Clarissa

world wary

terrain

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981112)

hth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981307)

(Minus the religious stuff.)

(And not from a prestigious family.)

(And not educated from a prestigious university.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981363)

also, twist was a female poster?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981261)

anyway, in what way do you see pensive's concept of heroism sexist? i thought it applied to both genders.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981362)

The way his standards are applied in practice are also troubling. The actual examples he's chosen tend to be female celebrities whose presence he admires and women he's met IRL who have responded favorably to him. In many cases, he knows little about the woman in question and nothing of her sexual history. A heroic woman is, in short, a woman who likes pensive or who reminds pensive of other women who have liked him in the past. Making such far reaching character judgments based on individual sexual chemistry strikes me as vaguely sexist, though it's primarily egotistical, of course.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981417)

I don't think it exists as an independent concept. A heroic woman is essentially a woman who likes pensive or who pensive thinks would like him, nothing more. The board itself values women with little sexual experience and the capacity to be loyal and loving, of course, but the definition there is too different for me to relate the two ideas.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981568)

Even if you limited your source text to pensive you would find a conceptual construction of the heroic woman that could be applied independent of pensive's thoughts and experiences (e.g., a woman who pursues casual sex is not heroic, regardless of what pensive might feel about her). Moreover, in board usage the term "heroic" usually refers to the abstract ideal as first articulated by pensive, not to pensive's preferences. Your attempt to leverage some sort of etymological prescriptivism to destroy the term looks more like more of an Orwellian play to mold thought through language than an objective engagement of board parlance. But that's a big part of critical theory projects such as feminism, right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981675)

I don't think that posters here have an idea of it beyond pensive's personal sexual obsessions, although he seems to claim the concept is larger without ever elaborating on it.

In any case, others may of course continue to use the term and/or subscribe to the ideas behind it. I reject its use in relation to me, as I think it's the product of sexist thought on the part of someone who I believe is mentally disturbed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981850)

So disingenuous. You were the one to tacitly acknowledge (what you perceive to be) the board-wide definition of "heroic": "The board itself values women with little sexual experience and the capacity to be loyal and loving, of course."

Although I would define it somewhat differently, that's the basic concept invoked when poasters use the term. Virtually no one uses it to mean "would pensive like this woman?" (besides pensive, of course, who may do so unwittingly).

"others may ... subscribe to the ideas behind it"

Here you acknowledge that the term in xoxo parlance has a conceptual foundation; it is more than a test of whether pensive likes a woman. But you have not acknowledged that you acknowledge it, which is awkward, because you have also denied it.

"I reject its use in relation to me, as I think it's the product of sexist thought on the part of someone who I believe is mentally disturbed."

That's an entirely different question. Maybe you don't want a term applied to you because you don't like something that the person who coined the term thinks, but it's dishonest to misdefine the term in an attempt to defeat it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981995)

Besides, if the idea of heroism does have independent meaning on the board, it's even more clearly sexist, since no one other than pensive has even acknowledged the existence of heroic men.

I don't like it because it's sexist, because I don't like being wrapped up in another poster's sexual fetishes (and I don't think it's sufficiently distinct from pensive to avoid that), and because I generally dislike judging people as worthy or unworthy in a binary way (I also dislike "broken").

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982123)

The term "heroic" preexisted pensive's turn to dwelling on black/foreign women, and already had a meaning independent of pensive by then. No one thinks that the term has a specific relation to black/foreign women--unless maybe pensive is involved.

"The board has other ways it describes chaste women that aren't similarly loaded."

Any term used to described "chaste" women--including "chaste" itself--is loaded. The nice thing about "heroic" is that it provides a modern counterpoint to "slut," etc.

"it's even more clearly sexist, since no one other than pensive has even acknowledged the existence of heroic men"

I reject the idea that a term can be sexist. Perhaps the use of a term can be sexist, but who is at fault for that? Perhaps the women of xoxo should be faulted for not using the term enough to describe heroic men. Anyway, the bare term "sexist" without further explanation means almost nothing. Since men and women are different in some ways, everything is sexist from one perspective or another: either because it doesn't acknowledge the differences or because it does.

"I don't like being wrapped up in another poster's sexual fetishes (and I don't think it's sufficiently distinct from pensive to avoid that)"

Again, it has currency beyond pensive. The distaste you feel because pensive coined the term has no bearing on the term itself outside your personal sphere.

"I generally dislike judging people as worthy or unworthy in a binary way"

This is also a dishonest reason to misdefine a term. But anyway, there's room in the conceptual space of "heroic" for a sliding scale--"more heroic" or "less heroic"--just as someone can be taller or shorter but we still may refer to him as "tall" if he passes a certain threshold.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982311)

It's still deeply tied to an individual's particular sexual tastes and fantasies. However reaching you claim it is, it's basically pensive's term, which is used by a handful of other people as well.

