Re: DNL's post about his inappropriate behavior

[Datelessman]

I figured this was an appropriate place for this, but if I am wrong, please let me know.

So today I checked the main DNL site and found this: https://www.doctornerdlove.com/on-examining-ones-behavior-and-making-amends/

Summary/TL:DR version: In 2017, DNL went to a comic con and flirted with a fellow panelist at a hotel bar. He's in an openly poly relationship with his wife and thought he had a good "vibe" going with this other woman. At one point he "playfully" tugged her hair over the course of their evening at the bar (even after she told him not to). She didn't respond positively and he pulled back and changed gears, realizing she wasn't up for romance. Their interactions were tense after and the next year, a "mutual friend" told DNL that this woman felt violated by his behavior. He sent a private apology via email to her, and began to amend his behavior at cons. He even had this pal "shadow" him at a 2018 con to let him know what behavior may be going too far. He recently found out that this woman got his apology but still felt bad and wanted no further contact. For the reasons of modeling, DNL has made it the focus of a brief, and apologetic, column.

To say it was a shock to me is an understatement. I mean, intellectually, I know DNL is a self described former-PUA and he's not been shy about saying he acted like a jerk in those days to women. In many ways I wonder if his crusade to help men be better is a sort of penance for it. And to be honest I am surprised that it's taken some of those aforementioned transgressions this long to crop up in this social media era. But this wasn't from those days; this was from 2017 when I was a member of the main forums and DNL was settled into his role as guru. He seems to have performed some of the behaviors he often naysays in others. It also is fairly convenient, in retrospect, why he's usually far more forgiving of "cheating spouses/lovers" as well as  a proponent of poly relationships than many in his own audience is.

As someone who seems to have been permanently banned from his main forum for, what I can only assume, having "less than liberated" views about drug users, the concept of begging for forgiveness for a far worse transgression from the head of the site is kind of ironic to me. I was never told it would be a permanent ban; just "a very long vacation." It wasn't an IP ban and I could just rejoin with a new SN, but I thought it'd be dishonest and bring more drama.

No one is perfect and lord knows I didn't expect DNL to be. Lord knows I'm not. But on an internet full of sleazy self-help gurus for long suffering guys like me with little to know romantic experience, DNL was the only one who connected. Despite the fact that my views were not always welcome or understood on his main forum, I still contributed and took many criticisms to heart. I'm still here because I really have little else to safely express some of my views on relationships and get live feedback, which personally embarrass me. And everyone who posts here is cool, tolerant, patient, and open minded.

I'll still read DNL and I'm still fine with being here, an official spin-off forum. But it was kind of a rough thing to read on a weekend, and I figured this was as good a rant as any.

[Enail]

To be honest, I am...not honestly terribly surprised. His philosophy and posts are clear enough on consent and respect that I've felt - and continue to feel - okay with whatever level of general approval of his advice commenting on his blog in a largely positive way provides (not that anyone cares what I'm commenting on to determine approval of anything ). And there's only rarely something I outright disagree with in terms of being too pushy or too free about assuming the okay on touching. But there's definitely been some example bits here and there that do come with enough acknowledgement of the importance of paying attention to the other person's cues and responses and caution about getting too touchy for me to consider it fine advice, but have also given me the sense that his personal style goes pretty close to the line and trusts a lot to quick judgement calls, more than I approve of, and enough that I've suspected that there've got to be some women he's touched in ways they weren't okay with along the lines of the incident he describes.  Since I'm his guest there and the existence of this place is also thanks to him, I try not to be too rude, but to be frank, I like his advice best, and think it is most beneficial to both men seeking dating help and to the women they may interact with, when he leaves himself out of it more.

That said, this is far from an extreme terrible act, and I think a lot of people who to whom I give fewer sideeyes have probably had incidents like this, as disappointing it might be. A depressing fact is that when I see one of these kinds of apologies, I generally expect much worse. And I think it's good that he admits to it for the purpose of acknowledging it was a shitty thing to do and talking about how to go forward from there, though I suspect there may be an element of getting ahead of the story to it as well.  

