Fun-Sized Advice

On more fun-sized advice

not a peep from you about wikileaks confirming everything bernie sanders supporters have been mocked for believing. classic. let me guess, you believe the leaks are fake and that the russians did it. tell me where iraq’s WMDs are again? can’t wait to watch your girl be forced to drop out days before the election.
The leaks aren’t fake, the Russians did do it, and we aren’t mocking you for believing that Hillary Clinton played hardball in the primary. We’re mocking you because you’re a bunch of whiny toddlers throwing a temper tantrum because you don’t want to eat your vegetables.

Which do you consider the better option, double majoring in political science and international studies or majoring in International Political Economy and Development ? I’m having a hard time deciding between the two, and would love to hear your opinion.
Better is a value judgment, but if you want the more challenging degree, without a doubt choose the International Political Economy major with a double minor in Foreign Language and Global Business. That shit is impressive, whereas every kid who owns a suit and wants to study abroad double majors in Political Science and International Studies.

I just turned 20, but I feel like I just turned 80. Partying and drinking and going out sound exhausting, and I feel empty every time I do somehow make it out. How do I want to want to have fun again?
You want to have fun. You just haven’t realized yet that you get to decide what fun is.

My friends and I are in a debate and I would love your opinion. Is it appropriate for couples to share unrestricted access to each other’s phones?
If that’s how y’all wanna live, do your thing. That being said, boundaries are important even in the healthiest of relationships, and I certainly wouldn’t put up with that shit for one second.

Have you ever used the terms “lit” “bae” or “yaaaas queen?” I can’t see it at all and I’m laughing thinking about it.
Lit used to be slang for intoxicated, so I’ve used it in that sense. I’ve used bae ironically, and though I respect its appropriate use, I’ve never once in my life said the phrase “yaaaaas queen.”

I just got asked to Netflix and chill but I haven’t waxed my pubes in a month. Have I committed a vulva faux pas?
Nope. It’s just pubic hair. Honestly, it’s no big deal. You can Netflix and chill and actually chill.

You write “self help books are for fucking losers” in your self help book and it has only made me love you more.
I love you too, but I didn’t write a self-help book.

I’m in grad school working toward my MFA and all I want to do is tell my colleagues about your work. You’ve influenced me so much, in such small profound ways.
Tell ’em I said hey.

I’m not attracted to my husband.
Okay. Neither am I.

Can you talk about the last time you felt envious of someone?
The last person for whom I felt envy was my previous crush’s crush. Pretty basic stuff, actually.

I just met an actor and had a great time. Why do you rule them out?
Ha! You’ll see.

should i fuck my best friend’s husband?
Only if all three of you are into it.

Would you rather fuck John Oliver or John Stewart?
Stewart. No contest.

Standard

128 thoughts on “On more fun-sized advice

  1. Panos says:

    “Yas queen” originated in gay pop music fandom circles and was most often used in order to affirm pop acts (or actions) of particular feminist substance or gravitas. Then it got appropriated by mainstream media and everyone and their younger cousin started throwing it around. Literally all of those words, prior to their memetic stardom, were (and mostly still are) heavily embedded in a framework of race, gender and sexuality politics. The inquirer finds them hilarious and attempts to brush them off, but a word of caution: that’s a big telltale sign in which group they belong. Is it the one that generates new, queer forms of language or is it the one that strips them of their original, strongly politicized connotations by incessant and thoughtless repetition, until they become parodies of themselves? My guess is the second.

    • Nah, this is old-ass DRAG QUEEN SLANG circa the late 1980’s when Madonna appropriated “vogue” and Jenny Livingston made her fame from Paris is Burning. Leave it to the trans women of color.

      Jaime called Iliana out on her appropriation, this was certainly part of that.

          • VeryIrritable says:

            Uh. No.
            You don’t get to say “it is” and then back out of your statement by saying, “they’re related.” A distinction is a distinction. Just let go of whatever pigeon hole label you’re trying to preserve and figure out why Rainbow Pony would respond like that.

          • WhoAmI says:

            Drag is only a predominantly gay male act since the last 30 years, and drag is old as balls. The trans girls have been on the forefront of that shit, and there are still many transgender drag queens to this day.

            So yeah the basic slang of today’s drag originated some decades ago from black and latino transgender women. Then the white gays stole that shit. I’m surprised the heteros haven’t stole it from the white gays yet tbh. You know the cycle.

            Which is not to say doing drag equals being gay, which E and O never stated either.

