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.
1. Sex toys are worth the investment even if they are expensive. Sharing butt plugs is gross.
2. 13 year old should not be watching porn. If he is he can find some for himself. Then throw a book by Ian Kerner at him when he turns 16.
3. DSG got what she wanted which was attention. Who cares what she does? Lesbians what a shame you hate on your own. We are all woman...are we not?
Instead of hating each other why don't we educate the men who seem to think sex belongs to them? Why not let women do as they please as equals instead of shaming them? Are we not all sisters?
Is it really about the drunk straight girl or about women's sexual freedom and expression?
A real feminist
Play the "do this for me & I will do this for you" game. You might want to add having him tie your hands behind your back, than have him take the hairbrush that you masturbate with, and have him wack your butt a few times than stick it in your pussy. That should get him interested & if it doesn't, than DTMF & find someone who will listen to what you have to say. I'm very sure you will find plenty of men willing to listen to your needs.
I suppose this is why the HTML script on the Savage Love App sometimes shows up in the description of the show?? It is fine to get self-taught developers in-training, but now I have paid $20 and I want access to my purchase!!!
I am so frustrated right now!
Are the young guys using viagra with their regular partners, or just with new people, where they might understandably be a bit nervous?
Point is, maybe dude can't tie his shoes.
Also now I wonder how many people think we are doing some sort of D/s game.
I want to express that I feel for the women who have been misused or led on by other women who later leave them claiming to be straight. That has gotta suck. That is never my intention. That isn't me. I make out with women who know me well or when I am in a kink-friendly place where exhibitionism is expected and understood for what it is.
I would also like to echo what several posters (particularly 89) have said - I am not responsible for other's behavior. We are all adults and responsible for our own choices and perceptions. If a DSG is being overly forward, crude and disrespectful towards you that is on him. Not on me or his momma.
And 93 - Hate me? My home address? Who here is perpetuating violence?
Here is the original text of my letter:
I am one of those straight girls who occasionally likes to make out with other girls when I am drunk or when I am sober or when I am under the influence of substances that make it really fun to make out with people. It is fun to kiss girls. It is fun to get the attention of men by kissing girls. It is fun to make out with a guy and a girl at the same time. What is so wrong with that? Why are so many lesbians or bi women disparaging of this behavior? I don't claim to be bi or lead anyone on. I guess it could be said that my behavior could encourage men to objectify women kissing women, but I feel like that shouldn't be on me. Why all the hate? I am just an adult having sexy fun with other consenting adults. Thanks for everything you do. You make the world a safer and sexier place.
- that drunk straight chick
You go, girl!
@delta35: so this mom is very open with her son and vice versa it seems. You have so many suggestions on what people should read, yet you lack very basic comprehension. This mom is no different from one who might allow a sleepover and breakfast when this kid is 17 and remember how great an idea you thought that was? She took the phone (and laughing stock?seriously?)and is now asking how to get her son access to a little soft-core without actually having to hand it to him. Reading books or studies on parenting is not parenting and please stop suggesting we read your stupid books or studies. We don't have time. Do I need to explain why?
And just as I am not responsible for other's attitudes or actions with my make-out fun your opinions and statements are ultimately reflections of yourselves and not my person.
Stay the fuck out of the kid's masturbation and stop trying to protect him from things you can't EVER protect him from. Dropbox. Flash drives. Even if you censor his home internet you can't censor all his friend's internet access.
But somehow, MMK & her boyfriend remind me of the old joke about the Sadist and the Masochist:
Masochist says, "Oh, beat me, beat me!"
Sadist says, "No!"
I'd just like to address a comment to you, though, and to all the others saying "people should just act how they want because how people perceive it isn't their responsibility".
It is unfair that your actions might be perceived in this way. I get it, okay? You're not trying to undermine anyone's sexuality and you, personally, are not doing anyone any harm. So, yeah, in an ideal world we'd all just say "fuck it, do what you want and let people see what they wanna see". It's not right that your actions should be symptomatic of a culture that is damaging to so many people.
But that doesn't mean they're not. My dad has a phrase he likes to get out for situations like this: "It's not your fault, but it is your problem." In the same way that it's not my fault that men whoop and cheer if they see me kissing a girlfriend. I should be able to kiss my partners without people feeling entitled to give me their input into the situation. That's not my fault. But I do have to deal with it. Similarly, it is not the fault of the men of today that it is the instinct of a lot of women to keep them at arm's length until they're sure they're not predators. You personally didn't oppress women for centuries, right? Not your fault. But it is your problem.
