It Just Is. So Shut Up.

(Trigger Warning: Cursing, violent language, mentions of sexual and other violence.)

[Izzy]

Possibly the most valuable memory of my childhood Saturday mornings, in retrospect, was not the helpful moral lessons of Sonic the Hedgehog or the goddamn catchy Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles theme song ("Leonardo leads! Donatello does machines!"...wow.) but rather the frequently-occurring Apple Jacks commercials. For those of you who didn't inhabit a certain band of early-nineties American pop culture, said commercials featured a puzzled adult demanding to know why a bunch of preteens were so goshdang fond of Apple Jacks, because it doesn't taste like apples; the kids would think *very hard* for a few seconds, and then reply "...we just do!" And then the slogan was "we eat what we like", cue corporation-sponsored rebellion and not thinking too hard about eating a breakfast cereal named for moonshine. As you do.

Not something I expected would be very relevant later on.

Except...I keep running into people who make me want to write a revised version of the script, one featuring a flamethrower and an M rating, because of their obnoxious and entitled pretense that they need, and somehow deserve, to Know the Reasons.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not talking about dark matter or DNA: scientific curiosity about scientific things is awesome, and I'm all for it. Nor am I referring to politics, because accountability is important, nor even to the working world in general. (Although if you really want to ask the college-bookstore clerk how and why the little deactivating-the-scanner thingie works, or why she asks for your student ID, maybe waiting until the line behind you isn't three miles long. Juuuust saying.) These are areas where curiosity is helpful, and accountability necessary.

[Sarah]

Though if I were the bookstore clerk, I wouldn't have the faintest clue how the deactivating-the-scanner-thingie works and would probably give you a blank look anyway.]

[Izzy]

No, what I'm talking about are statements like this:

"But *why* is it awkward and creepy to hit on someone when you're the only two people in an elevator at 4 AM?"
"But *why* is it racist for me to use certain words about people of color, when they use those words themselves?"
"But *why* is it inappropriate to demand that people explain their religion-or-lack-thereof to me?"
"But *why* is it important that people have the right to marry people of the same sex?"

And, to a lesser degree, the Asshole Question Runners-Up:

"But *why* don't you want to go out with me?"
"But *why* do you want/not want to have children?"
"But *why* aren't you coming to this event?"
"But *why* do you like this thing?"

Listen, Questioning Guy. Put your face really close to the monitor and pay attention: what I'm going to say next is important.

BECAUSE SHUT THE FUCK UP, IS WHY.

That's always, *always* my first response. It may just be internal, it may be momentary, but you bet your ass it's there.

The thing is, it's not like these questions don't have answers. Oh, I know you, That Guy--you are, even now, assuming Smug Dipshit Look #71 and preparing to say something about how it's not your fault that people can't answer tough questions. I will advise you to shut up again; I imagine it's going to be a regular theme of this article.

No. People who get asked obnoxious questions have answers. People who get asked the big ones have dissertation-level responses involving any or all of the following: captive audiences, in-group limits, Schroedinger's Rapist, histories of oppression, appropriate personal boundaries, health care benefits, shit being none of your damn business, sentiment, social etiquette, knowing where someone else is coming from when they use a term, power dynamics, AND MORE. Hell, we can probably boil them down.

And then you'll ask "why" again, like a goddamn four-year-old. Except the four-year-old is excusable, because...four. You are not. You need to shut up.

See, if "Macking on a captive-audience stranger at a time when there's nobody else around is anywhere from 'gnaw-my-own-foot-off awkward' to 'extremely creepy and threatening,'" doesn't get through to you? *Fucking nothing else will.* Like, if you're at that level of not-getting-it, if you can't put a woman's possible reaction to that in the context of everything from Tailhook to Ted Bundy, it seems like your options are a) a voluntary Clockwork-Orange-style behavior modification regime, b) just not ever hitting on anyone, please, for the love of God, and c) learning to love pepper spray. I could explain that many, many women are raped or killed by men they rejected, that we haven't all memorized Know Alignment today, and that, even if we aren't worried about violence, it's still *really uncomfortable* to be trapped in a confined space with someone who might go on to pester you and make a scene. And no, we don't know that you won't, and no, we can't just tell, because THIS ISN'T GODDAMN VALDEMAR AND WE CAN'T READ MINDS.

I could say all that. But if you don't get it from the first sentence, it's not going to help, because you suck, and you're determined to suck. So go away.

Likewise, if you don't get that it has got to be very, very different to hear a word from someone who looks like me and to hear it from someone who looks like people who've historically enslaved/raped/tortured/killed other people who look like me; if you don't get that my faith-or-lack-thereof is what works for me and is often a personal decision that I don't want to summarize in two paragraphs to someone who's mostly invested in converting me; if you don't get why being *able* to marry the person I love is a big deal, even if I don't want to do it myself...barring a mountain-top lab and a fortuitous bolt of lightning, there's nothing I can do here. Certainly further explanation isn't going to help--you'll just come back to "but WHYYYYYYY?" like it matters. And like you're entitled to a response. Like explaining it is my job. Which it's not.

So shut up.

As far as the lesser questions go...most of them have answers. Most of them have answers that you don't want to know--Do you really want me to go down the alphabetical list of reasons I don't want to date you? Really?--or that are deeply personal, or that are hard to articulate. I can probably *theorize* about why I like fantasy books or dark-haired men or cherry cordials, but I'm not going to, because a) it's just a theory, b) the reasons will be different for the next person you ask, and c) you don't actually want an answer.

That's the other thing, That Guy. "But WHYYYYYY?" never actually wants an answer.** It's a not-so-clever way to push an agenda--usually an obnoxious one--or express an opinion--see fucking above--so that, if someone actually calls you on being obnoxious, you can just squirm your way back into safety. You weren't saying anything racist or sexist or intolerant or obnoxious! You were Just Asking! And intellectual curiosity is good! So anyone who objects to you Just Asking is a bad evil inquiry-stifling person!

Yeah, intellectual curiosity is good. It's not the same thing as weaseldickery, which is what you're practicing. So shut up.

[Sarah]

see also: Disingenuousness is not an endearing trait. And while you *may* be asking in good faith, there are a whole lot of other people who ask the same kinds of questions who are asking in bad faith-because they want to get a rise of someone, because they want to pick a fight, because they want to make the other person uncomfortable. Etc. etc. etc, as the king in The King and I would say.

[Izzy]

And even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, which I do not make a practice of doing, there's this: the world does not owe you an explanation. Nobody owes you an explanation. Nobody has to *justify* what they find creepy or awkward or hurtful.* Nobody has to justify their preferences, or their goals in life--except to the extent that those goals hurt others--or their lifestyle. Nobody has to justify not liking you, not wanting to fuck you, not wanting to be around you.

Sarah

Also, as someone who does usually give the benefit of the doubt: I agree. I also think it depends on the relationship between people: I owe my friends more than I owe the person sitting next to me on the trolley or Random Dude at the bar.

[Izzy]

You don't understand *whyyyyy* you can't do or say whatever you like, whenever you like? You don't have to. And sometimes, you don't get to. Suck it up.

*Less angrily: there is a "freedom to swing your fist" thing^[1] here, and also an intent thing, which is the opposite of the usual intent bullshit, I think. If my short skirt offends someone, that's too damn bad; it's on my body, it's not a slur deliberately directed at them, and I'm not making them look. If my saying that Ayn Rand and her supporters are horrible people who have made sociopathy into a political movement offends them...good. I meant it to.

**There are people who genuinely don't get social rules, due to various disabilities, and who need to understand the reasoning so as to not screw up later. That's different. Nonetheless, explaining why X is not okay is still not the job of the person being hit on or insulted or whatever. Ask a close friend who you trust; find a support group; look for Internet resources. But, to be harsh, Random Chick Number 7 didn't sign up for said support group, and most of us don't have the time or the spoons to see the cause; we see the effect, and we're not obligated to have a lot of patience there.

--Izzy and Sarah

---

^[1] Common paraphrase of the statement The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins usually attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes although there are a number of other similar statements variously attributed to a number of other individuals including John Stuart Mill and Abraham Lincoln.↩

---

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[Kit Whitfield]

And no, we don't know that you won't, and no, we can't just tell, because THIS ISN'T GODDAMN VALDEMAR AND WE CAN'T READ MINDS.

Actually, if a guy makes a fuss about being asked not to sexually harass people, then you pretty much can tell he's someone you don't want to be alone with. Maybe he's not planning to rape you, but he sure as anything doesn't mind making you uncomfortable, and being made uncomfortable is nasty enough even if it doesn't escalate to physical assault.

So I'd personally say: no, I can't read minds, but if you kick and fuss about women saying that creepiness is bad ... yep, I can tell.

[histrogeek]

As someone who does have any number of social disorders (only depression and anxiety diagnosed, but probably other lurking around as well), I should say that I have done some of the assholey personal things when I was young, though only with recently ex-girl friends. Mostly this was a function of all my delightful pathologies popping up at once (fear, depression, self-image, etc.) combined with the bad dating advice from 80s romantic comedies (yeah Cusak I'm looking at you). This doesn't excuse it, just explains it.
On the other hand, I had enough sense to know that almost any of those questions are not at all appropriate to someone you don't know. And almost none of them have any direct personal impact on me so it really was none of my business. And then there's the someone is offended by something I fucking well know is offensive. But, oops, I'm sorry you're such a wuss. (call it the Limbaugh defense)
Yeah well I'm sorry you're an asshole. At a certain point I'm sorry you're alive. If you haven't figured out that every time you do this, people want to smack you with an axe, it really doesn't matter what the reason is. If someone gets upset because you talk about shrimp puffs, guess what dingleberry? Don't fucking talk about shrimp puffs with them. And don't ask why more than one.
Assholes, assholes, assholes.

