more concerned with your "spirtuality". The fact that you think keeping the post up is a testiment to the "misogynists" shows that you really don't understand the dynamics here, nor did you understand the intent of most of the posters. My intent was to give friendly advice. I'm not trying to impose some moral standard.

Only two commenters were chastising you in the sense of giving severe criticism. They were anonomous posters Phil and Nominal. Nominals comment was about losers and who they sleep with and not about women in particular. There was only one poster that came across as misogynistic and that was Phil, with his "slut" comment.

You are getting exactly the results I predicted from Phil but most of it will not come here on your blog. I will come from your coworkers, "friends", associates and elsewhere on the internet. It will be behind your back.

It is still my advice that you delete the prior post and for that matter this one. You are not being paid for this blog and I don't see how keeping the posts up would violate your integrity. You may not have intended it but that prior post came across as just mean spirited. Besides your specific target you even put down an entire professional group, programmers, as boring. People make mistakes and I can't think of a better way to correct this one than to remove the post. Perhaps I lack imagination.

I think your assessment of men in this post is very shallow. Men are not all clones that make "gorilla noises and drink beer". Don't you think that is a little androgenistic of you. You are in a better position to know whether your date was of this nature but I hardly think he would enjoy your more personal attacks on him. Many guys do get emotionally attached to the women they sleep with. They are not all shallow pigs. Maybe you've confused him now. He may have slept with you because he really liked you. If not him than someone else. Being experienced doesn't neccessarily mean he's a male slut. One can gain experience through longer lasting and more meaningful relationships. In fact, one night stands are not really a good training ground since the woman never gets a chance to give any feedback.

I don't think I was saying anything that I wouldn't have said to your face. I am not posting anonomously. I have always been quite direct, down to earth, and open minded. I don't think people who know me would be surprised by my assessment. I hardly found your sexual behavior shocking, as the saying goes "people who live in glass houses...".

You can ignore my comments if they offend your sensibilities. For some reason that seemed strange to say to you. It's clear you have sensibilities but I am not sure where they are and why you draw the boundaries you do. Your sensibilities certainly don't seem univerasal and reciprocal. You've broadcast the most intimate details of your, no someone else's, life in a public forum, provided a comments section, but then seem surprised that anyone would call you on it. You are the one who brought up the subject.
Your post about "Frat boy" was far worse than any commenter except for Phil's.

I think it would also help if you were more specific. Exactly who do you think is misogynistic and why? You addressed neither. Which specific "attitudes towards women" would fit in fine with Afgahistan or Saudi Arabia? Did anyone suggest you wear a burka or not be allowed to drive a car or have a job? The only thing that came close was the term 'slut' and that is a pretty universal concept in modern societies.

Well I'll get back to my late night movies. Was "Ronin" but I guess now I'm watching some Jackie Chan.

bob d said...

Brian, I really think you need to lighten up and take a laxative.

I liked her post about her date and I don't think she revealed anything out of the ordinary. Repeating what I said in my comment on the other post, there are hundreds of thousands of female blogs where women put down their dates far worse than what LG has said and reveal a lot more intimate details. Why don't you go post comments on those blogs where the bloggers truly deserve some sort of reprimand?

The only bad thing she said about him was that she didn't think he was that intelligent. But as far as I can tell he's intelligent enough to graduate from an Ivy League school and have sex with one of the most beautiful women in DC. I guess he doesn't really need to be any smarter. I wish I had his problems.

If I were the guy LG wrote about, and I read LG's post, I'd be jumping for joy that LG thought I was good in bed!

I really think all the negative posts either boil down to jealousy (jealous of the guy for spending a night with LG, or jealous of LG because her blog has so many readers while your blog gets 3 hits a day), or because you're a member of the Jesus brigades and you want to publicly humiliate anyone who doesn't adhere to your Christian morality.

Laura said...