The fact that drunk straight girls making out in bars contributes to a culture that trivialises lesbianism and female bisexuality as "performing for men" is not the fault of the individual drunk straight girl. But it is her problem. I'm not saying that means you shouldn't do it, but maybe try to be aware of the cultural context of what you're doing, and either confine it to understanding spaces (as DSG @119 seems, in fairness, to be doing) or be a bit more understanding when it pisses queer women off.
Whoo, sorry, that got long.
Also, I don't believe that this chick is straight!
As for a comparison of the two letters and the edit:
I have no problem with the editing of the first sentence. Three sentences are then merged into one with an exclamation point added. "It is fun to kiss girls," could have been merged into the LW's sentence to keep it as part of the context, and to centre the fun of the activity over the fun of getting attention. I can see cutting the third sentence, even though it adds even more context than the first one, because it just feels a half-tone out of sync and I can't think of an easy fix.
The two questions that follow, though unchanged, lead the commentariat down the LW's path rather than DSG's. This is greatly assisted by the elimination of DSG's claim not to present as bi or lead anyone on. Then there are minor wording changes as one sentence is made two, with a second added exclamation point. A third additional exclamation point is the only remaining change beyond omitting an unrelated closing for space.
I admit to a distinct admiration for the skill of the editing; the exclamation points say a great deal about the character of the LW. What they say happens to make the LW out to be rather different from DSG, which may or may not bother one. In 119, it appears to bother DSG. Then she returns in 124 and reverses course.
Naturally, a great many comments responded to the LW. Had DSG wanted those commenting to respond to at least the situation in her original letter, she'd have been cheated. That she apparently in 124 only wanted to help stir up conversation more or less absolves the editor here, though an Exclamationgate Scandal might have proved to be considerably entertaining as the flying fickle finger of blame floated from Mr Savage Himself to any of a number of subordinates. I even wondered in the night if we could hold an impeachment, and who the Vice Savage might happen to be to be promoted should Mr S find it expedient to resign. Or perhaps he would prove never to have seen the letter in its original form; there are a number of what Ellery Queen might call Sinister Scenarios possible.
However, if I were ever in circumstances that would tempt me to consult Mr Savage, I should very much want the comments to be directed towards my real self and not a straw persona concocted by Mr S or, rather worse (as there would be some cachet in being edited personally into coming across as an inconsiderate and disrespectful flaunter of privilege if Mr Savage did so personally), a mere underling or - shudder - an unpaid intern. (DSG herself seems a bit confused, as she sometimes appreciates the difference between herself and the LW and other times seems to interpret comments about the LW as being directed at her.) I'd feel quite ill used if I were edited into coming across as an unsympathetic laughing stock or dart board, cheated out of legitimate first responses from many people who occasionally or more often provide commentary worth reading and contemplating.
This is an interesting question/conundrum. Clearly, one of the main objectives in running an advice column is to provide entertainment. Dan must choose letters based on a number of factors including the originality of the problem, the opportunity to educate (or rant), the potential for interesting or enlightening debate/conversation, and probably above all, the letter's inherent ability to entertain his readers and increase readership.
So I understand Dan's or his editor's preference or tendency to edit not only for clarity or conciseness, or to bring the letter into compliance with the grammatical and syntactic conventions of standard written English, but to manipulate the original into a form that will generate more comments or foment more spirited discussion.
Some edits substantially change the tone of the letter, or misrepresent the intention of the original in ways that seem to go beyond that level of editing. And that seems unethical to me.
I tend to agree that a 13-year-old doesn't need a smartphone. They're a huge, huge distraction at most schools. But making an issue out of internet porn? No. "Don't steal." "Don't take advantage of people." "Don't deliberately hurt people or animals." Provided the kid has those solidly internalized, he or she hopefully has the brains to apply them to sexual situations as needed.
@93 Seriously, @93? A guy acts as a jerk to you and your gf and this girl is somehow to blame? This argument is on par with saying that women dressing immodestly cause men to become rapists.
@Ninalyn You go to such great lengths to explain one person's stupidity/douchebaggery/whatever by another's actions that my head is spinning. Oh noes, you have a tough dating history. Wow, what a unique story! You've met some guys and girls who are jerks, insane! No one else has. Poor, poor you. Of course it's all because you are gay. No man (or woman) has ever been a jerk to a straight girl. You and a bunch of other lesbians are the only people in the world to have experienced sexism and homophobia. And it's all because of those drunk girls!!!1! Sheesh.
There are men who feel like every woman's nice ass, or skimpy outfit, or big rack (etc), is "for" them. This isn't caused by women having nice asses, skimpy outfits, or big racks.