I don't think it changes much about my views or that it will change much about my posting, but I'm sure it must be a blow to people who've looked to him for a model of how to behave, and you have my sympathies in that.

[waxingjaney]

Somehow I'm not surprised. This situation strikes me as a milder form of the Hugo Schwyzer debacle. 2017 was about the peak of DNL's overwoke phase, so I wonder if he wasn't compensating for the disparity between his public advice and his private actions (and I very much doubt this was a sole incident).

[Datelessman]

That said, this is far from an extreme terrible act, and I think a lot of people who to whom I give fewer sideeyes have probably had incidents like this, as disappointing it might be. A depressing fact is that when I see one of these kinds of apologies, I generally expect much worse. And I think it's good that he admits to it for the purpose of acknowledging it was a shitty thing to do and talking about how to go forward from there, though I suspect there may be an element of getting ahead of the story to it as well.  

I don't think it changes much about my views or that it will change much about my posting, but I'm sure it must be a blow to people who've looked to him for a model of how to behave, and you have my sympathies in that.

It does look awkward in context to a post he made a week before regarding the latest slate of comic book creators/editors being revealed as "con creeps", which includes a personal fave of his, Warren Ellis. It focused on removing the artist from their art. It was...timely in retrospect: https://www.doctornerdlove.com/on-finding-out-your-heroes-are-monsters-or-detoxifying-comic-culture/

I suppose the only reason I've taken such pause as it was that this wasn't a transgression from his admittedly sleazy past. This was deep into his DNL career. And considering it is a career, there is a degree of self service to this -- the sort of public display of apology he usually advocates against. And while it was a small boundary (a hair tug isn't a grope or a kiss), DNL still knowingly and willingly crossed it. His audience would have metaphorically crucified a letter writer who admitted that.

I'm too old to have a role model, but I'd be less than honest if his advice didn't help me in my own endless path of self reflection. It's sort of like peeking behind the set at Disneyland and seeing Mickey take off his head and swear like a sailor into a cell phone. It's not a crime but it's disappointing at an unexpected moment.

I'm not bailing or seeing DNL as a predator, even if I can't help but side eye his advice more. It may be worse that he's handed ammo to the MRA trolls who often harass his site. But I thought it was a topic which was worth a rant on this, an adjunct site run and moderated by fans, and since no one else had brought it up, I may as well. I don't have an agenda or anything. I don't intend to come off smug, even if I have always been wary of DNL when he gives what is essentially Miss Frizzle's advice -- "Get messy! Make mistakes!" Some guys are cautious because they don't want to risk putting a woman thru this by accident; at least I am. Hopefully his audience will be as forgiving as the mods often beg them to be for letter writers.

[KMR]

I'm too old to have a role model, but I'd be less than honest if his advice didn't help me in my own endless path of self reflection. It's sort of like peeking behind the set at Disneyland and seeing Mickey take off his head and swear like a sailor into a cell phone. It's not a crime but it's disappointing at an unexpected moment.

I'm not bailing or seeing DNL as a predator, even if I can't help but side eye his advice more. It may be worse that he's handed ammo to the MRA trolls who often harass his site. But I thought it was a topic which was worth a rant on this, an adjunct site run and moderated by fans, and since no one else had brought it up, I may as well. I don't have an agenda or anything. I don't intend to come off smug, even if I have always been wary of DNL when he gives what is essentially Miss Frizzle's advice -- "Get messy! Make mistakes!" Some guys are cautious because they don't want to risk putting a woman thru this by accident; at least I am. Hopefully his audience will be as forgiving as the mods often beg them to be for letter writers.

