Blogs Apr 25, 2012 at 4:04 pm


wait so it's okay for guys to seek out chicks on the rebound but it's not okay for girls?

i'm confused.

can everyone just fuck everyone already.
Lesbian Poet: 1
Feminist Killjoy: 0
This article makes me so glad I am no longer anything close to "young and hot". Christ Almighty. Lets just dehumanize everyone we have the hots for.
I first read that "Geraldo Rivera isn't having it," and I was just like, "Fuck you, Geraldo, you mouth off about Trayvon Martin, and now this? Keep your fucking mustache out of other people's business!" Then, that making no sense at all, I re-read it. The real story is okay, I guess, but it's kinda mundane in comparison.

Anyway, I kinda feel like Chin must be trolling* to some extent, because her narrative is straight out of some sort of sadsack "Pick-up artist" fantasy monograph.

(* - Yeah, yeah, one person's trolling is another's "provocative art." Whatever.)
There real story here is this "straight chicks" thing. All women are bi, we all know this, wtf are these "straight chicks" Chin mentions?

Man, I'm so glad gay guys don't do this to straight guys.

I mean...that's what Dan Savage tells us...
What kind of advice is that? Sounds like the answer is "great"
This isn't worth trolling. Yawn.
@2 - Who the fuck here is saying that's okay for guys? What, at long last, is the fucking matter with you?
Douchebaggery: not just for men.


Well, seriously, isn't a lesbian who challenges the preferred heterosexuality of a female as much a criminal as the person who tries to "deprogram" someone's preferred homosexuality?

Isn't it as much brainwashing and doesn't it create as much confusion and potential self-loathing in the mind of the victim?
I don't even have to read past the subtitle to be morally repulsed. "They take ages to seduce, they're rubbish in bed." It's creepy that SEX isn't her motivation for SEDUCING people. It's just a stupid sick thrill for her, makes her feel special. And, as a rare female sexual predator, she actually is quite special.
Bailo, it's almost reassuring to know that you're back to your usual strategy of posting droolingly idiotic bullshit to every single thread. That week-long period when you were posting things I agreed with was, frankly, disturbing.
@10: I do. I say that seduction is ok. More than ok, really. It's a magical thing that makes life interesting for both seducer and the seduced, especially when the seduced's boyfriend has just dumped her.

What's more, I say all of the tiresome moralizing and sermonizing in this thread and in Rivera's article is the product of a fundamentally idealistic, puritanical, and sex-negative delusion that is deeply rooted in the infinitely gullible American psyche.

Your comment is just another manifestation of the same impulse that drives people like Santorum to fret about porn, masturbation, premarital sex, birth control, and anything else that reveals sex to be an animal act, rather than a holy or functional one.

I think I speak for Chin and Europeans everywhere when I say, America, you are over 200 years old. Grow the fuck up!
I've passively observed that sort of Lesbro in the wild.

@11: Well, yeah. Of course.
@13: could you clutch your pearls a little harder for the people in the cheap seats?

Someone who seduces people for the thrill of it is many things: a douchebag, for one. A narcissist, for two. Someone to avoid having as a friend or lover, probably. But a sexual predator? Puh-leeze. (And the female douchebag/narcissist frankly isn't any more rare than the male version.)
@15: If you spend your time seeking out the "wounded deer", there's something wrong with ~you~.

That's not sex-negative or puritanical. It's an observation of predatory personalities, they're not looking for an equal partner, and they're not looking for consensual power games. They're looking for a weaker party to "conquer" and brag about.
Noted in passing: seandr believe that he speaks for the europeans.
@13: Seduction == "sexual predator". Love it!!

But come on Slog, we can do better than that. Someone here needs to step up and call Chin a rapist.
This sounds like a lesbian who is acting like a Nice Guy [TM], and just treating other women in some of the worst ways some men treat women. It's just as wrong when a woman is doing it as when a man is.
@ 15, your Penthouse Forum-shaped psyche is a thing to behold, even if it's nothing to admire.

Here are some of the things I learned on SLOG today:

1. Women who want to be taken on trips are "whores".
2. Assaulting someone's heterosexuality is "fair game".
3. A Zygote is not "alive".

