Why is being friends with someone not enough? Why is kissing someone not enough? While Nassar, Ansari, and dudes who wax poetic about the "friend-zone" all clearly have different contexts of power, the thread that holds them together seems to be that what one has is not enough.
-
Show this thread
-
I really admire Rachel Denhollander for talking about this, for pointing out that Nassar wasn't some outcast who was taking revenge for being ignored or reviled (not that that's an excuse). He was admired. He HAD everything someone in his position should have been grateful for.
1 reply 5 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
In Buddhism, the Second Precept is "do not take what is not given." That precept aligns with the Christian commandment of "thou shalt not steal," but I think its emphasis on reciprocity resonates with me in this moment. What does it mean to give? How do we recognize giving?
1 reply 9 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
How do we recognize taking? And, given, people's relationships with each other (athlete/doctor, two people on a date, whatever else) how do we learn to accept that sometimes it may not always feel "equal." Or that we may not get what we want. Or give what we want, either.
1 reply 3 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Rachel Denhollander talked about pitying Nassar for not getting to experience what she calls "sacrificial love." I understand that pity. I was assaulted by someone who was a father figure. I loved him freely, but not in the way he clearly wanted me to, or assumed I should.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
And the sorrow comes in saying "but you HAD love, but because it wasn't the kind you wanted or expected or felt entitled to, you now relinquish the right to ANY kind of love from me." Because it could have been different. It all could have been different.
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
"Taking what is not given" may never rise to the level of a crime. It may never manifest itself in the kinds of atrocities that Larry Nassar perpetrated against so many. But what we are saying, I think, particularly around Aziz Ansari, is that we are asking people to do better.
1 reply 6 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
I think that a step towards doing better is dismantling the ways in which sex and romance have been placed at the top of the relationship hierarchy. Nobody is owed sex. Nobody is owed reciprocal feelings of romantic love. From that hierarchy and entitlement springs a lot of harm.
1 reply 4 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
If our friendships and our professional relationships and our romantic relationships and our sexual relationships and familial relationships are all equally valuable and deserving of time and care, maybe we can find happiness in what we already have.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likesShow this thread -
That doesn't take away things like, say, to use Ansari as an example, the desire to have sex. And it doesn't mean that longing for romance is wrong. But that desire often can come with such rage and entitlement. This is the whole anger of "incels" ("involuntary celibates").
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread
The sense I've long gotten is that the "incel" types are deprived of most or all types of meaningful relationships - not just sexual/romantic, but platonic and familial as well. Lots of people are romantically lonely, but other relations keep them from descending into toxicity
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @OpulenceIHazIt @empathywarrior
Anyway, this was an insightful and moving thread and I thank you for it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.