oh yeah, right, i'm SOOO sorry for being in a LDR with my boyfriend who's in prison right now.

yeah, gotcha. I think I'll dump him and date some random asshole who lives 5 minutes away from me.

I disagree. It may be harder to sustain a LDR, but you're really limiting yourself by only choosing to date within your city (unless you live in a big city.) You have much higher chances of meeting someone who is perfect for you when you're not limiting yourself to a 10 mile range.

My boyfriend and I met on the internet, and we live about 30 miles apart. I know that's not exactly long distance, but I would still be with him even if we were 300 miles apart. When you find the right person, distance doesn't matter.

I don't like the idea of anyone telling me who I should love.

I think the problem with this is that if you love someone enough to opt for a long distance relationship, you love them enough to try to keep your relationship together against all odds. As bad as I feel for the environmental ramifications in this situation, I do not think I could just break up with the person I love more than anyone in the world just to date someone closer. I don't think there's anyone on this planet who could hold a candle to my loving, brilliant feminist boyfriend. This waiting will pay off someday.

"if we have a local food movement, why not a date local movement?"

Not exactly the same, yeah? I mean, okay, some people are in long distance relationships for the wrong reasons (I have been), but that doesn't mean we should shame the rest.

uhhhhhhhhhhhh.
this is ridiculous. i dont even know where to start.

Ok, no, I'm a lot pissed. A large number of good friends are in life-long partnerships that started as long term relationship. And a more than fair number of good friends have been raped by "local" boy dates. Including my SO twice.

From this should I assume that all local relationships are doomed to failure and guaranteed to end in rape? That they're filled with misery and cause an endless expenditure in gas costs for driving endlessly around the city?

I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous, offensive, poorly thought out and dismissive for no worthwhile reason. I don't care why Slate thought it was a brilliant idea, but for you to try and expand on it with a disgustingly short-sighted and exclusionist post really demonstrates a lack of forethought and empathy.

This is an awful post. I never thought i'd see a post on feministing about how one should lead their love life. Thanks a lot.

The love of my life and I have been together for almost 7 years (anniversary in November). Last year I had to move 3 hours away to continue my education. I now commute back and forth once a week (spending 3 days in Toronto, 4 days in Kingston). I refuse to own a car, so I take either the bus or the train, and buy ticket packets ahead of time.

... and you want me to feel GUILTY for trying to sustain this long-term, supportive, positive relationship?

OR would you rather I gave up my dreams of achieving a PHD so i could "stay local"?

Yeah, basically, you can take this post and shove it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a bus to catch.

Oh, on a personal note, if you're feeling undersexed in a LDR, become POLY instead of trying to universalize your own negative experiences. You're like those professional concern trolls that say that all women must never have sex before marriage, because that lifestyle didn't personally fulfill them.

Don't like LDRs, don't have them. Don't try to make it worse on those of us who are.

Ok, done. Again, sorry if I went off too much, but this is an issue currently close to me and one that will become even harder when my SO reads this post.

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking the environmental impact of constant travel more seriously.

Honestly? I've known people for whom long distance relationships have worked out, and people for whom they haven't. No one, aside from you and your partner(s), can say whether your personal relationship is working. I don't think this article is trying to do that.

Call me an unromantic nihilist, but I've watched a lot of my friends start struggling in LDRs and, instead of talking honestly to each other and figuring out whether or not it was going to work out, they spent loads of money and had a hell of an environmental footprint flying back and forth to see each other. Making grand, sweeping gestures isn't going to save a relationship.

Oh, and PS:

"I've been joking with some friends of mine about wanting to start a campaign against long distance relationships."

Thanks. Thanks lots for laughing about the kind of relationship I have. Nice to know that the kind of life i lead is a joke for some people.

wait ... what website am i on again?

I can't help but notice that there seems to be a disconnect between the attitude of this piece and the attitude of the responses. I don't think Miriam was trying to tell anyone who they should love. I don't think this was an all together very serious post...

" this Slate article really struck a chord with me."

"I've been joking with some friends of mine about wanting to start a campaign against long distance relationships."

"But maybe Slate has a point..."

If you look at the language used you would see that this was about throwing out an idea that stirred something internally in the author, not about being bitter or mandating that everyone abandons their loved ones that live far away.

And, yes, every one of these demons COULD be banished by dating locally. Not SHOULD.

I think if you're going to study LDRs then you really ought to devote some time and space to the fact that the people who can make them work show higher levels of dedication and trust than people who date locally simply because it's easier. I am currently in a long term, monogamous relationship with a soldier and because of his numerous deployments we are frequently forced to live apart. He's done one twelve month deployment, one fifteen month deployment and there's another twelve month deployment about to start in two months. I feel special because we've spent about as much time apart as together and we're still committed to each other and willing to do it again.

LDR's are hard and not everyone can make them work. I think your "expansion" on Slate's article is dismissive and hurtful.

For those who are defending the article, I mean, I'm not hatin' on Miriam, but I mean... I just think it's sort of a sensitive subject. The fact is, The Right/Moral Majority has been telling people what relationships are better than others for decades....and now somehow the environmental movement wants in on it? That shouldn't be cool. Sure, they're not doing it in as offensive a way, but it's still not okay to assess the value/healthfulness of a relationship based on something other than substance.
And also, Love isnt supposed to be something you measure like that. It's not like buying a local apple versus a nonlocal less sustainable apple.

@ Abby

It isn't about environmental footprint. My environmental footprint has never been lower. I get my groceries from local farms, I don't use the heater or lights (in Denmark in October), I take the bus every day when I want to go somewhere.

But since you seem to have a picture of a romantic comedy, sweeping gesture (who can fucking afford something unplanned like that, by the time it disintegrates that far, it's doomed), I feel you may have no actual clue what you are talking about.

Do I use the power of this magic internet machine to communicate everyday? Yes. And I imagine in the grand scheme of things, that's a pretty minor footprint, considering you're using the magic internet machine too.

So what this is is using sweeping generalizations and personal negative experiences to assume an environmental and therefore moral high ground that is as undeserved as built out of pure stupid.

And don't get me started on the idea of using supposed environmental superiority as proof of moral superiority. It's the exact same bad idea as those who tried to twist "the personal is political" into a moral high ground battle for feminism.

I 45 years old. I live in a town of 27,000 in the Bible belt of the Midwest. Almost everyone my age is married. I'm an agnostic, and a PhD student, which makes me vastly more educated than most single men my age.

I'm not bad to look at, and yet I haven't been asked out on a date since I moved here 5 years ago. I can't remember the last time I met an eligible man my age.

Oh yeah, dating local is going to get me "more sex", "less abstinence", and a "healthier lifestyle".

You try going 5 years without sex, see how committed you'd be to your "green" lifestyle.

This line is really weird: "What's more, out-of-town daters have less sex than local couples--and long stretches of abstinence between visits could lead to negative health outcomes and thus higher health care costs."

Is this a "please modify your behavior so my health care cost don't go up" statement?

Are they implying that a few weeks off from boot-knocking makes you actually ill, or that people are bound to seek out other partners and be more at risk for STDs? I'm just not getting the connection between "periods of abstinence" and negative health outcomes.

Anyway, the love of my life was a long distance relationship. We met a computer security conference and were absolutely smitten with each other. After we both went home, we stayed in touch, seeing each other every so often but also doing "dates" with webcams and takeout.

One of the benefits I think is in some ways it allows you to be more engaged with your local community because you don't constantly worry about spending any time you do have together. Maybe not for everyone, but it was awesome for me.

And this, "intercity lovers are... less likely to share resources or take care of each other when sick."

It is a bummer to not have your SO around to make you soup or cuddle, but when we were first dating, I mentioned on the phone that I was sick and the next day I got a package delivered with teas, bath oil, grapefruit seed extract, and a book he knew I would love.

Years later after we did move in together, and he got sick (cancer,) I quit my job and did contract work so I could stay home with him.

Nice-smelling presents are fine for the sniffles, but a person living with cancer needs a whole lot more. I had some help from a hospice nurse, but nothing compares to seeing out the toughest parts of the day with someone who adores you.

We lived and loved together until his body finally gave up fighting and let him rest forever. As hard as it was to hold his hand and feel it go cold, I never would have stayed away during those months.

And I'm so glad I took my very first chance ever on a long-distance relationship. Ryan will always have a place in my heart.

"And also, Love isnt supposed to be something you measure like that. It's not like buying a local apple versus a nonlocal less sustainable apple."

I think this is a very good point. My boyfriend is an Environmental Science major and he's switching into Environmental Engineering, so thinking about this side of many issues is something I have learned to do since we have been together. I'd be willing to cut out any other environmentally-harmful things that I do but this is an area I cannot budge on. Getting on a plane three times a year is a necessity for me.

I don't think Miriam is attacking anyone, but I do think that people in long distance relationships are used to a variety of attack against the validity of their relationships. For many it is a sensitive subject, if only because of hordes of friends telling us how easy our lives would be if we got out of these LDRs, or how they might not work anyway, or reiterating any of the various doubts anyone in this type of relationship might have. It makes us a bit defensive because people usually make us defend ourselves. Maybe this advice would work in lieu of trying match.com or other websites BEFORE dating locally, but for many of us dating locally just isn't an option.

@ Jessica

I am sorry. I can see that I was the one deemed to have attacked personally. I did not at all intend to. However, I wish to inform you that while Miriam may not have intended to attack me personally, she has.

1) As a person in an LDR relationship and 2)As an asexual by her assumption that without sex my mental health is in question

To be fair, this was more direct and eliminationist in the quoted article. But she still quoted and gave full agreement to that contained in it. Were her intentions pure and merely to spark debate? Possibly, but the statements she directly quoted and expanded upon were designed to eliminate me and others entirely as engaging in worthless, literally world-harming, psychologically destructive relationships.

This to me, seems like a personal attack on who I am. Regardless of intent.

I agree with people who are mad about this. I mean, yeah, it sucks that the environment has to suffer due to my traveling 100 miles every weekend, but why not write an article about how you should get a job where you don't have to travel? Some people commute and hour and a half every day, I think that's worse than my 2 hour drive every weekend.

Also, the heartache of knowing I am no longer in a committed relationship with the only guy I know who calls himself profeminist would hurt much worse than the hurt I feel of not seeing him. We are both in school, and while we talk to each other a lot, we still see friends, we still do our homework, I still have my job.

I come to this site to know that I'm not alone in how I am treated as a woman. I come to this site knowing I am going to be treated as an equal.

I have never felt more directly attacked by an article posted here. I did not come here to be told I should consider giving up the love of my life to pursue someone in my college town who I would have to break up with eventually anyway to 'date local' again.

Oh, and he comes to this site too, without me nagging him to do so. Find me someone local in a hick town of 19,000 who would do that.

this post is offensive and I'm really offended by Feministing for the first time. I don't appreciate anybody telling me that my relationship is invalid or how to life my life and who I can love. I'm glad to see that other commentators feel the same way, too.

Way to go, Feministing!

As Cerberus notes: "Were her intentions pure and merely to spark debate? Possibly, but the statements she directly quoted and expanded upon were designed to eliminate me and others entirely as engaging in worthless, literally world-harming, psychologically destructive relationships."

EXACTLY!! And i am so disappointed that the original poster cannot understand why people would be upset about this.

Miriam, I obviously don't think you're trying to piss anyone off, but again, I just don't think healthy relationships (healthy as in not abusive in any way) should be subject to this kind of scrutiny. I mean...maybe this is a bad metaphor but it's what i came up with right now...let's say you posted an article saying you should only have 4 sex partners in your life because of the extra chance of getting STDS/spreading them to other people/upping the cost of doctor's visits/antibiotics for everyone/etc etc. Sure maybe it's "true" but it doesn't make it right to make people feel like their actions in sex or ESPECIALLY love are worse than other people's. I don't really feel like it's fair ground.

And I doubt most people in LDRs are like "gee this is fantastic not to be able to wake up to my S/O every morning." Most people are probably working to change that. And this sort of thing just makes them feel worse!

@ Miriam

Yes, you did try to shame those of us in LDRs. You may not have consciously realized that or intended it, but the point of the post is to "shock" those of us in or considering LDRs by shaming us with the stick of environmental consciousness.

But I appreciate that it wasn't your direct intention.

@ Ain't I A Woman

Exactly. Love isn't an apple.

Seriously? I've been in an LDR for nearly five years now, and I have no intention of ditching my partner to 'date local'. I'm of the opinion that, if you love each other, you can work together to make a relationship work, even one that takes more effort.

It's not making me leave a bigger environmental foot print than I otherwise would. I grew up in the country where my partner lives, and I was traveling there on a regular basis long before we got together.

We both know what it's like to struggle financially, and put off visits until we have enough money to afford it without endangering our savings.

I also don't spend all of my free time glued to the computer or the telephone. We have regular dates, and outside of that I spend my time with my friends. I'm a very social person and have a great local support network.

And while my partner and I cannot take care of each other physically, we ARE there for each other. We're also not depressed and we do not spend our time apart bemoaning the fact. We both lead busy lives with jobs, studies, friends and family.

I'm with other posters who have expressed disappointment in seeing a post like this on Feministing. While I understand that Miriam was merely expressing an opinion and offering food for thought, she is nevertheless casting LDRs in a negative light, and that's not something I expect to see on a website that's dedicated to working AGAINST judgment, and should be accepting of all relationship models.

@ Miriam:

"I'm just trying to ask some questions about the impact these relationships have on our lives. "

Please take a second look at the portion you quoted. I would not say that this quote is "asking questions" in any sort of non-judgmental, productive way. This is why your post comes off as seeming to generalize that LDRs are "HARMING THE WHOLE FREAKING PLANET INCREASING HEALTH CARE COSTS FINANCIAL CRISIS PSYCHOLOGICAL BREAKDOWN OMG OMG!!!11!"

This post contributes NOTHING to a thoughtful discussion about relationships. It is judgmental and hurtful.

Reasons to NOT date local:

Lompoc, CA
Wasilla, AK
Any of a thousand small towns across the heartland.

The point of these towns is that you come FROM them. You don't set down roots and date the first good ol' boy (and CERTAINLY not the first girl) that comes along.

Lompoc especially. Where there's not drugs, there's military guys hitting on the high school girls.

geez, this comments thread is really hostile. I read that slate article too, and it made me think about my LDR and the steps that we take to avoid those pitfalls. We try to combine visits with other travel (he lives near my parents, for example) and when we are together we DO support local restaurants and businesses. I think the article makes a lot of generalizations about people in LDRs that does not apply to me. But I also don't think Miriam's post merits the kind of defensive hostility that she is getting.

@ Miriam: "I think what is interesting about this article is the question of what are we possibly losing out on when certain aspects of modern life (particularly internet based connections) promote these types of LDRs."

Thus far I have lost out on crushing loneliness, the absolute and certain knowledge that nobody around me could possibly understand me, that I'm an alien being, that my passions are not worth my time, and that depression is a character flaw.