[Will Wildman]

I started out thinking that "Why don't you want to go out with me" was a valid question, because I lack a knack for intellectual empathy, but I believe it was in fact Izzy on this very board (two or more years ago) who delivered a miniature version of this rant, at which point I stopped doing it. It was pretty easy. (The last time I was turned down, the woman started to explain, I repeatedly assured her it wasn't necessary, and she resolutely supplied a five-minute explanation of why, even though I was awesome, two other major external factors like transcontinental migration made it impossible. So anecdata suggest that actively not asking is actually more likely to satisfy my curiosity anyway.)

---

I could explain that many, many women are raped or killed by men they rejected, that we haven't all memorized Know Alignment today, and that, even if we aren't worried about violence, it's still *really uncomfortable* to be trapped in a confined space with someone who might go on to pester you and make a scene.

So last week (on International Women's Day, in fact) I got into a long fight on facebook with a sexist because someone actually did try to explain the above. A friend linked an article about a female perspective on getting approached by a stranger, precautions to take, uncertainty about their intentions, et cetera. In short, she actually voluntarily explained all of this stuff. And the response from multiple guys was vast and varied, and I'm writing a blog post about it now, but it could be summarised as "Men aren't all bad, women shouldn't think of themselves as victims, and if you are a victim then your gender doesn't matter anyway, so who's the REAL sexist?"

Coincidentally, I also concluded that a Clockwork-Orange-style re-education was probably the best response. But mostly the experience just served as a demonstration that, no, folks often really do not want the answers to their questions - questions are just a way of trying to shove the attention/blame back onto the other person.

[Michael Mock]

This is frighteningly topical for me; I'm dealing with (what I'm almost certain is) precisely this sort of Genuine Faux Disingenousness with an anonymous commenter on my own blog. It's not helping that he has an unhealthy amount of I'm Only Being Obnoxious To Prove A Point thrown into the mix.

[Izzy]

TW: Body image issues.

@Kit: Oh, good point!

@histrogeek: Man, eighties rom-coms are responsible for so much of the bullshit in the world. And I think most people have asked some variant of the personal questions at least once, because we were all young and dumb. I totally did the please-explain-why-you're-dumping-me thing as a teenager myself, a couple times, before I realized that it in no way helped anything.

(And from the other end, if there's a non-personal-qualities reason you can give for breaking up with/rejecting someone, it *is* nice. Not obligatory, but nice. I hear "Sorry, I'm gay/want kids/am moving to Argentina next month," it does help.)

@Will: Eeeew. Yeah, that's my theory as well.

And I feel like, as per above, "Why don't you want to go out with me (anymore)?" is one a lot of people do, so...y'know, I think it's a bad idea for ninety-seven reasons*, but it doesn't inspire some of the visceral rage that the others do. But I do feel like some class in high school should cover the fact that you don't need a reason not to go out with someone, ever.

@Michael: Ugh. I wish people would realize that the devil has QUITE ENOUGH advocates, thanks.

*If nothing else, it's like "Does this make my butt look big?": there's a good chance you aren't gonna like the answer at all.

[Kit Whitfield]

@Izzy - yeah, it's a notable thing with these guys: they don't seem to see any middle ground between 'Drag a woman off into a deserted room and rape her' and 'Behave impeccably.' The idea that no, you may not have been planning to rape me but you did hijack my attention and take up my personal space with your disagreeable behaviour, and that's still a problem - and you did it on purpose to boot - doesn't seem to register. They may not be planning to commit some of the most extreme forms of bad behaviour, but they are planning to commit minor forms. It's like a pickpocket getting angry you said 'Stealing is wrong' because he wasn't planning to rob a bank.

[Froborr]

Great article, Izzy and Sarah. I can think of several people to whose foreheads I wish to staple it.

@Kit: So... a sort of sexism-flavored variant of the Anti-Kitten Burning Coalition?

[Deird, who loves this post]

That's the other thing, That Guy. "But WHYYYYYY?" never actually wants an answer.** It's a not-so-clever way to push an agenda--usually an obnoxious one--or express an opinion--see fucking above--so that, if someone actually calls you on being obnoxious, you can just squirm your way back into safety. You weren't saying anything racist or sexist or intolerant or obnoxious! You were Just Asking! And intellectual curiosity is good! So anyone who objects to you Just Asking is a bad evil inquiry-stifling person!

*applauds*

[AnaMardoll]

OMG, I LOVE THIS POST. And the authors of it. *love*

The idea that no, you may not have been planning to rape me but you did hijack my attention and take up my personal space with your disagreeable behaviour, and that's still a problem - and you did it on purpose to boot - doesn't seem to register.

Thiiiiiiiiiiiis. And cue someone IMMEDIATELY saying "I don't feel entitled to not be bothered by other people when I'm in public," with the very clear implication that:

1. This is not merely a personal opinion; you should feel the same way.
2. You are a huge narking jackwagon to expect privacy-in-public.
3. The whole world is going to heck in a handbasket because of antisocial people like you.

F-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f-f- *sigh*

[AnaMardoll]

And I actually am pretty social in public, but there is a fine line between answering little questions like "Oh, yes, this IS one of those newfangled e-reader things" or "Oh, yes, I know a little bit of knitting; this is called The Continental Method" followed by a nice-but-tight smile and a pointed return to my business...

...versus being expected to entertain you for the entirety of the bus trip because you couldn't be bothered to bring a book.

Incidentally, when I was a teenager, I remember we went to Disney World and we were on one of those buses back to the hotel one night when a significantly older young man struck up a very uncomfortable flirtation with me. I was with MY PARENTS, and he kept pestering me about where I was staying and whether I wanted to come down to the hot tub with him, and I was getting more and more uncomfortable because I had the full-on Good Girl training and I didn't know how to be more assertive than my weak "haha, no, I don't think so, haha."

I was getting more and more scared and uncomfortable, when we pulled up to a stop. I stood up as if to disembark and he leaped to his feet saying it was his stop too. What a coincidence! I sat back down, and he was forced to grudgingly get off or look like a fool. Thank gods he did.

When he got off, at least three people spontaneously started applauding me. Apparently he'd been annoying the whole bus with his loud and clumsy harassment. And that was... nice, but... I to this day don't understand why I can't live in a culture where someone, anyone, my gorram parents while we're on the subject, could have said "Ma'am, do you want to switch seats with me?" Because I would have said 'yes'.

Dunno where that one came from, but there you go.

[Izzy]

@Ana: Oh, no shit, and I hate those people.

Those People: If you don't think I'm entitled not to be bothered in public...well, *you're* not entitled to have me entertain you when I'm in public, because I am not your dancing monkey. Bring a book, cultivate an imagination, get an iPod, and shut the living fuck up. Because if antisocial people like me are sending the world to hell in a handbasket, compulsively social people like you are pathetic: like, what kind of functioning adult depends on random strangers for mental occupation anyhow?

...so, yeah. Don't go there, That Guy.

[DanA]

@Histrogeek: "This doesn't excuse it, just explains it."

That was such a huge and influencial revalation for me, in terms of coping with my mental illness. Prior to that point I had been convinced (partially by crappy psychologists) that if I said 'this is why I did X' I was excusing myself of personal responsibility for X. However, regardless of why I did X, it was still my actions and they still caused harm and ignoring the influences that lead me to take those actions only increased the likelyhood of repeating. What works much better for me is identifying a course of thoughts and behaviours that contributed to those actions which then allowed me to develop strategies to derail that behaviour in the future.

[sarah]

I have had way too many experiences of being hit on or harassed on public transportation or while I've been waiting for my bus or trolley. It's frustrating especially because you go can't go anywhere. You're stuck until you get off or on. And, oh yeah, the moment of panic because you're really, really hoping the guy who's harassing you won't get off at the same stop. That's fun.

[renniejoy]

Brava!!!

[Froth]

"So what made you decide you wanted to be trans?"

Because it's none of your business, that's why. Because I just am, that's why. Because shut up, you don't get how this works and this is the third time someone's asked that today and what made you decide you didn't want to be trans, anyway?

If you then ask me what my hobbies are, or whether I like competetive sports, as if that should make a difference and I should justify my genderqueerness with a love of rugby and getting into drunken fights, I will hate you. I will probably be very polite and answer your questions and point out repeatedly that it's got nothing to do with being a "tomboy", it's about an unshakeable sense that I am not a girl that makes me flinch every time I have to write "Ms" on a form. But I will hate you nonetheless, for making me explain to you who I am as if it were your right to judge the quality of my reasoning, and making me afraid that if I answer wrong, you'll try to fix me.

[L. David Wheeler]

Excellent post. It did bring back unpleasant memories of a breakup 10 years ago, when I turned what had been a generally amicable breakup into one decidedly less so through my incessant neediness and passive-aggressive demands for Complete and Total Step-By-Step Explanations For How This Has Come To Be. I look back at the LDW of 10 years ago and mostly want to smack him.

That said, I *do* as a general rule adopt the policy -- and *this only applies to me; I'm not recommending it as a general rule for other people* -- that if I break up with someone, I *will* give them full disclosure as to why I'm taking the step I'm taking. Because if I break up with someone, I'm instigating an involuntary major life change on their part, and I think it's only fair that they be told why. (If they *want* such explanation, that is.) Again, nobody is obligated to do this; it's just something *I* do -- in theory, anyway; hasn't been tested in practice. And there are probably major problems with it that people could point out.

Regarding the creepy guys who've plagued Sarah, Ana, etc.: Yuck. I'm sorry that happened to you. And especially in Ana's case: Who's clueless enough to hit on an underage girl in front of their *parents*? ... I suspect he may have tried that again and not gotten off so lucky. Hope so, anyway.

[Lonespark]

Who's clueless enough to hit on an underage girl in front of their *parents*?

Ahaha I got this too. Random Dutch guy on vacation in Kenya. Except I was an odd child who was all for flirting back... That could have gone much worse than it did.

