<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Passive aggression: Not for amateurs</title>
	<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: River</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435693</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:09:35 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435693</guid>
					<description>My late husband, Bob, was particularly objectionable in his looking, but one time really stands out: we were at BayCon and kissing like newlyweds (which we were) in one of the main hallways. I had my eyes closed when I started to feel myself being turned. I tried to break away from the kiss but could not. I got turned in a nearly 360 circle, as he kept forcing a kiss on me while (it turned out) ogling an attractive woman in a swimsuit walking by.

I did, of course, say something about this, and not at all passive-aggressively; I attacked the matter at its head. That was how I found out about the woman in the swimsuit. Bob told me that he was only looking, which was harmless, and that he was with me. Well, there is a difference between looking harmlessly and ogling, and certainly a difference between looking harmlessly and ogling as you turn your wife in a circle while you're kissing her, so that you can get a better look. I wasn't bothered by &quot;just looking&quot;, as we had agreed that both sexes look and that harmless looking bothered no one. But this still bothers me to this day, five years after his death and 18 years after it happened.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>My late husband, Bob, was particularly objectionable in his looking, but one time really stands out: we were at BayCon and kissing like newlyweds (which we were) in one of the main hallways. I had my eyes closed when I started to feel myself being turned. I tried to break away from the kiss but could not. I got turned in a nearly 360 circle, as he kept forcing a kiss on me while (it turned out) ogling an attractive woman in a swimsuit walking by.</p>
	<p>I did, of course, say something about this, and not at all passive-aggressively; I attacked the matter at its head. That was how I found out about the woman in the swimsuit. Bob told me that he was only looking, which was harmless, and that he was with me. Well, there is a difference between looking harmlessly and ogling, and certainly a difference between looking harmlessly and ogling as you turn your wife in a circle while you&#8217;re kissing her, so that you can get a better look. I wasn&#8217;t bothered by &#8220;just looking&#8221;, as we had agreed that both sexes look and that harmless looking bothered no one. But this still bothers me to this day, five years after his death and 18 years after it happened.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: PhysioProf</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435460</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:09:07 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435460</guid>
					<description>My strong suspicion is that Tennis gives advice that is specifically designed to totally outrage one or more segments of Salon's readership, and also to set different segments against one another. He is, I suspect, basically trolling for flame wars (i.e., clicks for Salon).

BTW, that is why I find his comment threads entertaining and, sometimes, informative. Tennis is really just an effective carnival barker.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>My strong suspicion is that Tennis gives advice that is specifically designed to totally outrage one or more segments of Salon&#8217;s readership, and also to set different segments against one another. He is, I suspect, basically trolling for flame wars (i.e., clicks for Salon).</p>
	<p>BTW, that is why I find his comment threads entertaining and, sometimes, informative. Tennis is really just an effective carnival barker.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: It&#8217;s just a gentlemanly game of checking out that ass &laquo; yellow is the color&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435370</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:47:37 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435370</guid>
					<description>[...] It&amp;#8217;s just a gentlemanly game of checking out that&amp;nbsp;ass Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon comments on the passive aggressive nature of Cary Tennis&amp;#8217;s advice/response to this letter.Â  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] It&#8217;s just a gentlemanly game of checking out that&nbsp;ass Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon comments on the passive aggressive nature of Cary Tennis&#8217;s advice/response to this letter.Â  [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Amanda Marcotte</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435352</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:24:30 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435352</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;My partner is a very striking woman who has gotten more so with age. I am in constant awe that at 68 she has a figure that draws every eye in a room. Now is there something wrong with that?&lt;/i&gt;

If the men looking at your prize-wife are doing so in a way that makes their own wives feel inferior and unwanted, yes.  

Nope, I still don't see any excuse for making your significant other feel like they're second choice.  No one's offered a reasonable excuse for exploiting basic human insecurities to get a leg up on someone yet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>My partner is a very striking woman who has gotten more so with age. I am in constant awe that at 68 she has a figure that draws every eye in a room. Now is there something wrong with that?</i></p>
	<p>If the men looking at your prize-wife are doing so in a way that makes their own wives feel inferior and unwanted, yes.  </p>
	<p>Nope, I still don&#8217;t see any excuse for making your significant other feel like they&#8217;re second choice.  No one&#8217;s offered a reasonable excuse for exploiting basic human insecurities to get a leg up on someone yet.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Amanda Marcotte</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435339</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:59:38 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435339</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;That seems to describe your relationship, doesnâ€™t it? Perhaps Iâ€™m a bit old-fashioned (I certainly am old) so perhaps â€œmarriageâ€? should be defined as a â€œlife-long commitmentâ€?.&lt;/i&gt;

My attitudes about relationships are perhaps a tad more bohemian than most.  I see no reason to get married, at least before you're getting up in years where the financial benefits become more inescapable.  As an institution, I don't really care for it, no.  I'm admittedly weird on this, but my point remains: Long-term monogamous relationships that may or may not have marriage as an endpoint are incredibly common and recognized.  They're &quot;committed&quot; on a certain level, in that most people have a time after they've been dating for a bit that they agree to monogamy.  Once that's happened, you're not married....but you're definitely not single.

