http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14090666 Comments On: Savage Love by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 22:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss I didn't know any 'out' LGB youth in highschool, but I was really good friends with a group of gay/bi fellows in college. They completely changed my sex life (for the better) by helping me to understand what girls might perceive about me as sexy or attractive. It gave me confidence, know-how, and support all in an environment that wasn't as stressful as being in a group of women can seen. Not to mention that my friends helped me network with all kinds of open-minded women around campus. Win-win!
Now of course not all gay/bi men are going to be the same as my college buddies, but perhaps visiting your local LGBT center might just be great for you. I know it sure changed my college experience!
Posted by Cleverjohnbull]]> Sat, 29 Sep 2012 22:03:22 -0700 The Stranger Posted by turtlemilk]]> Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:14:49 -0700 The Stranger Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:02:43 -0700 The Stranger 1. I got started getting to know people who seemed interesting during freshman orientation week. You're around people who like you don't know anybody and may be away from home for the first time in their lives.

2. I treated every woman (and every guy for that matter) I met as a human being worthy of respect regardless of whether I wanted to sleep with them. That meant that if a prospective partner asked their friends about me, they would get a favorable answer.

3. I did my schoolwork during the day on weekdays. If you diligently work from 9 AMish to 5 PMish Mon-Fri, you'll have lots of time available in the evenings and weekends to have fun.

4. I kept myself reasonably neat and clean.

5. I usually made moves only on gals who had demonstrated that they at the very least wanted to spend a great deal of quality time with me, and specifically me rather than somebody.

6. I got the heck out of my dorm room as much as possible. You aren't going to meet many people there.
Posted by Thexalon]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:44:34 -0700 The Stranger
sissoucat seems like a nice lady but whenever I read her opinions on marriage/parenthood my brain makes this dialtone noise and I have to stop. As unfair as I think her views are I assume the only applies them to herself and doesn't advocate for anyone else to follow them.

Or was that assumption a defense mechanism.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:40:41 -0700 The Stranger "If a specific female agrees to have the children she'll give birth to raised by a specific male, that should be enough of a commitment, and sexual exclusivity on both parts shouldn't be asked for."

That is perhaps the most naively self-serving thing I've read in a long time. Translation: "I, the female, graciously agree to allow you, the male, to shoulder a substantial portion of the financial, logistical, and other burdens resulting from my reproductive choices -- even the ones that didn't involve you. See how magnanimous I am?"

The thing about the current system remains that men are held responsible for the children they create. (This is not a problem in itself, but it poses problems when trying to treat paternity cavalierly, as sissoucat proposes.) If a man creates a child with another woman, his resources are forcibly garnished to pay for the support of that child. Those are resources that could have been used within the family. Thus the wife has as much incentive to require fidelity from her husband (so as to not dilute his ability to provide for her children) as he has to require fidelity from her (so as to not be forcibly held responsible for choices he had nothing to do with).

If you want a system where sexual exclusivity is not required, it should include two things: 1) absolute establishment of paternity by test, to avoid false paternity, and b) highly reliable birth control, where the default state is (temporary) sterility and people must actively choose to turn on their reproductive capability.

Posted by avast2006]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:33:18 -0700 The Stranger
I agree that it is wrong to expect monogamy and then cheat. That is another form of trying to have it both ways. Both sexes are guilty of this, however. I do agree that the social opprobrium directed at women who cheat is probably higher than for men. I suspect this leads to under-reporting, rather than truly decreased rates of cheating for women. I disagree that it's not a big deal when the man strays, especially if a child results from the union. His punishment is called child support. (Unfortunately this punishes the entire family, in that it takes a portion of his resources and forcibly directs them elsewhere.) Even when there is no extramarital pregnancy, women routinely throw philandering husbands out on their ear. Perhaps this is less common in France, but in America it is the standard response.

If you want paternity to not matter, you have to be prepared to go all the way: either making all paternity voluntary, or making it all compulsory. I.e, paternity test at birth as a matter of routine, and the genetically identified father responsible for the child support. People might be a little less upset by an extramarital child if if meant additional income, and nobody would feel that they were being taken unfair advantage of. People might also be a bit more careful to not get pregnant in the first place, knowing that they were 100% sure to be exposed the day after delivery.