[Mike Timonin]

I seem to recall needing to be walked through my first breakup as well: "but whhhhhyyyyy?" etc. I note that the others mentioning this seem to present as male, and it seems that the most egregious examples I can think of in my circle of friends are also male - why is that? Is this just a guy thing? Are girls more socially adept at handling romantic breakups?

[AnaMardoll]

I note that the others mentioning this seem to present as male, and it seems that the most egregious examples I can think of in my circle of friends are also male - why is that? Is this just a guy thing?

It's possible that you're more conditioned to feel comfortable demanding accommodation. I think I asked the first boy who broke up with me "why" -- it was really out of the blue for me, and I thought everything was roses -- but as soon as it became clear that he was uncomfortable with the discussion, I backed off.

Not because I'm the soul of sensitivity, but because I've been trained from my earliest childhood memories to avoid making people uncomfortable. I think it becomes second nature after awhile for many women.

That said, general cases make poor 'rules'. I'm sure there are women out there who would relentlessly grill "why" and there are undoubtedly men who would back away and say "oh, um, okay, ah, see you around".

[AnaMardoll]

It's possible that you're more conditioned to feel comfortable demanding accommodation.

And I mean this as in the whole "boys are trained to be assertive" kind of thing, not as a conscious ACCOMMODATE ME OR ELSE kind of thing. :)

I actually think assertiveness can be exceedingly healthy in certain contexts and frequently wish I were more so. :)

[Kit Whitfield]

Those People: If you don't think I'm entitled not to be bothered in public...well, *you're* not entitled to have me entertain you when I'm in public, because I am not your dancing monkey. Bring a book, cultivate an imagination, get an iPod, and shut the living fuck up.

Ohh yeah, that guy. It's not just women they do it to either; it happened to my husband on a coach to Bristol once. We'd been sitting minding our own business for about three hours, and then this drunk guy (who hadn't brought a book, but had brought several cans of beer) came up and started pestering him. My husband is too polite to tell someone to fuck off, so he just made non-committal noises.

The guy then said, 'I'm talking to you cause you look really fed up, you know. Like you just want this ride to be over.' With a slight air of, 'So you don't deserve any privacy; I'm showing you the consequences of arranging your face contrary to proper etiquette.' (I don't think he was looking particularly fed up myself, just tired, but hey, what does a wife know compared to a random tosser with a drink problem?)

At this point I got fed up myself, and said to the guy, 'So if you think he's looking fed up, why don't you leave him alone instead of bothering him and trying to make him more fed up?'

The guy looked at me in bewilderment: you're not supposed to call somebody out when they're hassling a stranger! After a second he rallied and, too drunk and stupid to think of a good lie on the fly, said, 'Because I'm bored.'

'So why don't you make your own entertainment instead of bothering other people?', I said.

And that ... just kind of finished him. He started retreating, maundering about how we'd think differently about him when he won the Nobel Prize.

'I'll be very impressed when you win the Nobel Prize,' I said crisply, and he went back to his seat.

The guy was trading on the assumption that if he acted weird, other people would be too polite to do anything about it. What he wasn't prepared for was a perfectly polite challenge that described accurately what he was doing and demanded that he justify it.

In this situation, being female was actually an advantage: he wasn't sexually creepy, just a wanker, and the worst-case scenario my husband would have faced - that he'd get aggressive and punch him - was one that I was less endangered by; he was the kind of guy who might drunkenly punch a man but not a woman. In retrospect I also suspect that he had plenty of experience of exasperated women assuming a schoolteacher tone with him, so when I did it he just buckled.

But to someone who's depending on other people's good manners to get away with obnoxious behaviour, a polite but sharp 'Why are you acting this way?' can be something of a blindside.

[Sixwing]

@Kit, I'm going to try and remember that one for the future. Most of the really obnoxious behavior I'm exposed to is of the 'boys club' sort - things the guys will happily say around one another, especially if they've forgotten I am present.

[Mike Timonin]

And I mean this as in the whole "boys are trained to be assertive" kind of thing, not as a conscious ACCOMMODATE ME OR ELSE kind of thing. :)

That was sort of what I thought, actually - Are boys taught to expect satisfaction while girls are taught to expect disappointment? Generally speaking.

[Froborr]

I definitely did the whole "but whyyyyyyyy" thing when I was in college. It kinda went hand-in-hand with the Nice Guy Syndrome.

I really should get around to writing that piece about Nice Guy Syndrome one of these days...

[groundedchuck]

I think "but whyyyyyyyy are you breaking up with me" is a much, much more valid question than most of the ones presented here. Yes, it can totally be presented in a way that amounts to "Give me your reason so I can argue you out of them," but I can also see it--and have experienced it--as "I thought everything was fine. You're the only person who can explain what I missed. Please tell me what I missed so this doesn't become a running theme of my life." And "person you are dating" (ostensibly someone interested in your well-being) is very, very different from "person you're accosting on a bus".

(As for why it seems to be guys doing the asking: The standard male/female as pursuer/pursued model in our society, which says the guy should do all the asking out, would imply that the girls have a lower chance of getting what they want and are therefore more likely to initiate a breakup. Certainly not universal, but statistically might account for something.)

Kit Whitfield: I think it also helped that you were outside the situation. It's much harder (for either gender) to break out of politeness mode once you're already in a conversation and trying to be polite.

[Ross]

I seem to recall needing to be walked through my first breakup as well: "but whhhhhyyyyy?" etc. I note that the others mentioning this seem to present as male, and it seems that the most egregious examples I can think of in my circle of friends are also male - why is that? Is this just a guy thing? Are girls more socially adept at handling romantic breakups?

My experience (of seeing these things second-hand)is that boys, when initiating a breakup, are more likely to forward-signal that such a question would not be useful. That is, my experience of woman-initiated breakups tend to be framed in such a way that it would be possible, if you didn't know any better, to view it as a negotiation (In fact, I once experienced a breakup where the woman initiating it clearly *did* think it was a negotiation. She got very upset and angry and a bit scary when my reaction to her dumping me was not to beg her forgiveness and demand another chance, because she hadn't actually wanted to end the relationship just because she'd ended the relationship), whereas boys much more often frame the termination as "I am done with you now."

[LaylaV]

Re: boys asking WHYYYYY and girls not:

For me it was just luck. I happened to be the one who ended the first major relationship I was in, so when my second significant SO dumped me, I remembered how painful (and ultimately not-useful) the debriefing was and didn't go there.

[Kit Whitfield]

Kit Whitfield: I think it also helped that you were outside the situation. It's much harder (for either gender) to break out of politeness mode once you're already in a conversation and trying to be polite.

First, I wasn't 'outside the situation'. I was with my husband, sitting right next to him, clearly with him.

Second, my husband wasn't 'in a conversation'. He was making non-commital noises and ignoring the guy.

Why are you trying to explain to me what the dynamics of the situation were? I was there and you weren't. Right now you're coming across as trying to defend or excuse my husband for not arguing with the guy, and trust me, he doesn't need you to speak for him. He can speak for himself just fine. Neither do I need some stranger 'explaining' my husband's motivations to me. I live with the man; when I want to know what he's thinking, I ask him and he tells me.

[Izzy]

@groundedchuck: Maaaybe, but...

Most of the time, when you break up with someone, it's one of two basic things:

1) Incompatible lifestyles. This will probably have come up before; in fact, the conversation featuring "hey, I don't actually want to get married ever" or "I'm not comfortable with your religion" or "I'm moving across the country" will often be a lead-in to the break-up. In which case it's obvious, so there's no need to ask why.

2) You're just not feeling it any more. Sure, there *might* be reasons, but...they're not reasons anyone wants to hear. And there might not be: sometimes, chemistry just kinda dies.

Either way, for the most part, reasons for a breakup are generally not going to be part of a longer pattern, because they usually only apply to a specific relationship. The next guy I meet may well be fine with my paganism; he may love the fact that I don't come home until late and often don't call; he may like what's happened to my hair or my body over the last five years.

And also...I'm thirty. A lot of the stuff about me is stuff I'm not going to change, because I don't want to. I like myself the way I am. If that makes me hard to be in a relationship with...tough.

There are exceptional circumstances, sure, and there are things people do need to hear. But I take the position that...well, if I'm a total jerk with really bad breath, hopefully anyone who cared about me enough to date me would have broached those subjects, tactfully, earlier in the relationship.

[Izzy]

In short: the answer to "What did I miss?" is often "Nothing. These things just happen."

[Leum]

2) You're just not feeling it any more. Sure, there *might* be reasons, but...they're not reasons anyone wants to hear. And there might not be: sometimes, chemistry just kinda dies.

But Izzy, for a lot of us, in our first relationship (which I think is the most likely to elicit the "but why?") we don't know that chemistry just kinda dies. For me, that possibility was quite literally not even on my radar. To be honest, it still isn't, because I have absolutely no personal experience with it. Hearing "chemistry sometimes just dies" would have been much better to hear than no explanation at all.

[Froborr]

So what if it would have helped you? It would help me if I had free groceries for the next decade, doesn't mean other people are obligated to give it to me.

You have the right to not be intimate with anyone you don't want to be intimate with (be that intimacy sexual, emotional, or what-have-you). There are no prerequisites or requirements; your reason does not have to pass any kind of test, and you do not have to share it with anyone you don't want to.

That means nobody else has to share their reason with you, either, because everyone has that right.

It really is that simple.

[Leum]

So what if it would have helped you? It would help me if I had free groceries for the next decade, doesn't mean other people are obligated to give it to me.

You have the right to not be intimate with anyone you don't want to be intimate with (be that intimacy sexual, emotional, or what-have-you). There are no prerequisites or requirements; your reason does not have to pass any kind of test, and you do not have to share it with anyone you don't want to.

I completely agree, I wasn't arguing that point, I was arguing against Izzy's statement that "sometimes chemistry just dies" is something no one wants to hear and that there's no point in saying it.

Also, so what if it would have helped me? Well, presumably someone who dated me gives a flying fuck about me. Generally I try to be help people I give a flying fuck about.