          • JC says:

            No, they are not related. Drag is a man dressing up as a woman. Trans is a woman that was born with male genitalia. A trans woman putting on women’s clothing is not drag, and a man in drag is not trans.

            There is literally ZERO intersection between trans and drag, essentially by definition. At least that is the case if you believe that a trans woman is really a woman, which they are.

          • WhoAmI says:

            Drag queen is a profession. You just need a “man-body” to put silly wigs and long-ass nails and tons of make up on to do it.
            And the profession is RIFE with trans women. I’m not gonna name names because I’ll never be exhaustive, just read the damn wikipedia page on the Stonewall Riots or something for starters.
            Basically as long as you have or have had a penis or an adam’s apple or whatever what you’re doing is still drag if you get some coins from doing it.

            And there are many women with penises or adam’s apples out there, just pointing that out for your wannabe-woke ass.

          • WhoAmI says:

            On a side note : what do you think trans women did back when hormones and surgery were risky or extremely expensive or simply nonexistant ? They worked in prostitution or drag, duh. As many still do. Open your damn eyes.

          • JC says:

            Way to miss the point. The phrase “in drag” means for a person to dress up as the opposite gender. That is not what trans women are doing when they put on women’s clothes. THAT was the point I was making.

            The fact that historically there have been trans women who acted as drag performers is irrelevant. That was probably the only profession (except prostitution) open to them where they were free to dress as women.

            Go read City of Night if you want a more first-hand (albeit fictional) account of what things were like around the time of Stonewall.

          • VeryIrritable says:

            It’s pretty clear that all the people who want to put labels on things only have empathy as deep as the labels themselves.

            Thank all of you for taking time to explain it far better than I did.

          • WhoAmI says:

            @JC : so, all this time, you were trying to make a point that is totally unrelated to the discussion ? Alright, but I mean, the reply and the new comment buttons are both free so…

          • Richard says:

            No. Drag means to dress up as the opposite sex, not the opposite gender. Drag and Trans are intimately related because the entire point of drag is to mock all of the arbitrary rules that our society has decided determine gender; those very same rules that oppress trans people.

            And go watch Paris Is Burning sometime, the drag community and trans community were the same community for a very long time.

            Drag is way more than a bunch of affluent gay dudes playing dress up. Learn your herstory.

          • JC says:

            @Richard, thank you for the more thoughtful, semi-less hostile response. I have a very good friend who is a trans woman, and I will ask about this. I understand your point about drag and societal gender norms. However, I still don’t think that trans women feel that they are in drag when they get up every morning to dress themselves.

          • Richard says:

            @JC Trans women are not doing drag simply by dressing as women. In the context of our society, drag expresses that what trans women are doing is perfectly normal.

          • WhoAmI says:

            @richard yes yes yes
            The whole point of the whole realness thing (esp. executive realness and such) is that : poor and socially left out trans women showing off just how good they are at playing gender conforming pretend.

          • VeryIrritable says:

            To a certain degree this conversation seems over, but I want to be crystal clear on one point.

            Let me refer back to the exact premise to which Richard responded.

            “Drag is not transgender.”

            His response was, “It is though.”

            And that is simply not true. It’s not true technically or colloquially, secretly, or in certain communities. It’s only superficially related, literally.

            I’m willing to let him back out of it with “They’re super duper related.” or even “Drag and Trans are intimately related” but I will not under any circumstances accept that “Drag is transgender.” which is the inverse of the statement to which he reacted negatively.

          • JC says:

            @VI, yes, this was the comment I was responding to as well. How sad that some people respond with hostility to my “wanna be woke ass” instead of actually listening.

          • JC says:

            If I’m salty, it’s because I don’t think you have any business to shit on me for trying to make an important point about transgender vs drag. Disparaging someone for trying to be thoughtful in how we speak about trans women makes you a jerk.

            In any case, I’m not interested in engaging you further. Bye.

  2. Doesit says:

    The phrase did not come from gay pop music fandoms. It came from queer black and latinos and then became mainstream when white gays got a hold of it after going to vogue nights like once.

  3. Audrey says:

    Has everyone forgotten you vocally supported Bernie Sanders in the primary?

    Because all my friends have forgotten that I did, and they jump my shit when I occasionally talk about voting for Hillary. Drives me nuts.

    • alittlebit says:

      Yes. I experience this. I vocally supported Sanders leading up to the Primary and bit my tongue vilifying Clinton because if he didn’t get the nomination I knew I would be voting for her. I’m not *crazy* about Hillary but I’m happy to vote for her over Donald fucking Trump and the lunatics in the 3rd party FFS. Gary Johnson?! GTFOH. Jill Stein? Polish up and call me in 8 years, and we’ll see.