No one here has used it as a sliding scale, least of all pensive. Above, you even admitted that a woman who has had casual sex once does not qualify as heroic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982492)

As I said above, everything is sexist in the sense it will either treat the sexes differently or fail to account for their differences. To limit sexism, you must claim that something is also harmful (or more harmful than good) which is ultimately going to be a cultural value judgment. So you might as well articulate the particular value judgment rather than using the smokescreen of "sexism."

"I reject the claim that men and women are different in this particular way."

You're wrong; men applying the term to women but not vice versa shows different aggregate preferences regarding heroism in the opposite sex.

"it's basically pensive's term"

This is an empty assertion after our foregoing discussion. He coined the term but you provided a pensive-independent definition for it. If a term that can be defined without reference to pensive is "basically pensive's term" because he coined it, and if a term being "basically pensive's" means that "it's...deeply tied to [his] particular sexual tastes and fantasies," then you may be onto something. Otherwise, you're at a dead end here.

"No one here has used it as a sliding scale, least of all pensive."

Wrong. Here's an example from pensive himself: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1058634&forum_id=#12454202

"Above, you even admitted that a woman who has had casual sex once does not qualify as heroic."

Wrong. I said "a woman who pursues casual sex is not heroic," not "a woman who has had casual sex once is not heroic."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982563)

Not all preferences are equally morally acceptable. I believe men and women are much the same in their sexual behavior and sex drive, and that preferences are the result of ideas about controlling women from periods where they were viewed as chattel and when access to birth control was limited. Your beliefs may differ.

Note that his only exception is a man, himself. Do you have a link where he applies it to the primary target of the judgment?

What about a woman who has pursued casual sex once? What if she is currently pursuing it, then marries and is faithful to her husband? Do you think the fact that the originator of the theory would roundly condemn both women is irrelevant?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982650)

That's the rub. Whatever cultural values underlie "properly" are what's really at stake.

"but not that the label is useless"

Only because "sexism" communicates the domain of concern that you're talking about. It is next to useless as an analytical tool from that point on.

"I believe men and women are much the same in their sexual behavior"

"Not all preferences are equally morally acceptable. I believe men and women are much the same in their sexual behavior"

A tacit acknowledgement that preferences differ between the sexes immediately followed by a claim that their respective behavior is "much the same." But the behavior is different. A preference for a heroic partner will translate into the behavior of seeking a heroic partner.

"preferences are the result of ideas about controlling women from periods where they were viewed as chattel and when access to birth control was limited"

This doesn't explain why women have any sexual preferences regarding their partner's sexual attitudes, activities, preferences, or histories.

"Note that his only exception is a man, himself. Do you have a link where he applies it to the primary target of the judgment?"

LOL. You went from "no one, least of all pensive, has never applied it to a man" and "no one has used it as a sliding scale--least of all pensive" to pretending that this proves your point. But I do have a link of pensive applying the sliding scale model to a woman: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1058634&forum_id=#12454202

That's right--the same link! Pensive is comparing his heroism to J.'s heroism on a sliding scale. And J. is the primary target of his judgment in that comment.

"What about a woman who has pursued casual sex once? What if she is currently pursuing it, then marries and is faithful to her husband?"

What if, what if? Heroism is difficult to define so strictly, and different poasters are bound to take different views, including pensive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982857)

Women's sexual preferences were also formed during those times, when they were compelled to seek out men to protect them. Many of these preferences are also archaic and unfair, and we should work towards discarding them.

What I'm asking for is a case where you have labeled a woman as medium heroic, not differentiations where a woman is unheroic and you (because you are special) are only slightly unheroic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982907)

This isn't about enforcing societal norms. People are interested in heroism to find a good individual match. But, as you mention below, you want to re-engineer their individual preferences.

"Women's sexual preferences were also formed during those times, when they were compelled to seek out men to protect them. Many of these preferences are also archaic and unfair, and we should work towards discarding them."

You want to revert sexual preferences to what--a certain time period? A "natural" state? The genders' sexual preferences have developed through both culture and evolution. You could engineer people's sexual preferences to create your shitty utopia, but you can't revert them to some Garden of Eden state.