[Froborr]

Also, so what if it would have helped me? Well, presumably someone who dated me gives a flying fuck about me. Generally I try to be help people I give a flying fuck about.

Possibly, possibly not. You are assuming it's about you. It's entirely possible the person breaking up with you really doesn't want to have a conversation about why, for whatever reason, and there's no reason why they should have to, or be expected to, or why you should assume that it means they don't care. For example, maybe they would find such a conversation painful.

[Izzy]

@Leum: True, there are those cases. I'd classify those as the "exceptional circumstances" I mentioned, myself, and I did say that the "why are we breaking up" question is pretty understandable, especially the first time.

I still think it's a bad idea to ask your ex right then, especially because "chemistry just dies" is more coherent than what you're likely to get, which is maaaaybe some variant on "I don't know, I just don't feel it any more" but I'm also a fan of the getting-the-hell-out-of-there breakup strategy.

[Ross]

There's a certain inherent asymmetry to a breakup. Almost all the other "asshole questions" that have been mentioned are questions that are being asked by *strangers*. "I don't owe you an explanation for anything" is an entirely valid posiiton with respect to a stranger asking you a personal question. That's not universally the case whith someone you're in a relationship with. During a breakup, you've got this asymetric situation where the person initiating the breakup is in the position of "I have already downgraded this relationship to 'I don't owe you an explanation' status, and this is just the paperwork-filing bit to make it formal." It looks very different from the perspective of the person being dumped. Which means that it is probably a wise move to leave immediately upon performing delivery of the breakup.

----
Every breakup I've ever had were over issues that had not been previously addressed, and which I could have done something about had I known.
----

No one yet has addressed the other common break-up question. The one that, in my experience, comes a couple of weeks later from the person who initiated the break-up (And in one case, every six months for the next ten years): "But *why* can't we be friends?"

[Froborr]

a breakup, you've got this asymetric situation where the person initiating the breakup is in the position of "I have already downgraded this relationship to 'I don't owe you an explanation' status, and this is just the paperwork-filing bit to make it formal." It looks very different from the perspective of the person being dumped. Which means that it is probably a wise move to leave immediately upon performing delivery of the breakup.

The situation is not asymmetric; both parties in a relationship have unlimited whim-of-the-moment no-questions-asked relationship-is-now-over leave-me-alone power. They have to; a relationship not freely entered into and freely maintained is not a relationship.

As for why can't we be friends? Exact same thing. Both parties have unlimited power to end the friendship at any time.

Or to put it another way: It takes two people to date/be friends. If either person doesn't want to, it won't work and shouldn't be attempted.

[chris the cynic]

The situation is not asymmetric

I'll grant that that is possible, but barring psychic powers it doesn't seem likely. When one party knows for sure that the relationship is about to end while the other party at most suspects that that might be the case, that's a pretty strong asymmetry.

For there to be a similar asymmetry in a conversation between strangers one party would have to think they weren't actually strangers. Then you'd have a similar thing where A thinks the relationship is X while B knows it is in fact Y.

This is not to say that there are explanations owed, but there is definitely asymmetry.

[Froborr]

@chris: I guess we're talking about different definitions of "asymmetry." The two parties have equal power, is my point: either can end the relationship at any time. You are correct that they do not have equal information, but that is always true of any interaction between two people--I always know things about myself that you do not, and you (even if you just met me) always know things about me that I do not,* and vice versa on both.

*For example, if you are sighted, you know whether or not I have a stain on my collar.

[histrogeek]

I just read this over again. We're misreading the asshole question "Why don't you want to go out with me?" It doesn't say "anymore;" we're just inserting that. I did it too. I think Izzy and Sarah meant people who were either strangers or acquaintances. (My telepathy is a little rusty so I won't say that for sure.Izzy and Sarah are grown-ups and perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.) This isn't to say that "Why don't you want to go out with me anymore?" can't easily become an asshole question, if someone is a creepy co-dependent, isn't getting the message that it's over, or is trying to make their ex uncomfortable. I've done the first (see above).
Since most of us on this board are not trolls or assholes by instinct, our thoughts don't automatically go to "Why don't you want to go out with me?" as a deliberate dickhead question. The context seem more important in the runner-up questions.

[Rowen]

I will full on admit that I've done a variation on the "But WHYYYYY" thing when I've gotten turned down from an online dating site. However, that being said, I'm usually pissed off and going into troll mode, because I either already know why, or I don't care, and just want to pick a fight. I've known a few other guys who've done this, and it's usually a variation on "I'm sick and tired of being viewed by other gays as undesirable because I have body hair/body fat/don't look like an underwear model/whatever, and I want said person to actually acknowledge that they're being a jerk online." I mean, it's rather mean spirited, but there is a sort of satisfaction in it. (Once, a guy said I wasn't competitive enough for him. I listed all the sports I've played and all the competitions I've been in. It FINALLY turned out that he didn't like the fact that I didn't post a shirtless picture, and this was after he didn't have any public pictures that showed anything, aka, they're far away or blurry or stuff like that)

That being said, I think it's a slightly different situation, and I know I'm being a trolling jerk and don't do it that often, and never in person. Though, I have started being very blunt when someone tells me they just want to be friends.

[Ross]

@Froborr: I was talking neither about informational or power asymmetry, but an asymetric emotional state. The dumper is in post-relationship mode, the dumpee isn't.

And frankly, it doesn't actually sound like a healthy relationship if the expectation is "At any instant, for no reason you will ever know, the other person might say it is over and expected to switch off all your feelings like a switch and go into post-relationship mode, no questions asked, we are now back to being strangers, and this is totally fair and you would be a monster to expect anything different" Just as it takes time for a relationship to *develop* it takes time for it to *undevelop*. Shutting down a relationship is a *process*. Sometimes, it's a generally symmetric process. Often it is not. But unlike the formation of a relationship, as you say, anyone can terminate it say any time -- there's no "we'll try this for a bit and then if we're both agreeable, we'll escallate." The person initiating is already well into the process, and the other person is just starting the process. And while it doesn't give the dumpee any right to accomodation, neither is it reasonable for the dumper to demand that the dumpee immediately catch up to the same point in the emotional process of separation according to the dumper's timetable.

[chris the cynic]

The two parties have equal power, is my point

Given that Ross was contrasting with interaction between strangers where, absent additional information, we would expect the same to be true I don't think asymmetrical power was the asymmetry he was talking about.

Likewise, I wasn't talking about asymmetrical information. I can see how you got that idea because different information between parties is necessary, but it isn't sufficient. And it's not just romantic relationships, I should say.

If you think we're friends I think we're friends then (barring confounding factors) we have a symmetrical relationship there no matter how much more information you happen to have than me. Difference in information does not, in itself, lead to asymmetry.

If you think we're friends and I think we're not, that is asymmetrical.

You are going to have a set of assumptions and expectations that are completely reasonable give your belief that we are friends. That's going to effect the way you act toward me and the way you expect me to act towards you. It's going to mean that you have an emotional investment in me that is greater than that you would have in a stranger or non-friend acquaintance.

I, on the other hand, am going to have none of those expectations, assumptions or inhibitions. I'm not going to have that level of emotional investment in you.

That puts the two of us on completely different footing. The difference in emotional investment alone is going to make any interaction between us much more high risk for you than it is for me.

[Kit Whitfield's husband]

I live with the man; when I want to know what he's thinking, I ask him and he tells me.

...at great length. :-)

[Izzy]

@Histrogeek: Yeah, though there's also the friend/acquaintance thing where that's concerned. (And even *more* annoying, the well-meaning-but-clueless mutual friend asking why you don't want to go out with him. Lord.) And the conversation has turned toward the breakup thing, which is fine as well, but definitely not in the same category.

Like I said: still think it's a bad idea ninety percent of the time--because also, even if it *is* stuff you could have fixed, by the time it gets to the breaking-up-and-not-telling-you phase...the damage is done, and bargaining won't help--but it's not as bad as the other questions.

@Rowen: Er. Not sure what response you want, because...yeah, that *does* sound like you're being a trolling jerk. And you should stop.

Also, while I'm coming at this from an exasperated-with-straight-boys-straight-girl perspective...not being attracted to someone, for whatever reason, doesn't make you a jerk. Not dating people who don't do it for you doesn't make you a jerk. Trying to let people down politely *really* doesn't make you a jerk, because...again, what do you want someone to say? "Sorry, but the idea of fucking you is completely unappealing?"

I mean, Competitive Guy sounds like a dork, but...again, if you ask for a reason, and the options are Polite Lie or "...well, there might be a universe where you turn me on, but it ain't this one, Sparky," a lot of people are going to go with the first. For good reason.

[Izzy]

To expand further on the breakup thing, a little:

If someone breaks up with you, you ask why, and she (my-gender pronoun for convenience) names a reason you never heard before, then, well, there's probably one of three things going on:

1. The dynamic of the relationship was such that she didn't think you'd change, or that the changing process would be more aggro than it was worth.
2. That's not the real reason. The real reason is something like "I'm just not attracted to you any more," or "I'm in love with someone else," and she's making up reasons--or exaggerating real ones--to justify it to you, or herself, or both.
3. She's the kind of person who breaks up with you over things she doesn't think to mention beforehand.

In none of these cases will knowing the reason get you back together. Just won't. Yeah, it *may* help for the future--though it may not, see the "different people, different tastes" post above--but most of the time, it's the "bargaining" stage of grief. Which is understandable, but not ultimately useful as an in-person thing. Grab some friends and do post-breakup analysis instead; they'll be more likely to tell you true/useful things, and then to buy you drinks.

That said, I think it's good to discuss issues with people previous to dumping them for said issues. But this is verging on Izzy's Guide to Relationships, and that's a whole other ambiguous thing.

