DCUM Weblog

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Do women expect a ring at 1 year?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that his one-year anniversary of dating his girlfriend is coming up and he is being pressured by friends and family to propose to her. He is not ready to take that step and feels thats one year is not enough time to decide to make such a commitment and doesn't understand the rush. Apparently the only question that the original poster has is the one in the title of his thread. I don't think any of those responding believed that there is any sort of one-year cut-off at which the original poster would be expected to make a decision. Rather posters emphasized that what is important is what his girlfriend wants. Many posters said that the urgency to get married was strongly correlated to age. Several pointed out that women who plan to have children don't want to waste their fertile years with someone with whom they had no future. Therefore, a younger couple would not necessarily need to make a decision about marriage right away. But that would change with age. The original poster explained that his girlfriend had said she is not in a rush to get married but that she wanted to have children at 30. She is currently 28 and he is 35. One poster quickly did the math and pointed out that if they got engaged now and had a wedding in a year, his girlfriend would be nearly 30 by the time she went through pregnancy. Therefore, it is probably time to think about making the commitment. The point that posters kept emphasizing was that the original poster should think about his girlfriend's needs. It would be really unfair to string her along if he doesn't plan to marry her. In addition, several posters warned that at his age, the original poster might not be able to find anyone better than his current girlfriend. The original poster didn't find that argument convincing and seemed to be certain that he could easily find another girlfriend equal or better than his current one. For no apparent good reason, he argued that it is older women, not older men, who have trouble finding new relationships. The original poster repeatedly pointed out that he is Catholic and neither he nor his family believe in divorce. Therefore, marriage is a very important decision because it will be for life. Frankly, there is something that seems a little off to me about this poster. To hear him tell it, he and his girlfriend are on the same page and the only issue is pressure from others. He describes his life as being completely on track according to his personal goals. So, after being assured that there is not a one-year deadline as he claimed to fear, I am not sure what was left to discuss. The original poster, however, found plenty to discuss, posting over 60 posts in the thread. A significant number of his posts were anti-woman, starting with his views on older women and continuing to his claim that many women expect a man to be their provider and the failure of posters to understand this explained the "many unhappy bitter women on this thread". I very much suspect that this poster is a troll, though I don't have any evidence beyond my intuition to support this suspicion.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Does your community pool have a dress code?", and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster complains that college "girls" home for the summer are all wearing thong bikini bottoms which she doesn't think are suitable for a family venue. The topic of how girls and women dress is always a bit touchy. Prom season routinely provokes threads complaining about the cuts of dresses. But, exchange swimwear for dresses and the debate is amplified exponentially. The thread is full of posters like the original poster who have no issue with nearly naked swimmers if they are confined to adult beaches, but don't really want their children exposed to such things. However, based on the replies in the thread, their concern would probably be more appropriate for their husbands and sons. A number of male posters, extolling the benefits of dark sunglasses, are quite happy to see as much of the young females bodies as the girls choose to expose. Several of these posters asked the original poster to identify the location of her pool, presumably so that they could come visit. Other posters, likely female, argue that the original poster should mind her own business and let girls dress as they please. Moreover, probably futilely, these posters also argued that others should not "ogle" women's bodies and if those like the original poster don't like how others are dressed, they should close their eyes. While the original poster's criticism was directed at college students, other posters said the same dress habits extend to even younger girls. A few posters commented that older women, including formerly heavy moms who have discovered Ozempic, are also flaunting their bodies. This provoked some posters to argue that skimpy swimwear should be left to the young. But others took the opposite view and expressed happiness that women with less than perfect bodies can get away with bikinis. Some posters who enjoy wearing revealing swimwear explained that they have great bodies and like the way they look in such outfits. As for being ogled, one poster was clear that she didn't care if others looked at her or not. Posters also disagreed on the motives for wearing thongs and similar attire. Many assumed it was the current style and the girls were following the trend. But others argued that such clothing had a practical application of minimizing tan lines. An entirely different debate broke out over men, with some posters arguing that if women are going to wear thongs, men should adopt "banana hammocks". But other posters found the thought of this appalling. A few of the moms in the thread suggested that their daughters were so uncomfortable with this trend toward revealing outfits that it might have contributed the growth of those identifying as non-binary.