Similarly, men who feel like they're entitled to witness every lesbian makeout session are just one more example of this. Making out with other girls to impress guys is just one of many quasi-sexual activities that people have a right to enjoy. It doesn't cause entitlement any more than giving blowjobs "causes" men to feel entitled to blowjobs. DSGs aren’t communicating that “lesbianism is ‘for’ men” any more than a blowjob communicates that “women’s mouths are ‘for’ men.” It’s his own fault if he leaps to faulty, sexist, entitled conclusions about women based on a night’s activities. This entitlement is simply one manifestation of a much broader culture of entitlement that has little to do with DSGs specifically.
To blame the DSGs is like blaming women who wear skimpy outfits or women who give blowjobs for the entitlement that (sexist) men feel over women's bodies in general. It inaccurately shifts the blame away from the cultural forces and sexists who are actually responsible for such attitudes.
It's nothing more than deflection and slut-shaming, and you may want to examine that more closely before you lecture anyone else on which behaviors reinforce patriarchal norms.
You asked "Why all the hate?" and disparagement from bisexuals and lesbians, of course you're getting hate and hate-like comments here. Some of us are attempting to explain why others might hate/disparage, some are just giving their own reasons. Why all the surprise?
If we had a DSB asking why lesbians get mad at him for saying "two chicks is hottt!" we'd be telling him why they were mad with him. Instead, we have a DSG asking "why do lesbians get mad at me?" so of course the responses are "this is why someone might be unhappy with what you do".
I had a bad experience with a DSG once that left me pretty negative towards that kind of behavior though. I made out with a woman in a gay bar a few years ago only to find out that she was there with her boyfriend, and he was watching us and getting turned on by it. It made me incredibly uncomfortable because I felt like I'd been made an unwilling participant in their sex life. And I mean I know anyone can watch when you do something like that in public...but the fact that she was making out with me for the express purpose of turning on her boyfriend made it really gross. It had nothing to do with her "leading me on" or anything--if she'd been a straight girl who just wanted to experiment for her own benefit, I wouldn't have cared. That it happened in a gay bar, somewhere where there's a reasonable expectation of being able to make out with other ladies and not have creepy straight guys treating it like a free show, made it worse. I felt really violated.
So I do have a bit of a knee-jerk anti-DSG response because of that experience. Not fair I guess, but I just don't trust 'em.
THE "Original DSG" EXPLAINED HERSELF IN Comment #119. YOU MISREAD HER COMMENTARY.
"Original DSG" NEVER TYPED SHE INTENTIONALLY KISSES lesbians AND bisexual females. IF "CLOSETED" FEMALES LIKE TO PARTY AT HETEROSEXUAL "HOT-SPOTS," THAT IS NOT "Original DSG's" PROBLEM.
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON
Go to a yard sale (without him). Get a few new-ish magazines (or just buy some from a used book store, if you can't find a yard sale with magazines). Then go buy a Playboy or 2 (used, if you can find any at a used bookstore, so they'll be the same age as the other magazines). Tell your son that you bought a box of magazines at a yard sale, and tell him to look through and take any that he wants. Don't watch as he takes the Playboys...
It is more difficult than normal writing to read, and in this day and age is interpreted as yelling and rude. Please reserve all-caps for emphasis
Most "dumb phones" allow you internet access, which makes BBTB a really dumb mom.
Then again, even though there's a lot of fascinating detail already presented in this letter, there's not even enough - what kind of mental disability (cross-dressing itself better not be considered that in that town)? Is the therapist Christian? If so, interesting...
One solution would be to move, but it'd be very understandable if the biggest change he can make is of clothes.
I really feel for SKIRT, and hope she finds answers, but I also would like to see Dan Savage have a good answer for this in the future, because if he had the knowledge and the care and connection, he would give a great answer.
I suppose, given DSG's attitude, this one gets chalked up as No Harm, No Foul, and it's certainly not a hill on which I have any intention of dying or even falling moderately ill, but I have no intention of consulting somebody who might well choose to have fun changing 20% of my letter to make me sound like Dr Sean or Mr Horton (just to think of two people off the top of my head with whom I have the least in common). Fortunately for the commentariat, there is no masterpiece being lost here, as, being Retired from Romance, the only conceivable question I might ever want to ask Mr Savage would require my being left custody of my nephews, an event of which the chance of occurrence is not much greater than the chance of my succeeding to the throne of the Netherlands.
That is incredibly creepy. I have a very close relationship with my parents, but that sounds really inappropriate. Also, how uptight is this mom that she thinks teen boys won't find a way to look at porn/fuck teen girls?
