I was recently asked this.  By a guy who wants to meet me.  Based on reading Random Rim Jobs.

Men really are clueless.  The worst that could happen?  I could be raped.  I could be killed.  I could be tortured.  I could be maimed.  I could be scared.  I could be terrorized.  There’s a lot that’s not good that could happen to me, and all women, any time we leave the house.  Men seem to easily forget this, if, that is, they ever knew it in the first place.

Men get to walk around in a privileged bubble.  That’s fine.  I don’t mind being a woman, and I don’t want to be a man, but there are some things that women have to think about that don’t even occur to men.  Women have to be always diligent; we cannot relax when we leave our homes.  Some women can’t relax in their homes.

So, guys, don’t ask a woman you want to meet because she writes about sex what the worst thing that could happen is.  It’s pretty fucking bad.  Not for you, but for her.  Think of her and not your cock.

Why would a woman, even if she does write about sex, want to meet you?  Since you now know that she is always concerned that she could be victimized in some way, what can you do to demonstrate you are not the victimizing type?  Just saying you want to meet to see if you want to fuck is not it.

Even if she does write about sex does not mean she wants to have sex with you.  Writing about sex, even as she does, does not indicate she is indiscriminate; one cock is not the same as all others.  Those cocks are attached to people who have brains and thoughts and she likes getting to know a guy she fucks, even if she’s fucking him casually.

Sure, contact me if you think you want to meet me, but have more to say than that.

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.

[Continued from "WHAT the fuck is he TRYING to SAY? (Part 2)."]

I didn’t bother responding to anything else but his fact #3, which, if you notice, violates his own fact #1 by assuming I was seeking advice rather than giving it.  His facts are not, in fact, facts.

He did not bother letting me know how he got to fact #1.  What assumptions has he assumed I’ve made?  I let him know that overcapitalzation makes him look like a moron, which is true, at least to me, the only person for whom I’ve ever purported to speak.

Fact #2 might shed some light on what he thinks I’ve assumed.  He’s had an aol.com email address for years and changing it would be bad for his advice giving business.  He’s never heard of forwarding email?  He could – if he weren’t an idiot – create a new email account using something people under 50 had heard of – say Yahoo! or gmail – and start giving out that 21st century email address from here on out.  Eventually, the people seeking his advice – because I’m assuming he has very few long-term advice exchanges and even fewer “clients” who after ten years of not getting advice from him suddenly must send him an email – will know to use the new, modern, and relevant email address.  My guess is that most of the advice he gives is in the form of a one-off.

Fact #3 fully illustrates how I got this guy’s goat.  He doesn’t like being called old and out of touch.  He does use the Internet after all.  I never implied that he didn’t have another email account, just told him that AOL accounts are perceived to be used by only old people – a fact that has made its way to joke punchlines.  Since he adamantly makes clear that he does have another email account, I’m still confused as to why the fuck he doesn’t use it and stop using the one that makes him look like an octogenarian.

I take issue with the sentence, “You feel how you feel, I know how it really is, and that’s that.”  What a condescending ass.

I did some Googling of Jason Love, aka, Jay the Advice Man, which wasn’t easy since there is a comedian of some renown with the same name.  Apparently my buddy Jay wants to write a book giving advice to men about women, and he’s placed an excerpt of it online for all of us to see.  Here’s a fun tidbit that incorporates his lame capitalization, bold print, and italics.  That’s some fucking emphasis.  [Note that in quotes on WordPress the default is for the entire quote to be italicized so anything that is in "normal" print here is actually italicized in the original, and vice versa.]

When you use your money to ATTRACT a girl, you’re doing TWO things:

a) You’re letting her see you as her own personal ATM.

b) Saying you can’t attract her on your OWN, without the money.

The next several Google hits lead to advice he’s given on Advice.LoveDetour.com, and then there’s a link to a stellar website.  It looks very sharp and not at all like someone made it back in 2003.  You may notice that there is a very pretty feather and a sky background; was he thinking of Forrest Gump?

On the site, N.B.T. Advice, Jason Love claims to be great at giving advice and only charges $5 per email to do so.  The first one is free, just like a drug pusher.  I have no clue what “N.B.T.” stands for.  He refers would-be clients to his blog, which is simply titled, “Blog,” and has a total of two entries, both from 2009.

The “Guestbook” has five entries, two of which appear to be duplicates and three of which are definitely spam.  There are four people in the “Members” section.  One is just a photo and a stupid screen name, and two of them have become members only so Jay will link to their sites, buy their products, or use their services.  The last one is our buddy, Jason Love.

This, folks, is Jason Love, or at least this is the picture he’s posted claiming it’s him.  He’s kind of cute. But still an idiot.

As far as I can tell, N.B.T. Advice hasn’t been touched since December 2009.  I seriously doubt it has generated any income for Mr. Love, who apparently doesn’t know how to take a website down.

I’m considering sending him a link to this.

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.

[Continued from "WHAT the fuck is he TRYING to SAY? (Part 1)."]

