Nerd Pride Radio

The following assumes that everything Dykstra described actually happened:

Her story describes a relationship in which one partner has quite a bit of power over the other. She talks about refusing his demands and him responding with implied threats of hurting her emotionally, socially, and professionally--all of which he had the power to do.

After they separated, he used his power to hurt her emotionally, socially, and professionally--demonstrating that he indeed had both the ability and will to follow through on his implied threats.

To me, I don't see this being strikingly different from the stereotypical Mad Men era executive who gets his secretary to "agree" to a relationship with him, because she understands that if she doesn't, she will lose her livelihood and her social circle and will probably no longer be able to find a job at all in this area/field.

I feel like Mike and I have voiced the same opinions about this. That's weird.

You're a peach, Mike- and I love you.

Thanks!

Slippery slopes aren't a concern when we have a very clear line separating them: "no". Refusal. Not going along with it, not agreeing. I acknowledge that people struggle even over what it means to say no or to agree, but I still think it's a clear and bright line that we should use both to avoid slippery slope territory and to impose legal sanction on those who cross the line. Please keep in mind I have heard stories like, "It was my fault because I agreed to it - after all, I agreed to meet my ex in the abandoned alleyway where he beat me with a 2x4 and then raped me, and that was a dumb choice on my part so obviously I can't go to the police/hospital/court..." But it is stories like these, and the suffering of the people who tell them, that motivate me to understand and respect their agency and not try to equate that kind of inner anguish with other situations. To make this distinction in no way diminishes the suffering of people who were treated badly in other ways, or overlooks the awful behavior of people who treated others badly in other ways. It just means they were treated badly in a different way, one that did not involve a forcible violation of their sexual agency and bodily autonomy.

I also think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying about Dykstra's case in particular. What she described was not assault, based solely on the words she put on the page, but I have been quite clear that doesn't mean she wasn't assaulted in the life that was lived outside of and beyond those words! When you say, I agreed to this thing, many times, though I did it under emotional duress for bad reasons that I blame another person for putting on me, then I think you have suffered something awful, yet it's also a different thing from what sexual assault survivors have suffered.

And again I shall sit on my hands and not say the other things that I feel tempted to remark upon, here where I thought I was generally "among friends" even if I am a pest and a bother.

I agree with Pheob that words matter and how we use them matter. I read the blog post and it seems a reach to blame Hardwick 100 percent for the pressure to be young and pretty in LA...especially someone in her line of work whose bread and butter is to present hyper sexualised versions of cartoon characters.

You aren't treating emotional abuse seriously by making that distinction. We need research, doctors, therapists, and treatment dedicated to emotional abuse and its effects on mental health, decision making, and consent. To say victims under duress are in full control of their decision making is dangerous. I'm pretty sure we can accomplish this without lessening, one bit, any claim of sexual assault or rape by any victim, both male or female.

Then I've never consented to anything, because as a survivor of abuse(even currently ongoign abuse) I don't have the ability to consent. What? No. That's stupid. Don't be stupid, it hurts.

There's not much to talk about. Old habits are engrained, and life is what it is. I'm making the best decisions I can. Well, maybe not the absolute best, but atleast nominally normal and

But, I think you're spot on with recognizing Agency for women(really, lets say everyone, but we're talking about women's agency right now) and empowering it, and not taking away from it. Abusive relationships are bad, but sometimes they are atleast co-dependent, and you have to recognize that. Abuse can also go both ways, with both parties being responsible for some pretty bad shit. Doesn't excuse rape or violence, but just saying: some times two people can just be absolutely the worst thing for each other. I don't know if it applies in any of the celebrity cases discussed. Not really a thing i worry about, as I don't participate a lot in popular culture.

Being abusive is bad, but it might not be rapey. Rape is bad, don't rape. Get consent.

On a different tangent: we currently live in an amazing time, technology wise. Genetic engineering offers the ability to pack thousands of years of selective breeding into a few hours(or years, if you count the research necessary to figure out how and what you are changing). Networking and artificial intelligence are both becoming extremely advanced and widespread, though the AI definitely needs some improvement. Electronics get smaller and cheaper and better. Oh, and sex dolls. And really fuzzy rules about ownership of genetic material.

The electronic sex dolls bother me, in general. Anyone else a little weirded out about this?

So, is this the time we bring up gun control?

I hated Kyle before it was trendy. Before his family even hated him. Before the Animaball break-up over "creative differences." Before the Dad Jokes. I believe I've hated him for all of time and space.

We're the Big Bang, ancient enemy.

Edit: This is what happens when you don't visit for a while and totally miss when the joke opportunity passed by a while back. Go me.

Phoebe, I will actually take your point in good faith and concede that we should be precise in our wording on this topic. I'll also admit that I'm not an expert and I don't know whether to specifically call it sexual abuse or emotional abuse or another term.

But none of that changes that the behavior, if true, is reprehensible and worthy of condemnation.

Also, I am at a complete loss with how shaming abusers - sexual, emotional, or otherwise - diminishes the agency of the victim. It's not a binary.