Great...keep it up. Never knew such things. Great to hear it.
@20: If "It's a magical thing that makes life interesting for both seducer and the seduced, especially when the seduced's boyfriend has just dumped her."

why does she lament that all her efforts at planting the seeds of distrust were for naught when the girl ends up getting back with her former partner?…

You seem to be confusing a confident, sexy creature for an insecure weirdo.
@17 In my mind a sexual predator is anybody who pursues pleasure at the expense of others. This lesbian doesn't care if the straight chicks she pursues are wasting their time, hurting their boyfriends, or hurting themselves by becoming emotionally invested in a one-sided relationship. She cares so little, she doesn't even mention these possibilities in her article. She spends plenty of time discussing the trivial negative consequences she has to suffer, though.
@17: Seducing a female on the rebound == ruthlessly stalking and killing a "wounded deer". Fucking brilliant!!

Your statements about the seduction being inherently non consensual implies that Chin is a rapist, but you've stopped short of calling her that. Anyone else want to step up?

@19: I also speak for Canadians as well as certain countries in South America.
@20 Honestly, you don't think the motivations for seducing somebody matter? Do you see no distinction between someone who seduces somebody because they want to have sex with them, and somebody who seduces somebody for the sole purpose of taking themselves on a power trip?
@22: If you're suggesting that my brain has been warped by erotica, all I can say is "guilty as charged!"
@26: I'm not saying that she's a rapist, I'm saying that consistently going after people on the rebound constantly is looking for a weakness to exploit, she's admitted to using when someone's in a state of confusion to get laid.

That's creepy as shit when dudes do it. Why do you find it so hot when lesbros act like fratboys?
@ 26, the seduced weren't raped, but they might have been taken advantage by an uncaring, self-centered piece of shit, concerned only with adding notches to his (or her) crotch, which is still fucked up.

How's that?
@28: Pfft, the rest of us can tell fantasy from reality.
I don't know, maybe you're thinking of this as a porno instead of real people being involved? I suppose that could explain a lot...
@ 28, calling Penthouse Forum "erotica" is like calling McDonald's "cuisine."
@25: "@17 In my mind a sexual predator is anybody who pursues pleasure at the expense of others."

You can arrange the furniture however you like inside your own head. However, out here in the section of the universe that you share with the rest of us meatbags, the term "sexual predator" has a number of generally agreed-upon meanings, some colloquial and some very specifically legal, all of which concern behavior a good deal more reprehensible than "hitting on someone you don't actually value all that much."

@26: you and Will in Seattle have so much to talk about on the subject of life in other countries.
Imagine an article written by a straight guy pursuing self-identified lesbians using the same tactics. Would your reaction be the same?
I'm OK with lesbians hitting on straight girls so long as lesbians are OK with straight men hitting on them. And yes, I am OK with gay guys hitting on me (though I suspect I'm no longer young or cute enough for that). Being hit on is very flattering, so long as the person knows how to handle rejection.

Dear gawd, we need to get past the horror of-- GASP-- being hit on by someone we don't find sexually attractive. How the fuck is that person supposed to find out if you're interested, if not by hitting on you?
@27: If the woman seducing me is doing a good enough job of it, she's welcome to fuck me for pleasure or power.

As the seduced party, I'd be getting both a sense of pleasure and power out of deal.
@36: "Being hit on is very flattering, so long as the person knows how to handle rejection."

The problem isn't really being hit on, but HOW some people get hit on. It's what makes a creep a creep, no matter the genders involved.
@37: Would you be cool with her attaching herself parasitically to your relationship to get you divorced/broken up with your current partner?

What about a guy doing the same thing?
@34 If her intent was just to hook up and have sex, I wouldn't refer to it as predatory behavior. I would refer to it as normal human behavior.

However, that wasn't her intent. She devoted months to pretending to be the best friend of her victims. She only had sex with them to boost her own ego. She doesn't even enjoy the sex, she describes it as "rubbish." If she were merely posting ads seeking straight girls on craigslist, it wouldn't be immoral.
@37 Really? You have no problem with somebody pretending to be your best friend for months, and later learning that the emotional bond was always fake? You wouldn't care if somebody who had deliberately lead you to think your relationship was special discarded you when they got bored? I'm not trying to devalue the whole activity of seducing somebody, but what this article describes doesn't sound like typical seduction.
Hey, Sean?

