Giving in to DH's porn "needs" = Good Wife or Bad Wife?

[Anonymous]

Man, new poster to this thread. I have never engaged with you before, but I refer to straw men all the time no this site and elsewhere. Are you somehow under the impression that you are the only one who understands the term?

And if you are trying to bust someone for sock puppets, I suggest that you post to Jeff on website feedback. He can - and usually does - check on that.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

I won't be saying anything more here, but she hides behind the anonymity despite the fact that I've repeatedly busted her. Her latest tell is her compulsive reference to straw man arguments, which concept she lifted from me after I called her on them. Clearly, she found it catchy and started using it all the time.

As I said, I won't be posting here further. Watch for multiple posts from her sock puppets defending her. BTW - I feel dumb for not thinking of it sooner - the first post defending her may well have just been her.

If you're referring to post 8:46, that's not church lady posting to defend herself. That was me, the PP who masturbates to trannies and 18 year olds.

If church lady is a perpetual sock puppet and that's why she's being ridiculed, I didn't know that. I skip over very long and/or religious posts most of the time, so I wouldn't be able to recognize her from thread to thread.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Man, new poster to this thread. I have never engaged with you before, but I refer to straw men all the time no this site and elsewhere. Are you somehow under the impression that you are the only one who understands the term?

Yes - that's EXACTLY my perspective. And that's EXACTLY what I said, too, as you can read.

Anonymous wrote:And if you are trying to bust someone for sock puppets, I suggest that you post to Jeff on website feedback. He can - and usually does - check on that.

I've had that in the back of my mind. She was quiet for a while, so it didn't matter. Doesn't look like she's done it here, so maybe she's stopped that.

Again - I don't think she did anything wrong here, and I'm happy for peace. I just wanted to let the PP know the history.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if Church lady is the same person who finds bikinis disgusting. That lady cracks me up. I'm glad she's here- keeps DCUM amusing. Porn causes divorce? Seriously, that's hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Fascinating study of human nature going on.

There seems to be a deeply held belief here that people of faith and/or people with ethical reservations regarding porn are so few in number, there must only be one in the entire DCUM universe. Furthermore, this one (?) person must be insane, repressed, controlling, sexless, stupid, unhappy, unloved...did I leave anything out?

I suppose this derives from the (incorrect) assumption that "everyone is doing it," and collides with the rationalization, "I am doing it, and I'm happy, so don't stand in the way of what I want."

None of this changes the fact that Mr. Man is wrong on all counts. But the defensiveness/strange conspiracy theories are telling.

OP, I hope you have moved on, because there is no point hanging around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating study of human nature going on.

There seems to be a deeply held belief here that people of faith and/or people with ethical reservations regarding porn are so few in number, there must only be one in the entire DCUM universe. Furthermore, this one (?) person must be insane, repressed, controlling, sexless, stupid, unhappy, unloved...did I leave anything out?

I suppose this derives from the (incorrect) assumption that "everyone is doing it," and collides with the rationalization, "I am doing it, and I'm happy, so don't stand in the way of what I want."

None of this changes the fact that Mr. Man is wrong on all counts. But the defensiveness/strange conspiracy theories are telling.

OP, I hope you have moved on, because there is no point hanging around here.

No one is particularly defensive here. Mostly you seem to amuse people with your ranting and raving.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, new poster to this thread. I have never engaged with you before, but I refer to straw men all the time no this site and elsewhere. Are you somehow under the impression that you are the only one who understands the term?

Yes - that's EXACTLY my perspective. And that's EXACTLY what I said, too, as you can read.

Anonymous wrote:And if you are trying to bust someone for sock puppets, I suggest that you post to Jeff on website feedback. He can - and usually does - check on that.

I've had that in the back of my mind. She was quiet for a while, so it didn't matter. Doesn't look like she's done it here, so maybe she's stopped that.

Again - I don't think she did anything wrong here, and I'm happy for peace. I just wanted to let the PP know the history.

Were you trying to be sarcastic? Because it actually is what you said: "Her latest tell is her compulsive reference to straw man arguments, which concept she lifted from me after I called her on them."

