7 Assumptions That Are Stupid

You know what I forgot was so fun, frustrating and distracting all at the same time? Fighting with strangers on the internet!

It seems that some anti-sex, anti-feminist woman named Susan Walsh quoted my piece in a piece attacking Jaclyn’ Friedman and her awesomely brave essay My Sluthood, Myself. Not having been involved in this kind of thing for quite some time, I read her piece (er, attempted to wade through its nonsensical and repetitive idiocy…) and let myself get baited. I commented. I deconstructed one of her more annoying paragraphs and hit “add” without thinking about what I was doing: giving her followers a platform to attack me. Doh! This was my favorite response:

I have already let use a +5 fire blast against the river troll known as Leah. See below. I see major exp points and perhaps a level up for defeating this under-boss. I’m hoping for some major loot against to use against the uber-feminists I feel might come from every cravice [sic] of forest treet they are crying in for miss jaclyn. Perhaps even a jaclyn battle herself.
Helmet of shaming deflection. Check.
Sword of Bullshit slice, upgrade +3 truth sting. Check.
Now for Boots of empathizing SMP ignorance. Sorry cannot eqiup.

LOL! (That was written by an “aspiring filmmaker.” Want his email address? He might be interested in some newsletters from oh, I don’t know, everywhere!)

Anyway, this type of thing is silly. I realized right away that commenting there was a rookie mistake and left it at that. Then I learned that Amanda Marcotte ripped her piece apart on Pandagon and had started a Twitter war. Fun! I left another comment. This time I didn’t even bother trying to deconstruct her illogical arguments, but just let myself enjoy the fun and be totally immature. For example:

Oh, and you’re right that I didn’t bother reading your bio. Why should I? I don’t know who you are – why would I? Are you under some sort of delusion that you’re famous? You being married doesn’t really have a bearing on what I said either. Married women can just as easily be afraid of the scary sluts coming to steal their husbands.


Haha, I kid. I have no interest in stealing this idiot’s husband. I’m only interested in stealing men who marry women who can construct logical arguments, sorry.

Okay, I promise I have a point and here it is: Fighting on the internet is dumb. People who are set in their beliefs aren’t going to change their thinking because of a well-constructed argument in a comment left on their blog. Whatever. As I said on Pandagon, the only thing I have to say to this woman is an old Yiddish curse that translates roughly to: “You should grow like an onion with your head in the ground.” Because looking through a narrow lens at a few “studies” that support your worldview to the exclusion of all other evidence or logic is just that.

What I will speak to is the number of assumptions and opinions that this woman spews as if they were fact, or in any way related to her “studies,” which they aren’t. She cites these “ideas” as if she were referring to common wisdom we all know and agree with, when in fact, it’s just wrong, wrong, wrong. (Nevermind offensive to many.) In my friend Jenn’s words, here are 6 major “assumptions that are stupid” made in Susan Walsh’s piece:

  1. Men don’t pay attention to women who want relationships because they only want casual sex.
  2. It’s the slutty women’s fault that men wont pay attention to women who aren’t slutty.
  3. Women should not support other women who are slutty because they are “wreaking havoc on the supply side” (aka stealing our menz!)
  4. “Relationship science is hard science.”
  5. Using Craigslist for dating or sex is a death sentence.
  6. One would only seek casual sex (via CL or otherwise) because they have suffered some sort of trauma or are in other ways emotionally unbalanced or unstable.
  7. “Men are usually spouting complete BS when they throw around phrases like male hegemony, patriarchy and heteronormative.”

Which one is your favorite? Feel encouraged to pick one and debunk away in the comments! (NOMAS, I’m looking at you for #7!)

The point is that these assumptions Walsh stands on are pervasive among the conservative set. So long as sex is moralized, we will suffer under these oppressive social tropes. I know I’m going to keep working to change consciousness and promote sex-positive views — just, you know, maybe not in the comments section of Susan Walsh’s blog.


  1. Man, it’s good to know that all that spouting about hegemony and patriarchy is just to get into women’s pants! It’s a good to know that I’m apparently required to back up the hegemonic-pickup lines with even more pick-up lines on the internet! I should probably put a disclaimer on our discussion groups, fundraising for the BARCC walk, and other community work too, because most of it is, apparently, for the purpose of funneling ladies to my nether-regions. I guess I’ll just disband the group now that Susan Walsh has discovered its secret PUA-mission.

    What I do love about articles like these is the ironclad belief that love, relationships, and human connection happen only in one very specific way, and if you deviate at all from the path to do that, your chance to find any of those things is GONE FOREVER AND COMPLETELY OMIGOD.


  2. As I mentioned in my comment on her blog, number 7 was my favorite:

    ” ‘When, oh when, will feminists learn that men are usually spouting complete BS when they throw around phrases like male hegemony, patriarchy and heteronormative?’