Jaytheadviceman@aol.com wrote:

lol @ “you shouldn’t capitalize your words.” You’re the bossy type, aren’t you? That’s so cute. I bet your boyfriend loves it. Normally, I’d just dismiss your irrelevant opinion and move on with my day (especially considering that your criticism seems more designed to insult me rather than to be constructive). However, I’m slightly impressed by your ability to present your argument with a tad bit of intelligence. Therefore, I have no problem indulging you, at least for the time being.

Seeing as you’re only ONE negative email, compared to the 50 or so POSITIVE emails I’ve gotten in regards to my advice, I’m not too concerned with your opinion. However, to be fair to you, I have read a few of my posts to myself in the past (not just on there, but many of my writings) and said to myself, “That must look really jumbled and messy to the average reader” and wanted to change it. I just have a habit of capitalizing my words without even thinking most of the time. *shrugs* It’s what I do.

Thanks for the email though. :)

_______________

I love how he tried to bait me into a completely irrelevant topic.  I’m a woman so asserting myself is “cute.”  I’m a woman so I must hate being called bossy.  My guess is that he put the part about a boyfriend in so I’d respond to it by saying I don’t have a boyfriend, so he could respond with something typical like, “I can see why.”  I don’t call the Viking my boyfriend, but I think he does like me, bossy and all.

In the end he concedes that I wrote intelligently, that he knows he shouldn’t capitalize so much, and that overcapitalization is a bad habit he simply cannot break.  I guess I should have tried to gather some of his friends before I staged my intervention.

_______________

To: jaytheadviceman <jaytheadviceman@aol.com>

It is constructive: overcapitalization serves no purpose other than making your writing nearly unintelligible and marking the writer as not too bright. Oh, and only really old people who are confused by the series of tubes that is the interwebs have aol email accounts anymore.

On May 15, 2011, at 5:19 PM, jaytheadviceman@aol.com wrote:

Thank you for proving my point. Your sole reason for writing me was to pick things apart, insult, and criticize, for no reason at all. First, it was my capitalization (which I even understood) but now it’s the fact that I still use my aol account? lol You have officially become a joke.

Let me hit you with a few facts:

#1: You make assumptions that aren’t accurate, and consider them as fact (which isn’t smart at all. Instead, try asking questions.)

#2: People have been writing me at this account for YEARS getting advice. Why would I get RID of it, when everyone is familiar with it? That doesn’t make very much business sense.

#3: Implying that I am old, confused, or that I don’t have another email account simply because this is the only one YOU KNOW about, is an extremely idiotic assumption. (I guess that’s why I’m the one GIVING advice on the site, and you’re the one SEEKING advice)

In any case, I’ve wasted enough time with this pointless debate. You feel how you feel, I know how it really is, and that’s that. So, if we can’t have a civilized or friendly correspondence, it needs to end, right now.

Thank you for your time :)

To: jaytheadviceman <jaytheadviceman@aol.com>

I give advice on Advice.LoveDetour.com too, buddy.

On May 15, 2011, at 5:25 PM, jaytheadviceman@aol.com wrote

Congrats!

_______________

Our exchange ended there, but I wasn’t done.

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.

For shits and giggles I give advice on a website that seems to be viewed by mostly nearly illiterate people.  Many of those seeking advice are not native English speakers, and those I give some leeway.  For the ones with names like Katie who are in countries where English grammar and spelling are taught in schools, I have little patience, and I usually give them snarky advice along the lines of, “If you could write correctly, maybe she’d still love you.”

I have suggested to the site’s owner that the advice seekers’ letters should be edited so they are easier to read and make sense, but he hasn’t adopted my idea, probably because whatever staff he has working on editing are themselves nearly illiterate.  People write in seeking advice and someone associated with the site gives the letter a headline meant to pull in more readers via SEO/Google/magic.

Sometimes the headlines have nothing to do with the content of the letter.  Sometimes they’re just retarded, like this one, “She’s been very distance,” or “She sends me confused signals,” or, my personal favorite, “He wants to put his figure in my ….”  Yes, that’s F-I-G-U-R-E.  The actual content of the letter was about the writer’s boyfriend wanting to put his finger, not a tchotchke, in her vagina.

But I take most issue with the other “experts.”  Each letter can be answered by any or all of several people who may or may not be qualified to give advice about love, sex, and relationships.  Last year I called John Wilder on his sexist, homophobic, idiotic shit.  It resolved nothing.

Apparently I’m none too bright because I did it again.  After reading many, many paragraphs with seemingly randomly capitalized words, like this one:

All in all, you don’t want to spend the rest of your life wondering whether or not your son is really someone ELSE’S son. So, even though I get that you don’t want your wife to end your marriage by ASKING her, your marriage will likely end ANYWAY (at least, according to YOU) if he ISN’T your kid. Right? So why keep tight lipped about it? After all, SHE’S the person who CAUSED this doubt. So she has NO RIGHT to be upset if you confront her on it (though I’m POSITIVE she WILL be.)

I just had to write.  I did not take issue with the content of the advice he was giving, though this content, to a man who thought his baby looked like his wife’s friend, is pretty shitty.  No one makes anyone else feel a certain way.