Granted, that's counting close and intimate friendships as "ldrs", but given that I fly (or drive, or take ferries) to visit them on a regular basis, and consider my friendships at least as important as my romantic relationships, I'm sanguine about this comparison. And I find myself able to miss out on all of those things with just AMAZING peace of mind.

Would it be wonderful if all of my dearly beloved lived in walking distance? *fuck yes*. But unfortunately, they don't. And they didn't. And the confluence of lucky events did not put the people I could be friends with in a nice geographical radius from me; it put them anywhere from two to twenty two hours jet-flight away.

And I suspect those of us who have formed deep bonds with people far away - often out of that necessity as there *just isn't anyone appropriate* within closer range, for whatever reason that may be - have already been told for long enough that we're weird, flawed, selfish, stupid, avoidant, emotionally stunted, or any other number of things (I got all that and more when my best friends were almost all long distance, rather than in-town, and still get it now - now I'm just empowered to say "shut up."). We don't need to be told to "consider what we're losing". We're already considering what we're gaining.

by the way, sorry about the Wall of Text.

This kinda struck a nerve and I got a little out of excited.

Like Daktari, I lived in a major city and tried to "date local" for five years. I had sex once. In five years (and it was in the first couple of months of the first year), only one sex act.

When man I had met on the Internet (and decided to make a LDR with) and I got together, we tripled my 5 year average in 24 hours.

The long distance did suck, but it was a vital part of our relationship (I have a tendency to get freaked by too much attention from new boyfriends and dump them because they're always around). The distance gave me the space I needed, moved us to actually talk and get to know one another and make the decision that neither one of us would find anyone who we could love more.

I haven't owned a car in 8 years. I grow my own vegetables (well, some of them). My carbon footprint is just fine.

And I married my LDR last month.

This post definitely made me feel like my relationship was being diminished. It sounded like I was being accused of selfishness and causing harm to the environment and my community by choosing to stay with someone I value very much.

There was no distinction made in the Slate article or by Miriam between healthy and unhealthy LDRs. Many of us who have responded feel that we have legitimate reasons for remaining in an LDR and don't appreciate having our relationships belittled.

I get that this is supposed to be cute and funny, but it's really not... I don't appreciate any feminism that shames women for their personal choices and makes them feel "selfish" for how they live their lives. You know, having a LDR has really, really sucked, and has been really difficult, but it's not as if breaking up with someone I've been with for over a year and love is an option just because I moved far away for school. People are not interchangeable like that and I really bristle whenever people suggest dating someone nearby would be easier -- yeah, sure, it would be, but I happen to be committed to someone 1000 miles away. And? Are we seriously going to argue that love and commitment and a dedication to lots and lots of communication (a must when you're far apart) are socially bad things?

Wow. Honestly, this Slate article just seems... I'm sorry, but... dumb.

This smacks of the same sort of longing for a non-existent past that so many misogynists use.

Does the author think that the internet invented LDRs? Or is it just that internet-based LDRs are less "valid" than the LDRs of previous generations?

My in-laws spent years apart while my father-in-law served in the Navy during Vietnam. My grandparents spent years apart, while my grandfather was serving in WWII and later the Korean War. And my great-grandparents also spent years and years apart - first when Great-Grandpa was serving in WWI, and later when he was moved into an "institution" in another state, because none of the local resources could properly treat him after his exposure to mustard gas during the war.

So what makes those LDRs okay, and the ones mentioned in Slate not-okay? Is it that the couples in question are/were married? Just because the couples in my family were married before the men went off to serve in wars doesn't mean that every couple separated by war was. And my grandmother has told me of several friends of hers who became pen pals with a soldier during WWII, and those friendships later blossomed into romance, and later marriage.

The internet did not invent the phenomenon of people growing to know and care about people they'd never met in person. The internet just made it faster.

I started writing my response as a comment but it became so long I wrote it at my blog instead. I hope it's okay to link: http://blog.xugglybug.co.uk/2008/10/24/date-howeve-you-like/

ugghh wow.

My fiance and I have been corresponding over the internet for about 7 years and 3 years ago we met in person and have been working on being together for a week out of every other month since. So a total of about 10 years together that I wouldn't trade for anything, for nobody.

Noooobody needs to tell me what an incredible strain this is, especially for two people just out of college. Phones cutting in and out, finding the right time of night/day to talk so not to eat up our minutes and dollars, worrying over where to get married and when and how, where to live whenever we can afford to be out on our own, etc. We're practically pros right now at handling things. Though of course, the way the economy is right now, it has definitely gotten harder. We're 400 miles apart and we've had our fair share of visits to the airport, but we typically drive, always conscious about saving gas.

Man, I second JenTheFem, I don't like anyone telling me who I should love. I've already had to hear it from parents, other relatives, some friends. Why should I live my life for them? Date someone closer? Settle for less? Settle for someone less in-sync with me? Why???? To make everyone ELSE happy? No, I don't think so. It's my life, and these people have learned to keep their mouths shut because they've seen that my fiance and I are right for one another. I can't HELP we were born in different states. This is the person I want to spend my life with! After going through most of my life with little self-worth due to depression, not feeling myself worthy of finding someone who'd love me for who i am and being in utter disbelief of anyone had they said so, I really resent anyone trying to change my mind. I'm an introverted and shy person and it'd be ridiculous for me to date locally. What a disaster!! And in a conservative state like this? Ahh!!! I'm not going to change my situation just to make everything easier for everyone else but me. Dammit, I'm worthy of my fiance! We are BOTH worthy, deserving, entitled to have a life together!

Ok, I'm gonna stop ranting on and on.. Sigh. This is so dismissive of all the trouble we go through just to be together. In my case, our distance in between won't stop us forever and we'll eventually reside in the same state, in the same home. But but but Of COURSE long-distance relationships aren't easy. We choose to do it because it's worth it...

What a big sigh... this post struck a cord for sure. My fiance and I have had some rough patches in dealing with this, feelings of hopelessness, losing jobs, college loans, stupid phones not working, car trouble, bills bills bills, guilt and more guilt, living our own lives while making room for each other.. I mean it never ends. Why on earth would I trade all that away for someone else? Why should HE? After all he's been through? And myself? No no no no and no.

Maybe i'm just really picky buuuuuut, I LIKE having a partner I respect, trust, who is a feminist (or pro-feminist if you prefer), who's on the same intellectual wave-length as i and mirrors my sense of humor, wonderfully quirky and unique, a little more outgoing than i, kind, compassionate, empathetic, and beautiful all around, someone I love? Wtf, how can i be so lucky? Seriously?!?! I have the worst luck on earth!!! And he loves me and all my quirks (strange quarks!) and imperfections.

Come onnnnn now....

DEFENSIVE MODE turned off.
Alarms ringing and bright red flashes...slowly...dissipating.....
No more rant rant rant...

All right, I've never been in a long-term relationship and I hope I never have to be, because I've heard it's difficult, but if I needed to, with my current partner, I would, because he's that important to me. One of my best friends is in a long-term relationship currently. I have never heard any man talk about his girlfriend with as much love and admiration as he does about her. Yes, they live four hours apart, but when one person is working on his BA and the other is getting her PhD, at different schools in different states, and this was the case before they started dating, it's necessary. I may be a hopeless romantic, but I don't believe it is right to put limits on love. If it's real, it will work. Condemning long-term relationships to failure before being tested is just wrong.

@ Miriam:

I agree with people who are mad, but I do understand what you mean by thinking about what we are missing out on.

But you should also note the people could be missing out on good relationships if they ONLY date local. The truth is, there are people all over the world. Technology may be leading us to date non-local and we could miss out, but we could also be missing out if we date only local and don't look past anything else.

And I'm confused about your stance on people who found each other locally but had to move away. This is what I think is upsetting people the most. It seems a majority of us took it as "look for people locally, don't just stay hooked when you have other options." But I can't speak for everyone, only myself.

Sorry if I seemed hostile.

It's not okay to compare sex to duct tape, but it is okay to compare sex to food?

I'll buy my vibrator locally, and get my sex from people I care about- and distance be damned.

You just compared relationships, love, and sex TO FOOD. Really? REALLY?

This was an offensive post, and I do not offend easily.

I had a lot of initial reactions to this post and all the comments, but one question keeps coming to my mind: How many people that are taking serious offense to Miriam’s post are in or have been in LDRs? And how many are single and/or in a local relationship?

I have a feeling the answer is nearly all are in the first category. And there's nothing wrong with that. But the people who are prone to respond in that way think this post was exclusively directed at them, and it wasn't.

Sure, she definitely meant to address people currently in LDRs to give them food for thought, but certainly didn't expect people to just go break up with the love of their life over a blog post.

But it was also for people like me, who recently a made a wise life choice NOT to enter into a casual LDR—we shall call it LDD (dating)—though I very much like the person and could see being in a relationship with them. I didn't write down all the reasons the LDD situation was a bad idea, but many of them surface in the Slate article.

So fine. I’ll admit it. I’m a locasexual. I’m not telling you to be one. And neither is Miriam. She’s just bringing up an interesting idea that some of us can relate to and some of us can’t. And frankly, there’s nothing wrong with that.

beth, I've been in one LDR (I live in Phoenix, he lived in Vegas) and quite a few local relationships. (I've found I like myself better single, but that's neither here nor there.)

"if we have a local food movement, why not a date local movement?"

OFFENSIVE.

'k, so, I haven't commented on here before. I've always been in two minds about feministing, but I'm not going into that here. This article though? Pointless. And offensive on a personal level. I live in Scotland, my partner used to live in NY. We're both very aware of the environmental and social impact of our relationship, at least, how it used to be. But quite frankly, for the love that I've found, I'd've travelled twice as far. And, trust me, I've looked about a bit here and the only thing that happened was that I kept getting my heart broken in new and exciting ways.

The bit that really rankles, in the expansion of the Slate article?

"I've been joking with some friends of mine about wanting to start a campaign against long distance relationships."

So, yeah. Not impressed. I was feeling a bit like feministing didn't represent me all the time, as a young feminist. Now I'm debating whether or not to take it off my reader and not bother any more.

I'm angry.

For the past three years my boyfriend and I have been in some form of an LDR. Currently, he's in Cali finishing school and I'm in NY trying to save up money by living at home with my parents and working. I'm not going to follow my boyfriend to college and he's not going to drop out to be with me. And we don't plan on breaking up. We'll live together eventually, but right now, this is our situation.

Last year, he took a plane to NY twice throughout the entire year to see me. Twice. That's less travel than most people take on business trips. My parents, and most people with money, take planes to go on vacation more than twice a year.

I don't think the idea that LDRs are ruining the environment holds much weight compared to many other factors.

This post was just offensive.

Instead of dating locally, maybe we should start greening our transportation system.

In the West, this is particularly true. I'm frustrated that I have to purchase plane tickets to see my boyfriend and we live only 450 miles apart in the same state!

If we had efficient, high-speed, super-duper, mag-lev bullet trains then our carbon footprint would be smaller than if we flew all the time everywhere.

Another advantage to a trains is less spending on highway and bridge construction and widening projects which equal lots of spending and dependence on oil.

So, let's work it out ya'll.

Wow! I find both the Slate article and the fact that it's given any kind of serious thought here really offensive. I should date locally? Which guys? The one who dismissed me at first sight on our blind date because I'm fat? The one who stood me up? The one who wasn't interested anymore after he couldn't get into my pants on the first date?

Or I could just stay with the fantastic guy I'm with. We were a local relationship until a job took him three states away three years ago. And we loved each other enough not to abandon our relationship because of a few obstacles. Despite the distance he continues to be loving, supportive, and in every way the man I decided to make my life with when he lived 20 minutes away instead of four hours away.

I'm really saddened by the implication that because my boyfriend and I email each other, IM, or talk on the phone (not, by a long shot, using "all of [my] free time") that I somehow don't give back to my community or I have no social support networks. I volunteer at Planned Parenthood every Saturday, I attend a book group with a bunch of female friends, I support many of my friends who are in bands by attending their shows, I attend stitch n' bitches to knit with a group of diverse men and women. I could go on, but I think you get the idea that I'm not sitting at home checking my email every two minutes.

And if there are such awful effects on our heath to not having regular sex (And how do you know I'm not?!) how come we aren't so concerned about the people who don't have partners at all and never get to have sex? I mean, c'mon, their lives are at stake! We have to get them orgasms!

I'm really not sure what else I can do to erase my carbon footprint. I already don't own a car and I walk, bike, or take public transportation everywhere. I take the train on visits to my boyfriend. We're planning to move in together next year but the area where he lives has no public transportation system and is rural enough that I'll probably have to buy a car. I'll be keeping my relationship local then, but I'll be increasing my carbon footprint. And if I dump my boyfriend because I love the environment more, then I won't get regular sex and my health will suffer. I guess I can't win.

""I've been joking with some friends of mine about wanting to start a campaign against long distance relationships.""

Yeah, that was the most offensive thing I've read in a long time in what is supposed to be a feminist site. Let's tell others how to live! But of course we're just "joking"!

Please.

i wasn't particularly offended by this post, but i do think it's silly and one-sided. i was in an ldr with my current bf for two and a half years while i was in law school and he was finishing undergrad. it wasn't the ideal situation, but it wasn't the end of the world either, especially since it's by far the longest relationship either of us have ever had.

i'd just like to point out that even in a less than desirable situation, there are still some positives. first off, no one is all up in your space 24/7. i really hate clingy. with modern technology, you can talk to your SO as often as you want, but not have to feel bad for going out with your friends.

also, when i moved to a new city, i didn't know anyone here. if my bf had been with me, i would have sat around and hung out with him at home all the time instead of going out and meeting new people and making my own friends.

next up, you get to be the wingman (wingwoman? wingperson?) for your single friends when they go out. it can get old, but it's nice to be there for your friends when they could use the help.

i just think that not spending every waking hour with one's SO, especially early in a relationship, is not the worst thing ever, seriously. it allows you to get better at communicating verbally instead of physically, and i think that's something most people could use. bottom line, an ldr is a great screening mechanism for long-term potential--if you make it through, that shows you have both cared enough to put in the effort it takes to make the relationship work. if you don't, it could very well fall apart before you might have broken up if you were living in the same town.

I think we should not have long-distance friendships. After all, they are taxing on the environment and are not going to lead to re-population of the planet, while long-distance relationships can help us continue along nature's chosen goal.

I think that the Slate article was intended for the majority of people in this case. "Pat yourself on the back for living in the same house as someone! You're saving the environment!"

Is it just me or is almost everybody here taking this a bit too seriously?

I'm glad a PhD student has already commented - because I was basically going to say something similar.

(I had more dates in the first month after moving back to big-liberal-city than I did during the two years I was in grad school at midwest state. And most of the dating I did in grad school? With people in the big-liberal-city while I was on holiday breaks. It's hard not to read this as 'Well, so, you wanted to pursue your dreams and had to make some sacrifices to do so as a woman, including midwest state? You so deserve to be punished by not dating! ever! again!')