    Wow, now you’re just being an asshole. Criticize me for using the language of an ill informed, internet board troll, but the immaturity and unspecific generalization you made with that statement really undercuts your credentials (I have no idea who you are, I assume you have them) as as serious thinker. That statement is a direct insult to me, and to the growing number of men out there who are beginning to look at feminist, queer and gender equality theory as influential and central to the way they date, love and consort. You basically just dismissed an entire demographic without so much as an anecdote, much less any actual study or statistical information. As sure as you are of yourself, your argument (which is rather unrelated to the topic) has no backing, no basis besides your word for it. I have no clue who the balls you are. Excuse my British. “


  3. Rereading the comment I quoted above, I’m thinking that “the underboss” might just need to be my new nickname. It sounds so badass!


  4. This is what I wrote on her blog when you first linked to it a couple of days ago:

    Assumptions that are offensive to me:

    “Sluts make it so non-sluts get no attention from men.”
    “Men only want sex, not relationships.”

    If a man is not interested in a LTR with anyone, he is going to be more interested in sluts, sure. Why would a non-slut female who only wants monogamy want attention from men who aren’t interested in LTRs? Wouldn’t attention from men only seeking sex be detrimental to the non-slut’s search for a man who is interested in forming a relationship? If there were no sluts, would these sex-seeking men be getting in relationships with non-sluts out of the desperate hope that they might get laid some day? I would think that non-sluts wouldn’t want attention from men who are more interested in sex than connection.If there were no sluts, and non-sluts were receiving attention from both LTR-interested men and sex-seeking men, wouldn’t they have a higher rate of disappointment due to having a higher rate of sex-seeking men getting into relationships for the wrong reasons? Men who are interested in LTRs are going to be interested in girls who want the same. Period. Men who want casual sex are going to be interested in girls who want the same. Period. And in my experience, there are plenty of men looking for relationships, even in college.

    “No man wants to get into an LTR with a slut.”

    I’m sorry, are you saying that men don’t like women who have had a lot of sex? That a man who is ready for an LTR could meet a slut, and maybe find out that she’s ready to be in an LTR finally, but he would turn her down because she enjoyed casual sex? If she’s ready to be monogamous, why should her sexual history prior to this man matter? It sounds like you’re saying “once a slut, always a slut,” and I have to call bullshit on that. Women who like casual sex when they aren’t in LTRs are not automatically incapable of having LTRs, and they aren’t automatically bad at being in LTRs. So what should prevent men from wanting a LTR with a slut who is ready to give up sluthood for an LTR with this specific man? The statement makes no sense, and in my experience and the experiences of those around me, this is blatantly false.

    There is an implication here that most sluts are damaged headcases, and this is what I find most offensive.

    I have had casual sex. No strings, very enjoyable, casual sex. I was not damaged. I love myself. At points in my life where I wasn’t interested in a relationship, casual sex fulfilled physical needs and gave me connection when I wanted it. Casual sex was most fulfilling to me, most fun, when I was in my most stable headspace. I imagine this is true of all sex.

    I was something of a slut when I met my current SO. I was not ashamed of it, and I’m still not. And we clicked, and we fit, and for us, my sexual history was irrelevant to our chances of having a successful relationship. In the days before I met him, I was content being single and having casual sex. And then I met him, and I wanted a relationship with him. Specifically with him.

    Here’s the thing about me, my relationship, and my sluthood: I really enjoy relationship sex with someone who knows me, loves me, and respects me. But when I was single, I really enjoyed casual sex with people who treated me respectfully, whether or not they knew me very well. And if my relationship falls apart someday and my SO and I aren’t together, I imagine I will probably enjoy casual sex again.

    Here’s my question; if some people find comfort in sluthood, solace, if it allows them to make connections and be sexual without the emotional risks of a relationship, if it makes them HAPPY, then why is it so important to you to condemn it?


    1. Thanks for your comment Susan. It really said a lot. Oh wait, it was just a gloat that you have more comments than me. Well, gee I should hope you do! After all you have about 30 years on me and you were linked by some of the biggest feminist blogs online. I wasn’t, you might have noticed. Frankly I’m surprised you found my blog at all. Since I write mainly for myself and my friends, I’m not too concerned with self promotion. But maybe you’re right. Maybe I should be valuing the number of comments I get, not the substance. Hey! Maybe I should attack a famous feminist with loads of loyal fans just to get traffic! Brilliant!

      In all seriousness though, seriously??????


  5. Hey, you got harassed by an internet hater with nothing to say! Your online-feminist-blogger membership credentials have now been fast-tracked to you, and should arrive in 1-2 business days…along with more trolls.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s