To be fair, the general concept of "advice" often comes with elements of "do as I say, not as I do" because human beings are fallible and life is complicated and no one is going to act and behave perfectly in every situation (despite their best intentions), even if they have so much experience in an area that they've managed to turn it into a career. And in many cases, people who give advice on a topic are speaking from the perspective of having struggled with an issue, having found ways to cope with it, and wanting to pass along their experiences, thoughts, and strategies about what they've learned on their own path to self-improvement. But self-improvement isn't something that just has an end point and suddenly you are a qualified guru on the matter; it's a continual process. And having an area in which one has historically had a difficult time means that even years down the road of self-improvement, it's quite likely that they still have some lingering struggles they must face and deal with. BUT the advice also comes from a place where they have the tools and experience of working through those issues and knowing how to react and move forward in a positive way, and that is also a valuable experience they can share with others.

[Enail]

Yeah, I agree with both those things. People are fallible and no one gets to declare themselves a finished work and just because he has advice doesn't mean he's beyond the need to do better at times, and it's probably a good thing to have that highlighted. But also the thing that he's selling is in part his own story, and that means his advice can be shaded with his own mindset as separate from the explicit advice he gives.  Again, I tend to think his actual advice doesn't usually advocate taking chances I consider to have a fair chance of causing meaningful unpleasantness for others, but you're not wrong that sometimes a mindset that does choose to risk it comes through in his writing, Datelessman.

[inbloomer]

I came to DNL basically because there are so few people who are churning out dating advice multiple times a week. Search all kinds of keywords that you would expect to bring up a wide range of material, and his stuff is what appears.

I don’t expect anyone to be perfect. I do have concerns about allegations of inappropriate behaviour being used as political weapons. I do think taboos are fickle, and actions that were acceptable, even laudable at the time can seem totally beyond the pale only a few years later.

However.

DNL set himself up as better than everyone else. His speciality was the Chair Leg of Truth, including extended takedowns of other gurus and male feminists. Indeed including long articles specifically condemning other men’s misreading of boundaries at conventions. He also pushed the line that women absolutely know the difference between a minor faux pas and sexual harassment, so there’s no way they would pursue a grudge for years without good reason.

His site had a hierarchy seen in quite a few organisations. He, the leader, kept a remote but benevolent persona. Yet he had an inner circle of followers who viciously piled on anyone who asked anything like an awkward question. I don’t know if he actively encouraged that, but at the least he was weak in tackling it.

I have always said that I think some of his advice is good. I have also regularly said that bits of it felt off to me: his insistence that you should be touching people you’re flirting with; his odd attitudes towards personal responsibility with alcohol; his regular claim that cheating is forgivable if it was a one-off and they just couldn’t help themselves.

I tried to raise all that around 2017 on the main site. It was met by very nasty personal attacks from that inner circle – I was characterised as the social skills dunce who can’t say hello to a woman without scarring her for life, while the Doc was the hero who’d had brilliant success with both PUA and non-PUA techniques and could handle PhD-level social situations with ease. Neither was true.

Now watching some of the same people weasel around and make out they’re the person who protects others from personal attacks ... yeah, pull the other one, dude.

Anyway – I’m well aware this isn’t the place for petulant self-pity about interactions on the main site. I haven’t mentioned it before and don’t intend to again. But it’s to make clear that for me there are some similarities, albeit on a far smaller scale, to Lance Armstrong. The die-hard fans still make excuses for him because hey, everyone else was cheating too. But he took the hypocrisy to a higher level than everyone else, and then forced lots of other people into complicity and silence.

I do think this is a much better space and would like to continue contributing on an occasional basis. But it was reaching the point anyway where we’d gone over DNL’s views enough and he wasn’t coming out with anything new. So I’d rather move on and look at some articles by other people, but no longer be part of a running discussion on his.

[Enail]

<mod>Hey folks, just want to remind everyone that because of the weird combo of this place being related with a lot of crossover but also run separately from the DNL blog and community, we do have a rule here about not talking about people and interactions from DNL Prime, so as not to drag people who chose not to participate here into discussions or else put up with being talked about half behind their backs, half in front of their faces.  