Posted by avast2006]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:25:27 -0700 The Stranger
Fair enough. I meant at least that my advice was helpful (believe me - being well dressed makes a HUGE difference in most settings, to a degree that men seldom realize) in a concrete practical way.

@ cute

Thanks
Posted by mydriasis]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:28:28 -0700 The Stranger
First off, I have never at any point claimed to have studied feminist theory.

In the end, I'm happier someone who seems so confused about feminism and feminists doesn't identify as one.

Exactly.


Posted by mydriasis]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 05:17:19 -0700 The Stranger
@308 cockyballsup - Your dating difficulties echo #49 comment that "There's a sweet spot age range for getting laid in the hetero male life - it's somewhere around 25-40" - although I gather that you're gay ? Either way, I'm sympathetic.

I'm also coming to the end of my "sweet spot age" - but guess what, men who are out of their prime years suddenly find me very desirable, because no young thing is interested in them anymore, and I have a lot more success now with somewhat older men than I've ever had with my age peers when I was 20. Go figure.
Posted by sissoucat]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 03:08:35 -0700 The Stranger
Well, since you ask, I don't have much opinion on the feminist label - either I didn't pay much attention to them, or French feminists are less vocal than American ones.

I consider myself as somehow feminist, without claiming the label - I advocate for a better sexual awareness for girls, for them to know they should have orgasms too, and cunnilingui come standard, and to stop settling for meh sex just because they're "in love" and it would hurt the guy's feelings so much to realize that he's a bore in bed. So I'm for equal sexual pleasure and equal house chores.

On a further note, I consider that marriage (and the associated fidelity) is an oppressive contract, invented by males, and only catering to their, in my opinion, desperate and excessive desire to be genetically related to the children born out of the females (excessive because a newborn child is a miracle to be treasured, and either you're its genetic mother if it's come out of your body, or you're its adoptive mother/father if it's not).

Proof of that marriage is a ploy for genetic fathering is that traditionally the man ends up straying and it's no big deal, but the woman mustn't stray or else she's strongly punished.

Trying to rob the female's intrinsic and biological right to choose the genetic father of her offsprings, by direly limiting her sexual experience, while at the same time refusing to limit one's sexual experience, is very wrong. It's males using females as baby-making cattle. We are not.

If a specific female agrees to have the children she'll give birth to raised by a specific male, that should be enough of a commitment, and sexual exclusivity on both parts shouldn't be asked for.

I don't know if those points of view could be considered as feminist - they stem from my bad marriage experience, and for my deep interest in finding a stabler social structure in which children could be raised by two strongly united parents. Too often bad sex, mismatched sex drives or cheating sex results in the "exclusive marriage" exploding.

At this point of my reflexion, I think getting fidelity and genetical fathering out of the way could make "parental marriages" stable enough for raising the kids.
Posted by sissoucat]]> Tue, 10 Jul 2012 02:53:14 -0700 The Stranger As for "lowering your standards"... I think this is perhaps being misstated. I don't think that anyone is stating that someone should date people they find unattractive just to get laid. I think the spirit (if not the letter) of what is being said, is that maybe standards should be reexamined. Sometimes, by creating a large number of standards to meet, you can miss out on someone amazing. And for some people that's fine. But by being willing to talk to people that may not meet standards at first glance, you can find they have qualities you didn't realize you were looking for.
Posted by KateRose]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 22:09:47 -0700 The Stranger
Mydriasis, EricaP, Eirene, Eva Hopkins, nocutename, Sissoucat, BLackRose, KateRose, et. al....any further comments on modern day feminism?

Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 22:06:05 -0700 The Stranger
@ Mydriasis: I don't think I misunderstood your comment, so we have two options: either I'm too daft to follow you, or you're still unaware that you are unaware. Doesn't really matter. You're fighting a war on several fronts here and I'd hate to be a further drain on your resources.

I flipped through your comments and find that your original advice is indeed helpful and encouraging--the whole re-inventing yourself thing--and comments you've made about sex before (I lurk most other days) strike me as the sort of healthy, supportive stuff impressionable guys would do well to take to heart. All the comments on this thread about becoming the best person you can be, building self-pride, developing interests, becoming someone who is attractive in a deeper sense, all that is good stuff, as is trying for a real connection with women rather than faking it or smooth-talking or trying to play some kind of transparent game. But I was finding that they're all very idealistic and, dare I say it, female-typical bits of advice that show a lack of awareness of some of the more specific problems that jay5 covered in such admirable detail. That was also the reason for my (unnecessarily snarky) comment about your enviably active sex life in high school. And the helpful, supportive, but slighly unaware and unintentionally contradictory advice was also the reason for my own original post.