DSGs who like to pointlessly mess around with other girls for the sake of messing around are a minor issue. They're not exactly fuzzy goodwill ambassadors to sapphos when they say things like "I'll fuck a girl, but I won't date one", but lesbians have kind of adjusted to that.
DSGs who mess around for attention are being attention whores and exhibitionists. That might be okay in specific venues, but it's generally considered bad form.
While it's not a perfect science, most people are quite capable of spotting attention whoring when it's happening.
A lot of women need and appreciate a guy who doesn't assume that she'll enjoy sex without any warm-up (or hell, is not even all that concerned with whether or not she even enjoys sex with him). Besides, it is probably easier to tell a guy that you DON't need foreplay than to have to tell a guy that you DO need foreplay.
I just want to say that my butt plugs are my butt plugs, and I don't intend to share them. If my husband wants a butt plug or two, he can go online and buy some at the Kitten. If that makes me selfish, so be it.
Some of us are just exhausted of having women loudly proclaim that... essentially we're fictional. Feminists go on and on about how unrealistic porn is and how it paints a picture of a woman who doesn't exist.
Real women don't look like this.
Real women don't enjoy that.
Real women don't do this.
Real women don't...
It's irritating as fuck to (as a real human being) be painted as a straw(wo)man male fantasy concocted by women-haters.
And, again, it's just fucking tacky and cheap. Learn to knot a cherry stem with your tongue. Memorize a bawdy poem. Make yourself fucking interesting.
You revealed yourselves girls. It is about a neo-Freudian hatred of men, not any true love of the glazed doughnut face. Got ya gals.
The THOUGHT that a man might get some pleasure is fine, I've had dude friends get drunk and tell me they wish I was straight, I'm pretty sure than means they're getting some pleasure from our interactions. I don't need to be informed of the details or asked to help make the viewing experience more pleasurable for some rando dudebros. They're offensive. I'm offended. I'd be offended if I were a straight girl kissing my boyfriend and getting the same "perform my masturbatory fantasy for me!" response.
Why are you defending dudebros?
"But this is directed at a DSG, who thinks she's not doing anything wrong. And while I don't think there's anything morally wrong about it, but it's fucking hard to yell at men for assuming that two women making out are doing it for their pleasure when there's some chick running around doing exactly that. "
Without an actual causative connection between DSGs and entitled pricks, and there isn't one, it doesn't matter how many of them are in the room while you're berating that entitled prick.
His entitlement issues are his own fault: For the fifth time; if a guy feels "entitled" to blowjobs, we don't blame all the women who go around giving guys blowjobs. Women's behavior doesn't "give" men entitlement issues; larger cultural patriarchal values, combined with individual selfishness or stupidity, gives men entitlement issues.
It doesn't matter whether any given guy is basing his idiocy on girls he watched 5 years ago or girls he's watching right that very second: it's still his own damn fault he's drawing idiotic conclusions from other people's behavior. If DSGs vanished from the face of the earth, he'd still be an entitled prick with woman issues, and he'd still act accordingly.
As far as it being tacky and cheap: I agree; though I think tying cherry stems with your mouth is equally tacky. But two things:
1) That observation fits right into "if you don't like it don't fucking do it" territory, and
2) Be honest about THAT being the (subjective and immaterial) reason you dislike it. Don't try and force some sociological significance onto it that it doesn't have.
It's the people doing the latter that I'm arguing against. You'll notice that at no point did I ever argue against notions that it's "tacky" or a turn-off.
Their specific theory on exactly HOW DSGs reinforce patriarchal values, however, are invalid. Not because DSGs are women, but because the root of social entitlement over women's bodies does not originate from drunk straight girls making out with each other, even if they're doing this to impress a guy.
I'm also dubious on the idea that they're mocking other women's sexuality. It's a sexual behavior in itself. As I pointed out before, our species isn't divided into "100% gay * exactly 50/50 bi * 100% straight" categories. Some people are "just bi enough" to get off on making out with the same sex while flirting/fucking with the opposite sex.
It's a different story if someone is "dared" to "go make out with that dyke." THAT would be mocking lesbians (though that shitty behavior is a different issue than that of reinforcing patriarchal norms).
I'm sure some particularly closeted/conflicted DSGs are engaging in that type of mocking (and I don't defend those ones), but the majority of them are just drunkenly playing around. This might not be very dignified, but neither is sex itself.
Much ground-breaking work in this vital area of human rights is being done by Spinal Cord Injury BC and others here in Vancouver. Also please see the film "Scarlet Road".
