I'm Not the Woman Who Enjoys Looking at You in a Thong, But I Hope You Find Her

Savage Love Letter of the Day: Reader Advice Round-up

Comments

1

A reply to the reply to the reply about CLIT: Just a note that not all ladies are into multiple orgasms. Mine can get off in less than 60 seconds of licking or flicking and once she does once or twice would rather read a book or eat a pizza than go for more. It has never been a huge problem though, we just have a lot of foreplay and sometimes fucking before we get to the things that make her come. When she does come first, she has always been game for a bit more PIV or just looking hot while I finish. I miss long sessions of eating pussy sometimes, and I feel like my skills in that area are atrophied but it's nothing worth looking for another partner over.

2

I always felt envious of women with breast cancer for getting all the attention. Nobody seems to care about prostates. It's not fair!

(Sarcasm, y'all - I just wanted to say this so I could beat a troll to it.)

3

It's absolutely true getting wet definitely isn't a sign a woman is wants it or consents (the same applies for erection).  Some women can even have an orgasm while being sexually assaulted and raped but also does not mean it was wanted. I believe that has to make the trauma even worse than it usually is, because you feel as if your own body betrayed you. There's a fantastic Ted talk by Emily Nagoski about arousal non-concordance and I think it definitely is a must watch. (Not sure the rules about links here, but the title is The truth about unwanted arousal, and it's up on YouTube.)

You're absolutely right, drjones. It is true many women are capable of multiple orgasms but many aren't, too. Some may want too, but can't, some may be able to but just not want to, some may get so sensitive after the first orgasm that it's painful to try again, for some it may take a ton of time and work to have multiples that they just don't want to. I'm sure there are even more reasons, that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. Personally, I get so sensitive it hurts, so I hold off on direct clitoral stimulation until the very end. That guy really pissed me off, for  lot of obvious reasons. One part that bothered me was him being "bummed" that he couldn't use the foreplay/pussy eating abilities to their full potential. It's fine to be proud of that (though to be honest, I don't see it as something to be particularly proud of. Being willing to learn and put the work in to please a partner should be standard, not extra credit) but if you make it so that your disappointment, your hurt feelings and pride, are more important than your partners pleasure, that's not ok. Making a partner feel like they're wrong for how their body responds is an awful thing to do.

4

How supportively you interact with random guys emailing you is really sweet, Dan.

5

I tried to search for what website is giving your email this description, but no luck at filtering out all of the pages that are Savage Love posts themselves.

6

Love the picture, thanks Dan.

7

I'm 99% certain I know who Hitler Stache Guy is. If the caller was from the Bay Area, I definitely know who it is.

Some background: It's not a true Hitler Stache - it's closer to Jeff Kent Stache - and it's frequently dyed bright pink, or platinum. I think he looks better without facial hair, personally, but the stache as it is is probably the most flattering for him.

8

Can anyone explain the dynamics of straight cross dressers wanting to have sex with straight women? Are they fantasizing about being lesbians, or see themselves as men but find not only women erotic but also the idea of wearing women's clothing transgressive and erotic, or is there some kind of split in them that identifies as male but also as female? I would really like to understand this.

9

@8; do you go round asking women why they dress in men’s clothing? Obviously these men enjoy the experience, and seeing a guy in women’s knickers and suspenders is sexy. Do I need to understand why I find it so, or just enjoy the visuals.

10

@ 8
All of the above, possibly more, maybe something completely different.

In any case, I want to believe that I look better in lingerie. Pictures upon request.

11

@10: Yes, pictures please!

12

The LW in the photo looked lovely. Dressing sexy makes me feel sexy...who am I to judge or shit on what make someone else feel sexy. Especially when their sexy dress up is sexy! I hope you find that person that sees how hot you are.

13

I feel like Dan's email being posted on a transvestitism forum somewhere is the 21st century equivalent of writing someone's phone number on a truck stop bathroom wall.

14

Breaking forum etiquette alert: this is off-topic.

Dan answered a question of mine back on March 5, and I didn't read it til now, as while I've been reading Savage Love for YEARS on a different site, my dumb ass was only aware of his weekly column, not the Letter of the Day. Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised to read it (10 months late), and happier to read the comments, which were mostly insightful, supportive and awesome. (I had written about my girlfriend, now wife, who has what I guess I'd call an "evisceration fetish.") The comments are now closed, so I wanted to rudely hijack this one to say what a great group of commenters there are here. Just wanted to say thanks, 10 months late. Sorry for the interruption, will go back to bingeing on all these columns I didn't know I was missing.

