Sorry to Rankle!
To everyone I rankled, I apologize.
I knew the post would be somewhat controversial. Anytime I voice a strong opinion on something (usually dating or sex related), there are others who don’t agree with my point of view. That’s as it should be, much like there was controversy surrounding David Letterman’s joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol. It goes with the territory of public speaking and writing.
There was my How to Grill Asparagus post, where I told a story of me ogling women from afar in a restaurant, while drinking a gin martini in front of my kids. One reader said I had a “cree.pee” writing vibe. Ouch!
And yet, the fact I elicited such a strong reaction from her was actually a good thing. It means I struck a deep chord that resonated within her. My post A Creepy Writing Vibe addressed that point.
There was my What’s More Natural Than Nature? – Confessions of a Serial Online Dater, part 3 post where I complained about a woman who refused to go on a first-date hike with me (on a paved trail that is frequented by families!) Readers chimed in with their opinions in droves, making this my most-commented Dad’s House post to date! Apparently, a lot of women felt that a first date hike is too risky, too dangerous. (Much like I found the choices of the single moms in my Breastfeeding/Blind-Date-Sex post – I felt them inviting a stranger to their house for sex while their children slept in another room was way too risky.)
I was skewered big time in my Calling All Matchmakers post over at Silicon Valley Moms Blog. Some readers suggested that because I read and cook and am into new agey stuff, I’m not manly enough to have a woman in my life. Doh! I followed that up with the post Men Who Read and Cook – Sexy or Unmanly? A completely different set of readers chimed in with their support. Go figure.
And of course, when Rachel Sarah blogged about Mary F. Pols’ book, Accidentally on Purpose
Beyond that, me writing that post helped create controversy, buzz, and awareness for Mary Pols’ book. Did that help drive her book sales? It certainly got me to buy a copy. And me writing about it here on Dad’s House, with a totally different perspective than her friends might have blogged, introduced a whole new audience to her work.
In fact, that post still gets daily traffic on my blog, putting Mary Pols book in front of potential new readers (and buyers) every day.
So today, I blogged my perspective on two single moms who brought home strangers for sex while the kids were asleep. I referenced articles that were online. Rachel Sarah’s Salon piece was only an excerpt, and so my reaction to that didn’t take into account other works she’s published. Did I create controversy, buzz, and awareness for her book? Perhaps. Will that help drive her book sales? I certainly hope so.
In retrospect, there are things I’d do different if I wrote that post over again.
- I would have created two posts: one on adult breastfeeding, and one on hooking up while the kids are home. Regarding the breastfeeding – at first blush, it sounded like a huge turn-off to me. But as I wrote about it in a logical (to me), step-by-step way, I realized it was merely a fetish that some enjoy. I enjoy some fetishes. Who’s to say which fetishes are good or bad for someone else? I realized I didn’t have an issue with the adult nursing. I wrote that in the post, and probably should have stopped there and hit publish, then started a new post on the hookup/kids issue.
- I would have run some of my ideas by Rachel first. I have never done that before when I reacted to someone else’s writing. I just go for it, and render my opinion. But it became clear to me from comments that Dad’s House readers expected me to give Rachel a courtesy once-over before I published the post, mainly because she and I know each other. That’s my bad. I honestly didn’t think it was an issue. Now I know. Live and learn.
I understand some people found the post judgmental. I tried very hard not to make it so. I hoped to focus on choices that are unique to single parent dating, and give my opinion about those acts. Perhaps I should have used softer language. Not sure. I will say this – if I read something that makes me react strongly, I have a tendency to speak up. Just as Dad’s House readers speak up in comments here when I write something that makes them react.
At any rate, for any aspect of the original post that rankled Dad’s House readers, I apologize. I also apologize to Rachel for any distress I may have caused.
Now then, go buy her book: Unbuttoned: Women Open Up About the Pleasures, Pains, and Politics of Breastfeeding
| 
Subscribe | © 2008-09 David Mott, DadsHouseBlog.com. All rights reserved.
Comment by T
| March 11th, 2009
David, Rachel has posted a response and admits that she is hurt. She also posted on Singlemommyhood.com…. stating her own response.
I left a link to this post so that she could see that you apologized and admitted you would do things differently next time.
Now… you guys can work this out, right?
