Control Tower

Comments

I'd settle for a subtle poly flag, so I knew who it was worth hitting on.

on June 16, 2011 at 1:38 AM

Worth hitting on?...really?

AsaBassa on June 16, 2011 at 7:14 AM

@2 I'd just rather save both* of us the time and awkward conversation, if they're not into non-monogamy. On the other hand, maybe I should be having that conversation with more monogamous women, just to show them that some non-monogamous people can pass, and don't all attend renn faires.

* the monogamous women and myself.

on June 16, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Women typically have more safety concerns than the average male. I think that's one good reason most of us don't like to advertise the details or broadcast everything publicly. Personally, I would much rather get a sense of who someone is and if they seem reasonably sane, before I decide just how much personal info about myself I'd like to give them. Then again, I'm not into crazy public sex, so maybe I have no idea what I'm missing, haha.

on June 16, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Craigslist = modern day hanky code

santababy on June 16, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Without a hankie, you have plausible deniability, should it become necessary. The same reason some women (and men) don't make their flirting obvious.

But as I understand it the hankie code was basically a myth anyway, and there never was a huge set of agreed-upon codes that everyone knew.

And does anyone else find it annoying when MM claims to speak (inaccurately) for all women?

BlackRose on June 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM

@6 I'm not a woman but as a guy I can tell you: Yeah we KNOW MM doesn't speak for all women. You didn't appoint her press secretary or anything.

It would sure be a hell of alot easier if you DID elect one person to tell us what you wanted.

You never hear guys worrying some other guy "speaking for all men". You should be glad MM actually is at least a real live woman (I've met her, I'll testify) and not a man pretending to be a lesbian like half the female bloggers are turning out to be.

Larkshead on June 16, 2011 at 9:15 PM

@7: I do get annoyed when some guy tries to speak for all men.

What do you mean, elect one person to tell you what I want?

BlackRose on June 17, 2011 at 12:24 AM

I don't think the issue is a man speaking for all men, or a woman speaking for all women... it's the generalization of "women always do A" that's annoying, regardless of who's saying it.

That being said, I think MM is as close to accurate as you can get on this topic. There are surely outliers to the general proclamation, but she's right about the majority of women.

santababy on June 17, 2011 at 4:27 PM

@9: Huh? If women were never interested in signalling that they were single, there would be no women participating in online dating or going to singles events.

BlackRose on June 17, 2011 at 4:31 PM

6/BlackRose: Without a hankie, you have plausible deniability, should it become necessary. The same reason some women (and men) don't make their flirting obvious.

Exactly.

10: If women were never interested in signalling that they were single, there would be no women participating in online dating or going to singles events.

I think there's a difference between women signalling they're single and women signalling they're sexually available (the term MM used.) I take MM's use of sexually available to mean a woman signalling she's interested in casual sex. Most women who do online dating or go to singles events are, I believe, looking for a relationship that will lead to sex.

Roma on June 17, 2011 at 9:01 PM

MM's exact words were that women were "not struggling" to make guy see them as sexually available. Like, they don't need to be clued into that idea. They are already on board. The more common problem is getting them to NOT see us as sexually available.

on June 17, 2011 at 10:27 PM

I once had a sociology teacher ask the class "What's the male-equivalent term for the word 'slut'?" The class was stymied. If that same teacher were to ask that same question now, my answer would be "Too easy. The equivalent term is 'creep'."

on June 18, 2011 at 6:45 AM

@13 How many straight guys have a dozen women hit on them each week, or sleep with several different girls each month? One out of a million? Do they exist?

On the other hand, we all have the impression that there are gay male "sluts" who do just that. What do we call them?

"Creeps" are not male sluts, they are weird, somewhat-deranged men whom a person needs to be careful around.

Lastly, for MM: Why the fair share of withering snubs? If you put off a creep, I wouldn't call it a snub. In fact, people may argue that you can only deliver withering snubs to nice people.

Approaching 40 in LA on June 18, 2011 at 11:45 PM

Some interesting thinking about flagging, gender, and the issue of radical consent on this blog: http://flaggingopinicusrampant.wordpress…

"Basic Rules of Flagging
1) Flagging is not consent.
2) Flagging means being cool with being propositioned, being rejected, and having the capacity to reject.
3) Flagging is pan gender (you can’t assume someone’s junk from a flag).
4) There are no anti-flags.
5) Flagging is slut pride."

yk2 on June 19, 2011 at 10:58 AM

I'd feel sorry for straight guys if it weren't for the fact that they have more rights and go gay bashing.