_______________

To: JayTheAdviceMan <JayTheAdviceMan@aol.com>
Subject: WHY?

Why do you inexplicably capitalize words?  You do it so much that it no longer
means anything.  Also, the words you do capitalize don’t necessarily need to be
emphasized.

Jaytheadviceman@aol.com wrote:

You say it “no longer” has meaning, as if you’ve been watching me for quite a while. lol…Who are you?

_______________

It’s pretty common to say that something no longer has meaning when it’s overused so already the guy proved he was clueless.  And then he tried to flirt.  Yuck.

_______________

To: jaytheadviceman <jaytheadviceman@aol.com>

I read the advice you offer on Advice.LoveDetour.com and you capitalize RANDOM words so often that the capitalization no longer has meaning.

Jaytheadviceman@aol.com wrote:

I think the focus should be on the advice itself, rather than the capitalization. I capitalize certain words because it’s how I TALK (see, like that?) I put emphasis on the words I’d emphasize in a verbal conversation. I realize it can be hard/annoying to read, but the ADVICE ITSELF should be the main focus, not the rest.

To: jaytheadviceman <jaytheadviceman@aol.com>

HOW can one take ADVICE from someone who EMPHASIZES so many WORDS when he speaks?

I read your advice out loud, emphasizing every word you capitalize and it ends up sounding nonsensical to borderline retarded.  Your example sentence, [above], further illustrates that you don’t need to capitalize so much. That sentence without “talk” capitalized would mean the exact same thing so you shouldn’t have done it.

_______________

There’s more to come.

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.

[Continued from "You Call That Advice? (Part 6)."]

John’s blog, which is trying blatantly to whip up excitement for a book that doesn’t exist, as well as garner clients who want his style of “marriage coaching,” had a post offering advice to single women regarding sex.  The gist, of course, is to not have sex until the man makes a commitment.  He even offered some scripture and advised single women to place the scripture in their online dating profiles.  [PUKE!]  He thinks that men can offer good advice on sex and love to women and doesn’t understand why there are no nationally syndicated male advice columnists.

By the time I read that I was irritated beyond compare.  I wrote a comment to the post.  I said he was ignorant and said that Dan Savage, a male (and man), has an advice column, Savage Love, that is nationally syndicated.  The following is what transpired.

_______________

From: John
To: shazamsf@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Sun, April 4, 2010 10:24:48 PM
Subject: Shaming statements

We have transcended the dialogue phase and now you have devolved into judging and name calling.  It is always the same when I engage in dialogue with liberals.  They ALWAYS devolve into name calling.

You profess freedom of speech but you don’t want to allow it for conservatives.

I have had enough, don’t contact me again.  You have made it quite clear your opinion of me, I don’t have to put up  with continued verbal abuse.

John

_______________

Subject: Re: Shaming statements
To: John
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 6:49 AM

John,

You are the one who hadn’t heard of dialogue other than from Catholics, dear.  I have not called you names.

Once again you make assumptions.  You don’t know that I’m a liberal, and you certainly don’t know that I don’t believe that the First Amendment should apply to everyone in the United States.

And, by the way, since you have never heard me speak, you have most certainly not be subjected to “verbal” abuse.

Frankly, I’m a tad confused as to what happened between my last response, that indicated I’d write more later, and this latest email of yours, which was a full three emails since then.  You seem to be a bit irrational.

Sincerely,

Suzanne White Montiel
_______________

From: John
To: S M
Sent: Mon, April 5, 2010 7:05:27 AM
Subject: Re: Shaming statements

You made the comment on my blog that I am “so ignorant.”  It was insulting and demeaning.  Your tone throughout has been condescending and that you come across as a teacher who is trying to reach a recalcitrant student.  You have made continuous shaming statements, have not recognized any worth for what I do.  You ignored a previous comment praising my article about Sexual advice for single women by a woman.  I played along with you just waiting for the name calling that invariably comes when dealing with liberals.  You embrace liberal ideas which is your right to do and then criticize me for being conservative.  I knew as soon as I gave you my blog address that you would go on there and find fault with my articles.  You did not surprise me.  Then you lectured me about clinical terms for female anatomy.  I was studying medical text books on OB Gyn when I was 14.

For the record I have a genius IQ and am extremely widely read.  I got a BA with a double major, attended grad school for Clinical Psych and attended nursing school as well.  I was on winning debate teams in school and understand logic quite well. I have won awards in public speaking.  I have excelled at everything that I have attempted.

We are both in the helping professions, we just are at opposites sides.  I have made continuous statements that people are free to accept or reject my advice, but you continue to try and educate me and bring me into your fold of liberal ideas.  I played along until you started making insulting statements for which I am free to reject and do.

If you really want to help, how about lobbying insurance companies to stop limiting psych help to one hour once a week.  If they want to place a total cap on services, that is one thing, but to tell clinicians how they can offer services and limit them to one hour once a week, it contributes to overall failure of services.

As a clinician, you are ethically enjoined to treat people with unconditional positive regard, something that you have totally ignored with me.  You come across as extremely arrogant and condescending.  I choose to rid poisonous people from my life.