(For context, I used to be a mod on the DNL blog and the old, official DNL forum, but during this forum's reign I stepped down from modding the blog because the differences in norms and rules between the two sites was becoming a conflict of interest and I couldn't mod both fairly, and wasn't very comfortable or successful at modding for the rules of that site. We put up this rule to keep some separation between the two sites and not drag personal conflicts across.)

Talking about blog posts and other DNL content is fine, and in this circumstance I think a. discussing the recent post and even how it relates to DNL as an individual falls under that, and b. it's a significant enough thing to this site that it would deserve an exemption anyway. And I do think it's reasonable and relevant to want to discuss the community around DNL in relation to that - but I'd like to ask everyone to try and bear in mind that this is not a place to rehash arguments from there or to discuss specific commenters and interactions, so just a reminder to please be really careful to walk that line respectfully and with consideration for blog commenters. </mod>

[Enail]

<mod>Yes, bomaye, you are very much banned from discussion of the content of DNL's articles. As well as from basically everything you just wrote, which included talk of banned topics such as gender, dating, women, diversity and DNL - you're meant to be staying completely clear of any topics you've had arguments over or controversy on here or on the older forum, so I think it should have been pretty obvious to you this wasn't a discussion you should be weighing in on.  I'm therefore going to remove your post completely, and I'd ask that you be way more careful about what you post about in future.

Also, making broad, insulting generalizations about groups isn't okay on this forum, and that includes nerds. <mod>

[Enail]

<triple mod post in a row> Also, I'm going to split this discussion off into its own thread, since Rants isn't really meant for discussion. </mod>

[Datelessman]

To be fair, the general concept of "advice" often comes with elements of "do as I say, not as I do" because human beings are fallible and life is complicated and no one is going to act and behave perfectly in every situation (despite their best intentions), even if they have so much experience in an area that they've managed to turn it into a career. And in many cases, people who give advice on a topic are speaking from the perspective of having struggled with an issue, having found ways to cope with it, and wanting to pass along their experiences, thoughts, and strategies about what they've learned on their own path to self-improvement. But self-improvement isn't something that just has an end point and suddenly you are a qualified guru on the matter; it's a continual process. And having an area in which one has historically had a difficult time means that even years down the road of self-improvement, it's quite likely that they still have some lingering struggles they must face and deal with. BUT the advice also comes from a place where they have the tools and experience of working through those issues and knowing how to react and move forward in a positive way, and that is also a valuable experience they can share with others.

That is very true; the path of enlightenment is never ending. And that path involves missteps and errors for even veteran hikers.

I still found it a little surprising and disappointing, though, even to a minor degree. Like above 0% degree.

But I suppose I have my own glass house and shouldn't throw stones. Lord knows a lot of my views on women aren't so enlightened, and I can be exasperating to deal with on a neutral level. It wouldn't be unfair for someone to criticize my reaction with a, "well, you're the guy who never took a chance, never got dirty, never took a risk. How dare you judge someone who did?" I got that from my friends now and again on the rare occasions I opined on their love lives by the end of college.

Again, I'm not swearing off DNL or think his advice is now all bad nor do I see him as a monster or anything. I just couldn't shrug it off, is all.

 Again, I tend to think his actual advice doesn't usually advocate taking chances I consider to have a fair chance of causing meaningful unpleasantness for others, but you're not wrong that sometimes a mindset that does choose to risk it comes through in his writing, Datelessman.

I may be the sexless virgin here and it could be my ignorance showing, but while I know all about a "give and take" flirting style, I'm at a loss for where a hair tug in any sense outside of kindergarten (or a mutually agreed upon BDSM session) seems natural. There's "testing the boundaries with casual touching," i.e. a tap of the forearm, maybe attempt at holding hands or lightly touching a hand, but a hair tug?

In meatspace my default demeanor is actually "deadpan snarker" so I know all about flirting styles that can seem a little like exchanging one-liners or whatnot. I just don't think I'd ever go to "hair pull." I'd ask for permission to pass the salt.

I suppose the only reason it comes off worse than it it was because, according to DNL himself, the woman clearly set a boundary and he went over it. That's one of his cardinal rules. But, as KMR says, we all have moments of weakness.