15

Eh, by now even cancer seems to have picked up enough of the Team Sports aura. With inadequate funding to go around, it seems inevitable.

[It was fags and queers who reclaimed "fag" and "queer."]

The Q word, perhaps. The F word has not really been reclaimed; what happened was that a handful of people into MM sex who like being called anti-gay slurs sold straight people a permission slip to use those words. Who's using those words? The Q word one almost never hears except from the in group, while the F word comes mostly from outside. Although... I suppose one could make the case that Fs actually PRESENT as Fs, and that those of us who don't own the label aren't in that group... but the problem is that the Fs are only too happy to spread the myth that they're the whole M4M group, and they like it when those of us who aren't Fs get treated like Fs by outsiders.

16

@8. hamish. All three. The kind of man who does it is a five-star general or a major carrier airline pilot (i.e.the sort of guy who projects in his public persona assertively and unambiguously as a man), not a freelance knitting consultant or Jane Austen critic. Possibly, though, this is a travesty (!), and necessarily a simplification, of crossdressers.

17

Hmm, I'm not sure a Hitler stache always indicates one is a Nazi. I can picture hipsters sporting them in order to be "ironic." Stick to argyle socks, dudes, they only offend people's fashion sensibilities.

"Dan asked the black listeners about how they defend the black lives matter movement" -- Wait, what? The BLM movement needs to be "defended"?? Great analogy to get across what should be the obvious point that "black lives matter" does not mean white lives don't. Thanks for today's "I'm embarrassed to be white" moment.

Go Fichu! high five

18

Deep State @3: "Being willing to learn and put the work in to please a partner should be standard, not extra credit. [B]ut if you make it so that your disappointment, your hurt feelings and pride, are more important than your partners pleasure, that's not ok" -- I nominate this comment as thread winner. Perfectly said!

Hamish @8: Who can explain any fetish? For the straight cross dresser, one factor is that they just love women, and they love femininity, and when they are dressed in feminine clothing and with a woman there is twice the femininity in the room and therefore twice the turn-on. But the answer to all your questions is yes. People can have different motives for the same kink, and yes, for some it's the transgression, for some it's a chance to roleplay lesbians, for some it's the sensation of satin or lace against their body, some are exploring their genderqueer side, and some just like the way they look in lingerie which is designed to be sexy -- so why restrict that sexiness to female bodies? Why do WOMEN wear lingerie? You'll find men have the same reasons.

Mickey @14: I remember that letter. Congratulations and thanks for writing in!

Harriet @16: In your experience perhaps, but you're meeting men who wear lingerie for men, right? I would hesitate to pigeonhole the sort of man who wears lingerie for women. They may come from walks of life broader than you'd think.

19

@14 this would explain why LWs so rarely comment, they don't know Dan has answered them. Tech savvy youth - when Dan answers a letter, you could email the LW a link to the SLLOD / Lovecast / weekly column & comments thread.

20

Huh. I would never go on a kink dating site because i'm pretty darned vanilla...but a big hairy guy in ladies silky undies and a butt plug totally getting off on the experience sounds hot to me! Too bad I'm 58.

21

17-BiDan-- Returning the high five. Getting noticed by Dan pleases me inordinately.

22

@21 Fichu
The magnificent thing was that he named you. That rarely happens (I don't recall when it last did!) when he quotes readers in readers-comments-columns. I am not worthy, all hail Fichu!

23

Lynnie @20: Why would being 58 be a problem? The guy in the photo is 56. Not all dudes think like Yann Moix, you know. Fetlife caters for all kinks and fetishes; trust me, you don't HAVE to go full dominatrix to find a guy who "just" wants to cross dress and wear a butt plug and have otherwise vanilla sex. Bonus, the right one can gently coax out other kinks you didn't know you have. Maybe write to Dan and see if he can forward you some of these e-mails? :)

24

As BDF @ 19 points out “cross dressers,” an umbrella term I’m using here as I’m aware of the many nuances and definitions, come from all walks of life, different social status, occupation, taste of music, and basically everything else.

lynniebabes @ 20
The age gap isn’t necessarily working against you. As someone who only “came out,” in terms of dressing up in public and some other related activities in, some ten years ago while in my mid 40’s it is my impression that there is a generational gap.
The gap as I see it is that youngsters are way more accommodating of basically everything. Male-borns like myself are often struggling to find female partners because those in our age group are will either run away screaming or not sure what to make of it. And the youngsters, sadly enough, can find plenty youngsters.

