Wednesday's Most Active Threads

Yesterday's most active thread was one that I discussed yesterday, the thread about downward mobility of children due to college choices. That thread was active because it went completely off the rails, and I eventually had to lock it. The next most active thread was titled, "How many men would stay w/o sex" and was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster refers to the book "Intermezzo" by Sally Rooney. Apparently, the book has a male character who is deeply in love with his college girlfriend. However, several years after college, she has a car accident which creates painful conditions for her and essentially prevents her from having sex. Her boyfriend initially wants to stay together with her, but eventually finds the lack of sex to be a problem and begins a relationship with another woman, maintaining his emotional connection to his college girlfriend. The original poster wants to know how many men would actually stay in such a situation. The problem with this sort of thread is that DCUM is not a laboratory in which a controlled experiment can be conducted. It is full of posters carrying all sorts of baggage who are in no position to speak for "men" generally. Initially, a number of male posters responded to say that if their wives were unable to have sex, they would leave them or cheat. But the conversation was soon caught up with scenarios in which wives were perfectly capable of having sex but simply didn't want to. Many posters suggested that men would leave or cheat in this situation as well. But, as other posters pointed out, the forum is full of men complaining that they are in sexless marriages and have not left or cheated. But what really dominated this thread was a dispute about whether sex is a "need". One problem is that posters define "need" differently. For some, a need is only something that being without will result in death. So, food and water are needs, but sex is not. Au contraire, say other posters. To them, sex is very much a need, regardless of whether or not they can physically go on living without it. The thread highlights the differences between individuals. There are men and women who would not be willing to continue a relationship without sex, and there are members of both sexes that either are doing exactly that now or say that they could do so.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum and was titled, "I quit drinking and have experienced no discernible benefit". The original poster apparently has a medical condition that requires her to avoid drinking alcohol. Previously, she drank one or two glasses of wine each evening but has mostly stopped drinking at all for the past six months. Unfortunately for her, she has not experienced any of the alleged benefits of not drinking. She was under the impression that drinking might be the reason that she wakes up at night, but she still does that. She was already thin and hasn't seen any weight loss. Her post is simply meant as a warning to those who might be expecting these benefits. The connection between alcohol and cancer has been much in the news lately, and posters are quick to suggest that the original poster has probably reduced her cancer risk. Other posters agree with the original poster that when they reduced or stopped drinking, they did not see many benefits. One point that several posters make is that the benefits of not drinking may not accrue to individuals equally. Rather, they may be linked to other factors. Also, in the original poster's case, she replaced the calories saved by not drinking with calories from eating. So, she did not have a net calorie loss. Unfortunately, these days, everything is a conspiracy. While the original poster didn't mention anything about cancer, many posters seem to have been triggered by the recent round of publicity the alcohol-cancer link has gotten. Some posters were eager to point out that red meat also has such a connection. Others alleged that the publicity is being driven by the cannabis lobby. However, others doubted that the cannabis lobby is more powerful than the booze lobby. Even the original poster thought something strange is going on, saying in a follow-up post that "Something seems off-normal and coordinated about the campaign to tell us that our skin, sleep, and spirit will improve with no alcohol." In contrast, another poster wrote that, "the people calling this a conspiracy are simply addicted to alcohol and are afraid of evolving."

Next was a thread titled, "CEASEFIRE Announced" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The thread is about an announced agreement for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. One thing that I should make clear about this agreement is that it is not supposed to take effect until Sunday. Historically, Israel increases its violence in the final hours before a ceasefire and, indeed, that appears to be happening now in Gaza. At least 80 Palestinians were killed overnight. Moreover, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has raised last-minute objections to the agreement. As such, it remains to be seen whether this agreement will actually take effect. Much of this thread is devoted to arguing about whether President Joe Biden or President-elect, cult leader, and convicted felon Donald Trump deserves credit for the agreement. My understanding, supported by Biden's own words, is that this agreement has been on the table since May. At that time, Hamas accepted it, and the Biden Administration announced that Netanyahu had accepted it as well. However, it appears that Netanyahu did not actually accept the proposal and, to cover for him, the Biden Administration blamed Hamas. At any rate, it appears that the May agreement is pretty much intact and has now been agreed to by Netanyahu, with the caveat of his latest protest. So, what changed since May? One is that Vice President Kamala Harris lost the election, and there is increasing evidence that her and Biden's position on the conflict was critical to her loss. Whereas Biden and Harris were loath to offer anything but full, unequivocal support for Israel, Trump demanded an agreement that would result in the hostages being released by the time he takes office on January 20. It is notable that the ceasefire is scheduled to begin on January 19. According to Israel and other accounts, the primary factor in changing Netanyahu's position has been the willingness of Trump, or more specifically his negotiator, Steve Witkoff to pressure Netanyahu. The question about Biden is whether he has been unable to obtain an agreement due to simple incompetence, or whether he has actually been supporting Israel's genocide of Gazans and did not want to reach an agreement. Strong arguments can be made for both cases. On the other hand, there is no convincing argument that Biden deserves credit for the agreement now. Witkoff is a billionaire real estate developer who was said to have brushed aside Netanyahu's objections and demanded a meeting on the Jewish Sabbath in order to make progress on a deal. This is a sort of urgency that Biden never showed. There are some concerns that Trump and Witkoff may have confidential understandings with Netanyahu that will allow Israel to continue attacking Gaza and other Palestinian and Arab territories. If so, this agreement may not turn out to be a positive development for Gazans. But for the moment, things seem quite hopeful.

The last thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" and titled, "SAHM friend divorcing against her will". The original poster says that she has a 47-year-old friend who is a stay-at-home mom. The woman signed a prenuptial agreement just before getting married that waived alimony and access to the existing assets at that time. Now, her husband wants a divorce. The woman has spoken to two attorneys, one of whom told her that the prenup could be thrown out and another who told her that she will not be able to receive alimony. The original poster wants to know from those who have gone through this whether it is unwise to choose an attorney who over-promises. She wants to know how to advise her friend. DCUM is full of lawyers and posters who have been through divorces. As such, it is a pretty good resource for this sort of question. Posters have different opinions about which of the two attorneys would be the better choice, and some suggest meeting with a third. However, there does seem to be general agreement that the friend should not expect to be left with nothing. Some posters believe there are grounds for throwing out the prenup or that there are other justifications for her receiving child support or some sort of asset division. Posters point out that this is really dependent upon the state in which she lives. Because the friend has a college degree but has never worked, several posters are critical of her. Some think that not working resulted in the financial dependence that is a problem for her now. This eventually evolves into a stay-at-home mom versus work-out-of-the-home mom fight that continues for many pages. Other posters argue that being a stay-at-home mom will not cause her to lose rights to their joint assets and that half of their wealth will still be hers. I am obviously not an expert on any of this, but the posts that seem most credible to me also tend to be ones that paint fairly rosy pictures for the friend. This, of course, causes significant gnashing of the teeth among some of the presumably male posters who don't like the idea of an ex-wife taking a significant amount of their money.