"labeled a woman as medium heroic"

LOL.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13983068)

Because I'm looking for a case of medium heroism or one where a woman has had sexual transgressions but not been utterly condemned, not a case where you condemn a woman and then label yourself as slightly less bad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982916)

LOL, that's not what happened you dumb fuck. "Wait, why the fuck do you have a bunch of links to that freak's posts? If this is pensive..." implies that the only way I could have found that post is if I had saved the link (which would imply that I'm pensive, because who else would save and remember such a boring pensive link?). Then I point out the obvious (that I googled it) and you, like the disingenuous dumbass that you are, revise history that you *actually* "figured out" that I'm pensive based on "writing style" and "extensive quotes." I'm not pensive, but you could have posted this dumbass trash under any moniker and it would be instantly recognizable as typical dishonest Rowan revisionism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982976)

Good afternoon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982988)

* the second Google result = "odd access to things that should be hard to find"

* using extensive quotations when dealing with a dumbfuck revisionist illogical poster who can't follow a line of argument gives away a uniquely identifiable writing style

* "quibbling about the inane forever" is something that others do, not Rowan

LOL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13983019)

Author: Joelle Van Dyne

You have an odd access to things that should be hard to find, plus you write just like him, plus you have his tendency to quibble about the inane forever.

Good afternoon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982988)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13991008)

see "stuff." but see "other stuff." accord "things." contra "other things."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13991826)

Author: Joelle Van Dyne

Wait, why the fuck do you have a bunch of links to that freak's posts? If this is pensive, I think the conversation is over.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982668)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13982993)

lol @ the 90s

HEROIC WOMEN DON'T PARTICIPATE IN RAINBOW PARTIES

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13981838)

I'd nominate myself if I wasn't so much of a materialistic, worthless cunt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13984154)

You can't nominate yourself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13984272)

Since his main bugaboo is with casual sex I'm fairly curious as to how I'd stack up using his criteria.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13984342)

Medea

LauraM

TexASS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13984269)

five alive!

clevergirl

chicagoadchick / shiveringjenny

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13985510)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#13989564)

Shivering Jenny

Clarissa

BlondieLaw

Bel

Law433

That's 6, but I'm fat so whatever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162296)

BTW what does the acronym in your initial response mean?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162329)

i'm well-known here for being one of the more heroic females, so yeah, i'm a bit offended

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162358)

LOL, this characterization makes you even less heroic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162445)

I may not be in the top four, but I'm sure many of the people listed before me have done much worse than I have, relative to relationship with partner.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162450)

- when we got to my dorm room, told me that i had a choice: either i could give myself to him completely or he'd leave. he wouldn't let me kiss him as i stalled, asking if he'd respect that i don't want to lose my virginity.

- eventually promised that he wouldn't fuck me yet (beta?) and asked if i wanted to suck his dick. wrapped his belt around my neck and choked me as i... yeah you don't need details. there are marks on my neck from the buckle lol. also spit on me periodically, which got eye makeup in one of my eyes and made it all red and irritated. i didn't think he noticed but he later said that it was hot.

- took a video of me leaning back to choke myself, with eyeliner streaming down my face from when i cried from gagging.

- came in my mouth/on my face.

- makes me call him "daddy".

- says i'm "JAPpy and annoying". BUT he promised that he liked me as a person. i was like, "you just like me b/c i'm young and submissive. would you hang out with me if i were a guy?" and he laughed and said "no, that'd be weird" and i said "okay how about if i were a lesbian?" and he said "yeah, i would. i'd text you. i don't have friends."

- his "number" is 34. he had chlamydia at one point and thinks he has HPV.

- says he never uses a condom and that he's really good at pulling out. i was like "WTF HAVE YOU HEARD OF PRECUM?" and he was all, "that's not worth worrying about."

****NOT HEROIC*****

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162465)

Compare me to most girls in my peer group. Let's look at my friends, who are normal, bright, nice girls. They hook up with strangers at frat parties regularly; for example, at the party at which I got drunk and ended up at the ER, one of them made out hardcore with 2-3 guys on the dance floor, then slept in the last one's room (not sure if they had sex). Another not only made out with some guy on the dance floor, but let him pull down her shirt and suck on her tits. In a corner, sure, but out in the open. These girls engage in these activities regularly.

In addition, I'm one of few virgins in my group of close female friends (and one is a lesbian, so she doesn't count).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162516)

Not heroic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162533)

It's plausible that the median female college freshman is unheroic. Not sure why that matters, though. Being at the median is often not a good sign.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162581)

I think the people who take the board more seriously and treat it like IRL are more likely to be unhappy. I would probably killself if I came here taking it at all seriously.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162880)

Anyone who feels the need to be so judgmental of others' decisions is probably pretty insecure him- or herself, so I guess I don't really care.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162552)

Also, you sort of self-pwned here. So I guess you are probably pretty insecure of yourself! ;)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1209089&forum_id=2#14162609)