    • JC says:

      I’d do either one of them, but I’d also take Jon Stewart over John Oliver. Jon seems like he’d get down and dirty, whereas John seems like he’d be like “oh my god, I’m fucking hot girls.” Both are attractive, but in totally different ways.

  4. C. says:

    I, personally, would wreck John Oliver. But Stewart is her preference and she liked him first. I wouldn’t let her preference bother you.

    • LIVVID says:

      Netflix and “chill” (as in the popular term referring to watching Netflix as a segue into having sex) and ACTUALLY chill, as in, chill out about the pube thing cause it’s not a big deal.

        • bees! says:

          Me too, but I’ve come to see it as a weird kind of blessing. If it happens pre-sex you can thank them for showing their true colors so soon and move on to the next thing, and if it happens post-sex you get to shame them right back (“oh sorry, you seemed to be enjoying yourself just fine”) and then bounce.

        • Chris says:

          Gotta say, I don’t care about hair – you know – [gesturing] down there.

          Though I had an incident where pre-coital trimming was not washed out and I had to hand-rake it all off my tongue. That was unpleasant.

          But maybe I just don’t care because I don’t groom – you know – down there. I just keep it clean and healthy. On occasion I shave or trim just for the heck of it, and if I was asked to, I would do it more, but I’ve got so many other things to do that making this a priority seems like a waste of time.

          Would love to hear from some women what they think of men’s pubes.

          • unicornsrpeople2 says:

            As per your request: I have zero opinion on men’s pubes, and would no longer fuck men who think their opinion on my pubes is important. Sure, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I’m not going to base my grooming habits on what some dude thinks. Shaving is painful for my sensitive skin, and I never have and never will waste my time and money to pay a stranger to stare down at my cooch and rip out my hair. Youch. So I figure however my man is comfortable with his hair works for me, and if he doesn’t like my bush then he doesn’t get to look at it.

          • bees! says:

            I mostly don’t care. I don’t find it all that aesthetically appealing when a guy is overly-trimmed but I’m not going to kick him out of bed for it, I just won’t spend a lot of time looking at his junk.

            Basically, everything Unicorns said.

          • Livvid says:

            I kinda like pubes. I don’t have a major preference aside from hygiene (please please keep it clean!) but hairy is nice. I dated a guy, a fellow Iranian, who said he shaved and groomed down there because girls were turned off by how hairy he was and I was like boo let that shit grow as long as you shower everyday I will stay sucking that dick.

      • t. says:

        it seemed like she was saying you can netflix and just chill, as in netflix and actually just hang out that one time, and then next time show up shaved. i rarely comment but i had to confirm that phrasing as well bc it made me pause…

  5. Ashley says:

    did the russians also hack anthony weiners email?

    the leaker is a government agent of the US, not russia. theres not even any fucking proof that “russia did it”, so why are you repeating a lie? oh, because the government said so? wheres the yellowcake uranium in iraq then? thanks for answering my question after years of ignoring them (non political ones no less). voting for a war criminal who is the reason we are currently bombing 7 countries isn’t eating my vegetables, its condoning that black and brown lives do not matter outside of the united states.

    LIBERAL HYPOCRITES.

    • Strangely Rational says:

      “thanks for answering my question after years of ignoring them”

      Coquette nails it again! Definitely a whiny toddler.

    • Stephen says:

      And you would prefer a candidate who, judging by everything he’s said in the past eighteen months, believes black and brown lives don’t matter regardless of where they live?

        • Jessica Sen says:

          No, you’re definitely not a liberal. You are a snowflake infant with only one tooth. Grow a few more and then we’ll talk.

        • Strangely Rational says:

          It’s your right to vote for whomever you want, but if you’re not voting to prevent that horror show of a man from getting the presidency and he wins, then that’s what you just supported. Trust me, Trump is thrilled that people like you are out there to help him win.

          I don’t see how it’s spineless to vote for someone you may dislike but who is much better than the only other viable alternative. Part of being a grownup is doing things we don’t personally like for the greater good. We aren’t afraid of compromising by not voting for our ideal candidate but for the only one who can prevent a major disaster for our country.

          I’m going to vote for the most liberal candidate who has any chance of winning, because I’m not an illogical, short-sighted, idealistic liberal.