[L. David Wheeler]

Again keeping in mind that an explanation is never *obligated* -- it seems to me that the degree to which it's a Decent Thing To Do varies depending on the nature and intensity of the relationship. If it was a casual romance without too much in the line of future expectations on either end, then it doesn't seem like much talk is necessary. On the other hand, if it was a Seriously Serious relationship in which both parties were considering marriage, that might call for a little bit more conversation. (And yes, I realize that most relationships fall somewhere between those two examples, and every case is different; it's a question of how much explanation one feels comfortable giving and how much one perceives the dumpee is prepared to take.

It's not so much a question of whether knowing the reason will get you back together -- like Izzy says, it won't, or rarely will. It's more a question of closure, of making sure that if I've instituted a Major Life Change for someone by ending a relationship with her, she knows *why* her life has changed ... so it's not like being struck by lightning.

And again, I stress: Not saying anyone is ever *obligated* to give an explanation. Nobody's obligated to be in a relationship or a friendship. I just think that, if I care about the person with whom I'm breaking up, providing some form of context for closure's/moving-on's sake is at the very least a decent thing to do.

(Obsessively and passive-aggressively trolling for further explanations, however, is dickish. I give you the L. David Wheeler of 10 years ago. I'm glad I'm not him anymore. I hope I'm not him anymore.

[Froborr]

Apologies in advance, my apostrophe key is acting up...

And frankly, it doesn't actually sound like a healthy relationship if the expectation is "At any instant, for no reason you will ever know, the other person might say it is over and expected to switch off all your feelings like a switch and go into post-relationship mode, no questions asked, we are now back to being strangers, and this is totally fair and you would be a monster to expect anything different"

You are not expected to switch your feelings off, that would be completely unrealistic. However, that does not mean you get to be clingy and demanding with someone who has just made clear they no longer wish to continue their relationship with you. Go complain to some friends or go to the bar and get wasted or pwn some noobs or whatever it is you do when life doesnt go your way. If it was a long-standing, important relationship, mourn the loss and heal. Just dont be clingy and demanding about it.

(For the record: Always the dumpee, never the dumper, and I always behaved *really* badly about it. Admittedly, last time I had a breakup was college, but point stands--I know *all about* how it feels to be a dumped and how easy it is to be a total dick about it.)

[Rowen]

Izzy,

Not really looking for a response. Just throwing out there as an anecdote. I really don't know how to describe it, because just about every gay male that I've known in person has had a similar experience of just getting fed up with the minutia of online dating, or the "first date went really well, and he kissed me good night and said he wants to see me again, and then I never hear from him again." And, yeah, at some point in time you learn that that guy was a flake, or Mr. Competitive wanted someone who could model a speedo, or whatever, and in most these cases, I'd say don't bother asking because it's just going to make you feel worse about yourself, instead of feeling grateful that you didn't waste anything physical or emotional on some self centered idiot who thinks that love only comes from people who are blonde, or 5'9, or rich, or whatever.

Is it jerky? yeah. Do I not do it like I did when I was a self conscious 24 year old? no. but sometimes, it feels really nice to tell someone off since they seem insistent on making you feel less you are. Which, as I'm typing this sounds really angry and also isn't exactly what the above conversation is about. Though, I do think that it's more complicated then that, and there are times where the dumpee can ask that question AND expect more then an answer of "just because." Does that apply to Mr. Elevator? No.

[Froborr]

@L. David Wheeler: It feels to me like you are still treating the break-up as if the dumper has taken away something from the dumpee. They haven't. A relationship is a gift continually given by everyone involved; if I dump you, I have not taken anything away, I have just elected to stop giving. You keep saying that there is no obligation to explain anything, but then you turn around and say that The Decent Thing to Do is to explain. Isnt that an obligation? Are we not obligated to be decent anymore? And again, you are focused entirely on the feelings of the dumpee; the dumper may have very good reasons for not wanting to explain, as I said earlier.

Look at it this way: All relationships, without exception, end in either someone getting dumped or someone dying. Shouldnt you therefore be grateful this relationship ended in a dumping?

[Rowen]

Froborr,

My issue with what I'm reading is that it seems to place the feelings and emotions of the dumper over the dumpee. Again, it's usually more complicated then that. Not every dumpee is going to be an emotional and clingy, and not every dumper is going to be someone who feels that by ending the relationship, they need to enter the witness protection program. Does the guy I went on a date with last month owe me ANY sort of explination for why he said he wanted to see me again and then never called me back? I'm gonna go with no. It would be a nice, polite thing to do, though, since I waited a day, left him a message, waited another day, left him one last message and then took the hint or whatever was going on, and moved on. Now, when my first boyfriend dumped me after a long term relationship with no warning . . can we say that I was emotional? yes. Looking back, I don't think I got clingy or weird, though it felt weird since we had friends in common and I didn't get any reason until years later when he told me he just couldn't see us married, or something.

Just because the dumpee wants some sort of closure or something other then, "I'm not feeling it. Tootles!" doesn't automatically make the dumpee Elevator Man who refuses to understand the words No and Back Off!

[L. David Wheeler]

Froborr -
I meant that it's what *I* consider the decent thing for *me* to do if I ever were to initiate a breakup -- I'm trying to come from the perspective of the dump-er. And I understand that there are occasions in which the dump-er may not be able/willing/comfortable with giving a detailed explanation, and that's fine. I can't envision a scenario in which I wouldn't be able/willing/comfortable with doing so -- though now since I've said that, the scenario probably *will* arise in my life.

To me, it's just a courtesy, one that nobody is required to give -- but I consider *myself* required to, because I couldn't imagine *not* doing so. I mean, if I give a workplace the courtesy of a two-weeks notice before leaving*, I think the least I can do when leaving a primary relationship is give at least *some* clue as to why I've chosen to do so -- rather than just exiting their life with no warning, reason or notification.

Again, this applies to nobody but me -- it's a conviction that I don't consider binding on anybody else.

* Though it should be noted that I walked out of a job without notice once and never looked back, because it had gotten borderline abusive. There's an obvious parallel to be made there.

Completely off-topic, I tried your curry recipe a couple weeks ago. Although I overcooked the potatoes at the beginning, which affected the overall consistency of the dish, it was still Mighty Yummy. Many thanks!

[Steve Morrison]

So are you entitled to an explanation when your significant other unexpectedly tells you "the flowers are in the trash"?

[L. David Wheeler]

Froborr - To put it less wordily and convoluted than I've done so far, let's try this: Think of your loved ones, the ones who mean the most to you, the ones to whom you mean the most.

Can you picture any scenario in which you would just walk out of their lives, with no notification, warning, explanation -- without a word? (You may have very good reasons for walking out of their lives -- but could you ever see yourself just *disappearing* from their lives without the slightest intimation?) I could be wrong, but I don't think you would do that to your loved ones. Similarly, I don't think I could, either. And yeah, it might be painful for me to tell them why -- but I think it would be even *more* painful for me to think of the pain I've caused them by taking myself from their lives without notice or stated reason. To me, the worst pain I can think of is knowing I've caused others pain.

And yes, I realize that in the case of most relationships a breakup isn't going to just come out of nowhere so that the dump-ee is utterly clueless as to the nature of why or that there were any problems (unless he/she is particularly oblivious). And I'm fairly uncomfortable arguing this side of the issue, because by and large, I agree completely with Izzy and Sarah's post -- none of us are under any obligation to serve as information, enlightenment or entertainment source for anyone else, especially Random Stranger. I do think, though, that if I have contributed to the building of an emotional connection and I then sever that connection, I bear *some* responsibility for trying to minimize the pain and, more important, confusion that my actions have created. I may not be able to take away their pain (OR mine) -- but I can at least make sure there's no confusion.

This is all contingent on my being in an emotional place (as the dump-er) where I *am* able to communicate such. As you say, sometimes it's too painful to do so.

And my apologies for my contributions into derailing the thread into a discussion of breakup protocols, because that's a very tiny sliver of the greater issue of Izzy and Sarah's post, about not being obligated to satisfy other people's sense of entitledness.

[Kit Whitfield]

I have to say I'm a little perturbed by how quickly this conversation has turned into a search for and debate about examples where somebody does owe you an explanation. I mean, if somebody wants to break up with me then yes, I'd like at least some idea of why ... but the article didn't say anything to the contrary. It was just talking about 'Why don't you want to go out with me in the first place?' - which is a very different question.

Yet everyone seems on the hunt for circumstances in which you are owed an explanation, even if they're not relevant to the point being made. I can't help feeling there's a certain avoidance of the central message going on here.

[julie paradox]

Kit: I don't think it's avoidance of the central message so much as chasing after the side message wherever the gusts of wind may take it.

That's why derailing is so easy. Most participants don't need to be deliberate at all.

[Ross]

@Kit: I don't see that at all. If anything, it seems like people are trying to expand the point into less clear-cut areas by affirming that even in a long-term relationship, one party can dump the other with no warning, and the dumped person has absolutely no right to ask for or expect an explanation

[Kit Whitfield]

Kit: I don't think it's avoidance of the central message so much as chasing after the side message wherever the gusts of wind may take it.

I know; I'm just noting that I'm a little perturbed at which way the wind is blowing.

[Rowen]

Kit, I'm kinda on the same side as Ross. There's a lot of points that I read in the article that, at least to me, seem to be a given. When some random troll comes wandering onto this site and demanding that I explain to him why I feel like I should be married after thousands of years of biblical marriage. . .I might give him the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't last long, and once it becomes clear that this is a "You have to tolerate my intolerance or else that means you're intolerant!!" conversation, all bets are off. When Aunt Edna asks me why don't I want children . . . well, I can *kinda* understand why she might ask if this is the first time she's found this out. Yeah, it's frustrating, and invasive, and then I have choice to make of "Do I answer, and if so, how." If this is the 20th time, and she's never listened before, then, yes. She needs to realize it's not her life and move on and stop being a busy body.