T´s last blog post..Doing my part
Comment by Damo
| March 11th, 2009
There is difference between males and females throughout all facets of life. This may go towards explaining the reactions (on various blogs).
As a male (single Dad), I didn’t read the blog as being offensive, and as a male I read the detail rather than the emotion. I reckon alot of guys are like that.
Hopefully we can see all see issues not from different sides, but rather different perspectives. Things lots of men don’t even notice, women may find offensive (and vice versa).
Good people don’t intentionally set out to hurt others feelings.
The exposure of blogging/press/media etc. only adds to emotion. My adult life has seen much exposure in the public domain (not in USA) giving others various perceptions of who I am. It’s a big ask to expect any-one to fully interpret emotive issues through blogs or the like. I think this difficulty adds to the reaction.
Comment by Edgar
| March 11th, 2009
Hmm – I always liked the Four Agreements. You didn’t really violate them, David, but as you note, you could have done Rachel the courtesy of letting her know directly your concerns with her behavior. And calling her actions selfish was probably unnecessaryily harsh.
However, I read her posts and must say that she takes your comments way too personally, and makes far too many assumptions about your motives. Maybe she’s right and maybe she’s wrong – I don’t know much about competition for eyeballs, not being a blogger or writer – but still she ought to take a look at the Toltecs for a little wisdom.
Comment by Honey
| March 11th, 2009
Hey, if you wanna get your rankle on, check out my latest blog post!
Honey´s last blog post..Are Stay-At-Home Moms Really Just Prostitutes?
Comment by Wondermom
| March 11th, 2009
David, I wanted to answer your question about why some readers were so quick to jump to Rachel’s defense and no one mentioned Penelope Trunk. For me, I was in a bit of a hurry when I read your post and I knew Rachel’s story very well (and in fact I’ve been a little riled up about it for a while since the Salon piece ran). I don’t know Penelope or her story. So in my comment, I addressed the situation with Rachel and left the Penelope part until I could find out more.
Now that I have read Penelope’s post (admittedly, the one post that you linked to is the only thing I know about her), I can comment on that. My understanding from that post is that this was not a blind date that she brought home…it was a second date which still means she doesn’t “know” him, but it is different from a complete stranger. I don’t know how old her children are. I can definitely see a difference between what you do with an infant in the house and what you do with older children (if your concern is really about the children’s emotional well-being). Based on what I’ve read, I am somewhat less sympathetic to Penelope than to Rachel. I stand by what I said earlier though…it’s not the same choice I would have made but I can see how it could happen. I hope that she had/has her children’s best interests at heart (as I KNOW that Rachel does) and I hope that she learns from the mistakes she’ll inevitably make and grows a little more every day.
Wondermom´s last blog post..Calling all single moms!
Comment by Andrea
| March 11th, 2009
I have not had the chance to read either post but I would say that anything we can write that garners a reaction (positive and negative) can bring about some good discussions and debates. Writing your own personal thoughts is what blogging is all about. Readers can either agree or disagree, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Now I suppose I best back up and see what the fuss was about.
Andrea´s last blog post..I feel like I’m 15 again
Comment by Occam's Razor
| March 11th, 2009
Interesting. DM wrote in the comments section to his previous post: “Seems I wrote a piece that made a lot of you react in an emotionally strong way… That’s good writing.”
Perhaps. But I’d be more likely to believe it, and to believe that DM believes it, if he didn’t proceed to post another umpteen comments trying to explain — again and yet again — what the hell he was really trying to say. Continually bleating that you’re being misunderstood or misinterpreted isn’t a typical symptom of “good writing.”
As per usual, it wasn’t good writing, it was a misbegotten attempt at good *marketing*, but it wasn’t so good after all, and in this particular instance it backfired.
Good on you for the apology.
(Here, let me try to do my part. Tits 18 teeny teen sex swapping booty sluts.)
There. Maybe I’ll make the snark list again this year.
Comment by Laura
| March 11th, 2009
Honestly – I dont think you needed to apologise to people you rankled – possible yes an apology was needed for Rachel purely for not at least letting her know!
To the rest of us – nope I really dont think so! Like you said – its your opinion, your blog! Anne Coulter doesnt apologise for the crap she spews despite the thousands of posts/comments against her!
But anyway you did!