I came over via http://talesofawanderingmind.blogspot.com (who I consider a very good blog friend) to see what all the hub-bub was about and quite frankly I am still wondering. I am sure NO ONE who reads this has experienced a one night stand! Self respect, blah blah, dignity, blah blah. Right. Or maybe not..in which case My God, LG! I did not know you had such a large following of men of the cloth, who probably never even noticed that you are blonde, beautiful AND (here's the kicker...) INTELLIGENT!! I am laughing at some of these comments!

From[R]-"No, no, she's got readers because of that huge picture of her up in the top right corner. I myself come here out of the whole "car accident" curiosity." At least you can step up to the plate and admit you are a complete ass. And if you have not been able to make heads or tails of the politics, why do you keep coming back?

From Phil-Wow, you are and continue to be just incredibly rude. Grow up, dork.

And Nominal-Your name says it all.

LG, I am going to get started on your fabulous red, embroidered letter "A" (or should I make it an "S", since you are not married???) and you must wear it whenever you leave the house. Oh, and then we are going to burn you at the stake. Good Grief!!! :D
~L.

Aaronlane said...

As of March 2005 the SAT will:
* Include a student-written essay
* Eliminate the analogies
* Utilize shorter reading passages
* Include new quesitons from third-year college preparatory math
* Eliminate the quantitative comparisons

As someone who had truly spectacular freaky sex with a preschool teacher within the last 12 hours I feel I simply must comment.

By making these changes the College Board is improving the measuring ability of universities. The quanatative comparisons were and are a poor test of mathematics, and the inclusion of actual college prep math will provide a much better test of a student's actual preperation for college.

The student-written is crucial. I (make a valiant, albeit volunteer attempt to) teach high schoolers economics one day a week. I can assure you their writing skills are lackluster to say the least.

While many students retain the ability to regurgitate information in the form of multiple-guess answers few make the cognitive leap to forming complete sentences and stringing them together into a coherent group. The writing assignments I give them are inevitably depressing not only because of their inability to express a simple idea but also because spelling and grammer have now become optional.

Most responses I get read much more like an Internet chat room than a writing assignment. "OMG I would so totally hate command and control economy!!! IMO it sux!"

People wonder why I drink.

Perhaps providing the incentive to perform on a standardized test will clue students in to the fact that writing skills are not optional. Even if they endeavour to write formulaic, trite and book-studied essays it would be a vast improvement over the samples I generally see.

R said...

"At least you can step up to the plate and admit you are a complete ass. And if you have not been able to make heads or tails of the politics, why do you keep coming back?"

Dearest Laura,

I would be quite interested to see the logic that demands that my not being able to figure out LG's politics precludes me from returning here to read her stuff. Wouldn't you say that continued exposure to her postings may give me further clues as to her political leanings?

Additionally, I find a lot of her commentators to be particularly intelligent and enlightening.

I will admit to being an asshole. But I would assume that being who you really are in real life would be preferrably honest to some (ahem, "bob d") who try their best to be sickeningly charming because they are attracted to a picture of some random girl in D.C., and for no other reason. See, that's what you call a poser.

Love,

R

Walter E. Wallis said...

Your Daddy must be proud of you.

Adam said...

I stayed out of this the last time around because I disagreed with basically everyone. I disagree with the complainers, because this is your blog, and your body, your rights. I disagreed with the people disagreeing with them, because it's the commenters rights to not like it. I disagreed with you because I don't exactly approve of the behavior, but again, not my business. So I didn't have a dog in the fight.

But!

If I were a guy and wrote about "getting lucky", no one would call me a "slut." If anything, people would get mad at me for "bragging."False. I would be critical of a guy, and not for bragging. I don't hold the position that all sex should be in the confines of marriage (seeing as how I've had sex, and never been married, this would be hypocritical), I just don't approve of one night stands. That's just me. Of course, I didn't call you a slut in the first place.

You said at the start that this would be a blog about your personal life. The people complaining can deal with it. But you're going to have to accept that some people won't like it.

I'd stop making the "About..." posts to defend yourself, and do it in comments, if I were you. It brigns too much attention to the issue and gives the complainers another forum and more front-page ammo to point at. Plus, some of them (the "LOL! ... Libertarian Slut!" guy) aren't worth arguing with. (I'd like to know how he defines the word slut, though.)