&lt;em&gt;But the idea that because you are dating a guy that he must never look for something better is silly.&lt;/em&gt;

No, I think it's just basic morality not to entangle someone in a LTR, married or not, if you're going to be unfaithful.  If you're not happy, move on.  Whether or not you're married is irrelevant to that point.
&lt;em&gt;
fishboots- I think I made it clear that I agree with you and Amanda. My point was about the young woman complaining because she was dating a guy and he still was up on the dating web site. Unless you have a long term relationship with some sort of commitment, I donâ€™t think you should expect your boyfriend to swear off all other females unless he is actually with you.&lt;/em&gt;

Well, we assume that they are in a committed relationship, because she used the word &quot;boyfriend&quot;.  Plus he reassures her he's not cheating, implying that there's a prior agreement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>That seems to describe your relationship, doesnâ€™t it? Perhaps Iâ€™m a bit old-fashioned (I certainly am old) so perhaps â€œmarriageâ€? should be defined as a â€œlife-long commitmentâ€?.</i></p>
	<p>My attitudes about relationships are perhaps a tad more bohemian than most.  I see no reason to get married, at least before you&#8217;re getting up in years where the financial benefits become more inescapable.  As an institution, I don&#8217;t really care for it, no.  I&#8217;m admittedly weird on this, but my point remains: Long-term monogamous relationships that may or may not have marriage as an endpoint are incredibly common and recognized.  They&#8217;re &#8220;committed&#8221; on a certain level, in that most people have a time after they&#8217;ve been dating for a bit that they agree to monogamy.  Once that&#8217;s happened, you&#8217;re not married&#8230;.but you&#8217;re definitely not single.</p>
	<p><em>But the idea that because you are dating a guy that he must never look for something better is silly.</em></p>
	<p>No, I think it&#8217;s just basic morality not to entangle someone in a LTR, married or not, if you&#8217;re going to be unfaithful.  If you&#8217;re not happy, move on.  Whether or not you&#8217;re married is irrelevant to that point.<br />
<em><br />
fishboots- I think I made it clear that I agree with you and Amanda. My point was about the young woman complaining because she was dating a guy and he still was up on the dating web site. Unless you have a long term relationship with some sort of commitment, I donâ€™t think you should expect your boyfriend to swear off all other females unless he is actually with you.</em></p>
	<p>Well, we assume that they are in a committed relationship, because she used the word &#8220;boyfriend&#8221;.  Plus he reassures her he&#8217;s not cheating, implying that there&#8217;s a prior agreement.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Sheelzebub</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435328</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:23:36 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435328</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;The post trackbacking this one is cracking me up. The mind boggles.&lt;/i&gt;

He posts so obsessively about Amanda that I'm starting to think this is a crush, schoolboy style, on his part.

&lt;i&gt;Although, she does have a â€œthingâ€? for Rachel Ray. Does ogling women on TV count?&lt;/i&gt;

I know a few people who have a thing for Rachel Ray.  I know it's fashionable in some foodie circles to hate her, but I kinda like her.  I think she's a scream.

WRT &quot;it's only looking, stop yer whining you manhaterz!!1!&quot;--The defensiveness in some quarters over women pointing out that checking out other women so &lt;i&gt;obviously&lt;/i&gt; (and in front of your girlfriend) is well, fucking rude.  Jeez.  I check guys out all the time, but a) I don't do it in front of someone I'm involved with and b) I don't ogle and make myself look like a desperate, entitled sniveling jackass.