"Watch for when he is late, or disrespectful, or inconsiderate. Casually mention that you would never treat a woman like that. Reinforce how she deserves so much better. Store the details. Then wait for him to mess up big. Then, you can tell her that you would never put up with that from a man. "

She's, subtly, trying to seduce women by making them hate men. Objeting to that isn't being 'sex negative', it's being offended because whoever the fuck Ms. Chin is she's doing down my sex and my sexual orientation to get her rocks off and I don't like that very much.

She's an asshole of the highest order. I'm dumbfonuded that the Guardian would print such tosh.
@40: Seriously, I dislike "nice guys" regardless of gender/orientation.
Jesus Christ, Seandr. You just showed a side of yourself that is absolutely maggoty-rotten. Way to be a human being.
These comments all fall into one of two categories:
1) Posted by a sociopath
2) Not posted by a sociopath
@2 Nobody said that it was okay for guys to be manipulative emotional heat-seeking-missiles. The article says that it's not okay for other women to do it.
@35 I was thinking the same thing when reading it. Or for that matter, straight guys about straight chicks. No matter who says these things... that person is not a good person.
@31: The first I heard of the clitoris and its super powers was in the back of a Penthouse that I shoplifted at the age of 11. Based on what some of the women I've dated have told me, it seems a lot guys could have benefited from reading that stuff.

@33: Oh yeah? Well my porn is classier than your porn! If I'm going to jack off to porn, it has to feature some extremely tasteful fucking by people saying insightful things with English accents.

@34: Yes, we would have a lot to talk about if not for the fact that I was first speaking rhetorically, and later satirically, whereas Will in Seattle is an insane person. Here's some reading material for you, by the way.
I can't believe no one's noticed the huge gender equality triumph this represents; finally, lesbians and douchebag frat boys can communicate on the same level! I can't wait for the next article discussing the dating benefits of GHB.
Just further (now I've taken a breath), it's significant to note what she's doing here - she's using binary patriachal gender roles to get sex. The hook she's suggesting is "men are emotionless, only interested in sex, don't care for feelings - I'm a woman! We're sensitive and emotional and talk about feelings!"

So, yeah, Ms. Chin's tongue-tickling depends on her stereotyping me as emotionless, and she stereotypes women as necesarilly emotionally sensitive. I know, it's 2012 and saying that one has to be politicised about sex and gender is rubbish, but there's something particularly troubling about it given that, as a lesbian, the women who fought so hard for Ms. Chin's freedom were fighting against the bullshit patriachy (women are soft and cuddly, they can't have short hair, tattoos and ride motorbikes) she's peddling to get her jollies.

This crap harms everyone, regardless of the configuration of their crotch, body or brain.
@45: I take it you've studied formal logic, for a few minutes at least.
@41: Where in Chin's story is there anything like you describe? You haven't even read it, have you?

Let me sum it up for you. Her "conquests" pretty much fall into one of two categories:
1) lesbian falls for straight girl, seizes opportunity, enjoys a brief relationship until straight girl inevitably dumps her for man
2) lesbian has reputation for being open to curious straight women, seizes opportunity, enjoys brief sexual flings.

Where's the abuse? Where's the hurt? Where's the dishonesty?

Seriously, you people are disappointing.
"I can't wait for the next article discussing the dating benefits of GHB."

christ on a cracker you people are idiots
@52: "According to Chin, the best time to lay down the dyke moves is when this straight woman has been crushed by her dude, which leads us to WTF Moment #1:
…wait until there is a crack in the lack of respect her boyfriend has for her…mention you would never treat a woman like that…then wait for him to mess up big…
What in the name of creeper hell kind of advice is that for one woman to be giving out to other women? Are you serious? So now lesbians who like non-lesbian women should wait for their boyfriends to hurt them in order to begin some sort of subtle manipulation into their hearts? That is the most underhanded shit I’ve ever read. When one enters into a platonic relationship with a woman, also known as a "friendship," it should be respected, cherished and not used as an in for you to be the first woman to snatch her snatch."
@52 I read the whole thing.