But what I really wanted to say was -- is this "date local" thing really a new idea? When my first LDR fell apart, no one even really asked what happened - they just assumed that one of the two of us had 'wised up' to our bad decision to try to date across state lines. People already judge you for trying a long distance relationship, and are rarely sympathetic when it doesn't work.

The other point I wanted to bring up was that yes, people do move for good reasons -- school, jobs, family, etc -- but there's still a real expectation that when a couple is faced with a decision about whether or not to LDR, there is still an expectation that a woman will be following her man. There is still a double standard about where the 'fault' in an LDR falls, and a lot of women lose career opportunities and all of that by choosing *not* to be in an LDR.

LDRs are something I have wanted to discuss in a feminist setting for a long time, but not necessarily in a 'they're all bad' sort of way. As it's been pointed out choosing to 'date local' often means an exaggeration of the double standards and injustices inherent in heterosexual dating, or an exaggeration of the sacrifices in income and career opportunities that heterosexual women tend to make to keep a relationship going.

Is it really so hard to apologize to people after offending them, even if, in your mind, it's a case of "no, that's not what I meant!"? If this many people "misunderstood" the post, isn't it feasible that the problem might be in the original post and not with the readers?

I personally enjoyed the article, and it made me reconsider my newly freed lifestyle. I just got out of a LDR, because my boyfriend and I were having a hard time dealing with the distance, and he had become verbally abusive and paranoid that I wasn't paying attention to him or being a good girlfriend, since I was becoming more eager to actually leave my house and not devote all my time to spending on the computer with him. Now I'm trying to date in my hometown, and I've found it to be a great experience, because it means I actually get to leave my house, I don't have to answer 20 text messages and emails a day, and I can do fun things with my girlfriends, such as group dating. To each their own, I don't think Miriam was criticizing LDRs, just encouraging us to think over the cons as well as the pro of true love conquering distance. Everyone is different, after all, and some may find LDRs more or less liberating than others.

I've been in a long-distance relationship before and didn't find this post or the Slate article offensive at all.

I don't see how this post is any different than any other issue that is raised on feministing.

I thought the environmental references were a bit tongue-in-cheek, and I didn't take this post as feministing trying to tell me how to "live my life." It seems that many people took Miriam's comment: "I've been joking with some friends of mine about wanting to start a campaign against long distance relationships" as a mandate from her to cease all LDRs immediately. Or else.

To me, what Miriam and her friends are joking about is not an attempt to tell people "who to love," but the unique emotional costs and frustrations that come with being in a relationship with someone who does not live near you.

A lot of people have posted about their LDRs that have worked out just fine. That's great, but I have found, ancedotally, that more often than not LDRs do not work out precisely for the reasons that the Slate article points out.

I don't see why this shouldn't be a topic of discussion...

There's no need for a "date local" movement because given the option, pretty much everyone already prefers to date locally. Society and logistics are already working pretty well as a date local campaign.

So thanks so much for blithely suggesting that when my relationship was long distance, I must have been killing the earth and obliterating my local support system to boot. And slowly killing myself with lack of sex. Never mind that I only used public transportation when I visited my girlfriend because I don't have a car, or that I actually think our relationship has healthier boundaries now that we're local because of the time we spent long distance.

This post pissed me off enough to sign up for a feministing commenting account thing - I usually just read the site.

I am in an LDR with someone I met while "dating local" in Toronto - but then my partner had an opportunity to live and work in NYC for a while - a great opportunity. I couldn't go too because I study Canadian history. So every three weeks I take a 13 hour train ride to NYC - the realities of academia and New York law being such that I am the one with the time to travel. I could fly and be there in 1.5 hours. I don't fly because I feel guilty about the carbon footprint. I am doing my best. I put my time where my mouth is. But I'm not going to give up the best person I have ever met because Miriam thinks I should. I don't think anyone makes the decision to do distance lightly - so could we stop with the judgment?

Someone made the point that this was not targeted at people in LDR's, and others who do date locally would not be offended. Well ---

As someone who doesn't "date" at all, I still found this article offensive. The kind of reasoning it presented has much broader implications than I think Miriam intended, especially if you extent the argument to any special relationship in your life rather than just privileging romantic relationships in your narrative. And while I appreciate that her intentions were good, I think it's important to keep this in mind:

You live in a first world country with unimaginable wealth of resources, mobility, and relative privilege that lets you choose where you want to live and what kind of community you want to find. I came to the US from a very different sort of environment eight years ago to find a safe space where I could come out and live as an openly queer woman -- something that is impossible in my country.

I also have a sibling in my home country who is autistic and cannot travel, write me a letter, or talk on the phone. I travel halfway around the world twice a year so we can see each other; otherwise we would have no contact. I am aware of the terrible environmental impact of my biannual transcontinental flight; I choose it anyway because I see no other way.

Perhaps, you will say, I am making this about me. That it was not about me, or the people here who are in LDR's and who felt they were being directly interpellated. Maybe so, but the danger is that it could be, that someone else could take this argument and run in that direction with it to say, anyone whose loved ones are scattered all over the world, or who considers more than one place home, should naturally feel some amount of guilt over the environmental impact of who they are and who they love. That mobile immigrants probably have one of the largest carbon footprints of any individual and should rethink their lifestyle.

The point is that it is not okay to tell someone that they should, or would normally, feel guilty. Or to assume that because they are making a decision that hurts the environment, they haven't thought it through. At least, not here. I have always thought of the Feministing community as a generally very self-aware, soul-searching group. Maybe this post didn't mean to be condescending, but it came across that way. Rather than asking us our opinion, or asking how people in LDR's handle the environmental impact of their decisions, or generating a discussion on alternative lifestyles, it just threw out a suggestion.

Give us some more credit!

i>To me, what Miriam and her friends are joking about is not an attempt to tell people "who to love," but the unique emotional costs and frustrations that come with being in a relationship with someone who does not live near you.

But this is what most of us find so infuriating. When you're in a LDR, you definitely know how much it sucks. It sucks major ass. I didn't need to be reminded of that. It's a real test of a relationship. Part of me wants to write a (tongue-in-cheek) counter article that states that you can't tell if your relationship is actually any good until you live several cities apart for a while, because only then will you know if your relationship is strong enough to survive. But that article would be as full with utter bullshit than the article above is.

And the article and its flippant attitude toward dating in general made me angry, too. "Oh, just date locally... Duh! It's so much easier." I KNOW! I FUCKING TRIED! I FAILED! Maybe finding dates is easier for some people. It's never been easy for me and I feel like there is judgment for me from this article when I finally found a way to make dating work in a way that made me really happy.

Though I’ve never had a LDR, I found the post and, more specifically, the Slate article offensive too.

Oh, and, @ Spider Jerusalem:

This comment:

Reasons to NOT date local:
Lompoc, CA
Wasilla, AK
Any of a thousand small towns across the heartland.

Equally fucking offensive.

Just to clarify: I meant, privilege to choose your community for some people, certainly not for all Americans and never fully. Just, relative to a lot of other countries.

"...if we have a local food movement, why not a date local movement?"

This whole concept is very insulting.I do not care for anyone telling me who I should date because of qualifications that include location. This article and the discussion strikes me as very belittling to distance relationships and sets them up as somehow less than another type of relationship.

This strikes me as extremely unacceptable, especially from a feminist site.

Likewise, look at the factors involved--for example graduate school. I have friends and colleagues who have been separated from partners for years while they do academic work, including feminist studies.
How is it okay to tell them that their relationship is bad because of trying to do work and get paid?

Why is no one asking about the role of the academy a place where I have even seen married couples separated for years due to trying to get tenure or a (primarily white collar) work culture that can move people and keep them isolated from community but instead blaming it on the individuals? Aren't we supposed to be doing this sort of thing?

Also, how about the plight of lonely progressives who do not have the good fortune to live by other ones? One of my colleagues who is working in the swing state Midwest would be extremely alone if it was not for a supportive and loving long distance relationship on the East Coast.

In short, this isn't cute or funny or ecologically sensitive. Please think about what you say and please don't try to tell a reader how to love--even if you think it's for hir own good. I think a feminist site can do far better than that.

Yeah...people are not fruit or vegetables.

They are not interchangeable like produce can be.

While organic local produce may taste better and be healthier for the environment and those who consume it, I fear, in my personal experience, that the people in my local vicinity are not of the quality of people I'm willing to date.

I grew up in Vermont. It took a South African for me to find someone I actually connected with.

My mother is Norwegian, my father, American. Because of this, I have noticed that I my immune system is much stronger than any of my friends. I have no known allergies or health issues. I almost never get sick. I haven't actually been sick in over 3 years, and before then, it was another few years.

So yeah...as a current LDR-er and the product of the same, I have to disagree. Dating local is definitively NOT like buying local. (Way to commodify people, by the way. I thought we weren't supposed to objectify others, being feminists and all? Sorry, it just strikes me that way).

This is assuming so many things it's offensive. No. It's ANTI feminist to suggest who I should date and love. It's anti-feminist to limit choice in any way. I'm really disappointed to see this on Feministing when it should've gone in your personal blog.

"long stretches of abstinence between visits could lead to negative health outcomes and thus higher health care costs." That is such a weak argument I can't even begin to address it.

I feel like this piece ignored a lot of things that I was disappointed to see a writer of feministing ignoring.

This is no easy proposition for those of us living in small towns, those of us who are queer, those of us who are not the media-defined definition of "hot." Our dating pool is smaller, and it's quite likely we will need to go farther to find someone to date.

We do many things each day that have an environmental impact---I feel that singling out this thing in particular is thoughtless and a bit cruel. None of us who date long distance do it to ignore our local options---we often do so as a last resort. We know what it costs us in longing, in gas money, in time spent away from our love when they're sick. It's pretty unkind to propose "date locally!" as the solution to our problems---as if we were too dumb to realize this before.

And besides ... what of the "environmental impact" on dating locally -- cars are driven, cabs are taken, food is eaten in restaurants that have a large carbon footprint, movies are seen. "Dating locally" does NOT mean you have less of an "environmental impact" than someone in a LDR. It just doesn't.

Add me to the list of people who are confused by the non sequitur of "long stretches of abstinence = poor health". When I spent a year in an LDR, my health never suffered, and my health care costs were the lowest they'd been in years. I have a punk-ass immune system that gives me a UTI every time I have sex unless I take an antibiotic, so the abstinent periods actually removed a cost for me. If I'd been so inclined, I could have saved even more money by going off my birth control during the cycles I didn't see my boyfriend (I stayed on it because I like knowing when my period will come and not being in blinding agony when it does). What are the health consequences that I'm supposed to have suffered?

With respect to the second non sequitur ("local food choices = local relationships"). . .I'll grant that my taste in food isn't exactly refined (bad sense of smell, tendency to read while eating and be distracted), but by and large local food from City A is largely interchangeable with local food from City B. People, not so much. We're comparing, if you'll pardon the expression, apples to oranges.

wow, I obviously didn't read this in the same tone as many other posters.

I've been in LDRs where I only saw the person once every couple of months most of the year, and I'm currently in and LDR where I see my boyfriend every weekend. The latter is definitely better for me than the former. With my previous boyfriend, I spent many hours on the phone with him a day, and didn't spend much time making social connections at my school. We broke up, I transferred to another school, and started dating a guy who lives a few hours away, and I have some of the best friends I have ever had.

The first relationship failed for a number of reasons. He was clingy and insecure, and the distance was much more difficult to handle. The problem was a combination of distance+individual qualities that increased the problems that come with distance. Everything Miriam quoted from the article resonated with my memories of this relationship. We didn't have the frequent intimacy, which certainly led to increased frequency of depression for both of us, and the distance made him suspicious that I might not be faithful. Of course, his lack of trust was an issue when we were together to, but it was infinitely worse when we were apart.

My relationship now is loads better. We're both relatively independent, and having him in another city makes getting work done much easier during the week. I spend plenty of time with friends during the week. The only thing that is still an issue is the carbon footprint. Which isn't helped at all by the fact that he drives a pick-up.

I do think that LDRs need to be looked at critically, and I can definitely say that I've been in unhealthy and healthy ones.

As someone who has been in a very serious LDR leading to marriage, I don't find this post offensive in the slightest. What I find offensive is people claiming that asking critical questions about our relationships is the same as insulting them.

What is offensive about reminding us LDR folks about our sizable carbon footprint? What is offensive about reminding us LDR folks that our relationships are more stressful overall then those that are local? What is offensive about reminding us of our mental health risks or pointing out our disengagement from activities that could contribute to better individual or community health?

Feminism and feminists should be concerned about the way LDRs impact women and as someone who has been there, an LDR is extremely stressful. You do get the enhanced jelousey, the resentment, the feeling left out. I can't count the times that I left my friends to stand outside in the freezing cold or sweltering heat to talk to my girlfriend. How many clubs did I not join or parties did I not go to? How much homework did I blow off? How many of our fights were exacerbating by not being able to see each other enough? How much more volunteering could I have done if I wasn't on a bus every other weekend adding to further air pollution? Maybe the marriage ban in WI wouldn't have passed had I been manning the phones instead of rushing off to be with her/entertaining her at my place every weekend. I was pretty lonely those two years because I spent every night talking to her and every weekend with her - not much time for friends. I killed my back and neck with long car and bus rides that left me sore for days afterwards and popping muscle relaxers. There is a lot I could have done had I not been in an LDR - pointing out that being in one left me excluded and my community at a loss is not a value judgment but a statement of fact. I think that joking about banning LDRs is completely appropriate - on face value they suck for women's health and society's well being.

I think that attitudes being displayed in this thread are bizarre and anti-feminist. Instead of beating the StrawMirriam for saying that you should dump your partner and that your relationship is selfish and horrid, engage with what she *actually* said about women's health and well being. Being a feminist means thinking critically about your actions, and being able to admit when they are not strictly "good for you".

By the way, if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. I would freeze in the bushes outside the club and waste tons of money on greenhouse destroying gas all over again and say fuck volunteering because I was going to see my baby. It was worth it to me, and acknowledging all the badness that went with it doesn't diminish it at all for me.

I do think that LDRs need to be looked at critically, and I can definitely say that I've been in unhealthy and healthy ones.

MLEmac28, why is it JUST the LDRs you want to look at crtically? I've seen plenty of healthy and unhealthy non-LDRs. Why are we picking on LDRs? Plenty of relationships stink.

As someone touched on above, a LOT of people automatically assume that an LDR is going to fail. That seems to be your take, and Miriam's take. That's offensive.

What is offensive about reminding us LDR folks about our sizable carbon footprint? What is offensive about reminding us LDR folks that our relationships are more stressful overall then those that are local? What is offensive about reminding us of our mental health risks or pointing out our disengagement from activities that could contribute to better individual or community health?

It's offensive because it's assuming that we're just too stupid to realize the stress that we're under (we know!), that we don't think critically about the environment, or that we're giving up things locally when we date long distance.

None of that was true for me in my relationship and I take offense to those who would assume those things of me.

I take offense that the assumption is that I had more than one dating option (local versus long distance) and that I went with the more selfish one.