You pissed people off. Again. I doubt it hurt your blog any. Don't let them get to you. YOUR life, YOUR blog, YOUR body. I don't always agree with you, and I don't (fully) agree in this case. No one is ever going to support everything you do. You said you're not trying to be anyone else. Good; don't.

Tim Swanson said...

Uhh, I linked to you in the first place, not because I am a barbaric misogynist, but because I wanted to diversify my sausage-heavy blogroll (I think Karen is the only female on it).

But your posts remind me of yet another LP or Wonkette-style blogger, nothing too original and still statist. For instance, you suggest that breast implants should be taxed (as well as tanning salons) because they are destructive to your health and promote unhealthy living.

I don't care who or what you sleep with, but if you're going to lecture about safe living, at least tell us how you did a blood screen on the frat daddy and interviewed all the other entities he has slept with.

Furthermore, according to your tax theory, a-marital sex should also be taxed... because it is an unnecessary physical procedure which obviously brings needless health risks to the person undergoing the fornication.

Plus, as you stated earlier, you're "desensitizing" men who expect women to be cheap, easy and to put out within a couple of dates, so you're actually harming the chances of other women's ability to have a platonic and meaningful relationship with men. Thus you should be taxed.

Welcome to the internet.

See: http://libertariangirl.blogspot.com/2005/01/why-we-need-breast-implant-tax.html

FireWolf said...

Well said Tim

Brian Macker said...

Bob_d,

You and I have different standards. I don't read those "thousands of other female blogs where [they] put down their dates". I was just trying to persuade LG that perhaps she should reconsider what types of standards she was going to live up to. No harm in that is there? I didn't suggest she should be thrown in jail or something, did I. Is she going to be the kind of person who makes disparaging posts about her dates?

I've been posting comments in various forums/blogs for about four years now. I do it mainly to improve my writing skills and to shake up my beliefs. Now my motivation for telling you that is so you understand my following question. I didn't want to insult you but I cannot fathom how you read my post and managed to extract the meaning you did out of it. Now I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here as it seems like the intent of your post might have been just to insult me into shutting up. So the question is: "How exactly did you extract the meaning you did out of my post?"

I want to be sincere about what I write here so I want you to know that I really having a hard time thinking that it was my writing, but am open to the possibility that I am blind to my own faults here. Let me point out some issues I have with your response. I'll be specific, and you do the same.

How the hell did you determine I was a "member of the Jesus brigades" and an adherent of "Christian morality" from my post. Where exactly did I go wrong in writing "Might sound funny coming from an atheist ..."

What specific facts lead you to believe I was jealous? The mere fact that I have a blog which nobody reads is not sufficient for such a conclusion. So what, no one reads my blog and frankly I post to it far less than I do in other places. Libertarian Girl is hardly in the stratosphere when it comes to readership either. If your theory is correct shouldn't I be over on Wonkette? Shouldn't I have made a nasty post on my own blog where she couldn't delete it?

Where did you get the idea I was sexually jealous? If I were to tell someone I was concerned about that prostitution was not a career path I would choose would you assume it was out of sexual jealousy?

I was trying to be subtle in my first post because I though LG was more intelligent than it turns out she was. The phrase "kiss and tell" not merely about sex. It's about the entire dating thing and includes any personal information. Read the definition: "Disclosing private or confidential information, especially in a first-hand account" http://www.bartleby.com/61/70/K0077050.html. I actually didn't mean for it to apply to sexual aspects so much as the personal criticism. What guy is going to want to date a girl who blogs personal aspects like how dirty his apartment is?