John
_______________

John,

Ignorance isn’t stupidity, but those who mistake the two are defensive nonetheless.  When making statements such as, “The problem is, is that there are no nationally published male advice columnists” then you open yourself up to criticism.  I have the same problem with that statement that I have with much of your advice, that you state things definitively that are simply not true.  There is at least one nationally syndicated male advice columnist, and his name is Dan Savage.  When you state patent untruths you appear to be ignorant and uneducated.

One of the other things that makes you appear uneducated is your blanket statements about men, women, liberals, etc.  Furthermore, the fact that you majored in “Bible” makes it clear that your “education” took place at what was/is probably an unaccredited institution, the name of which you have neither told me nor publicized anywhere on the internet as far as I can tell.  (See that, that was a qualifying clause, rather than a definitive statement.  That allows for the possibility that I am wrong, because unlike you, I know I’m not always right.)

Having looked at anatomy books as a teenager hardly makes you knowledgeable about female genitalia.  For example, did you know that within the last forty years there have been discoveries regarding the wonder that is the clitoris?  It’s not just that little thing “at the top of the vagina.”

That you feel the need to tout your “successes” and your intelligence quotient just shows your insecurity regarding your views.  I’m sure you think that if you “prove” that you’re smart that somehow your opinions, no matter how lame and unsupported they are, have more value.  Not true.  Notice I’ve not bothered to outline my credentials?  That’s because I actually write well, with actual facts to support my statements.

I don’t criticize you for being conservative, I criticize you for being dogmatic and unyielding.  I criticize you for being inflexible and not open to the possibility that there are points of view other than your own.  I criticize you as a white man of privilege who simply cannot comprehend that there are experiences to which you are not privy, pregnancy being just one of them.

Other than the ignorance it spews, your blog is also not well written.  You claim to be a writer, so write correctly.

I have never tried to get you to think like me; I, obviously incorrectly, thought that you might be interested in a viewpoint other than your own.

Why you’ve pulled insurance companies’ policies out of the air I’m not quite sure.  It is becoming increasingly clear that an intelligent and pointed discussion with you is impossible.

And once again you’ve made an assumption based on the silly things going on inside your head.  I am not, and never claimed to be, a clinician.

Sadly, you’ve reinforced my admittedly ignorant view of people in those middle states.  Please stay in Indiana.  Advise the hicks there with your lame and repetitive Bible-based doctrine.

Happy to be poison to idiots,

Suzanne White Montiel
_______________

And so ends the saga. I thank John for the material, even if he doesn’t know it.

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.

[Continued from "You Call That Advice? (Part 5)."]

John was nice enough to provide me with a link to his blog, which has various pieces that espouse his philosophy that married women are starving their husbands of sex by fucking them once a week or less, and that men should be better in bed so that their wives want to fuck them more often.  He claims he can teach men how to be better lovers … in just 800 words.  Here are some tidbits:

Kiss and stroke down her belly past her vagina and do all the way down her thighs and calves. Come back the other side all the way back to her vagina. Remember her panties are still on. Put your mouth over her vagina and blow hot breath through her panties over her clitoris. Then insert a finger inside the leg band of her panties and stroke all around without touching her pussy. It will drive her wild.

…

Start licking between her labia up an down. When you get to the top of her vagina , you give her clitoris a quick lick and go back to licking between her pussy lips. Then insert your tongue inside of her pussy. Stroke it in and out.

…

You can gentle pull back the hood of her clitoris and directly lick the clitoris directly. You can then suck the clitoris between your lips and begin to suck on it like a woman performing fellatio on a man. The clitoris will actually become hard like a male penis and achieve an erection. You can give her an orgasm by givi.ng her clitoris a blow job.

…

Finally there is one more thing that you can do for fantastic foreplay. After having given your honey numerous orgasms, she will be begging you to take her. You can give her a real thrill. Hook your hand in the waist band of those panties and give one hard rip and literally rip her panties off. This will simultaneously scare her and excite her. Every woman has a secret rape fantasy. She does not really want to be raped but she wants to be taken forcefully and roughly by a self confident man. The key to using this fantasy, is that you want to make sure that she is highly aroused.

He then goes into a sales pitch for his book, which does not yet exist.  Perhaps he’s having trouble finding a publisher as book publishers want to publish books by people who can write.  This guy can’t write his way out of a vagina.

Telling men, whom he characterizes as clueless about pleasing their wives, that every woman has a secret rape fantasy is downright dangerous.  Also, many women would be pretty pissed off if their panties were getting torn up all the time.  But the image of men with pursed lips trying to suck on clits like tiny little cocks is hilarious.

I posted a comment to his post with a link to the Wikipedia page on “vulva” and said it would serve the readers better if he used proper names for anatomy if he wants to actually teach them accurately.  While I didn’t tell him this, considering the likelihood that he knows anything about San Francisco geography, saying the clitoris is at the top of the vagina is like saying the Golden Gate Bridge is inside the Broadway Tunnel.  (Trust me, that’s funny.)  I may have been snarky.  I was probably snarky.  I had been dealing with the idiot all day and continued to be astounded at his stupidity. He did not post my comment but did email this to me:

I know the clinical terms for female anatomy.  I went to nursing school and took anatomy and physiology.