I'm not offended by the post. I'm offended by many of the comments.
Maybe this isn't about YOU. Perhaps it's an attempt to provoke thought about the effects you have on your environment, and the effects it can have on you. And raise the question of what really does lead one to the good life? Is it travel and stress? Maybe for some, maybe not for others.
The take home lesson from this post, in my opinion, is that people should nurture critical thinking skills and the ability to question a thing without having to wedge yourself in the middle of it- it's a difficult road for some, but it's worth it in the long run.

What kind of feminst offends a large subset of other feminists and instead of owning what was likely poorly-chosen or inadequately worded and apologises, writes it off as humour or that the offended people are just overly-sensitive?

How is that not just the EXACT sort of tactics proponents of the patriarchy employ against feminists?

Since people are 'backing up' Miriam by taking quotes out of it, perhaps I should find fault with Miriam by doing the same thing:

"I've been joking with some friends of mine about wanting to start a campaign against long distance relationships."
- making light of other people's situations
- expresses a desire to restrict other people's choices

"Constantly missing your significant other, spending your life on the phone, always counting the days until you see them, or the days until you have to say goodbye again."
- attributes negative behaviour to people in LDR that are not necessarily part-and-parcel with a LDR
- attributes neediness, clinginess, a lack of a sense of self/independence

"and long stretches of abstinence between visits could lead to negative health outcomes and thus higher health care costs"
- citation needed

Though not her words, much of the Slate article is upsetting as well, and her choice to quote it is problematic to the tone of her entire post.

If she didn't want it to come off that way, perhaps she shouldn't have written it that way.

I second what Halo said. It's Friday, folks. Take a deep breath and chill a bit.

ElleStar

A feminist website can't raise critical questions for digestion by all their readers because you have already thought about them already? Then lets just give up posting about abortion then - I bet you have already thought about it! *headdesk* The mere mention of an issue that appears in the lives of many women is not actually a thinly-disguised insult to your intelligence. Post about the fight for equal marriage rights don't make me go "ugh I live this all the time, why are you implying I'm stupid and don't know this" because I know feministing has a wide readership.

I welcome a discussion of these issues and feel like this post was enlightening and appropriate - thats my right as an individual (particularly one that has been in an LDR). If you have already thought about them and don't enjoy being reminded, then why not mosey along to another more interesting thread instead of implying that no one should be able to have discussions on topics that frustrate you?

Halo:

For me, this part:

What's more, out-of-town daters have less sex than local couples--and long stretches of abstinence between visits could lead to negative health outcomes and thus higher health care costs. Distance also magnifies the impact of negative feelings like longing and suspicion; according to one study, intercity lovers are more likely to be depressed and less likely to share resources or take care of each other when sick.

...crossed the line from thought provoking to baseless and offensive. I feel the fact that so many people reacted so strongly speaks to the tone, language, and content of the article and post. If they were meant to start a thoughful and critical dicussion of the environmental impacts of LDRs, I think they missed the mark by a mile.

Frankly, Halo, I wouldn't have been so put off if the post had been phrased as an awareness-raising thing.  Like "That's a good point, Slate - what is the carbon footprint of LDRs versus local relationships?".  Then the post would contain stories about how LDR-folk cut down on costs where they can (both personal and ecological), and perhaps how they got into that LDR in the first place.

Instead, Slate says LDR-folk should feel guilty, and Miriam is joking about campaigning against LDRs and "Why don't we date locally?".  The post comes off as wicked insulting, at least to me - it assumes we haven't considered the ecological cost, it assumes we haven't god damn tried dating locally, and for heaven's sake, it compares relationships to food.

Not to mention, are there statistics on how many LDRs are due to things like a partner being in the military, or economic pressures (so one person moves for their job, and the other stays back for theirs), or other situations I haven't thought of because I'm hungry right now?  The prevailing assumption seems to be internets lovers, and that's bothersome in/of itself.

In conclusion, this whole thing is just a new twist on the old "The only way to build community is in person; the internet is destroying society!" thing.  Which I reject, so articles and posts admonishing me to date locally in order to build community don't work on me anyhow.

Firinel-

I did find myself "Constantly missing your significant other, spending your life on the phone, always counting the days until you see them, or the days until you have to say goodbye again." when I was in an LDR. It was part and parcel of my experience and the experiences of many other people I have known in LDRs.

And Mirriam didn't say I was needy, clingy, or lacked independence for feeling those common things - you just did. I find that behavior to be anti-feminist and very patriarchy employing as well as just plain rude, dismissive, and mean. I hope it makes you feel good to belittle other women to make a point - there is nothing more rewarding then pointing out the shortcomings of others.

I feel you owe everyone who has ever felt that way in an LDR an apology for insulting us.

Oh, that's great, Rachel_in_WY. We can just chill! Yeah, we shouldn't take things so seriously! Why are we getting our panties in a bunch? Oh, we silly women just need to chill!

Do you not see a problem with telling us, as feminists, to "just chill"????

Well, it's already been said that this article and post are silly and rude.

If you're in college or some types of graduate school, practically every relationship will be long-distance for part of the year. If your partner is in your hometown or another school, you're separated during the academic year. If your partner attends the same school, you'll be separated all summer and vacations (usually 5-6 months of the year).

I don't think that anyone would suggest that students shouldn't date because they can't 'date locally'.

@ Halo (and others)

You have made explicit what this post insinuates and what offended many of us who have replied: "The take home lesson from this post, in my opinion, is that people should nurture critical thinking skills and the ability to question a thing without having to wedge yourself in the middle of it- it's a difficult road for some, but it's worth it in the long run."

This assumes that we are not already thinking critically about the choices we are making in our relationships. This is assuming that we are not already engaged in a balancing act (work/friends/study/love/environment/time/money). This assumes we are not constantly evaluating whether this balancing act is worth it. This assumes that we are not already painfully aware of our potential carbon footprint and taking steps to minimize it (as I said, I opt for a 13-16 hour train ride rather than a 1.5 hour flight). This assumes that we don't have to put up with people laughing at us/judging us for taking steps to minimize our carbon footprint. This assumes that we don't have to listen to people regularly say things like "I just couldn't be in a relationship like that. When I'm with someone I have to BE with them." This assumes that we would not have engaged well with a post that put these forward as questions rather than judgments (I talk and think about the costs of my relationships all the time, and am willing to discuss it with anyone who brings it up in a civil way).

We are not offended that someone asked us to think about the costs involved in carrying on an LDR. We are offended that someone told us there are costs we haven't already considered - and tossed in a few stupid and insulting costs to boot.

I can understand how some of the article may have been offensive to some people, I'm not 100% on board with it either.
All I'm taking issue with is the delivery of the disagreement. A point of view that isn't consistent with your own is a great way to strengthen you position, if it's treated in a thoughtful manner. Having at the author in a aggressive way isn't beneficial to anyone.

I think the issue of LDR's is a very complicated one, with far too many variables to account for in one small piece, but I do think there is value in taking into consideration what impact these things have on the world and your well-being.

oh, and fwiw:

@beth: I'm currently in two serious relationships, the three of us co-habitat, so no, I didn't just take offence because I my own situation created some propensity towards over-sensitivity, as your comment suggested. I found it offensive because it was presumptuous and insulting.

SarahS:

I'm very sorry that you misunderstood me. I either mispoke, or you're intentionally twisting my words. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and presume that I didn't articulate myself well enough.

I was not saying that that's how I felt, I was saying that that was what I felt the position of Miriam's post was. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, it's open to other interpretations, but accusing me, calling me names, in invalidating my opinion certainly doesn't make you MORE feminist than the things you accuse me of doing.

SarahS:

Yeah. I just just shut the hell up when I'm offended by the tone of a post. The post did make a comment about carbon footprints, which I do think is worth discussing.

But the rest of the article was making assumptions that I (and many others here) found offensive. Cloaking something in "critical thinking" doesn't make it not offensive. If the post had been "have abortions," or "keep unwanted pregnancies" rather than "date local," I'd take as much issue with it as I do with this post. Encouraging critical thinking is fine. Making assumptions about me and implicitly telling me what to do, especially with my love life, is not.

"long stretches of abstinence between visits could lead to negative health outcomes and thus higher health care costs."

Um... what? Where did this come from? And how does masturbation not fix this? And why aren't we having public service announcements letting single people know that their health is in danger because they're not gettin any?

When I was in my LDR relationship (my bf and I met in college in IA, he went back to VT after he graduated and waited until I was done with school before we moved to KS), I got straight A's for the first time!! Wooo!

I thought this was a little off for a Feministing post. I mean, what does it have to do with anything? In the same token, I shouldn't have gone to school in a different state than where my parents lived or where my friends went to school, because once or twice a month, I'd make a 3-5 hour drive home or to a friend's college. Or maybe I shouldn't make the flight from KS to IL to see my newborn nephew when my sister finally pops him out. Honestly, it would make a bigger environmental impact if we all stopped eating meat. But Slate's not doing an article on that, because LDRs are not the norm, like eating meat is, so its easier to pass judgment on them.

Maybe I should stop buying clothes that aren't made in the US because its made in a sweatshop. Or maybe I should boycott all candy bars that aren't fair traded because there's a (large) chance that the cocoa in them was harvested by slaves in Cote de Ivore.

If we're going to get nit-picky about the environmental consequences of long distance love why are any of the above comments a bit extreme?

And, yes, I have tried to stop buying sweatshop made clothes and conventional chocolate, and was vegetarian for a while but that's another story...

So basically, Miriam, I don't think your post was really offensive, just out of place.

I think it's the Slate article that's more ridiculous than this post:

- Living in a town does not guarantee that you meet new people. And meeting new people does not guarantee you meet compatible people. It's a BIG privilege to be able to choose where you live. Many people don't have the economic resources to do this. What of the feminist who, due to circumstances, lives in Bumfuck Small-town? I wish her luck.

- Long stretches of abstinence? What the fuck? I've been in a long stretch of abstinence since birth and so have many other people.
Sex requires TWO people's consent. I don't know how many times I have to fucking say this before it sinks in. There is no magic Have Sex button. Christ.

- The thing this post doesn't mention is that, for many, long distance relationships are simply *easier* to come by. A totally different skill set goes into online communication than real-life communication. What happens to people with social anxiety? Asperger's? Agoraphobia? Or people without any designated disability who just find online encounters more fulfilling? Clearly they should get their ass into the bowling alleys and pubs. Got it.

I was in an LDR several years ago. It didn't last long, but we remained friends and still communicate. I have many fond memories and absolutely no regrets from the experience.

Luckily, back then no one had yet coined the term "carbon footprint" so I didn't have to feel guilty about anything. Environmental issues are important, but seriously, why must we guilt people for flying? Whether we have LDRs or not, all of us have carbon footprints.

So, I really thought that Miriam was being facetious. To my horror, I found out that she was not.

The Slate article is completely offensive. Had the article approached the topic differently, or even if Miriam had done a better job to create discussion, this post would not have offended so many. The article and Miriam's post seem to be a personal attack rather than raise awareness.

Also, I find it funny that the article mentions "spending money on travel instead of saving and investing." When spending money is a better way to help the economy than saving. In fact, investing in my LDR is the best way I can ensure my future wellbeing.

But seriously, did the Slate author need to bring in sex and depression? Really? Because EVERYONE wants to be in an LDR! (OMG THEY ARE, LIKE, SO MUCH FUN *yack*) And local relationships are not the ideal...right...

There are better ways to raise a person's awareness than to piss them off.

Yes, marilove. I think all women are silly. In fact, it's becoming quite clear that the current favorite insult for people who don't agree with you on this blog certainly applies to me: I'm a bad feminist. In fact, I shouldn't be allowed to be a feminist at all. I should be kicked out of the club, because I dared to disagree and engage in some basic critical thinking. This means I should no longer be allowed to teach the Feminist Theory and Critical Thinking courses that I teach. I shouldn't be allowed to publish my dissertation on Post-Modern Feminism and Environmental Ethics, and I should no longer be allowed to be an activist. On the up side, I assume that as soon as I'm kicked out of the club my criminal record (4 arrests at protest events) will be expunged and I will once again be acceptable to the patriarchy. Hurrah for me!

Grow up already, and learn to recognize a feeding frenzy when you see one.

Anyone got a torch and a pitchfork? Let's go folks! Ain't nuthin funner than a lynch mob!

Rachel,

I really think that comparing this to a lynch mob is offensive, because although I'm sure Mariam's feeling all sorts of emotions right now, none (I hope) would be a fear for her life.

I think if people have an issue about what someone publically says, they can publically comment on it. Most importantly, no one is calling her her death. A lot of these comments are valid, and the ones that were personal attacks have have been moderated off.

Comparing speech to a lynch mob is off the mark and insensitive to people who really had to deal with lynch mobs.

good. lord.

the seems like a contest: "no, I'M more offended than you!"

no one's telling you who to love. and, everyone, we should all know better than to post a hundred anecdotes about our LDRs and what wo do to offset our carbon footprints as statistical proof that the author is full of shit.

this article merely illustrates what those of us who work on achieving carbon neutrality already know (hence my log-in name!): there is a "tragedy of the commons". my actions may benefit me as an individual, but be hurtful to a larger group. let's say i want to figure out transportation to work. public transit is crappy. have to take kids to school. so i buy a car (decision is good for me personally... allows me to spend more time with family and less time waiting for the bus) but bad in terms of my carbon footprint. THIS ARTICLE IS MERELY SHEDDING LIGHT ON A SIMILAR CONUNDRUM.

this is, quite simply, the crux of the huge environmental and economic problem we are ALL in. and since i am assuming that most feministing readers are more intelligent/educated than the masses, i would assert that we all have EVEN MORE responsibility in putting aside our individual wants for our collective health. does that mean end your LDR? NO! it means to prioritize.... if the transport is necessary, maybe drive w/o air conditioning? (i've been doing this all year, and in phoenix in the summer, it fucking sucks, but i do it anyway.) or take a shuttle? or combine with other trips.

no one's telling you who to love. calm the fuck down.

BUT ANYWAY, I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO SUPPORT MEASURES TO INCREASE URBAN DENSITY AND TO CREATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ACROSS THE COUNTRY! that's the only long-term way out of the problem.

Oh my! Miriam is right! The scales have been dashed all at once from my eyes!

Three years ago, when I was living in Melbourne, Australia, and was offered the once-in-a-lifetime chance of a three-year scholarship to do my doctorate at Oxford University, I should of course have dumped my beautiful, beloved, amazing fiance and broken both our hearts.

No, no, wait, perhaps I should have stayed 'local' and sacrificed the best thing that ever happened to my career in the interest of avoiding "constantly missing your significant other, spending your life on the phone, always counting the days until you see them, or the days until you have to say goodbye again". Yes, that would have been the feminist thing to do.

"because I dared to disagree and engage in some basic critical thinking. "

Um. Telling us to "lighten up because it's friday" is not using basic critical thinking. It's being insulting.