Did you read what I though was bad about the post in my second comment. I specifically listed them. You claim, "The only bad thing she said about him was that she didn't think he was that intelligent. " I disagree, and think you had a reading comprehension problem with the original post. I think all these comments were personally disparaging:
1)Calling him "fratguy", "preppyguy" and "yuppieguy".
2)"And yes, he went to an Ivy League college but I don't think he's all that bright."
3)"He probably got in with the minimum SAT scores, helped by his father being an alumni and his skill at playing lacrosse."
4)"Remember, the Ivy League schools aren't looking for the brightest students but the students most likely to be future leaders!"
5)"He's probably working for a congressman in DC because his grades weren't high enough to get a job in investment banking (he says he's interested in politics)"
6)"his parents probably give him money to support his lifestyle."
7)"He has a cockiness about him that says "hey I'm God's gift to women,"
8)"His apartment is his biggest character flaw, it looks more like a college dorm room than living quarters for an adult. Yuck!"
9)"This was probably just a one night thing, in a long term boyfriend I was hoping to find someone really intelligent and he's not."
10)"it's kind of hypocritical how he works for a conservative "pro-life" "family values" Christian congressman. (not that I ever heard of the guy before, I looked him up on the internet), but he's all into having casual sex. Do the congressman's voters know what kind of un-Christian morals his staff has?"

That's pretty much the whole post, isn't it. The only flattering statement was that he was good in bed. Which you might find a large hurdle but I think isn't such a big complement. It doesn't take years of study and sacrifice, or any particular talent now does it. It's well within the reach of any concerned male.

Even this one complement was diminished by her, she made it clear that he wasn't good enough in bed to compensate for his other flaws. That is, he wasn't good enough for her to go back for more. At least that's what I got out of the sentence "This was probably just a one night thing, in a long term boyfriend I was hoping to find someone really intelligent and he's not. But it wasn't a bad one night thing."

So how did you miss all these examples when you were reading her post and how did you do so after I explicitly listed a few in my prior comments?


Now to be fair you had some specific questions:
"Why don't you go post comments on those blogs where the bloggers truly deserve some sort of reprimand?"
For several reasons. 1) I write some people off as lost causes. 2) I didn't happen upon those other blogs (except Wonkette and she is a lost cause). 4) I can't be everywhere at once. 3) She is considers herself a libertarian and so do I. I definately would not be posting here if she had called herself Socialist Girl. If you bothered to notice I have been posting comments on other issues. In fact my largest post having to do with LG is about Objectivism over on my blog. I was hoping she would take the post seriously but her reply in my comments section was so flippant that I don't think she understands the issues.

I think I have approached this with civility, and kept it on a purely intellectual level. I am not being emotional about it. I just see no rational reason for the statements being made here. Your's certainly are not empirically supported, as it is plain you are wrong on the facts. The rest is speculation on your part.

The same goes for LG. She had no actual facts to back up her claim that there were a bunch of mysogynists inhabiting her commenting section. She either wasn't properly classifying us as individuals, assuming we formed some group, or she was delusional when she came up with this. I can't control what Phil says. Do we even know his political persuasion. He might just be a liberal who hates LGs stance on some political issue.

It's quite clear that the issues being brought up by LG and you are red herrings, designed to deflect to issues that are not in contention. I think anybody has the right to do what they want with their bodies. That includes becoming prostitutes and selling off body parts. That does not mean I think it is in the persons self interest to do so, in general, although it might be in specific cases. I can think of situations where a one night stand might be a good thing. I also think that people have the right to discuss whatever they please, so long as it doesn't involve conspiring against the individual rights of others. So I was not trying to violate anyones right to their body nor right to free speech.

What I was doing was giving advice. I just wasn't very nice what she was doing with the personal criticism, and she is going to get a reputation for being nasty if she keeps it up. This is going to repel and not attract men. Except perhaps the Phil sort of persona.

bob d said...

Brian, that was the longest comment I ever read on a blog. Why are you so concerned about LG's private life?

I read through her older posts. In every single one where she writes about men in her personal life, she makes some kind of disparaging remark. But no one complained about it. In fact, one person actually PRAISED her for her insight.

The only thing different about this post is how the date ended. So I have to conclude that's the only reason why this post has attracted a bunch of attention and the other ones were ignored.