I was speaking to a predominantly male audience and chose to use the slang terms to make the article more readable.  I am trying to reach men and convince them not to be so self centered in bed.

You are vehement that women are comfortable with casual sex with no strings attached.  I have never met such a woman.  Ultimately she quickly becomes frustrated.  It is part of the unisex movement foisted upon us by the feminists. Women try and take on male characteristics.  Are there exceptions to this rule, I am willing to admit there might be, but the vast majority of women are not happy with this level of sexuality.  I try to speak to the majority rather than worrying about the exceptions.

You are frankly the first woman who has taken offense at my suggesting holding out for a committed relationship before engaging in sex.

Best wishes
John

This John guy is funny and doesn’t even know it.  He has never met a woman who is comfortable with casual sex because in his world a woman’s sexuality is a means to an end, getting a commitment and fidelity out of a man.  I’m sure he’s met many women who are comfortable with casual sex, but his attitude and judgment prevent them from coming out of the slut closet to him.  And to say that a woman who is comfortable with casual sex is taking on “male” characteristics is Victorian-era bullshit that hurts both men and women.  Men want sex all the time and women need to be in a relationship to have satisfying sex; anything other than that messes with his very antiquated ideas of sex, gender, and sexuality.  And if I’m the first woman to take offense to “holding out” it’s only because I have the time to bother to tell him that sex can be just sex.

[To be continued.  Just one more.]

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.

[Continued from "You Call That Advice? (Part 4)."]

From: S M <shazamsf@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Really?
To: John
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 2:56 AM

John,

While I’m certainly not happy that you were victimized by the Catholic Church, I don’t think that you were has anything to do with the discussion we’re having.  We’re talking about giving advice based not on logic or reason, but on your own assumptions about how the world – and the people within it – works.

Of course one has to have a moral code, however to say, for example, that abortion is never right, doesn’t take into consideration some real, and messed-up, things that happen in the world.  As a survivor of sexual abuse I would expect you to have sympathy.  What if the abuse you suffered resulted in a pregnancy?  Would you want to carry the child of your abuser?  Would you want to suffer not only the original violation, but also the violation of an unwanted and forced pregnancy? Isn’t that inability to choose further victimization?

I don’t think age makes someone either irrelevant or wise, I do think one’s way of thinking can do both.  Just having a few years behind you does not grant you special status.  Whether you would be revered only for your age in other cultures is not relevant, and I find it comical that you bring that up considering you seem to not be able to take into account cultures other than our own privileged American one.

Again, your personality type is not relevant.  Neither is your sexual past, nor your age.  What is relevant is that you give advice based on all these things without taking into consideration that people are not like you, that your experience of the world is not the only one, and that making sweeping assumptions is not conducive to actually helping people.

Sincerely,

Suzanne White Montiel

_______________
Hey Suzanne:

I am not as naive or as self centered as you take me for. I have worked extensively with groups who work with pregnant women.  Let us take for example rape.  It is a horrible experience.  The presumption is that people want to make the woman clean and whole from the rape so of course she should have an abortion.  The reality is that an abortion will not make her unraped.  It won’t erase the memory or the experience.  The abortion simply victimizes her all over again.  She is put into a clinic that is nothing more than a factory.  She is forced to get naked with nothing more than a gown and place her feet in stirrups and legs spread wide apart, her uterus is stretched and a cannula with a currette is inserted in her uterus and she has to listen to the scream of the suction machine and the slurping sounds that it makes as it sucks out pieces of baby.  All you do is add guilt to her, guilt that lasts for years.

I would counsel women who have been raped to have the baby and give it up for adoption. In this way, she can reclaim ownership of her body and good can come from bad circumstances that happened to her.  She can know that there is a loving couple who will love this baby uncondtiionally.

We live in a society that grants women the power of God and the old roman emperor, who held a thumb up or a thumb down for the gladiator to live or to die.  If a woman wants an abortion, then it is not a baby.  If she wants the baby and a car hits her and she loses the baby, then the person who hit her is charged with vehicular manslaughter.  The twelve year old boy who shot his pregnant step mother is being charged witih double murder.  This is schizophrenic.  It is the woman who decides whether it is a baby or not.

I call them like I see them.  A lot of women have thanked me for my advice.

It is certainly your right to disagree with my advice. I disagree with your approach as well.  I am much more a hands on kind of clinician than the hands off type of clinician where anything goes.  Tradtional marriage counselors have a 75% failure rate. Coaches have a 75% success rate.

Best Wishes
John

_______________
From: S M <shazamsf@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Really?
To: John
Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 3:55 AM

I will write more later, as it truly makes me weary to have to explain fundamentals such as the fact that you cannot understand what it’s like to be pregnant since it is impossible for you to be so.  If someone chooses something of her free will then she is not victimized.
_______________
Hey Suzanne:

I have had 5 kids and two of them daughters.  I understand pregnancy better than you think.  I also went to nursing school as well.