And I never called you a bad feminist, but you sure seem to be getting defensive about it.

The majority of commenters here are levle-headed, smart women (and men). Why is it that when the MAJORITY of regular readers and commenters are offended by a post, you automatically tell us to stfu and grow up? I'd say if the majority of people do not like the post, then there is a problem WITH THE POST, not with the people complaining.

And a lynch mob?! A feeding frenzy? Hardly.

Hmm, just wanted to add that the first year I was with my now husband we were a LDR and it was awesome. It gave me the space I needed and allowed me to visit a different city (San Fransisco) every four weeks (we traded off visiting every 2 weeks). Honestly, it was one of the best years of my life and even if we didn't use a train for the commute, I wouldn't have even given the carbon foot print much thought because I was so happy.

I agree with someone who posted above saying that maybe the problem isn't with long-distance relationships, but with the environmentally un-friendly transportation systems we have in place. Because really, just "dating locally" wouldn't solve any problems - long-distance relationships aren't limited to the romantic realm, and I sincerely hope no one would suggest that we give those up too.

@marilove

Yep. I told you to shut the fuck up. I sure did. You're right. And it was very wrong of me. I'll crawl into my little hole now. Will that make you happy?

@ TinkTheTank

I didn't realize that the Feminist Police had banned the use of metaphorical language as well as dissent. This is most certainly a metaphorical feeding frenzy and lynch mob. The dynamic in which everyone becomes increasingly outraged by feeding on and bouncing off the emotions of others is, metaphorically speaking, a feeding frenzy. And the dynamic in which everybody gangs up on the OP and any commenter who dares to post a dissenting or critical view is a metaphorical lynch mob. I'm sorry if metaphorical language offends you, but it's a staple of language use in general.

@ baddesignhurts and Halo

You have committed the unforgivable sin of disagreeing with the mob. Best go into hiding. Dissent is no longer allowed here.

marilove,

Where did I say that I think LDRs are doomed to fail? And where did Miriam say this?

Maybe you missed the fact that I am currently in a LDR, and I certainly don't think the distance would ever be a reason for us to break up.

Yes, I do think that all relationships need to be examined critically to make sure that it is healthy, but I think that the number of dealbreakers goes up in LDRs. A slight amount of insecurity and a possessive nature turns into my needing to call and check in every hour to sooth his fears.
That was the main problem with my first LDR relationship. Qualities that I could have dealt with in a close proximity were more than I could handle at a distance, and led to a great deal of stress. I should have ended that relationship much earlier.

Now I'm in another LDR with a guy without those problems. Naturally, nobody is perfect and we have our incapatibilities, but they are no less bearable at a distance.

maybe you should read posts carefully before you make baseless assumptions about what people think.

"A slight amount of insecurity and a possessive nature turns into my needing to call and check in every hour to sooth his fears. "

See how you're projecting here? That's YOU, not everyone.

"Yep. I told you to shut the fuck up. I sure did. You're right. And it was very wrong of me. I'll crawl into my little hole now. Will that make you happy?"

Now you ARE being a bad feminist.

If you re-read the comments above, I never said anyone was being a bad feminist. It was, however, suggested of me. Unfortunately this is becoming the label that is applied to anyone who disagrees with a commenter on Feministing lately. I don't make judgements about who is a good or bad feminist, and frankly I think that kind of name-calling is inappropriate here.

marilove,

What do you expect when you suggest that somebody said something that they didn't? I'm sorry, but I don't go around, on this blog or anywhere, telling people to shut the fuck up. So don't suggest that I did. If I suggested that the comments on this thread were getting a little intense and going overboard and you felt belittled by that, then just say so. But don't say I told you to stfu already, because I didn't.

How am I projecting??? I never said it was everyone!!!

But I don't think that the only person that or similar things could ever happen to is me. I never said YOUR LDR or any other specific person's LDR was like that. I never said that it happens any significant percentage of the time. That's just one example of the problems in a relationship that can be exaggerated to an unhealthy extreme when distance is introduced. If that had never been a problem with you, then I congratulate you on having such trusting partners. If you've never had other, possibly unhealthy, distance related issues in relationships then I congratulate you again. But not everyone is so lucky. I wasn't. Just because your LDRs have all been wonderful relationships doesn't mean everyone has. Stop projecting YOUR experiences on everybody else.

Ok, I don't like it when a lot of people rat on one article here, but this one really was asking for it.
I read Feministing because it usually makes me feel happy and empowered to know that there are people in the world with viewpoints like mine and to have this way to keep in touch with what's going on. SO I was incredibly disappointed to find this article here. I think it is sad because one of my favorite things about feminism is that we don't tell people how to live their lives. We protect peoples choices to live and love as they choose.
This article seems so wrong to me because it singles out one group for criticism. Not cool. It's hard enough to be judged for loving who I love by my friends and colleagues without getting it from the people who claim to be protecting my choices.
Having read your comments, I must still object because I know these are things I've already thought about. I've had to make really tough choices and wonder what this is doing to me, but I am sticking with it because it's worth it. Again, having this singled out and judged when it's already so difficult really hurts and disappoints.

When I was still a participant in the dating world, I completely gave up on LDRs, just like some people give up on monogamous relationships and other types of relationships that don't work for them.

I just have to say that I know this topic has been debated to the ground, but it is the first time that I've come to feministing and felt bad and guilty leaving. I'm glad that I read the comments because they made me feel better about it. This site has been very empowering to me and this post instead made me feel like maybe I was being selfish for being with the person I love (who just happens to be on a different continent than me)
Now I think there are serious issues to look at with long distance relationships. I think there's a need to look at depression, loneliness, anxiety, financial and environmental costs of long distance relationships. I do not however think that this article looked at any of these seriously. It basically said "this is what's wrong with people who have LDRs" without examining the benefits
I think that having a LDR in a way is feminist (not that I'm saying it's antifeminist to not have one AT ALL, stay with me)- it proves that yes, I am independent. I support myself. I have outside networks. I am with the person who makes me so happy that I am fine with being without them if in the end I know it's what I want. Nobody 'settles' for a long distance relationship, or at least it's pretty rare!
Let's all buy vibrators (we'd hate to raise healthcare costs! haha), sign on to skype and feel good about being with someone we love even though they may be far away! Love is never something to feel guilty about.
PS Should I feel bad about the environmental impact that condoms have on the environment?

Hi Miriam! I considered your post one of those tongue-and-cheek, if still often thought-provoking, kinds of questions that might appear Sex and the City. It definitely did not offend me, and I have been in more than my fair share of LDRs. One of the main reasons I don't count myself as a feminist is because of the sort of hyper overreaction of wounded feelings that we see in this thread. I am way too laidback for this sort of extreme emotional response, and I'm sad that now Miriam will definitely think twice before posting little tongue-in-cheek posts like this one. :(

Miriam, I hope you're planning to rejoin this conversation, because a LOT of readers are really upset and I think that warrants more of your consideration.

Maybe you could withdraw or defend the jokes about starting a movement against LDRs that obviously weren't well-received, or the sort of bizarre comment about health care costs?

To the commentors,
I've never been in a LDR and have always rolled my eyes at them (unless it's a well-established serious relationship and long distance becomes a necessity). I realize after reading the comments that I need to be called out on that attitude, because people in those relationships have enough stress without being made fun of or judged, and because I have no idea how great and worth it lots of the relationships are.

I admit that my flippant attitude was hurtful and unnecessary, and I think Miriam should do the same.

poetry lover, with all the incredible work feminists have done that has improved the daily lives of all women, I think it's kinda sad that you're willing to dismiss them, citing what you see as "hyper-overreaction" on a blog.

I mean, it's perfectly legit to disagree with the content and/or tone of comments, but it makes me sad that you used old stereotypes of women to dismiss them... high strung and overly emotional... none of us should be subjected to those stereotypes.

@ Mariella

Thanks for that!

Speaking for nobody but myself, I would like to admit that perhaps the difficulties of an LDR have made me raw and prone to visceral defensive reactions on the subject.

I do feel that the way this post was framed was gratuitously hurtful and flippant. I expect it insensitive provocation from Slate - I didn't expect to see it here. I too would like to see an apology from Miriam.

This reminds me pretty darn strongly of a recent post on this site condemning an article about how women being in the workplace is supposedly bad for the environment.

No, Miriam, you didn't "condemn" long distance relationships, but you did criticize them pretty darn strongly. And from where I'm standing, this article you've linked is so hopelessly misogynist that I'm stunned to see it - and the ideas within it - supported here.

Let me spell it out to make myself more clear: this is not an article about how men AND women should stop dating long distance, it's an article about how WOMEN should. The example is female and the impotus is placed on women to end the phenomenon.

Now, why would that be, I wonder? Could it, just maybe, have something to do with the idea that women these days are just getting too darn uppity and choosy about the men they date and should just settle for someone local rather than having their pick worldwide? Could it be that this kind of competition is making a lot of insecure guys feel upset, culminating in an "environmental" plea (yeah, that's it, environmentalism!) to try to get women to knock it off and go back to dating whatever loser is available down the block?

No rational person who's REALLY addressing LDR travel from the point of viewpoint of genuine environmentalism is going to say "break up!" - they're going to say sane things like, "have fewer and longer trips," or "try to limit the time you spend as a LD couple," or "find ways to stay connected that aren't bad for the environment" or a million other things.

Besides, LDR travelers just aren't responsible for ANYTHING LIKE a majority of travel pollution. Business travelers do that. There's just no reason for this argument except to try to control women's lives.

Miriam, I don't think for a second that you've bought into the misogyny behind this, I just think you overlooked it. The reason arguments like this work is that they appear rational and appeal (illegitimately, but strongly) to our passions for other important causes - it's like the "Gays want to hurt our children!" crap.

Listen: we all make mistakes sometimes. The best of us are not those that don't, but those who can recognize it and admit it. I would strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this article and this point of view. There's a reason you have over 100 comments to this post, most of them angry.

"Feminism and feminists should be concerned about the way LDRs impact women..."

Feminism is not a nanny movement out to decide what's best for women. It's a movement for giving women freedom to live the lives of their choosing.

Just jumpin' into the fray to add my own two cents...

I agree that the article does indeed put an interesting spin on green living by asking people to really think about the effect their lifestyle choices have on ther environment. I can also understand the notion that one can easily become shut in with a computer at home connecting with an absent partner at all hours rather than going out in the fresh air and connecting with your community from time to time (as a horrible Internet junkie, I know how easily this can happen).

However, I also agree with other comments that it was presented in an annoyingly smug way. I wasn't so much offended by this (I wouldn't equate my experience with a long-distance relationship to, say, the trauma of a past serious illness) as irritated, and parts of the article certainly made me roll my eyes, particularly this:

"And, in a way, long-distance dating is romantic precisely because it expends so much in the way of resources and effort. It's less exciting to date someone based on your shared love of canvas shopping bags than it is to pine for a partner who wants to meet in Arizona."

Yeah, I'm so sure. I met my husband online when I was in Japan and he was in Florida, then I came back to Florida and he went to Iraq for a year. For the first 2 years we knew eachother we were only ever in the same city for two weeks at a time for 3 separate visits. What held us together certainly wasn't the fact that we enjoyed eachother's company, totally got eachother's sense of humor or had dynamite chemistry. Nope, we were both just really turned on by all those resources I was using up by flying all the way from Japan (a 12 hour flight, mateys) to see him at Christmas. Hot! Pining is so sexy, and I never felt sexier than the 10th straight month of not seeing him, when I'd often cry as I went to sleep. The spark sure is gone now that we, y'know, have the luxury of waking up together.

Also the flippant assertion that breaking up a long-distance relationship is really in our best interest, honest. As has been said before, those of us in LDRs are used to the eye rolls we get from people who assume we'll wise up to how stupid we're being and just dump that knucklehead who lives a continent or two away, and it's irritating to get the written equivalent of said roll.

So, in conclusion: an article that had promise as social analysis mucked up by poor presentation and unnecessary flippancy.

On the plus side, it's kind of cool to read aboutof all the other LDRs here that people made work despite the difficulties of enduring them.

I spent a year in an intercontinental LDR, which involved two very expensive roundtrip flights between New York and Nairobi, Kenya. Since we can't afford this, and neither can the planet, I considered the LDR a temporary scenario. I now live with my partner.

I very much identify with the environmental concerns that Miriam and the Slate author share. I don't feel good about the traveling we did last year, and I realize that despite the fact that I don't own a car, ride public transit and my bike, recycle, have CFL bulbs, blah blah ... it will take me a long time to "live down" the carbon footprint of that year.

It's not just LDRs that represent our problematic attitude towards travel. It's commuter business trips, frequent flights home to see family ... because airfares have been pretty affordable, we've all gotten very mobile, and it has serious environmental affects. Frequent air travel is not sustainable, whether you're traveling on business or to see your partner.

I think most people in an LDR acknowledge the financial and emotional (and perhaps environmental) strain of the situation, and look forward to the time that they can be together. I think it becomes problematic when we think it's fine for us to fly coast-to-coast twice a month forever. It's not okay.

I can understand how the Slate article, and Miriam's post, might make anyone presently in a LDR really pissed off. After all, it's hard enough to be in an LDR, never mind getting knocked around for it!

But I feel many of the comments here represent a defensive reaction to criticism. Miriam's post is mild and intended to provoke a little discussion. She herself has been in a LDR and she expresses sympathy with the job, school, and other changes that often make LDRs a necessity. I'm not sure why everyone is freaking out and demanding apologies. She makes no proscriptive demands on anyone. The Slate article is a little judgey and full of generalizations, but I don't find Miriam's post offensive at all.

There are several problematic things about the post's presentation, starting with the title: "Date local." A simple command statement, emphasis on 'command'. That's what got me.

And, quite frankly, commenters talking about "dissent" need to stop dismissing other people's concerns.

But I feel many of the comments here represent a defensive reaction to criticism. Miriam's post is mild and intended to provoke a little discussion.

No, actually. Miriam's post explicitly compares my loyal, loving and passionate nine-and-a-half-year relationship* to shopping for food - if that particular product isn't available locally, why I should just switch to another one, of course! Simple as that! She also makes a nice 'light-hearted' joke about starting a campaign against certain people's choice of relationships, and I hope I don't need to point out some of the associations that *that* idea invokes.

* Six and a half years in the same country, three years apart, I was offered a scholarship to go abroad for graduate school, he was offered one to stay. It sucks, we cope.

So funny, so cute, so inoffensive! I should obviously just 'chill' and get my hysterical, 'hyper-overreacting' pants out of the knot they're in, shouldn't I?

This post does not reflect any kind of feminism that I want to be a part of.

I'm in a LDR (my fella's gone to England to do his PhD, I'm staying home in Canada to work because I can't get a work permit). I think that discussing the environmental impact of our actions is a useful discussion to have (including in the context of LDR's, I'd never thought of it that way before), but I felt that Miriam's tone in her post here was pretty dismissive and flippant. I agree with other comments that suggest that she's not bridged this discussion very well. I'm not offended, but I am disappointed.