IOW: A hot guy walks by and I'll think &quot;Wow, he's hot.&quot; If I'm with a woman friend, I might even say to her very quietly, &quot;He's hot, isn't he?&quot; NOT &quot;I'd like to hit that&quot; &quot;
I'd like to get in on that action&quot; or &quot;I'd like to fuck that.&quot;  I notice, think, move on.  I don't turn my head or look him up and down or any of that shit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>The post trackbacking this one is cracking me up. The mind boggles.</i></p>
	<p>He posts so obsessively about Amanda that I&#8217;m starting to think this is a crush, schoolboy style, on his part.</p>
	<p><i>Although, she does have a â€œthingâ€? for Rachel Ray. Does ogling women on TV count?</i></p>
	<p>I know a few people who have a thing for Rachel Ray.  I know it&#8217;s fashionable in some foodie circles to hate her, but I kinda like her.  I think she&#8217;s a scream.</p>
	<p>WRT &#8220;it&#8217;s only looking, stop yer whining you manhaterz!!1!&#8221;&#8211;The defensiveness in some quarters over women pointing out that checking out other women so <i>obviously</i> (and in front of your girlfriend) is well, fucking rude.  Jeez.  I check guys out all the time, but a) I don&#8217;t do it in front of someone I&#8217;m involved with and b) I don&#8217;t ogle and make myself look like a desperate, entitled sniveling jackass.</p>
	<p>IOW: A hot guy walks by and I&#8217;ll think &#8220;Wow, he&#8217;s hot.&#8221; If I&#8217;m with a woman friend, I might even say to her very quietly, &#8220;He&#8217;s hot, isn&#8217;t he?&#8221; NOT &#8220;I&#8217;d like to hit that&#8221; &#8221;<br />
I&#8217;d like to get in on that action&#8221; or &#8220;I&#8217;d like to fuck that.&#8221;  I notice, think, move on.  I don&#8217;t turn my head or look him up and down or any of that shit.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Masculinity and its Discontents &raquo; Blog Archive &raquo; Looking at women</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435319</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:09:29 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435319</guid>
					<description>[...] Amanda at Pandagon has a nice post up about an issue that we&amp;#8217;ve done some talkin&amp;#8217; &amp;#8217;bout here at MAID &amp;#8212; men and their looking at women. She&amp;#8217;s annoyed not with men (like us) who like looking at attractive women, but rather with men who can&amp;#8217;t tell the difference between a kind of looking that&amp;#8217;s appropriately discrete and a kind of looking that&amp;#8217;s demeaning to the women being ogled and/or to the women (i.e. the girlfriends or wives) who the leerers are ignoring (or secretly trying to humiliate) while they&amp;#8217;re checking out the other women. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] Amanda at Pandagon has a nice post up about an issue that we&#8217;ve done some talkin&#8217; &#8217;bout here at MAID &#8212; men and their looking at women. She&#8217;s annoyed not with men (like us) who like looking at attractive women, but rather with men who can&#8217;t tell the difference between a kind of looking that&#8217;s appropriately discrete and a kind of looking that&#8217;s demeaning to the women being ogled and/or to the women (i.e. the girlfriends or wives) who the leerers are ignoring (or secretly trying to humiliate) while they&#8217;re checking out the other women. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: BoN</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435285</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:17:08 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435285</guid>
					<description>Tom sounds like he's from my mom's generation, where young people either &quot;date&quot; or &quot;go steady.&quot;  It was hell trying to explain to her when I was in high school how so-and-so's boyfriend was being a jerk by going after other girls, because in my mom's eyes, high school students shouldn't/don't &quot;go steady.&quot;  Just adults.

Boy, if that doesn't make my mom (she's not even 60) sound like Marge Simpson ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Tom sounds like he&#8217;s from my mom&#8217;s generation, where young people either &#8220;date&#8221; or &#8220;go steady.&#8221;  It was hell trying to explain to her when I was in high school how so-and-so&#8217;s boyfriend was being a jerk by going after other girls, because in my mom&#8217;s eyes, high school students shouldn&#8217;t/don&#8217;t &#8220;go steady.&#8221;  Just adults.</p>
	<p>Boy, if that doesn&#8217;t make my mom (she&#8217;s not even 60) sound like Marge Simpson &#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: BadKitty</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435276</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:01:10 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435276</guid>
					<description>Thank you, Sheelzebub, for bringing that up.  Since I'm involved with another woman, I don't really care for any male attention but there's a huge difference between being noticed and being ogled.  To me, &quot;noticing&quot; means looking away quickly or smiling when I catch them &quot;noticing&quot; me.  &quot;Ogling&quot; means continuing to look me up and down or staring at my chest after I catch them.  The former could be taken as a compliment or just friendliness.  The latter is obviously intimidation and dominance.  If I feel like prey, it's not a compliment.

I'd also like to make note of the fact that when I'm with my partner, I'm usually paying attention to her and thus rarely notice other woman.  And if I did notice someone, I'm certainly going to turn away and go back to paying attention to my partner.  A quick peek is not worth hurting my partner's feelings or making her feel inadequate.  Although, she does have a &quot;thing&quot; for Rachel Ray.  Does ogling women on TV count?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Thank you, Sheelzebub, for bringing that up.  Since I&#8217;m involved with another woman, I don&#8217;t really care for any male attention but there&#8217;s a huge difference between being noticed and being ogled.  To me, &#8220;noticing&#8221; means looking away quickly or smiling when I catch them &#8220;noticing&#8221; me.  &#8220;Ogling&#8221; means continuing to look me up and down or staring at my chest after I catch them.  The former could be taken as a compliment or just friendliness.  The latter is obviously intimidation and dominance.  If I feel like prey, it&#8217;s not a compliment.</p>
	<p>I&#8217;d also like to make note of the fact that when I&#8217;m with my partner, I&#8217;m usually paying attention to her and thus rarely notice other woman.  And if I did notice someone, I&#8217;m certainly going to turn away and go back to paying attention to my partner.  A quick peek is not worth hurting my partner&#8217;s feelings or making her feel inadequate.  Although, she does have a &#8220;thing&#8221; for Rachel Ray.  Does ogling women on TV count?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Rumblelizard</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435268</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:53:04 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/23/passive-aggression-not-for-amateurs/#comment-435268</guid>
					<description>Noticing: A person is walking past me.

Ogling: Wow, check that hottt-ass fucktoy walking past me! *lascivious stare*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Noticing: A person is walking past me.</p>
	<p>Ogling: Wow, check that hottt-ass fucktoy walking past me! *lascivious stare*
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