So basically, the theme of this date is that the guy wasn't intelligent enough for her. Your points 2,3,4,5 and 9 are all about that point. So at least give her some credit for backing up her main point with a lot of observations. 1 is just a cute moniker not a disparaging remark and she already called him that in previous posts and no one complained. 6 is a social observation not a disparaging remark. 7 I'm not so sure is disparaging and is the kind of comment that she was previously praised for. 8, about his apartment, is once again an observation, obviously a staffer for a congressman can't afford an adult apartment, and 10 is a comment about his boss and not him.

And I read the post on your blog about the "Fountain Head" in which you based your assessment of the book on watching the movie because you never bothered to actually read the book. At least LG was nice enough to say that she read your post. I didn't see anyone else leaving any comments.

I'm sorry if this post comes off sounding like a personal insult against you, but I just think your attack on LG for her post is completely wrong and uncalled for.

Brian Macker said...

Bob d,

Again a bunch of red herrings.

Here I'll fisk you so it isn't so long.

"Brian, that was the longest comment I ever read on a blog."

Your point? Do you prefer Phil's style? His are brief.

"Why are you so concerned about LG's private life?"

I'm not. The long post was mostly about you and your mischaracterization of my position. Besides it's not her private life if she posts it on a blog. Don't you get that. Not only is she making it public but is using it to drive home all sorts of strange political points. Tim Swanson calls her on this in his 2:39 comment.

"I read through her older posts. In every single one where she writes about men in her personal life, she makes some kind of disparaging remark. But no one complained about it."

Are you serious? This is at least the second time you have deduce peoples positions by their silence. You can't do that. It is ridiculous.

"In fact, one person actually PRAISED her for her insight.
What's that got to do with anything, and please be specific. Who and what?

"The only thing different about this post is how the date ended."
I haven't seen any other posts where she went on any dates.

"So I have to conclude that's the only reason why this post has attracted a bunch of attention and the other ones were ignored."

Well I'd like to disagree but I didn't read any of the posts that were like this one before. Let me go look now. No this post was markedly different. The fact that you cannot tell the difference says something about you and not anyone else.

Stop playing Sherlock Holmes you have no information on which to base your claims, you do not know who read what. Even if you knew who read what you would not know their motivations unless they stated them. I for instance, have a three day weekend right now so I am not busy. If you look at my blog you will see that I posted quite a bit over the holidays then slacked off. Then on the weekend, etc. I do have a interest in philosophy, ethics and stuff so this is actually, "On topic" for me.

"So basically, the theme of this date is that the guy wasn't intelligent enough for her. Your points 2,3,4,5 and 9 are all about that point."

I don't agree. An adult living like a parasite off his parents is a separate issue from his stupidity. That's a different character flaw. The fact that she deduces this speculation from the same starting point does not make it the same point.

"So at least give her some credit for backing up her main point with a lot of observations."
Were they observations or were they speculations. I would say they were speculations. They were not backed up by anything other than her claim that he was stupid.

"1 is just a cute moniker not a disparaging remark and she already called him that in previous posts and no one complained."
I took a look. It was a cute moniker, in the first post.

"6 is a social observation not a disparaging remark."
Saying someone lives off their parents is not something you bring up in polite conversation. You also don't know if it was an observation. In fact her inclusion of the word "probably" indicates it is speculation. But what would you know you live off your parents. The full sentence was "He's probably working for a congressman in DC because his grades weren't high enough to get a job in investment banking (he says he's interested in politics), and his parents probably give him money to support his lifestyle." Not very nice in context, is it?

"7 I'm not so sure is disparaging and is the kind of comment that she was previously praised for."
Yep, all the girls go around praising men by saying they think they are "gods gift to women". Get a clue.

"8, about his apartment, is once again an observation, obviously a staffer for a congressman can't afford an adult apartment, and "

It was not a observation about what he could afford. It was about what a mess it was. Read it again. It's a private observation, perhaps appropriate to a private conversation with a girlfriend, not to be shared.

"10 is a comment about his boss and not him."
Wrong. How could it possibly be about his boss? His boss has no idea what the poor fellow has gotten himself into on his free time. How can you possibly parse the sentences that way. The "he" refers to "Fratboy" in the first sentence. As in, "he works for". The first sentence is clear, it's kind of hypocritical how he works for a conservative "pro-life" "family values" Christian congressman.". It means that he is a hypocrite for working for a the congressman, not the other way round.