Fully six of the ten most active threads over the weekend were ones that I've already discussed. Moreover, two of the remaining four address topics that were the subject of other threads about which I've recently written. As a result, this won't be the most original of posts. I'll start with a thread that was the sixth most active. Titled, "Gaza war and College Campus Protests" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was created instead of a part 4 of the Gaza war thread. When the Gaza war threads have reached 1,000 pages, I have locked them and started a new part. When the previous thread was nearly 1,000, a thread about college campus protests was also getting very long and there was quite a bit of overlap between the two threads. Therefore, I combined them into this thread. The thread is currently 72 pages and I am not going to bother reading very much of it. From what I have read, it appears to consist mostly of the same things over and over. Strategies for debate the war and discussing the protests have really solidified with each side having established its talking points which are simply repeated over and over. Those supporting the Palestinians tend to highlight atrocities being committed by Israeli forces in Gaza and discuss the Biden administration's involvement in supporting such actions. Of course these posters fully support the protesters, whose actions they defend. The pro-Israel posters mostly take the exact opposite positions. They tend to describe the protesters, as well as pro-Palestinian posters in the thread, as being "pro-Hamas". They are unwilling to accept that someone can be opposed to the death and destruction being wrought on Gaza while also opposing Hamas. To them, any opposition to Israel is simply pro-Hamas. They, of course, for the most part are unwilling to recognize any Israeli excesses in Gaza. To the contrary, every action is justified and blamed on Hamas. Ironically, the pro-Israel posters are also critical of Biden at times. There are a few hardliners who actually consider Biden to be pro-Hamas himself. The mutual antagonism of both sides in this thread doesn't make for a very substantive discussion. A lot of it is simply attempts to score points. For instance, the most recent topic of discussion was a disruption by pro-Palestinian protesters of New York's pride parade. Pro-Israel posters claimed that this demonstrated antipathy toward the LGBTQ community on the part of the protesters. Such posters have often highlighted LGBTQ issues due to Hamas' normally anti-gay stances and the generally welcoming environment in Israel. The fact that neither Hamas nor Israel actually measures up to their portrayal is simply one of those details that gets ignored. But the disruption of the parade fed directly into the pro-Israel narrative. In point of fact, some pro-Palestinian protesters have adopted a strategy of disrupting any large event simply to obtain publicity and to demonstrate that they will not be ignored. The parade's disruption was not meant to be anti-gay, but rather to simply draw attention to the plight of Gaza. Whether this is a good strategy or not is another argument. But such nuances are impossible to discuss in threads of this sort.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Trump found Guilty on all charges!". Posted in the "Political Discussion" forum, the thread was started just after 5 pm yesterday but has already grown to over 60 pages. Obviously, the thread is about the verdict in the trial of former President, current cult leader, and now convicted felon Donald Trump. The jury found Trump guilty of all 34 charges. Sentencing is scheduled for July 11. I have written a number of times recently about the different realities in which many DCUM posters currently dwell. That phenomenon was on full display in this thread. Trump opponents were overjoyed, seeing the verdict as long overdue justice for someone who has a long history of behaving cavalierly toward the law. They viewed this as the legal system demonstrating that nobody is above the law. In contrast, Trump supporters see the trial and verdict as a politically-motivated witch hunt that is completely illegitimate. These posters repeatedly pointed out that the judge was allegedly a Democrat, that the jurors were allegedly liberal, and that New York is a Democratic state. Never mind that just days ago Republicans were claiming that Trump had attracted a crowd of tens of thousands to a rally in the Bronx and this was supposed to be evidence that the Democratic hold on New York is in danger. That story, which was not true in the first place, is as they say, no longer applicable. Today's story is that it is impossible to find a New Yorker who is not a card-carrying liberal. But, more to the point, the posters arguing this are making clear that they can't envision themselves acting in an objective manner and, therefore, don't believe anyone else is capable of doing so either. The possibility that the jurors considered the evidence and decided that it showed Trump's guilt is simply not comprehendible to these posters. Trump supporters also engaged in a number of arguments are simply not factually based. For instance, many argued that Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan prosecutor, had campaigned on a promise to prosecute Trump and that this demonstrated that the charges were politically-motivated. In fact, there is no evidence that Bragg campaigned on such a promise. Moreover, Bragg — who had inherited the case against Trump from his predecessor — initially dropped it. Another argument is that former President Bill Clinton made the same type of payment to Paula Jones. Clinton personally made a payment to Jones to settle a lawsuit. Had Trump made a similar personal payment to Daniels, that would also have been legal. Trump's transgression was falsely reporting the payments as businesses expenses. Some posters also doubted the testimony of Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer who was previously convicted and served jail time for his role in the payment scheme. However, Cohen's testimony was far from the only evidence of Trump's role in misclassifying the payments. Prosecutors also had 11 invoices, 12 vouchers, and 11 checks that created a paper trail linking Trump to the payments. But Trump supporters were not interested in evidence. Support for Trump has often been driven by resentment and his supporters thrive on seeing themselves as victims of powerful forces outside their control. Trump has fed this narrative as well as portraying himself as a victim of the same forces. As a result, many Trump supporters are even more determined to support him as a result of the verdict.