So often women don’t choose willingly.  They are pressured into the abortion decision.  This includes so called counseling at the abortion mill.
These women are not given informed consent. They are subjected to a very one sided view.

As I said, I can’t control people’s lives, they are free to choose or reject my advice as they see fit.

Best wishes
John

[Yes, dear god, there is more.]

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.

[Continued from "You Call That Advice? (Part 3)."]

From: John
To: S M <shazamsf@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Sun, April 4, 2010 2:58:56 PM
Subject: Re: Really?

Hey Suzanne:

I find it amusing that you take the tack that since Carrie Prejean is not living a perfect Christian life, that she has no right to an opinion and she is therefore fair game for vicious attacks.  It sounds like you are being supportive of Perez Hilton’s highly sexist and misogynistic attack.  But since he is one of the girls apparently it is okay with you.  I would hope that this not the case.

As to underage girls claiming to be much older.  I have known of dozens of such instances a couple in my own family.  One young man was going to be tried for statutory rape becuase he believed the girl.  Fortunately the defense lawyer brought up her faceook page claiming that she was 19 rather than the 13 she actually was.  I used to work in the pro life movement and there were a lot of girls who deliberately got pregnant.

You seemed to take the tack that girls are completely innocent and guys are the evil ones.

As to promiscuous sex and sex without a relationship, my advice more closely follows mainstream clinicians advice than does yours, so I am not going to change my views on this.  Our advice is just that, people can accept it or reject it.  You are free to disagree with my advice online and people can decide what if any advice that they want to take.

I refuse to give advice contrary to my my moral compass and values. Whenever my advice could be considered inflammatory, I with hold that advice as you have seen with the same sex marriage problems.  I give the best advice that I know how and you are certainly entitled to your opinion and differ with me.  If we all gave the same advice then he would not need multiple advice givers on the site.  I would always give advice not to have an abortion and I am quite sure that would cause you to become livid with my advice.  But I won’t vary from that either.  We will have to agree to disagree.  But please feel free to challenge me, because the Bible says that like iron sharpens iron so a brother can do also, in your case a sister.

Best Wishes
John

_______________

From: S M <shazamsf@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Really?
To: John
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 10:37 PM

John,

You are once again reading into my words things that are simply not there.  I did not say that Ms. Prejean or anyone else is not entitled to her opinion.  I did say that the basis for her opinion, the teachings of the Bible, is a flawed foundation, and that if she’s going to claim to be a Christian with “higher” moral values than non-Christians, then she should walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

If you notice, I did not address Perez Hilton and his treatment of Ms. Prejean AT ALL.  Are you reading what I’m writing, or just reading into what I’m writing?  I’m not sure how not writing anything about Perez Hilton can be interpreted as support of his behavior.

Of course there are SOME underage girls who claim to be the age of majority.  And of course there are some girls/women who deliberately get pregnant when a pregnancy is ill-advised.  However, anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal.  Because something has happened before does not mean it will happen again, and it certainly does not mean it will happen every time.

Again, you are making assumptions about my opinions based on something that I’ve simply not written.  I NEVER said girls are innocent and guys are evil.  I don’t characterize people – male or female – as evil, ever.  Everyone has the capacity for good and bad, and everything in between.  Men and women, boys and girls, can be victims as well as victimizers.

Enjoying sex for the sake of enjoying sex does not imply promiscuity, and promiscuity is not necessarily a “bad” thing.  Sexually active people should be aware of the risks and benefits of their behavior and act accordingly, with respect for themselves and others.  I understand that your own opinions are based on your beliefs that sexuality unless within the confines of a committed heterosexual relationship is wrong, and I’m certainly not trying to change your mind, but you should understand that yours isn’t the only way to think/live.

Of course I did not suggest you give advice contrary to your opinion.  What I suggested is that you not jump to conclusions about infidelity, etc., based on the little information given in the questions.  Just because someone has a job at a gym and is simultaneously acting like an ass to his girlfriend does not mean he is enjoying the attention of multiple other ladies.  And enjoying attention from people not one’s mate does not make a person “bad.”

I’m not even going to touch that you would “always” advise against abortion.  The world is not quite so black and white.

Sincerely,

Suzanne White Montiel

_______________
Hey Suzanne:

In case you missed it, I was doing clairificatioin.  I said that it sounded like you were taking a position, not that you were taking that position. I was reacting to your feelings and responding with my interpretation of what it sounded like you were inferring.

As a man, I will always respond differently than you will.  I recognize patterns.  The young lady stated that her boyfriend had been previously loving and attentive.  Now that he had a job at the gym he was ignoring her and treating her badly.  He is in a postion to be hit on by a lot of women and that was my assesment for why he was being crappy to his girlfriend when he had previously been loving and attentive.  That is my call and I stand by it.

We don’t have the option of getting in depth intake, we have the limited one sided description of the person’s opinion of the facts.  We are asked to give our advice based upon that and I do.  People are free to accept it or reject it as they choose.  It is free advice on a free site.