          Idealism is great and necessary for society to function on certain levels, but when it comes to elections this important, fuck idealism. We’re looking at cold, hard reality here. If you have liberal values, you’d better make sure that the person appointing the next Supreme Court justice is a liberal. Because this could have repercussions on people’s rights for decades, long after the winner of this election leaves office.

  6. Othello says:

    For the LW asking about actors: Have you read Eve Babitz’s essay, “The Flimsies” from her book, Slow Days, Fast Company? She writes about dating an actor and it might give you some insight into why many people don’t date actors.

    • Therese says:

      It only took until the second date to confirm that CQ is right. To make matters worse, when I told the actor it was over he argued with me. His worst argument was that I’m more special than all the other girls he’s met (which is lots, btw) because “intelligence in women is rare.” I–as many of the millions of intelligent women out there would–told him that’s sexist. Screw that dickwad. Next.

    • Gaio says:

      I just want to add that it was really amusing to read that response, then read her fawning lightly over an actor only moments later. I love generalizations, and I love how quickly they can be undermined (to be fair, though, the last question was about fucking Jon Stewart, not dating him).

  7. Soooooooooooooooo says:

    So r u voting for the psychotic, egomaniac, orange, racist, classist, xenophobic, ignorant, self righteous, easily flustered, consorting w/Russians, politically retarded, future war criminal, tax evading, rapist, bigot? Or the war criminal? Like seriously it’s almost time. Let’s just move on and accept that this is happening. Vote for Hillary and go indulge in something pumpkin flavored.

  8. Soooooooooooooooo says:

    No slang (or any other thing that a particular group does) exists to the world until white people are doing it. Duh.

  9. Soooooooooooooooo says:

    If ur hairy pussy makes u write into an advice column, maybe u should do what makes u comfy. Shave/wax/nair that shit.

    My ex told me, “a hairy pussy don’t stop a real nicca”

      • WhoAmI says:

        I know this guy, he doesn’t want to do it unless he just had a shower and is perfectly trimmed back and front. Makes him totally uncomfortable otherwise. Even thought my right foot is more hairy than his whole body.
        Boys can be veeeery weird with hair and body hair. Their partner’s and their own.

  10. Cuttlefish says:

    Vulva faux pas? Yikes.

    This whole thing with millennial women thinking they HAVE to shave and that it is some kind of faux pas if they don’t is really fucking depressing. I mean, shave if that’s your personal preference, whatever, but doing it because of what some dude might think? Ugh. Either he won’t care or he’ll be a sexist shitbag who doesn’t deserve to fuck you in the first place. Why do women constantly blame themselves when dudes suck? Dick is abundant and low-value. If he acts like a prissy bitch about it, just move on.

    • LIVVID says:

      Preach, baby.

      But to the question “why do women constantly blame themselves when dudes suck?” How much time you got? Let’s get coffee.

  11. VeryIrritable says:

    Real liberals don’t just eat their vegetables, they eat kale chips and pretend they’re fucking awesome! So get over it already. You’re half the reason this election is such a sand paper ass grinding!

  12. Johnnie says:

    When is the correct time to criticize Hillary?

    The emails aren’t even the thing worth talking about. How about the 250k/hour public speaking checks she arranges through the Clinton Foundation but pockets personally? What about the content of these speeches – where she has identified herself as an ally of big banks and against legalization of marijuana (why? pharma money, prison industrial complex profiting overwhelmingly from POC bodies filling prisons)

    That’s saying nothing of her continued commitment to war in other countries, which if we’re being honest is only partly her fault and likely a more systemic issue.

    I’m voting for Hillary. I understand the position of privilege that it would take to even risk voting for anyone else this election.

    But..

    Does it not piss anyone off that she basically chose her running mate? That her camp was able to manipulate the GOP base into encouraging the most polarizing insane candidates into the forefront? … and that it worked perfectly?

      • Johnnie says:

        She didn’t get Trump the nomination, but internal emails show that back in April she was using her influence to get him, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson to be the front runners.

        From the Podesta Emails via Wikileaks:

        “… In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:
        • Ted Cruz
        • Donald Trump
        • Ben Carson
        We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously.”

        https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793217446777880581

        • JC says:

          Yeah, I totally believe you that angry white male Trump voters took their marching orders from Clinton. Entirely logical.

          Or maybe, just maybe, she took more shots at GOP candidates able to launch a credible challenge to her campaign. That’s called strategy, and she’s damn good at it.

          I am proud to vote for her.