Somehow, both a bit in the main thread, and in the comments, though, this seems to be translating into "I don't owe anyone any explanation for anything that doesn't concern them," which . . . well, in many cases, yeah, no one does. It does seem like a rather childish attitude to take, especially since this whole thing was based off a commercial for a sugary cereal geared towards kids. Which, I've always had a problem with, because if my mom asks me "Why do I like Apple Jacks, since they don't taste like apples . . ." I was raised to give her a better answer then "Because I just DO MOM, GAH!!! STOP INTRUDING ON MY LIFE!!!!!!!" Which, is also a different scenerio then if a PETA member shows up and asks me why I enjoy murdering animals while I'm trying to enjoy my breakfast.

[Izzy]

@Rowen: some self centered idiot who thinks that love only comes from people who are blonde, or 5'9, or rich, or whatever

Annd...again, here, you sound like you're blaming people for what they're attracted to or not. Which is bugging me, still.

Seriously, dude: if I could control who I wanted to bang, my life would be way easier. But...if blonde guys do it for me and other guys don't, then what the hell am I supposed to do? Grit my teeth and force myself to go for a redhead like I'm six years old and have to eat my Brussels sprouts? I don't want that; I don't want a guy who'd do that with me.

I'll give you "rich," though.

Also:

Which, I've always had a problem with, because if my mom asks me "Why do I like Apple Jacks, since they don't taste like apples . . ." I was raised to give her a better answer then "Because I just DO MOM, GAH!!! STOP INTRUDING ON MY LIFE!!!!!!!"

You were raised to comply with every single one of your parents' weird demands to explain the vagaries of your personal taste? I'm sorry to hear it.

Seriously, I don't see why "I don't owe anyone an explanation for anything that doesn't concern them," is childish. Certainly I think "People owe me an explanation for their personal lives" is far more so.

As far as the points seeming to be a given: dude, I wish.

And yet: Elevatorgate. Half the comments on Yo, Is This Racist? Guys coming on this actual site and demanding that we justify faith in whatever. Annnnd so on.

[Izzy]

On the Aunt Edna thing: I think it's pretty gauche of Aunt Edna to ask, and I'd roll my eyes. I wouldn't give her the full on "oh my GOD mind your own DAMN BUSINESS" lecture, in the interest of not making a scene, but...yeah, I think she should shut the hell up. Even the first time.

But, you know: relatives. All about the Shit You Shouldn't Ask About. It's why family gatherings should be rare and alcoholic.

[AnaMardoll]

I'll give you "rich," though.

Heh. Fanning the flames, I give you exhibit A: Ana.

I'm disabled enough to be in pain pretty much all the time, but not enough to stop working and live on the government pittance. I've known from my teens that this is my life and that, as I get older, it may become more and more painful for me to work.

What can I do? I need money to live. I need health insurance to not die.

I've dated poor* people, and even married one, but after a nasty breakup and and even nastier bout of paralysis for a week, I decided that I wasn't going to date anyone who didn't make at least as much as what I was making employed as a software engineer.

* The problem with talking about money in America is that terms like "poor", "middle class", "rich", etc. are hopelessly subjective. In this case, my first husband was a waiter with no college education; my second husband has a masters degree and is a software engineer.

NOT because I don't think there are really wonderful, awesome people out there that happen to make less than me. NOT because I don't think people who make less than me aren't hardworking, driven people. I absolutely do NOT think there is anything special about the number that a person makes...

...EXCEPT in so much as that number (and the health insurance along with it) allows me to literally *survive* in a future where I know I won't be able to take care of myself.

I hate that this is the case in my country. I hate that we don't have national health insurance and a better disability policy for people like me. I hate that people like me have to weigh "huh, do I cross out a huge potential selection for soul mates in exchange for basic survival, or no?"

But I also hate that the mere mention that money might matter to me in the world of romance makes me a GOLD-DIGGING HARLOT. When, you know, it's more complicated than that.** :)

** I get that this wasn't the situation being discussed above. But I thought I'd derail the derail. :)

[AnaMardoll]

Oh, and that last post was written with a smile. :) I realize no one HERE has called me ZE GOLD-DIGGING HARLOT. That has been limited to people in the real life. :D

[Froborr]

I am with Izzy on the Aunt Edna thing. I have taken to answering (and advising my fiancee to answer, though I think she thinks I'm joking) "When are you going to get married?" with "Exactly one year after the last time somebody asks me that question." For strangers and coworkers and casual acquiantances, it's none of their damn business; for family members, it's because I am sick of their implication that we are taking "too long."

[Ross]

There seems to be a segment of culture -- I think it may be heavily overlapped with geek culture but I dunno -- that operates from a fundamental assumption that if you can't logically justify an emotion, preference, or response, it isn't valid.

I run into this issue a lot with some people who are close to me, "I (don't) want to X" "Why not?" "I have no good reason, I just don't." "Your protest is noted, but since you have no good reason, I feel no compulsion to respect your wishes" (or "Okay. But you now owe me for indulging your irrational behavior".)

There's also a converse effect to this, in that a lot of people who behave this way also feel a need to justify their own preferences, biases, likes and dislikes, and that can be sort of pushy too, since it often leads to them beign unwilling to say "I don't like soup" but rather to launch into a six-page mathematical proof of why soup is objectively bad for all people in all places and all times. I frequently find myself feeling defensive and belittled because someone has felt the need to express their *personal* dislike of something in a way that (I feel) implies that anyone who feels differently is some form of wrong, a fool, or a monster

[Rowen]

Izzy,

I haven't met anyone yet who has ONLY found blonde guys, or redheads or short people attractive. I'm not saying you have to date people that you find unattractive, but I don't see much of a difference between "I refuse to date black guys" and "I refuse to date non-blonde." That being said, the people I've meet who DO have specific requirements, tend to have a long laundry list. So, it's not just "I prefer blondes" but "I only date white guys, who are over 6 feet tall, and naturally smooth, with a 6 pac, who are hung and financially well off, and have a great personality . . ." I have a type. I love curly hair. Doesn't mean I'm not going to date someone with straight hair. Lemme ask you a question though. Are you a gay man? Cause online dating for gay men is a VERY different world. I've talked to my straight male friends and my female friends and . . . if they aren't already aware of it, they're usually pretty shocked at how shallow and petty it is. Comparing it to the straight Match.com world doesn't add up. Just to let you know.

You were raised to comply with every single one of your parents' weird demands to explain the vagaries of your personal taste? I'm sorry to hear it

No, but I was raised to try and be polite when I see someone giving me a polite question. In this case, 12 year old me would answer, "I like the taste." and move on. I feel like those commercials were more aggressive/bitchy then that. YMMV though, and not everyone sees it as that.

Finally, I don't view the general sentiment of not owing people an explination as childish. I view this idea that any and all questions about my life are automatically going to be assumed as coming from a trolling place to be the problem.

[Froborr]

@Ross: I feel you on that last one, and agree wholeheartedly.

[Mmy]

I am with Kit in terms of finding the derail/drift rather unsettling.

You know how we sometimes give a "rape culture" trigger warning? I am thinking that we need to have a similar awareness of the fact that there is something that might be called "stalker culture." I own myself. Kit owns herself. Izzy owns herself. Sarah owns herself. Ana owns herself (and so forth.) None of us owe any explanation to anyone else as to why we "aren't that into them." Or that we have no desire to know more about them. Or even spend an instant in time with them.

As for the person who is "totally surprised" that the relationship split up -- I suggest that one of the reasons that the relationship split up was that the dumpee was so unaware of what was going on in the emotional life of the dumper that the dumpee was totally surprised by dumper ending the relationship.

[Rowen]

Maybe I'm just confused and over thinking this, but I'm getting the impression that for people on this thread "Y U NO TXT ME BACK!!!!!111111!!!!!E?LEVN" is the same thing as "I thought you were coming to my party. What happened?"

[Izzy]

TW: Body specifics.

@Ana: Oh, good point. And, indeed, I have a friend or two who wants to have kids and stay at home with them, or at least to work part-time, which means she wants a guy who has a decently-paying job. Which is fine.

So...yeah.

@Rowen: True, I'm not. Which I admitted.

But...the only examples you've given of being "petty and shallow" are things that get my back up as "bad points".

Because: I have a laundry list. Not as exhaustive as the example, but if I'm going to go to the trouble of going on a date, I want a guy who's taller than me, in pretty good shape, with a full head of hair and little on his face or body, without certain types of accent, pretty well-endowed, and so forth.

And, especially online, why should I date guys who don't fit that profile?

If I want to be charitable, I'll volunteer at a soup kitchen. And I know I don't want a pity fuck.

The list you mentioned? It's pretty specific. Gonna be pretty hard to fulfill. But that's the business of whatever guy or girl has it. Having those preferences *doesn't make them a bad person*, or a jerk, or whatever, and it sort of pisses me off to hear people talk like it does.

"I refuse to date black guys" and "I refuse to date non-blonde."

I don't either. But the negative thing I see there is "refuse."

I mean: I personally tend to be attracted to pasty white guys, for whatever reason. (It's probably horrible and Freudian, and best not looked at too closely, as with most matters of attraction.) There's not much I can do about that. But I'm not going to say "I refuse to date black guys," because...the world is full of surprises, not all black guys look the same, and so on.

[Izzy]

@Rowen: Well, yeah, kind of.

If someone doesn't come to my party and doesn't tell me why, I'm gonna assume that...stuff happened. He slept late, she got stomach flu, whatever. Shit happens. It's a party; there are presumably a bunch of other people around; bugging the person who didn't show up is both pathetic and annoying.

If they're a close friend, I might drop a "Hey, everything okay?" email. But otherwise, let it go.

[Kit Whitfield]

There seems to be a segment of culture -- I think it may be heavily overlapped with geek culture but I dunno -- that operates from a fundamental assumption that if you can't logically justify an emotion, preference, or response, it isn't valid.

I find that creepy as all get-out.

To begin with, it privileges the articulate. Some people happen to be good at justifying themselves. Emotions, desires and preferences seldom arise from a rational place no matter who we are, but some people are better at either explaining or rationalising those desires. Fine - but if it becomes a requirement before your feelings are respected, then people who struggle to understand or explain their own feelings, no matter how justified they might be, get relegated to second-class status.