What about the part where the lesbian "works very hard" for "at least three months" to pretend to be the best friend of the straight girl? To me, that is a very important detail. You don't think it is dishonest to pretend to be friends with somebody you do not care about?

"Work very hard at being her very best friend. Always remember, you're only her friend. You are not allowed to bend that rule for at least three months."

Do you value YOUR friends seandr? Are you hurt when somebody you are emotionally close to abandons you?
@53: Maybe so. I, on the other hand, am capable of grammar. You should give it a try sometime.
@43 Sadly even the dreaded nice guy is standing on higher moral ground than this lesbian poet. At least nice guys are usually maintain delusions of a reciprocal relationship.
@58: No, they're exactly the same as her.

"At least nice guys are usually maintain delusions of a reciprocal relationship."

Yeah, but calling yourself a "nice guy" doesn't make you so. More insecure creepers use the term than actual nice guys, I find.
The whole "waiting in the wings for months for her to come around and dump that LOSER BOYFRIEND LIKE I TOLD HER TO" isn't reciprocal, it's still controlling.
@51 simply pointing out that unlike most of the arguing that occurs in the slog comments, this thread actually does have a right and wrong side to it.
Process: 1. exploit friendship with mark 2. widen gaps between mark and lover. 3. wait for mark's lover to fuck up and mark is emotionally distressed and vulnerable. 4. leap through gap and bed mark. 5. have lousy sex, but, hey, that wasn't the object. 6. profit! paycheck from Guardian arrives.

Why can't we all just agree that if a man did it he'd be labeled as a creep, but outside angry blog posts a woman wouldn't, and gets a slot in one of the most respected English newspapers? It's got nothing to do whether the conduct itself is right or wrong. It's just the way that our society's standards are. For a funny example of that, please see recent article on why women need to call out men as creeps by undergraduate-fucker and would-be-girlfriend murderer Hugo Schwyzer. Strangely, Schwyzer doesn't talk about the need to identify and run like hell from men like him. Ah well. Stay classy, all!)
@56: You may have read the article, but you've failed to comprehend it.

Chin is not pretending that she cares about these woman. She's pretending that she's only interested in friendship and not something more. She's saying that if she let's on that she wants a romantic relationship, any hope of achieving it would vanish.

The world is full of people with secret crushes on their friends. Are you saying all these people are manipulative douchebags because they haven't disclosed their true feelings?

No, you're not saying that, because that would be silly. What you're saying is that you unfairly appraised Chin based on your puritanical reflexes.
"puritanical reflexes" (seandr @63):
Isn't it possible that one can hold two thoughts at the same time? Hell, you can even put 'em in the same sentence in this case: "yeah for fucking! fuck who you want when you want and enjoy!" ... and .... "but don't be a manipulative shit about it".
You can take the person out of Jamaica, but you can't take the Jamaica out of the person.
TheLastComment@40: again, it's great that that rises to the definition of "predation" in your own head, but the rest of us aren't gonna dance to your tune. We're in agreement that she's basically a shit: there's just no need to conflate her with, you know, rapists and child molesters. Again, common usage is important.

Sylvester@44: He's shown another side of himself on slog? Where? Every single last thread about sex and/or relationships I've read here is at least 20% seandr's delusions of mackdom and deep insight into the human condition. The fact that he thinks there's a dime's worth of difference between himself and WiS being the largest and funniest of said delusions.

Seandr@48: jesus, please don't share your jackoff material with me ever again.
@48: The United States isn't France, genius. What is acceptable there is downright creepy here. If you want to be a creeper and groom women for your perverse pleasure, move to France.
Poetry is over rated.
@63 My objection has nothing to do with sex and I don't have puritanical reflexes. I advised one of my relationship-challenged friends to stop dating girls and start hooking up instead. I am in a friends-with-benefits relationship with another friend who began as a platonic friend, and will probably become a platonic friend again.