LG also said, "Do the congressman's voters know what kind of un-Christian morals his staff has?" She seems to be smart enough to know the voters wouldn't know about the morals of his staff. Being so smart, how come she can't make the additional intellectual baby step of understanding the congressman is unaware of "Fratboy's" activities?

Besides isn't she the hypocrite here. She did a post not long ago complaining about people calling her a hypocrite for working for the government. As I said before I find her sensibilities lacking in universality and reciprocity. In other words she has a double standard, although the sentence is more precise than that.

"And I read the post on your blog about the "Fountain Head" in which you based your assessment of the book on watching the movie because you never bothered to actually read the book."

The post was over your head and LGs. It wasn't an assessment of the book. It was an assessment of Rand's philosophy. I made no literary criticism of the book itself. Other than that I couldn't stomach her writing style for the few pages I read. The post was about a plot line in the book. A plot line that is common knownledge. LG did not dispute the facts on the plot line. Her response was flippant. Whether I read the book or not had nothing to do with the subject of the post. Was the post titled "The Fountainhead: A review". No, of course not.

"At least LG was nice enough to say that she read your post. I didn't see anyone else leaving any comments."

What the heck? I am not some fawning acolyte looking for approval. Don't project motivations onto me. It was very specific to LG but it was not seeking approval, like you are. I didn't even bother replying to her comment or bringing up the subject with her after I saw that she was not open to discussion. You did get that didn't you? Her comment was a put down as much as anything. She's only interested in Rand's philosophy insofar as it provides justification for her behavior and not for any internal consistency. She could have discussed whether the plot line was rational.

Now if I bothered to read the book on her account, that would be obsession. I've had the book for over fourteen years and I might get to it if I'm really bored some day, but I have already read more than ten books on Objectivism and frankly it just isn't worth it to me. I'm not going to learn any more from it than I already know.

"I'm sorry if this post comes off sounding like a personal insult against you, but I just think your attack on LG for her post is completely wrong and uncalled for."

If I was wrong and uncalled for then it wouldn't be a personal insult would it.

What is insulting is to put up straw man arguments for things I didn't say and claim I did. I haven't heard you speak out against many posts here that doesn't mean you agree with them. You didn't comment on the "Breast Implant Tax" so does that mean your for it?

That wasn't from memory. I just checked it out. You didn't comment there. While looking for it I saw a few other posts where LG has hardly been kid gloves on people. She called Gleen Reynolds a hypocrite, and Michele Malkin a bonehead.

Since you like to question my motives, or should I say impute bad motivations upon me, let me ask you another question. What is your motivation in sticking up for her. She is obviously in the wrong here on many issues related to these two posts. She has made outrageous claims about the posters and has made some nasty speculations about her date. Why are you defending her?

While you are at it you can answer the other questions I put to you.

What is insulting is to dismiss a comment because of it's length.

Believe me this comment would have been much longer had it not been a fisking.

If you mischaracterize my comments again I'm just going to dismiss you. I think I have made it more than clear that both you and LG are not being exactly forthright and rational.

This is one of the things about Objectivism that gets my goat. In practice it is not rational but rationalizations. What exactly is the objective standard for calling the commenters misogynistic Afghani throwbacks? Not a direct quote but a good characterization of the subject of this post.

Brian Macker said...

Tim, your 2:39 post made some excellent points.

FireWolf, stopped by your blogsite today. I see you had the same reaction I did to that story on the "Black Journalist". I must complement you on your research. Your article was much better than mine.

Greg said...

Sheesh, this post is drawing out the longest comments I've ever seen on a blog. I'll just say that female chastity before marriage is more common than you seem to think, and has become more common with the evangelical resurgence of the past 15 or so years. You can probably find a decent sprinkling of blogs by women who remained virgins until marriage or are unmarried and still virgins. It's a better chance than with guys, that's for sure.