And in terms of DNL wanting to "model behavior," it is good that his apology is not wishy washy nor does he throw in things like misunderstandings. He explains his side, he admits being wrong, he apologizes.

I still wonder why he would make it public and unintentionally rally his fanbase around him and make a chunk of his apology about his display, when he avidly advocates against that when other "internet famous people" go through things like this. I wonder if someone in his inner circle, perhaps this "mutual friend," encouraged it.

DNL set himself up as better than everyone else. His speciality was the Chair Leg of Truth, including extended takedowns of other gurus and male feminists. Indeed including long articles specifically condemning other men’s misreading of boundaries at conventions. He also pushed the line that women absolutely know the difference between a minor faux pas and sexual harassment, so there’s no way they would pursue a grudge for years without good reason.

I do think this is a much better space and would like to continue contributing on an occasional basis. But it was reaching the point anyway where we’d gone over DNL’s views enough and he wasn’t coming out with anything new. So I’d rather move on and look at some articles by other people, but no longer be part of a running discussion on his.

Those "chair leg of truth" bits, especially in light of his fondness for Warren Ellis' work long before he was exposed as a far worse "con creep," and especially with The Mary Sue, one of the internet's foremost sites about women in geekdom, reprinting his resent Ellis piece, may not age well now.

For what it is worth I don't think the woman in question was "pursuing a grudge," and I am uncomfortable with such an accusation. Most of DNL's interactions and attempted apologies were due to the continued efforts of their "mutual friend" and not her. The only person in any position to claim she has "a grudge" is DNL and he doesn't assert that whatsoever. Heck, she'd had about 3 years to attempt to humiliate and "expose" him on Twitter, FB et al and never has. If anything she's made it abundantly clear she wants nothing to do with him, not even to be within range of an apology. As is her right.

I do agree that DNL's kind of exhausted his views on virgins IMO, which was why I was sharing some other perspectives (especially women's) in that topic.

[Enail]

I may be the sexless virgin here and it could be my ignorance showing, but while I know all about a "give and take" flirting style, I'm at a loss for where a hair tug in any sense outside of kindergarten (or a mutually agreed upon BDSM session) seems natural. There's "testing the boundaries with casual touching," i.e. a tap of the forearm, maybe attempt at holding hands or lightly touching a hand, but a hair tug?

I've seen that style of flirting go over well when it's done with the right person/dynamic/matched to their comfort, and I've even known some people who operate in a similar high-touch/friendly-antagonistic style platonically - but most of the people I've seen like that are a little less good at reading others than they think they are, and tend to irritate a few people and occasionally make someone quite uncomfortable in the course of their interactions (not to the point of being thought of as a creeper or inappropriate overall, even to the people who dislike it, for the most part).

I still wonder why he would make it public and unintentionally rally his fanbase around him and make a chunk of his apology about his display, when he avidly advocates against that when other "internet famous people" go through things like this. I wonder if someone in his inner circle, perhaps this "mutual friend," encouraged it.

I assume it was essentially a PR move/attempt to salvage a bad thing with some spin into his overall message; given that it sounds like the woman in question had recently posted about it, it would have come off worse and more hypocritical if he didn't address it and left people to speculate.

[Glides]

I have always said that I think some of his advice is good. I have also regularly said that bits of it felt off to me: his insistence that you should be touching people you’re flirting with; his odd attitudes towards personal responsibility with alcohol; his regular claim that cheating is forgivable if it was a one-off and they just couldn’t help themselves.

I tried to raise all that around 2017 on the main site. It was met by very nasty personal attacks from that inner circle – I was characterised as the social skills dunce who can’t say hello to a woman without scarring her for life, while the Doc was the hero who’d had brilliant success with both PUA and non-PUA techniques and could handle PhD-level social situations with ease. Neither was true.

Now watching some of the same people weasel around and make out they’re the person who protects others from personal attacks ... yeah, pull the other one, dude.