Friendship and sexual relationships do not have to be mutually exclusive. You can genuinely be friends with people you are having sex with. You can also have no personal interest in people you are having sex with. You can't try to have it all at once, though. You can't have friendship, sex, and lack of personal interest at the same time. If you friends with somebody you dislike, you are not actually their friend.

I don't know what to say to you now that you have revealed you think there is nothing wrong with pretending to be interested in friendship. Pretending to be friends with somebody you have no intention of actually being friends with is very, very wrong. It's even more wrong if you keep up the facade for "at least three months." It is even more wrong if you pretend to be the best friend. You are insane if you disagree. You're not just wrong, you are nuts, you're sick in the head.

@66 I have heard people use the term sexual predator to refer to people who are not criminals. Maybe it's just me though.

This doesn't really have anything to do with my argument, just an anecdote. As a teenager I had a friend who I thought was straight. When she hit puberty she started complaining to me about how ugly she thought she was. I gave her tips for improving her looks, which is what any straight female friend would do. I thought my advice made sense because she would not do basic things like shave her legs and comb her hair, but she always got strangely offended by my remarks, and said she wanted somebody to accept her for who she was. Later she came out as a lesbian and stopped talking to me. I know she was an insecure teenager but I can't help but be annoyed that in all of the years we spent hanging out she never genuinely opened up to me. It's insulting and a waste of my time. I considered her my best friend since I was 6. I told her plenty of things about myself, she always consoled me and told me nothing about her. It's not just the lesbianism thing, she kept tons of stuff from me. I guess the good thing I got out of experiences like that is I have gotten pretty good at knowing when someone is hiding something from me.
@67: In other words, "America, love it or leave it!" I suppose next you'll start a campaign to refer to French fries as "Freedom fries?"

@48: People with English accents, saying insightful things, fucking in the most tasteful manner possible, mmmm, almost there...
@59 I guess I have encountered more clueless nice guys than predatory nice guys.
This is actually fairly old and tired. I distinctly remember, in the early days of lesbian publishing when the word "womyn" was used only as a singular and "wymyn" was seen everywhere as its plural, rerading in the public library a fairly slender book with a green cover which had a chapter on how to "turn" straight women.

Seduction is one thing, but it can be attempted under circumstances likely to produce a good experience for the seduced or rather the contrary. This calculation seems to take on the trappings of the Julius King Principle without its key motivation of taking down those overstuffed self-proclaimed paragons and intellectual eagles Rupert Foster and Morgan Browne.

If I weren't headed to bed early, I'd Murdochsplain.
Is three months what passes for a meaningful, important relationship around here?
@73 First of all she said "at least" three months, not three months specifically. Three months is long enough to become emotionally attached to somebody, to develop trust. Young people develop these feelings faster, and if Chin is going after women who are in unstable relationships with their boyfriend, there is a good chance those women are fairly young. Damaged, insecure and lonely people can also develop feelings of trust very quickly.
@58, 59, 71 - I was going to chime in on that one to agree with you from my own experience as a former idiot, clueless 'nice guy'* who really did mean no harm (and fortunately didn't actually cause any). The following goes on a bit but it's just to illustrate quite how useless a 'nice guy's' thinking can be without containing active malice or manipulation.


Until a few years ago (about the age of 23) I would've appeared to be one of those 'nice guys', and also acted on a couple of cases which you could easily call 'creeping'. In my case I was so certain that I was elementally repulsive to women that my just going up and talking to an individual once I realised I was interested in them would yield a literal, 100% outcome of failure - that what I was waiting for was some extremely rare individual who didn't find me disgusting, and that people who thought that would be so incredibly rare that there was no point actually going and talking to someone, and that I'd just have to wait for someone to come along, tap me on the shoulder and say "Hey there!"

