I don’t really know a lot about food addiction, so I’m not sure how well that maps to alcohol addiction. I do think referring to alcoholism as a “hang-up” is dismissive of a serious condition. If someone feels that their recovery is at risk if they’re in a serious relationship with someone who drinks, that’s a valid concern. “If I see her coming home after having a few beers, and it not being a problem, then I’m going to start thinking I can have a few beer, and it won’t be a problem,” is not an unreasonable concern for someone with an addiction.
I’m arguing in the general, here, and not specifically about Dykstra’s story. It’s certainly possible to weaponize his addiction as a way to control her, and the situation has an inherent power imbalance. While, “I can’t be in a relationship with someone who drinks,” is a valid boundary, it’s very hard to say, “I’d rather drink than be in a relationship with you,” without sounding like you’ve got a substance abuse problem, and that’s assuming good intentions on behalf of the addict. If they’re emotionally abusive (as opposed to simply chemically) there’s a lot of ways they can get really ugly with that. Dangerosa’s got a really good point about the other habits that go along with addiction, and that’s something you have to be aware of if you’re getting into a relationship with someone with a history of substance abuse. But the specific issue of the addictive substance needs to be granted a pass in that sort of judgement. There’s a legitimate, non-controlling-asshole reason to have that sort of requirement in a relationship.
Well, as to the specific phrasing, he is reacting to her drinking a glass of wine in front of him. If she had no idea he was an alcoholic, that’s a pretty dickish way to break the subject. If she knew he had a drinking problem, that’s not really cool on her behalf. I don’t mean that as an attack on her, or a defense of Hardwick, because I don’t enough details of the situation. I don’t even like bringing it up, because it’s the sort of niggling detail that detracts from the more serious accusations - the sexual assault and the professional black-balling - where there’s no grey area where that might be acceptable.
And yet, I brought it up anyway, because SDMB. Sorry.
Can you even identify her goals? From your posts in this thread, it seems more of a launching point to attack women rather than to understand the actual topic. I’ll help you:
Dykstra even numbered them. 1. Closure. 2. A warning. Only she can know if this provides her sufficient closure, but it’s very clearly a warning and part of the rising chorus of women speaking up against a culture and history of terrible behavior.
You don’t see self reflection? Did you read the actual link? (my bold)
The entire article is entitled Rose-Colored Glasses: A Confession. Rose colored glasses means she wasn’t seeing clearly. She’s confessing her part in the whole shit show. Only if you expect her to grovel more could you think that she isn’t demonstrating self reflection. And warning signs for other women? There was an enumerated list of select examples, along with a litany of others. For example, when after surgery for an ectopic pregnancy the first question a person asks the doctor when they can have sex again in front of the patient’s mother - that’s a warning sign that should be heeded.
But what if the drinking occurs when the spouse is on a business trip hundreds of miles away schmoozing with clients? What if we’re talking about a glass champagne at their best friend’s wedding, that you opted not to attend? If the spouse drinks only on certain occasions and then when they do, it’s never apparent to you, then it is a head scratcher to me how this could put an alcoholic’s sobriety at risk. But maybe this tangent is more fitting for another thread.
According to her, this occurred before they were dating. Perhaps they were dining in a group and she ordered wine not knowing that this could be an issue for him (not every alcoholic has a hard time with others drinking around them). But bottom line, if it was a problem for him and he wanted to make that known before they started officially dating, there are a lot less assholelish ways of communicating that then making her mundane glass of wine out to be a problem that she is required to fix. Rather, it’s a problem that he has that he should be asking—not telling—her to help him with. That, in my mind, makes or breaks whether this is red flag for controlling, domineering behavior or not.
You are going the wrong direction - or at least it needs to go both ways. Many people don’t have the knowledge of addictive behaviors to be on the look out for it. Many people who have first hand experience with it as co-dependents also have lousy habits. The addict, unless the reached sobriety on their own, at some time through rehab or AA, learned about their impact on others. If they did a twelve step program, they made amends. Its at least as much the addicts responsibility to check his or her behavior for manipulative and controlling as it is for people around the addict to protect their boundaries.
I don’t think it’s entirely clear, but it’s among a list of rules laid down early in their “relationship,” which implies that it’s gone beyond just dating.
I mean, campers, there’s a point where one needs there needs be a point where one requests the slightest modicum of protoof. Yes, those actions were not admireable. Prove it.
Her essay itself is evidence, and in most instances like this, it is the only and best evidence there ever will be. Saying that this is not evidence amounts to saying that men should be allowed to get away with whatever they do behind closed doors.
What do you think “proof” means when it comes to human actions? If these acts had been crimes, this would be enough proof to convict someone. Well, maybe not a rich white man. But certainly a black man or a poor man.
Why should the standards for social judgment be more rigorous than what is demanded from the government to punish someone?
You make zero sense. Anyone can claim whatever they’d like—doesn’t make it true. His denial is also evidence according to your logic. Saying his denial is not evidence amounts to saying that a woman should be able to say whatever she wants about a man with impunity. Why should her version of events automatically count as truth in your world?
Of course it’s fucking evidence. We look at the evidence, we look at the people giving the evidence, we look at how convincing they are, and we decide which one we believe. That’s how fucking evidence works.
That’s what happens in a court of law. Accuser speaks in front of the jury. Accused speaks in front of the jury. Jury decides who is more believable. That’s how the majority of these kinds of cases—if they ever get to trial—are disposed.
And we’re not in a court of law, so we don’t even have to be that rigorous.