Wanted to respond to this specifically because I went through a much more minor variation of this myself. I know the rule is with this thread is not to bring up arguments and rehash old shit, so I'm going to keep that to a minimum. I just wanted to reiterate that part of the reason why I stopped engaging with the blog altogether is that what you went through is very much the rule and not an exception.

Lord knows what the hell I was talking about myself, but dude is very much a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of person. But I also wanted to stress, with going-on-seven-years of trying to square this particular circle to limited success, that DNL's fixation on touching people you don't know and all the really borderline weird shit about open relationships, all of that raises red flags to me now that weren't there when I was ranting on the forums as a confused and hurt teenager. I tried his method exactly once when I was nineteen, touched someone on the small of their back, and got such a horrified expression in response that even my dumbass clicked exactly how bad of a social faux pas I had just made. Was what I did wrong? 100 goddamn percent. But that's also the moment I only posted on the forum and stopped reading articles for the most part.

Let's admit it to ourselves: he's still got the PUA mentality with some extra buffers. Is he a Roosh or a Neil Strauss or whoever else? Not likely. But even so, the shit with the hair tugging, if he'd pulled it with me, I would've shattered the nearest glass in his eyeball.

And someone else said this, but it's not just that he tugged on a woman's hair in his almost-certainly-not-polyamorous-even-if-he-claims-it-is joke of a relationship, it's that he's now trying to monetize inappropriately touching another person and making it about himself. This person had specifically stated not to contact her in any way and what does he do? He publicizes that he tugged on a woman's hair for money. And now the entire brigade is apparently stalking her social media BECAUSE OF THIS.

And I think the other thing to note is this: this is like owning a car dealership and not having a driver's license. He's running a dating site and pretty much just publicly outed himself as not knowing how to do the shit he claims he knows how to do, which is ethically dating mostly aimed at cisgender straight men (Ha, no wonder I didn't fit in there). One of the commenters on the post itself said it a lot better than I did, basically that there was a much better way to handle getting around the controversy before it happened. It would've stayed as a <i>faux pas</i> had he not made it about himself and how awful he felt, rather than a person whose hair he yanked on in public outright asking him not to respond and yet he blatantly disregarded that because money. I haven't seen the posts by the person he did this to, and I'm not going to look for them.

If he was working at a car dealership and didn't have a public platform for car dealerships, then he would've resolved this by now. He's got a platform, he's mishandled the fuck out of this even if he's got good intentions (which I'm sure he has). I was already not reading his stuff, nor am I going to tell anyone not to read his stuff. But even so: ultimate example of "do as I say, not as I do" with the guy, and it's a pattern. It's actually kind of ironic that I've had loads more progress talking to y'all over the years than I ever had from him.

If I say any more, I'm going to probably start an argument and that's not the intention. I've grown to really dislike him from the limited interactions I've had with him way back when, but that's entirely unrelated to this, I think.

And to Datelessman: you're 100% right on all counts re: what you were saying.

[Enail]

<mod> Glides, even though this thread involves criticizing DNL's actions and behaviour, and how it relates to his dating advice,  that doesn't mean this is an okay place to make random accusations or insult anyone's relationships, including him. Unless you have an actual basis for thinking his relationship is not consensually open, that's wild and potentially harmful speculation and not acceptable here, particularly about blog commenters, which includes DNL (see above for comment on the forum rule about keeping a line between forum and DNL Prime). And you don't get to decide what makes other people's relationships serious or meaningful; it's not okay to call anyone's relationship as a joke. Keep your comments grounded in the actual information we have. </mod>

[JP McBride]

I'll have more to say later, but I just wanted to say that I agree with everything that's been said.

Also, Physician, heal thyself.

[inbloomer]

For what it is worth I don't think the woman in question was "pursuing a grudge," and I am uncomfortable with such an accusation. Most of DNL's interactions and attempted apologies were due to the continued efforts of their "mutual friend" and not her. The only person in any position to claim she has "a grudge" is DNL and he doesn't assert that whatsoever. Heck, she'd had about 3 years to attempt to humiliate and "expose" him on Twitter, FB et al and never has. If anything she's made it abundantly clear she wants nothing to do with him, not even to be within range of an apology. As is her right.