So I get to university (aged twenty) and found that there were plenty of females who actually wanted to talk to me - obviously they were only interested in me as a friend (the idea of any potential romantic interest was just inconceivable to me) - but in a couple of cases, the thought process was "Hang on, when we hang out she laughs at my jokes, she seems interested in what I'm saying other than in casual conversation, she... Hell, she seems to care about me... Holy shit. Fuck, is she... Might she actually, somehow, think I'm... Attractive?" So for me, those two occasions were it - the one in a billion shot of a woman who liked me (not rare) but also, maybe, didn't find me sexually repellent, so the first two girls I -ever- admitted an interest in would've come over as 100% textbook manipulative creeping. And I'm sure you could argue that on some subconscious level that's exactly what it was, but there was absolutely no conscious intent to be manipulative or to exploit a friendship - just the combination of being depressed and a head full of absolute aching bullshit. I'm in no way defending the way I was thinking - it's moronic, self-obsessed, self-indulgent and arrogant - but there was no intent to be manipulative.

Sorry if that was a little self-indulgent, but it's to say I'm in agreement, TheLastComment - that I reckon there's plenty of cases of the 'nice guy' meaning absolutely no harm whatsoever but inflicting it due to colossal, abject cluelessness and inexperience (as in my case).

*I'm now an idiot, clueless asshole.
@seandr: There's nothing necessarily puritanical about objecting to this woman's behaviour. It's manipulative and disrespectful.

I've experienced it. When I figured out what was going on -- I wasn't attracted to her, so her "seduction" didn't work, and she dropped me -- I felt used.

For a much more insightful look at French seduction, read Les Liaisons Dangereuses.
Does being attracted to someone give you license to undermine/subvert their existing relationships? I think not and those who do are repulsive narcissists. It would be as if I said I enjoyed hurting people and therefore had the right to destroy their lives (e.g. Cruel Intentions or Dangerous Liaisons)

Will the continued oppression of straight honeys ever become an object of this election?

Newsflash: Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses.

Newsflash two: Women suck too.
This chick must really have some game to be able to work around most guys' innate distaste for their girls getting it on with other girls.

Next you're going to tell me someone's figured out a way to get dogs to eat bacon.
Of course seandr advocates for predatory practices. He gets his rocks off and never has to be on the receiving end of it. And when women say it's disgusting, he gaslights them.
This is so predatory. It's one thing for friends to discover an attraction for each other. But it's pretty messed up to pretend that you only have a friendly agenda on the table, while secretly you are manipulating and grooming them for a romantic or sexual relationship. In fact, whenever the word "grooming" could be used to describe a person's behavior, that's a huge red flag.
On what planet would the boyfriend even mind? I've bagged plenty of married women, you don't see me bragging about it on the internet.
In general, I find all sorts of guides on seduction to be extremely distasteful and objectifying. Some of the women Chin seduced are probably better for the experience, some worse. But the ones who were better for it, probably would have been open to a lesbian relationship without all the manipulation.
So there are lesbian assholes in the world too? That's very shocking.
People need to protect themselves and be smart enough not to sleep with fucking dirt bags, be they male or female. When you're very careful and selective about who you bang, you're less likely to be taken advantage of.
Um, did we all read the same article by Ms. Chin? She starts by saying maybe straight girl chasing is part of what is despised in straight men, then she says how it's done, pretending you just want to be friends before making a move. And she ends by saying it's not worth it. Yes, what she admits to doing was manipulative and yes she doesn't have enough sympathy for girls who didn't see that she wanted more than just friends but overall she does come to a place where she sees it isn't worth any perceived thrill. Maybe her final thoughts aren't contrite enough but people are complicated and the answers aren't always easy and satisfying.
Wouldn't the apples-to-apples comparison here be to straight guys who work their wiles on lesbian-identified women? Or otherwise "off-limits" seductees (married women, nuns, whatever)?

Stacyann Chin does go on quite a bit about the thrills of transgression; shouldn't that be part of what's going on in any examples we choose for comparison?
Guardian commenters are much smarter than Slog commenters (seandr and PenguinGirl excepted). The whole "you are the Messiah" part is a big clue for those who care to read that her tongue was slightly in her cheek.
These are the stories that make up romance novels. Those who partake, delight in them. Others see them as just shy of rape. Intention seems to be at the heart of it. Did you intend to have someone lust you or did they just lust you? Is it ok to engage in what you know will be viewed by the other person as regretted sex? I don't think the answers are as straightforward as some here would like to think.
@87 - My thoughts exactly.
So, in other words, (according to the original article) "lesbians should start doing exactly the same shit that creeper fuckwad straight men have been doing for generations". Lovely.
Chin's article reads like a lament to the hot girl in Jamaica that got away. A grief so strong, she's spent 20 years chasing. It's fun to disguise rejection in some sexual conquest, but really that's all she's doing.