I'm happy to see that other people had a problem with this post--I was afraid I was going to be the only one.

Anyway, I feel patronized, trivialized, and of course, offended. Everyone else has pretty much said it for me; when I read this post, I essentially took the phrase 'date local' that appears a couple times over the course of the post to be urging ME, the person in the long distance relationship, to break off my two years because I can certainly find someone just as good here, or else otherwise I should live with immense guilt while my relationship goes on.

And I don't understand how having sex and then growing through periods of abstinence is 'unhealthy.' I went to the doctor to get birth control a few months ago and explained my relationship situation quite in detail and she did not at all seem concerned for my health when I mentioned that I had periods of abstinence.

I'm gonna tentatively agree with Miriam here. Unless you are already in a committed relationship, and that relationship *becomes* a LDR for whatever reason, you should definitely avoid LDR's. I finally convinced a friend of mine to stop willingly entering into LDR's and to look local. Why would you willingly go into that situation with all its myriad problems and added difficulties before you are all deeply invested in someone? It just seems... well, stupid.

On the list of reasons why LDR's are less than desirable, though, I gotta say that the environmental impact falls pretty low on the list... and people who have less sex are less healthy? Just because sex has health benefits doesn't mean it's *unhealthy* not to have sex. So, while the article itself might be kind of stupid, agree with the notion that LDR's are problematic, and I am interested in the whole internet-relationship social networking angle... these kinds of relationships are replacing face-to-face interaction and it's... I'll stick with "less than desirable."

I'd like to think long-distance relationships and local relationships have both their pros and cons. It's like the homeschooling vs. public schooling vs. private schooling argument. In the end, everyone is going to be right.

I'm gonna tentatively agree with Miriam here. Unless you are already in a committed relationship, and that relationship *becomes* a LDR for whatever reason, you should definitely avoid LDR's. I finally convinced a friend of mine to stop willingly entering into LDR's and to look local.

I am so glad that I have great, supportive friends. If I had had a friend like you when I *started* a long distance relationship (and yes, we started the relationship hundreds of miles apart and that's something I'm not going to feel bad about), I wouldn't have taken the risk and found myself within one of the best relationships I've ever experienced. If I had a friend like you, I might be a lot more lonely in my life.

I've never particularly minded being lonely. But I can't even begin to express the happiness I've found in finding someone who "gets" me.

I know Miriam didn't mean it, and that many of the supporters don't realize it, but by saying that LDRs are "less than desirable," you're judging others' relationships. And I definitely take issue with that. They work for some of us and people shouldn't judge us for that.

I'm all for looking at our relationships and behavior critically, but I take major offense to the assumptions made at the end of the Slate article.

Yes, maybe I do have more invested in this topic because I am currently in an long distance relationship with a person I deeply love and respect. I'll be the first to admit that my offense, in part, is because it questions my behavior, and we all get up in arms when that occurs. But that is not my main reason for the offense.

What really irks me are the egregious assumptions that are made in the Slate article. How can they assume that all my time is being eaten up by being on the phone and on the computer, and that I don't take advantage of the resources of my awesome city? In fact, I have a (not so) guilty pleasure -- being in a long distance relationship has allowed me to further cultivate my own personality and unique tastes by not relying so heavily on someone else who is in such close proximity to me. I'm quite ok with that. I can have my own friends! And I make it out of my house! And (gasp) I have fun!

But what's really, really offensive is not the assumptions made about our relationships, but all the making-of-the-assumptions in the first place that we as feminists have worked so long and hard to erase. It's assumptions that created (and continue to maintain) the patriarchy, and we need to work harder to not let them form our thought.

Miriam, I'm not mad at ya. You came to your opinion after experience and some thought. What I'm really mad at, however, is the stupid Newsweek article that was cited in the article. All the benefits they describe can be derived from regular exercise. Kinda sounds like I'm kidding, but I'm not -- yoga and cardio help me get through it all. Not as sexy as sex (duh), but that's what vibrators are for.

P.S. -- Also, I happen to be in long distance relationships with close friends that they visit frequently, which I'm sure almost anyone can own up to. I know that there is an environmental toll, but we should also tell that to the company who fly their employees around everyday with sometimes little reason.

You know... as feminists, we should understand what it feels like to have repetitive, annoying bullshit thrown in our faces on a daily basis. This LDR post (for a lot of us, it seems) is just that. You see? More of the same crap we hear constantly from people who are supposed to care about us (as many have already said, it's easy to get defensive when we already hear negative shit ALL THE TIME. So please allow us to get bit upset? We only want a voice for chrissakes in the pool of constant negativity). LDRs automatically painted as neggy neggy negative nancy. And guilt and shame for you if you are in one! Why can't we just lift this stereotype off of long-distance relationships? How bout that?? Can we please??? Because apparently a lot of us are feeling some positives coming from our LDRs and we're very conscious of the choices we are making, so why not praise this instead? Instead of wagging fingers???? Ugh, it's just that feministing is the last place I expected to find more shame. I have to admit.. this did disrupt my day quite unexpectedly.

HOWEVER, coming back to the comments, it's nice to find that so many others are in my boat. I mean holycrap, there's a lot of people in my boat and it's a wonder we aren't takin' on water!! Relief! I feel very alone in my situation repeatedly and I feel picked on even in the most subtle of ways just because my life is different from someone else's. It's tough to process lame-ass suggestions (from people who are suppppppposed to be supportive???) that just don't work for me, as others have also pointed out. It just doesn't freaking work for a lot of us.

I'm also glad to read, when i frequent this site, that i'm not alone in my crippling social anxiety. Dating and friendship non-locally is typically a MUST for people like myself. My life is already limited in so many ways, it's unfair for articles like that to make light of my situation... pressing on more limits on my already limited self. If you have a social anxiety disorder, you know how people treat you like you just don't count. How dehumanizing it can feel when people make light of how you try to deal with the world. They make you a joke, they make assumptions and judgements, or they write you off and never bother to get to know you. And welllllll, ya knoow, this post just hit a little too close to home, what with the condescending tone and lack of understanding in the article... Very frustrating.

Anyways, thanks so much, the rest of you who made my day, especially on particularly, "WHYYYYYY doesn't anyone understand what I'm going throuuuuuugh, don't I deserve respect," sort of days. My LDR does wonders for my anxiety. My LDR destroys any remnants of depression. And lonliness might be there, but there's always a way to compromise when you love someone so EFFING much. This is the love of my life after all. Confidence comes in spades when someone in your life makes it all worthwhile. How awesome is that? Of course a long-distance relationship is no quick fix, but the rewards are worthy of a little praise, okay? Not shame? Yaaaaay yaaaaay yaaayyy for long-distance relationships! They aren't all bad! Yay for this?? High fives all around????? For the positivesssss? Instead of an addition to the barrage of negatives???

Alright, alright, sorry for the long post. I rarely comment and this heavily struck a personal chord sooo I felt I should just put in a buck-fiddy.

So in my head, a little friday feminist fuck you to baron whatzhisface's article.

Hi Mariella,

I was an extreme hardcore feminist for five years. And I certainly appreciate all the incredible work feminists have done for women's daily lives. But in my experience (and as evidenced in this thread), way too many feminists seem to make a career out of taking offense. It's just WAY too much pressure for anyone to have to deal with this kind of thing. I still fight for many traditional feminist goals (abortion rights, pay-equity, anti-rape activism, Title IX, etc.), but I no longer call myself a feminist, mostly so that I don't have to be subject to the sort of shaming that feminists are so fond of participating in. I actually prefer libertarian blogs where the comments are witty and often gleefully insensitive, where I feel like I can have some space to maneuver. At feministing you always have to watch your back, because if something you say can be construed as offensive, trust me, it will be!

Having the read the Salon article, I'd like to tell whoever wrote it where they can shove it.

I've had enough of people saying going without sex is harmful to one's health. I've not had sex for two years, and am functioning perfectly well thankyouverymuch!

And is the author suggesting that people in LDRs don't socialise with anyone else? They seem to suggest that anyone in such a relationship doesn't leave their house unless it involves meeting up with their partner! Which is nonsense, clearly. The local economy isn't going to suffer that much.

I meant Slate, not Salon!

I'm not in a long-distance relationship, but add me to the list of people who were offended by the way this post was worded. It was not thought-provoking -- it was demeaning. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought so.

@ emily (like a hundred posts above):
"but there's still a real expectation that when a couple is faced with a decision about whether or not to LDR, there is still an expectation that a woman will be following her man"

YES! Thank you for pointing that out! I know the Slate article is primarily about the environment, but I feel a feminist site should bring in this awful "stand by your man" cliche while looking at LDRs.

It was really great reading through all the posts of others who are in LDRs. Sometimes I feel like my boyfriend and I are crazy for trying to make it work because that seems to be the opinion of friends and family. I felt a lot of these posts about the benifits of LDRs were empowering and reminded me of why my boyfriend and I have made it work over the years. Thank you.

Okay, so I see where the article is coming from, however, I would have to agree with the rest of the posters here. Umm I think the article and the post was bullshit. Not to mention, that there was not mention of LDRs that aren't exactly voluntary. Like deployment. My husband and I have been in a LDR for the last fifteen months. I'm in the States, he's in Iraq. I think that the next time someone posts something like this and wants to give advice about the effects of ldr's they need to remember those of us in the military that don't have the option of just moving, or leaving the house. My husband and I primarily communicate through the computer and webcam. So, if I decide to take a week off for the computer for the environments sake, I don't talk to my husband, who is in a warzone, for a week. Soo...Miriam, next time you post something like this, keep us military folk in mind. We don't always have the kind of options you mentioned.

look, as much as many people don't want it to be so, the use of most transportation systems DOES consume a lot of scarce resources and DOES contribute to global warming by producing carbon dioxide. that's a fact. and it sucks.

so rather than getting all "my LDR is the only way i can be happy! i'm offended that you're telling me to stop!" about it, i think everyone's energies are better spent figuring out what EACH OF US can individually do to reduce our consumption of said resources and carbon output. that involves prioritizing. if your LDR is vital to you (and i believe each commenter above who has said so, and i do truly have sympathy....i've been there myself), then, rather than taking offense where none was truly intended, why not figure out what you can do to offset all the travel? like bike instead of drive? or set the AC 3 degrees higher? telecommute one day a week?

i am more offended by the attitude underlying some of the comments, that their authors are ENTITLED without question to do what they want and that anyone who even dares to suggest that someone's actions might have a negative impact on others is being judgmental or curtailing one's right to live one's life in the manner they choose. look, we have one friggin' planet. NO ONE gets to live the life they want all the time without consideration about how their actions impact others. sorry. (if there's anything i think is more important than feminism and equal rights for everyone, it's environmental issues. all this don't mean shit if we have no planet to live on.)

but seriously, when you read the sentence in the opening paragraph, "the planet is about to suffer for your love," did no one's tongue-in-cheek alarms go off? and miriam's comment about starting a campaign against LDRs.... how could you not read that as anything but sarcastic, been-there-done-that humor? there's no award for "most offense taken".

Wow, the second I saw this post I knew there was gonna be an explosion.

I think that there could have been an appropriate, non-offensive way to approach this subject. Something like, "People in LDRs, make sure you're keeping an eye on your carbon footprint and here are some cool alternative travel options!" although I'm not sure why that advice would be on a feminist blog. Or, "A trend in hetero LDRs shows women are more likely to compromise their own situations for the sake of their partner; we can solve that by challenging patriarchy!" (I'm not even sure if that assertion is true, but if someone posted info on it, I'd read it with interest).

Both of those, I think, are legit points; and their possible solutions have nothing to do with doing away with, or discouraging, LDRs in general. The issues don't lie in the relationship itself.

Most of what we do isn't straight-up social or personal, but has aspects of both. Abortion, for example--personal issue, BIG social repercussions. But honestly, some personal issues are much, much more personal than they are social, and I just can't see the social benefit in asking people to question the very choice of having an LDR--whether you're asking people in them to reconsider, or whether, as Miriam seems more to be saying, you're asking people to avoid getting into them in the first place.

Above all, Miriam, you really should reconsider at the very least your wording, and your choice of titling the post "Date Local," as if it's an order. I think you are bringing up good points, but clearly your delivery was inappropriate, or 99% of these comments wouldn't be upset.

@ baddesign

I agree with you on this (and Halo, and Rachel_in_WY) but think that this issue is probably just too emotionally charged for most of the commenters here to be able to take a step back and think about it calmly. Honestly, I usually just try to avoid issues like this because I think that calm and unbiased discussion of them is pretty much impossible.

baddesign, I took it as tongue-in-cheek as well, but maybe Stephielu is right. Maybe when you're in the middle of an LDR (been there, done that) you can't get the kind of critical distance necessary to see that the original post was kind of tongue-in-cheek, and that it's an issue that merits at least some discussion.

Does this mean that only those who are in LDRs should be conscious of their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible? Of course not. Does this mean that telling people how to conduct their love lives and making jokes that are truly offensive is appropriate? No. But given the fact that the consensus of angry commenters here seems to be that this is exactly what's going on, calm and rational discussion doesn't seem to be possible.

I'm moving on to more constructive dicussions...

Whoa. This was intense!

I'm in an LDR. One that looks a bit like the one Slate was ridiculing. I live in SF and my boyfriend is going to law school in NY. And reading the article and reading the comments I kept feeling like I should be offended. But I'm not. The post was certainly disappointing. I think the point is sort of stupid. Date local! As if everyone wouldn't already prefer to date local! Very few people relish their SO's being an expensive polluting flight away. But, as Miriam pointed out, it happens. It's necessary some times. It's necessary for me since my SO and I need to be in different places to pursue our respective grad school educations. But I don't feel bad about it. I take public transit everywhere (or walk), I belong to a local weekly CSA, I recycle and make genuine efforts to be a steward of the environment when I can.

So where I think this post and the Slate article sort of fails is in the implication that what you're doing in an LDR matters SO MUCH that the other things you do don't matter. Should I also stop traveling to visit my family at holidays? Is it too dangerous for me to live in a different state than my mom because if I'm sad to be away from her it could lead to depression and ohmygod higher health care costs?!?

I'm sort of bummed that Slate and then Miriam, whose posts I normally really admire, bought into the idea that this is a worthy fish to fry. Attacking the ramifications of people's choice in love won't do anything except, clearly, tick people off. Working to make mass transit faster and greener on the other hand would make a difference and doesn't require any shame or judgment to be passed.

I have been reading Feministing for several years, and it has long been an informative, challenging, and uplifting news source. I rarely comment, but this post is the first in many years of reading that has left me really upset.

Two quotes from the same paragraph, the first of which Miriam quotes in her post:

"By spending all their free time out of town or staring at a webcam, long-distance lovers erode civic commitment and social support networks."

"they make their cities more stratified by inflating an über-class bubble of jet-set shut-ins who are—understandably, given their lifestyle—more worried about conditions at O'Hare than things going on outside their front door."