After re-reading your original post and comments made I do think we all (well alot of us) missed the point and got our backs up purely because Rachel was mentioned!
The issue was more about hooking up with kids than about Rachel! As I have said to you maybe, given the nature of all of our r/ship with her, she was not the best example to use?
But I get the point now and am not going to apologise for my comment or take it back – I stand by what I said then – I just understand it a bit better now!
Laura´s last blog post..Can a square peg fit in a round hole?
Comment by katherine.
| March 11th, 2009
I have had much stronger reactions (objections even) to other posts of yours than I did to the one this morning.
perhaps because I don’t know the players as others do…
perhaps because I am at a different life stage…
bur hey…I found one or two new weblogs to read…so it’s all good.
katherine.´s last blog post..wordless wednesday ~ wilder ranch
Comment by PT-LawMom
| March 11th, 2009
I love reading your blog and enjoy the fresh perspective. I was somewhat surprised at the harshness of your words towards your friend, but I do appreciate the frankness. I agree with T – go talk and work it out (I’m sure you will – you seem like a good guy).
PT-LawMom´s last blog post..More Like It
Comment by Mary Pols
| March 11th, 2009
Rachel’s excerpt on Salon was indeed controversial — I’m looking forward to reading the whole essay myself — and I could see why you’d get the urge to blog about it. What I don’t understand is how anyone who has met Rachel and spent any time with her at all can stomach the thought of pouncing in judgment on her. She is such a lovely, kind and gentle person. Helpful. Thoughtful. Devoted mother. Even if you really do think that decision of hers was disturbing or a turn-off, you’ve had the benefit of getting to know the person who made that decision, and one would hope that would give you a more compassionate perspective about something she did eight long years ago on a night when she was lonely and afraid of what her future held.
Comment by dadshouse
| March 11th, 2009
Interesting comments, all. I appreciate your perspectives.
Mary – you’re right, I have met Rachel on several occasions, and emailed and talked on the phone. She is a warm, sensitive, loving, caring person. Very smart, too. I do feel compassion toward her, and toward that night that happened eight years ago.
So why did I react with such a strong opinion toward that one choice she made to bring her date home for sex? I reached a tipping point internally when I saw yet another version of this story (this time on Salon), coupled with the Penelope Trunk story. I’ve read Rachel’s lactating date story before in her book and on several blogs. I know it’s a popular topic of hers. We all know it gets strong reactions.
What I didn’t see this time was any feeling she had toward her daughter about bringing a blind-date home for sex while her daughter slept. It wasn’t even addressed. (Just as it wasn’t addressed in Penelope Trunk’s story.) That bothered me. I had seen different versions of the lactation story so many times, I expected her to address it here. (I was told today that those bits were edited out by Salon editors.)
I ignored this missing piece of the story for over a week. But when I saw Penelope Trunk’s story, the two stories combined together to make me react and think – why are single moms not even concerned about this issue? Maybe they don’t see an issue there? I reacted in a blog post.
I definitely should have stepped back and consulted Rachel before referencing her post. I should have given her the benefit of the doubt. I didn’t this time. I read her words on Salon, and figured that’s what she wrote, and that’s all she wanted to say. I had no idea editors would trim her words and transform her message. I screwed up. I’m sorry. (I emailed Rachel this morning when I noticed the reactions were harsh, and later this afternoon with an apology. I never heard back either time.)
Occam – you’re right, my writing must have sucked for so many commenters to react in a way I didn’t want or hadn’t expected. I knew there would be comments, since the Salon post had gotten so much commenting. But I had hoped by my addressing the breastfeeding as a fetish, the comments here would be focused on the issue of whether to bring a stranger home for sex while the kids slept. That didn’t happen. My writing in this case failed to coerce the discussion I had hoped for.
I cycled all afternoon, thought about how I wanted to address my mistake. I felt tremendous compassion for Rachel, and a desire to make peace and set things right. I got back from my ride and wrote this apology. (As mentioned, I also apologized to her in email.)
I’m sorry I hurt people’s feelings. Rachel, I’m sorry.
Comment by Single Mom
| March 12th, 2009
I don’t think you did this vengefully, but I’m glad that you admit you should have run it past her. Hopefully it will smooth over.
Single Mom´s last blog post..BRITNEY’S CONCERT
Comment by Kat Wilder
| March 12th, 2009
Dads — Not going to address the marketing thing, although, you know, things sometimes speak for themselves for those paying attention.