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Just for laughs - a sex talk with my tween". The thread was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum and described a converstation between the original poster and her 11 year old daughter. The original poster's daughter had just completed a class about puberty and seemed comfortable talking about such topics with the original poster. The original poster took advantage of this opportunity to have a broader discussion about sex with her daughter based on the idea that it is better for her daughter to be informed before sex actually becomes an issue. The original poster explained the converstation which legitimately had me laughing out loud. I don't want to give the story away, but suffice it to say that it involved dressing up like cows. Personally I applaud the original poster's ability to have open dialogue on such topics with her daughter and I give her extra points for creativity. Many posters had reactions similar to mine. But not all. One poster in particular was quite angry because she believed that the original poster's daughter would immediately tell her own daughter about what she had learned. This poster much prefers for her daughter to remain ignorant until such time as, well, it was not clear until what time exactly. Strangely, despite this poster's displeasure with the possibility of the original poster's daughter spreading the word to her own child, the exact same poster later insisted that "kids are supposed to ‘learn’ this from other kids." The issue is not that the original poster's daughter might tell this poster's daughter about sex apparently, it's that the original poster talked to her daughter about sex. If the original poster's daughter learned about sex from an older sibling and then told the other poster's daughter about it, I guess that would be okay. Needless to say, quite a few posters disagreed with this thinking. Their main argument was that it is better for kids to learn about sex from their parents than from other kids, especially other kids who might be in the process of pressuring them for sex. Moreover, with so many kids having access to smart phones, kids are being exposed to sex and porn at a much younger age. But then the original poster received criticism from an entirely different angle. Whereas the earlier scold poster had accused the original poster of "pushing oral on your child", the new criticism seemed to be that the original poster — by including warnings about being pressured and mentioning that oral sex still has dangers of spreading disease — might have been too dismissive of the practice. Posters with this perspective were eager to minimize any threat of disease and, instead, emphasize the pleasure that could be derived. Because that discussion would not be appropriate in the original poster's circumstances, these posters ended up making strange bedfellows with the initial scold poster. The same poster who accused the original poster of "pushing" oral sex ended up on the same side of the debate as posters who absolutely want to promote oral sex as a pleasurable and safer alternative to intercourse. The dispute about just exactly how safe from disease this actually is basically took over the thread, leading me to lock it. What a disappointing end to something that had started out seeming to be such fun. That of course, some might say, could be a suitable metaphor for many sexual experiences, especially among those who don't know better.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "I am sad for DD--this past weekend" and was posted in the "Tweens and Teens" forum. The original poster says that almost every kid she knows went to Viva Vienna with someone this weekend but neither her 13-year-old daughter nor her 15-year-old son, despite reaching out to friends, were able to find someone with whom to go. Moreover, they saw on social media that those same friends attended without them. The original poster feels sad for her kids and wants to remind parents to teach their kids to be inclusive. For those like me who had previously not heard of Viva Vienna, it is a three day festival in Vienna, Virginia that includes food, entertainment, amusement rides, and venders selling all sorts of things. I was prepared to be sympathetic to the original poster, especially when most of the responses were not very supportive and, in some cases, downright hostile. But then I noticed that the original poster had extensively sock puppeted responses, including her first reply in which she criticized the way girls at the event were dressed, calling them "low brow". The original poster's sock puppeting was quite bizarre actually. She posted with many different personas. At various times she was the parent of other kids who had been excluded, the parent of a kid who had attended, but without her good friend, and the mother of teen girls (as opposed to a girl and a boy as in the original post). I am not sure what the goal of the original poster might have been other than to guilt trip other parents. If so, she was not very effective. Most posters could not have been less receptive to her pleas to be inclusive. Moreover, if the original poster's sock puppeted posts can be believed, her kids have a history of being left out of this event. The original poster even claimed that previously they purposely planned to be out of town for the weekend so that they would not have to deal with the stress. Many of the other posters in the thread come across as uncaring or even mean. As a whole, this thread does very little to promote Vienna and I suspect that after reading this thread, more than one person may consider it a place to avoid. The carnival itself also got mixed reviews. In contrast to the importance the original poster placed on it, others didn't consider it to be much of an attraction. The basic tenor of the thread is, yes, it is sad to be left out but learning to deal with that is part of growing up. Moreover, posters cited multiple actions the original poster's kids could have taken to find others with whom to attend. As I read through the thread I kept hoping to learn why, if both of the original poster's kids had been left out, she only felt sorry for her daughter. But, sadly, this question was never answered. I suspect that, like many of the identities used by the original poster when sock puppeting, the son is a figment of the original poster's imagination. That would also explain why the two kids simply didn't go to the event together.