          • Johnnie says:

            Yeah, that’s not who the memo is even talking about. It has nothing to do with that demographic. The memo’s intent is to win over the centrists, not the extreme-right.

            Strategy is to be expected from either candidates inner-camp. But this is strategy coming from the DNC, an organization that is supposed to be objective and unbiased. It’s proof Bernie -or any grassroots politician- has no chance in getting elected through our established electoral institutions.

            This upsets me, and I’m surprised by the majority in these boards who seem to have glossed over it.

          • Stephen says:

            @Johnnie – Hey, you wanna get a “grassroots” candidate into the office of President? Here’s a tip: Start at the actual grassroots.

            Chumps like Stein and Johnson don’t get votes and don’t win the POTUS election because they haven’t proven a path to governance. The citizens of this country like that sort of thing—it shows experience in government that can prove useful when serving as the President. But third parties never do that sort of thing because they see getting the Big Prize as their goal and not governing the people of the US as their purpose.

            And then we get to the other big problem with chumps like them jumping in every four years in a mad dash to get 5% of the electorate at best: What would happen if they actually won? Say Jill Stein actually won the election—who would she be working with in Congress? Why, it looks like the Republicans and the Democrats with a handful of third-party/independent Senators and Representatives! You think government obstinance from one side of the aisle is bad? Imagine what would happen if both sides stopped working with POTUS.

            “Grassroots” is meant to be a term signifying a movement that starts from the bottom-up, right? Well, the Democrats and Republicans have spent decades consolidating their power and their coalitions, so a third party candidate can’t expect to jump in every four years and be anything more than either a spoiler or a laughingstock. That goes double for a candidate whose party has no central “base” of power anywhere in the country. So if another political party wants to truly be “grassroots”, it can start by winning local- and state-level political seats. If that party’s representatives can govern as well as the Dems and the GOP—or even better than them!—they’ll have a greater chance of building a bigger coalition and gaining more political power and having an actual shot at winning an election for a seat like Senator or House Representative. Only once they’ve proven their worth on that level will any POTUS candidate they put forth have a chance of being taken seriously.

            Yes, it would be nice to have better candidates (not to mention an electoral system that isn’t reliant on First Past the Post-style balloting). But third parties want to believe they can change the system if they can just get their candidate in the White House.

            If they want to win a war, they’re gonna need more than a pea shooter and a dream.

          • Johnnie says:

            @Stephen

            I agree with you! I don’t like Johnson or Stein either. A critique of Hillary does not equal an endorsement of her opponents.

            I would gladly vote for progressive grassroots candidates for county councils, state legislatures, etc.

    • J Lynn says:

      Does it not piss anyone off that she basically chose her running mate?

      It is customary for the nominee to choose the running mate, beginning sometime in the 19th Century. I think Tim Kaine was a great choice, and I’m glad she chose him. But I’m sure she had lots of advice from others.

    • Cuttlefish says:

      Her running mate is Tim Kaine. If you’re referring to her opponent, are you seriously blaming her for the shitty behavior of right-wing men and the hatred and idiocy of the Tea Party-turned-Alt-right voting base? Even if she did somehow “manipulate” the GOP base (which is extremely fucking doubtful), it is the GOP who have actively cultivated a base of the easily manipulated. They have been aggressively but codedly courting the ill-educated angry white nationalist vote for so many fucking years, constantly challenging the legitimacy of our first Black president, and encouraging psychotic and fear-mongering “news” machines like Fox and Breitbart and oodles of right-wing radio. The GOP are to blame for their party’s slide right into proto-fascism without missing a single step. Can we fucking hold them accountable for the Rosemary’s Baby of their own conception rather than somehow contorting reality to find a way to blame it on Hillary? For fuck’s sake. I am so fucking sick of hearing about how Hillary “manipulated” the GOP base, or how she “baited” Donald in the debates. These are grown fucking men (and a few women, but we’ve all seen Nate Silver’s map on how the election would most likely shake out if it were only women voting vs. only men). Blaming women for provoking men, rather than blaming men for their own behavior choices, got old a long fucking time ago.

      As for the first (and actually reasonable) part of your comment, I’d say the right time to criticize Hillary is after she has dispensed of the threat of Donald Trump destroying the planet in a fit of ego and rage.

      • Johnnie says:

        The memo doesn’t link Hillary with creating the GOP base. That’s not the point.

        The memo is an internal DNC document that proves Hillary’s camp was strategizing with how to play Republicans so that they played the most fascistic hand possible to alienate the most voters. Some call it strategy, I’d call her complicit in helping him get this far.