And yes, there is something substantial to the idea of being a prick tease, feminist rhetoric or not. If I was to approach you at the bar of a restaurant, chat you up and establish mutual interest, have a drink together, suggest you sit with me at my table reservation, get menus and look at them together, and then walk away laughing when my actual date showed up, nobody in their right mind would hesitate to call me an asshole for leading you on. Are you "entitled" to a dinner off me? No, you are not. But am I an asshole for setting up expectations of dinner and then yanking them?
And no, I'm not saying that since you made out with me that I'm therefore entitled to sex. You are entitled to control over your body, and you are entitled to stop exactly when you want. You are -not-, however, entitled to demand that I not be disappointed.
A woman kissing her friend in public, for fun, where the friend knows she's straight -- that's not the same thing.
And a lesbian complaining that a woman went out on dates with her for two months and kissed her, but broke it off when the lesbian pushed for sex -- that's also not very much like your hypothetical.
It's rude to feign interest in one person in order to get the interest of someone else entirely. That's called "using them."
Ms Bone - It's clever of you to attempt to equate all disappoval of DSG conduct to S*-shaming, but you appear almost to be allowing acting like a S* to earn a blanket seal of approval for various other instances of bad conduct. It has been established that some DSGs mock lesbians/lesbianism. Just because they do so by acting like S*s doesn't make it okay.
My own objection is that DSGs are often Flaunting Straight Privilege. I have no interest in shaming S*s for acting like S*s (and probably wouldn't even be bothered to make that distinction), but I do admit to a taste for shaming Privilege Flaunters on a regular basis.
Now, DSG and this thread are making me think of a familiar pattern in feminist spaces which usually begins with a comment against some point of conduct of the so-called "Nice Guy". Almost inevitably one or more males wounded of ego will indignantly erect the NALT image. The inevitable reply to that is something I suspect those who have specific objections to specific aspects of the specific conduct of specific DSGs would make to the original DSG when she makes her revised post and her claim to be acting entirely in a manner designed to win the Ms Erica Seal of Approval - IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.
For people who believe it does, it shouldn't make any difference whether the straight girl is making out with another straight girl or with a "real" lesbian that she's led on. The effect would be the same either way.
I do agree that DSGs shouldn't target lesbians; other than that, here's all I have to say on the issue of DSG's leading people on (pasted from the other thread):
Making out with people who turn out to be uninterested in anything else is something that every group experiences. Whatever reason they have for it (not really lesbian; simply uninterested in anything beyond kissing that night; in an open relationship where kissing others is the limit; etc) is mostly irrelevant.
That said, though, it's perfectly justified to be disappointed when things don't go as far as you hoped, regardless of whether you can logically justify those feelings. Which is why I'm not really getting on the case of people who get annoyed at DSGs for leading them on.
I'm more focused on people who slut-shame DSGs while ironically justifying this with baseless claims that they're an oppressive tool of the patriarchy.
To be fair I did focus on that one commenter who had somehow tricked herself into believing that women who'd dated her for two months were also drunk straight girls, but only to point out how crazy that sounds (which I think we can all agree on).
Saying "they shouldn't target lesbians because that's bad form" isn't slut-shaming.
Saying "they shouldn't make out with each other at all because that causes men to think X and Y" absolutely IS slut-shaming.
Sochi next year may be tough; it seems highly likely that none of my current group of favourites will get there - and it was a thin group for starters.
Implying certain types of women should stifle their sexuality lest it give men the wrong idea about the rest of women is exactly the kind of bullshit that led me to reject feminism in the first place.
I am well aware that some women are into some (all?) of the things that are depicted in porn. That was not my contention with your original comment.
I think we can all agree that everyone approaches sex in their own unique way, some of which is represented in porn and some of which is not.
But I don't think it is such a bad thing to encourage guys to at least be interested and invested in making sure that their sexual partners enjoy sex as much as they do (whether that means incorporating foreplay or not). A lot, I believe most, women require at least some foreplay during sex. So it is not unreasonable for a guy to at least be willing and open to engaging in foreplay, if his partner requires it. Most porn doesn't seem to focus too much on foreplay (perhaps some does, but I don't know what the break down).
Besides, it is probably a lot easier to tell a guy that you don't need foreplay, than to tell a guy that you DO need foreplay.