While I get the point that not all lesbians do this, Rivera'a article reads a little more like trolling. Well maybe not trolling, but certainly sensationalized a bit.
It's wrong for anyone to prey on anyone who is vulnerable, regardless of sexuality. When someone's hurting over the pain of rejection and is wounded, the last thing that person needs is a vulture. Regardless of sex - it's wrong whether it's a man OR a women pulls that particular stunt. Vultures can be male or female but they're certainly not human.

Good on Gabrielle for speaking out!
I'm in the camp that say there is a bit difference between seduction and beeing creepy and manipulative. But all that aside there is another part of this that disturbs me.

This whole thing of gay people (men or women) going after straight people. It has been obvious with gay men for a long time. The idea of getting a straight guy into bed seems to be the ultimate conquest for some gay guys. Now it seems that lesbians are getting on the same band wagon going after straight women.

I don't get what the purpose of this is to begin with. I liked what the author said about the whole idea of chasing to begin with, but if you have to chase why bother going after straight people at all? If a chase and a challenge is what you want then why not the challenge of going for a gay person who is so attractive that they are considered out of your own league? I'd much rather spend that kind of energy going after the really attractive guy who, if I do bag him, at least knows how to suck a dick already. I would think a lesbian would want to find a dyke who at leasts would enjoy diving into a muff.

I think going after straight people is a sign typically of internalized homophobia. It is saying that these people are more desirable becuase they are straight. So much so that people are willing to put in all that extra effort and straegy to get one in bed when they could have better sex with someone who is easier to get into bed.

To me being straight is like smoking. Not an attractive quality. A stright person, like a smoker, can be good looking and cute. But once they pull out the cigarettes or state they are straight, my interest immediately dies. A person being straight should be a turn off to people who like sex with their own gender. Just like a person being gay should be a turn off to those who like sex with the opposite gender.

But no matter how you slice it, having to manipulate someone into bed is just very sad behaviour.

Hell, I can't even stand when gay guys call themselves "straight acting".

I think people who do these things generally have issues with their own sexuality they haven't resolved yet.
If a man had written that article about taking advantage of emotionally fragile women he would already have been shot.
I actually feel sorry for Chin. The tough talk is sad. Oh you're a cock tease magnet? Every short guy on earth has been there. All that work and you don't even get to ejaculate. She comes to the same conclusion near the end.

As for the response, Feminist Killjoy thinks Chin is an affront to the sisterhood of women at large. Speak for yourself. Some idiot poet pretending to be a frat boy is no reflection on me or anyone else. You are not responsible for her words, just like you're not responsible for Dan Savage saying all lesbians have been peed on by cats.
@87: "And she ends by saying it's not worth it."

Right, but doesn't that always seem insincere when you've spent a full article on braggadocio?

It certainly does when it sounds like something out of some Maxim/FHM lads' mag.
Why would you want to fuck someone you had to lie to or otherwise manipulate into bed? Are you that desperate for dick/pussy? Why hide your motives or your intentions? Maybe that's why I don't get laid a lot when I'm not in a relationship, and maybe me not getting the concept makes me at least partially autistic. But I will say that I've had to metaphorically race every person I've fucked to the bed - that's not something I've ever taken pride in, but I guess it's not such a given as I thought. It's not prudery to say there's something sociopathic or unhealthily control-freaky about someone who manipulates someone into doing something they wouldn't do otherwise or haven't expressed a desire to do. Seduction, to me, doesn't mean manipulation or deception - I view it more as a low-pressure sales pitch.

I kinda like Dan's campsite rule as a general guideline for any situation, not just for people with younger partners. I just ended a fantastic FWB relationship with a guy my own age simply because I knew it wouldn't be healthy for my partner to continue it and I like being able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning.
@89: Or maybe you have a shallower understanding. Some "jokes" when stated reveal more about the teller than the sense of humor.
@98: She sure showed those advocates of healthy relationships what-for.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.