(And as a side-effect, it puts an unfair burden on the non-abusive articulate. Both online and in person, I count the times I've observed somebody doing that to someone else - usually a man doing it to a woman - and had to step in and distract him. I can deal with verbal fisticuffs, and if I see someone swinging for a woman who can't, or can't right now, I feel obliged to step in and take it because I can. This is not how I want to spend an afternoon.)

More than that, it's a bullying license. I may explain my emotions, preferences or responses to someone who I think will listen respectfully, but if someone is antagonistic and unpleasant, I don't feel like laying my feelings out for them to stamp on. So if I don't feel safe doing that, does that mean I get presumed wrong? Because 'Justify your feelings before I respect them!' is frankly a pretty bullying statement to begin with: disrespect should not be your default attitude towards someone's feelings.

So if someone demands that I justify myself to them (on terms they've declared rational according to whatever suits their way of thinking), and if I don't feel like trying because it's just asking to be insulted further, and they then declare I'm wrong and that I owe them for not pushing the issue ... No. I owe them nothing. They owe me for being such a jerk in the first place.

Even a cursory look at neurology suggests that demanding that feelings be 'rational' is thoroughly irrational. And I have yet to see it used in a way that isn't bullying or disrespectful to others' experience in some way or other.

[Rowen]

I think it's not coming across then. There's usually been a mentality that comes with the laundry list, and it's often done by people who will have one small blurry picture of themselves, and then demand an entire portfolio from you and then dismiss you as not being in shape enough. You've gone above and beyond and they get to hide behind anonymity and be judgemental.

Do I think it's ok to have a list? Sure, why not. There's things I'd like to see in the guy I'm dating, but I also don't refuse to date someone who doesn't have those. And, as my racial minority friends have pointed out time and time again, it can smack of something more then "I like what I like." But, at the same time, I spent a long time having to school myself to realize "If someone's going to dismiss me JUST because I don't have a full head of hair, I've probably dodged a bullet and they weren't worth my time." Which I feel is a little more . .. self boosting then the phrase "there's someone for everyone" which just makes it feel like you haven't been searching hard enough.

[Rowen]

Izzy,

HERE'S my issue. . . the idea that simply sending a text saying "I thought you were gonna come. You ok? What happened? We missed you." is bugging the person who didn't show up is both pathetic and annoying.

I understand that there's a point in time where you need to take the hint, or are being too pushy or intrusive, but I'm getting the impression that ANY sort of questions are bugging, or intrusive. THAT'S my issue.

[Izzy]

@Mmy: Yes, thank you.

And yeah. I've been on the other end of that, and...yes, basically. Again, not the worst thing in the world to be that oblivious--everyone is eighteen sometime--but generally you can see it coming, either in drama or in "fleh"ness.

Like I said, I feel like some class in school or other should cover relationship dissolution, insofar as our culture is screwy about that.

@Ross: Yes. I get that from geeks a lot, though I also got it from older people about geeky things back in high school. ("Why do you waste your time reading fantasy?" and so forth.) And the reverse as well: I think that's one of the reasons why the various "childfree" communities online get so horrible.

Also the "I don't want to X" responded with otherwise trying to argue someone out of it. I do not like camping; I do not want to go on what amounts to a two-week camping trip in summer in PA, even if it is SCA-tastic; explaining how it's "not really camping" is not going to help, because you still have outdoor latrines, and shut up.

[Rowen]

Oh no. .. I messed up the italics!! I'm really sorry! I have no idea how to fix!

[Froborr]

@Kit: I absolutely agree, and I hope I didn't imply that I thought "explain your feelings or they don't count!" is at all an acceptable attitude. I don't think Ross was implying that, either.

I am really starting to get horribly disillusioned with geek culture. I have very strong preference to associate with geeks, and have met some truly wonderful geeks, but in the aggregate? I am really starting to think there is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with the geek culture above and beyond the things deeply, fundamentally wrong with the greater culture.

That or I'm just continuing my inevitable development into the crotchety old curmudgeon I have obviously been destined from birth to become.

[Izzy]

@Rowen: Frankly? From my perspective, depending on how well I know that person, that particular message would sound passive-aggressive and guilt-trippy.

Why didn't I come? Because my cat died. Because I'm having relationship troubles. Because I realized that someone I really dislike, or like a little too much, was on the guest list. Because I ate bad clams and spent the last three hours on the john. None of these are things I want to talk about with you.

Oh, and you missed me? And you thought I was going to come? Well, thanks. Now, on top of everything else, I feel like I've let you down. Fucking *great*.

There's things I'd like to see in the guy I'm dating, but I also don't refuse to date someone who doesn't have those.

Well, again: good for you. Why shouldn't I?

I mean, from my perspective, if I'm dating someone who doesn't have the traits I want...what do I get out of it? The chance to spend time with, and possibly fuck, someone who doesn't do it for me?

Gee. Second prize is *two* weeks in Philadelphia.

Do you really think I owe random online guys pity fucks?

There's usually been a mentality that comes with the laundry list, and it's often done by people who will have one small blurry picture of themselves, and then demand an entire portfolio from you and then dismiss you as not being in shape enough.

Okay, well, I can understand being pissed at that. Especially if the situation was an out-of-the-blue "you're not in shape enough." But still, the conflation bothers me.

[Froborr]

Context matters. Depending on context, "I thought you were gonna come. You ok? What happened? We missed you," can be an expression of concern, or it can be a passive-aggressive swipe, or it can be clingy and stalker-y.

For example, in the context of a post explaining how you don't get to demand information about other people's personal and inner lives--you accept it (or don't) when offered or accept that you're not going to get it--immediately responding by trying to carve out exceptions where it's okay to demand access to people's inner lives is pretty disturbingly missing the point.

[Izzy]

@Froborr: Yep. From my best friend, "Hey, honey! I missed you last night: everything okay?" is a sign that she loves me and wants to make sure I'm fine. From random guy I've met twice, or girl who seems way too invested in having everyone come to her events, not so much.

One of the things that really bugs me, speaking of stuff that may be a Geek Thing, is people who expect boundaries to be the same for everyone.

I've dealt with this a lot at various games. I don't have much modesty and I tend to work pretty blue; I'm also flirty and rather physical *with my close friends*. The guy I've known for five years can pick me up and spin me around, because I've *known him for five years* and I'm comfortable with him. You, Random Freshman Who Wants Attention, are gonna get a death glare and my best imitation of my mom's Young Man, Stop That At Once voice. And no, you don't get to pout about it.

[Rowen]

Izzy,

I don't think we're communicating properly.

1) If ANY of my friends gave me indication that they might come to an event and then told me I was being stalkerish and passive aggressive for saying "We missed you! hope everything's ok!" I'd seriously be reconsidering that relationship.

2) I never said you had to pity fuck or date anyone you're not into. stop putting words in my mouth, because I was pretty sure I was VERY clear up thread. Long laundry lists of deal breakers have usually equated to someone who's not worth my time even arguing with.

[Rowen]

Yep. From my best friend, "Hey, honey! I missed you last night: everything okay?" is a sign that she loves me and wants to make sure I'm fine. From random guy I've met twice, or girl who seems way too invested in having everyone come to her events, not so much.

Maybe, again, I'm just not communicating, because THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO POINT OUT.

[Froborr]

@Izzy: Yes! I think it is related to both Nice Guy Syndrome and "pick-up artists," actually... this notion that interacting with other people is a solvable social engineering problem, and if you just found the right behavioral algorithms for your own actions, other people would respond the way you want them to and do everything you want.

Damn, I never actually wrote that out in words before... it is even creepier than it was in my head.

[Izzy]

Rowen:

1) Well, I'd hope so, though see context. Because the initial message you presented was something that would bother me to get from my *mom*, let alone a casual friend.

2) No, you're just insulting everyone who doesn't.

When you use words like "Jerk," or phrases like "Petty and shallow" or "not worth my time" about people who, you know, have a lot of criteria that you don't approve of for a sexual partner, then your implication is pretty clear.

In other words: I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just using the ones you seem to be dancing around.

[Froborr]

@Rowen: Can't speak for Izzy, but I definitely did not get that that was what you were trying to say; I got that you were saying almost the opposite--that questions like that are always acceptable.

[Izzy]

@Froborr: ...guh, yeah.

And some of it is, is the thing. It's just that "the right behavioral algorithms" translate to "being a decent and engaging person" and, even so, you're not going to get everything you want. People will just stand a better chance of liking you.

@Rowen: Hm. I think it might be, then--the important things to me in my version are the "best friend" context, which you didn't mention, and the fact that my version of the message doesn't repeat the "we missed you/thought you'd show up" point more than once.

[AnaMardoll]

[TW: Shaming Language]

(It's probably horrible and Freudian, and best not looked at too closely, as with most matters of attraction.)

LOL! Complete derail: My father gave some of his old t-shirts to my husband a few weeks back. A few days ago, I realized that if I squinted *just do* at Husband, while he wears a certain shirt, he KINDA LOOKS LIKE MY DAD.

I'm pretty blase about the Freudian stuff, so I just thought it was funny, especially as their personalities are nothing alike and even the physical similarities are more impressions that only I would notice as opposed to strangers picking them out as twins. But I thought it was hilarious.

Back on derail!

In the one case where I had ZERO CLUE as to the break-up, this was in college and both I and he had never dated before and came from a super-conservative Christian culture. I *think* that my drive for physical affection (kissing, and did I mention we were super-conservative Christians?) was something he couldn't deal with at the time, by which I mean that he seemed into it in the moment, but then wracked with guilt later when I wasn't there to observe him. I base this impression on things that happened afterwards, but in the moment of the break-up, yeah, I had zero clue.