As a woman of any age who likes the idea of a man dressing up for her you are very likely to find partners in crime at your age group, and very possibly younger as well if you’re willing to explore that route. If you’re still up for a show then maybe we can arrange something.

Those who have any additional questions, maybe also pics but no guarantee, can contact me directly cmd78014 at yeah who

25

I knew when I first read it that Fichu's comment was gold. I'm glad she got the recognition and name-check!

Lots of other good comments and the guy in the photo looked great! CMD, if you send Dan a photo--maybe of you in a pink shortie nighty--I hope he posts it. Even if it's not all of our thing, you're a valued member of the community and if you want to show off, I'm sure we are all happy to take a look.

Some really good advice for the guy whose gf gets too wet for him (and comes too quickly for him). I had major issues with his tone, but for what it's worth, as a woman who gets very wet (even in menopause, where I now get about as wet as premenopausal women do, and used to get REALLY wet): it can be a problem, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the guy's penis is small. I had a partner once who was on the large side of average and he had a hard time getting enough friction, especially in standard missionary.

Several points: Wetness doesn't necessarily indicate arousal. This applies to the very good point about ILL (if he did have occasion to find out that poor girl was wet), and it also applies to jerks like mr. "my girlfriend's vagina feels like a bowl of jelly." Vaginas lubricate in advance of expected penetration. The amount depends on the woman and her physiology, not her level of arousal, though I agree it's very hot and gratifying to have a woman get "so wet for you."

There is almost no way you can tell a woman she is too wet without it seeming cruel and being hurtful, as we associate wetness with arousal. It can easily sound like a complaint when it should be a compliment. If this is your situation, tread with care and delicacy in your wording.

26

@mickeyten, I'm glad things worked out for you and glad that when you found the advice and comments, they were helpful rather than dismissive. Unlike BiDanFan, whose memory is better than mine, I don't remember the letter or the comments. Would you mind linking to them?

@delta35 (@19): excellent suggestion. I hope the tech-savy at risk middle-aged assistants read this! I also hope that they or the webmaster, who may be one of them, allows us to create italics and boldface and insert live links again.

@lynniebabes, you're not too old for anything! I'm not saying age is just a number or a mindset or whatever that platitude is, but mid-late fifties doesn't mean squat about overall attractiveness to a huge number of people, only some of whom are in your same age range.

Hitler mustaches are an offense in more than one way. They aren't ironic; they're ugly. And they are always and forever going to be associated with Hitler. I don't even think that Jews could "reclaim them," and not only can I never imagine that happening, I can't imagine why anyone would (see point about hideousness above).

27

@14, @19 take out the line breaks

htt
ps://ww
w.thestrang
er.com/slog/2018/03/05/25878461/sav
age-love-letter-of-the-day-a-fetish-too-far

28

@nocutename I don't know how to link on this site, but the URL is https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/03/05/25878461/savage-love-letter-of-the-day-a-fetish-too-far

It was particularly cool because while I love Dan to death, most of the commenters seemed to pick up better on what I was actually saying than he did.

29

@28 mickeyten
I trust that (like your GF's fantasies about loving /you/ to death), you aren't being literal with loving Dan to death.

Lotta 'loving to death' in your household!

30

@curious2 😂 pun not intended!

We found a happy medium, where she can mention the thoughts, without going into the (literally) gory details. One of the commenters mentioned attachment disorder, and in a way they nailed it - my wife was abandoned as a baby, lived in an orphanage in Hungary and diagnosed with RAD before being adopted and coming to this country at about 8 years old. With support, RAD is one of the rare things people can "grow out of" by adulthood, and she largely has - we have a healthy, non-codependent relationship, but I suspect growing up with RAD largely brings up those thoughts.

She's fully aware of how bonkers her fantasies are, too - I asked her once if in these fantasies I live through the dissection; she said of COURSE I do. So I said "you just put me back together afterward?" She replied "yeah, I just sew you up with me inside you," and had to laugh at herself when she heard it said out loud.