        I also call it unethical, as this is the fucking DNC, the organization that is supposed to be completely objective in these matters. This is the biggest point to be made here.. The fact that this memo comes from the DNC is antithetical to our democracy… and nobody gives a shit.

        It’s not blaming Hillary for creating racism or ignorance.. it’s blaming Hillary for using connections at the DNC, in the media and across the aisle to magnify these problems to scare the country into voting her into office.

        I’m blaming the woman and I’m blaming the fucking men. It’s just the latter was a tool used by the former and nobody gives a shit because the latter could literally start WW3.

        • Stephen says:

          The DNC isn’t supposed to be “objective” when it comes to their political rivals. You can argue that the party’s higher-ups acted unethically by putting their finger on the scale for Clinton over Sanders—I’ll give you that one. But complaining about the DNC doing everything it can to maximize its chances of winning? That’s playing the game, and it’s something Hillary Clinton is exceptional at doing.

          Hate the system for giving us politics that boil down to this sort of game theory bullshit. Don’t hate the players for playing the game as it is.

          • Johnnie says:

            How do you dismantle the system without addressing the individuals who profited from it?

            I mean all a system is is the individuals that take part in it.. how else do you solve the problem?

            We should hate the players. Who else is there to hate rather than the abstract moving target that is ‘the system’?

          • Stephen says:

            @Johnnie – “all a system is is the individuals that take part in it.. how else do you solve the problem?”

            Easy, idealistic answer? Get the right players in the game.

            Tough, pragmatic answer? There is no easy answer. Even if Bernie got into the White House, he alone wouldn’t be able to change things. You can’t simply “revolutionize” politics in this country because the gears in our systems have been grinding since before we were born; tossing a monkeywrench into them now so we can “repair” them just isn’t gonna work.

            It’ll take hard political work—pushing the Overton Window towards making electoral reform an acceptable position rather than a radical one, helping politicians who really do want to “fix” things get into office and stay there, working with people who might not share your exact political ideologies—over a period of time measured in years, possibly decades. Change like this doesn’t come easy or quick.

          • Stephen says:

            @Johnnie – No, not really. I think she’ll work to make things better for people in the US (especially if the Senate goes to the Democrats), but she doesn’t strike me as someone who’ll push for electoral reform beyond the notion of “nuking Citizens United”.

          • Johnnie says:

            Another insightful viewpoint:

            http://lazenby.tumblr.com/post/152822012062/it-is-extremely-disappointing-to-see-that-you

            “So it oughta be clear that I don’t have any great respect for Hillary in particular or for the presidency in general; but, because I’m a human being who needs the planet Earth in order to live, I have to pay a certain amount of attention to who wants the job.

            And I also want revenge.

            I want the evil cocklords in the Republican party to pay. I want every last one of them to feel the political norms they’ve betrayed return as glowing brands that burn both cheeks of their ass. I want Mitch McConnell to spend a long and pointless life screaming himself hoarse at a Supreme Court stocked with nine black pussyhaving, pussyloving justices. I want Paul Ryan to realize that Ayn Rand’s ‘philosophy’ was an endless rope of sand, and that his attempt to attain power by climbing it was one big, life-long jerk-off. I want Reince Priebus to feel the hook punch through his cheek and feel its line drag him down to the eternal abyss of shame, disgrace and oblivion as it follows the sinking corpse of Donald Trump. I want Roger Ailes to see a woman in the presidency.

            But in the end, I hate Hillary for what she’s going to do as much as I hate myself for knowing she needs to do it. This is because, in the end, the concentration of carbon dioxide as measured in parts per million is more important than whether Hillary is woke, whether she gratifies my desire to punish, or whether she makes your skin crawl when she speaks. She is precisely the person who can successfully perform the revolting calculus of international power politics. And this is what has to be done if we’re going to hold the global temperature anomaly to one and a half degrees Celsius.

            And make no mistake: she is going to kill people to do this. Whether this means protecting the Saudis as they wage their criminal war against Yemeni civilians so their insane royal family does not obstruct a post-petroleum world-order. Or whether this means fomenting a bloody coup against Filipino psychopath-in-chief Rodrigo Duterte to prevent him from becoming China’s boy in the South China Sea, hence preventing him from breaking up the precarious balance of peace American hegemony has maintained on the Pacific rim. Or whether it’s any of the hundred thousand other horrible things the United States will have to do to orchestrate a relatively peaceful transition from fossil fuels to whatever follows them. Because, and you should be under no illusions as to this point, global peace is presently maintained by the imminent threat of death from above as delivered by the U.S. Air Force. And preventing the worst excesses of climate change from killing millions of people as it also wipes away much of human civilization will require a certain level of global peace. Because if you think the Syrian refugee crisis was bad remember that it is the result of a single, smallish country disintegrating because agriculture was no longer possible there. Now imagine that everything south of the Himalayas has become unfarmable. Imagine the instability, war and genocide that a billion refugees would trigger.