I don't think I ever could have guessed that, just because I wasn't really in tune with the "into it in the moment, feel guilty later" concept. If I felt guilt about something, it was always in the moment AND later. (That line in Sense and Sensibility about "If it'd been wrong, I'd have been conscious of it and unable to enjoy it" oh dear god but that was unironically me at that age. Only for realz.)

Still, I felt bad about the whole thing because I never meant to make him feel uncomfortable. But I do appreciate in retrospect that his "no real reason" break-up was trying to save him from calling me a Slutty McSlutsterson for wanting to kiss him on our dates. :) So TL;DR, I agree with Izzy that it's best not to press for a reason that you aren't really going to like and wouldn't have helped in the next relationship anyway and would have just given me a complex about kissing. :)

[AnaMardoll]

Grr. Squinted *just SO*. Not *just do*.

[hapax]

@Rowen -- I don't mean to dogpile on you, but I think that "context matters" implies that once I try to stretch a specific situation to a general rule of behavior, it starts to feel a bit scary and creepy.

In other words, my best friend wouldn't have to worry as to whether "Hey, we missed U" was intrusive or stalker-ish -- zie already knows me well enough to know how I would feel about it.

If I find myself wondering whether sending such a message is appropriate... then odds are, it isn't.

[Rowen]

And of course, my brain would turn on 20 minutes after the fact.

I think there's a BIG difference between "I'm usually attracted to guys who are tall, thin and have long hair" and "No fatties, femmes, or black guys." I think you're talking about the former, and I'm talking about the latter.

[Will Wildman]

I am really starting to get horribly disillusioned with geek culture. I have very strong preference to associate with geeks, and have met some truly wonderful geeks, but in the aggregate? I am really starting to think there is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with the geek culture above and beyond the things deeply, fundamentally wrong with the greater culture.

That or I'm just continuing my inevitable development into the crotchety old curmudgeon I have obviously been destined from birth to become.

Yup. Quoth Munroe, "I need to get a lawn so I can yell at kids to get off it."

I think we are all pretty familiar with the (Not Really A) Nice Guy concept, and to an ever-greater degree I feel like that's just a specific formula of a broader and more generic issue that's pretty common among geeks. Nice Guy is to this broader issue as Special Relativity is to General Relativity. I'd suggest it's an overall tendency to try to reduce human interaction to deterministic laws and principles. The Nice Guy thinks that inputting the right behaviours to a friendship will automatically upgrade it to a romantic relationship. The broader Geek issue is a desire for all statements and positions to be justified according to clear and hard logic. In both of these cases, the result is that if the NG or geek in question doesn't get what they want, they can then point at the rules or attack the presented justifications and, in their mind, ultimately argue their way into getting what they want. It is a quest to be able to argue against emotions.

For people who don't easily intuit a lot of social things, rules can be useful (like those put forth in this article here - no, even if I'm really honestly curious, there are social reasons why it's a bad idea to ask why I've been rejected) and geek culture already has rules for so many things - programming has rules, RPGs have rules, science nominally has rules, and depending who you talk to, genre fiction has rules (this is where stuff like TVtropes stops being amusing and starts being irritating, even if one was initially a fan). I think some people have a tendency to forget that the rules we write down to describe the real world (science, interpersonal relationships) rather than a construct (C++, D&D) are proxies, reminders of things that we have observed or inferred, not actual laws that must be adhered to. Throw in a certain amount of indifference or malevolence ("It doesn't matter if I'm making you unhappy as long as I'm following the rules") and you get something deeply messed up.

TL;DR: Pathological rules-lawyering is what I'm getting at.

[Rowen]

hapax,

That's kinda what I got with the second set of questions in the post above. Like, I can think of SO many ways they're annoying and stalkerish and rude and intrusive, but I can also think of so many ways that they're not, and in those situations (i can't stress this enough, because I seem to be not being able to), if I was greeted, by a friend, with a "IT JUST IS!!!" *door slam* I'd be reconsidering if this is someone I really want in my life.

[Kit Whitfield]

I am really starting to get horribly disillusioned with geek culture. I have very strong preference to associate with geeks, and have met some truly wonderful geeks, but in the aggregate? I am really starting to think there is something deeply, fundamentally wrong with the geek culture above and beyond the things deeply, fundamentally wrong with the greater culture.

That or I'm just continuing my inevitable development into the crotchety old curmudgeon I have obviously been destined from birth to become.

Outsider's perspective? Every subculture has a natural lifespan.

A subculture can rumble along in the sidelines peacefully for decades, but once it reaches a certain critical mass in terms of size and prominence, things start to move to a climax, and then through to a decadent phase. Initial traits get exaggerated as people start influencing each other to the exclusion of outside influences; pressure builds, driving away the moderates; reaction from the mainstream feeds a sense of persecution; fresh new ideas get repeated to staleness or exaggerated to grotesquerie; the world doesn't change into a Glorious New Day and people are still people with the same old problems they've always had ... and so it becomes more and more only the hard core want to stay in, and it's all down hill from there. The more insular a subculture is, the more extreme the phenomenon is - and the geek subculture is very insular indeed.

Subcultures can't carry on for ever. The good ideas they had will survive them, but there comes a day when it's time to start breeding out again. You know that this was the first year where Crufts made a point of excluding winning dogs that had the perfect 'breed standard' look but also the health problems that the inbreeding produces? The dogs have been bred to such a subculturally-determined standard that both incidental and inherent health problems have resulted: recessive genetic problems such as kidney disorders are rife, and so are the problems that come from being bred to an unhealthily exaggerated 'look' - cocker spaniels, for instance, often have terrible neurological problems because they've been bred to have skulls too small for their brains. Living creatures do not thrive on too much inturning, and the more people reward each other for being more and more Platonically this or that, the quicker the end will come.

[AnaMardoll]

Living creatures do not thrive on too much inturning, and the more people reward each other for being more and more Platonically this or that, the quicker the end will come.

o.O

Someone needs to tell Mr. Beaver from Narnia.

[Izzy]

@Rowen: Oh! Yeah, that makes way more sense. And a lot of that comes down to sort of the flip side of the same thing, as Ross and Froborr were mentioning with other stuff: don't express your preferences, especially in public, in a way that denigrates everyone else or their deal.

Because if you don't subscribe to the Fallacy of Obligatory Justification, you'll be more likely to just say that you like short guys, because you like short guys, other people like tall guys, whatever. Whereas if you think you have to justify your preferences, you're more likely to throw around a lot of attitude about oh my God how could anyone ever want to go over 5'6? And so forth.

The need for justification leads to the urge for universal conversion, at its worst.

@Froborr: Jesus, yeah. Never thought of it that way, but...yes.

Heh. And it does translate pretty well to the rules lawyers I've gamed with. Not that they were PUA creepers, though some were unduly fucking whiny about how the girls didn't like them, but there was definitely the same attitude that the rules were the important thing, and breaking them, even for a greater purpose, was the most horrible act anyone could possibly take.

[Kit Whitfield]

LOL! Complete derail: My father gave some of his old t-shirts to my husband a few weeks back. A few days ago, I realized that if I squinted *just do* at Husband, while he wears a certain shirt, he KINDA LOOKS LIKE MY DAD.

I'm pretty blase about the Freudian stuff, so I just thought it was funny, especially as their personalities are nothing alike and even the physical similarities are more impressions that only I would notice as opposed to strangers picking them out as twins. But I thought it was hilarious.

I've got one to match. One Christmas fairly early in our relationship, my husband bought a book as a gift for my father. (It was The Meaning of Tingo, if anyone's interested. ) He leafed through it before wrapping it up, enjoying it so much he debated whether or not he wanted to part with it.

Eventually, however, he decided to be nice, and gave it to my father. My father unwrapped it, took a look ... and laughed. And passed my husband his Christmas present: a signed copy of The Meaning of Tingo. As he passed it over, he remarked he was pleased to get a copy of his own, because he'd been debating whether or not he wanted to part with my husband's copy.

Hello Dr Freud. But hey, I like my dad, and he's been happily married to my mother for decades, so there are worse men to marry. Consider it taking on a tested model, perhaps. And at least it means my parents and husband get along!

[Izzy]

@Ana: Hee! Yeah. My tendency toward guys who can speak German...probably not actively Freudian, as I mostly find out after I've started dating 'em, but a little disturbing when I think about it.

@Rowen: Well, I gotta say, I can't think of any way that "Why don't you want kids?" or "Why don't you want to go out with me?" are not intrusive and rude. "Why aren't you coming?", in most cases, likewise: "Why didn't you come?" still is, though "Is everything okay?" is fine if you're close. And "Why do you like this thing?"...mm. With that particular phrasing, it's generally a demand for justification. "Sounds interesting. Tell me about it?" would be fine.

But really, if someone I thought was a friend demanded to know why I wouldn't go out with him, or made me explain why I didn't want kids? I'd be pretty happy to have him out of my life.

[Rowen]

@Izzy,

Ok, good. This has less been about justification and more about not being a jerk, in my mind. Well, sorta. i think i'm gonna step back before I put my foot further in my mouth.

[Rowen]

Are we only asking those specific questions? I was reading it as more "questions regarding these topics."

For example, a few years ago, I was with some friend of mine who had recently been married and had just bought a house. I was hanging out with the husband, and just asked, "are you guys thinking about kids?" he said no, and I left it at that. The way I read the article, even asking that question would be considered gauche. However, if we're talking about strangers interrupting you or Aunt Edna bringing it up for the 158th time, that's a different story.

[Will Wildman]

A subculture can rumble along in the sidelines peacefully for decades, but once it reaches a certain critical mass in terms of size and prominence, things start to move to a climax, and then through to a decadent phase.

I hadn't considered applying this kind of arc (usually associated with whole civilisations, I think) to subcultures within them, but it's a good perspective - I think it gives the right kind of framework to view the backlash of 'geek culture' against those who are trying to fight that insularity (e.g., the attacks against BioWare's Jennifer Hepler).

New personal motto: "Eagerly awaiting the burning of Geek Rome".