I'll leave it there. Good work, team. I think we got a lot accomplished here today.
Posted by LateBloomer]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:59:34 -0700 The Stranger
Believe me or not, as you choose.

I do think that your anti-feminist professions aren't well defended, but I'm not angry.
Posted by nocutename]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:53:54 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Eirene]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:09:20 -0700 The Stranger Seems to me you are very concerned with not fitting the backlash definition of a feminist.

Guess you want a pat on the head? Are some women more valuable than other women?

"Except I honestly am not focused on changing my culture's gender rules very much at all."

WTF? How does that mesh with this statement at @317:
"I care a lot about feminist issues in Turkey, the DRC, South Africa and other countries with human rights problems, and I care about the issues that feminism originally emerged to face, but I don't really care about the vast majority of what pops up on, say, Jezebel."

Where do "[women's] human rights 'problems'" stem from in these magically different places in other parts of the world? I clarified that as "women's human rights" because your context is feminism.

Just. What? Also, I've lived in some of these places you've mentioned and you know what? They have much more severely sexist advertisements...to top off more severe (women's) human rights infractions. It's all a part of the same spectrum and the same patriarchal cultural stem. I don't understand where this mystical moment of separation comes from for you to be so obtusely indifferent to their relativity.

There is no cohesion of thought in your posts, I'm trying to follow, I really am.
Posted by femwanderluster]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:57:32 -0700 The Stranger You don't acknowledge or understand what "objectification" is. On that basis alone, I question the depth and length of your feminist theory study.

Kick me in the ovaries, but you must be young.

Anecdotes do not equal fact or data. The 'I have two friends who say this and others say this so here's my conclusion' is shallow, as is this statement from you:

"One of my other issues is that the most vocal feminists (as chimera noted above) seem really focused on the small ways that sexism affects white, upper middle class women and not the HUGE ways that sexism affects other women. "Waahh, that ad was sexist! Woe is me!" "

You should look into kyriarchy and intersectionality; sure, a sexist advertisement doesn't carry the same weight as does genital mutilation, but they exist in the same world, on the same spectrum. They are related. Trust. And none of us exist in a vacuum. You could just as well say that none of your personal problems matter because you're a privileged American and there are starving people elsewhere. The point is it is not zero-sum. Caring about one does not discount the other. Also it's a straw argument. Why ever care about anything, then? Not to mention, you are discounting a huge swathe of VERY vocal VERY active feminists in the US and abroad who are actually, you know, using their lives to change shit. "Woe [are we, indeed.]" Here, I've found your tiny violin, go ahead and play.

In the end, I'm happier someone who seems so confused about feminism and feminists doesn't identify as one.
Posted by femwanderluster]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:43:16 -0700 The Stranger Posted by mydriasis]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:37:30 -0700 The Stranger
You compare people to a bigoted, hateful, ignorant talk radio host and overall force for evil when you're not angry?

What do you call people when you are angry? Haha.

But thanks you for respecting my choice to decide whether I agree enough with a movement to identify with it.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:36:52 -0700 The Stranger Your definition of feminism is so very far from what I've experienced or understand contemporary feminism to be. But you have a right to not want to call yourself a feminist.
Posted by nocutename]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:27:27 -0700 The Stranger
Though the explicit party line of feminism is this:

http://did-you-kno.tumblr.com/post/71204… (which is nice)

the "size zero is an abomination" mindset creeps aruond in the background, still.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:13:34 -0700 The Stranger Another big complaint about the media is body image stuff. It's really popular to bash skinny women

I agree, but for me it was in specifically feminist places that I learned not to automatically bash any body type (not that I was doing that all the time, but I am sure I had knee-jerk reactions about "real women have curves" and that kind of thing). So FWIW my associations are all the other way.
Posted by Eirene]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 20:06:37 -0700 The Stranger
Sort of!
Except I honestly am not focused on changing my culture's gender rules very much at all.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:35:43 -0700 The Stranger
Edited: I like "retro feminist" -- I haven't heard that before.
Posted by EricaP]]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:12 -0700 The Stranger