Response From Friend or Foe Letter Writer

I must say, Lucinda, given the nature of your column, I was expecting advice on whether I should remain friends with these girls, and if so, how to go about letting go of my anger and mistrust to rebuild my bond with them. I wrote seeking advice from an unbiased third party.

I was not expecting to be mocked or accused of being a liar, as you did to me in the column "My Friends Ditched Me When I Got Drugged."

For the record, I really was roofied, ma'am. The idea that I must provide you with a tox screen to prove it is galling.

I was in tears AGAIN after reading your "advice." For a few brief seconds, I felt the hopelessness, fear and anxiety I felt that day and the weeks after, and I am disappointed in myself that I allowed your comments to have an effect on me and my mood. But I agree especially with one commentor who said that telling the victim of a drugging that she might have just made some poor decisions is like telling a rape victim she really just regrets having sex with an unattractive person.

I am lucky that I don't remember any part of the night, and was perhaps wrong to attempt to piece it together from anecdotes from my friends; it did make me appear as though my story had holes. It does, in fact, have one BIG hole—from the time the band started their second set until the time I woke up alone in the hospital. Perhaps my writing, your editing, or a combination of the two failed to make that point. But I expected more from you in the way of helping me deal with my friendship with these women, not my own allegedly off-kilter expectations. If you wanted to know whether I have a history of getting drunk and wandering off (I don't), or even just getting wasted-drunk (again, I don't), could you not have e-mailed me?

And, as it turns out, there was one big piece of the puzzle missing that fell into place later—the explaination for why my friends were angry the next morning. While I was drugged, my friends tell me I ended up dancing with a boy my friend has a crush on. She thought I had violated the sacred bonds of friendship by dancing with (not kissing, not sleeping with) a guy she had told me she was attracted to. (I have no memory of dancing with him, and never would have if I had been aware of myself at all.) So even though she told me she thought something was wrong—I am rarely, if ever, wasted or stupid-drunk—she and the others left me at the concert, fed up with my flirty behavior.

But in the end, I don't need your advice after all—I figured it out all by myself. Ten years of friendship is a long time, but I was clinging to an institution and a bond that these women abandoned years ago. Perhaps we continued to see each other socially because it was easier than forging new bonds. I'm not sure. For now, these women might be in my social circle due to our vast network of mutual friends, but they are certainly not the close confidantes I once thought I had.

P.S. The day I rely more on a boyfriend than on a best girlfriend is the day I lose hope for womankind.

Tags: friend or foe, responses

Advice Seeker wrote into the column Friend or Foe.

Comments

LW, you needed new friends,

By: Azalea | Sun, 10/18/2009 - 14:03

LW, you needed new friends, the were not the type need. You need friends who would drop everything and be there for you, I wish you luck in finding thos elikeminded ladies.

But overall you know, in a country where people literally watch another person die in a hospital waiting room and not so much as try to get a nurse's attention, or walk over a dying man/woman's body, watch a racist beat a woman relentlessly in front of her small child or a two year old baby get beaten to eath by his father on the side of the road and nobody stops to do ANYTHING I'm not surprised at all by her frenemie's failure to enthusiastically help her at 4am in a time of need while they were upset with her (juvenile reasons for the anger or not- upset is upset).

This entire advice column is about questionable friendships so I also expect the columnist- the one who sees lots of examples of friendships gone awry would be skeptical of how great and wonderful they really are.

@Jainipurr

By: Belle Gunness | Sat, 10/17/2009 - 09:31

Perhaps you ought to resolve your own internalized misogyny before you concern-troll about how women "make" men think they're stupid, and fling around misogynist terms like "hysterical."

This incident has touched on highly important issues: women's physical safety, the worth of women who aren't part of a couple, and the nature of friendship. And, to top it all off, there was the slap in the face to a woman who'd just been victimized. If some men think this is all nothing but frivolous female nonsense, their opinions don't matter to me.

Then again, Double X seems to be the new go-to place for misogynist women who think their views are somehow daring and edgy, rather than millennia-old and tired. Carry on.

not to beat a dead horse...