To put this into context, Dan seems to receive a LOT of letters from women who's boyfriends/husbands don't know or seem to care to incorporate foreplay into their sex lives. As a result they don't find sex very satisfying. He doesn't seem to receive as many letters from women who hate foreplay but who's partners just won't quit trying ro engage in it. Obviously, the best solution is for people in a sexual relationship, is to communicate to each other about what their sexual desires/needs are and try their best to be GGG. To this end, I think promoting being as invested in your partner's sexual gratification as your own is a good place to start.
I quite liked it when my ex said he doesn't like the term "foreplay" at all. It's sex. Calling it "foreplay" makes it sound less valid.
What is it anyway? Any kind of non-PiV sex before PiV? Oral and manual sex? Is it still foreplay if one partner decides against PiV sex at the last minute?
It makes it sound like anything but PiV is not serious sex. (Which may well be how someone feels. But someone else might feel that anything without oral is not serious sex.)
Yeah I mean it's pretty common to view PIV that way, in the hetero world.
I certainly don't consider oral or manual sex as "sex" (for myself).
If someone said "I want to have sex with you" but really meant oral sex I would feel pretty fucking ripped off.
She provided a healthy sexual outlet for a couple of teenage guys, and provided a stable and, albeit awkward, safe and comfortable venue of communication around the topic. She's a hell of a lady, and a wonderful mother.
I'm with migrationist. It's all good. I have sex with many different parts of my body, and I don't wall some activities off as only "warm-up" to the "main event".
Slut-shaming is bad, even though it may lead some [stupid] men to think that all or most women are easy.
DSG shaming is ok because it may lead some [stupid] men to think that all or most girl-girl pairings are for their pleasure.
Yeah, this makes a lot of sense.
*Note: Leading people on is never cool. However, no drunk make out session ever guarantees anything more than just that.
Cunnilingus to me is a GGG thing reserved for LTRs. Giving head is fun times though even if I'd certainly never call it sex (whether it ends in orgasm or not).
I am deeply, deeply committed to PIV--a session of every wonderful other thing leaves me feeling a bit deprived and frustrated if there's been no P in my V. And yet I do find lots, lots of other sexual acts pretty great. I love oral, anal, fisting. I like to give and receive all kinds of sex. For me, PIV is the cumulative sexual act, but not THE defining sexual act.
Therefore, I understand the objection to calling everything else, especially if it precedes the big Moment of Penetration as "foreplay." It's all sex. It's all sexual. And what do you call oral, if it happens *after* the PIV, which happens in my bed all the time (well, when there's sex in my bed, which hasn't been nearly often enough lately, dammit!)? It's certainly not "before" the "sex", it's not a warm-up to the main event. It's another fun sex thing to do. Even the frotting and kissing and breast-play that might precede PIV and which gets me aroused so that PIV is pleasurable and not uncomfortable, is more than mere "foreplay" in the sense that it doesn't just serve as a getting-me-ready activity.
Besides, if you don't consider anything but PIV to qualify as "sex" what do you call it? (It's "oral SEX" after all) Say you, a woman, were out with a straight male friend last night and what you did was kiss and fondle and lick and suck each other, and he fingered you. Maybe at least one of you had an orgasm Another friend asks you what you did last night. Would you say, "we went bowling?" You might characterize it as "hanging out," which, while truthful, is also disingenuous. I hang out with my sister all the time, and none of those activities take place then. You might say, "We didn't have sex; we just smashed our genitals together, put them in each others' mouths, touched each other in such ways as to lead to orgasm. But we didn't have sex." Apparently, you might, but now you're starting to sound like those "virginity-until-marriage" Christians who carefully characterize any- and everything except for PIV as "not really sex." Or Bill Clinton. And do you really want to sound like either one?
Friend: "M, what did you do last night?
M*really had PIV*: "Hung out."
Friend: "M, what did you do last night?"
M*really had all other other things but not PIV*: "Hung out"
I'm not super into describing my sex life with people, unless they bring it up first. If I say who I hung out with, anyone who knows me will know that we had sex.
P.S. I haven't had an "everything but PIV" situation in years, and that's the way I like it.
Okay, I'm being a bit difficult. Back in the day, that would be referred to as "we fooled around" or "we hooked up" maybe.
I'm not talking about having an "everything but PIV situation" as if people were rationing their sex, like some do for religious or cultural, or age-related-parcel-it-out reasons, or for fear of pregnancy and lack of birth control, or fear of STIs. There may simply be times when in every relationship, for one reason or another, people hook up, fool around, and PIV doesn't happen.
My point was that when you and tachycardia say you don't even define anything besides PIV as "sex," I think you're not being truthful or thinking it through logically. You may prefer not to have any sexual interaction that doesn't include or isn't mostly PIV, but you have to concede that cunnilingus, for example, is in fact, a sexual act. Right? So if that is what a couple did, it would be inaccurate and misleading to say they haven't had sex, which would lead someone else to think that nothing of any kind of sexual nature had occurred.