Are there exceptions to the rule, of course there are.  I am speaking to the majority out there.  The majority of people do better having sex in a committed relationship.

As to Carrie Prejean not living the walk, we are all hypocrites and we are all sinners according to the bible.  We are all at various stages of spiritual maturity.  Just because she is not a perfect christian should not open her up for the vicious attacks.  You came across as she got what she had coming because she did not meet up with your standards of spiritual maturity and therefore she had no business answering as she did.  Perez Hilton deliberately asked the question so that he could ellicit the answer that he wanted so that he could launch his hate speech attack.  I am frankly mortified at your take on that issue.  No one, especially a young woman should have been slandered in the way that he did.  As I said, she answered in the same way that Obama would but I don’t see you attacking him, but maybe it is because he is politiclaly correct.

Best wishes
John

[To be continued.  The guy's a fucking idiot.]

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.

[Continued from "You Call That Advice? (Part 2)."]

_______________

Just out of curiosity, were you raised Catholic?  I have only heard the term dialogue used in Catholic circles.  That opens up a whole new discussion if it were true.

Best Wishes
John

_______________
John,

Did you ever take a logic class?  Did you really go to college?  Because you are coming across as someone who has been taught doctrine, not how to think for himself.  “Dialogue” is a pretty common thing that has roots not in Catholicism, but in critical thought, which came around long before Jesus.  (How apt that we’re having this discussion today, eh?  [Easter Sunday.])

When you make blanket statements that include the words “never,” “always,” and “evil” that leaves no room for growth, thought, and learning.  The world, and the people in it, changes, and if we don’t have room for that change then where are we?

My own religious background has absolutely no bearing on the discussion I’m trying to have, and an ad hominem attack does nothing but enforce your inability to have a logical discussion about FACTS.

Sincerely,

Suzanne White Montiel
_______________

This represents the common answer to my advice not to give up sex without a relationship.  It was from a recent blog entry and my answer.
I am happy to have a dialogue with you, but there are things that are a waste of time because I will not depart from my views, this being one of them.

Best Wishes
John

TApril 4, 2010 at 3:09 PM
Thank you so much for your insight. I think I needed some clarity. I’ve realized that I don’t need to be …umm..promiscuous (in a way) to have a platonic relationship with a guy. I just need to find my strength to not buy into the guy’s notion that sex comes without strings.
There are always strings, especially for me.
Zee

_______________

John,

Once again, anecdotal evidence is just that.  I’m certainly glad you were able to help this Zee person, but the same advice would not have been helpful for everyone, despite your best efforts to shoehorn people into your rigid boxes.

Your inability to think from a different point of view, or even entertain that you are not always right, makes me sad for the state of critical thinking.

By the way, we are communicating via the internet, so links to your blog and any other sources of information would not only be helpful, but polite.

Sincerely,

Suzanne White Montiel

_______________

My comments were not meant to be an ad hominem attack.  As to my query about whether or not you were raised catholic.  There is a reason for that.  I was raised catholic.  I was also one of the thousands of kids that were sexually abused by a catholic priest.  Once I started studying the bible for myself, I discovered how much of Catholic doctrine is in direct contradiction to biblical teachings.

As to always and never, I am aware that generally it is not good to use them as it cuts off communication and I don’t think that I am an authority on everything.  There are certain things for which I have come to the realizationi that they are bed rock beliefs, and it is to those beliefs that I will not stray.  As I said, people are free to accept or reject my advice as they see fit.  I am 60 years old and and I know that in many people’s eyes, that makes me an old fuddy duddy.  In other cultures I would be revered for my age and wisdom.

As to logic and critical thinking, I am an outside the box critical thinker.  It might help you to know that I am an ENTJ on the Meyer Briggs.  That might give you more insight into my thought processes. They give very detailed descriptions and go into great detail about all of the the strengths as well as weaknesses.

Best wishes
John

_______________

[This guy further demonstrates his, uh, smarts.  More to come.]

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.

[Continued from "You Call That Advice?  (Part 1)."]

From: S M
Subject: Re: Really?
To: John
Date: Sunday, April 4, 2010, 8:14 PM

Dear John,

You, my dear, seem to be all over the map. I suggested your responses have an air of misogyny, which certainly is not name-calling. Defensive much? Let me give you some examples. This from this week:

“Nate, … Avoid sex with her. Many girls want to get pregnant. You should be using a condom and a spermicide as well as pulling it out. Birth control also fails. Do not under any circumstances trust a girl if she tells you that she is on the pill.
Another thing is do not under any circumstances believe what the girl says about her age. You must look at her id. There are a lot of 13=14 year old girls who look very mature. If you have sex with one of these girls you can be prosecuted for statutory rape and be branded a sex offender for life. See, I told you sex is a huge responsibilty [sic] and the courts are not on your side. Be sure to protect yourself against crazy girls who will hurt you.”