            Humanity will be relying for its survival on the most delicate of all the threads by which global politics is suspended: the absence of war. We have a global order capable of producing this, and Hillary is the person capable of pouring a great deal of innocent blood on the altar of its maintenance. Our existence on this planet is too tenuous, and the requirements for fixing climate change much too stringent to wait around for a global order that better pleases our sensibilities. “

  13. RocketGrunt says:

    The question about unrestricted access to partners’ phones reminded me of my ex who exchanged Facebook passwords with his (now ex) wife when they got married. There was all kinds of drama and at least one of them made multiple secret Facebook profiles.

    It was wonderful schadenfreude because this guy went through my phone while we were dating and was furious because I’d expressed doubts about the relationship in a text to my friend.

    • Chris says:

      What a jerk and an idiot. My wife and I don’t have some kind of all-access rule, but she can see whatever I have and I with her. In fact, she once logged into her GMail from my phone and I just found it annoying to get the alerts.

      At the time she was a volunteer paramedic and some firefighter mssg’d her. I saw it after she’d already replied. It was kind, but also mentioned me. Then, ‘see ya around,’ or some such.

      I don’t get all the checking each other’s stuff, but I also don’t have an issue like your friend must have had. Being in that situation, perhaps, made him temporarily moronic.

      Thoughts?

    • VeryIrritable says:

      I can’t imagine. I once made hotel reservations for an ex who then later stole money from me and it’s a continual needle when they try to spam me with “special offers” in her name.

      • Othello says:

        I’m probably suggesting the obvious, but, could you try unsubscribing from the emails or contact the hotel and ask them to remove your contact information from their database?

        • VeryIrritable says:

          Thanks Othello,
          I appreciate the thought. But the unsubscribe button did not work; and in fact, I believe it was responsible for me getting more airline spam.
          I have marked it as junk.
          I have made filters that use the hotel name and email address. But for some reason, about once every six months a new one slips through or I see it in my junk mail folder while i’m looking for a web site for which I legitimately signed up.

          • Othello says:

            When you say filters, do you mean you’ve placed the domain name in a blocklist, for instance @hiltonhotels.com? I know with Hotmail email addresses, unless they’ve updated their service again, placing the domain name in the blocklist tends to work unless the organisation sending you the emails begins using a different domain name. With Gmail it seems to just send any sender that’s blocked to trash where you still see it.

            This is probably a nuclear option, but could you sign up for a new email address with the same service provider – assuming you’re happy with their service, of course – and then update the websites you use your current email for with the newly set up email, forwarding any future mail to the new address, then delete the old email address? That way, you won’t lose any future communications of importance to you. It’s something I’ve had to do, albeit in a different situation. Obviously, this solution depends on you using the email address for mostly online orders/business purposes/website subscriptions as opposed to one where you’re contacting people you communicate with regularly/applying for jobs, etc. Though you could update them with new contact details, if necessary. It might seem like an annoyance, but it would stop you receiving more emails in her name as they wouldn’t have your new email address.

            Another alternative is to set up a dummy email address and update the hotel communications department with that email address, making sure to remove any personally identifiable information on the account that was created with the booking before confirming the changes, as the email address will eventually be deleted with lack of use. A gmail account would help with this option as once you delete a gmail account and it’s removed after 5 days or so, it can’t be restored/reused by another person.

  14. spek says:

    Lots of intellectual dishonesty here. Even I can’t vote for a misogynist, racist prick like Trump, and I’m a straight, white, male veteran. But Hillary is no prize – a narcissistic, power & money hungry manipulator of the worst sort. And I won’t even get into what a colossal dick her husband is. I’m just voting Democrat because I won’t support what the Republican Party stands for, but it’s definitely a lesser of two evils situation. However, you just can’t admit you are voting for her partially just because she is a woman. The slogan isn’t even “I’m with Hillary”, it’s “I’m with Her”, because any female will do. If you think it’s past time to put up a woman President, I agree, but I’m not happy about this one. Put Warren or Rice on the ticket and I’ll even send money. Just admit that you are voting Hillary because: 1. She is female, and 2. Trump is an asshole. And I’m with you 50% of the way…

    • Stephen says:

      “Hillary is no prize – a narcissistic, power & money hungry manipulator of the worst sort.”