I took Memorial Day off from writing which means that today I will discuss the most active threads over the past four days. Many of the most active threads were ones that I've already discussed and will skip today. Frankly, the threads that were left over were not that interesting and it is kind of disappointing that they were popular. First among those was a thread titled, "Kate spending time with ‘birth family’". This thread was disappointing because it is about the British Royal Family, and more specifically, the Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton. That is guaranteed to attract crazies of all sorts. Moreover, the original poster did a spectacularly poor job with the original post. The original poster did not provide a link supporting the claim in the thread's title or provide any further information about the allegation made there. Instead, the original poster implied that the Princess had moved in with her parents, something that appears not to be true. Rather, the original poster seems to have misread, misunderstood, or misrepresented an article in "The Daily Beast". According to the Daily Beast article, the Princess will be spending time at Sandringham, the country house used by the Prince and Princess of Wales. The article explicitly says that Prince William and their children will be there as well because it is a school holiday. Her "birth family" will simply be visiting. But, why bother with the truth when fiction is so much more fun? Posters immediately engaged in all sorts of speculation that the Princess is dying, that she and William are divorcing, that William wants her out of the way so he can engage in affairs, and on and on. These Royal Family threads present a problem for me. I don't like them and would be happy to delete every one of them. But posters enjoy them and continually create them. If the threads involve either Kate Middleton or Megan Markle, they will provoke a slew of reports. There was a poster who was particularly determined in this case to report any post that she thought was even the slightest disparaging of Middleton. As such, this thread immediately became a headache. Anytime I got up from my computer I would return to find a mailbox full of reports. I quickly determined that I was not going to spend the Memorial Day weekend removing posts about the Princess of Wales, someone who will never read this website, has to deal with much more visible criticism daily, and is not going to be harmed in any way by a bunch of raving lunatics on DCUM. The result is nearly 40 pages of some of the most outlandish conspiracy theories that you can imagine. I finally locked the thread last night, mostly to save my email inbox from the hundreds of reports the thread was generating (mostly by a single poster). But at that time discussion was focused on a theory that the Palace had hired a "body double" to appear as Kate in a recent video. Intermixed between the various conspiracy theories were complaints by posters who are certain that Kate is near death but are upset that she is not publicly working until she takes her last breath.

The two most active threads yesterday — the Fairfax County Public Schools boundary changes thread and the Jennifer Lopez thread — were ones that I've already discussed and will, therefore, skip today. The next most active thread was titled, "Cuts" and posted in the "Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)" forum. This thread was started five days ago by a poster complaining that Montgomery County Public Schools had conducted a "midnight massacre" and cut about 100 teaching positions. The poster warned others to get ready for bigger classes and asked why this is not a bigger story. The first issue with this thread is that there was no source provided for the original poster's allegation. This led some posters to doubt that it was real. Other posters accepted it as fact, but attempted to justify the cuts. One argument was that while positions were being cut, many of them were currently unfilled. If there is a current teacher in the position, that teacher will be offered an opportunity to transfer to another school. As such, these are not job losses. Contrary to this, some posters said that actual layoffs are in the works in some cases. Another argument was that in a school system of 14,000 teachers, 100 teachers being forced to transfer to different positions is not really that significant. Soon enough reports of positions being cut at posters' schools arrived and provided some evidence of the veracity of the original poster's claim. Discussion then turned to what might be cut other than teaching positions. The main target was the MCPS central office which poster after poster criticized as bloated and filled with high-earning staffers that either do little or lack competence. Two days ago, the Board of Education held a meeting to discuss the school system's budget. According to posts in the thread, teachers were barred from entering the meeting. When a small group managed to push their way in and attempted to start a protest, the meeting was recessed and after the break teachers were again prevented from attending. Based on teacher reactions in the thread, these cuts — whether of positions or employees — are one more factor contributing to already high levels of frustration among teachers. There are many warnings that more teachers will leave rather than put up with increasingly difficult work circumstances. As one poster wrote, "MCPS trying this after arguably the worst year most of us have ever had… is just laughable." The poster then went on to say, "This is going to be the straw that broke the camels back for A LOT of teachers in the county … good luck next year when there’s no one there to staff their huge classes."

