littleflowerpot Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 It's written tongue in cheek - if you miss that then you're one of the uncomfortable readers lol bulls**t. i'm not uncomfortable at all. i think it's sexist. you can view it how you like but don't presume to know me enough to tell me my stance or view on things, honey.
littleflowerpot Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 Ha! I was thinking the same thing. His schtick is usually wrting about being a middle aged single bloke (I think he was married at one time) and The Times describes him as Bridget Jones' sleazier older brother. This from an interview: Who/What is your biggest influence? After my penis............... the "schtick" is tired and done.
bluechocolate Posted January 23, 2006 Posted January 23, 2006 the "schtick" is tired and done. have a lovely day
Author No Stress Lady Posted January 25, 2006 Author Posted January 25, 2006 bulls**t. i'm not uncomfortable at all. i think it's sexist. you can view it how you like but don't presume to know me enough to tell me my stance or view on things, honey. LMAO - keep your hair on Mrs (as we say in the UK) His column today had the feedback from some readers, you might (or might not - don't want to assume anything here ) be interested to see the response: If there’s a problem in a woman’s world, for a certain type of woman it’s bound to be a man’s fault. Take the response to the extract in The Times last week from Microwave Man’s eponymous new book, in which our hero opines about the self-delusion of women who have affairs with married men. Seven women wrote to say: “Of course there is a very large number of lonely, single women who lack the self-respect or clarity of purpose to walk away from an exploitative relationship with a married man, just as there is a huge pool of men who take advantage of this.” “Exploitative”, “take advantage” . . . funny how some women choose to be strong-willed and independent only when it suits them. And, if there’s a second edition, this quote from the sisterly seven is going on the cover: “The bleakest, most offensive piece of prose we have read, outside the field of race hate literature”, which “crosses the line from polemic into violent sexual pornography. It makes you sound like a low-rent version of the Patrick Bateman character in American Psycho”. Blimey. Wait till they read the chapter about my fantasy seduction of an un-dead Andrea Dworkin, conducted while discussing the merits of chemical versus manual exfoliation and arguing the pros and cons of disposable nappies. Jonathan Gornall
My_Other_I Posted January 25, 2006 Posted January 25, 2006 I wanna be seduced by this man! I just hope that he is married. A pig in life, a god in bed.
Author No Stress Lady Posted January 25, 2006 Author Posted January 25, 2006 LOL - makes me laugh that everyone takes him so seriously when he doesn't take himself seriously at all!!!!! He's certainly got the experience from what I've read in his column
lilacmist Posted January 28, 2006 Posted January 28, 2006 The chances are that if a reasonably attractive woman is single by her late thirties/early forties, then it is because at some point in the past she has hitched herself to a married man What a heap of crock. I know many women, myself included, in their thirties/early forties, who are now alone because they were abandoned for some other woman after years of marriage and not because we were all out having affairs with married men. What utter crap! Women can be single and alone for all sorts of reasons.......mainly it's because their frigging husbands couldn't keep it in his pants.
bullhunter Posted January 28, 2006 Posted January 28, 2006 I know many women, myself included, in their thirties/early forties, who are now alone because they were abandoned for some other woman after years of marriage and not because we were all out having affairs with married men. What utter crap! Women can be single and alone for all sorts of reasons.......mainly it's because their frigging husbands couldn't keep it in his pants. This whole thing was a joke - and a very revealing one based on all of the responses. Lilacmist, single in this particular article meant "never has been married", not once was married now is not.
lindya Posted January 28, 2006 Posted January 28, 2006 And, if there’s a second edition, this quote from the sisterly seven is going on the cover: “The bleakest, most offensive piece of prose we have read, outside the field of race hate literature”, which “crosses the line from polemic into violent sexual pornography. It makes you sound like a low-rent version of the Patrick Bateman character in American Psycho”. [/i] Jonathan Gornall No way. He'll have written that OTT letter to himself....creating a little imaginary controversy around his journalistic persona as a form of PR for this book of his that seems to be in the pipeline. What a cunning stunt!
lilacmist Posted January 29, 2006 Posted January 29, 2006 This whole thing was a joke - and a very revealing one based on all of the responses. Lilacmist, single in this particular article meant "never has been married", not once was married now is not. Regardless, I am now alone and am in no relationship/nor been married again, so that's one and the same as being single. To anyone that doesn't know me personally, but knows I live alone, I'm a single woman. And like I said, it isn't because I've spent my life hung up on someone elses sloppy seconds.
Touche Posted January 30, 2006 Posted January 30, 2006 But technically you are a divorcee'. I've always thought of a single woman as one who has never been married. A married woman who's husband died is a widow. Yes, she's available to marry again and some might call her "single." But she is a widow as you are a divorcee.
zoey15 Posted January 31, 2006 Posted January 31, 2006 But technically you are a divorcee'. I've always thought of a single woman as one who has never been married. A married woman who's husband died is a widow. Yes' date=' she's available to marry again and some might call her "single." But she is a widow as you are a divorcee.[/quote'] I totally agree with you Touche. Lilacmist you wouldn't be considered the "single" woman he was refering to in his column. At least you were married at one point...he was refering to a single woman like me, minus the cat. That article was so true in some sinerios and honestly I think a lot of OW here on LS are mad and making all there negative comments about the article because the truth hurts. They want to believe their situation is different. 1
Author No Stress Lady Posted January 31, 2006 Author Posted January 31, 2006 I agree Zoe - the article was totally tongue in cheek but it really got people riled - I think the responses are very interesting - I've no doubt a few nerves were touched . Lindya, I agree with you too about the author seeking publicity for his book!!!!! I've been the OW on a few occasions but have always maintained a view that one should never allow oneself to be emotionally dependent on a MM - it's certainly possible to have a good and affectionate relationship with a MM but within very strict boundaries - he's not mine and I'm definitely not his!!!!! The article certainly stereotypes but from reading the posts on this forum there seem to be a lot of unhappy OW still waiting for a divorce that's promised but never materialises. Everyone's situation different but I definitely think his point about not wasting the best years of your life on someone who's already taken is extremely valid!!!
Recommended Posts