      You could say the exact same thing about Trump with a straight face.

      “you just can’t admit you are voting for her partially just because she is a woman.”

      Why should she, or anyone else? I can’t speak for Coquette (and I wouldn’t dare to try), but I don’t care about the sex/gender of a POTUS candidate so long as they’re qualified and capable of doing the job—which Hillary is.

      “The slogan isn’t even “I’m with Hillary”, it’s “I’m with Her”, because any female will do.”

      Technically, wouldn’t that also mean Hillary?

      • VeryIrritable says:

        I really want to know what behaviors someone is seeing that would allow them to us the label “narcissistic” on Hillary. Did she put her name in twelve foot tall gold letters someplace? Did she pay for her own star on the hollywood walk of fame?

    • wrkrb says:

      Absolutely on 2 but really not with you on 1 – I rooted for Bernie in the primary but DID consider going over to Hill at the prospect of an all female ticket (I would have operated as a 1!) but when that turned out to be a rumor I relaxed into the unenthusiastic state where she looks like a carrot because from my perspective Trump looks like a stick.

    • Chris says:

      What’s ridiculous is people who claim to be undecided. I don’t believe it.

      I mean, a year ago I knew I liked Bernie. Then when he was out I knew I liked Johnson, but was impressed with Stein.

      My wife knew a year ago she’d be voting for Hillary, but that if a decent republican like Kasich was the opponent, she’d listen to what he had to say before still voting for Hillary. I mean, people know who they’re going to vote for, and they typically knew 4 years ago simply because they tend to vote for the banner more than they do the person.

  15. Alison says:

    Yeah … pubic hair is a turn off for me. I keep myself trim, clean, and fresh and I excpect nothing less from my partners. If they don’t like it they can kick rocks (visa versa). It’s okay to have preferences and standards.

  16. op says:

    For more background on the phone question: my baby brother is about to propose and didn’t want to talk about it over text in case she sees them and it kills the surprise (which I get, and he wanted to delete any time he did mention it). But this sparked a debate with friends of “why is she reading his texts anyway”. There was a division of people who think it’s perfectly normal and others who think it’s a gross invasion of privacy.

    • RocketGrunt says:

      It’s one thing to share interesting texts with your partner and let them use your phone without a second thought, but the fact that he has to delete every single text that mentions the proposal (and he avoids the conversation altogether so those texts never even exist) to keep her from finding out is creepy. That implies that she reads every single thing he sends to anyone, even family members. It leaves open the possibility that she’s monitoring all his interpersonal relationships. Maybe he’s just so excited about it that he’s taking unnecessary precautions, but it sounds sketchy.

      • foodforthought says:

        I don’t know, something as simple as handing the phone over whide he’s driving and asking her “tell my sister were on our way” could mess it up if they had just talked about it in the previous message bubble.

  17. OP says:

    You might want to inform the retailers stocking your book in their self help sections that you didn’t write a self help book. They might be confused though, as the dust jacket of your book explicitly states on the back ‘self help’ or did your publisher, Icon books, get that detail wrong?

    • Lovefooling says:

      We can’t both be the OP. Imposter! But yeah, I saw the label on the cover and was amused. Self-help seems a noble cause, though, even if the genre is chock full of hacks and whimsy and general douchebaggery. Obviously CT is none of the above and I’d like to think her stuff will help people help themselves.

  18. Betsy says:

    I really wish I’d majored in international political economy. Really cool field, and a really good mixture of economics with politics (as the name suggests). It’s also a lot more realistic and less full of shit than economics.

  19. Light37 says:

    “You just haven’t realized yet that you get to decide what fun is.”

    Yes, exactly. The fact that other people like partying and drinking* doesn’t mean you have to do it. My ideal of hell in my college days was a frat party, and my fun was getting together with girlfriends for a meal, or reading a book, or taking a long walk. Maybe you really want to spend your free time dancing at drum circles, or volunteering to walk dogs for the animal shelter, or taking a class on Icelandic weaving. Whatever it is, go do it- a lot of it.

    *No judgement if you do like partying and drinking.

  20. Jess says:

    For “yaaas queen” see: Paris is Burning. It’s on youtube. I suspect Rupaul’s drag race is behind it’s broader populisation. It’s drag slag, specifically POC drag slang in origin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *