Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Who Is Most Out Of Bounds Here?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that she recently posted a graduation photo of her daughter and mentioned the college she plans to attend. An old college roommate of her husband commented on the photo saying that it looked like the girl would enjoy the food at the college, apparently referring to her weight. The original poster says that her daughter "is not fat but she is still carrying a little baby weight around her hips and she is naturally large chested" and that the comment was wildly out of bounds. Her husband flew into a rage and posted a public comment asking the guy if his wife knew about his affair with an old girlfriend. The old roommate's wife saw the comment and has been calling the original poster non-stop leaving angry voicemails accusing the original poster of sabotaging her marriage. The original poster simply told the roommate's wife to take it up with the her own husband and blocked her. The original poster says that she knows that her husband was wrong, but asks whether he justified due to the insult to their daughter. For some reason this thread just took off. As far as I can tell, the original poster hardly provided any additional input. Nevertheless, the thread has already reached 22 pages. Much of that is owed to a small number of posters who apparently got very invested in the thread. Two of them posted over 40 times each, another nearly 60 times, and a fourth over 30 times. It is possible that one of these was the original poster, but I don't have evidence of that. These posters were split with two on each side of the debate. There are several different perspectives in this thread. One is that the old roommate was wrong to alude to the original poster's daughter's weight and is solely responsible for any damage to his marriage because that was caused by his own cheating. In this perspective, the original poster's husband has nothing about which to feel bad. In contrast to that is the view that the roommate's comment was rude, but the original poster's husband's reaction was far too strong. Moreover, his action did not take into account the innocent bystanders who would also be hurt, primarily the roommate's wife. In addition to possibly blowing up the roommate's marriage, hurting his wife and, potentially, any children they have, the original poster's husband sent a dangerous signal to their daughter about her weight. Some posters feared that she would understand that being fat is very bad, possibly triggering an eating disorder. Other posters faulted the original poster's husband for sitting on the knowledge that his roommate had had an affair. They believe that he had a responsibility to inform his roommate's wife earlier. Some of these posters are upset by the original poster's husband's treatment of women, citing his failure to disclose the affair, his lack of concern about the impact of his subsequent revelation on his roommate's wife, and the messages he is sending his daughter about weight. Generally there was plenty of blame to go around in this situation with no agreement on who was the most wrong.

Yesterday's next most active thread was posted in the "Diet and Exercise" forum. Titled, "Is anyone NOT on Ozempic or similar drugs?", the original poster says that all but two of the thirty or so women in her cicle are using Ozempic or a similar medication. She asks what percentage of women others think are using these drugs. Ozempic and similar weight loss medications are hugely controversial on DCUM. I have written about several threads earlier that were among the most active threads. This thread probably wouldn't have amounted to much if posters had stuck to the topic and simply discussed percentages of women taking weight loss drugs. But that sort of discipline would be impossible in this type of thread. Ironically, that lack of discipline is most evident in posters who are convinced that losing weight is simply a question of discipline which those who resort to medications lack. Posters of that sort are completely unable to resist jumping into every weight loss medication thread to give their opinions about the shortcomings of people who use such medicine. As for the original poster's actual question, many of those responding are more surprised that a large number of women have admitted to using Ozempic than they are by the number taking it. In their circles, they suspect many of using weight loss drugs, but nobody ever admits it. Other posters say they don't know of any of their friends taking the drugs. A number of posters say that they have recently lost significant weight by the traditional methods of diet and exercise. Some of them suspect that their friends might think they are taking weight loss medicine even though they aren't. A few posters would like to try the drugs but either can't get a prescription or their insurance won't cover it. The naysayers clearly believe that Ozempic-users are largely suffer from either laziness, vanity, or both. Even some who either use the drug themselves or would like to agree with that thinking. But others cite true medical needs as the justification. One poster says that she suffers from insulin resistance and Ozempic has made a huge difference in her life. Nevertheless, the thread soon devolved to the usual argument between posters who think that using weight loss drugs is lazy and that everyone can lose weight with diet and exercise on the one hand and posters who say that nothing else has worked and these drugs are life-changing and allow them to have much happier lives on the other. The thread got particularly bitter with lots of insults and name-callling. As a result, I eventually locked it.

Next was a thread titled, "Is suburban living considered a failure?" and posted in the "Real Estate" forum. Had I seen this thread when it was first created, I would have removed it. The original poster's entire text of the initial post was nothing but a question mark. That is not a satisfactory way to begin a thread. Moreover, as the original poster later admitted, the thread was started in reaction to an earlier thread in the forum asking if living in a condominium is a failure. As in the first thread I discussed today, engagement seemed to be driven by posters other than the original poster, who I believe only posted once more. None of those responding had replies numbering in the 30s or more like today's first thread, but there were several in double digits. Needless to say, a number of posters felt very passionately about this topic. One reason this debate is so heated is that posters are largely thinking in terms of stereotypes. To urbanites, the suburbs are homogenous boring places with long commutes, heavy reliance on cars, and a lack of amenities. Fans of the suburbs see the city as nothing but condominiums, noise, crime, congestion, and no private green space. Conversely those who prefer the suburbs view suburbs as having larger homes for the money, bigger yards, better schools, and less crime. Fans of the city argue in favor of walkable access to amenities, more food and entertainment options, shorter commutes, and less car reliance. As one particularly preceptive poster pointed out on the first page, in reality many of these stereotypes don't hold up. Quite a bit of suburban living involves townhomes or condominiums rather than single family homes. In contrast, there are many neighborhoods made up of single family homes in DC. Moreover, people have different values and priorities. Many, if not most, of those who prefer one area over the other would take at least some characteristics of their less preferred option. For instance, urban dwellers may enjoy the entertainment options but would love the lower crime rates of the suburbs. Suburbanites may enjoy their large yards, but would likely gladly accept the shorter commutes of urban areas. Like most things in life, choosing where to live involves trade-offs. Nevertheless, posters in this thread dug in their heals to defend their choices and attack others. On top of everything else, posters couldn't really agree on what is urban and what is suburban. For instance, parts of Arlington were considered urban by some posters and suburban by others. Posters might describe, for instance, Fairfax County and another poster, speaking about Loudoun County, would describe something completely different even though both areas are generally considered suburban.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Beauty and Fashion" forum. Titled, "Women half-naked in pseudo workout gear shopping at Whole Foods?", the original poster asks if it is a fashion trend for 20-somethings to wear skimpy athletic clothing when not working out. This is the second thread this week I have discussed about how girls or women dress. Whereas the earlier thread was about swimming pools, the original poster of this thread is fixated on Whole Foods. She says that she has seen women "dressed like a Kardashian doing a raunchy photo shoot" in Whole Foods in both the city and in boring suburban areas. Responses in this thread are very similar to those in the swimwear thread. Women posters are divided between those who agree with the original poster and those who have no issue with women dressing as she describes. The few male posters in the thread mostly want to know which Whole Foods so that they can shop at it. If any wives notice a sudden interest by their husband in grocery shopping, this may explain it. Also like the swimwear thread, there are posters who offer justifications for this practice. A surprising number of posters seem to stop at Whole Foods just after working out. It does appear that a large number of gyms are located close to Whole Foods stores. Also like the swimwear thread in which some posters were happy to attract attention, a few posters in this thread shared that sentiment. "Don't care if you see my 40-year-old 6 pack. I'm glad I'm inspiring so many comments," said one poster. Other posters were convinced that the women who dress this way are mostly seeking attention. In their opinion, anyone dressed this way for a workout could easily put on a sweat shirt or other covering garment. A number of posters are disturbed by the lack of modesty. "We all acknowledge wearing clothing is expected by society. We don’t wear bikinis to the grocery store. But these ‘workout’ outfits are just as revealing," says one. One poster speculated that due to the cost of food at Whole Foods, these scantily-clad women don't have money left for shirts. Again as in the swimming thread, there were posters who were adamant that women should be able to wear what they like, nobody should "police their bodies", and nobody should judge them. Some posters were onboard with all but the third requirement. "If you are out half naked, you are dressed to get attention. Surprise! You get attention. I’m not policing bodies; I’m laughing at the thirsty behavior," said one poster. Other posters were not convinced that these women really were coming directly from working out as they claimed. As one poster put it, "Miss Sports Bra and Bike Shorts is not walking into a store with messy hair, dried sweat, smelling, etc." Those who did believe the posters who said they were stopping at Whole Foods after working out still objected. One poster said anyone who had just been exercising was "definitely smelly and gross. Ain’t nobody want to smell that. Take a shower first!"