There are several assumptions made here about long distance couples. That they neglect all other aspects of their lives, first of all, but also that they are of a certain economic class---which allows them the ability to fly very often, thus causing environmental concerns. I would be interested to know whether this is even close to representative of people in LDRs. Like others who posted here already, my boyfriend and I (living in Seattle and NYC, respectively) are Ph.D. students living in expensive cities, managing only with university stipends and part time jobs. We certainly do not qualify as any part of the jet set. Yet YoungSmith, and Miriam, assume that people in LDRs have a special claim to the resources and time needed to do a lot of environmental damage.

(Anecdotally, I will add that the change in mine and my boyfriend's footprint is not especially clear. For three years we lived in a small midwest town with no recycling program and both drove a lot. Now, we live in places that do have municipal recycling and I now take public transportation exclusively. Added to which, I left my small, fuel efficient car with my mother, who now drives her minivan a lot less. The idea that an LDR will necessarily increase a carbon footrprint relies on a lot of unstated, unexamined assumptions).

Also excerpted by Miriam:
"What's more, out-of-town daters have less sex than local couples—and long stretches of abstinence between visits could lead to negative health outcomes and thus higher health care costs."

This claim is simply unsubstantiated nonsense. It first assumes, as others have pointed out, that by ending an LDR I can easily establish a local relationship with the same quantity---and importantly, QUALITY---of sex. There is no reason to believe that will be the case. Secondly, it assumes that those in LDRs are not engaging in pleasurable sex through chat, webcams, and phones (while at the same time assuming that those in LDRs spend all their time on the internet and phone... an incoherent argument at best). Third, it quite obviously assumes that a lack of sex has a non-trivial chance of leading to poorer health outcomes. Given the lack of explanation in both the article and the post, I can only think that this refers to stress release as a beneficial aspect of sex. Again, this stress release can occur through internet or phone sex, and it can certainly occur through solo masturbation. Which latter point leads me to a final thought about this claim --- that people in no relationship at all (for whatever reasons, including asexuality) would have even worse health outcomes if the claim were an accurate one. Again, unsubstantiated nonsense.

"I'm just trying to ask some questions about the impact these relationships have on our lives."

This in itself could be a basis for a good, thought-provoking post. However, by using the Slate article as the starting point (problematic in many ways, including the above), you do not appear to be approaching the issue openly or without judgment (which perhaps you did not intend to do, but have done nonetheless). Yes, in the final paragraph, you add some caveats. But you also think that "Slate has a point" and that you "couldn't agree more". If you really were just interested in raising the question without passing judgment, why did you neglect to bring up the problematic aspects of the article? Why did you not address some of the benefits to maintaining an LDR with a committed and loving partner?

While I think many of us in LDRs would be eager to discuss our decisions, and how we weighed the pros and cons, and what we think the consequences are--to our gender politics, to the environment--I (and judging from comments in this thread, many others), could hardly agree less with the approach taken by Miriam and Barron YoungSmith.

i am really amazed and disappointed by the negative responses to this article. rather than crafting thoughtful arguments about the issue, most people just said "don't attack my lifestyle! i can live the way i want to live, dangit!" reading the comments, i was repeatedly reminded of gun-totin', bible-thumpin' folks who feel the same way: "leave me alone, i ain't hurtin' no one!" but, when you really think about it, are you? are they?

most of all, i am surprised that (and admittedly i didn't wade through all the comments that began with something like "omg this is total bullshit") i saw no one--in this online community of activists--respond to the very good point that "long-distance lovers erode civic commitment and social support networks." not only do long-distance lovers do this, online communities like this one can have similar effects. the internet is a FABULOUS tool for organizing, communicating, and sharing ideas, and i would never say that people shouldn't read feministing--just as miriam didn't say people shouldn't be in LDRs. but does the time you spend on feministing, or other online communities, cut into time that you could otherwise put into local activism? and if it does, should you may be turn off the computer and head to a community meeting?

i can admit that this is definitely the case for me. i've lived in four states in the past four years; it's been hard to find the right community for me everywhere i've lived, so sometimes i find myself leaning too much on the internet for a feeling of belonging and importance. but honestly, i'd probably be better served by getting out there and meeting some real people in my own community. i may be the only one in this situation, but i doubt it. in our global, interconnected world, it's easy to gloss over important local issues in favor of concentrating on bigger national ones. the presidential election is hugely important, of course, but your state probably also has some ballot questions that are also really big. how much thought/time/activism are you devoting to those?

so... i don't know. i guess i think the local focus applies to much more than just food or LDRs. it applies to the way we live our live, and modern technology makes it easy to focus on everything but the actual community where we live. i think that's a point worth talking about.

Hi there Miriam.

I can't say I particularly care if you're reading the thoughts and reactions. I think it's time for you to be a big girl, step up and apologize for judging and upsetting a lot of people. Nobody here, as far as I can tell, has honestly attacked you any more than you attacked their choices at the beginning of the post.

I also don't care that you have a personal vendetta against LDRs. That's your business. It would be swell if you didn't drag that over here in order to impress upon us the very serious consequences of being in an LDR. People in LDRs have less sex?! You don't say!

Our personal decisions are worth discussing, sure. "Boy, LDRs sure do suck, everyone should date local" is not a good opener for a conversation. Hiding behind "the personal is political" to evade owning up to your obvious carelessness is pretty weak.

I'm alright with people at Feministing fucking up and posting something bad every so often, but the fact that you guys have the audacity to feed us this self-righteous bullshit about how you're just provoking conversation and encouraging us to examine our own lifestyles is just unbelieveable.

I don't need to be patronized, least of all by a feminist website.

Clips, you said it better than I could. I agree 100%.

When the author refers to his earth-destroying example relationship as "our two-career couple," I think it's pretty clear what this is really about, and it's not carbon emissions. I can't say I'm deeply offended by its being posted here, but the article illustrates a real obliviousness to sexism among some environmental writers (e.g., attacks on convenience food without consideration of who might be enlisted to cook all that time-consuming "slow food" that they recommend.)

Something else to bring up, what about people in local relationships who pay attention to only each other? Couples who use so much on gas to go out and do stuff together?

People in any relationship can be anti-social. If you have your lover with you, why ever leave your house? People commute every day almost sometimes to see their lover if they live in the same town, as opposed to once a week/month/etc.

Instead of just long distance relationships, why not examine relationships period? Also, how we view the importance of love and relationships is a big issue I'd say, considering the abundance of people who seem to feel that their love is irreplaceable.

Over the summer, I came into contact with an amazing girl via feministing =). She lives over a thousand miles away, but I would love to date her someday!

Most of the girls I have dated I have met off of the internet,most were of them were fairly local. I think that if two people really click, distance doesn't matter at all.

I think local is much more dangerous.(Unfortunately) most of the girls I have dated I dated so I could say I was dating someone/have someone to go to a dance with. I regret doing that and don't do it anymore. However, when you live in a small city and attend a high school with only a few hundred people you become desperate. You see all of your straight friends going out and want to fit in so you are willing to date ANY other lesbian/bisexual girl just so you can say you are dating someone.

Internet relationships have helped me because their is no peer pressure. My friends never see/talk to the girl and therefore I can just go with my feelings. If I don't like someone anymore, I can just shut down the IM screen instead of hanging onto the relationship for a couple more months due to peer pressure.

As far as I know, all my high school friends dated local. Many (most) were dating their current husbands/wives in high school. And that worked out for them. Fine.

I never dated anyone in high school and barely took an interest in 99.9% of my classmates. This continued into college and so on, but over the years I've developed pretty close bonds with people who I met ... on ... the internet. The guy I'm into now is someone who I first met on the internet. Fortunately we live close enough to meet, but we both have these things called jobs and differing schedules that prevent us from seeing very much of each other, and teenytiny living spaces that prevent us from getting much private time.

The carbon footprint point is ... whatever. I don't care. But the other points about mental and physical health are pretty stupid. I get a lot of mental and physical satisfaction just knowing that there's a human being on the other end of the phone who wants to spend 20 seconds of their day firing off a text message. Counting the days until you see them again? Well, as it is we can see each other once every couple of weeks. MAYBE every week if we're lucky. And remember, we are NOT in an LDR.

But we're adults and we understand that that's life and when you like someone, you make that time you CAN spend together count rather than opting to settle for less just to be able to spend more time with someone. Quality, not quantity.

Again, I meant no offense to those in LDRs and the Slate article, as well as my coverage of it, were meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

I love the phrase 'tongue-in-cheek'. In approximately 95% of the contexts in which it's used, it means "I'm going to say something rude and hurtful, and then when I offend someone, I'm going to hide behind the claim that I didn't really mean it after all". Fail.

This is not a new problem for the editors at Feministing. We often talk about how it's the posts that touch on (but particularly offer a critical perspective) on personal decisions that get the most heated opposition from all of you. You get personally offended, we get personally attacked.

If the author actually thinks that the comments posted here constitute 'personal attacks', she is either deluding herself, or hasn't been on the internet very long.

I just use this forum to share thought-provoking articles and other things I see and find. I like starting conversations (even controversies) but they are not always productive.

If this type of "But I was just trying to start a debate!" excuse-making had been posted by a random commenter, the moderators and/or other commenters would identify it for the trollish behaviour that it is.

I will say it one more time: Miriam, your post is poorly phrased, judgmental, patronising, and has no place on a feminist blog. This is an unhelpful way to discuss the issue of the impact of travel on the environment, and your flippant treatment of the importance of LDRS to some people has actively hurt and offended women. Since you either don't understand this or don't care, I am finished with reading your contributions to this blog.

I haven't read the other comments yet, but I'm really disappointed with this post. Really, really disappointed.

Okay, I've skimmed through the comment thread, and I only have one thing to add:

"Lighten up"/"you're taking this too seriously"/etc are sexist things to say to a group of upset women, because they have been historically used to marginalize women's issues. Own the context.

Miriam, I believe you when you say that you just wanted to start a conversation. But instead of writing a post to start a conversation, you wrote a flippant, glib dismissal of a very touchy, very important subject. You didn't reflect on your own assumptions or those of the article. You refer to "some people" who have had functional LDRs as if they are the exception and hardly worth considering. Maybe not your intent, but there it is.

I, for the record, have never been in a functional LDR. Given the option, I would not be in one ever again. However, and this is one thing that the post ignores and that many, many commenters have called out, LDRs aren't usually about options. Given our druthers, MOST of us would opt to be in a relationship with someone we could spend face-to-face time with on a regular basis. Not all of us, of course, but the post (I didn't bother reading the article, because, really?) puts it out there as if there's this entire class of people shunning the outside world in favor of an AIM relationship. No recognition that people move for school or jobs or whatever other reason. No acknowledgement of small-town life, which can make it difficult to find someone to date, especially for the queer community. No examination of the topic at all.

As for the carbon footprint: I have a ridiculously larger footprint commuting to my job three times a week in heavy traffic than I would flying across the country to see a hypothetical significant other a few times a year. The quoted sections of the article, and the post's unqualified acceptance of them (you "couldn't agree more"?) places a huge burden on the shoulders of certain people that may or may not be justified. Say I fly three times a year, and he flies three. That's six flights, out of thousands. There are dozens of people on each plane, and the plane is going to take off whether I'm on it or not. I wouldn't completely absolve us of contribution to environmental harm, but in this case it's hardly worth singling us out for shame, especially without some serious acknowledgements (like, maybe that flight is the beginning of a week where my car doesn't get driven at all).

But the most insulting thing is that the environmental argument is really a straw man, and a bad one, at that. It's a way to justify the article's - and the post's - unapologetic dismissal of something the author(s) doesn't like. If there were an article (and I'm sure there have been, and I'm sure this site has highlighted some of them) about how women in the workplace are bad for the environment, it would be excoriated for what it is: sexist tripe. This article may or may not be sexist (again, I didn't read it), but it is certainly prejudiced and was written to place blame. That you didn't notice that, Miriam, and that you sanctioned and even praised the blame, is disappointing. It's more disappointing that you continue to defend the post as "tongue-in-cheek," even after dozens and dozens of commenters have expressed offense. Your refusal to make even a non-apology apology ("I'm sorry people didn't like what I said") suggests to me that you did mean many of the implications that have been brought up. In which case you should own them, and stop hiding behind "tongue-in-cheek."

Sustaining an LDR seems very romantic and easy to manage in college, but once you get a little older, the drawbacks become much more pronounced, and your ability to believe that you'll never, ever meet someone nearby that you could love degrades. There's always an end game in an LDR. You will face a point in the future where you either break up or move in together, and if you've become invested in the One True Love concept, it seems like you should give up something you love, be it your job or city or circle of friends, for this guy. (And most of the time, I suspect it will be the woman who does this---I'd say that 90% of the time, I've seen relationships separated by geographic distance resolved because the woman sacrifices her home so he can keep his.) After a few bumps along the path, it becomes much easier to believe that you can be happy with a number of men, and that the solution is to pick one who has all the good qualities with a minimum amount of baggage, like, for instance, living far away.

And lest I get accused of being "anti-feminist" for pissing on people's romantic fantasies, let me reiterate: The fantasy that you have One True Love and that you should put up with any amount of headaches to keep him, including years invested in a LDR, tends to benefit men at women's expense. In the end, he'll get to keep his house, job, and friends, and she'll be the one who justifies the years in the LDR moving in with him and being isolated. Been there, done that, saw it for what it was.

@ Amanda:

Thanks! I didn't think we had enough sweeping generalizations in this post! I'm sure that the visitors to this feminist website will not give any consideration at all to cultural expectations for women and sacrifice within their relationships when making big decisions about their life. Boy, it sure is a good thing that you're here to babysit.

I especially like how you added that little buffer against criticism. Did you realize that you said something anti-feminist, or are you just trying to pre-empt valid criticism? Do you genuinely believe that people taking you to task for being anti-feminist are doing so because you're interfering with our "romantic fantasies?"

Thanks for your faux concern. I think your time would be better spent educating fat people on how they're obviously very unhealthy and hiking health costs for everyone, or examining the sexism and hassle that's obviously inherent in poly relationships to discourage people from having them.

@ Maggie F

I agree completely about the straw man. You didn't even factor in the carbon footpring of local couples going on trips and driving back and forth to eachother's houses. Half an hour away is hardly considered an LDR, but if you're going there and back every night it starts to add up, doesn't it?

The "health" and sex concerns are also complete straw men. You could say the same thing about single women and write an argument about the perils of not having a boyfriend. I'm sure that would make it onto feministing with a much different tone.

>>

Ah. Lovely. Because as long as *you* get to do what *you* want, who cares if everyone else pays for it?

Never thought being a feminist meant being selfish, hurtful, short-sighted and exclusionary. I thought that was the Republicans' job.

In there, I quoted the above commenter who wrote, "The carbon footprint point is...whatever. I don't care."

"...a lot of you have referenced me directly."

Yeah. Because you wrote the post.

"I wonder if simply adding a question mark to the title of this post would have made a difference to some of you."

No. People putting question marks around their opinions ("Is it okay with you guys if I think this?") is something I tend to find annoying.