31

Yeah Fichu, it was a great comment. Good Dan used it.

32

@BiDanFan 17

"The Guardian" newspaper researched the number of people killed by the police in the US in 2016 (Google "The Guardian The Counted"), and it turns out that the demographic characteristic that puts "people" at risk of being killed by police isn't being black. It's sex/gender - being an adult MAN. The US police shoot twice as many white men as black men. It's not as high per capita (about 1/2 per capita rate), but claiming that "breast cancer in men" is a good analogy to white men shot by the police in the US is bullshit. And the US police shoot hardly any women of any race. They kill white men at 41x the rate they kill black women (which would be about 10x the per-capita rate).

There's a video of police shooting a white guy in Arizona (Google "Youtube unarmed man begs for life shot by police"). If you watch it (and it's hard watching, you see someone killed because, after being forced to crawl around on the floor while drunk for an indefinite period of time, he reached to pull up his pants), it's really, REALLY clear that white mens' lives don't matter either (unless they're cops), and let me emphasize the EITHER. The policeman who shot that white guy got put on trial, and, no surprise, was "not guilty".

I haven't looked up the stats, but I think it's a pretty safe guess that black men are stopped by the police at at least 2x the per-capita rate that white men are. If that's true, then black men are no more likely to be shot in any given encounter with police than white men are. If true, this makes this a problem of how police handle encounters in general, and of why police stop black men so often. And it also means that making police exactly as likely to shoot black men in any given stressful encounter as they are to shoot white men in similar situations would change... absolutely nothing.

Let's try some scientific method here. The hypothesis that police shootings are only about racism and not about policing policies and training and police culture (other than racism) leads to the prediction that shootings would be states with higher proportions of black people, such as NY, and lower in states with high proportions of white people. But, in fact, New York state has a lower per-capita rate of police killings than Oregon, or Maine, or Iowa, or New Hampshire, or North Dakota. Hypothesis failed.

The fact that New York has the second lowest per capita rate of police shootings of any of the states shows that this is a problem that can be (and, in places, has been) improved FOR EVERYONE with better police practices. That is something that benefits white men, black men, native men (who are killed at a higher per capita rate than black men, not that BLM give a fuck) of all races, alike. It's not a zero-sum game! The numbers of white men killed don't go up when police de-escalate more often with black men, and vice-versa. Training police in techniques to de-escalate violence would reduce the number of black men killed, AND white men killed, and Hispanics, and natives, and Asians. In the stress of the moment, the police will do what they've trained to do, and you can't train them how to de-escalate with one race without training them how to de-escalate with the others.

Forming a movement called "BLM" in response to police shootings isn't like a pink ribbon campaign in response to breast cancer. It's like forming a movement called "White lives matter" to raise funds for breast cancer research, and then, when people call you out on it, responding by patronizingly and disingenuously saying "what should be the obvious point that "'white lives matter' does not mean black lives don't". That depends on context - and when someone thinks, as you do, that black "people" (actually almost all men) being killed is a problem while twice as many white men being killed is not, that 13 black women being killed is a problem while 530 white men being killed is not, well in that context it's pretty damn obvious that you don't think that white (men's) lives matter.

I'm not an American, so it's not really my place to tell Americans how to run their affairs. They're my neighbouring country so shitty things happening there matter more to me than shitty things happening further away. But I'd like to see fewer people killed by police here in Canada, too: we "only" have half the US per-capita rate but that's still much much too high IMO. There's plenty of room for improvement and there's no inherent reason for it to be one race against another.

33

@2 I care.

34

Oldie @ 32
I wonder if you took into account the percentage of the US black community in the general US population and whether or not that ratio differs when it comes to police shootings and prison population.
Total: white 63.7%, black 12.6% according to latest census taken at 2010 (note: different sites publish different numbers for some reason. I used the most conservative white estimate I found):
https://www.infoplease.com/us/race-population/population-united-states-race-and-hispaniclatino-origin-census-2000-and-2010

Inmate race as of Saturday, November 24, 2018: white 58.2%, black 38.1%.
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

All people killed by police: 52-31, people killed while not attacking: 46- 39
https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938186/police-shootings-killings-racism-racial-disparities

Maybe not exactly men’s breast cancer, yet standing out nevertheless.
Nothing personal, I know this is not what you meant, and yet your attitude reminds me of those here in the US that would love to see the census go away since we need to save money. Not to mention highlighting the imminent decline of the white majority.

