and remember to be decent to everyoneall of the time.
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.
can everyone just fuck everyone already.
Feminist Killjoy: 0
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.)
Man, I'm so glad gay guys don't do this to straight guys.
I mean...that's what Dan Savage tells us...
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?
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!
@11: Well, yeah. Of course.
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.)
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.
But come on Slog, we can do better than that. Someone here needs to step up and call Chin a rapist.
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.
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.
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.
That's creepy as shit when dudes do it. Why do you find it so hot when lesbros act like fratboys?
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.
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?
As the seduced party, I'd be getting both a sense of pleasure and power out of deal.
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.
What about a guy doing the same thing?
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.
"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.
1) Posted by a sociopath
2) Not posted by a sociopath
@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.
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.
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.
christ on a cracker you people are idiots
…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."
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?
"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.
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 Jezebel.com 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!)
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.
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".
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.
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.
@48: People with English accents, saying insightful things, fucking in the most tasteful manner possible, mmmm, almost there...
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.
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.
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.
Will the continued oppression of straight honeys ever become an object of this election?
Newsflash two: Women suck too.
Next you're going to tell me someone's figured out a way to get dogs to eat bacon.
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?
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.
Good on Gabrielle for speaking out!
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.
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.
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.
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.