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Rant: ‘you look amazing’" and posted in the "Expectant and Postpartum Moms" forum. The original poster is a new mother and, as such, is "exhausted and struggling". Nevertheless, "at least 10 times" other people have told her that she "looks amazing" or something similar. Because this compliment does not match how she is feeling, it is awkward for her and she is annoyed by it. She ends her post by saying, "Don’t comment on anyone’s body ever, but especially a hormonal new mom." This is a 12 page thread and I don't have time to read the entire thing. But, obviously a thread of this length is going to contain a lot of different opinions. The first thing that I will note is that the original poster does not seem to have returned to the thread after the first post. However, another poster who feels very much the same way as the original poster took over and posted nearly 30 times. So the original poster's viewpoint was very well represented even if she herself was not. The basic argument of the original poster and the poster who agreed with her is that by focusing on a women's appearance, her friends and acquaintances were missing the physical stress and emotional challenges the she was undergoing. Because they looked good, people assumed that they must feel good and that simply was not the case. Moreover, they don't even agree that they actually looked amazing. They concede that they lost weight and they attribute the compliments to that and nothing more. In their opinion, others are focusing exclusively on weight and missing the signs that they are somewhat in distress. Some posters are concerned that the original poster may be suffering from postpartum depression and urge her to talk to her doctor about it. Others explain that people are simply trying to be nice. Moreover, they say, some women appreciate the compliments. But a number of posters support the other two women in arguing that comments about people's bodies just shouldn't be made. I suspect that there is somewhat of a generational divide on this issue with younger people generally being more sensitive about comments about appearances. This is reflected in one post in which the poster stated that only "old women" think that others appreciate being told that they look amazing. My thinking is that a lot of people are more or less on autopilot when it comes to informal conversations. It might be common to ask another person how they are doing, but only in unusual circumstances does anyone really want to hear a litany of things bothering the other person. Telling a new mother that she looks amazing is a simple way of offering reassurance and support. Almost no one is going to tell a woman that she looks stressed and haggard. The bigger problem is not listening. Several of the posters describe replying to compliments by explaining the struggles they are encountering and having that shrugged off. In many cases, people simply might not want to deal with it or may not know how to react to it. But, that, more than the compliment, is where the focus on improvement should probably be.

The most active thread yesterday was the one about Fairfax County Public Schools boundary changes in which posters are stridently debating boundary changes that haven't been proposed. I'll skip that thread since I have already discussed it. The most active thread after that was titled, "Do many people pick publics because of money?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she chose to attend a private university and because her family did not pay for it, she used a combination of loans and financial aid. After graduation, she worked in investment banking with a salary high enough to pay off her loans quickly. Now she is surprised that many students are choosing state universities rather than private colleges. She wonders if this is due to financial concerns and implies that, if so, that would be a bad decision. Whether by accident or intention, this poster managed to offend many other posters. She had very strong opinions, starting with her contention that private universities are almost by definition better than state universities. Next was her belief that attending a prestigious private university would immediately lead to a high-paying job. Her overall tone suggested that attending a state university is misguided and short-sighted, something with which fans of state universities did not agree. In response, posters pointed out that college costs are significantly higher now than they were when the original poster was a student and, hence, loans tend to be larger and not as easy to pay off. Several posters argued that state schools such as the University of Virginia provide a better education than many private universities and, for in-state residents, at a much lower cost. The original poster's attitude was influenced by the fact that because she and her husband have significant income, the can easily afford the high costs of a prestigious private university. Her suggestion that others should just as easily be able to pay — or, if not, could take out loans that wouldn't end up presenting a financial burden — put her pretty firmly in Marie Antoinette territory. Many posters were quite unapologetic about the fact that they were choosing state colleges for financial reasons. The University of Virginia in particular has many fans on DCUM and posters argued that being able to get an education that rivaled that provided by many top private schools at a much lower cost made a lot sense. Moreover, posters pointed out that not everyone wants the same experience for college. Some much prefer the environment of large state universities. As I have noted in several earlier blog posts, there has been an anti-Ivy League trend on DCUM recently and this has developed into disenchantment with many top private universities. This played into the thread as well as many posters displayed hostile attitudes towards top private universities and clearly didn't share the original poster's respect for them.