By: eaj62180 | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 21:00

I read Ms. Rosenfeld's response to the LW, I was very confused. Did Ms. Rosenfeld know something that I did not know? In reading LW's first letter, without clarification, I felt very sad. A few years ago, I went in on a summer house down the shore with my best friend and 8 girls I did not know before then (she knew a few). I was left at a bar by myself the second night we were there when my best friend and a few other girls decided to go to another bar, and did not try to find me before leaving. I was wasted, and blacked out from that, I would never deny it, but I was also a young, stupid girl with limited experience in the social setting that I was in that night. And I ended up being raped that night. It has been many years, but I often wondered why my best friend left the bar without me that night, and then didn't answer my panicked texts and phone calls through the night after the event. I stayed friends with her for another few years purely out of insecurity. I am no longer as close with her (we stay in touch only through mutual friends) and have found friends who would never dream of leaving a friend behind. What I have to say to LW is this - real friends don't leave you at a bar no matter what, you need to find new friends. What I have to say to Ms. Rosenfeld is this - even if you thought she was lying, as someone who was not drugged but just too wasted, does the fact that my best friend left me at a bar, didn't answer calls or texts, make me the one in the wrong? I was at the police station and in an emergency room and she never answered her phone. When the police drove me back to my shore house at 5 am, it was two other girls, mere acquaintances, who stayed up to wait for me, and but for the fact that we had not yet exchanged numbers two days after meeting, would have been there for me. One of them is now as close to me as my sisters. And we always watch each others drinks. I do not call for Ms. Rosenfeld's dismissal, I do think she has a right to an opinion. But I visit Double X for a feminist perspective that I do not get in my everyday life. And I am very disappointed in Ms. Rosenfeld for following the same old song of the male-dominated society - you did it to youself, too bad for you.

Is Rosenfeld actually Saletan?

By: Philosimphy | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 20:55

I mean, they've got the rape apologetics thing down pat.

To anyone who thinks the reaction is over the top, here's why: Because other young women read this column, and they were told by Rosenfeld that they have no responsibility to thier freinds. It's ok to leave your friend unaccounted for, it's ok to let them sit waiting for a ride in the hospital, it's ok to not watch out for your friends. Quite Randian. Are those the ideals you want your daughter's friends to have? Your wife's friends? Your mother's friends? If your son was going drinking in the "burly boy-rapers are us" section of town, would you want him going with friends who will ditch him? It's not about the friends of the LW, it's about Rosenfeld telling everyone else it's ok to be like that, that it's right to be like that.

This has gotten over-the-top hysterical

By: Janipurr | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 15:00

I think this has gotten a little over-the-top. For one thing, having a little scepticism is a good thing. I would have had just as little respect for Rosenfield if she had taken this letter completely at face value as I do for her poorly written reply. The information that LW provides in her followup is what should have been provided initially, if she didn't want to face a little disbelief. Irregardless of the fact that Rosenfield doesn't have the chops to be an advice writer (if for her complete lack of tact, if nothing else), doesn't mean she didn't have the responsibility to not completely take the LWs word as fact *as the letter was written*. Geez, people, if you want men to think women have brains, prove it! Use them!

That is not to say that a little disbelief couldn't have been expressed in a more empathetic and respectful manner; I just disagree with any writer who says she should have been completely believed the letter as written. A couple of sentences as written above (I'm not usually a heavy drinker...I've never ended up in the hospital before) would have been sufficient. I've many times thought that letters to Prudie or Ann Landers had to be BS, and if the advice columnist thought the same way they expressed that opinion, albeit in a much better fashion. I am a middle aged female who has been entirely single until recently, and have relied on good friends my entire life. I also have returned the favor, whether my friends were single or not. I know a little bit about what friendship is about.

Also, I'm guessing that the LW is very young--at 44, I wouldn't had to write into an advice columnist to know whether or not these women were really my friends or not. It seems obvious they aren't.

Good For You!

By: jaimi_p | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 14:53

To the writer of this response:
I was terribly distressed when I read the response to your letter earlier this week, and I am so glad to see that you have found a way to take something out of what could have been a tragic incident in your life.
My sister had something slipped to her, at a company outing of all places, earlier this year. When I saw her about an hour after we guess it was given to her, I was terrified. She was slurring her words and stumbling like I have never seen her do on her worst night, and we've had some doozies. It was not a condition I could have mistaken for anything else, and I nearly rushed her to the hospital, but settled for putting her to bed and checking on her (very) regularly. She couldn't even remember driving home or speaking to me. I can't help but think that the so-called friends you've been forced to leave behind were being willfully ignorant and petty, and that you are infinitely better off without them.