Putting aside your obvious attempt at scaring young Nate, you claim girls want to trick guys into getting them pregnant, and that the dangerous 13- and 14-year-old girls are targeting horny 16-year-old boys, who, if they put their penises anywhere but into the proper hole at the prescribed time, will be considered sex offenders. The girl with whom Nate was (is?) fooling around is clearly one of his peers, someone with whom he probably goes to school, so he likely knows how old she is. And you do realize that school id does not necessarily have age on it, right? You did not offer any practical advice, only the idea that girls and their devious ways are to be avoided.

This bit of advice from January 22 is lovely as well. “She is enjoying the attention and probably not seeing or screwing anyone. She is being a prick tease …. She probably is suffering from daddy issues where she needs a lot of male attention to fill in for the missing daddy love that she did not get as a girl.” The woman in question was characterized as flirtatious, which you clearly think is negative.

Feminism is not about defending women at all costs; doing so is paternalistic, not feminist. Feminism is about people – men, women, and transpeople – being individuals. Not all women want to trick men into getting them pregnant; most don’t. Not all women have sex with men in hopes they can have committed relationships. Not all women want to be cuddled and held. (These last two seem to be ideas you’ve espoused in your advice.) Both men and women, and everything in between, can, and do, enjoy sex for sex’s sake, not as a means to an end.

And since you brought up Carrie Prejean, I will happily address that. The problem with idiots like her who claim that their beliefs are based on the teachings of the Bible, is that they pick and choose which lessons of the Bible they take to heart. If Ms. Prejean was all that Christian and all that devoted to the Bible, surely she would not have premarital sex, right? Wrong. Surely Ms. Prejean doesn’t shave or wear clothing made from mixed fibers (no cotton/poly blends for her), right? Wrong. It’s rather difficult to take someone seriously for her adopted belief system when she doesn’t adhere to it herself.

But your responses don’t just come across as anti-woman. Sometimes you make assumptions, such as in response to Meena, whose boyfriend was acting “macho” after he began working at a gym: “Your boyfriend is enjoying all of the attention from the women at the fitness center. He is like a rooster with all of the hens vying for his attention.” There was NO mention of women in Meena’s March 26 question.

How about this one from April 2? The question, from someone in Saudi Arabia, was about a fiancee breaking off the engagement. Without the mention of sexual relations in the question at all, your response was, “She was enjoying the attention from both of you and sex with both of you.” Chances are there was no sex at all, as virginity is highly valued (at least for women) in Saudi culture.

Perhaps this February 26 advice to a man with a new baby and a distant wife jumped the gun a bit: “I hate to tell you this, but I think that she is having an affair. What I can tell you is to just ignore her, have minimal contact with her. Place no demands upon her. Don’t talk about problems. When a woman is holding out and giving you the silent treatment she has all of the power. Take the power away from her and act as if you don’t care if she files for divorce.” The man did not suspect his wife was having an affair, but said she had been distant since the baby was born. You again paint the woman with a broad – and negative – brush, that she is cheating and being manipulative. Why did you jump to that conclusion when depression seemed much more likely, at least to me?

Even with your letter to me, you’ve made quite a few assumptions. I said I hoped to open a dialogue, you defensively say that because we disagree does not make one right and the other wrong. No kidding.

I certainly don’t want to take on the job of civilizing you. If the world is fraught with misandry then wouldn’t you best counter that by not espousing ideals that have created such a culture in the first place?

Sincerely,

Suzanne White Montiel

_______________

Hey Suzanne:

I find it amusing that you take the tack that since Carrie Prejean is not living a perfect Christian life, that she has no right to an opinion and she is therefore fair game for vicious attacks.  It sounds like you are being supportive of Perez Hilton’s highly sexist and misogynistic attack.  But since he is one of the girls apparently it is okay with you.  I would hope that this not the case.

As to underage girls claiming to be much older.  I have known of dozens of such instances a couple in my own family.  One young man was going to be tried for statutory rape becuase he believed the girl.  Fortunately the defense lawyer brought up her faceook page claiming that she was 19 rather than the 13 she actually was.  I used to work in the pro life movement and there were a lot of girls who deliberately got pregnant.

You seemed to take the tack that girls are completely innocent and guys are the evil ones.

As to promiscuous sex and sex without a relationship, my advice more closely follows mainstream clinicians advice than does yours, so I am not going to change my views on this.  Our advice is just that, people can accept it or reject it.  You are free to disagree with my advice online and people can decide what if any advice that they want to take.

I refuse to give advice contrary to my my moral compass and values. Whenever my advice could be considered inflammatory, I with hold that advice as you have seen with the same sex marriage problems.  I give the best advice that I know how and you are certainly entitled to your opinion and differ with me.  If we all gave the same advice then he would not need multiple advice givers on the site.  I would always give advice not to have an abortion and I am quite sure that would cause you to become livid with my advice.  But I won’t vary from that either.  We will have to agree to disagree.  But please feel free to challenge me, because the Bible says that like iron sharpens iron so a brother can do also, in your case a sister.

Best Wishes
John

_______________

[Of course there's more to come.  John and I had quite the "debate."  I use quotes because generally that requires the use of logic, which he did not utilize.  I love the ones who think they're smart.]

I swear.  True story.

©2012 Random Rim Jobs. All Rights Reserved.