35

Nocute @26: "There is almost no way you can tell a woman she is too wet without it seeming cruel and being hurtful, as we associate wetness with arousal."

I don't follow your logic there. We associated wetness with arousal, which is a good thing in a sexual partner, so why would it be hurtful and cruel to acknowledge / refer to her level of arousal? Surely a higher level of arousal is a good thing? "You don't get wet enough" would sound hurtful to me (and surely countless women who've experienced menopause would agree); "you get too wet" would imply too much of a good thing. I guess I've been told this and found it to be just a statement of obvious fact. I suppose perhaps women who've fallen victim to internalised slut-shaming might hear "you get too wet" as "you nympho, what's wrong with you," but I can't see that as being a common reaction when said by a lover who was happy to be with you and pleased that you were turned on by them. Smacks of a double standard; would any man find "you get too hard" insulting?

Or perhaps you just don't trust THIS guy, with his "bowlful of jelly" and "frictionless void" comments, to be capable of tact, particularly since for him it IS a complaint. I share your concern there.

Old Crow @32: The stats you cite reveal two problems: 1. Police are systematically racist when it comes to stopping people "randomly." 2. Police are too trigger happy. Correct? So, it's black people who have raised the issue of police violence and demanded it be addressed. If their demands are successful, that should lead to fewer police shootings of EVERYONE. Right? What you're arguing is that the movement, started by black people to draw attention to the disregard police have of young black men's lives in particular, shouldn't be called Black Lives Matter because it's not just black people who are affected. That's like saying feminism, started by women to combat gender inequalities, shouldn't be called feminism because its goals benefit people of all genders. You're choosing to see "BLM" as being anti-white, just as some misogynists choose to see "feminism" as being anti-man. Try choosing not to see it this way. That would be one small step toward reducing racial division, would it not?

36

@BiDan: I don't think I generally project in my comments, but this time I probably am, and that might be why my comment is irrational. I was told I "got too wet" by my ex, who made it sound like an accusation. I remember thinking that no one else had ever complained and that he should take it as a compliment (even though, ironically, I wasn't really terribly turned on by him). I think that I was as wet with him as with anyone, but for him--and he wasn't small at all--it somehow was an incompatibility, creating, not a "frictionless void" (I hope), but not enough friction. Anyway, I heard it as an accusation, even if it may not have been meant as one. Maybe as too much of a good thing? I don't know--it became the reason given for why he wasn't satisfied by sex with me, hence a "it's your fault" kind of thing about something over which I had no control. It played into a larger theme of our sex life, which was that not only did he not care about my sexual satisfaction, but he was actually threatened by any and everything I needed to be satisfied, and unwilling or unable to do anything to change his own technique or learn something new. Everything was my fault.

The reason I didn't jump into this discussion on the weekly column's comment thread was because I was afraid I'd go on and on and sound illogical; it was a triggering letter for me.
Maybe other women won't hear it as an insult/accusation/blame; maybe there are more tactful ways of putting it (though my ex didn't say things as horrible as the lw did, and I was still hurt). I don't trust this particular lw to be a master of tact, however. No one wants their partner to tell them that the way their body is or works is inadequate. When it comes to genitals, things get particularly fraught.

37

@35: BiDanFan, good point about "choosing" to see Black Lives Matter one way instead of another. People go to great lengths to explain why . . . why what? Why black lives don't matter? Why they shouldn't matter? I'm never quite sure what the point is, except to expose racism or at the least, racist thinking and a sense of shrinking white privilege. Not only is that similar to men and women who choose to see feminism as "anti man," it's also similar to that dude talked about on the podcast who wears a Hitler mustache and chooses not to see it as being associated with Hitler and, by extension, with Nazi sympathies. Rather than acknowledge the point, he puts a lot of effort into sophist arguments.