Best Wishes!

This "advice" column has

By: GirlPower | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 14:51

This "advice" column has undermined the very essence of the woman's movement. Why have we fought so hard for equality just to be told we need a man in our lives to depend on rather than our girlfriends who apparently shouldn't be bothered to get out of bed to help when their friends have been discharged from the hospital after a possible rape. I was flabbergasted after reading the column and I support the petition to remove Lucinda as an advice columnist, clearly she is doing more harm than good.

Ah, Pericles...

By: nagatuki | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 14:26

No, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on this site...

I get your explanation of letting witnesses falter on their stories so you can accuse them of lying; I should've clarified to mean your own clients. I assume you're on the same side as them, and I would hope that an advice columnist would be on the side of the person writing in _first_, and go from there. Theoretically, you should be decent to the person who comes seeking help, much like a client who would pay you for your time.
~~~~~~~~~
You write: As for your reluctance to believe that people who write into an advice column would shade the truth, I can say only that your view of human behavior is jejune.
~~~~~~~~
I never said I didn't believe people lied in letters, or exaggerated; I asked the motive for this particular LW. Then again, I also said that wasn't the problem; the problem was the columnist going with that judgment and not getting more info.
~~~~~~~~
And frankly, I think you minimize and mitigate the horror of rape by equating it with something less.
~~~~~~~~
Oh, way to turn things around to me! Now we're having fun... : ) - I in no way intended to minimize one over the other; I only pointed out that both led to the same psychological consequences, and to the LW, this _was_ re-victimizing her, to which there's no debate as she herself has said so.
I find it ridiculous that you'd even attempt to accuse me of not taking rape as seriously or moreso than a drugged attempt; I never argued that position.
~~~~~~~~
You write: Finally, as to your rhetorical question that I'm a lawyer, which ironically followed a sentence criticizing someone for questioning whether someone else was telling the truth, I'll just say: yep.
~~~~~~~
May I just say one thing? Rhetorical. I know, you yourself pointed it out, but let me tell you what that means to me: sarcasm.
~~
Really, I'm not here to argue - I understand you seem to have wandered into this fray without first seeing the original post much earlier this week, and now it seems like someone has to stick up for Rosenfeld (a few others have).
But she called into question the LW's integrity without checking details, and at the same time told her not to expect much from friends because all they're good for, after "beddy-bie," is someone to chat about exes with. If you cannot understand the outrage at that kind of response, there's no explaining it.

To Drie76...

By: pericles1979 | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 13:09

Being skeptical is not blaming the victim. It's being skeptical. (Blaming the victim, of course, assumes there is a victim. If there is, then punish the perpetrator. Harshly. Skepticism goes to the antecedent question: is there actually a victim?)

As for the rate of false rape complaints, I think you're right that it's low, but that's just a guess. The data is all over the place, as XX has reported recently. Some studies go up to 50% false (almost surely an overestimate), and some go down to single digits. But the point is that if there are any false complaints, then the accused deserves a defense. Which gets to your last point that someone who is skeptical should consider another profession. Really? You realize that defendants have lawyers, too, and not just the government, right? Something tells me that you might think of my job differently if I told you how I disbelieve (at first) everything every government witness says when they try to put my guy in prison for 20 years just for having 15 grams of crack.

I know this topic is emotional. I get it. I'm just saying that I appreciate the columnist's skepticism. That's it.

Enough already!

By: jerseygirl | Fri, 10/16/2009 - 13:02

I agree with Regular lady and a couple of others who have posted that the outcry over this column has really gotten out of hand.

I didn't agree with Lucinda's original advice, but petitions to have her fired? Do you all behave this way if you disagree with a movie review or an op-ed?

Advice columns may deal with personal questions, and even questions of a sensitive nature, but in the end they are entertainment, usually written by people who are entertaining writers first, without real expertise on personal relationships. Lucinda's column certainly got a lot of people reading and talking, which is what keeps websites like XX in business.