Charlie Sheen is a serial abuser of women, as Anna Holmes argued persuasively in the New York Times earlier this week. As Holmes wrote, his current two live-in partners are “disposable,” not least because they are presumed golddiggers who tarnished their virtue in sex work. I don’t care if they’re only with Sheen for the money, fame, and drugs. We should be worried for these women’s lives. Sheen’s “goddesses” (his word) are living 24/7 with a control freak with a long record of domestic violence charges and no discernable ties to reality.
Despite his evident break-up with the reality-based world, Sheen appears to have his two partners in thrall. That gives even more cause for concern. A People Magazine story portrayed the women’s relationships with him as downright Stepford-ish.
“I’ve always felt that a man should be able to be with as many women as he likes,” says Rachel Oberlin, 24, one of Sheen’s two live-in girlfriends. “I’ve never had the opportunity to share that with any man before because, honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever been with a man who was even deserving of that.”
Consenting adults can order their households however they like. But what’s good for the gander ought to be good for the goose – yet here, it only the gander has the privilege of multiple partners. My understanding of ethical polyamory is that it’s based on equality, not hierarchy and paternalism. That’s the exact opposite of how Sheen describes his relationships to People Magazine quotes:
“They don’t judge me,” Sheen repeated. “They don’t lead with opinion. They don’t lead with their own needs all the time. They’re honest enough to tell me, ‘Hey, look, you – you know, park your nonsense. You gotta help me solve this.’ And we solve it.”
When it comes to household decisions, he said, “Everybody’s vote has equal importance. But when we’re approaching crisis, I remind them, ‘Look, I’m 22 years further down the road … my plan is gonna be the best one in the room. So, just trust me on that and everybody will win. Everybody will win and everybody’s needs will be taken care of.”
This is creepy, coming from a guy with a history of physically hurting women. What happens if a goddess dares to express an opinion? The old brick in the face, a la ancient Mesopotamia?
Patriarchy isn’t dead. It has just moved to Hollywood and allegedly developed an epic coke habit. (“For the win!” as Sheen might say.)
Also, the idea of Charlie Sheen as a problem solver and crisis mananger (???!!!) would be hilarious, if he were living in a universe occupied solely by the body and ego of Charlie Sheen. As it is, someone stands to get hurt.
Nonetheless, it’s Caturday, so let’s not just soberly criticize Sheen’s behavior. Let’s mock him, too! (Yes, I know he needs help. He’s making too much money off of not seeking it that mockery is perfectly fair.)
There’s lots more Sheen-y cattiness at the blog Medium Large – check it out. (Thanks to Lisa Simeone for the tip!)
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
“But what’s good for the gander ought to be good for the goose – yet here, it only the gander has the privilege of multiple partners. My understanding of ethical polyamory is that it’s based on equality, not hierarchy and paternalism”
Polygynie is an old form of polyamory.
A lot of women like strong men. If it is fun for them to share, but not for him, why shouldn´t they agree on this form of life?
Christian, the operative word is “old” – as in, ancient. Polygyny has historically been enforced by violence – the brick to the face cited above, which was a real punishment in ancient Mesopotamia, the cradle of patriarchy.
Agreeing to multiple partners (in whatever configuration) would require freedom from violence or its threat. Given Sheen’s history of violence against women, can we really suppose that’s the case here?
Also, there’s a mammoth difference between liking a strong man and wanting to share him!
“Given Sheen’s history of violence against women, can we really suppose that’s the case here?”
What lets you think they are not doing it out of free will? Just his history of violence? They can go away anytime they want and they could even sell “Charlie Sheen – how violent he treated me” Stories and make some money.
There is a difference between liking a strong men and wanting to share him – but both can go hand in hand. Getting two women to share you can even be a sign of a strong man.
And i am pretty sure Bree Olson sleeps with other men – it is her job isn`t it?
This isn’t about how many people each person in the triad is sleeping with – I do not know if Rachel Oberlin is still making films (my impression was that she’s not, but it’s not really relevant). I do not whether Sheen is still hiring escorts.
What matters here is the sense of entitlement expressed in Oberlin’s quotation.
I have no doubt that the “goddesses” entered freely into their relationships with Sheen. I assume the same for his former partners. People often delude themselves that a person has “changed.” “Oh, he’ll be different with me … it’s just that his ex was such a shrew!” There’s a powerful cultural narrative that says women can – and should – fix “their” men. It’s the stock in trade of Harlequein novels. Of course this is delusional in most cases.
But you can freely enter a relationship, yet have difficulty leaving when it turns south. This goes doubly for relationships that become abusive and violent.