I mean, it is that literal definition which leads to the idea that if it doesn't include penetration of an orifice by a penis, it isn't sex, which suggests that lesbians can't and therefore don't have sex. Which is, of course, absurd.
a) raise the stakes, by insisting that PIV is your goal and they better get their gear in working order pronto, or
b) lower the stakes, by understanding that as long as you both had fun "fooling around," no one has to go to sleep disappointed or feeling like a failure.
As someone whose own orgasms are not reliably easy to obtain, I knew which way I wanted to go. But then, I've never gotten off from penetration, so perhaps that decision was easier for me. Your mileage may vary.
Perhaps like you, orgasms sometimes elude me, and I can never get them from PIV (nor from oral alone), but I still love the sensation of a P in my V.
As a teacher of critical thinking and writing, I just get irked when someone says something like "to me, anything but PIV isn't even sex," when what I think she means is, "I prefer every sexual encounter to consist only of PIV, and I don't even require or desire any or much in the way of warm-up activities." It's as much that lack of precision and clarity that I object to as it is a sense that I'm glad I'm not limiting my sexual repertoire so strictly.
People can have their own ways of viewing their own sexuality. That stuff feels distinctly not-like-sex to me. It's nice. But it's not sex. Some people consider masturbation sex. I get that. But I don't feel that way personally. If I ask someone what they did last night and they say "I had sex" when really they were masturbating I wouldn't consider that super honest. But masturbation is in fact a "kind" of sex.
Lesbians don't have sex in the sense of what I consider sex for myself. I'm sure it feels like sex to them, and they think of it that way and experience it that way. But lesbian sex would be massively lacking for me (I've been with women, it's fun. But it feels distinctly different than what my brain processes as "sex" and it's more dependent on act than gender. Oral from a man feels no more like sex than oral from a woman.)
I understand that LITERALLY those things are sex. But my brain doesn't process them as the same as sex, my body doesn't experience them as the same as sex, so... I don't call them sex. It's perfectly honest for me to do so, unless the guy in question is your boyfriend/husband or something, in which case your opinion of what sex is becomes relevant in my sex life. Otherwise I think it's valid to describe things as I perceive them.
Finally, neither of us said we prefer to have only PIV, we said we don't consider foreplay as sex. I don't consider a delicious chocolate milkshake sex but if you offer me one before or after I'll gladly take it. Saying something isn't experienced as sex doesn't mean you don't like it - necessarily, although it COULD mean that.
"But then, I've never gotten off from penetration, so perhaps that decision was easier for me."
You think? Haha. You hit the nail on the head.
You're not losing anywhere near as much by cutting out (or cutting down on) PIV as I would be if I ever did. I've orgasmed from cunnilingus and manual but it's nowhere near the same as what it's like during sex.
@Hunter78(193) I feel there is a part of me that needs to defend the successful vanilla sexual relationship but even as I do I realize that as vanilla as my husband and I are we are still not limited to PiV. He would be very bored without blow jobs. His life WOULD be so small and drab without oral sex. Easy fix I say. Y'all are easy to please.
Woah woah woah woah
Ain't nobody talking about a world without blowjobs. Cutting out blowjobs and cutting out cunnilingus are two very different things in my book.
And you're off the mark, anyways. Lesbian teen out with her girlfriend for a night of fun kisses her gf on the dance floor and WOOT! OH YEAH! WOOT! The bros start hooting like idiots. Lesbian teenager doesn't want her kiss to be mixed up with attention-whoring, thank you very much. She just wants to kiss her girlfriend.
Lesbian Teen's Father
I've been married to a bi-woman for years, and have shared many fun times adding other women to the mix. All my thrill is from seeing my woman soooo happy getting something I can't give, and of course the fun of having two women to play with...
And lastly, when I was much younger, I mouth kissed my beautiful, hot male friend - an experience that immediately and powerfully revealed that I am straight. No amount of liquor would change that - aren't DSG's simply straight identified, slightly bi women who are only a little bit female oriented since its all a spectrum? My wife is super straight identified and none would know otherwise.
Except I wasn't the one arguing that way. I said that using your sexuality to mock other women's sexuality was not cool. To the extent that any particular DSGs are not doing that, well, it's not about them.
A straight girl making out with another girl to get the attention of a guy is no more "mocking" of lesbianism than a vanilla girl engaging in a little kink to please her man is "mocking" of BDSM.