I absolutely wasn't suggesting the woman is pursuing a grudge. I was slightly confused why she was bringing it up right now, but it seems the whole gaming industry is having a "moment". There is quite a discrepancy in tone between the two accounts, and his apology was using a line others seem to be using as well, i.e. "My memory of these events significantly differs from yours, but I said believe women so I have to now". Is that the new "I'm a very tactile person"?

So although I think it doesn't look good at all, I was being very cautious at judging the exact facts and extent of moral breach. My point was that even under the most generous interpretation, this is still very problematic for a lot of his advice, and in particular the holier-than-thou tone with which he delivered it and shot down any dissent.

[waxingjaney]

And I think the other thing to note is this: this is like owning a car dealership and not having a driver's license.

I'd analogize it to owning a car dealership, and having a driver's license suspended for reckless driving and a couple of DUIs. He knows what he's doing; he just lacks the awareness and self-control to do it responsibly.

I don't know much of anything about DNL's personal relationships, but I *did* roll my eyes when I saw the "open marriage" bit, as that claim slots neatly into a series of ugly stereotypes about men who look and act as he does.

[Hielario]

I get some of the formal aspects of the apology but the main core of this kerfuffle feels really weird for me. I get that americans are stricter about personal space than my people, but...all of this... over some unwelcome hair tugging three years ago?

(Also: I'm seeing some prejudice about open relationships in a couple of you. And I'm not liking it in the slightest. )

[Enail]

<mod> Hey folks, cut it out on the jabs against open marriage and the unfounded speculation that DNL's wife is not on board with theirs being one. I'm going to start handing out temp bans for any further comments like that.

I don't want to shut this thread down, but I'm getting a bit sick of having to give a mod note every other post, so seriously, everyone cut out that shit. </mod>

[waxingjaney]

Hmmm, to venture a question, what is the exact purpose of moderation on this forum today? There are maaaaybe a dozen people who are even semi-regular posters here, and you may be the only one who interacts with Ask DNL anymore. That's not to advocate for throwing the doors open completely, but the original guidelines and motives may not be relevant now.

[Enail]

It's not very pointful, which is why I do very little of it. But as long as it's still an operational forum, I'm still going to try and keep it roughly within the original goals, I'm not interested in being responsible for a total cesspit, even a very, very quiet one. And in particular with a touchy subject like this one; the legacy of association and the occasional crossover in membership (I think there's a few others besides me who poke around on the blog from time to time) means I do think we need to have some care in how we relate to the other site.

[Datelessman]

I've seen that style of flirting go over well when it's done with the right person/dynamic/matched to their comfort, and I've even known some people who operate in a similar high-touch/friendly-antagonistic style platonically - but most of the people I've seen like that are a little less good at reading others than they think they are, and tend to irritate a few people and occasionally make someone quite uncomfortable in the course of their interactions (not to the point of being thought of as a creeper or inappropriate overall, even to the people who dislike it, for the most part).

It sounds like it's the sort of technique that requires both a PhD in dating skills and a receptive "patient," and as DNL says, he is not a real doctor.

Hair does seem pretty intimate, though. I mean it's close to the face; maybe not exactly "neutral" space to test such boundaries.

I assume it was essentially a PR move/attempt to salvage a bad thing with some spin into his overall message; given that it sounds like the woman in question had recently posted about it, it would have come off worse and more hypocritical if he didn't address it and left people to speculate.

The woman in question did, in fact, post about it online. I happened upon it; I won't share it, or summarize it, or give names, or even the forum. But it was seen over 100 times and was shared about 3 dozen times already.

Having read it, though, the pain the woman is in is obvious.

I do think it's possible that DNL was doing a PR move while still being genuinely sorry about it (even if he acknowledges not remembering it and needing to be told about it by mutual parties). It still is quite a shame, and disappointing.