And put your money where your mouth is: ask Jeff to tell you if she is sock puppeting or not. You already accused her of it on this thread, although your latest post suggests that you are backing off that accusation.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Were you trying to be sarcastic? Because it actually is what you said: "Her latest tell is her compulsive reference to straw man arguments, which concept she lifted from me after I called her on them."

If you can't tell the difference between what I wrote and what you said, I don't know what to tell you. Your question was obviously rhetorical (at least I hope so), so I don't know why you're hanging on to this. Are you really waiting for an answer? OK: No, I am not "somehow under the impression that [I am] the only one who understands the term." Glad we settled that.

Anonymous wrote:And put your money where your mouth is: ask Jeff to tell you if she is sock puppeting or not. You already accused her of it on this thread, although your latest post suggests that you are backing off that accusation.

I don't really feel like sifting through to find the different examples in old threads, when: 1) she's generally been quiet lately, as far as I can tell; 2) she doesn't seem to be doing it anymore; 3) I may be wrong; 4) it's not the worst thing in the world anyway; 5) checking the IP addys isn't a guarantee; and 6) I don't know what the punishment would be.

No; I didn't accuse her here. I said that I thought it possible. It now appears that that wasn't the case, as I said.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe I am spending time on this, but feel compelled to defend my anonymous Internet posting persona one last time:

I posted on one other thread about pornography. I wasn't the poster(s) who said all the other things listed as absurdities here (walking around naked, bikinis, what have you). I have never posted as multiple PPs to defend myself. I am outspoken enough to say my own piece.

Mr. Man, you tend to attack imaginary posters rather than the ideas expressed. That is unfortunate, because the exchange of ideas can be useful, while personal attacks (especially against anonymous posters) are pointless and diversionary.

I was angry on the other porn thread because a very close friend (and her five small children) had just been abandoned by her husband, and while there were many reasons, a main one was his use of pornography. I have seen so many marriages hurt by porn, I have very strong feelings about the subject. That, and a long list of feminist objections. And as a mother of daughters and sons, who I need to raise alongside children being raised by parents who don't mind porn, I feel hopeless sometimes.

I truly think the OP derserves a faithful husband, and I think she can have one. But with the kind of company she would keep here, she'd never find the courage to demand what she deserves. So I hope she's gone somewhere more supportive.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, why do people think it's cool to ridicule the religious woman for her beliefs?

I am completely non religious, but I don't make fun of other people's religion-based beliefs. If you disagree with her, why not respectfully state why you believe she is wrong?

I didn't jump on her here, b/c I think she's showing uncharacteristic restraint, but what you may not realize is that she has repeatedly viciously attacked people, and employed dirty tricks like sock-puppeting. I can give you links where she suggests (that's a conservative description) that I and others are child molesters b/c we are sometimes nude around our children and porn addicts b/c we use porn at all. There's a history here.

That said, I do appreciate the relative restraint shown here, as I assume it took some effort.

Is "man without a face" Jeff's alias? How does this person *know* what the church lady has done in the past... Hmmmm

[Anonymous]

*Man without a username.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Is "man without a face" Jeff's alias? How does this person *know* what the church lady has done in the past... Hmmmm

The style is hard to miss. I don't know like Jeff would know.

Strangely, you're the second person (at least) to suspect that I'm an alias of Jeff's, at least in part b/c our political views are very similar. As I said to the other person, I don't know why Jeff would create an alias instead of just posting anonymously.

You can find some exchanges between the two of us in the Political forum, and hopefully he isn't crazy enough to carry on that kind of dialogue with himself.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is "man without a face" Jeff's alias? How does this person *know* what the church lady has done in the past... Hmmmm

The style is hard to miss. I don't know like Jeff would know.

Strangely, you're the second person (at least) to suspect that I'm an alias of Jeff's, at least in part b/c our political views are very similar. As I said to the other person, I don't know why Jeff would create an alias instead of just posting anonymously.

You can find some exchanges between the two of us in the Political forum, and hopefully he isn't crazy enough to carry on that kind of dialogue with himself.

That would be not only diabolical but also hilarious.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it would be crazy for Jeff to have an alias or even post anonymously. Some posts not everyone wants to be identified.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it would be crazy for Jeff to have an alias or even post anonymously. Some posts not everyone wants to be identified.

I think he has said that he occasionally posts anonymously. The question is why he would bother to create an alias.