The fact is that one can choose to acknowledge that the U.S. is a country founded on racism that has created all its systems based on racism, in which white people (I am one) benefit from racist policies or conditions originally enacted under overt racism, even if those white people benefitting from them aren't overtly racist and didn't see that for a long time that they have white privilege. While BLM was started in response to police brutality and abuse of force, it really extends to all aspects of life. Any white person who refuses to acknowledge that that the U.S. has systemic racism baked into every aspect of it is, at this point, being willfully ignorant. Probably because to acknowledge white privilege means one has to be willing to give up some of that privilege, and a lot of people don't want to give up privilege. We all--men and women, black and white--suffer from implicit bias (take the Harvard implicit bias tests to have your eyes opened), and we all need to work to counterbalance it.

Thought experiment: what if the movement was called "Black Lives Matter As Much As White Ones Do?" Because that's what is meant: not that black lives matter MORE than other lives; just that that they matter as much.

38

Ms Fan/Ms Cute - In her book Three Guineas (which I personally liked better than A Room of One's Own, although popular opinion ran the other way), Mrs Woolf cited the then-current Dictionary Definition of feminism - "the advancement of the rights of women". That, in my view, was when they had it right. Fight for your own benefit and advancement only, and I'll help you quite often, as you often have right on your side.

39

@36 nocutename
"Too" anything doesn't sound complimentary. Sorry about your ex, congratulations he is now your ex!

40

Also if you actually talk to people involved with BLM (which you should do if there's a chapter in your city), you'll discover two things that the media probably won't focus on.

1) They are involved in WAY more than police shootings. Black Lives Matter is not called Black Lives Matter While Dealing With Police for a reason. They are heavily involved in activism around healthcare, housing, and education for example- all areas of public life in which black people historically and currently have disproportionately faced obstacles that do, in fact, give the overall impression that their lives don't matter.

2) In regards to police violence, BLM has been active in raising awareness and police accountability around shootings of people of all races. The very video of the white man murdered to which Old Crow linked was originally circulated by BLM. It's just like how feminists (like BDF's analogy in general) are often criticised for not focusing on how men also face injustice under patriarchy. Feminism includes plenty of discussion of these things, but they focus on women because historically, women's issues have not been centered. Men who want to likewise fight patriarchy and focus on how men are injured under patriarchy (instead of blaming feminism) will find plenty of allies in feminists. Likewise, white people who want to focus on the problems with police brutality, the inequities of the criminal justice system, issues in education/housing etc, will find allies with BLM. There's a long history of that on the left btw with people from different communities focusing on issues that affect their community in solidarity with people in other communities who identify the same problems/enemies. But what I see happening most of the time is that people make the argument that Old Crow makes (which points out that police brutality likewise affects white people) and then focuses on how pissed they are that BLM centers the experiences of black people rather than focusing on how pissed they are that the police are out of control. So my response tends to be- what are you actually angry about?

41

Also frankly... If I were a working class white guy, I'd be more upset that my own community did not take to the streets to protest the acquittal of the cop that tortured and murdered Daniel Shaver (the case Old Crow talks about) instead of being upset that other communities do take to the streets to protest the killings of their people.

Like, instead of getting mad that a community focuses on its own needs, why not work within your own community to focus on your needs and form an alliance with them? It feels more like white people are pissed that they aren't centered in something than they are about the problem in the first place. Especially since BLM's campaign zero tracks all police shootings and discusses accountability that would help everyone, especially since they are the ones that circulated and drew attention to the Daniel Shaver case in the first place, and yet still All Lives Matter folks are pissed more at BLM for centering their own communities than they are at the police and the injustice in the first place. Like, working class white people- join a movement (there are plenty: socialist groups, poor people's campaign, just for example) or start your own in your own community. Target actual causes of the injustice- police corruption, wealth inequality, broken windows policing, militarization, drug crises, etc- and talk about how that specifically affects white people or white men. And network in solidarity with people talking about how those same problems affect black people or women or lgbt people, etc. Suddenly you'd find yourself in alliance with a working class movement. But if you just bitch that black people working to empower their own communities don't focus on you instead, well you aren't going to make any friends that way.

42

@mickeyten good to see you here, glad you were able to pick through the "Hannibal lol" for useful comments, and that you and she have a good way of negotiating this. Sounds like the two of you have pretty solid communication and respect.

@40 well stated.

43

nocutename #37

for a while I mused perhaps the movement ought to be named Black Lives Matter Too.

it sorta says the same thing but I realized that also dilutes the issue, kind of reinforces 2nd class status. creates a request from below rather than a lateral recognition.