However, I want to bring up one issue in the comments in the original post and repeated here by Wondermom:
My understanding from that post is that this was not a blind date that she brought home … it was a second date which still means she doesn’t “know” him, but it is different from a complete stranger.
Really?
When I read things like that, I can see Ann Coulter and her ilk sitting back and licking their chops, fodder for the argument against single mothers, and rightfully so. There is no excuse for poor judgment, but things happen. But to defend it? Please!
Dads, as inflammatory as your post was and as so heavily pointed toward one person as it was, you experienced what Coulter (and I am NOT a fan!!!) does whenever she opens her mouth: the messenger usurps the message, which is an unfortunate thing. Your discussion about bringing hookups home (or “knowing” someone on a second date!) would have better served the single parenting dating community.
Kat Wilder´s last blog post..Sometimes pleasure isn’t so pretty
Comment by Cathouse Teri
| March 12th, 2009
Well I can tell you, I was neither rankled nor offended. My comment about the use of the word “tit” was more because I was startled. I certainly have been known to use the word. A lot. Just not in writing. And only under certain circumstances in speaking. (You get the picture. *wink*) It just seemed so oddly placed here, and also seemed so out of character for my friend David’s writing style. But, hey… we’re all here to surprise one another, eh?
I feel that your post was an emotional reaction. And as a few of the men here point out, that is never a good thing and usually something reserved for women to do. Of course, I disagree with that stereotype. But then, what do I know?
Your public (and private) apology is admirable. I hope things smooth over entirely. As for me, no apology necessary. Not even remotely. I adore you to the end.
Cathouse Teri´s last blog post..The Thing About War
Comment by krn
| March 12th, 2009
No apology necessary here either, but I’m glad you apologized to your friend. That’s consistent with what I’ve come to know of you through reading your blog and your kind email a couple of weeks ago.
Off to read today’s post. Have a good rest of the week!
Comment by QTMama
| March 12th, 2009
I’m totally wincing right now. Ugh.
QTMama´s last blog post..I Am A …
Comment by dadshouse
| March 12th, 2009
Kat – thanks. Rachel’s piece appearing in Salon makes it more visible outside the single parent blogosphere, making it just the sort of thing Ann Coulter might pick up on. It was not a blog diary-style entry, but was a polished piece of writing, versions of which have now appeared in two books and multiple places online. It seemed fair game to reference, just as I referenced the Mercury News technology writer Chris O’Brien in my Twitter is Bad For You piece, and questioned his Tweets during his child’s band concert.
I didn’t attack Rachel’s character, just as I didn’t attack Chris O’Brien’s character. I reacted to their choices in specific situations, and questioned whether a better choice could have been made. Perhaps if more reflective hindsight had been allowed to remain in the Salon piece, I wouldn’t have reacted so strongly. Perhaps I should have shown more restraint in my blog reaction.
Teri – did I react emotionally like a woman? Ha. I don’t know. Maybe I should have waited a day, and edited a second draft before publishing. I agree my choice of language in same cases could have been subtler.
Now then, which end of me do you adore the most? (You knew that question was coming)
Comment by Dana Sullivan
| March 12th, 2009
Hi David, I just wanted to correct one bit of info from one of your posts. Rachel Sarah’s essay about “lacdating” is one essay that appears in Unbuttoned, the anthology I co-edited. While we are thrilled with all the attention her provocative essay has garnered, I just wanted you to know that she doesn’t profit from it, in terms of book sales. I also feel a bit protective of Rachel because she has taken quite a lot of flack for the essay. And while I’m here, go ahead and call me Bill Clinton, but nowhere in the essay does she say that she brought her date home and had sex with him while her baby slept in the next room…..
Comment by Cathouse Teri
| March 12th, 2009
The bitter end.
(Admit it. You knew I’d say that.)
Cathouse Teri´s last blog post..The Thing About War
Comment by dadshouse
| March 12th, 2009
Hi Dana, thanks for your comment. I agree, the essay does not say they had sex.
It does say she brought the date home, and sent the dismayed basbysitter off, and that her daughter was sleeping in the next room. If I’m not mistaken, the essay also said the breastfeeding was sexually motivated. You’re right that it doesn’t say they “had sex” in a Bill Clintonesque way. But I think it’s fair to say they “hooked up”.