At least when you are gay you get a lot more sex if you want. A lot more. I'd settle for equal rights and less sex though.

JJinAus on June 20, 2011 at 1:48 AM

>"Creeps" are not male sluts,

Slut - woman engaging in sexual behavior of which others do not approve. Involves shaming.

Creep - man engaging in sexual behavior of which others do not approve. Involves shaming.

The objection may or may not be legitimate. Is a 40 year old guy who hits on a 25 year old woman someone you "need to watch out for?" Seems unlikely, but there are those who will still label him a creep.

on June 21, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Actually, I ~would~ question most 40 year old guys hitting on 25 year old women: it's an indication that they can't attract anyone their own age due to immaturity and/or other issues. Same thing that leads 25 year old men to sleep with teenagers, and it's no less creepy, in my book.

Certainly not true in *every example* folks can come up with (I have known some very happy couples more than 15 years apart), but at least @80% when I was 25. I usually had a decent character filter, but then...

I made the mistake of living with one of these sorts at 25, I assumed at 42 he'd have his shit together. WRONG!

But, that's what I get when I ass-u-me.

lyllyth on June 21, 2011 at 2:33 AM

@18: People have different preferences. Some people prefer younger or older partners, and this isn't a sign of immaturity. If a 40 year old can't attract women his own age, it's going to be even harder for him to attract a 25 year old, for whom there is probably more competition. Seems like the more immature men would need to settle for someone much older or less attractive.

Anyway, the point still stands: you disapprove of a man's sexual behavior, you think it's immature, and so you shame him by calling him a creep. Compare this to someone thinking a women having many sex partners is immature or a sign of psychological problems, and shaming her by calling her a slut.

BlackRose on June 21, 2011 at 7:21 AM

I wish I could flag that "I look like a 'dyke' but I really want that boy to pound me". I guess going to Gold's Gym on Broadway in my free time really is not the best place to be if I am looking....

okayokay on June 21, 2011 at 5:38 PM

@20: Why can't you flag that by smiling, flirting, or even saying outright that you're interested in someone?

BlackRose on June 21, 2011 at 6:40 PM

So, MM, can I assume that this is the conclusion of your column this week ?

"So embrace the mystery, boys. Women aren't straightforward and practical about getting our sexual partners quickly and efficiently, because we do not wish to be."

Wow. Insightful. Truly incisive commentary. How about this:

Women don't need to advertise sexual availability because they hold all the sexual bargaining power (they have less desire, but sex-desperate straight men need one of them to have sex) and know that most men will approach them to ask for dating/sex without any prompting anyway.

CharlesF on June 22, 2011 at 2:00 AM

@21 I would much rather them see my flag and get to the pounding before I have to talk to them. Shhhh... don't ruin it....

okayokay on June 22, 2011 at 4:34 PM

@22: I think something like that is probably what she meant. But it ignores that there are lots of men who are shy, uncomfortable making the first move, or who don't want to be pigeonholed in a traditionally masculine role. And that there are lots of women who don't get constantly approached, at least not in respectful ways.

And it also ignores the dysfunctionality of mixed-message communication. I thought sex educators were supposed to encourage honest communication, not "mystery."

BlackRose on June 22, 2011 at 4:38 PM

@23: Just get a hankie and write "Pound me. Don't talk to me" on it. I'd totally go for it.

BlackRose on June 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM

@22 - bitter, much?

I have to say though, that was one comment of MM's I don't get behind. I don't actually "embrace the mystery". I prefer that people are straight up about what they want.

I can certainly beat around the bush - and so do many men - but that's more out of shyness than wanting to be some kind of "mysterious".

Sure, some do, but I don't even know if it's the majority of women who do - certainly not very many I know personally.

Trix on June 23, 2011 at 5:07 AM

#6: I don't think MM has appointed herself spokeswoman for all femalekind. I think she's writing a short column about gender and sexual interaction and she has to paint with a broad brush to get her point across.

I was going to argue the point about women not flagging, but thinking about it, the only women I ever knew who did the hanky thing were leather daddies who did it when they dressed up as a conscious nod to cruising culture.