Christy said...

LG I admire you for leaving the comments from some of these idiots up. You never said the blog was just about politics, and it's pretty obvious the guys are jealous. Maybe they should just stick to being voyeurs instead of casting judgment.

Oh, and if you guys really want a virgin libertarian blog you can head my way, but I have to warn you my dates aren't nearly as fun to read about.

Libertarian Girl said...

Thanks Christy! And I'm impressed that you spelled "judgment" correctly. Even a lot of dictionaries spell it wrong.

eugene said...

God forbid a young woman be allowed to go out, have sex, and tell her friends about it - even if her friends are online friends.

For me the bigger concern is that you see Libertarianism as a serious politics, instead of the ideological cover for corporate rapine that it actually is. But so far as your love life is concerned, it's your right - nay, your duty - as an American to live it however you like.

Adam said...

For Christ's sake. bob_d and Brian could write a book on this subject.

Capitola said...

Hey LG,

As far as I'm concerned, any libertarian girl who can fuck a republican -- they're all hypocrites -- and lives to blog about it, gets blogrolled.

Keep up the good fight.

Bowly said...

But...a yuppie?!?!?! You need yourself a retrosexual. Truly coincidentally, I am one.

angela said...

If I were a guy and wrote about "getting lucky," no one would call me a "slut." If anything, people would get mad at me for "bragging."

actually, i would just call you a pig and wish youd go back to blogging about politics and not your wang.

jiri said...

This is a excellent blog. Keep it going.

This may be of interest to you I have a free online dating service. It pretty much covers dating stuff.

I'll be sure to come back.

Online Incomes said...

Hey I just love your blog. I also have a speed dating
blog/site. I mostly deals with speed dating
Please come and check it out if you get the time!

milfcritic said...

seattle dating

Adult Personals said...

hehehehe good topic, like the site.

Adult Personals said...

I was searching adult adult adult adult adult dating dating.info online online xxx xxx xxx and came across here! nice site

What you think of mine
adult adult adult adult adult dating dating.info online online xxx xxx xxx

Barbara Hofmeister said...

Good content on improvement journal self. One can never hear enough opinions on this. If you have time please visit mine about improvement journal self

atoztexan said...

Really enjoy visiting your site … I’ll be back often.
Your readers will enjoy visiting this other site as well ….
adult dating services

Girly Girl said...

If you want over 18 adults only dating then Swinger Dating is the site for you. Totally free too :)

usa said...

Great Blog! Ilike it.I have Totally Free dating site for singlesTake a look if you have a minute. Thanks and have a good one!

nguyen said...

カーテン
ローコスト 家
千葉駅 宴会
インターネットFAX

医師 求人
なんば 賃貸
経理 派遣
お見合いパーティー
24時間風呂
整理券
乳がん
ビジネス英会話
ビジネススクール 英語
プレミアムホテル
クレジットカード 学生
ウェディングドレス
クリニック開業
風船
加圧
フランチャイズ
エンジニア転職
会社設立 東京
ゴルフラウンドレッスン
ルームランナー
経営再建
[url=http://www.shiten.co.jp/]大田区 新築一戸建て[/url]
[url=http://www.keieihatten.com/]経営再建[/url]

nguyen said...

idカード 作成
五反田 賃貸
ケータリング
妊娠 出血
ブライダルインナー
立川 不動産
ウェルカムボード
八王子 不動産
大学留学
ゴルフスクール
デザインリフォーム
トレイ
シークワーサー
使い捨てコンタクト
遺言 作成
医療ベット 買取
ゴルフ会員権
インプラント 横浜
トランクルーム
ウェディングボード
エンジニア 派遣
ノーリツ
オンライン英会話
会社設立 横浜
結婚式2次会
結婚 相談
カードでお金
インテリアデザイン 関西
かつら
Tシャツ
小田原 不動産
まつ毛エクステ
貸し事務所
ハーレー
商標登録
バイク便
温泉 ホテル
アトピー
ブライダルエステ
ボイストレーニング
埼玉県 不動産
流し台
昭島市 一戸建て