In the other post I referenced, by Penelope Trunk, it’s implied that single mom and her lover had sex. Both Rachel’s and Penelope’s stories are about single moms hooking up on blind dates while their children slept.
While I certainly empathize with the sexual longings (I’ve felt them myself, and have blogged plenty about them here), I voiced my opinion that bringing a stranger home for sexual pleasure while your child slept in the next room is not the smartest or safest choice. No character judgment or attack on anyone implied or intended.
The “how to have sex” dilemma is something that many single parents are faced with, and something I had hoped would develop into a rousing discussion in my blog post. In retrospect, my use of Rachel’s story, when so many people connect with her so deeply (as they should – she’s a wonderful person who I have met on many occasions), was not a good choice by me.
Still, the fact that Rachel has taken flack from her essay is perhaps a sign that the story presented on Salon could have profited from sharing her current view on the experience, as well as any insights she’s gleaned in the eight years since the event took place. I know all too well that in the moment, we all can make choices that we might do differently after more reflection. Some choices are wise, some are mistakes. The Salon piece says her friends were dismayed with her choice. It doesn’t say how she feels about it now.
It would have been nice to hear her current view. That’s how we as a community of single parents can all learn, grow, and evolve. Without that, in my opinion, it’s just a sensational story.
Teri – at least you didn’t make me the butt end of some joke. (ha!)
Comment by Cathouse Teri
| March 12th, 2009
Didn’t I? ;)
Cathouse Teri´s last blog post..The Thing About War
Comment by Wondermom
| March 12th, 2009
Kat,
You know that I adore you and love your blog (at least I hope you know that!) I’m probably one of the more conservative people here in this little single-parent community we have. The most flack I’ve received on my blog is about the “morality clause” in my divorce agreement. I don’t think that either of us should be “hooking up” when we have the children (not much of a sacrifice for him considering that Ex sees the kids a few hours a month…I have them all the rest of the time!)
I’m not in any way defending Rachel’s actions (or Penelope’s). I think that they both made poor choices in the heat of the moment. I haven’t made the same choice, but God knows I’ve made my share of mistakes! Based on what I’ve read of these two stories, there are a couple of differences that I find significant. Rachel: infant baby, blind date (referred by a friend, but still) Penelope: older children, knew the guy a little better.
It is disturbing to me that a parent would bring a stranger into the home with their children there. Honestly, it’s disturbing to me that any single person would bring a stranger into their home but I have to admit I’ve been there once or twice. With an infant child, the child’s safety is at the same risk as the adult’s safety. Yes, the guy could turn out to be an axe-murderer or something equally outrageous. But there’s not really as much issue with what kind of example you’re setting for your child, the child walking in and seeing something that will scar them for life, etc.
In Penelope’s case, it sounds like she’s met the guy before, e-mailed for a while, and been on a couple of dates. No, she hasn’t known him all her life, but he’s not a stranger either. It’s not black and white…it’s gray. I still probably wouldn’t bring him home with my kids there, but I’ve been told that I need to “get over it” and “move on”. My issue with her is that her kids are old enough (I assume…since there is more than one child…at least one must be old enough to know what’s going on) to make judgments based on the examples that they see, and to feel confused/threatened/insecure. Again, since I know nothing about her except that one post, I refuse to pass judgment…I HOPE that she has her children’s best interests at heart. I HOPE that she is considering their safety and health and feelings. I KNOW that Rachel is. I firmly believe that if faced with the same situation today, Rachel would handle it differently than she did 8 years ago. Each of us do the best we can with what we know at the time.
Honestly, I find both of these stories disturbing. The STORIES…not the players. I think that Singlemommyhood addressed the issue at hand very nicely today. Leah’s post did not call out any individual…just posed the question when is it ok to bring a date home for sex. I haven’t commented over there. I know that my answer will not be very popular. I can have a different opinion and still have a lot of respect for the person who holds that opinion. If not, I wouldn’t still be reading this blog.
Wondermom´s last blog post..I lost it
Comment by dadshouse
| March 12th, 2009
Wondermom – you’re awesome! I’m glad you can respect someone who has different values and viewpoints. I hope others in the single parent space can be as accepting and supportive as you.