And to Datelessman: you're 100% right on all counts re: what you were saying.

Thanks.

I absolutely wasn't suggesting the woman is pursuing a grudge. I was slightly confused why she was bringing it up right now, but it seems the whole gaming industry is having a "moment". There is quite a discrepancy in tone between the two accounts, and his apology was using a line others seem to be using as well, i.e. "My memory of these events significantly differs from yours, but I said believe women so I have to now". Is that the new "I'm a very tactile person"?

So although I think it doesn't look good at all, I was being very cautious at judging the exact facts and extent of moral breach. My point was that even under the most generous interpretation, this is still very problematic for a lot of his advice, and in particular the holier-than-thou tone with which he delivered it and shot down any dissent.

Having read her post I don't think this has anything to do with "the gaming industry." It was a personal decision.

It is definitely problematic. I think we can all agree on that. What really counts, beyond the woman getting some measure of closure if she can, is how DNL moves on. Will he continue as if nothing happened or use this moment to improve or rethink some of his advice.

[JP McBride]

Somehow I'm not surprised. This situation strikes me as a milder form of the Hugo Schwyzer debacle.

I see DNLas the Billy Bush to Schwyzer's Trump. He's not much of a misogynist, but then again he was never that much of a feminist.

I wish that this had come out years ago; I would have taken great pleasure in tearing him apart. Now, it just feels like punching down. There has to be a German word for schadenfreude that's gone stale.

[Datelessman]

So, what has the aftermath been? I asked in a previous post that unfortunately, what is done is done and it would be curious how DNL moved on from here, especially with his website since that's the source of the DNL Empire. It's his home base, his Castle Grayskull, essentially.

Two days after posting that bombshell apology, on 6/29, DNL announced he was going on a brief "staycation" which was due to Covid-19 wrecking his plans and he was arranging for some guest posters. He's done this before on occasion, but even if it wasn't due to Covid, maybe a break at this time is a good thing. It gives him time to process as well as his audience. Even though he set up an "open thread" (i.e. his commentors can post about anything below), it only got 11 replies and the subject quickly started to swing back to the problem of men not responding well when told "no." https://www.doctornerdlove.com/well-be-back-after-these-brief-messages/

(Also, kudos to his reference for Saturday morning commercial buffers from the 80's and 90's. I remember this one.)

The first guest post is by Dr. Timaree Schmitt, a fellow podcaster, advice columnist, LGBTQ organizer and so on. Her topic was on "Flirting and Forgiveness." https://www.doctornerdlove.com/guest-post-flirting-and-forgiveness/

It's a fair topic overall given the nature of his site, and it's possible this article was arranged before the apology post on 6/27 and the topic is sheer happenstance. That said, the timing on it is...convenient. I genuinely hope we won't be seeing a week of more of DNL's friends who are "actual" doctors giving posts that more or less hint about the virtues of why to err is human and to forgive is divine. Because it reeks of the sort of public relations modeling he usually criticizes in others.

It's...weird. I don't doubt that DNL is very sorry. I also don't doubt that as someone who has essentially created an entire business around his identity, he would take some measures to keep it clean and viable, even if it meant some hypocrisy. But if his intent here is to model behavior, then I still question whether he is really accomplishing his goal. Once the woman involved at the center of all this made her post, I suppose it was inevitable that he respond, even if it did become more about the spectacle and his attention than the apology. But now we have guests coming in writing articles that could be "misunderstood" very easily to be specifically self serving at that moment in time for the webmaster?

Would DNL be so understanding if one of his rival dating gurus who was also a straight guy were doing the exact same thing? And on the flip side, what else could he have done, besides not have been so obtuse against his own advice in 2017? I don't know. Maybe it would have been best to start out with a guest post that could in no way be "misunderstood" as being self serving? I.E. a topic not so close to the scandal?

[Enail]

Agreed, that timing doesn't speak well for him at all.

[Sponsored content]