Unless you're talking about women literally being like "LAWL LESBIANS LET'S MAKE OUT TO MAKE FUN OF THEM" which was nothing like the letter and certainly nothing I've ever heard of, seen, or even logical...
Wait, why is that your presumption?
I think I was pretty precise in my language. I did say anything less than PIV does not feel like sex to me. It is more like a nice massage or something. I even stated that is MY EXPERIENCE, so it has absolutely no bearing on whether lesbians have real sex. To me, sex is more than just which body parts make contact. I can fall asleep during cunnilingus, and have, or start wondering if I really should call a halt to it and go wash the dishes or something. This does not mean my sex life is limited to ONLY PIV, as there are other forms of penetration that might be equally satisfying. If foreplay is less than PIV, it stands to reason that other things might be equal to or greater than. Examples I can think of would be anal and fisting. Since I'm using comparative phrasing, some of the metrics of that comparison are intensity of the feelings the act generates, whether an act can potentially lead to an orgasm for me,and how the act influences my relationship with my partner, if it brings us closer, takes us to the next level in trust and communication, or is vaguely annoying and makes me want some space. I'm guessing most other people use similar concepts when developing a personal definition of sex...things that don't lead to orgasm, don't feel sexy, and don't increase emotional intimacy are not likely to be considered sex.
Choose your choice.
Personally, I am a big fan of penetrative sex.
That does not mean that any other kind of sex is not sex.
I find the term "foreplay" a bit silly, for reasons I tried to explain, but which nocutename explained much better.
A) Young men are now on Viagra?!???! WTF??? and
B) Drunk Straight People are fucking things up in the bars
by pretending to identify as LGBT when they're really NOT
(well said, Avast2006 @173)?
So this is Dating #101 nowadays. Ho-ho-ho-ly shit.
"Waaa! I can't believe a Mom would take a kid's smart phone so that he can't use it to look at Internet porn!"
If he's old enough to look at porn, he's old enough to attend to his own damn porn needs.
Ad if he wants a smart phone, he can damn well wait until he can pay for a data plan himself.
Ahhh yes. The old "feminism is about equality and if you don't like it you must not want equality for women" argument. I know it well.
“If I look up ‘carrot’ in the dictionary, most people will acknowledge I do not know all there is to know about carrots and if I truly want to understand carrots, I should probably pick up a horticultural text book. We know that legal and medical terms are going to be, at best, simplistically represented and know we need to find a lawyer or a doctor if we want to know more. Anyone deciding to base their argument on, say, a philosophical concept or term using the dictionary is going to be laughed at at best, or automatically lose whatever argument they’re trying to make at least.
Yet the minute we move into a social justice framework, the ultimate authority changes. We don’t need lived experience, we don’t need experts who have examined centuries of social disparities and discrimination, we don’t need societal context. We don’t need sociology or history – no, we have THE DICTIONARY! That ultimate tome of oracular insight, the last word on any debate!
It’s patently ridiculous and you can see that by applying it to any other field of knowledge. But the privileged will continually trot out simplistic, twitter-style dictionary definitions as if they are the last word and the ultimate authority. No-one would drag out the dictionary to debate science with a scientist. But they’re more than willing to trot out a dictionary definition of racism over any sociological analysis. A dictionary is not the ultimate authority - they’re a rough guide for you to discover the simple meaning of words you’ve never heard before – not an ultimate definition of what the word means and all its contexts.”
— Sparky, Womanist Musings
LOTS of women who care about women's right choose not to identify with feminism because of it's abhorrently racist, homophobic/transphobic, sexphobic history (and present!). I've said it here before and I'll say it again: if people feel excluded from your movement it's not their job to suck it up and join anyway so things will magically get better. If you're a feminist it's your job to make your movement more inclusive to:
- women of colour
- sex workers, and other women who's sexuality doesn't fit the feminist mold
- women from other cultures/countries
not our job to come in, put up with your shit, and singlehandedly make things better for other women like us while you guys deny that there's even a problem in the first place.
Or, if you like, here's another quote:
Q:Are you a feminist?
This is a tough question to answer for me in particular. In my experience, I have found it to be hard to call myself a word that is concreted in a movement that excluded women of color, immigrants and LGBT women since I hold all of those identities in one way or another. Organized feminism can also be found to be filled with classism, academia and things like racism which generally don’t make a brown woman like me feel all too safe.
Currently, I would prefer to call myself a womanist or simply a radical woman of color. I stand in unity with different groups of people and believe in fighting for any group who suffers and am not willing to be an oppressor for the “good” of any cause.