One of my favourite BDSM-related quips, overheard at a kinky party a while ago: 'What's the right hanky to show that you're into breath play? One embroidered with the name and contact details of your next of kin'.

on June 23, 2011 at 4:11 PM

@26: I agree with you: it could be shyness. It could be someone wanting to have an excuse in case things didn't go well ('Oh, you thought I was flirting with you? Sorry, I didn't mean it like that.') It could be a form of protection in case of violence/rape/legal issues. It could be a way of not wanting to look like a 'slut' in front of 'friends.' It could be a way of playing hard-to-get, making someone more interested or attracted by making them wonder what you mean and whether you're really interested.

Unclear communication does have its advantages, as well as the obvious disadvantages. On the whole I think clear communication is better, but a discussion of this needs to honestly look at what's going on, not just say "embrace the mystery."

BlackRose on June 23, 2011 at 7:22 PM

@17: Actually, I'd disagree. The female counterpart to a male creep is called a "stalker," not a slut. The key difference here is that the attention is unwanted, and that a creep, unlike a regular guy (or, for that matter, the male counterpart to a slut, also known as a slut) can take "fuck off, I'm not interested" as an answer, where a creep, on the other hand, continues to pursue and to invade the other person's space.

JudT on June 24, 2011 at 1:06 PM

@29: You're right, for one definition of 'creep'... but you seem to be missing the point.

When people call a girl a 'slut,' they often don't mean someone who has a lot of sex with a lot of people, they mean 'I am judging that person's worth.' Girls can get called sluts for the way they dress, the way they act, asking someone out, or dating the 'wrong' person... even if they don't have sex.

When people call a guy a 'creep,' they often don't mean someone who actually stalks or harasses, they mean 'I am judging that person's worth.' Guys can get called creeps for the way they dress, the way they act, asking someone out (and getting rejected), not fitting in or being unattractive in some way, or dating the 'wrong' person... even if they're not actually stalking or harassing anyone.

BlackRose on June 24, 2011 at 9:25 PM

Bit late, but just commenting in reply to 30.

The difference, though, is that one is perceived as a potential danger, or at least resembling those who turn in to dangerous people (whether justified or not), and another is not. Calling someone a slut might share some characteristics of calling someone a creep - they're possibly considered to be inferior or undeserving of respect, it's pejorative, it's not necessarily true. But the two terms are completely different in implication, if similar in the way they're delivered.

on July 1, 2011 at 6:46 PM

@31: I'm not sure: it may depend on who uses the term, or how it's used, but I think 'creep' has more of an implication of yuckiness than dangerousness. If it is danger, it's a 'weak' type of danger rather than a 'strong' one, if that makes any sense: we're not talking about a romantic outlaw here.

I do think you have a good point, and in fact "resembles a (weak) dangerous person" is probably the closest equivalent to "promiscuous" for men, in terms of the scorn and low value it implies.

BlackRose on July 2, 2011 at 2:49 PM

>>As long as there's no universally understood and adhered-to hankie that means "Nope, I'm definitely not available," women aren't going to wear one that unabashedly signals "Yes!"

Nothing's universal...but a wedding ring comes pretty darn close to "Nope" hankie.

on July 5, 2011 at 11:46 PM

OMG does that mean snoop dog has been trolling for cock this whole time??!??!!?

Caralain on July 17, 2011 at 9:31 AM

My high school daughter says the male equivalent to 'slut' is 'player', and she has much less respect for the 'players' than the 'sluts.' I throw a fit every time she uses 'slut' in a sex-negative sense, warming up to the day I tell her what a slut *I* am. (When she's a grown-up. And I'm feeling brave. Maybe.)

on July 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Control Tower

Hankie Communication

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Everything You Need to Know About Monkeypox—and Not Just You Gays

Eating Beef Jerky at the Bodies Exhibit

How Writing for The Stranger Made Me Blacker

Primary Election Night 2023: The Results Are In and The Stranger's Still Got It! 💅

The More I Learn About Breast Milk, the More Amazed I Am

King County's Housing Crisis Limits Its Efforts to Reduce Crime

Support The Stranger

Hankie Communication

Comments

Please wait...

Add a comment

Preview

Editors' Picks

Just Can't Get Enough?

Sign up for our newsletter for news recaps, updates, and more!