44

ehh so many seem to think if position 'A' is defended or advocated, then that MUST mean position 'B' is under attack.

I don't want to live in such a narrow world. just don't cause hurt or scare the children and otherwise do as you please.

45

hamish@8; you did ask a serious question, I’m not a cis man so my take is not from the sauce.
Cis men are X and Y chromosomes, because it’s the male who determines the sex of the offspring. Cis women are XX chromosomes.
Many cis men feel that, yet the feminine is there in all men. I believe the freak out generated by this, dressing en femme, by many cis males, and strongly around trans women, is because they repress that part of themselves. Try to believe they are all Y. Try to deny their X.

46

@35 the received wisdom is that anything out of the ordinary is bad. Too wet? Bad. Not wet enough, bad. It's an extension of "do these jeans make me look fat?" Anywoo.

With regards to the police brutality stuff - you probably need to control for the number of duty officers too, old Crow. Smaller cities tend to have a higher police officer to citizen ratio, which may be why New York displays a counter intuitive pattern.

Personally, to me, BLM doesn't matter, they're a failure. Our current political climate is only increasing the perceived black and white cultural gap. Our indicators - educational and financial achievement, health outcomes, etc - have been widening over the past 30 years, after nearly 50 years of shrinking. BLM and other aligned groups aren't responsible for this, but they're the fruit of the same poisonous tree that I'll somewhat unfairly and tritely call "pc culture" that de-emphasised material equity as a goal.

47

@46 Sportlandia
"BLM...they're a failure"

It is not possible to objectively assess their influence unless you have handy for comparison an alternative Universe in which they never existed.

48

@8 I am a part-time CD male and I feel like i should be seeing a therapist to help me understand what is going on. My Long-suffering Miss N. hates the whole idea, so when I need to express this part of me I must find a pro-domme. This subterfuge is not ideal but has worked thus far. I can forsee a day (post-retirement) when i cannot afford to have this outlet open to me and it scares me. In my case The attractive feelings about womens clothes/shoes/undies go back to my elementary years, and got me in trouble even back then.

49

@47 that's a bankrupt rubric and you know it. Are you willing to eat these words in future threads? That because we cannot know what would have happened otherwise, we can't judge or analyse things? Fair warning, you'll certainly be backtracking on that statement within 48 hours.

50

What? BLM won a Sydney Peace Prize a couple of years back. Of course they must stand separate from us white people. The persecution of people of colour continues unabated all over.

51

@49 Sportlandia
I didn't state it as a law of physics, I just addressed your assertion.

52

@51 if you aren't speaking from a principle, then you aren't "addressing" anything in the first place. There's no reason to compare our BLM-world to a theoretical world where it didn't exist unless that's the method to compare things.

53

@52 Sportlandia
I just don't have time to research and write a couple pages on all the ways that people have been affected by the existence of BLM, and how that may be expected to result in at least some degree of it's "non failure".

But then no one needs me to; they can see your assertion and judge for themselves.

54

There are some things to heinous to ever be reclaimed. Many things associated with Nazis are on that list. But one that has been reclaimed was the pink triangle that Nazis made gays wear in concentration camps. Gays in the 60s (maybe early 70s?) made it a symbol of the gay rights movement. Part of why that worked, though, is that it was a symbol that the oppressors had imposed on the oppressed (much like “queer” had been involuntarily imposed on the oppressed, so reclaiming it meant that the oppressed were taking a symbol forced on them and voluntarily claiming it instead. The Hitler mustache would never work because it wasn’t a symbol imposed on the oppressed. It symbolizes the oppressor, not the victim.

55

Lots of talk about Hitler on this board lately.

I've lost track of the thread, but in case it hasn't been mentioned already, Hitler took the mustache from Chaplin. Chaplin, at the time, was probably the most recognizable person in the world, or at least the Western world. And he was beloved. It was also associated then with Hardy (from Laurel and Hardy). So Hitler donned the mustache as like propaganda on his face. Chaplin responded with The Great Dictator. The speech at the end, when Chaplin breaks character, is the first time he delivered actual lines on film (not counting some nonsense songs and a few short phrases here/there).

So if there is a case for reclaiming the mustache (and I'd say there isn't since it's just an ugly look) then it's antifascist comedians who should do it.