"Again, I meant no offense to those in LDRs..."

Hm. I have to wonder what possible response you thought you'd get from them.

At any rate, there's an old communications rule that you're ignoring: the only message that matters is the one received.

"...and the Slate article, as well as my coverage of it, were meant to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek."

"Tongue-in-cheek" refers to a form of irony in which you are saying the exact opposite of what you mean. That's not what you were doing.

"Like I mentioned in my comment above, my perspective on this comes from my own experience in an LDR. Not everything on feministing, but much of it, comes from personal experience."

Your "personal experiences" and the recommendations you make for others as a result of them are not political issues and should not be framed as such or used as the basis for a posting on a political website about what feminists should be doing. Social policies, such as those advocated by social justice movement, are a matter of prescription and requirement and must be kept separate from people's personal ideas about the pursuit of happiness, otherwise you are on the slippery slope to authoritarianism.

"This is not a new problem for the editors at Feministing. We often talk about how it's the posts that touch on (but particularly offer a critical perspective) on personal decisions that get the most heated opposition from all of you. You get personally offended, we get personally attacked."

I expect other feminists to stay out of my personal life, as I stay out of theirs. I expect feminism to be about freedom, not about discussing what choices we all "should" be making.

"I do think there is something to be said for the phrase "the personal is political."

The phrase "personal is political" refers to how politics affect people's daily living, particularly when they intrude into personal lives - it is NOT a mantra that gives us carte blanche to be politically prescriptive about personal choices or to condone those who do.

"Our personal decisions do matter, and have an impact on our lives as a whole."

Yes. And the sky is blue. And neither of these are arguments for why it's okay to tell people how to live their lives.

"I'm not here to tell you who to date, or how."

But you did exactly that. The fact that you didn't do it in explicit, direct terms doesn't change that fact.

"I just use this forum to share thought-provoking articles and other things I see and find. I like starting conversations (even controversies) but they are not always productive."

I wonder, if I point out that you are obviously insinuating that this discussion of your post has not been productive, will you respond with "I didn't say that"?

"I know it makes me think twice before posting about these topics, since I have to prepare myself for these types of reactions."

I wish you were saying, "I should think twice about making posts where I talk about the sorts of relationships I think people should and shouldn't have, because that's the same sort of controlling crap that I'm devoted to fighting in other people." But instead, you're threatening to take your ball and go home because people are getting angry with you.

"Anyways, just to let all of you know that I am reading your thoughts and reactions."

But not, apparently, re-examining anything you've written as a result of it.

Apparently Scarlett is right - feminists should never say anything in a joking or tongue-in-cheek manner. Feminism is not for those with a sense of humor. Feminists cannot be challenged in any way without becoming hysterical and launching bitter, personal attacks on those who dared to disagree with them. This I can tell you from my outside perspective, being a "bad feminist" and all.

No Miriam, I don't think you should apologize and "take it all back." History shows that apologies do nothing to appease lynch mobs. An apology only serves to convince the mob that they were justified all along.

Rachel_in_WY:

Personally, I don't believe that it's useful to label anyone as a 'bad feminist', and I'm genuinely sorry if you have been made to feel marginalised by people who do.

However, please note that I am not suggesting that feminists should never say anything in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I am arguing that Miriam is falling into the depressingly familiar rhetorical error of saying something quite stupid and offensive, and then crying 'tongue-in-cheek!' whenever someone has the temerity to question it. If copying and pasting large slabs of text verbatim from slate.com with the statement 'I couldn't agree more' appended counts as irony among the kids these days, I tremble for the future of the human race.

Finally, belittling women's concerns by describing them as 'hysterical' is one of the oldest anti-feminist tricks in the book, and frankly, it's become a little boring. Try harder next time plz?

Wow, I'm shocked and appalled by the viciousness of the comments in this thread. It seems like a lot of people

I'm not sure when it became appropriate to personally attack someone for their personal opinion and demand an apology because someone has an opinion you don't agree with instead of saying "hey, I disagree with you, and here my perspective why."

What makes me even more sad is that this thread, this sort of ridiculous, tongue-in-cheek, joking, lighthearted post has gotten 157 replies and counting, while Miriam's post about Kenyon Farrow and the T Don Hutto detention center got six replies.

So hey, all of y'all that have this seeming excess of righteous, personal attacks against Miriam, why don't you save those misguided personal attacks and get furious about women being illegally detained in a prison camp where all of their outgoing 911 calls are blocked.

Yes, Scarlett, I'm familiar with all the anti-feminist tricks, as well as the labels that opponents of feminism apply to us. We cover these in the history portion of the Feminist Theory course I teach. The thing is, I've never actually seen feminists live up to them before. Believe me, my words were carefully chosen. But I was being sarcastic and snarky, and for that I apologize.

It's frustrating to me when so many people jump on the bandwagon of personally attacking a poster or commenter rather than taking issue with what they said. Then when a few calmer voices suggest that this would be a more productive way of dealing with the situation, they're attacked as well. Generally speaking, this didn't used to be the kind of atmosphere here at Feministing, but it seems to be the new trend. Maybe it simply reflects the maturity level of the commenters, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, or maybe it's just due to the intensity of emotion surrounding the topic at hand. Whatever the case may be, I'm done with this thread. Good luck, Miriam.

Wow, I'm shocked and appalled by the viciousness of the comments in this thread.

Ahahahahaha

I'm not sure when it became appropriate to personally attack someone for their personal opinion and demand an apology because someone has an opinion you don't agree with instead of saying "hey, I disagree with you, and here my perspective why."

Plenty of people have done that.

Also? This is not a smart statement to be making a political website that picks apart people's opinions with a great deal more viciousness on a regular basis.

What makes me even more sad is that this thread, this sort of ridiculous, tongue-in-cheek, joking, lighthearted post has gotten 157 replies and counting, while Miriam's post about Kenyon Farrow and the T Don Hutto detention center got six replies.

So hey, all of y'all that have this seeming excess of righteous, personal attacks against Miriam, why don't you save those misguided personal attacks and get furious about women being illegally detained in a prison camp where all of their outgoing 911 calls are blocked.

1) Are you new to the internet?
2) Who are you to tell me where I should be posting and what I am and am not allowed to get furious about?

It's amazing how fast people on this website have resorted to inherently anti-feminist defenses.

"Your tone is too angry, it's insulting!"
"Calm down, you guys, it's not a big deal!"
"Don't you have anything better to do?"
"Can't you take a joke?"
"I was just trying to provoke discussion, you don't have to attack me for it."

Feministing staff has never been very graceful with criticism, but I have to wonder if you're even trying anymore.

And for the record, Maggie and Clips, a straw man argument is a pathetic and inaccurate portrayal of your opponent's position that is then easily defeated. Given this definition, it can't be applied to someone's own argument. If their position is weak, then it's weak, but it's not a straw man.

sigh.

It's been a while since I've paid attention to the comments...
They now sadden me. Basic human courtesy is lacking here. YOU choose to come visit this blog written by intelligent, strong women. If you do not agree with something they have said, you are free to state that and enter into a dialogue with them and/or others.
You are not free to personally attack them or demand they apologise for stating something that you disagree with/may have not wanted to hear.
Oh, and please stop throwing around "anti-feminist". It's overused, vague and circularly insulting.

rant over.

Now, the slate article: rubbish. I may have been willing to listen, but they went down the carbon footprint path. Now, I take conscious steps to live a life that has as a low impact. However, "carbon footprint" is one of those pesky buzz words that no one fully understands. How we live our lives and the impact it has globally (and locally) is convoluted and elaborate. It is not as simple as calculating kgs of carbon dioxide.

(On a personal note, LDRs suck. I did Japan-Oregon for just over a year. Never again. My sympathies for those still in them.)

this blog post struck a chord with me too. I spent a year and a half in a relationship with someone who was first 90 miles away and then 1500 miles away. when she was 90 miles away, we would spend every other weekend in the other's town and the work week was full of longing and sadness - like I was just waiting for the next weekend when we could be together again. when she moved 1500 miles away, we spent hours on the phone everyday. the bottom line: I wasn't getting what I needed. I needed intimacy, spontaneity, the experience of an in-town girlfriend (which I'd never really had). eventually she moved to my town but her itchy feet never let her settle in and we broke up.

now, 7 years later, I recently got out of a live-in, abusive relationship and decided I really wanted the space of an open LDR. I wanted to know I could stand on my own two feet (including not need to be one half of a couple to feel complete or like I fit in in my couple-obsessed community), invest in my friendships, create home, and focus on my career without the intense emotional demands of a local relationship. finding someone in another town to participate in this hasn't been easy, but one has stuck and it's actually working really well.

and that point about sex - believe me, I know plenty of couples who live in the same town or in the same house who have way less sex than I do with my sexual partner(s) living hundreds of miles away.

Okay, so I see where the article is coming from, however, I would have to agree with the rest of the posters here. Umm I think the article and the post was bullshit. Not to mention, that there was not mention of LDRs that aren't exactly voluntary. Like deployment. My husband and I have been in a LDR for the last fifteen months. I'm in the States, he's in Iraq. I think that the next time someone posts something like this and wants to give advice about the effects of ldr's they need to remember those of us in the military that don't have the option of just moving, or leaving the house. My husband and I primarily communicate through the computer and webcam. So, if I decide to take a week off for the computer for the environments sake, I don't talk to my husband, who is in a warzone, for a week. Soo...Miriam, next time you post something like this, keep us military folk in mind. We don't always have the kind of options you mentioned.

This argument is correct, however it assumes that you can always find the partner of your dream can be found locally instead of far away - this is all a very straight forward theory but not very realistic in my opinion. I have met my girlfriend in Australia when I was living in Spain, and we had to be in a LDR for 1 year and I flew there once and she did too. I am sorry for the environment but I can guarantee you that I don't regret that choice! And when you read stories of other couples in LDRs http://www.waiit.com/testimonials/testimonials.php?mn=tmls I am sure that they would not agree with your argument. So I would say - it is important to keep this in mind but should not necessarily means no LDR at all. And I am sure that you actually save petrol in the long run by not driving to each other's place, work, etc everyday...

"if we have a local food movement, why not a date local movement?"

I don't know if this was supposed to be funny or thought-provoking but I found it neither. What a horrible comparison. Food and people - you just can't put them together like that....

I am a student and I have been involved in Two long distance relationships. The first, obviously, did not work out. That does not mean that I didn't have extremely valuable life experiences with this person. My second most wonderful boyfriend and I lived over 1800 miles apart for quite some time, the mileage changed multiple times.

But what I want to stress is this article makes it sound like people in LDRs are frantically awaiting the next time they see their SO. Not so. While of course you experience longing and some heartache not being able to share experiences, I think it is a valuable experience to live more than a jump in the car away. It makes you assess your relationship, its importance to your life, and your willingness to make sacrifices for someone else, and most of all yourself.

It seems incredibly selfish to me to "date locally" for convenience sake. And how selfish are our genitals??

But I get the point, I really do, and it's something that we should consider when we make the decision to stay together over long distances. I definitely think some people are too hopeful and end up crashing, but on the other hand, some people know they can pull off.

I read the original article and thought it was ridiculous, and I read this post and thought it was also ridiculous, especially coming from Feminsting! It's just illogical. Why not just stay in your hometown for college? Or a job? Why move away from home at all if it'll increase your environmental footprint trying to visit your family on weekends or holidays? Because moving away is opportunity, for independence and for growing and improving your life, and because you have the right to choose where you want to go and how you want to live. How is dating any different? I think the fact that long distance DATING was singled out especially is that so many people have had bad experiences with it and incredibly averse to them now. But there's plenty of people with successful, happy (albeit difficult, of course - like any relationship) LDRs. Mine is one of them.

At first when I read the article, I felt like I related to it. This is because I had one significant LDR and I went through what the post mentioned - depression, always spending time traveling back and forth instead of meeting people in my new town which made my social network of female friends plummet, etc. However, as I started to read the comments and the thoughts of those who are having or have had successful LDRs, I realized that the reason why I went through the negative impacts of my LDR is because of the person I chose to be in the LDR with. He was not really a good match for me. There are parts of him that were perfect for me, and that's what I loved about him. But there were other parts that were not compatible to the kind of relationship I needed. He wasn't good on the phone, he was lazy (so I was doing twice the traveling he was), and even though he tried, he didn't always understand me (and vice-versa). So, I think after having read both sides of the issue, I think the article is B.S. It seems if you are experiencing the negative side of a LDR to the extent the article discusses, you probably shouldn't be in an LDR or you shouldn't be with the person you are in the LDR with. LDRs are not for everyone! But if it's with the right person, and both parties can weather the storms that come with LDRs, then I don't see what's wrong with them! That's the reason I don't agree with the generalization of the article about LDRs. LDRs in and of themselves are not necessarily good or bad. It depends on the people and the situation. And, on that note, feminists of all people should know the dangers of generalizations, so boo for that.

I am new to this site and found the comments very interesting. As a Second Wave feminist (1970's) I am astonished that so many comments stated that it is not feminist to tell people what kind of relationships to avoid. A huge theme in feminism in the 1970s was encouraging women not to stay in abusive relationships. Another huge theme was that women often suffered consequences for relationships where there was a power differential, such as sleeping with a professor, psychiatrist, or boss. Yet another type of relationship that was critiqued and discouraged was sleeping with married men because it was thought unfeminist for women to take part in deceiving other women. These themes may be out of date now but they were central to public and private feminist dialogue about relationships. So from my old timer point of view, it's weird to see that feminism means that you can't tell somebody what kind of relationships to seek or avoid. Learning to critique our personal relationships in terms of power structures, privilege, and stereotypes was a valuable lesson for many of us back then. Feminism offers a different set of criteria than the patriarchal model. In the old days there were hotly contested relationship issues such as s/m that are still contested today, but the arguments were about different feminist perspectives, not about whether it was feminist to critique relationships.

Airfares are much becoming expensive nowadays. These times, people are looking for the cheapest ways to money, time and effort. Talking about avoiding these hassles when planning for travels, you might want to check out the website, SideStep. SideStep will not teach you to run like Shane Williams, but it can help you find cheap airfare. SideStep is pretty easy – you just enter in the starting and ending destinations. It gives you a calendar of days and the cheap flights on those days. If you don't believe them, that's fine – they'll give you Hotwire, Orbitz, and Priceline rates all alongside each other for you to see it yourself. (That's right, you doubting Thomases.) You can also look at car rentals and hotels, too. For those looking to travel and be economical and not have to get personal loans to go on vacation, SideStep could be the tool you need.

, I would have to agree with the rest of the posters here. Umm I think the article and the post was bullshit. Not to mention, that there was not mention of LDRs that aren't exactly voluntary. Like deployment. My husband and I have been in a LDR for the last fifteen months. I'm in the States, he's in Iraq. I think that the next time someone posts something like this and wants to give advice about the effects of ldr's they need to remember those of us in the military that don't have the option of just moving, or leaving the house.